|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 12, 2023 9:47:54 GMT -5
The Shadowy Nature of the Theocracy
Nicholas T. Batzig/7
With a burgeoning interest in the idea of Christian Nationalism, the Christian Church in America has seen a renewed interest in modified versions of theonomy. Theonomy was a politico-theological movement that arose out of Reformed theological circles in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The central figures in this movement were R.J. Rushdooney, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Ken Gentry, and Gary DeMar. The various forms of theonomy have commonly been denominated by both adherents and critics, “dominion theology,” “Christian reconstructionism,” or “general equity theonomy.” While differences certainly exist in the specific way in which the theonomists packaged their proposals, there is a common commitment to emphasize that God desires the implimentation of the Old Covenant civil laws into the governments of the world in the New Covenant.
Legion are the problems with the theonomic proposals–not least of which is the fact that the Apostles never taught the fledgling New Covenant churches to labor for the implementation of the Old Covenant civil law into the government. Theonomy is utterly dependent upon the embrace of a postmillennialism that inevitably demands the implementation of a Christian theistic ethic into the fabric of every society. This makes nearly every form of theonomy a present non-reality that is dependent on a misconstrued eschatological hope. However, there are two other overarching hermeneutical reasons why theonomy is built on a defunct understanding of the role of the civil law in redemptive history.
In his chapter, “The Mosaic Theocracy,” in Eschatology of the Old Testament, Geerhardus Vos explained the unique place of the theocracy in redemptive history. He wrote,
“The eschatological idea influencing the constitution of the theocracy becomes dependent on the interaction of the type and the antitype. The future state imposes its own stamp on the theocracy, an actual institution of Israel. The theocratic structure projects its own character into the picture of the future. Heaven reflected itself on Israel and Israel became part of the future. . .There is somewhat of the shadowy, inadequate character of the prefiguration that passes over into the description of what the eschatological will be like when it comes. The antitype impresses its stamp upon the theocratic structure and imparts to it somewhat of its transcendent, absolute character. The theocracy has something ideal or unattainable about it. Its plan, as conceived by the law, hovers over the actual life of Israel. The theocracy in the idea transcends its embodiment in experience.”1
Vos proceeded to explain that this “unattainable” ideal of the eternal rule of God stamped on Old Covenant Israel served its purpose until the coming of Christ, who, in turn, spiritualized or eternalized everything about the theocracy. He explained,
“Israel fell short of the ideal at all points. This theocratic organization of Israel had something ideal about it from the beginning. It could not be attained. It hovered over the life of the people. . .The great principles and realities of theocratic life were embodied in external form. This was the only way to clothe the essence of the theocracy in a way that the Israelites could grasp. In order to keep the future eschatological picture in touch with Israel’s religion these forms had to be maintained. The prophets had to give the essence in particular forms. Eschatological revelation is presented in the language of the Mosaic institutions.
The New Testament first transposes it into a new key. Here in the New Testament it is spiritualized. In the Old Testament it is expressed in terms of perfection of the forms of Israel’s theocracy. The holy city is center; offices, organization, peace, abundance, etc. are there, but this all is to be eternalized in the messianic era, and will be free of the vicissitudes of the present era.”2
In short, Vos is suggesting that God imposed on Old Covenant Israel a shadow of His eschatological righteous rule. This shadow was to reflect the ideal until the coming of the Redeemer. The members of the Westminster Assembly made the strongest possible declaration about the expiration of the Old Covenant civil law in the New Covenant era, when they wrote,
“To [Old Covenant Israel], as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”
Everything that belonged to the Old Covenant theocracy is now spiritualized in Christ. It was not merely the types, shadows, and ordinances. It was the ceremonial and civil laws belonging to the Mosaic economy. This is substantiated exegetically by the way in which the Apostles utilized Old Covenant civil laws in their letters to the New Covenant churches. In his excellent JETS article, “The Scriptures Were Written For Our Instruction,” George Knight persuasively asserts that everything in Scripture, including the Old Covenant theocratic case laws, now has a spiritual application to the New Covenant community. He wrote,
“In 1 Cor 9:8 ff., [the Apostle] appeals to the theocratic case law that specifies that oxen must not be muzzled when threshing (citing Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9). Paul is persuaded that this law, like others, reflects God’s view of how people should relate not only to animals but also to human beings when those human beings are involved in laboring for our benefit. . This is not the only situation in which Paul appeals to the theocratic case laws. He does it also earlier in 1 Cor 5:13. There he refers to one or more of the passages in Deuteronomy in which God in his written word instructs the people of God to remove the unrepentant wicked man from their midst (which in the OT context is done by stoning him). And therefore Paul’s entire description of the action to be taken is that of removing the man from their midst and not associating with him, not even eating with him. We note however that the action Paul enjoins is not that of stoning but rather of putting him out of the fellowship with a view to his repentance (cf. 1 Cor 5:5). That this spiritual action becomes the NT principle for church discipline in general, rather than the act of stoning, is borne out by his comments in 2 Cor 2:6–8 where he urges that one who had been disciplined should be forgiven, comforted and restored (impossible if he has been stoned to death). Paul’s utilization of this theocratic case law shows that he regards it as teaching an important principle that must be followed by the Church, even though not in the theocratic form of stoning to death but rather in the form appropriate to the non-theocratic, non-national spiritual entity that the Church is in distinction from the Israel of the OT. Here the apostle takes account of the difference that fulfillment has brought about and at the same time maintains the principle of continuity for the instruction as it relates to the Church, and in doing so he also has “written for our instruction.”3
Those who have been swept up with various forms of theonomy (or Christian Nationalism) should reflect deeply on the redemptive-historical role of the Old Covenant civil law as well as on how the Apostles spiritually applied it to the New Covenant church. To move beyond these things is to impose an artificial, underdeveloped, and over realized worldview on the Scriptures rather than to allow Scripture to determine our understanding of the precise relationship between the Old Covenant theocracy and the New Covenant church.
1. Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 117–118.
2. Ibid.
3. An excerpt taken from p. 10 of George Knight’s ETS artcile, “The Scriptures Were Written for our Instruction.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 12, 2023 9:49:00 GMT -5
Sam
Reply
From your post: “Theonomy is utterly dependent upon the embrace of a postmillennialism that inevitably demands the implementation of a Christian theistic ethic into the fabric of every society.“ -this is very much contra Greg Bahnsen, perhaps the leading and most articulate defender of Theonomic ethics. Bahnsen: “the polemic against postmillennialism is not logically or theologically relevant to this debate with me over sociopolitical ethics.” Bahnsen, M. G. Kline, An Evaluation of his Reply
From your post: “In short, Vos is suggesting that God imposed on Old Covenant Israel a shadow of His eschatological righteous rule. This shadow was to reflect the ideal until the coming of the Redeemer. The members of the Westminster Assembly made the strongest possible declaration about the expiration of the Old Covenant civil law in the New Covenant era, when they wrote,
“To [Old Covenant Israel], as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”
Bahnsen: Although Israel as a political body has expired — and along with it its judicial law as a constitution — the general equity of those judicial laws is still required (Westminster Confession XIX.4). Similarly, when a public library goes out of business (and your library card thus expires), the truth of what was written in its books is not abolished or changed. Political codes today ought to incorporate the moral requirements which were culturally illustrated in the God-given, judicial laws of Old Testament Israel. George Gillespie, widely regarded as the most authoritative theologian at the Westminster Assembly, wrote: “the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses…. He who was punishable by death under the judicial law is punishable by death still” (“Wholesome Severity Reconciled…,” 1645). -Bahnsen, What is Theonomy?
This issue here, is not is Israel some anti-type reflection of Heaven, but rather as the church has internalized the law, how ought that law to be applied by members of the church in civil office? What is best for human flourishing? The equity/ underlying moral principles in the law of God, or is there some other standard that Christian magistrates may embrace?
Bahnsen: “ both Kline and theonomists acknowledge the status of Israel as a redemptive type and holy nation. This observation does not separate them. What does Kline apparently feels that this unique status of Israel implies that her sociopolitical laws are not normative for other nations, past or present. The reader will notice that throughout Kline’s review of my book, he does nothing more than appeal to this unique status of Israel as a datum. He nowhere completes the argument by showing how the premise of Israel’s unique status implies that her sociopolitical laws are not binding on any other nation. Nor does he guard against reductio counter-arguments or explicate ambiguous metaphors such as “part of … a total system of typology.” Everything points to the conclusion that Kline feels the implication is so “obvious” as to need no further comment. Theonomists, on the other hand, do not think that the unique status of Israel as a redemptive type and holy nation implies that God has a double-standard of morality, one for Israel and one for others (regarding sex, economics, truth, life, politics, or what have you). That is, theonomists do not think that Israel’s properly recognized unique status implies a discontinuity in moral standards between Israel and the nations, past or present. Who is correct, Kline or the theonomists? Does the status of Israel as a redemptive type and holy nation imply continuity or discontinuity as to moral standards? The only standard for answering this question is, not someone’s personal opinion or a favorite textbook in biblical theology, but the word of God alone.” -Bahnsen, M. G. Kline on Theonomic Politics, An Evaluation of his Reply.
Bahnsen again: Although I was not writing a book centering on the discontinuity between Israel and the nations or the subject of typology, my sentiments are still clearly mentioned in these areas. Numerous types and foreshadows are spoken of in Theonomy (e.g., pp. 42-43, 48-49, 141-142, 153, 185, 188, 207-211, 212,213, 214-215, 216, 226, 227, 229-230, 437, 438, 450, 465, 492) — including the typology of the promised land (pp. 203, 510, 513) which figures largely in Kline’s polemic. I speak of the gospel in the Old Testament (p. 187), say that the Old Testament referred to Christ (p. 195), that all of its covenants point to Christ (p. 499). The exodus and possession of the promised land are said to be a time in Israel’s history “replete with redemptive typology of Christ and His saving economy” (p. 464). I refer to the “thorough-going pattern of foreshadowings of the New Testament reality to be found in the Old Testament” (p. 577), and I assert that the artistic and pedagogical designs of typology “inherent in the Scripture certainly must not be ignored” (p. 456)! According to Theonomy, one would learn that the relation between the Old covenant and the New is that of foreshadow and reality, anticipation and realization, expectation and fulfillment (pp. 188, 215, 227, 253).
In particular, I speak explicitly of the “Old Testament typological kingdom” with special reference to its political aspect (pp. 418-419), of the typological value of the positive commands (such as holy war, p. 581), Israel’s rulers (p. 348), the king’s actions (pp. 408-409), and the typological and pedagogical value of the Older Testament penal sanctions (p. 457). I say that the Old Testament system was a “model” (p. 419), that Christ is the reality of which the Old Testament kingdom was the type (p. 418). I clearly state, “With respect to typology it might be suggested that Israel as a nation is a type of the church of Christ. There is certainly scriptural warrant for that comparison” (p. 455). -Bahnsen, M. G. Kline, An Evaluation of his Reply
Sadly it seems critics of Theonomic ethics of our day have only rehashed and regurgitated poorly construed arguments against the position, and shown a lack of being well versed in the literature they have chosen to criticize. Since these objections have been answered by the late 70’s it tells me thorough and responsible scholarship has greatly diminished in the reformed world, as people uphold the tribalism of theological sub-schools over against actual scriptural study & meditation. I hope to see much less misrepresentation of other schools of reformed thought in future articles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 20, 2023 15:16:17 GMT -5
General Equity Theonomy is a theological concept that attempts to discern the principle at work in the Old Testament civil law and apply it to current laws. It asserts that there is a right way to order a society, and that is based in part on the civil laws of the Old Testament1.
Theonomists who follow the General Equity view believe that the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, is revealed in the law of nature and is the only law that remains binding2. They differ from Reconstructionist theonomists in that they do not see Old Testament judicial law as itself a subset of moral law that remains binding, but instead look for a moral law that transcends Old Testament judicial law2.
Both Reconstructionists and General Equity theonomists agree that God has prescribed laws in Scripture that should govern all societies, but they differ on how the law should be interpreted and applied1. Reconstructionists believe that the Mosaic Law should be applied in its entirety, while General Equity theonomists believe that the Mosaic Law should be applied in a way that is consistent with the principles of justice and equity 9 marks
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 20, 2023 15:19:05 GMT -5
Is “General Equity Theonomy” a Confessional and Biblical Doctrine?
Some of those who identify as theonomists today refer to themselves as “general equity theonomists,” believing that this identification lands them within the boundaries of Reformed confessional orthodoxy. But if it does, then the term “general equity” needs to be defined the same way the tradition defined it. The technical term “general equity” is used in both the Westminster Confession and the Second London Baptist Confession.
The Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4 says, “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”
Following the Savoy Declaration, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 19.4 says, “To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.”
So, while the confessions teach that the “general equity” of the judicial law obliges us, the question remains as to whether “general equity theonomists” mean the same thing by general equity that the confessions mean. I have found it hard to nail down a single clear definition of “general equity theonomy” that universally describes those who say they hold to it. The term seems to be defined variously and even in contradictory ways. So, rather than focus on the personalities involved in this debate, or cite definitions from a number of different adherents, I want to address what some appear to mean by “general equity theonomy,” which is that the essential or core principles of Old Testament judicial laws have binding authority today. That is, many say that the Old Testament judicial laws have been abrogated, but the essential principles of the judicial laws continue to bind all people today.
1. The Historic Meaning of the Term “General Equity”
The question as to the meaning of the term “general equity” is a matter of historical research. I am indebted to Brandon Adams for several of the quotations found in this section.
John Calvin identifies the term “equity” with moral law. “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws” (Institutes 4.20.15-16, italics in the text are mine).
Calvin’s successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, wrote, “Although we do not hold to the forms of the Mosaic polity, yet when such judicial laws prescribe equity in judgments, which is part of the decalogue, we, not being under obligation to them insofar as they were prescribed by Moses to only one people, are nevertheless bound to observe them to the extent that they embrace that general equity which should everywhere be in force . . . . Because it follows natural equity, and expounds that perpetual precept of the decalogue, Thou shalt not steal, to this extent all are bound to fulfill them both” (De Haereticis a civili Magistratu puniendis Libellus, Geneva: Robert Stephanus, 1554, pp. 222-23, italics in the text are mine). Beza clearly linked general equity to the decalogue and natural law.
William Perkins wrote, “Judicial laws so far as they have in them the general or common equity of the law of nature are moral and therefore binding in conscience as the moral law” (A Discourse on Cases of Conscience in The Whole Works, London, 1631, 1.520).
Thus, the historic meaning of the term “general equity” refers exclusively to the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, which is also revealed in the law of nature. The crucial thing to understand about the general equity of the old covenant judicial law is that the judicial law’s general equity is not first to be found in the judicial laws themselves. If there is general equity in any given old covenant judicial law, it is first found in nature, in creation and conscience, and it is also summarily taught in the Ten Commandments. Therefore, we should not approach old covenant judicial laws to discover distinctive or new principles of law, which are not already revealed in creation, conscience, or the decalogue. Old covenant judicial laws do not establish timeless principles of law; rather, to the extent that there is any general equity in them, it is based on the larger trans-covenantal moral law of nature, which is found outside of those laws.
Therefore, if “general equity theonomy” means that the core principles of the judicial laws remain in force, but those principles do not necessarily entail God’s transcendent moral and natural law summarized in the Ten Commandments, then that definition of general equity is contrary to the Reformed confessional tradition. According to the confessional tradition, we must not begin with judicial law to discover principles of general equity. Rather, we must begin with the decalogue and see whether there is any moral or natural law principle in any given judicial law.
2. The New Testament Use of Judicial Law
If it’s true that the essential core principles of the judicial laws remain binding for us today, then consider how we might interpret Deuteronomy 25:4, which says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Without the inspired New Testament commentary on this passage, we might say that a core principle of this passage is “You should allow your animals to feed while they are working.” One way to apply this law might be to say that people should see to it that their hunting dogs always have access to a portion of the meat they kill during the hunt as a matter of biblical law. That would seem to be a reasonable application of the core principle of this judicial law, recognizing that the law itself has been abrogated, but that the essence of it is perpetually binding.
And yet, the New Testament does not derive any such essential principle from Deuteronomy 25:4. Rather, the New Testament finds the eighth commandment embedded in Deuteronomy 25:4, which is an element of transcendent moral and natural law, “You shall not steal” (Ex 20:15). 1 Timothy 5:17-18 says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” The general equity of the law of the muzzled ox is that you must not steal wages from the one who works. Paul saw that the general equity of Deuteronomy 25:4 is nothing other than the eighth commandment, which means that churches should pay their pastors. The same general equity of Deuteronomy 25:4 would apply to refusing to use unjust weights and balances, to forbidding customers from stealing from merchants, merchants from stealing from customers, etc.
In conclusion, any version of “general equity theonomy,” which does not look for prior transcendent moral law within the judicial law, which is summarized in the decalogue and/or revealed in nature, uses a hermeneutic contrary to the New Testament. The issue at stake is the controls on our interpretation and application of judicial law.
3. The Way to Find and Apply General Equity of Judicial Law
Take Deuteronomy 22:8 as an example. It says, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” Someone wrote, “We are not morally required to build a parapet around our roof line because we don’t go up there. But general equity would require a rail around your second story deck.” In this instance, the application of general equity theonomy seems to keep tightly to the essential core principles of the judicial law in question. Not a roof, but a second story deck. Not a parapet, but a railing. It’s not the particulars of the law that are binding, but the essential principles.
But it’s crucial to understand that the general equity of the law of the parapet isn’t merely a matter of the essential principles of that particular judicial law. The general equity of the law of the parapet is nothing other than the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13). Does the law’s general equity require a railing around a second story deck to protect the lives of people who go up there? Absolutely. But railings on second story decks are not required because of the law of the parapet itself. Rather, general equity requires a railing on a second story deck because of the transcendent moral law, summarized in the decalogue, which stands behind the law of the parapet: “You shall not murder.”
Understood properly, the general equity of the law of the parapet requires us to protect other people’s lives, and not merely do what is expedient, cheaper, or more convenient for ourselves. The general equity of the law of the parapet applies in a number of circumstances. People who use guns should practice gun safety principles. If you have a deadly illness, take precautions not to spread it to others as far as it depends on you. Salt your sidewalks after an ice storm. Drive safely so as not to endanger others. Don’t leave live electrical wires exposed in your home. The sixth commandment requires that you not be concerned merely for yourself, but must always live so as to protect the lives of other people. That is the general equity of the law of the parapet, the sixth commandment, “do not murder.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, any understanding of the term general equity, which neglects the decalogue, or natural law revealed in creation or conscience, as the essence of general equity is not accurately defining the term according to its historic and confessional sense. Any version of general equity theonomy that does not look for a moral law that transcends Old Testament judicial law but instead sees Old Testament judicial law as itself a subset of moral law that remains binding is not following the example of the New Testament.
The greatest mistake of such a hermeneutic is that it does not begin with the universal transcendent norms of natural and moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, seeking to find those moral principles within judicial law. Rather, it begins with the judicial laws themselves and tries to uncover the essential principles within those laws, wrongly assuming they are all moral, in order to apply them universally.
Tom Hicks
Tom serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He’s married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2024 18:18:19 GMT -5
9/15/1943
Israel’s Theocracy as a Model State
PETTER A
Article
Home / Archive / Volume 19/1943 / Vol 19 Issue 22
SHARE IT
The term theocracy is not a biblical word, but it is the expression of a thoroughly biblical idea as found in the passages 1 Sam. 8:7, “They have rejected Me that I should not reign over them;” 1 Sam. 12:12, “Ye said Nay, but a king shall reign over us: when the Lord your God was your King;” Deut. 33:5, “He was King in Jeshurun when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together.”
In general we may characterize this theocracy as the state where God was Father-King and as such the sole law-giver and also avenger of that law.
Now this may seem to raise the objection that thus we have only the kingly office spoken of whereas in the nation of Israel there were three offices which all had a part in the life of Israel as a people and nation, and the objection continues that two of the offices thus hang on in an unintegrated way. But we have rightly always taught that the offices are a tri-unity of official function in a rational being. However this apparent aloneness of the royal office is harmonized with the well-established unity of the three by the fact that the royal is the pre-eminent and the other two are subordinate.
It is undoubtedly true that in man as God’s image bearer the three offices appear and the pre-eminence is given to the priest-hood (I Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6, 5:10) since he is prophet to know and declare the will of God: king to execute that will in God’s name; priest to offer the fruits of his dominion as an offering of worship.
However the offices in the theocracy are seen as applied to God, and then In the following order: He is Prophet as revealer of His will and good pleasure; He fulfills the function of priest in that He Himself supplies all that is demanded in that will (Isa. 54:17, Hosea 14:9) and thus, because of this He is King whose dominion is undisputedly established in righteousness.
In order now to answer the question whether Israel’s Theocracy was a model state, we may undoubtedly begin by saying that the theocracy is a perfect state. Everywhere Scripture teaches us that the perfect state shall have come when God shall manifest His Kingdom of grace (Dan. 7:14; 1 Cor. 15:27; Rev. 21:3, 4) in its complete dominion.
Now of this kingdom, Israel’s theocracy until Christ was a type. In it as a kingdom of salvation, God as Father-King ruled in distinction from His dominion of power in the world. And although it might seem that the desiring of a king in Samuel’s day was a destruction of the theocratic type, yet in reality it was not so, for the human king in Israel became precisely the type of the Messianic King, the Incarnate. He was one taken from the midst of the brethren and lived in the most intimate contact with God.
When now we come to the transition from the Old to the New Dispensation we must be on our guard. It is hardly safe to say as is so often done that the difference between Old and New is that in the first the church and state are one, whereas in the New they are separate. The truth is rather that in the old dispensation the kingdom of God was existent in Israel mediated by types and shadows and at the same time forming type and shadow of better things to come. And in the New this theocratic principle is not at all abandoned and dismissed but is appreciably advanced. It is precisely in the Church that that God through Christ rules by His Word and Spirit in His Kingdom. This Scripture testifies repeatedly (Heb. 12:22; Jer. 31:31-36; John 6:45). Indeed both church and state, if we may so express it, is now found in the church, for it is there that God by His Word and Spirit touches and orders the whole and every phase of the life of the citizens.
This becomes still clearer when we remember that in the Old Dispensation the civil state corresponding to that of today was found outside of Israel in heathendom, whereas even the typical aspect of the theocratic state continued into the New Dispensation, before it died out. It appeared namely in the infallible guidance which He lent to the Apostolical founding and administration of the New Test, kingdom, and it even appeared in the Divine vindication of His authority in such cases as that of Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8) Elymas (Acts 18:6-12) and in line with this are all the signs and wonders of the Apostolic age.
From this it appears clearly that Israel’s theocracy was not meant as a model for the civil state of today; on the contrary it is in principle realized in the N. T. Church.
But we may go farther and say not only that it was not a model, but also that it could not be a model. It was itself a defective picture of the perfect, itself full of impossible and embarrassing situations and growing weaker continually as the dispensation wore on. All the immediate and terrible vindications of the divine righteousness and holiness which were so frequent in the early history, e.g., during the Exodus and under the judges become less and less frequent. In the early history every inadvertent error in the execution of the formal tabernacle-ritual is threatened with death (Ex. 28:43; Num. 4:15, 20) and Uzza, who touches the ark with devoted hand is smitten as an object lesson unto holiness. But when we come to the later kings and prophets an Ahaz builds a heathen altar in the holy place for his own pleasure and an Antiochus Epiphanes sacrifices a sow in the temple of the Lord and sprinkles the broth about the sacred precincts all with impunity. This theocratic type was waxing old and ready to vanish away.
But there is a second reason why that theocracy could not be a model of the present civil state, and that is that it was a kingdom of grace. Terrible as some of the executions and vengeance of the dispensation may have been we may never forget that essential to that dispensation was the operation and saving power of the grace of God. It is grace that made of Israel a people; grace that they are not consumed in the desert, and at Sinai; grace that David is not destroyed for his sins; grace that Jerusalem is spared from the avenging angel; grace that Israel is restored from captivity. This grace was an essential, integral part of the theocratic administration, and explains the continuation of the theocratic people.
Hence the theocracy cannot be the model for the civil state. For in the civil state as such there is no room for grace. Only in the kingdom of Christ is there a possibility of grace. Only in the kingdom of Christ is there a possibility of grace. In the civil state which arises out of nature and is limited to natural ordinances, any act of grace or pardon or amnesty is not grace or forgiveness but is only a correction of miscarriage in the course of justice. And the citizens of the civil state cannot safely be presumed to be susceptible to the methods of grace, not even the Christian citizen with his small beginning of new obedience.
Now these things undoubtedly become more intelligible and we also more easily reconcile our minds to them when we realize that all that may be desired in a state is to be fulfilled in the church and Kingdom of Christ. Even now that is so, as the apostle Paul says, 2 Cor. 10. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations and every high thing. . .and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, and through that same Christ shall one day be reconciled unto God all things whether in earth or in heaven. Col. 1:20.
And then we must also follow out the other consequence and maintain that the state can never be restored unless it is brought completely under the dominion of grace, The state is not itself an evil, but is a phase of creation which has been brought under the dominion of sin.
To understand this we must look at the purpose of the state. It is undoubtedly wrong to say that the purpose of the state is to make human fife possible through the restraint of sin. For the state has not come into existence as an afterthought for the restraint of sin but is given with creation and serves the purpose of organizing and controlling the life of men in natural equity for a harmonious systematic development. And that for better or for worse. Let us never forget the latter. The law is good, says the Apostle, but it was precisely by the law that sin came to appear in all its sinfulness for the law entered in that the offence might abound. So it is with the state which in itself is good but which by its organization and ordering of life shows sin in all its sinfulness, “The corruption of the best is the worst.” Humanity is an organism and by far its greatest possibilities lie in harmonious organization. Thus sin does not reveal its most damnable character in a total of individuals but in the individuals organized into a smooth organism. And God will have sin to appear in all its sinfulness through the highest organization, just as He will, yea, in order that He may reveal the restoring power of grace in that highest organization of humanity which was corrupt in all its intricate ramifications. Rom. 5:20-21.
Also it is undoubtedly wrong to say that the state has its purpose in the creation of a sphere where the church may live unmolested. For surely such an elaborate apparatus was not necessary to create a peaceful sphere for the church. Does not history of the apostolic church tell us of a great fear that came upon all men so that they left the Christians unmolested? And does not Scripture tell us that it will be precisely that state that shall by its intricate organization persecute the children of God?
Therefore we conclude that Israel’s Theocracy is the model or type of the state as it is realized in the kingdom of Christ through the church; and further that the civil state, which as a creation of God is good, nevertheless has not within itself the power to arise out of the bondage of corruption and is destined to be brought concretely farther and farther under that power until it becomes the instrument of the highest possible apostasy. For not only does the natural man work the corruption of that state, but also the old nature of the Christian contributes to its destruction, since in that sphere there is no restoring grace.
|
|
