What does Paul teaching in this passage?
Paul writes:
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:9-12)
What is Paul’s point?
The point of Paul’s teaching here is summarized in this: you are complete in Him. The full sufficiency of Christ for all that a believer needs is Paul’s point. It is in Christ alone, that one finds all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:3) No philosophy or set of rules can do for the believer what Christ does.
How do these verses speak to that subject
Because the Jewish-Christians in Colossae prided themselves on their circumcision and thought of themselves as God’s special favorites because of their having received this physical sign of God’s covenant. (Matthew 3:9; Acts 15:1-5; Galatians 6:12-13; Philippians 3:3-5) No doubt, the gentile-Christians wondered if they were second class Christians because they lacked this sign. “Certainly not!” says Paul. You are complete in Christ; nothing needs to be added, circumcision included. In fact, says Paul, you have a circumcision. You gentile-Christians have the only circumcision that matters.
Explain this.
The text can be broken down like this:
| περιετμήθητε | you were circumcised | Main verb |
| ἐν ᾧ | in Him | This circumcision takes place when a believer is united to Christ. |
| περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ | a circumcision non-handmade | This circumcision is not done by human agency. |
| ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, | in the removal of the body of flesh | This circumcision consists in the removal of a believer’s sinful nature or what is called regeneration. |
| ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, | in the circumcision of Christ | This circumcision was performed by Christ. |
| συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ, | having been buried with Him in baptism… | This circumcision happened when the believer was baptized. |
Of what circumcision is Paul speaking here?
Clearly, Paul is referring to spiritual circumcision or the invisible, spiritual reality to which physical circumcision pointed. This is clear because he says that this circumcision was not “hand made” meaning it was not performed with human hands. It consisted in the cutting off of the flesh or one’s sin nature.
Why does Paul reference spiritual circumcision here?
Because his larger point is that a believer is complete in Christ. Nothing needs to be added to Christ. The gentile believers, however, were not circumcised, so were they really complete in Christ? Paul assures them that they are and that they have the only circumcision that really matters.
What is meant by the “putting off of the body of flesh?”
Paul makes a parallel between:
- physical circumcision where the visible sign was a cutting off of the foreskin, and
- spiritual circumcision which was an invisible reality involving the cutting off of one’s sinful nature.
It’s the same truth contained in Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24, and Ephesians 4:22-24.
Does Paul make this distinction between physical and spiritual circumcision anywhere else in his writings?
He does. Paul wrote to the Jews in Rome that even though they were physically circumcised, their disobedience to the law made their circumcision to become uncircumcision. Paul goes on to write:
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:28-29)
Paul makes the same distinction in Ephesians:
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands–remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Ephesians 2:11-12)
Paul repeats this in Philippians 3 where he speaks of the true circumcision:
Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. (Philippians 3:1-7)
Paul may have learned this from Stephen who also makes a reference to this when he accuses the Sanhedrin:
You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. (Acts 7:51)
When does this spiritual circumcision take place?
It takes place when we are united to Christ which is the meaning of the phrase in Whom.
What is meant by “the circumcision of Christ”?
This is an ambiguous phrase. It could be a subjective genitive in which case it would mean a circumcision which Christ performs. In this case the text could be paraphrased:
…and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands but performed by Christ Himself, in the removal of the body of the flesh… (Colossians 2:11)
It could be an objective genitive in which it means the circumcision which Christ received.
…and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands. Yes, when Christ was circumcised on the eighth day and had His flesh cut off, so you also had your sinful nature cut off when you were spiritually circumcised. (Colossians 2:11)
A variation on this view is that the circumcision referred to here is not Christ’s circumcision on the eighth day but his circumcision which took place on the cross. On the cross, Jesus’ body was stripped off as a punishment for the sins of His people. To paraphrase:
…and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands. This took place when Christ, so to speak, was circumcised on the cross, when His flesh was torn off and He died. (Colossians 2:11)
Which of these is correct?
It is impossible to know with certainty.
- Paul had led off this passage with being in Him. This suggests that the circumcision of Christ is what was done to Jesus and we participate in these benefits by reason of our union with Him.
- Paul also said, however, that our circumcision is non-handmade which would suggest that our circumcision is Christ-made.
Why does Paul mention baptism here?
In their circumcision, the Jewish-believers had a visible symbol of their being one of God’s children. It was a seal of the righteousness which they had received by faith (Romans 4:11); it was a symbol that their sinful nature had been cut off. (Colossians 2:11) The gentile-believers did not have such a sign. Yes, they were complete in Christ, but they still missed this visible sign of God’s saving work in their life. Paul teaches them, however, that they did have a sign; after all, they had been baptized. Their baptism was a visible sign to them that they had been buried with Christ and raised again to a new life.
Is Paul referring here to water baptism?
By baptism, Paul rarely means water baptism. Here too, his emphasis is on Spirit baptism since he says by this baptism, they were raised up with Christ. Still, the act of water baptism is not far away since this is the visible symbol of the Spirit’s baptism. That’s why Paul speaks here of being buried with Christ which corresponds to being immersed in water and being raised up with Christ implying one coming up out of the water. A similar thought to this is in Romans 6:3-4 where Paul speaks of Spirit baptism but with the symbolism of water baptism close at hand.
What is the relationship between baptism and circumcision?
First, note that there must be a relationship between these two in Paul’s mind. The syntax of the passage requires it. The nominative plural participle συνταφέντες is modifying the plural subject of the main verb περιετμήθητε. To understand this passage, one has to explain what this relation is (see the options in GGBB p621). Simply denying that there is a relationship between these two is not an option. The question is not if there is a relationship but what is that relationship.
Second, Paul teaches us here that when we were baptized, we were circumcised. True, the outward signs are different, but the reality which they symbolize is the same.
Is is accurate, then, to say that baptism has replaced circumcision?
It depends on what is meant by this expression.
- It is not correct to say that circumcision was the type and baptism the antitype. This is incorrect because both are symbols pointing to the same reality.
- The correct way to understand this expression is that circumcision was the sign of the old covenant and baptism is the sign of the new covenant. In this sense, baptism has replaced circumcision.
Fairbairn writes (p326):
The bearing of all this on the ordinance of Christian baptism cannot be overlooked, but it may still be mistaken. The relation between circumcision and baptism is not properly that of type and antitype; the one is a symbolical ordinance as well as the other, and both alike have an outward form and an inward reality. It is precisely in such ordinances that the Old and the New Dispensations approach nearest to each other, and, we might almost say, stand formally upon the same level. The difference does not so much lie in the ordinances themselves, as in the comparative amount of grace and truth respectively exhibited in them—necessarily less in the earlier, and more in the later. The difference in external form was in each case conditioned by the circumstances of the time. In circumcision it bore respect to the propagation of offspring, as it was through the production of a seed of blessing that the covenant, in its preparatory form, was to attain its realization. But when the seed in that respect had reached its culminating point in Christ, and the objects of the covenant were no longer dependent on natural propagation of seed, but were to be carried forward by spiritual means and influences used in connection with the faith of Christ, the external ordinance was fitly altered, so as to express simply a change of nature and state in the individual that received it. Undoubtedly the New Testament form less distinctly recognizes the connection between parent and child—we should rather say, does not of itself recognize that connection at all; so much ought to be frankly conceded to those who disapprove of the practice of infant baptism, and will be conceded by all whose object is to ascertain the truth rather than contend for an opinion.