CHAPTER ONE

HIS TACTFUL APPROACH 1:1-2

1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

2. To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you,

and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"

MANY writers have adopted the form of letters to express themselves - among the ancients there

was Cicero, at a later time there was Erasmus, and coming on there were Thomas Gray, Horace

Walpole, William Cowper, Charles Lamb and Sir Walter Scott; and there was Samuel

Rutherford, who wrote his from prison; and right down to writers of our present time - and so

many others in between.

This ministry of letter writing was much used in the Early Church, and, as we know, the New

Testament contains no less than twenty of them - we feel that Hebrews is more of a treatise than

a letter. More -than half of these letters were written by Paul. We speak humanly, for we do not

forget that behind him is the inspiring HOLY SPIRIT - "words . . . which the Holy Ghost

teacheth", as he says in I Corinthians 2:13.

Isn't it interesting that GOD uses this method, as so many other methods, to convey His truth to

human minds? I sometimes wonder why it is not employed more by Christian people, especially

by shy folk who find it so difficult to speak about the things of GOD, but who could, perhaps, by

prayerful tact write to another about things that matter most - perchance a simple testimony to

what the Saviour means to the writer, and what He could, and would, mean to the reader. Who

shall measure what such a ministry might accomplish in His Name.

Well now, here is the great apostle engaged upon his correspondence. Can you not almost hear

him as he dictates sentence by sentence - some of the sentences, by the way, so long that, as in

Ephesians, the full stops are almost a rarity. He certainly did dictate his letters, as, for instance,

we observe in Romans 16:22, "I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle". I wonder what the Roman

guard thought as he listened to the inspired words - perhaps these very words were part of the

means whereby Paul was able to lead some of the soldiers "that kept him", Acts 28:16, to

CHRIST, these "saints in Caesar's household", as Philippians 4:22 describes them.

Though the letters were dictated, it seems that, in concluding, the apostle would take the pen in

his own hand, and write a few words of personal salutation. "The salutation of Paul with mine

own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write", II Thessalonians 3:17; I Corinthians

16:21. How pathetically he remarks, "See how large a letter I have written unto you with

mine own hand", Galatians 6:11 - was that because of bad eyesight, which some think was his

"thorn in the flesh", II Corinthians 12:7? - and what about that other poignant reference at the

end of this very Epistle that we are to study together, "The salutation by the hand of me, Paul.

Remember my bonds", Colossians 4:18?

Why that last phrase? Was it just that he begged them to remember before GOD his irksome

captivity? I think not. Bear in mind that he is bound at the wrist to a Roman soldier, and so he

makes but a poor fist at his handwriting. I suggest that he offers this as an excuse for his perhaps

illegible signature. Thus, then, we overhear him dictating to his amanuensis. Did Tychicus take it

down in shorthand?

A form of shorthand was practised among the Greeks, before CHRIST, and among the Latins of

Cicero's day, 60 B.C. Sir Isaac Pitman was not the inventor of the art, though the introducer of a

most useful method.

But now, the missive has reached its destination, and on one Lord's Day, as the church at

Colossae is assembled for worship, someone rises, and announces, "We have a letter from our

beloved brother Paul".

Would that not create an excited stir? It is thought that Paul was not the human founder of this

church, writing as he was to these "many as have not seen my face in the flesh", Colossians

2:1, but it is evident that he was well-known to them, and highly esteemed among them. Indeed,

Epaphras, the reputed founder, Colossians 1:7, was at the very time of Paul's writing at Rome,

Colossians 4:12-13, seemingly to consult the apostle concerning certain false teaching that was

being promulgated among the church members. This heresy is dealt with at large in the course of

the Epistle.

In fact, we may say that the theme of the Epistle is "The Church". Dr. Graham Scroggie adds

that the keyword is "Fulness" - all that the Church needs is in CHRIST. And I see that Dr.

Campbell Morgan divides up the main part of the Epistle into

(a) The Glorious CHRIST and His Church: Provision, and

(b) The Church and her glorious CHRIST: Possession.

Be it so; and for ourselves, we proceed to our more detailed examination of the letter, which we

might think of as an essay in Learning by Correspondence, and we begin with Paul's lesson in

tactful approach.

THE SUBTLE REFERENCE TO HIS AUTHORITY

He doesn't throw his weight about, as he was so well entitled to do; but he just throws in, almost

casually, the fact that he is "an apostle", as if to remind his hearers that, in what he has to say, he

speaks with all the authority that his important position gives him.

But does he legitimately belong to "this apostleship", Acts 1:25? Some people consider that

Peter proceeded precipitously in moving to the election of Matthias in the place of Judas. They

advance the argument that to settle the matter by "lot" was wrong, seeing that in the Christian

age the HOLY SPIRIT should have been their guide.

But we remember that He had not yet been given to the Church at Pentecost; and, in any case, He

was as able to lead by lot as He had done in past ages in "the whole disposing thereof is of the

Lord", Proverbs 16:33.

Another objection is that Matthias is never heard of again; but is Lebbreus, or Simon Zelotes?

Anyhow, the suggestion that Peter made a mistake is evidently not shared by the Early Church

herself, since the number of the apostolate seems to have been officially regarded as complete

again after the election of Matthias - see Acts 6:2, "Then the twelve called the multitude of the

disciples unto them."

Of course, if Paul had been intended to become a member of the original band, there was another

vacancy on the death of James, Acts 12:2; but in reality he does not appear to have been eligible

for the post, inasmuch as he did not fulfil the conditions, "men which have companied with us

all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us", Acts 1:21.

It is interesting to recall that Barnabas is linked with Paul as an apostle, in Acts 14:14.

Notwithstanding all that has been said, there is no doubt, or question, of the reality and authority

of Paul's apostleship. In the controversial Epistle to the Galatians he finds it incumbent to state

the fact of his position, for he is to deal weighty blows on behalf of the truth. So he declares

himself as "an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the

Father", Galatians 1:1.

Not that he boasted of the privilege, but ever held it in deepest humility, and profoundest

gratitude, "as one born out of due time, for I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet

to be called an apostle . . ." I Corinthians 15:8-9.

Great men are, at heart, humble men; and true humility is of great value in the sight of GOD.

Says I Peter 5:5, "Be clothed with humility, for God giveth grace to the humble". The thought

of Paul's innate humility in the face of his high office leads one to think that perhaps there is no

limit to what GOD can do with us if only we are humble enough! Many Christian careers have

served to underline that feeling.

When, in Romans 11:13, Paul speaks of himself as "the apostle of the Gentiles", he adds, "I

magnify mine office", but he doesn't magnify himself. Well - Paul makes here but gentle use of

his claim to be an apostle. It is part of his tactful approach to his readers. And here is a further

instance of the same -

THE DELICATE ALLUSION TO HIS READERS

He calls them "saints", 2. The word in itself has no moral or ethical connotation, but simply

means, set apart.

- We speak of a church as a holy place - not that there is anything special about its brick and