Colossians 2:11-14 has been used by paedobaptists for centuries to establish the vital connection between OT circumcision and NT baptism. Richard Barcellos, “An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12.” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2 (2005): 5, and Martin Salter’s essay, “Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12.” Themelios 35.1 (2010): 15:-29 competently refutes this argument. Yet, I know of no paedobaptist pastor or scholar who has openly made a concession on this matter.

Until now. I’ve finally come across at least one notable paedobaptist who has paid more careful attention to the text – my Reformed Theological Seminary professor Robert Cara. His outline for his Epistles course contains the following:

3. Some interpret “body of flesh” (v. 11b) and
“circumcision of Christ” (v. 11c) to refer to
Christ’s death. Cara disagrees.
a) “Body of flesh” is removal in principle of
evil nature in us. The removal relates to
the removal in circumcision.
b) “Circumcision of Christ” is not an
objective genitive (circumcision done
to Christ) and not a subjective genitive
(circumcision of us done by Christ, NIV)
but a genitive of definition (Christian
circumcision, circumcision related to
Christ).
c) Rationale: God the Father is the
conceptual subject doing the circumcision
to you in Christ.
4. “Buried with Christ in baptism” relates to IN
Christ and REMOVAL of old nature in this
context.a) It is hard to avoid that in some sense
baptism is related to circumcision

Spiritual circumcision (v. 11a) > removal
of sarx (v. 11b) > circumcision of Christ
(v. 11c) > buried in baptism (v. 12a).
1) OT had view of physical and spiritual
circumcision … How about baptism?
2) Baptism is related to “regeneration.”
The negative side of regeneration is
“circumcision made without hands.”
Cf. Titus 3:5, WCF 28:1.

5. “You were raised (aor / past tense).” v. 12b
a) Paul emphasizes realized eschatology
here. Why?
b) Note Col 3:4 Paul does admit to a future
completed eschatology.
c) Note died / raised pattern in 2:20; 3:1
which matches circumcision / raised
pattern in 2:11-12.
6. Concerning the mode of baptism the NT used
several analogies related to union with Christ
and baptism. They are “buried and raised”
(Rom 6:3-4), “planted/united with death and
resurrection” (Rom 6:5-6), “baptized into
Christ = put on Christ” (Gal 3:27), “baptized
into one body” (1 Cor 12:13), circumcision
related to baptism (Col 2:11-12).
a) Cara’s conclusion, these verses say little
about mode as they are emphasizing the
R-H nature of our union with Christ. See
J Murray, Christian Baptism 26-30.

In short, Cara essentially backs down (rightfully so) in pushing the “this text establishes that NT baptism is the equivalent of OT circumcision” card – precisely because the text doesn’t establish such a thing. Instead, he makes a generic statement, “circumcision [is] related to baptism,” and the texts “say little” about the mode of baptism. This is much more appropriate. Hopefully more will “come to the light” when it comes to interpreting this text (just as we hope the same for Acts 2:39 and how the “promise” and “the children” are not asserting what paedobaptists say it asserts).

On economics. Credit to brother Chris R. for showing me these today (Part 1, Part 2). Not sure how I missed them. Simply hilarious – and very informative! So many lies in our society today about money, government, etc.

Should have some stuff coming up soon in exegetical theology in 1 Corinthians, etc. The holiday and academic sphere has got me strapped for a while, but the Portable Presup second edition is moving right along, in addition to some larger long-term projects that may effectively replace portions of RealApologetics.org Scholarship and otherwise. Pray for guidance, resources, and help.

Brother Tur has posted a most thorough response in what used to be a discussion on the credibility of sources regarding events in the history of the state of Israel. You can judge for yourself what it is now, and whether it is truly edifying and a fair interaction with the points I’ve raised. Personally, I think it is clear that Tur is far more focused on finding every possible discrepancy of a person’s writing than dealing with the original subject matter in a way that really benefits the average Christian. But, again, you can be the judge of that.

Since I have little time and no desire to repeat the work of others, at this point I can only once again, very briefly, direct folks to more serious resources (e.g. history books, not online book reviews) so they will at least pause when Tur and Hays’  essentially point a finger and say “propaganda” – especially as one reads all sides (hence categorized bibliography below).

General Works “Pro-Israel”

Historical “Revisionist” Works written by Israelis Relying Heavily on Israeli Documentation (Post 1980s; primarily demolish the myth that Palestinians left of their own accord before/during 1948 war, acknowledge Israeli atrocities, etc.)

Historical “Revisionist” Works written by Israelis Relying on both Israeli Documentation and Arab Sources (demolish the myth that Palestinians left of their own accord before/during 1948 war, acknowledge Israeli atrocities, demonstrate intentionality in ethnic cleansing and Arab displacement, etc.)

Works on Israel and US Foreign Policy

Important Arab Works and Journalist Works

General Works on Middle-Eastern History, Islam, and Terrorism

Christian Theological Works – Non Christian-Zionist

Theological Works – Christian Zionist

Dear Google,

Our species has lived far too long without saying this.

Your Google Books project is truly amazing. Millions of college and seminary students use this resource everyday for research. For some of us doing distance degrees, its the only way we survive – and online education is going to do nothing but grow.

You seriously need to get an automatic copy-citation function when browsing a book. It is beyond my comprehension that such a feature has gone by unnoticed for such a long time (except that I know 99% of Google employees are computer programmers, not those in the Humanities division). For researchers and writers like myself, we desperately long for a one-click copy-reference button, so we can paste the source directly into paper footnotes. Right now, the best we have is probably something like knightcite.com – which requires us to go to a different website, find the type of referencing system we need, manually type everything in, and then copy it, and then paste it. Millions of hours are wasted every month. And there’s an easy solution…

How about creating a simple “APA” “Chicago/Turabian” and “MLA” button at the top of every single book page in the Google Books Library.  If users want to cite the book in their work, users simply click one of the three buttons, and when they paste it into their work the reference is perfectly in place – including the page number. It would change the world. Just sayn.

For those reading, spread this post around like a disease.

Yours truly,

Jamin Hubner

Brother Turretin has responded to the last post here. I don’t wish to prolong what seems to many a fruitless back-and-forth. But a few words ought to go on the record for the sake of clarity, and I will try to do so without repeating Tur’s condescending tone (“Maybe Hubner needs to Look Up ‘Shill’ in a Dictionary,” “let me put this in terms that Jamin cannot help but grasp,” “Surely Jamin is not so dense as to really imagine,” etc.).

Tur rephrases his argument: “using a source that is Hamas propaganda (or is written by a Hamas propagandist) is using a bad source.” Of course, it is absurd that Burge’s Whose Land? Whose Promise? is Hamas’ propaganda (and if Tur isn’t referring to this work, I dont know what he’s referring to). The book is little more than a good Bible study on “Israel” (!), with some middle-eastern history on the side (the vast majority of which is accurate by other historians’ (Israeli!) accounts – and if Tur or anyone has disputes on the historical details, I am more than welcome to discuss them!). Anyone who has read the book knows that. But that’s just the problem: Tur and Hays haven’t read it, don’t intend to, and remain at the mercy of online reviewers – certainly many who are as biased as Burge or anyone else. The burden of proof is to demonstrate that so-called pro-Hamas’ propaganda actually is pro-Hamas propaganda – if that’s what all of this is really about. (For me, it’s obviously more than that, esp. since I know that Burge’s assertions can/could have been substantiated by a number of other sources, as Burge says nothing profoundly new in the larger scheme of things. It’s about the truth of what I was discussing in that original article the first place: the atrocities behind and consequences of the establishment of Israel and that the Israel of today is the Israel of the OT).

But seriously, can you imagine if our judgments on people’s character and the reliability of their work was based solely on the reading of other people‘s opinions of them? Take for example Dr. James White and his work. Could you imagine the kind of picture of his work and character that would emerge if all I were to read were what other people online wrote? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather give the person a chance and read their work for myself before drawing serious conclusions and arguing about them online with other Christians (a waste of time par excellence).

Tur says “people are capable of knowing what an author’s intention was without having read the original book.” Then perhaps Tur should inform us about what Burge’s intention really is in Whose Land? if not simply to briefly portray middle-eastern conflict from the eyes of Palestinians (that’s primarily a geographical group, not ethnic group) and examine what Scripture has to say about “Israel.” If there is some hidden pro-terrorist agenda behind this Wheaton NT professor’s work that we should know about, then perhaps that should be demonstrated before going any further.

Tur goes on, ” Steve Hays addressed this point a long time ago.  We can read reviews of books and learn all sorts of things that way.  In fact Steve Hays has already thoroughly demonstrated this point.  Jamin hasn’t bothered to address any of the reviews Steve proffered.” I haven’t addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered because it’s entirely unnecessary: I’ve read the book! I know what’s in it. I don’t have to consult secondary sources on the work since I’m one to produce them. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that other people see things that slip my attention and expertise. But do any of these “reviews” (which I have looked at) really establish through adequate facts and documentation that this college professor is intentionally helping terrorists (a “shill for Hamas” promoting pro-Hamas “propaganda”) through his work or otherwise? If not, why are we wasting our time in speculation?

That’s why I ignored this tangent on sources and sought to address the underlying presuppositions behind Hays’ violent reaction by asking him 3 simple questions, all three of which Hays (to my knowledge) has not to this day answered himself. I wanted to get past the silly (and I mean silly) assertions about Hamas shills, Britney Spears, man-crushes and Lord knows what else (recount some of it here) and hopefully have a meaningful discussion on something substantive. But it has been clear that anything but that will happen – whether Tur’s mockery or Hays’ absurd comparison of Dr. White to Norman Geisler. How unfortunate, indeed, that any of this has to be written.

Thank goodness, as I pointed out a few days ago, that others are addressing the main issues in a way that is profitable for you and I. And I recommend again Robertson’s The Israel of God and the works he cites (such as Colin Chapman’s Whose Promised Land? which is similar, though not the same as Burge’s work).

(Oh, and I did just notice that this ‘Hamas Shill’ and Hamas ‘propagandist’ just wrote a new book endorsed by Craig Blomberg, Marshall, Longenecker and others).

Turretinfan criticizes a recent post, saying, “ using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source.” It seems Tur is suggesting that because a source is used as a Hamas shill, than in and of itself means the source is bad.

But, obviously this isn’t true. Hamas could use a dictionary and that doesn’t mean the dictionary is “bad source.” It is ironic that in the procesess of trying to reveal a fallacy, brother Tur seems to commit one (a source fallacy).

I know KJVOnlyists/TR Onlyists who use the Westminster and 1689 Baptist Confession (ch 1) to support their view. Does that mean the Confessions are “bad sources” when it comes to the doctrine of Scripture?  Of course not. No matter who or what group uses a particular source, that does not determine its truthfulness. The truth is true whether its used or abused, understood or misunderstood, popular or unpopular, etc.

We have to ask in situations like these: how does the author intend the source to be used? Since Tur (and Hays, who made the original accusation about Burge’s work being pro-Hamas) have not even read the original source themselves, they are incapable of even knowing what the author’s intention really is. Hence the lack of any kind of refutation of this supposed Hamas-shill source (Burge’s Whose Land?), and hence the lack of any demonstration that Burge and/or his work is actually a shill for Hamas – and to what extent and in what sense he/his work is.

All of this is a distraction from the truth and the main concerns that I’ve tried and contiually try to raise: whether or not “Israel” today is the “Israel” of OT, whether or not the creation of “Israel” today is a central cause of conflict in the Middle-East, whether or not dispensational Zionism has contributed to the conflict in the Middle-East and distorts the truth of Scripture, whether or not present day Israel must be supported militarily by Christians and/or the US – regardless of its continual cover-up of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and potentially harmful long-term aspirations, etc.

Just came across Newkirk’s RTS thesis American Christian Zionism (hilarious how it appears right before Steve Hays’ thesis!). Download it here. I’ve only scanned through it; it looks like a very useful work. I can’t wait to sit down and read it all when I get the chance. Here’s a partial listing of Table of Contents:

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
II. The History of Christian Zionism ………………………………………………………………………………. 5
A. Reformation and Puritan Roots ………………………………………………………………………….. 5
B. The Beginning of the End of Optimism ……………………………………………………………….. 8
C. The Father of Modern Dispensationalism …………………………………………………………… 11
D. The Father of Political Christian Zionism …………………………………………………………… 15
E. A Sad Tale of American Zeal for Zionism ………………………………………………………….. 17
F. Darby and His American Foray …………………………………………………………………………. 19
G. The Premillennial Presbyterian ………………………………………………………………………….. 19
H. The Connection Point of British and American Christian Zionism …………………………. 22
I. Long Before Left Behind ………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
J. A Foretaste of American Political Christian Zionism ……………………………………………. 26
K. The Study Bible That Changed Everything ………………………………………………………….. 29
L. Contemporary Dispensationalist Prophecy Teachers and Writers …………………………… 32
1. Academic Foundations of Christian Zionism ……………………………………………………. 32
2. The Book of the Decade ………………………………………………………………………………… 33
3. Non-Fiction is Left Behind …………………………………………………………………………….. 35
4. Israel’s Best Friend in America ………………………………………………………………………. 38
III. The Biblical and Theological Core of Christian Zionism ………………………………………….. 41
A. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
B. The Land Promises ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
1. A Brief Historical Recapitulation of the Promised Land in Modern Times …………… 43
2. An Exegesis of the Land Promises ………………………………………………………………….. 45
C. The Extent of the Land ……………………………………………………………………………………… 55
D. Was the Land Promise Fulfilled? ……………………………………………………………………….. 58
E. Two Peoples of God? ………………………………………………………………………………………… 62
F. One People: The Israel of God …………………………………………………………………………… 66
IV. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74
V. Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 81
VI. Appendix A: Glossary of Eschatological and Theological Terms ………………………………. 85
VII. Appendix B: Maps and Documents …………………………………………………………………. 91
VIII. Appendix C : The UN Partition Plan ……………………………………………………………………… 97
IX. Appendix D: Premillennial Dispensational Charts …………………………………………………… 99

As I finish my master’s thesis, two particular pages online have been the most efficient way of getting the right citation information (without having to buy Turabian’s actual book): one for The Master’s Seminary students (here), and another random one here. (Why anyone still uses MLA and APA these days is beyond me…they’ve always annoyed me).