Colossians 4:9–17

Onesimus, the main subject of the letter to Philemon, had once been a servant or bond-slave of Philemon, as verse 16 shows. He had wronged his Christian master and then had run away. In God's great mercy, however, the runaway slave met Paul at Rome during Paul's imprisonment, and through Paul he was converted. He was converted so soundly that Paul could speak of him not long after as "a faithful and beloved brother."

Onesimus, who is called "a faithful and beloved brother," was the runaway slave with whom the letter to Philemon is concerned. What but the grace of God can turn a slave who had wronged his master and run away into a faithful and beloved brother in Christ? So Tychicus carried the letter to the Colossians, and Onesimus the letter to Philemon, when they travelled to Colossae together.

In Colossians 4:9 Onesimus is not described as a pardoned criminal but as "our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you." This is the wonder of God's grace. Pardon for crimes of the deepest kind — would that not have answered our great need? But grace does not give pardon alone; it raises us up to be brothers. He is not ashamed to call us brothers.

The letter goes to Philemon himself, and Paul appeals to him on behalf of Onesimus. But the gathered assembly had just as much reason to care about this runaway slave. He was coming back as a beloved brother, so they were to receive him into Christian fellowship. The Lord had received Onesimus. Through grace he had become a member of the body of Christ, and he belonged to the Colossian assembly.

At Colossae the church held both Philemon and his slave Onesimus, "a faithful and beloved brother." So grace triumphs over distinctions that hold good in this world. God recognises those distinctions. But in the church of God they give way to something infinitely higher, on a different level.

The apostle looked for more in the changed slave than simply a saint. So he pressed Philemon harder for a fresh triumph of grace — not only in taking the wrong-doer back to his heart, but in setting him free.

Onesimus, one of the Colossian saints, is also commended as a faithful and beloved brother. Yet nothing suggests that he took part in public ministry. He was probably not a gifted brother. Remember that in social position he was a slave. The commendation Paul gives him would show how fully he answered to the instructions given to slaves in this letter.

Notice the remarkable care the apostle takes to support and commend true-hearted workers. He knew well the fault-finding tone that comes naturally to men who can see the failings of those whose service leaves them far behind… This abundance of affectionate commendation deserves great weight. The lack of it tends to loosen and dislocate the bonds of love among the saints.

Can anything be sweeter than this genuine, simple affection and shared interest? In a mere man it would be empty and prying; in a Christian it is blessed.

When this letter was written, Aristarchus was a fellow-prisoner with the Apostle. He had been a companion in Paul's travels (Acts 19:29). He was a fellow-sufferer in the shipwreck (Acts 27:2). He was a fellow-labourer in service (Philemon 24). And at last he is a fellow-prisoner in the Apostle's chains.

It is not exactly "prisoner," as Paul speaks of himself in this and in other letters... Yet it is a word of force, and means a captive, or war prisoner. Meyer, following Fritzsche, suggests that some of the apostle's companions chose to share his prison by turns. It was the turn of Aristarchus when Paul wrote to the Colossians, and of Epaphras when he wrote to Philemon.

It is striking that he should say, "These only are my fellow-workers", and yet Barnabas is named in verse 10. It is not Barnabas to whom he is calling attention but Marcus. Barnabas had apparently ceased to be a fellow-worker with Paul... It is striking that the very man who was the cause of the difficulty now comes in as a fellow-worker.

They had already received instructions about Mark that did not need repeating, and were probably not suited to a public letter. Paul wanted them to know how fully Mark had regained his confidence, by specially commending him for their welcome if he came to them.

How beautiful too is the grace which clearly commanded the reception of Mark! Otherwise, remembrance of the past would have forbidden a warm welcome to him, and so must have hindered his ministry among the saints... real love is as generous as it is faithful. It acts at all cost for the Lord, and where needed, despite what it costs nature. But it is glad to praise aloud and warmly where the grace of God has stepped in to remove the obstacle.

The apostle had already joined Mark with himself as one of the few fellow-workers for the kingdom of God who had been a comfort to him. In the same letter to the Colossians he refers to instructions they had received to welcome him if he came to them (Col. 4:10-11). But now he goes further. He restores him to close personal service with himself — the very thing in which he had failed at the start. In nature a breakdown is beyond repair; not so where grace prevails.

Jesus called JUSTUS. A fellow-worker who had been a comfort to Paul while he was a prisoner in Rome. Col. 4:11.

Of Jesus called Justus we know no more than that. Like Mark, he was of the circumcision. And like Mark, he comforted the apostle as a fellow-servant — something rare among men used to the law and its prejudices. The Justus of Acts 18:7 was a Gentile who had adopted the Jewish faith. Barsabbas, who was put forward for a place among the apostles, was of course a Jew and had the same surname, but he was not called Jesus like the man here.

The mention in Col. 4:11 gave enough honour to the name of "Jesus that was called Justus", which is left out here. There was no need to send Philemon the greeting of someone so little known. … Luke, called "the beloved physician" in Col. 4:14, comes last here among the fellow-workers. That is clear proof that the order does not mark, as men do, the spiritual value or the honourable rank of those named.

It is worth noting in that connection that Paul says of Justus that he was "of the circumcision". Yet in Colossians 3 he had taught that in the new man there was neither circumcision nor uncircumcision.

We have to note a clear distinction there; it is "in Christ Jesus" that there is neither Jew nor Gentile. A Jew converted to the Christian faith would not stop being a Jew as to flesh and blood conditions. We have to distinguish between what we are as "in Christ" and what we still are in the body.

It is not certain whether "Jesus who is called Justus" is the same person mentioned in Acts 18:7. But he and the others mentioned before were the only Jewish helpers with Paul in the work. They were an encouragement to the apostle in his trials. Others spoken of later seem to be Gentiles.

It was a very low point for them — at the centre of the civilised world, after thirty years of tireless labour and suffering to spread Christianity. But after a while even these last few fellow-workers scattered. Duty or death called some away, and others like Demas had fallen away from the truth.

We know how deeply Mark's desertion in early days grieved Paul, and how it even led to a break with Barnabas. But the healing goodness of God had long since blotted this out. The apostle had already joined Mark with himself as one of the few fellow-workers for the kingdom of God who had been a comfort to him… In nature a breakdown cannot be repaired. Where grace prevails it is not so, for "we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Rom. 8:37).

It is good to note these things. At times we may have to notice and comment on the lack of interest in certain ones. That is not because we want to develop a complaining spirit. If we do have to mention that lack of interest, let us not forget the ones who are deeply devoted to the Lord's interests. If Paul needed encouragement, and took courage as he looked at them, let us look at such and take courage.

It would be a joy for the believers at Colossae to know this about Epaphras. He was a Colossian himself, like Onesimus. He held a high place in the Apostle's love and esteem, and just as high a place in his earnest remembrance of them in prayer, asking God to bless them... He was not so narrow that he prayed for only one gathering of believers. Yet he remembered with affection the needs he knew best, where he knew the people and their circumstances.

Epaphras being a local brother would know what to pray for, "always labouring fervently for you in prayers".

Prayer, you see, is work — or at least it can be work. Epaphras took it so far that it really was work for him, and ongoing work too, since Paul testifies that it was always his practice. The word translated "struggling" means striving or fighting. Epaphras was away from his friends, yet he fought a real battle in prayer for them. His aim was that they might stand in the will of God, perfect and complete.

It seems he realised that the enemy was making a definite attack on these gatherings of believers, to draw them away from Christ by religious devices... This is a healthy and encouraging reminder that prayer is a powerful weapon against the opposition of the enemy. And Epaphras did not only want the enemy's efforts stopped. He also wanted the believers to "stand perfect and complete in all the will of God". He saw that if they were full-grown Christians, settled in the truth according to the will of God, they would be able to stand against every attack of the enemy.

The word comes from the Greek pleroo, 'to fill full.' The believer is complete in Christ, or filled full. This points to all fullness dwelling in Christ: the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ, as towards the believer; and the believer, as towards God, is complete in Him. The prayer for the Colossians is that they might be 'complete in all the will of God,' or, as most editors read it, 'fully assured' in all the will of God.

It is a great thing to have full knowledge of the will of God... It is a greater thing to stand perfect and complete in that will. Standing in it means we are subject to it and marked by it... Clearly the desires and prayers of Epaphras for the believers at Colossae and the neighbourhood ran on exactly the same lines as Paul's prayers for them.

The precious work of private prayer needs no special gift, no unusual talents, no outstanding mental powers. Every Christian can do it. A man may not have the ability to preach, teach, write, or travel; but every man can pray. People sometimes speak of a gift of prayer. It is not a pleasant expression... It often means no more than a smooth flow of familiar truths that the memory holds and the lips pour out. This is poor work to be at. This was not the way with Epaphras... We want a spirit that enters into the present need of the Church, and carries that need in steady, earnest, believing prayer before the throne of grace.

Christ is at work on behalf of His people. He desires that they should "stand perfect and complete in all the will of God," and those who are drawn out in prayer for this same end have the privilege of deep fellowship with the great Intercessor. How wonderful that poor, weak creatures down here are allowed to pray about the very thing that occupies the thoughts and interests of the Lord of glory!

Luke's occupation was not wiped out because he was a saint and a servant of Christ, and even an inspired writer. Demas, I gather, was already distrusted by the Apostle. Paul mentions his name with an ominous silence and no affectionate word — something unusual for him. Even in the letter to Philemon, written at about the same time, he is "my fellow-labourer." In 2 Timothy he had forsaken the Apostle, having loved the present age. The steps of decline were rapid, and no record tells of his recovery. But a wider falling away was near (2 Timothy 1:15); once the ice was broken, many were ready to slip through.

Paul mentions Demas by name only. If there had been something good to say about him, it seems Paul would have said it. But later, in 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul writes, "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world." Does this not tell us that, if we have no positive testimony for Christ, our testimony will soon become negative?

Luke is called "the beloved physician". This proves that his everyday job as a doctor did not clash with his higher call to serve — as the companion of the Apostle on his travels, and as the inspired writer of the Gospel.

Here we are in different walks of life, and yet we see each other from the standpoint of the divine circle — "beloved brother", whatever job a person may hold.

Luke is called "the beloved physician" (v.14). He earned that title by a character of kind concern for the needs of others, which drew a loving response.

Paul wrote in the days of hard Roman rule. When he mentions that Luke was a physician — the beloved physician — scholars at once suspect that Luke may have been a freed slave. Though he belonged to an honourable profession, it was then by no means an honoured one. Here again we find the dignity of Christianity. It ignores local prejudice, narrow hatred between social ranks, and hostility between classes, and rises far above them all. Matthew is a tax collector; Zenas a lawyer; Luke a physician; Philemon a "capitalist," and Onesimus a slave.

The final break with Paul might have been sudden, but we may be sure that his soul had been drifting long before. A gradual decline of spiritual life and energy always comes before an open failure. This is how the Lord deals with His people. If they have grown cold and have turned aside in heart from His ways, He lets them be tested sooner or later, so that their true state comes to light.

This may mean that Demas had not abandoned the faith, but that love of this present age had pulled him away from the path Paul followed.

In these inspired letters Paul paid no false compliments. Any praise he gave to one person or another was deserved.

His love was in no way inactive or limited. There was no such idea as caring only for the saints in his own particular place. Paul narrowed himself to no local ties, and neither should we allow such a thing for an instant. All the saints belong to us, as we belong to all of them.

The salutations that close the letter give a beautiful picture of Christian love. They show believers taking a real interest in one another's circumstances, and a tender regard for the spiritual welfare of the Lord's people. Such was the Christian circle in the days before the church, as a united witness for God, became ruined, and the people of God became divided and scattered.

This does not mean only the Christian members of the household. It means those who were used to meeting there as gathered to the Lord's name. That appears to be the force of the phrase wherever it occurs (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15). There were many Christian households. But the assembly in any given house meant that people met in that house.

Those who had suitable houses opened them for the service of the Church. Some, such as Philemon at Colossae (Philemon 2), and Nymphas at Laodicea (Colossians 4:15), threw them open for the assembly to meet in. In this work Aquila and Priscilla took part. At Corinth they had opened their house for this purpose (1 Corinthians 16:19), and when they moved to Rome, believers there found a suitable room under their roof (Romans 16:5).

It appears that Christians were not many at Laodicea. The apostle greets the believers there. Some met in the house of someone named Nymphas. They were not in a position to have a letter addressed to them in particular, yet the apostle does not forget them. What he says here is almost certain proof that he had not sent any letter to them. He would not have sent greetings to the believers in Laodicea through the Colossians if he had written them a special letter at the same time... This little assembly in Nymphas' house was not to be forgotten. It was to profit from the letters sent to other, larger assemblies whose condition called for a letter.

Suppose this had been the only company gathered to the Lord's name in the city. Then it would naturally have been called the church "in Laodicea", not the one "at Nymphas' house."

The unity of all the saints in Laodicea in no way hinders or denies the assembly at a certain saint's house... Each meeting no doubt had its own local responsibility; but there was none the less unity for all in the city.

Laodicea was in the neighbourhood... The very name has a sad sound about it in view of what the Lord has to say to this church in Revelation 3:14-22. Paul and Epaphras prayed and struggled on their behalf. The apostolic letters circulated among them. Yet it fell to the lowest depths.

I need not notice every letter, because each repeats the same thing: they are addressed to all the faithful. One expression in the first letter to the Thessalonians shows this clearly. Paul says at the end of it, "I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers." Colossae and Laodicea were to exchange letters, and they were to be read in the churches.

Was this letter the one commonly known as the letter to the Ephesians, which has a circular character? Or the one to Philemon, who likely lived in or near Laodicea? Or does it refer to a letter no longer in existence? Learned men have long argued over these questions. Two remarks seem clear and certain. 1) "The letter from Laodicea" would be a very strange way of describing a letter written to the church there. It fits well if it meant a letter that was there at the time and intended for the Colossian saints too, whoever it was addressed to. 2) There is nothing to forbid the view that there were more letters than we have. God preserved only those designed for the permanent guidance of the saints.

The one "from Laodicea" is, I have no doubt, one they were to receive from that assembly. Paul wrote it, and the saints at Colossae were to profit by it — perhaps the letter to the Ephesians, which he may have had passed on to the Laodiceans... Paul may well have written one letter, or a hundred letters, to others which God did not purpose to keep for the universal assembly. But here there is no proof that he had written a letter to the Laodiceans.

Suppose it is a letter that has not been preserved for us. Then we know it was written for that time only. The Spirit did not give it for the church in every age.

But this little assembly in the house of Nymphas was not to be forgotten. It should profit by the letters sent to assemblies larger than itself — assemblies whose condition called for a letter, or gave occasion to write one. The apostle ordered those letters to be passed on to Laodicea.

If the Laodiceans had received the truth about Christ as the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God, they never would have put Christ outside the door. If they had paid attention to the letter to the Colossians, which was to be read "in the church of the Laodiceans" (Col. 4:16), it would have saved them from making everything of man and nothing of Christ. It would save people who profess religion today in the same way. There they would have learned the glories of Christ in connection with all created things, and that Christ "is all, and in all."

Titus, Timothy, Apollos and other servants of the Lord travelled from one assembly to another. They brought news of joys and sorrows, and so linked the Lord's beloved people together. One letter went to all the churches in Galatia (Gal. 1:2); the one to the Corinthians took in all the saints in all places.

The apostle does not forget even individuals. Archippus receives a solemn call to pay attention to the ministry the Lord had entrusted to him, and to complete his service.

Believers cannot give up their responsibility and their exercise of godly discipline. But a servant receives his ministry from the Lord and in the Lord. The assembly never appoints anyone to service in the word. Christ, the Head, does that. Apostles or their delegates (never the Church) acted for Him when it came to a local charge.

All we know about him is that he belonged to the church at Colosse, and that Paul could speak of him with honour as a fellow-soldier. (See Philemon 2.) That is all. He had received a service from the Lord, and he was a fellow-soldier of the apostle... But beyond this link, Archippus was under direct and special orders from the Lord. He had a ministry — a service — to fulfil. What this may have been we are not told.

We cannot escape the conviction that courage and endurance in spiritual warfare led the apostle to mark not only Epaphroditus but Archippus as "fellow-soldier." Words like this are always used with the greatest precision, as is true of every word in scripture.

To put the emphasis of our phrase a little differently: take heed to your ministry that you have received. When Peter was too much occupied with another servant's ministry ("Lord, what about this man?") the Lord told him: "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" (John 21:21-22)

But Archippus was to fulfil the ministry. He might have been tempted to do three-quarters or nine-tenths of it, and leave the rest. No, the service must be finished. That is why the charge carries such force. The chief honour lies in the finishing touch. That tells the master hand. And for Archippus to apply that touch would be his greatest good and highest honour.

But we do know of One who looked back on His service of perfect, unbroken faithfulness. He could truly say "I have accomplished the work that you gave me to do" (John 17:4)... He needed no exhortation to fulfil His blessed and gracious service.

It seems Archippus needed a special message: pay attention to the ministry he had received in the Lord, so that he would fulfil it. How many of us need this same word! Discouragements are many and opposition is strong, and we may grow weary. Our part is to keep going in any small service the Lord may have entrusted to us, even if for now we see little result.

Has the Lord given a service to you? Then take good heed to perform it, however insignificant it may appear to be. Failing to do the service means laziness. Laziness at once opens the door to decline and spiritual disaster. Nothing can keep us but that grace, the closing word of the letter.