Is Baptism the New Circumcision?

[Wittenberger]

So as I have shown above, God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants had to have been more than just a “national identifier” because many of the people circumcised weren’t even descendants of Israel (Jacob), such as Ishmael and Esau, and some were not even descendants of Abraham (all Abraham’s male servants and slaves; there were over 300 males in his household).

A covenant is a contract. You do X and I will do Y. So God’s covenant with Abraham and his
offspring was a contract: “place your faith in me and I will be your God”. This contract was given to Jews and non-Jews as shown above.

In a contract both parties must fulfill their obligations. Also in a contract, there is a seal, or sign to prove that a contract/covenant exists: a written document in our day; symbols or marks in the day of Abraham.

For the contract to be enacted, each party involved, both God and the man, had to fulfill their side of the contract: God gives a promise of salvation and gives a sign of this promise in the form of circumcision. The man must fulfill his side of the contract by expressing true faith and obedience to God prior to receiving the sign, or if an infant, he receives the sign of the promise, but must grow up, and as an older child or as an adult, express true faith and obedience to God, in order for the contract to be valid.

Salvation in the OT required both a circumcision of the flesh AND of the heart.

If this were not true why did the Jews require that Gentile proselytes who wanted to convert to the faith of the One, True God, be circumcised? The Bible and extensive Jewish historical documents show that this was the practice even during Christ’s time. None of the OT prophets condemned this practice. Christ himself never condemned this practice.

If salvation in the OT could occur outside of circumcision for males and ritual baptisms for female Gentile converts, why is there no mention of its denunciation anywhere in the Bible?

Simply expressing faith in the God of Abraham was not enough. You had to be obedient, and demonstrate that you HAD true faith, by following God’s command and receiving his mark or sign.

 

[Wittenberger]

(continued from above)

The Jews in Jesus day were big-time proselytizers. Jesus even comments on this fervent proselytizing : they (the scribes and Pharisees) “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte”. Matt. 23:15

The Old Testament covenant was never exclusively national, limited to the descendants of Jacob. It was primarily a religious covenant, and people who accepted the religion of Israel became its fullfledged members.

So what were the requirements of conversion for Gentile proselytes according to Jewish rabbinic historical records:

1. Circumcision of men
2. Baptism and sacrifice of all, both men and women.

This means of Gentile conversion was in practice before Christ and during Christ’s public ministry. A famous Baptist theologian, Dr. Augustus Hopkins Strong, quotes Alfred Edersheim’s book Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah as proof that proselyte baptism was practiced during the time of Christ.

Gentile converts were, of course, adults. But if they had children and they wanted to take them with them into the covenant of God, they too were baptized. The Jews reasoned: Abraham was circumcised as an old man, Ishmael at the age of thirteen, and the infants at the age of eight days. The baptism of the proselytes was to follow the same pattern.

The rabbis declared: since baptism and acceptance into the covenant of God was beneficial, and leaving a child without it harmful, baptism of infants was required.

Jesus criticized many of the practices of the scribes and Pharisees. He criticized them for making of their converts “children of hell like themselves”. Matt. 23:15. However, Christ never criticizes the practice of proselyte infant baptism. He criticizes them for practically everything else, so if this practice of baptizing Gentile infant proselytes was against God’s law, why didn’t he say anything about it? That can’t be merely accidental.

 

[OldRegular]

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

Not really, any more than infant baptism is sign of an inward spiritual grace!!

 

[reformed_baptist]

1. Circumcision was not a part of the Mosaic covenant, but of the Abrahamic covenant.

No, it was part of both covenants, when you firt point is so wrong there is little point in reading on is there

 

[padredurand]

Not really, any more than infant baptism is sign of an inward spiritual grace!!

If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. ~Calvin

 

[Scarlett O.]

Salvation in the OT required both a circumcision of the flesh AND of the heart.

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

Brother, I know that you want so badly for Old Testament circumcision of infants to be associated with salvation and grace so that you can make the connection for infant baptism today to be vital and just as important, but it just isn't so. Even if we were to say that babies under the old covenant who were born into a Israelite community were circumcised signifying them as Jewish, you still can't make the connection to the thinking that babies in the new covenant era who are born into a Christian community should be baptized signifying them as Christian.

The leap cannot be made.

Jew and others in the Old Testament were not counted as righteous because of their circumcision. They were counted as righteous because of their faith. See all of Hebrews 11. In fact, Hebrews 11 says that these Old Testament people who HAD faith believed in the promise of a Messiah and understood that this world was not their home, but that heaven was. They looked forward - yes, in mystery and through a veil - to God's salvation, even if they couldn't define it.

Hebrews 11:13-16 "Every one of those people died. But they still had faith, even though they had not received what they had been promised. They were glad just to see these things from far away, and they agreed that they were only strangers and foreigners on this earth. When people talk this way, it is clear that they are looking for a place to call their own. If they had been talking about the land where they had once lived, they could have gone back at any time. But they were looking forward to a better home in heaven. That’s why God wasn’t ashamed for them to call him their God. He even built a city for them."

A man's circumcision of his flesh contributed nothing to his spiritual nature. The Holy Spirit was in no way the instigator of making one desire circumcision. Some men who were circumcised loved God and obeyed him and some defied him terribly will burn in hell for all eternity for it - circumcised and all. Good gravy, just read the books of Exodus - Judges alone. Circumcision of the flesh did not produce faith, precede faith, nor usher in faith.

In fact, when Moses told them that they needed a circumcision of the heart, he told them that God could only do that. Deuteronomy 30:6. The cutting of the male flesh could not usher in grace. It was important and commanded. But not to save or be a part of salvation. It was to set God's people apart. But even countless members of those set apart never received the grace and salvation of God.

On the other hand, baptism in the New Testament IS closely associated with one's faith and salvation. It ALWAYS was a symbol OF one's faith, coming AFTER faith, and was a testimony of saving grace IN Christ and was/is an outward sign of an instigation OF the Holy Spirit to submit to God's saving grace.

Also, Colossians 2:11-12 explains that it's not that baptism replaces physical circumcision, but that baptism FOLLOWS the circumcision of the heart which can be accomplished by Christ alone.

Simply expressing faith in the God of Abraham was not enough. You had to be obedient, and demonstrate that you HAD true faith, by following God’s command and receiving his mark or sign.

Please read Hebrews 11 in it's entirety. There is no mention of physical circumcision in Old Testament faith - true faith - that counted for righteousness.

 

[Moriah]

It was important and commanded. But not to save or be a part of salvation.

A person could not choose to abstain from being circumcised, or God would cut them off.

 

[saturneptune]

One might as well baptise their pet cat as sprinkle an infant. They have the same level of understanding of the Gospel. Matthew 28 makes the order quite clear. If Lutherans were going to bother to leave the RCC five hundred years ago, then leave it, including infant baptism. Otherwise, why bother? You can come up with all the warped theories you want from the OT, infant baptism has no merit and is not Scriptural.

 

[padredurand]

Brother, I know that you want so badly for Old Testament circumcision of infants to be associated with salvation and grace so that you can make the connection for infant baptism today to be vital and just as important, but it just isn't so. Even if we were to say that babies under the old covenant who were born into a Israelite community were circumcised signifying them as Jewish, you still can't make the connection to the thinking that babies in the new covenant era who are born into a Christian community should be baptized signifying them as Christian.

The leap cannot be made.

Depends on who's doing the leaping.....

. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. ~Calvin

 

[Scarlett O.]

"Gentile converts were, of course, adults. But if they had children and they wanted to take them with them into the covenant of God, they too were baptized. The Jews reasoned: Abraham was circumcised as an old man, Ishmael at the age of thirteen, and the infants at the age of eight days. The baptism of the proselytes was to follow the same pattern.

The rabbis declared: since baptism and acceptance into the covenant of God was beneficial, and leaving a child without it harmful, baptism of infants was required.

Jesus criticized many of the practices of the scribes and Pharisees. He criticized them for making of their converts “children of hell like themselves”. Matt. 23:15. However, Christ never criticizes the practice of proselyte infant baptism. He criticizes them for practically everything else, so if this practice of baptizing Gentile infant proselytes was against God’s law, why didn’t he say anything about it? That can’t be merely accidental."

I know that you are quoting Dr. Augustus Hopkins Strong who is quoting Alfred Edersheim. You said so in your post.

But, could you please quote from the Bible where any Gentiles were "taking their children into the covenant of God by baptizing them".

Or could you show anywhere in the Bible where it is taught that "since baptism and acceptance into the covenant of God was beneficial, and leaving a child without it harmful, baptism of infants was required."

I don't see where Gentiles becoming Christians would be practicing this or that Christians who were once rabbis would be teaching this because there are too many citations in the Bible where it is explicitly instructed that confession, repentance, an encounter with Christ/Holy Spirit and faith must precede baptism.

How could Jesus refute a practice that didn't exist?

 

[Moriah]

Wittenberger,


Think about it…there are plain and simple rules for infant circumcision. However, there is no mention of infant baptism.

Think about this also, if Jesus’ disciples were baptizing infants, then why did the disciples try to send the little children away when people brought them?

Why do the scriptures say the people brought little children for Jesus to touch and did not bring them to be baptized?

 

[padredurand]

Wittenberger,


Think about it…there are plain and simple rules for infant circumcision. However, there is no mention of infant baptism.

Think about this also, if Jesus’ disciples were baptizing infants, then why did the disciples try to send the little children away when people brought them?

Why do the scriptures say the people brought little children for Jesus to touch and did not bring them to be baptized?

If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. ~Calvin

 

[Moriah]

If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. ~Calvin

The disciples rebuked the people for bringing the little children. Tell us, why would they do that if John the baptist and Jesus' disciples had been baptizing infants all along? Please answer that question.

In addition, why do the scriptures say people brought little children for Jesus to touch, and not to be baptized?

We are to bring our children to Jesus by teaching them his ways, and showing them by example how to belong to the Lord.

Please answer this too, why is there no mention of infant baptism? Why are there no instructions on baptized adults bringing their infants for baptism?

 

[Moriah]

If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. ~Calvin

Of paedobaptism, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity." Michael Servetus

 

[Wittenberger]

1. Circumcision was not a part of the Mosaic covenant, but of the Abrahamic covenant.

No, it was part of both covenants, when you firt point is so wrong there is little point in reading on is there

You are correct, my friend that my first statement was incorrect. What I meant to say is that circumcision did not begin with the Mosaic covenant. It began in the Abrahamic covenant, and was used by more than just the nation of Israel.

Please read all my comments. As a reformed Baptist I would like to hear your comments.

 

[Wittenberger]

Brother, I know that you want so badly for Old Testament circumcision of infants to be associated with salvation and grace so that you can make the connection for infant baptism today to be vital and just as important, but it just isn't so. Even if we were to say that babies under the old covenant who were born into a Israelite community were circumcised signifying them as Jewish, you still can't make the connection to the thinking that babies in the new covenant era who are born into a Christian community should be baptized signifying them as Christian.

The leap cannot be made.

Jew and others in the Old Testament were not counted as righteous because of their circumcision. They were counted as righteous because of their faith. See all of Hebrews 11. In fact, Hebrews 11 says that these Old Testament people who HAD faith believed in the promise of a Messiah and understood that this world was not their home, but that heaven was. They looked forward - yes, in mystery and through a veil - to God's salvation, even if they couldn't define it.



A man's circumcision of his flesh contributed nothing to his spiritual nature. The Holy Spirit was in no way the instigator of making one desire circumcision. Some men who were circumcised loved God and obeyed him and some defied him terribly will burn in hell for all eternity for it - circumcised and all. Good gravy, just read the books of Exodus - Judges alone. Circumcision of the flesh did not produce faith, precede faith, nor usher in faith.

In fact, when Moses told them that they needed a circumcision of the heart, he told them that God could only do that. Deuteronomy 30:6. The cutting of the male flesh could not usher in grace. It was important and commanded. But not to save or be a part of salvation. It was to set God's people apart. But even countless members of those set apart never received the grace and salvation of God.

On the other hand, baptism in the New Testament IS closely associated with one's faith and salvation. It ALWAYS was a symbol OF one's faith, coming AFTER faith, and was a testimony of saving grace IN Christ and was/is an outward sign of an instigation OF the Holy Spirit to submit to God's saving grace.

Also, Colossians 2:11-12 explains that it's not that baptism replaces physical circumcision, but that baptism FOLLOWS the circumcision of the heart which can be accomplished by Christ alone.





Please read Hebrews 11 in it's entirety. There is no mention of physical circumcision in Old Testament faith - true faith - that counted for righteousness.

I will read all of Hebrews chapter 11 if you will read ALL of my comments on this thread, starting at the beginning.

I am in complete agreement that salvation in the OT required a circumcision of the heart: adult faith and obedience to God.

How about we stick with the subject of circumcision right now. God called circumcision a covenant. A covenant was a contract. What was God's promise in the contract, and what was man's?

I have shown that the purpose of circumcision could not have been solely as a national Jewish identifier. Too many other people were circumcised who did not belong to the family of Jacob, the father of the Jews.

Please read ALL comments.

 

[padredurand]

Of paedobaptism, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity." Michael Servetus

Every one must now see that paedobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family (Act_16:15, Act_16:32), what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord’s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles.~Calvin

 

[billwald]

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

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

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

Before the gold cow incident God told Moses that his (pun intended) were to be priests to the world but they blew it. The Law taught that strangers were to be as welcome as family and could "convert."

The Bible specifically states that Esau was reprobate but Ishmael? I don't think so? Would God treat the other physical sons of Abraham worse than strangers?

 

[Wittenberger]

A person could not choose to abstain from being circumcised, or God would cut them off.

Moriah is right.

Please show us where God told any of Abraham's descendants that they could skip circumcision and still be in the "national" covenant, or the spiritual covenant (eternal salvation).

I don't think you will find any support for this.

Both physical AND spiritual circumcision was required in the Old Covenant. Just doing one of them was not sufficient.

As Moriah quoted, God says in Genesis that any male that refused circumcision would be cut off.

 

[padredurand]

The disciples rebuked the people for bringing the little children. Tell us, why would they do that if John the baptist and Jesus' disciples had been baptizing infants all along? Please answer that question.

In addition, why do the scriptures say people brought little children for Jesus to touch, and not to be baptized?

We are to bring our children to Jesus by teaching them his ways, and showing them by example how to belong to the Lord.

Please answer this too, why is there no mention of infant baptism? Why are there no instructions on baptized adults bringing their infants for baptism?

"How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour’s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him? By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says, "Suffer little children to come," they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists terms which denote infants still at their mothers’ breasts." ~ Calvin