What does Paul say in this verse?
Paul writes the following:
| Original: | ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος σωματικῶς· καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι, ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ, ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ*, ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. (Colossians 2:9-12) |
| Literal: | because in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
and you are in Him having been filled who is the head of all powers and authorities. In whom, even you were circumcised, a circumcision not handmade, in the removal of the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ. being buried with Him in baptism in which even you were raised together through faith of the working of God who raises Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:9-12) |
| NASB: | 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) |
| NLT: | For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision–the cutting away of your sinful nature. For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead. (Colossians 2:9-12) |
| Paraphrase: | You might ask the same question about Jesus’ teaching; why should we believe Him over any other teacher? The reason is simple; because Jesus is Lord. This means that all the perfections and authority of God Himself are found in the man Jesus. Since, His teaching is from God, it is infallible. (Hebrews 1:2) This is what sets the teaching of Jesus apart from every other philosophy and self-help program that is extant. They all fail to recognize that Jesus is God incarnate, and therefore, He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (John 14:6) He is the teacher sent from God, and we must listen, believe, and follow Him. His teaching is the truth that sets us free. (John 8:32)
Now if Jesus is God incarnate, then what are we when we are joined to Him in a saving union? Think about this if you can; we are united with Someone who is the Supreme Sovereign over all powers and authorities that exist in heaven and on earth! (Matthew 28:18) Why do we need anything else? We have everything we need in Christ. Why fill your head with the twisted and futile imaginations of some human person when we have been made partakers of the holiness of God Himself? (2 Peter 1:4) Why sit at the feet of a human teacher when all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are already in Christ? (Colossians 2:3) Perhaps some of you are anxious because you grew up a Gentile and were never circumcised. Is Christ really sufficient for you since you lack the physical sign of being one of God’s people? This, my brothers and sisters is a mistake. Circumcision was indeed a wonderful privilege, but it was just an outward, physical sign pointing to an inner, spiritual reality. Let me put it this way. Are you a believer in Jesus? Have you been joined to Him in this saving union? Then you are circumcised! In fact, you have the only circumcision that really matters, not the surgery performed by human hands but the heart surgery which our Savior performs on all those who are in union with Him. This circumcision cuts off, not your foreskin, but your sin nature so that you can live to God’s glory. So don’t think for a minute that you are a lesser sort of Christian because you are not circumcised. Perhaps you wish that you could have some kind of visible sign which would serve the same purpose for you as circumcision did for the people of the old covenant. Well, dear brothers and sisters, are you baptized? I know you are. Well then, here is your sign. How so? Because both baptism and circumcision are visible signs of the same invisible reality. Circumcision was a sign of the cutting away of your sinful nature and baptism is a sign of the washing away of this same sinful nature. (1 Peter 3:21) It is these spiritual realities which are the real thing to be sought after, not the physical sign. Take another look at your baptism since the symbolism is so rich with meaning. You went down into the water and were plunged beneath it. What is this but a visible sign of your dying with Christ on the cross. Your old self disappeared under the water never to be seen or heard from again. Then, you rose up out of that water a new man just as Christ burst forth from the grave alive again. Now was it the actual, physical water which cleansed away your sinful nature? Of course, not; it is the power of God who gives you this new life. It’s the same power which brought Jesus back to life after He had been buried. This is the power which gives you a new life and makes you a new person. Let this be the ground of your faith and not the presence or absence of a mere physical sign. |
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 very purpose for writing this letter. 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, the only circumcision that matters.
Explain this.
The text can be broken down like this:
| Greek | English Translation | Syntax & Notes |
|---|---|---|
| περιετμήθητε | you were circumcised | Main verb |
| ἐν ᾧ | in Him | Adverbial prepositional phrase answering the where question.
This circumcision only happens in union with Christ. |
| περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ | a circumcision non-handmade | a dative of manner (GGBB p161)
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 cutting off of a believer’s sinful nature or what is called regeneration. |
| ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, | by the circumcision of Christ |
This circumcision was performed by Christ. |
| συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ, | having been buried with Him in baptism… | Adverbial (anarthrous) participle agreeing with the subject of περιετμήθητε. The nuance here is temporal answering the when question.
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.
Some Christians deny that circumcision had any spiritual or moral meaning. They teach that it was only a sign of national or ethnic identity.
This is clearly wrong since Paul gives us, in this verse, the spiritual reality to which physical circumcision pointed; i.e. the cutting off of the body of flesh. Furthermore, becoming a member of the ethnic nation of Israel carried with it the idea of joining the people of God. Joining the nation of Israel was a religious act; such a person was a proselyte and came under the covenant which God had made with Israel. When Ruth resolved to join the people of God, she understood very clearly that this meant embracing the God of Israel:
And they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. Then she said, “Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.” (Ruth 1:14-17)
Backus teaches (p34) that circumcision was a type of something to come where as baptism is a visible sign of an invisible act of God:
Circumcision was a type of what should come, even of Christ’s being cut off, and also of regeneration; Col. 2:11. Whereas baptism is not a type of what is to come; but is an outward sign or manifestation of what is inwardly wrought. As many as are baptized into Christ HAVE put on Christ, Gal. 3:27.—Here lies one special difference between the ordinances of the old testament, and the new. Old testament ordinances were typical of what was to come: whereas the ordinances of the new, are open declarations of what is actually done. Thus for instance, in the Lord’s supper, we do shew forth the Lord’s Death: or from time to time, hold up a publick witness to the world that Christ has really died for sinners; and this we are to continue in the practice of, till his second coming, 1 Cor. 11:26.
But why cannot circumcision also be a visible sign of an invisible operation of God as it so often is in the Old Testament?
Where is circumcision seen as a visible sign of an invisible reality in the Old Testament?
Consider these:
- I also was acting with hostility against them, to bring them into the land of their enemies–or if their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity, (Leviticus 26:41)
- So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer. (Deuteronomy 10:16)
- Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)
- Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds.” (Jeremiah 4:4)
- Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised–Egypt and Judah, and Edom and the sons of Ammon, and Moab and all those inhabiting the desert who clip the hair on their temples; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.” (Jeremiah 9:25-26)
- …when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it, even My house, when you offered My food, the fat and the blood; for they made My covenant void–this in addition to all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of My holy things yourselves, but you have set foreigners to keep charge of My sanctuary.” Thus says the Lord GOD, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. (Ezekiel 44:7-9)
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 “the body of flesh?”
This is a reference to the sinful nature which afflicts every human person. On σαρξ, see Dickson.
What is meant by the “putting off of the body of flesh?”
Paul makes a parallel between:
- physical circumcision which was a cutting off of the foreskin, and
- spiritual circumcision which was what physical circumcision represented. In this circumcision, one’s sinful nature was cut off; cf regeneration.
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, not by human hands, but by the hands of Christ when He cut off your sinful nature… (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, 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 cut 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 from his mind since this is the visible symbol behind Paul’s thought. 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. This means that there is a relationship between these two; denying that there is a relationship between these two is ruled out by the syntax. To understand this passage, one has to explain what this relation is (see the options in GGBB p621). 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 spiritual 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.