Covenant Theology in biblical theological perspective observes the historical progression and interconnections between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. Leviticus 26 is a critical passage, for here the outpouring of the vengeance of the Mosaic Covenant is predicted. But Israel’s restoration after the exile, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Lev 26:42), is also foretold, which gives rise to the hope of a New Covenant. This covenantal triangle is the engine that drives the narrative arc of redemptive history, with the great preaching prophets (e.g., Isaiah) standing at the intersection, looking back on the ruins of the Old Covenant and forward to the glory of the coming New Covenant in Christ.
This episode of the Upper Register podcast is a visual presentation that builds Meredith Kline’s Biblical Theological Grid from Eden to the New Creation. This is how Kline conceived of the organism of special revelation, the step-by-step building of the Lego set, if you will. This is based on Professor Kline’s own chalkboard drawings at Westminster Seminary California around 1993. It’s not an exact reproduction, and I did make some adjustments, but it is pretty close. Due to the highly visual nature of this episode, you will definitely want to watch the YouTube version.
Debates over ethical questions abound in the church, particularly around the question of how we should engage in cultural activity in this present age. We can debate specific verses until the cows come home, but unless we recognize the fundamental role of Biblical Theology, we will never get anywhere. In this episode, I illustrate the usefulness of Biblical Theology for the debate between contemporary North American Neo-Calvinism and the Klinean Two Kingdoms paradigm of cultural engagement.
Video:
Audio:
I mentioned some of the crucial Biblical Theological distinctions made by Kline. Here are the quotes with more context:
On the refracted cultural mandate:
“Common grace culture is not itself the particular holy kingdom-temple culture that was mandated under the creational covenant. Although certain functional and institutional provisions of the original cultural mandate are resumed in the common grace order, these now have such a different orientation, particularly as to objectives, that one cannot simply and strictly say that it is the cultural mandate that is being implemented in the process of common grace culture. It might be closer to the truth to say that the cultural mandate of the original covenant in Eden is being carried out in the program of salvation, since the ultimate objective of that mandate, the holy kingdom-temple, will be the consummate achievement of Christ under the Covenant of Grace .... As brought over into the postlapsarian world, the cultural mandate undergoes such refraction that it cannot be identified in a simple, unqualified way with either the holy or common enterprises. Nevertheless, when dealing with postlapsarian functions and institutions, both common and holy-redemptive, it is important to recognize their creational rootage and the kind of continuities that do obtain between them and the terms of the original cultural mandate” (Kline, Kingdom Prologue [KP], 156-57).
On structural dualism after the Fall:
“We are in agreement with the neo-Dooyeweerdians when they account for the religious antithesis evident in the life of the city by treating it not in terms of the structural nature of the city but as belonging to the direction of the response given to the city-mandate in the fallen situation. By relating the religious antithesis to the directional aspect and not to the structural aspect, the institutional legitimacy of the city can be properly affirmed. Unfortunately, however, in a philosophical zeal for an abstract structural monism apparently, the neo-Dooyeweerdians commit themselves to a view of historical reality within which the Creator himself would not be allowed to respond to the Fall with appropriate modifications of the institutional structuring of the original creation. Specifically, he would not be free to introduce a structural dualism in which there coexisted legitimately both holy kingdom institution and non-holy institution. Or, stated in other terms, the cosmonomic philosophy does not seem able to do justice to the impact of historical-eschatological developments on the created world-order” (KP 170).
On subjective sanctification of culture:
“We have considered the priestly mission of sanctifying culture as it comes to expression in the building of the holy people-house of God, but what would it entail with respect to the common city of man? Positively, it must be recognized that the whole life of God’s people is covered by the liturgical model of their priestly identity. All that they do is done as a service rendered unto God. All their cultural activity in the sphere of the city of man they are to dedicate to the glory of God. This sanctification of culture is subjective; it transpires within the spirit of the saints. Negatively, it must be insisted that this subjective sanctification of culture does not result in a change from common to holy status in culture objectively considered. The common city of man does not in any fashion or to any degree become the holy kingdom of God through the participation of the culture-sanctifying saints in its development. Viewed in terms of its products, effects, institutional context, etc., the cultural activity of God’s people is common grace activity. Their city of man activity is not ‘kingdom (of God)’ activity. Though it is an expression of the reign of God in their lives, it is not a building of the kingdom of God as institution or realm. For the common city of man is not the holy kingdom realm, nor does it ever become the holy city of God, whether gradually or suddenly. Rather, it must be removed in judgment to make way for the heavenly city as a new creation” (KP 201).
Systematic Theology draws a circle and examines the logical relationships between doctrines; Biblical Theology draws a line and traces the historical progress of special revelation. Biblical Theology does not replace Systematic Theology but it supports and strengthens it by helping us to see the true Scriptural basis of our doctrines. For example, how do we know there is such a thing as “the covenant of grace” and “the covenant of works”? Are these just logically derived theological constructs, or are they really taught in Scripture? Biblical Theology is useful for Systematics because it shows how doctrines are not ad hoc church dogmas supported by a handful of doubtful proof texts, but are deeply imbedded in the Organism of special revelation.
As Geerhardus Vos said: “Biblical Theology relieves to some extent the unfortunate situation that even the fundamental doctrines of the faith should seem to depend mainly on the testimony of isolated proof-texts. There exists a higher ground on which conflicting religious views can measure themselves as to their Scriptural legitimacy. In the long run that system will hold the field which can be proven to have grown organically from the main stem of revelation, and to be interwoven with the very fibre of Biblical religion” (Biblical Theology, 17-18).
I said Edmund Clowney’s gem of a book, Preaching and Biblical Theology (1961), was out of print, but I discovered afterward that it was reprinted by P&R in 2002.
Clowney writes: “If its [biblical theology’s] principle is grasped, it cannot be optional or superficial. Its approach is rather an essential step in the interpretation of the Bible .... In tracing the progress of revelation, biblical theology rests upon the unity of the primary authorship of Scripture and the organic continuity of God’s work in redemption and revelation. The Old Testament saints looked forward to Messiah’s day; they saw it and were glad. We, too, who know Christ’s finished work which brought in the end of the ages, look forward to the blessed hope of his appearing” (pp. 87-88).
“The method of biblical-theological preaching involves simply the proper use of these principles in the explanation of the sermon text. Its perspective clarifies the meaning of the text, emphasizes its central message, and provides for sound application” (p. 88).
STEP ONE: “Relate the text to its immediate theological horizon,” (p. 88), to the particular moment of redemptive history in which it is located.
STEP TWO: “Relate the event of the text, by way of its proper interpretation in its own period, to the whole structure of redemptive history; and in that way to us upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (p. 88).
Clowney is quoting 1 Cor 10:6, 11: “These things took place as examples (typoi) for us … These things happened to them as an example (typikōs), but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.”
“The objective unfolding of the events must be understood in unity with the subjective response of faith or of unbelief, and this in terms of the stage of redemption and revelation which has been reached” (p. 88). “The Israelites are examples, not as an ancient people whose experiences happened to resemble ours in certain respects, but as the people of God, occupying a particular place in the plan of the ages, that is, in the history of redemption” (p. 79).
Applying these principles to the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17): “These two elements fit in perfect harmony. The theological interpretation, the redemptive-historical interpretation, is on David’s own lips as he goes into battle …. By the unction of the Spirit, David had insight into his own role in redemptive history. He understands the nature of Israel and the purpose of the existence of this nation. He also understands the nature of the covenant God, his omnipotence, and his faithfulness. Further, he understands his own position as an instrument of the Lord. His power is of the Lord who saves not with sword and spear, for the battle is his. Do we not perceive that David’s possession, in a measure, of this insight was necessary to his role in redemptive history? Indeed, is not this the issue in the rejection of Saul and the establishment of the kingdom in David’s hands?” (p. 83).
“In David’s later testing through the persecution of Saul, it is this principle in his own understanding that is repeatedly challenged by circumstances and embraced by faith. The true theocratic King must be one whose glory is the name of God, who comes not in his own name but in the name of the God who sends him” (p. 83).
“The real ethical and religious issues in David’s own experience are in perfect congruity with the significance of the redemptive history, for David himself perceives the nature of those issues, and his stature and usefulness in the history of redemption depend upon the fact that he does so. Saul, of course, has a negative role in the history of redemption because of his failure to perceive the issues; but the connection between the ethical and the redemptive-historical is the same” (p. 84).
“In connecting our experience with David’s we need only to understand that we upon whom the ends of the ages are come are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. [‘The feeblest among them shall be like David,’ Zech 12:8 ESV]. Each of us has official responsibility to exalt the name of the Lord of hosts before the people of God and the world” (p. 84).
“When we thus approach the Scriptures, ready to appreciate the [mental] grasp of the ‘redemptive-historical figures’ upon the principles of redemption, we are using a scriptural method. We have only to recall the descriptions of Abraham and Moses in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews to see that this is so. These men were not only actors in the great redemptive-historical movement that culminated in Christ. They themselves looked for Christ, and they possessed this Christian hope not as a bare prophetic enigma but as a living hope, full of meaning for their daily consciousness and experience. It conformed to the deepest realities of their religious life as they hungered and thirsted for God. They saw and greeted the promises from afar. They confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth – even as we, who have here no abiding city – and they desired that heavenly country, that city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (p. 84).