Metaphors Come From Somewhere:
The Liturgical Background of Colossians 2:11-15
Richard M. Wright
Introduction to the New Testament II
Dr. Sandra Hack Polaski
Exegetical Paper
June 10, 1997
Abstract
Colossians 2:11-15 is a passage that has generated considerable controversy among scholars.
It appears to be a reference to or discussion of baptism within an epistle that is intended to refute those
that would impose human made philosophies and regulations upon the Colossian church. The
passage is difficult in its grammar, its vocabulary, and its frame of reference. One way to approach
the passage is to focus on the metaphor of putting off (clothes?) inherent in the terms απεκδυω and
απεκδυσις. This metaphor may reflect the early Christian practice of baptism in which those being
baptized disrobed for baptism and then were reclothed after the ritual. The passage is interpreted
primarily as an exposition on the theological significance of baptism: baptism is being buried and
raised with Christ, and is a saving event in the life of the Christian. Such an interpretation challenges
the typical Baptist understanding of baptism, which sees the ritual as purely or primarily symbolic.
One of the more difficult passages in the epistle to the church at Colossae is Col 2:11-15. With
its ambiguous syntax, unusual vocabulary, and dense use of metaphor, it has defied the best efforts of
scholars to achieve a consensus concerning some of the most basic questions regarding these verses.
One of the things I find striking about the passage is the reference to baptism in Col 2:12, one of many
allusions to baptism that can be detected throughout the epistle. What understanding of baptism does
Col 2:12 appear to reflect? How does that understanding match what we know about the theology and
practice of baptism in the early church? If we consider the theological and liturgical background of
the reference to baptism in Col 2:12, how does that inform our reading of this verse, of this passage,
and of this epistle? Such an exegesis may in turn challenge our understanding and appreciation of the
ritual of baptism, particularly within the Baptist Christian community.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to establish the text of the passage, as well as to
offer a working translation. The text of Col 2:11-15 is relatively free from major text critical
problems, although there are a few which merit discussion. The addition of τωv αμαρτιωv after τoυ
σωματoς in 2:11 is an awkward insertion that is attested no earlier than the 6th-7th centuries; it should
be rejected primarily on grammatical grounds.1 Although the textual evidence for βαπτισματι in
2:12 is as good as for βαπτισμω,2 the latter is to be preferred on the grounds that βαπτισμoς is the
It appears in 2 D1 Ψ 075 and a few others, and is absent in P46 * A B C D* F G P and others;
see Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed., Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 526, critical apparatus. The phrase τoυ σωματoς της σαρκoς "the
body of the flesh" is far more plausible than τoυ σωματoς τωv αμαρτιωv της σαρκoς "the body of the
sins of the flesh"; see Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, trans. William Poehlmann and Robert
Karris, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971), 103n62.
1
2
For βαπτισματι, * C D2 Ψ 33 and others; for βαπτισμω, P46 2 B D* F G and others.
less common term for baptism in the NT, and thus less likely to have served as a correction for
βαπτισμα.3 Whether to read υμας or ημας in 2:13 is more difficult.4 If 2:13c-15 is indeed a hymnic
or confessional fragment, then ημας is clearly preferable;5 although υμας is still quite possible if it
resumes υμας in 2:13a. The juxtaposition of υμας in 2:13c with ημιv in 2:13d is still awkward but not
impossible;6 the author has chosen to include himself with his audience, either to make a theological
point,7 or because he is so moved by the thought being expressed.8
As even a small sampling of commentaries will reveal, the grammar and vocabulary of Col
2:11-15 are difficult, and ambiguities abound.9 Part of my approach to the text is to respect as much
as possible these inherent ambiguities; we should resist the tendency to pick one
interpretation-translation to the exclusion of other possibilities. Therefore the translation offered here
is based partly on my desire to retain as much as possible the inherent difficulties of the text,10 and
partly on particular interpretations that will be explained later in this study.
3
See M. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 103-104.
Both readings are well documented: υμας in 2 D F G Ψ and others; ημας in P46 B 33 323 and a
few others.
4
5
If ημας is original, then the shift from "you" in 2:9-13b to "us" in 2:13c and following requires
explanation. Lohse commented: "In v 13c the confessing community speaks using the first person
plural....A high degree of probability exists for the assumption that a fragment of a confession
formulated in hymnic phrases underlies vss 14-15"; Colossians and Philemon, 106.
6
See Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 106-107. See especially Peter O'Brien, Colossians,
Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 123: "_μ_ς is repeated for
the sake of emphasis; its omission from some manuscripts was probably due to its being thought by
scribes to be superfluous while its replacement with _μ_ς in P46 B 33 etc. was probably to bring it
into line with the following _μ_v. In other words, it is the reading which explains the others."
7
So Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians, trans. Astrid Beck, Anchor Bible
Commentary, vol 34B (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 32:" Paul the Jew seems to include himself
expressly in the proclamation concerning the forgiveness of sins. He thus says expressly that there is
no forgiveness of sins for gentiles without forgiveness for Jews. The former is a shareholder with the
latter."
8
So R. E. O. White, "Colossians," Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 11 (Nashville, TN:
Broadman Press, 1971), 238: "Paul was ever deeply moved by the thought of being granted access
into the favor of the Most High. As so often, he breaks the thread of the passage to include himself;
and he remembers how complete God's pardon is."
9
Harris' commentary is particularly useful for its systematic listing of the various
interpretations-translations possible for each phrase or verse.
10
Compare the highly interpretive translation of this passage in the NIV: "In his you were also
circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men
but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him
2
Colossians 2:11-15
In him you also were circumcised with a circumcision not of human hands, in the complete
removal of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; (12)having been buried with
him in baptism,11 wherein you were also raised with (him) through faith in the active
power of God who raised him from (the) dead. (13)And while you were dead in
trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive with him,
forgiving you (of) all trespasses, (14)having erased our certificate of debt with its
decrees which stood against us; and he took it away, nailing it to the cross. (15)Having
stripped the powers and authorities, he displayed (them) publicly, leading them in a
victory celebration therein.12
(11)
The preliminary working translation above attempts to take into account the structure of the
passage, which is based on parallel dependent clauses, the use of finite verbs versus participles, and
on the repetitive use of (εv) αυτω/_, a recurring pattern which can even be seen in the verses
immediately preceding our passage for exegesis.
(6)
...
εv αυτω
περιπατειτε...
(7)
...
εv αυτω...
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
...
oτι
και εστε
εv αυτω κατoικει...
εv αυτω
πεπληρωμεvoι...
εv _ και
περιετμηθητε πετιτoμη αχειρoπoιητω
εv τη απεκδυσει τoυ σωματoς της σαρκoς
εv τη περιτoμη τoυ Χριστoυ
συvταφεvτες
αυτω
εv τω βαπτισμω
εv _ και
<---?--->
εv _ και
συvηγερθητε δια τησ πιστεως της εvεργειας τoυ
[θεoυ
τoυ εγειραvτoς αυτov εκ vεκρωv
through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your
sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us
all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood
opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and
authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (emphasis
added).
11
On the subtle distinction between βαπτισμoς "baptizing, immersion, ritual washing" and
βαπτισμα "baptism (of John), (Christian) baptism," see A. Oepke, s.v. βαπτω, Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 11 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-),
1:529-546.
12
With some hesitation I reject the translation of 2:15 which Roy Yates bases on his thorough
analysis of this verse: "Having stripped himself in death, He boldly made an open display of the
angelic powers, leading them in triumphal (festal) procession on the cross"; "Colossians 2.15: Christ
Triumphant," New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 591. Some of the reasons for which I dispute his
well argued interpretation will be presented below.
3
(13)
συv αυτω
(14)
και υμας vεκρoυς ovτας τoις παραπτωμασιv και τη
[ακρoβυστια της σαρκoς υμωv
συvεζωπoιησεv υμας
χαρισαμεvoς ημιv παvτα τα παραπτωματα
εξαλειψας τo καθ' ημωv χειρoγραφov τoις
δoγμασιv
o υπεvαvτιov ημιv
ηρκεv εκ τoυ μεσoυ
πρoσηλωσας αυτo τω σταυρω
απεκδυσαμεvoς τας αρχας και τας εξoυσιας
εδειγματισεv εv παρρησια
θριαμβευσας αυτoυς
και αυτo
(15)
εv αυτω.
Notice the repetition of (εv) αυτω/_ which occurs throughout the passage. The fourfold repetition of
εv αυτω in Col 2:6-10 clearly refers to Christ; therefore we should be inclined to interpret αυτω
throughout 2:11-15 as referring back to Christ in 2:6. The final εv αυτω therefore also refers to Christ,
and forms a kind of inclusio with εv αυτω in 2:6. Hence Harris' argument that εv αυτω in 2:15 refers
primarily to τω σταυρω is unlikely. But how do we deal with εv _ in 2:11, 12? Since it follows the
fourfold repetition of εv αυτω in 2:6-10, we presume that the shift from αυτω to _ is unimportant, and
the antecedent is still Christ. But εv _ in 2:12 follows immediately after the phrase εv τω βαπτισμω
and may be parallel with it, and so this second occurrence of εv _ may refer to τω βαπτισμω. But why
should the writer shift from εv αυτω to εv _ and then use εv _ for two different referents? I submit
that the text deliberately is ambiguous. It invites us first to interpret the first εv _ in conjunction with
the previous four instances of εv αυτω which refer to Christ, and then to read the second εv _ in 2:12
as parallel with εv _ in 2:11.13 But the possibility of a secondary reading should be considered. The
second εv _ parallels εv τω βαπτισμω, and the first εv _ in 2:11 anticipates this reading.14 Verses 11
and 12 can be read both ways, as a discussion of what has happened to the addressees in Christ, and as
what happened to the addressees in baptism.
We can also note the grammatical parallel between εv _ περιετμηθητε...εv τη
απεκδυσει...εv τη περιτoμη in 2:11 and εv τω βαπτισμo εv _ συvηγερθητε in 2:12. Both the finite
verbs and the dependent εv clauses are parallel, suggesting that the writer is indeed making a formal
comparison between circumcision and baptism, a point which some commentators deny.15 This
13
"In him you also were circumcised... in him you also were raised." See Rudolf Schnackenburg,
Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964),
67-68.
14
"In which (baptism) you also were circumcised... having been buried with him in baptism, in
which you were raised." See, however, G. R. Beasley-Murray, who argues against this interpretation
on the grounds that εv _ (Christ) και συvηγερθητε causes the awkward expression, "In him you also
were raised with him"; Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 154.
15
In favor of seeing the comparison, see Schnackenburg, Baptism, 67-68; White, "Colossians,"
236-237; Ralph Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John
Knox Press, 1991), 115. For those who see no attempt to equate or compare circumcision and baptism
in these verses, see O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 115; Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 103.
4
grammatical link between circumcision and baptism in 2:11-12 must be kept in mind as we consider
the understanding of baptism which Col 2:11-15 conveys.
Our passage Col 2:11-15 also bears strong resemblance to another passage that refers to
baptism, Rom 6:3-8. This resemblance has not gone unnoticed, some commentators having gone so
far to suggest that Col 2:11-15 is a commentary on Rom 6:3-8, expositing and clarifying the theology
underlying Romans 6.16 This apparent literary dependence alone raises certain questions about the
date and authorship of Colossians. Paul's letter to the Romans, after all, was certainly the last letter to
be written by him before being arrested in Jerusalem (see Rom 15:22-31; Acts 22:22 and following),
around 55-56 C.E. Those who regard Colossians as written by Paul himself suggest,17 in conjunction
with the reference to captivity in Philemon, that it was written while Paul was in captivity, either in
Ephesus, Caesarea, or Rome. An Ephesian setting is least likely, given the apparent dependence of
Col 2:11-15 on Romans 6.18 And yet the apparent link between Colossians and Philemon (compare
Col 4:7-10 and Philemon 9-23) is undeniable. An Ephesian captivity is the most likely setting for
Philemon,19 Colossians appears to have been written from the same location as Philemon, and yet an
Ephesian captivity is highly improbable for Colossians! This problem with the relationship of
Colossians to Philemon, plus the literary dependence of Col 2:11-15 on Romans 6, plus the other
reasons that some scholars have presented,20 lead me to conclude, with some hesitation, that
16
Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 139, 152, 155; Schnackenburg, Baptism, 70.
17
Remarkably enough, none of the commentators I consulted for this exegesis argued against
Pauline authorship. If the Pauline authorship of Colossians is so disputed, why is it difficult to find
commentators who interpret the epistle from the perspective that it is pseudonymous, perhaps having
been composed by students or coworkers of Paul, a Pauline school of Christianity? See Luke T.
Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 357-359; Lohse,
Colossians and Philemon, 2-3; O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, xlii-l; Barth and Banke, Colossians,
23-26; Frank Stagg, "Colossians," in Mercer Commentary on the Bible, eds. Watson Mills and
Richard Wilson (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), 1235-1237.
18
Contra Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, 96-97. Romans 15 reads as if Paul is on
his way to Jerusalem, not as if he expects to be in prison for a long enough period to hear about and
respond to a crisis at the church in Colossae.
19
Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, 96-97; Charles H. Cosgrove, "Philemon," in Mercer
Dictionary of the Bible, 1263.
20
See Johnson, Writings of the NT, 355-359. These reasons include: (a) εκκλησια as the church
universal rather than the church local; (b) Christ referred to as κεφαλη rather than God; (c) a "higher"
Christology than is found in the undisputed Pauline epistles; (d) the distinctive vocabulary and style
of Colossians; (e) the Haustafeln in Col 3:18-4:1, which are more easily explained as reflecting a
period after the dead of Paul. Some have argued against (d) by pointing out that most of the unique
vocabulary in Colossians may be due to Paul appropriating the distinctive language of his opponents;
Barth and Banke, Colossians, 23-25. But Colossians and Ephesians share 10 words that occur
nowhere else in the NT, 15 that occur elsewhere in the NT but not in the undisputed Pauline writings;
O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, xlii-xliii. This suggests that the distinctive vocabulary of Colossians
is due to more than the particular situation which it addresses.
5
Colossians was probably written not by Paul himself but by some of his
followers-students-coworkers who were already making use of the Paul's literary legacy. But
Colossians cannot be dated overly late, since it is already cited by a one of the church fathers around
140 C.E.. And Ephesians, which is dependent upon Colossians, might have been quoted by Ignatius
of Antioch as early as 115 C.E.21 Colossians may have been composed during the first years after the
death of Paul, probably in Asia Minor near Colossae, given the letter's close relationship to
Philemon.22
If Col 2:11-15 is indeed a kind of commentary on Romans 6, then we should consider how
and why Col 2:11-15 is distinctive. First, Romans 6 lacks the repetition of (εv) αυτω/_ which
structure Col 2:11-14. Second, the Colossians passage employs metaphors lacking in Romans 6. In
Romans 6:3-8 there are no references to circumcision, or certificates of debt which are nailed to the
cross,23 or stripping of powers and authorities.24 Third, the Colossians passage uses expressions
which do not appear in Rom 6:3-8, terms such as απεκδυω and χαριζω.
I submit that Col 2:11-15 should be read in light of what we know about the practice of
baptism in the early church. One of our earliest witnesses to how the early church understood and
practiced baptism is the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, a bishop of Rome writing around 200
C.E.25 Hippolytus describes a lengthy process of preparation for baptism, a period of catechism that
21
On the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians, see Johnson, Writings of the NT,
367-370. On the early citation of Colossians and Ephesians, see Johnson, ibid., 532.
22
Robert A. Wild, "Colossians, The Letter of Paul to the," in Harper's Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul
Achtemeier, 176.
23
The term χειρoγραφov, which occurs only here in the NT, means simply a certificate of debt, an
IOU; Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., revised and augmented (Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1979), 880b; Eduard Lohse, s.v. χειρoγραφov, TDNT, 4:435-436; and Roy
Yates, "Col 2,14: Metaphor of Forgiveness," Biblica 71 (1990): 248-259.
24
The translation and interpretation of Col 2:15 is particularly difficult, partly because of the
individual words involved (απεκδυσαμεvoς...εδειγματισεv...θριαμβευσας), partly because of the
grammar of the verse (who is the subject of απεκδυσαμεvoς? the referent of εv αυτω?), partly
because of the overall picture being presented. For example, what are τας αρχας και τας εξoυσιας?
Angels? Evil spirits? The elemental principals of the cosmos? Most commentators see the verse as
describing some sort of defeat of and triumph over the spiritual forces of evil to which the opponents
want the Colossian believers to devote themselves; Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon,
115-116; Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 111-112. Others see the metaphor as more neutral: God
(the subject of απεκδυσαμεvoς) is simply exposing της αρχας και της εξoυσιας for what they are;
Barth and Banke, Colossians, 332-336. One scholar argues that the metaphor is chiefly positive:
Christ is the victor, and της αρχας και της εξoυσιας participate with him in a festal procession
which celebrates what he accomplished through his work on the cross; Roy Yates, "Colossians 2.15:
Christ Triumphant," New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 573-591.
25
Burton Scott Easton, trans., The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1934). All references to Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition will be to this work. One of
6
lasted three years on average.26 The catechumenal process included periodic exorcisms; during the
final days leading up to the baptismal rite, candidates were exorcised daily by the bishop. What is
noteworthy is how the ritual of baptism itself was performed:
They [those who are to be baptized] shall remove their clothing....Then, after [renouncing
Satan and his servants and his works, and after being exorcised one last time], let him
give him over to the presbyter who baptizes, and let the candidates stand in the water,
naked....And he who is being baptized goes down into the water.27
Baptism involved going down into the water, the complete immersion of the person being baptized.
Afterwards those who have been baptized are anointed, they dry themselves, are clothed, and brought
into the church.28
Perhaps we should relate the unusual use of απεκδυσις in 2:11 (and απεκδυω in 2:15) to the
early practice of removing clothes for baptism, and then dressing again immediately afterwards.
Although the exact form απεκδυω (and απεκδυσις) appears to be an intensive form--"fully put or take
off"--invented by the writer of Colossians,29 the verb εκδυω is attested elsewhere with the meaning
"strip; divest oneself; take off, undress." It is sometimes employed with the ordinary sense of
removing clothes in classical literature (such as by Herodotus and Aristophanes), and it appears in the
LXX in Isa 32:11 with the clear sense of bare oneself (as a gesture of repentance and mourning).
Granted, Paul does use εκδυω in a figurative sense in 2 Cor 5:4, referring to the shedding of the body
in death. But we should consider the possibility that the related expressions απεκδυω and απεκδυσις
are used not only in a figurative but also in a literal sense in Col 2:11, 2:15 (and 3:9), particularly in
light of the frequent use of εvδυω--which means to put on (clothes), sometimes in a figurative
sense--elsewhere in Colossians, such as in Col 3:10, 3:12.30 In other words, although Col 2:11 speaks
of the removal of the body of flesh in a figurative sense, it has in mind the literal removing of
garments as part of the ritual of baptism.31 Likewise, απεκδυσαμεvoς in 2:15 may have both a
the difficulties with this sort of evidence is the separation in time between Hippolytus (early 2nd
century C.E.) and the composition of Colossians (perhaps 65-75 C.E.). The resemblance between the
evidence offered below and Colossians will justify the comparison being made.
26
Hippolytus, Apost. Trad. 16-20, especially 17: "Let catechumens spend three years as hearers of
the word." See also E. Glenn Hinson, The Evangelization of the Roman Empire (Macon, GA: Mercer
Press, 1981), 73-85.
27
Hippolytus, Apost. Trad. 21:3, 11-12.
28
Hippolytus, ibid., 21:19-20.
29
For απεκδυω, απεκδυσις, and εκδυω, see A. Oepke, s.v. δυω, TDNT, 2:318-321.
30
See Oepke, s.v. εvδυω, ibid.
31
This interpretation appears to agree with that of Martin, who notes: "This [putting off the body
of the flesh] is, at first glance, Paul's idiom for recalling the Christian's initiation to new life in Christ.
The noun translated "putting off" (Gr. apekdysis) suggests a clean break with a past life, though the
precise metaphor is one of disrobing and stripping off a set of clothes preparatory to taking on a fresh
wardrobe (as in 3:9-10)"; Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, 115.
7
figurative and a literal meaning in mind.32 Similarly, the use of εvδυω within 3:9-14 may refer both to
the figurative putting on of Christ-like attributes, but also the putting on of clothes that follows
baptism. Read this way, Col 2:11-15 (and perhaps many of the verses that follow, particularly
2:20-3:17) may be a baptismal sermon or exposition on the subject of baptism that has been
incorporated into a letter that is primarily a refutation.33
If Col 2:11-15 has in mind the ritual of baptism, then what understanding of baptism does it
assume? The key here is verse 12: "Having been buried with him in baptism, in which (or: in whom)
you have been raised through faith in active power of God when he raised him from death." The
passage assumed that in baptism the believer has somehow been buried with Christ, that is, he or she
has participated in the burial of Christ. Although Romans 6 does refer to burial, there the emphasis is
on death. Burial is emphasized in this passage because burial death; one might even argue that the
burial of the believer in baptism with Christ causes the death of the believer. Similarly, the believer
has through faith in the power of God (δια της πιστεως της εvεργειας τoυ θεoυ) been raised with
Christ from the dead. The strength of the language (the use of [εv] αυτω/_, verbs compounded with
συv-) suggests that the writer does not mean this is what baptism symbolizes, this is what baptism
accomplishes. When we are baptized, we are buried (and are therefore dead) with Christ and we are
raised with Christ.
Beasley-Murray, in his discussion of the theology and practice of baptism in the NT, argues
that there are three views present in Pauline discussions of baptism:34
1. in baptism we go through a death and resurrection like Jesus';
2. the death and the resurrection of the baptized person is the death and resurrection of Jesus;
3. baptism involves a dying to sin and a rising to a new life (in the Spirit).
All three views, Beasley-Murray maintains, are needed for a full appreciation for the Pauline witness
to baptism. The second view is more evident in Col 2:11, where the believers are described as being
circumcised in the circumcision of Christ. This metaphor has caused considerable difficulties for
exegetes. Some see a polemic against the opponents, those who are seeking to impose rules and
regulations on the Colossian church over and above what they already have in Christ, and we should
indeed wonder why circumcision has been introduced at all if it was not at issue for the Colossians.35
If we assume that the opponents were insisting that Christians need to be circumcised, Col 2:11 says
that in baptism we have already been, in effect, circumcised. An extension of this thought is that
baptism is presented as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, and fulfills the same function as
circumcision did for the Jews: it provides entry into the covenant community.36 Some see a reference
32
And if απεκδυσαμεvoς in Col 2:15 is closely parallel to the use of απεκδυσις in 2:11 (where the
object is τoυ σωματoς της σαρκoς), then it raises again the question of who are the subject and object
of απεκδυσαμεvoς. Is it God who strips, or Christ who divests himself of his body of flesh? If the
latter, then Yates' translation and interpretation is strengthened.
33
On Colossians as a refutation, see Barth and Banke, Colossians, 42-43;
34
See Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 129-130. Note that by Pauline I mean letters written by
Paul (such as Romans) and by those who maintained his tradition (such as Colossians).
35
White, "Colossians," 236.
36
See Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 102-103.
8
to the concept of spiritual circumcision (περιτoμη αχειρoπoιητω) that we find already in the
Hebrew Bible (such as in Jer 4:4; 6:10; 9:25). Thus the circumcision of Christ is the spiritual
circumcision that belongs to Christ and is accomplished by Christ.37 Finally, some argue that
circumcision is a vivid metaphor for the death of Christ. Just as part of the (male) body is removed by
circumcision, Christ gave up his entire body (σωματoς της σαρκoς) in his death on the cross.
Circumcision is a "gruesome metaphor for the physical death of Christ."38 I suggest that rather than
attempting to choose one interpretation to the exclusion of others, we should attempt to hold all
possibilities together in creative tension.39
What do these possible interpretations taken together suggest? That baptism is where we are
given the spiritual circumcision that comes only from Christ, an entry into the covenant people of
God, such that we do not need any more rituals to be part of Christ and his church. But this spiritual
circumcision came at a price: the violent and painful death of Christ on the cross. It involved not only
a literal removal of clothes as part of a symbolic(?) ritual, it involved the painful removal of the body
of flesh--the σαρξ, that part of our being which is subject to sinful desires and temptations. Baptism
involves sacrifice and pain and death and burial. It is more than a symbolic rite, it is the point at
which--according to this text--a person dies to her old nature (Rom 6:6), her sins are forgiven (Col
2:13), and she is raised to a new life. That new life is described well in Col 2:20 and following.
Baptism, then, is not only the beginning of life in Christ. Baptism is the fundamental paradigm for
Christian existence, and its effects last far longer than the time it takes to dry off. Baptist Christians
would do well to reconsider the exposition of baptism that we find in Col 2:11-15. It is more than a
symbol, and only the difficult, ambiguous, and metaphorical language of circumcision, stripping,
burial, and rising again that we find in Col 2:11-15 could begin to do it justice. It is our entry into
Christ, which the epistle to the Colossians portrays as supreme over every ruler and authority, over
every human made philosophy and regulation.
37
Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 102-104.
38
O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 116-117; Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 157-160.
39
Martin is particularly effective at attempting to hold together the different interpretations of this
verse; idem, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, 115-116.
9
Bibliography
Barth, Marcus, and Helmut Blanke. Colossians: A New Translation With Introduction and
Commentary. Translated by Astrid B. Beck. Anchor Bible Commentary, vol. 34B. New
York: Doubleday, 1994. A through and detailed commentary on the epistle to the Colossian
church. Particularly sensitive to how certain words and images are used elsewhere in the
Bible, including the LXX.
Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., revised and augmented. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1979. An indispensable resource for the preliminary translation of
New Testament passages.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962. An
excellent discussion of the origins, practice, and theology of baptism in the New Testament.
Beasley-Murray discusses several different passages with respect to the issue of baptism,
paying particular attention to the diversity of perspectives that can be found within the New
Testament.
Easton, Burton Scott, trans. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1934. An early 2nd century C.E. text which contains one of the earliest
descriptions of the ritual of baptism as practiced within the early church outside of the New
Testament.
Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. Exegetical Guide to the New Testament. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1991. A commentary that focuses on the Greek text, often useful for listing all
the possible translations and interpretations of a particular word or phrase.
Hinson, E. Glenn. The Evangelization of the Roman Empire: Identity and Adaptability. Macon, GA:
Mercer Press, 1981. A detailed and thorough overview of the early church with particular
attention to its institutions. Includes a survey of the early practice of baptism and how baptism
was understood by the early church during the first several centuries C.E.
Johnson, Luke T. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1986. A useful survey of the background(s) and books of the New Testament,
including an overview and introduction to the epistle to the Colossian church.
Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated and edited by Geoffrey
Bromiley. 11 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-. An extraordinarily useful
resource for the further detailed studies of words in the Greek New Testament, including
descriptions of the history of their usage in biblical, classical, extra-biblical, and post-biblical
literature. Particularly useful for comparison the different usages of a particular word in
different contexts.
10
Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon. Translated by William Poehlmann and Robert Karris.
Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971. A detailed and thorough commentary on
the text of Colossians. Particularly useful for references to other scholarly literature.
Martin, Ralph P. Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox
Press, 1991. A less technical commentary on the epistle to the Colossian church that is
particularly strong with respect to theological and expository issues surrounding the text.
O'Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 44. Waco, TX: Word
Books, 1982. A thorough and detailed commentary on Colossians that attempts to pay
particular attention to the movement of thought in each passage.
Stagg, Frank. "Colossians." In Mercer Commentary on the Bible, edited by Watson Mills and Richard
Wilson, 1235-1239. A brief introduction and commentary on the epistle to the Colossian
church. Of limited usefulness due to its brevity.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964. A thorough and excellent analysis of Pauline passages which
deal with the issue of baptism, and how the Pauline view(s) of baptism fit in the context of
Pauline theology as a whole.
White, R. E. O. "Colossians." In Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 11. Nashville, TN: Broadman
Press, 1971. A moderately brief introduction to and commentary on the epistle to the
Colossian church. Attempts well to break the epistle down into manageable passages and
thought units.
Yates, Roy. "Col 2,14: Metaphor of Forgiveness." Biblica 71 (1990): 248-259. An excellent survey of
previous translations and interpretations of Col 2:14, it offers a particular solution to
grammatical and interpretive problems posed by the verse.
________. "Colossians 2.15: Christ Triumphant." New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 573-591. An
excellent overview of various interpretations and translations of Col 2:15, it offers and argues
for a particular approach to this verse.
11