Colossians 4:16

τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας. τὴν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ is read by G Syrpal.

16. A command to exchange St Paul’s letters between Laodicea and Colossae.

ὅταν�ʼ ὑμῖν. Probably at Divine Service, that being the readiest means of ensuring that it be heard by all, a point on which St Paul lays special stress in 1 Thessalonians 5:27. Compare Acts 15:30-31, where observe that in Acts 15:32 Judas and Silas, being prophets, give (apparently public) exhortations. For the ἀνάγνωσις see also 1 Timothy 4:13, and cf. Swete on Revelation 1:3.

ἡ ἐπιστολή, i.e. this letter. So 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Romans 16:22.

ποιήσατε ἵνα, “cause that.” Cf. Blass, Gram. § 69. 4. See John 11:37. There is no need to suppose any other reason for the phrase than the trouble involved in getting the letter to Laodicea, and the Laodicean letter to Colossae (vide infra).

καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ�. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2 Thessalonians 1:1. In these three passages only is the Ecclesia designated by “the adjectival local name of its members” (Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 114). The absence of the second article before Λαοδ. is strange, but resembles the passages quoted from 1 and 2 Thes.

καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας. Lightfoot’s Additional Note on this phrase (pp. 340–366) is a typical example of his thoroughness and lucidity.

Out of the many interpretations tabulated by him two only are worth serious attention: (1) that St Paul means a lost letter of his to the Laodiceans, or (2) that he means the Circular letter known as the Epistle to the Ephesians, which Marcion actually includes in his canon under the title “To the Laodiceans.”
As to (1) there is of course no reason why a letter by St Paul should not have been lost (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:9), but as Abbott points out (a) St Paul himself seems to have attached some importance to this one; (b) the direction in this verse would have ensured it greater publicity; (c) if the Colossians preserved Phm. how much more would they have preserved this other [yet, after all, Phm. belonged to them in a way that this other did not]; (d) we know that St Paul sent three Epistles at this time, Eph., Col., Phm., and we can hardly assume a fourth, except on necessity; (e) St Paul’s description of it would more naturally have been τὴν πρὸς Λαοδικέας.

As to (2) assuming the circular character of Eph. (a question which cannot be discussed here) it would naturally be read at Laodicea before Colossae, because that city lay first on Tychicus’ route, and would have been addressed to Laodicea rather than Colossae as the more important city of the two; and again St Paul would hardly think it necessary to have a separate copy of it made for Colossae in view of the nearness of the two cities. Yet Eph. is sufficiently different from Col. to render it advisable that both Epistles should be read by the Christians at each place.
On the forged letter to Laodicea see Lightfoot, pp. 347 sqq.
Observe further (1) that in the phrase τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας the preposition is used proleptically, “that which comes to you” thence; cf. Matthew 24:17. (2) The phrase is placed before ἵνα for emphasis; cf. Galatians 2:10.

ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς�. Perhaps dependent on the preceding ποιήσατε. An ellipse of βλέπετε (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:7) not only appears unnecessary in itself, but would impart a sternness into it for which there appears to be no need (cf. Meyer). But see on Colossians 4:17.