Pastor Wright has made the point that just because the former covenants were made with heads of households and their children, this does not prove that they were made with the children as children. Perhaps, by itself, it does not. There are certainly, however, other pieces of evidence that do come much closer to providing complete proof. One that I mentioned in the previous comment thread is that children, males at least, were required by the terms of the covenant to receive the sign of the covenant at the ripe old age of eight days. To fail to do so was not to miss out on the covenant, it was rather to break the covenant.
Here are some passages that speak more plainly to this issue:"You are standing today all of you before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, (Deut. 29:10-12).
When all
And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of
These passages make it quite clear that the Mosaic covenant, like the Abrahamic Covenant was made with the Israelites and their children, not as future adults, but as little children.
35 comments:
At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I have a question. What's the point of the argument? What are you trying to prove or dis-prove by saying the covenant's applied to children as well as adults?
Not trying to pick a fight, I am just a little lost on this one. Again, I am sure it is because I missed something...
Not trying to pick a fight? How disappointing. :)
The present post is just one piece of a larger line of thought I've been working through since back in May
http://peppobrm.blogspot.com/2007/05/so-what-about-our-children.html
The ultimate question I'm wanting to answer is: As professing believers under the New Covenant, at what point are our children also included in that covenant? Are they include from birth, only after they make a credible profession of faith? At some other point? Or in other words: are our young children Christians or not?
The answers to these questions appear to me to hold a whole host of implications for how we include them in worship, whether or not we baptize them, when they are ready for the Lord's Supper, etc.
Why am I talking about these covenants? I've heard it said that trying to understand the New Testament without the Old is like trying to stand up an oak tree without any roots. I think understanding the position of our children under the New Covenant requires that we first understand their position under the old.
Once again not picking a fight, just trying to learn….
I love that you are talking about covenants. Covenants declare God's sovereignty and faithfulness. In reading through all of the covenants one thing is apparent - the amount of "I will's" in each of them and that they are not dependent on man's obedience. In Ezekiel 16:60 when God remembers the covenant and starts another flurry of "I will's" that is after 59 verses describing Israel's unfaithfulness. God's covenant was made with His full knowledge that He would have to be the one that kept the covenant. My problem is when we start going further then what I think Scripture teaches. So how far does one take this extrapolation? If our children are a part of the new covenant before repentance occurs you would be in effect guaranteeing their salvation. In the Old Covenants it is true that they applied to all of Israel, I completely agree with that. But something dramatic happened that changed everything - the work of Christ on the cross. No longer did it become a matter of race and covenants that saved you, it was Christ's work on the cross alone that saved an individual.
John the Baptist preached repentance not covenants (Matt 3:2). Jesus Christ preached repentance not covenants (Matt 4:17) and the apostles preached repentance not covenants in Acts. Where are we commanded that anyone is saved by any other means then repentance. My children are not "Christians" until they become what the word means a "follower of Christ". Are they sheltered from God's wrath because of my and my wife's believe? Probably, since a non-believing husband is 'sanctified' by a believing wife (1 Cor 7:14) it makes senses that children could be under the same type of protection, but that doesn't mean we would call them Christians.
So for me the questions you posed are very simple to answer. Should children be in worship - absolutely. A child seeing their parents in true worship before the Lord and brining their lives into submission to Him and His Word are vital to them coming to an understanding of their need of salvation. Baptize them - Not until they have made a profession of faith and repentance. Take the Lord's Supper - Same as Baptism not until they have repented. If someone came into your church and said they wanted to take the Lord's Supper and you asked them if they were saved and they said no, would you allow them to take it anyway?
Just my non-covenantalist thoughts ;-)
Looking forward to our lunch. By the way just because I am non-covenantilist that doesn't mean I am a dispensationalist either...
Whew. Feels like we're galaxies apart on this one. But no fear. God is in the business of changing minds (I'm certainly as anxious to learn as you are).
I'll try to respond to some of your points before we get together, but these kind of total paradigm differences are difficult to address from afar.
Looking very much forward to getting together with you.
We tend to loose things in translation, so perhaps we should continue the discussion in person. Though the last peson I want to engage in a debate on is a lawyer ;-)
If I start to debate like a lawyer, please shoot me.
Mr. McGriff,
In further preparation for our upcoming discussion, it would be good if you could clarify some of the points you appear to be making and with which, if you're saying what you seem to be saying, I would be in full disagreement.
Are you really saying:
1) that being in the New Covenant guarantees' salvation?
2) that people were saved by race in the Old Testament?
3) that Christ did away with God's practice of saving people through His covenant?
4)that Christ's death on the cross is something different than God's covenant with his people?
5)that John the Baptist did not preach God's covenant with his people?
6) that Christ did not preach God's covenant with his people?
7) that the apostles did not preach God's covenant with his people?
8) that people can be saved apart from God's covenant with his people?
If you could, please let me know if I've understood you correctly. If this is really what you believe, then: 1) I think we're in for an extremely interesting meeting next week and 2)you're much more of a dispensationalist than you may be willing to admit. :-)
how bout an easier question dr. peppo...
where did a 6 day old baby boy lie (in terms of the covenant)? since he was not circumcised, was he not in the covenant yet?
Here's my very quick and tentative answer:
Any children of Abraham who died before the eighth day died as partakers of the covenant.
I say this, because, as I've been trying to emphasize over and over again, circumcision was not the means of bringing children into the covenant with God's people, it was a way of keeping them from breaking that covenant.
Let me say it again: failure to receive the sign was not failure to enter that covenant; it was failure to keep the covenant. YOU CAN'T BREAK A COVENANT TO WHICH YOU ARE NOT A PARTY!!!
And, since the command to receive circumcision was not in effect until the eighth day, a child who died before that day would not have broken the covenant into which he was born.
So say I...for now.
Dr. Peppo,
Yeah right, not debate like a lawyer ;-) Don't you know I don't think too well on Friday afternoons...
Instead of being boxed into a corner by answering questions let me simply say this - I believe that no one is saved apart from repentance of sins and faith in Christ through which the wrath of God is poured out on Christ instead of them, and in turn they take on the righteousness of Christ instead of their sinfulness (Zech 3:1-4). What has always (Old Testament and New Testament) been required has been faith. But faith in what? Heb 11:24-26 tells us that Moses faith was in Christ or the Messiah. Christ has always been the means and method of salvation, not covenants. Which came first - the covenant with Abraham (Gen 17) or the first prophecy of the Messiah's sufferings and ultimate victory over sin (Gen 3:15)? Or to put it another way, does the covenant save someone or does someone become the recipient of the covenant after God brings them into it?
Perhaps my covenant friends who so love the reformation (as do I) would want to add a sixth sola: Covenants Alone
I honestly struggle with both extremes of systemization (covenantalism and dispensationlism) - both extremes have to explain away verses in Scripture to fit their predisposed man made system. Dispensationalist say that people were saved by different means at different times - which I reject. Covenantalist say that God is done with Israel and all the blessings (but interestingly the curses still apply to Israel) of the covenants now reside in the church - which I reject, I don't think God is done with Israel. I think it would be better to try to be a Biblicist.
I personally think we are in for an extremely interesting meeting next week whether we talk about this stuff or not. By the way I don't think I have your email address…can you go to my Xanga site and send me an email with your address on it?
BEING COVENANTAL DOES NOT MEAN YOU BELIEVE GOD IS DONE WITH ISRAEL!!!
What does a guy have to do to be heard around here? :-)
First, a defintion: by covenant, I merely understand a relationship that God establishes with men in which He makes to them certain promises and requires of them certain duties. Salvation by covenant alone? By that definition...certainly.
I remember feeling years ago like "covenant" was merely a fabricated theological mechanism dreamed up by reformed guys to justify their whacky theology. Or at least I felt that, if it were a biblical construct, (which of course it is) it was being severely over used. I was especially skeptical of how they seemed to see it everywhere in scripture.
The more I began to understand the concept, however, and the more I studied the scriptures: the Old Testament(Covenant) and the New Testament(Covenant), the more difficult it became not to see the covenant everywhere. I started to feel that in my skepticism, I had been like a fish looking all around me in the ocean and saying, "I don't see any water."
I firmly believe that God's covenant with us is an extremely pivotal and central theme in scripture, that (thanks to you know who) has fallen by the wayside in American churches. I also believe that without proper understanding of God's covenants, it is very nearly impossible to make sense of the Bible as a whole.
I'll qualify that God's covenants are certainly only a means to a much more important end (God glorifying Himself in Christ through the redemption of a people), but certainly, it is a very important means to that end. A car is merely a means of driving to a destination. But try driving without one.
Brad,
No real need to 'blog yell' at me in all caps my friend ;-) As I said in the outset I am not looking to pick a fight I am just trying to understand a mindset I have only recently been exposed to, so if I ask stupid questions or make false statements about covenantilist please forgive me.
I never said that God is not a covenant keeping God for obviously He is. So let me ask a question - What promises will God keep in the covenant related to the children of people who are in the covenant? What I am getting at is this - My 2 boys will reap what benefit from the covenant that I am in with God because of His work and granting of repentance towards me?
Believe it or not, I am trying to learn here, not argue.
Ha! No, you haven't asked a stupid question. I was blog yelling at the whole non-covenantal world. The God-being-done-with-Israel business was the main thing that for a long time kept me from seeing things "covenantally." Only later did I find out that was far from being an essential part of the perspective.
It seems like no matter how many times I say this in these discussions, however, (which I don't think I've had with you before) it never gets recognized. Just thought the caps and bold print might help this time.
As to your question, this is exactly my question. If our children are part of this covenant relationship with God--which I tend to believe, though I'm far from having come to a solid conclusion-- then what exactly does that mean for them? I don't know. I am trying to argue here, but like you, only in order to learn.
Dr. Peppo & Mr. McGriff,
Been watching.
Now I'm jumping in. Only, I'm like the fish in the water that doesn't see the water...
Help me out, and no, there is no need to YELL.
Brad, you said earlier that Jesus, John the Baptist, apostles preached the covenant, and further, that the covenant is what saves us. I am drawing a blank here. What do you mean?
I'll readily admit that I lean toward dispensationalism, but I really don't believe that people were saved by different mechanisms through different time eras. I also have never had a clear concise piercing explanation of covenantalism given to me - or maybe it just bounces off my dispensational skull...
Hey LU, very pleased to have you on board.
Let me throw out a somewhat absurd dialogue, not to prove anything necessarily, but just to kind of illustrate how this whole debate feels to me sometimes.
Imagine someone in a bookstore picking up a two volume set of books, one volume of which is called "Cooking in the Old World" and the other "Cooking in the New World".
A friend (who happens to work in a restaurant) walks up and says:
"Oh, you're looking at a book about cooking?
"Uh, no, I don't think so."
"What do you mean? The volumes are called 'Cooking in the Old World' and 'Cooking in the New World'
"Yeah, I realize those are the titles, but I've read through the first ten pages of each one, and I've only seen the word "cooking" once. I don't think the books are really about cooking. After all, you know sometimes publishers give books titles that the author never intended."
"But look, the first chapter is about making lasagna, and the second is about making spaghetti, and the third is about making alfredo."
"Yeah, see? The word "cooking" isn't even in the title of a single chapter. It must be a book about Italian food."
"But look at the first page; on just that one page it talks about cutting and dicing and browning and stirring and seasoning."
"Yeah, isn't that odd? The word 'cooking' is nowhere to be seen."
"But...aren't those things the very essence of cooking."
"I tell ya, you restaurant workers just see cooking everywhere."
Hope that wasn't too silly.
By the way, my good Brethren brethren, whom do you think this prophecy is about?
"Behold, I send my messenger and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts." Malachi 3:1
Is it really that much of a stretch to say that the messenger of the covenant might have preached, not just repentance, but the also the covenant?
Just for the record I was not saying that Dr. Peppo believed God was done with Israel, nor was I saying that LU believed God saved in different ways - I was talking of extreme views I have read or heard...
Dr. Peppo - I think you are exactly right, Malachi 3 is about the covenant being fulfilled! Just as in all the covenants God says that He will cause them to obey and He will purify them, I think this is the fulfillment of that. But I am not sure that this prophecy has yet been fulfilled. The Levitical priesthood is obviously not purified (v. 3), Judah and Jerusalem are not pleasing God (v. 4), and Israel is still robbing God (v. 8-10). So I agree with you that the messenger is talking about the covenant, I am not sure though that this is refering to the first coming of Christ.
Inn Malachi, the messenger of the covenant who prepares the way for the Lord is John the Baptist.
Matthew 11:14 Christ says of John the Baptist "And if you care to accept it he himself is Elijah, who was to come." This doesn't say that he was the Elijah, in fact since they didn't accept Christ he was not the Elijah. In John 1:21 John himself when asked by the priest if he was Elijah he answered "I am not." He did come in the "spirit and power" of Elijah (Luke 1:17) and he did fulfill the calling of Christ coming (Mark 9:13), but since the Jews rejected Him and the rest of Malicah's prophecy was not fulfilled it must mean that THE Elijah will come again before the great and terrible day of the Lord (Mal 4:5).
Was John the Baptist the messenger who prepared the way of the Lord?
Has the rest of the prophecy in Mal 3 been fulfilled? ;-)
Was he the messenger sent before the Lord? Yes. Was he the 100% fulfillment of the prophecy you quouted? No, Israel rejected Christ as Messiah.
Was John the Baptist a messenger of the covenant?
Has the rest of prophecy related to Mal 3 been fulfilled?
Answering a question with a question? Now who's debating like a lawyer?
Yes, the rest of the prophecy has most certainly been fulfilled.
Was John the Baptist a messenger of the covenant?
Just learning from the best...
Really??? When did the sons of Levi become purified (v3), when did Judah's and Jerusalem's offering become pleasing to the Lord (v4), when did sons of Jacob return to the Lord (v7), when was curse of Israel removed (v8), when did all the nations call Israel blessed (v12), when did Israel stop being arrogant against God (v12,13), when did the wicked become ashes under the feet of Israel (4:3), when did The Elijah come (4:5)?
To answer your question. Yes he was a messnger, but not The complete fulfillment of Mal 3. We are all messengers of God's covenant. My question is not that (and never was), my question is how does one become part of the covenant, by repentance or by birth into a covenant family?
So would it be accurate, then, to say that John the Baptist did in fact preach the covenant?
If by "the covenant" you mean repentance of sins then yes. I think it is obvious that vast majority of teaching the New Testament espically and repentance and faith in Christ. Would that be accurate?
I think so. I'm wondering, though, do you think the New Covenant is more about repentance than the Old Covenant was?
While you're thinking about that one:
I kind of got you to admit that John the Baptist preached the covenant. What do you say about the apostles (you know, the ones you said preached repentance and not the covenant) calling themselves ministers of the New Covenant?(2 Corinthians 3:6)
Were they, then, ministers of something they didn't preach?
I think that they are ministers much like Timothy in 2 Tim 1:14 - Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.
They, you and I have been entrusted with a treasure, maybe that is the covenant, I am not sure. But my point of saying preaching repentance not covenants is this. They didn't go throughout the ends of the earth preaching "Here is a covenant for you to partake in", they preached "Repent of your sins". Someone is brought into the kingdom of God by repenting of sins, not by saying I am taking part of the covenant. I think that the covenant is the result of repentance and that they are not the same thing - maybe opposite sides of the same coin, but not the same thing.
I think I'm tracking with you. The covenant is something one is saved into, not by. There's a certain sense in which I can agree with you there. But certainly, the New Covenant is itself a promise to forgive sins (Rom 11:26-28). I still feel comfortable saying that we are saved by that promise.
And, if I may, here are a couple more questions:
1)What do you think that John and Jesus were telling Israel to repent from? Wasn't it her failure to keep God's covenant?
2) You say the apostles didn't go around saying "Here is a covenant to partake in." But is it really that much different that they went around saying "We are ministers of the New Covenant. Be reconciled to God."
2)And isn't "Here is a covenant to partake in" precisely the message of the book of Hebrews?
Yes I see that the new covenant may be more about forgiveness of sins, especially since it is the final covenant God has made with man and Israel. I also see what you mean about being saved by the promise of the covenant and I don't deny that, but I still think that Christ, the apostles and us preach repentance of sins not partake in a covenant. The covenant studies I think are more the meat of the Word and are good to dig into, but I don't think that they are they method of evangelism laid out in Scripture - again repentance of sins and faith in Christ are.
Brad, I have enjoyed this 30+ comment dialogue more than you can imagine. You have caused me to dig into the Word which is always a good thing. Thanks.
By the way, sorry it took so long for me to get you to see what my initial and prolong point of contention was...I don't think I would make a good lawyer if I can't layout a simple argument ;-)
It's like I said at the beginning, when it comes to the different perspectives on the covenant, it's impossible to lay out a simple argument. You've done a great job of challenging me in my thinking. Thank you for the sharpening; I look forward to more.
I think from here I'm going to jump to a new post, specifically about the relationship of Christ to God's covenants. I still want to deal with your comment that Christ changed the former relationship between covenant and salvation.
LU, maybe there I can lay out a basic definition of covenant theology (at least my version thereof).
Love both of you all! (some blog shmultz to make up for my blog yelling)
My Goodness!
My how the keys were clicking as I was working today!
What an interesting dialogue. While answering my basic question on covenants, speak to your repeated use of "preaching the covenant" as well. I am really scratching my pate on that one.
Good night. Love and Hugs.
Post a Comment