# Israel as a spiritual (not merely carnal) people -- Covenant Theology responses only



## nwink (Oct 8, 2010)

I only came to the conviction of Covenant Theology a couple years ago, and before that I was a Reformed Baptist. Since I still am finding remnants of Baptist theology in my thinking, I need some help/thoughts on some questions I still haven't fully worked out in my thinking.

As a Baptist, I looked at Israel as mostly a carnal people with a remnant of regenerate members. I didn't see the covenant as being a spiritual thing, but moreso a carnal one. The typical Baptist thinking.

(1) Provide some thoughts and Scripture showing how Israel was also a spiritual people. (Such as Hebrews 11 shows the faith of OT saints, etc)

(2) If "I will be their God" in Genesis 17 doesn't just mean "I'll give you a land and watch out for your backs as long as you outwardly obey these rules", then what does that phrase mean?

(3) When circumcision was first given, did they know then that it pointed to a spiritual reality or was that revealed later in redemptive history?

(4) What do people mean when they say there isn't a wedge between a sign and the thing signified? (For example, circumcision and a circumcised heart)

Thanks, everyone!


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 8, 2010)

When you read further, I think these points will become more clear for you. It takes time because you are looking a scripture through a new lens and as you read, and hear good preaching, the full blessing of covenant theology will become more apparent. Strangely, a study in Isaiah might actually be of use, because you see the warnings given over and over to God's people (often for more subtle things such as putting their hope in surrounding powers) and you see ahead to the promised Messiah that will at last make a full sacrifice to save them.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 8, 2010)

1. Read Israel and the Church.

2. It means that he will be their God. This is synonymous with salvation, which is nothing else but the enjoyment of God forever. He is promising them eternal communion with him.

3. Yes, based on the spiritual promise given with the ceremony, which you quoted.

4. It means that the sign points to the thing signified. Circumcision pointed to a heart in covenant with God. Baptism also points to a heart in covenant with God. Just because some people who received the sign later fell away, proving that their hearts were not changed, that doesn't mean we utterly divorce the sign from the thing signified, as if circumcision has nothing to do with life in Christ, and likewise Baptism. The one points to the other. The terms "circumcision of the heart" and "baptism of the Spirit" are used in Scripture because the inner reality is associated with the outward sign and seal, i. e. circumcision in the OT and baptism in the NT.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 12, 2010)

> (4) What do people mean when they say there isn't a wedge between a sign and the thing signified? (For example, circumcision and a circumcised heart)



There is a "wedge" in the sense that someone can be circumcised in heart and yet not be circumcised in body E.g. Abraham had faith before he was _physically_ circumcised. e.g. Romans 4. 

Also someone can be circumcised in body and yet not circumcised in heart (e.g. Jeremiah 4:4)

Also someone can be baptised by/with the Spirit into Christ and yet not have undergone water baptism.

And someone can be baptised with water and yet not have been baptised by/with the Spirit into Christ.

There is on the other hand _not a wedge _ in the sense that when the Spirit works faith in the heart He can use the sacrament with God's Word to engender and/or strengthen such our understanding of the reality to which the sacrament points. The Spirit working faith in our hearts brings the sacrament and the reality together. 

Also in the Bible and elsewhere in Christian language, the sign can be spoken of as if it is the reality and the reality in terms of the sign. See e.g. Romans 6 where the Apostle is speaking of the reality of our baptism into Christ at conversion, but doesn't bother to make a clear distinction between our spiritual baptism and water baptism. See e.g. in the institutuion of the Lord's Supper, where our Lord, calls the bread "my body".

Therefore the Covenant has internal and external aspects which interpenetrate each other, and there is a visible Church and an invisible Church.

Marriage is a good illustration of the Covenant here. E.g. A man and a woman can love each other and be "married" in their hearts, and yet not have gone through the ceremony or be wearing a ring. Others can have gone through the ceremony and yet have never truly loved each other. 

Neither reality should be denied as if nothing important has happened. In the New Testament God takes seriously the baptism of someone who is truly converted and someone who isn't truly converted - in different ways.



> (2) If "I will be their God" in Genesis 17 doesn't just mean "I'll give you a land and watch out for your backs as long as you outwardly obey these rules", then what does that phrase mean?



If we believe we are also going inheriting "carnal" things as well as spiritual. For instance this World (e.g. Matthew 5:5) and also resurrected and glorified bodies.

It was just that under the Old Covenant, because the Church was in a childhood state (see e.g. Galatians) the Israelites were taught more by types, shadows, physical realities, etc, as well as the plain Word of God.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 15, 2010)

Hello Nathan -- welcome to PB!

Here's a discussion interacting with a Reformed Baptist on just these issues:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-1-12-13-baptism-revisited-38633/

And some other pertinent discussions may be found here.

Hope this helps.


----------

