Sidor som bilder

the last of the three years (Acts 20 : 31; cf. 19 : 8, 10) that he spent in Ephesus. This would be the winter or spring of 57 A.D.

Literature: CONYBEARE AND Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, chap. xv.; FARRAR, Life and Work of St. Paul, chap. xxxii.; GLOAG, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 174-180; GODET, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, pp. 295 ff.



The two passages, 1 Cor. 15:32 and 2 Cor. 1:8-10, are cited in connection with the riot of Demetrius, as furnishing further information concerning Paul's experience in Ephesus, without intending to imply that the events referred to by the apostle are the same as those recorded in Acts. This can, indeed, hardly be the case, since the passage in Acts says nothing of Paul's life being in jeopardy, while both the passages from the letters evidently refer to an experience involving such danger. First Corinthians, moreover, was doubtless written before the riot of Demetrius (see latter part of note 8). Whether i Cor. 15:32 refers to the same event as 2 Cor. 1:8-10, and whether the language of the former passage is literal or figurative, are questions concerning which there has been difference of opinion, but which it does not belong to this note to discuss.

The experiences of 2 Cor. II:23-28 may belong in some part also to the period of the ministry in Ephesus, during which Paul doubtless made more than one journey away from the city. It is a significant fact — showing both how far the book of Acts is from being a complete narrative of even the missionary labors of Paul, and how far we are from being able to construct a full and connected narrative of his life — that very few of these labors and perils are recorded in the Acts, and that most of them we cannot at all locate in his life beyond the fact that they must have preceded the writing of this letter..

NOTE 10.



Several facts tend to show that Second Corinthians was written not long after First Corinthians: (1) When Paul wrote Second Corinthians, he was carrying out the plan of travel which he announced in First Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:5-9; 2 Cor. 2:12; 7:5). (2) Timothy is with him, according to the

plan indicated in First Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:10, 11; 2 Cor. 1:1). (3) The same questions in part are at issue as in the former letter. Both letters imply the existence of parties in the church, and a denial of the authority of the apostle on the part of some (1 Cor. 1:10—4:21; chap. 9; 2 Cor., chaps. 10-13). (4) There seems, at first sight, a definite reference to the case of the incestuous person (1 Cor., chap. 5; 2 Cor. 2: 5-11; 7: 12), and an equally clear reference to First Corinthians as recently written (2 Cor. 2:3, 4). Concerning these references to the first letter, see below.

But there are also several facts which seem to show that a change of situation had taken place in the interval: (1) Timothy has returned, and Titus has been sent to Corinth. For Titus Paul has been most anxiously waiting, and his suspense has only just been relieved by Titus' arrival in Macedonia. The most natural explanation of this is, that the mission of Timothy had failed, and that the church had refused to yield to the apostle's commands and exhortations. (2) The Cephas and Apollos parties appear to have entirely disappeared; at least, they are ignored. The two parties now are: first, the majority, who at length have renewed their loyalty to the apostle (2 Cor. 7:7-16); and second, the opponents of the apostle, who are very bitter in their opposition to him (2 Cor., chap. 10; 11:12–23; 12:11-18). (3) Among the opponents of the apostle is one who has made himself so conspicuous that the apostle has demanded that he be disciplined by the church. This request has at length been acceded to, and indeed with so much zeal and severity that the apostle now turns and intercedes for the offender (2 Cor. 2:5-11; 7:11, 12). These passages have, indeed, been supposed to refer to the incestuous person spoken of in i Cor., chap. 5. But they do not at all appropriately describe him. It is evident that the person referred to in Second Corinthians had wronged Paul himself. It is extremely improbable that the apostle would speak of the sin of the incestuous person as so distinctly an offence against himself as he does in 2 Cor. 2:5-11; 7:11, 12. It may indeed be the same person; but, if so, he appears in the second letter in an entirely new character, showing that there has been some intervening history. (4) The references in Second Corinthians to a preceding letter, the answer to which Titus was to bring, do not seem perfectly to fit our First Corinthians. They imply an even severer and sadder letter than that was (2 Cor. 2:4; 7:8), and a letter more distinctly in defence of the apostle himself and his authority (2 Cor. 2:9; 7:12). It is, indeed, not impossible that all these references are to the extant first letter, but it is not probable.

The history of the interval between First Corinthians and Second Corinthians seems then to have been somewhat as follows: The letter which we know as First Corinthians was delivered in Corinth, but did not accomplish the result which was intended. The church was disobedient to the apostle, either in the matter of the parties or of the incestuous person. In the discussion of the matter the Cephas party and the Apollos party disappeared by absorption

into the other two, leaving only the party of Paul's friends and that of his opponents, who claimed for themselves the name of Christ. Among the opponents of the apostle one man had made himself conspicuous by his open defiance and insult of the apostle. If Timothy reached Corinth, bis efforts to bring about a better state of affairs were unsuccessful. News of all this was carried to Paul, most probably by Timothy himself. On receipt of this sad news Paul wrote another letter (now lost) more severe than First Corinthians, and laying upon the church strict commands respecting their dealing with the man who had been so offensive in his opposition to him. With this letter, or after it, Paul sent Titus to attempt substantially the task which Timothy had been unable to perform. Paul expected Titus to join him at Troas, whither Paul was to go from Ephesus, Titus from Corinth. But Titus did not come when Paul expected him, and Paul went on to Macedonia, hoping to meet him there. Disappointed again, he was in great distress of mind, fearing the worst respecting the outcome at Corinth. For a time he regretted having written the letter sent by Titus. But at length Titus came, bringing news that the majority of the church had returned to their love and allegiance to Paul, and had disciplined the man who had conspicuously wronged him, but that the party which was opposed to Paul and arrogated to itself the name of Christ, was more bitter than ever; and even the apostle's friends were displeased that he had not visited them as he had promised to do before he wrote First Corinthians. It was on the receipt of this news from Titus that Paul wrote Second Corinthians.

Thus if the interpretation of the allusions to Paul's relations with the Corinthians here suggested is correct, Paul wrote at least four letters to the Corinthians. The first was that referred to in i Cor. 5:9; the second was our First Corinthians; the third was the one sent by the hand of Titus ; the fourth was our Second Corinthians.

Those who think the references in Second Corinthians to the offender can be understood of the person mentioned in i Cor., chap. 5, and that the letter referred to in 2 Cor. 2:3, 4 is our First Corinthians, reconstruct the history of the interval between First and Second Corinthians somewhat as follows: Timothy for some reason did not go to Corinth - it was indeed uncertain whether he would do so when he set out from Paul (1 Cor. 16: 10). Paul, learning this, sent Titus to ascertain what the result of his first letter was. Titus failed to join Paul at Troas, as Paul had hoped he would, and the apostle went on to Macedonia. There also he was disappointed in not finding Titus, and fearing that things had gone wrong at Corinth, regretted having written First Corinthians. At length, however, Titus came, bringing news that the majority of the church had returned to their loyalty to Paul, and had disciplined the incestuous member as Paul had bidden them. But the opponents of Paul were more sharply opposed to him than ever. The Cephas party and the Apollos party had disappeared, and the party that arrogated to

itself the name of Christ embraced the enemies of Paul. It was this situation that called forth Second Corinthians, which is, on this view, the third letter that we know of as written by Paul to the Corinthians.

Literature: BLEEK, Introduction to the New Testament, $$149, 150; see also Mangold's ed. ; CONYBEARE AND Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, chap. xvii.; FARRAR, Life and Work of St. Paul, chap. xxxiii.; SABATIER, The Apostle Paul, Book III., chap. iii.; GLOAG, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 207 ff.; GODET, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, Eng. trans., pp. 308-336. Conybeare and Howson, Farrar, and most commentators on the epistle take the view that the letter referred to in Second Corinthians is our First Corinthians, no intervening letter having been written. Bleek, Sabatier, Godet, and Mangold (in his edition of Bleek) believe that a letter now lost was written between our two letters, the three latter holding that Paul also visited Corinth in this interval. [Cf. Note 8, pp. 216–218.]

NOTE 11.


From Rom. 1:9-13 it appears that this letter was written before the apostle's Roman imprisonment; and indeed since there is no intimation that he is in prison, but rather the implication that he is free, we may also say that it preceded the Cæsarean imprisonment and the arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21: 33). On the other hand, the passage also implies that the apostle had long been engaged in apostolic work and points to a comparatively late period in his missionary journeys. A comparison with Acts 19:21 suggests, indeed, the latter part of the third missionary journey as the time of writing.

A definite date can be assigned, however, only on the basis of Rom. 15: 25, 26. This shows us the apostle on the point of starting for Jerusalem to bear a contribution to the poor among the saints of that city from the Gentile Christians of Macedonia and Achaia. Now I Cor. 16: 1-5 and 2 Cor. 9:1-5; 13:1 (cf. 1: 16), show this contribution still in process of collection, and the apostle on his way to Corinth, planning after his visit there to go to Jerusalem. Romans seems, in view of these passages, manifestly to be a little later than the Corinthian letters, and in all probability to have been written from Corinth, toward the close of the third missionary journey. This date and place is further confirmed by Rom. 16: 1, in which Paul commends Phoebe, the servant of the church at Cenchreä, one of the ports of Corinth. In this location of the letter there is general agreement. The position assigned to it on our page is intended to suggest that it falls within the three months in Greece mentioned in Acts 20: 3.

To this conclusion little or no objection can be offered if what we know as the Epistle to the Romans is a genuine writing of the apostle Paul, and constituted one letter. To the genuineness of the letter as a whole little serious objection has ever been urged. But there is some evidence to suggest thať the last two chapters have had a peculiar history, and on the basis of this evidence various theories have been put forward. If chaps. 15 and 16 are either not from Paul, or though from him not an integral part of this letter, we can of course base on them no argument concerning the date of the letter; and can only fall back on the less definite evidence of 1:9-13. Both the genuineness of chap. 15 and its place in this letter are now, however, generally maintained, the discussion being chiefly confined to the question whether 16:25-27 is genuine, and whether a part or the whole of this chapter is not a portion of another letter of the apostle, addressed either to Ephesus, or to Rome after Paul had been there. If chap. 16 was written at this time, whether to Rome or to Ephesus, the passages cited from it at the bottom of page go show the apostle's situation and companions at this time. If it was written at a later time, then these pertain to that later time.

Literature : LIGHTFOOT, Biblical Essays, pp. 285–374, including two essays by Bishop Lightfoot and one by Professor Hort, all reprinted from the Journal of Philology (English), 1869, 1871; GIFFORD, in Bible Commentary, Vol. III., pp. 20–30; WEISS, Introduction, $23. 7; FARRAR, St. Paul, chap. xxxvii., 2, foot-note; SANDAY AND HEADLAM, in International Critical Commentary, vol. on Romans, Introduction, $9 (a full discussion). All the above maintain both chaps. 15 and 16 to be genuine; but Weiss considers 16:1-20, and Farrar chap. 16 in whole or in part as a letter to Ephesus: Gifford regards 16:3-20 as a fragment of a letter written to Rome after Paul's first imprisonment there. SCHÜRER, article “Romans,” in the Encyclopedia Britannica, regards 16:3–20 as a fragment of an epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, and 16:25-27 as from a later hand.

NOTE 12.

THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT. $68. That Paul was at least once a prisoner at Rome is testified by tradition, by the book of Acts, and by his own letter to the Philippians (1:7, 13; 4:22), the genuineness of which is now scarcely questioned by any one. The same evidence from Philippians which establishes the fact of the imprisonment proves also that the letter was written in the time of it.

The argument for the genuineness of Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians cannot be presented in these notes. But accepting them as genuine, it is clear that they were also written from prison (Philem. 1, 10, 23; Col. 4:10, 18; Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6: 20). It is evident, moreover, that the three were written at about the same time. Thus, besides the fact that all three were

« FöregåendeFortsätt »