What benefit is there for the Jew or covenant child

[DonP]

I think this is a subject many take for granted or have not really searched the scriptures on to fully understand. And it has some very vital implications to many areas of the Christian life.

Many ethnic Jews thought they were to get some benefit just by being a physical descendant of Abraham. Jesus argued with them about this and Paul made it even clearer that the promises were never meant for ethnic Jews but only those who believe, of all nations and all ages. These are the "Jews" or "Israel of faith" that God meant when He made promises.
The rest are under the curse and going to hell.

So the ethnic Jew who misunderstands this still asks Paul, then was there any benefit to being a Jew, there had to be something right?
Paul answers,
Rom 3:1-2 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. NKJV

It appears, this is all the benefit there is, no more. Just that they were in the covenant and humanly speaking at least had a chance to know about God, and more means to have opportunity to believe. Which ends up turning out to be a greater curse on covenant breakers who do not believe.

What implications do we understand from this of our being in the visible covenant today?

 

[toddpedlar]

I think this is a subject many take for granted or have not really searched the scriptures on to fully understand. And it has some very vital implications to many areas of the Christian life.

Many ethnic Jews thought they were to get some benefit just by being a physical descendant of Abraham. Jesus argued with them about this and Paul made it even clearer that the promises were never meant for ethnic Jews but only those who believe, of all nations and all ages. These are the "Jews" or "Israel of faith" that God meant when He made promises.
The rest are under the curse and going to hell.

So the ethnic Jew who misunderstands this still asks Paul, then was there any benefit to being a Jew, there had to be something right?
Paul answers,
Rom 3:1-2 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. NKJV

It appears, this is all the benefit there is, no more. Just that they were in the covenant and humanly speaking at least had a chance to know about God, and more means to have opportunity to believe. Which ends up turning out to be a greater curse on covenant breakers who do not believe.

What implications do we understand from this of our being in the visible covenant today?

Don't underestimate that benefit Paul points to.... the oracles of God - the Word of God spoken among the Jews - the glorious Gospel of our Lord, given to them in infant form. That is a HUGE benefit, for it is the specific revelation of God to His people, and is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe.

The oracles of God are not to be sneezed at - it is no benefit that ought to be referred to as "that's all there was". As Paul said, it is "much in every way".

Same benefit today, for the covenant children of God are brought up in covenant homes, blessed with the Word of God active and working in the family and in the church. A GREAT blessing indeed, and a GREAT advantage. All one needs to do in order to see that blessing (among many others) is to look at the children coming out of solid churches where the Gospel is truly proclaimed and compare them to those coming out of worldly homes where human is king and God is disdained. Who has the advantage? Oh, there are GREAT blessings, brother, and GREAT advantages to the covenant child. Just because it isn't mechanical (it never was) doesn't mean it isn't real, and significant, and powerful.

 

[Leslie]

I fail to see what advantage there is for a raised-in-the-covenant yet finally reprobate person. Sure, he had a chance to believe but that increases his condemnation. Being raised to respect and comply with the moral law certainly confers a socioeconomic advantage, but of what use is that if one will spend eternity in hell? The federal vision tried to answer that. I don't like their answer but have yet to hear any other that is satisfying.

 

[Iconoclast]

A child born into a believing home has many advantages. Believing parents pray for the Lord to open the womb,as Hannah prayed. They pray daily for their family.
They ask the Lord that he will give them believing children who come into saving knowledge of the Lord at an early age. They pray for grace and wisdom on how to love and work to give their children life skills.
As the children are quickened by God, the parents are primary in making disciples of them explaining what is contained in the gospel promise as it is found IN Christ.
Believing parents follow in the parental example laid out in proverbs,and elsewhere throughout the scripture.
The home becomes the center for the whole council of God to be opened.
The parents seek out a faithful minister of the word of God, and a local assembly who esteems the word .
The promises of salvation to believer's , the promise of damnation to those who remain in rebellion are discussed and taught on.
On another thread Matthew W, was discussing this verse in Romans,and explaining that the advantage that was being offered to national Israel was not just having the oracles of God, but having the God of the promises made available to them by that special revelation.
Millions are in hell tonight,waiting for millions to follow who have trusted in a false hope [Rolfe Barnard quoted an evangelist in his sermon going to hell in droves]
Having parents live and speak of this Hope is a great advantage.
Any child who rebels against greater light and advantage will receive greater judgment.
God does many times work in households throughout the scripture and as the book of Acts indicates. Pastor Shishko did a good job of stressing this in His series on baptism,his debate and subsequent articles on the same.
The advantage does not negate the responsibility of each child to repent and believe. The advantage in and of itself cannot save,apart from the work of the Spirit in new birth.

 

[A.J.]

What implications do we understand from this of our being in the visible covenant today?

Being born into a believing family does not guarantee salvation (cf. Ishmael and Esau). But God uses families in his redemptive purposes. He saves His elect along generational lines. He is God to us and our children (Acts 2:38-39). He is a God to us and our households (Acts 16:31:34). These are great benefits of being a member of God's covenant people. We are exposed to the Word, the sacraments, prayer and the fellowship of the saints (Acts 2:42) - privileges which many people do not have or will never have.

Speaking of the benefits of covenant children, Samuel Miller wrote,

The truth is, one great purpose for which the church was instituted, is to watch over and train up children in the knowledge and fear of God, and thus, to "prepare a seed to serve him, who should be accounted to the Lord for a generation." And I will venture to say, that that system of religion which does not embrace children in its ecclesiastical provisions, and in its covenant engagements, is most materially defective.

Infants may not receive any apparent benefit from baptism, at the moment in which the ordinance is administered; although a gracious God may, even then, accompany the outward emblem with the blessing which it represents, even "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).This, indeed, may not be, and most commonly, so far as we can judge, is not the case. But still the benefits of this ordinance, when faithfully applied by ministers, and faithfully received by parents, are abundant * nay, great and important every way. When children are baptized, they are thereby recognized as belonging to the visible church of God. They are, as it were, solemnly entered as scholars or disciples in the school of Christ. They are brought into a situation in which they not only may be trained up for God, but in which their parents are bound so to train them up; and the church is bound to see that they be so trained, as that the Lord's claim to them shall ever be recognized and maintained. In a word, by baptism, when the administrators and recipients are both faithful to their respective trusts, children are brought into a situation in which all the means of grace; all the privileges pertaining to Christ's covenanted family; in a word, all that is comprehended under the broad and precious import of the term Christian education, is secured to them in the most ample manner. Let parents think of this, when they come to present their children in this holy ordinance. And let children lay all this to heart, when they come to years in which they are capable of remembering and realizing their solemn responsibility.

- Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable: Discourse 2

 

[toddpedlar]

I fail to see what advantage there is for a raised-in-the-covenant yet finally reprobate person. Sure, he had a chance to believe but that increases his condemnation. Being raised to respect and comply with the moral law certainly confers a socioeconomic advantage, but of what use is that if one will spend eternity in hell? The federal vision tried to answer that. I don't like their answer but have yet to hear any other that is satisfying.

If advantage only means "guaranteed a better outcome" then I can see why you're confused. However, that's not what advantage means, and it's not the way Paul used the language in the verse quoted. Nothing can save the reprobate, of course, and you're right - if advantage means some sort of guaranteed result, then there's a problem; but that's a very odd use of the word.

 

[Scott1]

It was helpful for me to understand that the children of believers are "holy" in sense that they are set apart by a position of privilege. They have the benefits and privileges of having at least one believing parents, the nurture and admonition of the Lord through that, and that of a covenanted community of believers. This implies at least some "common grace." While it does not guarantee salvation, it is something the child of nonbelievers ordinarily does not have.

 

[Ronnie]

So the ethnic Jew who misunderstands this still asks Paul, then was there any benefit to being a Jew, there had to be something right?

Paul answers,
Rom 3:1-2 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. NKJV

It appears, this is all the benefit there is, no more. Just that they were in the covenant and humanly speaking at least had a chance to know about God, and more means to have opportunity to believe. Which ends up turning out to be a greater curse on covenant breakers who do not believe.

What implications do we understand from this of our being in the visible covenant today?

Actually, Rom 3:1-2 says "Much in every way". "Every way" should communicate more than just being in covenant or what I think it is really communicating is that being in covenant with God brings all kinds of blessing. This is borne out when the Apostle then says "Chiefly because" ... which carries the connotation that he is mentioning one of the most important blessing which is receiving the "oracles of God", but there are many other blessings. This is part of the reason most believe Paul goes on an excursion after this point, but picks up the list in Romans 9:4-5 where he says:

Romans 9:4-5
the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.​

 

[etexas]

I always thought this an interesting verse, Kick back and see what the smart people say.

 

[DonP]

Visible and invisible covenant or body

I always thought this an interesting verse, Kick back and see what the smart people say.

Good thinking !! I thought it would be a good one for you too. That was my idea too, to pose the question and let them all do the work for me.

But I was also hoping it would raise the comparison of the visible church or visible covenant of ethnic Jews and the visible covenant of church members today. Esp. the children who were clearly members of both and did receive benefits and the sign of being children of God even if they were not converted.

There is a much greater opportunity for a child born into the covenant people to hear the gospel and be saved than for one born to unsaved parents in a heathen nation where the gospel is not proclaimed. Humanly speaking of course.
God does work through families and the ethnic line even though salvation and effectual promises are by His election not by ethnicity.

In his Service,

 

[DonP]

What is the benefit to the covenant child

Actually, Rom 3:1-2 says "Much in every way". "Every way" should communicate more than just being in covenant or what I think it is really communicating is that being in covenant with God brings all kinds of blessing. This is borne out when the Apostle then says "Chiefly because" ... which carries the connotation that he is mentioning one of the most important blessing which is receiving the "oracles of God", but there are many other blessings. This is part of the reason most believe Paul goes on an excursion after this point, but picks up the list in Romans 9:4-5 where he says:

Romans 9:4-5
the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.​

Yes I didn't mean to minimize it. Just provoke thought on what else it benefits?

So how does this apply to a covenant Child. Don't they get the same benefits by being in the visible covenant even if they are not yet converted?

 

[DonP]

Thoughts on what this implies about the covenant Child

Is the covenant Child getting the same benefits as the Ethnic Jew just by being in the nation Israel?
_____________

 

[Ex Nihilo]

I fail to see what advantage there is for a raised-in-the-covenant yet finally reprobate person. Sure, he had a chance to believe but that increases his condemnation. Being raised to respect and comply with the moral law certainly confers a socioeconomic advantage, but of what use is that if one will spend eternity in hell? The federal vision tried to answer that. I don't like their answer but have yet to hear any other that is satisfying.

If advantage only means "guaranteed a better outcome" then I can see why you're confused. However, that's not what advantage means, and it's not the way Paul used the language in the verse quoted. Nothing can save the reprobate, of course, and you're right - if advantage means some sort of guaranteed result, then there's a problem; but that's a very odd use of the word.

Your responses in this thread have really clarified my understanding of the covenant. I thought this deserved more than just the Thanks button -- thank you.

 

[Prufrock]

If advantage only means "guaranteed a better outcome" then I can see why you're confused. However, that's not what advantage means, and it's not the way Paul used the language in the verse quoted. Nothing can save the reprobate, of course, and you're right - if advantage means some sort of guaranteed result, then there's a problem; but that's a very odd use of the word.

Well said.

Durham speaks pointedly of this in his second sermon on Isaiah 53: what a wonderful privilege it is to have God approach so nigh unto men in his word, bringing to them the means of salvation. The fact that they do not turn is not God's fault; the fact that he does not turn their hearts of his own mere grace, which is their duty to do, reflects not upon God, but upon men. That he does not work effectually through the word in all men does not diminish the advantage granted to men to whom the gospel is proclaimed.

These words from Vermigli's commentary on Romans say it well:

Things ought to have their name given them of that thing which they have obtained of their own disposition and nature, and not of that which is otherwise annexed unto them by happe, and (as they speak) per accidens, that is by chance. The gospel has of his own institution, and by the counsel of God, the propriety (sic) to save. But in that it hurteth, the same happens from without, that is of the infidelity of the receivers: otherwise Christ himself could not be called a savior, because he was put for the fall and offense of many.

Yes, the hearing and rejection of the gospel does ultimately serve to bring greater condemnation upon men; but this does not mean it is not advantageous.

 

[DonP]

If advantage only means "guaranteed a better outcome" then I can see why you're confused. However, that's not what advantage means, and it's not the way Paul used the language in the verse quoted. Nothing can save the reprobate, of course, and you're right - if advantage means some sort of guaranteed result, then there's a problem; but that's a very odd use of the word.

A lot of people tell me this is what hangs them up.

Esp Baptists about covenant children, how can it be a benefit if they are never converted.

Same way it was a benefit to the Jew to be in the covenant.

 

[Peairtach]

What benefit is there for the Jew or covenant child?

"Much every way" as has already been indicated.

It is a great act of God's love for Him to place a child in the covenant - more so to place the child in a Christian family than a Jewish family today.

God wants to make the covenant relationship with the child permanent and so He has ordained the sign and ceremony of infant baptism to encourage faith along with the Word.

By placing a child in a Christian family God has betrothed that child to Himself. He wants the child to fall in love with Him and make the relationship permanent by exercising faith. That is God's preceptive will for the child. If/when the child starts to exercise faith/feed on Christ by faith, this is outwardly indicated by his/her partaking of the Lord's Supper.

 

[toddpedlar]

What benefit is there for the Jew or covenant child?

"Much every way" as has already been indicated.

It is a great act of God's love for Him to place a child in the covenant - more so to place the child in a Christian family than a Jewish family today.

God wants to make the covenant relationship with the child permanent and so He has ordained the sign and ceremony of infant baptism to encourage faith along with the Word.

By placing a child in a Christian family God has betrothed that child to Himself. He wants the child to fall in love with Him and make the relationship permanent by exercising faith. That is God's preceptive will for the child. If/when the child starts to exercise faith/feed on Christ by faith, this is outwardly indicated by his/her partaking of the Lord's Supper.

I was with you 'til you said "God wants to make the covenant relationship with the child permanent..." God does what He wants. He doesn't fail to make the relationship permanent with those whom He intends to save. There's no "want" on God's part that goes unfulfilled.

Similarly He does not "want the child to fall in love with Him." Rather, He gives every one of His elect children love for Him - and all that He so gives that gift to do in fact become His, and ultimately approach Him in trust and love. I'm not sure saying "That is God's preceptive will for the child" is helpful or changes the sense of what you say, which is that God fails to make certain of all that he desires to occur.

I think I know where you're going with this, but the 'preceptive will' statement usually doesn't do well when it is offered as an explanation for unfulfilled desires on God's part.

 

[Peairtach]

Yes, we have to be careful with our language.

I wasn't looking at things from the perspective of election, but the privilege of being born into the covenant; that by giving children these priviledges, responsibilities and promises, God is showing a special love to them and indicating especially to them that they should exercise faith in Christ.

How that relates to election is a mystery, although Mr McMahon's book on God's will might help (?) -I'll maybe get round to getting it.

 

[toddpedlar]

Yes, we have to be careful with our language.

I wasn't looking at things from the perspective of election, but the privilege of being born into the covenant; that by giving children these priviledges, responsibilities and promises, God is showing a special love to them and indicating especially to them that they should exercise faith in Christ.

How that relates to election is a mystery, although Mr McMahon's book on God's will might help (?) -I'll maybe get round to getting it.

I'm not sure it's correct to say that God is showing a "special love" to those who are born into a Christian family. I do think He is presenting to them a privileged position, but it's hard to argue that God is showing love to the reprobates that are born into such situations (i.e. the Esau's of the world).

 

[Peairtach]

Dear Todd,

Common grace love not special grace love.

If the Gospel doesn't come in love to the reprobate it must come in hate? Putting someone in a priviledged position is showing love to the reprobate who do not deserve to be in a priviledged position, but not saving love.

I don't subscribe to the view that God has no love for the reprobate. No saving love, yes, otherwise they would get saved. But the good gifts they receive come to them in love for as long as they are in this world. God's love for the reprobate has an end.

Why did Christ weep over Jerusalem? Because He didn't love the lost of Jerusalem? You may reply that in His humanity He loved them, but in His deity He didn't. But surely Jesus Christ - more than anyone else - reveals to us something of what God is like?

Christ taught us to love our enemies because God loves His enemies by e.g. sending sunshine and rain on them.

"Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." Esau received many good gifts from God's hand. Were they all tokens of God's hatred towards him? Or is it rather that God loved Jacob with a surpassingly greater, saving, love than the common grace love He showed to Esau? God even preached the Gospel to both Jacob and Esau in the covenant. In Esau's case was this done in hate?

Rich.

 

[toddpedlar]

We're clearly going to disagree here. What is commonly styled "common grace" seems more to be God's acts of providence rather than anything that properly would be called "grace". That's a debate for another time.

I also have a very hard time seeing it as in any real sense "love". Why the distinction between "love" and "hate" in Romans 9, if "hate" is merely a weaker form of "love"? That seems utterly nonsensical to me, and seems to be (not accusing you of this, but summarizing the usual arguments made) simply a way of getting God off the hook, so that His holy hatred of sin really isn't so terrifying.

God providentially allows the reprobate to live - is that really grace - or love - when the reprobate is to be eternally condemned? Prolonging of the carrying out of a death sentence seems hard to me to reconcile with any Biblical notion of love. Certainly if one could call it "love" it's not "saving love" - but how can it be "love" in any sense at all? I just don't see it, nor do I see anywhere that this distinction is made in the Scriptures.

I would surely be very sad indeed to be the subject of such unloving love as the "love" of God that you posit He has for the reprobate. How can God be who He is if we simultaneously affirm "He loves them" and "they are to be cast into the lake of fire?" Is this a sensible interpretation of what Scripture teaches about God? I can't see it - and thus I can't see the support for some kind of "non-saving love".

 

[chbrooking]

I also have a very hard time seeing it as in any real sense "love". Why the distinction between "love" and "hate" in Romans 9, if "hate" is merely a weaker form of "love"? That seems utterly nonsensical to me, and seems to be (not accusing you of this, but summarizing the usual arguments made) simply a way of getting God off the hook, so that His holy hatred of sin really isn't so terrifying.

God providentially allows the reprobate to live - is that really grace - or love - when the reprobate is to be eternally condemned? Prolonging of the carrying out of a death sentence seems hard to me to reconcile with any Biblical notion of love. Certainly if one could call it "love" it's not "saving love" - but how can it be "love" in any sense at all? I just don't see it, nor do I see anywhere that this distinction is made in the Scriptures.

It's not a weaker form of love. It's hate. But,

Grace is favor in the face of demerit. In other words, any act of kindness toward an enemy is gracious. That any man continues to breathe is gracious. That any are redeemed is obviously gracious. But I think the point Paul is making is that a child born in a covenant home is shown a measure of grace not shown to the son of Pharaoh, for instance. They are given more knowledge of their creator than can be gleaned from nature. That is, they are given corrective and supplement, without which there is no knowledge of salvation available. Certainly that is not owed to anyone. It is gracious since ANY act of kindness toward those born in sin is gracious.

I would agree with your reservation about "love". I don't think we can say God loves the reprobate. I suppose, since love is a covenantal word, we could use it in an extremely limited sense for those with whom he has entered into covenant -- whether or not they become covenant keepers or covenant breakers. But the distinction is so fine, it's probably best to avoid using "love", and opt for "grace" instead.

Good answers. Not picking on that. Just putting in my two cents on the grace/love thing.