INTRODUCTION
Was circumcision the sign and seal of Abraham’s faith or the sign and seal of the faith of all those who received circumcision? Some have argued that it was the sign of the faith of all those who received it, meaning that faith is presumed for all infants who received circumcision in the Old Testament. Infants were circumcised, not because Abraham had faith, but because each infant is presumed to be among those who have faith. At least that’s what some paedobaptists believe.
THE LOGIC
Because paedobaptists see a one to one correlation between the Old Testament sign of circumcision and the New Testament sign of baptism, paedobaptists baptize their young infants. The infants of Old Testament Israelites were circumcised on the 8th day, and therefore the infants of New Testament believers must be baptized. At least, that’s how paedobaptists reason.
For many paedobaptists, circumcision was the sign of presumed faith in the infant circumcised, and now, in the New Testament, baptism replaces circumcision. Therefore, Baptism is the sign of presumed faith in the infant circumcised. I am not convinced that all paedobaptists follow that line of reason, but many most certainly do. Many, in baptizing their infants presume faith in the hearts of their infants (see here). Because His covenants – as they assert – transcend generations, it then follows that the infant of a believing parent is presumed to be believing on the basis of the parent’s faith. Therefore, infants of believers must be baptized, presumptively believing that faith exists in the infants’ hearts.
THE FLAWED LOGIC
This assertion, however, has a serious flaw. I am not going to contend against our paedobaptist brothers’ assertion that “baptism replaces circumcision in the New Testament.” I will leave that for another day, as it’s an easy thing to disprove. Today is the day to contend against the assertion that circumcision was a sign, in the Old Testament, of presumptive faith in a child’s heart. Circumcision, while being the sign of Abraham’s faith, was certainly not the sign of each circumcised child’s faith.
All the circumcised descended from the man who had faith, Abraham. Circumcision was for those within the community of the man – Abraham – who had faith. Abraham’s faith was not presumed to be in the hearts of his natural descendants, although it was offered to them. With a very slow and careful reading of Romans 4, this becomes plain, demonstrating that circumcision did not communicate presumptive faith in the hearts’ of children.
THE EXEGESIS
Romans 4:11 says Abraham received “the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (emphasis mine). The text is clear that circumcision was a sign, but it is not said to be a sign of the hypothetical faith presumed upon Abraham’s descendants. Much to the contrary, it is said to exclusively be “the sign” of “the righteousness that he had by faith,” the antecedent of “he,” being Abraham. It is the sign of Abraham’s faith, not the faith of his biological progeny.
In the second half of Romans 4:11 and in verse 12, the purpose of circumcision is further explained. Demonstrably, it was to make Abraham the father of two groups of people: First, “all who believe without being circumcised” and, second, “of the circumcised who…also walk in the footsteps of the faith that…Abraham had.” The dividing line between those outside and those inside “the faith” is not circumcision, but rather faith. Humanity is divided into two categories: those with faith and those without faith. The circumcision are found in each category, as are the uncircumcision. The two groups are separated by the presence or absence of faith. In this case, Abraham is only the father of those with faith, and many of the circumcised persons did not possess Abraham’s faith. Many uncircumcised persons do possess Abraham’s faith.
Paul reasons that circumcision is a sign of Abraham’s faith. Because he was uncircumcised at the time of his initial faith, the uncircumcised can also possess the same faith. Because he received circumcision after faith, the circumcised can also possess the same faith. Circumcision, however, does not presume faith. It signals only Abraham’s faith.
The text at hand only asserts that circumcision is the sign of Abraham’s faith. When his progeny were circumcised, they learned of their progenerator’s faith, not their own faith. Abraham’s faith appropriated many blessings to the Hebrew nation, the greatest of which was siring the Messiah. His faith, however, did not only appropriate blessings to the Hebrew nation, but his faith also appropriated blessings to all nations (Romans 4:17; Genesis 12:3). Whereas his faith did appropriate blessings for all Hebrews and all Gentiles, his faith did not appropriate righteousness for all. Righteousness only comes by personal faith, which is what circumcision communicated to Abraham’s descendants. Abraham was counted righteous by his own personal faith, and circumcision is a sign of his own personal faith, not the faith of all his biological offspring.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, some paedobaptists argue that their infants are included in the New Covenant because of the infants’ parents’ faith. Some paedobaptists presume, on that basis, that their children have faith. In equating baptism with circumcision, they herald this presumption. So, they baptize their children to declare their children’s faith. The presumption is false on several levels, not the least of which is that circumcision did not proclaim each recipient’s faith. Rather, circumcision only proclaimed the faith of the first man to be circumcised. Circumcision was only a sign of Abraham’s faith.
