Wys Sagaria na 'n Duisendjarige vrederyk voor die Wederkoms?

Hierdie pos is in reaksie teen mense wat Sagaria gebruik om te bewys dat die Bybel 'n duisendjarige vrederyk voorspel voor die laaste oordeel. Dit wil voorkom dat hulle tekste uit Sagaria aanhaal sonder om die historiese konteks, of die konteks van die boek as geheel, asook die konteks van die aard van die profesiee in ag te neem. Alhoewel dit 'n kort boek is, is dit tog 'n moeilike boek om te verstaan: Die volgende studie het my omtrent 'n week gevat om te voltooi. Nadat ek egter in diepte gaan kyk het na die boek as geheel, is ek soveel sekerder dat daar geen gronde is om te dink hierdie boek ondersteun die idee van 'n duisendjarige vrederyk nie.

Tydgenote van Sagaria:

Nehemia,

Esra,

Haggai.

Historiese konteks:

Die terugkeer van die ballinge, en die herbou van Jerusalem en die tempel.

1:1-6	0002/08/??  Bekeer julle, kyk waartoe julle voorvaders se ongehoorsaamheid gelei het.
1:7-18	0002/11/24 Ruiters tussen mirte en diep kloof raporteer die wereld is rustig. Die Here gaan Hom ontferm oor Jerusalem na 70 jaar, en die nasies straf
1:18-20	4 horings = nasies wat Israel verstrooi het (Babel, Persie, Griekeland, Rome?)- 4 ambagsmanne om horings tot 'n val te bring
2:1-13	Die Engel kom om Jerusalem uit te meet. Jerusalem sal te groot word vir mure en God sal in hom bly. God straf die wat aan hom vat, en baie nasies sal na Jerusalem toe kom en hulle aan die Here verbind. (Hierdie is baie duidelik die nuwe testamentiese kerk wat voorspel word: Jerusalem/die kerk wat baie groot word, God wat in Jerusalem/die kerk woon, en mense van alle nasies wat na Jerusalem/die kerk stroom om hulle aan God te verbind.
3:1-10	Satan kla vir Jesua aan wat inliederlike vuil klere staan. Die Here bestraf Satan, en vergewe Jesua. (Jesua was hoë priester in die regeringstyd van Serubbabel en Nehemia) Hy trek vir hom skoon klere aan, en sit vir hom ‘n skoon tulband op. Jesua word hoë priester. Voorspellng van Loot wat kom. Klip met 7 oë en grafeersel.  Die Here gaan op een dag die sonde wegneem. (Baie duidelik Mesiaans. Jesua verteenwoordig die mense van die verbond, Israel. Hulle moes dien as hoëpriester en lig vir die nasies (Eksodus 19:5-6, Jesaja 49:6), maar het soos die nasies geword. Die nuwe skoon klere wys na die nuwe verbond wat ingestel word deur die koms van Loot/Jesus, wat die sondes in een dag sal weg neem. Deur die nuwe verbond kan die mense van die verbond weer optree as priesters van God (1 Pet 2:5, 1 Pet 2:9, Open 1:6, 5:9-10, 20:6)
4:1-14	Kandelaar met 2 olyfbome wat olie aan die kandelaar voorsien. Die Here  beloof Serubabel dat hy die tempel sal klaar maak – want hy doen dit nie uit eie krag nie. Die twee gesalfdes verwys na Serubbabel (die koning) en Jesua (die hoë Priester) (Alhoewel hierdie primêr ‘n profesie vir daardie tyd is, is daar ook ‘n nuwe Testamentiese toepassing. Die kandelaar is die kerk (Open 1:20) die olie is die Heilige Gees – (Priesters en profete is met olie gesalf) en die twee gesalfdes is Christus – omdat Hy beide Koning en Hoë priester is.
5:1-4	Die swewende boekrol – ‘n vervloeking vir die goddelose. (Dui op die eindoordeel)
5:5-11	Vrou wat goddelossheid verteenwoordig in ‘n mandjie met ‘n lood deksel. Dit word weg geneem na Sinar, waar ‘n huis vir haar gebou word. Sinar is ‘n ander naam vir Babilon , wat in Genesis gebou is in opstand teen God. Hierdie is ‘n moeilike deel, maar as ek moet raai, sou ek sê dit voorspel die koms van die groot verdrukking in (Matteus 24:15-18, Openbaring 20:1-7) Soos in Openbaring, lyk dit of die magte van die bose gebind word tot op die tyd wat vir hulle bestem is. (Die huis wat vir haar in Babilon gebou word) Die algehele goddeloosheid wat kom in die laaste dae word op verskeie plekke in die NT voorspel.
6:1-9	4 Strydwaens tuusen 2 brons berge: 1)Bruin perde, 2) Swart perde, 3) Wit perde 4)Skimmel perde. Swart perde gaan Noord, en die Wittes agterna. Skimmel gaan suid, deurkruis die aarde. Die wat Noord gaan bring die Gees van die Here daarheen. (Hierdie is ‘n besonder moeilike gedeelte. Elke komentaar wat mens hierop lees gee ‘n ander interpretasie. Almal stem ooreen dat die koper berge is die poort tussen die Hemel en die aarde voor, dat die ruiters uit die hemel kom om God se plan op die aarde uit te voer. Wat betref die perde is daar verskeie interpretasies: 1)    Een interpretasie sê dis die 4 koninkryke. Dit verklaar waarom die rooi perde nie uitgestuur word nie, omdat die tyd van Babel reeds verby is. Daar is egter ‘n paar probleme: Die Romeinse ryk kom nie uit die Suide nie, en mens sou juis verwag dat die Gees van die Here saam met die skimel perd gaan omdat die kerk in die Romeinse tyd ontstaan het. 2)    Daar is ‘n sterk versoeking om die perde te verbind aan die perde in Openbaring 6, maar dit sou beteken dat mens sou verwag het dat die genoemde rampe in Openbaring in die verskillende landstreke gebeur het, wat duidelik nie die geval is nie. Daar is ook die versoeking om die rampe van Openbaring aan die verskillende koninkryke te koppel, maar dit werk ook net tot ‘n punt: Rooi = oorlog = Babilon Wit = Oorwinning = Griekeland Grys = Dood = Romeine Swart = Persie = Hongersnood ??? Die interpretasie wat vir my die meeste sin maak is die een wat hierdie deel koppel aan Sagaria 1. ‘n Mens moet ook die konteks van die profesie in ag neem: Israel kom uit ballingskap uit. 70 jaar was hulle die spot van die aarde, en die algemene geloof was dat die god van Israel saam met sy volk oorwin is. Gegewe die konteks, het Sagaria 1 en Sagaria 6 die kragtige betekenis dat God steeds God bly en in beheer is oor die hele aarde. Hierdie twee  visioene vorm die raamwerk waar binne al die visioene tussenin vertolk moet word. Verder ook: In Sagaria 1 maak God die voorneme om die volke te straf, en in Sagaria 6 kom die plan tot uitvoering. Daar word baie klem gelê dat die perde eers wegtrek wanneer hulle die bevel van God ontvang. Alhoewel daar die versoeking is om Openbaring 6 hier in te lees, dink ek nie dis die bedoeling nie, want: 1)    Die profesie self gee geen besondere betekenis aan die verskillende kleure nie, en 2)    Dit is samehangend met hoofstuk 1 wat ook geen betekenis aan sekere kleure gee nie. Daarby is die kleure van Sagaria 1 minder versoenbaar met die van Openbaring 6. Die verskillende kleure dui dus eerder net op die verskeidenhied van God se mag, teenoor die heidense gode wat gewoonlik net oor een of twee bepaalde kragte beskik het. Die betekenis van “noord” moet ook in historiese konteks verstaan word. Noord is vir Israel ‘n onheilspellende plek, want dit is vanuit hierdie rigting wat die nasies hulle aangeval het. Hierdie is dus duidelik ‘n verwysing na die NT kerk, omdat God se Gees ook oor die heidennasies gaan kom. http://trivialdevotion.blogspot.com/2012/04/zechariah-6-horse-of-different-color.html
6:9-15	Goud en silwer van balinge moet gebruik word om ‘n kroon te maak en op die prieter Jesua se kop te sit. Sê vir Hom dat Loot vinnig opgang sal maak en die tempel van die Here bou. ‘n Priester sal saam met hom regeer en mense sal van ver af kom om die tempel te bou (Weereens ‘n Mesiaanse profesie. Loot is Jesus, en Hy is ook die Priester wat genoem word, want Jesus is beide koning en Hoë Priester. Die tempel wat Hy sal bou, waarvan mense van ver af sal kom om saam te bou, is die kerk.
7: 1-15	0004/09/04 Mense kom om navraag te doen oor die vas van die 5de maand. God vermaan hulle egter om te let op hulle motivering – God kyk na die hart en nie na die gebruik nie. Hy herinner hulle waarom die land verwoes is.
8:1-17	Die Here is begaan oor Jerusalem, en kondig voorspoed vir die stad aan.
8:18-19	Vasdae gaan feesdae word
8:20-23	Al die nasies sal na Jerusalem toe kom om die Here te raadpleeg (Voorspelling van die Kerk)
9:1-8	God kondig die val van Tirus en Filistea aan
9:9-10	Die koms van die nederige Koning na Jerusalem wat op ‘n donkie ry. Hy sal vrede bring (Dubbel profesie van die koms van Jesus asook die vrede wat sy wederkoms sal bring)
9:11-17	Die Here bevestig sy verbond omdat dit met bloed beseel is. Hy roep die gevangenis terug . God gebruik Juda as ‘n wapen – spesifiek teen Griekeland. Hulle sal oorwin en voorspoedig wees. (Hierdie profesie verwys waarskeinlik na die Makabeers – omdat hulle teen ‘n Helenistiese koningkryk geveg het)
10:1-12	Vra na die Here om reen, Hy sal dit op die regte tyd stuur. Die Here gaan Israel sterk en voorspoedig maak. Hy gaan hulle bymekaar maak, en hulle vyande verneder.
11:4-17	God beveel Sagaria om herder te word van slagskape vir wie niemand omgee nie. God gee nie meer vir die land nie, en gee die mense in mekaar se mag oor. Sagaria word ‘n herder met 2 kieries wat hy Vriendelikheid/Guns en Vereniging noem. Binne ‘n maand moes hy van drie herders ontslae raak. Maar hulle het met hom ongeduldig geraak, en hy met hulle, en die skape aan hulle eie lot oorgegee. Hy verbreek sy Vriendelikheid/Guns kierie – die ooreenkoms met die skape. Sagaria is onverskillig oor of hy betaal word of nie – die eienaars betaal hom 30 stukke silwer, wat hy dan vir die pottebakkers gooi. Hy breek sy ander kierie – Vereniging – ook stukkend, om die broederskap tussen Juda en Israel te verbreek. Nou moet Sagaria soos ‘n Herder optree wat niks vir die skape omgee nie. Die Here gaan so herder aanstel. Elende wag vir die herder. (Hierdie is duidelik ‘n profesie van Israel in die tyd van Jesus. Die slagskape waarvoor niemand omgee nie is die volk, en die eienaars is die leiers of Fariseers. Sagaria verteenwoordig Jesus. Jesus wys die Fariseers te reg, maar dit lei tot vyandskap tussen Jesus en die Fariseers. Jesus verbreek die verbond waaronder Israel die beskerming van God geniet het. Omdat die volk Jesus verwerp, gee God hulle aan hulle lot oor: 30 Silwer muntstukke was hoeveel jy iemand moes vergoed vir die lewe van ‘n slaaf – dis hoe min die Fariseers Jesus geag het deur Hom vir 30 silver muntstukke te verkoop. As Sagaria die rol van die slegte herder vertolk, verteenwoordig hy die Romeine wat Israel verwoes in 70nC. Maar daar is hoop vir die weerloses: God kondig ‘n swaar oordeel aan oor die slegte herder.
12:1-9	Die Here voorspel: Jerusalem en Juda gaan beleer word, maar almal wat teen hom optrek gaan seerkry. Die Here maak van Jerusalem ‘n rots blok. Die Here beskerm Juda teen sy aanvallers, en Juda erken dat sy krag in die Here is. Juda is ‘n vuur wat al die volke om hom verteer. Die swakste van Juda sal soos ‘n koning wees, en die Dawidshuis soos ‘n hemelwese. Die Here begin om die nasies uit te roei wat Jerusalem aanval. (Hierdie gedeelte verwys na die nuwe testamentiese kerk. Dit kan baie duidelik afgelei word in vers 8 waar die swakstes soos konings is. Petrus sê die kerk is nou reeds ‘n koninklike priesterdom ( 1 Petrus 2:9) Die Huis van Dawid wat soos ‘n Hemelwese is, is baie duidelik Jesus self. Ook vers 3 word verklaar in Petrus 2:6, waar Jesus die rots is, en elkeen wat Hom verwerp, val en struiikel oor Hom. Dit is ook verder duidelik uit die konteks van vers 11 – wat die bediening van Jesus voorspel. Verse 10 - 14 herinner aan Romeine 11, wat daarop dui dat die Jode in die laaste dae vir Christus sal aanneem. Daar is egter niks van 'n fisiese koninkryk of 'n wegraping wat daarmee saamgaan nie. Dit is om meer in die teks in te lees as wat daar staan. Daar is genoeg duidelike teksverse om te glo dat die volk van Israel in die laaste dae gelowig sal word.
13:1-9	Die Here maak ‘n fontein in Jerusalem oop om die volk se sondes af te was. Die gedagte aan die afgode sal verdwyn. Die vals profete sal verdwyn: niemand sal hulle deur hulle laat verlei word nie, en self sal hulle nie meer waag om te profeteer nie. Die Herder – wat na aan die Here is - word dood gemaak, en die skape word uitmekaar gejaag. Twee derdes word uitgeroei, en die oorblywende derde word soos goud gelouter. Hulle sal suiwer wees, en die Here sal hulle gebede verhoor. ( Baie duidelik die nuwe testamentiese kerk. Daar word gepraat van die afwassing van die sondes, ‘n inherente gehoorsaamheid en ‘n gesonde onderskeidings vermoee. Die goeie Herder wat doodgemaak word is baie duidelik Jesus, en die skape wat uit mekaar gejaar word, die vroee Christelike kerk. Hulle word vervolg: Baie word dood gemaak, en die wat oorbly word gelouter – maar hulle is suiwer en getrou aan die Here.)
14:1-21	Jerusalem sal gebuit word, die nasies sal teen hom oorlog maak, en hom inneem, die huise plunder ne vroue verkrag.  Helfte gaan in ballingskap, maar die ander helfte nie. Die Here sal dan oorlog voer teen die nasies, Hy staan op die Olyfberg, en die berg skeur middeldeur sodat die vlugtelinge deur die kloof kan gaan. Dit sal  ‘n besonderde dag wees, want daar sal geen duisternis of ryp wees nie. ‘n Vars stroom sal uit Jerusalem vloei, een helfte oos, ander helfte wes. Die Here sal koning wees oor die hele land, die enigste God. Jerusalem sal hoog le en bewoon wees. Hy sal nooit weer vernietig word nie. Die mense wat teen Jerusalem geveg het sal weg vrot. Hulle sal skrik en mekaar aanval. Selfs Juda veg teen Jerusalem. Mense van alle volke sal kom om die huttefees te vier in Jerusalem. Die wat nie kom nie sal gestraf word, maar die wat kom sal hulle offers bring. (Gegewe die konteks en progressie van die voorafgaande hoofstukke,  verwys die eerste helfte van hierdie hoofstuk duidelik na die vernietiging van Jerusalem in 70nC. ‘n Historiese feit wat nie baie bekend is nie, is dat baie mense tydens die belering van Jerusalem die geleentheid gehad het om te ontsnap: Jesus self het voorspel dat dit die geval sou wees in Lukas 21:20-22: Flavius Josephus (A.D. 75) (Opportunity Arises to Flee) "It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world." (Wars, II, XIX, 6,7) Die Olyfberg verwys dus duidelik na die Romeine leer, en dat God self diegene bewaar wat gelet het om die profesie van Jesus en uit die stad gevlug het. Vers 8 verwys. Dit kan ook verwys na die bediening van Johannes die Doper wat die weg vir die kerk voorberei het: (Jesaja 40:3-5 + Matteus 3:3) Slegs diegene wat in Jesus en sy profesie geglo het, kon uit die stad gered word. Hierdie mense het dus onder leiding van  hulle Koning uit die stad gevlug. Dat dit ‘n besondere dag is, dui daarop dat God sy kerk bewaar, selfs deur moeilike tye heen. Vers 8 verwys na die verbond wat in die plek van die ou Jerusalem kom. Die waterstome verwys duidelik na die Heilige Gees wat die kerk versprei dwars oor die wereld. Na die Hemelvaart is Jesus koning oor die hele aarde (Openbaring 1) Dan spring ons duidelik na die Nuwe Jerusalem: Die stad is bewoon en veilig. Dit sal nooit weer verwoes word nie. Die wat teen die kerk/die Here in opstand gekom het, sal in die hel gegooi word. Juda wat teen Jerusalem veg dui op die Jode wat nie vir Christus wou aanvaar nie. Mense van uit alle volke kom deel aan die huttefees. Die huttefees was gehou om die oes te vier, en dui hier op die oes/uitverkiesdes van die Here. Diegene wat die Here weerstaan het, sal onder die ewige vloek wees, maar die wat sy genade aanneem sal ewig in die Hemel die Here in vreugde dien.

Gevolgtrekking:

Sagaria is ‘n moeilike boek om te verstaan, vol van beeldspraak en simboliek. ‘n Gesonde interpretasie van die boek interpreteer dit in die lig van die historiese konteks van die profeet, sowel as in die lig van die boodskap van die res van die Bybel. Dit is hoe dit hoort as mens glo die Bybel vorm een geheel met een, samehangende boodskap. Daarom moet onduidelike verse in die lig van duidelike verse geinterpreteer word. Van beide Openbaring en Sagaria kan mens sê: As jou interpretasie van hierdie boeke jou ‘n verklaring gee wat nerens anders in die Bybel voorkom nie, kan jy maar weet jou interpretasie is verkeerd.

Die boek Sagaria is bedoel om vir die Joodse ballinge wat terug gekom het hoop te gee vir die toekoms. Die profeet is waarskeinlik een van die mees Mesiaanste profete wat daar is. Die koms van Jesus is ‘n deurlopende tema in al die profesiee. Dit wil voorkom of die profesie veral kronologies word van hoofstuk 9 af: Die Here maak Israel voorspoedig, en gee hulle rus. Daarna word daar spesifiek verwys na ‘n oorlog teen Griekeland, wat waarskeinlik dui op die Makabeers. Die Makabeers was voorspoedig, soos wat dit aangedui is in hoofstuk 10, maar onmiddelik in hoofstuk 11 gaan dit weer sleg. Hoofstuk 11 verwys duidelik na die bediening van Jesus. Hoofstuk 12 en 13 verwys na die kerk, 14 na die vernietiging van Jerusalem in 70nC, en dan die nuwe Jerusalem wat kom.

Daar is niks in hierdie boek wat duidelik en ondubbelsinnig die geloof regverdig dat daar ‘n wegraping gaan wees voor die groot verdrukking nie. Ook is daar geen rede om te glo hierdie boek maak melding van ‘n aarde koningkryk van Jesus voor die wederkoms nie – inteendeel, Jesus self sê in Johannes 18:36 “Jesus antwoord: My koninkryk is nie van hierdie wêreld nie; as my koninkryk van hierdie wêreld was, sou my dienaars geveg het, dat Ek nie aan die Jode oorgelewer word nie. Maar nou is my koninkryk nie van hier nie.”

Jesus self gee ‘n baie duidelike verduideliking van die laaste dae in Matteus 24, en ons behoort hierdie gedeelte te gebruik as raamwerk vir ons interpretasie van moeilike tekste.

Jesus sê daar sal in die laaste dae baie rampe, vervolging en afvalligheid wees. Jesus sê nie hierdie dinge blood vir die interresantheid nie – ons gaan nie uit hierdie tyd uit weggeraap word nie. Inteendeel: Hy sê dit juis sodat ons kan volhard en nie hoop verloor wanneer ons dit self ervaar nie (vers 6, 9, 13, 20-23, 33) vers 40-41 dui duidelik daarop dat die gelowiges in hierdie wereld bly tot heel aan die einde.

Direk na hierdie tyd, volg die wederkoms (v 29) Openbaring is ‘n boek vir die gelowige, nie die ongelowige nie. Dit is ‘n boek om ons in die laaste dae te troos en te laat volhard. Die gelowiges sal beslis nie hierdie dinge gespaar word nie. As God nie die vroeë Christelike kerk vervolging gespaar het nie, is daar geen rede om te dink Hy sal dit in die laaste dae doen nie

In defense of Reformed Infant Baptism

Introduction:

This post is a response to the Reformed-Baptist position. In this post, I'm not planning to lay out the Reformed position in detail, as it has already been done many times before by many people. For a complete explanation, I can direct you to this video that does an excellent job at explaining the practice of covenant baptism:

Why Do We Baptize Our Children?

Instead, I intend to refute some of the most common baptist counter-arguments against covenant  baptism. However, before I start, I need to first lay down some foundational issues.

Firstly, I have found that some baptists use the Roman Catholic interpretation of infant baptism in order to defend their own position. I find this rather dishonest, because infant baptism means different things in different denominations. In Roman Catholic theology, the act of being baptized actually contribute to your salvation. From a protestant view - focusing on the Roman Catholic interpretation while ignoring the Reformed interpretation is to put the practice in the worst possible light, so as to make your own position appear superior. Unfortunately, this approach causes division and misunderstanding among many baptists on this issue.  In short, the Reformed position sees baptism as the seal of the new covenant, just as circumcision was the seal of the old covenant. It does not contribute in any way to your salvation, but is purely an outward sign of salvation. Therefore, just like the seal of the old covenant, the seal of the new covenant is applied to first generation believers after they made a confession of faith (Abraham), as well as the infants of believers (Isaac). (See the video for an in depth explanation) For this reason, I will be talking about the practice of covenant baptism, rather than infant baptism, to distinguish the Reformed position from the Catholic position.

Secondly, it is important to note that this is a response to reformed baptists. In other words, I'm assuming that my opponent believes in the Calvinist doctrine of God's sovereign election as described in Romans 9 and other places. This is in opposition to the Arminian view that Jesus Christ paid for the sins of all humanity, and that every person is capable of choosing to accept or reject this gift of grace. The merits of Calvinism vs Arminianism requires an in depth biblical discussion which is beyond the scope of this post.

That being said, lets look at some of the counter-arguments Baptists raise against covenant Baptism

Colossians 2:11-12

"In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Covenant Baptism cannot be tied down to a single passage, but rather is the result of a holistic understanding of both the Old and New Testament. However, this is probably one of the most important passages that tie it all together. In short, Paul is saying that we are "circumcised" by Christ, as symbolized by the baptism. Clearly, the meaning of circumcision in the old covenant is tied to baptism in the new covenant in this passage.

However, a popular response from my baptist brothers is: "Aha, but you're forgetting something. There are two types of circumcisions mentioned in the Bible, and this one clearly point to the circumcision of the heart, not the actual circumcision, so there is no relation in this passage between baptism and circumcision."

But is this really the case? Lets first look at the meaning of the circumcision:

Genesis 17:9-11 "Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."

Romans 4:11 "And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them."

The circumcision was the outward sign or the seal of the covenant of God. This covenant entailed that God set a people apart for himself. In other words, he made them holy, for the meaning of holy is to be "set aside for God". 

Now, let's look at the passages in the Bible that make reference to "circumcision of the heart".

Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer."

Deuteronomy 30:6 "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."

Jeremiah 9:25 - 26 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the wilderness in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.”

In Deuteronomy 10:16, the command is clear: You have received the seal of being set aside for God, now also live like people who are set aside for God. In other words, go and live the meaning of your circumcision. God could've expressed the same idea using different terminology, He could've said "Purify your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer." The fact that He uses the word "circumcision" instead means that the meaning of the circumcision is intimately related to the command He has given: The outward circumcision is to be a sign of the inward purification of the heart. In Deuteronomy 30, the command is repeated as a promise, and note, the promise is extended to them and their descendants!  Once again, the terminology "Circumcision of the heart" is used to unite the outward circumcision with the inward change of heart. The term "Circumcision of the heart" is therefore not a completely different and unrelated circumcision, but rather refers to the true meaning of the outward sign. 

Note that for the children of believers, this outward sign was applied before they were old enough to understand what it is about. The covenant, along with its blessings and curses, is therefore not optional to these children. It is not a matter of the children accepting God's covenant and then receiving the seal of that covenant, but rather of God setting them apart for Himself from birth already. 

The promise that God will fulfill the true meaning of the circumcision is repeated in Jeremiah 9:25.

It is in this background that you have to look at Colossians 2:11. Obviously, what Paul is saying is not that the Colossians were circumcised, but that Christ has changed their hearts by cutting away their slavery to sin. The question is, why does Paul invoke circumcision to get this point across, when he could have used any other terminology to the same end - as indeed he often does elsewhere?  Is this invoking some unrelated "circumcision of the heart" that has nothing to do with the actual circumcision? Obviously not! He is saying that the meaning of the circumcision has achieved its full meaning in us through Christ. (Note that in Romans 4:11, he includes us, the uncircumcised, as the children of Abraham, and therefore, we are part of that covenant) So how did the circumcision - the seal of the covenant - find its full meaning in us when we did not receive the seal? "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

The conclusion is quite inescapable: The seal of the old covenant has found its full meaning in us through Christ, and that is symbolized by the baptism. Baptism therefore replaced circumcision as the seal of the new covenant.

1 Corinthians 7:14

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

As explained in the video, God never makes covenants with individuals. As can be seen right through the Old Testament, He makes covenants with people and their descendants. There is no reason to think that the covenant in Christ would be any different. Even so, this passage removes any doubt there might be about the generational nature of God's covenant. The children of believers are "holy". Again, holy means set aside for God, so clearly they are in covenant with God through Jesus Christ.

Note that being born in the covenant is not a guarantee for salvation and against apostasy. However, those who were born in the covenant received special grace from God, in that knowledge of God was made available to them in abundance from a young age, and God will hold them accountable for that. That is why each covenant comes with blessings and curses. The curse of the new covenant can be found in Hebrews 10:26-31: "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

I have not yet heard a Baptist refutation of the argument from this passage, though I'm sure it exists.

Whole households

Acts 16:13-15 "On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us."

Acts 16:32-34 "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household."

1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else."

The common objection from my Baptist brothers here is that 
1) The text does not explicitly state that "the whole household" included an infant, and
2) The whole household came to faith before being baptized, thereby excluding infants.

There are several reasons why this argument is special pleading. The first objection is irrelevant, and in my opinion, borders on eisegesis: The wording is quite clear and without qualification: The whole household was baptized. Let's assume for a moment that the household did include an infant. Surely, from the baptist point of view, this would require the text to be qualified. If the apostles believed as the baptists do, surely they would've written: "Everyone in the household old enough to understand was baptized". However, if the reformed position is correct, then surely we would not expect them to write "The whole household, including an infant, was baptized". The inclusion of the infant goes without saying. It is unnecessary because the infant is already included in "the whole household". So clearly, an unbiased reading of this passage favors the Reformed position over the Baptist position.

But the objection doesn't end there. Let's assume, as baptists do, there was no infants in these households. Then the evidence is still against the Baptist position, not only in what the apostles did write, but also in what they did not write. 

Firstly, and most obviously, even if these households did not include infants, it still does nothing to negate the arguments from Col 2:11-12 and 1 Cor 7:14. If anything, it adds circumstantial evidence to them. 

Secondly, if we are not to baptize infants, and that baptism should necessarily be preceded by a confession of faith, that begs an obvious question: Exactly how old should a child be before he can be baptized? A two year old can say "I love Jesus", but does that mean he understands the full weight of his sinful guilt, the holiness of God, and the grace He extends to us through the atonement of Jesus Christ, which would lead him to live a life of gratitude? Surely not. So how much should he understand before he can be baptized? How old should he be? In fact, the problem runs into adulthood, for there are many adults confessing to be Christian and who underwent credobaptism, while also having a very limited understanding of the faith. And even when baptized as adults after a confession of faith, some still fall into apostasy anyway. So really: How old does a person need to be before he can qualify for baptism? Why does the apostles never addressed this blatantly obvious question? Well, maybe because it wasn't a question to them at all, and they simply assumed everyone knows the answer: If covenant baptism is correct, then clearly this question becomes mute: Instead of the fuzzy confusion of how old a person must be and how much he should know before being baptized, the question is resolved with clarity: Anyone who is born from believing parents fall within the covenant and should be baptized as soon as possible. I know of no other reason why the Apostles would not have addressed this important question in their teachings.

Church History

I noticed that on Baptist timelines of church history, infant baptism is inserted somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd century as a later invention of the church. Apparently - as I understand the argument - the claim goes that the first references to infant baptism only appear around  this time, proving that it was a later invention. I would like to suggest that instead, this proves that the practice of infant baptism was an accepted and uncontroversial subject in the early church. This explanation also explain the lack of references: The church fathers were much too busy surviving persecution and refuting actual heretics and false doctrines to be writing about something that was considered common knowledge  by all, and disputed by none. I looked into the matter, and I found this blog post from Origen:

Here are some quotes from Origen on infant baptism:
1. In his Homilies on Luke (XIV on 2:22a) he remarks “therefore children also are baptized”.2. In his Homilies on Leviticus (VIII 3 on 12.2) he says baptism is given “according to custom of the Church, to infants also”.3. Most famous of all, in his Commentary on Romans (V 9 on 6:5-7) he states “For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too”.
Joachim Jeremias notes “The passages quoted were written between 233 and 251, but they take us back to a considerably earlier period. For Origen maintains – as Hippolytus, shortly before and independently of him, had done in Rome – that infant baptism was a custom reaching back to apostolic times. He could hardly have expressed himself thus if he had not himself been baptized as a paidion (Origen was born in 185 in Egypt). When we note that his family, as Eusebius credibly informs us, had been Christian for several generations, we must add that he could hardly have spoken of a ‘tradition handed down from the apostles’ had he not known that at least his father and probably also his grandfather had been baptized as paidia. This means that the tradition of his family carries us back from that date of his own baptism at least to the date of his father’s – i.e. to the middle of the second century, and probably even to the baptism of his grandfather in the first half of that century.”
-  quoted from Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, pp. 65-66.

I would like to expand on this by pointing out the nature of the quote. I could be mistaken, but it appears to me that these references to infant baptism are made in passing. This is what we should expect if it was an established practice throughout the church. Had Origen written about infant baptism as a defense of a new and alien doctrine, one would expect a much more elaborate and focused discussion on his theological motivations. I am not a scholar of the early church fathers, but I would assume that had such a detailed defense of the practice existed in the writings of the early church fathers, our Baptist brothers would've been sure to point it out to us. I therefore have little reason to doubt Origen when he says the practice dates from Apostolic times.

Why does it matter?

I think most Reformed Christians and Baptist Christians would agree: being wrong on this point is not going to cost you your salvation. So the question is: Why is this important? Why does it matter?

Ultimately, I think, it matters because the Baptist position robs parents who has lost an infant of the peace and certainty of the fate of their child. Why do I say this?

If baptism is the seal/sign of our salvation, then what does it say about infants when we say they are not to be baptized? What does that say about their relationship with God, or rather, God's relationship with them?

I read a little booklet called "Heaven is for real". In the book the author mentions parents who are in distress about the fate of their unborn/infant children who died. This struck me as incredible, because a parent in the Reformed tradition with a proper understanding of the nature of God's covenant would never have such doubts. But from a baptist point of view, their doubts makes sense: by not baptizing an infant, at best we're saying we cannot know their fate, at worst it means they're to be considered lost. If you're a Baptist who believes your dying infant will be saved, on what grounds do you believe that? 

Many people believe all babies are saved by default, but that would be limited universalism which is unbiblical. In Psalm 51, David writes that we are guilty before God, even before we are born. We also know that death is the result of sin, so if infants were innocent, why are they dying? Clearly, they too require a mediator, which is only available through Christ. Any other teaching would imply an alternative route to salvation, which contradict the very core of the Christian message.

What other grounds is there for their salvation? I know of no biblical grounds for such certainty other than the grace of Christ which is bestowed upon them through His covenant to which the child's parents belong to, and into which he is born. It is to be assumed that the children of believers are saved, unless apostasy later in life proves otherwise.

And if the child is in the grace of Christ from birth, why can he not receive the seal of his salvation?

God elects

Ultimately, I can't help to think that the Baptist position of credobaptism is the logical conclusion of Arminianism. I really struggle to reconcile the idea of "Reformed Baptist", because it appears to be a contradiction in terms. 

If, as the Arminians believe, your salvation is dependent on you choosing to accept Christ out of your own free will, then credobaptism logically follows. An infant can't be baptized, because he is not capable of understanding the gospel, and therefore he is unable to make a choice for it. And since salvation depends on your choosing, you can't receive the seal for salvation unless you first make that choice. According to Arminianism, you are lost until you make that choice for Christ. What the Arminians believe about the fate of the dead infant, I don't know.

Covenant baptism, on the other hand, flows naturally from the Calvinist position. According this this view, Christ died only for the sins of those whom He has elected before time. He works the faith in the hearts of the elect, and he purifies them. Nothing can ever snatch them from His hand. The elect receive this grace, not because of anything in them that makes them more deserving, but based solely on the free and sovereign choice of God. Since it is God who chooses His people, and God who set up the covenant, we can therefore baptize our infants, safely assuming them to be part of the elect, unless later apostasy proves otherwise. Baptizing infants emphasize that  it is God, and God alone who saves us before we were even born, before we were even capable of making a choice. The Reformed Baptist might say: "Ah, but what if the child grows up to be an apostate? Then you baptized someone who never believed and never was one of the elect." But I'd like to point out that this is equally true of the Reformed Baptist who baptized someone who made a false or shallow confession of faith. In both cases  1 John 2:19 applies: "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." Whether you believe in covenant baptism and whether you believe in credobaptism, neither method gives you certain knowledge of the person's election before God, that knowledge belongs to God alone. Therefore both methods will result in the baptism of unsaved people. In the case of covenant Baptism, however, a person remains under the covenant, even though he is an apostate. For such a person, the curse of Hebrews 10:26-31 applies.

Conclusion

There are many sincere and serious reformed baptists out there for whom I have the utmost of respect. Their passion for Christ and loyalty to Sola Scriptura can not be questioned. However, because of their limited understanding of baptism and the covenant, they loose an important aspect of God's love for his children: The fact that He extend his grace not just to you as an individual, but to your family as a whole. After all, the family unit was ordained by God Himself. Will He not also share His blessings according to the social structure which He Himself decreed? We see he did so throughout the old testament, why would He change it in the new and better covenant? We have Scriptural and historical evidence that infant baptism was implied by the apostles. Why should we deprive ourselfs of this God given gift?

Somerkerfees: 'n Lied vir die kerk?

Inleiding:

Dis amper kerstyd, en baie gemeentes gaan binnekort ‘n Kersprogram hê. Hierdie program bestaan gewoonlik uit skrif voorlesings en kersliedere. Een van die kersliedere wat die afgelope paar jare baie gewild geword het, is Somerkersfees, selfs ook in die kersprogramme in die Gereformeerde kerke.

Ek onthou hoe verbaas ek was toe ek sien dat hierdie lied in die nuwe NG  Liedboek opgeneem is. Ek sou dink dat die rede hiervoor voor die handliggend sou wees vir enige Dopper: ons wat juis afgeskei het as gevolg van onder andere onsuiwerhede in geestelike liedere. En tog, tot my verdere verbasing, word hierdie lied selfs in Gereformeerde Kersprogramme gebruik. Daarom dan dat ek hierdie artikel skryf.

Daar is twee tipe Kersliedere: Die eerste is natuurlik Christus gesentreerde liedere. ‘n Voorbeeld hiervan is “O, Christus ons verlange”, ‘n lied wat onsaglik ryk is aan diep geestelike inhoud.

Dan is daar Kersliedere wat kersdag besing. Liedere soos “Jingle bells” en “Have yourself a merry little Christmas” kan onder hierdie katogerie geplaas word. Dit is nie opsigself verkeerd om hierdie tipe liedere op kersfees te sing nie, maar dit is uiteraard nie geskik vir ‘n kersprogram wat deur die kerk aangebied word nie. Wanneer die kerk ‘n Kersprogram aanbied, gaan dit tog immers oor Christus se geboorte, en nie oor die sentimentaliteite rondom die viering van die dag self nie. Nie dat hierdie sentimentalisme noodwendig verkeerd is nie, maar omdat dit die kerk se plig is om die dieper rede vir daardie sentimentaliteit te verkondig: “Sola Christi”.

Hoe vergelyk Somerkersfees met ander kersliedere?

Met die uitsondering van die derde vers, val Somerkersfees hoofsaaklik in die twede kategorie, nie die eerste nie. Ek wil dit graag soos volg demonstreer: Swaar gedrukte teks dui kategorie een inhoud aan, en gewone teks dui kategorie twee inhoud aan:

Welkom o stille nag van vrede,

Onder die suiderkruis,

Wyl stemme uit die ou verlede

Oor sterrevelde ruis.

Kersfees kom, Kersfees kom

Gee aan God die eer.

Skenk ons ‘n helder Somerkersfees

In hierdie land, o Heer.

Hoor jy hoe sag die klokke beier

In eeue-oue taal

Kyk, selfs die nagtelike swye

Vertel die ou verhaal

Kersfees kom, Kersfees kom

Gee aan God die eer.

Skenk ons ‘n helder Somerkersfees

In hierdie land, o Heer.

Voel jy ook nou sy warm liefde

As ons die dag gedenk

Toe Hy sy Seun vir ons gegee het –

Ons grootste kersgeskenk

Christus kom, Christus kom

Gee aan God die eer.

Skenk ons ‘n helder Somerkersfees

In hierdie land, o Heer.

Soos u kan sien, is die swaargedrukte skrif in die eerste twee verse by verre in die minderheid. Kom ons vergelyk dit met ‘n ander geliefde kerslied:

Stille nag, Heilige nag

Jesus kind, lank verwag,

Lig uit lig uit die Vader se ryk

word uit liefde aan mense gelyk

Loof die hemelse kind, loof die hemel se kind.

U kan gerus dieselfde oefening herhaal met die ander kersliedere in die Liedboek: u sal sien dat nie een van hulle soveel kersfees sentimentaliteit bevat nie, almal is Christus gesentreerd.

As ek die eerste twee verse van Somerkersfees verder ontleed, wil ek u op die volgende wys:

Let hoe die uiterlike dinge van die kersfeesvieringe in detail beskryf word: die Suiderkruis, die klokke wat beier, die nagtelike swye. Wanneer daar egter na die werklike betekenis van kersfees verwys word, dan word daar baie vae, amper mistieke taal gebruik: “Stemme uit die ou verlede”, en “vertel die ou verhaal”.

In die refrein word daar wel aan God die eer gegee, maar dan is die gebed “Gee ons ‘n helder somerkersfees”, weereens sonder geestelike inhoud, en is  blote sentimentaliteit. Vergelyk hierdie gebed met die een van “O Christus ons verlange”: “Vervul in welbehae, ons harte met U Gees, skenk ons in hierdie dae, ‘n ware Christusfees”.

Slegs die derde vers van Somerkersfees doen weg met oppervlakkige sentimentaliteite, en besing die ware betekenis van Kersfees. As dit dan nou moet, is hierdie vers wel geskik vir Kerklike gebruik.

Eg Suid-Afrikaanse lied

Die mees algemeenste redenasie vir die gebruik van hierdie lied is dat dit ons enigste, egte Suid-Afrikaanse kerslied is. Hierdie redenasie mis egter heeltemaal die punt. Ja, dis ‘n mooi lied, en ja dis eg Suid-Afrikaans, maar die ware betekenis van Kersfees is egter universiëel. Wanneer dit kom by eerste kategorie kersliedere, bestaan daar nie so iets soos ‘n “eg Suid-Afrikaanse kerslied” nie, want die boodskap is van hierdie liedere is oral in die wêreld ewe relevant. Die "eg Suid-Afrikaanse" redenasie het betrekking op twede kategorie kersliedere wat gewoonlik met winter en sneeu gepaard gaan. U sal egter geen kerslied in die Liedboek of die ou Gesangeboek vind wat melding maak van sneeu en winter nie. Die rede is heel eenvoudig: Hierdie liedere besing almal die  universiële boodskap van Christus se koms, en nie die uiterlike voorkoms van Kersfeesvieringe nie.

Is Kersfees sentimentaliteite dan verkeerd?

Natuurlik is kersfees sentimentaliteit nie verkeerd nie, in teendeel, as mens nie sentimenteel voel oor kersfees nie, dan verstaan mens nie waaroor dit gaan nie. Hierdie sentimentaliteit moet egter reg gemotiveer word. As dit slegs gaan oor kersgeskenke, kersbome, die klokke wat lui, en ‘n humanistiese gees van welwilendheid, dan is die sentimentaliteit oppervlakkig en leeg. As ons sentimenteel is oor die Kind wat vir ons gebore is, dan het dit betekenis. Ek sukkel byvoorbeeld om “O Christus ons verlange” klaar te sing, omdat die ryke Christelike troos in die lied my so aan die hart gryp, dat dit trane in my oë bring. Net so sukkel ek om geestelik beweeg te word deur woorde soos "Hoor jy hoe sag die klokke beier, in eue oue taal".

Kan mens nie nogtans God prys met hierdie lied nie?

Daar is mense wat dan redeneer: Kan ons nie tog God eer met hierdie lied nie? Gaan dit nie eintlik oor wat in jou hart aangaan nie? Dit is baie waar. Ek stel my nie vir een oomblik aan as regter oor wat in mense se harte aangaan as hulle kersliedere sing nie. Daaroor sal God self oordeel. Die digter het nou wel geen beheer oor die hart van die mense wat sy liedere sing nie, maar hy kan wel sorg dat die inhoud daarvan ‘n mens se gedagtes rig op die regte dinge. Wanneer ek sing van klokke wat beier en die “ou verhaal” vertel,  is my gedagtes nie naastenby so gevestig op Christus, soos wanneer ek sing “Loof daardie Kindjie, tot ons heil gebore”.

Ons moet onsself herinner dat ons  Protestante is. Protestantisme het weg gebreek van al die byvoegsels en fieterjasies wat oor die jare geleidelik in die Roomse kerk in gekom het. Alhoewel al hierdie dinge goed bedoel was op hulle tyd, en veronderstel was om die Ware boodskap toe te lig, het dit uiteindelik presies die teenoorgestelde uitwerking gehad: Al die bykomstighede en byvoegsels het die Roomse kerk so vol gemaak, dat die Ware boodskap uiteindelik verdring is deur al die byvoegsels. Ons moet dus waak daarteen dat byvoegsels die suiwer verkondiging van die Woord in die kerk geleidelik verdring. Die vaagheid van die Christelike boodskap in Somerkersfees is nie verkeerd nie, maar wanneer dit in die Kerk gesing word, dan laat dit gevaarligte by my afgaan. Kom ons vier dan Kersfees in die Gereformeerde kerke volgens die Gereformeerde tradisie: Sola Christi, en Soli Deo Gloria. Kom ons hou by kersliedere wat Christus gesentreerd is, en vermy liedere soos Somerkersfees. Anders gaan ons nageslag spoedig ‘n twede hervorming nodig hê.

Bron : Kerkblad (2010), vol 113, uitgawe 3242, p34-35

Outeur : H.A. den Boer