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.
Subscribe by RSS
Gary Said,
February 2, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
I really get tired of reading this kind of stuff that is so emphatic that there is no room for tolerance or any place for thought. I am certainly glad God is not religious, and I am soooooo thankful that Christ doesn’t send down lightning bolts to authors who stand in the way of the true meaning of baptism, and get all caught up in the semantics of what his or her perception of what “being born again” or even suggesting that there is only one way to give your heart to Christ. Go ahead, believe that you and yours will be the only ones in heaven…but get ready for a great surprise my friend.
Kameron Franklin Said,
February 3, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Hi, Gary. Thanks for visiting. There is always a place for thought, but that thought has to be reconciled with the word of God before it can be considered truth. Otherwise, what makes one person’s definition of baptism more “true” than someone else’s? It’s not about semantics, it’s about reading God’s word and using it as the authority on all spiritual issues.
Alex Said,
April 6, 2010 @ 4:45 am
Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:18-20).
While it is true that there is no explicit command to baptize infants, it is implied and makes good sense. We know that circumcision was the entrance sign into the Old Covenant. “I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they are bound to keep the law in its entirety” (Galatians 5:3). This sign was replaced in the New Covenant by baptism. “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ. In baptism you were not only buried with him but also raised to life with him because you believed in the power of God who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:11-12). In the Old Covenant the males had to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. “This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the covenant between you and me” (Genesis 17:10-11). So important was this sign that many Jewish Christians demanded that Gentiles converts be circumcised. “Some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1). The Council of Jerusalem determined that gentiles did not have to undergo circumcision. “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 15:11). This decision was a confirmation of what St. Peter had already done in accepting the first Gentiles into the Church. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). Significantly, Peter did not command them to be circumcised. This is a very important fact that must not be overlooked.
So we have seen a number of parallels between each covenants entrance signs. Circumcision was replaced with baptism. Circumcision was necessary for salvation under the Old Covenant now it is baptism that is necessary. “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…” (1 Peter 3:21; see also John 3:5 & Acts 2:38). There is one more parallel that we have not looked at yet. This parallel is extremely important for our study. When was circumcision ideally performed? “Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised…” (Genesis 17:12). Circumcision could be performed on an adult convert, but it was ideally performed in infancy. I submit that it is the exact same way with baptism. It may be performed on adult converts, but it is ideally performed in infancy. Since babies were admitted into the family of God under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is “a better covenant, founded on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6) shouldn’t babies be admitted into the family of God under the New Covenant? If Christian babies could not enter God’s family it would certainly not be a better covenant as far as the parents were concerned. This was the thinking of the early Church; therefore, babies have always been baptized into the Christian Church.
A couple of examples from the writings of the Church Fathers show this early and widespread practice. St. Irenaeus noted, “For He came to save all though means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youth, and old men” (Against Heresies, A.D. 180). Origin wrote, “The Church has received from the Apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants” (Commentary on Romans, A.D. 244).
While there are no explicit cases of infant baptisms we must note the explicit baptisms of entire families or households (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). These families would certainly be exception if they did not contain infants and children under the age of reason. No where do we read, “Whole families were baptized except for young children and babies.” The Church recognized that if God allowed babies into the Old Covenant, He could do no less in the New Covenant. Since baptism is the recognized means into the New Covenant infant baptism was the natural thing for the early Church to perform.
In Jesus’ blessing of the little children (Luke 18:15-17) we can see support for infant baptism. Our Lord says, “Let the little children come to me. Do not hinder them. The reign of God belongs to such as these” (v. 16). As we have seen coming to the Lord is accomplished through the entrance sign of baptism. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Corinthians 12:13). St. Luke tells us explicitly that some of the little children that came to Jesus were babies (Luke 18:15).
Another passage that may lend support for infant baptism is St. Peter’s Pentecost sermon. He informs the crowd that they must repent and be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit. He then states, “It was to you and your children that the promise was made…” (Acts 2:39). The promise of the reception of the Holy Spirit was made even to the children. The Holy Spirit is usually given by means of baptism. It is interesting that the Bible does not give any examples of older children being baptized.
Remember that the writers of the New Testament were concerned with adult coverts to Christianity. That is the way that the Church began to grow. That is why we read much about adult baptism. That is also the reason that baptism is often linked with believing. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). This is absolutely true of adult converts, but it in no way precludes the baptism of infants as we have seen. As the adult converts began to have babies the Church confronted the issue of infant baptism. The result being that infant baptism is well attested to in the extra-biblical writings of the early Church