COLOSSIANS,
EPISTLE
TO
THE
three
cities
naturally
formed
a
sphere
of
missionary
labour
for
Epaphras
(Epaphroditus),
an
inhabitant
of
Colosss
(Col
4H-
"),
Timothy
(Col
1>),
and
others.
St.
Paul
himself
never
visited
any
of
them
(Col
2').
It
has
been
suggested
with
great
probability
that
in
Rev
1"
3"
the
single
church
of
Laodicea
must
represent
the
other
churches
of
the
Lycus
valley
also.
The
church
in
Colossi
had
developed
Judaizing
tendencies
which
St.
Paul
found
it
necessary
to
combat
in
the
Epistle
which
has
come
down
to
us.
If,
as
seems
certain,
'
the
epistle
from
Laodicea
'
(Col
4i6)
is
our
'
Epistle
to
the
Ephesians,'
it
also
was
read
in
the
church
at
Colossae.
Both
letters
were
carried
from
Rome
by
Tychicus,
who
was
accom-panied
by
Onesimus,
whose
master
Philemon
was
an
inhabitant
of
Colossse.
See
also
following
article.
A.
SOUTBR.
COIOSSIANS,
EPISTLE
TO
THE
.-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
Irenaus,
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
ia
marked,
to
a
greater
degree
than
St.
Paul's
earlier
writinra,
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
earUer
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
midd^
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
earUer
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
showu
that
what
St.
Paul
has
in
view
is
not
a
system
of
teaching,
but
rather
a
tendency.
Words
like
pleroma,
to
which
later
Gnosticism^
gave
a
technical
sense,
are
used
in
this
Epistle
with
their
usual
non-technical
signification.
And
our
study
of
early
Chris-tian
and
Jewish
thought
has
shown
that
Gnostic
tendencies
date
from
a
much
earUer
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-incamate
Christ.
This
may
be
accounted
for
in
part
by
the
special
purpose
of
the
Epistle
(see
below),
and
m
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
impnsonment
that
must
have
given
him
special
opportunities
for
thought.
(See
Ephesians.)
Many
German
critics,
such
as
Harnack
and
JOlicher,
are
now
in
agreement
with
the
leading
British
scholars
in
accepting
the
Epistle
as
St.
Paul's.
The
authen-ticity
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.
Paul's,
which
he
tried
to
recon-struct
by
extracting
a
Pauline
nucleus
of
about
forty
verses;
but
his
conclusions
have
not
been
accepted
by
later
scholars.
More
recently,
von
Soden
has
pro-posed
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
COLOSSIANS,
EPISTLE
TO
THE
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
(i'-
").
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
Caesarea.
4.
Occasion
and
Purpose.
—
IVJostof
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
Colossse
a
position
somewhat
similar
to
that
which
Timothy
is
represented
in
the
Pastoral
Epistles
as
holding
in
Ephesus,
had
come
to
Rome
bringing
infor-mation
as
to
the
special
needs
and
dangers
of
the
Co-lossian
Church.
As
he
elected
to
remain
at
Rome,
and
apparently
shared
for
a
time
the
Apostle's
imprison-ment
(Philem
^3),
Tychicus
was
sent
to
Asia,
taking
with
him
this
letter.
(2)
Onesimus,
a
runaway
slave
from
Colossae,
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
Colossae,
with
a
letter
of
com-mendation
(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
KabbaUstic
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
(2").
On
its
practical
side
it
combined
rigorous
asceticism
(2^)
and
strict
observ-ance
of
Jewish
ceremonial
(2")
with
an
arrogant
claim
to
special
enlightenment
in
spiritual
things
(2").
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
Ufted
into
the
new
atmosphere
of
Uberty.
On
one
side,
therefore,
this
Epistle
may
be
compared
with
He
1,
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
Ufe
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,
thanks-giving,
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
(V^2')
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
(pl9rBma)
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
(2*-3*),
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
im-posed
ordinances
—
'Touch
not,
taste
not,
handle
not
'
—
is
a
Ufe
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
