The Sign and the Covenant
Part 4: From Flesh to Spirit
Where We Have Been — And Where We Are Going
Up to this point, the argument has been deliberately foundational. We have not begun with baptism itself, but with the covenants that give baptism its meaning. Each covenant has been allowed to speak on its own terms—its ranking , its rules, its rewards, and its ratification—so that we are not importing assumptions from one into another. What has emerged is not a single covenant in varied outward forms, but a series of distinct divine arrangements, culminating in the New Covenant as the only covenant by which saving grace is native and actually provided within the terms of that covenant.
From there, the implication for the sign begins to come into view.
At a basic level, a plain reading of the New Testament is sufficient to lead many to credobaptism. The consistent pattern is belief, then baptism. The sign follows faith. For many, that observation alone settles the question. Additionally, a demonstration of the Apostolic practice under the New Covenant has been covered thoroughly and in depth elsewhere (i.e. Malone). I am seeking to supplement the work that has already been done for generations, not supplant it.
But that is not where the discussion typically stops.
The paedobaptist does not deny that faith precedes baptism in the New Testament narratives. The argument instead shifts beneath the surface—into the structure of the covenants themselves. Appeals are made to Abraham, to the continuity of the covenant of grace, to the relationship between circumcision and baptism, and to passages like Romans 4 and Hebrews 8. The question becomes not simply what do we see happening, but what must be true for those things to happen as they do?
This series has been aimed precisely at that deeper level. (Part 1. Part 2. Part 3)
The goal has not been to introduce Baptists to credobaptism—that conclusion is often already reached—but to introduce a covenantal framework that can withstand the strongest Presbyterian objections to it. If the covenants are misunderstood, the objections land with force. If the covenants are rightly distinguished from within the framework that the Scripture’s provide, the objections answer themselves.
Part 4 now turns directly to the sign itself—not in isolation, but as the necessary consequence of the covenantal structure already established.
Sacrifice, Sabbath, and the Shape of the Old Order
The Old Covenant world was filled with ordained structures—priests, altars, sabbaths, purification rites, animal sacrifices, and a temple made with hands.
Hebrews teaches:
The sacrifices purified only “the flesh” (Heb. 9:13). Christ’s sacrifice purifies “the conscience” (Heb. 9:14). The sabbath anticipated a greater rest fulfilled in Christ (Heb. 4:8–10). The priesthood was temporary and anticipatory (Heb. 7:23–28). The earthly sanctuary was a shadow of the true heavenly one (Heb. 8:5; 9:24).
These institutions were divinely ordained, but they were not final (Heb. 10:1–4).
Circumcision belongs to that same typological world1 (Gen. 17:7–14). It must be interpreted the way Hebrews teaches us to read the entire Old Covenant system: as shadow anticipating substance.
2. Abraham’s Circumcision Was Unique—Israel’s Was Not
Romans 4:11 appears in a soteriological argument about justification by faith, not in a discussion establishing the membership principle of the Abrahamic covenant. It records something that happened to Abraham—and to Abraham alone:
He received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith (Rom. 4:11).
Scripture never applies this “seal” language to Abraham’s descendants2. Paul’s argument depends on the timing and uniqueness of Abraham’s experience—received after faith—so that he might function as the father of believing Jews and Gentiles, not as a template for how the sign functioned for every covenant member (Rom. 4:9–12).
The Old Testament narrative confirms this:
Ishmael was circumcised (Gen. 17:23–27) yet lacked saving faith. Esau was circumcised but was “profane” (Heb. 12:16). Nadab and Abihu were circumcised but died under judgment (Lev. 10:1–2). Korah was circumcised yet perished in rebellion (Num. 16).
If circumcision universally sealed righteousness, Scripture would contradict itself.
Abraham’s male descendants were circumcised because they were Abraham’s physical offspring (Gen. 17:9–14), not because they possessed faith, regeneration, or covenantal forgiveness. The difference is not incidental—it is structural.
Abraham and the patriarchs stand at the root of a covenant that operates in two directions at once. On the one hand, it establishes a genealogical line—a nation, a land, a people preserved through physical descent. This is the historical structure through which God’s redemptive purpose moves forward in time. On the other hand, it carries a promise that transcends that structure: a singular Seed through whom all nations will be blessed (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16).
The fleshly promise preserves the line. The spiritual promise fulfills it.
Circumcision belongs to the first. It marks connection to Abraham according to the flesh—the visible, historical structure that carries the promise forward. It does not mark participation in the saving realities promised to come into history through the One that structure will provide.
The genealogical order was never the end. It was the means. It carried the promise forward until the Seed arrived.
Only insofar as that order pointed beyond itself—to the coming Christ—did it bear witness to something greater than itself. But the sign itself marked the vessel, not the fulfillment.
3. Abraham’s Covenant Contains Both Flesh and Promise
The Abrahamic covenant carries two intertwined realities.
The Fleshly (Genealogical) Seed
A great nation (Gen. 12:2; 17:6)
Kings coming from Abraham (Gen. 17:6)Numerous physical descendants (Gen. 15:5)
Land inheritance (Gen. 15:18–21)
Circumcision marks this group (Gen. 17:10–14)
Genesis 17:19–21 explicitly establishes that the covenantal line runs through Isaac, not Ishmael—demonstrating that circumcision marks a genealogically defined, divinely selected bloodline, not a community of faith:
“I will establish my covenant with Isaac… But as for Ishmael… my covenant I will establish with Isaac” (Gen. 17:19–21).
The Promised (Messianic) Seed
“In your Seed all nations shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:18)
Paul identifies this Seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16)
Salvation flows through this strand—the children of Abraham by faith (Rom. 4:12, 16; Gal. 3:7)
Both realities are true. Both belong to the Abrahamic covenant. But they are not identical.
The physical seed preserves the genealogical line leading to the Messiah, while the promised seed inherits the saving blessings of God through faith.
Circumcision is tied to the first, and regeneration to the second. The sign marks the line, but salvation comes through the Seed.
And from that Seed, the blessing of God flows to all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:8), so that in Him the ancient promise is fulfilled—the serpent crushed and the nations blessed.
At this point, an obvious question arises.
Objection: “But Proselytes Received Circumcision Without Being Abraham’s Descendants”
If circumcision was fundamentally genealogical, why did God command it for slaves, servants, and foreign sojourners (Gen. 17:12–13; Exod. 12:48–49)? These were not Abraham’s biological descendants, yet they received the covenant sign. Does this not show that circumcision marked covenant membership rather than genealogy—and therefore that baptism should be given to covenant children today?
Response
The inclusion of non-Israelites in circumcision does not negate the genealogical principle. It clarifies how that principle actually functioned.
First, we must understand what “household” meant in the ancient world. A patriarch’s household was not a loose collection of unrelated individuals, but a single, ordered unit. It included biological descendants, wives from other peoples, slaves and servants, and sojourners under the patriarch’s authority. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise every male in his house—whether born there or bought with money (Gen. 17:12)—He was not creating two kinds of covenant membership. He was requiring that everyone within that household be marked as belonging to it.
The household itself was genealogically structured, even when it included non-biological members. Slaves, servants, and sojourners were not parallel to the genealogical community—they were incorporated into it.
Second, this same pattern continues in Israel. Proselyte circumcision did not create a separate category of covenant membership; it brought outsiders into Israel’s existing structure. Exodus 12:48 is explicit: the circumcised foreigner “shall be as a native of the land.” Not adjacent to Israel, but counted as Israel.
Ruth the Moabitess provides a concrete example. When she joined herself to Israel, she did not remain a distinct “non-genealogical” member. She was brought into the people, into the line, into the history itself. Her son Obed was counted as an Israelite, and she stands in the genealogy of David—and ultimately of Christ (Matt. 1:5). She was not a second-tier covenant participant. She was grafted into the genealogical people.
Third, none of this altered the covenant’s substance or purpose. The Abrahamic covenant remained what it always was: genealogically structured, intentionally mixed in its membership, and typological in its aim. The line still ran through Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen. 17:19–21). The community still included both believers and unbelievers. And the entire structure still existed to preserve the line through which the promised Seed would come.
Those who entered through circumcision—whether native-born or foreign—entered into that same reality. They joined a genealogical people, a mixed community, and a typological order awaiting fulfillment. What they did not receive was regeneration, heart circumcision, or justification by the sign itself.
Circumcision marked incorporation into Abraham’s household—a household designed to carry the promise forward, not to confer the promise itself.
Finally, the New Testament makes clear that this entire genealogical structure has now reached its end. Gentiles are indeed grafted in—but not by sign, and not by flesh. They are grafted in by faith (Rom. 11:17–24). As Paul makes explicit, it is “through faith” that one stands (v. 20). And John states the matter even more directly: the children of God are born “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh… but of God” (John 1:12–13).
The principle has changed.
Under Abraham, incorporation could occur through genealogy, with outsiders brought into that structure, or by faith. Under Christ, incorporation occurs through faith alone.
The genealogical order that defined the old covenant people has given way to a regenerate people defined by union with the Seed Himself. And the sign follows accordingly.
Conclusion:
Proselyte circumcision does not undermine the genealogical principle; it shows how that principle actually functioned. God established a genealogically structured community and, at times, grafted outsiders into that structure. But the structure itself remained what it was—genealogical, mixed, and typological. One could be connected to Abraham by way of the flesh or by way of the promise.
The fleshly seed preserved the genealogical line leading to the Messiah, while the promised seed inherited the saving blessings of God through faith. And once that Seed arrived in history, the fleshly order had fulfilled its purpose. The shadow gave way to the Light.
Like scaffolding removed once a cathedral stands complete, the typological community gives way to the reality it anticipated. Old Israel was not discarded, but invited forward—into True Israel, into union with the Son of God.
With that fulfillment, the principle of inclusion changes. The flesh no longer connects a person to the Abrahamic promise. Only those who are united to the Promised Seed by faith remain heirs of that promise.
If you belong to Christ—then, and only then—you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. Incorporation into the promise of Abraham is no longer by flesh but by faith alone (Gal. 3:26–29). The children of God are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God (John 1:12–13; cf. Rom. 9:6–8). The principle that once governed covenant inclusion has given way to a new and final order.
And if the principle of inclusion has changed, then the administration of the sign must change with it. If you would be a child of Abraham, you must belong to the Son in whom the promise is fulfilled (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 2:10–17).
Therefore, the sign belongs not to those connected by birth, but to those united to Christ by faith, whose blood has made propitiation and secured their cleansing.
4. Why the Sign Was Never About Personal Faith
Common objections arise.
“Shouldn’t the sign of circumcision be seen as a seal of faith for all of its members?”
Only if the sign was given as a sign of the Covenant of Grace. It was not (Gen. 17:10–14).
“Shouldn’t the outward sign match the inward reality?”
Only if the Abrahamic covenant promised inward realities to all of its members. It did not. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant was not a sign of the covenant of grace. It therefore was designed to point to inclusion in Abraham, not union with Christ.
The expectation behind these objections—that the sign must be a sign of the covenant of grace—assumes what must be proven. It assumes that the Abrahamic covenant, in its total structure, is identical in substance with the New Covenant. But the promises themselves do not sustain that claim.
What the Abrahamic covenant actually promised is clear: land (Gen. 15:18–21), a nation (Gen. 12:2), kings (Gen. 17:6), physical descendants (Gen. 17:2, 6), and the coming Messiah (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16). These are real promises, divinely given, and essential to the unfolding of redemption. But they are not promises of regeneration, a new heart, or forgiveness of sins. They are not promises of union with Christ or peace with God for any covenant member—let alone for all of them.3
Those realities belong to the New Covenant, inaugurated by a better sacrifice (Heb. 9:15–26) and securing a better rest (Heb. 4:9–10). They are not features of Abraham’s covenant terms.
This is why circumcision cannot be a sign of the Covenant of Grace. It never signified the blessings that the Covenant of Grace provides (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:10–12; Heb. 10:14–18). It identified Abraham’s physical descendants (Gen. 17:10–14), marked the flesh (Rom. 2:28), and was applied indiscriminately—a reality incompatible with a covenant whose membership is entirely regenerate (Jer. 31:34; John 6:37–39).
Circumcision belongs to the shadow-order of land, nation, and lineage—not the fulfilled order of regeneration and union with Christ. It is part of the scaffolding, not the cathedral; a type, not the antitype.
And if the New Covenant truly is new—if it advances typological Israel into True Israel and takes down the Abrahamic scaffolding, leaving only the cathedral of faith—then the sign must follow that same movement.
5. Why Baptism Is Not the Fulfillment of Circumcision
Paedobaptist theology operates on the basis of continuity between circumcision and baptism. But covenantal structure, biblical definition, apostolic interpretation, and typological-redemptive advancement all press in the opposite direction.
5.1 A Sign Cannot Outlive the Covenant It Signifies
Circumcision is tied to Abraham’s fleshly promises (Gen. 17:7–14).
These reached their telos when Christ—the promised Seed—arrived (Gal. 3:16; Rom. 9:5).
A sign tied to genealogy cannot be reborn as a sign of regeneration.
A sign that identifies the genealogically governed people of Abraham does not dictate the terms of who receives the sign of rebirth. When the fleshly scaffolding is removed, only the promised building remains.
5.2 A Fleshly Marker Cannot Fulfill a Spiritual Reality
Circumcision properly marked physical lineage—the visible line through which Christ would come (Gen. 17:10–14).
Baptism rightly marks something altogether different:
union with Christ (Rom. 6:3–5)
forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16)
cleansing (Acts 2:38)
regeneration (Titus 3:5)
participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Col. 2:12)
These are not parallel categories.
A sign that primarily marks physical lineage cannot fulfill a reality defined by union with the risen Christ. Circumcision marked those from whom Christ would come. Baptism marks those who belong to Christ now that He has come.
5.3 The Recipients Themselves Prove the Signs Cannot Correspond
Circumcision was given to the children of Abraham according to the flesh (Gen. 17:10; Rom. 9:7–8). Every male in that line bore the sign because he belonged to Abraham’s household. The covenant it marked was intentionally mixed—believers and unbelievers together—by divine design.
Baptism belongs to a different order entirely. It is given to those who are Abraham’s children according to the promise (Gal. 3:7, 29)—those united to Christ by faith (Gal. 3:26–27). Everyone Christ represents is in His covenant (John 6:37–40; Heb. 9:15; Heb. 10:14), and that covenant secures forgiveness for all its members (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12).
A covenant that guarantees forgiveness to all its members ought not have its sign applied to those who have no claim to that forgiveness. The sign cannot outrun the promise it signifies.
Yes, false brothers may infiltrate (Gal. 2:4; Jude 4). But they enter by deceit, not by right. The church does not claim infallible knowledge of regeneration; it applies the sign on the basis of profession—because the covenant itself is defined by regenerate realities, realities presently possessed, not merely anticipated. This is the foundation of our peace according to Hebrews: we have peace with God now because the full blessings of the New Covenant have been secured and applied through union with Christ.
The sign fits the covenant.
Circumcision fit a covenant grounded in flesh (Gen. 17:13).
Baptism fits a covenant grounded in Spirit (John 3:5–8; Rom. 8:9) and perfectly secured by Christ.
5.4 Paul Explicitly Disconnects the Two
Paul never calls baptism “the new circumcision.”
Instead he declares:
“Circumcision is nothing” (1 Cor. 7:19).
“We are the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3).
Its fulfillment is not another external rite, but an inward reality:
heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28–29)
the work of Christ (Col. 2:11)
Circumcision is redefined—not transferred. Baptism does not continue circumcision. It signifies union with Christ.
The fulfillment of circumcision is regeneration—not baptism.
5.5 Colossians 2:11–12 in Context
Colossians 2:11–12 is often treated as the decisive proof that baptism replaces circumcision. On a surface reading, the proximity of the terms can give that impression. But the argument turns not on proximity, but on contrast.
The controlling distinction is not between circumcision and baptism, but between circumcision made with hands and circumcision made without hands4.
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands…” (Col. 2:11)
This is the long-promised circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; cf. Rom. 2:29). It is called “the circumcision of Christ” because Christ Himself was cut off in our place (Isa. 53:8), bearing the covenant curse (Gal. 3:13). In Him, the typology of physical circumcision reaches its end.
What circumcision pointed to, Christ accomplishes.
This circumcision “puts off the body of the flesh”—not the removal of physical skin, but the decisive break with the Adamic federal-nature. It is inward, effectual, and complete.
Only after this reality is established does Paul introduce baptism:
“…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith…” (Col. 2:12)
Baptism is not the replacement for circumcision, but the visible drama of union with Christ in His death and resurrection—accomplished in Christ and received through faith.
If baptism were the direct successor to circumcision, this would be the place to say so. But Paul does not move from old sign to new sign. He moves from shadow to substance, and then from substance to sign.
The fulfillment is not a handoff. It is a transcendence. If Paul intended to teach that baptism replaces circumcision, this is the one place we would expect him to say so directly. Instead, he explicitly contrasts the old, physical rite with an inward, Christ-wrought reality, and only then introduces baptism as the sign of that already-accomplished union.
Colossians 2 does not establish sacramental continuity. It announces typological completion. The old is not continued—it is buried. And those who belong to Christ are raised into newness of life.
Baptism marks that life—not as a successor to circumcision, but as the sign of a new covenant reality, accomplished in Christ and received through faith.
5.6 Christ Fulfills Circumcision; Baptism Marks Those in Him
Christ was “cut off” for His people (Isa. 53:8). He bore the covenant curse (Gal. 3:13). He fulfilled the Abrahamic promises (Gal. 3:16). Circumcision terminates in the circumcision of Christ.
Baptism belongs to the covenant inaugurated by His blood (Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:15). Baptism is not a continuation of circumcision. It is the sign of a different covenant—accomplished, not anticipated; spiritual, not genealogical; grounded in union with Christ, not connection to Abraham according to the flesh.
Circumcision marked the people from whom Christ would come.
Baptism marks those who belong to the ascended King.
6. Hebrews as the Interpretive Key
If we want to understand how the Old Covenant relates to the New, we are not left to speculation. Scripture itself gives us the interpretive lens.
The book of Hebrews does not merely describe the transition from old to new—it explains it. It teaches us how to read the entire Old Covenant system in light of Christ.
And the pattern is unmistakable:
The priesthood fulfilled (Heb. 7:23–28)
The temple fulfilled (Heb. 9:24)
The sacrifices fulfilled (Heb. 10:1–14)
The sabbath fulfilled (Heb. 4:8–10)
The ceremonial cleansings fulfilled (Heb. 9:9–14)
The covenant itself fulfilled and surpassed (Heb. 8:6–13)
Access to God fulfilled (Heb. 10:19–22)
The old typological order is not carried forward in a new form. It is brought to its appointed end by way of fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Not continuation—but fulfillment.
Not preservation—but transcendence.
Not shadow extended—but shadow giving way to substance.
“The law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb. 10:1).
“They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5).
The language is decisive. The Old Covenant institutions were real, God-ordained, necessary, good, just, and beautiful—but they were not final. They were preparatory, pointing beyond themselves to a greater reality.
And when that reality arrives, the shadow does not continue alongside it.
It gives way.
Applying the Pattern
Circumcision belongs to that same world.
It is not an isolated ordinance. It is part of the same typological system—bound up with land, nation, priesthood, temple, and sacrifice.
And if every other element of that system is fulfilled and brought to completion in Christ, then the burden of proof shifts.
Why would circumcision alone escape the pattern?
Why would the priesthood give way, the sacrifices cease, the temple be fulfilled, the sabbath find its rest in Christ—and yet the genealogical marker of that same covenant order continue under a new form?
The New Testament never says it does.
It says the opposite.
Circumcision, like the rest of the Old Covenant structures, reaches its telos in Christ. Its meaning is fulfilled. Its function is complete. Its role in redemptive history has ended.
The Hermeneutical Conclusion
The question, then, is not whether circumcision has significance.
It does.
The question is how that significance continues.
And Hebrews answers:
Not by repetition.
Not by transformation into another external rite.
But by fulfillment in Christ.
This is the apostolic method.
And once that method is applied consistently, the conclusion follows naturally:
Circumcision belongs to the shadow-order.
Baptism belongs to the fulfilled order.
7. The Foundational Question: Who Is in the Covenant?
The primary question is not: Who should be baptized?
The primary question is: Who belongs to the New Covenant?
Answer the question of the covenant, and the question of the sign answers itself.
Scripture answers with striking clarity:
“They shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer. 31:34).
“I will write My law on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33).
“Their sins I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34).
“By a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).
This covenant is not like the ones that came before it.
It is not genealogical (John 1:12–13).
It is not mixed (Jer. 31:34).
It does not contain those who do not know the Lord.
It does not include those whose sins remain unforgiven.
Its membership is defined not by birth, but by new birth.
Not by proximity, but by union.
Not by flesh, but by Spirit.
This is not an invisible ideal.
It is the stated nature of the covenant itself, and we must allow The New Covenant to define its own terms.
The Implication for the Sign
Because the covenant is defined by regenerate membership, the sign must correspond to that reality.
Not perfectly—because the church is not omniscient.
But truly—because the covenant itself is.
The church does not claim to see the heart. But it does claim to believe what God has said about His covenant. And so the sign is applied not on the basis of birth, but on the basis of profession. Not because profession guarantees regeneration, but because regeneration defines the covenant. This is why the New Testament consistently presents baptism as following faith:
“Those who received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41)
“If you believe… you may” (Acts 8:36–38)
“Can anyone withhold water…?” (Acts 10:47–48)
The pattern is not incidental. It is covenantal.
Conclusion
No longer by flesh, but by faith alone.
Not by physical descent, but by union with the One who became physical and descended from heaven.
No longer by connection to Abraham according to the flesh, but by connection to Abraham through the One who became physical, died, and rose again.
Only those who are in Christ are children of Abraham, and only those who are in Christ are part of God’s household and are entitled to the covenant sign of membership that belongs to it.
Therefore:
The sign belongs not to those connected by birth, but to those united to Christ by faith— by the blood of the new covenant.
Epilogue
To grasp the depth of humanity’s fall and the splendor of God’s redeeming grace, we must look beyond the ruins of Israel and the failures of Adam. We must go before covenants were cut in blood, before sabbaths circled through time, before a garden was planted in the east. We must look into eternity itself—into the counsel of Father, Son, and Spirit, where redemption was purposed before the world began.
There, in that eternal fellowship, God was not lonely, needy, or incomplete. He is the Self-existent One, infinite in glory and overflowing in delight. Yet from the fullness of that delight, the triune God ordained a plan: to create a people, to dwell with them, and to bring them into the joy that Father, Son, and Spirit have shared forever. This eternal pact—the Covenant of Redemption—stands behind every promise in Scripture and explains every covenant in history.
When God said, “Let there be,” creation became the stage on which this eternal purpose would unfold. Nothing compelled Him to work slowly or through fragile vessels. With a word, He could have undone the curse, raised the dead, and restored all things. But He chose instead to reveal His glory through a drama—a story of promise, shadow, anticipation, sacrifice, and finally, fulfillment in Christ.
And though humanity rebelled, though Israel forgot, though kings failed and priests faltered, God remained faithful. He preserved a remnant, upheld His promises, and carried forward His covenant word. He promised a new heart. He promised a better covenant. He promised a coming Messiah who would keep the covenant His people had broken.
At last, in the fullness of time, the Son took on flesh, bore the curse, fulfilled the law, and inaugurated the New Covenant in His own blood. What the historical covenants anticipated in shadow, Christ accomplished in substance. By His death and resurrection, He secured a people who truly know the Lord, whose sins are forgiven, whose hearts are made new, and who are kept by His intercession forever.
This is redemption’s goal—not merely forgiven sinners, but a redeemed and regenerate people dwelling with their God. A people formed not by flesh, nation, or lineage, but by the Spirit’s work and the Son’s covenant faithfulness. A people gathered from every tribe and tongue, united in Christ, and destined for the glory of the New Jerusalem.
One day, we will stand in that city whose builder and maker is God. The temple will be gone, for the Lord Himself will be our dwelling place. The sun and moon will fade, eclipsed by the radiance of the Lamb. And the scarred hands that formed the stars will welcome us into the fellowship that existed before the foundation of the world.
Until then, we read the Scriptures covenantally, as the unfolding of God’s eternal purpose. We see in Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Phinehas, and David the shadows that pointed to Christ. And we receive the sign of the New Covenant—not on the basis of flesh, but on the basis of faith in the One who fulfilled every promise of God.
For the covenant Christ inaugurated is the Covenant of Grace in its fullness. Its people are those He redeemed. Its blessings are those He secured. Its membership is those He regenerates. And its sign belongs to all who belong to Him.
May we, with hearts made new, walk in the covenant He has cut with His own blood.
May the church bear the sign of that covenant faithfully.
And may God bring His people at last into the eternal joy prepared for them in Christ.
Amen.
This essay is drawn from a larger work currently in development. For clarity and readability in an online format, AI tools were used in an editorial capacity only. All theological content, arguments, and conclusions are the author’s own.
Works Consulted for Part 4: From Flesh to Spirit
• Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. (Chapters on typology, temple, sabbath, and fulfillment in Christ.)
• Denault, Pascal. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. Revised Edition. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2017. (Sections on Abrahamic typology and circumcision.)
• Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018. (On covenant fulfillment, typology, and progression from shadow to substance.)
• Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. (On Abrahamic structure and finality.)
• Malone, Fred A. The Baptism of Disciples Alone. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2003.
• Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vols. 5–7. Edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1991. Reprint. (Especially on Old Covenant shadows, sacrifices, priesthood, temple, sabbath rest, and New Covenant superiority.)
• Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019. (On Abrahamic dual strands, circumcision typology, and fulfillment in Christ.)
• Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980. (Overview of covenant progression and typological fulfillment.)
• Schreiner, Thomas R. Hebrews. Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015. (On Hebrews’ teaching regarding Old Covenant institutions and their fulfillment.)
• Vos, Geerhardus. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1956. (Classic treatment of typology in Hebrews.)
• White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part I).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1, no. 2 (July 2004): 144–168.
• White, James R. “The Newness of the New Covenant (Part II).” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2, no. 1 (January 2005): 83–104.
Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 49–52, available at https://archive.org/details/teachingofepistl0000unse/. Vos argues that Hebrews distinguishes not only two covenants but “two worlds or ages,” identifying the Old Covenant—strictly speaking, the Mosaic covenant—with “this present world,” while the New belongs to “the world to come.” He describes the Old Covenant as “the world of shadows (the Levitical world),” in contrast to the New Covenant, which participates in the heavenly and eschatological reality already inaugurated in Christ. Accordingly, the Old Covenant is earthly in location, outward and preparatory in character, and incapable of bringing perfection, whereas the New Covenant is heavenly, spiritual, and effectual—bringing the “good things to come” into present realization through Christ’s work (cf. Heb. 7:19; 8:5; 10:1). See also John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on Heb. 8:5, available at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/joc/hebrews-8.html. Owen explains that the Levitical priests “served only unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” their ministry being confined to what “did but shadow and represent” a higher reality, such that “the body itself was not there… but lay above them and beyond them.” Although Owen maintains covenantal continuity within a broader Reformed framework, his exposition likewise treats the Old Covenant order as earthly and typological, consisting in shadow rather than substance. Taken together, these observations establish a hermeneutical pattern: the Old Covenant institutions are to be read as anticipatory and not final. If circumcision belongs to that same order, then it should be interpreted in light of this shadow–substance framework, rather than assumed to carry forward unchanged into the New Covenant. While Hebrews explicitly develops this two-age paradigm in relation to the covenants made with Israel—particularly the Mosaic and New covenants—the pattern is not limited to that covenant alone. Hebrews 11 situates pre-Abrahamic figures such as Abel, Enoch, and Noah within the same forward-looking framework, concluding that “apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:40). This indicates that the movement from anticipation to fulfillment extends beyond the Mosaic economy to the broader pre-Christ order, which awaited the realization of what was promised.
The interpretation of Romans 4:11 is widely debated. However, the immediate context of Romans 4 places emphasis on Abraham’s unique historical role: he received the sign after justification, “while he was still uncircumcised,” in order that he might be the father of both believing Gentiles and believing Jews (Rom. 4:9–12). The “seal” language is thus explicitly tied to Abraham’s personal faith and to his representative function in redemptive history, rather than being applied universally to all who received circumcision. As such, while circumcision could accompany faith, the text does not state that it uniformly signified or sealed saving righteousness for every recipient. See Samuel D. Renihan, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom, especially chap. 13, n. 2, where the argument is made that the sealing function in Romans 4:11 is specific to Abraham and not paradigmatic for all members of the Abrahamic covenant.
It is important to clarify what is and is not being claimed here. The Abrahamic covenant did carry genuine spiritual content. Abraham was justified by faith (Gen. 15:6), and Hebrews 11 makes clear that his faith was directed at something far greater than Canaan — he was looking for “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (v. 10). None of that is in dispute.
The distinction that matters is between the promise that was carried within the covenant and the covenant’s own terms. What justified Abraham was not his covenantal standing — not the land, the nation, or the genealogical structure — but his faith in the coming Seed (Gal. 3:16). Genesis 15:6 is worth noting here: Abraham’s justification is recorded before the covenant ceremony of Genesis 15:7–21, and by something other than its terms. The covenant preserved and advanced the promise through history. The promise gave Abraham Christ. These two things were inseparable in Abraham’s experience, but they were not identical.
The text that will press hardest against this distinction is Genesis 17:7 — “I will be your God and the God of your offspring after you.” But we have to let that formula bear the weight the covenant assigns it — nothing more. Within the Abrahamic covenant, “your offspring” includes Ishmael (Gen. 17:23–27) and the entire genealogical household. If the formula guaranteed saving knowledge of God for all who received it, the Old Testament narrative would be incoherent. It cannot carry that weight in its Abrahamic context.
That weight is carried elsewhere. Jeremiah 31:33 uses nearly identical language — “I will be their God and they shall be my people” — but does so within a covenant explicitly described as “not like” the one made with the fathers when God brought them out of Egypt (v. 32). It is worth noting that Jeremiah’s contrast is with Moses, not Abraham. Presbyterian covenant theology, of course, would argue that this is because Moses and Abraham are administrations of the same underlying covenant — and that the New Covenant is therefore contrasted with the entire prior administration, Abrahamic and Mosaic alike. But even granting that assumption for the sake of argument, the conclusion cuts against the Presbyterian position rather than for it. If the “I will be your God” formula could not bear full saving weight within the Mosaic administration — a covenant that Presbyterian theology itself describes as administering the same gracious substance as Abraham — then the formula was not carrying that weight anywhere in the prior order. The New Covenant does not simply re-administer what was already present. It constitutes something genuinely new. And if that is true even on Presbyterian terms, then the Abrahamic use of the formula cannot be pressed into service as evidence that the prior covenant secured the same saving realities the New Covenant does. To read it that way is to assume precisely what Jeremiah 31 explicitly denies.
Identical to footnote 9 from part 3: The paedobaptist reading of Colossians 2:11–12 typically argues that Paul presents baptism as the direct covenantal successor to circumcision, administered to the same class of recipients under a new form. Presbyterian covenant theology classically grounds this continuity not in an explicit New Testament command, but in the assumption that the same covenantal principle governing the administration of the sign under Abraham remains operative under the New Covenant. As John Murray argues, “the same principle… is embedded and operative in the administration of the covenant of grace under the new,” and therefore the inclusion of infants continues apart from any express statute authorizing the practice. On this reading, the proximity of circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2 confirms that functional equivalence, and the household structure of the Abrahamic covenant carries forward into New Covenant sign administration. See John Murray, Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980), esp. 59–61. https://archive.org/details/christianbaptism00murr/page/61/mode/1up
This reading, however, requires Paul to be doing something the text does not actually do. Richard C. Barcellos, in “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11–12,” demonstrates that the controlling grammatical relationship in verse 11 is not between physical circumcision and baptism, but between circumcision made with hands and circumcision made without hands — the latter being the inward, Christ-wrought reality to which the former pointed. Baptism enters Paul’s argument in verse 12 as a participial clause dependent on the spiritual reality already established in verse 11, not as a covenantal counterpart introduced on its own terms. The movement is from shadow to substance, and then from substance to its visible sign — not from old sign to new sign. Douglas Moo’s recent commentary reaches a comparable conclusion, noting that Paul’s concern throughout the passage is with the sufficiency of what Christ has accomplished, not with establishing sacramental succession. See Barcellos, “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11–12,” in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2014); Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2024).
Note to the reader:
Much of what is assumed in this section depends upon distinctions already established in Parts 1 and 2 and carried into Part 3. For the sake of readers who may not have worked through those earlier installments, those distinctions are briefly restated here. The New Covenant is defined by its membership, not by the church’s ability to identify that membership with perfect accuracy; the sign is therefore administered on the basis of credible profession, not omniscient knowledge, and the presence of false professors reflects the limits of human judgment, not the structure of the covenant itself. Likewise, that a sign does not confer the reality it signifies does not render it theologically indifferent; signs derive their meaning from the covenant to which they belong, and their recipients are determined by that covenant’s terms, not by any inherent efficacy in the sign itself. Further, typology does not operate at the level of symbolism alone. When a typological order gives way to its fulfillment, the structures that governed that order give way as well, so the transition from shadow to substance is covenantal, not merely illustrative. For this reason, the question is not fundamentally about infants, but about the nature of the covenant itself, since the proper recipients of the sign are determined by the covenant’s own membership principle, whatever conclusions that may yield.