“After the gods of the nations have been dethroned, who will take their place?”

by Chris Wooldridge

Most Reformed commentators have tended to take Matthew 24, up to verse 38, as depicting first century events such as the initial spread of the Gospel, the persecution of the apostles and the destruction of the second temple. From verse 39 and thereafter though, the tendency has been to view it as concerned with the final judgement, the “tribulation” being understood as something beginning in the first century and coming to an end at the final coming of Christ. In this post, I will be examining Matthew 24:29-31 with the aim of showing that it is also concerned with first century events.

Verse 29 begins with a quotation from Isaiah 13:10 depicting the dissolution of the heavenly bodies:

“the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

The wider context of the Isaiah passage is Yahweh’s destruction of the Babylonian empire by the hand of the Medes. Verse 10 in particular though is concerned with the heavenly dimension to this conquest, which is the overthrow of the gods of Babylon. Jesus likely has a similar emphasis in Matthew 24, the overthrowing of the gods of the nations, with the saints being enthroned in their place.

Verse 30 shows us the earthly dimension to this heavenly conquest. The tribes of the land of Israel mourning over their dead in fulfilment of Zechariah 12:10. There are also allusions to Daniel 7:13-14 in this verse, which is a reference to the ascension of Christ. The Jews in Jerusalem perceive in part the enthronement and vindication of Christ in the unfolding events of judgement. The verse as a whole could be read as follows:

“Then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven,
and then all the tribes of the land shall mourn,
and they shall perceive the son of man’s coming
on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Verse 31 answers the problem of verse 29. After the gods of the nations have been dethroned, who will take their place? The answer is of course, the elect, the righteous in Christ who have died. They are gathered together by the angels into heaven to form a new heavenly council, to reign with Christ over the nations. All of which was fulfilled in the first century.

“Behold, The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

James Jordan has observed that Abraham’s “calling on the name of the Lord” was in fact evangelical proclamation of his faith. Abraham’s witness to the Canaanites was something for which they would be held accountable when Israel returned to claim the land. Chris Wooldridge sees this “vocal allegiance” as the key to understanding the meaning of the washing away of sins in the New Testament. Seen in the context of the last days of the Old Covenant, this was not baptismal regeneration but a public identification by the Jewish worshiper with the final sacrificial lamb (Leviticus 1:1-9).

Chris writes:

What does the book of Acts mean when it speaks of Baptism as the means by which sins are “forgiven” (Acts 2:38) or “washed away” (Acts 22:16). What does this mean and how do we reconcile it with the fact that we are justified by faith alone? When confronted with passages like this, there is often a tendency amongst evangelicals to overlook or avoid the obvious connections being drawn. But this is not the answer. In order to understand a passage like this, we need to consider its Covenant context.

Acts 2 records a sermon given by the Apostle Peter to a Jewish audience who were gathered together for the feast of Pentecost. The sermon begins by warning of a coming judgement. Peter, quoting from the book of Joel, proclaims:

And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. (Acts 2:19-20).

The first century Jewish audience, steeped in the Old Testament, would easily have understood the language of cosmic upheaval to be referring to a national judgment (e.g. Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7), with the sun and moon representing the rulers of nations.

But this was not to be a judgment of any old nation. No, this judgement was a curse meted out against Israel for her rebellion against God. Peter made it clear that Jesus was a righteous prophet like no other, “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know” (2:22). And how did Israel respond? By handing Jesus over to be crucified (Acts 2:23, 36). And now, this very same Jesus had been raised from the dead and set up as God’s judge and right-hand man.

No wonder the men were “cut to the heart” (2:27). They knew what happened when Israel disobeyed God and killed His righteous prophets. As Deuteronomy 28 made clear, when the people disobeyed God, the covenant curses were to be poured out upon them: famine, foreign invasion, exile and death.

It is in this context that we discover the reference to the “forgiveness of sins.” The “sins” in question are specifically transgressions against the Law of Moses and the “forgiveness” in question entailed a release from the consequences of those transgressions. For the Jew, Baptism was a public identification with Christ which washed away sin in a way no Levitical washing or atonement could. It declared openly a submission to a higher priest than the one in the Temple and an allegiance to a higher king than the one in Jerusalem. This is why it was performed “in the name of Jesus Christ.”¹Other New Testament passages, such as Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27, also speak of Baptism as a public identification with Christ.

For any Jew, quietly apologising for what they had done was never sufficient. A public rite was required. Now that rite was an act which made one an ally with the exalted Christ in order to be saved from the final curses of the Law. In forty years’ time, those Jews who wanted to affirm Christ without publicly identifying with him (and therefore against his enemies) were trapped in the city of Jerusalem when the armies of Titus Vespasian besieged the city.

Acts 22:16 is written in a similar context. Paul had unjustly murdered and imprisoned many Christians (Acts 9:1-2), but upon being confronted by the risen Christ he immediately realised his wrongdoing. For him to quietly return to being a Pharisee was impossible. He needed to publicly identify with Christ and with the Church which he had persecuted, in order to be saved from the wrath to come. This was the meaning of his Baptism.

So what does Baptism mean for us today, since we have no “Mosaic” curses hanging over us? 1 Peter 3 tells us that Baptism means than when others revile and slander us for our faith (3:9, 3:14), we can stand firm and identify with Christ (3:15-16). We know that God will judge the wicked and vindicate his people in history, if we are patient. Baptism assures us that, though the nations rage against Christ, he will have the final word. Baptism is not like Old Covenant rites which simply “put away the uncleanness of the flesh.” It is the legal “testimony of a good conscience before God” (3:21), an act which shows that we are not ashamed of Him, that He might not be ashamed of us.

Christian, remember what you declared at your Baptism.

…all of the Old Covenant sacraments, like the flood, were future tense and testified to the destruction of the flesh.

[A report from our London correspondent, Chris Wooldridge:]

A week ago, I attended two conferences delivered by Peter Leithart on the subject of the Sacraments. The first one was aimed at anyone interested; the second was addressed more to ministers and theological students.

I’m about to share with you a summary of what I heard at the first conference. If you’re interested in hearing the whole thing, head over to the Emmanuel Evengelical Church resources website.

He began the first conference by speaking about the definition of a sacrament. First he spoke about the traditional Reformed understanding of the sacraments as “signs and seals” of the covenant. He explained that this would involve marking out a certain group of people as belonging to God. Whilst not disputing the traditional Reformed understanding, he went in a slightly different direction after this point, citing older thinkers who began with the Old Covenant when considering the nature of a sacrament.

He started in the Garden of Eden, demonstrating that creation itself is ‘sacramental’. At the centre of the garden were two trees, food as a means to communion with God. He spoke about how the two trees were not merely visible signs, but effected an actual change in Adam and Eve. He then moved on to speak about the fall as an abuse of the sacraments. He then mentioned that after the three ‘falls’ in Genesis 3, 4 and 5 (Adam’s eating, Cain’s murder and prophetic intermarriage), God declares that all humanity is “flesh”, that they are wicked, which seems to anticipate Paul’s negative usage of the term in his letters. In response to this, God destroys all of the ‘flesh’ on the face of the land, sparing only Noah, his household and representative animals and birds.

He explained that all of the Old Covenant sacraments, like the flood, were future tense and testified to the destruction of the flesh. Circumcision, for instance, was the cutting off of the flesh of the foreskin. Likewise, animal sacrifice was the cutting and burning of flesh in holy fire, that it might become transfigured into smoke. He concluded that Jesus Christ destroyed the power of the flesh once and for all in his death on the cross, bringing an end to the Old Covenant.

After the first break he spoke about how, unlike ‘future tense’ Old Covenant sacraments, New Covenant sacraments are ‘present tense’, signifying the accomplished destruction of the flesh in Jesus Christ. His focus was more on the individual believer and he talked about the fact that in Baptism we are given a new name, which makes us a new person. He turned to 1 Peter 3 and noted the contrast between Baptism and the purity rites of the Old Covenant. Unlike those purity rites, which involved the temporary preservation of the flesh, Baptism marks the destruction of the flesh in the one Baptized.

He also spoke about Romans 5-6. In Romans 5, Paul contrasts Adam with Christ and in Romans 6 Paul associates Baptism with the overcoming of the old Adamic world and entry into the new world established in the resurrection of Christ. He drew similar conclusions from Colossians 2, noting that the immoral practices mentioned are overcome by believing what God has spoken in Baptism. He finished by speaking about the Lord’s supper and how we eat it not at a distance (as Israel did in her feasts), but in the presence of God, suggesting once again that New Covenant sacraments are ‘present tense’, marking the fulfilment of the promise.

After lunch, Peter spoke about ‘Sacraments and us’, about the kind of community formed by the sacraments of the New Covenant. He began by contrasting the Old and New Covenants again. Under the Old Covenant, no Israelite would come into the presence of God to drink wine. The priests on duty in the temple stood all day and didn’t drink wine. The Church of the New Covenant sits and drinks wine in God’s presence. Even things like our postures testify to the fact that we are now welcomed into the presence of God through Jesus Christ.

He then moved on to Galatians, and in particular Galatians 3. Paul rebukes the Galatians for eating separately. This testifies to a false gospel by suggesting that the divisions of Abraham (Jew and Gentile, male and female etc.) have not been overcome in the death and resurrection of Christ. He pointed out that Baptism is associated with “clothing” at the end of Galatians 3, which suggests that all of the Baptized are part of the same people, wearing the same uniform. Baptism tears down the racial and cultural divisions which define human communities, making us one new people in Christ. He pointed out that the modern emphasis on ‘diversity and inclusion’ is therefore rooted in Christian principles, however much it may have become distorted.

He drew similar principles from 1 Corinthians. The factions which existed in Corinth were supposed to be overcome by the Gospel, which is why Paul rebukes them so strongly for abusing the Supper in chapter 11 – it was supposed to be the sign of their unity! From 1 Corinthians 10, we see that the Eucharist is supposed to testify to the fact that the many Corinthians are one body, since they partake of ‘one loaf’.

He began his final talk, entitled ‘Sacraments and them’ by speaking about how each member of the body of Christ plays a different part, yet all parts (both weak and strong) are necessary. He drew this primarily from 1 Corinthians 12, which speaks about Baptism as the rite which incorporates us into the body. He spoke about infant baptism as a way of expressing the fact that the Church contains weak members as well as strong ones, as per 1 Corinthians 12. He also suggested on this basis that infants (as the weakest members) should be included in the Lord’s Supper.

He then moved on to speak about the mission of the Church, which begins with being what the sacraments call us to be. He contrasted pagan gods who cannot do anything (speak, see, move etc) with the true God, who can do all things. He applied this to the sacraments by pointing out that they involve doing things like moving, eating and drinking. He also applied this to the whole liturgy of worship which drills us into an army fit to serve God in the world. In other areas of life, such as sport or music, a lot of repetition and practice is required in order to become proficient. The same is true in worship, we learn to do things habitually in order to be like the God we worship. He spoke about the various aspects of the liturgy (calling, confession, hearing, speaking, offering, communion, commissioning) and how they train us to understand the mission of the Church.

A few conclusions: Firstly, the overall message is extremely important and not heard enough in the Church today. The Old Covenant was about the world of the flesh and anticipated the destruction of the flesh in Christ and the New Covenant. This should be the beginning, not only of our understanding of the sacraments, but of our understanding of everything in the Bible. Peter Leithart should be commended for the breadth of his biblical vision.

However, in a few small ways his conclusions went against this overall picture. Although not mentioned very much, his preference for pouring/sprinkling as a mode of Baptism goes against the wider pattern that he painted. In 1 Peter 3, there is a deliberate contrast drawn between the sprinklings of the Old Covenant which temporarily preserved the flesh and Baptism which is associated with the destruction of the flesh. The flood destroyed the power of the flesh active in the world by drowning it. The Old Covenant priests were consecrated by being washed in the laver so that they might serve God. They were immersed again after administering purification for those who were defiled by contact with the dead. When I asked Peter about this, he reverted back to the sprinkling rites of the Old Covenant and to the fact that the righteous in the flood and who passed through the Red Sea were sprinkled with water from above. However, this misses the wider picture, that they were passing through water, just as in Baptism we representatively ‘pass through’ death and into new life in Christ.

Whilst there are arguments which could be made for infant Baptism, his arguments drawn from 1 Corinthians 12 were not very convincing. It’s certainly the case that there are ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ members in the body of Christ, however, it would be begging the question to assume that infants are the ‘weaker’ members which Paul had in mind. The story he gave about a sick baby who ministered to the wider body through the support that they gave could also be true of anyone who sought help from their local Church, regardless of whether they were even a believer!

However, these are minor criticisms. The real strength of the conference laid in the fact that it emphasised whole-bible thinking applied to every area of life. This particularly came to fruition in the final section of the conference, in which he spoke about the need for patterns of worship which train us to think and act biblically, reflecting the character of the God we serve. Peter Leithart is to be commended for his extensive biblical knowledge and his deep applications of biblical patterns to today’s world.

This post is from Chris Wooldridge’s blog. His take on the structure of the Lord’s prayer is a little different to mine (I have the evil one at the center) but I find it very attractive and interesting. He writes:

The Lord’s Prayer is a very special prayer. I have prayed it more times than I can count, both in personal and in corporate worship. A while back I spent some time analysing its structure and it appears to be based on the ten commandments. But before I get into that, I need to explain how the ten commandments themselves are structured.

Although evangelicals typically treat the first two “You shall” statements as separate commandments, I think they are best viewed as a unity. The reason for this has to do with the fact that the commandments ‘pair up’. Here is how this works:

1. Do not have other gods before Yahweh, do not worship idols (Idolatry)
2. Do not take Yahweh’s name in vain (Name)
3. Remember the Sabbath (Sabbath)
4. Honour your parents (Parents)
5. Do not murder (Murder)
6. Do not commit adultery (Adultery)
7. Do not steal (Theft)
8. Do not bear false witness (Witness)
9. Do not covet your neighbour’s house (House)
10. Do not covet your neighbour’s household (Household)

This is how the commandments are paired up:

1. The first two commandments are both specifically about God and how to honour him in all things. They are related to the book of Genesis, since they are foundational marks of a true believer in all ages.
2. The second two are both about authority, they are also the only two commandments not to begin with “You shall”. They are related to the book of Exodus, since they both relate specifically to Israel’s distinctness from the nations (the Sabbath being a special sign for Israel and living long in the promised land of Canaan being the blessing for honouring one’s parents).
3. The third two commandments both involve death, the first of a person and the second of a marriage, both are also punishable by death. They both relate to Leviticus, which is a book about death. There are regulations pertaining to the death of animals, houses, skin, and various forms of ritual death featured throughout Leviticus.
4. The fourth two commandments both carry an eye-for-an-eye penalty, in the second case the offender would suffer whatever punishment they caused the victim to suffer by falsely testifying against them in court. They both relate to Numbers, which is all about the penalty that Israel bore in the wilderness for disobeying God.
5. The fifth and final two commandments are both about coveting, one relating to the house and the other to the household (the various people, animals and objects in the house). They both relate to the book of Deuteronomy, which is all about Israel’s plans for setting up and moving into their new home in the land of Canaan.

Now that we have examined the structure of the ten commandments, we can see them reflected in the Lord’s Prayer, as demonstrated below:

1. Our Father, Who is in heaven (God)
2. Hallowed be Your Name (Name)
3. May Your Kingdom come (Sabbath)
4. May Your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven (Mother and Father/Land-promise)
5. Give us this day our daily bread (Bread) and forgive us our sins (Wine)
6. As we forgive those who sin against us (Adultery)
7. And lead us not into temptation (Theft)
8. But deliver us from the evil one (False Witness)
9. For Yours is the Kingdom (House)
10. And the Power, and the Glory, unto the ages, Amen (Household)

Some comments are in order. The fourth commandment is seen in the fourth line in several ways. Firstly, there is the reference to earth and heaven, which represents mother and father (Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and was filled with heavenly breath). Also, the word for “earth” can also mean “land”, which links back to the fact that the blessing for obeying the fourth commandment was tied up with the promised land.

The fifth commandment is trickier to see here. The references to ‘bread’ and ‘forgiveness’ remind us of the story of the baker and the butler in prison (Genesis 40). The baker (who made bread) was killed on the third day, whereas the butler (who served wine) was forgiven and restored on the third day. It’s only with both parts in place that we can see the reference to death in this line. A reference to bread and wine also reminds us of the Last Supper and Jesus’s death on the cross. When we get to the seventh line, there is a plea not to be ‘stolen’ through temptation, and the person attempting the stealing is revealed to be “the evil one” (Satan – a false witness) in the eighth line.

In conclusion, when Jesus teaches us how to do something foundational like prayer, we should pay very careful attention.

[A guest post by Chris Wooldridge]

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” (Matthew 11:21-24)

If we are paying careful attention to the historical context of this passage, it should be clear enough that the “day of judgment” referred to was fulfilled in the Jewish war of 66-70 AD. But why then does he seem to bring Tyre and Sidon/Sodom onto the scene in verses 22 and 24? Are we dealing here with a future judgment of the inhabitants of these cities, perhaps one which awaits the second coming of Christ?

I think the answer is no, but to help us understand why, let’s see what Josephus has to say. [1]

For starters, we can look at what happened to the three Galilean cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. Near the beginning of the Jewish War, in 67 AD, war broke out in Galilee:

“nor did the Romans, out of the anger they bore at this attempt, leave off, either by night or by day, burning the places in the plain, and stealing away the cattle that were in the country, and killing whatsoever appeared capable of fighting perpetually, and leading the weaker people as slaves into captivity; so that Galilee was all over filled with fire and blood” (War of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 4)

It is worth noting that this conflict occurred near the beginning of the Jewish War, just as Jesus’ oracle against the Galilean cities occurred near the beginning of his ministry. But what of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom? Well, there was an event which occurred near the start of the war as cities began to rise up against the Jews:

“Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the Jews that were among them… those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a greater number in prison…

only the Antiochtans the Sidontans, and Apamians spared those [Jews] that dwelt with them, and would not endure either to kill any of the Jews, or to put them in bonds… I think the greatest part of this favor was owing to their commiseration of those whom they saw to make no innovations.” (Ibid, Book 2, Chapter 18)

Based on this response, it seems unlikely that Tyre would be a likely location for further resistance from the Jews. Even if further resistance did occur, it would not likely be as violent a conflict as the one which occurred in Galilee. Regarding Sidon, it would appear that they spared the Jews who dwelt within their city because they seemed to “make no innovations”, which I think suggests that the Jews of that city were not deemed to be a threat. So for both cities, there probably wouldn’t have been much turmoil going on as a result of the Jewish war. They would also have been relatively unaffected by the civil war of 69 AD, since they supported Vespasian, who managed to secure the throne and bring about relative stability.

But what about Sodom? Once again, let us turn to Josephus:

“The country of Sodom borders upon it. It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that Divine fire, and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits; which fruits have a color as if they were fit to be eaten, but if you pluck them with your hands, they dissolve into smoke and ashes. And thus what is related of this land of Sodom hath these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us.” (Ibid, Book 4, Chapter 8)

So we can fairly safely conclude that Sodom would have been unaffected by the wars of 66-70 AD. However, Jesus seems to have had in mind an actual judgment involving both Sodom and Capernaum. Thus far we have been focusing on the earthly cities, but now let us consider what happened to their inhabitants at the end of the old creation:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (Matthew 25:31-32)

In his covenant with Abraham, God had promised that nations would be blessed and cursed through him. In 70 AD, the Abrahamic covenant came to an end and the blessings and curses were distributed. Nations were resurrected, stood before Christ in heaven and were judged in accordance with their treatment of the people of Abraham. Israel herself would be judged in accordance with her treatment of the apostolic church. The blessing would take the form of reigning with Christ in heaven for the remainder of the new covenant era (Revelation 20:4-6). The cursing would take the form of returning to the grave in “shame and contempt” (Daniel 12:2) to await the end of the new covenant and eternal destruction in the lake of fire.

Now Sodom and Tyre (and Sidon) would certainly have been involved in this judgment. They all had a sort of covenant relationship with Israel, Sodom because of Abraham’s pleading (Genesis 18) and Tyre and Sidon because they formed an alliance with Solomon and donated material towards the construction of the temple (1 Kings 9). The old covenant destruction of these cities also related to their treatment of the people of Abraham, in particular, Sodom’s sinful attitude towards Lot and his household (Genesis 19) and Tyre’s sinful attitude towards Jerusalem (Ezekiel 26). For the cities of Galilee to be compared with these cities was surely a great insult.

To top it off, there would also have been many righteous gentiles in the judgment:

“The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.” (Matthew 12:41-42)

All of this would have caused great shame and humiliation for the generation of Israel which witnessed the ministry of Christ and yet refused to heed his warning. The blood of all the righteous, from Abel to Zechariah, was required of that wicked generation.

_________________________________
[1] For this study, I enlisted the help of biblestudytools.com, which hosts a searchable edition of “The Works of Flavius Josephus”.

A Guest Post by Chris Wooldridge

Hi Mike,
I’ve been looking at the usual places in the Old Testament from where Paedobaptism is normally defended and I think I’m leaning fairly solidly in the credobaptist direction now. Here’s why:

A CASE FOR COVENANTAL ANIMAL BAPTISM

Genesis 1 – God gives animals, birds and fish the same commission as humans – “be fruitful and multiply”. This is the foundation of God’s covenant with mankind, which is recapitulated in a new way in the great commission (Matt 28). Animals are part of the nations, so they should be baptized along with humans, on a household basis of course (as per the household covenant with Abraham). Baptism is a redemption of all creation.

Genesis 6-9 – Noah brings animals with him on the ark. The flood was a baptismal event, as the apostle Peter teaches us (1 Peter 3). On this basis as well, animals (and birds) should be baptized along with humans. Not only that, but the new covenant that God formed with Noah includes the whole of creation, including animals, who have life in their blood (Gen 9:4).

Exodus 10-12 – Animals were needed to serve God and Moses would not leave Egypt without them (Ex 10:24-26). They were included in the crossing of the Red Sea, which was a baptism according to Paul (1 Cor 10), and of course they would also have crossed the Jordan when the nation of Israel entered Canaan, an even greater baptism.

Leviticus – In the sacrifices of Israel, the clean animals were able to mediate for the Israelites as sacrifices ascending to God’s heavenly throne (although in the new covenant, both clean and unclean animals can be mediators for God eg. Acts 10:9-16). As we see in passages like Numbers 22, animals can be mediators on behalf of humans and even exercise a kind of faith in God. Psalm 104, for example, teaches that animals trust in God for their food rather than looking to their own strength (Ps 104:21).

Deuteronomy 28 – If the people of Israel are obedient, their animals will multiply along with them, further evidence that animals are included in the covenant with Moses. This promise to bless both animals and humans is recapitulated in the New Covenant prophesied in the Old Testament (eg. Jer 31:27-28, Ezek 36:9-12). See also Zech 14, where we see a gospel message carried by horses.

Jonah 3-4 – The book of Jonah proves the reality of animal salvation, since everyone in Ninevah repents, including both humans and animals – they are all covered in sackcloth (repentance).

The Gospels – Jesus repeatedly uses sheep as examples of true disciples. Sheep are model kingdom citizens and should therefore be baptized.

Acts 2 – Peter’s promise that God will be God to them and their children (Acts 2:38-39) echoes earlier promises which also include animals along with human children (eg. Jer 31:27-28). Later on in Acts, we discover that whole households were baptized (Acts 10, 16 & 18). Households in the Roman world included animals as well as humans.

1 Corinthians 15 – Animals have a glorious inheritance in Christ, since they will rise again and populate the New Creation (vs 35-39). Why should they be refused a real relationship with God now? In baptism that future justification (resurrection) can be brought into the present.

So when we consider the teaching of the whole bible, not just a few passages from the New Testament, we can start to see things differently. We can build a biblical theology of baptism that includes all creation.

APPENDIX – A SOCIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

In our modern, post-agricultural and individualistic society, it’s easy for us to forget the crucial role that other creatures play in our lives. And it might seem offensive to a postmodernist to be imposing an identity onto them apart from their own choosing. But don’t we speak to animals? And don’t we even give them a name, apart from their choosing? And don’t we train many of them to be obedient to us? Baptism is just like these things. It’s God speaking to animals in water; it’s the giving of a new name; it’s the beginning of a life of learning.

I hope you enjoyed my feeble attempt at satire,
Chris

_____________________________
For the newbies, Chris is satirizing The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, and The Baptized Body.