Ch. 2 is devoted to warnings against the false teaching which had been reported by Epaphras. It opens with a renewal of the prayer of 19. St. Paul again reiterates that in Christ alone, and not in any human plausibility, can the hidden treasures of knowledge and wisdom be found (21-6). He warns his readers against esoteric cults which have dealings with the angel world, instead of with Christ, the supreme Head of all (26-iu). He reminds them that as Christians they need no special and mysterious ceremonies, but only faith in Christ, who has can- celled all ceremonial obligations through the power of the Cross, thereby depriving hostile spiricual powers of their weapon against mankind (2iii5). The Colossians are therefore not to be misled inco thinking that there is some higher way of leading the Christian life, consisting in special ordinances or a higher asceticism, even if commended by a show of esoteric knowledge (2i«-23).
In ch. 3, St. Paul passes, by way of contrast, to the practical implications of life in Christ. For Christians there is indeed a true asceticism, but it consists in a putting to death of the ' old man,' and a putting on of the ' new man,' not merely in a mortifying of the flesh, for that, for the Christian, is already accomplished in the renewal of the spirit 'after the image of him that created him ' (3iii). The rule foi the Christian must therefore be not the rule of ascetic ordinances but the warm and living rule of love, of Christ dwelling in the heart (312-17).
A short passage follows in which brief words of counsel are addressed to wives, husbands, children, fathers, servants, masters (318-41), and one or two general exhortations lead up to the salutations with which the letter closes (42-18).
3. Date and place of composition. — It has been customary to regard the four ' Epistles of the Cap- tivity ' as all written from Rome during the two years (A.D. 59-61) alluded to in Ac 283". There is no good reason for giving up this view in the case of Colossians. Phil, at least must be from Rome.
If, with Bleek and Lightfoot {Philippians*, 1878, p. 30), we place Col. later than Phil., on the ground of the closer affinity of the latter with Rom. both in style and doctrine, the Roman origin of Col. would be unquestionable. It is not possible, how- ever, in a writer like St. Paul, to postulate so orderly an advance in these respects. His doctrine at least must have been thought out long before he wrote Romans. And, on the other hand, the allusions in Ph I''- ^2. 13. 20-25 023 point to a date near the very close of the Roman imprisonment. We must thus date Col. earlier (Ph P--^* seems to reflect Col 43- *). But this leaves open the possibility that it was Avritten not from Rome but during the two years spent at Csesarea. This view has been held by quite a number of scholars, e.g. Meyer, Sabatier, Weiss, and Haupt. So also recently E. L. Hicks, Inter- preter, 1910. But the arguments on the other side, as set out e.g. by Peake ('Col.' in EGT, p. 491), seem conclusive. Haupt's argument that a con- siderable interval of time must lie between the statements of doctrine found in Phil, and Col. has no weight. Weiss points out that St. Paul gives a difi'erent account of his plans in Phil., where he is hoping to visit Macedonia, from that in Philem., where Colossse is his goal. But the two statements are not incompatible in letters both written from Rome. The one plan might easily involve the other. And, further, there are serious objections to the Cajsarea hypothesis. It is impossible to think that St. Paul at Csesarea was already plan- ning a visit to Colossse. It was upon Rome that his eyes were fixed, and at least towards the end of his days at Csesarea he knew that he would be sent thither. But most decisive of all is the little com- panion note to Philemon. It must have been at Rome, the natural refuge of the runaway slave, that St. Paul came across Onesimus, and from Rome that he sent him back to his master with Tychicus. Finally, it would be most remarkable, in a letter written from Csesarea, that there should be no salutation from Philip.
In view of the fact that Col. and Philem. were probably sent together, it has caused comment that there is some variation in the salutations. Not only is the order of the names difi'erent — a point of little significance — but in Col. Aristarchus, in Philem. Epaphras, is given the place of honour as 'my fellow-prisoner.' The reason for this is obscure. Fritzsche's suggestion that St. Paul's friends took turns in sharing his captivity is only a suggestion. As Peake points out, the divergence is a proof of the authenticity of both Epistles, since no imitator would have made so unnecessary and self-condem- natory an alteration.
i. External evidence for authenticity.— This is quite as strong as could reasonably be expected. At the end of the 2nd cent. Col. was known to Irenseus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. It is mentioned by name in the Muratorian Canon. Its acceptance by Marcion carries the knowledge of it at Rome to before 150. This renders the description by Justin of Christ as ' first-born of all creation ' (Dial. 84, 85, 100) an almost certain echo of P", especially as the parallel phrase in Philo is not irpuTdroKos but irpu}T6yoi'os. Earlier references are all rather uncertain, especially in Barnabas and Clement of Rome. It is, however, probable that Ignatius quotes Col 2^* in Smyrn. i. 2, and 1'^ in Trail, v. 2. Lightfoot also points out Ignatius' use of (Ti'iv5ov\os as a term for deacons ; cf. 1' 4P. Tins evidence is insufficient in itself to prove authenticity, and throws us back upon a discussion of the many problems which the Epistle itself presents.