# John Piper Refutes "Infant Baptism"



## Mocha

*John Piper Refutes \"Infant Baptism\"*

I thought John Piper did a good job at refuting 'Infant Baptism' in his sermon "How do Circumcision and Baptism Correspond?". You can listen to it (for a limited time) here in audio, or you can read the manuscript here.

The audio sermon has been divided into two parts, so make sure you hear both parts to get the whole sermon. 

Scroll down the page until you see:

"How do Circumcision and Baptism Correspond?" 

AND

"How do Circumcision and Baptism Correspond?" (Part 2)

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by Mocha]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As you might imagine, I don't find his argument to be convincing.

Providentially I've been knee-deep into studying Galatians for about two months now. I am a bit suprised how John Piper, a very intelligent man and great expositor otherwise, would mis-characterize Galatians. 

The two passages he utilizes are parallel thoughts from Paul and, when used out of context the way Piper does for his purposes, seem to imply what Piper is saying. When read in light of the argument Paul is making, you find he is drawing conclusions about the nature of Israel that Paul does not draw.

Read Galatians 3 and Galatians 4 for yourself. Exegete the use of those verses in context and show that Paul's main intent in Gal 4:22-28 is to demonstrate that Paul is primarily drawing this conclusion about Israel as Piper claims:


> This is the way God designed it to be: he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants; he gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.



You cannot because that is not Paul's intent in the argument. I believe Piper is already convinced that is the nature of the Covenant and then can't help but see that in Galatians 4. I don't see it.

Read Galatians 3 and 4. Paul is concerned with Judaizers who are enticing Gentiles into physical circumcision and placing themselves under the Law. Paul labors to show that the Law never replaced the promise made to Abraham and that Abraham's descendants were always heirs to the promise. He talks of "flesh" and "Law" as those who lose sight of the promise of righteousness through faith and start to look to the Law for justification.

He even asks the question: Is the Law opposed to the promise? And his answer is "No." The point to the Law was to be a pedagogue or a prison to bind up the people of God until their deliverer came. It was supposed to cause them to long for deliverance. Instead of seeing the Law as a cage that would cause them to look forward to Christ, many began to look to the prison as the means to salvation itself.

The bottom line, however, is that Paul still refers to the Israelites as sons who are not yet of majority age but sons nevertheless. The concern is that, to return to circumcision, is to try and "go back into prison" or "revert to a point of immaturity" or "to return to a point yet unbirthed". All the analogies are meant to show an "unnaturalness" to returning to circumcision, not because it's ethnic, but because its season has passed. He does not talk of circumcision in ethnic categories but, rather, criticizes that focus.

His analogy of the two mountains at the end of Galatians 4 is a continuation of a long theme of those who want to return to bondage and trust in the flesh as opposed to recognizing the promise that always existed and maturing from minority to majority status within the kingdom of God. It is primarily given as a warning to those who think they have (or ever had) confidence in the flesh to "get with the program." It is also a wake-up call to Gentiles that these Judiazers have it ALL wrong about the nature of the Covenant and that confidence was NEVER out of pure physical descent but based on promise. It was NEVER ethnic or Ishmael's descendants would be part of "Ethnic Abraham". I can't imagine how Piper misses this.

This will be sure to draw some fire but I only ask that people take up and read Galatians 3 and 4 carefully and see the character of Paul's argument. It does not comport with what Piper is saying. You cannot discern anywhere in the two Chapters that Paul is concluding any such thing about the nature of Circumcision itself but is, rather, a polemic against an understanding of Circumcision that was ALWAYS wrong. It is, frankly, a polemic against understanding Circumcision on a purely *ETHNIC LEVEL*. That the "Just Shall Live By Faith", was never, for a second, to be forgotten from the moment that circumcision was instituted.

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi Rich,
I may have more to say later, but for now just one small point.


> That the "Just Shall Live By Faith", was never, for a second, to be forgotten from the moment that circumcision was instituted.


And before! Abel knew nothing of circumcision or of baptism, yet he is described as a prophet, a man of faith, one who pleased God and one who is speaking to us today.

Nit-picking? I don't think so. I think this point may become important as the discussion develops.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hi Rich,
> I may have more to say later, but for now just one small point.
> 
> 
> 
> That the "Just Shall Live By Faith", was never, for a second, to be forgotten from the moment that circumcision was instituted.
> 
> 
> 
> And before! Abel knew nothing of circumcision or of baptism, yet he is described as a prophet, a man of faith, one who pleased God and one who is speaking to us today.
> 
> Nit-picking? I don't think so. I think this point may become important as the discussion develops.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

I fully agree that is the case. My specific issue is Piper's claim that Circumcision's _intent_ was for an ethnic people. Neither in the words of institution of the Sacrament in Genesis, nor in Galatians 4 and Romans 9 to which he appeals, is Circumcision said to have ever been of that nature. If you read carefully, that is precisely what Paul is refuting in Galatians 3 and 4 because it is the Judaizers that devolved Circumcision to an ethnic and ceremonial level.


----------



## Ron

430 years prior to Israel becoming a nation Abraham was given the sign and seal of circumcision. Circumcision was given to God's people _who he so happened to transform into a nation_. The sign _preceeded_ the nation and, therefore, the intent of the sign may not be indexed to the nation. To do so would be exegetical sin.

Ron


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 430 years prior to Israel becoming a nation Abraham was given the sign and seal of circumcision. Circumcision was given to God's people _who he so happened to transform into a nation_. The sign _preceeded_ the nation and, therefore, the intent of the sign may not be indexed to the nation. To do so would be exegetical sin.
> 
> Ron


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 430 years prior to Israel becoming a nation Abraham was given the sign and seal of circumcision. Circumcision was given to God's people _who he so happened to transform into a nation_. The sign _preceeded_ the nation and, therefore, the intent of the sign may not be indexed to the nation. To do so would be exegetical sin.
> 
> Ron



Hmmm! Why then was Lot, a 'righteous man' (2Peter 2:8 ) not circumcised? Or Naaman the Syrian? Also, if Job and Melchizadec were circumcised, we are certainly not told. Is it not because, although they were believers in Jehovah, 'God's people', they were not of the seed of Abraham. and did not become part of the people of Israel?

Martin

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 430 years prior to Israel becoming a nation Abraham was given the sign and seal of circumcision. Circumcision was given to God's people _who he so happened to transform into a nation_. The sign _preceeded_ the nation and, therefore, the intent of the sign may not be indexed to the nation. To do so would be exegetical sin.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm! Why then was Lot, a 'righteous man' (2Peter 2:8 ) not ciecumcized? Or Naaman the Syrian? Also, if Job and Melchizadec were circumcised, we are certainly not told. Is it not because, although they were believers in Jehovah, 'God's people', they were not of the seed of Abraham. and did not become part of the people of Israel?
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Martin,

Who are you arguing with? Certainly not Ron in what he wrote.

Just so we understand each other: could you give me a one or two sentence "blurb" on what the issue of debate is?

I suggest you read back over what I've said (hasn't been much) and what Ron said and see if you can capture what the concern is so we can proceed from there. You're missing something and I hope you will determine the nature of the debate if you intend to proceed. I really would like to stay on point here. Our thesis is easy to find. I even restated it for you when you brought up Abel.


----------



## Ron

Thanks Rich. Japan? Whew! 

Ron


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Rich,
As far as I can see, the question you are seeking to answer is whether circumcision was purely for 'ethnic' Israel or whether it was the covenant sign for all God's people until it was replaced by baptism. I have pointed out that Abel, Noah and others were saved before circumcision, and also gave two examples where godly people were not circumcised. I have written before that circumcision does not seem to have applied to believers in Yahweh who lived outside of Israel, and that true faith was not necessary to partake of the Passover but only circumcision (Exod 12:43-48 ). It therefore seems clear to me that circumcision was not *'The seal of the righteousness of faith'* to anyone but Abraham, since the large majority of his physical progeny were without faith and died in their sins (cf. Isaiah 1:9 etc).

So when Piper says:-


> This is the way God designed it to be: he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants; he gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.


He is at least partially correct. I would add that the purpose of circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant was to provide a people into whom the Messiah might be born. In other words, as Pink says, the whole purpose of the OLd Covenant is to usher in the New.

Ron wrote:-


> 430 years prior to Israel becoming a nation Abraham was given the sign and seal of circumcision. Circumcision was given to God's people whom He so happened to transform into a nation. The sign preceeded the nation and, therefore, the intent of the sign may not be indexed to the nation. To do so would be exegetical sin.


I disagree. God promised Abraham that He would make of him a great nation. It is entirely consistent to suppose that He gave him the sign of circumcision specifically for that nation. That is certainly what that nation believed (John 8:33 ). 

Piper asks another question:-


> Now the question for us is: is the New Testament Church - the Church today -a continuation of the larger mixed group of ethnic, religious, national Israel, or is the Church a continuation of the remnant of the true sons of Abraham who are children of God by faith in Christ? Are we a Spirit-born, new covenant community with the law of God written on our hearts and defined by faith? We don't need to guess at this.
> 
> Paul makes the answer clear in Galatians 4:22-28:


What is surely crystal clear is that there is not one, but two covenants with Abraham's descendants (Gal 4:24 ). One is with the physical descendants of Abraham (v25 ), the other with the 'children of promise' (v28 ). These are the true children of Abraham, those who carry not the physical sign of circumcision (though some do) but the true circumcision, that of the heart. *'For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh'* (Phil 3:3 ).

You wrote:-


> The bottom line, however, is that Paul still refers to the Israelites as sons who are not yet of majority age but sons nevertheless.


What verses are you thinking of here? *'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'* Again, the true children of Abraham are not the physical descendants, but the children of promise (Rom 9:8 ). When Paul says in Gal 4:3, *'Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage....etc'*, he is not referring to all Israel, but to Jewish believers in Christ like himself. It must be so, for of unbelieving Jews it is written, *'See! Your house is left to you desolate' 'You are of your father, the devil' 'Wrath has come upon them to the uttermost'* etc. 
You continue:-


> It is also a wake-up call to Gentiles that these Judaizers have it ALL wrong about the nature of the Covenant and that confidence was NEVER out of pure physical descent but based on promise. It was NEVER ethnic or Ishmael's descendants would be part of "Ethnic Abraham". I can't imagine how Piper misses this.


1. As I've pointed out elsewhere, there _are_ promises to the physical descendants, and these have been completely fulfilled (Josh 23:14 ). 

2. You miss the point about Ishmael. He is a 'type' of Israel after the flesh. He represents physical Israel. *'For this Hagar ......corresponds to Jersusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children'* (Gal 4:25 ). *'And as for Ishmael, I.......will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation, but my covenant I will establish with Isaac'* (Gen 17:20-21 ). Ishmael was never part of physical Israel, never part of the 'great nation' promised to Abraham in Gen 12 and 15, but he acts as an illustration of it. Isaac, on the other hand, though he was a physical descendant of Abraham, is a type of the children of promise who are the true seed. Do please look at Isaiah 54, especially at v13 and compare with John 6:45.

Grace & Peace,

Matin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin,

You are partially correct in your assessment about my critique. I kept my focus very narrow. I'm finding that on this forum, especially, if we bite off too much and allow the discussion to drift that it becomes fruitless. There are certain other aspects of debate but *my specific challenge is to Piper's use of Galatians 4:22-28 to establish notion that circumcision was an ethnic sign*.

Though I have much to say regarding your misunderstanding in other areas, I'm not giving into the temptation to correct you on those points. I am merely going to deal with your misinterpretation of this "two Covenants within Abraham" idea.

What I honestly find very surprising about your Covenant theology is that you seem to adopt a "second physical Covenant" idea from writings that are intended to show that the Covenant was never intended to be such at all. In other words, whenever Paul brings up people of the circumcision he argues repeatedly that there's is a perversion of Covenant theology and that, like Hagar's son, they have no part in the promise and are to be cast out of the house of faith. You seem to see their perversion as some sort of proof that another, purely physical, Covenant with God exists. It is rather surprising to see you repeatedly miss this point.

Here is a perfect example of how you mis-read Covenant theology:


> I disagree. God promised Abraham that He would make of him a great nation. It is entirely consistent to suppose that He gave him the sign of circumcision specifically for that nation. That is certainly what that nation believed (John 8:33 ).


Honestly, Martin, I have seriously considered an effort in which to just document the way you misuse individual texts in Scripture and start stripping away your foundation one verse at a time. You drop verses like John 8:33. I read them and, I think, is he serious?


> John 8:33
> They answered Him,"We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, 'You will be made free'?"


Truly Martin, you should not get your ideas on Covenant theology from Pharisees. I could say more but I'll let that sink in.

You continue:


> What is surely crystal clear is that there is not one, but two covenants with Abraham's descendants (Gal 4:24 ). One is with the physical descendants of Abraham (v25 ), the other with the 'children of promise' (v28 ). These are the true children of Abraham, those who carry not the physical sign of circumcision (though some do) but the true circumcision, that of the heart. 'For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh' (Phil 3:3 ).


Oh my, I am really worried about your ability to read things without bringing all your baggage with you. Pay attention everybody. These are the explicit verses that Martin has presented for his "two Covenant with Abraham" theory:


> Gal 4:24-26
> which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar "” 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children "”


Once again, I recommend that anyone reading this to read the *whole* of Galations 3 and 4 for themselves. Read Matthew Poole's, Matthew Henry's, and Calvin's commentaries for the Chapters. I don't have time to correct all the errors here but I will point out a few obvious points:

1. Abraham was _NEVER AT MOUNT SINAI_ so no Covenant was made with him there.

2. Even a lazy reading of Galatians 3 will show that the Law was never intended to supercede or have the same weight as the Covenant of Promise that the "...just shall live by faith...."

3. That you develop a theology of two Covenants in which Paul is speaking of symbolic language reveals why your Covenant theology is so confused. He puts Jerusalem in Sinai - certainly not a support for the idea of an "ethnic promise". 

4. If you were following the strength of his polemic instead of developing a Covenant theology in a vacuum, you would see that your two Covenant idea is completely foreign to the context. I fear you assume so much in the verses already that you are anticipating your theological conclusions without letting Paul ever argue in your direction.

You wrote:


> 2. You miss the point about Ishmael. He is a 'type' of Israel after the flesh. He represents physical Israel. 'For this Hagar ......corresponds to Jersusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children' (Gal 4:25 ). 'And as for Ishmael, I.......will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation, but my covenant I will establish with Isaac' (Gen 17:20-21 ). Ishmael was never part of physical Israel, never part of the 'great nation' promised to Abraham in Gen 12 and 15, but he acts as an illustration of it. Isaac, on the other hand, though he was a physical descendant of Abraham, is a type of the children of promise who are the true seed. Do please look at Isaiah 54, especially at v13 and compare with John 6:45.


I always get a chuckle out of these discussion when you completely miss _my_ point but then say I missed yours. 

My point about Ishmael is Paul's point. I agree that Ishmael is a type of Israel after the flesh but not for the reason you believe. You believe that Israel after the flesh has a Covenantal "reality", which it does NOT. Israel after the flesh is a Covental fiction - a point Paul labors in Galatians. Just because a Pharisee is a poor exegete of the Torah doesn't establish his interpretation of the Covenant as a valid Covenant!

Once again, I appeal to readers to study the Chapters for themselves. Paul, when he brings up "Why the reason for the Law" or condemns the perversion of the Judaizers who are trying to pull Gentiles into the gutter with them, never once creates this two Israel economy. He uses un-natural analogy after un-natural analogy to show that the Judaizers idea of the Covenant is all wrong. You give more weight to their perversion than Paul by even establishing it as a "physical" aspect of the Covenant. Incredible. He grants it NO status at all.

In fact, bringing back up the Pharisees (who Jesus acknowledged as Abraham's descendants but REALLY sons of the devil) his whole Bondwoman/Freewoman analogy is the latest "un-natural" analogy and a huge "in your face Judaizers!" argument. That you don't see if for what it is stuns me. The Judaizers have this disgusting pride in the flesh - both ethnic and living to the Law instead of by faith. Paul, as Christ did, said they are not sons of the promise at all but sons of the bondwoman. It's as if we're going back into Abraham's camp and, like Ishmael, they were cast out of any portion of what blessedness followed thereafter: INCLUDING ISAAC GROWING UP, THE INHERITANCE PASSED TO JACOB, ..... They're not even Israelites, they're ISHMAELITES! If I'm a Pharisee I'm thinking: "Paul I'm going to stone you so bad...."

Finally, Martin, you have done NOTHING to show by any of these verses that Gal 4:22-28 can be used to demonstrate that circumcision was an ethnic sign lest you forget what we're arguing here.

I have more to say but have duties elsewhere.

[Edited on 3-5-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## just_grace

Rich, while I might be disapproving about Christians being combatants, I must admit I love your sticking up for the Gospel 

God bless you.

David


----------



## Steve Owen

The temptation to respond to the ad homs is _almost _ irresistible, but instead let's cut to the chase.


> You believe that Israel after the flesh has a Covenantal "reality", which it does NOT. Israel after the flesh is a Covental (sic) fiction - a point Paul labors in Galatians. Just because a Pharisee is a poor exegete of the Torah doesn't establish his interpretation of the Covenant as a valid Covenant!


*'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 out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.* (Jer 31:31-32 ).

Here is Israel after the flesh and here is a covenant that God has made with them which they have broken. If you don't like these verses, try Exod 19:5. How can you possibly say that God did not make a covenant with Israel after the flesh?

You then wrote:-


> In fact, bringing back up the Pharisees (who Jesus condemned as NOT being sons of Abraham but sons of the devil) his whole Bondwoman/Freewoman analogy is the latest "un-natural" analogy and a huge "in your face Judaizers!" argument. That you don't see if for what it is stuns me. The Judaizers have this disgusting pride in the flesh - both ethnic and living to the Law instead of by faith. Paul, as Christ did, said they are not sons of the promise at all but sons of the bondwoman. It's as if we're going back into Abraham's camp and, like Ishmael, they were cast out of any portion of what blessedness followed thereafter: INCLUDING ISAAC GROWING UP, THE INHERITANCE PASSED TO JACOB, ..... They're not even Israelites, they're ISHMAELITES! If I'm a Pharisee I'm thinking: "Paul I'm going to stone you so bad...."


Would you kindly translate that into English for me and I'll deal with it. As it stands I can make neither head nor tail of it.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin,

If my arguments were but ad homs in a fallacious sense you might have some footing.


> '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 out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. (Jer 31:31-32 ).
> 
> Here is Israel after the flesh and here is a covenant that God has made with them which they have broken. If you don't like these verses, try Exod 19:5. How can you possibly say that God did not make a covenant with Israel after the flesh?


I can say that because God does not call it a Covenant with Israel after the flesh, *you do*. This Covenant is explained very well by Paul in Galatians 3, you just don't like his explanation preferring to super-add ideas that do not comport with the Scriptures.

I'm still waiting for your exegesis to demonstrate that Gal 4:22-28 supports the idea that circumcision was primarily an ethnic sign. I don't want folks with an attention deficit to lose track of the issue.

Finally, regarding your need for a translation, I'll leave it to others to read and decide who has a problem following simple arguments.

[Edited on 3-5-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## john_Mark

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Rich, while I might be disapproving about Christians being combatants, I must admit I love your sticking up for the Gospel
> 
> God bless you.
> 
> David



David, 

I'm not sure I quite understand your above statement. Rich is debating with another Christian who also sticks up for the Gospel. A surface level reading of your comments leads me to deduce that Rich is sticking up for the Gospel against Martin (and John Piper?) who is trampling it. Have I misunderstood you? 

I apologize if I have misunderstood.


----------



## Steve Owen

> I can say that because God does not call it a Covenant with Israel after the flesh, you do. This Covenant is explained very well by Paul in Galatians 3, you just don't like his explanation preferring to super-add ideas and terms that are not used by Paul.


Well, who are these Israelites who broke the 'first' covenant? Are they the Israel of God? You were particularly scornful of my reference to John 8:33, but these Pharisees were not 'Ishmaelites' as you suggested, they were Israel after the Flesh. *'I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in your hearts'* (v37 ). *'For they are not all Israel *[after the Spirit]* who are of Israel *[after the flesh. ie. the physical descendants of Abraham]*, nor are they all children* [of God]* because they are the seed of Abraham; but "In Isaac shall your seed be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son"'' *(Rom 9:6-9 ).

Now surely you can look from Rom 9 to Gal 4 and see the clear connection? All of Paul's countrymen are Israelites, *'To whom pertain the covenants'* (Rom 9:4 ), but not all are the children of promise (v8 ). It leads straight into Gal 4:21ff and the children of the free woman. Hagar represents the 'first' covenant (Mt Sinai) which was made with Israel after the flesh (ie. the physical descendants of Abraham). But Sarah represents the children of promise (Gal 3:7 ) with whom the new covenant is made (Gal 4:28; 2Cor 3:3; Heb 8:10ff).

If that is not sufficient for you, then you're going to have to wait a few days because I am away on business until the middle of the week. But in the meantime, since you are an expert on Gal 3 & 4:-

*'But as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit.....'*

This presumably is clear enough; it refers to Ishmael mocking Isaac (Gen 21:9 ).

*'......even so it is now' *(4:29 ). Who was persecuting who in Paul's day?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

1. Once again Martin I recognize that Paul refers to a sense of Israel that is "according to the flesh". That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not that is a Covenant. Paul does not call it a separate Covenant. He refers to it is a peversion of the Covenant. He refers to it as those who missed the mark. They didn't get "partially there" because they were at least still ethnically Israel.

2. I am scornful of your use of John 8:33 because you use it as a prooftext to establish that the Jews understood there was a Covenant according to the flesh. I remain scornful of that argument. I still maintain that Pharisees are a bad place to look to develop notions about what the Covenant represents.

3. I should have been clearer in my argument about the strain of Paul's thinking in Galatians 4. He does state that those who have rejected Christ are sons of the bondwoman - in a sense they are Ishmaelites cut off from the promise. I was trying to "flesh out" what Paul's polemic meant. You were reading too much into it (and still are).

4. The Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai was not made with "Israel after the flesh", it was made with Israel. Pure and simple. Paul's use of the analogy - equating present Jerusalem with Sinai is to show the "un-naturalness" of returning to Sinai now that the promised Messiah has come. After following Paul's analogies as to the use of the Law (never replaced the promise but bound up minors until the season of maturity would com), the reader would fully see the basic error of the Judaizers in pointing at Sinai as the place of hope. To return to Sinai, *in the way the Judaizers do*, is a fiction. The Law always brought curse - the Judaizers don't recognize that. The Law pointed to Christ - the Judaizers don't recognize that. All they see is this ethnic sign and rules and seasons that they view as the heart of justification. *That* is Israel after the flesh - a perverse view of what the Law NEVER was.

And, no Martin, I am not an expert at Galatians but I have the benefit of reading and studying under people who understand it much better than you.

Your arguments remain clouded:


> 'But as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit.....'
> 
> This presumably is clear enough; it refers to Ishmael mocking Isaac (Gen 21:9 ).
> 
> '......even so it is now' (4:29 ). Who was persecuting who in Paul's day?


Umm...yeah? In other words, what I just said above. The Israelites according to the flesh have no place for pride. They trust in the flesh. There is NO confidence to be found there. There is NO inheritance to be found there. They can have all the pride of Ishmael as far as Paul is concerned - they descend seminally from Abraham but have no part in the promise. No part in the promise. No part in the promise.

Hey Martin, they have NO PART IN THE PROMISE. What tract of land did Ishmael receive in the Promised Land?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for how Gal 4:22-28 ESTABLISHES THAT CIRCUMCISION WAS AN ETHNIC SIGN. All of your arguments, while interesting, never prove that the sign was purely ethnic.

[Edited on 3-6-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Rich, while I might be disapproving about Christians being combatants, I must admit I love your sticking up for the Gospel
> 
> God bless you.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> I'm not sure I quite understand your above statement. Rich is debating with another Christian who also sticks up for the Gospel. A surface level reading of your comments leads me to deduce that Rich is sticking up for the Gospel against Martin (and John Piper?) who is trampling it. Have I misunderstood you?
> 
> I apologize if I have misunderstood.
Click to expand...

David is referring to my occupation. He doesn't believe that Christians should serve in the military. It's off topic but I didn't want you to think that he's saying that Martin (and John Piper) are trampling the Gospel.


----------



## john_Mark

I see. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Back to the topic. 

Ps. I also serve in a military unit.


----------



## govols

Mark,

Military Unit? You don't even get to carry weapons.? Maybe you could throw your compass at someone or club someone with your walkie - talkie?


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Rich,
I hope to come back to your last post, and to look in a little more depth at Gal 4:22-28 as soon as my business commitments ease a little, but in the meantime, may I put you back to the question that I asked before, which you don't seem to have answered:-


> *'But as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit.....'*
> 
> This presumably is clear enough; it refers to Ishmael mocking Isaac (Gen 21:9 ).
> 
> *'......even so it is now' *(4:29 ). Who was persecuting who in Paul's day?



A simple two or three word answer will suffice. Thanks!

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

My three word answer is: I answered that. 

It was the substance of my last post and the substance of what it means to be an "Israelite according to the flesh":


> The Israelites according to the flesh have no place for pride. They trust in the flesh. There is NO confidence to be found there. There is NO inheritance to be found there. They can have all the pride of Ishmael as far as Paul is concerned - they descend seminally from Abraham but have no part in the promise.


Ishmael is a type of confidence in the flesh. Ishmael is turned out and said to have no part in the promise. Just as Ishmael (the one who would have *supreme* confidence in the flesh, if any be found there, as Abraham's firstborn) persecuted Isaac, so now the "sons of the bondwoman" are persecuting the "sons of the free-woman". The Israelites according to the flesh, who have turned their back on the promise, are persecuting the true heirs - Gentiles who have believed (and believing Jews for that matter, but Paul is mainly here dealing with helping the Galatians see there is *nothing* enviable in being a Jew according to the flesh.)

I'll stand by for your reply. Do me a favor when you respond and _remember this_: even if you're convinced that the exegesis of Gal 4:22-28 leads you to the conclusion that the Mount Sinai Covenant = "Israel according to the flesh" you have more work to do. Remember the debate here: *How does Gal 4:22-28 establish the notion that circumcision is an ethnic sign?* If you don't argue that then don't bother replying until you're ready to sew that up.

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Rich,
At last I hve time to turn my attention to your posts here. But in view of the fact that we tend to talk past each other sometimes, may I ask you to clarify your position a little further before I criticize a view that you may not hold? 

As I read through this thread, it appears that you believe that there are *four* Israels:-

1. There is the _Israel of God_ (Gal 6:16 ). This is the elect, and spoken of in John 1:47, Phil 3:3 etc.

2. There is _Ethnic Israel_, the physical descendants of Abraham via Jacob. You are saying that God did *not* make a covenant with these people and you are challenging me to show that He did:-


> My specific issue is Piper's claim that Circumcision's intent was for an ethnic people. Neither in the words of institution of the Sacrament in Genesis, nor in Galatians 4 and Romans 9 to which he appeals, is Circumcision said to have ever been of that nature.


3. There is _Israel_, with whom God _did_ make a covenant. You wrote:-


> The Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai was not made with "Israel after the flesh", it was made with Israel. Pure and simple.



4. Finally, there is _Israel after the flesh_, who is different from _Ethnic Israel_ in some way. These, I take it, are they who persecuted our Lord and the Apostles and who are typified by Ishmael, exemplified by the Pharisees and depicted in John 8, Gal 4:29-30 and perhaps 1Thes 2:14-16. 

Before I go any further, have I got this right? Andif I have, would you please expand a little on who or what _Israel_ is, and how it differs from _Ethnic Israel_ and _Israel after the flesh_?

BTW, I am delighted to hear you say that Ishmael was not in any covenant with God. I have argued this elsewhere and been heavily criticized by Scott, Matt, and others. It's good that we can agree on that, at any rate.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


[Edited on 3-11-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin,

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify. Please use the clarification to understand what I´m trying to say and not as an opportunity to critique paedobaptist Reformed theology. My understanding is related to the discussion but I don´t want it used as an opportunity to deflect the answer to my concern regarding *Piper´s use of Gal 4:22-28* to establish that circumcision is an ethnic rite.

That said, I believe there is really one covenant with Abraham that is confirmed for Isaac and Jacob. There is a second covenant added at Sinai but it has a very precise purpose that is revealed by Paul in Gal 3. Experts in this will forgive my imprecision. I'm short on time this evening.



> Gal 3:16-17
> 6 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. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.



Paul is unequivocal in stating that the law could not annul the promise made to Abraham. This covenant with Abraham was signified and sealed in circumcision. Notice that the Law is said to occur 430 years later but 430 years is the time that Israel spent in captivity. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are treated as a unit here. The God of Abraham is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob so that Paul is really speaking of the Covenant made and restated in all three. So there is ONE covenant of promise made with Abraham.



> Gal 3:19-24
> 
> What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
> 
> 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.


This is the "œsecond" Covenant made with Israel but, as we already know, it did not annul the first or replace it. That much is clear. Paul explains *what* the purpose of the Law is. Nowhere is there a statement that this is with ethnic Israel or that it is a Covenant of the flesh. Paul explains it has a purpose, as I stated in my original reply. That purpose was added: because of transgressions, to confine all under sin, to guard by the law, to keep people under the faith, to confine them, to cause them to long for a deliverer,.... It has a *gracious* design in mind when viewed rightly.

Now, whether you agree with me, I believe (as do Calvin, Poole, Henry, and others) that the Law´s intent was for God´s chosen "“ not meant to be merely "œfleshly" or ethnic but for His people to, once again as Paul says, to prepare them for the Messiah, to cause them to look for Him, to bring a curse that they couldn´t escape through the letter.

OK, Martin, those are the "œtwo" Covenants "“ the one is an unchangeable Promise, the other is designed to confine with an aim toward fulfilling the Promise.

The question you have is: What is Israel "œafter the flesh" and/or what is Ishmael or Esau for that matter? Well, they are Covenant breakers. It´s really that simple for me. Covenant breakers according to the election of God but Covenant breakers nonetheless.

What I believe you are missing here is that Paul does not treat the Pharisees as if they are representing the Covenant they are within properly. They are not. They were no more accurate than Pelagius at representing what the Word of God and His promises represented. In a polemic against Pelagius, Augustine might have referred to Pelagius as a "œChristian after the flesh". It would merely have been a title to an aberrant theology however, it would not have given status to a "œsecond kind of Christian". Pharisees thought they could put away a woman with a certificate of divorce if they were merely displeased with her. Christ calls it adultery if they re-marry. The Pharisees in both their misread of the Law as to what it said, and their misread as to what it´s _intent_ was, did not create, by force of consensus, another Covenant.

Thus, what I´m saying is that the Pharisees and the Judaizers are living in some sort of "œla la" land. They are trusting in a fiction "“ a Covenant that blesses them for the keeping of ceremonies, seasons, and self-righteousness. There is none. Christ and Paul are very emphatic that they have it all gooned up.

I don´t want to get down rabbit trails but I would not say that Ishmael was never in any Covenant. He was. He was a Covenant breaker, however. Not only does he break the Covenant of Works in Adam but does not continue in the grace set before him when circumcised into the Abrahamic Covenant - he breaks the Covenant of Promise. Knowing the beginning from the end might hinder some from remembering that nobody forced Ishmael to mock the Promise and nobody forced him to marry a Canaanite. Sure God elected it and he is a great example of the weakness of the flesh to us but he is a Covenant breaker. He inherits nothing but curse "“ obviously because Covenant breakers only receive a curse. He is a type of "œIsrael after the flesh"=another set of Covenant breakers.

Clearer?

Now, I am almost positive you´re going to tear into some reason why you disagree with my categories here. I´m quite disinterested in that. Remember, my reason for laying it out is so you can understand what I´m saying. I am asking you, or anyone else, to demonstrate how Gal 4:22-28 can be used as a prooftext for the notion that Circumcision was an ethnic sign. I cannot see it in context even if I ignore everything I just wrote.

Blessings Brother.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Rich,
Before I start, I can't resist pointing out the discrepancy in your comments about Ishmael:-
You wrote:-


> Umm...yeah? In other words, what I just said above. The Israelites according to the flesh have no place for pride. They trust in the flesh. There is NO confidence to be found there. There is NO inheritance to be found there. They can have all the pride of Ishmael as far as Paul is concerned - they descend seminally from Abraham but have no part in the promise. No part in the promise. No part in the promise.
> 
> Hey Martin, they have NO PART IN THE PROMISE. What tract of land did Ishmael receive in the Promised Land?


and


> Ishmael is a type of confidence in the flesh. Ishmael is turned out and said to have no part in the promise.


But then you say:-


> I don´t want to get down rabbit trails but I would not say that Ishmael was never in any Covenant. He was. He was a Covenant breaker,



It's quite clear from Gen 17:18-21 that Ishmael has NO PART IN THE PROMISE and never did have. Was the idea of agreeing with me on something to ghastly to contemplate, or is it the prospect of being thrown out of the Presbyterian Club for disagreeing with Scott and Matt that caused you to change your mind? There is actually nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but in this instance you have changed it the wrong way. Pity!

OK, let's cut to the chase. At the beginning of the thread you wrote:-


> Read Galatians 3 and Galatians 4 for yourself. Exegete the use of those verses in context and show that Paul's main intent in Gal 4:22-28 is to demonstrate that Paul is primarily drawing this conclusion about Israel as Piper claims:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the way God designed it to be: he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants; he gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot because that is not Paul's intent in the argument.
Click to expand...


I've no intention of looking at Gal 4 in a vacuum. Scripture must interpret Scripture. First of all, what were the covenant promises made to Abraham? They are broadly three:-
1. That God would make Abraham a great nation.
2. That his descendants should inherit the land of Canaan
3. That all the 'families of the earth' should be blessed in him.

Now if you and I take these promises to ourselves, we shall be believing something that is not true. God has certainly not promised to make me a great nation, nor has He promised that any descendants of mine should inherit any country at all, let alone Israel. I have as yet no grandchildren and maybe I never shall have. Many Christians, like Paul, never have any physical children at all. Nor is it likely that all the families of the earth will be blessed in me. These promises were made to Abraham, and specifically repeated to Isaac (Gen 26:3-4 ) and Jacob (28:13-14 ). They apply to no one else.

However, you and I may still have an interest in the covenant. We are part of that great nation that Abraham founded by faith (Gal 3:7 ), and also part of 'all the families (people groups) of the earth' to whom the Gospel of Abraham's Seed shall be preached (Matt 24:14; 28:19 ). But to the land of Canaan, you and I have no right, save that *'The meek shall inherit the earth.'*

What I'm saying is this. Abraham had a physical seed, and to them there was a physical implement of the promises. The Israelites _did_ become a great nation; they _did_ inherit the land of Canaan, and they _did_ bless all the nations insofar as the Messiah was born among them. But their blessings were purely temporal; only a small remnant of them had the faith of Abraham and eventually they *'fill[ed] up the measure of their sins'* and wrath came upon them to the uttermost (Matt 23:31-39; 1Thes 2:15-16 ).

Now we come to Gal 4:21ff. Paul speaks of two mothers, Hagar and Sarah, whose children, Ishmael and Isaac respectively, symbolize the Old and New Covenants.

Isaac is not Christ, but he is a 'type' of Him. He was long promised, he had a miraculous birth, he was persecuted by his own people, he was, in a figure, sacrificed by his father, and figuratively raised from the dead (Heb 11:17-19 ). All the promises were tied up in him.

Ishmael is not the Israelites, but he is a type of them. He had only temporal blessings (Gen 17:20 ); he was brought up in a godly household, but it did him no good; he persecuted the true heir; he was finally cast out of the inheritance (Gen 21:10 ).

Therefore Ishmael's mother is said by Paul to symolize the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. It promised only temporal benefits (long life in the land of Canaan) and was dependent upon good behaviour (Exod 19:5 etc) which was not forthcoming and resulted in forfeiture (2Chron 36:14ff etc). But Isaac's mother symolizes the New Covenant in Christ's blood of which it is written, *'I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.'* 

You wrote about the purpose of the law. It has more than one function. *'What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions.'* The written law served to restrain sin among the Israelites, just as civil law does amongst us today. To the Elect, of course, there was another purpose; *Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ.'* But the law never brought Israel as a whole to Christ. It only increased their condemnation (Acts 7:51-53 ).

Therefore Piper is right when he says that the Old Covenant was with Ethnic Israel. The OLd Covenant served one purpose; to bring in the New Covenant. By separating a people for Himself, God ensured that the Messiah would be born into a nation that knew of God's laws even if it didn't keep them. Circumcision was a seal to no one but Abraham (Rom 4:11 ). It was a sign to Israel of the righteousness of the faith of Abraham, their father, and also of the Seed or Messiah who should be born among them. Yet they trusted in their own righteousness instead of that of faith, and they killed the Messiah when He came to them, filling up the measure of their sin. And just as Ishmael was cast out of the house of Abraham, so physical Israel was cast out.

I have to stop here in full flow, but prhaps there's enough here for you to come back on if you want to.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Rich,
> Before I start, I can't resist pointing out the discrepancy in your comments about Ishmael:-
> You wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...yeah? In other words, what I just said above. The Israelites according to the flesh have no place for pride. They trust in the flesh. There is NO confidence to be found there. There is NO inheritance to be found there. They can have all the pride of Ishmael as far as Paul is concerned - they descend seminally from Abraham but have no part in the promise. No part in the promise. No part in the promise.
> 
> Hey Martin, they have NO PART IN THE PROMISE. What tract of land did Ishmael receive in the Promised Land?
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> Ishmael is a type of confidence in the flesh. Ishmael is turned out and said to have no part in the promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But then you say:-
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t want to get down rabbit trails but I would not say that Ishmael was never in any Covenant. He was. He was a Covenant breaker,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's quite clear from Gen 17:18-21 that Ishmael has NO PART IN THE PROMISE and never did have. Was the idea of agreeing with me on something to ghastly to contemplate, or is it the prospect of being thrown out of the Presbyterian Club for disagreeing with Scott and Matt that caused you to change your mind? There is actually nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but in this instance you have changed it the wrong way. Pity!
Click to expand...

1. You might want to read Scott's recent warning here: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17226

2. Martin Marprelate: What is your real name? I like to know the name of men accusing me of cowardice.

You not only apply your rigid grid to Ishmael but you are apparently unable to understand another's position. Remarkable. Are you really unable to understand why *I* and others can hold up that Ishmael _was_ in the Covenant _and_ ultimately had no inheritance in the promise at the same time? Are you really unable to see why we can say that even if you cannot see it through your lenses? 

Whether you agree with my position or not you don't even seem to have the capacity to properly understand Calvin's (and the Presbyterian) position in order to critique it properly. Why should anyone trust your fidelity in representing the rest given your inability to handle what little I have written regarding just Ishmael?


> OK, let's cut to the chase. At the beginning of the thread you wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Read Galatians 3 and Galatians 4 for yourself. Exegete the use of those verses in context and show that Paul's main intent in Gal 4:22-28 is to demonstrate that Paul is primarily drawing this conclusion about Israel as Piper claims:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the way God designed it to be: he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants; he gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot because that is not Paul's intent in the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've no intention of looking at Gal 4 in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

<a href='http://c.azjmp.com/az/ch.php?f=523&i=13596' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_2_4.gif' alt='!' border=0></a>Whatever else Martin wrote after this, Martin has just conceded the issue of debate. He cannot defend Piper's statement regarding circumcision from the context of Gal 4:22-28!

Thank you Martin. I guess there's nothing left to discuss in this thread.

Mods: You may lock this thread at your leisure.


----------

