On the pastoral use of baptism

Steve Kneale asks some interesting questions of baptists who admit into church membership those who were baptised as infants.  Steve's concern is that churches are admitting people into membership whom they don't regard as validly baptised.  I think that is an important concern!  It's clear to me that baptism in the NT is the gateway to church membership; or to put it another way, the NT doesn't countenance people belonging to a local church (through membership) without first or also entering The Church (through baptism).

I've tried to unfold a doctrine of baptism here over the years.  It's developed with time - the most recent brief effort at pointing in the direction which I think Scripture points is here.  Short version: I think that it is mistaken to characterise baptism as (part of) the answer to the question 'what should I do now I've become a Christian?'; it should instead be seen as (part of) the answer to the question 'how do I become a Christian?'  I think that getting this right allows those of us who don't see any justification in Scripture for infant baptism to nevertheless regard it as the same thing as adult baptism, just administered at an improper time.  In answer to Steve's questions about who gets to come into membership, then, I would say that anyone who has received (Christian, Trinitarian) baptism at any stage can be admitted.  I would add that I would not rebaptise anyone who was baptised as an infant.

In some of the responses to Steve's post on the Twitter, I've been struck by the reliance on conscience as the main criterion of receiving someone.  A number of people have effectively said 'if the person genuinely believes their infant baptism to be valid, then we'll take them; although we might try to persuade them first that they're wrong and they need to be baptised as a believer'.  The problem with that, I think, is that it makes baptism something very subjective.  Is this person baptised?  Well, it rather depends on what they believe about their baptism.  Do they feel baptised?  Are they content in their own conscience that they are baptised?  That becomes the decisive question.  The absurdity of this is that you could have two people who were put through the same rite - they both received Trinitarian baptism as infants - and in the eyes of the church one of them is baptised and one is not, based purely on whether they think they are baptised.

To my mind this is to exalt the subjective above the objective, and in so doing to undermine the pastoral use of baptism in the NT.  For Paul, it seems to me, the objectivity of baptism is part of its appeal.  When he appeals to believers to live out their baptismal identity, as he does for example in Romans 6, the appeal is to something that has happened to them.  Don't you know that your baptism meant dying with Christ?  Don't you know that?  It is the very objectivity, the fact that however they may feel or whatever they may think, the Christians exist as those who are baptised, that forms the grounds of the appeal for them to bring their subjectivity into line with this objectivity - to live out this given identity.  Paul cannot make this appeal to a bunch of people who are unsure whether they are baptised or not.  He is calling them to build their identity on the event of their baptism; not to decide whether their baptism was real based on their sense of identity.

This has a corporate aspect, of course.  You were baptised into one body.  Baptism is not just a matter of the individual and their conscience; it is the objective bond uniting Christians and holding them together.  Again, Paul cannot make the appeal to unity on the grounds of baptism which he does make in 1 Corinthians if there are those within the Corinthian church who are not regarded as baptised by others in the church.

Both infant baptism and the subjectivist fudge seem to me to empty baptism of the use to which the NT puts it.  Paul's 'don't you know..?' appeals to people who have been objectively baptised.  But it appeals to them on the basis that they understood what they were doing when they were baptised.  Infant baptism ought not to happen, and so all of our responses to it are working out how to deal with a sub-optimal situation.  My answer is that at (almost) all costs the objectivity of baptism should be maintained.  I think that means recognising infant baptism as valid but improper baptism.  If you can't get there (and I'd love to have a proper debate about this with someone at some point), well, at least don't fudge it.

Barth on infant baptism

Karl Barth makes clear that the main problem with the Reformed case for infant baptism is that it fails to distinguish sufficiently between the people of Israel and the Church of Christ, and it does so because it fails to see that in Christ the history of Israel is fulfilled.  This fulfilment, far from kicking off a new era much like the old, but with the role of Israel now played by the Church, brings in the end of the ages.  It is an eschatological reality, not a merely historical one, which forms the foundation of the church.  And seeing this gives Barth the opportunity to make the following sarcastic comments about infant baptism, which I share for your delectation.  His conclusion is that many of the problems in the church in the West can be traced to the fact that so few can remember their baptism and therefore really see their identity as grounded in Christ himself in his death and resurrection.  I tend to agree.

Instead, [the Church] began to act as if it were a natural community continuing from generation to generation and bound by ties of kith and kin.  It identified itself (on the plea of what was later euphemistically described as "Christianisation") with a whole succession of genuinely natural communities, and finally with the whole of the West, which came to be thought of as the "Christian West".  The freedom of the Holy Spirit, the freedom of the divine election and calling, the freedom in which Christ awakens faith in Himself and in which the Christian Church alone can be constituted, was no longer respected...  It was thought to be known in advance who would become Christians, members of the Church and members of the body of Christ, i.e., all children who find themselves within the sphere of the Church and are born of ostensibly "Christian" parents.  Were not the male children of the Israelites circumcised on the eighth day and thus separated as participants in the covenant?  And are the children of Christians to be deprived of a privilege enjoyed in Israel?  So the argument ran, forgetting the tiny detail that now that the covenant has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ, it is no longer possible to foresee and arrange and anticipate the divine separation of participants.  With the generous inclusion of girls, all children born in a Christian environment were regarded as potential Christians, as though the Church were a natural and historical entity like Israel.  And since they could not be asked about their desire for baptism and required to make a profession of faith, they were baptised without making this question and therefore baptism a matter of personal responsibility commensurate with the freedom of the Holy Spirit.  They were made Christians by millions in their sleep and over their heads as it were...

CD III/2, 586

10 thoughts on baptism for baptists

1.  In the NT, baptism is not (part of) the answer to the question 'what should I do now that I have become a Christian?'  Rather, it is (part of) the answer to the question 'how do I become a Christian?'  See, for a paradigm, Acts 2 and the response to Peter's Pentecost sermon.  That means, amongst other things, that if we deny or delay baptism in a particular case because we are waiting to see more evidence of Christian living, we are very much expecting the cart to move without the horse.  It ain't right.

2.  When we use language like 'just symbolic', as if that could be opposed to something more 'real' and 'substantial', we fail to understand that all of human life is lived by means of symbols.  This is especially true of the Christian life, the substance and reality of which are not to be found in the individual believer, in the church, or indeed anywhere in all this earthly world, but are rather seated at the right hand of God in the heavenly places - which is to say, the reality and substance is Christ himself.

3.  We can't rebaptise people.  It's not on.  If you are really convinced that the baptism of an infant is not valid (on which, see below), we need to say that the person has not been baptised, and therefore this is their first, one and only, baptism.  "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

4.  When we frame baptism as the first step of obedience after conversion, rather than as a part of conversion, we are in danger of tying ourselves in knots over the validity of baptism in any particular case.  Suppose someone is baptised at 14 on profession of faith.  At 17, they have what they interpret as a conversion experience and request baptism, because their first baptism did not follow faith and was therefore not valid.  Should we baptise them (again)?  At 20, at University, they realise that they've only now really owned the faith for themselves rather than living in the shadow of their parents' faith.  Should their University church now baptise them (again)?  What if they backslide in the years following Uni, and return to the church sensing that this is their real conversion - another baptism?  I hope the answer in every case would be no!  But can our theology of baptism support this answer?

5.  If we distinguish between the validity of a sacrament and its ideal form, we can make some sense of this.  Ideally, baptism takes place at the point of repentance and faith; this is the pattern of Acts, and makes most sense of the incorporation-into-Christ-in-his-death imagery of baptism.  But where it happens years before or years after repentance/faith, it can still be a valid ordinance.  I'm not sure there is much more required for the validity of the sacrament than baptism into the Triune name, with the intention of teaching the baptised person to obey all that Christ commanded (Matt 28).  For this reason, I think we ought to accept infant baptism as valid albeit irregular baptism.

6.  A less individualistic view of baptism would help us.  Too often we make baptism a Pelagian ordinance: the reason we don't baptise babies is because everything is suspended on the choice of the individual!  There is some truth to this - we, I think rightly, ordinarily expect the baptised to understand what they are doing to some extent, and to desire baptism.  But this doesn't mean it is just down to the individual to decide whether they should be baptised, or down to the individual to decide whether their baptism was valid.  The church has a commission to baptise, and it is down to the church to decide if someone is ready for baptism, and to acknowledge the baptism of individuals.

7.  I think one of the reasons the apostle Paul regularly points people back to their baptism as constituting their identity is because baptism is an objective, tangible thing.  We are in danger of undermining this when we make baptism all about the individual's state of heart and mind.  Baptism is about Christ.  Therefore, the person baptised can look back at their baptism and see Christ at work.  Of course their faith is necessary, but this is exactly how they exercise faith in the present: to remember that they are baptised.  I think people baptised as infants can still be encouraged to exercise this sort of faith.

8.  Because baptism isn't primarily about the individual but about Christ, we shouldn't require people to deliver a testimony at their baptism.  Their entry to the water is testimony enough.

9.  Because baptism is into Christ, and therefore into his body, everyone who is baptised should be enrolled as a church member as a direct result.

10.  Nobody should be taking Holy Communion if they haven't been baptised.  Get born, then eat food.  This is the consensus of the Church from earliest times: "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptised into the name of the Lord."  If you think someone is ready to take Communion, they are ready to be baptised.  Do that first.

Baptism, baptism, baptism

It would do us good to think a bit more about the meaning of our baptism.  If you have been baptised, what does that mean?  Not 'what does it mean to you' in a subjective or psychological way, but what does it mean?  Perhaps a bit of imagination might help.  Scripture is fairly insistent that when you were baptised, it was 'into Christ'.  The idea is of unity with him, a unity which is both symbolised and realised (through faith) in baptism.

On that basis, let's imagine ourselves back to the Jordan, as Jesus himself submits to baptism.  We are united to him, so let us imagine ourselves in his place.  He goes down into the water, just as we did in our own baptism, and then as he comes up two things happen.  There is a visible descent of the Spirit from heaven, and there is the voice of the Father which declares Jesus to be the beloved Son of God.  This is what happened to Jesus, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that as we are united to Jesus this is also what happened to us.  My baptism means the receipt of the promised Spirit, and the assurance of adoption by God the Father as a son.

But of course, Jesus' baptism was the beginning of the way to the cross, and contained virtually and symbolically his death and resurrection.  As he went down into the waters, so he went down into the grave.  As he was lifted up out of the waters, so he was raised again from death.  And again, we are united with him in this death and resurrection.  But isn't it striking that according to Scripture there was a sense in which Christ did not receive the Spirit until after his resurrection?  Isn't it intriguing that it is primarily in his resurrection that he is declared to be the Son of God?  Because, of course, the cross was his real baptism.

My baptism, his baptism, his Baptism.  Sonship and the Spirit.

Baptism, Independency, and the Church

The interweb is riven with controversy once again.  On the one hand, Paul Levy at Ref 21, asks why the FIEC is almost entirely made up of baptists; on the other hand, John Stevens, the venerable Chief of the FIEC, challenges those who are committed paedobaptists and independents to get involved.  Of course, there are no paedobaptists who are committed to independency as far as I know, so perhaps that deals with the issue.  Levy has replied to John Stevens, quoting Ben Williamson, with whom I am acquainted of old.  Ben argues that Baptists ought to be Independents, and paedobaptists ought to be Presbyterians.  I think he is absolutely right on that, but I think the reasons he gives are wrong, and dismiss rather too easily the Baptist position.  Since it is clearly intolerable that anyone should be wrong on the internet and not be contradicted, let me add some thoughts.

Ben thinks that Presbys put more emphasis on the corporate aspect of church, while Baptists emphasise the individual and his faith.  There is something in that, if we're just looking at what actually happens.  But if we dig and try to do some actual theology from the Baptist side, I think we ought to find something like this: Baptists ought absolutely to emphasise the corporate nature of the church, but they ought to downplay the institutional structures of the church.  For both Baptists and Presbyterians, the church exists because of calling.  But this calling is understood very differently.  The Presby, interpreting the NT in the light of the OT (a perverse procedure in my not-so-humble opinion), sees the calling of the church as being much like the calling of Israel.  So, in history a group of people is called, and their calling endures through time and is passed on generationally.  Baptism is rightly administered to children in recognition of this, and the church itself must have an enduring institutional structure to enable it to endure.  It must exist above and beyond the individual congregation, and must have priority over the individual.

I submit the Baptist ought to argue that the calling of Israel is in fact a parable of the real calling of (Christ, and in him) the church.  Therefore, the former is to be interpreted by the latter and not vice versa.  The Baptist ought to maintain a much more dynamic understanding of calling.  Church means gathering.  It means the calling of people together, but in a very real sense this calling is never 'done'.  Every Sunday is a fresh calling together of God's people.  The calling of Christ - indeed, Christ's activity and rule in his church in general - is regarded as that much more immediate.  So, yes, the calling of the individual has priority, but only because the calling of the individual is always into the body, and it is the calling of individuals that constitutes the church.  This view of Christ's dynamic involvement with the church ought to lead to flexibility about institutions and even about individual congregations.  It will also involve a recognition that church exists only as people are actually called by Christ into fellowship with him and one another in actual church life; therefore, to Independency.  The Baptist understands Catholicity to mean that Christ is calling different people into different fellowships, and trusts that we are nonetheless called to and by the same Christ.

So Baptism/Independency is not more focussed on the individual than the community; it simply understand the community and its existence differently.  This does have an impact on how we see children of believers - I think there is a category for those associated with the community but not yet called into it, a la 1 Cor 7, but this comes a long way short of the OT-ised view of the church held in confessional Presbyterianism.  For which I am glad.

Barth on Baptism

To completely change the subject (although I may come back to the Law/Gospel stuff in a bit), a couple of weeks ago I finished reading Church Dogmatics IV/4.  For those keeping score, that leaves me with just one volume I haven't read at least once (III/4), but I'm taking a little break from Barth and heading back into Owen for a while before I tackle that one.

Anyway...

IV/4 isn't really IV/4.  That is to say, it's not the next bit of CD after IV/3.  Rather, it is the bit which Barth had written before he realised that he was never going to finish.  He consequently prepared this bit for publication separately, and it stands alone pretty well.  It contains Barth's doctrine of baptism, and it is (to my mind) intriguing and controversial.

The book is split into two uneven parts.  The first, shorter, part deals with baptism in the Spirit.  This is the answer to the question 'how does the objective truth of reconciliation to God in Christ become subjectively real for me?' - a hugely important question at all times, and especially I would suggest in our time.  Barth's answer is typically Reformed, with all the stress being on God's initiative.  One emphasis which perhaps does not come across so much in other Reformed writers is the freedom of the human being who is baptised with the Spirit - not freedom to accept or reject this baptism, but freedom as a result of this baptism.  By the power of the Spirit, a person is set free to walk in the way of faith in Christ.  That means they are not free to do anything else, because for Barth freedom is not libertarian freedom; it is freedom to serve and trust God.

In the longer second part Barth deals with water baptism.  He builds on the understanding of freedom in the first part to argue that baptism in water is the first free act of the newly freed man.  It is requested from the Christian community, which administers it because it is called to do so by Christ.  In so doing, the community recognises the baptised as a fellow Christian, and the baptised acknowledges the community.  They commit to standing in solidarity of witness.

What is perhaps most controversial about Barth's account is his insistence that nothing sacramental occurs in water baptism.  In the face of almost all church teaching through the ages, Barth argues against the idea that there are two subjects in baptism - the community which baptises, and God who acts sacramentally through the community's action.  Baptism in water is, for Barth, a wholly human action, a response to the freeing presence and action of God the Holy Spirit.  Partly this is driven by Barth's theological concerns - for the freedom of God, who is not bound to the community's actions, and for the freedom of the Christian, who is set on the path of obedience by the Spirit - but it is also backed by a lot of exegetical work.  Barth asks the question: 'where in Scripture is baptism described in a way which implies a sacramental understanding?' - and finds no evidence to support this understanding.  (To be more precise, he finds passages that could be construed in a sacramental way, but others which point decisively against it).  I was also intrigued - and this is a challenge to my own previous thought - that Barth traces Christian baptism primarily back to Christ's baptism in the Jordan, making this the interpretive key for the whole doctrine.

Barth's doctrine, which deserves to be much more fully expounded than the hints I have given here, leads him to reject infant baptism, with a series of entertaining and incisive arguments which I recommend any of my paedobaptist brethren to take a look at - although doubtless they will not be persuasive if you don't buy into his whole picture.  Predictably, I rather enjoyed this section.

So, here's my question - where does the idea of a sacrament come from, Biblically speaking?  I am on the verge of saying, with Barth, that the only sacrament - understood as a divine action accompanying/underlying a human action - is Jesus Christ himself.  Would I be catastrophically wrong to say so?

Circumcision, Baptism and the Church (2d)

Theological Conclusions

In essence, I think the evidence of the New Testament stands against any separation between faith, repentance and baptism. I propose the following:

1. Baptism symbolises the death and resurrection of Christ. The water of baptism symbolises the death/judgement endured by Christ at the cross.


2. By submitting to baptism, the believer identifies with that death and resurrection. They voluntarily submit to ‘death/judgement’, going down into the water. This involves the admission that they are sinful and that their sinful self deserves death. However, they come out of the water, just as Christ was raised from death. This involves the recognition that Christ has removed the ‘sting’ of death by enduring death/judgement on our behalf.


3. These two ‘acts’ in the ritual of baptism are therefore equivalent to repentance and faith. The believer goes down, symbolising their recognition of sin, their recognition that they deserve death/judgement and their desire to see the sinful self killed – this is repentance. They come up, symbolising new life and the fact that death/judgement does not in fact fall on them but on Christ – this is faith.


4. The New Testament authors therefore appear to answer the question “how do I become a Christian?” by saying “repentance and faith, normally expressed in baptism”. I say ‘normally’ because it is clear that baptism is not strictly essential to salvation where repentance and faith are nevertheless present – witness the dying thief.


5. The New Testament therefore has no concept of an unbaptized Christian. Baptism is normally the beginning of the Christian life. However, the existence of baptized non-Christians is recognised, in the character of Simon Magus. This illustrates that baptism does not make a Christian if it is not an expression of repentance and faith.


6. Baptism makes disciples of Jesus Christ in the most radical way. A disciple is simply a follower; baptism encourages us to think of ourselves as ‘following’ Christ even into the grave, and out the other side as new people. Having followed him thus far in baptism, we are encouraged to follow him in day to day living.


7. Baptism does not accomplish an objective thing, but makes a prior objective accomplishment real in the life of the believer. Objectively, my salvation was won at the cross – I died in Christ at that point. Subjectively, I only appropriate that fact by faith/baptism.


8. Notwithstanding the above, the close link between water baptism and Spirit baptism means that the Spirit accompanies our faith in Christ’s act done externally to us and begins to make it real internally, by performing that heart circumcision and writing the law on our hearts. We become righteous in Christ at once; we become righteous in our experience gradually through the Spirit’s work.

Practical Considerations

1. It is not appropriate to baptise people who cannot express repentance and faith in their baptism. This rules out children. For them, baptism could only be a washing of dirt from the body, not an appeal to God for a clean conscience.


2. It is appropriate to baptise any who wish to follow Christ. We should not be so concerned to avoid baptizing unbelievers that we turn people away if they are seeking baptism. If baptism is the normal expression of repentance and faith, it must be open to all who request it. Further, there must be no long delay between someone expressing a desire to follow Christ and baptism. Baptism is the normal beginning of the Christian life.


3. Baptism is not primarily an opportunity to witness to others. Rather, it is an interaction between the person submitting to baptism and God, with the church acting as the minister of God’s grace. Therefore, nothing should be asked of the baptized but repentance and faith – they should not be required to give a long testimony etc. Indeed, the tradition of testimony-giving in Baptist churches largely assumes that conversion will always be an experience prior to baptism – this cannot be sustained from the New Testament.


4. Children who grow up in Christian homes should not be encouraged to look for a particular moment of conversion. Rather, they should be periodically challenged as to whether they wish to follow Christ. If the answer is positive, and they are of an age to understand and trust in the symbolism of baptism, then they should be baptized.


5. Baptism by immersion is the most appropriate symbolism for Christ’s death and resurrection; however, baptism by pouring can also stand for the judgement of God poured out on Christ, and baptism by sprinkling also conveys the idea of the application of Christ’s death to the believer. The mode of baptism is hardly important.


6. A person baptized as an infant should not be forced to be rebaptized – indeed, the concept of rebaptism is theologically problematic, implying two deaths of Christ. If a person is capable of seeing their infant baptism as an identification with the death and resurrection of Christ and the beginning of life as a Christian, their baptism should be allowed to stand. However, if a person ‘baptized’ as a child considered their baptism to be invalid, they should be baptised – for the first time.

Circumcision, Baptism and the Church (2c)

Baptism in the New Testament Epistles

The New Testament epistles are the most obvious source for our understanding of baptism. Unlike Acts, they do not in most cases merely report what is happening in the churches, but give guidance for what ought to happen. However, the references to baptism are frustratingly brief and undeveloped, probably because the subject was basic to the Apostles’ message and therefore covered in full during the period of initial evangelism (cf. Heb 6:1-2). This fact suggests a disparity between Apostolic and contemporary practice which is itself illuminating, but it also leaves us having to piece together the significance of baptism from the few brief reminders that are included in the Apostles’ letters to their churches. This we will now proceed to do in canonical order.

The first reference to baptism occurs in Romans 6:3-7, in the context of Paul’s dispute with his hypothetical interlocutor who claims that the Christian can continue to sin. Paul asserts that the Christian cannot continue to live in sin because they have died to sin. The text bears quoting in full:
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin”.

Paul argues that it is impossible for Christians to continue sinning freely because of something objective that has happened to them – they have died. He refers, of course, to their sinful self, the old man. This death occurred by a participation in the death of Christ. The apostle goes on to command the believers to “consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:10), which is essentially a call to them to exercise faith in the death and resurrection of Christ on their behalf. The phrase “in Christ Jesus” added to the end of this verse is not merely a stylistic flourish. The old self is very much alive in the experience of the Roman Christians (and, I would suggest from Romans 7, the experience of the apostle himself). In one sense, they did not die, and have not been raised. But Christ did die, and has been raised, and they are to consider themselves dead and raised “in him”. Faith thus unites them to Christ and claims his work as its own.

For Paul, however, this faith is expressed in baptism. He does not simply point the Roman Christians to their faith as evidence that they have died and risen with Christ. Neither does he point them only to the historical fact of Christ’s death and resurrection. Rather, he points them back to their baptism. Baptism, for Paul, is the participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Of course, objectively it is true that my sinful self died when Christ died – Paul makes that clear with his language of crucifixion, something not symbolised well by baptism! But in the experience of the Christian, this became true of them when they underwent baptism. In that ritual, the Christian is united with Christ in a death like his, the old self dies, and the Christian is set free from sin. In a sense, baptism is the bringing together of two points in history: the point at which Christ died and rose in AD33, and the point at which I find myself enslaved to sin and needing to die and rise in my experience. Baptism applies the former to the latter.

It is necessary at this point to make clear that Paul is not advocating ritualism. What counts for him is faith in Christ expressed in baptism, not baptism by itself. Indeed, in Galatians, where there is danger of overemphasis on ritual, Paul barely mentions baptism (it is mentioned only in 3:27, and there connected very strongly with faith) and ascribes its function, of uniting a person to Christ in his death, to faith pure and simple (e.g Gal 2:20). This is significant, and will be discussed in more detail in the conclusions to this section.

References to baptism in 1 Corinthians are brief, and largely relate to particular problems in Corinth. In 1:10-17, Paul argues against factionalism in Corinth. Here we see the disciple-making aspect of baptism clearly displayed, as Paul is at pains to show that he was not in the business of making disciples for himself while he was with them. No one was baptized into his name (1:15), neither were they baptized into any name but Christ, which makes their division inappropriate in the extreme – it implies division in Christ (1:13)! If 1 Corinthians 12:13 is a reference to water baptism, then it carries the same message – because there is one baptism, the Corinthians are baptised into one body, and therefore must serve one another. In the context, though, this may well be a reference to baptism in the Spirit. (Bearing in mind, nevertheless, the close relationship between Spirit and water baptism noted above). The only other reference to baptism in 1 Corinthians is at 15:29, a reference I do not pretend to understand! The unifying power of baptism is stressed again in Ephesians 4:5.

Colossians 2:12 has already been discussed for its reference to circumcision. However, it requires a brief further analysis for its teaching on baptism, which will be found to be quite in accordance with our interpretation of Romans 6. Paul describes the Colossians as having been “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith…”. In the light of Romans 6, we can say with more certainty that the circumcision of Christ described here is the putting away of the old self, the death of the sinful self, accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross. This occurred in baptism, because this was the point at which the Christian associated themselves with Christ in his death and resurrection and expressed their faith in him.

Titus 3:5 may, I think, have reference to baptism, described there as “the washing of regeneration”. If this is a baptismal reference, it has significance for our understanding of conversion. However, the reference is uncertain – it may be using washing as a metaphor for what occurs in the believer at the point of regeneration.

1 Peter 3:20-21 provides another interesting insight into the apostles’ teaching on baptism. Peter discusses the flood, and particularly the ark, “in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. The analogy drawn appears to work like this: the waters of the flood represent God’s judgement on the world, as do the waters of baptism; the ark was the only means of salvation through the waters of God’s judgement, and Christ’s resurrection is the only means of salvation through God’s judgement. In both cases, the waters mean death as God’s judgement on sin. Baptism, then, is the willing submission to ‘death’, trusting in Christ to take the believer through that ‘death’. This he can and will do because in fact he has already suffered the death and been raised. Note that Peter rules out any idea that the sacrament will work independent of the disposition of the person being baptized – without faith it is simply “a removal of dirt from the body”. Only when the resurrection of Christ is clearly in view and being trusted by the person submitting to baptism will it become an appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of Christ’s work. Note also, however, that where this faith is present Peter is not timid to say that baptism “now saves you”.

Circumcision, Baptism and the Church (2b)

Baptism in the Gospels and Acts

Before we examine the introduction of Christian baptism at the end of Matthew’s gospel, it is worth flagging up to metaphorical references to baptism in Mark and Luke. In Mark 10:38 and 39, Jesus addresses the glory-seeking of James and John by asking them whether they can drink the cup that he drinks and be baptized with the baptism with which he is baptized. In typical headstrong fashion, they assert their willingness and ability, and Jesus affirms that they will indeed drink this cup and endure this baptism. He clearly refers to his own suffering and death. Luke 12:50 also records Jesus using the image in this way. The link between Jesus’ death and baptism is thus established early on, and the fact that baptism is linked to “the cup” of God’s wrath is also significant for our understanding of the rite. Both will be alluded to in other New Testament teaching.

The introduction of Christian baptism proper occurs in the Great Commission, recorded in Matthew 28:16-20. The resurrected Jesus gives the disciples the following instructions: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in (or into) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age”. Several things about baptism can be observed from this passage. First of all, Christian baptism is the way in which disciples are made. I take it that the logical structure of the commission is as follows:
Go and make disciples by
Baptising in the Triune name
And teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.
At least one significant element is therefore carried over from the baptism of John: baptism is a rite that makes disciples. Just as John gained disciples by baptising them, so Jesus will have disciples by baptising them.

Secondly, Christian baptism is in (or into) the Triune name. As many commentators have noted, this is one name – the name of God. But this one name is borne by the three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Given the explicit nature of the instruction, we should not allow subsequent references to being baptised in Jesus’ name alone to imply that baptism was not into the Triune name. (Consider again the baptism of John’s disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19 – an incident provoked by the fact that they are unaware of the Holy Spirit and therefore have not been baptised into the Triune name). Rather, we should assume that baptism into Jesus is shorthand for baptism into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The shorthand is used because the rite of baptism makes a person a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, Christian baptism is to be accompanied by the teaching of Christian doctrine and ethics, such that the person being baptised is a disciple in truth – a follower of Jesus. Baptism without teaching will not make disciples. Neither will baptism and teaching without obedience.

This ministry of baptism and teaching is carried on by the Apostles from the day of Pentecost onwards, as is recorded in the book of Acts. There is no need to look at every mention of baptism in this book, since many are routine and are mentioned only in passing. Five instances will be considered separately, although not all to the same level of detail: the baptisms at Pentecost in Acts 2; the baptism of the Samaritans by Philip in Acts 8; the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch, also in Acts 8; the baptism of the household of Cornelius in Acts 10; and Paul’s testimony to the Jews in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 22. Finally, common features of the other references to baptism (16:15; 16:33; 18:8) will be briefly considered. My focus will be on what is said about baptism, although the circumstances must also be taken into account.

Baptism is presented on the day of Pentecost as the Apostles’ response to people who are “cut to the heart” by the gospel message, acknowledge their guilt and cry out “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter’s answer gives two requirements and two promises. On the one hand they are called to repent, and to be baptized into the name of Jesus. On the other, they are promised the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting that Peter makes no mention of faith here; I will later suggest that if we are to make this fit with other New Testament teaching on the way that forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit are to be received, we must assume that in Peter’s mind baptism and faith are at least very closely tied together, such that the former can serve as shorthand for the latter. At this stage, though, it is worth noting primarily the way in which forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit are associated with baptism, themes which will recur.

Acts 2:39 is variously interpreted, and is worth examining in some detail. It reads: “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself”. In the context, the promise is certainly that of the outpouring of the Spirit made through the prophet Joel. This promise was made to the nation of Israel, the people of the forward-looking covenant, and Peter clearly sees Pentecost as the fulfilment of that promise. Therefore, with the assembled representatives of Israel in front of him, he urges them to claim the promise that God made to their nation long ago. He extends the promise in two ways, and restricts it in one. It is extended to the people of Israel in all generations (“for your children”) and in all places (“for all who are far off”), but it is limited to “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself”. This is, of course, consistent with Joel’s prophecy, which in Peter’s quotation concludes “and it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”; the only difference is that Joel looks at it from the point of view of human responsibility and Peter that of divine sovereignty. Either way, it is assumed that those who are called by God, and who therefore call upon him, will not constitute the whole people of Israel. This will be useful for our analysis of the relationship between the old and new covenant.

Finally, we gather two further facts about baptism from the Pentecost narrative. Firstly, baptism is administered only to those “who received [Peter’s] word” (Acts 2:41). This counts against a mechanistic understanding of baptism, and serves to bind baptism and faith (which is of course receiving the word) more closely together in this narrative. Secondly, those who are baptised are added to the community of believers, becoming subject to its discipline and joining in its life (Acts 2:41ff).

The references to the baptism of Samaritans in Acts 8 are interesting for two reasons. Firstly, the separation of water baptism from the reception of the Holy Spirit is unexpected, given how closely the two are bound together in the Pentecost narrative. I take it that this is connected to the fact that this is the first advance of the gospel beyond orthodox Judaism, and that the presence of the Apostles is required in order to make it clear that the Samaritan conversions are ‘legitimate’. As an aside, within the context of the whole New Testament we can hardly understand the passage as saying that the Holy Spirit was uninvolved until Peter and John arrived, for the Samaritans had “believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God” (Acts 8:12), something only possible through the Holy Spirit’s intervention. However, the giving of the Spirit in an obvious way is restrained until the Apostles arrive so that they can vouch for the genuineness of the Samaritan’s faith.

The second interesting feature of this narrative is the presence of Simon Magus. Simon is baptized, and is described as having believed (8:13). However, he later offers money in exchange for apostolic power, and is told by Peter that his “heart is not right before God” (8:21). The straightforward interpretation is that Simon’s faith is counterfeit, for he is described as being “in the bond of iniquity” (8:23). This is the first clear instance of someone being baptized upon confession of faith, but then showing later that this confession was not genuine, saving faith. Again, this counts against mechanistic understandings of baptism, for baptism without genuine faith proves to be useless to Simon.

The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in the latter part of Acts 8 adds little to our understanding of baptism. It is chiefly important because of the speed with which it is carried out. The eunuch has the Scriptures explained to him, and upon understanding them immediately requests baptism (Acts 8:36). This shows that baptism was an integral part of the message presented by Philip (for otherwise the eunuch could scarcely have known to request it), and seems to indicate that baptism has been presented as the means of becoming a Christian. Philip’s willingness to grant this request backs up this interpretation.

The end of Acts 10 presents a situation that is in many ways similar to the Samaritan mission in chapter 8. The gospel is once again crossing a significant boundary, and once again the presence of an Apostle is required to legitimate the mission. However, the situation is also exactly reversed in one significant way. Whereas the Samaritans believed, were baptized and then received the Holy Spirit, the household of Cornelius believe, receive the Holy Spirit and are therefore baptized. Perhaps this reflects the fact that the mission to Gentiles is going to be ‘harder to swallow’ for the Jewish majority in the church than that to the Samaritans. However, all the familiar ingredients are present: faith in the message preached, baptism into the name of Jesus and the reception of the Holy Spirit. It is significant that in Peter’s report of this incident he recalls the Lord’s words: “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit”. It was this thought that provoked Peter to administer water baptism. This shows both how closely bound together water baptism and baptism with the Spirit are in Acts, and also that in Peter’s understanding the one does not replace the other – those who have received the Spirit are also to submit to baptism.

The final particularly significant mention of baptism in Acts occurs at 22:16. I draw attention to this because here Paul links three elements that we have seen to be common to baptism in Acts, namely: water baptism; the forgiveness of sins, here connected to the symbolic function of baptism as washing; and calling on Jesus’ name. The washing will be picked up later in our analysis of the symbolism of baptism.

The other references to baptism in Acts are brief, and add little to our understanding. They have become significant, however, because of the weight that has often been put on the fact that entire households are baptized together. This will be examined more closely in my theological conclusions at the end of this section. For now, suffice it to say that in at least one of these occasions it is specifically recorded that the word was preached to all in the house (Acts 16:32) and that the whole household rejoiced (16:34), which makes it highly likely to my mind that all those baptized also received the word with faith. If we allow the more detailed accounts of baptism to control our interpretation of these brief accounts (and I think we should), Acts presents an overall picture of several elements bound together, although in varying orders. They are:

• Repentance (always in conjunction with baptism)


• Faith (likewise)


• Baptism itself


• Reception of the Holy Spirit (sometimes before, sometimes after baptism, but always closely connected)


• Forgiveness of sins (promised as a result of baptism/faith/repentance)

The evidence of Acts seems to count against any separation of baptism from faith and repentance, as I will argue in more detail later.

Circumcision, Baptism and the Church (2a)

For the first part of this essay, see here. In the next three (or possibly four) installments, we'll be looking at baptism in the NT, beginning with John's baptism. And so, without further ado...

In this second part of the essay [i.e. the part dealing with baptism, which I'm serialising here], I intend to briefly overview the New Testament texts that deal with baptism. Because the references are rather more numerous than those for circumcision, I will group them into three broad groups: the baptism of John, baptism in the gospels and Acts, and baptism in the New Testament epistles. This method should allow for a sketch of the New Testament teaching on baptism to be made without exhaustively citing each text. As with the article on circumcision, I will offer minimal theological comment on the overview, with the intention of drawing some theological conclusions at the end. Because baptism, unlike circumcision, is a New Testament ordinance, I will also try to draw some practical conclusions. As previously, the point of the exercise is to learn, and I hope that people will graciously contradict me where they think that I am wrong.

The Baptism of John

The majority of the references to John’s baptism are found, as might be expected, toward the beginning of the gospel accounts. The synoptics all cite Isaiah 40, showing that they understand the ministry of John to be preparatory for the coming of Christ. His particular ministry is described in two ways: firstly, he was “preaching in the wilderness of Judea, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt 3:1-2), and examples of his preaching are preserved in Matthew 3:7-12, Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:7-17. His message bears out his function as the one preparing the way: he urges repentance from sin, and encourages the people to look forward to one who is coming who will be greater than he is. Whereas John baptizes only with water, this coming person will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit.

This leads into the second part of John’s ministry, and the part which has earned him the epithet “the Baptist”: “they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt 3:6). The other synoptics make the baptism itself the subject of John’s preaching: “John appeared…proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4, cf Luke 3:3). John’s baptism is accompanied by the confession of sins, and symbolises both the repentance of the person being baptised and the washing away of sins. This is essentially linked to John’s role as the forerunner, as is made particularly clear in John 1:31. He sees the imminent coming of the Christ as connected with the judgement of God coming on Israel (“who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” [Matt 3:7]), and calls those who will acknowledge their sinfulness to confess their sins and accept God’s forgiveness before that wrath falls. There are also overtones of ritual cleanness: those who are baptised are clean and therefore able to stand in the presence of God when he comes. (It is noteworthy in this connection that the Pharisees and scribes did not accept John’s baptism [Luke 7:30] – presumably because they considered themselves to already be pure). In this way, John prepares a people for the coming of Christ.

John’s baptism is important because it provides the immediate backdrop for the practise of baptism carried out by Christ and by the early church. However, it is clearly a temporary ordinance pointing forward, a fact underlined by Acts 19:1-5. Here Paul comes across some disciples who have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit, and after questioning them establishes that they have been baptised “into John’s baptism” (Acts 19:3). John, Paul points out, “baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is Jesus” (Acts 19:4). As a result, these disciples are “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5) and subsequently receive the Holy Spirit. This episode is important not only because it highlights the temporary and preparatory nature of John’s baptism, but also because it makes it clear that John’s baptism and Christian baptism are two different things. Otherwise, Paul would hardly have rebaptized this group!

Probably we are to understand the baptism of Christ as the climax of John’s ministry; certainly this fits with his testimony in John 1:31 that the purpose of his baptism was that the Christ be revealed to Israel. The continuation of John’s ministry beyond this point is marked by a decline, symbolised in John’s gospel by the disciples of John the Baptist leaving him (at his own instigation) to become the disciples of Christ (John 1:35-37). John’s gospel is also the only one to record that Jesus’ disciples baptized during his ministry (in 3:22, 4:2), and this baptism was apparently even more popular than John’s (3:26, 4:1). This is to be interpreted as a “handover” period – in John the Baptist’s words, from this point on Christ will increase and he himself will decrease. Given the scant references, it is difficult to pin down the theological significance of this baptism by Christ’s disciples. John’s aside that Jesus himself did not baptise may be significant: it seems likely that we should understand this not as full Christian baptism, but as a continuation of the preparatory ministry of John. Examining the nature and significance of Christian baptism will reinforce this conclusion.

Circumcision, Baptism and the Church

The debate over the proper recipients of baptism is not a new one. It arises in the Fathers (most whose opinions are recorded seem to permit, or to actually be in favour of, infant baptism; Tertullian is a notable exception), and arose again at the Reformation, since which time it has never been put to rest. I don’t intend to try to solve that controversy! But I do need to clarify my own thinking, and to ensure as far as I can that it is in line with God’s revelation in Scripture. To that end, I’ve started writing something explaining (largely to myself) my own thoughts on baptism. I am a credobaptist, but because most paedobaptists take their argument from the Old Testament rite of circumcision, I begin by discussing my understanding of this rite. I hope to then move on to discuss baptism in the New Testament, and then finally to explore the subject of the membership of the church. I would welcome any comments, either about things that are unclear or things that you think are wrong! So without further ado, here are my thoughts on circumcision. I'm aware that they're really much too long for a blog post, but I can't shorten them and I don't want to serialise them...

Circumcision

Circumcision in the Old Testament

Circumcision is introduced in Genesis 17 as “a sign of the covenant” between the LORD and Abraham. It’s significance is not particularly explained, except to say that it implies the perpetuity of the covenant – for all of Abraham’s male descendants are to be circumcised on the eighth day on pain of being considered covenant breakers. It is noteworthy that the sign is also to be applied to all Abraham’s slaves, whether born in his household or purchased. It is also noteworthy that by the end of the chapter, despite the fact that the LORD has said that his covenant will be with Isaac and not with Ishmael, Ishmael has been circumcised. So the sign is applied to all those closely associated with Abraham, whether they are of the covenant line or not. This is significant.

There are further references to circumcision through the Pentateuch. The inhabitants of Shechem are circumcised in Genesis 34, although it did them very little good and given the circumstances nothing of doctrinal import can be derived from the story. Moses’ son is circumcised in a curious incident when the LORD threatens to kill him in Exodus 4, presumably because Moses is in breach of the Abrahamic covenant. Circumcision is preserved in the Mosaic dispensation and its performance is codified in Leviticus 12, although again the significance is not explained. I suggest that it is not until Deuteronomy that the meaning of circumcision becomes clearer.

What, then, does circumcision symbolise? Two key passages are Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6. In 10:16, Moses urges the people to circumcise their hearts, and stop being stubborn. In context, he is urging them to love the LORD and obey him in response to his electing love of Israel. To circumcise their hearts implies setting their hearts wholly on the LORD. In 30:6, the symbolism is the same but the agency is ascribed to the LORD – he will circumcise your hearts. It is certainly not coincidental that this is described as occurring after the people have gone into exile for their disobedience and covenant breaking. For this symbolism to have worked, the Israelites must have understood circumcision of the flesh to imply that their bodies belonged to God. So circumcision of the flesh signified belonging to God; but circumcision of the heart was necessary in order to actually love God.

The circumcised people of Israel show this necessity clearly through their history from Moses to the exile. It does not take much reading between the lines to realise that most Israelites throughout this period were probably not even monotheists, let alone committed followers of the LORD. We are not therefore surprised to find the LORD speaking through Jeremiah – “I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh… all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (9:25-26). We should perhaps be more surprised than we are to hear the same prophet delivering a gracious promise of a future “new covenant”, a covenant “not like the covenant I made with their fathers” (31:32). This covenant is described as the writing of the law on their hearts (31:33), and it is said to differ from the old covenant because “they shall all know (the LORD)” (31:34). These differences are without a doubt significant, and I will suggest that they are important to our discussion of circumcision.

To summarise, my reading of the Old Testament gives me a picture of circumcision as a rite to be administered to all males attached in any way to the descendants of Abraham, including through economic slavery; a rite symbolising belonging to the LORD; a rite insufficient in and of itself to bring about a relationship to God; and a rite that is used in Deuteronomy and the prophets as a promise pointing forward to the new covenant of circumcision in the heart and not the flesh.

Circumcision in the New Testament

Circumcision is an issue in the New Testament in two ways. Firstly, there is the controversy over Gentile Christians – must they be circumcised? It is not difficult to piece together the case made by the group that has come to be known as “the circumcision party” (and other less complementary names given them by Paul). On the grounds that the covenant with Abraham is promised for perpetuity, and that conversion to Christianity is also joining Israel, it is argued that Gentile believers must receive the covenant sign of circumcision. Interestingly, it is very clear that these teachers have assimilated the covenant of circumcision to the Mosaic covenant, and intend by the circumcision of the Gentiles that they take up the whole burden of the law.

Paul’s controversy with the circumcision party is heated, and his arguments against them are many. I am intrigued, though, by some of the things that he does not question. Firstly, he does not question the circumcision party’s assumption that to be circumcised it to take on the obligation of the Mosaic law: “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law” (Gal 5:3). In fact, in spite of the fact that circumcision is clearly given to Abraham, Paul is at pains to drive a wedge between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic. This is clear in Galatians 3, where Paul stresses the distance in time between the giving of the promise and the giving of the law (Gal 3:17), and in Romans 4. In Galatians, circumcision is very clearly aligned with the legal, Mosaic covenant and not with the Abrahamic covenant of promise/faith, hence Paul’s strong appeal to the Galatian Christians not accept it. In Romans, the argument is more nuanced, referencing as it does the circumcision of Abraham. For our purposes at current it is sufficient to note that Paul’s use of Abraham’s circumcision in Romans 4 is designed to show the priority of the covenant of promise/faith over the covenant of circumcision, something that he still connects to the law (Romans 3:27-31, 4:13-14 [in context these verses link the previous thoughts about circumcision with a more general denunciation of law as a means of justification]). In summary: circumcision in Paul’s thought, as in his opponents’, is linked to the law of Moses, and implies an obligation to keep the whole law. As such, it is opposed to the “law of faith” and “covenant of promise”.

Secondly, Paul does not argue with the circumcision party over whether Gentile Christians really have to become part of Israel. In fact, he is clear that they do (see Romans 11:17ff). However, he radically redefines Israel to make circumcision irrelevant to membership of that people. “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring…” (Gal 3:29). Abraham is the father of the circumcised who walk by faith, and the uncircumcised who share in the same faith (Rom 4:11-12). Indeed, if it were not so “faith is null and the promise is void” (4:14). In fact, Paul draws on the “remnant” theme of the prophets to argue that it was ever thus: Israel has always been defined not by circumcision but by faith. “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘through Isaac shall your offspring be named’” (Rom 9:6-7 – remember that Ishmael was also circumcised but was not the recipient of the covenant as Isaac was). So Paul is clear: membership of Israel was always defined by faith, and not by circumcision. Therefore, engrafting into Israel is dependent on faith alone.

It is worth noting that Paul does also share the circumcision party’s assumption that the covenant with Abraham is an enduring one – but he disconnects circumcision from that covenant. The covenant that endures is based on God’s promise met by faith; the legal covenant (to which he always attaches the sign of circumcision) is temporary. Paul would doubtless agree with the author to the Hebrews that the covenant of circumcision is now obsolete and ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13).

This discussion would not be complete without observing that, despite his blistering rhetoric in Galatians, Paul sometimes expresses (and demonstrates) indifference towards the issue of circumcision. In 1 Corinthians 7, he claims that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19). Colossians 3:11 states clearly that the circumcised and uncircumcised are now one, with no distinction between them. In Acts 16:3, Paul himself – having just won the right of Gentile Christians not to be circumcised – circumcises Timothy, apparently in order to ease their ministry to Jews, Timothy being only half Jewish. It appears that for Paul, circumcision as a cultural practice is a matter of indifference, and he will even go so far as to pragmatically circumcise Timothy to aid the spread of the gospel. It is only when circumcision is being put forward as a necessity for salvation or sanctification that he perceives a denial of the gospel of grace.

So much for the circumcision controversy. Circumcision also plays a role in the New Testament in a quite different way, connected to the promise of “heart-circumcision” in Deuteronomy. The New Testament presses this image: “For no-one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the letter” (Rom 2:28-29). The echoes of Deuteronomy 30:6 are clear, and so is the implication. Paul is claiming that the promise of Deuteronomy has been fulfilled in the Christian church. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost means that circumcision of the heart is now a reality for Christian believers. This is surely connected to the promise of the new covenant: the law is not now a “letter”, but is written on the heart. So, irrespective of physical circumcision, Christians – that is, true Israelites, whether Jewish or Gentile – are circumcised in their hearts.

Colossians 2:11-12 is important in this connection. Paul describes the Christians as those who have been “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith…”. It is clear that circumcision of the heart is again in view here, and the image is given more form by the addition of the phrase “putting off the body of the flesh”. The image recalls the removal of the foreskin, but goes very much further: the whole body of flesh (that is, sinful human nature, as usually in Paul) is removed. This is done “by the circumcision of Christ”, which either points to the agent behind this circumcision (i.e. “the circumcision performed by Christ”) or to the cross as the point when Christ gave up his flesh for the salvation of Christians. Either way, it is clear that the Christians to whom Paul writes have been circumcised in their hearts, and that this is achieved at the cross and applied as they identify with the death of Christ in faith through baptism. We will return to this passage in the discussion of baptism later.

Philippians 3:3 adds to our understanding of circumcision in the New Testament, by asserting very clearly that it is followers of Jesus, those who have the Spirit, who are the “real circumcision”. This statement is made as part of the “circumcision controversy”, against those who want Gentile Christians to be circumcised, but it is noteworthy that Paul does not argue that circumcision is unnecessary for any other reason than that the Christians are already circumcised. Clearly, then, he opposes the Old Testament rite of circumcision of the flesh to the New Testament blessing of circumcision of the heart. Where the latter is, the former is unnecessary, and dangerous if taken as essential for salvation.

Theological Conclusions

Since the Bible does not anywhere unfold a systematic “doctrine of circumcision”, we are left to draw what conclusions we can from the evidence we have examined. I wish to set out a number of theses which I think explain the Biblical evidence, and provide a backdrop for the debate over the recipients of baptism.

1. Circumcision in the Old Testament is a forward-looking rite. No-one of a reformed persuasion is likely to debate this. However, I believe that its significance is more than is usually allowed. The people of Israel in the Old Testament were not a regenerate people, by and large. Therefore circumcision was not a rite indicating something that had happened to them, but a rite pointing forward to something that the LORD would do in them – namely, the circumcision of their hearts. Circumcision should have pointed the Israelite towards the promise of God’s saving activity amongst them; from our vantage point, we can see that it should have pointed them to the cross of Christ and to Pentecost.


2. Circumcision in the Old Testament is connected to, but separable from, the covenant of promise/faith. We have seen that Paul consistently separates God’s promise to Abraham, received by faith, from circumcision, which he regards as something added later. This does not make circumcision unimportant. Rather, coupled to point (1) it constitutes Abraham’s descendants as a forward looking people, thus reinforcing the promise.


3. Circumcision is a legal rite. Paul testifies that anyone who accepts circumcision as a means of justification or sanctification is thereby obliged to keep the whole law of Moses. This in no way contradicts (1) and (2), but rather points to the fact that the Israelites, in their state of “heart uncircumcision” were entrusted to the law as a guardian until the promise came (see Galatians 3:19-29).


4. Circumcision is an obsolete rite. This can be observed on several levels. Firstly, that to which it pointed forward has come, namely the incarnation and the outpouring of the Spirit. Secondly, the law, to which it was annexed from Sinai onwards, has passed away. Thirdly, the racial marker is no longer necessary because there is no longer Jew or Gentile in the church, but all Christians are descendants of Abraham by faith.


5. The New Testament counterpart of circumcision is “heart circumcision”. It is this to which the rite of circumcision always looked forward. This heart circumcision takes place when the outpoured Spirit writes the law on the heart of a believer; this in turn occurs when a person turns to put their trust in the death and resurrection of Christ.


6. To jump the gun somewhat, whereas in the Old Testament most Israelites were circumcised in flesh but not in heart, in the New Testament all “Israel” – that is, the whole church – is circumcised in heart. This is implied in Jeremiah’s contrast between the old and new covenants, and by Paul’s manner of addressing his churches. However, this belongs properly to part three of this project, and will be discussed more fully there.

Baptism

Christian bloggers everywhere are piling in to a big discussion about baptism at the moment. (See Adrian Warnock's blog if you need to catch up on this!) How could I not join in?

Obviously, baptism, and particularly the question of whom to baptise, has been debated for ages. Those who know me will know that I am somewhat in favour of believers' baptism, and somewhat opposed to infant baptism. Those who know me well will know that this is putting it mildly. But the debate at the moment revolves around something different: should those who believe in baptism for believers only join in communion with those who were baptised as infants? Should a credobaptist church require credobaptism as a condition of membership?

I actually think that this apparently minor issue could help us to get to the heart of the larger issue (paedo or credo), because it has to do with what baptism is.

I think most credobaptists see baptism as a believer's response to a salvation already received by faith. It is therefore a work, and belongs in the traditional ordo salutis within the realm of sanctification. Hence for Grudem, the effects of baptism are "the blessing of God's favour that comes with all obedience, as well as the joy that comes through public profession of one's faith, and the reassurance of having a clear physical picture of dying and rising with Christ and of washing away sins". What does baptism do? More or less the same as any obedience to Christ, with a little extra symbolism thrown in.

I'm not sure that measures up to the New Testament. Here are a few things I'd want considered:

How do you become a disciple? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

What do unconverted sinners need to do when convicted of their sin? "Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38)

How are people forgiven of sin? "Repent and be baptised...for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38)

How do we participate in Christ's death and come to benefit from it? "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death..." (Romans 8:3-4)

How are we saved? "Baptism... now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Obviously, look up the references and check I'm not ripping them mercilessly out of context!

So, what is baptism? If baptism does all the things above, how are we to hold that we are saved by faith alone?

The answer, I think, is simply this: baptism is a promise, given by God, and therefore we are saved by exercising faith in that promise. Baptism is the offer of forgiveness. So we cannot ask "should baptism come before or after believing?" Baptism is believing! Or at least, baptism is the offering of a promise, effective if met bu faith in the person being baptised. That is why I am a credobaptist, incidentally. I don't believe that baptism is the first step of obedience after faith; I believe that baptism is, or should be, the first step of faith.

So what about communion with people who were baptised as infants? What about rebaptising them? Well, if they are believing the promise of baptism, then I would receive them as baptised. I would not rebaptise them - indeed, the very idea of rebaptising makes me feel a little ill. If, on the other hand, they found that they could not trust the promise of their baptism because of doubts about its validity, I might counsel them to receive a (first) baptism they could believe in - and to regard the former ceremony as empty and no baptism at all.

Baptism is the appointed means of entering the church by faith. Baptism saves us through our faith in Christ. It is not empty symbolism or magic ritual. It is the church's gift, the gift she received from the Lord and offers to all who will take it in faith.

I believe in it.