and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made
without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision
of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also
raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead
-- Colossians 2:11-12 (NASB)
Interestingly, and probably with the intention of the text, the NIV interprets "the removal of the body of the flesh" by "removal of the sinful nature." However, I wanted to keep the body imagery. It is implicit throughout. You don't circumcise spirit, but a physical body. A sinful nature is not buried, but a body. A spirit is not raised, but a body.
Furthermore, body imagery is evident throughout this section of the book: 1:18; 1:20 (implicitly through blood--spirits don't bleed, bodies do); 1:22; 1:24; 2:5 (Paul here is not bringing attention to his body, but his absence, though he is spiritually present); 2:9; 2:10 (head metaphor); 2:11; 2:12; 2:13; 2:16 (implicit through references to food); 2:18; 2:19 (head metaphor); 2:20 (life and death, bodies live and die); 2:23; 3:3; 3:4; 3:5 (key verse); etc.
Why am I making a big deal out of this? I think Paul is trying to remind the Corinthians of their baptism. And he is doing so in terms of life and death. Not life and death of the sinful nature per se. I think that is implied. But I am trying to argue that he intentionally leaves the reader with an ambiguous qualification of life and death. Why? The act of baptism is a symbol of an eternal reality that was accomplished in real time on the cross and made effective in real time for the believer at the birth of their faith. However, Paul wants them to remember their physical baptism in terms of life and death. That at their baptism they were phsyically identifying themselves with Christ.
One of the beauties of reading the church fathers on baptism is the incessant usage of realist language. This has led many people to think the fathers were proto-Roman Catholics, I'm sure some were. However, baptism was spoken of in real terms in order to preach the gospel. When I was baptized, I died with Christ, I identified with his death. I also rose with him, I identified with his resurrection. The gospel implications is that without Christ's death, I would be dead in the uncircumcision of my flesh, as Col 2:13 puts it. The NT uses realistic language to get us thinking differently about our lives.
"For I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live,
but Christ lives in me (Gal 2:20, NASB)."
God wants us to be identified in every aspect of our life with the Risen Lord. It is an ever present truth--a one-time baptism signifies this. But it is also a future truth, that won't be revealed until he comes (Col 3:1-4):
"For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the
image of His Son, so that we would be the firstborn among many brethren; and
these whom He predestined; He also called; and these whom He called, He also
justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified (Rom 8:29-30)."
But we haven't been glorified yet, though we know we will be: one, because he promised it; and because we are currently glorified in Christ while our life is hidden in him (Eph 2:6-7; Col 3:1-4).
Before you burn me as a heretic, I intend to do some research. I want to exegete Col 2:8-3:11 in the Greek, examine the history of interpretation, and see if my conclusion is correct. I will take the challenge to humbly accept it if I found initial thoughts were wrong.
Mark, feel free to keep from from heresy! I need your wisdom, insights, questions and corrections.
2 comments:
I think your quite safe from burning (at least for now) primarily because your use of language makes it virtually impossible to understand what you mean. Knowing you as I do, I'm inclined to believe that you do actually have something to say. I'm quite sure that you can say well that which is worth saying. But, "ambiguous qualification of life and death"? Seriously?
"I wanted to keep the body imagery. It is implicit throughout." The body imagery in the passage is anything but implicit. I think you know that, but what do you really mean?
There is a word for "realistic language". It is "metaphor".
One bright, if breif, spot: "The act of baptism is a symbol of an eternal reality that was accomplished in real time on the cross and made effective in real time for the believer at the birth of their faith." This confirms what I could only hope you were trying to say previously, though you soon seem to contradict it. "When I was baptized, I died with Christ". Are you sure?
The best part: "God wants us to be identified in every aspect of our life with the Risen Lord. It is an ever present truth--a one-time baptism signifies this." Where can you read the New Testament and not find this truth?
As for 'logic', "A sinful nature is not buried, but a body." Are you suggesting that Paul is writing to those whose bodies were, in fact, buried? Your answer to this question has been "no". But, surely you don't disagree with Paul who refers to the Colossians as, "you ... having been buried". If you agree with Paul that they were buried but maintain that a body was not buried, you have no choice but to understand his language to be figurative.
"You don't circumcise spirit, but a physical body"? Really? Do you circumcise a physical body with "a circumcision made without hands"? Also, "[T]he circumcision of Christ" refers to the removal of something. If not something of a spiritual (non-physical) nature, then what was physically circumcised?
God gave us circumcision as a picture to help us 'get it' (not to mention the entire sacrificial system). He gave us baptism for the same reason. Paul uses both here to powerful effect to encourage holiness.
The figurative language is so forceful and obvious that maintaining the use of "the flesh" over "the sinful nature" does nothing to either compromise or to enhance it. You can "keep the body imagery" all day long and Paul's metaphor will remain intact. In fact, if it weren't a metaphor, you wouldn't be calling it 'imagery'.
It is a powerful metaphor but Paul is not merely reminding his readers of their baptisms, in which they should identify with Christ. He is preparing them to obey his command in verse 8: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow nad decpetive philosophy, which depends on the human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ". As we discussed, sometimes we can do this very thing to ourselves.
If you prefer "the flesh" rather than "the sinful nature", then more power to you. But you not only make no case for it, you don't even seem to have an interest in it.
Your argument seems rather to focus on the significance of baptism. Perhaps that is what you should research.
Mark,
I was thinking--Between the sermon and the benediction it would be a good time to remind people of the perils of hell with a good ol heretic burning.
What do you say? You bring the wood and I'll bring the fuel!
Just kidding,
Dougald
Post a Comment