Infant Baptism

In our crisis years our church rejected me and my wife as our views were no longer considered Reformed.  By placing us under church discipline, the church pronounced that “in our doctrine and life” we were showing to be “unbelieving and ungodly” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q, A 82).  If they had not kept us from God’s grace in His Holy Supper, they believed (as shown by their actions) that God’s wrath would come upon the church!  Unless I would repent, I would certainly go to Hell!  (Most of the leaders did not actually believe this; they just used church discipline as a tool to enforce their status and to protect their own views.) 

By critically questioning the biblical foundations to infant baptism, I was deemed Baptistic, and thus “not Reformed”.  By attending a Baptistic seminary, the leadership concluded, that I gave “further evidence that I was unrepentant and hardening myself in sin.”  Yet, at the seminary where I studied I was seen as too Reformed to be a Baptist.  Although I had classmates from other Reformed denominations, who were or would be in leadership in their own churches, I was the only one to challenge our professors regarding infant baptism.  Here are some examples.

1              During a summer course on Church Planting, we had a guest speaker, who had been a missionary.  He told us that we must understand the culture we are working in.  In a Middle-Eastern family, it is the patriarch who rules.  The father makes decisions for the family, and the family follows.  Therefore, he argued, when the father decides to follow Christ, we must be prepared to baptize the whole family!  When I heard this, I asked him, “Were not the first Christians people from the same tradition?  Would they not have baptized their little children when the father decided to follow Christ?”

2              The Greek professor analyzed for us the Great Commission.  He explained its meaning as: “We are called to make disciples for Christ, by (first) baptizing them and (then) discipling them: teaching them to obey the teaching of Jesus Christ.”  I asked him, “If the baptizing comes before the teaching, is it not right to do the same with the (young) children of believers?”

3              As assignment for another course, I was told to study David Kingdon’s book “Children of Abraham”.  Kingdon is a Reformed Baptist, who adheres to covenant theology and emphasizes the grace of God.  I was to give an objective summary of his views, and then to find and study any books or articles written in response to Kingdon’s book.  I was to write objective summaries and evaluations of these as well.  It was an excellent exercise, which helped me understand the issues better.  Even though I did not accept all the arguments by the Reformed respondents, I nevertheless could not reject infant baptism.  Apparently the (Reformed Baptist) professor concluded that I had been fair in my analysis, for I received a very high mark on my research paper.

4              Since I was declared “a heretic” by our own elders, we felt alienated and rejected in our own community.  I was concerned about my children never hearing a call to make a decision for Christ (since “they had already received Christ and all his benefits in their baptism”) As our children felt totally uncomfortable in the hostile environment of “the communion of saints”, we decided to worship in the mornings at a Reformed Baptist church, while in the afternoon we faithfully attended the church where we still had our membership.  In the Baptist church they had two Sunday school programs.  Interestingly, they were called “Kids of the Kingdom” and “Young disciples’ youth group”.  After some time I asked an elder: “If they are kids of the kingdom, why should they not be baptized?” and “If they are young disciples of Christ, why should they not receive the badge of discipleship?”

Two of my three sisters have been rebaptized (or: ‘immersed as believers upon their profession of faith’).  Although I would do the same if it would significantly facilitate my ministry (similar to Paul’s approach to circumcision?) I have never rejected the proper use of infant baptism. 

1              Belonging to the flock: The (NT) people of God have been portrayed as the sheep that follow the Good Shepherd.  If that is so, it would seem very natural that the young children also belong to this flock, for they too follow the Good Shepherd.  Indeed, I have regularly used this image to encourage, lovingly yet sternly, the believing parents of a newborn child.  ‘This child belongs to the Good Shepherd.  Therefore, it is your obligation to model God’s love and teach your child to respect and obey the Lord.’  Of course, we cannot apply the same reasoning to an older child, which must have a personal input in such a decision.

2              The Red Sea as a picture of baptism.  1 Corinthians 10: 1 – 2, 5: “Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”  “Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.”  Paul warns the church not to take their salvation for granted.  All of Israel was saved (!) from slavery in Egypt, from the dominion of the Red Dragon (Rev. 12: 1 – 6 ).  Nevertheless, almost all of them perished in the desert; they never entered Canaan, even though they had received the promise.  This analogy suggests that baptism is an event that refers to the start of someone’s journey with God.  It cannot be used as guarantee that they will complete this journey to its intended destiny.

3              Salvation is not a one-time event.  During my crisis years I used the story of a family, stranded on a lonely island.  Once they realize they are stuck and destined for certain death, they desperately look for any sign of hope of deliverance.  So, when the father sees a ship that is clearly heading for the island, he may well say, “We are saved!”  They may celebrate their rescue, even though the final outcome is not sure.  One or more family members may refuse to go aboard the ship or even jump off after leaving the island.  This is consistent with biblical language, where followers of Christ may be described as “already saved by the blood of Christ”, as “being saved”, and as “will be saved on the Day of Judgment”.

4              Doug Wilson’s argument (in “To a Thousand Generations”): In this book Wilson argues from the perspective of the first Jewish Christians.  If they had always seen their (young) children as belonging to God’s covenant people, how would they have responded if (in the New Covenant) this suddenly had changed?  If there was so much debate about changes, such as circumcision and Sabbath keeping, it seems inconceivable that none of the NT epistles had to explain why children of believers should not be baptized.

Yet, I have some concerns regarding the theology and practice of infant baptism.  In the first place, I believe that a number of arguments used to defend the baptism of infants cannot be upheld.  In the Old Testament, one could claim to belong to God’s people because they belonged to Abraham’s seed.  Abraham might have been their father many generations back, but this would not make a difference, for this covenant was with the Hebrews: Abraham’s seed.  But obviously this is not the same today, for nobody can claim to belong to God’s people merely on the basis of the faith of some distant ancestor.  Therefore the term “Abraham and his seed” cannot be translated for the new covenant people as “believers and their seed”.

Secondly, we have been taught, “Our children must be baptized, because they (too) have the promise.”  “Having the promise” refers to Peter’s words at Pentecost.  He tells Jews and God-fearers, “For the promise is for us and our children, and for all those far off who (will be) called.” The second part was not emphasized in our churches, but the first part was used as proof text for infant baptism.  Yet, since we are not Jews by birth, it is not the first but the second part that refers to us, “and for all those (far off) who will be called”.  When we were called, we received the Promise!  Peter does not say: “The promise is for believers (or members of the true church) and their children”; he says: “The Promise is for Jews and Gentiles.”  The Promise was for Abraham and his seed, but now the promise is for all who hear the Gospel.  What is this promise?  The Heidelberg Catechism answers this question: “the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them” (Q, A 74).  Sure, everyone who hears the Gospel proclamation receives this promise.  That’s why it is called “Good News”!  Accept it in faith, and you too (like the believing Jews) will receive the Holy Spirit!  Strictly speaking then, we could offer baptism to anybody who shows enough interest to listen to the Gospel.  Is this not what the Great Commission teaches us?  Make disciples by (first) baptizing people and then teaching them (how) to follow Christ.  (Yet, Peter’s words were spoken on the day of Pentecost, and Acts 2 shows us that (only) those who accepted his teaching were baptized and added to the church.)

In the third place, the terminology and teaching easily leads to false assurance.  For what is the promise that we (who are baptized in the genuine church of God) received?  In some church it was taught that it is the unconditional promise of salvation.  But, if you would continue to probe long enough, this obviously could not be sustained, for that would make it impossible for a baptized person to reject God and go to Hell.  The Dutch (Reformed) liturgical forms were translated for use in the North American Reformed churches.  They state that, “When we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit assures us by this sacrament that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ, namely, the cleansing from our sins and the daily renewal of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without blemish among the assembly of God's elect in life eternal. (underlining is mine)”  Now, this sounds quite heretical, and indeed I have witnessed many church members, and even preachers, who took these words at face value, as if salvation was guaranteed for those baptized in the true church. 

In my crisis years I tried to discuss this with my elders and leaders, but I never got any clear answers.  If God the Holy Spirit assures each baptized child that He will live in them to work faith and sanctification, how can any of them not get to heaven? If God’s grace is irresistible, as we were taught, how could anyone baptized (in the true church) eventually fall away and perish?  Interestingly, the Dutch form gives the following wording, “Als wij gedoopt worden in de naam van de Heilige Geest, verzekert ons de Heilige Geest door dit heilig sacrament, dat Hij in ons wonen wil om ons tot lidmaten van Christus te heiligen. Zo wil Hij ons toeëigenen wat wij in Christus hebben, namelijk de afwassing van onze zonden en de dagelijkse vernieuwing van ons leven, totdat wij eenmaal in de gemeente van de uitverkorenen in het eeuwige leven smetteloos een plaats zullen ontvangen. (underlining is mine)”  Rather than the assurance that the Holy Spirit will live in the baptized person, we find the assurance that He wills (or: wants to, seeks to) dwell in him!  Here is another instance* where, in over-reaction to Arminianism, all emphasis is placed on God’s objective promise for us all (as members of the genuine church), while “faith” is more seen as a gift included in the promise rather than the required means by which we must attain that which is promised.

Although I have been privileged to baptize many people, I have not yet been asked to baptize one baby or young child of a believer.  Although I have, at suitable times, explained my rationale in favor of infant baptism, I have been careful not to force the issue upon those who were not (yet) prepared to take this step.  Neither have I risked the breaking of the communion of saints over this difficult issue.

(*I found other instances in the translation of the definition of faith, mentioned in an earlier blog, “Do we have to accept Christ?”)

The Trinitarian Covenant Model

Since Jesus rarely used the term of ‘covenant’, I doubt that we can or should use it as the most important theme for the complete redemption history.  In my home church denomination, a preacher was considered “not reformed” (read: “not a genuine Christian”) unless the whole history of salvation was clothed in covenantal terminology.  Yet, the church’s calling to be witness in the world and to make disciples somehow did not fit too well into this covenantal scheme of things.  It felt like something that was somewhat artificially attached to the main doctrine.  But this cannot be correct. In fact, mission is such an essential calling for the church that any overarching theme or scheme must have ‘missions’ as essential and fully integrated component.

When I tried to personally come to grips with this, I sought to respect my roots while looking for a fresh biblical way of looking at God’s covenant with humankind.  This is how I came up with the idea of a three-dimensional or Trinitarian covenant model.  In essence I still use this model in my teaching. 

When you look at the relationship between God and humans, globally and individually, a common pattern seems to emerge.  At each level, God reveals himself as he provides his blessings.  He provides for and gives his promises to people, and therefore he expects, yes demands a response in true repentance.

1              God is our creator and provider.  As such he is father of all humankind.  As a consequence of the rebellion, we may in many ways no longer look like our Father.  Following the Deceiver, we have begun to take on his likeness.  Selfishness, hatred, sexual abuse, and violence (especially) on the weak and defenseless are sins for which God holds each human being accountable.  People often think or claim to seek or serve God, while they actually seek moral approval and/or divine blessing for selfish reasons.  Yet, God has not abandoned his creation or the people he created.  Deep down, every human being knows there is a bottom-line good and evil.  Evolution cannot develop morality, only pragmatism.  Sacrificial love, as modeled in Jesus’ crucifixion, cannot be explained by pragmatism.  Yet, God so loved the world that He gave his beloved Son to build his church, to restore His Kingdom, and to renew his good creation.

And so, God, in his mercy, continues to work in human hearts all around the world.  So, when people (by His grace) seek to praise, honor, and serve the true God in humility of heart they begin to please God.  I believe this was true for many of the hill tribes in Myanmar, who refused to give in to the pressures of Buddhism, insisting that there was only one God, who had created them, to whom they were indebted, and who would eventually reveal himself again (Don Richardson: ‘Eternity in their Hearts’).  How can we know that people who never read the Bible or heard the Gospel live in the right relationship with God?  When they hear the Good News in Jesus Christ they recognize and embrace it as the truth.  They accept it as the revelation and confirmation that they had been waiting for.  If people, when they hear the true story and teaching of Jesus, persistently ignore and reject it, then this proves that they were never God-fearing people.  Yet, those who truly seek God will find Him. It is our task to spread the Good News, in confidence that among all nations and people groups God has people who truly belong to Him.  They must hear the Good News so that they may join his church as witnesses in word and deed; in love and in obedience.

2              God has revealed himself in his Word.  God gave his special revelation to Abraham and his offspring so that they in turn might be a light on the mountain to draw all nations to the True God.  After thousands of years, he sent the true Son of Abraham so that in Him all nations might recognize that God, their Creator-Provider is also the rightful King of the whole cosmos, who seeks and works to be the king of every human heart.  So, God has given us a special blessing in revealing his Word.  In his Word, but especially in his Son (the Word who became a human being), he has manifested his holiness and his holy will, his love and mercy.  When we begin to understand and accept God’s amazing love in this, we must stand in awe.  Anybody who hears the Gospel must follow Christ to be reconciled to the Father.  This requires trust in and obedience to God. 

In the past it was the children of Abraham who had received the revelations of God: they had the teachings of (God through) Moses, the words of God through his prophets, and the books of Wisdom.  If they took these to heart, then they would live in humble trust in and obedience to their God, just like their father Abraham.  Then, they would also recognize that Jesus was the promised Son of Abraham, the Son of David, and the Son of Man.  They would recognize him as the Son of God.  Following Him, they would be blessed by His Holy Spirit and empowered to live again in a way that could please their God and Father.

Today, the same pattern holds for anyone who hears the Gospel.  It is in the Gospel that Christ comes to them.  Some don’t care knowing about God: they will continue to run away from their True Father.  Others will reject Him: they want to be in control, and so they pretend they can live without God’s goodness in their lives.  A third group will embrace the Gospel, recognizing it as the Truth.  Those who genuinely do so, persevering in their faith, will receive His (indwelling) Spirit by whom they will produce fruit for Him.

3              Those who have in true faith embraced Christ as their Savior and thus as their King have Christ (or: His Spirit) living ‘in their hearts’.  They are called to walk with the Spirit and to nurture their walk with God to produce fruit for Him. 

So, who are God’s covenant people?

1              In one sense all people are, for all have God as their Creator-Provider.  Nobody can (read: may) walk away from that and innocently ignore the (Father-child) relationship that they have with God.  All people should realize that humans are not merely animals.  Those who most loudly proclaim that we are just animals, often use their special status as humans to argue for a changing attitude from a standpoint of responsibility.  All people must seek God, and His Word must go to all the nations now.

2              People who clearly hear or have heard the Gospel are recipients of deeper revelation and more wonderful blessings.  They can know God not only as Creator and Provider, but also as King and Redeemer, the Mighty God Who is perfectly righteous and amazingly gracious.  All those who hear God’s Word must submit to God’s kingship and follow the Son of God.  Baptized in water, they must live a life of thankfulness and sacrifice in response to His amazing sacrificial love.  Greater gifts give a correspondingly greater responsibility.  Those who have clearly heard the Word, the Gospel, can no longer pretend ignorance.  After studying the Bible, nobody can still claim to be an agnostic.  Rather, it becomes obvious that such a person has refused to accept the life-giving truth.

3              Those that have accepted the Word and have become followers of their Lord Jesus have not yet arrived.  Sure, they have been saved by the Word through the sacrifice of Christ, but the purpose is that they bear fruit for Him.  They have received His Spirit, but now they must live with Him and persevere in faith.  The indwelling Spirit is a greater power and blessing than the physical presence of Jesus Christ, but this may not make us passive. 

A critical question remains: if we want to look at today’s situation from a covenant perspective, what constitutes the people of God?  The New Testament suggests that the Christian church (at a local scale, at a global scale) is today’s covenant community.  It is the church that is called to represent God’s Kingdom as a “royal priesthood”, adopted by the King and called to sacrificial service.  Yet, this does not provide us with a sharp boundary: Just as Israel often did not follow God, some churches today no longer follow Christ.  Just as in Israel there were many who did not live as “true children of Abraham”, so in the church there are many who do not “walk as Jesus walked”.  Some churches attempt to set high standards for their members.  They require a (high) level of godliness to be displayed in their members to prove that they are Christians indeed.  I have been in churches where those who would only attend one of their two Sunday services would (for this reason) be placed under discipline.  Such strict enforcement of derived standards easily leads to legalism, hypocrisy, and pride.  Other churches set little or no requirements and would even embrace committed Moslems and Buddhists as members.  Such ‘churches’ have lost their power to be a Light for the world in darkness.

I hope to deal with more specific church related topics later.  Yet, there is one topic that begs to be discussed.  My teachers and leaders in our former church probably rejected my view of the covenant especially as it seemed to discredit their rationale for infant baptism. Indeed, if you are member of a Reformed - Presbyterian church, you may have wondered about my views on infant baptism as you read my blogs about the covenant.  So, this must be the topic of the next blog.

Father of all humankind

Witnessing to Pagans

For the first forty years of my life I rarely met somebody who did not know about God.  The Netherlands, where I grew up, for centuries had been a Christian nation in the sense that most people (or their recent ancestors) used to belong to a Christian church.  In my youth I lived in a ‘protected’ environment, mostly surrounded by people of the same church denomination. With ‘outsiders’ we rarely spoke about our relationship with Christ, although we might perhaps talk about the Bible or about ‘our’ church.

With some other young people who wanted to reach the ‘outsiders’ we looked for ways to do so.  Local churches began to organize evangelism committees, under the supervision and guidance of their consistories.  We experimented with organized group activities in coffee bars, correspondence courses, and campground ministry.  Yet, somehow, it felt unnatural as we did not know how to listen and talk to those who did not know God.  Only very gradually did I dare to take personal initiative in a natural way.

After I had been a teacher -living independently- for two years, I went on holidays to Norway.  In the International Youth Hostel of Oslo I met a young guy from France, Nils, who was also traveling by himself.  He knew where he was going, and he agreed that I travel there with him.  In the town of Linge he had family friends, whom he wanted to visit.  I joined him on his quest, and after a while we met the folks that he was looking for.  They invited us in and shared a fantastic evening coffee meal with us- a table full of baked delicacies!  After we were back at the youth hostel, Nils was embarrassed that he had not thanked those wonderful people who had shared such a feast with us.  The next day we cooked our own meal in the youth hostel kitchen.  When dinner was ready, I suggested we thank God.  Nils replied that he could not thank God, since he was not a Christian.  I reasoned with him, “Why, yesterday you felt bad not thanking the folks in Linge.  But when God gives you food, you refuse to thank Him!  Whether you are a believer or not is insignificant, God still gives you many blessings, like this food today, so you ought to thank Him!”

In our typical theology, as I understood it, God loved us- the members of ‘the genuine church’.  We were God’s covenant people- the chosen ones!  God gave us (irresistible) grace, but we were hesitant to acknowledge the existence of a common grace for all mankind.  So, we never learned to listen to other people, whether they were ‘other’ Christians or people who did not (yet) know God in Jesus Christ.  Our leaders insisted that there could not be a dialogue.  Rather, we should attempt to start a monologue, for we were the guardians of the truth and the true doctrine.

How can we communicate the Good News to those whom we avoid in social life? How can we expect them to trust us unless we first show an interest in them?  How can we expect them to believe our words, if we refuse to be their friends?  (On the other hand, if such friendships become our primary friendships, they easily take up our time and energy so that we grow apart from Christ.)

Only when we started home schooling did we begin to understand Christians from other denominations, and only after I could no longer teach at Christian schools did I begin to understand how people with an atheistic or pantheistic worldview think and live.

It was then that I realized that in the Bible almost all the history and writing presumes that people know (about) God.  Even in the book of Acts -in the accounts of Paul’s missionary journeys- there are only two passages where Paul addresses people who don’t know God.  So, if it is our hope to effectively communicate with a similar audience (who doesn’t know God) today, we had better focus on those passages. 

In Lystra, Paul heals a young man, convinced that this would open his eyes for the truth.  Yet, the public was not ready to believe, and when they realized a miracle had been performed, they naturally credited their own gods with the miracle.  Paul desperately tried to convince them otherwise, but the mob was beyond reason.  Paul’s argument contained these elements: There is only one True God, who made everything in heaven and on earth.  This God already has a relationship with you, not only in the fact that He has created you, but also that He has provided you with many good things.  As He is now revealing Himself more fully to all the nations of the world, He urges people everywhere to stop worshipping idols, and to only worship the One Living God- who is their creator and provider! (Acts 13)

In Athens, Paul is invited to share his ‘philosophy’ with the scholars at the Areopagus.  Here Paul has the opportunity to present his argument in a more prepared and structured fashion, but the line of reasoning is more or less the same as in Lystra.  In fact, Paul goes even further, by agreeing that all humans are God’s offspring!  In other words, if God is everyone’s creator and provider, then in one sense we are indeed His offspring. 

Note that Paul does not insist that only Jews or followers of Jesus are God’s covenant people.  Every human being has by nature a relationship with God!  It is our task to show them who their original father is, so that they may seek him and live in fellowship with Him.  If God has given them no gifts, then how could they owe Him anything?  Yet, in a basic but fundamental sense, all humans have a covenant relationship with God.  As they are recipients of his gifts, they are obligated to seek and serve Him!  And since God loves them as His lost children, He desires that they hear the Good News so that they may turn to their Heavenly Father, embrace their true identity (not as animals, but as created in God’s image!).  Only in this way can they live in fellowship with their Father and only in this way can they be truly human!

A New Covenant

Although the covenant concept is quite central in the Old Testament, it is remarkable that Jesus rarely uses this term. Rather, he seems to talk nearly all the time about the Kingdom of God. He came to restore God’s rule in all humanity, so that in the end God would once again be the rightful centre of his own creation. 

When Christ came to the climax of his ministry, he announced that he, through his death, would bring about a new covenant. By his sacrifice he would fulfill the covenant with Abraham and his seed (that is: Israel), so that his Kingdom -in undisputed power and glory- could finally fill the whole earth. 

There appears to be some tension here: there is continuation in the covenant (the relationship between God and his creation and humankind to bring about the new creation), and yet the old form has been fulfilled in Christ and has –in a sense- become obsolete.  What are some of the differences between the old and new covenants?

The old covenant had been a covenant of blood: many of its rituals involved the cutting into live tissue to produce blood: males had to be circumcised, animals had to be sacrificed, and blood had to be sprinkled.  Already in the covenant with humankind this was true: After the Fall, Adam and Eve had to be clothed with the skins of animals.  Ever since Jesus’ blood flowed at Golgotha, however, blood is no longer a central theme. When we celebrate (!) his death, we look back to his sacrifice, and we look forward to the “wedding feast of the Lamb”.  Water seems to be the symbol now, as his disciples are to be baptized in water.  So, the new covenant involves a new people of God and a new sign to mark one’s belonging. 

In the new covenant, the Good News that was first heard in Israel must go to all the nations. Finally the son of Abraham brings his blessings to all the nations.  As they hear the Good News, people everywhere are called to give up their idolatry and turn to the Living God.  The old covenant was for Abraham’s children so that they might walk with their God (and to be a light to attract the nations!); now the Word of God must go to all people groups so that they would turn to the True God, who is also their creator and provider. (More about this in the next blog).  We know from the Bible that many of the Hebrews did not trust or obey their God as their father Abraham had done. In fact, most of them refused to put God into the centre of their lives.  Jesus later calls their leaders: “illegitimate children of Abraham”.  The Hebrews were called to be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6), but only a righteous remnant actually lived in covenant relationship.  Today, the gathering of Christian followers -the church-, is (called to be) the new kingdom of priests as they are to offer their lives in sacrificial service to God. (1 Peter 2: 9).

Most NT references to the new covenant and its relationship with the covenant with Israel are found in the letter to the Hebrews.  Obviously, it was especially the Hebrews, Abraham’s seed, who had to understand the new reality in relationship with their former understanding.  This letter is first of all a pastoral address of warning and encouragement (first addressed to the Jewish Christians), but it also lists some major themes on covenant transition or fulfillment: In Moses, God made a covenant with the Hebrews: he saved them from slavery to the evil empire, he gave them his law, and he led them though the wilderness to the Promised Land.  Yet, Moses was not perfect, and he could not complete his calling, and so he was taken away before the Hebrews entered the Promised Land.  But now we have ‘Super-Moses’, for in Jesus Christ God has given us a new covenant.  And He will not fail, for he will certainly bring his people home, where he will dwell with them in the New Jerusalem!  In the old covenant, there was the tabernacle (later the temple) where the High Priest presented the blood of lambs to make symbolic payment for the sins of Israel.  Now, we have Super-Melchizedek, the only true “king of righteousness”, who has brought the perfect sacrifice by giving up his own body as “the perfect Lamb of God”. 

Central to the covenant concept is God’s revelation.  It is because of God’s revelation that we can know God.  In “religious studies” people investigate how humans seek to know God in their quest for understanding, but knowledge of God is only possible when humans begin to listen to Him.  For “God” is not an object for human investigation, He is our creator and provider, and He has revealed himself to humankind.  Even in modern theology this is often misunderstood.  I remember in Hermeneutics class, the professor stressing that Scripture is all about human authors (living in their culture and worldview) and human readers (immersed in their own culture).  When I heard this, I challenged him, “Where is God in this scheme of things?”  The professor replied, “He will come later!”, but somehow it seemed that God was consistently left out of the picture.  The course seemed to me a scientific approach to the human quest for God.  In a scientific approach we use closed systems where –apparently by definition- there is no place for God. 

In the beginning God spoke directly to humankind, but after the Fall humanity depended on the stories of their ancestors- until Abraham.  In Abraham’s offspring God’s presence and revelation were expressed first in the Law of Moses and in the tabernacle rituals.   Later, God gave his prophets and the tabernacle service was renewed in the temple in Jerusalem.  But finally, God came down in Person.  So, today the focus is no longer on the temple, for Jesus is the Temple:  He is the Immanuel!  But it got even better!  After Christ ascended into heaven, He returned in His Spirit to dwell in his church, his followers.  So, now we who are His disciples are called (and called to be) temples of God! 

⁷ But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. ⁸ This is why it says:

“When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.”

⁹ (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? ¹⁰ He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) ¹¹ So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, ¹² to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ¹³ until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

(Ephesians 4, NIV)

Ephesians 4 quotes Psalm 68.  The quoted passage, as several scholars have pointed out, in Jewish tradition was seen as reference to Moses.  Moses who went up the mountain to meet God, returned with God’s gift for his people: the Law of God.  If this is what Paul has in mind, he continues: Now someone greater than Moses has gone up to God (in Heaven), and he has returned in His Spirit with gifts for the church.  So, in a sense the function of the Law (of Moses) has been replaced by the Spirit, who interprets to us the teaching of Jesus.  Since we have the Spirit of Christ, we are no longer under the Law of Moses.  Yet, we are called to walk with His Spirit in obedience to the teaching of Christ.  The Ten Commandments used to be at the heart of OT worship (in the centre of the temple), because in them God had revealed Himself most clearly: his holiness and his holy will for his people.  But now Christ has come, and he has fulfilled the Law.  And He says, “If you love me, you obey my commandments.  His teaching does not essentially differ from the Law (read: teaching) of Moses, but it gives us a much better and clearer understanding of who God is, and how He wants us to live.  If we still focus on the Ten Commandments as God’s rule for us, we are like people staring at a big billboard or an artistic drawing that give us a picture of some great construction project.  Now the building exists, the billboard and the drawing lose their function, for they could only give an impression of what is now a greater reality.  So, on this point I disagree with John Calvin (Institutes 2.7.1) that the Law (if indeed he uses the term to refer to the OT commandments) functions like a whip that must drive us into action (or acts of holiness).  In the NT setting it is the Spirit (i.e. God’s will, written on our hearts) who urges us to live in thankfulness to His amazing grace!

So, although there is still ‘a people of God’, who have received God’s revelation and who are called to walk with Him, a lot of things have changed in Jesus Christ.  Today we have a better revelation and a clearer view on greater gifts.  Let us focus on these greater gifts, while we still treasure the OT.  Because the Old Testament shows us how the same God, our God, prepared a people walking in darkness for the great light that has come.  But let us not pretend that our work is done.  Even though Christ has accomplished everything, He still calls us to walk with Him, to persevere in faith, and –in thankfulness for His amazing grace- to live a life of loving sacrifice.