Baptism and Circumcision Compared

[kenrapoza]

Hi Judson,

I enjoyed your last post, it was remarkably clear and helpful in the discussion. Unfortunately, family matters have kept me from being active on CF for the last few days, so my response is a bit late. Also, I am going to have to say upfront that I don’t think that I will be able to match your clarity, though I will do what I can to convey my points.

I understand what you’re saying. Your point is that infant initiation was specific to Abraham’s covenant before Christ because it was designed to point forward to him as the true offspring. Therefore, when Christ came, the practice was obsolete. Do I correctly understand you? I believe that this view does not take into account the full import of the covenant and misses the point of the children themselves.

The Abrahamic promise is one that entails God’s working through faithful families for the propagation of the gospel as parents raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) and train them up in the way they should go (Prov. 22:6). Indeed one of the main purposes of marriage is for the raising up of a godly seed (Mal. 2:15). This promise is not just “embedded somewhere” in the covenant but is explicit several times in Gen. 17 and is essential to the covenant, not tangential (Ezek. 37:24-26). This is illustrated by the inclusion and participation of children as part of the household in the sacramental life of the covenant community (Ex. 12:24-27; Lev. 3; 6; Deut. 12; 16). They were included in this way because of the familial promises given in Gen. 17; it made sense. The basis for exclusion from the covenantal feasts was if one was outside of the covenantal administration (Ex. 12:43-49). Ultimately it is only those of Abraham’s faith who are in union with Christ, but the visible administration of the covenant is familial and ecclesiastical.


You write that “I am stressing that Paul's interpretation of Abraham in light of the New Covenant turns upon the hinge of faith. We are descendants of Abraham and heirs of the covenant because we are of the faith of Abraham and we believe in the Seed that was promised to him. I am confident that we agree on this.” You are certainly correct that we agree on this. What I am stressing is that Paul’s interpretation of Abraham presents a perfect continuity in God’s plan of redemption and God’s people, united to Him in the faith of Abraham. In other words, if you are going to say that there is a big change, and the change is that now Abraham’s children are heirs because of their faith, then the flip side of that is saying that previously, Abraham’s descendants were not heirs because of their faith, but because of something else. But both the Old Testament and the New Testament make it abundantly clear that such is not the case, salvation has always been by grace through faith. Paul’s statements are not reinterpretation that changes the meaning, they are a clarification of what has always been true for the purpose of countering the claims of the Judaizers. So my point is that downgrading the status of covenant children, as it had been understood for roughly 2,000 years, represents a significant disruption in the flow of redemptive-history. This inconsistency is especially heightened because it is at the point where the administration of the gospel is expanding to all nations and people groups, including those who were once far off from Christ and the promises of the gospel (Eph. 2:11-14). Recall that the promises that God will show grace and mercy to the children of believers on account of a shared faith is not only stated in the exchange with Abraham, but is repeated often and in different ways throughout the Old Testament – including the warning for covenant breakers (Ex. 20:6; 34:7; Deut. 7:9-10; Ps. 79:13; Jer. 32:18). We cannot argue that they did not refer to the actual children of believers.

When Christ came, the familial aspect of the administration of the gospel covenant was not rescinded. Now that the blessing of Abraham has come to the Gentiles, it has been expanded to all nations as God still uses the families of believers for the propagation of the gospel. The expansion of the gospel across nations and cultures does not logically lead to a narrowing of the promise regarding the family. If children were suddenly removed from the covenant administration, imagine what it would say to the parents. How could the first Christians, who were Jews that knew their Old Testament, understand this in any other way than God changing His mind and leaving the children to fend for themselves? I would find the Baptist case to be more convincing if there weren’t significant evidence in the New Testament that shows a harmony with that of the Abrahamic Covenant regarding the family and the place of children (1Cor. 7:14; Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20; Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14-16; Luke 18:15-17; Acts 2:37-39). Interestingly enough, that particular view of the family coincides nicely with Paul’s emphasis on the believer’s continuity with Abraham and his promise.

I believe that I have similar questions about your view of circumcision and the household. In what way are Abraham’s children circumcised because their “affiliation with Abraham” if that affiliation has nothing to do with an “interest in the covenant” of Abraham? The fact that both testaments actually refer to circumcision as the covenant (Gen. 17:10, 13, 14; Acts 7:8) illustrate the already clear point that circumcision symbolized that very covenant. (And I know that to a certain extent we agree on that point.) In light of this I am having trouble with your statement that “The departure is happening due to your argument that circumcision marks off those who have an interest in the covenant promises”. Are we to say that circumcising a child said nothing about him, that parents performed this rite for two millennia without any hope that God’s saving promise would graciously extend to their very own children? Are we to say that the children are complete outsiders to the covenantal administration even though they received its sign? It seems to me that the view you’ve articulated creates this radical decoupling of the promise and the sign. The Presbyterian would say that they received the sign that signifies the promise to Abraham and to his descendants after him as a seal of God’s objective covenant and marks off the child’s inclusion in the covenant community (i.e., the visible administration of the Covenant of Grace).

It is actually beside the point if we think that administering the sign to children in this way creates ambiguity regarding the actual status of the children because it is the way that God has chosen to administer His covenant, and it is what He commanded Abraham to do. The Presbyterian view recognizes the eternal decree of God as being necessarily invisible, but the earthly administration of the gospel being necessarily visible. God creates and calls a people to Himself. This gathered people, who are set apart for God’s elective purposes, meet together to proclaim His word audibly, read His word visually and receive His confirming sacraments physically. When God commissions Abraham and institutes His covenant with him, He is furthering the establishment of a people which also requires a covenantal administration. This covenantal administration consists of the basic unit of families, including their children, as stated in many passages already referenced. I don’t believe that the Baptist solution of restricting children eliminates this ambiguity, for we all know that there are unfortunately those who make professions of faith and are baptized who are actually unbelievers. This is the nature of a visible administration that does not exactly coincide with God’s unknowable decree.

We’ve talked earlier about the circumcision of Ishmael. I think that this case does not fit with the Baptist paradigm. If the sign is only a pointer towards the Messiah and is empty of any other theological and redemptive significance regarding the actual subjects of circumcision, if it is only a genealogical sign, then why would it be given to someone who is outside of that messianic lineage? I’m afraid I don’t know what “affiliation with Abraham” means in this case. The Baptist view requires a reductionistic view of circumcision, not accounting for it as a sign for faith, regeneration, cleansing from sin, and union with God. The OT continuously points to the inward nature of circumcision (Lev. 26:40 – 42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 9:25-26). Ezekiel later explains that the re-gathering referred to in Deuteronomy 30 coincides with a spiritual rebirth (Ezek. 36:24-27). Jeremiah and Ezekiel describe circumcision as a sign of what Paul calls the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man (Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:5-14) – which is regeneration. It also seems that the Baptist view does not allow for the parallel symbolisms between baptism and circumcision that are clear in the NT and it reinterprets statements by Paul and Peter that strips them of the redemptive-historical import that God had been developing for millennia.

My concern is that refusing the covenant sign to covenant children does not confess the coming of Christ, but denies an enduring aspect of the blessing of Abraham come to the Gentiles. We need an indication regarding the status change of covenant children because God clearly commanded it under our father Abraham. You mention that Presbyterians are looking for the “big abrogation” and my response would be, yeah I would hope so! In other words, if we are sola scriptura people, then the New Testament must be the delimiter of how its administration differs from that of prior generations. It clearly points out that the Mosaic administration expired with the work of Christ, but indicates just the opposite of the Abrahamic gospel covenant (Gal. 3). We do not have the freedom to say that we are “undoing” that part of the covenant by appealing to Paul’s arguments with the Judaizers which, as you say, doesn’t address the issue. It would also help if there were at least some secondary evidence of this change, such as a person being baptized upon profession of faith that was raised in a believing household. The New Testament period stretches some 60 years after the ascension of Christ, which was at least several generations at that time in history, plenty of time for such a phenomenon to be recorded in Scripture.

Another NT concern that I have is that I don’t believe a Baptistic theology could have produced the oikos baptisms recorded for us in the book of Acts and the epistles, nor would it speak of believers’ children in covenant terms (I Cor. 7:14), nor would it give a satisfactory explanation of Jesus’ view of children in the Kingdom (Mark 10 and related passages). However, it certainly seems to reflect the theology of someone who could echo the Abrahamic promise and declare baptism as the new sign of the covenant, complete with family solidarity (Acts 2:38-39).

Jesus had covenant children brought to him for a blessing and said that the Kingdom belongs to them (Matt. 19:14). Jesus also declared that whoever receives a child “in his name” receives him and the Father (Mark 9:36-37). If it was right for them to be brought to him for blessing, is it not right for us to bring them to him for baptism? How can the church refuse those whom Christ received? If we refuse them this sign, are we receiving them “in his name”?

Wow - sorry for the length and somewhat disorganized thoughts!

Ken

 

[Judson]

Wow, now that’s a post! I'm enjoying this dialogue and learning lots!. There’s more and more that we’re sharing in common as we go through this. I am all for the idea that covenant families are God’s means for propagating the gospel; children are set apart and holy and ought to be brought up in godly instruction. What we really need to nail down, mainly, is what circumcision said about the one receiving it. When I say “interest in the covenant” it’s in the archaic sense of saying that covenant membership efficaciously delivers what is promised. I know this isn't what you say is going on, but hear me out. Let's go back to the Ishmael scenario. The sign was applied to him because Abraham was commanded to circumcise his house. Yet, we find God making explicit that Ishmael is excluded for all intents and purposes. Abraham implores God to make Ishmael the covenant carrier in Gen 17: “ 18And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” 19But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20“As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21“But My covenant I will establish with Isaac …
To me, this is proof positive that the sign, meaningful though it is to those for whom it applies, did not and could not say anything definitive about the recipient and his relation to the covenant. Ishmael was promised blessing, but it wasn’t covenantal blessing. This entire excursus with Ishmael is like God’s way of parenthetically saying, “Don’t get too attached to the sign and don’t be too quick to think that it says anything about the person” – a lesson which the Jews and Pharisees obviously didn’t catch. What circumcision may have meant for Ishmael is that his Abrahamic heritage gets him some favour with God, just not anything that has to do with the covenant. For me this is the cornerstone of the debate: how can circumcision say something definitive about the person when God does not intend – from the very outset - for certain ones to be included? If Ishmael is really not any part of the covenant, then much of the debate is closed. A lot is at stake, which is why Presbys must maintain that he’s in. If Presbys insist that Ishmael was included in the external administration of the covenant of grace, then ok, that’s all fine and good, but it’s too bad that God didn’t deliver on any of that promise which was signified. In the Presby scheme, one can be in the external administration but can be excluded if he is a covenant breaker and apostatizes from the faith. This was not the case with poor Ishmael who would have loved to remain obedient to Abraham’s faith. But God excluded him by election from the get-go, even before his foreskin got sliced. Abraham did not circumcise him and say, “congratulations kiddo, you’re in the covenant.” Even if he did, if God does not necessarily make good on the administration, then what’s the point? So much for the administration.

I’m understanding more and more and can appreciate presbyterianism’s acknowledgement that an external, visible administration is necessary, so long as the church is mixed and we are ignorant of God’s election. And, I accept that there is a carry-over with regard to how God views children of believers. I don’t think that believers-only baptism undermines clear Scriptural evidence that God regards children of believers in a favoured light. They are holy, they are blessed, they are graciously well-positioned to believe the gospel. All of your above NT passages are merely affirming God’s love for children and their privileged status if belonging to a believing family. We agree on this. The question is whether their status qualifies them for baptism. Should an unbelieving spouse get baptized on account of the believing spouse’s faith according to 1 Cor 7? The Presby ought to say “yes” for consistency’s sake. Certainly there’s a sense in which one can be close to the New Covenant by varying degrees, but the church should not allow an administration of baptism to be performed in this case! Perhaps it’s because we know that baptism is meant to signify a more profound and spiritual reality. I’m trying to stay clear of oikos baptisms and early church practice debate for now as it would confuse the issue (and, I happen to think that the evidence is in favour of credobaptism, but that’s another thread altogether &#61514.

What do you think of Philippians 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.” This may be the clearest NT statement on the believer’s relation to circumcision. See that, by the New Testament era, it’s entirely spiritual in nature. It’s clear that only those of faith can worship by the Spirit of God. In the new testament, circumcision is either all spiritual, leading to boasting in Christ, or all natural, leading to boasting in the flesh.

With regard to a clear command to abrogate the past economy, consider the theme of Sabbath. Where in the NT is there an explicit statement changing the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? There is none. It is deduced by virtue of a new emphasis on Sunday in the NT, and a new practice in the church, and thus we confess it in our confessions. In the same way, it is inconsistent for the paedobaptist to require an explicit statement of change with regard to the administration of the sign. As with Sabbath, all that is necessary is to merely note the shift in emphasis and follow the example of the Scriptures. then the credobaptist is perfectly within his right to argue for the change even if it's not explicit and practice it accordingly.

 

[kenrapoza]

I think that we're both learning a lot from this dialog my friend.

I was thinking the same thing about our agreements. In fact, we seem to agree on so much that at times it gets difficult to keep track about what we're actually disagreeing on. It also seems that we agree that the ground of sacramental administration is the divine institution, not presumption (whether of regeneration or election).

However, in reading your account of Ishmael, it seems as though you’ve separated the covenantal sign of circumcision from the covenant itself. My concern is that Scripture itself says that circumcision is a sign of the Abrahamic promise, and even calls circumcision “the covenant” (Gen. 17:10, 13, 14; Acts 7:8). It seems to me that if take your view of Ishmael’s circumcision, then we make the Bible contradict itself. Essentially, it seems what you’re saying is that circumcision is the sign of the covenant but circumcising Ishmael had nothing to do with the covenant! As far as I can tell, this appears to be a clear case of cognitive dissonance, I don’t think the text allows for this. We cannot have our cake and eat it too, either the rite signified a type of covenant initiation or it didn’t. Circumcision is not a sign of some favor with God based on physical descent.

Now, I can kind of understand why you would want to say what you do. If we’re not operating with the ancient covenantal categories in mind, then it seems as though there is a tension between what God says about circumcision and what He says about Ishmael. But having a case where the meaning of the sign is denied right after it is explained doesn’t make sense, and it is not the way to resolve the tension.

At this point I would like to offer an explanation of Ishmael’s circumcision that I believe does not do the same violence to the text and preserves the meaning of the sign. Circumcision is a physical sign that illustrates a spiritual promise, to be God to Abraham, his children, and children’s children (Gen. 17:7). The fact that circumcision is illustrative of a spiritual reality is clarified at many other points in the Scriptures (Lev. 26:40 – 42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25-26; Ezek. 44:7; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:5-14). What does it mean to have God as your God? Ultimately, it is union with Him, united through saving trust in God’s promised salvation. So please keep this in mind as I progress, that circumcision, like baptism, is intended to be a picture of regeneration, while the flipside of it is a picture of being cutoff from God’s grace in judgment for those who reject His provision in Christ. In both cases, the ultimate picture is spiritual, eschatological, and of course, Christological. I believe that the fact that circumcision is both Christ-centered and that it was a reflection of God’s intention for us to raise believing children and be a God unto us and to our children, makes the Baptist view of circumcision impossible.

When God says that He is going to make His covenant with Isaac and not Ishmael, it is clear from the surrounding explanation that He is delineating Isaac as the child of promise. Isaac is the one through whom God is going to bring about the promised Messiah genealogically. It will not be through Ishmael’s descendants. But then God commands Ishmael to receive the sign of the covenant. This is because there certainly is a relation to the covenant, but it doesn’t mean that he is related to the Messiah in the sense of being his physical ancestor. Remember, all the boys of Israel received circumcision but most of them were not in the promised line. Were they not receiving the same sign of the covenant?

It seems that you’re assuming an awful lot about Ishmael that the Bible doesn’t tell us. We aren’t told much about his spiritual state, but wouldn’t Abraham, the father of our faith, have taught this gospel to his children just like we are called to do? Isn’t it odd to assume that Ishmael was a pagan or an unbeliever given that Abraham was not only the model of our faith (Heb. 11) but was at the very center of God’s redemptive work at that time? I don’t think that Abraham would have raised an unbelieving household when the rest of us are called to train up our children in the Lord, and elders are especially expected to have believing children as a sign of their household stewardship (Tit. 1:6). Now, is God not making good on His promise as you mention? I don’t think the text says that. What you are considering to be “proof positive” I think is really a case of eisegesis.

I think that it makes perfect sense that Abraham would have applied this sign to his son as a sign of the spiritual promises in the gospel, given that it was a sign of the righteousness that comes by faith (Rom. 4:11). He administered it because in the covenant God says that He will be God to us and to our children, therefore we are to initiate our children in the administration. Why? Because of divine institution. Remember that Paul calls this covenant “the gospel” (Gal. 3:8) and the gospel is primarily about our salvation. Also, it’s not as if Abraham circumcised Ishmael and then banished him. Ishmael wasn’t sent away until later when Isaac was starting to grow and Sarah became jealous of Hagar. Abraham was trying to appease his wife, but God still promised that He would care for the boy.

So Abraham circumcised Ishmael in accordance with God’s institution as a gospel sign of the covenant that was just given, though it was clear that ultimately the Messiah would come physically from Isaac. This reading of the text does not introduce the same division of the sign from the covenant, it explains Ishmael, it preserves the meaning of circumcision, and it points us to the ultimate spiritual promise of the gospel. In this sense, circumcision is still Christ-centered in both cases. Saying that Ishmael’s circumcision was a sign of some favor with God based on physical descent and that it actually sealed the deal of God bringing a bunch of Arabs from his line destroys the Christocentric nature of the sign. Remember that this was a foreshadowing of Christ’s work on the Cross, when he was truly “cut off” from God and under His covenantal curse on behalf of all those whom He represented.

 

[Judson]

Hey Brother,

sorry for the delayed response. We get power failures very often in this small town in India. More and more I'm able to agree with your take on circumcision, and ultimately baptism, being illustrative of spiritual realities. Indeed, it has Christ and regeneration written all over it.

First, circumcision and its recipients. The Acts 7:8 passage is telling on this point. Notice how Stephen narrates those who received circumcision: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jacob's sons. We know that others were circumcised too, namely Ishmael and Esau, but they don't seem to have the same status as the Israelite line. Is it just to save space that these are not included? or might it point to something deep in the consciousness of Israel, and perhaps God himself, that a distinction is being made, even though everyone receives the sign. In your estimation, it's clear that the mark itself means inclusion, hands down. But might scripture have more nuance than that? Just a thought! All we know from these texts is that circumcision is what every male got, but the interpretation of that mark does not seem to allow for a blanket statement that applies to everyone. Scripture itself seems to say that the mark doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for everyone.

It seems that you’re assuming an awful lot about Ishmael that the Bible doesn’t tell us. We aren’t told much about his spiritual state, but wouldn’t Abraham, the father of our faith, have taught this gospel to his children just like we are called to do? Isn’t it odd to assume that Ishmael was a pagan or an unbeliever given that Abraham was not only the model of our faith (Heb. 11) but was at the very center of God’s redemptive work at that time? I don’t think that Abraham would have raised an unbelieving household when the rest of us are called to train up our children in the Lord, and elders are especially expected to have believing children as a sign of their household stewardship (Tit. 1:6). Now, is God not making good on His promise as you mention? I don’t think the text says that. What you are considering to be “proof positive” I think is really a case of eisegesis.
...
I think that it makes perfect sense that Abraham would have applied this sign to his son as a sign of the spiritual promises in the gospel, given that it was a sign of the righteousness that comes by faith (Rom. 4:11). He administered it because in the covenant God says that He will be God to us and to our children, therefore we are to initiate our children in the administration. Why? Because of divine institution. Remember that Paul calls this covenant “the gospel” (Gal. 3:8) and the gospel is primarily about our salvation. Also, it’s not as if Abraham circumcised Ishmael and then banished him. Ishmael wasn’t sent away until later when Isaac was starting to grow and Sarah became jealous of Hagar. Abraham was trying to appease his wife, but God still promised that He would care for the boy.

So, let's reason this idea out and see where it leads. If I read your reasoning correctly, we would be right to imply that God is the God of Ishmael, and his descendants, even to this day? that they are somehow within the fold of the gospel and its promises illustrated by the mark that's in their flesh? that in terms of their external relation to the covenant, they are in an equivalent status with Jews? These are among the implications of saying that Ishmael is externally in the covenant. Taken to its logical end, the external administration travels down genetic lines, the conclusion being, that Ishmaelites (modern day Arabs) are just as much in the covenant (externally) as Jews.

Maybe i'm reading your wrongly, but I don't see how this can be so. Making a one-to-one relation between the sign and covenant inclusion causes big problems for how we ought to view Ishmael and his descendants. The only way to make it work is to make distinctions between recipients and what it might mean to them.

Another additional way that the circumcision = covenant inclusion formula breaks down is in the case of females. Strict logic would exclude all Israelite women on the basis that they do not bear the mark in their flesh. At most, it can be said that they are in the covenant by affiliation with a male. But affiliation with a covenant member (as is the case with Ishmael) is already one step removed from being a member by virtue of actually having the mark in one's flesh.

All this to say that there are deep problems with making circumcision the blanket statement on who's in the covenant.

 

[kenrapoza]

Wow, India – I had no idea you were all the way over there! My wife spent a couple weeks in India several years ago. It was quite the experience.

Regarding Acts 7, I think that we are in basic agreement, though I would go a little farther and say that the context of Stephen’s speech clarifies his choice of words. Recall that Stephen is recounting the actions of God in salvation history, specifically His sovereign choice of Abraham. The actual wording is:

“And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.

And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him and rescued him out of all his afflictions and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan…” (Acts 7:8-11a, ESV)

Clearly Stephen is recounting patriarchal history and so his wording makes perfect sense.

The point that I was making in my previous post was that I was surprised that you took Ishamael’s circumcision in the direction that you did. It seemed as though we were agreed on circumcision being a pre-incarnate Christ-centered sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. It also seemed that we were both making that same point, and Scripture makes it abundantly clear. My objection was to the point you made about Ishmael’s circumcision not being a sign of the Abrahamic covenant but of “some favor with God” which was seemingly tied to his physical descent from Abraham. My point was that this not only destroys the Christocentric nature of circumcision, but seems to be out of accord with the Scriptures which declare that circumcision is a sign of the gospel promise given to Abraham, not of something else. Circumcision is so identified with that covenant that Scripture simply refers to this as “the covenant” because the meaning is understood.

From your post, it sounds as though you misunderstood what I was saying about circumcision, the covenant, and sacraments in general. This is probably due to my lack of clarity in my explanations thus far. It is not that circumcision equals a blanket inclusion in the covenant without any distinction. I thought that I had been making the opposite point throughout our discussion, but perhaps I should clarify. There is no “one-to-one relation between the sign and covenant inclusion” because there is no such thing as “circumcisional regeneration”! They are included in the administration of the covenant but they don’t necessarily possess an inward relation to the Covenant of Grace. I will expand on this below. The nuance you are sensing is not so much a nuance as it is a basic condition – faith!

- Not all Israel is Israel (Rom. 9:6).
- A Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart (Rom. 2:29).
- Abraham is the father of those who believe (Rom. 4:11).
- The just shall live by faith (Hab. 2:4; Rom 1:17; Gal. 3:11)
- Obedience is to God is to be from a loving heart of faith (Deut. 30:10).

This is the point I have been stressing, that Abraham has never been the father of those who don’t believe. That is the whole point of circumcision. Signs, by definition, always point away from themselves to a greater reality. They are not their own end in and of themselves. Circumcision (like baptism) points to regeneration and faith because it does not effect those things. As a seal it is a guarantee of the genuineness of the gospel, it does not seal the recipient with an inward relation to it, only the Holy Spirit does that through circumcision of the heart, just as He does it today through the baptism of the Spirit. But we know that the condition of faith is supplied by God Himself. Unlike an earthly suzerain, He walked through the morbid trail of bisected animals Himself instead of making the vassal do it. My argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that God is the God of the Arabs any more than it does that He is the God of unbelieving Jews.

At this point I can imagine the Baptist asking “So then what does circumcision actually do?” First it is a sign of the gospel covenant pointing to our sinfulness and the need for inward cleansing from sin which can only be accomplished by God Himself. In its administration to infants it further points to the familial aspect of the promise and clarifies our helplessness before God (more on this below). Second it is a seal of the gospel promise as explained above. Third, it marks out the recipient as being a member of the covenant community, which is the visible administration of the gospel promise. I think this is where your confusion is primarily located. Circumcision does say something about the recipient, but it doesn’t say that they necessarily possess the faith of Abraham. Foreskin is not evil, therefore its removal does not automatically cleanse us. As a sacrament its only efficacy is attached to God’s presence through His Word. It is a visible gospel, and God works through means (as made explicit in Rom. 10). I can then further imagine a Baptist asking “So then what good is administering circumcision if it only includes the person in the outward administration of the gospel without actually guaranteeing it?” At this point, I would refer you to Paul:

“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…” (Rom. 3:1-4a)

Notice what Paul says, the value of the sign is its relation to the oracles of God. The value in receiving it is the inclusion in the covenant people to whom the oracles of God were entrusted. But does it guarantee their faithfulness? No, and their faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God! What about those who are unfaithful? They are judged as covenant-breakers as opposed to covenant faithful. But how can they be covenant breakers if they never possessed an inward relation to the covenant? In two ways. First, they have rejected the sign in its primary referent, which is faith, and they are ultimately apostate as far as the covenant community is concerned. Second, they are covenant breakers because they are ultimately in Adam. They stand upon their own merits and are condemned by the Law. Ultimately, they are covenant breakers because they are in Adam, an unfaithful head of a broken covenant who’s only hope of salvation was in the promised Messiah (Gen. 3:15, 21). As I mentioned above with Abraham, the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken because ultimately its federal head is Christ Himself. Here we see the nature of the New Covenant being Abrahamic. We are either in Adam or in Christ (Rom. 5). In Adam we are covenant breakers who have rebelled against our creator, but in Christ we stand on His covenant faithfulness and there is no condemnation for us.

Let me illustrate with a more familiar example, one that I’m sure we can agree on. Suppose an unbaptized person comes into our church making a profession of faith and requests baptism. We then examine the credibility of their profession and believe it to be genuine. Are they ultimately in the Covenant? We don’t know, because we cannot infallibly read their heart. But we are to administer baptism to them, not because we know they are a believer, but because of divine institution. God’s commands are the basis for administering His sacraments, presumptive regeneration is not the basis. God has so ordered the administration of His covenant that we baptize someone who makes a credible profession of faith who is previously unbaptized even though we cannot guarantee their faithfulness. Now, after we baptize them, are they in the covenant? We don’t know, we can’t infallibly read their heart. Has their status changed upon baptism? Yes in the sense that they are now part of the visible church, but inwardly their status has not changed unless their actual faith came at the same time. Rom. 4:10 is clear on this regarding Abraham’s faith in relation to his circumcision. Baptism points to their need for inward cleansing, but that is only provided by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture also tells us that the gospel is for families (Gen. 12:3; Acts 3:25). God has chosen a visible administration of the gospel that bears witness to the content of the promise. Therefore, it makes sense that a sign of the gospel to be “God to us and to our children”, and is for the “families of the earth”, must have a referent to covenant children who are “holy” (I Cor. 7:14) in a certain sense. The gospel may be for individuals, but it is not individualistic. Scripture speaks in very strong terms about the signs being a means of grace; speaking of circumcision as being the gospel covenant, and saying that “baptism saves us” (I Pet. 3:21). Obviously, we are saved by grace through faith, not by any outward rite, but this tells us that we do not have the prerogative of telling God how He can and can’t work with the means He has chosen. When God commanded Abraham to apply the sign of righteousness and faith to an infant who couldn't make a profession of faith, He was illustrating a very profound reality. Apart from the grace of God we are dead in our trespasses and sins, unable to turn to God in faith. Just as God walks through the animals and makes a unilateral promise of salvation by grace that is bestowed sovereignly according to His own good pleasure, so He commands that the sign of that promise is given to those who best illustrate that reality. He doesn't make Abraham wait until the children fulfill some condition (such as a verbal profession of faith) in order to receive the sign just as He doesn't make Abraham walk through the animals to hold up his end of the bargain. If God says that circumcision is a sign of faith and regeneration and that we are to give it to children who can’t yet possess that faith, then we obey Him, knowing that He sovereignly and providentially orders these means to bring about His ends and His glory. If Jesus says that the kingdom belongs to covenant children and that whoever receives them in His name receives Him, then we receive them into the covenant community.

So what then is the value of baptism? Much in every way for to us (the church) are entrusted the oracles of God (the proclamation of the gospel)! Are we to say that a child raised by faithful parents who catechize them and bring them under the teaching of the Word every week are in no better a position than the unbeliever? Of course they are for they have the advantage of being exposed to the means of grace, the preaching of the gospel, which is what God uses to effect salvation (Rom. 10). They are taught about our faithful God and raised in His nurture and admonition (Eph. 6). They are in a much better position to trust in God than a child raised outside of the covenant community.

 

[Judson]

Ken, you know a lot about this topic! I'm liking this - it's very productive and enlightening. There's tons we agree with. Let me try to narrow down my issues and get us back to the simple stuff. There are two routes:

If circumcision doesn't say anything definitive about the status of the person in relation to Christ's benefits, then I'm fine. If it's only a pointer to a more profound reality, then we're in full agreement. That solves a lot of problems for me regarding infants and Ishmael.

But, paedobaptists are not willing to say so little about the covenant and its sign. What value? Much in every way, right? First, visible inclusion in the covenant community. Problem: Ishmael. (btw, why no response on the Ishmael problems in my last post?) Descendants of Ishmael do not share in the covenant with Israel, externally or otherwise - Jews know that all too well. Second, God being the God of Ishmael, and Esau. Another problem: God doesn't seem to accept that designation. He likes being called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This specificity is not required if he was the God of all of Abraham's children. Third, circumcision (and baptism) as providing an advantage to the child because they are sacramental means of grace, and God "sovereignly and providentially orders these means to bring about His ends and His glory." Problem: if it a means unto salvation for some, and a means to damnation for others, we can't really say it's an advantage for all who receive it. The other way of fixing it is to say that it's an advantage for some, and nothing to others.

So we agree that's a sign, a pointer. But the problem is when you insist that it's a sign, and also more. I just can't see how it's MORE for the entire community. It's only MORE for some.

And if it's only more for some, then it's nothing for the rest.

now it's time for to me rest ...

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi Judson,

Good idea - simplify.

But, paedobaptists are not willing to say so little about the covenant and its sign. What value? Much in every way, right? First, visible inclusion in the covenant community. Problem: Ishmael. (btw, why no response on the Ishmael problems in my last post?) Descendants of Ishmael do not share in the covenant with Israel, externally or otherwise - Jews know that all too well.

I believe that I did address it, God is not the father of Arabs any more than He is the father of unbelieving Jews...

I think that my treatment of Ishmael and his circumcision in previous posts has provided a cogent and thorough explanation of his status. Perhaps you could clarify where the problem is for me? And I suppose I should point out that you haven't addressed my treatment of Ishmael's circumcision either or interacted with my argument that your view makes the Scriptures contradict themselves. I can't reconcile the view you have proposed with the Scriptures.

Plus, it's not me who says that circumcision is valuable, it's Paul! Paul relates circumcision to the oracles of God and the covenant community...

Second, God being the God of Ishmael, and Esau. Another problem: God doesn't seem to accept that designation. He likes being called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This specificity is not required if he was the God of all of Abraham's children.

He is not the God of all of Abraham's children. Ultimately He is the God of those who are Abraham's true children, those who believe - as indicated by the sign. There is no disagreement here.

Third, circumcision (and baptism) as providing an advantage to the child because they are sacramental means of grace, and God "sovereignly and providentially orders these means to bring about His ends and His glory." Problem: if it a means unto salvation for some, and a means to damnation for others, we can't really say it's an advantage for all who receive it. The other way of fixing it is to say that it's an advantage for some, and nothing to others.

Again, I would refer you to Paul who says to the Corinthians that the children of believers are in a certain sense "holy", and to Christ who declared covenant children to be heirs of the kingdom. Of course being raised in a Christian home by Christian parents who teach you the gospel is an advantage - for you are in the very center of God's primary vehicle for advancing His kingdom. That child has much more opportunity to hear and believe the gospel.

So we agree that's a sign, a pointer. But the problem is when you insist that it's a sign, and also more. I just can't see how it's MORE for the entire community. It's only MORE for some.

And if it's only more for some, then it's nothing for the rest.

now it's time for to me rest ...

I'm not sure what you mean by this...would you be able to elaborate on your concern? Remember, it's a sign of God's gospel...not a sign of the recipient's faith per se.

 

[Judson]

Hey Ken,

sorry about that last, rather poorly written post.

Ok, so I'm grasping your point which you patiently wrote and rewrote, "Circumcision is a physical sign that illustrates a spiritual promise, to be God to Abraham, his children, and his children's children. (Gen 17:7)."

What I understand of your view is that it is a blanket statement of covenant inclusion only externally and administratively. Spiritually, it holds no power to effect inward covenant inclusion (regeneration). As an external administration, it does also say something of a person's status. They have the mark of God's conditional promise of salvation, the gospel; they are carriers of the oracles of God; God looks upon them as holy and has grace upon them as a believing household.

Why do I continue to harp on Ishmael? It's because if it can be found that Ishmael was never a part of the covenant, whether internally or administratively, then the paedobaptist has a problem explaining the "blanketing" effect of the external administration. It will have to be admitted that the external administration may not necessarily say anything about the recipient's status, or their inclusion into anything.

Now, you would argue first, that Ishmael was brought up in a covenant family and taught the gospel by Abraham, that he may very well have been a "believer." Ok, fair enough. But, for consistency's sake we must remember also the familial and generation aspect of the covenant that Presbys stress so much. In other words, all Arabs are members of Abraham's household of faith and are circumcised (which is the case with Muslims today). This would mean that all the oracles of God, the promises and blessings, and the intimacy that Israel enjoys with God are also rightly claimed by Arabs. This is simply not true. They have no right to these promises or the relationship with God that Israel alone enjoyed - even though they have the sign of promise in their flesh. Remember we are not speaking yet of the spiritual reality of the sign, but the external administration of the sign. Administratively, they are not members in Israel's covenant community.

Thus, a concession must be made that Arab circumcision does not illustrate for them what it illustrates for Jews. So the ultimate question then: what advantage has circumcision for the Arab? Some level of kinship with Abraham, but not quite the kinship that includes them in Israel's covenant. Other than that, there is no advantage whatsoever. Once the Arab relation to the covenant is dislodged, then we see a hole in the theology of external administration. It becomes a meaningless statement that one is externally administered into a covenant when there is at least one clear case of a circumcised family with no membership status. It only takes one exception for the rule to fall apart. So even in the external administration, some distinction is necessary. But if that's the case, maybe external administration is not the correct model for looking at it.

But it's not as if this is a surprise. God was pretty clear at the beginning his list of covenant members. He ordered Ishmael and all slaves in the house to be circumcised because it is a testimony to the Patriarch and his faith. For me, this line of reasoning keeps scripture in tact without it being hijacked by covenant theology and explains why it's reasonable for Ishmael to be circumcised. We also have Paul explaining in Rom 4 this same idea: circumcision testifies of two things: Abraham and Christ. This does not remove the family aspect. It's just that we must understand family as a spiritual family in Christ.

anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked. I'd like to hear your response to the Ishmael bit.

blessings!

 

[hedrick]

Baptism is not just getting wet. Luther defines baptism as water plus the Word. Similarly, circumcision is not just getting cut. Circumcision wasn't unique to the Jews (just as there are other religions with ceremonial cleansing). It is documented among Egyptians and other Semitic people. It was given a sacramental significance for Abraham by its combination with God's promise. But if the act was carried out by others without being combined with the Word, it would not have been the same thing.

I don't think we know what happened with Ishmael. The OT sees Ishmael as the ancestor of Edom, which the OT doesn't see as part of the covenant with Abraham. But Ishmael was born within the covenant. My guess is that he didn't pass the faith to his children, and that his whole line neither saw themselves as nor were members of the covenant people. If they maintained the custom of circumcision it would have reverted to the its status among pagans. But we don't actually know when that happened. Perhaps he actually taught the Gospel to his children and it remained for a generation or two. But most likely Ishmael is the first example of something we see today: people who are born to Christian parents but don't remain Christian. Their baptisms are still Christian baptisms even though they don't remain part of God's people.

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi Judson,

Your clarifying post was helpful.

The way I see it, the question is whether or not Ishmael received the sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham. As I explained previously, I believe that Scripture makes this clear and to say otherwise is to contradict Scripture and destroy the Christological nature of the sign. God commanded Abraham to administer the sign of the covenant to Ishmael as part of his household. Was Abraham's household not part of the visible administration of the covenant? Was Abraham's household not part of the covenant community? Abraham didn't go around circumcising pagans! The fact that later on when Isaac was growing Sarah became jealous of Hagar and made Abraham send her away with the boy does not change the nature of the sign he received. God promised that He would still care for Ishmael.

Now, you've brought up the Arabs. What advantage does circumcision carry for them? You seem to be addressing some form of sacramental ex opere operato type of idea which is in no way what I am implying. Again, I think Paul's words are instructive:

"For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision." (Rom. 2:25)

This is the same Paul who said that circumcision carries much value. He doesn't contradict himself, I think the solution is fairly clear. Circumcision is not a blessing to a covenant breaker, it foreshadows his judgment. Recall that I spoke earlier about the negative side of the covenant signs. Circumcision is a sign of the righteousness that comes by faith (Rom. 4:11), it points to the circumcision of the heart. Paul is not saying that circumcision is of value in a personal way to unbelieving Jews, he is speaking of the sign in general of being connected with the oracles of God given to the Jews.

 

[Judson]

Hi Ken,

in continuing to discuss Ishmael, I'd like to probe this: If Ishmael is in Abraham's covenant, then at what point did Ishmael's descendants (Arabs) fall out of the covenant? If the covenant membership comes down the family line, as covenant theology teaches so firmly, then it's not only Ishmael who is of Abraham's house, but Ishmael's descendants belong to Abraham's house as well as long as they keep up the practice of obeying the covenant stipulation to circumcise all males. They have obeyed the command of circumcision to this day, so in what way did they break the covenant? What disqualified them? Why do they have no part in Israel's blessings? If you are right that we should assume Abraham preached the gospel to Ishmael, then why not likewise assume that Ishmael preached to his sons? And in fact he did. What I see your reasoning doing is including Ishmael in the community, but cutting off his descendants. But on what ground? This seems inconsistent and arbitrary to me. Consistency would require that all males in Abraham's household, and all their generations, ought to receive the sign which gives them covenant status visibly.

But we don't see this. The Bible is very clear that the covenant is restricted to the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The promises follow this line, the Messiah comes from this line, and God is the God of this line. Consider Eph 2: "11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

The insistence on saying that circumcision is the visible administration of covenant membership begs the question: then what claim can the Arab or Edomite lay on Israel's covenant? If one answers correctly, "none," then what does "visible administration" mean? is this a case of membership with no benefits?

So given the above, I would posit that visible administration is an empty term and God did not ordain such a thing. Rather, circumcision points to something that went on between Abraham and God; all his sons testify to it in their flesh, which is fine, but it grants them no claim to membership. But as revelation progresses, we find that God has always intended for it to point to Christ, and the family aspect follows the blood of Christ, not one's parental bloodline.

I'm really looking forward to hearing from you what visible, or external administration means in light of the above, so that we can move the discussion forward.

blessings!

 

[Judson]

Hi Ken,

in continuing to discuss Ishmael, I'd like to probe this: If Ishmael is in Abraham's covenant, then at what point did Ishmael's descendants (Arabs) fall out of the covenant? If the covenant membership comes down the family line, as covenant theology teaches so firmly, then it's not only Ishmael who is of Abraham's house, but Ishmael's descendants belong to Abraham's house as well as long as they keep up the practice of obeying the covenant stipulation to circumcise all males. They have obeyed the command of circumcision to this day, so in what way did they break the covenant? What disqualified them? Why do they have no part in Israel's blessings? If you are right that we should assume Abraham preached the gospel to Ishmael, then why not likewise assume that Ishmael preached to his sons? And in fact he did. What I see your reasoning doing is including Ishmael in the community, but cutting off his descendants. But on what ground? This seems inconsistent and arbitrary to me. Consistency would require that all males in Abraham's household, and all their generations, ought to receive the sign which gives them covenant status visibly.

But we don't see this. The Bible is very clear that the covenant is restricted to the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The promises follow this line, the Messiah comes from this line, and God is the God of this line. Consider Eph 2: "11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

The insistence on saying that circumcision is the visible administration of covenant membership begs the question: then what claim can the Arab or Edomite lay on Israel's covenant? If one answers correctly, "none," then what does "visible administration" mean? is this a case of membership with no benefits?

So given the above, I would posit that visible administration is an empty term and God did not ordain such a thing. Rather, circumcision points to something that went on between Abraham and God; all his sons testify to it in their flesh, which is fine, but it grants them no claim to membership. But as revelation progresses, we find that God has always intended for it to point to Christ, and the family aspect follows the blood of Christ, not one's parental bloodline.

I'm really looking forward to hearing from you what visible, or external administration means in light of the above, so that we can move the discussion forward.

blessings!

 

[hedrick]

The insistence on saying that circumcision is the visible administration of covenant membership begs the question: then what claim can the Arab or Edomite lay on Israel's covenant? If one answers correctly, "none," then what does "visible administration" mean? is this a case of membership with no benefits?

But Edomites aren't even visible members of the covenant with Israel.

Something is a sign of the covenant only if it's done among the covenant people, because that covenant is (before Christ) with a specific people. Just as not all washing with water is baptism, not all cutting is Scriptural circumcision. Circumcision done by Abraham is a mark of the covenant. Circumcision done by an Edomite isn't (except under unusual circumstances, e.g. as an Edomite that had explicitly rejected his national religion and wanted to worship God). I don't know what significant it had for Edomites, or even if they did it. But if they did, presumably it would have been a sign of something in Edomite culture or religion.

 

[Judson]

But Edomites aren't even visible members of the covenant with Israel.

Something is a sign of the covenant only if it's done among the covenant people, because that covenant is (before Christ) with a specific people. Just as not all washing with water is baptism, not all cutting is Scriptural circumcision. Circumcision done by Abraham is a mark of the covenant. Circumcision done by an Edomite isn't (except under unusual circumstances, e.g. as an Edomite that had explicitly rejected his national religion and wanted to worship God). I don't know what significant it had for Edomites, or even if they did it. But if they did, presumably it would have been a sign of something in Edomite culture or religion.

My point exactly, I agree. If I understand Reformed (paedobaptist) covenant theology correctly, all of Abraham's household are commanded to bear the visible administration of the covenant, although they may not be participants of what the covenant conveys spiritually. I can understand the disjunct between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart, but if there is a disjunction between various groups who are visibly admitted, then the whole idea of visible administration is challenged. Because, it will be found that some who bear the mark are not even meaningfully a part of any covenant at all.

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi Judson,

When I read your posts I don't really see the Reformed position reflected in them. I see you attacking things that I don't agree with either!

1. Circumcision does not effect the covenant itself, it is a sign. The covenant is the gospel, according to Paul. The gospel does not consist of external signs but of faith in Christ flowing from a regenerate heart, which is what the signs point to. Empty circumcision is not the covenant, as is made clear all over Scripture, it is circumcision of the heart.

2. Is there a distinction among the people who have received the sign? Of course! Paul says this very clearly that a Jew is one inwardly, not outwardly. Not all Israel is Israel.

3. What is effectual is the Word of God, not the external signs. It is the Word that makes the community (indeed it is the Word that creates the church). The sign without the Word is not only spiritually useless, it is dangerous. As I have previously pointed out, Paul says that their circumcision has become uncircumcision. As we see in Gen. 15, Rom. 4 and Heb. 11, Abraham understood this.

4. We know that Abraham was a preacher of the gospel, we do not know about Ishmael or his descendants. Assuming his propagation of the gospel is vain speculation. Your characterization of Covenant Theology is not correct because it does not teach that physical descent ensures internal covenant relation. However, God does use family lines for the extension of the kingdom, as made clear through many of the Scriptures referenced in the discussion so far. Circumcision testifies to this, but it does not guarantee the faithfulness of those descendants. Again, Rom. 3 addresses this directly. I find it interesting that the objection that Paul reacts so strongly to is the very objection you’ve been raising! The points you’ve been raising seem to reflect the individualistic presuppositions of Baptist theology that are at odds with Biblical federal headship.

5. Paul says that circumcision was valuable because of the oracles of God. In other words, it was valuable as a sign of the gospel to those who believed the gospel, but there are no promises for the unbeliever, as I said in point #2 above. Let me reiterate what Paul says in Rom. 3 - “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!” Notice what Paul says, that circumcision was of value because the oracles of God were given to the Jews. Who were the Jews? They were the people that God called out for His redemptive purposes, one way of putting it is that they were a covenant community. When someone came into that community and made the God of Abraham their own God, then they were circumcised as a sign of the righteousness that came from that faith. Upon their entry into the covenant people, they received the sign. Your contention of the covenant community being a vacuous term flies right in the face of Paul’s statement.

6. To deny that circumcision served as a sign of being marked off as part of the visible covenant community means that you either have to deny that it is a sign of the covenant and contradict Gen. 17, or deny that it is connected with the covenant people and contradict Paul, or you have to deny that there is a such thing as a people whom God had called out to create a visible community, which is patently absurd – it would be like denying that Moses led the Hebrews (who were that community) out of Egypt.

7. If you really believe that there was no advantage to being born into a community where the gospel is preached and believed, then not only do you contradict Paul, then I would think you would drop off your small children at a babysitter’s on your way to church every Sunday. If there is no advantage to being given the opportunity to hear and believe the gospel then there would be no point in bringing them except for convenience. What is the advantage to belonging to the covenant community? It is the oracles of God, according to Paul. What is the primary oracle of God – it is the gospel. The advantage is that our children have the opportunity to be taught about God and hear the gospel that others don’t necessarily have. Like I said, it is the Word that is effective. But to those who reject the gospel, even though they were raised in the community, their sign is a witness against them, it is not an advantage.

The position you’ve espoused thus far about Ishmael’s circumcision still denies the Christ-centered covenantal nature of the sign. I think we’ve kind of beat Ishmael to death at this point. But the way I see it now, your position makes sense logically but it runs roughshod over many Scriptural passages. It does not seem like the Baptist view is really taking all the relevant Biblical information into account, since it always seems to deny one passage or another. The passages that you do raise against Covenant Theology are ones that we are fundamentally agreed on!

I guess another point that needs to be made is that Ishmael is not the model for covenant membership. Though he was in Abraham's household, which could be argued was virtually synonymous with the covenant community at the time, he was later sent away because Sarah became jealous of Hagar and pressured Abraham into removing them from her presence. Moreover, taking a concubine and having a child through them because our wife is barren is not the model we are to follow either. In other words, Ishmael's status is a unique situation that is not to be taken as normative. His being sent away stemmed from Abraham's foolish actions with Hagar. But circumcision is still a sign of the gospel. In the scheme you've proposed, it doesn't make sense that Ishmael would receive the sign of the promise that God made to Abraham to be carried on through Isaac. I don't think that it makes sense for us to take the anomalous situations in Biblical history and use them to undo what is clear in Scripture. That is not how we handle the Biblical text.

 

[hedrick]

My point exactly, I agree. If I understand Reformed (paedobaptist) covenant theology correctly, all of Abraham's household are commanded to bear the visible administration of the covenant, although they may not be participants of what the covenant conveys spiritually. I can understand the disjunct between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart, but if there is a disjunction between various groups who are visibly admitted, then the whole idea of visible administration is challenged. Because, it will be found that some who bear the mark are not even meaningfully a part of any covenant at all.

But Ishmael's children weren't visibly admitted to the covenant with Israel, because they weren't part of Israel. Whether they were circumcised or not, and whether they had faith or not. That doesn't mean they couldn't have had some different relationship with God, but if they did, it wasn't as part of Israel.

As far as visible signs, the disjunction isn't between different people who are admitted to the covenant, but between those who are and aren't.

 

[Judson]

Hi Ken,

It looks like my posts are causing misunderstanding. I'm not launching the typical Baptist charge that paedobaptists are baptismal regenerationists or anything like that. I do not claim that you believe that the signs effect anything, or that covenant theology teaches anything of the sort. I'm simply trying to work out your theology to its rational conclusion, using Ishmael as the hinge upon which I believe the theology begins to unravel.

There's nothing in your post that I disagree with. It is all sound Reformed teaching, and very well explained, I might add! I agree with your conclusions about how Paul links the covenant sign to the Jewish oracles, and I agree that circumcision is Christological through and through. I am not positing that it should be seen any other way.

I am also aware of such a terminology within Reformed theology of a dual, or two-fold administration of the covenant. One is external and visible, the other is internal and invisible. With regard to the internal/invisible, we both agree that this covenant is with God's elect, who are in Christ and have faith in him. But, because of infant baptism, and the observation of circumcision in the OT, the Reformed also distinguish the external administration of the covenant that is communal and familial and marks off infants as covenant members, albeit externally. Please let me know if I'm not representing it correctly.

From what I understand, there is cause for circumcising and baptizing infants who do not yet have faith because they are a part of the covenant community and should be given the administrative mark of membership. This doesn't mean they are necessarily saved! They are simply included and recognized. Thus, circumcision has a blanketing effect, not spiritually, but visibly. It distinguishes, it marks off, it grants status, it creates identity and community. Those who receive it are those who fall within the parameters: Abraham's offspring and household.

Now, enter Ishmael. He is Abraham's offspring and a member of his house. If the covenants are generationally inherited, then Ishmael's offspring are Abraham's offspring as well - they are in Abraham's loins, as it were. Thus, there are included in the covenant, they are members, so long as they continue to faithfully circumcise their males. Please note, we are still speaking purely visible administration here.

So the logical conclusion is simple. It flows like this:

1. All who are of Abraham's house are visibly administered into the covenant community.

2. The visible administration is generational so long as circumcision is upheld.

3. Therefore, All generations from Abraham are visibly in the covenant community.

But wait, no. This can't be right. Circumcision does not include descendants to that extent. It's coverage is not that wide because we know that Arabs are not in no way a part of Israel's covenant. This suggests that the covenant is distinguished as Israelite, and only Israelite.

then we are left this syllogism:
1. all who are Israelites are in the covenant community

2. Ismael is not Israelite.

3. Ishmael is not in the covenant community.

But this syllogism negates the original claim that All who are of Abraham's house are visibly administered into the covenant community. So there's where it breaks down for me.

So to avoid further confusion, we are agreed and at peace with the spiritual ramifications of the covenant and what it means. I'm looking forward to your explanation as to what covenant community means for Ishmael and his descendants. If I was wrong on any of the above, then please clarify.

blessings.

 

[Judson]

But Ishmael's children weren't visibly admitted to the covenant with Israel, because they weren't part of Israel. Whether they were circumcised or not, and whether they had faith or not. That doesn't mean they couldn't have had some different relationship with God, but if they did, it wasn't as part of Israel.

As far as visible signs, the disjunction isn't between different people who are admitted to the covenant, but between those who are and aren't.

The covenant sign is not Israelite, it is Abrahamic. And Ishmael's descendants belong to that ancestral fold. Reformed theology DOES teach, as far as I know, that Ishmael IS visibly admitted into Abraham's covenant. The inconsistency, ironically, is that the Reformed don't include his infants!

From the Reformed Baptist perspective, the problem is avoided because we do not use the visible administration terminology. the covenant is always and only with the elect.

 

[hedrick]

The covenant sign is not Israelite, it is Abrahamic. And Ishmael's descendants belong to that ancestral fold. Reformed theology DOES teach, as far as I know, that Ishmael IS visibly admitted into Abraham's covenant. The inconsistency, ironically, is that the Reformed don't include his infants!

From the Reformed Baptist perspective, the problem is avoided because we do not use the visible administration terminology. the covenant is always and only with the elect.

I think you're taking the term offspring in Gen 17:9 too literally. That verse clearly identifies circumcision as a sign of the covenant, and 17:19 ff indicates that the covenant is for Isaac's descendants, and not Ishmael's. It makes no sense to see circumcision as having significance beyond the scope of the thing of which it is a sign. There's some flexibility in terms of ancestry. Slaves and servants are also circumcised, and they aren't Abraham's offspring.

Thus it would appear that the whole family is a member of the covenant people. Even though Ishmael isn't a son through whom the covenant would descend, he's more a part of Abraham's family than his slaves. See also 1 Cor 7:14 ff, where the whole family of a Christian is in some sense holy, although presumably Paul is not saying that faith is unnecessary.

 

[Judson]

Hedrick, I see things the way you do Brother. I'm just reasoning with the categories provided by Presbyterian covenant theology and reaching ultimate conclusions, which I find problematic, just like you do. If it's true that "there's some flexibility in terms of ancestry" then that's a major hole that presbys need to plug up. What's the criteria that establishes "flexibility"? I know of none. when paedos argue for baptism, all children are baptised on account of a parent's faith, and all are included in the covenant. I don't see flexibility in the status of covenant children (visible administration).