Paedo-Baptism Answers The Discontinuation of Circumcision

[De Jager]

Hello friends,

I was recently studying through Galatians and was struck with the forcefulness of Paul's admonition to the the churches in Galatia to not receive circumcision.

That got me thinking - why the issue with circumcision? If this is the covenant sign, and points to the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11), why speak of it so harshly in the letter to the Galatians?

My conclusion is that Paul's issue wasn't with the sign itself, but the way that the sign had been misapplied and misunderstood by the Jews. The Jews viewed circumcision as just another box in the Mosaic law to check off in order to be justified by law-keeping. They did not consider that circumcision pre-dated Moses by 430 years and was given to Abraham AFTER he was justified by faith alone.

Thus, when the Judaizers urged the Gentiles to receive circumcision, they were not in essence saying "you should receive the covenant sign like we did", but rather "you need to do this in order to be justified...oh and by the way, you also need to keep all the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law".

This in my mind, is one of the reasons that circumcision had to go. The early church was filled with Jews, and the Jews of the day did not understand God's covenant sign. A continuation of circumcision as the covenant sign would have brought in massive confusion to the churches, since many of the Jews viewed it as a "work" and not as a sign of faith.

Another reason I have heard is that circumcision was a bloody sign, and since Christ's blood was shed once for all, we no longer need to shed any blood. Therefore, we have a much cleaner sign in baptism.

These are a couple of reasons I can think of as to why circumcision was discontinued. What is your take on the issue?

 

[Scott Bushey]

sign, and points to the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11), why speak of it so harshly in the letter to the Galatians?

Water replaced it. We don't want to put new wine into old wineskins.

This in my mind, is one of the reasons that circumcision had to go. The early church was filled with Jews, and the Jews of the day did not understand God's covenant sign.

Yes, Jews who already had the signage. We see no scenarios where the old sign was technically invalidated and masses of Jews getting re-marked.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think there's little or no value in observing the connection between baptism and circumcision, so far as the Judaizing controversy. Both sorts (Jew and Gentile) were obliged to be baptized as a sign of entrance/initiation to the NT church. Baptism clearly replaced circumcision in that role, so in a sense it was an undermining of baptism to insist on further circumcising the Gentiles. I do not think it was (for Paul's polemic) a case of misunderstanding the OT covenant sign, even if there was different levels or kinds of understanding in the population. Just think of today's appeals from various groups within Christianity (both good and bad) for everyone to understand baptism as they do; some treated circumcision as a work the way some treat baptism as a work.

Calling for Gentile circumcision was a way of saying: You need to go through Moses to get to Jesus. Even if the Gentiles had kinda come to Jesus skipping Moses, it was only proper (in the mind of those Paul opposed) to do some retrofit conformity, and soon everyone would be on the same page--Judaism, with Jesus.

There is a growing rift in the NT, observable in both the Acts and the Epistles (especially Paul). If not for this permanent division, Christianity would be just one more sect of Judaism--along with the 1C Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc., all the way down to modern forms. Who can even say what fluctuations history would have produced on a different timeline.

Paul correctly identified the demand for circumcision as a wedge tactic. If circumcision was added to Christ, as the price for "full" salvation, or for first-class inclusion in redemption or as citizens of the covenant kingdom, not only would this undercut the free justification of believers--the matter of first importance; it would also erect rather than demolish barriers to the international thrust of Christ's reign, while subtly reconfiguring the wall of separation as a set of stairs, a stile.