Posts Tagged ‘Circumcision’

A Covenant of Promise

1398675_1681432562083071_642462017829814470_o-960x366

The above quote is from an anonymous 17th century Particular Baptist. “The wha?” you say. In the 17th century there were Baptists who were Calvinists and they were referred to as “Particular Baptists” because they believed in particular redemption rather than the General Baptists who believed that Jesus died for the sins of everyone. Today, we’d call them Reformed Baptists because they believed a lot more Reformed theology than just particular redemption. This chap probably chose to be anonymous because for a while in the 17th century it was illegal to be a Baptist in England.

Anyway, this particular Particular Baptist (sorry) denied that the covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17 was the Covenant of Grace. Now, as far as that goes, I’m fine with it. The two covenants are not the same. However, that doesn’t make the covenant of circumcision a covenant of works either. I would put it in the category of a covenant of promise (Eph 2:12). Here’s why:

In Galatians 3, Paul pits the law against the promise of the covenant of circumcision. You can tell that he has Genesis 17 in mind because in verses 15-18 he cites it when he says “and to your offspring” which he explains is talking about Jesus. According to verses 2, 5, 14 and 4:6 the promise is the Holy Spirit. So Paul’s understanding of the covenant of circumcision is that it promised and pictured the Holy Spirit. That makes a lot of sense biblically since in Deut 30, God promises to circumcise Israel’s heart. In Col 3:11 we are told that we have received Christian circumcision done without hands. In Romans 2:29 circumcision is called “a matter of the heart.” And Paul asked the Galatians in verse 2, “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” Since the promise of the covenant of circumcision is the Spirt and we receive the Spirit by faith, not works, the covenant of circumcision cannot be a works/law covenant.

What of the fact that it can be broken (Gen 17:14) which our anonymous Baptist cited in his quote? The way a child is said to have broken the covenant if he was not circumcised. This helpless infant is not relying on his own works but the faithfulness of his father. Since we receive Christian circumcision in the same way, while we were helpless and by the faithfulness of our Heavenly Father, this condition pictured God’s grace.

What of God’s command to Abram “walk before me and be blameless” (Gen 17:1)? Isn’t that a law of the covenant of circumcision? No, it isn’t. God explained why he required this of Abram, “that I may make my covenant with you” (Gen 17:2) and then immediately says “Behold, my covenant is with you.” (Gen 17:4) so Abram had already met those requirements. How? He’d met them the first time God established this covenant: “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (Gen 15:6). This covenant of circumcision was a gracious covenant.

What of Galatians 5:3 which says that if you’re circumcised you’re under obligation to keep the entire law? That cannot be speaking of Genesis 17 since Paul has already contrasted that covenant with the law in chapter 3. Also, when Abram entered the covenant of circumcision, the law had not yet been given. Abram couldn’t have been under obligation to keep the entire law since it would be another 500 years before God would give it. In Galatians 5, Paul is talking about the Mosaic covenant which was a law/works covenant.

Circumcision Type

While doing some research for my exegetical paper on Colossians 2:11, I came across this material in Benjamin Keach’s Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible. Keach was a signatory of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (a daughter of the Westminster Confession) and has a catechism attributed to him (though there is some question about who authored it). I liked the guy right off the bat because he argued for congregational singing amongst the Particular Baptists in England. Also, he was listed as the pastor at Horse-lie-down, Southwark. I guess a more contemporary spelling would be “Horsely Down” but the old one is more fun.

Anyway, here’s the quote:

  1. Circumcision was the cutting off the foreskin of the flesh; signifying the cutting off of the lusts of the heart and life, or parting with the corruption of nature, which rebels against the Spirit, Col. ii. 11
  2. Circumcision puts the body to pain. So those who come under the Circumcision of the heart, are sensible of much spiritual pain upon the account of sin, Gen. xxxiv. 25.
  3. As that part cut off was never set to the body again, but was taken away, so in this spiritual Circumcision, sin must not be parted with for a time only, but must be cast off for ever.
  4. The Circumcised person was admitted in the Church and family of God. So he that is spiritually Circumcised becomes a fit person for baptism, and so to be admitted into the Church of God.
  5. Such who were not Circumcised, were not to be admitted to the privileges of the Church, and outward worship of God. So the Uncircumcised in heart and life ought not to be admitted unto the spiritual privileges of the Gospel, and communion of the saints.
  6. The Uncircumcised person was looked upon by God’s people as a hateful person; see with what contempt David beheld Goliath upon this account, “This Uncircumcised Philistine,” &c., 1 Sam. xvii. 36. So those who are not Circumcised in heart, are hate to God.
  7. Circumcision was a sign of the righteousness of faith: so the spiritual Circumcision of the heart, i.e. putting away the body of sin, &c., is a sign of the truth of grace, and of an interest in the righteousness of Christ Jesus.

I think I’m going to put this in the conclusion of my exegetical paper. :)