On Wednesday evenings we are walking through Paul’s letters to the Colossians. This is actually part of our series on how to interpret the Scriptures. The first part of our series was a basic introduction to hermeneutics. Now we are applying those principles as we go through Colossians. Last Wednesday we looked at Colossians 3:5-11. When we came to verse 11 someone asked a question I wasn’t prepared for. Here is the verse:
Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11 ESV)
The question was simple. “Pastor Mike, who were the Scythians”.
I had to confess that I wasn’t totally certain. But looking at the structure of the text I hypothesized that Scythians were a more refined class than the barbarians. I assured them that I was not even close to certain of this but if I had to make a guess it would be that simply because every other relationship was one of contrast.
Boy was I wrong.
Who Were the Scythians?
The Scythians were a terribly violent group of people who lived just north of the Black Sea. They were Iranian Eurasian nomads known for their military prowess. They were some of the first to use horses in warfare. They were absolutely brutal. We have quite a bit of information on the Scythians from Herodotus and he claims they were drunken savages who would actually drink the blood of the first enemy the killed in battle. They would scalp their victims and use the scalp as a napkin. They would even go so far as to skin their victims and display them.
So a good translation might be “savages”. They were the epitome of being uncivilized. The very opposite of what I had suggested in Bible study.
Why the Scythians?
This leads to the next question. Why then did Paul write this way. Why did he use opposites and then all of a sudden mention a more extreme example of a barbarian?
One particularly interesting view, put forth by David M. Goldenberg, is that the barbarians were used of black races and the term Scythians was used to represent white races—both savages but one the black savages the other the white ones. There have been other theories which try to preserve the flow of opposites—but none of them are really satisfactory.
Perhaps we are given a clue in the text itself. As I read through the text again I realized that my mind was supplying a word which wasn’t there. There is no “or” or “and” in between the words slave, free, barbarian, or Scythian. Therefore, what Paul is likely doing is further expounding upon the class of the uncircumcised. As Douglas Moo notes, “Perhaps this indicates a concern, in opposition to a tendency among the false teachers to exclusivity, to stress that the new humanity is inclusive of every nation and every social class”.
All of this to say Paul is saying that even the most brutal savages no longer have their identity found in brutal savagery. Instead their identity is found in Christ. This new kingdom is able to even redeem and rescue those who drink the blood of their enemies. Paul saying this means that some of the Scythians would have come to Christ. Unlike the false teachers the gospel doesn’t simply reach the “enlightened” but the gospel breaks down every barrier and somehow unites the blood-drinker with the refined. Christ unites those who’ve been taken captive alongside those who are slave-masters. It obliterates not only those distinctions but the lifestyle which caused them to have that identity in the first place.
