Colossians

Both Herodotus and Xenophon spoke of Colossae as an enormous city that was incredibly wealthy. However, because the roads and trade routes were changed, the city was no more than an “insignificant market town” by the time Paul wrote his letter. Colossae is so small that Luke never mentions this church in the book of Acts, and it doesn’t seem that Paul had ever been to this city (Col. 2:1). Paul covers the basics of Christology and true spirituality in this short letter. Paul didn’t start this church in Colossae, and it’s likely that Epaphras started this church (Col. 1:7; 4:12). Paul is writing this letter based on what Epaphras “informed” him about the church (Col. 1:8). The “Colossian Heresy” had infiltrated this church. This was most likely a syncretistic blend of Jewish mysticism and proto-Gnosticism. Paul writes to correct this pernicious teaching and to build up their faith in Christ.

Authorship

Critical scholars do not overwhelmingly accept Colossians as an authentic letter of Paul (though many do). Some critical scholars argue that one of Paul’s disciples wrote the letter as though Paul was the actual author. That being said, we agree with O’Brien, Carson and Moo, Melick, and Wright that this is an authentic Pauline letter. A number of arguments can be made in favor of Pauline authorship, and the arguments against his authorship are not weighty in our estimation.

First, the book itself claims to be written by Paul. This should not be cavalierly dismissed, as is often the case in critical circles. Paul names himself at the beginning of the letter (Col. 1:1, 23) and at the end (Col. 4:18). We should accept the self-designation of the author unless we have good reasons to reject this.

Second, early church fathers attributed the letter to Paul. These would include Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3.14.1), Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heretics, 7), and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, 1:1). Likewise, Justin Martyr alludes to the letter by AD 150 (Dialogue with Trypho, 138), and the book appears in both the Marcionite Canon (AD 140) and the Muratorian Canon (AD 180).

Third, statistical arguments regarding vocabulary are unconvincing. Critics note that this letter contains 50 words that are not used anywhere else in Paul’s writings, and the letter has 34 words that occur nowhere else in the NT (i.e. hapax legomena). Thus critics contend that this casts doubt on Paul’s authorship.

However, Galatians (which is affirmed as authentic by even the most strident NT critics) contains 31 words that occur nowhere else in the NT. In fact, Carson and Moo point out that “the same is true of all of Paul’s letters” to some degree or another. Furthermore, since the “Colossian Heresy” was such a unique teaching, it shouldn’t surprise us that Paul would draw on a more robust vocabulary to critique this view. Indeed, some critics agree that some later Christian forger was arguing against Gnosticism in this letter, and the author was using the language of the Gnostics to combat this heresy. Yet, then these same authors turn around and use this as evidence against Paul’s authorship. These are mutually competing claims: “Naturally their terminology would not be his, and both arguments should not be used together in the authorship question.”

Furthermore, many themes in Colossians also appear in the undisputed letters of Paul. Paul refers to the church as Jesus’ “body” (Col. 1:18, 24; 2:19) which matches his other letters (1 Cor. 12; Rom. 12). Paul’s writing about suffering (Col. 1:24) also aligns with Paul’s other writing (2 Cor. 1:3-11; 4:7-18; Rom. 8:17-25).

Fourth, the presence of Gnosticism shouldn’t late date the letter. Some critics (e.g. F.C. Baur) denied Pauline authorship because Gnosticism was thought to be a second century heresy. However, heresies do not appear overnight; they take time to develop. While Gnosticism reached its peak in the second and third centuries; it most likely had its beginnings in the first century. Paul was most likely arguing against some form of proto-Gnosticism (or “incipient Gnosticism”).

Fifth, the brilliance of the letter’s composition favors Paul. If a disciple of Paul wrote the letter, how could he write with such brilliance? It’s difficult to believe that “creative genius can be ‘caught’ even by long familiarity with the master and his work.” Indeed, “we may well wonder whether anyone other than Paul himself would have been so bold with his irony, so characteristically terse and pregnant in his theological statements and Old Testament allusions. Deliberate imitations… are usually wooden, self-conscious things, not flowing and vibrant as this letter is.”

Conclusion. Because of the lack of evidence against Paul’s authorship, Vaughn writes, “Today, however, there is broad agreement that it is… from the hand of Paul—or that it is at least substantially Pauline.” In fact, he writes that in recent years many of these old-line arguments have been “largely abandoned.”

Date

The letter affirms that Paul wrote from prison (Col 4:10) and that Aristarchus (Col 4:10) accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2).

Wright contends that Paul wrote from prison in Ephesus—not Rome. If this is the case, then we would date the letter sometime between 52 and 55 AD, during the time that Paul served in Ephesus (Acts 19:8-10). However, we reject the Ephesian imprisonment theory for several reasons (see “Introduction to Philippians”). Several lines of evidence support that Paul wrote from Roman imprisonment:

• Paul mentions Aristarchus (Col. 4:10), who was with him during his Roman house-arrest (Acts 27:2).

• Eusebius places Paul under Roman imprisonment (Church History, 2.22.1).

• Paul was not under “lock and key” while under Roman house-arrest (Acts 28:30), which fits with Paul having so many coworkers with him when he wrote Colossians (Col. 4:7-17).

• Paul would be writing to the Ephesians while in Ephesus. Melick asks, “Why would Paul write a letter to the Ephesians when he was in prison in Ephesus?”

Thus we agree with scholars like O’Brien and Melick who affirm the Roman imprisonment of Paul when he wrote this letter. Under this view, we can date this letter to AD 60 or 61. This would most likely be during the time that Paul also wrote Ephesians (see Introduction to Ephesians).

Audience

We know very little about the city of Colossae. The city was on the banks of the Lycus River in Asia Minor, and it was close to Laodicea (10 miles) and Hierapolis. The city hasn’t been excavated. So, to reconstruct the setting, we need to rely on the letter itself and our knowledge of the surrounding region in Asia Minor. From the letter, we know that these were Gentile Christians who came from paganism (Col. 1:12-13, 21, 27; 2:13; 3:5-7). Though, as we’ll see, this is difficult to reconstruct because “the lines between different cults and religious ideas could get blurred, and the phenomenon known as ‘syncretism’ …became quite common.”

History of Colossae

At one point, Colossae was a booming city. Herodotus (5^th century BC) described Colossae as “a great city of Phrygia” (History 7.30.1). Xenophon (4^th century BC) wrote that Colossae was “a populous city, wealthy and large” (Anabasis 1.2.6).

However, at this period in history, Colossae was tiny. Just 20 years before the time of Paul, Strabo referred to Colossae as a “small town” (Geography 12.8.13). Neighboring cities like Laodicea and Hierapolis (~10 miles away) overshadowed Colossae. This might be why Paul mentions both of these cities in his letter (Col. 2:1; 4:13, 15), and why he urged the Colossians to send a copy of the letter to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). Because of its lack of commercial prosperity and significance, this may have been one of the least significant churches Paul wrote to. Colossae is so small that Luke never mentions this church in the book of Acts, and it doesn’t seem that Paul had ever even travelled to this city (Col. 2:1).

Colossae may have been affected by the great earthquake that devastated Laodicea in AD 60-61 (Tacitus, Annals 14.27.1; Strabo, Geography 12.8.16; Orosius, Historiae ad paganos 7.7.12), though this isn’t certain.

A substantial Jewish population may have lived in Colossae. Josephus records that two thousand Jewish families settled in the general area of Lydia and Phrygia (Antiquities 12.147-53), and archaeologists have discovered Jewish graves in Hierapolis (just 12 miles from Colossae). The Roman governor Flaccus seized twenty pounds of gold from the Jewish settlers in Laodicea (Cicero, pro Flacco 28), which could amount to a population of around 11,000 Jewish people living there (if each Jewish person gave a half-shekel). While there may have been some Jewish believers in Colossae, the majority were most likely Gentiles (Col. 1:27; 2:13).

Who started the church in Colossae?

Paul had never been to Colossae, as the letter indicates (Col. 1:4, 9; 2:1). So, who started this church? The most likely candidate is Epaphras (Col. 1:7; 4:12). This may have coincided with Paul’s ministry in Ephesus where “all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10). Epaphras is said to be with Paul in prison (“fellow prisoner”) when Paul wrote his letter to Philemon (Phile. 23), along with Onesimus (Col. 4:9).

Epaphras’ imprisonment may be why Paul sends the letter to the Colossians with Tychicus—not Epaphras (Col. 4:7-8). Epaphras apparently left Archippus behind to watch over the church while he was gone (Col. 4:17), and Archippus was one of the home church leaders in Colossae (Phile. 2).

What was the Colossian Heresy?

Scholars refer to the “Colossian Heresy” to describe the false teaching present in Colossae. While we don’t know the exact nature of this false teaching, we can piece together aspects of this heresy by surveying the letter itself:

• It was a man-made philosophy. It was a “philosophy” (Col. 2:8) based on the tradition of men. Paul calls it a “self-made religion” (Col. 2:23), and it was based on the “elemental principles of the world” (Col. 2:8, 20; see comments on 4:3).

• It involved the worship of angels and visions. Paul refers to the “the worship of the angels” and the “visions” that the false teachers used to damage the faith of this church (Col. 2:18).

• It commanded asceticism. Asceticism refers to depriving your body of good things, or even harming your body. In Colossians, Paul refers to “self-abasement” (Col. 2:18) and the “severe treatment of the body” (Col. 2:23). Moreover, Paul mentions the false teachers’ commands to not handle, taste, or touch material things (Col. 2:21), which may refer to “food” (Col. 2:16).

• It had aspects of Jewish mysticism. Some Jewish teachers held that angels were the agents of creation based on God creating humans in “our image” (Gen. 1:26; 3:22). Philo espoused this errant view, and Justin Martyr argued against this view in his dialogue with the Jewish man Trypho (Dialogue with Trypho, 62). Thus, Melick thinks it is “some form of Judaism.”

• It had many aspects of proto-Gnosticism. Paul rejects that these Christians needed additional knowledge of central teachings of Christianity (Col. 2:2-3). Instead, the “mystery” has already been revealed (Col. 1:27), contrary to the mystery religion of Gnosticism. Paul also uses the frequently used Gnostic term “fullness” (plērōma) to describe Jesus’ full deity in human form (Col. 1:19; 2:9). While the Gnostics believed the there were various spirit-beings or “aeons” that separated us from God, Paul states that the “fullness” of God is found solely in Christ.

In conclusion, we agree with the thesis of J.B. Lightfoot whose “conclusions remain viable one hundred years after his commentary, and many arguments simply repeat or expand his views.” Lightfoot understood the Colossian Heresy to be some form of Jewish Gnosticism. This could be why Paul emphasizes Jesus’ creation and authority over the angels (Col. 1:15-18), and it could explain why Paul emphasizes Jesus’ absolute victory over the demonic realm through the Cross (Col. 2:13-15). After these Jewish settlers left Jerusalem, it’s quite possible that they assimilated many types of foreign ideas into their worldview. Perhaps this explains the eclectic ideas in this church.

To be clear, everyone agrees that whatever the Colossian Heresy was it was syncretistic. Worldviews are not nice and neat structures. Indeed, they frequently incorporate all sorts of various, and even contradictory, beliefs. In our view, this was the case in Colossae. These Christians were facing some sort of medley of various view, including Jewish mysticism and proto-Gnosticism.