Charles Ellicott Commentary Colossians 4:16

"And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea." — Colossians 4:16 (ASV)

When this epistle.—In the implied instruction to read this Epistle in the Church—an instruction expressly given under similar circumstances to the Church at Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 5:27)—we discern the method of the initial publication of the Apostolic Epistles. In the instruction to exchange Epistles with the Laodicean Church, we trace the way these Epistles became more widely circulated and recognized as authoritative in the Church at large.

Thus it was that they were “canonized,” i.e., accepted as a part of the “canon” or rule of divine truth. The likelihood, or unlikelihood, of this public reading has an important bearing on the question of the authenticity of some of the books, which were placed among the “doubtful” by Eusebius and other ancient authorities. The fact that other books (such as our so-called Apocryphal books) were also publicly read was the cause of their being wrongly confused with the books of Holy Scripture.

The epistle from Laodicea.—The question, What was this “Epistle from Laodicea”? has generated numerous conjectures; an admirable and exhaustive examination of these can be found in Dr. Lightfoot’s Excursus on this verse. However, many of these conjectures can be dismissed immediately. It seems perfectly clear, from the obvious parallelism of this Epistle from Laodicea with the Epistle to the Colossians itself, that it was a letter from St. Paul himself—not from the Laodicean Church, nor from any other Apostle or Apostolic writer. This letter was either written at Laodicea or (as is more likely) written to the Laodicean Church and intended to be sent “from Laodicea” to Colossae. Therefore, the question is narrowed to a single alternative:

1. Is it an Epistle that has been lost or, at any rate, not found in the canon? This is, of course, possible. It is not necessary to assume—and indeed, it is difficult to believe—that all of St. Paul’s Epistles have been preserved for us in Holy Scripture. An “Epistle to the Laodiceans” is extant, circulated in the West, and known only in Latin, although it has been thought to show signs of translation from a Greek original. This letter is obviously a forgery, probably not of early date, being little more than a bland compilation of phrases from St. Paul’s Epistles. Setting this aside without hesitation, we might suppose the letter has been lost. However, this supposition is purely arbitrary and should not be adopted in the absence of a more compelling alternative.
2. Is it one of St. Paul’s other known Epistles? The only letter noted in our common copies of the Greek Testament as written from Laodicea is the First Epistle to Timothy. However, this is ruled out by both its date and character. Moreover, the very idea of a letter being written from Laodicea at this time is contradicted by St. Paul’s declaration (Colossians 2:1) that the Laodiceans had not seen his face in the flesh. A fourth-century tradition claims that our “Epistle to the Hebrews” was written to the Laodiceans; but (setting aside all questions of authorship) the entire character and argument of that Epistle make this extremely unlikely.

By far the most probable supposition identifies it with our “Epistle to the Ephesians.” For the reasons for supposing this to be an encyclical letter, see the Introduction to that Epistle. In particular, it should not be forgotten that Marcion expressly calls it an “Epistle to the Laodiceans.”

Laodicea lay lower down the valley and was the larger town: an encyclical letter might well have been left there to be sent on to Colossae. The two Epistles, as we have seen, share both strong similarities and marked distinctions. Nothing could be more natural than for them to be exchanged, according to the instruction in the text.