Circumcision

Dr. Couch, what is the significance of circumcision to the Jews? Why were the servants in Abraham's house circumcised? Some use this issue to say that Gentiles should be circumcised and that it proves that the church is part of the covenant from the beginning.

ANSWER: Circumcision was a token or a sign of the Covenant God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:11) but too, the blessing of the Covenant spilled over to all who were in the household of the Jews, such as servants, whether they were Jewish or Gentiles. That is "All that is born in your house, or bought with money of any foreigner (Gentile)" (vv. 12-13). "They must needs be circumcised" (v. 13).

The Rabbis noted "Slaves reared in the patriarch's home had a feeling of attachment to their masters." This included even the child of a slave. The Rabbis noted that the Covenant extended its blessing to those who were touched by the Jews, such as the servants.

But it is a stretch to say that this becomes a type of the church being a part of the covenant automatically. The church is blessed by the New Covenant that is an extension of the Blessing aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. But this is not because of circumcision. Those in the church today must believe in Christ. The church is not automatically a part of the Covenant. But you cannot go the opposite direction and extend the church back to the Abrahamic Covenant, thus creating one big people of faith, as some of the Covenant guys would like to do.

The blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant is not automatic. Abraham had to believe what God said in order to be justified himself (15:6).

Circumcision had two big purposes. It gave to those who were circumcised a health factor by the cutting away of the foreskin. This protected both the husband and his wife in intercourse. That cleanliness factor became a picture of cleansing in salvation, making the recipient seen as holy in God's sight. Physical circumcision is not ordered in the New Testament but there is a spiritual circumcision mentioned in Col. 2:9-13.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (3/11)

Real and True Jews

Dr. Couch, what is a "real" or "true" Jew, as mentioned by some translations (such as the RSV) on Romans 2:28-29?  It would seem to me that a Jew is a Jew, and all Jews would be real or true by birth. ANSWER:  The translators of the NAS do not add the words "real" or "true" to the passage. It simply reads: "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not be the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."    The amillennial and covenant theologians wrongly think that Paul is saying that God is finished with the Jews as a people. But, they argue, that Gentiles are now Jews in spirit and have replaced Israel as the people of God.    But they completely miss Paul's point. This entire section begins with verse 17 where we see Paul is addressing the Jewish people. He starts off: "But if you bear the name Jew, and rely upon the Law and boast in God, ..." Paul continues the "You Jews ..." through almost the entire section. "You who boast in the Law ..." "Circumcision is of value, if you ..." Paul continues his argument though he changes to the third person from verses 27-29, but his point is the same.    The Jews were trying to say they were favored with God simply because they were Jews by birth. This is not true. They had to be "believing Jews," as Jews who were trusting in God, and, who were embracing Christ when they realized that He was their Messiah, and that He had died for their sins. Otherwise, simply being a Jew by birth, and being circumcised as a Jew, meant nothing!    Circumcision was of value if they kept the Law. If they did not keep the Law, but were transgressors, then "your circumcision meant nothing … it became uncircumcision" (v. 25). The physical Jew had to be a believing Jew, "one inwardly" (v. 29) and one who was circumcised in the heart not simply outwardly.    God still has promises and plans for the physical Jew, the one who is of the generation of Jews. But too, they had to be believing Jews, if not, they were not saved. There are still advantages for the people of Israel (3:1-2) but if they do not trust God "their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?" (v. 3).  No, of course not! "May it never be!" (v. 4).    Paul makes an important and final point on the subject in 11:28. "From the standpoint of the gospel they (the Jews) are enemies (the Jews) for your sake (the Gentiles), but from the standpoint of God's choice (His election) they (the Jews) are beloved (in His eyes) for the sake of the (Patriarchal) fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob); for the gifts (of God) and (His) calling (His election) are irrevocable (unchangeable)."    God has called forth the Jews for His purposes and He will not go back on His promises!    Woodrow Kroll adds:    "Paul says that two things are necessary to be truly Jewish: (1) to be born of Abraham through Isaac (that circumcision that is outward in the flesh); and (2) to be spiritually in tune with Abraham's God (that circumcision that is inward in the heart or spirit). As the apostle Paul is using the word, no one can claim to be Jewish who is not born of Abraham through his son Isaac. But to the requirement of the circumcision of the heart. … The only true Jew is one who is a Jew by race and a believer by God's grace. Thus Paul concludes that mere physical birth alone cannot make a Jew righteous." (Mal Couch, gen. ed. The Book of Romans. Woodrow Kroll. AMG, 35-36)    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (12/10)

Mixing the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant

Dr. Couch, is there a mixing between the Mosaic covenant (the Law) with the New covenant? It seems that is the case in Deuteronomy 30, especially verse 6, where it is mentioned that someday God would "circumcise their hearts and the hearts of your descendants to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul in order that you may live." ANSWER:  Verse 6 is a preview of the coming of the New covenant, but this is not a mixing of the two covenants. Moses gives to Israel an order of what God is doing with the nation. (1) When God is finished bringing the blessing and the cursing on Israel (v. 1), (2) Then Israel will return to the Lord and obey Him with all their hearts. (3) Then they will return to the land (v. 5), and (4) God will circumcise their heart to love Him (v. 6). (5) God will afflict their enemies (v. 7), and (6) They shall prosper (v. 9). This will happen (7) WHEN they obey the Lord their God, keep His statutes, and turn to Him with all their heart and soul (v. 10).    Actually, there is a contrast between the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-37). The New covenant "is not like the covenant (the Mosaic covenant) which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke ..." (v. 32).    The New covenant replaced the "old" covenant, the Mosaic covenant, as mentioned by the writer of Hebrews who said: "When God speaks of the New covenant, He has made the first (the Mosaic) obsolete (palaioo, paleontology, to make old) and growing old [and it is] ready to disappear" (Heb. 8:13).     The apostle Paul makes it clear we are no longer under the law. "The law was our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (under the law)" (Gal. 3:24-25). And, "by the works of the law no flesh will be justified in [God's] sight ..." (Rom. 3:20).    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch (7-10)

Is Baptism Replacing Circumcision?

Dr. Couch, how does dispensationalism differ with the Reformed folks on infant baptism? And is baptism replacing circumcision? 

 

    ANSWER: The heart of dispensationalism is to take the Bible at face value, in its normal grammatical-historical sense. Dispensationalism believes in all the rules for solid hermeneutics but the Reformed people do not. They allegorize second coming prophetic passages, for the most part. Dispensationalists are consistent with the issues of "Progressive revelation, normal interpretation, and studying the Word of God by "context, context, context"! Depensationalism is not a system, it is "a way of life" in that you just take the Bible in its normal sense. Israel means Israel and not the church. Rapture means a "going up," not Christ "coming down" to reign. If you know up from down you are a dispensationalist. The church goes up in the rapture; Christ comes down to rule o­n the Davidic throne over Israel. Read what was told to Mary in Luke 1:30-33. Christ will be reigning over the house of David. The house of David is not the church! Anyone who thinks the house of David is the church is not reading their Bible. When the OT says God brings back the Jews to Jerusalem, this is not the gathering of the church! IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS! Now to your questions: 

    Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, though it was also later after the time of Abraham included as part of the Law system. It was not a sign of salvation, as baptism is. Baptism does not replace circumcision because that would cut out 50% of the population being baptized, women! 

    As for infant baptism passages, you cannot find any! Read Acts 2:38-39 carefully. (This is what dispensationalists do!) The passage urges the Jews to do something actual and literal. "Repent (individually) each o­ne of you for the forgiveness of your sins." This is a conscious act. This "promise" of forgiveness "is for you and your children." The promise includes the action of the o­ne receiving forgiveness—repenting. You cannot foist that blessing of forgiveness over o­nto your children, your infants, unless they can consciously "repent." And they cannot! 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of Cornelius and his household. Peter said when in that house "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). The Spirit fell o­n "all those who were listening to the message," not o­n the little infants who could not process that message. (1) those who believed, (2) received the Spirit, and (3) were baptized. 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of the jailer at Philippi. He asked Paul, "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). THERE IT IS! INFANT BAPTISM within the household! Keep reading. Paul and Silas preached the word of the Lord "to him together with all who were in his household." The word "was preached and heard" by the household. This would not be small infants who could not process the message! Note verse 34: "they" in the house rejoiced greatly, "having believed in God with his whole household." The Greek is saying "the whole household" believed along with the jailer. 

    Infant baptism will not fly! Unfortunately, the Reformed, following Luther and Calvin, just carried infant over from Catholicism, though in some ways, not with the same heavy punch as is in Romanism. It is unfortunate too, that they do not admit this. While I am most grateful of what these men did for us, I do not follow them blindly, as many Reformed people do. It is almost as if, "Since Calvin said it, it must be true." 

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch