Actually, that’s just a bit of false modesty on my part!  I’ve been really delighted by the number of people who have visited my blog- more than I ever imagined when I started.  It’s a real encouragement to keep on blogging.  Dear reader, do write and tell me what you think of it (even if it’s rude- I can always delete it!).

Anyway, may all my readers have a great Christmas-time, and may we all know God’s richest blessings in the New Year.

‘Lo! Within a manger lies

He who built the starry skies.

He who, throned in light sublime,

Reigns amid the cherubim.’

  If the Lord should come during the year, may He find us ready and busily working for His Kingdom.  If He tarries, may we see the Holy Spirit come down in power on our poor benighted land. 

‘Restore us, O LORD God of hosts;  cause Your face to shine, and we shall be saved’  (Psalm 80:19).

From time to time one hears an argument for infant baptism based on two texts where the Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to allow young children to come to Him to be blessed.  The argument runs that we likewise should not forbid baptism to infants.

 The first text is Matthew 19:13-15. ‘Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them:  for such is the kingdom of heaven.”  And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.’

 
The second is Luke 18:15-17. ‘Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”’

Of course, the elephant in the paedobaptists’ bathroom is the simple fact that our Lord didn’t baptize these ‘infants.’  Had He been in the habit of baptizing infants, here would have been the perfect opportunity.  But instead He blessed them and let them go.  According to the Biblical record, He only baptized disciples (John 4:1 ).  Of course, it goes without saying that all Christian parents should be bringing their children before the Lord in prayer and asking Him to bless them.  These texts are an encouragement to us to believe that He will answer such prayers.

It may nevertheless be interesting to do a brief study on the Greek words that are translated ‘babes,’ ‘infants’ or ‘little children.’ There are six of them:

  Paidarion is a diminutive form of pais, a ‘child’ or ‘son.’  It isused only twice, in Matt 11:16 and John 6:9 .  It would probably best be translated, ‘Lad’ or ‘youngster.’

  Mikros, literally a ‘little one’ is used in Matt 18:6 and Mark 9:42.  We will touch upon these later.

Teknion, the diminutive of teknon, ‘a child,’ is actually only used in the NT of adult believers (John 13:3; Gal 4:19, and seven times in 1John).   Teknon itself is used by our Lord of His disciples in Mark 10:24.

Paidion, another diminutive of pais, is frequently used of very young children, particularly of the young Jesus in Matt 2. It is the word used in Luke 18:16, 17. However, the only time we are told of the age of a paidion, it is of Jairus’s daughter, who was 12 (Mark 5:40ff). Like teknion, it is also used of adult Christians (John 21:5; Heb 2:13, 14; 1John 2:13, 18 ).

Nepios means literally an infant without the full power of speech, but again it is almost entirely used to describe adult ‘babes in Christ’ (Matt 11:25; 21:16; Rom 2:20; 1Cor 3:1; Eph 4:14; Heb 5:13 ).

This finally takes us to Brephos, which is the word used for ‘infant’ in Luke 18:15. It certainly does mean ‘infant’ in Luke 1 and 2 , but in 2Tim 3:15. Paul writes, ‘And that from childhood (Gk. Brephos) you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.’ Timothy did not learn the Scriptures as a new-born baby, so here it obviously also means a ‘child.’ This is corroborated by Luke 18:15, where the Greek states that the disciples rebuked, not the parents, but the children themselves, unthinkable if they were babies in the arms of their mothers or fathers. Furthermore, Jesus called them, not their parents, to Him and said (v16 ), “Let the little children (Gk. teknion) come….” They are to come, not the parents, suggesting that these little ones were at least able to walk. Finally, Brephos is used of babes in Christ in 2Peter 2:2. ‘As newborn babes (Gk. Brephos), desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.’

So we can see that these ‘baby’ words are used as often as not to describe new-born Christians of any age. This may help us to understand what our Lord is saying in Luke 18:16-17. “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Those who are seeking Christ, whatever their age, are not to be kept away from Him. Their ignorance or their pagan or irreligious backgrounds are not to be used as an excuse to keep them from the Gospel. The kingdom of God will be filled with such people (Matt 8:11-12 ). This understanding will help us as we look at another text used by paedobaptists:-

‘At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. ”But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!  If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. ”Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost”’ (Matt 18:1-11).

 What is the Lord Jesus saying here?  He is saying that anyone wanting to enter the kingdom of heaven must be converted, born again, becoming a babe (Gk. Paidion) in Christ.  Moreover, a humble, child-like faith, that lays hold of Christ, setting aside all preconceptions, worldly wisdom and philosophical arguments, is the only faith that will bring one into the kingdom (cf. Matt 11:25).  Anyone who destroys the faith of such a child (‘little one’- Gk. Mikros) in Christ by false teaching or philosophy is in deep, deep trouble (v6ff).  Therefore the angels spoken of in verse 10 do not serve physical children and then abandon them at some supposed age of maturity.  No, no.   They are the servants of the born-again children of Christ (Heb 2:13b) of all ages.  ‘Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?’ (Heb 1:14; cf. Psalm 91:11-12).

The Covenants Part VI.  The Davidic Covenant.

Read 2Sam 7; 23:1-7; Psalm 89:1-37.

God’s covenant with David seems to be somewhat ignored these days.  It is the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants that receive more attention.  But in the New Testament, it is the Seed promised to David who is at the centre of the hopes of God’s people.

In Luke 1:32-3 and 68-70,we are told that the coming King is born into the line of David, though at this stage, the promises to Abraham are given equal prominence (1:55, 73; Matt 1:1).

In our Lord’s ministry, it seems that to acknowledge Him as Son of David is a key to receiving blessings.  The Pharisees who call Him, ‘Teacher’ receive short shrift, and even the Rich Young Ruler who kneels before Him and calls Him, ‘Good Teacher’ leaves Him ‘sorrowing.’  But those who persistently call upon the Name of Son of David receive an answer to their prayers.

The Canaanite woman (Matt 15:22).  “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David!”                                                                                                                                        Blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:47-8).  “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

The reason for this is found in 1John 5:1:  ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.’  The Son of David is revealed in Scripture as the ‘Christ’ or ‘Messiah’ (literally, ‘Anointed One’) and eventually as the true God (Jer 23:5-6)’  Only those who are born of the Spirit of God can recognize this (1Cor 12:3b).

At His triumphal entry to Jerusalem, Our Lord is acknowledged as the Son of David, and on the Day of Pentecost, Peter speaks not of the promises to Abraham, but of those to David (Acts 2:25-36).  Paul, in his preaching also, refers to the Son of David and to the ‘Messiah’(Acts 13:22-23; 17:3).  In the closing verses of the Bible, the Lord Jesus testifies of Himself;  “I am the Root and Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star” (Rev 22:16).

The Davidic covenant comes out of the failure of the Sinaitic covenant, though let it be said at once that the fault was not in the covenant itself but in the people who could not keep it (Acts 7:53; Rom 8:3; Heb 8:7-8).  The people were warned in Judges 2:7-12 that they had failed to keep their side of the covenant, and later chapters show just how far they could fall.  In the story of Micah and his mother in Judges 17-18, we see the atrocious state of ignorance and idolatry to which Israel had come and in 19:22 we observe that the very sins that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah were current among the Israelites.  The Book of Judges ends with a solemn word of condemnation:  ‘In those days there was no King in Israel;  everyone did what was right in his own eyes.’  Yahveh should have been their King, but the Israelites had failed to honour Him as such.  The nation was ripe for judgement.

1Samuel opens with the land still in this condition.  The High Priest, Eli, is an ineffectual fool and his sons viciously wicked.  When Eli sees Hannah praying in the Tabernacle, so unusual is this activity that he thinks she is drunk.  We learn from 1Sam 3:1 that, ‘The word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no widespread revelation.’   The result , of course, is the judgement of God and disastrous defeat for Israel  (1Sam 4:10-11).  Just as in our own times, it is God’s way to allow matters to reach a desperate state before He acts.  In the midst of the degradation of Israel, we find Hannah’s Song (2:1-10),and in its last verse we find the first occurrence in the Bible of the word, ‘Messiah’ (1).

At this time, God raised up Samuel, the last and greatest of the judges.  No one since Moses played a greater role, under God, to return Israel to the Lord.  We read of a great revival in 1Sam 7:2b-6 and renewed blessing from Yahveh (vs7-14).  Yet, by the end of Samuel’s rule, the Israelites were hankering after a king.  They were seeking the outward pomp of royalty rather than following the constitution that the Lord had ordained.  They wanted to be like the world (1Sam 8:5).  There is an interesting paradox here:  it was a sin for the Israelites to seek a king, but it was none the less part of God’s great plan.  In the same way, of course, the most evil act ever committed by men, the slaying of the Lord Jesus Christ, was actually ordained by the Father (Acts 2:36; 4:27-8).  True indeed is the saying, ‘Man proposes, but God disposes.’  Yet because of their sin, the first king that God provided for Israel was a disaster.  Saul, despite a hopeful beginning, proved himself to be self-willed, jealous and disobedient to God, causing Him to declare,  “I gave you a king in my anger, and took him away in My wrath” (Hosea 13:11).

Saul’s successor was David, the man after God’s own heart (1Sam 13:14; Acts 13:22).  David is an eminent type of Christ;  anointed by the servant of God (1Sam 16:13. cf. Matt 3:13), he nonetheless went through a long period of humiliation and knew what it was to be ‘despised and rejected of men.’  He was a fugitive from Saul for several years until he became king and ushered in to Israel a period of its greatest prosperity.

The first part of David’s reign was spent in defeating the Philistines and other enemies, but then his thoughts were directed to bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, his new capital (2Sam 6) and then to building a ‘house’ or temple for it.  ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells inside tent curtains’ (2Sam 7:2).  The prophet Nathan at first tells him to carry on, but then God gives him another message;  David will not build God a house, but God will build one for him (v11).  The word ‘covenant is not used here, but that a covenant was transacted here is made quite clear in Psalm 139:11.

As with the covenant with Abraham, there is a ‘letter’ significance and a ‘spirit’ significance to the Davidic covenant.  “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever’ (2Sam 7:12-13).  The first significance is for Solomon, but the second is for Christ.  The word  ‘forever’ occurs three times in verses 13 and 16.  Also, compare v14a with Heb 1:5.  The throne of David was not established forever.  It only lasted until the ascension of Rehoboam in its full form, and until the time of Nebuchadnezzar in any form.  David knew that the physical dynasty was dependent upon the faithfulness of his physical descendants (1Kings 2:4).  He also knew that the promises pertained to something far greater.  ‘Although my house is not so with God, yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant’ (2Sam 23:5).  He had no illusions about his progeny and knew that the rebellious ones would be thrust away (v6).  He knew that his royal house was as nothing before God, asking, “What is my house, that you have brought me this far?” (2Sam 7:8).  His hopes were rather set upon a ‘Great while to come’ (v19), which he later defines as ‘Forever,’  literally, ‘Days of ages’ or ‘eternity.’

‘For Your Word’s sake……..You have done all these great things’ (v21).  This is the great promise to David’s house.  ‘Word’ refers to the lord Jesus Christ as David knew (Acts 2:30).  It is Christ who will sit upon David’s throne forever.  Read John 19:19-22.  Christ is the King of all the descendants of Abraham.  Who are they?  Believers.  ‘For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh’ (Phil 3:3. cf. Rom 2:28-9; Gal 3:7).  Christ’s Kingly rule will last, not for a thousand years, but forever.  His reign is not future, but present (Psalm 2:6; 110:1-2).  David knew that this descendant of his would be far greater than he.  ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand…..”’ (cf. Matt 22:41-46).  He also knew that the Christ was High Priest as well as King (Psalm 110:4), a thing forbidden to the kings of Israel.  He also knew that this covenant meant redemption:  “For this is all my salvation and all my desire” (2Sam 23:5).

The prophets who came after David also knew that the Davidic covenant spoke of far more than merely the line of the kings of Judah.  ‘There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots’ (Isaiah 11:1).  Though the tree be cut down, yet a branch will grow from the stump.  In v10, we learn that the Branch is also the Root.  Christ was before David even though He is his descendant (cf. Micah 5:2).  Jeremiah goes on to reveal that the Branch is God Himself, ‘The LORD our righteousness’ (Jer 23:5-6. cf. 2Cor 5:21).  In Ezekiel 34, we learn that God Himself will shepherd His people (v11ff), but also that ‘My servant, David’ (v23) will be their shepherd.  Both these prophesies are fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd of John 10.  Amos speaks of the ‘Tabernacle of David’ being raised up to possess ‘All the Gentiles that are called by My name’ (Amos 9:11-12; Acts 15:16-17), so that Peter could declare, “Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days” (Acts 3:24).

Nothing in God’s covenant with David superseded the Sinaitic covenant.  The Mosaic law continued in force undisturbed.  The Davidic covenant is a covenant of promise, like those with Abraham and Noah.  It has no jurisdiction; no one is ‘under it’ in the way that the Israelites were under the law of Moses.  It is simply the promise of a King, of whom David was only a poor type:  a Ruler over all God’s Kingdom; a Shepherd who will seek out the weak and the lost to restore them; a Servant who will do all God’s will and fulfil all righteousness; a great High Priest to offer up the one acceptable sacrifice for sin to God and to intercede forever for His people.  To that tiny remnant of godly Israelites, who knew, as David did, that they could never satisfy God’s holiness by keeping the law (Psalm 32:1-2), to look with the eyes of faith at the covenant with David and its prophesy of the coming Messiah was salvation, the Lord saying, “Incline your ear and come to Me.  Hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you- even the sure mercies of David.” (Isaiah 55:3).

Note.

(1)  Hebrew Mashiach.  Often translated as ‘Anointed [one].’  Greek, ‘Christ.’

From a sermon first preached at Scott Drive Church, Exmouth.

Read Psalm 110.

People who are new Christians, or who are perhaps looking at the Christian faith for the first time, often ask questions like, “What is Jesus doing now?” and, “If Christ has triumphed over Satan, why is the world still in the state it is?” Or even, ”Why doesn’t God do something about all the wickedness in the world? Why doesn’t He just come and sort it out?” Questions like this are nothing new. The Apostle Peter spoke of “scoffers” who asked, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2Peter 3:4 ). The question that I want to address here is, what is the purpose of this present age? What is our Lord’s role in it, and how will it end? I shall try to answer it by referring to this very remarkable psalm.

V 1. ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’

Psalm 110 is much quoted in the New Testament. In the Gospels, we see that the Pharisees and Sadducees were trying to catch out the Lord Jesus with their questions, until He turned on them and asked, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ‘? If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word’ (Matt 22:42-46). It’s amazing, but to whom can David be referring unless God had given him a glimpse of heaven, a thousand years into the future, to see the coronation of the Lord Jesus Christ, David’s Lord and ours?

Psalm 110 is not the only Scripture that treats of this event. If we turn to Daniel 7:13 we can see the same happening from another perspective: ‘I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away.’ Now this perspective enables us to set a time for this event. The Son of Man is coming with the clouds, but not to earth; He is coming to heaven and into the presence of God. Remember what Acts 1:9 says about the ascension of our Lord: ‘Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.’ Daniel is telling of the other end of His ascension, His arrival in heaven. His great mission is accomplished, mankind redeemed, Satan defeated in that great victory on the cross (cf. Col 2:13-15 ). And now the conquering Hero is led into the presence of the Father who says to Him, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

What a change from the words spoken to Him on earth! There men had spat upon Him and mocked Him and cried out, “Crucify Him! Away with this Man! We have no king but Caesar!” How little did they know that all that they said was fulfilling God’s eternal plan, and their every wicked deed was according to His counsel and foreknowledge (Acts 4:27-28 ). And so the Lord Jesus comes to take His place at the right hand of the Father. “The head that once was crowned with thorns, is crowned with glory now.”

The Psalm may be divided, like Gaul, into three parts:-
The Coronation and Kingly Rule of Christ.
The Priestly Rule of Christ.
The Judicial Rule of Christ.

Let’s look at the coronation. “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” Here’s our timescale. How long has Christ been reigning? Since His ascension. How long will He reign? Until His enemies are under His feet. Obviously, this is something that has not yet happened. Heb 2:8-9 says, ‘For in that put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him. But now we do not yet see all things put under Him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour.’ So our Lord will continue to reign throughout this present age until everything is under His feet. The fact that He is ‘sitting’ does not indicate rest. When a court is ‘sitting’ or ‘in session,’ that’s when it is doing its work. When a king is seated on his throne, that’s when he is governing and making decrees.

Now what sort of rule is this? You may think that if Christ is reigning there’s not much sign of it in the world at present, but what does the Bible say about the last days? It talks of wars and rumours of wars, it talks of terrible times and of wicked men becoming worse and worse (Matt 24:6; 2Tim 3:1, 13 ). There is nothing happening in the world today that God’s word has not foretold. And Christ is reigning over all of it. He told His disciples, “In this world, you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33. cf. Rev 3:21 ). We are also told, ‘And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. (Rom 8:28 ). The setbacks, discouragements, trials- yes, and even the tragedies- that beset the Christian will ultimately be found to be for his good. The Lord uses them to lessen our attachment to this world and to cause us to long for heaven. Thus the Psalmist could say, ‘It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn Your statutes’ (Psalm 119:71).

v2. ‘The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies.’

The Lord Jesus Christ is ruling today in the midst of his enemies. All the wars and all the wickedness cannot prevent the Gospel from going forward into the world, with thousands of guilty sinners coming to Christ in China, in Africa, in South America. Christ’s rule is being extended despite all that Satan can do against it. Matt 16:8. ‘I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ This should fill us with hope! Do you have loved ones who don’t know the Lord and who seem to be on the downward path to destruction? By all means warn them, witness to them and plead with them; give them tracts and invite them to church; but the most important thing that you can do for them is that which you do upon your knees, praying to the One to whom all power in heaven and earth has been given, whose mighty sceptre extends from Zion. Does the case seem hopeless? Perhaps it is, for you, but for God it’s easy! I have often wondered how it would be if we could jump into a time machine, go back to first Century Palestine and ask the churches who was the person they thought was least likely to become a Christian- prior to Acts 9. I bet they would have voted Saul of Tarsus the man least likely to. There he was going round from house to house, dragging Christians off to prison (Acts 8:3 ); and when he thought he’d cleaned up Jerusalem, off he went to Damascus to do the same thing there. He couldn’t wait to get up that road to find some more of those blasphemous Christians to persecute, until the Lord said, “Enough!” And the light shone from heaven and he grovelled in the dust. Christ rules in the midst of His enemies and is kingdom is constantly expanding.

v3. Your people shall be volunteers in the day of Your power; in the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, you have the dew of Your youth.’

God’s power turns the most obstinate rebel into a willing soldier. The Lord Jesus’ volunteers are a holy, separated people who desire to be like their Master. The Psalmist pictures them ‘In the beauties of holiness,’ or as the NIV puts it, ‘Arrayed in holy majesty’ (cf. 1Peter 2:9 ). As at the dawning of the day, the dew gathers in countless droplets, so are the followers of Christ ‘a great multitude that no one could number’ (Rev 7:9 ), as numerous as the drops of dew at daybreak. In the tome of His humiliation here on earth, the Lord Jesus had no trappings of a king save a crown of thorns. Pilate asked Him, “Are you a king, then?” He couldn’t believe in a lowly servant King. But now, as Paul says, ‘Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow’ (Phil 2:9-10 ). Has your knee bowed to Jesus? It will! But if you leave it until He returns, until the Day of judgment, it will be too late to save you. Now is the Day of salvation; now is the time of God’s mercy. Be one of Jesus’ volunteer army, come to the foot of the cross to enlist, and the blood of Jesus will wash you clean of all your sins.

v4. ‘The LORD has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”’

We asked the question earlier; “If Jesus is ruling, why doesn’t He come down and sort this world out? Why does He tolerate things as they are?’ To a degree the question has already been answered. Now is the time of grace. When our Lord was on earth, He said, “I did not come to judge the world but to save it” (John 12:47 ). Today He offers salvation to all those who come to God through Him, for He is not only reigning as King, but also as ‘High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ In Israel, the king was never allowed to fulfil the office of priest and vice versa. We read in 1Samuel 13 that king Saul was waiting for Samuel to come and offer sacrifices for the army, and when Samuel was delayed, Saul offered them himself. Samuel then told him that because he had done this and taken on the priestly role, his kingdom would not endure. Also in 2Chronicles 26, we read of King Uzziah who tried to officiate as a priest and God struck him with leprosy. The only person in whom we see the offices of king and priest combined is this strange figure, Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20 ). The name, ‘Melchizedek’ means, ‘King of Righteousness’ and we are told that he was king of Salem, which means ‘King of peace’ so he is clearly a type or foreshadowing of Jesus. It is interesting to note that Melchizedek offered no sacrifice but instead brought bread and wine the emblems of Christ’s passion. We know nothing of Melchizedek’s birth, death or appointment as priest. The levitical priests in the Old Testament had times of appointment and of retirement prescribed for them; sometimes they died in office and they had access to the Holiest Place only once a year, and then only after offering sacrifices for their own sins as well as the people’s (Heb 9:7 ).

But we have a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek who is sinless and perfect, who has offered one sacrifice of Himself for all time, who has entered not a man-made temple but heaven itself and who has taken His seat at the right hand of God (Heb 10:12-14 ). His appointment is for all time and so, ‘Therefore He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him since He always lives to make intercession for them (Heb 8:25 ).

So Jesus is reigning in heaven as King and High Priest. He is also the last and greatest Prophet. ‘God…..has in these last days spoken to us by His Son’ (Heb 1:1-2 ). There are many people today who are happy to think of Jesus as their High Priest, as Saviour, but who don’t want Him as their Lord; who are happy to believe that Christ died for their sins, but who have no intention of turning away from those sins and of obeying Christ’s commands. The Lord Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” Do you know Him in His three-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King?

Can you say, “Lord Jesus, you are my Prophet. I receive Your word as very truth. I look to no other to tell me what heaven’s about, what hell’s about, what life’s about and how to live down here until I get to heaven”?

Can you say, “Lord Jesus, You are my High Priest. I look to no other to intercede for me before the throne of Grace. I look for no other sacrifice than that which You made of Yourself at Calvary. Having no righteousness of my own to plead before God, I place my trust in Your perfect righteousness and in Your all-sufficient atonement to cleanse me from my guilt and sin”?

Can you say, “Lord Jesus, You are my King. I seek above all to obey Your commands. I place nothing else before You- not home, nor health, nor family, nor wealth, nor even life itself, if only I can be found in You on that Last Day”?

For make no mistake, there is a Last Day coming, and those who do not know the Lord Jesus Christ in these ways will know Him as their Judge.

vs 5-6. ‘The LORD is at Your right hand; He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among the nations, He shall fill the places with dead bodies, He shall execute the heads of many countries.’

We come to the Judicial reign of Christ. There is a day coming when God will bring down the curtain upon this age and bring about the New Heaven and the New Earth. But that day will also be the day of retribution upon those who have scorned the Lord Jesus Christ during the time of grace. The kings and rulers of this world who have governed in their own wisdom and by their own standards will be struck down, and not only them, but the philosophers and scientists and media people and other ‘opinion-formers’ who have set themselves against the laws of God are surely included among them. The symbolism is warlike and bloodthirsty; it’s there to show that there will be no mercy for God’s enemies when the Lord Jesus Christ returns. The Day of Grace will be over; the Day of Judgement will have begun. If it came tomorrow, or even tonight, would you be ready? “Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Matt 24:42-44 ).

v 7. ‘He shall drink of the brook by the wayside; therefore He shall lift up His head.

Not one of God’s enemies shall escape. The psalmist is making an historical allusion. In 1Samuel 14, King Saul ordered that his army should take no refreshment until they had defeated the Philistines. Therefore many of his soldiers became faint and the enemy escaped. But in the imagery of the Psalm, Christ will drink from a wayside brook or spring to refresh Himself, and so He will be able to continue His assault until all His enemies are destroyed.

Here then are the three reigns of Christ: Royal, Priestly and Judicial. Is this how you know Him? As the King, who rules in the midst of His enemies? As the High Priest, who intercedes day and night for His chosen people? As the Judge, who treads the winepress of God’s fury (Isaiah 63:1-6; Rev 14:17-20, 19:15 )? Don’t have a lowly view of Christ. True theology is that which has the highest view of Him in all His offices.

 I recently bought a KJV Bible with the 1653 Scottish Metrical Psalms in it. I did this after I attended a conference at Emmanuel Church, Salisbury, where they only sing the 1653 Psalter.   My thought was that I would use the metrical paslms in my personal devotions, singing them quietly to myself.  I have to say though, that I don’t really like them.  The versification seems very wooden, and frankly, I’d sooner just read the Psalm as it is in my NKJV Bible.  I’ve been reading the biography of Isaac Watts who versified many of the Psalms, but had firm views on how they should be sung. What do you think of these two metrical versions of Psalm 122? First, the Psalm in the AV:-

I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD. 2 Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem.  Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together:  whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the LORD.  For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David.
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.  Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.  For my brethren and companions’ sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee.  Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.

Here is the 1653 Scottish Metrical version:-

I joy’d when to the house of God ,
Go up, they said to me.
Jerusalem, within thy gates
We soon shall standing be.

Jerus’lem, as a city is
Compactly built together.
Unto that place the tribes go up,
The tribes of God go thither.

To Israel’s testimony there
To God’s name thanks to pay.
For thrones of judgement, e’en the thrones
Of David’s house, there stay.

Pray that Jerusalem may have
Peace and felicity:
Let them that love thee and thy peace
Have still prosperity.

Therefore I wish that peace may still
Within thy walls remain.
And ever may thy palaces
Prosperity retain.

Now, for my friends’ and bethren’s sakes
Peace be in thee, I’ll say
And for the house of God our Lord,
I’ll seek thy good alway.

And here is Watts’ version:-

How pleased and blest was I
To hear the people cry,
‘Come, let us seek our God today!’
Yes, with a cheerful zeal,
We haste to Zion’s hill,
And there our vows and homage pay.

Zion, thrice happy place,
Adorned with wondrous grace,
And walls of strength embrace thee round:
In thee our tribes appear,
To pray and praise and hear
The sacred Gospel’s joyful sound.

There David’s greater Son
Has fixed His royal throne,
He sits for grace and judgement there:
He bids the saint be glad,
He makes the sinner sad,
And humble souls rejoice with fear.

May peace attend thy gate,
And joy within thee wait
To bless the soul of every guest:
The man who seeks thy peace,
And wishes thine increse,
A thousand blessings on him rest.

My tongue repeats her vows,
“Peace to this sacred house!”
For there my friends and kindred dwell.
And, since my glorious God
Makes thee His blest abode,
My soul shall ever love thee well.

Which one would you prefer to sing? Or don’t you like either? Which one is the most literal translation of the Psalm? Which one is better poetry? Do you approve of Watts mentioning the Gospel and Christ? And how about his making Jerusalem into the church?

The Sinaitic (Mosaic) Covenant.

Read Exodus 19:1-9; Gal 3:15-25; Heb 8:7-13.

This is the fifth in this series of articles on the covenants.  We have previously looked at the covenants of works and grace;  these were covenants made with a ‘Covenant Head,’ Adam and Christ respectively (1Cor 15:23).  We have also looked at three covenants of promise ( Eph 2:12); those with Adam, Noah and Abraham.  These were announcements of what God would do, particularly respecting to the promise of a Saviour.  There is one of these still to come- the covenant with David.

The Sinaitic covenant is the first of two covenants made with a people through a mediator.  It was made with the Israelites at Sinai through Moses, so it is not quite accurate to call it the Mosaic covenant because it was not made with Moses.  It is commonly referred to as the ‘Old Covenant,’ though in fact it is only called that once in the Bible, in 2Cor 3:14.  The writer to the Hebrews refers to it repeatedly as the First Covenant, which is most significant because it suggests that God views it as something different to those covenants that went before it.

The most prominent feature of the Sinaitic covenant is the law.  It is interesting to observe its conditional nature in contrast to the covenants of promise.

Gen 9:11(Noahic).  Thus I establish My covenant with you:  Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”

Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic).  “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

1Chron 17:11 (Davidic).  “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”

Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”

The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic.  Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.

Matt 1:21.  “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 1:32.  “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”

‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him,  Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20).  The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ.

The prominence of the Law in the Sinaitic Covenant causes some to suggest that it was a republication of the covenant of works; that there was a second way of righteousness available to Israel; that if only they could have kept the Mosaic law then they would have been justified by God.  This seems to me to be quite ridiculous.  If Adam, coming perfectly pure and righteous from the hand of God, could not keep God’s commands, what chance had the sinful, fallen Israelites?  None at all!  The very existence of the levitical sacrifices indicates that it was never supposed that the Israelites could live lives acceptable to God in their own individual strengths.

To understand the purposes of the Sinaitic covenant, we need to go back to the covenant with Abraham.  In that covenant there was the promise of a Seed (Gen 12:3b; 13:14-15; Gal 3:16).  But when we looked at the Abrahamic covenant we saw that there were promises to Abraham’s physical descendants (physical land, great nation, twelve princes- Gen 17:20) pictured by Ishmael.  But the covenant is to the children of promise (Gen 17:21; Gal 4:21-31. cf. 3:7) pictured by Isaac.  To them there are spiritual promises, obtained by grace through faith, through the true Seed, Christ (Rom 4:13-14; Gal 3:16; Heb 11:13-16).  But the Seed, Christ, was to be born, according to the flesh, of the physical seed of Abraham.  For this to happen, it was necessary that Abraham’s descendants should be preserved as a separate entity and kept from merging into the surrounding nations until Christ should come.  Therefore, when Abraham’s progeny began to multiply, God brought them into Egypt, but still kept them separate in the land of Goshen (Gen 46:34).

These people were then taken out of Egypt, and at Sinai they were bonded into a nation and separated from the surrounding tribes by circumcision and the Mosaic Law until the coming of Christ.  One was brought into Israel by physical birth and this was ratified by circumcision; faith was not a requirement.  By contrast, one is brought into the Church of God by a second birth, exemplified by faith (John 3:5; 1Cor 1:2; 1John 1:6; 1Peter 1:3) which is then ratified by baptism (eg. Acts 8:12; 18:8).  Problems arise when the old and new covenants are confused and Mosaic practices are imposed upon the churches of Christ.

The Sinaitic covenant did not replace or improve the covenant with Abraham.  It was added (Gal 3:17) until the coming of Christ and the New Covenant, when it became obsolete and passed away (Heb 8:13).  Those Israelites who had the faith of Abraham had it credited to them as righteousness as they looked forward by faith to the coming Seed (cf. John 8:56; Luke 2:25-6).  To those Israelites who lacked the faith of Abraham, the law had other purposes:-

Firstly, it restrained sin (Gal 3:19).  This is the purpose of all law, secular as well as Divine.  People are less disposed to commit murder, theft or traffic offenses if they know that they are likely to suffer a judicial penalty for their acts.

Secondly, it proclaimed the majesty and righteousness of God.  ‘For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us…..and what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgements as are in all this law that I set before you this day?’ (Deut 4:7f).

Thirdly, it was, and still is, a schoolmaster or tutor to lead sinners to Christ (Gal 3:24; Heb 10:1-4).  Not all sins were expiable under the law (Num 15:27-31; Acts 13:39).  A man like David, who had committed sins for which Moses’ law gave no way of atonement was locked up to the mercy of God ( Psalm 32:1-2; Psalm 51 esp. vs 16-17).  It also reveals sin to those who were unconscious of it.  Paul writes, “…..I would not have known sin except through the law.  For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Rom 7:7).  It provoked sinners under the old covenant to look to the coming Christ.  Consider Psalm 24:  ‘Who shall ascend into the hill of  the LORD?  Or who may stand in His holy place?  He who has pure hands and a clean heart, who has not lifted up His soul to an idol, nor sworn deceitfully.’  Who among us is going to say that his hands are perfectly clean, and his heart perfectly pure?  That there has never ever been a rival to God in his heart and that he has been perfectly truthful all his days?  There is only One who can truthfully claim that sort of perfect righteousness- the Lord Jesus Christ, our King, the Lord of glory (James 2:1).  ‘Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be lifted up you everlasting doors!  And the King of glory shall come in.’  As they offered the sacrifices required by law, the Israelites could look forward with the eyes of faith to the One who would conquer sin and death, establish a perfect righteousness,  and sit down at God’s right hand (cf. Jer 23:5-6).

The Old Testament law was centred around the Decalogue or Ten Commandments, which are a summary of God’s eternal moral law.  The Commandments were given before the Tabernacle was built.  The Ark of the covenant was built next and the stone tablets on which God Himself had written the Commandments was placed inside it within the Holiest Place.  The judicial and ceremonial laws were not given the same respect, showing that God desires moral righteousness more than ceremonial punctiliousness  (cf. Isaiah 1:11ff; Jer 7; Amos 5:21-24).  The Decalogue is eternal.  You can find each of the Ten Commandments in the Bible prior to their publication in Exodus 20.  Indeed, I suggest that they applied to Adam and Eve in the Garden.  Imagine that Adam had strangled Eve, or built an altar to worship the sun;  do you suppose that God would have said, “Oh, that’s alright, Adam!  Just so long as you don’t eat the apple”?  The Puritan, Thomas Watson (1) shows quite convincingly that in his one act of disobedience, Adam broke most, if not all, the Commandments.

The Commandments are written on the consciences of all men (Rom 2:14-15), though their imprint is smudged and defaced by the Fall.  They were written on stone tablets by the finger of God for the Israelites, and they are written again on the hearts of believers (Heb 8:10 etc.).  Thus the re-writing of the tablets after they were smashed by Moses in his distress at the golden calf incident (Exod 32:19; 34:4) wonderfully adumbrates their re-writing on the hearts of Christians after their defacement by the Fall.

The ceremonial and other laws were not without purpose in the mind of God.  They stressed the purity and holiness of God and served to keep the Israelites separate from the heathen nations.  The bloody sacrifices showed forth the coming atonement of Christ and pointed the Jews to their need of a righteousness outside of themselves.   The judicial part of the law, in which death was prescribed for adulterers, homosexuals, sorcerers and others are by no means binding on believers today.  They do, however, show forth the detestation of God for such practices, and those who practise such sins and do not repent will surely find themselves under His righteous wrath.  But we do not stone adulterers today; rather, we emulate the Lord Jesus and bid them, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11).

The Sinaitic covenant was made with a people, not with individuals.  Consider Exodus 6:6-8. Very few indeed of the people addressed there made it to the Promised land, but the nation did.   This national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals; nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry of any individuals so long as that was not sanctioned or tolerated by the governing authority.  It was a type of the covenant later made with true believers, but only ‘a shadow of the good things to come’ (Heb 10:1).  So when, as a nation, they had broken the covenant irretrievably (cf. Jer 5:1ff), God declared that He would make a ‘new covenant,’ putting His laws not only into the hands of its recipients, but also in their inward parts, writing it on their hearts rather than on stone tablets, forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more (Jer 31:31ff).

The Israelites then, had many advantages, outward privileges and encouragements to seek the Lord for true salvation, but like so many professing Christians today, most of them rested in their privileges and sought no more.  This outward covenant was made with a nation, entitling them to outward national blessings (cf. Deut 28:1-14) on condition of outward national obedience and warning of national calamities in the event of national disobedience;  whereas the new covenant is ratified personally with true believers and secures spiritual blessings (eg. 1Peter 1:1-5, 9) by producing a holiness of heart and evangelical obedience to the divine law.  Psalm 119 is written by a regenerate person.  It is only the one to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity who can say, “Oh! How I love Your law, etc.”  To others, the law stood at best as a schoolmaster, cane in hand, and at worst as a sword of Damocles, poised to deliver destruction.

Yahveh is often described as being the Lord and God of the Israelites, even where it is clear that most of them were quite devoid of internal purity, and many of them were thoroughly wicked.  How then could He be their Lord and God in distinction from the Gentiles?  Only on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant.  He had become their Lord by covenant and they were bound to own Him as such, unlike the Gentiles (cf. Acts 14:16).  As the covenant was a national one, a child born into a Jewish family entered into that covenant at birth regardless of the true faith of its parents, and automatically partook of its blessings, responsibilities and liabilities, receiving (if male) the national covenant sign, which indeed looked back to the faith of Abraham and forward to the true Seed who should be born of the line of Abraham but yet said nothing about the piety of the circumcised child or of his parents. 

But now, the national relationship between Yahveh and Israel having been long dissolved (Matt 21;43), the Jew has no prerogative above the Gentile and therefore no one has the right to call Yahveh their God if they do not yield willing obedience to Him and perform spiritual worship (Rom 2:28-9; Phil 3:3).  It is therefore a mixing of the covenants and a confusing of Mt. Sinai with Mt. Zion, to suppose that a child becomes a Christian in any sense by birth and is therefore entitled to the new covenant sign, baptism.

[Much of the last few paragraphs is an abridgement of the work of Abraham Booth]

‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD:  I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people.  None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb 8:10-11).   The people referred to here and no others, are God’s new covenant people, who are born, ‘Not of blood………but of God’ (John 1:13).  There is no membership of God’s kingdom based on an external covenant or a relative holiness.  The purpose of the Sinaitic covenant was to bring in the new covenant at the time appointed by God (cf. Gal 4:4-5).  That was completed with the coming of Christ and that first covenant has long since passed away (Heb 8:13).

Now may be the time to answer one question that seems to come up regularly from Presbyterians:   if the new covenant is ‘better’ than the old ( Heb 8:6), why is it that Baptists suggest that children in the new covenant are excluded from it? Well, First of all, it was not true even under the old covenant that anyone could presume that because he was savingly converted, his children would be so as well.  Great men of God such as Samuel and David knew the pain of seeing their children grow up obviously unregenerate.  A study of the royal genealogies reveals the same thing:  evil Ahaz begets righteous Hezekiah; righteous Hezekiah begets evil Manasseh; evil Manasseh begets evil  Amon; evil Amon begets righteous Josiah.  The same sort of non-pattern can be observed all the way through Kings and Chronicles.  Secondly, those asking this question need to get to grips with a number of statements by our Lord.

Matt 8:11-12.  “And I say to you that many will come from east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness.”

Luke 8:20-21.  ‘And it was told Him by some who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”  But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it,” 

Luke 12:51-53. “Do you suppose that I came to bring peace on earth?  I tell you, not at all, but rather division.  For from now on, five in one house will be divided:  three against two and two against three.  Father will be divided against son and son against father;  mother against daughter and daughter against mother;  mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Let us look at the Luke 12 passage.  What is meant by “From now on”?  From the time of our Lord, obviously.  It is the change from old to new covenant that brings about the change.  Previously, a family was united in being Jewish, even though there may have been no living faith in Yahveh.  They were united against threats from outside, be they religious, political or military.  Hophni and Phineas, the obviously godless sons of Eli the priest, nonetheless take the ark of the covenant into battle against the Philistines (1Sam 4:4). You might think this sounds a little like the religious scene in Britain today where an obviously unsaved Archbishop of Canterbury gets to crown the next King or Queen and pontificates on events both political and quasi-religious.  You might be right.  It’s what you get when you confuse the Old and New Covenants.

In the new covenant there are no ‘Christian’ countries;  God’s people are spread throughout the nations (cf. Isaiah 49:6 etc.).  Nor can it be assumed that there are Christian families.  No one is born Christian, at least, not the first time (Psalm 51:5; John 3:3).  And so Luke 12:51ff comes to pass.  Some children reject the Christianity of their parents; others are the first in their families for generations to come to faith.  In China, the children of atheist government officials become leaders of illegal house churches; in Britain, vicars’ offspring become openly atheistic.  In North Korea, children are induced to betray their Christian parents to the State.  This is the reality of John 1:13.  The children of God are born…..

‘Not of blood…..’  No one becomes a Christian by having Christian parents or grandparents.

‘Nor of the will of the flesh…..’  Our own fallen wills cannot make us Christians.

‘Nor of the will of [a] man…..’  The New Birth is not in the power of the preacher, nor in the incantations of the priest, nor in the ministrations of the social worker.  Nor does it come at the behest of a Christian father (‘Nor of a husband’s will’ N.I.V. translation) nor by the will or desire of godparents or anyone else.

‘But of God.’  Exactly so.

All this was true, of course, under the Sinaitic covenant, but under that dispensation the godless and the godly were in the covenant together (cf. Ezek 18).  In the new covenant, ‘All shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.’

(1) Thomas Watson,  The Ten Commandments (Banner of Truth Trust, 1970). 

One or two brothers have asked me why I have not yet covered God’s covenant with Noah, but have gone staight to the Abrahamic covenant instead.

The reason is that these articles on the covenants are taken from notes of talks that I gave two years ago, and I have mislaid the ones on the Noahic covenant.  Therefore I intend to write first on those covenants for which I do have notes and then come back to Noah, whom I shall have to write about from scratch unless I find the notes.

Almost everyone else seems to be talking about this subject, so I may as well have  a go.

The question is, can Baptists be Reformed?  The question was first asked by Dr Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/who-or-what-gets-to-define-reformed-re-posted/  Since then, just about everyone has had a go.  There is an exceedingly long thread on the Puritan Board.  http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/james-white-blog-concerning-statements-r-scott-clark-55938/  and a post from the RBS Seminary http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/11/may-baptists-use-the-adjective-reformed-the-ongoing-debate/  If one follows the links from these links, there are literally hours to be wasted reading the various opinions on this subject. 

The term Reformed Baptist is of very recent vintage.  I can find no earlier reference to it than Ernest Reisinger in the 1940s.  However, it is a term that I use of myself because it seems to me that it is a helpful shorthand to express my understanding of Scripture.  The term Baptist means no more than that I don’t approve of baptizing babies.  So far, so good; I don’t.  But there’s more to me theologically than that.  How then to modify Baptist?  One could try Evangelical, but that word has become so vague and meaningless that even Steve Chalke can use it of himself.  What about Calvinistic?  That’s better, but Calvinists can be Dispensational in their theology, so it doesn’t really help all that much.  How about Particular ?  That was the term that the original 17th Century Reformed Baptists (Spilsbury, Knollys, Kiffin etc.) used to ditinguish themselves from the General or Arminian Baptists, but the word has dropped out of usage these days and is liable to be misunderstood.  Its meaning is basicaly the same as Calvinistic.

When I call myself a Reformed Baptist, I find that most Christians understand what I mean, even if they disagree with me:  that I am a Confessional, Conservative*, Calvinistic, Covenantal, Credo-baptistic Christian.  Therefore I shall continue to use the term, and if Dr Scott Clark or anyone else disapproves, well, unless they can show me where the paedobaptists have patented the expression, in the nicest possible way…………..tough bananas!

*N.B. By ‘conservative,’ I mean, having respect to the Regulative Principle of Worship.

There do not seem to be many hymns that articulate covenant theology.  Here is one from John Kent  that speaks very clearly of the covenant of grace.

  Enjoy!

With David’s Lord and ours,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            A covenant was made,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Whose bonds are firm and sure,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Whose glories ne’er shall fade;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Signed by the eternal Three in One                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            In mutual love  e’re time begun.

 Firm as the lasting hills                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       This covenant shall endure,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Whose powerful shalls and wills                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Make every blessing sure:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               When ruin shakes all nature’s frame,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Its promises shall stand the same.

 Here the vast seas of grace,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Of love and mercy flow,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   More than the blood-bought race                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             On earth can grasp or know.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           O sacred deep without a shore,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Who shall thy wonders here explore?

 Here when our feet shall fall,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Its mercy we shall see:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Grace to restore the soul                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            And pardon, full and free.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               We, with delight, shall God behold                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            As sheep restored to Zion’s fold.

 And when through Jordan’s flood                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Our God shall bid us go,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 He shall our souls defend                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           And vanquish every foe;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             And in this covenant we shall view                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Sufficient strength to bear us through.

John Kent, 1766-1843.

Before moving on to consider the Mosaic (or Sinaitic) covenant, it seems that now might be a sensible time to consider what relationship there might be between the act of circumcision and that of water baptism.

It would be hard to imagine two operations more different than circumcision and baptism.  They don’t sound alike, they don’t look alike and they certainly don’t feel alike.  If someone were to be blindfolded and then had one or other ordinance performed on him, I guarantee that he would be able to tell which one it was!   One was applied only to males in the Bible (Gen 17:10), whereas the other is given to both sexes (cf. Acts 8:12).  One leaves a permanent mark upon the recipient; the other does not.

There are other important differences that need to be spelled out here with reference to infants:-

There is no command in the Bible for infants to receive water baptism.

There is no instance in the Bible of infants being baptized.

There is no reference in the Bible to infants being baptized (1).

Water baptism in the Bible is constantly tied in with repentance, faith and discipleship (eg Matt 3:6, 11; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36-37; 16:14-15, 31-34; 1Cor 1:16: compare with 16:15f; Eph 4:5); circumcision is referenced to no one’s faith but Abraham’s- and that to the faith he had while still uncircumcised (Rom 4:8-11).

“Me and my seed” of the Old Testament is replaced by Christ and His seed of the New  (Isaiah 53:10; Heb 2:13. cf. 1Cor 4:15).  This point was not lost on the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith:-

Larger Catechism of the W.C.F.  Q.31.  With whom was the covenant of grace made?  Ans.  The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

In view of all these facts, paedobaptists tend to make their chief case by claiming that baptism  succedes circumcision and that both signify entry into ‘the Covenant.’  For example, Ralph E. Bass (What about baptism?  Living Hope Press), writes, ‘ The purpose of both [circumcision and baptism] is to identify sharers in the Covenant, and to receive new members into the community of faith.’  Clearly, if it can be shown that baptism is the direct successor to circumcision and that they both signify the same thing, then that would be a powerful  argument for the paedobaptist position.

Now if baptism is indeed the successor to circumcision, we would expect to see this spelled out in Scripture for us, but we do not.  Indeed, there is only one place in the whole Bible where the two ordinances appear together, namely Colossians 2:11-12.  We shall look at these verses presently.  But why does it not come up elsewhere?  Why were the Jews in Acts 2:41 baptized?  If they already had the ‘sign of the covenant,’ why did they need another?  If they were already ‘sharers in the covenant’ and members in the ‘community of faith’ as Bass suggests, why did they need to be brought in again?  Moreover,  it seems to me remarkable that in all the difficulties that the early Church had with the Judaisers, this simple argument was never used.  Why did no one present it at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?  Why did no one explain that the Gentile Christians had received the ‘covenantal sign’ when they  were baptized and that therefore they didn’t need another?  Likewise in his letter to the Galatians, Paul could have explained the matter very simply: “These men telling you to be circumcised are simply doubling up the covenant signs; you already have the new circumcision in your baptism.”   There is a simple reason for Paul’s silence; circumcision and baptism signify very different things.

We have said earlier (2) that circumcision is never associated with anybody’s faith except Abraham’s.  The reader can trawl all the way through the Old Testament, but he will not find a single example.  The nearest approach is Exodus 12:43-49.  Here we are told that a foreigner wishing to partake of the Passover had to be circumcised along with all his male servants and household before he could do so.  Wishing to partake in a ritual meal is a very long way from expressing saving faith in Jehovah.  Moreover, Naaman the Syrian, who does appear to have been a genuine believer (2Kings 5:15), never sought circumcision, nor was it required of him.  King Nebuchadnezzar made what seems rather like a profession of faith (Dan 3:28f; 4:37), but there is no record of him having been circumcised.  Why not?  Because these two men did not live in Israel, and never desired to share in the Passover meal.

So we can see that physical circumcision never had anything directly to do with faith.  It was given to the physical descendants of Abraham and those who associated themselves with them, whether by becoming servants or taking the Passover.  To be sure, circumcision spoke of the faith of Abraham and of the Seed that should come from him.  As an indelible sign, it would carry on speaking to the one circumcised all his life. This, of course, is in contradistinction to baptism, which leaves no mark and so, unless faith is present, can be swiftly forgotten, or in the case of a child, not ever brought to mind.  But nothing is more clear than that the large majority of the Israelites were devoid of grace and faith.  We are told (Josh 5:5) that the Israelites who left Israel were all circumcised, yet all save two perished in the wilderness.  We are told that, ‘They could not enter in [to Canaan] because of unbelief’ (Heb 3:19).  It was their children, who were left uncircumcised by their parents, who reached the Promised Land.  ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love’ (Gal 5:6).

Ralph Bass, whom I quoted above, gives a number of ‘proof texts’ for his view. He puts together the following two texts:-

“This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male child among you shall be circumcised…. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:10, 14

“Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.” Acts 2:41

The reader will quickly spot the flaw in Mr Bass’ argument.  What is missing in the Gen 17 text is any reference to faith.  Also that text is talking about children (and only male children at that), the other about adults.  Moreover, we have seen (3) that circumcision was applied to those who were not in the covenant, therefore it cannot ‘identify sharers in the Covenant,’ or ‘receive new members into the community of faith’.

Let us now consider Jeremiah 31:31ff:-

‘”Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a Husband to them, “ says the LORD.  “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says the LORD: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.   No more shall every man teach his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least off them to the greatest of them,” says the LORD.  “For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”’  These verses are of course quoted by the writer to the Hebrews in Heb 8:7-12 and 10:16-17.

The first thing to note is that the new covenant is ‘not according to’ the former one.  It is no use for paedobaptists to declare that the covenants are all one; this text clearly declares that there are at least two and that there are differences between them.  We can list the differences.

1.   The old covenant was broken.  The clear implication of the text is that the new one will not be.  In accordance with this, we read several times in the O.T. of the covenant being broken and Israelites being referred to as covenant-breakers.  No one in the N.T. is ever accused of this (3).  To be sure there are those who appear to be Christians, but then fall away, but they are not called covenant-breakers; rather they were never in the covenant at all, but instead are those whom have ‘crept into [the churches] unnoticed’ (Jude 4) but are never truly part of them (cf. Matt 7:21-23; Acts 8:20-23; 1John 2:19).   Christ tells such people, “I never knew you!”  He doesn’t say, “I knew you once and had you in my covenant and then forgot about you.”

2. In the new covenant, the law is written on the hearts and minds of those who are in it.  Clearly there were those under the old covenant of whom this was true (eg. Ezra 7:10), but it is evident that for most of Israel’s history, the large majority of her people were devoid of grace (cf. eg. Isaiah 1; Jer 5).

3. No one in the new covenant needs to taught to know the Lord, for they all know him.  That does not mean that they may not need to know Him better or more clearly, but there is no one in the new covenant who does not know Him to some extent.   This is borne out by such texts as 1Cor 2-9.  Paul is writing to those who are ‘Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.’  If there is anyone in the Corinthian church of whom that is not true, Paul isn’t writing to him.  Again, in 1John 2:20, Christians are told, ‘But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.’  Whom is John addressing?  Christians; everyone to whom he is writing.

4. Those who are in the New Covenant have their sins forgiven.  It is clear that neither those whom paedobaptists describe as being ‘under’ the Abrahamic Covenant, nor those in the Sinaitic Covenant had such forgiveness (cf. Gen 38:7;  2Chron 7:19f).

The response from paedobaptists is to say that the promises of Jer 31:31 are not to be realised until the return of Christ.  This is, for example, the position of Richard Pratt Jnr (4).  It is true to say that the promises given in Jeremiah 31 point to what was then a future date, and there is nothing there to say when the fulfilment will be.  However, when we come to the quotations of the verses in Hebrews 8 and 10, it is clear that the fulfilment was actually present at the time of writing.

For example, Heb 8:6 tells us that the new covenant has already been established:  ‘…….Inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.’  The word which the NKJV translates as ‘was established’ is nenomothetetai.  The tense is  perfect passive, indicating a completed action;  ‘has been established’ might be the best rendering.  What in Jeremiah’s time were promises had, in the First Century, been enacted once for all.  Also in Heb 10:11-18, the fulfilment of the new covenant is present throughout.  For example, consider vs17-18.  ‘….Then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”  For where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.’  He does not say,  ‘when there will be remission’  for the offering for sin was given once and for all by our Saviour on the cross.  Forgiveness of sins is a present reality for those in the new covenant.  If therefore the old covenant is indeed, ‘not according to’ the new in so many ways, then it seems fair to say that circumcision, the sign of the old covenant is ‘not according to’ baptism, the ordinance of the new covenant.

We should now look at what the Westminster Confesssion has to say on this matter.  In Chapter XXX (‘Of Baptism’) we read that baptism is, ‘unto [Christians] a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.’  The proof text given is Romans 4:11 which, of course, does not speak of baptism, but of circumcision.  What is meant here by ‘seal’?  A seal is a guarantee of genuineness.  One may buy jars of pickles or condiments on which is written, ‘None genuine without this seal.’  The seal is an assurance to the buyer that the contents on the jar were produced by the company whose name is on it, and that they have not been tampered with.  In Britain, before a law can come into force it must receive the ‘Royal Assent’ which is given when the royal seal is placed upon the law.  This is the sign that it really is the law of the land (cf. Esther 3:12).

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that baptism is the seal of anything, and nowhere is it said that circumcision is the seal of anything to anyone save Abraham.  What Rom 4:11 says is that Abraham’s circumcision was the seal, not of his faith, but of the righteousness of his faith; that is, that his faith (which he had before he was circumcised) was indeed counted for righteousness (Gen 15:6).  It was not that to anyone else but Abraham.  How could circumcision be that seal to an eight day-old baby?  Nor is baptism a seal, either to an infant or an adult.  The Holy Spirit is the seal of the righteousness of our faith (Eph 1:13; 2Cor 1:22).  ‘The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God’ (Rom 8:16).

Now at last we can come to consider Col 2:11-12.  ‘In [Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.’

Does this text say that baptism is the successor to circumcision?  Not at all!  We can do no better here than to quote A. W. Pink (5).

It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision.  As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour, as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ, so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ:  “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” (Col 2:11)- how simple!  How satisfying!  “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him” (v12) is something additional:  it is only wresting Scripture to say these two verses mean “Being buried with him in baptism, ye are circumcised.”  No, no:  verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is “made without hands,” and baptism is administered by hands!  The circumcision “made without hands in putting off [judicially, before God] the body of the sins of the flesh” has taken the place of the circumcision made with hands.  The circumcision of Christ has come in the place of the circumcision of the law.  Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the new covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal:  see Ephesians 1:13; 4:30.’

Exactly so.  The main argument of Colossians is that believers are complete in Christ (2:10).  The O.T. contains several exhortations to the Israelites to circumcise their hearts (eg. Deut 10:16; Lev 26:41-2; Jer 4:4. cf. 9:25-6; Rom 2:28-9), but Christians are never urged to baptize themselves in the Spirit.  This is because circumcision was applied to infants who were ‘brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin’ (Psalm 51:5) and was therefore of no effect unless a changed heart came later.  Baptism, by contrast was given to those whose heart had already been changed, enabling them to repent and trust in Christ (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12; 16:14), so that they needed nothing more.

What then is the purpose of circumcision?  Why did God institute it?  Briefly, it is the sign for the physical descendants of Abraham.  It is the mark that God selected to distinguish them from all other peoples as the nation from which the Messiah should come.  It was, or should have been, a reminder to the Israelites that from their midst the Saviour should come.  Baptism by contrast is the sign for the ‘children of promise’ (Gal 4:28), the spiritual descendants of Abraham.  It speaks to the one baptized of his engrafting into Christ and his enrolment among the people of God.  It symbolizes his dying to sin with Christ and rising to new life.  

So one was brought into the old covenant by one’s first birth, and received the sign shortly thereafter. One is brought into the new covenant by the second birth, regeneration.  The sign should follow as soon as that birth becomes apparent.  Of course, mistakes are made and unregenerate people are baptized.  This is regrettable, but also inevitable; we are not infallible judges in this matter.  It happened in the time of the Apostles, and the words of Peter to Simon Magus apply.  “You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:8:21).  Simon was not a covenant breaker, he was never in the covenant and the same applies to unregenerate people who are baptized today.   Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, but not the seal which is the Holy Spirit.  ‘None genuine without this seal.’  Does this invalidate Believers’ Baptism?  Not in the slightest.   ‘But when they believed……… both men and women were baptized’ (Acts 8:12).  That is the Biblical example and that is what should be followed.

We conclude therefore, that circumcision and baptism are two separate ordinances symbolizing different things and that they should not be confused or conflated.

Notes.

(1)  Paedobaptists sometimes point to 1Corinthians 10:1-2 and claim that it proves that infants were baptized.  Well, that’s a bit of a stretch, but even if we allow it, it has no reference to Christian baptism since it is ‘into Moses.’

(2) In a prevous posting.  http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/the-covenants-iv-the-abrahamic-covenant/

(3)  We might think of Heb 10:28.  ‘Of how much worse punishment do you suppose will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace.’  Now the question here is, for whom did Christ die?  Did our Lord shed His blood for those who would count that very blood a common thing?  Of course not!  He laid down His life for the sheep, not the goats (John 10:11).  The ‘He’ in Heb 10:23 refers to Christ Himself, the ‘Son of God’ who is the nearest antecedent.  ‘And for their sakes I sanctify myself’ (John 17:19).

(4) Richard L. Pratt Jnr., “Infant Baptism in the New Covenant,”  The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (P & R Publishing, 2003).

(5) A. W. Pink, The Divine Covenants (Pietan Publications).