Genesis 17:11-14

"And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

"It shall be a token of the covenant ..." Circumcision was not the covenant, but a token of the covenant already existing. After the Jewish manner of thinking, circumcision was elevated to a status in which it actually took the place of the covenant. Charles Hodge stresses this in the remarkable paragraph below:

"The Jews regarded circumcision as in some way securing their salvation. That they did so regard it may be proved, not only from such passages in the N.T. where the sentiment is implied, but also by the direct assertion of their own writers. Such assertions have been gathered in abundance from their own works by Eisenmenger, Shoettgen, and others. For example, Rabbi Menachem, in his commentary on the Book of Moses (folio 43, column 3), says, "Our Rabbis have said, No circumcised person will see hell."[17]

Such views, of course, were totally mistaken. The token was intended as a visible sign in one's flesh of his obligations under God's covenant; and the mere exhibition of the sign was never intended to take the place of the duties that the sign indicated. "The rite was essential as the ritualistic confirmation of the determination to walk maturely before God (Genesis 17:11). It was no substitute for it."[18]

CIRCUMCISION

Whitelaw's list of purposes of circumcision included the idea that it was intended to "foreshadow Christian baptism."[19] However, the resemblances between baptism and circumcision are far less extensive than many suppose.

The similarities:

1. It was mandatory for all (the males) who belonged to Abram's posterity, and baptism is mandatory for all who WISH to become Christians, men and women alike, there being neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.
   
2. One who refused to comply with the requirement was rejected and cut off forever from God's people; and the same may be said of baptism.
   
3. It did not take the place of obedience to God's commandments, despite the fact of the rite itself being a required response to God; baptism also cannot relieve the Christian of his duties as a member of the community of faith, despite the ceremony itself being a required response to God.
   
4. It stood at the gateway of entrance by birth into the Abrahamic covenant; baptism is the initiation of the Christian into the family of God. He is baptized "into Christ."

   Another similarity, derived not from the Word of God but from the actions of men, is seen in the Jewish custom of naming their sons on the occasion of their circumcision, and the christening of babies when they are "baptized"(?) in infancy. This of course is contrary to the Word of God.
   

5. The "cutting off" in the rite of circumcision is similar in implication to the burial of the old man in baptism. In both, the purity and morality of the life that should follow were indicated.
   

The differences:

1. Circumcision was for males only; Christian baptism is for ALL Christians.
   
2. Circumcision was performed on infants that were eight days old; Christian baptism, in the Scriptural sense, cannot be administered upon any persons whomsoever, except those of accountable age who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who have repented of their sins, and have confessed Christ before a group of people.
   
3. Circumcision had absolutely no connection whatever with the forgiveness of sins; Christian baptism is for the purpose of receiving the remission of sins.
   
4. In circumcision, the initiative for the performance of the rite of necessity existed apart from the one circumcised; whereas, in Christian baptism, the Lord said, "Repent and have yourselves baptized (Acts 2:38), showing that in Christianity, the initiative must derive from the person being baptized.
   
5. Circumcision had nothing at all to do with Abraham being justified, because that took place BEFORE the rite was even given; however, baptism is a factor in the Christian's justification, in the sense that he cannot be justified while refusing to submit to it. Note: God had not commanded Abraham to be circumcised PRIOR TO his justification, but God has commanded all people of this dispensation to be baptized, nor can their justification occur if they refuse, neglect, or ignore that commandment. In view of these differences and others that might be cited, one may only deplore the error of the affirmation that, "All that Paul had to say about circumcision he would say equally about baptism!"[20] Paul indeed compared circumcision and baptism, but in that comparison, the necessity of putting off the old man with his sinful deeds was the point under consideration.
   
6. Circumcision was merely a "token" of the covenant, whereas baptism into Christ is a most essential element of the Christian covenant itself. Circumcision was only a token, but baptism is more than that, and it is never referred to as "a sign" or "a token" in the Bible, despite the frequency with which human writers use such expressions.