Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

§ 16.

But this stands out yet more strongly in the following: In most of these Epistles, Paul gives information of his disciples and fellow-laborers; he names a multitude of them; he conveys to those to whom he is writing, salutations from them. We have already seen this above. Let us look at it further.

Philippians 4: 21," Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you." Colossians 4: 10-14, "Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him), and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him. record that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. Luke the beloved physician, and Demas greet you." Philemon, ver. 23, 24, "There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-laborers." Hebrews 13: 24," Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you."

From all these friends and acquaintances he conveys salutations; from Peter and his disciples, none; from them, not a word. How is this? Were not the two apostles and their disciples on terms of mutual friendship? Were they estranged? Had they no intercourse together? Were they excluded from each other? Was there enmity and jealousy between them? Or were the churches of Colosse, Philippi, Ephesus, and in Palestine so much strangers to Peter and his friends, so indifferent, that they had no testimonies of Christian friendship and sympathy, i. e. salutations for them? Or did Paul suppose in those churches such an indifference

and want of sympathy in respect to Peter and his friends, that he believed nothing ought to be said by way of information or salutations from them? Indeed, we must have lost all common sense and regard for truth if we maintain, under these circumstances, that Peter and his disciples were with Paul at Rome in A. D. 61-63, when he wrote these Epistles.

And when now Paul says (Col. 4: 10, 11), that at Rome Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus were his only fellow-laborers of the circumcision,' is it not thus clearly enough said that he had neither Peter nor his Jewish disciples for fellow-laborers in the world's capital? Or must we call in to our aid the assertion that Paul speaks here only of his own disciples, but makes no mention of Peter and his disciples because he had no occasion for it? We leave any one who will, to satisfy himself with such an excuse.

But Baronius, Natalis Alexander, Rothensen, etc., object : From the silence of Paul, in these Epistles, nothing follows against Peter's abode at Rome; he was not wont always to be at Rome; "he was not, like Prometheus, on the Caucasus, so tied down to his see;" and sat in it not idly, "as an Emeritus," but he went from Rome into all the surrounding countries; he penetrated even to Britain to preach the gospel. Why not then suppose that when Paul wrote, in A. D. 58, to the church at Rome, and abode there from A. D. 61 to 63, he (Peter) was on these apostolic travels? Why may we not assume this to explain those temporary absences that are proved by the silence of Paul?

Answer: We may not, because of these travels not a single one of the credible authorities mentions a syllable; and they are but empty hypotheses which are foisted into the history, as foolish as they are presumptuous. Then, again, because in the authorities named, there is not a trace of Peter's relations at Rome, or of his activity there; as we shall fully adduce hereafter. We may therefore justly conclude that Peter was not in Rome in A. D. 61-63.

Namely, at Rome; otherwise it is untrue, for in other regions Paul had helpers enough of the circumcision.

§ 17. Peter was not in Rome also in s. d. 65 and 66.

After Paul was released in A. D. 63, he left Rome. Whether, as he proposed in his Epistle to the Romans, he went to Spain, is not to be ascertained; but it is not very probable. For, assuming that Paul had really travelled to Spain, nothing is more certain than that he would have stayed several years in this great and populous country (Spain with Portugal was larger than Asia Minor), which, especially in the south, was covered with large cities. But as now Paul's death, according to Pagi, took place in A. D. 65 — but according to the supposition which makes Peter to have come to Rome in the second year of Claudius, i. e. in a. d. 42, to have been bishop there for twenty-five years, and suffered martyrdom there with Paul-falls in A. D. 67; as, further, we find the apostle of the Gentiles, after his deliverance, again in Macedonia, Greece, Asia (2 Tim. 4: 20), and Crete;1 as he spent a whole winter in Nicopolis where he called Titus to come to him (Tit. 3: 12); as, finally, Paul was certainly not imprisoned and put to death immediately on his arrival in Rome; and much more, assuredly for a time preached the gospel openly; which is evident enough from 1 Tim. 1: 3,14; so there is no room for an apostolical journey to Spain. We take it for granted therefore, that Paul after his departure from Rome turned himself immediately to Greece and Asia.

If now we consider the great extent of the tracts of country in which Paul labored after his departure from Rome; if we think how much time a simple journey from Rome to

1 Titus 1: 5. That Paul in all former years had not been at Crete in person, is evident from Luke's accurate description of Paul's journeys, in which he does not mention any excursion to Crete. From Titus, in the place above cited, it is evident that he was there together with Titus. If any one should refer to Acts 27: 7, 8, and especially verse 21, it is evident (and from verses 8-14, also), that the ship in which Paul sailed was only forced by bad weather to run into Crete, but that she sailed directly again, and Paul who was a prisoner in the ship certainly did not receive permission to preach the Gospel. Besides, Titus was not at that time in Paul's company; according to Acts 27: 2, he had only Aristarchus with him; therefore he could not then have left Titus behind in Crete.

Crete and back through Greece, Macedonia, and Asia Minor alread required; if we reckon, in addition, the considerable stays he made at Crete, Ephesus, Nicopolis, and Philippi, where he had repeatedly promised to come again (Phil. 1: 26. 2: 24); it is evident that with all these things several years might have been consumed, and that we do not err when we place Paul's second arrival in Rome in a. D. 65 or 66. Hence it follows that Paul's death must be placed in a. D. 66 or 67, but in no wise earlier than A. D. 65.

Paul was very active during this abode in Rome; we shall speak of this in the next paragraph. Of his Epistles, the two to Timothy belong to this time. When he quitted Asia for the last time and went to Macedonia, he had left him behind at Ephesus,' and Titus he left at Crete; he now calls both of them to him at Rome; but that Timothy was no longer in Ephesus, is evident from 2 Tim. 4: 12. Let us now look at these Epistles, in order to adduce our proposed proof.

The first Epistle to Timothy, of which nothing is more certain than that it was written at Rome, but which accord

1 Paul says (1 Tim. 1: 1–3), that he had besought Timothy, on his departure (from Asia) to Macedonia, to remain at Ephesus. Paul's first journey to Macedonia is related, Acts 16: 19, etc.; it probably occurred in A. D 55. Shortly before, Paul had taken the young Timothy to himself (Acts 16: 1, etc.), in order to have him for his companion on his journey (verse 3). Hence it is evident, that he did not leave him behind to be the chief overseer at Ephesus, aside from the fact that the young man just now received was not ripe for such a high calling, which he first learned in company with Paul. The journey is described in verse 11, etc.

Acts 18: 18, Paul left Greece in order to travel in the East. Verse 19th, he is in Ephesus. But at this time he did not go to Macedonia, but to Syria; conse quently he did not leave Timothy at this time in Ephesus. When Paul came back from the East (18: 25) he touched anew at Ephesus (19: 1), and remained there three years (19: 8, 10. 20: 31). From here he went indeed to Macedonia (19: 21). yet he did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus, but sent him together with Erastus forward to Macedonia (verse 22), while he himself remained a while in Asia. Chap. 20: 1, he himself followed. We find Timothy on the return journey from Macedonia to Troas in company with Paul (verse 4). From now forward, before A. D. 62 or 64, Paul came no more to Ephesus and Macedonia, but he travelled from Miletus (21: 17, etc.) through Cos and Rhodes to Tyre (21: 1, etc.), and from there to Jerusalem. Whence he finally reached Rome as a prisoner. Consequently he left Timothy behind at Ephesus first after a. D. 63.

ing to 1 Tim. 3: 14 Paul composed when he was free, contains nothing relating to our subject; but the second especially does. This Paul wrote when he was a prisoner (2 Tim. 1: 8), and very probably not long before his execu tion (4: 6, etc.), which he foresaw. On this account he begs Timothy" to come to him soon" (ver. 9). Ver. 10:" For Demas has forsaken me from love of this world, and is gone to Thessalonica." See also ver. 11, 12: "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus." Ver. 20" Erastus abode at Corinth; but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick." There is assuredly the strongest proof, in these passages, that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote them. For if he had been there, together with Paul, if both at this time were expecting to suffer death on account of the faith, how is it possible that Paul does not mention his colleague? He names all who were united to him by the gospel; of Peter and his disciples, not one word. He says expressly that only Luke was with him; this would not be true if Peter also and his disciples were at Rome. It cannot be said that these were not of Paul's friends of whom he is here speaking. This objection is good for nothing; Paul speaks of those who were at Rome as evangelists, and among these, Peter would also have belonged; we know, too, that Paul very much hated this division into parties and schools among the apostles, as appears in the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

He salutes Titus from several persons he names, especially Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia; from Peter there is no salutation; of him who ought to be named before all, as the head of all of them, nothing. In case Peter had taken the place of a pope at Rome, what could be more agreeable to Timothy, more consoling, than a salutation from such a man? Had Peter been at Rome, could Paul really have forgotten to add this? Certainly not, if it were only to show, that between himself, the head of the Gentile Christians and Peter the head of the Jewish Christians, there reigned a harmony and peace which had not been always undisturbed.

« AnteriorContinuar »