Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Paul. A Critical Life.
Chapter 10: Contemplation at Colossae, p. 231-251

(Detailed summary)

Paul’s strategy during the two years and three months he spent in Ephesus (Acts 19:8–10) had two aspects. On the one hand, he remained in the city to devote himself to building up the community; on the other hand, he took the opportunity to maintain contact with the other churches he had founded. This strategy required the church to be apostolic by spreading the gospel throughout the surrounding area. He therefore relied on others to go out and preach beyond the urban centers, following the Roman roads that radiated out from this capital of Asia. Thus, some followed the northern roads leading to Smyrna and Pergamum (see map). Others took the northeastern route toward Philadelphia, Sardis, and Thyatira. Still others took the main eastward road that led them to Magnesia and Tralles. Someone like Epaphras went further, toward his hometown of Colossae, in the Lycus Valley. To get there, he took the Roman road built by Manius Aquillius, proconsul of Asia from 129 to 126 BC: it first follows the Meander River from Ephesus for 80 km, crosses it via a bridge at Antioch-on-the-Meander, continues along the south bank until it is blocked by the Lycus, then branches southward to Laodicea and on to Colossae.

1. The Lycus Valley

   Near the point where the Lycus River joins the Meander River lies Hierapolis, where mineral-rich hot water flows down the slope. This city, along with its neighbor Laodicea (located 10 kilometers away, on the other side of the river), did not appear on the historical scene until the Hellenistic period. The oldest documented city in the valley is Colossae, located 18 kilometers upstream from Laodicea. The double “ss” in its name is thought to be a remnant of a pre-Greek language. Herodotus and Xenophon mention it in the 5th century BC as an important and prosperous city.

   The virtual monopoly that Colossae enjoyed over the exploitation of the valley’s natural resources was threatened in the 3rd century BC, when the Seleucid monarchs intervened to establish new commercial centers. Antiochus I Soter (281–261 BC) elevated Hierapolis to the status of a city, and his son Antiochus II Theos (261–246 BC) granted the same privilege to a settlement named Diospolis/Rhoas, which he renamed Laodicea in honor of his wife. In 220 BC, a man named Achaeus raised the banner of rebellion in Laodicea against Antiochus III the Great (233–187 BC). The uprising failed, but to prevent any recurrence, around 213 BC, Antiochus III settled 2,000 Jewish families from Babylon and its environs in Phrygia and Lydia. It would be highly surprising if a significant number of these settlers had not established themselves in the Lycus Valley. A century and a half later, the Jewish population was substantial. In 62 BC, the district of which Laodicea was the capital had at least 11,000 adult Jewish men. About twenty years later, the authorities in Laodicea assured the Roman authorities that the Jews would not be hindered in the practice of their religion. The presence of a Jewish community originating from Babylon is essential to understanding the problems Paul and Epaphras had to face.

   Despite its age, Colossae did not enjoy certain advantages possessed by its younger rivals. Laodicea was the district capital, as well as a financial and tax center. Inevitably, its recreational infrastructure was superior to that of the surrounding area; gladiatorial combat was documented there. Hierapolis undoubtedly benefited from a share of this tourist market. The benefits of the natural thermal baths were enhanced tenfold by the medicinal properties of the water and attracted lovers of luxury and well-being from far and wide. Colossae’s decline in prosperity is strikingly illustrated by the scarcity of visible remains, compared to the vast ruins of Laodicea and Hierapolis.

   Strabo wrote: “If there is one country prone to earthquakes, it is Laodicea” (Geography 12.8.16). We know that major earthquakes struck during the reign of Augustus, and again in 60 CE, as Tacitus reports: “In the province of Asia, one of its most famous cities, Laodicea, was destroyed by an earthquake that year and rebuilt by its own means, without any subsidy from Rome.” The revival of Hierapolis is attested by the presence of a bishop in the early 2nd century AD, led by Papias. Colossae, on the other hand, fell into oblivion.

   At their peak, these cities thrived on wool. The Lycus Valley was a vast pasture where numerous flocks grazed. Its inhabitants carved out a unique niche in the textile market thanks to the quality of their products. According to Strabo, “the region of Laodicea produces excellent sheep, not only for the softness of their wool, which even surpasses that of Miletus, but also for its raven-black color, so that the Laodiceans derive splendid income from them, just as the neighboring Colossians do thanks to the color that bears the same name ” (Geography 12.8.6).

2. Missionary Strategy

   When Paul traveled through Asia Minor for the second time, his destination was Ephesus, and he did not seek to establish new communities. Where, then, did he meet Epaphras, a native of Colossae (Col 4:12)? This meeting may have taken place along the way or in Ephesus, since Epaphras was involved in the textile trade. But regardless of where they met, Paul must have trained him in Ephesus, as was his custom when delegating the mission to other cities. For, from his own experience, he knew the difficulty of arriving in a foreign city where he knew no one. Moreover, he needed to find a job in a supportive environment that would allow him to preach. What he had experienced in Corinth—where he could count on the presence of Prisca and Aquila, who provided him with a base and a list of contacts—now guided his missionary strategy. That is why he had left them in Ephesus to prepare for his return from Jerusalem, and later he would send them to Rome to prepare for his arrival. And he did the same with others. And sending missionaries who were already familiar with the area had a great advantage. This was the case with Epaphras, a native of Colossae, who had come to the capital of Asia on business. Upon returning home, he found a network of acquaintances woven from long-standing family, social, and professional ties. He did not have to look for work. He was known and trustworthy. The respect he had earned ensured that he would always find a willing ear to listen to his first, hesitant sermons. The freedom Epaphras enjoyed to travel to Ephesus to seek Paul’s counsel when problems arose in Colossae suggests that he was self-employed.

   The events surrounding Colossae lead us to the question: How did the slave Onesimus, a Gentile (Philemon 1:10), learn of Paul’s influence on his master and where he could find him in a place as far away as Ephesus? It was likely through Epaphras, who probably converted Philemon, his wife Apphia, and Archippus (Philemon 1:1). Together they became the core of a house church (Philemon 1:2), the first of a group that constituted “the church in Colossae.” Philemon’s social status is inferred from the fact that he owned at least one slave and possessed a house large enough to accommodate the community. According to Paul’s missionary strategy, Epaphras was responsible for recruiting one or two people who could provide a place for the young community. Nympha may have played this role in Laodicea, where she became the leader of a house church (Col 4:15). In the salutation of the letter to Philemon, the latter is called a “fellow worker” and Archippus a “fellow soldier.” This indicates that they were deeply committed to the development of the Christian faith in Colossae.

   Assuming that the letter to Philemon was written before the one to the Colossians, we note a change in Archippus’s situation. Indeed, in the letter to Philemon, he is one of the recipients. But in the letter to the Colossians (4:17), Paul writes, “Tell Archippus,” as if Archippus were no longer a member of the Christian community in Colossae. What happened? Here is a possible sequence of events. Onesimus had seriously offended his master Philemon. Epaphras sent him to Ephesus to seek Paul’s mediation in the dispute between him and Philemon. Although not a Christian, Onesimus, like all servants, was well acquainted with the composition of the small community that gathered at his master’s house. After his baptism (Philemon 10; cf. 1 Cor. 4:15), the importance of Philemon and Archippus’s active missionary role became clear to him. He informed Paul, who had to flatter Philemon to win his favor. Even before he had finished his letter, Epaphras arrived and was arrested by the Romans because of his official ties to Paul. In addition to informing Paul of the false teachings circulating in Colossae, he spoke with sadness about Archippus. Given the gravity of the theological situation, it does not seem sufficient to simply assume that Archippus was less active than before. The injunction “Tell Archippus” (Col 4:17) makes sense only if he had left the community and had not heard the letter during its public reading (Col 4:16). Had he been led astray by the false teachers to the point of no longer finding the Church’s liturgy satisfying? Only an affirmative answer explains the urgency of the letter to the Colossians. If a leader of Archippus’s caliber had been seduced by esoteric teaching, the danger to the other members of the community was very real. It was imperative to act without waiting for the release of Paul or Epaphras.

3. Paul’s Apostolic Office
   Biblical scholars are divided on the authenticity of the Letter to the Colossians. Those who deny its authenticity point to a different style. This overlooks the fact that Paul often relied on co-authors or secretaries. Personal elements are too readily attributed to a pseudepigraphical style, such as:
   • “As for my situation, you will receive all the news from Tychicus, the brother whom I love, the faithful minister, my fellow servant in the Lord. I am sending him to you specifically to give you news of us and to encourage you” (Col 1:7–8)
   • “For I want you to know what a fierce struggle I am waging for you and for those in Laodicea” (Col 2:1)
   • “Finally, tell Archippus: Take care of the ministry you have received in the Lord, and strive to fulfill it well.
   • Here is my own greeting, written by my own hand, Paul’s: Remember my chains” (Col 4:17–18)
   If we take these autobiographical elements seriously, we must date this letter to the year 53, during Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus.

   To justify the authenticity of the Letter to the Colossians, one must show that the differences between the letters written during this period are not so great and can be easily explained by the circumstances. Let us begin with Paul’s perception of his sufferings and his role as an apostle. Biblical scholars who reject the authenticity of the Letter to the Colossians find that its presentation of the vicarious value of Paul’s sufferings and his role as an apostle as universal and unique is incompatible with his historical role. Let us examine these arguments.

   Let us consider Paul’s role. The remark that the gospel is bearing fruit and growing “throughout the whole world ” (Col 1:6) is simply a reflection on the success of the mission among the Gentiles, and in no way implies that Paul was solely responsible for it. On the contrary, it is a demonstration of the power of God’s word, a genuinely Pauline theme (cf. 1 Thess 1:5; 2:13). When Paul writes: “the Gospel you have heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a minister,” we note the absence of the definite article before the word “minister,” an indication that Paul is but one minister among many. Finally, a phrase like “instructing everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ” simply means that Paul’s message is addressed to everyone.

   We tend to forget that the letter to the Colossians is addressed to a church that Paul did not found. It was written only because Epaphras, being in prison, was unable to return there. Who was supposed to write this letter? Epaphras would have been a logical candidate. But faced with a delicate situation, he likely lacked the necessary skill. Paul preferred to rely on Timothy. The sometimes universal tone of this letter can be explained by the fact that Paul had no personal involvement with this church. He therefore had to invoke his apostolic responsibility to justify his concern for the church in Colossae.

   Finally, let us address the question of Paul’s sufferings, to which the letter would seem to ascribe a substitute value. The problem arises when Col 1:14 is mistranslated as follows: “Now I am rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” This raises the question: in what way are Christ’s sufferings imperfect, and thus in need of completion; and how do Paul’s sufferings complete them? All these difficulties fade away when we respect the order of the Greek words: “I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s-afflictions-in-my-flesh for the sake of his body.” Paul is not speaking of Christ’s sufferings, but of his own, which in a certain sense are also Christ’s. In a previous letter he wrote: “I live, yet it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” He was aware that his sufferings, which he experienced in communion with Christ, would continue in his service to the Church. His imprisonment dramatized this commitment to Christ. Thus, Col 1:24 simply expresses this theme in a Christological manner.

   In short, the Letter to the Colossians is authentically Pauline.

4. The Cosmic Christ

   The hymn in Colossians 1:15–20 gives us a sense of what was happening in the Christian community in Colossae. This is because didactic hymns were part of the liturgy (see Colossians 3:16). Here, Paul quotes one of these hymns. It consists of two stanzas, each with four lines.

   I	v. 15a	Who is (the) image of the invisible God
   	v. 15b	First-born of all creation
   	v. 16a	For in him were created all things
   	v. 16f	All things through him and to him were created
   II	v. 18b	Who is (the) beginning
   	v. 18c	First-born from the dead
   	v. 19	For in him all the Fullness was pleased to dwell
   	v. 20a	And through him to reconcile all things to him.

   The first two lines of each stanza are statements that are subsequently justified by the last two lines. Such perfect balance is the hallmark of creative work. The elements in the current text of the letter that disrupt this balance must have been added later. This is the same phenomenon we noted in Philippians 2:6–11. Let us compare the additions in the two hymns.

   	Colossians 1		Philippians 2
   v. 16b	In heaven and on earth	v. 10b	in heaven, on earth, and under the earth
   v. 16c	visible and invisible
   v. 16d	whether thrones or domination
   v. 16e	or principalities or powers
   v. 17	And he is before all things and all things in him hold together
   v. 18a	And he is the head of the body, the church
   v. 18d	that he might in everything become pre-eminent
   v. 20b	making peace by the blood of his cross through him	v. 8c	even death on a cross
   v. 20c	whether those on earth or those in heaven	v. 10b	in heaven, on earth, and under the earth
   		v. 11b	to the glory of God the Father

   The similarities are quite clear:

   1. The editor emphasizes the manner of Christ’s death
   2. He also insists on restricting the meaning of “all things” to intelligent beings

   In the case of the hymn in the Epistle to the Philippians, the author responsible for the additions is clearly Paul. For, apart from the evangelists, terms such as “cross” and “crucify” are practically exclusive to Paul throughout the New Testament. Thus, one might think at first glance that the hymn in the letter to the Colossians is Paul’s work, with its emphasis on the “blood of Christ” (Col 1:20b) and the fruits of the resurrection (Col 1:18c). Furthermore, when considering the additions, those in the letter to the Colossians are far more numerous than those in the letter to the Philippians. This suggests that the original hymn in Philippians was closer to Paul’s theology than the one brought from Colossae by Epaphras. It also implies that if Paul accepted the latter, he had a specific intention.

   1. The Original Hymn

      The basic theme of the original hymn is obviously the mediation of Christ, first in creation and then in reconciliation. God is mentioned explicitly only as the referent of 'image', but he is certainly evoked by the passive verbs in verse 16a and 16f, and possibly may be the subject of 'was pleased' (v. 19). The creative power of God is revealed in the action of his chosen instrument, and thereby Christ is exalted above all other beings.

      In the first strophe there is no real difference between the formulae 'in him' and 'through him'; the former can be instrumental, and is to balance 'in him' in the second strophe (v. 19) where, however, the meaning is different. On his first reading Paul may have understood 'image of God' in the light of his Adamic Christology based on Genesis 1:27, but that would have quickly been corrected. The combination of 'image' with 'firstborn of all creation' is more likely to have evoked the figure of Wisdom in the sapiential writings, notably Wisdom 7:22-26; 8:6; 9: 9. Paul after all was a child of the Hellenistic synagogue. The ambiguity of 'first-born of all creation' is remarkable: is he of or above creation? The emphasis on 'all creation' and 'all things' makes the cosmic dimension unambiguous. The participation of Christ in the act of creation extended to the totality of being. But in what sense? The context is of no help, no more than it is in answering the question arising from the one element which does not fit the sapiential background, namely, the presentation of all reality as directed, 'to him'. What precisely does this mean? That obscurity was probably intended by the author(s).

      In the second strophe 'beginning' again evokes Wisdom (Prov 8: 22), but leaves vague the sense in which Christ vanquished death. The original author may have thought in terms of immortality, in keeping with the sapiential inspiration of his approach, but the formulation does not exclude resurrection. Christ's being the first to experience life after death is due to a divine gift. The formula 'to be pleased to dwell' occurs regularly in the Old Testament with God as subject, e.g. 'the mountain in which God was pleased to dwell (LXX Ps 69:17). Why the surrogate 'Fullness' should have been used here is unclear. Perhaps the author felt it would be more appropriate to the cosmic dimension of his theme, or feared that the Old Testament formula would be misunderstood. Those coming from a Jewish background would never have taken divine indwelling to mean that the person or place was divinized. A pantheist from Phrygia, however, would have gone away with a very different impression. Christ's salvific mission is evoked only in the last line and by the verb 'to reconcile', which for the first time introduces a hint of tension within creation.

      The hymn is a perfect example of what Paul calls 'beguiling, persuasive speech' (Col 2:4). Formal beauty clothes an abstract vision of Christ, which is allusive rather than explicit. The lapidary phrases are redolent of profundity, but yield no clear understanding. The pervasive ambivalence indicates that a univocal meaning was not intended. The hymn could be sung or recited by all believers (Col 3:16) in the belief that they were articulating a mystery beyond them. The initiated could debate the questions that still test the ingenuity of exegetes. In opposition to the hymn cited in Philippians 2: 6-11, nothing in the original hymn betrays Pauline roots. The preaching of Epaphras has been divested of realism by being transposed into a loftier and colder dimension.

   2. Paul’s revision

      Even though the hymn emphasized aspects of Jesus’ titles that Paul himself would not have chosen to highlight, he could not reject it outright because of its roots in the revelation to his people. This demonstrates a certain flexibility on his part, as does his acceptance of the concept of “fullness,” to the point that he later uses it in Col 2:9: “For in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily”; by using the explanatory genitive “of the Godhead,” he shows that he correctly understood the role of this term in the hymn, and by adding the term “bodily,” he directs attention to the physical existence of the one who is now the risen Lord (cf. Col 1:22). It was important for Paul to avoid dissociating Jesus of Nazareth from Christ. This phrase from Col 2:9 also indicates how Paul understands the expression “the Fullness was pleased to dwell” from the hymn, i.e., in the Jewish manner, and not in the manner of John’s Prologue.

      Paul’s revisions to the hymn contain both negative and positive elements: He must restore the spiritual world to its proper place and reestablish Christ in his essential role. Thus, by inserting 1:16b–3:20c, Paul restricts the meaning of “all things” to angelic and human beings. The prominence given to angelic powers must be understood in light of the reference to the “worship of angels” (Col 2:18). He must address a situation where some Colossians were being led to place excessive importance on visions of God’s throne surrounded by adoring angels. For him, such an invitation into a totally inaccessible world compromised the primacy and centrality of Christ in the real world. Skillfully, he uses the creative dimension of the hymn to emphasize that, as the one responsible for the coming of the spiritual powers, Christ was infinitely superior to them (Col 2:10).

      Another addition by Paul—“those on earth or those in heaven” (1:20c)—runs parallel to the other addition “in heaven and on earth” (1:16b), but reverses the order, so that “heaven” occupies the final position. In doing so, Paul corrects the hymn by asserting that it is not only humans who need reconciliation, but also the angels of heaven. Consequently, it is unlikely that the fallen angels would be satisfactory mediators between humanity and God.

      In addition to correcting the Colossians’ perception of the heavenly realm, Paul directs their attention to the manner of Christ’s accomplishment with this phrase: “Making peace through the blood of his cross through him” (1:20b); it is important to him that redemption was accomplished in history through the suffering of the agony. The expression “making peace” likely refers to tensions within the church in Colossae, as he returns to it later in his letter with phrases such as “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts” (3:15), “forgive one another” (3:13), “closely united in love ” (2:2), “clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony” (3:14).

      The theme of unity also appears in his additions in 1:17–18a. The phrase “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (1:17) must be interpreted in light of what follows: “And he is the head of the body, the church” (1:18a). This is the logical continuation of his insight in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” which now leads him to write in Colossians 3:11: “There is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and in all .” This vision of the church as a “body” may have come from his reflections before the temples of Asclepius scattered throughout the eastern Mediterranean, where one could see ceramic representations of the various body parts that had been healed. Moreover, these temples were located in places where the air and water were pure. Paul likely realized that the members, like a leg, could only be a leg by being part of the body. Thus, a believer was truly alive only by belonging to Christ as his member (Col 2:6, 13; 3:4). This line of thought is further developed: “They are not attached to the head, from whom the whole body, supplied and held together by joints and ligaments, grows as God causes it to grow” (Col 3:19); the term “head” should be understood as synonymous with “source.”

      Another characteristic of the Letter to the Colossians is the presentation of the gospel (Col 1:5, 23) as a “mystery” (Col 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3), a theme that recurs in 1 Cor 2:6–9. The language is certainly inspired by the philosophical approach that was in vogue in Colossae (2:4, 8, 18). But precisely, Paul intends to show that “the mystery” is no longer a mystery. The revelation that Jews and Gentiles were striving to find is no longer a secret. It has been revealed by Christ and in him (1 Cor 1:27; 2:2; 4:3). The richness of assured understanding, wisdom, and knowledge is not acquired through contemplation of an illusory, spiritual, heavenly world, but through meditation on Christ and commitment to him (1 Cor 2:2–3). Later, Paul would express the same idea by presenting Christ as “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24).

5. Eschatology and Ethics

   Despite appearances, it is future eschatology that dominates the Letter to the Colossians: “the hope of glory” (1:27), “When Christ, your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in full glory” (3:4), “to present you before him holy, blameless, and beyond reproach [for the final judgment]” (1:22). It is in this context that we must interpret the elements of eschatology already realized, such as “with him you have also been raised” (2:12), “Since you have been raised with Christ” (3:1), “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (3:3). Paul insists that grace had brought about a fundamental change and that the fullness of Christ had accomplished what is essential, and the spiritual powers could add nothing to it.

   As he had done in 1 Thessalonians 4:1–12, but this time at greater length and more explicitly (Colossians 3:1–4:6), Paul reminds the believers that their way of life must change radically. His pastoral experience had made him less naive about human behavior. Moreover, the situation in Colossae was complicated by the fact that some members of the church were drawn to excessive ritualism and ascetic rigor (2:16–23), and looked down on those who did not share their views.

   The emphasis on Jewish observances—“matters of food and drink, a festival, a new moon, or a Sabbath” (2:16)—reveals that the situation in Colossae was similar to that in Galatia. Yet Paul’s response is quite different.

   Letter to the Galatians	Letter to the Colossians
   Paul appeals to faith and the Law	No reference to faith and the Law
   The intruders insisted on their mandate from the church in Antioch to correct the gospel taught by Paul, directly challenging his authority	Nothing of the sort in Colossae, where the church was not founded under the auspices of Antioch, and where Paul’s authority is not at stake
   The intruders were Christian brothers who had turned into proselytizers	These were simply believers who had been drawn to a form of esoteric Jewish teaching circulating in Colossae and who wanted to share their new understanding of things
   The intruders reduced Christ’s role to almost nothing	The Colossians exalted Christ’s mediatorial role
   The intruders had a dogmatic attitude toward the Law	The Colossians had an ascetic and mystical piety typical of Jewish apocalyptic thought, whose roots were more emotional than theological
   Paul had to counter a very real threat, presented as a matter of principle	In Colossae, this was a passing fad whose adherents sought “heavenly ascension through various ascetic practices involving abstinence from food and drink, as well as scrupulous observance of Jewish festivals. These experiences of heavenly ascension culminated in a vision of the throne and in the worship rendered by the angelic hosts surrounding it.” Jewish practices were important, not in and of themselves, but as means to an end.

   Faced with so many differences, Paul could not use the same tactics in Colossae as he had in Galatia. Instead of dealing with a coherent, well-established doctrine, Paul was now confronted with apocalyptic visions that no one could verify, and so his task was to bring the believers back to reality. The most effective tactic was not to confront the mystics head-on, but to gradually introduce subtle changes, the cumulative effect of which would completely undermine their teaching. He relied on the calming effect of a serene exercise of authority.

6. The Household Code

   If it were up to him, Paul would never have addressed the issue of the code of domestic life (Col 3:18–4:1), nor would he address it again in his subsequent letters. For this series of paired injunctions (wives-husbands / children-parents / slaves-masters) did not merely represent the conventional morality of society, a social grouping that, for Paul, was the antithesis of the Church, but it categorically contradicted the structure of the Church “where there can be neither Greek nor Jew, neither circumcised nor uncircumcised, neither slave nor free” (Col 3:11). If Paul nevertheless addresses this issue, it is because he wanted the Colossians to abandon the mystical world of angels and return to the real world marked by interpersonal relationships, including the three pairs we have just mentioned.

   The relationships that stand out most in Paul’s text, both qualitatively and quantitatively, concern slaves (Col 3:22–25). In fact, he is merely reflecting his usual attitude toward slaves who had converted to the Christian faith. He was not interested in their manumission, but expected them to display and share the love characteristic of their new life. There was no question of changing the social order. The case of Onesimus is a fine example: Paul does not ask that he be freed, but simply that he not be treated “as a slave.” When he later addresses certain issues related to slavery in 1 Cor 7:17–24, he writes:

   1. No change should be initiated simply for the sake of change
   2. Social change should be initiated only to compensate for human weakness;
   3. A social change brought about by factors beyond one’s control may be accepted

   In Col 3:22–25, Paul’s focus is on the authenticity of the slave’s life. This could be compared to that of a child who had no control over his life. But the slave was responsible for his attitude. Moreover, what Paul did not want was for the slave to merely obey orders to the letter while anger raged within his heart. For him, human behavior served as a testimony in the eyes of others.

7. Did Paul Visit Colossae?

   While he was in prison in Ephesus, Paul had planned two visits as soon as he was released: one to Philippi (Phil 1:26; 2:24) and another to Colossae (Philem 1:22). But he abandoned his plan to go to Philippi, even though it was still on his schedule in the year 54 when he wrote 1 Cor 16:5. What about the announced visit to Colossae?

   Paul was probably released from prison at the end of the summer of 53. But the situation of the church in Ephesus, particularly the opposition to his leadership, prevented him from leaving the city. In any case, a round trip to Philippi would have required at least a month, and thus brought him too close to the closure of sea travel and the risk of being stranded in Macedonia. Furthermore, the conflict between Evodia and Syntyche did not absolutely require his presence. The situation in Colossae was different, as certain doctrinal issues were at stake and Paul needed to know whether he had successfully dealt with the false teachers. On the other hand, he did not need to go to Colossae himself, as he had two sources of information: Tychicus, a permanent member of his entourage, and Epaphras, who had certainly returned to Colossae after his release from prison and could return to Ephesus with news in less than two weeks. So what decision did Paul make? In his deliberations, one factor was certainly decisive: his conviction regarding the autonomy of local churches. Furthermore, in Colossae, he knew the people only by reputation and had not met any of them personally (Col 2:1); this meant that a visit there would require time to get to know them, perhaps forcing him to spend the winter there. After careful consideration, he likely judged it best to remain in Ephesus, his base for spreading the gospel, especially since he had just addressed an issue in Corinth through his Previous Letter (1 Cor 5:9). Furthermore, he had not formally promised to visit them and had not planned to stay there with Epaphras. The request to Philemon to set aside a room for him (Philemon 1:22) may have been of a private nature. So if Paul decided to wait for reports from Tychicus or Epaphras, we will unfortunately never know what news they brought back.