6.
Baptism has replaced circumcision, and therefore is rightfully and properly
applied to the same subjects.
This
is a subject I have written on its length. I will therefore not launch into a
long defense of that statement. Instead let me briefly demonstrate the identity
of the two sacramental seals by looking at what Paul says in Colossians 2:11. (What I have written can be found here.
In
Colossians 2:11, Paul tells us, “in Him you were also circumcised with the
circumcision done by Christ." Before we proceed, it is crucial to remember
Paul's constant invective against those who insist that circumcision is necessary
for Christians. It should be obvious then that whatever Paul is referring to
here, he does not mean physical circumcision. Let's let Paul explain himself.
How does he say we were circumcised by Christ? He says, “having been buried
with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith.” The first word of
verse 12 (συνταφεντες), is a participle describing the circumstances in which
believers are circumcised. In other words, Paul is saying that we are
circumcised with a spiritual circumcision (made without hands) with the
circumcision of Christ and this is done by being baptized. It is common (based
on Romans 6) to use burial as an illustration of baptism. Notice here though,
that Paul uses burial as an illustration of circumcision. He says, “You were circumcised
by having been buried…” Chrysostom clearly grasped this when he wrote, ”No
longer, he saith, is the circumcision with the knife, but in Christ Himself;
for no hand imparts this circumcision, as is the case there, but the Spirit. It
circumciseth not a part, but the whole man. It is the body both in the one and
the other case, but in the one it is carnally, in the other it is spiritually
circumcised; but not as the Jews, for ye have not put off flesh, but sins. When
and where? In Baptism.” (Homily 6 on Col.)
Therefore
Paul concludes that in the New Covenant, our baptism is our circumcision. It
identifies us with Christ’s death. This is why Paul so adamantly opposed the
Judaizers who wished to impose circumcision upon Christians. Baptism is the
sign of our having been circumcised in Christ. For this reason physical
circumcision in the new covenant is unnecessary. Baptism identifies us with
Christ's death and faith is the means by which we united to Christ.
Looking
back on the first New Testament administration of the sacrament of baptism, we
see Peter actually equate circumcision with baptism. How, you ask. Precisely
because when Peter says, “the promise is to you and to your children, and all
who are far off," he is using the exact same formula that God Himself used
when He instituted the sacrament of circumcision in Genesis 17:7. And the Jews
understood this clearly.
Let’s
be clear about what we mean. We are not saying that in the Christian church
circumcision was discontinued, or laid aside, and that baptism has now been
brought in. We mean that baptism occupies the same place as the appointed
ordinance in the church, and that as a sacrament it means the same thing. The
meaning and design of circumcision was primarily spiritual. It was not solely,
or even mainly, given in respect to the possession of Canaan and the temporal
promises related to residents in that land. Circumcision was a sign and seal of
a spiritual covenant which had more important blessings and promises that were
conveyed through the Messiah, in whom all the families of the earth are to be
blessed. The same is true for baptism.
Circumcision
was a token of visible membership in the family of God and of covenant
obligation to him. The same is true for baptism circumcision publicly ratified
entrance into that visible family. Baptism does the same. Circumcision was an
emblem strike that circumcision was a symbol of spiritual cleansing. So does
baptism. Baptism refers to the remission of sins by the blood of Christ, and
regeneration by his Holy Spirit. It teaches us that we are by nature guilty and
depraved and need pardoning in sanctifying grace of God. Shirley we are on good
ground when we assert that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. All
evangelicals, whatever their convictions on this subject may be, are agreed
that circumcision as a seal of the covenant has been discontinued. Granting
that to be true, does not it stand to reason that a no other sign and seal must
take its place? If baptism means the same pairing, seals the same covenant, and
is a pledge of the same spiritual blessings, how can the identity of baptism
with circumcision be disputed?
No comments:
Post a Comment