# infant baptism and the 8th day



## biblelighthouse (Nov 24, 2005)

Since infant baptism holds the same position in the New Testament that circumcision held in the Old Testament, why don't we specifically baptize our infants on the 8th day?

I am aware of a council of 66 bishops in Carthage, around 250 A.D., in which there was unanimous agreement that paedobaptism did NOT have to be done on the 8th day, but should be done much sooner. Their rationale was that the 8th day for circumcision was fulfilled by Christ rising from the dead on the "8th day" of the week. 

But councils are fallible. Where does Scripture actually tell us the significance of the 8th day for circumcision?

Should we baptize infants on the 8th day, in conformity to the Old Testament timing of circumcision commanded by the Lord? If not, why not? 

I am interested in hearing good, exegetical, Biblical reasons.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> I am interested in hearing good, exegetical, Biblical reasons.



Can't find one...why not just boil it down to a choice and not start binding peoples' consciences?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by CalsFarmer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




You just did a good job of boiling down my entire question on this matter. Should we have a choice? Or should our consciences be bound?

Please keep this in mind: I am not the one who bound people's consciences to give the covenant sign on the 8th day . . . God is the one who did that (Genesis 17:12).

Now, if God has nowhere revoked that requirement, then what right do we have to choose when we give the covenant sign to our children?

Suggesting that we should have a choice in this matter is no different from suggesting that we should have a choice in the matter of paedobaptism/credobaptism. It's not a matter of choice . . . it is a matter of following the Word of God.

Consider this excellent quote:


> The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. *They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out.* They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.
> -B.B. Warfield



Similarly, it may also be logical to say, "*The covenant sign must be given on the 8th day until God changes the day. God has nowhere changed it.*"


Frankly, I would RATHER believe that the day is not important. In fact, since the church throughout history has generally not treated the day as important, I am inclined to believe that there is some Scriptural reasoning behind it, somewhere. But I don't know what that reasoning is.

But I do have to ask this: If there is NOT any Scriptural warrant for giving the covenant sign to our children on any day other than the 8th day, then *what right do we have to ignore that*, and to simply make it a matter of personal choice?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 25, 2005)

Joseph,
Good question. The consistancy factor again comes back to haunt us!

I believe the treatment comes from the Wisdom of God. If I understand it correctly, an infants clotting factor are at a normal level by the eighth day. 

Poole writes:

"Eight days, not before that time. Because of the childs weakness and imperfection, and impurity too:

Exo 22:30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. 

Lev 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 
Lev 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 
Lev 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 25, 2005)

I will add, since Christ is our final sacrifice and a priest forever according to M, even now making active sacrifice on our behalf, and the clotting factor is not an issue, I would say that the 8th day, along with the rest of the abrogated ceremonial things, we are no longer held to that part of placing the sign.

As well, remember the sign we place points back to what God has ALREADY accomplished in our children. My personal opinion, it should be an eagerness in all of us covenanters to expediantly place the sign upon our newborns. 



[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

Scott, thank you for the good thoughts. I believe the day probably really doesn't matter, but I just want to exegetially ferret out the reason why.

I like it that you brought up the fact about an infants' clotting factor being at its height on the 8th day of life. (There is more vitamin K in the blood than on any other day.) From a standpoint of general revelation, this does seem to help explain one reason why the 8th day would be important for circumcision, but not baptism. However, it also begs the point to some extent, because we then have to ask, "why did God make the clotting factor go to its height on the 8th day?" God could have made the same thing happen on day 2 or day 10. So maybe there IS something important about the 8th day itself. Also, I am uncomfortable basing a change of theology (such as which day to apply the covenant sign) on general revelation alone. I would much rather see the theological change stated in the Scriptures in some way.

As for your quote from Leviticus 12, I think that is another good possibility. However, a monkey wrench in that (for me) is that God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 17:12 400 years before Leviticus 12 was written. And the 8th day was important all the way back then. Was the infant considered ceremonially unclean for 7 days, all the way back in Abraham's time? I can assume so, but I really don't know. 

Hmmm . . . one thought comes to mind, though . . . is there perhaps some disjunction between Leviticus 12 and 1 Corinthians 7:14? A child was considered ceremonially unclean for the first week of its life in the OT. But 1 Corinthians 7:14 seems to make a blanket statement that the children of believers are clean, with no restriction placed on age. --- Could this be a text that argues for the abrogation of an 8th day application of the covenant sign?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2005)

Because there is no absolute correlation between circumcision and baptism. Baptism has different subjects - male and female, and is a non-bloody rite. One could just as easily argue that the Lord's Supper should hten be administrated only once per year (and you could take that position _even _ with the "as often as you come together" so please don't deflect it with a "frequent" communion red herring.

The point is shadow and substance, not reduplication. Baptism stands on its own.


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 25, 2005)

Gen 17:10-12.


> 'This is My covenant which you shal keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you; every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations.....'



It seems to me that anyone who believes that circumcision is the same as baptism is duty bound to baptize his male children on the eighth day.

If you make your bed, you have to lie in it. 

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Because there is no absolute correlation between circumcision and baptism. Baptism has different subjects - male and female, and is a non-bloody rite. One could just as easily argue that the Lord's Supper should hten be administrated only once per year (and you could take that position _even _ with the "as often as you come together" so please don't deflect it with a "frequent" communion red herring.
> 
> The point is shadow and substance, not reduplication. Baptism stands on its own.



Great points, Fred. Thank you for the input! I especially like the parallel you make with the passover and Lord's Supper. Thank God, we certainly don't carry over the timing of the passover into the timing of the Lord's Supper!

Good stuff.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 25, 2005)

Joseph,
Will you comment on the idea that things were 'unclean' prior to the 8th day. The circumcision is a 'token' of blood unto the Lord; likeneed to the sacrifice the Lord passed between. Since Christ is ou final sacrifice, the ceremonial aspect (uncleaness) here is abrogated, hence the need to continue to hold to and eigth day.

Genesis 15:17 "And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces." 


[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Gen 17:10-12.
> 
> 
> ...



Then I can assume that you have the Lord's Supper once per year, with only the males communing?

After all, that is your bed.


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 25, 2005)

No indeed, Fred.
It is the paedo-baptist who insists that the New Covenant is merely a _renewal_ of the Old. Having the Lord's Supper once a year is your problem, not mine.

Scott has been declaring over and over again that the 'covenant sign' is to be placed on infants and giving Gen 17;10ff as his proof-text. Well, if it's a proof-text for baptizing infants (which it isn't!), then it's also a proof-text for doing it on the 8th day.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> No indeed, Fred.
> It is the paedo-baptist who insists that the New Covenant is merely a _renewal_ of the Old. Having the Lord's Supper once a year is your problem, not mine.
> 
> ...



Martin,
When will you interact with the rest of what I have said in regards to Christ and the ceremonial aspect? Example: we still hold to the sabbath tosday, yet we have abrogated the ceremonial aspects to it because of Christ.

[Edited on 11-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> No indeed, Fred.
> It is the paedo-baptist who insists that the New Covenant is merely a _renewal_ of the Old. Having the Lord's Supper once a year is your problem, not mine.
> 
> ...



Martin,

The paedobaptist position is not that the New Covenant is an identical reduplication of the Old. It is merely not a new genus. The covenant sign is more than Gen. 17 as a proof text.

My point is not to debate baptism here - I am not trying to disrespect your position. I merely believe that the 8th day argument is a spurious one, one that makes a cartoon caricature of the paedobaptist position.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Joseph,
> Will you comment on the idea that things were 'unclean' prior to the 8th day. The circumcision is a 'token' of blood unto the Lord; likeneed to the sacrifice the Lord passed between. Since Christ is ou final sacrifice, the ceremonial aspect (uncleaness) here is abrogated, hence the need to continue to hold to and eigth day.



I was just thinking along the lines of the Leviticus 12 quote you gave. Infant boys were unclean for the first 7 days, and then were circumcised on the 8th day. But 1 Cor. 7:14 shows us that ALL the children of believers are "holy", with no restriction given on age. Thus, there is no 7-day uncleanness period.

And I agree with you that it is Christ's sacrifice which does away with such ceremonial uncleanness. It all fits together nicely.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> The paedobaptist position is not that the New Covenant is an identical reduplication of the Old. It is merely not a new genus. The covenant sign is more than Gen. 17 as a proof text.
> 
> My point is not to debate baptism here - I am not trying to disrespect your position. I merely believe that the 8th day argument is a spurious one, one that makes a cartoon caricature of the paedobaptist position.



Just so that you know, I do agree with you, Fred. I just needed help getting some good clear thinking on this particular point. Thank you for providing some!

I agree that we should not have to baptize on the 8th day.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

Fred, you have all of the coolest smiley faces . . .


----------

