(!lnurnrbtu
UJl1rnlngtrul :!Inut41y
Continuing
Lehre und Wehre (Vol. LXXVI)
Magazin fuer Ev.-Luth. Homiletik (Vol. LIV)
Theol. Quarterly (1897-1920) -Theol. Monthly (Vol. X)
Vol. I June, 1930 No.6
CONTENTS
Page
PIEPER, F.: Thesen, die dem "theologischen Schluss-
examen" dienen koennen... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 401
DALLMANN, W.: How Peter Became Pope .. . ............ 406
ENGELDER, TH.: Marburg: Der Sieg ueber den Unionis-
mus. (Fortsetzung.)... . . ... ...... . . .. ...... . ........... 416
KRETZMANN, P. E.: The Place and the Time of the Cap-
tivity Letters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 426
WISMAR, O. W.: Sermon Study 011 Eph. 2, 19-22 .... . ... 434
Dispositionen ueber die Eisenacher Evangelienreihe... .. .. . 440
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches .... " 450
Vermischtes und zeitgeschichtliche Notizen ................ 468
Book Review. - Literatur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 470
Ein Predlger muss nlcht all.in ","'den,
also dass er die Schafe unterweise, wie
ele rechte Ohr~en BOllen seln, sondem
auch dllneben den Woelfen wehren, dan •
• ie die Schaf. nlcht angreifen und mit
falscher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum eln·
fuehren. - Luther.
Es ist keln Ding, daB die Leute mehr
bei der Kirche behaelt, denn die gute
Predlgt. - Apo!ogt.., Art. Iij.
If the trumpet give an uncertain Bound,
who shall prepare himself to the battle t
100'.14,8.
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PU:BLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
426 The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters.
The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters.*
Four letters ascribed to the Apostle Paul have from ancient times
been called the Oaptivity Letters, namely, those to the Oolossians, to
Philemon, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, and the tradi-
tional view is that they were written during Paul's first captivity in
Rome, from 61 to 63 A. D. But some recent scholars in the field of
New Testament isagogics are inclined to reject the traditional view,
preferring to assume that either Oaesarea, between 58 and 60, is to be
accepted or Ephesus, between 54 and 57. The proponents of Oaesarea
have some difficulty in adjusting historical data, however, while those
who would speak in favor of Ephesus seem to have a much stronger
case. For that reason it may be profitable to make a somewhat more
careful examination of the theory which attempts to place the Oap-
tivity Letters in the time of the Ephesine sojourn. The investigation
is not a mere bit of pastime in the field of introduction, but touches
upon certain critical questions which may impugn the veracity of
certain statements in various books of the New Testament. Which
view, then, may most safely and correctly be held concerning the
place and the time of the Captivity Letters, that which ascribes them
to the Ephesine sojourn of Paul, between 54 and 57, or the traditional
account, which states that they were written in Rome, during the
first captivity?
Before we take up the arguments for the writing of the Oaptivity
Letters during the Ephesine sojourn of Paul, it ought to be noted
that Feine places both Oolossians and Ephesians in the time of
the Oaesarean captivity, chiefly on the basis of negative, subjective
reasons. On that account even Appel brushes Feine's contention
.aside when he writes: "Oaesarea as the place of writing Philippians,
Philemon, Oolossians, and Ephesians is excluded by the traveling
plans of Paul. According to Acts 19, 21 Paul, even in Ephesus, had
the definite intention to travel to Jerusalem via Achaia and thence
to Rome. This intention he also expresses in the letter to the
Romans, written from Oorinth, chap. 15,23, and in a dream he re-
ceives the assurance from the Lord, Acts 23, 11, that this intention
should be realized in spite of his arrest. Now, indeed, this realization
was considerably retarded by his arrest, but that very fact would be
a stimulus for the apostle to lose no time in carrying it out after his
release. Thus he cannot have written Philippians from Oaesarea, for
according to chap. 2, 24 he intends to visit Philippi immediately after
his release, nor the other letters, for according to Philemon 22 he
* Although in the isagogical question here treated absolute certainty
cannot be attained, a study of its various aspects will prove stimulating
and helpful. - EDITORIAL NOTE.
The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters. 427
plans a journey to Oolossae. He might still have determined to make
a trip to Rome in a roundabout way if the condition in those con-
gregations to which he addressed letters had been one to cause him
apprehension. But that was not the case (cp. Phil. 1, 3 ff.; 2,12;
4, 1; 001. 1, 3 f. ; 2, 5, and all of Ephesians)." (Einleitung in das
Neue Testament, 52.)
The reasons for assuming an Ephesine captivity of Paul are
found entirely in a number of passages contained in the two letters
to the Oorinthians. In 1 Oor. 15,32 the apostle writes: "If after the
manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what ad-
vantageth it me if the dead rise not?" This is interpreted as a reference
to a gladiatorial combat in which the apostle was forced to take part
after being arrested by the Roman authorities. In further support
of this contention several passages in Second Oorinthians are ad-
duced, such as chap. 1, 8-10: "For we would not have you ignorant,
brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed
out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of
life; but we had the sentence of death in ourselves that we should
not trust in ourselves, but in God, which raiseth the dead, who
delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver."
The reasons for placing Oolossians, Philemon, and Ephesians at
Ephesus are given by Appel (p. 54) as follows: "1. The statements
made concerning the captivity; for the tribulations referred to in
Phil. 2,27; 4,14; Eph. 3, 13 remind one of 1 Oor. 4, 9; 15,30 ff.;
2 Oor. 1, 8 ff.; and in any event the apostle, during a captivity as-
sociated with so many tribulations, could not preach the Word of
God, Phil. 1, 13 f.; 001.4, 3; Eph. 6, 19. - 2. The local circumstances
presupposed in the letters. From Ephesus the apostle could easily
make the short trip to Oolossae, Philemon 22, and even Philippi was
located so near that the trip there and back would not consume very
much time, to which the further consideration must be added that the
sojourn planned for that place, according to 2, 24, could be carried
out during the trip to Achaia, which was announced in 1 001'. 16, 5.
If Paul was in Ephesus, he might have the intention to send Timothy
to Philippi and to await his return and yet give them the prospect
of his early arrival in Philippi, chap. 2, 19 ff. Moreover, the news of
the concern of the Philippians over the condition of Epaphroditus
might have gotten back from Philippi before it had been possible to
send a report of his recovery, Phil. 2, 25 ff., just as Paul might have
sent Onesimus to Oolossae, even if he intended to use his service dur-
ing his captivity, and he could have made arrangement for quarters
at the house of Philemon, Philemon 11 ff."
The reasons for placing the letter to the Philippians in the alleged
Ephesine captivity are enumerated by Feine as follows (Einleitung
in das N Bue Testament, 150 ff.): "1. Ohapter 3 is an arraignment
428 The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters.
of Judaism, ... but we may not think of these J udaists as being
present in Philippi. . .. 2. In language, literary form, and presenta-
tion of thought Philippians is closer to the older letters than to the
Oaptivity Letters. . .. 3. The case against Paul (Phil. 1 and 2) cannot
be the same as the one which was brought against him according to
Acts 23. . .. 4. The local statements of the letter fit not only Rome,
but may be claimed also for Ephesus. . .. 5. The assumption that
Paul wrote in Ephesus will more easily explain certain statements in
Philippians (the travel plans of Paul, the conflict of Phil. 1, 30, the
exchange of co=unications between Paul and the Philippians)."
Such are the points which are adduced by Feine in support of the
hypothesis concerning the writing of the Oaptivity Letters during an
alleged captivity in Ephesus, sometime between 54 and 57, prefer-
ably in 56.
Before we take up the counter-arguments from the historical data
of the Book of Acts and the epistles themselves, let us register the
objections made recently by other scholars in the field. Barth writes
(Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 67 f.): "Ooncerning Paul's ex-
periences during his Roman captivity we learn in the Oaptivity
Letters to the Ephesians, Philippians, Oolossians, and to Philemon.
These are not written in Oaesarea (as Schneckenburger, Thiersch,
Haupt, Feine - in part - assume), since Paul intended to travel
from there to Rome and therefore would hardly have announced
visits in Asia Minor and in Macedonia, as he does in Philemon 22
and Phil. 2, 24, since furthermore the escaped slave Onesimus could
much more easily hope to remain undiscovered in populous Rome
than in Oaesarea, and since the complaint of Paul that he had only
a few fellow-workers of the circumcision in his neighborhood would
not fit for Oaesarea, where, among others, Philip lived. On the other
hand, all these references are easily explained if Paul wrote the letters
in Rome. There he was not altogether alone, but he was visited by
disciples, who came and went, such as Timothy, Luke, Aristarchus,
Mark, Jesus Justus. Through these and by his daily intercession
before God he remained in fellowship with his congregations. He
felt the bodily absence from them as a distinct interference with his
activity; sometimes presentiments of death came upon him, Phil.
1,20 f.; 2, 17 f.; he felt that he had become older (Philemon 9) and
occasionally resented the fact that some preachers of the Gospel in
Rome believed that they no longer owed the captive any consideration,
Phil. 1,15 f.; 2, 21. But stronger than all such impressions was the
joy over the successes which he as a captive had, for example, among
the soldiers, Phil. 1, 13, which made his sufferings appear as a con-
tinuation of the saving sufferings of Jesus by virtue of the communion
of his life with the exalted Lord; but joy also over the powerfully
advancing evangelization of the Orient and the Occident, through
The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters. 429
which he saw the joyful message even now proclaimed in the whole
world, yea, almost to every creature which is under heaven, Col. 1,
6.23." And Knopf writes (Einfuehrtmg in das Neue Testament,
80): ""When Paul, soon after writing Romans, made the trip to
Jerusalem, he was there taken captive and at first kept in captivity
in Caesarea, then, after a tedious journey, two years in Rome. To
the time of this captivity, and very likely that of Rome, are to be
ascribed these letters."
Let us now take up the points which have been adduced in favor
of Ephesus as the place of the Captivity Letters and see whether they
are tenable in view of the historical data presented in the Book of
Acts and the historical sections of the epistles.
1. As to the Ephesine captivity, on which the entire theory is
based. The assertion that 1 Cor. 4, 9; 15, 30 ff.; 2 Cor. 1,8 ff., es-
pecially when compared with Phil. 2, 27; 4,14; Eph. 3, 13, refer to
a captivity, and in particular 2 Cor. 1, 8 ff. even to a gladiatorial
combat, is not warranted by the content of the passages. The tribula-
tions and affiictions of which Paul speaks there may well have been
such as pertained to the spirit alone, having their basis in the dif-
ficulties with which the apostle was battling, not only in establishing
the congregation in Ephesus on a sounder basis, but also in removing
-the obstacles which had arisen in the congregation at Corinth, as his
two letters to Corinth so amply demonstrate. If 1 Cor. 15,32 is to be
taken as referring to an actual physical encounter with wild beasts
in the arena at Ephesus, then we should practically be compelled to
construe the word of 2 Tim. 4, 17, in the same manner, for there Paul
speaks of being delivered out of the mouth of the lion. There is no
evidence for assuming either a local or a general persecution of the
Christians on the part of the Roman government as early as the
year 56, and if Paul had at any time been condenmed to a gladiatorial
combat, it is more than likely that at least one of the early Christian
writers would have given us an account of that encounter. That the
apostle frequently had to deal with the hostility of the Jews and that
there might occasionally have been a sudden flare-up of the author-
ities, is shown by the experience which he had at Philippi and his
almost casual reference "in prisons more frequent" of 2 Cor. 11,23.-
But the case of the alleged Ephesine captivity becomes still weaker
if we carefully read the account given in Acts 19 and 20. In
these chapters there is not one word to indicate that Paul was im-
prisoned by the Roman authorities for as much as one day. The
account gives him an uninterrupted activity, and even the tumult
of Demetrius did not stop the work. It can hardly be called an exag-
geration when Paul says of himself, Acts 20, 31: "Remember that by
the space of three years I ceased not to warn everyone night and day
with tears." Cpo v. 18. Moreover, when the town clerk of Ephesus
430 The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters.
addressed the assembly in the theater, he did not intimate with one
syllable that any gladiatorial combat of Ohristian leaders had been
held or was contemplated, and this man can certainly not be accused
of a bias in favor of Paul. And the probability becomes still stronger
against the Ephesine captivity of Paul, especially one instigated by
the Roman authorities, if we remember that some of the Asiarchs,
sent word to him, warning him not to go out among the people,
Acts 19, 31. Whether these Asiarchs were religio-political officers who
presided over the annual assembly of civic deputies, as Mommsen,
Lightfoot, Ramsay, and others think, or municipal delegates of
individual cities to the provincial assembly, as Brandis insists, would
make little difference in the significance of the incident alluded to.
rt is clear that some of the most prominent men in all of Proconsular
Asia were deeply concerned for the welfare of the apostle, a solicitude
which would have been impossible if Paul had at this period been
under suspicion from the Roman government or had been in prison
or in the arena shortly before. For if he had been vindicated at this
time, he would certainly not have continued his complaipt about the
afHictions which continued to bother him, even after he left Ephesus
and traveled northward along the coast, first to Troas and then over'
to Macedonia. Op.2 Oor. 2, 13; 7,5-7. Every reason of probability
and historical background speaks against an Ephesine captivity
of Paul.
2. But what about the long array of points of probability offered
by Appel and Feine, not to mention others, who offer little or no,
evidence for their placing the Oaptivity Letters at Ephesus ~ Surely
the proposed visit of Paul at Oolossae, Philemon 22, could be made,
from Rome after the release of the apostle; for a trip of this length
would hardly hold terrors to one who had traveled so often and so far.
And as for the trip to Philippi, Phil. 2,24, the difference in the
journey between Ephesus and Philippi, on the one hand, and Rome-
and Philippi, on the other, was by no means as great as has been
implied. The roads along the Aegean Sea north of Pergamos were-
not of the best kind, and the trip by coastwise vessel could well con-
sume more than a week. On the other hand, the roads leading from
Rome toward the southeast and connecting with the famous Via
Egnatia, which crossed Macedonia, would take a traveler to Philippi
in less than two weeks. And, as a matter of fact, such a comparison
was not even necessary; for Paul might well, after his release, have
made a trip through the entire East, through Achaia and Macedonia
as well as through Proconsular Asia and all of Asia Minor. - The
argument brought by Feine, based on style and vocabulary, is ad-
mittedly always tenuous, if not entirely unreliable. Since the occasion
for writing to the Philippians was of a different nature than that
which incited the apostle to write to the congregations at Oolossae
The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters. 431
:and Ephesus, since also the circumstances by this time had taken on
an entirely different character, one could well expect a different style.
The assertion that the congregation at Philippi was not bothered
with J udaistic teachers is entirely subjective, even if it is not based
upon a false conception of the nature of this menace to the Apostolic
Ohurch. - Even the statement of Feine, based apparently upon
,careful research, that the word R(!at7:W(!IOY in Phil. 1,13 and the ex-
pression OL 8X 'tiJq KairJa(!or; olx{aq in Phil. 4, 22 does not necessarily
refer only to Rome, is not decisive for concluding the argument. For
-even if the palaces of the proconsuls in the senatorial provinces were
also designated as praet01'ia, and even if the expression domtis or
familia Caesaris was used for the servants in charge of imperial
property or possessions throughout the empire, this does not change
the fact that the designations were eminently correct in Rome, where
they had originated, and could therefore be used with the highest
propriety. Besides, it is most fitting that Rome should be thought of
in connection with Phil. 1, 19-25 and 2,23; for these passages, as
compared with Acts 28, 16.30, clearly show that Paul enjoyed the
custodia libera for two years, until his case came up for its hearing
in the imperial court. He was then removed to the pretorium of
Rome, in the immediate neighborhood of the imperial palace, where
he had an opportunity to do more extensive mission-work among the
soldiers of the imperial barracks.
3. However, our investigations would not be complete without
an examination of the many passages referring to Paul's companions
during the captivity in question, men whose whereabouts give us
a number of clues as to the circumstances of Paul's life at this time.
Let us take Aristarchus first. It is true that this man is mentioned
in Acts 19, 29 as Paul's companion in travel, whence we conclude that
he was with Paul during the latter's Ephesine sojourn, at least for
some time. But this same Aristarchus, of Thessalonica, who was one
of the delegates that brought the collection of the Macedonian
brethren to the needy Ohristians in Jerusalem and Judea, Acts 20, 4,
was a companion of Paul on the voyage from Oaesarea to Rome,
Acts 27, 2, and he may have been a fellow-prisoner even then, as he is
called by Paul in 001. 4, 10. These facts surely point with great
,definiteness to Rome, also for the writing of the letter to Philemon;
for Aristarchus is mentioned in v. 24 of that epistle as a fellow-
1aborer of the great apostle. In the case of Ephesus a captivity of
Paul and Aristarchus is conjecture, pure and simple; in the case
,of Rome the four passages concerned agree in making Aristarchus
a fellow-laborer and a fellow-prisoner. - Timothy may well be taken
next, for he is named by Paul in the address of three of the four
Oaptivity Letters, namely, 001. 1, 1, Philemon 1, and Phil. 1,1. He
was clearly with Paul during the time when these letters were written.
432 The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters.
But if the Ephesine theory is to be accepted, there is a difficulty on
account of Acts 19, 22; for according to Luke's account, Paul, during
the Ephesine sojourn and before the tumult of Demetrius, sent
Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, the final goal of this trip being
Corinth, 1 Cor. 16,10. It is also clear that Timothy was again with
Paul toward the end of the su=er or in the fall of the year 57, when
he wrote Second Corinthians from some station in Macedonia, very
likely Philippi. See 2 Cor. 1, 1. But all these references greatly
complicate matters if we place the letter to the Philippians in
Ephesus, for in Phil. 2, 19 Paul announces the early coming of
Timothy to the congregation at Philippi. If the theory should stand,
we are obliged to place Second Corinthians, or at least First Corin-
thians, into the same period of Paul's labors as Philippians, and there
the discrepancy offers obstacles which defy harmonization. But if
the letter to the Philippians is placed at Rome, there is no such
difficulty. - The case of Tychicus, who apparently hailed from
Ephesus, is very much like that of Aristarchus. He was among the
men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, Acts 20,4, and he was
clearly in Paul's company when he wrote the letter to the Ephesians,
for the apostle testifies that Tychicus was a beloved brother and faith-
ful minister in the Lord, Eph. 6, 21. 22. He was the bearer of this
letter, as he may have been of that to the Colossians. That he was
with Paul in Rome at least during the second captivity appears from
2 Tim. 4, 12. The only way in which we could straighten out this
difficulty according to the Ephesine theory is by making the letter
addressed to the saints at Ephesus an encyclical sent from Ephesus,
a procedure which is hardly tenable on a number of counts, as we
shall indicate below. But the entire difficulty disappears if we con-
sider Tychicus a companion of Paul during the first captivity in
Rome; for in that event he becomes the bearer of the letters to
Ephesus and to Colossae (also to Philemon), and the recommendation
given by Paul, after an interval of approximately four years, is one
which might be expected in the circumstances. - It would be in-
teresting to place Onesimus and Epaphras into the picture, since
they were both associated with Paul in the captivity here concerned,
the former according to Col. 4, 9 and the letter to Philemon, the
latter according to Philemon 23; Col. 1, 7; 4, 12; but we have no
reference to these men in the Book of Acts and hence have no means
of telling the connection on the basis of parallel accounts. - But
there is one more name that must be added in this part of our dis-
cussion, namely, that of Luke, the beloved physician. This man was
clearly in the company of Paul at the time when the Captivity Letters
were written; for Paul refers to him in Col. 4, 14 as one who sends
greetings to the brethren at Colossae, and in Philemon 24 as a fellow-
laborer who saluted Philemon. Here the Ephesine theory breaks
The Place and the Time of the Captivity Letters. 433
down completely; for, as the "we" sections show, Luke was not with
Paul during the Ephesine sojourn, since the first section of this kind
closes with Acts 16, 17, during the apostle's stay at Philippi. Luke
does not again join the apostle till Acts 20, 4, evidently being one of
the delegates from Macedonia, specifically Philippi, and a companion
of Paul on the way to Jerusalem, Acts 20, 4-16; 21,1-18. On the
other hand, there can be no doubt that Luke was a companion of
Paul during the latter's journey to Rome, and the indication is that
he remained in Rome with the apostle, according to Acts 27, 1-28, 16.
Thus Luke, being a companion of Paul during the latter's first Roman
captivity, was with him when the Oaptivity Letters were written, at
least Oolossians and Philemon and, by implication, Ephesians, which
is so intimately related to Oolossians.
Thus the evidence of the books concerned, if carefully analyzed,
clearly disposes of the theory that the Oaptivity Letters were written
during an alleged captivity of St. Paul in Ephesus and decidedly
strengthens the traditional view of their composition during the
first Roman captivity, between the spring of the year 61 and the
early summer of 63. While little depends upon the exact chronological
sequence of these letters, a study of the internal factors concerned
will very likely lead to the following conclusions: Epaphras, the
founder of the congregation at Oolossae and its first pastor, having
learned that the apostle was in Rome awaiting the adjustment of
the charges against him in the emperor's court, came to the capital
and brought Paul news of the Oolossian congregation, 001. 1,7. 8.
Thereupon Paul, late in 61 or early in 62, wrote the letter, which he
intended to send to Oolossae at the earliest opportunity. A certain
degree of agitation and the adjustment to the situation in Oolossae
mark it as being the first of the Oaptivity Letters. After this letter
was finished, and most likely before it was sent off, the apostle had
leisure to plan and write the letter to the Ephesians, a more formal
epistle, almost a doctrinal essay, whose language of lofty and sus-
tained eloquence gives it a position among Paul's letters second onlJ1
to the letter to the Romans. This letter was also written in 62.
Meanwhile the runaway slave Onesimus had somehow found his way
to Paul or had been found by the apostle. He was gained for the
Gospel, and Paul, desiring to return him to his master, wrote the
remarkable letter to Philemon. His own circumstances had mean-
while so shaped themselves that he was looking forward to his release
at a not distant date. Therefore this letter may well be placed late
in 62. In the same year Epaphroditus, one of the pastors of the con-
gregation at Philippi, made the journey to Rome, partly to give the
apostle news of this Macedonian congregation, partly to be the bearer
of the gifts of the Philippians to the beloved and honored apostle,
Phil. 2, 25 ff.; 4,10.11.15-19. Paul then, late in 62 or early in 63,
28
434 Sermon Study on Eph. 2, 19-22.
wrote the letter to the Philippians, which was most likely delivered
by Epaphroditus upon the latter's return to his home town.
In conclusion it may be well to list the arguments against the
theory which has attempted to make the letter to the Ephesians an
encyclical epistle.
1. The introductory sentence of the epistle surely did not read
ror. O{;U, ••. xai muwr., for that would be almost nonsensical in view
of the careful manner in which the apostle at other times designates
his readers. If the Holy Ghost had intended this letter for an
encyclical epistle, He would undoubtedly have given the names of all
the congregations concerned, just as He does in 1 Pet. 1, 1 and with
regard to the seven letters of the Apocalypse.
2. Though the words 8V 'E