# Circumcision and Baptism



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Aug 28, 2015)

I have been researching this and can't find any answers: If baptism and circumcision are interlinked in many ways and they are both considered a "means of grace", why were women denied the right of the means of grace in the Old Testament? As Presbyterians we say baptism mysteriously works blessing in the infants life as a sign and seal, so does this mean Old Testament infant girls were withheld such blessings? Thanks so much in advance for your thoughts.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 29, 2015)

Gal.3:28, so that the New Covenant is better in this way (and in many others).

OT women were ministered unto, especially and directly by the Word as the major means. Ritually, they were cut off from directly joining in many aspects of cultic life. But they participated vicariously with the nation. They were sacrificed for. They were atoned for. They prayed and were prayed for, look at 1Sam.1:12-18. 

Males-in-general were similarly cut off from certain means that the male-priests alone participated in directly. That's the way the OT system was set up. But as went the head, as went the mediator, so went the body. This was an important OT lesson pointing to Christ. Indirect blessing is still blessing. OT believing women were thankful for the riches of the blessings they knew; consider Naomi's witness, not to mention Mary's.

Even in the NT, many heavenly blessings come to us indirectly, just as certain excellent ones are direct, to male and female alike. And still, there is one area that God assigns only to men, namely ministry.


----------



## Warren (Aug 29, 2015)

Speaking of Mary (the Virgin) are there any good protestant books about Mary's witness, or the witness of women in the church, from Sarah to Mary?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2015)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> As Presbyterians we say baptism mysteriously works blessing in the infants life as a sign and seal...


Actually, we don't really say that. I'm not trying to be harsh but our Confession does not state that baptism is an "unqualified" sign and seal to every person baptism. We confess that Baptism is a sign and a seal to the party baptized of a number of realities that belong to the elect along with the visible aspect of marking that person out from the world as belonging to the visible Kingdom of God. We qualify carefully, however, that the graces signified belong only to the elect and that the Spirit sovereignly grants them according to His pleasure. The sign and seal are, however, sacramentally related so that we need not put a wedge between the two but we also must be careful not to say too much about what an infant or an adult professor receives by the Sacrament of Baptism.

I appreciate Bruce's response (as I do all his contributions). I think that looking at what the Westminster Standards teach about Sacraments in general goes to answering your question. It outlines the nature of all Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace as having a sign and a seal to them. It adds the qualifier I just wrote about where the Spirit is the one who conveys the grace signified to those Whom He wills.

The Standards then teach that there were many Sacraments in the Old Covenant but that there are now only two in the New Covenant. The fact is, as Bruce noted, that women participated in some of these Sacraments that were signs and pledges to their creaturely capacity. God gives His people these signs not to make salvation certain, per se, but to accommodate what is already certain to our weak, creaturely capacity.

Hebrews 6 speaks about Abraham getting "double assurance". The first is that God cannot lie. The fact that God told Him he would be blessed and a blessing was enough to secure salvation. Abraham didn't get salvation by circumcision but he received a sign in His flesh of something that was already certain. He now had, as it were, two things that made him sure. It's sort of like saying that his assurance of the Promise was now Perfectly Perfect. It's not as if the extra Perfect makes the Promise more perfect but, as we go as creatures, it is something that we can cling to in our lives.

Thus, women did have Sacramental assurances given to them in the sacrifices and feasts (as they had opportunity to attend as they were not required). They were not devoid of Sacraments even if they did not have circumcision. Their salvation was no less certain than the males but they did not have a sign in their own flesh like the male. It didn't make God's Promise to them any less perfect but they simply lacked that added assurance. Given a stronger sense of family and corporate solidarity that we now lack, I think women may not have seen the circumcision of their husbands or fathers as something that another possessed but something they were, as it were, heir to themselves.

In any event, I think grasping the significance of Sacraments makes the problem a little less knotty. It's only when we make the Sacraments salvific of themselves and forget that they are means of grace and that faith is the instrument of justification that we wonder how women got along without circumcision in the OC.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 30, 2015)

> why were women denied the right of the means of grace in the Old Testament?



They are not denied per se. They cannot get the actual sign secondarily because they are not anatomically able; The daughter of believers, by proxy receive the means of grace required to the elect as the seed passes through the federal heads 'cut'. As well, it is the HS who actually places the sign on believers-this to include the female children, regardless of gender.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 30, 2015)

Scott Bushey said:


> The daughter of believers, by proxy receive the means of grace required to the elect as the seed passes through the federal heads 'cut'.


Scott,
I recall encountering this representation of the state of affairs for the first time. It seemed novel then (I never encountered it in history); and the more time has passed and with further reflections and marshaling of additional facts, it seems more and more forced.

It is more natural to admit that OT covenant-females did not receive the external sign of the covenant, and furthermore bore disproportionate limits upon their exercise of privilege in connection to the visible church. Women were junior partners with men, so they shared in the blessings falling to their respective familial and marital heads, nicely comparable to the way every citizen shared in the blessing that fell to the national head on account of his obedience.

It is not insignificant that so much spiritual "labor" had to be done FOR fully one half the population. Her obedience, submission, and passivity is a lesson in spiritual humility that both men and women must embrace. Fact: she _*wasn't*_ circumcised; and that reality called not for figuring ways she could "bear" a sign she did not actually have, but for granting her "ownership" of the sign of another.

Experienced blessing is fundamentally union-sourced, having to do with the "rights" and "merits" of someone else. It is brought about forensically and declaratively, and prior to any sign (outward) or seal (inward). Election is a promise without requirement. Signs bear witness to the reality, and logically (not necessarily temporally) follow it. Tying covenant-female's blessing to her tangible connection with a given sign verges on a "talismanic" treatment of the sign.

But lacking a sign of one's own, it may yet be gained through mystical union with one to whom such belongs. All that is his is legally hers. The OT covenant-female's typical (bridal) relation to the blessings has unto itself unique teaching function regarding spiritual truth for the Body. Male being and behavior cannot perform the whole illustrative task.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Aug 31, 2015)

Thank you so much for your answers, guys. They are a lot of help. So quick question: How do you define the seal in baptism? I hear many different answers and I just want to better understand how a seal authenticates what it symbolizes and at the same time does nothing but become a curse for the unregenerate. Basically, how can a seal be given to someone who doesn't possess the reality of what is being sealed? One would think that the seal is sealing the reality. I know it sounds crazy that I'm asking these simple questions, but there's just some logic for me to try to grasp. Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 31, 2015)

The simplest way--even if it becomes a bit reductionist--to think of "sign" and "seal," is to think of each in terms of Primary Actors.

The application of _*sign *_is primarily the work of the Church. The application of _*seal *_is primarily the work of Holy Spirit.

Baptism's temporal administration, i.e. the application of water to a proper recipient in the Triune Name, is clearly a sign, a designated indicator pointing to the thing signified. Such a relationship obtains between sign and the signification that the sign is often spoken of in terms of the signification.

The same is also true of the signification; sometimes it is spoken of in terms of the sign. While it is important to maintain the distinction between sign and signification, this fluidity of speech reflects the fact that not an ordinary union exists between the two, but a _sacramental_ union. God has attached promises to his ordinances, willing to connect his work and blessing with the proper, diligent, and believing use of such _means of grace._

Therefore since baptism is a sacrament, baptism's temporal administration may accurately be spoken of as "signifying _and_ sealing." Not forgetting that the proper sealing work is of divine administration.

A seal is:
1) a bond or a closure
2) a word or a symbol of authority
3) a mark of ownership

All three of these are testified by baptism. But, unless one is Roman (or, with differences, Anglican or Lutheran), the church's baptism--the sign--does not seal in the perfect manner of Holy Spirit. How could a church infallibly witness such a thing? Nor is it asked to.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 1, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The simplest way--even if it becomes a bit reductionist--to think of "sign" and "seal," is to think of each in terms of Primary Actors.
> 
> The application of _*sign *_is primarily the work of the Church. The application of _*seal *_is primarily the work of Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...



Bruce,

You're such a good wordsmith.

I just want to add, then, that what Sacramental theology is that it maintains the distinctions, as Bruce helpfully articulates, but then joins them together sacramentally. Baptism is not one or the other but has both aspects. A recipient of Baptism may only receive the external sign without the attendant seal but that does not make the Sacramental connection void.

What it means is that _for whom both the sign and seal belong_ the sign and seal are Sacramentally joined in such a way that the recipient can take comfort in the knowledge of being sealed _by way of that which is signified_. In other words, a person with faith in Christ has received the seal that his baptism signified and the sign itself is then a historical pledge or seal that can strengthen his assurance and steel him in his battle with sin.

Thus, Bruce notes what belongs to the sign and the seal but the Sacrament is given for weak and beggarly saints who need the assurance of wine, bread, and water. Yes these signs are given to some who never receive the reality of the things signified but for the elect they are great sources of comfort and strength.


----------



## MW (Sep 1, 2015)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So quick question: How do you define the seal in baptism?



Thomas M'Crie (the younger) is very helpful in clarifying this point. I will paste the extended quotation and then repeat what I think flashes out as a neon light:



> Thus, while baptism viewed as a symbol has a relation to the grace of the covenant, viewed as a seal it stands related to the covenant itself. We must carefully distinguish between the grace of the covenant, and the covenant of grace. Baptism is the sign, but it is not, properly or directly, the seal of regeneration; — it symbolizes the blessing, but it seals the covenant. By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented. The distinction
> is very obvious. *As a symbol*, *the ordinance addresses itself to the senses*; *as a seal*, *it appeals to faith*. As a symbol, it is a badge of distinction from the world; as a seal, it stands related, not to the person, but to the covenant. A seal implies something spoken or written; and the design of baptism as a seal, is to confirm the faith of the Church in God's written Word, in his everlasting covenant with her. It is the visible pledge added to the verbal promise.



*As a symbol*, *the ordinance addresses itself to the senses*; *as a seal*, *it appeals to faith*.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 2, 2015)

Very helpful Matthew.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 8, 2015)

Thank you so much for you insight everyone.


----------

