In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col 2:11-12)Paul clearly draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism here. The connection is in regards to "the putting off of the flesh." Baptism, in this text, is the sign of having had a spiritual circumcision that parallels Christ's "circumcision" where He "put of the flesh" in His literal death and we show the same in being "buried with Him in baptism" and then "raised with Him through faith."
So, just what was circumcision all about? Recently someone asked me, "How did that work? Instead of 'Show me your papers' it was 'Whip it out and show me you're a Jew'?" That is, not a very good sign, right? Whose crazy idea was this? Oh, not crazy; it was God's idea. He instituted it as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and his offspring (Gen 17:10-11). It was to be accomplished on the eighth day of the boy's life (Gen 17:12). And Abraham obeyed (Gen 21:4). When Moses didn't, it was nearly fatal (Exo 4:24-26).
But what was that all about? In what way would circumcision be a sign? Well, first, it was clearly a cutting away the flesh (Jer 4:4). Just the phrase should give you an image that helps you understand. We need to cut away the sinful flesh. God does it to us spiritually. But even modern medicine understands the situation. According to the Mayo Clinic, circumcision makes for easier hygiene, decreased risk of urinary tract infections, decreased risk of STDs, and decreased risk of penile cancer. Foreskins, then, are problematically dirty and potentially dangerous. And being located where they are located (trying to be delicate here), there is an unavoidable suggestion of cutting away sexual immorality in particular (a common (universal?) problem for males in particular). Beyond this, Scripture is clear that salvation requires the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22). Zipporah cut off her son's foreskin and declared her husband "a bridegroom of blood" (Exo 4:26) because it was clearly a bloody process, and without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. There is a third sense here. In a very real way, being included among God's children is a form of procreation (Gal 3:7; Rom 9:8). Paul referred to Timothy as his "beloved son" (2 Tim 1:1). We know Paul wasn't his physical father; he was his spiritual father. We understand that a father might bring you to faith or raise you in Christ. It is a procreation parallel, and circumcision hints at that.
So why do people resist the correlation between baptism and circumcision? This would generally boil down to the paedobaptism-vs-believer's-baptism debate. Paedobaptism is infant baptism. If there is a correlation between the two and infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, then shouldn't we baptize infants now? I don't think so. First, New Testament baptism is displayed as a sign of being immersed into Christ's death and resurrection, and that doesn't happen until ... you are mmersed into Christ's death and resurrection. Second, circumcision occurred in the Old Testament when you were born and became part of the family; shouldn't New Testament "circumcision" -- baptism -- occur when you are born again and become a part of the family? Third, circumcision was a sign of a covenant between God and His people. Baptism is the sign of a covenant between God and His people. In the Old Testament, they became "His people" by being born into the family (or converted). In the New Testament the covenant is with "the one who shares the faith of Abraham" (Rom 4:16). So in order to have the sign (baptism), you'd need to have the faith. I think that makes more sense than identifying a baby with Christ's death and resurrection even if they never do. So I have no problem finding a clear and biblical correlation between the two. I do wonder if we're not waiting too long between coming to faith and getting baptised. What was it ... eight days?
5 comments:
What's scary about infant baptism is that they believe it is a form of temporary salvation, not just a symbol of the covenant. I have known a person that was baptized as an infant and deemed it not necessary to be baptized after their choosing of Christ. I'm fine with baby dedications because those are about dedications from the parents. But infant baptism is dangerous because it leads some to believe they're already saved without ever making that choice. Yes, there's a correlation between baptism and circumcision, but one has to be the choice of the person, and the other is not, nor was it a symbol of their salvation as Jews.
Among other false beliefs about baptism ... like "baptismal regeneration" where they believe that we are saved by baptism.
100% agree that there is a link between circumcision and baptism. While some people believe that there is some degree of salvation that happens in infant baptism, not all do.
As a member of a denomination that practices infant baptism, I've gone back and forth on this issue for a while. Where I found the biggest problem was with the "rule" that there is only one baptism. I've landed in a place where I acknowledge that need/desire for some ceremony that happens in infancy as circumcision does. I think that the picture of the parents and the Church gathering around a child in order to make promises regarding the child's spiritual formation is powerful. I think that the symbolic marking of the forehead with a cross is powerful. In other words I have no problem with that sort of ceremony. My problem is with calling it baptism.
I think that that sort of "dedication" ceremony can coexist with adult/believer baptism very well.
FYI, I did baptize my kids as infants, and we've had multiple discussions with them about baptism as adults, and the fact that we as parents would support that.
I think the other aspect that makes this topic more problematic is when it gets into the the necessity of baptism for salvation.
That's the other side of the coin, isn't it? "If you haven't been baptized, you aren't saved." I'm not sure what they do with the thief on the cross on that score.
I agree that the thief is the best example of salvation without baptism.
Post a Comment