Meredith Kline and Covenant Theology

[Stephen L Smith]

What do you think of Kline's Covenant Theology? I had a Reformed Baptist friend recently ask me but I don't know a lot about Kline. I assume part of this is the debate over the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. Interested in your thoughts.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

What do you think of Kline's Covenant Theology? I had a Reformed Baptist friend recently ask me but I don't know a lot about Kline. I assume part of this is the debate over the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. Interested in your thoughts.

Stephen G. Myers provides a helpful contextualization and review of Kline's covenant theology in his book, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture. Here is a snippet:

"Through these three emphases [John] Murray effectively achieved a recasting of covenant theology . . . Murray flattened much of the complexity and depth of covenantal thought. The influence of this flattening would be long-lived.

Perhaps the most important influence that Murray exerted was in shaping the reactionary covenant theology of Meredith Kline (1922-2007). Before Kline's doctrine can be understood, however, one must grasp the work of George E. Mendenhall (1916-2016) . . .

Mendenhall's work on biblical covenants . . . exerted a tremendous influence over covenant theology in the latter part of the twentieth century, asserting that influence most strongly through the covenantal thought of Meredith Kline. Kline had been first a student and then a colleague of John Murray, and in his articulation of covenant theology, Kline made very clear that reaction against Murray's perceived errors was a guiding influence over his own covenantal thought. On some points, this rejection of Murray is clear. For example, while Murray rejected the doctrine of the covenant of works, Kline defended it in great detail. More important than this difference with Murray, however, was Kline's sustained reaction against Murray's suggestion that the divine covenants, were always and only bestowals of grace and favor. In fact, Kline's attempt to dismantle this definition of covenant provided the substructure and impetus for much of his work. To achieve this end, Kline relied heavily on the work of George Mendenhall, Moshe Weinfeld, Delbert Hillers, and others. Drawing on the work of these scholars, Kline focused on the distinction within Hittite legal documents between suzerainty treaties and land grants, sometimes known as royal grant treaties . . .

In Kline's estimation, ancient Near Easter legal forms had had a shaping influence on the Scriptures, but that influence was shared between suzerainty treaties and royal grant treaties, with portions of the Scripture being shaped by the former and other portions of the Scriptures being shaped by the latter. In order, then, to understand and interpret what God was doing in the Pentateuch properly, one must distinguish between these two influences. To facilitate that necessary distinction, Kline labeled those biblical covenants that had been influenced by suzerainty treaties "law covenants," and those biblical covenants that had been influenced by royal grant treaties, he termed "promise covenants."

 

[JTB.SDG]

I'm not a fan of the suzerain treaty stuff. Just stick with the Bible, there's enough there. Aside from that, I don't agree with where he ended up with Sinai but I believe a lot of his teaching was reacting against some of the federal vision stuff. This is what I got on that:

Patrick Ramsey in his article, In Defense of Moses, argues convincingly that Kline's view coincides most closely with the traditional Subservient view, articulated by John Cameron and Samuel Bolton. Most notably, for Kline, the Mosaic Covenant is divided into two distinct spheres, just as it is in the Subservient view: eternal blessing was obtained only by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, but temporal blessing in the land was retained by merited legal obedience. The publication Merit and Moses gave a very helpful background to the formulation of the Klinian view. In many ways it was a reaction tothe views of Norman Shepherd, who has come to be aligned with the Federal Vision movement. Shepherd took over afterJohn Murray and taught at WTS Philadelphia from 1963-1982. Controversy arose over Shepherd's teaching, and he was dismissed as a result in 1982. In short, Shepherd: 1) rejected the “works” principle of the Covenant of Works, thus denying the essential distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace as outlined in the Westminster standards; leading to his next distinctive, that he 2) embraced covenant faithfulness as the condition God required in every covenant(both the Covenant of Works and Grace), blending the obedience required in the Covenant of Works with the faith required in the Covenant of Grace into a single condition (which, incidentally, was probably a result of confusing the requirement of the covenant head with the requirement of the covenant members), leading to the doctrine that fallen covenant-keeping was the way to inherit eternal life; which in turn, led to his third distinctive, that he 3) denied the imputation of the active obedience ofChrist, a doctrine so foundational to the Reformed understanding of justification. Kline overlapped with Shepherd at WTS,and it was in fierce reaction to Shepherd's views, and in earnest desire to preserve the distinctives Shepherd had rejected, that Kline began to formulate a particular view of Scripture that not only preserved a works-merit principle of the Covenant ofWorks, but further solidified that principle by seeing it reaffirmed and renewed once again at Sinai in the Mosaic Covenant.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I've found a lot of his stuff on the Mosaic Covenant helpful, though I wouldn't say I totally agree with him in every detail. As a Reformed Baptist in particular I am sympathetic to a lot of his arguments around Republication, though again I might put things differently at times.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's already been mentioned how Kline extended the ANE treaty scholarship in the 20th Century to apply it to Biblical Covenants. I find this to be unhelpful. The Biblical Covenants do not align neatly into Royal Grant/Suzerein treaties of the Hittites.

If one wants a better discussion of the relationship of the Law and the Gospel, John Colquhoun's work is offered as a free PDF by Heritage books here:

Colquhoun, John. Treatise on the Law and the Gospel (text).pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

In some ways, it appears that Colquhoun agrees with a Klinean view of the Law/Gospel distinction, but he retains a historically Reformed way of understanding the nature of Law and Gospel especially as it relates to the CoW and CoG.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I will keep thinking this through. I thought I would share the specific question by my friend. He says his pastor has been espousing the teachings of Meredith Kline on our Sunday afternoon sessions.

He then goes on to say "what disturbs me is that he re-defines grace - not as 'unmerited favour', but as 'de-merited favour'. Kline comes to this definition by using covenant theology language which I cannot really follow. It seems as if he believes that man is able to earn some merit by his good works."

I am wondering if my friend is confusing Klines approach to the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Works with salvation by works itself.

Appreciate further insights

 

[Stephen L Smith]

In particular I am not sure what my friend means when he says that Kline re-defines grace - not as 'unmerited favour', but as 'de-merited favour'.

Can someone critique or clarify?

 

[VictorBravo]

In particular I am not sure what my friend means when he says that Kline re-defines grace - not as 'unmerited favour', but as 'de-merited favour'.

Can someone critique or clarify?

Stephen, I'm no means well-versed in Kline, but I was mystified by this question a few months ago and dug into it. The issue was a watering-down of the Covenant of Works. Some were speaking of the Covenant of Works as gracious. But that seemed to conflate law and gospel. For example, Adam before the fall did not need salvation as long as he was obedient. Grace would not be needed as long as he merited his favor with God through obedience.

Some recoiled at this thought because it sounded too much like Roman Catholicism or salvation by works. But, again, Adam did not need salvation in his original sinless state.

As an aside, Jesus fulfilled all the demands of the Covenant of Works and accordingly "earned" the right to call upon the Father to glorify him.

So why demerited favor? In some old legal writings, demerited favor meant that you were granted a favor even though you actively did what you could to not deserve any sort of favor at all. "Unmerited favor", according to some, probably Kline, implied that a neutral sort of person could be granted favor. Kind of like "good ole boy never meant no harm" being given a break.

God's grace encompasses far more than "giving a break." Nevertheless, I still prefer the term "unmerited favor" as generally being appropriate.

 

[HauerVos]

One thing Kline did was defend the CoW and gospel against the "Shepherd-Fuller theology." I'll be the one to say "do the reading," situating him properly in the mid to late 20th century before forming a strong opinion.