INTRODUCTION to Colossians and Philemon

NEW

TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

Exposition of Colossians & Philemon

William Hendriksen

BAKERBOOKS

A DIVISION OF BAKER BOOK HOUSE CO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49516

First printing, December 1995

Published by Baker Books

a division of Baker Book House Company

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516–6287

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010–2606–7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

ISBN 0–8010-2078–6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The letters in book-abbreviations are followed by periods. Those in periodical-abbreviations omit the periods and are in italics. Thus one can see at a glance whether the abbreviation refers to a book or to a periodical.

A. Book Abbreviations

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

Gram.N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

Gram.N.T.Bl.-Debr. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

I.S.B.E. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

L.N.T. (Th.) Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

L.N.T. (A. and G.) W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan (edition Grand Rapids 1952)

N.N. Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by D. Eberhard Nestle and D. Erwin Nestle (most recent edition)

N.E.B. New English Bible

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

S.H.E.R.K. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Th.W.N.T. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (edited by G. Kittel)

W.D.B. Westminster Dictionary of the Bible

W.H.A.B. Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible

B. Periodical Abbreviations

ATR Anglican Theological Review

BA Biblical Archaeologist

BibZ Biblische Zeitschrift

ET Expository Times

Exp The Expositor

GTT Gereformeerd theologisch tijdschrift

HTR Harvard Theological Review

Int Interpretation

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken

TZ Theologische Zeitschrift

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

Please Note

In order to differentiate between the second person singular (see Philem. 4) and the second person plural (see Col. 1:2), we have indicated the former as follows: “you”; and the latter as follows: “you.”

COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON

INTRODUCTION to Colossians and Philemon

I. WHY SHOULD WE STUDY COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON?

The basic reason for the study of any Bible-book is given in II Tim. 3:16, 17. In addition we may well ask, Why should we, especially today, study these letters?

1. First of all because we are living in the space-age.

We hear and read about space-programs, galaxies, lunar probes, men-in-orbit. To a certain extent we can even see orbital flights on the television-screen. We discuss the prospects of inter-stellar flight. So, we as Christians naturally ask, “How is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, related to this vast universe of space and of star-systems? Or does he, perhaps, stand outside of it?” For the great comfort of all believers this basic question is answered in Colossians (see especially on 1:16, 17, 20).

2. Again, this is the age of ecumenicity.

Today in religious circles interdenominational Christian fellowship — also called ecumenicity — is making headway. As many see it, this interdenominational fellowship must become organic union. They dream about a super-church. Will this be a body without a head? And if there is to be a head, will it be an earthly head? Today this question is very real, for not only Protestantism but also Roman Catholicism is looking forward toward ultimate ecclesiastical union. Even while this book is being written Protestant leaders are meeting in an ecumenical council at the invitation of the pope. Has he not loudly proclaimed that “the separated brothers” should be gathered, that they should return to the fold and recognize the supreme authority of … Rome? But must the Church have an earthly head at all? Who, after all, is the Head of the Church, both organic and ruling? Yes, and not of the Church alone but of all things? Colossians answers this question too (see on 1:18, 19, 24; 2:10, 19). May its teaching never be rejected or compromised in any way.

Now in the ecumenical movement there are men who are earnestly desirous of promoting the type of spiritual oneness of which Christ would approve; in fact, which he has commanded (see N.T.C. on John 17:21). Accordingly, it is their intention that members of various denominations and backgrounds shall sit down together and discuss their differences, in order, without any sacrifice of essentials, to resolve them if possible, to merge denominations wherever that can be done with spiritual benefit to all concerned, and in any event to investigate possible avenues of co-operation for philanthropic and cultural enterprises. All this is to be encouraged. Ecumenicity in that sense is not something to be avoided but to be welcomed.

There are others, however, who seem to have surrendered — if they ever had it! — the idea of the finality of the Christian religion and of the all-sufficiency of Christ. Their purpose seems to be to establish a world-church, that is, not only to merge the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Russian Orthodox groups, but even to wed Christianity and the non-Christian religions. They seem to feel that Christ, to be sure, has something, in fact, has much to offer, but not everything. Rama, Vishnu, Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, Moses, and Mohammed have made their contributions too. It has been reported that Gandhi accepted all great religions as his. The extremists in the present ecumenical movement seem to be imitating Gandhi.

Now this virtual denial of the all-sufficiency of Christ was the very heresy — though presented in a different form — which Paul faced when he wrote Colossians. Is the Christian religion final or is it not? Is Christ all-sufficient or do we need other Saviors to supplement him? Colossians answers that question. The entire epistle is really an answer, but see especially 1:18; 2:9, 10.

3. The present era calls for basic reflection on Christ’s deity.

The very emphasis on ecumenicity confronts the Church with the necessity of re-examining its basic beliefs regarding the Christ. If Christ is really God in the same sense in which the Father (and the Spirit) is God, then must the Unitarian, the Jew, and the Mohammedan be excluded from the ecumenical movement, or is there a possibility of compromise here? Reflection upon similar basic questions with respect to Christ — such questions as, “Are there three persons in the one, divine essence?” — is also forced upon us by the influence of the theology of Karl Barth. We see, therefore, that this space-age, this age of ecumenicity, is also the age which forces upon us re-examination of our historical and confessional beliefs regarding the relation of Christ to the Father and to the Trinity. And on this point, too, Colossians speaks with great clarity (see on 1:15a; 2:9).

4. This is the age of pragmatism.

It must be granted that by no means every one is interested in meditation and reflection upon deep theological truths. Today’s slogan is: “Ideas must be tested by their practical value.” Not, “Is it true?” but “Does it work?” is what people generally want to know. Colossians points out that these two questions cannot be separated. To be sure, Christianity is a life, but it is a life based upon a belief, a mighty energizing doctrine. He who is the Object of our faith is also the Source of our life. a. What this faith amounts to, and b. how this Christian life is lived, is here set forth with such surpassing beauty and grandeur that the remark of A. Deissmann was to the point, “When I open the chapel door of the epistle to the Colossians it is as if Johann Sebastian [Bach] himself sat at the organ.” For a. see especially Col. 1; for b. especially 3:5–17.

5. The age in which we are living is also marked by a re-emphasis on the great truth of the equality of all men in relation to their Maker.

There are many who agree that all men are equally helpless by nature, all equally in need of salvation, all equally duty-bound to live a life to God’s glory; and that consequently no man has a right to oppress his fellow-man. Now if this be true then what should be the relation between race and race, husband and wife, parents and children, master and slave, employer and employee? And if the relationships be strained, how can the tension be removed? There is much disagreement on this score. Here, too, Colossians comes to the rescue. The teaching of Col. 3:18–4:1 cannot be neglected without harm.

It is, however, especially in Philemon that we have a practical illustration — an example in actual life, for all to see — of the manner in which such a problem is to be solved. The lesson there taught is of immense practical significance for the age in which we are living. As a bonus this little epistle also grants us a fascinating insight into the soul of Paul, the man, the warm-hearted, practical Christian.

6. Finally, as the signs of the return of our Lord are beginning to multiply there is today a renewed interest in the doctrine of the last things.

With longing eyes believers are looking forward to “the inheritance of the saints in the light” (Col. 1:12). On this point too Colossians has much to offer. It is Paul’s aim “to present every man perfect in Christ” (1:22, 28). To his fellow-Christians in Colosse he holds out the hope — a hope steadfast and sure — that “when Christ is manifested they, too, will be manifested with him in glory” (3:4). This must be true, for is not their life even now “hid with Christ in God”? That living Lord is “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

Viewed from every angle, therefore, this gem of an epistle is abreast of and even in advance of present-day discussion and reflection. It is timely. It is this because it presents the Christ who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and who is:

a. the Architect and Sustainer of the universe;

b. the Head of all things, and especially the organic and ruling Head of his own Body, the Church, its all-sufficient, one and only Savior;

c. the image of the invisible God, the embodiment of all the divine fulness;

d. the Source of the Christian’s life and peace and joy;

e. the Rewarder of those who strive to be a blessing to others, regardless of social position; and

as present within us, our “Hope of glory.”

II. THE CITY OF COLOSSE

A. Geography

Essential to an understanding of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians is an acquaintance with the general features of the territory in which Colosse was located. The letter makes mention of three cities: Hierapolis (4:13), Laodicea (2:1; 4:13–16), and Colossae or Colosse (1:2). Though originally these were Phrygian cities, in Paul’s day they had become part of the Roman province of “Asia.” Their ancient site is included in today’s Turkey in Asia (Minor). A few simple sketches, proceeding from the familiar to the less familiar and purposely omitting all unnecessary detail, may be helpful. Everyone is acquainted, of course, with the shape of western Asia Minor. Hierapolis, Laodicea, and Colosse are shown in this first sketch, in relation to the entire region and particularly to Ephesus which was Paul’s center of missionary activity for this part of the third missionary journey during which the

three

churches, and probably also others, must have been established (Acts 19:10; Rev. 1:11). Distances are easy to see at a glance, since the side of each square represents 100 miles. Accordingly, Ephesus was located approximately 100 miles west of the three cities.

About 900 air-miles WNW of the three cities was Rome. By actual travel it was well over 1000 miles away from the triad, the exact distance varying according to the route taken. Far to the East, by slightly south, of the three cities was Paul’s birthplace, Tarsus, to the SE of which lay Antioch in Syria, from which Paul started out on his third missionary journey. Also with respect to the places to the east of the three cities it must be borne in mind that the actual

travel

distances were usually considerably greater than the direct or flying distances indicated on the map. In those days there was nothing like our Pennsylvania Turnpike with its seven tunnels. Lesser obstacles, too, had to be skirted. If one wished to travel by land from Antioch in Syria to Tarsus, he had to go around the Cilician Gulf, as indicated by the dotted line.

The three cities were situated in the Lycos (or -us) Valley. The Lycus River, also known as “The Little Maeander,” branches off from the Maeander, shown on present-day maps as the Menderes River. The valley of the Lycus is in the form of a right triangle, with the mountains of Mossyna as its hypotenuse, the Salbakus and Cadmus ranges as base, and the Maeander Valley as altitude. Hierapolis and Laodicea were located one on one side and the other on the opposite side of the river. A distance of about six miles separated them. Colosse straddled the river, and was situated eleven or twelve miles farther east and slightly to the south. The acropolis of the city was on the south bank; the tombs and buildings on the north. Colosse therefore occupied a narrow glen of the upper Lycus. It was beautifully and strategically located, with the Cadmus Range rising very steeply to the south, and the Mossyna Range to the north. The Eastern Highway passed through Colosse, for roads naturally follow valleys.

Note that in Map 3, which follows, the side of each square represents 10 miles.

The question arises, “When Paul traveled from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus in the Roman province of Asia, what road did he take?” Did he or did he not touch Colosse? Bible atlases offer a variety of possibilities:

1. L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible, map inside back cover, seems to have adopted the Northern Galatia view, and makes the apostle travel to the far north. Even when Paul at last wends his way toward Ephesus, he is too far north to come into contact with Colosse. Discussion of this theory

does not belong to the present Commentary. Those who are interested in the reasons why I reject this Northern Galatia theory can find them stated in my book Bible Survey, pp. 334–336.

2. Others — such as J. L. Hurlbut, A Bible Atlas, p. 121; G. E. Wright and F. V. Filson, The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible, Plate XV — send Paul across the hills from Pisidian Antioch to Ephesus, an unusual and difficult way of travel. This road, too, avoids Colosse, being too far north.

3. The most natural route for Paul to have taken is the one indicated among others by Emil G. Kraeling, Rand McNally Bible Atlas, Map 20. It is the road from Antioch in Syria, over Tarsus, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, Apamea, Colosse, Laodicea, and thus, following for a while the Maeander Valley, to Ephesus. This road passes right through Colosse. It is the route illustrated on the next sketch. The idea of the sketch is not to suggest that this has now been established — Paul may have taken the route indicated under Number 2 above — but that room should certainly be left for this possibility since it was the more natural way of travel.

When the question is asked, “Why do most maps scrupulously avoid Colosse in routing Paul’s third journey?” the answer could well be that this is the result, in part, of the influence of that great scholar, to whom the entire world of biblical scholarship is deeply indebted, namely, Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (see especially his Historical Geography of Asia Minor; and his Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia). Now Ramsay himself admits that “the ordinary and frequented route for trade between Antioch and the west coast passed through Apamea and Colosse.” Why then does he not follow this lead? Here is his own statement, “But it would appear from the Epistle

to the Colossians (2:1) that the Christians at Colosse and Laodicea had not seen his [Paul’s] face.” But does it actually follow from the indicated reference (Col. 2:1) that Paul never passed through Colosse? Is not this a case of basing too much on too little? Is it not possible that Paul passed through the place though he never personally founded the church? More careful, therefore, it would seem to me, is the statement of L. Berkhof, “Though Paul may have gone into the Lycus Valley, he certainly did not find nor found the Colossian church there since he himself says in Col. 2:1 that the Colossians had not seen his face in the flesh.”¹ And as to the mountain-road on which many commentators and geographers send Paul, Sherman E. Johnson states, “But this is an unnatural and unlikely route.”² The present highway and railroad are where we would expect them to be: in the valleys of the Menderes and Lycus rivers (see “Lands of the Bible Today,” published by the National Geographic Society, December, 1956). Contrary to what happened on the second journey, when Paul’s itinerary was changed by divine direction (Acts 16:6–8), on the third journey the trip from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus was carried out according to his own previous plan, as Acts 18:21 indicates (cf. that verse with 19:1), the divine approval resting upon it. It may be safely assumed, therefore, that he may have taken the easier and more usual route.³

B. History

The valley of the Lycus was plagued by many an earthquake.⁴ Asia Minor is included in a belt of volcanic activity. Now earthquakes and volcanic activity spell disaster; think, for example of what the earthquake circa a.d. 60 did to Laodicea and Hierapolis! Nevertheless, volcanic ground is also fertile ground. It is excellent for grass and vegetation. Hence, on the rich meadows of the Lycus Valley grazed great flocks of sheep, bringing riches to the manufacturers of garments. This was all the more true because the waters of this valley were impregnated with chalky deposits. Now although these chalk-formations rendered parts of the soil barren, the chalky waters were just right for the purpose of dyeing cloth. This was an additional reason why the garment-industry flourished here. The trade of the dyer was practiced in all the three cities. It is not surprising, therefore, that the cities in this valley prospered, though in course of time their fortunes varied widely, as will be indicated.

1. Colosse

No one knows when Colosse (or Colossae) was founded. All we do know is that already in the days of Xerxes, king of Persia (485–465 b.c.), it was a thriving community. This Xerxes was the “Ahasuerus” of the book of Esther, who deposed Queen Vashti because she refused to yield to his unreasonable demand. He was the despot who commanded the waters of the Hellespont to be scourged with 300 lashes and the workmen to be beheaded because, due to a violent storm, the first attempt to bridge the narrow channel ended in failure. Having conquered Egypt, this terrible dictator had made extensive preparations for the invasion of Greece.

Now it was while he and his army were on their way toward the Hellespont that, seeking to avoid more difficult terrain, they passed through Colosse and the Lycus Valley. The Greek historian Herodotus, who in his History has given us a vivid — though not always thoroughly trustworthy — account of this ill-fated expedition, in this connection describes Colosse of the year 480 b.c. as “a great city of Phrygia” (VII.30).

Xerxes was followed by Artaxerxes I (465–425 b.c.), who allowed Ezra to lead a number of Jews back to Jerusalem and sanctioned the building of the walls under the direction of Nehemiah. Shortly afterward Darius II began to reign over the tottering empire (423–404 b.c.). Now “Darius [II] and Parysatis had two sons born to them: the elder Artaxerxes and the younger Cyrus” (Xenophon, Anabasis I.i.1). Darius II, then, was succeeded by his oldest son Artaxerxes II (404–358). But the latter’s younger brother, Cyrus, because of his conviction that he himself should have been the heir to the throne and also by reason of a personal grievance against Artaxerxes, in all secrecy planned a revolt, gathering allies from various regions and under various pretexts. A contingent of roundly “10,000” Greeks attached itself to Cyrus. However, at Cunaxa, near the gates of Babylon, Cyrus, the very able and handsome pretender, was killed (Xenophon, op. cit., I.viii.24–29). In connection with this campaign Xenophon, a bright young Athenian, gained for himself lasting fame, and this in two areas: a. as leader of the retreat of the “10,000,” proving his rapidly acquired and amazing military skill, and b. as a master of narrative, in his Anabasis giving to posterity a brilliant account of the march.

Now it was very shortly after the beginning of this expedition, while marching south-eastward from Sardis, that the army reached Colosse and remained there seven days. It is in this context that Xenophon calls the Colosse of the year 401 b.c. “a city inhabited and prosperous and great” (I.ii.6). And Colosse was great indeed, and this not only in relative size and population, but also in strategic importance. Was it not situated on a highway that linked East and West Asia? Was it not the key to the entrance of the Lycus Valley and at the same time to the road eastward toward Apamea and the Cilician gates? But in course of time in this same valley other cities were founded, so that Colosse received competitors, as will now be set forth.

2. Laodicea

The march of the “ten thousand” had demonstrated the weakness of Persia’s vast but unwieldy and antiquated army. Accordingly, Alexander the Great (336–323 b.c.) saw and grasped his opportunity. In the symbolic language of Daniel 8, very suddenly the he-goat (Greco-Macedonia under Alexander) comes from the west, storming across the earth and charging the two-horned ram (the Medo-Persian Empire), throwing it to the ground and trampling upon it. Even the wrath of man was praising God: Alexander brought not only Greek dominion but also the Greek language to the regions which he conquered, with the result — unforeseen by Alexander but included in God’s plan — that at a later time this language could be used as a very effective vehicle for the spread of the gospel. God’s ways are wonderful.

Sometime after Alexander’s death his empire was divided into four parts (Dan. 8:8). Lysimachus received Thrace; Cassander, Macedonia; Ptolemy Soter, Egypt; and Seleucus, Syria and a vast region to the east of it. After some time Antiochus II (Theos) ruled over Syria (261–247 b.c.); Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–246 b.c.) — builder of cities, patron of art and literature — over Egypt. These two kings entered into an agreement whereby Syria’s king was to divorce his wife and marry the Egyptian king’s daughter Berenice. The execution of the unholy plan brought nothing but trouble (Dan. 11:6). Now the name of this scheming, crafty, vindictive divorced wife was Laodice. It was for this woman that the new city of Laodicea, which replaced a smaller town, was named.

Though Laodicea did not prosper immediately, once the Roman province of Asia was founded (190 b.c.) the city began to flourish as a mighty center of industry. Soon Laodicea became famous for the fine, black wool of its sheep. Besides, due to a change in the road-system, it became a very important highway-junction, a place where the Eastern Highway met four other roads. The combination of these favorable factors meant trade, commerce, banking operations, riches (cf. Rev. 3:14–22) and political prestige; also the latter, for by the Romans Laodicea was made the capital of a political district embracing twenty-five towns.

3. Hierapolis

In a volcanic region there are generally many chasms out of which arise vapors and springs. These springs, supposedly, have healing power. They are by many considered of value in the treatment of such conditions as rheumatism, gout, dyspepsia, etc. Hence, resorts are often established in the vicinity of such springs. For present-day examples think of such European resorts as those at Aachen, Baden-Baden, Bath, Spa; or of similar places in the United States: Hot Springs, Las Vegas Springs, White Sulphur Springs. And so Hierapolis, too, became a famous spa, a city “full of self-made baths.” By the thousands people would gather here to drink the healing waters and to bathe in them. The “flowing rills” of the city became its “jewels.”

Besides, Hierapolis had its Charonion or Plutonium, which was a hole reaching far down into the earth whence issued a vapor reportedly so dreadful that it even poisoned the birds that flew over it. Naturally these springs and this deep cave were by the superstitious people of that age connected with and dedicated to divinities that were worshiped here. Hence, Hierapolis had a multitude of temples. In this connection it is often said that the original meaning of the name Hierapolis is holy city. This possibility must be granted. It is also possible, however, that the name was derived from the mythical Amazon queen Hiera.

4. The Further History of Colosse in Relation to Laodicea and Hierapolis

In view of the facts as related it is not surprising that in the long run Colosse was not able to keep abreast of its younger and more lavishly endowed competitors. In fact even the earthquake which did such damage to Laodicea and Hierapolis circa a.d. 60 could not reverse the trend. The prosperous citizens of Laodicea immediately rebuilt their city, and that without accepting aid from the government. Hierapolis, too, was restored, though not immediately. But long before a.d. 60 Colosse had already lost the race. If one was looking for health, pleasure, or relaxation, he would go to Hierapolis; if he was interested in trade or politics, he would direct his steps to Laodicea. But as for Colosse, the Greek historian and geographer Strabo, writing about two generations before Paul wrote Colossians, calls the Colosse of his day “a small town” (Geography XII.viii.13).

Today the ruins of Laodicea are still rather extensive. However, when nearby Denizli was built, some of these ruins were used as a quarry, and more recently many of the remaining stones were used in the construction of a railroad. But here is still that little hill tenderly embraced by two small tributaries of the Lycus River. On this hill Laodicea once stood. Here may be seen the ruins of the two theaters, one still rather well preserved; also what is left of the gymnasium, aqueduct, a large necropolis, and stones from the Eastern gate.

Hierapolis is more conspicuous. It stood on a lofty terrace. Over the precipitous cliffs which support this terrace glistening cataracts of pure white stone, the chalky deposits of the streams, come tumbling down into the plain below. In the autumn these frozen falls, glistening in the sunlight and visible from a distance, afford a beautiful sight. The ruins of Hierapolis are extensive. On the lofty plateau the city-walls can still be traced; also the pillars of the ancient gymnasium, the remains of what may well have been the statuary hall, ruins of arches, of a temple, churches, and baths. Especially remarkable are the ruins of two theaters, the smaller one from the Hellenistic age and the larger one from the Roman period. The latter stands at the east edge of the city, on the hill-side. As seen even today it can be described as one of the most perfect theaters of Asia Minor.

Now compare with all this what is left of Colosse. Though it is true that in the year 1835, when the archaeologist W. J. Hamilton visited the site, a few foundations of buildings, some pillars, fragments of cornices, and a necropolis with stones of a peculiar shape could still be seen, there was nothing to compare with the extensive and well-marked ruins of the other two cities. And today much of what was still there in 1835 has disappeared, having been used for building operations in Honaz and elsewhere.

It is a wonderful thought that to a church located in a town which in Paul’s day was already so insignificant, a church which in all probability was small in membership, the very important Epistle to the Colossians was sent. What may seem small in the eyes of man is frequently great and important in the eyes of God.

Let us now consider the people to whom this Epistle was addressed.

C. People

Colosse, situated farther to the east than Laodicea and Hierapolis, was the most Phrygian of the three. It was populated by natives of Phrygia, pagans who worshiped various deities, as will be pointed out later. Nevertheless, a rather considerable number of Jews mingled with this heathen population, for Antiochus the Great (223–187 b.c.) had transported two thousand families from Mesopotamia and Babylon to Lydia and Phrygia.⁵ These Jews prospered in the Lycus Valley and attracted others of their countrymen. The traffic in dyed wools and other business prospects acted like a magnet. Inscriptions in Phrygia have furnished ever so many indications of Jewish settlers there.⁶ Thus, by the year 62 b.c., in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital there lived at least eleven thousand Jewish freemen. The entire Jewish population (including women and children) was, of course, far larger than that.⁷ We know from the second chapter of the book of Acts that Jews from Phrygia were among those present at the feast of Pentecost described there.

It would be an error to infer from the preceding that the Jews who had emigrated to the Lycus Valley, and their descendants, were interested in this region only because it offered good prospects for business. To some of them the baths of Hierapolis were even more of an attraction than the commerce of Laodicea and (for a while) of Colosse. Listen, for example, to the complaint of the Talmudist: “The wines and the baths of Phrygia have separated the ten tribes from Israel.”⁸

Now since, as has been shown, Colosse was a typically pagan city, with a strong intermingling of Jews, we cannot be surprised if we discover that the danger to the church that was planted here stemmed from two sources, namely, pagan and Jewish and even from a mixture of these two.

b.c.

a.d.

Honaz

), a little to the south, near the foot of Mt. Cadmus. In the twelfth century the city of Colosse disappears completely.

III. THE CHURCH AT COLOSSE

A. Its Founding

Was Paul ever in Colosse? According to some he never set foot there.¹⁰ According to others not only did he spend some time there but he himself in person founded the church.¹¹ Now it has already been shown that Paul may have passed through Colosse on his third missionary journey, traveling from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus in Asia Minor. But the book of Acts (18:23; 19:1) gives no hint that the apostle founded any churches on this trip. So far as it traversed the country where no churches had as yet been established, the journey must have been to a large extent uninterrupted, for “there is no allusion to preaching in new places, but only to the confirming of old converts” (Ramsay). And it cannot be proved that during his stay at Ephesus Paul visited Colosse with a view to founding or meeting with a church there. Moreover, according to what is probably the best interpretation of Col. 2:2, at the time when Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians the membership as of then had not seen his face. Though this may have been intended as a general statement, allowing for exceptions, it was the truth.

Within this framework of established facts there is room for various possibilities, none of which should be entirely excluded. But however it may have been, it is certain that among the many who came to hear the apostle when he labored in his headquarters at Ephesus there were people from the Lycus Valley (Acts 19:8–10). It must have been during this period (a.d. 54–56) that also the church at Colosse was established.

Now in this church Paul had many notable friends:

1. Epaphras. This man, probably of heathen extraction,¹² having been converted through the instrumentality of Paul, was in all probability the actual founder of the churches of the Lycus Valley (Col. 1:7). He was a Colossian (Col. 4:12), a servant of Christ Jesus (again Col. 4:12), Paul’s fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus (Philem, 23; for explanation see on Col. 4:10a), and a hard worker in the three neighboring congregations of the Lycus Valley (Col. 4:13). He was vigilant in prayer and loyal to the point of being willing to suffer whatever hardships were in store for him as Christ’s ambassador.

2. Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus. Since these three are mentioned in one breath (Philem. 1, 2) as the addressees of Paul’s smallest extant letter, and since we are told that the church (evidently the one at Colosse; cf. Col. 4:9 with Philem. 10, 16; Col. 4:12 with Philem. 23; and Col. 4:17 with Philem. 2) was wont to meet at Philemon’s home, the conclusion is warranted that Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus were closely connected. They may even have belonged to the same family: Philemon the husband and father, Apphia the wife and mother, Archippus the son.

3. Onesimus (in later years). He was Philemon’s slave. Around his escape, conversion, and return centers Paul’s letter to Philemon. See Section IV B; also Commentary on Philemon in this volume.

These, then, were some of Paul’s friends and helpers in the congregation at Colosse which was established during his ministry at Ephesus. After this ministry had been completed Paul left for Troas. Then, having crossed the Aegean Sea, he came to Macedonia, and from there went to Corinth. From there he reversed his course and proceeded back toward Jerusalem by way of Macedonia. Tychicus, a Christian from the province of Asia, was one of those who traveled on in advance of Paul from Macedonia to Troas, and was waiting for the apostle in that city (Acts 20:4). His name will come up again at the close of section B.

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, at the close of his third missionary journey, he was falsely accused and apprehended. Soon his imprisonment began. It lasted about five years, and was endured first at Caesarea and then at Rome. Now it was during this imprisonment in the empire’s capital that Epaphras, the minister of the Colossian church, made a trip to Rome, traveling anywhere between 1000 and 1300 miles (the distance depending upon the route he took) to reach that city. On the whole the report which he brought was favorable (Col. 1:3–8), yet not entirely. Paul was made painfully aware of the fact that the church faced a twofold danger.

B. Its Perils

In order to understand the nature of the dangers that faced this church it is well to bear in mind that it consisted either entirely or well-nigh entirely of converts from the Gentile world (Col. 1:21, 22, 27; 2:11–13; 3:5–7). Paganism of almost every then-known variety thrived in this region. Such deities as the Phrygian Cybele Sabazius, Men, Isis and Serapis, Helios and Selene, Demeter and Artemis, were worshiped here. Accordingly, the basic evil with which the young church was confronted was

1. The Danger of Relapse into Paganism with its Gross Immorality

A careful reading of Col. 3:5–11 proves that this peril was basic. The members of the Colossian church were, at least for the most part, rather recent converts from the darkness and coarse sensuality of heathendom. As such the danger of relapse into their former multiform licentiousness was very real, and this for the following reasons:

There was first of all the cable of their evil past. A habit is like a cable. A person weaves a thread every day until it becomes well-nigh impossible to break the cable.

Secondly, there was the current of a wicked environment. It is hard to row against such a current, and to oppose the opinion and the will of the majority.

Thirdly, there was also the undertow of passion in hearts not wholly consecrated. Though the Colossians had accepted Christ, they had not become “perfect” overnight.

And finally, there was the lure of Satan, seeking by means of ever so many clever devices, to snatch the sheep out of the hand of the Shepherd (cf. John 10:28).

In view of all this we can understand Paul’s repeated admonition that the Colossians must continue in their newly acquired faith, must not be moved from the gospel which rather recently they had accepted, must not return to their evil works, must “put to death” such things as immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, greed, wrath, anger, malice, slander, shameful language, and the telling of untruths (Col. 1:21–23; 2:6; 3:5–11).

2. The Danger of Accepting the Colossian Heresy

Now what does the so-called “Colossian Heresy” have to do with all this? Clearly it was exactly the purpose of the teachers of error to show the Colossians how they would be able to triumph over the sins just mentioned, that is, over “the indulgence of the flesh.” It was as if they were saying, Are you putting up a tremendous but losing battle against the temptations of your evil nature? We can help you. Faith in Christ, though fine as far as it goes, is not sufficient, for Christ is not a complete Savior.”

There is a distinct possibility that in this connection they made use of the word fulness (see below, footnote 56), as if to say, “Christ will not give you fulness of knowledge, holiness, power, joy, etc. Therefore, in order to attain such fulness, in addition to believing in Christ you must follow our rules and regulations. If you do this, you will conquer and will attain to maturity, to ultimate happiness and salvation.”¹³

That this was actually the connection is clear from the fact that Paul, having summarized “the philosophy of empty deceit” of these peddlers of lies with their persuasive arguments about rules and regulations and their boasting about visions they had seen, concludes his criticism by saying, “Regulations of this kind have indeed a show of wisdom … (but) are of no value, serving only to indulge the flesh” (Col. 2:23). In other words, they will hurt you rather than help you. He then proceeds to indicate a far better way — in fact, the only way — in which the battle against the flesh can be won (chapters 3 and 4), the way epitomized so strikingly by himself in Rom. 12:21b: “Overcome evil with good,” and in Rom. 13:14 (the passage that meant so much to a great leader of the early Church, namely, Augustine), “Put on the Lord Jesus, and make no provision for the flesh.”

“The Colossian Heresy” was accordingly a second danger added to the first, and to a certain extent an outgrowth of it. It may be characterized as follows:

a. False Philosophy (Col. 2:8) which, though claiming to have discovered secrets and to have seen visions (2:18), denied the all-sufficiency and pre-eminence of Christ. Paul states that the reason why he sets forth the greatness of Christ is that there are those who deny it and are trying to delude others into denying it also (2:2b–4; 2:8, 9; 2:16, 17). The sovereign majesty and complete adequacy of Christ as the perfect Savior and Lord is stressed in such passages as 1:13–20; 1:27, 28; 2:2–4; 2:8–10; 2:16, 17; 2:19; 3:1–4. This is basic to all that follows.

b. Judaistic Ceremonialism (Col. 2:11, 16, 17; 3:11), which attached special significance to the rite of physical circumcision, to food-regulations, and to observance of such special days as pertained to the economy of the old dispensation. All such things, says Paul, are but “shadows.” They have lost their significance now that the object casting the shadow, namely Christ, has himself arrived (Col. 2:17).

c. Angel-worship (Col. 1:16; 2:15; 2:18), which also would detract from the uniqueness of Christ, as if he were insufficient for complete salvation.

d. Asceticism (Col. 2:20–23), which in its unsparing treatment of the body went beyond Judaism. The apostle exposes its utter futility and points to Christ as the real answer to the problems of doctrine and life that vex the Colossians (2:20–23, contrast 3:1–4).

Questions arise to which the letter does not supply the answer; for example, What is the larger context of this Colossian Heresy? How did this false philosophy originate? Was it an offspring of incipient gnosticism of the ascetic type? Could it be an outgrowth, perhaps, of the theories of the Essenes, in this case covered with a varnish of Christian belief? Was it an intermixture of incipient gnosticism, Essenism (itself already infected with gnostic error), and Christianity? Do the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls shed any further light on it?

Here we must tread very carefully. We are perhaps safe in stating that the Colossian Heresy was a syncretism, that is, a weird mixture of Jewish and pagan elements. Gnosticism, with its stress on “knowledge,” seems to have had something to do with it, for it is evident from the epistle that the false teachers placed undue emphasis on such things as “knowledge,” “wisdom,” “philosophy”, “mystery” and “mystic insight.” Yet, the evidence for this is usually indirect, that is, it is often not directly stated but to be inferred from Paul’s insistence that the real knowledge, wisdom, mystery, etc., is to be found in Christ, in him alone (1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3). Once in a while, though, the errorists are clearly exposed from this particular point of view (2:4, 8a, 18, 23). It is also known that gnostics exalted the spirit, and viewed matter as the seat of evil. To some of them this meant that the body should be neglected, that its natural cravings should be suppressed, if one were ever to reach the goal of fulness. There are those, accordingly, who see a reflection of this fallacy in Paul’s rather stern rebuke, “Why … do you submit to regulations, ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ ” (2:20, 21). They also see the gnostic doctrine of emanations reflected and refuted in the apostle’s warning against angel-worship (2:18).

A word of caution may, however, well be in order, for (1) we do not as yet have a reasonably complete description of gnosticism in the first century a.d., (2) neither was it Paul’s intention to present a full account of the heresy which he is combating. When, therefore, certain authors, taking their cue from the expression “rudiments of the world” (2:8), which they translate “elemental spirits of the universe,” present a more or less complete and detailed reconstruction of the heresy, we may well hesitate to accept this. It is all very interesting to picture these “astral spirits” or “planetary lords” as being also guardians of the Mosaic law. It is fascinating to describe them as entering into combat with Christ who, however, “despoils” them (2:15); to present them further as having instituted sacred days by means of the very planets over which they exercise control, and as laying down elaborate rules of abstinence so that by means of obedience to these rules the spirit of man may become disinfected with earthliness and may begin to ascend through various “spheres” to God. But have we any right to form all these conjectures, and to fill the gaps which Paul has left wide open?

There is another objection: Granted that in the Colossian Heresy it is proper to detect some influence exerted by incipient gnosticism of whatever origin — and to grant this seems altogether reasonable —, it still remains true that, all in all, the falsehood which Paul scores so severely had a definitely Jewish background. It insisted on the rite of circumcision (2:11–13) and on the strict observance of the law of Moses with its stipulations regarding foods and feasts (2:14, 16). That this is really what Paul has in mind is clear from the fact that he views the law as fulfilled in Christ (2:16, 17).

It is true that the heresy, while Judaistic, went beyond the Judaism which Paul exposes in Galatians. This is clear especially from its rigorous asceticism, that is, its insistence on obedience to rules which were nothing but “precepts and doctrines of men” (2:20–23). Are we dealing here with an extreme form of Pharisaism, or with the doctrines of the Essenes, perhaps?

With respect to the Essenes see Josephus, The Life (autobiography) 7–12; Jewish War II. 119–161; Pliny the Elder, Natural History V. 73; Philo, Fragment of the Apology for the Jews XI. 1–17; Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 82–94, 355–419.

Josephus, who at one time himself belonged to this sect, has many fine things to say about it. He calls its members “masters of their temper, champions of fidelity, ministers of peace,” etc. His description also shows, however, that the very errors which marked the Colossian Heresy were found among them. They were infected with a strain of incipient gnosticism for, as he tells us, “It is their fixed belief that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable.” They looked upon the soul as “having become entangled in the prison-house of the body.” As to Judaistic Ceremonialism and Asceticism, he relates that “after God they hold most in awe the name of their lawgiver [Moses], any blasphemer of whom is punished with death.” Also, “They are stricter than all the Jews in abstaining from work on the sabbath day.” He refers to “their invariable sobriety and the limitation of their allotted portions of meat and drink.” He implies that they were divided into two groups: celibate and marrying. As to the first group: “Marriage they disdain.… They do not on principle condemn wedlock … but they wish to protect themselves against women’s wantonness,” etc. As to the second group, “They give their wives a three-year probation.” Further, “Riches they despise.” As to attitude toward angels, “They carefully preserve the names of the angels.”

Must we conclude from this that the false teachers who vexed the Colossians with their sinister doctrines were Essenes who had nominally turned to Christ, but had retained many of their former beliefs? It is held by some that this is impossible because no Essenes lived in Asia Minor. However, Josephus also states, “They occupy no one city, but settle in large numbers in every town.” Pliny the Elder fixes their headquarters “on the west side of the Dead Sea.” Philo adds, “They live in many cities of Judea and in many villages and are grouped in great societies of many members.” That author also seems to make the Essenic view of marriage a springboard for his own rather uncomplimentary estimate of women, “No Essene takes a wife, because a wife is a selfish creature, excessively jealous, and adept at beguiling the morals of her husband and seducing him by her continued impostures,” etc. It is clear at any rate that Essenic influence can easily have reached as far as Colosse. It has been shown earlier that many Jews lived in that particular region.

Now inasmuch as the Qumran sect, which gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls, shows many of these same characteristics, and had its headquarters in the same locality, it is today the conviction of many that the Qumran sect is to be identified with the Essenes. Its Manual of Discipline is probably our best source of information with respect to them. In reading it one cannot help wondering whether perhaps Paul’s warning, “If with Christ you died to the rudiments of the world, why, as though you were (still) living in the world, do you submit to regulations, Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” was his answer to the Manual’s repeated admonitions in the form of, “He shall not touch,” and “He shall not taste.”

Here we must carefully distinguish between the actual teaching of the New Testament, on the one hand, and the current ideas and beliefs which it reflects and against which it reacts on the other. As to teaching, the New Testament is, of course, entirely distinctive, in the sense that “Jesus Christ spake unlike any other man, for the simple reason that he was unlike any other man,” as E. J. Young has stated in a fine article, “The Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus Christ,” WTJ, Vol. XVIII, No. 2 (May, 1956), p. 145. But as to the errors which it combats, there is no principial reason why these could not include the asceticism of the Essenes. This does not mean, however, that we are certain that the apostle Paul in writing Colossians was combating a party of Essenes who claimed to have been converted to Christ. We know too little about conditions that prevailed in Asia Minor during the first century a.d. to draw such a risky conclusion. I agree with the statement of Millar Burrows, “What the Dead Sea Scrolls actually demonstrate has been well summed up by Albright: they show that the writers of the New Testament ‘drew from a common reservoir of terminology and ideas which were well known to the Essenes and’ — this I would emphasize — ‘presumably familiar also to other Jewish sects of the period’ ” (More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 132). We can, however, state that the available sources do give us such a picture of the state of syncretistic religion in the days of Paul that the error which he combats in Colossians no longer seems so strange. See also on Col. 2:8, 18, 21; 3:18; footnote 76; and N.T.C. on I Tim. 4:3. The chief point to remember is that the errorists, by riveting so much attention on man-made remedies for relapse into paganism, were in reality denying the all-sufficiency of Christ for salvation.

Now, in order to combat this doubleheaded danger — the peril of relapse into paganism with its gross sensuality, and that of accepting the wrong solution — Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians. A more detailed statement as to the purpose of this epistle is found in the next Section (IV).

The one who delivered the letter to its destination was Tychicus, mentioned earlier. He was accompanied by Onesimus, the converted slave who was to be returned to his master Philemon (Col. 4:7–9). They also carried with them for delivery the letter to Philemon regarding Onesimus (Philem. 10–17) and the letter that has been transmitted to us as “The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians” (Eph. 6:21, 22); but see also on Col. 4:16.

C. Its Later History

Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment, the imprisonment during which he wrote Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians. For proof of this release see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 23–27. Having regained his freedom he probably journeyed to Ephesus and from there to Colosse, just as he had intended (Philem. 22). What happened during his visit with the Colossians has not been revealed. He must have returned to Ephesus soon afterward. With respect to his further travels, all of them conjectural as to their sequence, see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 39 and 40.

As to the congregation at Colosse, its further history is obscure. It would seem that the gradual decay of the church went hand in hand with that of the city. For a while the church had a bishop of its own. However, when the population moved to Honaz, the episcopal see followed the population, until at length, with the coming of the Turkish conquest, “the golden candlestick was removed forever from the Eternal Presence” (J. B. Lightfoot,

op. cit.,

p. 72).

IV. PAUL’S PURPOSE IN WRITING COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON

A. Colossians

One day, during his first Roman imprisonment, Paul received a visit from the “minister” of the Colossians, Epaphras (already discussed). The latter informed the apostle about the condition of the church. To a large extent the report was favorable: faith, love, and hope were in evidence. The gospel was bearing fruit increasingly (Col. 1:1–6; 2:5). Yet, there was always the danger of slipping back into the former grossly sinful habits. Moreover, right at this moment false teachers were trying to delude the church by offering a solution which was no solution at all but would make matters worse (“the Colossian Heresy” already described). A letter must therefore be written so that the church may not depart from the pure teaching of its faithful pastor.

In accordance with this background the purpose of this letter was as follows:

1. To warn the Colossians against relapse into their former state with all its soul-destroying vices (Col. 1:21, 23; 3:5–11) and against the “solution” urged upon them by those who refuse to recognize Jesus Christ as the complete and all-sufficient Savior (chapter 2).

2. To direct their attention to “the Son of God’s love,” so that they may trust, love, and worship him as the very image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, the Head of the Church, the One who is in all things pre-eminent and in whom — in whom alone — believers attain their fulness (1:13–18; 2:8, 9).

3. To this very end to enhance among them the prestige of their faithful minister, Epaphras (1:7; 4:12, 13), who, though now with Paul in Rome, joins others in sending greetings, is ever wrestling for them in prayer, and is filled with the deepest concern for them.

In view of the fact that Tychicus was the bearer of the letter to the Colossians and also of the one to Philemon, a member of the Colossian church and owner of the slave Onesimus who was being returned to his master, to the three points already mentioned a fourth must now be added, namely,

4. To emphasize among the Colossians the virtue of forgiveness and kindness. Not too strong is the statement of John Knox, “The whole of Colossians is more or less overshadowed by Paul’s concern about Onesimus” (Philemon among the Letters of Paul, p. 35). This may well account, at least in part, for the fact that the apostle writes somewhat at length about the importance of showing tenderness of heart (3:12–14) and also for the fact that he devotes much space to the relation between slaves and masters (3:22–4:1, 5 verses, 4 of them lengthy), while he says far less about the relation between wives and husbands and about that between children and fathers (3:18–21, together only 4 short verses; in contrast with Eph. 5:22–6:4, 16 verses!).

B. Philemon

1. A Theory That Departs from the Traditional

Point 4 of the preceding section shows the close relation between Colossians and Philemon. Accordingly, when Herman Baker, the publisher of this New Testament Commentary, suggested that Colossians and Philemon be treated in one volume his advice was excellent. These two letters, the one written to a church and the other primarily to a family in that church, should not be separated. Much credit for having stressed this truth is due to the labors of such exegetes as Edgar J. Goodspeed and John Knox.

This, however, does not mean that we can agree wholeheartedly with the position which these men have taken with respect to the Purpose of Philemon. Having carefully studied their writings and the books and articles of those who either agree or disagree with them,¹⁴ it has become our conviction that while we owe them a debt of gratitude for the light which they have shed on the closeness of the relationship between Colossians and Philemon, we cannot accept their reconstruction of history. What is at best merely probable is at times presented as if it were well-nigh certain, what is merely possible as if it were probable, and what is very questionable as if it were at least possible. Since there are minor differences between Knox and Goodspeed the presentation given below is (unless otherwise stated) substantially that of Knox.

Briefly, then, according to his view the primary purpose of Paul’s letter to Philemon is not that Onesimus shall be forgiven his offense of having run away from his master and having probably defrauded him besides, but rather that this slave shall be set free and returned to Paul for the service of the gospel.

As Knox reconstructs the events pertaining to Onesimus they become a very fascinating story, a kind of romance appropriate for dramatization:

a. Here, then, is this slave who though bearing the name Profitable (Onesimus) was not profitable to his superior. He lived with his owner in Colosse, but the latter’s name was not Philemon but Archippus (Philemon among the Letters of Paul, p. 58). This Archippus was a befriender and member of the Colossian church. Church-members would gather in his house for worship. Philemon, though also mentioned in the opening verses of the small epistle, lived elsewhere; see point d.

b. Onesimus, not being in favor with his master, may have run away, though this is not expressed in so many words. And he may have visited Paul in the place of the latter’s imprisonment, though also this is not specifically stated. Paul, at any rate, was in prison, perhaps in Ephesus (p. 33), not very far from Colosse.

c. Through the ministry of Paul the slave becomes a Christian. The once useless one becomes very useful. In fact so helpful does he become that the apostle would have liked to have kept him with him, and this not for personal reasons but for evangelistic work. However, after due consideration Paul decides to return the slave to his owner Archippus in order that the latter may of his own free will emancipate him and return him to Paul for kingdom work (p. 29).

d. However, will Archippus really consent to release his slave? If Onesimus has actually defrauded his master, will he not receive severe punishment? Paul finds a solution. In the company of faithful Tychicus the slave will be sent to his owner. In the hand of Tychicus there will also be a letter from Paul in the interest of the slave. It is to Archippus that the body of the letter is addressed (p. 62). Now, in order to add weight to his request the apostle puts forth efforts to get others to support his appeal. Was not Laodicea located very close to Colosse? And did not the churches of the Lycus Valley look for leadership to a man — namely, Philemon — who had his headquarters in Laodicea (p. 70)? Let Philemon read the letter, therefore, and let him attach his support to Paul’s request. Then let this letter, thus endorsed, be read to the church at Colosse. Having reached Colosse via Laodicea it can now be properly designated as “the letter from Laodicea.” In his epistle to the Colossians (4:16) the apostle requests that this small letter which concerns Onesimus be read to the Colossians. Says Knox, “In my opinion there is a probability approaching certainty that this letter [the one “from Laodicea”] was our Philemon” (p. 45).

e. In Col. 4:17 Paul states, “And say to Archippus, See that you fulfil the ministry that you have received.” This “ministry” is the charge to release Onesimus and to send him back to Paul for gospel-activity. The letter which we call Philemon is therefore “a letter to an individual, the reading of which, it was desired, should be overheard by a group to which the individual belonged and which was able to exercise some control over his conduct” (p. 60).

The plan works. In the company of Tychicus the slave travels to Laodicea. There Philemon endorses Paul’s request. Slave and letter finally reach Colosse. The church supports Paul’s Christian demands upon one of its members (p. 53). Thus Onesimus goes back to Paul.

f. And now the most interesting turn of all. Paul uses Onesimus as he had planned. And lo and behold, the one-time slave at a later time becomes nothing less than bishop of the church at Ephesus! Ignatius, bishop of the church of Syrian Antioch, on his way to Rome and martyrdom, stops at Smyrna in Asia Minor. He writes a letter to the Ephesians, in which he expresses his gratitude for the visit of Onesimus and others. In that letter Ignatius says, “Since then in the name of God I received your entire congregation in the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love and your bishop, I beseech you in Jesus Christ to love him and all those who are like him. For blessed is he who granted you to be worthy to receive such a bishop” (Ephesians, I.1; cf. VIII.2).

The climax of this exegetical embroidery is the suggestion that after Paul’s death Bishop Onesimus, the ex-slave who was so deeply indebted to the apostle, made a collection of the Pauline epistles; that is, the publication of the corpus of Paul’s letters was done under his oversight (p. 107). Goodspeed leans to the conclusion that Philemon himself wrote Ephesians as a covering letter (The Key to Ephesians, xvi). Knox seems to endorse this position (p. 96). But the discussion of this theory belongs not here but in a Commentary on Ephesians.

2. Criticism

In what follows, paragraphs a, b, etc., respectively answer paragraphs a, b, etc., above.

a. The most natural interpretation of Philemon 1, 2 is that which views Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus as belonging to one and the same household, together with the slave Onesimus. They lived in Colosse (Col. 4:9). The owner of the slave, moreover, was not Archippus but Philemon, the one addressed first and throughout.

b. In all probability Paul was in Rome, not in Ephesus, when he wrote Colossians and Philemon. See V in this Commentary. Also, N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 21–30.

c. In verse 14 the apostle is not asking that Onesimus be returned to him. The very next verse (verse 15b) seems rather to imply that Onesimus will remain in the company of Philemon (“that you should have him forever”) who will, however, no longer regard him as a slave but as a brother beloved (verse 16). Moreover, Paul, who has his mind set on leaving the place of his imprisonment and who is already asking that at his destination a lodging be prepared for him (Philem. 22), would hardly be requesting that Onesimus be returned to him.

d. Col. 4:16, though admittedly difficult, seems to refer to an exchange of letters addressed to churches (see further on that verse).

e. It is surely more natural to interpret the words, “Attend to the ministry which you have received in the Lord” (Col. 4:17) as referring to the duty of Archippus to carry out a spiritual mission than as referring to his obligation to free a slave, be it even for evangelistic work. See comments on this verse.

f. If about a half century later Ignatius in his letter to the Ephesians had been actually referring to the ex-slave on behalf of whom Paul had made his marvelous plea, a clear reference to this previous letter by the great apostle would have been natural; just as, for example, Polycarp, writing to the Philippians, clearly reminds them of Paul’s earlier letter. The fact that Ignatius had read Paul’s Philemon and supplies the evidence of this in his Ephesians, does not in any way prove that Bishop Onesimus was the ex-slave.

Thus, it has been shown that Knox’s theory, though valuable in showing the close connection between Colossians and Philemon, as a historical reconstruction lacks proof. No damage has been done to the traditional view.

3. Real Purpose of Paul’s Letter to Philemon

The real background, then, is as follows:

Philemon was one of the pillars of the church at Colosse. He loved the Lord and the brethren, and had given concrete evidence of this fact again and again (Philem. 7). He was Paul’s spiritual son, for, whether directly or indirectly (see on Philem. 19) God has used Paul to change him. His new life had affected not only himself but also his household. It is considered probable that Apphia was his wife, and Archippus their son. Friends who had accepted the Lord regularly gathered for worship at their home (Philem. 2). In the absence of Epaphras, Archippus would probably have charge of the service (Col. 4:17). He may have been a young man who, like Timothy, was in need of encouragement (cf. I Tim. 4:12).

Now, Onesimus was one of the slaves of Philemon’s household. This slave ran away, journeying all the way to Rome. In Rome he came into contact with Paul. Just as the Lord had formerly blessed the work of the great missionary to the heart of the master so he now blessed it to the heart of the slave. So dear did the latter become to the apostle that Paul calls him “my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds” (verse 10), “my very heart” (verse 12), “a brother beloved especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (verse 16), “the faithful and beloved brother” (Col. 4:9). Gladly would Paul have kept Onesimus at his side as an assistant, for his character had finally caught up with his name. In this connection read Philemon 11, and notice the play on a synonym of the name of this slave:

“Onesimus who formerly to you was useless, but now both to you and to me is useful.” Cf. also verse 20 in the original.

But Paul does not deem it right to keep Onesimus in Rome. He decides to send him back to his master with the very carefully and politely worded request that the latter accept him as one who is no longer merely a slave but a brother beloved. If he in any way has defrauded his master, Paul is ready to assume full responsibility for the payment of the debt. With insurpassable tact the great apostle adds:

“not to mention to you that you owe me your very self besides,” verse 19.

Paul does not command, though, as he himself states, he has a right to do so; he rather appeals to the heart of Philemon (verse 9). He is fully confident that the latter will do “even better than” what is asked of him (verse 21). The apostle entertains hopes of being released from his present imprisonment and trusts that Philemon will “prepare a guest room” for him (verse 22).

It is hardly necessary to add that although this fully inspired epistle does not in so many words condemn the institution of slavery it strikes at its very spirit and transforms the slave into a brother beloved.

Accordingly, Paul’s purpose in writing Philemon may be summarized as follows:

1. To secure forgiveness for Onesimus.

2. To strike at the very heart of slavery by tactfully requesting that, in accordance with the rule of Christ, love be shown to all, including slaves.

3. To provide for himself a place of lodging after his release from imprisonment.

V. THE PLACE AND THE TIME OF WRITING COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON

Colossians and Philemon, as well as Ephesians and Philippians, are Prison Epistles. The place of origin and in general the date of one determines the date of all four. See detailed discussion in N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 21–30.

Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians are carried to their destination by Tychicus and Onesimus, all on one trip (cf. Col. 4:7–9, Philem. 10–12; and Eph. 6:21, 22).

As to Paul’s circumstances, he is a prisoner (Col. 1:24; 4:3, 10, 18; Philem. 1, 9, 23). In addition to Onesimus other names are mentioned both in Colossians and Philemon. These are Paul’s companions: Luke, Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, and Demas (Col. 4:10–14; Philem. 23, 24); also Timothy, mentioned together with Paul in the opening verse of both letters. Jesus Justus is also with Paul (Col. 4:11), but is not mentioned in Philemon. Paul is enjoying a measure of freedom to preach the gospel (Col. 4:3, 4). He hopes to be released (Philem. 22).

In all this there is nothing that contradicts the traditional view of the Roman origin of these letters. The measure of freedom which Paul enjoys harmonizes with the report of his circumstances in Rome (Acts 28:30, 31), but not with that of his imprisonment in Caesarea (Acts 24–26). Luke’s presence is unaccountable if these letters were sent from a prison in Ephesus, for Luke has given us a rather detailed narrative of Paul’s ministry in that city (Acts 19) but says nothing about any imprisonment there, and, in fact was not with Paul at that time. But Luke did definitely go with Paul to Rome (Acts 27:1; 28:16). And so did Aristarchus (Acts 27:2). Furthermore, if Rome is the place of Paul’s imprisonment when Colossians and Philemon were written, then, in view of I Peter 5:13, Mark’s presence is readily understandable, for Mark seems to have been in this “Babylon” shortly afterward.

a.d.

before

the writing of Philippians.

VI. THE AUTHORSHIP OF COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON¹⁶

A. Colossians

In the main three arguments have been urged against the Pauline authorship of Colossians. It has been shown by many commentators that all three are rather readily answered when the facts are examined. The “objections,”¹⁷ then are as follows:

1. Language and Style show that Paul cannot have been the author

a. Words Used and Words Omitted

Colossians contains thirty-four words not found elsewhere in the New Testament and several additional words that occur nowhere else in Paul’s epistles. On the other hand, such familiar Pauline words as righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), salvation (σωτηρία), revelation (ἀποκάλυψις), and to abrogate (καταργεῖν) are not found in Colossians.

Answer: The percentage of such exceptional words found in Colossians but not elsewhere is comparable to that in other epistles, for example Romans (in a section of similar length) and Philippians. A different subject requires different words. Hence many of these words are found in Colossians 1 and 2, where the author combats a unique heresy; see especially 2:16–23.¹⁸ This also accounts for the fact that other words, used in other epistles, in the discussion of other themes, are not found here. Why should they be? Percy is entirely correct when he states, “It can be safely affirmed, therefore, that from the aspect of lexicography no serious argument against the genuine character of this epistle can be advanced” (op. cit., p. 18).

b. Stylistic Characteristics

Colossians contains well-nigh endless sentence-chains. Thus, chapter 1 has only five sentences in the original, and one of these, verses 9–20, is a sentence of 218 words.

Also, this letter heaps up synonyms: pray and ask (1:9), endurance and longsuffering (1:11), holy, faultless, and blameless (1:22), founded and firm (or “grounded and stedfast,” 1:23), ages and generations (1:26), rooted, built up, and established (2:7).

Again, it is rich in appositional clauses, such as, “the Father … who rescued us … and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have our redemption (1:12–14), … who is the image of the invisible God,” etc. (1:15–20).

And finally, certain particles that are of frequent occurrence in Paul’s genuine epistles (γάρ, οῦν, διότι, ἄρα, διό) are rarely used here or do not even occur at all in Colossians.

Answer: It should be freely admitted that some of these stylistic characteristics are found in Colossians in a somewhat greater degree than elsewhere in Paul’s epistles. Yet, the difference is by no means striking, as the following will indicate:

Lengthy sentences are also found in other Pauline epistles. Thus, Rom. 1:1–7 has 93 words in the original; 2:5–10 has 87. Phil. 3:8–11 has 78.

Synonyms abound in Romans; see 1:18, 21, 25, 29, etc. Also in other epistles; for example, in Philippians: full knowledge and keen discretion (Phil. 1:9), pure and blameless (1:10), glory and praise (1:11), envy and rivalry (1:15), eager expectation and hope (1:20), and so one could easily continue.

Appositional clauses, particularly those descriptive of the deity, are often of a liturgical nature. They are frequently found in ancient hymns in praise of Jehovah, God, Christ, in brief confessions of faith, and in doxologies. Paul has many of them. So have the prophets. And they abound in the liturgies of the synagogue even to the present day. When believers — either individually or collectively — are filled with gratitude to God, they will give humble and enthusiastic expression to this feeling of thankfulness and adoration by describing in clause upon clause God’s greatness, faithfulness, wisdom, and love. Does not Romans begin with such an outburst of joyful testimony (1:3–5)? Add the following as a few of the clearest examples: II Cor. 1:3, 4; I Tim. 3:16; and then going back to the Old Testament: Isa. 44:24–28; Ps. 103:2–5; 104:2–5; 136. Besides, Col. 1:15–20, with its appositional clauses, may be a hymn which Paul quotes. See on that passage.

And finally, as to these particles, the argument based upon them has very little if any value: ἄρα does not occur at all in Philippians; διό only once in Galatians; διότι only once in the entire lengthy first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, not at all in II Corinthians; hence only once in the entire twenty-nine chapters of Paul’s Corinthian correspondence that has come down to us! Hence, not much of an argument for rejecting Colossians as a genuine epistle of Paul can be based on the fact that in the 4 chapters of that letter διότι is not found. And the relative infrequency of οῦν in Colossians as contrasted with its frequency in Romans and in I Corinthians is easy to explain. It arises from the fact that in these epistles of earlier date the apostle is arguing with those whom he addresses, whereas in Colossians he is warning against a heresy.

One of the most recent to deny the Pauline authorship of Colossians — and of all the epistles which tradition ascribes to Paul, with the exception of Galatians, Romans, I and II Corinthians — is Andrew Morton. He bases his “proof” on the use which Paul makes of the conjunction kai, meaning and, also, even, etc. By the aid of an electronic computer he was strengthened in his hunch that an author will show a consistent pattern in the use of this conjunction. Hence, granted that the Pauline authorship of Galatians, etc., is beyond dispute but that the kai-pattern in Colossians differs from that in Galatians, etc., this would prove that tradition is wrong in regarding Paul as the author of Colossians.

Now if Morton could show that every Greek author, no matter in what sense he employs kai (whether in the sense of and, also, even or in some adversative sense such as and yet, nevertheless), no matter what be the contents or nature of his composition (whether it be narrative, descriptive, didactic, hortatory, or doxological), no matter when, why, or to whom he writes, and no matter whom he employs as his secretary and how much latitude he allows his secretary in the use of kai, reveals a consistent pattern in his use of this conjunction, his argument would have some value. As it is, he is basing too much on too little. There is, accordingly, truth in the criticism of the William Toedtman: “So kais are the most unreliable figures to pour into a computer” (Time, March 29, 1963, p. 8).

When all the facts are examined, therefore, it is clear that nothing in the language or style of Colossians can be used as an argument against its authenticity.

2. The heresy here combated was that of second century gnosticism. Hence, first century Paul cannot have been its author

The use of such words as fulness (πλήρωμα, 1:19; 2:9), mystery (μυστήριον, 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3), ages (αἰῶνες, 1:26), wisdom (σοφία, 1:9, 28; 2:3, 23; 3:16; 4:5), and knowledge (γνῶσις, 2:3), as well as the conception of a whole series of angels (1:16; 2:10; 2:15) points to the heresy of Valentinus.

For detailed explanation of these terms see commentary proper.

Answer: It suffices to affirm that the second century Gnostics did not view Colossians as directed against their beliefs. In fact, they make extensive use of it. Also, the evidence which indicates that incipient forms of Gnosticism were already present in the first century is increasing.¹⁹

3. The “high Christology” found in Colossians is un-Pauline. It rather reminds one of the doctrine of the Logos in the Gospel according to John

Answer: It is certainly true that nowhere else in those epistles which the Church recognizes as having been written by Paul do we find the doctrine of Christ’s pre-eminence and his relation to the Father, the universe, the angels, and the Church in such an expanded form as here in Colossians. But is it not altogether probable that this emphasis upon Christ’s uniqueness, his supremacy over all, arose from the implied or expressed denial of the same on the part of the Colossian heretics? Surely, the Christology found here, though more detailed, is not any “higher” than that found in other epistles written by Paul, both earlier (Rom. 9:5, according to the correct reading; I Cor. 8:6; II Cor. 4:4), very shortly afterward (Phil. 2:6), and somewhat later (I Tim. 3:16; Titus 2:13).

Indeed, the arguments against the Pauline authorship of Colossians are rather superficial. Not only does the letter claim to have been written by Paul (1:1; 4:18) but the character of Paul, as revealed in his other letters, is also clearly expressed here:

First, Colossians bears close resemblance to Ephesians. He who wrote Ephesians also wrote Colossians. This argument, however, has little value for those who reject the Pauline authorship of Ephesians even more emphatically than they do that of Colossians. To avoid repetition and for the sake of good order the relation between Colossians and Ephesians is accordingly reserved for a Commentary on Ephesians, D.V.

Secondly, Colossians pictures the same kind of author as the one who addresses us from the pages of such almost universally recognized Pauline epistles as Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians. Philippians, moreover, being like Colossians a Prison epistle, also has the identical hall-mark. Note the items of comparison in the table on pages 33, 34.

Therefore, if the Pauline authorship of Philippians be granted, as it certainly should be (see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 31–37), the conclusion that Paul also wrote Colossians would seem to be logical. Note, therefore, the close resemblance in mode of expression. In addition to the similarity already pointed out (see columns 1 and 3 in the table), I call attention thirdly to the following:

Verses 9–11 of the first chapter in both epistles (Colossians and Philippians)

	1	2	3
	Colossians	Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians	Philippians
1. The author is deeply interested in those whom he addresses	1:3, 9; 2:1	Rom. 1:8, 9; I Cor. 3:1, 2; II Cor. 1:6, 23; Gal. 4:19, 26	1:3–11, 25, 26; 2:25–30
2. He loves to encourage and praise them	1:4–6; 2:5	Rom. 1:8; 15:14; 16:19; I Cor. 1:4–7; II Cor. 8:7; Gal. 4:14, 15; 5:7	4:1, 15–17
3. He traces every virtue of those whom he addresses to God, ascribing all the glory to him alone	1:5, 12, 29	Rom. 8:28–30; I Cor. 1:4; 12:4–11; II Cor. 1:3, 4; 2:14; Gal. 5:22–25	1:6, 3:9; 4:13
4. He writes touchingly about the supremacy of love	3:12–17	Rom. 12:9–21; I Cor. 13; II Cor. 5:14; 6:6; 11:11; 12:15; Gal. 5:6, 13, 14, 22	1:9, 16; 2:1, 2
5. He is filled with gratitude to God who laid hold on him and made him, though unworthy, a minister of the gospel	1:23, 25	I Cor. 15:9; II Cor. 11:16; 12:10; Gal. 1:15–17	3:4–14
6. He lists virtues and vices	3:5–9, 12–14	Rom. 1:29–32; I Cor. 5:9, 10; 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:22, 23	3:2, 19; 4:8
7. He is never afraid to assert his authority	2:1–4:6	Rom. 12–16; 16:1; I Cor. 5:13; II Cor. 13:1–5	2:12–18; 4:1–19
8. When conditions are at all favorable he thanks God for those addressed and at times assures them of his constant prayer for them	1:3–12	Rom. 1:8–12; I Cor. 1:4–9; II Cor. 1:3–7	1:3–11
9. He warns earnestly against those who are seeking to lead others astray	ch. 2	Rom. 16:17, 18; I Cor. 1:10–17; 5:1; 6:1; ch. 11; II Cor. 13; Gal. 1:6–10, etc.	ch. 3
10. He loves “the gospel”	1:5–7, 23	Rom. 1:16, 17; 2:16 (“my gospel”); I Cor. 15:1 Gal. 1:6–9	1:5, 7, 12, 16, 27, etc.

contains a summary of the prayer the apostle uttered for those addressed. Note that although the two prayers are by no means the same, there is a striking resemblance: the author prays that his friends may grow or abound in grace, may bear fruit abundantly, and may possess ever increasingly the true, experiential knowledge of God.

With respect to those who have been reconciled to Christ Col. 1:22 shows that it is God’s purpose to present them to himself without blemish (faultless). Phil. 2:15 indicates that this quality of being without blemish, not only by and by but even here and now, must be the aim of every believer. An important means to this end is the word or message of God, as is clear from Col. 1:25 and Phil. 1:14. Perfection is ever the goal (Col. 1:28; cf. Phil. 3:12). Christ’s Spirit is the Energizer (Col. 1:8; and see verse 29; cf. Phil. 1:19, and see 3:21). As for himself, Paul is supplying whatever is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Col. 1:24), as Epaphroditus supplied what was lacking in the service which the Philippians had been rendering to Paul (Phil. 2:30). Note the sufferings or afflictions of Christ of which Colossians speaks. Philippians, too, speaks about the desire of the apostle to know the fellowship of his sufferings (Phil. 3:10). Of course, if the Colossians are going to be increasingly fruitful they must cling to the truth as they learned it from Epaphras (Col. 1:7), just as the Philippians must continue in the truth as they learned it from Paul (Phil. 4:9).

Turning now to the second chapter of Colossians we note that Paul is having a gigantic conflict for the Colossians, etc. (Col. 2:1). In Philippians he also makes mention of a conflict in which they and he were jointly engaged (Phil. 1:30). Paul’s physical absence does not prevent his spiritual fellowship with the Colossians (Col. 2:5) and should not prevent the Philippians from remaining steadfast (Phil. 1:27). There is a reference to a kind of circumcision that rises above the merely physical (Col. 2:11). This reminds us immediately of Phil. 3:3. In the writings that have been traditionally ascribed to Paul it is only in these Prison epistles (Col. 2:18, 23; 3:12; Eph. 4:21; Phil. 2:3) that a word is used (ταπεινοφροσύνη) which, depending upon the context in any particular case, has been translated variously as self-abasement, humility, lowliness. Note also the frequent use of the verb I make full, fill or fulfil (πληρόω). In the second chapter of Colossians it occurs in verse 10 (see also 1:9, 25; 4:17). This reminds us of Phil. 1:11; 2:2; 4:18, 19. The number of times this verb is used in Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians contrasts sharply with its far lower frequency in the other epistles (see also on Col. 1:19, including footnote 56).

The heavenward direction in which, according to Col. 3:1, 2, the yearning of the heart should be turned is certainly in line with the heavenward call which according to Phil. 3:14 the believer has received. The things that are upon the earth (Col. 3:2) which should not absorb our interests are in line with earthly things on which the enemies of the cross of Christ set their minds (Phil. 3:19). The heart of compassion demanded of us in Col. 3:12 is similar to the tender mercy and compassion mentioned in Phil. 2:1. The beautiful reference to the peace of God (Col. 3:15) recalls the similar comforting passage in Philippians (4:7).

Finally, as to Col. 4, peculiar to the epistles of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment (except for one occurrence in II Tim. 2:9) is the mention of bonds (4:18; cf. Phil. 1:7, 13, 14, 17; Philem. 10, 13). And the terseness of the command, “And say to Archippus, Attend to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you fulfil it” (Col. 4:17) remind us of the words, similarly crisp, “I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2).

The testimony of the early church is in harmony with the conclusion which has been derived from the epistle itself.

Thus Eusebius, having made a thorough investigation of the literature at his command, states: “But clearly evident and plain are the fourteen (letters) of Paul; yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the (letter) to the Hebrews” (Ecclesiastical History III.iii.4, 5). Obviously Eusebius, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, knew that the entire orthodox church accepted Colossians as having been written by Paul.

From Eusebius we can go back to Origen (fl. 210–250), who states in his work Against Celsus, “And in the writings of Paul … the following words may be read in the Epistle to the Colossians, Let no one arbitrarily rob you of your prize,” etc., quoting Col. 2:18, 19. Note that here Paul is specifically mentioned as the author of this letter. Origen, in his several works, quotes from every chapter of Colossians.²⁰

From Origen we can go back still farther, to his teacher, Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200). In his work Stromata or Miscellanies he more than once either refers to or quotes from each chapter. To him the author of Colossians is “the apostle.” Also in his Paedagogos or Instructor he quotes from Colossians again and again.

About the same time Tertullian (fl. 193–216) quotes the warning against “philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. 2:8) and ascribes this warning to “the apostle,” the very person whom he calls “the same Paul” (Prescription against Heretics VII, and cf. VI). Again and again, moreover, he quotes from Colossians such passages as refer to the greatness of Christ. See especially his work Against Marcion.

Earlier by a few years, but still for a long time a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria and of Tertullian, was Irenaeus. That he regards Paul as the author of Colossians is clear from his words, “Paul has himself declared.… ‘Only Luke is with me.’ … And again he says in the Epistle to the Colossians, ‘Luke, the beloved physician greets you’ ” (Col. 4:14, see Against Heresies III.xiv.1). Not a single chapter of Colossians remains unquoted or not referred to in the works of Irenaeus. Now when Irenaeus ascribes Colossians to Paul, this testimony should carry considerable weight. He had traveled widely, was intimately acquainted with almost the entire church of his day, and was living in a day and age in which the earliest apostolic traditions were still very much alive.

The Muratorian Fragment (about 180–200), a survey of New Testament books, definitely names Paul as the author of Colossians.

Shortly before this Theophilus of Antioch draws a distinction between the Logos internal and the Logos emitted, and he calls this Logos in his emitted state “the firstborn of all creation” (To Autolycus XXII), which strongly reminds one of Col. 1:15. This phrase also occurs in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho LXXXV. Justin Martyr wrote some time between 155 and 161.²¹ The Epistle to the Colossians was also included in Marcion’s Canon, in the Old Latin, and in the Old Syriac. The witness in favor of Paul’s authorship is therefore overwhelming. Testimony, both internal and external, yields but one conclusion, namely, that it was Paul who wrote Colossians.

B. Philemon

Since the little letter to Philemon is closely linked with Colossians (Col. 4:10–17; cf. Philem. 2, 23, 24) the Pauline authorship of the latter is a strong argument in favor of identical authorship of the former. Moreover, not only does the writer call himself Paul, and this no less than three times (verses 1, 9 and 19), but the request which he presents, and which is the very theme and substance of the letter, is of such a definite and personal character that no good reason can be shown why a forger would have composed it. Moreover, the personality of Paul — combining such traits as deep interest in others, delight in mentioning their good qualities, the conviction that back of every human virtue is God as the Giver, emphasis on the spirit of kindness and pardon — marks this little gem of a letter as strikingly as it does Colossians.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Eusebius gave it a place in his list of acknowledged books (Ecclesiastical History III.xxv; cf. III.iii), and that he regarded it as one of the letters of Paul “true, genuine, and recognized.” Origen, too, accepts it as a letter of Paul (Hom. in Jer. 19). Tertullian was well acquainted with it, and because of his testimony we know that even Marcion accepted it though that heretic rejected I and II Timothy and Titus (Tertullian, Against Marcion V.xxi). It is probable that Ignatius borrowed his play on the proper name Onesimus from Paul (cf. Philem. 10, 11, 20 with Ignatius, To the Ephesians, chapter 2). The letter is also found in the Muratorian Fragment and in the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions.

The fact that the external evidence for the letter to Philemon is not as extensive as it is for some of Paul’s other epistles is easy to understand: the request for the kind reception of the fugitive slave is very brief and contains little material that could be used in doctrinal controversies. From the beginning, however, its acceptance has been almost universal. An attack against it in the fourth and fifth centuries — on the ground that it was unworthy of the mind of Paul and of no value for edification — was answered by Jerome (

Comm. on Philem. pref.

), Chrysostom (

Argum. on Philem.

), and others. A much later attack by F. C. Baur was in line with his rejection of the authenticity of most of the epistles that are traditionally ascribed to Paul (see footnote 16 above), and resulted from the same philosophical bias. He called the little letter “the embryo of a Christian romance,” and referred to the fact that whoever wrote it used a few words which the real Paul never uses. His arguments are so easily answered that they hardly deserve comment. One author not unjustly calls this attack on the Pauline authorship of Philemon “one of Baur’s worst blunders.” Everything in this letter so clearly points to Paul that today those who think otherwise are a very small minority.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

¹ L. Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, p. 214.

² “Laodicea and its Neighbors,” BA, Vol. XIII, No. 1 (Feb. 1950), pp. 1–18. The quotation is from p. 4.

³ Lightfoot’s observation that Paul “would not be deterred by any rough or unfrequented paths” can be answered by the counter-remark that one does not ordinarily choose such paths unless there be a special reason to do so. And as to other routes that have been suggested, such as require considerable detours, why would Paul take them when his purpose, namely, to confirm the churches already established, and continue on his way to Ephesus according to promise, did not require this? Here, too, I must beg to differ with Lightfoot when he states, “On the second occasion, St. Paul’s primary object is to visit the Galatian churches which he had planted on the former journey (Acts 18:23), and it is not till after he has fulfilled this intention that he goes to Ephesus.” On the contrary, Ephesus, too, was clearly in the plan from the beginning, as has been indicated. See J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 24–28.

⁴ Strabo (Geography XII.viii.16) describes it as seismic, subject to earthquakes. J. B. Lightfoot on pp. 38–40 of his book, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, gives documentary evidence for the many earthquakes which visited Laodicea and the surrounding region in the years preceding and subsequent to the birth of Christ.

⁵ Josephus, Ant. XII.iii.4.

⁶ See William M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, the chapter on “The Jews in Phrygia.”

⁷ For the evidence see Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 20, 21.

⁸ Talm. Babl. Sabbath 147 b.

⁹ For studies with respect to the Geography and Archaeology of Colosse and its surroundings see General Bibliography at the end of this volume.

¹⁰ Herman Ridderbos, De Brief van Paulus aan de Kolossenzen (Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), p. 104. H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 231.

¹¹ F. Wiggers, “Das Verhältniss des Apostels Paulus zu der christlichen Gemeinde in Kolossä,” TSK (1838), pp. 165–188.

¹² For the meaning of his name and for any possible connection with the Epaphroditus who is mentioned in the letter to the Philippians see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 138, 139, footnote 116.

¹³ C. F. D. Moule has shown that “the Colossian rules were meant to combat indulgence” (The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, in The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, p. 110). The entire context points in this direction.

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

¹⁴ See the following: E. J. Goodspeed, New Solutions to New Testament Problems; The Meaning of Ephesians; The Key to Ephesians; J. Knox, Philemon among the Letters of Paul; criticized by C. F. D. Moule in his valuable work, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, see especially pp. 14–21, which criticism J. Knox tries to answer in the Revised (1959) edition of his aforementioned book. From Knox is also The Epistle to Philemon (Introduction and Exegesis, in The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XI). Further: P. N. Harrison, “Onesimus and Philemon,” ATR, XXXII (1950), pp. 286–294. C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians; The Formation of the Pauline Corpus of Letters; Heinrich Greeven, “Prüfung des Thesen von J. Knox zum Philemonbrief,” TZ, 79 (1954), pp. 373–378. Earlier: E. R. Goodenough, “Paul and Onesimus,” HTR, 22 (1929), pp. 181–183; and Albert E. Barnett, The New Testament: Its Making and Meaning, pp. 79–92; 184–185.

¹⁵ See N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 29 and 30; and for a discussion of the entire Pauline chronology see W. Hendriksen, Bible Survey, pp. 62–64, 70.

¹⁶ See the detailed discussion in Ernst Percy’s important work, Die Probleme der Kolosser-und Epheserbriefe, 1946.

¹⁷ E. Th. Mayerhoff began the attack. See his work, Der Brief an die Colosser mit vornehmlicher Berücksichtigung der drei Pastoralbriefe kritisch geprüft. He regarded Colossians as an imitation of Ephesians which he viewed as written by Paul. F. C. Baur and his followers, the Later Tübingen School, denied the authenticity of all the letters passing under the apostle’s name, except Galatians, I and II Corinthians, and most of Romans. But Baur’s denial is vitiated by the Hegelian bias upon which it rests. For Baur the question whether or not an epistle is characterized by the anti-Judaistic line of argumentation seems to settle everything. Thus all of Paul’s thinking is forced into one groove. This is manifestly unfair. H. J. Holtzmann in his work Kritik der Epheser-und Kolosserbriefe, views the letter which has come down to us as Colossians as being in reality an original shorter authentic Colossians plus interpolations from Ephesians which was composed by a Paulinist who in the process of writing it made use of the original and genuine Colossians. A. S. Peake is certainly correct when he states, “The complexity of the hypothesis tells fatally against it” (Critical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 52). Another and more recent author who finds a genuine nucleus in our Colossians is Charles Masson, L’Épitre de Saint Paul aux Colossiens (in Commentaire du Nouveau Testament X, 1950, pp. 83 ff).

¹⁸ And some of these words are probably borrowed from the technical terminology of the false teachers.

¹⁹ See J. M. Bulman, “Valentinus and his School,” in S.H.E.R.K. (20th century Extension), pp. 1146, 1147, and the literature there mentioned; also F. L. Cross (editor), The Jung Codex: A Newly Discovered Gnostic Papyrus. For a brief summary of second and third century Gnosticism see A. M. Renwick’s article, “Gnosticism,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, pp. 237, 238.

²⁰ For detailed references for Origen and also for earlier writers see the Indices of Texts in Ante-Nicene Fathers.

²¹ It is probable that there is an echo of Colossians in such very early writings as The Epistle of Barnabas and in Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, but why look for merely probable references when so much clear proof has already been furnished?

↑ Back to top