Dr.
Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, Lecture 11
© 2012 Dr. Meredith Kline and Ted Hildebrandt
Student
Question:
Kline’s response: You would say that the relationship of the Father
and the Son clearly does involve justice. I think this is right. Jesus
certainly saw that his role was in terms of the satisfaction of justice. In his
high priestly prayer on the night of his crucifixion: “Father I have glorified
you. [I’ve fulfilled my covenant. I’ve earned it.] Now glorify me. Glorify me
with the glory that we had before the worlds began.” But Jesus there
articulates clearly the whole principle. “I have done it, I’ve earned it, I’ve
glorified you, now you glorify me.”
The Law Covenant
Let’s
move from that up to the covenant with Adam, up to the law covenant, now once
again. I’ve said that there’s lots of biblical evidence for this. Let us
quickly look at it. What we’re looking for now are places especially in the
teaching of Paul, where Paul compares the gospel with the law, with the Old Covenant.
The comparison becomes one of strong contrast between the two.
The New Covenant: Jeremiah 31
So we’ll be looking primarily at Paul, but let’s start with
Jeremiah. This is the classic prophesy in the Old Testament about the coming of
the New Covenant. So let’s turn to Jeremiah 31. You know it’s a very
frequently quoted verse in the New Testament, in Hebrews and so on. “‘The time
is coming,’” Jeremiah 31 verse 31, “declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.’”
Parenthetically and quickly, there’s the whole question here of prophetic idiom
where the prophets use the contemporary covenantal situation in order to depict
the corresponding realities of the New Covenant. As we know, in the light of
the New Testament, the New Covenant is one that is made with what we call the
church. It is not made with the literal house of Israel and the house of Judah.
This is then part of the whole hermeneutical thing that we can’t stop and
develop. So clearly in the light of the New Testament quotations this covenant
is the covenant that the Lord Jesus Christ administers to the community that we
know as the church.
Now then the Lord says the day is coming when he’s going to make
this New Covenant, and right away he draws a contrast between that and the Old Covenant.
“It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took
their hand to lead them out of Egypt.” So Jeremiah says: the New Covenant will
not be like the Old Covenant.
There’s a big difference between them. What’s the difference? He
goes on to say, “which covenant of mine they broke.” Then you have a little textual
problem whether he says, “even though I was a husband to them, even though I
was faithful to them, they were unfaithful to me.” Or there are other possible
readings “which covenant of mine they broke and I turned away from them” or
some other thing. But clearly the thought is that the Old Covenant was one that
could be broken, and that they did break. Of course, as we know the result was
the exile and ultimately the destruction of the people.
So the New Covenant is not going to be like that, the Old Covenant
was, a breakable covenant, one that could be and was broken. “‘This is the
covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the Lord,
‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their
God and they will be my people.’” Back up a few verses (Jer. 31:32): “It will
not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the
hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a
husband to them.”
Now we have to clarify “breakable” in what sense are covenants
breakable? Here’s this bottom line in which Christ is administering his grace
through the ages. When we have already said that it is a covenant that is made
with the church and yet the church does not consist solely of the individual elect.
So we have said that covenant is a broader line and election is something
within it and that’s true throughout, okay? That’s true in the New Testament
too, not everyone who is in the New Covenant organization of the church, is
elect. There are some within that arrangement who can break the New Covenant. Individuals
can break the New Covenant. Think in terms of Romans 11. Here is the tree, the
olive tree, you Gentiles have been grafted in. Don’t get too cocky. You can be
broken off if you don’t come through. Individuals can be broken off from the New
Covenant, just as individuals could be broken off from the old one.
What then is Jeremiah saying? He’s saying that there is a sense in
which the Old Covenant was breakable and the New Covenant is not breakable,
what is it? Well look, individuals can be broken off from the church but the
whole New Covenant order does not fail. The gates of hell do not prevail
against the New Covenant order as such. The church goes on to be consummated in
glory.
Now here is the Old Testament order of the Mosaic economy, the
Israelite people. Not only was it the case there that individuals were broken
off but the whole community including even those who were individually elect
got broken off. The whole order as such got terminated in judgment in the
Babylonian exile. Think for a moment: the Babylonian exile. Who went into
exile? Only the reprobate? No, Daniel went into exile, along with Ezekiel and
the whole nation. This had nothing to do with individual election. This
corporate community became “not my people” anymore and that was the end of it. Once
again then after they were brought back, as we said, by a second act of grace, and
were once again put under the principle of works, and once again they failed,
70 A.D. “Not one stone upon another”--they are desolated. That’s the end of
that whole order.
Individuals may be saved but the order as such comes to an end. Now
that’s what we’re talking about, that national election, that typological
kingdom, that corporate reality. That was under the principle of works.
Jeremiah says the New Covenant will be different. It will not fail, the grace
of God principle is operating there and therefore it will be consummated.
Jeremiah to Paul (Romans 10)
Alright now, what Jeremiah foretold comes to pass. Paul looks
at the situation of his own day, and he looks back at the Torah covenant and he
analyses it for us in a whole series of passages that start with Romans 10. We’ll
do just a couple of spot passages in Acts 13 verse 39, “Through him everyone
who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by
the law of Moses.” So here there is a declaration that through Christ there is
justification whereas through the law of Moses there was not such
justification.
But let’s turn then on to Romans 10, a longer, more substantial
passage. Just where to begin we might begin at the beginning. Let’s begin at
the fourth verse. It is very interesting and as the question there speaks
about, “Christ is the telos, the end of the law, so that there may be
righteousness for everyone who believes.” I think the proper understanding
that is that there is a principle operating during the law, namely the principle
of works with the coming of Christ, that’s the end of that. Now it’s salvation,
justification through faith.
But in any case, verse 5 continues. According to Moses, now “Moses
describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law.” So notice now,
this is one of the quotations then from Leviticus 18:5, the other one’s in
Galatians that we’ll look at in a moment. But, mind you, Paul is not saying
here is some understanding of the Old Testament that some mistaken Judaizers
have come up with. He’s saying this is what Moses says in the Scripture and he
quotes from the Bible to describe what was going on there. Moses describes in
this way,” the righteousness that is of the law, the man who does these things
will live by them.” That’s the works principle, “do this and you will live”--earn
it, it’s works.
Then he goes on and he says in verse 6 in contrast with that, “the
righteousness that is by faith.” In other words, in terms of the gospel that Paul
is preaching, the righteousness that is by faith says: “and now do not say in
your heart who will ascend into heaven.” Here now he proceeds to quote from
this passage in Deuteronomy 30, which is another New Covenant passage like
Jeremiah 31. So right from within the law of Moses, Paul is able to find
passages which describe the principle that was going on under the Old Covenant:
“do this and you will live.” He’s also able to find a passage like Deuteronomy
30, which he interprets as presenting the thought, that we needn’t earn this
for ourselves. It isn’t that we have to bring Christ down from heaven, or that
we have to bring him up from the dead because in his sovereign grace he has
come to us from heaven. He has come back from across the sea of death to us. So
that now it is a matter of believing in our hearts and it’s a matter of faith
as he goes on to expound it. But already then in verses 5 and 6 we get the
basic thought of a stark contrast between the law and between faith. The law says,
“do this and you will live,” the righteousness that is by faith, the gospel I’m
preaching says something else which is the principle of faith. So he sees not a
continuum or an identity, certainly. He sees a contrast between the two.
Now right away what’s Paul doing? He’s speaking about the law. We
have suggested that the only way we can properly think of this is if we keep in
mind the two levels. Individual salvation up here, the grace principle; and the
typological kingdom up there, the works principle. Here’s Paul and he looks at
that and it’s really surprising to us that he does it. But he describes this
whole complex situation just in terms of the second level. Now Paul could never
say that the law didn’t have the principle of grace in it. He very well knew
that the law as we were saying in the cultic sacrifices, in the word of the
prophets, and so on, he knew very well that that whole Mosaic economy had this
bottom layer which was the message of salvation by grace, which has been the
message right from the beginning. Paul knew that that was there. Yet he looks
at the Old Testament law and he sort of just let that be eclipsed for a moment
and he looks at that in terms of that upper layer and he finds that there,
there was a principle operating that was different from the gospel.
You wouldn’t want to interpret him as saying that there was no grace
anywhere in the Old Testament, he wasn’t a dispensationalist. He was a covenant
theologian. So he had to be ready to recognize certainly that there was grace, and
yet at the same time he is able to say that there was law. It must be therefore,
I submit to you, that analysis of it is the only way that you’re going to get
through this thing and make sense of it.
Now the same sort of thing comes up in one more word about this. In
what sense is the New Covenant new? It isn’t new in terms of the bottom line
the message of the gospel of grace has been there since before the fall on. So
what’s going on here. It isn’t new in that sense, it’s more of the same. It’s
new vis-à-vis that second layer of the Old Covenant, that’s the thing that had
been so prominent now for centuries and over against that, the gospel comes
through as something new.
Galatians 3 and the covenants
Alright, let’s turn also then to Galatians 3, where you have
essentially the same point being made.
Student observation: Just out of curiosity, I know your time is
limited, but I’m also wondering if you were toying with Dr. Gordon’s article of
translation on that, Romans 9:32. Once you bring in that other possibility
there it sheds a lot of light on what’s going on right before then, coming into
Romans 10.
Kline’s response: In that article he shows how the word that
wasn’t in the Greek text has been the one that they’ve been putting all the
emphasis on. Yeah, when I first read that, in fact, I mentioned it inside a
footnote of something I wrote, appealing to that Romans 9:32 article of David.
Whether there’s some other way of handling it which is also consistent with
this I want to think a little bit more about it. I don’t know whether David’s done
any more thinking about it.
Galatians 3:11-18, as I just said, “All who rely on observing the
law are under a curse, for it is written, cursed is everyone who does not
continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” There’s the law and
the works principle again. “Clearly no one is justified before God by the law.”
Now that’s pretty clear stuff. “No one is justified” which is pretty much what
that first verse we read in Acts 13:39. Now under the gospel you are justified
by these things from which you could not be justified by the law. You hear he’s
saying the same thing, justification isn’t found under this law arrangement. Why
not? Because “the righteous will live by faith,” that’s the way people will
live. But the law is not based on faith. How much clearer does anyone want to
get it? “The law is not based on faith. On the contrary,” he now quotes again
from Leviticus 18:5: “the man who does these things will live by them.” That’s
all you have, you have the faith principle and you have the works principle, it’s
not a continuum, it’s a contrast—a law and gospel contrast. There is no
justification for fallen man, for fallen man, mind you, under such terms, “do
this and you will live.” It is only in terms of faith in Christ who’s done it
for you.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse
for us, “for it is written ‘cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” “He redeemed
us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles
through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the
Spirit” (Gal. 3:14). “Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just
as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly
established, so it is in this case” (Gal. 3:15). Now he takes us back to
Abraham, “to whom God gave the promises, and the promises were spoken to
Abraham ‘and to his seed.’ The Scripture does not say, ‘unto seeds’ meaning
many people, but ‘to your seed’ meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean
is this: the Law introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant
previously established by God and thus do away with the promise” (Gal. 3:18).
Now notice here, he sees that the Abrahamic covenant here was one
of promise that comes before the law. It is precisely because he sees that being
involved in the law was the opposite of promise. He sees that the principle of
works was operating here, which is the opposite of promise. It is precisely
because Paul sees that this opposite principle is working here that he has a
problem. What does the introduction of this opposite principle of works do to
the previously given promises of God? Does this annul that? That’s his problem.
And of course, he says no, God doesn’t take back his promises even when he
introduces this new arrangement, which involves the promises, he doesn’t annul
the promises. “For if the inheritance depends upon the law, then it no longer
depends on the promise.” Again he contrasts gospel and law as opposite. “If it
depends on the law then it no longer depends on the promise, but God and his
grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” So notice the dynamics of this
thing.
He certainly is insisting on a big contrast between these two. Yet he
insists that the covenant of works principle later on does not annul that. How
could he say that? Isn’t he’s contradicting himself? If the opposite is
superimposed on this than he has annulled the promises, hasn’t he? No, because
as we said before, Paul is a covenant theologian. He does recognize that there
is this bottom layer down there.
What he recognizes is that the promise has to do with individual
election, and the works principal has to do with Israel’s national election. So
they’re not dealing with the same thing. If the works were dealing with the
same thing as the promise than the works would annul the promise. But the works
principle is not dealing with individual election, it’s dealing with the
corporate thing. Corporate Israel was involved in the covenant arrangement
involving the typological kingdom, which could be and was broken. But the
Abrahamic promises of salvation in Christ that was by grace and that could not
be broken.
Judaizer’s
confusion of national works and individual grace
Sure
Moses was a covenant theologian, that’s the only kind of good theologian. For
example, when Paul wants to illustrate the idea of justification and
forgiveness by faith, he begins by grace. He quotes from the Psalms, that
blessedness of the man whose sins are not imputed. So from the Mosaic
revelation including all the prophets who are under Moses and so on, the
message of salvation certainly comes through. To answer your question earlier
we were saying that the cultic sacrifice was proclaiming that. Now how much
individuals understood of all of this is problematic and maybe it’s because of
confusion along this line that by the time you come to the Judaizers, they’re
confusing these two lines. Isn’t that their problem? The Judaizers come along
and they take this principal of works, which was supposed to do only with the
national election, and they’re applying it to individuals. So the problem with
the Judaizers was not that they recognized that there was a works principle in
the Old Testament, because there is one. Their problem was that they were applying
it where it didn’t belong down here. So that’s what Paul is clarifying. What’s
going on down here he says is faith and grace, that’s the opposite of what’s
going on up there.
Student Question:
Kline’s response: To the extent that they did this with
understanding in the light of such revelation as they had, this would certainly
be enough. But there was a lot of misunderstanding along the way as is evident
from the business of the Judaizers. In our day when this kind of argument is
presented, these verses are presented to people in the Fuller school they will
be trying to tell you all Paul is doing is dealing with some people who were
misinterpreting the law, though it did involve that. Paul is only repudiating
a misinterpretation. I leave it to you, read these verses. This is what the
law itself says, not someone else’s misinterpretation of what it said.
2 Corinthians 3 and the Old and New Covenant
In
that connection then there are some of the other verses I wanted to bring to
your attention. For example, in 2 Corinthians 3:6-9, here Paul is drawing a
contrast between the glory of the Old Covenant and the glory of this New Covenant
ministry. He acknowledges that each has its measure of glory. Notice how he
paints the difference. The Old Covenant is one of the letter, one of
condemnation, one of death and bondage. Whereas the New Covenant is one not of
the letter but of spirit, not one of condemnation but of justification, not of
death but of life. You couldn’t get a more radical contrast than Paul who is
plainly expressing his own views and not describing some misinterpretation. He’s
expressing his own view and you couldn’t get a stronger contrast than he paints
there in 2 Corinthians 3.
Galatians
4
Take
Galatians 4, we looked at Galatians 3 previously. Now turn over to Galatians 4,
and again you get Paul’s own contrasting analysis, where he says the Old Covenant
is represented by Hagar, the slave woman, because the Old Covenant was one of
bondage. The New Covenant was represented by the free woman, Sarah. So Paul’s
own view of these things, is that there is this strong contrast between the two
which adds up to the fact then that it’s not grace, not something half-like
grace and half-like works, but plain stark works. The opposite of faith and
grace was operating there under the Old Covenant in that very limited sphere.
Now, of course, as we said earlier if God then could use the
principal of works there that, of course, also confirms the fact that Fuller
and company are wrong in saying that God would never anywhere use the principle
of works. He did use it there. Of course, he did use it with Adam and, of
course, he did use it up there. We can thank God that he is dealing with us in
grace and Christ by his obedience has merited for us these things.
Well, it’s time by the old village clock to stop. Those who are
taking this for credit according to the syllabus will have the privilege of
having some sort of little take home exam that will be in a couple of weeks.
I’ll say more about it in the next week or two. But those who are not taking it
for credit but who would like to just to try their hand at the exam are free to
write out the exam and I’ll be glad to read those exams. If you would like to
take the other exam later on and do the work of the course and maybe by the
time you’ve done that, and seen how wonderful you do on the exams, you might
even want to change your status from non-credit to credit before the end of the
week.
Transcribed
by Kelly LeBlanc
Rough edited by Ted Hildebrandt