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.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pm and is filed under By Oath Consigned, Kline, Col 2:11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.