Today we read about God instituting with Abraham's household the rite of circumcision by which God set apart his covenant people. Circumcision symbolized a removal of the sinful nature. The Kretzmann commentary calls circumcision a means of grace, an Old Testament sacrament. The People's Bible comments "For Abraham's descendants, then, circumcision was another seal assuring the certainty of God's covenant, just as Baptism is a daily reminder that God has elected us to be his very own."
Colissians 2:11-12 connects baptism with circumcision: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." The Concordia study Bible says of these passages: "In the Israelite faith, circumcision was a sign that the individual stood in covenant relation with God. While this is the only reference where circumcision is associated with baptism, the passage teaches that, for the Christian, water baptism is the parallel rite of the new covenant relationship."
I do have a related question. In Genesis 17:13 God says to Abraham: "My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant." I'm assuming that's talking spiritually--since it's a means of grace that it's saying that through it they will be God's people forever?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had so many spelling and grammar errors in my first comment posting that I decided to redo.
ReplyDeleteMy response is based on the Concordia Study Bible comments on Gen 17:7. The covenant is everlasting, in that from God's perspective it will never be broken. However, man can screw up and not hold up his end of the bargain. The covenant is often summarized as "I will be your God and you will be my people." Ex 6:7,Jer 7:23,11:4,30:22, Ez 36;28 It's a two way covenant, one that God is incapable of breaking but one that Israel failed to keep.
On an unrelated note, I find the connection drawn between circumcision and baptism to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of infant baptism.
I agree that the parallelism between circumcision and baptism lends weight in support of infant baptism (infants were circumicised).
ReplyDelete