Bible Commentaries
Colossians

COLOSSIANS

I

THE BOOK OF COLOSSIANS

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

(Note: For helps commended on the Letters of the Roman Imprisonment see Book Comments for Philippians.)

It is necessary at the beginning to get the geography of this history clear in mind – to trace out on the map in the Bible Atlas the places mentioned. Indirectly, where not directly, all the churches established in this region were Pauline churches. Colosse is only sixteen miles from Hierapolis and only six miles from Laodicea – all right there together, all on the Lycus, a tributary of the Meander.

The man who planted these three churches – who directly established them – was Epaphras, an evangelist, who lived at Colosse. He established the churches, but Archippus, the son of Philemon, was the pastor at Colosse – a rather slow going pastor. He needed to be stirred up right sharply, and Paul takes occasion in two of his letters to stir him. These people ethnologically were Phrygians, but politically they belonged to the Roman province of Asia.

The occasion of the letter to the Colossians was the visit of Epaphras to Paul in Rome, giving him an account of the state of affairs in the Lycus valley. The conditions were much sharper at Colosse than elsewhere, but the same errors prevailed in all three churches, and the form of error prevailed somewhat in the whole province. Hence, while he wrote a special letter to Colosse, he used the main thoughts of the letter and elaborated them into a circular letter. The letter to the Ephesians was certainly not addressed primarily to Ephesus. A great many copies were made and these copies were distributed among the churches of Asia. The letter that went to Ephesus was one of the copies preserved. A great many copies were not addressed to any particular place, but left blank. There is a reference in Colossians to a letter which they would receive from Laodicea, which doubtless is the circular letter which we call the letter to the Ephesians. As the letter to the Romans elaborates the line of thought presented in Galatians, making it an abstract discussion, so Ephesians elaborates the line of thought in the letter to the Colossians, making it an abstract discussion. Both Ephesians and Colossians, on the face of them, show that Paul did not personally visit these places, but doubtless saw some of the people at the time he was in Ephesus holding that big meeting which lasted two years or more.

The report that Epaphras brought disclosed a prevalent and dangerous form of error sapping the Christian faith. Before discussing what that error was, I call attention to some commentaries. The most scholarly of all, for both Greek and English students, is Lightfoot. There is also a very fine expository commentary by Alexander Maclaren, but having read both, I greatly prefer, for English students, Dr. Dargan’s commentary, in The American Commentary, published by the American Baptist Publication Society. Dr. Dargan, late of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, though he wrote it when comparatively a young man, gives us a perfect gem, and it is sound in the faith. His introductory chapter is even clearer in its statement of the case than Canon Farrar gives in his Life and Epistles of Paul, and even better than Conybeare and Howson.

It has generally been held that the error which was sapping the faith of these churches in the Lycus valley was Gnosticism. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis, which means "knowledge," like "agnosticism," which means ignorance – not knowing. The knowledge to which they pretended was a mystical knowledge above that which was written, and it took the place of the written word. We get some conception of Gnosticism from mystical dreamers. We occasionally meet them in the present time. They are very confident of everything, saying, "I know, I know, I know." "How do you know?" "Well, I just feel that it is so." "Can you prove it from the Bible?" "The Spirit moves men now as well as he did in Bible days." So he goes on Spirit knowledge, as he calls it, and places what he says above what is written.

Another form was this: They would say, "The letter is nothing; the Spirit is everything. You must not interpret the Bible literally. For instance, when you read about Adam and Eve, it must be interpreted as an allegory, and the book of Jonah is an allegory." Mystics have always been dreamers. They are opposed to all forms of organization. If we ask one, "Do you belong to the church?" he will answer, "I belong to the universal, the invisible church. Your little local concern is nothing to me. I belong to the big church." Personally, I never did have much use for these vague, loose people. I believe that all real faith is susceptible of a clear statement, and that any doctrine which cannot be clearly derived from the plain passages in the Word of God is to be rejected.

I believe that the Word of God is more reliable than any mystic philosophy, and if a modern mystic wants me to accept his vagaries, let him give the signs of an apostle. Let him by miracle accredit his inspiration. Let him raise the dead and perform other miracles, and then I will be ready to accept what he says, provided it harmonizes with God’s written Word.

Gnosticism did not come in its full development and full fruitage until about A.D. 150, much after this time. Then for about 100 years it swayed a large part of the Orient. It was rampant before John died. We have an example in Cerinthus. John had such a horror of him, it is said, that when he went to a public bath house and found Cerinthus there, he would say, "Let us get away from here, lest that building fall on us for keeping such company."

What did that mystical philosophy teach? What did it pretend to account for? First, the creation of the world, or how things came to be. Their position as to God was agnosticism, just as the later position of Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and John Stuart Mill, namely, God is unknowable. These mystics further taught that it is impossible for a finite being to come in touch with God – that only through several grades of eons, or emanations, could men learn from God. These grades of hierarchy in angelic beings by shading down lower and lower might finally get low enough to touch man. Through these grades, or classes of angels they held that the world was created; that God did not create it; that Jesus was one of these eons, or intermediate angels; that the eon took possession of him at his baptism – of Jesus the mere man, born of Joseph and Mary – and when he was crucified the eon left him; that he had no real divinity, and that there were a number of eons higher than he.

The second thing they tried to account for was the origin of evil. They held to what in theology is called dualism – that there are two principles in the world, a good principle and an evil principle. Doubtless they got that from the Persians. They said that evil resided in matter; that matter was evil and spirit good, and therefore they had what is called ascetic doctrines, the denial of appetite, just as far as one could and hold soul and body together; for instance, they would take a drink of water and a crust of bread, have just one simple garment of clothing, would not marry, lived in caves, and withdrew from the world just as much as possible. That was the ascetic part of it, and by doing this, as the body was matter, they triumphed over sin. Roman Catholics incorporate a great part of this in their belief. Abstinences, fastings, refusal to eat certain things, penance, scourging, etc., are examples.

Paul takes occasion to tell when here that this is not at all valuable in overcoming passions; that they have no good effect in that direction. Many a monk has found that out. Though he retire from the world and devote the time to scourgings and fastings, there on the hard rocks temptation would bind him – temptation to sin in the vilest forms, just as they come to men out in the world. The Bible idea of sin is that it originated in the spirit and not in the body; the body is simply the instrument. "All sin," says the apostle in another place, "is without the body, but the sin of fornication is against the body." These were their dual ideas-spirit and matter, both eternal – matter evil and spirit good, and that there must be a conquest over matter. They directly controverted the Bible doctrine of sin. When they took the position that the world was created by eons and when they assigned Christ a low place among the eons, they denied his divinity. A large part of this teaching comes nearer the doctrine of the Essenes than of the Pharisees. In the time of Christ there were three sects of Jews – Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The Essenes had their headquarters at Engedi, near the shore of the Dead Sea. They were communists, had everything in common, were opposed to marriage, etc.

So we find here that this error was more likely to have come from the Essenes part of Judaism than from the Pharisees. They had their proscriptions touching everything to eat, drink, and wear. Hence the apostle says, "Let no man take you to task about what you eat and drink." The part of their doctrine most Pharisaic was the strict observance of the sabbatic cycle, that is, weekly sabbaths, monthly sabbaths, and annual sabbaths. So that this Colossian heresy was partly Jewish and partly heathen, and altogether unchristian. Epaphras felt that it created a situation which he could not master. So he came to Rome to lay the case before Paul. He had planted these churches, they were very dear to him, and he wanted to refer the matter to an apostle upon whom inspiration rested for the correction of all these evils. That is the occasion of the letter.

Before going into the exposition we need to look somewhat at the history of these places. Colosse was one of the stopping places of Xerxes, king of Persia, when on his way to invade Greece. At Hierapolis was born a contemporary of Paul, the philosopher Epictetus, one of the most famous of the stoic philosophers. Cicero, when proconsul of Asia, stopped here at Colosse, and for a part of the time his headquarters were Hierapolis. Hierapolis and Laodicea were both great cities. Colosse never did become a great city, and it was more conservative than the others, clinging to the old Greek customs, while the others went over to the Romans when Rome conquered that territory, hence they prospered more.

A long time after Paul and John were dead, in the fourth century, a council was held at Laodicea and, strange to say, when this council was held the matters disposed of were the very errors that Paul is refuting here in this letter to the Colossians. That shows how tenacious of life heresy may be, since at least 250 years afterward it lingered in the Lycus valley. In the book of Revelation we find that to be the ruling spirit at Laodicea in the last days of John.

The value of the letter to the Colossians is almost unspeakable. We now study one after another, three marvelous books – Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. In Colossians the person and the work of Christ, in Ephesians the church, which is the glory of Christ, in the letter to the Hebrews the superiority of the new covenant over the old covenant, or the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ. We have a perfect feast before us in the study of these great doctrinal letters on the person of Christ, his original divinity, his creative power, his redemptive power, his relation to the church and to the universe. We find nowhere else in the Bible so perfect and complete a statement as appears in this letter to the Colossians.

In the study of the harmony of the gospels, when we get to that part where John commences, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; by him all things were created that were created," I put in Paul’s Gospel by the side of that, and always incorporate right there this great passage from Colossians, the great passage from Philippians, and certain similar passages from Hebrews. Indeed, Hebrews supplements and interprets Colossians. Every preacher should have clear ideas of the person of Christ in his relation both to the universe and to the church as we have them in these letters.

There is a textual difficulty in this letter. See Colossians 2:20 and note the difference in the parenthetical clause between the King James and the revised versions.

1. Does taking the "touch not, taste not, handle not" from the parenthesis materially alter the sense?

2. Are the precepts, "touch not, taste not, handle not," Paul’s precepts, or is he here condemning them?

3. Have they any bearing on the modern prohibition of the liquor habit and traffic, as sometimes applied by Prohibitionists?

An old deacon once in my hearing quoted this passage, "Touch not, taste not, handle not," as a decisive scripture against both the liquor traffic and habit. I told him he had better let that passage alone, since if it were pertinent to the subject of prohibition, it furnished a most plausible and forcible argument to the saloon man. He would use it this way: "Let no man take you to task about what you eat and drink, which things perish in the using. If you are a Christian, free from rudimental things, why are you subject to such decrees as ’Touch not, taste not, handle not?’ How could you answer him except by denying the application of the passage to the liquor habit and traffic? Your defense would consist in showing the real application." Paul was teaching a salvation of grace through faith in Christ, and opposing a salvation through ritualistic observances of the Mosaic sabbath feasts, the rudiments of Old Testament typical teaching, or by trying to kill sin through ascetic applications of the body. The whole sabbatic cycle was nailed to the cross of Christ. They were but shadows of which he was the body or substance. That old typical food distinction between clean and unclean animals was abrogated. Therefore he says, "Let no man take you to task about what you eat and drink." "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day [annual sabbath] or a new moon [monthly sabbath] or a sabbath day [seventh day]." In other words, "Why do you subject yourselves to such ordinances as, ’Touch not, taste not, handle not’?" That means that the Christian is not to be under subjection to a ritualistic system which was a shadow of the things to come, but to the body of Christ. That ritualistic system said, "You may eat a goat but not a rabbit; you may eat a sheep but not a hog." Paul says that every one of these things was nailed to the cross; he is not discussing the temperance question of drinking whiskey, but he is discussing the Levitical law and the superadded traditions.

When a Jew says that we should keep the seventh day our reply is: "That was nailed to the cross. There remaineth a sabbath-keeping to the people of God which is the first day of the week." And if when we want to eat a squirrel or a catfish he says, "Touch not, taste not, handle not," our reply is, "These distinctions were rudimentary and typical. They perished with the using. Being shadows, they are fulfilled. So we understand, then, that it is not Paul who is saying, ’Touch not, taste not, handle not.’ "

Let us close this discussion in a few words of review. Who wrote the letter? Paul. When? About A.D. 62 or 63. To whom? Brethren at Colosse. That includes the regular church, also the churches in the private houses. Who is associated with him in the letter? Timothy. What is the occasion of the letter? The coming of Epaphras stating the false doctrines prevalent in the churches in the Lycus valley, particularly the churches at Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea. What the trouble? It was a blended error partly heathen and partly Jewish, and altogether unchristian. In its asceticism it embodies the doctrines of the Essenes; in its ritualism, the doctrine of the Pharisees; in its dualism the Persian doctrine of spirit and matter. As a philosophy it proposed to answer two questions: 1. How the world or universe first came to be. 2. The origin and seat of sin, and the means of its conquest. As a doctrine it denied the divinity of Christ, relied upon mystic, esoteric knowledge as above God’s word, and taught the worship of angels.

QUESTIONS

1. Locate on the map the cities of the Lycus valley.

2. Who planted the three churches in this valley?

3. What is the occasion of this letter?

4. What is its relation to Ephesians?

5. What is the purpose of both of them?

6. What commentaries are commended?

7. What is the error widespread in the Lycus valley?

8. What the derivation and meaning of the term?

9. What is another form of this term?

10. Give examples of their biblical interpretation.

11. What is a notable characteristic of these people?

12. When did this doctrine reach its full development?

13. Give an example.

14. What did this mystical philosophy teach (1) As to the origin of the world? (2) As to the origin of evil and its logical results?

15. What three sects of Jews in the time of our Lord?

16. Which of these more nearly approached this doctrine?

17. What their headquarters and some of their characteristics?

18. What part of their doctrine most Pharisaic?

19. What noted characters of history connected with Colosse and Hierapolis, and how?

20. What is the council of Laodicea, and what doctrine was up for settlement?

21. What is the theme of Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, respectively?

22. What passage in John’s Gospel parallels Paul’s in this letter?

23. What passage from Philippians parallels John’s?

24. What is the textual difficulty in Colossians 2:20? Explain its meaning and application.

25. In Review answer: (1) Who wrote this letter? (2) When? (3) To whom? (4) Who is associated with Paul in this letter? (5) What the occasion of the letter? (6) What the trouble? (7) What its threefold origin? (8) As a philosophy it proposed to answer what questions? (9) What of it as a doctrine?