In the last post, I highlighted these four points.
1) In the OT, God’s covenants with his people were established with entire households.
2) In the OT, The children of God’s people were entitled, from birth, to the promises of the covenant.
3) In the OT, The children of God’s people were bound, from birth, to the duties of the covenant.
4) In the OT, fathers among God’s people were required to bring their children up in the covenant.
True to good Calvinist form, I want to note a fifth point that I believe might also be helpful in examining the present question:
5) In the Old Testament, outsiders who desired to enter into covenant with God brought their households along with them.
We see this, for example in Exodus, 12:48
:
If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
When a gentile, an outsider, desired to partake of God’s Passover, that meal that symbolized the fulfillment of God's covenant promises, when he wanted to leave his alien status behind and become as a native of the land, he was required to take for himself the sign of God’s covenant, the sign of circumcision. But note that, just as Abraham did not enter into this covenant alone, so too, the proselyte was required to apply this sign to all the males of his household (Presumably, by the way, because ALL these would be partaking of the meal).
So, it would seem, this same principle that is established at the initial formation of God's covenant (that these covenants are household affairs), also applies to the later inclusion of outsiders. As I say, I believe this paradigm could be somewhat illuminating as we begin to consider the New Testament’s teaching on these same issues.
Considering, then, the five points highlighted above, when we put them all together, I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that, in the Old Testament, children born to parents in covenant with God were, by virtue of their very birth, themselves in covenant with God.
And here, of course, is the next step: What if we find that these same five things are true in the New Testament? What if the New Covenant is initiated with entire households, what if outsiders are brought in to this covenant with their households, what if children born into these households are treated as heirs of the promises and obligors to the commands of the covenant, what if we find that the same duty is laid upon fathers to bring their children up in the covenant? If all these things should be found true in the New Testament, how can we avoid the conclusion that, in the New Testament, just as in the Old, children born to parents in covenant with God are, by virtue of their very birth, themselves in covenant with God?
4 comments:
Who then is a covenant family?
Who is not?
and,
Why?
I've yet to find fully satisfactory answers to those questions, Lu.
while i agree with several of your observations, there are a couple things that should also be articulated:
1) when an alien wanted to join the covenant family, this by implication meant we were speaking to the head of the household. for instance, it is doubtful that a servant [who wanted to enter the covenant] could convince his master to be circumcised on his behalf. perhaps an insignificant point...perhaps not.
2) one of the striking things about the old testament is that it seems to often make the opposite point as to the claims you've made. over and over again, we are presented with children of covenant abiding parents who stray. while we see a great legacy of faith passed on in the Scriptures, we are also regularly reminded of others (esau, nadab, abihu, hophni, phinehas, absolom, etc), who grew up in "covenant homes" and yet were not covenant children.
3) i assume we may come to a slightly different perspective on acts 16:31 (you and your household). was paul saying that the jailor's family is all introduced into the covenant system because of his faith (the father)? you may be tempted to see that. however, i also see that paul preached to the entire household before anyone was baptised. we have no idea who was in the household, so it would be purely speculative to assume the baptism may include children or even infants. all we can see is that they were all preached to before they were baptised. certainly, the jailor had to show a favorable response to the preaching before his baptism...can we assume the same for the rest of the household?
i would, however, point out a practical outworking of this verse. in our church, there are several homes where the mother or children have come to know Christ, but the entire home is not saved. a member of the family may walk in faith, but home as a whole is not governed by these principles. yet, when i have seen a father come to know the Lord, rarely have i ever seen the home remain in disobedience to the faith. in a very practical sense, as the father directs his home, the home seems to follow in the order.
thus, a father [does not command the mother] is bring up his children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (ephesians 6). if a father has submitted his life to Christ, surely he has submitted his parenting as well. if faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ, then certainly a home lead by new covenant principles produces the greatest opportunity for a child to respond in faith.
lastly, i'll leave you with a question posed to alexander mack [and post his answer]:
at what age then are children to be baptized? is it not proper to use all diligence to help them be baptized as early as at all possible, even in their infancy?
"Children are to be presented to the Lord Jesus in prayer, but baptism shoudl be delayed until they are able to prove and profess their faith. This may be considered the "eighth day" or the first day of the new creation of a person. if they were baptized in their state of ignorance, it would be as if the Jews had practiced circumcision before the eighth day. this would have been a violation of circumcision rather than an obedient act."
Thanks so much for your responses, Pastor Wright. I find the sharpening very helpful.
1) Your first point does seem fairly significant. I foresee more on this later.
2) I haven't yet made any claims about how children born into covenant households may or may not turn out in the long run. Certainly we know that such children do stray.
I think it's begging the question however, to conclude that because these, such as you have mentioned, were unfaithful to the covenant, they were,therefore, not covenant children.
Every one that you mention was certainly circumcised. Esau's problem was not that he was born without birthright or blessing, the problem was that rightfully possessing both (and that from birth), he sold them.
Nadab and Abhihu and Hophni and Phineas were not killed because they were not really priests, but rather because they were blatantly unfaithful to the covenant God had made with Aaron. Death was the penalty for such transgressors who were under the covenant, not outside of it.
I'd say that the bad end met by all these you've mentioned proves, not they they were born out of covenant with God, but the fact that they were judged proves that they were in covenant with God.
Regarding the Philippian jailer, I know it probably seems I'm merely addressing this issue as a setup for an argument for infant baptism. Certainly, the question I'm pursuing will have much to do with whether or not paedo-baptism is biblical. But really, I am trying to understand this question in its own right because so many different issues concerning our children(of which baptism is only one) seem dependent upon the answer.
True, the jailkeeper's family was baptized only after Paul preached to the whole family, but this promise "you will be saved, you and your house" was made before Paul had even met the family.
Interesting observations about mothers and fathers. I have seen exceptions from time to time, but can agree that they are probably just exceptions
Paul does seem to say, however, that a unbelieving husband is sanctified by an unbelieving wife just as well as an unbelieving wife is sanctified by an unbelieving husband. Children apparently are sanctified by either (as long as the believing parent remains with them). (I Cor. 7:14)
Interesting statement by Mack. I'll answer with little reverse anbaptistic argument from silence: Never in scripture do we ever see a single example of a Christian's child's baptism "being delayed until they are able to prove and profess their faith."
For that matter, we never in scripture see an adult being required to "prove" his faith before being baptized.
Again, great observations. Thanks again.
Post a Comment