In I Corinthians 11:7ff., Paul does expound the man-woman relationship as an instance of the image-glory pattern. However, he interprets the man(husband)-woman(wife) relationship not as that which itself constitutes man(kind)’s image-likeness to God, but, on the contrary (and excluding that possibility), as simply containing an analogy to the image of God in man. It is not that the man-woman relationship is an image-likeness of intertrinitarian relationships, but that the man-woman relationship mirrors the glory-reflecting relationship of mankind to God in which the image of God in mankind actually does consist. [Meredith Kline, Images of the Spirit (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999) 34.]

Kline is responding to several competing interpretations, including that of Karl Barth, who argues that the image of God is found as man and woman considered together. He recasts the discussion in light of his twofold conception of image. There is image-likeness and image-glory. Image-likeness is the reproduction of the original image (the analogue) whereas image-glory is a reflection of the original. Consider Moses’ face reflecting the glory of the Lord. Human reflect God’s glory as analogue images of Him. Similarly, the wife-husband relationship is yet another picture of how Christ relates to his bride—as original glory and glory-reflectors.

Synonymous with the motif of the ordeal by water is that of ordeal by combat with sea-monsters. Thus, the Red Sea water ordeal becomes in certain Old Testament passages a conflict of Yahweh against Leviathan (Isa. 51:9, 10; cf. Pss. 74:12-15; 89:10, 11 [9, 10]). We are thereby reminded that the Lord was present with his people in the passage through the sea, that he underwent their ordeal, and that their salvation depended on their identification with him. Then in the New Testament there is a typological application of this imagery to Jesus’ conflict with Satan in the course of his humiliation unto death.20 Hence, on our understanding of John’s baptism in general and of his baptism of Jesus in particular, Jesus’ experience in the Jordan would have been a symbolic anticipation of his ensuing victorious combat with the Satan-Dragon. We cannot, therefore, but view with new appreciation the liturgies of the ancient church when they speak of Jesus crushing the head of the dragon in his descent into the river for baptism.

It was with valid insight that early baptismal prayers recited the Lord’s supernatural way in the waters in events like creation, the deluge, and the Red Sea and Jordan crossings. Singularly apposite is the anchoring of God’s redemptive acts of subduing and dividing the ordeal waves in his creation acts of dividing and bounding the chaos waters in order that the dry land, inheritance of man, might appear. (It may be recalled here that in ancient mythology the slaying of the chaos dragon is the necessary preliminary to the establishment of the world order.) There is indeed an allegorical strain in these ancient prayers, but they did achieve a live sense of identification with the eschatological current of redemptive history, something our denatured modern baptismal liturgies would do well to recapture.

-Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned, pp. 60-61

For the passing of Jesus through the divine judgment in the water rite in the Jordan meant to John’s baptism what the passing of Yahweh through the curse of the knife rite of Genesis 15 meant to Abraham’s circumcision. In each case the divine action constituted an invitation to all recipients of these covenant signs of consecration to identify themselves by faith with the Lord himself in their passage through the ordeal. So they might assured of emerging from the overwhelming curse with a blessing. – Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, p. 61.

When Jesus was baptized by John, he entered into a proleptic ordeal which foreshadowed his eventual cutting off from the Father at the cross. This Paul calls a “circumcision” in Colossians 2:11-12. Though at the Jordan Christ traversed the waters of judgment in anticipatory fashion, he emerged justified as the Father proclaimed his sonship and bestowed on him the Spirit for his Messianic work. Likewise, Christ was vindicated, that is justified, in the Spirit when he was raised from the dead (1 Tim 3:16) having now passed through the eschatological judgment ordeal spoken of as a circumcision.

In reading Kline’s book, I was struck of how infrequently these themes come to mind when we consider baptism. The blessings of the covenant have come with a tremendous cost, and those who do not reach out to Christ in faith will pass through the eschatological judgment ordeal themselves. But those who trust in Christ, though bearing that dual sanction sign of blessing and curse in water baptism, have a federal head who underwent the judgment ordeal for them so that his people would escape its horror.

In the course of the climactic seventieth week, masiah nagid, the anointed priest-king, would make the covenant prevail both in renewal and in judgment. Cut off in death, Messiah would make priestly reconciliation for iniquity, so perfecting sacrifice forever and instituting the new covenant. Then exercising His royal heavenly rule over all the nations, Messiah in the midst of the seventieth week would send forces of destruction against the Jerusalem temple, so making the old ritual system cease and bringing the old covenant to its end.

–

Meredith G. Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week.” In The Law and the Prophets, John Skilton, ed. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 468.

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?

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.

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.

It is on the individual level that you get more of the continuity with the Abrahamic covenant. Here we find the remnant and individuals such as Daniel who experience exile because the nation has failed its test of obedience. But while Daniel is in exile, he is still faithful and experiences God’s favor.

Whether or not you agree with Kline’s proposition, he offers an interesting structure that warrants examination. This leads me to the following thoughts. It appears the law’s powerlessness (cf Gal 3:21)  resides in the fact that all men are already sinners in Adam. The law does not have the power to save not only because men (as sinners) cannot keep it, but because they are already condemned under Adam. However, if the Mosaic law is a republication of the Covenant of Works, we should say that it could offer eschatological life to one who would keep it completely (Rom 7:10) so long as they were not already condemned under Adam.

But did the Mosaic administration have the power to confer eschatological life?  Others suggest that its benefits are inextricably linked to the particular land blessings for the nation.  If that is the case, the Mosaic covenant did not have the power to bestow eschatological life.  Rather, the Mosaic administration functioned strictly in a typological fashion pointing forward to the New Covenant while looking back at the Covenant of Works.  Adherents to this view see the two covenants that can impart eschatological life (the Adamic and the New) as covenants operative with reference to the actions of a single federal head.  The Mosaic Covenant does not fit this schema, and though it is a crucial element of the overarching covenant of grace, cannot be seen as a direct recapitulation of the Covenant of Works by which one could merit eschatological life.

Regardless, Christ in his perfect obedience fulfills both the Mosaic and Adamic economies/administrations and can then institute a new covenant in his blood that would redeem those fallen in Adam and provide them with the eschatological life that was originally offered in the garden. This really demonstrates why it is so important to affirm the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience. Affirming the imputation of the passive only does not secure eschatological life.  Truncating Christ’s active obedience from imputation withholds the fullness of the gospel message and the inheritance we have in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ our new covenant head.

Books by Meredith Kline:

• Glory in Our Midst
• Kingdom Prologue
• The Structure of Biblical Authority
• Images of the Spirit
• God, Heaven and Har Magedon