Theocracy and the Old Testament

The voice of Theonomy seems to be getting louder and louder. With one of their chief cries and aims being to institute a theocratic form of government, I thought that this writing from Geerhardus Vos was especially helpful in understanding the logic and aim of such theocratic rule in the Old Testament. If Vos is correct, and I believe he is, then there can be no such legitimate cry. Here is what he has said:

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. The type inevitably influences the conception of the antitype. The future is depicted in terms drawn from the present, earthly, material reality. 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.

Both of these partake of the character and limitations of the Old Testament. 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. For this reason, says Wellhausen, it is a product of speculation (cf. the kingship of Jehovah; the mixing of state and church; holiness of Israel; eternity of the covenant: all prints of the supernatural). 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 insttitutions. 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. All this is the content of revelation.

Now, how can this be revelation and then yet be so dissimilar with the fulfillment? A distinction must be made between the substance and the form of revelation. The substance is eternal principles embodied in the forms as we know them. These peculiar forms are used because they are the most suitable forms of the time in which the prophecy was given. So far as God's intent was concerned, this whole apparatus was symbolical. Only the embodied ideas are to be fulfilled.

Now, from God's standpoint, the prophecy and its fulfillment cover each other. But this is not absolutely true from the standpoint of the recipients of the prohecies. It is inevitable that they would be inclined to take the from and substance as a whole and project them into the future. This is true to a certain sense even of the prophets as well as the people. Their subjective understanding is not adequate to the intent of God. Yet the revelation of God is to be measured as to its content by the intent of God, i.e., His words must mean what He would have them mean. The prophets grasped in and with the form the ideal substance, and did not clearly distinguish the two. For the same reason there is room for a difference between the subjective understanding of the people and the prophetic fulfillment. By what hermeneutical principle can we get at God's intent? By the New Testament teaching in regard to that fulfillment. It teaches us that the form is cast aside and that the substance is brought to light. The New Testament is necessary for the interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, the fulfilled and unfulfilled. It does not treat the matter mechanically, but organically, according to well defined exegetical principles. The fulfilled prophecies revealed and organic, progressive unfoldment, and this may be applied to the unfulfilled prophecies.

To summarize this in other words: it was impossible for the people of that time to separate the essence from the form. The essence grasped in the form is different from the form being grasped at the expense of the essence. We find the picture of the eschatological state in terms of the holy land, Jerusalem, the rule over the nations, familiar offices and organization and rites, and temporal blessedness. Nonetheless, all this, while expressed in similar terms, was felt to be different from the present because it was represented as eternal. To the mind of God, all earthly apparatus employed is purely symbolical. To the people, and in part to the prophets, the symbolical nature was not always perspicuous. The prophetic understanding of the eschatological revelation was not the measure of its revelation-import to the mind of God, far less the understanding of the people. The problem is: How can the mind of God be ascertained apart fromt he inent of the prophet? This is to be solved only by reference to the New Testament interpretation of the prophecies. This applies to unfulfilled as well as to fulfilled prophecies because the New Testament does not proceed mechanically or by single cases in this matter, but enables us to fix certain general principles that all cases must follow. This applies not only to the form of Israel's life, but likewise to the problem of Israel's permanent or passing significance in the world or redemption.

The spiritualization of the typical began with the Old Testament itself. On the whole this was progressive although not rectilinear development (Ezekial falls short of Jeremiah). There was the gradual perception of the symbolism as such on the prophet's part (cf. Isa. 66:23). The typical theocracy remains behind the antitype in the lack of unification and offices. Another point by which the eschatological picture is influenced is that the various elements that go to describe God are distributed over various institutions and offices. The kingship and the priesthood are not united in one order. The idea of the covenant and the kingdom are not carefully adjusted. And what is true of the verbal is also true of the theocratic prophecies. Sometimes even in one prophet there is a total absence of an attempt to correlate; sometimes only the kingship is mentioned and not the priesthood, and vice versa. Thus, the Old Testament is led to pursue these lines of approach separately. - Geerhardus Vos, "The Eschatology of the Old Testament", pp. 117-121

So then, if Vos is right in stating that 1) the theocratic rule of Israel was never intended to be anything more than a symbolical type; 2) that the different functions were not even attempted to be reconciled in many cases and were left to be handled separately; and that 3) the theocracy was nothing more than an element of prophecy with eschatological importance designed to keep our eyes looking forward; than it also serves that the same is true today. Especially when considered with the New Testament which shows the specific application of much of that prophecy and what is yet to be revealed, in like manner with Israel of old, keeps our eyes looking forward.

We cannot make the same mistake that Vos says Israel did. They confused the things best suited for them in their time and used by God to reveal His will and purposes as being in and of themselves the aim or the goal. Why would we regress into a system that failed Israel in every single way? The idea of a theocracy is not bad in and of itself. But how in a world laden with sin, even in the church, would one suppose that we would successfuly accomplish what Israel utterly failed in? If we were to even attempt such a plan as to see this through to its logical end, we would necessarily end up like the Muslims and proceed with the cry of "convert or die!" All other people would become second class citizens at best and we would have forgotten the simple separation that Christ Himself left for us that clearly shows that there is a civil realm and a spiritual realm (Matt. 22:21). This isn't to say the two never intersect, but the fact remains that the two do indeed exist.

We should be involved in society and through our godly witness effect all levels of it. But we do so in reliance on God as He has instructed in His word. Extrabiblical attempts to spiritualize the nations always end in ruin as is evidenced by history; past and present. Never will the feeble attempts of man, regardless of how well intentioned they may be, result in the great Christian utopia they have imagined in their hearts. Be active, be involved, evangelize and disciple the people wherever you may find them, always be ready and willing to give an account of the hope that is in you; only leave it to God as to which opportunity He wil place before you. When the door is finally opened don't hesitate for a moment to enter in. But make no mistkae about it; untold numbers have become impatient with God and kicked in the door only to find it led to their own ruin in the process.