Embedded Files
Since Catholics and Protestants see baptism as circumcision we should point out Israel was commanded to be circumcised before eating the Passover and before baptism crossing the Red Sea. Since performed at different times they probably aren't the same spiritually. After crossing the Red Sea those born in the wilderness were not baptized. Thus baptism in the Sea was not required for all generations, it was for those enslaved in Egypt. Circumcision was for all generations. Christian baptism is for all generations.
The story shows many distinctions between circumcision, the Red Sea baptism, and Christian baptism.
Some believe baptism is "the circumcision made without hands" spoken of by Paul.
The idea baptism and circumcision are the same thing is doubtful since they occurred separately upon the same people. Women crossed through the Red Sea but were not circumcised, so that one is for all genders and the other for males only. Yet, some verses speak saying "all the people were circumcised", thus the term people is community related. Plus, one is a one time event and the others generational. Some in the community aren't required to keep every commandment, but the community isn't whole until each segment keeps its part. The people were all circumcised when the required males were circumcised..
Circumcision does not add you to a people, it is because you are part of a people. All who are not circumcised shall be cut off from among the people. One cannot be cutoff without first being a part. Circumcision is a sign of identity. On the other hand baptism is not because you are part of a people, but to make you a part of a different people. Baptism brings us out of an old community and into a new one. Israel was taken from the Egyptian community and made their own nation. They were a family but would become a nation. Babies brought through the cloud and sea were made part of a new community with a different covenant.
Jesus used the term "people" from prophecy, "this peoples hearts are waxed gross", where the community as a whole is considered, it doesn't include infants because infants hearts aren't corrupted, and I am sure the people had a few with clear hearts. It is a term of general rule.
Babes were likely not included in the context of I Cor.10, where the context is those who ate the same spiritual meat. Those passing through the sea as infants would not understand the spiritual meat until older and were not held accountable when Israel sinned, 24,000 falling in the wilderness. Even when Moses made the serpent for them to look upon, infants wouldn't look upon it in faith. Infants simply weren't accountable yet. The serpent was synonymous with us looking to Christ when baptized.
On the other hand, those crossing the Red Sea as infants could be taught and become accountable as the years passed in the wilderness. Yet, no newborn babies were baptized in the wilderness. Thus, the Red Sea crossing is not a precedent for subsequent newborn baptism in the era of Israel.
It is obvious the Red Sea crossing was not a precedent for infant baptism, and was never meant to be. It was not a precedent for Israel and not taught in scripture for the church.
Since the serpent story is used in connection to faith and baptism in John 3, it is unlikely baptism was meant for infants.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
In baptism one trusts in Christ.
Yet, a person might still say crossing the sea as infants is a precedent for baptizing infants, so that faith may come later. This section will address the precedent theory. Babes born after the Red Sea crossing were not baptized in the wilderness for at least 40 years, then crossing the Jordan may be seen as baptism theoretically. Then no more infant baptisms in Israel for centuries. they were in the wilderness circumcised, and were circumcised in Israel.
The Red Sea baptism had a distinct purpose, different from John's baptism and Christian baptism .Baptism freed from slavery. Once freed from Egypt they had no need for baptism for that purpose. Since infants were in Egypt they may be included, In Christian baptism babes have no personal sins and can't repent.
Different purposes can change groups involved.
The precedent theoretically created in baptism in the sea for infants would be theoretically counteracted where no children were saved in Noah's Ark which was the anti-type of Christ and baptism. Thus water salvation wouldn't always be a precedent for babies. Each example must be understood on its own theoretical history.
Circumcision was a sign and a seal, baptism was an act that produced freedom. In Noah's case the water was a baptism producing freedom from a world of sin and a cleansing so Noah and family would be justified. In the Red Sea crossing baptism produced freedom from the Egyptian army. In Christian baptism is freedom from personal sins.
Some believe freedom from sinning, which is false, but freedom from the power of sin, as those who sin are marked for death. Ezekiel 18 says the soul that sins shall die. We are made free from the Law of sin and death.
Our freedom is from the legal effects of sin, when we are held accountable by God.
Circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham's righteousness when God proclaimed his righteousness. Wearing a sign of another man't righteousness doesn't save us if we ourselves do not have our own life of faith. Like wearing a cross around our necks in honor of Christ's righteousness doesn't save without a life of faith that goes beyond ornamental Christianity.
Jesus declared he who sins is a slave/servant of sin. Baptism releases from that slavery through the process God ordained. Noah wasn't saved by water but through water. God can choose freedom to be through water using his power in unison with the water. It wasn't water alone since his power parted the waters. Likewise we are saved through water in unison with God's power in a spiritual circumcision.
Nevertheless, circumcision was a sign of freedom already declared 400 years earlier through Abraham, it was an ongoing sign to Israel.
The Circumcised were required to eat of the Passover, and all the males who passed through the sea were circumcised They had a sign of Abraham's faith but had to live their own faith in crossing the sea. Male children though circumcised, did not eat the passover, yet they were brought through the sea.
So, there is precedent that a babe involved in one ordinance may be excluded from another, thus babes can be excluded from Christian baptism.
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
In this case it is speaking of the head of a household, "let all his males", a reference to the father's requirement to have his children and servants circumcised.Note: there is no requirement to baptize the father's babes.
Since many Jews are Christians, a circumcision and baptism on the 8th day would be counter. Moses commanded circumcision the 8th day, replacing this with baptism would exclude Jews the liberty to circumcist their males. Many church fathers commanded 8th day baptism. A dogmatic command not from Christ.
Israel was required to be circumcised before eating the Passover in Egypt. All were circumcised who came out of Egypt, except perhaps some Egyptians who may have come with them. If baptism was the same as circumcision then there would be no need to perform an equal ordinance by passing through the sea. There is an order,
circumcision
Killing the lamb for blood
eating the Passover
Crossing the sea
It could be argued based upon this order that one must be circumcised before being baptized, but we know from Acts 15 and Galations that would be a false precedent. Just as applying the Red Sea crossing of infants is a false precedent for today.
They ate the Passover before crossing the sea and salvation from the death of the firstborn through the blood was proven as they ate that night.
Before crossing the sea in a baptism they had come to faith in the blood. They saw it firsthand. Abraham's offspring had been circumcising hundreds of years without eating a Passover, so circumcision and Passover and baptism were to be kept separate.
Also, baptism in the cloud and sea did not remove the necessity of circumcision among later generations, as if a New Covenant had been formed. The Abrahemic covenant was still intact. Plus the next generations did not go through baptism until the days of John the Baptist. Only circumcision remained from the Red Sea till John.
Spiritual leaders and priests did receive different types of washings. Individuals went through washing. Yet, crossing the sea, John's baptism, and Christian baptism are not individual commands as if individuals get their own commandment, but is a command for the community as a whole, for the entire community being freed..
It is easy to figure out baptism and circumcision are different events for different purposes. Christian teachers should not use the precedent of one for the precedent for the other. Many have used baptism as Old Testament circumcision, but this is a theological mistake, for they are different.
Jos 5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
Jos 5:3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
Jos 5:4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
Jos 5:5 Now all the people (Only males)that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.
Jos 5:6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
Jos 5:7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.
Jos 5:8 And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.
The term "all the people" is referencing only the males being circumcised, but is used to show community wide compliance. This phrase is taken in context as a reference to those being discussed, it is only a reference to the males. Just as in I Corinthians 1:1-10 where it says "all were baptized in the cloud and in the sea", the term "all" may not be a reference to babies. It may be only a reference to those of age, since only older and mature could eat of the spiritual meat mentioned.
Most of those circumcised after 40 years in the wilderness were not infants. It doesn't matter even if infants are circumcised, if baptism and circumcision aren't the same thing. One does not necessarily transfer to the other. Adults in Egypt sinned by conscience since they were not under Moses' law yet. Their infants had not sinned under their own conscience.
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jn 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
If baptism in the sea was for freedom from sin then it would correlate to our baptism today, since babies were baptized for freedom from Egypt, not freedom from their sins. They had no consciousness of sin. This implies you can't really argue baptism to Moses is the same as our baptism. They are similar in some respects, but not all.
Those circumcised after the wilderness were not baptized, they were not born in Egypt and were never enslaved to the Egyptians, thus babies enslaved would be baptized and those born outside of slavery were not. This would be a precedent for Christian baptism, those not enslaved from personal sin would be free from baptism. The purpose wouldn't be to remove original sin or all generations would have need of infants passing through the sea. We can conclude those infants baptized in the sea would be for their freedom from Egypt. If included in the baptism.
This is reflected in the Pharisees answer to Jesus in John 8:33, they were never enslaved to any man and were born free.
It doesn't matter if babies were baptized in the cloud and sea, for they were under bondage in Egypt. They were under Pharoah's edict to kill the new born males and under the laws of servitude as they grew. They were set free from Egypt through the ten plagues as Pharoah agreed to allow them to go. Complete freedom came when the armies were destroyed in the sea. They were also under an evil law in Egypt, and under such a law would not accurately understand sin. The Egyptians had a moral law, but it wasn't from God., it did teach things like murder and theft were wrong.
The Catholic argument for the baptism of babies falls apart since the Jewish babies were not born under bondage to an immoral law, they were free to serve under a good law. Jesus was born under law, but did not need baptism as a baby.
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. al 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Jewish law did not create a situation where babes were born needing or receiving baptism. It was a grace later defined as they sinned. The law condemned their sin and pronounced guilt. It was then they needed Christ and needed cleansing.
Jesus declared that those who commit sins are slaves. Infants are not slaves legally. Under Jewish law they became legally accountable for sin at age 12/13. God likely holds them accountable earlier for some sins they know about. Yet, it is certain babes are not held accountable for what they can't know in Jewish thought.
Not only must one know sin to be held accountable, those sinning must know truth to be set free.
Joh 8:32 AndG2532 ye shall knowG1097 theG3588 truth,G225 andG2532 theG3588 truthG225 shall make you free.G1659 G5209
Freedom in Christ requires knowledge of truth first. Of course the Jews of Christ's day rejected they were slaves to sin. Before a person receives Christian baptism they must first become a servant to sin. Since baptism is to set us free, there is no purpose in baptizing babes who are born free. The Jews knew they were born free, but neglected to see the bondage they sinned into.
Joh 8:33 They answeredG611 him,G846 We beG2070 Abraham'sG11 seed,G4690 andG2532 were never in bondageG1398 G4455 to any man:G3762 howG4459 sayestG3004 thou,G4771 Ye shall be madeG1096 free?G1658
The Jews of Christ's day were born free. As they matured and broke the laws of God they became servants.
Joh 8:34 JesusG2424 answeredG611 them,G846 Verily,G281 verily,G281 I sayG3004 unto you,G5213 WhosoeverG3956 committethG4160 sinG266 isG2076 the servantG1401 of sin.G266
Joh 8:35 AndG1161 theG3588 servantG1401 abidethG3306 notG3756 inG1722 theG3588 houseG3614 for ever:G1519 G165 but theG3588 SonG5207 abidethG3306 ever.G1519 G165
Christ's clear theology is we become enslaved when we commit sin, not when we are born, original sin has no standing to Christ even if it were true as a doctrine, which it probably isn't.
Being baptized for the remission of sins is for deliverance, freedom, or liberty from sin and its legal effects. Baptism doesn't keep us from sinning if we choose to. It doesn't remove original sin as Catholics claimed, it sets us free from our own sins and the bondage created.
In Noah's day no infants were saved in baptism, none entered the ark.
In Moses day they were, they crossed the Red Sea. (Though it isn't guaranteed they were included in the idea of baptism)
Both scenarios could be used as precedents for today so we have to be careful to make the choice described in the New Testament.
G859
ἄφεσις
aphesis
Total KJV Occurrences: 17
remission, 9
Mat_26:28, Mar_1:4, Luk_1:77, Luk_3:3, Luk_24:47, Act_2:38, Act_10:43, Heb_9:22, Heb_10:18
forgiveness, 6
Mar_3:29, Act_5:31, Act_13:38, Act_26:18, Eph_1:7, Col_1:14
deliverance, 1
Luk_4:18
liberty, 1
Luk_4:18 (2)
.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse