Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II)
It may be appropriate at this point to comment on a passage that is often used by paedobaptists. It concerns the parable of the tares in Matthew 13.
Tares are Not Covenant Members
24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30)
Many paedobaptists refer to the tares, which were sown among the wheat in the field (13:25), as being members of the kingdom. Their main support for this view is found in the interpretation in verse 41, where Christ says, “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (emphasis added). They infer from the phrase “out of His kingdom” that the tares must have previously been “in the kingdom.” With this interpretation, the tares become an example of one who was in the kingdom as an unbeliever, or as a covenant-breaker. Thus, they claim that it supports their view that you can have covenant members, or members of the kingdom, who end up being lost. This seems to suggest there is a compartment of the kingdom, or New Covenant, which can be legitimately occupied by “tares,” for at least a period of time.
This whole viewpoint, however, needs to be reevaluated in light of a closer reading of the explanation of the parable given by Christ in Matthew 13:36-43. In these verses, our Lord gives us the following interpretation:
• The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man (verse 37).
• The field is the world (verse 38).
• The good seed are the sons of the kingdom (verse 38).
• The tares are the sons of the evil one, the devil, who sowed them (verses 38-39).
• The harvest is the end of the age and the reapers are angels (verse 39).
• The tares, who are described as “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (verse 41), will be gathered up and burned with fire at the end of the age (verse 40).
Several key observations here are needed. First, the field is the world, not the kingdom of God (verse 38). So, when the tares are sown among the wheat (verse 25), they are sown among them, and live side by side with them, in the field of the world; not the field of the kingdom. Second, only the good seed are called “the sons of the kingdom” (verse 38). The tares are not called “sons of the kingdom” because they were not members of the kingdom of heaven. On the contrary, they are called “the sons of the evil one” (verse 38) because they are in Satan’s kingdom. This is crucial. Our Lord clearly indicates that the tares were not “sons of the kingdom” but were actually in league with the devil.
We should also observe that these tares did not start out as the good seed and then gradually over time become tares. No, they were sown in the field as tares from the beginning (verse 25). They began as “sons of the evil one” (verse 38) and never changed their character. They were never “sons of the kingdom.” They were sown as tares and were harvested as tares and their doom was certain. Thus, the Lord’s assessment of the tares is the same as the false professors, “I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matthew 7:23).
Christ’s Spiritual or Universal Kingdom?
Now comes the crucial verses (verses 41-42): “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom, all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire” (emphasis added). The key issue is to identify the nature of this kingdom.
The simplest solution is to see this kingdom as Christ’s universal kingdom, not his spiritual (i.e., redemptive) kingdom as in verse 38. In other words, when the Son of Man gathers the wicked for judgment, he takes them out of his universal kingdom in which he has dominion; the universe and all that is in it. For biblical references to this universal kingdom of Christ, see Psalm 2:8-9; Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:20-22 and Philippians 2:9-11. Thus, this meaning of “kingdom” in verse 41 differs from its meaning in verse 38, “the sons of the kingdom.” In the latter case, the “sons of the kingdom” refer to the good seed who are the elect of God saved by the blood of Christ. This kingdom is clearly the spiritual kingdom of Christ which is redemptive and connected to the church of Christ. But, in verse 41, when the wicked are cast into the lake of fire, Christ is not coming to his church to execute this judgment, for there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1). The judgment of believers is one of commendation, not condemnation (2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:8-15). But in Matthew 13:41 the judgment is unto condemnation for they shall be cast into the “furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:42). For this judgment Christ goes to his universal kingdom over the world. It is from his universal kingdom where Christ will gather “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire;” not from his spiritual kingdom of the redeemed.
Further support for this difference in kingdoms is found in Matthew 13:43, where we see yet another reference to the kingdom. This verse concludes Christ’s teaching on the parable of the tares. There he says that after the lawless are removed from his (universal) kingdom, “Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” This kingdom is called, “the kingdom of their Father” which refers to the kingdom of God in its spiritual and heavenly character, where the redeemed of Christ will dwell in eternity. This kingdom is actually the spiritual kingdom of Christ which he will hand over to the Father after he has conquered all his enemies (see 1 Corinthians 15:23-28). Thus, the Lord has referred to three different aspects of his kingdom reign in this one parable!
The point to be made is that when Christ comes to judge the wicked in Matthew 13:41, he does not gather them from his spiritual kingdom, but from his universal kingdom of the world where the tares were sown (verse 38).
Problems with Tares in the Spiritual Kingdom
Those who argue that the kingdom in verse 41 is the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as in verse 38, run into many problems. Are we to understand that the tares, represented by the stumbling blocks and doers of lawlessness who will be gathered “out of His kingdom,” were really at some point members of Christ’s spiritual kingdom? In order to draw this conclusion, one must reinterpret the parable along different lines than our Lord did. For example, to say that the tares were really legitimate members of the kingdom requires interpreting the “field” (verse 24) as the “spiritual kingdom” rather than as the “world” as Christ explains it (verse 38). Also, you must basically neuter the meaning of the good seed as the “sons of the [spiritual] kingdom,” and the tares as the “sons of the evil one.” Clearly, the distinction is important and the tares, as Satan’s children, are not in any way to be numbered among the “sons of the kingdom.” In other words, the tares belong to the kingdom of Satan, not the kingdom of God. As such, even though they may be found at times in the visible church, and appear outwardly to be true kingdom members, in reality they are spiritually outside of the New Covenant and not members of Christ’s church or kingdom at all. When the tares do make their way into the church, then the words of the apostle John are again applicable, “They went out from us, but they were really not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). To say that such people “were really not of us” clearly indicates that they never belonged to Christ or to his spiritual kingdom.
Another Option
There is yet another way to think about the kingdom in Matthew 13:41. Instead of viewing it as the universal kingdom of Christ, Christ may be just speaking figuratively of the tares being in the kingdom in terms of their physical presence only. Christ has already explained that the tares are not members of his spiritual kingdom, but followers of Satan. They do not partake of any of the blessings of the New Covenant. They do not have the new heart, the indwelling Holy Spirit, or the forgiveness of their sins. They also are not in Christ’s kingdom for they do not live under the rule and reign of Jesus Christ. But they can, nevertheless, be found among the true “sons of the kingdom.” Like illegal aliens living in our own country, the tares live among the wheat. Though they may participate in some of our blessings, and even access some of our social aid programs, legally they are not citizens of our nation. If they are caught and removed from our country, we could similarly say that they are gathered “out of America,” but this in no way infers that they were legitimate members and citizens of our country. They lived and worked here physically among true citizens of our country and enjoyed many of our freedoms, but they were not citizens themselves. Thus, in Matthew 13:41 the tares whom Christ “will gather out of His kingdom” could be understood in the same way. They are found among God’s wheat physically but they are spiritually illegal aliens. They may show up in our churches, sit next to us in our pews and look as if they belong, but in reality they have no rights or status in the kingdom of God. They are tares awaiting the Day of Judgment when they will be “gathered out of His kingdom.” They never belonged to the Lord of the harvest.
Holy Children
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (1Corinthians 7:14)
This verse has raised many questions about the nature of New Covenant sanctification. The situation appears to be that some in the Corinthian church have come to faith in Jesus Christ, but their spouses have not. Paul tells them that both their unbelieving spouses and their children are holy. Based on this, many assume that since the children of at least one believer are holy, then they are members of the New Covenant and worthy of receiving baptism. However, to make this assumption requires a leap in thought far beyond the boundaries of this passage.
It is true that the children of a believing parent are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also “sanctified” (same word as “holy” used for the children only in its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptized. To baptize an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified and made holy by the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptized, but not the unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children “saints” (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not the other, and to baptize one and not the other is an inconsistency which renders this viewpoint completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of “covenant children” which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for “covenant unbelieving spouses” and the baptism of unbelievers.
How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of a moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer.
A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God’s moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid.
One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. “Is my marriage to an unbeliever an abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?” These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church.
What, then, is Paul’s answer? In essence it is this – both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to God’s will.
Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that the children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptized as infants. To do so would open the same doors to unbelievers and, as a result, greatly muddy the waters of what it means to be a member of the New Covenant.
New Covenant Sanctification is Permanent and for All New Covenant Members
There is no convincing support for any kind of New Covenant sanctification which is imparted to infants of believers, or which makes a person a true member of the New Covenant, but can be lost in the end. When the New Testament authors do speak of sanctification in this way, it is not New Covenant sanctification that they have in mind. The sanctification provided by Christ in the New Covenant is not one that can be forfeited and lost resulting in damnation (Hebrews 10:29); once a saint, always a saint. Once made holy by the New Covenant, holy you remain. No church struggled spiritually more than the Corinthian church and yet Paul described them as “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling” (1 Corinthians 1:2) and he then added a few verses later that Christ “will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 8). There was no doubt in Paul’s mind that all of those who were sanctified by the New Covenant, even those who struggled, would be confirmed to the end by the faithfulness of God (verse 9). This would not apply to either the infants of believers or to counterfeit Christians who fall away from the faith.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sanctification and New Covenant Membership Pt. 2 by Alan Conner
Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner Chapter 13