Download Colossians, Letter to the kuh- losh uhns [προσ κολοσσαεισ Pros

Colossians, Letter to the kuh- losh uhns [προσ κολοσσαεισ Pros Kolossaeis]. The church
of Colossae was founded probably in the second half of the 50s ce. It was not established
by Paul himself, although he may have passed nearby on his journey through Phrygia to
Ephesus (Acts 18: 23; 19: 1), since Colossae lay on or close to one of the main East- West
routes through Anatolia. Its foundation seems rather to have been the result of evangelism
by Epaphras (Col 1: 6- 7), who was a native of Colossae and who may have been
responsible for the evangelism of the Lycus Valley cities (Col 4: 13). Presumably Epaphras
was converted by Paul during Pauls sojourn in Ephesus (Acts 19: 8- 10), as also another
resident of Colossae—Philemon (Phlm 19); that Philemon also lived in Colossae is almost
universally inferred from the par. between Col 4: 9- 14 and Phlm 23- 24. If so, the founding
of the church in Colossae may provide the only clear example of Pauls likely tactic of
establishing an evangelistic center in a major city (here Ephesus) from which individual or
teams of evangelists would go out to cities within striking distance from Ephesus.
The Church of Colossae The Danger Threatening the Church at Colossae Not a heresy
Gnosticizing syncretism? The synagogue in Colossae The worship of angels The
chronology of the letter Who Wrote Colossians? Where and When Was Colossians
Written? The Outline of the Letter Bibliography
A. The Church of Colossae
It is not possible to say how large the church of Colossae was when the letter was written.
The reference to the church, which gathered in the house of well- to- do Philemon ( Phm 2)
implies that there were other house churches. And the house churches of Laodicea in
particular may have functioned as part of the same Christian community ( Col 2: 1; 4: 1516). The household rules ( 3: 18–4: 1) also imply a household model for the Colossian
church ( es), in which both slaves and children were full members of the congregation
( addressed in 3: 20, 22- 25; see HOUSEHOLD CODES).
The church was probably composed of Jews and Gentiles, though mainly of the latter. This
is a deduction, inevitably somewhat speculative, from several considerations. 1) The Jewish
population in the Lycus Valley cities was probably substantial. The most obvious setting in
which to present the good news of a Jewish Messiah, even for a self- styled mission to the
Gentiles/nations, was in the local synagogues where Gentile sympathizers ( usually
described as GODFEARERs) regularly formed an accepted and respected penumbra round
the local Jewish community. This is how Acts presents Pauls mission, and 2 Cor 11: 24
implies a continuing association with the synagogue on Pauls part. In most cities, the
earliest Christian converts likely came from this setting. 2) The implication of several
passages in Colossians is that the recipients were predominantly Gentiles who through the
gospel had now been given to share in privileges hitherto known only to Israel: 1: 12—God
has qualified you to share the inheritance of the saints in the light; 1: 27—the mystery of
Gods purpose ( which is, Christ in you, the hope of glory) now being made known among
the nations; 2: 13—you who were dead in the transgressions and uncircumcision of your
flesh now made alive with him. 3) Also implied is some concern that Greek and Jew,
circumcision and uncircumcision should mutually recognize the others full acceptance
before God in Christ ( 3: 11). And 4: 11 similarly implies a concern on the part of the writer
to assure the recipients that Pauls own mission team reflected a similar make up of
circumcision and uncircumcision.
B. The Danger Threatening the Church at Colossae
Why should Paul write ( or authorize) a letter to a fairly minor church, which he had never
visited? The
implication of 1: 7 is that news had come from Epaphras, which occasioned some anxiety.
If ONESIMUS ( 4: 9) is the slave of Philemon ( Phlm 10- 16), then he too could have
brought news from Colossae. The references to Tychicus and Mark ( Col 4: 7- 10), not to
mention Phlm 22, also suggest a concern to maintain communication with the Colossian
believers. And the warnings, which evidently form the central section of the letter ( 2: 823), certainly signal an anxiety concerning the self- understanding and self- confidence of
the Colossian Christians. What was the problem or danger envisaged?
1. Not a heresy
Most attempts to answer this question have spoken freely of the Colossian heresy, or the
Colossian errorists, or have used similar phrases ( see HERESY). Such language betrays
the perspective of an established faith ( an orthodoxy) newly challenged by radicals or
revisionists. But such a perspective is wholly anachronistic. Such a perspective only
emerges in 2 cent. Christianity. The philosophy of 2: 8 and the regulations of 2: 20 might
well have been long established, beside which the gospel of Paul and the small housemeetings of believers in Messiah Jesus would have seemed brash and callow.
Nor does the letter itself suggest that the Colossian church was facing a great crisis: a
group of teachers, internally or externally, endeavoring to subvert the gospel on which the
church had been founded. It should not be assumed that the crisis that occasioned Pauls
letter to the Galatians, or 2 Cor 10 – 13, provides a pattern for all the problems confronted
in the Pauline letters. The continuing influence of F. C. Baurs reconstruction of
Christianitys early history, as a running battle between a Petrine faction and a Pauline
faction, must be recognized and challenged—in the case of Colossians at least. The contrast
between the fierce denunciations of Galatians ( e. g., Gal 1: 6- 9; 5: 2- 12) and 2 Cor 10 –
13, and the relatively relaxed tone of Colossians as a whole, including the exhortations of
Col 2: 8- 23, indicate a quite different occasion for the letter.
The implication of 2: 8- 23 is that the practitioners of ( an) older established philosophy
and religious system had contrasted the captivating power of their own beliefs and praxis
with the beliefs and praxis of the Pauline converts ( 2: 8), had passed ( negative) judgment
on the latters rituals and festivals ( 2: 16), and had acted as though they themselves were
umpires with the authority ( of ancient tradition) to disqualify the Christian belief and
praxis ( 2: 18) as ineffectual and unfit for purpose. The challenge confronting the letterwriter, then, was probably so much not to counter a false teaching as to encourage the
Colossian believers to hold up their heads in the face of a denigrating dismissal by a longestablished religious system and to maintain confidence in their beliefs regarding Christ
and what he had done.
What then was the older system besides which the Colossian believers found it difficult to
hold up their heads? Two main answers have been offered.
2. Gnosticizing syncretism?
This was the dominant view in the latter half of the 20 cent. ( see SYNCRETISM): 1) The
term philosophy ( love of wisdom) had long been used of a systematic treatment of a theme,
practical as well as speculative, and so for various schools of philosophy. The term thus
invites identification of the other teaching as a typically Hellenistic mix of religious
philosophy. 2) The emphasis in the letter on wisdom ( 1: 9, 28; 2: 3, 23; 3: 16; 4: 5), insight
( 1: 9; 2: 2), and knowledge ( 1: 6, 9- 10; 2: 2- 3; 3: 10) suggests a typically Gnostic ( or
Gnosticizing) regard for spiritual self- awareness. 3) The references to the elements of the
universe and the cosmic powers of 2: 10 and 15 likewise suggest a belief that only by
establishing a right relationship with the cosmic powers can one hope to gain entry to the
pleroma ( 2: 9) and participate in the divine fullness ( 2: 10) —language typical of the later
Gnostic systems ( see GNOSTICISM). 4) The language of 2: 18 is particularly critical: it
seems to indicate a practice of worshiping angels; and talk of things seen on entering is
highly reminiscent of the things recited, things shown, and things performed ( OCD 716) in
the initiations into the mystery religions.
The thesis fits well with a persistent view that religious syncretism was widespread in Asia
Minor. There is attestation of worship of angels in western Asia Minor; of at least one cult
of God Most High and his holy angels; of associations calling themselves Sabbatistai; and
the practice of magic was widespread. That there were Jewish elements involved in this
syncretistic mix is not to be doubted; magic was a universal para- religious phenomenon at
the time, and no doubt good luck charms and amulets were to be found in the household of
not a few devout Jews of the period. Insofar as this broader picture is relevant to the
Colossian philosophy, it remains unclear whether it should be regarded as a Jewish
syncretistic group, or as a non- Jewish group that had absorbed some Jewish elements.
On the considerations marshaled by E. Lohse, the issue is equally unclear: 1) Judaism had
long been described as a philosophy by its influential apologists ( Aristobulus, Philo, and
soon Josephus). 2) Talk of wisdom and knowledge is hardly specific to or distinctive of
Gnostic systems; it was widespread in Second Temple Judaism as well. 3) Although
pleroma does become a technical term in the later Gnostic systems, the thought of divine
fullness was already familiar in Hellenistic Judaism, as again Philo attests ( e. g., Alleg.
Interp. 3. 4; Gigants 47; Confusion 136; Moses 2. 238). 4) And the prepositional phrase,
worship of angels can readily be understood as worship offered by angels, rather than
worship offered to angels, which would fit with one of the great traditions of Jewish
visionary apocalypses ( Isa 6: 2- 3; Dan 7: 10; 1 En. 14: 18- 23; 36: 4, 39- 40).
3. The synagogue in Colossae
If the church in Colossae emerged from the SYNAGOGUE, as in Corinth and Ephesus
( according to Acts 18: 6- 7; 19: 9), then it probably appeared to the local authorities as an
offshoot of the synagogue. Civil authorities tended to be suspicious of new groupings, but
since the time of Caesar, the Jewish communities in Asia Minor had formally been given
permission to maintain their traditional customs and rites ( in reference specifically to
Laodicea, Josephus, Ant. 14. 241- 42). So the new house church ( es) probably appeared to
watching eyes no more than an extension of the synagogues ( synagoge [ συναγωγη] and
ekklesia [ εκκλησια] were near synonyms meaning assembly; compare Acts 18: 12- 16). If,
then, Colossians suggests that the Jesus believers were being disparaged by a venerable
philosophy, given such a history of the emergence of the HOUSE CHURCH ( es), the most
obvious body to warrant that description in Colossae would be one or more of the
Colossian synagogues.
It is also plain, not least from subsequent history, that in the early centuries the adherents
of Christianity and those of Diaspora Judaism often overlapped, with church leaders
regularly having to warn their flocks to avoid Judaizing, attending the synagogue on the
Sabbath, and observing the Jewish feasts ( already Barnabas 3: 6; Ignatius, Magn. 8: 1; 10:
3). In the light of which we should presumably allow for such an overlap among Jews,
proselytes, and Godfearers, in most cities where Christianity took early root, with church
and synagogue forming overlapping networks. And as the first Christian churches hardly
took a uniform character ( compare only the churches of Thessalonica and Corinth), so we
should not assume that the Diaspora synagogues were of a uniform pattern, allowing still
more possibilities of overlap, interaction, and antagonism.
Such a priori reasoning chimes in well with the data of the letter itself, where a certain
preoccupation with aspects of Jewish identity is evident. Colossians 1: 12 has already been
mentioned. The talk of alienation in 1: 21 smacks of a Jewish perspective ( as more
explicitly in Eph 2: 12, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the
covenants of promise), as does the repeated reference to circumcision ( Col 2: 11, as a
positive metaphor; 4: 11) and the circumcision/uncircumcision contrast ( 2: 13; 3: 11).
Likewise the emphasis evidently being placed by those who passed judgment on the church
in regard to food and drink ( compare Dan 1: 3- 16; 10: 3; Add Esth 14: 17; Jos. Asen. 8: 5),
festivals, new moon, and Sabbaths ( e. g., 1 Chr 23: 31; Neh 10: 33; Ezek 45: 17; Hos 2:
11; 1 Macc 10: 34) —all characteristically had some distinctively Jewish concerns.
Similarly, 2: 21 ( Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle) most probably echoes typically
Jewish fears lest physical contact render impure ( as in Lev 5: 3), fears particularly evident
in the Judaism of the period ( as particularly in 1QS VI–VII and T. Mos. 7: 9- 10, Do not
touch me lest you pollute me. ). Nor should the echo of the distinctively Jewish antipathy to
idolatry and porneia ( sexual license) in Col 3: 5 go unnoticed.
Similar concerns can be cited within a wider religious framework, but none of the concerns
indicated above is strange to—and several are distinctive of—Second Temple Judaism
( saints, circumcision, Sabbath, antipathy to idolatry). Calendar piety, food laws,
circumcision, and rejection of idolatry were not just random elements of some syncretistic
cult but the norms and markers that gave Jews their identity. So the most obvious reference
of the Colossian philosophy is to one or more of the Jewish synagogues. They probably
prided themselves on the venerable age and sophistication of their religion ( philosophy).
They no doubt resented the claims being made by the Colossian church that its members,
Gentile as well as Jew, were fully participant in Israels distinctive heritage. And they
presumably judged these claims to be disqualified because the Christians were not
maintaining the practices that hitherto had been regarded as distinctive markers of the
heritage of Abraham, Moses, David, and Elijah. The echo in 2: 22 ( human commandments
and teachings) of the Jesus traditions criticism of Jewish/Pharisaic tradition ( Mark 7:
7/Matt 15: 9) is unlikely to be accidental, and suggests a critical interaction that consciously
drew on that tradition.
4. The worship of angels
Various 2 cent. sources describe ( or accuse) Jews of worshiping angels ( Kerygma Petri;
Apology of Aristides 14: 4; Celsus in Origen, Cels. 1: 25 and 5: 6). But more characteristic
of Judaism is warning against such worship ( Apoc. Zeph. 6: 15; Apoc. Ab. 17: 2; Philo,
Fug. 212; Somn. 1: 232, 238; also Rev 19: 10; 22: 9). So if this is what Col 2: 18 had in
view, and the Jews indicated above ( §B. 3) were the target, then it must have indeed been a
rather syncretistic Judaism. But since the thesis of such a syncretistic Judaism is not well
attested elsewhere for this period, even by hostile witnesses like the 2 cent. sources just
alluded to, consideration has to be given to the alternative way of rendering the
prepositional phrase, even if the more obvious way of taking it is as worship offered to
angels.
A subjective genitive rendering is entirely plausible ( worship rendered by angels) and has
long been maintained. In the light of the preceding considerations ( §B. 3) it becomes all
the more likely, since ( as already mentioned) such worship features prominently in several
Jewish apocalypses. More to the point, there is clear evidence in various Jewish sources of
the period of an aspiration to join in with such worship: most strikingly in T. Job 48- 50;
Apoc. Ab. 17, and Apoc. Zeph. 8: 3- 4; and no less strikingly in the Qumran scrolls,
notably the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice ( 4Q400- 407). The cumulative evidence invites
us, therefore, to envisage one or more Jewish synagogues in Colossae who understood their
Sabbath worship as joining with the worship of the angels in heaven. The self- discipline
and mortification ( 2: 18, 23) they practiced as part of their purity, dietary, and festal
traditions, they presumably regarded as requisite for such spiritual ( mystical) experiences.
And consequently they looked down on what must have seemed to be the relative poverty
of the worship of the Jews and non- Jews who had formed a new assembly ( church) in the
city ( see ANGEL).
5. The Christology of the letter
Most commentators have assumed that christology was at the heart of the issue between
the letter- writer and the Colossian philosophy. But this is unlikely. The great hymn ( as it
is usually described) in praise of Christ ( 1: 15- 20) is not set out in polemical fashion, but
as grounds for the recipients own faith and hope ( 1: 4- 5, 11- 14). And the defense in 2: 823 focuses not on Christ but on the traditions being cited ( 2: 8), on food, drink, festivals
( 2: 16), and purity ( 2: 2- 23). Certainly, who Christ is and what Christ has done provides
the secure basis for the letters denial of the importance of these traditions and practices ( 2:
6- 7, 9- 15, 17, 19, 20; 3: 1- 4). But the issue is not, as often suggested, that Christs role was
being challenged by the philosophy. The claims made about Christ are simply there to
boost the Colossians self- esteem to withstand the denigrating criticisms of their own lack
of ancient tradition, of ritual, festival, and rule. The point, of course, is that what Christ had
done for them and was doing in them ( 1: 27; 3: 3- 4) rendered such praxis nugatory and
irrelevant. But that claim, evidently, was not the point of conflict with the cultured
despisers in the Colossian synagogue(s).
At the same time, the Colossian Christology marks a significant consolidation and step
forward in Pauline Christology, including these themes: the kingdom of [ Gods] beloved
Son ( 1: 13); the cosmic sweep of the hymn—all things created through him and for him
( 1: 16); the cosmic body identified with the church ( 1: 18); he has reconciled all things ( 1:
20); Christ himself as Gods mystery ( 2: 2); the nearest the Pauline corpus comes to a
statement of incarnation—in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily ( 2: 9); the
unique expression of the Christus Victor theme ( 2: 15); believers not only died with Christ,
but already raised with him ( 2: 20; 3: 1). In Colossians we see the transition to the great
Wisdom/Logos Christologies of the 2 and 3 cent. already well under way.
C. Who Wrote Colossians?
The answer to this question cannot be found simply by reference to the opening word of
the letter: Paul... to the saints in Colossae. For the facts both that pseudepigraphy seems to
have been common and accepted in the ancient world ( see PSEUDONYMOUS
WRITING), and that there was no obvious sense of authorial copyright in such ancient
writings, add factors that we today are no longer in a position fully to evaluate.
Nor is the issue to be resolved simply by referring to the consensus of those who have
examined the matter closely, and who have found the style of Colossians to be so different
from that of undisputed Pauline letters that it cannot have been written by the same. There
is the complicating factor of the secretary or amanuensis. Did he simply write to Pauls
longhand dictation? A skilled scribe could have used some form of shorthand; but could
Paul have afforded the expense of such a skilled scribe? Possibly Paul gave his scribe an
outline of what we wanted to say and left it to the secretary to pen it in his own terms and
style ( compare Cicero, Att. 3. 15; 11. 2, 5, 7). And what about Pauls coauthor, in this case
Timothy ( Col 1: 1)? It is quite possible to envisage Timothy writing the letter on Pauls
behalf, with Paul sufficiently content with its message to add his own personal note in his
own hand at the end ( 4: 18). This alone would be sufficient to explain the features that
have hitherto pushed commentators to conclude that Colossians is post- Pauline or
deuteropauline—not simply the differences in style but also the distinctiveness of
Colossians Christology and the emergence of new features, such as the realized eschatology
of 2: 11- 12 and 3: 1, and the household rules of 3: 18–4: 1. ( The overlap with Ephesians is
a problem more for the latter, since the consensus is that Colossians provided something of
a model for Ephesians, though it may be that the same person who drafted Colossians to
express Pauls views felt that much freer to use Colossians as a sort of template for the more
ambitious Ephesians.)
The case for a letter written while Paul was still alive, though in prison ( 4: 3, 10, 18) and
perhaps unable to do more than add his signature ( 4: 18), is strengthened by the other
parallels—between Colossians and Philemon—the latter being regarded almost universally
as written by Paul. For the closeness of the parallels between Col 4: 10- 14 and Phlm 23 –
24 is best explained by the closeness of timing of the two letters, while the differences—
particularly the lack of reference to Tychicus ( Col 4: 7- 9) in Philemon—can be explained
simply by the different purposes of the two letters.
D. Where and When Was Colossians Written?
Two factors are potentially critical here: the earthquake of 60/61, which can hardly have
left Colossae undamaged, and perhaps in ruins; and Pauls imprisonment ( 4: 3, 10, 18).
Since we do not know whether the Colossian church survived beyond the earthquake, we
cannot simply deduce that the letter must have been written before then. But the absence of
any allusion to the earthquake in the letter points more to a pre- 60/61 date. That would not
rule out a dating to Rome, where Paul was certainly imprisoned, and to which
imprisonment the letter has traditionally been attributed. For it is just possible that Paul had
been brought to Rome in time for the letter to be written ( and delivered) prior to the
earthquake. The request of Phlm 22 could indicate a bright hope still retained in the early
days of Pauls Roman imprisonment.
In terms of closeness to Colossae, however, the more obvious candidate for place of
authorship is Ephesus. It is certainly easier to envisage the slave Onesimus successfully
tracking Paul down in Ephesus, only five days travel distant, whereas the distance between
Colossae and Rome must have been constraining for a slave traveling without authorization
and funding. Such considerations have stimulated the thesis that Paul spent some time in
prison during his Ephesian mission. Acts says nothing of such an imprisonment, but
passages like 1 Cor 15: 32 and 2 Cor 1: 8- 10 can readily be interpreted as referring to a
major crisis in Ephesus, possibly including imprisonment. Such a thesis need not affect any
conclusions drawn regarding the authorship of the letter ( §C); the conditions of Pauls
imprisonment could have been as light or as severe or as varied in both Ephesus and Rome.
And the time gap between a letter written during the second half of Pauls Aegean mission
and one written at the beginning of Pauls imprisonment in Rome is still relatively short, so
that such distinctive features as the theology of Colossians contains can be dated to either
period without any disquiet. As already indicated, the differences between Colossians and
the other undisputed Pauline letters are best explained by the activity of a
coauthor/amaneuensis rather than by developments in Pauls own theologizing. All that the
thesis of a letter written during an Ephesian imprisonment entails is a dating of Colossians
to about 56, rather than, say 60/61.
E. The Outline of the Letter
Address and greeting ( 1: 1- 2) Extended thanksgiving ( 1: 3- 23) Thanksgiving ( 1: 3- 8)
Prayer for the Colossian recipients ( 1: 9- 14) Reconciliation and response ( 1: 21- 23) A
personal statement ( 1: 24–2: 5) Pauls commitment to the gospel ( 1: 24- 29) Pauls
commitment to the Colossians ( 2: 1- 5) The theme of the letter ( 2: 6–4: 6) The thematic
statement ( 2: 6- 7) The cross of Christ renders unnecessary any further human traditions
and rules ( 2: 8- 23) The scope of Christs accomplishments on the cross ( 2: 8- 15) Beware
of claims that there are more important practices and experiences ( 2: 16- 19) Life in Christ
does not depend on observance of Jewish practices ( 2: 20- 23) The pattern of living that
follows from the cross ( 3: 1–4: 6) The perspective from which the Christian life should be
lived ( 3: 1- 4) General guidelines and practical exhortations ( 3: 5- 17) Household rules ( 3:
18–4: 1) Concluding exhortations ( 4: 2- 6) Conclusion ( 4: 7- 18) Maintaining
communication ( 4: 7- 9) Greetings ( 4: 10- 17) A final, personal greeting ( 4: 18)
Bibliography: C. E. Arnold. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity
and Folk Belief at Colossae ( 1994); J. D. G. Dunn. The Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon ( 1996); F. O. Francis and W. A. Meeks. Conflict at Colossae ( 1973); M. D.
Hooker. Were There False Teachers in Colossae? From Adam to Christ ( 1990) 121–36; M.
Kiley. Colossians as Pseudepigraphy ( 1986); E. Lohse. Colossians and Philemon ( 1971);
E. R. Richards. Paul and First- Century Letter Writing ( 2004); T. J. Sappington. Revelation
and Redemption at Colossae ( 1991); E. Schweizer. The Letter to the Colossians ( 1982); R.
McL. Wilson. Colossians and Philemon: A Critical and Exegetical Communtary ( 2005).
James D. G. dunn