Peril of Philosophy (2:8-16) [Continued]
2.
The Answer to the error: Christ
(2:9-15).
The emphasis in contrast to
philosophy is the achievement of Christ and our union with Him. The word “for” (hoti), a causal particle, indicating
reason why and commonly translated because
or for. The antidote is the
sufficient work of Christ. The reason is Christ’s deity (v. 9) and the
believer’s completeness in Him (v. 10). He is the standard by which other
philosophies much be measured. The work of Christ is the answer to the error of
philosophy. This provides the grounds for the previous warning. Its heart is
our identification in and with Christ (cf. Gal. 2:20). One should take note of
the phrase “in Him” and “with Him” in this section. The emphasis
is on our union in and with Christ.
It is also interesting how this
section is perceived. Many make a break
at the end of verse 10.[1] I do not
agree with such a break. There are two main reasons for this. First, verse 9-12
is one sentence. Second, the sentence has a series of connectives (and, kai) that connects verses 9-12. The
sentence can be diagramed as:
In Him the fullness of deity dwells… (v.9)
And
(kai) in Him you are complete… (v.10)
And
(kai) He is the Head…
And
(kai) in Him you were circumcised… (v.11)
Our
position in Him (2:9-12).
The basis of our position is
directly related to the fullness of Christ— “in Him all the fullness of Deity [or Godhead] dwells in bodily form”
(2:9). This is foundational. The phrase in
Him is emphatic by its position, and serves to strengthen the contrast
between false philosophy and Christ. In Him dwells all the fullness points to
the totality of deity. He is God and the fullness of deity dwells in Him. Of deity is a genitive of content.[2] Johnson
points out:
The word theotetos (AV, Godhead) means deity and is to be distinguished from
the theiotes of Romans 1:20, which
means divinity. The former word looks at the essence of God and the latter at
the quality of God. The former is deitas,
or Godhead, and the latter is divinitas,
or Godhood.[3]
The full essence of deity dwells
in bodily form in Christ. The word dwell
is katoikei, an intensive word, that has the
force of a permanent dwelling. One needs to especially note here that this is
not talking about the incarnate Christ of the past, but the resurrected Christ
of the present. It is a present and has a strong durative force stressing that
this is not speaking of a transitory sojourn, but continually permanently. It dwells
permanent with Him, even in His resurrected state. He still has a material
body—a resurrected, immortal, incorruptive body—which can be seen and
touched. The word all makes this an all-inclusive statement. It speaks of the
totality; “that
total deity inhabits the resurrection body of Christ, i.e., that the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, in a manner beyond our comprehension, occupy His present
body.”[4] He is
the visible image of the invisible God (cf. 1:15). While the word bodily has been taken in a number of
ways,[5] it seems
most reasonable it is somewhat an unlimited expression of the glorified body of
Christ. He now possesses a glorified body (cf. Phil. 3:21; 1 Tim. 2:5) which is
durative and present in Heaven, and will return as the exalted and glorified
Messiah in the future earthly kingdom.
Verse
9 speaks of the relationship of Christ to God, verse10 speaks of our
relationship to Christ. “For in Him you
have been made complete” (2:10). The connective (and) is used to connect these two verses. It is to be noted that
the connection is not only seen by the connective (kai), but there is connection seen
by the play on the two key words—fullness (pleroma) and complete (pepleroment)—which is of the same verbal
root word.[6] God is
in the fullness of Christ and we are made full or complete in Him. It draws
attention to the incorporation or union motif.
“Believers are to be satisfied fully because they
‘have been filled’ in the one who contains ‘all the fullness’ of deity.”[7] It
supports the thesis of the sufficiency of Christ. It accentuates the abiding
status of the believer as complete through our union with the Lord.
The word complete (pepleroment) is a shipping term. It is used
of a ship that is fitted, filled, and completely ready for the voyage. John
tells us that out of his fullness we have received grace upon grace (John
1:16). Paul applies it to the standing of the church, the body of Christ, where
the fullness of Christ fills all in all (Eph. 1:23).
The third connective (kai)
deals with our identification in Christ (2:11-12). This speaks of the Jewish
element of the philosophy and rituals of the false teachers. Again the verse
states “in Him,” denoting the sphere
were the action takes place. It is a dative of relationship,[8] and
speaks of our union. Our union in Christ involves three things:
First, a true circumcision— “you were also circumcised with a
circumcision made without hands.” (2:11). Judaizes in Acts 15 insisted that
physical circumcision was necessary for salvation. Paul counteracts such an
idea for this dispensation of grace. They ignored the truth that physical
circumcision was just a shadow of a forthcoming spiritual work (cf. Deut.
10:16; 30:6; cf. Rom. 2:28-29). Like many in Christianity today, the Jews of
Paul’s day equated outward conformity with inward reality. That belief is at
the heart of the false philosophy of the world.
The phrase “you were also” is an aorist that points to a completed
action in the past, referring here to the time of our conversion or salvation.
It implies that God is the agent of the action, and we are the object of the
action. This was not a physical procedure—without
hands—but a spiritual one (cf. Phil. 3:3). Campbell notes two things
evident in this: (1) man had nothing to do with this circumcision, and (2) it
had nothing to do with the physical body.[9]
Paul could have stopped there for
the statement up to this point makes perfect sense by itself. However, he did
not. He adds: “in the removal of the body
of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (2:11). There is an ambiguity
here[10] and
therefore somewhat hinders our understanding. However, it seems to me, that the
phrase must be taken in light of two factors: the overall context of our
identification in Christ and the knowledge that these are two prepositional
phrases:
In the removal of the body of the flesh
By the circumcision of Christ.
These two factors must be keep in
mind as one deals with this clause.
The overall clause refers back to
the believer’s spiritual circumcision. This points to the means through which
this spiritual circumcision was performed. However, there is a question as to
how this should be understood. There are three ways that it has been taken
reflected by the translators:
(1) It describes what was done to
believers when they received this circumcision. The rule of flesh was put off
by this circumcision (NIV).
(2) The first phrase refers to the
experience done to believers, and the second phrase refers to Christ (KJV). Our
old nature was put off when Christ was circumcised.
(3) Both are parallel and described
the experience of Christ. This would make the cutting off of the flesh a
reference to His death, and the circumcision of death (or crucifixion).
Because of the ambiguity of the
text, it is not easy to come to a conclusion. However, it seems to me that
since the context is that of identification its meaning must be in line with
this thought. In this section we are
identified with three things—circumcision, baptism, and resurrection (2:11-13).
I agree with Campbell who states:
It appears to us that this
spiritual circumcision, which typifies the cutting off of the sinful flesh (cf.
Rom.7:18-20), is the same as that which Paul typifies by baptism in Romans
6:3-4, namely the death of the flesh through identification with the death of
Christ.[11]
Dunn observes that “in the circumcision of Christ” is a
summary statement, and is a description of the death of Christ under this
metaphor of circumcision.[12]
Second, true baptism— “having
been buried with Him in baptism” (2:12). Most read here a physical baptism in
water in this passage. That is not the case. Baptism must be taken in the same
light of circumcision and resurrection. None of which is a physical experience
by the believer. This goes beyond the rite of water baptism. It is a spiritual
baptism. It again emphases a spiritual experience. Just as Christ’s death was a
circumcision, so His death was a baptism (Rom. 6:3-4 cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).
It must be pointed out that the
word buried in this text cannot mean
buried in water. The word is from the Greek meaning “entomb, or inter.” Christ
was not buried in dirt nor water, he was entombed. Our identification is being
entombed with Christ in baptism. Note the change from “in” to “with.” Stam
makes a valid point saying, “believers
are ‘buried with’ Christ, not like Christ.”[13]
Spiritually speaking when He was in that tomb, we were spiritually in that tomb
with Him. Paul places a great emphasis on this baptism in his epistles (cf. 1
Cor. 2:13; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:5).[14]
Gromacki is correct saying that since circumcision not made with hands is
spiritual, this likewise must be spiritual baptism.[15] Do not
overlook Romans 6:4-6 in this regard to spiritual baptism and our
identification.
Third, spiritual resurrection—
“in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God,
who raised Him from the dead” (2:12). Contrary to most commentators, Dunn see “in which” referring back to Christ in
2:8, not baptism.[16] He has
a valid point, especially in the light of Ephesians 2:6. Moo, who holds that it
refers to baptism, admits the pronoun is not decisive in this context.[17] O’Brien
argues it is more consistent to translate in
which as in whom.[18] We were
raised “with” Christ. Again it speaks
of our identification. We are identified with His resurrection. When He was
raised out of the tomb (not water), we were likewise, in that act became our
identification and spiritual resurrection. Notice this is not identification in
a future event, but it already has taken place as seen in the aorist tense. We
have already experienced this spiritual resurrection. O’Brien notes:
Although it is only in Colossians
and Ephesians that the apostle speaks of having been raised with Christ as a
past event, these references in the earlier epistles presume the present
experience of the resurrection life in Christ.[19]
O’Brien’s comment confirms the
uniqueness of this truth as being a Pauline revelation to the church, the body
of Christ. He reveals it and applies it to God’s people in this present age of
grace. It is the work of God on their behalf. It is “through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”
(2:12). The phrase indicates two things: (1) the means—through faith. As we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9),
we are likewise identified by the same means. (2) The object of this faith is in the working of God. Campbell calls it
the faithful energizing of God.[20] The
implication is that we have been raised with Christ through faith in God’s
power, the same power in bringing Christ back from death. In Christ we have
been crucified, buried, and risen together with Him and seated with Him (cf.
Eph. 2:6). It is our identification as well as our position in Christ.
To
be continued.
[1] See Constable, NOTES ON COLOSSIANS, 38.
[2] In the Greek, the genitive, not the dative,
is the case used to indicate the content of the verb. Wallace, BEYOND THE
BASICS, 93.
[3] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Beware of
Philosophy,” BIB-SAC, October 1962, 308.
[4] Campbell, COLOSSIANS, 95.
[5] For a survey of these views, see Pao,
COLOSSIANS, 161-162; O’Brien, WBC: COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 112-113.
[8] Harris, EGGNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 90.
[10] Moo, PNTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 198, says
the connection here with that genitive is notorious for its ambiguity.
[11] Campbell, COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 38.
[12] Dunn, NIGTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 158.
[13] C.R. Stam, BAPTISM
AND THE BIBLE, [Chicago, Berean Bible Society, 1981], 104,
[14] See C.F. Baker, DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY,
430-31 on spiritual baptism.
[15] Gromacki, STAND PERFECT IN WISDOM, 109.
[16] Dunn, NIGTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 160.
[17] Moo, PNTC, COLOSSIANSAND PHILEMON, 202.
[18] O’Brien, WBC: COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 119.
[19] Ibid, 120.
[20] Campbell, COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 102.
No comments:
Post a Comment