Why was it okay to bring babies into the covenant through circumcision but not baptism?

Question

Gramps,

In the Old Testament, circumcision was how baby boys were brought into the covenant relationship with God (see Genesis 17:9-12). The ordinance of baptism is also how we are brought into the covenant relationship with God. Why was it okay to bring babies into the covenant relationship through circumcision in the Old Testament, but not okay to bring babies into the covenant through baptism?

Brad

Answer

Brad,

Circumcision, as instituted in the Old Testament, serves as a physical sign of the covenant between God and His people. This ritual was not limited by geography, ethnicity, or age, indicating a universal invitation for inclusion. The practice dates back to the time of Abraham, highlighting its foundational significance in establishing a relationship with the divine.

Genesis 17:10-12 (Joseph Smith Translation) emphasizes the enduring nature of this covenant: “This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee; and ye shall be their God, and they shall be your people.” The removal of the foreskin on the eighth day was a mark of belonging and commitment, symbolizing purity and dedication to God’s commandments. Importantly, circumcision was extended to all male infants, signifying that entry into the covenant community did not hinge on personal culpability but on communal belonging and divine grace.

Contrasting with the Old Testament practice, infant baptism emerged as a prevalent ritual in various Christian denominations. However, its legitimacy has been a subject of theological dispute, particularly within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Critics argue that infant baptism deviates from early Christian teachings and scriptural mandates, suggesting that it was not an original practice endorsed by the apostles or early church fathers.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Genesis 17:6 provides a critical perspective: “certain heretics had turned from the commandments, and taken unto themselves the washing of children.” This assertion indicates that the practice of infant baptism was seen as a distortion of true doctrine, introducing a ritual that was not aligned with the intended principles of baptism and covenantal inclusion. Furthermore, the Church’s teachings emphasize that children are not accountable before God until they reach the age of eight, aligning with practices such as circumcision, which underscores personal accountability and the capacity to enter into covenants.

At the heart of the debate lies the understanding of redemption, atonement, and individual accountability. Circumcision in the Old Testament was a visible sign of God’s promise and protection, not directly linked to the concept of original sin or the need for redemption. Conversely, baptism in the New Testament is intrinsically connected to the atonement of Jesus Christ, symbolizing purification and the remission of sins.

The JST clarifies that the doctrine of redemption was misconstrued when linking baptism to the blood of Abel, a reference not supported elsewhere in scripture. This misinterpretation suggests that the practice of infant baptism conflates redemption with a hereditary state of sinfulness, which was not the original intention. Instead, the Church teaches that baptism should be a conscious act of faith, reflecting an individual’s understanding and willingness to accept the covenant with God.

Moreover, the notion that children are born in sin, as interpreted by some through infant baptism, is explicitly refuted in the Church’s doctrine. According to Doctrine and Covenants 74:6-7, children are considered holy and are sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ, eliminating the need for baptism as a rite of purification from sin. This theological stance emphasizes the innate innocence of children and their inherent capacity to enter into covenants without the necessity of infant baptism.

The Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers provide historical insights into early Christian practices and beliefs. These early church leaders largely advocated for the believer’s baptism, where individuals consciously decide to undergo baptism upon reaching an age of accountability and personal conviction. This practice aligns with the Church’s emphasis on the agency and informed consent of the individual.

The absence of infant baptism in the teachings and practices of the Apostolic Fathers underscores its later development as a theological construct rather than an apostolic mandate. This historical perspective reinforces the argument that infant baptism was a deviation from early Christian traditions, introduced by certain heretical groups who misinterpreted scriptural covenants and doctrines.

Central to the Church’s rejection of infant baptism is the principle of agency—the God-given right and responsibility to make personal choices. Baptism, therefore, is viewed as an act that should be undertaken by individuals who can consciously commit to the covenant, reflecting their understanding and acceptance of its obligations and blessings.

Circumcision, on the other hand, was a communal and physical sign of the covenant, not predicated on personal choice or moral accountability. It served as a perpetual reminder of the ancestral covenant and God’s everlasting promises, thereby not necessitating the individual’s awareness or consent at the time of the ritual.

The differentiation between these two practices highlights a broader theological emphasis on personal agency and accountability in covenant relationships. While circumcision was a communal identifier, baptism represents a personal commitment to follow Christ, necessitating individual understanding and consent.

Gramps