Commentari biblici

We have here, I. The inscription, as usual, Col 1:1,2. II. His thanksgiving to God for what he had heard concerning them—their faith, love, and hope, Col 1:3-8. III. His prayer for their knowledge, fruitfulness, and strength, Col 1:9-11. IV. An admirable summary of the Christian doctrine concerning the operation of the Spirit, the person of the Redeemer, the work of redemption, and the preaching of it in the gospel, Col 1:12-29.

INTRODUCTION

The GENUINENESS of this Epistle is attested by JUSTIN MARTYR [Dialogue with Trypho, p. 311, B.], who quotes "the first-born of every creature," in reference to Christ, from

Col 1:15.

THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH [To Autolychus, 2, p. 100]. IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.14.1], quotes expressly from this "Epistle to the Colossians"

(Col 4:14).

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 1. p. 325], quotes

Col 1:28;

also elsewhere he quotes

Col 1:9-11, 28; 2:2, &c.; Col 2:8; 3:12, 14; 4:2, 3,

&c.

TERTULLIAN [The Prescription against Heretics, 7], quotes

Col 2:8;

[On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 23], and quotes

Col 2:12, 20; 3:1, 2.

ORIGEN [Against Celsus, 5.8], quotes

Col 2:18, 19.

Colosse (or, as it is spelt in the best manuscripts, "Colassæ") was a city of Phrygia, on the river Lycus, a branch of the Meander. The Church there was mainly composed of Gentiles (compare

Col 2:13).

ALFORD infers from

Col 2:1

(see on

Col 2:1),

that Paul had not seen its members, and therefore could not have been its founder, as THEODORET thought.

Col 1:7, 8

suggests the probability that Epaphras was the first founder of the Church there. The date of its foundation must have been subsequent to Paul's visitation, "strengthening in order" all the churches of Galatia and Phrygia

(Ac 18:24);

for otherwise we must have visited the Colossians, which

Col 2:1

implies he had not. Had Paul been their father in the faith, he would doubtless have alluded to the fact, as in

1Co 3:6, 10; 4:15; 1Th 1:5; 2:1.

It is only in the Epistles, Romans and Ephesians, and this Epistle, such allusions are wanting; in that to the Romans, because, as in this Church of Colosse, he had not been the instrument of their conversion; in that to the Ephesians, owing to the general nature of the Epistle. Probably during the "two years" of Paul's stay at Ephesus, when "all which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus"

(Ac 19:10, 26),

Epaphras, Philemon, Archippus, Apphia and the other natives of Colosse, becoming converted at Ephesus, were subsequently the first sowers of the Gospel seed in their own city. This will account for their personal acquaintance with, and attachment to, Paul and his fellow ministers, and for his loving language as to them, and their counter salutations to him. So also with respect to "them at Laodicea,"

(Col 2:1).

The OBJECT of the Epistle is to counteract Jewish false teaching, by setting before the Colossians their true standing in Christ alone (exclusive of all other heavenly beings), the majesty of His person, and the completeness of the redemption wrought by Him; hence they ought to be conformed to their risen Lord, and to exhibit that conformity in all the relations of ordinary life

Col 2:16,

"new moon, sabbath days," shows that the false teaching opposed in this Epistle is that of Judaizing Christians. These mixed up with pure Christianity Oriental theosophy and angel-worship, and the asceticism of certain sections of the Jews, especially the Essenes. Compare JOSEPHUS [Wars of the Jews, 2.8,13]. These theosophists promised to their followers a deeper insight into the world of spirits, and a nearer approach to heavenly purity and intelligence, than the simple Gospel affords. CONYBEARE and HOWSON think that some Alexandrian Jew had appeared at Colosse, imbued with the Greek philosophy of PHILO'S school, combining with it the Rabbinical theosophy and angelology which afterwards was embodied in the Cabbala. Compare JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 12.3,4], from which we know that Alexander the Great had garrisoned the towns of Lydia and Phrygia with two thousand Mesopotamian and Babylonian Jews in the time of a threatened revolt. The Phrygians themselves had a mystic tendency in their worship of Cybele, which inclined them to receive the more readily the incipient Gnosticism of Judaizers, which afterward developed itself into the strangest heresies. In the Pastoral Epistles, the evil is spoken of as having reached a more deadly phase

(1Ti 4:1-3; 6:5),

whereas he brings no charge of immorality in this Epistle: a proof of its being much earlier in date.

The PLACE from which it was written seems to have been Rome, during his first imprisonment there

(Ac 28:17-31).

In my

Introduction

to the Epistle to the Ephesians, it was shown that the three Epistles, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, were sent at the same time, namely, during the freer portion of his imprisonment, before the death of Burrus.

Col 4:3, 4; Eph 6:19, 20,

imply greater freedom than he had while writing to the Philippians, after the promotion of Tigellinus to be Prætorian Prefect. See

Introduction

to Philippians.

This Epistle, though carried by the same bearer, Tychicus, who bore that to the Ephesians, was written previously to that Epistle; for many phrases similar in both appear in the more expanded form in the Epistle to the Ephesians (compare also Note, see on

Eph 6:21).

The Epistle to the Laodiceans

(Col 4:16)

was written before that to the Colossians, but probably was sent by him to Laodicea at the same time with that to the Church at Colosse.

The STYLE is peculiar: many Greek phrases occur here, found nowhere else. Compare

Col 2:8,

"spoil you"; "making a show of them openly"

(Col 2:15);

"beguile of your reward," and "intruding"

(Col 2:18);

"will-worship"; "satisfying"

(Col 2:23);

"filthy communication"

(Col 3:8);

"rule"

(Col 3:15);

"comfort"

(Col 4:11).

The loftiness and artificial elaboration of style correspond to the majestic nature of his theme, the majesty of Christ's person and office, in contrast to the beggarly system of the Judaizers, the discussion of which was forced on him by the controversy. Hence arises his use of unusual phraseology. On the other hand, in the Epistle of the Ephesians, subsequently written, in which he was not so hampered by the exigencies of controversy, he dilates on the same glorious truths, so congenial to him, more at large, freely and uncontroversially, in the fuller outpouring of his spirit, with less of the elaborate and antithetical language of system, such as was needed in cautioning the Colossians against the particular errors threatening them. Hence arises the striking similarity of many of the phrases in the two Epistles written about the same time, and generally in the same vein of spiritual thought; while the peculiar phrases of the Epistle to the Colossians are such as are natural, considering the controversial purpose of that Epistle.

Introduction to Colossians

Section 1. The Situation of Colossae

Colossae, or, as it is written in many manuscripts, Colasse, was a celebrated city of Phrygia, in Asia Minor. It was in the southern part of that province, was nearly directly east of Ephesus, north of Laodicea, and nearly west of Antioch in Pisidia. It is mentioned by Herodotus (Polyhymn. Lib. viii. c. 30) as "a great city of Phrygia, in that part where the river Lycus descends into a chasm of the earth and disappears, but which, after a distance of five stadia, rises again and flows into the Meander " - ες τον Μαιανδρον es ton Maiandron. Xenophon also mentions the city of Colossae as being Πολις οικουμενη ευδαιμων και μεγαλη Polis oikoumenē eudaimōn kai megalē - "a city well inhabited, pleasant, and large." Expedi. Cyr. Lib. i. In the time of Strabo, however, it seems to have been much diminished in size, as it is mentioned by him among the "smaller towns" - polismata - , Lib. xii. p. 864.

In the latter part of the reign of Nero, and not long after this Epistle was written, Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, were at the same time overwhelmed by an earthquake. Pliny, Hist. Nat. Lib. v. c. 41. Colossae recovered, however, from this shock, and is mentioned by the Byzantine writers as among the most opulent cities; see Koppe, Prolegomena. The ancient town is now extinct, but its site is occupied by a village called Chonos, or Khonas. This village is described by Mr. Arundell as being situated most picturesquely under the immense range of Mount Cadmus, which rises to a very lofty and perpendicular height behind the Village, in some parts clothed with pines, in others bare of soil, with vast chasms and caverns. An immense perpendicular chasm, affords an outlet to a wide mountain torrent, the bed of which is dry in summer. The approach to the village is as wild as the village itself is beautiful, abounding in tall trees, from which vines of most luxuriant growth are suspended. In the immediate neighborhood are several vestiges of an ancient city, consisting of arches, vaults, squared stones, while the ground is strewed with broken pottery, which so generally and so remarkably indicates the site of ancient towns in the East. That these ruins are all that now remain of Colossae, there seems no reason to doubt.

Colossae, as has been remarked, was situated in Phrygia. On the name Phrygia, and the origin of the Phrygians, very different opinions have been entertained, which it is not necessary to specify in order to an understanding of this Epistle. They claimed to be the most ancient people of the world; and it is said that this claim was admitted by the Egyptians, who, though boastful of their own antiquity, were content to regard themselves as second to the Phrygians. Like other parts of Asia Minor which were distinguished as provinces under the Roman empire, Phrygia is first historically known as a kingdom, and continued such until it was made a province of the Lydian monarchy. It remained a province of that monarchy until Croesus, king of Lydia, was conquered by Cyrus of Persia, who added the Lydian kingdom to his empire. After that, Phrygia, like the rest of Asia Minor, became successively subject to the Greeks, the Romans, and the Turks. In the time when the gospel was preached there, it was subject to the Romans; it is now under the dominion of the Turks. Phrygia was anciently celebrated for its fertility; but, under the Moslem yoke, a great part of the country lies uncultivated.

Section 2. The Establishment of the Church in Colossae

The gospel was first preached in Phrygia by Paul and Silas, accompanied also by Timothy; Acts 15:40-41; Acts 16:1-3, Acts 16:6. It is said that they "went throughout Phrygia," which means, doubtless, that they went to the principal cities and towns; in Acts 18:23, it is said that Paul visited Phrygia again, after he had been to Philippi, Athens, Jerusalem, and Antioch. He "went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples." It is not, indeed, expressly said of Paul and Silas that they went to Colossae; but, since this was one of the principal cities of Phrygia, there is every reason to suppose that they preached the gospel there.

It has been doubted, however, whether Paul was ever at Colossae. It is expressly affirmed by Hug (Introduction), and by Koppe (Prolegomena), that Paul had not taught at Colossae himself, and that he had no personal acquaintance with the Christians there. It has been maintained that the gospel was, probably, first preached there by Epaphras, who heard the apostle at Ephesus, and who returned and preached the gospel to his own countrymen. The opinion that Paul had not been there, and was personally unacquainted with the church, is founded on his declaration in Colossians 2:1; "For 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." From this it is inferred that he was neither at Colossae nor at Laodicea. Yet it may be justly doubted whether this passage will authorize this conclusion. Theodoret long since suggested that the meaning of this was - "I have not only a concern for you, but I have also great concern for those who have not seen me." Dr. Lardner, however, maintains that the gospel was preached in Colossae by Paul. The reasons which he gives for the opinion are briefly these:

(1) The declarations of Luke, already quoted, that Paul more than once passed through Phrygia. The presumption is, that he would visit the chief cities of that province in passing and repassing through it. It is to be remembered that, according to Colossians 2:1, Colossae and Laodicea are placed on the same footing; and hence the difficulty of the supposition that he did not visit the former is increased. Can it be supposed that Paul would go again and again through that region, preaching the gospel in the points where it would be likely to exert the widest influence, and yet never visit either of these principal cities of the province, especially when it is remembered that Laodicea was the capital?

(2) Dr. Lardner appeals to what Paul says in Colossians 1:6; Colossians 2:6-7, in proof that he knew that they had been rightly taught the gospel. From this he infers that Paul had himself communicated it to them. This conclusion is not perfectly clear, since it is certain that Paul might have known their first teachers, and been satisfied that they taught the truth; but it is such language as he would have used on the supposition that he was the spiritual father of the church.

(3) Epaphras, says Dr. Lardner, was not their first instructor in the gospel. This he infers from what is said of him in Colossians 1:7, and in Colossians 4:12-13. He is commended as "one of them," as a "fellow-servant," as "a faithful minister of Christ," as one "beloved." But he is not spoken of as sustaining any nearer relation to them. If he had been the founder of their church, he thinks it is incredible that there is no allusion to this fact in writing to them; that the apostle should have spoken more than once of him, and never referred to his agency in establishing the church there.

(4) Paul does, in effect, say that he had himself dispensed the gospel to these Colossians; Colossians 1:21-25. The salutations at the end of the Epistle, to various persons at Laodicea and Colossae, show that he was personally acquainted there. See these and other reasons drawn out in Lardner's Works, vol. vi., pp. 151ff, Ed. Lond. 1829. The considerations suggested by Dr. Lardner seem to me to be sufficient to render it in the highest degree probable that the church at Colossae was founded by Paul.

Section 3. When and Where the Epistle Was Written

This Epistle is believed to have been written at Rome, when Paul was a prisoner there, and at about the same time that the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to Philemon, were written; and that they were all sent by the same persons. It is said in the Epistle itself Colossians 4:7, Colossians 4:9, that it was sent by Tychicus and Onesimus, both of whom are commended as "faithful and beloved" brethren. But the Epistle to the Ephesians was written at Rome (see the introduction) and was sent by Tychicus Ephesians 6:21; and the Epistle to Philemon was sent by Onesimus. It is probable, therefore, that these persons visited Ephesus, Colossae, and the place where Philemon resided; or, rather, that Tychicus and Onesimus visited Colossae together, and that then Tychicus went to Ephesus, and Onesimus went to his former master Philemon. That this Epistle and the one to Philemon were written at about the same time, is further apparent from the fact that Epaphras is mentioned in both as with the apostle, and as joining in the salutation; Colossians 4:12; Plm 1:23. The Epistle to the Colossians bears internal marks of having been written at Rome, when the apostle was a prisoner. Thus, in Colossians 1:24, he says, "who now rejoice in my sufferings for you;" Colossians 4:18, "Remember my bonds." If this be so, then it is not difficult to fix the date of the Epistle with some degree of accuracy. This would be about the year 62 ad.

Section 4. The Occasion and Design of the Epistle

The general drift of this Epistle has a strong resemblance to that addressed to the Ephesians, and it bears internal marks of being from the same hand. It was evidently written in view of errors which extensively prevailed among the churches of that part of Asia Minor, and was designed to inculcate the same general duties. It is of importance, therefore, to possess a general understanding of the nature of these errors, in order to a correct interpretation of the Epistle.

The church at Colossae was one of a circle or group of churches, lying near each other, in Asia Minor; and it is probable that the same general views of philosophy, and the same errors, prevailed throughout the entire region where they were situated. That group of churches embraced those at Ephesus, Laodicea, Thyatira, and, in general, those addressed in the Apocalypse as "the seven churches of Asia." From some of the notices of those churches in the New Testament, as well as from the Epistle before us, we may learn what errors prevailed there in general, and against what form of error particularly the Epistle to the Colossians was designed to guard.

(1) several classes of errorists are mentioned as existing within the limits of the "seven churches of Asia." Thus, in the church at Ephesus, "those which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" Revelation 2:2; in Smyrna, those "which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan" Revelation 2:9; in Thyatira, "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess" Revelation 2:20; in Pergamos, "them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes;" those "who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel" Revelation 2:14-15. The near proximity of these churches to Colossae would render it probable that the infection of these errors might have reached that church also.

(2) the apostle Paul, in his parting speech to the elders of the church at Ephesus, alludes to dangerous teachers to which the church there might be exposed, in such a manner as to show that there was some peculiar danger from such teachers in that community. "For I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them;" Acts 20:29-30. He does not specify, indeed, the kind of danger to which they would be exposed; but it is evident that the danger arose from plausible teachers of error. These were of two classes - those who would come in from abroad, implying probably that there were such teachers in the neighboring churches; and such as would spring up among themselves.

(3) in that vicinity there appear to have been numerous disciples of John the Baptist, retaining many Jewish prejudices and prepossessions, who would be tenacious of the observances of the Mosaic law. What were their views, is not precisely known. But it is clear that they regarded the Jewish law as still binding; that they would be rigid in its observance, and in insisting on its observance by others; that they had at best, if any, a very imperfect acquaintance with Christianity; and that they were ignorant of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, and of the fact that that had been poured out in a remarkable manner under the preaching of the apostles. Paul found a number of these disciples of John at Ephesus, who professed not to have received the Holy Spirit, and who said that they had been baptized unto John's baptism; Acts 19:1-3. Among the most distinguished and influential of the disciples of John in that region was Apollos Acts 18:24-25, who is represented as an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures. He taught at Ephesus, but how long before he was made more fully acquainted with the gospel, is unknown.

He is represented as having been zealously engaged in that work, and as being eminently successful; Acts 18:25. There is no reason to doubt that he contributed not a little in diffusing, in that region, the peculiar views held by those who were known as the disciples of John. What was precisely the doctrine which Apollos taught, before "the way of God was expounded more perfectly to him" Acts 18:26, is not now known. There is every reason, however, to suppose that he would insist on the observance of the Jewish laws, and the customs of their nation. The opinions which would be likely to be defended by one in his circumstances, would be those which prevailed when John preached - when the law of Moses was considered to be in full force, and when it was necessary to observe all his institutions. the Jewish law among the churches would be likely to appeal with great force to the sentiments of so good and so eloquent a man as Apollos. So extensive was his influence, that Koppe supposes that the principal errors prevailing in the churches in Phrygia, which it was the design of the apostle in this Epistle to correct, could be traced to the influence of the disciples of John, and especially to the teachings of this eloquent man. Prolegomena, p. 160.

(4) If we look into the Epistle itself, we shall be able to determine with some degree of certainty the errors which prevailed, and which it was the design of this Epistle to correct, and we shall find that they correspond remarkably with what we might anticipate, from what we have seen to be the errors abounding in that region.

(a) Their first danger arose from the influence of philosophy; Colossians 2:4-8. The apostle warns them to beware lest any one should "beguile them with enticing words;" he cautions them against "philosophy and vain deceit " - a philosophy that was based on the "tradition of men," "after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Such philosophy might be expected to prevail in those cities so near to Greece, and so much imbued with the Grecian spirit, and one of the chief dangers which would beset them would arise from its prevalence.

(b) A second source of danger referred to, was that arising from the influence of those who insisted on the observance of the rites and customs of the Jewish religion. This the apostle refers to in Colossians 2:16. "Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days." These are subjects on which the Jews would insist much, and in this respect the disciples of John would be likely to sympathize entirely with them. It is evident that there were those among them who were endeavoring to enforce the observance of these things.

(c) There is some evidence of the prevalence there of a philosophy more Oriental than Grecian - a philosophy that savored of Gnosticism. This philosophy was subsequently the foundation of a large part of the errors that crept into the church. Indications of its prevalence in Colossae, occur in places like the following; Colossians 2:9 - "For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" from which it would seem probable that there were those who denied that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt physically in the Lord Jesus - a favorite doctrine of the Gnostics, who maintained that the assumption of human nature by the Son of God, was in appearance only, and that he died on the cross only in appearance, and not in reality. So in Colossians 2:18, there is a reference to "a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which are not seen, and which tend vainly to puff up a fleshly mind" - a description that will apply with remarkable accuracy to the homage paid by the Gnostics to the AEons, and to the general efforts of those who held the doctrines of that philosophy to intrude into those things which are not seen, and to offer an explanation of the mode of the divine existence, and the nature of the divine agency. See notes on the verses here referred to. It will contribute not a little to a proper understanding of this Epistle, to keep these things in remembrance respecting the kind of philosophy which prevailed in the region in which Colossae was situated, and the nature of the dangers to which they were exposed.

(5) it will be seen from these remarks, and from the Epistle itself, that the difficulties in the church at Colossae did not relate to the moral and religious character of its members. There is no mention of any improper conduct, either in individuals or in the church at large, as there was in the church at Corinth; there is no intimation that they had been guilty of any sins but such as were common to all pagans before conversion. There are, indeed, intimations that they were exposed to sin, and there are solemn charges against indulgence in it. But the sins to which they were exposed were such as prevailed in all the ancient pagan world, and doubtless such as the Gentile part of the church particularly, had been guilty of before their conversion. The following sins particularly are mentioned: "Fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, covetousness, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications, and lying;" Colossians 3:5-9. These were common sins among the pagan (compare the notes at Romans 1), and to a relapse into these they were particularly exposed; but it does not appear that any of the members of the church had given occasion for public reproach, or for apostolic reproof, by falling into them. As they were sins, however, in which they had formerly indulged Colossians 3:7, and as they were therefore the more liable to fall into them again, there was abundant occasion for all the solicitude which the apostle manifests on the subject.

From the remarks now made, it is easy to see what was the design of the Epistle to the Colossians. It was primarily to guard the church against the errors to which it was exposed from the prevalence of false philosophy, and from the influence of false teachers in religion; to assert the superior claims of Christianity over all philosophy, and its independence of the peculiar rites and customs of the Jewish religion.

It has been asked why the apostle wrote an epistle to the church at Colossae, rather than to the church in Laodicea, especially as Laodicea was the capital of Phrygia? And it has been asked also, why an epistle was addressed to that church so strikingly resembling the Epistle to the Ephesians (see Section 5), especially as it has been supposed that the Epistle to the Ephesians was designed to be a circular letter, to be read by the churches in the vicinity. The reasons why an epistle was addressed particularly to the church at Colossae, seem to have been such as the following:

(1) Onesimus was at that time with Paul at Rome, and was about to return to his master Philemon, at Colossae; see the Introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. It was perfectly natural that Paul should avail himself of the opportunity thus afforded him, to address a letter to the church at Colossae also.

(2) Epaphras, a principal teacher of the church at Colossae, was also with Paul at Rome; Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:12. He was at that time a fellow-prisoner with him Plm 1:23, and it is not improbable that it was at his solicitation particularly that this Epistle was written. Paul had learned from him the state of the church at Colossae Colossians 1:6-7, and it is not impossible, as Koppe conjectures, that he had been sent to Rome by the church to seek the counsel of the apostle in the state of things which then existed in Colossae. Epaphras was, at any rate, greatly interested in the state of things in the church, as well as in the condition of the churches at Laodicea and Hierapolis Colossians 4:13, and nothing was more natural than that he should endeavor to induce the apostle to direct a letter that might be of benefit to them all.

(3) a particular reason for sending this Epistle appears to have been to confirm the authority of Epaphras, and to give the sanction of the apostle to the truths which he had taught. In their difficulties and dangers Epaphras had taken an important part in giving them counsel. His views might have been opposed; or his authority might have been disputed by the teachers of error there, and it was important that the apostolic sanction should be given to what he had taught. Hence, the apostle speaks with so much affection of Epaphras, and so warmly of him as a faithful servant of Christ; Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:12-13.

(4) it may be added, that; although there is a strong resemblance between this Epistle and that to the Ephesians, and although it may be regarded as probable that the Epistle to the Ephesians was intended in part as a circular, yet this Epistle would not have been needless. It contains many things which are not in that Epistle; is especially adapted to the state of things in the church at Colossae, and would have the greater weight with Christians there from being specifically addressed to them. See Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, vol. v. 122, and Koppe, Prolegomena pp. 163, 164.

Section 5. The Resemblance between this Epistle and the Epistle to the Ephesians

Every person who has given any considerable degree of attention to this Epistle, must have been struck with its remarkable similarity to the Epistle to the Ephesians. That resemblance is greater by far than exists between any other two of the epistles of Paul - a resemblance not only in the general style and manner which may be expected to characterize the different productions of the same author, but extending to the course of thought; the structure of the argument; the particular instructions, and to some phrases which do not occur elsewhere. This similarity relates particularly to the following points:

(1) In the representation of the reason for which the apostle was imprisoned at Rome. This resemblance, Dr. Paley (Horae Paul) remarks, is too close to be accounted for from accident, and yet too indirect and latent to be imputed to design, and is one which cannot easily be resolved into any other source than truth. It is not found in any other of his epistles. It consists in this, that Paul in these two epistles attributes his imprisonment not to his preaching Christianity in general, but to his asserting the right of the Gent footing with the Jews, and without being obliged to conform themselves to the Jewish law. This was the doctrine to which he considered himself a martyr. Thus, in Colossians 1:24, he says, "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you;" and in Colossians 2:1, "for I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea." That is, his conflicts and trials, his imprisonment and danger of death, had somehow come upon him in consequence of his endeavoring to spread the gospel in such places as Colossae and Laodicea. These were Gentile communities; and the meaning is, that his trials were the result of his efforts to preach among the Gentiles. The same representation is made in the Epistle to the Ephesians - likewise written from Rome during his imprisonment. "For this cause I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles;" Colossians 3:1.

And this coincidence is also apparent by comparing two other places in the epistles. Thus, Colossians 4:3, "Praying for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance to speak the mysteries of Christ, for which I am in bonds." An allusion to the same "mystery" occurs also in the Epistle to the Ephesians. "Whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ - that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel;" Colossians 3:4-6. In the Acts of the Apostles the same statement occurs in regard to the cause for which the apostle was persecuted and imprisoned - and it is on this coincidence, which is so evidently undesigned, that Paley has founded the argument for the genuineness of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. Horae Paulinae. The statement in the Acts of the Apostles is, that the persecutions of Paul which led to his appeal to the Roman emperor and to his imprisonment, at Rome, were in consequence of his maintaining that the Gentiles were, in the Christian administration, to be admitted to the same privileges as the Jews, or that there was no distinction between them in the matter of salvation; and his sufferings, therefore, were, as he says, "in behalf of the Gentiles." See, particularly, Acts 21:28; Acts 22:21-22. From these passages it appears that the offence which drew down on Paul the vengeance of his countrymen was, his mission to the Gentiles, and his maintaining that they were to be admitted to the privileges of salvation on the same terms as the Jews.

(2) there is a strong resemblance between the course of thought and the general structure of the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. To an extent that does not occur in any other of Paul's epistles, the same topics are introduced, and in the same order and connection. Indeed, in some portions, they are almost identical. Particularly the order in which the various topics are introduced is nearly the same. The following portions of the two epistles will be seen to correspond with each other.

Ephesians Colossians Ephesians 1:15-19 with Colossians 1:9-11 Ephesians 1:20-23 with Colossians 1:15-19 Ephesians 1:10 with Colossians 1:20 Ephesians 2:1-10 with Colossians 1:21-23 Ephesians 3:7 with Colossians 1:25 Ephesians 3:9-10 with Colossians 1:26-27 Ephesians 3:17 with Colossians 2:7 Ephesians 2:11-22 with Colossians 2:11-15 Ephesians 4:14 with Colossians 2:8 Ephesians 4:15-16 with Colossians 2:19 Ephesians 4:25 with Colossians 3:9 Ephesians 4:22-24 with Colossians 3:9-10 Ephesians 4:32 with Colossians 3:12 Ephesians 5:19-20 with Colossians 3:16-17 Ephesians 5:21; Ephesians 6:6-9 with Colossians 3:18-22; Colossians 4:1 Ephesians 6:19 with Colossians 4:3 Ephesians 5:16 with Colossians 4:5 Ephesians 6:21 with Colossians 4:7

This resemblance, thus carried almost through the Epistle, shows that there was a similarity of condition in the two churches in reference to the dangers to which they were exposed, the kind of philosophy which prevailed, the false teachers who might have an influence over them, and the particular duties to which it was desirable their attention should be turned. There is, indeed, some considerable variety of phraseology in the discussion of these topics, but still the resemblance is remarkable, and would indicate that the epistles were written not far from the same time, and clearly by the same person. It is remarkable, among other things, as Michaelis has observed, that it is only in these two epistles that the apostle warns his readers against lying; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9. Hence, we may conclude that this vice was one that particularly prevailed in the region where these churches were situated, and that the members of these churches had been particularly addicted to this vice before their conversion.

Section 6. The Epistle from Laodicea

In Colossians 4:16 of this Epistle, the apostle gives this direction: "And when this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea." The former part of this verse is clear, and the direction was given, doubtless, because the churches of Colossae and Laodicea were in the vicinity of each other, and the instructions were adapted to both churches. Doubtless the same form of philosophy prevailed, and the churches were exposed to the same errors. But it is not so clear what is meant by the "Epistle from Laodicea." The most natural and obvious interpretation would be, that Paul had sent a letter also to that church, and that he wished them to procure it and read it. But no such epistle is now extant, and, consequently, much difficulty has been felt in determining what the apostle referred to. A brief examination of the opinions entertained on the subject seems necessary in this place. They are the following:

1. It has been supposed that the reference is to a letter sent from the Laodiceans to Paul, proposing to him some questions which they desired him to answer, and that he now wishes the Colossians to procure that letter, in order that they might more fully understand the drift of the Epistle which he now sent to them. This opinion was held by Theodoret, and has been defended by Storr, Rosenmuller, and others. But the objections to it are obvious and conclusive.

(1) it is not the fair meaning of the language used by Paul. If he had referred to a letter to him, he would have said so; whereas the obvious meaning of the language used is, that the Colossians were to procure a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans, in exchange for the one which they now received from Paul. The churches were to make an exchange of letters, and one church was to read that which had been addressed to the other.

(2) if the letter had been addressed to Paul, it was doubtless in his possession; and if he wished the church at Colossae to read it, nothing would be more natural or obvious than to send it, by Tychicus, along with the letter which he now sent. Why should he give directions to send to Laodicea to procure a copy of it?

(3) if a letter had been sent to him by the Laodiceans, proposing certain questions, why did he send the answer to the church at Colossae, and not to the church at Laodicea? The church at Laodicea would certainly have been the one that was entitled to the reply. There would have been a manifest impropriety in sending an epistle to one church, made up of answers to questions proposed by another, and then at the end requesting them to procare those questions, that they might understand the Epistle.

(4) it may be added, that it is not necessary to suppose that there was any such epistle, in order to understand this Epistle to the Colossians. This is not more difficult of interpretation than the other epistles of Paul, and does not furnish in its structure any particular evidence that it was sent in answer to inquiries which had been proposed to the author.

2. It has been supposed by some that the epistle referred to was one written to Timothy, by the apostle himself, at Laodicea. This opinion was defended by Theophylact. The only show of authority for it is the subscription at the end of the First Epistle to Timothy - "The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana." But that this is erroneous, can be easily shown.

(1) the subscription to the Epistle to Timothy is of no authority.

(2) if this Epistle had been referred to, Paul would not have designated it in this manner. It would have been rather by mentioning the person to whom it was addressed, than the place where it was written.

(3) there is nothing in the Epistle to Timothy which would throw any important light on this to the Colossians, or which would be particularly important to them as a church. It was addressed to one individual, and it contains counsels adapted to a minister of the gospel, rather than to a church.

3. Many have supposed that the "Epistle from Laodicea," referred to, was one which Paul had written to the Laodiceans, partly for they use, but which was of the nature of a circular epistle, and that we still have it under another name. Those who hold this opinion suppose that the Epistle to the Ephesians is the one referred to, and that it was, in fact, sent also to the church at Laodicea. See this question treated at length in the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians, Section 5. The reasons for supposing that the Epistle now known as the "Epistle to the Ephesians" was neither a circular letter, nor addressed to the church at Laodicea, are there given. But if the common reading of the text in Ephesians 1:1, "the saints which are at Ephesus," be correct, then it is clear that that Epistle was really sent to the church in that place. The only question, then, is, whether it is of so general a character that it might as well be sent to other churches as to that, and whether Paul actually sent it as a circular, with a direction to different churches? Against this supposition, there are strong improbabilities:

(1) It is contrary to the usual practice of Paul. He addressed letters to particular churches and individuals; and, unless this case be one, there is no evidence that he ever adopted the practice of sending the same letter to different individuals or churches.

(2) there would have been some impropriety in it, if not dishonesty. An avowed circular letter, addressed to churches in general, or to any number whose names are enumerated, would be perfectly honest. But how would this be, if the same letter was addressed to one church, and then, with a new direction, addressed to another, with no intimation of its circular character? Would there not be a species of concealment in this which we should not expect of Paul?

(3) how happens it, if this had occurred, that all remembrance of it was forgotten? When those epistles were collected, would not the attention be called to the fact, and some record of it be found in some ancient writer Would it fail to be adverted to that the same epistle had been found to have been addressed to different churches, with a mere change in the name?

4. There is but one other opinion which can exist on this question; and that is, that the apostle refers to some letter which had been sent to the Laodiceans, which we have not now in the New Testament. If this be so, then the reference could only be to some epistle which may be extant elsewhere, or which is now lost. There is an epistle extant which is known by the name of "Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans;" but it has no well-founded claims to being a genuine epistle of Paul, and is universally regarded as a forgery. "It is," says Michaelis, "a mere rhapsody, collected from Paul's other epistles, and which no critic can receive as a genuine work of the apostle. It contains nothing which it was necessary for the Colossians to know, nothing which is not ten times better and more fully explained in the Epistle which Paul sent to the Colossians; in short, nothing which could be suitable to Paul's design."

Introduction to the New Testament iv. 127. The Greek of this Epistle may be found at length in Michaelis; and, as it may be a matter of curiosity, and will show that this cannot be the Epistle referred to by Paul in Colossians 4:16, I will subjoin here a translation. It is as follows: "Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren in Laodicea. Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God in Christ always, in my prayers, that you are mindful of and are persevering in good works, waiting for the promise in the day of judgment. And let not the vain speeches of some who would conceal the truth disturb you, to turn you away from the truth of the gospel which has been preached unto you. Now God grant that all they who are of me may be borne forward to the perfection of the truth of the gospel, to perform those excellent good works which become the salvation of eternal life.

And now are my bonds manifest, in which bonds I am in Christ, and at the present time; but I rejoice, for I know that this shall be for the furtherance of my salvation, which is through your prayer and the supply of the Holy Spirit, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is joy. But our Lord himself shall grant you his mercy with us, that, possessing love you may be of the same mind and think the same thing. On this account, brethren, as ye have heard of the appearing of the Lord, so think and do in the fear of God, and it shall be eternal life to you, for it is God who worketh in you. Do all things without complaints and disputings. And for the remainder, brethren, rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and see that ye keep yourselves from all base gain of covetousness. Let all your requests be made known with boldness unto God, and be firm in the mind of Christ. And finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are holy, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are lovely, these things do.

And what you have heard and received, keep in your hearts, and it shalt give you peace. Salute all the brethren with an holy kiss. All the saints salute you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Cause that this epistle be read in the church of the Colossians, and do you also read the epistle from Colossae." Nothing can be plainer than that this is not such an epistle as the apostle Paul would have written; it is therefore a mere forgery. The conclusion to which we are conducted is, that the reference in Colossians 4:16, is to some epistle of Paul to the church at Laodicea which is not now extant, and that the probability is, that, having accomplished the object for which it was sent, it has been suffered to be lost. Thus, it is to be numbered with the writings of Gad, and Iddo the seer, and Nathan, and the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the book of Jehu 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 20:34; 1 Kings 16:1; works which, having accomplished the object for which they were composed, have been suffered to become extinct.

Nor is there anything improbable or absurd in the supposition that an inspired book may have been lost. There is no special sacredness in a mere writing, or in the fact that inspired truth was recorded, that makes it indispensable that it should be preserved. The oral discourses of the Saviour were as certainly inspired as the writings of Paul; and yet but a small part of what he said has been preserved; John 21:25. Why should there be any improbability in supposing that an inspired book may also have been lost? And, if it has, how does that fact weaken the evidence of the importance or the value of what we now possess? How does the fact that a large part of the sermons of the Saviour have perished, by not being recorded, diminish the value, or lessen the evidence of the divine authority, of the Sermon on the Mount?

This chapter embraces the following topics:

(1) The usual salutation to the church; Colossians 1:1-2.

(2) thanks to God for what He had done for the Colossians, and for the fruits of the gospel among them; Colossians 1:3-8.

(3) prayer that they might persevere in the same course, and might walk worthy of their calling; Colossians 1:9-11.

(4) an exhortation to render thanks to God for what He had done for them in redemption; Colossians 1:12-14.

(5) a statement of the exalted dignity of the Redeemer; Colossians 1:15-18.

(6) a statement of what Christ had done in the work of redemption, in making peace by the blood of his cross and reconciling the world to God; Colossians 1:19-20.

(7) through this gospel, Paul says, they had been reconciled to God, and were now brought into a state in which they might be presented as holy and unblameable in his sight; Colossians 1:21-23.

(8) of this gospel, Paul says he was a minister; in preaching it he had been called to endure trials, but those trials he endured with joy; and in preaching this gospel he used the utmost diligence, warning every man, and teaching every person in all wisdom, so that he might present each one perfect in Christ Jesus; Colossians 1:24-29.

Preface to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians

Colosse, or rather Colassa, (see on Colossians 1:1 (note)), was a city of Phrygia Pacatiana, now a part of Natolia, in Asia Minor, seated on an eminence on the south side of the river Maeander, now Meinder, near to the place where the river Lycas enters the earth, and begins to run under ground, which course it continues for about three-quarters of a mile, before it emerges and falls into the Maeander. Of this ancient city not much is known: it was situated between Laodicea and Hierapolis, and at an equal distance from either; and to this place Xerxes came in his expedition against Greece.

The government of this city is said to have been democratic, and its first magistrate bore the title of archon and praetor. The Macedonians transferred Colosse to the Persians; and it afterwards passed under the government of the Seleucidae. After the defeat of Antiochus III., at the battle of Magnesia, it became subject to Eumenes, king of Pergamus: and when Attalus, the last of his successors, bequeathed his dominions to the Romans, this city, with the whole of Phrygia, formed a part of the proconsular province of Asia; which division subsisted till the time of Constantine the Great. After the time of this emperor, Phrygia was divided into Phrygia Pacatiana, and Phrygia Salutaris: and Colosse was the sixth city of the first division.

The ancient city of Colosse has been extinct for nearly eighteen hundred years; for about the tenth year of the Emperor Nero, about a year after the writing of this epistle, not only Colosse, but Laodicea and Hierapolis, were destroyed by an earthquake, according to Eusebius; and the city which was raised in the place of the former was called Chonos or Konos, which name it now bears. See New Encyclopedia. On modern maps Konos is situated about twenty miles NE. of Degnizlu, in lat. about 38 north, and in long. 29 40' east of London.

The epistle to this city appears to have been written about the same time with that to the Philippians, viz. towards the end of the year 62, and in the ninth of the Emperor Nero.

That the two epistles were written about the same time is rendered probable by the following circumstance: In the Epistle to the Philippians, Philippians 2:19, St. Paul purposes to send Timothy to Philippi, who was then with him at Rome, that he might know their state. As Timothy joins with the apostle in the salutation at the beginning of this epistle, it is evident that he was still at Rome, and had not yet been sent to Philippi; and as St. Paul wrote the former epistle nearly at the close of his first imprisonment at Rome, the two epistles must have been written within a short space of each other. See the preface to the Epistle to the Philippians.

When, or by whom, Christianity was first preached at Colosse, and a Church founded there, we cannot tell; but it is most likely that it was by St. Paul himself, and during the three years in which he dwelt at Ephesus; for he had then employed himself with such zeal and diligence that we are told, Acts 19:10 : "That all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." And that Paul preached in Phrygia, the district in which this city was situated, we learn from Acts 16:6 : "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia;" and at another time we find that "he went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples;" Acts 18:23. It has, however, been argued, from Colossians 2:1, of this epistle, that Paul had never been at Colosse; for he there 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. But the consequence drawn from these words does not absolutely follow. Dr. Lardner alleges a variety of considerations which induced him to believe that the Churches of Colosse and Laodicea were founded by St. Paul, viz.

1. That the apostle was twice in Phrygia, in which were Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis. See the places above quoted from the Acts of the Apostles.

2. That he does in effect, or even expressly, say that he had dispensed the Gospel to the Colossians, Colossians 1:21-25. See particularly the 23rd, 24th, and 25th verses.

3. From several passages in the epistle it appears that the apostle does not speak as to strangers, but to acquaintances, disciples, and converts. Some think that Epaphras, who is called their apostle, Colossians 1:7, was the first who planted Christianity among the Colossians.

But the arguments drawn from Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23, referred to above, are quite invalidated, if we allow the opinion of some learned men, among whom are Suidas, Calepine, Munster, and others, that the Colossus, a gigantic statue at Rhodes, gave its own name to the people among whom it stood; for the ancient poets call the inhabitants of the island of Rhodes, Colossians; and hence they thought that the Colossians, to whom St. Paul directs this epistle, were the inhabitants of Rhodes. This opinion, however, is not generally adopted. From a great similarity in the doctrine and phraseology of this epistle to that written to the Ephesians, this to the Colossians has been considered an epitome of the former, as the Epistle to the Galatians has been considered an abstract of that to the Romans. See the concluding observations on the Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 5:17 (note)); and the notes on Colossians 1:4 (note), and elsewhere.

Whether the Colossians to whom the apostle addresses this epistle were Jews or Gentiles, cannot be absolutely determined. It is most probable that they were a mixture of both; but that the principal part were converted Jews is most likely. This, indeed, appears to have been the case in most of the Asiatic and Grecian Churches; for there were Jews, at this time, sojourning in almost every part of the Roman empire, which then comprehended the greatest portion of the known world.

The language of this epistle is bold and energetic, the sentiments are grand, and the conceptions vigorous and majestic. The phraseology is in many places Jewish; and the reason is obvious: the apostle had to explain subjects which never had a name in any other language. The mythology of the Gentiles could not furnish terms to explain the theology of the Jews; much less, the more refined and spiritual system of Christianity.

The salutation of Paul and Timothy to the Church at Colosse, Colossians 1:1, Colossians 1:2. They give thanks to God for the good estate of that Church, and the wonderful progress of the Gospel in every place, Colossians 1:3-6; having received particulars of their state from Epaphroditus, which not only excited their gratitude, but led them to pray to God that they might walk worthy of the Gospel; and they give thanks to Him who had made them meet for an inheritance among the saints in light, Colossians 1:7-12. This state is described as a deliverance from the power of darkness, and being brought into the kingdom of God's dear Son, Colossians 1:13, Colossians 1:14. The glorious character of Jesus Christ, and what He has done for mankind, Colossians 1:15-20. The salvation which the Colossians had received, and of which the apostle had been the minister and dispenser, Colossians 1:21-26. The sum and substance of the apostle's preaching, and the manner in which he executed his ministry, Colossians 1:27-29.

INTRODUCTION TO COLOSSIANS

The Colossians, to whom this epistle is written, were not the Rhodians, by some called Colossians, from Colossus, the large statue of the sun, which stood in the island of Rhodes, and was one of the seven wonders of the world; but the inhabitants of Colosse, a city of the greater Phrygia, in the lesser Asia, near to which stood the cities of Laodicea and Hierapolis, mentioned in this epistle. Pliny (a) speaks of it as one of the chief towns in Phrygia, and (b) Herodotus calls it the great city of Phrygia; it is said to have perished a very little time after the writing of this epistle, with the above cities, by an earthquake, in the year of Christ 66, and in the tenth of Nero (c); though it was afterwards rebuilt; for Theophylact says, that in his time it was called Chonae. When the Gospel was brought hither, and by whom, is not known, nor who was the founder of the church in this place; for the Apostle Paul was not, since his face had never been seen by them, Colossians 2:1, though it is said that Epaphras, the same name with Epaphroditus, was fixed by him pastor of this church; and others say Philemon was set over it by him. The occasion of this epistle was this, Epaphras, who had preached the Gospel to the Colossians, and very likely was the first that did, came to Rome, where the Apostle Paul was a prisoner, and gave him an account of them, how they had heard and received the Gospel, and of their faith Christ, and love to the saints; and also declared to him in what danger they were through some false teachers that had got among them, who were for introducing the philosophy of the Gentiles, the ceremonies of the law of Moses, and some pernicious tenets of the followers of Simon Magus, and the Gnostics; upon which the apostle writes this epistle to them, to confirm them in the faith of the Gospel Epaphras had preached unto them, and which was the same he himself preached; and to warn them against those bad men, and their principles; and to exhort them to a discharge of their duty to God, and men, and one another. It was written by the apostle, when in bonds at Rome, as many passages in it show, and about the same time with those to the Philippians and Ephesians; and the epistle to the latter greatly agrees with this, both as to subject and style. Dr. Lightfoot places it in the year of Christ 60, in the second of the apostle's imprisonment, and in the sixth of Nero's reign.

(a) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 32. (b) Polymnia, l. 7. c. 30. (c) Eusebius in Chron.

INTRODUCTION TO Colossians 1

This chapter contains the inscription of the epistle; the apostle's usual salutation; his thanksgiving to God on behalf of the Colossians for grace received; his prayers, that more might be given them; an enumeration of various blessings of grace, which require thankfulness, in which the glories and excellencies of Christ are particularly set forth: and it is concluded with an exhortation to a steadfast adherence to the Gospel, taken from the nature, excellency, and usefulness of the ministry of it. The inscription, and the salutation, are in Colossians 1:1, and are the same with those in the epistle to the Ephesians, only Timothy is joined with the apostle here, and the Colossians have the additional character of brethren given them. The thanksgiving is in Colossians 1:3, the object of it is God, the Father of Christ; the time when made, when in prayer to him; its subject matter, the faith and love of the saints; to which is added, their happiness secured for them in heaven, their hope was conversant with: and whereas the Gospel was the means by which they came to the hearing and knowledge of it, this is commended from the subject of it, the doctrine of truth; from the spread of it in the world; and from its efficacy in bringing forth fruit in all, to whom it came in power, and that with constancy, Colossians 1:5, and also from the testimony of Epaphras, a faithful minister of Christ, and theirs, who was dear to the apostle, and of whom he had the above account of them, Colossians 1:7. And then follow his prayers for them, that they might have an increase of spiritual knowledge, and that they might put in practice what they knew; and for that purpose he entreats they might be blessed with strength, patience, and longsuffering, Colossians 1:9. And in order to excite thankfulness in himself and them, he takes notice of various blessings of grace; of the Father's grace in giving a meetness for eternal glory and happiness, by delivering from the power of darkness, and translating into the kingdom of his Son, Colossians 1:12, and of the Son's grace in obtaining redemption by his blood, and procuring the remission of sins, Colossians 1:14, which leads the apostle to enlarge upon the excellencies of the author of these blessings, in his divine person, as the image of God, and the first cause of all created beings, Colossians 1:15, which he proves by an enumeration of them, as created by him, and for his sake, by his pre-existence to them, and their dependence on him, Colossians 1:16, and in his office capacity, as Mediator, being the head of the church, the governor of it, and the first that rose from the dead; by all which it appears that he has, and ought to have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18. And this is still more manifest from his having all fulness dwelling in him, to supply his body the church, of which he is the head, Colossians 1:19, and from the reconciliation of all the members of it to God by him, Colossians 1:20, which blessing of grace is amplified partly by the subjects of it, who are described by their former state and condition, aliens and enemies, and by their present one, reconciled by the death of Christ in his fleshly body; and partly by the end of it, the presentation of them holy, blameless, and irreprovable in the sight of God, Colossians 1:21. Wherefore it is a duty incumbent on such to abide by the Gospel of Christ, which brings the good tidings of peace and reconciliation, and is the means of faith and hope; and the rather, since they had heard it themselves, and others also, even every creature under heaven; and the apostle was a minister of it, Colossians 1:23, and on his ministration of it he enlarges, by observing his sufferings for the church on account of the Gospel, which he endured with pleasure; and therefore they should, by his example, be encouraged to continue in it, Colossians 1:24. Moreover, he argues the same from his commission of God to preach it for their sakes, Colossians 1:25, and from the nature and subject matter of it, being a hidden mystery, and containing riches and glory in it; yea, Christ himself, the foundation of hope of eternal glory, Colossians 1:26, and from the end of preaching it, which was to present every man perfect in Christ; which end the apostle laboured and strove to obtain through the power and energy of divine grace, which wrought in him, and with him, Colossians 1:28.

THE EPISTLES TO THE EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, AND COLOSSIANS.

BY

THE RIGHT REV. ALFRED BARRY, D.D.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

I. The Time, Place, and Occasion of Writing.—There are in this Epistle indications of the time and place of writing similar to those already noticed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Philippians. It is written in prison: for St. Paul bids the Colossians “remember his bonds” (Colossians 4:18), and designates Aristarchus as his “fellow-prisoner” (Colossians 4:10). Like the Epistle to the Ephesians, it is sent by Tychicus, with precisely the same official commendation of him as in that Epistle (Colossians 4:7-8; comp. Ephesians 6:21-22); but with him is joined Onesimus, the Colossian slave, the bearer of the Epistle to Philemon. The persons named in the concluding salutations (Colossians 4:7-14)—Aristarchus, Marcus, Epaphras, Luke, Demas, and “Jesus, called Justus”—are all, except the last, named in the corresponding part of the Epistle to Philemon (Philemon 1:23-24); two of them, Aristarchus and St. Luke, are known to have accompanied the Apostle on his voyage, as a captive, to Rome (Acts 27:2): and another, Tychicus, to have been his companion on the journey to Jerusalem, which preceded the beginning of that captivity at Cæsarea (Acts 20:4). A direction is given to forward this Epistle to Laodicea, and to obtain and read a letter from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16), which (as will be seen by the Note on the passage) is, in all probability, our Epistle to the Ephesians—an Epistle (see the Introduction to it) addressed, indeed, primarily to Ephesus, but apparently also an Encyclical Letter to the sister Churches of Asia. All these indications point to one conclusion—not only that the Epistle is one of the Epistles of the Roman captivity (about A.D. 61-63), but that it is a twin Epistle with the Epistle to the Ephesians, sent at the same time and by the same hand, and designed to be interchanged with it in the Churches of Colossæ and Laodicea. These indications are confirmed most decisively by the substance of the Epistle itself, which (as will be seen below) presents, on the one hand, the most striking similarities to the Epistle to the Ephesians, and, on the other, differences almost equally striking and characteristic—thus contradicting all theories of derivation of one from the other, and supporting very strongly the idea of independent contemporaneousness and coincidence of thought.

The occasion of writing seems evidently to have been a visit to the Apostle from Epaphras, the first preacher of the gospel at Colossæ, and the profound anxiety caused both to him and to St. Paul (Colossians 2:1; Colossians 4:12-13) by the news which he brought of the rise among the Colossians (and probably the Christians of Laodicea and Hierapolis also) of a peculiar form of error, half Jewish, half Gnostic, which threatened to beguile them from the simplicity of the gospel into certain curious mazes of speculation as to the Godhead and the outgrowth of various emanations from it: to create a separation between those who believed themselves perfect in this higher knowledge and the mass of their brethren: and, above all, to obscure or obliterate the sole divine mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ. To warn them against these forms of error—the last development of the Judaism which had been so formidable an enemy in time past, and the first anticipation of an intellectual and spiritual bewilderment which was to be still more formidable in the future—St. Paul writes this Letter. The Colossian Church was indeed to receive a copy from Laodicea of our Epistle to the Ephesians; but in an Encyclical Letter this peculiar form of heresy could not well be touched upon. Epaphras was for the present to continue at Rome, and (see Philemon 1:24) to share St. Paul’s imprisonment. Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, then with St. Paul, was perhaps coming to Colossæ (Colossians 4:10), but not yet. Accordingly, by Tychicus, the bearer of the Encyclical Letter, and Onesimus, a fugitive Colossian slave, whom the Apostle was about to send back to Philemon, his master, this Letter is despatched. Partly it repeats and enforces the teaching of the other Epistle, but regards these common truths from a different point of view, designed tacitly to correct the errors rife at Colossæ; partly it deals directly with those errors themselves, imploring the Colossians to break through the delusions of their new “philosophy and vain deceit,” and to return to the simplicity of the gospel, in which they had all been one in the one mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

II. The Church to which it is addressed.—The Church of Colossæ, unlike the Churches of Ephesus and Philippi, finds no record in the Acts of the Apostles; for, although this city is not very far from Ephesus, we gather that it was not one of the churches founded or previously visited by St. Paul personally (Colossians 2:1; comp. Colossians 1:4). But it appears, from what is apparently the true reading of Colossians 1:7, that Epaphras, named as its first evangelist, and still, to some extent, in charge of it and the neighbouring Churches of Laodicea and Hierapolis (Colossians 4:12-13), was not only a fellow-servant, but a representative of St. Paul in his mission to Colossæ. We can, therefore, hardly be wrong in referring the conversion of the Colossians to the time of St. Paul’s three years’ stay at Ephesus, during which we are expressly told that “all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10), and supposing that indirectly through Epaphras the Christianity of the Colossians was due to the influence of that great Apostolic preaching under which “the word of God grew mightily and prevailed.” We find also that St. Paul had intimate personal acquaintance, and what he calls emphatically “partnership,” with Philemon (see Philemon 1:17), apparently a leading member of the Church at Colossæ. It is not unlikely that through him also the Apostle had been able to influence the foundation or growth of that Church. These circumstances explain the style and tone of this Letter, which seems to stand midway between the personal familiarity and unhesitating authority of such Epistles as the Epistles to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, addressed to churches founded directly by St. Paul, and the courteous reserve of the Epistle to the Romans, addressed to a Church over which he could claim none of the authority of a founder. This is, perhaps, especially notable in Colossians 2, where St. Paul prefaces his definite and authoritative denunciation of the peculiar errors besetting the Colossian Church with the half-apologetic introduction: “I would that ye know 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.”

The position and history of Colossæ are admirably described by Dr. Lightfoot in his Introduction to this Epistle, sect. 1. It lay in the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander, near Laodicea and Hierapolis. These two cities stand face to face, about six miles from each other on opposite sides of the valley, and ten or twelve miles further up, on the river itself, lies Colossæ, so that any one approaching it from Ephesus or from the sea-coast would pass by Laodicea. The three cities thus form a group, so that they might naturally receive the gospel at the same time, and the Christian communities in them might easily be under the same general charge. They seem to have been politically united under the Roman Government, and to have been distinguished by a common trade; like Thyatira, they were known for their manufacture of dyes, especially purple dyes, and derived considerable wealth therefrom. Colossæ had been once a place of importance. It is described by Herodotus (chap. vii. 20) as being, at the time of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece, “a great city of Phrygia,” the site of which is marked by a subterranean disappearance of the river Lycus; and by Xenophon (Anab. i. 2, § 6), about a century later, as “a city great and prosperous.” But at the time at which this Epistle was written Colossæ was of far less note than the wealthy Laodicea, the metropolis of the district, or Hierapolis, well known as a place of resort for medicinal baths, and consecrated both to the Greek Apollo and the Phrygian Cybele. In the Apocalyptic letters to the Seven Churches of Asia it finds no mention, being probably looked upon as a dependency of the proud and wealthy Church of Laodicea. After the Apostolic age, while Laodicea and, in less degree, Hierapolis are well-known, Colossæ sinks into utter insignificance. It may possibly have been laid in ruins by one of the earthquakes which are known to have been common in these regions. Comparatively few remains of it are now found, and the very orthography of the name (Colossce, or Colassæ) has, it appears, been matter of dispute. It is notable that a Church so much honoured and cared for by St. Paul should have had hereafter so obscure and so adverse a future.[2]

[2] Views of the country near the supposed site of Colossæ, and of the ruins of Laodicea and Hierapolis, are given in Lowin’s St. Paul, Vol. II., pp. 357-360.

III. The Genuineness of the Epistle.—External Evidence.—Speaking generally, the condition of the external evidence is much the same with this as with the other two Epistles. It is included unhesitatingly in all canons, from the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170?) downwards, and in all versions, beginning with the Peschito and the Old Latin in the second century. Quotations or references to it have not, however, been traced in any of the Apostolic fathers. The first distinct allusion to it is in Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-170?), who says (Apol. i. 46, ii. 6; Dial. c. Tryph. c. 100):—“We were taught that Christ is the first-born of God;” “We have acknowledged Him as the first-born of God, and before all creatures;” “Through Him God set all things in order.” (Comp. Colossians 1:15-17.) The next is Theophilus of Antioch, who died about A.D. 180:—“God begat the Word, the first-born before all creation.” After this, in Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, direct quotation begins, and continues uninterruptedly in all Christian writings. (See Westcott, Canon of the New Testament.) The external evidence is therefore strong. Never until these later days of arbitrary criticism has the genuineness of the Epistle been questioned.

Internal Evidence.—This Epistle, far more than the Epistle to the Philippians, perhaps a little less than the Epistle to the Ephesians, bears traces of what I have ventured to call St. Paul’s “third manner.” To the correspondence of the change, both in style and substance, traceable in these Epistles, to the alteration of St. Paul’s circumstances, and the natural development of the gospel and of the Church, I have already referred in the General Introduction to the Epistles of the Captivity, and given reasons for maintaining that this change, which has been often made an argument against the genuineness of these Epistles, presents to us phenomena inexplicable on any supposition of imitation or forgery, but perfectly intelligible if we accept the Apostolic authorship.

Some critics, however—of whom Dr. Holtzmann (in his Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosser- briefe) may be taken as the chief representative—insist on tracing extensive interpolations (almost amounting to a virtual reconstruction) in what they believe themselves able to discover as the originals both of this Epistle and the Epistle to the Ephesians. Except so far as these hypotheses depend on the supposed traces of a later Gnosticism in both Epistles, but especially in this (on which see Excursus at the close of this Epistle), they seem to resolve themselves into the idea that every passage bearing strong similarity to the teaching of St. Peter and St. John must have been altered or interpolated with a view to accommodation. Without any substantial historical evidence, ignoring both the probabilities of the case and the indirect evidence of Holy Scripture, and disregarding the utter absence of any support whatever in the witness of Christian antiquity, they assume an absolute antagonism between St. Paul and the Apostles of the Circumcision, and pronounce every indication of an underlying unity, and a true development of common doctrine, which contradicts this assumption, to be a mark of interpolation or falsification by a later hand. With the rejection of this arbitrary assumption, the greater part of the ingeniously-constructed fabric of destructive criticism falls to the ground.

But, indeed, it appears difficult to conceive how any one attentively studying either of these Epistles, without any preconceived hypothesis, can fail to recognise the internal consistency and unity—all the more striking because indicating a free method, as distinct from a well-squared artificial system—which runs through the whole, and makes the theory of interpolation even more improbable than the theory of imitation or forgery. Nothing, for example, is more notable in this Epistle than the substantial unity, under marked difference of form, which connects the positive statement of doctrine in the first chapter (Colossians 1:14-23) with the polemical re-statement in the second chapter. In the former we trace anticipation of the latter, and (so to speak) preparation for the more explicit development of the attack on doctrinal error; in the latter, the very repetitions, with variations, of passages in the first chapter are indicative of a free treatment of the truths previously dealt with by the same hand, and are utterly unlike the tame reproductions or artificial modifications of a mere copyist. The remarkable indications, again, of the co-existence of similarity and distinctness between this Epistle and the Epistle to the Ephesians (noticed in the Introduction to that Epistle), as they preclude the theory of dependence or imitation in either, so are equally fatal to the idea of an artificial interpolation and reconstruction by later hands. They indicate at every point a free, almost unconscious, coincidence, omitting or preserving the parallelisms of idea and expression by a kind of natural selection. They mark a likeness of living organic growths, not of artificial and heterogeneous fabrics. Nor should we omit to notice the sustained power of these Epistles, differing as to the peculiar style of each, but equally conspicuous in both. The Epistle to the Ephesians has about it a certain calm and almost mystic eloquence, a beauty of meditative completeness of idea, unbroken by necessities of special teaching or special warning, which well suits a general Apostolic message to Christians as Christians, in which we seen almost to hear the utterance of an inspired mind, simply contemplating the divine truth in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and speaking out, so far as they can be spoken, the thoughts which it stirs within—conscious of God and itself, only half conscious of those to whom the utterance is addressed. In the Epistle to the Colossians, on the other hand, we find a far greater abruptness, force, and earnestness. The free course of the Apostolic thought, which occasionally, perhaps, rises to an even greater height, is, on the whole, checked and modified by the constant remembrance of pressing needs and pressing dangers—accordingly developing some elements and leaving others comparatively undeveloped: and so, while perhaps increasing intensity, certainly interfering to some extent with the majestic symmetry of the universal revelation. Each Epistle has its marked characteristics; and these, unquestionably, so run through the whole as to destroy even any show of plausibility in the theory of interpolation.

The supposed anachronisms in the references to what afterwards became peculiarities of the Gnostic system will be treated of in the Excursus (at the close of the Epistle) on the Relation of the Epistle to Gnosticism. Here it will be sufficient to say that, on more attentive examination, not only do the supposed objections to the genuineness of the Epistle disappear, but the phenomena of the “philosophy and vain deceit” touched upon in this Epistle, when compared with the opinions either of the past or of the future, accord so remarkably with the characteristics of the period to which the Epistle claims to belong, as to add a fresh confirmation of the conclusions already derived from a consideration of the external evidence, and by the study of the coherence and vigour of the Epistle itself.

In this case, therefore, as in the others, we may unhesitatingly dismiss the questions which have been ingeniously raised, and with undisturbed confidence draw from the Epistle the rich treasures of Apostolic teaching.

IV. The main Substance of the Epistle.—In considering the substance of the Epistle, we must distinguish between the large amount of matter common to it with the Epistle to the Ephesians and the portion which is peculiar to this Epistle alone.

In regard of the common matter, it may be said generally that it is found treated with a greater width of scope and completeness of handling in the Epistle to the Ephesians. It is best studied there in the first instance (see, accordingly, the Introduction and Analysis of that Epistle), and then illustrated by comparison and contrast with the corresponding passages in this Epistle. It will be seen (as is explained in the Notes on various passages) that this illustration is at every point full of suggestiveness and variety. Literal identities are exceedingly rare; in almost every set of parallel passages the treatment in the two Epistles presents some points of characteristic variety, either in expression or in meaning. Speaking generally, this variety depends on two causes. The first turns on the specialty of the Epistle, addressed to a single Church, thoroughly, though indirectly, known to St. Paul, and the generality of the other, approaching nearly to the character of a treatise rather than a letter. The second and the more important cause of this variety is the subtle adaptation even of details to the characteristic doctrines which stand out in the two Epistles respectively.

This last consideration leads on naturally to the examination of the portions of the Epistle to which there is nothing to correspond in the Ephesian Epistle.

(a) We have the passages in the first and last chapters which refer to the foundation of the Colossian Church by Epaphras, the declaration to them of the “truth of the gospel,” and the practical fruitfulness of that teaching (Colossians 1:6-11); next, to the deep anxiety felt by Epaphras and St. Paul himself for their steadfastness in the simple truths of the gospel, against the speculations of a wild philosophy and the allurements of a mystic perfection in practice (Colossians 1:23-24; Colossians 2:1-4; Colossians 2:8-10; Colossians 2:16-23; Colossians 4:12-13); lastly, the particularity and strong personality of the salutations, directions, and blessing at the close of this Epistle (Colossians 4:7-18), singularly contrasting with the brief generality of the other (Ephesians 6:21-24). All these correspond to the former of the causes above named. They mark the difference between a special and an Encyclical Epistle.

(b) Of infinitely greater moment is the special prominence which is given in this Epistle to the doctrine of the sole Headship of Christ. The references to the Church as His body, though not unfrequent, are brief, secondary, unemphatic; and thus stand in marked contrast with the vivid and magnificent descriptions in the Ephesian Epistle of the predestination and election of the whole body of the Church in the eternal counsels “of the heavenly places” (Ephesians 1:3-14): of the union of Jew and Gentile in the divine “commonwealth,” all divisions being broken down which separated each from the other and both from God (Colossians 2:11-18): of the great Temple, “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone” (Colossians 2:19-23): of the “one body” and “the one Spirit,” the “one Lord, the one God and Father of all” (Colossians 4:4-10). It is especially notable that to the last-named passage, which is the climax of the doctrinal teaching of the Ephesian Epistle, there corresponds in this the equally celebrated but wholly different passage (Colossians 3:1-4), which addresses the Colossians as “risen with Christ,” having their “life hid with Him in God,” looking for the time “when He who is their life shall appear, and they with Him in glory.” The reason of the distinction is made clear at once by the indications of the presence at Colossæ of a tendency to vain speculations, to obsolete Jewish forms, and to half idolatrous superstitions, all of which alike prevented them from “holding the Head,” from “being dead with Christ” to the rudiments of the world, from being “risen with Him” to a communion with heaven (Colossians 2:8-23). Accordingly, the sole Headship of Christ is dwelt upon—first positively, (Colossians 1:18-20), next polemically, in warning against error (Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:18). Both passages are peculiar to this Epistle, as compared with the Epistle to the Ephesians. They deal with a subject on which the needs of Colossæ and its sister Churches forced St. Paul to lay very special emphasis.

(c) But this emphasis does but bring out with greater force what may be found elsewhere. The great characteristic feature of this Epistle is the declaration of the nature of Christ in Himself as the “image of the invisible God;” “firstborn before all creation;” “by whom,” “for whom,” “in whom,” “all beings were created in heaven and earth” and “all things consist;” “in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 1:15-17; Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9). In this the Epistle may be compared with the Epistle to the Philippians (Colossians 2:6-7). But the simple declaration there made of Christ as “being in the form of God” is here worked out into a magnificent elaboration, ascribing to Him the “fulness of Godhead” and the essential divine attributes of universal creation. It may be even more closely compared with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which not only describes Him as “the express image of the essence of Godhead,” but with an emphasis which reminds us of the judaistic angel-worship condemned in this Epistle, exalts His absolute superiority over all who, however glorious, are but creatures of God and ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:1; Hebrews 2:4). It is evident, again, that it anticipates, yet with characteristic difference of expression, the doctrine of the “Word of God” taught by St. John, and the ascription to Him of essential eternity and Godhead, and both of physical and spiritual creation (John 1:1-5; John 1:14). It is this which gives to our Epistle an unique doctrinal significance and value. Called out by one of the changeful phases of a pretentious, but transitory error, it remains to us an imperishable treasure. We cannot doubt that till the end of time it will have fresh force of special application, as ancient forms of error recur with more or less of variety of outward aspect, and in their constant changes, developments, and antagonisms, stand in significant contrast with the unchanging gospel.

V. Analysis of the Epistle.—To this general description is subjoined, as before, an analysis of the Epistle, shortened from the analyses in the various chapters.

1.Doctrinal Section.

(1)SALUTATION (Colossians 1:1-2).

(a)Thanksgiving for their faith, love, and hope, the worthy fruits of the truth of the gospel taught by Epaphras (Colossians 1:3-8);

(b)Prayer for their fuller knowledge, fruitfulness, and patience (Colossians 1:9-12).

(2)THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST (stated positively).

(a)His mediation in the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:13-14);

(b)His divine nature as the image of God and the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:15-17);

(c)His Headship over the Church and over all created being (Colossians 1:18-20);

(d)Special application of His mediation to the Colossians, and declaration of the com-mission of the preaching of this mystery to St. Paul himself (Colossians 1:21-29).

(3)THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST (stated polemically).

(a)Declaration of St. Paul’s anxiety for them that they should remain rooted and established in the old truth of the gospel (Colossians 2:1-7);

(b)Warning against speculative error, denying or obscuring the truth—

(α)Of Christ’s true Godhead;

(β)Of the regeneration of spiritual circumcision in Him;

(γ)Of His sole atonement and triumph over the powers of evil (Colossians 2:8-15).

(c)Warning against practical superstition—

(α)Of trust in obsolete Jewish ordinances and mystic asceticism;

(β)Of superstitious worship of angels trenching on the sole Headship of Christ (Colossians 2:16-19).

(d) Exhortation to be—

(α)Dead with Christ to the rudiments of the world;

(β)Risen with Christ to the communion with God in heaven (Colossians 2:20 to Colossians 3:4).

2.Practical Section.

(1)GENERAL EXHORTATION—

(a) To mortification of the flesh in all the sins of the old unregenerate nature (Colossians 3:5-9);

(b)To putting on the new man in all the graces of the image of Christ, receiving the peace of God and doing all to His glory (Colossians 3:10-17).

(2)SPECIAL DUTIES OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIP—

(a)Wives and husbands (Colossians 3:18-19);

(b)Children and parents (Colossians 3:20-21);

(c)Slaves and masters (Colossians 3:22 to Colossians 4:1).

(3)CONCLUSION.

(a)Exhortation to prayer and watchfulness (Colossians 4:2-6);

(b)Mission of Tychicus and Onesimus (Colossians 4:7-9);

(c)Salutations from St. Paul’s companions (Colossians 4:10-14);

(d)Charge to exchange Epistles with Laodicea (Colossians 4:15-17);

(e)Final salutation (Colossians 4:18).

VI. Comparison with Epistle to the Ephesians.—To this outline of the Epistle may also be added a tabular comparison with the Epistle to the Ephesians, noting the general lines of parallelism and peculiarity.

EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.

[In this Table whatever is common to the two Epistles is printed in ordinary type, and whatever is peculiar to each in italics.]

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

1.Doctrinal Section.

1.(a) Salutation (Ephesians 1:1-2).

(b)Doxology and thanksgiving for the divine election (Ephesians 1:3-6).

(c)Prayer and thanksgiving for them (Ephesians 1:15-18).

2.(a)Declaration of the “gathering up of all in Christ,” of His universal mediation for Jew and Gentile, and His headship over the Church, which is His Body, “the fulness of Him who filleth all in all” (Ephesians 1:7-14; Ephesians 1:19-23).

(b)Fuller declaration of the union of Jew and Gentile in one covenant and temple, on sole condition of faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:1-20).

(c)The commission to St. Paul of the mystery of the calling in of the Gentiles, once hidden, now revealed to men and angels (Ephesians 3:1-13).

(d)Prayer that they may know that which passeth knowledge, by the indwelling of Christ, and be filled to me fulness of God (Ephesians 3:14-21).

3.SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE:

(a)The unity of the Church in God;

(b)The diversity of gifts;

(c)The one object of all—personal and corporate edification (Ephesians 4:1-16).

2.Practical Section.

1.(a) General exhortation to put off the old man and put on the new, by learning Christ and being taught in Christ (Ephesians 4:17-18).

(b)Warning against various sins, as breaking unity with man (Ephesians 4:25-30).

(c)Special warnings against bitterness, against impurity and lust, and against reckless excess and drunkenness (Ephesians 4:31 to Ephesians 5:21).

2.HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:

(a)Wives and husbands (Ephesians 5:22-33). (The sacredness of marriage as a type of the union between Christ and the Church.)

(b)Children and parents (Ephesians 6:1-4).

(c)Slaves and masters (Ephesians 6:5-9).

3.CONCLUSION.

(a)Exhortation to put on the whole armour of God (Ephesians 6:10-17).

(b)Request for their prayers (Ephesians 6:18-20).

(c)Commendation of Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21-22).

(d)“Peace be to the brethren.” “Grace be with all them who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity” (Ephesians 6:23-24).

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

1.Doctrinal Section.

1.(a) Salutation (Colossians 1:1-2).

(b)Prayer and thanksgiving for them (Colossians 1:3-5; Colossians 1:9-12).

(c)Special reference to the teaching of Epaphras and its effect (Colossians 1:6-8).

2.(a) Declaration of the universal mediation of Christ, and His headship over the Church and over all created being (Colossians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:18-22).

(b)Declaration of the true Godhead and creative power of Christ (Colossians 1:15-17).

(c)The commission to St. Paul of the preaching of the mystery once hidden, now revealed, “which is Christ in you the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:23-29).

(d)Special warnings against peculiar forms of speculative error and practical superstition, drawing them from Christ, and obscuring His sole mediation and true Godhead (Colossians 2:1-23).

3.SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE:

The unity of the soul with Christ, in which it is risen and exalted to heaven in Him (Colossians 3:1-8; comp. Ephesians 2:5-6).

2.Practical Section.

1.(a) General exhortation to mortify our earthly members, to put off the old man and put on the new (Colossians 3:5-11).

(b)Warning against various sins, as unworthy of “the elect of God” (Colossians 3:5; Colossians 3:8-9; Colossians 3:13-17).

2.HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:

(a)Wives and husbands (Colossians 3:18-19).

(b)Children and parents (Colossians 3:20-21).

(c)Slaves and masters (Colossians 3:22 to Colossians 4:1).

3.CONCLUSION.

(a)Request for their prayers (Colossians 4:2-6).

(b)Commendation of Tychicus and Onesimus (Colossians 4:7-9).

(c)Salutations from the brethren (Colossians 4:10-14).

(d)Message to Laodicea and Archippus, and direction as to the Letter from Laodicea (Colossians 4:15-17).

(e)“Remember my bonds. Grace be with you” (Colossians 4:18).

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO COLOSSIANS.

EXCURSUS A: RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS TO GNOSTICISM.

IT is not intended in this Excursus to attempt any description of the actual historical developments of those singular phases of opinion, classed roughly under the name of “Gnosticism” (on which see Neander’s Church History, Sect. IV.), or any imitation of Dr. Lightfoot’s exhaustive and scholarly investigation of the connections in detail, between the form of speculative and practical heresy denounced by St. Paul at Colossæ, and the tenets of the various Gnostic systems. For the purposes of this Commentary it will be sufficient to inquire generally—

(1) What is the fundamental principle of Gnosticism?

(2) What were the chief problems with which it dealt?

(3) How far it could, in its early stages, reasonably ally itself with the Judaic system?

(4) What was its early relation to Christianity?

(1) Gnosticism, as the name implies, is the absolute devotion to Gnosis, or “knowledge.” It is, of course, obvious that “knowledge,” as it is the natural delight of man as man, so also is sanctioned by the Apostles themselves—by none more emphatically than St. Paul, and nowhere more emphatically by him than in the Epistles of the Captivity—as one of the signs and means of the growth of the spiritual life in the image of Christ. In every one of the Epistles of this period St. Paul earnestly desires for his converts progress in knowledge. (See for example Ephesians 1:17; Philippians 1:9; Colossians 1:9.) It was, therefore, perfectly in accordance with Apostolic teaching that Clement of Alexandria and his school extolled the “true Gnostic,” as representing some of the higher phrases of spiritual life, and reflecting in some senses, more distinctly than others, the likeness of the mind of God in Christ Jesus. But St. Paul, while he thus delights in true knowledge, also speaks (1Timothy 6:20) of a “knowledge falsely so called,” and by this expression appears to brand with condemnation the spirit of what is commonly called Gnosticism. Where then lay the distinction between the false and the true “knowledge?”

In two points especially. First, Gnosticism exalted knowledge to an unwarranted supremacy in the Christian life. It made Christianity a philosophy, rather than a religion; as if its chief internal effect was enlightenment of the understanding rather than regeneration of the life, and its chief desire, in rising above self, was to discover abstract truths about God. and man, rather than to know God Himself, with “all the heart, all the soul, and all the strength,” as well as “all the mind.” Thus it fatally disturbed the true harmony of the speculative, the practical, and the devotional elements of the spiritual life. Energy in practical service, and love in devotion, it considered as good enough for the mass of men, but knowledge as the one mark of “the perfect.” Like all philosophies, it was aristocratic; for in work and in worship all might take their place, but only the few thinkers could “burst into the silent sea” of the higher speculation. There, by the esoteric doctrine, known only to the initiated, they believed themselves to be set apart from the ordinary Christians, for whom the exoteric or popular and imperfect teaching might suffice; and sometimes conceived that, with the higher mystic knowledge, they might gain also mysterious powers, and mysterious means of approach to a divine communion, unknown to others.

Secondly, Gnosticism also departed from the Apostolic teaching in relation to its method of knowledge. St. Paul describes, in a celebrated passage of the Epistle to the Ephesians, the process of the true knowledge of God. He prays for the Ephesians thus: “that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend . . . and know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with (or rather, up to) all the fulness of God.” The order is here profoundly significant. The knowledge, being a knowledge of a Personal God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ, begins in faith—a faith which knows indeed in whom it believes, but then believes on Him, as having “the words of eternal life.” It is next deepened by love, called out by the infinite love of God in Christ, naturally manifesting itself, partly in adoration, partly in active service, and by both coming to know more and more what still passes complete knowledge. Finally, even in its ultimate growth, it is still in some sense the receiving of a divine light, which pours in, and fills the soul with the revelation of God. It does not fill itself, but it “is filled up to all the fulness of God.” Doubtless in all this the energy of the soul itself is implied—first to believe, then to love and to work, lastly to open itself to the divine truth: but it is throughout subordinate. If ever St. Paul allows it to be said, “Ye have known God,” he adds the correction at once, “or rather are known of God.” The process of Gnosticism was fundamentally different. Faith (it thought) was well for the vulgar; love, especially as shown in practice, was all they could hope to add to faith. But the Gnostic, accepting perhaps the vantage ground of ordinary gospel truth, took his stand on it, first to gaze, then to speculate, then to invent, in his own intellectual strength—now by profound thought, now by wild ingenuity of fancy, now by supposed mystic visions. As usual in such cases, he mixed up what he thought he saw with what he went on to infer by pure speculation, and turned what were simple speculations, probable or improbable, into professed discoveries of truth. Nothing is more notable in the full-grown Gnostic theories than the extraordinary luxuriance and arbitrariness of speculations, which, like the cycles and epicycles of the old Ptolemaic astronomy, stand self-condemned by their artificial ingenuity.

Now, it is clear that Gnosticism so viewed, although its full development waited for a later period, belongs in essence to all times. It arose again and again, in connection with Christianity, whenever the gospel had won its way to a position of such supremacy over actual life as to challenge speculation. This it had certainly done at the close of St. Paul’s Apostolic career, in all the civilised world of Asiatic, Greek, and Roman thought; but perhaps nowhere more strikingly than in the provinces of Asia Minor, the ancient home of Greek speculation, and now the common meeting-ground of Western philosophy and Eastern mysticism, and in the famous city of Alexandria, where Greek and Jewish ideas had long been inextricably blended together. As we may trace its modern counterpart in much of the scientific and metaphysical speculation of our own day, so also it is but natural that it should emerge even in the earliest times, when the gospel confronted a highly cultivated and inquisitive civilisation. Whatever truth there may be in the old traditions that Simon Magus was the first Gnostic, it is, at least, clear that the germs of Gnosticism lay in his view of Christianity, recognising in it a mystic power and wisdom greater than his own, but ignoring its moral and spiritual regeneration of the soul.

(2) The great subjects of Gnostic speculation, under all its strange and fantastic varieties, were again the two great questions which at all times occupy the human mind. The first is speculative. What is the relation between the Infinite and the Finite, the Absolute and the Phenomenal, the First Cause and the actual Universe? The second is moral. What is the nature and origin of the Evil, both physical and moral, which forces itself upon our notice, as a disturbing element in a world essentially good and beautiful? and how can we explain its permitted antagonism to the First Cause, which is presumably good? To these two fundamental questions, belonging to all time, were added two others belonging to the centuries just before and just after the manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ. What place is to be assigned to the Jewish dispensation in the philosophy of God and Man? What are the character and significance of the Incarnation, which is the central Christian mystery?

With regard to the first question, Gnosticism universally accepted the conception of an Eternal God, sometimes recognised, whether vividly or dimly, as a Person, sometimes looked on as a mere depth (Bythos) or abyss of Impersonal Being. But it insisted that, in respect of the work of Creation of the world and of humanity, in the government of the world and in the manifestation of Himself to Man, God was pleased, or was by His Nature forced, to act through inferior beings, all receiving of His Pleroma (or, “fulness”) in different degrees of imperfection, and connected with Him in different degrees of nearness through “endless genealogies.” These emanations might be regarded as personal, such as the “Angels of God,” the “Word of God,” the “Spirit of God”; they might be half-personal, like the Æons of later speculation; they might be, where Platonism was strong, even the Ideas or Attributes of God, gathered up in the Logos. But it was through these emanations that the Supreme God made and sustained the world, created man as at once material, animal (psychic), and spiritual, and manifested Himself to man in different ages.

Next, in relation to the Moral Problem of the Existence of Evil, Gnosticism seems to have oscillated between the idea of a direct Dualism, wherever the Persian influence predominated, and the conception of a dead-weight of resistance to the Will of God, where-ever Monotheistic influence, especially Jewish influence, drove out the more pronounced conceptions of Dualism. But almost, if not quite, universally it traced the origin of evil to matter, conceived probably as eternal, certainly as independent, if not of the Supreme God, at any rate of the Creative Emanations, or of the One Being called the Demiurgus, or “Great Workman,” to whom the Creative was in most cases assigned. Those who were, or continued to be, “material,” enslaved to matter, were hopelessly evil; those who were “psychical,” having, that is, the soul of emotion and lower understanding as distinct from the spirit, were in a condition of imperfection, but with hope of rising to spirituality; those who were spiritual, and they only, were free from all evil, capable of communion with the Supreme God. The first class were the world; the second the mass of the religious; the last were the possessors of the higher knowledge. On what should be the end of this condition of imperfection and conflict, there was division of opinion. But a consummation either of conquest of evil, or of absorption into the Divine Pleroma, was looked for by all. In the meanwhile the Demiurgus, or the Creative powers of the world, were regarded, sometimes as rebellious, sometimes as blinded by ignorance, sometimes as simply finite and therefore imperfect; and to these qualities in them were traced the sin, the blindness, or the imperfection of the present dispensation.

From this conception of matter as the source of evil, and therefore of the body as the evil element in our nature, followed two rival and directly antagonistic conclusions as to the appetites and passions, and the view which the spiritual man should take of them and of the objects by which they were satisfied. The nobler conclusion was, in accordance with the purer Oriental religions, and the highest Platonic philosophy, that the body was simply a hindrance, a prison-house, a dead weight, a cause of blindness or dimness to the spiritual eye; and hence was to be kept under by a rigid asceticism, mortifying all its desires, and preserving the spiritual man, as much as possible, from any contact with the material. The other—perhaps the more common, certainly the ignobler—conclusion was that the indulgence of the body could not pollute any spirit, which was sustained by the higher knowledge, and, therefore, that what common opinion held to be “a shame” was to the spiritual man “a glory,” showing that the most sensual and reckless profligacy was to him a thing absolutely trivial and indifferent. It is obvious that these two rival theories would take up, and invest with a philosophical completeness, the ordinary tendencies represented by Pharisaism, on the one hand, and by Anti-nomianism on the other. Possibly by the natural law of reaction, the two extremes might often meet, in the same system, and even in the same individual.

A glance at these subjects will again show that Gnosticism, as in its principles, so in its chief problems, belongs to all times, and is essentially independent both of Judaism and Christianity. It was most natural that the claim of these problems to attention should assert itself in the later periods of the first century, even in reaction against the prosaic and practical systems of Stoicism and Epicureanism, then dominant in ordinary Roman thought, and, however opposed to each other, at least united in a contemptuous discouragement of all abstract speculation, especially in things divine. No home could be more congenial to such inquiries than the classic soil of philosophic speculation in Ephesus and the other cities of Asia, or the learned atmosphere of eclecticism which pervaded the Alexandrine school.

(3) But there were, as has been said above, two questions which presented themselves to the special forms of Gnosticism dominant at this period, and of these the first was of the relation of Gnostic theories to the Old Testament and the Jewish dispensation.

Now, in Judaism there was, on the one hand, much to attract the Gnostic. In it he found the one great living system of Monotheism, setting forth the absolute and infinite Godhead as the Eternal Source of being, invisible and incomprehensible to man; so infinitely-above all creatures that His very Name was too sacred to be pronounced by human lips. In it he also found, or could easily develop, the doctrine of angelic intervention, in the creation and the guidance of nature, in the intercourse of God with man, even in the government of human history, and the protection both of individuals and of races. The peculiar privilege of a chosen people, easily represented as belonging to them simply through a higher knowledge, and not less easily transferred as an inheritance to a spiritual Israel of the enlightened and perfect, supplied the element of exclusiveness inherent in all Gnostic systems; and all the ordinances of ritual, of typical sacrifices, and ceremonial purity, readily lent themselves to the conception of a certain mystic consecration of the privileged, who might be a “royal priesthood,” a prophetic and saintly order, before God, as distinct from “the people, who knew not the mystic law,” and were “accursed.” Nor would he omit to notice in the Sapiential books of the Old Testament—such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes—the exaltation of Wisdom, as distinct from faith and holiness, to a supreme place; and he would find that round the memory of the Wise Man had grown up a whole crowd of legends of mystic lore, of supernatural insight, and of an equally supernatural power over the world of angels and of demons. So far, the Gnostic might find in the Jewish dispensation, freely handled after the manner of Alexandria, much that would give a kind of backbone of solidity to his vague and artificial speculations.

On the other hand, Gnosticism was repelled from all that element in the Jewish dispensation which is ordinarily called the “Theocracy,” placing God in direct relation to the ordinary life of Israel, manifesting Him in the local sanctity of the Tabernacle or the Temple, honouring Him with physical sacrifice, setting forth His will in the clear and prosaic ordinances of the Law, dealing with all the people as a body, and as in many points equal before Him. For all this placed the Infinite Godhead in a direct, and, as it seemed to the Gnostic, an unworthy or an impossible contact, not only with man, but with that common life, that visible and tangible sphere of man’s being, which he utterly despised. To some extent it could be got rid of, as at Alexandria, by allegorical interpretations, and by the impositions on the most prosaic text of mystic meanings, known only to the initiated, and handed down in secret “traditions of men.” But where these failed, Gnosticism had a more sweeping remedy. It was to ascribe the whole system literally to the “disposition of angels,” to attribute all that was carnal in Judaism to the inferior Demiurgus, perhaps imperfectly ministering the will of the Supreme God, perhaps becoming himself the God of the Jewish nation and of the Old Testament; in either case, giving a dispensation fit only in itself for the lower psychical life, needing to be sublimed by the spiritual into a hidden wisdom, “a secret treasure of wisdom and knowledge.” Hereafter, when the Demiurgus came to be considered as antagonistic to the spiritual will of the Supreme God, this conception (as in the hands, for example, of Marcion) developed into an absolute hatred of Judaism, as a system entirely carnal, idolatrous, antagonistic to spiritual truth, and to the gospel so far as it was spiritual. But for this, in the first century, the time was not come. As yet, the growing power of Gnosticism treated Judaism as an ally, though perhaps in some degree a subject ally, in the victorious advance of its daring speculation.

Now, it has been shown, as with remarkable clearness by Dr. Lightfoot (in his Introduction to the Colossian Epistle, § 2), that some such alliance is actually trace-able in the strange Jewish brotherhood of the Essenes—marked as it was (by consent of all authorities) by a rigid asceticism, “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats;” by a denial of the resurrection of the body, as being a mere hindrance to the spiritual condition of the hereafter; by an abstinence from all sacrifices, as involving pollution, and perhaps as mere carnal ordinances; by mystic speculations as to the nature of the Godhead, and “the names of the angels,” and by occasional claim of supernatural powers of magic; by the jealous preservation of secret traditions, and by a careful separation of the initiated from the mass of their fellow-Israelites.

The chosen home of the Essenes, of whom we have detailed accounts, was in Palestine, on the borders of the Dead Sea. But it is hardly likely that so remarkable a movement should have confined itself to any single locality. Certainly in Alexandria, in the tenets of the sect of the Therapeutce, and in the teaching of Alexandrian Judaism, there was much of essential similarity to the Essenic system. Now, in close connection with our Epistle we notice the presence in Asia Minor of disciples of St. John Baptist, adhering, indeed, to “the way of the Lord,” but knowing nothing of the “baptism of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:1-7). These would come naturally from Palestine, perhaps from. “the wilderness of Judæa,” where John had baptised, near the chosen home of Essenism. We find, moreover, that a great Alexandrian teacher (Apollos), also “knowing only the baptism of John,” had come down in the early part of the gospel to teach with singular power at Ephesus. That St. John himself, though probably quite erroneously, has been claimed as an Essene is well known. But in any case his ascetic and salutary life, his stern denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, his very baptism of repentance, his declaration of the nullity of mere sonship of Abraham, would certainly be congenial to the Essene mind. Josephus’ celebrated picture of his Essene teacher (quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, p. 161), reminds us, again and again, though with difference, of St. John Baptist himself. Certainly his disciples, when they had lost their master, clinging to his name in spite of his own warning of the transitoriness of his mission, might easily find in the Essenic system the rallying point which they needed, in order to preserve their distinctive character. Nor can we well forget the “vagabond Jews, exorcists,” seeking to cast out evil spirits by the mere charm of a sacred Name of One in whom they did not believe, but a Name which they, like Simon Magus, in Samaria, recognised as having in it a supernatural power of miracle; and the mystic “books” of “curious arts “burnt publicly at Ephesus. The Essenic ideas might easily spread beyond the limits of the strict Essenic brotherhood. If once planted in the prolific soil of Asia Minor, they could hardly fail to attain a rapid development.

Now, it is certainly with a form of Judæo-Gnosticism that St. Paul has to deal in his Colossian Epistle, and one, moreover, which bears some marked similarities to the Essenic type of thought. On the one hand, he denounces the enforcement of the Jewish festivals (Colossians 2:16), and probably of the rite of circumcision (Colossians 2:11): on the other, he warns against the “traditions of men” (Colossians 2:8), containing “a philosophy and vain deceit, ”, and alludes significantly to “the treasure, the hidden treasure of wisdom and knowledge.” He describes, again, a “worship of angels,” and an “intrusion into the things not seen,” at least by the ordinary eye (Colossians 2:18, where see Note); and a rigid asceticism going beyond Pharisaic observance of the Law, and crying out at every point, “Touch not, taste not, handle not” (Colossians 2:21). Indirectly, but very emphatically, he protests against exclusive pretensions, and would present “every man as perfect before Christ” (Colossians 1:22; Colossians 1:28). All these features belong unequivocally to Gnosticism, but to Gnosticism in its early stages, while still allied to Judaism, before it had attained to the independent luxuriance of later days. Nothing, for instance, is more striking than the reference to angelic natures, “thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers,” as intervening between man and God, and the want of any vestige of allusion to the Æons of the later Gnosticism, even such as may perhaps be traced in the “oppositions” and “genealogies” of the Pastoral Epistles (1Timothy 1:4; 1Timothy 6:20; Titus 3:9). St. Paul uses the word Æon again and again (see Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:9; Ephesians 3:11; Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; Colossians 1:26), but always in its proper sense of “age,” without a shadow of the strange half-personification of the later Gnostic use. Throughout there is a distinct appropriateness to the time of the imprisonment at Rome, and just that union of similarity and dissimilarity to the later growths of Gnosticism which might be expected at this early date.

(4) But still more important and interesting is the question of the relation of Gnosticism to Christianity indicated by the Colossian Epistle. In the full-grown development of Gnosticism there were evidently two phases of this relation. In some cases the Gnostic theory, as a whole, stands out independent of Christianity, simply weaving some ideas derived from the gospel into the complexity of its comprehensive system. Such seems to have been, for example, the attitude towards Christianity of Basilides and Valentinus. In other cases, of which Marcion may be taken as a type, it identified itself in the main with Christianity, striving to mould it by free handling to its own purpose, and appealed to the Christian Scriptures, expurgated and falsified in its own peculiar sense. Moreover, in the same advanced stages Christianity was clearly distinguished by it from Judaism;” the Christ “was independent of the Demiurgus, the supposed author of the Jewish dispensation, and stood in far closer union with the Supreme Deity. Sometimes, as again notably in the system of Marcion, Christianity was characterised in a series of antitheses, as opposed to Judaism, and the salvation of the Christ was represented as a deliverance from the power of the God of the Jew. But a glance at the Epistle to the Colossians will show that of these things there is as yet no trace. Christianity had already broken through the narrow limits of Jewish legalism; the struggle marked in the Galatian and Roman Epistles had terminated in the complete victory of the freedom of the gospel. But, just as the Epistle to the Hebrews shows that there was still need to assert the transitoriness of the Jewish Ritual, Priesthood, and Sacrifice, so in this Epistle we observe that Jewish mysticism still claimed some dominion over the infant Church. Not till the hand of Providence had cut the knot of entanglement by the fall of Jerusalem, and the various manifestations of the bitter hostility of the Jews towards Christianity, was the dissociation complete.

In the eyes of Gnostic speculation of the East, Christianity probably as yet showed itself only as a sublimated and spiritualised Judaism, still presenting all the features which had excited sympathy, and simply crowning the hierarchy of angels by the manifestation of Him, who was emphatically “the Angel of the Lord;” while, on the other hand, it eliminated the narrowness of legalism, the carnality of ritual, and the close connection of the divine kingdom with common-place political and social life, which in Judaism had been an offence. Hence, in the phase already described at Colossæ, without throwing off its connection with Judaism, Gnosticism eagerly sought to lay hold of the new religion, to accept it in all its simplicity for the vulgar, and to mysticise it for the perfect into a higher knowledge. The error which vexed the Church at Colossæ appears still to approach it from without, much as the earlier Judaism had approached the Churches of Antioch or Galatia. Perhaps St. Paul’s foreboding words at Miletus had been justified by the rise “among their own selves of men speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them;” but the body of the Church seems still untouched, and is bidden to beware lest any man should “spoil” them, “judge” them, or “beguile them of their reward,” by drawing them to this new phase of error.

It has been remarked by Neander that Cerinthus, born at Alexandria, and certainly in the days of St. John at Ephesus a propagator of his doctrine in the Churches of Asia Minor, is the Gnostic, whose system is a link between Judaism and Gnosticism proper. Certainly what can be traced as to his speculations on the function of the Angels, or of one Supreme Angel, in the Creation of the world and in the giving of the Mosaic laws, agrees well enough with the indications of the Colossian heresy. But of the distinctive points of his treatment of Christ—namely, his conception that the Demiurgus was ignorant of the will of the Supreme Deity, which was revealed by the Christ; his distinction between the man Jesus of Nazareth, and “the Christ,” descending upon Him in the form of the dove at His baptism, and leaving Him before the Passion—we find no trace in the Colossian Epistle. The direct warnings of St. Paul refer only to the errors of the Judæo-Gnosticism. It is rather by the declaration of the positive truth of the true Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ, His creative function, His infinite exaltation above all principality and power, and above all, the weighty declaration that in Him “all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily,” that, as in a prophetic jealousy, he guards against the developments of Gnostic heresy in the future. We trace here a distinction from the more direct warnings even of the Pastoral Epistles— against the teaching in the Church of “other doctrines,” of “fables and endless genealogies” of Gnostic emanation; the explaining away of the future resurrection; the “seducing spirits and doctrines of demons”—i.e., of beings intermediate between God and man; which were united with the asceticism “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats”; “the questions and strifes of words,” and the “oppositions “(Gnostic antitheses) “of knowledge falsely so called”; the apostasy “of all which are in Asia,” and the heresy “eating like a canker “into the very heart of the Church, which will no longer “endure sound doctrine.” (1Timothy 1:3-4; 1Timothy 4:1-3; 1Timothy 6:4; 1Timothy 6:20; 2Timothy 2:17; 2Timothy 4:3). There is a still more marked distinction from the explicit warnings of St. John, protesting emphatically against the distinctive assertion of Gnostic heresy, that “Jesus Christ had not come in the flesh,” and dwelling on the Incarnation of “the Word of Life,” the Son, “to have whom is to have the Father,” in those weighty declarations, every word of which seems charged with reference to Gnostic error. Everything shows that the heresy noted at Colossæ belongs to an earlier stage than even the Gnosticism of Cerinthus. In contemplating it, we see the last expiring struggle of Judaism, and can just trace, inextricably entwined with it, the yet deadlier error, which was here-after to separate from it, and even to trample on it, and to advance over its dead body to the attack on the living energy of Christianity.

These considerations may suffice to mark with tolerable clearness the relation of the Epistle to Gnosticism. They certainly appear to show how entirely erroneous and inconsistent with the facts of the case is the idea, so confidently advanced, that the Epistle indicates a knowledge of full-grown Gnosticism fatal to its Apostolic origin. But they have far greater value, as enabling us better to understand its deeply interesting picture of the development, alike of Christian truth, and of the heresy, destined hereafter to assail or undermine it, in the closing years of the ministry of St. Paul

EXCURSUS B: THE APOCRYPHAL EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS.

The translation of this Epistle here given is taken from the Latin (in which alone it is found), quoted by Dr. Lightfoot in the Appendix to his edition of the Epistle to the Colossians, with a conjectural rendering back into the Greek (which he thinks may have been the original) and two old English versions of the fifteenth century. He also gives a full description of the various Latin MSS., from which it appears that the earliest (the Codex Fuldensis) is a Vulgate New Testament of A.D. 546, in which the Epistle occurs between the Epistle to the Colossians and the First Epistle to Timothy. A glance at it will show that it is little more than a tame compilation of phrases, which, however, are taken not from the Ephesians or Colossians, but mostly from the Philippians, and that it has no bias or evidence of distinctive purpose whether for good or for evil. It certainly is not the Epistle spoken of in the Muratorian Fragment, as “in Marcionis heresim conficta.” Its very simplicity induces a charitable hope that originally it may have been only “a pious imagination,” made without idea of forgery, which subsequently was accepted as claiming to be a genuine Epistle of St. Paul.

It runs thus:—

“Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, to the brethren who are in Laodicea; grace be unto you and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

“I thank Christ in all my supplications that ye are abiding in Him, and continuing steadfast in His works, waiting for the promise even unto the Day of Judgment. Neither let the vain words of some who teach beguile you, that they should turn you away from the truth of the gospel, which was preached unto you by me. And now shall God bring it to pass that they which are from me be serving to the furtherance of the truth of the gospel, and doing all goodness in the works of salvation (and) of eternal life.

“And now my bonds which I suffer in Christ are manifest; in which I am glad and rejoice; and this shall turn to my everlasting salvation, which also itself is wrought by your prayers, and the supply of the Holy Ghost, whether it be by life or by death. For to me both to live in Christ and to die is joy; and His mercy shall work out the same thing in you, that ye may have the same love, and be of one mind.

“Therefore, my dearly beloved, as ye heard in my presence with you, so hold fast and work in the fear of God, and it shall be to you unto everlasting life. For it is God which worketh in you. And do without drawing back, whatsoever ye do.

“Finally, my dearly beloved, rejoice in Christ, and beware of those who are greedy of filthy lucre. Let all your petitions be made known unto God, and be steadfast in the mind of Christ. Whatsoever things are sound, and true, and pure, and righteous, and lovely, do; and what ye have heard and received keep in your heart. And peace shall be with you.

“The saints salute you. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with your spirit, Cause this Epistle to be read to the Colossians, and that the Letter of the Colossians be read also to you.”

Title

The oldest known form is the briefest, To (the) Colossians, or Colassians (see note on Colossians 1:1 below). So in the “Subscription” to the Epistle, which see. The title as in the Authorized Version agrees with that adopted in the Elzevir editions of 1624, 1633.