Thus we find that Tiberius was in the habit of delaying the hearing of causes, and retaining the accused in prison unheard, merely out of procrastination. (f2551) So that, even after St. Paul’s prosecutors had arrived, and though we were to suppose them anxious for the progress of the trial, it might still have been long delayed by the Emperor’s caprice. But there is no reason to think that, when they came, they would have wished to press on the cause. From what had already occurred, they had every reason to expect the failure of the prosecution. In fact it had already broken down at its first stage, and Festus had strongly pronounced his opinion of the innocence ( Act. 25:25, and Act. 26:32.) of the accused. Their hope of success at Rome must have been grounded either on influencing the Emperor’s judgment by private intrigue, or on producing further evidence in support of their accusation. For both these objects, delay would be necessary. Moreover, it was quite in accordance with the regular course of Roman jurisprudence, that the Court should grant a long suspension of the cause, on the petition of the prosecutor, that he might be allowed time to procure the attendance of witnesses (f2552) from a distance. The length of time thus granted would depend upon the remoteness of the place where the alleged crimes had been committed. We read of an interval of twelve months permitted during Nero’s reign, in the case of an accusation against Suilius, (f2553) for misdemeanors committed during his government of Proconsular Asia. The accusers of St. Paul might fairly demand a longer suspension; for they accused him of offences committed not only in Palestine (which was far more remote than Proconsular Asia from Rome), but also over the whole (f2554) Empire. Their witnesses must be summoned from Judaea, from Syria, from Cilicia, from Pisidia, from Macedonia. In all cities, from Damascus to Corinth, in all countries, "from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum," must testimony be sought to prove the seditious turbulence of the ringleader of the Nazarenes. The interval granted them for such a purpose could not be less than a year, and might well be more. (f2555) Supposing it to be the shortest possible, and assuming that the prosecutors reached Rome in August A.D. 61, the first stage of the trial would be appointed to commence not before August A.D. 62. And when this period arrived, the prosecutors and the accused, with their witnesses, must have been heard on each of the charges separately (according to Nero’s regulations), (f2556) and sentence pronounced on the first charge before the second was entered into. Now, the charges against St. Paul were divided (as we have seen) into three (f2557) separate heads of accusation. Consequently the proceedings, which would of course be adjourned from time to time to suit the Emperor’s convenience, may well have lasted till the beginning of 63, at which time St. Luke’s narrative would lead us to fix their termination. (f2558)
During the long delay of his trial, St. Paul was not reduced, as he had been at Caesarea, to a forced inactivity. On the contrary, he was permitted the freest intercourse with his friends, and was allowed to reside in a house of sufficient size to accommodate the congregation which flocked together to listen to his teaching. The freest scope was given to his labors, consistent with the military custody under which he was placed. We are told, in language peculiarly emphatic, that this preaching was subjected to no restraint whatever. (f2559) And that which seemed at first to impede must really have deepened the impression of his eloquence; for who could see without emotion that venerable form subjected by iron links to the coarse control of the soldier who stood beside him? How often must the tears of the assembly have been called forth by the upraising of that fettered hand, and the clanking of the chain which checked its energetic action!
We shall see hereafter that these labors of the imprisoned Confessor were not fruitless; in his own words he begot many children in his chains. (Phm. 1:10.) Meanwhile, he had a wider sphere of action than even the metropolis of the world. Not only "the crowd which pressed upon him daily," (2Co. 11:28.) but also "the care of all the churches," demanded his constant vigilance and exertion. Though himself tied down to a single spot, he kept up a constant intercourse, by his delegates, with his converts throughout the Empire; and not only with his own converts, but with the other Gentile Churches, who, as yet, had not seen his face in the flesh. To enable him to maintain this superintendence, he manifestly needed many faithful messengers; men who (as he says of one of them) rendered him profitable service; (2Ti. 4:11.) and by some of whom he seems to have been constantly accompanied, wheresoever he went. (f2560) Accordingly, we find him, during this Roman imprisonment, surrounded by many of his oldest and most valued attendants. Luke, (f2561) his fellow-traveler, remained with him during his bondage; Timothy, ( Phm. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Php. 1:1.) his beloved son in the faith, ministered to him at Rome, as he had done in Asia, in Macedonia, and in Achaia. Tychicus, (f2562) who had formerly borne him company from Corinth to Ephesus, is now at hand to carry his letters to the shores which they had visited together. But there are two names amongst his Roman companions which excite a peculiar interest, though from opposite reasons, - the names of Demas and of Mark. The latter, when last we heard of him, was the unhappy cause of the separation of Barnabas and Paul. He was rejected by Paul as unworthy to attend him, because he had previously abandoned the work of the Gospel out of timidity or indolence. (f2563) It is delightful to find him now ministering obediently to the very Apostle who had then repudiated his services; still more, to know that he persevered in this fidelity even to the end, (f2564) and was sent for by St. Paul to cheer his dying hours. Demas, on the other hand, is now a faithful "fellow laborer" ( Phm. 1:24; cf. Col. 4:14.) of the Apostle; but in a few years we shall find that he had "forsaken" him, "having loved this present world." Perhaps we may be allowed to hope, that, as the fault of Demas was the same with that of Mark, so the repentance of Mark may have been paralleled by that of Demas.
Amongst the rest of St. Paul’s companions at this time, there were two whom he distinguishes by the honorable title of his "fellow-prisoners." One of these is Aristarchus, ( Col. 4:10; cf. Act. 19:29, and Act. 27:2, and Phm. 1:24.) the other Epaphras. ( Col. 1:7; Phm. 1:23.) With regard to the former, we know that he was a Macedonian of Thessalonica, one of "Paul’s companions in travel," whose life was endangered by the mob at Ephesus, and who embarked with St. Paul at Caesarea when he set sail for Rome. The other, Epaphras, was a Colossian, who must not be identified with the Philippian Epaphroditus, another of St. Paul’s fellow-laborers during this time. It is not easy to say what was the exact sense in which these two disciples were peculiarly fellow-prisoners (f2565) of St. Paul. Perhaps it only implies that they dwelt in his house, which was also his prison.
But of all the disciples now ministering to St. Paul at Rome, none has for us a greater interest than the fugitive Asiatic slave Onesimus. He belonged to a Christian named Philemon, a member of the Colossian (f2566) Church. But he had robbed (Phm. 1:18.) his master, and fled from Colossae, and at last found his way to Rome. It is difficult to imagine any portion of mankind more utterly depraved than the associates among whom a runaway pagan slave must have found himself in the capital. Profligate and unprincipled as we know even the highest and most educated society to have then been, what must have been its dregs and offal? Yet from this lowest depth Onesimus was dragged forth by the hand of Christian love. Perhaps some Asiatic Christian, who had seen him formerly at his master’s house, recognized him in the streets of Rome destitute and starving, and had compassion on him; and thus he might have been brought to hear the preaching of the illustrious prisoner. Or it is not impossible that he may have already known St. Paul at Ephesus, where his master Philemon had formerly been himself converted (f2567) by the Apostle. However this may be, it is certain that Onesimus was led by the providence of God to listen to that preaching now which he had formerly despised. He was converted to the faith of Christ, and therefore to the morality of Christ. He confessed to St. Paul his sins against his master. The Apostle seems to have been peculiarly attracted by the character of Onesimus; and he perceived in him the indications of gifts which fitted him for a more important post than any which he could hold as the slave of Philemon. He wished (Phm. 1:13.) to keep him at Rome, and employ him in the service of the Gospel. Yet he would not transgress the law, nor violate the rights of Philemon, by acting in this matter without his consent. He therefore decided that Onesimus must immediately return to his master; and, to make this duty less painful, he undertook himself to discharge the sum of which Philemon had been defrauded.
An opportunity now offered itself for Onesimus to return in good company; for St. Paul was sending Tychicus to Asia Minor, charged, amongst other commissions, with an epistle to Colossae, the home of Philemon. Under his care, therefore, he placed the penitent slave, who was now willing to surrender himself to his offended master. Nevertheless, he did not give up the hope of placing his new convert in a position wherein he might minister no longer to a private individual, but to the Church at large. He intimated his wishes on the subject to Philemon himself, with characteristic delicacy, in a letter which he charged Onesimus to deliver on his arrival at Colossae. This letter is not only a beautiful illustration of the character of St. Paul, but also a practical commentary upon the precepts concerning the mutual relations of slaves (f2568) and masters given in his contemporary Epistles. We see here one of the earliest examples of the mode in which Christianity operated upon these relations; not by any violent disruption of the organization of society, such as could only have produced another Servile War, but by gradually leavening and interpenetrating society with the spirit of a religion which recognized the equality of all men in the sight of God. The letter was as follows:
See Notes On The The Epistle To Philemon.
While Onesimus, on the arrival of the two companions at Colossae, (f2569) hurried to the house of his master with the letter which we have just read, Tychicus proceeded to discharge his commission likewise by delivering to the Presbyters the Epistle with which he was charged, that it might be read to the whole Colossian Church at their next meeting. The letter to the Colossians itself gives us distinct information as to the cause which induced St. Paul to write it. Epaphras, the probable founder of that Church (Col. 1:7), was now at Rome, and he had communicated to the Apostle the unwelcome tidings, that the faith of the Colossians was in danger of being perverted by false teaching. It has been questioned whether several different systems of error had been introduced among them, or whether the several errors combated in the Epistle were parts of one system, and taught by the same teachers.
On the one side we find that, in the Epistle, St. Paul warns the Colossians separately against the following different errors:- First, A combination of angel-worship and asceticism; Secondly, A self-styled philosophy or gnosis which depreciated Christ; Thirdly, A rigid observance of Jewish festivals and Sabbaths. On the other side, First, the Epistle seems distinctly (though with an indirectness caused by obvious motives) to point to a single source, and even a single individual, as the origin of the errors introduced; and, Secondly, we know that at any rate the two first of these errors, and apparently the third also, were combined by some of the early Gnostics. The most probable view, therefore, seems to be, that some Alexandrian Jew had appeared at Colossae, professing a belief in Christianity, and imbued with the Greek "philosophy" of the school of Philo, but combining with it the Rabbinical theosophy and angelology, which afterwards was embodied in the Cabala, and an extravagant asceticism, which also afterwards distinguished several sects of the Gnostics. (f2570) In short, one of the first heresiarchs of the incipient Gnosticism had begun to pervert the Colossians from the simplicity of their faith. We have seen in a former chapter (f2571) how great was the danger to be apprehended from this source, at the stage which the Church had now reached; especially in a church which consisted, as that at Colossae did, principally of Gentiles (Col. 1:25-27, Col. 2:11); and that, too, in Phrygia,(f2572) where the national character was so prone to a mystic fanaticism. We need not wonder, therefore, that St. Paul, acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should have thought it needful to use every effort to counteract the growing evil. This he does, both by contradicting the doctrinal errors of the new system, and by inculcating, as essential to Christianity, that pure morality which these early heretics despised. Such appears to have been the main purpose of the following Epistle:
See Notes On The Epistle To The Colossians.
We have seen that the above Epistle to the Colossians, and that to Philemon, were conveyed by Tychicus and Onesimus, who traveled together from Rome to Asia Minor. But these two were not the only letters with which Tychicus was charged. "We know that he carried a third letter also; but it is not equally certain to whom it was addressed. This third letter was that which is now entitled the Epistle to the Ephesians; (See Eph. 6:21, 22.) concerning the destination of which (disputed as it is) perhaps the least disputable fact is, that it was not addressed to the Church of Ephesus. (f2573)
This point is established by strong evidence, both internal and external. To begin with the former, we remark, First, that it would be inexplicable that St. Paul, when he wrote to the Ephesians, amongst whom he had spent so long a time, and to whom he was bound by ties of such close affection (Act. 20:17, &c), should not have a single message of personal greeting to send. Yet none such are found in this Epistle. Secondly, He could not have described the Ephesians as a Church whose conversion he knew only by report (Eph. 1:15). Thirdly, He could not speak to them, as only knowing himself (the founder of their Church) to be an Apostle by hearsay (Eph. 3:2), so as to need credentials to accredit him with them (Eph. 3:4). Fourthly, He could not describe the Ephesians as so exclusively Gentiles (Eph. 2:11, 4:17), and so recently converted (Eph. 5:8, 1:13, 2:13).
This internal evidence is confirmed by the following external evidence also.
(1.) St. Basil distinctly asserts, that the early writers whom he had consulted declared that the manuscripts of this Epistle in their time did not contain the name of Ephesus, but left out altogether the name of the Church to which the Epistle was addressed. He adds, that the most ancient manuscripts which he had himself seen gave the same testimony. This assertion of Basil’s is confirmed by Jerome, Epiphanius, and Tertullian. (f2574)
(2.) The most ancient manuscript now known to exist, namely, that of the Vatican Library, fully bears out Basil’s words; for in its text it does not contain the words "in Ephesus" at all; and they are only added in its margin by a much later hand. (f2575)
(3.) We know, from the testimony of Marcion, that this Epistle was entitled in his collection "the Epistle to the Laodiceans." And his authority on this point is entitled to greater weight from the fact that he was himself a native of the district where we should expect the earlier copies of the Epistle to exist. (f2576)
The above arguments have convinced the ablest modern critics that this Epistle was not addressed to the Ephesians. But there has not been by any means the same approach to unanimity on the question who were its intended readers. In the most ancient manuscripts of it (as we have said) no Church is mentioned by name, except in those consulted by Marcion, according to which it was addressed to the Laodiceans. Now the internal evidence above mentioned proves that the Epistle was addressed to some particular church or churches, who were to receive intelligence of St. Paul through Tychicus, and that it was not a treatise addressed to the whole Christian world; and the form of the salutation shows that the name of some place (f2577) must originally have been inserted in it. Again: the very passages in the Epistle which have been above referred to, as proving that it could not have been directed to the Ephesians, agree perfectly with the hypothesis that it was addressed to the Laodiceans. Lastly, we know from the Epistle to the Colossians, that St. Paul did write a letter to Laodicea (Col. 4:16) about the same time with that to Colossae.(f2578) On these grounds, then, it appears the safest course to assume (with Paley, in the Horae Paulinae) that the testimony of Marcion (uncontradicted by any other positive evidence) is correct, and that Laodicea was one at least of the Churches to which this Epistle was addressed. And, consequently, as we know not the name of any other Church to which it was written, that of Laodicea should be inserted in the place which the most ancient manuscripts leave vacant.
Still, it must be obvious, that this does not remove all the difficulties of the question. For, first, it will be asked, how came the name of Laodicea (if originally inserted) to have slipped out of these ancient manuscripts? and again, how came it that the majority of more recent manuscripts inserted the name of Ephesus? These perplexing questions are in some measure answered by the hypothesis originated by Archbishop Usher, that this Epistle was a circular letter addressed not to one only, but to several Churches, in the same way as the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to all the Churches in Galatia, and those to Corinth were addressed to the Christians "in the whole province of Achaia." (f2579) On this view, Tychicus would have carried several copies of it, differently superscribed, one for Laodicea, another, perhaps, for Hierapolis, another for Philadelphia, and so on. Hence the early copyists, perplexed by this diversity in their copies, might many of them be led to omit the words in which the variation consisted; and thus the state of the earliest known text (f2580) of the Epistle would be explained. Afterwards, however, as copies of the Epistle became spread over the world, all imported from Ephesus (the commercial capital of the district where the Epistle was originally circulated), it would be called (in default of any other name) the Epistle from Ephesus, and the manuscripts of it would be so entitled; and thence the next step, of inserting the name of Ephesus into the text, in a place where some local designation was plainly wanted, would be a very easy one. And this designation of the Epistle would the more readily prevail, from the natural feeling that St. Paul must have written (f2581) some Epistle to so great a Church of his own founding as Ephesus.
Thus the most plausible account of the origin of this Epistle seems to be as follows. Tychicus was about to take his departure from Rome for Asia Minor. St. Paul had already written (f2582) his Epistle to the Colossians at the request of Epaphras, who had informed him of their danger. But Tychicus was about to visit other places, which, though not requiring the same warning with Colossae, yet abounded in Christian converts. Most of these had been Heathens, and their hearts might be cheered and strengthened by words addressed directly to themselves from the great Apostle of the Gentiles, whose face they had never seen, but whose name they had learned to reverence, and whose sufferings had endeared him to their love. These scattered Churches (one of which was Laodicea) (f2583) had very much in common, and would all be benefited by the same instruction and exhortation. Since it was not necessary to meet the individual case of any one of them, as distinct from the rest, St. Paul wrote the same letter to them all, but sent to each a separate copy authenticated by the precious stamp of his own autograph benediction. And the contents of this circular epistle naturally bore a strong resemblance to those of the letter which he had just concluded to the Colossians, because the thoughts which filled his heart at the time would necessarily find utterance in similar language, and because the circumstances of these Churches were in themselves very similar to those of the Colossian Church, except that they were not infected with the peculiar errors which had crept in at Colossae. (f2584)
The Epistle which he thus wrote consists of two parts: first, a doctrinal, and, secondly, a hortatory portion. The first part contains a summary, very indirectly conveyed (chiefly in the form of thanksgiving), of the Christian doctrines taught by St. Paul, and is especially remarkable for the great prominence given to the abolition of the Mosaic Law. The hortatory part, which has been so dear to Christians of every age and country, enjoins unity (especially between Jewish and Gentile Christians), the renunciation of Heathen vices, and the practice of Christian purity. It lays down rules (the same as those in the Epistle to Colossae, only in an expanded form) for the performance of the duties of domestic life, and urges these new converts, in the midst of the perils which surrounded them, to continue steadfast in watchfulness and prayer. Such is the substance, and such was most probably the history, of the following Epistle:
See Notes On The Epistle To The Ephesians (So Called).
Footnotes
(f2548) About this period (as we learn from Josephus) there were two embassies sent from Jerusalem to Rome; viz., that which was charged to conduct the impeachment of Felix, and that which was sent to intercede with Nero on the subject of Agrippa’s palace, which overlooked the Temple. The former seems to have arrived in Rome in A. D. 60, the latter in A. D. 61. (See note on the Chronological Table in Appendix III.) It is not impossible that the latter embassy, in which was included Ishmael the high priest, may have been entrusted with the prosecution of St. Paul, in addition to their other business.
(f2549) It should be observed that the prosecutor on a criminal charge, under the Roman law, was not the State (as with us the Crown), but any private individual who chose to bring an accusation.
(f2550) At a later period, the suspension on the part of the prosecutor of the proceedings during a year was made equivalent to an abandonment of it, and amounted to an abolitio of the process. In the time of Nero, the prosecutors on a public charge were liable to punishment if they abandoned it from corrupt motives, by the Senatus Consultum Turpilianum. See Tacitus, Ann. 14:41. This law was passed A. D. 61, and was afterwards interpreted by the jurisconsults as forbidding an accuser to withdraw his accusation.
(f2551) Joseph. Ant. 18:6, 5.
(f2552) A good instance is given in Tacitus, Ann. 13:52. This was in a case where the accused had been proconsul in Africa. We may observe that the attendance of the witnesses for the (prosecution could be legally enforced.
(f2553) Tac. Ann. 13:43.
(f2554) "A mover of sedition among the Jews throughout the world," Act. 24:5.
(f2555) Another cause of delay, even if the prosecutors did not make the demand for suspension, would have been the loss of the official notice of the case forwarded by Festus. No appeal (as we have before observed) could be tried without a rescript (called Apostoli or literal dimissorioe) from the inferior to the superior judge, stating full particulars of the case. Such documents might well have been lost in the wreck at Malta.
(f2556) It was Nero’s practice, as Suetonius tells us (Nero, 15), "to take the heads of accusation singly."
(f2557) See above, p. 660.
(f2558) We need not notice the hypothesis of Bottger, that St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome only lasted five days. It has already been refuted by Neander and Wieseler.
(f2559) Act. 28:31:"teaching… with all confidence, no man forbidding him."
(f2560) Comp. Act. 19:22:"two of them that ministered to him."
(f2561) Col. 4:14; Phm. 1:24. Luke seems, however, to have been absent from
Rome when the Epistle to the Philippians was written.
(f2562) Col. 4:7;
Eph. 6:21; cf. Act. 20:4, and Tit. 3:12. [St. Paul himself was not
actually at Ephesus. It is very possible that Tychicus went thither from Miletus. See
Act. 20:16, 38. — H.]
(f2563) Pp. 145 and 216.
(f2564) 2Ti. 4:11:"Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for his services are profitable to me."
(f2565) The same expression is used of Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7) but of
no others except these four.
(f2566) For the proof of this, see Paley’s Horoe Paulinas on Philemon (10-12).
(f2567) Phm. 1:10 appears to state this (See p. 413.)
(f2568) See Col. 3:22, and Eph. 6:5. St. Paul’s attention seems to have been especially drawn to this subject at the present time; and he might well feel the need there was for a fundamental change in this part of the social system of antiquity, such as the spirit of Christ alone could give. In the very year of his arrival at Rome, a most frightful example was given of the atrocity of the laws which regulated the relations of slave to master. The prefect of the city (Pedanius Secundus) was killed by one of his slaves; and in accordance with the ancient law, the whole body of slaves belonging to Pedanius at Rome, amounting to a vast multitude, and including many women and children, were executed together, although confessedly innocent of all participation in the crime. Tac. Ann. 14:42-45.
(f2569) Though we have come to the conclusion that St. Paul had not himself (at this time) visited Colossae, yet it is hardly possible to read these Epistles without feeling an interest in the scenery and topography of its vicinity. The upper part of the valley of the Maeander, where this city, with its
neighbor cities Hierapolis and Loadicea (
Col. 2:1, 4:13; Rev. 3:14), was
situated, has been described by many travelers; and the illustrated works on Asia Minor contain several views, especially of the vast and singular petrifactions of Hierapolis (Pambouk-Kalessi). Colossae was older than either Laodicea or Hierapolis, and it fell into comparative insignificance as they rose into importance. In the Middle Ages it became a place of some consequence, and was the birthplace of the Byzantine writer Nicetas Chonia-tes, who tells us that Chonae and Colossae were the same place. A village called Chonas still remains, the proximity of which to the ancient Colossae is proved by the correspondence of the observed phenomena with what Herodotus says of the river Lycus. The neighborhood was explored by Mr. Arundel (Seven Churches, p. 158; Asia Minor, 2:160); but Mr. Hamilton was the first to determine the actual site of the ancient city. (Researches, I. 508.)
(f2570) See pp. 34 and 396.
(f2571) Ch. 13.
(f2572) See p. 235; and also the account of the early Phrygian Gnostics in the lately-discovered "Refutation of Heresies," Book v.
(f2573) [This statement has been blamed, as extreme; and perhaps it is too strong: but the omission of the words "in Ephesus" from the recently-discovered Sinaitic MS. is a strong confirmation of the view here expressed. — H.]
(f2574) Tertullian accuses Marcion of adding the title "To the Laodiceans," but not of altering the salutation; whence it is clear that the MSS. used by Tertullian did not contain the words "in Ephesus." It is scarcely necessary here to notice the apocryphal Epistola ad Laodicenses, which only exists in Latin MSS. It is a mere cento compiled from the Epistles to the Galatians and Philippians; and was evidently a forgery of a very late date, originating from the wish to represent the epistle, mentioned
Col. 4:16, as not lost.
(f2575) [See remark, p. 762, n. 4, on the Sinaitic MS. — H.]
(f2576) Many critics object to receive Marcion’s evidence, on the ground that he often made arbitrary alterations in the text of the New Testament. Bat this he did on doctrinal grounds, which could not induce him to alter the title of an epistle.
(f2577) Compare the salutations at Rom. 1:7; 2Co. 1:1; Php. 1:1; the analogy of
which renders it impossible to suppose "those who are" used emphatically ("those who are really Saints"), as some commentators mentioned by Jerome took it. It is true that this (the oldest known form of the text) might be translated "to God’s people who are also faithful in Christ Jesus;" but this would make the Epistle addressed (like the 2d of Peter) to the whole Christian world; which is inconsistent with its contents, as above remarked.
(f2578) De Wette argues that the letter to Laodicea, mentioned Col. 4:16, must
have been written some time before that to Colossae, and not sent by the same messenger, because St. Paul in the Colossian Epistle sends greetings
to Laodicea (Col. 4:15), which he would have sent directly if he had
written to Laodicea at the same time. But there is not much weight in this objection, for it was agreeable to St. Paul’s manner to charge one part of the church to salute the other; see
Rom. 16:3, where he says "salute ye,"
not "I salute." Moreover it seems most probable that
Col. 4:16-18 was a
postscript, added to the Epistle after the Epistle to Laodicea was written. It
is difficult to imagine that the "letter from Laodicea" (Col. 4:16) could
have been received much before that to the Colossians, from the manner in which it is mentioned, and the frequent intercourse which must have occurred between such neighboring churches. The hypothesis of Wieseler, that the Laodicean Epistle was that to Philemon, is quite arbitrary, and appears irreconcilable with the fact that Onesimus is expressly called a Colossian, and was sent to Colossae on this very occasion. See also Horoe Paulinoe (in loco).
(f2579) See 2Co. 1:1, and p. 485.
(f2580) That of the Codex Vaticanus, above described as agreeing with the most ancient MSS. seen by Basil.
(f2581) We cannot doubt that St. Paul did write many epistles which are now lost. He himself mentions one such to the Corinthians (see page 421); and it is a mysterious dispensation of Providence that his Epistles to the two great metropolitan churches of Antioch and Ephesus, with which he was himself so peculiarly connected, should not have been preserved to us.
(f2582) It is here assumed that the Epistle to the Colossians was writ ten before that (so called) to the Ephesians. This appears probable from a close examination of the parallel passages in the two Epistles; the passages in Ephesians bear marks of being expanded from those in Colossians; and the passages in Colossians could not be so well explained on the converse hypothesis, that they were a condensation of those in Ephesians. We have remarked, however, in a previous note, that we must assume the reference
in Colossians to the other epistle (Col. 4:16) to have been added as a
postscript; unless we suppose that St. Paul there refers to "the letter from Laodicea" before it was actually written (as intending to write it, and send it by the same messenger), which he might very well have done.
(f2583) It has been objected to the circular hypothesis, that the Epistle, if meant as a circular, would have been addressed "to those who are in Asia." But to this it may be replied, that on our hypothesis the Epistle was not addressed to all the churches in Proconsular Asia, and that it was addressed to some churches not in that province.
(f2584) On this part of the subject, see Appendix 2.
|
