“Just as Circumcision made impossible a global corruption,
so paedobaptism makes impossible a global Gospel.”

Part 1 here.

With so many young people leaving the Church, it is no wonder that there is a push to renew an understanding of biblical Covenant. Giving our children a profound sense of their “Covenant identity” is a crucial means of re-establishing the Covenant framework which has been neglected. Unfortunately, those pushing for these things are going about it in entirely the wrong way, because they are re-establishing the wrong Covenant.

Covenant Obligation

As Christian parents, we want our children to grow up to be like Abel, and not like Cain. The problem with using baptism to impart a “Covenant identity” is that this is not what baptism is for. Cain and Abel both had the same Covenant identity. Although their roles in worship differed, both were under a similar obligation when it came to faith. Abel was to offer blood to cover, once again, the sin in the Garden; Cain was then to offer the firstfruits of the Land. But Cain pushed in and made his offering first, apparently a refusal to acknowledge the sovereignty of God. This was Pentecost before Firstfruits, kingdom before priesthood, a grasping of dominion without prior submission to God. It was the sin of Adam on a grander scale. [1]

Cain’s rebellion resulted in the establishment of a new identity, a pagan one. The curse upon him, though withheld, became a curse upon his children. The human race was divided into two tribes: a priestly clan which still recognised and worshiped God and a kingly order which did not. Intermarriage corrupted the priesthood and only one family remained submitted to God. The question is this: did those in the fortress of the Cainites no longer have any obligation to God? Of course they did, and eventually the entire civilization died in the Great Flood.

After the sin at Babel, humanity was headed for another flood, but God stepped in and divided the entire race in two through circumcision. A Covenant was established with Abraham and his offspring, with specific promises, that they might eventually be a blessing to the nations outside of this Covenant. Under Moses, the continuity of these promised blessings was bound through the Law, which meant that not only was Israel a “cultivated Land,” she would also be “pruned” from time to time, disciplined by God because of His great love for these children, His “firstborn.” Were the other nations under these Covenant obligations? Not directly. The nations surrounding Israel were blessed or cursed depending upon their treatment of Abraham’s offspring, but Israel was the focus. When Israel sinned, God also used these nations to curse and purify her. In all cases, this Covenant concerned only Abraham’s offspring until it was fulfilled. The Gentiles were under no obligation to either the Abrahamic Circumcision or the Mosaic Law.

Split Identities

Israel’s Covenant identity was not a removal of the obligation of the nations but an expansion of the office of Abel in worship, that is, the offering of representative blood. When it came to actual salvation, an Abrahamic “Covenant identity” simply meant that you were the first to hear. While this Covenant was in force, the Gospel always went first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. Likewise, when judgment came, it came first upon Israel and then upon the nations. But both were still under obligation to God.

The Jew was to hear and believe, and through Israel, Gentiles were also to hear and believe. When it comes to salvation, this has always been the case. Israel’s “Covenant identity” in Abraham was a corporate liturgical office, not salvation itself. Hence, the doctrine of “paedofaith” is a wishful contrivance, an illegitimate hybrid of the promise to the believer and this obsolete Old Covenant sacrificial office. As we see in the prophets, God’s blessings and curses came upon all those who heard Israel’s testimony. In all cases, faith, which came by hearing, would result in works, and God always judged their faith (or lack of it) by their works. Through the testimony of Jonah, Nineveh was saved. Despite the testimony of Nahum, Nineveh was destroyed. If their works were faithful, then they were obviously converted. Regarding their offices, they remained Jews or Gentiles, Abels or Cains, brothers with different gifts but both in the service of God. One could be a believer or an unbeliever regardless of whether one was commissioned to offer blood, or to offer fruits from the ground (kingdom riches). The Old Covenant identity was with regard to ministry, not salvation, just as Abel kept sheep and Cain worked in the field. Both were required to repent and believe. Once the offerings were made, these fulfilled offices became meaningless. Once Christ was offered as better Abel, and the Herodian order judged as greater Cain, circumcision and uncircumcision became meaningless.

A Division of Flesh

The cultural separation of Jew and Gentile was for the purpose of preventing the kind of unity of culture which destroyed the original world in the flood and threatened to destroy the new world of Noah. At a global level, it split humanity irrevocably into Church and State. The usurping of priesthood by kingdom, the co-opting of the Church by the State, was impossible without the breaking down of the “wall of enmity,” circumcision and the Law, the Covenant obligations of the Jews. Though similar sins were committed within the bounds of the circumcision, a global corruption was made impossible through the curses of the Law. The Law put a hedge around the ministry of Abel (Genesis 4), and prevented the “Cainites” from intermarrying with the “Sethites” (Genesis 6) or uniting to build a new Babel. Thus, the identity conferred in circumcision was a Covenant within a Covenant, Abrahamites as a priestly people within a Noahic world, Abels among Cains, sheep among wolves. When Israel’s priests, kings and people behaved like Cainites, God gave them over to the real Cainites for discipline and eventual purging. Just as animals died on Israel’s behalf, so Israel was judged on the world’s behalf. Israel would always die as the firstborn, a first fruits of blood separated from the rest of the world. But Israel, unlike the other nations, would also rise from the dead.

The Covenant identity of Israel, conferred due to the personal faith of Abraham, was a sacrificial obligation which was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the sacrificial flesh of Israel, offered in faith on behalf of all nations. The Jewish identity, the offering of the blood of the firstborn, finally ascended to heaven in Christ. True priesthood was finally accomplished and true kingdom could come, a dominion sourced in submission to God and priestly service. The end of Circumcision came because the Abelic ministry was completed in Christ. The end of the Temple avenged not only the blood of Christ but also the blood of Abel. The end of the Jewish identity necessarily ended the Gentile identity, as the submersion of the Land makes the demarcation of “sea” meaningless. All the kingdoms of the world, offered to Jesus at the hand of Satan, are now His at the hand of the Father.

Now that this division of offices is gone, the only Covenant identity which remains is the one common to all men, as it was common to both Cain and Abel, the obligation to repent and trust God. The New Covenant did not introduce a souped-up Abrahamic identity, a new division of fleshly offices. It fulfilled and exalted one which already existed: repentance and faith, something which was always available to both Jew and Gentile, who in the larger picture were under the same Covenant in Noah. This fact was the basis for the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (See A Change Of The Law).

Since the ministry of shedding blood is now fulfilled, there is no such “Covenant-within-a-Covenant” identity in existence. With the Old Covenant completed, there is no “Covenant identity” outside of the call to repent and believe. Since the world is no longer divided into the offices of Jew and Gentile, there is no need to signify separate obligations. Logically, baptism cannot confer a Covenant obligation, because we are all under the New Covenant obligation to repent and believe. Thus, baptism can neither make a “Covenant child,” nor confer salvation in any sense upon an infant.

A Global Covenant

Those who believe that baptism, whether of an infant, a child or an adult, puts that person “into Covenant with God” have not understood what makes the New Covenant new. Circumcision marked out a cultural “office,” the shedding of blood, an obligation which has now been fulfilled in Christ. Baptism marks out a personal response, the answer of a good conscience towards God, which has also now been fulfilled in Christ. But these are not the same. One is death, and one is resurrection. One is an objective execution, the other a subjective profession.

The idea that baptism puts somebody “into Covenant with God” in the way that circumcision put Abraham’s seed into Covenant with God, not only limits the scope of its obligation to the confines of the Church, it leads to the mistaken belief that evangelism is about unbelievers joining the Covenant with its obligations rather than responding to the Gospel because they are already condemned. Evangelism is not an extension of the New Covenant obligation across the world, as though the nations were joining some sort of renovated Old Covenant Israel. God forbid. Evangelism is for the purpose of a response to that obligation, a response which confers complete fulfillment of those obligations on one’s behalf by Christ.

So, how do we give our children a “New Covenant identity”? By teaching them of their “Adamic” obligation to Jesus, one which they possess simply by being born, and that this “death-note” was fulfilled by Christ. They are not born Christians, but neither are they born pagans, because the Gospel sees to it that the world is no longer divided in such a way. It challenges every identity by proclaiming the one common to all.

Using baptism to signify some kind of legal obligation between a child and God is an unwitting testimony that Christ has not come in the flesh, that the ministry of bloodshed is not complete, that the blood of Abel has not been avenged. It makes the Church a wall of flesh between God and the nations rather than a torn veil, a door open to the rebel in us all.

Paedobaptism gives to the world a false picture of both the work of Jesus and the prophetic office of each Christian, the profession of one’s faith. Paedobaptism puts the unbeliever outside the obligations of the New Covenant, which are repentance and faith. It basically tells the world to go and build a city, because God is concerned only with His “Covenant people,” and has not given all the kingdoms of the world to His Son. Thus, paedobaptism not only confers upon infants membership in a Covenant which no longer exists, and thus gives them a false identity by treating repentance and faith as though it were an inherited “office” like that of the Jew, it makes the Church a closed veil between the obligation of all people and the throne of Jesus, the Open Door who Himself is the New Covenant.

There is no “identity” which is outside of the New Covenant, and this is the basis for evangelism. Just as Circumcision made impossible a global corruption, so paedobaptism makes impossible a global Gospel.

NEXT POST: Raising Canaan

___________________________________________
[1] I believe that if Cain had not killed Abel, a third son would have been the Prophet, rather than Seth, a replacement priest. This incomplete architecture was fulfilled in the three sons of Noah. See The Last Sin.

[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”.

“Efficacious paedobaptism is maintained at the tragic cost of the efficacious work of the Spirit…”

Chapter 1 continued

See the Baptism links page for all articles in this series.

Dr Leithart says that the sign of baptism is not merely symbolic of a personal encounter with God, but is actually the personal encounter. I concluded, based on the process of maturity found throughout Scripture, that although his observation is correct as far as it goes, what he has observed goes even deeper. “The sign” is not merely the baptism, but actually includes the human being in personal relationship with God. The one being baptized is the sign, and the sign is ethical maturity.

The calls of Jonah

The sign of Jonah is “the sign of the dove,” the Spirit descending upon a now blameless son or daughter of God, someone in whom God is well-pleased, who is then authorized to witness to the nations. The original call of Jonah was despised because he knew (from Deuteronomy) that a witness to the Gentiles meant judgment and death for Israel. (This may be the reason why Peter is “the son of Jonah.” He betrayed his original calling and was given a new one after passing through the sea.)

The sign of Jonah is a combination of the birds and the fish of Day 5 in a single man. The anointed priesthood of Israel rebels and is swallowed by the nations, but the original “Day 1″ anointing was a gift “without repentance” (Romans 11:29), that is, it is irrevocable. Like the decrees of Ahasuerus, the original call could not be reversed, only superseded by a new call. Thus, even after Israel’s disobedience leading to corporate death, Israel always emerged in a new form with a new call. This is evident in the return of Israel from captivity, and also in the death of Aaronic Israel in the first century and its resurrection as the “Melchizedekian” (all nations) priesthood of the Christian church. The point is that the first call is not the same as the second call.

Neither Jonah nor Jesus
emerged from Hades
“as a little child.”

Each “Covenant call” is different because the entire history is a process of maturity. The call of Abraham is not the call of Christ. The first was a call which formed a “natural” people, a call to the Land and the womb to become fruitful, a reversal of the curses upon Adam and Eve. When the Land and womb finally brought forth Christ, it was time for a new call.

The Abrahamic Covenant concerned the Land and the womb, not the reversal of death, hence the sign of circumcision. The second is a call which formed a “supernatural” people, a call to the tomb, hence the sign of the dove, baptism. The Edenic curse upon Land and womb was immediate, yet the death of Adam was delayed through the shedding of animal blood. The reversal of death had to include “all men,” all nations. It was not about the fruit of the Land or the womb but the fruit of the tomb. Neither Jonah nor Jesus emerged from Hades “as a little child.” Like the saints in Matthew 27:51-53, they were raised to witness, and their raising meant the end of the circumcision (the tearing of the veil – Most Holy Place/Garden), the end of the old Land (the splitting of the rocks – the Holy Place/Land), and miraculous faith among the Gentiles (Gentile Courts/World).

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Resurrection alone is not the sign. The one resurrected is the sign. The verbal testimony of heaven has a response in a verbal testimony from the abyss—Word incarnate.

For the Federal Vision
to be a blessing to all nations
it must either reform its baptism
or roll over and die.

Adam’s ethical failure had social and physical consequences, womb and Land. Baptism is a witness to the new Adam’s ethical success, rendering the “Land and womb” sign, which concerned “carnal” things, obsolete. Paedobaptism is the wrong kind of sign because it represents an obsolete call, a carnal and territorial division rather than an ethical one.

In its reinstatement of the womb, paedobaptism quite naturally reinstates the Land (a “city of God” whose authority is centered on earth rather than in heaven) and circumvents the New Covenant’s intended blessing for all peoples and all lands. It builds the fortress of Cain upon the blood of Abel.

To be carnally-minded is death (Roman 6:8-10), which is why Hebrews tells us that even Abraham understood that the carnal promises to him were a temporary shadow (Hebrews 11:8-16). All the physical and social divisions, the manifold “cuttings” of the Old Covenant concerning Land and womb, would strip away the fruit of the flesh of Adam until the fruit of his heart was revealed. Paedobaptism is an offense to the work of Christ.

The death of the Land and the womb brought forth the fruit of righteousness. All nationality, all heredity, all history, is destroyed in baptism. (See An Atheist ‘Gets’ Baptism.) Thus, the only people or kingdom or succession which paedobaptism can ever define are condemned ones. (See The Eternal People.) This is the fundamental flaw in all of Leithart’s recent work concerning the kingdom of God (See A Jew Gets Baptism). Jesus has already inherited the fruit of all Lands and all wombs. For the Federal Vision to be a blessing to all nations it must either reform its baptism or roll over and die.

Dr Leithart’s work on baptism and kingdom is helpful because it takes a carnal baptism (bap-cision?) to its logical conclusions. He can point his paedobaptistic detractors to their own baptisms as the foundation for his doctrines, yet his detractors’ objections, based upon the New Testament, are sound.

Leithart’s Land-locked “sign of Jonah”
is a fish out of water, so he has
a lot of explaining to do.

Sacraments are Rituals

Leithart’s work on baptism is an attempt to make Abrahamic promises work in a post-Abrahamic world. His Land-locked “sign of Jonah” is a fish out of water, so he has a lot of explaining to do.

When it comes to signs, Leithart is attempting to navigate the landscape of the New Covenant as if it were still under the division and darkness of the Old Covenant. He takes pains to explain something which appears mysterious, yet it is a mystery to him only because he rejects New Covenant revelation. Unlike circumcision and the Law, baptism is not a “dark saying.” Its purpose is not to bring us to salvation in Christ but from salvation to resurrection. It identifies one who already has the mind of Christ and is thus a friend of God as Abraham was.

An efficacious ritual

Leithart makes some good points concerning rituals. A ritual is not merely a sign or symbol of a “change of status.” The rite itself, as a human act, is what affects the change in status. This is not because the rite has any inherent power but because of the relationship between those in authority and those under it. Israel’s sacrifices were efficacious because God recognized them.

An excellent example to illustrate this change of status is the ritual act of knighthood. When the one being knighted kneels, and the one doing the knighting places the sword on both shoulders, the acts are indistinguishable from the relationship. If the acts do not occur, neither does the change of status. The “ethical” is being expressed in the social and physical realms.

But the crucial thing Leithart overlooks is that Israel’s sacrifices were not recognized by God when they were not offered in faith. Without faith, the rites were not efficacious. The priesthood became useless and was destroyed, like the sons of Aaron and Eli. Leithart wants us to believe that “baptism is baptism.” But baptism is baptism as knighthood is knighthood.

In his The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism, Dr Leithart attempts to apply the “water boundary” of priesthood to the “blood boundary” of flesh, which is a mistake so fundamental, considering the erudite nature of the book, that it belies belief. Ministry “within the Laver” is the ministry of angels, heavenly servants, and is now the ministry of “heavenly sons,” the resurrected. Those who are regenerate are flesh that has somehow made it past the angels into the presence of God, through the virtue of their slain brother. The “corporate Eve” is now given Sanctuary access because the serpent has been crushed. But also because she is now a co-regent, a serpent-crusher, like Esther. There are no children in the Sanctuary because it is a place of government. It is for the shelterers, the trees of righteousness, not the sheltered. Excommunication is for those who have revealed that their governing spirit is not the Spirit of God because they will not govern themselves.

Despite his excellent observations on the reality of ritual acts, Dr Leithart has missed the point of Pentecost, and thus the overlooked the very heart of the New Covenant: self-government. An Adam governed by God is an Adam fit to govern. Baptism is knighthood, a willing submission to authority that one might carry that authority.

Leithart’s bap-cision
makes a new sociology
the cause rather than the effect.

A change of status

Leithart assumes that paedobaptism is Scriptural, and based on that wrong assumption, logically sees baptism as inherently sociological. This obviously seemed to be a solution to the sociological failures of baptistic culture, but the real solution to this is a standard of church discipline, of accountability, equivalent to the baptismal vow (as in knighthood). Baptism concerns not nature but “super” nature, that is, delegated office, ministry.

Leithart’s first problem here is that Christians are not Jews. He sees a difference between the Judaizers and those, like himself, who claim that the New Covenant Israel is fundamentally sociological, but there is no difference. Ethics, not sociology, is primary, not secondary, under the New Covenant. Leithart’s errant bap-cision makes sociology the cause rather than the effect. The Federal Vision’s baptism is not only not efficacious, it is no more effective in the creation of a new society than was circumcision. Paedobaptism turns baptism into just another “-ism” with Utopian pretensions, like socialism or communism or libertarianism. It is just another carnal division rather than a true work of God.

Leithart’s second problem is that it was not circumcision which changed the status of the infant circumcised, as Leithart assumes.

“Scripture shows the reality of status changing rites. A child circumcised on the eighth day becomes a child of the Covenant.”

This statement is incorrect. Leithart is reading his misunderstandings of baptism back into circumcision, and thus misunderstanding circumcision itself. The new child was already an Israelite. We know this because the female infants were counted as Israelites, and because even the newborn male Israelites were not circumcised in the wilderness, yet still counted as the seed of Abraham. For individuals, the Old Covenant led to faith. For individuals, the New Covenant begins with faith.

He then goes on to mention a number of ceremonial cleansing rites, and also marriage, as further evidence, but these were all carried out by, or upon, adults, so they don’t count. He fails to demonstrate that circumcision conferred entry into a sociological people for individuals. “I now pronounce you man and wife” brings about a change of status. “I now pronounce you an Israelite” was never used to turn an infant into a “child of the Covenant.” There was never any such thing. If this was the meaning of circumcision, then circumcision was redundant. And I have already argued that paedobaptism, as Leithart understands it, is redundant, because there are no more sociological divisions. One purpose of baptism is to wipe out such divisions, not construct a new one.

Leithart’s third problem is the sacrificial meaning of baptism, as revealed in the New Testament. If he really wants to align Old Covenant sacrifices with the rite of baptism, he needs to deal with the fact that his correspondence would be better informed by the way that the New Testament Scriptures themselves do it.

Accounts of baptism in the book of Acts align baptism not with the objective “delegation” of Covenant obligations but with the “vindication” of a subjective response to that initial Word. The Bible aligns baptism with the acceptance of the one who has believed God, trusted in the shedding of substitutionary blood, has been accounted as righteous, and is given authority as God’s representative to the nations.

The best example is Peter’s preaching at Pentecost, but my favorite is Acts 8. It also predicts the pattern found in the book of Revelation:

More on this passage (regarding baptism) here.

What Jesus is saying here
is that those Jews who would
hold onto their “corporate baptism”
through the Red Sea would
actually lose their lives.

The one and the many

So far there has been no response to this from my Federal Vision friends aside from the theological equivalent of Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo diagrams. One of these is the confusion of Israel’s corporate baptism with the New Covenant’s individual baptisms. This necessitates overlooking the unmistakeable differences between the Old Covenant people and the New Covenant people.

When dealing with types, we must ask “What is the same?” and “What is different?” Because they classify 1 Corinthians 10:2 as strong evidence for paedobaptism, paedobaptists haven’t considered the blatant differences. God has clearly moved from a Social Covenant people to an Ethical Covenant people. This was always the plan. The Jews who “came out” of the harlot, Herod’s Egypt, did so ethically, not geographically. Their souls were saved, not their lives. In fact, their lives were most often lost, as Jesus predicted.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” (Matthew 16:24-26)

What Jesus is saying here is that those Jews who would hold onto their “corporate baptism” through the Red Sea would actually lose their lives. The new “individual” baptism was not about flesh but about Spirit. The call to take up one’s cross is a call to individuals, for the purpose of uniting them in a new way. The new baptism is subjective, not objective, which is why only a few verses later, describing His return within one generation, Jesus states:

“For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:27-28)

Thus, to make New Covenant baptism a “corporate sign” by conflating an earthly people with the blessing of the Spirit (evading the ethical demands of the Father), is to make it a baptism of condemnation.

Every stage has physical, social and ethical components, certainly, but for the Firstfruits Church, Covenant membership was tied to a personal change of heart that put all existing social ties to death and bound them through a new one. The new binding is for those who have been cut already and are living sacrifices.

God, Time and Change

Nearing the end of chapter one, the book takes a strange turn as Leithart presents the accounts of God’s repenting as evidence for an acceptance for the apostasy of “Covenant people.” Since God responds to the acts of Man, then something which God said was “so” can become “not so.” Apostates come under judgment, and God changes His attitude towards them.

This all sounds fine, but once again, Leithart is attempting to establish in our minds that baptism is the beginning of obligation rather than the beginning of ministry. He uses the example of the construction of a table. I could use the example of a construction of a ship. Baptism is not the acceptance of the plans by the shipping company, but the breaking of a bottle of champagne over the bow, just before the ship starts its maiden voyage. The difference is obvious, yet those committed to paedobaptism are unable to see it, or unwilling to accept it.

Leithart ends this section by saying that an apostate who repents is now under God’s favor, rather than under curse. “That’s what conversion means.” The only real “conversion” here is one that has occurred in God’s mind. I’m sorry, but based upon the Covenant process, this is sorcery at worst and disturbingly woolly thinking at best.

If this is the case, we can take the rite intended for a repentant adult and use it on an infant, so that infant is now “converted,” which means he or she is now under God’s favor. If baptism can mean this, then why did the Spirit single out Jesus from among His circumcised “brothers” in the Jordan? It is because the “corporate” favor bestowed upon Israel-according-to-the-flesh was coming to an end. A repentant person is, however, evidence for the efficacy of baptism, but only for credobaptism.

The redundancy of a baptism based upon sociological ties is exposed when sprinkled children grow up and move away, and leave Christianity behind (as detailed in a post by Doug Wilson). They never made any personal vows, so how can they be held accountable? Since they are not Jews, who were still counted as Jews wherever they settled, the purpose of credobaptism is made plain. If we insist that the Church is foundationally sociological rather than ethical (with sociological outcomes), we are left with only sociological authority when children who never believed leave the Church. The call to repent comes through their parents because they never submitted to the Church. They were never Christians, despite the label being stuck on in infancy. They can only be disciplined as children of their parents, not as sons and daughters of God.

If one makes someone a Christian from birth through an “efficacious paedobaptism,” one has to explain how such a “Christian” can apostatize. Credobaptists have no problem with this: baptism is efficacious when mixed with credo, with faith, and not necessarily with paedo, offspring. If the credo turns out to be non-existent, so does the baptism.

Excommunication is an expression of the accountability of one who submitted to shepherding through a vow. (Note that Israel’s offspring in the wilderness were not slain or left in the wilderness because it was their parents who had taken the Covenant vow.)

Finally, efficacious paedobaptism is maintained at the tragic cost of the efficacious work of the Spirit. In his attempt to make baptism efficacious despite the response of the recipient (in an infant), or the lack of perseverance of the recipient (in an adult), Dr Leithart’s “efficacy of baptism” comes at the expense of the efficacy of the work of the Spirit. Note that I am not referring to conviction but to conversion. The change of heart in the recipient is the whole point of the New Covenant. Baptism means that the favor of the Father upon Jesus at His baptism is now also upon the one being baptized. The death of the High Priest has brought about a change in the Law. It is no longer external (conviction) but internal (conversion). The change of status comes because of a change of nature.

There is only one way to maintain both an efficacious baptism and an efficacious work of the Spirit, where “the Spirit remains” upon the baptized, and that is to link faith and baptism together in credobaptism.

“In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river,
was tree of life, which bore twelve fruits,
each tree yielding its fruit every month.
The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”
Revelation 22:2

NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN REMIXED AND INCLUDED IN GOD’S KITCHEN.

While the governments of the first global economy in history explore areas of policy for which there is no historical precedent, Christians need to understand that even now, there is nothing new under the sun. It may be true, as some believe, that every war (including World War I) can be traced back to disputes over resources. But all the economic advice we need, whether personal, national or global, is contained in the Bible. The Tree of Life is still at the centre of the Garden, but it is the Church, and God is working on a forest.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

______________________________________________________
[1] R. C. Sproul Jr., Biblical Economics, A Commonsense Guide to Our Daily Bread, pp. 29-37.
[2] See Building Cages Out of Freedom.
[3] This is the heart of Peter Leithart’s timely new book, Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom.
[4] See Church and State.
[5] Check out David Chilton’s Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. [PDF]

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

I remember an atheist quoting one of David’s Psalms to prove that God doesn’t answer prayer. It was a song of despair. Despite such selective quoting, how do we deal with Bible passages that end without hope?

Laura Southam comments:

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

You will remember that St. Paul is another Jonah and he takes the Gospel to the Gentiles. He forsakes the Jews and, in fact, at the end of Acts 28, he really casts them off and says judgment has come upon them to the uttermost. Of course, a few years later it does—in the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet Paul says, if it were possible, I wish that I could be damned for my brethren in Israel.

Paul had the same attitude as Jonah had, of wanting to see his own people saved. But unlike Jonah, Paul is willing to obey God… he sees that God has compassion on the Gentiles in and of themselves. Jonah, however, has to be persuaded of this. Jonah is so concerned about his own congregation back home that he doesn’t want to take the Gospel elsewhere for fear that it will have bad results in Israel.

James B. Jordan, The Book of Jonah lectures www.wordmp3.com

The prime mover in history is always God. God creates the world and tells men what to do, and men do it, and then God comes and judges them, and tells them to do something else. History moves when God speaks. That is the reason preaching is so important. When the word of God is sounded out into a culture, history begins to move. People can no longer remain neutral, or pretend to be neutral.

James B. Jordan, The Book of Jonah lectures www.wordmp3.com

I liked this observation in the notes:
“Jonah’s rescue from death provides an analogy for the resurrection of Christ… The repentance of the Ninevites anticipates the wide-scale repentance of Gentiles in the messianic era.”

But not this one: “Humor, as Jonah’s behavior is not only ignominious but also ridiculous.”

When the prophets (like Elijah, Elisha and Jonah) were sent to Gentiles, it was to provoke Israel to jealousy because they would not listen to these prophets. Jonah understood his ministry meant condemnation would come upon his own people:

James B. Jordan said,
“I don’t think Jonah was some loyal nationalistic prophet. Jonah was in there every day complaining, criticising, prophesying, and denouncing the kingdom of northern Israel. It won’t do to say that Jonah didn’t want to take the Gospel to another nation. No, Jonah has something more profound in mind. Jonah was thinking about Deuteronomy 32:21. He didn’t want to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, because to do so was to bring about a curse on the Israelites. ”1

Paul was a more faithful Jonah, understanding this curse but obeying it nonetheless (Romans 9:3; Acts 28:28)

The study Bible looks good though.

1  Lectures on Jonah, available from www.wordmp3.com

[Originally posted 21 August 08]