Lee Irons has posted a critique of Scott Clark:
It doesn’t surprise me that a smart, sophisticated guy like Lee can argue circles around Clark. Clark is simply not in the same weight division.
So I don’t find myself in disagreement with anything Lee says here. But what about his own version of the two-kingdom theory?
Let’s step back a few paces. Ancient Israel was a theocratic nation-state. As a consequence, its law code reflects both aspects of its hybrid identity.
Some of its laws reflect the cultic holiness of Israel. That’s unique and unrepeatable.
But its civil and criminal laws reflect the fact that Israel was also a nation-state. Like any nation-state, it needed civil and criminal laws. This is not distinctive to the otherwise unique role of Israel.
Now Klineans tend to treat the whole law code as if it were a preview of eschatological justice and judgment. Therefore, none of it applies today.
But this is frankly absurd. The Mosaic law code doesn’t have laws and penalties regarding national defense, statecraft, property crimes, sex crimes, crimes of violence, and so on, because it’s a type of the final judgment. Any nation-state will have to have this sort of thing to uphold public justice and order. Otherwise, social life is impossible.
Some of the laws are obsolete because they codify a now-defunct socioeconomic system. But many of the laws exemplify generic norms that are still applicable to modernity.