Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Two Kingdoms, Part Two: Exile
We have seen that, throughout redemptive history, God's people find themselves in one of two situations: theocracy or exile.
A "theocracy" exists when God's dominion is coupled with a domain, his rule with a realm. In other words, for a theocracy to exist, God's people must have a land to call their own (such as the land of Canaan). In a theocracy, there are not two distinct kingdoms, but one. All of life is holy.
But what about the other condition, exile?
Exile is radically different from theocracy. When the people of God are without a homeland, they find themselves co-existing in two kingdoms, with a divine distinction being made between cult and culture, the holy and the common, and the sacred and the secular.
To demonstrate this, let's consider Abraham.
In the Abrahamic covenant, the patriarch was chosen from among the sinful members of the human race and made the father of a distinct people (Gen. 17:1-14). But it is the nature of Abraham’s distinctiveness that is important for our discussion. Abraham’s distinctiveness, as I will demonstrate, was not cultural but cultic. In other words, the covenant that God made with him contained no instructions governing his activity in the common grace realm, but he was to continue to participate in culture as he had done before—he conducted business transactions (Gen. 23:16), settled land and property disputes (Gen. 21:22ff; 26:26ff), engaged in warfare (Gen. 14:14), and showed appropriate deference to earthly kings (Gen. 20:17).
Exactly unlike Israel in Canaan, the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and their descendents were called to coexist peacefully in the land that God had promised them, waiting in hope and journeying in faith until Yahweh would drive out the Canaanites forever (Heb. 11:8-22).
The situation of the patriarchs before the giving of the law, therefore, can be characterized as pilgrim politics which highlighted their status, not as a triumphant theocratic army, but as “resident aliens” and “tolerated sojourners” whose inheritance was not yet a reality.
Moreover, it was specifically in the cultic and religious sphere that Abraham’s particularity was displayed. This is seen most strikingly in the fact that the sacrament of the Abrahamic covenant—circumcision—was a bloody rite foreshadowing the sacrificial redemptive work of his true Seed (Gen. 17:9-14; Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:11). As OT scholar Meredith Kline has written, “Tolerated pilgrims, not triumphant possessors—such is the life of the nontheocratic community of faith, waiting while the kingdom is withheld.”
The patriarchal community, therefore, was culturally common but religiously distinct.
And such is the case with us today. As we await the true, heavenly theocracy our calling is to lead peaceful, quiet, and Christlike lives (I Tim. 2:2). We dare not take up the sword in the name of Christ, we do not wage our warfare in the voting booth, and we must not attempt to usher in the eschatological kingdom by cultural, secular, common grace means (II Cor. 10:4).
More to come....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI like what you are doing, so take these comments in that spirit :)
I have a concern with your choice of words. The word "exile" carries certain cultural connotations (how is that for alliteration?). Israel's exile to Babylon was because of their disobedience, our exile, like Abraham's, is in spite of our obedience. Rather, because of our obedience. If we are not in that state of "exile" we are not being obedient. To not be in exile is to be conformed to the image of the world, not to the image of Christ.
Peter calls us parepidēmois, and so we are. But to be honest, "resident aliens" or "sojourner" seems to carry more meaning today. "Exile" makes it sound like we have done something wrong. I recognize that we can explain the word to people in our teaching and preaching. We must with "propitiation," "union with Christ," even "faith" needs to be defined for most people anymore. Why do you choose the word "exile" over sojourner, especially with Abraham in mind?
I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Unless, of course, you are a postmillennialist, in which case your goal is to conform global culture to Christian principles—Theonomic law even—so that you can usher in Christ's return.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI hear what you're saying and have wrestled with the seemingly negative connotations of "exile," but I have come to embrace the term.
Here's how I see it: Exile for Israel was the consummate covenant curse for disobedience (three Cs... I should be a baptist preacher). But given the typological nature of the Mosaic covenant (which you may or may not recognize), exile was merely a type of the cross, upon which the true Israelite was ultimately "cut off from the land of the living" not for his disobedience, but for ours.
So exile is only negative in the same way the cross (the symbol of our religion) is negative. Well, the former is indeed negative if there's no restoration to the land afterwards, just as a cross without an empty tomb makes its victim "of all men the most pitiful."
But given the way the story ends, we can carry crosses and boast in weakness. That's why Paul could appeal to what used to be considered examples of covenant curses in order to validate his own apostleship (II Cor. 11). The gospel of the cross and resurrection completely subverts the world's notions of power, wealth, and glory.
So like carrying a cross, exile is something to be ashamed of in the eyes of the sinner, but something in which to boast in the eyes of a saint.
Trey,
ReplyDeleteI'm honored the a ninja would even talk to me. And I'm sure you're kidding, since you probably learned how gay postmillennialism is during your first couple weeks of ninja school.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYour comment about postmill., though it has no educational value, made me laugh so loud that the librarian yelled at me to be quite.
Yeah, I guess it doesn't have much educational value.
ReplyDeleteNow if I had said that if a person has lots of kids, a beard, and hates Abraham Lincoln then he is probably a postmillennialist, then that would have educational value.
Stereotypes are cool.
Speaking of stereotypes, latent homophobia is kinda cute:
ReplyDelete"...you probably learned how gay postmillennialism is..."
Zrim
Well of course you use stereotypes, Zrim, you're from Michigan. All Michiganians do that.
ReplyDeleteA couple of questions:
ReplyDeleteJason, when you refer to theocracy, are you using a broad definiton which would include theocratic monarchies and the system of government that was in place under the Judges?
Also, by using the words theocracy and exile, you aren't meaning to imply that the modern church is "God's chosen people" in the same manner that Israel was God's chosen people, areyou?
Also how do the two kingdoms apply to modern Israel?
The Heretic,
ReplyDelete1. Although the theocratic rules began once Joshua led the people across the Jordan (holy war, utter separation, &c), the theocracy wasn't truly typified until three elements were present: God's holy people, ruled in God's holy land, by God's holy king.
2. "Israel," according to Paul, consists of all those who dmonstrate that they are children of Abraham by trusting in Christ like Abraham did. So yes, all who are a part of God's church are members of the true Israel. I'm not sure if this answers your second question or not.
3. This all applies to modern-day Israel in the same way it applies to modern-day Lithuania: Lithuanians and Israelis must repent of their sins and believe in Jesus to be saved.
"Also, by using the words theocracy and exile, you aren't meaning to imply that the modern church is "God's chosen people" in the same manner that Israel was God's chosen people, areyou?"
ReplyDeleteWow. Talk about assuming the answer in your question...
JJS,
ReplyDeleteNo, you have Michiganders confused with Michiganians. The former use stereotypes. Michiganians not so much, but that's because they are all gay.
Zrim
1.
ReplyDelete"Although the theocratic rules began once Joshua led the people across the Jordan (holy war, utter separation, &c), the theocracy wasn't truly typified until three elements were present: God's holy people, ruled in God's holy land, by God's holy king."
What would you consider pre-Joshua then? It's not "theocracy" according to your definition because they are not ruled in God's holy land, although they are still ruled by God's appointee, but can it be "exile" if there is not yet a holy land to be exiled from? What would we characterize this?
2.
"'Israel,' according to Paul, consists of all those who dmonstrate that they are children of Abraham by trusting in Christ like Abraham did. So yes, all who are a part of God's church are members of the true Israel. I'm not sure if this answers your second question or not."
Do all of God's promises to Israel apply to the modern church then? And what about Israel's obligations to God? Does the church have those same obligations? (I assume you aren't a reconstructionist/theonomist from your earlier statements that Christians should not try to institute a theocracy in their secular governments...)
3.
"This all applies to modern-day Israel in the same way it applies to modern-day Lithuania: Lithuanians and Israelis must repent of their sins and believe in Jesus to be saved."
Would modern Israel be considered to be in exile then, since they have no Holy king/appointee? It seems like an odd thing to say that modern Israel is currently exiled even though they are clearly in control of the proper real estate. It would be equally odd to say that modern Israel is a theocracy in the same manner ancient Israel was. Is it possible that this is an indication of an option outside of the scope of exile/theocracy distinction? Or do you have an explanation for how one of the two actually applies to modern Israel?
"Wow. Talk about assuming the answer in your question..."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't necessarily assuming the answer, but pointing out that the answer seemed likely to me based on the totality of his statements... and I always ask about any ambiguities before I simply assume that another person holds to a position. However, I recognize that the question would have been better worded if it were in the affirmative rather than the negative.
TH,
ReplyDelete1. Well, if Eden was a theocracy (which I believe it was), then the "exile" label applies more broadly than just to the capitves in Babylon. So Abraham, Daniel, and I are all in the same context, i.e., awating a homeland.
2. No, the obligations upon Israel by virtue of the Mosaic Covenant (essentially "Do this and live")were fulfilled for us by Jesus, the true Israelite. He fulfilled the law which both Adam and Israel failed to fulfill, and he secured for us the inheritance that Adam forfeited, and which Israel also (typologically) lost.
3. The modern nation-state of Israel has no significance at all. So modern Israel is neither a theocracy nor in exile, any more than Lithuania is. With the coming of Christ, all the shadowy types of the OC (like earthly people, earthly land, and earthly kings) are forever expired.