Saturday, February 12, 2022

Kistemaker and Hendriksen (Conservative Protestants): 1 Corinthians 5:9 and Probably Colossians 4:16 Reference Missing Pauline/Apostolic Epistles

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

Blog Archive