John Gill also makes a reasonable interpretation:
“Colossians 2:9, nor did they need any Jewish ordinances, particularly circumcision, since they were partakers of another and better circumcision in Christ; and besides, were buried in baptism with him; and even though they had been dead in sin, and in their fleshly uncircumcision, yet they were alive, quickened with Christ, and had the forgiveness of all their sins for his sake; who had freed them from the ceremonial law, and had rid them of all their former lords and masters, and had brought them into the liberty of the Gospel,
Colossians 2:11, wherefore he concludes, by way of exhortation and advice, first with respect to Jewish ceremonies, not to suffer them to be imposed upon them, or to regard the censures of men for the non-observance of them, since these were but shadows, of which Christ is the substance”
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?bk=50&ch=2
Unlike your interpretation, it makes sense of the text instead of turning the text on its head...
John gill is an empty-headed churchian nicolaitan.
He ignores all the words of Yeshua and his chief apostles to the contrary. Also, circumcision is not an “ordinance.” The “ordinances” were the Pharisees’ man made commandments.
Yeshua even issued his last word on it in his letters to the churches: “If you will not watch, I will come to you as a thief.”
How can the “liberty of the gospel” say we do not need the gospel?
Paul declares Torah to be the gospel in Hebrews 4:2.
John essentially holds the same POV in his epistles.
Nowhere in the NT writings is a shred of comment against Torah issued, but the churchians try to equate the Pharisees’ false man made commandments that Yeshua took to the cross with him with Torah (and successfully to fools).
I repeat, Paul was praising the Colossians’ courage in keeping Yehova’s feasts and calendar, not denying them.
If Gill is more important to you than God’s word, follow Gill on the wide path, by all means!