Difference between revisions of "Epistle To The Colossians"

== Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament <ref name="term_55322" /> ==

<p> <b> 1. Introduction </b> .-St. Paul himself had never preached in the [[Lycus]] valley. On his third missionary journey he took another route (Acts 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]] (Colossians 1:4; Colossians 1:7; Colossians 1:9; Colossians 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]] (Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:12-13), himself a native of Colossae (Colossians 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. Turner’s dating; cf. article‘Chronology’ in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the [[Bible]] (5 vols) </i> ), and Epaphras may well have been acting as the direct agent of St. Paul (cf. the better reading ‘on our behalf’ in Colossians 1:7). This would account in some degree for the authoritative attitude which St. Paul takes in his letter. </p> <p> 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 (Colossians 2:1; Colossians 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 (Colossians 4:17, Philemon 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, Romans 16:5 (if, indeed, Romans 16 was not addressed to Ephesus), that of Philemon (Philemon 1:2) in Colossae, that of Nymphas, or Nympha, in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). A well-attested reading suggests that the latter, a woman’s 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. </p> <p> Colossae lay in Phrygian territory, and its population was doubtless largely Phrygian, with a veneer of Greek civilization. Philemon’s wife, [[Apphia]] (Philemon 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]] (Colossians 1:21; Colossians 1:27; Colossians 2:13; cf. St. Paul’s anxiety in Colossians 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. </p> <p> The Church of Colossae had been in existence only a few years when Epaphras rejoined St. Paul, then in prison for the faith (Colossians 1:24; Colossians 4:10; Colossians 4:18). He brought with him good news of the infant Church (Colossians 1:3; Colossians 2:5). But yet there were grave reasons for anxiety. Both at Colossae and at Laodicea (Colossians 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. Zahn’s comment on Colossians 2:18 ff., where the participles are in the singular [ <i> Introd. to NT </i> , 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]] (Colossians 2:2-3; Colossians 2:6), </p> <p> 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. Paul’s 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. </p> <p> 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 articleEphesians). 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 Manuscriptsthe 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 <i> ad Laodicenses </i> . [[Jerome]] ( <i> Vir. Illustr </i> . 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 Manuscriptsare in Latin. The early date of the document also points in the same direction. (This <i> Ep. ad Laod </i> . is discussed at length by Lightfoot in an appendix to his <i> Colossians </i> , p. 274ff.; cf. also Westcott, <i> Canon of NT </i> 5, 1881, Appendix E; A. Souter, <i> Text and Canon of NT </i> , 1913, p. 193.) </p> <p> <b> 2. Contents. </b> -St. Paul, associating Timothy with himself in his opening greeting (Colossians 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 (Colossians 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 (Colossians 1:9-23). This doctrinal section is expanded with a special view to the heresies which it is St. Paul’s 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’ (Colossians 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’ (Colossians 1:13). In opposition to the position accorded to angelic beings, he breaks into a paean in honour of the Son ( <i> a </i> ) as sole [[Redeemer]] (Colossians 1:14); ( <i> b </i> ) as the visible Representative of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15); ( <i> c </i> ) as prior to and supreme over all creation, including these very angelic powers; as the present stay, and ultimate consummation, of creation (Colossians 1:15-17); ( <i> d </i> ) as the supreme Head of the Church in virtue of His [[Resurrection]] (Colossians 1:18); ( <i> e </i> ) as One in whom abide completely all the perfections of the [[Godhead]] (Colossians 1:19); ( <i> f </i> ) 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 (Colossians 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 (Colossians 1:24-29). </p> <p> 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 Colossians 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 (Colossians 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 (Colossians 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 (Colossians 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 (Colossians 2:16-23). </p> <p> 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’ (Colossians 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 (Colossians 3:12-17). </p> <p> A short passage follows in which brief words of counsel are addressed to wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, masters (Colossians 3:18 to Colossians 4:1), and one or two general exhortations lead up to the salutations with which the letter closes (Colossians 4:2-18). </p> <p> <b> 3. Date and place of composition. </b> -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 Acts 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 ( <i> Philippians </i> 4, 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 Philippians 1:7; Philippians 1:12-13; Philippians 1:20-25; Philippians 2:23 point to a date near the very close of the Roman imprisonment. We must thus date Col. earlier (Philippians 1:12-14 seems to reflect Colossians 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, <i> e.g. </i> Meyer, Sabatier, Weiss, and Haupt. So also recently E. L. Hicks, <i> [[Interpreter]] </i> , 1910. But the arguments on the other side, as set out <i> e.g. </i> by Peake (‘Col.’ in <i> Expositor’s Greek [[Testament]] </i> , p. 491), seem conclusive. Haupt’s 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. </p> <p> 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. Fritzsche’s suggestion that St. Paul’s 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. </p> <p> <b> 4. External evidence for authenticity. </b> -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’ ( <i> [[Dial]] </i> . 84, 85, 100) an almost certain echo of Colossians 1:15, especially as the parallel phrase in [[Philo]] is not πρωτότοκος but πρωτόγονος. Earlier references are all rather uncertain, especially in [[Barnabas]] and Clement of Rome. It is, however, probable that [[Ignatius]] quotes Colossians 2:14 in <i> Smyrn </i> . i. 2, and Colossians 1:16 in <i> Trall </i> , v. 2. Lightfoot also points out Ignatins’ use of σύνδουλος as a term for deacons; cf. Colossians 1:7, Colossians 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. </p> <p> <b> 5. The Colossian heresy. </b> -The teaching attacked by St. Paul is described in Colossians 2:8; Colossians 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: </p> <p> (1) The teaching was Christian; cf. Colossians 2:19, which, however, suggests that it did not give Christ His due position. </p> <p> (2) It was, at least in part, Judaistic. This would not necessarily be proved by the reference to ‘the bond written in ordinances, in Colossians 2:14, though it is on the whole probable that the [[Mosaic]] Law is intended. But the specific allusions in Colossians 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 Hebrews 9:10. And this very Rabbinism is clearly alluded to in Colossians 2:8, ‘the tradition of men.’ The references to circumcision (Colossians 2:11; Colossians 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. </p> <p> (3) It claimed to be a ‘philosophy’ (Colossians 2:8), which St. Paul calls a ‘vain deceit.’ It seems to have been regarded as the revelation of a secret ‘wisdom and knowledge’ (Colossians 2:2; Colossians 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 ( <i> Judaistic Christianity </i> , 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. </p> <p> (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 (Colossians 2:18). St. Paul charges the teachers with reliance upon the spirits that control the elements of the universe rather than upon Christ (Colossians 2:8). That this is the true meaning of στοιχεῖα in this passage, as well as in Galatians 4:3; Galatians 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’ (Colossians 1:16; cf. Colossians 1:20; Colossians 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, <i> op. cit. </i> p. 476f.; cf. Lightfoot, <i> Col </i> . p. 68). </p> <p> (5) Whatever Colossians 2:23 precisely means, it shows that stress was laid upon asceticism, for which special rules were given (Colossians 2:16; Colossians 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. Paul’s counter-statement of the true Christian asceticism (Colossians 3:5 ff.). </p> <p> 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 [[Tübingen]] 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 Colossians 1:19. Asceticism, again, was a typical Gnostic feature, as was the emphasis on a secret wisdom or Gnosis (cf. Colossians 2:3) confined to an inner circle of initiates or τέλειοι (cf. Colossians 1:28, where St. Paul declares that every man is to be made τέλειος 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 πλήρωμα in Colossians 1:19 loses most of its point if it is used in the later technical sense (on the word see Lightfoot, <i> Col </i> . p. 323; J. A. Robinson, <i> Eph. </i> , 1903, p. 255; Peake on Colossians 1:19). It is far more probable that the later [[Gnostics]] derived their usage from that of St. Paul. </p> <p> 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, <i> Primitive Christianity </i> , 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. Paul’s attack. </p> <p> More plausible is the attempt to find in Col. on attack on the 1st cent. [[Gnosticism]] of [[Cerinthus]] (so, <i> e.g. </i> , 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 ( <i> Col </i> . 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. </p> <p> It has been suggested, especially by Lightfoot and Klöpper, that there was some connexion with the Jewish ascetic sect known as Essenes. But ( <i> a </i> ) 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, <i> de Vit. contempl. </i> , a much-disputed treatise. Lightfoot tries to find parallels in Acts for the use of magic (cf. Acts 19:13 with Jos. <i> Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) </i> II. 8. 6 <i> ad fin </i> .) and in the fourth book of the <i> Sibylline [[Oracles]] </i> , probably written in Asia <i> c. </i> [Note: . circa, about.]a.d. 80. Neither parallel amounts to much. ( <i> b </i> ) The [[Essenes]] jealously guarded the names of the angels (Jos. <i> Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) </i> II. viii. 7). This is a poor parallel for the Colossian cult, which more probably arose through a syncretistic admixture with Phrygian ideas. ( <i> c </i> ) The evidence that the Essenes forbade flesh and wine is disputable (see Zahn, <i> op. cit. </i> 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. ( <i> d </i> ) There is no sign in Col. of the alleged Essene sun-worship, of their communal life, their ablutions, their very severe probation and initiation. ( <i> e </i> ) 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 Klöpper, 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. <i> Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) </i> II. viii.; Lightfoot, <i> Col </i> . pp. 82ff., 115ff.; 5) </p> <p> We are thus driven to the conclusion that the Colossian heresy found its stimulus in contemporary Judaism, doubtless with syncretistic Phrygian features. Hort ( <i> Judaistic Christianity </i> , 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 God’s 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 <i> Evangelium Petri </i> , by Celsus, and several times in the Talmud. No objection to the authenticity of the Epistle need therefore be maintained upon this ground. </p> <p> <b> 6. The theology of the Epistle. </b> -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 (Colossians 1:15-17) is the thought implicit in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and in the whole doctrine of the Man from [[Heaven]] (1 Corinthians 15:47) regarded as pre-existent. That Christ is regarded also as the goal of creation (Colossians 1:16) is only in form an advance upon 1 Corinthians 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. Philippians 2:9-10). In Col. St. Paul is especially emphasizing the indwelling in Christ of the whole Godhead (Colossians 1:20; Colossians 2:9). And, indeed, in Colossians 1:20 the most natural rendering implies exactly the doctrine of 1 Corinthians 15:28, Romans 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. </p> <p> This raises the question of St. Paul’s 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: </p> <p> (1) The universe is animated by elemental spirits (Colossians 2:8). This conception appears also in Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9, and is in line with that of Psalms 104:4, a passage which has been taken over in Hebrews 1:7, though with a change of thought characteristic of later Judaism. Both the <i> Book of Jubilees </i> and <i> [[Enoch]] </i> speak of the spirits of such things as fire, mist, hail, the sea (cf. Revelation 14:18; Revelation 16:5). </p> <p> (2) There are different ranks of angels (Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:10; Colossians 2:15; cf. Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 15:24, where substantially the same language is used). This conception perhaps starts from Deuteronomy 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. <i> En. </i> lxi. 10). In the later Rabbinism ten orders were enumerated (cf. also the angels of the churches in Rev.). </p> <p> (3) In Colossians 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 Deuteronomy 33:2 (Septuagint). It is alluded to in Acts 7:53, Hebrews 2:2, Jos. <i> Ant </i> . xv. v. 3. </p> <p> (4) The angels, even the angel or angels of the Law, may be morally imperfect, and need reconciliation through the Cross (Colossians 1:20; Colossians 2:15). This is typically Pauline (cf. Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 11:10; 1 Corinthians 15:24, Galatians 1:8). It does not seem to be a very early Jewish conception, unless it appears in [[Genesis]] 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. Psalms 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. Paul’s 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, <i> Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie </i> , 1888; A. S. Peake, Introd. to ‘Col.’ in <i> Expositor’s Greek Testament </i> ; M. Dibelius, <i> Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des [[Paulus]] </i> , 1909.) </p> <p> <b> 7. Relation to Ephesians. </b> -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 Ephesians 2:1 to Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 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. </p> <p> 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 Holtzmann’s view, only admitted Colossians 1:15-20; Colossians 2:10; Colossians 2:15; Colossians 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. </p> <p> 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 Holtzmann’s 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 Ephesians 2:11-17 is full of the language of Colossians 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? </p> <p> <b> 8. Style and language. </b> -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. </p> <p> 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 ἄρα, διό, διότι, 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. </p> <p> 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; Colossians 2:18 and Colossians 2:23 are the most notable examples (in Colossians 2:18 C. Taylor’s ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων has been favoured by Westcott and Hort and Zahn, and is commonly accepted). The translation of Colossians 2:15 presents almost as many difficulties. </p> <p> Literature.-Editions.-Col. has been edited by H. J. Holtzmann (1872), A. Klöpper (1882), H. von Soden (1891), and Haupt (in Meyer’s <i> Com. </i> 8, 1899). J. B. Lightfoot’s <i> Colossians </i> (1st ed., 1875) is the standard Eng. work. Of recent Eng. [[Commentaries]] the most valuable are those by A. S. Peake ( <i> Expositor’s Greek Testament </i> , 1903), T. K. Abbott ( <i> International Critical [[Commentary]] </i> , 1897), and G. G. Findlay ( <i> [[Pulpit]] Commentary </i> , 1886). General.-F. J. A. Hort, <i> Judaistic Christianity </i> , 1894; W. Sanday, articlein Smith’s <i> Dict. of the Bible </i> 2, 1893; T. Zahn, <i> Einleitung in das NT </i> , 1897 (Eng. translation, <i> Introd </i> . <i> to NT </i> , 1909); H. von Soden, articles in <i> JPTh </i> [Note: PTh Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie.], 1885-87; J. Moffatt, <i> Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt). </i> 2, 1912. </p> <p> L. W. Grensted. </p>

<p> <strong> COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE </strong> </p> <p> 1. [[Authenticity]] . This Epistle is one of the ten Epistles of St. Paul included in Marcion’s 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 Irenæus, 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. </p> <p> As to the first objection, the Epistle is marked, to a greater degree than St. Paul’s 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. Paul’s 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. </p> <p> 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 <em> plçrôma </em> , 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. Paul’s 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. Paul’s own Christological ideas. It is irrational to deny the authenticity of an Epistle claiming to be St. Paul’s, 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.) </p> <p> Many German critics, such as Harnack and Jülicher, are now in agreement with the leading British scholars in accepting the Epistle as St. Paul’s. 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.) </p> <p> <strong> 2. [[Integrity]] and Text </strong> . 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. Paul’s, 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. Paul’s, jealously guarded as it would have been by the Church to which it was sent. </p> <p> <strong> 3. Time and Place of Writing </strong> . The Epistle to the Colossians belongs to the group of four Epistles written by St. Paul in captivity ( Colossians 4:3; Colossians 4:18 ). Of this group three the Epistles to ‘the Ephesians,’ to the Colossians, and to Philemon were written at the same time and sent by the same messenger, Tychicus. The remaining Epistle of the group that to the Philippians was almost certainly written from Rome towards the end of St. Paul’s 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. Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea. </p> <p> <strong> 4. [[Occasion]] and Purpose </strong> . Most of St. Paul’s 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 Colossæ 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 Apostle’s imprisonment ( Philippians 1:23 ), Tychicus was sent to Asia, taking with him this letter. (2) Onesimus, a runaway slave from Colossæ, 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 Colossæ, with a letter of commendation (see Philemon). </p> <p> 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 (Colossians 2:18 ). On its practical side it combined rigorous asceticism ( Colossians 2:23 ) and strict observance of Jewish ceremonial ( Colossians 2:18 ) with an arrogant claim to special enlightenment in spiritual things ( Colossians 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 Galatians the 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. </p> <p> <strong> 5. Summary </strong> . 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 ( Colossians 1:13 to Colossians 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 ( <em> plçrôma </em> ) 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 ( Colossians 2:4 to Colossians 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 ordinances ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not’ is 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 ( Colossians 3:5 to Colossians 4:6 ) applies this principle to various relations of life the 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 ( Colossians 4:7-18 ) deals with personal matters with the mission of Tychicus, with whom St. Paul tactfully associates Onesimus; with St. Mark’s 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. </p> <p> J. Howard B. Masterman. </p>

== Morrish Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_65623" /> ==

<p> 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.' </p> <p> After the salutation, and thanking God for what Paul had <i> heard </i> 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. Colossians 1:9-11 . Then he gives thanks for what God <i> had done </i> for them, which is true of all Christians. Colossians 1:12-14 . The glories of Christ follow: as man, and as the Creator-God: He is head of the body, the church. Colossians 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). Colossians 1:20-24 . Paul had a double ministry: in the gospel, Colossians 1:23; and in the church, Colossians 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. </p> <p> 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 Colossians 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 <i> negative </i> side. </p> <p> Colossians 3 : This gives the <i> positive </i> 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 <i> put off </i> , because the old man had been <i> put off </i> with his deeds. Then having <i> put on </i> the new man, a catalogue of things is given which in consistency therewith were to be <i> put on </i> (the display of Christ, who is 'in each one'): above all things was <i> love. </i> Peace was to <i> rule </i> their hearts, and the word of Christ to <i> dwell </i> 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. </p> <p> 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." </p>

== Easton's Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_31003" /> ==

<li> 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. <div> <p> Copyright StatementThese dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> Bibliography InformationEaston, Matthew George. Entry for 'Colossians, Epistle to the'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/c/colossians-epistle-to-the.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

== American Tract Society Bible Dictionary <ref name="term_15811" /> ==

<p> Was written by Paul, from Rome, A. D. 62. The occasion of the letter was the intelligence brought him by Epaphras, Colossians 1:6-8 , respecting the internal state of the church, which apparently he himself had not yet visited, Colossians 2:1 , though familiar with their history and affairs, Acts 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. </p>

<ref name="term_55322"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/colossians,+epistle+to+the Epistle To The Colossians from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref>

<ref name="term_65623"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/morrish-bible-dictionary/colossians,+epistle+to+the Epistle To The Colossians from Morrish Bible Dictionary]</ref>

<ref name="term_31003"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/easton-s-bible-dictionary/colossians,+epistle+to+the Epistle To The Colossians from Easton's Bible Dictionary]</ref>

<ref name="term_15811"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/american-tract-society-bible-dictionary/colossians,+epistle+to+the Epistle To The Colossians from American Tract Society Bible Dictionary]</ref>