Baptism is not Christian circumcision. There’s a lot of loose talk to that effect in Presbyterian circles; but it’s not accurate. The old world rite of circumcision was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Baptism unites us to Christ and therefore makes us participate in the circumcision of Christ. Baptism is not, however, the new world equivalent or fulfillment of circumcision. The death and resurrection of Christ is.
Colossians 2, the only text that comes close to linking circumcision and baptism, actually links circumcision with the cross and resurrection of Christ. According to Colossians 2:8-13,
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by the putting off of the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your tresspasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him. . .
Baptism unites us to Christ so that we can be said to have died and to have risen with him. But the dying and rising of the flesh of Christ is the circumcision of humanity’s flesh.
The bloody rite of circumcision was always directly connected with the promise of the “seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:16). Abram tried to bring the promised child into the world by the power of his flesh (Gen. 15). That was a miserable failure. Adamic flesh is impotent to bring in the promised Savior of the world. So the flesh had to be cut off and rolled back (Gen. 17). The old, dead flesh had to be rolled back and a new, living flesh had to come forth on the eighth day, the first day of the new week. God was doing something new. After Abe’s circumcision (Gen. 17), he was able to sire the promised child, Isaac (Gen. 18).
The practice of circumcision all those years looked forward to the destruction of the old flesh (the old death nature of humanity) and the advent of a new flesh (a new humanity). Just as the reproach of Egypt was rolled back at Gilgal and the people of Israel were given a new start in the promised land (Josh. 5), so one day the reproach of Adam’s death nature would be rolled back and a new, transfigured humanity would emerge as the future of the world. That’s what happened on the cross and in the tomb of Jesus.
The circumcision done “without hands” was accomplished on the cross of Jesus when “the body of the flesh” was “put off” or rolled back. Paul had already mentioned “the body of his flesh” in reference to the crucifixion in Col. 1:22a. It was done “without hands” because it was an act of God, the necessary first stage of the creation of a new humanity. Once the new glorified humanity of Jesus emerged from the tomb then everything promised in the old world bloody rite of circumcision (and more, of course) was fulfilled. Jesus rose from the dead with a new transfigured humanity on the eighth day, the first day of the new creation.
Biblical Horizons 
I hope a lot of people read this and take it to heart. I also find it interesting that many directly and fully connect circumcision with baptism. This, of course, ignores the fulfillment flow of the NT and OT relationship as well as the ideas and references to baptism in intertestamental lit (on which I am admittedly foggy) and, of course, the baptism of John, all of which would predate Christ’s crucifixion.
Would you say that both circumcision and baptism relate to covenant membership/marking but all of that which circumcision represents is fulfilled (not abrogated) in Christ’s death and resurrection and so makes baptism not then just a sign of membership and washed-ness and adds the element of union with Christ’s death and resurrection which circumcision could only vaguely point toward? Thus, it would not be baptism replacing circumcision one-to-one but baptism fulfilling circumcision by adding to what the OT looked forward?
But doesn’t baptism have the same function in the NC administration that circumcision had in the old administration? That is, to bring the person into full covenant privileges and obligations…And they do have the same referent: the death of sinful nature. Circumcision pointed ahead to Christ’s putting sin to death, baptism points back to it. So, insofar as they are both signs, they point to and participate in the same reality, i.e., the death of Christ. And Christ’s circumcision was also the same thing as his baptism…so the same event fulfilled them both. Thus, it is still entirely appropriate to consider baptism Christian circumcision.
Jeff,
Question for you about some of the language about baptism from the gospels. Twice Jesus refers to his suffering/work on the cross as his baptism:
38Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized…
Mark 10:38-39
50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!
Luke 12:50
Don’t think this undermines your argument, but if Jesus cross work is called a “circumcision” in Colossians and Jesus himself–at least in Luke 12–refers to his cross work as “baptism” are circumcision and baptism linked somewhat more closely?
Sorry if you addressed this last night, I had to step out with a giggling son ;-)
Guys,
Good responses and good questions. I was careful to state my thesis: baptism is not Christian circumcision.
The fact that baptism unites us to Christ and thereby delivers to us the benefits of his death and resurrection (his circumcision) means that there will be some conceptual overlap. We die and rise again in union with Christ through baptism (Rom. 6:1ff.). Even so, that does not make baptism Christian circumcision. Nor does it mean that circumcision is fulfilled by Christian baptism.
And, no, baptism does NOT have the same function in the new world as circumcision did in the old. The fact that it was a bloody rite preformed only on male Israelites is almost always conveniently overlooked.
Furthermore, circumcision was not a sign of salvation in the old world. There were plenty of believing Gentiles who were never circumcised and yet were “saved.” Circumcision was tied to the priestly service of Israel. It was prophetic, pointing forward to the birth of the seed and, we know now, the death and resurrection of the seed of Abraham.
If one wants to garner support for infant baptism, for example, it is best to look elsewhere—the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10), etc.
Jeff, thanks for responding. Perhaps at some point you could write more about circumcision being tied to the priestly service of Israel either here or on your blog. I’ll admit, I have been connecting circ. and baptism much more tightly than your post seems to warrant. I’m curious to understand more!
What would you say the primary sign of salvation (i.e. covenant election/membership) in the OT? The Passover? The Law? Faith? I really had been thinking circumcision was…I’m open to the idea of being wrong about that thought, though.
Will K.
Jeff, please explain how the fact that the rite was bloody and performed only on males indicates that it did not have the function of “bringing the person into full covenant privileges and obligations.” That seems something of a non sequitur.
Circumcision was “pointing forward to the birth of the seed and, we know now, the death and resurrection of the seed of Abraham.” Um, how is that not a sign of salvation? And baptism points backwards to the death and resurrection of the seed of Abraham, and forward to our own resurrection. So, again, circumcision and baptism have the same role: they signify and seal the death and resurrection of Christ to the recipient.
Wherein are the signs of circumcision and baptism alike and different? We distinguish…
Alike:
-Same referent: the death and resurrection of Christ (which was his circumcision–being cut off on account of sin–and his baptism–undergoing the judgment waters)
-Same function: incorporating the recipient into full covenant privilege and obligation, based on that sign (circumcision–> circumcise the heart; baptism–>die to sin). And, since the essence of cov’t membership is drawing near to God, that means that both these signs mark the priesthood: one old, in which males only were set apart by blood to enter the inner rooms of the santuary; one new, in which all are set apart by water to enter the heavenly Jerusalem.
Different:
-Mode: the old administration was bloody, and so circumcision was bloody as well, because the final blood of the cov’t had not been shed. Now that the perfect blood of the cov’t has been shed, the administration is unbloody.
-Recipients: the old had strata of mediators (priests), to keep many at a distance, because the cleansing was imperfect. The new includes perfect cleansing, so that each individual can draw near to God.
So, is circumcision “Christian baptism”? Well, circumcision was to the old administration what baptism is to the new: they are same, mutatis mutandis propter adimpletionem.
Joshua,
I never said that circumcision did not bring the person circumcised into full covenant privileges and obligations. Of course it did. But what covenant? God’s covenant with Israel to be priests to the nations. The covenant is not the same as the new covenant in Christ. There are similarities, to be sure. And we can make all sorts of connections. But circumcision was never simply a initiatory rite that marked off the boundaries of people in and outside of the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenant.
You’ve presented a pretty standard summary of the way in which Presbyterians have connected Baptism and circumcision. That’s what I am questioning. They are not simply “the same” with the a few changes made to the external administration of the rites.
Well, I wasn’t trying to say that they were the same, with a few external changes. They have the same function with their respective covenants, one of which was old, the other new with newness of fulfillment and resurrection. So they are the same in the way that Christ’s resurrected body was the same as the crucified one. Resurrection makes all the difference…That’s why I added to the Latin phrase: “propter adimpletionem”– on account of fulfillment. The things that are changed are not just little adjustments, but rather a dramatic shift in administration brought about by the fulfillment of the old.
I’m aware that I was giving the standard presentation. My point was that I don’t find anything in your presentation that actually winds up proving that position wrong. In fact, I agreed with everything in your initial post, but still found the thesis something of a non sequitur. What you were presenting as contradictory I have always perceived as complementary, as, in fact, part of the argument for baptism as Christian circumcision.
Maybe if you could take up Will’s suggestion of explaining more fully the priestly covenant and circumcision’s relation to it…?
Joshua,
We’re probably not that far from each other. But I still think that saying there there’s been “a dramatic shift in administration” isn’t enough. There’s been no shift in administration. There’s been a fulfillment and consequently abandonment. Circumcision is no more. Jesus accomplished what was promised in the old world rite. Now, the “flesh” of the old humanity (and also the old world) has been cut off. Baptism unites us to Christ, in whom the promised circumcision has been accomplished. But baptism does not continue to function in the same way that the old rite of circumcision did in the old world. Even if there are some aspects that can be abstracted from circumcision to make it seem like baptism is a continuation of that rite, the differences are much more important.
Yes, an explanation of circumcision’s role in the old word would be helpful. Let me see what I can do. But the truth that circumcision did not mark out the only “saved” people in the old world and that not everyone who was “saved” even needed to be circumcised, I trust, is not a difficult proposition to prove.
Pr. Meyers,
I would think that the fact that Baptism is a sign for all God’s people, marking them out as God’s own, is as good of an argument as any to say that it is not merely or simply Christian circumcision. There are no distinctions between male, female, slave, Greek, Jew, etc. in the new covenant and so, of course, the initiation rite into new covenant priesthood is not restricted to males. There are other means by which our roles in the new covenant are sorted out (ordination, for example), but Baptism is a calling and cleansing for all, both male and female. Circumcision speaks to something different, entirely, for the most part (although I do think others above are right to believe there’s overlap between some of the symbolism; e.g., the crucifixion).
Some observations and comments:
1. Jesus’ “circumcision” on the cross (whereby he cut off the dead flesh of the old-order) is metaphorical of the rite of circumcision, quite specifically. On the other hand, Jesus’ “baptism” on the cross is *not* metaphorical of the rite of water baptism, but of “baptism” more broadly understood. So the references to the cross as a “baptism” don’t connect the rites of circumcision and Baptism biblico-theologically.
2. At the same time, I’m not sure what we gain by emphasizing the discontinuity between circumcision and Baptism. I see more continuity than discontinuity — e.g., households were circumcised in the old covenant, and households are baptized in the new, to give one point of continuity that jumps out more than any point of discontinuity does — even though I would grant that Baptism is more closely tied to the old covenant “baptisms” (Heb 9.10) than to circumcision, in many important ways.
3. I really like Jeff’s argument that Christ’s “circumcision” on the cross is the ultimate fulfillment of old covenant circumcision. I would say that this is also true of Passover, which was ultimately fulfilled on the cross as well. Nevertheless, the Supper (a non-bloody rite for all saved people) is also a “lesser” fulfillment of Passover (a bloody rite only for Israelites). And so it seems more reasonable than not to say that Baptism (the Supper’s prerequisite) is also a “lesser” fulfillment of circumcision (Passover’s prerequisite). Christ’s death & resurrection is the ultimate fulfillment of circumcision and Passover, while Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are “lesser” fulfillments.
4. Gentile believers didn’t have to get circumcised, to be sure. Likewise, Gentile believers didn’t have to eat Passover (or even the Peace offering, which was the truer precursor to the Supper, perhaps). Circumcision and Passover weren’t universal signs of salvation. And yet both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both fulfillments of circumcision and Passover AND signs of salvation. This isn’t a problem, it seems to me.
5. I agree with Jeff that circumcision ought not be the central (though it perhaps should be the first) argument in defense of infant baptism. The circumcision argument is no doubt sufficient (after all, it’s implausible that any Jew could hear or read Acts 2.39 without noticing the obvious echoing of the covenantal language in Gen 17), but it is not as powerful, in my opinion, as the prooftexts for infant baptisms in the old covenant. Jeff mentioned the the Red Sea baptism, in which infants were “baptized” (1 Cor 10.2). In addition to this, unclean covenant children would have needed to participate in the old covenant “baptisms” (Heb 9.10; cf Lev 15.19ff) before they could be clean and participate in the Passover or Feast of Booths or Feast of Weeks or the Peace Offering or the portions that the priests children got (see Mark Horne’s new book _Why Baptize Babies_ for the best defense of infant baptism along these lines).
Jeremy,
Good thoughts. The cash value of speaking of them separately is simply to permit a fuller understanding of each according to the details of the texts that speak of these rites.
The problem is when Reformed systematics reduces them both to “entrance rites” or “boundary markers” and then proceeds to minimize the differences in order to promote some systematic theological program.
Circumcision is circumcision. It should not be subsumed under the category of some “initiatory rite” that all religions have. Circumcision is not a “sacrament.” This is getting at it ass-backwards. Baptism is baptism. Baptism is not a sacrament. Rather, it’s what it is, or better, what is done with water, words, and two people (at least). Creating an abstract category like “sacrament,” defining the boundaries (visible words, etc.), and then making circumcision, baptism, the Lord’s Supper fit into this philosophical/ideological abstraction is a huge problem in Christian theology.
Let these action, rites, events—whatever they are—speak for themselves before we begin to tame them by making them fit into our own little conceptual schemes.
Jeff,
That was helpful. I agree. One cannot have read anything by Leithart on baptism and not agree, of course, that we need to de-scholasticize our theology of the sacraments.
Along those lines, I think what we most often miss in our theology of baptism (though Calvin didn’t miss this) is that Christian baptism — if it “is” anything that came before — is Jesus’ water baptism. In our baptism, we receive the same waters and same Spirit that Jesus received in his baptism. Our baptism is Jesus’ baptism, which means that we need to see baptism, foremost, as God’s opening heaven, sending down his Holy Spirit upon us, calling us his beloved son or daughter, and ordaining us into priestly service.
Calvin writes,
“Faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and [resurrection] life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings. For he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body [Mt. 3:13] in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us. Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27]. Thus we see the fulfillment of baptism is in Christ, whom also for this reason we call the proper object of baptism . . . For all the gifts of God proffered in baptism are found in Christ alone (Institutes 4.15.6).”
(See Rich Lusk’s informal essay “Jesus’ Baptism: The Fount of Life: A Study in Biblical and Practical Theology” on Theologia.)
We need to give our baptismal theology the same glory and wonder and personalism and BREATHing room that we automatically, without reservation, grant Jesus’ baptism.
Hmm…A miscellany of comments:
I was not saying that baptism is a “continuation” of circumcision. I just had this issue with a Baptist who attends our OPC church, who wanted to point to Heb. 8’s emphasis on the old order and cov’t passing away to argue against infant baptism when I compared it with circumcision.
My response was: “Well, of course the old is decaying and passing away. That’s why we’re not circumcised any more…” I’m not arguing that one is the other, but that each has, in general, the same relation to its corresponding cov’t: it brings the recipient into full covenant privilege and obligations–which are different because the cov’ts are different…
Pursuant to #9, how does baptism not function in the same way that circumcision did? It might help if you could lay out what that difference is–in your original post, your main point about circumcision could be said about baptism: it points to the death and resurrection of Abraham’s seed…
Jeremy, I simply don’t follow your #1. Jesus’ death is not metaphorical of circumcision, since metaphor is about how words relate to things, not how events relate to events. If it were apt to call anything a metaphor, it would be that circumcision was a ‘metaphor’ for death–but symbol or sign is a better term. Either way, the death of the old nature, accomplished in Christ’s death, is the primary reality of which circumcision is the secondary symbol–as a metaphor is secondary and symbolic of the thing it is describing. So, circumcision is a small version of “cutting off” (i.e., death for transgressing the cov’t)…and water baptism is a small version of “burial” or “undergoing the waters of judgment.” The primary reality of “baptism” is in fact Christ’s death and resurrection, of which the water rite is a secondary symbol. Thus, the ‘metaphorical’ rites are connected: both of them are symbols of the death of Christ.
I’m fully with you on #2 and #4…
I also agree with your #3, Jeremy. The ultimate fulfillment of the symbol of circumcision was the death of Christ. But the ultimate fulfillment of baptism was the death (and resurrection) of Christ–so again, we have the close connection between the symbols.
As for your #5, circumcision is part of the demonstration for infant baptism because it shares in so much of the referents of baptism (death of the old nature in Christ, faith in the promises of God, new creation, etc.), and is still explicitly given to infants. None of the passages you mention explicitly refer to infants (surely Baptists have brought this up to you?)…I don’t think Col. 2 is the only and best proof- text (even if proof-texting were the way to go, instead of broader, narratological Biblical theology), but it is important.
While I agree that our systematics should not be made the measure by which we cut the Biblical material, I am not, in fact, trying to force circumcision and baptism into the pre-fit mold of “initiatory rite” or “sacrament.” Biblically, each is what it is–but that seems apparently closely connected, even in the Col. 2 passage. As one starts to describe more fully what each is, one finds that there is a great deal of commonality, which is what would lead to considering whether they belong in some way in the same overall category. Even if we don’t give that category a neat ST or sociology-of-religions label, they are both “actions performed upon a person’s body that point to a) the required death the old human nature as it is fully accomplished in the death of Christ and b) the obligation to pursue a life that reflects the action and is described in terms of that action (circumcise the heart, die to sin).” Is your issue that we are somehow making the invisible referent, the thing signified, the controlling element, so that the ritual differences are minimized? Is it then the performative elements that are constitute the nature of each, so that we should not subsume both under “actions performed,” but rather begin with:
Circumcision is a bloody rite applied only to the males in the old covenant.
Baptism is bloodless and is applied to all in the new covenant.
Should these be our starting points and controlling ideas, so that radical difference is dominant rather than any invisible similarity in “thing signified” of “type of symbol”?
Joshua,
I don’t have much time, so quickly. . . The whole res/signum apparatus is a huge part of the problem. Augustine’s neo-platonic way of describing and explaining “sacraments” has not helped us.
Yes, there are similarities between circumcision and baptism. Yes, we can learn things about baptism by reflecting on circumcision (household incorporation, etc.). I don’t deny that. My original point was simply that we should not call baptism “Christian circumcision” and that the “essence of the meaning” of circumcision is not simply carried on today as baptism.
Circumcision was inexorably tied to the old world, old flesh order of things before the death and resurrection of Jesus. I’d like to see more appreciation for that fact and a bit more exploration of the meaning of circumcision in that context. All I was trying to do is cut circumcision (and baptism) loose from the dominance of systematic theological concerns. I wasn’t trying to deny all connections between the two rites/actions.
Joshua, you wrote:
<>
Jesus was literally circumcised as a baby. What happened to Jesus on Good Friday is metaphorically called a “circumcision” in Scripture. The basis of the metaphor here is literal, eighth-day circumcision. But this has nothing to do with which “circumcision” is theologically primary. Of course Jesus’ death on the cross, metaphorically described as his “circumcision,” is primary, being the antitype of old-covenant circumcision.
My point about Jesus’ calling his upcoming death a “baptism” was that here baptism is not metaphorical of water baptism. Jesus’ “baptism” on the cross was literally his “blood baptism,” just as my Christian baptism, e.g., was literally my “water baptism.” So the passages in which Jesus calls his upcoming death a “baptism” do not link water baptism and the cross in the same way Col 2 links literal circumcision and the cross.
In general, using two metaphors to describe a single event does not necessarily link the two metaphors. Being a top CEO’s fresh-out-of-college intern, for example, can be both “a roller coaster ride” and “a baptism by fire.”
Just some thoughts.
Joshua wrote:
“Jeremy, I simply don’t follow your #1. Jesus’ death is not metaphorical of circumcision, since metaphor is about how words relate to things, not how events relate to events… the death of the old nature, accomplished in Christ’s death, is the primary reality of which circumcision is the secondary symbol–as a metaphor is secondary and symbolic of the thing it is describing.”
Joshua,
Jesus was literally circumcised as a baby. What happened to Jesus on Good Friday is metaphorically called a “circumcision” in Scripture. The basis of the metaphor here is literal, eighth-day circumcision. But this has nothing to do with which “circumcision” is theologically primary. Of course Jesus’ death on the cross, metaphorically described as his “circumcision,” is primary, being the antitype of old-covenant circumcision.
My point about Jesus’ calling his upcoming death a “baptism” was that here baptism is not metaphorical of water baptism. Jesus’ “baptism” on the cross was literally his “blood baptism,” just as my Christian baptism, e.g., was literally my “water baptism.” So the passages in which Jesus calls his upcoming death a “baptism” do not link water baptism and the cross in the same way Col 2 links literal circumcision and the cross.
In general, using two metaphors to describe a single event does not necessarily link the two metaphors. Being a top CEO’s fresh-out-of-college intern, for example, can be both “a roller coaster ride” and “a baptism by fire.”
Just some thoughts.
Andy Webb critiques this post here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/26690
No, Webb does not critique the post. He’s looking for dirt so he latches onto a statement I made in passing about baptism. My post and point is not about the efficacy of baptism and it’s relationship to faith. I was only echoing Paul’s language in Col. 2:12; I was not suggesting that baptism and not faith unite us to Christ. Paul actually uses both in that passage.
Right – just thought it would be handy to have you point that out here so that the post would contain some kind of response for the record.
It is just as permissible to say “baptism unites us to Christ” as to say “the Gospel unites us to Christ.” I learned this from Pastor
Rob Rayburn who responded to the “problem” of Peter’s statement that “baptism now saves” by pointing out it is equally correct to say that faith saves and that the preaching of the Gospel saves. It simply is meant in different ways.
As Turretin pointed out in his classic work:
Just another example of Reformed theology being denuded by modern extra-confessional and contra-Biblical shibboleths.
Okay, so let me get this straight. Mr. Webb quotes the Baptist Arthur Pink, quoting the 17th Century Puritan Charnock, to analyze what Jeff Meyers, a dude who is writing, alive, on this very blog is saying or not saying.
Andy, why don’t you just come over here and ask Jeff what he means…is that too difficult a courtesy for one PCA minister to extend to another?
Jeff,
Here are my thoughts on Gen 17:
The OT sign is twofold: one is a threat of death and exile from the life that God promises in his cov’t; it threatens the sign taker with the reminder that breaking this cov’t (ie abandoning God completely, wholly, fully) leaves the believer with no hope but death.
So when A took the Sign to himself and his posterity, he basically said, “We are followers of the one true God and if we leave the protective love of this one true God, there is nothing for us but God’s curse.” So A would raise his children to follow in faith this one true God upon the pains of death.
The second is the spiritual promise of life wherein the “real” issue is the need of a new heart. Here Moses links the rite to “cutting off” one’s heart from death and choosing life.
Christ is circumcised for us; he is cut off from the land of the living as he hung on the cross. Not b/c of his cov’t unfaithfulness but b/c of ours for left to ourselves we would forsake God. Left to ourselves we would turn from him.
And in order for God to protect us from ourselves He removes from us our rebellion; and the only way to do that is to carry out the curse of the cov’t.
You see, the only way God removes rebellion is by cutting out the rebellious; severing them from this life. To carry out the consequences of sin God must perform this surgery.
But for God. But God demonstrates his own love for us in that while we were sinners, Christ was cut off for us. This is the good news of God’s love. Were you to stand before God on your own, you would be cut off; you would have no hope; you would be circumcised were you to stand on your own. And that is why we need Jesus. By the circumcision of Christ, we are cut off.
B/c Christ has been cut off, we will not be. But that does not take away from the fact that we are obligated to walk in faithfulness. This is no different than the OT; when sacrifices were offered in the OT there is the demonstration of circumcision in the negative sense; every time an animal was offered up there was the crucifixion typified. So were we to put Paul’s words in Colossians in the language of the OT sacrifices, we would say we are circumcised by the “circumcision” of this lamb; of this bull. I am preserved because this animal is being cut off in my place.
So, this relates to your post how? Ummmmmmm. Does not baptism display to the church both life and death? Have your sins washed by Christ (life) or you will be washed away with you sins without him (death). Me thinks one can make too much of the old order/ new order dichotomy. In reality the oath-sign is two fold: choose life and not death. That’s the point. imho
[…] is fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus, into which we are baptized. Check out Jeff Meyers post to this effect at the Biblical Horizons […]