Question on CoG sign before Abraham

[dsanch1120]

Hello everyone,
I was reading through Douglas Van Dorn's book "Waters of Creation," and he brought up an interesting question.
He argues against baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of the covenant by pointing to the covenant of grace between the time of Adam and Abraham. He says that there was no covenant sign before the Abrahamic covenant.
My question based on this is, did the Covenant of Grace have a covenant sign before Abraham? and if so, why would there not be a covenant sign until Abraham?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I guess my initial thought would be, why would there have to be a sign through every dispensation? What if that was part of the development of covenant theology over time? Also, I would say that it pleased God to initiate sacrifices in that period of time, which was definitely a sign of what was to come.

 

[Polanus1561]

There are surely better arguments than this.

 

[chuckd]

tree of life and the rainbow are two I can think of.

 

[Polanus1561]

For what is worth, Lamech calling Noah his name " And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed. " shows how faith in those times was manifested.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hello everyone,
I was reading through Douglas Van Dorn's book "Waters of Creation," and he brought up an interesting question.
He argues against baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of the covenant by pointing to the covenant of grace between the time of Adam and Abraham. He says that there was no covenant sign before the Abrahamic covenant.
My question based on this is, did the Covenant of Grace have a covenant sign before Abraham? and if so, why would there not be a covenant sign until Abraham?

Hello Daniel,
I do think the question is interesting, but likely not for the same reason that the author raised it. You yourself set forth the question in the straightforward way, which I paraphrase thus: What was the covenant-sign before circumcision, or else, Was there any covenant-sign given prior to the appointment of circumcision to Abraham? These are normal, reasonable questions when the story of Redemption is laid out before us in timeline fashion.

The short answer is: there was none. This prompts the follow up question: Why not? The author expresses doubt that baptism supplants circumcision, because (here I'm making an inference about his position since I don't have his view spelled out) the Baptist typically views the New Covenant as the present (as opposed to promised) gracious covenant of God, which is instituted along with an accompanying sign in fulfillment of earlier covenant arrangements. This covenant stands in sharp contrast with previous covenants of law or promise, which have other signs attached to them and for them, specifically. The older covenants over and done, any sign associated with such covenants should also be presumed done away with them.

All that is consistent with the Baptist perspective, but it does not have much impact on the P&R apprehension of the nature of "one covenant, many administrations." There is an eternal covenant of redemption within the Godhead, and this expressed will of God is manifest in history through that which we call the covenant of grace, bringing the Redeemer into union with his elect, one by one. The serial covenants of the OT (some overlapping others) post-fall are not discrete arrangements with purposes apart from the overarching design, but are component parts of a whole. Hence, if in the present New Covenant arrangement an earlier covenant sign is done away for economic reasons, if the source of the New Covenant institutes a fresh symbol better suited to his economy, it is fair to characterize the new institution as a substitute. One sign has indeed come in place of the previous, as evidenced by the fact the two signs perform almost identical functions and teach (through symbols) the same spiritual truths in their respective economies.

In order to answer the question, Why no unique covenant-sign prior to Abraham?, unique in the sense that it is a sign for and borne by members of the church (thus different from the sign of the rainbow for Noah's covenant, being directed at all men and indeed all living creatures)--we must identify what is special about Abraham in covenant-history terms. Abraham is called the father of the faithful, Rom.4:16. He it is who, in the aftermath of all the preliminaries of history (Gen.1-11) is set forth as God's choice to inaugurate the formal, historical expression of covenant with a people, a holy nation, a called-out and separated community made forever distinct from the rest of humanity.

It is not the case that Abraham is the first saved man of the race, but salvation extended back even to our first parents who fell. How could they be saved, if not for the work of the Redeemer, the seed of the woman who was to come? How could they have a blessed relationship to him, if not by covenant? This is why we say there was the beginning of the covenant of grace even as those two were expelled from the garden. Yet, God did not choose then to institute a new and gracious formal covenant expression with humanity. He gave them sacrifices, but he did not "cut a covenant" as he would later in Gen.15, or give them a sign as in Gen.17--the same sign that would be appropriated through Moses for marking members of the covenant under the administration of the Law. The preliminaries were not complete. Still, "men began to call on the name of the Lord," Gen.4:26.

The calling of Abraham (or Abram as he was first named) marks a kind of conception moment in a "birth process" for the covenant of grace, one that will see the church come of age in the time of Christ and fulfillment. Up to that moment, there was a kind of "unformed and unfilled" aspect to the church's creation, comparable to God's calling the substance of creation into being in Gen.1:1 while still not yet done the work of ordering it. The protoevangelium has been uttered, and there are men who benefit from it, but there lacks shape and evidence of the design.

Another way of thinking about Abraham and the covenant God makes with him is by an analogy of a marriage contract. The call and promise of God, Gen.12, is akin to a betrothal. The covenant-making ceremony, Gen.15, is comparable to a marriage ceremony or feast. The covenant is also marked by a sign, Gen.17, while in our culture marriage is frequently marked by some sign as well, such as a ring symbolizing all that the marriage said and accomplished. The temporal gaps between those events are of little moment for the story of Abraham considered all in one. In other words, once we understand basically how Abraham and his covenant functions in the grand redemptive storyline, the institution of a sign to accompany the formal covenant arrangement fits the circumstances, and also continues (like a ring on the finger) to bear witness to what has taken place in history.

Abraham is tremendously seminal in the Bible story. Among other things, his role as the first clearly defined typological mediator of the divine covenant is highly significant. He is the first named prophet, Gen.20:7. Beside leading his people to an altar (e.g. Gen.12:7) he performs an important priestly intercession when he pleads for the lives of the people of Sodom, but especially for Lot, Gen.18:23-32. He stands among and face to face with kings as their equal, Gen.14, and they are made to treat with him as if a king. Abraham's role is taken up by his son Isaac, and Isaac by his son Jacob. This role is reprised in monumental form by Moses, which after him is not seen all together in one man so finely until a greater than Moses arrives. The priests and the kings of Israel persist in fundamental distinction until Jesus comes to do priestly service after the order of Melchizedek.

Returning to the substance of your question, the answer of Why? is that the sign to be given and remain until Christ was not suitable for the eras prior to Abraham. The world and the church was not ready for the sign destined for the purpose, which should bring the Christ into the world at the proper time. But with the formal inauguration of the covenant the time had arrived, and so was given.

 

[dsanch1120]

Hello Daniel,
I do think the question is interesting, but likely not for the same reason that the author raised it. You yourself set forth the question in the straightforward way, which I paraphrase thus: What was the covenant-sign before circumcision, or else, Was there any covenant-sign given prior to the appointment of circumcision to Abraham? These are normal, reasonable questions when the story of Redemption is laid out before us in timeline fashion.

Thank you Rev. Buchanan for your answer to my question, I feel like I understand things much better now.

For context, the author argues for credo-baptism on the basis that baptism is not the replacement for circumcision, but is a sign of the "priestly covenant" made with Simeon, mainly forming his argument based on Exodus 29:4 and with that in mind concluding the baptism of Jesus to be a priestly ordination ritual (thus Christian baptism would be a priestly ordination ritual). I found his point to be interesting and perhaps novel, but not convincing. His point about covenant signs pre-Abraham, however, definitely made me think.

You mentioned that the baptist view of the new covenant is present moreso than promised. What would the traditional reformed view be? My understanding of covenant theology has been that we are presently under the new covenant administration of the covenant of grace.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you Rev. Buchanan for your answer to my question, I feel like I understand things much better now.

For context, the author argues for credo-baptism on the basis that baptism is not the replacement for circumcision, but is a sign of the "priestly covenant" made with Simeon, mainly forming his argument based on Exodus 29:4 and with that in mind concluding the baptism of Jesus to be a priestly ordination ritual (thus Christian baptism would be a priestly ordination ritual). I found his point to be interesting and perhaps novel, but not convincing. His point about covenant signs pre-Abraham, however, definitely made me think.

You mentioned that the baptist view of the new covenant is present moreso than promised. What would the traditional reformed view be? My understanding of covenant theology has been that we are presently under the new covenant administration of the covenant of grace.

I assume, instead of "Simeon," you intended "Levi." As for the connection of baptism to ceremonial washing of the priests in consecration, for my part I don't mind making such connections for there are many more such to be found between the ritual New Covenant washing of baptism and its precursors all over the OT legal ceremonies, and also in the Red Sea crossing, and in the flood of Noah, just to name a few of the obvious (which are also noted by the NT writers).

However, I would not agree that there is a special and distinct priestly covenant beside the Sinai-covenant made with the holy nation. There are a few references in the OT to a "covenant with Levi" (Mal.2:4), or "covenant with the Levitical priests" (Jer.33:21), but these should be regarded as metonymy (figure of speech) on account of them being set apart in the midst of the Sinai covenant for its ministrations. From a ceremonial angle, you could say that the covenant at Sinai was made (in a sense) exclusively with Levi on behalf of the rest of the nation, therefore the children of Israel enjoyed a mediated covenant relationship with their God through their priests, sons of Levi.

There is also God's declaration to loyal Phinehas, Num.25:13, that he has a covenant from God for perpetual priesthood in his line of descendants, but this is manifestly a particular promise of God to publicly honor his servant well beyond ordinary memory, and not as unconditional or instant as it might initally appear; for in the days of Eli and of several of his descendants, the line of Ithamar, Phinehas' brother, held the high priest's position, only returning to Phinehas' lineage with Zadok (exclusively) when Solomon took his throne. This form of "priestly covenant" doesn't seem to have any bearing on the question of a separate covenant with the Aaronic order, to which Christ eventually stands for fulfillment.

I first heard that Jesus' baptism might be considered his "priestly anointing" from someone arguing for pouring/sprinkling as the proper mode, so the proposal of your author is interesting, who presumably comes to his conclusion maintaining an immersionist perspective. I think Christ was anointed (priest, prophet, and king) at his baptism, if not by water yet doubtless by the Holy Spirit; and we who are his testify by our baptism that we have a share in his anointing, compare Heidelberg Catechism 31 and 32.

But this baptism of Christ's (even the water sort, whatever the mode) is not meant to stand 1:1 in parallel or correlation with, and replacing or fulfilling the Levitical purification rite. They were being cleansed and sanctified for their work; Jesus needed no authorization from the priesthood (John was of the priests) because he took no authorization from Moses whatsoever. And the NT text tells us why Jesus underwent baptism along with all the church--to fulfill all righteousness. The Clean One identified with the sinners and the repentant in order to make them like himself. In this, perhaps we are in total agreement, and it's for the best the author does not convince you (in my opinion).

As to your last question, you articulate your understanding of covenant theology in terms a P&R person uses with precision; and perhaps not so precisely as a Baptist-covenantalist would prefer it. I'm referring to the fact that the covenant of grace is sometimes wholly identified with the New Covenant, and by that rule those prior covenants do not administer the covenant of grace, since in their essence they do not partake of its spiritual nature. Some Baptists will say the earlier covenants were promissory and/or legal in nature, besides being essentially unspiritual; not that they were not useable in a spiritual way for the higher purpose that some were enabled to put them, even to find salvation in virtue of the New and Gracious Covenant.

So, for those Baptists that recognize my description as accurate, they mark and emphasize a contrast between the promise of a spiritual covenant under the signs of unspiritual covenants, and the presence of the New spiritual covenant. Classic covenant theology recognizes earthly types and shadows marked the earlier covenants, but insists they were still spiritual in their essence; they were not "about" the earth, earthly inheritance, earthly succession, earthly glory, earthly anything. The things of the earth by which those covenants communicated were signage, but the substance was entirely spiritual the whole time.

I hope these thoughts are clarifying and helpful.

 

[brandonadams]

Yet, God did not choose then to institute a new and gracious formal covenant expression with humanity. He gave them sacrifices, but he did not "cut a covenant" as he would later in Gen.15, or give them a sign as in Gen.17--the same sign that would be appropriated through Moses for marking members of the covenant under the administration of the Law.

Up to that moment, there was a kind of "unformed and unfilled" aspect to the church's creation

But with the formal inauguration of the covenant the time had arrived, and so was given.

This is similar to Berkhof's language. He says

1. The first revelation of the covenant. The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant. The revelation of such an establishment could only follow after the covenant idea had been developed in history. At the same time Gen. 3:15 certainly contains a revelation of the essence of the covenant…


Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace. While Gen. 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established. It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church.

Gen 3:15 was not the formal establishment of the covenant of grace. Its formal establishment was to come later. However, it revealed the covenant of grace, and this revelation of the covenant of grace (the promise) was sufficient to save believers prior to its formal establishment. Berkhof says that the formal establishment of the covenant of grace marked the beginning of an institutional Church. Baptists agree. We simply believe he was mistaken as to when the covenant of grace was formally established. We believe that it was established at the death of its mediator, Jesus Christ (the New Covenant).