#3 Dr. Wellum: Were the OT Israelites Automatically "God's People"?

[Scholten]

This is the third post in the open dialogue covering arguments contained in the book Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ.

The Dialogos website can provide very good material for sermon preparation and teaching classes.

To view this posting and additional material on the internet, click on:

Dialogue on Dr. Wellum's Material in "Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ"

Follow the Quick Link to the pages on this dialogue.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4.1.2.4.2 The Genealogical Principle Is Reinterpreted in the New Testament.

BAPTIST STATEMENT​

Covenantal theologians consider the new covenant era to be the fulfillment of the old covenant, yet given their belief in the continuity of the covenant of grace as interpreted in the light of the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant the paedo-baptist also assumes that "believers and their children" are included in the church just as they were in Israel of old. The fact that covenantal theologians see the Abrahamic covenant as being virtually identical with the new covenant is particularly seen in the members of the covenant. In arguing for the "dual aspect" of the covenant, in other words that the members of the visible Church include both believers and their children paedo-baptists show that they consider the new covenant to differ very little from the Abrahamic covenant. As a result they deny the redemptive-historical changes that have taken place in the transition into the new covenant (Believer's Baptism, page 128).
In the Old Testament the genealogical principle, being a physical descendent, determined the relationship between the covenant mediator and his seed. This was true of Adam, Noah, Abraham and David. In the New Testament the relationship between Christ and his seed is no longer physical but spiritual. Therefore the covenant sign must only be applied to those who are in fact spiritual seed of Abraham. This is what is at the heart of the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. We are told in this passage that the Lord will unite himself with a spiritually renewed covenant people, all of whom will know him. This is in contrast to the "mixed" nation of Israel who broke God's covenant. All of these new covenant people will be marked by the knowledge of God, the forgiveness of sins, and a circumcised heart which will enable them to be covenant keepers, not covenant breakers. In failing to grasp the significant progression in the covenants across redemptive history, especially in terms of the relationship between the covenant mediator and his seed, paedo-baptists fail to comprehend how the genealogical principle has changed from Abraham to Christ. In this they fall short in understanding the "newness" of the new covenant. Their emphasis on the continuity of the covenant of grace has led them to flatten the covenantal differences and thus to misunderstand the nature of the new covenant community. (Believer's Baptism, pages 136-37.)

PAEDO-BAPTIST RESPONSE​

Take a close look at the following sentence quoted from the above Statement:
In the Old Testament the genealogical principle, being a physical descendent, determined the relationship between the covenant mediator and his seed.
This may be how the Abrahamic covenant appeared to function in extending from one generation to the next. However, some very important and necessary insights can be gained when our understanding is expanded beyond the purely physical aspect of the covenant.
There are two considerations beyond the physical aspects that need to be taken into account.
First, God was also interested in forming relationships with people other than the physical descendents of Abraham. The covenant God made with Abraham was not restricted to Abraham's physical descendents only. It was also open to those who would join Abraham's descendents. When the Israelites left the land of Egypt some Egyptians recognized that the God of the Israelites was the true God and joined the Israelites (Exodus 12:38).
The second consideration is the fact that even in the Old Testament physical descent was not the only requirement. Genesis 17:14 reads, "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." God was not as concerned about blue blood descent as he was about people obeying him and following him.
Therefore, for the Statement to draw the conclusion in this section that God worked with people in only a physical way in the Old Testament and now only in a spiritual manner in the New Testament is incorrect. A better depiction of the contrasts between the Old and New Testaments is to say that so much more about the spiritual realities have been revealed now in the New Testament.
The ramifications of this for the debate between Baptist theologians and covenant theologians are immense. The basic premise of this point in the Statement above is that the means whereby a person now becomes a member of the new covenant are different from the means by which a person became a member of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament. This premise is wrong from the very beginning because the new covenant did not replace the Abrahamic covenant. Now consider the covenant theologian’s claim that the Abrahamic covenant still exists in the New Testament. In the New Testament the members of the Abrahamic covenant are “mixed” – believers and unbelievers while the members of the new covenant are only believers. Then, there is consistency in covenantal theology in that the way one becomes a member of the Abrahamic covenant in the New Testament is the same as the way one became a member of that covenant in the Old Testament. One becomes a member as a result of one's parents being obedient members of the Abrahamic covenant. This is quite different from it being simply a matter of physical descent.
This section of the Statement should be considered false -- it contains two significant errors and cannot be taken as legitimate supporting evidence of the overall premise that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 disproves infant baptism.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Be sure to go to:

Dialogue on Dr. Wellum's Material in "Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ"

follow the Quick Link to the dialogue on the book Believer’s Baptism and include your evaluation.


The next post in this series will be found at:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/4-d...covenant-did-not-annul-abrahamic-coven-70699/

 

[MW]

In the New Testament the relationship between Christ and his seed is no longer physical but spiritual.

It can be shown from explicit New Testament teaching that this is a false premise. The believer's union with Christ is a spiritual one, but it is such a comprehensive union as takes in body and soul. In 1 Corinthians 6, for example, it is emphasised that the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. The body itself is the member of Christ. Being bought with a price the redeemed of the Lord are to glorify God in the body as well as in the spirit because both are God's.

This comprehensive relationship is further explained by the apostle in chapter 7. The Christian's relationship to the Lord includes certain privileges and obligations relative to marriage and children. The Lord Jesus Christ claims dominion not only over the person but also over his relationships, and is pleased to take up and use each man in His service together with "his proper gift of God." The fact that a man or woman might be joined to an unbeliever is no bar to this service, for the believing person sanctifies the relationship. It is argued that any other state of affairs would result in the children of the marriage being unclean. To the contrary, "now are they holy," that is, taken up as a part of the believer's sanctified service to Christ. This fact is given as an argument why the believer can remain in the marriage relationship with an unbeliever and need not fear being polluted.

In chapters 8-10 of the same epistle it is clear that the believer's relationship to the Lord is so comprehensive that it is to have a bearing on his eating and drinking. Likewise, in chapter 11, this relationship affects the way men and women, as physically different human beings, are to function in the church. Throughout chapters 11-14, the gathering of the church is looked at in terms of its physical characteristics of uniting with fellow members, of assembling in one place, and speaking in the languages of men. In chapter 15, the resurrection of the body is taught as one of the fundamentals of the faith. It is this chapter which brings out the underlying problem which plagued the Corinthian church and called for correction -- an over-realised eschatology. Any theology which fails to recognise that the believer's life is a life that is now lived in the flesh essentially falls prey to the same error.

 

[steadfast7]

Rev Winzer, might I point out that you are speaking of the material implications and benefits of being united with Christ. The statement of baptists that the relationship between Christ and his seed is spiritual not physical is not a denial of the materiality of the new creation - along with all its implications. It is saying, however, that our primary and fundamental union is a spiritual one, where we are seated with Christ in heavenly places. In all of your examples above it is clear that they are referring to implications and benefits that flow out of our rebirth into new life. They are not something that can ever enjoy without first begin joined to Christ.

To get the discussion rolling forward, I ask: does the circumcision of Abraham and his seed ultimately point forward to Christ?
if so, then why is the practice perpetuated post-advent?

 

[MW]

Rev Winzer, might I point out that you are speaking of the material implications and benefits of being united with Christ. The statement of baptists that the relationship between Christ and his seed is spiritual not physical is not a denial of the materiality of the new creation - along with all its implications. It is saying, however, that our primary and fundamental union is a spiritual one, where we are seated with Christ in heavenly places. In all of your examples above it is clear that they are referring to implications and benefits that flow out of our rebirth into new life. They are not something that can ever enjoy without first begin joined to Christ.

If the author of the statement meant to say that the believer's union with Christ is essentially spiritual, he had words at his disposal to say what he meant. As the words stand, they deny the relationship is physical and claim an exclusivity for its spiritual nature. Moreover, there is nothing to be gained for the author's argument if he merely claims that the relationship is essentially spiritual. God is a spirit. The relationship of believers to God under the Old Testament was precisely the same. All of the physical characteristics of that relationship were implications.

To get the discussion rolling forward, I ask: does the circumcision of Abraham and his seed ultimately point forward to Christ?
if so, then why is the practice perpetuated post-advent?

The practice of circumcision is not perpetuated post-advent. Circumcision has been done away with now that Christ has come, made of a woman and made under the law, fulfilling all the obligations of a doer of the law, that He might redeem those that were under the law and that we might receive the adoption of sons. You are labouring under a misapprehension if you think that paedobaptists do not recognise genuine discontinuities between the testaments.

 

[steadfast7]

The relationship of believers to God under the Old Testament was precisely the same. All of the physical characteristics of that relationship were implications.

But do not the physical characteristics of relationship with God begin only when God condescends by way of covenant? That's my point. First must come a covenanting with God, and that by justification through faith in Christ, and from there flows what it means to live life coram deo as full human beings.

The practice of circumcision is not perpetuated post-advent. Circumcision has been done away with now that Christ has come, made of a woman and made under the law, fulfilling all the obligations of a doer of the law, that He might redeem those that were under the law and that we might receive the adoption of sons. You are labouring under a misapprehension if you think that paedobaptists do not recognise genuine discontinuities between the testaments.

Fair enough, the practice of circumcision has ceased, but the principle remains - children are included and are to be given the covenantal sign. If the physical practice has ceased with Christ, what is the basis for perpetuating the principle?

 

[MW]

But do not the physical characteristics of relationship with God begin only when God condescends by way of covenant? That's my point. First must come a covenanting with God, and that by justification through faith in Christ, and from there flows what it means to live life coram deo as full human beings.

This transcendent principle applies to all covenants. The London Confession retains this transcendent principle which is taught in the Westminster Confession. What you are saying, therefore, applies to the Old Testament as much as to the New. If the spiritual and physical have their correlating function in all covenants, one should not seek, in the interests of polemics, to over-emphasise the spiritual at the expense of the physical.

Fair enough, the practice of circumcision has ceased, but the principle remains - children are included and are to be given the covenantal sign. If the physical practice has ceased with Christ, what is the basis for perpetuating the principle?

First, "people" are not "things." People are human beings created in the image of God, who have fallen in sin and stand in need of salvation. Covenant administration is for people. If that is the case, the people included in the covenant should not be regarded as if they were a mere temporary arrangement. Their inclusion or exclusion is moral, not ceremonial. Infants are sinners who need salvation.

Secondly, as Ephesians 2 and 3 makes evident, a change in the membership of the covenant requires positive new revelation to that effect. There is no positive new revelation in the New Testament which excludes children from the administration of the covenant. Quite the contrary, they continue to be included in the same manner in which they were included under the Old Testament.

 

[Scholten]

But do not the physical characteristics of relationship with God begin only when God condescends by way of covenant? That's my point. First must come a covenanting with God, and that by justification through faith in Christ, and from there flows what it means to live life coram deo as full human beings.

Dennis, I'm not sure if I'm taking this a wrong way, but a covenanting with God does not come by justification through faith in Christ. The covenants are initiated by God; He causes them to take place with man. This is quite clear in the manner in which God made the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15.

 

[steadfast7]

This transcendent principle applies to all covenants. The London Confession retains this transcendent principle which is taught in the Westminster Confession. What you are saying, therefore, applies to the Old Testament as much as to the New. If the spiritual and physical have their correlating function in all covenants, one should not seek, in the interests of polemics, to over-emphasise the spiritual at the expense of the physical.

I can fully accept physicality as part and parcel of all covenants, but is Israel's situation the exact same as ours? Land, seed, and material blessing are a big part of Israel's package. To make much of the principle of physicality in the OT must take the full package into account. That some Gentiles came under the Abrahamic covenant has a lot to do with losing one's race and adopting another. Our ingrafting into Israel does not mean we can lay claim on these physical aspects of the promises, so it seems arbitrary to me that the infant-clause be retained. The opting out from civil and ceremonial law for Gentiles is a big indicator for me of a major change in the principles governing the old system.

---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 AM ----------

But do not the physical characteristics of relationship with God begin only when God condescends by way of covenant? That's my point. First must come a covenanting with God, and that by justification through faith in Christ, and from there flows what it means to live life coram deo as full human beings.

Dennis, I'm not sure if I'm taking this a wrong way, but a covenanting with God does not come by justification through faith in Christ. The covenants are initiated by God; He causes them to take place with man. This is quite clear in the manner in which God made the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15.

I speak of justification by faith in Christ in a monergistic sense.

 

[MW]

I can fully accept physicality as part and parcel of all covenants, but is Israel's situation the exact same as ours? Land, seed, and material blessing are a big part of Israel's package. To make much of the principle of physicality in the OT must take the full package into account.

Then take it into account. I would add, you are obliged to do it. "The moral law doth forever bind all." So says your Confession. If you believe the ten commandments for ever bind all, then you have to deal with the fifth commandment -- the inclusion of infants and the promise relative to the land. The apostle Paul factors in the altered circumstances of the people of God when he appeals to the binding morality of this commandment. He says nothing which excludes infants; to the contrary, he includes them. And he does not negate the promise relative to the land, but broadens it to take in the expansion of the covenant in the incorporation of the whole earth. The inspired apostle's covenant theology is expansive.

 

[Scholten]

This transcendent principle applies to all covenants. The London Confession retains this transcendent principle which is taught in the Westminster Confession. What you are saying, therefore, applies to the Old Testament as much as to the New. If the spiritual and physical have their correlating function in all covenants, one should not seek, in the interests of polemics, to over-emphasise the spiritual at the expense of the physical.

I can fully accept physicality as part and parcel of all covenants, but is Israel's situation the exact same as ours? Land, seed, and material blessing are a big part of Israel's package. To make much of the principle of physicality in the OT must take the full package into account. That some Gentiles came under the Abrahamic covenant has a lot to do with losing one's race and adopting another. Our ingrafting into Israel does not mean we can lay claim on these physical aspects of the promises, so it seems arbitrary to me that the infant-clause be retained. The opting out from civil and ceremonial law for Gentiles is a big indicator for me of a major change in the principles governing the old system..

This is an area of a lot of discussion between Baptists and paedo-baptists. Covenant theologians largely hold to considerable change, newness, in the transition into the New Testament. The promise of the land to a large extent becomes the promise of our eternal home in heaven. Material blessing remains a part of the covenant; where Christianity takes hold cultures generally prosper. We do not lay claim to these promises in the same way as the Israelites of the Old Testament, but there is a lot of continuity there, too.

 

[steadfast7]

This is an area of a lot of discussion between Baptists and paedo-baptists. Covenant theologians largely hold to considerable change, newness, in the transition into the New Testament. The promise of the land to a large extent becomes the promise of our eternal home in heaven. Material blessing remains a part of the covenant; where Christianity takes hold cultures generally prosper. We do not lay claim to these promises in the same way as the Israelites of the Old Testament, but there is a lot of continuity there, too.

Agreed. As non-dispensationals, we recognize a large degree of spiritualizing of Israel's benefits for those in the new covenant. Physical life becomes eternal life; land becomes the New Jerusalem, a heavenly dwelling; etc. But physical descendants leading to a Messianic Seed ..? I just don't see how that is supposed to carry over, but that's just where we differ.

 

[Peairtach]

Dennis

But physical descendants leading to a Messianic Seed ..? I just don't see how that is supposed to carry over, but that's just where we differ.

We Presbyterians don't believe that our children will result in a Messianic Seed, because that Messianic Seed has already come. Hence another reason why the sign of the Covenant of Grace has changed from circumcision - which was focussed on the male reproductive organ - to baptism.

But since the time of Abraham there has been more to the CoG than the fact that you may be involved in contributing your DNA to the Messiah in His human nature.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." (Rom 3:1-4, ESV)

Also you have to realise that there are three phases in the administration of the Abrahamic Covenant

(a) Abraham to Moses.

(b) Moses to Christ.

(c) Christ to the Eschaton.

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

Just as Moses didn't overthrow the Abrahamic Covenant, so Christ didn't overthrow the Abrahamic Covenant in His first advent.

But Reformed Baptists say that children of believers are not included in the administration of the CoG in the New Covenant, whereas they were in the period from Abraham to Moses, and the period from Moses to Christ.

Dennis

Physical life becomes eternal life

We shouldn't spiritualise too much. Any physical benefits we now enjoy also come from God's blessing of us. Ultimately there are greater spiritual and physical benefits to come in the Heavenly Eschatalogical Kingdom.

Our bodies - as well as our souls - are united to Christ.

Dennis

land becomes the New Jerusalem,

The Land becomes this Earth upon which we are standing. Granted it will be renewed and transformed at the Eschaton but it is still this Earth.

And to a certain extent it already belongs to the Church and the Church is already entering into her inheritance.

In principle the world is hers:

So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's. (I Cor 3:21-22)

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13)

To the extent that the saved already enjoy the legitimate benefits of this world they are already - in this life - inheriting the Earth:

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt 5:5)

I agree that the full and greater benefits are delayed until beyond this life. To the extent that the Church flourishes and finds success in evangelism she inherits the Earth by the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, just as Israel inherited the Land under Joshua, David and Solomon.

What Reformed Baptists are saying is that there were spiritual and covenantal benefits for the offspring of Abraham, and for the children of Gentiles that were ingrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree in the period from Abraham to Christ, but that from the time of Christ to the Eschaton there are no spiritual and covenantal benefits for children who in God's providence are born into professedly Christian families, whether Jewish or Gentile.

If Reformed Baptists accepted that their children were born into the administration of the CoG, they would have them baptised.