Does God oppose religious freedom in the Old Testament?

The land was Jehovah's; they were to hold as tenants under Him, and therefore their very first duty on entering upon possession, was to demolish every trace of the old idolatry. This was absolutely indispensable. It might, according to human reason, seem to be very intolerant to act in this way towards other people's religion. We reply, without any hesitation, Yes, it was intolerant, for how could the one only true and living God be otherwise than intolerant of all false gods and false worships. To suppose, for moment, that He could permit the worship of idols in His land, would be to suppose that He could deny Himself, which were simply blasphemy.

But in the maintenance of this, the claim of God was first, and thus the commandments as to idolatry follow this immediately. There was to be no toleration in such cases at all, but sharp excision by the sword of justice, the government being exercised by God openly among them, and the worship of other gods manifest rebellion. Church and state were here really one, and ecclesiastical penalties also civil ones. This is, of course, no justification of such a course in entirely different conditions under another dispensation. The kingdom of God is now "not of this world;" Christ's people reign not, but are patient sufferers; their weapons spiritual, and not carnal; and grace to be manifested by them while God in His grace forbears toward men.

There may be certain things which hinder, for a season, the natural results of the world's will in having its religion condemned. And this has been the case for some time. For the last fifty years and more, every one knows there has been a certain system of opinion, commonly called "liberalism." This has got hold of men's minds. In no way does it respect God and His word as such. Its great stock-in-trade is the rights of man. Its cardinal virtue is, that all should be left free to think, act, and worship as they please. As long as the idea of man's rights is allowed to have play, the mercy of God turns it into an occasion for Christians, having a conscience towards Himself, to pass quietly through, and worship God according to His will. And as it was always unquestionable that God claimed the right over His own people; as His revealed will alone can rightly govern them; so, as the Father, He now seeks His children, that they may worship Him in spirit and in truth. The renewed heart and conscience delight in His will and find the chief blessedness here in exalting Him. To the believer, that will is more peremptory than the absolutism of the heathen king. Liberalism really dislikes this exclusive claim over the conscience. Still, it has led to a sort of calm in the world; and the full exercise of its authority, as to religion, is in abeyance for the time. For, apart from temporary circumstances, none can deny that, wherever there is a religion introduced by the monarch, for the guidance of his realm, necessarily it does not admit of difference, contradiction, or compromise. This would defeat the purpose for which it is imposed. But it is to fight against God. The monarch himself may have a conscience, and he is, of course, bound to worship God according to His will. But the using the authority of the realm to coerce others is the denial, practically, of God's direct control over the individual conscience.

130 It is not only that man has a right to the word of God, as between him and his neighbour, but there is a more sacred right which is interfered with, if we deprive him of it: it is that God has the right to address what He will to the souls of men, and, having addressed the word to them, those who would deprive men of it, derogate from the rights and despise the authority of God, who has seen good to send it to them. Suppose that I have servants, dependents, to whom I send orders, evidently, if any one hinder the servants from receiving these orders, he interferes, not only with their rights, but with mine; and this is the great question: God no doubt will make inquisition for all this. It is bad enough to violate the conscience of another man to satisfy one's own wickedness; but here Nebuchadnezzar entirely set aside the prerogative of the true God. And this is the principle of blasphemy which attaches to the Gentiles from the beginning. This was the first act of the head of gold; and such is the commencement of the power of the Gentiles as presented to us in this chapter.

The reign of this second Jeroboam was longer than that of any other king of Israel. Outwardly it was a time of prosperity, but there were deep-rooted problems. Jeroboam walked in the sins of his predecessor Jeroboam I and like him did evil in the sight of Jehovah. The prophet Amos, who lived at this time, denounced the luxury of Israel's well-to-do upper class in no uncertain terms. For this, Amos was told to flee the country and go to Judah. The sanctuary at Bethel, he was told, was the king's sanctuary, and he was not to prophesy there. Today too in many countries believers are persecuted and told what they are to preach and teach, and what topics they must avoid. In some places attempts are even being made to have the Bible classified as hate literature because of its uncompromising presentation of God's holy standards and its stern denunciation of sins such as homosexual behavior. Sinful man is quite ready for a religion that he himself can devise and control but he refuses to submit to God's standards.

The ministry of Elisha would not have been possible in Israel apart from that of Elijah who preceded him; and we may, therefore, glance at the state of things which led up to, and was in existence during, Elijah's testimony. What then do we find? From a worldly point of view, things apparently were not so bad, for national prosperity had increased. If God would only have left them alone, could they not have got on very well? Cities were built and restored, ivory palaces were constructed. But iniquity had woefully increased with the growth of self-indulgence and pride. God had been forgotten and His word despised. The spirit of infidelity was abroad. The curse of Joshua had been defied in Jericho's rebuilding, with the inevitable result that God's word had been fulfilled to the letter (1 Kings 16:34). The exceedingly corrupt form of worship originated by the son of Nebat did not now satisfy the renegade king of Israel. The worship of Baal had been introduced into Israel, borrowed from the Phoenicians, and had become readily popular among the Israelites, who were ever eager for something new. One feature of iniquity had been succeeded by another, until it became evident that something must be done if the people were to continue any longer in the land. The spirit of infidelity and the unclean spirit of idolatry must be held in check, and God's authority publicly vindicated. We know not how long Elijah had fasted, and prayed, and mourned over the distressing state of things in Israel, nor was he alone. God had numbered and separated unto Himself a select, complete, and holy remnant who were not to be corrupted by the idolatrous tendencies of the day in which they lived. Yet the existence of this secret, godly remnant, known only to Jehovah, had apparently no effect outwardly upon the nation's history, nor did it call forth any public intervention of God on their behalf. It might well be that such an intervention should be in answer to long and earnest prayer in secret, but there must be a basis known to all upon which their national prosperity and blessing could rest. The influences at work in England in the sixteenth century, which directly led up to the Reformation, were many of them very corrupt in themselves. Nevertheless, the subsequent greatness and advancement of the nation might be distinctly traceable to the cessation of religious persecution and the national acknowledgment of the liberty and responsibility of every individual to read the Bible for himself. God is righteous in His government of the world, and attaches great importance to acts and professions made by kings or rulers that might count for little or nothing to the credit of the individual. These acts affect earthly things alone, and do not at all determine one's eternal salvation, which must ever rest upon divine and sovereign grace, and the work of Christ, and must be individually appropriated in saving faith, if the soul is to be blessed for eternity.

God must and does choose for Himself — a simple yet most important consideration (ver. 5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26). Will-worship is intolerable. It ought most of all to shock the Christian. If it were merely a question of man, nobody would think of choosing for another. Nobody likes this. If people like to choose for themselves, as mere men, what an awful delusion it is to be choosing for God — to be really governed by your own will in matters of religion! We can all see how very bad it was in Israel; but do we feel that it is still worse in the Christian? He has given no title to adopt doctrines, practices, ways, government, or any one thing that is not His expressed will for His children. Some there are, no doubt, who assume that God has not in these things expressed any will of His own. I do not envy them the thought that God has not revealed His mind about what is nearest to Himself, and what most of all is bound up with His glory! It is making God less than a man; for if he could not be content without it, how much less the living God?

The commendation of the seven thousand is that they had refused to join in the national worship, because it was corrupted with worldly practices. There were no such things as religious communities then: it could not be; it was not the form of divine worship to have churches. But they separated from the public worship of the country when it was corrupted, and were commended for doing so. And when even much less corruption than Baalim was practised; when the golden calves were set up in Bethel and Dan, pretended to be the worship of Jehovah but mixing for worldly reasons Egyptian practices with it, it is mentioned with honour that out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel separated from them and left the country; and if the editor had ever read the prophets, he would have known that their testimony was incessant against having any such worship. As to Jerusalem, no person could have gone from the Temple, or he would have had no sacrifice at all. When it was corrupted, they were bound not to join. As to Ezekiel, he prophesied in Babylon, and the people of whom he speaks were shut up in the city of Jerusalem besieged, but they were to be marked, because they sighed over the abominations. But the editor seems not to be aware that they were commanded by the prophet Jeremiah to separate themselves and leave it, because the judgment of the Lord was coming on Jerusalem, and that so their lives would be spared, and that all the princes and king, etc., were very angry because thereby they said Jeremiah was weakening the hands of all those who were striving to save Jerusalem and resist the Chaldeans. There is indeed nothing new under the sun; so that, far from there not being in a single instance anything like separation, it was commended or commanded in both the instances to which the editor alludes; when the church had become corrupt, and that even at the risk, nay the certainty (for they could be performed nowhere else, which is not at all our case), of losing the ordained and regularly necessary sacrifices of God. Thus we see, in the case when we might least expect it from the nature of the worship, it is exactly the opposite to the editor's statement.

What is our answer to all who adopt this form of speech? A very simple and conclusive one; it is this, Has not God a right to prescribe the mode in which His people should worship Him? Had He not a perfect right to fix the place where He would meet His people Israel? Surely we must either deny His existence, or admit His absolute and unquestionable right to set forth His will as to how, when and where His people should approach Him. Will any one, however educated and enlightened, deny this? Is it a proof of high culture, refinement, breadth of mind or catholicity of spirit, to deny God His rights.

There judgment commences. We must "cease to do evil," before we "learn to do well." The Lord comes to us as "the God of peace"; still it is, 'Down with the idols in your father's house.' We may have been restless in service; but in the midst of much doing, how little have we done this, or ever practically attempted to set up God's altar "in the ordered place." Man's will has not been invaded. It is of the essence of wilfulness to say, 'I have a right to worship God how I like.' Obedience to God is the saint's rule and liberty. Not all the powers in the world have a title to interfere with this. And moreover, if God says, 'Pull down the altar of Baal,' He will give strength to do it.