COLOSSESI, EPISTOLA ai. – One of the “captivity letters,” addressed by St. Colosse (v.).
SUMMARY:
I. The content
II. The errors opposed
III. The occasion, place, and date of composition
IV. Authenticity.I. THE CONTENT
The prologue (1:1-14), in the customary greeting, introduces, with the expression “faithful brethren in Christ,” a fundamental theme of the letter: life in Christ, head of the mystical body (1:1 ff.). This is followed by thanksgiving to God, which is also a commendation of the community, which walks according to the teachings of Epaphras, “most beloved fellow servant” and “minister of Christ” (1:3-8); and by a wish for constant progress in the knowledge of God, in fruitful holiness of life, and in gratitude toward the Father, who has willed us to share in marvelous gifts through “His beloved Son” (1:9-14).The body of the letter may be divided into three parts: doctrinal exposition (1:15-2:5); refutation of the errors spreading within the community (2:6-3:4); moral application to the life of the Christian, as a member of the mystical body and of society (3:5-4:6).
1) The final passages of the prologue introduce the doctrinal section (1:15-2:5), which illustrates the person and work of the Son, head of all creation and, in particular, of redeemed humanity. This exposition is followed by a practical application, which enables St. Paolo to touch upon the mission entrusted to him: to proclaim the “mystery” revealed in Christ (1:21-2:5).
The excellence of the Son (1:15-19) is considered first insofar as he is the perfect image of God and head of creation (v. 15 ff), and then insofar as he is head of the Church and in him dwells the fullness (πολύματα) of divine gifts (18 f.).
The work of the Son is universal reconciliation, accomplished by virtue of the Cross (1:20). The recipients, who were once strangers to the divine economy, now fully participate in it, called by that Gospel message of which Paolo is the bearer (1:21 ff.). He, who contributes personal sufferings to the realization of God’s saving plan (1:24-27), has shown equal solicitude for the faithful of Colosse, of Laodicea, and for all those, generally, who have not benefited from his direct apostolic activity, directed toward making known to everyone the divine treasures hidden in Christ (1:28-2:3).
2) Turning to the second, polemical section (2:6-3:4), Paolo warns his readers to be on guard against seducers. In general, he recommends strict adherence to the doctrine received, without allowing themselves to be led astray by those who preach human traditions in place of the genuine teaching of Christ (2:6 ff.). In him dwells the fullness of divinity, of which we have become participants—not through the useless circumcision of the flesh, but through Baptism, which is a mystical dying and rising with Christ; by virtue of the Cross, to which the bond that accused us of being debtors was nailed (2:9-15).
In particular, the readers must not allow themselves to be led astray by those who inculcate empty Jewish observances (“a shadow” of the things that were to come) or superstitious worship of angels, forgetting the head, from whom the whole body derives life and growth (2:16-19).
The Christian must regulate his conduct according to the fact that he has died, with Christ, to the “elements of the world” (2:20-23), and, with Christ, has risen to new life: now hidden, but destined one day to be manifested in glory with him (3:1-4).
3) Of the moral applications (3:5-4:6) derived from the doctrine of Christ the head and of our life in the mystical body, the first section (3:5-11) draws attention to the vices that the Christian must avoid in keeping with his vocation. From the metaphor of “putting off the old man” and “putting on the new,” St. Paolo moves (3:9b, 10) to recommendations of a positive character, preceded by the solemn declaration that in life in Christ every distinction of race, nationality, and culture is abolished (3:11). Above all else, charity, the soul of Christian life, is recommended. It must be lived joyfully, with one’s gaze fixed on Christ, in thanksgiving to the Father (3:12-17).
There follow teachings concerning the Christian’s social conditions (3:18-4:1): the duties of wives toward their husbands and of husbands toward their wives (3:18 f.), and of children toward their parents and vice versa (3:20 f.). Slaves are commended to a dignified obedience, as servants of God and not of men; masters are reminded that they too have a master in heaven (3:22-4:1).
Finally, persevering prayer is inculcated (also as cooperation in Paolo’s apostolate), together with exemplary wisdom, especially in speech (4:2-6).
In 4:7-18 there is personal information and greetings. Tychicus and Onesimus will provide the readers with more detailed information (4:7 ff.). After the greetings from Paolo’s collaborators and those addressed to the more prominent among the recipients (4:10-15), there follows the injunction that letters be exchanged between C. and the Laodiceans, the admonition to Archippus, the personal greeting, and the final recommendations (4:16 ff.).
II. THE ERRORS COMBATED
The entire letter clearly aims to combat erroneous opinions that were spreading among the faithful at Colossae. Yet it—which is the most authoritative, not to say the sole, source—does not offer us sufficient elements for a rigorous determination.Besides insisting on the prerogatives of Christ the head, which might lead us to suppose that errors and questions of a Christological nature were involved, the letter speaks to us of the danger of allowing oneself to be seduced by a false wisdom, founded on human traditions, which takes account of the “elements of the world” and is not according to Christ, in whom the fullness of divinity dwells (2:8). “Carnal circumcision” is opposed to the “circumcision of Christ” (2:11). Through his Cross, Christ triumphed over the “principalities” and the “powers” (2:15). Those who wished to impose on the faithful useless observances concerning foods, drinks, and sacred days are condemned—observances that had once served to foreshadow the future (2:16); as are those who, neglecting the head, from whom the whole body derives life and growth, attempted to impose a superstitious worship of angels; and, finally, those who accepted arbitrary prescriptions concerning bodily abstinence, although they were already dead, with Christ, to the “elements of the world” (2:18-23).
Among the errors spreading at Colossae, then, were a misunderstood worship of angels and ascetic practices such as abstaining from certain foods and drinks, which suggest a Jewish influence. This is clear from the opposition between “carnal circumcision” and “spiritual” or “Christ’s” circumcision. But Jewish influence does not appear sufficient to explain the errors combated here. Nor does it seem that circumcision was accorded substantial value at Colossae; otherwise, in contrast with the Judaizers of the Letter to the Galatians, one could not understand the rather mild tone used by Paolo.
It has been asserted, with little probability, that this epistle contains traces of Phrygian cults and of gnosticism properly so called. In the thinking of the new preachers, the worship of angels was not so much part of a philosophical-theological system as a complementary and harmless addition to the worship of Christ, perhaps as a defense against the cosmic forces over which the angels were thought to preside. It was an attempt at crude syncretism.
J. B. Lightfoot (St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 3rd ed., London 1879, pp. 82-98) brought out hypothetical analogies between the errors disseminated at Colossae and the doctrines of the Essenes, who, according to Flavius, accorded a place of honor to the angels. Lightfoot himself, however, acknowledged that the analogies were insufficient to establish dependence. Nor is the hypothesis of an influence from Oriental religions and philosophies, or from Stoicism (because of the importance it attributed to the four elements of the cosmos and to the stars), or from Neoplatonic and Pythagorean theories concerning beings intermediate between God and the world, plausible. Cf. E. Jacquier, Histoire des livres du Nouveau Testament, I, 10th ed., Paris 1924, p. 316 ff.
III. THE OCCASION, PLACE, AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
The occasion of the letter was a visit by Epaphras to Paul in prison. It is not unlikely that Epaphras himself, in view of the threats to the purity of the faith, urged Paul to intervene with an explanation.The bearer of the letter was Tychicus (4, 7 f.), who was also charged with delivering the letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 6, 21 ff.); and Tychicus was accompanied by Onesimus, the bearer of the note to Philemon.
But during which imprisonment was it written? To answer this question, all the letters of the imprisonment must be kept in view, beginning with that to the Philippians, written (it seems certain) at Rome during the first imprisonment. The ancients did not think otherwise concerning the others. Today, however, the great majority of Protestants and a few Catholics distinguish between the Epistle to the Philippians and the other three, maintaining that the latter were written from Caesarea during the two years spent under the procurators Felix and Festus.
Only in the last fifty years was a third opinion advanced, first by A. Deissmann (in Licht vom Osten, 4th ed., Tübingen 1923, p. 201, n. 4, he states that he had proposed the idea in 1898), then by H. Lisco (Vincula sanctorum, Berlin 1900), with the agreement of a few others. This view would assign the epistle to the Colossians and the other three letters to a presumed imprisonment of Paul at Ephesus, during the third missionary journey. Its foundations are extremely fragile. The text most insistently invoked is I Cor. 15, 32, which, if it were not a metaphor (cf. S. Ignazio M., Rom. 5, 1), would presuppose a trial and a condemnation and, consequently, an imprisonment. But, apart from the fact that the condemnation could have resulted from a popular uprising, without a trial and without imprisonment, if he had really been condemned to the beasts, Paul would have lost that right of Roman citizenship on which he would rely and which would also be recognized after his stay at Ephesus (Act. 22, 25-29; 25, 10 ff. 21). Moreover, the Acts and II Cor. 11, 23-29 are completely silent on the matter, whereas, in the series of trials endured by the Apostle, so serious an event should have been mentioned. Furthermore, Mark and Luke would not have been with Paul (contrary to Col. 4, 10.14; Philem. 24) in the case of an Ephesian imprisonment, because the former was then probably working with Peter at Rome, while the latter does not narrate in the first person the events of the stay at Ephesus (Act. 19, 1-20, 1), as he usually does when he is present.
The choice remains between Caesarea and Rome. The principal argument in favor of Caesarea is negative in character: the distance between Colossae and Caesarea was less than that between Colossae and Rome, so that the fugitive Onesimus could reach Paul more easily at Caesarea than at Rome. It is observed, in reply, that the capital of the empire was the gathering place of all fugitives and outlaws, offering them greater opportunities to remain unnoticed there.
Another text adduced in favor of Caesarea is Col. 4, 3, in which Paul asks for prayers that he may be granted greater freedom for his apostolate. But even the relative freedom of the custodia militaris at Rome was very little for Paul’s apostolic ardor!
Paul’s silence concerning the earthquake that struck Laodicea and the surrounding region in 60-61 is not decisive in favor of Caesarea or of a date before the beginning of the Roman imprisonment, since it is not certain that Colossae was seriously affected. In any case, the Apostle is habitually very sparing of information concerning contemporary profane history.
Positively, it should be noted that the group of friends and guests surrounding Paul, according to the information in the epistle to the Colossians and in the other letters written at approximately the same time, accords much better with the type of imprisonment at Rome and with the rented house in Rome (Act. 28, 30 f.) than with the prison at Caesarea.
As has already been mentioned, once the Roman origin of the epistle is admitted, its approximate date of composition is likewise fixed, because of the interdependence of the two questions, at 61-62, although nothing certain can be determined concerning whether or not it preceded the other letters of the imprisonment. Cf. E. Percy, op. cit. in bibl., chap. 9.
IV. AUTHENTICITY
The categorical denials of the Tübingen school having already been overcome, the Pauline authorship of the epistle is accepted not only by Catholic critics, but also by many Protestants and rationalists. It will suffice to cite the most up-to-date among the latter, E. Percy, who defends the authenticity of the epistle to the C. and of that to the Ephesians, albeit with certain reservations that do not affect the substance.The favorable testimony of tradition (implicit quotations by the Apostolic Fathers; explicit attributions by s. Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Eusebius; and by heretics such as Marcion, Valentinus, and the Docetists, who abused the letter in defense of their own errors) is confirmed by sound arguments of internal criticism or, at least, by the possibility of providing a satisfactory response to the objections of its opponents. Thus, although the language and style of this letter differ from the language and style of the other Pauline letters, in certain respects they also offer notable similarities, not only with that to the Philippians (more generally regarded as Pauline), but also with the vocabulary and style of the great letters. The peculiarities are often explained by the diversity of the subjects treated and by the novelty of the concepts, some of which are only hinted at in the other letters of s. Paul.
Nor should one object to the doctrinal development of this epistle, or claim that the errors it combats spread only around the middle of the second century; for, apart from everything else, it is not easy to establish precisely the nature of the errors that occasioned this writing.
For introductory questions: A. Steinmann, Gegen welchen Irrtlehrer richtet sich der Kolosserbrief?, Strasbourg 1906; J. Schmid, Zeit und Ort der paulinischen Gefangenschaftsbriefe, Freiburg im Br. 1931; E. Percy, Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Acta Reg. Soc. Human. Litt. Lundensis, 39), Lund 1946. Teodorico da Castel S. Pietro