Camden covers Meredith Kline and a few of his books during this episode of Theology on the Go.
Archive for the ‘Meredith Kline’ Category
Kline on Daniel’s 70th Week
Daniel 9:20-27 is one of those passages that gets the covenantal/dispensational fires going. It seemed discussions would constantly find their way to this passage back when I was having regular discussions with dispensationalists. I happened to be reading Meredith G. Kline’s “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week” recently and thought I would pass this quotation along. Understand that Kline is arguing for a very close relationship between Gabriel’s prophecy in verses 20-27 and Daniel’s prayer in verses 1-19. As such, the debated verses focus directly on Messiah and his work in providing an eschatological fulfillment to Daniel’s prayer. Read the rest of this entry »
Biblical Theology and the Westminsters
In a recent interview with Mark Dever, Darryl Hart suggested that Westminster (CA) students tend to be more historically focused while Westminster (PA) students tend to gravitate toward biblical theology. Hart has asked students from each school which three authors they would prefer to have if stranded on an island. The typical Westminster (CA) would prefer Calvin, Berkhof and Kline whereas Westminster (PA) students would select Vos, Ridderbos and Gaffin.
While I’m not qualified to speak about the accuracy of his statements regarding Westminster (CA), I think he makes an interesting and generally accurate observation. Clearly, this kind of statement cannot be applied to the entire student body of either institution, but as far as general trends go, I believe he’s right. If that’s the case, then we necessarily arrive at an is/ought question. Should we necessarily place a heavier emphasis on biblical theology? Is some other stress preferential or should we place equal emphasis on systematic, historical and biblical theology?
The Authority of Moses’ Intercession
Numbers 14:1-20 presents a somewhat difficult problem for “closed theists” – those who are not open theists. Verse 20 has thrown more than a few interpreters for a loop. The people have come to the end of their wilderness wandering and are set to take possession of the promised land. But following a fearful report from a majority of the spies sent into the land, they grumble against the LORD and the nation’s leaders and decide to elect a new leader who will take them back to Egypt. The LORD descends to judge the people and tells Moses that He will disinherit this people, destroy them and start over with Moses’ seed. But Moses intercedes on behalf of the people and following Moses’ intercession for the nation of Israel, the LORD responds “I have pardoned according to your word.” Moses’ word spares the people from judgment.
But we might ask How does Moses’ word have any power? God says that he has pardoned the people according to Moses’ word. Does Moses have authority over the LORD? How is this possible? This is the difficulty that open theists relish in. Let me propose that to understand this passage we need to consider Moses’ relation to our ultimate intercessor Jesus Christ.
Though Moses’ work had a unique, historical significance, he ultimately points us to the work of Christ. Just as Moses led God’s people out of slavery from Egypt and then on a path through the wilderness to inhabit the promised land, Jesus Christ has led his people out of the slavery of sin, through the wilderness of our struggles in this world toward our ultimate rest in the new heavens and new earth.
1 Timothy 2:5 is very clear that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. But insofar as Moses was a true mediator, his mediation was founded upon the true mediation of Jesus Christ. Moses was a mediator because Christ would be the mediator. So how does the LORD pardon his people according to Moses’ word? It’s because Moses was a priest who through God’s power spoke and mediated in the power of the coming Messiah.
In a somewhat Klinian sense, Moses’ office is sacramental of Christ’s office as our great high priest. Moses’ words and actions have authority insofar as they are congruent with and anticipate the words and actions of Jesus Christ. I’m inclined to think that this line of thinking could be developed toward a better understanding of the authority of the church’s ordained officers and particularly, the authority of the preached word. Granted, we no longer have [earthly] priests who intercede for us, but I do believe we could learn a lesson on the source of ministerial authority from Numbers 14.
Thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant
Understanding the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the overall working of God with his people in history is a difficult task. Dispensationalists view the relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic dispensations as being sharply distinguished. Some classic dispensationalists have even suggested that Israel should never have agreed to the Mosaic terms since they were under a better situation in the Abrahamic era. Being dissatisfied with this type of approach, other covenant theologians smooth out the differences. O. Palmer Robertson is a moderate example of making the progression to the Mosaic administration a little more flat. Theonomists are perhaps the “flattest” by incorporating the most continuity. Theonomists try to maintain the Mosaic law in all its moral aspects as well as the civil aspects that have not been explicitly repealed in the New Testament.
For those who have been struggling with the issues of these systems, Meredith Kline presents an interesting alternative as he understands the Mosaic administration on two levels. For Kline, the covenant operates on a national and then on an individual level. At the national level, the covenant can be seen as a republication of the Covenant of Works. When Israel breaks the covenant, they are eventually exiled from the land just as Adam was exiled from the garden. The nation is God’s typological son and called to perfect, perpetual and personal [in some sort of national sense] obedience. This can be seen as continuous with the Adamic administration and discontinuous with the Abrahamic. Read the rest of this entry »