The special Israelite manifestation of the kingdom of heaven was indeed a [Divinely established] “intrusive” phenomenon in the common grace order. Appropriately, in connection with the symbolic kingdom-intrusion under the old covenant there were also in-breakings of the power of eschatological restoration in the physical realm and anticipatory applications of the principle of final redemptive judgment in the conduct of the political life of Israel, notably in the deliverance from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, and the restoration from exile, though also throughout the governmental-judicial provisions of the Mosaic laws [that is, the old covenant “civil law”].
In messianic as well as in premessianic times the intrusion of the heavenly consummate reality has been accompanied by symbols of various sorts. There have been prophetic typological symbols of the coming intrusion in the Son, and there have been sacramental symbols of the already realized intrusion through the Spirit – holy signs all of the presence of another world-aeon [that is, the “eschaton” or New Creation] within the historical order of common grace.
Recognition of the exceptional intrusive character of things holy within the common world is of vital importance in biblical hermeneutics, particularly in the interpretation of Old Testament legislation and prophecy. When interpreting laws, we must constantly reckon with the possibility that a particular stipulation of the old covenant was shaped to a greater or lesser degree by the unique intrusive nature of the holy-kingdom order which was regulated by that covenant.
Since the intruded holiness of the heavenly kingdom extended to the Israelite theocratic structure as a whole, to its cultural as well as cultic [worship related] dimensions, we always have the responsibility, whether dealing with laws of cultic ceremony or laws of community [including “civil”] life, to distinguish which features of Israelite law were peculiarly theocratic (or typologically symbolic) and which are still normative in our present nontheocratic situation. In the area of institutional functions we must avoid the [interpretative] fallacy of assigning to common grace civil governance “kingdoms” the distinctive functions prescribed for Israel as a holy, confessional, redemptive kingdom. For example, we must not impose on common grace civil governance the duty of punishing sins against the first four laws² of the Decalogue as though they were civil offenses [crimes].
Similarly, the interpreter must take full account of these same factors in the treatment of the curse and blessing sanctions that are affixed to the stipulations of the old covenant and are the core of kingdom prophecy. For example, one must determine whether a particular divine guarantee of earthly good is an intrusive feature of the life of theocratic Israel as prototypical symbol of the consummate kingdom of heaven, and therefore, not to be extended to individuals or nations within the nonholy, nontheocratic context of common grace. Thus, we will not misapply a text like Psalm 33:12 [“Blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh, the people whom He has chosen as His heritage”], appropriating for some common nation the blessing it pronounces on the holy covenantal kingdom of God (cf. Deuteronomy 32:9 [“But Yahweh’s portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage”]).
At the level of broad eschatological reconstructions, the biblical theologian who is aware of the intrusive nature of the holy within the common grace order will shun those premillennial and postmillennial views that posit a fulfillment of the kingdom prophecies in the form of a holy, specially protected and prospered, worldwide geopolitical institution before the advent of the world to come. Such a worldwide theocracy before the Consummation, he will perceive, would be a contradiction and indeed a premature abrogation of the common grace cultural order of this world.
Again, in this connection, it would be well to recall a point made above by way of introduction to the law of the creational covenant, namely, that all human activities are religious. In the postlapsarian world the people of God function in both the holy-cultic and the common-cultural spheres and as they do so they are to be conscious of doing all things, whether in the holy or common spheres, as a matter of thankful obedience to God and for his glory and thus as a religious service (Colossians 3:17,23).
Nevertheless, this religious integration of the believer’s life as a comprehensive service of Christ does not mean that the [objective] distinction between holy and common spheres gets obliterated³. On the contrary, it is precisely because of our religious commitment to obey the commandments of the Lord we love that we will honor and maintain this distinction which he has established in his covenant Word.
...
The common grace institution of civil governance was designed to provide for a pragmatic cooperation in the political task between the woman’s seed [believers] and the seed of the serpent [those not (yet) redeemed]. To fulfill that purpose, common grace civil governance had to be a non-confessional institution.
Every form of common grace civil governance participation in [faith] confession, whether through constitutional affirmation, official pronouncement, public ceremony, or the like, is a transgression of the boundaries set in the divine ordering of the distribution of cultural and cultic functions among the institutions of the postlapsarian world. Such cultic activity on the part of common grace civil governance, if it is not in confession of the living God, is, of course, idolatrous. But even if it is in acknowledgment of the God of the Christian Faith, it is guilty of a monstrous confusion of the holy kingdom of God with common grace civil kingdoms.
(Direct engagement of ancient Near Eastern kingdoms with the Israelite theocracy and its agents produced a typologically special situation, which imposed on the civil magistrates thus involved special demands that do not obtain otherwise, just as the theocracy itself constituted a special situation for the Israelite king, so that his involvement with the theocratic cultus is not normative for the rulers of common earthly kingdoms.)
Also forbidden to common grace civil governance in its exclusion from undertaking the cultic functions of the [redemptive] covenant community is the role of executing the discipline of the covenant cultus. For common grace civil governance to employ its coercive powers and sanctions to compel formal participation in [redemptive] covenantal cult and confession, as by enforcing compliance with the first four laws of the Decalogue, is a disastrous perversion of the nature of both the redemptive kingdom and common grace kingdoms.
On the other hand, common grace civil governance is not to hinder the holy covenant institution in the fulfilling of its peculiar mission, much less persecute or suppress it. Rather, common grace civil governance is designed by God to provide a [strictly limited] supportive framework for the life and mission of God’s covenant people, in keeping with the fundamental purpose of common grace to make possible a general history within which God’s redemptive program might unfold.
_______________
Notes
1. On page 167 Kline writes, “as used here [in Kingdom Prologue] the term ‘state’ corresponds to the broader application of it by anthropologists rather than to the restricted usage of it by political scientists for modern states with certain distinctive political features.” Accordingly, the more appropriate term “civil governance” has been used in the above selections to avoid misunderstanding. Other clarifying terms are added in brackets.
2. The criterion (both Scripturally and creationally revealed) for determining what constitutes a civil offense, or crime, outside the old covenant –and so something normatively, coercively-punishable– is, however, not whether it violates one of the last six laws of the Decalogue. Rather, the criterion is whether an act is a matter of initiating coercion (that is, “aggressing”) against the person or property of others. Although entailed by the creational norm of justice in light of the fall into sin, this criterion may also be understood on the basis of the principle of proportional retribution revealed in the lex talionis of Genesis 9:6 within the (postdiluvian) Noahic covenant that more explicitly established the common grace world order. This principle entails not only the extent to which coercion may be legitimately used, but whether it may be legitimately used at all. It necessarily and strictly limits the legitimate use of coercion to a responsive use, only in response to prior coercion, since coercion is disproportional to whatever is non-coercive. By God’s creationally-revealed and Scripturally-specified ordinance, coercion may only be legitimately used in proportional response to prior aggression (that is, to prior initiatory-coercion) against the person and property of others.
Importantly, since this principle is entailed by the creational (God-given in creation) norm of justice, preserved by (not originating with) common grace, it reflects God’s immutable character. While the principle of proportional retribution was expressed in a unique way, it was not actually violated by God, even under the old covenant where the normal operations of the common grace order were temporarily suspended by Him. In the typological theocracy, God exercised a special prerogative over a geopolitical realm and inhabitants that He does not exercise under the normal operations of common grace. Because God claimed a more “direct” ownership over the holy land and people in it, cherem warfare and the death penalty for blasphemy, for example, did not constitute aggressions against the person or property "of others,” as they do outside the old covenant.
For more on this, see The Reformed Libertarians Podcast.
3. On page 201 of Kingdom Prologue, Kline writes: “[The] subjective sanctification of [a believer’s cultural activity] does not result in a change from common to holy status in culture objectively considered…. Though it is an expression of the reign [kingdom] of God in their lives, it is not a building of the [redemptive] kingdom of God [objectively] as institution or realm.”