Does Infant Baptism Replace Circumcision?

One reason some religious groups baptize babies instead of those who are old enough to be taught and then to believe is because they believe baptism is–in the New Testament–what circumcision was in the Old Testament.

They believe those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised, therefore those in the New Testament, those born in Christian households, can be baptized (sprinkled) in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised.

One biblical text that certain advocates of infant baptism frequently cite to support this position is Colossians 2:10-12:

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

First, there is neither precept nor precedent for the modern practice of infant baptism in all the scriptures, and in fact, this practice is in violation of the scriptures. The historic record apparently offers no clear proof of such practice prior to about 256 A.D., when it is known to have been observed in North Africa. “It was in the early centuries exclusively reserved for sick and infirm persons too weak to be submitted to immersion. There is evidence to show that those who received the rite in this form were somewhat despised” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Revised Edition under Baptism, Aspersion).

The Bible word “baptize” means to immerse. Thayer’s lexicon on BAPTIZO says, “to dip, immerse, and submerge.” There are other Greek words for “sprinkle” (RANTIZO) or “pour” (CHEO). Had God wanted to authorize these, the words were available, but instead He chose a word that never means sprinkle or pour.

Paul settled the issue when he said, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12; cf. also Rom. 6:3-5). Even Martin Luther urged, in opposition to the standard practice of pouring, that baptism should be by immersion. He pointed out that the word in the Greek language means “To plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it,” and urged that immersion should be the mode of baptism (A Compend of Luther’s Theology, p. 167, via Handbook of Religious Quotations, p. 11).

The practice was perpetuated and finally dogmatized by the Roman Catholic Church. This unscriptural rite is also seen in many Protestant churches, who inherited it from their Roman ancestors. While the leaders of the Reformation can generally be credited with zeal toward scriptural compliance in matters of doctrine, their tendency was to neglect the scriptures in matters of church practice, opting instead for the vain traditions of men (Mark 7:5-13).

And He said to them, Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men (Mark 7:6-7).

Second, we are convinced no one would have ever seen such a thing in this text had they been reading it through unsoiled glasses. Their argument is manifestly erroneous at several points. If baptism replaced circumcision, then why are they both still in force in this text? Paul wrote, “ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God.”

An examination of the full context shows that the timing of the circumcision and baptism are relative to the words, “And ye are complete in him.” That is, they were circumcised and baptized as of the time they were complete in him.

Nowhere in Colossians 2:11-12 (nor anywhere else in the Bible) do we learn that “baptism replaces circumcision” In Paul’s letter to the Colossians, he merely stated that when they became Christians they were “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh” (2:11). Paul mentioned circumcision, but only to make the point that when the Colossians obeyed the Gospel, they were circumcised spiritually. It is a circumcision of the heart and is performed by the Spirit (Rom 2:29).

The practice of sprinkling the infant is clearly condemned by this scripture because it speaks of being buried with Him in baptism, thereby demanding immersion. “The covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) was confined to descendants of Abraham, and Jacob, and those converted to Judaism (Gen. 17:12-13; Ex. 12:48), but baptism was commanded for all nations (Matt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15). Circumcision was confined to males; baptism is for both males and females (Gal. 3:26-28).

The NIV weakens the argument for infant baptism when it says “…raised with him through your faith in the power of God,” because a baby cannot be taught and thereby believe or have faith. Paul says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

Jesus told his Apostles, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). This text shows who is to be baptized: It is someone who had been taught. We are to teach first, then baptize next.

Jesus also said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk 16:16). Again, a person is to believe first, then be baptized next.

Accordingly, those converted on the day of Pentecost gladly received the word and were then baptized (Acts 2:36-41). Further, Philip gave the Ethiopian eunuch the condition for being baptized: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:37). Philip obviously presented this as a necessary condition. If the eunuch had not believed with all his heart, then he could not have been baptized.

Under the New Testament when a person has been taught the gospel, believes that Jesus is the Christ, repents of his/her sins, and is baptized for the remission of sins, then in the act of baptism God performs surgery by cutting off the old man of sin by spiritual circumcision in the process of cleansing one by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7).

Do you have a question about the Bible or Christianity? Send it to us and the answer may be posted as a Question of the Week.

Related Articles

• Is Baptism By Sprinkling, Pouring Or Immersion?
• What Does It Mean To Be Born Again?
• How Does One Enter The Church?
• Do Infants Need To Be Baptized?
• At What Point Does The Blood Of Christ Save Us?