Sacramental-blog

In my previous post I dealt with Dr. Fred Malone’s approach to hermeneutics. I sought to answer the charge of inconsistency that Malone levels against paedobaptists. I proceeded to identify some of the key deficiencies in his hermeneutical approach, particularly focusing upon his failure to properly relate the Old Testament with the New. As Malone himself claims that establishing the correct relationship between the two testaments is essential if we are to understand Baptism aright, I felt that it was especially important to highlight the differences that I have with him at this point.

Within this post my critique will move on into the second section of Malone’s book.

The String of Pearls

Within this section of the book Malone seeks to address the ‘string of pearls’ that paedobaptists use to justify the practice of infant Baptism. Malone lists the individual ‘pearls’ that, put together, form the argument for infant Baptism: 1) The covenant theology of the Bible; 2) The relationship between circumcision and Baptism; 3) The proof-texts concerning Baptism; 4) Jesus’ attitude toward children; 5) The disjunction of the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism; 6) The argument of silence; 7) The argument of expanded blessings; 8) The testimony of tradition.

Malone quotes a PCA pastor who claims that, although the individual arguments for infant Baptism may be weak, together they present a strong argument. Malone asks: ‘How can a strong chain be made of weak links?’

It seems to me that Malone has just broken the back of his poor analogy. The argument for paedobaptism is not, in my opinion, best understand as a chain of good and necessary inference containing a number of individual arguments or links. The arguments for paedobaptism are mutually reinforcing and consequently are not really best compared to links in a chain. Maybe the arguments are more like aspects of the ecosystem of biblical truth that combine together to form an environment that ensures the extinction of the species of Baptist theology that Malone propounds. Maybe the arguments are more like ingredients in a cake: get the ingredients right and the paedobaptist ‘cake’ will follow! Of course, sometimes the arguments are more like arguments from the characteristics of the finished cake to the sort of ingredients that it must be composed of. Malone gives us little reason to prefer his analogy over any of the ones above.

Malone seems to view the argument for paedobaptism as some narrow analytical argument. I am increasingly convinced that the strength of the paedobaptist argument is found in its breadth. It is not a narrow argument from a selection of proof-texts — like many arguments for a Baptist position — but is a wide-ranging theological argument. The paedobaptist argument is not myopic but views the question of paedobaptism in the light of a large number of other theological concerns. At the conclusion of this series of posts I hope to present a positive case for paedobaptism that will seek to address the question in a variety of different ways, using a number of major doctrines to bolster the case.

Eschatology, ecclesiology, anthropology and soteriology are among the many areas of doctrine that are to some degree or other moulded by our answer to the Baptism question. In my experience few Baptists have really appreciated how great an effect their view of Baptism (principally their common denial of the efficacy and objectivity of Baptism) has upon these other areas of their thought and vice versa. Each particular doctrine serves to condition all of the rest. Taking one doctrine by itself and freely drawing what appear to be ‘good and necessary’ consequences can often lead us into heresy. Every doctrine should serve to provide limits upon apparently ‘logical’ deductions from all of the others. Texts teaching the sovereignty of God should not be used to silence texts that teach the responsibility of man and vice versa. It is my conviction that the common credobaptist understanding of Baptism tends to isolate the question of Baptism from many broader theological considerations.

Arguments for paedobaptism should not, in my opinion, use the language of ‘good and necessary consequence’ — our argument is far broader than this. We should seek to understand Baptism in the light of the whole teaching of Scripture and not just the teaching that explicitly relates to Baptism. Essentially this is the difference between the regulative principle in its narrow form and the regulative principle in the broader form that I early argued for. A narrow form of the regulative principle can easily arrive at unbiblical conclusions because it is not sufficiently conditioned by the whole teaching of Scripture. Once we have appreciated the interdependency of Christian doctrine we will be wary of developing a view of Baptism that has not been informed by our understanding of God, Christ, man, salvation, ecclesiology, eschatology and other such areas of doctrine.

It is crucially important to recognize the narrowness of the foundation upon which most credobaptist (and all too many paedobaptist) arguments are based. The problematic nature of many understandings of Baptism only becomes apparent when we seek to fully integrate these understandings into the broader matrix of Christian doctrine.

Agreements and Disagreements on Covenant Theology

Malone laments the fact that most paedobaptists and, indeed, many credobaptists are persuaded that covenant theology is in principle irreconcilable with credobaptist theology. Malone wishes to attack what he perceives as paedobaptist dangers in covenant theology and also to address an overreaction on the part of Baptists against covenant theology. At the beginning of his treatment of covenant theology Malone claims:—

As I read the covenants of the Old and New Testaments, only a Baptistic covenant theology holds consistently to the New Testament’s interpretation of how the Old Testament is fulfilled in it.

He sets out to identify the areas of agreement and disagreement that exist between credobaptists and paedobaptists on the substance of covenant theology.

Areas of Agreement
The first area of agreement that Malone identifies is that of the Covenant of Redemption. Malone defines the Covenant of Redemption as the unified plan of the Trinity to redeem the elect from their sins.

The second area of agreement is found in a common belief in the Covenant of Works made with Adam. Malone claims that all people are born ‘under the condemnation of the failed Covenant of Works and remain “under law,” until they are transferred into the Covenant of Grace (Romans 3:19-20; 6:14).’

The third area of agreement is a common belief in the historical Covenant of Grace made with the elect. The Covenant of Grace begins with the promise of Genesis 3:15 and is carried on throughout history in ‘variously administered “covenants of promise” with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David.’ The Covenant of Grace is fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which He

effectually purchased salvation for all those whom He represented as their covenant Head (i.e., the particular redemption of all the elect in all of history through His New Covenant).

Covenantal Baptists and paedobaptists share in common the belief that ‘the way of salvation has been by grace through faith in God’s provision of that “seed of the woman” since the fall of man.’ Malone attacks the idea that the Sinaitic Covenant was a republished Covenant of Works (although he claims that the Pharisees understood it as such), claiming that the conditional elements of the Covenant ‘referred to Israel’s possession of the land of Canaan as long as God’s commandments were obeyed, not to a personal salvation of works.’ Consequently, the Covenant of Sinai ended when the promised seed came.

The final area of agreement that Malone draws our attention to is that regarding the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption.

Areas of Disagreement
Moving on the area of disagreements Malone highlights the differences that exist between paedobaptists and credobaptists regarding the interpretation of a number of New Testament texts regarding the ‘fulfilled “seed” of Abraham’ and whether ‘our physical seed’ are entitled to Baptism as Abraham’s sons were entitled to circumcision. Malone strongly objects to paedobaptists like Berkhof who believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is essentially identical to the New Covenant. He claims that it is on the basis of this false identification that paedobaptists baptize infants.

Malone claims that the Abrahamic promises fulfilled in the New Covenant ‘are not the passing on of covenant signs to infant seed, but the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon His elect Jew and Gentile seeds through faith in Christ.’ Only those who believe in Christ are the true seed of Abraham. Consequently ‘New Covenant baptism must be applied only to those who express faith in Christ.’ This, in Malone’s understanding, means disciples alone.

Definitions of Covenants

Malone compares and contrasts Baptist and paedobaptist understandings of covenant. He criticizes authors like Robert Booth, who ‘expand their definition of a covenant to go beyond the basic etymological and exegetical definition by generalizing from contextual elements found in particular covenants.’ Malone insists that we must establish a basic definition of covenant and then seek to discover the content of each covenant by studying written revelation, rather than impose one definition upon the whole of the Scriptures.

To go beyond the basic definition of a covenant to include physical descendants, conditional promises, curses and blessings in every covenant literally is to put words in the mouth of Scripture. This is a violation of basic hermeneutics and biblical theology.

Malone maintains that there are no curses in the New Covenant, as covenant breakers ‘remain cursed in Adam’s Covenant of Works.’ No one in the New Covenant could ever break it. He draws our attention to John Owen’s observation that our definition of covenant will determine our final covenant theology. Having questioned a number of the common paedobaptist definitions he presents us with what he deems to be a ‘covenantal Baptist definition of a covenant’:—

[A] biblical and divine covenant is a solemn promise or oath of God to man, each covenant’s content being determined by revelation concerning that covenant.

Malone takes paedobaptists to task for assuming that the covenant idea must ‘automatically have a genealogical or organic element that always includes believers and their seed.’ In opposition to this Malone claims that only elect individuals belong to the Covenant of Grace. He criticizes paedobaptists who seek to maintain the inclusion of the seed of believers in their definition of covenant against the biblical evidence for a Covenant of Grace made with the elect only.

Malone reasons that each covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace with ‘certain external features attached.’ It is unbiblical to use the ‘administratively attached elements of the historical covenants’ to redefine the Covenant of Redemption and the historical Covenant of Grace. Malone claims that it is the error of virtually equating the Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant that leads paedobaptists to include organic elements in the Covenant of Grace. Only the New Covenant is the pure Covenant of Grace. ‘The Abrahamic Covenant had primary reference to the coming of Christ as his ultimate physical seed of the New Covenant.’ The Covenant of Grace is the promise of salvation within the Old Testament covenants of promise, which would later be revealed as the New Covenant.

Malone now proceeds to deal with the unity and diversity of the biblical covenants. He admits that both paedobaptists and credobaptists acknowledge some degree of unity and some degree of diversity in the biblical covenants. However, paedobaptist, by exaggerating the unity between the covenants of promise and the New Covenant rob the New Covenant

…of its distinctive glory and proper administration in the church today (i.e., the baptism of disciples alone).

Malone argues that paedobaptist authors such as Berkhof are inconsistent when they see the Covenant of Redemption and its historical outworking in the Covenant of Grace as established with the elect alone and then go on to maintain that this does not mean that the ‘nonelect are outside of the Covenant of Grace in every sense of the word.’ For Malone it is important to stress that the Covenant of Grace is made only with the elect.

Malone calls us to recognize that the organic elements within the Abrahamic Covenant were only there until the ‘seed to whom the promises were made was born.’

…the genealogical element of the historical Old Testament covenants was necessary only to bring forth the final physical seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made, Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16, 19) and His “seed” (Galatians 3:29) who have clothed themselves with Christ through faith alone.

Malone contends that in the New Covenant emphasis shifts ‘from family relations to individual responsibility and membership.’ Christ is the ‘covenant Head of a new family’ — the true seed of Abraham — and so the seed of believers should not be included in the covenant. Malone adduces the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:27-34 as proof of the ‘individualistic element’ of the New Covenant. The New Covenant only includes regenerate individuals; a ‘personal relationship to Jesus Christ’ is required for membership. Paedobaptists fail to recognize the biblical evidence that the New Covenant ‘is an effectual covenant that guarantees realized blessings in each and every member.’

Common Ground?

I must admit that I have many problems concerning the areas of agreement that Malone lists, although I will readily grant that I am atypical of Reformed Christians in this respect. Nevertheless, I believe that some of these differences have bearing upon the question of Baptism. Whilst I may not explicitly articulate their full bearing on the debate, I trust that it will become apparent in time.

The Covenant of Redemption
I would begin by taking issue with Malone’s understanding of the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption and election. The following are some of the concerns that I have:—

Malone fails to centre his doctrine of election on Christ. I believe that Christ should be the fixed point in our doctrine of election. Christ is the content of the electing decree. God’s purpose in history is to gather all things together in Christ. Individuals are certainly part of this, but God’s saving purpose is far broader than the salvation of individuals (and certainly far broader than the salvation of individuals as individuals). If we do not see the content of the decree revealed in Christ we will be in continual danger of crippling doubt concerning our own eternal election. Election is not to be thought of as some hidden decree about us, but as a revealed decree concerning Christ (although I must admit that I find the language of ‘decree’ a bit unhelpful). Election should be far more rooted in our understanding of the eternal interpersonal communion of the Trinity, as election is essentially the Trinitarian will to open up this communion to the Church as the new humanity in Christ.

Once we appreciate that Christ is the content of the electing decree, election ceases to appear arbitrary, as some dark cloud preventing us from seeing God’s true purpose. God’s purpose is clearly revealed in covenant. To live faithfully in covenant with God is to know the reality of God’s election. We are brought into relationship with Christ in the Church, through the Word, Baptism, the Eucharist, prayer, fellowship, etc. Having brought us into relationship with Christ in the Church, God calls us to abide in the One in whom our election is found. We make our calling and election sure by remaining in Him.

We are not truly ‘elect’ (in the way the Bible uses this terminology) apart from a (historically established) relationship with Christ. Our election is an election derived from the Head of the new humanity, who was chosen before time began. Just as the election of individual Israelites depended entirely upon the relationship that they bore to the patriarchs in whom they were chosen, so our election depends entirely upon the relationship that we bear to Christ in whom our election is found. A real living and organic union is necessary. Just as a circumcised Jew was to think of himself as chosen in Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans, so the baptized Christian is to think of himself as chosen in Christ before time began. In ourselves we are not chosen before time began, this is only true of us as we find our existence in Christ. Our election presupposes a living relationship with the Elect One in covenant.

This may seem to be a radical take on the doctrine of election, but I am increasingly convinced that the scriptural data will bear it out in a number of respects. Firstly, the way the Bible uses the language of election to refer to those in the ‘visible’ Church. Secondly, this approach builds our understanding of salvation around Christ rather than around a select group of individuals chosen from all eternity. Thirdly, it explains why a number of the biblical references to election can only make sense if they are limited to individuals who are actually faithful members of the Church and do not make sense if they refer to a group of individuals chosen before time began who may or may not have become members of the people of God in history (e.g. Romans 8:33; Titus 1:1). Fourthly, I believe that it is far more consistent with the concept of ‘union with Christ’ as developed in Scripture. This concept does not seem to be rooted in a mere ‘decretal’ union, but in a living ‘perichoretic’ union. I submit that the common Reformed understanding of verses such as Ephesians 1:4 leads to a distortion of the biblical teaching of union with Christ.

By starting with his particular view of election, Malone can go on to relativize the Church. For many God holds out a smiling mask to all in the visible Church, but only truly smiles upon the elect. If Christ is not the content of election than we must always be suspicious of the means of grace; they are only truly efficacious for the elect and no one really knows who ‘they’ are. Furthermore, the organic nature of salvation can be ignored. Election is of isolated individuals. Whilst God may well use the Church as the means to bring them to Himself, the Church is merely functional throughout. The Church becomes little more than a divinely instituted organization for the facilitation of individual salvation, rather than the fulfillment of the salvation itself (this is an essential point that I will explore in more depth in a later post).

Malone will later use the idea that the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect (conceived of as secretly chosen by God from eternity) alone to attack the ‘organic’ elements introduced by paedobaptists. The secret decree of election also casts doubt upon the reality present in the ‘visible church’. Once we view the electing decree in the manner that Malone views it, the claim that the children of believers are in the Covenant of Grace seems far less tenable. God’s electing decree is unshackled by all of the temporal relationships that exist between individuals. In the electing decree individuals are pure individuals, conceived of apart from any historical relationships. Any organic and historical elements in God’s historical dealings belong merely to the administration of the Covenant of Grace and cannot belong to its essence. Malone will play on the problematic nature of the relationship between the 'electing decree' and the 'decree to create' in Reformed theology to undermine the organic created order by the decree. Of course, if we centre creation and election on Christ these things are not anywhere near as problematic (I am essentially a supralapsarian who sees Christ as the object of the electing 'decree').

My vision of election is diametrically opposed to that of Malone. The content of God’s saving purpose is revealed gradually over history and most fully in Christ. In Christ we see that God’s purpose is the bringing of all things together in Him. This purpose is most fully revealed in the Church where Christ has established the means whereby we will be brought to fullness (Ephesians 4:11-16). It is quite clear that it is not an ‘invisible church’ that is in mind here; Christ’s body is very visible. For this reason we should never use the doctrine of election to relativize the doctrine of the Church. If God’s purpose is the formation of one new man in Christ Jesus, election is primarily the election of the Church in Christ. We are elect if we are living faithfully in relationship with Christ in the Church. Once we see the clear relationship between election and the Church, we must admit that ‘organic’ elements are essential to the doctrine of election. It is these organic elements that provide for the ‘bringing together’ of all things in Christ.

Malone believes that in the New Covenant God’s saving purpose is clearly seen as the ‘organic’ elements of the Old Covenant fall away. Malone seems to conceive of God’s electing purpose as designed to save individuals alone. This is why I believe that it is important to tackle his view of the Covenant of Redemption and election.

The Covenant of Works
Malone claims the Covenant of Works as another area of agreement between paedobaptists and covenantal Baptists. Malone understands the Covenant of Works to be a system of salvation whereby individuals could earn their own salvation through keeping the law. Whilst Malone denies that the Sinaitic Covenant was a ‘renewed Covenant of Works’, he clearly believes that the pre-Fall Covenant with Adam operated according to a ‘Pelagian’ principle of strict merit.

This is a doctrine that I have very seriously difficulties with. I do not see that the Covenant of Works is taught in Scripture. When God created Adam He created Adam within a blessed relationship, not into a system where Adam had to amass brownie points with God. Adam certainly had to mature in relationship with God. As he was faithful to God, Adam would be perfected in his relationship with God. Creation was given to man as communion with God and was sacramental from the outset. There is ample positive scriptural evidence that God created man in a gracious relationship with Himself and that man did not have to ‘earn’ divine favour. There is no such thing as a divine communion that is not thoroughly gracious.

Many of the problems with the Covenant of Works doctrine are ably dealt with in this essay by Rich Lusk [I have linked to Google’s HTML version of the document; I’m not sure if the original is still available]. One of the key problems with the Covenant of Works doctrine is that it functions as the fundamental covenant model in many respects. Christ saves us by being a successful Pelagian, racking up oodles of supererogatory brownie points to liberally sign over to our heavenly ‘bank accounts’ of merit. Whilst this is somewhat of a caricature, it is not too far removed from the position that many advocates of the Covenant of Works maintain.

In opposition to this approach, I am persuaded that it is the covenantal relationships that exist within the Trinity that should provide the foundation for our understanding of historical covenants. The historical covenants are essentially God’s opening up of the eternal interpersonal relationships of the Trinity to embrace human persons; man is brought into the eternal communion of God. I would highly recommend Jeff Meyer’s talk on covenant at the Connecticut Valley Conference on Reformed Theology for an insightful treatment of this subject.

If, as Ralph Smith suggests in his book Eternal Covenant: How the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology, we are to see the Trinitarian ‘Covenant’ as paradigmatic, the Covenant of Works doctrine has to be abandoned as unbiblical. Covenant is not something added on to creation; creation is essentially covenantal. Man was graciously created in the image of God and in true communion with Him. Man did not have to ‘earn his salvation’ as he was already in a gracious covenant relationship with God. All man had to do was to abide in this covenant. As this covenant was gracious the idea of the pre-Fall covenant serving the purpose of providing the ‘machinery’ by which man could pull himself up by his bootstraps and save himself must be rejected outright.

Does all of this have any bearing upon the Baptism debate? I am convinced that it does. The Covenant of Works doctrine teaches us that in his original created state, man was not in a true relationship of grace with God. Grace is essentially something that has to be added to the created order to make up for the deficiency of the natural order itself. Grace is discontinuous with the created order, rather than restoring and perfecting it. Either God operates entirely outside the order of creation, or His work represents a suspension of the order of creation.

As Joel Garver observes, in a quote in Rich Lusk’s article:—

Regarding the analogous relationship between post-Tridentine nature/grace dichotomies and the covenant of works/grace [dichotomy] … the issue isn’t just one of works vs. grace, but involves the very way in which grace is conceived of as operating. If nature (or creation) is a self-enclosed system that is not always-already grace and graciously directed to an eschatological end, then grace will always remain extrinsic to the original created order, whether conceived of as “natural” or “covenantal.”

All of this throws into sharp relief one of the key pillars of baptistic theology. The Baptist argument (and Malone’s is no exception), as P. Richard Flinn recognized in his helpful article “Baptism, Redemptive History, and Eschatology: The Parameters of Debate” in The Failure of the American Baptist culture, is founded upon a particular reading of redemptive history—

In all of these statements there is a distinct movement in redemptive history postulated. The Kingdom of God progresses from the external to the internal, from the temporal to the eternal, from the fleshly to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, from the visible to the invisible, from the objective to the subjective, from the corporate to the individual.

This is baptist eschatology in a nutshell. It is not a new development in the history of theology. The only theological ground on which the Anabaptists could defend themselves against the Reformed was to posit a similar “development” in redemptive history. They began with a contrast between nature and grace, the revivified platonism made popular by the Schoolmen. As redemption unfolded it became more and more “spiritual” and less and less “natural.” The Reformers started from the different position. Rejecting the dichotomy between nature and grace, they insisted on the contrast being between sin and righteousness. So Berkouwer: “The Reformers, however, always maintained that the contrast was not between nature and grace, but between flesh and spirit, sin and grace…”

The Covenant of Works/Grace dichotomy employed by Malone enables him to maintain the nature/grace distinction that lies at the heart of the Baptist argument. If God’s grace is truly at work in nature, healing, restoring and perfecting the broken order of Creation, then the organic relationships of the family cannot pass from the purview of redemption. God’s grace has to work through the created channel of the family. If God’s New Covenant grace does not operate through the relationship between parents and their children, then creation is not truly being redeemed. We should never permit eschatology to become an attack upon protology. G.C. Berkouwer writes:—

…eschatology cannot furnish an argument against infant baptism, for life is not threatened in the salvation of God in Jesus Christ, but reconciled and blessed. The grace of Christ in the Covenant of God does not destroy life, but resurrects it, as the circumcision of the Old Covenant touched common life with the seal of purification. When this Covenant is fulfilled, that common life is also saved. Eschatology does not contrast with that life but fills it with God’s salvation. That is why God’s speaking in the New Covenant is not a speaking in an individualistic style, as if men were detached from the obligations of the “old” world, but the Word of God comes to man in the full reality of his life, as it did under the Old Covenant.

The Covenant of Grace
I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with Malone’s understanding of the Covenant of Redemption and the doctrine of election. Malone believes that the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect alone. Given my differences his understanding of election, my differences with his understanding of the Covenant of Grace should be plain. To be a member of the historical Church of Jesus Christ is to be a member of the Covenant of Grace. Again I differ from Malone in believing that it is possible to apostatize from the Covenant of Grace. This is something that I will argue for at a later point.

I do not agree with Malone's claim that ‘the Covenant of Grace begins with the promise of Genesis 3:15’ if by that he means that the Covenant with Adam was not itself gracious. I would have difficulties with Malone’s understanding of limited atonement (something that I have written about elsewhere). I believe that, in our understanding of the atonement, we should view it more as the destruction of the old order destroyed by sin and the creation of a new humanity in Christ than as a ‘payment’ for a discrete number of sins committed. As Tom Smail observes—

God’s justice is concerned less with punishing wrong relationships than with restoring right ones…

His justice is less punitive than restorative, he rejects sinners in order to transform them into people who reflect his own holy love in their relationships with him and with one another. It is that drastic transformation, that dying to sin and living to God, that Jesus is accomplishing for all humanity on the cross.

If we take such a view of the atonement it is also harder to abstract it from history in the manner that Malone seems to do (i.e. we should be cautious about reading the benefits of the atonement back into the Old Testament). I am also less comfortable with seeing Christ as the direct object of Old Covenant faith. The Old Covenant order certainly prefigured and anticipated Christ throughout, but God’s historical work of salvation is broader than the death and resurrection of Christ. The death and resurrection of Christ is the climax of God’s redemptive historical work and the foundation of the new world order. Nevertheless, it is the climax of a work of salvation that was ongoing before the incarnation. Malone claims that ‘the way of salvation has been by grace through faith in God’s provision of that “seed of the woman” since the fall of man.’ The first part of this statement is pretty unobjectionable; the only thing I would say is that life in covenant with God was, even for Adam, by grace through faith — we are not dealing with a mere post-Fall principle here. On the second part of the statement I would be more inclined to side with Geerhardus Vos:—

As to the word ‘seed’ there is no reason to depart from the collective sense in either case. The seed of the serpent must be collective, and this determines the sense of the seed of the woman. The promise is, that somehow out of the human race a fatal blow will come which shall crush the head of the serpent. Still, indirectly the possibility is hinted at that in striking this fatal blow the seed of the woman will be concentrated in one person… [W]e are not warranted, however, in seeking an exclusively personal reference to the Messiah here, as though He alone were meant by ‘the woman’s seed’. Old Testament Revelation approaches the concept of a personal Messiah very gradually. It sufficed for fallen man to know that through His divine power and grace God would bring out of the human race victory over the serpent. In that faith could rest. The object of their faith was much less definite than that of ours, who know the personal Messiah. But none the less, the essence of this faith, subjectively considered, was the same, viz., trust in God’s grace and power to bring deliverance from sin.

I think that Malone is probably holding his particular position as a result of a misreading of Romans and Galatians. Rather than reading the arguments of these epistles redemptive historically, Malone may be wrenching the concept of justification by pistis Iesou Christou out of its redemptive historical context and universalizing it (of course, I would also disagree with Malone’s objective genitive reading of this expression).

One should observe the nature of the view of redemptive history that this approach leaves Malone with. Salvation has always been by faith in Jesus Christ. In the Old Covenant Christ anticipated in a number of ways; the people had outward ceremonies that prefigured Him, the ‘organic’, ‘generational’ element of the covenant looked forward to His birth. However, now that Christ has come, these ‘external’ prefiguring layers can be cast off; the outer husk of the covenant was only necessary before the seed was clearly revealed. Malone seems to view ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ more in terms of removing certain ‘layers’ of the covenant whilst preserving others.

Malone’s understanding of covenant theology seems to run along this sort of line: historical covenants are all administrations of the one Covenant of Grace which is the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption. The essential ‘heart’ of each covenantal administration is the one Covenant of Grace. However, in each covenant there are also extraneous elements that belong to the ‘administration’ of the covenant. As redemptive history progresses these extraneous elements are gradually shed and the New Covenant reveals the Covenant of Grace in its full individualistic glory. The ‘extraneous’ elements belonging to the covenantal administration (e.g. the sign of the covenant being applied to the infant seed) are not, of course, arbitrary. They anticipate the fullness that is to come. However, their purpose is primarily illustrative and typological and they are to be dispensed with when the ‘reality’ has come, rather than being continued in a more glorious way.

My understanding of redemptive history is quite different. Continuity and discontinuity is not to be understood as gradual removal of layers over the essential covenant heart. They are better understood as an organic development, like a child growing to maturity. The final form that the covenant takes is very different from its initial form. However, the development does not occur by means of shedding extraneous elements; it occurs as every element of the original order is raised to a higher level. The New Covenant order is certainly radically different from the Old Covenant order (like Malone, I disagree with those who identify the New Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant too closely). However, its differences do not result from a removal of extraneous elements of the Old Covenant order, but from the fulfillment of the old order in its entirety in a new glorified order. The New Covenant does not destroy the organic principle of the Old Covenant but truly perfects it. The family unit is not suddenly abandoned by the form of salvation proclaimed by the New Covenant. The family unit can be saved and perfected by the Church.

Defining Covenant

I am not particularly drawn to tidy definitions of the meaning of the word ‘covenant’. The concept of ‘covenant’ is so rooted in the redemptive historical narrative of Scripture that it is hard to abstract and define it. I fear that (as Alexander Schmemann observes in regard to defining the sacraments) this approach leads us to isolate the concept of 'covenant' from its context to discover its true essence, which distinguishes it from that which is ‘non-covenantal’. But is anything ‘non-covenantal’? The problems of such an approach should be immediately apparent. Covenant is essential both to the being of God and to the being of His creation. There is no aspect of creation that lacks covenantal significance. Everything must be understood in terms of covenant. For this reason any definition that sees covenant in terms of ‘essential’ and ‘administratively attached’ elements should be treated with great suspicion; it is incipient Gnosticism.

If covenant is essential to the being of creation, as I have argued, then it becomes clear that claims like Malone’s are based upon an understanding in which God gradually abandons elements of His original good creation, only retaining certain more important elements, like the individual’s eternal soul. However, the idea that God abandons the created order rather than redeeming it is clearly not a Christian idea. Malone claims that ‘to go beyond the basic definition of a covenant to include physical descendants … is to put words in the mouth of Scripture.’ I contend that to exclude physical descendents is to reveal a dangerously unorthodox view of the relationship between nature and grace, creation and redemption.

Malone claims that ‘the genealogical element of the historical Old Testament covenants was necessary only to bring forth the final physical seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made.’ If this is true, then why did strangers joining Israel for the Passover Feast have to circumcise all of their males before participating (Exodus 12:48)? They were not physical descendents of Abraham, nor would they be the male seed through whom the Messiah would come. One might argue that this was necessary so that they might provide women for the males through whom the Messiah would come to marry. However, there are examples of women from uncircumcised stock within the genealogy of Christ (e.g. Ruth). Again, if Malone is right, why did Abraham circumcise Ishmael? There seems to be more to the ‘genealogical element’ than Malone is willing to grant (I will probably explore this more in a later post).

Much of Malone’s case rests on his argument for a shift in covenant emphasis ‘from family relations to individual responsibility and membership.’ This raises the question: what exactly is the New Covenant? It is this question that I aim to address in my next post.