Paedo-Baptism Answers Galatians 3:16

[Corey Powell]

I have been in the "Progressive Covenentalism" camp for some time now, however, I have recently been seeing the scriptural warrant for a WCF view of covenants and baptism. I am 90% of the way there with some holdouts.

Galatians 3:16 is one that has been a controlling text in my Baptist thought:

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ."

My understanding of this has been: covenant succession to physical dependants was a shadow of the reality to come which was always intended in the covenant (3:15) And the promise, though given to Abraham's physical seed under the old covenant, it is now understood that the promise was to the true seed (singular) which is Christ. Thus those who are partakers of the covenant are such because they are in Christ, the offspring of Abraham who is the inheritor of the promise (3:19) and its fulfillment, and so the shadow (the sign being given to physical descendants) has passed to the fuller reality. The promise has not been annulled, but it is truly for Christ and those in him (3:29). Thus we now baptize spiritual infants rather than circumcise physical infants.

What are the faults in my argument, exegetically, logically, etc? What is the Paedobaptist understanding of this passage as it relates to offspring being in the covenant?

Thank you for your kind and thorough consideration and response. I am very interested and wanting to see this from a reformed perspective.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Thanks for your post.

In a manner of speaking, we baptize for the sake of the elect. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ and the elect in him. Not knowing who is elect and who is not, we proclaim the gospel to all. Now, in the context of our covenant youth, we recognize that God has worked mightily through families in both the OT and the NT. In fact, this is the predominant way that are made partakers of the salvation won for us by Christ. That is, families are the context in which most people come to know the Lord.

Now I noticed that you made a jump from OT to NT in the statement regarding going from physical to spiritual. Yet, if the substance of the Covenant of Grace is Christ, and that has not changed from OT to NT, then it would follow that we would do similarly today (continuity and progress both acknowledged) as the parents of the OT. We would see the sign of covenant initiation administered and raise our children according to the means of grace provided for us by God. We would do so with the hope of our children living according to that which they were raised in.

Abraham Kuyper described how grace is understood when relating to covenant. We are familiar with common grace (that which is bestowed to all) and saving grace (that which is bestowed only to the elect), but Kuyper spoke of a third category of grace. We see that in covenantal grace (that which is bestowed to those in the covenant community but is ultimately rejected whether explicitly or as one who is self-deceived for life).

I hope this helps!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I have been in the "Progressive Covenentalism" camp for some time now, however, I have recently been seeing the scriptural warrant for a WCF view of covenants and baptism. I am 90% of the way there with some holdouts.

Galatians 3:16 is one that has been a controlling text in my Baptist thought:

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ."

My understanding of this has been: covenant succession to physical dependants was a shadow of the reality to come which was always intended in the covenant (3:15) And the promise, though given to Abraham's physical seed under the old covenant, it is now understood that the promise was to the true seed (singular) which is Christ. Thus those who are partakers of the covenant are such because they are in Christ, the offspring of Abraham who is the inheritor of the promise (3:19) and its fulfillment, and so the shadow (the sign being given to physical descendants) has passed to the fuller reality. The promise has not been annulled, but it is truly for Christ and those in him (3:29). Thus we now baptize spiritual infants rather than circumcise physical infants.

What are the faults in my argument, exegetically, logically, etc? What is the Paedobaptist understanding of this passage as it relates to offspring being in the covenant?

Thank you for your kind and thorough consideration and response. I am very interested and wanting to see this from a reformed perspective.

Some questions you might ask of yourself as you think through exegesis and interpretation of Gal.3:16.
1) What are the promises referred to?
2) As Paul seems to quote or reference the text of Scripture, what passage or passages might he have in mind? Why?
3) What role (if any) does typology play?

When you write, "...it is now understood...," that implies to me a particular hermeneutical approach, a pattern of interpretation that is most likely different from a paedobaptist covenant-theology hermeneutic. Given the blessed overlap in much of our theological conclusions, ironically there is often serious confusion about methodology. Baptists and Presbyterians conclude their opposites are just being inconsistent, someplace; and getting on the same page is simply a matter of clarification and consistency--go one direction, and everything lines up in a Baptist paradigm, lean the other way and you get the "magic-eye" result of seeing what the Presbyterian sees. The truth is deeper than that.

The Presbyterian doesn't think Paul is offering a fresh, New Covenant take on an old expectation. He thinks Paul is teaching Old Testament theology, properly. The big difference is between expectation and fulfillment. Before Jesus Christ, the interpretation is hopeful; after Christ and his success, the interpretation is enlightened.

Let me recast your words in terms of Isaac, rather than Christ.

Those who are partakers of the covenant are such because they are in Isaac, the offspring of Abraham who is the inheritor of the promise (Gen.21:12; Rom.9:7; Heb.11:18; Gen.24:36), a partial but not its ultimate fulfillment.​

Covenant blessings come to people who are united to a representative, be it Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, etc., ultimately Christ. The sign of the covenant is not a designation for the heirs of the covenant if they have no security in a Principal. Putting the sign on a properly designated recipient is not--in this interpretive paradigm--a form of designating physical derivation (especially considering that converts to faith in the Living God were obliged to take the sign as prerequisite to inclusion in the people, and in their religious life). Receiving the sign is a token of divine ownership, including all a person is and possesses, which encompasses the family.

I suppose you can see that this is a different way of regarding the OT background, and consequently has different implications for applying the text of Gal.3:16. Anyway, I hope this is helpful to you. Please take care not to leap without caution into a new theological pond. I know you will be welcome, but you should be aware that such transition is not without its exercises. There is a cost to count, not merely rewards. Blessings....

 

[MW]

The practical issue is this -- God has His elect among the children of believers, Rom. 9:11-13; therefore the sign belongs to them.

 

[JP Wallace]

My understanding of this has been: covenant succession to physical dependants was a shadow of the reality to come which was always intended in the covenant (3:15) And the promise, though given to Abraham's physical seed under the old covenant, it is now understood that the promise was to the true seed (singular) which is Christ. Thus those who are partakers of the covenant are such because they are in Christ, the offspring of Abraham who is the inheritor of the promise (3:19) and its fulfillment, and so the shadow (the sign being given to physical descendants) has passed to the fuller reality. The promise has not been annulled, but it is truly for Christ and those in him (3:29). Thus we now baptize spiritual infants rather than circumcise physical infants.

I was also once baptist and this verses was a major impediment to understanding covenant baptism. That is until I kept reading in the chapter:

Galatians 3:27-29 ESV “27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

This verse establishes:

a) that the promises made to Abraham are in one way or other connected to and worked out in the life of the New Covenant believer.

b) that while Christ is the Seed in a very specific and fundamental way, and while it is true a genetic link is no longer the defining mark of the covenant community that every believer is also (along with, and through Christ) a seed/offspring/son of Abraham and an heir of the same promises as Abraham.

The conclusion is that the Abrahamic covenant is closely related to if not identical to the New Covenant - and thus with appropriate changes (i.e. water, not circumcision, female and male etc.) the covenant signs and seals can be and should be applied to not just adults but children as per the Abrahamic covenant.