---

I. AS TO THE TIME OF THE APPOINTMENT of this ordinance, it is important to observe, that Abraham is now about to become a father, not according to his own will merely, but according to the will of God; he is to be, in a remarkable manner, the founder of a family or house.

II. THE RITE ITSELF now instituted, the sacramental act, is not an unmeaning form or ceremony. It is significant of the great leading fact in the covenant of which it is the seal — the extraordinary and miraculous birth of Him who is preeminently and emphatically the seed of Abraham, the holy child Jesus.

III. Hence it appears that it is strictly and properly to THE COVENANT OF GRACE THAT CIRCUMCISION, AS INSTITUTED ON THIS OCCASION, HAS RESPECT. It is true that under the Mosaic economy it served a farther purpose. It became a national badge or mark of distinction — the pledge of the national covenant in terms of which God governed the nation of Israel. Even then, however, it did not lose its primary and original significancy. To a spiritually-minded Jew — to one who was an Israelite indeed — it was still the token of the better covenant, and the seal of the righteousness that is by faith. And as at first ordained for Abraham, it had absolutely no other meaning at all. It could have no other. For, in the first place, there is no limitation or restriction of it to the Jewish nation in particular. It is enjoined on Abraham, as the father of many nations; and on all, generally, who are of his house, or may be embraced, by whatever right, even the right of purchase, within it (vers. 9-13). And, secondly, the covenant with which it stands associated is not temporal and national, but spiritual and universal. It is the everlasting covenant, in the one seed of Abraham, which is Christ.

IV. THE CHILD, EIGHT DAYS OLD, WAS TO BE CIRCUMCISED. And are the children of God's people now to be placed on a worse footing than in the days of old? Is there any evidence of a change in this respect? On the contrary, did not the Lord specially distinguish little children as the objects of His love, taking them into His arms, and affectionately blessing them? And do not the apostles proceed all along on the principle that the visible Church is to embrace not only all the faithful, but their children also? Thus Peter (Acts 3:39) speaks of the promise being to believers and to their children. Paul also (1 Corinthians 7:14) founds an argument on the assumption that the children of a believing parent are, not unclean or common, but holy. And, accordingly, we read in the Book of Acts (Acts 16:33, etc.) of entire households being baptized; the expressions used being such as to render it very unlikely that the little children were excluded.

V. On very much the same principle on which this intiatory rite is administered to the children of God's people, IT IS DECLARED TO BE OF INDISPENSABLE OBLIGATION, and the neglect of it is made a ground of exclusion from the visible Church (ver. 14). So is it also with the sacraments, the signs and seals of grace. No liberty of discretionary choice is left in regard to their observance; it is not merely my precious privilege, but my bounden duty, to receive them.

(R. S. Candlish, D. D.)

---

---

KJV: And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

WEB: God said to Abraham, "As for you, you will keep my covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations.