# Romans 4:11



## AV1611 (May 4, 2007)

_"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:"
*- Romans 4:11 *​_
How are we to interpret this verse? I am confused  

[*EDIT:* Do not think I am pushing Gill as correct, I am not, I post it here because it is one interpretation of the text]
I offer Gill's interpretation to start the ball rolling.

*And he received the sign of circumcision,.... *Or "the sign circumcision", as the Syriac version reads it, and so the Alexandrian copy, and two of Stephens's; that is, Abraham received at the hands of God, the commandment of circumcision, which was a "sign" or token of the covenant; not of grace, but of that peculiar covenant God made with Abraham and his natural seed, concerning their enjoyment of the land of Canaan; and which was a distinctive sign or badge, which distinguished the posterity of Abraham from other people, and was also a typical one; not of baptism, for circumcision was peculiar to Abraham's natural seed, whereas baptism is not, but was administered to Gentiles as well as Jews; circumcision was confined to males only, not so baptism; circumcision bears no likeness to, nor any resemblance with baptism, whereas there is always some likeness and agreement between the type and the antitype; besides, if this had been the case, circumcision would have ceased when baptism took place, whereas it is certain it did not, but continued in full force with the rest of the ceremonies until the death of Christ; and it is as certain, that "baptism" was administered and continued to be administered three or four years before that time; which fully demonstrates the falsehood of that assertion, that baptism succeeds or comes in the room of circumcision; whereas baptism was in full force before circumcision was out of date: but circumcision was a typical sign of Christ, as all the ceremonies of the law were, and of the shedding of his blood, to cleanse from all sin, original and actual, and also of the circumcision of the heart. And was, moreover, 

*a seal of the righteousness of faith;* or which "sign" was "a seal"; and so it signifies the same as before; σημεια ουτω λεγουσι τας σφραγιδας, "signs, so they call seals", says Harpocratian (f), and "to be signed", he says, is used, "instead of being sealed": or it may be expressive of something else, as that circumcision was a seal, not for secrecy, but for certainty; it being a confirmation, not merely of the sincerity of Abraham's faith, but of his justifying righteousness, which was not his faith, but that which his faith looked to; and 

*which he had,* both faith and righteousness, 

*yet being uncircumcised:* whence it follows, that he was not justified by his circumcision, but by a righteousness which he had before he was circumcised, or otherwise his circumcision could not have been a seal of it: though this clause, "which he had, yet being uncircumcised", may be rendered, "which should be in the uncircumcision", that is, in the uncircumcised Gentiles; and the sense be, that circumcision was a seal to Abraham, and gave assurance to him that he should be the father of many nations in a spiritual sense; and that the righteousness of faith which he had, should also come upon, and be imputed to the uncircumcised Gentiles; and accordingly it may be observed, that this seal was continued in full force on his natural seed, until this promise began to take place, and then it was abolished: this seal was broken off when the middle wall of partition was broken down, and the word of righteousness and faith, or the Gospel preaching justification by the righteousness of Christ, was ordered to be published to the Gentile world. It may be inquired whether circumcision being called a seal, will prove that baptism is a seal of the covenant? I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness, and not to them that have neither; it would only at most be a seal to believers. But, alas! not ordinances, but other things more valuable than they, are the seals of the covenant, and of believers; the blood of Christ is the seal, and the only seal of the covenant of grace, by which its promises and blessings are ratified and confirmed; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest, pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day of redemption. The apostle uses the word "seal" concerning circumcision, it being a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke of it, thus paraphrasing on Son_3:8; they say (g), "everyone of them was sealed, חתימת מילה, "with the seal of circumcision" upon their flesh, as Abraham was sealed in his flesh:'' 

*that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;* that is, his circumcision was a seal unto him that he should be so, which explains and confirms the sense of the former clause; not a father of the uncircumcised Gentiles by natural generation, for so he was only the father of the Jews, but of them as they were believers; and not so called because he was the author of their faith, but because they have the same sort of faith he had: 

*that righteousness might be imputed to them also;* not Abraham's faith and righteousness, nor their own, but the righteousness of Christ received by faith, which is unto all, and upon all them that believe, without any difference of Jew or Gentile. Now when the apostle styles Abraham the father of "all" believers, even of uncircumcised ones, he says no other than what the Jews frequently own. Says one (h) of them, speaking of the Ishmaelites; "they are the seed of Abraham, who was ראש המאמינים, "the head of them that believe?"'' and says (i) another, "Hagar might bring the firstfruits, and read, as it is said to Abraham, "a father of, many nations have I made thee", Gen_17:5; for he is אב לכל העולם כולו, "the father of the whole world", who enter under the wings of the Shekinah;'' and says the same writer elsewhere (k), having mentioned the above passage, "they said in times past, thou wast the father of the Syrians, but now thou art "the father of the whole world"; wherefore every stranger may say this, "as thou hast sworn to our fathers", Mic_7:20; for Abraham was "the father of the whole world"; seeing, למד אמונה, "he has taught the true faith".'' The apostle reasons on what they themselves allow, to prove that the blessedness of justification comes not only upon the Jews, but upon the Gentiles also.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 4, 2007)

Gill's view on the _sign_ is defective. It is foreign to the *context* of the passage that is underlining the fact that the character of Abraham's justification was apart from the flesh. Gill is so obsessed to focus attention away from the obvious significance of circumcision here that he impiously adds fleshly significance to a passage where everything is pointing _away from_ the flesh.

I see your Gill and I raise you a John Calvin:


> 11. And he received the sign, etc. In order to anticipate an objection, he shows that circumcision was not unprofitable and superfluous, though it could not justify; but it had another very remarkable use, it had the office of sealing, and as it were of ratifying the righteousness of faith. And yet he intimates at the same time, by stating what its object was, that it was not the cause of righteousness, it indeed tended to confirm the righteousness of faith, and that already obtained in uncircumcision. He then derogates or takes away nothing from it.
> 
> We have indeed here a remarkable passage with regard to the general benefits of sacraments. According to the testimony of Paul, they are seals by which the promises of God are in a manner imprinted on our hearts, (Dei promissiones cordibus nostris quodammodo imprimuntur,) and the certainty of grace confirmed (sancitur gratœ certitudo ) And though by themselves they profit nothing, yet God has designed them to be the instruments (instrumenta) of his grace; and he effects by the secret grace of his Spirit, that they should not be without benefit in the elect. And though they are dead and unprofitable symbols to the reprobate, they yet ever retain their import and character (vim suam et naturam: ) for though our unbelief may deprive them of their effect, yet it cannot weaken or extinguish the truth of God. Hence it remains a fixed principle, that sacred symbols are testimonies, by which God seals his grace on our hearts.
> 
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (May 4, 2007)

Is not the promise sealed in circumcision: "that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:"? 

And is this not then "only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him"?

A. W. Pink:



> We must now turn to and consider the seal of the covenant. "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shah keep. my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 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. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:9-14).
> 
> In seeking to ascertain the significance of the above passage, we cannot do better than throw upon it the light of the New Testament. There we are told, "And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised: that righteousness might be imputed unto them also" (Rom. 4:11). The first observation we would make upon this verse is that it definitely establishes the unity of the Abrahamic covenant, for in Romans 4:3 the apostle had quoted from Genesis 15—where the word covenant occurs for the first time in connection with Abraham; and now he refers us to Genesis 17, thereby intimating it is one and the same covenant in both chapters. The main difference between the two chapters is that the one gives us more the divine side (ratifying the covenant), the other the human side (the keeping of the covenant, or obedience to the divine command).
> 
> ...



http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Divine_Covenants/divine_covenants_04.htm


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 4, 2007)

All these interpretations do is attempt to crack apart what God has conjoined.

Furthermore, note how the whole argument must be accepted at once, in toto. For all the points are self-referential. What is proved later is dependent on what is claimed earlier; however, what is claimed earlier is dependent on what is "proved" later. The whole thing is extrordinarily insular.

Take this statement, for instance:


> That circumcision did not seal anything to anyone but to Abraham himself is established beyond shadow of doubt by the fact that circumcision was applied to those who had no personal interest in the covenant to which it was attached.


See how self-referential this assertion is? It assumes that the reality of a promise is dependent upon the receiver, not the giver. It teaches that an external call is not a call AT ALL, because some to whom it comes obviously do not receive an internal call. "Sure, God makes circumcision a promise to Abraham, but not to anyone else, ever." In other words, apparently you can have the same faith as Abraham, but you can't appropriate the tokens of God's assurance; that's disallowed. The full promise to Abraham must be cracked apart, parceled out, and the spiritual realities sundered from their earthly types. There is an opaque, impenetrable ceiling set between the shadows and the substance. In fact, the OT becomes nothing but an enclosed diorama and a pitch-black stage, and *all revelational light* is reserved for the NT age. The shadows of the OT are, under this view, actually nothing but one, indistinguished gloom.

The GOSPEL is the PROMISE. Circumcision was the sign of the GOSPEL, the PROMISE to save all who came to God by faith in his Messiah. The PROMISE stands true no matter how many people reject it. Circumcision *and baptism* stand as testimony to the full and free offer of the GOSPEL. They are indeed the signs of the Covenant of Grace. The OT revelation, _including circumcision_ was the LIGHT of that age! They were "punched lanterns", "dark glass", and mirrors, but they were LIGHT! in that time. Hence, they cast "shadows" by which those who had EYES TO SEE could see.

The signs _are what they are,_ and only the a priori rejection: that they should be applied to God's designated recipients even when they are not inwardly called, forces Gill, Pink, and whoever else to scramble for a reinterpretation of that sign so as not to disturb their attachment to the principle that the application of such signs MUST ALWAYS follow a bona fide profession of faith.

Pink, for all his progress and theological development over the length of his long and prolific life, was (at least at this point) still constrained by his dispensational categories.


> Abraham is called a "father" neither in a federal nor in a spiritual sense,... Though New Testament believers are not under the Abrahamic covenant, they are, because of their union with Christ, heirs of its spiritual inheritance.


This is STILL a chop-chop view of the biblical covenants. We aren't under the _external_ administration of the Abrahamic covenant, but Paul's whole point in the New Testament is that despite the temporary significance of the type-heavy Mosaic adminstration, the Abrahamic covenant in its essence _could not be annulled_. Hence, we are not only *heirs* of the "spiritual significance" of that covenant, but we are participants in that covenant, though the externals have been adjusted.

But as I've said in another thread, baptist CT and historic CT take fundmentally different stances to the question. Something has to snap--either in the self-referential system described above, or in historic Covenant Theology--in order for someone adhering to one of them to abandon it for the other.


----------



## MW (May 4, 2007)

Pink:



> Circumcision was not a memorial of anything which had already been actualized, but an earnest of that which was yet future—namely, of that justifying righteousness which was to be brought in by Christ.



The text plainly says that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness WHICH HE HAD YET BEING UNCIRCUMCISED. It is clearly retrospective. Such a comment by Pink shows the ease with which a prevailing system of thought can impose itself on the interpretation of the text. Who dares to be the Lord's counsellor!

Pink, like Gill, struggled with the idea that God's purpose of election works itself out through an historical process. Neither seemed to be comfortable with the concept of temporary, superficial covenanters, whereas the Bible quite clearly allows for such. I note for the record, however, that Pink did adopt the Puritan view of historical faith, which should have led him to see there are external aspects to the covenant of grace. But men will be men!


----------



## Storm (May 4, 2007)

*Belief*

Right. It was because Abraham BELIEVED God--simply took Him at His word--that he was credited with righteousness. Kind of like, "While we were yet sinners (or in sin, or still sinning), Chirst died for us."

Circumcision means nothing. The flesh means nothing. Going to church, being good, praying, reading the Bible...all counts for nothing.

Now, my hyper-Calvanist friends tell me that because I tell them I came to Jesus and exercised faith I am relying on my "good works" for salvation.

I don't think so...


----------



## AV1611 (May 5, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> We aren't under the _external_ administration of the Abrahamic covenant, but Paul's whole point in the New Testament is that despite the temporary significance of the type-heavy Mosaic adminstration, the Abrahamic covenant in its essence _could not be annulled_. Hence, we are not only *heirs* of the "spiritual significance" of that covenant, but we are participants in that covenant, though the externals have been adjusted.



Thank you for your reply. God's covenant with Abraham was "to thy seed" but surely that refers to Christ and the elect in him as per Gal 3:16, 29? That being true, how is it exegetally (spl?) correct to then apply the "and to thy seed" to believers?

Also how do you understand the rest of Genesis 17 in that there seem to be promises made specifically to Abraham which are not to do with his seed as such, e.g. *Gen 17:4 * "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations."; *Gen 17:6* "And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 5, 2007)

Richard,
I will try to be brief, not only for your sake, but also because I must finish preparing for Sunday.

Directed to your various queries, in order:
1) The language "and to thy seed" is _ultimately_ all about Christ. Because he is the One that matters. And the rest of us are, as you correctly note, in the covenant due to union with him. But that means that we are actually in covenant, not just kind-of-in-covenant-if-you-think-about-it-in-a-certain-way. We are in covenant through our Mediator.

2) The language "and to thy seed" needs to be looked at in those OT contexts as well. Since the term "seed" in either Greek or Hebrew can be either singular or a collective, the context has to tell us which it is indicating. And beginning in Genesis 12, its abundantly clear that the first principle being advanced is a _multitudinous_ progeny. We understand that to be A) spiritual, but pictured by a physical nation; and B) that the many are really all about (or for the salke of) the One, in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed.

There is one vital Genesis passage, however, that is often overlooked, and which is probably the one passage uppermost in Paul's mind as he makes his point in Galatians. That passage is the Binding of Isaac, chapter 22. The key verses are 15-18. There, the first reference to "seed" may possibly be a plural or collective, however, the second one is _undoubtably_ *singular*. "And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies," immediately followed by the key phrase, "and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." God is clearly pointing to Isaac, as a single person, but also through and beyond Isaac to the ultimate One. The close connection of the singular "seed" (which is also how the LXX renders it: singular and also the same Greek Dative case), and the reiteration of the promise--this is the one text where these factors are brought together.

Paul, therefore, is not merely spiritualizing the language "and to (or in) thy seed" but he has a particular OT passage in mind, one that focuses on the singular. That special reference there does not eliminate all the other references to a large posterity--which is all of us who share in the faith of Abraham, "the father of us all" (Rom. 4:16).

3) 17:4, 6. Aren't we believers the eternal referents in those verses? The "many nations" "nations" and "kings"? Those are not simply carnal expectations! The fact that there were earthly fulfillments of these promises was meant primarily to point to the greater reality, greater than any earthly greatness is God's final fulfillment. That God is speaking to Abraham emphasizes his uniqueness, and specialness, the "friend of God," he was called. But how does the fulfillment come to pass apart from means? Apart from later generations believing those same promises, and acting on them? It doesn't. We don't wish _our own_ unique heritage; we only desire a part of Abraham's heritage, behind and before us. So how we are not "to do" directly and actively with these promises to him--I cannot understand that mindset.


----------



## AV1611 (May 6, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Richard,
> I will try to be brief, not only for your sake, but also because I must finish preparing for Sunday.
> 
> Directed to your various queries, in order:
> ...



Thank you for this. Would you agree with Hoeksema when he says "The Jews never were the seed of Abraham"?

Context:



> Over against it I offer, that the Word of God knows only of one seed of Abraham, the spiritual, the elect, the children of the promise. This is true both of the old and of the new dispensation. It is not correct to say that in the old dispensation the Jews were the seed of Abraham, while in the new dispensation believers are this seed. The Jews never were the seed of Abraham. It is correct to say, that for a time the seed of Abraham were found exclusively among Abraham's descendants, as they are found now among all nations. But Scripture never identifies Abraham's descendants with the seed of Abraham. The latter, the children of the promise, are at all times only the believers. In the times of the Old Testament they are found in the generations of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham Israel. In the new dispensation they are among all nations, there being no difference anymore between Jew and Gentile. But wherever they are found the children of the promise, named after Abraham as the father of believers, are always the true children of God, the believers. These and these only are the seed of Abraham.



Article: _The Biblical Ground for the Baptism of Infants_


----------

