Baptism and Circumcision: Where Infant Baptism Gets It Wrong
The issue of baptism is the trademark of Baptist identity. Since their beginning, Baptists have taken a unique stance on the issue of baptism: that only believer’s can be baptized. This doctrine is grounded in Paul’s words in Romans 6:3-4:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Thus baptism corresponds with the spiritual reality that is now present in the believer’s heart—newness of life. Because this issue is at the very core the Baptist ethos, they radically broke from the tradition of infant baptism.
Yet opponents of believer’s baptism argue that infant baptism keeps in perspective the covenantal framework for which Christian baptism developed into under the New Covenant. Baptism must be explained in light of its connection with the ethnic boundary of circumcision in the Old Testament for it to be understood in its fullest sense. Believer’s baptism, they say, does not adequately account for God’s purpose of baptism and circumcision within the scope of redemptive history.
Unfortunately, baptism’s important link with circumcision is not usually given its due attention by advocates of believer’s baptism. If we are to understand the true significance of believer’s baptism, we must understand it in light of its function in redemptive history. By taking this into consideration, we will see that believer’s baptism is the only appropriate way under the New Covenant of signifying the spiritual reality that circumcision ultimately pointed toward all along.
Circumcision in the Old Covenant
Circumcision in the Old Covenant had two primary functions: First it served as an identity marker for ethnic Israel (for the men and the people they represented). Circumcision clearly distinguished the Hebrews as God’s people. Genesis 17:9-14 is where God first establishes circumcision with Abraham. He says,
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 throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
Yahweh makes clear that circumcision was the sign of the covenant that He had made with Abraham and his seed. Circumcision marked them out as God’s people. This was so important that failure to do so meant breaking God’s covenant.
Secondly, circumcision was also spiritually significant. In Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Moses posed a question to the Hebrews:
What does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and to keep the statutes and commandments of the Lord, which I am commanding you today?
The answer is given in verse 16. “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart,” says Moses, “and be no longer stubborn.” Circumcision of the flesh taught that the foreskin of the heart must be removed as well, without which God’s people cannot obey him.
The Problem with Circumcision
Moses’ words address the true nature of the problem: that Israel lacks true circumcision—circumcision of the heart. The Prophets further explain the depth of the problem. Jeremiah states:
Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart (Jer. 9:25–26).
In order to correct this, God announces a New Covenant to deal with Israel’s hard heart. Jeremiah 31:31-34 says,
Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah…I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Likewise, Ezekiel says, “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone…and give you a heart of flesh…and cause you to obey my rules” (Ezek. 36:26-27; cf. 11:19-20). As the Prophets demonstrate, circumcision is not a sufficient means of signifying this new reality. What sign, then, points to the new reality about which both Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesy?
The Need for a New Sign
The sign of this new reality is baptism. Still other questions remain: “Baptism to whom? Believer’s only? Or believers and their children?” Understanding the three-fold function of baptism is important for answering these questions.
First, baptism signifies the forgiveness of sins. Though John the Baptist baptized with a baptism of repentance, Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, Who ultimately cleanses us from our sins (Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:15). Thus, baptism signifies spiritual purity and forgiveness. Second, baptism signifies the believer’s spiritual death and resurrection of the believer. Romans 6:3-4 (see above) tells us that Christians are baptized (into the water) into death and raised (from the water) to new life. Third, baptism signifies salvation from God’s wrath. As the floodwaters did in Noah’s day, baptism likewise signifies the preservation of Christians from God’s judgment (1 Pet. 3:18-22).
Scripture clearly teaches that this three-fold function of baptism only occurs with a believer. Therefore, it does not mean to point to a reality that might take place within a child in the future.
The New Covenant Link of Baptism and Circumcision
The link between believer’s baptism and circumcision must still be established in order to solidify these claims. Paul connects baptism and circumcision together in Colossians 2:11-12:
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
The link between circumcision and baptism is undeniable. Advocates of infant baptism claim that infant baptism functions in the New Covenant the same way that circumcision functioned in the Old Covenant. Both point to the need for circumcision of the heart. And, at first glance, it seems that the Colossians passage clearly supports this.
However, upon closer examination, notice that Paul says Christians were “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands,” and were circumcised with the “circumcision of Christ,” which comes “through faith.” The links that Paul makes are very important. Notice that he does not link baptism with circumcision made with hands—circumcision of the flesh. Yet this is what infant baptism does: it links infant baptism with circumcision (of the flesh).
Paul, instead, links baptism with “circumcision of Christ”—circumcision of the heart—which comes only by faith. In other words, New Covenant baptism signifies circumcision of the heart, not circumcision of the flesh. Elsewhere Paul describes circumcision as mutilation of the flesh in contrast to those who have experienced true circumcision (Phil. 3:2-4). Again, baptism is not to be linked with circumcision of the flesh (as infant baptism does), but circumcision of the heart. And which people can only experience circumcision of the heart? Believers.
Thus believer’s baptism signifies the fulfillment of the New Covenant that Jeremiah announced (e.g. 31:31-34). No longer is there a mixed multitude of the reprobate and remnant within God’s covenant people (unlike in infant baptism). Now God’s people only consist of the remnant—believers (Rom. 11:5) [1]. This is why Paul links faith with baptism, because only the remnant believes and experiences true circumcision. Therefore, it seems only appropriate to baptize believers.
Conclusion
As we can see, believer’s baptism is the only true sign of the New Covenant reality that now resides within Christians. Believer’s baptism signifies a reality that now takes place in a believer that Old Covenant circumcision only pointed toward—a new heart. Though this issue will never be fully resolved among Christians, it provides baptized believers with the ardent support they need to make such bold theological claims. Though this doctrine may go against some church tradition, it is finally upon scrutinizing Scripture that all doctrines stand or fall. Rightfully, believer’s baptism passes this test.
_______________________________________
[1] Some may argue that Matthew 13:24-30 supports the idea of a mixed multitude of reprobate and remnant being present within the Church. The wheat will not be divided from the tares until Christ’s return. Notice, however, that the mixed multitude within God’s kingdom is a result of Satan’s work, not of the intended function of New Covenant baptism. Jesus’ point is that Satan will sow mischief and confusion within God’s kingdom, making it difficult to identify true Christians. Contrary to this, believer’s baptism functions to do the exact opposite. It serves as a covenant marker, as it were.
April 8, 2013
Excellent work, Jeremy!
April 9, 2013
Jeremy, this is a really good article. Clear, concise and with a scripturally supported argument throughout that was easy to follow. I will gladly point my infant baptismal friends to this article as a possible resource for understanding believer’s baptism.
Out of curiosity, if you were going to reccomend a scripturally argued defense of infant baptism – what work (article or book) would you suggest?
April 11, 2013
Charles,
Thanks for your comments. I’ll put a few places below where you could find support for infant baptism. Some will be more weighty than others, however.
1. Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology, pp. 113-119.
2. Bryan Chapell, Why Do We Baptize Infants? (This is a more standardized booklet for a wide audience).
3. Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (This is similar to Chapell’s book).
4. John Calvin, Institutes, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Vol. 2, pp. 1324-1359.
I hope that helps Charles.
April 12, 2013
I would think Horton’s new systematics book would have something substantive in there as well. In my opinion, he is the consummate Presbyterian theologian of our time.