Identifying the precise role of the particular aspects of theocratric Israel’s legal system is difficult in any given theological system, but particularly in Covenant Theology (a system that stresses the radical unity of the Old and New Testaments). While this is the case, the difficulty does not hinder the appropriateness of the system, if the type/anti-type model is applied to the theocratic structure of the relation of the Old Covenant to the New. Geerhardus Vos, in his usual skillful manner, explained the importance of this type/anti-type principle in “The Mosaic Theocracy,” chapter 11 of The Eschatology of the Old Testament. There Vos noted:
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. 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.1
In 21st Century English vernacular, Vos has explained, in the afore mentioned quote, that God worked within the theocratic structure of Israel to show the reality of the theocratic nature of heaven. The laws given to Israel were good, and were God-ordained, but they were unattainable. They were meant to show the people of God, throughout all generations, that God is Holy, and that His rule is holy. But, at the end of the day–or you might say, “At the end of the old age”–they passed away because they were the earthly type of the heavenly reality. This is confirmed constantly throughout the NT when the writer to the Hebrews draws the parallel between the earthly mountain and the heavenly mountain, between the land here and the land there, between the voice shaking the earth and the voice that now also shakes the heavens. There is an antitype for all of the typical elements of the OT, and this is no less true of the theocracy than it was for anything else.
But how does this help us understand the particular case laws given to Israel? Are we simply to dismiss them as irrelevant and unnecessary? Or are we to seek to apply them wholesale to the New Covenant economy in Gentile governments? Here, I think, Vos supplies us with the balanced answer. He noted:
“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, organizations, peace, abundance, etc. are there, but this all is to be eternalized in the Messainic era, and will be free of the vicissitudes of the present era. All this is the content of revelation.”2
Notice the way that Vos made use of the words “spiritualized” and “eternalized” in order to describe the theocratic forms of the Old Covenant, as they relate to the Messianic era. Certainly we find, in the book of Hebrews, a clear statement of this in regard to the ceremonial system of Old Covenant worship. It is not that the Old Covenant is supplanted by the New with no relation whatsoever. Rather, it is that the Old was the foundation of typical forms and shadows, and, as Vos noted, “heaven reflected itself on Israel” in order that these types might reflect something of the heavenly antitypes.
But, I want to point out that this is also true with regard to the civil system of theocratic Israel. How does the New Testament use the civil legislation given to Israel? In brief, it “spiritualizes” them so that they are seen to be “eternailzed in the Messianic era.” This can be demonstarted from one brief illustration–Paul’s use of Duet. 17:7; 19:19; 22:21, and 24:7. This oft repeated verse, in its theocratic setting, had reference to stoning the idolatrous, the false witness, and the fornicator.
1 Corinthians 5:13 is the New Covenant setting, in which this Old Covenant sanction now has reference to excommunicating the impenitent adulterer. The penal legislation is “spiritualized” with regard to the New Covenant church. Certainly the discipline excercised by the apostle Paul in this case had an “eternalizing” principle. Jesus Himself had told the apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.” We know that God in His mercy and grace brought the man of 1 Corinthians 5 to repentance, so that he was restored to communion with the saints–as is evident from 2 Corinthians. But we must take the greatest of care in understanding the spiritualizing principle of the theocratic system. God has given us examples, such as Paul’s use of Duet. 17:7 in 1 Corinthians 5:13, so that we might realize the applicability of the Old Covenant civil law, without missing its eschatological spirituality.
1. Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001) pp. 117-118
2. Ibid., p. 118
Tags: 1 Corinthians, Church Discipline, Deuteronomy, Theocracy, Typology
Timely words, Nick !! There is much to say on this subject. Thank you for making the connections clear.
The time stamp seems to be off here !! I am writing at 6:46am.
XbvcHN That’s a mold-breaker. Great thinking!