Systematic Theology – The State

The Freedom of Christ’s Church

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 10

Dictation Name: 10 The Freedom of Christ’s Church

Year: 1970’s

In our last session this evening, we shall deal with The Freedom of Christ’s Church. In Ezra 7:11-26, we have a remarkable document granting freedom to the Old Testament church. This document, according to scholars who are not of a Christian disposition, follows the forms of the Persian court very closely, so that even such men are ready to recognize its authenticity. Reading now from Ezra 7:11. “Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel. Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven counsellors, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand; and to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem, and all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem: that thou mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meat offerings and their drink offerings, and offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem. And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do after the will of your God. The vessels also that are given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem. And whatsoever more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king's treasure house.

And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily, unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them. And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.”

One of our problems in the modern age is that we have a false doctrine of ownership. We tend to see ownership as either state ownership or private ownership. The Bible, of course, sees property as held in trusteeship by the family. So, in a sense, it is rather family ownership, but ultimately, the biblical view of property is that God is the owner of all things. As Psalm 24:1 says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein.” The earth and all the people therein are the property of God. He is the absolute Lord. He owns all things, and therefore, when God requires his tithe, he requires it of all men as his tax. We do not give a gift to God unless it is above and over a tithe, because it is his tax. It is a rent we pay, because God is the Lord. He is the owner of all things.

But when man departs from God, he has another concept of ownership, and the state takes over ownership ultimately. Briefly in history, we’ve had private ownership, but most of the time, state ownership. When the colonies were settled all the land belonged to the English crown. After the War of Independence, the fact that all the lands were held by people as feudal tenants was done away with and they owned them outright. However, well before the War Between the States, there was a change in the attitude of the courts, and the Supreme Court ruled, ultimately, in a grain elevator case from Illinois, in terms of the old feudal language of the law, whereby all ownership was reduced to tenancy. So that, according to the courts today, you and I have only title to the use of the land, and to pass it on to someone else by sale or by willing it to them, but ultimate title belongs to the state, which can, with or without compensation through eminent domain, take the land. It has the right to place any and all assessments upon that land it chooses, irrespective of whether or not those assessments are fair or just, because now, the earth is not the Lord’s, according to the courts, but the state’s.

But the Bible says the earth is the Lord’s. This is a basic fact of the universe. God is the Lord. Lord means absolute owner, God, one whose property all things are, and hence, the significance in the Bible of the word “Lord.” Ado adonai in the Old Testament. Kurios in the New. The most frequent term used for God in the Old Testament is Lord. The most frequent term used for Jesus Christ in the New Testament is again “Lord,” because the triune God is Lord, and hence, the struggle with Rome was over that word and what it implied, because Rome required the church to say Caesar is lord, and the church said Jesus Christ is Lord, Lord over the church and Lord over Caesar. Lord over all things.

Hence, as God gives his law-word again and again, he says, “I am the Lord your God.” Therefore, men must hear and obey. God’s sanctuary is his temple, and only the holy and authorized priest could officiate there and only on God’s terms, because the sanctuary was God’s throne room. No one could approach to God except on God’s terms, nor could anyone even touch the ark without peril of death, as with Uzza in 2 Samuel 6:6 following. When King Uzziah sought to usurp the privileges of the priest, he was struck with leprosy. The sanctuary was the throne of God and the temple was his palace, and therefore, God said, “Touch not these things which are mine,” and therefore, God gave the word, the law-word, that men were to obey.

Now, in captivity, this remarkable fact took place, that the Persian emperor recognized the freedom of the Old Testament church. He could have, for political reasons, allowed the rebuilding of Jerusalem, even the rebuilding of the temple, but he went much further. What he did was to recognize their radical freedom from control, and in Ezra 7:24, Artaxerxes says that even the Nethinims are to be taxed. When they go on a road, they are not to be charged a toll. No customs, toll, tribute, or anything of that sort is ever to be required of them. So that there was a tax exemption, not only for the house of God, but for the humblest servant thereof. The Nethinims went back to the time of David. At that time, David and a number of the ruling families of Israel gave to the temple servants who were to serve the priests and the temple, to do the various humble chores, jobs, that the temple required. Their descendants were now in captivity. Not even so humble a servant of the house of God was to be taxed, or in any way controlled. This is a most remarkable fact. Full freedom for the house of God was granted. The independent jurisdiction of the God of scripture was recognized. God’s law was to govern Judea, and there was to be a death penalty for violation. On top of that, up to a specified point, Artaxerxes gave to Ezra a blank check on the treasury on the Persian Empire.

Now, this is a most significant fact, because the imperial powers of Antiquity were not given to recognizing the power or the sovereignty of other gods. This is thus, an amazing concession, for here, Artaxerxes recognizes God to be the God of heaven, recognizes the right of God’s work to be free and exempts it in a radical way from any control.

Moreover, he recognized the law of God as the valid law for his house and for Palestine. The temple was made the law center, and the government center of Judea. It is no wonder the neighbors were upset. We have no record in all Antiquity of anything even remotely approaching what Artaxerxes did, the extent of freedom that was given to another religion, to any religion, and to a subject people. Indeed, more freedom was given to Judea and the Jews who returned than to the peoples of the Empire.

Moreover, Artaxerxes gives a religious reason for this recognition, “for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?” What Artaxerxes did was to grant more than toleration. He granted immunity, and what God had said from the beginning was that his sanctuary was immune, that his servants were immune, that they could not be touched, nor could anyone transgress upon that which was God’s, and Artaxerxes recognizes this fully.

Moreover, not only is God’s law to be used over Judea, but the proselytizing of other people is actually ordered. “Teach ye them that know not.” A most remarkable fact. It’s a tragic fact that ancient Persia is not given the greatness which is its due by historians, simply because, with their radical humanism, they prefer Greece, and there is no comparison between ancient Greece and ancient Persia. Persia was the far greater civilization, and its contributions are too seldom recognized, but perhaps one of its most amazing facts was precisely what was recorded in Ezra 7. These immunities were later claimed by the Jews against Rome when Rome took over Judea. To a considerable extent, they were granted, although Rome held back on certain points, and behind the scenes manipulated a great many things, including the appointment of the high priest. Especially because they were fearful of the high priest’s power, they claimed that power while granting immunities in other areas, and the high priests were appointed later annually.

The freedom which Judea had was extended to all groups that were classified as Jewish sects. In the early days of the church prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in 66-70 A.D., the church, regarded by Rome as another Jewish sect, had all the immunities that Jewish synagogues did throughout the empire. In fact, most of the churches were nothing but synagogues, which had broken from Jerusalem and the old order. We know that Paul, in his missionary journeys, went from synagogue to synagogue in every city and preached the Gospel, and usually created a division, and a sizable element left with him to form another synagogue. In the second chapter of the letter of James, in fact, the word that is used to describe the early church is synagogue, which was its first name, the Christian synagogue.

With the Fall of Jerusalem, however, all the old immunities for the Jews were ended. Rome was so bitter against the Jews for their revolution, that it took extreme measures against Judea and against Jews everywhere, and against the Christian church as a representative of the Jewish community. As a result, the early church entered into a conflict. The lordship of Jesus Christ was asserted against the lordship of Caesar, and over this, the church battled against Rome until the time of Constantine. The battle continued thereafter as Aryan emperors fought against the freedom of the church. There were many heroes on the side of the church in that battle, such as Athanasius, and many more throughout the ages, as the church fought for its freedom.

And today, we have the same battle developing, but far worse than then, the battle is not even recognized by most churchmen. It is not in the press. The clergy by and large are not interested in it. Church papers make no mention of it, but ministers are going to jail because they refuse to compromise the freedom of the church. The issue is still the same. Who is the Lord, or the sovereign? Is it Christ, or is it Caesar? It is very important in these troubled days for the church to defend the freedom of Christ’s realm, the freedom of the church. Are there any questions now? Yes?

[Audience] How involved do you believe the Christian should get with relation to the government?

[Rushdoony] The question is, how involved should the Christian get in relationship to civil government? I believe that, in every area, we have a duty under God. We must vote. We must be ready to contribute to the candidacy of godly men, in terms of financial gifts. We need to organize, because if we surrender the state to evil men, the freedom of the church is going to be destroyed. So, what we’re fighting for in politics, or what we should be fighting for is not only to bring the state under the rule of God, but to continue the church under the rule of the Lord, rather than the rule of the state. So, we have a great deal at issue in this battle, and it is imperative that Christians be concerned, but it’s sad to note how many people criticized Moral Majority for getting people registered as voters, and how hostile many Christians have been to men like Falwell and Robinson, for declaring that we have something at stake in the politics of our country. Any other questions? Yes?

[Audience] I know the definition of the Christian church, but how far beyond that do we consider safe going in defending things which claim to be part of the church as far as indifference to the government. Thinking of something like Helmsley, and the Worldwide Church of God, and some of these other things. How far do we go in defending something like that?

[Rushdoony] Yes. First of all, Helmsley and the Universal Life Church is a moneymaking racket, and the IRS has not been diligent in going after it. Now it’s talking about do so, but it has for some years. The IRS claims it must work to clear up abuses, and goes after churches rather than Helmsley. The Worldwide Church of God is clearly very heretical. We cannot, for a moment, accept Armstrong’s definition of himself as an inspired prophet of God. On the other hand, what we have to say is that while it is a false group, it is a legitimate religious group, made up of people who are very sincere about their beliefs. Now, what the state has tried to do against Armstrong is to establish a case against Armstrong, Scientology, and the Moonies and so on, that they can apply against all of us. So, our freedom is at stake in what they do to these people. It’s very important to defend them, because we are defending ourselves. The idea, of course, is to establish legal precedence against unpopular groups that can then be applied against all of us. Any other questions or comments? Yes?

[Audience] This might be a little bit off, but it certainly fits. If you were to have a Christian state, what role would we have in tolerating say, Jehovah’s Witnesses or some professing Christian group which really isn’t Christian at all? Is heresy to be permitted, in other words?

[Rushdoony] Yes. I’ve dealt with that question in Instituted, Volume 2. We are not to use coercion against heresy. We are to use evangelism, and the church today has a basic problem of evangelization which it is neglecting. Yes?

[Audience] We’ve had a difficult situation up in the Seattle area, over by sub-base Bangor, where the nuclear submarines come in, and the protestors are flocking there this summer for protesting the Trident missiles that those subs carry. There was an effort to build a Buddhist peace pagoda, I don’t know if that got in the new down here at all, right outside the main gate. City council denied permission to the Buddhists to build their pagoda, because it was to be a base for the protestors, and of course, the council’s accused of being unfair. If it’d been a Christian church that wanted to build or some more accepted group, they would have given them permission, but because they are Buddhists and have these other affiliations, they didn’t, and it’s really been a difficult issue for people to deal with. And it almost seems like you get to a case where you have to stand up for the values that you believe are true, and I don’t know whether it’s entirely logical, and that’s the conflict. Can you be logical and always apply reason to this, or do you have to go to what you know to be the truth, and just state {?}. Do you see the dilemma there? And the Christians were faced by this, and they’d get queried by the people who are non-Christian. How do you deal with this? How would you accept it? What’s the right answer?

[Rushdoony] Obviously, in that case, the Buddhist pagoda was not serving Buddhists in the area.

[Audience] No, there are none.

[Rushdoony] There are none. Very good. So, it was a fraudulent use of religion there, and fraud is fraud. I mean, it’s so obviously fraud, so you would have to say it has no right to existence in such an area. If there are a number of Buddhists in as area, then there are legal grounds for granting it permission to build, but not to be a center of subversive activity and demonstrations that would prevent the normal operation of a base.

[Audience] So if there were Buddhists to serve, then we should defend their right to build, because if they’re denied the right to build and they could just as well deny the right to have the church, the Christian church.

[Rushdoony] Yes. Now, this leads to another question. To what extent can we tolerate Buddhists and others, and the answer to that is, insofar as they do not violate Christian norms, because every body of laws is an establishment of religion. It has behind it a religious foundation. If you had absolute religious freedom, you would have no laws, because as the Supreme Court saw long ago, in the Reynolds case, a Mormon who claimed that his First Amendment right were being violated because he was not allowed to practice polygamy, the Court recognized that there is not a criminal practice that is not, somewhere in the world, justified by some cult. Cannibalism, incest, human sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, all these offenses and more have been part of some cultic practice. So, if you granted absolute religious liberty, you would have no freedom. Now, justice story, one of the great justices of the U.S., Supreme Court in the days of Marshall, said that Christianity is a part of the common law of the United States, that the Bible is a part of the common law. Now, we have tended to wander from that perspective, but what it meant was that our laws are founded upon this, the moral standards in which we act and think rest on scripture. You cannot permit moral practices, which are in violation of this, without destroying the social order, without having anarchy. So, you can only tolerate these groups insofar as they conform within limits, to a Christian moral standard. As a matter of fact, that’s been happening for some time even in the Orient, in the Far East now. The Buddhist temples now have temple schools in which little children are taught to sing, “Buddha loves me, this I know.” Any other questions?

[Audience] Why, why does Buddha love them? We say the Bible tells us so. What do they say?

[Rushdoony] Well, of course, since Buddha is dead it doesn’t mean much. Just that an idea of love is there somehow, and it means that, in the process, they have changed Buddhism into something else, because they have introduced a concept which is, essentially alien to Buddhism, which says you divert yourself of feelings and of concerns. Yes?

[Audience] How would you explain the prevailing attitude, especially on the West Coast. The church should be separate from the world. Therefore, we should get involved in politics.

[Rushdoony] That attitude that the church should be separate from the world is a relatively modern notion that has risen in the past couple of centuries, and has done nothing but harm to the cause of Christ. Our Lord said we are to be in the world, but not of the world. Now, that does not mean we withdraw from the world. It has been rightly observed by a number of people that too many evangelicals today are simply imitating medieval monasticism. Withdrawing from the world and saying, “We are going to devote ourselves to prayer and spiritual exercises, and we’re not going to be concerned with the world out there.” Well, we as Protestants have condemned that in the Middle Ages. Now, it’s being practiced more radically than it ever was then, by supposedly Bible-believing churches, and that’s a sin, I believe, in the right of God.

[Audience] The old ostrich syndrome. Stick your head in the sand?

[Rushdoony] Yes, very much so. Yes?

[Audience] Then in that case, do you just have to quit saying, “Thus says the Bible.” You’re supposed to pray for the ones that rule over you.

[Rushdoony] It means leaving out a great deal of the Bible, which deals with very practical concerns. Any other questions or comments? Well, if not, let us bow our heads in prayer.

May thy blessing, O Lord, be upon us as we serve thee. Make us strong in thy word and by thy spirit, that we may bring every area of life and thought into captivity to Jesus Christ. Now, dismiss us with thy blessing, give traveling mercies to all on their homeward way, a blessed night’s rest, and joy in thee all the days of our lives. In Jesus name. Amen.

End of tape