Colossians: Background and contexts

Introduction

Forty-six years ago, Bo Reicke contributed an article to Review & Expositor titled “The Historical Setting to Colossians.” ¹ Regarding his purpose, Reicke writes, “a historical orientation should not start with stylistic and theological combinations, but with an objective analysis of names involved and events alluded to. This was the intention of the present study.” ² In a related footnote he argues that he avoids theological treatments of the letter and focuses on older studies that relied on “fundamental historical evidence.” ³ Reicke focused on the destination and date of the letter, the situation of its recipients, and carefully investigated circumstances in which Paul found himself when he wrote the letter. ⁴

In his analysis of Paul’s situation, Reicke concentrated on data found in Acts and other Pauline letters, especially Ephesians, Philemon, and 2 Timothy. These works are obvious choices; a great deal of overlap exists between these documents and Colossians, especially considering the individuals who are named in them. Based primarily on a reconstruction from Acts, Reicke concluded that Paul did not establish the church in Colossae but that he visited Colossae in 55 ce (during the so-called “third missionary journey”). ⁵ He goes on to say that “in the Letter to Philemon and the Epistle to the Colossians the persons mentioned and the situation presupposed are practically the same,” ⁶ meaning Paul’s situation is the same, not the occasion for the letters. Finally, Reicke argued that Paul was in the midst of a long-term prison stay in Caesarea Maritima and that a “necessary conclusion is that Philemon and Colossians were sent from Caesarea to Colossae ca. A.D. 59.” ⁷

Recently, Douglas Campbell has attempted to create a historical framework for Paul’s letters. ⁸ While Reicke relies heavily on data from Acts, Campbell takes a different approach. He intentionally avoids considering Acts, arguing that, although most scholars deem the narrative from Acts historically unreliable, they tend to rely on Acts anyway to ascertain Paul’s travels and the timeline for his letters. Campbell, therefore, bases his study solely on the Pauline letters.

Regarding Colossians, Campbell argues that three factors assist one in determining the date and provenance of Colossians. ⁹ First, Paul is in prison; this is historically plausible due to statements Paul makes in 2 Cor 11:23. In addition, a Christian congregation is not in the area of Paul’s imprisonment, as evidenced by the lack of greetings from fellow believers where Paul is when he writes the letter. Second, according to the letter, Paul is unknown in Colossae; Epaphras, who was a Pauline convert, through Paul himself or through the congregation in either Laodicea or Hierapolis, founded the congregation in Colossae. Third, overlapping somewhat with the second point above, Christian communities of unknown origin were in both Laodicea and Hierapolis. ¹⁰

The “immediate implied exigence” of the letter to Colossae was Onesimus’s visit to Paul in prison. Campbell speculates that Onesimus brought the news of the false teaching occurring in Colossae. The second key event in Campbell’s scenario is the letter to the Laodiceans, mentioned in Col 4:16. Campbell argues that this letter is the canonical document known as Ephesians. ¹¹ With these deductions, as well as the connections between the letters to the Colossians and Philemon, ¹² Campbell argues for an Asian provenance for Philemon and thus also for Colossians. He posits that in 50 ce Paul was heading west from Antioch in Syria (and Jerusalem), checking on Christian communities along the way. Paul was then imprisoned in Apamea, where he wrote three related letters: one to Philemon, one to the Colossians, and one to the Laodiceans, which we now know as Ephesians. ¹³

Both of these studies cited focus on Paul’s historical situation. By no means do I wish to infer that this current study is in response to either of these scholars’ fine work. It will, however, explore different aspects of the background to the epistle to the Colossians and will do so using a different methodology. This article explores various facets of the historical background that assist in illuminating passages within the letter, including the hymn to Christ (Col 1:15–20), the conflict that seems to have prompted the letter (Col 2:8–19), and the household code (Col 3:18–25). To do this, the article relies on archaeological evidence ¹⁴ as well as texts from extra-biblical sources to project what the original recipients of this letter might have heard and understood when they received it. ¹⁵

Ancient Colossae in ancient sources

The city of Colossae was located in the Lycus valley, on the southern side of the Lycus River, approximately 120 miles east of Ephesus in the region of Phrygia. ¹⁶ Colossae was located ten to eleven miles southeast of Laodicea; to the north was the city of Hierapolis. Colossae lay on an east-west trade route connecting the major cities of Phrygia with Ephesus, which was actually a port city in the first century. ¹⁷ Today, all that remains of ancient Colossae is an approximately 200-ft high mound, a höyük, that awaits excavation. ¹⁸

The textual evidence that informs the historical background of the city of Colossae is scant. Scholars almost universally cite the following texts that mention Colossae. ¹⁹ Herodotus, for example, writes of Xerxes:

Passing by the Phrygian town called Anaua, and the lake from which salt is obtained, he came to Colossae, a great city in Phrygia; there the river Lycus plunges into a cleft in the earth and disappears, until it reappears about five stadia away; this river issues into the Maeander. (Hist. 7.30; Godley, LCL) ²⁰

Xenophon recounts something similar:

Cyrus was now setting forth from Sardis with the troops I have mentioned; and he marched through Lydia three stages, a distance of twenty-two parasangs, to the Maeander River. The width of this river was two plethra, and there was a bridge over it made of seven boats. After crossing the Maeander he marched through Phrygia one stage, a distance of eight parasangs, to Colossae, an inhabited city, prosperous and large. There he remained seven days. (Anab. 1.2.5–6; Brownson, LCL)

Pliny, in his Natural History, also mentions Colossae in a list of major cities of Phrygia:

Phrygia lies behind Troas and the peoples already mentioned between Cape Lectum and the river Echeleus. On its northern side it marches with Galatia, on its southern side with Lyeaonia, Pisidia and Mygdonia, and on the east it extends to Cappadocia. Its most famous towns besides the ones already mentioned are Ancyra, Andria, Celaenae, Colossae, Carina, Cotyaion, Ceraine, Conium, and Midaium. (Nat. 5.145; Rackham, LCL)

Diodorus Siculus also refers to Colossae (14.80.8), but tells nothing about it except that it was located in Phrygia, as does Strabo (Geogr. 12.8.13). Colossae’s fame stemmed at least partially from its renown as a center of wool production. Strabo reports that neighboring Laodicea was known as a source of black wool, as was Colossae (Geogr. 12.8.16; cf. Pliny, Nat. 21.51). ²¹

According to ancient sources, a strong earthquake struck the Lycus valley sometime between 60 and 64 ce. Tacitus relates that Laodicea was destroyed and was later rebuilt (Ann. 14.27.1). Eusebius also mentions an earthquake in the area, but dates it to 64 ce (Chron. 1.21–22). Because of its proximity to these cities, scholars generally assume that Colossae was also destroyed. Many point out that Colossae then seems to fade from the historical record, while Laodicea and Hierapolis do not. Thus, the supposition is that Laodicea and Hierapolis were eventually rebuilt and restored to their previous status, while Colossae was not reconstructed. ²²

Alan Cadwallader has recently challenged the position that Colossae became less significant due to its (assumed) destruction through the earthquake. ²³ In addition to the issues surrounding the report of the earthquake in Tacitus, he lists several other reasons for this scholarly consensus. Two related factors are the lack of archaeological artifacts from ancient Colossae, and conversely the abundance of material riches found in Laodicea and Hierapolis. ²⁴ In response, Cadwallader notes new evidence that, in his mind, is counter to the scholarly axiom of Colossae’s insignificance. ²⁵ First, he relates that a “homonoia coin” has been found at the site of ancient Colossae. The coin celebrates an alliance with the city of Aprodisias, a major city in the region (other than Laodicea or Hierapolis) and demonstrates Colossae’s standing. Second, a fragment of a second-century grave inscription included the statement that anyone damaging the gravesite would be required to pay a fine to the fiskus, the Roman treasury; the fact that a second century inscription mentions the fiskus is evidence that Colossae was a recognized polis in the Roman Empire at this time. Third, evidence exists that Hadrian stopped in Colossae in 129 ce. Fourth, a late first-early second-century pedestal has been discovered that indicates Colossae had an organized group of interpreters who would facilitate trade with outsiders. Finally, a bomos from the same period refers to a benefactor who contributed from his own funds to the restoration of the baths in the city. Through this evidence, Cadwallader has presented a strong case that speaks against the scholarly consensus that Colossae was no longer a significant city in this region following the earthquake in 60–61 ce.

The hymn to Christ (Col 1:15–20)

Colossians 1:15–20, the hymn to Christ that serves as a focal point in this letter, has been the subject of a great deal of research. This section explores the historical background of the hymn, focusing on the cultural setting of the original addressees and how it may have influenced their understanding of this text.

Cadwallader has demonstrated that coins and inscriptions found at the site of ancient Colossae, as well as more plentiful data from the surrounding region, indicate that ancient Colossae associated itself with many of the Greco-Roman deities. ²⁶ Many coins from the second century found in this area carry depictions of a river god, including a wolf. This finding is not surprising, as Colossae was located on the Lycus River. ²⁷ A funerary relief displays a female figure that in many ways resembles Cybele, the earth mother goddess. ²⁸ Coinage from Colossae shows images of Dionysius/Bacchus, god of agriculture and fertility. Symbols associated with Dionysius are found on coins and on gravestones. People named for the god are also mentioned in inscriptions. ²⁹ Almost one-third of the coins found at the mound that once was Colossae bear an image of Artemis, the huntress (but not Artemis of Ephesus). ³⁰ One inscription seeks the favor of Tyche, while another from the late second century honors Tyche for a successful grain harvest. ³¹

The patron god of Laodicea was Zeus Aetophorus, the “eagle-bearer.” Before becoming part of the Roman Empire, Colossae also had a strong connection to Zeus, albeit to Zeus Bronton, the “thunderer.” Early in the second century ce, a priestess of Zeus erected a pedestal to Trajan; on it is a damaged inscription that most likely invokes “Zeus of the Colossians.” This inscription is significant for at least two reasons: (i) Zeus may have been considered (by some) to be the patron of Colossae; and (ii) Zeus of the Colossians was not to be confused with Zeus Aetophorus, the patron of Laodicea. Later, in the time of Hadrian, Colossae was again allowed to mint coins after not doing so for a long period of time. These new coins bore the image of Zeus Aetophorus, perhaps intentionally to connect Colossae to Laodicea, which sided with Rome during its war against Mithridates VI. ³²

The upshot of this survey is that the minimal archaeological evidence from Colossae coheres with the data obtained from the surrounding area, namely that the ancient Colossians would have revered many deities. What is also significant, especially given the hymn in Col 1:15–20, is that Zeus of the Colossians was potentially understood by some to be the patron deity of Colossae. Ancient poets composed numerous hymns to Zeus. It is therefore plausible that some of the first recipients of the letter to the Colossians would have known of these hymns and thus related the hymn to Christ to these hymns to Zeus.

Callimachus’s hymn to Zeus was written early in the third century bce. ³³ In it, one finds statements that have thematic links to the hymn in Col 1:15–20. First, in this hymn, the poet praises Zeus, calling Zeus “O heavenly Zeus” and stating that “thou shouldst have heaven for thine appointed habitation” (Callimachus, Hymn. Jov. 54, 57–58; Mair, LCL). While the hymn to Christ does not explicitly state that Christ is in heaven, one can understand it to be so. Heaven (ouranos) is mentioned in the hymn (Col 1:16, 20), using the same Greek word that Callimachus employs. Furthermore, throughout the letter, the author refers to Christ as “Lord”; ³⁴ thus, the reference in Col 4:1, that “you know that you also have a Master [kurios, the same term translated “Lord” when referring to Christ] in heaven,” is clear that the Lord, Jesus, is in heaven. Second, according to the poet, Zeus was “made sovereign of the gods” (Hymn. Jov. 65; Mair, LCL) and was responsible for choosing kings to rule over their realms (Hymn. Jov. 73–81). Once again, the sovereignty of Jesus can be inferred from the hymn. About the son, Jesus, the hymn states, “all things have been created through him and for him” (Col 1:16; my emphasis) and goes on to say, “he himself is before all things” (Col 1:17). When one considers that “thrones or dominions or rulers or powers . . . have been created through him and for him” (Col 1:16), the thematic echo gets louder, especially given that the terms thrones, dominions, rulers, and powers are most likely referring to spiritual beings. ³⁵

Cleanthes, who was born 331/30 bce and died at the age of 101, wrote another hymn to Zeus. ³⁶ John Thom estimates that the hymn was composed around 280 bce. ³⁷ Cleanthes describes Zeus as having a “two-edged, fiery, every-living thunderbolt” in his hands (Hymn to Zeus 9–10; Thom), thus describing Zeus Bronton. In the hymn, the poet states, “This whole universe, spinning around the earth, truly obeys you wherever you lead, and is readily ruled by you” (Hymn to Zeus 7–8; Thom), expressing Zeus’s sovereignty over all of creation. As stated previously, this theme can be inferred from the hymn to Christ in Colossians. Cleanthes, however, goes on to say “you have thus joined everything into one, the good with the bad” (Hymn to Zeus 20; Thom). Again, one must consider the “thrones or dominions or rulers or powers” found in Col 1:16. Earlier, I made the point that these terms represent spiritual beings; many commentators argue that some of them are evil spiritual beings. ³⁸ This link is, therefore, another connection between the portrayal of Zeus in the hymns and that of Christ in Col 1:15–20; both are sovereign over all things, both good and evil.

Finally, multiple Orphic hymns to Zeus exist that are difficult to date. In one, ³⁹ Zeus is again depicted as having a thunderbolt as a scepter (Hymn to Zeus 6; Athanassakis) and called the “god of thunder and lightning” (Hymn to Zeus 9; Athanassakis), therefore again referring to Zeus Bronton. The poet labels him “father of all, beginning and end of all” (Hymn to Zeus 7; Athanassakis). This language is reminiscent of Col 1:15, in which Jesus is designated as “the firstborn of all creation,” as well as Col 1:18, in which “he is the beginning” (the archē, the same word used in the Orphic hymn). At the end of this hymn, the poet entreats Zeus to grant (among other things) “divine peace” (Hymn to Zeus 10; Athanassakis). At the end of the hymn to Christ in Col 1:20, the author states that through Christ’s death on the cross God made peace (eirēnopoiēsas, a compound containing the word eirēnē, another word used also in the Orphic hymn).

Thus, when the initial auditors of the letter to the Colossians heard this hymn to Christ, they would have been at least reminded of these hymns to Zeus and the attributes of the god found in them. Now, however, similar attributes are being applied to Jesus Christ. Yet the hymns to Zeus are not the only connections the ancient audience would have made when hearing the hymn to Christ; the hymn to Christ, especially that peace has come through him (Col 1:20), would have possibly evoked images of the Roman Empire and Roman emperor as well.

During the time of the Roman Empire, ancient authors often praised the Pax Romana, the peace that resulted from Roman rule of the Mediterranean basin and beyond. For some, even nature itself is the result of the gods and the peace of Rome. For example, Pliny writes, “But as it is, it is clear that this bounteousness [of nature] has been the work of the gods, or at least due to their inspiration” (Nat. 27.1; Jones, LCL). He then continues to wax eloquently over the diversity of plants that can aid humans:

. . . all [the various plants and their availability to humans] owing to the boundless grandeur of the Roman Peace, which displays in turn not men only with their different lands and tribes, but also mountains, and peaks soaring into the clouds, their offspring and also their plants. May this gift of the gods last, I pray, forever! So truly do they seem to have given to the human race the Romans as it were a second Sun. (Nat. 27.1; Jones, LCL)

This peace that Rome enjoyed, and for which Rome was responsible, was attributed to the Roman emperor. Klaus Wengst has reproduced two inscriptions from late in the first century bce that specifically credit Augustus with establishing this peace. The first, an inscription from Priene, near Ephesus, recognizes Augustus’s birthday and says that Augustus, a ruler appointed by the gods, “has brought war to an end and has ordained peace; for the world, the birthday of the god [i.e., the emperor] means the beginning of his tidings of peace.” A second inscription from Halicarnassus lauds Augustus as “savior of the whole human race” because “land and sea have peace, the cities flourish under a good legal system, in harmony and with an abundance of food, there is an abundance of all good things, people are filled with happy hopes for the future and with delight at the present.” ⁴⁰ These two inscriptions, both from Asia Minor, close to Colossae, proclaim that Augustus is responsible for bringing peace, not just to Rome, but also to “the world” and “land and sea.”

Seneca attributes this peace to an ideal king or prince. In his essay On Mercy, he writes:

For he is the bond by which the commonwealth is united, the breath of life which these many thousands draw, who in their own strength would be only a burden to themselves and the prey of others if the great mind of the empire should be withdrawn.

If safe their king, one mind to all;

Bereft of him, they troth recall.

Such a calamity would be the destruction of the Roman peace, such a calamity will force the fortune of a mighty people to its downfall. Just so long will this people be free from that danger as it shall know how to submit to the rein; but if ever it shall tear away the rein, or shall not suffer it to be replaced if shaken loose by some mishap, then this unity and this fabric of mightiest empire will fly into many parts, and the end of this city’s rule will be one with the end of her obedience. (Clem. I.4.1; Basore, LCL)

Thus, according to Seneca, if the king were not to rule on the throne, the “empire will fly into many parts” into destruction.

Previous to the passage quoted above, in this essay Seneca writes:

The whole body is the servant of the mind, and though the former is so much larger and so much more showy, while the unsubstantial soul remains invisible not knowing where its secret habitation lies, yet the hands, the feet, and the eyes are in its employ; the outer skin is its defence; at its bidding we lie idle, or restlessly run to and fro . . . In the same way this vast throng, encircling the life of one man, is ruled by his spirit, guided by his reason and would crush and cripple itself with its own power if it were not upheld by wisdom. (Clem. I.3.5; Basore, LCL)

Here, Seneca compares the Roman Empire to the body, while the Emperor (Nero, in this case) is the “mind” or “spirit.” Through this metaphor, he argues that the empire is commanded by the emperor and is therefore protected due to the emperor’s wisdom.

In the hymn to Christ in Col 1:15–20, the risen Christ is portrayed as the “the head of the body, the church” and therefore has “first place in everything” (Col 1:18). The author then goes on to describe Christ as one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3). One sees, therefore, that Christ is described in Colossians in ways that would evoke images of the Roman emperor found in literature roughly contemporary with Colossians.

Of course, this reference to wisdom introduces an entirely different horizon of expectations for auditors who were familiar with Judaism and its literature. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom is described as “a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image (eikōn) of his goodness” (Wis 7:26), just as Christ is described as “the image (eikōn) of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Philo also made this connection, stating that one of the names for Wisdom was “image” (eikōn; Leg. 1.43). James Dunn argues further that Christ and Wisdom are both portrayed as firstborn (cf. Prov 8:22, 25) and that God created all things through Christ / Wisdom (Col 1:16; Prov 8:27–30; cf. Wis 9:2). Wisdom also “holds all things together” (Wis 1:7; cf. Col 1:17). ⁴¹ Thus, for an auditor with the requisite Jewish background, missing this comparison of Jesus to Wisdom would be difficult.

Dunn characterizes scholars’ understanding of the identity of Wisdom in ancient Judaism in three ways. First, some would dispute that all ancient Jews were strictly monotheistic and that some Jews considered Wisdom to be a divine figure alongside Yahweh. Second, other scholars argue that Wisdom was a personification of an aspect of Yahweh’s character, much like righteousness and peace in Ps 85:10. Third, still others understand the identity of Wisdom to be a “‘hypostatization’ of divine attributes.” ⁴² Rejecting the first ⁴³ and third possibilities, ⁴⁴ Dunn maintains a position close to that of the second above, arguing that Wisdom “functions as an extended metaphor,” adding that “Wisdom was universally understood within early Judaism as God’s wisdom, as the immanent God in his wise engagement with his creation and his people.” ⁴⁵

In the hymn in Col 1:15–20, Christ is portrayed in much the same way. As noted above, according to the hymn, Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) and “in him all things in heaven and on earth were created” (Col 1:16). Further, “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17). Clearly, however, the hymn describes Christ in ways that ancient Jewish literature does not describe Wisdom. Christ is “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18) and “through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20). Thus, while the description of Christ in Col 1:15–20 strongly aligns with that of Wisdom, the differences are even more significant.

The conflict in Colossae

Scholars debate the identity of the “opponents” in the letter to the Colossians. Although they are never explicitly named as such, the author in Col 2:8–19 seems clearly to be warning the Colossians to avoid the behavior of a specific group of people. Who these people are has been the source of a great deal of speculation. From a literary perspective, one can make the following observations about these people simply by taking the author’s statements within the letter seriously: ⁴⁶ they are teaching the Colossians traditions to which they adhere; their arguments are philosophical in nature; their teaching is a form of wisdom meant for spiritual growth and protection from malevolent spirits; they are promoting asceticism; their teachings supersede the significance of Christ in the community; and these teachings have caused the author to write the letter. Can one, however, go further in identifying these people?

On the basis of the author’s mentioning circumcision (Col 2:11), festivals and Sabbaths (Col 2:16), abstaining from certain (unnamed) foods (Col 2:21), and “regulations” and “commands” (Col 2:22), most scholars argue that the threat to the Colossians comes from a group connected to Judaism, either through a syncretism of Judaism and Greco-Roman religions or a particular faction within Judaism. ⁴⁷ The fact that this group has connections to Judaism is more probable when one surveys the archaeological and textual evidence.

Paul Trebilco points to a letter from Antiochus to Zeuxis found in Josephus (Ant. 12.148–50). In this letter, Antiochus informs Zeuxis that he will “transport two thousand Jewish families with their effects from Mesopotamia and Babylonia” to the regions of Phrygia and Lydia. ⁴⁸ Trebilco also mentions the Decree of Pergamum, found in Josephus, Ant. 14:247–55, which recognizes the Jews in Asia Minor as allies of Rome. John Barclay adds that the Jews sending a representative to the council at Pergamum reflects the significance of the Jewish community at that time. ⁴⁹ Many scholars refer to Cicero’s statement in his defense of Flaccus, namely that a vast quantity of gold was seized from the Jews at Apamea (which is not far from ancient Colossae), gold that was earmarked to pay the temple tax in Jerusalem (see Cicero, Flac. 28.68). These references in Josephus and Cicero establish the presence of Jews well before the first century, confirming the plausibility of the presence of Jewish communities in the area of Colossae at the time the letter to the Colossians was written and received.

Barclay argues that the wealth and prominence of Jews in Asia Minor was mirrored by the relatively poor conditions of non-Jews at roughly the same time. Non-Jews were suffering economically due to numerous rebellions, wars, and Roman taxation. According to Barclay, Josephus mentions many issues on which the Jews clashed with their non-Jewish neighbors; these included sending money to the temple in Jerusalem, the Sabbath, and food sold in the markets. Thus, the Jews in Asia Minor were perceived as unwilling to support the local Roman governmental structure, even though they were financially able to do so. Barclay states, “It appears that it was precisely because the Jews were becoming more numerous and prominent . . . that their distinct behaviour was regarded as a sign of their hostility to the customs which were treasured by these Greek cities [in Asia Minor].” ⁵⁰ He goes on to say that “the controversies which arose in these Asian cities reflect the significant integration of such Jews into civic life: it is as business partners, litigants, market-users, even potential ‘liturgists’ that the Jews are noticed and their peculiarities resented.” ⁵¹

Trebilco helpfully demonstrates ⁵² that coinage found near ancient Apamea depicts scenes from Noah and the flood. Other references to the Jewish flood account are found in the Sibylline Books I and II, in which the biblical account of the flood is enmeshed with other local legends. Other evidence of Jewish influence in Apamea (albeit later than the first century) is found in a third-century grave inscription, “If, however, someone buries [another] here, he knows the Law of the Jews,” indicating that Torah is known (and respected) in this area. Finally, Trebilco refers to the Council of Laodicea, held in the latter half of the fourth century, in which the council recognized the influence of the Jewish Sabbath, but attempted to differentiate the Christian practice of Sabbath from that of the Jews.

This evidence lends support to a strong Jewish influence in the Meander River valley, before, during, and after our period of interest. Lewis Donelson argues for a “significant Jewish minority in the cities of the Lycus Valley.” ⁵³ The data also demonstrate that Jews in the region were attempting to protect and even establish their traditions and ways, to the degree that their actions were causing issues with their non-Jewish neighbors.

The specific identity of this group unduly influencing the Colossians has been the subject of a great deal of scholarly discussion. ⁵⁴ In a significant study, Clinton Arnold has recently suggested (including in his book title) that the competing philosophy in Colossae was based on a syncretism that included local folk religion, local Jewish beliefs, and Christianity. ⁵⁵ Included in this mix was also a component of “magic or ritual power.” ⁵⁶ According to Arnold, who carefully studied magical papyri and other sources from the region, both Jewish and non-Jewish, angels were often invoked in magical incantations as sources of protection for the cursing of enemies. ⁵⁷

Another of Arnold’s findings is noteworthy for understanding the background of this section of the letter. Arnold notes that Solomon was remembered within Judaism and thus by Jewish members of the early Christian movement as having “expertise in manipulating the spirit world and bringing the hostile ‘powers’ under control.” ⁵⁸ Arnold cites Wis 7:17–20: “For it is he who gave me unerring knowledge of . . . the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings,” as well as Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 §§ 41–49, the relevant portion of which reads: “And God granted [Solomon] the knowledge of the art used against demons for the benefit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return” (Thackery and Marcus, LCL). According to Josephus, this ability was due to the wisdom that God gave to Solomon.

Drawing together these various threads provides a potential portrait of those against whom the author of Colossians is warning the audience. Plausibly, a group of Jews was attempting to influence the Colossian congregation, encouraging them to follow the Law regarding consumption of food and the keeping of Sabbath. In addition, these Jews had incorporated some element of local folk religious practice into their ways, especially regarding angels as those who can be called upon to protect the suppliant from evil spirits.

This portrayal of the purveyors of this philosophy is strengthened when one considers the legend of St. Michael, the archangel that became associated with ancient Colossae. According to Cadwallader, textual and archaeological evidence demonstrates that St. Michael was venerated throughout Asia Minor, and not only by followers of Christ. ⁵⁹ In fact, the legend of St. Michael emerged out of the area surrounding ancient Colossae, most likely originating before our period of interest. ⁶⁰ The legend itself describes the miraculous creation of a spring near Chairotopa, ⁶¹ the spring formed when St. John and St. Philip had come from Hierapolis (where they had defeated Artemis) and called on Michael. The waters of the spring had healing powers, and many who were healed through them converted to Christianity. At some point, Michael, in a vision, told a non-believer from Laodicea to take his mute daughter to the spring, where she was healed. This man subsequently built a shrine to Michael at the site of the spring.

The Greeks, however, fearing that the spring would cause many to turn from their gods, attempted to destroy it. Their efforts were continuously thwarted. Eventually, a child named Archippus came to the shrine from Hierapolis and became its custodian, where he remained for seventy years, living as an ascetic. At some point the devil incited a group of five thousand in Laodicea to oppose Michael and engulf the spring by damming up and diverting the waters of two neighboring rivers. Archippus initially refused to leave the shrine, but was finally persuaded by Michael to do so in order to observe Michael’s power. Once the floodwaters were released, Michael caused a huge monolith overlooking the spring to crack, and the floodwaters flowed harmlessly into this chasm, protecting the spring. ⁶²

If indeed the legend of St. Michael predates the time of the writing and reception of the letter to the Colossians, the reference to the “worship of angels” in Col 2:18 becomes somewhat clearer. ⁶³ A reasonable proposal is that the author of the letter is warning the audience of a group of Jews who were, among other things noted above, promoting worship of the archangel Michael, the one who is powerful and able to protect worshipers from evil powers.

The household code

Colossians 3:18–25 is a form of the Haustafel, or household code. ⁶⁴ The section that follows shows the historical background to this particular literary form and demonstrates how those first hearing the letter may have understood it, given their particular cultural context, with emphasis on the Roman imperial context in which the first audience of Colossians lived.

The consensus in current scholarship ⁶⁵ is that one can trace the origins of the New Testament household codes to Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle states:

And now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management; for every state is composed of households. Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriage . . . and thirdly the progenitive relationship . . . Let us then accept these three relationships that we have mentioned. There is also a department which some people consider the same as household management and others the most important part of it, and the true position of which we shall have to consider: I mean what is called the art of getting wealth. (Aristotle, Pol. 1253b; Rackham, LCL)

Here, Aristotle argues that constitutive parts of the state are its households, which are in turn comprised of three primary relationships: master and slave, husband and wife, parents and children. Aristotle also mentions a fourth aspect of the household, that of managing financial resources.

Aristotle then discusses at length the acquisition and management of wealth, after which he turns to the relationships within the household. According to Aristotle, for the state to be stable, its households must function correctly, and the three human relationships he mentions are to be conducted in accordance with nature. Thus, Aristotle argues that some people are by nature slaves (Pol. 1255a), while others are (again, by nature) free. The man/husband/father is called to rule over his household, but does so differently regarding slaves, wife, and children (Pol. 1260a). Concerning wives and children, Aristotle states:

For it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government, but over the wife to exercise republican government and over the children monarchical) for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female . . . and the older and fully developed person than the younger and immature. (Pol. 1259a–b; Rackham, LCL)

This attitude, of course, is similar to that found in the household code in Colossians.

New Testament authors eventually incorporated the household code into their writings, having been influenced by Hellenistic Judaism. The motivations for proper behavior within the household differed, however. Aristotle argued that the husband/master should rule because this structure aligned with nature. In Jewish sources, husbands ruled over wives and children in obedience to the Law. ⁶⁶ In Christian documents, including the household code in Colossians, wives, children, and slaves were to submit to their husbands/fathers/masters as a demonstration of their relationship to Christ. In Colossians, one notes that wives are to submit to their husbands “as is fitting in the Lord” (Col 3:18). Children are called to obedience to their parents “for this is [their] acceptable duty in the Lord” (Col 3:19). Finally, slaves are to obey their masters while “fearing the Lord” (Col 3:22).

A literary precedent therefore exists for the household code’s appearance in the letter to the Colossians. The cultural context, in particular that of Roman imperial rule, also provides relevant background for understanding the household code. Harry Maier argues that Jesus in Colossians would be considered “the Colossian Nero.” ⁶⁷ Maier demonstrates that art and monuments in the Lycus valley depicted the “realized eschatology” of Roman rule, particularly the subjugation and moral transformation of those conquered by Rome. ⁶⁸ For example, the temple of the imperial cult at Aphrodisias (approximately 46 miles from Colossae) represented a hierarchy of peoples, with the Roman rulers in neat dress on one level, with their conquered enemies portrayed in disheveled clothing and unkempt hair below them. The idea here is that Roman ideals included that of moral excellence vis-à-vis their enemies. ⁶⁹

In addition, the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias was three stories, with a frieze of the Roman emperors situated on the top level; below them were depictions of females, representing the nations subject to Rome. ⁷⁰ Maier concludes that “representations of moral transformation were a commonplace feature of imperial art and [were] a significant, even determining force, in helping to make Colossian ethical ideas persuasive.” ⁷¹ Ultimately, Maier argues that Roman imperial artwork sought to map Roman subjugation and its ensuing concord throughout the empire to the household, encouraging Roman men to rule over their households as the emperors ruled over the empire. ⁷²

The idea of Roman households as an extension of the empire is also found in literary works roughly contemporaneous with Colossians. For example, Suetonius writes that Augustus sought to enforce laws concerning marriage and children:

He revised existing laws and enacted some new ones, for example, on extravagance, on adultery and chastity, on bribery, and on the encouragement of marriage among the various classes of citizens. Having made somewhat more stringent changes in the last of these than in the others, he was unable to carry it out because of an open revolt against its provisions, until he had abolished or mitigated a part of the penalties, besides increasing the rewards and allowing a three years’ exemption from the obligation to marry after the death of a husband or wife. When the knights even then persistently called for its repeal at a public show, he sent for the children of Germanicus and exhibited them, some in his own lap and some in their father’s, intimating by his gestures and expression that they should not refuse to follow that young man’s example. And on finding that the spirit of the law was being evaded by betrothal with immature girls and by frequent changes of wives, he shortened the duration of betrothals and set a limit on divorce. (Suetonius, Aug. 34; Rolfe, LCL)

The laws to which Suetonius alludes most likely include the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus (concerning marriage) and the lex Papia Poppaea (concerning children), together known as lex Iulia et Papia. ⁷³ Through these statutes, Augustus made marriage and procreation advantageous for the citizens of the Roman Empire. The laws also required citizens to marry within their own classes, members of the senatorial class being forbidden from marrying freedmen/freedwomen. ⁷⁴

The household code in Colossians aligns well with this cultural context, in which the highest levels of government promoted marriage and having children, and in which imperial propaganda portrayed the emperor as an example of the ideal ruler over both the empire and his family. In addition, citizens of the empire were required to marry within the class of which they were members; this stipulation provides some insight into the background to the admonitions to the slaves and masters in the household code. Slavery was simply accepted as a part of Roman imperial culture.

Talbert has provided additional background significant for understanding the household code in its historical context. ⁷⁵ He specifically analyzes the household code in Ephesians, but his overall findings can be applied to Colossians as well. Talbert argues that viewing a family in ancient Rome in the same way one understands traditional, modern families is anachronistic. Instead, one should view an ancient family more as an economic unit, one concerned with the economic viability (and thus, survival) of the family. One finds this perspective in Aristotle’s description of a household cited above, in which the members (husbands/wives, parents/children, master/slaves) work together to acquire wealth. Talbert writes:

The object of the estate would be, in so far as possible, economic self-sufficiency. If one thing comes clear after this description, it is this. The ancient household is not the equivalent of the modern nuclear family. It is rather analogous to the nineteenth-century southern plantation and/or the modern urban family business. Estate is, therefore, a very proper and accurate translation of oikos. ⁷⁶

Thus, the household code in Colossians provides a structure in which the family is encouraged to operate to survive economically. In this structure each member has a specific role he or she must fulfill to be at peace within the family, the culture, and the body of Christ to which the family belonged, as encouraged in Col 3:15: “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body.”

Thus, Andrew Lincoln rightly recognizes that the household code in Colossians exemplifies the original intent behind Aristotle’s (and others’) description of the household, namely that of the stability of the state. ⁷⁷ Lincoln goes on to argue that the function of the household code in Colossians must be understood against the background of Jewish Wisdom literature. ⁷⁸ He notes that references to wisdom roughly bracket the household code (i.e., in Col 3:16 and 4:5).

In the wisdom tradition, the fear of the Lord is foundational to the acquisition of wisdom (cf. Prov 1:7); this idea is found in the household code in Colossians as well (Col 3:22). Also in the letter, in the hymn of Col 1:15–20 the author clearly portrays Christ as Lord over all creation. This hierarchy, of course, includes the masters (“lords”) in the household code, as Col 4:1 makes explicit and, according to Lincoln, “places the whole household under the lordship of Christ.” ⁷⁹ Slaves, as they serve their lords/Lord, are therefore examples for the entire household to emulate. As Christ is Lord of all creation, he is also Lord of each individual family, the members of which are called to recognize Christ as such.

Conclusion

This last section is emblematic of the findings throughout this study. To understand the background to the letter to the Colossians, one must have a grasp on both the first-century Roman Imperial and Jewish contexts in which the letter was written and received. Both of these contexts potentially influence how those who initially heard the text understood it. At the end of the day, the modern interpreter must recognize both (not either/or) contexts to gain a better understanding of what the author was attempting to communicate to the recipients. Two thousand years later, the text remains somewhat enigmatic; paying proper attention to the archaeological and textual milieu in which the text was written and received, however, provides a measure of clarity, supplying at least a range of possibilities for how the text was understood.