20 April 2020

Mohlerian Hermeneutics and Coronavirus Theology (Part 1)


Albert Mohler offers what he calls the biblical approach to the responsibility laid upon us with regard to governing authorities. These are questions of hermeneutics and theology, the interpretation of the Scriptures and how these ideas are woven together and integrated into a larger system of ideas and practices. In other words the theology he presents (as is the case with all theology) will bear fruit in the realm of ethics.


The Christian Worldview (we're told) 'actually speaks to the crisis we now face and the issues of shelter in place and quarantine'. How do we know this? Mohler turns to Leviticus and argues that the leprosy codes are applicable to this situation.
This is telling and reveals a great deal about Mohler's understanding of the Scriptures and the ideas he utilises in interpreting them. First, it must be argued that contrary to Mohler's simple analogy, the context of Leviticus is covenantal. These are laws given to the Hebrews, they are not laws for the Egyptians, the Edomites or for the Babylonians. How do we know this? We could appeal to the very directed prologue of the Ten Commandments and certainly the way the later prophets treat the Law and Israel vis-à-vis their moral denunciations of the non-covenantal nations. Those nations are never held to the same holy covenantal standard. They are judged for their wickedness but they're never called to account for neglecting the dietary laws, the Sabbath, the temple-sacrificial system or the laws surrounding skin disease. In other words the Mosaic Law was never meant to be universal in its application.
These laws are covenantal and holy, contained within a theocratic framework. It is the priest who assesses and pronounces judgment with regard to the skin condition.
So we must ask:
Is the Mosaic Law still in effect?
Do we have Levitical priests?
If the answer to either question is 'no', then we must ask to what extent is this even applicable to us, a nation that has no part in God's covenant?
Mohler might argue on the basis of general equity which is a concept expressed in the Reformed confessional tradition. It argues that the Mosaic Law can be divided into different categories, some of which remain fully valid like the Moral Law which they believe to be the Decalogue. Some are obsolete, like the so-called Ceremonial laws dealing with sacrifice and kosher laws and things on that order. And others (like the so-called civil codes) survive in the form of general equity. The specifics don't apply but the general thrust of the laws and the ideas they encapsulate would still survive.
Now it's no great to challenge to argue from the New Testament that this three-fold paradigm is in error and thus can be dismissed out of hand. The New Testament never divides the law up into these categories. These categories are the creations of the theologians which seek to utilise the Old Testament in a way it's not meant to be used and these same theologians remained resistant (as do their progeny) to the full implications of the New Testament with regard to the Church and society. Determined to forge a sacral social order they find no support in the New Testament and thus must turn to the Old. And yet this is problematic on many fronts and so they have sought to create a paradigm that allows them to selectively utilise the Old Testament when it comes to civil law in the New Covenant era. This is what Mohler is doing.
Now we can reject the equity argument and the three-fold paradigm, but for the sake of argument, let's play along.
Now in Leviticus it's the job of the priest to declare what Mohler calls 'the quarantine' as being over.
Now is this a case of civil or ceremonial code?
Mohler would have to say 'civil' and yet the law calls for a priest to make the declaration. How is that not ceremonial given that the priest is part of the typological tabernacle-temple order centred on the sacrificial system and the holiness code?
This is actually a perfect example of why both the confessional model and concept of equity fails and why Theonomy (the extremist version of this paradigm) in all its varieties is erroneous. The Old Testament itself doesn't support their thesis, let alone when one reads it in light of the New Testament.
What, is the priest supposed to be replaced by a medical worker or someone official within the health department? Is that the analogy? Mohler seems to think so. I'm afraid I would have to argue that such a de-covenantalised view of the law is tantamount to sacrilege.
He argues that 'the people of Israel had specific quarantine instructions put in place by God in order to protect the larger community and promote the common good'.
And where does it say that? This is an inference made by Mohler. It's actually the same kind of liberal argument used to interpret the kosher laws in reference to their dietary value. Whether they had dietary value or not is immaterial as are the 'common good' arguments being used with regard to skin disease.
The point of these laws is that they were 'ceremonial', part of the holiness code that set apart God's people as unique, His own peculiar people. It's a lesson in sin and corruption and in the holiness required to be part of God's Kingdom. It's not about the common good. It's all part of the typology that points to and is fulfilled in Christ.
How do I know this? Well apart from arguments made within the New Testament itself the text in Leviticus tells me. It's a discussion about clean and unclean, the holy and the profane. These are not medical terms but theological categories dealing with ceremonial purity and sin.
How would Mohler interpret the bird-blood ritual in Leviticus 14? Undoubtedly he would argue that's obsolete. But why? This was part of the discussion. Again, it's not medical. This is ceremonial. This is about sin and holiness and this is where Mohler's Baptistic and thus non-Redemptive-Historical theology comes into play.
Not only does he misinterpret and misapply Leviticus drawing a false analogy between covenant Israel and the United States government, he misses the real thrust of the story... Christ. Mohler like many other Evangelicals and Confessionalists is governed by a non-Christocentric hermeneutic and as such is bound to misunderstand the Old Testament.
The types and symbols, the whole order that was the basis of the Mosaic system was anticipatory pointing to Christ and teaching in hands-on tactile terms the gospel – the condemnation of man and the way that God provides for redemption and reconciliation. The promises are yea and amen in Christ (2 Cor 1.20).  The book of Hebrews also makes this clear pointing to Christ as the culmination of the Law, its fulfillment and thus also its abrogation and obsolescence.
To pick and choose and arbitrarily divide passages in order to force them into an application for the modern social order is a case of bad hermeneutics rooted in bad theology.
Mohler seems to sense the difficulty by qualifying his rather dubious applied exegesis by saying:
While the Levitical instructions are not synonymous with the demands coming from American authorities, there are haunting similarities, especially with regards to the principles of love of neighbor that direct the injunctions in the biblical text.
I don't think anyone would say they're synonymous but Mohler is saying they're analogous. But then he jumps to love of neighbour, a valid and applicable concept to be sure but that's quite a leap from talking about leprosy. Leviticus does mention the concept of love thy neighbour in chapter 19. The immediate context is different, in reference to defrauding one's neighbour, exploiting the poor and weak or spreading lies and tales. Later in the same chapter it's repeated but in reference to the stranger among them.
Now I will grant that in a larger contextual sweep, the laws are certainly summarised in the basic concepts of love for God and neighbour. The New Testament itself teaches this. However, the Old Testament forms, the overlay is very different from the core concepts. Aren't the core concepts the general equity being spoken of in the Confessions? Confessionalists would say 'yes' and yet I would disagree. This argument assumes that we as New Testament Christians are to apply the covenant law and commands to the world around us and thus by doing so in a political context we enforce them by means of the sword.
I am more than willing to grant that core concepts from the Old Testament have an applicability. I would not draw a hyper-dispensational divide betwixt old and new. And yet, the applicability is limited to the covenant people that is, in the New Covenant, the Church of Jesus Christ. The Covenants of Promise referenced in Ephesians 2 apply to the Church, not the nations. America is not brought 'nigh by the blood of Christ', nor does it have any claim to the covenants and heritage of Old Testament Israel.
Additionally we're speaking of Spirit-enabled and activated concepts, the love of God and love of neighbour are not actually possible apart from the work of the Spirit. And so again, there is no applicability to the culture at large, apart from our testimony and the lives we live and how the Spirit chooses to use these to expand the reach of the gospel. The state is not a God-ordained means for spreading the gospel, it is not the venue the Holy Spirit works within and in fact our ethics and motivations are different and specifically contrasted with those of the state in Romans 12.
Further in Acts 15 we have the question of the law being addressed. Gentiles are not bound by it. Paul taught that no Christian is – but in Jerusalem (in converted Judaism) there was a toleration at work during the roughly 40 year period from the cross until the Temple was destroyed in AD70. The Gentiles were not bound by the law, that much is clear and yet they were exhorted to abstain from certain things in order not to offend their Jewish brethren. One of the examples, fornication is cut and dry, a question of sin. The others, eating things strangled, consuming blood, and meats offered to idols were not theologically derived from the law in the sense of Old Covenant ordinances that are still binding but rather were pragmatic concessions rooted in love. Where's the appeal to the law's general equity? It's not there. In fact, James' use of Amos in describing the Church and structuring the argument regarding the four things to be abstained of also defeats the argument because the old order is completely transformed and spiritualised in the advent of the Church – there is no appeal to equity. 
And so to draw an analogy between Old Testament laws and Levitical social supervision with the modern American state is a case of exegetical fallacy. And would he open this can of worms, this Pandora's Box? Let's say someone tries to replace US law with the Old Testament. Who decides how to apply this? Should I shave my head and eyebrows too? Does the state have the right to impose that and in God's name? Was that civil or ceremonial? In Old Testament Israel the answer would be 'yes', I would be bound – but today on theological grounds I would resist any state that tried to use the Bible in such a way, in fact even more so than I would a secular state attempting to issue intrusive and even absurd orders on a humanistic or arbitrary basis but without appealing to Scripture. The latter might be tyrannical but the former is blasphemous in its claims. Once the Scriptures are brought into play I have to evaluate the claims on a different level than I would some Babel-state trying to administer its Babel-lands.