Colossians 2:11-12

InevitablyReformed · #1 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 12:03 AM

Brothers and Sisters,

Some of you might think that this is a little silly, but given the myriad of nuanced interpretations of Col 2:11-12, I am going to go ahead and make a request.

Here goes: If you could, in your own language, simplify this beautiful passage in one sentence--how would you do it?

I ask, because for some odd reason, my bird-sized brain always sees this passage as awkward.

Thanks,

Daniel

Backwoods Presbyterian · #2 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 08:15 AM

It is quite discombobulated.

Here you go:

11 εν ω και περιετμηθητε περιτομη αχειροποιητω εν τη απεκδυσει του σωματος των αμαρτιων της σαρκος εν τη περιτομη του χριστου

12συνταφεντες αυτω εν τω βαπτισματι εν ω και συνηγερθητε δια της πιστεως της ενεργειας του θεου του εγειραντος αυτον εκ των νεκρων

InevitablyReformed · #3 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

It is quite discombobulated.

Here you go:

11 εν ω και περιετμηθητε περιτομη αχειροποιητω εν τη απεκδυσει του σωματος των αμαρτιων της σαρκος εν τη περιτομη του χριστου

12συνταφεντες αυτω εν τω βαπτισματι εν ω και συνηγερθητε δια της πιστεως της ενεργειας του θεου του εγειραντος αυτον εκ των νεκρων

Backwoods Presbyterian · #4 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 08:38 AM

Sorry about that I have not had enough coffee yet for my morning smart-alekness to wear off...

turmeric · #5 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 09:20 AM

You can't speak in tongues on here without interpretation!

BobVigneault · #6 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 10:42 AM

11 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, 12 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.

Paul is responding to the questions that the Judaizers had been bringing up. He is saying that we have received our 'circumcision' but it is evidenced by an inward spiritual reality. The 'made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh' phrase receives a great commentary from Mark and the writer of the Hebrews.

Mr 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)

Our spiritual circumcision that we received at conversion is similar to the other benefits we have by being 'in Christ'. These are firm spiritual realities even though we cannot touch them or experience them in our flesh.

InevitablyReformed · #7 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

11 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, 12 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.

Paul is responding to the questions that the Judaizers had been bringing up. He is saying that we have received our 'circumcision' but it is evidenced by an inward spiritual reality. The 'made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh' phrase receives a great commentary from Mark and the writer of the Hebrews.

Mr 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)

Our spiritual circumcision that we received at conversion is similar to the other benefits we have by being 'in Christ'. These are firm spiritual realities even though we cannot touch them or experience them in our flesh.

And this spiritual circumcision is now represented by baptism?

BobVigneault · #8 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 12:28 PM

Not necessarily. Paul combines conversion and baptism as simultaneous events. The spiritual circumcision also took place at that point. I don't believe the passage addresses the visible sacrament of baptism.

InevitablyReformed · #9 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Not necessarily. Paul combines conversion and baptism as simultaneous events. The spiritual circumcision also took place at that point. I don't believe the passage addresses the visible sacrament of baptism.

Interesting...

Well, this is sort of the reason why I started this thread in the first place. I was reading through (poritons of) Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology and he quotes Paul Jewett (a Reformed Baptist) as agreeing with the traditional reformed interpretation. Jewett said (regarding this passage): "the only conclusion we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul's thinking..."

This doesn't seem to be anything like what I'm hearing from you. Thanks for the thoughts.

Daniel

BobVigneault · #10 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 01:20 PM

Again, the purpose of what Paul is saying is to answer the Judaizers. Should a person be circumcised in the flesh? No. Why not? Because there has already been a spiritual inward circumcision. This spiritual circumcision took place at the spiritual conversion and baptism into Christ. All three of these events (logical) were 'hands free'. Therefore, physical circumcision, the outward rite, would be superfluous.

What about the outward sign of baptism? That is not being addressed in this passage and we would need to search elsewhere in scripture.

ahavah7 · #11 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Not necessarily. Paul combines conversion and baptism as simultaneous events. The spiritual circumcision also took place at that point. I don't believe the passage addresses the visible sacrament of baptism.

Interesting...

Well, this is sort of the reason why I started this thread in the first place. I was reading through (poritons of) Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology and he quotes Paul Jewett (a Reformed Baptist) as agreeing with the traditional reformed interpretation. Jewett said (regarding this passage): "the only conclusion we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul's thinking..."

This doesn't seem to be anything like what I'm hearing from you. Thanks for the thoughts.

Daniel

I agree with Jewett. Baptism finds it's continuity with the Old Testament in circumcision. We see Paul refer to circumcision in Rom 4 as a sign and seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith. We believe that baptism likewise is a sign and seal of our ingrafting into Christ. Additionally, circumcision and baptism look at the same event form two different sides. Circumcision signified the removal of the filth of the flesh (justification). Baptism signifies our being cleansed from our sins by the washing with Christ's blood (justification). This is further amplified by the fact that Paul uses the two interchangeably here.

PuritanCovenanter · #12 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 02:53 AM

Paul, Circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant

Here is an old thread where we discuss some of this.