F
Was the justified thief at the cross baptized? A great number of people in the region were. Chances are not low that he may indeed have been baptized. That is, with John's baptism.
However, this happening was still under the old covenant and while circumcision still served as the sign and seal of the covenant. May we assume that the justified thief was jewish? And if so thereby circumcised. As a jew he might have gone through several mikvahs.
However, this happening was still under the old covenant and while circumcision still served as the sign and seal of the covenant. May we assume that the justified thief was jewish? And if so thereby circumcised. As a jew he might have gone through several mikvahs.
If baptism, to Christ, now in the new covenant serves as a sign and seal of the covenant, replacing circumcision, then what does this give?
Circumcision under the Law was sign of the covenant, a literal cutting away of the flesh.
Now it is not physical cutting away of the flesh, but in baptism it is the circumcision of the heart.
Which still is a separating from the flesh, "a new creature" that "walks in newness of life", the "old man" of a carnal mind in gone.
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Baptism is as commanded and necessary today as was circumcision under the old covenant?