Meredith Kline on Circumcision and Sinai, Pt. 2 of 3

June 4, 2024 at 4:00 pm (Circumcision, Covenant, Mosaic Law)

posted by R. Fowler White

Having reviewed Kline’s analysis of God’s administration of the circumcision covenant, we move on to consider the connections between Abraham, circumcision, and Sinai.

The circumcision covenant and the Sinai covenant. Since circumcision was but one stipulation in what Kline calls “the law of the [Abrahamic] covenant of promise” (Gen 17:1b; 18:19, KP, 310), it is fitting to notice that Abraham’s compliance with the circumcision command (Gen 17:22-27) was one of the many acts of obedience in his life of faith (see Kline’s survey in KP, 309-18). To this effect, the author of Hebrews recounts how it was by faith that the patriarch obeyed, from his submission to God’s initial command in Ur (Gen 12:1; Heb 11:8) through his submission to God’s climactic command at Mt Moriah (Gen 22:1-2; Heb 11:17-19). Moses also relates how Abraham’s obedience was such that God reckoned it as compliance with His charge, commandments, statutes, and laws (Gen 26:5). Remarkably, those legal terms are a virtual match for those that summarize God’s requirements for Israel (Deut 11:1). The parallels prompt Kline to observe: “That the characteristic phraseology used for the covenant stipulations in the Mosaic law could be thus applied to the life of Abraham shows that obligations were as natural and integral an element of the Abrahamic Covenant as they were in the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants” (KP, 311). The continuity between God’s stipulations for Abraham and for Israel provides us good reason to understand 1) that the standard applied to Israel at Sinai was an organic extension and elaboration of the standard applied to Abraham himself and 2) that Abraham’s obedience was a model for Israel (Gen 18:19).

The Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant. In light of the preceding discussion, a critical question arises: how was the Sinai covenant related to the Abrahamic covenant? To get Kline’s answer to this question, we refer back to his synopsis of the two kinds of conditionality and ask, did God administer the Sinai covenant as the stipulations integral to the Abrahamic covenant of grace, or did He administer it as a separate covenant of works alongside (or, as Kline prefers to say, ‘overlying’) the Abrahamic covenant of grace? Anyone familiar with Kline’s publications knows that he vigorously defends the thesis that God administered the Sinai covenant (with its types and shadows) as a separate (typological) covenant of works alongside the Abrahamic covenant of grace. Basing his argument on the contrasts presented in texts like Rom 10:4ff. and Gal 3:10ff. and especially on Paul’s use of Lev 18:5, Kline distills his reasoning this way: “It was only because Paul thus recognized the presence of this works principle in the law that he could identify the old covenant as an administration of bondage, condemnation, and death in contrast to the new covenant, which he characterized as one of freedom, righteousness, and life (Gal 4:24-26; 2 Cor 3:6-9)” (KP, 320). In other words, according to Kline, the controlling principle by which God administered the Sinai covenant must have been works, not grace, because it was Israel’s works, not the principle and surety of grace, that secured for them the blessings of life in Canaan.

Kline’s thesis on the administration of the Sinai covenant has provoked reactions on a spectrum ranging from fervently positive to fervently negative. Speaking for myself, I find much in Kline to be positive about, but I react with surprise that he identifies parallels between the circumcision covenant and the Sinai covenant and yet makes very limited use of those parallels to illuminate God’s administration of the Sinai covenant. I refer primarily to his fairly lengthy discussion of “Sovereign Grace and Human Obligation” (KP, 309-26). There Kline carefully highlights three points pertinent to the relationship of circumcision and Sinai: 1) circumcision as a stipulation of the law of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, 2) the stipulations of the Sinai covenant as an organic extension and elaboration of the stipulations imposed on Abraham, and 3) Abraham’s obedience as a model for Israel. In the process of these considerations, Kline takes great care to demonstrate that the conditionality attached to circumcision was, in keeping with its proper purpose, that of a (i.e., the Abrahamic) covenant of grace. In addition, he offers a compelling case that God’s administration of the circumcision covenant was not reduced to its proper purpose but was consistent with its twofold potential, a potential that, as indicated in part 1 of this series, follows precisely the two principles of grace and works.

Given the noticeable continuity between the circumcision covenant and the Sinai covenant as two editions of the law of the Abrahamic covenant of grace, we have warrant to explore the relevance of Kline’s insights for our understanding of God’s administration of the Sinai covenant. For example, might we be able to argue that, because the circumcision covenant and the Sinai covenant were both integrally related as, respectively, the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic-Deuteronomic elements of the law of the Abrahamic covenant (KP, 311), God administered both covenants according to the same principles? Might we see two administrative scenarios coming into view? That is, might we say that God dealt in grace with the remnant in Israel who in faith received the Sinai covenant, in keeping with its proper purpose, as law attached to the Abrahamic covenant by which they would show their faith in God as their surety? Might we also say that God dealt in justice with the rest of Israel who in unbelief received the Sinai covenant as law detached from the Abrahamic covenant by which they would seek to secure its benefits from God?

In the third and final post of this series, we will see if and how Kline assesses the relevance of God’s administration of the circumcision covenant for his understanding of God’s administration of the Sinai covenant.