Covenant inclusion understood as default in the new-testament?

[anotherpilgrim]

Hey everyone,
The main reasons paedobaptists argue for the command to apply baptism to covenant children is the continuity of covenant administration between the old and new covenants. So, the argument has usually been that since that continuity is assumed it does not require explicit restatement in the new covenant.

While attempting to explain this to someone, they asked a question I'd like everyone's input on; namely, is it valid to assume that the new testament readership would have taken the same principle of covenant inclusion for granted? Jewish christians would have understood it of course, but isn't majority of the new testament addressed to non-jewish christians, and therefore this assumption that they would understand this convenant inclusion by default, a false one, and therefore we should expect explicit addressing of covenantal inclusion and not assume it by default in relation to baptism?

Thanks!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

but isn't majority of the new testament addressed to non-jewish christians

This statement appears to contain a fundamental misunderstanding. It seems to presume that certain (yea, the majority) parts of the NT are peculiarly addressed, and that to non-Jewish Christians. Does this mean that ethnic or converted Jewish people, who have become Christians, have very little NT material that is "theirs?" But even more, it seems to divide the Word of the NT from the Word of the OT, as if the NT is really where all the current attention belongs, and the OT is pretty much of a relic.

It seems to me, as a reader/interpreter, that the story of the Bible up through new conditions described historically in Acts, are first and foremost peculiarly addressed to "believers." The apostles (even Paul) address their witness first to the Jewish audiences, both in Palestine and later in synagogues across the empire. Particular churches are then typically formed around a Jewish-core, which is gradually absorbed and subsumed by sheer numbers of Gentiles. But to begin with (and certainly in the Jewish homeland where Christianity first proclaims itself the heir of the promise to Abraham) the church is predominately Jewish.

The first "Bible" (Scriptures) of the church is the OT (Tanakh or LXX). These writings are the whole preaching text for the church until the apostolic witness to Christ is sealed in the writings that epitomize it (the NT). The NT is not "Jewish-specific," but international in keeping with the new-wineskins motif of the Kingdom Jesus preached. But any suggestion, that the NT speaks mainly to non-Jews, only tries to reinforce a "middle wall of partition" that has been torn down.

I'm just now preaching in Ephesians, in particular ch.2. And Paul makes one lonely address to a "segment" of his readers, those of Gentile extraction who probably form the majority of that congregation (v11). And he does this for one major reason: so that he may remind everyone (Gentile or Jew) that the distinction between these groups has been obliterated. There is one people of God, one body of Christ, one Head of the unified body. The Judaizers were the segregationists and isolationists of that day.

The Gentiles have been grafted into the vine. This vine bears the history of God's dealings with his people. So, where is the history of THIS "Gentile" found? Where is MY history? WHO are my fathers, and what happened to them? I can read about them now in the pages of the OT. Here is my father, Abraham. Paul even tells me as much. Illustration: When a man of CountryX becomes a citizen of this land, the day he takes his oath of new allegiance, GeorgeWashington becomes HIS father, the father of his country. No more is the history of his former land more than a curiosity. His children will grow up learning about their forefathers, who built THIS land in which they grow up (whatever their ethnic or national past).

If the Bible (OT & NT) is really just one big book, with one message, and all of it is always relevant from cover-to-cover, being the property of those entrusted with the revelation of God, then we have to start asking questions like, "where are important commands we have some right to expect, for changes to God's requirements, if indeed there are changes?" There is a general assumption in American evangelicalism that the NT is "our" book, the "Christian" Bible, that just happens to have a rather large and cumbersome preface. And (the belief goes) like most prefaces, the OT can be typically left unread without disturbing the essential narrative and teaching of the NT.

But is it true that all one needs to know about the "new covenant" can be properly learned from Matthew forward? I think that is naive. It's akin to the opinion that all one really needs to read, in order to understand what Tolkien was saying, is "The Return of the King;" forget about the other two (or three) books--who wants to waste the energy on a thousand supplemental pages to the climactic events of the end of the Third Age?

So (back to the real world) why would Gentiles, who are now told about the climactic victory of all the Ages of which they have been made beneficiaries, NOT be interested in their own NEW history? What is uninteresting about how God brought all this about, who was involved, when it was happening, etc.? And not just interesting as historical trivia, but interesting to who I now recon myself to be, and who we are as a people.

In salvation, God claims me and all that/who is mine! Hallelu---what's that? except for my children...?
He made that promise to my father Abraham, and I inherit his promises... oh, but not that one?
But didn't Peter echo that promise in Act.2, '...to you and to your children...,' oh, but that doesn't mean the same thing?
ok. great.
Now, I'm just wondering... do you have anything more explicit, you know, something that actually takes that promise away?​

It seems to me, one only needs more than what we have already in the OT and the NT with regard to the solidarity of the family unit in the church, if one tries to formulate an ecclesiology starting de novo with the NT. That procedure seems to me just as misguided as the Pharisee/Judaizer belief that proper understanding the "old covenant" began at Sinai. In Galatians Paul said (in essence) those guys didn't begin far enough back, in Genesis.

 

[anotherpilgrim]

Thanks Rev. Bruce! I've had to mull your response over a couple of times to really get your full import. Your analogy of a person assuming a new citizenship and thereby inheriting a new history was most helpful!

To rephrase your response, you would say that sprinkled throughout the NT are sign-posts and mile-markers that would tell the NT reader (in the immediate context of the readership to whom the gospels or epistles were written) to go back to the OT and ensure they begin their understanding of the entire plan of redemption and covenants from there. Therefore, they should understand the concept of God's covenant dealings by virtue of this constant pointing back to the old and then proceed to read the epistles and gospels in light of that.

Could you point me to some specific verses and passages that you think can best help me back this up, particularly passages that you would say the NT reader irrespective of peculiar or global context would have to see as forceful indicators to begin their understanding of theology and redemption by going back to the OT?

Thanks again!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jn.5:39-40 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."
-----------------------------------

Lk.24:25-27 "And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
-----------------------------------

1Cor.10:1 "For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,..."

Paul is unquestionably writing here to mixed congregation, whom he calls his BRETHREN, again one that is doubtless already Gentile-dominant. And he calls the Exodus generation OUR FATHERS.​

v.6 "Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did...."
v.11 "Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come."
-----------------------------------

Php.3:3 "For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh."

Paul writes to believers (saints and their officers) in Philippi--a church begun with virtually no Jewish core whatever (there was no synagogue in this Roman colonial city when Paul arrived)--encouraging them against typical religious-Jewish and Judaizing propaganda. Those claimed to be "the Circumcision," by which they meant people in covenant with God. Paul reverses their claim, and pronounces the church of Christ--including mostly non-physically circumcised Gentiles--to be the REAL "Circumcision."​

-----------------------------------

The book of Revelation has almost as many quotes and allusions to the OT as it has discrete verses, making it the NT writing more dependent for interpretation on a thoroughgoing familiarity with the content of the OT than any other book, even the book of Hebrews. The churches to whom it was first addressed were Asian, and almost certainly Gentile dominant throughout.
-----------------------------------

The book of Hebrews is taken as a book written to a Jewish audience, and it probably was at least a Jewish-dominant church. But it isn't a letter of profit merely or even primarily to those with a Jewish-religious background. But the point to make here is that a good understanding of it demands at least passing familiarity with the available Scriptures. The assumption that only those of Jewish extraction and practice would value it is a pretty astounding claim.
-----------------------------------

But in fact, as Beale & Carson (eds.), Amazon.com: Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (9780801026935): G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson: Books , show, it is poverty to attempt interpretation of any NT book absent the whole corpus of divine revelation. The NT assumes familiarity with the belief system construction of the OT from start to finish. The NT writers constantly make use, deliberately and often apparently artlessly, of divine revelation already in their possession.
-----------------------------------

1Pet.1:10-12 "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look."

Some people will argue that Peter was writing specifically to diaspora Jews (cf.1Pet.1:1 & Gal.2:7-9), and so interpretation of this text doesn't have across-the-board implications for interpreting Scripture as a whole. But beside this interpretation reinforcing a notion of segregation within the body, it would imply that there was a "Gentile" hermeneutic, and a "Jewish" hermeneutic, rather than a "Christian" or "apostolic" hermeneutic--the only one that is in fact faithful to the Bible's internal meaning and structure.​

-----------------------------------

Act 8:27-35 "And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go over and join this chariot.' So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?' And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: 'Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.' And the eunuch said to Philip, 'About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?' Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus."

Again, this passage shows a NT believer taking a portion of the Word of God at hand (Isaiah), and using it to preach Christ-fulfilled, and that to a foreigner.​

-----------------------------------


In the end, I think we either accept or reject the principle that the Bible teaches one religion, and only one. I say it is single, though possessing expressions different in succeeding eras. However, the substance remains. And any who come along in later times, and neglect the whole of revelation in favor of that portion which they think has unique relevance to them, immediately create an imbalance that manifests itself in a variety of ways. It may be antinomian. It may be neonomian. It may be ethnically prejudicial, for or against some group. It may emphasize a particular doctrine or practice, out of actual proportion to its whole-Bible presentation. It will neglect important qualifications of doctrine or practice that come in; or antecedent facts that came before later clarifications, which facts constituted the context in which those later statements brought clarity--ignoring the background renders the "clarity" opaque.

The Bible is the most self-referential book of all. Nothing revealed at an earlier or later time ever contradicted the future or past revelation. Later portions interpret or clarify or adjust earlier ones. Earlier portions nurture and inform and condition later ones. It is a false-hermeneutic that makes the existential position of either the interpreter or the human author the key of understanding. The key of biblical understanding is having the mind of Christ; holding a theology centered on Christ; appreciating a Bible story that is all about Him saving a lost world, a lost humanity, by forming for Himself a body of redeemed out of every tongue, tribe, people and nation, unto the glory of God. This has been the key not just since Christ came, but always. The critical thing is not how much of the seed or sprout or tree of revelation one had at any given moment in time; but whether one has faith in the promise of the Savior at the heart of all that God is saying to us.

Rom. 4 tells us that Abraham (and implies that David also) had hope in Christ. The writer to Hebrews is even more explicit, concerning the faith of Moses, 11:28. Jude makes another strong correlation between the faith of the antedeluvian, Enoch, and the faith of the Apostles (cf. 1:14 & 17). How many religions does the Bible contain? One. How many foci to revelation? One.

Will these observations be enough to persuade someone that the Bible has one, unified message? It's not up to us, but the Spirit of God to persuade, 1Cor.2:12; 4:7. And it is important to point out: there are many people who agree with this view at some level, in principle; although that does not translate into particular doctrines or practices.

 

[anotherpilgrim]

Thank you so much! This has been most helpful!

God Bless!

 

[KSon]

Bruce,

I so appreciate the time and diligence you put into your posts, particularly when answering a direct inquiry. I am always edified.

 

[steadfast7]

I think Rev. Bruce's emphasis on the Bible teaching a single, uniform system in all testaments is not something that only paedobaptists, but also Reformed Baptists are able to fully concede to. There's nothing that he has said that goes against Covenantal Baptist theology.

Consider the analogy that the revelation of God's salvation by means of covenant is like a growing plant that goes through stages of development but maintaining its essential unity. This is a very good picture the Reformed use to explain what happens with the covenant of grace. However, there's a danger. Although the seed eventually develops into the stem, the branch, and the fruit, it would be wrong to say that the root and the fruit are the same, have the same function, and should be treated the same way. Yes, the root, stem, and fruit grow from a single seed, but they each have their own time, place, and function. The following reasoning seems odd to me:

Roots look like A
Fruit looks like B
Roots and fruits come from a single plant
therefore, A=B

Here's what I see as the fundamental difference between a presbyterian and a baptistic approach to covenant theology: for one, the emphasis is placed on the seed; for the other, the emphasis is placed on the fruit. When we speak of what the whole Bible says, we tend to start from a central starting point. The emphasis for presbyterians is how the plant started; the emphasis for baptists is how the plant ends. As a Baptist, I see the New Covenant as standing out as much more vibrant and distinct than what came before, but a Presbyterian might view the New Covenant as having more similarities with what came before. While we believe the Bible presents a unified message, there are discontinuities and distinctions that should be appreciated. These distinctions will obviously be more pronounced at later stages, while there are less distinctions when a creature is in its embryonic form. Is it possible for the fruit to have no resemblance to the root, even though it's from the same plant? Is it possible that baptism look very different from circumcision even though they are stem from the same covenant? I think it's possible, but it's up to the interpreter to be aware of how they see things.

 

[anotherpilgrim]

Hi Dennis,
Reading your response, I couldn't help being reminded of the Romans 11 passage where Paul makes the analogy of the physical Israelites being cut-off and the Gentiles being grafted in.

Could it be then, and based on your post above, that credo-baptists see baptism as pointing to the in-grafting, while paedobaptists see baptism as pointing to the root and the grace that allows branches to grow at all?

So, then the question seems to boil down to what the covenant signs point to: the root (i.e. the overarching plan of redemption), or the branches (i.e. the execution of the plan of redemption through various stages in human history)?

My question, of course betrays my lack of understanding of covenant theology. However, I'm not convinced that it's just a matter of emphasis and interpretive assumptions that one approaches the subject with... what do both sides claim is the biblical backing for what the covenant signs always point to?

 

[Peairtach]

Under the period from Abraham to Christ, men and women who professed faith in the God of Israel were fully included among the covenant people along with their children if their males received the sign.

But only men who professed and their sons received the covenant sign of circumcision.

(I'm not talking here about Gentile "God-fearers" who remained outside the formal admittance to the covenant)

In the New Covenant era, Baptists agree with Presbyterians, that men who profess faith in the God of Israel should receive the sign of baptism, and Baptists also agree with Presbyterians that the sign of baptism should be extended to women who profess.

But -strangely enough - Baptists believe that in the New Covenant, covenant priiviledges are to be taken from children, both male and female, and that the sign of the covenant is to be taken from the sons of those who profess faith in the God of Israel.

So is it that, for the Baptist, that covenant inclusion is "default" for adult men and women who profess, while covenant inclusion is removed from the children, both male and female. Along with this the covenant sign is "default" for adult males and extended to adult females who profess, while being removed from their sons?

Of course there are further complications with the Baptist schema in that they don't believe that a professing man or woman is in any sense at all in the covenant unless they are born again, and yet only God and/or the individual knows that infallibly!

Anish

Could it be then, and based on your post above, that credo-baptists see baptism as pointing to the in-grafting, while paedobaptists see baptism as pointing to the root and the grace that allows branches to grow at all?

Presbyterians still see children being ingrafted into the covenant along with their parents, as baptists agree happened up until the time of Christ. Baptists posit that there was a great change at the time of Christ when children were no longer deemed to be in the covenant in any sense, and when the covenant sign was taken from boys but extended to their professing mothers.

At the same time, under the Baptist schema, those who professed faith and received the covenant sign were no longer deemed to have been in any sense in the covenant if they subsequently showed signs of not having been born-again.