- Aug 20, 2006
- 2,529
- 134
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
The main difficulty that Im having with your argument is that it seems to be saying this:
- God instituted the administration of a covenant sign to be given to a people whom He has selected
- This sign has nothing to do with the visible administration of the covenant or the community to whom it is given
I see these as self-refuting statements, it is an oxymoron. You may not wish to call it a covenant community, that is fine, but the idea is still there. When people joined, they were circumcised. Their circumcision was a sign of the promise that was being primarily administered with the Hebrew people. As I said in my previous post, I dont see any way around this without denying what is plain and clear. When I refer to circumcision as the sign of the promise that God made to Abraham and it being the sign marking off the covenant community, I am saying the same thing. Abraham was commanded to give it to his sons and their descendants because of the promise to be God to him and his seed after him. In other words, there is a clear familial aspect of the administration with a clear ultimate reference to Christ. I imagine we agree on a lot of that.
Heres something I need to understand from your side: If circumcision is a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, and Ishmael is not a part of that covenant, then why was he circumcised?
I realize that youre trying to get to the logical outworking of my argumentation, but thats exactly what Im doing also. I realize that you regard circumcision to be a Christological sign, but when you say that Ishmaels circumcision was a sign of some favor with God based on his physical relationship with Abraham, and it is not related to the gospel promise, then you have emptied it of its Christology. Here is my point: We both agree that circumcision pointed to Christ because he is the ultimate seed of Abraham and ultimately the covenant is with him. If circumcision is a sign of that covenant, then its meaning cannot change from person to person, it must be consistent. If God commanded that Ishmael receive circumcision upon the establishment of the Abrahamic administration of the covenant, then he must have received it as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Thats what Abrahamic circumcision was. If he received the sign of the covenant, that is just another way of saying he was part of the visible administration of the covenant (i.e., the covenant community). His later circumstances were unique and are not normative for how we implement Gods commands. That is not in accordance with the historic Protestant hermeneutic of the analogia fide whereby we interpret more difficult and anomalous passages through the clear didactic ones.
We agree that the covenant is established with Isaac because he is in the chosen line from which Christ would come, but upon what exegetical basis do you conclude that Ishmael was excluded? What about the rest of the 300 in Abrahams household? They were circumcised, but they werent Isaac were they also excluded?
Regarding Ishmaels descendants, I disagree with your logic because blind circumcision does not equal covenant faithfulness and therefore does not lead to the conclusion that circumcised Arabs are somehow part of the administration of the Abrahamic covenant if indeed circumcision signifies some connection with that covenant. The Old Testament clarifies the nature of circumcision as illustrating faith and regeneration. As I mentioned in my previous post, Abraham understood this. Unbelieving Jews were sharply chastised by God. Continuing the outward physical rite while jettisoning the content of the religion makes one covenantally unfaithful. This was the error of the Pharisees and Judaizers that Jesus and Paul railed against because they turned circumcision into an ethnic boundary marker while rejecting the Messiah to whom it pointed. Speculating about the nature of the households that proceeded from Ishmael and the extent to which they believed the gospel and for how long is not germane to the discussion and is beyond the scope of what scripture reveals to us. We know the end result and that is enough because that is what scripture gives us. Your syllogisms contain assumptions that I dont agree with.
However, we do see some interesting tidbits about Ishmael and other descendants of Abraham in the Old Testament. Recall that Ishmael joined Isaac to bury Abraham in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 25:9). What was the nature of their relationship that they were had contact with each other? We dont know. We also note that Moses father-in-law Jethro was the priest of Midian, a man who knew God and was a descendant of Abraham. Obviously Abraham taught the faith to those in his household and it took hold enough that many generations later we see some of them pop up later in Scripture as believers in the one true God. Interestingly we see the terms Ishmaelites and Midianites used interchangeably later on (Gen. 37:25-28).
The narrative of Scripture focuses on the history of Abrahams descendants through the line of promise from whom the Messiah would come. Regarding those outside, we just dont know enough about them because Scripture isnt clear. How many were believers from Abrahams descendants that werent through Isaac? We cant go beyond Scripture.
Another way of understanding this is to point out that its not the idea of the covenant community per se that serves as the basis for infant initiation into the covenant, it is the fact that God commanded it. The logical order is this way:
1.) God instituted a covenant wherein He promised to be God to Abraham and to his seed after him
2.) God then gave a physical, administrative mark to serve as a sign and seal
3.) God then commanded that the mark be administered to infants in the household who couldnt yet profess the faith
4.) The natural result of that is the formation of a people (an ekklesia) who are called out from the world for Gods redemptive purposes
You see the logic when we get down to the nuts and bolts of it, the basis for infant baptism isnt presumption of their covenantal standing, but it is Gods command to institute infant initiation into the covenant. Now, we understand that there is an equivalency, but ultimately it is grounded in Gods command. The idea of the covenant community is secondary, it is a consequence. Ignoring it and focusing on circumcision as a sign of the promise will get you to the same place because we are talking about a distinction without a difference.
- God instituted the administration of a covenant sign to be given to a people whom He has selected
- This sign has nothing to do with the visible administration of the covenant or the community to whom it is given
I see these as self-refuting statements, it is an oxymoron. You may not wish to call it a covenant community, that is fine, but the idea is still there. When people joined, they were circumcised. Their circumcision was a sign of the promise that was being primarily administered with the Hebrew people. As I said in my previous post, I dont see any way around this without denying what is plain and clear. When I refer to circumcision as the sign of the promise that God made to Abraham and it being the sign marking off the covenant community, I am saying the same thing. Abraham was commanded to give it to his sons and their descendants because of the promise to be God to him and his seed after him. In other words, there is a clear familial aspect of the administration with a clear ultimate reference to Christ. I imagine we agree on a lot of that.
Heres something I need to understand from your side: If circumcision is a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, and Ishmael is not a part of that covenant, then why was he circumcised?
I realize that youre trying to get to the logical outworking of my argumentation, but thats exactly what Im doing also. I realize that you regard circumcision to be a Christological sign, but when you say that Ishmaels circumcision was a sign of some favor with God based on his physical relationship with Abraham, and it is not related to the gospel promise, then you have emptied it of its Christology. Here is my point: We both agree that circumcision pointed to Christ because he is the ultimate seed of Abraham and ultimately the covenant is with him. If circumcision is a sign of that covenant, then its meaning cannot change from person to person, it must be consistent. If God commanded that Ishmael receive circumcision upon the establishment of the Abrahamic administration of the covenant, then he must have received it as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Thats what Abrahamic circumcision was. If he received the sign of the covenant, that is just another way of saying he was part of the visible administration of the covenant (i.e., the covenant community). His later circumstances were unique and are not normative for how we implement Gods commands. That is not in accordance with the historic Protestant hermeneutic of the analogia fide whereby we interpret more difficult and anomalous passages through the clear didactic ones.
We agree that the covenant is established with Isaac because he is in the chosen line from which Christ would come, but upon what exegetical basis do you conclude that Ishmael was excluded? What about the rest of the 300 in Abrahams household? They were circumcised, but they werent Isaac were they also excluded?
Regarding Ishmaels descendants, I disagree with your logic because blind circumcision does not equal covenant faithfulness and therefore does not lead to the conclusion that circumcised Arabs are somehow part of the administration of the Abrahamic covenant if indeed circumcision signifies some connection with that covenant. The Old Testament clarifies the nature of circumcision as illustrating faith and regeneration. As I mentioned in my previous post, Abraham understood this. Unbelieving Jews were sharply chastised by God. Continuing the outward physical rite while jettisoning the content of the religion makes one covenantally unfaithful. This was the error of the Pharisees and Judaizers that Jesus and Paul railed against because they turned circumcision into an ethnic boundary marker while rejecting the Messiah to whom it pointed. Speculating about the nature of the households that proceeded from Ishmael and the extent to which they believed the gospel and for how long is not germane to the discussion and is beyond the scope of what scripture reveals to us. We know the end result and that is enough because that is what scripture gives us. Your syllogisms contain assumptions that I dont agree with.
However, we do see some interesting tidbits about Ishmael and other descendants of Abraham in the Old Testament. Recall that Ishmael joined Isaac to bury Abraham in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 25:9). What was the nature of their relationship that they were had contact with each other? We dont know. We also note that Moses father-in-law Jethro was the priest of Midian, a man who knew God and was a descendant of Abraham. Obviously Abraham taught the faith to those in his household and it took hold enough that many generations later we see some of them pop up later in Scripture as believers in the one true God. Interestingly we see the terms Ishmaelites and Midianites used interchangeably later on (Gen. 37:25-28).
The narrative of Scripture focuses on the history of Abrahams descendants through the line of promise from whom the Messiah would come. Regarding those outside, we just dont know enough about them because Scripture isnt clear. How many were believers from Abrahams descendants that werent through Isaac? We cant go beyond Scripture.
Another way of understanding this is to point out that its not the idea of the covenant community per se that serves as the basis for infant initiation into the covenant, it is the fact that God commanded it. The logical order is this way:
1.) God instituted a covenant wherein He promised to be God to Abraham and to his seed after him
2.) God then gave a physical, administrative mark to serve as a sign and seal
3.) God then commanded that the mark be administered to infants in the household who couldnt yet profess the faith
4.) The natural result of that is the formation of a people (an ekklesia) who are called out from the world for Gods redemptive purposes
You see the logic when we get down to the nuts and bolts of it, the basis for infant baptism isnt presumption of their covenantal standing, but it is Gods command to institute infant initiation into the covenant. Now, we understand that there is an equivalency, but ultimately it is grounded in Gods command. The idea of the covenant community is secondary, it is a consequence. Ignoring it and focusing on circumcision as a sign of the promise will get you to the same place because we are talking about a distinction without a difference.
Upvote
0