Section 2: The Second Coming
SAMUEL WALDRON'S NOTES ON ESCHATOLOGY
A. Preliminary Considerations
1. The Distinguishing Significance of the Church/Israel Distinction.
One's understanding of the relation of Israel and the Church is, perhaps the
single most important issue with reference to the question of dispensationalism.
Dr. Charles Ryrie has done everyone a favor by pointedly answering the question,
"What is the sine qua non of dispensationalism?"(1)
His answer has three parts.
a. "A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct. . . a man who
fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to
dispensational distinctions."
b. Dispensationalists employ "a consistently literal principle of
interpretation". This principle "is at the heart of dispensational eschatology."
c. Dispensationalists assert that God's purposes center in his glory, rather
than the "single purpose of salvation".
If I may express a theological opinion, it is the first of these "sine qua
non(s)" that provides the most basic and most accurate description of what is
the distinguishing feature of Dispensationalism. Number 3 is a distortion of the
position of covenant theology and really so much theological ornamentation. As
to number 2, Dispensationalists are really not so consistently literal in their
hermeneutic as they like to think. It is number 1 that gives us the really
distinguishing feature of Dispensationalism.
2. The Historical Positions over the Church/Israel Distinction.
There are two and only two historical positions with reference to the issue
of the relation of the Church and Israel.
a. There is the Classical Dispensational Position.
This states that God has two distinct peoples, Israel and the Church. These
two must be kept separate. Thus, the promises made to Israel are fulfilled to
Israel, not the church.(2)
>>>>>Promises to Israel>>>>>>Fulfilled to Israel>>>>>>In the Millennium
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(
The Church Age
)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
b. There is the Historical Traditional Position
This is to the effect that God has only one people basically in all ages. The
promises made to Israel are fulfilled to the New Israel, the Church.
Old Dispensation New Dispensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Promises to Israel>>>>>>>>Fulfilled to Church: The New Israel
I have called this position the historic position of the church. This
description is warranted by several facts of church history.
(1) The premillennialism which flourished among the early fathers in the
early centuries of the church did not involve such a distinction. In fact, it
would have been forthrightly rejected. Justin Martyr again and again speaks of
the Church as the Israel of God.(3)
Justin's testimony as one of the first two Christian writers who are
demonstrably premillennial is significant.
(2) The eschatological viewpoint which dominated the church through the
Middle ages after the demise of the early premillennialism in the 4th century
was anti-chiliastic. Obviously, the Church/Israel distinction of
dispensationalism would be rejected by such a viewpoint.
(3) Premillennialism, let alone the Church/Israel distinction, did not find
its way into any of the creeds spawned at the Reformation. In fact, the
Westminster Confession of Faith has statements positively hostile to it Note the
statements of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 25:1-3 which are paralleled
in the Baptist Confession of 1689, 26:1, 3.
(4) The revival of Premillennialism in the 17th century did not necessarily
entail the Church/Israel distinction. Famous premillennialists have rejected it.
Iain Murray provides extensive evidence that Charles Haddon Spurgeon, for
instance, did not accept this distinction. Murray provides the following
interesting specimen
We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of
Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear
next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a
time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of
amazement.(4)
(5) As the above quotation implies, the Church/Israel distinction was
developed during the 19th century by such men as J.N. Darby.(5)
Two concluding comments are necessary: (1) The Church/Israel distinction as
believed by Dispensationalists is really a Church/Israel separation.
Dispensationalism holds not merely to points of difference in a basic continuity
between Israel and the Church. It holds a complete discontinuity. (2) It might
be objected that the historic position is really to be sub-divided into two
positions according to the degree of difference seen between Israel and the
Church (Baptists vs. Paedobaptists etc.) It must be admitted that clearly
variant perspectives exist on this issue among representatives of the second
position. However, they are of one mind on the two crucial points. First, they
all hold that the promises made to Israel are fulfilled to the Church as the New
Israel. Second, they all recognize radical differences between the people of God
under the polity of the Old and the people of God under the polity of the New
dispensations.
3. The Practical Importance of the Church/Israel Distinction.
It is well to indicate that the general issue under discussion has great
practicality in several directions. Its practical importance may be illustrated
in relation to a number of issues:
a. The Bible.
A strict Church/Israel distinction means that much of the Bible is not "for
the Church" in its primary reference. Often application to the Church is not
deemed appropriate.(6)
b. The Law and the Sabbath
The Church/Israel distinction has had a practically antinomian effect on the
20th century Church. The logical consequent of this perspective is to demand the
reiteration and re-institution of the ethical norms of the Old Testament
Scriptures before allowing their relevance to New Testament believers. "The
redeemed of the present age are not under the law."(7)
c. The Church
The relegation of the Church to a less important status in the plan of God is
the inevitable result of this distinction. It must share the stage with Israel.
It is not the culmination of God's historical purpose. This carries with it a
depreciation of the urgency of the church's mission and robs it of the
confidence derived from the fact that it alone is God's instrument for the
accomplishment of God's purpose and the evangelization of the world.
d. The Redemption
Redemption in Christ is also depreciated by the Church/Israel distinction. It
no longer is the center of God's world purpose. This point is made clear enough
by the statement of Ryrie cited above to the effect that Dispensationalists
assert that God's purposes center in his glory, rather than the "single purpose
of salvation". Jon Zens elaborates upon this problem.(8)
Further, there is the inevitable tendency, though long-resisted and frequently
denied, for the Church/Israel distinction to have the logical result of teaching
a different way of salvation for Israel.(9)
e. Baptism
One's precise view of the relation of the Church and Israel profoundly
effects one's view of the subjects of Baptism and one's ability to vindicate his
position as correct. Dispensational Baptists can never raise a successful
polemic against Reformed paedobaptists because there is a great doctrinal gulf,
the Church/Israel distinction, fixed between them. Only Reformed Baptists who
embrace the unity of the Church and Israel can hope to address themselves with
success to paedobaptists who have come to regard the Church/Israel Distinction
and Believer's baptism as part and parcel of the same error.
We must come, therefore, to explore the teaching of the Bible on this
important point. A balanced perspective is provided by observing the following
two biblical teachings regarding the relation of the Church and Israel.
B. The Unity of and Continuity Between the Church and Israel.
C. The Superiority of and the Diversity Between the Church and
Israel.
B. The Unity and Continuity Between the Church and Israel.
1. Demonstrated
a. The term, is used to describe the congregation of Israel. The evidence for
this is twofold.
1) Its use in the LXX to translate . translates approximately 70 times in the
Old Testament. Cf. the following representative specimens: Deut. 31:30; 1 Kings
8:14; Micah 2:5.
2) Its use in the New Testament to describe the congregation of Israel (Acts.
7:38; Heb. 2:12).
Since the same term is used to describe God's people in both Old and New
Testaments this argues forcibly for the unity of God's people. It certainly
refutes the woolly-headed and imbalanced statement that `the church is not in
the Old Testament.'
b. The constitutive principle of Israel is the same as that of the Church.
The people of God are constituted by God's electing, redeeming, covenant-making
activity. Israel was, thus, constituted the people of God (Deut. 5:2, cf. Exod.
19:5; Deut. 7:6f.; 13:5; 14:2; 21:8). How many elections, redemptions are there?
Ultimately, there is just one (Rom. 3:25; Acts 4:12). There can, then, be only
one people.
Of course, the election and redemption of Israel are not to be equated with
the election and redemption of the Church. The election etc. of Israel is
typical and preparatory to that of the Church. If that which constituted Israel
the people of God was in its character typical and preparatory, Israel itself
can scarcely be other than typical in character. The typical relation of Israel
to the Church confirms the unity of the people of God.
c. The New Testament directly asserts that the Church is the true Israel of
God.
1) 1 Cor. 10:18 " "
Hodge comments that this is a reference to, "Israel after the flesh, i.e. the
Jews, as a nation, as distinguished from Israel after the Spirit, or
the spiritual Israel or true people of God. As Israel was a favorite term of
honor, Paul rarely uses it for the Jews without some such qualification."
2) Rom. 2:28, 29
Some might wish to restrict the terminology used in these verses to physical
Jews who have become spiritually circumcised. This line of thought is
contradicted by the following considerations. (1) The statements of verses 26
and 27 assert that the uncircumcision of the Gentile will be regarded as
circumcision if he meets the spiritual qualifications. (2) The absoluteness of
Paul's statements also exclude this understanding. "He is not a Jew.... He is a
Jew" (who is circumcised) "by the Spirit, not by the letter." This absolutism
precludes the insertion of another national qualification for Jewishness. (3)
The subsequent statements by Paul in Romans also preclude this understanding.
3) Rom. 9:6-8
Again some might attempt to limit this to spiritually circumcised, physical
Israelites. The statement of verse 8 is to be noted, however. "The children of
the promise are regarded as descendants." Who are the children of promise?
Clearly, they are Christians, all Christians, even Galatian Gentile Christians
(Gal. 4:28).
4) Phil. 3:3
Paul is here countering the claims of the Judaizers he has mocked in verse 2.
They are "the mutilation." We, Christians, he asserts, are the (true)
circumcision (NASV). Thus, the Christian community is seen as the Israel of God.
The following things confirm this understanding. According to Acts 16 there was
no Jewish synagogue in Philippi. Thus, these words may not be made to refer to
the Philippian believers as converted Jews. "Circumcision" is synonymous with
"Israel" (Eph. 2:11 and Rom. 3: 29, 30). The conditions for this identification
are exclusively the spiritual qualifications. Note the denial that fleshly
(physical) qualifications are in any way relevant.
5) Gal. 6:16
Again some have interpreted the Israel of God as equivalent to believing
Jews. This understanding mocks and contradicts the entire context of this
statement. The whole book is a rebuttal of Judaizing thought which demanded in
addition to Christ Jewishness. Will Paul now implicitly require ethnic
Jewishness for membership in the Israel of God? This is unthinkable exegesis.
Note the total devaluation of ethnic Jewishness in this epistle (Gal. 3:29;
4:26; Gal. 5:6; 6:15)!
I had a seminary professor who said once that you can only make spiritual
Israelites out of physical Israelites, spiritual Englishmen out of physical
Englishmen, and cooked carrots out of raw carrots. However this may be, Paul
believed that you could make spiritual Jews out of physical Gentiles.
d. The Characteristics and Privileges of Israel are Assumed by the Church.
OLD ISRAEL
Saints--Num. 16:3; Deut. 33:3
Elect--Deut. 7:6, 7; 14:2
Believed--Deut. 7:7; 4:37
Called--Isa. 41:9; 43:1
Church--Ps. 89:5; Mic. 2:5
(LXX) Act. 7:38; Heb. 2:12
Flock--Ezek. 34; Ps. 77:20
Holy Nation--Exod. 19:5, 6
Kingdom of Priests--Exod. 19:5, 6
Peculiar Treasure--Exod. 19:5, 6
God's People--Hos. 1:9, 10
Holy People--Deut. 7:6
People of Inheritance--Deut. 4:20
God's Tabernacle among Israel--Lev. 26:11
God walked among them--Lev. 26:12
Twelve Patriarchs
Christ married to His people--Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:14; Hos. 2:19; Jer. 6:2;
31:32
NEW ISRAEL
Saints--Eph. 1:1; Rom. 1:7
Elect--Col. 3:12; Titus 1:1
Beloved--Col. 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4
Called--Rom. 1:6, 7; 1 Cor.1:2
Church--Eph. 1:1; Acts 20:28
Flock--Luke 12:32; 1 Pet. 5:2
Holy Nation--1 Pet. 2:9
Kingdom of Priests--1 Pet. 2:9
Peculiar Treasure--1 Pet. 2:9
God's People--1 Pet. 2:10
Holy People--1 Pet. 1:15,16
People of Inheritance--Eph. 1:18
God's Tabernacle among Church--
John 1:14
God walks among His People--
2 Cor. 6:16-18
Twelve Apostles
Christ married to the Church--Eph. 5:22, 23; 2 Cor. 11:2
e. The classic passages which speak to the relation of the Church and Israel
clearly teach their unity and the continuity between them.
1) Gal. 3:6-29
6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,
preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS
SHALL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with
Abraham, the believer. 10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a
curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS
WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." 11 Now that no one is
justified by the Law before God is evident; for, " THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE
BY FAITH. " 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO
PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the
Law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO
HANGS ON A TREE"- - 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham
might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it
is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it
aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and
to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but
rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying
is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not
invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise;
but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19 Why the Law then? It
was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the
agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been
made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is
only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it
never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then
righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut
up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given
to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under
the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore
the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be
justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a
tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all
of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you
belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
a) Its Context
Galatians 3 is a defense of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Paul defends his doctrine by appealing to the voice of experience, vv. 1-5, and
the voice of Scripture, vv. 6-29.
b) Its Teaching
Paul's main contention in vv. 15-29 is that the Abrahamic covenant is more
ultimate in the history of redemption than the Law. This points to the fact that
it is promise, rather than law which is the determinative factor in God's
covenant dealings. Paul points out that the Abrahamic covenant's promise was
made with Abraham's Messianic Seed, verses 16 and 19. In verses 23-29 Paul
points out the implication of all this by introducing the concept of union with
Christ by faith. We are united with this messianic seed if we believe, no matter
our nationality. In virtue of this, the Church also is Abraham's seed. Paul
tells the Gentile Galatian Christians "you are Abraham's seed." Here Paul takes
that which was the boast of the Jews--that they were Abraham's seed--and
transfers that title of honor to the Church (John 8:33, 39). More importantly he
regards the Messianic seed and those in union with Him as the one, ultimate,
eschatological fruition of this Abrahamic covenant. This is important because
the Old Covenant issued forth from the Abrahamic covenant (Exod. 2:24; Deut.
1:8; 9:5, 27), but neither that covenant or that people is regarded as its
ultimate fruition.
c) Its Diagram
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
| The Covenant Given | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | The Covenant Fulfilled |
|
[430 Years] |
Old Covenant | New Covenant |
| Seed of Israel | Messianic Seed | |
| Revelation of the Law | Revelation of the Faith |
2) Romans 11:16-24
16 And if the first piece of dough be holy, the lump is also; and if
the root be holy, the branches are too. 17 But if some of the branches were
broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became
partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant
toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not
you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say
then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 Quite right,
they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be
conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither
will He spare you. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who
fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness;
otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in
their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. 24
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were
grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more shall
these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive
tree?
These verses contain an extended analogy comparing the people of God to an
olive tree. Several observations will make clear its force with respect to the
issue at hand.
a) The "rich root of the olive tree" (vv. 16, 17) is clearly a reference to
the Patriarchs with whom the Abrahamic covenant was made (11:1 and 11:28 and the
following considerations).
b) Israel, i.e. the physical nation Israel, is regarded as the natural
branches of this cultivated olive (vv. 14-16, 19, 24, and note also the Old
Testament passages where Israel is compared to an olive tree, Jer. 11:16, 17;
Hos. 14:6). Many, though not all (vv. 5, 17), of these natural branches have
been broken off i.e. rejected from covenant blessing.
c) Gentiles, obviously Gentile Christians, have been contrary to nature
grafted into the tree, i.e. been made partakers of covenant blessing (vv. 17,
24).
d) All of this points to the organic and covenantal unity of the people of
God. There is one olive tree! It embraces that root, Abraham and the patriarchs,
the natural branches, national Israel, and the ingrafted branches, Christian
Gentiles. All these are included in the one olive tree. Most instructive also is
what is not said by Paul. He does not say the wild olive becomes a cultivated
olive. He does not say that with the "church age" a new olive, or even a fig
tree is planted. Paul's teaching in this passage is a very hostile environment
for the separation of the Church and Israel posited by the Church/Israel
distinction of dispensationalism.
3) Ephesians 2:11-19
11 Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are
called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is
performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12 remember that you were
at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the
world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been
brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made
both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of
commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the
two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile
them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the
enmity. 17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO
THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to
the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are
fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
In this passage we are once again and even more explicitly confronted with
the unity and continuity which exists between the Church and Israel. The
teaching of this passage may be collated under three assertions.
a) Gentiles were once afar off.
Verse 11 makes clear that in this passage Paul is addressing Gentile Christians. Verse 12 describes the condition of the Gentiles as one of being:
- separate from Christ
- excluded from the commonwealth of Israel
- strangers to the covenants of promise
- those who have no hope
- without God in the world.
b) Gentiles are now made nigh.
Note v. 13. In v. 13 Paul does not explicitly reiterate what it is Christian
Gentiles have been brought near to. Two considerations, however, put beyond
doubt that to which Gentiles have been brought nigh.
The `bringing near' of v. 13 must be defined in terms of the `separation' and
`exclusion' of v. 12. The two verses are obviously correlative or mutually
defining. It is the blessings enumerated in v. 12 to which the Gentiles have
been brought nigh. This includes the blessings of Christ, hope, and God, but
cannot exclude the blessing of being brought near, incorporated into, the
commonwealth of Israel ( ).
The "bringing near" is also defined in the succeeding context. In v. 19 by
way of conclusion (Note the .) Paul does explicitly fill in what Gentiles have
been brought near to. They are now "fellow-citizens with the saints." (µ ).
Saints, here, must be a designation of Jewish saints because of the context
dictated by verses 11 and 12 µ is clearly reminiscent of in v. 12. Hence, Paul
here explicitly states that Gentiles have been incorporated into the ancient
covenant (state or citizenship) of Israel. Note that the idea of incorporation
is made explicit in the prefix µ and in the subsequent phrase (NIV "and
members of God's household").
This makes clear the precise idea of verses 14 and 15. The uniting of Jew and
Gentile does not occur via the creation of a new entity with no continuity with
God's former covenant dealings. Jews and Gentiles are united as fellow citizens
in the "new" Israel. The "one new man" of v. 15 is practically equivalent to the
New Israel. Not in a church out of relation to Israel, but in the New Israel are
Jew and Gentile united, united via the ingrafting or bringing near of the
Gentiles.
c) The bringing near of the Gentiles occurs through the work of Christ
(verses 13-18).
Christ has demolished the separating wall which kept the Gentiles out of
Israel. Any teaching which envisions the future revival of national Israel as
God's covenant people is a virtual re-creation of this separating wall and an
affront to the Christ who in the finality of His cross work demolished it. The
finality and eschatological character of Christ's cross forbids any undoing of
its effects.
As one contemplates Galatians 3, Romans 11 and especially Ephesians 2, one
wonders how Paul could have more thoroughly or more explicitly rejected the kind
of Church/Israel distinction taught by Dispensationalism.
f. The Scriptures teach the eschatological unity of the people of God. The
ultimate fruition of history is, according to the Bible, one people of God.
When the Scriptures are examined they teach that God's people are one in
essence throughout the ages of history. Here, however, we raise the question,
What of the eternal state, the future era, the age to come? Will there be two
distinct peoples of God then? Several clear passages constrain a negative reply
to this question.
1) Matthew 8:11, 12
Gentiles--saved--are drawn in. Jews--the children of the Kingdom--are cast
out. This implies that saved Jews remain in. Gentiles and Jews are, thus, one
with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the eschatological Kingdom.
2) John 10:16
There shall be one fold of both Gentile and Jewish sheep. This is true
now in the present age of the inaugurated Kingdom, but also in the
consummate Kingdom of the age to come.
3) Hebrews 11:39-40
The writer has enumerated many Old Testament heros of faith. He now states
that while they gained approval, they did not receive what was promised. This is
explained by the comment that God did not wish them to be made perfect apart
from "us", i.e., the New Covenant believers. The "promise" and "goal" is
repeatedly mentioned in the preceding context (11:3, 17, 13 [note mention of
second coming]; 9:15 [promise = eternal inheritance]; 8:6; 4:1 [rest = the
inheritance]). Here, then, is an explicit statement that all of God's people in
both the Old Testament and New Testament will enjoy the eternal inheritance
together.
4) Revelation 21:9-14
In the New Heavens and New Earth, there is one city, one bride. Its gates
bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Its foundations bear the names of
the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Symbolism could not more clearly teach the
eschatological unity of the people of God of the Church and Israel.
g. Concluding Observations
1) There is a legitimate, direct application of Old Testament prophecy about
the future of Israel to the Church (cf. Isa. 54:1-3 with Gal. 4:26f.).
2) The history of the Bible has a single theme, redemption. It may and ought
to be read so. Thus, the history of the Old Testament is structured to shadow
forth its realities (cf. Joseph's typical character).
3) The doctrines of the New Testament must be understood and can only be
rightly understood in light of their Old Testament origins (cf. even deacons).
4) The dignity of the Church is enhanced by the realization of its heritage in Old Testament Israel. It is the culmination of God's age-long purpose of redemption, one with and the heir of all His covenant dealings.
2. Defended
a. Problem Displayed
It has been demonstrated that the Church and Israel are regarded as one.
However, a problem raised by this teaching of the Scriptures has not yet been
explicitly addressed. How and why is it proper for the Church to regard itself
as the continuation, the heir, of Israel, the New, the true, Israel? Granted
that it does so regard itself, how is this estimate to be defended in light of
the Gentile character of the Church?
b. Problem Illustrated
Perhaps this problem may be best displayed by a consideration of the Old
Testament and New Testament data with respect to the New Covenant. In Jer.
31:31-34 the promise is repeatedly and emphatically addressed to Israel, the
House of Judah. The New Testament just as repeatedly and just as emphatically
claims these promises of the New Covenant as the Church's (Matt. 26:28 &
pl.; 1 Cor. 11:23-25; 2 Cor. 3:2-6; Heb. 8:6-13; 10:16-18 [Note that Hebrews was
written to a Christian church 13:7, 17.]; 13:20, 21 [Everlasting covenant = the
New Covenant]). Several observations are appropriate:
(1) This is another proof of the unity of the Church and Israel. If the
promise made to Israel is fulfilled to the Church, the Church in some sense must
be Israel. Otherwise the terms of the promise have been broken.
(2) This disproves the so-called literal or national interpretation of the
New Covenant. This underscores the principle of interpretation vital to proper
eschatology. The New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament is the final
authority on its proper interpretation. Any interpretation which ignores or
contradicts the New Testament use of an Old Testament passage is wrong. It is
surprising how many people have more confidence in their hermeneutical and
exegetical ability than they do in the New Testament.
(3) This brings us back to our main interest in the New Testament
interpretation of the New Covenant. Granted that the New Covenant is fulfilled
in and to the Church, How can this be? How can the Apostle to the Gentiles call
himself a minister of the New Covenant? How can promises made to Israel be
fulfilled to a mainly Gentile church? How can this divine procedure be
justified? Certainly it is justified by the fact of the unity of the Church and
Israel. But this only removes the question one step. How is it justifiable to
regard the (mainly Gentile) church as the New Israel?
c. False Solutions Rejected
Two false solutions must be immediately rejected. The solution of unbelief
must be rejected. Some would admit the New Testament teaching but deny its
validity. How can Israel and the Church be seen as one? "They can't," they would
answer flatly.
The solution of spiritualizing must also be rejected. Some anti-chiliasts in
their zeal leave the impression that one may simply and without further ado
"spiritualize Old Testament promises. This solution must also be rejected. Its
result would be to inject exegetical chaos into the study of the Bible. What
Christ said to Peter may not be fulfilled to John unless in some definable sense
they are one.(10)
d. Problem Solved
There are two lines of consideration which validate the New Testament
identification of the Church as the New Israel.
1) The promises made to Israel may be fulfilled to the Church because the
nucleus of the Church was and is the elect remnant of the nation Israel. Several
considerations re-enforce this point.
(1) The promises to the nation, Israel, contained a conditional element. Of
course, they were not completely contingent on human obedience. Yet while they
are to be understood within the framework of divine sovereignty, the conditional
element is clear (Exod. 19:5, 6). Only faithful Jews could lay claim to the
promises. That there would be such the divine purpose would secure, but that all
Jews would be faithful was no where certified (Rom. 11:3f).
(2) The promises to the nation were repeatedly fulfilled only to the remnant
of faithful Jews. Cf. the Exodus generation. A whole generation to whom the
promise of the land had been proclaimed died without it. The generation of the
Exile also illustrates this. The promise of a return to the land in Jer.
29:10-14 was not fulfilled to all, but only to some--a faithful remnant. Thus,
too, the promise of the new remnant is given. The promise of the New Covenant is
fulfilled only to a faithful remnant (Rom. 11:1-10 and Isa. 59:20, 21 which is
cited in Rom. 11:25f.).
(3) It was prophesied that the promises of the New Covenant would be extended
also to the Gentiles. Isaiah, as well as Jeremiah, prophesied the New Covenant
(Isa. 54:8-10; 55:3). He clearly foretold that the blessing brought to Israel
would overflow to the Gentiles (Isa. 42:1-6; 49:5, 6; 52:13-15; 54:1-3; 56:1-8;
note also 19:25).
One may speak, therefore, of a most literal fulfillment of the prophecy of
the New Covenant. This line of consideration is taught in Rom. 11:16-24 and Eph.
2:11-19 in the New Testament. The second line of consideration is most clearly
taught in Gal. 3:6-29. To this we now turn.
2) The Head of the Church was and is the Messiah of Israel.
Both in Gal. 3:6-29 and again in 2 Cor. 1:19, 20 the promises made to Israel
are regarded as fulfilled in Christ. He is pre-eminently the seed and the Israel
to whom the promises were made and fulfilled. He is the possessor as the epitome
and embodiment of faithful Israel of all the promises. This is a most literal
fulfillment since Jesus was Jewish. If, however, the promises belong by divine
grant to Him, He may certainly share them with whoever He will. Or in other
words, whoever is one with Christ in virtue of that possesses the promise. This
is, of course, the point in both of the passages mentioned above.
C. The Diversity Between and the Superiority of the Church over Israel.
Though, as we have seen, there is basic unity between the Church and Israel,
there is also development, advancement, and superiority of the Church over
Israel. The Church may be considered as the true Israel and as such the
continuation of the Old Covenant people. It may also be considered to be the New
Israel and as such a new beginning by God. The Church as the New Israel,
superior to the Old Israel, is here to be examined under two headings:
1. The New-ness and Superiority of the New Israel Demonstrated
2. The New-ness and Superiority of the New Israel Described
1. .... Demonstrated
Our treatment of this head will be somewhat abbreviated. Several reasons may
be given for this. First, in our circles there is less controversy on this
point. Second, the following heading where the superiority of the New Israel
will be described will corroborate the thesis briefly demonstrated here. Our
demonstration will, therefore, be limited to two passages which may lay
legitimate claim to being the classic passages on the superiority or newness of
the Church.
The first is Matthew 16:16-20. In verse 18 Jesus makes the famous statement,
"You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church." there is no necessity
of entering into many of the difficult exegetical details with which this
passage confronts us. For our purposes, it is enough to establish the following
points.
(1) Peter and the rest of the Apostles are the rock or foundation of the
Church. This is the most natural understanding of this passage and this
understanding is corroborated by Paul's reflection on Matt. 16:18 in Eph. 2:20.
That reflection broadens our understanding of Matt. 16:18 by making clear that
it is the apostolate in general and not merely Peter that is the foundation of
the Church. Some have wrongly interpreted "the prophets" of Eph. 2:20 as Old
Testament prophets. The order and the parallels of Eph. 3:5 and 4:11 refute
this.
(2) The Apostles are the foundation of the Church officially rather than
personally i.e., it is their teaching which forms this foundation. This is the
real point of Matt. 16:18. Peter is proclaimed the rock because of his true
confession of the identity of Jesus. It is as Apostles, those who witness to
Jesus' Lordship, that they are the rock of the Church (1 Cor. 3:10,11). The
Apostles found the Church as the repositories and revelators of the truth
brought by Christ to the world (John 1:14-18; Heb. 1:1, 2a).
(3) If the apostles are the foundation of the Church which Christ
will build, (future tense), it must have begun at least in one
sense, in their lives and ministries.
The second passage is Matt. 21:33-43. No doubt this passage bespeaks the
unity of Israel and the Church. Note that it the same vineyard which is
given. Nonetheless, in a very pronounced fashion it manifests that the Church is
a new beginning. The old nation headed by its corrupt leaders is to be
destroyed. A new nation (with new leaders, the Apostles) is to be given the
Kingdom. It is to be noted that the term, nation, here is not plural i.e., it is
not a reference to the nations = the Gentiles. The term is singular and is thus
a reference to the Church as God's new nation, His new Israel (1 Pet. 2:9). This
transfer of privilege was prophesied (Isa. 65:12-15; 62:1, 2).
It is not to be denied that the New Testament doctrine of the relation of the
Church and Israel is paradoxical. How can the Church be as old as Adam and as
new as Christ's advent at the same time? How can the Church be the same as
Israel yet different? There is no real contradiction. Note the illustration
provided by the caterpillar in nature. There is a metamorphosis of an ugly,
crawling worm into a beautiful butterfly. Yet the creature is the same. Note
also A. Pieter's illustration of a reorganized commercial institution.
Recently many banks have been closed for a time, have been re-organized, and
have resumed business, sometimes under the same name, sometimes with new names.
In such a case it is quite often appropriate to speak of the re-organized
institution as a new bank. New capital has been subscribed, new rules adopted,
new directors elected, a new president and new cashier have been appointed. It
is a new institution. Yet, for other purposes, it is a continuation of the
former bank, particularly so with regard to the assets. He who signed a
promissory note payable to the bank before it was re-organized must make it good
to the new bank. For such purposes it is the same old bank.
Precisely so stands the case between Israel and the Church. It is not that
the Church is the "spiritual Israel," but that it is re-organized Israel. When
we call the Church the New Covenant Israel, we are not allegorizing or
spiritualizing the prophecies as some maintain; we are simply recognizing the
historic fact of this re-organization, whereby the Church, in strict legality
and in unbroken continuation, took over the assets of the national Israel, said
assets being the promises of God--not some of them, but all of them. It took
over the assets of Israel because it was, for legal and prophetical purposes,
Israel, the only group having a legitimate right to the title.(11)
In Heb. 9:8-10 the Bible speaks of a reformation, yea a reformation of all
things, and yet this very statement implies an element of fundamental
continuity.
"THE REFORMATION OF ALL THINGS"
AND
THE NEW ISRAEL
\ G \
\ R \
R \ A \
E \ F \
==================== F \ T \
O \ E \
R--------------------------------------------------\ D \---------------------\
I S R A E L>>>>>>>>>> M------Faithful-------Remnant---------------->> NEW ISRAEL >
A--------------------------------------------------/ES/-------------------- /
T / L /
==================== I / I /
O / T /
N / N /
/ E /
/ G /
2. Described
We now ask the question, in what ways is the Church new and improved? To this
question at least two fundamental answers may be given. There is a
a. New Universality
b. New Spirituality
a. New Universality
This is the subject of extended prophecy in the Old Testament (Ps. 22:25-31;
72: 8-11, 17; Isa. 19:19-25; 42:1-6; 49:5, 6; 52:13-15; 54:1-3; 62:1, 2;
65:12-15; 56:1-8; 66:21). The New Testament regards the inclusion of the
Gentiles in God's people as the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 15:15-17; Rom.
15:7-12; Rom. 9:24-29). This characteristic of the New Israel is the subject of
repeated comment by Paul (Gal. 3:23-29; Eph. 3:1-11; Col. 1:25-27; Rom.
16:25f.). Note that in these passages the mystery is seen to consist in this new
universality. A mystery is something previously prophesied but not previously
understood (Matt. 13:11-17; Rom. 16:25f.). This contrasts with
Dispensationalism's idea of a mystery as something unprophesied.
This new universality is pregnant with importance practically and
doctrinally. Practically it speaks to the mandatory mixture which must exist in
local churches between nationalities economic groups etc. Can you imagine what
the Paul who wrote Eph. 3:6 and Gal. 3:28 would have said about:
(1) separate churches for Jews and Greeks in Athens?
(2) the Europeans in a black, Reformed Church in South Africa who asked to be served communion separately?
(3) the church growth experts which say that growth requires homogeneity?
Doctrinally, the new universality helps us understand the insistence of the
New Testament on the terms "all" and "world." We may well ask, many do ask, If
salvation is only for the elect, why does the New Testament many times speak of
all and "the world" as the objects of God's salvation? The answer is that such
passages are not addressed against Calvinistic particularism, but primarily
Jewish (or Gnostic) exclusivism.
b. New Spirituality
1) General Predictions
There is a great stream of predictions beginning in the Old Testament
continuing in the early parts of the New Testament and culminating in the day of
Pentecost which forecast the coming of the Spirit in a new way to God's covenant
people.
Cf. Isa. 44:1-5; 59:20, 21; 11:1, 2; 42:1.
Cf. Ezekiel, 36:26f; 39:29; Joel 2:28f.
Cf. Zechariah 12:10; Matt. 3:11 and pl.(s).
Note that both the language of baptism and pouring bespeak
the volume, the deluge, the increased quantity so to speak of the Spirit (John
7:37-39; Acts 1:5, 8).
All these predictions have their inaugural fulfillment in the coming of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:5-47, esp. vv. 16, 17 and the subsequent
"Pentecosts" of the book of Acts). The signs of Pentecost signal the coronation
of the Messiah (Acts 2:29-36) and indicate that an era of new spirituality had
come upon the people of God. Upon the Old Testament Zion, the Spirit was
sprinkled. His streams ran through her. Now the Spirit is to be poured out in
abundance. Zion is to be literally plunged into and immersed in the Spirit.
Mother Zion had been sprinkled, now she is to be baptized.
Surely the reality of the outpoured Spirit must exercise a formative and
rejuvenating effect on our faith, hope, and aspirations for our lives,
ministries and churches. How it should hearten us to contemplate that we live in
the time of the Spirit fore-told by the prophets!
2) Specific Consequences
a) The Dynamic of Missions
The outpouring of the Spirit is the dynamic of the new universality of God's
people. It is the power of the Spirit which carries the Church forward in its
mission to all the nations (John 16:7-14; Acts 1:8; 2:3, 4). This points out to
us the integral and important nature of missionary endeavor in the church. It is
one of the primary tasks of the church and its peculiar function in the New
Covenant.
b) The Unity of the Body
The Spirit now corporately indwells the people of God. The Church is a
spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:5). There is a new, pervasive
spirituality about God's nation and temple. The Spirit had worked in individual
Israelites, but now His work is corporate, Church-wide. It surely is this new
eschatological spirituality of God's people which lies behind Paul's phrase, the
body of Christ. Such a phrase would automatically conjure up eschatological
ideas in one acquainted with the Old Testament. "The body of the Messiah" would
mean for any Jew the eschatological people of God (Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:15; Eph.
4:3-7; 1 Cor. 11-13).
Old Covenant Israel did not possess the spiritual unity, fellowship, and
oneness of the body of Christ. The corporate spirituality, unity, and
commonality of the Church did not exist in Old Testament Israel. A Jonathan and
David might hold sweet communion, but a Joab, Abner, and Saul also worshiped
with them in the same congregation of Israel. There was a unity in the flesh,
but not in the Spirit. There were regenerate Israelites, but never a regenerated
Israel. Its constitution was fleshly, not spiritual.
What a privilege fellowship in a true church is. The saints of the Old
Covenant knew only flashes and shadows of its privileges!
3) Crucial Issue: The Recipients of Baptism
a) The Paedobaptist Argument from the Unity of the people of God
(1) Its Nature
The foundation of paedobaptist polemic is precisely the doctrine of the
fundamental unity of the people of God. The paedobaptist argument is to the
effect that since children were included in the Abrahamic and Old Covenants and
God's people are one in all ages, therefore, children are to be included in the
New Covenant and thus baptized.(12)
(2) Its Biblicity
Reformed paedobaptists must be given credit for the biblicity of their
arguments. By this, of course, I do not mean to say that their argument is
valid. By the biblicity of their argument I intend two things. First, it is an
attempt to justify paedobaptism biblically. This contrasts with the appeal of
Roman Catholics and others to mere tradition. Second, it is an argument based on
at least one sound and Scriptural premise, the unity of the people of God.
(3) Its Supremacy
This argument for paedobaptism is the crucial one. With it paedobaptism
stands or falls. It is the primary argument of Charles Hodge, Pierre Marcel,
Johannes Vos, Robert Dabney, John Murray, Louis Berkhof and many others.
Dabney's statement is both vivid and characteristic of the paedobaptist attitude
toward this argument. He says, "Yet circumcision was by God's command applied to
all the infant males of God's people. Let the Immersionist therefore go and turn
all the confident denunciations of baby-sprinkling against this parallel
ordinance of God. We entrench ourselves behind it."(13)
b) The Baptist Reply from the Superiority of the Church
(1) Its General Standpoint
--Stated Negatively:
How shall this venerable argument for paedobaptism be answered? It may not
and cannot be answered by the denial of the unity of the Church and Israel. Such
a denial would only convince well-taught Reformed paedobaptists that believers
baptism entails an untenable Dispensational distinction between Israel and the
Church. It would further re-enforce the (wrong) opinion that the unity of the
Church and Israel entails paedobaptism. For this reason, Dispensational Baptists
are at a tactical disadvantage in this argument which prevents successful attack
on paedobaptism.
- Stated Positively:
The proper route to take in replying to the paedobaptist argument which has
for its premise the unity of the Church and Israel is to thoroughly embrace the
unity of the people of God, but remind the paedobaptists that this must be
understood in harmony with the superiority of the Church. Unity and continuity
do not mean uniformity and identity. Sometimes paedobaptists forget this in
their polemic.(14)
In reality, however, every Reformed paedobaptist does recognize clear and even
vast changes in the New Covenant. All must admit that baptism has not been
merely "substituted" for circumcision.
These admissions surely raise the possibility that a change has occurred
which has excluded infants from the right to the covenant mark. If such a
possibility exists, it constrains deeper research into the exact character of
the diversity which exists between the Old and New Covenant. Otherwise the
movement from the infant circumcision of all Jewish boys to the infant baptism
of all the children of believers is a mere leap of logic and certainly not a
leap of faith.
(2) Its Classic Passage
When one raises the question of the exact difference between the Old and New
Covenants, Jer. 31:31-34 is crucial.
Note, first, its exposition. No passage is more pertinent or relevant than
Jer. 31:31-34. It is the single Old Testament passage in which the exact
terminology of "a new covenant" occurs. It addresses itself in the most explicit
terms to the superiority of the New Covenant: "I will make a new covenant....not
like the covenant which I made with their Fathers....but this is the covenant
which I will make" (vv. 31-33). Such language constrains the question, In what
does this superiority consist?
Verses 33 and 34 seem to answer this question in terms of three blessings
which God confers in the New Covenant: (1) The writing of this law on the heart
(2) The knowledge of Jehovah (3) The forgiveness of sin. A problem has been
raised at this point based on the fact that many believers in the Old Covenant
possessed these precise blessings. What, then, it may be asked, is new about the
New Covenant? It is true that many believers did possess the spiritual blessings
enumerated here (Ps. 37:30, 31; 32:1f; 9:9f.). Many expositors because of this
have manifested a tendency to regard the difference between the Old and New
covenants as merely one of degree, a quantitative rather than a qualitative
difference. John Brown, for instance, commenting on Heb. 8:11 remarks:
The words in the 11th verse are not to be understood absolutely, but
comparatively. They intimate, that under that covenant there shall be a striking
contrast to the ignorance which characterized the great body of those who were
under the Old Covenant; that the revelation of the divine will shall be far more
extensive and clear under the new than under the old economy; and that there
shall be a correspondingly enlarged communication of the enlightening influences
of the Holy Spirit.(15)
This understanding, while appearing to resolve the problem delineated above,
clearly does not do justice to the qualitative contrast between the covenants
asserted in both Jer. 31:31, 32 and Heb. 8:6-8. The solution to the problem
resides in Jer. 31:34a. What is new about the new covenant is not merely
knowledge, but universal knowledge. "They all shall know me from the least of
them to the greatest of them...." Hence it will not be necessary among the New
Covenant people for one brother to teach another the knowledge of God. To put
this in a different way, the spiritual blessings of verses 33 and 34 are new
because they are now part and parcel of covenant privilege. All those with whom
the New Covenant is made are given them--actually possess them. This was not
true of the Old Covenant (Deut. 5:29 cf. v. 3).
This understanding of the newness of the covenant is confirmed by two other
considerations. (1) The criticism of the Old Covenant in verse 32 confirms it.
The precise point at which there is criticism of the covenant and the people is
that they broke the covenant. The solution to this problem in the new covenant
is found in the first blessing of the New Covenant. God's law will be written on
God's people's hearts (cf. Deut. 5:29f with Jer. 32:40). (2) The criticism of
the Old Covenant in Heb. 8:6-8 also confirms this. In this passage both the
covenant and the people are faulted. The first because it did not bestow the
conditions of the covenant, the second because they did not possess them. The
problem with the Old Covenant is precisely this. It does not bestow the
requisite conditions necessary for the securing of its blessings. The glory and
superiority of the New Covenant is that it does uniformly bestow them.
The prophecy of Jer. 31:31-34 is not an isolated one in this regard (Isa.
52:1; 54:13; 60:21). The character of the eschatological people of God is
according to such prophecies one of uniform righteousness. It is no doubt true
that these prophecies reach their ultimate fruition in the New Heavens and New
Earth (Rev. 21:27). However, the clear teaching of the New Testament as to
inauguration of the New Covenant and the citation of Isa. 54:13 (conflated with
Jer. 31:34) as fulfilled in John 6:45 demand that they be given a formative
influence on our doctrine of the Church and its superiority to Israel.
Note, second, its relevance. What, then, is the teaching of these passages as
respects the superiority of the Church? It is precisely this. While covenant
privilege in Israel was not dependent on the possession of a new heart, etc.,
New Covenant privilege--membership in the church--is dependent on the actual
possession of a new heart, saving knowledge of God, and forgiveness of sins.
Legal membership in Israel did not require this. Legal membership in the Church
does. The New Covenant is the constitution of the New Israel. It requires these
blessings as an integral part of New Covenant privilege. Israel was a physical
nation. The Church is a spiritual nation. As a physical nation the Old Covenant
people included the children. As possessing covenant status, they were properly
given the covenant mark. It was, however, this very fleshly character which was
the fault of the Old Covenant people. It was the physical constitution of the
Old Covenant people which resulted in their breaking the covenant. The very
superiority of the New Covenant people consists in their not being a physical
nation and in the demand for some higher birth and privilege in order to
covenant status and the consequent conferral of the covenant sign.
(3) Its Confirmatory Passages
All this is confirmed by many passages in the New Testament. We ask, who is
the covenant people? Granted all the covenant people have a right to the
covenant mark of baptism, but who are they?
--Matthew 3:1-12
Luke 1:17 tells us that the mission of John the Baptist had for its goal "to
make ready a people prepared for the Lord." It is, then, in the mission of John
the Baptist that the people of the New Covenant were first taking shape. For
this reason no dichotomy is to be erected between John's baptism and Christian
baptism.(16)
The point is that John's baptism is most pertinent when the question of the
proper subjects of baptism is raised. Two points of relevance are manifest. (1)
John required conversion as the qualification for his baptism and entry into the
prepared people (Matt. 3:6-8). (2) Those who properly received circumcision
still required baptism and were not necessarily or automatically qualified for
it (Matt. 3:5, 7, 9). If baptism is simply the "substitute" for circumcision,
such automatic qualification certainly would have been unexpected. In this
regard verse 9 must be noted. Here the precise basis for the reception of
circumcision is repudiated as the ground for John's baptism.
--Matthew 21:43
We have looked at this passage earlier. It is evident that the new nation was
not a physical, but a spiritual one which had for its distinguishing
characteristic fruitfulness. It excludes all but fruit-bearers. It includes only
fruit-bearers.
--John 1:12, 13
We are asking the question, who are the covenant people? This passage is most
relevant in this regard because it deals with the subject of adoption or
sonship. Who is it that has the right, , to become children of God, ? Adoption
or being a son of God is a covenant blessing, privilege. God's covenant people
are in virtue of that His sons (Rom. 9:3,4; Matt. 8:12; Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1;
Isa. 1:2-4; 63:8). Israel, the physical nation, as God's covenant people, was
His Son.
John 1:12, 13, therefore, in answering the question, Who are children of God?
addressed itself precisely to the issue of the identity of God's New Covenant
people. Its answer is as explicit as could be wished. Only those who receive
Christ and believe on His name, are given the status of covenant sons. Birth is
important, but it must be divine birth. One's physical bloodlines and parentage
are explicitly repudiated as relevant to this issue now that the New Covenant
had been inaugurated by the Incarnation of the Word.
--Phil. 3:3
In this passage Paul is explicitly repudiating the claims of the Judaizers to
be God's circumcision, His covenant people. They are he says, rather the
mutilation" (µ). "We are the (true) circumcision," he asserts and then goes on
to explicitly identify those possessing covenant status in the New Covenant. The
marks are: (1) worshipping by the Spirit of God, (2) glorying in Christ Jesus
and, (3) putting no confidence in the flesh.
Two remarks are pertinent. First, no infant can ordinarily possess the first
two marks. Certainly no infant can ordinarily be discerned to possess such
marks. Second, in the mark of "putting no confidence in the flesh," Paul is
explicitly repudiating any confidence in one's physical parentage (vv. 4-6).
--1 Cor. 11:28
We have been arguing that covenant status, and thus the covenant mark, in the
New Covenant belong only to believers. This perspective may be checked against
the parallel case of the Lord's supper. There may be no doubt that this is a
covenant meal (1 Cor. 11:25). Who is it that may partake of it? Even
paedobaptists have clearly seen that only professing believers capable of
intelligent self-examination are the proper recipients of the covenant meal. Why
then should infants--normally incapable of such things--be given the covenant
water?
b) Its Consequent Applications
Several conclusions are warranted by this exposition of the precise character
of the superiority of the New Covenant people as it relates to the proper
subjects of baptism.
First, the only ground for the reception of baptism, the New Covenant mark,
is New Covenant status. This status necessitates the new heart, the knowledge of
God, the forgiveness of sins. The only ground upon which membership in the
church may be granted by those charged with the Church's administration is the
belief that one possesses these qualifications. While, of course, in the most
ultimate sense only God knows the heart, the New Testament clearly teaches that
true conversion is visible to men (1 Thess. 1:4-6; 2 Peter 1:10, 11; Matt.
7:15-20).
Second, since these marks of New Covenant status cannot be normally possessed
and certainly not normally manifested by infants, they are not to be received to
Christian baptism. There is no ground to believe that infants are regenerate.
Third, some may believe that the force of the argument presented above may be
avoided by taking refuge in the doctrine of presumptive regeneration. This, it
might be thought, would provide them with the New Covenant ground for baptism,
regeneration. This tactic, however, is also refuted by the argument. Where, we
ask, does God promise to regenerate all our children? The only possible reply is
that the command to circumcise infants assumes that they are regenerate. This,
however, as we have seen, is precisely what circumcision does not assume. If it
assumed this, the assumption would be false. More importantly the language of
both Deut. 5:29 and Jer. 31:31-34 refutes the idea that circumcision presupposed
regeneration. Circumcision merely assumed membership in the physical nation
which formed God's covenant people in the age of promise.
Some may point out that unregenerate persons are sometimes admitted to even Baptist churches. This is, of course, true. However, there is all the difference in the world between defacto membership and dejure membership. It is one thing for them to be present through their deception or through negligent oversight. It is wholly another to say that they are rightfully members though unregenerate. While their illegitimate membership may not be the fault of the human oversight, it is illegitimate nonetheless.
1.
C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, (Chicago, 1965), pp. 44-48.2.
Albertus Pieters in The Ten Tribes in History and Prophecy, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1934) on pp. 77, 78 cites John Darby as follows, "The direct connection between the Millenium and the Old Testament is much closer than ours. It is the fulfillment of the New Covenant there promised." Jon Zens in Baptist Reformation Review, (Autumn 1973, Vol. 2, Number 3), in his article entitled, "Dispensationalism: A Reformed Inquiry into its Leading Figures and Features," on p. 33f. cites numerous other Dispensationalists to this effect: John Darby, E. W. Bullinger, J. H. Brookes, C. I. Scofield, L. S. Chafer, John Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and Ernest Pickering.3.
See especially Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho the Jew, ch. XI, CXX, CXXIII, CXXV, CXXXV.4.
Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope, (The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971), pp. 258-260.5.
Jon Zens, Baptist Reformation Review, vol. 2, number 3, "Dispensationalism: A Reformed Inquiry ...", p. 26f.; Cf. also Macpherson, The Unbelievable Pre-Trib. Origin; Clarence Bass, Backgrounds of Pre-millennialism.6.
Cf. the (Old) Scofield Reference Bible, p. 999f.7.
The New Scofield Reference Bible, p.997.8.
Jon Zens, Baptist Reformation Review, (2:3), p. 37.9.
The (Old) Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 93, 1002, 115; C. C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life.10.
Note by way of illustration Whitelaw's, Gospel Millennium, pp. 45, 47, 56, 61). While Whitelaw's rejection of an exclusively grammatical-historical interpretation of prophecy is proper, his seeming willingness to admit an unexplained and undefined spiritualizing is improper and would logically lead to exegetical chaos.11.
Albertus Pieters "Ten Tribes....," pp. 81.12.
John Murray, Christian Baptism, (Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia, 1974), p. 51f.13.
Robert L. Dabney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 780.14.
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Eerdmans,Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 633, for instance says, "If baptism did not take its place, then the New Testament has no initiatory rite. But Christ clearly substituted it as such." (Italics are mine.)15.
A. W. Pink, Hebrews, (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1954), pp. 454, 456f.; John Brown, Hebrews, (Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1972), p. 373.16.
There is no evidence that Jesus re-baptized those baptized by John. Jesus' own baptismal identification with His people was at the hands of John. Surely this indicates that it is the equivalent of Christian baptism otherwise Christ's symbolic identification with us is broken or at best limited to those baptized by John. Acts 19:1-7 is often cited in support of a distinction between John's and Christian baptism. It is most doubtful that those (re)baptized by Paul in Acts 19 really possessed John's baptism. They were baptized "into John's baptism." Does this mean that they had John's baptism? Apparently it does not. For they were ignorant of a fundamental aspect of John's message, his teaching on the Holy Spirit. Their baptism was defective not merely because it was John's baptism, but because it was a second hand baptism not grounded in even the most important aspects of his teaching.Section 2: The Imminent Return