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.     

Comments

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, let me clarify what I mean when

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, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary