τῷ Κυρίῳ, καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις,] ^{24}εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ Κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν
ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας· τῷ Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε· ^{25}ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν
κομίσεται ὃ
24. ἀπὸ Κυρίου ‘However you may be treated by your earthly masters, you
have still _a_ Master who will recompense you.’ The absence of the
definite article here (comp. iv. 1) is the more remarkable, because it
is studiously inserted in the context, vv. 22–24, τὸν Κύριον, τῷ Κυρίῳ,
τῷ Κυρίῳ. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8 it is παρὰ Κυρίου: for
the difference between the two see Gal. i. 12.
τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν] ‘_the just recompense_’, a common word both in the lxx
and in classical writers, though not occurring elsewhere in the New
Testament; comp. ἀνταπόδομα Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double
compound involves the idea of ‘exact requital’.
τῆς κληρονομίας] ‘_which consists in the inheritance_’, the genitive of
apposition: see the note on τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου, i. 12. There is a
paradox involved in this word: elsewhere the δοῦλος and the κληρονόμος
are contrasted (Matt. xxi. 35–38, etc., Rom. viii. 15–17, Gal. iv. 1,
7), but here the δοῦλος is the κληρονόμος. This he is because, though
δοῦλος ἀνθρώπων, he is ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου (1 Cor. vii. 22) and thus
κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ (Gal. iv. 7); comp. Hermas _Sim._ v. 2 ἵνα
συγκληρονόμος γένηται ὁ δοῦλος τῷ ὑιῷ (with the context).
τῷ Κυρίῳ κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘_you serve_ as your master _the_ great _Master
Christ_.’ This clause is added to explain who is meant by the preceding
ἀπὸ Κυρίου. For this application of Κύριος compare (besides the parallel
passage, Ephes. vi. 6–9) 1 Cor. vii. 22 ὁ γὰρ ἐν Κυρίῳ κληθὲις δοῦλος
ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν κ.τ.λ. It seems best to take δουλεύετε here as
an indicative, rather than as an imperative; for (1) The indicative is
wanted to explain the previous ἀπὸ Κυρίου; (2) The imperative would seem
to require ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the correct text). On the
other hand see Rom. xii. 11.
25. ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κ.τ.λ.] Who is this unrighteous person ? The slave who
defrauds his master of his service, or the master who defrauds his slave
of his reward? Some interpreters confine it exclusively to the former;
others to the latter. It seems best to suppose that both are included.
The connexion of the sentence ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν (where γάρ, not δέ, is
certainly the right reading) points to the slave. On the other hand the
expression which follows, τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα κ.τ.λ., suggests
the master. Thus there seems to be a twofold reference; the warning is
suggested by the case of the slave, but it is extended to the case of
the master; and this accords with the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 8
ἕκαστος ὃ ἂν ποίησῃ ἀγαθὸν τοῦτο κομίσεται παρὰ Κυρίου, _εἴτε δοῦλος
εἴτε ἐλεύθερος_.
The recent fault of Onesimus would make the Apostle doubly anxious to
emphasize the duties of the slave towards the master, lest in his love
for the offender he should seem to condone the offence. This same word
ἠδίκησεν is used by St Paul to describe the crime of Onesimus in Philem.
18. But on the other hand it is the Apostle’s business to show that
justice has a double edge. There must be a _reciprocity_ between the
master and the slave. The philosophers of Greece taught, and the laws of
Rome assumed, that the slave was a chattel. But a chattel could have no
rights. It would be absurd to talk of treating a chattel with justice.
St Paul places the relations of the master and the slave in a wholly
different light. Justice and equity are the expression of the Divine
mind: and with God there is no προσωπολημψία. With Him the claims of the
slave are as real as the claims of the master.
κομίσεται] For this sense of the middle, ‘to recover’, ‘to get back’,
and so (with an accusative of the thing to be recompensed), ‘to be
requited for’, see e.g. Lev. xx. 17 ἁμαρτίαν κομιοῦνται, 2 Cor. v. 10
κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος; comp. Barnab.
------------------------------------------------------------------------