[B-Greek] Col. 2:11 Going beyond grammar?

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 15 15:24:31 EDT 2009


This is not the place to engage in theological discussion, but I would call to your attention Paul's own conception of baptism in Rom 6.4

συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν.
SUNETAFHMEN OUN AUTWi DIA TOU BAPTISMATOS EIS TON QANATON, hINA hWSPER HGERQH XRISTOS EK NEKRWN DA THS DOCHS TOU PATROS, hOUTWS KAI hHMEIS EN KAINOTHTI ZWHS PERIPATHSWMEN

Paul uses more than on figure to represent baptism, and in view of his equation of the "flesh" as one's sinful nature or old nature, I think he has simply changed the figure here.  This would mean that the equation of baptism with circumcision begins with Paul himself.

Least we become involved in a theological discussion, that is all I will have to say on the matter.
 george
gfsomsel 


… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________ 



----- Original Message ----
From: "yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: Ken Berry <ken at wbtc.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:00:15 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Col. 2:11 Going beyond grammar?

Iver and George, SHALOM!
    I think this passage is a prime example of the need for contextual  
information and the situation of the larger co-text to make sense of  
the grammar. And, again, I believe that the way the text in currently  
translated in, say, the NLT is more a result of the desire to  
contextualize Colossians 2:11 to something modern readers will be more  
familiar and comfortable with than anything resembling an attempt at  
understanding the original meaning of this verse in context. Iver  
seems to think that my interpretation of Col. 2:11 is novel and,  
perhaps idiosyncratic, but that is really far from the case. Perhaps  
it is just that we are reading different things.
    First I think it appropriate to clarify that recent exegesis has  
suggested that circumcision in Colossians 2:11 is a figure for union  
with Christ in his death (see below, Ken L. Berry's comment), and that  
baptismal language does not begin until verse 12. Further, that the  
patristic sources do not suggest the understanding of circumcision as  
metaphorical of baptism until Cyprian, Augustine and Chrysostom in the  
4th century. [[See J. T. Hunt, "Colossians, the Circumcision/Baptism  
Analogy and Infant Baptism," Tyndale Bulletin 41.2 (1990): 227-244]].  
Chrysostom, (not mentioned by Hunt) for e.g., takes the phrase "the  
circumcision of Christ" as referring to the stripping off of the  
sinful nature, "body of sin" in baptism (P.G. 62.340.10). However,  
earlier sources do not make this equation, for example, The Gospel of  
Truth 19:35-21.2, one of the earliest surviving "comments" on this  
verse, reflects an earlier understanding of this passage and reads,  
"He [Christ] abases himself even unto death, though he is clothed in  
eternal life. Having stripped himself of these perishable rags, he  
clothed himself in incorruptibility, which no one could possibly take  
from him." [[See R. Yates, "Colossians and Gnosis" JSNT (1986):  
49-68.]] The phrase ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ  
Χριστοῦ is not a periphrasis for baptism, but a reference to  
Christ's death which is viewed metaphorically as circumcision of  
Christ's own body of flesh. Such an idea finds confirmation by a  
comparison with Romans 6:3-4 and Ephesians 2:11-13, both of which have  
close parallels with Colossians 2:11-12. [[M. Barth, Ephesians 1-3  
(New York, Doubleday 1974) 281 considers the similarities and  
differences between Ephesians 2:llff. and Colossians 2:11-12. ]].  
Whereas Romans 6:3-4 speaks of death, burial and resurrection,  
Colossians 2:11-12 speaks of circumcision, burial and resurrection.  
The phrase εἰς τον θάνατον αύτου in Romans 6:3 is  
equivalent to ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ in  
Colossians 2:11. [[G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament  
(London, Macmillan 1962) 155 cf. 152 suggests that "Colossians 2.11ff  
is Paul's authentic commentary on Rom. 6.1ff."]]. The primary  
reference of the phrase ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ  
σώματος τῆς σαρκός is thus clarified by the  
following "epexegetical" ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ  
Χριστοῦ. This is an important corollary to 2:9-10, which  
affirms that all the deity "dwells bodily in Christ," ἐν αὐτῷ  
κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς  
θεότητος σωματικῶς. That Paul means to refer to the  
present, resurrected Christ seems to be clear from v. 10, and leaves  
open what he might have thought about the fleshly, pre-resurrection  
"body of Christ." The implicit theology here is not at all different  
from Rom 1:3, 4
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ
τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ  
κατὰ σάρκα,
τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν  
δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ  
ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.

    "According to the flesh", apparently, suggests a state of weakness as  
opposed to κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης which suggests  
strength, since he is declared "Son of God ἐν δυνάμει" since  
the resurrection from the dead. His death and resurrection, it might  
be said, stripped away that weakness from him so that he might reign  
over the living and the dead,
  εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν καὶ  
ἔζησεν, ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων  
κυριεύσῃ (Rom 14:9b). A similar idea is found in 2 Cor 13:4,
καὶ γὰρ ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας,  
ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ. καὶ γὰρ  
ἡμεῖς ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ  
ζήσομεν σὺν αὐτῷ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ  
εἰς ὑμᾶς.

    OK, that change from the weakness of the incarnated Christ to the  
strength of the risen and glorious Christ is the prime antidote Paul  
uses to confront the strange teaching that is leading the Colossians  
astray, as it was also the prime antidote for the strange teaching and  
practices taking place in Corinth, however different the local  
expressions of the teaching may have been. This suggests that for  
Paul, identification with the death and resurrection of Christ through  
faith, as symbolized in baptism (or, in the case of Colossians  
"circumcision"!) into the family life of a Christ community of diverse  
origin, is a touch stone of his faith.

    This strongly suggests that in Pauline theology the phrase ἐν τῇ  
περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ is a reference to the death  
of Christ. And that ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ  
σώματος τῆς σαρκός is a reference to the violent  
stripping off of the weakness flesh of human flesh in the death of  
Christ. This is also the experience of the believer by identification  
with Christ. That is, believers experience a circumcision of the  
entire weak flesh nature because they are one with Christ, despite  
continuing in the weakness of the human body. And "the life [they] now  
live in the flesh, they live by faith in the Son of God," and in hope  
of complete transformation at the resurrection. I might add the  
caveat, however, that Colossians 2:11 speaks of being circumcised with/ 
in Christ, whereas Romans 6:3 speaks of being baptized into Christ,  
does not mean that the former is a figure for baptism. Rather, both of  
these are metaphorical of the death, [burial and resurrection] of  
Christ, not of one another directly.

Such language is odd, but not as odd as it might seem. And it  
certainly doesn't mean that the author of Colossians either held the  
sort of dualistic views held by later gnostics or that his opponents  
were gnostics of any sort. There is nothing more dualistic here than  
the eschatological dualism of 1 Cor. 15. Rather, it would seem that  
the majority of the members of the church at Colossae were Gentiles.  
Some of these were attracted to certain elements of Jewish mysticism,  
including the mystical ascent of the initiate to the heavenly realms  
to witness the angelic worship of God himself. A rigorous self- 
discipline which included legal ordinances, food and drink  
regulations, and a careful observance of the festival calendar and  
sabbaths was the necessary preparation for such mystical ascent. In  
line with this the "flesh" seems to them to have meant the lower side  
of human nature, including the body, and by following their detailed  
regulations they believed they could strip off" the fleshy nature and  
thereby be in a position to receive visions. This stripping off of the  
flesh is unlikely to have included actual circumcision, but  
'circumcision' may have been used as a technical term for the  
preparatory and initiatory rites. Although attended by great perils,  
such visionary experience is unlikely to have been condemned by Paul  
since he experienced something similar himself. It is the vaunting of  
spiritual achievements following such visions that he objects to, and  
the consequent neglect of how people are saved by Christ--without  
recourse to ascetic, visionary preparations and special rigorous  
initiations, but by faith and identification with the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, is the above interpretation strange, new and idiosyncratic. I hope  
my musings have shown that it is not entirely so. But, just in case, I  
asked my off-list friend Ken L. Berry to offer some further comments.  
Here is Ken:
> Hi Yancy,
>
> My earlier brief note regarding Col 2:11 was along these lines:
>
> Re “in the stripping off of the body of flesh, in the circumcision  
> of Christ,”  I am inclined to think both of these parallel phrases  
> refer to Christ’s death, with “body of flesh” simply meaning  
> “physical body.” This interpretation is favored by CFD Moule,  
> (CGTC, 94-96), Peter O’Brien (WBC, 117), JDG Dunn (NIGTC, 157-8),  
> Andrew Lincoln (NIB, 624), and Ben Witherington (157).
>
> I now notice that O'Brien also cites GR Beasley-Murray (Baptism  
> 152-3) and R Gundry (Soma,40-42) as seeing a reference to Christ's  
> death here. And I see that FF Bruce (104) also describes this as an  
> option, though he does not seem to express a clear decision either  
> way. Barth and Blanke (AB 364-65) also see an allusion to Christ's  
> death here, and cite Lohmeyer and others.
>
> So there have been many scholars who have favored this line of  
> interpretation, and it is not an obscure, idiosyncratic one.
>
> Here is the passage I read aloud from O'Brien (117) when we were  
> discussing this in my office that day:
>
> ... the meaning is that the body of flesh was stripped off when  
> Christ was circumcised, that is, when he died; the whole statement  
> is "a gruesome figure for death" (Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 152).  
> Here is a circumcision which entailed not the stripping off of a  
> small portion of flesh but the violent removal of the whole body in  
> death. Ken.

Why would Paul use such language? What contextual cues are there that  
indicate a need for such odd language? Scholars disagree, because on  
the lack of clarity about the epistolary/rhetorical situation of  
Colossians. But here, contextual information is crucial to  
understanding the grammar!
Kind regards,
Yancy

Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565





---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



      



More information about the B-Greek mailing list