When it comes to infant baptism, Colossians 2:11-12 is a go-to text. But some Protestants aren’t convinced. So what’s their hang-up? Let’s take a look.
We’ll start with the text itself. There, Paul teaches that baptism is the New Testament fulfillment of circumcision. He writes,
You were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
It’s important to note here that the Greek word for and (kai) is not present in the original text. It literally reads, “You were circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism”—meaning baptism is the “circumcision of Christ.” Martin Luther acknowledged as much: “We now have baptism instead of circumcision” (100).
According to Genesis 17:10-12, every male child was to be circumcised at eight days after birth. Children were made members of God’s covenant not by the use of their reason, but based on the faith of their parents.
Given that baptism is the new circumcision—the gateway into the New Covenant—to say that children under the age of reason can’t be baptized is to say that children under the age of reason could be incorporated into the Old Covenant but not the New Covenant. That would make the New Covenant less inclusive than the Old, which doesn’t fit with the general theme of inclusivity that marks the New Covenant (see Matt. 28:19-20, Gal. 3:8). The New Covenant is open to every nation and people on earth—but not to little children? That’s absurd!
Now, some Protestants aren’t convinced by this line of argumentation. Protestant Todd Baker, president of B’rit Hadashah Ministries, offers a couple of comebacks that challenge the parallel between baptism and circumcision.
One comeback is that circumcision was a rite that of its nature was restricted to signifying incorporation into the nation of Israel and physical descendancy from Abraham. By contrast, Baker argues, “entrance into the New Covenant is not gained by a rite, ceremony, or religious act, but is for all people—men, women, and children—who voluntarily profess their belief in the Lord Jesus Christ” (see chapter eleven). Baker doesn’t elaborate beyond these words as to how the New Covenant being for all people proves that baptism is not the new circumcision. So we’re left to speculate. But the implication seems to be that if we say baptism is the new circumcision, then we’re thereby limiting the scope of New Covenant membership because circumcision was limited.
The problem with Baker’s counter-argument is its assumption: If we draw a parallel to something in the Old Testament, then the parallels must be exact. But this is simply false.
We don’t say Jesus must be sinful to say he is the new Adam. We don’t say Jesus’ sacrifice must be offered within the temple to be the new and definitive atoning sacrifice. We don’t say Gentiles must be excluded from the Christian community because Christians are the new “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).
Moreover, Jesus sets a precedent for expanding on things that were restrictive in the Old Testament. For example, he broadens the scope of the act of adultery beyond the physical act to include the interior act of the will (“everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”—Matt. 5:27). He reveals that it’s not what goes into a person’s body that defiles him, but what comes from the heart (Mark 7:19-22).
It’s well known that Isaiah’s prophecy in 7:14 (“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”) on the literal historical level was a reference to the young maiden named Abi and her son King Hezekiah (8). Yet Matthew, inspired by the Spirit, interprets it in a broader way, extending it include Mary, a virgin, conceiving Jesus (Matt. 1:23).
So if Jesus and the New Testament authors could expand upon and broaden the scope of things in the Old Testament that point toward and are fulfilled by things in the New, then, surely, we can interpret Paul’s teaching on baptism as the new circumcision as not being restrictive, like the old circumcision, but being more expansive to include “all people—men, women, and children,” to quote Baker.
Baker offers another comeback. He writes,
One looks in vain in the Old Testament to find a passage that flatly says circumcision saves . . . the Scripture constantly affirms the act of circumcision did not save anyone or grant spiritual regeneration.
Baker’s argument seems to be that if we’re going to say baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant, and thereby argue for infant baptism, then the Old Testament would have to have spoken of the salvific efficacy of circumcision. Since it doesn’t, Baker reasons, baptism can’t be the circumcision of the New Covenant. And if that’s the case, then we can’t appeal to such a parallel to support infant baptism.
The first problem with Baker’s counter-argument is that he fails to realize that a New Testament fulfillment is meant to be greater than the type. Circumcision in the Old Covenant was meant to be merely a type of baptism. Thus, we’d expect the fulfillment of circumcision—baptism—to be more glorious than its type. And the fulfillment is more glorious, insofar as it saves, whereas the type did not.
Now, there is a sense in which circumcision did play some role in the individual being justified in the sight of God. Insofar as they obeyed God’s command to circumcise every male, they remained within God’s covenantal family and thereby were just in the sight of God. But whereas circumcision was merely a sign, the new circumcision—baptism—communicates that which it signifies—namely, salvation. And here the New Testament fulfillment shines more glorious than the type.
Given the failure of Baker’s counter-arguments, Colossians 2:11-12 continues to be a strong argument in favor of infant baptism. And Christians ought not be ashamed to use it. Let’s continue to proclaim the good news that membership in God’s covenantal family extends to all . . . even infants.