A Corinthian Problem

I Corinthians 11: 17-34

Much confusion reigns about the argument Paul uses in this chapter because most people do not consider the argument as it is set forth. This section has been used to justify a number of views of elements of the Lord’s Supper that Paul’s concern has been lost in those other considerations. In essence Paul wants the church to stop their misbehavior at the Lord’s Supper because it is harmful to them. If we view the whole argument he says:

“But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you” (I Cor. 11: 17-22).

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (I Cor. 11: 23-26).

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world” (I Cor. 11: 27-32).

“So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come” (I Cor. 11: 33-34).

Note the link points in each section: verse 23 begins “For I delivered …” indicating the reason he was not about to praise them because he had passed on to them exactly what he had been given himself. And their behavior showed they were not merely ignoring what he had taught them they were dishonoring the Lord. This is why the next section begins at verse 27 with “Therefore whoever eats or drinks …” the conclusion to be drawn from the previous section. They are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord because they are misusing the Supper – hence the reason why things were going so wrong in the Church. Then the last section begins “So then my brethren …”

In reality the essence of Paul’s solution to the problem described in verses 17-22 is in this last section. “Wait for one another and if you are hungry eat at home so you do not come together for judgment.” That is indicated by his next statement “and the rest I’ll deal with when I come.” If we lose sight of what Paul is seeking to achieve with this line of argument we cannot discern rightly how the parts are meant to be understood.

So if the first section and the last contain the problem and its solution what are the functional parts of sections two and three? The “therefore” of section three makes it clear that section two is the basis of his argument in three. So what is his argument in three? Anyone who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, so each of you examine yourself and so eat. And why do they eat and drink judgment to themselves? Because as section two shows, their actions in the Supper ritual proclaim Christ’s death but their acting toward one another denies what they are proclaiming.

Which leads to the key thought: what does Paul mean by “eating and drinking unworthily?” And from the context (verses 17-22) that is eating, while leaving some hungry and drinking with some getting drunk. That makes sense of the proposed solution – “wait for one another and if you’re hungry eat at home.” After urging them to examine themselves, Paul adds an explanation of why the church is in such a poor state – they do not judge themselves as they ought.

If, therefore, section three applies the principle they ought to have learned from section two what does the Lord’s Supper picture in this instance; why does Paul explain it as he does? In particular what is it about his death, proclaimed in the Supper, that applies to the Corinthians and the way they were celebrating the Lord’s Supper. The two truths are that Christ died for his people and his blood was shed to establish the New Covenant of which they are a part. It is true this happened as God ordained it but the means by which it happened was that one of his own betrayed him. If, then, even the betrayer was given the Supper by what right did they cut off some congregation members [for whom Christ also died] from the meal?

The Seal of Faith

Romans 4: 11 equates the “sign of circumcision” and the “seal of the righteousness [Abraham had] by faith.”¹ For Paul circumcision was the confirming seal of the righteousness God had granted to Abraham. This seal was granted to those who, though uncircumcised, believed and to those who though they were circumcised also believed as did Abraham. It is this emphasis on the necessity of faith in order to be justified, I believe, which lies behind Cunningham’s claim:

“It tends greatly to introduce obscurity and confusion into our whole conceptions upon the subject of baptism, that we see it ordinarily administered to infants, and very seldom to adults. This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erroneous conceptions of its design and effect, or rather to live with our minds very much in the state of blanks, so far as concerns any distinct and definite views upon the subject. There is a difficulty felt, — a difficulty which Scripture does not afford us materials for altogether removing, — in laying down any very distinct and definite doctrine as to the precise bearing and efficacy of baptism in the case of infants, to whom alone ordinarily we see it administered.”²

The emphasis on faith is not altogether lacking in the Old Testament in fact, if we take the years between the appearances of God to Abram, it is encouraging the faith that exists which forms the basis of most of the covenantal interactions between them. When God speaks of the his offspring being as the stars for number (in Genesis 15) it is to encourage the (as yet) childless Abram to trust God will keep his word.

When God, then, institutes circumcision as the covenant responsibility of Abram, it is again to encourage Abraham’s trust in him for the coming of the son of promise. It is in this context, when Abraham still has his eyes fixed on the physical³ that God tells him that in a year he would have the son God had promised nearly 25 years earlier.

1 “καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβε περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι᾿ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι καὶ αὐτοῖς τὴν δικαιοσύνην, καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς στοιχοῦσι τοῖς ἴχνεσι τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ.” – “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness by his uncircumcised faith in order that he might be father of all those believing, though uncircumcised, to be considered to them as righteousness and father of the circumcised to those not by circumcision only but also to those who walk in the path of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised” (Romans 4: 11-12).

2 Cunningham, Historical Theology.

3 This is surely the significance of his statement: “O that Ishmael may live before you …” he already had a son, Ishmael – who would now be circumcised – and seems to think that he was the son God had been promising.

Hangover from Romanism?

Sometimes it seems the most common argument I have heard against infant baptism is that it is a hangover from Roman Catholicism. The best view of such an argument is that the Reformers accepted their viewpoint without considering the Catholics were basing the argument on tradition — that assumes this “false practice” was accepted without really testing it. The worst view is that they knew the practice was false and still carried it on because they cared for their children and wanted to do all they could for their salvation. This implies a view of the effectiveness of the sacraments which the Reformed did not hold to. Even the Lutherans, who come closest to baptismal regeneration, deny the sacraments work ex opera operato. So, without faith none of the Reformers would expect the infants who are baptized would automatically be saved.

It is hard to imagine those who argued so vehemently against transubstantiation and the Church’s right to withhold the wine from the participants would be less vigilant when it came to the matter of baptism yet that is, occasionally, the impression gained from some credo-baptist arguments. Just for the record, then, here is the view of John Calvin on the matter (with apologies for the more outspoken language, which was the common way of presenting theological arguments).

“The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious — viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God. But what if, when the matter is properly attended to, it should be found that a calumny is falsely and unjustly brought against the holy ordinance of the Lord? First, then, let us inquire into its origin. Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of his sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author.”

Seems to me that many of the Baptist believers I have discussed the matter with over the years would agree wholeheartedly with Calvin provided we changed the word “paedobaptism” for “credobaptism.” Certain it is that Calvin held to paedobaptism from the conviction that he was regulating “the the true observance of the sacrament entirely by the will of the Lord.” We may agree with his argument, or not, but we should no longer allow ignorance or tradition to be used as explanations about why he (and the other Reformers) practiced infant baptism.

History and Theology

Strangely some in our age, in spite of their apparent education, count the arguments of the great thinkers of the past as unworthy of study. It is as if they think such writers could not possibly have anything to teach us. How could they have anything to say which would be helpful to us in our present era? They seem to think we know more and are better educated than all that have gone before us. The effort required to study ancient authors is, according to these people, time wasted. There is some small justification in this considering the necessary work to be familiar enough with the writings of the Fathers (as they are called) to compare their views with what modern writers have to say about the human condition. How much easier, we think, to read only what we have to in order to get through today and tomorrow — especially when we are so short of time.

We need to remind ourselves, however, especially in an age where the art of reading is becoming less important for the young, that we are not the wisest of people who ever walked the planet. Nor, when it comes to eternal matters, are we the only ones who ever wrestled with the Word of God. We seem to have learned that a good education is vital if we are to make more than a fleeting impression on the stage of history but not how to decide the content of such an education. Our forebears may have argued the Bible is the most important source of wisdom for both church and society but they did not neglect the authors of the past in studying the writers of their own era. Protestant leaders have commonly disparaged Medieval Scholasticism. It was not because the “schoolmen” were comparatively uneducated (an argument which would find favor today) but because they imposed their own prejudices on the passages they were supposed to be explaining and, therefore, did not seem to really know what the Bible writers were saying. It was not their lack of education, it was how they applied their learning which led them astray.

The study of the old writers, however, is not wasted time. Not only do we learn what they knew but we learn to appreciate their ability to express the essence of the subject in a memorable manner. Perhaps the most telling benefit from studying the ancients is the way God encourages us to trust that, using ordinary principles of comprehension, our interpretation of his word is not faulty, especially when that viewpoint is not popular. As we study the great thinkers of the past we will often discover they also saw the insights we find in the Bible. This often means that a short, and apparently simple, explanation is not always the best way to express a biblical truth. Often we will find that there are other aspects which must be taken into account as well as that on which we are questioned. To often our answer to what look like simple questions may have to be more complex than the hearer expects. In online discussions it is tempting to give a brief presentation which hopefully gives the essence of an answer, but often fails to be convincing, than to take the time to spell out the implications. We often assume that will be enough to help the others in the group see the point of our argument.

If recent studies are accurate about the way young people are using online media to learn, the root of the troubles facing the Church today is clear. We tend to be superficial in our study imagining that a widely accepted opinion can substitute for depth of understanding. In reading the quotation below some will have never heard of the people mentioned. Others will know the names but their appreciation of theology will not allow them to see why the author cites them as he does. Sadly, there will also be readers who will wonder why they should bother with WGT Shedd or why, as an author of the 18th and 19th centuries, his views are beneficial today. Perhaps this short offering will challenge us to study to become better acquainted with past writers so we can become better at handling God’s Word.

“No one age, or church, is in advance of all other ages, or churches, in all things. It would be difficult to mention an intellect in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries whose reflection upon the metaphysical being and nature of God has been more profound than that of Anselm; whose thinking upon the Trinity has been more subtle and discriminating than that of Athanasius; whose contemplation of the great mystery of sin has been more comprehensive and searching than that of Augustine; whose apprehension of the doctrine of atonement has been more accurate than that formulated in the creeds of the Reformation.

“In drawing from these earlier sources, the writer believes that systematic theology will be made both more truthful and more vital. Confinement to modern opinions tends to thinness and weakness. The latest intelligence is of more value in a newspaper than in a scientific treatise. If an author in any department gets into the eddies of his age, and whirls round and round in them, he knows little of the sweep of the vast stream of the ages which holds on its way forever and forevermore. If this treatise has any merits, they are due very much to daily and nightly communion with that noble army of theologians which is composed of the elite of the fathers, of the schoolmen, of the reformers, and of the seventeenth century divines of England and the Continent. And let it not be supposed that this influence of the theologians is at the expense of that of the Scriptures. This is one of the vulgar errors. Scientific and contemplative theology is the child of Revelation. It is the very Word of God itself as this has been studied, collated, combined, and systematized by powerful, devout, and prayerful intellects.

— W.G.T. Shedd, “Dogmatic Theology,” Vol. 1, Preface pages vii and viii

How Do Sacraments Work?

The Roman Catholic replies:

The sacraments act ex opere operato (literally “by the very fact of the action being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacraments are not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God” (CCC 1128).

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions (CCC 1131).
Some sacraments can be received only once, since they impart a special ‘character’ – baptism, confirmation, and holy orders.

Patrick Fairbairn (Typology of Scripture Book II, Sect. 5, pp 155, 156):

“In short it should be held as a most certain principle that, in the ceremonialism of the Old Covenant, nothing was simply ceremonial: the spirit of the whole was the spirit of the Ten Commandments.

“Such being the connection between the moral law in the legislation of Moses, and the symbolical rites and services annexed to it, it was plainly necessary the the latter be required to be wisely arranged, both in kind and number, so as fitly to promote the ends of their appointment. They were not [purely] outward rites and services of any sort.

“The outward came into existence merely for the sake of the religious and moral elements embodied in it, for the spiritual lessons it conveyed, or the sentiments of godly fear and brotherly love it was fitted to awaken. And that such ordinances should not only exist but also spread out into a vast multiplicity of forms was a matter of necessity; as the dispensation then set up admitted so very sparingly of direct instruction, and was comparatively straitened in its supplies of inward grace.

“Imperfect as those outward ordinances were – so imperfect that they were at last done away with as unprofitable – the members of this Old Covenant were still chiefly dependent upon them for having the character of the divine law exhibited to their minds and its demands kept fresh upon the conscience. It was therefore fit that they should not only pervade the strictly religious territory, but should even be carried beyond it, embracing all the more important relations of life, that the Israelite might thus find something in what he ordinarily saw and did, – in the very food he ate and the garments he wore – to remind him of the law of his God, and to stimulate him to the cultivation of that righteousness which it was his paramount duty to cherish and exemplify.”

[Reparagraphed for easier reading]

Conversation on Baptism V

Language again

before we begin let me reword Vaughn’s title for this section. Metaphor is a noun and the heading should read: “E. Baptism is used as a metaphor in ways that do not fit circumcision.” It requires more words to make the statement but it does have the advantage of being easier to understand. I keep trying to read Vaughn’s version as metamorphosed … a very different concept altogether. Though of no real significance in the discussion it does make the point that we come from two different cultures and sometimes, in order to understand what the other is saying it is necessary to “translate” into one’s own language.

I believe the reason why this is considered to be a valid argument is because the idea of the similarity between circumcision and baptism is not clearly understood as we paedobaptists use it. The word we use is “similarity” not “identity.” While not strictly a type (there is no antitype) circumcision and baptism do function in a similar way. They act as analogies of the truth not types. Perhaps a view of the justice of God may be of some assistance.

Under Scottish law it is possible to have one of three verdicts in any case brought before the court. A defendant may be found, guilty, not guilty or not proven. The third verdict is included because man is not omniscient. Our justice, therefore, is always provisional. God, however, knows all things his justice is never provisional it is perfectly just. His justice is not exactly the same as ours. This would seem obvious but there is a similarity between our justice and God’s justice so that we can use elements of our justice to recognize how God’s justice works.

Both baptism and circumcision are used as initiatory rites to “enroll” the recipient into the People of God. In order to do that there has to be some element(s) which they have in common. It is this similarity between the rites which paedobaptists affirm. Similarity should not lead us to expect they will be used metaphorically the same way. They may be used of the same reality to provide extra insight. In fact that is precisely what happens.

When I first read this part of Vaughn’s presentation I was tempted to use a wonderfully expressive American word “duh!” Of course the metaphor is used in ways which do not fit circumcision. Baptism is not circumcision. No paedobaptist has ever said it is. But, to respond with nothing but a “duh!” would be treating his view as unworthy of inclusion in the discussion so let us see where a review of these elements will lead us from a paedobaptist perspective.

E.Baptism, as a metaphor, is used in ways that do not fit circumcision

16.Jesus spoke of an upcoming baptism, by which he meant his death.

Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

17.The journey of Moses was seen as typifiying a baptism

18.Baptism for the dead? Circumcision for the dead?

1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

16. Jesus used baptism to speak of his death.

This is true to a point. We certainly interpret the passage Vaughn cited as Jesus speaking about his impending death as a baptism. His answer to James and John was that they would indeed drink of his cup and be baptized with the baptism he would be baptized with. It is generally understood that the reference to the cup and to his baptism speaks of a martyr’s death. Yet, though James was killed as a martyr while a young man by those who hated Christ, John lived to an old age and, if tradition is correct, was not martyred at all. So it is at least possible, though granted unlikely, that by baptism Jesus was not referring to his death. If that were true he may have been speaking of his being rejected by all those who were supposedly his supporters. In James’ case that rejection led to his death, in John’s case (if tradition is correct) to a lonely prison cell on the Island of Patmos.

Regardless of the interpretation circumcision does not speak of the death of Christ in quite the same terms – the point that Vaughn is making. It is possible to speak of being cut off from the land of the living – a reference to the idea of circumcision but, as I recall, no writer in the New Testament makes an explicit tie of that concept to circumcision. Instead circumcision is used, as we will see later, to refer to the removal of the body of our sin by the death of Christ.

17. The journey of Moses

Vaughn’s wording is a little obscure for this one: “17.The journey of Moses was seen as typifying a baptism.” This may mean he saw the whole journey as a type of baptism or it might be a shorthand way to refer to Paul’s metaphor in I Corinthians. I am not sure how the life of Moses or even the specific time in the wilderness is a picture of baptism so I will assume the second was what was meant.

Paul certainly links baptism to the events of the Exodus. He says the people were baptized into Moses indicating two events to prove his point. They are baptism in the Red Sea and baptism in the cloud. He says:

“Moreover brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea …”

Then, strangely for the case which argues a confession of faith is necessary before baptism can take place, Paul says:¹

“But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted, neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written ‘the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’ Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand, neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”

Clearly, then, there is something about the symbol of baptism which Paul finds reflected in the crossing of the Red Sea and of the people being led by the cloud. Of the latter he said they were all “under the cloud”² while the record says the cloud actually went before them or (when they were being pursued by Pharaoh and his hosts) it was behind them to protect them so they could not be found. In his description, Paul apparently takes being “under the cloud” to be the same as passing through³ the Red Sea because he likens both to being baptized “into Moses in the cloud and in the sea …” As a picture of the mode of baptism or, even if we limit the discussion to the relationship of baptism to a confession of faith, this passage is confusing if we follow through the implications of a credo-baptist point of view. The difficulty is that Paul speaks of them being baptized into Moses but they did not really, according to their later behavior, have faith in either Moses or his God.

If baptism symbolizes our perceived trust in and unity with the mediator of the covenant, regardless of the reality of that faith, Paul’s description and the application he makes in the context makes good sense. We claim to belong to Christ and we ought to live in compliance with that claim even as those who claimed to follow Moses ought to have been willing to follow his commands. Where faith is an indispensable prerequisite to baptism, Paul’s description of the the behavior of all but Joshua and Caleb does not fit the use he makes of the symbol. How can those be lost who have been baptized unless they had never possessed faith in the first place.

We could claim that the passover feast was a declaration of faith (I seem to have made that point myself) and, as such, crossing the Red Sea meets the criterion for credo-baptism. Yet, surely, we are to believe that the confession ought to be genuine if credo-baptism is to mean anything. If we accept that formal recognition of being a part of God’s promised people is all that is necessary (surely the aim of making a confession of faith) then the is little left of an impediment to the children of believers being baptized. Surely, however, an insistence that partaking of the Passover is a confession of faith recognizes that this is a formal confession when those who were “baptized into Moses” were a part of the whole generation which were lost in the wilderness (except for Joshua and Caleb).

In this case we have both baptism and the Lord’s Supper tied together. Paul says that those who were baptized into Moses ate the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank from Christ. Union with the mediator of the (as it was then) new covenant under Moses was to gain the blessings of Christ. And these blessings were to people who we know were in the external covenant only. They did not have the faith which would have been required if we are talking about the New Testament Church before they were baptized. It is true that Paul does not use the picture of circumcision to describe their unity in Moses and yet, since it is supposed to represent “the nation of Israel” or those who were in external covenant with God perhaps Paul should have used the picture of circumcision. Since we are supposed to be in a covenant which does not allow for “formal” membership any longer, it might well have been a more apt picture, from the credo-baptist viewpoint.

18. Baptism for the dead

I am inclined to pass this one by because if we have to establish a doctrine on a notoriously difficult passage then we ought to question the validity of the doctrine. However, the key element of baptism which Paul is focusing on in this part of I Cor. 15 is that union we have with Christ; not just in his death but also in his resurrection. As he was raised from the dead we have hope that we too will be raised. If Christ did not rise from the dead then the attempt to be united to Christ is in vain because there is no benefit.

Now it is not necessary to establish the validity of “baptism for the dead” as a rite because it is not the fact that it is for the dead which is significant. Baptism, as Paul uses it here, speaks of how we are made alive in Christ. Our union with him is the source of our justification by means of his death and resurrection. It is apparent that the metaphor Paul uses would be inappropriate if taken from circumcision. Circumcision speaks of the fact of our cleansing by his death not how it happens. Baptism, however, speaks of the application of the finished work of Christ to the soul which is necessary if we are spelling out the implications of his resurrection.

Colossians 2:6-16

The problem which Paul deals with in this passage is spelled out in this way:⁴

“As you have received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of this world and not after Christ. For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principalities and power …”

What he means by “let no man spoil you” is further explained in verse 16:⁵

“Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Having reminded them they are complete in Christ, Paul goes on to say:⁶

“In whom you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.”

The reference is to the Old Testament requirement for the people to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts⁷ making them holy by their obedience from the heart. It is God who puts off “the body of the sins of the flesh” which is likened to “circumcision made without hands” and further explained as this being done by the circumcision of Christ. It appears the next few words explain the meaning of this last phrase:

“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who has raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”

Paul, therefore sees a tie between baptism and circumcision such that he can use them both to describe the reality of the new birth. They were made complete in Christ, through whom they are made holy (the import of the removal of the sinful flesh) by the circumcision of Christ – as he was removed from life by his death – we were also buried with him and raised in newness of life. So we were dead, says Paul in our uncircumcision until he quickened us together with him, having been forgiven all our trespasses. This is why he goes on to say:

“Blotting out the handwriting in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly triumphing over them in it.”

Though it is clear that both rituals are not exactly the same there is sufficient similarity for Paul to use them as complementary parts of the same argument.

I Peter 3: 21

Peter uses both the concept of circumcision and a reference to baptism in this verse to show how we are saved. Noah and the other seven with him were saved by water we are told. Peter than makes this comment:

“In the like figure whereunto baptism also now saves us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Without entering into the idea that this seems to say baptism actually saves us (which neither Vaughn nor I believe) it is significant that Peter makes the comment that baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God. But we notice that the other part of this piece in the brackets is a clear reference to the language that Paul uses to describe circumcision. There is certainly the possibility that Peter also puts baptism and circumcision together in his setting forth of a picture of salvation.

Summary:

By and large it is true that circumcision and baptism are used as metaphors differently. Circumcision speaks of putting off the sinful tendencies and purification by the shedding of blood. It is applied to the heart by faith in Christ. We know from the New Testament that Christ’s death is portrayed as a cutting him off from the land of the living and baptism speaks of our union with him. That union implies our being buried with him in his death and raised with him in his resurrection. For Peter as well as Paul it seems clear that both Circumcision and baptism can be used to enhance our understanding of the process of our salvation.

Part I | Part II (a), (b), (c) | Part III | Part IV

——————–

Footnotes:

 

1I Cor. 10:1-11

2υ̒πο plus the accusative.

3δια plus the genitive.

4Col. 2:6-10

5Col. 2:16-17

6Col. 2:11

7Deut. 10:16 c/f 30:6, Jer 4:4 and 9:25-26. Sometimes they are required to do the circumcising and sometimes it is God who will do it. In one case it is the ear which needs to be circumcised so that they can hear.

Conversation on Baptism IV

One technique in a debate is to ask a question which is designed to show the opposition has really missed the point – at least from the perspective of the questioner. One has to wonder, therefore, at the question for part D below. There are two possible ways to approach the problem raised by the question.

The first is to point out that John’s baptism was always intended to be temporary. It was supposed to prepare the people for the coming of the Christ and his kingdom. Once Christ had come and instituted the new kingdom the temporary would be done away with. This takes seriously the teaching of Malachi and Isaiah that Elijah would come before the Christ and prepare a people for the coming judgment of God. When Paul baptized John’s disciples at Ephesus, it would be seen as a reminder that John’s baptism was supposed to lead to faith in Christ. They were baptized by Paul, because in their case, it appears it did not. That might also explain why after they had been baptized he laid his hands upon them so they would receive the Holy Spirit and they did so, speaking in other tongues – presumably like that of Cornelius and his household. Speaking in tongues by this group may well have been intended to show the disciples of John were also to be counted as a part of the New Israel. After this incident there is absolutely no record of any disciples who had been baptized by John.

The second way to deal with the question is to deny there is any real distinction between John’s baptism and that of the disciples of Christ. It would allow that there was, in fact, a distinction¹ but that effectively the two were one, since faith in Christ was the reality signified by both. Baptism would be seen as a sign of the faith necessary to prepare Israel to be part of the kingdom of heaven and, as such, no different whether performed by John or instituted by Christ. From Vaughn’s point of view, one would still have to account for changing the institution of baptism (with its main reference being cleansing from sin) as a new rite of initiation for their disciples. That, however, might possibly be seen as a new application for baptism rather than something absolutely new.

But, the question remains, how does either view make John’s baptism a difficulty for the “baptism has replaced circumcision” viewpoint? On either view of John’s baptism it is Christ’s which was commanded to be applied to all his followers. It is, therefore Christ’s which continues and if any baptism replaces circumcision it would be that commanded by Christ. That would be true whether one makes a distinction between the two practices or not.

If the answer given to the second question below is Christ’s baptism and, if baptism is supposed to represent the washings of the Old Testament which were used to purify Israel, then, from a paedobaptist viewpoint, John’s baptism has absolutely no effect on the replacement argument. In reality, though, the question requires the answerer to defend a distinction between John’s baptism and Christ’s which the questioner does not, necessarily, have to believe exists.

The question does raise a broader application of the Old Covenant doctrine of baptism to that of the New. How, we might ask, does John’s baptism relate to the doctrine of the Covenant, anyway? Is there some way in which John changed the significance from cleansing to initiation? Vaughn lays it out his question like this:

D. John’s baptism makes the replacement argument difficult to sustain. Which baptism replaced circumcision? If John’s didn’t, what was it?

15. The end result for many at the time of Christ would be three baptisms! Or three circumcisions, as people went from being circumcised, to being baptized by John, to being baptized by one of Christ’s disciples.

Act 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.²

Joh 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

To be fair, the claim in 15 is not really borne out by the scriptures cited. They do not really show that many in the time of Christ were baptized several times. Neither, supposing that they did, would such a fact create any difficulty for the replacement argument. Their reference is to baptism with water is as a symbol of the real baptism in the Holy Spirit which took place on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem.³ So far as we can tell this is also the only time Jesus actually baptized anyone – in all other cases his disciples baptized. What replaced circumcision was the reality as Christ’s death replaced the sacrifices of the Old dispensation under Moses. Either baptism with water, whether by John or by Jesus’ disciples is merely a sign of that reality. I should think the disciples who had been followers of John did not require a baptism to become followers of Christ. The New Testament records only one instance where a second baptism was given.⁴

The passages which Vaughn quote demonstrate that John made a distinction between the symbol administered by him, (I baptize you with water unto repentance) and the reality by the Messiah “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” They also show that baptism was to be the means of John’s recognition of the Messiah so he could announce his coming. What is often forgotten is the significance of Jesus attitude to the man who was casting out demons in his name.⁵ The disciples forbade him to do so since he was not of their number. Jesus told them that those who are not against him are for him. It seems unlikely then that he considered John’s baptism as something which was insufficient to prepare one for the kingdom of heaven.

This leaves us, then, with a question of why Paul rebaptized the 12 men at Ephesus.⁶ Perhaps the best solution to that problem is to say: “we don’t know why that happened.” There is also the possibility that there was no rebaptism but that what is described is the falling of the Holy Spirit upon them because although it is implied that Paul baptized them the Greek says “having heard, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus; and when Paul laid his hands upon them the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.”⁷ It is not clear who did the baptism or even if it was by water. If he spoke to them and they believed then, as he laid his hands upon them they, spoke in tongues it could be termed a baptism, even if of the Holy Spirit and not by human hands.

Ephesians 4:5 does not speak directly to this particular issue at all. The focus is the unity which we all have in Christ. In as much as it speaks of baptism it is the unity of the Church in that all have been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Even as there is one body and one spirit, there is also one Lord, one faith and one baptism. What unites us to Christ is symbolized by the baptism we all share ‒ the work of the Holy Spirit. As the members of the Church are one in Christ so we all share these same things. Paul speaks of there being only one baptism because we all are cleansed in the soul by the washing of the Holy Spirit.

Vaughn is apparently placing two versions of baptism in water before us for consideration; that of John and that of Jesus (though, of course, in the second case it was actually the disciples who did the baptism). Then he wishes us to consider the nature of John’s baptism, assuming these versions are different. Finally, if John’s baptism is not the replacement for circumcision, what did it actually accomplish? Beneath these three questions is, however, an assumption which should be addressed first. It is that one of these rites of baptism has to be exactly the same as circumcision if it is to be replaced.

A necessary correction

The questions above give the impression that, unless circumcision and baptism are identical rites, there can be no replacement. It is true that some paedobaptists give the impression that we believe the two are the same. The argument for including children in baptism does rest, after all is said and done, on the similarities between them. It is easy, especially when debating, to overstate the case. The reality is that both circumcision and baptism are related to the covenant of grace. They are both signs and seals of that covenant. As such they have distinct differences, depending on their place in redemptive history, and clear similarities, because the covenant is one.

Sacraments, or ordinances, are different from types. When a type is fulfilled by its antitype it may still have a use as an object lesson for us but it, itself, ceases to exist. The application of the type to a later situation depends on something is the two situations which is the same. Not everything has to be the same nor does a particular application need to focus on the same element as another. The Exodus from Egypt, for example, is a type of redemption from the bondage of sin.⁸ It was also a type of the haven from which the Christ returns to the Land of Promise.⁹ Clearly slavery was not an element in the latter application, even though it was essential in the case of the former.

The Passover is different from a simple type since, while it points to Christ and his sacrifice on our behalf, it is also a “memorial meal” pointing back to God’s intervention on the believers’ behalf. As such it was designed to be a sign of the covenant of grace which God had made with Abraham – a reminder of the promise he had made to redeem them with judgment on those who kept his seed in bondage. Its continuation in the land of Israel pointed to the greater reality of redemption from sin which would one day be accomplished by the “seed of the woman.”

In Genesis 3:15 we are introduced to the covenant of grace. God says to the serpent:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. It will bruise your head and you will bruise his heel.”

We understand that this was a reference to Jesus Christ, even though Adam and Eve did not. It is our position in the history of redemption which gives us this insight. Christ is the seed of the woman and he crushed the head of the serpent when he died on the cross. We see, in this one statement, the history of the sons of God from Abel to the present. Yet this initial covenant has been replaced by clearer and better ones. Take the covenant which God swore to Abraham.

So often in discussions on the subject of baptism and, in particular, about infant baptism we forget that the first covenant God made with Abraham was not that of Genesis 17. He first told Abraham that he would make him a great nation while he was still in Haran. It is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3 and contains an instruction and a promise:

“Get you out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you: And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and you will be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you: and in you will all families of the earth be blessed.”

A comparison of these two covenants shows few similarities on the surface. No doubt, had he been privy to this covenant the serpent would not have recognized this as a further development of the earlier one given to Adam and Eve. Yet the same promise is contained there. God says he will curse those that curse Abraham and bless those that bless him. Here is implied enmity on the part of some and friendship on the part of others. Here also is implied the coming of the one who will bruise the serpent’s head. He will be of the seed of Abraham. Yet, this version of the promise says in Abraham (actually Abram) the families of the earth will be blessed. The essence of the promise is similar enough that, looking back, we can see the second as the development of the first but in the time of Abram it is most unlikely he saw it as clearly, if at all.

But, it might be argued, the second covenant did not replace the first, since both covenants continued together. That is true but we are not yet arguing for replacement. We are observing how God uses things that are similar to further the plan of salvation. One key difference is that God promised Adam and Eve that their seed would bruise the serpent’s head and the promise is that in Abraham the world will be blessed. So, we might be forgiven for asking: was Abraham the promised seed? Again, looking back, we can see that he was not the seed promised by God.

Three developments take place before the next covenantal event. In verse 7 of chapter 12 we find God promising “to your seed I will give this land.”¹⁰ We note that in the verse it does not say that the land will be Abram’s. Then after Abram and Lot have gained so many flocks and herds that they need to go their separate ways, God says:¹¹

“Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are to the north and south to the east and the west: For all the land which you see, to you will I give it and to your seed for ever. And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth: so that, if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall your seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to you.”

The promise now includes his seed in the perpetual ownership of the land. The third development comes after Abram and his army defeat the confederation of five kings and he comes back to Salem where he is blessed by Melchizedek and gives tithes to him:

“Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which has delivered your enemies into your hand.”

These three events, on the surface, seem to be just events in a man’s life but which, as we look back from the perspective of the New Testament, we see as developments in the covenant and as a part of the revelation of God. The last, in particular we are told, is of great significance because Melchizedek is a type of Christ as a king and a high priest. As David is to tell us the Messiah will be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The Promise and the Oath

In Genesis 15 God renews his promise to Abraham and does something unprecedented. He swears an oath that what he has promised will surely come to pass. We are also told that Abram’s faith is counted as righteousness – a key element in the development of the doctrines of grace though, again, we need the perspective of the New Testament to see the significance. God says:¹²

“Fear not Abram: I am your shield and your exceeding great reward… [Eliezer of Damascus] will not be your heir, but he that will come forth from your own bowels shall be your heir … Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if you are able to number them: and he said to him ‘So shall your seed be. … I am the Lord that brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.’”

There are three elements in this promise. God will be his protector and reward, he will have an heir but his descendants will be as the stars of heaven for multitude and he will inherit the land. From Genesis 12 to this point God has promised the same thing repeatedly. And yet each of the promises is different. They are not identical. Taken together, though, each adds to our understanding of the plan of salvation which is the ultimate purpose of God. In response to God’s last statement, Abram asks: “Lord GOD how shall I know that I will inherit it?”

This is the occasion from which we see God’s oath. The oath he swore, however, is a significant development because it is only matched in the Old Testament by one other event – the covenant making ceremony at Mount Sinai. The oath that God swears is recorded as:¹³

“Know of a surety that your seed will be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them, 400 years; and also that nation whom they serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And you will go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come here again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. …

Unto your seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaim, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Given the solemnity of the occasion we might be forgiven for imagining that this oath, which is called a covenant in verse 18, is meant to replace God’s earlier promise. Such would not be the case, however, because when God comes to Abraham a little over 14 years later¹⁴ he makes another version of the covenant. In this one, from which we get the rite of circumcision, the land is only a third part of the promise. The details have been dealt with already in a former post so we will touch on the highlights this time.

The Promise and Circumcision

The conversation with God begins with God exhorting Abraham to obedience. The interesting thing is that when talking about the rite of circumcision most people begin with Genesis 17 as if God had not said anything to Abraham or made any promises to him before. By putting it in context as we have done, however, it is possible to see that, when Israel later talked about “the promise” which was “to you and your children,” it included far more than just a promise about land. As Hebrews 6:14 reminds us, God swore an oath to Abraham. According to Paul, the large number of his seed completely replaced the actual promise concerning the land made during the covenant ceremony of Genesis 15. This promise began with the command to leave Ur and included, then, a family and promised blessings. This certainly leaves the impression that the promise was always abut more than just inheriting the land. And, more importantly, that the family was the means God would use to bless, not just Abraham’s descendants but also the whole world.

When he came to Canaan it was the promise of the land. Then it was that God would be his God, his descendants would be God’s people; his seed would be numerous as the stars and he would inherit the land. The covenant was not a merely national affair, nor was it limited to just the physical descendants of Abraham. That being the case, Paul was right in claiming circumcision was never intended to be a sign of a people that were only the physical descendants of Abraham.

Faith in God was always included because it was a sign that the God of Abraham was to be their God and they would be his people. It was in the covenantal setting of Genesis 15 we are told that Abram believed God and it was counted as righteousness. Even in the most national of settings, where God brings his people out of Egypt (as he had promised Abraham he would) some Egyptians were mixed in with the physical descendants and God makes provision for the “stranger” to become as a native of the land. The means by which such people could be made a part of the covenant was circumcision. If Abraham’s descendants were required to have faith to share in the blessings of the covenant, it was expected of the stranger as well.

Having reiterated the threefold promise of Genesis 12, and 15 God goes on to place the obligation of circumcision upon Abram. He changes his name to Abraham and that of Sarai to Sarah in token of the change he is going to bring about in their lives. So the inclusion of the male children in the rite of circumcision was an indication that it was through Abraham’s seed that the blessing would come to him. In Genesis 18 God tells himself (and we “overhear it)” that:

“Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him …” adding “For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him.”

Clearly, then, faith was to be a part of what was expected of Abraham’s offspring and all those associated with him closely enough to be circumcised. The only way faith can be excluded from the requirement is if we assume God required a less in obedience of Israel in the Old Testament than he does of his people today. As if, somehow, they did not need Christ’s death on their behalf. That I know Vaughn does not believe. Moses, the prophets and the Psalms all make it quite clear that Israel often failed in following Abraham’s teaching, even when they were the most “religious” just because they failed in having faith in God. It was faith in God’s provision the sacrificial system, with its clear portrayal of the impossibility of man to do enough to atone for sin, was designed to lead men to embrace.

Circumcision and Moses

We might be inclined to wonder why it was that the Pharisees made a link between circumcision and the requirement to keep the Law of God. More importantly, we need to ask why they did not see baptism negating the rite of circumcision. In his debates with them Paul was adamant that circumcision was not necessary but baptism was. There had to be a reason why his view differed so markedly with theirs. Exodus 24:3-8¹⁵ is significant for our understanding of the role circumcision played in the Mosaic version of the rite. The passage reads (emphasis added):

“Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances (or judgments); and all the people answered with one voice and said: ‘All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!’ And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the book of the covenant¹⁶ and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!’ So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said: ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.’”

In the previous three chapters we are told the laws which the Lord was going to impose on his people. Chapter 24 is the ceremony by which the people of God were marked as God’s covenant people by “the blood of the covenant;” blood which had been shed by the burnt offerings (for sin) and the peace offerings. Previously circumcised and now covered by the blood of the sacrifices they were declared to be in covenant with God.¹⁷ Here, then is the link between circumcision and baptism (in the blood of the covenant) as the initiating rite of the covenant. Here also we see why the Jews of Paul’s day argued for the Gentiles to be circumcised, even as they had been at Mount Sinai. And here, finally, we see the link between the Law and both baptism and circumcision.

Circumcision, when linked to the Law of Moses, made it perfectly plain that apart from Israel’s God there was no hope of salvation. And obedience to the Law of God was the means by which justification of the sinner would be achieved. The sacrifices of bulls, lambs, goats and various birds for his sin made it plain that man could never obey the Law perfectly and implied God had a better way. In the setting of the covenant, therefore, circumcision pointed to Christ as the seed of Abraham – indeed of the woman in Genesis 3 – who would take away the sin of the world, bringing a blessing to all as long as they found that blessing in Abraham. The covenant with Moses certainly replaced that of Abraham and yet we do not find a new covenant sign – the old one continues. This remains true till the promised Messiah comes. When the reality which the sacrificial system was designed to teach Israel about had come, then, and only then, would there be a change. The Old was still in force. Once the reality was present the old system had become obsolete and a new system took its place.

One final thought before we move on to think about John’s baptism. This thought arises from the prophecy in Malachi about his role as the forerunner of the Messiah. Isaiah says he was to prepare the way of the Lord. Yet the only thing Israel remembered of the forerunner’s role was, apparently, that God had said he would send Elijah the prophet before the coming of the kingdom of heaven and that he would “turn the heart of the fathers to the sons and the heart of the sons to the fathers, lest God come and smite the land with a curse.”¹⁸ Since circumcision was applied to only the fathers and their sons it might be debated whether the worship of God was, like that of a number of ancient religions, limited to the males of the nation. The Greek of Luke 1:17 uses a word which can mean “son” or “child” the plural form of which has been taken by the English translators to also be “children.”

The place of women at the festivals and mention of their taking part in worship services makes it implausible that Israel’s religion was for males only.

Baptism of Repentance

When the angel in Luke 1:16-17, appears to be quoting Malachi he changes the words in a way which cannot be justified by either the Hebrew¹⁹ or Greek²⁰ version. The passage in Luke reads:

“And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Clearly then, the only part of Malachi which was directly quoted by the angel was the fact that John would go before the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. He does convey the essence of John’s ministry since, in his preaching and ministry, he led the people to repent and, as a result, reconciled them with one another. Repentance is also necessary for the disobedient to heed the counsel of the wise and seek (if not attain) righteousness. The repentance of the people is also described as “[making] ready a people prepared for the Lord.” This preparation is the burden of Isaiah prophesies from chapter 40 to the end of his book.

If Malachi conveys the role of John accurately then the “baptism of repentance” is a part of his reconciliation of families, bringing the disobedient to righteousness and preparing a people for the Lord. Considering the place of repentance in all three aspects of this ministry could mean that the baptism may be a mark of any one or of all three. The New Testament gives no detailed record of his ministry which might lead us to decide it applied to only one aspect of his ministry so it seems fairly safe to assume that it applied to all three.

But what of the relationship between them? Might we discern a progression in the description given by the angel which could lead us to understand John’s ministry better and also its relationship to baptism? John was to reconcile families, more broadly, to make the disobedient righteous and (considered in general) to prepare the people for the Lord’s coming. Looked at from this point of view it is possible to realize the Angel may have used different language but he has conveyed the essence of Malachi’s prophecy. As we read the New Testament in the light of the Old Testament this principle becomes important in applying the prophecies to Christ.

To give one example: Isaiah 7:14 says that the son born to the virgin will be called “Immanuel” and in 9:6 he will be called “Wonderful counselor, the mighty God the everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace.” Yet we are told his being called “Jesus” was in fulfillment of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy. Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua which, in Hebrew means “God saves” or “God will save.” When we understand that the Old Testament names are fulfilled, not by the literal application of these names to Jesus as his proper name but as the descriptions of his person, work and character then we can see how these prophecies are fulfilled in him. It also helps explain one reason why many of his day did not recognize him easily as the Messiah. They looked for a literal application of these names when God had intended something different.

Baptism and the Kingdom

There is one further aspect of the “baptism of repentance” which must be reviewed before we can answer Vaughn’s question about the significance of John’s baptism. Malachi speaks of the coming of the Lord bring judgment. The angel does not make that part of the Lord’s coming explicit. The disciples saw Christ’s presence as an indicator of a coming judgment by the Messiah, as king and the setting up of his kingdom. Jesus, in fact, sent them to teach the people that the kingdom of heaven was near – reinforcing the notion in their minds.

They thought of the language of Daniel 2:40-45 and the vision of the Messiah’s kingdom. They knew it would be set up, destroying the existing kingdom of iron mixed with clay, and it would fill the earth. The Psalms taught them to expect that the Messiah would rule the heathen with a rod of iron, that all their rebellions against him would come to nothing and that nations would flock to the temple to worship in Jerusalem. When John came and rebuked them asking who had warned them to flee from the wrath to come it also led both his and Jesus’ followers to expect a kingdom like that of David.

John’s baptism, then, was to the Israelites a mark that they were ready to be a part of that kingdom. It should be obvious, as both Strong²¹ and Gill²² imply, readiness to be a part of the kingdom is one of the marks of repentance. John, however, warned that it was possible to long for the coming of the kingdom for faulty reasons. His stress on repentance should have made it clear that the kingdom of heaven was not merely physical but also spiritual in its main emphases.

What both Gill and Strong miss, however, is the unity of this stress in the teaching of the Lord Jesus, John and the Old Testament prophets – in fact even in the teaching of Moses himself. In Deut. 10:16 he exhorts the people to circumcise the foreskins of their heart and not be stiff necked. They are to be humble and obedient – showing the main attributes of faith. Then, in Deut. 30:6 we have a promise which Jeremiah takes up²³ to show how the return from Exile will be less than the glory of Messiah’s kingdom. In Hebrews,²⁴ Paul, develops the thought still further by contrasting the covenant made with Moses and that made with Jesus, our great high priest. That covenant, he says dealt in types and shadows and could never fulfill what the types foretold. Christ’s covenant, on the other hand, deals with spiritual realities and sin is actually removed by the work of our greater high priest.

The heart of the promise in all three cases is the work of God in changing the hearts of the people. In Moses’ day, he says God will circumcise the hearts of the people; in Jeremiah’s that he will put his law in their minds and write them upon their hearts so that no one will need to teach his neighbor because they will all know them. Paul takes only one aspect of the old covenant to prove his point that Christ’s is the one spoken of by Jeremiah – the forgiveness of sin. His sacrifice actually does atone for sin and, in sending the Holy Spirit, he does take away our old nature and give us a new one.

Significantly, as far as paedobaptists are concerned, under the old covenant these things were prefigured by the passover and the rite of circumcision while under the new the rites are the Lord’s Supper and baptism. But, let it be noted, either the rites of the old covenant or the one of the new point to a time when what is symbolized will be true in fact – in the new heavens and the new earth. The promise of which Jeremiah spoke has yet to be fully realized – we still need teaching. Christ’s sacrifice is also subject to the “already but not yet” aspect of salvation – we are still prone to sin.

Part I | Part II (a), (b) and (c) | Part III | Part V

————————–

Footnotes:

1 The one pointed to the Christ who was to come and the other was performed under the authority of the Christ who had already come.

2 It is important not to forget the next verse in this quotation: “And as John fulfilled his course, he said, ‘Whom think you that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there comes one after me, whose shoes of his feet, I am not worthy to loose.’” Paul’s point is that the forerunner gave witness that Jesus was the promised Messiah. As he was to be recognized by the role he played in “preparing the hearts of the people” so Jesus was recognized by the witness of John.

3 And recorded for us in Acts 2.

4 Acts 19:1-7 see on that passage later in this document

5 Mark 9:40 and Luke 10:50

6 Acts 19:1-7

7 The Greek is: άκουσαντες δε έβαπτισθησαν. As a verb in the passive voice we are told what happened but not who did it. It is at least possible that what is being referred to is a baptism by the Holy Spirit (appropriate since they did not know he had been given) and the sign of tongues was used to indicate the change in their spiritual reality.

8 In the broadest sense. The Passover demonstrates the protection God gives his people from judgment, the passage through the wilderness of our sanctification and the entry into the Promised Land our (eventual) arrival in heaven.

9 Matt. 2:15 makes this point citing Hos. 11:1 (Out of Egypt I have called my son) as the reason.

10 Gesenius makes it clear that although ראה usually means “see” there is a sense in which it can mean “provide” as in Genesis 22. See also: I Kings 12:16; Gen. 39:23; Is.22:11; Ps. 37:37; Gen. 41:33;Deut. 33:21; 12:13; I Sam. 16:1,17; Esther 2:9 and so on. In that rendering God would include the promise of the land as far back as Gen 12:1 “… to a land which I will provide for you.”

11 Gen. 13:14-17

12 Gen. 15:1-7 Following just the Lord’s speech.

13 Gen. 15:13-21. Significantly, when this oath is recalled in Hebrews 6:13-15 it is the number of Abraham’s descendants that is made the significant part of the oath, yet, it is only implied in the oath itself. An implication in an earlier reference to the covenant of grace may, it appears, be included as explicit for the covenant in later redemptive history.

14 Genesis 17:1-16

15 Exodus 19:5-8 is the first time the people declare they will serve the Lord, but 24:3-8 is where it is described as making a covenant with God. Here also is the first mention of the “blood of the covenant,” with a clear implication that this refers to Christ himself.

16 Most likely that which he had written the night before.

17 A careful reading of this section makes it clear that the people declared their willingness to serve God at least three times; through the elders in 19:8, after Moses told them the “words of the Lord and all the judgments” in 24:3 and after reading the book of the covenant in 24:7.

18 The Hebrew of Mal. 3:23,24 (English: 4:5,6) has “sons” which the English translators have changed to “children.”

19 The Hebrew reads: והשיב לב־אבות על־בנים ולב בנים על־אבותם פן־אבוא והכיתי את־הארץ חרם “he will turn the heart of the fathers to the sons and the heart of the sons to the fathers before I come and strike the land with a curse.”

20 This reads: ός άποκαταστησει καρδιαν πατρος προς υίον και καρδιαν άνθρωπου προς τον πλησιον αύτου μη έλθων παταξω την γην άρδην “who will restore the heart of the father to the son and the heart of a man to his neighbor lest coming I strike the earth completely.”

21 Systematic Theology, p 952 “[Baptism’s] … Scriptural prerequisites of faith and repentance, as signs of regeneration …”

22 Body of Divinity II, p. 628 “… now the command is that such who are first taught or made disciples by teaching under the ministry of the word, by the Spirit of God succeeding it, should be baptized.”

23 Jer. 31:31-37

24 Heb. Chapters 8-10 is the basis of the assertions here.

Conversation on Baptism III

Has Circumcision been replaced by baptism?

The question raised, that we will be considering from Vaughn’s original posting in this response is whether the rite of initiation for the New Covenant has replaced the rite of the Old Covenant. And the reason why this is questioned is because, as he points out, the one did not end when the new began.

C. Circumcision did not stop when baptism started

11. Acts 21

In Acts 21 we read of Paul, at the behest of James, confirming that the rumor that he was teaching the Jewish Christians not to circumcise their children was false.

12. Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, was circumcised by Paul. Titus, who was Greek, was not.

If baptism replaced circumcision, then this means that Paul had Timothy basically reject his baptism.

13. ‘The Circumcision’

Several times in the NT Jewish believers are referred to as ‘they of the circumcision’ or some equivalent. If baptism has replaced circumcision, then how are they ‘the circumcision’? Either we all are, or we are all ‘the baptism’ or some such.

14. Rom 9-11

Romans 9-11 is extremely difficult to read under the argument that the church has ‘replaced’ Israel… and thus circumcision itself has been replaced. As it is written: Rom 9:3-5 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Rom Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Over and over again in this passage Paul makes a distinction between the Israel of the flesh and gentile believers.

As with the discussion about the differences between baptism and circumcision in our last post the key element here is not what happened but why it happened.

General Comment

We established last time, that, in spite of the several differences between baptism and circumcision, there were also a number of significant similarities. Then, too, the fact that the differences exist does not, in themselves, provide an insurmountable reason to deny the replacement of circumcision with baptism. On the contrary, since the Church is now remnant Israel it seems strange that for the part of Israel which accepts the true Messiah the rite of circumcision has, to all intents and purposes, certainly as a rite of initiation.

Once again, however, it is true that there is more than just the fact of circumcision’s continuation which needs to be understood. Why in the particular cases mentioned why is there a distinction made between baptism and circumcision? Is, for example, there a reason why the one is used and not the other? Might it be that the one refers to those who do not accept the Messiah and the other is used to refer to those who do? The same is true also of the passages which are used to indicate this truth.

11. Acts 21

Take the first example in Acts 21 the charge was made against Paul that he taught the Jewish people who became Christian not to circumcise their children. Now if the matter at issue were a matter of the rite being denied we would expect, surely, that Paul would be involved in a circumcision ceremony or in teaching Jewish parents about the need for circumcision. That would set the claim at rest that he was teaching Christian Jewish parents to neglect circumcision but that is not what he was recommended nor what he did. He took a vow and paid for some others who had also taken a vow. A very strange way to show that he was not teaching Jewish parents to circumcise their children.

If the argument is valid that Acts 21 is about the continuation of circumcision then in important places some key phrases are missed. If we check Acts 21:20-25 we find that, in verse 21 where the charge against Paul’s teaching is mentioned it says (emphasis added):

“… they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews that are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”

Then in verses 23-25 where they propose a solution to the charge:

“Do this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads; and all may know that these things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walketh orderly, and keepest the Law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

Clearly the problem was not that Paul taught Jewish parents they did not need to circumcise their children but that this was one example of the main charge that he taught them “to forsake Moses” of which there were more examples covered by the words “neither to walk after the customs.” Nor was it just any Jewish parents that he taught, it was the Jewish parents who lived among the Gentiles. Now we know that there was one person, one of Paul’s companions that he refused to allow to be circumcised. That was Titus – but he was a Greek, Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess living in a Gentile city, he had undergo the rite. So the charge was manifestly false with respect to circumcision.

The real charge, therefore, was that Paul encouraged Jews who were living among the Gentiles to ignore the Jewish customs and even the Law of Moses. Circumcision was a Jewish rite and it is to be expected that the Jews would be upset at their perception that Paul was teaching his own people to fail to honor their customs and neglect the Law of Moses. It is to be expected that among the Jews, who denied the Messiah had come, the rite of circumcision would continue. It is also to be expected that Paul’s teaching that for Christian Jews some aspects of the Law were now optional. But the claim made by paedobaptists is that baptism replaced circumcision as the rite of initiation into the Christian Church. Our claim has nothing to say about what the Jewish people as those who rejected Jesus of Nazareth did about circumcision or how they viewed it. For them, and for some in the Church who were dealing with the Pharisees (in particular) circumcision and the need to keep the Law of Moses was an issue. That’s why James reminds Paul that the decision of Acts 15 still stands as he gives his advice for dealing with the rumors.

It is significant, in terms of our discussion, that the claim about his actions did not include the charge that Paul taught Jewish parents who lived among the Gentiles to believe the children were no longer a part of the Covenant. Those who were upset with his teaching would have certainly made a strong a case against Paul if he taught that until the children were of the age of accountability, they were to be classed as unbelievers – as virtual Gentiles. Can you imagine what an outcry would have been made if Paul had been teaching Jewish parents, living among the Gentiles,¹ that their children have no place in the kingdom of God unless, and until, they are old enough to make a credible profession of faith? That would have been seen as casting them out of the covenant, and certainly against all Jewish custom. But if only those who confessed their faith were to be classed as believers – and therefore baptized into the Church – it would have been what Paul should have been teaching.

Now we should note two things about the proposal of James and the others. First that there was no requirement on Paul by the Law to accept the responsibility for the men who had taken the vow. It was purely custom that someone who was interested in their welfare would take it upon himself to support them until they had fulfilled their vow of purification. It was custom, but it was not required by the Law. In doing this thing Paul would be showing all that he was not only prepared to accept the teaching of the Law concerning Nazarite vows, but even to accept responsibility to uphold the customs of the Jewish people.

Second, there is the statement recorded in verse 25 that the elders had already made a commitment to the Gentiles and what was being asked of Paul was in no way to be construed as going back on that obligation. In other words it was not to be seen as setting a precedence that Gentile Christians would be required to follow custom as Paul was being asked to do.

So why did Paul undertake to follow the advice? We can think of several reasons but perhaps we should consider what Paul, himself, taught about the principle at work here. In I Corinthians Paul says the following:²

“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without the law, as without the law (being not without the law to God but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without the law.”

This seems a very odd thing for a Jew to say – to the Jews I became as a Jew? And to them that are under the Law as under the Law? We might make a case for Paul acting as if he was under the Law since he knew the Christ had fulfilled all the requirements of the Law for him and so, though he dd not have to keep the Law. But he was a Jew so what did he mean by becoming as a Jew? Surely, if it means anything it means that although he did not have to keep Jewish laws and customs any longer he was prepared to observe them in order to gain Jews.

Did that include circumcising young people? Yes, he had done so himself. Did circumcision continue? Yes it did. Because it was a part of the way things were to be conducted in the Church of Jesus Christ? No. It was to be done because the Jews did not abandon the practice and, if we wish to reach Jews, it becomes necessary, at times, for the one who is laboring among them to be circumcised. Prejudice prevents the one we wish to reach from hearing our message. Where possible, without compromising the truth of the word of God, we can do all that is necessary to help such people set aside prejudice.

Is Acts 21: 20-25 (or even to verse 27) an argument which, in the mind of a paedobaptist, is likely to convince us that baptism does not replace circumcision? No. That is because, among the followers of Christ, although we are “grafted into the same olive tree” that has Abraham and Moses for its root and trunk,³ there is no longer a need to be circumcised. If the rite of initiation of the root and the trunk was circumcision and included children on the eighth day then it should be expected that that rite should continue in force until someone with sufficient authority removes it. What happens in the branches which were cut off because of their unbelief does not determine whether one rite replaces another. That replacement plainly has happened.

The reason for that claim is that in this one “olive tree” the rite of initiation is now baptism where previously it was circumcision. How can this be? It has to be on the authority of him who has ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God – the Lord and Head of the Church – God, himself, in the person of Jesus the Christ.

12. Timothy and Titus

We have already dealt briefly with this matter above. Despite the risk of redundancy, therefore, there are some aspects which ought to be treated as separate issues. There is an apparent inconsistency in Paul’s treatment of Timothy and Titus. This is only true where we do not take seriously his statement that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision are anything. It is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ which is important. Then there is the passage in I Corinthians 9 which we looked at above. Why we do something matters almost as much as what we are doing. That is certainly true in the eyes of God.

The question is asked, however, doesn’t this mean that Paul had Timothy basically reject his baptism? A fair question. Let me attempt to give a fair answer. The question seems to be based on the teaching of Paul in Galatians where he tells his readers that if they are circumcised they are back under the Law. They have all but rejected Christ.

Vaughn raises a question of importance in this day, and age, when Christians are beginning to rediscover some of the great things God taught his people of old through their rites and festivals. It is one also which arises every Easter, Christmas (and in the USA) Halloween and Thanksgiving. Not one of these festivals is required by the teaching of the Bible. And there are many who argue, with some justification, that to be involved in these festivals is to be involved in idol worship. The festivals themselves began⁴ by assimilation from pagan festivals honoring false gods, by the Roman Catholic Church. If, therefore, the rite of circumcision carried with it the false notion of salvation by ritual, which marks one form of legalism, surely Paul was asking Timothy to reject his baptism. Paul does say:⁵

“if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

Is, however, Paul talking about the rite itself or about something which it represents? Then, the second point to be considered is whether what it represents, in this place, is what it always does or whether it is what the Jews thought it represented. Was Paul arguing against the essence of the rite of circumcision or what it meant to those who were making this a requirement for the people in the Galatian Church. He goes on to say:⁶

“For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect to you, whoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace. For we though the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love.”

The false view is that circumcision is necessary because it is a part of the Law of God and it implies that all the Law must, therefore be kept if a man is to be justified in God’s sight. It is a setting aside of the justification which was earned by Christ; a falling from dependence on grace. This is because faith, working by love, is the key. Circumcision implies obligation. Faith does not work by obligation it comes from inside an overflow of love.

Is the idea that circumcision implies keeping the Law of Moses an inherent part of the rite of circumcision? In that it was given to Abraham before ever the Law of Moses was written the answer has to be no. Well, then did circumcision imply obligation to Abraham? Again the answer is no. Abraham, according to Paul’s letter to the Romans, was given circumcision as a sign of the righteousness he had by faith. Faith results in acts which flow from our love for God and, therefore, for our fellow-man. So the key reference for circumcision is faith – a fact that James uses to remind his readers that faith without works is a dead faith the same point Paul makes in Gal. 5:6.

If, however, the Jews had this false view of the role of circumcision was Paul wise in having Timothy undergo the rite? First, it removed one prejudice the Jews who lived among the Gentiles would have against him. He was the son of a Jewish mother, with a Jewish grandmother, but born of a Gentile father. He was called upon to minister in cities where even Paul had a difficult time bringing the gospel “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Timothy would find his task of reaching Jews a little easier if he were marked as a Jew, taught the Scripture from his mother’s knee.

Second, as one taught by Paul, he could answer the false view of circumcision when and where it arose with the proper understanding of its significance. So, since circumcision in reality is nothing, it could be used to help break down a barrier which should not have been there in the first place. Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews. To become a Christian was to become truly Jewish. As a Jew, Timothy could overcome their prejudice long enough to gain a hearing from the Word of God. The aim makes all the difference.

Third, baptism was not nullified because Timothy, in order to save the Jews, accepted the mark which identified him with them. He was a Jew by both his baptism and by his heritage – circumcision represented his heritage by faith as truly as did his baptism. Properly understanding the signification of the two rites and the similarities on which they rested – namely signs and seals of the righteousness by faith. This explains why for some circumcision was allowed because they already had what it signified – faith in Jesus the Christ. Their entrance into the Church was marked, as it was with all the Gentiles, by the symbol of their union with Christ through faith – their baptism.

Titus did not need the mark of circumcision because, as a Greek, his baptism was enough and for many of the Jews who were converted to Christ their children’s circumcision became a matter of option; one which increasingly they did not take up. Either way, whether circumcised or not, the key initiatory rite in the Church was baptism for both Jewish and Gentile converts. In the Church circumcision did not continue as it had formerly been in the House of Israel.

13. “The circumcision”

It is true this title is used of Jewish believers in at least one place in the New Testament. It is, however, used in contrast to those who claim to be Jewish and refuse to accept the Messiah. Paul’s argument is that they should not accept the calumny that they had become uncircumcised – they are the true circumcision. The difficulty with using this as an argument against the replacement view of the rite, from the paedobaptist view, is that there are places where unbelieving Jews are also called “the circumcision.” Two passages in particular use this term; Romans 4:12 and Titus 1:10. The first reads:

“[Abraham received the sign of circumcision] … that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised.”

The highlighted words have to refer to the unbelieving Jews because the contrast is between those who were circumcised only and those who were circumcised and walked in the same faith as Abraham. Clearly the first group are unbelieving Jews. In Titus the use is more clearly seen:

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:”

That these are described in verse 16 of the same chapter as

“They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” would tend to make it clear Paul was speaking abut unbelieving Jews rather than believing Jewish Christians.

It is probably truer to say that “the circumcision” is used more generally of Jewish people – those marked by circumcision – rather than saying it always applies to believing Jewish believers in the New testament. The context would than make it clear whether the people being spoken of are NT Jewish believers, OT Jewish believers or unbelieving Jews without any implication of whether baptism has replaced circumcision.

14. Romans 9-11

I can appreciate the difficulty Vaughn faces with this passage. It is true that some argue the Church has replaced Israel. That, however, is not the view of all who hold to paedobaptism (or even of all that hold to credobaptism either). I think it is more in keeping with the section to remember that Paul gives his view of the Church as an olive tree. Believing Israel of the Old Testament form the root and the trunk the unbelieving Jews were branches which have been cut off and believing Gentiles have been grafted in. He warns the Gentiles in particular that the only reason the Jews were cut off and they (the Gentiles) were grafted in was because of unbelief.

The passage itself makes no mention of baptism or circumcision but it does talk of the covenant and the faithfulness of God. A case could be made that because the covenant in this section is one and that the gifts and promises of God are irrevocable, if children were included symbolically in the covenant in the Old Testament, then, unless there is anything to the contrary clearly enunciated in the New Testament, the presumption is that they are included in the symbol of the New Covenant. This rests on the fact that the Church and Israel – in Paul’s description – are not two entities but one.

As I said, however, the passage says nothing explicitly for or against the concept that baptism has replaced circumcision. It seems to me that Colossians 2 has something to say about the relationship between baptism and circumcision but it probably fits more appropriately under the letter E below. So we will delay our discussion of this passage until then.

Summary

In our investigation of the reasons why both baptism and circumcision continue on at the same time we have noted the continuation was primarily by those Jews who rejected the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Where Jewish Christians were circumcised in the New Testament it seems likely that it was done for the purpose of overcoming prejudice against the person preventing the unbelieving Jew from hearing the message in line with Paul’s statement in I Cor. The same is true of the attempt to prove Paul was not teaching Jews to reject their customs or the Law of Moses. After all it was Paul’s contention that grace did not destroy the Law, it established it.

Certainly until the destruction of the temple and the second dispersion of the Jews there were several things⁷ which continued in spite of the fact that Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension had replaced them with the one sacrifice that truly does away with sin. For the paedobaptist neither circumcision or baptism is seen as necessarily linked to man’s declaration of faith. The former was begun, in Genesis 17, by the command of God – it was Abraham’s obligation laid upon him by God, not Abraham’s declaration of his faith. God declared his faith had been reckoned as righteousness in Genesis 15 (approximately 13 years earlier) and now he says Abraham’s circumcision is a part of God’s covenant.

It is thus, according to Paul a sign that God makes us a part of his covenant people on his terms even as he declares us righteous on the basis of our faith. It is the seal of God’s promise that he will be God to Abraham and his seed, that he will give them the land and that Abraham will be a great nation through which all the families of the earth will be blessed.

Paedobaptists believe that the additional element of how we are given faith (by our union with Christ and through the washing of regeneration performed by the Holy Spirit) is implied in circumcision even as the covenantal promises are implied by baptism. To the extent that unbelieving Jews still look for their coming Messiah in the light of God’s covenant it is to be expected that circumcision will continue alongside baptism until the return of Christ when both will be removed altogether. For the reality of our union with Christ will no longer require hope.

Part I | Part II (a) | Part II (b) | Part II (c) | Part IV

————————-

Footnotes:

1 where their children were already in danger of being corrupted by the Gentile approach to things

2 In I Cor. 9:20-21.

3Romans 9-11

4I have to admit I have never heard this particular element raised to be used as a part of the argument applied to thanksgiving. Yet, a holiday celebrated by government whose proclamation is at best ambiguous when it comes to asking us to give thanks to God and call upon him to bless America and at worst implies a pagan “magical invocation” approach to such prayers ought to give us pause when we consider the celebration.

5Galatians 5:2

6Gal. 5:3-6

7Some of which would have been the daily sacrifice for sin, the worship services to be held in the temple, the pilgrimage festivals (Succoth, Shavuoth, and Pasach) and so on. It was fitting in the age where spiritual realities replaced the typical that this be so.

Conversation on Baptism IIc

Conversation on Baptism II – Part 3: Some Similarities

Vaughn pointed out to us the differences between the two rites of baptism and circumcision. Agreeing with him in principle we took the time to show that some of these differences were more apparent than real, some were to do with the nature of the individual rite and some to do with their place in redemptive history. Our study of the issue would be incomplete, however, without a look at some of the similarities paedobaptists find when considering these two marks of the covenant. If, as they view it, the one replaces the other as the mark of initiation into the people of God, should we not expect there to be some basis for the claim? We should find at least some similarities if the doctrine has any pretensions to be biblical.

This is where the debate attitude can leave each side with an incomplete theology. New paedobaptists need to hear what the baptist has to say about the differences between the rituals. It is too easy to assume the Old Covenant people knew as clearly as we do what God was saying by these rituals. And new baptists need to hear what the paedobaptist is saying about the unity of the signs. God’s purpose in providing aids to our understanding has not changed because we are no longer in the Old Testament. Specifically the baptist might miss what God revealed in these rites about the covenant seed when he commanded the children to be circumcised. What precisely does circumcision teach us about salvation and does the place of children in the rite of circumcision teach us something which ought to be recognized in our doctrine of baptism?

In writing to the Church in Rome Paul had to make it clear that faith in God predated both the Mosaic Law and even the mark of circumcision. Abraham, he says, was justified by faith when he was as uncircumcised as any Gentile. It is the basis of his argument that ritual is nothing – faith is everything. The Gentile who does what is required in the Law (loving his neighbor like the Samaritan of Jesus’ parable) is as justified as the Jew that does the same. So circumcision is a symbol of righteousness through faith even though, in Abraham’s case, his circumcision followed it. In the case of both Isaac and Jacob circumcision preceded their faith. The rite was a mark of their union with the covenant head and their faith, like his, was accounted to them as righteousness as well. Paedobaptists consider these facts to be significant.

As we looked at the institution of circumcision above we found that God promised Abraham he would make him a great nation. The nation is also Abraham’s seed, not because of the mark but because of the faith that mark represents. The primary reference of Abraham’s seed is to Christ, of course, but their union with him, makes the application of “the seed of Abraham” a legitimate description of the nation as well. Genesis stated that Abraham was “accounted as righteous” because God chose to recognize his faith, which implies he was not justified, in and of himself. Since it was 13 years later that he was circumcised it is also clear that his justifying faith was not dependent on the sign.

1. Covenant and Sign

Circumcision, like baptism, is related to saving faith. Both were given initially to people who already had faith. Abraham and the examples we find in the New Testament were accounted a part of the people of God by their faith and then given a mark which demonstrated that fact. And here is the problem; if we are supposed to understand the ritual as our response to God’s command, made because we have faith in him then God should not have required the children to be circumcised at eight days old. For the credobaptist this is conclusive proof that circumcision is not related to baptism. But, is this not reading our interpretation of baptism back into our view of circumcision? It is easy to make such a point and many do, effectively dismissing the credobaptist argument as immaterial.

The problem is that we both do this and, sadly for us both, Paul and the other Apostles sometimes do this as well. Paul argues justification by faith on the basis of the wording of Genesis 15 – equating “righteousness by faith”with “justification by faith” tying both to the work of Christ by implication. Then he applies this to the Gentiles who do do by nature the things required in the Law. He argues that because Abraham was justified before he was circumcised they can be as well as long as they share the same faith. This is the basis for his argument that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, Gentiles are a part of Israel because of their faith.

Now it is clear that in the Old Testament such a view of the Gentiles was not accepted. No one could be a part of Israel without circumcision. Yet it is the Old Testament Paul uses as his basis for viewing the ritual as now being optional. It is because he reads the Old Testament from the perspective of the completed work of Jesus Christ. As I said, we read our interpretation of some things in the New Testament back into the Old. However, in doing so we have to remember that our understanding of doctrine begins with the Old and, from what it teaches about Christ and his work, we can properly understand the implications of the New.

The answer we give to the problem of the relationship of baptism to circumcision is related to our view of the Church. The paedobaptist sees the Church of the New Testament as a continuation of that of the Old. This means we see the covenant made with Abraham as establishing a gathering of people who share the same heritage, faith and culture (perhaps what we understand by the French word “mileu).” It would be within this community that believers would find their faith grow by teaching the Word of God,¹ by living its precepts² and by marking a difference between the standards and practices of the Church and rest of the world. No matter what went on outside, within the gates of believers’ homes, God’s ways guide their beliefs and practices.³ These were the kinds of homes God established within the community set up by the covenant with Abraham.

Were there unbelieving members of the covenant? Of course. Were there those who lived as the rest of the world? Of course. But God’s intent was that, as Abraham taught his household to obey him, so also should his descendants. God would use that teaching to change those of Abraham’s descendants who were the sons of the promise, as opposed to the sons of the flesh. The reason why the mark of the covenant was often linked with Moses, rather than with Abraham was not that anyone had forgotten Abraham was given the sign of the covenant but that Moses spelled out in detail what it meant to be a member of the children of Israel. The Law of Moses was supposed to help the believer know what God required of him. It was intended to guide his thinking so he would always know how to please God.

Circumcision was the sign that the person who received it was obligated to be a faithful follower of God’s Law and to serve him from the heart. God said that if they did this as a nation, the people around them would be envious of the great and wise laws under which they lived. In the history of the people of God it was clear that, for the faithful, theirs was the same kind of faith as Abraham. And, as they saw how God interceded on their behalf, obligation was replaced by love and gratitude.

Circumcision meant that every year, at the great festivals and in the everyday tasks of life, all the children were to be instructed in the history of their people and learn the record of the ways God had dealt with them, saving them from their enemies. It should have encouraged faith and gratitude but, because of sin, it often bred pride and arrogance. So God had to chasten them and teach them again what he required of them. In the time of types and shadows it was expected that the people would learn spiritual lessons from physical events. After all, the Church had not yet reached her majority and was still under tutors and teachers until the Messiah had come.

The picture painted by Stephen for the elders and people – the picture which led to his death – is precisely the same as the record of Church history from the first to the 21^st Century. In each and every generation there are faithful and unfaithful members of the Church. The paedobaptist understand it is their role, as covenant parents, to teach the children what it means to serve the Lord. As people observe the way we and our children live they will observe that we do so because of the Word of God which guides us and become envious – a major opportunity to share our faith with them. Where the mark which set the people of Israel apart was circumcision, indicating their way of life and faith so today it is baptism does the same. And where the Church was made up of believers, their children and as many as the Lord would add to them (at least those bought with their money?) so also it is true of the Church today. Significantly, though, the way we discern the difference between the Church and the world is not baptism but Church membership.

Now what is fascinating to me is that the modern history of the baptist movement is no different from that of any other Bible-believing evangelical Church. Though their view of the Church is that it is composed only of those who are regenerated, they have had as many unregenerated members as any of those Churches which see the Church as a mixture of born again and worldly people. They have had the same history of growing worldliness in recent years as the rest, and the same decline in pastors who truly teach Scripture. The percentages may vary slightly but the direction and failures are the same, over all. Again, even within baptist circles, what distinguishes the believer from the world is not cited as baptism but Church membership. It is granted, however, that in the best Churches such membership tends to be spoken of in terms of “faithful membership” rather than that of being on the Church roll.

More significantly, the modern history of the Church regardless of their views on the issue before us, is too much like that of ancient Israel for comfort. It seems the sign of the covenant people of God, whether that of the Old Covenant or that of the New points to people who have exactly the same flaws and failings and those who have the same faith and blessings. This in itself should make it clear that key aspects of the old covenant have carried on even under the new one.

The covenant sign of baptism is supposed to show the wonder of God’s grace in choosing each one of us to honor and serve him according to the baptist view. It is supposed to show the wonder of God’s grace in choosing us and our families to honor and serve him according to the paedobaptist view. So whether we view the Covenant as entirely new (baptist) or as a new administration of the same covenant (paedobaptist) it seems the sign points to a group of people who are the same in nature as those of the Old Testament.

Covenant and Faith

So how does circumcision represent faith to a believing covenant member of Israel? It reminds him of all he has been taught about Abraham’s faith; a faith he shares. If Abraham had been without faith there would have been no covenant sign for there would have been no covenant. The sign, therefore, reminds him that he is to set aside that which is common in the rest of the world and instead keep God’s commandments. It reminds him that he has a great blessing because, as one who blesses Abraham, he will be blessed – God promised it – he has God for his God and he is one of God’s people. It reminds him that there is a land promised to him and his seed. And it reminds him that God has set out a way to come before him and find forgiveness for sin. All this would have been true for those who lived before Moses. Clearly, the rite of circumcision points the believer to faith. Even in the darkest of times, as a member of the covenant God had made with Abraham, the Israelite knew God had his eye on him and that he had promised to bless when they obeyed and curse them when they were rebellious. And, if they ever forgot, their circumcision and God’s constant reminders via the festivals and the prophets were there to refresh their memories. These are the realities on which faith is built, these are the means of grace.

Faith is necessary for salvation. Sometimes the Jew forgot this fact assuming that compliance with the signs of the covenant were enough. As John told them at the River Jordan: “Do not say to yourselves we have Abraham for our father. Know that God can raise up children to Abraham from these very stones at your feet.” Circumcision was commanded but without faith it was no benefit to the bearer – it was in fact a liability. It spoke of the promises of God but only to those who had the like faith as Abraham – again the prophets constantly made that clear.

For the adult Gentile who wanted to join with Israel, his faith is trust in the God of Israel who promised and fulfills his promises. He is able to look back over his life and see the evidence of God’s hand on him bringing him to the faith he now possesses. He can research the way God has acted for man in the past and, as he grows more aware of God’s character, he also can see the hand of God in present events. Having seen something which made him want to become a part of the children of Israel in the beginning his circumcision is a test and a declaration of his personal faith.

It is a test because it requires him to believe his faith will endure. Once this step is taken there is no turning back. The mark in the flesh is permanent. It involves leaving behind the culture and standards accepted by the rest of his people and neighbors and making the Lord’s view of things his standard. The cost is, for some, greater than for others but everyone who is circumcised as an adult has to face the cost. And that cost is made graphically clear in the pain of removing the flesh. Removing sin is painful. In prospect, then, here is the first test of his faith. Then, having made the decision, he declares his faith by undergoing the ritual and taking his place in the congregation of the people.

For the child, it is different. At the very least his circumcision reminds the child that his parents believed God and trusted that he would do what is best for them and him. It witnesses to their faith because it was done trusting God’s promises to their ancestors. As he is taught the history of his people, he is reminded of God’s dealings with them every time he sees himself and recognizes he bears the mark of God in his flesh. God commanded this mark and he bears it knowing that he is required to be faithful to the God whose sign he bears. So circumcision teaches a relationship between faith and obedience. Faith should issue in obedience and this witness is true whether the man accepts the faith as his own or not. God has made a covenant with him, the mark in his flesh made that impossible to deny, and there are obligations he must fulfill under that covenant. His parents taught him this by precept and example from his youth. Circumcision for a child urges him to be the kind of person the mark proclaims him to be.

Covenant and Blessing

There is yet another aspect of faith portrayed by the circumcision of children. It is the source of faith. Children do not choose their parents, God does. By requiring that children be circumcised on the eighth day God ensured that, for the majority of of Abraham’s seed, the mark of faith would be received before ever they were old enough to exercise faith for themselves. Circumcision spoke of God’s promise to Father Abraham and through him to the parents who were watching their children being circumcised. As they knew God had chosen them it was clear he had chosen these children to be his, long before they were born. Believing parents knew God had entrusted these children to them to be taught. They were to be trained to obey God, “in order that he would be able to bring to pass all the promises he had made to Abraham.”⁴

If they missed this truth in the ritual of circumcision it was clearly iterated in the Law and as they recited:⁵

“Hear O Israel! The Lord, our God is one Lord! And you shall love the Lord, your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words which I am commanding you this day shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons⁶ and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”⁷

These promises were required to be acknowledged every time they brought the first fruits offering as well as the way God had fulfilled his promises. God’s covenant promise to Abraham and his seed was the heart of the ritual of circumcision. Just like all rituals it was capable of being abused. The children of Israel were often guilty of taking their membership in the people of God for granted. They assumed that, because God had made many great and precious promises to them and sealed it with the sign of circumcision, they were blessed no matter how badly they failed in their obedience.

The Old Testament Jew believed in predestination though he possibly never used the word because that is the doctrine the mark of circumcision on young children who are yet too young to know, love and serve God. No wonder the gospel was to go first to the Jew and only thereafter to the Gentiles. God ensured that the first proclaimers of his promise to the world after Christ had ascended to heaven would be those who believed in the utter wickedness of man, unconditional election, of an atonement that really saves from sin, of grace which changes the heart of man and of a God who faithfully holds onto his saints until the finally reach the promised land. In that setting it is not at all surprising to find children who are too young yet to respond to the gospel given the mark of God’s favor. It would have been surprising were it otherwise.

Covenant and Cursing

Circumcision, however, was a sign of cursing to the reprobate. As the sign was a mark of union with Abraham, if he turned away from the God of the covenant, he would have been classed as one who claimed Abraham’s faith was a burden to him. That union was through faith in the promises of God. God had said that in Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed. He had said all those who bless you I will bless and those who curse you (for placing an unfair burden on him) I will curse. By the return from the Exile most Jews who were concerned about the Law knew what it was to be cursed of God hence the reticence to put away circumcision in those who became Christian.

Circumcision, however, also made it clear that they had no excuse for their disobedience because they had been instructed out of the Law of God. The covenant demanded such instruction and, as long as they carried the mark, they were responsible to follow the instruction of their parents. Hence the reason we are told the commandment “honor your father and mother” had a promise attached “that it may go well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.” The obverse is also true. If the parents’ instruction was ignored things would not go well with them … and this we see in the history of Israel.

Sometimes the penalties God applied to his people seem to be harsh for someone in modern culture, one who has been brought up to believe that God is love. If, however, the person concerned has a contract and fails to keep his part of it, we see nothing wrong with him being held accountable to the Law. The same was true of the covenant with God. It is possible that the circumcised reprobate we are talking about may not have been taught as he should but that does not remove the obligation under the covenant. If one wishes to claim the blessings while failing in one’s obligations he is justly condemned.

2. Shadow and Reality

To their credit the Judaizers realized that, without some form of obligation to keep the Law, the new Gentile converts would fail as miserably as did Israel of old. They saw, as many Gentiles did not, that the failure of the one could bring condemnation on them all and so there was need for mutual admonition. They did not realize that, in the same way as the new ritual left no outward sign but was internal so, for the extended people of Israel, the obligation was now from within, not without. There would be mutual admonition because they all now shared the same Holy Spirit. He would lead them into all truth, making them want to serve God and keep his commandments. The sign may now be invisible, because it was spiritually discerned, but the desire to keep the Law was just as real.

We have used the “people of Israel” as a term for the Church in the New Testament even though it is more commonly restricted to those of the Old Testament. This is because, according to Paul, in his letter to the Romans the two have been made one.⁸ The Gentile believers have been grafted into Israel’s olive tree. For the Baptist, this is one of the more controversial of the similarities between the sign of circumcision and baptism. So this needs to be clearly understood. Paedobaptists do not argue that every element of the covenant is the same. They do not argue that the differences which exist between the Old and New Covenants are unimportant. They do, however, argue that it is the same covenant of grace in all the essentials.

Just as baptism and circumcision differ in some aspects so do the Old and the New Covenant. It is not our intention to enter into a detailed exposition of those differences here. It is necessary however to make it clear that, while the Old Covenant dealt in types and shadows the New deals with realities. The Old was, according to Hebrews, insufficient because no matter how many sacrifices were made for the removal of sin, it still remained.⁹ What makes the New Covenant new, also according to that letter, is that sin has finally been removed.¹⁰ Christ actually did do what the rituals had pictured for centuries. He, as the high priest, made the sacrifice and sat down never having to make another.¹¹

However, true though the contrast might be, there are some significant similarities. Perhaps the most surprising one, in light of what has just been said is that sin still remains in us. We still have to fight daily against our sins in New Testament times, even as the saints did in the Old – a point that Hebrews also makes often for the benefit and warning of the people. This is why it is necessary to consider the similarities with the two covenants. They are designed to achieve the same purpose; they have the same method of salvation; they are intended to reach the same group of people – the elect; they have both believers and unbelievers included and, not least, the same God who makes them. In all the essentials they really are one. This means that, when we consider the symbolism of the one we discover it is the complement of the other. What circumcision reveals is also shown in baptism and the one who claims us in baptism was the same who sealed the saints of old by circumcision.

This is the reason we, in the Reformed world, speak of The Covenant (singular) of Grace. Whether we speak of Enoch, or Noah, of Abraham or Elijah, we understand that we, and they, are all saved by the grace of God through faith. This is the essence of the covenant of grace. If, therefore, circumcision is a result of the grace of God in choosing Abraham and, without any merit on his part, attributing righteousness to him then baptism does the same for us. Circumcision showed the people that salvation was to be achieved by the removal of sin, baptism shows us sin is removed by the washing of regeneration.

Sovereign Grace

To the paedobaptist circumcision demonstrates the sovereignty of God in salvation. In adults it is by God’s drawing them to seek the fellowship of God’s people. Adult circumcision shows how God draws the elect to himself by the result – they seek him and are given the right, via their circumcision, to become God’s people. It reminds the congregation that the faith is something which is individual and demands commitment. In child circumcision, God’s electing sovereignty is in the children God chose to give to Israelite parents. From eight days old, whether they believed or not, they were loved and nurtured in the faith. It was, ordinarily, from among these children that the elect were to be found. When they grew up and became believers it reminded the congregation that God chooses us before we even know him. He ordains all the circumstances of life for the good of the elect and God deals with us also in families. Not only does he visit the iniquity of the fathers until the fourth generation of those who hate him but, even more importantly, he shows loving kindness to thousands to those who love him and keep his commandments.

Baptism also demonstrates the same thing. When only adults are baptized it is possible to imagine that it is our willingness to serve God which is the key element in salvation. It has to be explained that God’s choice of the sinner has led to this man or woman to want to serve him. When children are baptized it is possible to imagine that we make the Christians by the application of the water. It has to be explained that children are born to Christian parents as a gift to them from God and he expects them to be treated the same way. Baptism speaks of parental responsibility¹² and also (when households were still being baptized) the role of the employer in bringing his employees to know why the boss treated his customers and workers as he does.¹³ This is one reason baptism ought never to be carried out apart from the preaching of the Word of God and one reason why baptism quickly became the role of the preacher. Baptism, nevertheless, also paints a picture of the sovereignty of God in salvation.

This is not to suggest that baptists do not see the children of believers as special. They too have the passage in Scripture that says: “else were your children unholy but now they are holy.” They too believe that God does tend to work in families when it comes to his electing grace. They too accept that the promise is to “us and our children.” They do not agree, however, that this requires the baptism of those children before they reach the age of accountability.¹⁴ I mention this because what has been said above might be construed as implied criticism of the baptist position. It should be kept in mind that my role is to explain the paedobaptist way of thinking about these matters, not to imply baptists have it all wrong. Sometimes their caution is a reminder to us that for someone to be saved there is much more needs to be present than mere Church activity. The sign of the covenant is worthless without genuine regeneration which is seen most clearly in the fruit of the Spirit.

3. Seal and Promise

There is a tendency in baptist circles to limit the promises of baptism to those which we make to God. Yet, since it is God who instituted the rite, it is likely that he has some promises he makes to those who are given the sign he instituted. Baptism is the sign of our union with Christ. We are, as both Peter and Paul remind us, buried with him in baptism and raised with him also. Because of that union we are also blessed with him with many spiritual blessings. Some of these are spelled out in Ephesians 1:3-14. Paul tells us we were chosen in him to be holy and blameless before God; we were predestined to be adopted as sons; we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses; we know the mystery of his will – and especially that which speaks of the union of both parts of the people of God and we also have an inheritance which was sealed to us by the Holy Spirit.

In only one place in that list does Paul make a distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles who believe. That is in the section dealing with the inheritance. And it is there that he says of the Gentiles “… in him you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation – having also believed, you were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise …” yet he says he is given not, as we might expect, as a pledge of your inheritance (since he is talking to the Gentiles) but rather as a pledge of our inheritance. In other words if the pledge of the Holy Spirit is given when we are sealed, it has to be true not only for us Gentiles but also for the Jew.

Looking at the list it is clear that the promises Paul speaks of as coming through our union with Christ, apply to the saints of the Old Testament as well. They were the chosen ones of God, the were adopted as God’s children, they received redemption through Christ and they were entrusted with the mystery of God’s will in the book we gained from them. If we claim that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when, or before, we were baptized – which certainly seems to be the case in the book of Acts at least – then even our inheritance is common to us and the saints of the Old Testament. In fact, they have a clearer claim to an inheritance than we do because God made the promise of an inheritance to Abraham and sealed it with the mark of circumcision.

Clearly then, circumcision and baptism have reference to the same promises. Some of them were in the future for the Old Testament believers who accepted them on the word of God. But some they also knew about as in their past. God’s choice and predestination was seen from their history even as it is ours. And their inheritance was as much future as is ours.¹⁵ It is the reality of a redemption already bought and a greater clarity of the mystery of the union between Gentile and Israelite which mark the differences between the New and the Old. This is surely a matter of degree not contrast.

As Paul goes on to show in chapter two of Ephesians that we all walked according to the course of this world, according to the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. But when we were dead in trespasses and sins God, in the riches of his mercy made us alive together with Christ and raised us up together with him. These things we already know as reality and, if we are to believe the experience as revealed in the psalms, so also did the saints of old. But Paul says that we have also been seated with Christ in the heavenlies … that we have to take on faith because we do not yet see it as a reality. Yet, according to the vision of John, the saints of the Old Testament are already experiencing this.

And, if the mark of circumcision pointed to the same promises which we have in baptism¹⁶ then the concept of circumcision not being required of the Gentiles makes perfect sense. They both imply the same truths, they both embody the same promises, they both are the mark of the same covenant of grace the one is the equivalent of the other. This is what the paedobaptist means when he says baptism replaces circumcision. Not that there is no longer any use at all for circumcision but that it is no longer essential.

A parallel might be made from the festivals of the Jewish year. There are some Christian who have begun to celebrate some of these festivals. They find that there are two benefits from doing so. The first is that it gives an opportunity to share something which is common to both parts of the family of God. And, if done with care and understanding, it can lead to a closer friendship with our older brothers in the faith. It gives us the opportunity to show the real meaning of the Bible in a setting where the Jew is comfortable. Many have suddenly realized that Christianity is not antisemitic it is, in reality, truly Jewish.¹⁷

The second is that it makes our understanding of the faith richer. We see connections that otherwise we might miss. The feast of Sukkoth where the people live in booths or tents for a week makes us remember that we are on a journey to the promised land even as the people of God were in the wilderness. It teaches us that many of the things we consider to be essential for modern living are not actually so. And it helps us remember that our faith rests not in the things God has blessed us with but in being closer to him.

Now for the Jew these festivals are a part of his required behavior. Each year he is required by his religion to follow these festivals as the way he expresses his faith in God. In many cases he believes, if he believes in salvation at all, obedience to these laws earns him favor with God. For Christians the same festivals are not essential, many manage quite well without them. Some suspect the motives of those who want to practise such things even where there is no implied hint that other ought to do so as well.

Paul refused to allow Titus to be circumcised and yet he wanted Timothy to undergo the ritual. Clearly for Paul the rite itself was something which could be seen as optional in this era. Baptism, however, was commanded by the risen Lord and is to be obeyed. The controversy over the older rite was not so much over it being applied to Christians but over its being made mandatory. It was seen as the first step in the real requirement and that was to obey the Law of Moses. That is why Paul makes the link between the rite itself and the need to keep the Law in all his discussions of the controversy. Now was he against keeping the Law – he showed in Jerusalem he was even prepared to help others observe the purification rites of the time at the request of the elders in Jerusalem. What he was against was requiring of the Gentiles the laws which had been designed to “lead us to Christ” – laws which even the Fathers had never been able to keep. Christ has called us to freedom he said, not to bondage.

There is, however, one aspect of this controversy which seldom seems to be given the attention it deserves. The Judaizers set out to retain circumcision because of the need they felt for the Gentiles to keep the Law. Yet, according to the way we are asked to believe baptism was practised, the Christians were doing something much worse than setting aside a formal recognition of the need to keep the Law. They were removing the children from the Church! Since the time of Abraham children had a place in the congregation because of their place in the covenant. From the age of eight days they were a part of the family of God. Yet, suddenly, they are to be cast out because they could not be added to the congregation until they were old enough to make some claim to faith. And this was done in spite of the fact that when the Apostles wished to send away the children, who could not understand what was going on,¹⁸ the Messiah said “allow the children to come to me because of such people is the kingdom of heaven.”

And we are asked to believe that not one Jew made a protest. The Apostles, when Jesus was no longer there to stop them from chasing away the mothers with their babes in arms, allowed them to be brought but did not acknowledge them as having any place in the Church. Yet we are asked to believe there were no protests, no movement to restore the children to the place they had enjoyed in the Old Testament. And a people who had eight different words for child, from the youngest to those about to take responsibility for themselves, cared so little about the removal of the children than there is not a single comment about in the whole New Testament.

Yet, on the day of Pentecost Peter had said the promise is to you and your children and, we are asked to believe, he meant “the promise is to you and your children (but not until they are adults) and to as many (adults) as …” More importantly we are asked to believe that is how the people who heard him understood it in spite of the fact that it had always been understood differently until that point. And the silence on this matter is the same in the writings of the whole first and second centuries.

4. Temporary Signs

This may seem obvious to some or that it has already been covered, but still needs to be repeated. Our focus is on the role that a ritual such as either baptism or circumcision plays in the interim while we await the fulfillment of hope. That’s because a covenant sign and seal is only necessary as a confirmation to the recipient’s hope. Where the confirmation is unnecessary no sign or seal is given. God gave no sign that he would deliver Jericho into the hands of the people under Joshua, even though he did for Gideon. The difference was the need to confirm Gideon’s faith.

The various covenant signs were given for that very purpose. When Noah looked at the world in which he now lived and noted the wickedness which still was present he would have naturally been afraid that God would destroy everything all over again. But, whenever he saw the rainbow he was reminded that God had promised he would never send another flood to destroy the earth. While the earth remained, he said, the seasons would continue regularly and constantly. To demonstrate the fact that he would stand by that word he said “when I see the bow in the clouds I will remember my covenant …”

The very fact that evolutionists can argue everything in the world has always been the way we see it today, from their observations, is a recognition that God keeps this promise. The rainbow is the sign and seal of our survival on the earth – as long as it remains. That the evolutionist forgets there ever was a flood does not make the truth of the matter any less real.

When God swore an oath for Abraham by passing between the cut up sacrifices, recorded in Genesis 15, it was to confirm his faith – faith we were told in verse 6 of that chapter was the basis of his righteousness. That did not stop Abraham from doubting and the sign which was given him of the representation of God making this oath did much to set his mind at rest.

When Abraham was given the covenant sign of circumcision it was to make it absolutely clear that he and his people were God’s. God would honor his promise to make Abraham a great nation, he would give them the land and he would bring them forth from Egypt after 400 years.

Though the book of Joshua indicates God had fulfilled all his promises in the day they conquered the Promised Land, it was apparent that there were elements of God’s promise which were still future. God had said to Abraham that in him “all the families of the earth would be blessed.” He had told him that from Sarah kings would come forth. In Joshua’s day there were still parts of the promises God had made which were still future.

When the prophets began their ministry it was apparent that this was the case and, in reality, some of the prophecies made it clear that God’s purpose for his people would not be fulfilled until “the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea.” The people of God sang in their worship services that the Lord’s Anointed (the Messiah) would reign from sea to sea and that all the nations would come in homage to him.

It was this Messianic hope which was the reason that Israel was so eagerly looking for the coming of the Messiah in what we now know as the end of the Old Testament. If circumcision was the symbol that was linked to the coming of the Messiah then, when the hope was finally made real, they looked for the fulfillment of all these prophecies as well. They were told, however, that it was not given to them to know the times and the seasons. God would bring things to pass when the time was right.

So, when Jesus gives the disciples the mark of baptism as one of the indications that he has all authority in heaven and on the earth, it is clear there is still some of the promise made to Abraham which is yet to come.¹⁹ Baptism is for a people who are still on the way to the Promised Land, only now the land is the New Heavens and the New Earth in which dwells righteousness. And as circumcision was given to the people in the Old Testament, Paul says, so was baptism. What was true of Israel of old is true of us as well. The rite which tells of the faithfulness and majesty of God in bringing his people from bondage to a land which he has promised will be their own possession (whether considered as circumcision – which it was in reality – or baptism as Paul describes it) is the same in essence in both Old and New Testaments. In both cases they point to a redeemer who rescues his people and brings them safely to their final destination.

The full realization of all that is promised by the rite which makes us a part of Israel is still to come. That is why we still have a rite at all.

The Key Principle

For the paedobaptist the unity of the Old and New Covenants is the key principle. A command once given by God continues in force unless and until he modifies it. And, even then, he has shown that the principle remains in place unless it is clear he has rescinded it.²⁰ The differences are important, yes. But in essentials God’s promises stand firm. And the spiritual realities of those promises are the same in both Testaments. This the two rites of initiation indicate.

Jesus used this principle in his dealings with the Scribes and Pharisees. In two instances the principle is most clearly seen. With respect to the Sabbath and marriage. In the former case it was a matter of showing that it was right to perform the duties of piety, mercy and necessity summed up in the principle that it was right to do good on the Sabbath. And that, far from it being the restrictive day the Pharisees had made it God had made the Sabbath for man’s benefit not man for the Sabbath.

In the second case he argued that divorce was not a part of the way God had ordained marriage to work. Using the same method he did for the Sabbath issue, Jesus took the people back to the original institution. Spelling out the original intention he made it clear that divorce did not nullify that intent. When asked why, then, had Moses allowed divorce he answered that it had been allowed because of the hardness of men’s hearts but that God had not changed his viewpoint. Marriage was still supposed to be between a man and a woman.

When it comes to baptism, the basis for our understanding comes, therefore, from God’s teaching about the role of circumcision among the covenant people. Baptism fulfills the same role for the New Testament Church. As paedobaptists we believe that if we neglect what is taught about the Old Testament rite we will certainly fail to use its New Testament counterpart properly. We may differ about the details but the principle highlighted above is valid.

Part I | Part II (a) | Part II (b) | Part III | Part IV | Part V

——————————–

Footnotes:

1as Deuteronomy 6:7 requires

2Deut. 6:8

3Deut. 6:9

4Genesis 18:19

5Deut. 6:4-9 The shema is recited as a declaration of faith in God. And, though it has been reduced to just verse 4 in some circles today it was, according to Alfred Edersheim, often recited in the synagogues after the return from the Exile.

6the same ones who had been circumcised.

7Though the Jews take all the elements from “bind them as a sign on your hand …” to “on your gates” to be literally fulfilled it seems clear that God intended them to mean that the Law was to guide all they did with their hands, all they thought with their minds all they did within their houses and as a reminder to do the same whenever they went out into the rest of the world. The Law was a guide, in other words, for the whole of one’s life.

8Romans 9-11

9Hebrews 10:1-4

10Heb. 10:11-14

11Heb. 10:12

12Deut. 6:7-9 See above.

13In Acts 10 it says that Cornelius feared God, “with his whole household.” Now it is possible that all in his household shared his beliefs. But, in so far as his servants would have no choice about their tasks and how they were to be carried out the language would not necessarily imply faith on the part of every single servant. There is a presumption, however, that those who had been long in his employ would more likely share his faith because of their respect for him as a man. Either way the language is not necessarily as precise as we might like it to be. Compare the language of Mark’s description (Mark 1:5) that “all the country of Judea was going out to him and all the people of Jerusalem and they were being baptized in the River Jordan, confessing their sins.” It is extremely unlikely that there were no people left at all in Jerusalem or even that every single person who went out to hear him was baptized. Yet that is what it says literally. Certainly it must have appeared to be the the majority of the people (at least from the Pharisees’ point of view) went to hear John, confess their sins and be baptized. We must be careful not to be adamant that the language has to mean something that in reasonable terms it might not.

14Few baptists that I have met are happy with this terminology and its use here is not an implied criticism. I did not know of any short way to explain the concept of withholding baptism until the child has made a creditable profession of faith in Jesus Christ. The problem which my baptist friends are willing to admit is discerning when a child’s response indicate a real and lasting faith and when merely a transient emotion. To their credit few baptists take the first indication that a child “loves Jesus” as a fruit of the regeneration of the Spirit. They are consistent in this.

15Surely this is what Hebrews tells us: God had prepared something better in that they would not be complete without us. It was always intended that we would be one people.

16And that really is the crunch – paedobaptists are convinced they do and baptists are not prepared to accept that – whether the promises of baptism are from God to us or from us to God. Calvin makes the point that we are passive in baptism and active in the Lord’s Supper since the symbolism is of God cleansing us not us swearing allegiance to him. The problem is there are elements of truth in both arguments which we neglect to our detriment.

17I know of one family which has been given the great privilege to show visiting Jewish tourists the spiritual meaning of these festivals in a few cases as preparation for the tourists to become followers of their Messiah who they now realize has actually already come.

18they were still at the breast if some translations are correct

19Since we are a part of Abraham’s seed, according to Paul, we do not look for new promises but the final fulfillment of the old ones.

20The destruction of the temple after rending the temple veil in two from top to bottom was a pretty clear instance of a change in the relationship between his people and God. It indicated the end of the sacrificial system and all that was linked to it. It ended because it had served its purpose as a type. The great high priest and his sacrifice had completed all it stood for. But that sacrifice, once offered, still remains in force and is of benefit to all who accept it in faith. So we have both an ending and a continuation. The one sacrifice of Christ replaces all the sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Conversation on Baptism IIb

Conversation on Baptism II – Part 2: The Differences

Let us begin our discussion of this section by noting that, as far as the Bible is concerned, circumcision is not just a badge of a covenant community, it is a sign of a spiritual reality. The usual practice is to begin with Genesis and follow through the development of the Bible revelation of the spiritual significance of circumcision as a sign. The merit in this approach is that we see clearly the unity of the covenant of grace even as we note the differences in the way God applies its signs. If we allow that for the Old Testament at least the sign was the same from Genesis 17 to Malachi I can take a direct route to the same end.

Circumcision a sign and seal

In chapters 4-6 of the Letter to the Romans, Paul makes the following observations. “The sign of circumcision” was given to Abraham. Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith.¹ God declared him righteous and gave him the seal of circumcision. It was a sign of his faith and it was God’s mark of his justification because of it. Circumcision indicated the relationship which existed between Abraham’s household and God. It was not necessary for them to have faith before receiving the covenant mark which demonstrated their compliance with God’s conditions but, more importantly, reminded them that the promises God had annexed to the covenant were a matter of God’s favor. Promises they would share with Abraham because of their own faith. It was not an equal relationship, God chose Abraham and his household and imposed his conditions to encourage their trust in him.

The key was not the sign itself, but the faith which it represented. Paul makes that clear by pointing out Abraham was accounted as righteous (that is, justified) before receiving the sign. Having, therefore been justified by faith, those who share in his faith, have peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. And the way that justification takes place is “through his blood.”² The previous verse makes it clear that the blood we are talking about means Christ’s death. Then in applying the doctrine he has developed thus far he says we are servants of righteousness because we obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine delivered to us. He pictures this, however, using the rite of baptism.³ We are dead to sin, because we were buried with him in baptism and raised together with Christ. Clearly Paul sees, in these verses, a tie between circumcision and baptism.

And the tie between obedience to God and the ritual is the same as that used by the Judaizers with this difference, for Paul the key is not the symbol – it’s the reality the symbol represents. When examining the differences between the two signs though, we should not make them the final end of our study. We ought to be prepared to see why these differences exist. Our concern in this part of the conversation will be to answer the question: Why are there differences in the signs appointed for the Covenant of Grace?⁴

Vaughn makes an observation which ought to be agreed to by everyone – baptism and circumcision differ. He lists the following differences. Some, however, are more apparent that real :

“B. Baptism and circumcision differ markedly

5. Circumcision was given to infants, adults are only rarely mentioned as being circumcised, and only where they had no chance to get circumcised when young.

All stories of individuals being baptized where they are known by name/condition involves adults

6. Circumcision was only given to boys

Both men and women were baptized

7. The condition listed for circumcision was what family they belonged to, with no condition of belief.

The condition listed for baptism is whether they believe. Where whole households are mentioned belief is also mentioned.

8. Circumcision is traditionally administered by the father or mother of the child.

Baptism is almost always mentioned as being done by a leader of the church: Apostle, Elder, Deacon, Disciple and never by a woman.

9. Circumcision is to be done eight days after birth

Baptism is done immediately after the new birth

10. Circumcision can only be done once

Baptism occurred twice for many people, first the baptism of John, then of Jesus. Which one replaced circumcision?”

A. Understanding the differences

While we believe there is one covenant of grace, paedobaptists do recognize there have been different ways in which God has administered its provisions. It is unlikely, for example, that the sacrifices offered by Abel, Noah and Abraham were performed in precisely the same way as the sacrifices under the Mosaic Law. There would have been similarities but the earlier rituals would likely have differed. From a paedobaptist understanding, then, the differences between baptism and circumcision are marks of the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. As Moses’ rituals more clearly represented Christ and his work on behalf of man than those of Abraham so ours are clearer than those of Moses. The differences, however, do not do away with the essential unity that salvation is by faith in God leading to obedience to his Word.

The New Covenant deals, however, more directly with spiritual realities; the Old dealt with them by types and shadows. It is our contention that circumcision portrays the same spiritual realities as baptism, albeit with a different focus. When examining the two rites both differences, and similarities will be found. It is the similarities which will become important when making decisions about the nature of the New Testament Church, some elements in the worship service of the Church and the proper subjects of baptism. The differences will be there but they will rest on the same principles which are found in the Old Testament Church. Nor should this be surprising since, for Jesus, as it was for the Apostles, it was the Old Testament Scriptures which are the very Word of God, the sole rule for faith and life.

1. Initial Response

Expecting the language of similarity, Vaughn says:

“If we get a new machine in the ER that ‘replaces’ an old machine, we expect a certain continuity. It might plug in in the same way as the old machine, it might be used for the same class of patients, it might affect them in the same way, or be attached to them in the same way… or it might not. Some of these things might change.”

As pointed out previously there are clear differences between baptism and circumcision. Most are to be expected by the nature of the rite. “Circumcision can only be done once,” for example, is a matter of the nature of the ceremony. Noting that “Circumcision was only given to males” is to be expected both because of the nature of the rite and also because God commanded it to be given only to males. It is, however, what we might term akingdom difference, reflecting the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven has come and is already present in the world. Baptism is just part of the recognition that there is a greater expression of that kingdom yet to come.

Circumcision and baptism point to the same reality, says the paedobaptist, the vicarious atonement earned by Christ and appropriated by faith. They do so from different perspectives. The reason the Jew still clings to circumcision is because he has still not completely set aside the old perspective, nor should we. We learn valuable lessons from that perspective. To use Vaughn’s illustration, the ER’s may use the new machine almost exclusively (hence the terminology of replacement) but the old has value in certain circumstances still. The new has replaced it but doctor still requires the old machine for some treatments.

Then, they say, the two rites were designed for similar but different functions. One would have us trust the promise of God that in Abraham’s seed (the Christ) all nations will be blessed. We are told symbolically that trusting in him whose blood will be shed on on our behalf grants us favor with God. The other tells us that Christ has come and died and risen again. The promise has been fulfilled and, through the washing of regeneration, we may know we have favor with God because we have the same faith as Abraham. In both rituals we are admonished to trust and serve the Lord with our whole hearts. These last two explanations describe what we might call the historicaldifferences – difference which exist because of the place they come from in the revelation of God’s plan of salvation.

Though Vaughn’s illustration has some merit it does not show the paedobaptist view of similarity accurately. The paedobaptist sees the relationship between circumcision and baptism more as the difference between Jesus’ descriptions of the final judgment in Matthew 25:1-14; 15-30 and 31-46.

In the first the focus is on the lack of warning and the need to be prepared. The second focuses on the way our behavior towards others in the Church will be evaluated, with a warning for the reprobate. In the last the focus is on the basis of the judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous. Jesus tells us two parables and describes the reality of the Final Judgment. The differences are marked but the reality is the same. If we lose the focus of the descriptions, though, we not only misinterpret his meaning but we also lose the more complete picture Jesus was painting of what will happen. With that in mind we examine the differences.

2. Historical Differences

Some of the differences rest on the time in which the events takes place in the history of redemption. They include numbers 5 and 7 in Vaughn’s examples, where historically this is exactly what we would expect from either standpoint.

5. Circumcision was given to infants, adults are only rarely mentioned as being circumcised, and only where they had no chance to get circumcised when young. All stories of individuals being baptized where they are known by name/condition involves adults.

Is this difference as great as described? The very point Vaughn makes indicates the explanation. Abraham was told to circumcise himself and all his household and that, thereafter all male children were to be circumcised at eight days old. In the Old Testament, therefore, whenever new families were added to Israel from outside the nation or the people had children who (for some reason)⁵ were not circumcised the adults were required to be circumcised and, where appropriate, so also were the household members. Apart from those exceptions, the circumcised adults made sure their children were likewise as they were born. An adult would occasionally be mentioned but nearly always it would be children recorded in Scripture as receiving circumcision.

In the New Testament we deal with the equivalent of Abraham and his household – the first generation of the extended people of God. Since they were not all added on the same day, it would be expected the New Testament record would show the adults being baptized and, where they were present, their children and household slaves as well. Thereafter the children, as they were born, would be baptized and so on. To test this viewpoint requires an extension past the end of the New Testament to generations where the adults had already been baptized. Interestingly, that is exactly the pattern we find emerging in the early centuries of the Church. While it is not conclusive (since it is, after all, extra-biblical evidence) it is expected. One of the evidences adduced for the likely truth of a theory is that it can predict future events.

The fact that the household baptisms are even mentioned in the New Testament needs to be taken into account. Granted it may be presumed that none of the household who were baptized was an unbeliever⁶ – the truth is that itis a presumption. It is true that the paedobaptist cannot point with certainty to any household baptism and show there were some who, as yet, did not believe. It is equally true the baptist cannot show with any more certainty that in every case they all did. On either presumption there would have been no persons excluded from a household baptism.

Doesn’t the mention of household baptisms, however, confuse things for the people of the time? Any Jew reading the fact that a household was baptized and understanding this was to make them a part of Israel would assume baptism of the household was the same as the circumcision of the household required by Exodus 12 because of the similar circumstances. There the households who wished to become a part of Israel were circumcised. Now they are baptized.

In spite of that likely confusion there is no clarifying of this possible (false) interpretation anywhere in Scripture. Nowhere do we find Paul saying in so many words (or Luke adding it as a postscript) that only the believers in the household were allowed to be baptized. Complete impartiality makes us acknowledge the mention of household baptisms does not settle the matter one way or the other, without using other deductions from our view of the issue from the rest of Scripture.

7. The condition listed for circumcision was what family they belonged to, with no condition of belief. The condition listed for baptism is whether they believe. Where whole households are mentioned belief is also mentioned.

The description above of the “condition listed for circumcision” is flawed. It deals with only those who were already the physical descendants of Abraham. In that case they ought already to have been circumcised. If they were uncircumcised, then, before that took place it was proper to decide if they were, in fact, a part of the covenant seed of Abraham. Hence the research to make sure of the family line – hence the question: “are they Abraham’s descendants?” And why did that matter? God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants … the mark of that covenant was that they were required to be circumcised. God did not make the covenant with those outside of Israel and, though they could be circumcised and become a part of Israel, they had to want it. For the Gentile, therefore, any other “conditions” were optional. If he changed his mind and decided to not be circumcised after all, then he was not condemned.

Some might consider that becoming a part of Israel would be very attractive to the nations around Israel in Old Testament times. One group of people even lied about their origins and accepted slavery in order to do so. But such a viewpoint was exceptional, based on the success of the Israelites in their fighting against the nations in the Promised Land. They realized that God fought on Israel’s side. It did not reflect the common view of Israel’s neighbors. The attitude displayed by Harmon in the time of Esther was far more common. The Jew was considered to be arrogant – he believed everyone else’s god was false and impotent; he considered he did not have to acknowledge the authority of the divinely appointed kings (many of whom considered they were gods incarnate); he dared to consider Israel a much better land than everywhere else – a land they had a divine right to. That all of these things were not necessarily true did not change the general attitude. The view of the majority of the Middle East toward modern Israel is no different from that of biblical times.

No, the Jew was not popular and few desired to be a part of the nation. There had to be a good reason why any adult would want to join with Israel – let alone become circumcised. The pain alone would make one think before considering the course of action. In the early Church, when persecution was a daily occurrence, the desire to join with the Church was in itself a declaration of belief, a profession of faith. It was not expressed lightly because tomorrow you would be distrusted and hated by the rest of society – maybe even thrown to the lions. So it was in the times of which we speak.

As for the condition for baptism adduced in Vaughn’s condition above, while true in general, it is not the straight contrast which is painted. When those who heard Peter on Pentecost responded to the message with “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter’s response was more than repent and believe … in fact the word believe is not even in the text.⁷ He had just reminded them they had killed the Messiah, even though God had given evidence he approved of him. He tells them that baptism into the name of Jesus Christ would give them the gift of the Holy Spirit. His basis for this claim was because “the promise was to [them] and [their] children” and as many as God would call to himself.

To someone raised all his life hearing the God had made a promise to Abraham and his children⁸ Peter’s wording could only be interpreted as a promise to two groups of people – 1) them and their children and 2) all the rest God calls to himself. So they would see the covenant promise to Abraham as the ground of the offer of the Holy Spirit if they repented and were baptized. To them God’s covenant, therefore, was the condition annexed to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It seems, from this text, baptism is a sign that they repented and thus to be classed as the faithful of the the covenant at least in the way Peter presents it to his hearers. It was, therefore, a sign given to Jews who repented of their complicity in the death of Christ.

Is this belief? Yes, but that is not the way Peter presents it to the hearers of that day. He points to repentance as the proper response for their behavior and baptism as the sign of faith in the the covenant promise of God. The covenant identified them with the Messiah and the gift of the Holy Spirit in this context should not be separated from the word of God through Joel.⁹ Repentance involves more than belief; there’s sorrow for sin and a determination to serve God as well as faith in Christ’s sacrifice. Is it right to limit the condition to the last? Paranoia about works righteousness may lead us to bypass the need for obedience?

To examine the other key passage often used to demonstrate the need for belief as a condition for baptism. The Ethiopian eunuch asks Philip: “… see here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?” Now even if we grant the words that are missing from many of the older manuscripts: “If you believe with your whole heart … etc” the condition required before baptism is not as simple as it might appear at first glance. There are other factors which need to be taken into account.

According to the Old Testament, no one who was “damaged in the stones” was permitted to be a part of Israel.¹⁰ Yet in the scroll of Isaiah which the eunuch was reading it says:

“neither let the eunuch say ‘behold, I am dry tree’ For thus says the Lord ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, and choose what pleases me, and hold fast my covenant, to them I will give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than that of sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.’”¹¹

Is it any wonder, then, that he would be excited and say: “see here is water, [if what you are telling me is true] what hinders me from being baptized?” To which it would be natural for Philip to say “If you truly believe,¹²nothing …” It fitted the condition provided by Isaiah in the particular case and it also fitted the case of a foreigner who wished to be a part of Israel. Significantly in the Old Testament setting, but for the damage to his genitals, it would have been circumcision united him to Christ. That he was baptized indicates he understood the rite as a “joining the house of the Lord” with the same implications as circumcision. That information had to have come from Philip for it is not in the passage of Isaiah from chapter 53 onward. However it is apparent that “repent and believe,” as commonly understood today, is an inadequate understanding of the situation or the condition for his baptism.

Household baptisms will be considered in more detail in the appropriate place.¹³

3. Natural Differences

Some of these differences arise because of the nature of the rite itself. Since circumcision involves cutting off the foreskin from the male genitals, it is plain that it can be performed only once. Since, therefore, in the rite of baptism water is put upon the recipient it is plain that the rite is able to be performed many times. Vaughn makes that his 10^th mark of difference.

10. Circumcision can only be done once. Baptism occurred twice for many people, first the baptism of John, then of Jesus. Which one replaced circumcision?”

There are, so far as I can tell from the book of Acts, only one or or maybe two situations¹⁴ in which it is clear that anyone was baptized more than once. The key passage is when Paul returned to Ephesus and met some of John’s disciples.¹⁵ He asked them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed their response was that they never even knew he had been sent. He asked them further about their baptism and they said they had received John’s baptism.

After further explanation about the fact that John pointed forward to Jesus as the Messiah, Paul baptized them and we read that they received the Holy Spirit and, significantly, spoke in tongues. About 12 people were involved. From this it seem obvious to a paedobaptist that the answer to Vaughn’s question is Jesus’ baptism replaced both John’s baptism and circumcision. However, the important part of this claim does not concern the number of people supposed to have received baptism more than once. It is the question of whether God accepts more than one baptism. Jesus‘ command that those who became disciples were to be baptized into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit would tend to answer that question in the negative.

Because it is possible to perform the rite a number of times does not mean the God grants any but the first one any validity. You can get married to your wife as many times as you want but only the one is valid – so it is with baptism. The rite is a sign of the way of salvation but the seal is God’s to give and there is no evidence that he applies the seal more than once to any believer. Certain it is that we cannot see the mark but God can. We may perform the rite as many times as we wish, God counts only the one.

Circumcision was a bloody ritual and baptism is not.

While we are looking at natural differences between the two rites here is another. It seems odd that this one, the most obvious difference between baptism and circumcision, is not mentioned in a section marking the differences between the two rites. When God instituted circumcision Abraham was already making sacrifices to God. His relationship with God, however, did not rest on the sacrifices that he was making. It rested on his faith. And it was his faith which was accounted to him as righteousness. Nevertheless he was required by God to make sacrifices, not to earn his relationship, but in order that he would be reminded of how seriously God takes sin. The death of a substitute in place of the one who ought to die reminded him of his own sin and God’s wrath against it.

Circumcision, however served a different purpose. God intended it as a means to encourage his faith. It is surely significant that the old writers saw the mention of the sealing of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 1 with respect to assurance of faith. The baptist would remind us that, like all sacraments, baptism is a sign of our relationship to God. We are baptized in obedience to his command. We baptize using the mode he prescribed. We baptize the subjects he commanded. Yet when circumcision was introduced the reason given was only partly to do with Abraham’s obedience. He obeyed because, by doing so, God confirmed his promises to him.

The importance of the Abrahamic covenant cannot be overlooked. Circumcision, after all, began with him as far as the Israelite is concerned. There were three parts to the promise; 1) Abraham would be a father of many nations, 2) God would be his God and the God of his seed after him and 3) he would give to him and to his seed the “land of your sojournings” – all the land of Canaan – “as an everlasting possession.” In this context, circumcision was not just a badge of loyalty or a pledge from the believer to God. It was the physical representation of the covenant between God and Abraham and his seed after him. God words it this way:

“This is my covenant which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall my covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”¹⁶

We are to note that this was not Abraham’s sign to God of his part in the covenant, it was imposed upon him by God as a mark of God’s covenant with him. God had declared his intent in the previous verses. Now he ties those same promises to the mark in Abraham’s family’s flesh. The promises, however, could not be fulfilled apart from Christ so the shedding of blood in the mark of the old covenant pointed to Christ’s work of redemption. In the same way that the ceremonial sacrifices ceased to be required when the true sacrifice was completed so also the bloody mark of the covenant was made redundant by the coming of the one who truly restores our relationship with God. Christ’s death fulfilled the sacrifices for sin; the Holy Spirit seals our inheritance as sons. Circumcision is a bloody sign – it refers to Christ’s work. Baptism is bloodless because the blood has been shed – it refers to the work of the Holy Spirit in applying that death to our lives. In our initiation into covenantal union, the sign represents the new birth (the washing of regeneration).

4. Kingdom Differences

This heading draws together those references to who is to be circumcised and who administers it. The first situation speaks of one of the implications of the extension of the kingdom; the second and third ones are colored by the perceptions and practices of particular Churches or denominations.

6. Circumcision was only given to boys Both men and women were baptized.

To see the significance paedobaptists place on this difference it is necessary to consider the change in the Church which was wrought by Christ’s death, resurrection and, particularly, by his ascension. When he was about to leave this earth he told his disciples that all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth and this was the reason they were to make disciples of all nations. Prior to his death he had been approached by a number of Gentiles and his attitude, shown in graphic terms to the Syro-Phoenician woman,¹⁷ was that he had been sent to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.”¹⁸ He would help them but his first priority was the children of Israel.

After the ascension it took some time before the disciples realized that Gentiles were to become a part of the Church on equal footing with the children of Israel.¹⁹ It is true that the Jew is, and will remain, the elder brother. As such, he has priority both in hearing the word and the inheritance. We would have had no gospel apart from their faithful preservation of the Word of God. Yet, in the progress of the Old Testament, the promises of the Covenant of Grace became increasingly exclusive.

They began with Adam and Eve and had reference to the whole human race. At the time of Noah it was temporarily reduced to eight people but the focus was the preservation of the human race. With Abraham it was again one family but the blessing was still to be through him to the whole human race. With Moses the focus of the promises, in fact the covenant itself, became limited to one nation and finally to one person. In most of the Old Testament, outside of Israel there was no salvation. This was the situation for nigh on two thousand years. Ordinarily, if you were not circumcised you were not able to be saved.

After the ascension the nations were the focus, through the Church. Not just the one nation but all those who are marked as his of whatever tongue and tribe and nation. Now Christ is seated on the throne he will reign until all nations are under his dominion. Baptism demonstrates this change by removing the restrictions of the Law of Moses. It, the tutor, was to teach us how to behave. Now we have Christ and are, in a sense, a mature Church we are able to live by the spiritual realities to which the types and shadows of the Old Testament pointed. So baptism is given now as a mark to all, without distinction. While God still works through families and the fathers are still responsible for the behavior of their houses the emphasis has been expanded to take into account the grave likelihood that the enemy who persecutes us may well be a family member.

That was always the case. And there were always saints from outside Israel Ruth and Rahab who both made choices which seemed at the time to go against the wisdom of their people. They chose to be identified with Israel, neither was able to receive the sign of the people of God but both became a part of the family line of Christ. They were isolated cases, we imagine while in our time this is more prevalent. In truth, though, we have no proof from Scripture one way or the other.

What does happen in the New Testament, however, is that new disciples of Christ are given the mark of baptism because it is commanded by Christ. It is expressly said to include women and girls, eunuchs and Gentiles so we would treat those properly. God makes no distinctions there and neither should we. The difference in the rite does not do away with the fact that all rituals should be carried out in the way the Lord and King of the world commands.

8. Circumcision is traditionally administered by the father or mother of the child. Baptism is almost always mentioned as being done by a leader of the church: Apostle, Elder, Deacon, Disciple and never by a woman.

This may be true of circumcision in the early days of Israel. There may well be a reason this is so. In the Old Testament we find the beginning of a number of institutions which change over time. The way things are done today does seem, in many cases to assign responsibilities to office-bearers in those institutions which were originally undertaken by individuals.

Marriage was very much less formally performed in, for example, Abraham’s day because it was considered a family affair. There is no requirement in the Mosaic Law for marriage to be performed by either the “elders in the gate” or by the priest or Levite. The description of the elders’ role in Ruth’s eligibility may well have had to do with civil implications of the marriage, but we are not told how the ceremony itself was performed. The New Testament is just as inexact about exactly who did what in a marriage. We find a Master of the banquet (if the word άρχιτρικλινος may be translated that way)²⁰ in control of the wedding at Cana who may, or may not be an official in the local town or he may merely be a friend of the family. It is unclear in the Bible who performed the wedding yet, today, weddings are performed only by officials recognized by the State or Church or both.

The same is true of most ceremonies, whether secular or religious. What may begin as an informal, family, affair over time becomes a regulated matter of concern to State and, or, Church. In some cases in the Bible the change is more clearly seen as in the matter of the Avenger of Blood. Execution for murder was taken from the hands of the family and given to the elders of the Cities of Refuge though the Avenger made sure the trial was not delayed.

This does not, however, necessarily explain why we find baptism is “nearly always performed by a leader in the Church.”²¹ In spite of the fact that both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches allow baptism to be performed by ordinary members in some circumstances, it has never been a stance taken by Protestant Churches. That does not, however, mean we can be adamant on the matter.

There may be some similarities to the recent debate about whether ordinary members of the congregation are allowed to preach in Church. The matter turns on a few key passages, and the translation given to certain words. Yet it is clear that the practice today is more restricted, in many Churches, than it was in New Testament times. Most Churches of the Reformed tradition restrict preaching to elders and in most cases the preacher(s) and not the“Ruling Elders.” It is clear, however, that the early deacons carried on an activity that, when we describe it as being done by the Apostles, is called preaching today. Nor is it clear that those who were scattered by the persecution in Acts and went everywhere “preaching the word” did not do something which, today we would call preaching in spite of the fact that the word used is a form of ευαγγελιζω

It may well be that history has seen a reduction in the role of not only the deacon but also that of members of the congregation.²² It is possible that baptism was initially performed by ordinary members of the congregation and has over time been restricted as happens in so many institutions. There is another element to this explanation which has a distinct bearing on the matter.

If we read the New Testament superficially, after the Gospels, all is done by officials in the Church. It is the Apostles, the prophets and evangelists who are recorded as the key actors in spreading the gospel. This is to be expected because they were commissioned to do this in the initial stages. Paul says the Church is founded on the Apostles and Prophets. It would be a strange thing, since that is true, if we did not find the New Testament recording their actions. Nor is it greatly different after the time of Moses in the Old Testament. It is easy to gain the impression from the Bible, in fact, that it is only office bearers who undertake any serious work for the kingdom of God.

The question might legitimately be asked what ordinary members of the congregation ever did in the Church. And we have some interesting hints, especially if we believe Paul teaches women are not to have a teaching role in the Church.²³ The principle is the one of exercising authority over a man. However, we find it was not just Aquila who set Apollos straight theologically speaking, his wife Priscilla was involved in it as well. Paul calls a number of the women he mentions in his letters “fellow-laborers.”

Now it is possible he meant supporters – they provided him with food and a place to rest a while – and he was exalting their work from the ordinary hospitality expected in any household to that of a fellow-laborer because, without their aid, his task would have been very much harder. He does that in other cases but it is also possible the daughters of Philip, who are called evangelists, were so called because they were zealous in spreading the good news among their friends and neighbors.

In other words, perhaps the ordinary members of the congregation actually took a greater part in the work of spreading the gospel than is recorded in the New Testament because its focus is on the work of the Lord though his appointed leaders. Certainly in the time of the Reformation there were many who did just that without regard to their recognition in the Church as leaders. And the whole Pentecostal movement is a rejection of the idea that the only ones who have a role in the Church are the leaders.

Circumcision was certainly administered by the fathers in the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and there is no record of it being any different all the way to the time of Christ. The New Testament record does show that baptism was (so far as we can be sure) administered by officials of the Church. There is, however a perfectly reasonable explanation for those facts which should not be disregarded if we are to understand why it is Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other paedobaptists see the administrative difference as surmountable. The question is not “do I consider they are right?” It is “do I consider they can make a reasonable case for their position?” Vaughn’s case is reasonable but it is not the only interpretation possible of the facts.

9. Circumcision is to be done eight days after birth. Baptism is done immediately after the new birth.

While this difference reflects the apparent situation in the Bible, there are a matters which need to be clarified. The result of the new birth is repentance and faith.²⁴ I am going to assume that Vaughn will agree with this and so do not set out to argue the case apart from the mention of the two Scriptures.

To be clarified, then, is the question of what would be considered “immediately after the new birth?” Another question is “what do we take in the record as an indication the person concerned has been regenerated?”Still a third is, suppose the proposition is true how do we today determine when a person has actually been born again? Is it perhaps possible to modify the statement for practical use to say immediately after we assume they have been born again? Like the concept of the gathered Church it sounds reasonable until we try to put the theory into practice. Even gathered Churches have accepted those who are not believers as members. The devil is great at training his angels to mimic true believers. And we cannot tell because we cannot read the heart.

Take the case of Cornelius the centurion. Was he born again when he spoke in tongues? It would seem so. Was he born again when he invited a Jew into his house to preach to him? That would seem to be the indication the angel gives²⁵ when he is told to send someone to find Peter. In fact the description of him as a pious man, one who feared God, gave alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually would tend to show that he was not a complete unbeliever. So when was he born again? To be perfectly frank we cannot tell for certain. But, then, neither we tell for certain when Abraham was born again. What we know about Abraham is as much as we know about Cornelius who, like Abraham, when told to do something, obeyed.

The baptism of Cornelius waited for several days after he was told to send for Peter – and, then, not without some of Peter’s companions expressing misgivings. We know this because Peter has to ask: “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” So was Cornelius baptized immediately on being born again? Vaughn’s principle tells us “yes he was.” The reality is, however, we cannot be sure just when he was born again.

Then, though there are a number of things which are unique about the life of the Son of God it does raise a particular matter of significance. We assume he was “born again,” if such could even be posited of him, from his birth (or as is likely like John, his cousin, from conception). If it was important that believers be baptized immediately after their new birth, why wait until he was a grown man and how can such a wait be described as “fitting.” What of others who are born again from the womb, as was John, are these to be baptized as soon as they are born because we realize they are born again already. And how can we be sure if they are too young to make a clear statement of their faith? And then, there’s the related question, who baptized John, and more importantly, when?

It seems that the claim that baptism immediately follows the new birth may be an interpretation which is placed upon the facts. Now, before anything more is said, let it be clear that to argue any other way also requires an interpretation of the facts. The problem is that we do not know when the new birth takes place in the life of any man – though we do for one of the two just mentioned we do not know when he was baptized. So to say baptism took place immediately upon or after the new birth is at least an exaggeration. The best we can be truly certain of is that, of the adult baptisms in the New Testament, the ritual took place when the Church had reason to view the person concerned as a believer.

Then there was the strange case of the “disciples” Paul met on his return to Ephesus.²⁶ There was something odd about the way they talked. Apparently they had enough of a grasp of the truth to be called disciples and yet Paul detected a lack. It is also apparent that they had been baptized so should have been seen as a part of the Church. So his question was “did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

Note it was not “… when you were baptized?” So they were accepted as having faith. They were, in other words, born again. Yet they had not “received the Holy Spirit.” In fact it appears they did not even know there was a Holy Spirit. Here then, was the explanation of the lack in their understanding. Paul corrected that and they were baptized and spoke in tongues and prophesied.²⁷

From this it appears that baptism was not, in this case, immediately upon being regenerated. It was after their theology had been corrected. To move from ignorance of his existence to speaking in languages they had never learned yet were clearly understood by the hearers under the Spirit’s influence is a remarkable change. And it indicates a distinction between the baptism of John and that of Christ which answers the second question Vaughn asks:“Which baptism replaces circumcision?” The one which Jesus instituted in Matthew 28.

This, however, raises an interesting series of questions. If this is the case, why then do we read nothing about Jesus’ disciples being baptized by Christ until Acts 2? Why were they not re-baptized as soon as they became followers of the Lord? Were they not reborn until Acts 2? And was John’s description of Jesus baptism as “of the Spirit and of fire” supposed to represent two baptisms which should follow one upon the other? These have been the basis of the understanding of a number of Pentecostal teaching about a “second blessing.”

Interesting or not, our focus is on the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Thus far the evidence adduced is that, apart from the household baptisms, in the New Testament it is plain that the rite was administered after the adults concerned gave some indication of faith and repentance – the first fruits of regeneration. And this is precisely what we should expect.

If we had been present at the River Jordan when Israel was about to enter the Promised Land we should have seen the vast majority of those who were circumcised that day were adults, not children. We could be forgiven, then, for wondering if God had changed the requirement for circumcision. Yet, here and there among the adult males, though not mentioned in the record, there would have been families (or “houses” as they would have been described) where both the father and all the male children were circumcised on the same day. That the majority were adults did not mean administering circumcision to the children was suddenly illegitimate. The reason given for the oddity was that the Israelites did not circumcise their children while they wandered in the wilderness. God had commanded the children to be circumcised, though, and unless, and until, he commanded otherwise the command stood. The New Testament tells of the way the Church grew by the addition of adults to her number. The occasional mention of households did not mean they were suddenly excluded from those elegible to receive the mark of the covenant; households were a part of the covenant as witnessed by the sign and unless, and until, God commanded otherwise the command for them to to be marked as covenant members stood.

Part I | Part II (a) | Part II (c)

—————————-

Footnotes:

1Rom. 4:11 makes it clear that circumcision is a sign, a seal of Abraham’s righteousness which he had by faith. The two ideas are related as a covenant has both the document of incorporation and a signature upon it. God authenticated his declaration by circumcision which served as his signature. It was also a pointer to the promises and curses of the covenant which came as a result of the righteousness of faith in the word of God.

2Rom. 5:9 Interestingly in verse eight we are told while we were sinners Christ died for us; verse 9 reminds us that we are justified by his blood (referring back to 8) and verse 10 tells us that having been reconciled by his death now we are saved by his life. Clearly the same idea as death and resurrection by our union with Christ.

3Romans 6:17. If it were not for the debate about infant baptism the tie between the sign of righteousness through faith (circumcision) indicating our union with Abraham making us heirs of the promise and the sign of our union with Christ through the new birth leading to actual righteousness (baptism) would be more readily accepted.

4It is assumed that the covenant of grace is the same from the time of Eve to the present. God decided to rescue man from the effects of his sin by providing a substitute to die in his stead. An Abraham’s day the form of the covenant showed it would be from his seed (namely Christ) that the substitute would come so that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in Abraham. It also showed that righteousness would be by faith in God, not earned by our efforts. This assumption rests on John’s description of Jesus as the lamb of God and both Jesus’ and Paul’s arguments that righteousness has always been by faith and not by works.

5While the children of Israel were traveling in the wilderness, for example.

6This is the basis of the baptist approach to the issue.

7Acts 2:38 Peter says “Repent and be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit because the promise is to you and your children (they were Jews) and to as many as afar off, as many as the Lord shall call to himself.”

8And that he had saved Israel – parents and children. The Jew was reminded in every feast and every part of the culture of God’s gracious provisions to them and their children. God had always made promises to the families of Israel, never just to people as individuals. To take just one more, God promised the throne to both David and to Jereboam – using the words: I will give the throne “to you and your children after you …”

9Joel 2:28-32 Peter made the tie to the pouring out the Spirit on all flesh, God had warned of a judgment to come and Peter assured them in the words in Acts 2:38-40 that in repenting and being baptized they would “save themselves from this untoward generation …” that they could be forgiven for their sins against God. Their verdict would already have been decided by their union with Christ as symbolized by their baptism. Their repentance made that clear.

10Deut. 23:1 for ordinary Israelites and Lev 21:20 for the descendants of Aaron

11Isaiah 56:3-8

12Why the condition? In Isaiah 56 eunuchs discover God will give them a memorial who “… keep my Sabbaths, choose what pleases [God] and holds fast to [his] covenant.” This is obedience to the covenant commands of God. As we know from the rest of the Old Testament true obedience comes from belief; from a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone … as Ezekiel 36 describes it. Israel was good at external compliance, poor at trusting God. Truly nothing has changed. The eunuch desired to be saved and his faith was recognized in his baptism. No wonder he went on his way rejoicing – a, formerly excluded, son of God.

13Acts 10:2ff; 11:13; 16:15, 31, 34 are the instances mentioned (according to Nave’s topical Bible) of household baptisms in the New Testament. The issue, however, in not just those references but on what grounds they were included. To be decided is whether they are mere indications of a group of individuals being saved or whether the household relationship was significant in the decision to baptize them. Is the faith of the household head of more significance than that of an individual believer (as it was in Abraham’s day) with respect to the corporate or ecclesiastical relationship with his dependents? That we will discuss later.

14In truth I can only recall the one – the disciples of John dealt with in the text. Perhaps there may be one or two others I missed. It is not stated, for example that Jesus’ disciples were baptized after they left John to follow him. Nor is it specifically stated of any of his other followers nor even of those who heard the word in Acts as a result of the scattering because of Stephen’s death.

15Acts 19:7

16Genesis 17:10-14; God also made it clear that he would have a son by Sarah and that she “would be a mother of nations; kings of people [would] come from her.” The name changes are also significant as signs of God’s covenant. We no longer speak of this couple as Abram and Sarai but we often speak anachronistically of Abraham and Sarah even before they were given the new names. We do so because we understand the faithfulness of God which this whole event signifies. Circumcision, therefore, is a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham. The God-to-man aspect of the covenant is important.

17Mark 7:24-29, not only did he seem to be about to reject her request but he even described her as a dog. “It is not good to give the food intended for the children to the dogs,” he said.

18See Matt. 10:6; 15:24; the parables in Luke 15 and so on.

19This is the importance of the event of Acts 10 and its aftermath in chapter 11. There was still some reticence with respect to the Samaritan Church where Philip took a leading role with and one in Antioch which were called Christians. It took the Jerusalem council to set this to rest.

20So the has NIV, NASB takes this word as“head waiter,” KJV as “governor of the feast” CEV and Good News have “man in charge of the feast.”

21Granted that Vaughn has presented this data accurately. I would not have thought it was that clear, but I would possibly see baptism taking place where he does not. Who baptized the people who were convinced by those who were scattered in Acts 8:4. There is no clear indication that these were all officers of the Church or that there were no new Churches begun as a result of their work. Nor is there any indication that Antioch considered it necessary to wait till Barnabas arrived before they constituted themselves as a Church. The Apostles’ response would seem to indicate they had had no hand in it.

22The situation in Corinth as described in I Cor. 12-14 may well have been as unruly as it was because there was no limitation on who could preach or teach in the worship service. It is significant that Paul, in dealing with the situation, does not limit the speaking to elders or deacons but to those who have the gifts of prophecy and (only where there is an interpreter) of tongues. It may well be that those recognized as having the former gift would already be ordained as elders but the wording of the text does not distinguish as we might today.

23I am aware there is a distinction often made between teaching in the worship service and teaching in informal settings. This part of the discussion does not require a decision on this matter – I have taken the broadest view to make the point that ordinary members do not seem to have been as restricted in their function as so often is assumed.

24John 3 and Eph. 2

25Acts 10: 4 “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God and now …” The point to be established is not an incontrovertible proof that he was born again but that he seems to act as if he is and, in this case, is treated as a sincere believer who needs further instruction. Like a child, in fact, would need instruction before being given responsibility.

26Acts 19:1-7

27Evidence, to them and to those with Paul, that they truly were a part of the kingdom of God – even though their lack of understanding might have made it doubtful. Paul did not appear to have given them extensive instruction, merely that John baptized for repentance and that they should have accepted Jesus as the Christ. Some may have considered Paul accepted these people too readily but their speaking in tongues would have silenced such a complaint.