Posts tagged baptism

(Part 2)
The giving of the covenant in Genesis 15 is nothing short of wonderful, in that God assumed the “lesser” role and essentially swore destruction on himself should the covenant be broken. Because God can swear by nothing higher than himself, and is unchangeable, it provides a firm guarantee that the covenant promises will be upheld by God as he had said — as God is basically telling Abram, “I will be dead if I break this covenant.” Abram is promised that he will have a son — and that through this “seed” all the nations of the world will be blessed. Therefore, it is a certainty that this will come to pass.

As we see in the next stage of the giving of the covenant, in Genesis 17, God promises that He will be God to Abram and Abram’s descendants. He will be their God, and Abram and Abram’s descendants have been chosen to be in this covenant with God.

Now the question is, how are those individuals in the covenant to be marked as such? Previously, God revealed Himself passing between the cut halves in the ceremony of the cutting of the covenant, swearing to keep the promises. But those in the covenant must also keep the terms of the covenant (Gen. 17:2), which are to “walk before [God], and be blameless.” The covenant was made between God and Abram, and Abram’s descendants throughout the generations. The sign to show membership in that covenant was in fact a bloody and painful sign: circumcision. This sign signified that the bearer of it was a member of the covenant. All men who were of the covenant by birth, or who entered it by adult entrance into the covenant community (Gen. 17:12-13) were to receive the sign. The penalty for not receiving it was severe: being cut off as a covenant-breaker (Gen. 17:14). Finally, the covenant was made for eternity. As an everlasting covenant, sworn by God (who, again, can swear by nothing higher, and cannot break it as it would be against his very nature) — this covenant would never end.

Now at this point, the dispensationalist may argue that never ending is actually subjective, as these terms of the old covenant appear to have ended when the new covenant was inaugurated. But if that is true, then why are other aspects of the old covenant still considered binding? The commandments are still kept, the Sabbath day is still observed (albeit now on Sunday, showing that the requirement is still valid although modifications have taken place), etc. Are we to screen through the old covenant and judge for ourselves what is in effect and what is not? Clearly, certain aspects of the old covenant have changed. Because of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, it has become clear that the animal sacrifices were only temporal. Under the new covenant, the covenant people of God are seen as the true church rather than a nation. So it is certainly accurate to say that things have changed — but not a change where the old covenant was annihilated and replaced. Rather, it continues, but not in its original form; it has been renewed by the new covenant. Furthermore, while not one element of the covenant has ceased to exist, Christ’s fulfillment of the covenant also means that He has fulfilled that which we are unable to fulfill. The covenant, then, must not be seen in terms of beginning and ending with the law but rather with the law as one component of a much greater thing — God’s grace and redemption of His people. This is getting into a scope much deeper and vaster than what I intend to accomplish with this post, but the short answer is that I believe the aforementioned dispensational view does not do justice to the truth of the continuity of God’s covenant but replaces it with separate, disjoint epochs. While yes, some aspects seem to have passed away, in reality they were but shadows of the “real thing” which came in the person and work of Christ. (Gal. 2:17)

And, thus, moving on from that point, we can (rightly, I believe) accept that if the sign of the covenant has not been repealed then it is still in effect. But the question, then, is how is it in effect? The answer seems to be made clear in Colossians 2:11-12 (“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”) Paul is specifically substituting baptism for circumcision, a point which I must note is not lost on scholars such as John Calvin!

So, then, if baptism is to the new covenant what circumcision was to the old, and if we believe in the continuity of God’s covenant (i.e. as opposed to disjointed dispensationalism), then what are we left with but to also believe that the terms and conditions also still apply today — namely, that receipt of the sign of baptism is not a nice option but rather a requirement! With that sober reminder, let’s remember that in Genesis 17:14 it is clear that one who does not have the sign of the covenant is regarded as a covenant breaker!

How serious is this? Because of Moses’ neglect to circumcise his son, the Lord nearly put him to death. Refer to Exodus 4:24: “At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.” It seems that Moses’ neglect had resulted in him, for a time, being guilty of breaking the covenant.

If, then, that continues to this day, is it a light matter to put off reception of the sign of the covenant, namely, baptism? One should give careful and serious thought to this.

Why should we believe that baptism has replaced circumcision? First, it should be noted that the bloody signs of the old covenant have passed away because they pointed to the shed blood of Christ. Christ’s shed blood is a once-for-all sacrifice; no other shed blood has any effect on one’s redemption. Christ’s blood is all that is necessary for sins to be washed away. However, as a sign of that washing, we now have the sign of baptism — which literally means “washing” — by water. It, in itself, has no salvific properties — but it represents the washing away of sins through Christ’s completed work. Now how does that relate to the covenant? Christ’s finished work of redemption is ultimately what the covenant points to!

Now who, again, is in the covenant? Remember from the narrative of the life of Abraham that it is Abraham, as well as Abraham’s descendants. The covenant was made with Abraham and his descendants before any of those descendants were born, but it was nonetheless binding on them because of Abraham’s belief and obedience (in a similar fashion to how Adam’s sin resulted in the fall of the human race and not just Adam alone). And, since we are under the same covenant, it is therefore the same now. When one enters into covenant with God, he does so not exclusively as a lone individual but also representing his family and descendants too.

How can this be? We can say this with a good degree of certainty because of the numerous examples we have in Scripture of this being the case. First, Genesis 17:12-14 speaks of the sign of the covenant (then, circumcision) being applied to anyone entering the community of faith, regardless of whether or not that individual has actually professed faith of his own. Second, in Acts 16:15, Lydia believed, and on the basis of her belief both she and her whole household were baptized. Third, in Acts 16:31-33, the Philippian jailer believed, Paul and Silas preached the Word of God to the jailer’s family, and they were all baptized. Finally, 1 Cor. 7:14 speaks of an unbelieving spouse being “made holy” because of the other spouse’s faith, [so that] the children may be holy.

Does this mean that if one family member believes, his whole family must necessarily be saved? No; that belief stands contrary to the teaching of Scripture. It does, however, mean that there are certain blessings that come as a result of being in the family of a believer (especially when the believer is in a position of leadership in the household). This theological concept is referred to as “covenant family” and has implications including, but not limited to, the following. First, it is expected that in a covenant family, children will be brought up in the knowledge of Christ and instructed using Scripture (Deut. 11:19). Second, it is expected that the family will be part of the visible church, a term used to describe those who outwardly appear to be Christians and participate in fellowship with other believers. In this way, though some may yet be unregenerate, they still experience some of the blessings of the covenant.

What, then, of those who appear to be part of the visible church but really are not? It is a given that there are those in the church who appear outwardly to be Christians but are not. Proponents of the Federal Vision argue that all who are in the visible church are to be considered as true Christians without differentiation, but this is not in harmony with Reformed Theology.  Does this mean that it is prudent to not regard one as being in the covenant until they have an individual profession of faith? This certainly seems to be the popular view today, held by the vast majority of professing Christians in America. But ultimately this view denies the covenant altogether, instead creating a theological view that fits nicely with the American individualism that is so dear to many of us. Influenced by Arminianism and Pelagianism, which see salvation as the result of a wise decision each individual must make for himself, and Dispensationalism, which sees the new covenant (or “church age”, as dispensationalists prefer to call it), as being entirely distinct from the old covenant (this may be based in part on a faulty understanding of Hebrews 8.), most American Christians now instead to associate the covenant sign (baptism) with publicly declaring one’s making of a “right decision” rather than initiation into the covenant community.

Are we in error by considering those who may actually be unregenerate to be part of the covenant community (i.e. the church)? Biblical history would seem to indicate the answer to be “no”, considering that individuals such as Ishmael and Esau received the sign of the covenant and were regarded as being in the covenant community, despite not being considered to be covenant keepers. Therefore, as the covenant promises were curses to them and their descendants, so it is now with those who were brought up experiencing the blessings of being in covenant with God but instead broke covenant by not having faith in the completed work of Jesus Christ. In instances such as these, the blessings have turned out not to be blessings at all but rather curses. Does this mean that God’s promises failed? No, because God is still God. He didn’t change. By not keeping the covenant, individuals become justly deserving of the stipulated curses.

While speaking of “covenant breaking”, one may remember that a requirement of truly “keeping” the covenant was to “walk before [God], and be blameless.” Now is there anyone alive, even among Christians, who can do this? No. This is why it is so important that Christ’s righteousness – his perfect keeping of the law and covenant – is imputed to the elect. All have sinned (Rom. 3:23) but by obtaining through faith the imputed righteousness of Christ, the Christian is therefore legally justified and can be considered to be a covenant breaker. True fairness would be for all covenant breakers to die – as this is what is stipulated – but some are given undeserved and unearned mercy and thus have the blessings of being a covenant keeper — by Christ’s righteousness, not by acts of covenant-keeping on our part. Thus, keeping the covenant really does not come down to an act of human will or decision, as otherwise it would be reduced to humanistic legalism.

Related to this is one of the issues addressed in the epistle to the Galatians, some of which seemed to think that a return to keeping the law was the means to justification. Paul addresses this by writing, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.”

Rather than trust fully in Christ for salvation, the legalistic Galatians were trying to rely once again on the law to make them holy – seeing the law, rather than Christ’s work, to be the proper means of receiving the blessings promised to Abraham. This passage from Galatians also emphasizes that the covenant is very much still in effect as the promises pointed forward to Christ and are now received through faith in Christ. Therefore, those who have faith in Christ’s work receive the benefits of the covenant, and those who do not believe are condemned, both by their failure to keep the law as well as their efforts to gain righteousness by works alone. Being raised in the church, or being from a Christian family, has many benefits – but does not guarantee salvation in itself. What makes the difference is faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, as just as it was by faith that men and women were saved under the old covenant, so it is under the new. Abraham was saved by faith in the future work of Christ, as though he did not know the details of how God’s plan would be worked out, he believed the promise. (See Gal. 3) And as God promised in Genesis that he would be God to Abraham and to Abraham’s descendants… Galatians 3:29 says that “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” It’s not by works, skillful obedience, circumcision, lineage, or sufficient penance that one becomes considered Abraham’s offspring… it’s by faith.

Finally, considering the continuity of the covenant from the promises made to Abraham to this very day, I also conclude that as it was then, so it is now – the offspring of believing parents (or a believing parent) are also considered to be in covenant. Will this be a blessing or a curse to the offspring? We don’t know with certainty those whom God has chosen to redeem, but we do know this: it is faith in Jesus Christ that makes the difference. And we also know that “All that the Father gives [Jesus] will come to [Jesus], and whoever comes to [Jesus] [he] will never cast out.” (see John 6:37). Also, consider Romans 8:28-30: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

So know with certainty that what God started, he will complete (Phil. 1:6) and also that of those who truly believe, none will be lost. What does this mean? If one has faith that death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has fully forgiven his sins so that there is nothing he can do to add to the finished work, then he can have full assurance that he is of faith – and thus, a heir according to promise!