1
The First Pearl
Covenant Theology in the Old and New Testaments
The primary basis for the baptism of the covenant child is claimed to be found in Gods promise of covenant blessing to Abraham and to his seed. Abraham was justified by faith through believing in Gods promises to be his God and to make him the father of many nations (Gen. 12-17; Rom. 4). He and his seed would inherit Canaan as an everlasting possession. And, most important of all, the Lord promised to be the God of Abraham and of his seed. Then God granted the sign of this covenant, circumcision, to Abraham and to his seed forever. This sign was also to be administered to all males in the household, born and bought. Since Abraham is called the father of us all (Rom. 4:16), and since Christians are referred to as Abrahams seed (Gal. 3:29) and heirs according to the promise, it seems good and necessary to infer that the sign of New Testament baptism should be applied to the children of Abrahams seed of faith as circumcision was applied to the children of Abrahams seed of flesh (Col. 2:11,12). This is a compelling pearl for infant baptism.
The Covenant Participants
Several questions, however, must be put to this conclusion. First, if Christians–Jewish or Gentile–are the seed of Abraham, should we both claim physical Canaan as our rightful territory and everlasting possession as well? Second, if circumcision is a forever sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, then why do the New Covenant seed of Abraham not continue circumcision as a religious act? And, third, should Christians baptize not only infants but also all males bought or born into their homes?
It has often been objected that it is not legitimate to identify both children and physical land in the same category concerning the covenant promises to Abraham. I quite agree. However, what about the 318 male servants of the household of Abraham who were circumcised by virtue of their being in Abrahams household? How does this aspect of
people in the covenant household, not
land, apply in the New Covenant application of the Abrahamic Covenant?
There was a theological question concerning slaves baptism in the pre-Civil War South among Presbyterians. Meredith Kline attempts to deal with this issue of the application of covenantal household authority in the New Covenant administration of the Abrahamic Covenant in his book,
By Oath Consigned (pp. 94-102). However, Kline is unclear about whether or not the baptism of slaves is a legitimate application in the New Covenant administration. He shies away from saying that this practice is legitimate because of the silence of the New Testament and the difficulty of church discipline (p. 98). On the other hand, in the same paragraph, he seems to allow the plausibility of servant baptism in certain mission situations for temporary cultural expediency. The decision seems to be left to the individual covenant head in his application of the principles of culture, family, and church to his particular situation. The question of what is the scriptural way of handling ones slaves in this regard is really not answered. Are covenant theology and the New Covenant participant so loosely defined?
Along with most covenant theologians, I conclude that these land and servant elements of the Abrahamic Covenant do not presently apply to the New Testament Christian and church since Christs kingdom is not of this world nor is it a theocratic nation, yet is still the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). Most of us believe that Christians will possess Canaan in the New Heavens and the New Earth but not in the present administration of things. Nor do any seriously believe in servant baptism.
It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abrahams seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation. Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christians children must also honestly deal with the forever implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.
Therefore, the main question for me is: how does the Scripture apply the Old Testament promises which are given to Abraham and his seed to the New Covenant fulfillment in the Christian and the church? Continuing, for the moment, to assume that baptism is the New Covenant counterpart of circumcision, let us define from Scripture the essence of the New Covenant and who exactly are the seed of Abraham who should receive the New Covenant sign and blessings.
The New Covenant Described
One of the key passages that must be considered in defining the meaning of the New Covenant is Jeremiah 31. In vv. 27-30, God declares that after the prophesied captivity each man will bear the responsibility for his own spiritual condition before God in a new way. Continuing this change of emphasis to individual responsibility in vv. 31-34, God defines a new basis for covenant membership and blessing in the New Covenant which is different from the basis for membership and blessing in the Old Covenant. In contrasting the Old and New Covenants, Gods definition of the difference is that of heart renewal in each and every member of the New Covenant.
Initially, to become a participant in the Abrahamic Covenant and its continuation at Sinai, one simply had to be born into the physical descent of Abraham. Physical membership in this covenant was signified by circumcision, but one was cut off from the salvation of the covenant if he did not circumcise his heart as well (Deut. 10:16). However, it is important to note that many whose hearts were never circumcised continued to participate in visible Israel. Yet they were not visibly cut off from Gods covenant people. Thus, the doctrine of the faithful remnant within physical Israel arose in the prophets (Jer. 23:1-6; 31:7). This remnant would come to fruition and fulfillment during the reign of a Branch of righteousness from Davids line. It is this faithful remnant which is raised up in the days of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:7, 32-34).
Participation in the New Covenant, which is not like the Old Covenant, is defined as experiencing the reality of heart-religion in each and every member (Jer. 31:33,34). The New Covenant does not just introduce new blessings. Rather, all New Covenant members actually have the Law written on their hearts (I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts), receive the forgiveness of sins (I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more), and know the Lord (For they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord).
This definition says nothing of participation in the New Covenant blessings by physical descent alone. Rather, the participants whom Jeremiah describes are the true Israel (Gal. 6:16). They are the children of the promise, a faithful remnant according to Gods election of grace (Rom. 9:6-8) in which every true member knows the Lord. This New Covenant in which God writes His Law on the heart of each one in the covenant is also defined in Eze. 36:24-28 as the time when God puts His Spirit within and gives a new heart that will be careful to observe His ordinances. This promise of the Spirit is also spoken to the whole house of Israel, indicating that this new heart will be evident in the nation as a whole. In fact, Gal. 3:14,29 defines the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in the New Covenant as the gift of the Spirit to all his seed, i.e., Jewish and Gentile believers (Rom. 4; see also the explanation of the promise in Acts 2:39 below).
Paedobaptist theologian, Herman Ridderbos, believes that Jesus teaching on the kingdom of God and its born again members is determined by the idea of the covenant. Jesus reference to the New Covenant of Jer. 31 at the Last Supper affirms this understanding. Thus, the idea of Gods people takes on a more restricted meaning in the New Covenant:
Gods people are those for whom Christ sheds his blood of the covenant. They share in the remission of sins brought about by him and in the unbreakable communion with God in the new covenant that he has made possible . . . In the light of the whole gospel they are the people who have accepted the preaching of the gospel in faith and conversion. It is they, and no one else (italics mine), who receive the salvation of the kingdom. They are Israel, Gods people, and it is to them that all the promises of the covenant apply (Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, p. 202).
Therefore, based upon Jer. 31:31-34 and its description of regeneration in the New Covenant participants, and in light of Christs definition of the entrance requirements to the kingdom (Jn. 3:5,6) and church (Mt. 16:16-18), I cannot say that children of believers are in the New Covenant or church or kingdom or Gods people until they show, by outward confession, evidence of regeneration.
It has been objected that perhaps Jer. 31:34 is an eschatological reference because of the stated lack of need for anyone to teach his neighbor and brother. Therefore, the argument goes, this describes the church triumphant. Do we not need to teach each other in the New Covenant? Of course! But in addressing Israel, God is referring to neighbors and brothers in the New Covenant Israel! There is no need to evangelize the participants in the New Covenant because they all know the Lord! Of course we teach each other to observe all that Christ commanded us (Mt. 28:18-20). But there is no need to teach those in the New Covenant to know the Lord because they already know Him, having been taught by God Himself (Jn. 6:44,45; 1 Jn. 2:27; 1 Th. 4:9). For this reason, the least to the greatest of those in the New Covenant are greater than John the Baptist, who was regenerated in the womb (Mt. 11:11). Therefore, I am not willing to concede that a believers child is automatically in the New Covenant and is thereby greater than John the Baptist, until he/she shows evidence of regeneration by a profession of faith in Christ. Even if our Sovereign God were to regenerate children of believers in the womb, they should not be considered in the New Covenant until they show the evidence of regeneration by repentance and faith. This is the uniform command and example of the New Testament, and it precedes New Covenant baptism.
The New Covenant Sacrifice
To say that all physical infants of believers are in the New Covenant as the infants of Abraham were in the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants violates the doctrine of particular redemption. Hebrews 9 reminds us that Gods covenant requires mediation through blood. The Passover Lamb brought physical deliverance for all Israel because all ate it. The Annual Atonement (Lev. 16) was offered on behalf of the whole assembly, all Israel. Of course, these sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience, but their design was for the covenant people of God in the Old Testament. If Christs sacrifice is offered up only for His elect people as the New Covenant in My blood (Lk. 22:20; Mk. 14:24), how can the unregenerate children of believers be said to be in the New Covenant, church, and kingdom without an effectual Mediator? They cannot. Indeed, Heb. 9:15 defines Christ as an effectual Mediator of the New Covenant to insure that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Can one be said to be in the New Covenant or church without a Mediator? Not on the basis of the concept of the church in the New Testament. Though all would agree that false professors were addressed as members of the church for which Christs effectual blood was shed, yet they were so addressed on the basis of their profession, not on the basis of their parents faith. Even then, they were to be put out of the church if their profession proved spurious by their life. Yet there was some outward evidence to designate them in the church. But there is no clear basis for saying infants of believers are in the church unless we are also willing to say that they are in the church of God which He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). No, if an infant is said to be in the New Covenant administration of the one covenant of grace and in the church without effectual mediation, severe violence is done to the biblical truth that Christ loved the church and give Himself up for her. Can an unregenerate infant be called in the church by Christs effectual mediation and never receive salvation? Absolutely not. Therefore, violence is done to the doctrine of particular redemption.
The covenant of grace requires the blood of an effectual Mediator. Christ is the Circumcision and Isaac of the Abrahamic Covenant. Christ is the Paschal Lamb and Annual Atonement for its continuation through Sinai. And Christ is the sole Mediator of the New Covenant fulfillment as the effectual sacrifice for all those considered in the New Covenant, Christs redeemed church. These redeemed ones–and only these–are the New Covenant participants.
