Fourth Misrepresentation of Kline

“Kline so emphasized the works aspect of the Mosaic covenant that he denied that it was in any sense an administration of the covenant of grace. He overemphasized the discontinuity and downplayed or denied the continuity.”

Not true. It is true that the polemical context of Kline’s covenant thought pushed him to emphasize the works aspect of the Mosaic covenant. He was responding to John Murray’s recasting of covenant theology in which he defined the biblical concept of covenant as a sovereign administration of grace and promise. This, of course, meant that the Mosaic covenant had to be seen as a covenant of guaranteed grace, and the promises and conditions of that covenant had to be understood as no different in principle from the demand for obedience, within the context of grace, that we see in the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant. Kline was concerned that this recasting of covenant theology, by making all covenants fit into a single mold, would destroy the law-gospel contrast and have ripple effects on one’s understanding of justification (as proved true with Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision). For this reason, Kline will not make all covenants fit into a single mold and will insist that some covenants are of the works variety and others of the grace variety.

On the other hand, while insisting on upholding the law-gospel distinction in covenant theology, Kline was too careful to react the other way and completely rupture the continuity of the Mosaic covenant with the Abrahamic covenant on the one side and with the new covenant on the other side. That is what I want to address here - the perception that Kline took the law-gospel distinction so far that he denied or downplayed the continuity of the covenant of grace under its various administrations.

This relates to the second misrepresentation in which it is claimed that Kline taught that the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the Adamic covenant of works. If the Mosaic covenant were a simple republication of the Adamic covenant of works, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to see how the Mosaic covenant of works could be organically connected with the Abrahamic covenant of promise. But Kline recognized that the Mosaic covenant was an intrusion of the works principle into the midst of a fallen situation precisely for the purpose of advancing the overarching redemptive program of the covenant of grace.  The introduction of the typological and hypothetical works principle did not annul the underlying Abrahamic promise. Here we must cite Gal 3:17 as Kline himself does again and again to underscore the point: “The law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void” (ESV). Indeed, the law not only does not annul the Abrahamic promise, it is actually a crucial step in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. For God put the works principle in place at the top layer precisely to provide the covenantal setting for the arrival of Abraham’s Seed who fulfills the law’s works principle in order to fulfill the underlying Abrahamic promise. As Paul says two verses later: “Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come” (Gal 3:19 NIV).

Here are some key quotes where Kline recognizes the continuities – both the continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the prior Abrahamic covenant and the continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the subsequent new covenant.

Let us begin with a general statement by Kline of the Mosaic order’s continuity with previous and subsequent administrations of the covenant of grace:

“Classic covenantalism recognizes that the old Mosaic order (at its foundation level – that is, as a program of individual salvation in Christ) was in continuity with previous and subsequent administrations of the overarching covenant of grace” (“Gospel until the Law,” 434, emphasis added).

The Mosaic covenant governing the top layer of the Mosaic economy is not itself an administration of the covenant of grace, but it is added at the top layer as part of God’s “overarching covenant of grace.”

We move, next, to the continuity from the Abraham covenant to the Mosaic covenant order:

“The old (Mosaic) covenant order, though in continuity with the Abrahamic covenant of promise and even an initial fulfillment of its kingdom promises, was nevertheless itself governed by a principle of works” (KP 320, emphasis added).

I already explained this in an earlier post on Kline’s two-layer cake, so this should not come as a surprise here. The bottom layer of the Mosaic economy is the covenant of grace.

“Paul affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant did not annul the promise arrangement given earlier to Abraham (Gal 3:17). The explanation for this is that the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum. There was a foundational stratum having to do with the personal attainment of the eternal kingdom of salvation and this underlying stratum, continuous with all preceding and succeeding administrations of the Lord’s Covenant of Grace with the church, was informed by the principle of grace (cf., e.g., Rom 4:16). Because the Abrahamic covenant of promise found continuity in the Mosaic order at this underlying level, it was not abrogated by the latter. The works principle in the Mosaic order was confined to the typological sphere of the provisional earthly kingdom which was superimposed as a secondary overlay on the foundational stratum” (KP 321, emphasis added). 

“It was [Paul’s] recognition of the simultaneous presence, within the Mosaic economy, of the underlying stratum with its principle of grace controlling the reception of the eternal kingdom that made it possible for him to affirm that the Mosaic Covenant had not annulled God’s promise to Abraham” (“Of Works and Grace,” 86, emphasis added).

Having looked at the continuity from Abraham to Moses, here are some Kline quotes on the continuity from Moses to the new covenant:

“We must conclude that between the old covenant and the new covenant there is contrast as well as continuum. There is a continuum of sovereign soteric grace in Christ with respect to eternal salvation and the inheritance of heaven. But there is a contrast in that the old covenant involved a secondary, typological sphere in which a principle was introduced quite the opposite of the grace-promise-faith principle” (“Of Works and Grace,” 87, emphasis added).

“The new covenant is not a renewal of an older covenant in the sense of confirming the continuing validity of the old. If we speak of the new covenant as a renewal of the old it must be to express their continuity as two administrations of the Covenant of Grace or, more specifically, the continuity of the new covenant with the underlying, foundational stratum of the old covenant, the substratum of gospel-grace as the way to the ultimate heavenly hope in Christ” (KP 345, emphasis added).

The next three quotes are from Kline’s last book, God, Heaven and Har Magedon (published in 2006, a year before he died). This book, along with Kingdom Prologue, represents his most mature thought honed over decades of teaching biblical theology and covenant theology. The formulations that Kline uses in his last book actually took me by surprise:

“The overarching Covenant of Grace ... was to unfold in several premessianic administrations (including the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants) and have its full, culminating expression in the New Covenant” (GHHM 75).

“Carrying forward the Abrahamic Covenant as they do, both the Old and New Covenants are ... administrations of the Covenant of Grace. Foundational to both these covenantal orders is the purpose and program of individual election in Christ unto salvation and the heavenly inheritance” (GHHM 96).

“The Law covenant was a sub-administration of the Covenant of Grace, designed to further the purpose and program of the gospel” (GHHM 128-29).

Kline clearly affirms that the covenant of grace unfolded in several administrations (including the Mosaic covenant!) and that this overarching covenant of grace reached its culmination in the new covenant.

I do not think Kline is contradicting himself. He is not saying that the Mosaic covenant itself (the covenant between God and Israel that was inaugurated at Sinai) was a covenant of grace. It was not. It was a covenant of the works variety. But he is saying that God’s establishment of this Mosaic covenant of works was designed to advance the covenant of grace and that therefore it was a sub-administration of the covenant of grace. To use the language of some 17th century Reformed theologians, it was a “subservient covenant” intended not to be an end in itself but to look ahead to the coming Seed who would be born under it and fulfill it and thereby bring about the consummation of the covenant of grace.

Comments

[GLW Johnson]

I see that somebody over at Ref21 must have likewise thought that the positive review of the book critiquing Kline needed to be offset by linking your assessment of Kline.

[Lee]

Thanks, yes. Scott Swain posted a link to my series. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/03/a-couple-of-biblical-theology.php

[Brandon Adams]

Hi Lee, I appreciate your work in this series. However, I'm not convinced by this particular defense. Kline's view of the Mosaic Covenant was essentially the same as John Owen's, yet Owen was very clear in his rejection of the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.

I posted my comments here since it contained long quotes from Owen and Calvin https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/kline-on-administration-of-the-covenant-of-grace/

I'd love to hear your thoughts

[Lee]

Brandon,

I agree that for Kline the Mosaic law is not the same in substance as the Abrahamic covenant, as Paul himself clearly states (Gal 3:15-19).

But that is a different question from whether the new covenant is the same in substance with the Abrahamic covenant, including its continuation in the Mosaic economy at the lower layer (the OT sacrificial and ceremonial system). I take it that this is what Calvin is referring to when he speaks of "the old covenant." I agree with Calvin and WCF VII.5-6 that these two covenants - the Abrahamic-under-the-Mosaic-economy (aka the old covenant) and the new covenant - are the same in substance. As Calvin argues, they have the same promises, the same hope of eternal life, and offer the same salvation. As WCF VII.6 states, they are the same in substance because Christ himself is the substance.

Now, what about the "administration" question? Is the Mosaic covenant in any sense an administration of the Abrahamic covenant? Again, I go back to Gal 3:15-24 to guide me here.

If by "administration of the covenant of grace" we mean that the Mosaic law was added to the Abrahamic in such a way that it changed the terms of the Abrahamic by making the inheritance depend on law-keeping, then No. As Paul says, that would make the promise void, for if the inheritance depends on keeping the law, then it no longer comes by promise, but God gave it to Abraham by a promise (v 18).

But if by "administration of the covenant of grace" we mean that the Mosaic law was added as a temporary pedagogue to show Israel their inability to inherit by law-keeping and to provide the historical context for the Seed to come, to whom the Abrahamic promise referred, then Yes. As Paul says, the law was not contrary to the promises of God, for it was given precisely to imprison everyone under sin so that the promise might be fulfilled by Christ (vv 19-24).

Reformed scholastics may complain that the terminology is being used with a different meaning. Fine, let them complain. Who made them lord of our theological lexicon? But Kline wants to be able to use the "administration" language because it captures something important in biblical-theology, namely, that there has only ever been one way of salvation for all the elect in all ages, and that God was not working at cross-purposes but was pursuing one single plan of salvation.

[Brandon Adams]

No, Calvin and WCF VII.7 do not mean "the Abrahamic-under-the-Mosaic-economy". They are very clear that they are referring to the Mosaic Covenant, which they saw as equally the covenant of grace as the Abrahamic.

"Fine, let them complain. Who made them lord of our theological lexicon? But Kline wants to be able to use the "administration" language because it captures something important in biblical-theology, namely, that there has only ever been one way of salvation for all the elect in all ages, and that God was not working at cross-purposes but was pursuing one single plan of salvation."

Well, words having meaning and when you use this phrase, you're making an historical, confessional claim. What is the point in defending Kline's view of the mosaic covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace if you're just going to redefine what the phrase means? You're not actually responding to what I or Owen said. Owen is clear that believing God was pursuing one single plan of salvation is not sufficient to view the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace. The point is clear in all of the writings of the time: to view the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace is to view it as the same covenant, not a different covenant.

Can you please tell me:

1) What view WCF 7.6 is denying

2) Where an advocate of the subservient covenant view stated their agreement that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace?

Here is a quote from Bolton in your paper, demonstrating what the phrase means:

"There is, however, a second opinion in which I find that the majority of our holy and most learned divines concur, namely, that though the law is called a covenant, yet it was not a covenant of works for salvation; nor was it a third covenant of works and grace; but it was the same covenant in respect of its nature and design under which we stand under the Gospel, even the covenant of grace, though more legally dispensed to the Jews. It differed not in substance from the covenant of grace, but in degree, say some divines, in the economy and external administration of it, say others. The Jews, they agree, were under infancy, and therefore under “a schoolmaster”. In this respect the covenant of grace under the law is called by such divines “foedus vetus” (the old covenant), and under the Gospel “foedus novum” (the new covenant): see Heb. 8:8. The one was called old, and the other new, not because the one was before the other by the space of four hundred and thirty years, but because the legal administrations mentioned were waxing old and decaying, and were ready to disappear and to give place to a more new and excellent administration. “That which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”. The one covenant was more obscurely administered, shadowed, darkened with shadows; the other was administered more perspicuously and clearly. The one was more onerous and burdensome, the other more easy and delightful. The one through the legal means of its administration gendered to bondage, the other to son-like freedom. All this may be seen clearly in Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1; Gal. 3:1-4:3. Hence, as Alsted tells us, the new and old covenants, the covenants of the law and Gospel, are both of them really covenants of grace, only differing in their administrations. That they were virtually the same covenant is alleged in Luke 1:72-75: “To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant”. What was “his holy covenant”? It is made clear in verse 74 that in substance it was the same as the covenant of grace: “That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.”"

[Brandon Adams]

Also, please provide an explanation for Owen's removal of 7.6 in Savoy http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_sdfo_lbcf.html#SDFO7

[Lee]

As usual, the debate is now devolving from exegesis to historical theology, which is disappointing. Brandon, you have not responded to my argument in the terms that Paul sets forth in Gal 3:19-24. Instead, you have responded using a different set of terms and categories that comes from 17th century Reformed scholasticism.

Brandon: “No, Calvin and WCF VII.7 do not mean ‘the Abrahamic-under-the-Mosaic-economy’. They are very clear that they are referring to the Mosaic Covenant, which they saw as equally the covenant of grace as the Abrahamic.”

I simply don’t agree. Calvin is very clear that the Mosaic covenant can be taken in a broad sense (as an administration of the covenant of grace) and in a narrow sense (the law strictly considered as a covenant of works). For example, in his commentary on Romans 10:5, he correlates the broad/narrow distinction with the two-fold office of Moses:

“Moses had this common office – to teach the people the true rule of religion. Since it was so ... it behooved him to be a preacher of the gospel; which office he faithfully performed, as it appears from many passages ... But as evangelic promises are only found scattered in the writings of Moses, and these also somewhat obscure, and as the precepts and rewards, allotted to the observers of the law, frequently occur, it rightly appertained to Moses as his own and peculiar office, to teach what is the real righteousness of works, and then to show what remuneration awaits the observance of it, and what punishment awaits those who come short of it ... And whenever the word law is thus strictly taken, Moses is by implication opposed to Christ: and then we must consider what the law contains, as separate from the gospel.”

As far as the WCF goes, I can affirm every word of WCF VII.5-6. Nowhere does the WCF say that the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai was an administration of the covenant of grace.

Brandon: “Well, words having meaning and when you use this phrase, you’re making an historical, confessional claim.”

That’s how you took it, but when I wrote the post I honestly did not think I was making a historical, confessional claim. Go back and look at the wording I used in response to the fourth misrepresentation of Kline, especially the words “in any sense” (“Kline so emphasized the works aspect of the Mosaic covenant that he denied that it was in any sense an administration of the covenant of grace”). I am addressing a more general concern that Kline so emphasized the discontinuity that he downplayed the continuity of the covenant of grace and the unity of God’s redemptive plan.

Brandon: “Can you please tell me 1) What view WCF 7.6 is denying ... Also, please provide an explanation for Owen’s removal of 7.6 in Savoy.”

I don’t know the answers to these intriguing questions. I’m not a historical theologian. But I’ll say it again, I can affirm every word of WCF VII.5-6. And I say that is one who has no problem registering exceptions to the Confession where warranted.

Finally, I would like to bring this discussion back from a barren debate over historical theology to exegesis once more. I realize that may be asking too much, but I will keep trying. Paul in Gal 3:15-24 seems to think there is a sense in which the Mosaic covenant is not an administration of the Abrahamic covenant (vv 15-18) and a sense in which it is (vv 19-24). Following in the footsteps of the apostle, that is what Kline is trying to say, and it is important for Kline (and Paul) to be heard.

[Brandon Adams]

Lee, this entire post is a question about historical theology, not exegesis. "Administration of the covenant of grace" is not a Scriptural phrase. It is a confessional phrase with an historical and particular meaning. You are responding to critics that say Kline does not agree with this historic and confessional position. So complaining that we're "devolving from exegesis into historical theology" is a red herring. It's very disingenuous since I have already stated I disagree with Westminster's exegesis of these texts and am in much closer agreement with Kline (I just disagree with his view that the Abrahamic and New are one).

"That’s how you took it, but when I wrote the post I honestly did not think I was making a historical, confessional claim. Go back and look at the wording I used in response to the fourth misrepresentation of Kline, especially the words “in any sense” (“Kline so emphasized the works aspect of the Mosaic covenant that he denied that it was in any sense an administration of the covenant of grace”)."

Can you link me to the criticism that you are responding to? All the criticism I have ever seen on this point regarding Kline is specifically over the historic and confessional meaning of the phrase.

What is there to respond to in Gal 3:19-24? The question addressed in this post and criticism is not "What is the correct exegesis of Gal 3:19-24?" But instead "Which interpretation of Gal 3:19-24 did Kline adopt?" Did he adopt the view that the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, or did he adopt the view that the Mosaic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. It's just a basic issue of being clear. Again, simply saying that, based on Gal 3, the Mosaic Covenant serves the purpose of the Covenant of Grace does not mean Kline believed the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Co-opting historical terminology and redefining them is not a helpful way to engage in theological discourse. If you just like the phrase, but not the meaning, then why not just say "Kline believed the Mosaic Covenant served the purpose of the Covenant of Grace?" That's a pretty clear statement without making any claim to the historic view that he does not agree with.

"I simply don’t agree. Calvin is very clear that the Mosaic covenant can be taken..."

Note what is absent from your quote from Calvin: "The Mosaic Covenant". In Romans 10:5, Calvin is not discussing the nature of the Mosaic Covenant (something he does do in the quote I provided, and Owen references). He is discussing Mosaic revelation, which is not the same thing. Your quote does not address the issue being discussed, whereas what I have provided is the entire foundation of the issue being discussed. Calvin's entire point in 2.11 is to demonstrate at length that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant.

"Following in the footsteps of the apostle, that is what Kline is trying to say, and it is important for Kline (and Paul) to be heard."

Absolutely! And as I have said, I agree largely with Kline's interpretation over against Calvin & the WCF. But if you want Kline and Paul to be heard, don't feel the need to mis-use historic language. Kline and Paul will be much more loudly heard if we use language correctly. That's why Owen is such a megaphone on this issue.

[Lee]

Brandon, you claim that “administration of the covenant of grace” is “a confessional phrase with an historical and particular meaning.”

Can you show me where the Westminster Confession says that the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai is an administration of the covenant of grace? I don’t see it. Instead, I see statements such as the following, which Kline would affirm without reservation:

WLC #34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

WCF VII.5: This covenant [= the covenant of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

[Lee]

Brandon, you asked, "Can you link me to the criticism that you are responding to?"

In my 20+ years of being in Reformed Presbyterian circles, the main criticism of Kline that I heard was that he overemphasized the law-gospel contrast and downplayed or denied the unity and continuity of the covenant of grace throughout redemptive history.

For example, Greg Bahnsen called Kline's position "the functional equivalent of dispensationalism" (No Other Standard [1991], p. 122). Also Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case (1996), p. 190.

Maybe I'm still stuck in the 1990s.

"All the criticism I have ever seen on this point regarding Kline is specifically over the historic and confessional meaning of the phrase."

Can you point me to where I can read this specific criticism?

[Lee]

Anyway, I'm glad that you agree (in the main) with Kline's interpretation of the Mosaic covenant. And I'm happy to acknowledge your point that Kline would not say that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace if that terminology is understood in such a way as to make the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai the same in substance with the Abrahamic covenant or the covenant of grace. It seems self-evident to me that such a construction of the relationship between the Mosaic and the Abrahamic covenants would be in conflict with the plain sense of Gal 3:15-18.

[Brandon Adams]

Lee, please forgive my ungracious tone above. I appreciate your willingness to interact and I value your contribution.

"Can you show me where the Westminster Confession says that the Mosaic covenant enacted at Sinai is an administration of the covenant of grace? I don’t see it."

I should have been more clear in my post, but there are two steps involved here:
1) The Subservient Covenant view denies that the mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace.
2) The WCF rejects the subservient covenant view.

My focus was on 1) and I did not mean to distract with 2). But notice what your above question grants. It grants 1) and moves on to 2). I believe 7.6 affirms that the Mosaic Covenant is of the same substance as the Covenant of Grace, thus rejecting the subservient view.

"Can you point me to where I can read this specific criticism?"

In addition to Ramsey's essay In Defense of Moses that I referenced, please see the other essays here https://sites.google.com/site/mosaiccovenant/reading

"It seems self-evident to me that such a construction of the relationship between the Mosaic and the Abrahamic covenants would be in conflict with the plain sense of Gal 3:15-18."

I agree, which is why it seems self-evident to me that the Westminster position is wrong. That position interprets the passage to be referring to the law abstracted from the covenant and thus abused/distorted contrary to its covenantal purpose. Venema explains the position with regards to this passage well in his review of TLNF, page 79.

[Lee]

No problem, I was not offended. I appreciate the dialogue as well. I am open to correction on all points - exegetical, historical, and confessional.

I have no compunction about saying the WCF is wrong when it's wrong (much to the chagrin of the OPC), so if I can be persuaded that the WCF teaches that the Mosaic covenant is the same in substance with the Abrahamic, then I'll take an exception. But on this point, it is going to take some work to get me to see the need to take an exception.

Thanks for spelling out the two-step argument. I had not seen it put that way before. That helps me to understand better where you and others are coming from. I guess it all depends on whether step two is true ("The WCF rejects the subservient covenant view"). That is a matter for the historians of the Assembly to illuminate us on, but WCF VII.5-6 doesn't exactly come across as a ringing rejection of the subservient covenant view.

I read Patrick Ramsey's article when it came out and I wasn't persuaded. It seemed to me that he only showed that some Reformed theologians around the time of the Assembly (like John Ball) viewed the Mosaic covenant as the same in substance with the covenant of grace. But that doesn't prove anything one way or the other about which views of the covenants the Westminster Assembly intended to rule in or out. After all, in certain areas where there was a lot of in-house discussion and debate among Reformed theologians, the WCF was a consensus document. And we know that the problem of the Mosaic covenant was precisely one of those areas.