Exalt. Equip. Engage. » Blog Archive » Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?

12.14.11 11:05 AM | By: jm (equip)

One of the things that Baptists and Presbyterians have debated over the centuries is how closely baptism and circumcision are related and in what ways they are connected. Sadly, I have heard far too many Baptists claim that circumcision has absolutely no connection to baptism. And I have heard a few Presbyterians claim that baptism is the exact equivalent to circumcision. Both views are born out of a theological bias more than rigorous Scriptural and theological study. To be fair, I have heard some Baptists admit that there are some similarities between the two signs and I’ve heard even more Presbyterians agree that there some dissimilarities between the two signs. But the question remains: Does baptism replace circumcision?

I want to offer here not only my answer to the question, but perhaps also some illumination on this issue that I have recently been given. The following two points show us, at least in one sense (and it is a significant sense), that baptism does replace circumcision.

The sign of entering into the visible covenant community of God during the Old Covenant era was circumcision.

The sign of entering into the visible covenant community of God during the New Covenant era is baptism.

And there are many more ways that baptism and circumcision are connected (expression of faith, sign of unity with God as Savior and Lord, symbol of regeneration, etc). I can just hear my Presbyterian friends shouting for victory at these statements, and yet their shouts are being drowned out by the lamenting and possibly the crying out for my blood by my Baptist friends. However, this is neither a cause for rejoicing nor mourning over the issue of baptizing believers only or also infants of believers. For this does not answer any debate about the issue of who should be baptized. That issue is solved more by answering what the difference is between the visible covenant communities in the Old and New Covenants and what is fulfilled in the New which was pointed to in the Old. A full explanation of this will have to wait for another blog post, but for now…

One way to help us get a better grasp on the baptism/circumcision issue is to answer not only what replaces circumcision, but also what fulfills it. Interestingly enough, as I was reading this morning something from one of my Presbyterian heroes, R. C. Sproul, I was helped in making this even more clear:

“The sign of the old covenant was circumcision. In one sense it was a primitive and obscene sign. Why did the Jew cut off the foreskin of the flesh? This rite had two meanings–a positive and a negative meaning–representing the two sanctions of the covenant. The positive meaning of cutting the foreskin was that God was cutting out this group of people from the rest, separating them, setting them apart to be a holy nation, to be a blessing. The negative was that the Jew was saying, ‘Oh, God, if I fail to keep every one of the terms of this covenant, may I be cut off from you, cut off from your presence, cut off from the light of your countenance, cut off from your blessedness just as I have ritually cut off the foreskin of my flesh.’ As a reflection of this sign, the cross represented the supreme act of circumcision.”

Later Sproul says,

“When Christ was hanging on the cross, the Father, as it were, turned his back on Christ. He removed his face. he turned out the lights. He cut off his Son. … he hung in darkness, isolated from the Father, cut off from fellowship–fully receiving in himself the curse of God–not for his own sin but for the sin he willingly bore by imputation for our sake.”

Do you see what Sproul is saying? He is saying that more important than circumcision being replaced by baptism, it has been fulfilled by the death of Christ on the cross, being cut off from God in our place because of our sin! This is the Good News of great joy for all the peoples!

And in this gospel, we therefore see that baptism indeed does replace the positive meaning of circumcision. Similar to circumcision, by being baptized we are saying that we are called to walk in a new way of life because of what Jesus has done (Romans 6). Baptism is meant to set us apart from the rest of the world who does not want to identify with Jesus or His Bride. In baptism we are claiming unity with Christ and His covenant people by faith in His life, death, burial, and resurrection.

And yet, in this gospel, we also see that the cross of Christ has fulfilled the negative meaning of circumcision. In the Old Covenant, the people were called to be separate from sin and holy unto the Lord from a heart of sincerity and faith. Yet there was also curse (being cut off, not only from the visible covenant community, but even from God Himself in all His grace) that would fall on all who failed to keep this covenant. Jesus came to fulfill the terms of this covenant and to bear the curse for us not keeping this covenant. This is the simple message of the gospel!

So, now being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is not only an expression that the LORD is our God and that we will walk by faith in and obedience to Him, but also that we rest fully by faith in the substitutionary death/circumcision of Jesus on the cross in our place.

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us–for it is written,

‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’–” (Galatians 3:13)

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Buzz
  • email

2 Responses to “Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?”

  1. Jeremy Myers Says:

    February 3rd, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    This is a biblical and theological view of the relationship between circumcision and baptism. I think it may be appropriate to now speak to which persons are to be baptized. I further feel that the discussion of which individuals to baptize and when goes far beyond the debate of infants and those less ignorant of the practice. I say, as a Baptist minister, there are likely many who claim to be Baptists who have undergone the proceedings of baptism and have not fully comprehended it, or were not actually believers at the time. Further there are Presbyterians who have followed through in a covenant relationship with Christ after an infant baptism and have been truly converted.

    Of course as a Baptist I hold to believers baptism and mainly because of the very connection of baptism and circumcision. Truly Christ has fulfilled the negatives of circumcision, only those in Christ cannot be cut off from the Father. How then can we know those infants being baptized by the Prebyterians will be in Christ one day? God is sovereign and knows who will and will not be saved, but we as humans with very limited knowledge of God’s plan for the slavation of a specific individual cannot truly speak to that. I know that some may argue that we cannot truly know the status of anyone’s salvation except perhaps that of our own, however there is the possibility of seeing fruit in the life of someone with the cognitive ability to excercise their own free moral agency as determined by God. So it seems that after conversion is easier to determine whether the candidate for baptism is truly bearing fruit and thus has the marks of a true believer in Christ.

    We see people in the New Testament being baptized almost immediately upon their profession of faith. It is also clear that not all who are recorded as baptized have equal time given to the recording of their profession of faith and sometimes not at all. So a Baptist may make the argument that we should baptize immediately following someone’s profession of faith; and a Prebyterian may argue that conversion does not always precede baptism.

    The question is if Christ has fulfilled circumcision then the presbyterian argument of replacement is voided right? Because the only way I can see that baptism replaces circumcision is in the sense of the fulfillment and that both point to a relationship with God through salvation. Also if the two are connected as you have stated, and I believe is true, then would we not take a veiw that circumcision precedes salvation or rather looks forward to the hope of salvation to come while baptism follows salvation and is meant to be a sign proclaiming that our hope is in the salvation already recieved? Of course I have my arguements for the impasses Baptists and Presbyterians come to in the scripture over the timing of baptism, but I wonder at this point raised in the preceding question.

    I have one last point and question. I have baptized people and I was sure of their salvation by their attitude and their ability to explain the process of slavation and their need for it; as well as their love and gratitude for Christ in offereing it to them. However some of those people have left the church since and I wonder now if they were truly saved. I do not lose sleep over feeling hoodwinked, they have to deal with God, but I do feel that perhaps I should be more diligent in the determination of whether somone is truly a candidate for baptism. Should we baptize immediately and let God sort out those doing so rashly or under false pretense? It seems to me “no” because it makes a mockery of the institution and can allow the person to falsely believe they are a christian when indeed they may not be. We Baptists have a hard enough time with people thinking that because they were baptized at twevle that they are automatically heaven bound regarless of their faithfulness to Christ from that point forward. Further if we baptize based solely on a person’s claim to be a Christian and not the evidence there of, does it really matter whether we baptize as infants or believers?

    Look forward to hearing from you!

    Your Brother, Jeremy

  2. jm Says:

    February 8th, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Hey brother, thanks for the comments. If I’m understanding you correctly, I agree with you that baptism replaces circumcision with regards to the positive aspect of being the sign of the visible covenant community of God, and yet it does not replace it in every respect, since (while there is much continuity) there is a difference between the Old and New Covenants. For, as you have well said, circumcision in the Old Covenant community preceded individual conversion (true faith and repentance), whereas baptism in the New Covenant community follows individual conversion.

    As to your last point and question, I agree that we should be as diligent as we can practically be about discerning the genuineness of someone’s faith and repentant life before baptizing them. I think that we as pastors and parents bear some responsibility in the illegitimate baptisms of those we approve for baptism. The goal here is not only to protect the church and the sacrament of baptism, but also to lovingly protect every person professing to be converted. We should cringe or cry at the thought aiding in the false sense of security of a merely nominal “Christian”. We should search for the necessary understanding of the gospel, adequate understanding of baptism, and the proper motivation for being baptized, but we should also look for evidence of genuine faith and repentance worked out in the lives of those desiring to be baptized. For this, often we will depend heavily on the parents of children and upon the spouses and close friends of young and older adults.

    And you’re right, the Presbyterians may falsely (though in ignorance and not with intentional malice) declare an infant to be a part of the community of faith, yet they do not go so far as to assure them of faith or repentance at the time of their baptism. This definitely has its own set of issues and implications. However, as credo-only baptists, every time we baptize someone we are clearly stating that they are truly repentant believers in Christ. This should be taken very seriously, to say the least.

Leave a Comment: