Commenting on 1 Cor 5:9 and Paul’s missing epistle to the Corinthians (the "real" first Corinthians, if you will), Simon J. Kistemaker, a conservative Reformed Protestant, wrote:
9. I wrote you in my letter not to associate with
immoral people. 10. I referred not to immoral people of this world, or greedy
people and swindlers or idolaters, because then you would have to leave this
world.
a. “I wrote you in my letter.” For several
reasons we cannot assume that Paul is referring to this epistle. First,
other than mentioning the incestuous man, he has not yet said anything about
immoral people. Next, the phrase I wrote
you in my letter (literally, in the letter) suggests something that
happened in the past; verse 11, “but now I am writing,” indicates a decided
contrast. And last, Paul wrote many letters that have not become part of the
New Testament (16:3; 2 Cor. 10:10). Accordingly, we understand Paul to allude
to a previous letter that has not been preserved. (Simon
J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians [New
Testament Commentary 18; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1993], 168, emphasis added; i.e.,
Paul is referencing a missing epistle and Ἔγραψα is not an "epistolary
aorist" in this instance)
In the same commentary series, after surveying 5 other possibilities
for the identity of the Epistle to the Laodiceans in Col 4:16 (1. A letter
written by the Laodiceans; 2. A letter written by Paul from Laodicea; perhaps
Galatians, 1 Timothy, 1 or 2 Thessalonians; 3. A letter written by Paul to
Philemon; 4. the text we know today as "the Apocryphal Epistle to the
Laodiceans"; 5. the canonical Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians) we read
the following from William Hendriksen, another conservative Reformed
Protestant:
6. A genuine letter of
Paul addressed to the Laodiceans, but now lost
As before (see above, under (5)), when this letter reaches the
Colossians it will be the letter “from the Laodiceans.”
Evaluation:
Here, too, proof is lacking, and here, too,
the theory is free from the objections mentioned as valid against the first
four.
The fact that this theory proceeds from the
assumption that a letter written by Paul can have been “lost,” in the sense
that it was not handed down to posterity, should not count as a valid
objection. Not all of Paul’s letters have been preserved (see 1 Cor. 5:9).
Those favoring this theory are of the opinion that the reason why, in God’s
providence, Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans was not preserved may well have
been that the distinctive portion of the epistle—that wherein it differed from
Colossians—, though certainly of real value for the membership in the Lycus
Valley (at least for that of Laodicea and Colosse), was lacking in abiding and universal significance.
It must be borne in mind that Tychicus had to
pass through Laodicea in order to reach Colosse. In all probability he traveled
the road which Paul himself had used, but now Tychicus traveled it in reverse
(from W. to E.) See Introduction II A, map 4. Would it not have been strange
if, having delivered “Ephesians” to the elders at Ephesus, and being on his way
to deliver “Colossians” to the authorities at Colosse, he would have had no
missive from Paul to the church of Laodicea through which town he was passing?
Both theories supply this need. According to (5) Tychicus could have told the
Laodiceans, “Paul’s letter which I left at Ephesus will be sent to you
presently. Having read it, send it on to the Colossians, who will send you, in
exchange, the letter which we are going to deliver to them.” According to (6)
Tychicus, welcomed by the Laodiceans, would deliver to them Paul’s letter
addressed specifically to them. That letter itself probably contained a request
that it (or a copy of it) be sent to the Colossians in exchange for the one
addressed to them.
Against (6) it is sometimes urged that Paul
would hardly have asked the Colossians to convey his greetings to the brothers
in Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house (Col. 4:15), if at the
same time he had been writing a letter addressed specifically to the
Laodiceans. Others, however, answer that for a heart so filled with love and
friendliness such a thing can be considered neither impossible nor unnatural.
Besides, objections have also been advanced against (5), particularly against
the circular letter theory.
There are times, in the course of exegesis,
when a precise answer is impossible, and the choice must be left between two
alternatives, in this case theory (5) and theory (6). (William
Hendriksen, Exposition of Colossians, and Philemon [New Testament Commentary 6;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1964], 196-97, emphasis added; i.e., not everything an
apostle wrote was considered ipso facto “scripture” or “inspired” and
the “missing epistle” interpretation is one of the two most plausible theories)
Further Reading
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura