the Fourth Week after Easter
Click to donate today!
Bible Dictionaries
Colossians, Epistle to the
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or 1. Introduction.-St. Paul himself had never preached in the Lycus valley. On his third missionary journey he took another route (Acts 19:1), and that he did not visit that district during his two years’ stay at Ephesus is sufficiently proved by the allusions in his letter to the Church at Colossae (Colossians 1:4; Colossians 1:7; Colossians 1:9; Colossians 2:1). Colossae was at this time a small town of declining importance, overshadowed by Its great neighbours, Laodicea and Hierapolis, some 10 miles down-stream. In all three towns churches had been founded by the labours of Epaphras (Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:12-13), himself a native of Colossae (Colossians 4:12), who had met St. Paul, probably at Ephesus, and had become a disciple. The date of the foundation of these churches may be assigned with some confidence to about the years a.d. 55 and 56 (adopting C. H. Turner’s dating; cf. article ‘Chronology’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ), and Epaphras may well have been acting as the direct agent of St. Paul (cf. the better reading ‘on our behalf’ in Colossians 1:7). This would account in some degree for the authoritative attitude which St. Paul takes in his letter.
Though Colossae itself was but a small town, its Church may well have been the most important of those in the Lycus valley. It was evidently closely connected with the Church at Laodicea (Colossians 2:1; Colossians 4:18), and it is even possible that the work in the latter place was in charge of Archippus, the son of Philemon of Colossae (Colossians 4:17, Philemon 1:2). In each place the work seems to have centred in the house of one of its most prominent members; cf. the house of Aquila and Priscilla at Rome, Romans 16:5 (if, indeed, Romans 16 was not addressed to Ephesus), that of Philemon (Philemon 1:2) in Colossae, that of Nymphas, or Nympha, in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). A well-attested reading suggests that the latter, a woman’s name, may be correct in spite of the improbability of this Doric form being used. If this is so, Nympha, like Priscilla, takes her place with the women who played an honoured part in the life of the early Church.
Colossae lay in Phrygian territory, and its population was doubtless largely Phrygian, with a veneer of Greek civilization. Philemon’s wife, Apphia (Philemon 1:2), bore a Phrygian name. The Jewish trader had doubtless reached Colossae, but there is no sign of any permanent settlement of Jews there such as was made by the Seleucid kings at Laodicea or Tarsus. That the Church there was entirely or at least predominantly Gentile is shown clearly enough by the Epistle (Colossians 1:21; Colossians 1:27; Colossians 2:13; cf. St. Paul’s anxiety in Colossians 4:11 to show how few among his helpers are of Jewish race-‘who alone of the circumcision are my fellow-workers …’). And the Jews of Laodicea, together with any who may have dwelt at Colossae, were doubtless, like most of the Jews of the Diaspora, largely affected both by local tendencies of thought and by the wider influences which centred in Alexandria.
The Church of Colossae had been in existence only a few years when Epaphras rejoined St. Paul, then in prison for the faith (Colossians 1:24; Colossians 4:10; Colossians 4:18). He brought with him good news of the infant Church (Colossians 1:3; Colossians 2:5). But yet there were grave reasons for anxiety. Both at Colossae and at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16) a new and dangerous form of teaching was abroad. Who the teachers were we do not know. The heresy may even have been due to someone influential leader (cf. Zahn’s comment on Colossians 2:18 ff., where the participles are in the singular [Introd. to NT, i. 479]). But whether the teachers were one or more, it is at least clear that it was not with a recurrence of the Galatian trouble that St. Paul had now to deal. The stress of this new ‘philosophy’ lay not so much upon the Law as upon theosophical tenets and ascetic practices, which were supposed to constitute a higher Christianity (Colossians 2:2-3; Colossians 2:6),
For the present this teaching had not made much headway in the Church at Colossae. But St. Paul saw the need of striking while there was yet time. And he had other reasons for sending one of his agents to Asia at this time. There was Onesimus, the converted slave of Philemon, ready at St. Paul’s bidding to return to his master. There was also the desirability of sending a pastoral letter to the Churches of Asia. Tychicus was at hand, ready to convey both the circular letter, now known as the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the short note to Philemon about Onesimus. By his hand, therefore, St. Paul writes to the brethren at Colossae.
There has been much discussion whether a fourth letter, to Laodicea, accompanied the other three, based on the command to the Colossians that they should read the Epistle ‘from Laodicea.’ The old hypothesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Calvin that this was a letter written from the Laodicean Church to St. Paul is rendered impossible by the context. It remains therefore to decide whether this is some lost letter by the Apostle or whether it can be identified with any of his existing letters. The suggestions of John of Damascus, who identifies it with 1 Tim., and of Schneckenburger, who identifies it with Heb., can safely be passed over. In 1844 Wieseler suggested that Philemon really lived at Laodicea, and that the lost letter is our Epistle to Philemon. This would certainly make it easier to account for the apparent connexion of Archippus with Laodicea, but otherwise the theory has little point and has not met with any acceptance. A more probable hypothesis is to be found in the identification of this letter with Ephesians. If this was a circular letter, intended for all the Asiatic churches, it would naturally come to Colossae as a letter brought by Tychicus from Laodicea (see article Ephesians). If this identification is rejected the letter to the Laodiceans is lost beyond recall. It is interesting that more than one attempt was made to supply this gap in the Pauline Canon during the early days of the Church. In several Manuscripts the words ‘written from Laodicea’ were added at the end of 1 Timothy. More curious still, an Epistle was made up out of a collection of Pauline phrases, possibly as early as the 2nd cent. (so Zahn) but probably later, and was given the title ad Laodicenses. Jerome (Vir. Illustr. v.) mentions this work, ‘legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur,’ and, despite his condemnation, it was widely read throughout the Middle Ages. Traces of this Epistle have been found only in the West, and it has commonly been regarded as a Western forgery. Lightfoot, however, argues that it shows traces of being from a Greek original, despite the fact that all known Manuscripts are in Latin. The early date of the document also points in the same direction. (This Ep. ad Laod. is discussed at length by Lightfoot in an appendix to his Colossians, p. 274ff.; cf. also Westcott, Canon of NT5, 1881, Appendix E; A. Souter, Text and Canon of NT, 1913, p. 193.)
2. Contents.-St. Paul, associating Timothy with himself in his opening greeting (Colossians 1:1-2) passes on in his customary manner to a thanksgiving for the good news which he has heard from Epaphras. In this thanksgiving he alludes especially to the true gospel which had been preached to his renders by Epaphras, and reminds them that it is this gospel and no other that has borne fruit in all the world (Colossians 1:3-8). This is followed by a prayer which widens out, as in Eph., into a statement of doctrine with regard to the Person of Christ (Colossians 1:9-23). This doctrinal section is expanded with a special view to the heresies which it is St. Paul’s purpose to combat. In opposition to the ‘philosophy’ which was being preached, he prays that the Colossians may be filled with ‘all spiritual wisdom and understanding’ (Colossians 1:9). In opposition to the theosophy which recognized and trembled before ‘the principalities and the powers,’ he thanks God that they have been delivered from ‘the power of darkness’ and made members of ‘the kingdom of the Son of His love’ (Colossians 1:13). In opposition to the position accorded to angelic beings, he breaks into a paean in honour of the Son (a) as sole Redeemer (Colossians 1:14); (b) as the visible Representative of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15); (c) as prior to and supreme over all creation, including these very angelic powers; as the present stay, and ultimate consummation, of creation (Colossians 1:15-17); (d) as the supreme Head of the Church in virtue of His Resurrection (Colossians 1:18); (e) as One in whom abide completely all the perfections of the Godhead (Colossians 1:19); (f) as One whose death has made atonement not only for human sin but also for all the disorder that exists in heavenly places, so that not only are the angels unable to ‘make peace,’ but they themselves need the mediation of the Son (Colossians 1:20-23). St. Paul then passes on to emphasize his own position as a minister of this, the one true gospel, a gospel which does not merely save a few elect, but which is valid for every man who will receive it (Colossians 1:24-29).
Ch. 2 is devoted to warnings against the false teaching which had been reported by Epaphras. It opens with a renewal of the prayer of Colossians 1:9. St. Paul again reiterates that in Christ alone, and not in any human plausibility, can the hidden treasures of knowledge and wisdom be found (Colossians 2:1-5). He warns his readers against esoteric cults which have dealings with the angel world, Instead of with Christ, the supreme Head of all (Colossians 2:6-10). He reminds them that as Christians they need no special and mysterious ceremonies, but only faith in Christ, who has cancelled all ceremonial obligations through the power of the Cross, thereby depriving hostile spiritual powers of their weapon against mankind (Colossians 2:11-15). The Colossians are therefore not to be misled into thinking that there is some higher way of leading the Christian life, consisting in special ordinances or a higher asceticism, even if commended by a show of esoteric knowledge (Colossians 2:16-23).
In ch. 3, St. Paul passes, by way of contrast, to the practical Implications of life in Christ. For Christians there is indeed a true asceticism, but it consists in a putting to death of the ‘old man,’ and a putting on of the ‘new man,’ not merely in a mortifying of the flesh, for that, for the Christian, is already accomplished in the renewal of the spirit ‘after the image of him that created him’ (Colossians 3:1-11). The rule for the Christian must therefore be not the rule of ascetic ordinances but the warm and living rule of love, of Christ dwelling in the heart (Colossians 3:12-17).
A short passage follows in which brief words of counsel are addressed to wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, masters (Colossians 3:18 to Colossians 4:1), and one or two general exhortations lead up to the salutations with which the letter closes (Colossians 4:2-18).
3. Date and place of composition.-It has been customary to regard the four ‘Epistles of the Captivity’ as all written from Rome during the two years (a.d. 59-61) alluded to in Acts 28:30. There is no good reason for giving up this view in the case of Colossians. Phil. at least must be from Rome. If, with Bleek and Lightfoot (Philippians4, 1878, p. 30), we place Col. later than Phil., on the ground of the closer affinity of the latter with Rom. both in style and doctrine, the Roman origin of Col. would be unquestionable. It is not possible, however, in a writer like St. Paul, to postulate so orderly an advance in these respects. His doctrine at least must have been thought out long before he wrote Romans. And, on the other hand, the allusions in Philippians 1:7; Philippians 1:12-13; Philippians 1:20-25; Philippians 2:23 point to a date near the very close of the Roman imprisonment. We must thus date Col. earlier (Philippians 1:12-14 seems to reflect Colossians 4:3-4). But this leaves open the possibility that it was written not from Rome but during the two years spent at Caesarea. This view has been held by quite a number of scholars, e.g. Meyer, Sabatier, Weiss, and Haupt. So also recently E. L. Hicks, Interpreter, 1910. But the arguments on the other side, as set out e.g. by Peake (‘Col.’ in Expositor’s Greek Testament , p. 491), seem conclusive. Haupt’s argument that a considerable interval of time must lie between the statements of doctrine found in Phil. and Col. has no weight. Weiss points out that St. Paul gives a different account of his plans in Phil., where he is hoping to visit Macedonia, from that in Philem., where Colossae is his goal. But the two statements are not incompatible in letters both written from Rome. The one plan might easily involve the other. And, further, there are serious objections to the Caesarea hypothesis. It is impossible to think that St. Paul at Caesarea was already planning a visit to Colossae. It was upon Rome that his eyes were fixed, and at least towards the end of his days at Caesarea he knew that he would be sent thither. But most decisive of all is the little companion note to Philemon. It must have been at Rome, the natural refuge of the runaway slave, that St. Paul came across Onesimus, and from Rome that he sent him back to his master with Tychicus. Finally, it would be most remarkable, in a letter written from Caesarea, that there should be no salutation from Philip.
In view of the fact that Col. and Philem. wore probably sent together, it has caused comment that there is some variation in the salutations. Not only is the order of the names different-a point of little significance-but in Col. Aristarchus, in Philem. Epaphras, is given the place of honour as ‘my fellow-prisoner.’ The reason for this is obscure. Fritzsche’s suggestion that St. Paul’s friends took turns in sharing his captivity is only a suggestion. As Peake points out, the divergence is a proof of the authenticity of both Epistles, since no imitator would have made so unnecessary and self-condemnatory an alteration.
4. External evidence for authenticity.-This is quite as strong as could reasonably be expected. At the end of the 2nd cent. Col. was known to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. It is mentioned by name in the Muratorian Canon. Its acceptance by Marcion carries the knowledge of it at Rome to before 150. This renders the description by Justin of Christ as ‘first-born of all creation’ (Dial. 84, 85, 100) an almost certain echo of Colossians 1:15, especially as the parallel phrase in Philo is not πρωτότοκος but πρωτόγονος. Earlier references are all rather uncertain, especially in Barnabas and Clement of Rome. It is, however, probable that Ignatius quotes Colossians 2:14 in Smyrn. i. 2, and Colossians 1:16 in Trall, v. 2. Lightfoot also points out Ignatins’ use of σύνδουλος as a term for deacons; cf. Colossians 1:7, Colossians 4:7. This evidence is insufficient in itself to prove authenticity, and throws us back upon a discussion of the many problems which the Epistle itself presents.
5. The Colossian heresy.-The teaching attacked by St. Paul is described in Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:16-23, verses which in addition to their brevity present many problems both of translation and of text. Theories as to its character have been varied and numerous. The principal facts that can be gleaned are as follows:
(1) The teaching was Christian; cf. Colossians 2:19, which, however, suggests that it did not give Christ His due position.
(2) It was, at least in part, Judaistic. This would not necessarily be proved by the reference to ‘the bond written in ordinances, in Colossians 2:14, though it is on the whole probable that the Mosaic Law is intended. But the specific allusions in Colossians 2:16, ‘in meat or in drink or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day,’ are obviously Jewish. It is true that the Law says nothing about ‘drink,’ but the later Rabbinism certainly included such regulations, as is shown by Hebrews 9:10. And this very Rabbinism is clearly alluded to in Colossians 2:8, ‘the tradition of men.’ The references to circumcision (Colossians 2:11; Colossians 3:11) show that the false teachers assigned some value to it. Yet this Judaism cannot have been very like that attacked in Gal., as the whole tone of the letter shows. It was less definite, and mingled with other elements of a peculiar type.
(3) It claimed to be a ‘philosophy’ (Colossians 2:8), which St. Paul calls a ‘vain deceit.’ It seems to have been regarded as the revelation of a secret ‘wisdom and knowledge’ (Colossians 2:2; Colossians 2:8). Here, just as much as in 1 Corinthians 1, we are certainly moving in Greek, or at least Hellenistic, regions of thought. Philo could speak of a ‘Jewish philosophy.’ And the Judaism of Colossae, like that of Alexandria, was at least given a, Hellenic colour. As Hort has shown (Judaistic Christianity, p. 119ff.), the term ‘philosophy’ might easily have been used of esoteric lore about angels, or even, though this usage is a later one, of an ascetic ethical cult, features which both appear at Colossae.
(4) Some sort of worship of angels seems to have been practised, and possibly, if the reading is correct, emphasis was laid upon visions communicated by them (Colossians 2:18). St. Paul charges the teachers with reliance upon the spirits that control the elements of the universe rather than upon Christ (Colossians 2:8). That this is the true meaning of στοιχεῖα in this passage, as well as in Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9, is shown by the exegesis, which implies in each case personal agents. And the emphasis laid by St. Paul upon the superiority of Christ to ‘thrones or dominions or principalities or powers’ (Colossians 1:16; cf. Colossians 1:20; Colossians 2:15) confirms this view. That there was angelolatry of some sort is certain, though the language in which it is described cannot be pressed too closely, since St. Paul may be using the language of his own angelology to describe the view of his opponents. In the 4th cent. the Council of Laodicea found it necessary to condemn angel-worship. In the 5th cent. Theodoret says that the archangel Michael was worshipped in the district, and this worship continued for several centuries (see Zahn, op. cit. p. 476f.; cf. Lightfoot, Col. p. 68).
(5) Whatever Colossians 2:23 precisely means, it shows that stress was laid upon asceticism, for which special rules were given (Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:20-21). This was the natural outcome of a ‘philosophy’ in which the spirits that ruled material things were the objects of fear and reverence. The angels who were the objects of the Colossian cult were powers who if not propitiated might be hostile to man, who must therefore guard himself by mortifying his material body. This is the point of St. Paul’s counter-statement of the true Christian asceticism (Colossians 3:5 ff.).
It has been made clear by the work of recent scholars that there is nothing in all this which need point to a date later than a.d. 60. The Tübingen school, from Baur to Hilgenfeld, thought that Col. reflected the great Gnostic systems of the 2nd century. The powers, etc., were the Valentinian aeons, forming the Pleroma, to which they saw an allusion in Colossians 1:19. Asceticism, again, was a typical Gnostic feature, as was the emphasis on a secret wisdom or Gnosis (cf. Colossians 2:3) confined to an inner circle of initiates or τέλειοι (cf. Colossians 1:28, where St. Paul declares that every man is to be made τέλειος by the gospel). The Judaistic references were explained on this theory to be due to some sort of Gnostic Ebionism, on the lines of the pseudo-Clementines. That there were Gnostic tendencies at Colossae need not be denied. The emphasis on knowledge is enough to prove that. But there is no hall-mark of any particular 2nd-cent. system. The word πλήρωμα in Colossians 1:19 loses most of its point if it is used in the later technical sense (on the word see Lightfoot, Col. p. 323; J. A. Robinson, Eph., 1903, p. 255; Peake on Colossians 1:19). It is far more probable that the later Gnostics derived their usage from that of St. Paul.
More recently the theory has been held in a modified form, recognizing a genuine Pauline Epistle, directed against a Jewish-Christian theosophy, but regarding it as having been expanded by a 2nd-cent. writer (so Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, Eng. translation , 1906-11, who saw allusions to Gnostic Ebionism though he did not attempt to reconstruct the original Epistle; Holtzmann and Soltau, who depend, however, rather on literary criticism; see below). The arguments for this also fail if the known tendencies of the 1st cent. are sufficient to cover the facts. And there is no hint in the Epistle of any such division in the object of St. Paul’s attack.
More plausible is the attempt to find in Col. on attack on the 1st cent. Gnosticism of Cerinthus (so, e.g., R. Scott). Here we find both the emphasis on Judaism, though the Jewish angels have taken the position later occupied by the Gnostic aeons, and the reduced Christology in which the Christ is supposed to have descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism. This has clear affinities with the Colossian heresy; but, as Lightfoot has shown (Col. p. 108ff.), it is difficult to think that the teaching at Colossae had as yet taken so definite a form. St. Paul would surely have made a more definite and incisive reply. And, further, the angelic powers could still be regarded as objects of worship. They are not yet either ignorant of or hostile to the Supreme God. And the emphasis on the identity of Jesus with the Christ (2:8), while it would have point against Cerinthus, is hardly an attack upon him. It is thus more natural to see in this heresy that tendency of thought which led up to Cerinthus than the direct outcome of his teaching.
It has been suggested, especially by Lightfoot and Klöpper, that there was some connexion with the Jewish ascetic sect known as Essenes. But (a) before a.d. 70 there is no trace of Essenism except on the shores of the Dead Sea. The some-what similar Therapeutae, in Egypt, are only known from Philo, de Vit. contempl., a much-disputed treatise. Lightfoot tries to find parallels in Acts for the use of magic (cf. Acts 19:13 with Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. 8. 6 ad fin.) and in the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles, probably written in Asia c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 80. Neither parallel amounts to much. (b) The Essenes jealously guarded the names of the angels (Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii. 7). This is a poor parallel for the Colossian cult, which more probably arose through a syncretistic admixture with Phrygian ideas. (c) The evidence that the Essenes forbade flesh and wine is disputable (see Zahn, op. cit. p. 376), though they certainly had extremely rigid ceremonial rules as to food. Of the specific Essene prohibition of marriage there is no trace at Colossae. (d) There is no sign in Col. of the alleged Essene sun-worship, of their communal life, their ablutions, their very severe probation and initiation. (e) The allusions to ‘sabbaths’ and circumcision in Col. are merely Judaistic. There is no hint of the very strict Sabbatarian rules of the Essenes. It is true that Lightfoot and Klöpper, especially the latter, argue merely for Essenistic tendencies at Colossae. But even this can hardly be said to be proved. The real value of the suggestion is that it shows that within Judaism itself it was possible for strange esoteric cults to appear. (For the Essenes see esp. Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii.; Lightfoot, Col. pp. 82ff., 115ff.; 5)
We are thus driven to the conclusion that the Colossian heresy found its stimulus in contemporary Judaism, doubtless with syncretistic Phrygian features. Hort (Judaistic Christianity, 116ff.) has shown that there is nothing in the language which need imply any other source. The one surprising point is the worship of angels. But even if this is not derived from some local Phrygian cult, it was quite a natural application of contemporary Judaism. In the later Jewish view all God’s activity in Nature was mediated by angels, and, though angel-worship among the Jews is not known at this date, it certainly sprang up within a short time, being alluded to in the Evangelium Petri, by Celsus, and several times in the Talmud. No objection to the authenticity of the Epistle need therefore be maintained upon this ground.
6. The theology of the Epistle.-It has been objected to Col. that it is un-Pauline in its Christology. It is true that there is a speculative advance with regard to the Person of Christ. St. Paul is now opposing a speculative ‘philosophy,’ and, as has been shown in dealing with the contents of the letter, he is forced to draw out the speculative implications of his own position. And in the advance made there is nothing to cause surprise. That Christ is prior to, and the principle of, all creation (Colossians 1:15-17) is the thought implicit in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and in the whole doctrine of the Man from Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:47) regarded as pre-existent. That Christ is regarded also as the goal of creation (Colossians 1:16) is only in form an advance upon 1 Corinthians 15:28, for it is only when the consummation in Christ is reached that He is to surrender all things to the Father; and even so, in virtue of His unity with the Father, they remain His own (cf. Philippians 2:9-10). In Col. St. Paul is especially emphasizing the indwelling in Christ of the whole Godhead (Colossians 1:20; Colossians 2:9). And, indeed, in Colossians 1:20 the most natural rendering implies exactly the doctrine of 1 Corinthians 15:28, Romans 11:36. In any case, even if there is a real advance here, it is one that St. Paul might easily have made, and which was the natural answer to teachers who were assigning cosmic significance to angelic beings.
This raises the question of St. Paul’s angelology. Here again objection has been taken to Colossians. There is certainly little direct reference to angels in the other Pauline Epistles. But yet such references do occur, and, so far as they go, they tend to confirm the view that St. Paul might naturally have taken up the position adopted here. Further, the Rabbinism of the period was full of speculations about the angels, and there is no reason why St. Paul should have abandoned such speculations upon his conversion. They must have been taken up into his Christianity, even though, in preaching to Gentiles, it was seldom necessary to dwell upon them. The principal features found in Col. are these:
(1) The universe is animated by elemental spirits (Colossians 2:8). This conception appears also in Galatians 4:3; Galatians 4:9, and is in line with that of Psalms 104:4, a passage which has been taken over in Hebrews 1:7, though with a change of thought characteristic of later Judaism. Both the Book of Jubilees and Enoch speak of the spirits of such things as fire, mist, hail, the sea (cf. Revelation 14:18; Revelation 16:5).
(2) There are different ranks of angels (Colossians 1:16; Colossians 2:10; Colossians 2:15; cf. Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 15:24, where substantially the same language is used). This conception perhaps starts from Deuteronomy 4:19, where the nations are allotted to ‘the host of heaven.’ In Daniel each nation, including Israel, has its angelic ‘prince.’ It was a natural development that led to the conception of orders of angelic powers in heaven itself (cf. En. lxi. 10). In the later Rabbinism ten orders were enumerated (cf. also the angels of the churches in Rev.).
(3) In Colossians 2:14-15 there is perhaps an allusion to the ministry of angels in the giving of the Law. This characteristic idea of the Rabbis was derived from Deuteronomy 33:2 (Septuagint ). It is alluded to in Acts 7:53, Hebrews 2:2, Jos. Ant. xv. v. 3.
(4) The angels, even the angel or angels of the Law, may be morally imperfect, and need reconciliation through the Cross (Colossians 1:20; Colossians 2:15). This is typically Pauline (cf. Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 11:10; 1 Corinthians 15:24, Galatians 1:8). It does not seem to be a very early Jewish conception, unless it appears in Genesis 6:1-4. Such ministers of evil as the destroying angel of Exodus 12 are non-moral. But in the later writings angels are frequently charged with weakness of different kinds; cf. Psalms 82:1-2, Job 4:18; Job 15:15. It was only at a late date that the distinction between absolutely good and absolutely bad angels arose. It was not the characteristic view of St. Paul’s day, and there is no reason why we should expect to find it in his writings. There thus seems to be nothing particularly un-Pauline in the angelology of Colossians. (On this subject see esp. O. Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie, 1888; A. S. Peake, Introd. to ‘Col.’ in Expositor’s Greek Testament ; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909.)
7. Relation to Ephesians.-It is at once obvious that there is a close literary connexion between Colossians and Ephesians. The structure of the two Epistles is largely the same, though naturally the special warnings of Col. find no parallel in Eph., and a second thanksgiving and prayer in Ephesians 2:1 to Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 3:14-19 has no parallel in Colossians. The exhortations at the end show close agreement in detail. And, most significant of all, there is a remarkable series of verbal parallels, running through verse after verse of the two Epistles. Only two alternatives are possible. Either both letters are by one writer, or one has been deliberately modelled on the other.
It has commonly been asserted that Eph. is based on Col., and in that case no presumption against Col. arises. Holtzmann, however, showed that the literary criticism did not work out so simply. Sometimes one Epistle, sometimes the other, seems to be prior. Accordingly, he regarded Eph. as based upon a shorter Col., which was subsequently expanded from Eph. in view of Gnosticism. But the tests by which he proposed to recover the original Col. do not work out well. The division of the heresy into two parts is not at all easy. And the literary criteria are altogether too minute. A similar and even more elaborate theory has been worked out by Soltau. Von Soden, however, in examining Holtzmann’s view, only admitted Colossians 1:15-20; Colossians 2:10; Colossians 2:15; Colossians 2:18 b as later insertions, and has subsequently reduced even this amount, rejecting only the Christological passage in ch. 1. The majority of scholars now accept the whole Epistle as Pauline.
As to the relations with Eph., it seems to the present writer that sufficient stress has not been laid upon the curions interweaving of the phraseology of the two Epistles. Even Holtzmann’s hypothesis does not do justice to the way in which phrase after phrase is used in connexion with different trains of thought. The author of Eph. did not copy Col. at all as the two later Synoptists copied St. Mark. He simply used its language, and to a most extraordinary extent. He is writing for a different purpose, and applies to that purpose phraseology used with quite different implications in Colossians. Thus Ephesians 2:11-17 is full of the language of Colossians 2:11-15, and yet the points of the passages are quite different. Is it possible that such a phenomenon could have arisen at all except in the work of a single writer writing a second letter while the language of the first was still fresh in his mind?
8. Style and language.-It has been objected that these are un-Pauline, but this holds only if the four great Epistles are taken as the final norm as to what St. Paul might have written. Of the 46 words not used elsewhere by St. Paul the majority are connected either with the heresy or with its refutation. Further, 11 Pauline words occur which are used by no other NT writer. It should be noted that St. Paul was now at Rome, in the midst of new associations, which would naturally affect his vocabulary. The suggestion has been made that Timothy, who is associated with St. Paul in the salutation, may have had a large share in the actual composition of the letter.
This suggestion might also help to account for the change in style from the earlier Epistles. The movement of thought is less abrupt, and the sentences are often longer and more involved. Particles, even those of which St. Paul is most fond, such as ἄρα, διό, διότι, are replaced to a great extent by participial constructions. This, however, may well be due to the lack of urgency. The danger was not so great as it had been in Galatia or in Corinth.
In the second chapter the difficulty of translating is very great, and it is possible that in some cases the text has suffered from corruption lying further back than all our existing Manuscripts ; Colossians 2:18 and Colossians 2:23 are the most notable examples (in Colossians 2:18 C. Taylor’s ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων has been favoured by Westcott and Hort and Zahn, and is commonly accepted). The translation of Colossians 2:15 presents almost as many difficulties.
Literature.-Editions.-Col. has been edited by H. J. Holtzmann (1872), A. Klöpper (1882), H. von Soden (1891), and Haupt (in Meyer’s Com.8, 1899). J. B. Lightfoot’s Colossians (1st ed., 1875) is the standard Eng. work. Of recent Eng. Commentaries the most valuable are those by A. S. Peake (Expositor’s Greek Testament , 1903), T. K. Abbott (International Critical Commentary , 1897), and G. G. Findlay (Pulpit Commentary, 1886). General.-F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 1894; W. Sanday, article in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible2, 1893; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das NT, 1897 (Eng. translation , Introd. to NT, 1909); H. von Soden, articles in JPTh [Note: PTh Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie.] , 1885-87; J. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt).2, 1912.
L. W. Grensted.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Colossians, Epistle to the'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/c/colossians-epistle-to-the.html. 1906-1918.
