Is baptism the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision?

Circumcision was to take place as early as eight days old, certainly a time when the child could not understand anything about it. Its meaning remains the same whether people understand it or not, just as is true of baptism, which also teaches death to the flesh. The connection between the two is seen in Colossians 2:11-14. In the present dispensation baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign by which one is put in the place of death, the outward acknowledgment that the flesh is reduced to nothing.

Circumcision was to take place as early as eight days old, certainly a time when the child could not understand anything about it. Its meaning remains the same whether people understand it or not, just as is true of baptism, which also teaches death to the flesh. The connection between the two is seen in Colossians 2:11-14. In the present dispensation baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign by which one is put in the place of death, the outward acknowledgment that the flesh is reduced to nothing.

If circumcision applied to children of eight days old even, why should not Baptism? Is there anything in the nature of Baptism to prevent it? To say that the latter is done in the Name of the Trinity is no argument, for the other was done equally in the Name, and with the sanction, of God. That there is a very close analogy between circumcision and Baptism is proved by Col. 2:11. I speak of the spiritual significance of each. Both introduce into outward relationship with God and into a sphere of outward privilege. Circumcision was unto something and so is Baptism. To conclude that circumcision might apply to children, but Baptism not, is simply to do violence to the whole bearing of Scripture, and to break up its continuity.

I have just said that Baptism introduces into outward relationship with God and into a sphere of outward privilege. Some assert there is no such outward place, but I will deal with that under a separate head. I merely wish now to prove from Scripture that, if there be such a place, Baptism is the rite by which we are admitted. I ask you to look with me again at 1 Cor. 10:1-2. Here we find Baptism distinctly linked with the Old Testament. The passage of the Red Sea is said to be the baptizing of all Israel unto Moses. Yet this included children. How then can you say there is no Scripture for the Baptism of infants? So truly did the Red Sea set forth this ordinance that the Word of God unhesitatingly describes it as Baptism. And as you yourself very correctly remark, in your note to p. 7 "There are no 'different views' of Baptism in the Scriptures." If that is so then here we have the truth as to Baptism itself and to whom it applies. One often hears the argument how can you baptize children — infants — when you don't know how they are going to turn out? If people knew what Baptism is they would never advance such a reason. Did everybody know how these children were going to turn out? As a matter of fact, many of them turned out very badly. But that was not because of their Baptism, but because they forgot it. The fact remains that they were baptized, and it is no less a person than Paul, the, special minister of the Church, who tells us so; and this long after Christianity was established.

The rite of circumcision, the cutting of the flesh, the rolling away of the reproach of Egypt (Joshua 5:9), was prophetic in character. It found its counterpart in the rite of baptism in the New Testament, though baptism carries the thought still further. Circumcision was a rite to teach that the flesh, the evil nature, was condemned and would not do for God. It is like the broad arrow mark put upon the trees of the forest as the sign they are to be cut down. Baptism is like the sign acted upon, the trees felled to the ground. In baptism we are buried with Christ unto death, that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, believers should walk "in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Being planted in the likeness of His death, we, believers, shall also be found in the likeness of His resurrection. The obverse and the reverse.

Circumcision depicts the negative side of the truth, that is, saying "No" to the flesh, and in the New Testament baptism answers to circumcision, for baptism also speaks of virtually putting the flesh in the place of death, or of burial. We shall see as we go on in Joshua that the positive side is presented to us, where all blessing is centered in Christ.

Naturally, man looks, in his religious expectations, to severing this and that evil thing from himself, and thereby to making himself fit for God's service. But in Christ, in whom we are complete, we are also circumcised, and by nothing less than the putting off the body of the flesh itself! Not by the stripping off of this or of that evil propensity, but by the stripping off of the body of the flesh itself.

In the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. 2:10-12) what the Jewish ordinance of circumcision and the Christian ordinance of baptism signify to the Christian are stated, "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 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 has raised Him from the dead." The circumcision of Moses signified Israel's separation to God from the heathen; the circumcision of Christ signifies the putting off of the believer's old man, and his being absolutely separated to God in Christ risen from the dead. Now it must never be forgotten that it is in Christ we are circumcised, and not in our own strength; also, that the work is exclusively a spiritual one, for it is "made without hands"; and further, that it is a divine work in contrast with all that is human. No hand of man could effect that separation to God in His saints from the former things which is wrought by the death and the burial of Christ, for it is nothing short of their spiritual death and their burial, with Him. By none other than divine agency could the old man, the body of our flesh, be put off from God's sight, and by none other means than that of Christ's death. Our faith rejoices in this truth.

But whether the native Israelite or the servant bought with money or the stranger, all must be circumcised. This outward rite — a cutting around and off of man's flesh — pointed on to that which was effected in the death of Christ, as is shown in Colossians 2:11. In this verse the words "of the sins," have very little manuscript authority. It should read, "putting off the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ" (New Trans.) As Christians we are to recognize that we have put off the flesh in its totality in the death of Christ. We are "circumcised" in His "circumcision;" that is, His death.

Hence we "are complete in him who 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." vv. 10, 11. This is expressly in contrast with the external ordinance of circumcision. It should be "putting off the body of the flesh," not the body "of the sins" of the flesh. The true reading makes it a more complete thing; it is not a question of sins, but rather of sin in the nature. "Sins" would hardly be in keeping with the scope of the passage or phrase. It does not refer to the literal act of circumcising, but to Christ's death. When we believe in Christ, we have all the value of His death made true of us. This is here called circumcision not made by hands, in contrast with the ancient ordinance. The meaning and spiritual thought of circumcision is the mortification of human nature, man as he is being treated as a dead thing. It is Christ's death that gives us this privilege. We are brought into association with His death and have all its value in parting with our own ruined condition, "the body of the flesh," when we receive Him by faith. This circumcision supersedes all others, which in no way stripped off our evil state as man in the flesh.

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through the faith of the operation of God who raised him out of the dead." This brings in not so much Christ's personal glory, as His work. The first chapter gives us chiefly His personal glory; and even though it spoke of His work, it was the reconciliation of all things, and of the saints withal, meanwhile, before the glory is revealed. Colossians 2 presses His work upon the saints. I have no doubt the wisdom of the Holy Ghost is shown in this; we have first Himself and His work in general, then the specific value and effect of His work for us and on us. There His headship is doubly unfolded with precision; here the fact of His being the Head of all principality and authority, is just alluded to, giving emphasis to our completeness in Him.

The reference to circumcision is clearly bound up with Christ's death, etc. — not the legal act to which He submitted, nor a question of His Person, but of His work applied to us. This is entirely confirmed by the statement of our being buried with Him in baptism, in which, says he, ye have also been raised with Him. The great point is the linking us to Christ. By Him alone the work was done; but when we believe in Him, we are brought into its efficacy and acquire by grace a common position with Him. It is not merely that it was by virtue of Him, but in Him this great work was wrought, whereby we have a place in and with Him. The initiatory institution of Christianity sets forth this immense distinctive blessing of the Christian. We owned in baptism that we died in Christ's death out of the condition in which we naturally lived; and now we are raised with Him by faith of the operation of God who raised Him out of the dead. We are thus entered on a new state (not, of course, our bodies yet, but our souls). The practical application of both death and resurrection with Christ, we shall soon see in the hands of the Apostle.

As far as Abraham was concerned circumcision was just a rite to be observed, since there is nothing to show that he was instructed in its spiritual significance. Twice in Deuteronomy does Moses mention the circumcising of the heart in contrast with that accomplished in the flesh, but it looks as if its full significance did not come to light until "the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11) became an accomplished fact. Abraham and his descendants had the rite, for it was the sign of the covenant of promise — just as the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant of law — but the meaning of it is reserved for us Christians, who, if Gentiles, do not observe the outward rite at all.

Yet the exhortations are on the lines of warnings, so that they should avoid them. The dangers come from men in the flesh and they appeal to us as in the flesh, but circumcision means that the fleshly order has been ended in the cross of Christ. This v.11 is one of the verses which show that circumcision in the Old Testament is not a type of baptism in the New, for both are mentioned here as distinctive things. In type, they were through the waters of Jordan before they were circumcised.

Circumcision is said to be in Him; baptism is said to be with Him.