The New Testament Equivalent of Circumcision ?!? – Romans 4:9-12

 I confess to you this evening that as I was doing some research for this message, I ran into the sermon of a well-known preacher, published on the internet. Although I don’t do this as a rule, I liked what I read and decided to follow his outline. But I’m not going to tell you his name, because I don’t want that to in any way color your mind as you listen. It doesn’t matter who the original preacher was if the message is correct. I’m not saying that he is an heretic, because if that was the case I wouldn’t have read the message in the first place. I’m just saying that you need to know I’ve used another man’s idea, but you don’t need to know who he is. If you absolutely demand that man’s name, you can ask me after the service or check our website.

Our theme is the relationship between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. You might think that I should probably not even bring this up, because there really isn’t any relationship between the two, but the fact is there are a great many people, who think that they are mirrors of each other. And we are Baptists – we have taken our title right out of the New Testament ordinance. The Bible teaches us to baptize people, and yet we don’t do it the same way as do a great many other professing Christians, and we don’t baptize the same people as do most other professing Christians. I believe that have an obligation to address this subject.

Baptists do not baptize infants.There are many reasons for this conviction. First, in every New Testament command and instance of baptism – faith in Christ is required before baptism. Since infants are incapable of faith, and incapable of telling us about it, they are not to be baptized.

Second, there are no explicit instances of infant baptism in the Bible. The three “household baptisms” mentioned in God’s word make no specific reference to babies. I’m talking about the household of Lydia in Acts 16:15; the household of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30-33, and the household of Stephanus described I Corinthians 1:16. In each of these cases, the entire family from Dad to Mom to the kids and servants were all baptized. But in none of these is mention made of infants, and in the case of the Philippian jailer, Luke clearly says, “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house,” implying that those in the household who were baptized could understand, and receive, the gospel that was preached.

Third, Paul, in Colossians 2:12, explicitly defined baptism as an act done through faith – “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” In baptism Christians testify that they were raised up with Christ through faith – their own faith, not their parents’ faith, or their god-parent’s faith. If it is not “through faith” – if it is not an outward expression of inward faith – it is not scriptural baptism.

Fourth, the apostle Peter, in his first epistle, defined baptism this way, “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.” Baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” It is an outward act and expression of an inner confession carrying with it a testimony of God’s cleansing of that sinner, and it is personal, not a work of a group or family.

And fifth, when the New Testament church in Acts 15 debated whether circumcision should still be required of believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the place of circumcision. If baptism is the replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was in the Old Testament, then this would have been the perfect time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary because of its watery replacement. But it is not even mentioned, because there is no correlation between the two.

Those are some of the reasons why Baptists do not embrace the Protestant arguments for infant baptism. But now here we are at Romans 4:11, and many of those who baptize infants see in this verse a linchpin for their position. A linchpin is a clip of some kind which might secure a wheel in its place, so that it doesn’t come off its axle. A linchpin can secure different kinds of things in place, allowing them to move, but not to escape. Modern linchpins have a funny shape which pretty well guarantees that they won’t come out and the wheel won’t fall off. But I’d like to affirm that this verse is NOT the linchpin for a heretical doctrine. Let me try to show you that it can come out and should come out – it is a lie.

Why Do most Protestants practice Infant Baptism?Of course they have the traditions of John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli and other reformers. Tradition can explain a great many heresies, when there isn’t much else to support them. The main reason that this is Protestant tradition is because that was what the reformers were taught when they were still Roman Catholics. And they think that this scripture endorses the baptism of infants of believers … because to their prejudiced eye, there appears to be in the New Testament a correspondence between circumcision and baptism. They say, “Just as circumcision was given as a sign to the “children of the covenant” in the Old Testament, so baptism – a new sign – should be given to the “children of the covenant” today.” For example, in Colossians 2:11-12 there seems to be a connection between circumcision and baptism: “In (Christ) also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

For the sake of the argument, let’s grant that there is some correlation between circumcision and baptism. What are we to make of this correlation? For 400 years an argument has been made that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant and that it should be applied to Christian families the way it was applied in Israel. So for example the Protestant Westminster Directory for the Public Worship (from 350 years ago) says, “The seed and posterity of the faithful born within the church have by their birth an interest [a share] in the covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church under the gospel, not less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament.” In other words, the children of Christian believers today belong to the visible church by virtue of their birth, and they should receive the sign and seal of the covenant just as the eight-day-old infants of Israelites did in the Old Testament. That is the Protestant’s primary argument.

Why Is Romans 4:11 the “linchpin” for many who baptize infants – the Paedobaptists?In verse 9 Paul reminds us that “faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” He was justified, and made right with God through faith alone. Then verse 10 points out that this happened before Abraham was circumcised. “How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.” The point is that Abraham’s justification was not brought about through circumcision, which came later, but through faith alone. Then comes the crucial verse 11 – which provides a kind of definition of circumcision: “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.” So Abraham’s circumcision is described here as “a sign … a seal of the righteousness of faith.”

Now why is this important? Because it gives a spiritual meaning to circumcision similar to the meaning of baptism in the New Testament – “A sign and seal of the righteousness of faith.” We say that baptism is an expression of genuine faith and the right standing with God that we have by faith. This seems to be what circumcision means too, according to Paul in Romans 4:11. Circumcision is a sign and seal of a faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised.

So the Paedobaptists (baby-baptizers) try to tell us – If circumcision and baptism signify the same thing – genuine faith – then you can’t use this meaning of baptism by itself as an argument against baptizing infants, because baptism’s cousin, circumcision, was given to infants. You can’t simply say, “Baptism is an expression and sign of faith; infants can’t have faith; therefore don’t baptize infants.” You can’t simply say this, because Romans 4:11 says that circumcision means the same thing as baptism. They are both signs of faith – and since one was given to infants so should the other.

This is why this verse is considered by some to be so important in the defense of infant baptism. It defines circumcision in a way that gives it the same basic meaning as baptism, and we know from Genesis 17 that circumcision was appointed by God for infants as well as adults. Genesis 17:10-12 – “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.” So, even though circumcision is described by Paul as a sign and seal of Abraham’s righteousness through faith, it was to be given to his infant sons, and their sons, and even to their servants who were not Jews by birth. If circumcision can be a sign of faith and righteousness, and still be given to all the male children of the Israelites (who don’t yet have faith for themselves), then why shouldn’t baptism be given to the children of Christians even though it is a sign of faith and righteousness (which they don’t yet have)? (I wonder why someone doesn’t point out that baby girls cannot be circumcised? Why is it that the Paedobaptists don’t confine their infant baptism to baby boys?)

How do we answer the arguments that the Protestants do espouse?The main problem with this logic is a wrong assumption about the similarity between Israel in the Old Testament and Christians today. It assumes that the way God gathered his covenant people, Israel, in the Old Testament and the way He is gathering His saints today is so similar that the different signs of the covenant (baptism and circumcision) can be administered in the same way to both peoples. This is a mistaken assumption.

There are major differences between New Testament saints and Israel. And these differences explain why it was fitting to give the old covenant sign of circumcision to the infants of Israel, and why it is not fitting to give the new covenant sign of baptism to the infants in our Church. Even though there is an apparent overlap in meaning between baptism and circumcision, circumcision and baptism don’t have the same role to play.

Paul makes this plain in several places. Let’s look at two of them. Turn with me to Romans 9:6-8: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” What is important in this text for our purpose is that there were two “Israels” – a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. Verse 6b: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” – They are not all (the true spiritual Israel) who are descended from (physical, religious Israel).” Yet God ordained that the whole, larger, physical, religious, national people of Israel be known as his covenant people. They received the sign of the covenant and the outward blessings of the covenant – such as the land which was promised to faithful Abraham. But not all those people are in Heaven today.

The covenant people in the Old Testament were mixed. They were all physical Israelites and circumcised, but within that national-ethnic group there was a remnant of the true Israel, the true children of God. This is the way God designed it to be: He bound himself by covenant to a nation of people and their seed. He gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.

Are today’s Christians a continuation of Israel?Are the people in today’s churches a continuation of the larger mixed group of ethnic, religious, national Israel, or is God’s Church a continuation of the remnant of the true sons of Abraham who are children of God by faith in Christ? Are we a Spirit-born people with the law of God written on our hearts and defined by faith? We don’t need to guess at this. Paul makes the answer clear in Galatians 4:22-28: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Who are the people described as the “brethren” in verse 28? – saints of God and members of New Testament Baptistic Churches. A Scriptural Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham’s seed. A Church is not to be like Israel – a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. By definition, a church is a congregation of saints who can meet together because they are spiritual brethren serving their mutual Saviour. As saints, they are like Isaac – “children of promise.”

The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh – an ethnic, national, religious people containing “children of the flesh” and “children of God.” It was acceptable for circumcision to be given to all those children of the flesh. But the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is being built in a fundamentally different way. Not through natural birth, even though we love every infant and child within all our families. God’s church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives, but on the reality of personal faith. A church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole. In a very special way, it is an continuation of the true Israel, the spiritual remnant. Not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise. Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of a covenant which doesn’t belong to them.

When we take communion we remember that Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20; I Corinthians 11:25). The new covenant is the spiritual work of God to put his Spirit within us, write the law on our hearts, and cause us to walk in his statutes. It is a spiritually authentic community. Unlike the old covenant community, it is defined by true spiritual life and faith. Having these things is what it means to belong to the Church. Therefore to give baptism to those who are merely children of the flesh, and who give no evidence of new birth or the presence of the Spirit or the law written on their heart or of vital faith in Christ, is to contradict the meaning of the church and to step backwards into an Old Testament shadow.

Despite the thinking of most Protestants, a New Testament Church is not a replay of Israel. It is an advance on Israel. To administer the sign of the old covenant as though this advance has not occurred is a great mistake – it is heretical. We do not baptize our children according to the flesh, not because we don’t love them, but because we want to preserve for them the purity and the power of the spiritual community that God ordained for the believing church of the living Christ.

This is something of which, as Baptists and Bible believers, we need to be firmly persuaded. Those who are children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ought to be baptized, not to comply with any church constitution, but because of faith and their obedience they want to glorify the great new covenant work of God in their lives. Those who are not believers in Christ and who have not been born again, should not be baptized.

Have you been washed by the blood of the Lamb? Are your sins forgiven? Have you died with Christ and risen by faith to walk in newness of life? Does the Spirit of Christ dwell in you? Is the law being written on your heart? Come, then, and signify this in baptism, and glorify God’s great work in your life and soul. (Outline by John Piper).