Paul seems rather down on circumcision. In Romans 4 he makes a big deal of the fact that Abraham was given the promise of the Seed before he was circumcised, not after. Therefore, he argues, our justification comes through belief in the promised Seed, not in performing the law. Paul equates circumcision with the "law" (Romans 4:13), presumably because circumcision was a mark of the Jews, who had the Law; circumcision seems to anticipate the law that came 430 years later (Galatians 3:17).
In contrast to the legal character of circumcision is the coming of the Seed, and the work of His Spirit (Galatians 3:1-9). If we are members of Moses, we are bound to keep the law. If we are members of Christ, then we are members of Abraham, who was given the promise before the law, and therefore we are justified apart from works. There is a strong contrast between circumcision and membership in Christ.
We tend to equate baptism with circumcision, since they certainly fill similar covenantal functions. Thus we tend to transfer Paul's remarks on the futility of circumcision to our theology of baptism. But Paul is very "up" on baptism. Through Christ, of whom we are made a member through baptism (Romans 6), our sins are put to death, whereas through the law, of which we are made a member through circumcision (Romans 4, Galatians 3) our sins are provoked and made manifest (Romans 4:15).
The similarity between baptism and circumcision is real: both rituals join us to a covenant head. But the difference is also real: the covenant heads are different. Circumcision unites us to Moses, baptism unites us to Christ. Moses is bondage, Christ is freedom. Circumcision is efficacious to unite us to Moses, but Moses is futile to justify us. Baptism is efficacious to unite us to Christ, and Christ is powerful to justify us. So it is wrong for us to downplay baptism because Paul downplays circumcision. In both cases the ritual accomplishes covenantal union; in only one case does the covenant head accomplish salvation.
A "high" Reformed view of baptism (if rightly applied) cannot possibly be a return to the law, or a falling away from faith. The new covenant, the promise, the seed, the Spirit--Paul uses these terms to describe our new-found life apart from the law. If baptism is a "sacrament of the New Testament," as Westminster says, then it pertains to the Spirit and the freedom. One cannot possibly claim that this view is legalistic without making the New Covenant itself legalistic.
Here is where the great danger lies in making use of a facile division between "visible" and "invisible." There is an unstated equivocation of "invisible" with "spiritual" and "visible" with "fleshly" or "legal." Thus the new covenant, the promise, the Seed, the Spirit can only exist meaningfully apart from visible forms. By contrast things like sacraments are tangible and observable, and therefore do not partake of the free character of the new covenant. To connect "externals" in any way to the spiritual work of Christ is to fall into legalism.
But this is all messed up. The great division in the Bible is between Old and New, between the law and Christ, between the letter and the Spirit. Terms like inner and outer, in the Bible, describe the difference in power between the old and new covenants--not a division between the visible and invisible forms found in both covenants. In the new covenant we are given new hearts, and the grace transforms us beginning with our deepest inner man. This is a power the old covenant did not have; I believe this is what Paul meant by circumcision of the flesh in contrast to circumcision of the heart. Circumcision partook of the futile nature of the law; the cutting of the flesh had no effect on the heart. In the new covenant, however, baptism must partake of the spiritual, efficacious work of Christ. If it does not, if baptism is no better than circumcision, then the new covenant is no better than the old, and we might as well have remained under Moses.
In contrast to the legal character of circumcision is the coming of the Seed, and the work of His Spirit (Galatians 3:1-9). If we are members of Moses, we are bound to keep the law. If we are members of Christ, then we are members of Abraham, who was given the promise before the law, and therefore we are justified apart from works. There is a strong contrast between circumcision and membership in Christ.
We tend to equate baptism with circumcision, since they certainly fill similar covenantal functions. Thus we tend to transfer Paul's remarks on the futility of circumcision to our theology of baptism. But Paul is very "up" on baptism. Through Christ, of whom we are made a member through baptism (Romans 6), our sins are put to death, whereas through the law, of which we are made a member through circumcision (Romans 4, Galatians 3) our sins are provoked and made manifest (Romans 4:15).
The similarity between baptism and circumcision is real: both rituals join us to a covenant head. But the difference is also real: the covenant heads are different. Circumcision unites us to Moses, baptism unites us to Christ. Moses is bondage, Christ is freedom. Circumcision is efficacious to unite us to Moses, but Moses is futile to justify us. Baptism is efficacious to unite us to Christ, and Christ is powerful to justify us. So it is wrong for us to downplay baptism because Paul downplays circumcision. In both cases the ritual accomplishes covenantal union; in only one case does the covenant head accomplish salvation.
A "high" Reformed view of baptism (if rightly applied) cannot possibly be a return to the law, or a falling away from faith. The new covenant, the promise, the seed, the Spirit--Paul uses these terms to describe our new-found life apart from the law. If baptism is a "sacrament of the New Testament," as Westminster says, then it pertains to the Spirit and the freedom. One cannot possibly claim that this view is legalistic without making the New Covenant itself legalistic.
Here is where the great danger lies in making use of a facile division between "visible" and "invisible." There is an unstated equivocation of "invisible" with "spiritual" and "visible" with "fleshly" or "legal." Thus the new covenant, the promise, the Seed, the Spirit can only exist meaningfully apart from visible forms. By contrast things like sacraments are tangible and observable, and therefore do not partake of the free character of the new covenant. To connect "externals" in any way to the spiritual work of Christ is to fall into legalism.
But this is all messed up. The great division in the Bible is between Old and New, between the law and Christ, between the letter and the Spirit. Terms like inner and outer, in the Bible, describe the difference in power between the old and new covenants--not a division between the visible and invisible forms found in both covenants. In the new covenant we are given new hearts, and the grace transforms us beginning with our deepest inner man. This is a power the old covenant did not have; I believe this is what Paul meant by circumcision of the flesh in contrast to circumcision of the heart. Circumcision partook of the futile nature of the law; the cutting of the flesh had no effect on the heart. In the new covenant, however, baptism must partake of the spiritual, efficacious work of Christ. If it does not, if baptism is no better than circumcision, then the new covenant is no better than the old, and we might as well have remained under Moses.
No comments:
Post a Comment