Introduction:
A month or so
ago, crown Prince William was in the news about his relationship to the Church
of England. The story is that he is not
a Christian but would nonetheless fulfill the role of being head of the Church
once coroneted as king.[1] He would, indeed, be a most suitable king for
what England has become: the unbelieving king oversees a Church full of ritual
without the faith it received through the centuries and that merely throws back
at the culture what the culture threw to it.
Imagine instead a king, who is, after all, the head of the Church of
England, standing up to a feckless Church and insisting it do what it is
supposed to do—pass on the faith once for all delivered to the saints. William’s willingness to support the Church
in its rituals and institutions is an acknowledgement of its past role in
forming English and is a statement that the Church is innocuous enough for the
developing culture because the Church in the present is already driven by the
culture in the present. The old dog no
longer chases the mailman, why put it down?
One of the
outstanding kings of Judah was King Josiah.
He is celebrated in the pages of Scripture for standing against culture
to honour God. Only 8 years old when he
was crowned, he soon set about bringing reform to the multi-faith religion that
Judaism had become. Under the heavy
influence of the surrounding cultures, Jewish religion had become a mixture of
Judaism’s past faith and the fertility cult of the Canaanite god, Baal, his consort,
Asherah, and other deities. The appeal
of diversity rather than singular devotion to God, of inclusion rather than
separation to God in righteousness and holiness, and of multiculturalism rather
than covenantal fidelity contradicted Biblical faith. Josiah insisted that Judah affirm its
historic religion of Yahwism.
The Canaanite Culture: Multicultural Inclusivity and
Sexualised Society
Canaanite
religion was polytheistic (belief in many gods) and sexualized. It fit well enough into the religious beliefs
of the Ancient Near East. The various
religions were polytheistic, and one people’s notion of this or that god was
close enough to another people’s notion to claim that the people held similar beliefs. They just used different names for the
gods. Even the later Greeks would try to
equate their gods with Egyptian gods (e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, books 11-19). The Romans, too, identified their gods by
other names with the Greeks. Jupiter was
Zeus, and so on. Polytheism is
inherently syncretistic. Sitting loosely
to the different faiths of different cultures, it can appear to embrace the
high values of tolerance and inclusivity.
It does so, however, just where truth is most needed. That was Israel’s role in antiquity. It spoke the truth to a culture living
religious lies. God said:
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love
the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
might (Deuteronomy 6.4).
Ancient Near
Eastern religions also associated different gods with different regions—as,
again, would the Greeks and Romans later.
A city would devote itself to a specific god—Athena for Athens,
Aphrodite for Corinth—while setting up temples for other gods as well. The Ancient Near East had the same
practice. One people’s special devotion
to a god did not exclude other people’s devotion to other gods. One might say, ‘Your truth is what works for
you.’ To conquer a people was to conquer
their special god or gods. An invading
army in the Ancient Near East would not only want to subdue the people but also
demolish their temples and capture their gods.
Polytheism accepted that, as humans fought one another, so, too, the
gods might war against one another. Truth
was functional. As long as it works for
you, stay with it.
The monotheistic
religion of Israel, however, insisted on exclusive devotion to Yahweh and rejected
other gods, even for other people. Other
gods were at best demonic forces that were inferior to God, who made the world
and everything in it. Truth was
objective, not local; it ws factual, not reduced to functional lies. In a polytheistic, multicultural context,
such a claim seemed overly offensive.
Religious
pluralism began three hundred years earlier and remained a constant problem in
the northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms. King Solomon, the last ruler of the united monarchy,
took 700 wives and 300 concubines. This
practice of having multiple wives and concubines was political. Not only did it show great power and wealth,
it also and relatedly solidified alliances with foreign nations. Rulers establishing treaties with other
nations would send their daughters to marry the king, and with these foreign
women came their foreign gods. Solomon’s
expansion and strengthening of Israel meant a compromise in the form of
multiculturalism, with its religious diversity.
A great nation needed an external policy of coexistence with other
nations and a soft inclusivity of diverse groups within Israel, not
exclusivism. Solomon built high places
east of Jerusalem for the Ashtoreth, worshiped in Sidon; for Chemosh,
worshipped in Moab; and for Milcom, worshipped by the Ammonites (1 Kings 11.7;
2 Kings 23.13).
Only rarely did
a king of Israel or Judah stand up against the forces of the surrounding
culture. In the northern kingdom, King
Solomon’s father, King David, was remembered for his singular devotion to God:
‘when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his
heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his
father’ (1 Kings 11.4). As we shall see, King Josiah followed in the footsteps of David, not
Solomon.
Canaanite
religion may have had similarities to the other polytheistic religions of the
Ancient Near East, but it was somewhat distinctive as a fertility cult. The religion of Baal worship involved setting
up ‘high places’ all around the country, which contrasted significantly with
Judaism’s insistence on only one Temple for worship. These high places included two symbols for
the gods that expressed the religion’s focus on fertility. One symbol was an Asherah column or pole made
of either stone or wood. This phallic
symbol brought vividly to mind the connection between the worship of Baal and
Asherah and sexuality. The gods were responsible
for fertility in the land and of the people, and worship of them included
sexual indulgence. Religion was through
and through sexualized, as was the culture, and its sexual practices were expressions
desire and fulfillment contrary to marriage.
The other symbol was a green, leafy tree, under which an altar would
send up pleasing aromas to the gods (Ezekiel 6.13). Hosea’s description of Israel’s succumbing to
Canaanite religious culture shows that sexual indulgence was part of the
worship:
They sacrifice on the tops of the mountains
and burn offerings on
the hills,
under oak, poplar, and
terebinth,
because
their shade is good.
Therefore your daughters play the whore,
and your
brides commit adultery.
14 I will not punish your
daughters when they play the whore,
nor your
brides when they commit adultery;
for the men themselves go aside with
prostitutes
and
sacrifice with cult prostitutes,
and a people without understanding shall come
to ruin (Hosea 4.13-14).
The fertility cult
included sex outside of marriage and homosexuality. There were even male cult prostitutes (1
Kings 14.24; 15.12; 22.46; 23.7). Male
prostitution was also known elsewhere in the Ancient Near East, not only in
Canaan.[2]
Various passages
referring to these high places in the Old Testament describe the worship in
terms of fornication and adultery. The
reader does not always know whether the sexual imagery that a prophet uses to
describe idolatry is also used to describe actual sexual acts. The above passage from Hosea is clear that
sexual acts were involved. Idolatry and
sexual perversity were similar to one another and fittingly intertwined in
Canaanite religion. Both involved
denying the covenant fidelity a people or person owed to a single other—to God
or to one’s spouse. To ‘go after other
gods’ is fittingly described as ‘going after other lovers’ instead of remaining
faithful to the one God, Yahweh. The
religious flexibility and plurality of polytheism was mirrored in the sexual
promiscuity of human relationships. For
God’s people to succumb to Canaanite culture meant breaking covenant with God by
including other religions and breaking covenant with one’s spouse to include
other lovers.
King Josiah’s Religious Reform
At just 20 years
old, King Josiah began his reform of Judah’s religious syncretism. He
began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of the high places, the Asherim,
and the carved and the metal images. 4 And they chopped down the altars of the
Baals in his presence, and he cut down the incense altars that stood above
them. And he broke in pieces the Asherim and the carved and the metal images,
and he made dust of them and scattered it over the graves of those who had
sacrificed to them. 5 He also burned the bones of the priests on their altars
and cleansed Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 34.1).
Six years later,
King Josiah raised money throughout the land to begin repairs to the temple in
Jerusalem. Not only tearing down the
rival religion’s symbols but repairing the primary symbol of Jewish faith was
required to bring about reform. However,
out of this building project came a third reform: submission to the Law of God.
While the
builders were working on the temple, the High Priest, Hilkiah, discovered the
neglected Book of the Law that the Lord had given through Moses (2 Chronicles 34.14). When the contents of the book—sections of our
Pentateuch—were read to King Josiah, he tore his clothes. This was a symbol of grief and repentance. What God required of His people had been
woefully neglected or replaced by the practices of neighbouring religion and
culture. The Book of the Law not only
stipulated what God’s people were to do but also what punishments God would
bring on the people if they did not adhere to His Law.
In Israelite
religion, two systems of religious oversight operated side-by-side. One system was more institutional, that of
the priests and their association with the temple. The other system was more
operational, that of the prophets, whether in schools of prophecy or just
single prophets. The former group held
their positions by appointment and hereditary office, whereas the latter was a
calling of anyone by God. The former
would only permit certain individuals to occupy the office of priesthood. When Hilkiah was asked what to do about
finding the Book of the Law, he turned to a prophetess, Huldah, for an
answer. The system of office and
institution did not provide the answer needed about what to do in the present
situation. What was needed was a direct
word from God.
The prophetess Huldah
received a word from God: the curses written in the Book of the Law for those
who did not obey God’s laws would indeed fall on the people. However, judgement would be delayed because
the king repented. He would not see the
coming destruction on Judah (2 Chronicles 34.23-28).
Josiah’s fourth
act of renewal was what we would today call a Biblical literacy programme. He assembled all the people, including the
priests and Levites, to hear a public reading of the Book of the Law. This took place ceremonially, as part of a
covenant making act. Thus, Josiah’s
fifth act of renewal was to make a covenant to abide by God’s Law. He also made all the people swear to the same
covenantal obedience (2 Chronicles 34.29-32).
From this time on, even through times of failure, Judaism became a
religion guided by Scripture. The later
reform initiated by John the Baptist and Jesus would proceed along the same
lines: a recommitment to abide by God’s Law, the righteousness of the Kingdom
of God. This commitment, symbolized by
water baptism, would require repentance and obedience.
Having repented
of sin and committed himself and all Israel to obedience to God’s Law, Josiah sixth
act of reform was to remove ‘all the abominations from all the territory’ (2
Chronicles 34.33). More detail of this
reform is given in 2 Kings 23. It
required purification, clerical reform, removal of homosexual practices and
sexual perversions, cessation of killing children and imagining this was a good
act of worship, and removal of anything to do with foreign religions. Thus, first, the vessels for Baal, Asherah,
and associated gods (the sun and the moon) worship were removed from the
Temple, burned to ashes, and carried away to Bethel (v. 4). Second, clerical reform was necessary. The priests that had been ordained for this
fertility cult were deposed (v. 5).
Third, he stopped the sexual indulgences associated with worship that
were taking place even in the Temple.
This involved breaking down the ‘houses of the male cult prostitutes who
were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah’
(v. 7). Another grim act of the foreign
religion was its sacrifice of children to the god Topheth (v. 10; cf. the child
sacrifices to the god Molech elsewhere in the Old Testament). Fourth, he removed everything dedicated to or
associated with other religion, including the horses and chariots dedicated to
the sun, which was worshipped (v. 11), and the altars that former kings had set
up for foreign worship (vv. 12-14).
Josiah’s seventh
reform was to reestablish right worship. This involved the institutional office
holders doing what they were consecrated to do, and 2 Chronicles focusses on
their restoring Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The sacrifices and ceremony they made was
unlike any Passover seen since the days of the prophet, Samuel, who anointed
Israel’s first king (2 Chronicles 35.18).
Conclusion
If only a King
Josiah for our day! True, no nation is a
theocracy—or legitimately a theocracy—today.
Some accommodation to this fact is necessary. We cannot simply apply King Josiah’s reforms
to a country in our day. Yet we can ask
what a country asserting that it has a national Church ought to do if this is
anything meaningful. King Josiah provides
some examples. He (1) removed competing
religions; (2) restored honour to the temple by repairing it; (3) submitted to
God’s Law; (4) provided Biblical literacy for all; (5) made a covenant to abide
by God’s Law; (6) purified the land of its abominations, including (a) clerical
reform, (b) removing homosexual practices and sexual perversions of the fertility
cult, (c) stopping the killing of children (child sacrifice), (d) removing
foreign religious places and items; and (7) renewed right worship. In all these reforms, Josiah stood against
the pressure of culture to follow the one, true God.
A king with no faith has no business giving
oversight to the Church. The Church of England
today desperately needs major reform, and this is not coming from the bishops,
priests, or laity. The Church has
succumbed to the culture, and the culture is post-Christian through and
through. If the Church is not reformed,
it not only is irrelevant to God’s purposes but also a hindrance to them. If the King wishes to oversee the Church, his
only legitimate act in doing so would be to reform the Church. Sitting through its meaningless rituals,
grinding along with its institutional processes, and letting it swing this way
and that in the winds of culture is the last thing either England or the Church
of England needs.
Prince William
has inherited his grandmother’s old dog gone in the teeth, the Church of England. It greets everyone walking through the door
with a benign wag and a wimper. If it
stays by the fire and does not stink, he will be happy enough to keep it till
its dying day, preferably in some other wing of the castle. However, he could be a King Josiah, given his
day, if he himself found Christian faith.
Then he could do nothing other than to bring about reform in and through
the Church.
Jesus Christ, of
course, is head of the Church. Not the
king. And the Church is not the Church
of England. Where Josiah’s Judah is
different from Christianity is precisely in the decoupling of country and
institution from the true Church. The
task of the true Church falls to true believers, faithful followers of Jesus
Christ. King Josiah’s Jerusalem offers a
vision of what reform might involve for both the Church and society, and to
that end we might affirm the words of the once popular song in England, Jerusalem. Looking back at the Christian civilizing of a
pagan England, we might ask in the context of a re-paganizing of England:
And did those
feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the
Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?
Looking
forward, we might commit ourselves anew:
Bring me my bow
of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.
I will not cease
from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
[1] ‘Prince William has no plans to snub Church of
England role, say palace officials,’ Christian
Today (22 January, 2024); https://www.christiantoday.com/article/prince.william.has.no.plans.to.snub.church.of.england.role.say.palace.officials/141296.htm
(accessed 21 February, 2024).
[2] Ur-Namma, king of Urim says, ‘I have lifted the yoke of its male
prostitutes’ (A praise poem of Ur-Namma (Ur-Namma C), 85); online: https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.4.1.3#
Comments