The Circumcision of Christ (Thoughts on Baptism)

It's not a new discussion in the church of who should be baptized and how. And today, I want just to quickly go over the text we find in Colossians 2:11-12 as we think about this subject.

The Apostle is here telling the church in Colossae that there is no need for the circumcision of the body because now they have received the circumcision of Christ. The Old Testament circumcision pointed to the New Testament circumcision of Christ. This circumcision that is "made without hands."

The circumcision of the flesh was established in Genesis 17:10 with Abraham, but look at what God promises in Deuteronomy 10:16: "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." And in the Gospel, we find the fulfillment of this promise. Now, we don't need the circumcision of the flesh because it was a shadow of the substance we find in Jesus.

And this circumcision of Christ is a putting off not just of the foreskin of the male organ, but it's a putting off of the body of flesh. It's about being buried with Christ for this old sinful nature and now being raised with Christ for freedom from sin and glory.

Circumcision, as all other regulations of the Old Testament law, found their fulfilment in Christ. It does not mean that these regulations were abolished; no, they are fulfilled, which is different. It's not that the OT circumcision was unnecessary. It was necessary as a prophetic symbol of this reality that we now experience through the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit.

The OT regulations had their role in preparing people and pointing them to Jesus Christ, the Messiah. But now we are all free from the law, as we have been filled by the one who is the fulfilment of the Law.

And it's in this context that Paul brings up the topic of Baptism. And this text is one of the good biblical reasons you have to subscribe to "believer's baptism" only. So, different from what many of my reformed brothers believe, circumcision was not pointing to baptism, as if in the New Testament, baptism became the new form of circumcision - or the new sign of the covenant. Although they would agree that both signs can't be equated, they would argue that both circumcision and baptism are signs of the covenants - old and new, respectively - and they would see more continuity than we, reformed baptists, do between the two.

Now, although we can all agree that circumcision and baptism are both signs of covenants, we need to observe that circumcision was the sign of a promise given to the people of God that would point them to the circumcision of Christ, which is this circumcision of the heart, the putting off of the body of flesh by the powerful working of God, who raised Jesus from the dead. And Christian baptism signifies and conveys not a promise but a spiritual reality. Baptism points us to something God already did in us. Baptism communicates the reality that we were raised with Christ through faith in the powerful working of God. For this reason, baptism should only be administered by the church to those who have expressed faith in Jesus Christ and whose lives show the signs that they are born again.

We could maybe say that circumcision was the engagement ring, but now baptism is the wedding ring, having both symbols (or signs) pointing to the same reality but conveying a different aspect of time of that same reality.

As we see in our text in Colossians, Baptism is not the sign of a promise but the tangible sign of this marvellous fulfillment of a promise given to the Old Testament believers that one day God would circumcise our hearts to love him with all our hearts and with all our souls to enjoy eternal life with Him.

The Old Testament covenant was a covenant of promises, the new covenant in Jesus is a covenant of promises fulfilled.

Praise God, Our God who is faithful in fulfilling all His promises.

Nino Marques