See, there was a time biblically, when the church was the state and vice-versa Israel, the old covenant.
TGC Article
If the Church was the state and vice-versus then why was it prohibited to combine offices of Priest and King in Old Testament Israel? I would insist that the fact that these offices were not allowed to be held in the hands of one man proves that it is not true that there was no distinction between church and state in Old Testament Israel and if I am correct here (and of course I am) Horton is once again seen as in error.
It is true that Israel was a theocracy but to say it is a theocracy is not the same as saying it was an ecclesiocracy. This mistake is commonly made by the R2K chaps. Theocracy is an inescapable category. All nations are theocratic. However, all Nations are not ecclesiocratic … that is all nations are not run by the priest-minister caste.
“If Israel broke the Mosaic covenant, then God would drive them out of the land just as he had their enemies as we see in Deuteronomy 28.”
However, per Horton’s R2K Israel’s enemies weren’t beholden to God’s law since they never subscribed to God or came under His law. If that is true what right, per R2K thinking, did God have to drive Israel’s enemies out of the land since they were not nations covenanted unto God.?
And if Israel’s enemies in the Old Covenant were driven out of the land because they had violated God’s law standard then why can it not be the case today that nations are driven out of the land by God for violating God’s law standards?