Paedo-Baptism Answers Was Ishmael in the external administration of the covenant of grace?

[clawrence9008]

In thinking on the nature of the visible/invisible church in the Covenant of Grace today, I had a question that I would like help clarifying. In Genesis 17:7ff, where circumcision is instituted as the sign and seal of God’s covenant (cf. Rom. 4:11), we see that Abraham, his offspring, and all of the male members of his household were to be circumcised. We read at the end of the chapter of Ishmael being circumcised (Gen. 17:23-26), thus presumably being brought into the external administration of the covenant (the “visible” church). However, God makes it clear to Abraham that the covenant He established will be established with Isaac, not with Ishmael (Gen. 17:19, 21). I’m having a little bit of a difficult time reconciling these two things. Is it that both Ishmael and Isaac were brought into the external administration of the covenant of grace, but only Isaac would truly inherit the blessings of it, having been circumcised in heart while Ishmael, who was merely circumcised in the flesh, was cast out (Gen. 21:9-10; cf. Gal. 4:29-30)? This makes some sense to me, but I want to make sure my thinking on this is accurate.

(If this would be a better question for the CT forum, please move it — I just wanted a paedobaptist perspective on this considering that is the position I hold to.)

 

[Polanus1561]

I take the view that in principle, Ishmael and Esau were to seek refuge in the CoG which resided in their brother. But they only possessed the mere externals and went by their own ways away from their brother.

 

[Andres]

Is it that both Ishmael and Isaac were brought into the external administration of the covenant of grace, but only Isaac would truly inherit the blessings of it, having been circumcised in heart while Ishmael, who was merely circumcised in the flesh, was cast out (Gen. 21:9-10; cf. Gal. 4:29-30)? This makes some sense to me, but I want to make sure my thinking on this is accurate.

Yes.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In thinking on the nature of the visible/invisible church in the Covenant of Grace today, I had a question that I would like help clarifying. In Genesis 17:7ff, where circumcision is instituted as the sign and seal of God’s covenant (cf. Rom. 4:11), we see that Abraham, his offspring, and all of the male members of his household were to be circumcised. We read at the end of the chapter of Ishmael being circumcised (Gen. 17:23-26), thus presumably being brought into the external administration of the covenant (the “visible” church). However, God makes it clear to Abraham that the covenant He established will be established with Isaac, not with Ishmael (Gen. 17:19, 21). I’m having a little bit of a difficult time reconciling these two things. Is it that both Ishmael and Isaac were brought into the external administration of the covenant of grace, but only Isaac would truly inherit the blessings of it, having been circumcised in heart while Ishmael, who was merely circumcised in the flesh, was cast out (Gen. 21:9-10; cf. Gal. 4:29-30)? This makes some sense to me, but I want to make sure my thinking on this is accurate.

(If this would be a better question for the CT forum, please move it — I just wanted a paedobaptist perspective on this considering that is the position I hold to.)

Ishmael and all the house of Abraham--and we would include the womenfolk as well--were by virtue of their providential situation established within the visible church of that era, within the external administration of the covenant of grace. The giving of the sign of the covenant (circumcision) was a moment of identification.

As God gave the sign, he identified a particular subset of humanity as "his people" with himself identified as their God; and in this moment we see also that a consolidation of believers in the world has been formally enacted. The era of patriarchal (i.e. family) worship, with all heads of houses performing legitimate services at a "family altar" (as had been the custom since at least Noah's day, but even going back before that to the beginning)--this period of history was ending, as men and nations forgot the true God and God limited the work of the Holy Spirit (largely, not wholly exclusively) to one family and nation in the age that followed. Patriarchal worship continued in the world, after a fashion, but its legitimacy was progressively confined to the covenant-line: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Abraham, by applying the sign--as well as in the generations afterward that applied the sign--understood that as God's agent he was identifying those, whom God designated as proper recipients, as God's people. God's people now had a symbol by which they identified one another. It was not a sign that either sex indiscriminately could exhibit, but only the menfolk; nevertheless, it was a sign for all the people who were formally attached to this one God and his instituted covenant and worship. It was a sign that identified to the world in general that holy nation from which God intended to bring forth his world-Savior. "Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved!" Is.45:22.

It is possible to read what God said to Abraham concerning Ishmael (Gen.17:19) as a statement referring to Ishmael's destiny--not part of the eternal covenant; but while I'm inclined to think that's ultimately meant by God, it is not necessarily the case that Abraham needs have so accurately interpreted God's words in this hour they were spoken. Abraham still had in his heart his (and Sarah's) mistaken and misbegotten effort to "help God" fulfill his promise; so God made it perfectly clear that this promised seed (and the Seed) and all of salvation comes only by his miraculous power, and quite apart from any help of man.

It is the coming Isaac's destiny to be the one who inherits his father's spiritual estate, and to whom all other persons in the world are to look for spiritual leadership. And if all men, then above all those who were the sons of Abraham. For Ishmael to know the blessings of the covenant established by God unto salvific ends, he must honor the son who is privileged before him. He must give up his honor, and lay it in the dust before his little brother. Instead, when Isaac is born, Ishmael is found making some kind of abusive treatment for his brother--exactly the opposite of the way it must be, and would have been for Ishmael's blessing. So instead he receives a curse, an expulsion from the church of his time.

It is discipline by the church that manifests the uncircumcised nature of Ishmael's heart. Extreme church discipline doesn't always, infallibly make this clear; nevertheless that is the design of expelling the immoral brother. Yea, thankfully some come back again, showing God's grace even to the most recalcitrant; but many do not return, demonstrating they were never one of us. Ishmael continued in his own path in a way paralleled by his nephew Esau, never coming again like a returning prodigal, seeking his father's blessing and a lesser place in the house.

Yet even so, it is clear that the divine welcome was never denied to the repentant, and Holy Scripture tells of descendants of Ishmael who did and may still make their way into the eternal dwelling of the Seed of Promise. It is interesting to note that in the (very) few mentions of Ishmael and his descendants in the rest of Scripture, the treatment is fairly balanced with as much positive to say as negative.