Theocracy

Theocracy The term "theocracy" derives from the Greek theos meaning "god," and kratos meaning "government" or "power." The compound term, signifying "divine rule," was apparently coined and given a political connotation, according to William Thackeray, by the Jewish historian Josephus (Contra Apion II, 16, 165). Thus the term generally signifies a view of political government in which God is the sole ruler, though typically governing through the mediation of accredited human representatives—real or supposed—usually a priesthood or divinely chosen king. Theocracy as such, however, is not necessarily opposed to popular rule and can be allied in principle with various forms of government, since nearly any political arrangement can be construed theocratically. Josephus (ca. AD 37-101) uses the term "theocracy" in explaining to his Gentile readers the political organization of the Jews of his day. In contrast to other forms of government—such as monarchies, oligarchies, and republics—he states, Moses "ordained our government to be what by a strained expression, may be termed a theocracy [theokratian], by ascribing the power and authority to God, and by persuading all the people to have regard to him as the author of all good things" (Contra Apion, II, 16). How far the ideal of Mosaic theocracy was ever realized in Jewish history is a matter of debate. Julius Wellhausen established a presumption, chiefly on a priori grounds, that it was restricted almost entirely to the hierocatic priestly government of the post-exilic period, despite ample evidence that it forms part of a much older tradition of divine kingship antedating the Hebrew monarchy. There is no doubt that the Hebrew people always believed they were governed by God, whether through their tribal patriarchs, monarchy, or high priesthood that lasted from the post-exilic repatriation until the Maccabeean revolt. The Old Testament evidence includes Gideon, who refuses the kingship offered him after his victory over the Midianites because it would involve disloyalty to God: "I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you" (Judges 8:23). Again, when the Children of Israel ask the prophet Samuel for a king to govern them, God tells Samuel: "Hearken to the voice of the people … for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them" (I Samuel 8:7). In his final discourse to the people, Samuel reproaches them, declaring: "you said to me: 'No, but a king shall reign over us,' whereas the Lord your God was your king" (I Samuel 12:12). Yet the inauguration of a monarchy does not signal the end of theocracy. For the terms of God's covenant with King David and his descendants show (II Samuel 7:1-17) that the king remains subject to the heavenly King, serving as his vicegerent and representative. Thus Hebrew kings were always held responsible directly to God. If they lapsed in their duties, as Saul and David did, the prophets spoke God's judgment against them and sought to correct and return them to the theocratic standard. By New Testament times, the religious leadership of the priests had been contaminated by secular political entanglements, one result of which was the separation of the Qumran community, which was also essentially theocratic. Other historical examples of theocracy as the rule of a priestly caste can be found in ancient Egypt, Confucian China, Shinto Japan, Buddhist Tibet, the early American civilizations of the Mayans, Toltecs, Aztecs, and Natchez; in Muhammad's Medina, Abu Bakr's caliphate, various Islamic regimes of Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia; in Calvin's Geneva, the Anabaptist revolt of Munster, the Scottish Covenanters, Boer South Africa, Puritan New England, the Papal States, and Mormon Salt Lake City. Most of these quasi-priestly regimes have been small and short-lived, often because of vulnerability to military power, lack of popular support, or neglect of political task. But the implications of theocracy are broader than this. Nearly all ancient civilizations, including the Greeks and Romans, conceived of themselves and their civil governments as under the divine protection of patron deities. Even Peter and Paul assert in their epistles that civil authority is from God (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; I Peter 2:13-14). Yet Christian tradition has always recognized a distinction between temporal and spiritual authority, between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (Matthew 22:21-22). This entails the question whether theocracy is to be conceived primarily in temporal or spiritual terms. The theocratic ideals of the politically marginalized New Testament community found expression chiefly in terms of the Church and kingdom of heaven, for which the predominant concern was the regeneration of new birth. This otherworldly spiritual focus, however, was significantly altered by the Christianization of the Roman Empire following the emperor Constantine's conversion and imperial recognition of Christianity in the Edict of Milan in AD 313. As a result, the Church had to rethink her theocratic task in light of her new responsibilities in the world. The distinction between the spiritual and temporal received its classic formulation in the two-power theory of Pope Gelasius I (d. 496). A problem that persisted throughout the Middle Ages, however, was how to adjudicate conflicts between the two realms. This problem came into particular focus in the Investiture controversies over who would control ecclesiastical appointments, the Church or the civil government. The hierocratic subsumption of temporal authority under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church in the pontificates of popes like Gregory VII, Innocent III and Boniface VIII have been called properly theocratic. Yet however far popes may have ventured in this direction, the legitimate rights and autonomy of the temporal order have always reasserted themselves in the history of Catholic political theory. A later, reverse form of the problem surfaced with James I of England and the controversy over the so-called divine right of kings and Erastianism, which subsumed spiritual authority under the jurisdiction of the civil ruler. Against all such instances of state absolutism, however, Catholic thought has always insisted on the legitimate prerogatives of the Church. Philip Blosser Bibliography Acton, Lord Emerich Edward Dalberg. Essays on Church and State. Edited by Douglas Woodruff. London: Hollis and Carter, 1952. Collingridge, Charles F. Peter. The Theocracy and the Law of National Caducity: A Reply to Recent Dissertations on the “Temporal Power.” London: Burns & Oates, 1893. Dawson, Christopher. Religion and the Modern State. London: Sheed & Ward, 1935. Dooyeweerd, Herman. The Christian Idea of the State. University Series, Historical Studies. Translated by John Kraay. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958; Nutley NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1978. Fiske, John. The Beginnings of New England: The Puritan Theocracy in Its Relation to Civil and Religious Liberty. Boston: Houton Mifflin, 1889, 1917. Genicot, Leopold. “La theocratie medievale.” Revue Nouvelle 29 (1959), 180-195. Kraynak, Robert P. Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politicsin the Fallen World. Frank M. Covey, Jr. Loyola Lectures in Political Analysis. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Murray, John Courtney. “St. Robert Bellarmine on the Indirect Power.” Theological Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4 (December 1948), 491-535. Pacaut, Marcel. La th́ocratie, l’e´glise et le pouvoir au moyen age. Paris: Aubier, 1957. Race, Alan, and Schafer, Ingrid, eds. Religions in Dialogue: From Theocracy to Democracy. Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002. Siddiqi, Muhammed Mazheruddin. Islam and Theocracy. Lahore, Pakistan: Institute of Islamic Culture, 1953. “Theocracy.” Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Edited by Carl F. Henry. [Grand Rapids, MI]: Baker Book House, Canon Press, 1973. “Theocracy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. “Theocracy.” Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion. Edited by Robert Withnow. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1998), 733-737. “Theocracy.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. See also ABSOLUTISM; BOSSUET, JACQUES; BUDDHISM; CAESARO-PAPISM; CALVINISM; CONSTANTINE; CHURCH AND STATE; CIVIL RELIGION; DE MAISTRE, JOSEPH; DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS; FEBRONIANISM; JOSEPHISM; ERSASTIANISM; GOVERNMENT; HIERACRACY; INVESTITURE CONTROVERSY; ISLAM; JAMES I OF ENGLAND; JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS; MONARCHY; MORMONISM; MURRAY, JOHN COURTNEY; PAPACY; POLITICAL THEORY; PRESBYTERIANISM; PURITANS; RECONSTRUCTIONISM; SCOTTISH COVENANTERS; SHARIA; SHINTOISM; STATISM; THEONOMY