Skip to main content

Romans 2:25/The Nature of the Sign

"For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

     This verse from Romans helps us to understand the nature of the covenant signs in the Bible--circumcision and baptism--as well as the sacramental meals.  There are two extremes to which people gravitate when it comes to signs in the Bible.  Some downplay them, ignore them, and neglect them.  This is usually a reaction to the other extreme.  On the other side of the spectrum are those who idolize the signs.  They invest saving power into the signs that God never intended the signs to carry.  

     Signs are exactly that--signs.  Their very nature is to point to something greater.  Too often we look at baptism and we think that the very act of placing water on a person (or dunking them, if that floats your boat) mystically does something.  Some people believe it removes sin.  Some believe that it unites you to Christ, and therefore has a part in saving you.  There are many different interpretations, but they all miss the mark because they miss the point.

     Covenantal signs point to the author of the covenant.  Circumcision and baptism have different particular symbolism, but they also have great continuity and similarities.  Romans 2 makes it very clear that circumcision (and therefore baptism) does absolutely nothing to save a person.  The signs are not mystical.  They are relational, as Doug Wilson points out.  The sign points to the Person who has extended the covenant to us.  As long as we are faithful to the covenant (in the New Covenant, faithfulness is by true, saving faith), we can claim the blessings of the covenant.  If we cease to be faithful, the sign will only condemn us further.

     The signs are not worthless and negligible, however.  Those who overreact to baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation are also wrong.  Paul declares that circumcision did have value if they were faithful to the covenant.  The signs serve to encourage us, to challenge us, and to sanctify us as we use them properly.  They are the gracious gifts of God to a species that is prone to forgetting.  He has given us tangible ways to remember the covenant, and that certainly has worth.

     The sign without the reality is worthless.  The reality without the sign is lacking.  The reality with the sign is optimal.     
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more