Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

in the Epistle to the Romans, but "them that have the rule over you and all the saints," in general; the Epistle to the Ephesians absolutely bears no salutation. The Epistle to the Hebrews was not written to the church of Jerusalem where James was, but to all the Jewish Christians in general, and consequently a salutation to James as an individual, would have been very strange. But that Paul, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, did not salute Timothy, lies simply in the fact that Timothy was not at Ephesus, but was with Paul at Rome. This is proved thus: the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul in his imprisonment at Rome (which lasted from A. D. 61 to 63), as is evident from 3: 1. 4: 1. 6: 20; and Natalis Alexander, p. 45, also admits it. At the same time, Paul wrote from Rome his Epistle to the Philippians (Phil. 4: 22) and the Colossians (Col. 4: 10, etc., compare with Acts 27: 2), as is likewise said in both of them. clearly enough; and this Natalis admits, in the place cited. But now both of these Epistles begin: Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ at Philippi (and Colosse). Therefore Timothy was, at that time, at Rome with Paul when he wrote this Epistle to the Ephesians. Timothy also, in a. D. 65 or 66, when Paul wrote his second epistle to him from Rome, was not in Ephesus, as is expressly said, 4: 12.

What now shall we say of those men who make such objections, namely Natalis Alexander, who, to judge from what he writes p. 45, well knew that Timothy was not at Ephesus when Paul wrote thither. Here also it is plain that these men, when they are aiming to reach their party objects, rejeet on one side what they have written on the other.

And now, once more. Paul praises the Romans very much on account of their faith, which is spoken of throughout the whole world; he commends the laborers in the Romish vineyard of the Lord; and would he have forgotten to mention him from whom they had received the treasure of their faith, namely Peter? Would he have named the laborers, but be silent as to him who was their head?

§ 14. Proof from the Acts of the Apostles.

In A. D. 58, therefore, Peter was not yet in Rome. Let us now see whether he was there in the following years, up to A. D. 63. It is well known that Paul, when he had appealed to Cæsar, was carried to Rome. This happened, according to the universal opinion, in A. D. 60; and from A. D. 61 to 63 he remained in the capital of the world, two whole years. Luke describes his journey there Acts 27: 28, and in 28: 30 he relates that abode. Now there are in his narration several points of importance, from which it is evident that Peter was not, at this time, in Rome.

1. Though Luke reports at length Paul's arrival at Rome, and mentions his abode there, yet he says not a word of Peter. He relates (Acts 27: 15) how the Roman church went out to meet him at Appii Forum and the Three Taverns; not a word of Peter.

2. Luke further mentions (Acts 28: 17, etc.), that Paul, three days after his arrival at Rome, caused the chief of the Jews to be called to him. When they came to him, it is evident that they were still unacquainted with Christianity, because that it had not yet been especially preached to them. For they said, verse 22: "But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we know that it is everywhere spoken against." 23. "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him to his lodging, to whom he expounded and testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. 24. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not."

We see, that the gospel had not yet been particularly preached to the Jews at Rome. The church at Rome had hitherto not attempted their conversion; we shall see, further on, that it was yet very small in a. D. 58.

If Peter was at this time (and indeed, as is maintained, had been for many years) at Rome, how could he to whom was specially committed the gospel to the Jews, have given

himself so little trouble about them, or have spoken with so little power, that they were first converted at the word of Paul?

3. Luke's silence here is actually fatal. If Peter was then at Rome; if he had already been there twenty years, and indeed as bishop of this church; if he held the rank of the head of the whole church, how is it possible that Luke could have been silent respecting it? There is a silence, indeed, from which no negative proof can be adduced: thus, for example, when one Gospel passes over this or that event in the life of Christ. But what one omits, another has; they need not all narrate the same thing; a single one is enough. Besides, the most important, the main fact, is in all. But when Luke is silent as to Peter's presence at Rome, and when he can and, according to circumstances, he must speak of it, we justly conclude that he did not find Peter at Rome. The force of this negative proof appears yet stronger in the following considerations; for Paul, too, is silent.

§ 15. Proof from the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, to Philemon, and the Hebrews.

All these Epistles were written by Paul during his imprisonment at Rome, in A. D. 61 to 63. Of the four first, it is proved, because it stands therein in plain words; of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is probable: chap. 13: 24, "The brethren from Italy salute you." If these Epistles prove anything, they prove irresistibly that Peter, at the time when Paul wrote them, was not in Rome, and had not been. Let

us see:

1. If we go carefully through the first four Epistles, we find the clearest and most varied expressions and notices respecting the state of the church at Rome, of Paul's relations, and of persons and things. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (6: 21, etc.), Paul sends Tychicus to them, that he may make known to them all things respecting his situation and circumstances. In the Epistle to the Philippians (1: 12, etc.) he mentions the progress of the gospel at Rome, how it penetrated to the camp of the Pretorian guards, and even to the

imperial court (4:24). He says (1: 14): "And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident through my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear; that "some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some of good will;" that these preach, inspired by love, knowing he was set for the defence of the gospel; but the others of strife, and not sincerely, to add affliction to his bonds.

We see that Paul had in his eye the Jewish Christian zealots, like those of Antioch whom he met so boldly and so successfully, as is evident from Acts xv. and Galatians ii. This party opposed him in Rome; they could not endure. that he should receive the Gentiles without circumcision; they pretended he would abolish the law, and on this account they acted against him.

If we here suppose that Peter was at that time, and indeed for a long time had been, bishop of Rome and governed, as the head, not only this but also the whole church, how could the brethren first be made more courageous by Paul's bonds to preach boldly the gospel? How could it first by Paul, have penetrated to the Pretorian camp and the court of the emperor? And further, could Peter have developed so little power, energy, and authority during his long rule, that under his very eyes, the envy and hypocrisy of the Jewish Christians, his immediate disciples, should rise against Paul, and could they have carried out, openly and unpunished, the foul purpose to add affliction to his bonds? Shall we suppose that he had anew, at Rome, as formerly at Antioch, suffered him. self out of weakness to be carried away by the zealots, and had forgotten the decrees at Jerusalem which were given by the Holy Spirit? We cannot allow ourselves to imagine such things of Peter; and had he really been in Rome, with his power, his fiery zeal, he would have carried the gospel to the Pretorian camp and the court of the emperor, and not only protected his beloved fellow-laborer Paul against every conflict and aspersion by the Christians, but would have severely punished them by his power as bishop of the place.

In the second chapter, from ver. 17 and on, Paul makes

known to them his purpose to send Timothy, whom he greatly praises (ver. 19-24), to them, in order that he might give them information respecting him; he mentions that he had also sent to them Epaphroditus, of whose activity and loving care for him, and his dangerous illness, he gives a full account (25—30). Similar information respecting his friends Silas and Clemens, and of himself, he gives in the fourth chapter. We see (ver. 10), that Paul in his prison was supported by the church at Philippi; that they sent to him a maintenance directly through Epaphroditus (18), and that before it reached him he had suffered want (11, etc.), which was doubtless occasioned by those zealots. How is this, now? And yet Peter had already lived many years in Rome as bishop, and though there were rich people in his church, had not once cared for the necessities of his beloved fellow-apostle, had not once impelled the Romans to do their utmost to lighten the condition of the prisoner! We cannot believe this of such a man as Peter was.

Also in the Epistle to the Colossians, there are not wanting similar notices. They stand in the fourth chapter, 7th verse. Here, too, Paul gives them information, by Tychichus, of his situation, his welfare, etc. If, now, we cast back a glance on what we have cited, the conviction forces itself upon us, that Peter was not, at that time, in Rome. Of his own merits in spreading the gospel, Paul speaks; of Peter, who yet founded that church, carried it forward, and must at that time have long governed it, he is wholly silent. Of himself, and his friends, he often gives full information; of Peter, the head of the church and of Peter's disciples, not one word. Is it possible that Paul, during two years' abode at Rome, where he must have met Peter innumerable times, and where he could not but take notice of him, in so many Epistles makes mention in not a word, not a syllable, of him, if Peter really was there? We must suppose that Peter and his friends were wholly indifferent to Paul, yea, that he looked on him with envious eyes; and hence Paul passed over them and their labors in silence.

« AnteriorContinuar »