Jeff pointed out that baptism is not Christian circumcision. Looking at the comments, I think it might be helpful to point out that Israel was not the Church.
In the new creation, the idea of an “unbaptized Christian” is either very temporary or an anomaly. Those who came to faith were baptized immediately, together with their children. One does not remain outside the Church as a Christian.
But there were plenty of God-fearing Gentiles in the Old Testament economy who remained uncircumcised and yet whom we will meet at the resurrection in glory. Melchizedek, Potiphera, Reuel/Jethro, Uriah the Hittite, Hiram of Tyre, Naaman, and Nebuchadnezzar are a few, and they are certainly representative of many more.
In the time of Moses, Jesus (aka Yahweh) was quite clear that uncircumcised Gentiles had the same privileges (in almost all cases) as a Jew. Thus we read in Numbers 16:
Thus it shall be done for each bull or ram, or for each lamb or young goat. As many as you offer, so shall you do with each one, as many as there are. Every native Israelite shall do these things in this way, in offering a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the Lord, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you….
If one person sins unintentionally, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who makes a mistake, when he sins unintentionally, to make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them.
These are laws for uncircumcised residents to be treated just like the circumcised natives. Other than Passover, which required circumcision and, therefore, naturalization (“he shall be as a native of the land”–Exodus 12.48).
If you think about it, it couldn’t be any other way, if Gentiles were to be saved at all before Christ. What were all those repentant Ninevites supposed to do after Jonah preached?
Get circumcised? Ordain a priesthood? Build a new central sanctuary?
Or mass emigrate to Israel?
Until after the exile and dispersion, a Gentile getting circumcised in a foreign land could make no sense. The promises and calling attached to circumcision were attached to the Promised Land with the Tabernacle/Temple all specific to being a nation of priests. (Are priests ordained solely for their own salvation or for the aid of others. If Israel was a priestly nation–Exodus 19–then that presupposes that salvation is to be granted to other nations that do not get amalgamated into Israel.)
One confirmation of this is the fact that God had no problem with Moses’ uncircumcised son while he was in Midian. But when he approached Egypt and Goshen where the Israelites dwelt, that drastically changed (Exodus 4.24, 25). When away from God’s people (which seems to have made Goshen a sort of special land) the obligation to be circumcised was not in place (after the exile in the new covenant I think different obligations were in play).
Finally, consider the testimony of the Psalms, if we read them carefully. To do that, lets remind ourselves of Biblical terminology by reviewing how Paul addressed a mixed group of circumcised Jews and uncircumcised god-fearers. He said, “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen” (Acts 13.16) and again: “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God” (Acts 13.26).
Now hear God’s call to the Gentiles right along with the Israelites.
From Psalm 115:
O Israel, trust in the Lord!
He is their help and their shield.
O house of Aaron, trust in the Lord!
He is their help and their shield.
You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord!
He is their help and their shield.The Lord has remembered us; he will bless us;
he will bless the house of Israel;
he will bless the house of Aaron;
he will bless those who fear the Lord,
both the small and the great.
From Psalm 118:
Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
for his steadfast love endures forever!Let Israel say,
“His steadfast love endures forever.”
Let the house of Aaron say,
“His steadfast love endures forever.”
Let those who fear the Lord say,
“His steadfast love endures forever.”
From Psalm 135:
O house of Israel, bless the Lord!
O house of Aaron, bless the Lord!
O house of Levi, bless the Lord!
You who fear the Lord, bless the Lord!
Blessed be the Lord from Zion,
he who dwells in Jerusalem!
Praise the Lord!
The Psalmist calls the Gentile god-fearers along with the priests, Levites, and other Israelites.
The call of the Abrahamic covenant was to be the light of the world. That was not the calling of all believers during the OT era, and we should not be stingy with God’s salvation, restricting it to those who were supposed to spread it.
[...] blogging. But I’m going to get control of my time and that means less here (I wrote most of this at the Craws, so it doesn’t [...]
Thanks for posting this, Mark. I haven’t gotten around to doing something similar, so this is helpful.
Yes this is huge. In my experience, understanding this point demolishes any theory that the Mosaic Covenant was a sort of covenant of works, and it also gives us reason to re-examine the specifics of the Jerusalem Council in Acts. 15.
I think that such an Old Testament support for Jew/Gentile relations will also enlighten our contemporary Pauline studies.
Wasn’t circumcision also about access? In the Old Testament, circumcision granted access to privileges, and ordination in the priesthood of the priesthood granted access to other privileges. In the New Covenant, the least among us has greater access than even John the Baptizer, who baptized Jesus. So perhaps the church was broader than Israel, but the access to the sacraments was not. Israel was a God Mandated closed communion, half-way-ish covenant, while the New Covenant is full access for all members of the church. Am I in the boonies?
Jason. Sure, circumcision granted access to Passover. But not the other altar feasts. God encouraged the Israelites to invite aliens to those.
I’m glad to grant all these things, but I’m still not sure how this drives a wedge between circumcision and baptism, since baptism unites us to Christ and it is in Christ that we draw near as priests. So, baptism is the mark of the new lay clergy, as circumcision was the mark of the old lay clergy. The one baptism is part of what breaks down the old divisions and creates the one new man in Christ. And, in that context, for all the invitations that were offered to the Gentiles, Paul could still say that they were apart from the covenants of promise…
I think that I am with, J.W.D. Smith. Isn’t Paul’s point in almost every epistle to churches that gentiles don’t get more access with circumcision because Baptism gets them more access than circumcision ever did. Circumcision was a step towards the holy of holies when they were gentiles w/o Jesus, but baptized gentiles are now taking a step away from God in circumcision, because they have greater access in Baptism than circumcised Jews, ordained priests, and even the Old Covenant High Priest. Please correct me if I am wrong.
There are points of continuity as well as contrast.
Circumcision had to do with taking away the old flesh, but baptism has to do with putting on the new heavenly man. Circumcision didn’t quite do that, if for nothing else, he had not come yet.
Steven, agreed. No one is saying, I think, that baptism is nothing more or nothing other than Christian circumcision. I certainly would not say that. But I would say that baptism is to the new what circumcision was to the old: they are analogous, not univocal. Because the old was one of separation (between high priest and priests, between priest and Israel, between Israel and the nations) and bloody death, the bodily mark was one of separation and bloody death. Because the new is one going through death to union in life, the bodily mark is one of death and resurrection, unifying and vivifying the recipient in and with Christ and His Church.
Is this conversation getting overly complicated? I though Jeff Meyers’ point was simply that “the Christian circumcision” in Colossians” was not a reference to baptism, but rather to the cross of Christ. More broadly he was pointing out that what a Christian is baptized into is not identical to what circumcision initiated. Circumcision initiated one’s membership and mission in a special priestly institution established for the sake of believers among the nations, whereas baptism initiates one into the organization of all professing believers.
I don’t think anyone is saying that you can’t make any connections between baptism and circumcision. (I would argue that there are connections made in the Pentateuch between circumcision and cleansings. Since the author of Hebrews [among others?] interprets baptism as a transformation of these Old Covenant sprinklings, there is a connection to be made in that way.)
Mark,
I thought Jeff’s point was more broad than just the Colossians passage–it seemed he was saying that it was entirely illegitimate to call baptism “Christian circumcision.” I apologize for making this overly complicated: I was confused because I agreed with everything he said about circumcision, but it seemed that all those things (and more) could be said about baptism as well, so I wasn’t clear how the thesis followed from that argument.
I find myself asking “So what?” about this post because I don’t really see it as fully outlining the relationship of Gentiles to the Church or dealing with passages that describe this relationship in more detail such as Ephesians 2.
But beyond that it is likely that Meyers needs to deal with the implications of Romans 4:11 which clearly identify circumcision as a sign and seal of the reality of justification by faith–which is one of the things that baptism signifies as well in the New Covenant (cf. Romans 6). To me, attacking one of the common understandings of Colossians 2 without dealing with Romans 4:11 and the implications we can draw from it is just attacking the wrong passage to prove a point which once again makes me ask really, so what?
One of the shortcomings of Meyers’ approach here could quite possibly be that we only see circumcision in one light as it relates to membership in the covenant whereas the text indicates a number of different ways for us to understand these things. Whether Meyers sees things so one-sided is perhaps for him to answer but I’m not sure we can’t see both Meyers original point that Baptism is fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ as well as the idea that there is a clear relationship to baptism from circumcision even if the passages are not always so direct as a rabid paedobaptist might like to make it appear with someone he’s arguing against.
I do think it’s illegitimate to call baptism “Christian circumcision.” Not because baptism doesn’t have any connection at all to the rite of old world circumcision, but because it doesn’t do justice to either circumcision or Christian baptism to talk like that.
Rather, I see the apostle Paul being selective about how he explains the relationship between the two. In Colossians he wants them to understand that Christ’s death and resurrection is the fulfillment of circumcision and that by faith we understand that baptism plugs us into what Christ has accomplished.
Because the church is called the new Israel and Paul can say to the Philippians “we are the circumcision,” there is a connection between the two. I didn’t intend to deny that. What I say is that we should not call baptism “Christian circumcision” because the two are not identical and, maybe more importantly, circumcision is definitively fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Simply equating the two is not helpful. I mostly agree with the way Joshua has articulated this.
Then, too, in my original post I’m more interested in understanding what Paul says in Colossians 2 about circumcision, Christ’s work, and baptism. Bringing in other passages too quickly often obscures what Paul is saying in this passage.
I agree with this if that is all we’re talking about. There are likely enough ‘Baptistic’ Presbyterians (or perhaps I should have Presbyterians in quotes here?) running around thinking just this sort of thing about baptism. In that sense, I certainly agree.
I have found that both circumcision and baptism carry with them similar connotations that all center around the Christ event and our salvation. The best thing one can do to rid himself of this sort of limited view of baptism is to read more of the likes of Oscar Cullman and others who do not limit their perspectives to the myopic concerns of overly agitated men in the PCA and elsewhere who must minimize our understanding of the sacraments merely to preserve their limited propositional system in the name of defending the faith.
I believe it is difficult to use Colossians 2:11-12 without directly linking both circumcision and baptism together whether you reference Romans 4:11 or not. I don’t have a problem calling baptism “Christian circumcision” per se, but if that is *all* that one means by what we understand as baptism then we are likely on the same page in criticizing such a narrow view of it.
If we look at the covenant history as interpreted in the NT writings, we find that all humanity was baptized in the Flood, after which, in the context of which, came the new rainbow covenant — which is not some “mere common grace” affair as some moderns want to have it. With this clearly in mind, we see that Melchizedek, Jethro, and all the rest had been baptized in the same way that Israel as a nation was baptized in the Red Sea: an historic event that covers future generations. There is an overarching old baptism that continues in play up through the baptism of John, a baptism of washing away the old, but not yet a baptism into glory (because Jesus was not yet glorified).
Now, with this in mind, we see circumcision as a calling within the baptized race. It is just like the calling of the priests within Israel. A Venn diagram would just show concentric circles, the circumcised within the baptized, the priests within the circumcised.
The NT passages associate Christian baptism with the Flood, only now not only washing away but also glorification.
We can say that baptism circumcises us, but only in the same sense that it makes us priests. We stand in union with Jesus Christ as the New Firmament between God and the world, interceding for the world in the weekly liturgy.
It is worth noting that Peter Leithart has found that Mark David Garland, in the NIV Application Bible, interprets Jesus’ words, “my house should be a house of prayer to all the nations,” as a rebuke on the separation of the Gentiles from the Temple proper. My evidence above certainly backs up the plausibility of this interpretation.