Colossians, Epistle to the

COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

Was written by Paul, from Rome, A. D. 62. The occasion of the letter was the intelligence brought him by Epaphras, Col 1:6-8, respecting the internal state of the church, which apparently he himself had not yet visited, Col 2:1, though familiar with their history and affairs, Mal 16:6 18:23. Some Jewish philosopher professing Christianity, but mingling with it a superstitious regard for the law and other errors, seems to have gained a dangerous ascendancy in the church. Paul shows that all our hope of salvation is in Christ the only mediator, in whom all fullness dwells; he cautions the Colossians against the errors introduced among them, as inconsistent with the gospel, and incites them by most persuasive arguments to a temper and conduct worthy of their Christian character. The epistle was written at the same time with that to the Ephesians, and was sent by the same bearer. The two closely resemble each other, and should be studied together.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Colossians, Epistle To The

1. Introduction.-St. Paul himself had never preached in the Lycus valley. On his third missionary journey he took another route (Act 19:1), and that he did not visit that district during his two years stay at Ephesus is sufficiently proved by the allusions in his letter to the Church at Colossae (Col 1:4; Col 1:7; Col 1:9; Col 2:1). Colossae was at this time a small town of declining importance, overshadowed by Its great neighbours, Laodicea and Hierapolis, some 10 miles down-stream. In all three towns churches had been founded by the labours of Epaphras (Col 1:7; Col 4:12-13), himself a native of Colossae (Col 4:12), who had met St. Paul, probably at Ephesus, and had become a disciple. The date of the foundation of these churches may be assigned with some confidence to about the years a.d. 55 and 56 (adopting C. H. Turners dating; cf. article Chronology in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ), and Epaphras may well have been acting as the direct agent of St. Paul (cf. the better reading on our behalf in Col 1:7). This would account in some degree for the authoritative attitude which St. Paul takes in his letter.

Though Colossae itself was but a small town, its Church may well have been the most important of those in the Lycus valley. It was evidently closely connected with the Church at Laodicea (Col 2:1; Col 4:18), and it is even possible that the work in the latter place was in charge of Archippus, the son of Philemon of Colossae (Col 4:17, Phm 1:2). In each place the work seems to have centred in the house of one of its most prominent members; cf. the house of Aquila and Priscilla at Rome, Rom 16:5 (if, indeed, Romans 16 was not addressed to Ephesus), that of Philemon (Phm 1:2) in Colossae, that of Nymphas, or Nympha, in Laodicea (Col 4:15). A well-attested reading suggests that the latter, a womans name, may be correct in spite of the improbability of this Doric form being used. If this is so, Nympha, like Priscilla, takes her place with the women who played an honoured part in the life of the early Church.

Colossae lay in Phrygian territory, and its population was doubtless largely Phrygian, with a veneer of Greek civilization. Philemons wife, Apphia (Phm 1:2), bore a Phrygian name. The Jewish trader had doubtless reached Colossae, but there is no sign of any permanent settlement of Jews there such as was made by the Seleucid kings at Laodicea or Tarsus. That the Church there was entirely or at least predominantly Gentile is shown clearly enough by the Epistle (Col 1:21; Col 1:27; Col 2:13; cf. St. Pauls anxiety in Col 4:11 to show how few among his helpers are of Jewish race-who alone of the circumcision are my fellow-workers ). And the Jews of Laodicea, together with any who may have dwelt at Colossae, were doubtless, like most of the Jews of the Diaspora, largely affected both by local tendencies of thought and by the wider influences which centred in Alexandria.

The Church of Colossae had been in existence only a few years when Epaphras rejoined St. Paul, then in prison for the faith (Col 1:24; Col 4:10; Col 4:18). He brought with him good news of the infant Church (Col 1:3; Col 2:5). But yet there were grave reasons for anxiety. Both at Colossae and at Laodicea (Col 4:16) a new and dangerous form of teaching was abroad. Who the teachers were we do not know. The heresy may even have been due to someone influential leader (cf. Zahns comment on Col 2:18 ff., where the participles are in the singular [Introd. to NT, i. 479]). But whether the teachers were one or more, it is at least clear that it was not with a recurrence of the Galatian trouble that St. Paul had now to deal. The stress of this new philosophy lay not so much upon the Law as upon theosophical tenets and ascetic practices, which were supposed to constitute a higher Christianity (Col 2:2-3; Col 2:6),

For the present this teaching had not made much headway in the Church at Colossae. But St. Paul saw the need of striking while there was yet time. And he had other reasons for sending one of his agents to Asia at this time. There was Onesimus, the converted slave of Philemon, ready at St. Pauls bidding to return to his master. There was also the desirability of sending a pastoral letter to the Churches of Asia. Tychicus was at hand, ready to convey both the circular letter, now known as the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the short note to Philemon about Onesimus. By his hand, therefore, St. Paul writes to the brethren at Colossae.

There has been much discussion whether a fourth letter, to Laodicea, accompanied the other three, based on the command to the Colossians that they should read the Epistle from Laodicea. The old hypothesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Calvin that this was a letter written from the Laodicean Church to St. Paul is rendered impossible by the context. It remains therefore to decide whether this is some lost letter by the Apostle or whether it can be identified with any of his existing letters. The suggestions of John of Damascus, who identifies it with 1 Tim., and of Schneckenburger, who identifies it with Heb., can safely be passed over. In 1844 Wieseler suggested that Philemon really lived at Laodicea, and that the lost letter is our Epistle to Philemon. This would certainly make it easier to account for the apparent connexion of Archippus with Laodicea, but otherwise the theory has little point and has not met with any acceptance. A more probable hypothesis is to be found in the identification of this letter with Ephesians. If this was a circular letter, intended for all the Asiatic churches, it would naturally come to Colossae as a letter brought by Tychicus from Laodicea (see article Ephesians). If this identification is rejected the letter to the Laodiceans is lost beyond recall. It is interesting that more than one attempt was made to supply this gap in the Pauline Canon during the early days of the Church. In several Manuscripts the words written from Laodicea were added at the end of 1 Timothy. More curious still, an Epistle was made up out of a collection of Pauline phrases, possibly as early as the 2nd cent. (so Zahn) but probably later, and was given the title ad Laodicenses. Jerome (Vir. Illustr. v.) mentions this work, legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur, and, despite his condemnation, it was widely read throughout the Middle Ages. Traces of this Epistle have been found only in the West, and it has commonly been regarded as a Western forgery. Lightfoot, however, argues that it shows traces of being from a Greek original, despite the fact that all known Manuscripts are in Latin. The early date of the document also points in the same direction. (This Ep. ad Laod. is discussed at length by Lightfoot in an appendix to his Colossians, p. 274ff.; cf. also Westcott, Canon of NT5, 1881, Appendix E; A. Souter, Text and Canon of NT, 1913, p. 193.)

2. Contents.-St. Paul, associating Timothy with himself in his opening greeting (Col 1:1-2) passes on in his customary manner to a thanksgiving for the good news which he has heard from Epaphras. In this thanksgiving he alludes especially to the true gospel which had been preached to his renders by Epaphras, and reminds them that it is this gospel and no other that has borne fruit in all the world (Col 1:3-8). This is followed by a prayer which widens out, as in Eph., into a statement of doctrine with regard to the Person of Christ (Col 1:9-23). This doctrinal section is expanded with a special view to the heresies which it is St. Pauls purpose to combat. In opposition to the philosophy which was being preached, he prays that the Colossians may be filled with all spiritual wisdom and understanding (Col 1:9). In opposition to the theosophy which recognized and trembled before the principalities and the powers, he thanks God that they have been delivered from the power of darkness and made members of the kingdom of the Son of His love (Col 1:13). In opposition to the position accorded to angelic beings, he breaks into a paean in honour of the Son (a) as sole Redeemer (Col 1:14); (b) as the visible Representative of the invisible God (Col 1:15); (c) as prior to and supreme over all creation, including these very angelic powers; as the present stay, and ultimate consummation, of creation (Col 1:15-17); (d) as the supreme Head of the Church in virtue of His Resurrection (Col 1:18); (e) as One in whom abide completely all the perfections of the Godhead (Col 1:19); (f) as One whose death has made atonement not only for human sin but also for all the disorder that exists in heavenly places, so that not only are the angels unable to make peace, but they themselves need the mediation of the Son (Col 1:20-23). St. Paul then passes on to emphasize his own position as a minister of this, the one true gospel, a gospel which does not merely save a few elect, but which is valid for every man who will receive it (Col 1:24-29).

Ch. 2 is devoted to warnings against the false teaching which had been reported by Epaphras. It opens with a renewal of the prayer of Col 1:9. St. Paul again reiterates that in Christ alone, and not in any human plausibility, can the hidden treasures of knowledge and wisdom be found (Col 2:1-5). He warns his readers against esoteric cults which have dealings with the angel world, Instead of with Christ, the supreme Head of all (Col 2:6-10). He reminds them that as Christians they need no special and mysterious ceremonies, but only faith in Christ, who has cancelled all ceremonial obligations through the power of the Cross, thereby depriving hostile spiritual powers of their weapon against mankind (Col 2:11-15). The Colossians are therefore not to be misled into thinking that there is some higher way of leading the Christian life, consisting in special ordinances or a higher asceticism, even if commended by a show of esoteric knowledge (Col 2:16-23).

In ch. 3, St. Paul passes, by way of contrast, to the practical Implications of life in Christ. For Christians there is indeed a true asceticism, but it consists in a putting to death of the old man, and a putting on of the new man, not merely in a mortifying of the flesh, for that, for the Christian, is already accomplished in the renewal of the spirit after the image of him that created him (Col 3:1-11). The rule for the Christian must therefore be not the rule of ascetic ordinances but the warm and living rule of love, of Christ dwelling in the heart (Col 3:12-17).

A short passage follows in which brief words of counsel are addressed to wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, masters (Col 3:18 to Col 4:1), and one or two general exhortations lead up to the salutations with which the letter closes (Col 4:2-18).

3. Date and place of composition.-It has been customary to regard the four Epistles of the Captivity as all written from Rome during the two years (a.d. 59-61) alluded to in Act 28:30. There is no good reason for giving up this view in the case of Colossians. Phil. at least must be from Rome. If, with Bleek and Lightfoot (Philippians4, 1878, p. 30), we place Col. later than Phil., on the ground of the closer affinity of the latter with Rom. both in style and doctrine, the Roman origin of Col. would be unquestionable. It is not possible, however, in a writer like St. Paul, to postulate so orderly an advance in these respects. His doctrine at least must have been thought out long before he wrote Romans. And, on the other hand, the allusions in Php 1:7; Php 1:12-13; Php 1:20-25; Php 2:23 point to a date near the very close of the Roman imprisonment. We must thus date Col. earlier (Php 1:12-14 seems to reflect Col 4:3-4). But this leaves open the possibility that it was written not from Rome but during the two years spent at Caesarea. This view has been held by quite a number of scholars, e.g. Meyer, Sabatier, Weiss, and Haupt. So also recently E. L. Hicks, Interpreter, 1910. But the arguments on the other side, as set out e.g. by Peake (Col. in Expositors Greek Testament , p. 491), seem conclusive. Haupts argument that a considerable interval of time must lie between the statements of doctrine found in Phil. and Col. has no weight. Weiss points out that St. Paul gives a different account of his plans in Phil., where he is hoping to visit Macedonia, from that in Philem., where Colossae is his goal. But the two statements are not incompatible in letters both written from Rome. The one plan might easily involve the other. And, further, there are serious objections to the Caesarea hypothesis. It is impossible to think that St. Paul at Caesarea was already planning a visit to Colossae. It was upon Rome that his eyes were fixed, and at least towards the end of his days at Caesarea he knew that he would be sent thither. But most decisive of all is the little companion note to Philemon. It must have been at Rome, the natural refuge of the runaway slave, that St. Paul came across Onesimus, and from Rome that he sent him back to his master with Tychicus. Finally, it would be most remarkable, in a letter written from Caesarea, that there should be no salutation from Philip.

In view of the fact that Col. and Philem. wore probably sent together, it has caused comment that there is some variation in the salutations. Not only is the order of the names different-a point of little significance-but in Col. Aristarchus, in Philem. Epaphras, is given the place of honour as my fellow-prisoner. The reason for this is obscure. Fritzsches suggestion that St. Pauls friends took turns in sharing his captivity is only a suggestion. As Peake points out, the divergence is a proof of the authenticity of both Epistles, since no imitator would have made so unnecessary and self-condemnatory an alteration.

4. External evidence for authenticity.-This is quite as strong as could reasonably be expected. At the end of the 2nd cent. Col. was known to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. It is mentioned by name in the Muratorian Canon. Its acceptance by Marcion carries the knowledge of it at Rome to before 150. This renders the description by Justin of Christ as first-born of all creation (Dial. 84, 85, 100) an almost certain echo of Col 1:15, especially as the parallel phrase in Philo is not but . Earlier references are all rather uncertain, especially in Barnabas and Clement of Rome. It is, however, probable that Ignatius quotes Col 2:14 in Smyrn. i. 2, and Col 1:16 in Trall, v. 2. Lightfoot also points out Ignatins use of as a term for deacons; cf. Col 1:7, Col 4:7. This evidence is insufficient in itself to prove authenticity, and throws us back upon a discussion of the many problems which the Epistle itself presents.

5. The Colossian heresy.-The teaching attacked by St. Paul is described in Col 2:8; Col 2:16-23, verses which in addition to their brevity present many problems both of translation and of text. Theories as to its character have been varied and numerous. The principal facts that can be gleaned are as follows:

(1) The teaching was Christian; cf. Col 2:19, which, however, suggests that it did not give Christ His due position.

(2) It was, at least in part, Judaistic. This would not necessarily be proved by the reference to the bond written in ordinances, in Col 2:14, though it is on the whole probable that the Mosaic Law is intended. But the specific allusions in Col 2:16, in meat or in drink or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day, are obviously Jewish. It is true that the Law says nothing about drink, but the later Rabbinism certainly included such regulations, as is shown by Heb 9:10. And this very Rabbinism is clearly alluded to in Col 2:8, the tradition of men. The references to circumcision (Col 2:11; Col 3:11) show that the false teachers assigned some value to it. Yet this Judaism cannot have been very like that attacked in Gal., as the whole tone of the letter shows. It was less definite, and mingled with other elements of a peculiar type.

(3) It claimed to be a philosophy (Col 2:8), which St. Paul calls a vain deceit. It seems to have been regarded as the revelation of a secret wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:2; Col 2:8). Here, just as much as in 1 Corinthians 1, we are certainly moving in Greek, or at least Hellenistic, regions of thought. Philo could speak of a Jewish philosophy. And the Judaism of Colossae, like that of Alexandria, was at least given a, Hellenic colour. As Hort has shown (Judaistic Christianity, p. 119ff.), the term philosophy might easily have been used of esoteric lore about angels, or even, though this usage is a later one, of an ascetic ethical cult, features which both appear at Colossae.

(4) Some sort of worship of angels seems to have been practised, and possibly, if the reading is correct, emphasis was laid upon visions communicated by them (Col 2:18). St. Paul charges the teachers with reliance upon the spirits that control the elements of the universe rather than upon Christ (Col 2:8). That this is the true meaning of in this passage, as well as in Gal 4:3; Gal 4:9, is shown by the exegesis, which implies in each case personal agents. And the emphasis laid by St. Paul upon the superiority of Christ to thrones or dominions or principalities or powers (Col 1:16; cf. Col 1:20; Col 2:15) confirms this view. That there was angelolatry of some sort is certain, though the language in which it is described cannot be pressed too closely, since St. Paul may be using the language of his own angelology to describe the view of his opponents. In the 4th cent. the Council of Laodicea found it necessary to condemn angel-worship. In the 5th cent. Theodoret says that the archangel Michael was worshipped in the district, and this worship continued for several centuries (see Zahn, op. cit. p. 476f.; cf. Lightfoot, Col. p. 68).

(5) Whatever Col 2:23 precisely means, it shows that stress was laid upon asceticism, for which special rules were given (Col 2:16; Col 2:20-21). This was the natural outcome of a philosophy in which the spirits that ruled material things were the objects of fear and reverence. The angels who were the objects of the Colossian cult were powers who if not propitiated might be hostile to man, who must therefore guard himself by mortifying his material body. This is the point of St. Pauls counter-statement of the true Christian asceticism (Col 3:5 ff.).

It has been made clear by the work of recent scholars that there is nothing in all this which need point to a date later than a.d. 60. The Tbingen school, from Baur to Hilgenfeld, thought that Col. reflected the great Gnostic systems of the 2nd century. The powers, etc., were the Valentinian aeons, forming the Pleroma, to which they saw an allusion in Col 1:19. Asceticism, again, was a typical Gnostic feature, as was the emphasis on a secret wisdom or Gnosis (cf. Col 2:3) confined to an inner circle of initiates or (cf. Col 1:28, where St. Paul declares that every man is to be made by the gospel). The Judaistic references were explained on this theory to be due to some sort of Gnostic Ebionism, on the lines of the pseudo-Clementines. That there were Gnostic tendencies at Colossae need not be denied. The emphasis on knowledge is enough to prove that. But there is no hall-mark of any particular 2nd-cent. system. The word in Col 1:19 loses most of its point if it is used in the later technical sense (on the word see Lightfoot, Col. p. 323; J. A. Robinson, Eph., 1903, p. 255; Peake on Col 1:19). It is far more probable that the later Gnostics derived their usage from that of St. Paul.

More recently the theory has been held in a modified form, recognizing a genuine Pauline Epistle, directed against a Jewish-Christian theosophy, but regarding it as having been expanded by a 2nd-cent. writer (so Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, Eng. translation , 1906-11, who saw allusions to Gnostic Ebionism though he did not attempt to reconstruct the original Epistle; Holtzmann and Soltau, who depend, however, rather on literary criticism; see below). The arguments for this also fail if the known tendencies of the 1st cent. are sufficient to cover the facts. And there is no hint in the Epistle of any such division in the object of St. Pauls attack.

More plausible is the attempt to find in Col. on attack on the 1st cent. Gnosticism of Cerinthus (so, e.g., R. Scott). Here we find both the emphasis on Judaism, though the Jewish angels have taken the position later occupied by the Gnostic aeons, and the reduced Christology in which the Christ is supposed to have descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism. This has clear affinities with the Colossian heresy; but, as Lightfoot has shown (Col. p. 108ff.), it is difficult to think that the teaching at Colossae had as yet taken so definite a form. St. Paul would surely have made a more definite and incisive reply. And, further, the angelic powers could still be regarded as objects of worship. They are not yet either ignorant of or hostile to the Supreme God. And the emphasis on the identity of Jesus with the Christ (2:8), while it would have point against Cerinthus, is hardly an attack upon him. It is thus more natural to see in this heresy that tendency of thought which led up to Cerinthus than the direct outcome of his teaching.

It has been suggested, especially by Lightfoot and Klpper, that there was some connexion with the Jewish ascetic sect known as Essenes. But (a) before a.d. 70 there is no trace of Essenism except on the shores of the Dead Sea. The some-what similar Therapeutae, in Egypt, are only known from Philo, de Vit. contempl., a much-disputed treatise. Lightfoot tries to find parallels in Acts for the use of magic (cf. Act 19:13 with Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. 8. 6 ad fin.) and in the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles, probably written in Asia c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 80. Neither parallel amounts to much. (b) The Essenes jealously guarded the names of the angels (Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii. 7). This is a poor parallel for the Colossian cult, which more probably arose through a syncretistic admixture with Phrygian ideas. (c) The evidence that the Essenes forbade flesh and wine is disputable (see Zahn, op. cit. p. 376), though they certainly had extremely rigid ceremonial rules as to food. Of the specific Essene prohibition of marriage there is no trace at Colossae. (d) There is no sign in Col. of the alleged Essene sun-worship, of their communal life, their ablutions, their very severe probation and initiation. (e) The allusions to sabbaths and circumcision in Col. are merely Judaistic. There is no hint of the very strict Sabbatarian rules of the Essenes. It is true that Lightfoot and Klpper, especially the latter, argue merely for Essenistic tendencies at Colossae. But even this can hardly be said to be proved. The real value of the suggestion is that it shows that within Judaism itself it was possible for strange esoteric cults to appear. (For the Essenes see esp. Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii.; Lightfoot, Col. pp. 82ff., 115ff.; 5)

We are thus driven to the conclusion that the Colossian heresy found its stimulus in contemporary Judaism, doubtless with syncretistic Phrygian features. Hort (Judaistic Christianity, 116ff.) has shown that there is nothing in the language which need imply any other source. The one surprising point is the worship of angels. But even if this is not derived from some local Phrygian cult, it was quite a natural application of contemporary Judaism. In the later Jewish view all Gods activity in Nature was mediated by angels, and, though angel-worship among the Jews is not known at this date, it certainly sprang up within a short time, being alluded to in the Evangelium Petri, by Celsus, and several times in the Talmud. No objection to the authenticity of the Epistle need therefore be maintained upon this ground.

6. The theology of the Epistle.-It has been objected to Col. that it is un-Pauline in its Christology. It is true that there is a speculative advance with regard to the Person of Christ. St. Paul is now opposing a speculative philosophy, and, as has been shown in dealing with the contents of the letter, he is forced to draw out the speculative implications of his own position. And in the advance made there is nothing to cause surprise. That Christ is prior to, and the principle of, all creation (Col 1:15-17) is the thought implicit in 1Co 8:6 and in the whole doctrine of the Man from Heaven (1Co 15:47) regarded as pre-existent. That Christ is regarded also as the goal of creation (Col 1:16) is only in form an advance upon 1Co 15:28, for it is only when the consummation in Christ is reached that He is to surrender all things to the Father; and even so, in virtue of His unity with the Father, they remain His own (cf. Php 2:9-10). In Col. St. Paul is especially emphasizing the indwelling in Christ of the whole Godhead (Col 1:20; Col 2:9). And, indeed, in Col 1:20 the most natural rendering implies exactly the doctrine of 1Co 15:28, Rom 11:36. In any case, even if there is a real advance here, it is one that St. Paul might easily have made, and which was the natural answer to teachers who were assigning cosmic significance to angelic beings.

This raises the question of St. Pauls angelology. Here again objection has been taken to Colossians. There is certainly little direct reference to angels in the other Pauline Epistles. But yet such references do occur, and, so far as they go, they tend to confirm the view that St. Paul might naturally have taken up the position adopted here. Further, the Rabbinism of the period was full of speculations about the angels, and there is no reason why St. Paul should have abandoned such speculations upon his conversion. They must have been taken up into his Christianity, even though, in preaching to Gentiles, it was seldom necessary to dwell upon them. The principal features found in Col. are these:

(1) The universe is animated by elemental spirits (Col 2:8). This conception appears also in Gal 4:3; Gal 4:9, and is in line with that of Psa 104:4, a passage which has been taken over in Heb 1:7, though with a change of thought characteristic of later Judaism. Both the Book of Jubilees and Enoch speak of the spirits of such things as fire, mist, hail, the sea (cf. Rev 14:18; Rev 16:5).

(2) There are different ranks of angels (Col 1:16; Col 2:10; Col 2:15; cf. Rom 8:38, 1Co 15:24, where substantially the same language is used). This conception perhaps starts from Deu 4:19, where the nations are allotted to the host of heaven. In Daniel each nation, including Israel, has its angelic prince. It was a natural development that led to the conception of orders of angelic powers in heaven itself (cf. En. lxi. 10). In the later Rabbinism ten orders were enumerated (cf. also the angels of the churches in Rev.).

(3) In Col 2:14-15 there is perhaps an allusion to the ministry of angels in the giving of the Law. This characteristic idea of the Rabbis was derived from Deu 33:2 (Septuagint ). It is alluded to in Act 7:53, Heb 2:2, Jos. Ant. xv. v. 3.

(4) The angels, even the angel or angels of the Law, may be morally imperfect, and need reconciliation through the Cross (Col 1:20; Col 2:15). This is typically Pauline (cf. Rom 8:38, 1Co 2:6-8; 1Co 6:2; 1Co 11:10; 1Co 15:24, Gal 1:8). It does not seem to be a very early Jewish conception, unless it appears in Gen 6:1-4. Such ministers of evil as the destroying angel of Exodus 12 are non-moral. But in the later writings angels are frequently charged with weakness of different kinds; cf. Psa 82:1-2, Job 4:18; Job 15:15. It was only at a late date that the distinction between absolutely good and absolutely bad angels arose. It was not the characteristic view of St. Pauls day, and there is no reason why we should expect to find it in his writings. There thus seems to be nothing particularly un-Pauline in the angelology of Colossians. (On this subject see esp. O. Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Dmonologie, 1888; A. S. Peake, Introd. to Col. in Expositors Greek Testament ; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909.)

7. Relation to Ephesians.-It is at once obvious that there is a close literary connexion between Colossians and Ephesians. The structure of the two Epistles is largely the same, though naturally the special warnings of Col. find no parallel in Eph., and a second thanksgiving and prayer in Eph 2:1 to Eph 3:1; Eph 3:14-19 has no parallel in Colossians. The exhortations at the end show close agreement in detail. And, most significant of all, there is a remarkable series of verbal parallels, running through verse after verse of the two Epistles. Only two alternatives are possible. Either both letters are by one writer, or one has been deliberately modelled on the other.

It has commonly been asserted that Eph. is based on Col., and in that case no presumption against Col. arises. Holtzmann, however, showed that the literary criticism did not work out so simply. Sometimes one Epistle, sometimes the other, seems to be prior. Accordingly, he regarded Eph. as based upon a shorter Col., which was subsequently expanded from Eph. in view of Gnosticism. But the tests by which he proposed to recover the original Col. do not work out well. The division of the heresy into two parts is not at all easy. And the literary criteria are altogether too minute. A similar and even more elaborate theory has been worked out by Soltau. Von Soden, however, in examining Holtzmanns view, only admitted Col 1:15-20; Col 2:10; Col 2:15; Col 2:18 b as later insertions, and has subsequently reduced even this amount, rejecting only the Christological passage in ch. 1. The majority of scholars now accept the whole Epistle as Pauline.

As to the relations with Eph., it seems to the present writer that sufficient stress has not been laid upon the curions interweaving of the phraseology of the two Epistles. Even Holtzmanns hypothesis does not do justice to the way in which phrase after phrase is used in connexion with different trains of thought. The author of Eph. did not copy Col. at all as the two later Synoptists copied St. Mark. He simply used its language, and to a most extraordinary extent. He is writing for a different purpose, and applies to that purpose phraseology used with quite different implications in Colossians. Thus Eph 2:11-17 is full of the language of Col 2:11-15, and yet the points of the passages are quite different. Is it possible that such a phenomenon could have arisen at all except in the work of a single writer writing a second letter while the language of the first was still fresh in his mind?

8. Style and language.-It has been objected that these are un-Pauline, but this holds only if the four great Epistles are taken as the final norm as to what St. Paul might have written. Of the 46 words not used elsewhere by St. Paul the majority are connected either with the heresy or with its refutation. Further, 11 Pauline words occur which are used by no other NT writer. It should be noted that St. Paul was now at Rome, in the midst of new associations, which would naturally affect his vocabulary. The suggestion has been made that Timothy, who is associated with St. Paul in the salutation, may have had a large share in the actual composition of the letter.

This suggestion might also help to account for the change in style from the earlier Epistles. The movement of thought is less abrupt, and the sentences are often longer and more involved. Particles, even those of which St. Paul is most fond, such as , , , are replaced to a great extent by participial constructions. This, however, may well be due to the lack of urgency. The danger was not so great as it had been in Galatia or in Corinth.

In the second chapter the difficulty of translating is very great, and it is possible that in some cases the text has suffered from corruption lying further back than all our existing Manuscripts ; Col 2:18 and Col 2:23 are the most notable examples (in Col 2:18 C. Taylors has been favoured by Westcott and Hort and Zahn, and is commonly accepted). The translation of Col 2:15 presents almost as many difficulties.

Literature.-Editions.-Col. has been edited by H. J. Holtzmann (1872), A. Klpper (1882), H. von Soden (1891), and Haupt (in Meyers Com.8, 1899). J. B. Lightfoots Colossians (1st ed., 1875) is the standard Eng. work. Of recent Eng. Commentaries the most valuable are those by A. S. Peake (Expositors Greek Testament , 1903), T. K. Abbott (International Critical Commentary , 1897), and G. G. Findlay (Pulpit Commentary, 1886). General.-F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 1894; W. Sanday, article in Smiths Dict. of the Bible2, 1893; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das NT, 1897 (Eng. translation , Introd. to NT, 1909); H. von Soden, articles in JPTh [Note: PTh Jahrbcher fr protestantische Theologie.] , 1885-87; J. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt).2, 1912.

L. W. Grensted.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Colossians, Epistle to the

A short letter written by Saint Paul during his first Roman captivity (A.D. 61-63) to the Christians of Colossal in Phrygia. It has always been accepted as part of the New Testament, and it is only in recent times that rationalistic scholars have wrongly claimed that it was not a genuine work of Paul. The theme of the letter is “the preeminence of Christ.” Paul was forced to vindicate the unique position of Christ as Creator, Head of the Church, and the only Mediator, because of false teachers who were trying to pervert the faith of the Colossians. After a fitting introduction (1:1-14) he establishes the right of Jesus Christ to the titles of Creator, Preserver, and End of all things. He is also the Head of the Church, which is His Body; through Him only has the work of redemption and reconciliation been accomplished (1:15-2:5). This positive treatment of the subject is followed by a vigorous rejection of the heretical teaching of the innovators. To what school of thought or philosophical system these teachers belonged is not known to us, but from the epistle we gather that they were propagating a false cult of angels, an exaggerated asceticism, and some observances borrowed from Judaism (2:6-3:4). The letter concludes with a series of exhortations, which resemble very closely the final chapters of the Epistle to the Ephesians (3:5-4:18). Portions of the Epistle to the Colossians are read in the Mass and Office of Christ the King.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Colossians, Epistle to the

One of the four Captivity Epistles written by St. Paul during his first imprisonment in Rome — the other three being Ephesians, Philemon and Philippians. That they were written in prison is stated in the Epistles themselves. The writer mentions his “chain” and his “bonds” (Ephesians 6:20, Colossians 4:3; 4:18; Philippians 1:7, 13, 17); he names his fellow prisoners (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 23) he calls himself a prisoner (Ephesians 3:1; 4:1; Philemon 9): “Paul an old man, and now a prisoner”. It was supposed by some that these letters were written during the two years’ captivity at Cæsarea; but it is now generally acknowledged (by all who admit their authenticity) that they were written during the years immediately following in Rome, during the time that “Paul was suffered to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept him . . . And he remained two whole years in his own hired lodging; and he received all that came in to him” (Acts 28:16-30). As St. Paul had appealed to the emperor, he was handed over, to await his trial, to the prefect of the Prætorian Guard, who was at that time probably the famous Burrhus, the friend of Seneca. He allowed the Apostle to live near the imperial palace in what was known as custodia militaris, his right wrist being connected day and night, by means of a chain, to the left arm of a soldier, who was relieved at regular intervals (Conybeare, Howson, Lewin). It was in such circumstances that these Epistles were written, some time between A.D. 61 and 63. It cannot be objected that there is no mention in them of the earthquake spoken of by Tacitus and Eusebius as having destroyed Laodicea; for there is no evidence that its effects reached Colossæ, and Eusebius fixes the date later than these letters. Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon were written and dispatched at one and the same time, while Philippians was composed at a somewhat different period of the captivity. The first three are an very closely connected. Tychicus is the messenger in Eph., vi, 21 and Coloss., iv, 7, 8, 9. In the latter he is accompanied by Onesimus, in whose favour the Epistle to Philemon was written. In both Colossians and Philemon greetings are sent from Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas and there is the closest literary affinity between Ephesians and Colossians (see AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE below).

READERS ADDRESSED

Three cities are mentioned in Colossians, Colossæ (i, 2), Laodicea, and Hierapolis (iv, 13.) These were situated about 120 miles east from Ephesus in Phrygia, in Western Asia Minor, Colossæ and Laodicea being on the banks of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander. All three were within two or three hours’ walk from one another. Sir William Ramsay has shown that these towns lay altogether outside the routes followed by St. Paul in his missionary journeys; and it is inferred from Coloss., i, 4, 6, 7, 8 and ii, 1, that they were never visited by the Apostle himself. The great majority of the Colossian Christians appear to have been Gentile converts of Greek and Phrygian extraction (i, 26, 27; ii, 13), though it is probable that there was a small proportion of Jews living amongst them, as it is known that there were many scattered over the surrounding districts (Josephus, Ant., XII, iii, 4, and Lightfoot).

WHY WRITTEN

Colossians was written as a warning against certain false teachers, about whom St. Paul had probably heard from Epaphras, his “fellow-prisoner” and the founder of the Church of the Colossians. The most diverse opinions have been held regarding these seducers. They were called philosophers by Tertullian, Epicureans by St. Clement of Alexandria, Jews by Eichhorn, heathen followers of Pythagoras by Grotius. They have also been called Chaldean magicians, Judaizing Christians, Essenes, Ebionites, Cabbalists, Gnostics, or varying combinations of all these (see Jacquier, Histoire, I, 316; Cornely, Introduction, III, 514). The main outlines of their errors are, however, stated with sufficient clearness in the Epistle, which contains a two fold refutation of them: first, by a direct statement of the true doctrine on Christ, by which the very foundations of their erroneous teaching are shown to be baseless; and secondly, by a direct polemic in which is laid bare the hollowness of what they put forth under the specious name of “philosophy”. Here, philosophy in general is not condemned, but only the philosophy of those false teachers (Hort, Jud. Chr., 118). This was not “according to Christ”, but according to the “tradition of men”, and was in keeping only with the very alphabet of worldly speculation (kata ta stoicheia tou kosmou — see Galatians 4:3). Josephus and Philo apply the word “philosophy” to Jewish teaching, and there can be no doubt that it was applied so in Coloss., ii; some of its details are given in 16-23: (1) The false teachers wished to introduce the observance of Sabbaths, new moons, and other such days. (2) They forbade the eating and drinking and even the very tasting and touching of certain things. (3) Under the false pretence of humility they inculcated the worship (threskeia) of angels, whom they regarded as equal or superior to Christ. The best modern commentators, Catholic and non-Catholic agree with St. Jerome that all these errors were of Jewish origin. The Essenes held the most exaggerated ideas on Sabbath observance and external purism, and they appear to have employed the names of the angels for magical purposes (Bel. Jud. II, vii, 2-13, Lightfoot, Col. and Dissertations). Many scholars are of opinion that the “elements of this world” (stoicheia tou kosmou) mean elemental spirits; as, at that time, many Jews held that all material things had special angels. In the Book of Henoch and the Book of Jubilees we read of angels of the stars, seasons months, days of the year, heat, cold, frost, hail, winds, clouds etc. Abbott (Eph. and Coloss., p. 248) says that “the term properly used of the elements ruled by these spirits might readily be applied to the spirits themselves, especially as there was no other convenient term”. At any rate angels play an important part in most of early apocryphal books of the Jews, e.g. in the two books just mentioned, the Book of the Secrets of Henoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc.

It may be noted in passing, that the words of the Epistle against the superstitious worship of angels cannot be taken as condemning the Catholic invocation of angels. Dr. T.K. Abbott, a candid non-Catholic scholar, has a very pertinent passage which bears on this point (Eph. and Coloss. p. 268): “Zonaras . . . says there was an ancient heresy of some who said that we should not call on Christ for help or access to God, but on the angels. . . . This latter view, however, would place Christ high above the angels, and therefore cannot have been that of Colossians, who required to be taught the superiority of Christ.” The objection sometimes brought from a passage of Theodoret on the Council of Laodicea, is clearly and completely refuted by Estius (Comm. in Coloss., II, 18). Another difficulty may be mentioned in connection with this portion of the Epistle. The statement that the vain philosophy was in accordance with “the tradition of men” is not any disparagement of Apostolic traditions, of which St. Paul himself speaks as follows: “Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our Epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:14). “Now I praise you, brethren that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2. — See also 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 7:17; 11:23; 14:33; 2 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 1:8; Colossians 2:6, 7; 2 Timothy 1:13, 14; 2:2; 3:14; 2 John 1:12; 3 John 13). Finally, the very last verse, dealing with the errors (ii, 23) is considered one of the most difficult passages in the whole of the Scriptures. “Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in superstition and humility, and not sparing the body; not in any honour to the filling of the flesh.” The last words of this verse have given rise to a multitude of the most conflicting interpretations. They have been taken as a condemnation of bodily mortification, and as an exhortation to it. Modern commentators devote much space to an enumeration of the many opinions and to an exhaustive study of these words without any satisfactory result. There can be little doubt that the opinion of Hort, Haupt, and Peake (Exp. Greek Test., 535) is the right one, viz. that the correct reading of this verse became irrevocably lost, in transcription, in very early times.

CONTENTS

First Part (1-2)

The Epistle consists of two parts the first two chapters being dogmatico-polemical and the last two practical or moral. In the first part the writer shows the absurdity of the errors by a direct statement of the supereminent dignity of Christ, by Whose blood we have the redemption of sins. He is the perfect image of the invisible God, begotten before all creatures. By Him and for Him were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, spiritual as well as material, and by Him are all things upheld. He is the Head of the Church and He has reconciled all things through the blood of His cross, and the Colossians “also he hath reconciled . . . through death”. St. Paul, as the Apostle of the Gentiles and a prisoner for their sakes, exhorts them to hold fast to Christ in Whom the plenitude of the Godhead dwells, and not to allow themselves under the plausible name of philosophy, to be re-enslaved by Jewish traditions based on the Law of Moses, which was but the shadow of which Christ was the reality and which was abrogated by His coming. They are not to listen to vain and rudimentary speculations of the false teachers, nor are they to suffer themselves to be deluded by a specious plea of humility to put angels or demons on a level with Christ, the creator of all, the master of angels, and conqueror of demons.

Second Part (3-4)

In this portion of the Epistle St. Paul draws some practical lessons from the foregoing teaching. He appeals to them that as they are risen with Christ they should mind the things that are above; put off the old man and put on the new. In Christ there is to be neither Gentile nor Jew, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. The duties of wives and husbands, children and servants are next given. He recommends constant prayer and thanksgiving, and tells them to walk with wisdom towards them that are without, letting their speech be always in grace seasoned with salt, that they may know how to answer every man. After the final greeting the Apostle ends with: “The salutation of Paul with my own hand. Be mindful of my bands. Grace be with you. Amen”.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE

External Evidence

The external evidence for the Epistle is so strong that even Davidson has gone to the extent of saying that “it was unanimously attested in ancient times”. Considering its brevity, controversial character, and the local and ephemeral nature of the errors dealt with, it is surprising how frequently it was used by early writers. There are traces of it in some of the Apostolic Fathers and it was known to the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, to St. Polycarp, and Theophilus of Antioch. It was quoted by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, etc. From the Muratorian Fragment and early versions it is evident that it was contained in the very first collections of St. Paul’s Epistles. It was used as Scripture early in the second century, by Marcion, the Valentinians, and by other heretics mentioned in the “Philosophoumena”; and they would not have accepted it had it originated among their opponents after they broke away from the Church.

Internal Evidence

The Epistle claims to have been written by St. Paul, and the internal evidence shows close connection with Philippians (von Soden) and Philemon, which are admitted to be genuine letters of St. Paul. Renan concedes that it presents several traits which are opposed to the hypothesis of its being a forgery, and of this number is its connection with the Epistle to Philemon. It has to be noted, too, that the moral portion of the Epistle, consisting of the last two chapters has the closest affinity with similar portions of other Epistles, while the whole admirably fits in with the known details of St. Paul’s life, and throws considerable light upon them.

OBJECTIONS

As the historical evidence is much stronger than that for the majority of classical writings, it may be asked why its genuineness was ever called in question. It was never doubted until 1838, when Meyerhoff, followed by others, began to raise objections against it. It will be convenient to deal with these objections under the following four heads: (1) Style; (2) Christology; (3) Errors dealt with; and (4) Similarity to Ephesians.

(1) Style

(a) In general, on comparing the Epistle with Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians, it will be seen that the style, especially in the earlier part, is heavy and complicated. It contains no sudden questions, no crushing dilemmas, no vehement outbursts of sweeping Pauline eloquence. Some of the sentences are long and involved, and though the whole is set forth in a lofty and noble strain, the presentment is uniform and not quite in the manner, say, of Galatians. Hence it is objected that it could not have been written by St. Paul. But all this can be very naturally explained when it is borne in mind that the Epistle was written after several years of monotonous confinement, when Christianity had taken firm root, when the old type of Judaizer had become extinct and St. Paul’s position securely established. His advancing years also should be taken into account. It is unfair, moreover, to compare this Epistle, or but parts of it, with only certain portions of one or two of the earlier ones. There are long and involved sentences scattered throughout Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians, and the generally admitted Epistle to the Philippians. It has also to be observed that many of the old Pauline expressions and methods of reasoning are most naturally and inextricably interwoven with the very tissue and substance of the Epistle. Ample proofs for all these statements and others throughout this article, are given in works mentioned in the bibliography. Dr. Sanday has voiced the opinion of fair-minded critics when he says that nobody can view the Epistle as a whole, without being impressed by its unbreakable unify and genuine Pauline character.

(b) Many of St. Paul’s favourite expressions are wanting. From eight to a dozen words not unfrequently used by him in earlier writings are absent from this short Epistle and about a dozen connecting particles, which he employs elsewhere, are also missing. One or two instances will show how such objections may readily be solved, with the aid of a concordance. The words dikaios, soteria and soteria are not found in the Epistle. Therefore, etc. — But dikaios is wanting both in I Cor. and I Thess.; nomos is not contained either in I Cor. or Gal.; nomos is not found at all in I Thess. or II Cor. In the same way (with regard to connecting particles) ara, which is not in this Epistle, is not found either in Philipp. or the first hundred verses of I Cor., a space much longer than the whole of the Epistle; ara oun, which is frequent in Romans, is not met with in I and II Cor. and only once in Gal. (See the details of the argument in Abbott and Jacquier.)

(c) It is objected that the Epistle contains many strange words, nowhere else used by St. Paul. That, however, is precisely what we should expect in an Epistle of St. Paul. Every Epistle written by him contains many words employed by him nowhere else. Alford gives a list of thirty-two apax legomena in this Epistle, and of these eighteen occur in the second chapter, where the errors are dealt with. The same thing occurs in the earlier Epistles, where the Apostle is speaking of new subjects or peculiar errors, and there apax legomena most abound. This Epistle does not show more than the ordinary proportion of new words and in this respect compares favourably with the genuine II Cor. Furthermore, the compound words found in the Epistle have their analogues in similar passages of the authentic Epistle to the Romans. It would be most absurd to bind down to a narrow and set vocabulary a writer of such intellectual vigour and literary versatility as St. Paul. The vocabulary of all writers changes with time, place, and subject-matter. Salmon, Mahaffy, and others have pointed out that similar changes of vocabulary occur in the writings of Xenophon, who was a traveller like St. Paul. Compare the earlier and later letters of Lord Acton (edited by Abbot Gasquet) or of Cardinal Newman.

(2) Chrisiology

It has objected that the exalted idea of Christ presented in the Epistle could not have been written by St. Paul. In answer to this it will be sufficient to quote the following passage from the genuine Epistle to the Philippians: “Who [Christ Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (2:6, 7, etc. See Romans 1:3-4; Greek text, 8:3; 1 Corinthians 7:6; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:6, etc.). That the Christology of the Epistle does not differ in any essential point from that of St. Paul’s other Epistles is seen from an impartial study of these latter. The subject has been scientifically worked out by Père Rose (Rev. bibl. 1903), M. Lépin (Jésus Messie, 341), Sanday (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, lect. vii, Oxford, 1905), Knowling (The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, London, 1905), Lacey (The Historic Christ, London 1905), etc. Nor can the words (i, 24): I . . . “fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”, present any difficulty when it is remembered that he had just said that Christ had reconciled all through the blood of His cross, and that the correct meaning of antanaplero ta hysteremata ton thlipseon tou Christou en te sarki mou hyper tou somatos autou, ho estin he ekklesia is: “I am filling up those Christian sufferings that remain for me to endure for the sake of the Church of Christ”, etc. Compare II Cor., i, 5, “For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us” (ta pathemata tou Christou).

(3) Errors dealt with

The objection under this heading need not detain us long. Some years ago it was frequently asserted that the errors combated in this Epistle were Gnostic errors of the second century, and that the Epistle was therefore written many years after St. Paul’s death. But this opinion is now considered, even by the most advanced critics, as exploded and antiquated. Nobody can read the writings of these Gnostics without becoming convinced that terms employed by them were used in a quite different sense from that attached to them in the Epistle. Baur himself appears to have had considerable misgivings on the point. The errors of Judaic Gnosticism, condemned in the Epistle, were quite embryonic when compared with the full-blown Greek Gnosticism of the second century (see Lightfoot, Coloss., etc.).

(4) Similarity to Ephesians

The principal objection to the Epistle is its great similarity to Ephesians. Davidson stated that out of 155 verses in the latter Epistle 78 were identical with Colossians. De Wette held that Ephesians was but a verbose amplification of Colossians. Baur thought Ephesians the superior letter, and Renan asked how can we suppose the Apostle spending his time in making a bald transcription of himself. But as Dr. Salmon pointed out, an Apostle might write a circular letter, that is, he might send to different places letters couched in identical words. Many theories have been elaborated to explain these undoubted resemblances. Ewald maintained that the substance was St. Paul’s, while the composition was left to Timothy. Weiss and Hitzig had recourse to a theory of interpolations. But the theory that has gained the greatest amount of notoriety is that of H.J. Holtzmann. In his “Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosser-Briefe ” (1872) he instituted a most elaborate and exhaustive comparison between the two Epistles. He took a number of passages which seemed to prove the priority of Ephesians and an equal number which were just as conclusive that Colossians was the earlier. The natural conclusion would be that all these similarities were due to the same author writing and dispatching these Epistles at one and the same time. But Holtzmann’s explanation was quite different. He supposed that St. Paul wrote a short epistle to the Colossians. From the study of this epistle a later writer composed the Epistle to the Ephesians. Then taking St. Paul’s short Epistle to the Colossians he made interpolations and additions to it from his own composition to the Ephesians and thus built up our present Epistle to the Ephesians, and that with such success that the thing was never suspected until the nineteenth century. This intricate and complicated theory did not gain a single adherent, even amongst the most advanced critical school. Hilgenfeld rejected it in 1873; but its best refutation is von Soden’s detailed criticism of 1885. He held that only about eight verses could be regarded as interpolations. Sanday in Smith’s “Dict. of the Bible” (I, 625) pointed out that von Soden’s lines of demarcation were purely imaginary, and Pfleiderer showed the inconsistency involved in his rejection of these verses. The results of these criticisms and of further study convinced von Soden, in 1891, that the whole Epistle was genuine, with the exception of a single verse — a verse now generally held to be genuine. In 1894 Jülicher stated that the best solution was to admit the authenticity of both Epistles, though he speaks more hesitatingly in “Encyc. Bibl.” 1889. J. Weiss made an abortive attempt to resuscitate Holtzmann’s moribund theory in 1900.

Whilst Holtzmann’s facts are incontestable, and only go to prove the community of authorship, his explanation (in which he seems to have lost faith) is rejected by scholars as artificial and unreal. It affords no explanation of many things connected with these Epistles. It does not explain how the early Christians allowed a genuine letter of St. Paul to become completely lost without trace or mention, for the sake of two forgeries of much later date. Each Epistle, taken by itself, shows such unity and connection of argument and language, that if the other were not in existence no one would have suspected the slightest degree of interpolation. The parts rejected as interpolations break the unity of argument and flow of ideas. Why should a forger, capable of writing the bulk of both Epistles, take the trouble to interpolate verses and half of his own production from one Epistle into the other, and that in quite a different connection? Besides, as Principal Salmond observes, there is not a dull sameness of style in both Epistles. Ephesians is round, full, rhythmical; Colossians more pointed, logical and concise. Ephesians has several references to the Old Testament; Colossians only one. There are different new words in each, and there are whole passages in the one and nothing like them found in the other.

The expressions supposed to have come from Colossians occur quite naturally in Ephesians, but by no means in the same context and connection, and vice versa. As Holtzmann’s hypothesis has completely broken down, his study of the Epistles shows such close relationship between them that there can be only one other possible explanation: that both are the genuine writings of one man, and that man was St. Paul. Paley, who wrote his “Horæ Paulinæ” in 1790, set forth this side of the argument long before these objections were thought of; and the fact that he can still be quoted, without qualification, in this connection, is the best proof of the futility of all such objections. He says (Horæ Paulinæ, London, 1790, 215): Whoever writes two letters or discourses nearly upon the same subject and at no great distance of time but without any express recollection of what he had written before will find himself repeating some sentences in the very order of the words in which he had already used them; but he will more frequently find himself employing some principal terms, with the order inadvertently changed, or with the order disturbed by the intermixture of other words and phrases expressive of ideas rising up at the time, or in many instances repeating not single words, nor yet whole sentences, but parts and fragments of sentences. Of all these varieties the examination of our two epistles will furnish plain examples, and I should rely on this class of instances more than on the last, because although an impostor might transcribe into a forgery entire sentences and phrases, yet the dislocation of words, the partial recollection of phrases and sentences, the intermixture of new terms and new ideas with terms and ideas before used, which will appear in the examples that follow, and which are the natural products of writing produced under the circumstances in which these epistles are represented to have been composed — would not, I think, have occurred to the invention of a forger, nor, if they had occurred would they have been so easily executed. This studied variation was a refinement in forgery which I believe did not exist, or if we can suppose it to have been practised in the instances adduced below, why, it may be asked, was not the same art exercised upon those which we have collected in the preceding class? He then goes on to illustrate all these points by numerous examples taken from all parts of these Epistles.

———————————–

ST. JEROME, Ep. cxxi, Ad Algas., q. x in Opera (Venice, 1766), I Pt. I, 878; CORNELY, Introd. (Paris, 1897), III; SALMON, Intro. to New Test. (London, 1897); JACQUIER, Histoire des Livres du Nouveau Test. (Paris, 1906), I; ESTIUS, Commentarius (Mainz, 1844); BISPING, Erklärung der Briefe an die Eph., Philip., Kol. (Münster, 1855); MCEVILLY, Exposition (Dublin, 1860); ALFORD, New Test. Critical and Exegetical Commentary (London, 1856); ELLICOTT, Critical and Grammatical Comm. (London, 1857); LIGHTFOOT, Colossians and Philemon (London, 1879); IDEM, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (London, 1875); SANDAY in SMITH, Dict. of the Bible (London, 1893); VON SODEN, Die Briefe an die Kolosser, etc. (Leipzig, 1893); SALMOND, Ephesians; PEAKE, Colossians in Exp. Greek Test. (London, 1903). One of the best books on the subject is ABBOTT, Ephesians and Colossians. See also The International Critical Commentary, ed. CLARK (Edinburgh, 1907); HORT, Judaic Christianity (London, 1898).

C. AHERNE Transcribed by Vernon Bremberg Dedicated the Cloistered Dominican Nuns of the Monastery of the Infant Jesus, Lufkin, Texas

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IVCopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Colossians, Epistle To The

the seventh of the Pauline epistles in the New Test. (see Davidson’s Introd. to the N.T. 2:394 sq.). SEE EPISTLE.

I. Authorship. That this epistle is the genuine production of the apostle Paul is proved by the most satisfactory evidence, and has never, indeed, been seriously called in question. The external testimonies (Just. M. Trypho , p. 311 b; Theophil. ad Autol. 2, p. 100, ed. Colossians 1686; Irenaeus, Haer. 3. 14, 1; Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, p. 325; 4, p. 588, al., ed. Potter; Tertull. de Praescr. ch. 7; de Resurr. ch. 23; Origen, contra Cels.v. 8) are explicit, and the internal arguments, founded on the style, balance of sentences, positions of adverbs, uses of the relative pronoun, participial anacolutha, unusually strong and well defined. It is not right to suppress the fact that Mayerhoff (Der Brief an die Kol. Berl. 1838) and Baur (Der Apostel Paulus, p. 417) have deliberately rejected this epistle as claiming to be a production of the apostle Paul. The first of these critics, however, has been briefly, but, as it would seem, completely answered by Meyer (Komment. p. 7); and to the second, in his subjective and anti-historical attempt to make individual writings of the N.T. mere theosophistic productions of a later Gnosticism, the intelligent and critical reader will naturally yield but little credence (see Rabiger, De Christologia Paulina, etc. Vratisl. 1852; Klopper, De origine Epp. ad Ephesios et Collossenses, Gryph. 1853). It is, indeed, remarkable that the strongly-marked peculiarity of style, the nerve and force of the arguments, and the originality that appears in every paragraph, should not have made both these writers pause in their ill-considered attack on this epistle (see Tregelles, in Horne’s Introd. new edit. vol. 3).

II. It is less certain, however, when and where it was composed. The common opinion is that Paul wrote it at Rome during his imprisonment in that city (Act 28:16; Act 28:30). Erasmus, followed by others, supposes that Ephesus was the place at which it was composed; but this suggestion is obviously untenable from its incompatibility with the allusions contained’ in the epistle itself to the state of trouble and imprisonment in which the apostle was whilst composing it (Col 1:24; Col 4:10; Col 4:18). In Germany, the opinions of theologians have been divided of late years between the common hypothesis and one proposed by Schulz in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken for 1829 (p. 612 sq.), viz., that this epistle, with those to the Ephesians and Philemon, was written during the apostle’s (two years’) imprisonment at Caesarea previous to his being sent to Rome. This opinion has been adopted and defended by Schott, Bottger, and Wiggers, whilst it has been opposed by Neander, Steiger, Harless, Ruckert, Credner, and others. In a more recent number of the same periodical, however, the whole question has been subjected to a new investigation by Dr. Wiggers, who comes to the conclusion that, of the facts above appealed to, none can be regarded as decisive for either hypothesis (Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 436). The above opinion that this epistle and those to the Ephesians and to Philemon were written during the apostle’s imprisonment at Caesarea (Act 21:27 to Act 26:32), has been recently advocated by several writers of ability, and stated with such cogency and clearness by Meyer (Einleit. z. Ephes. p. 15, sq.), as to deserve some consideration. It will be found, however, to rest on ingeniously-urged plausibilities; whereas, to go no further into the present epistle, the notices of the apostle’s imprisonment in Col 4:3-4; Col 4:11, certainly seem historically inconsistent with the nature of the imprisonment at Caesarea. The permission of Felix (Act 24:23) can scarcely be strained into any degree of liberty to teach or preach the Gospel, while the facts recorded of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome (Act 28:23; Act 28:31) are such as to harmonize admirably with the freedom in this respect which our present epistle represents to have been accorded both to the apostle and his companions (see chap. Act 4:11, and comp. De Wette, Einleit. z. Coloss. p. 12, 13; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 420).

Finally, the foundation for this opinion is taken away by the fact that the imprisonment of Paul at Cesarea was not so long as commonly supposed. See PAUL. It is most likely, therefore, that it was written during Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome, probably in the spring of A.D. 57, and apparently soon after the Epistle to the Ephesians, with which it contains numerous and striking coincidences. In support of this date the following facts may be adduced: Timothy was with Paul at the time (Col 1:1; comp. Php 2:19); Epaphroditus (Epaphras) had lately come from Asia Minor (1, 4, 7, 9; comp. Php 2:25; Php 4:18), and was now with Paul (Col 4:2); Paul was in prison, and had been preaching in his confinement (Col 4:3; Col 4:18; see Act 28:30-31); various friends were at this time with him (Col 4:7-14; these had therefore had time to gather about him, and it was not a season of danger); Tychicus (on his second journey) and Onesimus carried the letter (Col 4:7-8; and subscription; comp. Eph 6:21; Phm 1:12). From this last circumstance, it would appear that the epistle could not have been written very early in his imprisonment, as the letter to Philemon (doubtless written not long after) speaks confidently of a speedy release (see Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 2:384).

The striking similarity between many portions of this epistle and of that to the Ephesians has given rise to much speculation, both as to the reason of this studied similarity, and as to the priority of order in respect to composition. These points cannot here be discussed at length, but must be somewhat briefly dismissed with the simple expression of an opinion that the similarity may reasonably be accounted for,

(1) by the proximity in time at which the two epistles were written;

(2) by the high probability that in two cities of Asia, within a moderate distance from one another, there would be many doctrinal prejudices, and many social relations, that would call forth and need precisely the same language of warning and exhortation. The priority in composition must remain a matter for a reasonable difference of opinion. SEE EPHESIANS and SEE PHILEMON (Epistles to).

III. Design. The Epistle to the Colossians was written, apparently, in consequence of information received by Paul through Epaphras concerning the internal state of their church (Col 1:6-8). Whether the apostle had ever himself before this time visited Colossa is matter of uncertainty and dispute. From Col 2:1, where he says, I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, etc., it has by some been very confidently concluded that he had not. It has been urged, however, that when, in Col 2:5, the apostle says, though I am absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, etc., his language is strongly indicative of his having formerly been amongst the Colossians, for the is used properly only of such absence as arises from the person’s having gone away from the place of which his absence is predicated. In support of the same view have been adduced Paul’s having twice visited and gone through Phrygia (Act 16:6; Act 18:23), in which Colossae was a chief city; his familiar acquaintance with so many of the Colossian Christians, Epaphras, Archippus, Philemon (who was one of his own converts, Philippians 13, 19), and Apphia, probably the wife of Philemon; his apparent acquaintance with Onesimus, the slave of Philemon, so that he recognized him again at Rome; the cordiality of friendship and interest subsisting between the apostle and the Colossians as a body (Col 1:24-25; Col 2:1; Col 4:7, etc.); the apostle’s familiar acquaintance with their state and relations (Col 1:6; Col 2:6-7, etc.); and their knowledge of so many of his companions, and especially of Timothy, whose name the apostle associates with his own at the commencement of the epistle, a circumstance which is worthy of consideration from this, that Timothy was the companion of Paul during his first tour through Phrygia, when probably the Gospel was first preached at Colossae.

Of these considerations it must be allowed that the cumulative force is very strong in favor of the opinion that the Christians at Colossa had been privileged to enjoy the personal ministrations of Paul. At the same time, if the Colossians and Laodiceans are not to be included among those of whom Paul says they had not seen his face, it seems unaccountable that in writing to the Colossians he should have referred to this class at all: If, moreover, he had visited the Colossians, was it not strange that he should have no deeper feeling towards them than he had for the multitudes of Christians scattered over the world whose faces he had never seen? In fine, as it is quite possible that Paul may have been twice in Phrygia without being once in Colossae, is it not easy also to account for his interest in the church at Colossae, his knowledge of their affairs, and his acquaintance with individuals among them, by supposing that members of that church had frequently visited him in different places, though he had never visited Colossae? SEE LAODICEANS (EPISTLE TO).

A great part of this epistle is directed against certain false teachers who had crept into the church at Colossae (see Rheinwald, De pseudo doctoribus Colossensibus, Bonnae, 1834). To what class these teachers belonged has not been fully determined. Heinrichs (Nov. Test. Koppian. VII, 2:156) contends that they were disciples of John the Baptist. Michaelis and Storr, with more show of reason, conclude that they were Essenes. Hug (Introd. 2:449) traces their system to the Magian philosophy, of which the outlines are furnished by Iamblichus. But the best opinion seems to be that of Neander (Planting and Training, 1:374 sq.), by whom they are represented as a party of speculatists who endeavored to combine the doctrines of Oriental theosophy and asceticism with Christianity, and promised thereby to their disciples a deeper insight into the. spiritual world, and a fuller approximation to heavenly purity and intelligence than simple Christianity could yield. (See below.) Against this party the apostle argues by reminding the Colossians that in Jesus Christ, as set before them in the Gospel, they had all that they required; that he was the image of the invisible God; that he was before all things; that by him all things consist; that they were complete in him, and that he would present them to God holy, unblamable, and unreprovable, provided they continued steadfast in the faith. He then shows that the prescriptions of a mere carnal asceticism are not worthy of being submitted to by Christians, and concludes by directing their attention to the elevated principles which should regulate the conscience and conduct of such, and the duties of social and domestic life to which these would prompt. (See Jour. Sac. Lit. vol. 3) SEE PHILOSOPHY.

What these dangerous tendencies therefore were that had appeared in the doctrine and practice of the Colossian Church we discover more particularly from three specifications:

1. A pretentious philosophy, which affected an esoteric knowledge, received through tradition, and which, abandoning Christ the Head, indulged in unhallowed speculations on the number and nature of the spiritual beings with which the invisible world is peopled (Col 2:8; Col 2:18).

2. The observance, if not the asserted obligation (for this does not appear), of Jewish ordinances (Col 2:16; Col 2:20-22).

3. The practice of ascetic regulations (Col 2:23). A question here at once arises, Were these various errors found united in the same party or individual? At first sight they seem mutually to exclude each other. The pharisaic Judaizers exhibited no proneness either to a speculative gnosis or to asceticism; the Gnostic ascetics, on the other hand, were usually opposed to a rigid ceremonialism. It is so improbable, however, that, in a small community like that of Colossae, three distinct parties should have existed, that we are driven to the conclusion that the corrupt tendencies in question did really exist in combination in the same persons; and the difficulty will perhaps be alleviated if we bear in mind that in the apostolic age two classes of Judaizing teachers, equally opposed to the simplicity of the apostolic message, though in different ways, busied themselves in sowing tares among the wheat in the visible Church. The former consisted of the rigid formalists, chiefly Pharisees, who occupy so prominent a place in the history of the Acts and in several of Paul’s epistles, and who contended for the continued obligation of the law of Moses upon Gentile converts; the latter were speculative adherents of the Alexandrian school, whose principle it was to subordinate the letter to the spirit, or rather to treat the former as a mere shell, which the initiated were at liberty to cast away as worthless, or intended only for the vulgar. With this false spiritualism was usually combined an element of Oriental theosophy, with its doctrine of the essential evil of matter, and the ascetic practices by which it was supposed that the soul is to be emancipated from the material thraldom under which it at present labors.

To angelology, or the framing of angelic genealogies, the Jews in general of that age were notoriously addicted; in the pastoral epistles (see 1Ti 1:4) we again meet this idle form of speculation. That persons imbued with these various notions should, on becoming Christians, attempt an amalgamation of them with their new faith is but natural; and the ill-assorted union seems to have given birth to the Gnosticism of a subsequent age, with its monstrous tenets, the product of an unbridled imagination. Teachers then, or perhaps a single teacher (Col 2:16), of this cast of Judaism had effected an entrance into the Colossian Church, and seems to have there experienced a favorable reception. In a Gentile community like this, pharisaic Judaism could not so easily have gained a footing; but the mixture of mystical speculation and ascetic discipline, which distinguished the section of the Alexandrian school alluded to, was just adapted to attract the unstable, especially in Phrygia, from time immemorial the land of mystic rites, such as those connected with the worship of Cybele, and of magical superstition. From this congenial soil, in a subsequent age, Montanism sprang; and, as Neander remarks (Apostelgeschichte, 1:442), it is remarkable that in the 4th century the Council of Laodicea was compelled to prohibit a species of angel-worship, which appears to have maintained its ground in these regions (Can. 35). We must not, however, suppose that these tendencies had worked themselves out into a distinct system, or had brought forth the bitter practical fruits which were their natural consequence, and which, at a later period, distinguished the heresiarchs alluded to in the pastoral epistles, and the followers of Cerinthus. The corrupt teaching was as yet in its bud. The apostle therefore recommends no harsh measures, such as excommunication: he treats the case as one rather of ignorance and inexperience; as that of erring but sincere Christians, not of active opponents; and seeks by gentle persuasion to win them back to their allegiance to Christ. SEE GNOSTICISM.

IV. Contents. Like the majority of Paul’s epistles, that to the Colossians consists of two main divisions, one of which contains the doctrinal, the other the practical matter.

After his usual salutation (Col 1:1-2), the apostle returns thanks to God for the faith of the Colossians, the spirit of love they had shown, and the progress which the Gospel had made among them as preached by Epaphras (Col 1:3-8). This leads him to pray without ceasing that they may be fruitful in good works, and especially thankful to the Father, who gave them an inheritance with his saints, and translated them into the kingdom of his Son his Son, the image of the invisible God, the first-born before every creature, the Creator of all things earthly and heavenly, the Head of the Church, He in whom an things subsist, and by whom all things have been reconciled to the eternal Father (Col 1:9-20). This reconciliation, the apostle reminds them, was exemplified in their own cases; they were once alienated, but now so reconciled as to be presented holy and blameless before God, if only they continued firm in the faith, and were not moved from the hope of which the Gospel was the source and origin (Col 1:21-24).

Of this Gospel the apostle declares himself the minister; the mystery of salvation was that for which he toiled and for which he suffered (Col 1:24-29). Nor were his sufferings only for the Church at large, but also for them and others whom he had not personally visited, even that they might come to the full knowledge of Christ, and might not fall victims to plausible sophistries; they were to walk in Christ and to be built on him (Col 2:1-7). Here the apostle brings in the particular theme of the epistle. Especially were the Colossians to be careful that no philosophy was to lead them from Him in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead, who was the Head of all spiritual powers, and who had quickened them, forgiven them, and in his death had triumphed over all the hosts of darkness (Col 2:8; Col 2:15). Surely with such spiritual privileges they were not to be judged in the matter of mere ceremonial observances or beguiled into creature-worship. Christ was the head of the body; if they were truly united to him, what need was there of bodily austerities? (Col 2:16-23.)

In the latter half of the epistle the apostle enforces the practical duties flowing from these truths. The Colossians were, then, to mind things above spiritual things, not carnal ordinances, for their life was hidden with Christ (Col 3:1-4): they were to mortify their members and the evil principles in which they once walked; the old man was to be put off, and the new man put on, in which all are one in Christ (Col 3:5-12). Furthermore, they were to give heed to special duties; they were to be forgiving and loving, as was Christ. In the consciousness of his abiding word were they to sing; in his name were they to be thankful (Col 3:13-17). Wives and husbands, children and parents, were all to perform their duties; servants were to be faithful, masters to be just (Col 3:18 to Col 4:1).

In the last chapter the apostle gives further special precepts, strikingly similar to those given to his Ephesian converts. They were to pray for the apostle, and for his success in preaching the Gospel; they were to walk circumspectly, and to be ready to give a seasonable answer to all who questioned them (Col 4:2-7). Tychicus, the bearer of the letter, and Onesimus would tell them all the state of the apostle (Col 4:7-9): Aristarchus and others sent them friendly greetings (Col 4:10-14). With an injunction to interchange this letter with that sent to the neighboring church of Laodicea (Col 4:16), a special message to Archippus (Col 4:17), and an autograph salutation, this short but striking epistle comes to its close. SEE EPISTLE.

V. Commentaries. The following are expressly on this Epistle (including, in some instances, one or more of the other Pauline letters), the most important being designated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Jerome, Commeint. (in Opp. [Suppos.] 2); Chrysostom, Hoan. (in Opp. 2:368); Zuingle, Annotationes (in Opp. 4:512); Melancthon, Enarrationes (Wittenb. 1559, 4to); Zanchius, Comment. (in Opp. vi); Musculus, Commentarius (Basil. 1565, 1578, 1595, fol.); Aretius, Commentarii (Morg. 1580, 8vo); Olevianus, Notae (Genesis 1580, 8vo); Grynaeus, Explicatio (Basil. 1585, 8vo); Rollock, Commentarius (Edinb. 1600, 8vo; Genev. 1602); also Lectures (Lond. 1603, 4to); Cartwright, Commentary (Lond. 1612, 4to); *Byfield, Exposition (Lond. 1615, fol.; also 1627, 1649); Elton, Exposition (Lond. 1615, 4to; 1620, 1631, fol.); Quiros, Commentarius (in Disput., Lugd. B. 1623); Crellius, Commentarius (in Opp. 1:523); Cocceius, In Ep. ad Colossians (in Opp. 12:213); Alting, Analysis (in Opp. iv); *Davenant, Expositio (Cantab. 1627, fol.; also 1630, 1639, fol.; Genev. 1655, 4to; in English, London, 1831, 2 vols. 8vo); Calixtus, Expositio (Brunsw. 1654, 4to); Daille, Sermons (in French, Genesis 1662, 2d ed. 3 vols. 8vo; in English, Lond. 1672, fol.); and Exposition (Lond. 1841, 8vo); Fergusson, Commentarius (Lord. 1658, 8vo); Martin, Analysis (in Opp. 4:389); *D’Outrein, Sendbrief, etc. (Amst. 1695, 4to; in German, Frankfort, 1696, 4to); Schmid, Commentarius (Hamb. 1696, 4to; also 1704).; Suicer, Commentarius (Tiguri. 1699, 4to); Streso, Meditationes (Amst. 1708, 8vo); Gleich, Predigten (Dresden, 1717, 4to); Lutken, Predigten (Gardel. 1718, 1737, 4to); Hazevoet, Verklaering (Lugd. B. 1720, 4to); Van Til, Commentarius (Amst. 1726, 4to); Roell, Exegesis (Traj. 1731, 4to); Peirce, Paraphrase (London, 1733, 4to); Koning, Openlegging (L. B. 1739, 4to); Storr, Interpretatio (in his Opusc. Acad. 2:120-241); Boysen, Erklarung (Quedlb. 1766-1781); Jones, Version (London, 1820,12mo); Junker, Commentar (Mannheim, 1828, 8vo); Bohmer, Auslegwng (8vo, Berl. 1829; Breslau, 1835); Flatt, Erklar. ed. by Kling (Tub. 1829, 8vo); *Blhr, Commentar (Basel, 1833, 8vo); Watson, Discourses (Lond. 1834, 8vo; also 1838); Steiger, Uebers. u. Erklar. (Erlang. 1835, 8vo); Schleiermacher, Predigten (Berlin, 1835, 2 vols. 8vo); Lange, Homilien (Barmen, 1839); Decker, Bearbeitung (Hamb. 1848, 8vo); Hither, Commentar (Hamb. 1841, 2 vols. 8vo); *De Wette, Erklarung (Lpz. 1843, 1847, 8vo); Wilson, Lectures (London, 1845, 8vo; also 1846); Baumgarten-Crusius, Commentar (Jena, 1847, 8vo); Meyer, Handbuch (Gott. 1848, 8vo, pt. ix); Kahler, Auslegung (Eisleb. 1853, 8vo); Bisping, Erklarung (Munst. 1855, 8vo); *Eadie, Commentary (Glasg. 1856, 8vo); Dalmer, Auslegung (Gotha, 1858, 8vo); *Ellicott, Commentary (London, 1858, 1861, 8vo; Andover, 1865, 8vo); Gisborne, Exposition (Lond. 1860, 12mo); Messmer, Erklarung (Brixen, 1863, 8vo); Passavant, Auslegung (Basel, 1865, 8vo); *Bleek, Vorlesungen (Berlin, 1865, 8vo). SEE COMMENTARY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Colossians, Epistle to the

was written by Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment there (Acts 28:16, 30), probably in the spring of A.D. 57, or, as some think, 62, and soon after he had written his Epistle to the Ephesians. Like some of his other epistles (e.g., those to Corinth), this See ms to have been written in consequence of information which had somehow been conveyed to him of the internal state of the church there (Col. 1:4-8). Its object was to counteract false teaching. A large part of it is directed against certain speculatists who attempted to combine the doctrines of Oriental mysticism and asceticism with Christianity, thereby promising the disciples the enjoyment of a higher spiritual life and a deeper insight into the world of spirits. Paul argues against such teaching, showing that in Christ Jesus they had all things. He sets forth the majesty of his redemption. The mention of the “new moon” and “sabbath days” (2:16) shows also that there were here Judaizing teachers who sought to draw away the disciples from the simplicity of the gospel.

Like most of Paul’s epistles, this consists of two parts, a doctrinal and a practical.

(1.) The doctrinal part comprises the first two chapters. His main theme is developed in chapter 2. He warns them against being drawn away from Him in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, and who was the head of all spiritual powers. Christ was the head of the body of which they were members; and if they were truly united to him, what needed they more?

(2.) The practical part of the epistle (3-4) enforces various duties naturally flowing from the doctrines expounded. They are exhorted to mind things that are above (3:1-4), to mortify every evil principle of their nature, and to put on the new man (3:5-14). Many special duties of the Christian life are also insisted upon as the fitting evidence of the Christian character. Tychicus was the bearer of the letter, as he was also of that to the Ephesians and to Philemon, and he would tell them of the state of the apostle (4:7-9). After friendly greetings (10-14), he bids them interchange this letter with that he had sent to the neighbouring church of Laodicea. He then closes this brief but striking epistle with his usual autograph salutation. There is a remarkable resemblance between this epistle and that to the Ephesians (q.v.). The genuineness of this epistle has not been called in question.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Colossians, Epistle To The

COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

1. Authenticity.This Epistle is one of the ten Epistles of St. Paul included in Marcions collection (a.d. 140). It appears to have been accepted without question as genuine both by Churchmen and by heretics, and is referred to by the Muratorian Fragment, by Irenus, and by Clement of Alexandria. Its authenticity remained undisputed till the early part of last century, and was then contested only on internal grounds of style and subject-matter.

As to the first objection, the Epistle is marked, to a greater degree than St. Pauls earlier writings, by a certain ruggedness of expression, a want of finish that borders on obscurity. The vocabulary also differs in some respects from that of the earlier writings, but this is amply accounted for by the difference of subject. As a matter of fact, the resemblances in style to St. Pauls other writings are as marked as the differences; and in any case arguments from style in disproof of authenticity are very unreliable. The later plays of Shakespeare, as compared with those of his middle period, show just the same condensation of thought and want of fluency and finish.

The argument from subject-matter is more important. The Epistle was regarded by earlier German critics as presupposing a fully developed system of Gnostic teaching, such as belongs to the middle of the 2nd cent., and a correspondingly developed Christology. But a more careful study of the Epistle has shown that what St. Paul has in view is not a system of teaching, but rather a tendency. Words like plrma, to which later Gnosticism gave a technical sense, are used in this Epistle with their usual non-technical signification. And our study of early Christian and Jewish thought has shown that Gnostic tendencies date from a much earlier time than the great Gnostic teachers of the 2nd cent., and are, indeed, older than Christianity. The Christology of the Epistle certainly shows an advance on that of St. Pauls earlier Epistles, especially in the emphasis laid on the cosmical activity of the pre-incarnate Christ. This may be accounted for in part by the special purpose of the Epistle (see below), and in part by a development in St. Pauls own Christological ideas. It is irrational to deny the authenticity of an Epistle claiming to be St. Pauls, merely because it shows that the mind of the Apostle had not remained stagnant during a period of imprisonment that must have given him special opportunities for thought. (See Ephesians.)

Many German critics, such as Harnack and Jlicher, are now in agreement with the leading British scholars in accepting the Epistle as St. Pauls. The authenticity of the Epistle is sustained by its close relation to the Epistle to Philemon, the Pauline authorship of which is hardly seriously disputed. (On the relation of our Epistle to the Epistle to the Ephesians see Ephesians.)

2. Integrity and Text.The integrity of the Epistle is now generally admitted, though certain obscurities in the text have given rise to some conjectural emendations. Holtzmann attempted to prove that this Epistle and the Epistle to the Ephesians are recensions of one original Epistle of St. Pauls, which he tried to reconstruct by extracting a Pauline nucleus of about forty verses; but his conclusions have not been accepted by later scholars. More recently, von Soden has proposed the rejection of about nine verses, but not on any adequate grounds. It would have been no easy task to interpolate a genuine Epistle of St. Pauls, jealously guarded as it would have been by the Church to which it was sent.

3. Time and Place of Writing.The Epistle to the Colossians belongs to the group of four Epistles written by St. Paul in captivity (Col 4:3; Col 4:18). Of this group threethe Epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to Philemonwere written at the same time and sent by the same messenger, Tychicus. The remaining Epistle of the groupthat to the Philippianswas almost certainly written from Rome towards the end of St. Pauls two years imprisonment there. The other three Epistles were most probably written from Rome, though some critics have dated them from the period of St. Pauls imprisonment at Csarea.

4. Occasion and Purpose.Most of St. Pauls Epistles were written under some definite external stimulus. In the case of this Epistle two events seem to have led to its composition. (1) Epaphras, who had been the first evangelist of the Colossians, and who seems to have held at Coloss a position somewhat similar to that which Timothy is represented in the Pastoral Epistles as holding in Ephesus, had come to Rome bringing information as to the special needs and dangers of the Colossian Church. As he elected to remain at Rome, and apparently shared for a time the Apostles imprisonment (Phm 1:23), Tychicus was sent to Asia, taking with him this letter. (2) Onesimus, a runaway slave from Coloss, had found his way to Rome and had there come under the influence of St. Paul. The Apostle took advantage of Tychicus journey to send Onesimus back to his master at Coloss, with a letter of commendation (see Philemon).

The special purpose of the Epistle, as distinct from its general purpose as a message of goodwill, was to warn the Colossian Christians against a danger of which Epaphras had no doubt informed St. Paul. The exact nature of the so-called Colossian heresy is a matter of some uncertainty. On its doctrinal side it was probably a blend of Jewish Kabbalistic ideas with floating Oriental speculations. It appears to have denied the direct agency of God in the work of creation, and to have inculcated the worship of angels and other mysterious powers of the unseen world (Col 2:18). On its practical side it combined rigorous asceticism (Col 2:23) and strict observance of Jewish ceremonial (Col 2:18) with an arrogant claim to special enlightenment in spiritual things (Col 2:18). Its special danger lay in the fact that it tended to obscure, or even to deny, the unique grandeur of the ascended Lord, the one Mediator, through faith in whom the life of the Christian was lifted into the new atmosphere of liberty. On one side, therefore, this Epistle may be compared with He I, where the supremacy of the Son over all angels is strongly insisted on, while on the other side it takes up the line of thought of the Epistle to the Galatiansthe relation of the Christian life to external ordinances. The way in which St. Paul deals with the question can best be seen by a short summary of the Epistle.

5. Summary.After the usual salutation, thanksgiving, and prayer, in which St. Paul associates Timothy with himself (perhaps because he was known personally to the Colossian Church), he plunges at once into a doctrinal statement (Col 1:13 to Col 2:3) of the Person and Work of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, the origin and goal of all created things, in whom all the fulness (plrma) of the Godhead abides. After a personal reference to his own commission and to his sufferings for the Church, he passes to the directly controversial part of the Epistle (Col 2:4 to Col 3:4), warning the Colossians against being led astray by strange philosophies. The fulness of the Godhead is in Christ; He is over all principalities and powers; the life of externally imposed ordinancesTouch not, taste not, handle notis a life to which the Christian has died in Christ. He has risen to a new life whose centre and secret are in heaven. He must still mortify the deeds of the flesh, but from a new motive and in the power of a new life. The third section of the Epistle (Col 3:5 to Col 4:6) applies this principle to various relations of lifethe mutual relation of Christians, husbands and wives, children and fathers, slaves and masters; and lastly, to the relation of St. Paul to them, and to their relation with the world. The closing section (Col 4:7-18) deals with personal matterswith the mission of Tychicus, with whom St. Paul tactfully associates Onesimus; with St. Marks proposed visit, in connexion with which St. Paul writes a word of special commendation, showing how completely the former discord has been healed. Then follow a warm commendation of Tychicus, greetings from Luke and Demas, instructions for exchanging letters with the neighbouring Church of Laodicea, and a final message for Archippus, who had apparently succeeded, in Epaphras absence, to the supervision of the Colossian Church.

J. Howard B. Masterman.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Colossians, Epistle to the

ko-loshans, ko-losi-anz: This is one of the group of Paul’s epistles known as the Captivity Epistles (see PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO, for a discussion of these as a group).

I. Authenticity

1. External Evidence

The external evidence for the Epistle to the Colossians, prior to the middle of the 2nd century, is rather indeterminate. In Ignatius and in Polycarp we have here and there phrases and terminology that suggest an acquaintance with Colossians but not much more (Ignat., Ephes., x.3, and Polyc. x.1; compare with Col 1:23). The phrase in Ep Barnabas, xii, in him are all things and unto him are all things, may be due to Col 1:16, but it is quite as possibly a liturgical formula. The references in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue to Christ as the firstborn (prototokos) are very probably suggested by Col 1:15, the firstborn of all creation (Dial., 84, 85, 138). The first definite witness is Marcion, who included this epistle in his collection of those written by Paul (Tert., Adv. Marc., Col 1:19). A little later the Muratorian Fragment mentions Colossians among the Epistles of Paul (10b, l. 21, Colosensis). Irenaeus quotes it frequently and by name (Adv. haer., iii.14, 1). It is familiar to the writers of the following centuries (e.g. Tert., De praescrip., 7; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., I, 1; Orig., Contra Celsum, v. 8).

2. Internal Evidence

The authenticity was not questioned until the second quarter of the 19th century when Mayerhoff claimed on the ground of style, vocabulary, and thought that it was not by the apostle. The Tbingen school claimed, on the basis of a supposed Gnosticism, that the epistle was the work of the 2nd century and so not Pauline. This position has been thoroughly answered by showing that the teaching is essentially different from the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, especially in the conception of Christ as prior to and greater than all things created (see V below). The attack in later years has been chiefly on the ground of vocabulary and style, the doctrinal position, especially the Christology and the teaching about angels, and the relation to the Ephesian epistle. The objection on the ground of vocabulary and style is based, as is so often the case, on the assumption that a man, no matter what he writes about, must use the same words and style. There are thirty-four words in Colossians which are not in any other New Testament book. When one removes those that are due to the difference in subject-matter, the total is no greater than that of some of the acknowledged epistles. The omission of familiar Pauline particles, the use of genitives, of all (pas), and of synonyms, find parallels in other epistles, or are due to a difference of subject, or perhaps to the influence on the language of the apostle of his life in Rome (von Soden). The doctrinal position is not at heart contradictory to Paul’s earlier teaching (compare Godet, Introduction to the New Testament; Paul’s Epistles, 440 f). The Christology is in entire harmony with Phil (which see) which is generally admitted as Pauline, and is only a development of the teaching in 1 Cor (1Co 8:6; 1Co 15:24-28), especially in respect of the emphasis laid on the cosmical activity of the preincarnate Christ. Finally, the form in which Paul puts the Christology is that best calculated to meet the false teaching of the Colossian heretics (compare V below). In recent years H. Holtzmann has advocated that this epistle is an interpolated form of an original Pauline epistle to the Colossians, and the work of the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians (which see). A modification of this theory of interpolation has recently been suggested by J. Weiss (Theologische Literaturzeitung, September 29, 1900). Both these theories are too complicated to stand, and even von Soden, who at first followed Holtzmann, has abandoned the position (von Soden, Einleitung., 12); while Sanday (DB2) has shown how utterly untenable it is. Sober criticism today has come to realize that it is impossible to deny the Pauline authorship of this epistle. This position is strengthened by the close relationship between Colossians and Philemon, of which Renan says: Paul alone, so it would seem, could have written this little masterpiece (Abbott, International Critical Commentary, lviii). If Philemon (which see) stands as Pauline, as it must, then the authenticity of Colossians is established beyond controversy.

II. Place and Date

The Pauline authorship being established, it becomes evident at once that the apostle wrote Colossians along with the other Captivity Epistles, and that it is best dated from Rome (see PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO), and during the first captivity. This would be about 58 or, if the later chronology is preferred, 63 or 64.

III. Destination

The epistle was written, on the face of it, to the church at COLOSSAE (which see), a town in the Lycus valley where the gospel had been preached most probably by Epaphras (Col 17; Col 4:12), and where Paul was, himself, unknown personally (Col 1:4, Col 1:8, Col 1:9; Col 2:1, Col 2:5). From the epistle it is evident that the Colossian Christians were Gentiles (Col 1:27) for whom, as such, the apostle feels a responsibility (Col 2:1). He sends to them Tychicus (Col 4:7), who is accompanied by Onesimus, one of their own community (Col 4:9), and urges them to be sure to read another letter which will reach them from Laodicea (Col 4:16).

IV. Relation to Other New Testament Writings

Beyond the connection with Ephesians (which see) we need notice only the relation between Colossians and Rev. In the letter to Laodicea (Rev 3:14-21) we have two expressions: the beginning of the creation of God, and I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, in which we have an echo of Colossians which suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier apostle’s teaching on the part of John (Lightfoot, Colossians, 42, note 5).

V. The Purpose

The occasion of the epistle was, we may be sure, the information brought by Epaphras that the church in Colosse was subject to the assault of a body of Judaistic Christians who were seeking to overthrow the faith of the Colossians and weaken their regard for Paul (Zahn). This heresy, as it is commonly called, has had many explanations. The Tbingen school taught that it was gnostic, and sought to find in the terms the apostle used evidence for the 2nd century composition of the epistle. Pleroma and gnosis (fullness and knowledge) not only do not require this interpretation, but will not admit it. The very heart of Gnosticism, i.e. theory of emanation and the dualistic conception which regards matter as evil, finds no place in Colossians. The use of pleroma in this and the sister epistle, Eph, does not imply Gnostic views, whether held by the apostle or by the readers of the letters. The significance in Colossians of this and the other words adopted by Gnosticism in later years is quite distinct from that later meaning. The underlying teaching is equally distinct. The Christ of the Colossians is not the aeon Christ of Gnosticism. In Essenism, on the other hand, Lightfoot and certain Germans seek the origin of this heresy. Essenism has certain affinities with Gnosticism on the one side and Judaism on the other. Two objections are raised against this explanation of the origin of the Colossian heresy. In the first place Essenism, as we know it, is found in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea, and there is no evidence for its establishment in the Lycus valley. In the second place, no references are found in Colossians to certain distinct Essene teachings, e.g. those about marriage, washings, communism, Sabbath rules, etc.

The Colossian heresy is due to Judaistic influences on the one hand and to native beliefs and superstitions on the other. The Judaistic elements in this teaching are patent, circumcision (Col 2:11), the Law (Col 2:14, Col 2:15), and special seasons (Col 2:16). But there is more than Judaism in this false teaching. Its teachers look to intermediary spirits, angels whom they worship; and insist on a very strict asceticism. To seek the origin of angel worship in Judaism, as is commonly done, is, as A. L. Williams has shown, to miss the real significance of the attitude of the Jews to angels and to magnify the bitter jeers of Celsus. Apart from phrases used in exorcism and magic he shows us that there is no evidence that the Jew ever worshipped angels (JTS, X, 413 f). This element in the Colossian heresy was local, finding its antecedent in the worship of the river spirits, and in later years the same tendency gave the impulse to the worship of Michael as the patron saint of Colosse (so too Ramsay, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), under the word Colossae). The danger of and the falsehood in this teaching were twofold. In the first place it brought the gospel under the bands of the Law once more, not now with the formality of the Galatian opponents, but none the less surely. But as the apostle’s readers are Gentiles (Col 1:27) Paul is not interested in showing the preparatory aspect of the Law. He simply insists to them that they are quite free from all obligations of the Law because Christ, in whom they have been baptized (Col 2:12), has blotted out all the Law (Col 2:14). The second danger is that their belief in and worship of the heavenly powers, false ideas about Christ and the material world, would develop even further than it had. They, because of their union with Him, need fear no angelic being. Christ has triumphed over them all, leading them as it were captives in His train (Col 2:15), as He conquered on the cross. The spiritual powers cease to have any authority over the Christians. It is to set Christ forward, in this way, as Head over all creation as very God, and out of His relation to the church and to the universe to develop the Christian life, that the apostle writes.

VI. Argument

The argument of the Epistle is as follows:

Col 1:1, Col 1:2

Salutation.

Col 1:3-8

Thanksgiving for their faith in Christ, their love for the saints, their hope laid up in heaven, which they had in and through the gospel and of which he had heard from Epaphras.

Col 1:9-13

Prayer that they might be filled with the full knowledge of God’s will so as to walk worthy of the Lord and to be fruitful in good works, thankful for their inheritance of the kingdom of His Son.

Col 1:14-23

Statement of the Son’s position, from whom we have redemption. He is the very image of God, Creator, pre-existent, the Head of the church, preminent over all, in whom all the fullness (pleroma) dwells, the Reconciler of all things, as also of the Colossians, through His death, provided they are faithful to the hope of the gospel.

Colossians 1:24 Through 2:5

By his suffering he is filling up the sufferings of Christ, of whom he is a minister, even to reveal the great mystery of the ages, that Christ is in them, the Gentiles, the hope of glory, the object of the apostle’s preaching everywhere. This explains Paul’s interest in them, and his care for them, that their hearts may be strengthened in the love and knowledge of Christ.

Colossians 2:6 Through 3:4

He then passes to exhortation against those who are leading them astray, these false teachers of a vain, deceiving philosophy based on worldly wisdom, who ignore the truth of Christ’s position, as One in whom all the Divine pleroma dwells, and their relation to Him, united by baptism; raised through the faith; quickened and forgiven; who teach the obligation of the observance of various legal practices, strict asceticisms and angel worship. This exhortation is closed with the appeal that as Christ’s they will not submit to these regulations of men which are useless, especially in comparison with Christ’s power through the Resurrection.

Col 3:5-17

Practical exhortations follow to real mortification of the flesh with its characteristics, and the substitution of a new life of fellowship, love and peace.

Colossians 3:18 Through 4:1

Exhortation to fulfill social obligations, as wives, husbands, children, parents, slaves and masters.

Col 4:2-6

Exhortation to devout and watchful prayer.

Col 4:7-18

Salutations and greeting.

Literature

Lightfoot, Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon; Abbott, Ephesians and Colossians, International Critical Commentary; Peake, Colossians, Expositor’s Greek Testament; Maclaren, Colossians, Expositor’s Bible; Alexander, Colossians and Ephesians, Bible for Home and School; Moule, Colossians, Cambridge Bible; Haupt, Meyer’s Krit. u. Exeg. Kom.; von Soden, Hand-Kom. zum New Testament.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Colossians, Epistle to the

Epistle to the Colossians. That this Epistle is the genuine production of the Apostle Paul is proved by the most satisfactory evidence, and has never indeed been seriously called in question. It is less certain, however, when and where it was composed by him. The common opinion is that he wrote it at Rome during his imprisonment in that city (Act 28:16; Act 28:30), and although it has been controverted, the balance of evidence is decidedly in its favor. The Epistle to the Ephesians and to Philemon are supposed to have been written about the same time.

In what order these three epistles were written, it is not possible clearly to determine. Between that to the Colossians and that to the Ephesians the coincidences are so close and numerous that the one must have been written immediately after the other, while the mind of the Apostle was occupied with the same leading train of thought. By the greater part the priority is assigned to the Epistle to the Colossians. The Epistle to Philemon being a mere friendly letter, intended chiefly to facilitate the reconciliation of Onesimus to his master, was probably written immediately before the departure of the party by whom it was to be carried.

The Epistle to the Colossians was written, apparently, in consequence of information received by Paul through Epaphras concerning the internal state of their church (Col 1:6; Col 1:8). Whether the Apostle had ever himself before this time visited Colosse is matter of uncertainty and dispute. From Col 2:1, where he says, ‘I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh,’ etc. it has by some been very confidently concluded that he had not. To this it is replied by Theodoret, Lardner, and others, that Paul does not intend to include the Colossians and Laodiceans among those who had not seen his face, but specifies the latter as a distinct class; as is evident, they think, from his using the third person in Col 1:2. This latter consideration, however, is of no weight, for the use of the third person here is easily accounted for on the principle that the pronoun takes the person of the nearer noun rather than that of the more remote (cf. Gal 1:8); and it certainly would be absurd to maintain that all contained in the second verse has no relation to the Colossians and Laodiceans, notwithstanding the reference to them in Col 2:1, and again in Col 2:4. As respects the words in Col 2:1, they will, in a mere philological point of view, bear to be understood in either way. It has been urged, however, that when, in Col 2:5, the Apostle says, ‘though I am absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit,’ etc. his language is strongly indicative of his having formerly been among the Colossians, for the verb rendered ‘I am absent’ is used properly only of such absence as arises from the person’s having gone away from the place of which his absence is predicted. In support of the same view have been adduced Paul’s having twice visited and gone through Phrygia (Act 16:6; Act 18:23), in which Colosse was a chief city; his familiar acquaintance with so many of the Colossian Christians, Epaphras, Archippus, Philemon (who was one of his own converts, Phm 1:13; Phm 1:19), and Apphia, probably the wife of Philemon [APPHIA]: his apparent acquaintance with Onesimus, the servant of Philemon, so that he recognized him again at Rome; the cordiality of friendship and interest subsisting between the Apostle and the Colossians as a body (Col 1:24-25; Col 2:1; Col 4:7, etc.); the Apostle’s familiar acquaintance with their state and relations (Col 1:6; Col 2:6-7, etc.); and their knowledge of so many of his companions, and especially of Timothy, whose name the Apostle associates with his own at the commencement of the Epistle, a circumstance which is worthy of consideration from this, that Timothy was the companion of Paul during his first tour through Phrygia, when probably the Gospel was first preached at Colosse. Of these considerations it must be allowed that the cumulative force is very strong in favor of the opinion that the Christians at Colosse had been privileged to enjoy the personal ministrations of Paul. At the same time, if the Colossians and Laodiceans are not to be included among those of whom Paul says they had not seen his face, it seems unaccountable that, in writing to the Colossians, he should have referred to this class at all. If, moreover, he had visited the Colossians, was it not strange that he should have no deeper feeling towards them than he had for the multitudes of Christians scattered over the world whose faces he had never seen? In fine, as it is quite possible that Paul may have been twice in Phrygia without being once in Colosse, is it not easy also to account for his interest in the church at Colosse, his knowledge of their affairs, and his acquaintance with individuals among them, by supposing that members of that church had frequently visited him in different places, though he had never visited Colosse?

A great part of this Epistle is directed against certain false teachers who had crept into the church at Colosse. To what class these teachers belonged has not been fully determined. Some contend that they were disciples of John the Baptist; others, with more show of reason, conclude that they were Essenes. The most probable opinion is that they were a party of speculatists who endeavored to combine the doctrines of Oriental theosophy and asceticism with Christianity, and promised thereby to their disciples a deeper insight into the spiritual world, and a fuller approximation to heavenly purity and intelligence, than simple Christianity could yield. Against this party the Apostle argues by reminding the Colossians that in Jesus Christ, as set before them in the Gospel, they had all that they requiredthat He was the image of the invisible God, that He was before all things, that by Him all things consist, that they were complete in Him, and that He would present them to God holy, unblameable, and unreprovable, provided they continued stedfast in the faith. He then shows that the prescriptions of a mere carnal asceticism are not worthy of being submitted to by Christians; and concludes by directing their attention to the elevated principles which should regulate the conscience and conduct of such, and the duties of social and domestic life to which these would prompt.

In the conclusion of the Epistle, the Apostle, after sending to the Colossians the salutations of himself and others who were with him, enjoins the Colossians to send this Epistle to the Laodiceans, and that they likewise should read ‘that from Laodicea.’ It is disputed whether by these concluding words Paul intends an Epistle from him to the Laodiceans or one from the Laodiceans to him. The former seems the more probable interpretation of the Apostle’s words, for supposing him to refer to a letter from the Laodiceans to him, the questions arise, How were the Colossians to procure this unless he himself sent it to them? And of what use would such a document be to them? To this latter question it has been replied that probably the letter from the Laodiceans contained some statements which influenced the Apostle in writing to the Colossians, and which required to be known before his letter in reply could be perfectly understood. But this is said without the slightest shadow of reason from the Epistle before us; and it is opposed by the fact that the Laodicean epistle was to be used by the Colossians after they had read that to themselves. It seems, upon the whole, most likely that Paul in this passage refers to an epistle sent by him to the church in Laodicea at the same time with that to the church at Colosse. It is probable also that this Epistle is now lost, though the suggestion of Grotius that it was the same with the Canonical Epistle to the Ephesians has found some advocates [EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE]. The extant Epistle to the Laodiceans is on all hands allowed to be a clumsy forgery.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Colossians, Epistle to the

This is generally believed to have been written by Paul during his two years’ imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 61-2, notwithstanding that Meyer and other critics refer it to the imprisonment of Paul at Caesarea. The personal glory of Christ as head of the body, the church, is specially brought out. The hope before the saints is in heaven: they are viewed as risen, but not seated in the heavenlies in Christ, as in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The life of the new man is dwelt on, but the Holy Spirit is only once mentioned: ‘your love in the Spirit.’

After the salutation, and thanking God for what Paul had heard of their faith (for apparently he had not been to Colosse) he at once prays for them that they might be filled with the full knowledge of God’s will; might walk worthy of the Lord, pleasing Him in all things; and might be strengthened with all power. Col 1:9-11. Then he gives thanks for what God had done for them, which is true of all Christians. Col 1:12-14. The glories of Christ follow: as man, and as the Creator-God: He is head of the body, the church. Col 1:15-19. All fulness was pleased to dwell in Him, and by Him, to reconcile all things to Himself (or itself), having made peace through the blood of His cross: the saints were already reconciled if they continued in the faith (which would prove their reality). Col 1:20-24. Paul had a double ministry: in the gospel, Col 1:23; and in the church, Col 1:25. His sufferings in his body filled up the (non-atoning) sufferings of Christ; and the revelation he had, concerning the mystery of the church, filled up the word of God (not as to time, for some portions were added afterwards, but as to the circle of subjects). Paul laboured to present every man perfect (that is, full grown) in Christ.

Colossians 2: Paul was deeply anxious for the welfare of the saints, that they might be rooted, built up, and established in the faith, lest they should be led astray by the philosophy of the world and the deceitful teaching of men, which would in no way minister Christ to them. In Him dwelt ‘all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,’ and they were ‘complete in Him’: nothing must be allowed to come between them. In Christ they had the reality of the things signified in the ordinances of circumcision and baptism. They had died and were risen with Christ. The saints were warned in Col 2:16-17 against being entangled with the Jewish things; and with the occult philosophy of the fleshly mind of the Gentile: all of which was in contrast and in opposition to holding Christ as Head. Having died with Christ they were set free from all the ordinances of men. This has been called the negative side.

Colossians 3: This gives the positive side, being ‘risen with Christ.’ Their mind was to be set on things above, as heavenly people walking on earth. When the Lord appeared they would appear with Him in glory. Christ was their life, and in consistency therewith they were to mortify – put to death – all that sprang from the motions of the flesh. A catalogue of things is given which were to be practically put off , because the old man had been put off with his deeds. Then having put on the new man, a catalogue of things is given which in consistency therewith were to be put on (the display of Christ, who is ‘in each one’): above all things was love. Peace was to rule their hearts, and the word of Christ to dwell in them; helping one another with their songs. Exhortations follow to wives, husbands, children, fathers, and servants. Practical Christianity should be manifest in every station of life.

Colossians 4: Exhortations to masters, and then to all. Tychicus and Onesimus would declare to them the affairs of Paul. Salutations follow. The epistle was to be read to the church of the Laodiceans, and some epistle coming to them from Laodicea was to be read at Colosse. (Perhaps the epistle to the Ephesians was being circulated from church to church.) A message to Archippus: the salutation by the hand of Paul, and a request to remember his bonds close the epistle with “Grace be with you. Amen.”

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary