When God enters into covenant with His people, there is always an adoptive element involved: He becomes their Father, and they become His children. And this has always been the case. In Scripture, even Adam’s relationship with God is expressed in terms of sonship (Hosea 6:7; Luke 3:38), highlighting the filial dimension to the covenant into which he was created. Later, after his Fall and recovery by God in Christ, that relationship was available to those who renewed their covenant with God and maintained the true worship of the Lord (Genesis 4:26). They were called sons and daughters of God, while the rest of the world were called the sons and daughters of men (Genesis 6:2).
Eventually, God introduced initiatory signs for His people to mark and confirm their entrance into this relationship. First, He introduced circumcision, which lasted the entire period of the Old Testament. Then, He introduced baptism as the new sign, which continues to this day to be the initiatory rite of entrance into the covenant of grace. Although the two signs differ in their outward forms, their function is virtually identical. By these sacramental rites, men, women, and children were, and are, adopted into God’s family.
Adoption Through Circumcision
To understand the relationship between circumcision and adoption in the Old Testament, consider the question posed in Romans 3:1 regarding the special benefits enjoyed by Israel due to this rite. Paul asks, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what profit is there in circumcision?” In verse 2, he gives the first part of the answer, mentioning only the fact that the Israelites were the chosen caretakers of God’s written revelation: “To them were committed the oracles of God.” But later, in Romans 9, he provides us the rest of the answer as he strings together several of the other benefits they experienced, including the presence of God’s glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God’s worship, and the promises. But notice that right there at the top of the list is the blessing of being the adopted sons of God: “To them pertains the adoption (Romans 9:4).”
While some argue that this relationship was established when God formed Israel as a nation at Mt. Sinai, this view does not provide the most comprehensive explanation. The Lord may have renewed the adoption there, but He was already their Father by the time He brought them out of Egypt. This is evident in Moses’ declaration to the king of Egypt: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn. Therefore I say to you: let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23). Likewise, the Lord declared through Hosea: “When Israel was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called My son” (Hosea 11:1).
A more accurate explanation places the initial connection between circumcision and adoption at the time of Abram, when the rite was first introduced in Genesis 17. This connection becomes increasingly clear as we observe that God established His covenant with Abram in two distinct steps. First, He renamed Abram to “Abraham” (vv. 1-8) and Sarai to “Sarah” (vv. 15-16), signifying the commencement of a new covenant family. Second, He introduced circumcision as the seal of their new identity (vv. 9-14). Henceforth, circumcision became the rite of initiation into the covenant family—the means by which membership was both granted and secured.
Before transitioning to the New Testament, two points warrant brief clarification. First, while the adoption of God’s people has a corporate dimension, allowing for the collective designation of the entire community as “My son,” this corporate aspect only reinforces the reality of individual sonship. The expression “My son” is often pluralized to highlight this individual dimension, as seen in Deuteronomy 14:1: “You are the children of the Lord your God,” and in Deuteronomy 32:19: “When the Lord saw it, He spurned them because of the provocation of His sons and His daughters” (cf. Malachi 2:10). Thus, there is no need to contrast the “corporate” with the “individual,” as some may suggest.
Second, although the application of circumcision was governed by the principle of male headship and representation, this practice did not hinder female inclusion in the covenant. While Abraham was God’s adopted son through circumcision, Sarah became God’s adopted daughter through her union with Abraham, since the two were one flesh. Consequently, women in Israel were regarded as circumcised by virtue of their fathers’ headship, while foreign women who married into Israel were circumcised through their Israelite husbands. This pattern would persist through the generations until the Seed, to whom circumcision pointed, would ultimately arrive.
Adoption Through Baptism
In the New Testament, circumcision is replaced by baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Consequently, we are no longer adopted into God’s family through the cutting of our flesh (Galatians 6:15) but through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). While various passages of Scripture can be used to show the connection between baptism and adoption, we will focus on two specific selections.
The Baptism of Jesus
First, this connection is prominently illustrated in the Baptism of Jesus. Although Jesus was, is, and remains the eternal Son of God, it was at His baptism that His sonship as a man was publicly declared.[1] When He emerged from the water, the heavens opened, the Spirit descended, and the Father proclaimed from heaven: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17). Notably, it was not during His circumcision, but at His baptism, that Jesus was openly acknowledged as God’s Son. Furthermore, it was not in His childhood, but during His temptation in the wilderness—immediately following His baptism—that Satan began to question His status as the Son of God (Matthew 4:3, 5). This observation does not suggest that His circumcision lacked significance in affirming His identity, rather, it highlights that in the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, God desires us to recognize a clear connection between baptism and sonship.
In addition to the verbal declaration, the giving of the Holy Spirit plays a crucial role. Again, while in His divine nature Jesus was in perfect and perpetual union with the Holy Spirit, His reception of the Spirit at His baptism pertains specifically to His humanity. Thus, when we consider these elements together, we can assert that the baptism of Jesus Christ served as His adoption ceremony, marking the moment when the Father publicly declared Him to be His Son and bestowed upon Him the Spirit of adoption.
Today, when an individual is baptized he too enters into an adoptive relationship with the Father. Being united to Jesus Christ, he partakes of the sonship of Jesus in a real and covenantal way. As a result, God grants him the same Spirit of adoption. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). And “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father’” (Galatians 4:6).
The Baptism of the Galatians
Second, this connection is implied in the baptism of the Galatians. In Galatians 3:26, Paul states, “You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ.” The question arises: How does Paul know that “all” the Galatians are sons of God? He clarifies, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (v. 27).
When our Baptist brethren encounter this, they often raise an objection: If baptism initiates an adoptive relationship with God, why does Paul say we are sons of God “through faith” instead of saying we are sons of God “through baptism”? The answer is straightforward: objectively speaking, these statements are equivalent in Paul’s perspective. For Paul, every baptized person is considered a believer in Jesus Christ. Why? Because Paul views each person through a covenantal lens, assessing him according to his objective standing and identity rather than the inward, subjective condition of his heart. From this covenantal perspective Paul can say: “You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” In other words, a person’s baptism serves as proof that he is an adopted and believing son of God.
It is important to note that Paul’s approach to baptism mirrors his approach to circumcision in his theology. The entire nation of Israel enjoyed the privilege of being God’s adopted people, a status conferred through circumcision. As Paul states in Romans 3:1 and 9:4 combined, this means every circumcised person in Israel was to be regarded as a faithful believer by virtue of his circumcision, unless and until he manifested a heart of unbelief. Put differently, if a person never manifests a heart of unbelief, he must be regarded as a true child of God precisely because he was circumcised into God’s family.
To our Baptist brethren, this may sound peculiar and strained. However, it is God Himself who established such a covenantal framework. Initially, God introduced circumcision to Abraham as a sign of Abraham’s faith. As Paul explains in Romans 4:11: “Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith even while he was yet uncircumcised.” Thus, we know Abraham had faith before he was circumcised, as circumcision was intended to be a sign of the faith he already possessed. This can be termed Believer’s Circumcision: believe, and then be circumcised.
However, that is not the entire story. God also instructed Abraham to apply this same sign to all the male children in his household. This meant that the sign of faith was to be given to baby boys as young as eight days old. Consequently, these Israelite babies were receiving the sign of faith. What did it mean for such a little child to receive the sign of faith?
From a covenantal perspective, it meant that every circumcised child was to be regarded as an adopted and believing child of God, unless and until he demonstrated otherwise. Viewing a person from the standpoint of the covenant involves seeing him in terms of his objective status and relationship to God, not his inward, subjective heart condition. This means that one could look at all the four-year-old Israelite boys in Abraham’s day and confidently say: “You are all the sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ.” All those boys had received the sign of faith and were members of the household of faith. Unless and until they turned to an evil and disobedient life, no one had the right to treat them as anything but adopted and believing sons of God.[2]
In Galatians 3 Paul applies the same reasoning to baptism as he did to circumcision. His theology remains consistently covenantal when he tells all the members of all the churches in Galatia: “You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
At this juncture, another question typically arises, but this time from our Presbyterian brothers: Is this teaching truly Reformed? We may answer with another question: Was John Calvin truly Reformed?
Joking aside, consider how Calvin makes the same connections presented here—connections between circumcision, the baptism of Jesus, our baptism, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and adoptive sonship:
- “It is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.”[3]
- “For just as circumcision was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, and was their first entrance into the Church… so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among His people.”[4]
- “Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being engrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.”[5]
- “For [Jesus] consecrated and sanctified baptism in His own body, that He might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of union and fellowship which He deigned to form with us; and hence Paul proves that we are the sons of God, from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:26-27).”[6]
- “In [baptism] we are clothed with Jesus Christ, and receive His Spirit, provided that we do not make ourselves unworthy of the promises given to us in it.”[7]
Clearly, Calvin was able to trace the contours of Paul’s covenant theology, reinforcing the link between baptism and our adoptive relationship with God.
Objective & Subjective Dimensions
Earlier, I said something that might have caught your eye. I said that every baptized person is to be “regarded” as an adopted and believing child of God “unless and until he demonstrates otherwise.” This brings up an important point to consider. We have been talking about the objective standing and identity of the baptized Christian, not the inward spiritual condition of his heart. To understand how such a distinction applies to the grace of adoption, we only need to consider the act of adoption as we practice it today.
Think of a little boy who walks into the courtroom for his adoption ceremony. There he sees the judge, the attorney, his adopting parents, and members of his adopting family. To summarize what takes place in that event, we can say: the boy who leaves the courtroom is not the same as the one who entered. His name was Robert Stone when he walked in, but he leaves as Robert Brighthart, the newest member of the Brighthart family. By virtue of the adoption ceremony, he is now the newest member of the Brighthart family. He has a new name, new parents, new siblings, and countless other new privileges and responsibilities that correspond to his new identity.
But this is precisely where the distinction between objective and subjective realities comes into play. Although the adoption ceremony had the power to change that boy’s identity, it did not promise to change the disposition of his heart. So while these parents will love and care for their new son, the question remains: Will he love, honor, and obey them in return? Such a question cannot be answered with “decretal certainty” from the covenantal perspective because only time will tell. It is possible that even with all the love, care, and support that he receives, Robert may grow up to despise and disown his parents in return.
But here, we must be absolutely clear. If that happens, we cannot say that he was never a “real” son or that he was never “truly” adopted for that would be untrue. Robert was adopted into the Brighthart family by virtue of a real covenant transaction. The problem, therefore, is not that the grace of adoption was never given to him; the problem is that he grew up to reject the grace he was given in his adoption.
Sadly, this boy would do to his parents what many Israelites did to their heavenly Father. For God declared in the courtroom of creation: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the Lord has spoken: I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me” (Isaiah 1:2). Note carefully that the same people are called both “children” of God and “rebels” against Him. These children grew up to reject the One who raised and nourished them as a Father. So again, this highlights the difference between objective and subjective realities. Objectively, they were His children by adoption and grace, but subjectively, their hearts did not align with that reality.
The good news is that love, even if absent at the time of adoption, can develop over time. Under the powerful influence of a good father’s love, any child can be moved to repentance, faith, and heartfelt gratitude for the love that he’s been shown. As the Scripture says: “the goodness of God leads to repentance” (Rom 2:4). This can happen gradually or suddenly, privately or in plain view of the whole church community. In either case, we have to be gracious, humble and patient in our evaluations of another person’s life. After all, apart from a verbal denunciation of Jesus Christ, it is simply not possible for anyone to determine the precise condition of another person’s heart with absolute certainty. In fact, Jesus warns us against all attempts at separating what appear to be ‘tares’ from the rest of the ‘wheat’ (Matthew 13:27-29). Moreover, the gardener in the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9) gave us an example to follow. He wanted to nourish and care for the unhealthy-looking tree for another season before cutting it down. This man remained hopeful and wisely avoided any premature conclusions about the true condition of the tree, knowing that with more time the tree could turn a new leaf, revive, and bear an abundance of fruit.
Jesus, Judas, and Objective Realities
So then, if all baptized persons are to be regarded as “believers” and “faithful” from the standpoint of the covenant until they manifest a heart of unbelief, shouldn’t we expect to see a clear example of this in Scripture? The answer is yes, and, as a matter of fact, we do. The best example is how Jesus treated and regarded Judas, even though Judas had an unfaithful heart. Interestingly, John 6:64 says, “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him,” speaking of Judas Iscariot. So whether Judas was a hypocrite from the beginning, or believed for a while and then fell away (Luke 8:13), Jesus could read his heart at every point (John 2:23-25) and knew exactly what Judas was planning (Mt. 26:21). Yet, up to the time when Judas openly defected from the faith, Jesus continued to regard him as a living and believing member of the church. This is proved by the fact that Jesus administered the Lord’s Supper to Judas along with the other apostles, indicating that in terms of his objective covenant status, Judas was a “member in good standing” in the church and covenant of God.
Some theologians question whether Judas partook of the Lord’s Supper, but the Bible is clear and leaves no room for debate. In Luke 22:19-23, Judas was said to be “with Jesus” and “at the table” during the Lord’s Supper: “And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise, He also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table.”
But Jesus was the only one who knew Judas’ plan. When He mentioned the betrayal at the table the disciples questioned among themselves who would do this (v. 23). As finite men, they had no access to the Lord’s knowledge about the state of any man’s heart, and Jesus never intended to give them that access. Today, Christians and ministers are in the same position as the apostles were that night. We are called to live and operate within the covenant community on the basis of visible criteria. This is the model that Jesus gave us by his own example and it’s the model He expects us to use. He expects us to regard all men according to their objective covenant standing and not the secret disposition of their hearts, which only He can see.
______________________________
[1] That the baptism of Jesus had an important reference to His manhood can be further seen in John 1:30-34, where John said that he came to baptize in order to reveal the Son of God to Israel (compare v. 31 and 34) and yet proceeded to introduce Jesus in terms of His human nature, saying: “This is He of whom I said: ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” Likewise, when Satan came to Jesus at the end of His forty day fast, tempting Him to act independently of His Father, saying, “If You are the Son of God [i.e. as was just declared in Your baptism] then turn these stones into bread,” Jesus resisted by maintaining His human dependence on God: “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) Thus we see that the sonship that was declared in the baptism of Jesus had special (though perhaps not exclusive) reference to His humanity.
[2] In Mark 9:42, Jesus says: “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” In this statement, Jesus demonstrates that even the youngest member of the Covenant was to be regarded as a “believer” and, therefore, afforded all the honor and protection of the people of God. The only other possible (and absurd) meaning is that it’s okay to offend a little one who belongs to the Covenant so long as he is not a “true” believer in Christ!
[3] John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 354
[4] Ibid, 328
[5] Ibid, 328
[6] Ibid, 332[7] John Calvin, A reformulation of the Genevan Catechism written, found here
