The Covenant Sign in the Old Testament
It is in Genesis 17, that Scripture introduces us to the
ancient practice of circumcision. “This is My covenant, which you shall keep,
between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall
be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and
it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.” This is not the first
or the last time the word אות is used to refer to the
אוֹת בְּרִית.
אוֹת־הַבְּרִית is used in Gen. 9:12. God also gave Noah the rainbow as a sign
of the covenant that he made with him. Moreover, we also see the Sabbath used
as a sign between the Lord and Israel in Ex. 31:13 and Ezk. 20:12. The idea that
God provides an outward sign to indicate his covenantal relationship appears on
several occasions throughout redemptive history. This is a well-established and
without controversy.
I should also note that
God informed Abraham that any uncircumcised male would be cut off from his
people because he has broken God’s covenant. (Gen. 17:14) The question enters
concerning the female covenant members. What would be the sign they could
carry? The answer must be viewed through the patriarchal structure of the
culture. The Fathers and husbands of the daughters and wives stood as the
representative head of the family and therefore, their sign was also the sign
of the female(s) they represented. Circumcision was not a condition of the
covenant, but rather, it was the sign that a covenant was in effect,
established, in place. What we are looking for is an equivalent to the sign of
the covenant in the NT, under the new covenant.
Baptism in the NT
Covenant theology holds that baptism is to the New Covenant
what circumcision was to the Abrahamic covenant. It is a sign indicating God’s
abiding covenantal relationship. My first question relates to the sufficiency
of baptism to serve in such a role to begin with. For Noah, the sign of the
rainbow would be continual. Hence, it served as a continual reminder that God
would never again destroy the earth with water. The sign of the Sabbath was
another covenant sign that represented a continual, on-going sign indicating a
covenantal relationship was in place. Finally, circumcision was an act that
permanently altered the appearance of a man. By its very nature, it also
reflected the permanent nature of the sign of the covenant and the special,
on-going covenantal relationship between God and His people. One has to ask if
the sacrament of baptism has the same ability. Is baptism the sign of the new
covenant or is it a picture of the person’s death to sin, burial with Christ,
and resurrection to a newness of life? Perhaps it is both. To answer that
question, we turn to the NT Scriptures.
“Rites of immersion were not uncommon in the world in which
early Christianity developed. One type of symbolism with which they were
frequently connected was that of purification: from sin, from destruction, from
the profane sphere before entering an holy area, from something under a taboo,
etc.”[1]
The idea of defilement and uncleanness was prevalent in the
first century culture of Palestine. In the case of Christian baptism, it isn’t
any one thing that has made one unclean or profane, but rather one’s entire
existence apart from the Christian group, apart from Christ Himself, and hence
without God. Perhaps this explains the connection between baptism, and the new
birth, or entrance into Christ’s Church, His body. “Such cleansings can take
place when one stands on the verge of a new state in life or is entering into a
new community or upon a new phase of life, etc. Thus they can function as rites
of initiation or as rites of passage. Depending on the way in which one regards
the situation being left behind and the one being entered, such rites can be
connected with ideas of a new birth, of a new life, or of salvation as
contrasted to nothingness, chaos, death, or destruction.[2]”
It would seem that NT baptism is more germane to the change
in an individual than it is the sign of a covenant. The practice of Christian
baptism is a command of the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself.
Christians are commanded to be baptized as part of their public proclamation
that they have left the old group, the world, behind and have entered a radical
new sect known as the Christian group, the Christ-followers. Christ commanded
His followers in Matt. 28:19 to preach the gospel, make disciples, and baptize
converts throughout the world. Hence, Christian baptism is a momentous practice
in the Christian community. Peter reinforces this command of Christ in Acts
2:38 when he commands his audience to repent and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ.
Christian baptism follows an outward response to the gospel.
In Acts 2:41, those who had received the words of Peter were baptized. Again,
in Acts 8:12, when the city of Samaria received the word of God, they were
baptized, women and men alike the text informs us. The Ethiopian Eunuch, after
hearing Philip deliver the gospel, desired to be baptized and indeed he was
baptized. (Acts 8:36-38) While I recognize the variant in v.37, the fact that
the best Alexandrian witnesses omit it does little to detract from the fact
that Christian baptism in fact does require Christian conversion and a public
confession of faith in Jesus Christ. In essence, Christian baptism requires
genuine faith. Even though the earliest manuscript that contains the verse is
dated to the 6th century, the tradition of the Eunuch’s confession
is attested as early as the second century, being quoted by Irenaeus in Against
Heresies III.xii.8.
After his conversion and subsequent healing of blindness,
Paul was immediately baptized by Ananias. (Acts 9:18) Peter baptized the
gentile coverts of Cornelius’ house immediately after they received the gift of
the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:48) Lydia was baptized after the Lord opened her
heart to respond to the gospel. (Acts 16:15) The Jailer who expressed faith in
Christ was immediately baptized along with his house. (Acts 16:33) The
connection between faith and baptism emerges once more in Acts:18:8 where
Crispus and his house believed as well as a number of Corinthians and were
baptized. The final record of baptism in Acts is located in 19:5 where John’s
disciples were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. All throughout the
historical record of the NT Church, baptism followed quickly the outward sign
of conversion to the Christian group.
The spiritual parallel of water baptism is our baptism into
the body of Christ by His Spirit. Romans 6:4 states it clearly, “Therefore we
have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was
raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in
newness of life.” Water baptism is an official proclamation by the individual
that they have been spiritually baptized into the body of Christ. They have
died to the rudimentary elements of this fading world, and now live a new life
devoted entirely to Christ. The believer is submerged into the watery grave,
and raised again in a newness of life. This is the picture. The whole point
seems to be that water baptism is a depiction of something that has already
taken place in the heart. Paul says, “having been buried with Him in baptism,
in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God,
who raised Him from the dead.”In I Cor. 10:2, Paul provides the OT type for the NT antitype. It was not circumcision at all. According to Paul, the exodus was the type, which pointed to Christian baptism in the NT. The evens of Exodus 13-14, according to Paul are a picture of the NT sacrament of baptism. The OT presents the picture of baptism in the presence of God witnessed in the cloud and in the miracle of the parting of the sea as the Children of Israel passed through the waters. Just as the exodus was a baptism into Moses, who stood for the law and liberty in God, freedom from Egyptian bondage, so too does NT baptism depict the exodus of the new believer as they are delivered from sin to come under the law of Christ.
The question of the salvation of covenant children is a very
serious one. If covenant theology is correct in its understanding of the
covenantal arrangement, it follows that to leave children out of the equation
and to deny their guaranteed salvation, and not to include them in Christian
baptism as early as possible is a serious and grievous error. This is a matter
of exceptional significance. The practical implications are far reaching if the
covenant view is correct. It is fundamental to our Christian walk as believers
in the Christian community and especially as parents.
There are a number of opportunities for the NT writers to
have recorded the baptism of children with absolute clarity. Luke was clear
when he recorded the baptism of women in Samaria. He stated clearly that both
men and women were baptized. He went out of his way to record the baptism of
Lydia, a female convert to Christ. He was clear when he informed Theophilus
about the baptism of the Samaritan believers as well as the Gentiles. He even
went out of his way to mention followers of John. Luke was a very precise
historian who gave careful attention to the details. Yet, in all his records of
the NT Church, Luke never once recorded the baptism of a child. It seems quite
natural to me that the record in Acts 8 of the Samaritan baptism was a perfect opportunity
for Luke to add children to the men and women being baptized. However, there is
no mention of children in Luke’s record. Every use of household assumes the
presence of children. This assumption has little to go on. Moreover, we do not build theology on assumptions and we certainly do not dogmatize views based off it. Since the belief that children of covenant parents are
elect and guaranteed salvation is basic, it would seem to me that the doctrine
of perspicuity would provide direction on the subject in the revelation of the
NT. However, the record is far from clear. The lack of clarity itself serves as
a devastating blow against the covenant argument. The baptism of children,
according to covenant theology, must fall into the category of basic Christian
praxis. Hence, basic Christian praxis is always, always treated with great
clarity in the NT teachings.
In addition, nowhere in the NT is the Greek word σημεῖον
used with διαθήκη to signify that there is a sign of the new covenant. However,
the sign of the covenant was significant enough that in Noah’s case, and in
Abraham’s case, and even in the case of Moses, God spells out clearly signs for
those respective covenants: the rainbow, the Sabbath, and circumcision. Providing
signs for a divine covenant is God’s prerogative. The point is that a sign is rudimentary,
central, and unequivocal. There should be no room for reasonable dispute based
on rigorous exegesis or interpretive principles. This is clearly not the case
when we come to the subject of baptism standing in place of circumcision as the
sign of the new covenant.
Suffer the Children to come to me
Covenant theologians are famous for using Jesus’ blessing of
the little children to demonstrate that infants are or can be elect. Mark’s
record (10:13-16) is probably the most detailed with Luke giving us the added
detail that these children were babies (βρέφη). Jesus tells us that unless we receive
the kingdom of God like a child, we will in no wise enter into it. This gives
us a hint as to what godly faith and trust looks like. No one believes like a
child believes. No one trusts quite like a child trusts. Is it any wonder that
we are called children of God? Hence, we are called to believe and trust like
little children. There is rich theological truth in these passages, but none
that would support the idea of covenantal election. There is no relationship
mentioned between the faith of the parent and that of the child. In other
words, if we were to interpret this text as covenant theologians do, it would
seem to point toward the salvation of all infants because Jesus did not bother
to provide any qualifications or distinctions. The parents’ status is nowhere
mentioned by any NT writer and thus, seems irrelevant. If the NT authors were
writing with divine election of covenantal children in mind as they recorded
this event, which is what covenant folks seem to believe, they certainly left
much to the imagination. Again, we come back to the point of severe or extreme
ambiguity.
I Cor. 7:14
The last piece of examination is the interpretation of 1
Corinthians 7:14. Paul writes, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified
through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing
husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” It is
illegitimate exegesis to characterize this pericope as dealing with the
question of children in spiritually mixed or even unmixed marriages. The
subject of I Corinthians 7 is marital relations, not the election of covenant
children. Moreover, the family is not coming into anywhere in this text. Paul
begins the discussion talking about sexual relations and moves quickly into
marital relations in the covenant community. The immediate context of this
passage concerns divorce, not covenantal children.
The use of the perfect tense indicates a stative aspect in
Paul’s thinking. The state of the unbelieving husband is sanctification.
However, is this sanctification in terms of individual sanctification or should
it be viewed as sanctification in the context of marriage? Whatever the
meaning, one must consider the that this same sense extends to the children of
such a relationship as well. “The perfect tense indicates that the unbeliever
has become and will continue to be a part of the marriage unit on which God has
his claim [EBC].”[3]
The context of this passage is within the area of the
institution of marriage. It is best to understand this sanctification within
the unit of the marriage, the husband wife relationship. God has set apart the
unbelieving husband for the believing wife, and vice-versa. Therefore, the believing
spouse has no cause to worry about separating from the unbelieving partner.
There are no contamination fears with which to be concerned. The Corinthians
were concerned with what defiled a person. Sexual relations with an unbelieving
spouse do not defile the believing spouse.
Paul then argues that if the Corinthian believers were
correct about such defilement, then it would mean their children are also
defiled in the sense that they are outside of the bounds of the Christian
community like any other unbelieving family. The idea is that your children, by
nature of your covenantal relationship to Christ are indeed in an advantageous
position. They are within the circle of the Christian community in the sense
that they are surrounded by believers. They are in the presence of the word.
They experience the gatherings of the Christian group. The holy are children in
the same way that the unbelieving spouse is holy. Does it follow then that God
promises to save the spouse of the believer because Paul uses such language to
describe them? I do not think any covenant theologian would agree.
[1] Lars
Hartman, "Baptism" In , in , vol. 1, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 583.
[2] Lars
Hartman, "Baptism" In , in , vol. 1, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 583.
[3]
Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1
Corinthians 1–9 (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 268.
No comments:
Post a Comment