Relationship Betw. Circumcision/Infant Baptism #1

Introduction to the Debate: Infant Baptism and Circumcision

0:00 This Adult Sunday School class was held on December 11, 1983, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. Well, now let's pray and ask for the Lord's assistance as we once again consider His Holy Word. Our Father, as we come again to Your presence, we pray for Your grace, for Your assistance and help, that as we study Your Word together, we may know the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and Lord our God, draw new to us and help us, and bless us by Your grace.

0:42 We ask it in Jesus' name. Amen.

0:47 Now, in our considerations of the matter of infant baptism, we are considering one very important dimension of this topic and controversy, which is the relationship between infant baptism and the biblical doctrine of the sacraments. And we, first of all, considered how infant baptism relates, to the biblical doctrine of the concept of the sacrament, and then, secondly, the relationship between infant baptism and believer communion. And now, thirdly, we've been considering this, what might be called the hinge of the entire debate and discussion, the relationship between infant baptism and circumcision.

1:30 And we just completed last week a survey of the biblical teaching. We looked at the Old Testament teaching concerning circumcision, then we moved to consider the New Testament, and then we looked at the Old Testament teaching concerning circumcision, and sought last week to draw our considerations of circumcision to a close. All of that without, I trust, entering into any specific polemics concerning the matter of baptism and circumcision. But now, today, we come to attempt to put all of this together that we've been considering about circumcision by looking at the relationship between baptism and circumcision.

Stating the Paedo-Baptist Position and Argument

2:08 Now, with regard to this, I have two things to say. First of all, I want to show you the statement of the Paedo-Baptist position about the relationship of baptism and circumcision. I want to show you their argument and their perspective. And then, secondly, I wish to seek to deal with this in the light of Scripture, to subject it to critique, analysis, and hopefully refutation.

2:33 So, first of all, I want to state the Paedo-Baptist argument and perspective with respect to the relationship of baptism and circumcision. And then, secondly, to seek to criticize and to refute that perspective and argument. And I really ought to say something about the importance of dealing with this, because, in reality, this argument about the analogy or the relationship between baptism and circumcision, it is the hinge, it is the heart, it is the foundation, it's the pillar of the entire Paedo-Baptist perspective and approach. So, now, first of all, with respect to a statement of this, I think it's only fair to let them state their own position.

3:18 So, we will begin with several of the classic statements of the position of infant baptism and show you that, indeed, this argument from the analogy of circumcision and baptism is at the heart, it's at the foundation of their approach. Now, first of all, from the Dutch standards,

3:41 and we'll begin, with their confession on Article 34 on Holy Baptism. We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, has made an end by the shedding of his blood, of all other sheddings of blood, which could or would make a propitiation or satisfaction for sin. And that he, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof.

4:23 So that the first statement is that baptism has been instituted instead of circumcision. Then they go on to say, make the following statement, Therefore, we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have received, and moreover, condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized, and sealed with the sign of the covenant,

4:57 as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. See that? They ought to be baptized even as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised based on the same promises which are made unto our children. promises which are made to our children.

5:23 The analogy between circumcision and baptism is right at the very heart and root of their defense of their practice. And then he goes on to say, or they go on to say, moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is to our children. And for this reason, Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. That's a reference to Colossians 2.11.

5:55 What circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for that reason, in Colossians 2.11, although I don't explicitly mention it, Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. So it's clear that the analogy between circumcision and baptism has a very prominent place in the Belgic Confession.

6:26 It also has the same place in the form for baptism, in the liturgy for baptism.

6:36 And in this context, with respect to the form for the administration of baptism to the infants of believers, there is a quotation of Genesis. 17.7, which says, I will establish my covenant between thee and thy seed after thee. And then they quote other passages, Acts 2.39, for the promises to you and to your children

7:01 and to all that are afar off, therefore, God formally commanded them to be circumcised, which was a seal of the covenant and of the righteousness of faith, and therefore Christ also embodied. Therefore, Christ also embodied. Embrace them, that is, infants, laid his hands upon them and blessed them. Since then, baptism is come in the place of circumcision.

7:29 Therefore, infants are to be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant. Intimate relation once again drawn between circumcision and baptism, because baptism has replaced circumcision. Therefore, infants, as they receive circumcision, are to receive baptism. That is, again, the argument.

7:59 And again, in the Heidelberg Catechism, you find the same emphasis.

8:06 Heidelberg Catechism has exactly the same emphasis.

8:13 Are infants to be baptized? Yes, since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant. They, therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, must be admitted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Covenant or Testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the New Covenant. And they quote Colossians 2, 11, 12, and 13.

Paedo-Baptist Arguments from Theologians (Birkhoff, Presbyterian Catechism, Hodge, Warfield, Murray)

8:50 Now, that emphasis is picked up by Birkhoff, who stands in the tradition of Dutch Calvinism. In his Systematic Theology, page 632, 633, and 638, he opens up his support for infant baptism. And he has various lines of thought, and this is how he seeks to support it, the scriptural basis for infant baptism. Here is his statement.

9:24 It may be said at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children, and there is not a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized. But this does not necessarily make infant baptism undyblical. The scriptural ground for it is found in the following data. One, the covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect.

9:54 And of this spiritual covenant, circumcision was the sign and seal. Two, this covenant is still in force. Three, by the appointment of God, infants shared in the benefits of the covenant and therefore received circumcision as a sign and seal. Four, in the new dispensation, baptism is by divine authority still in force.

10:21 Is by divine authority substituted for circumcision as the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant of grace. And then he goes on, etc. But right at the very heart, right at the very heart is this idea of the relationship or the analogy between circumcision and baptism and the substitution of the one for the other. Then he goes on.

10:49 He goes on in dealing with the ground for infant baptism to open up the position of our confessional standards. And he quotes some of the very passages that I have just mentioned. And then he makes the following important statement on page 638. It will be observed, as I observed, that all these statements are based on the commandment of God to circumcise the children of the covenant.

11:20 Four, in the last analysis, that commandment is the ground of infant baptism. All of these statements are based upon the commandment to circumcise children for, he says, in the final analysis, that commandment is the ground of infant baptism. So, you must recognize that this is important. I do.

11:50 important, because not only the Dutch Calvinists and Burckhoff, their spokesmen, recognize the centrality of this analogy to their whole argumentation, their whole perspective, their whole framework, but also we find that the very same perspective is found in the Presbyterian school of thought as well. The larger catechism, question 166, larger catechism, question 166, makes the following

12:30 statement, infants descending from parents, either both or one of them professing faith in Christ and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant and are to be baptized. But the interesting thing here is the. The scriptural support which is listed in connection with this statement. They quote the following passages in support of the statement that infants are in the covenant and ought to be baptized.

13:03 First, they quote Genesis 17, 7, I will establish my covenant between thee and thy seed after thee to be a God, and you shall keep my covenant, et cetera. Then they quote Colossians 2, 11, in whom you were circumcised. With. The circumcision not made with hands, the circumcision of Christ being buried with him in baptism.

13:27 And then they quote Acts 2, 38 and 9, for the promises unto you and unto your children with Romans 4, 11, and he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, et cetera. So what they do is they quote these, the following passages, the very same arguments used by the Dutch Calvinists, Genesis 17, Colossians. Colossians 2, 11, Romans 4, 11, those three passages are prominent in their defense of the statement that infants are within the covenant and ought to be baptized. Now, this same perspective is taken up by Hodge, and Hodge has a large series of arguments

14:11 in his systematic theology, pages 552 and 553, a series of eight or so arguments. And in the middle of those arguments, of course, is the idea concerning circumcision and the relationship between circumcision and baptism. And he says infants were members of the church under the old economy. Then he goes on to open up the significance of circumcision.

14:46 And then he comes on to say this important statement. And so he says, when a believer adopts the covenant of grace, he brings his children within. In that covenant, in the sense that God promises to give to them in his own good time, all the benefits of redemption, provided they do not willingly renounce their baptismal engagements. This is really the turning point of the controversy concerning infant church membership.

15:16 If the church is one under both dispensations, if infants were members of the church under the theocracy, then they are members of the church now. Unless the. Contrary can be proved, and an intimate connection with that is the idea of circumcision.

15:34 Again, Warfield, in his article on the polemics of infant baptism, page 400 and 401, says the same thing.

15:47 He admits that there is no express commandment record, et cetera, of baptism of infants in the New Testament. But he says this, the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the right. If the continuity of the church through all through the ages can be made good, then the warranty for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament when the church was instituted. Nothing short of an actual forbidding of it now in the New Testament would guarantee our omitting it.

16:22 A algumas leitlinas from Strong's Eat easy leitlin e privateiser ii Vamos precisamente tudo a discutir. he talks about Strong's error, and he says that Strong, the Baptist's, error is this. Hismit telling a little of his first logical error in demanding baptism of infants inni Ri 32 eritre, days of the Holy Gospel. first logical error even stands noНcturnal error der sp mouve atyardsLEY fifteen days aro c 라 ride.

16:30 express warrant is in demanding express warrant for the continuance of a long-settled institution instead of asking for warrant for setting it aside. What long-settled institution?

16:47 What institution was long-settled? Well, obviously, he means one thing, circumcision. Circumcision, which marked the inclusion of infants in the Abrahamic and Old Covenant, and circumcision was indeed a long-settled institution. And he sees identity between what they're doing to infants and what they did to infants when they circumcised them.

17:09 What the paedobaptists do when they baptize their infants or sprinkle them is in direct continuity with what was done when they circumcised those infants. And that's why he can speak of it as the same institution, a long-settled institution. And circumcision was the original expression of one and the same institution of which baptism was done. Baptism is now the expression. That's the theology.

17:32 And that's the importance of circumcision in this whole argument. Now then, let's let Professor Murray state it, too, just in case. Because Professor Murray is the, well, he's the latest, perhaps the most, well, most respected here anyway.

17:55 Now here's what he says.

17:58 The inclusion of infants. He starts, number one, Genesis 17, 1 to 14. And he opens up circumcision, Genesis 17. I'm sorry, page 49 of his subject, of his book on Christian baptism.

18:13 Then on page 50, he goes on to speak about the significance of circumcision. Comes up with a three-fold significance. Circumcision signifies union and communion with God, signifies the removal of defilement, and signifies the righteousness of faith. And then he says this.

18:29 Of particular note is the fact that the leading notion, and meaning of circumcision, is identical in principle with the leading notion and meaning of baptism. Namely, union and communion with the Lord.

18:45 Circumcision, signifying what in principle is identical with that signified by baptism, was administered to infants who were born within the covenant relation. The gospel dispensation is the unfolding of the covenant made with Abraham, the extension and enlargement of the blessing conveyed by this covenant, to the people of the Old Testament, period. Then he goes on to say this. In view of the fact that the new covenant is based upon and is the unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant, in view of the basic identity of meaning attaching to circumcision and baptism, in view of the unity and continuity of the covenant of grace,

19:29 in both dispensations, we can affirm with confidence that every covenant is based upon the covenant of grace. The evidence of revocation or repeal is mandatory if the practice or principle has been discontinued under the New Testament. In the absence of such evidence of repeal, we conclude that the administering of the sign and seal of the covenant to the infancy of believers is still in operation and has perpetual divine warrant. In other words, the command to administer the sign to infants has not been revoked and therefore it is still in force.

Summary of the Paedo-Baptist Argument: Three Texts, Three Parts

20:05 And the situation that is instead of requiring an express statute authorizing the administration of baptism to infants, we find rather that an express statute of this nature would be superfluous and therefore not necessary to the propriety and authority of the ordinance. Now, do you follow what these men are all saying? I understand it in terms of three texts and three parts.

20:32 Three texts and three parts. First of all, they state this. They state that infants were circumcised. Infants were circumcised.

21:10 And that that circumcision was a sign that they were included in the covenant with Abraham. Genesis 17. That's the foundation of the whole thing. Secondly, they state that circumcision had a spiritual significance and that the spiritual significance of circumcision was exactly identical to or at least in principle, identical to the significance of baptism.

21:38 Romans 4.11. It was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith which he had in uncircumcision.

21:45 So, circumcision is a sign and seal of a spiritual reality. It has a spiritual significance. Also, they say it signifies union and communion with God. Also, they say it signifies the removal of the defilement of the heart.

21:57 It has the same significance as baptism. All right, here you go. Circumcision was administered. Circumcision was administered to infants.

22:08 Circumcision has the same significance as baptism. The final one is this. Circumcision has been replaced by baptism as the sign and seal of inclusion in the same covenant. And that's it.

22:25 Colossians 2.11, where Paul supposedly calls baptism the circumcision of Christ. Acts chapter 15, where they were told that the Gentiles need not be circumcised and some of them like to be circumcised. Some of them like Berkhoff quote Acts 21.21,

22:39 which says something about the fact that Paul was telling the Jews not to circumcise their children.

22:47 So, those are the arguments. Genesis 17, circumcision was administered to infants. Romans 4, circumcision has a spiritual significance. The exact same significance as baptism.

23:00 Colossians 2, baptism has replaced circumcision. And therefore, since it has the same spiritual significance, it, like circumcision, should be administered to the infants as a sign and seal that they, too, are in the Abrahamic covenant.

23:21 See that? Have I made it clear? So, here are the three key texts. That's why these texts come up again and again.

23:28 Because of the administration of circumcision to infants, spiritual significance of circumcision equals baptism. And then baptism replaces and takes over. Where circumcision left off. All right?

23:42 That's the statement of their argument.

Critique Introduction: The Toddler Communion Analogy

23:48 Now, secondly, I want to attempt to show you what I am convinced are the fallacies and errors of this argumentation. And the first thing I want to say by way of introduction is remember this. Remember that if this is true, if this argument by way of analogy of the sacraments is the proper way to argue, if this is true, then this argument is the proper way to argue. This argument with irresistible force comes down to prove toddler communion as well as infant baptism.

24:23 Remember? Warfield, remember what I said? Remember what I said under Roman numeral II about infant baptism and believer communion? One of the things that their practice of believer communion is is that it's incompatible with their use of this argument from the circumcision baptism analogy.

24:42 Infant participation or toddler participation in the covenantal commemorative meal, namely the Passover, was a long-settled institution. The Lord's Supper has replaced the Passover. And toddler participation in the covenant commemorative meal being a long-settled institution, if that's the case, then nothing short of explicit revocation would justify setting it aside. Yet they have set it aside.

25:12 And without one explicit text stating that toddlers are not to participate in the Lord's Supper. And so you find that if this argument from the analogy is true, as we saw before, that this, if it is true, and if it is to be regulative, it comes home with the same unabateable, irresistible force for the practice of toddler communion, which many of the same dear brethren who presently, who sent this for the infant baptism, reject when it comes to toddler communion. But having said that by way of introduction, we must consider this argument not on the merits of that analogy, but we must consider it on its own merits

Critique of Genesis 17: Circumcision of Infants and Household Servants

25:56 as it rests upon a misunderstanding of circumcision and selective and inaccurate exegesis of the scriptural witness. So I want to take up these three things one at a time. First of all, with regard to the handling of Genesis 17. Now, I admit that the male infants were circumcised.

26:17 I did not have any argument with that fact. Anyone who wants to argue with that has got some problems, I think. So I don't argue that the male infants were circumcised, but they also circumcised household servants, not just infants. So put that in the, somewhere, put that in the Bible.

26:34 But in Genesis 17, it is true that male infants were circumcised. All right, second argument.

Critique of Romans 4:11: Abraham's Unique Significance of Circumcision

26:43 I'll admit the first one. All right, second. Romans 4.11.

26:55 Romans 4.11.

27:12 How then was it reckoned? Notice, is this blessing, verse 9, pronounced upon the circumcision or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that to Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness. How was it reckoned?

27:25 When Abraham was a circumcised man or an uncircumcised man? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision, and he received the sign, uncircumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision, in order that. In order that. In order that.

28:00 In order that.

28:03 Hinnah. That means in order that.

28:07 Abraham received circumcision with a specific significance for a specific purpose.

28:21 He received it with a special significance for a special purpose. Now, why did Abraham receive circumcision with this significance? He received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision in order that he might be the father of all those who believe. Abraham received circumcision with this unique and special significance with this unique and special significance with this unique and special significance because Abraham had a unique and special place in the history of redemption.

29:00 And Abraham received circumcision with this unique and special significance precisely because, explicitly because, of that unique and special place which Abraham had in the history of redemption which no one else has. Namely, that he was to be the father of everyone who believed. And it was precisely because of that special standing which Abraham had that he received circumcision in that special way.

29:38 Now, circumcision then for Abraham signified what it did not signify for his infant descendants. It signified, observe, it was for him, verse 11, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision. which he had while he was in uncircumcision. Now, that is not true of Ishmael.

30:07 It is not true of the Jews by and large. That was not true of those who received circumcision who were the literal, physical descendants of Abraham. It was not for them a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith which they had while they were in uncircumcision. That is not true.

30:30 And this text makes explicit statement and mention of the relationship between the spiritual significance of circumcision and the person who received circumcision with that spiritual significance. And we can't afford just to leave that out and speak in vagaries about the fact that circumcision has a spiritual significance. Circumcision was administered to infants. That's very vague.

30:59 Did those infants stand in the same relationship to the spiritual significance of circumcision which Abraham stood when he received it? Because this text is talking about the significance it had for Abraham.

31:13 That's the point. And it's talking about the relationship which Abraham had to that which was signified when he received circumcision. And you can't just take that out of the text and pass over the rest. Or you've got to recognize that the text is concerned concerned, very concerned to state the relationship between the one who received it in that significance and his possession of what was signified.

The Spiritual Significance of Circumcision and its Relationship to the Recipient

31:41 Now, on the other hand, I don't wish to argue that circumcision is identified with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 and it is identified with the blessing of that covenant. Nor do I wish to argue with the fact that circumcision has a spiritual significance. No, I don't want to argue with that. It obviously does have a spiritual significance.

32:04 That's true. Because there's this intimate relationship between circumcision of the body and circumcision of the heart. Remember we saw this? Circumcision of the body and circumcision of the heart.

32:21 A change in the secret place of the body, a change in the secret place within. And there's a relationship between those two things. That's why the Jews are told circumcise the foreskins of your heart. And that's why they're told all the nation of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.

32:37 There's a relationship between circumcision of the body and circumcision of heart. They both signify a change in the secret place. A change in the secret place. Now that's pretty clear.

32:56 A change in the secret place. And the change of the secret place of the body represents and symbolizes a change in the secret place of the soul. All right? That's true.

33:10 But what our brethren seem always to fail to note is the relationship of the spiritual significance to those that received the sign. And it's always presented in a vague and superficial way. Circumcision has a spiritual significance. Circumcision was administered to infants.

33:35 Baptism has a spiritual significance. Baptism should be administered to infants.

33:45 But that's... That's not the way it's presented in Scripture.

Distinguishing Abraham's Heart from Israel's Heart

33:48 The Scripture is also concerned to identify, state, and define the relationship between the spiritual significance and those who receive it. As a matter of fact, that is precisely the heart of the whole scriptural tension that was developed and which is resolved. Now notice then Abraham. Abraham has that which was symbolized.

34:13 Abraham has a circumcision. A circumcised heart. And he received a circumcised body as a symbol of the circumcised heart and the righteousness of faith which was the possession of that circumcised heart. Note that the Jews characteristically did not have a circumcised heart but needed to have a circumcised heart.

34:35 That's why Moses tells them, remember, in Deuteronomy chapter 10, circumcise the foreskin of your heart. And in Jeremiah 4, circumcise the foreskin of your heart. And that's why...

34:46 That's why the prophet waxes bold and asserts in Jeremiah 9, all the nation of Israel is uncircumcised in heart. They did not have what Abraham had. They did not have it. As a nation, as a group, all day long have I spread forth my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.

35:06 The distinguishing trait and characteristic of that nation was that they did not have the spiritual reality.

35:16 They didn't have it when they were born. They didn't have it when they were circumcised. They didn't have it when they lived. They didn't have it when they died.

35:23 And the same thing was true of that nation by and large. Not totally, not exclusively, but by and large it was their distinguishing trait even at the time of Christ. That's why Stephen said in Acts chapter 7, you stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you do always resist the Holy Ghost as your fathers did, so also do you.

The Promised Change and New Covenant Reality

35:46 But notice, you remember in the Old Testament it was promised that this condition in the nation of Israel, though it was a tragic reality of tension, that this condition in the nation of Israel would change. Deuteronomy chapter 30, you remember, was promised I will circumcise Israel. I will circumcise the heart of Israel and the heart of Israel's seed. I will circumcise Israel.

36:07 This will change. And notice then that in the New Covenant it has changed. Colossians 2.11 speaks of the people of God as having experienced the circumcision of the heart.

36:21 You were circumcised, he says, with a circumcision not made with hands. And in Romans chapter 2 it speaks about the fact that circumcision that's outward in the flesh, the circumcision of the body is not that which brings praise to God, but it's the circumcision of the heart. And it's not the person who's a visible Jew. It's not that visible Israel, but it's a spiritual Israel.

36:43 And the one who's a Jew inwardly, whose heart has been circumcised, whose praise comes not from men, but from God. And Philippians chapter 3 in verse 3, speaking of those Gentile Christians in Philippi, says we are the circumcision. We've experienced the circumcision of the heart. And notice that because the Jews did not have the circumcision, they were broken off from the covenant.

37:08 They were broken off from the community of the faithful. The New Covenant was established with those who repented and believed and they were broken off. Paul says in Romans 11, they by their unbelief were broken off and you Gentiles were grafted in. You were grafted in.

37:25 They were broken off. You stand by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. If they believe, God's able to graft them back in and if you don't continue in your faith, God's able to cut you off like He cut them off.

Graphic Illustration: Old Covenant vs. New Covenant Israel

37:36 But now the distinguishing trait of the covenant community, the distinguishing trait of the people of God is that they have the reality which is symbolized and which was symbolized by circumcision. Now let me try to put this in graphic form if I may. I'm going to put this in graphic form. Start with Abraham.

38:08 And then you have Abraham's posterity.

38:20 Abraham's seed. Abraham's descendants. Alright? Now who are Abraham's descendants?

38:27 Who are Abraham's seed? How are Abraham's seed known and marked? What mark distinguishes them?

38:35 Answer? Circumcision.

38:39 Circumcision is the distinguishing mark which marks off Abraham's seed. from the rest of men. It's circumcision. And circumcision equals a change in the secret place.

38:56 And this change in the secret place is what marks off Abraham's posterity. Who are Abraham's seed? Who are Abraham's posterity? Abraham's seed are those who have been changed in the secret place.

39:07 That's their distinguishing mark and trait. That's what marks them out. Now, God promised that He would be the God to Abraham's posterity. He promised that He would be God to Abraham and his seed.

39:17 And this means, entering into covenantal relationship. So the Abrahamic covenant stands at the head of both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. And both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are made with Israel. They're made with Abraham's seed.

39:33 They're made with those who have been circumcised. Now, first comes the Old Covenant. You have Abraham's posterity. And first then comes the Old Covenant.

39:45 I hope you can see this down here because of the good... Well, anyway, the important part is going to be down at the bottom.

39:50 All right, and then comes the New Covenant. You see that? I'm going to lift this up. I don't know how else to do it.

40:03 I've got to put it this way. All right, this is the Old Covenant. This is the New Covenant. This is Israel.

40:09 Old Covenant Israel. This is Israel. New Covenant Israel. What does the writer of Hebrews say?

40:19 I will make the New Covenant with them. And that's quoted in Jeremiah. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days. I'll write my law upon their hearts.

40:28 In my mind, I will write them. And I'll put my fear in their hearts. All right, the Old Covenant Israel is Abraham's posterity. And what marks these people out?

40:37 Well, what marks them out is their distinguishing trait. That's the line right there. Anybody who was not circumcised in his body is going to be cut off from his people. You can't be part of this community unless you've been circumcised in your body.

40:56 That's what marks these people off. The Old Covenant was distinguished not by the fact that they were circumcised in their hearts. How many texts do they have to have to read that they weren't circumcised in their hearts? That was not their distinguishing trait.

41:08 Text after text says, circumcise your hearts because your hearts are not circumcised. And all the nation of Israel is uncircumcised in heart. But they weren't uncircumcised in body. They weren't uncircumcised in body.

41:22 But they were uncircumcised in heart as your fathers were so also were you. But what do we have here? We have Abraham's posterity again. But now, in the New Covenant, they have a different distinguishing trait.

41:37 It's not that they're circumcised in their bodies because that's irrelevant now. But now, they're circumcised in their hearts. See that? A change took place.

41:53 When did this change take place? Well, this is the fulfillment of what was promised in Deuteronomy chapter 30, that God would circumcise Israel. And that's what God did. And when did He do it?

42:04 He did it through the ministry of John and Jesus. And what happened? Paul describes what happened in Romans chapter 11. Who got cut off?

42:15 Well, through John. Well, through John, the impenitent got broken off. And through Jesus, the unbelieving got broken off. So who got cut out of Israel?

42:34 The impenitent and unbelieving got cut out of Israel. But then look what else happened. Somebody got grafted into Israel, too. Who got grafted in?

42:43 Those who were formerly strangers. Those who were formerly without God, without hope in the world. Gentiles who repented. Gentiles who believed.

42:56 That's what happened. Here's the New Covenant in Israel, distinguished by circumcision in heart. Old Covenant distinguished by circumcision of body. Here's a continuity.

43:10 The one is continuous with the other. And you see, according to Paul, they are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all Israel who are of Israel. And then he also says, and if you are Christ, you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise.

43:34 Abraham's seed. Abraham's seed. Abraham's seed is marked by circumcision of heart. And also, if you're Christ, you're Abraham's seed, circumcised of heart.

Abraham's Seed and the New Covenant Community

43:48 And also, baptism, if you're a believer in Jesus, if you repented at the preaching of John, then you're a disciple. And then baptism is identified with the disciples. And guess who Abraham's seed are? Galatians 3.

44:08 Galatians 3, 27, 28. Galatians 3, 27, 28. Abraham's seed are the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you are Christ's, you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

44:22 Here's Abraham's posterity, those who are distinguished by being circumcised in heart. And now this group has come to covenantal expression, in the new covenant. And of course, New Covenant Israel is nothing other than the church of Jesus Christ. It is nothing other than the group of the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.

44:43 Amen. So in this way, the tension is resolved according to the promise of Deuteronomy chapter 30. Abraham's seed is marked out as those who are the circumcision of heart, those who now constitute the new covenant community. Now theirs then is the proper relationship between circumcision and baptism.

45:15 So there is continuity between Old Covenant and New Covenant in Israel. But the distinguishing trait of the Israel of the Old Covenant is that they were marked out by circumcision of body and that has now indeed changed. The unbelievers who simply had circumcision of body were broken off because that no longer distinguished the nation. Now in the New Covenant, a better covenant built on better promises, the covenant community is distinguished by circumcision of heart.

45:43 Only those who have circumcision of heart have any right to be in it. And this is the distinguishing trait. The distinguishing trait and characteristic of the New Covenant community, you were circumcised with a circumcision, not made with hands.

45:59 This is Abraham's seed.

Conclusion and Prayer

46:04 Well, we've got two minutes left. I think I'll stop here and let you think about it. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Well, just that you didn't explicitly comment on Colossians 2. Did you do that deliberately holding off because of time?

46:16 Yes, that's correct. I was going to do that and then give a good portion of the time hopefully next week for questions. Well, let's close with a word of prayer.

46:29 Father, we give you thanks for your word. Especially we bless you for what you have done in granting us the privilege of being part of this wonderful community that is characterized by having its heart changed and marked out as Abraham's seed. We bless you, Lord, that we as Gentiles have been grafted in. We pray that we may not be high-minded.

46:57 We pray that we may walk with all of the humility. and fear appropriate for our position in the history of redemption. We thank you that you have counted us worthy to be the seed of Abraham. We bless you for what you have done for us.

47:11 And we pray, Lord, that as we contemplate these great covenantal blessings which we have received in Christ, that we may be filled with gratitude to you for what you've done. We ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.