Colossians 4:16 is a valuable window into the way apostolic writings circulated among first-century congregations. Paul wrote, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the congregation of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea,” and this statement shows that the Colossians were not to keep his letter as a private possession. The instruction joins Colossae and Laodicea in a practical exchange of apostolic instruction, with one congregation receiving Paul’s letter to Colossae and the other supplying a letter that would come “from Laodicea.” The words do not require that the letter originated with the Laodicean congregation, because a letter could be described from the standpoint of the route by which it traveled. The wording does, however, establish that there was a written communication known to Paul, known to the Colossians, and connected with the Laodicean congregation. This is not a vague rumor from later church tradition; it is a direct instruction embedded in the inspired text of Colossians itself. The question is therefore not whether Colossians 4:16 refers to a real letter, but what kind of letter it was and why it was not preserved in the New Testament canon. The responsible answer must begin with the text, proceed through the known practices of apostolic circulation, and avoid treating later forged writings as though they were the missing apostolic document.

The Historical Setting of Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis

The Lycus Valley setting is essential for understanding Paul’s instruction in Colossians 4:16. Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis were distinct cities, yet they were close enough for regular communication among believers who knew one another through common teachers and shared concerns. Colossians 4:13 says that Epaphras had “much labor” for those in Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, which places these congregations within one pastoral orbit. Paul had not personally seen all the believers in that region, for Colossians 2:1 speaks of those in Laodicea and others who had not seen his face in the flesh. This detail matters because it explains why Paul would write with personal concern even to congregations he had not founded by direct residence among them. His apostolic authority did not depend on local familiarity, but on his commission from Jesus Christ and his responsibility for Gentile congregations. Laodicea later appears in Revelation 3:14-22 as one of the seven congregations addressed by the glorified Jesus, proving that its Christian community remained historically significant near the end of the first century. The Laodicean reference in Colossians therefore belongs to a real geographical, congregational, and epistolary network, not to a fictional setting created by later writers.

What Colossians 4:16 Actually Says

Colossians 4:16 contains two commands and one reciprocal expectation. First, Paul commands that the Colossian letter be read among the Colossians, which shows the public function of apostolic letters in congregational instruction. Second, he commands that the same letter be read in the congregation of the Laodiceans, showing that a letter addressed to one congregation could be intended for wider use. Third, he directs the Colossians to read “the letter from Laodicea,” which establishes that another written communication was expected to reach them from that neighboring congregation. The text does not say “the letter to Laodicea,” though that is one possible way to understand the matter historically. It says “from Laodicea,” meaning the letter was to be obtained from that location after it had been read or held there. This distinction prevents dogmatism about whether the letter was addressed specifically to Laodicea, circulated through Laodicea, or preserved there as part of a broader route. The verse also shows that apostolic letters were not treated casually; they were read aloud, exchanged, copied, and used for instruction. First Thessalonians 5:27 supports the same practice when Paul solemnly charges that his letter be read to all the brothers.

The Letter Was Real, but Not Necessarily Canonical

The evidence warrants the conclusion that a real letter stood behind Paul’s instruction in Colossians 4:16. Paul would not have commanded the Colossians to read a non-existent communication, nor would he have tied their obedience to an imaginary exchange. The issue is whether that letter was inspired Scripture intended for permanent inclusion in the canon. The answer is no, because the New Testament itself shows that apostles wrote more than the inspired books now preserved. First Corinthians 5:9 says, “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people,” indicating that Paul had written an earlier Corinthian letter no longer extant. That earlier letter was real, apostolic, and useful to its recipients, yet it was not preserved as part of the New Testament canon. This supplies the clearest biblical parallel for the letter connected with Laodicea. A writing could be apostolic in the ordinary sense of coming from an apostle, yet not be inspired Scripture designed for all congregations in all generations.

Why an Apostolic Letter Could Be Absent From the Canon

The absence of the Laodicean letter from our Bibles does not weaken confidence in the New Testament. The canon consists of the writings that were inspired by God, not every document produced by an inspired man during his lifetime. Second Timothy 3:16 says that “all Scripture is inspired of God,” but it does not say that every private note, practical dispatch, or temporary instruction written by a prophet or apostle automatically became Scripture. Second Peter 1:21 explains that men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and this identifies the source of Scripture, not every ordinary act of writing performed by those men. Paul could write canonical Scripture, such as Romans and Colossians, and he could also write situational correspondence that served a limited local purpose. The distinction is not artificial; it is demanded by First Corinthians 5:9 and Colossians 4:16. The loss of such a letter means that Jehovah did not preserve it as part of the inspired record for the Christian congregation. The completed New Testament contains everything necessary for doctrine, correction, and instruction, while noncanonical apostolic correspondence belonged to the ordinary communication of first-century congregational life.

The Public Reading and Circulation of Apostolic Letters

Paul’s command assumes a strong reading culture among early Christians. The letter to Colossae was to be read aloud in the congregation, then shared with Laodicea, and the letter from Laodicea was to be read in Colossae. This pattern agrees with the practical realities of the first century, when a single physical copy could be carried by a trusted courier and read publicly before being copied or forwarded. Colossians 4:7-9 names Tychicus and Onesimus as bearers of news, showing that letters were not isolated documents but traveled with reliable men who could explain circumstances and strengthen the hearers. Ephesians 6:21-22 also mentions Tychicus as the one who would make known Paul’s affairs and comfort hearts, giving a concrete example of how a letter carrier functioned as more than a delivery servant. The circulation of letters explains why Paul could expect one congregation to receive instruction first written to another. Galatians 1:2 addresses “the congregations of Galatia,” showing that one epistle could be directed to multiple congregations in a regional setting. The Laodicean reference therefore fits ordinary apostolic practice: letters were read, exchanged, carried, copied, and applied beyond their first destination.

The Connection With Ephesians and the Question of Ephesians 1:1

The most discussed proposal identifies the letter from Laodicea with Ephesians, especially because some early and important witnesses omit the words “in Ephesus” at Ephesians 1:1. This is a real textual issue, and it deserves careful handling rather than quick dismissal. Ephesians 1:1 reads in the familiar form as a letter to the holy ones at Ephesus, yet the omission of the place name in major witnesses has led many to view Ephesians as a circular letter. The circular-letter explanation accounts for the broad theological tone of Ephesians, which lacks the dense local greetings found in letters such as Romans 16 and Philemon. It also explains how a copy of Ephesians could have passed through Laodicea and then been sent on to Colossae. Still, the identification cannot be treated as proven, because Colossians names a letter “from Laodicea” without giving its title or contents. The external tradition of Ephesians as Ephesians remains weighty, and no Greek New Testament manuscript contains a title identifying Ephesians as “To the Laodiceans.” The evidence permits discussion of a relationship between Ephesians and Colossians 4:16, but it does not permit replacing the canonical title of Ephesians with a conjectural Laodicean title.

Why Ephesians Should Not Simply Be Renamed Laodiceans

A conservative documentary approach resists renaming Ephesians on the basis of reconstruction. The inscriptional and canonical tradition overwhelmingly knows the letter as Ephesians, even where the opening textual question at Ephesians 1:1 must be acknowledged. The omission of a place name in some early witnesses can indicate circular distribution, but circular distribution does not erase the Ephesian association. Ephesus was the major city from which Paul’s work radiated throughout Asia, and Acts 19:10 says that during Paul’s Ephesian ministry all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. A letter associated with Ephesus could therefore have been copied for other congregations without losing its Ephesian identity. The textual critic must distinguish between the address within the letter and the later title tradition attached to the letter. Even if one copy circulated without a local name in the opening, that fact does not prove that the copy mentioned in Colossians 4:16 was identical with Ephesians. The most disciplined conclusion is that Ephesians and the Laodicean letter are related in the discussion because of circulation patterns, but not identical by established manuscript proof.

The Witness of Papyrus 46 to Paul’s Letters

Papyrus 46 is vital because it shows that collections of Paul’s letters were being copied at an early period. P46, dated here to 100–150 C.E., preserves substantial portions of Romans, Hebrews, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and First Thessalonians. Its existence demonstrates that Paul’s writings had moved beyond isolated local copies into a collected corpus very early in Christian transmission. The absence of a Laodicean epistle from P46 is not by itself a complete argument, since the manuscript is not complete and does not contain every Pauline letter now in the New Testament. Nevertheless, the manuscript confirms that the early Pauline collection did not depend on a separate canonical “Laodiceans.” It also shows the textual stability of several letters relevant to this question, especially Ephesians and Colossians. If an inspired Pauline letter to Laodicea had belonged to the recognized apostolic corpus, one would expect clearer early manuscript, catalog, and citation evidence for it. The documentary record instead supports the canonical Pauline letters we possess, not a lost canonical book missing from the Bible.

The False Epistle to the Laodiceans

Later writers produced an apocryphal “Epistle to the Laodiceans,” but that writing is not Paul’s missing letter. It is a brief Latin composition formed largely from phrases and ideas already present in Paul’s genuine letters, especially Philippians and Galatians. Its style lacks the argumentative depth, historical concreteness, and theological force of authentic Pauline correspondence. It reads like a patchwork attempt to fill a perceived gap created by Colossians 4:16. The very existence of such a forgery shows that later readers were curious about Paul’s reference and tried to supply what the manuscript tradition had not preserved. The New Testament Apocrypha are marked by this kind of secondary imitation, where later authors borrow apostolic names or settings to gain authority. The authentic New Testament writings are sober, historically anchored, and textually attested in ways that such later compositions are not. The false Laodiceans should therefore be rejected as non-Pauline, noncanonical, and irrelevant to the restoration of the original New Testament text.

Marcion, the Muratorian Evidence, and Canonical Boundaries

The second century also shows that false teachers and unauthorized editors tried to reshape apostolic writings. Marcion is especially relevant because he used a reduced and altered collection of Pauline letters and reportedly associated Ephesians with Laodicea. This does not provide neutral evidence that Ephesians was originally Laodiceans, because Marcion’s handling of Scripture was controlled by his doctrinal agenda and selective canon. The Muratorian Fragment is significant because it reflects early canonical awareness and also recognizes that forged letters circulated under apostolic names. Its rejection of spurious writings demonstrates that early Christians were not gullible collectors of anything bearing Paul’s name. They distinguished authentic apostolic writings from fraudulent compositions by authorship, doctrine, usage, and reception among the congregations. This is exactly the kind of historical discipline needed in evaluating the alleged Laodicean epistle. The later existence of forged Laodicean material confirms the need for caution, not the need to add another book to the New Testament.

The Canon Was Recognized, Not Invented

The New Testament canon was not created by later councils as though the Christian congregation had no Scriptures until the fourth century C.E. The writings carried authority because they were inspired, apostolic, doctrinally consistent, and received among the congregations from the beginning. Second Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’s letters and places them in relation to “the rest of the Scriptures,” showing that Pauline writings were already being treated as Scripture during the apostolic era. First Timothy 5:18 joins scriptural citations in a way that shows an emerging recognition of written Christian authority alongside the Hebrew Scriptures. The canon was therefore not a late ecclesiastical invention, but the recognition of writings that already bore divine authority. This matters for the Laodicean question because a missing local letter is not automatically a missing canonical book. The inspired writings were preserved and recognized because they had a permanent role in the instruction of all congregations. The Laodicean letter, whatever its precise contents, did not enter that recognized body of Scripture and must not be forced into it by speculation.

Inspiration and the Role of the Holy Spirit

The doctrine of inspiration must be stated carefully. The Holy Spirit moved men to write Scripture, but believers today are guided solely by the Spirit-inspired Word, not by a present indwelling that grants new revelation. John 14:26 applied directly to the apostles, whom Jesus promised would be taught and reminded of what He had said. Second Timothy 3:16 identifies Scripture as inspired and useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Second Peter 1:20-21 states that prophecy did not originate from human will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. These passages explain why canonical Scripture possesses divine authority. They do not require that every letter Paul ever wrote was inspired Scripture. The Laodicean letter can therefore be treated as historically real without being treated as a lost inspired book. This preserves both the truthfulness of Colossians 4:16 and the completeness of the New Testament canon.

Why the Letter Was Not Preserved in Our Bibles

The most responsible answer is that the letter connected with Laodicea was not preserved because it was not part of the inspired New Testament canon. It served its purpose in the first-century exchange among congregations, just as Paul’s earlier Corinthian letter served a purpose known from First Corinthians 5:9. The contents were either locally directed, sufficiently represented in preserved canonical letters, or not inspired Scripture intended for permanent use among all congregations. This is not an argument from silence, because the New Testament itself demonstrates the existence of apostolic correspondence outside the canon. It is also not an admission that Scripture is incomplete, because canonicity depends on inspiration, not on the survival of every apostolic communication. The manuscript tradition gives strong support for the canonical Pauline corpus and gives no comparable support for a separate canonical Laodiceans. The later apocryphal Laodiceans fails every serious test of authenticity, including language, content, historical depth, and manuscript standing. Our Bibles do not lack a lost book of Scripture; they lack only a noncanonical first-century letter that Jehovah did not preserve as Scripture.

The Reliability of the New Testament Text Remains Unshaken

Colossians 4:16 strengthens rather than weakens confidence in the New Testament text. The verse shows that apostolic letters were exchanged, read publicly, and valued by congregations during the lifetime of the apostles. This pattern explains how authentic writings could spread widely and why early collections of Paul’s letters formed rapidly. The documentary witnesses, including early papyri, majuscules, versions, and early catalog evidence, demonstrate that the church preserved the writings that functioned as Scripture. The absence of a canonical Laodiceans from this stream is meaningful because the same stream preserves Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and other Pauline writings with substantial stability. The textual critic does not need to invent a missing canonical book to account for one reference in Colossians. The historical-grammatical reading of Colossians 4:16 gives a concrete and sufficient explanation: Paul referred to a real letter available through Laodicea, but that letter was not part of the inspired canon. The restored New Testament text is therefore not diminished by the loss of a noncanonical letter, and the authority of Colossians remains fully intact.

You May Also Enjoy

When the Bible Says “It Says,” “Scripture Says,” or “God Says”

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS