What is the epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Colossians 4:16?

"Salute the brethren in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the assembly in his house. And when the epistle has been read among you, cause that it be read also in the assembly of Laodicea, and that ye also read that from Laodicea." vv. 15, 16. Whether this letter be that commonly known as the epistle to the Ephesians (and having a circular character), or that to Philemon (who may probably have resided in or near Laodicea), or whether it refers to a letter no longer extant (possibly a letter from Laodicea to Paul, literally), have been questions much contested among learned men. Two remarks may be made which seem clear and certain. 1) The epistle from Laodicea would be indeed a strange way of describing an epistle written to the church there. It would be natural enough, if it meant a letter which was then there and intended for the Colossian saints also, to whomsoever it may have been addressed. 2) There is nothing to forbid the view that more letters were written than we possess, God preserving only those which were designed for the permanent guidance of the saints. But that the one alluded to here is a lost letter, addressed to Laodicea, is wholly unproved. It is also obvious that the Colossian epistle was directed to be passed on to Laodicea. The letter the Laodiceans were to forward to Colosse may have been addressed to them, but the description necessitates no such conclusion.

We may observe that the epistle to the Ephesians was written at the same time, and sent by this same Tychicus. The one "from Laodicea" is, I doubt not, one that they were to receive from that assembly, written by Paul, and by which the saints at Colosse were to profit; possibly the epistle to the Ephesians, which he may have had communicated to the Laodiceans. Be this as it may, all that is said is that it was one of which the assembly at Laodicea were in possession, and by no means that it was directly addressed to them: rather the contrary. It is very possible that a letter, or a hundred letters, may have been written by Paul to others, which it was not in the purposes of God to preserve for the universal assembly: but here there is no proof that a letter had been written to the Laodiceans. Tychicus was the bearer of two: he may have been the bearer of three, one of which differed only in some details of application which might serve to confirm the Colossians without being in the main another divine communication for other days; but, I repeat, it does not appear to be so from that which is said here. It might be said, a letter "from Laodicea," because it was there, instead of a letter to Laodicea; but it is not the usual mode of expression. We have seen that the letter to the Ephesians is another communication of the Spirit of God. It has been preserved for us. We do not know whether that from Laodicea was the same, communicated by them to the Christians of that city; or another, which they were to send to the Colossians (an assembly in their vicinity) and which — adding nothing to the divine relations — has not been preserved for us.

It appears that Christians were not very numerous at Laodicea. The apostle salutes the brethren there. There were some who assembled in the house of one Nymphas; they were not in a case to have a letter addressed to them in particular: still the apostle does not forget them. But that which he says here is an almost certain proof that the apostle had not addressed any epistle to them. He would not have sent greetings through the Colossians to the brethren in Laodicea, if at the same time he had written a special epistle to the latter. The case is plain enough: there were brethren at Laodicea, but not in great numbers, and not in that distinct position which gave rise to an epistle. But this little assembly in the house of Nymphas was not to be forgotten; it should profit by the epistles addressed to other assemblies more considerable than itself, and whose condition required an epistle, or gave occasion to write one which epistles were transmitted to Laodicea, according to the apostle's order.

The Colossians were also to read an epistle to be passed on to them from Laodicea. What this epistle was we are not told. As it does not say an epistle to the Laodiceans, but one they would receive from Laodicea, it might have been one of Paul's epistles which we have, though the name is not given, sent to the Laodiceans to read, and then to be passed on to the Colossians. If it were one which has not been preserved to us, then we know it was one written specially for that time, but not given by the Spirit for the church generally in all ages.

This last sentence, "read the Epistle from Laodicea," has given rise to the thought that Paul had written another Epistle to Laodicea which was to be passed on to the Colossians after being read at Laodicea, in the same way that the Epistle to Colosse was to be passed on to Laodicea. And if so, what has become of that Epistle? and is the canon of scripture complete without it?

In the first place it must be noticed that the word does not speak of an Epistle to Laodicea, but "the epistle from (εκ) Laodicea;" and may refer to The Epistle to the Ephesians, which, perhaps, was being circulated from one to another, and was coming to Colosse, from Laodicea. It may refer to a letter written from Laodicea to Paul, stating things of general interest, a copy of which Paul sent on to Colosse for them to read; or it might be a letter evincing a certain state of things at Laodicea which Paul judged would be well met by his letter to Colosse being read there also; and so Paul not only requested them to send on his Epistle to Laodicea, but also thus shewed them in fellowship the reason for his so doing. It may have been an epistle written by Paul to Laodicea, and which was coming from thence to Colosse, a letter of general interest, but not inspired, and which was not intended to form a part of scripture. There is no reason for believing that we have all the letters that Paul wrote, or that all he wrote were inspired.

In none of these cases would the canon of scripture be touched, which is the point under consideration; and here we might be content to leave the matter but that there is in existence the copy of a letter entitled "The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans," which some have contended ought to form a part of scripture.

We give a copy of this epistle, from an old manuscript at Padua in Venice, that the reader may judge whether such an epistle is at all likely to have been written by Paul; not that the wording is not generally correct and scriptural, but that on the whole there seems no special point or object in it; indeed, it is supposed to be merely a compilation of portions of the epistles by Paul gathered together and made into a separate letter. By the side of the epistle we give the places from which the extracts may have been taken.

Yet there is this in common, that both Ephesus and Laodicea were alike favoured with the same wonderful communication from the apostle, as that which we know under the title of The Epistle to the Ephesians. "For we have no doubt that this same apostolic writing is the one referred to in Col. 9:16, where we read, "And when this epistle [to the Colossians] is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea."

This "epistle from Laodicea," being an inspired epistle, is not a "lost" one, as some unhappily, as we think, have concluded, but a copy, or duplicate, of the one addressed to the Ephesians, and which copy had been brought forward as far as to Laodicea, and left there, to be subsequently sent on to Colosse, which lay about eighteen miles to the east of Laodicea. The saints at Colosse are here apprized by the apostle of an epistle which was coming on to them "from Laodicea," to be read by them, in the same way as the one they at Colosse had now received, was to be sent to Laodicea to be read by the saints there.

Then come allusions to his various fellow-prisoners and fellow-servants, particularly noting Epaphras, who laboured fervently in prayer for them. This, I am sure, should not be weakened, brethren. We know that there is danger on all sides. We may have proved how sadly everything of the sort has been perverted; but there is a sense, and a most weighty one too, in which we cannot too much strengthen the links of love between the saints of God, and that too where there is a real holy ministry for their good. And this the apostle was doing, and particularly for one that came from them. We might well suppose that there was some hindrance to the full flow of affection on their part. But the apostle took every pains to show how great was the love of Epaphras for them; for his faithful spirit knew some little of that which the apostle knew well, — that the more abundantly he loved, the less he was loved. "For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea." His was by no means a love inactive or limited. There was no such notion as only caring for the saints in his own particular place. Paul narrowed himself to no local ties, nor should we allow such a thing for an instant. All the saints belong to us, as we belong to all of them. And so he mentions particularly others, even if some little felt this link. "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans." It is evident, therefore, that these apostolic epistles were meant to circulate among the saints. And perhaps this may be the key to what we are next told: "And ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." The epistle to Laodicea is not said: so we have no sufficient reason to trouble ourselves about there being a lost portion of the inspired writings. There is no proof of the sort. I am aware that men have reasoned much about it; but this is a proof that evidence fails. Why should we heed conjecture? Had they prayed more, the result might have been to better purpose. Possibly apostles may have written epistles that were not intended for the permanent instruction of the church; but that what was so intended is lost we may resolutely deny from all we know of our God. Whatever insinuates it denies that He has adequately provided for His church here below: this He has surely done in every form in His word. There is no imperfectness in that word, neither does any ground exist to suppose that any part of it has vanished away. No doubt we may detect the flaws of man's negligence, not knowing how to treat with becoming care the precious deposit of truth; but there is nothing more. That is to say, there may be a difference of reading here and there which impairs the full beauty and accuracy of the blessed word of God; but, as to the substance, the most timid may be assured that you have it in the worst editions of Christendom. Do not be uneasy at the talk of critics: it is natural for dealers to cry up their wares. They live in minute points and uncertainty.

As this epistle then is not said to have been addressed to Laodicea, we may gather that it was either from that church, or, if apostolic, going its round from one assembly to another. If the latter, it had got to Laodicea, whence the Colossians were to procure it in their turn.

Laodicea was in the neighbourhood. It is mentioned in Col. 2:1, as well as three times in our chapter. 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. In spite of the prayers and conflict on their behalf of a Paul and an Epaphras, in spite of the circulation of Apostolic epistles in their midst, it fell to the lowest depths. The "epistle from Laodicea," was no doubt an epistle which just at that time was being circulated from assembly to assembly.

14 I need not notice every Epistle, because it is only to repeat the same thing; they are addressed to all the faithful. I may notice an expression in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, which shews it in a distinct manner. Paul says at the end of it, "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read by all the holy brethren." Colossians and Laodicea were to exchange Epistles, and they were to be read in the churches. Peter's Epistles were addressed to all the dispersed residing in various provinces. In John's we get if possible a stronger evidence. He distinguishes the Christians, while addressing all in general, into classes of fathers, young men, and little children, and writes more special words to these last, pressing on them their competency in virtue of having the Holy Ghost to understand everything, and says, though warning and teaching them with all affection, they had not need of any one to do so. And in his second Epistle he writes to a lady and desires her to judge those who came teaching and preaching by the doctrine they brought.

The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

The reader will see by the above how very improbable it is that Paul ever wrote such an epistle as this professing to be from him to the Laodiceans.

Another passage that has been thought by some to allude to a lost epistle is 1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators." The first word is έγραψα, the aorist indicative, 'I wrote,' but some translate it 'I have written' — 'I wrote unto you in the epistle (εν τη επιστολη) not to mix with fornicators.'