http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/circumcision-and-baptism/

Circumcision and Baptism

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 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 (2). 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) 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. ‘And for their sakes I sanctify myself’ (John 17:19).

(5) In a prevous posting. http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009...amic-covenant/

(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).

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/the-covenants-iv-the-abrahamic-covenant/

The Covenants. The Abrahamic Covenant

Read Gen 12:1-3; 17:1-14; Gal 3:1-18; 4:21-31

It is hard to know how to approach this article; there is a bewildering amount of information on Abraham to be found in both Old and New Testaments. Also, the Abrahamic Covenant is the most controversial of all the covenants, having been very much tied in with the question of baptism. In his booklet, What Christian Parents should Know about Infant Baptism, John P. Sartelle commenced by writing, ‘We begin our study with the Old Testament character, Abraham.’ Now it goes without saying that Abraham was not himself baptized, nor did he ever baptize anyone, but nonetheless, paedobaptists argue that since male infants were circumcised in ancient Israel, the infant children of Christians ought to be baptized. In my opinion it is a fundamental error to start looking at a New Testament ordinance in the Old Testament; we should start with Christ, the Author and Perfector of our faith (Heb 12:2). However, I hope to consider the question of the relation of circumcision to baptism in a separate article. Here we shall consider the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole.

The covenant with Abraham is revealed to us in four stages:-

1. Gen 12:1-3. The covenant Announced. The word ‘covenant’ is not mentioned here but Peter in Acts 3:23 makes it clear that God’s initial promises to Abram were part of the covenant. The three part of the covenant, Land, Nation, Seed are made clear.
2. Gen 15. The Covenant Transacted. The word ‘covenant’ is used in connection with Abraham for the first time, and a sacrifice is made. It is important to note that circumcision is not part of the covenant at this stage. The blessings promised to Abram are on the basis of his faith alone.
3. Gen 17. The Covenant Instituted. He receives a new name, and the sign of the covenant, circumcision,
4. Gen 23. The Covenant Confirmed. Abraham’s faith is proved by his actions (cf. Heb 11:17) and the promises repeated.

The Abrahamic Covenant, like the covenants with Adam (Gen 3:15) and Noah, is a ‘covenant of promise’ (Eph 2:12). The word promise is used quite frequently in the New Testament with reference to Abraham (Acts 7:5; Rom 4:12; 9:4-9; Gal 3:5-29; 4:28; Heb 6:13-20; 11:9, 13, 17). The promises are ‘in Christ’ (Gal 3:17 NKJV. cf. 2Cor 1:20) as well as ‘of Christ’ (Gal 3:16); that is, they refer to Christ and are for those who are His by faith. The ‘Seed of the woman,’ spoken of in Gen 3:15, is shown to be also the Seed of Abraham, but the blessing is to the whole world. The promises are entirely gracious. There was nothing in Abraham to make him worthy of being the recipient of these promises. He was not brought up in a household that worshipped Yahveh; ‘Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the river in old times: and they served other gods’ (Josh 24:2-3). It was not the piety of Abraham which commended him to God, but grace alone through God’s sovereign election. Nor could Abraham do anything to bring the promises about; he and Sarah might have been married for about fifty years before ever God spoke to him (cf. Gen 12:4), and they were doubtless already resigned to childlessness, but God was pleased to show him unmerited favour.

With whom was the Abrahamic Covenant made? Only with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These last two received the Abrahamic promises not through their relationship to Abraham, but directly from God (Gen 26:2-5; 28:12-15). The covenant is made with no one else. If I believe that God is going to make a great nation out of me, or make me a blessing to all nations, or give my descendants the Land of Canaan as a possession, I am more than likely to be deceiving myself. Nor could an Israelite appropriate the promises to himself; any of Abraham’s descendants other than Isaac and Jacob might be childless. But when we place our faith in the promised Seed, we may appropriate the promised blessing as we become a child of Abraham by faith (Gal 3:7) and inherit the heavenly country that Abraham sought and found (Heb 11:15-16). The covenant ‘with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ is repeatedly mentioned in Scripture (Exod 2:24; 32:13; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11; 2Kings 13:23; 1Chron 16:16ff; Psalm 105:9 etc.) but no one else is ever spoken of as being in the covenant with them.

We have said that the covenant promises to Abraham were of land, nation and seed. Each of these has both an earthly and a heavenly fulfilment. There is an earthly land of Canaan which the Israelites eventually came to inherit, but we are told in Romans 4:13 that the promise was for the whole world (cf. Matt 5:5; Rev 5:10), and in Heb 11:16 that Abraham looked forward to a heavenly city. These are fundamentally the same promise and refer to the new heavens and new earth and also to the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 21;1-3 which Abraham will inherit along with all believers at the end of time. Likewise, there was an earthly nation descended from Abraham who came to live in Canaan, but we learn from Gal 3:7 that believers of all nations are his true descendants and it is they who will inherit the heavenly promises.

This brings us nicely on to the two seeds of Abraham; for there are two seeds with two different promises. Firstly, there is a physical seed to whom are given physical promises- a great nation and a physical land for it to dwell in. These promises were received by Israel in full (Josh 21:43-45). This seed ‘after the flesh’ (Gal 4:29) is represented by Ishmael. It is most important to understand that Ishmael is not in the Covenant. ‘And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” Then God said, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him”’ (Gen 17:18-19). Nothing could be clearer than this; Ishmael is not in the covenant, although he receives the covenant sign (v26). Ishmael, though not an Israelite, is a type of Israel after the flesh. He receives the earthly promises (Gen 17:20) and the outward sign, but not the spiritual blessings (Gal 4:30; Acts 7:51-53). He persecutes the True Seed (Gen 21:9; John 8:37ff; Gal 4:29). His circumcision is of no avail to him since he lacks what circumcision symbolized; a humble, circumcised heart (Jer 9:25-26).

There is also a spiritual seed of Abraham; those who are in Christ, the True Seed, by faith. These are they who are looking for a heavenly country just as Abraham was. Just as Abraham did not receive an earthly inheritance (Acts 7:5 etc), so the true Israelite knew that Canaan was not his true home (Psalm 39:12; 119:19. cf. 1Peter 2:11). He put no confidence in his circumcision, but rather his circumcision spoke to him of the promised Seed of Abraham who should come (cf. Luke 2:25-32; Phil 3:3).

It may be asked then, are there two Abrahamic covenants, one to the physical descendants of Abraham and one to his spiritual seed? No, for as we have seen, Ishmael receives certain promises, and is given the sign of circumcision, but he is not in the covenant. But what then of Gen 17:10ff, which says, “This is My covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants (lit. ‘Seed’) after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you………and the uncircumcised male child who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant”? How could someone break the covenant if he’s not in it?

As so often in the Scriptures, we can use the New Testament to shed light upon the Old. First, we can look at circumcision: ‘And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also’ Rom 4:11). First we should note that circumcision was not a seal of anything to anybody but Abraham, and even to him it was simply a confirmation of the blessings that had been already promised to him. It was a divine pledge to him that from him should come that Seed through Whom all nations should be blessed. It was not a seal of his faith, but of the righteousness that should, in due time, be wrought by Christ in Whom he had believed (cf. John 8:56).

What then did circumcision signify to Abraham’s physical male progeny and to his male servants? Well, firstly it had nothing to do with faith. It was a requirement for service in Abraham’s household. If you wanted to work for Mr Abraham, you had the snip. Indeed, nowhere in the entire Bible will you find physical circumcision connected with anybody’s faith but Abraham’s. In itself it signified precisely nothing. From the descendants of Abraham, the Messiah would be born, but it did not follow that any particular descendant should be an ancestor of Christ. Circumcision was a sign, not to Abraham’s physical seed, but to those ‘Israelites indeed’ (John 1:47) who were looking forward to Christ by faith, that the promises of God should eventually be fulfilled.

Next we can look at the ‘promises:’ ‘Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ……..and if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:16, 29). In the light of this divinely-inspired commentary on Gen 17, it is perverse of the NKJV and other modern translations to speak of ‘descendants’ in Gen 17:10 and elsewhere, instead of ‘seed.’ The Authorised Version is more reliable at this point. The spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant never applied to those who were physical descendants of Abraham, but to those of all nations (including Israel, of course) who are in Christ by faith. Very solemn are the words of our Lord on this matter: “And I say to you that many will come from east and west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).

So we see that the Abrahamic Covenant is tied up with the coming of the promised son- the miracle child (Gen 15:2-6). Isaac is not Christ, but he is a type or foreshadowing of Christ: long promised, born miraculously, persecuted by his own kin (Ishmael), offered up by his father, who received him (figuratively- Heb 11:19) back from the dead. The children of God come from him (Rom 9:7; Heb 3:5b). It is worth reading Isaiah 54 prayerfully in the light of these points.

So are Christians in some way ‘under’ the Abrahamic Covenant? The reader may search the whole Bible through but he will find no indication that they are. Believers are the true children of Abraham, and we read in Gal 3:14 that, ‘…….. the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.’ There is no promise here for the children of believers, any more than there was for Abraham’s children by Hagar or Keturah (Rom 9:7 again!). ‘Know therefore that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham’ (Gal 3:7).

In the words of A.W.Pink: “The grand design of God’s covenant with Abraham was to make known that through him should come the One who would bring blessing to all the families of the earth.” But in order for this design to come to pass, it was necessary for a nation to arise for Christ to be born into, so that His earthly genealogy might be preserved. Pink continues, “Abraham is called a ‘father’ neither in a federal nor in a spiritual sense, but because he is the head of the faith clan, the prototype to which all believers are conformed. Christians are not under the Abrahamic covenant, though they are ‘blessed with him’ by having their faith counted unto righteousness. Though New Testament believers are not under the Abrahamic covenant, they are, because of their union with Christ, heirs of its spiritual inheritance.”

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/the-covenants-part-ii-the-covenant-of-grace/

The Covenants: Part Two

Read: Eph 1:3-14.

In the last article, we saw the desperate state of mankind after the Fall of Adam. He was our Representative or Covenant Head, and when he fell into sin we fell with him, both positionally and actually. On the one hand, since we were federally joined to him, his sin is imputed to us; we are constituted sinners in Adam (Rom 5:19 ). On the other hand, we have actually inherited Adam’s fallen nature and we are sinners, as it were, in our own right. ‘And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth’ (Gen 5:3 ). The image of God in which Adam was created is ruined and defaced in fallen man. Instead we carry the image and the nature of the one who fell.

There is no way back to Eden for man by his own power. There was no arrangement to deal with sin under the Covenant of Works. Its precept was “Do this and live.” In Adam, we failed, and we die. Man has lost the original righteousness that Adam possessed. We owe a debt for Adam’s sin that we can by no means pay, and we are under God’s wrath for our own sin.

Yet long before Adam was created, God had foreseen his fall and had prepared against it, so that Paul can speak of the, ‘Hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began but has in due time manifested’ (Titus 1:2 ). The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and His death upon the cross were not therefore mere afterthoughts or God’s reaction to an unexpected crisis, but in fact His plan from eternity past.

Before we start, it needs to be acknowledged that the term, Covenant of Grace does not appear in the Bible. Therefore one sees various other terms being used by theologians to describe that arrangement which was made between Father, Son and Spirit to save mankind. Many Reformed Theologians refer to it as the Council of Redemption and only speak of the Covenant of Grace as the announcement made to Adam and Eve in Gen 3:15. A. W. Pink speaks of the Eternal Covenant, which has the merit of being biblical (Heb 13:20 etc). Others call it the Covenant of Peace (Isaiah 54:10 ). I have tried to follow the Westminster Confession and the Baptist 1689 Confession which use Covenant of Grace throughout. The name we give is not important, so long as we understand that there was such an arrangement made between the Persons of the Trinity in eternity past and that the whole history of redemption as we read it in the Bible is nothing else than an outworking of that great covenant.

It may be helpful here to quote from the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Confession.

Q.30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?

Ans. God doth not leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the……. covenant of works; but of His mere love and mercy delivereth His elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.

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.

Let us turn to Eph 1. In verses 3-14, we see the parts played by each Person of the Trinity in the salvation of mankind. The text is divided into three parts by the phrase, ‘To the praise of His glory.’ There is glory here for Father, Son and Spirit. First, the Father’s part in salvation is displayed. Verses 3-7. ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved [Son].’

In the Covenant of Grace, the Father and the Son have covenanted together. The Father’s part is to choose or elect a people that He has willed to save out of the wreck of Adam’s fall. He has predestined them to be adopted as sons and to receive every spiritual and heavenly blessing. This He has done not for any virtue that He has seen in Man, but solely according to His good pleasure has He lavished grace, or unmerited favour, upon us. But notice that all these blessings do not come to us by themselves; everything comes through and ‘in’ Christ. God chose a people ‘in Christ.’ That is, He gave the Lord Jesus a chosen people out of Adam’s fallen posterity, that He should be to them a Covenant or Representative Head, just as Adam was. ‘The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven’ (1Cor 15:47 ).

The part of the Lord Jesus Christ is to succeed where Adam failed, on behalf of those whom the Father has placed in His care. Like Adam, the Lord Jesus was made a ‘Public Person.’ When He was on earth, He acted, not only for Himself, but also for those whom God had given Him. Therefore, just as Adam’s sin was imputed to his physical posterity, so our Lord’s perfect righteousness is imputed to His spiritual children whom the Father has given Him (cf. Heb 2:13). ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous’ (Rom 5:19). So it was that no sooner had He been commissioned for His public ministry than He must face Satan in single combat (Mark 1:9-13 ), and all the advantages appeared to be with the devil. Adam and Eve faced Satan in a beautiful garden filled with delightful things to eat (Gen 2:16 ); Christ faced him weakened by hunger in a howling wilderness. Yet our Lord was faithful to His part in the covenant. ‘For I have come down from heaven not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me’ (John 6:38). And He did it, perfectly and completely, not just in life but also in death (Phil 2:8). For as the ‘Last Adam,’ Christ needed not only to live the life that we cannot live, but also to die the death that we deserve to die; in short, to pay the penalty that Adam’s sin and our own sins deserve. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2Cor 5:21). This is what Luther termed ‘The Great Exchange.’ He receives our punishment and takes away our guilt; we receive His righteousness and partake of His inheritance. ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil’ (1John 3:8). The devil’s work was the corruption of Adam and Eve and the condemnation of them and their posterity. Christ has destroyed his work by redeeming a vast crowd of that posterity. ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 8:1).

‘In Him [Christ] we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth–in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1:7-12).

The Holy Spirit also played a vital part in that great covenant, bringing the elect to faith and sealing them- being as it were, the certificate of authenticity that believers do indeed belong to Christ: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory’ (Eph 1:13-14). It is worth noting briefly here that baptism is not the seal of the covenant as the Westminster Confession claims (WCF. XXX. I); the Holy Spirit is, and always has been (cf. also Eph 4:30 & 2Cor 1:22 ).

All this was determined, before ever there was a world, in the Covenant of Grace. That is why Paul can say of the Thessalonians, ‘But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth’ (2Thes 2:13 ). The whole of the Bible may be seen as the outworking of this great covenant and the accomplishment of God’s gracious plan for our salvation.

References to the Covenant of Grace can be found in various parts of the Bible if one is prepared to look for them as the following examples will show:-

Luke 22:22. “And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined……” Determined where and by whom if not in the Covenant of Grace?

John 6:38-39. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Christ has been given a people and the task by the Father which He is determined to fulfil. What can this refer to if not the Covenant of Grace?

John 10:16. “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Not, “I will bring,” but, “I must bring.” Our Lord had been given a commission to fulfil.

John 10:17-18. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Where did Christ receive this command, the doing of which merited so well the Father’s love? In the Covenant of Grace, of course.

Phil 2:6-8 (author’s translation). ‘Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.’ In the Covenant of Grace, our Lord gave up temporarily that equality with the Father that had existed from all eternity, and became the willing servant of Exodus 21:5-6 and Psalm 40:6-8 in order to rescue those who had been given to Him (John 17:2, 6 ).

Heb 2:13. ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given to Me.’ Given by the Father to the Son in the Covenant of Grace to be redeemed from sin and brought to heaven.

In Isaiah 42:6, Christ is described as the Covenant itself. He is, in His own Person and work, the very substance of it. In Mal 3:1, He is, ‘The Messenger of the Covenant’ because He came to proclaim it and make it known. In Heb 7:22, He is, ‘The Surety of a better covenant.’ Christ came as the representative of fallen Man, being engaged to fulfil the obligations incurred under the Covenant of Works. In Heb 9:15, He is, ‘The Mediator of the New Covenant’ since He has brought about legal satisfaction between God and man so that covenantal blessings are now imparted to those who had previously forfeited them, and He now stands between the two parties, advocating the cause of man to God (1John 2:1 ) and speaking a word of the comfort of God to the weary man (Isaiah 50:4 ). I am indebted to A. W. Pink for much of the forgoing; let us now hear from him direct. ‘But how could Christ sustain such offices a these unless the covenant had been made with him (Gal 3:17 ) and the execution of it had been undertaken by Him (Heb 10:5-7 )? [Heb 13:20] is quite sufficient to establish the fact that an organic connection existed between the Covenant of Grace and the sacrifice of Christ. In response to Christ’s execution of its terms, the Father now says to Him, “By the blood of Thy covenant I have set forth Thy prisoners [those given to Him before the foundation of the world, but in Adam fallen under condemnation] out of the pit wherein is no water” (Zech 9:11 ).’

In the light of all this, various other covenants may now be seen as subsidiary to the Covenant of Grace. These are the Covenants of Promise (Eph 2:12; Rom 9:4 ). Let us hear from Pink again:-

‘God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy Maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would ensure that the earth should never be destroyed again by a flood? These subordinate covenants were nothing more or less than the Lord’s making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant Head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed.
‘This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: “Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your seed after you” (Gen 9:9 ). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the “conditions” were to be fulfilled and the “work” was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people. So when David says, “He hath made with me an everlasting covenant” (2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God had made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not “covenants of stipulations” but “covenants of promise”‘

As we consider these things, we may see that the very first ‘Covenant of Promise’ was made, not with Noah, but with Adam, immediately after his disastrous fall from grace. The words are spoken to the serpent, Satan, but the application is to us through the merits of Christ. ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.’ There was nothing that Adam could do to bring this about. It is the work of Christ (1John 3:8 ), the true Seed of the woman (Gal 4:4 ) that comes to us through our union with Him (Rom 16:20 ). As a sign of this covenant, God graciously provide a covering for the guilty couple (Gen 3:21 ) and for this an innocent creature had to die, foreshadowing the one great sacrifice of the Lamb of God who provides for us the true covering or atonement for sin (cf. Isaiah 61:10; Rev 7:14 ).

So it was that Abel, having learned from his parents of their great sin and fall, seeing himself lost and mired in sin, took that promise to his parents and made it his own by faith. He looked down the millennia by that same faith and saw the Seed that should come taking his sin upon His sinless shoulders on the cross, and, filled with love for the God that loved him so much, he took the finest lamb of his flock and sacrificed it to Him who would not withhold His beloved Son to save him. It was not the sacrifice that wrought salvation for Abel; it was his faith that united him to Christ in His death and resurrection. And so it is for us, that if we will look to Christ in repentance and faith, we too will be clothed in His righteousness and know the forgiveness of our sins. Abel and the Old Testament saints knew only the promise of Christ as they looked forward to His coming; we know the historical fact as we look backwards to the cross; yet the outcome is the same. “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The one Covenant of Grace, expressed in the will of the Father and the obedience of the Son, has brought about salvation for all of God’s elect, from Adam and Eve themselves, to the very last sinner to be saved before Christ comes again.

‘In Him the tribes of Adam boast,

More blessings than their father lost.’

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-covenants-part-1-the-covenant-of-works/

An aquaintence of mine in the UK has posted a few things I am going to post on my blog for the benefit of others. 

The Covenants: Part 1

The Covenant of Works

Read: Gen 2:4-9; 15-17, 25; Gen 3:6-24.

Rom 5:6-12; 18-21; 1Cor 15:21-22.

Covenant Theology seems to be regarded today as something akin to Rubik’s Cube or brain surgery- immensely difficult, complicated or abstruse. I don’t believe that this is so, although it is often made out to be. Covenant Theology is a way of showing forth the unity of the Bible, of seeing God’s almighty power and Divine will moving purposefully through the millennia. It is also a counter to the dispensationalism that pervades so many of the evangelical churches today, that divides the will of God into seven dispensations, each ending in failure, and that divides the people of God into Israel and the Church, forgetting that the wall of separation is broken down in Christ (Eph 2:14 ).

Covenant Theology (hereafter C.T.) is often thought of as a paedobaptist, Presbyterian theology and it is true that many of the great Covenant theologians were paedobaptists, like Herman Witsius, who wrote a monumental book on the subject, The Economy of the Covenants of God. However, the first Particular Baptists were all covenantalists, and the very first of their books, A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme by John Spilsbury was covenantal. The covenants are mentioned in the Baptist Confession of 1689, so if we want to get back to our Particular Baptist roots, we ought to get to grips with C.T. If we want to understand the Bible as a whole, we need C.T. If we want to give our churches a bulwark against charismaticism and liberalism, we need C.T.

Baptist C.T. differs somewhat from its Presbyterian counterpart. When we get to the covenant with Abraham and the issue of circumcision, we shall need to study these differences. Three books which Baptistic students of C.T. will find helpful without being overly long are:-

The Divine Covenants by A.W.Pink

Covenant theology from Adam to Christ by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen

A Reformed Baptist Manifesto by Samuel Waldron & Richard Barcellos

What is a covenant? The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament is Bara, which comes from a root word meaning ‘bonds’ or ‘yokes.’ The idea is of two parties binding themselves to perform some mutually agreed action. The Greek word is diatheke, which means a ‘disposition’ or ‘arrangement.’ The puritan John Owen defined a covenant as, ‘A voluntary convention, pact, agreement between distinct persons about the ordering and dispensing of things in their power, to their mutual concern or advantage.’ A simpler definition might be, ‘A mutual agreement, a benefit being assured on the fulfilment of certain conditions.’

There is an example of a covenant in 1Sam 20:11-17. Jonathan promises to help David escape from Saul, and David promises to show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants (cf. 2Sam 9:1 ). There is an oath and the name of the Lord is invoked (vs 12, 16-17 ). This is an example of a covenant between equals. Sometimes we see covenants between parties where one side is clearly superior to the other. These are called by theologians Suzerainty Covenants.. In such cases, the terms of the covenant are dictated by the stronger side (eg. 1Kings 20:34 ), and the benefits are therefore likely to accrue to the stronger at the expense of the weaker. It goes without saying that God is always the Superior and He dictates the terms of the covenants into which He enters. However, God’s unmerited love towards sinners means that His covenantal plans bring blessings to those who are without power or strength (Rom 5:8 ).

I propose to discuss the covenants under the following structure:-

Two covenants transacted between God and a Covenant or Representative head. These are the so-called Covenant of Works made with Adam, and the Covenant of Grace made with Christ.

Four covenants of Promise (cf. Eph 2:12 ). These are the covenants with Adam (Gen 3:15-21 ), with Noah, with Abraham and with David. These are covenants with individuals, purely gracious, and having reference to a coming ‘Seed.’

Two covenants made between God and a people: the Old (or ‘First’ or ‘Mosaic’) Covenant and the New Covenant. One is made with reference to the law, the other with reference to faith. The New Covenant is discovered to be nothing else but the Covenant of Grace revealed and realized and the consummation of all the covenants (Col 1:26; Heb 13:20. cf. Exod 2:24; Psalm 111:5; Ezek 16:60-61; Luke 1:72 ).

The first covenant to be discussed is the Covenant of Works. This is the covenant made between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned. Now straightaway, we must face the fact that such a covenant is not directly named in the Bible. The nearest we get to it is in Hosea 6:7. “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously with Me” (NKJV margin). The problem here is that ‘Adam’ is a transliteration for the Hebrew word meaning ‘Man.’ Either rendering might be correct. However, if we look at God’s words to Adam in Gen 2:16-17, I believe that we shall see all the attributes of a covenant as laid out above. As Reformed Baptists, we require a greater level of Biblical evidence than our Presbyterian brethren. Our doctrines must be either stated explicitly or ‘necessarily contained’ (1689 Baptist Confession ) in the Bible. This I take to mean that all doctrine must be found within the pages of the Bible; if not in the form of a straightforward command, at least contained within the Bible as an example or precept.

‘Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die “’(Gen 2:15-17 ). The covenant comes in the form of a provision, a command and a warning, but a gracious promise is implied- eternal life; ‘if you don’t the forbidden fruit, you shall live.’ Adam was put into the position of a tenant moving into a house. The landlord might tell him, “You can live here rent-free in return for doing the garden; you can eat all the stuff that grows in the garden, but don’t touch the vintage claret in the cellar or you’re out!”

This arrangement has all the attributes of a covenant. The greater party (God) gives to the lesser party (Adam) a perfect environment, ample provisions and eternal life. The lesser party agrees to oversee and to care for the environment, and to obey the rules laid down for him. A breach of these rules is a breach of the covenant and must lead to the forfeiture of its benefits. The covenant might be better termed the ‘Covenant of Obedience’ since it was obedience rather than works which were required, but it has been called the Covenant of Works to distinguish it from the Covenant of Grace which we shall look at in a future article.

It might be supposed that Adam had no other law to obey save the single one of not eating from the forbidden tree, but that would be a simplistic view. Adam was under the Moral Law of God, the Ten Commandments, as a moment’s thought will confirm. Suppose Adam built an idol in the garden to worship, or suppose he strangled Eve! Would God have said, “Of that’s alright, Adam, just as long as you don’t eat the fruit!” The very thought is absurd. It is true that Adam could not have coveted his neighbour’s ox or his ass since he had no neighbours, but he certainly coveted that which God had denied to him and stole it to his own inestimable loss and that of his posterity. ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ).

There is no doubt but that the Covenant of Works was a gracious covenant. God was under no obligation to do anything for Adam, yet He gave him a wife, placed him in a beautiful garden with only light tasks to perform (there were no weeds before the Fall- Gen 3:17-18 ) and gave him dominion over all the rest of creation. However, there is no mention of mercy in the covenant. Adam is warned, “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” To put it another way, “Do this and live.” Adam’s privileges were dependant on his obedience. Yet he was well able to perform this obedience. God had made him entirely righteous; otherwise He could not have pronounced the whole of creation ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31 ).

Yet Adam was not in the most gracious state possible. Though he had been created sinless, he was still able to sin; he stood or fell by his own actions. This has led many theologians to postulate that Adam was on probation; had he not sinned, they say, God would have promoted him to a still more gracious position in which he would have been unable to sin. We read in Gen 2:9b of the ‘Tree of Life.’ It is suggested that at the end of their probation, Adam and Eve would have been permitted to eat from this tree and their eternal lives would have been assured. Certainly, after their fall, the way to the tree of life was lost to mankind (Gen 3:24 ) and is not heard of again until Rev 2:7 and 22:2 where it is seen as the reward for those who persevere, the very thing that Adam and Eve failed to do. This idea is quite attractive and may be correct, but we cannot insist upon it because it is a conjecture and is not clearly found in the word of God. If we want to remain true to the Baptist Confession, we must take all our doctrine from the Bible and eschew all conjecture.

We read in Gen 2:25 that, ‘They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’ To put this in another way, they had no covering. There was no covering or atonement for sin, but that didn’t matter at the time, because there was no sin to cover. But as soon as they fell into sin, it became of crucial importance. ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7 ). Sinful man cannot stand before a righteous God unless that sin be covered. But a man-made covering is no covering at all as far as God is concerned. As Isaiah says (64:6 ); ‘But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.’ Even as Adam and Eve put on their home-made garments, they knew in their hearts that the fig leaves were worthless to hide their sin from God, so they hid from His presence (Gen 3:8 ). The true covering for sin must come from God Himself, and it must involve the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22 ) as we shall see.

Adam was a public person or a Covenant head. In the Covenant of Works, he transacted not only for himself and Eve, but also for his seed and his doom was also theirs. ‘For as in Adam, all die…..’ (1Cor 15:22 ). His sin is imputed to his progeny. ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…….’ (Rom 5:19 ). The idea of a Covenant or representative head is not as strange as one might think. The head of a business makes deals and transactions on behalf of the whole corporation. A politician signs treaties that are binding upon the whole population of the country. If the Prime Minister of Great Britain were to declare war upon France, all Britons would be at war whether we approved of it or not, and if we were to meet a Frenchman with a gun, he might well feel justified in shooting us!

So it is that mankind can be described as having a bad record and a bad reputation. Not only are we constituted sinners by our covenant association with Adam, but we are sinners in our own selves. We have inherited Adam’s fallen nature. ‘And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth’ (Gen 5:3 ). Whereas Adam had been created in the image of the perfect and holy God, each of us is born with the sinful nature of fallen Adam. ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (John 3:6 ). ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ). The state of fallen man is desperate, and entirely our own fault. Adam sinned deliberately and so do we. We cannot plead that God’s judgements are unfair and that we should not be blamed for his iniquity. Adam sinned once and fell; fallen man sins many times a day (Rom 3:10-18 ).

Mankind has therefore utterly forfeited and lost all covenant interest in God. He can no longer claim a right in or hope of the promise of eternal life held out in the covenant. At once, he fell under guilt, which was the sentence of his own conscience, seeing himself under the just wrath of God and therefore dreading His approach (Gen 3:8-10 ). We are by nature like cockroaches that scuttle into a dark corner when the light is switched on (John 3:19 ). Unredeemed mankind has entirely lost its relationship with God. He is incapable of true happiness because he is at enmity with God and alienated from Him. As we have observed, the image of God in him is now wholly defaced. Where first there was the beauty of original righteousness, now there is only filthiness and deformity (Titus 3:3; Psalm 14:1-3 ).

The curse of the covenant is now in effect; man is subject to fear of death and fear of judgement and hell. He has become a debtor instead of a free man. He owes a debt of obedience that he is by no means able to settle- he has sinned infinitely against the infinite love of God and therefore owes infinitely more than he can pay. The curse is also extended to creation. The world has fallen with fallen man; it is God’s righteous judgement that sinful humans shall not live in a perfect world. “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Gen 3:17. cf. Rom 8:20 ). Man is helpless and without strength in a harsh environment, unable to bring himself before God on a covenant of works and equally unable to bring himself on any other terms. There was no arrangement in the covenant for a second chance. Man is unable to move even one step towards reconciliation with God. The door of repentance was not opened by the Covenant of Works, and even if it had been, there would have been neither the power nor the inclination to enter it.

And yet……….

‘For when we were still without strength, Christ died for the ungodly’ (Rom 5:6 ).

O loving wisdom of our God!
When all was sin and shame,
A second Adam to the fight
And to the rescue came.

I lifted this from A Puritan's Mind. 
It was the parent site to the Puritanboard.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/WitsiusDecalogueCovenant.htm

The Decalogue:
Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace
by Dr. Herman Witsius
Taken From �Economy of the Covenants�, Pages 182ff

Now concerning this covenant, made upon the ten commandments, it is queried, Whether it was a covenant of works, or a covenant of grace? We judge proper to premise some things, previous to the determination of this question. And first, we observe, that, in the Ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works. For both the very same precepts are inculcated, on which the covenant of works was founded, and which constituted the condition of that covenant; and that sentence is repeated, "which if a man do he shall live in them," Lev. xviii. 5. Ezek. xx. 11, 13. by which formula, the righteousness, which is of the law, is described, Rom. x. 5. And the terror of the covenant of works is increased by repeated comminations; and that voice heard, "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them," Deut. xxvii. 26. Now the apostle declares, that this is the curse of the law, as the law is opposed to faith, or the covenant of grace, Gal. iii. 10, 12. Nay, as the requirement of obedience was rigid under the ministry of Moses, the promises of spiritual and saving grace were more rare and obscure, the measure of the Spirit granted to the Israelites, scanty and short, Deut. xxix. 4. and on the contrary, the denunciation of the curse frequent and express; hence the ministry of Moses is called, "the ministration of death and condemnation," 2 Cor. iii. 7, 9. doubtless because it mentioned the condemnation of the sinner, and obliged the Israelites to subscribe to it.

Secondly, we more especially remark that, when the law was given from mount Sinai or Horeb, there was a repetition of the covenant of works. For, those tremendous signs of thunders and lightnings, of an earthquake, a thick smoke and black darkness, were adapted to strike Israel with great terror. And the setting bounds and limits round about the mount, whereby the Israelites were kept at a distance from the presence of God, upbraided them with that separation, which sin had made between God and them. In a word, "Whatever we read," Exod. xix. (says Calvin, on Heb. xii. 10.) "is intended to inform the people, that God then ascended his tribunal, and manifested himself as an impartial judge. If an innocent animal happened to approach, lie commanded it to be thrust through with a dart; how much sorer punishment were sinners liable to, who were conscious of their sins, nay, and knew themselves indited by the law, as guilty of eternal death." See the same author on Exod. xix. 1, 16. And the apostle in this matter, Heb. xii. 18-22. sets mount Sinai in opposition to mount Zion, the terrors of the law to the sweetness of the gospel.

Thirdly, We are not, however, to imagine, that the doctrine of the covenant of works was repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with the Israelites, in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation. For, we have already proved (B. 1. chap. ix. section 20) that this could not possibly be renewed in that manner with a sinner, en account of the justice and truth of God, and the nature of the covenant of works, which admits of no pardon of sin. See also Hornbeck.Theol. Pract. tom. 2. p. 10. Besides, if the Israelites were taught to seek salvation by the works of the law, then the law bad been contrary to the promise, made to the fathers many ages before. But now says the apostle, Gal. iii. 17. "the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." The Israelites were, therefore, thus put in mind of the covenant of works, in order to convince them of their sin and misery, to drive them out of themselves, to show them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to Christ. And so their being thus brought to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of grace.

Fourthly, There likewise accompanied this giving of the law the repetition of some things belonging to the covenant of grace. For, that God should propose a covenant of friendship to sinful man, call himself his God (at least in the sense it was said to the elect in Israel), take to himself any people, separated from others, for his peculiar treasure, assign to them the land of Canaan as a pledge of heaven, promise his grace to those that love him and keep his commandments, and circumscribe the vengeance denounced against despisers within certain bounds, and the like; these things manifestly discover a covenant of grace: and without supposing the suretiship of the Messiah, it could not, consistently with the divine justice and truth, be proposed to man a sinner. Judiciously says Calvin on Exod. xix. 17. "by these words we are taught, that these prodigies or signs were not given, to drive the people from the presence of God; nor were they struck with any terror, to ex. asperate their minds with a hatred of instruction: but that the covenant of God was no less lovely than awful. For, they are commanded to go and meet God, to present themselves with a ready affection of soul to obey him. Which could not be unless they had heard something in the law besides precepts and threatenings." See also Tilenus Syntagm. p. 1. Disp. 33. Section 18, 19, 20, 28, 29.

Having premised these observations, I answer to the question. The covenant made With Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works, 1st. Because that cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if, for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes. 2dly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3dly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the-curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, where all hope of pardon was cut off, if they. sinned but in the least instance.

However the carnal Israelites, not adverting to God's purpose or intention, as they ought, mistook the true meaning of that covenant, embraced it as a covenant of works, and by it sought for righteousness. Paul declares this, Rom. ix. 31, 32. "but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law,; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone." To the same purpose it is, that, Gal. iv. 24, 25. he compares to the Ishmaelites Israelites,while they tarried in the deserts of Arabia, which was the country of the former, who are born to bondage of their mother Hagar, or the covenant of mount Sinai, and being destitute of true righteousness, shall, with Ishmael, be at length turned out of the house of their heavenly Father. For, in that place, Paul does not consider the covenant of mount Sinai as in itself, and in the intention of God, offered to the elect, but as abused by carnal and hypocritical men. Let Calvin again speak: "The apostle declares, that, by the children of Sinai, he meant hypocrites, persons who are at length cast out of the church of God, and disinherited. What therefore is that generation unto bondage, which he there speaks of? It is doubtless those, who basely abuse the law, and conceive nothing concerning it but what is servile. The pious fathers who lived under the Old Testament did not so. For, the servile generation of the law did riot binder them from having the spiritual Jerusalem for their mother. But they, who stick to the bare law, and acknowledge not its pedagogy; by which they are brought to Christ, but rather make it an obstacle to their coming to him, these are Ishmaelites (for thus, and I think rightly, Morlorat reads) born unto bondage." The design of the apostle therefore, in that Place, is not to teach us, that the covenant of mount Sinai was nothing but a covenant of works, altogether opposite to the gospel-covenant; but only that the gross Israelites misunderstood the mind of God, and basely abused his covenant; as all such do, who seek for righteousness by the law. See again Calvin on Rom. x. 4.

Nor was it formally a covenant of grace: because that requires not only obedience, but also promises, and bestows strength to obey. For, thus the covenant of grace is made known, Jer. xxxii. 39. 41 and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever." But such a promise appears not in the covenant made at mount Sinai. Nay; God, on this very account, distinguishes the new covenant of grace from the Sinaitic, Jer. xxxi. 31-33. And Moses loudly proclaims, Deut. xxix. 4. "yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to 'hear, unto this day." Certainly, the chosen from among Israel had obtained this. Yet not in virtue of this covenant, which stipulated obedience, but gave no power for it: but in virtue of the covenant of grace, which also belonged to them.

What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant Of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace, It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror or which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other. A like agreement and renewal of the covenant between God and the pious is frequent; both national and individual. Of the former see Josh. xxiv. 22. 2 Chron. xv. 12. 2 Kings xxiii. 3. Neh. x. 29. Of the latter, Psal. cxix. 106. It is certain, that in the passages we have named, mention is made of some covenant between God and his people. If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both.

Hence the question, which is very much agitated at this day, may be decided: namely, Whether the ten words are nothing but the form of the covenant of grace? This, I apprehend, is by no means an accurate way of speaking., For, since a covenant strictly so called, consists in a mutual agreement, what is properly the form of the covenant should contain the said mutual agreement. But the ten words contain only a prescription of duty fenced on the one band by threatenings, taken from the covenant of works; on the other, by promises, which belong to the covenant of grace. Hence the scripture, when it speaks properly, says that a covenant was made upon these ten words, or after the tenor of those words, Exod. xxxiv. 27. distinguishing the covenant itself, which consists in a mutual agreement from the ten words, which contain the conditions of it. The form of the covenant is exhibited by those words, which we have already quoted from Exod. xix. 5, 6, 8. I deny not, that the ten commandments are frequently in scripture called the covenant of God. But at the same time, no person can be ignorant, that the term covenant has various significations in the Hebrew, and often signifies nothing but a precept, as Jer. xxxiv. 18, 14. Thus Moses explains himself on this head, Deut. iv. 13. "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments." They are therefore called a covenant by a synecdoche, because they contain those precepts, which God, when he set his covenant before them, required the Israelites to observe, and to which the said Israelites bound themselves by covenant.

The ten words, or commandments, therefore, are not the form of a covenant properly so called, but the rule of duty: much less are they the form of the covenant of grace: because that covenant, in its strict signification, consists of mere promises and, as it relates to elect persons, has the nature of a testament, or last will, rather than of a covenant strictly speaking, and depends on no condition; as we have at large explained and proved, B. III. chap. I. sect. 8. etc. And. Jeremiah has shown us, that the form of the covenant of grace consists in absolute promises, chap. xxxi. 33. and xxxii. 38-40. In like manner, Isa. liv. 10.

Least of all can it be said, that the ten words are nothing but the form of the covenant of grace, since we may look upon them as having a relation to any covenant whatever. They may be considered in a twofold manner. 1st. Precisely, as a law. 2dly. As an instrument of the covenant. As a law, they are the rule of our nature and actions, which HE has prescribed, who has a right to command. This the were from the beginning, this they still are, and this they will continue to be, under whatever covenant, or in whatever state man shall be. As an instrument of the covenant they point out the way to eternal salvation; or contain the condition of enjoying that salvation: and that both Under the covenant of grace and of works. But with this difference; that under the covenant of works, this condition is required to be performed by man himself; under the covenant of grace it is proposed, as already performed, or to be performed by a mediator. Things, which those very persons, with whom we are now disputing, will not venture to deny.

Wayne Grudem and John Piper some time back discussed baptism and ecclesiology.  Piper longed to have a church membership that consisted of paedo-baptist and credo-baptists. 

I use to hold to Pipers view. I had great admiration for he Free Presbyterian Church Worldwide. They hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit. I hold a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity in both places is very important but our Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion.

Union seems to have more of a connection to something more than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity has to do with two walking side by side. We all have Union with Christ as a body but as a body has parts we are to walk in unity as members.

In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other in our individual Churches. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is conviciton and confession that binds them. At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out. One is congregationalism and the other is baptism. I do know of Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presby's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presby's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptized as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presby is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.

There are major differences that do not promote a Union but would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common with the beliefs we hold in common. For instance the Person and Work of Christ, the Five Sola's, most of our views on Covenant Theology. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.

I have been a PCA member. I joined with a promise not to cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherance to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presby in a Baptist Church membership or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictons in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders. And I would expect to hear the Word of God proclaimed by them in a goodly way.

The differences are to great in my estimation for such a mixed union.

Just a few words.

I find it amazing that one of the central issues concerning Covenant Theology is rarely addressed in this discussion. Maybe it is something that I hold too dear to. But I absolutely love the doctrine of the Covenant of Works and the Bi-Covenantal system of understanding our Bible. I include the Covenant of Redemption in the Covenant of Grace. Sorry if that bothers some of you. Well, not really.

The Federal Vision advocates hate this system of theology. Now they will acknowledge some form of the CofW but all of them that I have known of hold to a monocovenantalism which teaches only one Covenantal structure of grace for understanding the workings of God in historical redemption. This simply amazes me. This is so far from being Confessional that it ought to make the Confessional Church rise up and cry against it. It totally changes the Work of Christ and what He did. John Coloquoun made a great observation concerning this issue.

John Coloquoun says,
Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to be counted a legalist or self-righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life. Self-righteous men have, in all ages, set aside as impossible to be fulfilled by them that condition of the covenant of works which God had imposed on Adam, and have framed for themselves various models of that covenant which, though they are far from being institutions of God, and stand upon terms lower than perfect obedience, yet are of the nature of the covenant of works. The unbelieving Jews who sought righteousness by the works of the law were not so very ignorant or presumptuous as to pretend to perfect obedience. Neither did those professed Christians in Galatia who desired to be under the law, and to be justified by the law, of whom the apostle therefore testified that they had "fallen from grace' (Galatians 5:4), presume to plead that they could yield perfect obedience. On the contrary, their public profession of Christianity showed that they had some sense of their need of Christ's righteousness. But their great error was that they did not believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient to entitle them to the justification of life; and therefore they depended for justification partly on their own obedience to the moral and ceremonial law. It was this, and not their pretensions to perfect obedience, that the apostle had in view when he blamed them for cleaving to the law of works, and for expecting justification partly on their own works of obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, they and the apostle informed them, were fallen from grace; Christ had become of no effect to them. And they were "debtors to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3-4). By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works as would allow for imperfect instead of perfect works; and by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works.

A Treatise on the Law and Gospel
pp. 18,19
John Coloquhoun
Published by Soli Deo Gloria


Here is what Federal Vision advocate Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.
Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15


I also discussed this with Dr. R. Scott Clark whom some of you might or might not like. He responded to a similar question concerning Wilkin's that I had asked him so I just used it as a response to the Doug Wilson quote.

Here is Dr. Clark's response.

The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.

Works refers to the terms.

Life refers to the goal.

Nature refers to the setting.

It's not that complicated.

Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.

To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.

Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. (The truth is, Adam) He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.


This off base doctrine of monocovenantalism and teaching that the Covenant of Works is a gracious covenant is unconfessional and should be dealt with. Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf. He fulfilled what the first Adam failed to fulfill. If he didn't then the justice of God was not met in Christ's sacrificial atonement. There is no propitiation. The person and work of Christ is demerited by these men who teach this unconfessional and very unbiblical doctrine.

Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner Chapter 13

Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II)

It may be appropriate at this point to comment on a passage that is often used by paedobaptists. It concerns the parable of the tares in Matthew 13.

Tares are Not Covenant Members

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30)

Many paedobaptists refer to the tares, which were sown among the wheat in the field (13:25), as being members of the kingdom. Their main support for this view is found in the interpretation in verse 41, where Christ says, “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (emphasis added). They infer from the phrase “out of His kingdom” that the tares must have previously been “in the kingdom.” With this interpretation, the tares become an example of one who was in the kingdom as an unbeliever, or as a covenant-breaker. Thus, they claim that it supports their view that you can have covenant members, or members of the kingdom, who end up being lost. This seems to suggest there is a compartment of the kingdom, or New Covenant, which can be legitimately occupied by “tares,” for at least a period of time.

This whole viewpoint, however, needs to be reevaluated in light of a closer reading of the explanation of the parable given by Christ in Matthew 13:36-43. In these verses, our Lord gives us the following interpretation:
• The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man (verse 37).
• The field is the world (verse 38).
• The good seed are the sons of the kingdom (verse 38).
• The tares are the sons of the evil one, the devil, who sowed them (verses 38-39).
• The harvest is the end of the age and the reapers are angels (verse 39).
• The tares, who are described as “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (verse 41), will be gathered up and burned with fire at the end of the age (verse 40).

Several key observations here are needed. First, the field is the world, not the kingdom of God (verse 38). So, when the tares are sown among the wheat (verse 25), they are sown among them, and live side by side with them, in the field of the world; not the field of the kingdom. Second, only the good seed are called “the sons of the kingdom” (verse 38). The tares are not called “sons of the kingdom” because they were not members of the kingdom of heaven. On the contrary, they are called “the sons of the evil one” (verse 38) because they are in Satan’s kingdom. This is crucial. Our Lord clearly indicates that the tares were not “sons of the kingdom” but were actually in league with the devil.

We should also observe that these tares did not start out as the good seed and then gradually over time become tares. No, they were sown in the field as tares from the beginning (verse 25). They began as “sons of the evil one” (verse 38) and never changed their character. They were never “sons of the kingdom.” They were sown as tares and were harvested as tares and their doom was certain. Thus, the Lord’s assessment of the tares is the same as the false professors, “I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matthew 7:23).

Christ’s Spiritual or Universal Kingdom?

Now comes the crucial verses (verses 41-42): “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom, all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire” (emphasis added). The key issue is to identify the nature of this kingdom.

The simplest solution is to see this kingdom as Christ’s universal kingdom, not his spiritual (i.e., redemptive) kingdom as in verse 38. In other words, when the Son of Man gathers the wicked for judgment, he takes them out of his universal kingdom in which he has dominion; the universe and all that is in it. For biblical references to this universal kingdom of Christ, see Psalm 2:8-9; Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:20-22 and Philippians 2:9-11. Thus, this meaning of “kingdom” in verse 41 differs from its meaning in verse 38, “the sons of the kingdom.” In the latter case, the “sons of the kingdom” refer to the good seed who are the elect of God saved by the blood of Christ. This kingdom is clearly the spiritual kingdom of Christ which is redemptive and connected to the church of Christ. But, in verse 41, when the wicked are cast into the lake of fire, Christ is not coming to his church to execute this judgment, for there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1). The judgment of believers is one of commendation, not condemnation (2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:8-15). But in Matthew 13:41 the judgment is unto condemnation for they shall be cast into the “furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:42). For this judgment Christ goes to his universal kingdom over the world. It is from his universal kingdom where Christ will gather “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire;” not from his spiritual kingdom of the redeemed.

Further support for this difference in kingdoms is found in Matthew 13:43, where we see yet another reference to the kingdom. This verse concludes Christ’s teaching on the parable of the tares. There he says that after the lawless are removed from his (universal) kingdom, “Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” This kingdom is called, “the kingdom of their Father” which refers to the kingdom of God in its spiritual and heavenly character, where the redeemed of Christ will dwell in eternity. This kingdom is actually the spiritual kingdom of Christ which he will hand over to the Father after he has conquered all his enemies (see 1 Corinthians 15:23-28). Thus, the Lord has referred to three different aspects of his kingdom reign in this one parable!
The point to be made is that when Christ comes to judge the wicked in Matthew 13:41, he does not gather them from his spiritual kingdom, but from his universal kingdom of the world where the tares were sown (verse 38).

Problems with Tares in the Spiritual Kingdom

Those who argue that the kingdom in verse 41 is the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as in verse 38, run into many problems. Are we to understand that the tares, represented by the stumbling blocks and doers of lawlessness who will be gathered “out of His kingdom,” were really at some point members of Christ’s spiritual kingdom? In order to draw this conclusion, one must reinterpret the parable along different lines than our Lord did. For example, to say that the tares were really legitimate members of the kingdom requires interpreting the “field” (verse 24) as the “spiritual kingdom” rather than as the “world” as Christ explains it (verse 38). Also, you must basically neuter the meaning of the good seed as the “sons of the [spiritual] kingdom,” and the tares as the “sons of the evil one.” Clearly, the distinction is important and the tares, as Satan’s children, are not in any way to be numbered among the “sons of the kingdom.” In other words, the tares belong to the kingdom of Satan, not the kingdom of God. As such, even though they may be found at times in the visible church, and appear outwardly to be true kingdom members, in reality they are spiritually outside of the New Covenant and not members of Christ’s church or kingdom at all. When the tares do make their way into the church, then the words of the apostle John are again applicable, “They went out from us, but they were really not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). To say that such people “were really not of us” clearly indicates that they never belonged to Christ or to his spiritual kingdom.

Another Option

There is yet another way to think about the kingdom in Matthew 13:41. Instead of viewing it as the universal kingdom of Christ, Christ may be just speaking figuratively of the tares being in the kingdom in terms of their physical presence only. Christ has already explained that the tares are not members of his spiritual kingdom, but followers of Satan. They do not partake of any of the blessings of the New Covenant. They do not have the new heart, the indwelling Holy Spirit, or the forgiveness of their sins. They also are not in Christ’s kingdom for they do not live under the rule and reign of Jesus Christ. But they can, nevertheless, be found among the true “sons of the kingdom.” Like illegal aliens living in our own country, the tares live among the wheat. Though they may participate in some of our blessings, and even access some of our social aid programs, legally they are not citizens of our nation. If they are caught and removed from our country, we could similarly say that they are gathered “out of America,” but this in no way infers that they were legitimate members and citizens of our country. They lived and worked here physically among true citizens of our country and enjoyed many of our freedoms, but they were not citizens themselves. Thus, in Matthew 13:41 the tares whom Christ “will gather out of His kingdom” could be understood in the same way. They are found among God’s wheat physically but they are spiritually illegal aliens. They may show up in our churches, sit next to us in our pews and look as if they belong, but in reality they have no rights or status in the kingdom of God. They are tares awaiting the Day of Judgment when they will be “gathered out of His kingdom.” They never belonged to the Lord of the harvest.

Holy Children

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (1Corinthians 7:14)

This verse has raised many questions about the nature of New Covenant sanctification. The situation appears to be that some in the Corinthian church have come to faith in Jesus Christ, but their spouses have not. Paul tells them that both their unbelieving spouses and their children are holy. Based on this, many assume that since the children of at least one believer are holy, then they are members of the New Covenant and worthy of receiving baptism. However, to make this assumption requires a leap in thought far beyond the boundaries of this passage.

It is true that the children of a believing parent are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also “sanctified” (same word as “holy” used for the children only in its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptized. To baptize an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified and made holy by the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptized, but not the unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children “saints” (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not the other, and to baptize one and not the other is an inconsistency which renders this viewpoint completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of “covenant children” which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for “covenant unbelieving spouses” and the baptism of unbelievers.

How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of a moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer.

A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God’s moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid.

One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. “Is my marriage to an unbeliever an abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?” These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church.

What, then, is Paul’s answer? In essence it is this – both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to God’s will.

Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that the children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptized as infants. To do so would open the same doors to unbelievers and, as a result, greatly muddy the waters of what it means to be a member of the New Covenant.

New Covenant Sanctification is Permanent and for All New Covenant Members

There is no convincing support for any kind of New Covenant sanctification which is imparted to infants of believers, or which makes a person a true member of the New Covenant, but can be lost in the end. When the New Testament authors do speak of sanctification in this way, it is not New Covenant sanctification that they have in mind. The sanctification provided by Christ in the New Covenant is not one that can be forfeited and lost resulting in damnation (Hebrews 10:29); once a saint, always a saint. Once made holy by the New Covenant, holy you remain. No church struggled spiritually more than the Corinthian church and yet Paul described them as “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling” (1 Corinthians 1:2) and he then added a few verses later that Christ “will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 8). There was no doubt in Paul’s mind that all of those who were sanctified by the New Covenant, even those who struggled, would be confirmed to the end by the faithfulness of God (verse 9). This would not apply to either the infants of believers or to counterfeit Christians who fall away from the faith.

This is chapter 12 in Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner.

Not sure how much I agree or disagree with it. I do appreciate his references in Hebrews though.

Sanctification and New Covenant Membership

An issue that needs to be addressed involves what may be called covenantal sanctification. There are passages in the New Testament which some believe set forth a kind of sanctification which a person can have that may not end in salvation. Individuals that partake of this sanctification are supposedly members of the covenant for a season. They enjoy many of its outward and external blessings, even though they eventually fall away from the faith and are lost.

The impact of this line of thought on the issue of covenant membership and infant baptism is important. Many of our paedobaptist brethren believe that the New Testament teaches this kind of covenant sanctification. This belief becomes a reason for why they baptize their infants. In effect, this view is embraced in order to justify the practice of baptizing their infants even though some of them will grow up, depart from the faith and become “covenant-breakers.” They argue that since their children are holy, or sanctified (1 Corinthians 7:14), they belong to the covenant. Therefore, even as infants, they should receive the covenant sign of baptism. But, since they also admit that not all of their baptized infants grow up to embrace the faith, they have to hold to a form of covenant sanctification that can be lost. Thus, some paedobaptists want to import into the New Covenant a type of sanctification found in the Old Covenant. They adopt a viewpoint where one can be, at least outwardly speaking, sanctified in some way that brings them into New Covenant membership, but falls short of actual salvation.

Worse still, some go so far as to believe that their infant children are holy in the sense of being saved, being in Christ and having received the Spirit, but still in the end can fall away from grace and be lost. For some of them, their infant children actually receive these blessings when they are baptized. Thus, they embrace something very near, if not identical, to what the Roman Catholics teach about baptismal regeneration.

But there are numerous problems with these assertions about covenant sanctification. In this chapter, we will examine some of the Scriptures used to argue for these assertions. We will examine this view of a sanctification which does not save in the end, yet, nevertheless, makes a person, especially infants, members of the covenant for a limited period of time and, therefore, worthy of baptism. Let us begin, however, by reviewing one of the elements of the New Covenant that we established previously in chapters seven and eight.

The New Covenant Gives Persevering Grace to its Members

The New Covenant gives to all of its members persevering grace. This is the Achilles’ heel of any view that says one can be a member in the New Covenant temporarily and then somehow become a covenant-breaker and fall out of it and be lost. What was true for the Old Covenant is impossible in the New Covenant. Remember Jeremiah 31:31-32, which says: 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.

The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant in this specific way: it cannot be broken as the Old Covenant could. The reason for this is that the New Covenant is a covenant of salvation which regenerates the hearts of its members, forgives them of all of their sins, writes God’s laws on their hearts, and gives them the Holy Spirit by which they are enabled to walk in God’s ways. The Old Covenant did not provide these blessings to all of its members. But, in the New Covenant, “’they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 31:34).


The New Covenant cannot be broken because it provides saving grace to all of its members.

Remember also Jeremiah 32:39-40, which says: 39 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me (emphases added).

The New Covenant does not have a kind of sanctification that can fall short of salvation or which can be lost by unbelief or disobedience. Why? Because it gives all of its members a new heart which creates a godly fear in them “so that they will not turn away from Me.” Ezekiel 36:27 says the same: “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” No one can be a member of the New Covenant and then fall away from the faith or apostatize because the Holy Spirit dwells in them and causes them to walk according to God’s Word. God’s New Covenant grace will guarantee their perseverance in the faith. All true members of the New Covenant will remain covenant-keepers; none can fall away. Thus, the New Covenant actually changes the heart and makes one a permanent child of God who cannot practice sin as a way of life (1 John 3:9).

This is a crucial observation. There are no second-class citizens of the New Covenant who get sanctified with only some outward blessings and privileges but who are denied the spiritual grace of salvation. Also, there are no members of the New Covenant who get the spiritual grace of salvation but who lose it in the end. Such reasoning denies the well established doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 1 John 3:9; Romans 8:35-39; John 10:26-30). Those who advocate the view that one can have and then lose their salvation have basically fallen into the error of Arminianism. Those who promote the former view are guilty of pouring new wine into old wineskins. They have failed to see the newness of the New Covenant. The blessings of the New Covenant are not temporary, nor do they provide only outward benefits. They secure in saving grace those who enter into its hallowed halls. Those who become members of the New Covenant are sanctified by the Spirit and kept safe unto the day of glory (1 Peter 1:3-5).

Can an Apostate be previously Sanctified?

How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29)

Some suggest that Hebrews 10:29 teaches a view of sanctification in the New Covenant that is similar to that found in the Old Covenant in which a person can be sanctified as a covenant member but eventually turn away and become an apostate. This view asserts that the person referred to in this verse appears as having been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. He subsequently tramples under foot the Son of God, having regarded as unclean the blood by which he was sanctified. This brings down upon himself severe punishment from God. Even though he once was in the covenant, he has now become a covenant-breaker and comes under the severe judgment of God (10:30-31).

This same theory of sanctification is often applied to the infants of believers. They are understood to be legitimate and sanctified members of the New Covenant, even though some may fall out of the covenant later in life. But does Hebrews 10:29 teach this?

There are several reasons for rejecting this point of view. One reason is that this entire interpretation may be misguided in its understanding of the crucial clause, “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” (verse 29). Instead of it meaning that the apostate was previously sanctified by the blood of the covenant, there is another possible interpretation. The great Puritan theologian, John Owen, was convinced that the person who was sanctified did not refer to the apostate, but to Jesus Christ himself. The meaning would be that the apostate in this verse was not sanctified himself but regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which Christ was sanctified. I will refer the reader to Owen’s insightful exposition of this text in his seven volume commentary on Hebrews.

For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that the one who was sanctified in this verse does refer to the apostate who trampled under foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant. What can we infer from this kind of sanctification? Is there evidence that this apostate was truly a member of the New Covenant and then lost his position in the covenant due to his sin of apostasy? In order to find biblical answers, we shall first consider the context and what it teaches about sanctification in the New Covenant. Then, we will take a closer look at Hebrews 10:29.


First, New Covenant sanctification results in perfection. The context clearly identifies the nature of New Covenant sanctification and it does not allow for anything that results in less than perfection. Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (emphasis added). Those who are sanctified by the New Covenant have been perfected by Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross (see Hebrews 10:15-20 for what is clearly sanctification in a New Covenant context). The word “perfect” is used in the book of Hebrews of the tabernacle in heaven (9:11), of Christ (2:10; 5:9; 7:28; 12:2) and the resulting perfection of the saints in heaven (12:23). When applied to believers, this perfection is basically synonymous with salvation and the forgiveness of all sins. On the other hand, this kind of perfection could not be achieved by the law and its various forms of sanctification and cleansing (7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1). In other words, the sanctification brought about by the New Covenant is not like the defective kind found in the Old Covenant. Unless there was saving faith involved, the Old Testament sanctification that came from its sacrifices and cleansing rituals could only remove the ceremonial uncleanness of sin whereas, the sacrifice of Christ removes the guilt and penalty of sin. New Covenant sanctification brings about a perfection and final salvation unlike anything the Old Covenant law could produce. Those sanctified in the New Covenant are made perfect by Christ. They are perfectly forgiven. They do not receive just outward blessings and privileges which may fall short of salvation. All who are sanctified in the New Covenant are made perfect by the blood of Christ. He has obtained eternal redemption for them all (9:12).
Second, New Covenant sanctification is eternal in duration. It is not temporary, neither can it be lost. As Hebrews 10:14 teaches, those who are sanctified by Christ’s sacrifice have been perfected for all time, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (emphasis added). In other words, our perfection is not temporary in nature but eternal. And if our perfection through Christ’s offering is eternal, then so is our sanctification for how can one remain perfect in God’s sight if they lose their sanctification?

Thus, those in the New Covenant have been perfected and sanctified for all time by the blood of Christ. To say that one can be a member of the New Covenant and receive its sanctification and subsequently lose it, is to make the sacrifice of Christ no more effectual or powerful than the sacrifice of goats and bulls. Sanctification in the New Covenant is superior to that of the Old Covenant.

Third, New Covenant sanctification cannot result in damnation. The author of Hebrews does not think that true New Covenant members can fall away or shrink back from the faith. In confidence he says about his readers, “But we are not those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith in the preserving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:39). Also, consider 6:9: “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.” True members of the New Covenant are “perfected for all time” (10:14). None are lost or shrink away to destruction. All have faith and are preserved to the end.
Thus, the context of our debated verse in Hebrews 10:29 is full of guidelines to protect us from making a false deduction. What we can say is that New Covenant sanctification does not fit into the model suggested by those who believe that one can have it and be a member of the New Covenant and then later be lost. Clearly, New Covenant sanctification results in perfection; and that forever.

So what are we to think about this apostate in Hebrews 10:29? Let’s take a closer look and see what we can learn about him and his sanctification.

The Sanctified Apostate

We learn several things about the person described in Hebrews 10:29. First, he has trampled under foot the Son of God. This was done, at least in part, by his vicious verbal attacks against Christ and his saving sacrifice on the cross. Second, he has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified. His view of the blood of Christ has been dramatically reversed from his former profession. Third, he has insulted the Spirit of grace. Fourth, he deserves a severer punishment than those who set aside the law of Moses (verses 28-29). In addition to this information found in verse 29, we also learn in verse 26 that he goes on “sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth” and consequently there no longer remains “a sacrifice for sins” for him. This type of person, indeed, received the “knowledge [epignosis] of the truth.” Yet, even though his knowledge of the truth may have included a full understanding of the basic facts of the gospel, he fell short of regeneration for he kept on sinning willfully. A regenerate person simply does not do this. He is no longer under the dominion of sin (1 John 3:9; Romans 6:14), and though he will still wrestle with sin until the day he dies, he does not continue to sin willfully as this person does. It is impossible (1 John 2:29; 5:4, 18; Matthew 7:18).

But was the unregenerate apostate in Hebrews 10:29 previously a member of the New Covenant? In what sense was he sanctified? Are we to assume that the New Covenant has two kinds of sanctification, one that saves and one that does not? No doubt he partook of some kind of sanctification for it says that he “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” But is this the same kind of sanctification that perfects for all time (10:14)? Obviously not, since he fell away into willful sin and came under the judgment of God (10:26-31). Rather than assume that the New Covenant has two kinds of sanctification, it is more biblical to think in terms of there being only one. All members of the New Covenant partake of this sanctification and are eternally saved. However, there is also another kind of sanctification, or spiritual influence, which comes upon those who are outwardly identified with the church but spiritually outside the covenant and which does not make them a member of the covenant.

Therefore, the sanctification that this apostate received was not genuine New Covenant sanctification at all because it did not perfect him for all time (10:14). Rather, it was more of a superficial form of sanctification that comes by way of contact with the gospel and Christ’s true church. Those who have this kind of sanctification never have the real thing. They may have knowledge of the truth (10:26) in their head, but no grace in their heart. They really never stopped their sinning (verse 26) because their nature was never really changed. Whatever moral affect the blood of the covenant had upon them was defective and temporary. Like the scribe who came close to the kingdom of God, but apparently never entered in (Mark 12:34), this apostate came close to the New Covenant but never entered in.

This apostate was sanctified in the same way as those described in Hebrews 6:4-6, which says: 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

These people were temporarily influenced by the grace of the New Covenant gospel and the love of the New Covenant people. They also received a similar kind of sanctification as the man in Hebrews 10:29, a sanctification that temporarily cleansed the outer man, but did not change the inner man (cf. Hebrews 9:13-14). But, those addressed in Hebrews 6:4-6 were never really true members of the New Covenant themselves. They had been enlightened, were partakers of the Holy Spirit which no doubt sanctified them in some spiritual way, and tasted both the word and power of the kingdom. Nevertheless, they never had the new heart (Ezekiel 36:26), nor was the law written on their heart, nor were their sins forgiven (Jeremiah 31:31-34), nor did they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:27), nor did they “fear God always” (Jeremiah 32:39), nor did they persevere in faith. Rather, they “turned away” (Jeremiah 32:40) because they did not really “know God” (Jeremiah 31:34). They were like Judas who partook of many godly influences, but was a devil (John 6:70). As John says, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). These apostates were not “of” the New Covenant. They may have drawn near and been temporarily affected by the godly influences and powers of the New Covenant, but they “were not really of us.” They were like those who “profess to know God” but their lives deny him and they become worthless for any good work (Titus 1:16). They claim a name that they are alive, but they are spiritually dead (Revelation 3:1), and their end is destruction.

Thus, the sanctification they received from the covenant was not the kind received by members of the New Covenant which is “for all time” and which makes one “perfect.” They have a very different kind of sanctification. It reforms a person temporarily and makes them outwardly look like a Christian. They may even talk like a Christian, but eventually the affect wears off and they walk away dry as a bone on the inside. They are like a man who sits on a rock next to the ocean. When the waves come crashing down on the rocks he will be misted and sprinkled with its spray, even though he never enters into the ocean itself. He gets a little wet, but he never enters the water. Such wetness will quickly dry from him because he was only near the ocean, but never actually in it.

So, there is no doubt that the apostate in Hebrews 10:29 received some kind of sanctification from the covenant, but the context makes it clear that is was not the same kind of sanctification received by members of the New Covenant. The apostate can be outwardly and temporarily sanctified by virtue of his proximity to the New Covenant. He can be affected superficially by its power and grace. Like the man above, they can be misted by the spray, but they never enter into the real thing. They never become true members of the New Covenant. Though they may join a church, be baptized and engage in some of the church activities and worship, they nevertheless remain spiritually on the outside.

This is the only interpretation that seems to do justice both to the saving nature of the New Covenant, which gives the new heart and persevering grace to all of its members, and to the fact that there are some who are in the visible church that do fall away. Whether they are like the “every branch in Me that does not bear fruit” which are removed from the vine (John 15:2), or the unbelieving branches on the olive tree that are cut off (Romans 11:17-24), or those who have “once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews 6:4ff.), they all refer to the same group of people. None of them were ever saved covenant members. None of them have ever partaken of the sanctification of the New Covenant which “has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14).

Thus, those who fall away were never in the New Covenant. They never belonged to Christ. They are like those in Matthew 7:22-23 who say to Christ, “‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (emphasis added). Christ never knew them! How could they have been at some previous point a true member of his covenant when he uses this language, “I never knew you?” How could they have formerly been a true “branch in Me,” or a true “branch on the olive tree,” or really and spiritually “once tasted of the heavenly gift” when Christ says that he never knew them? Such language shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are some who are baptized members in the church, but who are not, and have never been, true members of the covenant of Christ.

Such apostates are “false brethren” (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) who never had the faith of the covenant. They are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15), tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25) and pigs who, after washing, return to wallowing in the mire (2 Peter 2:22). And, as Jude describes them, “These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever (Jude 12-13). These were not once covenant members who fell out, but “sons of the evil one” who were sown by the devil among the sons of the kingdom (Matthew 13:38-39). They may have been outwardly influenced by the morality of the church for a season. They may have outwardly appeared to belong to Christ. But, in reality, they were strangers to the covenant of grace. They never possessed the sanctification or the saving grace which the New Covenant gives to all of its members. Like Judas, they never belonged to Christ’s covenant, but are devils masquerading among the saints (John 6:70).

In light of this, there is no support in Hebrews 10:29 for any kind of sanctification that makes one a member of the New Covenant but which can be eventually lost. Also, since there are no infants mentioned in the context, it is hardly appropriate to make any application to them. Hebrews 10:29 certainly does not teach, nor imply, that the infants of believers are “sanctified” as covenant members in such a way that they may fall out of the covenant later in life. This verse deals only with an adult who made a profession of faith, was received into the church and was superficially sanctified by his contact with the true members of the covenant. But having no true saving grace in his heart, he fell away and proved that he never was a true member of the New Covenant, nor did he ever participate in the sanctification that perfects for all time (10:14). Therefore, to apply the sanctification of this verse to the infants of believers is unwarranted.

Christ our Superior High Priest

Another issue that needs to be raised is how does all of this reflect on the high priestly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ? The fact that Christ is our high priest is clearly taught in the book of Hebrews (2:17; 3:1; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). Yet, how can his high priestly ministry be superior to the Old Covenant high priests if he loses some of his covenant people through apostasy? In other words, if Christ, as our high priest, mediates the blessings of the New Covenant to his covenant people, and yet some of them can lose these blessings, how can the New Covenant be better than the Old Covenant? How can Christ be a superior high priest?

Let’s apply this to the paedobaptist view of the infants of believers. Their infants are considered to be “covenant children” based on the Abrahamic Covenant principle of physical descent. Thus, they are viewed as members of the New Covenant. As members of the New Covenant, Christ is their high priest. As such, he mediates the covenant blessings to all covenant members. But, most, if not all, paedobaptists would agree that some of their children grow up and become covenant-breakers and fall away and are lost in the end. So how does this reflect on Christ as their high priest? Does Christ fail to mediate the covenant blessings to all of his covenant people? In what way is Christ a superior high priest if he fails to save some of his people?
These are serious questions for those who believe that some (such as the infants of believers) can be covenant members and yet eventually apostatize and lose out on the covenant blessings. Does it not make a mockery of the superiority of Christ’s high priestly ministry? Does this not make him a failure like the Old Covenant high priests?

Which of Christ’s high priestly ministries can be lost or rendered ineffectual? For example, can some of Christ’s covenant people miss out on his atoning sacrifice? Can he fail in his high priestly ministry to atone for some of his covenant people? Hebrews 2:17 tells us, “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (emphasis added). Now, is this true for all of his covenant people, or only some of them? The context identifies the people as the “children” (verses 13-14) and “brethren” (verses 12 and 17). The clear implication is that he made propitiation (i.e., removed God’s wrath due to their sins) for all of his covenant people. However, those who believe that covenant members can be lost in the end must rewrite the above text to make it say that he made propitiation for only some of his people. But if, as the text says, Christ made propitiation for his covenant people, which implies all of them, then which ones are left out? Are some “covenant babies” eventually left out due to later apostasy? If so, then has Christ failed as their covenant high priest? The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ “obtained eternal redemption” for his people (Hebrews 9:12) and “put away [their] sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (9:26). This is why he is a superior high priest to those in the Old Covenant who could not take away sins. Yet, if some of his covenant people end up being lost, then Christ’s high priestly ministry is no better than those in the Old Covenant.

Consider, also, our Lord’s high priestly ministry of intercession. Christ “always lives to make intercession for them [His covenant people]” (Hebrews 7:25). Christ’s prayers are one of the reasons why “He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him” (verse 25). But if some of his covenant people eventually fall away, does Christ fail in his high priestly petitions for them? We may assume that our Lord is now praying for his covenant people similarly as he prayed for Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:32). As our Lord’s prayer was effectual then, so it is also now. And if this is the case, then how can any of those for whom he prays fall away and apostatize? Does he not pray for all of his people? Or does he pray for only some of them? And if some for whom he intercedes eventually fall away, is his high priestly ministry in the New Covenant really superior to that of the Old Covenant?

Those who believe that New Covenant members can fall away just like they did in the Old Covenant must severely limit the superiority of both the New Covenant and of Christ’s high priestly ministry. If the high priest of the New Covenant can not effectually save all his covenant people, then in what way is he a superior high priest? Yet, the New Testament teaches that Christ died to remove God’s wrath (propitiation) for all of the sins of all of his people. He accomplished eternal redemption for them and he prays effectually for them that their faith may not fail. By giving his covenant people a new heart and writing his laws into their hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16), he effectually transforms them so that they remain covenant keepers who cannot fall away. Though the church may have its share of counterfeit Christians, who are devoid of saving grace and end up falling away, Christ will never lose any of his covenant people (John 6:39). As their merciful and faithful high priest, he lives forever and saves forever all for whom he died and for whom he now intercedes. He is, indeed, a superior high priest!

A Superficial Sanctification

In conclusion, Hebrews 10:29 does not teach that the apostate was a true member of the New Covenant. He was sanctified in some way by the covenant, but not in a way that indicated regeneration or membership in the New Covenant. Since those who are sanctified by the blood of Christ are perfected forever (Hebrews 10:14), the apostate in Hebrews 10:29 could not have partaken of this kind of sanctification. His sanctification was defective, superficial in nature, and did not make him a true member of Christ’s covenant or his high priestly ministry.

This is a major part of Chapter 2 of Alan Conner’s book Covenant Children Today. I received permission from Rich Barcellos the publisher of the book to post this in my blog for the benefit of others.

Link to order book.http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?productId=1

Link to Listen to Narrow Mind interview with Alan Conner and host Gene Bridges.
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/11/covenant-children-today-and-interview.html

Be Encouraged,


Christ and the New Covenant Family


There is a lot of talk today about the “covenant family.” But, many who are teaching on this topic assume that the “covenant family” today is based on the same principles as found in the Old Covenant. That is to say, the children of believers are automatically considered as members of the New Covenant. But, does the Bible support this assumption?

An important principle in determining the nature of covenant children is to realize the role that the covenant heads play in this process. In God’s covenant with Abraham, he established that Abraham would have both a physical and a spiritual seed. The promise of a physical seed (Genesis 12:2) would begin with the miraculous birth of Isaac by the power of God (Romans 4:18-21). Isaac’s birth initiated the principle of a physical seed which would govern the covenant’s progress and fulfillment down through the centuries, consummating in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). But Abraham also had a spiritual seed. Since Abraham was a believer (Galatians 3:6, 9; Genesis 15:6), his spiritual seed constitutes both the believing remnant of Israel and believing Gentiles (Romans 9-10; Galatians 3:8, 14). Thus, God ordained that the nature of covenant children in Abraham’s covenant would be established by Abraham himself as the covenant head, both by his faith and his physical children.

But, what about the New Covenant? Should the nature of covenant children established with Abraham continue on in the New Covenant as well? The New Testament is clear that the New Covenant administration of the Abrahamic Covenant does not require the principle of a physical seed descended from Abraham for “be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7). This indicates that in the New Covenant we are dealing with Abraham’s spiritual seed. The unbelieving Jews have been broken off of the olive tree of the people of God (Romans 11:17-20).

This shift to an emphasis on the spiritual seed is also clearly demonstrated in the covenant head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. As God established in Abraham the nature of his covenant seed, so also he established in Christ the nature of his covenant seed. The same pattern holds for both covenants: the covenant head determines the nature of the covenant seed. Thus, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ would personally initiate the principle of his covenant seed just as Abraham did for his covenant. But, what kind of children (seed) did Christ have? As the head of the New Covenant, what is the nature of his seed?

As we consider what the Bible teaches about the covenant seed connected to Jesus Christ, we need to consider the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ in relation to his covenant children. Then, we will examine the way in which Christ defines his covenant family. When we do this, we will see that the New Covenant family is not based on physical relationships at all, but on spiritual qualities alone. Christ’s covenant seed and family is not based on the flesh as it was in the Old Covenant, but is a “household of faith” (Galatians 6:10 - KJV); a “family of believers” (Galatians 6:10 - NIV).

The Fatherhood of Jesus Christ

The Bible teaches that Christ’s relationship with his redeemed people is one that is rich and many-colored. The glory of Jesus Christ cannot be contained in one simple description. The Bible sets forth his redemptive character with many different analogies and pictures. To the Father, he is the eternal Son of God, but to Christians he is many things. Christ is the sacrificial Lamb of God who died in our place; the Vine and we are the branches; the Head and we are his body; the good Shepherd and we are his sheep; the Husband and we are his bride. In addition to all of this, Christ Jesus is also a Father and we are his children.

This last truth has important implications for how we are to view membership and the concept of covenant children in the New Covenant. What we will discover is that the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ argues strongly for the concept of spiritual children in the New Covenant, rather than children of physical descent.

Christ as our Eternal Father

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)


As Isaiah looked ahead to the coming of Christ who would inaugurate the New Covenant, he describes him as a Father to his followers. This relationship is verified in the way that our Lord loves his disciples as a father, cares for them as a father, provides for them as a father, and instructs and disciplines them as a father. What a precious thought. Our Savior is also our spiritual Father so that, in a sense, within the holy Trinity we have no less than two Fathers: God the Father, and God the incarnate Son, both of whom watch over us as spiritual Fathers in their own unique way.

Second, the obvious result of the fact that Christ is an Eternal Father is that he must also have children – since a father is such only if he has children. But who are his children? The children of Christ cannot be based on the genealogical principle found in the Old Covenant. But, if they cannot be his physical children, then who are they? The obvious suggestion is that they are his spiritual children.

The Gospels also indicate the idea that Christ has spiritual children; namely, his disciples. We see this in the following passages where Christ refers to his disciples as children:

And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:24)

Little children, I am with you a little while longer. (John 13:33)

Jesus therefore said to them, Children, you do not have any fish, do you? (John 21:5)

Now what is the significance of Jesus calling his disciples children? Is he saying that they are immature and prone to error like children? This is possible, but the example from John 13 which took place during the Passover feast suggests that Jesus was assuming the paschal role of the head of the family who would preside at the meal and explain its meaning to his children. So, at least in John 13:33, the use of “children” would fit with the concept that Jesus is looking upon his disciples as his spiritual children. The other examples above can also be understood in the same way.

This concept of a spiritual father with spiritual children was also used by the apostles in the way they sometimes addressed those who came to faith under their ministry (see Galatians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 John 2:1). And, most notably, it is used of all believers in their relationship with God since he is our heavenly Father and we are his children through the new birth and adoption into his family (John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17). All believers are “children of God.”

Christ’s Covenant Children

Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me. (Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13)

Not only does the prophet Isaiah teach us about Christ’s role as a spiritual Father, he also has something to say about Christ’s spiritual children as well. These children are mentioned in Isaiah 8:18, which is also quoted in Hebrews 2:13 as the very words of Christ, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

Here again it is quite clear from the context that these “children” who are given to the Messiah by God are not physical children but his spiritual followers united to him by faith. In the context of Hebrews chapter two, they are called “many sons” who are brought to glory (verse 10), his “brethren” (verses 11-12) for whom Christ made “propitiation…” (verse 17) and they are those who, along with Christ himself, put their trust in God (verse 13). No other kind of children is in view here. It is impossible that these covenant children of Christ are based on any principle of physical descent. They can only be spiritual children of faith. The principle of the Old Covenant family no longer applies to Christ and his New Covenant family.
Also of interest in this passage is the observation that these spiritual children that are given to Christ by God the Father are the reason for his incarnation:

Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)

Christ came down from heaven to assume our human nature that he might set his children free from the power of death held by the devil (verses 14-15) and deliver them from their sins (verse 17). Christ does not bring this help to the angels, but rather to “the descendant (seed) of Abraham” (verse 16).

This is an important designation. To call the covenant children of Christ (verses 13-14) the seed of Abraham (verse 16) makes another important statement about the nature of Christ’s covenant family. Clearly, they are not defined in terms of physical descent as they were in the Old Covenant. Christ’s spiritual children are now the New Covenant equivalent to the seed of Abraham. They are his spiritual followers, his brethren for whom he died, and those who trust in God. Here we have a clear redefining of the “seed of Abraham” in the New Covenant. The genealogical principle of inclusion in the covenant by physical lineage is replaced by the spiritual principle of faith.

Christ’s Covenant Offspring

He will see His offspring. (Isaiah 53:10)

This same truth about the identity of Christ’s covenant children is also seen in Isaiah 53:10, when Isaiah speaks prophetically of Christ’s reward for his self-sacrifice for our sins. The prophet announces, “He will see His offspring.” Now what is the prophet speaking about? In what sense did our Lord have offspring? Again, it cannot be physical children in view. So, it must refer exclusively to his spiritual offspring who are connected to him through faith.

Thus, both testaments teach that the children of Christ are not physical children at all. Clearly, the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant cannot apply to him. And, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ establishes in himself the new governing principle of membership in his Church. As clearly as Abraham established his seed according to the principle of physical birth, so Christ establishes his seed according to the principle of spiritual birth. The old genealogical principle of being a member of the covenant by physical descent has come to an end. A new principle is established with Jesus Christ. Being numbered among Christ’s covenant children is now based on the principle of faith alone. As John 1:12 states, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The New Covenant has a new standard for membership. Abraham’s physical principle of membership is replaced by Christ’s spiritual principle of membership.

Thus, the belief that the covenant family today follows the pattern of the Old Covenant is nothing but an assumption. It is based on so-called covenant logic that does not reflect accurately the teachings of the prophets as they foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. Christ, as the head of the New Covenant, clearly establishes in himself the new standard for what it means to be a covenant child. It is a standard based on faith, not physical descent.

Christ Defines His Covenant Family

Not only is Jesus Christ our “Eternal Father,” and as such establishes a new principle for what it means to be his covenant child, but he also gave specific instruction on the nature of his covenant family. We find this in such passages as Luke 8:19-21:

19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

In the parallel account, Matthew gives these words, “whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). What is clear is that Christ is redefining the nature of his family. He uses this request from his physical family to teach about his covenant family. As his words indicate, the principle of the physical family is no longer the determining factor in establishing his covenant family. Hearing the word and doing it now comprise the spiritual qualifications for being one of Christ’s covenant family members.

This shows a deliberate intent on the part of Christ to distance himself and his covenant family from the physical principles of the covenant family established with Abraham. If Christ defined his “mother and brothers,” and also his “children” (see above) exclusively in terms of spiritual qualities, then where is there continuity with the Old Covenant? Where do children automatically become covenant members based on their physical descent from covenant parents? Christ’s words clearly exclude from his covenant family those who are connected only by physical ties. “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” He does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and do it and their physical seed.” His New Covenant family is comprised only of those who hear the word of God and obey it. Infants cannot hear and obey the word of God.

On several occasions, the Lord emphasized this New Covenant principle which stresses the importance of the spiritual family. In Luke 11:27, Christ was teaching truths that were so profound that one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But the Lord responded, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (verse 28). The exact same principle is revealed here as above. Christ is saying in the most emphatic way that blessedness is not based on the ties of the physical family. Notice his words, “On the contrary.” The Lord is downplaying the blessedness of his biological mother in order to draw attention to the greater blessedness of those who are connected to him spiritually. Those who hear the word of God and obey it are esteemed as more blessed than his physical mother. Mary’s blessedness would be rooted far more in her faith than in her merely being the physical mother of our Lord (cf. Luke 1:46-55). I’m sure these were shocking words indeed to this woman.

Here is something I read by John Coloquoun that I found to be spot on.

Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to be counted a legalist or self-righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life. Self-righteous men have, in all ages, set aside as impossible to be fulfilled by them that condition of the covenant of works which God had imposed on Adam, and have framed for themselves various models of that covenant which, though they are far from being institutions of God, and stand upon terms lower than perfect obedience, yet are of the nature of the covenant of works. The unbelieving Jews who sought righteousness by the works of the law were not so very ignorant or presumptuous as to pretend to perfect obedience. Neither did those professed Christians in Galatia who desired to be under the law, and to be justified by the law, of whom the apostle therefore testified that they had "fallen from grace' (Galatians 5:4), presume to plead that they could yield perfect obedience. On the contrary, their public profession of Christianity showed that they had some sense of their need of Christ's righteousness. But their great error was that they did not believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient to entitle them to the justification of life; and therefore they depended for justification partly on their own obedience to the moral and ceremonial law. It was this, and not their pretensions to perfect obedience, that the apostle had in view when he blamed them for cleaving to the law of works, and for expecting justification partly on their own works of obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, they and the apostle informed them, were fallen from grace; Christ had become of no effect to them. And they were "debtors to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3-4). By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works as would allow for imperfect instead of perfect works; and by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works.

A Treatise on the Law and Gospel
pp. 18,19
John Coloquhoun
Published by Soli Deo Gloria

Here is a spot of Alan Conner discussing holy in 1 Corinthians 7:14.
http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?...=1&productId=1

It is true that the children of a believing parents are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also "sanctified" (same word as "holy" used for the children only its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptised. To baptise an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and children are sanctified and made holy the the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptised, but not he unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children "saints" (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not he other, and to baptise one and not he other is an inconsistency which renders this view point completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of "covenant children" which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for "covenant unbelieveing spouses" and the baptism of unbelievers.

How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and he the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer.

A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God's moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid.

One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. "Is my marriage to an unbeliever and abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?" These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church.

What, then, is Paul's answer? In essence it is this - both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him (or her) as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to Gods' will.

Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that he children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptised as infants.....

Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner pp. 98-99

Just a quote from Fred A. Malone quoting John Owen.

When we speak of the "new Covenant" we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in this place. For it was always the same, as to the substance of it, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, "everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure." All who contend about these things, the Socianians only excepted, do grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely,- that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, - was the only way and means of salvation unto the church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect unto any other things, nor was it so under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it unto Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but was with respect unto other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely under the Old testament it consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scriptures, Acts 2:39; Jer 6:14-16. The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Gal 3:17. And so it was, not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The nomothesia, or full legal establishment of it, whence it became formally a covenant unto the whole church, was future only, and a promise under the old testament... but now, under the new testament, this covenant, with its own seals and appointments, is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Wherefore the new covenant promised in the Scripture, and here opposed unto the old, is not the promise of grace, mercy, life and salvation by Christ, absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a covenant given unto it, in its establishment of the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits, and the declaring of it to be the only rule of worship and obedience unto the Church. So that although by the covenant of grace," we oftentimes understand not more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ yet by "the new covenant" we intend its actual establisment in the death of Christ with that blessed way of worship whcih by it is settle in the church. John Owen quoted Hebrews 6: 74-75

...The promise of the New Covenant, the purer administration of the Covenant of Grace, was part of the Abrahamic Covenant. However the Abrahamic Covenant also contained other elements regarding Abraham's seed that were unique to its administration until the final "Seed" comes (Galatians 3:16,19). ... Each covenant's content must be determined by specific revelation concerning that covenant. quotes taken from The Baptism of Disciples Alone Fred Malone pp 61,62