Cross-Examining Moses’ Defense: An Answer To Ramsey’s Critique Of Kline And Karlberg

By Brenton C. Ferry

[Brenton C. Ferry is pastor of Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Mt. Airy, N.C. This article is written in response to D. Patrick Ramsey’s “In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg,” WTJ 66 (2004): 373-400. Page references to Ramsey’s original article are included in the text in parentheses.]

Recently Patrick Ramsey wrote, “[T]he church as a whole has not been overly successful in discerning the Christian’s relationship to Moses.. .. Sadly, all too few have clearly and properly assessed and appreciated his role in the history of redemption” (373–74). Among the many, he identifies Meredith Kline and Mark Karlberg as unfaithful to the Reformed heritage, relating to Moses not as a friend but a foe (400).

Insinuating that Kline’s view is systemically antinomian, Ramsey’s purpose is to demonstrate that Kline’s understanding of the Mosaic Covenant is incompatible with the Westminster Standards by offering three arguments. First, a similar viewof the Mosaic Covenant (Subservient Covenant) was rejected by the Westminster Assembly (378). Second, the Westminster Standards differ with Kline and Karlberg on the blessings and curses (384). Third, the Westminster Standards differ from Kline and Karlberg on the discontinuities and continuities between the Old and New Testaments (390). The purpose of this response is to demonstrate that Ramsey has misrepresented Kline’s position and to quell whatever ecclesiastical influence Ramsey’s misrepresentation may have.

I. The Argument from the Subservient Covenant

Ramsey likens Kline’s position to the Subservient Covenant view (held by Cameron and Amyraut), a position that was not adopted by the Westminster Assembly because it denied the organic unity between the Mosaic and the New Covenants: “The view that bears the closest resemblance to Kline and Karlberg is the Subservient Covenant. If this view is proven to be contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, then it must follow that. .. their view is also rejected by the Confession (378).” Explaining this, Ramsey says Kline’s position agrees with the Subservient view in that, for Kline and Karlberg, “The Mosaic Covenant is distinct from the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace.” This analysis is false. Karlberg says,

[Amyraut] departed from the traditional Reformed viewpoint by positing a three-covenant view, the covenant of works (creation), the covenant of grace (Abrahamic, New), and the subservient covenant (Mosaic). Amyraut’s hypothetical, subservient covenant of works under Moses introduced a redefinition of the Reformed understanding of the single covenant of grace, one in substance differing in mode of administration.. .. His mistake was in making the hypothetical principle of works in Leviticus 18:5, according to the exegesis of Calvin and other Reformed interpreters, a separate covenant, subservient to the purpose of grace.[1]

Consider also what Kline says about the organic continuity between the Mosaic and New Covenants:

For all its difference, the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is still patterned after the Sinaitic Covenant. In fact, Jeremiah’s concept of the New Covenant was a development of that already presented by Moses in the sanctions section of the Deuteronomic renewal of the Sinaitic Covenant (Deut. 30:1–10). According to Jeremiah, the New Covenant is a writing of the law on the heart rather than on tables of stone (v. 33; cf. II Cor. 3:3), but it is another writing of the law. It is a new law covenant. Hence, for Jeremiah, the New Covenant, though it could be sharply contrasted with the Old (v. 32), was nevertheless a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant. It belonged to the familiar administrative pattern of periodic covenant renewal (of which the cycle of sabbatical years was an expression), and renewal is the exponent of continuity.[2]

Kline continues, “But if the distinctiveness of the New Covenant is that of consummation, if when it abrogates it consummates, then its very discontinuity is expressive of its profound, organic unity with the Old Covenant.”[3]

Ramsey even quotes Kline’s and Karlberg’s affirmations of what the Confession says about the organic continuity between the Mosaic and New Covenants: “According to the Scriptures OT religion is one in substance with the New” (375, quoting Karlberg); and “[T]he old Mosaic order (at its foundational level. . .) was in continuity with the previous and subsequent administrations of the overarching covenant of grace” (377, quoting Kline). In short, Kline does not believe the Mosaic Covenant is “distinct from the Covenant of Grace.” Instead, Kline affirms the Confession’s distinction between the substance and administration of the Mosaic Covenant. The discontinuity that exists between the Mosaic and New Covenants Kline, with the Confession, consigns to the administrative sphere. Ramsey notes this on one page when he says that Kline divides “the Mosaic Covenant into two distinct spheres or levels” (375), but Ramsey disregards it on the next.

Others before Ramsey have likened Kline’s view to the Subservient Covenant. He cites, for instance, T. David Gordon.[4] Lee Irons, in his appeal to the seventieth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, also noted similarities.[5] Kline rejects, however, the distinguishing trait of the Subservient view (covenantal subserviency), and in so doing he stands with the Confession regarding the organic unity between the Mosaic and New Covenants. Therefore, Ramsey’s argument is against a straw man based on a weak analogy. Insofar as the organic unity between the Mosaic and New Covenants is concerned, Kline’s view is not systemically different from the Confession’s.

II. The Argument from the Blessings and Curses

Secondly, Ramsey contends that Kline’s view of the Mosaic sanctions is incompatible with the Westminster Standards: “Kline and Karlberg assert that the blessings and curses in general and of the Mosaic Covenant in particular refer to a works-inheritance principle, and are antithetical to the Covenant of Grace” (384). Citations from Kline to support this are lacking, however. How does Ramsey’s analysis account for the following statement by Kline?

Further, there is no reason to regard Jeremiah’s description of the New Covenant as a comprehensive analysis, on the basis of which an exclusive judgment might then be rendered, excluding the curse sanction from the place of the New Covenant administration.. .. It is in accordance with this still only semi-eschatological state of affairs that the administration of the New Covenant is presently characterized by dual sanctions, having, in particular, anathemas to pronounce and excommunications to execute. To interpret Jeremiah’s prophetic concept of the New Covenant as excluding curse sanctions is, therefore, to condemn it as fallacious.[6]

Kline goes on to say:

But the decisive and clear historical fact is that both blessing and curse are included in the administration of the New Covenant. The Christ who stands like the theophanic ordeal pillar of fire in the midst of the seven churches addresses to them threats as well as promises, curses as well as blessings. By his apostle he warns the Gentiles who are grafted into the tree of the covenant that just as Israelite branches had been broken off for their unbelief, they too, if they failed to stand fast through faith, would not be spared (Rom 11:17–21; cf. Matt 8:12; John 15:1–8; Heb 6:4ff). Again, when the Lord appears in the final ordeal theophany as the Judge of the quick and the dead, taking fiery vengeance on them that obey not the gospel, he will bring before his judgment throne all who have been within his church of the New Covenant.. . . 

We are bound to conclude, therefore, that the newness of the New Covenant cannot involve the elimination of the curse sanction as a component of the covenant.. . .[7]

Later Kline also writes:

Another significant fact is that Paul instructed the children of various congregations to obey their parents in the Lord, and in support of his charge cited the pertinent stipulation of the Sinaitic Covenant together with its accompanying covenantal sanction.[8]

Far from undervaluing their New Testament application, Kline’s discussion in By Oath Consigned attempts to place an even greater emphasis on New Testament covenant sanctions than has been traditionally granted. The book leads to the conclusion that the dual elements of blessing and curse remain in the New Testament church, and Kline suggests that the Reformed tradition has neglected to stress the proper role of sanctions in the New Testament. Ramsey does not mention By Oath Consigned. In fact, he only cites the actual writings of Kline and Karlberg twice in the course of his argument. The first is from Kline’s Kingdom Prologue in reference to the Babylonian captivity (387), and the second is from Karlberg’s “Justification in Redemptive History” regarding Ps 89 (388). Kline’s actual view of the New Testament sanctions is never explained, much less compared and contrasted with the Confession. Insofar as Kline accepts the dual sanctions of blessing and curse in the New Covenant, his view does not appear systemically inconsistent with the Confession. Yet Ramsey asserts that Kline’s view of sanctions is “antithetical to the covenant of grace.” Ramsey does not seem to be aware of what Kline has written on the subject, and so his critique of Kline obscures rather than enlightens.

III. The Argument from the Continuities and Discontinuities

Ramsey’s final argument against Kline concerns his understanding of the continuities and discontinuities between the Mosaic and New Covenants. Ramsey notes Kline’s and Karlberg’s affirmative agreement with the Confession’s teaching on the continuities and discontinuities, namely, that the discontinuities are consigned to the administrative sphere (390). Yet he proceeds to insist that they do not believe what they say they believe and have labored in writing to prove about organic unity. Instead Ramsey returns to imposing the concept of subserviency upon their view. For example, he writes, “a covenant that is radically contrasted with the Abrahamic Covenant and contains a condition of works, which is opposed to faith, must necessarily be a covenant differing in substance” (390).

The remainder of Ramsey’s argument is from silence. He asks rhetorically, “Where does the Confession describe or refer to the Mosaic Covenant as a typological works covenant that is merely an administration of the Covenant of Grace?” (390). Admittedly, the Confession does not get so specific. But certainly the Confession is not an exhaustive source of theology. For Ramsey to misrepresent the view of Kline and then to lament the absence of such a non-existent view in the Confession is a curious turn of logic indeed.

IV. Typological Work and the Covenant of Grace

Throughout his article, Ramsey insists that a Mosaic works principle necessitates the principle of subserviency, that is, a break with the organic continuity between the Mosaic and New Covenants. This is why he imposes the principle of subserviency upon Kline in spite of Kline’s own insistence to the contrary.

Ramsey assumes that if Kline believes in a Mosaic works principle of inheritance, organic interruption necessarily follows. Ramsey assumes a works principle is incompatible with the Covenant of Grace. For example, he writes rhetorically, “How is it possible that laws. .. which. .. prefigured ‘Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits’. .. were part of a works inheritance principle?” (392)

Calvin for one, believing in a Mosaic works principle, said it functioned hypothetically, like a fat-chance offer of salvation by works.9 This has been a recurring explanation among Covenant Theologians as to how a works principle can coexist within a Covenant of Grace.10 The Subservients, on the other hand, explain that the Mosaic covenant is not an organic part of the Covenant of Grace and resolve the problem of compatibility by removal.11 A third solution has been to deny the existence of a Mosaic works principle altogether, in favor of more recumbent continuity between the Testaments.12 This appears to be Ramsey’s view. A fourth option has been to emphasize the typological value of the works principle. This is the solution adopted by Kline. Succinctly, typological work is organically consistent with the Covenant of Grace.

Kline is not the first to adopt this principle. Samuel Bolton describes this view as being held by some of the Westminster Divines:

Another interpretation is this: “Do this and live,” though it was spoken to the people of Israel in person, did not terminate with them, but through them was spoken to Christ, who has fulfilled all righteousness for us and purchased life by his own obedience.[13]

William Strong of the Westminster Assembly explained:

[T]he Lord’s intention in giving the Law was double, unto the carnal Jews to set forth to them the old covenant which they had broken; and yet unto the believing Jews it did darkly shadow and set forth unto them the Covenant of Grace made with Christ, and therefore it was not only delivered as a rule of righteousness, but in the form and terms of a Covenant, this do and thou shalt live.[14]

 The works principle that was pressed upon the Jews in the Mosaic Covenant was a shadow of Jesus being made under the law, the nation as a whole typifying Christ, the Son of God who was brought out of Egypt. Israel’s corporate obedience, especially that of their kings, typified Christ’s obedience. To answer Ramsey’s question above: inasmuch as the Mosaic laws prefigured the work of Christ (who worked for our salvation) they involved a typological works inheritance principle.

The systemic compatibility of this thesis with the Reformed tradition as expressed in the Westminster Confession is hard to deny. The typological work of Christ is everywhere organically consistent with the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, we have both no need to postulate a theory of subserviency and a good reason to avoid denying the presence of an active works principle. By failing to interact with the way typology functions in Kline’s view, Ramsey has not even entered the same discussion. To refute Kline, Ramsey would need to prove that the typological work of Christ is inconsistent with the Covenant of Grace and the Confession.

V. Interpreting the Ordo and Historia of Moses

Kline’s view within the scope of this topic places a stress on the history of salvation, that is, on the theological significance and interpretation of historical events: “What do events mean?” or more specifically “What does the event of the Mosaic law signify theologically?” To say that the law represented the burden Christ would carry to merit paradise on behalf of his failing people is to make a redemptive-historical statement about the history of salvation.

This is to say little about the way the law functioned experientially in the lives of those who endeavored to keep it, that is, in regard to the order of salvation. Were the Israelites chastised by it when they broke it? Were they blessed by it when they kept it? Did they love it and accept it as a rule for living a godly life or not? Was their obedience accompanied by faith? How should it affect and apply to us? On the whole, Ramsey’s article represents a Confessional familiarity with the functional-experiential significance of the law that is not to be denied. But he struggles to engage the redemptive-historical significance of it.

VI. Conclusion

Ramsey’s article, if taken at face value, will do little more than obscure the subtle and nuanced work of a thinker like Kline. Moreover, it will add to the confusion over the very difficult topic of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Words cannot express how sorry I am that such open misinformation about a man’s beliefs is being circulated. The ecclesiastical effect of spreading these arguments may harm the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in particular by fortifying partisan barriers between elders through the fostering of ill-informed suspicions about one another. Understanding the complexities of the relationship between Moses and Christ must take place in a spirit of trust and truthfulness, avoiding all mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the article in question furthers a downward trend of contrariness that we should make a point to avoid.

Notes

1. Mark W. Karlberg, “The Mosaic Covenant and the Concept of Works in Reformed Hermeneutics: A Historical-Critical Analysis with Particular Attention to Early Covenant Eschatology” (Th.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1980), 198–99 (emphasis in the original). The present author made Ramsey aware of this quote long before the publication of his article.
2. Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1998), 75 (emphasis added).
3. Ibid., 76 (emphasis added).
4. T. David Gordon, “Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy,” WTJ 56 (1994): 36.
5. Minutes of the Seventieth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2003, 77–78.
6. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 76–77 (emphasis added).
7. Ibid., 77-78 (emphasis added).
8. Ibid., 94.
9. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 3:202–5; Calvin’s Commentaries: Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 387.
10. Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vo s (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001), 254–55.
11. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1990), 186; Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 95, 99.
12. Robert Dabney, Systematic Theology (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1996), 457–58, 461–62; John Murray, The Covenant of Grace: A Biblico-Theological Study (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1988), 29.
13. Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom, 105.
14. William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants (London, 1678), 88.