1 Peter 3:21 and Infant Baptism

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think the reason this verse doesn't help is because this verse speaks actually about spirit-baptism not water-baptism.

Curious distinction. Where do we see in Scripture, or in this verse in particular, this distinction?

 

[reformedman]

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

paraphrase:
Baptism does save us, not the one with water which cleanse the outside, but the internal one--the repentance toward God, initiated by the work of Christ.

This verse is definitely talking about Baptism, which baptism is what is defined. It was the reason for the verse, it's an explanation of effective baptism.

If it isn't spirit baptism, then what other baptism can save? This verse says that it is able to save.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Curious distinction. Where do we see in Scripture, or in this verse in particular, this distinction?

paraphrase:
Baptism does save us, not the one with water which cleanse the outside, but the internal one--the repentance toward God, initiated by the work of Christ.

This verse is definitely talking about Baptism, which baptism is what is defined. It was the reason for the verse, it's an explanation of effective baptism.

If it isn't spirit baptism, then what other baptism can save? This verse says that it is able to save.

I do think Peter is dividing the sign and reality in this particular verse, in terms of which he draws attention to the Spirit's actual work, as opposed to the church's sacramental work in his name.

Of course, Peter also makes the sacramental connection through the use of the term "antitypon" that is "figure" or "correspondence" due to the "water" of verse 20.

But certainly saving power does not reside in the waters of baptism, but in the Spirit of God. Peter is clearly saying "Don't think of the water itself as salvific; rather, look past the water to the Spirit. The same Spirit that saved Noah and 7 other souls. The ark didn't save them, but GOD."

 

[R. Scott Clark]

paraphrase:
Baptism does save us, not the one with water which cleanse the outside, but the internal one--the repentance toward God, initiated by the work of Christ.

This verse is definitely talking about Baptism, which baptism is what is defined. It was the reason for the verse, it's an explanation of effective baptism.

If it isn't spirit baptism, then what other baptism can save? This verse says that it is able to save.

Baptism doesn't save any more than the flood waters saved Noah. Peter says in 1 Pet 3:20 that Noah was saved "dia hydatos." The flood water was potentially deadly and something through which Noah needed to be saved. The water was a judgment. It was a sort of ritual death.

So it is with baptism and circumcision. They are both forms of ritual initiation into death. Circumcision is a sort of ritual death inasmuch as men are never so vulnerable as during circumcision! It also typifies and illustrates the forthcoming and promised death of Christ. Baptism is retrospective of Christ's death/baptism/circumcision. This is the of Col 2:11-12. Christ was baptized/circumcised/put to death on the cross. We are ritually identified with his circumcision/baptism/death in our baptism. We come into possession of all that act signifies and seals sola gratia, sola fide.

rsc

 

[satz]

Mark,
Have you read Nigel lee's paper, From Circumcision to baptism?

Scott,

Yes, I have, though I must confess it wasn't a very thorough read.

 

[satz]

Scott,

Thanks for your post #25. You raise some interesting points.

These specifics originate in Genesis and come to fruition @ Calvary.

So there is an obvious sense in which the specifics of the ordinance have changed. And since baptism only appears in the new testament, we should look primarily to the new testament for what are God's new 'rules' regarding it.

It's the same rules in the OT.

Why would you say there must necessarily be the same rules as in the OT? Galatians 5:6 seems to say that circumcision doesn’t mean anything either way as far as Jesus Christ’s religion goes. I think that shows us at the very least that we cannot take Genesis 17 and apply it directly to new testament baptism. We need to look at what the new testament says about baptism.

As an example female israelites were not circumcised

Not true! They were through the federal headship of their father.

I do not deny the federal headship of the father, but could you elaborate on where you get the idea of the female Israelite being circumcised through their father? Why not take the simpler route and say God never asked for female children to be circumcised so there was no need?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Why would you say there must necessarily be the same rules as in the OT? Galatians 5:6 seems to say that circumcision doesn’t mean anything either way as far as Jesus Christ’s religion goes.

Galatians 5:1-6 NAS Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

No. What Gal's is saying is that it's either justification by faith alone or else you are holding again to the covenant of works and you will perish. "you who are seeking to be justified by law"

I think that shows us at the very least that we cannot take Genesis 17 and apply it directly to new testament baptism. We need to look at what the new testament says about baptism.

Is the concept of covenant a new concept? No! In fact, the idea originates in the garden. For this reason we should utilize both to come to a conclusion. This is exactly what James W. did not do w/ Shisko. In fact, this is not the way Shisko went either. Proper hermeneutics demands that you use the whole of Gods word. Do not rip Gods word in half.

I do not deny the federal headship of the father, but could you elaborate on where you get the idea of the female Israelite being circumcised through their father?

Dr. McMahon explains this here:

Were females circumcised in the OT? Of course – they were virtually circumcised. Here is how Covenant Theologians think this through: First question: Were Israelite women able to partake of the Passover? Answer: I do not know of anyone who would disagree. The entire family was obligated by God to do so. Problem: Exodus 12:48 describes the proselyte males who shall be circumcised in order to eat of the Passover. He says, “And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land.” Then the problem arises, God says – “For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.” Females are not formally circumcised. God says that no uncircumcised person having a “foreskin” can eat of the Passover. Women actually have this (but I am not going to get into the medical aspects of it – you can look it up on your own.) If females, then, are not circumcised, how does God allow them to eat of the Passover? Answer: They are circumcised through Federal Headship – the father of the family, otherwise they would remain unclean and cutoff (that which symbols the cutting of the flesh of the foreskin and discarding it). Second Question: How do we know they are “virtually” circumcised, or they are seen as circumcised in order to be acceptable in this regard, and partake of the Passover, for instance? Answer: The ratification of the covenant is where we find the answer. The Scriptures give us an example of covenant faithfulness where God, and everyone bound by the covenant, must be solemnly set forth. Genesis 15:17 says, “And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram…” We know that to “covenant” means to “cut.” The ratification of this “cutting” is done through an ontological adherence to the cut pieces of the covenant. God himself passes through the pieces of the covenant animals and sacrifice. He says, without saying it, but through action, “Whatever is done to these animals, let it be done to me if I do not uphold my side of the covenant.” In the same manner, any person who “covenants” with God can be “cut off”. They are cast out of the covenant if they are found unfaithful. This is likened to the foreskin of the male organ being “cut off and cast away.” The “sin” is purged from the camp. Blood must be spilt, as the foreskin cut had spilt blood. Not only is the covenant sign given in the flesh, but it also acts as the ratification of the covenant. The seed passes through the covenant cutting, just as God passes through the covenant cutting. The sign of this passing was circumcision so that the male, the head of the family, continually carried around the ratification of the covenant in his flesh, and hopefully, in his heart as well (Deut. 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4). Each time the lineage of the faithful (the children of Abraham) pass through the cutting of the covenant sign in the flesh of the foreskin, one of two things will happen – 1) God would regenerate them and they would continue to uphold the physical and spiritual aspects of the covenant, or 2) God would not regenerate them and they would ultimately be “cut off” and “cast away.” (Achan, Dathan, Korah, AND THEIR FAMILIES – women and children included based on federal headship). If the female did not symbolically partake of this ratification, of which the covenant stands or falls in blessing or curse upon them, they would not be able to be part of the “clean” people of God. They would remain as covenant breakers who do not believe the promises of God, as the proselyte was until he was circumcised willingly, and baptized with his entire family as Maimonedies sets forth concerning Jewish history. The females would also not be able to partake of the Passover if they there not considered being clean, or circumcised, by oath. The seed passing through the cutting of the covenant is the same as God passing through the cutting of the covenant. In this way they ratify the oath made. And it also expresses the monergistic aspect of salvation in that the seed, not being sentient, is bound by the covenant stipulations. When a male passes through this same ratification, he not only binds himself to the covenant, but also is given the role of carrying around that covenant in his flesh to continue its outward, and visible administration of a spiritual truth (Genesis 17).

Why not take the simpler route and say God never asked for female children to be circumcised so there was no need?

See above

 

[satz]

No. What Gal's is saying is that it's either justification by faith alone or else you are holding again to the covenant of works and you will perish. "you who are seeking to be justified by law"

Scott, I’ am sorry but I don’t quite get what you are saying here. Circumcision no longer has any meaning for the Christian. Would you disagree with that? The act of physical circumcision was very important for Abraham and Israel, but it is of no meaning for Christians today. Even if we make the assumption that baptism and circumcision are connected, there is no way we can figure that out just by reading Genesis. We need the new testament to tell us that. My point was we cannot take passages from Genesis and apply them directly to the church today. I believe God does operate by progressive revelation. And the final and greatest revelation is in the gospels and epistles. If we were to read Genesis 17 by itself we might think that circumcision is still required today. But the New Testament tells us that is not so. So we do need the new testament to determine our practice as the church.

Is the concept of covenant a new concept? No! In fact, the idea originates in the garden. For this reason we should utilize both to come to a conclusion. This is exactly what James W. did not do w/ Shisko. In fact, this is not the way Shisko went either. Proper hermeneutics demands that you use the whole of Gods word. Do not rip Gods word in half.

I agree completely we should not rip God’s word in half. But that doesn’t mean that very portion of God’s word speaks in equal force on every subject. Should we look at Romans 9 to learn about church discipline? Or 1 Corinthians 11 to learn about predestination? There are passages in scripture that are more relevant than others on particular subjects. No matter the connection between baptism and circumcision, no one got baptized in the old testament, to my knowledge. Hence I do not see how it is dispensational to say we ought to draw primarily from the new testament to form our doctrine of baptism.

Dr. McMahon explains this here:

Thanks for that. I’ll chew over it.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott, I’ am sorry but I don’t quite get what you are saying here. Circumcision no longer has any meaning for the Christian. Would you disagree with that? The act of physical circumcision was very important for Abraham and Israel, but it is of no meaning for Christians today. Even if we make the assumption that baptism and circumcision are connected, there is no way we can figure that out just by reading Genesis. We need the new testament to tell us that. My point was we cannot take passages from Genesis and apply them directly to the church today. I believe God does operate by progressive revelation. And the final and greatest revelation is in the gospels and epistles. If we were to read Genesis 17 by itself we might think that circumcision is still required today. But the New Testament tells us that is not so. So we do need the new testament to determine our practice as the church.



I agree completely we should not rip God’s word in half. But that doesn’t mean that very portion of God’s word speaks in equal force on every subject. Should we look at Romans 9 to learn about church discipline? Or 1 Corinthians 11 to learn about predestination? There are passages in scripture that are more relevant than others on particular subjects. No matter the connection between baptism and circumcision, no one got baptized in the old testament, to my knowledge. Hence I do not see how it is dispensational to say we ought to draw primarily from the new testament to form our doctrine of baptism.



Thanks for that. I’ll chew over it.

Mark,
Lets slow down a bit: You presented a passage from Galatians.
3 initial questions:
1) What does Paul mean when he says, "you who are seeking to be justified by law" ?
2) How is this statement related to the previous statement about circumcision?
3) What covenant is related to being 'justified by the law'?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree with Dr. Bacon on women's participation in the memorial and sacramental Passover (that they were not expected to participate, and may not have even been invited). The Jewish doctors distinguished between the original meal and its celebration. The "bar mitzvah" was the original mark of transition after which a young boy would be required to accompany his father and the rest of the males to Jerusalem, where God commanded (again, only the males) to go up thrice annually. This would not preclude women accompanying their menfolk (Lk. 2:41), but God did not require it.

It is certain that a minimum of 1/4 of the females in any given year were unable to participate in the basis of their ceremonial uncleanness (the same batch would also have been unclean on the following month's "substitute passover"). A certain number of others would not have been free to make the trip due to recoveries from birth and further ceremonial uncleanness.

Furthermore, large young families would not have been able to make such a long slow trek. Imagine! one round trip might take a month walking with all those small children, plus the week spent staying and the costs involved.

Now add two more manditory feasts. Again, the argument is not that they could not come, but that they were not required to come as were the men. And if they came, they may not have been invited into participation in the sacrament (since in fact they were not circumcised).

I can still agree that women in Israel participated in the cleanness (or uncleanness) of the nation through circumcision, that there was an "ethereal" or "virtual" circumcision--but I don't subscribe to the material connection described in Matt's article above. Women certainly were ceremonially cleansed, they were federally clean through their families, their fathers, their husbands. The whole people was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant. But the truth is that women were not religiously responsible for certain activities under the old covenant. The broadening of general religious participation in the sacraments of the church is an improvement of the New Covenant over the Old.

I encourage reading Dr. Bacon's article against paedo-communion for his full insights. I believe Chris Coldwell (NaphtaliPress here on the PB) has linked to it in the past.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I agree with Dr. Bacon on women's participation in the memorial and sacramental Passover (that they were not expected to participate, and may not have even been invited). The Jewish doctors distinguished between the original meal and its celebration. The "bar mitzvah" was the original mark of transition after which a young boy would be required to accompany his father and the rest of the males to Jerusalem, where God commanded (again, only the males) to go up thrice annually. This would not preclude women accompanying their menfolk (Lk. 2:41), but God did not require it.

Bruce,
Ceremonially, yes.

It is certain that a minimum of 1/4 of the females in any given year were unable to participate in the basis of their ceremonial uncleanness (the same batch would also have been unclean on the following month's "substitute passover"). A certain number of others would not have been free to make the trip due to recoveries from birth and further ceremonial uncleanness.

I am certain that this could be considered as providential hindrances.

Furthermore, large young families would not have been able to make such a long slow trek. Imagine! one round trip might take a month walking with all those small children, plus the week spent staying and the costs involved.

This is speculation.

Now add two more manditory feasts. Again, the argument is not that they could not come, but that they were not required to come as were the men. And if they came, they may not have been invited into participation in the sacrament (since in fact they were not circumcised).

Again, speculation.

I can still agree that women in Israel participated in the cleanness (or uncleanness) of the nation through circumcision, that there was an "ethereal" or "virtual" circumcision--but I don't subscribe to the material connection described in Matt's article above.

So then you agree that they are recipients of a circumcision; above you seem to be saying they are'nt circumcised?

Women certainly were ceremonially cleansed, they were federally clean through their families, their fathers, their husbands.

Correct. And how was this accomplished? As you have said above. I just want to keep the discussion clear for Mark.

The whole people was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant. But the truth is that women were not religiously responsible for certain activities under the old covenant.

How was the blood spilled upon them if not by their federal heads circumcision? Right; some of the ceremonial stuff.....

The broadening of general religious participation in the sacraments of the church is an improvement of the New Covenant over the Old.

I agree.

 

[JohnV]

Okay, but didn't circumcision require this too?

rsc

This is the key question.

See Daniel's (Poiman) post.

A good conscience is a response of faith, a response to covenant inclusion. It is not a requirement in order to receive either the OT or NT covenant, but a requirement of the covenant upon receiving the sign, whether OT or NT. Even if circumcisioin and baptism are deemed unrelated, yet this certainly remains quite intact.

But surely there must be some relation of circumcision to baptism, since all the OT signifies and points to the NT. Christ's coming and work of salvation revealed to us the mysteries of faith concealed in the OT. The OT saints longed to know what we now commonly know through the NT. Surely it is not a stretch to believe that OT circumcision be related to baptism, since both are God's signs to us that He has called un into His covenant. Neither of these signify our accepting of His invitation, our response to God; they both signify God's inclusion of us into His covenant. Both are an obedience of faith; they require of us to have a clear conscience within that covenant, not in order to be received into it. We are received by grace, and that not by our own doing. This was as true for the OT sign as for the NT sign. How can circumcision and baptism not be related? These things are the things the OT covenant members longed to know about their membership in it.

 

[reformedman]

How can circumcision and baptism not be related?

Physical Ordinance:
Scripturally, circumcision was done unbeknownst to the person receiving it.
Scripturally, baptism was done after the person repented.

Spiritual Ordinance:
Scripturally, God circumcised the heart of the elect sometime after the physical circumcision.
Scripturally, God caused a 'good conscience' to be manifest in the elect before water-baptism. (1Pet 3:21)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Spiritual Ordinance:
Scripturally, God circumcised the heart of the elect sometime after the physical circumcision.

What? How do you know this?

Romans 4:11 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

 

[reformedman]

What? How do you know this?

Two ways;
Simple logic-- did God circumcise the heart before the 8th day of a person? A person can't know he is a sinner even on the 8th day. He has no knowledge. An infant is as an imbecile(yes, all speculation but atleast for me I know I was an imbecile about my sins even at 10 years old).

Conversion (ordo salutis-ly speaking) happens at the start of sanctification. Regeneration (or the new man) is the change that causes conversion. The new-man(change of desires from world-directed to God-directed) happens after the circumcision of the heart. What evidence of the new-man, or of conversion is there for a person who doesn't even know he's a sinner, God's will, the seperation of God and man, the gospel? All of these are required to rightly understand that a person desires the will of God only after God has converted them. You cannot desire the will of God until the circumcision of the heart. These are pretty much why I don't believe paedobaptism in the first place.

 

[reformedman]

I just noticed the romans 4:11 verse. I wasn't referring to adult circumcision, I was referring to the global understanding of circumcision which is the eigth day. Adult circumcision is so rare that it's probably less than a fraction of one percent of the people who's done that. Obviously you can be circumcised of the heart and then unknowingly disobey God's will by being physically circumcised in adulthood, which would be trying to be made right by the law. But even then, if God has truly regenerated a person and justified him, I very much doubt he will desire to be made right by circumcision. He obviously doesn't understand what Christ did for him then. So in any case, even after being circumcised of the heart, I doubt anyone would go and get circumcised.

I meant infant circumcision in the prior post.

 

[satz]

Hi Scott,

What does Paul mean when he says, "you who are seeking to be justified by law"

I assume he is referring to those who are seeking their salvation (to be justified…) by the Law of Moses and the acts it requires.

How is this statement related to the previous statement about circumcision?

The verse I quoted was Galatians 5:6. I think I see where you are coming from, though I could be wrong, and have been many times before. Still, I am not sure how the context of ‘those who seek to be justified by the law’ changes the meaning of verse 6. Circumcision (the act of removing the foreskin) now has zero significance to the Christian whether legally, practically or in any other sense (except perhaps hygiene).

What covenant is related to being 'justified by the law'?

The Old Covenant, I would assume.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The verse I quoted was Galatians 5:6. I think I see where you are coming from, though I could be wrong, and have been many times before. Still, I am not sure how the context of ‘those who seek to be justified by the law’ changes the meaning of verse 6. Circumcision (the act of removing the foreskin) now has zero significance to the Christian whether legally, practically or in any other sense (except perhaps hygiene).

You're on the brink of gettin it. This person Paul was speaking of was looking to the circumcision for justification. This is the crux of this passage; circumcision never justified. In that, this passage has nothing to do with your original premise which was:

Galatians 5:6 seems to say that circumcision doesn’t mean anything either way as far as Jesus Christ’s religion goes.

The sign whether it be circumcision in the old or baptism in the new "means something"; they just don't justify!

The Old Covenant, I would assume.

Specifically, the Covenant of Works; The covenant of works is still intact. If it were possible, like Adam, if he had kept the C of W's perfectly, he would have been justified by it. Thats why Paul says:

.......Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce,
Ceremonially, yes.

I assume you are refering to my reference to the bar mitzvah (son of the covenant). My point is that this ceremony placed him under the command of God, but that apart from this ordinance, there is no command. None. The males are commanded to go, females are not. Boys certainly didn't partake. "What do you mean by this service?" And you need a transition moment when boys become men, hence the "son of the covenant." This is most certianly related to the exam Jesus underwent at age 12. Thereafter he would go up to the feast.

I am certain that this could be considered as providential hindrances.

First it must be demonstrated that the women were expected to participate in the memorial Passover. There is no Scriptural example I know of, with the possible exception of the (non-memorial) initial Passover, where the whole house appears to have (may have) eaten the meal. In Numbers 9, there is the first memorial Passover. Unclean men ask "what are we to do?" Moses receives allowance for them to keep it in the second month. Where is the question from the unclean women? No place.

Second, even if you assumed that women could partake if they were not unclean, there would be a huge number of Israelite women who NEVER partook of a Passover. Some women are as regular as Big Ben.

{regarding travel by pregnant women, babies, large families with three-year olds walking up from Beer-Sheba or down from Dan} This is speculation.

No, its not speculation at all. Its one reason why women (and children) weren't required to attend the yearly feasts. What's speculative is claiming that women, who weren't actually circumcised, participated in the Passover which demanded the rite.

{regarding two more feasts}Again, speculation.

Just show me one single verse to support what I contend is real speculation. I can show you the verses that command the males to appear 3X a year (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16).

So then you agree that they are recipients of a circumcision; above you seem to be saying they are'nt circumcised?

No, I'm simply saying they participated in the cleanness (or uncleanness) of the nation--something that in some cases was only expressed outwardly by the menfolk. Likewise, the men and women of the nation participated in the priesthood vicariously; they were not therefore equally priests with the Levites through a "transmission" of sorts.

{regarding federal cleansing}Correct. And how was this accomplished? As you have said above. I just want to keep the discussion clear for Mark.

How it was accomplished was BY FAITH. I think OT believing women thought of themselves as privileged to be Israelites and as clean as their fathers and husbands and sons and as the nation, and did desire and hold dear the regeneration (circumcision) of their own hearts. But I don't supposed that they considered themselves as though they were bodily circumcised, just "virtually". That strikes me as amounting to sexual confusion. They were acceptable because their representatives were acceptable, and they believed the federal principle.

How was the blood spilled upon them if not by their federal heads circumcision? Right; some of the ceremonial stuff.....

Women stood in the congregation, Ex. 24:8, and were sprinkled with the cleansing blood of the covenant. Likewise, they were atoned for on Yom Kippur.


Look, my point is--I don't feel as though we need to add complication to the question. The issue of female's participation in various matters of Old Covenant administration is simply diversionary. The answer to that question is a simple: "God removed an additional mark of separation in the transition from Old to New." End of story! He's allowed to do that. We don't need to resort to contortions of the federal principle (which is alive and well in both the OT and the NT) in order to justify baptism replacing circumcision. It just does, and that's that.

The crux of confusion is the claim that God made two different covenant arrangements with Abraham. And the idea that regeneration is itself a "sign" of a spiritual covenant. Regeneration is part of the reality of God's promise, not some invisible sign that doesn't "point" to anything because it can't be seen.

Peace.

 

[satz]

Scott,

Sorry for my delayed response.

I think I see what you are getting at. Prehaps I was careless in my phrasing. I did not mean to say that the signs mean nothing. The point I was getting at was that circumcision in the OT meant something, but in the NT it means nothing. If I understand you correctly, you would say that that meaning has now been transferred to baptism. But circumcision, that surgical procedure, once meant something but does not anymore. My point was simply to demonstrate that between the old and the new there has been a change in the sign, hence we cannot take the OT passages on the sign and apply the directly without consulting the NT.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott,

Sorry for my delayed response.

I think I see what you are getting at. Prehaps I was careless in my phrasing. I did not mean to say that the signs mean nothing. The point I was getting at was that circumcision in the OT meant something, but in the NT it means nothing. If I understand you correctly, you would say that that meaning has now been transferred to baptism. But circumcision, that surgical procedure, once meant something but does not anymore. My point was simply to demonstrate that between the old and the new there has been a change in the sign, hence we cannot take the OT passages on the sign and apply the directly without consulting the NT.

Mark,
Why can't we? It's a OT command that is eternal.

 

[satz]

Scott,

My point was, if we read Gen 17 alone it sounds like circumcision is an eternal ordinance. But when we read the NT, we see that circumcision (the surgical procedure) has ceased to be an ordinance of the church. Even if you say it is now replaced by baptism, there has still been a change in the ordinance.

 

[reformedman]

Circumcision of the flesh has been cleared up as a forshadow of the circumcision of the heart.