NEW COVENANT CIRCUMCISION.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE opinion has obtained with many that baptism comes in the place of, or is the antitype of, circumcision. As this is the foundation of many errors in the theological world it needs to be corrected. When circumcision was first given to Abraham the Lord called it a token of the covenant between them. Gen. xvii, 11. Says Paul, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had," &c. Rom. iv, 11. Thus the token and seal are identical. On the present dispensation he says, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter." Rom. ii, 28, 29. Then the sign or seal of the covenant in this dispensation is inward, in the Spirit, of the heart, and not outward. With this agree the words of Paul in Eph. i, 13, 14. "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession." The "earnest of our inheritance" is identical with the token of the Abrahamic covenant, for we receive the inheritance by being children of Abraham. Again, "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed to the day of redemption." Eph. iv, 30. And again, "Who [God] hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 2 Cor. i, 22. Col. ii, 11, 12, has been supposed to prove that circumcision and baptism are identical. It reads, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." That they are not identical is fully proved by this passage, for the circumcision of this text is "made without hands," whereas baptism is administered by the hands of the administrator, and in this respect cannot be contrasted with the circumcision of the past dispensation. But it fully agrees with Rom. ii, 28, 29, which affirms that circumcision is not outward. But baptism is truly an outward ordinance; therefore it is not the circumcision of the New Testament. J. H. W.