Paul’s Situation in Ephesus
Having defined a template of Paul’s situation from the
Philippian letter, we now attempt to put together what we can know of his
situation from the
letters of Paul’s work in Ephesus.
1. Opportunity and opposition.
It is evident that while there were many
people who opposed him, there was also great opportunity, as 1 Corinthians
16:8-9
makes clear: “But I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, for a wide
door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries [antikeimenoi].”
2. Persecution. Paul had come face to face with a desperately
dangerous situation: “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with
beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die’” (1 Corinthians 15:32, RSV; see a discussion
of Fighting with
Beasts, below). Somewhat later Paul also
faced mortal danger in Asia (probably a reference to Ephesus), which he
describes as despairing of life itself, receiving the sentence of death,
and a deadly peril (2 Corinthians 1:8-10; see a discussion of the deadly
peril episode below).
3. Work
on the collection. From the Corinthian letters we also know that this
was a period of work on the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem.
His efforts finally resulted in the completion of the collection from two
the three mission areas founded before the Jerusalem conference, i.e.
Achaia and Macedonia (Romans 15:26). The collection project in Corinth,
begun by Titus, had languished during the increasingly bitter dispute
between Paul and the Corinthians, only to be revived with the resolution
of the controversy.8 In Macedonia, the project was an
unqualified success (2 Corinthians 8), even though it probably did
not get under way until the arrival of Paul in Macedonia
(2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:5). The project was launched well enough in
Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1), but it was evidently interrupted by the
storm of controversy reflected in the Galatian letter, and was probably
never brought to completion.9
4. The founding of the church at
Ephesus. Ephesus was a Pauline
foundation,10 dating probably from the period after the
Jerusalem conference. 1 Corinthians 16:8-9, written after the
conference, and referring to a great and effective door which is open in
Ephesus (thura gar moi aneôigen megalê kai
energês), perhaps suggests that the founding work in Ephesus is still
in progress, i.e. that his mission is at an early and active stage.11
5. Co-workers. The fellow workers associated with Paul during this
period surely include Aquila and Prisca (1 Corinthians 16:19), and
perhaps Sosthenes, the co-sender of 1 Corinthians (1:1). Apollos was
evidently also present in Ephesus, and working under Paul’s direction
(1 Corinthians 16:12). Timothy (1 Corinthians 4:17;
16:10) and
Titus (2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:6, 13-14; 8:6, 16,
23; 12:18) were his
emissaries at this time.12
6.
The founding of other churches in Asia. We may note that this is
perhaps also a period of church-founding elsewhere in Asia, especially in
the Lycus Valley, whether by Paul himself or by certain of his associates.13
8Click on The
Collection in Corinth.
9The silence concerning the participation of
Asia/Ephesus in the collection is puzzling. One cannot imagine that, with
Paul so recently arrived from the Jerusalem conference, where the
collection was agreed to, the Ephesians would have been ignorant of his
work on the collection. Nor do we need to suppose that the forces of
opposition (the antikeimenoi of 1 Corinthians 16:9) have
frustrated work on the project completely, though the kind of tension at
Ephesus which is evident may not have been conducive to a successful fund
raising project. I would argue that the agreement at the Jerusalem
conference to remember the poor was an obligation Paul was willing to
undertake on behalf of those churches which had not yet been founded at
the time of the conference. Knox, in Chapters 61-5, maintained that
Paul had enjoyed an extended stay in Ephesus before the Jerusalem
conference, and that Ephesus finally did participate in the collection. On
the former point, click on The
Founding of the Church at Ephesus; on the latter point, it would
be difficult to ascertain the participation of Ephesus in the collection
without recourse to the evidence of Acts (20:4).
10See Knox, Chapters 64-65 for a reply to Gerd
Luedemann’s contention (in Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in
Chronology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 146, n. 16) that there was
Christianity in Ephesus before Paul began his work there.
11The Knox chronology, which in the main I find
convincing, certainly allows sufficient time for a pre-conference founding
visit to Ephesus; see Knox, Chapters 61-63, 68. But, as I have
argued in note 9 above, the best explanation of the presumed silence in
the letters on the participation of Ephesus in the collection is that Paul
had not founded the work in Ephesus before the conference. Hyldahl (Chronologie
85) supports the idea of Paul’s pre-conference work in Ephesus, but does
so on largely speculative grounds.
12To these, we might add the names of others from
Philemon and Colossians. But the problem is that, unless we can be assured
of the authenticity of Colossians, Philemon (which is certainly authentic)
remains largely unanchored in any sequence of Paul’s activities, whether
it is the order of his letters, or the order of his travels and travel
plans. Indeed, even the destination of Philemon remains open if we are
uncertain of the information in Colossians. But if we date Philemon from
the Ephesian period, as is often done, one could well include the names of
such other companions, friends and associates as Epaphras, Mark,
Aristarchus, Demas and Luke.
13It is usually supposed, especially on the basis of
Colossians, that Paul did not himself found the churches of the Lycus
Valley (Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis), but that they came into being
through the efforts of a co-worker. While this supposition is not
improbable, perhaps it needs to be reexamined, and the possibility left
open that Paul himself had founded these churches, either on his way to
Ephesus from the latter visit to Galatia, or during a period of labor in
the Lycus Valley originating from Ephesus. In Corinthians 16:19,
Paul sends greetings from the churches of Asia; does this mean (a) that
they were churches which he had founded? or (b) that he has just visited
them (so Hyldahl, Chronologie 74)?
With these elements of Paul’s Ephesian work in mind, we
now proceed to a consideration of reasons for assigning the composition of
Philippians to Ephesus, with special attention to how well the Ephesian
hypothesis fits the Philippians template.
1. Travel plans. One of the most telling arguments for the Ephesian
hypothesis is really an argument against Rome, namely, Paul’s travel
plans announced in Philippians.14 When writing Philippians,
Paul expects to go quickly (tacheôs) to Philippi upon his release
(2:24); but from Romans we know that when Paul reached Rome he planned to
proceed on to Spain (Romans 15:24). If he were writing from Rome, we would
expect him to be planning his visit to Spain, rather than intending to go
to Philippi. It is not merely that this discrepancy would involve Paul in
a change of plans,15 but that it would mean an abandonment of
his missionary strategy, and a return to the territory where he had fully
preached the gospel (Romans 15:19-20). Now we know from the Corinthian
letters not only that Paul was intending while in Ephesus to visit
Macedonia, but that he in fact did reach Macedonia (1 Corinthians 16:5; 2 Corinthians
2:12-13; 7:5). Thus Philippians makes a good fit
with Ephesus so far as Paul’s travel plans are concerned.16
2. The relative proximity of Ephesus. The second argument for
Ephesus is also in effect an argument against Rome. Some three or four
trips between Rome and Philippi, a distance of eight hundred miles or
more, would tell heavily if not decisively against the composition of the
letter at Rome.17 The month or more of travel, at best, between
Rome and Philippi compares with little more than a week (seven to ten
days) between Ephesus and Philippi. Given these circumstances, one has to
assume for the Rome hypothesis prodigious travel, considerable expense,
and a quite lengthy imprisonment, in comparison with the Ephesus
hypothesis. As Paul in Philippians looks to the future, the proximity of
Ephesus to Philippi would enable Paul not only to send Timothy to
Philippi, but also to receive a quick assessment of the situation there, hina
kagô eupsuchô gnous ta peri humôn (Philippians 2:19). All in all,
the relative proximity of Ephesus to Philippi works in favor of the
Ephesian hypothesis and against Rome.
3. The praetorium or praetorian guard and Caesar’s household in
Ephesus. This is an argument which does not so much tell for Ephesus
as an argument which does not tell against Ephesus. There seems to be
little doubt that a praetorium or provincial headquarters would have been
located in Ephesus, or that a detachment of the praetorian guard would
have been stationed there, if that is what is meant by en holôi
tôi praitôriôi (. . .
throughout the whole imperial guard, or the whole praetorium, Philippians
1:13).18 In the greetings from the members of Caesar’s
household (Philippians 4:22), we have a reference to a sort of imperial
civil service, consisting of freedmen and slaves, which could be found
throughout the empire.19 This third argument does not require
Ephesus as the place of composition, but shows that the Roman hypothesis
is unnecessary, and certainly permits Ephesus.
4. Other considerations.
14In general, the arguments which tell
against Rome tell also against Caesarea as the place of composition for
Philippians.
15F. W. Beare, A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Philippians (NY: Harper, 1959) 19.
16As for Timothy, Paul’s travel plans for him are
agreeable with the Ephesian hypothesis, though we cannot trace out
Timothy’s movements with much certainty. The attempt by Hyldahl (Chronologie,
esp. chs. 2 and 4) to reconstruct the journeys of Timothy in abundant
detail goes far beyond what the evidence warrants. Paul did send Timothy
to Corinth (1 Corinthians 4:17; 16:10-11), from where he was to
return to Paul in Ephesus. In Philippians, Paul was intending to send
Timothy to Philippi (2:19-23). Timothy is with Paul later in Macedonia
when he writes Letter R/1-9 (the Letter of Reconciliation) to
Corinth, joining him as co-sender (2 Corinthians 1:1). Beyond these
“sightings” (and not forgetting Paul’s sending Timothy from Athens
back to Thessalonica, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-6), we have little but
speculation.
17So G. S. Duncan, St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry
(NY: Scribner’s, 1930) 80-2; and G. Bornkamm, “Der Philipperbrief als
Paulinische Briefsammlung,” Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine
Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag
überreicht (Leiden: Brill, 1962) 199.
18Duncan, Eph. Ministry 108-9; G. Friedrich, Der
Brief an die Philipper NTD 89 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1962) 94; J. Gnilka, Der Philipperbrief (Freiburg/Basel/Wien:
Herder, 1968) 19, 57-8. But see Beare (Philippians 22), “. . .
/any detachments found in a provincial capital would be nothing more than
a guard of honour for the proconsul.”
19Duncan, Eph. Ministry 110-1; G. Friedrich, An
die Philipper 94-5; J.-P. Collange, The Epistle of Saint Paul to
the Philippians (London: Epworth, 1979) 155.
20This estimate follows Knox (Chapters 62-3, 68)
in allowing a period of three to four years between the second and third
Jerusalem visits, though it does not follow him in positing a period of
work in Ephesus before the conference.
21The silence in Philippians on the collection is
sometimes used against the Ephesian hypothesis; see P. N. Harrison, “The
Pastoral Epistles and Duncan’s Ephesian Theory,” NTS 2
(1955-56) 258-9, referred to in Gnilka, Philipperbrief 24. But this
silence is more adequately explained by reference to the delay in
beginning the collection in Macedonia, a delay which becomes intelligible
when we take into account its voluntary character, the deep poverty of the
Macedonians (2 Corinthians 8:2-3), and the obligation which Philippi
had already undertaken to underwrite Paul’s apostolic labors
(Philippians 1:5; 4:15-16).
Here then are the arguments for the composition of
Philippians during an Ephesian imprisonment. But is it possible to
identify the position of the imprisonment in the sequence of events during
the Ephesian period, with a greater degree of precision? We shall
undertake an examination of the theories that connect this imprisonment
either with the “beasts in Ephesus” episode (1 Corinthians 15:32), or with the “crisis in Asia” episode (2 Corinthians
1:8-10).
