At Least One Paedobaptist Concession on Colossians 2
By jaminhubner on Jan 2, 2012 | In Baptism, New Testament | Comments Off
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 circumcisionSpiritual 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).
