Featured Is Baptism the New Circumcision?

1. Circumcision was not a part of the Mosaic covenant, but of the Abrahamic covenant. It had a much larger application than the former. It was closely connected with justification by faith and the promise of the coming Savior.

2. The circumcision of Abraham, according to Paul in Romans 4:11, was a seal of the righteousness of faith that he had before he was circumcised. God told Abraham to give this seal to his children/infants so that God could make them partakers of the privileges of His covenant in their early infancy.

3. Is there any connection between circumcision and baptism? The apostle Paul says that there is, in Colossians 2:11: “ In whom (Christ) you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein you were also raised with him through faith.”

The literal, plain, grammatically correct interpretation of that phrase in that verse is that baptism IS the circumcision of Christ. To read into this verse that what God really meant when He used the word “baptism” was “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” is a complete disregard for all rules of scriptural interpretation. If it is ok to re-interpret this verse of scripture and not interpret the word “baptism” to mean the Christian rite/ordinance of baptism, then no one can read the Word of God with any confidence, because the rules of logic have been completely abolished. You are essentially saying that “A” does not mean “A”!

4. Baptists believe that circumcision was simply an external sign of an external union with a national congregation, to secure the separation of the Jews from all other nations, and their unity as a people. Baptism, on the other hand, they say, is an external sign of an inward spiritual grace already wrought in the heart.

However, circumcision was not part of the Mosaic covenant, but of the Abrahamic covenant, and was therefore not limited to Israel. The various nations which descended from Abraham use it, not just Israel.

Abraham was the first man circumcised. Therefore his circumcision sets the precedent and the underlying meaning of this act. His circumcision was an external sign of an inward spiritual grace: “to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee”. According to Paul the profit of the circumcision was that “they were intrusted with the oracles of God.” Romans 3:1-2

So it is clear that circumcision was an external sign of an inward spiritual grace!

 

continued from above...

However physical circumcision was not enough, according to Moses: “The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart.” Jeremiah (Jer. 4:4, ; 6:10; 9:26) and the Apostle Paul (Rom. 2:28, 29; 15:8, Phil. 3:3) also speak of the circumcision of the heart as the spiritual meaning and fulfillment of the rite of circumcision.

The entire Bible teaches circumcision as an external sign of an internal grace!

1. When Paul deals with the question of circumcision he shows that although it required faith, and some people were faithless, the covenant remained in force on God’s side. It was broken only on the part of men. “For what if some were without faith? Shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?” Romans 3:3

These words show that God’s covenant and His faithfulness to it were unchanging and objectively valid realities, but men could enjoy the blessings of the covenant ONLY through a personal faith and obedience. Its subjective blessings depended on faith! In the case of Abraham the personal prerequisite, namely, faith, preceded the rite, but otherwise the inward circumcision or renewal to faith and obedience followed afterward.

Just because an Israelite was circumcised did not mean he was “saved”. He could not enjoy the blessings of the covenant (eternal salvation) without a personal faith and obedience. So too with infant baptism! Just because you were baptized as an infant does not guarantee you a free ticket into heaven. Personal faith and obedience is necessary to obtain the blessings (eternal life) of the NEW covenant also. The subjective benefits of infant baptism are dependent on faith, not in the act itself.

As we have seen above, Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ, or Christian circumcision. In the case of Abraham, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith that he had before this rite. It corresponds to the baptism of people who are converted before baptism, as Cornelius and his household were, and as often happens even in our time (older children and adults hearing the Gospel and believing/repenting.)

But most Israelites received circumcision as infants; when they reached the age of discretion (Age of Accountability, in Baptist terms) they had to appropriate its blessings and fulfill its requirements afterward, although the majority of them never did so (only the “remnant” of Israel was saved). Here circumcision is analogous to infant baptism.

(Not everyone in the Old Covenant who was circumcised was saved. Not everyone in the New Covenant who is baptized as an infant is saved. To receive the benefits of the seal or mark of Abraham or of Christ, one must have a personal faith and express obedience once one reaches an age of discretion/accountability. Infant baptism is not a Get-out-of-Hell-free card. We are saved ONLY by grace, through faith!)

It is true that a mere analogy of circumcision and baptism is not enough to prove that baptism follows the same pattern as circumcision. However, Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ, and an undeniable fact is that, according to the plan of God, the use of circumcision was to cease when the use of baptism started in its full Christian sense after Pentecost.

The entire Old Covenant was preparatory to the New Covenant. In both covenants men were saved by grace alone, through faith, and in both of them believers had to show their faith by love and obedience.

 

Yes, it's a great book! I strongly recommend that everyone purchase it and read it:

The title is: Scriptural Baptism by Uuras Saarnivaara (I think he's Finnish)

 

I would be interested in your serious response to the above statements, Sister Scarlett. Do you agree that circumcision was an outward sign of an inward, spiritual grace?

 

I am in total agreement with your last statement. Did you read all of the OP?

 

I appreciate all the excellent comments! I also appreciate the civil tone. We can disagree without being disagreable.

First, "Moriah" has correctlly pointed out that circumcision was a part of the Mosaic Law. What I meant to say was that circumcision preceded the Mosaic Law and had a wider meaning than just a national identity. Yes, the ongoing practice of circumcision was adopted into the Mosaic Law.

So if I am understanding all of you, I will refer to you as credo-baptists, (you are not all Baptists), you believe that there were more than one type of circumcision in the OT.

Abraham's circumcision was an external sign/seal of an inward grace, received by Abraham's faith, as mentioned by the Apostle Paul.

However, the circumcision of the infant children of Abraham and of Abraham's descendants thereafter, up until the day of Pentecost, had a different meaning: it was an external sign of a national covenant: the covenant with the nation of Israel.

But, what about the 300 male servants in Abraham's household that were circumcised? They were never the children of Israel. Only the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel and their descendants could claim that their circumcision was a sign of a national identity.

What about Ishmael? He was the father of the Arabs. How could his circumcision be a sign of national identity. What was the purpose of his circumcision?

What about Esau? What was the meaning of his circumcision and the circumcision of his children/grandchildren? Did God make a separate national covenant with them?

So God made national covenants with the Arabs, with the descendants of Esau and the descendants of all the male servants and slaves in Abraham's household? So God made multiple national covenants??

If the only purpose of circumcision was to be a sign of the covenant with the nation of Israel, there sure were alot of people who were circumcised that never were part of the nation that they were supposedly identifying with by having their foreskin removed!

Isn't there just one meaning of circumcision? Isn't it the same meaning for everyone in the OT? Why would God create a sign of national identity but give it to so many different nations?

 

On another point brought up by Michael (Wren) regarding the verse in Colossians mentioned above.

Colossians 2:11: “ In whom (Christ) you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein you were also raised with him through faith.”

So credobaptists believe that when the Scriptures use the Greek word for "baptism" it does not ALWAYS mean "to dip or immerse in water"?? I thought that you did. The word "baptism" in this verse means something else entirely unrelated: a non-water baptism of the Holy Spirit??

Doesn't that destroy the credobaptist arguement that the Greek word for "baptism" always means dipping/immersion with water? Doesn't that open the door to multiple interpretations of what the word "baptism" means?

Why not just stick to the word baptism meaning to dip/immerse everywhere that it is mentioned in Scripture except where it SPECIFICALLY mentions another type of baptism?

 

I very much agree with you. Circumcision in the OT WAS a sign that you were in a covenant with God, even if you were not a descendant of Jacob (Israel) the father of the Jews.

But what was the meaning of this covenant? For Ishmael, Esau and the others mentioned above, the covenant that God made with them could not have been a national Jewish identity. It had to be something else!

Isn't it possible that the sign of the covenant that was given to all the offspring of Abraham (Jews and non-Jews) was God's promise of an internal, spiritual covenant, but that the blessings or benefits of this covenant were not received by the one circumcised until that person reached an age at which time he expressed faith and obedience to God?

Just because Ishmael and Esau were circumcised did not mean they were saved!

But it did mean that they were recepients of the promises of the covenant and IF when they reached an age of discretion (accountability) they placed their faith and obedience in Jehovah, they would be saved.

 

Lutherans would absolutely agree with you. Physical circumcision was not enough. Just because you were circumcised did not guarantee that you would receive eternal life!

But your circumcision was a sign to you that God had given you the promises of eternal life, they were availabe to you, but you had to grow up and profess faith and obedience to God in order to receive the benefits (eternal life) of the covenant.

Circumcision of the body AND circumcision of the heart were required in the OT for salvation. The two went hand in hand. One could not profess faith in Jehovah but refuse the sign, circumcision, and expect to receive the benefits of the covenant, salvation.

Likewise, you could not receive the benefits of the covenant just because you were circumcised. You had to at some point in your life profess a true faith in God and true obedience to God to be saved.

 

So I think I have pretty clearly demonstated that circumcision in the OT could not have been simply an external sign of a national identity. No, circumcision in the OT was an external sign of God's promise of salvation to those who received the sign (circumcision) AND then professed a true faith and obedience to God when they grew up and became an older child (who could discern good from evil), or as an adult.

Salvation is not produced by physically receiving the sign or mark. No, salvation is promised at the time the sign or mark is given, but the full benefits of this promise are received by faith and obedience when the recipient is older.