Here is the rest of the article that Rich wrote.
Colossians 2:11-12 in The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism
The Scripture index to The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism contains 17 entries for Col. 2:11-12. Space does not permit us to discuss every entry. However, we will examine a few of the uses in light of the exposition above.
Mark Ross, in his chapter "œBaptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals," says:
It is imperative that we look more closely at this verse in the Greek text. Colossians 2:12 is a continuation of verse 11, which itself is a continuation of the sentence begun in verse 9. Verse 12 is a series of participial phrases, all of which are related to the main verb in verse 11, "œyou were circumcised." Thus, in verse 12 Paul is explaining more fully just how it is that the Colossians have been circumcised in this circumcision made without hands. They were circumcised, "œhaving been buried with [Christ] in baptism." Thus, verse 12 explains how the Colossians were "œcircumcised."
Colossians 2:12 in fact contains only two participles. The first, suntafe,ntej ("œhaving been buried with"), is the first word of the verse and is immediately subordinate to the main verb perietmh,qhte ("œyou were circumcised"). The second is tou/ evgei,rantoj ("œwho raised [Him from the dead]") and is immediately subordinate to tou/ qeou/ ("œof God"). Though it is remotely related to the main verb, it is not in an immediate, adverbial relationship to it. Ross´ statement makes it appear so but it is not. He oversimplifies the syntax. Further, he claims that the participle suntafe,ntej ("œhaving been buried with") begins Paul´s explanation of "œhow the Colossians were "˜circumcised.´" However, we have seen that Paul already explained how the Colossians were circumcised before he got to v. 12. They were "œcircumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (v. 11). Verse 12 reveals to us the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of their circumcision, not "œhow the Colossians were "˜circumcised.´" It tells us when the Colossians were buried and raised with Christ in baptism.
On the next page, Ross says, "œThe baptism of Colossians 2:12 can only be the reality of the Spirit´s working to regenerate the heart and free the soul from the dominion of sin." But, as we have seen, v. 12 speaks of a spiritual, vital union with Christ effected through faith. This presupposes regeneration (v. 11). If both verses are describing regeneration, then Paul could be paraphrased as saying, "œYou were regenerated when you were regenerated." This would certainly be a cumbersome tautology and does not respect the syntax of the text. The Bible uses other words and phrases to describe regeneration that Paul could have used here (i.e., born from above). However, it is clear from the exposition above that Paul is not speaking about regeneration in v. 12. He is speaking about the fruit of regeneration "“ union with Christ in burial and resurrection, effected through faith.
Cornelis Venema, in his chapter "œCovenant Theology and Baptism," says:
"¦it is not surprising to find the apostle Paul treating baptism as the new covenant counterpart to circumcision (Col. 2:11-13). "¦Baptism now represents the spiritual circumcision "œmade without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh" (Col. 2:11).
Venema offers no exegesis, only assertions. Our exegesis above has made it clear that Col. 2:11-12 does not warrant such statements. The New Covenant counterpart to physical circumcision is spiritual circumcision. Venema´s claim, in essence, is that water baptism represents regeneration. The baptism of Col. 2:12, however, is spiritual baptism that represents vital union with Christ. Regeneration is presupposed and effects burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism through faith. Venema is assuming that baptism has replaced circumcision by this statement. Our exegesis has shown this to be an unwarranted implication of the text.
In a context discussing the household baptisms of the New Testament, Joel Beeke and Ray Lanning say:
Similarly, children of believing parents are addressed as members of churches at Ephesus (Eph. 6:1-4) and Colossae (Col. 3:20). These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism "œthe circumcision of Christ."
This appears to claim that Paul is speaking of water baptism in Col. 2:11-12. If this is what the authors are claiming, it contradicts what we have seen Ross claim later in the book, where he says, "œIt is important to say at this point that in both verse 11 and verse 12 Paul is not speaking of any physical rite or ceremony. The baptism in view in verse 12 is just as spiritual as the circumcision in verse 11." Also, we have already seen that all who are spiritually circumcised are spiritually buried and raised with Christ, effected through faith. Beeke and Lanning´s statement would then imply that all the children Paul was addressing were also regenerated. But, of course, they do not advocate that. The main problem with their statement comes in its final sentence. "œThese children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism "˜the circumcision of Christ.´" They equate circumcision with baptism. But, as we have seen clearly, Paul does not do this.
Pertinent Conclusions
Baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. We have seen clearly that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, replaces physical circumcision. Baptism in Col. 2:12 (i.e., vital union with Christ) is a result of spiritual circumcision. Burial and resurrection with Christ is not equivalent to but causally subsequent to spiritual circumcision. Physical circumcision has been replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant. The correspondence between the two, however, is not one-to-one. Paul tells us this by saying that New Covenant circumcision is "œa circumcision made without hands." Though physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision are related they are not equivalent. One is physical and does not affect the heart; the other is spiritual and does not affect the body. Both are indications of covenant membership. But only the circumcision of the heart guarantees one´s eternal destiny, for all the regenerate express faith and "œare protected by the power of God through faith" (1 Pet. 1:5).
We must take issue with those who argue from this text that baptism replaces circumcision. The Lutheran scholar Eduard Lohse asserts, "œBaptism is called circumcision here"¦ The circumcision of Christ which every member of the community has experienced is nothing other than being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ." We have seen, however, that the only replacement motif in this text is between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. Spiritual circumcision is not equivalent to baptism. Baptism (i.e. union with Christ) is the sphere in which burial and resurrection with Christ occurs, which is effected through faith, and a result of spiritual circumcision.
The Reformed commentator William Hendriksen says:
Evidently Paul in this entire paragraph magnifies Christian baptism as much as he, by clear implication, disapproves of the continuation of the rite of circumcision if viewed as having anything to do with salvation. The definite implication, therefore, is that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Hence, what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism. In the Colossian context baptism is specifically a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him [emphasis Hendriksen´s].
We take issue with Hendriksen´s view on several fronts. First, Paul is not magnifying Christian baptism in this text. He is magnifying Christian circumcision. This is evident by the fact that "œyou were also circumcised" is the regulating verb to which the rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate. Second, there is not a "œdefinite implication "¦that baptism has taken the place of circumcision." Our exegesis has shown us this clearly. Third, it is not true that "œwhat is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism." This is so because Paul is not arguing for a replacement theology between physical circumcision and water baptism and because the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Fourth, Paul says nothing in Col. 2:11-12 about baptism being "œa sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him." He does say that the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of spiritual circumcision is spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism effected through faith. There is no hint of baptism being a sign and seal as argued by Hendriksen. It is of interest to note one of Hendriksen´s footnotes to these statements. Notice the concession he makes.
I am speaking here about a clear implication. The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands, namely, the circumcision of the heart, as explained. But the implication also is clear. Hence, the following statement is correct: "œSince, then, baptism has come in the place of circumcision (Col. 2:11-13), the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant" (Form for the Baptism of Infants in Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959, p. 86). When God made his covenant with Abraham the children were included (Gen. 17:1-14). This covenant, in its spiritual aspects, was continued in the present dispensation (Acts 2:38, 29; Rom. 4:9-12; Gal. 3:7, 8, 29). Therefore the children are still included and should still receive the sign, which in the present dispensation, as Paul makes clear in Col. 2:11, 12, is baptism [emphases Hendriksen´s].
Hendriksen´s concession that "œThe surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands" surely sheds doubt over his initial claim of "œspeaking here about a clear implication." Again, we have seen that Paul is not arguing that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant. It does not follow, then, that "œthe children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant." Paul does not say or imply that the sign of the covenant is baptism. Instead, the sign of the covenant is regeneration. All who are spiritually circumcised are immediately buried and raised with Christ in baptism, effected through faith. Colossians 2:11-12 is about the application of redemption to elect souls and does not imply infant baptism, some of which are not elect. If it implies anything about water baptism, it implies that it ought to be administered to those who have been circumcised of heart and vitally united to Christ through faith as a symbol of these spiritual blessings.
All who are circumcised of heart are buried and raised with Christ through faith immediately subsequent to their heart circumcision. Regeneration cannot be abstracted from its immediate fruits. All regenerate souls are immediately untied to Christ through faith. This is what Col. 2:11-12 clearly teaches. Our exegesis argues for an ordo salutus as follows: regeneration, then union with Christ through faith. And this experience is that of all the regenerate and has nothing to do with the act of water baptism in itself.
This text neither teaches baptismal regeneration nor implies infant baptism. In context, it is displaying the completeness believers have in Christ. It does not apply to unbelievers or to all who are baptized by any mode and by properly recognized ecclesiastical administrators. It has to do with the spiritual realities that come to souls who are Christ´s sheep. It has to do with the application of redemption to elect sinners. It has to do with regeneration, faith, and experiential union with Christ. These are the aspects of completeness in Christ Paul highlights here. We should gain much encouragement from these things. They were revealed to fortify believers against error. They were written to strengthen saints already in Christ. They were not revealed as proof for the subjects of baptism. They were not revealed to teach us that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. God gave us Col. 2:11-12 to display this fact: When you have Jesus, you have all you need!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce,
I think Mr. Eadie is a Presbyterian. He isn't a Baptist.
I have also had a hard time discerning some of the aorist relations to time and other considerations. I am no Greek scholar but what I have learned is to try to understand vocabulary in context and theologically. I had a debate concerning John 1:12,13 where the aorist tense didn't prove either persons point in relation to time, but verse 13 nailed the interpretation for regeneration happening before believing or recieving. Context and Theology also seem to be important for definition somewhat. This is just my very limited understanding concerning greek.
Talk more later.
[Edited on 11-10-2005 by puritancovenanter]
