The Question Begins With the Exact Wording of Colossians 4:16

The question about the epistle to the Laodiceans arises from Paul’s instruction in Colossians 4:16: after the Colossians had read his letter, they were to see that it was also read in the congregation of the Laodiceans, and they were likewise to read the letter “from Laodicea.” That wording matters. Paul did not say, “the letter to the Laodiceans.” He said, “the letter from Laodicea.” In other words, the emphasis in the verse is on the place from which the Colossians were to obtain the document, not necessarily on the original destination named on its opening line. This observation immediately removes much confusion. Colossians 4:16 does not force the conclusion that there once existed a lost New Testament book called “Laodiceans” that should stand beside Romans or Ephesians in the canon.

The instruction also fits the normal practice of early Christian congregations. Apostolic letters were not meant to remain locked in one city when they contained teaching useful for neighboring congregations. Paul expected public reading of his letters (1 Thess. 5:27), and the churches commonly shared apostolic instruction. This circulation of letters helps explain why the New Testament writings spread through the congregations and were copied so carefully. The command in Colossians 4:16 therefore reflects a living network of assemblies that understood the value of written apostolic teaching. The verse is not evidence of biblical loss or doctrinal deficiency. It is evidence that the earliest believers treated these letters as precious and authoritative from the beginning.

The Historical Setting of Laodicea Clarifies the Matter

Laodicea was not an isolated congregation. It was part of the Lycus Valley region alongside Colossae and Hierapolis, and the spiritual condition of one congregation affected the others (Col. 4:13-16). Paul had not personally labored in Laodicea in the same direct way that he had at Ephesus, yet he was deeply concerned about the believers there (Col. 2:1). A congregation met in the house of Nympha, showing that the church there was organized enough to gather regularly and receive apostolic instruction (Col. 4:15). The labor of Epaphras also played an important role in the region, since Paul commended his hard work for Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis (Col. 4:12-13). Acts 19:10 further suggests that Paul’s wider ministry in Asia had effects extending far beyond Ephesus itself.

This regional context explains why letter exchange made perfect sense. A letter sent to one congregation could contain teaching, warnings, and encouragement immediately useful to nearby believers facing similar pressures. Colossae and Laodicea were close enough for regular communication, and the apostolic concern for doctrinal stability extended across the region. Once that is understood, Colossians 4:16 reads naturally. Paul is not dropping a mysterious hint about an absent sacred book. He is giving practical instructions to neighboring congregations regarding the sharing of apostolic correspondence. That is precisely what one would expect in the first-century C.E. spread of Christian teaching.

The Most Responsible Explanations of the Letter “From Laodicea”

Two explanations deserve serious consideration. The first is that the letter “from Laodicea” was a circular letter that had reached Laodicea and was to be forwarded to Colossae. Many have connected this with Ephesians. That view has long been discussed because Ephesians is notably general in tone, lacks the kind of personal references found in some of Paul’s other letters, and would fit a wider readership among the congregations of Asia Minor. Under that reading, Paul is telling the Colossians to obtain a copy of a letter currently in Laodicea, not necessarily a letter originally addressed only to Laodicea. This explanation fits the wording “from Laodicea” very well.

The second explanation is that Paul wrote an otherwise unknown letter specifically for the Laodicean congregation, and that the Colossians were to read a copy of it because its content was also useful to them. This is entirely possible within the ordinary practice of apostolic correspondence. Paul clearly wrote more than the letters preserved in the New Testament. First Corinthians 5:9 refers to an earlier letter to the Corinthians that is not extant. That fact alone proves that not every piece of apostolic correspondence became part of the canon. Therefore, even if the letter from Laodicea was a distinct Pauline letter now lost, no difficulty follows from that. It would simply mean that Paul wrote a local letter for a local need and that Jehovah did not preserve it as part of the permanent body of Scripture for all believers.

What must be rejected is the claim that Colossians 4:16 proves the Bible is incomplete in some damaging sense. The verse proves no such thing. Whether the document was a circular letter, commonly associated with Ephesians, or a separate local letter now lost, the text gives no indication that the church has been deprived of doctrine necessary for faith and practice. Scripture as given is sufficient to make the man of God complete and fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The existence of additional ancient correspondence does not weaken that truth.

Why the Letter Is Not Part of the Canon

The question, then, is not merely what the letter was, but why it is not in our Bibles as a separate New Testament book. The answer lies in the nature of canonical Scripture. The apostles wrote under divine guidance, but they also engaged in ordinary pastoral correspondence. Not every note, report, travel plan, or local instruction was intended for permanent, universal, canonical use. The New Testament itself hints at this wider body of communication. Paul mentions individuals carrying messages, asks for personal items, references previous contact, and alludes to matters not fully preserved in extant writings (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Tim. 4:13). The canon is not the totality of everything an apostle ever said or wrote. It is the body of writings Jehovah preserved for the enduring instruction of His people.

That means the absence of a separate Laodicean epistle in the canon does not expose a failure in Scripture. It shows that Jehovah preserved exactly what was necessary for the universal congregation. If the letter “from Laodicea” was Ephesians circulating through Laodicea, then it is already present in our Bibles under its recognized canonical form. If it was a short pastoral letter directed to Laodicea, then its absence indicates that it was not intended to function as a permanent component of New Testament Scripture. In either case, there is no missing doctrine, no broken canon, and no reason for doubt. The question is answered by recognizing the difference between all apostolic correspondence and the apostolic writings given to the whole church as Scripture.

This distinction is important apologetically. Skeptics often raise Colossians 4:16 as though it proves Christianity has lost inspired books and therefore cannot know its own revelation. But that objection imports more into the verse than the verse actually says. The text mentions a letter circulating through Laodicea. It does not identify it as a permanently canonical book missing from the church. The burden of proof for that stronger claim is not met by the verse itself. A careful historical-grammatical reading refuses to stretch the text beyond its words.

Why the Later “Epistle to the Laodiceans” Does Not Solve the Problem

A later writing known as the Epistle to the Laodiceans has circulated in some Christian history, especially in Latin form. But that document is not the answer to Colossians 4:16. It is generally recognized as a later, derivative composition, largely stitched together from Pauline phrases and lacking the force, depth, and authenticity of Paul’s canonical letters. It belongs among later apocryphal writings, not among the inspired books of the New Testament. The fact that such a text appeared actually shows how strongly later readers wanted to fill the perceived gap created by Colossians 4:16. But a pious attempt to fill a gap is not the same as apostolic authenticity.

The church did not wrongly exclude a genuine Pauline masterpiece from the canon. Rather, later readers produced a substitute that never bore the marks of true apostolic authority. The canonical books were received because they were recognized as apostolic and authoritative from the earliest period. A patched-together later text did not meet that standard. Therefore, when readers encounter references online or in older discussions to a surviving “Epistle to the Laodiceans,” they should not imagine that they have found the lost document Paul intended in Colossians. They have found a later imitation. The difference is decisive.

What Colossians 4:16 Really Teaches Us About the New Testament

Far from creating uncertainty, Colossians 4:16 strengthens confidence in the New Testament. It shows that the apostolic letters were read publicly, copied, exchanged, valued, and preserved in real congregations. It shows a network of churches taking written doctrine seriously. It shows that the earliest believers did not treat apostolic teaching as private correspondence of little consequence, but as instruction worthy of circulation. In that respect, the verse opens a window into the book writing process of the New Testament. The churches heard these writings, copied them, shared them, and built their lives around them.

It also teaches a healthy doctrine of Scripture. Believers do not need every ancient letter ever written in order to possess all that Jehovah intended for faith, worship, doctrine, and conduct. We need the Scriptures He preserved. Colossians itself is one of those preserved writings, and in it Paul directs attention to another letter in circulation without suggesting that the church’s future would hang on the survival of every local document. The weight of the verse falls on faithful transmission and mutual edification, not on an anxiety-producing mystery about a lost book.

So what was the epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Colossians 4:16? The best answer is this: it was a letter available through Laodicea, either a circular Pauline letter, often connected with Ephesians, or a local Pauline letter not preserved as canonical Scripture. What it was not is a missing doctrinal treasure whose absence leaves the Bible defective. The Word of God is not diminished by Colossians 4:16. The verse instead confirms the early circulation of apostolic teaching and the careful, practical life of the first-century congregations.

You May Also Enjoy

What Is Laziness Biblically, and What Does the Bible Say About Laziness?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS