Infant Baptism: Circumcision and Baptism

Article by:

Blake Hudson

Introduction

Many people assume that baptism is the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament circumcision and therefore infants ought to be baptized. They make this assumption on a faulty understanding of the Abrahamic covenant and a faulty understanding of Colossians 2:8-14.

Protestants who baptize infants (Roman Catholics baptize infants, but they do so in order to remove the guilt of original sin – a topic for a different discussion) make an argument that goes something like this¹:

Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant in the OT
All (male) Israelites were to be circumcised as infants to be part of the Abrahamic covenant
The New Covenant is a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant
Baptism is the NT equivalent of circumcision as shown in Colossians 2:8-14
Therefore baptism should be administered to infants so that they are part of God’s covenant people

The Abrahamic Covenant

Children of Faith, Not Circumcision

Consider the nature of the Abrahamic covenant (c.f. Genesis 12, 15, 17) as it relates to Christians. While it is true that through Jesus, Christians are the children of Abraham (Galatians 3:29, Romans 4:11-12), it should be pointed out that we are children of Abraham’s faith, not circumcision. We are children of pre-circumcision Abraham. This is the point that Paul makes in Romans 2:24-29, 3:30, and most clearly in 4:1-16. Circumcision was not attached to God’s initial promises to Abraham in Genesis 12.

Circumcision Specifically for the Nation of Israel

Circumcision was given after God’s promise to Abraham and was given as a covenantal sign to the Israelite nation. Consider Genesis 17:10-14

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Genesis 17:10-14 (ESV)

The fact that the New Testament makes abundantly clear that circumcision is not necessary for Christians (Acts 11:1-3; 15:10-11, Romans 2:28-29, Galatians 5:6, Colossians 3:9-11) makes it equally clear that…

Circumcision was a covenant made with the Jewish nation, not intended for Christians
It found its fulfillment in Jesus
It is not part of what it means to be a spiritual descendant of Abraham

Again, we are children of Abraham’s faith, not circumcision. So we should not be looking for a one-to-one NT equivalent to circumcision.

The Abrahamic Covenant Fulfilled in Jesus

The Abrahamic covenant has been fulfilled. Those defending infant baptism point out that the covenant made with Abraham and his offspring was an eternal covenant. But being eternal does not negate the possibility of the covenant being fulfilled, rather it guarantees that whatever God promised would be fulfilled. It is also true that the fulfillment of the covenant has eternal consequences. All three facets of the Abrahamic covenant were fulfilled:

Abraham’s descendants became a great nation
The land was received by the Israelites (see Joshua 21:43-45)
And all nations of the earth were and continue to be blessed by the Messiah, who was a descendant of Abraham’s

Covenant Fulfilled, Yet Escalated

Although the promises to Abraham have been fulfilled, in Jesus there is also a recapitulation and escalation of the promises in the new covenant. In the new covenant…

Abraham’s descendants are multiplied even more through the engrafting of faithful Gentiles (Romans 11:11-24)
Christians look forward, not just to the land of Palestine, but to the new heavens and earth (Revelation 21-22), to a heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16)
All nations of the world continue to be blessed by the Seed of Abraham, Jesus

Colossians, Circumcision, and Baptism

Now we need to look at the passage used by those who promote infant baptism to connect circumcision and baptism – Colossians 2:8-14

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. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 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, 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. 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, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 2:8-14 (ESV)

This verse, it is argued, shows that Paul is indicating that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. But is Paul making an equation between circumcision and baptism in Colossians? He is not. Let’s consider this verse in detail.

Imagery, Not Equation

Paul does not equate circumcision with baptism in Colossians. He is using the imagery of circumcision to make a point, but he is not arguing that OT circumcision = NT baptism. The focus of Colossians 2:8-14 is on Jesus and the work he performs at the time of a person’s baptism. In baptism, a person is buried with Jesus, is raised through faith, and in so doing the sinful body of flesh is removed, which is described as “the circumcision of Christ”. Consider that imagery: the circumcision of Christ which removes the body of flesh. In the OT, circumcision was the process whereby the foreskin was removed from a male’s penis. The removal of the foreskin was a covenant sign, but was also intended to symbolize a heart open and tender to God’s will (Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4). And what happened to the foreskin after it was removed? It was now a dead piece of flesh and was disposed of, never to be attached again.

A Spiritual Circumcision Performed at Baptism

Now consider again Colossians 2:8-14. Nowhere in that passage does Paul mention Abraham or covenants – because that’s not the point he is making with the metaphorical imagery! Paul is making use of the imagery of circumcision, not drawing a strict equation between circumcision and baptism. The spiritual (“made without hands”) circumcision that Christ performs on a person (man or woman) occurs at baptism and is the removal of that person’s old, sinful self. The dead body of sin is removed and the person is made alive through the forgiveness of sins and receiving of the Holy Spirit. Compare Colossians 2:8-14 with Romans 6:1-4

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:1-4 (ESV)

Paul is making the same point in both Colossians and Romans. In Romans he focuses more on the imagery of death, burial, resurrection while in Colossians he includes the imagery of circumcision, but the point is the same in both: when a person is baptized in faith, God removes that person’s sins and makes them alive in Christ. Circumcision is imagery, not equation.

Raised With Him Through Faith

One final point regarding Colossians 2:8-14 is that baptism requires a person’s faith in God. In baptism, a person is raised “through faith in the powerful working of God”. Circumcision in the OT did not require a person’s faith, and so infants were circumcised. Circumcision was given as a covenant sign for the Israelite nation and included all Israelites, whether or not that person had faith or not. This is possible because the OT covenants were a means of bringing forth the Messiah. They were covenants of service, not salvation. The NT covenant is one of salvation and is of a very different nature than the OT covenants (see Jeremiah 31:31-34). More could be said on this subject, but that will need a separate, dedicated discussion. Suffice it to say that baptism requires faith, and so is very unlike circumcision in that regard.

Summing it Up

To summarize, we are children of Abraham’s faith, not his circumcision, and so should not even be looking for a NT replacement of circumcision to begin with. Not only that, but Colossians 2:8-14 makes no mention of Abraham or covenants because Paul is not trying to indicate that baptism is the NT equivalent of circumcision. On the contrary, Paul is using the common OT imagery of circumcision to illustrate how the body of sin is removed by Jesus when a person is baptized. Finally, even if baptism is considered the NT replacement of circumcision, there is an element essential to baptism that was not essential to circumcision: faith. And if a person must have faith to be baptized, then baptism does not apply to infants.

Notes

An example of this argument in favor of infant baptism can be found here.