Relocating To Elfland

Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! Having lectured twice through the first eleven chapters of Genesis, I would have said these few pages lay the foundation for everything else in Genesis and all of scripture, and (as an obvious corollary) that all the major elements of the Christian “worldview” are seeded here as well. Recently, though, in sifting through some work by Meredith G. Kline and James Jordan (two of the more luminous contributors to Reformed biblical theology since Geerhardus Vos), I have seen as never before how a step (or misstep) in interpreting these early chapters can affect one’s reading of the entire Bible and the formulation of vast tracts of one’s theology.

Both Kline (here) and Jordan (here and here) assign pivotal significance (rightly, in my view) to the Flood account in Genesis 6–9. So massive was the transition that occurred in the Flood that it divided world history into two major epochs: the first running from creation to the Flood (what Kline, following 2 Peter 3:6, calls “the world that then was”), the second running from the Flood to the New Covenant (Jordan) or to the eschaton (Kline, “the world that now is”; cf. his Kingdom Prologue [hereinafter KP], pp. 8–13). I would highlight here the difference between the two men on the terminus ad quem of “the world that now is”; but for now we must occupy ourselves with other things.

Notwithstanding their agreement on the epochal significance of the Flood, Kline and Jordan offer radically different descriptions of the world that emerged from its waters. I will start with Kline.

Kline believes that after the Flood there was a “covenantal reestablishment of the common grace order” (KP, p. 244). This is obviously freighted language, and to understand what he means, we have to go back to his understanding of what occurred after the Fall of man (KP, pp. 153–60; by the by, anyone who wants to glimpse the roots of the Klinean biblical-theological program needs to read and re-read these pages). In his view, when God pronounced the “common curse” on the man and the woman in Genesis 3:16–19, there was also an announcement of the continuation of the world order and of certain common, temporal blessings that all men would enjoy. Here is an extended quote from Kline regarding the cultural side of this “common blessing”:

“Another benefit of common grace, besides the preservation of the natural order in a form that made a history of man on earth still possible, was the continuation, even though in modified fashion, of some important elements of the social-cultural order that had been established under the Creator’s covenant with Adam. This too was implicit in the announcement of the common curse. Thus, in the curse upon the woman (Gen 3:16) it is assumed that the marriage institution would continue as a divine appointment for human society. Moreover, the blessing of the Creator would rest on the marriage relationship in sufficient measure for its function as the institution for the propagation of human life to be fulfilled. There would be barrenness and pain, miscarriage and abortion, but there would be children. In spite of the common curse, by virtue of common grace there would be the “book of the generations of Adam” (Gen 5:1). Again, in the curse on the man (Gen 3:17-19) it is presupposed that man’s dominion over the earth would be continued and that here too divine blessing would be granted on man’s labor to such a degree that human life would be sustained and cultural satisfactions realized. There would be thorns and pests, drought and famine, toil unto death, the destiny that seemed to mock the meaning of it all, but meanwhile there would be bread as the staff of life and wine to make glad the heart of man. And in man’s settlements would be heard the sound of the forge and of music. The way the biblical narrative subsequently traces the significant beginnings of industry, the arts, and sciences in the Cainite communities (Gen 4:17ff.) underscores the commonness of common grace, the ungodly as well as the godly enjoying its benefits. Thanks to common grace, chaos would be averted; human life would retain societal structuring through the continuation of the institution of the family, afterwards supplemented by the institution of the state (Gen 4:15; 9:6).”

Completely absent from this description is any hint that it might make a difference whether the building of culture was done in obedience or disobedience to the Creator-King; the cultural side of the “common grace order” stands more or less on its own, as a kind of “neutral zone” shared by the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent alike. What Kline goes on to say next will make this explicit.

The common grace order, he says, “is common not only in the sense that its benefits are shared by the generality of mankind, the just and the unjust alike, but in the sense that it is nonsacred. Particular emphasis needs to be given to the fact that the political, institutional aspect of common grace culture is not holy, but profane” (KP, p. 155, emphasis mine). This is pretty strong, and of course Kline provides an exegetical argument. It is significant, he says, that when the Lord God

“republished the cultural ordinances within the historical framework of his common grace for the generality of fallen mankind, he did not attach his Sabbath promise to this common cultural order. The ordinance of the Sabbath was not reissued in the revelation of the common grace order either in Genesis 3:16-19 or in the covenantal promulgation of it in Genesis 9. This withholding of the Sabbath sign from common grace culture is a clear indication of the secular, nonholy character of that culture.”

Readers should look at how Kline goes on to parse this out, but his basic proposal is now clear: in the absence of the Sabbath from Genesis 3 (where he says a common grace order was instituted) and Genesis 9 (where he says the common grace order was resumed), we can (he says) see God’s intention that a legitimately non-holy sphere of human life exist to be shared in common by His people and His enemies.

Returning now to the Flood account and the covenant with Noah that followed (Gen 9:1–17), we are not surprised to hear Kline argue that this Noahic Covenant was

“not an administration of redemptive grace but of common grace. It did not bestow the holy kingdom of God on an elect, redeemed people. The revelation of this covenant came to Noah and his family and the covenant is said to be made with them, but they are addressed here, as were Adam and Eve in the disclosure of common grace and curse in Genesis 3:16-19, not in distinction from but as representative of the generality of mankind.” (KP, p. 245)

Precisely here Jim Jordan demurs (he would demur from a number of other things we have heard from Kline as well, but here the difference is especially stark). “The Noahic Covenant,” he says, “was not addressed to man as man, but to covenant-man, to the Church. The benefits and duties of the Noahic Covenant are not addressed to all mankind, but only to believers” (see his Biblical Horizons [hereinafter BH], No. 19). And, like Kline, he offers an exegetical argument:

“Notice first of all, that when Noah came off the Ark, he built an altar and offered of every clean bird and beast to the LORD. It was on the basis of that sacrifice, not on the basis of some generalized ‘common grace,’ that God stated that He would never again curse the ground on account of man. God said that He would refrain from cursing even though ‘the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.’ God had brought the Flood because the intent of man’s heart was only evil continually (6:5). God changes His approach to man’s sinfulness not because man has changed, but because of the sacrifice.”

There you have it: for Kline the absence of the Sabbath in Genesis 9 is all-controlling; for Jordan the presence of sacrifice is all-controlling. There’s a lot more to it, of course. If I had ample time and space, and didn’t fear exhausting my readers’ indulgence, I would expand on how this basic difference between Kline and Jordan relates to their variant readings of the significance of the rainbow; of the inclusion of animals in the covenant promise; and of Yahweh’s “confirming” with Noah (Hebrew: qum) a covenant that appears already to be in place, rather than “cutting” a new covenant (Hebrew: krt). But now to a brief closing word of commentary.

Without having done an exhaustive study of the matter, I think Jordan plainly has the better of the argument (which is not to endorse everything he develops from his exegesis). The family to whom the Noahic promises and mandates were delivered was a redeemed family; they were a household under the blood of sacrifice (Gen 8:20–22). Moreover, while the mandates to Noah and his household were qualified by the presence of sin, the similarity between these mandates and those delivered to Adam at creation (vis-à-vis Genesis 3) is such that one should be very careful about imposing on the former a “common grace” construction that did not apply to the latter. Put differently, if Adam was to discharge his commission in obedience to and fellowship with his Creator-King, it seems decidedly odd to say that Noah and his family were to discharge their commission “in the common grace mode” (KP, p. 251), i.e., their commission “was concerned with natural life, not with religious fellowship” (KP, p. 261).

I hope I have managed to present Kline’s and Jordan’s views accurately and fairly. Whatever one may think of their respective positions, they illustrate how much rests on the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis, and what radically different visions of human life can arise from a disagreement in this portion of God’s Word.