Thursday, March 6, 2008
Types and Shadows: Circumcision/Baptism
After my message on Circumcision/Baptism, a great question was raised about the thief on the cross. One of the main points in the message was that one cannot expect to receive the promises of God without receiving the sign that is intimately linked with the promises, and that circumcision/baptism are even used synonymously with the covenants themselves. Obviously, the thief was never baptized. My answer to this question was that the thief was an exception to the rule, but that if he had the opportunity to be baptized, he would have been. But after pondering this some more, I've realized that this was an incorrect response to that question. I failed to recognize that the thief on the cross was saved before the resurrection of Christ, thus placing the act under the Old Covenant. Baptism was not given as the sign and seal of the New Covenant yet. So even if the thief had the opportunity, he would not have been baptized anyway. Therefore, the thief could not properly be called a Christian because Christ had not yet risen. A Christian must believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). This thief became a believer under the Old Covenant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.gif)
7 comments:
Alan
Hi and yes I agree. How do I make contact as I would like to expand on this but I am new to this blog stuff etc. Do you have an email?
Greg Bondar
Sydney
Australia
Greg (and anyone else who would like to interact), just click on "post a comment" and type in the "leave your comment" box. Then select the appropriate identity below it. Greg, you did this with your question. You can do the same thing with comments or questions that you may have on any of the topics, and the comments will be submitted to my email for review before being posted.
Ok, Alan I have two questions:
1. If the thief was saved under the old covenant how did he have his sins forgiven without any ritual sacrifice?
2. If "baptism is synonymous with believing in Christ, because baptism is the sign and seal that we are truly connected to Christ" (taken from study notes) then what about infant baptism. Does that mean that I am automatically connected to Christ regardless of my own personal beliefs simply because my parents chose to have me baptised?
Thanks!
Answers to Wanda's questions:
1. Under the Old Covenant, ritual sacrifices didn't forgive sins. They were Types and Shadows of Christ who would forgive sins. Hebrews 10:1-9 we are told that the blood of bulls and goats offered continually could never take away sins. We are also told that God neither desired, nor took pleasure in sacrifices and offerings. I take this to mean "as in end in themselves." What God desired was for His people to trust in what those Types and Shadows pointed to: Christ. The thief on the cross did just that.
2. What the notes actually say here is: "We must believe baptism, which is synonymous with believing in Christ..." This is different than saying that baptism is synonymous with believing in Christ. [Believing] baptism is synonymous with [believing] in Christ. Thus, infants who are baptized are truly baptized into Christ, but they must believe the baptism or they will cut off from life in Christ.
1.
so God only made them make sacrafices to remind them of or show them a picture /type/ shadow of what was to come ? like Christ?
1.
so God made them make sacrafices only for them, to show them what was to come as a type and shadow of Christ ?
Another consideration to the thief. I realize that the thief was under the ceremonial system of the Old Law and that strictly speaking it is not certain that baptism was essential at the time he lived, although it is indicated. Jesus asked a group of men who were trying to trap him if the Baptism of John was from heaven or from men? The implication was that John's baptism, though different than the baptism that was to come post resurrection, was from Heaven. Thus, it was looked upon as necessary. Early Christian history indicates that they believed that the being born again necessity spoken of in John 3 was a reference to baptism. Jesus said that unless one was born of the water AND the spirit he could not enter Heaven. John's baptism appears to have been a transitional form of baptism in advance of the baptism which is the seal of which you spoke and appears to have been viewed as a necessity. Those things said, why is it always stated as a given that the thief was never baptized? Certainly you can come across devout men in prison who had been baptized earlier in life, made dreadful mistakes, and then came back to faithfulness while being incarcerated for their crimes. Is it so far fetched that this man could be that type of case? He said some very interesting things for a "mere" criminal. "Lord, remember me when you come again in your kingdom." Even Jesus own disciples did not show this degree of sophistication when it came to what they had been thinking about Jesus. They thought His kingdom was to be earthly, restoring Israel to the equivalent power and greatness as had been under Solomon. This thief could have been an earlier disciple of John the Baptist's who had the same mistaken notion about the Messiah. When John's preaching indicated Jesus was the one and when he heard all the rumors of this great rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps he was sitting in the audience to hear Jesus preaching. Perhaps also he did not like at all what he heard, especially when it got to the part about turning the other cheek or carrying the Roman's armor further than the required one mile. Maybe he walked away in disgust thinking this could not possibly be the Messiah. Years later, as he is hanging next to Jesus, maybe he remembers Him from before, also the messages he heard from John. And then perhaps he realizes this IS the Messiah and he had been wrong to walk away before. Just a possibility that makes sense to me, especially given the incredible statement he made to Jesus.
Post a Comment