"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him in the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead."  (Colossians 2:11-12)

​

Covenant Signs of Grace

​​

The Sacraments (divinely commanded ordinances of covenant promise) are not works of obedience that we perform to please God, but rather covenant signs or pledges of God’s grace and mercy toward us (Heb. 11:4; Rom. 4:11). The covenant of grace first given to Adam promising the Messiah to come through the seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:15), was renewed to Abraham according to whom God promised to be a God not only to him but also to "his seed" (Gen 17:7). St. Paul teaches, that the Abrahamic promises apply to all those united to Christ by faith (Gal. 3:26-29; Rom. 4:16-25). The outward sacramental sign of the Old Testament, by which the covenant member could be identified as included in the Gospel promises, was circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14). The Bible teaches that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sacrament of adoption and initiation in the Messianic Age (Col.2:11-12). This is the case, as all Old Testament typology and sacramental ordinances were pointing toward the coming Messiah (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1), while the New Testament ordinances look back on the Messianic work now completed (Heb. 9:28; Heb. 10:10). The Old Testament Sacraments all involved the shedding of blood, and the New Testament Sacraments involve outward signs of the shed blood of Christ already ratified (water of Baptism, and the bread and wine of the Passover Supper). As St. Augustine has it, “The sacraments of the Mosaic law foretold Christ; ours announce Him” (Questiones in Heptateuchum, 33).

​

To understand why this is true, it is vitally important to remember that the Old Testament saints were justified in precisely the same manner as those in the New Testament, i.e. by the grace of God through faith in the Messiah – the entire fourth chapter of Romans and eleventh chapter of Hebrews are dedicated to that point (Gen. 15:6; Hab.2:4; Ps. 14:5; Ps. 32:1-2; Ps. 51:10-13; Jer. 33:6; Prov. 30:5; Rom. 3:24; Rom. 4:6; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Acts 13:39; James 1:17-18). Therefore, sacraments of both testaments serve as the covenant signs or pledges of God’s divine promise of grace through the Messiah! The Protestant Reformation never gave room for any leniency of opinion on this point. The Lutheran Confessions state: “In the Old Testament as in the New, the saints had to be justified by faith in the promise of the forgiveness of sins given for Christ’s sake” (Book of Concord; Apology of the Augsburg Confession, XXIV). And the meeting of theologians, representing several Protestant Churches, at the Synod of Dort agreed: “This is the gospel about the Messiah, through which it has pleased God to save believers, in both the Old and the New Testaments” (The Canons of Dort, III-IV, Article 6).

​

As Martin Luther also wrote in the Babylonian Captivity 1520: “For it is wrong to hold that the sacraments of the New Law differ from those of the Old Law in point of their effective significance” (the effective significance of the sacraments being God’s covenant promise of grace through His Word). The Anglican and Presbyterian theologians who penned the Westminster Confession 1646, likewise confirmed in Article XXVII: “The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New.”

 

And we may even look to the medieval theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who wrote:

 "Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ’s Passion, just as  we are (2 Cor. 4:13; Heb. 11). And the sacraments of the Old Law were a kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified Christ’s Passion and its effects" (Summa Theologica III; 62; 6).

           

 Simply stated, it has been the consensus of traditional Christianity that the Old Testament sacraments pointed to the shed blood of the Messiah on the cross while the New Testament sacraments point us back to the cross! Scripture affirms a central Theology of the Cross, wherein even the resurrection of Christ is directing us to His atonement as the final Passover sacrifice.

​

So rather than signs of our personal obedience and commitment to Christ, the ordinances He has instituted, are His signs of the shed blood of Christ sealed to us. To support this I will quote from the great Anglican Theologian, the Rev. Dr. John Stott, the man to whom Rev. Dr. Billy Graham wrote in April of 1975: "There is no man that I respect, love,  admire and would gladly follow more devotedly than I would you" (quoted from: Godly Ambition, John Stott and the Evangelical Movement, by Alister Chapman). Many of the readers may know my own families friendship and co-labors in ministry with Billy Graham and the BGEA, but in spite of all such connections it should be a point of interest to all Evangelical Christians, of whatever denominational heritage or alliance, to note the respect that Dr. Graham held the Rev. John Stott as a theologian and a as a committed evangelical leader in the 20th century. I would further state that John Stott's understanding of Baptism was a view shared by Dr. L. Nelson Bell, Billy Graham's father in law, who was a medical Missionary to China and the founder of The Southern Presbyterian Journal. With that said, John Stott describes the historical and traditionally evangelical doctrine of the sacraments by introducing the doctrine of Baptism and dispelling the notion that the sacraments are signs of our obedience rather than means of grace:

​

"The best way to introduce the meaning of baptism is to assert that both of the sacraments of the gospel are essentially sacraments of grace, that is, sacraments of divine initiative, not of human activity. The clearest evidence of this in the case of baptism is that, in the New Testament, the candidate could never baptize himself, but always submits to being baptized by another. In his baptism, he is a passive recipient of something that is done to him... a sacrament is a sign not of what we do or are, but of what God has done or does" (The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism; John Stott, Latimer Trust, 2008;  pg. 7).

​

And as we round into the meat of the exegesis of this topic, we may cite Dr. Stott again making the point concerning the proper subjects of Baptism: "To truly believing adults the covenant sign of baptism (like circumcision to Abraham when he was ninety-nine years old) signifies and seals a grace that has already been received by faith). To the infant seed of believing parents baptism (like circumcision to Isaac at the age of eight days) is administered because they are born into the covenant and are thereby 'holy' in status (1 Corinthians 7:14)... This is the case with adults who are baptized in unbelief and later believe. We do not re-baptize them. Their baptism conveyed to them a title to the blessings of the New Covenant; they have now claimed their inheritance by faith" (Ibid. pg. 17).

 

Colossians 2:11-12 indicates that in Christian Baptism the believer is participating in all that circumcision conveyed in the Old Testament as the sign of the Messiah's shed blood redeeming and saving His People, calling Baptism "the circumcision of Christ." And St. Paul also states in his letter to the Philippians " For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus" (Phil.3:3).

​

​  Nine Scriptural Parallels of Circumcision and Baptism:

​​

1. Circumcision was a sign of God's promise to Abraham: "God said unto Abraham...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" (Gen. 17:9-10); so also is Baptism in the New testament: "as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ...And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:27, 29).

​

2. Circumcision was a sign of cleansing from sin and regeneration "the circumcised heart" in the Old Testament (Dt. 10:16; Dt. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Lev. 26:41; Jer. 9:25-26; Ezek. 44:7; Acts 7:51); so also is Baptism in the New Testament (John 3:5; Titus 3:5; Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). 

​

3. Circumcision was a mark signifying the inclusion of the individual in the visible covenant people of God  - the Church (Gen. 17:10-14; Ex. 12:44 f.; Phil. 3:5); so also is Baptism (1 Cor. 12:12-13; Eph. 4:5).

 

4. Circumcision was the Old Testament sign of justification by grace through faith (Rom. 4:11); so also is Baptism now that the Messiah has come (1 Cor. 6:11; Mark 16:16). And since circumcision was commanded to be normally administered to infants of believers (Gen. 17:12; Gen. 21:4), it follows that it is entirely consistent that Baptism would be so understood in the New Testament (Col. 2:11-12).

​

5. Circumcision was a sign of the grace of the Gospel and not of Law (Gal. 3:18); so is Baptism (Rom. 6:3-11).

​

6. Circumcision was a sign of the "cutting" or the shed blood of the coming Messiah (see again Col. 2:11-12); and so is Baptism now that the Messiah has come (Rom. 6:3).

​

7. Circumcision was  administered to adult converts as the "seal of the righteousness of faith" professed (Rom.4:11) and to the Households of already believing parents (Gen. 17:7, 10-14; Gen. 21:4); and so Baptism is administered to professing adults (Acts 8:36), and to their Households (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 11:14; Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:16). "“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household....then immediately he and all his household were baptized" (Acts 16:31, 34).

​

8. Circumcision was, according St. Paul, participation in a sign that reflects the "cutting off" of Christ in death, and so the faithful are thereby: "circumcised", "buried" and "raised" with Christ under that sign of His shed blood (Col. 2:11-12); so St. Paul  describes the covenantal significance of Baptism in the same exact terms: "all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3-4). I want this point to go further than the undisputable aspect of point #6, as I mean to stress the direct textual connection of the language used by Paul in Colossians 2 (regarding Circumcision) and in Romans 6 (regarding Baptism). That the effective significance of these ordinances is not only the shed blood of the covenant, but rather a full gracious participation in the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah under these Covenant Signs. This point will be worked out a little further below in an excerpt from Old Testament scholar, Dr. Meredith Kline.

​​

9. Circumcision was the occasion of renaming both Abraham (Gen. 17:4-10) and Sarah (Gen. 17:15-16) in connection with the extension of the covenant promises to their seed and to many nations; So also Baptism is the occasion of Jesus being named the Son of God by the voice of the Father (Matt. 3:17). This extends to every Baptized Christian as they are all being named as children of God, taking His name in which they are baptized, also a commissioned promise extending to many nations (Matt. 28:19). This also explains why Jesus being without sin receives Baptism. He receives Baptism which is a sign of flood judgment, and as the only perfectly righteous Israelite, Jesus sustains it on His own merit, thus He is pronounced to be the beloved Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased (Matt. 3:17). By Baptism into Christ and His name (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Matt. 28:19) , we participate in the blessing of the sign of Jesus sustaining that judgment for us. The Spirit alights upon us, and the Father says we are His children and He is "well Pleased" with us on account of the righteousness of Jesus - the true Son. Circumcision and Baptism are both judgment signs, that betoken grace for the faithful. The sinful individuals are destroyed in the flood judgments (Gen. 7:4; Ex. 14:26-28), but through the Messiah the same judgment sign is the token of being saved by unmerited grace (Genesis flood Gen 7:6-7, see 1 Pet. 3:20-21; Red Sea flood Ex. 14:13-14 see 1 Cor. 10:2).

​

 Circumcision - Old Testament Golgotha

​

Circumcision was commanded to be administered to infant boys on the eighth day after their birth (Gen. 17:12). The significance of the eighth day is that of symbolizing the covenant of grace, or the Gospel. Creation was a six day action with a seventh day-Sabbath, the eighth day symbolizes the new covenant of grace that is needed since the original Creation covenant has been broken, the eighth day looks beyond the seventh day covenant to a redemptive covenant (note: Jesus was resurrected on the eighth day - first day of the week - or morrow after the Sabbath).

​

The sign of God's covenant of grace with Adam and Eve was a substitutionary Passover sacrifice as an atonement covering (Gen. 3:21), and the Bible continues to affirm that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). As the token of adoption or inclusion into this covenant of grace, the ordinance of circumcision is a cut covenant in the flesh, signifying the atonement to be made by the shed blood of the Messiah to come, and it is marked on the male organ of procreation denoting that from the righteous line, or seed, of Abraham the promised Messiah, first prophesied and promised in Genesis 3:15, would ultimately be revealed.

​

When Abraham first receives covenant promises from the Lord there is a cutting ceremony of atonement sacrifices Gen. 15:9-10, at which point Abraham is passively sleeping while the Holy Spirit Fire Presence passes through the cut pieces of the atonement sacrifices denoting that the penalty for covenant disobedience would be taken up by the Lord Himself (Gen. 15:17).

​

When Abraham is commanded to take Isaac (the child of promise-typological of the coming Messiah who will come from Isaac's lineage) it is for the cutting of an atonement sacrifice. Abraham takes Isaac up to  Mt. Moriah, where the future Tabernacle/Temple would eventually find its permanent location during the reign of King David (Genesis 22:8-9; Deut. 12:5-7; Deut. 16:2-6; 2 Sam. 24:18-25; 1 Chron. 21:18; 1 Chron. 22:1;  2 Chron. 3:1; Isaiah 18:7), and very close to Golgotha/Calvary -another hill of the Moriah range. Professor Meredith Kline makes some significant theological observations concerning the connection of all the covenant sacrificial cutting displayed in the narrative of Abraham's life. Kline elaborates:

​

"Genesis 15 tells us of a covenant cutting and a theophany which Abraham witnessed amid darkness and horror—the only proper setting for this Old Testament Golgotha...Read together in the light of fulfillment, the three cutting rituals of Genesis 15, 17, and 22 proclaim the mystery of a divine circumcision—the circumcision of God in the crucifixion of his only-begotten. Paul called it “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11). The circumcision of the infant Jesus in obedience to Genesis 17, that partial and symbolic cutting off, corresponded to the ritual of Genesis 15 as a passing of one who was divine under the curse threat of the covenant oath. That was the moment, prophetically chosen, to name him “Jesus.” But it was the circumcision of Christ in crucifixion that answered to the burnt-offering of Genesis 22 as a perfecting of circumcision, a “putting off” not merely of a token part [of the body] but “of the [whole] body of the flesh” (Col. 2:11, ARV), not simply a symbolic oath-cursing but a cutting off of “the body of his flesh through death” (Col. 1:22) in accursed darkness and dereliction.

Here, then, was the direction for faith to look for the solution to the dilemma of circumcision as a sign of consecration. By the demand to slay Isaac, God reminds us that all the ordinary generation of Adam, even Abraham and his promised seed, are covenant breakers and must he consecrated to him by coming to the place of the curse. But beholding the ram on Moriah and God’s own oath ritual of dismembering, may not even Old Testament faith have discerned the way of grace, the way of identification with God in his cutting off in the dread darkness, the way that cannot but lead through the curse into blessing, beyond death unto life? The prophet who later wrote of the messianic Servant that “he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people” (Isa. 53:8b, RSV) might have articulated this Old Testament identification faith in some such assurance to the faithful as this: You were cut off with the Servant in circumcision, wherein also you were buried with him, whose grave is appointed with the wicked, and you were also raised with him, for he shall be exalted and divide the spoil with the strong.
That, in any case, is the gospel of circumcision according to Paul. In the Colossians 2 passage already cited Paul affirms the union of the Christian with Christ in his crucifixion-circumcision:
“in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of Cod, who raised him from the dead” (vv. 11, 12, ARV). That Paul here interprets circumcision as a dying or death is clear from the sequence of ideas: circumcision, burial, resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:3, 4)."  (Meredith Kline; By Oath Consigned, pg. 45-46).

​

The Seed of the Woman

​​

Anglican theologian and Vicar of St. Stephen's, Walbrook in London, Rev. Thomas Watson (1620-1686), wrote: "Females were included and virtually circumcised in the males. What is done to the head is done to the body; the man being the head of the woman. 1 Cor. XI, 3."(Rev. Thomas Watson; A Body of Practical Divinity; Baptism)

 

The outward sign of circumcision was a cut covenant on the male organ of procreation and posterity or continued seed. The proto-evangel or first declaration of the Gospel promise was the promise that the Messiah "Seed of the Woman" would come to crush the head of Satan. The language of the Seed of the Woman, indicates that, while ultimately there is one final Seed who is the 2nd Adam and New Covenant representative or federal head - the Messiah, that this is promise comes into fruition by, and simultaneously represents, a Godly Covenant seed community (or faithful posterity who will inherit the benefits of the promise). This is indicated as the Godly line of Seth (Genesis 4:25-26), through to Noah and his children (Genesis 6:18), becoming the line of Shem (Genesis 9:26), and later Abraham through Isaac etc.. So the familial Godly posterity of the seed represents the Church or People of God, and this is because of the full union with the Messiah coming in the flesh to be the Husband or federal covenant head of His Bride the Church who inherits all the blessings of that Bride-Groom. They are in the final sense "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).  

 

Female believers were full partakers in the blessings and effective significance of the sacrament of circumcision, under the federal covenant headship, or covenant unity, with their Fathers and Husbands. A picture of the Gospel or imputed righteousness of God granted by grace to His Bride. The marriage -nuptial -ketubah (contract or covenant) of a believing circumcised man with his wife – made his wife and family full partakers in the same divine promise and inheritance of the covenant. On the basis of this patriarchal headship the Old Testament always includes women as full participants in circumcision without reservation. In fact, only those circumcised were allowed to partake of the Passover supper (Ex. 12:48), and this did not exclude females, thus scripture clearly teaches the covenant inclusion or virtual circumcision of female Israelites.

​

Quite significant to this line of Biblical Theology is the fact that Sarah was renamed by God at the occasion of Abraham's circumcision. Most Christians are aware of the fact that Abraham and Sarah are given new names by the Lord at some point, but when asked when this significant event takes place, few people have any idea. If God is your Father, and you are adopted and engrafted into His family, He has the right to name you, and you are given the right to be called by His name (see above point #9 of the parallels of circumcision and Baptism). It is the moment of the institution of the sacramental sign of circumcision that Abram's name is changed to Abraham (father of many nations - Genesis 17:5), and so the Lord than pronounces to Abraham regarding his wife: "And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her" (Gen. 17:15-16). This clearly indicates the full inclusion of Sarah within the effective significance of the promise betokened under the sacrament of circumcision.

​

The Book of Ruth tells the story of a Gentile woman who married into a Jewish family, thus becoming a Ger-Tzedek (a proselyte of righteousness, or full convert to Judaism – as is acknowledged in the Jewish Targum on Ruth). Ruth was a partaker of the divine promise of circumcision given to Israel under the federal headship of her husband, and even when her husband died, she by no means lost the status of a covenant child of Israel, rather Ruth makes a clear confession of her faith in the Hebrew God (Ruth 1:16). However, Ruth’s sister-in-law Orpah, also a Gentile proselyte, apostatized herself from God’s covenant by returning to the Moabites following the death of her husband (Ruth 1:15). So while Orpah separated herself from God’s grace, Ruth clung to the divine promise of God’s covenant and eventually became the wife of Boaz and the great-grandmother of King David. This, of course,  places Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:5).  Thus we are meant to see Ruth, the convert to the Hebrew faith, as a full Israelite, even to the extent of literally being one of the women that we acknowledge as a  type of the "Woman" by which the "seed of the Woman" (i.e. the Messiah) would come (Gen. 3:15). The very procreative nature of the promise of the Messiah as the special "seed of the Woman" through the righteous faithful seed of Abraham, and the sacramental imagery around the sign of circumcision leaves very little room to miss the robust theological implications of both the nuptial marriage covenant and the extension to the offspring of such a union.

 

The God of the Bible is also a Father to His People. Numbers 27:1-11, makes no room for doubts on the point that, according to the Law of Moses, the female offspring of the circumcised father is a full participant in the covenant promises, subject to the full inheritance of the father, as indicated in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad.

 

This sacramental inclusion of females under the federal headship or patriarchy of the father/husband within the marriage ketubah is by no means a degrading position for women; rather it is in itself an image or icon of God’s relationship with Israel. It is the primary biblical picture of the covenant bond. The Scriptures describe God’s covenant with Israel as a marriage covenant (Jer. 31:32; Hosea 2:18-20; Is. 62:5; Zech. 3:17; Ezek. 16:8; Eph. 5:22-24; Rev. 19:6-10 – we may also include the entire Book of the Song of Solomon as well as the entire Book of Tobit from the Jewish apocrypha).

​

In this context we may understand that Israel’s Messiah was considered to be the Bride-Groom of Israel; so in Daniel chapter seven we find the Messiah (i.e. the Son of Man) coming to claim His bride and at this time His kingdom is expanded to include Gentiles from “all peoples, languages, and nations” (Dan. 7:14) as they are adopted into Israel.

​

So as the expanding Israel is deemed to be Messiah’s Bride, we may understand that the Church (i.e. the Israel of God – Gal. 6:16) is “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5) with Him even as He adopted human flesh at the incarnation. We may understand that the righteousness of the Bride-Groom (Messiah) is imputed to the faithful Bride (the Church) – even as the sign of circumcision was imputed to the faithful wife or daughter under the Old Testament economy (unbelief and rejection of the promise alone constitutes apostasy).

​

 God's Promise By His Word

​

As Luther’s Large Catechism explains, faith must have a promise to believe in, and so it clings to the Word and Promise of God sealed in the covenant sign of Baptism, as a pledge of inheritance would have an outward signed contract or recorded seal. Thus from the beginning of Scripture revelation, the Gospel promises have been attached to outward signs and seals correlating to the atoning blood that the Messiah would shed as a Paschal Sacrifice and Redeemer for those taking shelter in His grace. In the Babylonian Captivity 1520, Martin Luther stated: “Belief is impossible without a promise to believe in, and a promise is void when it is not believed.” And the Lutheran Confessions elaborate on this point, as Luther himself wrote in the Large Catechism:

​

"It is true, nothing  that is in us does it but faith, as we shall hear later on. But these leaders of the blind are unwilling to see that faith must have something to believe – something  to which it may cling and upon which it may stand. Thus faith clings to the water  and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life, not  through the water, as we have sufficiently stated, but through its incorporation with God’s Word and ordinance and the joining of His name to it… Yes, it must  be external so that it can be perceived and grasped by the senses and thus brought  into the heart, just as the entire Gospel is an external, oral proclamation… Thus you see plainly that Baptism is not a work which we do but is a treasure which God gives us and faith grasps, just as the Lord Christ upon the cross is not a work  but a treasure comprehended and offered to us in the Word and received by faith (Book of Concord; Large Catechism IV)."

​​

Children in the House marked by the Lamb's Blood​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

​

The doctrine of household salvation and inclusion in the covenant promises is clearly seen throughout scripture (Gen. 6:18; Gen. 7:1; Gen. 17:12-13; Ex. 6:7; Job 1:5; 2 Sam. 23:5; Is. 44:3; Acts 16:31), and it was a clear categorical element at the institution of the Passover (Ex. 12:7-14), wherein the efficacy of the sacrament of the sacrificial Paschal lamb applied to the whole household, not just believing adults and teenagers. In Ezek. 16:20-21, God calls the children of believers His children (see also Mal. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:14); indeed everywhere in the Old Testament children are included in the covenant promise and participate as part of the Church (Deut. 29:10-13; 2 Chron. 20:13; Joel 2:16). In the New Testament as well salvation, and therefore the covenant sign of Baptism, is applied to households (Acts 2:37-42; 11:14; 16:15; 31-34; 1 Cor. 1:16).

​

Scripture teaches that infants/little children were "baptized" into Moses in the cloud and the sea in the analogy of St. Paul (1 Cor. 10:1-3), just as they had participated in the sign of the Passover Lamb sacrifice (Ex. 12:13). The redemptive action of God for His People at the time of the Exodus, according to St. Paul, included all of professing Israel and their children, even to the extension of the term and analogy of being "baptized." 

​

The importance of the principle seen in Ezekiel 16:20-21 and Malachi 2:15 should not be lightly passed over when linked with St Paul's words in 1 Corinthian 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Paul is using technical language from the administration of the Old Testament here when he speaks of the children of at least one believing parent being holy and clean. The key is Numbers chapter 9:6-14, where someone in a state of uncleanness would have to be ritually cleansed before partaking of the Passover Supper, and in the same context a stranger, not of the Household of Faith, was to be circumcised before they would have access to inclusion at the Passover Feast (Ex. 12:43-49; see also Is. 35:8 and 52:1). So, when St. Paul argues that the children of at least one believing parent are those to whom the promise of the covenant of grace extends (Acts 2:39), he says these children are not unclean but holy, it is clearly implied that such a status not only makes them eligible to receive the covenant sign of the Gospel promise (Circumcision/Baptism) but that willful omission of the covenant sign is a breach of the covenant ordinance itself (Gen. 17:14).​

 

This principle from Genesis 17:14 is at the heart of the reason that Jesus also rebuked the Disciples for not allowing the paedions “little children” to be blessed by Him (Luke 18:16; Mark 10:14; Matt. 19:14). Anglican Theologian and Bible commentator, Rev. J. Alec Motyer, notes on these passages (The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism; Latimer Trust, 2008, pg.45): "Mark uses the paideon, used of an infant just born (John16:21), and of a child recently born (Matthew 2:8), Luke (18:15) uses brephos, which can only mean a new born child (c.f. Luke 2:12, 16: 1 Peter 2:2, etc.)."

 

Why would this be an important issue if the physical sign of blessing on a small child was ultimately of no real value? Jesus rebukes His Disciples on this occasion, just as the Lord God Jehovah rebuked Moses for not obeying His command to the believing Hebrews to administer the sacrament of Circumcision to their children (Ex. 4:24-26). Moses is sternly rebuked and even under the threat of punishment by God, because he has neglected to have his son circumcised in violation of the covenant itself (Genesis 17:14). And so also a similar circumstance arises when many of the Israelite families neglected the ordinance of infant circumcision during the years of wandering, and were called to repentance and amendment before they could celebrate the Passover Service - just prior to the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 5:2-10). Consistent with this biblical teaching, Jesus will have the children of the faithful in full covenantal participation, and the Joshua imagery is important as the People of God are about to inherit the promises of God concerning Canaan, and so Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) comes as Messiah to  fulfill the promises concerning the Kingdom. And, it is important to note that  Jesus mentions the Kingdom in these passages as well. Kingdom membership is the ultimate benefit of what is meant by faithful membership in the covenant. Again, Rev. Dr. J. Alec Motyer writes:

​

"There are two noteworthy features in this passage in Mark [10:13-16]. Firstly, there is the Lord's assertion that children are model members of the kingdom. He says that the kingdom belongs to them, and that everyone who would enter the kingdom must become like a little child. However, it was the Lord himself that associated baptism and kingdom-membership, when he said: 'unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' (John 3:5). There was no need whatsoever for the Lord to elaborate this way upon his indignation at the disciples' rejection of the children. Why did he thus introduce the concept of kingdom-membership into the discussion, unless he wished to emphasize that under the New Covenant children occupy the same place as under the Old?" (The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism; Latimer Trust, 2008, pg. 45).

 

So also the 1st century Jewish practice of Proselyte Baptism for Gentile converts to Judaism included infant Baptism in the form of household Baptisms; as noted, such is also the case in the New Testament (Acts 16:25-34). 

​

The fact that the Apostolic Church in the pages of the New Testament continued to see their children as included in the covenant promises, not unclean but holy, and members of the Kingdom can be noted by the fact that Christian Jews continued to circumcise their children as we see in Acts 21:21. They met in Christian Synagogues (James 2:2). These Synagogues are referred to as Christian Churches (James 5:14). Therefore we know that at least these Christian Churches indisputably believed that they had infant covenant members.

 

Furthermore there is the fundamental biblical truth that Original sin leaves humankind in dire need of regeneration, the Grace of God, and cleansing from sin - none of which is possible outside of the the Blood of the Messiah (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). So it should be no surprise that every time the children of believing parents are considered in the Bible, they are to brought as participants under the signs and seals of the shed blood of the Messiah - to be in the "household" marked by the Blood of the Lamb. Again Luther writes:

​

"What if all children in baptism not only were able to believe but believed as well as John in his mother’s womb [Luke 1:41]? We can hardly deny that the same Christ is present at baptism, in fact is Himself the baptizer, who in those days  came in His mother’s womb to John. In baptism He can speak as well through the  mouth of the priest, as when He spoke through His mother. Since then He is present, speaks, and baptizes, why should not His Word and baptism call forth  spirit and faith in the child as then it produced faith in John? He is the same one who speaks and acts now. Even before He said through Isaiah [Is. 55:11], ‘His  word shall not return empty’… So it seems that just as Christ commanded us to  teach and baptize all the heathen, without exception, so the apostles did, and  baptized the entire household [Acts 2:38-39; 16:15, 31-33; 1 Cor.1:16]… For St. John in 1 John 2 [:14] of the little children that they know the Father. And as St. Augustine writes, child baptism has come from the apostles."

 (Martin Luther, Concerning Rebaptism, 1528).

​

Covenant Responsibility of Believing Parents

 

As we have seen the Biblical doctrine that children of covenant parents enter a covenant relationship with God flows naturally from the Old Testament to the New Testament (Ps. 102:28; Deut. 7:9; Ezek. 37:24-26; Is. 59:21; Is. 65:23; Jer. 32:38-40); there is no indication of any radical change, by which natural offspring of the Christian parents in the New Testament were excluded from the covenant promises. Rather the reverse is taught: for St. Peter clearly says, “…be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38-39), and  Acts 16:31 states "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your household." Jesus also told the disciples to baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19: Mark 16:15-16), making disciples of the nations is to engraft large majorities of families or households into God’s Church: “I will be your God, and you will be my people” (Ex. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 7:23; Jer. 11:4; Jer. 30:22; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:28; Hosea 1:9; Luke 1:17; Rom. 9:25-26; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 21:3). 

​

It is very important to note that parents in both the Old Testament and the New Testament are given covenantal responsibility for their children (Deut. 4:10; Deut. 6:6-7; Proverbs 22:6; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 3:4; Titus 1:6). Ephesians chapter 6 verse 4 commands that Christian parents are responsible to raise "up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord", and this not only correlates with Deuteronomy 6:6-7, but obviously presumes covenant participation and sacramental inclusion on the same basis that we see in the Old Testament, they are brough up "in the Lord." Just as we see was the case for St. Timothy, to whom the Apostle Paul wrote: "continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:14-15).

​

Apostasy - Cut off from the Covenant Blessing

 

While it is true that mere physical descent was never sufficient to include one in the covenant of grace for the faithless; if one  apostatizes (Num. 15:31; Is. 1:4; Hosea 4:6) - as much of ethnic Israel did -  one is no longer reckoned among the people of God (Rom. 9:6-8; 11:17-20; Heb. 10:26-30).Apostates are under a special curse for disregarding their inheritance from the Lord.  The apostate is "cut off" from the covenant, just as the outward sign of  circumcision is a cutting off of sin. Either sin is cut off, signifying the cutting off of Christ on the Cross, the shedding of blood- or you take the curse of the shed blood and are personally cut off. So Baptism outwardly signifying the washing judgment of the flood (1 Peter 3:21) either saves you, like the faithful household in the Ark, or destroyes you in Judgment like the unfaithful in Genesis 7 (also the red Sea Crossing flood judgment was either destruction or salvation - "baptized into Moses"  -1 Cor. 10:1-3). Being cut off (karath in Hebrew) is precisely the covenant language and imagery, connected to circumcision, that we see in the image of the True Vine, and  Olive Tree symbols of God's Kingdom (John 15:6; Rom. 11:17). The elect obtain the promises of the covenant of grace, and the apostate or unfaithful are cut off (Rom. 11:7 and 17).

 

But the fact that some or even many apostatize from the covenant does not eliminate or annul the Gospel promises of God to the covenant seed (1 Cor. 7:14; see Ex. 20:6; Deut. 7:9; Ps. 105:8; 2 Chron. 6:14; Is. 44:3). Galatians 3:7 states that only the Old Testament Jews who were faithful, were the true children of Abraham. A true Jew was circumcised in heart - truly elect, born again or regenerated (Rom. 2:28-29).So St. Paul can accuse apostate Christians of being "estranged from Christ" (Gal. 5:4; see also Rom. 11:21 concerning apostates of every age of Biblical history).

​

Redeemed by the Blood of an Everlasting Covenant

​

The Gospel promise is that of an everlasting covenant (that extends to the household covenant seed - Gen. 17:7 and 17:13). And that everlasting covenant cannot be annulled (Psalm 105:8), as  St. Paul writes: "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God [to Abraham] in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect" (Gal. 3:17). The New Testament tells us that it is by the blood of this same everlasting covenant that we are redeemed through our Lord and Messiah (Heb. 13:20), and this has some pretty serious theological consequences for those who would change the nature of the covenant to exclude the covenant seed from its promises now that the Messiah revealed Himself. The idea of the everlasting covenant indicates a Covenant of Redemption conceived within the Godhead from the beginning. Truly, the sacrifice of Israel’s Messiah, in a cosmic sense, has been effectual from the beginning of God’s covenant of grace, for the Messiah is called “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; see also 1 Peter 1:19-20; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 13:20)! So, traditional covenant theology is correct to recognize a complete unity concerning the effectual significance of the sacraments of both testaments as they are rooted in the promises of God testifying to that very  – “blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20).

​

It would be a peculiar type of "everlasting covenant" that changes its terms in order to exclude those whom the promise of Christ once extended. And it is in direct odds with the teaching of the New Testament, as St. Paul thoroughly explains in Romans 4: 16-25: 

​

"Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all  (as it is written, 'I have made you a father of many nations') in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, 'So shall your descendants be.' And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore 'it was accounted to him for righteousness.'

 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification."

 

Which indicates that the Anabaptist-Arminian-Dispensationalists theological complex, prominent today among much of North American evangelicalism, is not only diminishing the connections to the Abrahamic promises in the New Testament period (in direct conflict with the Bible's teaching- e.g. Gal. 3:26-29; Rom. 4:16-25); they are rather actually at odds with and in denial of the very terms of the everlasting covenant itself when they forbid the inclusion of the children of believers within its gracious promise!

 

We do not need to guess our Lord's response to this error, when His very disciples thought to exclude the children of believers from the Messianic blessing, our Lord's words rang clear enough: "Forbid them not" (Matt. 19:14).