We're going back to our study of covenant theology, and I'm really hoping that between this week and next week, we can kind of wrap it up. And I say that, that sounds very optimistic. We'll see. But because of what we're talking about today, one of the things I wanna be somewhat clear on We're talking about the sacraments of the New Covenant, but what I don't want to get into are the nitty gritty of the individual sacraments in terms of mode of baptism, in terms of, you know, In terms of with respect to communion, debates over whether or not we should have a common cup. I'm not, that's a different discussion. But what I do want to talk about is the relationship to what we call the sacraments to the new covenant and go from there. Now, some of this we did touch on a bit more generally way back when, when we talked about sacraments in general and covenants in general. So by way of reminder, what I want to do is go to the Westminster Larger Catechism. And we're kind of in this vicinity in our evening service. Well, what I want to do is start with question 162, because it gives a good definition. It's on page 961 in the back of the Psalter Hymnal, or you can just look it up online if you want. Maybe someday we'll all have a hard copy that we'll carry around with us. I don't even do that. Or memorize, yeah. All right, so question 162, which is actually, in the larger catechism, the second question about the sacraments, not the first, which I find interesting. What is a sacrament? A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace the benefits of his mediation to strengthen and increase their faith and all other graces, to oblige them to obedience, to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another, and to distinguish them from those that are without. Okay, so that's a sacrament. That's a short, simple description of what a sacrament is. Now you may remember the word sacrament, our English word sacrament, does actually derive from a Latin word that sounds very similar, which is really just a word for mystery. And way back when, the term mystery in Greek, actually our word mystery comes from the Greek word that's mystery. Way back when in the ancient early church, mystery was such a blanket term. But as time progressed, they realized that they needed to distinguish one kind of mystery from another. And so this distinction came and as a result we have what's now called sacraments, and that was also around the time frame where Latin was becoming more in vogue, if you will, for ecclesiology and ecclesiastical things, things of the church. So sacramentum became that a term used for something a bit more unique and special, and that's really where we get sacrament. So I've just given you a bird's eye view of how we got the word sacrament. Now somebody can come up with a better term, fine, but it's become so ingrained within our ecclesial language that that's what we use, sacrament. So, couple things to know. Sacrament, where does it come from? Comes from Christ, instituted by Christ. Church didn't institute it, Christ did. Some things that it does, and notice, to signify, seal, and exhibit. And of course, that word exhibit just flashes out at me, and if you were here the past couple of weeks as I went over the General Assembly, you'll know why. Now, here's my question. Does anybody know the difference between exhibit and present? necessarily for someone, but for the general population as to why you present, you're asked to bring something as into a court as to present evidence. That could be. Yeah, I'm not sure. I hadn't thought of it in those terms. Conrad? So, I think exhibit is more to show. To present could also mean to give. Okay, present has the emphasis on give and exhibit while it does carry some of the connotation of present and give and here it is, but exhibit also carries the weight of demonstrate. So the sacraments actually demonstrate Christ and his benefits. That's the key difference. And why the Westminster Divines chose exhibit over merely present. Okay, you might think that's splitting hairs, but the Westminster divines didn't think so. So notice what these sacraments do. They signify, what's the word that you see within there? Sign, so it's a sign. And the most basic, simple understanding of what a sign is, it's one thing that represents another. The sign is not the thing itself. Right? So everybody remember my favorite example of a sign that every 5‑year‑old recognizes? Those golden arches. And every 5‑year‑old in a car for miles, boy, they can't find their shoes, but they can spot those golden arches. I don't go up the pole carrying the golden arches for my hamburger, happy meal, and fries, okay? It points to the reality of where I get those things. So that's what a sign does. It points you into the direction of something else. Seal, that is authenticate. So the sacraments authenticate for the Christian the truths of what Christ has done for his people. And then of course exhibit, they demonstrate, they demonstrate. Roy? When I think of the word sign, I also think of the word I should be able to unpack from the things that I'm seeing some kind of message, some kind of content. Right, and so really that's why the sacraments are sermons in picture form. They represent something specific, and in order to know what that something specific is, you've got to go to where that something specific is defined, and that's the word. That's why really Protestantism in general will understand that you really don't have, well, those that are willing to call them sacraments anyway, you don't really have a sacrament apart from the word. You just don't. So there has to be the word. You have the words of institution. And that's why even for those who might be, for instance, on bed rest, you know, they're stuck at home because of illness and so forth. Even if we as a session were to go into the home to give the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to such individuals who are housebound, It still needs to be accompanied by the word. That's mandatory. So that's what makes it so. Roy? One other aspect of sign that impresses itself upon our thinking. It doesn't make any difference whether the person understands or believes the sign. Let me illustrate. If you can go quickly, I need to keep moving, so. I'm thinking about a pagan comes and sees the Lord's supper. And it's nonsense as far as that pagan's concerned. But it speaks to him and tells him about the necessity for Jesus' work, the awfulness of sin. And whether he believes or no, he is still efficacious and still is effective. It's like the gospel. The gospel goes out, and if people don't believe, it makes no difference. It still brings a result. Correct. It brings life or death. Correct. And that's a key area where we differ from our Baptist brothers in that Baptism is baptism regardless of the recipient, the state of the recipient. It's still baptism. It still represents Christ and his benefits. So continuing with larger 162, so you have this language of signify, seal, exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace and the benefits of his mediation. Now, What I wanna do is sort of like, just sort of demonstrate from scripture our two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, and particularly the sign aspect of this. And we can also talk about seals as well. But let's go to, first of all, well, let's use Matthew's gospel. And of course, when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we have this passage or one of the other synoptic passages or in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 11. But if you go to Matthew chapter 26, Verse 26, the words of institution. Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and after blessing it, broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, take, eat, this is my body. Rome will tell you what? The bread becomes the body, because you know, this is my body. I mean, they take, ironically, they take a dispensational hermeneutic at that point, because everything's literal, except when it's not. Okay, so this is my body. One thing representing another. That's what makes something a sign, and that's why the bread and also the cup are signs of Christ and his benefits. Chase? A little fun fact in the early days, All right, so this is my body, then in verse 27, he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, gave it to them, saying, drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant. So again, same idea, this is my body, this is my blood of the covenant. And so right there, you have the Lord's Supper. connected to the covenant by virtue of what Christ has declared. Now, remember the context. This is Christ at the Passover meal, which is a covenantal meal. There's a connection between, here again, Sinai and the new covenant. It's unavoidable. This is the blood of my covenant. And some manuscripts here say new covenant. Same thing happens in Luke's account. This is the blood of a new covenant. And then you see new covenant language in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 as Paul introduces it as well. He uses that term new covenant. You notice that I try to cite what Christ says when we participate in the Lord's Supper. That's just, to be honest, it's not like there's some sort of wall that I have to use exactly Christ's words. Well, to me it's like, well, why change it? Even though other words are legitimate and other terminology that is similar is okay, why not just use what Christ said? That's kind of the approach that I take. And I don't judge other churches that do things a little bit differently, even in the OPC, in terms of what they say during the Lord's Supper. But I just, why not use Christ's words? That's my approach. So, am I being a bit pedantic? Yeah, I admit it, I'm okay with that. Conrad? So, just looking at the text here, there doesn't seem to be a word for new in the Greek. There's just that being imported by translators to line it up with Yeah, some manuscripts apparently do have new there, but you see it more in Luke's gospel, and there's still an issue there with manuscripts, but it's also in 1 Corinthians. Yeah, right. And so the blood of the covenant, blood of the eternal covenant, this is where scripture interprets scripture. And so notice what Christ also says. Here we see it also in Luke and Paul reiterates it as well. We see a couple of different expressions. For the forgiveness of sins, for the remission of sins. So there you see that the sign demonstrates, exhibits what transpires, shedding of blood to remit sins. Now you and I think, well how does that work? Because we think about the covenant, in the old covenant in particular, with the sacrificial system, Why was blood needed to be shed? To forgive sins, to remit sins. And so Christ is now setting forth the Lord's Supper as that sign of himself and his blood that truly gives forgiveness of sins and remits sins. The mere partaking does not give you forgiveness. It points to Christ. who actually does. This is the blood of my covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins. It's the blood that is shed for the remission of sins, not the cup. That's just the grammar of the sentence. Chase? No, it's whether or not the word new is there at all. It's not a question of which new, it's the question of is any form of new there? That's the issue. So that kind of sums up the Lord's Supper, but what about baptism? We gotta look to a couple of different places for this. And this matters. Let's first of all go to Romans chapter six. That's a key passage. Now, the act of baptism, even in the early church days, would not have been unheard of for Jews of that day. Now, what they did was something different. It was a proselytizing type of thing, so there has got to be some overlap there. But now what the Lord has done is taking this baptism, this washing, and really Christianized it, if you will. And there's a lot we can do with respect to the sign and seal aspect of baptism, but I turn to Romans 6 because it is a popular passage, and there are other things that help us see this as well. But in the whole argument that Paul is making, what should we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means. How can we who died to sin still live in it? And here we go, the key point. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism unto death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Now, one aspect where our Baptist brothers do get this right is that baptism does signify the death of Christ. And it does signify his burial. The difference is that they take that as therefore the mode of baptism has to be just like the mode of burial. Well, we've already discussed why that's actually not the case because of the way Christ was actually buried. But the truth of the matter is if you look carefully at what Paul actually said, he brings out the death and the burial of Christ specifically here as part of a greater whole. We were baptized into Christ. And if we're baptized into Christ, then we're baptized into his death and his burial. And so it's really, even though it is accurate that our brothers say it represents being buried with Christ, it represents dying with Christ, that's actually only part of it. There's an identification that takes place, and that's the other side of the sacrament, is that there is this identification, baptized into Christ. And we see the same language in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 with respect to baptism, but with respect to Old Testament Israel and crossing the Red Sea. They were baptized into Moses. So the symbolic nature of baptism also carries with it the idea of identification with. And they weren't sprinkled either. They didn't even get wet. At another point, I can tell you why the language that is translated in most English translations in 1 Corinthians 10 is probably not the best idea. And it really stems back to the original Exodus because of what transpired. Anyway, Trish? Yes, that's exactly right. And the catechisms use that language as well. Grafted into Christ for baptism. Yeah. So in other words, it signifies union with Christ. We are united to Christ and we share in Him. Conrad? That brings up a couple of things. That enables us to interpret John 14 and Romans 13 with respect to the ability to be cut off. You're actually a part of it. Romans 11. I'm sorry, 11. And also what we talked about in 1 John last week about those who went out from us. You can't go out from us unless you're a part of us in some way. So that does speak to that. professing Christ. That is especially true with baptism. They don't really do that with the Lord's Supper though. Precisely. Which is interesting, but they also don't call either one sacraments. The confessional 1689 guys, some of them will, but typically, baptistically-minded individuals won't even use the term sacrament. But the concept of the message is all about God. Yes, that's the key. And what he does. That's key. And so, both with the Lord's Supper and baptism, it signifies what God does. And that's why the meaning of what it represents never changes. And so, unfortunately, some of our Baptist friends, with respect to baptism, what they will say is, if the person didn't have faith, they only got wet. They weren't baptized. That's completely subjective. It makes the meaning of a God-given sign dependent upon the person. Anyway, Conrad? I'll make it real quick. In light of the Old Testament, you look at circumcision. I mean, circumcision isn't done by a human, but it points to what God has. That's correct, and that's... In light of Passover, you may prepare it as a meal, but what does it point to? Right. Being covered under the blood of the lamb by the grace of God. Right, and so since you brought up Abraham, I wanna go in two places to bring this together to connect circumcision with baptism. So first place I wanna go to is Romans chapter four. Now the emphasis on this whole chapter is the reality of Paul setting forth Abraham as the prime example of what it means to be justified by faith. Abraham was justified by faith. And he talks about, I'll start in the middle of verse nine, which I realize is kind of a weird place to begin, but it's really for this purpose of what we're discussing. Is this blessing then only for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. And here's the language here in verse 11. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. And so there's language that, notice you see both language of sign and seal. How quickly people will say, well, that's circumcision. What does that have to do with baptism? Well, there's a couple of things. First, before we move to Colossians 2, you can't avoid going to Colossians 2. But one of the key things about this is the language that's used. My usual arguments concerning baptism generally with Baptists, they will argue that circumcision was simply a physical sign. Paul doesn't see it that way. Notice what Paul said here in verse 11. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness that comes by faith. And notice what Paul also doesn't say. It is not a sign and seal of faith, it is a sign and seal of righteousness that comes by faith. That is an important distinction. In other words, circumcision actually signifies and seals what justification is. It represents justification, righteousness that comes by faith. Which ironically, our Baptist brothers will say, that's exactly what baptism represents. And we would agree in that point. Conrad? don't have faith receive the sign. Receive the sign, that's correct. So right there with respect to circumcision, that is a spiritual thing that it represents. Righteousness that comes by faith. So there is a spiritual side to Old Testament rites. We'll just use that term for the moment. Now, how do we connect circumcision to Baptism. The one place that I tend to go to is of course what we use in a lot of discussions, but in Colossians chapter two, verses 11 and 12. And Our Baptist brothers put too much weight or what they want to say this says. The text can't bear that weight. It just doesn't. So Colossians 2 verse 11 and 12. Here's the language. In him, that is in Christ also, you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands. In other words, He's telling the Colossians, you've received something spiritual. If it's made without hands, that's an indication. We're talking about something spiritual, which they needed to hear. This church in particular needed to hear because they got duped by all kinds of meshing of Greek philosophy and Jewish asceticism and things like, they tried to blend it all. And so circumcision, because of that, circumcision would be a big deal because you gotta have that physical sign. And Paul is saying you did get the sign of circumcision, but that circumcision made without hands something spiritual. Now where does this come from? By putting off the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ. So now you've got a connection of circumcision with Christ. Now verse 12, this is the key. Having been buried with him in baptism. In other words, what Paul is saying here is to the Colossian church that was so concerned about the Jewish rituals, he's saying, guys, take a step back. You're so worried about making sure you're actually circumcised, you were. having been buried in Christ by baptism. Now, it's hard to bring this out in the English, but in the Greek, you have, having been buried is, grammatically speaking, a participle of baptism. And the grammatical use of this particular participle really can only be a participle of means. You receive the circumcision made without hands, the circumcision of Christ by means of having been buried. Well, how were we buried? What does the text say? By baptism. Now, were we literally buried? No, it's symbolic of our union with Christ. We can't be buried with Christ unless there's a union, a mystical, vital union that takes place. So it's symbolic of a spiritual reality. And that by baptism would also, this is again, In the Greek, you have a case, which is known as dative. In this case, it's dative. And this would be a dative of means as well. With respect to nouns and pronouns in Greek, you have the nominative case, which frequently is kind of a subject of a sentence. You have the accusative case, which is frequently the direct object, you have the genitive case, which is frequently a possessive case, like ownership type thing, and then you have the dative case, which is often, but not always, an indirect object. Now, that's what you learn in Greek one. When you get to like an intermediate Greek and the like, you find out there's like 17 different uses of the genitive and that's when you want to start pulling your hair out. But here what we have is a dative of means. So in other words, what Paul is saying, you were circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands. by means of having been buried with him, by means of baptism. So the connection between baptism and circumcision is clearly made there. And because of that connection, and I don't want to emphasize that's why we baptize our babies, there's other reasons. That is definitely true. This passage helps us get there, but it's not in isolation. My point is that baptism with its connection to circumcision, like the Lord's Supper and the connection to the Passover, shows that sacramental side of the covenant. It presents It signifies, it seals, it authenticates, it demonstrates the truth of the gospel. That's what a sacrament does. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, though they are simpler, because after all, the Passover, what did you have to do with the Passover? You had to kill something. Pour out its blood, you had to get all these herbs and do all this and do all that. Circumcision was a bloody rite that had to be done on the eighth day. Baptism just uses water. So our confessions, I think, rightly demonstrate from a theological perspective, though the sacraments of the new covenant are simpler, What they do is convey the truth much more clearly. And in part, that's part of the argument that Paul made, or not Paul, well, I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews. I'm okay if you do. I don't think he did. But the author of Hebrews is trying to make, you want to go back to these things that you see by sight. You want your senses involved. You know, that kind of makes sense. But these things that use less of our senses actually convey something greater. Because the substance has come. Trish? Yeah, circumcision of the heart. That's another aspect of why circumcision is more than just physical. That's in Deuteronomy. That's in the Torah. So, and so the aspect of circumcision being spiritual is not a new covenant concept. It's an old covenant concept. Yeah, wash me, make me pure, right. It is, and so that's the connection, and really the new covenant focuses more or brings to light more internal Correct. Conrad? The other thing stands out in the Colossians 2 passage, it talks about being identified with Christ in baptism, being circumcised in baptism, but it also says you must be raised through faith. Correct. So it's not making an argument that baptism is this thing that automatically takes care of everything. You must believe that obligation. Right. In order to appropriate that which it represents, you need faith. That's true of baptism, that's true of award supper. Now, the other side to this, baptism, it's not quite as clear as it is with Paul and the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, but those who do not, appropriate that which is represented, and they partake, they actually even drink judgment on themselves. Well, the same holds true of baptism, because baptism does not just signify the grace of God, it also signifies the wrath poured out upon Christ that he bore. And so the question is, are you going to have faith and receive the blessing of Christ? or you're not gonna have faith and experience that which Christ endured on the cross. Derek? Just for the sake of specificity, we're saying that appropriation has to take place after the fact for baptism, but before the fact for us. It should. Now, with baptism, it depends on the individual. And this is why both with respect to baptism in the Lord's Supper, it's ultimately a question of covenant status as opposed to internal things that we can't see. And so baptism is not just something before you appropriate it because if you have an adult convert, you would baptize them if they've never been baptized before. So there's an example, the Ethiopian eunuch, which Baptists love to go to that passage on that one questionable verse, whether it's not even there. I don't even get into that debate. But they will argue to me, you see what's happening here to the Ethiopian eunuch. If you believe, then you can be baptized. Well, I always respond. I would say the same thing to any adult convert. I have no problem with that. And so in that case, assuming the person has true faith, faith-perceived baptism. For an infant that's born into the covenant, that's where, visually at least, it looks like the sign comes before the thing signified. But again, we can't read hearts. Who knows if Christ has regenerated them in the womb? We know he can. It's a question of covenant status more than it is reading the heart. So, other thoughts, comments? The covenant status thing I think is key because you've got examples in the New Testament where somebody receives the sign of baptism but is not converted. Correct. And we have warnings against real apostasy. Well, if baptism doesn't, in some sense, place you in covenant, even if you're unregenerated, then what's apostasy? Yeah, it's not a hypothetical. Yeah, the apostasy passages like in Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10, et cetera, those have no teeth if the church is only a regenerate community. In this life, the church will be mixed. and that was what we talked about last week in 1 John. They went out from us. Now just by the way, this is just one example, and I use this parable a lot as an example to demonstrate the reality of this truth. Matthew chapter 22, the parable of the wedding feast, and I'll kind of close out with this today. And again, Jesus spoke to them in parables saying, the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. So you notice that the parable begins by describing what? What's it describing? The kingdom of heaven, right? So keep that in mind, the kingdom of heaven. I wanna jump all the way down. And we know all the other stuff. You got some who, like, I can't, I'm busy, blah, blah, blah, all these other things. And then the master says, go out into the streets, get as many as you can find, et cetera. Jump down to verse 11. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there was a man who had no wedding garment. Remember what this whole parable is describing, the kingdom of heaven. You got somebody who goes right up to the point of the wedding for the son. That's what we see in the kingdom, in the kingdom. And that's why the argument that the church is only a regenerate body here on this earth, it just falls flat. Yeah, anyway. That's the language that's used by Christ in the parable. And that's just one example, there are others as well. All right, next week what I hope to do is start talking about the consummation of all things. Connecting it all and showing where it all leads. All right, let's close in prayer. Our Father in God and heaven, we do rejoice that you have given us signs and seals of your covenant of grace to remind us, to assure us that your promises are indeed yes and amen. We thank you that you are so faithful and that you are willing to condescend yourself to give us signs because we are weak and prone to forget and prone to doubt. But these signs and seals remind us that you are indeed faithful to the end. And now, Lord, may that truth inspire us, work in our hearts, that we may be filled with joy as we're about to come into your presence to worship and adore you. We pray all this in Christ's name, amen.