Circumcision Was a Sign of Salvation Blessings that Are Received by Faith

God calls circumcision a “sign” of his covenant, so we can ask what circumcision “signified,” what it “pointed to” in terms of the relationship of Abraham and his family to the Lord.

A Sign of Transformation of Heart (New Birth by the Spirit): Later in the Old Testament God made it clear that external circumcision of the flesh was a sign or symbol of a spiritual cleansing that God calls “circumcision” of the heart: “Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer” (Deut. 10:16). But after [the Babylonian exile] God will regather them to the land (return under Ezra and Nehemiah), and “The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live” (Deut. 30:6).

But Outward Circumcision Did Not Guarantee Circumcision of Heart: Now, receiving external circumcision did not guarantee that an Israelite boy had received spiritual circumcision, or would later receive spiritual circumcision. “For all [the] nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart’” (Jer. 9:25-26).

A Sign of the Righteousness We Receive by Faith: Circumcision symbolized the righteousness that believers (like Abraham) receive by faith, just as it symbolized cleansing and renewal of heart by the Holy Spirit. Yet God commanded that it be administered to Israelite baby boys at 8 days old, before anyone could tell whether God had changed or would change their hearts by his Spirit, whether he would enable them to trust his promises!

A Sign of Union with Christ in His Sacrificial Death: Since the blessings of the new birth and righteousness by faith came to Abraham and other Israelites (B.C.) and come to us (A.D.) only as a result of Jesus’ sacrifice, we could even say that circumcision symbolized union with Christ in his death – his being “cut off from his people” for us (Gen. 17:14; Isa. 53:8), even though he didn’t deserve the curse, since he was circumcised both in flesh (Luke 2:21) and in heart. In fact, Paul pretty much says just this in Colossians 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” Christ was cut off for us, put to death for us; his death for our sins is counted by God as our own death. Circumcision symbolizes this reality of Christ suffering as our substitute, and so does baptism.

Why We Baptize Infants (and Adults)

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of

your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who

are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” ~ Acts 2:38-39

Distributed by:02-661-0653 0927-863-6364

Email: dvopilgrim@gmail.comWeb: twoagespilgrims.com/pasigucrc

Re-thinking BaptismMichael S. Horton

©1995 Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Here's a question for you: What are the top five things that are necessary for your Christian growth? Go ahead, say it out loud. Of course, the rest of us won't be able to hear, but that's OK. What would make the list of the 5 most important aids to Christian growth? Prayer? Evangelism? Bible study? Fellowship? Christian service? Time and time again, I've asked that question in evangelical circles and heard all of these answers--wonderful and good answers, but the glaring omission was the mention of the sacraments. We hardly hear about the sacraments these days at all, much less do we see them as essential to our growth in Christ.

And yet, baptism and the Lord's Supper are, in Scripture, linked to our salvation itself. Through these two sacraments God gives us the grace that he promises in his Word. That's right. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace. Not mere symbols, but means of grace.

Now, before you start thinking, "Gee, this sounds like a Catholic view of baptism and the Lord's Supper," let me assure you that the view of baptism that I'm presenting is the traditional Protestant doctrine. In spite of the gradual movement of this great biblical sacrament to the periphery of the church's life and thought, it still occupies that same important place in the Bible itself and requires us to recover its grand place in our own day.

Now the focus of this address is on Christian baptism. The word baptism comes from the Greek word baptidzo, which means "to dip, to wash, or to sprinkle." In fact, the word was used in ancient times to refer to immersing someone or something. But the same word was also used to refer to watering one's lawn or plants. That's why it's impossible to argue for one mode of baptism on the basis of the word itself. What's important in this matter is what God does through this sacrament, in fulfillment of his promise to wash us from our sins.

One of the important distinctions over the centuries of reflection on baptism is between "the sign" and the "thing signified." In baptism, the sign is water. You can put your finger in it, you can drink it, you can play water polo in it. The water in baptism is no different from the water in from the tap. But water--the sign--is not the only thing involved in baptism. There is a convergence, a meeting, of Word, Spirit, and Sign, and the result is baptism. Through the Word of the Gospel, the Spirit connects this washing with water somehow to a real inward cleansing and regeneration. So, in baptism, normal water becomes sacred water, as the waters of the

course. Rather, it made him a "Nazirite," whose uncut hair signified his special consecration as a servant of God (1 Sam. 1:11; Num. 6:1-21). Nor is it treated as an ongoing pattern for Israelite infants in the Old Testament, let alone for the children of believers in the New Testament. There were Samson and John the Baptist (also Nazirites from conception), whom God had promised to barren parents and set apart for his own special purposes even before their conception (Jgs 13:3-5; Luke 1:13-17).

Then there is the presentation of Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:22-24) when he was about 41 days old. (He was circumcised at 8 days, and then 33 days later Mary could be "purified" following her son's birth, Lev. 12:37). But we should notice that this presentation fulfills the command that came from the Exodus from Egypt, and specifically the night when the Passover lamb died in the place of the Israelites' firstborn: "Every firstborn male shall be called holy to the Lord.” Firstborn sons were to be redeemed (Exod. 13:2, 12, 15). It is hard for me to see how this Old Testament custom, which had to be observed carefully for Jesus since he came to fulfill every requirement of the Law of Moses, could be viewed as a model for Christian [infant dedication]. Christian infant dedication services don't mention the ceremonial purification of the infant's mother after the birth; they are performed not only for firstborn sons but also for later children – of both genders! They do not involve offering sacrifices for the redemption of the child from death or the purification of the mother.

In all these ways, Christian infant dedication services today are very different from Jesus' presentation to the Lord at the age of a month and a half – and they should be! The Old Testament sacrificial system, which included the redemption of Israel's firstborn and the ceremonial cleansing of Israel's mothers, was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Because I find no convincing biblical command or example that would provide a basis for infant dedication by Christian parents today … it seems clear that the weight of biblical evidence favors infant baptism, because of the continuity between circumcision and baptism as signs of entry into God's community.

"Dedication" Focuses More on the Parents' Action Than on God's Promise of Grace through Faith

Finally, infant dedication as a ceremony lacks an important element that infant baptism has: Infant baptism encourages us and our children to trust in Christ by symbolizing the promises of God, achieved for us by Christ and received by faith alone. Dedication tends to focus more on what we do than on what Christ has done.

receiving the mark of the covenant (circumcision), participating in the feasts of the covenant (for example, Passover, Exod. 12:25-27), being taught the Law as the guide for their grateful response to God’s redemptive grace (Deut. 6:4-9,20-25). But what about the New Testament? When Christ comes, is there a change in the composition of the community of God’s covenant?

The Trend in the New Testament Is to Include People Who Used to Be “Outside”:

There are changes in the composition of the covenant people as we move from Old Testament to New, but they are not in the direction of excluding a category of people because of their age or mental immaturity. The most obvious change is that Gentiles, people from other physical families than Abraham’s, are welcomed in droves. As we see in Matthew’s mention of Rahab, Ruth, and others in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1), even in the Old Testament God did welcome a handful of Gentiles into his community; but with the death and resurrection of Jesus and the baptism of the Spirit which he poured out on the church, the floodgates of grace are thrown wide open to Samaritans, Greek, Romans – even to Swedes and Scotch-Irish!

Secondly, the sign of the New Covenant, baptism, is one that can be and is applied to females as well as males (Acts 8:12), in contrast to Old Covenant circumcision, which was only for males. Although the New Testament still speaks of a distinction in role between men and women in the family and the church, baptism makes clear what was implied in Genesis 1:26-28: in terms of creation in God’s image, and now new creation in the image of Christ, and in terms of personal value and worth to God, women and men are equal (Gal. 3:28). Hence women worship with men in Christian congregations, not in a separate courtyard as in the Jerusalem temple or behind a screen as in some Jewish synagogues. So now, with Gentiles welcomed in and women more fully included by receiving the covenant sign along with males, does God now take a very different stance toward the children of believers, excluding them from his covenant people as he is welcoming in other groups?

A Biblical Case for Infant Dedication in the New Testament Is Far Weaker than the Case for Infant Baptism:

If we are looking for a biblical justification for how we treat the infants of believers, it seems to me that it is far harder to make a case for dedication than for infant baptism. Consider the biblical examples of infant dedications:There was Samuel, whom his mother Hannah promised to return to the Lord for tabernacle service even before he was conceived (1 Sam. 1:11, 24-28). But Hannah's dedication of Samuel did not replace his circumcision, of

Red Sea, though normal water, became a means through which God redeemed his people from slavery in Egypt.

Just look at the biblical evidence for this view of baptism. The connection between the sign--water, and the thing signified--that is, the actual cleansing by the Holy Spirit, is very close in Scripture. Mark 16:16 reads, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." When Ananias healed Paul, after Jesus had given the apostle his commission, Ananias said, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" (Acts. 22:16). Paul himself declared, "Don't you know that all of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Rom. 6:3). To Titus, he writes, "He saved us, not because of righteous things we have done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life" (Tit.3:5-7).

The illustration I just gave a moment ago, comparing the waters that saved Israel from Pharaoh to the waters of baptism, is actually not original with me. Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 1-4: "For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

Then there's that thorny question about baptizing those little rug rats. What do we do about infant baptism? Isn't it just a hold-over from Roman Catholicism that Protestants just can't seem to shake off? First, let me say that I was raised in evangelical Bible churches and when I ran into people who baptized infants, I just assumed that they probably didn't even read their Bibles. Maybe the weren't even really Christians. It was a shock to me to learn that many of the greatest defenders of biblical orthodoxy in this century all believed that this was a biblical doctrine, so I began to listen to their arguments. After a lot of arguing and wrestling with the Scriptures, I finally gave in to a point of view I was sure I would never hold.

Now, what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. There have been people who have had just the opposite experience. Growing up in Lutheran or Reformed churches, they came to believe that the Scriptures did not teach infant baptism, so our experience doesn't determine anything. But it should cause you to at least pause for a moment and ask, "What makes so many Bible-believing Christians embrace infant baptism as scriptural?"

Why Baptize Infants? We should baptize our children because...1. God has brought us into a covenant of grace and although not all

members of this covenant will persevere (i.e., they are not elect), they enjoy special privileges of belonging to the covenant people of God. This was true of Israel (the church in the Old Testament), and the New Testament simply applies this to the New Testament church (Hebrews, esp. 4:1-11 and 6:4-12; Dt. 4:20 and 28:9 with 1 Pet. 2:9,10; Gal. 6:16; Hos. 2:23 and Is. 10:22 with Rom. 9:24-28).

2. Even though bringing someone under the protection of God's covenantal faithfulness does not guarantee that every member possesses true, persevering faith (Heb. 4:1-11), but that does not mean that it is unimportant as to whether a person is in Christ and his covenant of grace.

3. Children were included in the covenant of grace in the Old Testa-ment, through the sacrament of circumcision, and in the New Covenant (called the "better covenant"), God has not changed in his good intentions toward our children (Ac. 2:38, 35) and circumcision has been replaced with baptism (Col. 2:11). Therefore, our children must be brought into the covenant of grace and united to Christ through baptism as the people of God in former times were brought into the covenant through circumcision.

4. The children of unbelievers are unholy, but the children of believers are set apart unto God. This is a distinction not only of the Old Testament (see the Passover, Ex.12:1; also the distinction between the "house of the wicked" and the "house of the righteous," especially in the Psalms), but is continued in the New Testament as well (1 Cor. 10:2). How are they marked or distinguished from unbelievers? By the sign and seal of the covenant.

5. Household baptisms in the New Testament are common (see esp. Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16), and when the jailer asked how to be saved, Paul replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." We are told that this same night "he and his family were baptized" (Ac.16:31-33).

6. There is an unbroken record in church history of the practice of infant baptism. Although tradition is of a secondary value, it is especially important here for this reason: We know for a fact that the earliest Christians after the death of the apostles were practicing infant baptism, with the command of those who were trained by the apostles themselves. Where was the debate, assuming these immediate successors to the disciples were departing from the apostolic practice?

7. Baptism is the work of God, not man. It is not a sign of the believer's commitment to God (which would, therefore, require prior faith and repentance), but the sign and seal of God's promise to save all who do not reject their baptism by refusing to trust in Christ. For the nature of

baptism, see Mark 16:16, Acts. 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Tit. 3:5. The reason these references are to those who have first believed is that the first converts, obviously, were adults when the believed, but they evidently baptized their children. The same was true of Abraham, who believed before he was circumcised, but then had his children circumcised as infants.

§

Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed(Excerpts) By Dr. Dennis E. Johnson

Circumcision and Baptism Mark the Boundaries of the Community that is Under Christ’s Lordship

Now, that facts that circumcision and baptism both symbolize spiritual blessings that are received by faith in Christ and that circumcision was administered to infants before they could give evidence of faith don’t prove that now, in the New Testament, baptism should be administered to covenant children before they personally give evidence of their faith. The fact that an infant cannot express faith doesn’t exclude her from receiving the sign that points to blessings that are received by faith.

If circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New do not absolutely guarantee that the person receiving the sign has received or will receive the spiritual reality, what is the purpose of these covenant signs? They mark the boundaries of the community that acknowledges Christ’s covenant Lordship and authority, the church. Since we can’t infallibly read others’ hearts, the church as we see it on a day-to-day basis may not correspond exactly to God’s perfect knowledge of his chosen ones (2 Tim. 2:17-19). Even when an adult convert is baptized, we do it not because we have supernatural knowledge that he is born again, but because he confesses to believe in Jesus, seems to understand what that means, and his life is beginning to bear fruit consistent with his confession of faith. Some-times, however, church leaders are mistaken or misled, and a person who once seemed to be a believer will turn away from the life of faith he had seemed to start (see Simon of Samaria). So as an elder I can’t read hearts to know for certain who is “born again” from the Spirit; all I can do is evaluate whether people acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus both in their words and in the general direction of their behavior.

In the New Testament, Are Believers’ Children “Inside” This Community or “Outside”?

In the New Testament, if parents confess Jesus as Lord, are their children inside this community, the church, or are they outside? Clearly in the Old Testament the children were included in the community of God’s covenant,