Michael J Hill
Puritan Board Freshman
Chapter 27 of WCF says that "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace" and offers Romans 4:11 as a proof text. This is, to my knowledge, the only text that could be used to support this language, as no other verse in the New Testament or LXX appears to me to use the word "seal" in a way that is relevant to sacramentology.
Romans 4 says that when Abraham received the sign of circumcision, he received it as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith before he had the sign of circumcision.
BDAG lists the word seal as "that which confirms or authenticates, attestation, confirmation, certification", so I take this to mean that Abraham's circumcision merely provided a formal authentication of something that was already truly the case: that Abraham had right standing with God through faith.
But if a seal attests, confirms, or certifies something to be the case, than specifically what is being sealed, attested, confirmed, or certified in the case of other circumcisions, especially of infants, who did not yet have, or may never have gained right standing with God? If the sign of circumcision is an authentication of any particular Jewish child's right standing with God, then would all circumcised infants have right standing with God for this authentication to be accurate? Or if the sign of circumcision is merely an objective statement that one (but no one in particular) can be right with God through faith, than what does it mean in Romans 4:11 that Abraham's righteousness was sealed by circumcision? Did it not, in his case, say something in particular about his justification specifically?
It strikes me that for Paul, it is absolutely imperative for Abraham's unique role in redemptive history that Abraham believe first, and subsequently receive circumcision. The fact that Paul highlights the chronology in Abraham's case as the hinge of his theological point means that the function of Abraham's circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith was unique to his role in redemptive history as father of Jews and father of the faithful.
To insist that circumcision in anyone else's case functioned in the this specific way would be inappropriate. It would be similarly inappropriate, for example, to universalize any particular aspect of Jesus' or Paul's earthly ministries (12 disciples, go to Macedonia).
To reiterate these points:
Romans 4 says that when Abraham received the sign of circumcision, he received it as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith before he had the sign of circumcision.
BDAG lists the word seal as "that which confirms or authenticates, attestation, confirmation, certification", so I take this to mean that Abraham's circumcision merely provided a formal authentication of something that was already truly the case: that Abraham had right standing with God through faith.
But if a seal attests, confirms, or certifies something to be the case, than specifically what is being sealed, attested, confirmed, or certified in the case of other circumcisions, especially of infants, who did not yet have, or may never have gained right standing with God? If the sign of circumcision is an authentication of any particular Jewish child's right standing with God, then would all circumcised infants have right standing with God for this authentication to be accurate? Or if the sign of circumcision is merely an objective statement that one (but no one in particular) can be right with God through faith, than what does it mean in Romans 4:11 that Abraham's righteousness was sealed by circumcision? Did it not, in his case, say something in particular about his justification specifically?
It strikes me that for Paul, it is absolutely imperative for Abraham's unique role in redemptive history that Abraham believe first, and subsequently receive circumcision. The fact that Paul highlights the chronology in Abraham's case as the hinge of his theological point means that the function of Abraham's circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith was unique to his role in redemptive history as father of Jews and father of the faithful.
To insist that circumcision in anyone else's case functioned in the this specific way would be inappropriate. It would be similarly inappropriate, for example, to universalize any particular aspect of Jesus' or Paul's earthly ministries (12 disciples, go to Macedonia).
To reiterate these points:
- For Abraham it was necessary that he was circumcised subsequent to faith because of his unique role.
- Abraham was circumcised subsequent to faith, but that was not necessary in the case of any others.
- A "seal" as used in Romans 4:11 is that which confirms or authenticates
- In Abraham's case circumcision confirmed his extant righteousness on the basis of faith.
- Circumcision could not have confirmed extant righteousness of many who received circumcision and perished in unbelief.
- Therefore, the function of Abraham's circumcision as a seal of extant righteousness must been seen as a unique aspect of his role in redemptive history.
- That which pertains to a unique role in redemptive history cannot be universalized without some additional biblical basis.
- There is no additional biblical basis for understanding sacraments as seals.
- This devastates the position that sacraments function as "seals" language in paedobaptist sacramentology.