The “sacrament” of circumcision was administered by the head of the Family, not an institutional “church.”
1. Genesis 17:23; Exodus 4:24-26
Gary North and James Jordan (neither of whom agree with all of these Theses)have written interesting articles on circumcision. Jordan's article is "Proleptic Passover," Appendix F in Law of the Covenant. North's essay is entitled, "The Marriage Supper of the Lamb," in Christianity and Civilization No. 4: The Reconstruction of the Church. North's earlier views are in "Family Authority vs. Protestant Sacerdotalism," in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction symposium on the Family, Vol. IV, No. 2, Winter 1977-78, reprinted in Vol. XVI, "The 25th Anniversary Issue" available at The Chalcedon Store.
Gary North denies this Thesis in his book Baptized Patriarchalism, pp. 44ff. He says,
Asa household priest, the father may have circumcised his sons. But if he did, he did so a delegated agent of the Levitical priesthood.
The Levitical Priesthood did not exist when Abraham began circumcizing his sons. Abraham tithed to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The "priesthood of all believers" is certainly more likely through Christ and the Melchizedek priesthood than the Levitical.
This Thesis and future Theses will argue that "sacraments" were originally and rightfully administered by families (in the pages of the Old Testament and in the pages of the New Testament, during "the last days" of the Old Covenant), that "the church" was a remedial organization for the family, and that both "church" and "sacraments" were part of the Old Covenant, and did not remain after the coming of Christ in A.D. 70.
70 Theses til Election Day