6

the same is said of Onesimus who had recently been converted, (iv. 9). In speaking of Epaphras, the apostle never adds, by whom ye believed,' or, 'by whom ye were brought to the fellowship of the Gospel,' even when he recommends him to the esteem of the Colossians. Some have supposed Epaphras to be the same as Epaphroditus, one of the Philippian pastors. So Grotius, and apparently Winer. It is more probable, that they were different persons. So Steiger, Boehmer, Rheinwald, Lardner, Beausobre, Olshausen, and others.

In reviewing these arguments, various considerations suggest themselves to the mind of the impartial inquirer. It is remarkable that the apostle does not once allude to the fact of his having founded the church himself. This point is adduced on other occasions, especially when the members were in danger of being led away by Judaising teachers from the foundation he had laid; or when they had already apostatised. Thus in the epistle to the Galatians, i. 6., 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel.' It is no satisfactory reply, that the apostle deemed it unnecessary to state a matter so well known. If in other cases he mentions the circumstance as one that ought to carry weight along with it to the minds of those whom he had instructed in person; if in warning against the teachings and seductions of heretical disturbers, he exhorts to abide by what the churches had received from his lips, and calls attention to the diversity between his own doctrines and theirs, should we not expect a similar course towards the Colossians whose faith was in imminent danger of being corrupted? And yet his personal intercourse among them is neither named nor hinted at. Let the reader compare the procedure of the same Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians, and a striking difference will be apparent, (1 Cor. iii. 1-10.) Even when commending Epaphras to their affectionate regard, he does not say, that he preached the same Gospel as they had already heard from his own mouth. He does not state, that he built upon the foundation which he himself had laid among them, or that they should implicitly receive his teachings, because such teachings exactly coincided with those which the apostle himself had propounded among them as the true foundation of their fellowship in the faith of the Gospel. All this is singular, if it be conceived that Paul himself planted the church. It is altogether in harmony with this peculiarity, that although various allusions are made to their having heard the gospel (i. 5. 23), it is never subjoined that they had heard it from himself; although this would have been highly apposite amid the concern expressed for their welfare and their leaning towards the heretics. The same force does not attach to Paul's mention of his hearing of

their faith and other virtues, since Epaphras's report concerning them does not affect the point before us.

It is true that the apostle speaks of the Colossians in such a manner as to shew his anxiety for their state, his knowledge of their circumstances, his familiarity with their belief, and with the progress they had made in divine things; but of these he was apprised by Epaphras. When it is recollected that the apostle had the care of all the churches upon him—that he was properly the pastor of all-that he watched over them with parental solicitude, although he may not have planted them personally, the passages supposed to denote a personal acquaintance, on his part, with the Colossians, will not appear strange. In relation to the messengers sent in various directions to the churches-the exhortations dispatched through them to the various christian communities, the affectionate counsels with which they were charged, the accounts in the New Testament are defective; but it may be well conceived that such things were frequent. In this way he came to know the peculiar influences to which the converts were exposed from without, as well as the internal elements which pervaded and leavened them in their social fellowship. How natural was it therefore, that the Colossians should entertain a high veneration for the great apostle. If they had love to all the saints, as is said in the first chapter (4th verse) most of whom they had not seen in the flesh, should they not have felt a higher love for Paul. They owed their conversion to him if not immediately, at least through the teaching of persons whom he had instructed and sent. They had heard of his abundant labours and self-denying zeal on behalf of the Gentiles, and they might look to him as their spiritual father in consequence of the relation which Epaphras and others sustained to himself and to them. Not to have written in this manner would have savoured of some other than the ardent and zealous apostle, whose heart was so large as to embrace within its capacious folds all the churches of the Saviour. For these Colossians not to have manifested their love to him, which they must have done chiefly through Epaphras, would have belied their profession and contradicted their christianity. Thus while the entire tenour of the epistle shews that the apostle is writing to converts, disciples, and friends, it is not necessary to assume that they were his own immediate disciples and converts. Those who imagine that they must have been such, measure the feelings of apostles and primitive christians by a modern standard. The coldness and negligence now so prevalent among professing christians, especially those whom Providence has placed at a little distance from one another, should not be transferred to the

apostolic age. That were to go in opposition to the testimony of ecclesiastical history.

That the apostle travelled twice through Phrygia does not prove that he visited Colosse and Laodicea. In his first journey he passed from Cilicia and Derbe to Lystra, thence through the north-eastern part of Phrygia to Galatia, Mysia, and Troas. Thus his route lay to the north of Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse. In his second missionary journey, he went from Lystra to Phrygia, thence northward to Galatia, and subsequently to Troas. This route was also to the north of those three cities. He may indeed have turned aside from his direct way, and have traversed all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order (Acts xviii. 23); but the word all is not in the original; and if Phrygia possessed sixty-two towns, it is impossible that he could have published the gospel in all. Probably, however, there were not so many towns at that period, as there were in the sixth century, according to the testimony of Hierocles. Theodoret thinks it strange that Paul should be in Phrygia and not visit the metropolis Hierapolis; but other cities may have been more important in the eye of the apostle. In regard to Colossians iii. 16, neither it nor the parallel place (Ephes. v. 19-20), implies the possession of miraculous gifts. Such an idea is not suggested by the natural, obvious interpretation.

The words for I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, that their hearts might be comforted,' &c. (Col. ii. 1, 2), have been urged by parties holding opposite opinions with regard to the founder of the Colossian church. The exposition of them by Theodoret and Lardner has been already mentioned. According to it two classes of persons are specified: first, the inhabitants of Colosse and Laodicea; secondly, those who had not seen the face of Paul. Hence the last clause intimates, by way of contrast, that the Colossians and Laodiceans had seen him personally, especially in connexion with the third person (their hearts, not your) immediately following. But the pronoun in the third person need create no difficulty. In consequence of ooo which precedes, the pronoun is put in the third instead of the second person, the rather because they of Laodicea are alluded to in the same person. On the supposition that the last clause explains the two preceding, and points to the circumstance that the Colossians and Laodiceans had not seen his face, there is a significance and coherence in the parts of the verse; but on the hypothesis of Theodoret and others, that significance is destroyed. I cannot persuade myself,' says Neander, 'that, if

the Colossians and Laodiceans had received the gospel from the lips of the apostle, he would have placed them so closely in connection with those who were not personally known to him, without any distinction, as we find in Colossians ii. 1; since, in reference to the anxiety of the apostle for the churches, it always made an important difference whether he himself had founded them or not.' The last clause is added for the purpose of shewing that the apostle's anxiety was more intense for such as were personally unknown, than for those whom he had planted and watered. The former lay nearer his heart, inasmuch as they were supposed to be weaker and more tender. Hence the phrase and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh,' is subjoined, with the object of expressing the vehemence of his inward conflict in relation to such individuals as he had not seen-a conflict all the more intense in proportion to the power of distance in magnifying dangers real or imaginary. Wiggers prefers the rendering' also for those (of the christians in Laodicea and Colosse) who have not personally known me;' but Neander justly observes that this is not natural; for if the writer had intended to express such an idea, he would hardly have failed to limit ὅσοι by adding ὑμῶν.

The conjunction xal (also) at the commencement of the seventh verse in the first chapter does not necessarily presuppose a previous instructor. It refers to the preceding statement. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Scholz omit it as spurious; and Neander is inclined to adopt the same view. The word mei ἄπειμι in ii. 5, does not imply, as Wiggers thinks, that Paul had been once present, but is used in antithesis to his presence with them in the spirit though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit.'

With respect to Epaphras, he is styled one of you (iv. 12). Had Epaphras founded the church, the apostle, it is said, would not have applied such a phrase to him. This assertion is hazardous. Epaphras is described as a native of Colosse, and therefore he took an especial interest in the welfare of his own citizens and neighbours. When the apostle recommends him, what stronger terms could he employ than the following: 'Epaphras who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him record that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis' (iv. 12, 13)? What could have been more fitted to draw forth the affection and sympathy of the Colossians, or to fix their esteem? It is true that Onesimus is also described as one of the Colossians; but the subse

quent words sufficiently distinguish the same phrase applied in the first instance to Onesimus, and in the second to Epaphras. No significance or emphasis could have belonged to an appendix to the name of Epaphras, such as 'by whom ye believed." would have been superfluous.

That

The epistle to Philemon does not afford sufficient evidence that Paul had been personally present among the Colossians. Philemon had been converted by Paul, not at Colosse, but rather at Ephesus. The salutation of Archippus by name, as well as Apphia his wife, does not argue previous personal acquaintance; although it is not improbable that some of these Colossians may have heard Paul preach at Ephesus, and have been converted by his ministry. Epaphras, however, had given him an account of these labourers in the common vineyard. On the whole, it is most probable, that the church at Colosse was planted by Epaphras. The notices of this person are very brief in the New Testament. It may be inferred from Col. iv. 12, that he was a native of Colosse. Paul styles him a servant of Christ (iv. 12), my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus (Philem. 23); and our dear fellow-servant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ, (Col. i. 7). Perhaps he had been sent forth during the apostle's long abode at Ephesus, to preach the gospel in those parts of Asia Minor and of Phrygia, which Paul was unable to visit in person. It would appear that he was put into prison some time after he had visited the apostle at Rome. As he had been commissioned by Paul to proclaim the truths of christianity, all confidence was reposed in him. He taught the same doctrines, and inculcated the same duties as his inspired preceptor. If the apostles were ambassadors for Christ, or in Christ's stead, as is affirmed in 2 Cor. v. 20; their assistants and co-workers were, in like manner, their representatives. Hence Epaphras is styled (Col. i. 7), a faithful minister of Christ in Paul's stead (vñèp μv, not ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν). It is by no means likely that the honour of founding the Colossian church was due to Timothy, although Michaelis inclines to that view. Yet Epaphras was not their only teacher. He was joined and assisted by others, such as Philemon and Archippus. This obviates the objection that the Colossians would not send away their apostle while the church was yet in an infant state. The apostolic churches had a plurality of pastors. They were not dependent on one individual for spiritual oversight.

III. The authenticity of the epistle is amply attested by quotations in Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian; and by various allusions in Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch. Irenæus says: And again in the Epistle to the Colossians,