Thread: Question for Paedo-baptists: circumcision vs. baptism and purpose

So I've been thinking (and please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed before), and was curious as to what the representative change was in baptism from circumcision. Okay, I guess that doesn't make a lot of sense, but what I'm going to ask can't be condensed to a single sentance. I have a lot of thoughts on this topic right now, but it is hard to put them in a readable form. So please bear with me, and please inform me if I'm being unclear.

*deep breath* (for me)

In the Old Testement, the males of the household were circumcised as a sign of the covenant. When Abraham came to know God, he was circumcised (as an adult), and so were his sons.


In the New Testement, Jesus established the new covenant of baptism. Both males and females engaged in baptism, and it is the new sign of the covenant. From my understanding, for those who hold to paedo baptism, the new sign of the covenant (baptism) is to be bestowed upon the whole family when the head of the household becomes a member of The Elect (to both males and females, and to infants and children even when they don't have an understanding of redemption or the covenant).


Circumcision, as I understand, was also a sign of male headship. In showing that the son was part of the covenant, it also demonstrated his role to be responsible for the spiritual teaching of his family (correct me if I'm wrong). When baptism was instituted, the sign of the covenant was issued on both male and female, essentially taking away the "male headship" part of the sign of the covenant. I do understand that we're taught about male headship in other ways in the NT, but not exclusively through baptism.


My question is: what happened between the Old and New Testement to make the sign of the covenant bestowable upon both genders? Why did God give the opportunity of the covenant to be available to all when Jesus was baptized? What changed?

Jesus came to die for our sins. His death saved us. Baptism does not save. So why did Jesus change the covenant? In the OT, women were still saved even though they weren't bestowed the sign of the covenant. So why was there a change to women being given the sign of the covenant, even though baptism doesn't make anyone "more" redeemed than the women of the OT.






Again, please forgive me if this doesn't make sense or whatnot. Even though I've been going to church since early childhood, I am just now beginning to try and grasp complex theological issues.


Please forgive any spelling and grammatical mistakes. It is late, and I am tired, but i wanted to get this question out.

Short answer: the New Covenant is "better", and the issue of who receives the covenant sign is just one way that fact is demonstrated. Paul makes this very point, Gal 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Remember that before Christ, one of the things the sign pointed to was that God's Promised Seed would be born a male of Abraham's (then Isaac's, then Jacob's, then Judah's, then David's) descendants. So, to put that sign directly upon the males was a gender-specific statement about where (from the Jews) and how (a son) to expect the coming Savior to appear.

I don't really think "headship" really fits into the equation of circumcision's message, myself. Perhaps on a tertiary level? A further implication?

Today, there is no purpose to be gained or sign to be shown by limiting the sign to males only. Whatever restrictions still exist today (for example in holding church office), women are not restricted in the same, the many, and the varied ways they were before Christ. Instead, as Gal.3:28 teaches the elimination of many older barriers and distinctions, the New Covenant sign is designed for and applicable to more of the church as a sign of the increase of God's favor through the accomplishment of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps.

Here are some verses on the mode of baptism and what it represents

The meaning and mode of Baptism (Pouring, Sprinkling, and Dipping)
Baptism should be public and is a symbol of having the Holy Spirit Poured out thus regenerating us(Titus3: 3For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.) Being washed by Christ's blood (Hebrews10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. )as the cleansing of sin which recognizes a person in Christ's death, and we are raised with Christ by faith (Colossians2:11-12).

You see in the OT circumcision was a bloody sign and there were many bloody sacrafices, but in the NT Christ has shead His blood as our sacrafice, thus we use water to represent our being washed/cleansed by His blood.

As far as who now recieves the sign, Bruce handled that, it is because of the expansion and fulfilment of the Old Covenant in Christ making it New. All people(those who believe and their children) from all nations are now grafted into Isreal by baptism because Christ IS Isreal and we are IN HIM by the cleansing of His blood and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Hope this helps

Rev Bruce, good job. I also think that women were not allowed in the same part of the synagogue building, and now we meet with the whole family. So the sign of being in the covenant instead of just residing on the man needs to be on all who are in the worship service proper, and also on all who partake of the Lord's supper.
So in this sense the head who met in the worship and took the passover, and went up to temple to sacrifice had to have the sign. But now since the whole family is in the special presence of God and worshiping they need to be marked with the covenant sign.

What do you think??

PS looks like you are a little short in giving out thanks compared to receiving them??
In His service,

Don, I'm happy that my post was praiseworthy to you.

I'm not an expert on Synagogue, however I do not think the women were disallowed from hearing the reading and the preaching of the Word. Biblical religion, properly conceived, has always understood women as possessors of God's Word as much as men.

There was a greater degree of "covenant-responsibility" placed on the male, and he had mandates to perform. Females were, according to nature, regularly (monthly) ceremonially unclean; thus, quite properly they were relieved of being assigned many public religious duties, as well as being disallowed by the Law from participation when they were in such state. But being "clean", I do not think they would have been in any sense made second-class at the Synagogue.

Segregation according to gender is not automatically to be thought a sub-Christian practice. It is common even today in the Middle East to have the men and women sit on either side of the aisle in a Christian church. How ancient this tradition is, I don't know. But I don't think that it is necessarily an outgrowth of an older Synagogue mode that relegated women to being "out of sight", or treated as unwelcome.

That is basic Islamic practice, however, for example see this article highlighting the tensions created in westernized settings: Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly . COVER STORY . Women in Mosques . November 12, 2004 | PBS . Muslims exclude women from the men's gathering in the mosque. I can't conceive of this being related to biblically directed Christian or even Synagogue practice, but to the exaggerated chauvinism of Muhammad's religion--an attempt to universalize MidEast culture in a most extreme form.


The ceremonial limitations and exclusions of the OT rites meant that women were kept out of full participation. There was a "court of women" at the Temple in Christ's day, visually depicting this division. I would say that today's full-participation by both genders in the religious life of God's people, and especially the elimination of ceremonial uncleanness, is properly displayed in the covenant sign application and Communion participation.

I might say it a little differently than this: "... now since the whole family is in the special presence of God and worshiping they need to be marked with the covenant sign." Because there were occasions in the OT when the whole family was gathered before God's special presence (e.g., Dt.31:12; Neh.8:1-2; Ex.10:24); and yet then the sign was still limited to the males.

If we start speaking about whole and entire family inclusion in worship as entailing the "whole family" sign of baptism, I'm afraid that could lead to the unbiblical (contra-Confessional) practices of paedo-communion and female ordination, as pushing that principle along to further "entailments".

I think we are on safer ground recognizing that "ceremonial limitations" have been abolished, therefore it is fitting that women are Baptized and invited to the Table.



*************
re. "thanks" -- I guess I GIVE to the board more than I GET from the board? I really don't care if you think that if someone GETS a lot of "thanks" then he OWES a lot of "thanks". I don't deserve praise or thanks. I also don't deserve a reputation as a "thanker". Keeping track of that stuff is a prideful snare.

And I don't deserve a reputation as an ingrate, but thanks all the same! I've been posting here for over 5 years. There's been a "thanks button" for half that, maybe? I don't feel obligated to use all the features of the board. If people want a shorthand method to show their appreciation of a post by public congratulations then this feature is available to them.

Sorry, Bruce, just givin' you a hard time!

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

If we start speaking about whole and entire family inclusion in worship as entailing the "whole family" sign of baptism, I'm afraid that could lead to the unbiblical (contra-Confessional) practices of paedo-communion and female ordination, as pushing that principle along to further "entailments".

I think we are on safer ground recognizing that "ceremonial limitations" have been abolished, therefore it is fitting that women are Baptized and invited to the Table.

I don't get your Ex 10:24 ref but, In the OT there were rare times families got to hear the word read in public, this not the regular worship or temple; but it was based on their head's sign.

Now all get the sign which is useful for our present distress since we have women head of households in worship.

I do see the sign as a mark for admission into the covenant worship.So now they all have it even if they have no male head in worship with them, a thing unheard of then.


I think it all the more prevents Paedo-communion.

Since a child is given the sign of the covenant at birth, there is no need to take the supper to feel they are in the covenant or getting all the grace they should.
It marks them to be in the covenant and partakers of the blessings, and privileges of the covenant until they make a profession, discerning the lords body, blood and application to this personally.

In His Service,