The Order Shall Persist, Regardless Of Opinion: Part Two

The further one looks past this world's power lines, the clearer the established order in heaven becomes.

Continued from Part One...

In the previous article we saw a similarity between theocracy's second definition and caesaropapism's definition.

In summary; a priesthood ruling by God's authority (theocracy) and, a secular government ruling over a priesthood (caesaropapism) and the rest of society.

Caesaropapism is defined as the rule of the priesthood being granted to secular king(s).

I argue that although this change may have been perceived to have occurred, the fact of what has been previously established did not ever change.

Looking at these two definitions, we can see a mirroring when looking at these two points in time.

Saul becoming king in 11th century B.C., replacing the priesthood and, the Papacy (priesthood) handing over temporal power to Caesar in 4th century A.D..

Each event came with its liabilities and troubles.

But did the foundation of the previous order actually change?

Only, I think, for those who are mystified by these surface perceptions.

The liability of Israel's choice to have a human king (ignorantly rejecting the invisible God as their King ) was realized during Saul's (Israel's first human king) reign.

In due time, God raised another king (David) to rule as king and be fully obedient to His law because Saul had disobeyed.

Although David realized temporal power over all of Israel, David was still subject to God's law and the priesthood's (and prophet's) instruction and direction.

When David deviated from the law, correction was realized for both himself and for Israel; community liability.

What I'd like to point out is how Israel's choice in demanding a physical king was not objected by God, but allowed.

Although the law is fixed, we can see God compliment the people's freedom of choice.

We see God makes adjustments for the sake of the people.

An earthly king may demand recognition, but God did not demand such when His people desired a physical king.

Adjustments come at a cost, much how freedoms come with responsibilities.

Have you noticed this reality in your personal life?

I have.

God gives us our heart's desires, even if such desires go against His law and His will for our lives.

Although religious people can be tyrants, and their rule may lead one to believe that God is equally tyrannical, when we look closely at the account's narrative we don't see a tyrannical God.

We see a God that allows people their choice.

Unfortunately, history has much detail of how kings and priesthoods have ruled ruthlessly using God's Name in vain; blaspheming the God of Love and misrepresenting His Way, His Law and His Love.

When we have seen such bad examples (and may see them today), do such examples mean that the order itself has become bad?

Does an individual's lawbreaking cause the law to become corrupt?

Is an entire house corrupt when a trespasser enters and calls himself its new homeowner or ruler?

Does the proper order established long ago somehow now become entirely defiled when a corrupt heart enters the highest earthly 'office'?

Perhaps to the critical eye such is the case, but I say this simply is not so.

Let us consider this lesson:

Then Yeshua said to the crowds and to His disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” 

- Matthew 2: 1-4

Much can be derived and gleaned from these four short verses, but to point out the obvious, notice...

Christ does not mention an earthly king as being in a position of authority.

Christ clarifies it is the priesthood who 'sit in Moses’ seat'.

Moses represents the law-giver.

Moses was judge over Israel and that is the 'office' set up long ago, the order established long ago.

When David was led astray by temptation and committed several horrendous offenses, it was a prophet (part of the priesthood; the religious authority) who corrected David's arrogance.

Looking at kings since David, whether within or without Israel and Judah, not all kings repented or allowed their hearts to be corrected by the / their priesthood.

Some did, and some did not...and we can read the results of their obedience and disobedience.

It is quite notable that Christ didn't mention the 'change' defined in theocracy's definition.

Man's definitions of things does not always equal God's definition of things.

Man's wisdom and God's wisdom are worlds apart.

Thus why man's law can be quite contrary (contradictory and, at times, opposed) to God's law.

To be continued in Part Three.