Nevertheless, in the interest of clarification, for such as is seriouslyseeking to understand the Pedobaptist position, I think it is needful for me toanswer the question you have posed. It is true that if Israel is a type of theChurch and circumcision is but a type of baptism, then it is possible that theword “seed,” in Genesis 17:7, has lost its original meaning (or aspect of meaning) of “descendants.”

Let me explain a little more in the interest of those who may not appreciatethe reasonings behind your question.

The word “type” comes from the Greek tupos,which etymologically refers to an impression made by striking, from which alsothe meanings of “figure” (Acts 7:43), “example” (1 Cor 10:6) and “pattern” (Heb 8:5) have developed. Notice that the common denominator in each of these meanings is that there is an illustrative or signifying quality. That is to say: a tupos is what it is because it has an illustrativerelationship with the object it represents.

When we talk about biblical types or typology, this same illustrative qualitymust be borne in mind. Thus, we may define a biblical type, as a temporary Old Testament reality that illustrates a spiritual or New Testament reality;—which, as it is an illustration, does not correspond inessence to what is illustrated. This Old Testament reality may be a person(e.g., David), an ordinance (e.g., animal sacrifice), an event (e.g., theexodus) or a unique object (e.g., the rock in the wilderness or theTabernacle). The New Testament realities (or antitypes), on the other hand,would include Christ the Lord Himself, His substitutionary atonement and ourredemption from sin.

It is clear that the New Testament writers saw much of the Old Testament as havingtypological significance. Old Testament realities are sometimes spoken of asbeing types explicitly. For examples, Adam was a figure or type (tupos) of Christ; baptism is the “like figure” or antitype (antitupos) ofthe water of the deluge wherein eight souls were saved (1 Pet 3:21); and thetabernacle was a “figure” (parabolê; used synonymously with tupos here) of Christ and His ministry (Heb 9:9). But elsewhere, the typological relationship is clearly implied though the word “type” or its synonyms may not be used. For examples, the rock that provided water in the desert was a type of Christ (1 Cor 10:4); the tabernacle was a type of Christ (Jn 1:14; Rev 21:3); the templewas a type of the church (Eph 2:21–22; 1 Pet 2:5; etc.); the Passover lamb wasa type of Christ sacrificed (Jn 1:29; Rev 13:8); etc., etc.

Now, the question is: Is Israel a type of the Church and circumcision a type ofbaptism? My answer to the first question is: No! Israel was the Church, albeitwith political and geographic trappings because it was also a nation. But sinceit was the Church (albeit a Church under-age), it cannot be a type of theChurch. It is not difficult to prove that Israel was the Church. First, consider how Stephen calls the Jews wandering in the desert the “church [Greek:ekklêsia] in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38), and the fact that the Apostle Paul calls the Church the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). Secondly, consider the fact that Gentiles are engrafted into the same olive tree (Rom 11:16–17) and united with the “commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12); and that the Jews and Gentiles are “one body” in Christ and “have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph 2:13–18). Thirdly, consider the fact that the terms used to describe the Jewish people in the Old Testament are exactly the same terms being used to describe the New Testament church, e.g., the “people of God” (Jdg 20:2; Heb 4:9; 11:25; 1 Pet 2:10), the “holy nation” (Jer 2:2–3; 1 Pet 2:9), and the bride of Jehovah (Isa 62:5; Rev 19:7–8; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:31–32). Fourthly, consider the fact that the Old Testament saints were also saved by grace through faith, only that because they saw Christ only in shadows and types, “they without us should not be made perfect” (Heb 11:40).That is to say, the Church is not complete without the New Testament believersengrafted in.

The fact is that the nation of Israel, though having a different outward formfrom the New Testament, is in essence (or substance) the same body. And if itis the same body, how could it be related by a typical-antitypicalrelationship? A young boy does not illustrate a mature man, he grows into thegrown man. If it makes sense to say that Israel is a type of the Church, thenit would make sense to say that the Old Testament Scripture is a type of theBible we have.

The same is true of circumcision and baptism. We have already shown that theyare of the same essence or substance since they both signify regeneration, andis the symbolic sign of admittance into the covenant body (see “Now, That is a Good Question!” in PCC Bulletin, vol. 3, no. 22, dated 25 November 2001). Yes, it is true that the land promised under the Old Testament is a type of the spiritual inheritance in Christ that the New Testament emphasises; but circumcision is not a type of baptism in the technical sense of the word. Baptism simply replaces circumcision. It is not a reality which circumcision pointed to. They both signify or symbolise heart circumcision orthe washing of regeneration.

It is true that some Pedobaptist writers have called circumcision a bloodytype, which has a bloodless antitype in baptism, and I myself have followed thedescription without sufficient thought. But this description can only be trueif the words “type” and “antitype” are used very loosely. In scriptural and theological usage, a type and its corresponding antitype must be of different substance, else it makes no sense.

But what about saying that circumcision is a type of regeneration? Well, circumcisionis a bloody Old Testament ordinance, which signifies regeneration; andregeneration is spoken of in Scripture as a benefit of the New Covenant (seeJeremiah 31:33–34). Therefore, it does appear, at first look, that it is rightto speak of circumcision is a type of regeneration. But on closer look, we seethat it is in fact misleading to think or speak of therelationship of the two realities in this way. Firstly, although regeneration is indeed a benefit of the New Covenant, it was already enjoyed by the true Jews of Old, in prospect of Christ’s atonement, and was in fact the known spiritual meaning of circumcision Deut 30:6; Ezk 44:7; Rom 2:28–29). This being the case, it is more proper to say that circumcision symbolises regeneration rather than typifies it. There is, of course, some overlap in meaning between what is a sign or symbol and what is a type, but our Baptist brethren wish to call circumcision a type because it would then allow them to reinterpret infant-circumcision so that it has nothing to do with regeneration. But this would deny the plain testimony of Scripture that circumcision is a token of God’s everlasting covenant of salvation (cf. Gen 17:7; 2 Sam 23:5), which surely includes regeneration. For, secondly, if circumcision typifies regeneration (as our Baptist brethren assert), rather than symbolises it, then God’s promise to Abraham, “to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,” is an almost empty promise that carries only temporal blessings. Were the Jews of old only an earthly people? We have shown above that they were not, and the writer of Hebrews confesses that they were not (Heb 11:10, 13–16)! If the Jews were merely an earthly people, how could we be said to be engrafted into the same olive tree or joined into the same commonwealth? Thirdly, circumcision has a bloodless New Testament form to replace it, namely baptism; and they both have exactly the same spiritual significance. A type, in the proper sense of the word, ceases to be meaningful in the New Testament. The fact that it has a New Testament form shows that it was not a type. It was, as Paul says, a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom 4:11), as is baptism.

We conclude that Israel and circumcision were not types. They continue to existin the New Testament in the same essence and meaning, though under a differenteconomy. We therefore re-assert the thesis that is being challenged: Baptisedchildren of believers under the New Covenant have the same covenantrelationship with God as circumcised children of believers under the OldCovenant!