Colossian Heresy

Jordan Pickering

Unlike movie characters sitting over a cup of coffee, Paul in Colossians does not clearly
summarise the underlying plot points for the onlookers benefit. The recipients of his letter
knew what was going on, we do not. There is nothing unusual about this. In most or all of the
letters, we have to piece together the nature of the trouble from hints in Pauls response.
However, Colossians is unusual because of the fodder that it provides for the active
imagination. Paul hints at asceticism, visions and worship of angels, and various other
catchwords that suggest trouble of a particularly exotic kind. It is not surprising that even the
opinions of careful scholars vary radically.

The Main Questions

Naturally, the over-arching question concerns the nature of the danger to the church. What
character do we give to the heresy on the basis of Pauls emphases and terminology? A brief
survey of Pauls allusions to the heresy yields the following list of key words:

Philosophy (2:8)

Fullness (2:9)

Circumcision, written code, Sabbaths (2:11, 14, 16)

Powers and authorities (2:15)

Humility (2:18)

Worship of angels (2:18)

Things that he has seen upon entering (2:18)

Do not handle, taste or touch (2:21)

Voluntary worship, humility, harsh treatment of the body (2:23)

Such a long list of characteristics presents significant difficulty as it stands for anyone who
would describe a coherent picture of the opposition. But in addition to this, there is
considerable debate about what certain key words actually mean, as well as in regard to the
syntax of key verses such as 2:18. Francis (1975:163-6) lists scores of grammatically possible
interpretations of this verse that have been proposed since the Reformation (a fact that a
glance across translations would illustrate).
The words and phrases that garner the most debate, those that tend to drive the various
reconstructions of the heresy one way or another, are:

(fullness), which is often connected to an early gnosticism.

, which the KJV translates as voluntary humility, the

ESV translates as insisting upon asceticism, and the NIV as one who delights in
false humility1.

, the worship of angels, which is often linked to the

powers and authorities of 2:15.

() , which the KJV renders as, intruding into those things

which he hath not seen, and the NIV, Such a person goes into great detail about
what he has seen.

Because the grammar itself yields so many possibilities, interpretation reached an impasse. In
order to make headway, interpretation needed to appeal to evidence from the Colossian
world. Francis insists that interpretations need to illuminate the concrete historical
circumstances referred to in the text, simply, yet comprehensively (1975:166).

Principal Alternative Positions & Lines of Argument

In reconstructing the trouble at Colosse, scholars can be arranged on a continuum with
paganism on one end and Judaism on the other, and any number of blends and syncretisms in
between, which we will group together for convenience.

Notably, Lightfoot and others have demonstrated that does not indicate something imposed upon
the Colossians (i.e. insisting upon), but is a Hebraism meaning delighting in, as in the NIV (Dunn, 1996:178).

PAGANISM
The first scholar to make significant ground in locating interpretation within the historical
and religious circumstances of Colosse was Martin Dibelius. He believed that the trouble in
Colosse was caused by a pagan mystery cult.
Dibelius thought that Christians had joined with pagans in a cosmic mystery devoted to the
elements and powers (OBrien, 1982:xxxv). His argument had strength because he managed to
ground Colossians terminology (albeit a single word) in the religious life of the Isis initiation
rites and the Apollo mystery cult that operated in Asia Minor (Francis, 1975:166). The idea that
Christians were being enticed into paganism arose from the discovery of inscriptions at a
nearby oracle that also used the word (to enter) of initiation rites.
In combination with pervasive mystical language in Colossians, Dibelius considered the
Apollo inscriptions to seal the case for a pagan heresy.
While influential, this interpretation has fallen out of favour for a number of reasons. Firstly,
one shared word is a very tenuous link between these inscriptions and Colossians. There is no
mention of an oracle in Colossians that would make the link to an oracle cult direct. Francis
also cites evidence of wide general use of , in common legal usage, for example,
which could adequately be connected even to a Jewish religious context (1975:198-9).
Secondly, Dibelius discovery of this concrete evidence within paganism causes him to reject
any link of the heresy to Judaism, despite the majority of the remaining textual evidence
being most easily explained as Jewish. Dunn finds that such interpretations have imported far
too much that must be abstracted from the context or read into the text. While there is a
case for regarding entry to refer to pagan initiations, the suggestion that circumcision is part
of such initiations is thoroughly baseless (1996:27-8).
Kummel (1973:338-40), writing at the end of the period of dominance of this interpretation,
shows the confidence with which some scholars regarded the heresy to be pagan (but perhaps
with Jewish and Christian influences), and especially on account of a wholly unwarranted
confidence in viewing worship of angels as cultic veneration of powers and authorities.

Despite problems with his reconstruction, no one was able to offer a similarly concrete
alternative for the interpretation of 2:18, and so it held sway for about 50 years.
HELLENISTIC OR JUDAISTIC SYNCRETISM
Lightfoot considered the Colossian heresy to have been heavily influenced by Essene-like
Judaism, which he regarded to be gnostic, on account of an emphasis on intellectual
exclusiveness and other speculative and mystical qualities. Lightfoot does not mean to
connect them with the later sect of Gnosticism, but rather he uses the term to express the
simplest and most elementary tendencies of this system of thought (Francis & Meeks, 1975:209).
So, because Colossians stresses wisdom and knowledge, as well as shadowy mysticism and
spiritual intermediaries, and because of parallels to Qumran in common phraseology
(e.g. the body of his flesh in 1:22) and possible references to a heterodox calendar and
ascetic practices, Lightfoot proposed that the troublemakers in Colosse fell somewhere
between Essene-like2 Judaism and Gnostic-like mysticism (OBrien, 1982:xxxiv).
Bornkamm provided a reconstruction that was somewhat less vague than Lightfoots, and that
corrected elements of Dibelius. He views the heresy to have been a mishmash of speculative,
syncretistic theology. He is in agreement with Lightfoot against Dibelius that there must have
been gnostic-Jewish influence (though he seemingly doesnt favour the Essene theory), as well
as Persian elements and Chaldean astrology. He further disagrees with Dibelius that it was a
threat external to the church. He regards it as a Christian error, tied up particularly with
principalities and powers, among which Christ was given a place (OBrien, 1982:xxxv).
Many of the commentators side with the likes of Bornkamm. Perhaps walking a compromise
between the pagan and Jewish poles seems safest?
Guthries survey of the debate acknowledges the Judaistic character of some of Pauls
references to his opponents, but opts for the philosophy as being Hellenistic in origin, citing
the fact that later Gnosticism made use of common terminology. So, he is convinced that a
Jewish syncretism is involved.
2

An objection to any serious argument for a direct Essene link is the absence of references to washings, which
were central to the Essene movement. Yet, when Paul mentions baptism, it is not in connection with the
opponents washings, but with circumcision (OBrien, 1982:xxxiv).

Despite only finding tangential evidence of anything that might suggest worship of angels
in Judaism, Guthrie still opts for the view that the angels were being worshipped, giving only
passing acknowledgment of the surely more likely view that the genitive is subjective (i.e.
angelic worship of God). So, he considers Gnostic Judaism to be the best analysis (1990:566-8).
Furnish really hedges his bets in his assessment of the debate, drawing Dibelius back in too.
He regards it most likely that, despite similarities to Essenes, the threat is by means of a
syncretistic philosophy, featuring elements from various sources, including perhaps Judaism,
Gnosticism and mystery religions. A key consideration for him is as follows:
At issue is whether the participle [entering] in 2:18 is a technical term for
entering into a mystery (Dibelius, 1973), or whether it must be taken in a more
general sense (1992:1092).
Furnish identifies four major components to the heresy: Ascetic practices, worship of
angels, cosmic elements, and full knowledge of God. He thinks that the cosmic elements are
probably synonymous with principalities and powers in 2:15.
He summarises:
To judge from what is said here in Colossians, the readers are being encouraged to
believe that deliverance from the control of these cosmic forces is not complete
without devotion to the specified ascetic, ritual, and cultic practices (2:20-23) (1992:1092).
So, Furnish reckons that the worship of angels indicates that the Colossian church is being
encouraged to appease or manipulate spirit beings in addition to worshipping Christ. There is
a sector even of the modern church of which this is true, so I suppose its not far-fetched that
Christians might be so fooled, and it does make sense of the emphasis upon the supremacy of
Christ, but, without direct evidence in Colossians of spirit beings in such a role, or external
evidence that angels were actually being worshipped, it remains a speculative assessment.
Francis and Meeks point out that reconstructing a fuller picture from scraps of evidence
inevitably includes features that were not in the data. Some of Bornkamms inferences made
from the data in the epistle are not actually supported by the argument of the epistle.
5

Dunn finds no hint in the letter that the philosophy fits Christ into its schema as one of the
powers and authorities. There is also no Gnostic-like dualism in evidence, and the worship
of angels can be more plausibly explained along lines other than that they were being
venerated (1996:27-8). Nothing, then, points to this being a syncretistic Christian heresy, and
nothing need necessarily be labelled as gnostic.
He points out that the easy both-and solution to this debate is not backed up by any evidence.
He claims that there is no evidence that such Hellenised communities in diaspora Judaism
ever existed. This syncretistic Jewish religion is an invented opponent, not backed by any
external evidence. Even the elements thought to be characteristically Hellenistic, such as
fullness can be explained from within a Jewish framework. The hypothesis is both
unnecessary and implausible. The epithet gnostic is inappropriate unless it is meant as a
synonym for mystical or apocalyptic, in which case one might avoid the confusion and
rather apply one of those terms (1996:31ff).
JUDAISM
Fred Francis made significant gains in directing the stalled discussion away from Dibelius
tenuous pagan link and towards a solution that takes the, frankly, obvious Jewishness of the
Colossians heresy into account, while also providing a viable mooring of his solution in
concrete evidence (thus avoiding having to invent a religion for Paul to oppose, for which
there is no other evidence, as Bornkamm and others are charged with doing).
There is ample evidence of its Jewishness in Pauls treatment of the heresy. Circumcision
was characteristically Jewish, and not associated with any other religions of the day. NT
Wright says, the regulations referred to in 2:16 fit the Jewish Law and nothing else (1986:26).
The difficulty comes in fitting the seemingly pagan elements into known brands of Judaism.
In this regard, NT Wright answers one objection about what does not appear in the letter. He
says that, while youd expect Paul to mention (law) or (commandment) if he
were combating Judaism, there seems little doubt that the mention of circumcision, written
code (or the charge sheet), regulations, food laws, Sabbaths and religious festivals in
2:13-17 refers to the Jewish law. Paul might well have avoided the usual law terminology in
this instance, because it still held some positive connotations for him. So, he wouldnt want

to associate law per se with the kind of dismissal that he is trying to make. Wright also points
out that in 2 Corinthians 3-5 Paul is capable of making significant observations about Old
and New Covenants without using either of these words (1986:25-6).
The more difficult problem is dealing with those things that Paul does say. Francis has been
most influential in fixing some of the pagan-sounding terminology within the literature of the
1st Century. It is not clear that he considers his findings to indicate that the heresy was
exclusively Jewish he does call his mystical ascent theory Hellenistic (1975:214) but it is
compatible with documented Jewish mysticism, and is taken up as fully Jewish and as the
most serious possibility by the likes of Dunn (1996:31; 181ff).
Humility
He firstly discusses the background of the word (humility) .
Scholars tend to agree that Paul intends the word negatively in 2:18, but positively in 3:12
(where he encourages the Colossians to clothe themselves with humility). Francis supposes
that the usage in 2:18 is likely to be a technical term, which he confirms by pointing out that
Tertullian, in his discussion about fasting, twice interrupts his Latin text to insert the Greek
word (1975:168). He points out that Hermas also uses the word in connection with fasting, and
he reminds us that Colossians 2 has much to say about food and drink, tasting, and so on.
However, in Tertullian and Hermas, was wider than just fasting. Fasting
also included various other purifications and acts of self-denial. In the LXX, cognate terms
refer to the use of sackcloth and ashes, and abject posture.
All of these uses are connected by their purpose. Humility with its associated devotional
rigors is advocated as a means of receiving spiritual or revelatory assistance. Hermas
recommends it for help in interpreting the parables, and for the receipt of revelatory visions.
Francis quotes Hermas: All inquiries require humility (); fast therefore, and
you will receive what you ask of the Lord (1975:168). Tertullian appeals to OT precedents, such
as Moses fasting and seeing Gods glory, Elijah fasting for forty days and meeting God, and
Daniel fasting and meeting an angel. Francis says that several Jewish-Christian apocryphal
works teach that the consequence of this ascetic practice is entrance into the heavenly
realms (1975:168).
7

Entering
According to Francis (1975:171-6), the primary meaning of is to enter, and he
supplies a wide range of applications in literature from the ancient world, including to
invade in battle, to occupy the ground, and to take possession of [territory].
He then considers Dibelius contention that there is a relationship between the entering in
Colossians and that of the inscriptions at the Clarion Apollo. Dibelius argues that entering
refers to the high point of the initiation ritual. However, in the inscriptions, entering has this
meaning when in combination with entering the mystery. It proves doubtful that
on its own has this meaning, and Dibelius suggestion that paganism is in view in Colossians
fails to make sense of the rest of the evidence. Particularly, it does not serve to clarify what
Paul means by (that which he has seen). The idea of entering initiation only
compounds the confusion over what might be seen upon entering.
Francis points out that if we understand humility to refer to the practices that are effectual
for receiving visions, as it does in Tertullian, Hermas, etc., then both entering and that
which he has seen become abundantly clear. If humility leads one into the heavenly realms,
then the vision of heaven would certainly explain , and would obviously give reason
to the visionary for his unspiritual mind to be puffed up, as Paul charges. Unspiritual
pride, then, is the massively ironic end result of mystic humility.
Francis also suggests that in Judaism might particularly carry the sense of taking
possession, especially of the Promised Land in Joshua. So, if the heresy in Colossians had
apocalyptic leanings, and viewed the conquest in Joshua to be a paradigm for possessing
spiritual promises, then entering heaven spiritually may have been especially significant.
He shows some precedent for the idea that entering heaven enabled the visionaries to
possess themselves of salvation, the portion of the Lord (1975:199), which in turn accounts for
the theme of salvation pervading Colossians.
This interpretation held attraction for him because it provides a rationale for Pauls choice of
rather than any other word for entry (1975:204), but this opinion seems not to have
gained much currency with other interpreters.

Worship of Angels
The major debate surrounding the worship of angels concerns whether the genitive is
objective or subjective. If objective, it refers to the veneration of angelic beings. If subjective,
it refers to the observation of, or participation in, angelic worship of God.
Francis (1975:176-81) offers some literary evidence in which the Jews are said to worship angels.
One example is from The Preaching of Peter, in which an observer reports that Jews
allegedly worship angels and celebrate new moons, etc. Given more than one echo of
Colossians, this would seem to make the objective-genitive interpretation a strong likelihood.
However, in support of the subjective genitive, Francis advances a host of examples of
visionary experiences in which the one entering heaven sees the angelic worship of God, and
even joins in. This kind of thing would have been far likelier to have arisen out of Judaism
and appealed to Christians, because of the experiences of the OT prophets like Isaiah (and
NT prophets like St John), who had visions of heaven and the angels worshipping.
So, in Francis view, the errorists, as he calls them, are putting to death the body by means
of ascetic practices, so that:
the ecstatic sees in his lifetime what other people see only after death (quoting Scholem,
1975:183).

Francis astutely observes that the subjective genitive would still not rule out the possibility
that angels were the recipients of veneration too. St John himself in Revelation falls down to
worship an angel, and is forbidden from doing so. It is readily conceivable that the
experience of angels would induce some misdirected awe. But the exegesis of 2:18 points
strongly in the direction of joining the angels in worship of God.
Francis rounds off his excellent essay with an assessment of the message of Colossians,
given his proposed background. He points out that Colossians is broadly said to be about the
supremacy of Christ. Commentators following Dibelius would suggest that Paul emphasises
Christs supremacy because the Colossians were in danger of elevating angelic mediators or
powers other than Christ. In Francis view, Paul emphasises the supremacy of Christ in order
to show how much more we already possess than the pretend-spirituality of visions of
9

heaven. This also explains the emphasis upon the fullness and riches of the Christian, and the
necessity for patience while we wait for the time when our life, now hidden with his, will
appear with him. Paul is asserting these things over against those who perceive a lack that
they are trying to fill with fleshly spiritual experiences and would-be worship. Direct access
to heaven without the mediation of Christ, and the tendency to sideline the cross as the means
to true spirituality, would both be serious but inadvertent errors in this practice. Therefore,
Paul could understandably use strong enough language to convey the danger of the error
while still adopting a tone of gentleness and understanding.
Further views on the heresy as Jewish by recent interpreters
James Dunn views the threat as coming from a synagogue with influence upon the church
(Jews and Christians shared much in common and may well have been on friendly terms),
presenting a credible philosophy, capable of dealing with whatever heavenly powers might
be thought to control or threaten human existence. He doubts that this synagogue made any
attempt to undermine or convert the Colossians, as in Galatians, which would have warranted
a sterner reply from Paul (1996:31ff).
NT Wright (1986:23-25), by contrast, believes that pagan converts to Christianity may have
become muddled into thinking that it would be necessary to complete their conversion by
becoming Jews. Wright argues that the genius of Pauls argument is that, to dissuade Gentiles
from being lured into Judaism and away from the centrality of Christ, he portrays Judaism as
if it were a just another pagan religion. It is a philosophy (2:8), developed by human tradition
(2:8, 22). Furthermore:
The underlying view in the letter (set out particularly in 1:15-20) is that he [Jesus]
has taken the position which Judaism assigned to the Jewish law. Having Christ,
therefore, the new converts already possessed all they needed: Judaism had nothing
more to offer them (1986:24).
OBrien accepts Francis analysis but continues to emphasise the possible characteristics that
can be derived from positive statements about Christ, rather than direct allusions to the
heresy. So, he works with the repetition of fullness, and language concerning principalities
and powers. He believes that the Colossian Judaism was for a spiritual elite who were being
urged to press on in wisdom and knowledge so as to attain true fullness. Secondly, angels
10

and principalities were seen to have played a prominent role in creation and the giving of the
Law. They were regarded as controlling the communication between God and man, and so
needed to be placated by keeping strict legal observances (1998:CD-ROM).

My own critical reflection

I am much impressed with Francis essay. His analysis of 2:18 is a simple explanation of the
seeming variety of issues involved in Colosse, accounting for most of the data, while
grounding his reconstruction in evidence from the period.
I read the trouble as coming from a Jewish or Jewish-Christian group who are promoting
deeper spiritual experiences in the mould of OT prophets. They promise deeper worship
through rigorous devotion, and direct knowledge of God and access to his presence.
While it is initially counter-intuitive to read the evidence as relating to Jewish opponents,
despite the presence of circumcision and Sabbath in Pauls argument, once one realises what
Paul is trying to achieve, it seems obvious. His intent is to remind Christians that Christ is
supreme, and that through his condescension to us (as opposed to our attempted elevation to
him), we have been fully reconciled to God, and brought into complete knowledge of God.
By contrast, Judaism (despite its divine origin) is cast as vain philosophy and human
tradition and based on elemental principles. This emphasises the departure of Judaism from
the truth, having lost connection with the head, and not recognised its Messiah.
I agree with NT Wrights argument that the regulations in 2:13-17 are best explained as
Jewish. Particularly telling for me is that Paul regards the things that were important to the
false teachers to be shadows3 of which Christ is the reality. This accords well with Pauls
view of the Jewish Law elsewhere (and with direct statements in Hebrews) i.e. that the law
prefigures Christ but it does not accord with his view of pagan religion.

Some interpreters regard shadow terminology to belong to the rhetoric of Pauls opponents, perhaps in a
Platonic sense, where the world is a shadow, whereas the spiritual, ideal realm is the reality. I personally think
that it is easy enough to see how shadow language would function within his own law paradigm, but either
interpretation makes the same point. Even if it is the opponents rhetoric, Paul doesnt disagree that the OT
represents shadows of what was to come. He disagrees that unmediated spiritual experience of God is the
reality. Christ is the reality.

11

A very important element within the discussion is the tone of Pauls letter. While there is
warning of serious danger, the letter is encouraging and free of rebuke. There is nothing like
the vitriol present in Galatians in evidence here. There are a few possibilities as to why Paul
adopts such a relaxed tone:

The threat was not so severe (perhaps not a direct challenge to the cross).

The threat had not yet made inroads (there are hints in the letter that the trouble is still
outside the church circle).

The error was understandable (as a misguided desire for deeper spirituality, or
artificially to bring about what was genuinely given to some).

This church was not begun by Paul, and he didnt wish to press his authority upon a
community unknown to him.

Wright and Dunn differ over whether or not the Jews were making a bid to convert
Christians. OBrien views the threat to be significant on the basis of in 2:8,
which is a rare and vivid word meaning to kidnap; to carry off as booty, and indicating
that the troublemakers had evil designs on the congregation (OBrien, 1998:CD-ROM). Im not
convinced that the trouble was a direct threat. Even a good desire that inadvertently shifts the
focus from Christ and onto the flesh would represent sufficient danger for Pauls warning.
Pauls gentleness is explicable if there is reason for ambivalence in the error. Given that Paul
knew of a man who was caught up into heaven (as opposed to entering by his own
initiative4), and himself experienced these sorts of things, and given that there are plenty of
scriptural parallels for the experience, it is understandable that Christians should be so
deceived. For example, Daniel is a key figure in OT apocalyptic expectation. Therefore, it
would be easy to see how replicating his behaviour (refusing certain foods etc.) might be
extrapolated as a pattern for divine experience. The error is dangerous, but not faithless.
I am willing to accept that a Jewish bid for converts, even of the Galatian order, is a
possibility, despite Pauls easy tone. It merely means that Paul is confident that the Colossian
church is standing firm, and will continue to do so with a little encouragement. I am less keen
on this option on the grounds that Paul emphasises a number of mystical elements, he argues
4

Keener emphasises this difference: Although these were attempts to simulate the experience of biblical
visionaries like Ezekiel, the biblical visionaries sought only to walk close to God, not to achieve mystic
experiences per se. On vain visions cf., e.g., Jeremiah 23:32 and perhaps Ecclesiastes 5:7. (1997:CD-ROM)

12

his case vastly differently than in Galatians, and he seems to regard the issue as having more
to do with defective worship (2:16, 18, 23) than legalism or idolatry.
In the face of defective worship, Paul waxes lyrical about the cosmic Christ (1:15-20), and he
directs significant irony at those who regard experiences of angels as being fuller and
deeper than relationship with the one who created all powers. He consistently refers to this
super-spiritual worship as hollow and vain and fleshly. The clinching piece comes in 3:2. To
people who are attempting to be transported into heaven, Paul says, set your minds on things
above, not on earthly things!
So, I am inclined to prefer the view that the threat is less immediate, and that it represents a
corruption of worship in favour of spiritual experience. It sidelines Christ and offers entry to
the presence of God without the mediation of the cross and reconciliation in Jesus. It
represents a significant and dangerous distraction from the gospel, and impatience towards
Christian eschatological hope.
Colossians is a beautiful piece of writing, packed with peerless descriptions of Christ, and
full of careful yet wickedly ironic arguments against hollow mystical worship. More than
this, it is a vital message for the thrill-seeking church of today, bored as it is with the cross,
forgiveness of sins, and the hope of glory.

13

Bibliography
Barnett, PW. 1998. Opponents of Paul. (In: Hawthorne, GF; Martin, RP; and Reid, DG;
eds, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. CD-ROM.)
Dunn, JDG. 1996. NIGTC: The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, MI.
Francis, FO & Meeks, WA. 1975. Conflict at Colossae. Missoula, MO: Scholars Press.
Francis, FO. 1975. Humility and Angelic Worship in Col 2:18. (In Francis, FO & Meeks,
WA. Conflict at Colossae. Missoula, MO: Scholars Press. 163-195.)
Francis, FO. 1975. The Background of Embateuein. (In Francis, FO & Meeks, WA.
Conflict at Colossae. Missoula, MO: Scholars Press. 197-207.)
Furnish, VP. 1992. Epistle to the Colossians. (In Freedman, DN ed. The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Doubleday.) 1090-1096.
Guthrie, D. 1990. New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: IVP.
Keener, CS. 1997. IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP. CD-ROM.
Kummel, WG. 1973. Introduction to the New Testament. 17th ed. Nashville, TN: Parthenon.
OBrien, PT. 1998. Letter to the Colossians. (In: Hawthorne, GF; Martin, RP; and Reid,
DG; eds, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. CD-ROM.)
OBrien, PT. 1982. Word Biblical Commentary: Colossians, Philemon. Waco, TX: Word.
Wright, NT. 1986. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

14