Simple Baptism Question

[Ranger]

Hey guys,
I'm sure this question has either been answered a million times before, or it is so simple that it has not had a need to be raised up to this point. Thanks for helping me find the answer!

If baptism replaces circumcision as being a visible sign of entrance into the visible community of faith, then how come the issue of physical circumcision remained an issue for many decades in the early church (i.e. Acts 11, Acts 15, Acts 21, etc.)? It would seem that if this very important doctrine were clear from the words of Jesus or the teachings of the apostles that this wouldn't have remained an issue, especially among the apostles who clearly struggled with it for decades. I'm sure there's a very simple answer, as a Baptist, I just have yet to think of it and haven't studied the doctrine of baptism enough to know a solid answer. Thanks for your assistance.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ranger,

Please look at the sig requirements: The PuritanBoard - Signature/Profile Reqts

The simple answer isn't really a credo- or a paedo- thing if you read the book of Galatians carefully to note what the nature of the circumcision controversy was.

It was not a matter of the Judaizers desiring that Gentiles place a mark in their flesh in order to manifest their visible participation in the New Covenant, it was that they were adding to the nature of the Gospel and circumcision was merely the manifestation of an entire system of belief they were trying to thrust upon the Gentiles.

Paul labors throughout the entire book of Galatians, with particular emphasis in Galatians 3, to note that the Judaizer's view of both the Law and Circumcision was completely faulty. That is to say that they viewed the righteousness that attained to God's favor as consisting in obedience to rules and regulations - more specifically all the Jewish rites and ceremonies.

I believe a lot of people become confused because Paul puts it all under the heading of "circumcision" but it is also clear that he is not defining what circumcision truly was or truly is. In fact, if circumcision was what the Judaizers thought it was then Abraham would not have received it in his flesh as a sign of faith. As it is, the circumcision Abraham received preceded the Law by over 400 years and is a sign and seal of Gospel trust - a trust that the just shall live by faith. The Law, which the Judiazers want to add to Abraham, cannot replace a promise that is still in effect. That would be a "bait and switch" because God promised to bless Abraham and all the nations (the Gospel) but then decided to change the deal later on.

Thus, the Judiazers are shown to be completely blind to the nature of the Gospel, the nature of circumcision, the nature of the Law and thus, they are blind to the nature of the relationship between circumcision, the Law, and the Gospel. They might be called "of the circumcision" but only in the sense of what they're trying to perform physically but, in no way, are they touching upon the true nature of circumcision.

Why then would they struggle with this issue of adding to the Gospel? Funny you should ask because I was teaching the men at my Church about this the other day. It's in the nature of sinful men to do so. Is it really surprising that former Jews would add to the Gospel in this way and believe that the Law is how one attained to righteousness when there are Gentile Christians today in Holiness and Methodist circles that pretty much teach the same concept except without the physical act of circumcision? What about the American Evangelical that believes it is not from within that a man is defiled but views alchohol, cigarettes, cards, and dancing as inherently defiling and something that, if a Christian participates in, he would be "Left Behind" if the rapture occurs and he hasn't repented.

No, this is really quite common unfortunately. A proper understanding of Galatians and how the Judiazers add to the Gospel is key to fighting our sinful tendencies in this area.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The issue with circumcision in those passages hasn't anything to do with a "covenant sign," or admission to a covenant community. The problem with the Judaizers was that they wanted to bring the Gentile and Jewish Christians alike back into subservience to all the Law of Moses. They were rejecting the typological nature of the Mosaic administration, and making full law-observance a requirement for staying in the grace of God.

To them, circumcision was more than a sign of being "in" or "out" of the covenant. It was a symbol of one's submission to the whole Law. Indeed, there was a time, prior to Christ's resurrection, when being "in" the covenant meant exactly that: the person's promise to keep the whole Law. "Do this and live." A yoke, impossible for our fathers or us to bear (Acts 15:10).

So in that situation it wasn't merely a matter of "baptism replacing circumcision," though (we say) it certainly had done that. We could say: "baptism (what it symbolizes) replaced the whole Mosaic administration, including circumcision." This was not something that the Judaizers were willing to accept. They did not think Moses' Law was something that could ever be superseded. One still needed (in that view) to keep the Law, become Jewish in other words, and further he could be a "Messianic" Jew by adopting Jesus as the Messiah (and being baptized, of course).

That's a short answer. Maybe it will get you started.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Ranger,

Both of those are great answers and I can hardly add to them or supply better. As a former Baptist and laymen I’d focus on a few tripping points for a bit because it’s a lot to chew on and learn. Often times a word or two can change our grasp of a thing:

1. First focus on what it means to “administer” a thing. That one little word, understanding that, can be a BIG thing.

2. Then focus on what a “type” or “shadow” is. Understanding this is also a big thing. E.g. Israel the nation is not “typifying or pointing to or foreshadowing the church” per se but to the True Israel, Christ. Why is that important? Because the message (Gospel/Good News) WAS and IS not a pure group then OR pure church in the here and now, but Christ crucified and risen. The OT shadows bear witness to Christ, the “Reality of the shadows”, the Archtype of the types, and the Fulfiller of the promises.

Then you’ll come to see that the required ‘general obedience of the nation to stay in the physical land’ gives way to the required ‘perfect obedience of the individual to stand before the face of God’…the later Christ fulfilled for us, the former only pointed to THAT. In neither case are men saved by their obedience, but by the grace of Christ alone to which circumcision, OT, and baptism, NT, sign and seal this promise…not your obedience and not even your faith.

Also, in a nutshell I think what you also have to recall about those “middle years” of the change over about circumcision and baptism is that it wasn’t just a simple, “here is baptism replacing the sign and seal of circumcision”. Why? Because as Rich and Rev. Buchanan have very nicely pointed out the Judiazers had multiple problems so one could not just say, “here x replaces y”. Because if they misunderstood “y” and you said that then they’d just merely transfer the problem over to x. So for example in Galatians its crucial to see that they, the Judiazers didn’t just confuse the Law with the Gospel, though this they did too, but the purpose of Sinai as well. They confused Law and Gospel as well as the purpose of Sinai as type and shadow.

That may or may not help a bit.

Yours,

Larry