Abraham and the place of children in the covenant community

"Why did Paul object to circumcision if it was the sign of belonging to the covenant community?"

One of the reasons that Paul so strongly opposed the imposition of circumcision upon Christians by the Judaizers is that, by faith, we have already been circumcised in Christ, of which baptism is the sign and seal. Through Baptism we have already been identified as belonging to God and we have undergone the curse in Christ. Therefore, in the new covenant, actual physical circumcision is unnecessary. In his frustration with those who claim that Christian Gentiles need to be circumcised, Paul tells those Jewish believers to go the whole way and emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12).

In the New Testament church, we know there was a big debate about whether or not Jewish converts had to be circumcised and it is because the Jews understood circumcision to be the sign of belonging to God’s people. Now that all these Greeks had come to faith, they expected the Greeks to undergo circumcision since they were now part of God’s covenant community. But this was not necessary because circumcision was replaced by Baptism.

Galatians 3:13-14, 28-29 testifies to the fact that believers in Christ (whether from Jewish or Gentile background) are the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham. Jews who do not have faith in Christ might bear the old covenant mark of belonging to God’s people (circumcision) but they are not truly part of God’s people (cf. John 8:31-47; Romans 9:6-8).

Since believing Gentiles, who are inheritors of the Abrahamic promises, are not to be circumcised (Acts 15:1-21), what sign must they receive to show that they belong to the covenant community? They receive the sign of Baptism and not circumcision. If baptism has not replaced circumcision as the sign of belonging to the covenant people of God, what has?

Jewish believers would also be expected to Baptise their children (not circumcise them).

"The Abrahamic covenant is made in the flesh (circumcision) - how can you claim it is replaced if it was everlasting?"

The Abrahamic covenant is everlasting (Genesis 17:7, 13), but the sign of circumcision is not. We do not think that the Abrahamic covenant has come to an end or been replaced!

If the sign of the Abrahamic covenant was everlasting, then we would expect Gentiles to be circumcised since they are also inheritors of the promises made to Abraham (Galatians 3:13-14, 28-29) and they have been grafted into the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11:17-24). However, this is not what we read in the New Testament. Despite attempts from some Jewish Christians (Acts 15:1, 5), the decision is made that circumcision is not required (Acts 15:28-29). The Jerusalem church council also makes it clear that Paul has been teaching Jews not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:21), a teaching that resonates with Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19.

Gentiles who came to faith under the old covenant certainly were expected to be circumcised (Genesis 17:12-14), but under the new covenant they are not (Acts 15). Very clearly a change has taken place in terms of the administration of the sign of belonging to the covenant community. The sign of circumcision has fallen away, it is no longer appropriate since the death and resurrection of Christ has put an end to all shedding of blood (Belgic Confession Article 34).

"Paul clarified that the children of Abraham to whom the promise was made were not those born according to the flesh, but those born according to promise. Children of promise and children of the flesh are not the same."

It has always been the case that those who are inheritors of the promises made to Abraham are those who have faith in God. Paul confirms this also in Romans 2:28-29. The promises made to Abraham were always promises that had to be believed (e.g. Psalm 78).

Galatians 3:13-14, 28-29 testifies to the fact that believers in Christ (whether from Jewish or Gentile background) are the inheritors of the promises made to Abraham. Jews who do not have faith in Christ might bear the old covenant mark of belonging to God’s people (circumcision; Romans 2:28) but they are not truly part of God’s people (cf. John 8:31-47; Romans 2:29; Romans 9:6-8).

Later in Romans 9, Paul compares Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:10-13). Both Jacob and Esau were descendants of Abraham and thus received the sign of the covenant, but Esau rejected his birthright (rejection of God’s promises) whereas Jacob eagerly sought to receive Isaac’s blessing (he embraced God’s promises).

This argument does not speak to the matter of whether or not children of believing parents should be baptised.

"The sign of Baptism is promised also to children (Acts 2:39). God will persevere them in their faith so that they can one day confess their faith and be baptised."

The promise of the Gospel is not a promise that the children of believers will all come to faith. The promise is righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:11). Peter is telling the Jerusalem crowd that the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ is for all those who believe, whether they be Jews, children or Gentiles.

As Christian parents, we raise our children in the faith (fear of the LORD). We give them the sign of belonging to the covenant community, we teach them what God has promised (forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ) and we call them to believe in God’s promises for themselves. In doing this we are following the example of the covenant of grace.

One day, when our children are able to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ and profess their own faith in him, they are invited to join us at the Lord’s Table, a table where we all confess our faith together.

"Deuteronomy 30:6 specifies that the promise of rebirth is a promise given to children of believers, they will one day come to faith in God and be regenerated."

The promise of regeneration (Deuteronomy 30:6) is also a command (Deuteronomy 10:17) based upon the promises of God visibly signified and sealed in circumcision of the flesh (Genesis 17:7). If circumcision was a sign and seal of God’s promise that righteousness comes through faith, this promise is not relevant only when someone is old enough to exercise faith. Children of believers are marked with the sign and seal of this promise and they are encouraged throughout their lives to exercise the faith which the sign calls for (e.g. Psalm 78:1-8). They are encouraged to live in the light of God’s promises (Deuteronomy 10:17) even as we trust and pray that God will work a true faith in their hearts (Deuteronomy 30:6).

In the covenant of grace, children of believers are not given the sign of belonging only after they show evidence of true faith. They are given the sign of belonging even when they are uncomprehending infants. This is the pattern which God commanded and established for his people (Genesis 17:7, Acts 2:38-39; also the exmaple of household baptisms in Acts 16:31-34 and 1 Corinthians 1:16).

"The children to whom the promise is made are the children who are "called," and the call of God is free and bound to no physical family."

God’s call is certainly not bound to any physical family though he delights to work in and through families (Exodus 20:6).

This argument does not speak to the matter of whether or not children of believing parents should be baptised.

"Children of believers do belong to the covenant community irrespective of whether or not they have the mark of belonging."

In the covenant of grace, refusing to have the covenant sign was a mark of unbelief (Genesis 17:14). Such individuals were to be cut off from the covenant community, they were not considered to be part of God’s people. Parents (who have the covenant sign) refusing to give the same sign to their children were considered disobedient (e.g. Exodus 4:24-26).

Theoretically, children are part of the covenant community even if their parents refuse to give them the covenant sign (e.g. Joshua 5:2-12). But their parents are then being disobedient and acting in unbelief.

"John the Baptist called for baptism for those already having the sign of the covenant, showing that a new meaning was being given to the sign - no longer pointing to physical descent from Abraham, but rather spiritual descent through faith and repentance."

The Baptism of John was a baptism meant to prepare people for the coming of Jesus Christ (Malchi 4:4-6; Mark 1). He stressed the necessity of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Circumcision was never a sign pointing to physical descent from Abraham. Abraham believed in the LORD (Genesis 15:6) before he was circumcised (Genesis 17; Romans 4:11). He was given the sign of circumcision not as a testimony to his faith, but a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith (Romans 4:11). Circumcision was a sign and seal of God’s promise to Abraham that he would be his God and the God of his descendants (Genesis 17:7), a promise that through faith in God Abraham (and any of his descendants who believed) would be made righteous in God’s sight (Genesis 15:6).

Circumcision itself was also a spiritual sign. Circumcision of the flesh was always meant to correspond with circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:25-29). It pointed to humility, new birth and a new way of life (Leviticus 26:40-42; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 6:10; 9:25). Consider also Psalm 78:1-8. Children of believers (they would have been circumcised) are encouraged in the psalm to learn from the example of the previous generations so that they would put their trust in God (Psalm 78:7) and not be like those whose hearts were not loyal to God (Psalm 78:8). They are encouraged to live in the light of God’s promise (signified by their circumcision).