WE KNOW LITTLE ABOUT the agricultural town of Colosse in the time of Paul except where it was located—on the southern bank of the Lycus River in the territory of Phrygia (modern Turkey), about 110 miles east of Ephesus. At one time it was a notable city; but during Paul’s day its neighboring cities, Laodicea, eleven miles to the northwest, and Hierapolis, twelve miles to the northwest on the opposite side of the river, had outstripped it in importance. Colosse was situated in a region prone to earthquakes, and one rocked the area in A.D. 61–62, causing severe damage and possibly destroying the city. Laodicea was also devastated but recovered quickly. Colosse may not have been rebuilt, since, according to Reicke, no references to the city appear in Christian or pagan sources after A.D. 61.1 Consequently, Paul must have written this letter before this date when the earthquake destroyed the city.
Primary evidence about the city is sparse. In 1835, W. J. Hamilton identified the site that had lain in ruins since being destroyed by the Turks in the twelfth century. The mound has been surveyed but not excavated, and only a few literary references and a handful of inscriptions survive.2 The unexcavated mound probably contains valuable information that might help in interpreting the letter.
Authorship
IN THE LAST two centuries, many scholars have questioned whether Paul wrote Colossians. The cumulative evidence of differences in vocabulary, style, and theology from the undisputed letters by Paul have led many to this conclusion.3 Lohse, for example, claims that the differences point to someone else as its author—“not a secretary but an independently acting and judging theologian of Pauline stamp.”4
The letter to Philemon reveals that Paul had some relationship to Colosse, and the city’s destruction in the earthquake may have offered an excellent opportunity for someone to contrive a fictional correspondence to a church that no longer existed. Some contend that the references to Timothy and Paul’s other colleagues were gleaned from the letter to Philemon to enhance the letter’s authenticity. The command to send the letter to Laodicea (4:16) was concocted as a clever device to explain how it appeared in that city.
But why would such a ruse have been undertaken? The letter commands no specific actions and rebukes no specific persons. Some argue that it was drafted to introduce Paul to Asia Minor since Tychicus and Onesimus are to make known “the news about [Paul]” and “everything that is happening here” (4:7, 9). Such a letter would serve the purpose of advancing the apostolic position of Paul and of lending authority to his supporters.5 This conclusion about the dual purpose of such a pseudepigraph is not convincing. If the letter to Philemon is any indication, Paul was not an unknown in these parts, and there would be no need to introduce him. If this were the aim of later Pauline supporters, why did they not choose to distribute one or more of his genuine letters instead?6 The letter does not look like an introduction to Paul’s thought, and “the news about [Paul]” in 4:7 (cf. v. 9) refers only to Paul’s situation in prison, not his life and ministry. Tychicus and Onesimus come to tell the congregation how Paul is faring, not to introduce his theological perspective.
If the purpose of this letter, as some claim, were also to certify a “succession of teachers” commended by the apostle (4:7–15), why would the list of names in Philemon and Colossians be almost identical? Pokorný claims that Tychicus and Onesimus “represented the apostolic heritage in the Lycus Valley.”7 The description of Onesimus, however, does not give him any ministerial role; it simply identifies him as a Christian. The emphasis in 4:8 is not on the confirmation of these two brothers but on the Colossians’ comfort. Moreover, we must also ask why the forger would list Demas (see 2 Tim. 4:10) and mention Nympha in Laodicea? The whole issue of “succession” seems anachronistically imposed on the text.
What can we say in defense of Paul as the author of this letter? (1) Much of the supposedly “unpauline” vocabulary occurs in the section dealing with the “philosophy.” We should not expect Paul to express himself in the same way with the same ideas in every circumstance. This argument against Pauline authorship assumes that he was incapable of theological innovation in a fresh situation.8 How do we limit the parameters of what Paul could or could not have said? How do we make judgments about what ideas Paul could or could not have entertained, particularly since he claimed that he could become all things to all men that he might save some (1 Cor. 9:22)? Distinctive vocabulary is an unreliable criterion to rule out Paul’s authorship.
(2) Nothing in Colossians is completely inconsistent with Paul’s theology known from his undisputed letters.9 Some so-called theological differences have been pressed too far. For example, Lincoln argues that too much has been read into the statement that believers have already been raised with Christ (2:12).10 While this assertion contrasts with Paul’s affirmation in Romans 6:5, 8 that the resurrection with Christ lies in the future, Lincoln persuasively argues that the two passages represent opposite poles in Paul’s thinking on the resurrection life—the “already” and the “not yet.” Believers enter this resurrection life when they are joined to Christ, but “its consummation still lies in the future.”11
Colossians stresses the realized aspect of eschatology for two reasons. (a) It counters any doubt whether the Colossian Christians have already attained a heavenly dimension through Christ. (b) It makes unnecessary the visions and mortification of the flesh offered by the rival philosophy to reach a higher spiritual plane (2:18). In addition, the “not yet” aspect is present in Colossians in the assertion that our life in Christ is hidden and will not be revealed until he appears in glory (3:3–4). Paul’s sense of eschatological urgency also emerges in 4:5. It fits Paul’s “sense of the period of his mission as a time pregnant with eschatological importance, to be used to the full in proclaiming the gospel.”12 The presumed theological differences do not tip the scale against Paul’s authorship of the letter.
(3) The differences in style are problematic but may be explained in a variety of ways.13 Paul may have relied on a secretary who fleshed out the general line of thought, and Paul then signed the final copy. Some recent scholars attribute the differences in style and vocabulary to Timothy. He is identified as the coauthor of the letter but may have composed the entire letter. Dunn concludes that Paul did not write the letter, but his authority lay behind it:
If modern scholarship is persuaded by differences of style and emphasis that the letter cannot have been composed/dictated by Paul himself, that still leaves the possibility that Paul (incapacitated in prison) approved a letter written in his name and willingly appended his signature to a document whose central thrust and main outlines he approved of, even if the details were not stated quite as he would himself.14
This view allows Timothy to be a theological and stylistic “wild card.” His input can explain any differences from other Pauline letters.
The stylistic differences may be explained in another way. Paul’s writing to a congregation that he did not found and did not know personally may be a key factor in the differences. When we look at Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon, we can see how this works out.15 Philemon is accepted as genuinely from Paul while the other two letters are disputed. But the differing purposes and audiences of the three letters, which I believe were written around the same time, explains the variations in the style and tone of the three letters. Philemon is a highly personal letter of request addressed to three individuals. It deals with a delicate private matter with explosive social consequences. Colossians is addressed to a whole church community that Paul has not founded and may never have visited.16 He feels compelled to write to them about a particular problem to bolster their faith. Ephesians is a circular letter intended for several churches in different settings.
The theological issues in the three letters also differ. Philemon does not address a matter of theological controversy but a social issue. Colossians and Ephesians deal with similar theological issues from a different tack. Johnson cogently argues,
The themes and images of Colossians are placed within the framework of a theological exposition concerning God’s reconciling work in the world. The relation of Ephesians to Colossians is almost precisely that of Romans to Galatians; the issues forged in controversy are elevated to the level of a magisterial statement.17
Some contend that the agreements between Paul and his later followers who wrote in his name so outweigh the differences that the question of Paul’s authorship of the letter is not important.18 We should point out, however, that if Paul had nothing to do with the writing of Colossians, it must then be regarded as a deliberate forgery. The counterfeiter deliberately lifted names from Philemon to give verisimilitude to Colossians and to defraud readers into thinking that it was a genuine letter from Paul.19 In contrast to Philemon, which has simply a list of names, the Colossian author supplies further remarks for each name, summarizing their circumstances and work in the churches. The hoax is intentional; “a clever trickster is at work.”20 Apparently the forger did not believe that the command not to lie to one another (3:9) applied in such a case. This problem is eliminated if Paul is the author of the letter. The close connection between Philemon and Colossians makes this the most reasonable conclusion.
Provenance
PAUL COULD HAVE written this letter from Ephesus, Caesarea, or Rome, and cases have been made for each place. Until recent times, it was taken for granted that the letter was written from Rome. The close connection between Colossians and Philemon means that what we decide about Philemon will determine where Colossians was written. In the introduction to Philemon we present more fully the arguments for a Roman origin for the letters.
PAUL’S LETTERS CARRY on conversations with his churches and serve as substitutes for his personal presence (2:5). The recipients did not need Paul to explain to them the things going on in their church that prompted his letter, but we might wish he had provided more information so that we would have a clearer understanding. We can only read between the lines to guess what was happening, and the letter to the Colossians is particularly puzzling. Anyone who has ever overheard a conversation on the telephone and tried to guess who was calling and what was being said on the other end of the line knows firsthand how easy it is to draw false conclusions.
A “philosophy” was apparently threatening the Colossian congregation, causing some concern for Paul and Epaphras, the missionary who founded the church. We do not know how Paul heard about the circumstances in Colosse. Unless he received a flash bulletin from someone in the church, Epaphras may have informed him of the brewing problems.21 Epaphras’s own imprisonment with Paul (Philem. 23) may have prevented him from coming in person to intervene.
In the past, it was common to refer to the problem as the “Colossian heresy.” That term is misleading because it anachronistically assumes that there were widely accepted criteria for judging orthodoxy in the time of Paul. It also assumes that the opponents are Christians who are corrupting the Colossians’ faith. Arnold uses the word “syncretism” to avoid prejudging the teaching as “bad, heretical, or unorthodox.”22 Paul, however, calls it a “philosophy” (2:8). Putting this term in quotation marks prevents us from understanding it as a logical system of truths and principles and allows it to apply to a religious way of life. What this “philosophy” was and how it threatened the congregation has occupied scholars’ attention for some time and no consensus has been reached.23
To identify the “philosophy” we have only meager snippets in a short but clearly polemical section (2:8, 16–23). The problem is compounded because this section is the most unclear passage in the letter. Many interpreters look outside the text for some evidence in Paul’s environment that will help stitch all the allusions in the letter together into a coherent pattern. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack, however. What is worse, the diverging conjectures reveal that scholars are looking in quite different haystacks for this magic needle. When one examines all the conflicting proposals by scholars who muster impressive primary evidence to buttress their arguments, the conflicting accounts resemble the story of blind men trying to describe an elephant when they are touching different parts of the animal.24 This does not mean that if we piece together all the different proposals, we will have our answer. The evidence is confusing and enigmatic.
The nature of the error has a vital bearing on how one interprets the whole tenor of the letter and some of its individual phrases, but we cannot reconstruct it from a “shopping list of terms” that have parallels in other religious or philosophical movements of the time.25 We must be aware that Paul may be using irony, caricature, and exaggeration. His purpose, after all, was not to describe its tenets for the Colossians but to dissuade them from being beguiled by it.26
We must also exercise caution and resist finding allusions to the “philosophy” everywhere in the letter. It is possible that Paul takes up favorite terms of the false teachers, which he then deftly turns to his own advantage. But almost every word in the letter has been identified by one commentator or another as an echo of the opponents’ teaching. Such arguments tend to be circular.27 We can expect Paul to refer to the false teaching in the strongly worded polemical section (2:8, 16–23), but we should not expect to find allusions to it throughout the letter.28 In defining the nature of the “philosophy,” we should therefore limit ourselves to direct statements from the polemical section of the letter and Paul’s critical evaluation of it. We should also consider Paul’s direct injunctions to the Colossians.
(1) Direct statements in the polemical section reveal the following about the “philosophy.”
(a) It passes judgment on the Colossians for not submitting to the observances of certain holy days and food and purity restrictions (2:16). Doing so will disqualify them in some way or rob them of the prize (2:18). Because the opponents disparage the Colossians in these matters, the Colossian believers apparently have not yet submitted to them.29
(b) Its practices are linked to regulations regarding food and drink and observing festivals, Sabbaths, and New Moons (2:16; 2:23). It issues prohibitions: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (2:21).30
(c) It has an interest in self-abasement, angels, and visions (2:18).
(2) Paul’s negative appraisal of the error reveals the following.
(a) The “philosophy” is vain deceit, based on human tradition and the elemental spirits (or principles) of the universe, and is not according to Christ (2:8). It clearly deviates from Christian teaching.
(b) It has the “appearance of wisdom” (2:23). The opponents present persuasive, fine-sounding arguments (2:4) that can take the unwary captive (2:8). The opponents may identify their teaching as “wisdom,” or Paul may deride its deceptive appearance of possessing wisdom.
(c) The opponents have “lost connection with the Head,” from which divine growth comes (2:19). We must decide whether the opponents would have disagreed with this statement if they were Christians or agreed with it if they were not.
(d) The regulations about food, drink, and the observance of holy days are only a shadow of things to come, which is found in Christ (2:17).
(e) The dogmas are based on the “basic principles [or elemental spirits] of this world,” from which those in Christ have been set free (2:8).
(f) The rules are dismissed as the “human commands and teachings” (2:22; cf. v. 8), which cannot compare to divine revelation.
(g) The references to their “false humility” (NRSV, “self-abasement”), “worship of angels” (or “worship with angels”), the things a person “has seen,” and “puffs … up” in 2:18 are the most disputed phrases in the letter; but they are all associated with a “fleshly [NIV, unspiritual] mind.”
(3) Paul gives the following direct commands to the Colossians, which shed further light on the “philosophy” and the Colossians’ involvement with it.
(a) Paul applies the poetic material in 1:15–20 to the Colossians in 1:22–23 and tells them that they need to remain firm in the teaching they heard previously. He does not tell them that they need to renounce some error.
(b) Paul affirms in 2:9–10 that they are already complete, having attained fullness in Christ. We can infer from this statement that someone is claiming that they have not attained this fullness, that they need something more.
(c) Paul assures the Colossians of their status before God in Christ, who is “the head over every power and authority” (2:10) and who has secured for them the forgiveness of their sins.31 We can infer from this that the Colossians are less confident of this status either because they have begun to doubt it themselves or because someone from the outside has cast doubt on it.
(d) Paul insists that Christ alone is sufficient for their salvation.
(4) Conclusion. Rather than rehearse all of the options that scholars have proposed as candidates for the “philosophy,” I will argue the case for only one.32 The evidence does not suggest that visitors from outside have somehow wormed their way into the church or that wrongheaded members of the church have become charmed by the lures of outside cults and practices. The opponents are outsiders. Most have argued that the error has some Jewish dimension. Using Occam’s razor, we can cut away the needless multiplication of assumptions about some pagan concoction with Jewish trimmings. The most streamlined view that adequately explains all the data is that newly formed Gentile Christians in Colosse are being badgered about their faith by contentious Jews who took affront over their claims.33 Jews could argue persuasively from the same Scriptures used by Christians.34 Consequently, they would be far more intimidating and devastating to a young, developing church than a pagan syncretistic philosophy, a mystery religion, or a folk religion with a potpourri of superstitions and practices.35
When the Colossians became Christians, they believed that they had become heirs to the promises of Israel. Paul affirms that they are “God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved” (3:12), the language of Jewish self-identity in the Scripture. It makes more sense that Jews would take umbrage at the presumption of Gentile Christians and respond by impugning their hope as false.36 If we are to trust the evidence in Acts, indignant Jews are the most likely opponents since most of the conflict incidents are struggles with Jewish contenders.37 The opponents from a local synagogue are not prodding the Colossian Christians to follow their lead but informing them that they are disqualified from being part of the people of God as defined in the law.
There is no reason to believe, however, that they have already swept the Colossians from their theological moorings in Christ. Paul’s concern is that they might undermine the new Christians’ confidence in their hope. He is therefore writing to curb the insidious influence of a false “philosophy” and to confirm the Colossians’ faith (2:4–5). They are to take care that no one preys on them and lures them into deceit (2:8). The warning against questions of food and drink, festivals, and worship of angels and visions assumes that they are not doing these things (2:16, 18), since it prompts the opponents’ condemnation. Paul’s response is therefore a warning shot across the bow; but, more importantly, it is a booster shot designed to inject greater assurance.
In 4:12, Paul mentions Epaphras’s concerns for his friends in Colosse: “He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured.” The key word is “fully assured.” The letter’s theme statement appears in 2:6–7, “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.” It shows that Paul worries about the congregation’s crisis of confidence.38 Under a torrent of hostile criticism, the Colossians may begin to perceive Christianity as only an abridged form of Judaism and may be fooled into thinking that only Judaism offered the fullness that they yearned for and the protection from malign forces. Paul responds that Christians will find completeness only in Christ (2:10) and that they have already been delivered from the powers and authorities.
The following evidence lends support to the view that the opponents are rival Jews.
(1) In the late third century B.C., Antiochus III (223–187 B.C.) transported a substantial Jewish population from Mesopotamia and Babylonia to Lydia and Phrygia (Josephus, Antiquities 12.3.4 §§ 147–53). Cicero reports that in 62 B.C. Flaccus, the governor of Asia, confiscated twenty pounds of gold that had been collected from this area for the temple tax (Flaccus 28.68); such a sum averages out to a Jewish adult male population of 10,000. The Jews in the Diaspora did not retreat into ghettoes but were well integrated into society and had open dealings with their Gentile neighbors. The church, therefore, would have informal contacts with Jews in the city, and that contact was likely to create friction. Devout Jews who refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah and who scorned the gospel that accepted Gentiles as coheirs would not sit idly by while Gentiles, in their opinion, pirated their Scriptures and stole their hopes.39
(2) Paul identifies the error as a “philosophy” in 2:8. Those defending Judaism to the Greco-Roman world commend their ancient tradition as a venerable philosophy.40 They emphasized that Judaism was rational and that its laws were in accordance with nature, not against it. Judaism also gained a reputation for wisdom, for high ethical standards, and for esoteric knowledge (cf. 2:23).
(3) The mention of circumcision, Sabbaths, New Moons, food laws, and purity regulations are not random elements selected by a syncretistic pagan cult or philosophy enamored with Judaism. They are distinctive Jewish identity markers that set Jews apart in the ancient world and confirmed their special status as God’s chosen people. In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, the rabbi Trypho urges Justin to be circumcised and to “keep the Sabbath, the festivals and the new moons of God”!41
By referring to these practices—eating and drinking, religious festivals, New Moon celebrations, and Sabbath days—as “a shadow of the things that were to come,” namely, Christ (2:17), Paul can hardly be referring to pagan rituals or regulations. He must be referring to the Old Testament.42 On the other hand, if he is talking about Jewish ordinances, Paul could not renounce them as entirely useless. They were inadequate to accomplish salvation or perfection, but they did point to the forgiveness, reconciliation, and new life fulfilled in Christ.
(a) Paul brings up the circumcision issue in 2:11 to reaffirm that Gentile Christians were not handicapped or disqualified for remaining uncircumcised, as some Jews might claim. They received a spiritual circumcision in Christ, which made them a part of the elect of God.
(b) The dietary prohibitions in 2:16 best fit Jewish food laws, which were also important identity markers.43 The parenthetical comment in 2:22 that the prohibitions listed in 2:21 are based on “human commands and teachings” alludes to Isaiah 29:13. Jesus appealed to this passage in his assault on Pharisaic interpretations of food laws and ritual purity (Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7).
(c) Sabbaths, New Moons, and feasts appear in Jewish literature as a standard way of referring to the primary celebrations of Judaism.44 These feasts, according to Ezekiel 20:18–20; 22:8, 26, “preserve the identity of this nation in a special way as the people of God; and they show that Yahweh is God of this nation.”45 The mention of the Sabbath is a smoking gun since it was distinctive to Jews.
(d) The reference to not touching (2:21) reflects a fear of impurity from physical contact (Lev. 5:2–3; 7:19, 21; 11:8, 24–28; Isa. 52:11). Dunn cites a parallel in The Letter of Aristeas 142: “So, to prevent our being perverted by contact with others or by mixing with bad influences, he hedged us in on all sides with purifications connected with meat and drink and touch and hearing and sight in terms of the law.”46
(e) The phrase “worship of angels” in 2:18 is exceedingly difficult. It does not refer to some cult of angels but in my opinion fits in with widespread Jewish speculation about angels. Jews believed the law was delivered by angels (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2), and insisting on strict obedience to the law could be likened to venerating angels.47 Various strands of Judaism also reflect a great interest in angels.48 One can easily get the impression from reading the “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (4Q400–405) from the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Testament of Solomon in the Pseudepigrapha, for example, that angels were objects of veneration.49
(f) The opponents are not Christians. Paul’s assertion in 2:20, “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules,” seems to imply that the opponents have not died with Christ as the Colossian Christians have. In Paul’s estimation, the opponents have “lost connection with the Head” (2:19). Presumably, they hold to something else, such as human traditions (compare Mark 7:8).
(g) Paul’s reaffirmation of the Colossians’ relationship to Christ makes sense as a response to a Jewish challenge. God has revealed the mystery to them, hidden for ages and generations, and it is the good news that the Messiah is among the Gentiles (1:26–27). Gentile believers are “qualified” for the inheritance of the saints, Israel’s inheritance (1:12). Paul declares in the strongest terms that “there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised” for those renewed “in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (3:10–11). Consequently, Gentiles have become “God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved” (3:12). The Colossians therefore need to remember that their baptism in Christ’s death is a far more effective circumcision than any trivial excision of flesh. They have nothing to gain from anything the opponents might offer and should not allow any criticism directed their way to fluster them.
What Colossians Means For Us Today
COLOSSIANS WAS WRITTEN to a negligible Phrygian Christian community almost two thousand years ago, and yet it still speaks relevantly today. It gives witness “to the finality, adequacy and all-sufficiency of the cosmic Christ—by whom and for whom all things were made, in whom they cohere, and with whom in God the life of the Christian and of the Church is hidden.”50 That truth will never go out of date.
But the situation facing the Colossians is also similar to ours today. They faced opponents who challenged and belittled the sufficiency of Christ and their hope. Christians today live in a secular society, which regularly scoffs at Christian faith. Many Christians in the West have become increasingly uncertain of their faith and consequently hold it uncertainly. The acids of criticism can eat away at the foundations of a weak and vacillating faith. There are also fewer cultural forces to keep people in the church. When confronted with the laughter and scorn of the modern-day scoffers, nominal church members may be tempted to capitulate. They will abandon their faith or trade it in for the latest craze. In Paul’s language, they return to the darkness where the rulers of this age hold sway.
When Christians do not understand their faith, they are likely to water down the gospel and accommodate it to cultural expectations. They will cut out any offending articles of faith or append specious ones more in accord with the fashion of the age.51 Paul wrote to the Colossians to help them grasp ever more firmly who Christ is and the rich glories of all that God has done in him.
When Christians have little confidence in their faith, they will be overly tentative in their claims and easily shaken by challenges. Paul hoped to fortify the Colossians in their assurance of the hope they had in Christ. The letter affirms that God’s creation has a divine purpose, which is brought to fulfillment in and through Christ. It affirms the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ as the fullness of God and as our Creator and Redeemer.
When Christians do not live with a deep sense of gratitude for what God has done for them in Christ, they will become engulfed in anxieties and will be tempted to look for security in something other than Christ. Paul repeatedly urged the Colossians to be thankful for the victory already won for them by Christ’s cross and resurrection. Salvation can be found only in Christ, and Christians do not need something else or something more. The cross brings redemption, the forgiveness of sin, and triumph over all the powers that would oppress human life. Every believer is made complete when placed under the complete claim of Christ, and all the spiritual ills of our world find their only cure in him.
When Christians live no differently from those around them who do not know God or who defy God’s commands, they bring discredit to their faith and cause others to think that their claims are false. The letter to the Colossians argues that Christians must not only be solidly grounded in their faith. They must also be ethically above reproach. Discerning, confident, grateful, and ethical Christians lead lives worthy of the Lord, are pleasing to God, and will bear spiritual fruit in a spiritually blighted world. Paul intends in this letter to help form this kind of believer.