 |  |
(2)
If Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were sent from Rome, why is there no
mention of the name of Onesimus in the Ephesian epistle, commending him to
the assembly there, for Tychicus and Onesimus traveling from Rome to
Colosse would have arrived at Ephesus first.
(3)
The presence of kai, `also', in Eph. 6: 21, suggests that when Tychicus should
come to Ephesus he would already have made known Paul's affairs to others--
hence Ephesus would be his last stop, favouring a journey from Caesarea rather
than Rome.
(4)
In Philem. 22 the Apostle begs Philemon to prepare him a lodging, apparently for
`speedy' use, and this fact presumes that his imprisonment was much nearer to
Colosse than distant Rome. Also Paul was planning, on his release from
Rome, to journey to Macedonia (Phil. 2: 24), not Colosse.
(If the above points are obscure, the reader is advised to consult a map showing the
relative positions of the places under review.). Taking the points in order it is noted:
(1)
Onesimus had taken money or goods (Philem. 18) and so would have no trouble in
boarding a ship in order to take refuge in the great metropolis of Rome. And
surely this would be more likely to place him beyond the search of the
"fugitivarii", whose sphere of activity would not be likely to extend in strict
organization over the whole empire. (The "fugitivarii" were those who sought
runaway slaves.)
(2)
Onesimus would probably not have been known to the Ephesians anyway, and Paul
was certainly not one to broach the subject of his defection unnecessarily. His
presence with Tychicus was commendation enough.
(3)
Much depends on the rendering of kai. It may, as Dean Alford suggests indicate,
"As I have been going at length into the matters concerning you, so if you also
on your part, wish to know my matter . . . . . Tychicus shall inform you".
(4)
Alford's words are much to the point--"There is nothing inconsistent in the two
expressions of Phil. 2: 24 and Philem. 22, with the idea of the Apostle
projecting a land journey through Greece to Asia Minor; or at all events a
general visitation . . . . . which should embrace both Philippi and Colosse".
The idea of the lodging at Colosse being for `speedy' use takes no cognizance
of the fact of its being a comparative term. Philemon would be aware how
long it would take Paul to journey to him and `prepare' accordingly, so this
does not constitute an argument either way.
On the other hand, point in favour of Paul being in captivity in Rome are:
(1)
Paul was not expecting to be released from Caesarea. Felix knew that he had
traveled to Jerusalem with money and hoped that Paul might pay him for his
release (Acts 24: 17, 25, 26). Felix also sought the favour of the Jews
(Acts 24: 27 R.V.), a fact which Paul must have noticed, and which would
not suggest to him the possibility of release. Later, before Festus (who also
sought the favour of the Jews, Acts 25: 9 R.V.), Paul appealed to Caesar and
so must go to Rome--hence he would not be expecting release at this time
either.
(2)
When in Caesarea, Paul's acquaintances were allowed to minister to him, but in the
light of attempts already made on his life, it is to be wondered if Onesimus, a