The Upper Register Blog

Central to Kline’s interpretation of Col 2:11 is the exegetical decision to take “of Christ” in the phrase “the circumcision of Christ” as an objective genitive. On this reading, “the circumcision of Christ” is the circumcision that Christ received, not when he was eight days old, but when he was crucified. The context of Paul’s argument makes clear that believers participate in Christ’s circumcision-death by faith (as symbolized in baptism), so that in union with Christ we are also reckoned as having been circumcised or cut off under the wrath of God. Of course, this participation in the circumcision of Christ is not an end in itself but a means of salvation. Because of union with Christ, we are not only judged but also raised with Christ, with the result that salvation comes through judgment.

I find Kline’s objective genitive interpretation theologically attractive. But perhaps for that very reason I also worry whether it is objectively viable on exegetical grounds. So the thought occurred to me to check the views of the major commentators on Colossians — most of whom have presumably never heard of Kline. To my surprise the objective genitive is adopted by a number of highly regarded NT scholars.  This is not an exhaustive review of all commentaries on Colossians, but I think I’ve checked the main scholarly ones.

(1) Commentators who adopt the objective genitive

Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 34B; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 318-20, 363-69:

It is more probable that v 11 alludes to the death of Jesus. Otherwise the subsequent words concerning his burial and resurrection would stand curiously without a reference point … The phrase “body of the flesh” is also best interpreted as in 1:22 … to define the earthly/human existence of Jesus, where the entire expression “in the laying down of the body of the flesh” is the description of his death … If this interpretation is correct, then the expression used in v 11, “circumcision of Christ,” becomes clear. It cannot be a designation of baptism, but rather only a description of the death of Jesus.

James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 157-58:

More likely the phrase [“the stripping off of the body of the flesh”] is an adaptation of the description of physical circumcision – a stripping off of the flesh (of the foreskin) – applied to Jesus’ death in deliberate echo of 1:22 … The final phrase, “in the circumcision of Christ,” is best seen, then, simply as a summary expression of the larger imagery of the preceding phrases. That is, what is in view is not primarily a circumcision effected by Christ … but a concise description of the death of Christ under the metaphor of circumcision. It is clearly implied, of course, from the first phrase, that conversion-initiation could consequently be understood as a sharing in that circumcision, but it is precisely a sharing in his circumcision-death, not an independent act of Christians’ own circumcision-death.

Other commentators who adopt the objective genitive include: 

Ralph P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1974), 82.

C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (CGTC; Cambridge: CUP, 1957), 94-96.

Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC 44; Waco: Word Books, 1982), 116-17.

(2) Commentators who reject the objective genitive

Although the objective genitive receives strong support, there are also some heavy-weight commentators on the other side who reject this interpretation and argue for one of the following alternatives:

a. Subjective genitive:  “the circumcision of Christ” is the spiritual circumcision that Christ performs in us by cutting off our sinful nature and regenerating us to newness of life: 

Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary (trans. Andrew Chester; London: SPCK, 1982), 143.

b. Genitive of quality:  the genitive “of Christ” would be translated “Christian.” Thus, “the circumcision of Christ” is Christian circumcision in contrast with the fleshly circumcision of the old covenant. On this view, “Christian circumcision” could either refer to baptism or regeneration:

Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 102-3. (Harris calls it the adjectival genitive, and sees it as very similar in meaning to the genitive of possession.)

Petr Pokorný, Colossians: A Commentary (trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 124-25.

N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon (TNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1986), 105.

At least one commentator rejects the objective genitive without specifying whether he leans to the subjective genitive or the genitive of quality:

Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 102-3.

Conclusion

It would appear from the above survey that NT scholarship is evenly divided on this issue. Good arguments can be made on both sides. My point is to show the Kline’s interpretation is not idiosyncratic but finds significant support in mainstream biblical scholarship. The objective genitive is exegetically viable on its own terms and may not be dismissed as Kline’s attempt to force the text into his system.

(3) “The Circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11-12)

The third continuity between BOC and KP is Kline’s marvelous exegesis of Col 2:11-12. Here is the passage, first in the original Greek, then in English translation:

ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν·

“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” (NASB).

Here are Kline’s comments on the text:

BOC, pp. 46-47:

In the Colossians 2 passage … Paul affirms the union of the Christian with Christ in his crucifixion-circumcision … That Paul here interprets circumcision as a dying or death is clear from the sequence of ideas: circumcision, burial, resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:3, 4). This is confirmed by the exposition of circumcision as a “putting (or stripping) off,” the latter being in turn synonymous with “putting to death” (Col. 3:5-9). As a death in union with Christ, the representative sin-bearer, in his crucifixion, the Christian’s circumcision-death is an undergoing of the wrath of God against sin, a falling under his sword of judgment. It is a judicial death as the penalty for sin. Yet, to be united with Christ in his death is also to be raised with him whom death could not hold in his resurrection unto justification. So it is that circumcision, which in itself as a symbolic action signifies the sword of the Lord cutting off his false servants, as a sign of the Covenant of Redemption takes on, alongside the import of condemnation, that of justification, the blessing that may come through the curse.

BOC, pp. 70-71:

Thoroughly congenial to the ordeal interpretation of the baptismal symbolism is the New Testament’s exposition of baptism as a participation with Christ in the judgment ordeal of his death, burial, and resurrection (see Rom. 6:3ff.; Col. 2:11ff.; cf. I Cor. 1:13; Lk. 12:50) …

Earlier we followed the exegesis of “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11) that regards “of Christ” as an objective genitive and “the circumcision,” therefore, as the crucifixion of Christ. “Without hands” would then mean that his circumcision was no mere human symbolization of the curse sanction of the law but the actual divine judgment. “Putting off the body of flesh” would further contrast the crucifixion to the symbolic removal of the foreskin as being a perfecting of circumcision in a complete cutting off unto death, and that as an object of divine cursing … If, then, Paul calls the Christian death-experience a circumcision it is only because he was first of all prepared to call Christ’s death a circumcision.

Kline follows the same interpretation 32 years later:

KP, p. 316:

Circumcision is in fact employed in the Scripture as an image for that redemptive judgment undergone by Christ.  Paul referred to the crucifixion as “the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11), seeing it as antitype to the circumcision-sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), a “putting off” not merely of a token part but of the whole body of his flesh through death (cf. Col 1:22), a veritable perfecting of circumcision. [See By Oath Consigned, pp. 45-47,71.]

What was signified by circumcision was, therefore, the generic concept of the divine judgment in its twofold potential.  It conveyed the threat of being cut off from God and life for the one who, disclaiming the grace of the covenant and thus breaking it, would undergo in himself the judgment due to Adam’s fallen race.  But circumcision also presented the promise of the Cross, inviting the circumcised to identify by faith with Christ, to undergo the judgment of God in him, and so find in his circumcision-judgment the way to the Father, to justification and life.

Isn’t the gospel great! Too often preachers explain the substitutionary atonement using the analogy of the convicted felon who stands before the judge, but the judge happens to be his father, so the father takes his son’s place that the son can go free. This captures the substitutionary element of the atonement, but it misses the representative dimension. The great thing about the atonement isn’t that I don’t have to die, but that I have died. And since this death was in union with Christ, I have also been delivered from the curse and ushered into resurrection life on the other side. 

So, to summarize Kline’s interpretation of Col 2:11-12:

a. Taking “of Christ”  as an objective genitive, “the circumcision of Christ” (ἡ περιτομὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ) means that Christ is the object of the divine ”circumcision” action. On the cross, Christ himself was circumcised, cut off, accursed, and judged.

b. The sequence is “circumcision, burial, resurrection.” Normally, the sequence is “death, burial, resurrection.” Therefore, “circumcision” here is equal to ”death.”

c. Baptism, like circumcision, is associated with death or judgment. Both circumcision and baptism, then, are symbolic actions that signify divine judgment.

d. All of this is Christocentric. The divine judgment has been undergone by Christ himself and we in him. Therefore, both circumcision in the Old Covenant and baptism in the New signify redemptive judgment. Blessing comes through curse.

e. It is not enough to speak of Christ’s substitutionary death. It is substitutionary, but it is also representative. He not only died in our place. We also died in forensic union with him! This precious truth is not only found in Col 2:11-12 but in many other passages:

“Our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6; cf. 7:4)

“One died for all, therefore all died” (2 Cor 5:14)

“I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20; cf. 6:14)

“You have died” (Col 3:3)

To quote Kline again, circumcision/baptism invites us

to identify by faith with Christ, to undergo the judgment of God in him, and so find in this circumcision-judgment the way to the Father, to justification and life.  

f. To say that we have been both judged and raised in (forensic) union with Christ is simply to say that we have been justified. I add the word “forensic” in order to clarify that, with regard to justification, union with Christ is legal. It is simply another way of stating that we are represented by Christ as our federal head and surety. 

g. However, there is also a dimension of union with Christ that goes beyond the legal and includes an element of real participation and mystical transformation. Justification is immediately and inseparably followed by sanctification. We are judged, then raised (justification), and now that we are raised, we walk in newness of life by the power of his Spirit dwelling in us (sanctification). Circumcision and baptism therefore signify both justification and sanctification in union with Christ.

Just in case you’re wondering, Kline agrees that both justification and sanctification are symbolized in these oath signs (KP, pp. 316-17):

Circumcision, properly experienced, means identification with Christ in his crucifixion-circumcision as a satisfaction of divine justice and it thus means safe passage through the death-judgment to the resurrection unto justification (Col 2:11ff.; Rom 4:11).  To be circumcised in Christ involves further a dying to sin, a putting off of the old man not only in the forensic sense but subjectively in the spiritual transformation of sanctification (Col 2:11ff; 3:5ff.).