O.T. Circumcision a foreshadow of N.T. Water Baptism

[garee]

I see nothing of a 'bloody husband' in that verse.

That's not a parable, it isn't even an allegory. It's actual history.

It would seem you have another idea of what a parable is and what it is designed to do. Genesis 1 starts out as a parable by comparing the things seen the temporal to reveal the unseen eternal Creator . Therefore defining the word good as a parable in respect to God not seen. . And God saw that is was good.

The word of God does not lead us in realm of temporal things, but it points to those of true eternal interest of the Spirit of Christ..This creation will go up in smoke and the old will not be remembered or ever come to mind.

The prescription below used in interpreting parables is applied to the whole word of God not only where see and prompts... a parable said this or that.. Without parables Christ spoke not to everyone (the multitude). Hiding the spiritual understanding from natural mankind.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.2 Corinthians 4:18

That error of literalizing has sapped the life of parables and has taught by implication that God had no higher motive in giving the Old Testament than to write a history of the Jews, and no greater purpose in the opening of Genesis than to inform us of the manner of earth's creation as biology. Forfeiting the spiritual unseen understanding.

Without parables the word of God (Christ)spoke not.

Would you consider Christ as our "bloody husband" in that historically true parable or do you dismiss the whole section as not having any spiritual value in defining the ceremonial law ? Who said that history cannot be used as a parable hiding the spiritual meaning from the lost? Those who ignore the signified language of parables in exchange for a literal when both are used as one ?

Moses in the parable below violated the same warning he was to speak to the Pharaoh in respect to the Passover. Passover is represented by circumcision and the blood applied in the door ways. It spoke of our bloody husband beforehand just as we are informed in 1 Peter 1:11

Moses had ignored the ceremonial law that pointed ahead to our bloody husband and put his own life in jeopardy.

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.Exodus 4:22 -26

Actually it had to do with purification/sanctification to the priesthood. (v.1)

Yes the ceremonial Christian baptism the same as is applied to a kingdom of priest today.

The faithless Jews were discussing why Jesus from the tribe of Judah was baptizing as a desire to enter the ministry as a kingdom of Priests By law he was forbidden.

Yes the same purpose today under the new order a kingdom of priests. Men and woman both allowed to participate in ceremonies send us out with the gospel.. The time of reformation had come the old order of Levites used as a parable for the time previous.

Jesus didn't become High Priest until His death...

Christ is the High priest continually with beginning or end.

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Hebrew7:3

Three times the Holy Spirit mentions the new order of Melchezedek.(Christianity) No longer after the order of Levites the flesh of Jews .Again the time of reformation has come over two thousand years ago.

We are part of the new manner after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 5:10Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 

[crossnote]

You want to toss out all of God as God is explained in the bulk of scripture (OT)and only keep a small portion (NT). You want to change God for a new one who suits better. Truth has more beauty and glory as is told us in the scripture you gave us.

I thought you were all for keeping God's laws. Forgive me for assuming such since I see you are bearing false witness of me and my motives. 'I want to toss out out all of God and exchange Him for a new one''? That's quite an accusation, you may have well called me a heretick.
This exchange has lost all seriousness and it is obviously an exercise in futility. Goodbye.

 

[garee]

Not water baptism but the New Birth.

For Israel natural birth was followed by circumcision, which was a removal the "the flesh" (actually and metaphorically): I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh...

Under the New Covenant, circumcision is equal to the new heart which God gives to the one who is born again. Not water baptism which follows regeneration.
Then will I sprinkle clean water [the baptism with Holy Spirit] upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: [regeneration] and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, [spiritual circumcision] and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit [the Holy Spirit] within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezek 36:25-27)

I would compare the Passover with the blood around the door frames, to circumcision . A sign to haste to let the people go and preach the gospel, as a kingdom of priests.

Exodus 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover.

Living water is used to represent the purifying work of the Spirit. Those who have faith and a desire to spread the gospel can perform the cerinimoinal duties of a priest baptizing others that desire to be a part of the ministry. Not a sign to confirm a person is filled with the Holy Spirit.

Signs are for sign seekers. They in that way have no faith.

 

[Wansvic]

Not water baptism but the New Birth.

For Israel natural birth was followed by circumcision, which was a removal the "the flesh" (actually and metaphorically): I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh...

Under the New Covenant, circumcision is equal to the new heart which God gives to the one who is born again. Not water baptism which follows regeneration.
Then will I sprinkle clean water [the baptism with Holy Spirit] upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: [regeneration] and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, [spiritual circumcision] and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit [the Holy Spirit] within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezek 36:25-27)

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration (water baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost baptism), whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:4-7

 

[Blik]

I thought you were all for keeping God's laws. Forgive me for assuming such since I see you are bearing false witness of me and my motives. 'I want to toss out out all of God and exchange Him for a new one''? That's quite an accusation, you may have well called me a heretick.
This exchange has lost all seriousness and it is obviously an exercise in futility. Goodbye.

You are right. I was exaggerating to make a point, and it was stretching entirely too far. When people say the new covenant cancels instead of adds, it makes me want to get up to yell and shout about not changing God's ways. I have the same reaction to people saying we have to dispose of how God related to us for the 4,000 years the OT tells of. I went too far.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Well known patriarchs such as Abraham and Moses were considered righteous because of their faith in God. Both men were used mightily of God. Yet, if they had been disobedient in their covenantal responsibilities the Bible makes it clear that they were in jeopardy of losing their salvation.

Is it possible to have faith and not keep one's covenantal responsibilities? Abraham had himself and all of his males circumcised the same day God commanded him. But Abraham was declared righteous by faith, before his circumcision (Genesis 15). We come to faith in Christ and are saved before water baptism, but how can we live unbaptised once we learn this is God's will for us?

God commanded Abraham to circumcise all male children:

But the female children (like the males) were saved by grace. Circumcision is and was simply an external symbol of what is happening in a regenerated heart - removal of the odious and shameful barrier which prevents the proper sensitivity and function of the organ.

The following circumcision commentary is very interesting: “Its significance is, that the cutting of the outside flesh of the organ of generations denotes corruption as inherent in us from birth, and transmitted by our parents, and symbolizes our severance from nature's defilement to a state of consecrated fellowship with God. Jehovah consecrated the nation to Himself; and whatsoever male was not circumcised on the eighth day was liable to be "cut off." Moses had neglected to circumcise his son, owing to Zipporah's repugnance to it, as a rite not generally adopted in the East, even by the descendants of Abraham and Keturah, the Midianites. The Lord sought to kill him, which he and his wife were divinely admonished arose from the neglect. She took a sharp stone or flint (compare Josh 5:2,8), the
implement sanctioned by patriarchal usage as more sacred than metal (as was the Egyptian usage also in preparing mummies), and cut off her son's foreskin, and cast it at Moses' feet, saying, "a bloody husband art thou to me," i.e., by this blood of my child I have recovered thee as my husband, and sealed our union again. (Ex 4:25).

The bible isn't really clear on who was behind the uncircumcision in this case. Zipporah tends to get blamed, but the responsibility for circumcision really falls to the man as the head of the house, even if she did find it repugnant. A Jewish tradition holds that Moses' agreement with Jethro to marry his daughter Zipporah was that their firstborn son was to remain uncircumcised. This would explain why only the firstborn son needed circumcising, why the angel came only when they left Jethro's household (not simply after the eighth day of the child's life), and why Zipporah was well able to perform the procedure (which would have been strange if she found it so repugnant).

God used the event for good, as it also clearly demonstrates that circumcision wasn't to be an elitist rite for males, as there was no prohibition on females circumcising - what was important was obedience.

Upon entering the promised land, Joshua performed circumcisions at the hill of Gilgal. Gilgal means rolling -"rolling" away of the reproach of uncircumcision.

Further evidence that circumcision was a sign and symbol of what happened in the heart. Most of the uncleanliness God rolled away at Gibeath Haaraloth would have been from males who were older than 8 days. However, if the people's hearts were circumcised, I doubt anything could have stopped them physically circumcising all their males when they found that this was God's will.

You posted some interesting information about water baptism and physical circumcision, but I don't think these are or were a basis for salvation (or the loss of it).

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Actually NT baptism is a symbol to the church, what OT circumcision was to the jews

Both represented cleansing, As the one who went through these ceremonies were “symbolically” made clean and seperated from the “filthy sinners”

As paul said in Col 2. We who are Gods children are made spiritually clean by the SPIRITUAL circumcision made not by the hand of man but THE HANDS OF GOD as we are BURIED with him in BAPTISM in the WORKING OF GOD who raised him from the dead.

News flash

1. Your pastor is not the hands of God
2. Your pastor did not raise Jesus frpm the dead
3. It is the SPIRITUAL baptism or SPIRITUAL circumcision performed by God (namely the Holy Spirit) which cleanses us and washes all our sins away. Not some

So what is the answer?

NO! OT circumcsion is NOT the foreshadow of NT baptism.

(In fact. Arron and All his sons were baptised in the river Jordan, as well as all priests. And as a gentile I believe they had to be circiumcised AND baptized to formally be considered part of the jewish faith

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Interesting but isnt circumicision of the heart what takes place. I dont know that I got a new name after baptism but I suppose I was reborn a christian and needed a new name, as I was baptised in the name of Jesus. With circumcision I think its a bit of a stretch to relate it directly to water baptism because only males could be circumcised. Hmm

I agree. Those who argue that infants should be baptised (or christened) because this was when males in the Old Testament were circumcised come into difficulties explaining why female believers should be baptised, as physical circumcision cannot apply to females.

Although I know that women need to be baptised after their seven days of uncleanness on a regular basis in judaism, they go to a mikveh. Am not sure where that is in scripture, but aparently in judaism it has all these rules and regulations attached to it, the water must be fresh, not from the tap, it most be so deep, it must cover your entire body, you cant have any dirt under your fingernails, etc etc.

I agree that both circumcision and baptism are physical symbols indicating cleanliness and purity. Deuteronomy 10:16 speaks of the circumcising of "the foreskin of the heart", and 1 Peter 3:21 contrasts the "removal of dirt from the body" with "the pledge of a clear conscience toward God."

Actually NT baptism is a symbol to the church, what OT circumcision was to the jews

This makes sense. I think there are different symbols of the same thing. As circumcision removes an odious and unclean part of the flesh, so baptism is symbollic of being cleansed by immersion in Christ's blood.

1. Your pastor is not the hands of God

Amen.

2. Your pastor did not raise Jesus frpm the dead

Amen.

3. It is the SPIRITUAL baptism or SPIRITUAL circumcision performed by God (namely the Holy Spirit) which cleanses us and washes all our sins away.

Amen.

NO! OT circumcsion is NOT the foreshadow of NT baptism.

But you said that circumcising was to Jews as baptising is to the Church. How then is one not a foreshadow of the other?

(In fact. Arron and All his sons were baptised in the river Jordan, as well as all priests. And as a gentile I believe they had to be circiumcised AND baptized to formally be considered part of the jewish faith

But the Old Testament is quite explicit that all males had to be physically circumcised. It didn't require that Jewish males or females be baptised, although the New Testament requires all believers to be baptised.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

But you said that circumcising was to Jews as baptising is to the Church. How then is one not a foreshadow of the other?

because they both forshadow the spiritual cleansing that God does by his own hands

But the Old Testament is quite explicit that all males had to be physically circumcised. It didn't require that Jewish males or females be baptised, although the New Testament requires all believers to be baptised.

In the OT Only certain people were made priests. In the NT, we are all said to be made priests.

Baptism is one of the rites performed on a child of Levi as the cleansing ceremony where they are made priests of God.

Thats why in the NT all people are baptised. Not just levites.

 

[garee]

because they both forshadow the spiritual cleansing that God does by his own hands



In the OT Only certain people were made priests. In the NT, we are all said to be made priests.

Baptism is one of the rites performed on a child of Levi as the cleansing ceremony where they are made priests of God.

Thats why in the NT all people are baptised. Not just levites.

Exactly the time of reformation has come. The new manner of the priesthood of belivers is no longer after tribes of one nation but now after all the nations and tribes of the world. Jesus from the tribe of Judah was used as the cross over.

Psalm 110:4The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

 

[JohnTalmid]

What you say about churches with early baptism I see expressed as a way to live, even here at this Christian site. Posters often take Paul's teaching as against what they call obedience to all law. Paul would be shocked and hurt at these people.

The cause of this breakdown is partly that scripture as read as EITHER history or spiritual. In fact, God uses all history to teach the spiritual. Almost always there is history in spiritual teaching.

I think the main cause of the breakdown of people wanting to live for Christ by how they act is expressed often in the responses to this thread. First, there is a disconnect between the OT and the new. Actually, there is always a sameness in the ways of God expressed in the OT and in the NT. God is eternal, and over and over I read how there was such a change in God from old to new. There was, I am sure it is a fact, that there is no change.

Back to circumcision: Many of these posts put in their own way of understanding it. God is very clear about what circumcision means is explained in the OT. It needs no interpretation, nothing to add to it. It is required of us, and the physical cutting does not need to be done when we are circumcised. All that is needed today is to read what the eternal God tells us about it in the OT and accept that as from God, not from any foreign God but the same as Christ speaking for they are one.

Right so often what is taught to the assembly is not even a shadow of the truth. Shaul would have been fine with a new convert being circumcised if he was convinced through the word it is what righteousness requires of him. But that's the point until a man is circumcised of heart it becomes uncircumcision especially when he is already circumcised.

 

[JohnTalmid]

Just as a man eats what he wants or doesn't eat based on his own conviction. This doesn't mean everyone is doing right by Elohim. It means Elohim allows each to choose for themselves, life or death, blessings or a curse. Master forgive us

 

[JohnTalmid]

="crossnote, post: 3876284, member: 145370"]2 Corinthians 3:7-11 (NASB) But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory (Mosaic Covenant), in this case has no glory because of the glory (New Covenant) that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

Yes, as scripture is telling us here, God's laws are everything David wrote in scripture that is the 119th Psalm. And the addition to the covenant God gave us is even better, for those laws are written in our hearts and we know not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law through the additional covenant God gave. It is written here.


Hebrews 8:7-13 (NASB) For if that first covenant (Mosaic Covenant) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

We are told the reason for the additions to the way God relates to us. And what of the covenants has gotten old so it is obsolete? Think about it. Is God obsolete? Are the laws that God uses to operate out world by obsolete? No. Using animal blood is obsolete, we have Christ. The Levi's as priest is obsolete, we have Christ. The rituals are obsolete, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us.

You want to toss out all of God as God is explained in the bulk of scripture (OT)and only keep a small portion (NT). You want to change God for a new one who suits better. Truth has more beauty and glory as is told us in the scripture you gave us.

So often I hear, Old Testament texts and New Testament writings like there's a difference. If the two are not one, as Israel and Judah are not one. And to this day they worship golden calves. What a great deception the world has become.
The "Renewed Covenant" is just that renewed. The problem people who stumble have is they don't know where the Spirit of Holiness comes from or to whom it goes. The power of the Word of YHWH Elohim is to make His people Holy, (set appart). How does the Christian set himself appart? Or the Jew? Through the traditions of men rather than the word of Elohim. That's the problem and that's the boundary stone that our father's have moved.

Unless you see one word, one gospel as it has been from the beginning,(Genesis) you don't see the truth I think. Shaul made it clear when he told the Jews who condemned him when he went to the temple during the time of purification. Thank you for your consideration

 

[posthuman]

because they both forshadow the spiritual cleansing that God does by his own hands



In the OT Only certain people were made priests. In the NT, we are all said to be made priests.

Baptism is one of the rites performed on a child of Levi as the cleansing ceremony where they are made priests of God.

Thats why in the NT all people are baptised. Not just levites.

isn't this describing why true baptism must be by His hands?

when they lifted up their voice accompanied by trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and when they praised the LORD saying, “He indeed is good for His lovingkindness is everlasting,” then the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God. ​

(2 Chronicles 5:13-14)​

 

[oyster67]

Circumcision foreshadows Baptism?

Never heard that one before.

Is this a brand new revelation?

 

[garee]

Circumcision foreshadows Baptism?

Never heard that one before.

Is this a brand new revelation?

They make up two different ceremonial laws that have different purposes. Both are shadows that could never make a person perfect or draw them closer to God but do point to the eternal not seen.

Circumcision as sign it pointed ahead to our savoir husband suffering beforehand and the glory that did follow .The old testament saints that were waiting for the work of suffering for our sin to release them to enter the new Jerusalem as the bride of Christ as the promised glory (1 Peter 1:11) . And the water baptism as shadow as another ceremonial laws required when a person desired to become a priest sent our into the world holds out the gospel of Christ in a hope Christ will be formed in the hearer by the Holy Spirit . (hearing of faith)

Circumcision has been fulfilled. The suffering seed of our husband Christ had come to at the time of reformation .

Water baptism which introduces the desire of a new priest entering the kingdoms of priests will be going on till the last day

 

[Wansvic]

Circumcision foreshadows Baptism?

Never heard that one before.

Is this a brand new revelation?

It's in the Word of God:

"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,..." Col 2:11-12

 

[Wansvic]

They make up two different ceremonial laws that have different purposes. Both are shadows that could never make a person perfect or draw them closer to God but do point to the eternal not seen.

Circumcision as sign it pointed ahead to our savoir husband suffering beforehand and the glory that did follow .The old testament saints that were waiting for the work of suffering for our sin to release them to enter the new Jerusalem as the bride of Christ as the promised glory (1 Peter 1:11) . And the water baptism as shadow as another ceremonial laws required when a person desired to become a priest sent our into the world holds out the gospel of Christ in a hope Christ will be formed in the hearer by the Holy Spirit . (hearing of faith)

Circumcision has been fulfilled. The suffering seed of our husband Christ had come to at the time of reformation .

Water baptism which introduces the desire of a new priest entering the kingdoms of priests will be going on till the last day

It is a matter of obedience to what is stated in the Word of God. Circumcision in the OT, and water baptism in the NT.

 

[oyster67]

It's in the Word of God:

"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,..." Col 2:11-12

Amen. They are separate, distinct, and parallel. One does not foreshadow the other. Both are still practiced today.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

What you say about churches with early baptism I see expressed as a way to live, even here at this Christian site. Posters often take Paul's teaching as against what they call obedience to all law. Paul would be shocked and hurt at these people.

The cause of this breakdown is partly that scripture as read as EITHER history or spiritual. In fact, God uses all history to teach the spiritual. Almost always there is history in spiritual teaching.

I think the main cause of the breakdown of people wanting to live for Christ by how they act is expressed often in the responses to this thread. First, there is a disconnect between the OT and the new. Actually, there is always a sameness in the ways of God expressed in the OT and in the NT. God is eternal, and over and over I read how there was such a change in God from old to new. There was, I am sure it is a fact, that there is no change.

Back to circumcision: Many of these posts put in their own way of understanding it. God is very clear about what circumcision means is explained in the OT. It needs no interpretation, nothing to add to it. It is required of us, and the physical cutting does not need to be done when we are circumcised. All that is needed today is to read what the eternal God tells us about it in the OT and accept that as from God, not from any foreign God but the same as Christ speaking for they are one.

with regards to the dark highlight above

are you sure Paul would be shocked and hurt? have you read or studied Galatians? Paul was actually shocked that the Galatian assembly was was being influenced by what he referred to as Judaizers..

Christians are now still under a blood covenant, but it is the blood of Christ.

the OT should be studied and understood because it is the foundation for the new

however, we are not obligated to obey the law. how should we be obligated to keep that which no one has ever been able to keep?

I have never read in this forum or heard expressed that God has changed. He has not.

I am not understanding why you refer to the OT as all that is needed today.