SkillsMasters
Puritan Board Freshman
When reading A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by C. Matthew McMahon, one part reads this:
(This was in response to the question of why God would tell Abraham to circumcised his eight-year-old infant. )
And later:
Is Genesis 17 referring to Abraham's physical offspring? Otherwise, I don't understand the part where it says, "He would have trusted God’s promise to be a God to him and his children, so he would have given them the covenant sign." Wasn't God's promise that He would be a God to Abraham and Abraham's offspring (spiritual offspring)? How can this be applied to physical offspring of believers then? If I am understanding the argument correctly, is it saying that God's promise to Abraham to be a God to him and his offspring therefore we circumcise our children because we trust in God's promise to be a God to our children? That leads me to my question, wasn't that promise towards Abraham specifically and to his spiritual offspring (all believers)?
Note: Not disagreeing, just asking a question
(This was in response to the question of why God would tell Abraham to circumcised his eight-year-old infant. )
Professor Jacobs: Very good. Well said. Now I want to dwell a moment on Abraham. When Abraham circumcised Isaac, did Abraham believe God’s promise was upon his chosen seed?
Thomas: I have no reason to believe otherwise. Now that I look at the text, I have to say “yes.”
Professor Jacobs: I’m glad. You would be right in saying “yes.” Was Isaac in covenant with God?
Thomas: Again, I would have to say “yes.” The sign and symbol of the covenant was placed upon him, and Abraham, no doubt whatsoever, believed God’s blessing was upon his son by God’s direct promise to bless him and his seed forever.
Professor Jacobs: We know that the “seed” is spiritual; it refers to Christ, ultimately. But practically speaking there are lots of children to come down the line of “covenant” before the ultimate blessing of Christ is seen. Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc., to name a few. Circumcision is a spiritual act in response to the promise of God that is given externally. It is given on the basis of the faith of the parent. The parent believes God’s promise and raises their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord based on those promises.
And later:
Professor Jacobs: Did he [Isaac] circumcise them [Jacob and Esau]?
Thomas: Of course. He wanted God’s promises to bless them, so he circumcised them both.
Professor Jacobs: Like Abraham did to Isaac at 8 days old, Isaac also circumcised his children. Did Isaac believe they were in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant with God?
Thomas: I cannot see how he could not have thought that. He would have trusted God’s promise to be a God to him and his children, so he would have given them the covenant sign.
Is Genesis 17 referring to Abraham's physical offspring? Otherwise, I don't understand the part where it says, "He would have trusted God’s promise to be a God to him and his children, so he would have given them the covenant sign." Wasn't God's promise that He would be a God to Abraham and Abraham's offspring (spiritual offspring)? How can this be applied to physical offspring of believers then? If I am understanding the argument correctly, is it saying that God's promise to Abraham to be a God to him and his offspring therefore we circumcise our children because we trust in God's promise to be a God to our children? That leads me to my question, wasn't that promise towards Abraham specifically and to his spiritual offspring (all believers)?
Note: Not disagreeing, just asking a question