Ephesians. Lynn H. CohickЧитать онлайн книгу.
apparently became quite valuable to Paul’s ongoing ministry, thus prompting Paul to ask that Philemon consider releasing Onesimus to full-time service with Paul. This reconstruction makes better sense of Paul’s letter to Philemon, and is more historically sensitive to the situation of ancient slavery and the realities of imprisonment. A close examination of the letter reveals language commonly used in speaking about letter carriers and private messengers. Specifically, Paul implies that he would rather not send back Onesimus at that particular moment (12–14), suggesting that Onesimus was permitted by Philemon to stay only a specified amount of time.44 Moreover, Paul uses the verb anapempō (to send back) in v. 12, which is often used in correspondence to signify the return of the messenger.45
In the end, it does seem to defy the odds that Onesimus, a runaway slave, would be imprisoned with Paul, especially in a city as large as Ephesus or Rome. Paul, as a Roman citizen, would not suffer the same fate as a slave, even in prison. Acts 16:22–24 records Paul’s chains and imprisonment in the deepest recesses of the Philippian jail, and notes that this treatment was unacceptable for a Roman citizen who had not yet been condemned. The situation was resolved with an apology by the city council (16:37–39). Again, why would Paul believe he had authority to decide whether to return Onesimus to his owner? Surely once his status was known, would not Onesimus be returned irrespective of Paul’s own thoughts on the subject? Paul was chained to Roman guards; it seems unlikely that they would have turned a blind eye to a runaway slave helping their captive.
It must be noted as well that in the Roman period, a freed slave was still beholden to his owner, under the latter’s power, much as a father retained authority over his grown children. It would not be enough, then, for Onesimus to be granted freedom, Philemon must also release him to serve Paul and the ministry. Paul’s letter requesting as much fits this reconstruction of events. Finally, if one assumed that Onesimus was fleeing his owner, either as a runaway or as one seeking a mediator, then a more cynical (but possible) reading of his situation was that he agreed to the gospel message only to enhance his standing with Paul. One might argue that Philemon (and Paul) would suspect the genuineness of Onesimus’s conversion, inasmuch as his profession of faith was a key argument for his release and forgiveness of all past deeds and debts. But if Philemon sent Onesimus to Paul, the genuineness of the latter’s conversion is on more solid ground.
Ephesus Imprisonment
Looking closely at the arguments for Paul’s imprisonment in Ephesus, one assertion put forward depends on Onesimus’s runaway status. The claim is that he would not have had the funds to flee to Rome. This theory usually alleges that he stole from Philemon, which invites the question of why Onesimus did not steal enough to get himself as far from Colossae as possible. Where better to lose oneself than in Rome, a city of a million people, as some estimates put Rome’s population in the first century CE? A second argument in favor of an Ephesus imprisonment focuses on accommodating the several visits between Colossae and Paul indicated by the correspondence. The timeline runs as follows: Onesimus meets Paul, Paul sends a letter with Onesimus back to Philemon, the latter frees Onesimus to serve with Paul (who is in prison), and Tychicus is sent with Onesimus back to Colossae. Travel between Ephesus and Colossae is about five days; between Colossae and Rome about two months. Thus it would be quite simple for Philemon to send Onesimus to care for Paul in Ephesus, and for the former to make several trips back to Colossae.
A serious challenge to the Ephesus theory is the lack of evidence for an Ephesus imprisonment. Acts is silent on this, which in and of itself does not disqualify the argument. But the positive evidence is likewise slim. Paul speaks of enduring many imprisonments (2 Cor 11:23), and specifically of facing “wild beasts in Ephesus” (1 Cor 15:32). This latter phrase is taken as implying some sort of literal incarceration in the city. Several points, however, caution against drawing this conclusion. First, if Paul was given over literally to the beasts, he would have been stripped of his citizenship. However, from Acts it appears that Paul retained his citizenship throughout his ministry. Moreover, the content in 1 Cor 15 has many connections with the philosophical jargon of the day. Often philosophers would speak of battling their passions and hedonistic rivals with language similar to Paul. Paul quotes from the philosopher Menander, “Bad company corrupts good character” (15:32), which suggests he is placing his argument in the context of a philosopher’s admonitions. Moreover, Paul uses the diatribe method, firing off rhetorical questions to jar the Corinthians back to their senses and act rightly.46 This form of argumentation was common among philosophers.
Finally, we must raise the obvious question: Why would Paul send a letter to the Ephesians, or even to satellite churches surrounding Ephesus, if he was imprisoned in their midst? Or from another angle, if he was unable to speak with the Ephesian Christians, one would presume that he would lack the liberty to write to them. Either way, if Paul was in an Ephesus jail, it seems highly unlikely that he would choose to write to the church in that very same city. Indeed those who postulate an Ephesus locale for Colossians and Philemon generally suggest a Rome venue for Ephesians, precisely because it is so difficult to explain why Paul would write when he could presumably speak directly with the Ephesian church. The similar statements in Ephesians and Colossians about Tychicus delivering the letters are usually explained as the author of Ephesians copying from Paul’s letter to the Colossians.
Rome Imprisonment
That leaves Rome as the most likely spot for Paul’s imprisonment in composing the four prison epistles. The major roadblock raised against this theory is the length of time it would take to make a journey from Rome to Philippi, Ephesus, or Colossae. At this point we should note that Philippi and Ephesus were major cities in themselves; Ephesus was the largest and most important city in Asia Minor, and Philippi was a Roman colony. Thus travel between these cities and Rome by all manner of traders, government officials, and military personnel would have been frequent. Assuming the typical distance of 15–20 miles per day on foot, it would take the average traveler from Rome to Philippi about two or three weeks to traverse the 360 miles to the eastern Italian port city of Brundisium, then two days to sail to Greece (perhaps the port cities of Dyrrachium or Aulona), with the final 370 miles of the journey along the Via Egnatia (the superhighway of the day) to Philippi taking about another two weeks. The 800 miles could be covered in about a month and a half. Alternatively, Paul’s envoy traveling to Ephesus might take a boat from Italy to Corinth, then on to Ephesus. This route would take one to two weeks from Rome to Corinth, and then another week to Ephesus, but so much depended upon the winds.47 The time involved, then, in traveling to Rome from either Ephesus or Philippi was not appreciably more than traveling on foot between the two latter cities. Hence a Roman imprisonment seems the most likely provenance for the letter to the Ephesians.
Date of Ephesians
Assuming Paul wrote from Rome, we can then date the letter to the early 60s CE. The first letter he wrote would be to Philemon. This might have been written within a few months of his arrival at Rome. After Onesimus returned to Rome (which might take as little as two and a half months), Paul set about writing to the Colossians and the Ephesians. We might suggest that Paul wrote these in late 60 or early 61. This date takes into account the earthquake that hit nearby Laodicea. Tacitus explains that, though it was devastated, Laodicea rebuilt quickly and without Rome’s financial assistance. Because no mention of such a natural disaster is noted by Paul, many argue Colossians could not have been written after the tragedy. Alternatively, since we do not have Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans, we have no way of knowing whether Paul was writing to encourage the church as they faced the catastrophe. However, Paul made no mention of the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius in his later letter to the Romans, so we need not assume that major social or natural upheavals would be so noted in Paul’s letters. Arguably he might have considered such a note redundant or obvious. Thus, while a date in early 61 would work, it is unclear whether we should accommodate the date of the earthquake when determining the writing of Colossians and Ephesians. And while these movements are taking place, Paul is also communicating with the Philippian church, with Epaphroditus serving as their envoy conveying aid and service to Paul.
Audience of Ephesians
A major hurdle in describing the community (or communities) receiving this letter is that the church described is universal. Moreover, if we take Ephesians as an encyclical letter, we are left to surmise which satellite towns