06.28. Paul's Epistles--the Third Group

Chapter 27 Paul’s Epistles--the Third Group The third group of the Pauline Epistles is that of the period of the imprisonment--including those to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and the personal letter to Philemon. Of course, Paul had more than one imprisonment--a long one at Cesarea, as well as that at Rome (see the story of both in Acts 21:1-40; Acts 22:1-30; Acts 23:1-35; Acts 24:1-27; Acts 25:1-27; Acts 26:1-32; Acts 27:1-44; Acts 28:1-31); but the most conclusive evidence points to Rome rather than Cesarea as the place where these epistles were written. It is perhaps unnecessary for us to go into the details which prove this. There is some question, indeed, as to which of the two first-named were written the earlier, but as to this also the preponderance of opinion is in favor of the order here given. The genuineness of Ephesians would seem to be proven by the text itself, which twice mentions Paul as its author (Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 3:1). Moreover, these statements are corroborated by certain data in the text bearing upon Paul’s personal history. Finally the whole of the early church, heretical as well as faithful, is practically a unit in substantiating the same fact. The Baur School, and some others in the early part of the last century, ventured to question the genuineness of this epistle on the ground of its literary style and certain of its teachings, and surmised it to have been written by some attendant or disciple of the great apostle, but their objections have all been “fairly and fully confuted.” As one has well said, “Only such a man as Paul could be the author of this epistle. If then, he is not the author, where is the spirit to be found in those times equal to him? Such a one could not walk through the world and leave no trace behind. I ask then, Who and where is he?” Indeed a spurious writer fabricating the name of Paul to such a document as this, is on the face of it, almost inconceivable and self-contradictory. A little less certainty, but only a little less, attaches to the question as to where this epistle was sent. It is true that since the middle of the second century the whole church has called it “the Epistle to the Ephesians,” and it is so stated in the first verse. But the word “Ephesus” in that verse is not found in two of the early manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, an omission which throws some doubt upon it, giving a slight encouragement to those who would attribute its original destination to the Laodiceans, who were in the neighborhood of the Ephesians (compare Colossians 4:16). The contents of the epistle itself, however, and the apostle’s relation to the church at Ephesus, go to sustain the common acceptation, the strongest objection to it on internal grounds being that it contains no personal greetings. It is scarcely possible, some think, that Paul could have written to a church where he was so well known without sending such greetings. But in reply to this, Professor Riddle points out that this was peculiar to Paul, and that there are fewer personal references in those epistles written by him to the churches where he was well known, than in the case of the opposite. Examine the epistles to the Galatians, Philippians and Thessalonians, churches where Paul was well known, and observe that there are practically no personal greetings in them, while in the cases of Romans and Colossians, where he was presumably unknown, there are many. Dr. Hodge thinks, and I am inclined to agree with him, that “the most probable solution of the problem is, that the epistle was written to the Ephesians and addressed to them, but being intended for the Gentile Christians as a class, rather than for the Ephesians as a church, it was designedly thrown into such a form as to suit it to all Christians in the neighboring churches, to whom, no doubt, the apostle wished it to be communicated.” This epistle is regarded with good reason as by far the most difficult of all the writings of Paul, and to quote Dean Alford, “As the wonderful effect of the Spirit of inspiration is nowhere in Scripture more evident than here, so then to discern the things of the Spirit is the spiritual mind here more than anywhere required.” As to the Epistle to the Colossians, there is no doubt as to the place where it was sent, owing to such allusions corroborative of the salutation as are found in Colossians 2:1; Colossians 4:13-16. Colossae was in the vicinity of the cities named in these passages, in the south western part of Asia Minor and in the province known as Greater Phrygia. Paul visited that region on both his second and third journeys as we learn in Acts 10:1-48; Acts 11:1-30; Acts 12:1-25; Acts 13:1-52; Acts 14:1-28; Acts 15:1-41; Acts 16:1-40; Acts 17:1-34; Acts 18:1-28, but nothing is said as to his being in the city of Colossae itself or founding the church there, and the probability is that such was not the case. Indeed, the text itself would lead us to believe that such was not the case, see Colossians 1:3-7; Colossians 1:23; Colossians 2:1; Colossians 2:5. It is true that Paul was acquainted with some of the leaders of that church, such as Epaphras and Philemon, but this might easily be accounted for on other grounds. But if it should be asked, How then shall we account for Paul’s writing an epistle to a church which he did not found, we might reply by pointing to Romans, already mentioned--a church to which he wrote, but which he did not found. The church at Colossae was composed mainly of Gentile Christians, judging by the allusion in Colossians 2:13, and as the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul doubtless felt that he had a relationship and an obligation to that church which fully justified his letter.

Touching the genuineness of the epistle, the text itself specifies Paul as its author (Colossians 1:1-24; Colossians 4:18). As in the case of Ephesians it also furnishes other corroborative data, such as allusions to his suffering as an apostle (Colossians 1:29), and especially as an apostle to the Gentiles (Colossians 4:11). It refers to that circle of companions which we know from other sources gathered around the apostle, such as Timothy, Epaphras, Tychicus, Onesimus, Luke, Mark, and Demas, and finally it deals with the same fundamental errors that are combated by Paul in other places, and “in such a way that the points of agreement and diversity are readily perceived.” Indeed, the genuineness of this epistle was never doubted in ancient times, nor indeed in modern times with any measure of success. The heresies which the apostle attacks, have led the Baur School to think that possibly it was written in a post-apostolic era and when those heresies were more developed than in Paul’s time, but this conjecture is unworthy of serious consideration in face of the facts already named. The germs of these heresies were in existence, earlier than the date of this epistle, and can be traced in some of Paul’s writings like Romans 14:12 and Galatians 2:3-4. The character of the Epistle to the Philippians distinguishes it in a marked way from either of the foregoing. To quote a commentator, “It is not divided as they are into a theoretical and hortatory part, but is a genuine out-gush of the heart, and bears more than any other a familiar character.” Its importance, aside from the one doctrinal passage (Php 2:5-11), lies in the province of practical life. More than once had this church contributed to the financial support of the apostle (Php 4:15-16), and now they have done it again, forwarding by a messenger their gifts to him at Rome (Php 4:10-20). It is this last act, together with the return of Epaphroditus (Php 2:25-30), which gave occasion for the letter. The letter itself designates Paul as its author; represents Timothy as one of his associates; refers to his imprisonment and his former preaching in Macedonia, and gives other data like the preceding epistles to substantiate that claim. The testimony of the early church is in the same direction, so that it seems almost foolish to refer to any modern criticism of the point, which is done only as in some other instances, as a matter of literary curiosity. Baur, for example, thought the epistle to contain gnostic ideas, that is, heretical teaching of the period post-apostolic, leading him to doubt its Pauline origin. He thought too that he found an inelegant word in one place, and one or two that were forced out of place in others. There were certain historical allusions, too, very obscure indeed to the average reader, which he thought to be post-Pauline, but in reference to all these things, those in whose judgment we may repose the utmost confidence assure us that when properly understood, they become voucher for the genuineness of the epistle instead of arguments against it.

According to Php 1:7; Php 1:13-20 and Php 4:22, Paul was a prisoner when he wrote this epistle, but with freedom not only to write, but to preach. It is evident that he had been in that situation also for sometime. His references to the imperial palace, moreover, indicate, as we have already stated, that the place of his imprisonment was Rome. The letter to Philemon was written at the same time, and sent to the same place and makes mention of the same persons as Colossians. The early church amply attests its genuineness, and from the internal point of view, “it is strongly marked by those incidental relations of thought and expression which indicate an author’s hand. It contains but ten words not found in his other writings.” This last-named circumstance, however, strange to say, has been seized upon by some modern critics to disprove the Pauline authorship rather than to prove it, as if a writer having produced two or three compositions must thereafter confine himself to the very same vocabulary in all his subsequent productions, no matter what his subject or how long the time intervening between his writings. Professor Hackett well says: “This is hypercriticism, betraying a morbid sensibility to doubt.” The internal evidence of genuineness, marked by these relationships of thought and expression, is corroborated in a most interesting manner by many historical allusions, in which the apostle refers to events in his own life or to other persons with whom he was connected, and which harmonize perfectly with similar statements or incidental allusions in his other epistles or in the Acts. The occasion for the epistle is easily discernible from the text. Onesimus was a slave of Philemon, a Christian master, and had fled out of fear of punishment, because, presumably, of a theft he had committed. He comes into contact with Paul at Rome and is won to Jesus Christ. Paul is now sending his fellow laborer Tychicus to Ephesus and Colossae with a letter to those churches, and avails himself of the opportunity to send back Onesimus to Philemon, whom he commends at the same time to the church at Colossae. He also gives the slave this letter to secure him a kind reception on the part of Philemon, and if possible, a remission of his punishment. The entire story reads so much like a romance that it has been difficult for some to believe it to be true, and yet profane history has a parallel related in one of the letters of the younger Pliny; although, as scholars have pointed out, the communication of Paul is very much the superior of the two, “not only in the spirit of Christianity, of which Pliny was ignorant, but in dignity of thought, argument, beauty of style and eloquence.”