5. The baptized are “counted as if” circumcised

Principle 5 is that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision, and the baptized Gentile is “counted as if” circumcised (Rom. 2:26). In this section we will be demonstrating that Baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. In the last paragraph we have already seen that believers are members of “the covenant of circumcision” (i.e. the Abrahamic covenant). Thus it is natural for Scripture to describe us as “the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3) and to describe those outside the covenant as being both uncircumcised in spirit as well as uncircumcised in flesh: “…you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh…” (Col. 2:13)10

The question often arises, “How can we be called the circumcision if there is not a literal circumcision of the flesh?” The simple answer is, “The same way Old Testament women could be called ‘the circumcision.’” Though some nations practiced female circumcision,11 God (no doubt out of mercy) only had the male circumcised. The female was counted as if she were circumcised because she took part in the ceremonial baptism that accompanied circumcision (Lev. 12; 15; Numb. 31:18,23 with Deut. 21:10-14).12 (This “purification of separation” was also applied to proselytes who “died” to their Gentile background and were “born” into Judaism. The man [and his male children] would be circumcised and baptized, but the wife [and her female children] only received the baptism.13 Yet all were from that moment on treated as “Jews,” “Israelites,” “the circumcision,” and “clean.”)

That is why it would have been no surprise to Jews to see Paul saying in Colossians 2:11-12 that spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism are exactly the same thing, or of saying that baptism is “Christian14 circumcision”.15 The early Greek fathers Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril and others called circumcision a “baptism,” and baptism “the great circumcision” or “circumcised by washing.”16 They used the terms interchangeably just like the Jews. Therefore, if the Jews treated female children as if they were circumcised when they received the baptism of Leviticus 12,15, etc., we can biblically be treated as “the circumcision” when we receive Christian baptism.

Interestingly, the “as if” language is used in both directions. When John the Baptist later said that Israel had been excommunicated, and that they were no longer children of Abraham but were Gentiles in need of this proselyte baptism (cf. e.g. Matt. 3:5-12) he greatly offended the Pharisees. He was treating them as if they were uncircumcised (cf. Rom. 2:25 with Matt. 3:8-10). The same “as if” language that was applied to women for circumcision and to unbelieving Jews for uncircumcision is applied to baptized believers. Romans 2:26 says that we are “counted as if”17 we are circumcised. Romans 4:12 says that Abraham’s fatherhood extends not only to faith (Romans 4:16), but he is also said to be “the father of circumcision” to non-Jews (Rom. 4:12). Thus Philippians 3:2-3 can say that though Jews are the “concision” (translated as “mutilation” by many translations), “we [baptized believers] are the circumcision.” Though believing Gentiles were “once [ποτὲ, that is “once” but no longer] Gentiles in the flesh” (Eph. 2:11), and “at that time you were …aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12), that is no longer the case because we have been brought near (Eph. 2:13) and have been made “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).

The inference of Colossians 2:13; Ephesians 2:11 and the other passages is that we are no longer Gentiles in the flesh. We are Israel (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 9:6-8), Jews (Rom. 2:28-29), a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9; Tit. 2:14), children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7,29) and the circumcision (Phil 3:3). It is no wonder then that Paul ends his arguments against circumcision of the penis in Galatians with his discussion of the true significance of baptism (Galatians 3:27-29) and ties Spiritual Baptism in with the significance of the promise to Abraham (v. 29). The promise that circumcision signed and sealed is the same promise that Baptism signs and seals: it is the gift of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14). Thus baptism is “Christian circumcision.”

In fact, so convincing is the connection between circumcision and baptism in the Greek of Colossians 2:11-12 that many Baptists now agree that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision.18 However, they believe that the New Testament has authorized a change in the application of this outward sign. Their proof texts are Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and Acts 8:37.19 They argue that this new emphasis on faith has changed the covenant from an outward administration to an inward one. For a refutation of their use of these verses see principle #3. The simple fact is, we cannot be in the “covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) without circumcision being carried over in some way into the New Testament. If it has come over into the New Testament, it must be governed by the same laws governing circumcision unless there are clear changes that have been made.

For further evidence of the identity between baptism and circumcision, I offer the following chart.20

Baptism Has The Same Meaning As Circumcision

Meanings:

  1. Both are a sign
    • Circumcision: Gen. 17:11; Rom. 4:11
    • Baptism: Implication of Romans 4:11-12. Also, since signs point to a spiritual reality, see all the things signified below
  2. Both are a seal
    • Circumcision: Rom. 4:11
    • Baptism: See all the things promised (sealed) in the meanings below. Also see the implication of what is sealed in Rom. 4:11-12; 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13,30; 2 Tim. 2:19; Rev. 7:2-8; 9:4
  3. Both initiate into membership in the covenant community
    • Cirumcision: Gen. 17:14; 21:4; Lev. 12:3
    • Baptism: Eph. 2:12; 1 Cor. 12:13
  4. Both symbolize regeneration
    • Circumcision: Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4
    • Baptism: John 3:5; Col. 2:13; Tit. 3:5
  5. Both point to justification by faith
    • Circumcision: Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 2:25-29; Phil. 3:3
    • Baptism: Acts 8:37; 2:38
  6. Both point to cleansing from defilement
    • Circumcision: Jer. 4:4; Lev. 26:14
    • Baptism: 1 Pet. 3:21; Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 7:14
  7. Both are for those who are holy or “set apart” by a parent’s relationship to God
    • Circumcision: Ezra 9:2; Is. 6:13; Mal. 2:15
    • Baptism: 1 Cor. 7:14
  8. Both point to the need to die to the world (“Egypt”) and enter into new life
    • Circumcision: Josh. 5:2-9
    • Baptism: Romans 6:3-4
  9. Both point to union with God
    • Circumcision: Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Gal. 3:16,29; Gen. 17:7-8; Col. 2:11
    • Baptism: Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1-8
  10. Both point to the need for an inner spiritual experience, namely spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism
    • Circumcision: Rom. 2:28-29; Jer. 4:4
    • Baptism: 1 Pet. 3:21
  11. Both were placed on whole households
    • Circumcision: Gen. 17:10,23-27
    • Baptism: Acts 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 1:16
  12. Both were a sign and seal of the covenant of grace
    • Circumcision: Gen. 17:9-14; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 4:11
    • Baptism: Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
  13. Both point to remission of sins
    • Circumcision: Deut. 30:6; Col. 2:13
    • Baptism: Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Col. 2:13
  14. Both oblige the recipient to walk in newness of life
    • Circumcision: Gen. 17:9; Deut. 10:12-16
    • Baptism: Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 7:14
  15. Neither one saves or benefits a person automatically (ex opera operato)
    • Circumcision: Jer. 9:25; Rom. 2:25-29
    • Baptism: Acts 8:13-24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:29
  16. People can be saved without either one
    • Circumcision: Ex. 3:1; Rom. 4:10; Josh 5:1-12; John was saved (Luke 1:44,47) before circumcision (v. 59); so too Jer. 1:4; Ps. 22:9,10; 2 Sam. 12:15-23; 1 Kings 14:13
    • Baptism: Luke 23:43; Acts 10:2-47; see implication of verses under circumcision.
  17. Both are given to children
    • Circumcision: Gen. 17:10,12,14; Luke 1:59
    • Baptism: Acts 2:39; 16:15,33; 1 Cor. 7:14; Gal. 4:1-2 in context of baptism of heirs in 3:26-29
  18. It is not lawful to give to a child if both parents are unbelievers
    • Circumcision: Josh. 5:1-12 shows that children of unbelieving generation were not allowed to be circumcised
    • Baptism: 1 Cor. 7:14-16; Acts 2:39
  19. Both signs were given to non-elect children of believers
    • Circumcision: Gen. 17:19-25 with Gal. 4:21-31; Gen. 25:34; Rom. 9:13
    • Baptism: Acts 8:13-24; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:29
  20. Both signs were usually only administered once
    • Circumcision: obvious
    • Baptism: Eph. 4:5; also the implication of 1 Cor. 7:18; Tit. 3:5; Acts 8:22-23
  21. It is a sin to neglect this sign
    • Circumcision: Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24-26
    • Baptism: Luke 7:30 with Matt. 21:23-27; 28:19; John 3:5; Acts 10:47-48

It is interesting to note that the early church also based their practice of infant baptism upon the connection between circumcision and baptism. I have already given evidence of Greek-speaking church fathers calling baptism “the great circumcision.” It appears that this circumcision-baptism connection was understood quite widely by the early church. At least up to AD 251 many in the church appear to have baptized children on the eighth day after birth regardless of which day of the week that happened. It appears that some resisted this practice in Africa, and Fidus (who was the moderator of a large presbytery) wrote a circular in AD 250 to all the churches in his Presbytery saying that Baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after a child was born on the analogy of circumcision.21 For him to circulate the letter on behalf of presbytery implies a majority in that presbytery practiced it this way and that a minority did not. Apparently the minority had good theological reasons for why Sunday replaced all “eighth day” language in the Old Covenant, so they appealed the decision to the Synod in Africa. At the next Synod (the Council of Carthage in AD 251), it was settled that babies could be baptized earlier than the eighth day after birth (assuming that a worship service happened earlier) or later than the eighth day (if the earliest convenient Sunday landed later). Cyprian wrote a gracious letter to Fidus and his presbytery22 stating both agreement and disagreement. They agreed that circumcision is replaced by baptism and that baptism gives us “spiritual circumcision,” but they disagreed that the eighth day after birth was required any longer for four reasons:

  1. The ceremonial clean/unclean distinctions have been abrogated by Christ, and therefore the rite of baptism can be applied earlier than circumcision was.
  2. Sunday is the fulfillment of all “eighth day” language of the Old Testament, so baptisms should take place on Sunday, whether the first possible Sunday for baptism lands earlier or later than the eighth day after birth.23
  3. “Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by a carnal circumcision, … but be admitted to the grace of Christ.” In other words, the spiritual circumcision is more important than the carnal rite of circumcision, and spiritual circumcision is given in baptism.
  4. If a baby is in danger of dying, baptism can be immediately given because “we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.”24

There is no evidence that anyone objected to infant baptism at either the presbytery level or the Synod level. The only debate was the day on which baptism should be administered to infants. Both sides of the debate tried to reconcile their opinion with the circumcision-baptism connection. The decisions of that Synod were ratified by the Synod of Rome in the Autumn of the same year. So infant baptism appears to have been universally practiced in the mid third century, and is explicitly connected to circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant.

The fact that ministers from other presbyteries around the Empire also practiced infant baptism in the previous centuries without censure seems to indicate that infant baptism had universal acceptance much earlier. Joachim Jeremias,25 Bryan Holstrom,26 and others have done an outstanding job of proving infant baptism in every century. Holstrom’s book is a particularly helpful treatment of infant baptism in church history and an equally helpful refutation of Baptist attempts to twist the historical record.27 I do not plan to duplicate their work in this book. Rather, I want to supplement their work by showing that the church has always held to the view that baptism is equivalent in meaning and function to circumcision. Or as Augustine worded it, “this sacrament [of initiation into the covenant] has been improved by the substitution of baptism for circumcision.”28

Thus, though the aforementioned books demonstrate that Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) believed in infant baptism, I find it far more significant that he insisted that baptism takes the role of circumcision in the New Covenant. He said, “And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision… And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.”29 He also argued that the rite can be performed on Sunday because Sunday replaced the “eighth day” requirement of circumcision.30 He used a fascinating argument from the lack of circumcision for females in the Old Testament (yet we know that those females were undoubtedly saved) as a reason why the initiatory rite does not save now even though it is called by the graces it signifies.31 Dale shows how Justin Martyr called Joshua’s second circumcision a baptism and our baptism a circumcision.32

Even earlier than Justin Martyr is Ignatius (AD 30-107),33 who insisted that baptism replaces circumcision; it does not merely supplement it.

Origen (AD 184-253) too discussed the circumcision of Joshua, saying that it prefigured baptism, and he calls baptism a second circumcision. In the middle of this discussion of the circumcision-baptism connection he says, “But since Christ came and gave to us the second circumcision by the baptism of regeneration, and purged our souls, we have cast away all these things, and in their stead have received the answer of a good conscience in the Lord. Then, by the second circumcision the reproaches of Egypt have been taken away from us, and the vices of our sins have been purged. Thou hearest that to-day he takes from thee the reproach of Egypt.”34

Lactantius (AD 250-325) clearly showed how baptism replaces circumcision.35

Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 313-386) said, “we receive the spiritual seal, being circumcised by the Holy Spirit through the font of baptism.”36

Gregory Nazianzen (AD 329-390) justified baptizing unconscious babies because God circumcised unconscious babies on the eighth day.37

In numerous places Augustine (350-430)38 did exegesis on circumcision to teach principles related to baptism. In the example I cited for Augustine, he taught that if circumcision could not be repeated twice, neither should baptism. Once it is understood that this circumcision-baptism connection was a universally held belief in the church, the idea that infants were baptized is an inescapable conclusion. I will not give an extensive survey, but the following are some of my favorite passages on infant baptism from the fathers.

Polycarp (the disciple of the apostle John), claims to have been a Christian for the entire eighty-six years of his life. Since church fathers did not consider unbaptized people to be Christians, it would place his baptism as an infant in the year AD 80.39

In AD 180, Irenaeus (who was taught by Polycarp, John’s disciple) appears to teach that baptism was applied “to infants and little ones and children and youths and older persons.”40

By the time we get to the third and fourth centuries, the evidence for the universal practice of infant baptism is overwhelming. Origen (184-253) gives three explicit references to infant baptism, and claims that it has apostolic origin.41 What is most significant about his testimony is that he was born into a family that had been Christian for several generations. Second, he was widely traveled and was familiar with church practices in Palestine, Rome, Greece, Western Syria, Cappadocia, Arabia, etc. For him to know the practices of the church of his time and to claim that infant baptism was the apostolic practice implies that he knew of no deviations from the practice of infant baptism in the empire.

In AD 215, Hippolytus, an elder in the church of Rome, compiled a book called Apostolic Tradition, in which he sought to enumerate and preserve all the practices of the church that could be proved to have been handed down from the apostles. One of those practices was infant baptism.42

Augustine says of infant baptism: “This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end” (Serm. xi, De Verb Apost.).

Cyprian (AD 200-258) writes: “From baptism and from grace … must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another’s sins are forgiven it” (Ep. ad Fidum). Likewise, we have seen St. Cyprian’s letter to Fidus making clear that everyone at the Council of Carthage believed in infant baptism.

Prior to 1537 AD, when the Anabaptists arose, there were only a few church fathers who questioned the wisdom of infant baptism (Tertullian being one who questioned it, but acknowledged its universal practice). According to many paedobaptist scholars, all those who opposed infant Baptism in the early church did so on heretical grounds: they thought that baptism cleansed from all sins (including so-called “mortal sins”) and therefore, the longer baptism was postponed in one’s life, the better. (They thought that if you sinned a mortal sin after baptism you might perish.) Some suggested that it would be better to postpone baptism till after marriage in case the person fell into carnal sin. Others even suggested postponing baptism until just before death. Interestingly, those who opposed infant baptism acknowledged its universal and ancient practice. They argued on pragmatic grounds. The Council of Milevis (AD 416) sought to counter this trend by anathematizing those who refused infant baptism.

Much more has been written by others to prove that infant baptism was universally practiced in the church up to the time of the Reformation, but our authority does not rest in church fathers, and the church fathers agreed - they insisted on apostolic authority. As you study the church fathers on this subject you see that their arguments were exegetically based. When they appealed to church tradition or apostolic tradition, they were simply appealing to the Biblical doctrines that the church held to and the apostolic interpretations of the Old Testament. For the church of the first few centuries, grounding doctrine in the apostolic tradition always (without exception) meant grounding it in Scripture.43 So when Origen (born 185) said “the church has a tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to infants,”44 he was not referring to an extra-biblical tradition. Even this detour into what the fathers believed is simply to show that our interpretation of the circumcision-baptism connection is not novel, but fits the test of historical theology.

Up next

6. Major differences for children of believers