Colossians 4:16

Colossians 4:16. And when this (lit. ‘the') epistle hath been read among you. The tense used must be thus rendered in English; there is no necessary reference to public reading.

Cause, etc. This was a natural injunction, in view of the nearness of Laodicea, and the common danger threatening both churches.

Ye also read that from Laodicea. This phrase has occasioned a multitude of conjectures. All theories that do not refer it to a letter written by the Apostle Paul must be rejected. The language points to him as the author, not to the Laodiceans, nor to some other Apostle or teacher. Renewed investigations of the uncanonical Epistle to the Laodiceans make it even more certain that this cannot have been written by the Apostle, but is a stupid forgery. See especially the full Excursus of Bishop Lightfoot, Colossians, pp. 281-300.

The only theories which are tenable are, (1) that the Epistle to the Ephesians is referred to; (2) that the letter to Laodicea has not been preserved. No other of the known Pauline Epistles can be referred to.

(1.) The first theory is held in three forms: (a.) The Ephesian Epistle was an encyclical letter, and a copy was text by Tychicus at Laodicea, on his way to Colossæ. This is the view which is growing in favor, and especially since the weight of Aleph has been thrown against the words ‘in Ephesus' in Ephesians 1:1. (See Introduction to Ephesians, § 1.) (b.) That a special copy of that Epistle was made for Laodicea, and to be left there by Tychicus. This is possible, but lacks any positive proof. (c.) That the Epistle to the Ephesians (so-called) was originally sent to Laodicea (so Conybeare and Howson, Lewin, etc.). This seems least probable.

(2.) The other view, that the Epistle to Laodicea has been lost exists in two forms: (a.) That the lost letter was wholly of a temporary and local nature, and hence not of a character to be preserved as canonical Scripture; (4.) that the letter was one ‘which possibly from its similarity to its sister Epistle, it has not pleased God to preserve to us' (Ellicott). The Apostle might have written many letters, which have been not preserved, so that this theory is not inadmissible. But as three letters of such a high character were sent at this time, it is unlikely that an unimportant one was added. The fact that the Colossians were to read the other Epistle, is against the theory that it was not preserved on account of its similarity. If different enough to be read, it would have been deemed worthy of preservation. The most probable view is therefore that which accepts the limited encyclical character of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and regards it as here referred to.