_CLOSING MESSAGES._
"Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the
Church that is in their house. 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. And say
to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in
the Lord, that thou fulfil it. The salutation of me Paul with mine
own hand. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you."--COL. iv. 15-end
(Rev. Ver.).
There is a marked love of triplets in these closing messages. There were
three of the circumcision who desired to salute the Colossians; and
there were three Gentiles whose greetings followed these. Now we have a
triple message from the Apostle himself--his greeting to Laodicea, his
message as to the interchange of letters with that Church, and his
grave, stringent charge to Archippus. Finally, the letter closes with a
few hurried words in his own handwriting, which also are threefold, and
seem to have been added in extreme haste, and to be compressed to the
utmost possible brevity.
I. We shall first look at the threefold greeting and warnings to
Laodicea.
In the first part of this triple message we have a glimpse of the
Christian life of that city, "Salute the brethren that are in
Laodicea." These are, of course, the whole body of Christians in the
neighbouring town, which was a much more important place than Colossae.
They are the same persons as "the Church of the Laodiceans." Then comes
a special greeting to "Nymphas," who was obviously a brother of some
importance and influence in the Laodicean Church, though to us he has
sunk to be an empty name. With him Paul salutes "the Church that is in
_their_ house" (Rev. Ver.). Whose house? Probably that belonging to
Nymphas and his family. Perhaps that belonging to Nymphas and the Church
that met in it, if these were other than his family. The more difficult
expression is adopted by preponderating textual authorities, and "_his_
house" is regarded as a correction to make the sense easier. If so, then
the expression is one of which in our ignorance we have lost the key,
and which must be content to leave unexplained.
But what was this "Church in the house"? We read that Prisca and Aquila
had such both in their house in Rome (Rom. xvi. 5) and in Ephesus (1
Cor. xvi. 19), and that Philemon had such in his house at Colossae. It
may be that only the household of Nymphas is meant, and that the words
import no more than that it was a Christian household; or it may be, and
more probably is, that in all these cases there was some gathering of a
few of the Christians resident in each city, who were closely connected
with the heads of the household, and met in their houses more or less
regularly to worship and to help one another in the Christian life. We
have no facts that decide which of these two suppositions is correct.
The early Christians had, of course no buildings especially used for
their meetings, and there may often have been difficulty in finding
suitable places, particularly in cities where the Church was numerous.
It may have been customary, therefore, for brethren who had large and
convenient houses, to gather together portions of the whole community in
these. In any case, the expression gives us a glimpse of the primitive
elasticity of Church order, and of the early fluidity, so to speak, of
ecclesiastical language. The word "Church" has not yet been hardened and
fixed to its present technical sense. There was but one Church in
Laodicea, and yet within it there was this little Church--an _imperium
in imperio_--as if the word had not yet come to mean more than an
assembly, and as if all arrangements of order and worship, and all the
terminology of later days, were undreamed of yet. The life was there,
but the forms which were to grow out of the life, and to protect it
sometimes, and to stifle it often, were only beginning to show
themselves, and were certainly not yet felt to be forms.
We may note, too, the beautiful glimpse we get here of domestic and
social religion.
If the Church in the house of Nymphas consisted of his own family and
dependants, it stands for us as a lesson of what every family, which has
a Christian man or woman at its head, ought to be. Little knowledge of
the ordering of so-called Christian households is needed to be sure that
domestic religion is wofully neglected to-day. Family worship and family
instruction are disused, one fears, in many homes, the heads of which
can remember both in their father's houses; and the unspoken aroma and
atmosphere of religion does not fill the house with its odour, as it
ought to do. If a Christian householder have not "a Church in his
house," the family union is tending to become "a synagogue of Satan."
One or other it is sure to be. It is a solemn question for all parents
and heads of households, What am I doing to make my house a Church, my
family a family united by faith in Jesus Christ?
A like suggestion may be made if, as is possible, the Church in the
house of Nymphas included more than relatives and dependants. It is a
miserable thing when social intercourse plays freely round every other
subject, and taboos all mention of religion. It is a miserable thing
when Christian people choose and cultivate society for worldly
advantages, business connections, family advancement, and for every
reason under heaven--sometimes a long way under--except those of a
common faith, and of the desire to increase it.
It is not needful to lay down extravagant, impracticable restrictions,
by insisting either that we should limit our society to religious men,
or our conversation to religious subjects. But it is a bad sign when our
chosen associates are chosen for every other reason but their religion,
and when our talk flows copiously on all other subjects, and becomes a
constrained driblet when religion comes to be spoken of. Let us try to
carry about with us an influence which shall permeate all our social
intercourse, and make it, if not directly religious, yet never
antagonistic to religion, and always capable of passing easily and
naturally into the highest regions. Our godly forefathers used to carve
texts over their house doors. Let us do the same in another fashion, so
that all who cross the threshold may feel that they have come into a
Christian household, where cheerful godliness sweetens and brightens the
sanctities of home.
We have next a remarkable direction as to the interchange of Paul's
letters to Colossae and Laodicea. The present Epistle is to be sent over
to the neighbouring Church of Laodicea--that is quite clear. But what is
"the Epistle from Laodicea" which the Colossians are to be sure to get
and to read? The connection forbids us to suppose that a letter written
by the Laodicean Church is meant. Both letters are plainly Pauline
epistles, and the latter is said to be "from Laodicea," simply because
the Colossians were to procure it from that place. The "from" does not
imply authorship, but transmission. What then has become of this letter?
Is it lost? So say some commentators; but a more probable opinion is
that it is no other than the Epistle which we know as that to the
Ephesians. This is not the occasion to enter on a discussion of that
view. It will be enough to notice that very weighty textual authorities
omit the words "In Ephesus," in the first verse of that Epistle. The
conjecture is a very reasonable one, that the letter was intended for a
circle of Churches, and had originally no place named in the
superscription, just as we might issue circulars "To the Church in----,"
leaving a blank to be filled in with different names. This conjecture is
strengthened by the marked absence of personal references in the letter,
which in that respect forms a striking contrast to the Epistle to the
Colossians, which it so strongly resembles in other particulars.
Probably, therefore, Tychicus had both letters put into his hands for
delivery. The circular would go first to Ephesus as the most important
Church in Asia, and thence would be carried by him to one community
after another, till he reached Laodicea, from which he would come
further up the valley to Colossae, bringing both letters with him. The
Colossians are not told to _get_ the letter from Laodicea, but to be
sure that they _read_ it. Tychicus would see that it came to them; their
business was to see that they marked, learned, and inwardly digested it.
The urgency of these instructions that Paul's letters should be read,
reminds us of a similar but still more stringent injunction in his
earliest epistle (1 Thess. v. 27), "I charge you by the Lord that this
epistle be read unto all the holy brethren." Is it possible that these
Churches did not much care for Paul's words, and were more willing to
admit that they were weighty and powerful, than to study them and lay
them to heart? It looks almost like it. Perhaps they got the same
treatment then as they often do now, and were more praised than read,
even by those who professed to look upon him as their teacher in Christ!
But passing by that, we come to the last part of this threefold message,
the solemn warning to a slothful servant.
"Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in
the Lord, that thou fulfil it." A sharp message that--and especially
sharp, as being sent through others, and not spoken directly to the man
himself. If this Archippus were a member of the Church at Colossae, it is
remarkable that Paul should not have spoken to him directly, as he did
to Euodia and Syntyche, the two good women at Philippi, who had fallen
out. But it is by no means certain that he was. We find him named again,
indeed, at the beginning of the Epistle to Philemon, in such immediate
connection with the latter, and with his wife Apphia, that he has been
supposed to be their son. At all events, he was intimately associated
with the Church in the house of Philemon, who, as we know, was a
Colossian. The conclusion, therefore, seems at first sight most natural
that Archippus too belonged to the Colossian Church. But on the other
hand the difficulty already referred to seems to point in another
direction; and if it be further remembered that this whole section is
concerned with the Church at Laodicea, it will be seen to be a likely
conclusion from all the facts that Archippus, though perhaps a native of
Colossae, or even a resident there, had his "ministry" in connection with
that other neighbouring Church.
It may be worth notice, in passing, that all these messages to Laodicea
occurring here, strongly favour the supposition that the epistle from
that place cannot have been a letter especially meant for the Laodicean
church, as, if it had been, these would have naturally been inserted in
it. So far, therefore, they confirm the hypothesis that it was a
circular.
Some may say, Well, what in the world does it matter where Archippus
worked? Not very much perhaps; and yet one cannot but read this grave
exhortation to a man who was evidently getting languid and negligent,
without remembering what we hear about Laodicea and the angel of the
Church there, when next we meet it in the page of Scripture. It is not
impossible that Archippus was that very "angel," to whom the Lord
Himself sent the message through His servant John, more awful than that
which Paul had sent through his brethren at Colossae, "Because thou art
neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of My mouth."
Be that as it may, the message is for us all. Each of us has a
"ministry," a sphere of service. We may either fill it full, with
earnest devotion and patient heroism, as some expanding gas fills out
the silken round of its containing vessel, or we may breathe into it
only enough to occupy a little portion, while all the rest hangs empty
and flaccid. We have to "fulfil our ministry."
A sacred motive enhances the obligation--we have received it "_in_ the
Lord." In union with Him it has been laid on us. No human hand has
imposed it, nor does it arise merely from earthly relationships, but our
fellowship with Jesus Christ, and incorporation into the true Vine, has
laid on us responsibilities, and exalted us by service.
There must be diligent watchfulness, in order to fulfil our ministry. We
must take heed to our service, and we must take heed to ourselves. We
have to reflect upon it, its extent, nature, imperativeness, upon the
manner of discharging it, and the means of fitness for it. We have to
keep our work ever before us. Unless we are absorbed in it, we shall not
fulfil it. And we have to take heed to ourselves, ever feeling our
weakness and the strong antagonisms in our own natures which hinder our
discharge of the plainest, most imperative duties.
And let us remember, too, that if once we begin, like Archippus, to be a
little languid and perfunctory in our work, we may end where the Church
of Laodicea ended, whether he were its angel or no, with that nauseous
lukewarmness which sickens even Christ's longsuffering love, and forces
Him to reject it with loathing.
II. And now we come to the end of our task, and have to consider the
hasty last words in Paul's own hand.
We can see him taking the reed from the amanuensis and adding the three
brief sentences which close the letter. He first writes that which is
equivalent to our modern usage of signing the letter--"the salutation of
me Paul with mine own hand." This appears to have been his usual
practice, or, as he says in 2 Thess. (iii. 17), it was "his token in
every epistle"--the evidence that each was the genuine expression of his
mind. Probably his weak eyesight, which appears certain, may have had
something to do with his employing a secretary, as we may assume him to
have done, even when there is no express mention of his autograph in the
closing salutations. We find for example in the Epistle to the Romans no
words corresponding to these, but the modest amanuensis steps for a
moment into the light near the end: "I Tertius, who write the epistle,
salute you in the Lord."
The endorsement with his name is followed by a request singularly
pathetic in its abrupt brevity, "Remember my bonds." This is the one
personal reference in the letter, unless we add as a second, his request
for their prayers that he may speak the mystery of Christ, for which he
is in bonds. There is a striking contrast in this respect with the
abundant allusions to his circumstances in the Epistle to the
Philippians, which also belongs to the period of his captivity. He had
been swept far away from thoughts of self by the enthusiasm of his
subject. The vision that opened before him of his Lord in His glory, the
Lord of Creation, the Head of the Church, the throned helper of every
trusting soul, had flooded his chamber with light, and swept guards and
chains and restrictions out of his consciousness. But now the spell is
broken, and common things re-assert their power. He stretches out his
hand for the reed to write his last words, and as he does so, the chain
which fastens him to the Praetorian guard at his side pulls and hinders
him. He wakes to the consciousness of his prison. The seer, swept along
by the storm wind of a Divine inspiration, is gone. The weak man
remains. The exhaustion after such an hour of high communion makes him
more than usually dependent; and all his subtle profound teachings, all
his thunderings and lightnings, end in the simple cry, which goes
straight to the heart: "Remember my bonds."
He wished their remembrance because he needed their sympathy. Like the
old rags put round the ropes by which the prophet was hauled out of his
dungeon, the poorest bit of sympathy twisted round a fetter makes it
chafe less. The petition helps us to conceive how heavy a trial Paul
felt his imprisonment, to be little as he said about it, and bravely as
he bore it. He wished their remembrance too, because his bonds added
weight to his words. His sufferings gave him a right to speak. In times
of persecution confessors are the highest teachers, and the marks of the
Lord Jesus borne in a man's body give more authority than diplomas and
learning. He wished their remembrance because his bonds might encourage
them to steadfast endurance if need for it should arise. He points to
his own sufferings, and would have them take heart to bear their lighter
crosses and to fight their easier battle.
One cannot but recall the words of Paul's Master, so like these in
sound, so unlike them in deepest meaning. Can there be a greater
contrast than between "Remember my bonds," the plaintive appeal of a
weak man seeking sympathy, coming as an appendix, quite apart from the
subject of the letter, and "Do this in remembrance of Me," the royal
words of the Master? Why is the memory of Christ's death so unlike the
memory of Paul's chains? Why is the one merely for the play of sympathy,
and the enforcement of his teaching, and the other the very centre of
our religion? For one reason alone. Because Christ's death is the life
of the world, and Paul's sufferings, whatever their worth, had nothing
in them that bore, except indirectly, on man's redemption. "Was Paul
crucified for you?" We remember his chains, and they give him sacredness
in our eyes. But we remember the broken body and shed blood of our Lord,
and cleave to it in faith as the one sacrifice for the world's sin.
And then comes the last word: "Grace be with you." The apostolic
benediction, with which he closes all his letters, occurs in many
different stages of expression. Here it is pared down to the very quick.
No shorter form is possible--and yet even in this condition of extreme
compression, all good is in it.
All possible blessing is wrapped up in that one word, Grace. Like the
sunshine, it carries life and fruitfulness in itself. If the favour and
kindness of God, flowing out to men so far beneath Him, who deserve such
different treatment, be ours, then in our hearts will be rest and a
great peacefulness, whatever may be about us, and in our characters will
be all beauties and capacities, in the measure of our possession of that
grace.
That all-productive germ of joy and excellence is here parted among the
whole body of Colossian Christians. The dew of this benediction falls
upon them all--the teachers of error if they still held by Christ, the
Judaisers, the slothful Archippus, even as the grace which it invokes
will pour itself into imperfect natures and adorn very sinful
characters, if beneath the imperfection and the evil there be the true
affiance of the soul on Christ.
That communication of grace to a sinful world is the end of all God's
deeds, as it is the end of this letter. That great revelation which
began when man began, which has spoken its complete message in the Son,
the heir of all things, as this Epistle tells us, has this for the
purpose of all its words--whether they are terrible or gentle, deep or
simple--that God's grace may dwell among men. The mystery of Christ's
being, the agony of Christ's cross, the hidden glories of Christ's
dominion are all for this end, that of His fulness we may all receive,
and grace for grace. The Old Testament, true to its genius, ends with
stern onward-looking words which point to a future coming of the Lord
and to the possible terrible aspect of that coming--"Lest I come and
smite the earth with a curse." It is the last echo of the long drawn
blast of the trumpets of Sinai. The New Testament ends, as our Epistle
ends, and as we believe the weary history of the world will end, with
the benediction: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all."
That grace, the love which pardons and quickens and makes good and fair
and wise and strong, is offered to all in Christ. Unless we have
accepted it, God's revelation and Christ's work have failed as far as we
are concerned. "We therefore, as fellow-workers with Him, beseech you
that ye receive not the grace of God in vain."
* * * * *