quaintance with thefar state and relations (i, 6 ; ii, 6, 7, etc.) ; and their knowledge of so many of his compan- ions, and especially of Timothy, whose name the apos- tle associates with his own at the commencement of the epistle, a circumstance which is worthy of consid^ eration from this, that Thnothy was the companion of Paul during his first tour through Phiygia, when pro5- ably the Gospel was first preached at'Coloess. Of these considerations it must be allowed that the cumu* latiye force is yery strong in foyor of the opinion tliat the Christians at CoIosssb had been priyileged to enjoy the personal ministrations of Paul. At the same time, if the Colossians and Laodiceans are not to be included among those of whom Paul says they had not seen his face, it seems unaccountable that in writing to the Co- lossians he should haye referred to this class at aU. I^ moreoyer, he had yisited the Colossians, was it not strange that he should haye no deeper feeling towards them than be had for the multitudes of Christians scat- tered oyer the world whose foces he had neyer seen ? In fine, as it is quite pouibU that Paul may haye been twice in Pbrygia without being once in CoIosssb, is it not easy also to account for his Interest in the church at.Colosse, his knowledge of their affiurs, and his ac- quaintance with indiyiduals among them, by supposing that members of that church had ft^uently yisited him in difibrent places, though he had neyer yisited ColosssB ? See Laodiceans {Epiitle to),
A great part of this epistle is directed against oei^ tain fislse teachers who had crept into the church at ColosssB (see Bheinwald, De pieudo doctorUnu Ccio^ teimbvs, Bonnse, 1834). To what class these teachers belonged has not been fully determined. Heinrichs (Nov, Test. KoppUtn, YII, ii, 166) contends that they were disciples of John the Baptist. Michaelis and Storr, with more show of reason, conclude that they ' were Essence. Hug (Inirod, ii, 449) traces their sys- tem to the Magian philosophy, of which the outlines are ftimisbed by lamblichus. But the beet opinion seems to be that of Neander (Phnikiff cmd Trammg^ 1, 874 sq.), by whom they are represented as a party of specuUtists who endeayored to combine the doctrines of Oriental theosophy and asceticism with Christian- ity, and promised thereby to their disciples a deeper insight into the spiritual world, and a foller approxi- mation to heayenly purity and intelligence than sim- ple Christianity could yield. (See below.) Against this party the apostle argues by reminding the Colos- sians that in Jesus Christ, as set before them in the Gospel, they had all that they required ; that he was the image of the inyisible God ; that he was before aU things; that by him all things consist ; that they were complete in him, and that he would present them to God holy, unblamable, and unreproyable, proyided they continued steadfast in the faith. He then shows that the prescriptions of a mere carnal asceticism are not worthy of being submitted to by Christians, and concludes by directing their attention to the eleyated principles which should regulate the conscience and conduct of such, and the duties of social and domestic lifo to which these would prompt. — Kitto, s. y. (See Java-, Sac Lit, yoL iii) See Philosophy.
What these dangerous tendencies therefore were that had appeared in the doctrine and practice of the Colossian Church we discoyer more particularly from three specifications: 1. A pretentious philosophy, which aflfected an esoteric knowledge, receiyed through tiaditfon, and which, abandoning Christ the Head, in- dulged in unhalloweid speculatbns on the number and nature of the spiritual beings with which the inyisible worid is peopled (CoL ii, 8, 18). 2. The obeeryanoe, if not the asserted obligation (for ibis does not appearX of Jewish ordhiancet (CoL il, 16, 20-22). S, The prmo- tice of ascetic regulations (CoL ii, 28). A question here at once arises, Were these yarious errors found united in the same party or indlyidual ? At first sight they seem mutually to Exclude each other. The phajw
COLOSSIANS
422
COLOSSIANS
isaic JudalMTB exhibited no pronenees either to a spec- nlative gnosis or to asceticism; ttie Gnostic ascetics, on the other liand, were osnally opposed to a rigid ceremonialism. It is so improbable, however, that, in a small community like tliat of CoIosssb, three distinct parties should have existed, that we are driven to the conclusion that the corrupt tendencies in question did really exist in combination in the same persons ; and the difficulty will perhaps be alleviated if we bear in mind that in the apostolic age two classes of Jndaizmg teachers, equally opposed to the simplicity of the apos- tolic message, though in different ways, busied them- selves in sowing tares among the wheat in the visible Church. The former consisted of the rigid formalists, chiefly Pharisees, who occupy so prominent a place in the history of the Acts and in several of PauPs epis- tles, and who contended for the continued obligation of the law of Moses upon Gentile converts; the latter were speculative adherents of the Alexandrian school, whose principle it was to subordinate the letter to the spirit, or rather to treat the former as a mere shell, which the initiated were at liberty to cast away as worthless, or intended only for the vulgar. With this ' fiiilse spiritualism was usually combined an element of Oriental theosophy, with its doctrine of the essen- tial evil of matter, and the ascetic practices by which it was supposed that the soul is to be emancipated ftom the material thraldom under which it at present labors. To angelology, or the framing of angelic gen- ealogies, the Jews in general of that age were notori- ously addicted ; in the p^toral epistles (see 1 Tim. i, 4) we again meet this idle form of speculation. That persons imbued with these various notions should, on becoming Christians, attempt an amalgamation of them with their new fiuth is but natural ; and the ill- ' assorted union seems to have given birth to the Gnos- ticism of a subsequent age, with its monstrous tenets, the product of an unbridled imagination. Teachers then, or perhaps a single teacher (Col. ii, 16), of this cast of Judaism had effected an entrance into the Co- lossian Church, and seems to have there experienced a favorable reception. In a Gentile community like this, Pharisaic Judaism could not so easily have gained a footing ; but the mixture of mystical speculation and ascetic discipline, which distinguished the section of the Alexandrian school alluded to, was just adapted to attract the unstable, especially in Phrygia, from time immemorial the land of mystic rites, such as those connected with the worship of Cybele, and of magical superstition. From this congenial soil, in a subse- quent age, Montanism sprang; and, as Neander re- marks {ApoitdgetchicfUe^ i, 442), it is remarkable that in the 4th century the Council of Laodicea was com- pelled to prohibit a species of angel-worship, which ap- pears to have maintained its ground in these regions (Can. 85). We must not, however, suppose that these tendencies had worked themselves out into a distinct system, or had brought forth the bitter practical fruits which were their natural consequence, and which, at a later period, distinguished the heresiarchs alluded to in the pastoral epistles, and the followers of Cerinthus. The corrupt teaching was as yet in its bud. The apostle therefore recommends no harsh measures, such as excommunication : he treats the case as one rather of ignorance and inexperience ; as that of erring but sincere Christians, not of active opponents ; and seeks by gentle persuasion to win them ba^k to their alle- giance to Christ. — ^Fairbaim, s. v. See Gnosticism.