Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.
Try Tabletalk NowAlready receive Tabletalk magazine every month?
Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.
2 Chronicles 26
“Azariah the priest went in after [Uzziah], with eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense’” (vv. 17–18).
Biblical scholars, we noted a few days ago, frequently describe ancient Israelite society as a theocracy because of the close connection between the civil authorities—the kings—and the religious life of the nation. Of course, when we read the Old Testament, we do see that kings were involved with the religious life of Israel in ways that we are not accustomed to in the modern West. For instance, the author of the books of Kings highlights the efforts of King Hezekiah to reform the worship of Judah and tear down shrines of false gods, and the account makes clear that God was pleased with Hezekiah’s actions (2 Kings 18:1–8). Modern secular authorities do not typically get so involved with the worship of a nation in such an explicit way (though modern secular rulers have been known to appeal to religion when it suits them).
Even though old covenant Israel was characterized by a close relationship between the king and the temple, between the state and the church, there remained boundaries that could not be crossed. We see an example of this in today’s passage. King Uzziah of Judah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,” and he was one of the best ancient kings of God’s people (2 Chron. 26:4). Yet that did not give him the right before the Lord to get involved in duties that God had assigned to the priesthood. When Uzziah illegitimately tried to carry out the priests’ duty to burn incense, God struck him with leprosy (vv. 16–21). That narrative example, as well as the various old covenant laws that reserve certain tasks for the priests alone, indicates that the Old Testament assumes a division of labor between the religious leaders and the political leaders, a distinction between church and state.
The New Testament explains this more fully in assigning to civil government a specific assignment that is not given to the church. Romans 13:1–7 explains that God has granted the state, not the church, the power of the sword to punish evildoers and execute justice in the civil realm. God assigns the church and not the state, on the other hand, the duties of preaching the Word and administering the sacraments, coupled with the (noncorporal) exercise of church discipline (Matt. 18:15–20; 28:18–20). There are distinct divine assignments for the state and the church, and things go wrong when either entity assumes the responsibilities of the other.
Coram Deo Living before the face of God
As we will see, the distinction between church and state does not mean that church and state have no relationship to one another at all. It does not mean that the church must be silent when the state fails in its duty or that the state must not act if church authorities break morally appropriate civil laws. The distinction means that church and state must exercise authority only in their given spheres.
For further study
- 1 Samuel 13:8–15
- 2 Kings 16
- Matthew 26:47–56
- Acts 6:1–7
The bible in a year
- Ezekiel 10–12
- Hebrews 11:1–16