In his “Reformed View” chapter in Understanding Four Views on Baptism, Richard Pratt says,

The fact that there are two sacraments for the people of God in the NT age draws attention to a set of parallels in the OT. Baptism relates to circumcision, and the Lord’s Supper corresponds to Passover (65-66).

This connection between circumcision and baptism is typically based on Colossians 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” NT believers undergo “the circumcision done by Christ’ as they are ‘buried with him in baptism” (66).

A connection between circumcision and baptism, however, is not as quick and simple as quoting Col. 2.11-12.  This passage refers to a not-done-by-hands circumcision, yet baptism (paedo- or credo-) is done with hands.  Also, this passage specifically states that we are buried in baptism and raised in faith – it is doubtful that Paul is mixing metaphors between ceremonial baptism and spiritual faith.  I’m not dogmatic about this, but my current understanding of these verses is that Paul is using water baptism as a concrete point of reference while actually basing his reasoning on the inner spiritual change that took place at conversion.

But even if Pratt’s take on Col. 2.11-12 were correct, or if we have other reasons to see parallels between circumcision and baptism, infant baptism is still not a necessary conclusion from the evidence.  I see the parallels between circumcision-baptism and Passover-Lord’s Supper as noticeable and accurate, but not Scripturally mandated.  In other words, the OT-NT relationship in these two areas is one of pattern/similarity and not type/anti-type.

In this sense, I’d agree entirely that baptism is a sign and seal of entrance into the covenant community.  It appears, however, that in their claim to “continuity,” the paedo-baptists are actually inconsistent on this point.  How did one join the covenant community in the OT?  Two ways: birth and proselytization.  In the NT, I’d say that entrance into the covenant community is still by birth – yet not by biological birth, rather by spiritual birth (Jn. 3.3-8; I Pet. 1.3).

Here is the paedo-baptist inconsistency: “OT circumcision is a physical sign of entering a physical community by physical birth, yet NT baptism is a spiritual sign of entering a spiritual community by physical birth.”  I prefer a more consistent parallel: baptism is a sign of entering the covenant by spiritual birth and thus, consistent with the NT examples, the sign should be taken by those who give testimony of being born  by the Spirit into God’s new covenant people.

As an aside, the argument is sometimes raised by credo-baptists that OT physical circumcision is replaced by NT heart circumcision (Rom. 2.29).  That argument omits the important factor that heart circumcision was even more important in the OT than the NT.  Circumcision of the heart is mentioned repeatedly across the entire spectrum of OT Scripture: Dt. 26.41; 10.12, 16; 30.6; Jos. 5.1; Jer. 4.4; 9.26; Ezk. 44.7, 9.  It is also noteworthy that NT heart circumcision is mentioned explicitly only in contexts addressed to Jews (Acts 7.51; Rom. 2.17-29).

Armstrong, John. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

On Philippians 2.11, Hawthorne and Martin write:

What then does this mean?  Does it mean that eventually every created, intelligent being will in fact admit that Jesus is Lord, either voluntarily or by compulsion?  These are questions that belong to the field of systematic theology…  The issue is debated.

V11 means, then, that the hope of God is that every intelligent being in his universe might proclaim openly and gladly (Lightfoot) that Jesus Christ alone has the right to reign.  (Emphasis added.)

The “debate” mentioned in the quotation is over a textual variant – a spelling difference between different Greek copies of Paul’s letter.  It’s a difference of just one letter: ἐξομολογήσεται v. ἐξομολογήσηται.  The translation difference is thus “every tongue will confess” v. “every tongue should confess.”  I’m mystified that the Word Biblical Commentary is unable to make a call on a textual variant!

Silva responds very well: regardless of which verb form was Paul’s original word choice, the confession of every tongue is still certain!  John 3.16 uses a similar syntax to express the purpose of God’s sending his unique Son: that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life!  Does God just “hope” that everyone who believes in Christ will have eternal life or is his purpose certain?

Further, as Silva points out, Paul is nearly quoting a very certain OT passage.  Isa. 45.23 says, “By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ “  In the Septuagint, that last phrase “swear allegiance” is the exact same word translated “confess”in Phil. 2.11.

The eventual submission of every creature to Christ’s lordship is certain; it is very disappointing that the WBC commentators are so uncertain about that one little Greek letter!

Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, vol. 43 of Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 129.

Moisés Silva, Philippians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 111-2.

Regarding Hebrews 11.1, I found this passage in Paul Ellingworth’s commentary on Hebrews helpful:

It is more natural, in the light of the chapter [Heb. 11] as a whole, to think of v. 1 as a summary of what faith does: faith binds the believer securely to the reality of what he does not (yet) see, but for which he hopes.  The difficulty of understanding the statement as definition is accordingly attenuated by translating ὑπόστασις and ἔλεγχος, and sometimes πίστις also, by verbal expressions: for example, “to have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see” (TEV); “only [?] faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for, or prove the existence of realities that are unseen” ([N]JB).  This has the effect of presenting the verse as a statement about the function rather than the nature of faith; this accords well with the rest of the chapter, which is mainly about action on the basis of faith (bold emphasis added).

Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 566.

That was a bit heavy in the middle, so let me summarize:

The context of the entire 11th chapter of Hebrews indicates that we should read verse 1 as a description of what faith does, not as a definition of what faith is.  Bible versions that translate the key Greek nouns (assurance, conviction, faith) in active terms reduce the difficulty of attempting to explain a very awkward “definition.”  Since the rest of the chapter tells what people did by faith, it makes sense to read the opening verse as a summary of what faith does.

In the most direct sense, the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus.  They mocked and struck him (Mt. 27.29-30); they beat the crown of thorns into his scalp (Jn. 19.2); they drove the spikes through his wrists and ankles (Mk. 15.24); they pierced his side to be certain that he had died (Jn. 19.34).  The soldiers were the ones who did “the dirty work” (Acts 2.23) but they were obeying orders.

Pilate ordered the soldiers to torture and crucify Jesus (Mt. 27.26).  He bore the responsibility for his decision, and thus is guilty of crucifying the Lord, despite his feeble attempt to salve his conscience and dodge the blame (Mt. 27.24).  He can be counted among the rulers of that age who did not realize whom they were killing (I Cor. 2.8).  But the buck doesn’t stop with Pilate: he ordered the crucifixion in response to the demands of a rioting crowd (Mk. 15.15).

The crowd of Jews stood outside of Pilate’s porch and chanted “Crucify him! Crucify him!”  They demanded the death of Jesus and denied his authority (Jn. 19.15).  Fifty days later in the very same city, Peter addresses the Jews as a nation and accuses them of killing Jesus (Acts 2.23, 36).  Still, the idea didn’t start with this crowd.

The Jewish leaders stirred the crowd into a frenzy (Mk. 15.11).  This ruling group (elders, priests, scribes – Mt. 26.57) paid Judas to betray Jesus (Mt. 27.3-4); they mocked him and beat him (Mt. 26.67); they procured false witnesses to condemn him (Mk. 14.55-59); they asked for the release of a murderer and the death of the Messiah (Mk. 15.6-11); they scoffed while he died in pain (Lk. 23.35).  They also fell under Peter’s condemnation (Acts 4.10) and could also be included among the rulers of the age who killed the Lord of glory without fully understanding what they were doing (I Cor. 2.8).

Of course, the crucifixion was not a purely human event: spiritual forces were at work as well.  Satan’s hatred of Christ was shown in his motivation of human enemies (Jn. 13.27).  The crucifixion is regarded by many to be Satan’s weak attempt to bruise the heel of the woman’s seed (Gen. 3.15); Christ’s effective atonement and triumphant resurrection crushed Satan’s head, however!

And ultimately, one cannot escape the heart-wrenching fact that God the Father crucified the Son.  This deliberate plan to slay the Lamb was made before creation (Acts 2.23 I Pet. 1.19-20).  Christ went to the cross in obedience to the Father (Phil. 2.8), not to Satan or sinful men!

It is commonly preached, sung and said that we also killed Jesus.  “My sins nailed him to that cross.”  “I was the one pounded the nails through his hands.”  “We were the ones who crucified him.”  In saying this, people usually mean that Jesus died for “my sin” as an individual and that “my sin” is really bad because it sent Jesus to such cruel death.  While what those people mean is correct, I would maintain that such statements are biblically inaccurate.

First, I think it’s quite clear from our survey that many people had a part in the crucifixion.  Those people, however, were all historically present.  They played real roles in the crucifixion event itself.  And the apostles clearly held those people responsible for their actions (Acts 2.23, 26; 4.10; I Cor. 2.8).  I’m not aware of any  passages that blame Jesus’ death on people who were not present on that specific occasion.  Why does this matter?  It matters because the wrong perspective (“I crucified Jesus; my sins nailed him there.”) elevates me and my sin to a level of actually causing the crucifixion.  Wrong!  God loving chose to send his Son to make atonement for sinners (Jn. 3.16); he was not obligated to do so.  It would have been just to let each of us suffer the consequences of our sin, but God graciously provided a way for sinners to live.  I didn’t nail Jesus to the cross with my sin; he chose to go to the cross.

Do you see the difference?  It’s a difference of who’s making things happen.  Jesus even told Pilate that Pilate wasn’t in charge of the crucifixion – Jesus was (Jn. 19.10-11; 10.17-18)!  To put the contrast in other words, my sin did not directly cause the crucifixion; the crucifixion was God’s response to my sin.  Jesus died for my sins, but my sins didn’t nail him to the cross.

Look at Paul’s perspective on what role our sins played in Jesus’ death: “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2.13-14).  God did the nailing; the record of my sin was fixed to the cross!

Second, it’s important to note that the cross does not show us how awful our sins are.  Yes, death is the awful consequence of sin; the Levitical sacrifice laws showed sin’s wages in a graphic way as well.  [Rabbit trail: for those who talk about declaring biblical truth as propositions only and rejecting visual ways to convey God's words, you're trying to live up to a higher standard than the Holy Spirit held when he breathed out God's words!]  However, the real measure of sin’s terribleness is found in God’s character.  He is perfect and holy and pure and righteous; he is almighty and sovereign and all-powerful.  Sin rejects his character and refuses his authority.

How does God respond to the anarchy of each of us little humans?  With the cross.  Jesus took our sins on himself and made an acceptable sacrifice to satisfy the wrath of his holy Father!  Even though the cross is gruesome and powerfully moving, the crucifixion is not the measure of “how bad our sin is.”  Sin is awful because it is rebellion against the infinitely holy and sovereign Creator; the crucifixion is the means by which our pardon is provided.

Christ’s crucifixion was an amazing event!  It was his love for me, his obedience to his Father, his knockout-blow to Satan, but most importantly, his satisfaction of divine justice and his atonement for my sin.  I am so thankful for that – God has done a wonderful thing!  My rebellions (like the sins of everyone) deserved that crucifixion; God graciously chose to let his Son bear our punishment.  My rebellions (like the sins of everyone) were slaps in the face of the holy King; on the cross he made possible forgiveness for me and for you!

Just as the psalmist predicted, the crucifixion “is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps. 118.23; cf. Mt. 21.33-42)!