Paul’s epistle to the Galatians utterly dismantles the Judaizers. Paul did not hold back but unraveled their false teaching by exposing that the true children of Abraham are those and only those who have been saved by grace, justified by faith, and born again by the Holy Spirit.
The Judaizers were Jews who confessed Christ with their mouth but trusted in their Jewishness with their hearts. Because they rested in their Jewish identity, they demanded pagan converts be circumcised. Because they thought God’s blessings resided within the walls of Israel, the Judaizers could not perceive how Gentiles could be members of God’s covenant community and co-heirs with them in the blessing of Abraham without at least identifying (via circumcision) with the Jewish people (Acts 15:1). Their demand for circumcision was really their demand for Gentiles to unite themselves with the children of Abraham. As the Old Covenant made provision for Gentiles to be integrated into Israel via circumcision (Ex. 12:48-49), the Judaizers argued that Gentiles had to be united to Abraham’s physical offspring through physical circumcision. Therefore, the Judaizers mistakenly believed that Gentiles had to be united to Abraham in some fleshy way. Sadly, they trusted in the flesh rather than the Spirit (Gal. 3:3).
Yet, according to Paul, the Judaizers had failed to understand that national Israel had failed to inherit the blessing of Abraham. They were no more righteous than the pagan nations surrounding them. They were covenant breakers. They were not only in exile, but they were also born into slavery to their sin (Gal. 4:25). By desiring the Gentiles to be circumcised, they desired Gentiles to bear what they could not carry (Gal. 2:14; Acts 15:10).
The Judaizers also failed to see that Jesus Christ alone (in the singular) is the sole heir to the blessing of Abraham (Gal. 3:16). Because Christ was the only Jew who kept the conditions of the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:10; Gen. 18:19), the blessing is His and resides exclusively in Him. Jesus is the true Israel of God. Christ succeeded where the Israelites failed. He came out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matt. 2:5), passed through the waters (Matt. 3:16), was tested in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1), and was declared to be God’s Son (Heb. 5:5). Only in Christ can sinners be set free.
Moreover, the Judaizers failed to understand the gospel foretold to Abraham that in his seed (Jesus Christ), all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16). Because they didn’t understand that all the blessings of Abraham dwell in Christ, the Judaizers failed to see that the only way anyone, both Jew and Gentile, could partake in the inheritance of Abraham was by being spiritually united to Christ Jesus by faith (Gal. 3:29). The Judaizers failed to see that the inheritance of Abraham is received not by natural birth or by circumcision but by faith alone in Christ alone. “Know then,” Paul said, “that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
Thus, for all these reasons, the Judaizers failed to comprehend how Gentiles could become heirs with Abraham by faith without circumcision or identifying themselves with physical Israel (Gal. 3:14). To be joint heirs with Christ and heirs of Abraham, Gentiles don’t need to be united to Abraham by some fleshly means, such as circumcision. Instead, they must become spiritually united to Abraham’s promised seed, Jesus Christ, by faith. It is a spiritual union rather than a physical union with Abraham that matters. And this spiritual union takes place not by physical birth or circumcision but by the new birth of the Holy Spirit and faith in Christ Jesus.
In gist, rather than Gentiles needing to join themselves to Abraham’s physical offspring via circumcision, Jews need to reject their circumcision and Jewishness and trust in Christ alone to become Abraham’s spiritual offspring.
Paul’s resounding rebuttal against the Judaizers is also an argument against those who appeal to paedo-circumcision as a theological justification for paedo-baptism. Some say as circumcision was administered to believers and their physical children in the Old Covenant, baptism needs to be administered to believers and their physical children in the New Covenant. This reasoning is built on the notion that both the Old and New Covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace, and their membership is essentially the same—believers and their seed. With this reasoning, baptism is the new circumcision. In other words, for Presbyterians, baptism carries the fundamental significance of circumcision—an identity marker of God’s covenant people, which consists of a mixture of spiritual and physical seeds.
If circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, however, then Paul’s argument against the Judaizers is not what we would expect. If baptism has the same significance and meaning as circumcision, why didn’t Paul argue that the Judaizers were misrepresenting the meaning of circumcision? Why not say that just as believers in the Old Covenant were required to signify their faith and unity with God’s people by circumcision, now all believers (Jews and Gentiles) in the New Covenant are required to signify their faith and unity with God’s people by baptism?
Of course, there are exceptions, such as the thief on the cross, but shouldn’t all believers be baptized? If circumcision represents Abraham’s spiritual people, and if baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, then wouldn’t this clarification have been the more natural argument for Paul to have made? Rather than requiring all covenant members to be circumcised, God now requires all covenant members to be baptized. If baptism replaces circumcision, then this would seem to be the likely argument Paul would have used. But this is not Paul’s argument at all.
Instead of affirming that God’s covenant people in the Old and New Covenant are a mixture of physical and spiritual offspring, Paul separated Abraham’s physical seed from Abraham’s spiritual seed. The two seeds are not to be mixed or conflated (Deut. 22:9). By contrasting physical Israel with spiritual Israel, Paul contrasted circumcision with baptism. Rather than linking circumcision to the covenant of grace (freedom) and Abraham’s spiritual offspring, Paul linked circumcision to the covenant of works (bondage) and Abraham’s fleshly offspring (Gal. 4:21-25). Ultimately, Paul disagreed with the Judaizers and did not think believers needed to identify themselves with Abraham’s physical seed via circumcision in order to be united to Christ by faith and heirs to Abraham’s inheritance (Gal. 4:27-31). This is because God’s true children are birthed not by the flesh but by being baptized into Christ by the Spirit (Gal. 3:27).
Thus, Paul juxtaposes the meaning of circumcision with the meaning of baptism. Circumcision unites a person to physical Israel, while baptism unites a person to Christ (Gal. 3:27). As we shall see, circumcision signifies the physical and fleshly realities of the Old Covenant, which are utterly foreign to the spiritual realities of the New Covenant. Rather than circumcision signifying the same realities of baptism: (1.) spiritual Israel, (2.) grace, (3.) faith, (4.) the Spirit, and (5.) the new birth, circumcision signifies (1.) ethnic Israel, (2.) works, (3.) law, (4.) the flesh, and (5.) natural birth. According to Paul, circumcision and baptism signify opposite truths.
Circumcision Signified Ethnic Israel, Not Spiritual Israel
First, Paul contrasts circumcision with Abraham’s spiritual children. According to Paul, circumcision identifies Abraham’s fleshly seed. When speaking of “the circumcised,” it is evident that Paul is referring to ethnic Israel. Likewise, when speaking of “the uncircumcised,” it is evident that Paul is referring to the Gentiles. For instance, Paul said: “I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:7). This is made clear afterward when he said, “for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised also worked through me for mine to the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:8).
God’s Old Covenant people consisted of the children of Abraham according to the flesh. A Jewish child became a member of ethnic Israel not by faith but by natural birth (Gal. 2:15). On the other hand, the spiritual children of Abraham are members of the New Covenant not by natural birth but by the new birth. New Covenant membership comes not by genetics but by faith. Because the New Covenant consists of a spiritual people, there is no Jew or Gentile distinction (Gal. 3:28). The wall of separation has been broken down.
The New Covenant is not propagated by natural birth but by spiritual birth. Abraham’s physical offspring are children born according to the flesh, while his spiritual offspring are born according to the Spirit (Gal. 4:28-29).
This is a profound difference that should not be overlooked. And when we keep this difference in mind, it does not make sense to baptize unbelieving children any more than to circumcise believers. If circumcision represents Abraham’s physical children and baptism represents Abraham’s spiritual children, then why would we knowingly baptize someone who has not been spiritually baptized into Christ? Though unbelieving Jews were commanded to be circumcised, they were not permitted to be baptized. The sign of the flesh (circumcision) does not belong to the spiritual children of Abraham any more than the sign of the Spirit (baptism) belongs to the fleshly children of Abraham.
Circumcision Signified Works, Not Grace
Second, Paul contrasted circumcision with grace. This contrast is seen when Paul linked the “ethnic identity” of Israel with the works of the law—as opposed to the “spirit identity” of those justified by faith. “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:15-16).
In other words, if we think we must be united to physical Israel through some fleshly means, such as natural birth or circumcision, then we obligate ourselves to obtain the blessings of Abraham in the same way Christ Jesus obtained the inheritance—by perfect obedience. Christ Jesus is the sole heir of Abraham, for He is the only physical child of Abraham who kept all the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 18:19).
If we seek God’s blessings through the flesh, then circumcision is not sufficient. If we desire life in the flesh, then perfection of the flesh is required. If we go this route, then we must be justified, sanctified, and glorified on our own. “If you accept circumcision,” Paul said, “Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:2-3). But since none, besides Christ, are righteous, none can be justified by the works of the law.
By linking the condition of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision) to the works of the law, Paul contrasted circumcision with grace: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). If circumcision signified the covenant of grace, why did Paul link it to the covenant of works? According to Paul, Abraham’s physical children are born into slavery while his spiritual children are born free (Gal. 4:22-27). Paul connected circumcision with the law because circumcision and Jewish identity cannot save in the same way our good works cannot save us (Gal. 3:11). No one can perfect the flesh in their flesh. But salvation is not by the works of the flesh but by grace alone in Christ alone. Consequently, circumcision reminds Israel of what they must do (Gen. 17:10; Gen. 18:19), while baptism reminds believers of what Christ has already done.
Circumcision Signified Law, Not Faith
Third, Paul contrasted circumcision with faith. According to Paul, it is not circumcision that matters but faith: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).
In natural birth, our children don’t inherit our faith but our sin. They are not born saved and under grace but born lost and under the law. Only in the new birth do they inherit Christ’s faith and righteousness (Gal. 2:20). For Jesus said, ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).
One might be tempted to argue that Paul claims circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in Romans 4. But if we read Romans 4 in context, we see a crucial detail—Paul was not speaking of paedo-circumcision but the credo-circumcision of Abraham. Paul was pointing out that Abraham was circumcised after he believed. Abraham was justified not by his flesh but by his faith. Being circumcised after he was justified, according to Paul, was not a minor historical detail but an essential point to his argument. In Romans 4, Paul shows how Abraham, by faith alone, can be the father of his spiritual children (both Jew and Gentile) without them needing to be circumcised. Therefore, the significance of Abraham’s circumcision (credo-circumcision) is not the same as the fleshly circumcision of his physical children (paedo-circumcision). Abraham’s circumcision (post-faith) shows how Abraham can be the spiritual father of all who have faith (regardless of genetics or circumcision).
Circumcision was administered to Abraham’s physical children regardless of faith. In contrast, baptism is administered to believers irrespective of their ethnicity. The point is baptism cannot be said to have replaced circumcision because fleshly circumcision signifies the law rather than faith.
Circumcision Signified the Flesh, Not the Spirit
Fourth, Paul linked circumcision to the flesh rather than the Spirit. Rather than connecting circumcision of the flesh to the spiritual realities of the covenant of grace, he connected it to the physical and fleshly realities of the covenant of works. Referring to the Judaizers, he said: “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh” (Gal. 6:12-13).
In contrast, baptism does not signify fleshly realities. Those who become members of the New Covenant, though they are baptized, cannot boast in their flesh, genetics, or their good works. Baptism signifies that we are saved by grace and faith alone in Christ alone through the Spirit alone. For this reason, Paul did not boast that he was Abraham’s physical child. “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).
Circumcision Signified the Natural Birth, Not the New Birth
Fifth, Paul linked circumcision to the natural birth by contrasting it with the new birth: “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal. 6:15). Seeing that circumcision was legally required for all Abraham’s natural offspring (Gen. 17:10), it was natural for circumcision to be administered at birth (without faith or the new birth). Baptism, on the other hand, represents the new birth. By faith, we enter the New Covenant not by natural birth but by the new birth. By faith, we are buried into Christ and raised in the newness of life. “For as many as you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ…and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring” (Gal. 3:27).
The new birth, which is represented by baptism, comes not by the power of the flesh but by the power of the Spirit. What matters is not being united to Abraham’s physical offspring via natural birth or circumcision but being united to Abraham’s spiritual offspring via the new birth. Only by the new birth do Jews or Gentiles become members of Abraham’s spiritual offspring and are given entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:3). This is the only thing that matters. And this, according to Paul, is what makes up “the (true and spiritual) Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).
Conclusion
In conclusion, if circumcision signifies the covenant of grace, as our Presbyterian friends claim, then Paul’s arguments against the Judaizers are not what we would expect. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Instead of comparing circumcision with baptism and explaining how the Judaizers had turned the sign of grace into a legalistic work, Paul argued that circumcision was indeed a part of the work of the law because it signified those who were seeking to be united to Abraham’s fleshly offspring (who are born into slavery under the law) by a fleshly and outward means.
It is clear that Paul was not comparing circumcision to baptism. In Paul’s mind, because there is a vast difference between the fleshly and spiritual seed of Abraham, circumcision and baptism are vastly different. The application of circumcision does not transfer to the application of baptism. Circumcision signifies the fleshly realities of ethnic Israel and the works of the law, while baptism signifies the spiritual realities of grace, faith, and the new birth. Because of these essential differences, only those born again by grace and united to Abraham by faith should be baptized.
