Genesis 17

'm circumcised myself, as it happens, but not for religious reasons, as Abraham is in this chapter. Thank goodness I was too young to remember the event. Poor Ishmael seems to have gotten the short end of the stick all around. He isn't going to receive the chief blessing of God which is reserved for Isaac, yet Abraham circumcises him anyway. But still, being the father of kings-to-be himself shows that he will be blessed through the act.

I believe my own parents chose to circumcise me for health reasons. I understand that penile cancer is virtually unheard of among the circumcised, although other medical presentations I have attended claim that new research shows that there are no overall health benefits. I tend to think the former would be the case simply by considering the anatomical realities, but I really do not know. So much science done today is flawed and motivated by political concerns, it is difficult to know for certain.

Baptism

11 In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision,[a] by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. -Colossians 2:11-12

Circumcision is clearly a prefigurement of Baptism, as the letters of Paul make clear. My parents, coming from a Baptist/Anabaptist broad theological background, chose to have me baptized when I was 8 years old, even though we attended a Lutheran Church at the time. I can actually remember my Baptism. My father in particular wanted me to be able to express verbally my trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior before I received my Baptism. In the Catholic Church, according to the gradual spiritual growth model that I have talked about in previous posts, this "making the Faith your own faith" functionality is covered not by Baptism for life-long Christians, but by the Sacrament of Confirmation instead.

This was not one of the issues around which my conversion turned--Quickly, they were Magisterial Authority and not Sola Scriptura, The perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, the complete sinlessness of the Virgin Mary with her freedom from Original Sin expressed as her "immaculate conception" (that was the BIG one), Mary's Assumption into Heaven, and Transubstantiation. If you'd like me to discuss any of these, leave a comment and I shall.--But, still I think that the Catholic Church has the right of the matter of Baptism.

God's changing the entrance rite or Sacrament that enters a person into the Covenant from Circumcision to Baptism makes it easier for people to enter the Covenant. Circumcision is a pain. Baptism is relatively painless. Throughout salvation history, God has expanded his Covenant to include more and more people, from Adam and Eve (couple) to Noah and his sons and their wives (family), to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (tribes), to David (kingdom), to Jesus (Savior of the World). Scott Hahn talks about this at great length in many of his works (especially the one linked). While Hahn may be a little too in love with his idea (Sometimes he almost sounds a little gnostic: "I have found the key without which you can understand nothing" Okay, he's not that bad, but you get the idea.), it remains a good heuristic to understand the interwoven and growing nature of God's family in Salvation History.

It would not be in keeping with the overall pattern of growth of the Covenant to include more and more people for the Covenant that we see throughout Scripture, for God at first to cover infants (Circumcision of the Old Covenant), but then to stop covering infants (Baptism of the New Covenant).

As St. Peter says, "Baptism now saves you."

"[T]his water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God." (1 Peter 3:21)

It would be uncharacteristic of God to leave infants out of this new analog of circumcision. As babies were entered into the Covenant, to have their Bar-mitzvahs at age 13, so we have the Baptism of the new Covenant with Confirmation (which should arguably be around age 13 as well, although it is often later).

But wait, if Baptism is the "pledge of a clear conscience" wouldn't that suggest that you need to be an adult? Not at all, since in the case of infants (just as with Ishmael, and all the men of Abraham's household, who had no say in the matter, but had to submit to Abraham's will as the head of the household) the parents' consciences are clear in entering everything they are, even the fruit of their own bodies, their children, insofar as they are able, to God.