The Aaron Papers  www.the-aaron-papers.net 

 A STUDY IN COVENANT THEOLOGY

(Romans-RASV-1901)

THE ARGUMENT

  FIRST, the Nations of Israel must be seen as God’s first peoples. They can be initially defined here, as simply a visible example of the relationship that the invisible Creator God desired to establish with His visible creation. 9-1
9-1 First Corinthians Chapter ten: “1For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and did all eat the same spiritual food; 4and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. 5But with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6Now these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7Neither be idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9Neither let us make trial of the Lord, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents. 10Neither murmur, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer. 11Now all these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.”

  It is because the Creator God is an invisible Spirit that the establishment of Israel as a visible example was an essential beginning step for any real understanding of God. We could not have known God in any tangible way, had He not established these visible peoples of Israel.
Even though God could have used a number other ways to reveal Himself to His creation, within His own providence He choose to use visible Israel for that specific purpose.
  Then Israel’s structure must also be seen as God’s established visible institution, through which, by the use of the established visible initiatory rites, all creation could access His Covenant of Grace. (Ref.Gen.17:1-27; Ex.12:48)
  We must understand that within the whole of God’s reconciliation, Israel’s role was principally one of an introductory role. Yet visible Israel, having been promised the eternal benefits of a covenant relationship within this reconciliation, also has a future reward that is connected with that same promise. (Ref.Rom.3:3, 4; 9:1-5; 11:1, 11, 25-32)

  Second, God designed the Mosaic Covenant in such a way that it would enable His visible creation to achieve a deeper understanding of their invisible Creator. (Ref.Heb.8:5; 9:23)
 Third, during the dispensation of the New Covenant, the visible Christian Church must now be seen as simply the established visible institution, through which, by the use of God’s established visible initiatory rites, all creation can access His Covenant of Grace. (Ref.Jer.31:31-33; Heb.8:8-12; Heb.10:16-17; Mat.16:18; 26:26-28; 28:18-20)

 Though these opening comments may appear to be only a superficial description of God’s reconciliation, even to the casual reader they are adequate for isolating some major theological problems: Theological problems with the complex identification and definition of God’s peoples as it presently exists within the entire membership of the Abrahamic Covenant.
  1. We can begin here by attempting to understand the established Covenant connection and relationship between visible Israel and the visible Christian Church. Which will bring us to understand that within God’s reconciliation, the visible Christian Church is, in a very real sense, a continuation of visible Israel and not the replacement of visible Israel as many suppose. That is, God has now enlisted the visible Christian Church to participate in the fulfillment of His plan of redemption: The proclamation of the gospel: The reconciling of the world. This thought within itself is no slight problem for us to resolve.

  An important part of this solution can be found first in understanding the precise identification of God’s peoples as they are best defined within the Abrahamic Covenant. That is, understanding that the peoples of God can be properly defined only by our careful observation of His first peoples Israel and their historic relationship with the Creator God.
Then within that complex definition of a Jew, the Circumcision, and Israel that is being introduced here in Romans chapters two and nine, we must come to understand that both the visible characteristics and the invisible characteristics of these covenant peoples are always coexistent within God’s reconciliation.
  Since the nation of visible Israel is the only tangible example relationship that God has so graciously given us, we must believe that just as the invisible Church is analogous to invisible Israel, that the visible Church would be analogous to visible Israel as well.
Consequently, Israel, as our visible example, represents the component part of what we might call the broad concept of the Covenant of Grace; the Circumcised Flesh Covenant; or the Covenant of Bondage (Ref.Gen.17:1-14, 20, 23-27; Gal.4:21-24a, 30).
  Then for the purpose of properly identifying God’s peoples, visible Israel initially consisted of the visible Jews and the visible circumcision. Nevertheless, even within this visible example Israel, there is always the absolute presence of a separate yet coexistent invisible Israel. That is, an invisible Israel that consists of the invisible Jews and the invisible Circumcision, that is always hidden in God.
Once again, this is the only theological exegesis that literally allows for both visible Israel and invisible Israel to reach their separate eschatological fulfillment. It is absolutely crucial that we thoroughly understand this central point!

  Divine manifestation is one of the primary purposes behind the New Covenant. That is, this dispensation was established to more fully reveal the invisible character of God’s Abrahamic Covenant of Grace that was initially introduced through God’s visible peoples Israel.
Observing that both characteristics of the Covenant of Grace always represent the free and unmerited gift of grace from God, and then Jesus, because of His finished propitiatory work upon the cross, is seen as the full manifestation of that grace. Accordingly, this same covenant that God made with Abraham is surly complete within itself and can be representative of God’s whole reconciliation.
  Therefore, the New Covenant that was ushered in by this New Testament dispensation must not be seen as replacing God’s Abrahamic Covenant of Grace, but as more precisely explaining its invisible characteristics. The covenant that is seemingly being replaced in Heb.8: would be identified as the rituals of the Mosaic Law that was received in the exodus out of Egypt.

  Consequently, for the full promulgation of God’s reconciliation, we now understand that it was necessary that the peoples of visible Israel not be given a clear discernment of God’s unsearchable grace as it was so liberally given to the New Testament Christian Church. (Ref.Mat.13:13-17; Isa.6:9. 10; Acts.28:25-28; Rom.9:33; 11:8-10; 1Pe.1:10-12)

  Thus, this hidden invisible Israel, consisting of the invisible Jews and the invisible Circumcision, represent the component parts of the narrow concept of the Covenant of Grace (Ref.Gen.17:15-19, 21; Gal.4:26-28). This invisible characteristic of the Covenant of Grace would also represent the mystical line of the Covenant of Promise: Which is that invisible hereditary thread that has always been hidden within God’s Covenant of Grace throughout His entire reconciliation.
  Even though the general membership of the visible Christian Church also represents the broad concept of the covenant of Grace and consists of visible Christians (Ref.Mat.28:18-20; Acts.2:38, 39; Acts.11:26), it is absolutely imperative for us to understand this indispensable fact—that the narrow concept of the Covenant of Grace with its invisible component parts has essentially remained the same through both the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensations. They are, the Jews; invisible Jews, the Circumcision; invisible Circumcision (Rom.2:28, 29), and Israel; invisible Israel (Rom.9:6-8; Gal.6:16).
Remember that this is that common hereditary thread that has always been hidden within the Covenant of Grace. That single hereditary thread that perfectly binds together God’s whole reconciliation.

  So then to summarize these stated principles:
1) Visible Israel is always visible Israel and is still God’s visible peoples.
2) The visible Christian Church, consisting of visible Christians, is always the visible Christian Church and God’s visible peoples as well.
3) But God’s chosen peoples; His invisible elect priestly line, are always Israel, the Circumcision, and the Jews--the whole invisible Messianic Covenant line that is the hidden Israel of God.

  KEY - UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF GOD’S PEOPLES (THE VISIBLE AND THE INVISIBLE). THESE ARE ALL GOD’S DISPOSITIONS-ESTABLISHED FOR HIS CREATION.
  KEY - FOCUS ON THE HIDDEN (INVISIBLE) PEOPLES OF GOD: ISRAEL, THE CIRCUMCISION, AND THE JEWS. THE INVISIBLE THREAD THAT IS HIDDEN IN GOD.
  KEY - KNOW EXACTLY WHO THE PEOPLES OF GOD ARE (VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE)! 16-1


16-1 COVENANT THEOLOGY HISTORY
  This understanding has broad ramifications for the elect priests of God from every age. For the elect priests of God from the Old Testament dispensation (Ref.Ex.19:6) the souls of whom are then seen under the Heavenly alter (Ref.Rev.6:9, 10). Then the elect priests of God from the New Testament dispensation (Ref.1Pe.2:9) who are pictured at various times and in various states up in Heaven (Ref.Rev.20:4; 7:9-17; 19:1-9; 19:11-14). What we have come to recognize here, are some of the complexities that are involved in the proper definition of the peoples that have been brought into Covenant with God.
  The New Testament Church has generally failed to comprehend the breadth of this Covenant relationship with God, because it has failed to properly understand the discrete identification that is associated with the elect priests of God. Consequently, as they have defined who is and who is not part of this select community, there is a strong possibility that they have unwittingly tried to exclude some that should have been included. The case we are building here is a case for Covenant Theology: That is, Covenant Theology that is more precisely defined. The best question to ask, is what is our Christian understanding concerning the state of baptized infants and children who have subsequently passed on before their profession of faith?


Dr. James Buswell writes in his Systematic Theology, vol.ii,
p.256
  (4) Baptism a consecrative ordinance.
"We agree that those who have been baptized in Christian baptism, have ‘put on Christ’ (Gal.3:27). Baptism is an outward badge or sign which signifies, as the initiatory rites (Leviticus 12) of the Old Testament signified, that the individual belongs to and is under the care of God’s covenant people."

p.261
  2. The significance of Circumcision
"In the Old Testament, circumcision was the sign of the covenant relationship between God and the godly family and the godly people who constituted the Church. For the outsider the rule was, ‘Believe and be circumcised (and accept the entire complex of initiatory rites) and be numbered among God’s people.’"

p.262
  "Whereas God’s covenant instituted with the sign of circumcision, had special reference to Israel, yet it was definitely connected with the promise that Abraham would be ‘the father of many nations.’ Paul develops this thought in the epistle to the Romans. See especially chapter 4. In the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, although Abraham knew definitely that Ishmael was not to be in the Messianic line, yet he prayed, ‘Oh, that Ishmael might live before thee’ (v.18). And God replied, ‘As for Ishmael, I have heard thee...’ (v.20). In connection with the doctrine of election discussed above (See vol.ii, pp.148, 149), I have pointed out that Ishmael, and Esau in the next generation, were both within the covenant of grace, though not within the covenant of the Messianic line." (The Covenant of Promise)

vol.ii, pp.148, 149
1. Election to Specific Functions:
  "It is a simple fact, against which our wishes are of no avail, that the writers of the Scriptures use exactly the same word to indicate election to a specific function and to designate election to eternal salvation.
When God said of Saul of Tarsus, ‘He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; for I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake;’ [Acts.9:15, 16]. The word ‘chosen’ is ekloges, which simply means ‘elect.’ There can be no doubt that in this context God used the word with reference to a specific function, which the great Apostle was to perform.
There are several references to election in the early part of the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, which seem rather clearly to indicate election to the line of the ancestry of the Messiah, rather than to eternal salvation as such.
  When we read [v.8], ‘the children of the promise are reckoned for the seed,’ the word ‘reckoned’ comes from the same root and has the same general meaning as the word ‘elect.’ Paul is referring to the fact that the Messianic line was to be perpetuated in Isaac, not in Ishmael. But we are certainly not to understand by this that Ishmael was necessarily among the reprobate, so far as eternal salvation is concerned. The Genesis record tells plainly of Abraham’s prayer for Ishmael his son and of God’s firm promise... ‘As for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold I have blessed him and will make him fruitful... But my [Messianic] covenant I will establish with Isaac...’ (Gen.17:18-21). The reference in Romans 9 to Jacob and Esau is similar. ‘... not yet having been born, not having done anything good or evil in order that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls, it was said to her [Rebecca] that the greater will serve the less’ (Rom.9:11, 12).
  In this case the comment with which Paul concludes the reference to Jacob and Esau coincides with the view that the ‘election’ here referred to is an election to the Messianic line, and not an election of an individual to eternal life. Paul says, ‘Just as it is written, "Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated" [Mal.1:1-4] (Rom.9:13). In the Malachi passage from which Paul quotes these words, the prophet is clearly referring not to the individual Esau, but to the people of Edom who had been a sinful and rebellious people, though they were, according to the promises of God, eligible to be considered within God’s covenant with Israel. There is nothing in the Genesis record to indicate that Esau, when Jacob returned to his home land, was other than a sincere worshiper of Yahweh.
The fact that he and Jacob together performed the burial rites for their father [Gen.35:29] would seem to indicate that he was personally ‘numbered among the holy people of God.’
  The fact that God selects individuals for the particular work to which He calls them is indisputable. Compare the selection of Bezaleel and Aholiab [Ex.31:1-11; 35:30-35], and the selection of Paul and Barnabas for missionary activities [Acts.13:1-3]. The point presently under discussion is the fact that the common word for ‘election’ is used for such vocational appointments. That the ‘remnant’ of Israel to which Paul refers in Romans 11:5,7 are the subjects of ‘the election of grace,’ would seem to be an instance of election to salvation and at the same time election to the special function of serving as a witness to God’s grace."

  (aaron-This is an extremely interesting statement: That Ishmael was part of the covenant of grace, yet at the very same time Ishmael was to be excluded from the covenant of the Messianic line. What does Dr. Buswell mean by this? It would appear that he has a eye toward the covenant of grace as inclusive of all those who have become a part of the covenant family-visible Israel in this case. And then at the same time, a sharper focus is used when determining just those who would be included within the Messianic line: of which Isaac is the progenitor. This is the exact principle that is being presented here in this manuscript for consideration: That this priestly line that God has so meticulously elected throughout their generations, is not intended to fully represent the total number of God’s corporate peoples. That is, that the Messianic line does not include all of those who have been called into the corporate family of God; which most surly represents the whole visible family of God.)

p.262
  "Circumcision then in the Old Testament was a sign of membership in a godly family and in a godly people. Certainly not every child who was circumcised was regenerated. Not everyone put his faith in God when he attained the age of discretion. Paul explains, ‘They are not all Israel who are of Israel’ (Rom.9:6; cf. 2:27-29)."

  (aaron-Now if we believe in these applications that are being performed upon these helpless infants, then it is because of this tender age mandated by God when He formulated that initiatory rite that belief cannot be a prerequisite at all. We must see that all of Gen.17:1-14, 20, 23-27 was established by God as an early demonstration for His Covenant of Grace. That is, that any and all obedient participation in God’s Covenant of Grace, is facilitated by His own allocated faith and grace alone.)

  "To summarize the argument from the analogy of circumcision, in the first place we have one God. The God of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament (cf. Rom.3:29). Moreover, we have one race of fallen sinners; we have one covenant of grace; and we have one relationship of parents and children within the covenant of grace. God in the Old Testament, explicitly commanded that there should be initiatory rites performed upon the children of godly parents, indicating their membership in His covenant. The same God through His apostle Paul, in the New Testament, explicitly draws the analogy between baptism and the chief initiatory rite of the Old Testament. (Col.2:11, 12) It follows by inexorable implication from the data of the Scripture that baptism is to be applied to those to whom the initiatory rites were applied in the Old Testament."

pp.265, 266
  "The most important consideration connected with the discussion of infant baptism is that God establishes a covenant with a Christian family, as He has established a covenant with His Church. No one could be stronger in emphasizing the ‘covenant theology’ in general, and the family covenant in particular, than the great Baptist preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892). Spurgeon was a strong Calvinist, and his difference from the Presbyterians was chiefly in the fact that he did not see that infant baptism is the sign of the family covenant, on the analogy of the initiatory rites of the Old Testament.”

  (aaron-It is very unfortunate that Spurgeon was not able to connect the covenant dots between the initiatory rites of circumcision and baptism. As his lack of understanding on these rites continues within the Baptist camp to be a major point of contention.)

  “God promised to Abraham emphatically and repeatedly that He should be the God of Abraham’s children. Paul clearly teaches that the children of Christian parents, if even one parent is a Christian, are in a holy relationship (1Cor.7:14). On the analogy of the Old Testament initiatory rites, analogy clearly taught by the New Testament Scriptures, the Reformed theology holds that infant baptism is the sign and mark of this family covenant, the sign not only of the vows of the parents, but the sign of the obligation and responsibility of the Church toward the children under its care."

  2. There is yet another part to this problem that confronts us here in this study. It is in solving this complex transition in God’s reconciliation. That is, giving a coherent Scriptural explanation for this transition in God’s reconciliation. This is that evident transition from visible Israel as God’s Old Testament visible institutional example to the visible Christian Church as God’s New Testament visible institutional example, which would explain this whole transition without the appearance of visible Israel being dislocated altogether.