The Upper Register Blog

In Kingdom Prologue (2000), Kline refers to By Oath Consigned (1968) seven times. All seven references are favorable, as in “see BOC for more on this topic,” although in one key reference (KP, p. 312, quoted below) Kline makes a brief allusion to the fact that his treatment of the same topic in KP involves “some revision.” All seven references are to the treatment of circumcision and baptism in BOC chs. 3-6. There are no references in KP to BOC chs. 1-2.

Here are the seven references:

KP, p. 217:  Dealing with the Noahic flood and Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea as judicial ordeals and types of the final judgment, Kline writes:  “(cf. the comments on 1 Cor 10:1,2 in my By Oath Consigned, p.68).”

KP, p. 312:  This is the start of a new section titled “Circumcision Oath” (KP, pp. 312-18). Kline writes:  “[On this subject see further my By Oath Consigned (1968), of which the present discussion is a résumé involving some revision.]” What exactly was involved in this “revision” is a topic I’ll address in subsequent posts.

KP, p. 316: Later in this same section, Kline deals with “the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11) and adds:  “[See By Oath Consigned, pp. 45-47,71.]”

KP, p. 317:  On the next page, Kline sets out to argue that baptism corresponds to circumcision in its symbolic meaning, and adds:  “(For a more extensive treatment see my By Oath Consigned.)”

KP, p. 361:  This is a later section dealing with the nature of the Abrahamic covenant as a family-based covenant community. “From the beginning the institution of the family was consistently respected in determining the constituency of the covenant family.  (See further on this topic my By Oath Consigned, pp.84ff.)” Page 84 and following coincides with BOC ch. 6 which is Kline’s argument for infant baptism on the ground of parental authority.

KP, p. 363:  Dealing with the theological significance of baptism:  “(cf. By Oath Consigned, pp.63ff.).” Page 63 and following coincides with BOC ch. 5:  “Christian Baptism: Oath-Sign of the New Covenant.”

KP, pp. 363-64:  Again dealing with the topic of household baptism:  “(Cf. By Oath Consigned, pp.96f.  See pp.94ff. for a discussion of the question of the continuation of the broader household approach inclusive of ‘servants.’)”

The take-away from this is that Kline did not totally discourage people from reading BOC. He still thought it contained valuable insights, particularly related to his treatment of circumcision and baptism (BOC chs. 3-5), as well as his argument for infant baptism on the basis of parental authority (BOC ch. 6). However, he would have wanted readers of BOC to also read his treatment of the same themes in KP (pp. 312-18 and 361-65). These sections of KP were a briefer “resume” of BOC, so one would still need to consult BOC for the fuller argument. Nevertheless, the briefer resume did involve “some revision” of BOC at certain points.

His discussion of covenant theology in BOC chs. 1-2 is not addressed anywhere in KP. Kline felt that these chapters required a much greater degree of revision than BOC chs. 3-6.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm and is filed under By Oath Consigned, Kline. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.