Is baptism related to circumcision? Is baptism the New Covenant version of circumcision?

from the old testament

• Circumcision was instituted in Genesis 17 as a sign of God’s covenant between Him and Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 17:10–11). Circumcision was given to the Israelites as a sign that they belonged in a covenantal relationship with God. Every male Israelite was to be circumcised as part of adhering to that covenant.
• God noted that to not circumcise babies or foreigners who decided to join Israel was a serious violation of the covenant (Genesis 17:14). Circumcision was not an optional sign for Israelites.
• But circumcision was never supposed to be merely an external sign (Deuteronomy 10:12–16). Moses commanded, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn” (Deuteronomy 10:16). For forty years, the previous generation of Israelites had wandered the wilderness because of their sin. Moses was telling the second generation of Israelites that circumcision is meaningless if obedience does not come from the heart.
• Moses ended his sermon by prophesying that Israel would continue to sin and, eventually, be removed from the land. However, he then encouraged them, saying, “the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deuteronomy 30:6). After Israel repented, the Lord would, Himself, circumcise their heart, so they would truly obey Him from that point on.
• Later, as God was preparing to take Judah, the remaining Israelites, out of the land, He said, “the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart “ (Jeremiah 9:25–26). Because of her sin, Judah was acting just like the uncircumcised nations. Because of that, God considered them “circumcised merely in the flesh,” that is, obeying externally only, and thus, not acting like His people.
• David, after his great sin, said, “you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psalm 51:16–17). God always wanted repentant, heart-felt followers, not simply externally circumcised ones.

from the new testament

• Right after the church started, Peter gave a sermon to everyone in the area, many who were non-Jews (and, thus, not circumcised). We read, “Now when they heard [the sermon] they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37). Peter’s answer was, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38a). Even though many of them were foreigners, Peter did not tell them to be circumcised. Rather, after being saved, they were told to be baptized.
• Baptism is closely connected with repentance (salvation). However, in contrast to those who errantly believe that baptism saves people, Peter was not saying, “Repent and be baptized to be saved.” Instead, in the New Testament context, it was unheard of for a believer to not also be publicly baptized. In other words, baptism was expected to immediately follow salvation (i.e., Acts 8:26–39), and so they were often mentioned together.
• Luke, who was recording Peter’s sermon, commented, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). Those “who received his word” refers to those who were saved. Luke said that “they” (the believing, saved individuals) were then baptized. While Peter had said “repent and be baptized” in one breath, Luke helps us see that baptism was after their salvation, not the cause of it.
• Other verses also indicate that baptism is specifically for new believers (Acts 8:12). The pattern in the early church was that baptism followed belief.
• Paul later explained the symbolism of baptism (Romans 6:3–4). Baptism signifies our allegiance with Jesus. Just as Jesus died and rose again, we died to our sin, symbolized by being baptized. Therefore, the believer should consider him or herself a new man or woman, living righteously in his or her new life.
• Circumcision and baptism are both types of signs. However, the New Testament does not call them the same thing, nor does it teach that unsaved children are to be baptized. In short: they are similar in that everyone in each community—Jewish or Christian—should have that sign, but that’s where the overlap ends.
• One last comment on the connection. Another similarity is that one can be circumcised or baptized without being saved—neither activity saves someone. Rather, salvation comes by the circumcision of the heart. Paul said, “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:11–14). A “circumcision without hands” refers to God’s internal change to men and women, so as to raise them from the dead through the work of Christ. Salvation, then, is not based on external signs, but on true belief in Jesus.

implications for today

Because baptism indicates that someone is saved and, thus, belongs to the New Covenant community, namely the church, a question arises: is baptism, then, an extension of circumcision, which indicated one belonged to the Old Testament community? If so, what is the connection and/or limitations of such a connection?

A particular Reformed Protestant tradition, known as Pedobaptist, sees a direct connection between the two signs. They argue that just like circumcision was a sign that one was part of the Israelite community, baptism is a sign of belonging to the church community. To this point, most would agree that there is at least a loose similarity between them. However, the Pedobaptist view goes further. They argue that just like there were unbelieving Israelites who were circumcised because their parents were Israelites, so also should the children of believers be baptized. This is why they baptize newborns and why they are called Pedobaptists, where “pedo” means “child” in Greek.

Note that while this practice is similar in form to Roman Catholicism’s baptism of infants, unlike Roman Catholicism, Pedobaptists do not believe the infant is saved or has original sin removed because of the baptism. Rather, they view it merely as a sign that shows that the child has been given special, providential access to God’s grace by being able to participate in church life because of his or her parents' belief in a way that most unbelievers do not have access. In short, the baptized child will grow up surrounded by believers who regularly influence him or her toward Christ.

However, as already seen, the New Testament pattern is that people are saved and then baptized. This is why, in contrast to Pedobaptists, many believers are called Credobaptists, where “credo” is a Latin word for “I believe.” That is, they argue for “believer’s baptism” as the only time baptism is to be performed.

Perhaps the strongest New Testament verse a Pedobaptist has to support his or her view of infant baptism is Acts 16:33. This is the account of a jailer who was saved after Paul and Silas did not attempt to escape after an earthquake (Acts 16:25–30). After being saved, we read, “[the jailer] took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family” (Acts 16:33). The argument is that “all his family” indicates that baptism was applied even to those who were unsaved but a part of the same household.

However, because Acts 16:33 is not a prescriptive passage (a passage explaining what to do), but rather descriptive (simply saying what happened), we need to be careful about allowing this passage to override other clear, prescriptive passages. However, even considering the argument at face-value, there’s a weakness in it. Just prior to Acts 16:33, Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). Surely, Paul was not saying that if the jailer, alone, believed, then his household would also be saved. That would be directly contrary to the rest of the New Testament, which says that we are each individually guilty and individually responsible. Instead, Paul was simply expressing the hope that the jailer’s household would also believe. It is even probable that the household was present, given that they were no longer inside the prison, but outside, perhaps in the courtyard, with others listening in on this conversation. In any case, just like Paul could not be saying that everyone in the household would be saved if the jailer believed, he did not mean that unbelievers in the household were to be baptized. He simply meant that those of the household who believed were also to be baptized.

Another minor problem with the Pedobaptist view is that only males were circumcised, whereas both men and women are to be baptized. So, even conceptually, there’s a difference between these signs. They would argue that the New Testament expands the sign, but that is an argument based on the assumption that the two signs are the same.

Finally, in the Old Testament, circumcision was the means for entry into the covenant. For foreigners, for example, they could not enter the community unless they were physically circumcised. Conversely, baptism comes after one has already entered the church through faith. Rather than how one enters, it is how one identifies with the community he or she just entered. This also indicates a discontinuity between the two signs.

Though some traditions link baptism to circumcision as related covenantal signs, this comparison flattens important distinctions between the Old and New Covenants. Circumcision was applied to male infants as a marker of national and covenant identity, but it did not guarantee spiritual life or faith. In contrast, baptism is a sign of regeneration, applied to those who have believed and been united with Christ.

The shift from the physical to the spiritual is crucial. The Old Covenant had many outward elements—circumcision, dietary laws, priestly rituals—but the New Covenant centers on inward transformation and personal relationship with God. While both covenants had signs, the nature and application of those signs differ dramatically.

To treat baptism as a simple replacement of circumcision risks confusing covenant membership with true salvation. The New Testament never commands the baptism of infants, and it never suggests that one can belong to the New Covenant apart from faith.

This does not mean children are unimportant in God’s plan—they are to be taught, discipled, and loved—but the sign of the New Covenant belongs to those who believe. Baptism testifies not just to belonging in a family or community, but to spiritual rebirth and union with Christ.

Churches must carefully distinguish between shadow and substance, law and gospel, external signs and internal reality. Baptism, as an ordinance rooted in the finished work of Christ, must reflect the spiritual transformation it signifies.