# Colossians 2:11, 12



## AV1611 (May 4, 2007)

_"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."
*- Colossians 2:11, 12*​_
How are we to interpret this verse? I am confused  


I offer Gill's interpretation to start the ball rolling:

*In whom also ye are circumcised,....* This is said to prevent an objection that might be made to the perfection of these Gentile believers, because they were not circumcised; for the Jews thought that perfection lay in circumcision, at least that there could be no perfection without it: "great is circumcision (say they (x)), for notwithstanding all the commands which Abraham our father did, he was not called perfect until he was circumcised; as it is written, Gen_17:1; "walk before me, and be thou perfect:" which objection the apostle anticipates, by observing, that they were circumcised in Christ their head, who is made unto them sanctification; and by him as the meritorious and efficient cause of their regeneration and conversion, or internal circumcision, the antitype and perfection of circumcision in the flesh; for the former, and not the latter, is here meant: these believers were circumcised in Christ, or by him; not with external circumcision, which was peculiar to the Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, prefigured Christ, and had its accomplishment in him, the body and substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law; and so was now nothing, either to Jew or Gentile: as for the Gentiles, they never were obliged unto it; and as for the Jews, it was an insupportable yoke to them, binding them to keep the whole law of Moses, which they could not do, and so it made nothing perfect; but Christ the substance of that, and the end of the whole law, has, the head of the body the church, in whom all the members of it are complete, and are circumcised: 

*with the circumcision made without hands:* which is that of the heart, in the spirit; every man, though he may be circumcised in the flesh, is uncircumcised in heart, until he is circumcised by Christ and his Spirit; which is done, when he is pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin, and the exceeding sinfulness of it; when the callousness and hardness of his heart is taken off and removed, and the iniquity of it is, laid open, the plague and corruption in it discerned, and all made naked and bare to the sinner's view; and when he is in pain on account of it, is broken and groans under a sense of it, and is filled with shame for it, and loathing and abhorrence of it: now this is effected not "by the hand of man", as the Ethiopic version reads it, as outward circumcision was; this is not done by any creature whatever; not by angels, who rejoice at the repentance of sinners, but cannot produce it; nor by ministers of the Gospel, who at most are but instruments of regeneration and conversion; nor by men themselves; this is not by might or power of man, by the strength of his free will, but by the Spirit of God: for though men are sometimes exhorted to circumcise themselves, as in Deu_10:16, in order to convince them of the corruption of their nature, and the need they stand in of spiritual circumcision; yet whereas there is an utter disability in them to effect it, and they need the power and grace of God for that purpose, the Lord has graciously promised his people to do it himself for them, Deu_30:6; so that this circumcision is in the name sense made without hands, as the human nature of Christ is said to be a tabernacle not made with hands, that, is of men, but of God, being what God has pitched, and not man; and it stands opposed to circumcision in the flesh, which was made with hands, Eph_2:11; and by some instrument, as a sharp knife or stone: 

*in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh.* The Vulgate Latin version leaves out the word "sins", and so the Alexandrian copy and some others; and the Syriac version the word "body": by "the flesh" is meant corrupt nature, which is born of the flesh, and propagated in a carnal way, and is the source and spring of all sin; by "the sins" of it are intended the works of the flesh, the inward motions of sin in the members, and the outward actions of it: these are said to be a "body", because sin consists of various parts and members, as a body does; and these united together, and which receive frequent and daily additions; and which are committed and yielded to by the members of the natural body; and which body and bulk of sins arising from the corruption of nature are compared to a garment, and a very filthy one it is; in the putting off of which lies spiritual circumcision: this is done several ways; partly by Christ's wrapping himself in the sins of his people, bearing them in his body, and becoming a sacrifice for them, whereby the old man was crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; and by an application of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice, to the consciences of his people, whereby their iniquities are caused to pass from them, and they are clothed with change of raiment; and by the power of his Spirit, laying sin under the restraints of grace, not suffering it to have dominion, but causing grace to reign through righteousness; and by the saints themselves, under the influence of grace, who put off the old man with his deeds, according to the former conversation: 

*by the circumcision of Christ;* not that with which Christ was circumcised at eight days old, that he might appear to be truly man, and a son of Abraham, and under the law, and to fulfil all the righteousness of it, but that which he by his Spirit is the author of, and what is before expressed,

*Buried with him in baptism,....* The apostle goes on to observe how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ; that they are not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense, and the body of the sins of their flesh is put off, and removed from them, in allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin in circumcision; but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation: Christ having died for their sins, was laid in the grave, where he continued for a while, and then rose again; and as they were crucified with him, they were also buried with him, as their head and representative; and all their sins too, which he left behind him in the grave, signified by his grave clothes there; and baptism being performed by immersion, when the person baptized is covered with water, and as it were buried in it, is a very significant emblem of all this; it is a representation of the burial of Christ, and very fitly holds him forth to the view of faith in the state of the dead, in the grave, and points out the place where the Lord lay; and it is also a representation of our burial with him, as being dead to sin, to the law, and to the world, by him. This shows now, that baptism was performed by dipping, or covering the whole body in water, for no other form of administration of baptism, as sprinkling, or pouring water on the face, can represent a burial, or be called one; and this is what many learned interpreters own, and observe on this place: 

*wherein also ye are risen with him;* Christ is risen from the dead as the head and representative of his people, and they are risen with him; and their baptism is also an emblem of his and their resurrection, being administered by immersion, in which way only this can be signified; for as the going down into the water, and being under it, represents Christ's descending into the state of the dead, and his continuance in it, so the emersion, or coming up out of the water, represents his rising from the dead, and that of his people in him, in order to walk in newness of life; for the apostle's meaning is, that in baptism saints are risen with Christ, as well as in it buried with him: and this 

*through the faith of the operation of God;* that is, it is through faith that saints see themselves buried and risen with Christ, to which the ordinance of baptism is greatly assisting, where there is true faith; for otherwise, without faith, this ordinance will be of no use to any such end and purpose; and it is not any faith that will avail, but that which is of God's operation; faith is not naturally in men, all men have it not; and those that have it, have it not of themselves, it is the gift of God; it is what be works in them, and by his power performs: 

*who hath raised him from the dead;* this is a periphrasis of God the Father, to whom the resurrection of Christ from the dead is generally ascribed; though not to the exclusion of Christ, and of the Spirit, who were also concerned; and is here added, partly to show in what respect faith, which is God's work, has him for its object, as having raised Christ from the dead, who was delivered for offences, but is risen again through the power of God for justification, and whoever with his heart believes this shall be saved; and partly to show, that the same power is exerted in working true faith in the heart, as was put forth in raising Christ from the dead.


----------



## MW (May 4, 2007)

Gill:



> The apostle goes on to observe how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ; that they are *not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense*, and the body of the sins of their flesh is put off, and removed from them, in allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin *in circumcision*; but that they and all their sins were buried *with Christ*, of which *their baptism in water was a lively representation*.



This is the classic reformed view:

Circumcision -> Christ -> Baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 4, 2007)

Richard,

You might be less confused if you didn't keep quoting Baptists. 

It is interesting to read Gill go into gymnastic contortions because he has to regard the rite of circumcision as having primarily physical significance (as we witnessed when he imported that idea into Romans 4, which context was completely foreign to the idea he was trying to press). Now, Paul isn't cooperating again with his conclusion about circumcision and using what Gill considers a physical rite to refer to something inherently spiritual. You'd think he'd figure it out eventually.

Now, to those who have stretched their minds out enough to accept this idea ahead of time, these contortions come quite naturally but for those of us who don't attribute primarily a physical significance to circumcision, we're left with our mouths agape at the effort of eisegesis to escape the inevitable conclusion of the passage!

The confusion you're experiencing is likely due to the fact that you're having trouble performing the same mental gymnastics. Understand circumcision properly (see the discussion of Romans 4) and you don't have the problem of trying to explain how Paul keeps ascribing spiritual significance to circumcision.


----------



## VanVos (May 4, 2007)

Simple. Circumcision is the sign that pointed to/foreshadowed regeneration. Baptism *is* the sign of regeneration. Paedos generally believe that circumcision is also the sign of regeneration rather than the adumbration of regeneration.

VanVos


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2007)

Here is an article a friend of mine published in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review. http://www.rbtr.org/You can see the article with the footnotes included at this site. http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII.1.Col.2.Barcellos.RPM.doc

Sorry the greek font doesn't show up. It is obviously better than Gill. And a correct understanding of the text in my opinion. 

For Christ's Crown and His Covenant,
Randy



> AN EXEGETICAL APPRAISAL OF COLOSSIANS 2:11-12
> 
> By Richard C. Barcellos*
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 4, 2007)

I made a strong critique of what I consider a rather key exegetical component of the aforementioned author's argument in this linked thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=10002&p=133706
While I respect Rev. Barcellos highly, I must say that he seems to have mined at least one Greek grammar for an "allowance" that might let him construe the verses in the way he wishes. However, he should admit that his theological presuppositions have inclined him toward that interpretation, and he has not shown that grammatically and syntactically WHY his view _should prevail_ over others that do not require so many exceptions.


----------



## MW (May 4, 2007)

Well noted, Bruce. Also, he argues on the basis of the ordo salutis, where it is clear the apostle is speaking of the new life as a complex event. The author's identification of spiritual circumcision with initial regeneration is unfounded.


----------



## MW (May 4, 2007)

I couldn't help but smile when I read this:



> "This refers to the personal experience of the Christian. The rite of baptism, in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ."



"Buried beneath the water..." So the exegesis of the passage proceeds on the assumption of immersion, which itself is derived from the anachronistic symbolism of modern burial "beneath the ground."


----------

