INTRODUCTION
TO THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
At least three Epistles, and probably four, were prepared
about the same time by the Apostle Paul at his place of imprisonment in Rome,
and sent by the same messengers to the Roman Province of Asia. One was the
Epistle to the Ephesians; a second, the present letter; a third, the Epistle to
Philemon, who was a resident of Colosse; and the fourth is alluded to in this
Epistle (4:16) as the Epistle to the Laodiceans, but has been thought by some
to be identical with the Ephesian letter. Three cities are named in this
Epistle which lay contiguous to each other in the bounds of the ancient Kingdom
of Phrygia, but in the last half of the first century were embraced within the
proconsular Province of Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital, which had
Christian congregations, and two of these were honored with Epistles (4:13).
The ruins of these cities have been identified, and the close association of
Colosse and Laodicea is witnessed by the fact that they were only a few miles
apart on opposite sides of the valley of the Lycus, a short distance above
where it enters into the larger river Meander.
Colosse was a city of considerable size more than four
hundred years before the date of this letter, when visited by Xenophon as the
Ten Thousand marched up into Central Asia, and is mentioned by Herodotus still
earlier. At this time, however, it was overshadowed in importance by Laodicea,
and at the present the ruins are less imposing than those of either Laodicea or
Hierapolis.
We learn in the Sixteenth Chapter of Acts that Paul, on his
second missionary journey, passed from Cilicia through the pass in the great
Taurus chain of mountains, which has always been the highway from the coast to
the interior; paused a little while in Lydia; took Timothy in his train of
attendants, and then passed through Phrygia and Galatia. And, a second time,
after his European tour, he returned and “went over all the country of Phrygia
and Galatia, strengthening the disciples” (Acts 18:23). Yet it is probable
that he did not personally plant the gospel in Colosse, and possibly did not
even pass through the valley of the Lycus. The words of Chapter 2:1, are
understood to mean that he had never met with the church in person, and indeed
there is a marked difference between the tone of this letter and the familiar
personal appeals of letters addressed to churches that he had certainly
planted, like those of Philippi and Galatia.
Besides, Epaphras seems to be named (1:7) as the founder,
or at least the evangelist, of the church. Yet, since Epaphras must have been
one of his own converts, and was working under his general supervision, Paul
held himself responsible for its condition, and looked after its welfare, as
after all the churches planted within the sphere of his labors.
It is easy to discover from certain portions of the letter
why it was written. Phrygia was a sort of border land between religions. The
light, joyous polytheism of the Greeks here met the deep, solemn mysticism of
the East. In addition, large colonies of Jews had been transplanted from
Babylon to this region by one of the Macedonian monarchs of Syria, and brought
with them a Judaism which had been greatly modified by the doctrines of
Zoroaster. The Epistle gives us ample ground for concluding that there was
danger of these mongrel philosophies corrupting the simplicity of the gospel of
Christ, and that Paul’s object was to fortify the church against doctrine which
would result in evil. In the notes of the passages which refer to these
doctrines, this will be discussed more at length.
While there is a marked difference between this Epistle and
that to the Ephesians, there is in some portions a striking similarity. Indeed
there is not only a parallelism in the thoughts, but often in the language. The
most natural way to account for this is to bear in mind that the two letters
were written at the same time; were written to the same part of the world to
congregations surrounded by conditions which were in many respects similar, and
whose spiritual needs would be much alike. Under such circumstances it would be
strange if two letters from the same writer did not bear a strong resemblance.
It would be interesting to call attention to these parallel or similar
passages, but the limited space the plan of this work allows will not permit.
One who is curious to follow this comparison will find it given in full in
Paley’s Horae Paulinae.
Concerning the genuineness of this Epistle, it has always
had a place in the New Testament Canon, and has never been questioned except by
Baur, and some other critics of the Tubingen school who have thought that it
gave too high an exaltation to Christ. This might be answered by replying that
it exalts Christ no more than Philippians and other Epistles which are conceded
to be of Pauline origin. Their theories have been overthrown not only by
historical arguments, but by the internal evidence of the Epistle itself.
Indeed, as Meyer remarks, “the forging of such an Epistle as this would be far
more wonderful than its genuineness.”
It was written at Rome, during Paul’s imprisonment, probably
in a.d. 62, the same date as
Ephesians and Philemon, and was sent to the church by the hands of Tychicus
(4:7) and Onesimus (4:9).
Excerpt from:
A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
www.e-sword.net or www.ccel.org
