2. When we turn from the theology of these Colossian heretics to their ethical teaching, we find it characterised by the same earnestness. Of them it might indeed be said that they did ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness.’ |Their practical earnestness,|Escape from impurity, immunity from evil, was a passion with them. But it was no less true that notwithstanding all their sincerity they ‘went astray in the wilderness’; ‘hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them.’ By their fatal transference of the abode of sin from the human heart within to the material world without, they had incapacitated themselves from finding the true antidote. |but fundamental misconception and consequent failure.| Where they placed the evil, there they necessarily sought the remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves about, and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions. Their energy was expended on battling with the physical conditions of human life. Their whole mind was absorbed in the struggle with imaginary forms of evil. Necessarily their character was moulded by the thoughts which habitually engaged them. Where the ‘elements of the world,’ the ‘things which perish in the using[526],’ engrossed all their attention, it could not fail but that they should be dragged down from the serene heights of the spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere which shrouds this lower earth.
St Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. For negative prohibitions he substitutes a positive principle; for special enactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them that all their scrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail to touch the springs of action. If they would overcome the evil, they must strike at the root of the evil. Their point of view must be entirely changed. They must transfer themselves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This transference is nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven—from the region of the external and transitory to the region of the spiritual and eternal[527]. For a code of rules they must substitute a principle of life, which is one in its essence but infinite in its application, which will meet every emergency, will control every action, will resist every form of evil.
This principle they have in Christ. With Him they have died to the world; with Him they have risen to God. Christ, the revelation of God’s holiness, of God’s righteousness, of God’s love, is light, is life, is heaven. With Him they have been translated into a higher sphere, have been brought face to face with the Eternal Presence. Let them only realise this translation. It involves new insight, new motives, new energies. They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious special restrictions: for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration which will cover all the minute details of action. They will not exhaust their energies in crushing this or that rising desire but they will kill the whole body[528] of their earthly passions through the strong arm of this personal communion with God in Christ.
When we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root of St Paul’s ethical teaching, the moral difficulty which is supposed to attach to his doctrine of faith and works has vanished. It is simply an impossibility that faith should exist without works. Though in form he states his doctrine as a relation of contrast between the two, in substance it resolves itself into a question of precedence. Faith and works are related as principle and practice. Faith—the repose in the unseen, the recognition of eternal principles of truth and right, the sense of personal obligations to an Eternal Being who vindicates these principles—must come first. Faith is not an intellectual assent, nor a sympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute surrender of self to the will of a Being who has a right to command this surrender. It is this which places men in personal relation to God, which (in St Paul’s language) justifies them before God. For it touches the springs of their actions; it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends throughout the whole sphere of moral activity; and thus it determines their character as responsible beings in the sight of God.
From the above account it will have appeared that the distinctive feature of this epistle is its Christology. The doctrine of the Person of Christ is here stated with greater precision and fulness than in any other of St Paul’s epistles. It is therefore pertinent to ask (even though the answer must necessarily be brief) what relation this statement bears to certain other enunciations of the same doctrine; |considered in relation to|to those for instance which occur elsewhere in St Paul’s own letters, to those which are found in other Apostolic writings, and to those which appear in the fathers of the succeeding generations.
1. The Christology of the Colossian Epistle is in no way different from that of the Apostle’s earlier letters. It may indeed be called a development of his former teaching, but only as exhibiting the doctrine in fresh relations, as drawing new deductions from it, as defining what had hitherto been left undefined, not as superadding any foreign element to it. The doctrine is practically involved in the opening and closing words of his earliest extant epistle: ‘The Church which is in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you[529].’ The main conception of the Person of Christ, as enforced in the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and explains this language, which otherwise would be emptied of all significance. And again; it had been enunciated by the Apostle explicitly, though briefly, in the earliest directly doctrinal passage which bears on the subject; ‘One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him[530].’ |the same in substance but|The absolute universal mediation of the Son is declared as unreservedly in this passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as in any later statement of the Apostle: and, |less fully developed|if all the doctrinal and practical inferences which it implicitly involves were not directly emphasized at this early date, it was because the circumstances did not yet require explicitness on these points. New forms of error bring into prominence new aspects of the truth. The heresies of Laodicea and Colossæ have been invaluable to the later Church in this respect. The Apostle himself, it is not too much to say, realised with ever increasing force the manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of the Christian idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to each successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved the complete answer to false speculations at Colossæ, as it had been found the sovereign antidote to false practices at Corinth. All these unforeseen harmonies must have appeared to him, as they will appear to us, fresh evidences of its truth.
|Their fundamental identity.|
2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic writings which dwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal point of view, we find them enunciating it in language which implies the same fundamental conception, though they may not always present it in exactly the same aspect. More especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the Gospel of St John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with the statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is said to have been created or to exist by or through Him. This is the crucial expression, which involves in itself all the higher conceptions of the Person of Christ[531]. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written by a disciple of St Paul immediately after the Apostle’s death, and therefore within some five or six years from the date which has been assigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the traditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a century later; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that the readers for whom it was primarily intended belonged to the neighbouring districts of Proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates, and is illustrated by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. More especially by the emphatic use of the term Logos, which St Paul for some reason has suppressed, it supplies the centre round which the ideas gather, and thus gives unity and directness to the conception.
In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firmness and precision which leaves no doubt about the main conception present to the mind of the writers. The idea of Christ as an intermediate being, neither God nor man, is absolutely and expressly excluded. On the one hand His humanity is distinctly emphasized. On the other He is represented as existing from eternity, as the perfect manifestation of the Father, as the absolute mediator in the creation and government of the world.
3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to the writings of succeeding generations, we are struck with the contrast[532]. A vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself in their language.
In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists we find indeed for the most part a practical appreciation of the Person of Christ, which leaves nothing to be desired; but as soon as they venture upon any directly dogmatic statement, we miss at once the firmness of grasp and clearness of conception which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they desire to emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently fall into language which savours of patripassianism[533]. If on the other hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity, they use words which seem to imply some divine being, who is God and yet not quite God, neither Creator nor creature[534].
The Church needed a long education, before she was fitted to be the expositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. A conflict of more than two centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians, Arians, supplied the necessary discipline. The true successors of the Apostles in this respect are not the fathers of the second century, but the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. In the expositors of the Nicene age we find indeed technical terms and systematic definitions, which we do not find in the Apostles themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived the nature of the heretical teaching at Colossæ and the purport of St Paul’s reply, the main idea of Christ’s Person, with which he here confronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that which the fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabellianism and the Arianism of their own age. If I mistake not, the more distinctly we realise the nature of the heresy, the more evident will it become that any conception short of the perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ would not have furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason why I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian false teaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to this part of my subject.
Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occasion to speak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuineness. It is sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul is unmistakable throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and the versatility of the Apostle’s earlier letters.
A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Philippians will show the difference. It is distinguished from them by a certain ruggedness of expression, a ‘want of finish’ often bordering on obscurity. What account should be given of this characteristic, it is impossible to say. The divergence of style is not greater than will appear in the letters of any active-minded man, written at different times and under different circumstances. The epistles which I have selected for contrast suggest that the absence of all personal connexion with the Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the diminished fluency of this letter. |but essential vigour.|At the same time no epistle of St Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts which creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be brought against this epistle.
The following is an analysis of the epistle:
I. Introductory (i. 1–13).
(1) i. 1, 2. Opening salutation.
(2) i. 3–8. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians hitherto.
(3) i. 9–13. Prayer for their future advance in knowledge and well-doing through Christ.
[This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the only path of progress.]
II. Doctrinal (i. 13-ii. 3).
The Person and Office of Christ.
(1) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our redemption.
(2) i. 15–19. The Preeminence of the Son;
(i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe (i. 15–17);
(ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, the Church (i. 18).
Thus He is first in all things; and this, because the pleroma has its abode in Him (i. 19).
(3) i. 20-ii. 3. The Work of the Son—a work of reconciliation;
(i) Described generally (i. 20).
(ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21–23).
(iii) St Paul’s own part in carrying out this work. His sufferings and preaching. The ‘mystery’ with which he is charged (i. 24–27).
His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29): and more especially of the Colossian and neighbouring Churches (ii. 1–3).
[This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path to the next division of the epistle.]
III. Polemical (ii. 4-iii. 4).
Warning against errors.
(1) ii. 4–8. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth of the Gospel as they received it at first, and not to be led astray by a strange philosophy which the new teachers offer.
(2) ii. 9–15. The truth stated first positively and then negatively.
[In the passage which follows (ii. 9–23) it will be observed how St Paul vibrates between the theological and practical bearings of the truth, marked α, β, respectively.]
(i) Positively.
(α) The pleroma dwells wholly in Christ and is communicated through Him (ii. 9, 10).
(β) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision (ii. 11, 12).
(ii) Negatively. Christ has
(β) annulled the law of ordinances (ii. 14);
(α) triumphed over all spiritual agencies, however powerful (ii. 15).
(3) ii. 16-iii. 4. Obligations following thereupon.
(i) Consequently the Colossians must not
(β) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17),
(α) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for allegiance to the Head (ii. 18, 19).
(ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their rule:
1. They have died with Christ; and with Him they have died to their old life, to earthly ordinances (ii. 20–23).
2. They have risen with Christ; and with Him they have risen to a new life, to heavenly principles (iii. 1–4).
IV. Hortatory (iii. 5-iv. 6).
Practical application of this death and this resurrection.
(1) iii. 5–12. Comprehensive rules.
(i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this death (iii. 5–11).
(ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened through this resurrection (iii. 12–17).
(2) iii. 13-iv. 6. Special precepts.
(a) The obligations
Of wives and husbands (iii. 18, 19);
Of children and parents (iii. 20, 21);
Of slaves and masters (iii. 22-iv. 1).
(b) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving; with special intercession on the Apostle’s behalf (iv. 2–4).
(c) The duty of propriety in behaviour towards the unconverted (iv. 5, 6).
V. Personal (iv. 7–18).
(1) iv. 7–9. Explanations relating to the letter itself.
(2) iv. 10–14. Salutations from divers persons.
(3) iv. 15–17. Salutations to divers persons. A message relating to Laodicea.
(4) iv. 18. Farewell.