Why Do Messianic Jews Only Baptize Believers?

jinc1019 · May 13, 2014

Steve Petersen said:
Every Friday night Jewish fathers bless their children by laying their hands on their heads.

Very interesting...that's a great point.

jinc1019 · May 13, 2014

Steve Petersen said:
Mitzva Intention « Ask The Rabbi « Ohr Somayach

Thank you for this. It was very helpful in understanding your point.

jinc1019 · May 13, 2014

Gxg (G²);65588252 said:
Very true

If you wouldn't mind, could you explain why you take this position? I don't agree that automatically Jews would have been baptizing their children because of a new covenant, especially since baptism was widely seen as a purification ritual prior to Christianity and I cannot find any reason to believe Jews believed in original sin as it is currently taught. Thus, infants had no sin needing to be cleansed. The infants were already considered in the covenant by birth (for the Jewish converts).

jinc1019 · May 13, 2014

etZion said:
The point to be made here, is the difference, infant circumcision is a commandment, while infant immersion is not. That is not the say that it is wrong to immerse an infant, but that it is nothing more than a traditional preference, and holds no biblical significance and it definitely does not replace circumcision...

From what you have written here, it sounds as though you also believe baptism is not efficacious in any way. In other words, a baptism does not "regenerate." Is that true? If you believe baptism can be done either when one is an adult or when one is an infant, what in your view is the purpose of baptism?

etZion · May 13, 2014

jinc1019 said:
From what you have written here, it sounds as though you also believe baptism is not efficacious in any way. In other words, a baptism does not "regenerate." Is that true? If you believe baptism can be done either when one is an adult or when one is an infant, what in your view is the purpose of baptism?

Immersion was generally used for holy purposes, such as for the priesthood, or for meeting before God, or entering the Temple, one could not approach holiness without first immersion. Immersion was a regular thing, not a one time ordeal.

Summation: I do not believe in a physical or spiritual paradox, they are intertwined, thus immersion is very important, powerful and purposeful.

My point was that comparing specifically infant circumcision to infant immersion, does not work, as one is a direct commandment, while the other is never commanded in this regard. That does not mean you cannot do it, it may be a great tradition for all I know. I would not mind doing it if my children were infants...however, in my opinion, since children would be part of the covenant based on the father's covering, I don't see this as a necessity.

Let me know your opinion on the matter if you don't mind, do you believe this is needed for the child to be in covenant, and on what do you base your argument?

Avodat · May 14, 2014

etZion said:
Immersion was generally used for holy purposes, such as for the priesthood, or for meeting before God, or entering the Temple, one could not approach holiness without first immersion. Immersion was a regular thing, not a one time ordeal.

Summation: I do not believe in a physical or spiritual paradox, they are intertwined, thus immersion is very important, powerful and purposeful.

My point was that comparing specifically infant circumcision to infant immersion, does not work, as one is a direct commandment, while the other is never commanded in this regard. That does not mean you cannot do it, it may be a great tradition for all I know. I would not mind doing it if my children were infants...however, in my opinion, since children would be part of the covenant based on the father's covering, I don't see this as a necessity.

Let me know your opinion on the matter if you don't mind, do you believe this is needed for the child to be in covenant, and on what do you base your argument?

Many Christians would see the authority for a form of Baptism in various parts of the latter part of The Book - specifically the end of Matthew's gospel and, mistakenly some think, in Yeshua being immersed by John. There is an element of covenant in an infant Baptism service - by the parent(s). Confirmation is the part when the baby / child makes its own profession of faith. These two parts of the process cannot replace circumcision and a bar / bat mitzvah, but they can be seen to have similar intent (depending on the denomination).

jinc1019 · May 14, 2014

etZion said:
Immersion was generally used for holy purposes, such as for the priesthood, or for meeting before God, or entering the Temple, one could not approach holiness without first immersion. Immersion was a regular thing, not a one time ordeal.

Summation: I do not believe in a physical or spiritual paradox, they are intertwined, thus immersion is very important, powerful and purposeful.

My point was that comparing specifically infant circumcision to infant immersion, does not work, as one is a direct commandment, while the other is never commanded in this regard. That does not mean you cannot do it, it may be a great tradition for all I know. I would not mind doing it if my children were infants...however, in my opinion, since children would be part of the covenant based on the father's covering, I don't see this as a necessity.

Let me know your opinion on the matter if you don't mind, do you believe this is needed for the child to be in covenant, and on what do you base your argument?

That's an interesting position to take (that the father's status covers the child). I am honestly on the fence about it. I have studied this issue from virtually all angles and have yet to come to a firm conclusion, but what I will say is this...There is no explicit evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There is no evidence of infant baptism in church history until roughly 190 A.D. (Irenaeus). The first evidence of the sacrament of confirmation appears at exactly the same time as the first evidence of infant baptism, which may indicate that the two came into being at the same time as one might expect. And finally, from my study of Jewish ritual immersion, it doesn't seem to make any sense for an infant to be baptized, which is why Jews traditionally did not immerse their children in the mikvah. The fact that Jews have traditionally rejected the Augustinian view of original sin also leads me to believe that it's possible infant baptism was not an early church practice.

HOWEVER, with all of that said, there are a few things which make me suspicious of the believer's baptism position. First, there is no evidence of a controversy in the early church over this issue, which one might expect if a change took place from believer's baptism to infant baptism. Second, for the earliest Jewish Christians, it wouldn't make much sense to have infant baptism. They already circumcised their children and had numerous other cultural rites for growing up in a Jewish home. For the gentiles, however, no such rites existed that would also be compatible with Christianity. It makes sense to me then that maybe they would use infant baptism as a way of firming up their communities (since there weren't any other rites we know about). Finally, Paul writes this in Colossians:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[b] was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

This sounds like baptism and circumcision are in some way connected, which could also indicate that infants ought to be baptized.

Again, I have been studying the issue a long time and have yet to come to a firm conclusion.

jinc1019 · May 14, 2014

Avodat said:
Many Christians would see the authority for a form of Baptism in various parts of the latter part of The Book - specifically the end of Matthew's gospel and, mistakenly some think, in Yeshua being immersed by John. There is an element of covenant in an infant Baptism service - by the parent(s). Confirmation is the part when the baby / child makes its own profession of faith. These two parts of the process cannot replace circumcision and a bar / bat mitzvah, but they can be seen to have similar intent (depending on the denomination).

That's a totally fair argument. I am very persuaded by the idea that the way parents bring their children into the covenant is through baptism.

Avodat · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
That's a totally fair argument. I am very persuaded by the idea that the way parents bring their children into the covenant is through baptism.

Depends on what the word 'covenant' means, I think.

Yeshua HaDerekh · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
The fact that Jews have traditionally rejected the Augustinian view of original sin also leads me to believe that it's possible infant baptism was not an early church practice.

There were two very different views on this, from the very beginning really. The Eastern Churches (Orthodox) have different views than those in the Western Churches. The East explains that we are NOT guilty of Adam's sin, however, we DO suffer from the consequences of it.

Steve Petersen · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
This sounds like baptism and circumcision are in some way connected, which could also indicate that infants ought to be baptized.

Funny you should mention this: when a Gentile converted to Judaism, he was required to be circumcised, immerse in a mikvah (baptism), and bring a sacrifice to the Temple.

etZion · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
That's a totally fair argument. I am very persuaded by the idea that the way parents bring their children into the covenant is through baptism.

From the context of Biblical Judaism, a Jew is born into covenant, despite whether or not they are circumcised on the 8th day. This would be covenant inclusion based on the father being a covenant member, and thus they are considered native born, included because of the father, in other words, an infant cannot be responsible or held accountable, at least not until they are old enough to take the covenant responsibility upon themselves. Thus, in this regard, even circumcision is not what brings one into covenant. And likewise does not give much weight, for immersion to bring one into covenant either.

As for gentiles, Abraham is the model example, he came into covenant with God, before he was ever circumcised, and likewise, for any of us gentiles who have put our trust in Yeshua, we have entered despite circumcision or immersion... This is not to say that immersion or circumcision are worthless, in my opinion, both of these should be upheld in order to obey the regulations of the covenant we have agreed to and serve a very important purpose. As a gentile, my parents had me circumcised the 8th day, and I also had my son circumcised the 8th day, and will teach him to do so as well to his son's... but this is getting into a whole other topic...

jinc1019 · May 14, 2014

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
There were two very different views on this, from the very beginning really. The Eastern Churches (Orthodox) have different views than those in the Western Churches. The East explains that we are NOT guilty of Adam's sin, however, we DO suffer from the consequences of it.

I know this yes.

jinc1019 · May 14, 2014

etZion said:
From the context of Biblical Judaism, a Jew is born into covenant, despite whether or not they are circumcised on the 8th day. This would be covenant inclusion based on the father being a covenant member, and thus they are considered native born, included because of the father, in other words, an infant cannot be responsible or held accountable, at least not until they are old enough to take the covenant responsibility upon themselves. Thus, in this regard, even circumcision is not what brings one into covenant. And likewise does not give much weight, for immersion to bring one into covenant either.

As for gentiles, Abraham is the model example, he came into covenant with God, before he was ever circumcised, and likewise, for any of us gentiles who have put our trust in Yeshua, we have entered despite circumcision or immersion... This is not to say that immersion or circumcision are worthless, in my opinion, both of these should be upheld in order to obey the regulations of the covenant we have agreed to and serve a very important purpose. As a gentile, my parents had me circumcised the 8th day, and I also had my son circumcised the 8th day, and will teach him to do so as well to his son's... but this is getting into a whole other topic...

That's all great information, but I guess where I am still a little lost is in regards to how you see children of gentile believers in the covenant. Based on your earlier response, you stated (if I remember right) that infants of believing gentiles would be considered in the covenant based on the faith of the parents...but doesn't this mean we should administer the covenant sign of baptism (if it is indeed the covenant sign)?

jinc1019 · May 14, 2014

Steve Petersen said:
Funny you should mention this: when a Gentile converted to Judaism, he was required to be circumcised, immerse in a mikvah (baptism), and bring a sacrifice to the Temple.

Correct, and I think this why a lot of infant baptism supporters believe what they do. For them, baptism replaced all of the entrance rites.

Gxg (G²) · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
If you wouldn't mind, could you explain why you take this position? I don't agree that automatically Jews would have been baptizing their children because of a new covenant, especially since baptism was widely seen as a purification ritual prior to Christianity and I cannot find any reason to believe Jews believed in original sin as it is currently taught. Thus, infants had no sin needing to be cleansed. The infants were already considered in the covenant by birth (for the Jewish converts).

If I may say (and it's not a problem explaining further)...

The Messianic fellowship I attend has done infant baptisms before - and there are many others who do so in light of what has been practiced within Jewish history. For good review, one can go to The Mikveh and Baptism in the New Testament. Also, for excellent presentation on what was said in the Talmud:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLzcMSOMDcM

Seeing differing Messianic congregations for some time, the issue of infant baptism was never something I saw Jews to take an issue with since it wasn't done in the context of their sons being circumcised - and they also knew that infant baptism didn't equate to the children never having to be baptized of their own accord later.

I think you have several assumptions going into things which may be setting up the stage for wrong conclusions because of a false scenario. For Jews baptizing children would not have been automatically due to the concept of a New Covenant - but on the same token, baptizing for the concept of a New Covenant would not have been separated from the concepts with Baptism BEFORE Christ came on the scene. Children were baptized in times prior to Christ just as they were afterward - and it baptism was not done simply because of a belief in Original Sin (as if that's the only reason why baptism for infants has to occur).

We already have it where children were consecrated to the Lord - the birth of Samson being one of them in Judges 14 (when it came to a vow made for him) and we also have the same with John the Baptist in Luke 1-2....but simply being born didn't make one a part of the covenant. And outside of that, we have many scenarios that need to be addressed for a more accurate image.

Specifically, again, baptism had been practiced for a good bit BEFORE Christ came on the scene - specifically by the Essenes/groups affiliated with them. It is something many Biblical archeologist have often pointed out when it comes to the ways the Essenes and the early body of believers were very similar.

The mission of the faithful community of Essenes was to prepare the way (Matthew 3:3) meaning God's road or path of obedience. They felt they must be ready to take their place in God's army by keeping their hearts and minds pure and their practices obedient. Their lifestyle reflected this commitment as the Essene community was carefully organized. They lived in small, self-sufficient communities having all property in common (Acts 2:44-45). They practiced ritual washing, similar to the baptism practices of John, to purify them of any ritual uncleanness or sin that might disqualify them from being part of God's work (more shared here and here). They wore white as a symbol of their purity. They grew their own food and were forbidden to eat food prepared by others. They spent significant time in study and in careful copying of their sacred texts. It is these scrolls, probably hidden when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the First Jewish Revolt that are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

That said, the liturgical use of water was common in the Jewish world. The Law of Moses required ablutions (washings) on the part of priests following certain sacrifices and on certain individuals who were unclean because of an infectious disease (Num. 19:1-22; Lev 14,15, 16:24-28).

The natural method of cleansing the body by washing and bathing in water was always customary in Israel. The washing of their clothes was an important means of sanctification imposed on the Israelites even before the law was given a Mt. Sinai (Ex 19:10). The use of water for cleansing was used symbolically as well in such passages as Eze 36:25 where God says "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities." One may choose to believe that the practice of baptism for the remission of sins as taught in the New Testament was not based in any way on the Old Testament....and yet the Old Testament washings with or in water that were for the purpose of physical cleansing can be seen as a type or shadow of New Testament baptism, which is for the purpose of spiritual cleansing (1 Peter 3:21). Toward the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews adopted (as a custom unrelated to Divine guidance) the custom of baptizing proselytes seven days after their circumcision. A series of specific interrogations made it possible to judge the real intentions of the candidate who wished to adopt the Jewish religion. After submitting to these interrogations, he was circumcised and later baptized before witnesses. In the baptism, he was immersed naked in a pool of flowing water; when he rose from the pool, he was a true son of Israel. After their baptism, new converts were allowed access to the sacrifices in the Temple.

For more:

The Old Testament washings with or in water that were for the purpose of physical cleansing can be seen as a type or shadow of New Testament baptism, which is for the purpose of spiritual cleansing (1 Peter 3:21). ON BAPTISM, Christ noted where it was of HIGH importance...AND it was never seen just for adults.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

John 3:22
After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized.

John 4:1-3
[ John Testifies Again About Jesus ] After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee

BAPTISM was also done by Christ himself with His disciples – just as it was with John. It was truly what was hot in the streets (LOL). In Christianity, baptism is a sign of “repentance and forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4) – not THE only sign…but a symbol of verification of where you stand - and the beginning of the life in Christ within the Church. We are baptized in the name God: “Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) As well, through baptism Christians associate with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus: “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you […] by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21). With Baptism, when you’re Baptized, it is a symbolic and powerful moment. The immersion and the water are real, but the symbolic meaning of the water and what it represents varies depending on the doctrine being taught.

With John the Baptist, the water in the Jordan River was symbolic, in that it was a representation of the Kingdom of God about which John preached. The people that came to John, as he stood in the water, entered the water as unbelievers, unsaved and with no hope. Being immersed in the water simply represented being accepted into the Kingdom of God through salvation. John was preaching repentance, which means the changing of one's mind about Christ. Those baptized were being identified with God's kingdom, and they were saying in effect, I have trusted in Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. The water itself was used merely as an illustration for those being newly identified with the Kingdom of God. By using their free will to accept Christ as personal Savior, they came out of the water as believers in the salvation work of the cross.
Now does that mean that someone is NOT a believer if they’re not Baptized? No. What it does mean is that in that timeframe, to be Baptized showed one’s intentions – and it simply confirmed where you were already at. There were plenty in the days of Christ – as well as in our days – who NEVER heard of Baptism and yet they were following the Lord….but if they heard of Baptism, I guarantee you that they would want to do so since it was simply confirming where they belonged.

This is no different than having a PASSPORT/getting verification as to where you belong to. You may not have a PASSPORT yet – but that doesn’t mean you’re not one who was never born into the U.S.A or one who identifies with America – and likewise, someone who was never BAPTIZED does not automatically claim to never have been a Christian nor is it the case that they may not have a heart for Christ. They simply have not gone through the process of verification for others.

And with Baptizing children, it was the same dynamic - parents dedicated the children to the Lord to show the intention of those children being set a part for the Lord. The people would later need to get baptized to show their devotion to the Lord - but having a baptism as a child to be dedicated wasn't the same as saying that the person didn't need to be baptized again...

The Lord Jesus Christ understood this principle when He spoke to His disciples, MAT 28:18-19, And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in Heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them [teaching believers by illustration and identification] in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And with households, we see the concept being present on how baptism was for everyone - children or adults:

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16
(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

On the subject, I think it is wisdom to note that scripture nowhere portrays baptism as the testimony of the person baptized. There are passages linking faith to baptism (such as Acts 8:12 and Acts 18:8) since they simply show that faith, publicly professed, is a necessary condition for baptism. But a baptism itself (i.e. the application of water, with accompanying words) is a statement by God (through the church) to and about the person being baptized - rather than a statement by that person. For the person baptized is the recipient of baptism from a servant of Jesus Christ, acting in his name (Matt. 28:18–20; cf. Acts 2:37–42; 8:16; 35–38).

And this is part of the reason why Baptism is a big deal for children. For when we examine St. Paul, we see his promise to the Philippian jailer that salvation would come to his whole house if he believed in Jesus, something that was no different from what Peter told three thousand adult converts at Pentecost. when Peter said the Promise of the Holy Spirit was “for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself” (Acts 2:39) - and as even John and Jesus were both FULL of the SPIRIT in the womb/early ages, so it can be the case that Children can be given impartations of the Holy Spirit to others.

Even St. Paul noted the issue further when noting how others in Gentile territory were called into fellowship with Christ together with their parents (or even merely one parent who was saved/sanctified a marriage with an unbeliever as seen in 1 Cor. 7:14). We already have it where it can be inferred that children of Christian converts were baptized, brought up in the Christian faith (see Eph. 6:1–4; Col. 3:20–21), and, whenever it pleased the Lord, given the Holy Spirit that was promised to them.

Again, if John could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), and Jesus could say (Matt. 18: 6), "Whoever offends one of these little ones ( the greek being "toddlers") who believe in Me, it were better that he were drowned in the depth of the sea," while the Apostle Peter could say on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 39), "The promise is unto you and to, your children.."...then it is odd whenever others claim that to be Jewish is to be against infant baptism.

The Messianic Jews I've lived life with have never been for that...and there are other Jews who've noted the same within the Messianic world - more on that seen in Baptism: Pagan or Jewish? - Jews for Jesus. The same goes for Jews who were within Ancient Christianity - for as another noted best, "Christian baptism was the continuation of the Jewish mikveh - the sanctification and entrance of the person into the faith community.... Churches that baptize babies do so with the belief that those who are baptized (infants and adults) are being set apart for a holy purpose and the process of salvation has begun in their lives."

Steve Petersen · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
Correct, and I think this why a lot of infant baptism supporters believe what they do. For them, baptism replaced all of the entrance rites.

I recall reading an opinion in the sages that a Gentile only needed to immerse and not be circumcised when he converted. This, however, is not the halachah.

Gxg (G²) · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
The infants were already considered in the covenant by birth (for the Jewish converts).

If I may say,

For more historical view as it concerns what has been practiced in Judaism, one may wish to consider investigating the following:

Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Proselyte Baptism and Infant Baptism in Classical Judaism

As noted there (for a brief excerpt):

The Talmud also speaks of the Jewish practice of baptizing very young children, and special status is given to those who grew up in the faith, having been baptized at under 3 years of age. It stipulates

A minor proselyte is immersed by the direction of the court. (Kethuboth 11a)

The Talmud also here discusses opinions if the baptized child rejects conversion upon coming of age.

The general approach of Judaism regards conversion as a family affair, with the children being considered proselytes along with the parents and being baptized along with them. There are some differences to the Christian pedobaptist practice in that baptism was not the normal mode of entry to the covenant, but only the mode of entry for those not born into the covenant. Children born parents already baptized were considered part of the covenant already. On the matter of acting on behalf of children and securing their baptism, it was reasoned,

That it is an advantage to him and one may act for a person in his absence to his advantage? Surely we have learned this already: One may act for a person in his absence to his advantage, but one cannot act for a person in his absence to his disadvantage! (Kethuboth 11a)

There's is a dynamic present there with saying infants were always seen as automatically in the covenant by birth - for this did not always play out.

Gen 17:10
This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised. י. זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל זָכָר:

This of course pertains to Abraham's SEED.

For Rashi says "Here Scripture repeated it [the commandment to circumcise a slave born in the house;] but did not state [that it is to be] on the eighth day, to teach you that there is a slave born in the house who is circumcised after eight days [other editions: at the age of one day], as is delineated in Tractate Shabbath (135b)".

In the Spirit, in the New Covenant no, circumcision and un-circumcision
means nothing.

However A Jew in the flesh is one that is circumcised in the flesh according to Gen 17. If there are no Jews in the flesh then there can be no promise of Messiah to the Jews who have not yet come to belief in Yeshua by faith. And Romans 11 makes this distinction IN THE FLESH..

That's why believing Jews still circumcise male childs as per Gen 17. However if and when the male child who was circimcised on the 8th day comes to faith then his circumcision means nothing. But in the flesh it means something. When the male child comes to faith it's a fulfillment of Romans 11 per se and the Torah and the prophets.

It is intriguing that circumcision was of such importance when it was something that was practiced by the nations at large long before the Lord came to Abraham/asked for it.

The history of circumcision BEFORE Abraham is significant, especially when considering the spirtual purposes it was done for apart from the Lord. ...and plenty of scholars have noted the vast history of circumcision that has been around in the Middle East long before Genesis 17. Whereas it was a rite of obligation amongst Jews., the practice has a long history in the ancient Middle East and is closely related to the rituals dedicated to ancient gods and goddesses of fertility. In example, the ancient Mesopotamians had festivals where the testicles of a young boy was cut off and dedicated to the fertility goddess.and for more, one can go online/invesitigate the following:

Also, on the history of where circumcision was practiced amongst the nations, one can go to Religious Traditions and Circumcision and The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 - Page 469. I don't think there's any reason reason for anyone to argue against or deny the fact that being apart of Israel/inheriting had circumcision as one of the deals one had to keep in being in Covenant with God...but I do think its noteworthy when the subject of circumcision is taken to mean salvation since circumcision was already being practiced amongst the other nations long before God told his people to do such.

On where it was noted how other nations outside of Israel practiced circumcison---including those who were enemies of Israel--one can go to Jer 9:25-26 and Ezekiel 32:29. Jeremiah 9:25-26 is the most descriptive in discussing other nations that were only circumcised in the flesh. Circumcision went back to the time of Abraham and was practiced by pagan nations, but not as a sign of a covenant with God.

Some did so for health reasons, whereas others had their own symbolisms to go with the act. In Jeremiah's day, by the time he arrived on the scene, the Israelities had forgotten the spiritual significance of circumcision even though they continued to do the physical ritual.

Again...Jeremiah 9:25-26 speaks on the issue and circumcision went back to the time of Abraham. For the people of Israel it was a symbol of their covenant relationship to God (Genesis 17:9-14). However, circumcision was also practiced by pagan nations LONG before Israel/Abraham were in existence---and some notable examples of that would be places like Egypt, who did it for the purposes of cosmetic design as well as for health purposes. The other nations didn't do circumcision as a sign of covenant with God--and by Jeremiah's time, the Israelities had forgotten the spiritual significance of circumcision even though they continued to do the physical mark.

The issue of circumcision is NOT about whether it was commanded, as that's clear from the text. What can be problematic, IMHO, is the claim that the practice of it was in any way THE means of showing children to automatically be in the Covenant if they had it

There was far more to being with God's people than being circumcised---for it was an outward sign of an inward reality...

Why did God require circumcision? It was a sign of obediance to him in all that matters. As a sign of belonging to his covenant people...once circumcised, there was no turning back. The man would be identified as a Jew forever...and as a symbol of "cutting off" the old life of sin, purifying one's heart and dedicating oneself to God. It was more than any other practice the way God's people seperated from their pagan neighbors......in Abraham's day. And this was essential to develop the pure worship of God.

Although other cultures used circumcision as a sign of entry into adulthood, only Israel used it as a sign of following God....though the practice in/of itself never gave one righteousness---as seen in Romans 4:3, Romans 2:24-26, and Jeremiah 9:24-26. For rituals did not earn any reward with Abraham. It was by faith alone.....as Genesis 12:1-14 tells of God's call to Abram when he was 75 yrs old....and the circumcision ceremony was introduced when he was 99years old. The outward symbols demonstrated inward trust/faith and as reminders of our faith--but by themselves, they could never bring justification. Nonetheless, to be considered apart of Israel in the OT, it was a BIG deal, (i.e., Exodus 12:43-45 , Leviticus 12:2-4, etc).

Much of the issue of circumcision also goes back to Joshua 5, where God required Joshua to circumcise all male before entering the land. For its interesting to see how those males were already citizens of Israel. However, the ones who entered the land were those who were children of the older Israelities who never entered in.

Illegal immigrants entering the U.S.A can give birth to children in the states, effectively making them "U.S Citizens".. even though they may not have all of the full benefits of the country at their disposal due to their background...and the things they must work through. Likewise, by "accident of birth" those males in Joshua 5 were already counted among the Hebrew Children, but in order to enter the Land as legitimate citizens of Israel, they HAD TO BE circumcized according to the LAW of Moses. Even though the children of the older generation of Israelities had fought in many battles during their time in the wilderness (Numbers 20-36, Deuteronomy 2-4, etc), its possible that many of the young men had never been circumcised. Joshua 5:5 makes clear that all of those men of military age died in the desert after leaving Egypt....and whereas all the people coming out of Egypt had been circumcised, those born in the desert during the journey from Egypt had not. Its also possible that the new/second generation also had children who were uncircumcisd at this time.

But their circumcision had nothing to do with their being noted as apart of God's people.

For another example, the first covenant community was Abraham's household. It did not include only his immediate family but also slaves and strangers. They were all members of the household BEFORE they were circumcised. Gen. 17:14 says: " And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he has broken my covenant." For in Genesis 17:1 (also seen in Acts 7:7-9 ), God was making a covenant, or contract, between Himself and Abraham.

The terms were simple: Abraham would obey God and circumcise all the males in his household----and interestingly, those also who were NON-Jewish as well...including servants like Eleazer of Damascus ( Genesis 15:1-3, Genesis 15 ).......which is an Arab nation the last I checked...and of course, with Ishmael--the father of the Arab Nations ( Genesis 16 , Genesis 17:19-21 , Genesis 21, Genesis 25:8-10, Genesis 25, Genesis 28:8-10, Genesis 36:2-4, 1 Chronicles 1:27-29, 1 Chronicles 1 Romans 9:7, Galatians 4:21-31)--him being circumcised as well..Genesis 17:22-24 Genesis 17

In order for a person be be CUT off from his people, it seems logical to conclude that he needs first to be a part of the people...and the.slaves and strangers in Abraham household were all member of Abraham's people BEFORE they were circumcised. IMHO, Circumcision did not play a role for them to be part of the household.

As explained earlier, in Joshua 5, all the uncircumcised people in the covenant community at the time (the children of Israel) were members of the people. Requiring circumcision in order to enter the Land had nothing to do with them already being members of the covenant community. The circumcision was to fulfill the requirement as a a sign of the covenant, not to become citizens of Israel....or demonstrate faith in the Lord. For even those outside of the Covenant Community demonstrated faith in the Lord on many occassions....like Jethro or Melchizedek and the Roman Centurion of Matthew 8.

Thankfully, it was never the case that those who wanted to be a part of the community of God/believers had to be circumcised in all cases...and even more thankful in light of what Christ has done in the NT. For after the Cross of Christ, circumcision takes on an entirely different revelation:

Galatians 5:6
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

And yet if one wished to be circumcised, there was still value going on in it if done unto the Lord.

It is likewise the same with children being Baptised.

Again, we understand that under the Abrahamic covenant, those who were born within the covenant community received the sign of the covenant as infants - and because the Abrahamic covenant remains in effect (with the sign of it having been changed - Romans 4 on what mattered to the Lord), it is logical to see that those who are born within the covenant community should be baptized as infants, just as they were formerly circumcised as infants......even though they will have to choose to be baptized later, just as the Hebrews were not circumcised in Joshua's time as children and yet part of the covenant on some level - but still having to be circumcised as adults.

And with infant baptism, we also see the fact that when children were brought to Yeshua by their parents for his blessing, the disciples tried to brush them aside (Mark 10:1316). But Jesus said, Permit the children to come to Me ... for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. There is no escaping that these children included babies (Luke 18:15) and Yeshua took them in His arms and began blessing them (Mark 10:16).

If the Lord did that for children, there seems to be no reason why we should not do so today.

Gxg (G²) · May 14, 2014

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
There were two very different views on this, from the very beginning really. The Eastern Churches (Orthodox) have different views than those in the Western Churches. The East explains that we are NOT guilty of Adam's sin, however, we DO suffer from the consequences of it.

Indeed - and within Jewish culture, there was the aspect that original sin was not the same as noting ancestral sin (which is what the Orthodox note when it comes to baptism and why we do so....something seen quite evidently when examining the Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources and more HERE /here in the book Early And Medieval Rituals And Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent ). Others saw Baptism as a means of connecting with/having the Holy Spirit come upon people rather than simply doing so out of a means of having sin being cleansed - and this is more than understandable when it comes to understanding that not all forms of Baptism are about Original Sin being dealt with.

The guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed, but the effects of being born in a state of spiritual separation from God (the degree of which can be debated) are present. Yes, they are born sinners, but no, they are guilty of committing a sin that would send them to Hell. ...and understandingAncestral Sin vs. Original Sin--and the essay details the vast divergence between western/Scholastic theology and Orthodox Patristic theology with regard to the sin of Adam.

Others even in the Evangelical world have noted this dynamic - such as Dr. Michael Heisner, more in The Naked Bible » Election, Salvation, Unbelief, and Eternal Security

And within this forum, there was a more in-depth discussion on the issue as seen in Jewish and Messianic perspectives on the original sin

etZion · May 14, 2014

jinc1019 said:
That's all great information, but I guess where I am still a little lost is in regards to how you see children of gentile believers in the covenant. Based on your earlier response, you stated (if I remember right) that infants of believing gentiles would be considered in the covenant based on the faith of the parents...but doesn't this mean we should administer the covenant sign of baptism (if it is indeed the covenant sign)?

Yes we should, however again I see no reason to do it as an infant, I do regard circumcision as a command to be done as an infant.

Why Do Messianic Jews Only Baptize Believers?

Christian

Christian

Christian

Christian

A Dirty Gentile

Contending for Biblical truth

Christian

Christian

Contending for Biblical truth

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Senior Veteran

A Dirty Gentile

Christian

Christian

Christian

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Senior Veteran

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

A Dirty Gentile

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency