(Col 2:11-14 ESV) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Paul compares circumcision with baptism, and many have taken this comparison as a means of defending infant baptism. After all, Jewish baby boys receive circumcision on the 8th day after their births.
But long before we get to the infant baptism question, we have to consider the point Paul was making to the Christians in Colosse.
(Col 2:6-10 ESV) 6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
In v. 6, Paul urges his readers to walk in Jesus just as they received Jesus. In other words, the terms of their salvation don’t radically change from conversion to life as a Christian. They began “established in the faith” (v. 7), and so they should continue.
Therefore, there is no need to chase after clever theories and philosophies. What they were taught when they were converted — the gospel — is quite enough. Indeed, having been “filled in him” (v 10), there is no need to seek a better tradition.
(Col 2:11-12 ESV) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
“A circumcision made without hands” is a reference to baptism, but with a heavy emphasis on the Spirit’s work in baptism (“filled in him”) as opposed to water immersion. After all, I’m not familiar with a water baptism that is “made without hands.” At my church, the preacher uses his hands every time. No, the “circumcision made without hands” is the Spirit’s work in baptism, but that work is concurrent with “having been buried with him in baptism.” And that’s a reference to immersion in water. Faith, at the time of baptism, causes the convert “to be raised with him” due to the “powerful working of God.” God does the work.
(Col 2:13-14 ESV) 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
The Colossian converts had been “dead in … the uncircumcision of your flesh.” “Flesh,” in Paul’s vocabulary, does not refer to the body so much as our unredeemed natures. N. T. Wright explains,
Better to learn, once and for all, that when Paul uses the word ‘flesh’ and other similar words he does not intend us simply to think of the ‘physical’ world, in our normal sense, as opposed to the ‘non-physical’. He has other language for that. The word we translate, here and elsewhere, as ‘flesh’ refers to people or things who share the corruptibility and mortality of the world, and, often enough and certainly here, the rebellion of the world. ‘Flesh’ is a negative term. For Paul as a Jew the created order, the physical world, was good in itself. Only its wrong use, and its corruption and defacing, are bad. ‘Flesh’ highlights that wrong use, that corruption and decay.
Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part One
(Rom 2:29 ESV) 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Paul was saying that, before you Colossians were baptized, you were fleshly beings (sinful) in need of circumcision (receipt of the Spirit’s circumcising work on the heart).
(Col 2:20-23 ESV) 20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations — 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used) — according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Again, Paul points them back to their conversion. Ascetic rules can’t change the heart. That’s what the Spirit does. Therefore, you don’t need to create laws to find God’s favor.
(Col 3:1 ESV) If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
If in baptism you were raised with Christ (which is true, of course), then you need to pursue becoming like Christ (“things that are above”).
(Col 3:9-10 ESV) 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
The goal is for a saved person to “put on the new self” and so become more and more like “the image of its creator.”
As is very typical of Paul, he argues that the gospel that saved us is sufficient to carry us to the end. The gospel is the filter that helps us separate Christlikeness from pretenders. There are many claims to our loyalty, but only one matters: the gospel. Having received life in the gospel, live in the gospel.
Is baptism a covenantal mark like circumcision?
Paul is arguing from Deuteronomy. He assumes his readers know the general outline.
It’s commonly taught that the Law of Moses was all about superficiliaties — getting the form of worship right with no concern for the worshiper’s heart. Those who teach this betray their ignorance of the Old Testament. At the beginning of the reading of the Law just before Israel entered the Promised Land, God commanded —
(Deu 10:12-13 ESV) 12 “And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good?”
It’s not enough to obey the rules. You must get your hearts right before God! Indeed, while circumcision of the flesh was commanded, God emphasized circumcision of the heart —
(Deu 10:16 ESV) 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
And the burden of changing hearts was on the people. They were told to fix their own hearts.
Much later in Deuteronomy, God’s prophesied that a day would come when the covenant would change —
(Deu 30:6 ESV) 6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Under this new covenant, God himself would transform the hearts of his people. After all, if their hearts are right, the rest will follow, at least, the rest will follow well enough.
Circumcision was a mark of a Jew. There were many other marks, as well, such as honoring the food laws, festivals, and such. Paul uses the “circumcision” we receive in baptism, by the Spirit, in contrast not only to physical circumcision, but to all the other marks. Baptism in faith is an entirely sufficient mark of one’s election and place in the Kingdom and promise of the Promised Land inheritance.
Ahh … we have to consider faith as well as baptism. After all, Paul wrote,
(Col 1:21-23 ESV) 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
(Col 2:5-7 ESV) 5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. 6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
(Col 2:11-12 ESV) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
There’s a repeating theme: you began in faith, continue in faith. The circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, that Paul refers to comes to people of faith — and faith is not only the starting point, Jesus will carry people of faith home.
And so faith, together with baptism, mark the people of God. And baptism isn’t designed for those without faith.
Romans on circumcision
To confirm the conclusion, let’s consider a parallel passage in Romans —
(Rom 2:25-29 ESV) 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
In a classic passage, Paul argues that the circumcision that matters is not physical circumcision but circumcision of the heart (Deu 30:6) by the Spirit. Paul is also alluding to —
(Eze 11:19-20 ESV) 19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Paul is arguing, as Ezekiel taught, that those whose hearts are re-formed by God will be obedient — not perfectly obedient, but obedient in the Deu 10:12 sense: “to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
Paul later explains,
(Rom 3:29-30 ESV) 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one — who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Faith is a necessity for justification.
(Rom 4:9-12 ESV) 9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
In fact, Paul makes it clear that even Abraham was justified by faith long before he was circumcised physically.
To me, the idea of infant baptism contradicts the idea that justification is by faith — which is taught much more than clearly. Water baptism is for someone of faith.
I’m not saying that those baptized as infants are damned. I don’t think they are — if they have a genuine, saving faith. But I don’t think that’s how God meant for baptism to work, and I think infant baptism distorts the plan and purpose of baptism. I’m not smarter than God, and God thinks that getting immersed following a declaration of faith is important enough to be his design for converts. And that ends the discussion so far as I’m concerned.
Great post, Jay. Thoroughly considered and well expressed. I thank God for the spiritual gifts you have and for your faith in allowing the Spirit to work through them to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is interesting how our early training influences our present thinking in the form of starting presumptions, so transparent to us that we don't realize that we have already filtered out much of the depth of revelation about the scripture even before we even begin an open, "just show me, Lord," type of study. For me, when the Spirit finally breaks through that barrier, a larger part of the spiritual universe opens up to my awe and amazement. That's usually when I make a great new discovery in revelation (to me) that people with different backgrounds (and different set of presumptions) already knew and were saying for a long time. Rather than share my amazement, they say, "What took you so long?"
This is why an open forum like this is important. Hopefully those who participate are people who honestly want to expose and challenge their transparent presumptions and not just entertain ideas that reshuffle the same old traditional thinking. From your posts and comments that follow, that openness does seem to be dominant.
I believe the future of the church, and particularly the relevance of the C o C in tomorrow's society, depends on this growth process. Thank you for providing the scaffolding.
While I believe the above is true, butter also flows for a reason. One presumption I have had to challenge from my background is mentally adding "water" every time I read "baptism." That creates an interpretation which creates poor exegesis of Acts. Then, the same is carried into Paul's writings.
….. continued ……
Jay,
First let me be a "ditto head" by saying "ditto" to what Theopholis just said. This is an absolutely great post!
One phrase that you did not dissect is the last phrase of Col 2:11 – "by the circumcision of Christ." G. R. Beasley-Murray ("The Second Chapter of Colossians" in The Review and Expositor LXX: Fall, 1973, pp. 474f) suggests that this expression refers to Christ's death. He reasons thus because there is rabbinic evidence that makes the blood of circumcision sacrificial blood, based on the incident recorded in Exodus 4:24ff where Moses was confronted by an angel threatening his life as he began his journey to Egypt for his confrontation with Pharaoh. Viewed as the death of Christ, his circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12 would parallel Romans 6:3-4.
Whether this is true or not, Colossians definitely has the work of God in view, not baptism as a work of man – and God's work in baptism is accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the sacrifice of Christ.
Jerry
Maybe this is the wrong post for my question, but I'm wondering if there are those who believe that one is lost if they don't understand all that God does with baptism? In a recent class on this passage the teacher said he didn't understand for years that his flesh was circumcised during baptism, but then he turned around and blasted Baptists because they bury a living person during baptism and he's also stated that one is lost unless they understand they are baptized for remission of sins. I don't understand this position. If God is able to circumcise the flesh during baptism without one knowing about it, can't other things (forgiveness of sins, being buried with Jesus) happen without us knowing it? I've heard the phrase "You can't be taught wrong and baptized right" but would these same people say you can be ignorant and baptized right?
Josh
Burnt Ribs,
Exactly.
There is a school of thought that you can be ignorant of the full meaning of baptism and the baptism will work, but if you are in error on any aspect of the doctrine, the baptism doesn't work.
But for 100 years, at least, the Churches of Christ have immersed people who were taught they were not receiving a personal indwelling of the Spirit. On the theory that any baptismal error damns, we baptized millions who are damned to hell because of our teaching.
The whole thing is designed to draw a distinction that damns the Baptists — which is a horrific way to do theology. For some reason, about 100 years ago, we stopped treating the Baptist as saved despite our disagreements and decided they must be damned.
And, of course, the same heart that led to damning the Baptists led to damning each other over such silliness as fellowship halls and congregational support of orphanages. It's hugely embarrassing, deeply wrong hearted, and very bad theology.
The Restoration Movement was founded to end such horrors and to recognize all penitent believers in Jesus as brothers and sisters in Christ. We then became the very thing the Movement was founded to combat.
If people who had been baptized in the early church know all about the significance of what they had done, why did Paul have to write so much about it and explain to them what happened and what difference it was to make in their lives? Ephesians and Colossians and Galatians are full of instructions about this.
Col. 1:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, …..
Were the Christians in Colossi making up some of their own human doctrines? If so, Paul associated these rules with "principles of this world."
Who shows a more immature understanding of baptism, someone who is learning more and more about the significance of baptism (like Christians in Ephesus, Colossi, Galatia, or Apollos in Acts 18:24) or someone who says that the baptism of other groups doesn't count because they don't say the right things at the time, or some similar "appearance of wisdom?" In which position is the person growing into maturity? Which position divides the body of Christ? Could one of these attitudes be called ….. idolatrous?
If learning more about the significance of baptism discounts the validity of a past baptism, I am in trouble. In petitioning God for a greater knowledge of baptism and the Holy Spirit, my understanding in the last 4 years has increased many orders of magnitude. I have gone from a "wonder what this means" to an absolute awe of the majesty and incredible power of our God. I don't think this has invalidated the baptism for the previous 60 years of lesser understanding. I pray to learn more.
Because the C o C has historically placed so much emphasis on the authority of scripture, the C o C is in a position to be used by God to make a real difference in today's post-modern culture. However, we will be emaciated in power and useless in revival unless we realize that it is far more important to restore the Spirit of New Testament Christianity than the form.
The C o C has formed too much of its doctrine based on a reaction to other denominational groups rather than on a genuine revelation from the Holy Spirit. We have taken eyes off of Jesus for so many years that many us have grown up under that regime of thinking and almost don't know anything else. We have to realize that problem, shed our binding exoskeleton, and become born again. There isn't time for a slow renovation. Babylon is forming. Some will wake up after it is too late.
God help us.