Colossians 1:1

TITLE, πρὸς κολοσσαεις אBc, Old Lat. Vulg., πρὸς κολασσαεις AB*K.

1. Παῦλος. His Gentile name, used, presumably, in intercourse with Gentiles even before his conversion, but from the time that he began his specifically Gentile work (Acts 13:9) always employed in St Luke’s narrative (contrast Acts 22:7; Acts 22:13; Acts 26:14) and in St Paul’s epistles. Possibly had he written a formal epistle to Hebrew-Christians he would have used his Jewish name.

ἀπόστολος. Both the name and the office of an apostle appear to be taken from Judaism, although there is no direct reference to Jewish “apostles” before the time of Christianity. In the LXX. the word ἀπόστολος is found in the form of 1 Kings 14:6 recorded by A (not B), where it is intended to translate the passive participle shaluaḥ “sent,” Ahijah, of whom the word is used, being regarded as God’s ἀπόστολος. But this is not an example of the use of the word in its more technical sense.

Possibly 2 Chronicles 17:7-8 is a real example of the thing, though only the verb ἀπέστειλεν (shâlaḥ) is used, not the substantive. It has moreover been noticed (Krauss, Jew. Quart. Rev., Jan. 1905, p. 382) that here Jehoshaphat sends five princes, and with them a body of ten Levites and two priests (i.e. twelve, representing presumably the twelve tribes as did the Christian apostles), who are commissioned to take the Book of the Law and to go round teaching it.

In post-Christian times Jewish “apostles” appear to have been members of the Sanhedrin, chosen to go to various parts of the Diaspora for the double purpose of giving instruction and of receiving alms, and to have had a certain amount of disciplinary power. Saul of Tarsus himself very nearly, if not quite, satisfies the description when he is commissioned to go to Damascus.
On the New Testament conception of both name and office see Lightfoot’s classical note in Galatians (pp. 92–101, edit. 1869). As a translation “envoy” perhaps best represents it. St Paul here of course employs it in its narrower sense, reminiscent as this doubtless still was of its employment by our Lord when ἐποίησεν δώδεκα, οὓς καί�, ἵνα ὧσιν μετʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα� (Mark 3:14-15).

St Paul has the word also in the same emphatic position in 1 Cor. (prefixing κλητός), 2 Cor., Gal., Ephesians, 1 and 2 Tim., and in a secondary place in Rom., Titus. But in Phil., where he is sure of full sympathy and has too no need to lay stress on his authority and privileges, he says only Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χρ. Ἰησ.; in Philem., where he wishes to draw out sympathy, only δέσμιος Χρ. Ἰησ.; and in his early letters 1 and 2 Thes. before, perhaps, his authority was impugned by messengers from Jerusalem (cf. Galatians 2:12) he adds no designation at all.

Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The more common order in greetings after ἀπόστολος, probably because it lays more stress on official as compared with personal relation.

διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ. In salutations 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Eph., 2 Tim., cf. Romans 15:32; 2 Corinthians 8:5. The phrase is double-edged. On the one hand it expresses to St Paul’s heart his own unworthiness, for his call to the apostleship was not by the will of man (himself or another), but by that of God. On the other hand, it gives him courage, and also invests him with authority in the eyes of others, cf. Galatians 1:1.

διὰ. God’s will was the antecedent condition of his call and was the means of its being made. The words also suggest that even Christ had not acted arbitrarily, as it were, in commissioning him, but had carried God’s will into effect.

καὶ Τιμόθεος. Leaving the Pastorals out of consideration we see that in all his Epistles, save Rom. and Eph. (the former a semi-treatise and the latter a circular letter), St Paul joins others with him in the salutation; viz. Sosthenes (1 Cor.), Timothy (2 Cor., Phil., Col., Phm.), Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thes., 2 Thes.), “all the brethren who are with me” (Gal.). St Paul, that is to say, associates someone with himself in the salutation unless there are special reasons for the contrary. Timothy would have become known to some Colossians during his stay at Ephesus with St Paul. Observe that in this Epistle he maintains the reference to Timothy to the end by the use of the plural. “The exceptions (Colossians 1:28; Colossians 4:3) are rather apparent than real” (Lightfoot). Moulton (Gram. Proleg. 1906, p. 86), however, shows reasons for thinking that I and we are used without any distinction in late Greek literature and the papyri. It is hard to believe that St Paul was equally careless.

ὁ�, without the article—isolation; with it—fellowship. Four other Epistles also have “the brother” (= Timothy, 2 Cor., Philem.; = Sosthenes, 1 Cor.) or “the brethren” (Gal.) in the first half of the salutation, i.e. the mention of another with himself in the salutation frequently leads St Paul at once to think of the brotherhood. In no case (save Ephes. and the Pastorals) is the thought of the brotherhood put off for more than a few verses, for St Paul likes to address his readers as ἀδελφοί (e.g. Romans 1:13). In Col. alone he puts ἀδελφοῖς into the second half of the salutation.

“Brother” as a term signifying religious relationship is of course far from peculiar to Christianity, though its significance was immensely developed by it. ἀδελφοί was used of members of religious associations and guilds at least as early as the 2nd century B.C. (see Deissmann, Bible Studies, 1901, pp. 87, 142; see also Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, pp. 96 sqq., 630). Even in the O. T. we may see the privileges of “brother” extended to all Israelites, and even to foreigners who claimed the protection of Jehovah (Gêrim), cf. Leviticus 19:17-18; Leviticus 19:34. In the N.T. ἀδελφοί is used (a) of Jews as such, Acts 2:29; Acts 2:37; Acts 3:17 (cf. 2Ma 1:1), (b) of Christians as such; see (besides in the Epistles) especially John 21:23; Acts 11:1; Acts 15:23 b. Cf. ἀδελφότης, 1 Peter 2:17; 1 Peter 5:9†, and φιλαδελφία, 1 Peter 1:22 (where see Hort); cf. φιλάδελφος 2Ma 15:14.