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.