Footnote 752:
The clause, ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, has
been differently interpreted from early times, either as recommending
the slave to avail himself of any opportunity of emancipation, or as
advising him to refuse the offer of freedom and to remain in
servitude. The earliest commentator whose opinion I have observed,
Origen (in Cram. _Cat._ p. 140), interprets it as favourable to
liberty, but he confuses the meaning by giving a metaphorical sense to
slavery, δοῦλον ὠνόμασεν ἀναγκαίως τὸν γεγαμηκότα. Again, Severianus
(ib. p. 141) distinctly explains it as recommending a state of
liberty. On the other hand Chrysostom, while mentioning that ‘certain
persons’ interpret it εἰ δύνασαι ἐλευθερωθῆναι, ἐλευθερώθητι, himself
supposes St Paul to advise the slave’s remaining in slavery. And so
Theodoret and others. The balance of argument seems to be decidedly in
favour of the former view.
(1) The actual language must be considered first. And here (i) the
particles εἰ καὶ will suit either interpretation. If they are
translated ‘even though’, the clause recommends the continuance in
slavery. But καὶ may be equally well taken with δύνασαι, and the words
will then mean ‘if it _should_ be in your power to obtain your
freedom’. So above ver. 11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ: comp. Luke xi. 18 εἰ δὲ
καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν διεμερίσθη, 1 Pet. iii. 14 ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ
πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην. (ii) The expression μᾶλλον χρῆσαι seems to
direct the slave to _avail himself_ of some _new_ opportunity offered,
and therefore to recommend liberty; comp. ix. 12, 15.
(2) The immediate context will admit either interpretation. If slavery
be preferred, the sentence is continuous. If liberty, the clause ἀλλ’
εἰ καὶ ... μᾶλλον χρῆσαι is parenthetical. In this latter case its
motive is to correct misapprehension, as if the Apostle would say,
‘When I declare the absolute indifference of the two states in the
sight of God, I do not mean to say that you should not avail
yourselves of freedom, if it comes in your way; it puts you in a more
advantageous position, and you will do well to prefer it’. Such a
corrective parenthesis is altogether after St Paul’s manner, and
indeed instances occur in this very context: e.g. ver. 11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ
χωρισθῇ κ.τ.λ., ver. 15 εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται κ.τ.λ. This last
passage is an exact parallel, for the γὰρ of ver. 16 is connected
immediately with ver. 14, the parenthesis being disregarded as here.
(3) The argument which seems decisive is the extreme improbability
that St Paul should have recommended slavery in preference to freedom.
For (i) Such a recommendation would be alien to the spirit of a man
whose sense of political right was so strong, and who asserted his
citizenship so stanchly on more than one occasion (Acts xvi. 37, xxii.
28). (ii) The independent position of the freeman would give him an
obvious advantage in doing the work of Christ, which it is difficult
to imagine St Paul enjoining him deliberately to forego. (iii)
Throughout the passage the Apostle, while maintaining the indifference
of these earthly relations in the sight of God, yet always gives the
preference to a position of _independence_, whenever it comes to a
Christian naturally and without any undue impatience on his part. The
spirit which animates St Paul’s injunctions here may be seen from vv.
8, 11, 15, 26, 27 etc.
Footnote 753:
Ephes. vi. 5–9, Col. iii. 22-iv. 1.
[Sidenote: The Christian idea fatal to slavery.]
But meanwhile a principle is boldly enunciated, which must in the end
prove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel taught that God had made all men
and women upon earth of one family; that all alike were His sons and His
daughters; that, whatever conventional distinctions human society might
set up, the supreme King of Heaven refused to acknowledge any; that the
slave notwithstanding his slavery was Christ’s freedman, and the free
notwithstanding his liberty was Christ’s slave; when the Church carried
out this principle by admitting the slave to her highest privileges,
inviting him to kneel side by side with his master at the same holy
table; when in short the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is
neither bond nor free’ was not only recognised but acted upon, then
slavery was doomed. Henceforward it was only a question of time. Here
was the idea which must act as a solvent, must disintegrate this
venerable institution, however deeply rooted and however widely spread.
[Sidenote: Its general tendency.]‘The brotherhood of man, in short, is
the idea which Christianity in its social phase has been always striving
to realise, and the progress of which constitutes the social history of
Christendom. With what difficulties this idea has struggled; how it has
been marred by revolutionary violence, as well as impeded by reactionary
selfishness; to what chimerical hopes, to what wild schemes, to what
calamitous disappointments, to what desperate conflicts, it has given
birth; how often being misunderstood and misapplied, it has brought not
peace on earth but a sword—it is needless here to rehearse. Still, as we
look back over the range of past history, we can see beyond doubt that
it is towards this goal that Christianity as a social principle has been
always tending and still tends[754].’
Footnote 754:
G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ p. 121.
[Sidenote: Its effects on slavery.]
And this beneficent tendency of the Gospel was felt at once in its
effects on slavery. The Church indeed, even in the ardour of her
earliest love, did not prohibit her sons from retaining slaves in their
households. It is quite plain from extant notices, that in the earlier
centuries, as in the later, Christians owned slaves[755] like their
heathen neighbours, without forfeiting consideration among their
fellow-believers. But nevertheless the Christian idea was not a
dead-letter. [Sidenote: Protection and manumission of slaves.]The
chivalry of the Gospel which regarded the weak and helpless from
whatever cause, as its special charge, which extended its protection to
the widow, the orphan, the sick, the aged, and the prisoner, was not
likely to neglect the slave. Accordingly we find that one of the
earliest forms which Christian benevolence took was the contribution of
funds for the liberation of slaves[756]. [Sidenote: Honours paid to
slave martyrs.]But even more important than overt acts like these was
the moral and social importance with which the slave was now invested.
Among the heroes and heroines of the Church were found not a few members
of this class. When slave girls like Blandina in Gaul or Felicitas in
Africa, having won for themselves the crown of martyrdom, were
celebrated in the festivals of the Church with honours denied to the
most powerful and noblest born of mankind, social prejudice had received
a wound which could never be healed.
Footnote 755:
Athenag. _Suppl._ 35 δοῦλοί εἰσιν ἡμῖν, τοῖς μὲν καὶ πλείους τοῖς δ’
ἐλάττους. It would even appear that the domestic servant who betrayed
Polycarp (_Mart. Polyc._ 6) was a slave, for he was put to the
torture. Comp. Justin. _Apol._ ii. 12.
Footnote 756:
Ignat. _Polyc._ 4 μὴ ἐράτωσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ ἐλευθεροῦσθαι, _Apost.
Const._ iv. 9 τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν, ὡς προειρήκαμεν, ἀθροιζόμενα χρήματα
διατάσσετε διακονοῦντες εἰς ἀγορασμοὺς τῶν ἁγίων, _ῥυόμενοι
δούλους_ καὶ αἰχμαλώτους, δεσμίους, κ.τ.λ.
[Sidenote: Christianity predominant.]
While the Church was still kept in subjection, moral influence and
private enterprise were her only weapons. But Christianity was no sooner
seated on the throne of the Cæsars than its influence began to be felt
in the imperial policy[757]. [Sidenote: Legislation of Constantine.]The
legislation of Constantine, despite its startling inequalities, forms a
unique chapter in the statute book of Rome. In its mixed character
indeed it reflects the transitional position of its author. But after
all allowance made for its very patent defects, its general advance in
the direction of humanity and purity is far greater than can be traced
in the legislation even of the most humane and virtuous of his heathen
predecessors. More especially in the extension of legal protection to
slaves, and in the encouragement given to emancipation, we have an
earnest of the future work which Christianity was destined to do for
this oppressed class of mankind, though the relief which it gave was
after all very partial and tentative[758].
Footnote 757:
It must not however be forgotten that, even before Christianity became
the predominant religion, a more humane spirit had entered into Roman
legislation. The important enactment of Hadrian has been already
mentioned, p. 387, note 746. Even earlier the _lex Petronia_ (of which
the date is uncertain) had prohibited masters from making their slaves
fight with wild beasts in mere caprice and without an order from a
judge (Dig. xlviii. 8. 11); and Claudius (A.D. 47), finding that the
practice of turning out sick slaves into the streets to die was on the
increase, ordered that those who survived this treatment should have
their freedom (Dion Cass. lx. 29, Suet. _Claud._ 25). For these and
similar enactments of the heathen emperors see Wallon III. p. 60 sq.,
_Röm. Alterth._ V. I. 197, Rein _Privatrecht d. Römer_ p. 560 sq. The
character of this exceptional legislation is the strongest impeachment
of the general cruelty of the law; while at the same time subsequent
notices show how very far from effective it was even within its own
narrow limits. See for instance the passage in Galen, v. p. 17 (ed.
Kühn) λακτίζουσι καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐξορύττουσι καὶ γραφέιῳ κεντοῦσιν
κ.τ.λ. (comp. _ib._ p. 584), or Seneca _de Ira_ iii. 3. 6 ‘eculei et
fidiculæ et ergastula et cruces et circundati defossis corporibus
ignes et cadavera quoque trahens uncus, varia vinculorum genera, varia
pœnarum, lacerationes membrorum, inscriptiones frontis et bestiarum
immanium caveæ.’
On the causes of these ameliorations in the law see _Röm. Alterth._ V.
1. p. 199.
Footnote 758:
On the legislation of Constantine affecting slavery see De Broglie
_L’Eglise et l’Empire Romain_, I. p. 304 sq. (ed. 5), Chawner
_Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine the
Great_, p. 73 sq., Wallon III. p. 414 sq. The legislation of Justinian
is still more honourably distinguished for its alleviation of the
evils of slavery.
[Sidenote: Subsequent activity of the Church.]
And on the whole this part has been faithfully and courageously
performed by the Church. There have been shameful exceptions now and
then: there has been occasional timidity and excess of caution. The
commentaries of the fathers on this epistle are an illustration of this
latter fault[759]. Much may be pardoned to men who shrink from seeming
to countenance a violent social revolution. But notwithstanding, it is a
broad and patent fact that throughout the early and middle ages the
influence of the Church was exerted strongly on the side of humanity in
this matter[760]. The emancipation of slaves was regarded as a principal
aim of the higher Christian life[761]; the amelioration of serfdom was a
matter of constant solicitude with the rulers of the Church.
[Sidenote: The conquests and hopes of the present time.]
And at length we seem to see the beginning of the end. The rapid strides
towards emancipation during the present generation are without a
parallel in the history of the world. The abolition of slavery
throughout the British Empire at an enormous material sacrifice is one
of the greatest moral conquests which England has ever achieved. The
liberation of twenty millions of serfs throughout the Russian dominions
has thrown a halo of glory round the name of Alexander II., which no
time can dim. The emancipation of the negro in the vast republic of the
New World was a victory not less important than either to the well-being
of the human race. Thus within the short period of little more than a
quarter of a century this reproach of civilisation and humanity has been
wiped out in the three greatest empires of the world. It is a fit sequel
to these achievements, that at length a well directed attack should have
been made on the central fortress of slavery and the slave-trade, the
interior of Africa. May we not venture to predict that in future ages,
when distance of view shall have adjusted the true relations of events,
when the brilliancy of empires and the fame of wars shall have sunk to
their proper level of significance, this epoch will stand out in the
history of mankind as the era of liberation? If so, the Epistle to
Philemon, as the earliest prelude to these magnificent social victories,
must be invested with more than common interest for our generation.
Footnote 759:
_E.g._ Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spic. Solesm._ I. p.
152). Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the cause of slaves earnestly
elsewhere. In _Hom. xl. ad 1 Cor._ x. p. 385 he says of slavery, ‘It
is the penalty of sin and the punishment of disobedience. But when
Christ came, he annulled even this, _For in Christ Jesus there is no
slave nor free_. Therefore it is not necessary to have a slave; but,
if it should be necessary, then one only or at most a second’. And he
then tells his audience that if they really care for the welfare of
slaves, they must ‘buy them, and having taught them some art that they
may maintain themselves, set them free.’ ‘I know,’ he adds, ‘that I am
annoying my hearers; but what can I do? For this purpose I am
appointed, and I will not cease speaking so.’ On the attitude of this
father towards slavery see Möhler p. 89 sq.
Footnote 760:
On the influence of Christianity in this respect see Wallon III. p.
314 sq., Schmidt _Essai historique sur la Société Civile dans le Monde
Romain etc._ p. 228 sq. (1853), Möhler _Gesammelte Schriften_ II. p.
54 sq., G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ p. 95 sq., E. S. Talbot
_Slavery as affected by Christianity_ (1869), Lecky _Rationalism in
Europe_ II. p. 255 sq., _European Morals_ II. p. 65 sq.
Footnote 761:
Möhler p. 99 sq., Schmidt p. 246 sq., Lecky _E. M._ II. p. 73 sq.
ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΜΟΝΑ.
WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE
IS LIBERTY.
WHO IS WEAK, AND I AM NOT WEAK?
WHO IS OFFENDED, AND I BURN NOT?
* * * * *
_Such ever was love’s way: to rise, it stoops._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΜΟΝΑ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1–3]
^1ΠΑΥΛΟΣ, δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς, Φιλήμονι τῷ
ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν ^2καὶ Ἀπφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ καὶ Ἀρχίππῳ τῷ
συνστρατίωτῃ ἡμῶν καὶ τῇ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ· ^3χάρις ὑμῖν
1–3. ‘PAUL, now a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and TIMOTHY a brother in the
faith, unto PHILEMON our dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in the
Gospel, and unto APPHIA our sister, and unto ARCHIPPUS our
fellow-soldier in Christ, and to the Church which assembles in thy
house. Grace and peace to you all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ.’
1. δέσμιος] The authoritative title of ‘Apostle’ is dropped, because
throughout this letter St Paul desires to entreat rather than to command
(ver. 8, 9); see the note on Phil. i. 1. In its place is substituted a
designation which would touch his friend’s heart. How could Philemon
resist an appeal which was penned within prison walls and by a manacled
hand? For this characteristic reference to his ‘bonds’ see the note on
ver. 13.
Τιμόθεος] Timothy seems to have been with St Paul during a great part of
his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), and could hardly
have failed to make the acquaintance of Philemon. For the designation ὁ
ἀδελφός applied to Timothy see the note on Col. i. 1.
Φιλήμονι κ.τ.λ.] On the persons here addressed, and the language in
which they are described, see the introduction p. 369 sq.
συνεργῷ] It would probably be during St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus
that Philemon had laboured with him: see above p. 31 sq.
ἡμῶν] should probably be attached to ἀγαπητῷ as well as to συνεργῷ;
comp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 1 Cor. x. 14, Phil. ii. 12.
2. τῇ ἀδελφῇ] For this the received text has τῇ ἀγαπητῇ. Internal
probabilities can be urged in favour of both readings. On the one hand
ἀγαπητῇ might have been introduced for the sake of conformity to the
preceding ἀγαπητῷ; on the other ἀδελφῇ might have been substituted for
ἀγαπητῇ on grounds of false delicacy. Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spicil.
Solesm._ I. p. 154), who had the reading ἀγαπητῇ, feels an apology
necessary: ‘Istius temporis (i.e. of the present time) homines
propemodum omnes in crimine vocandos esse existimant, modo si audierint
nomen charitatis. Apostolus vero non sic sentiebat; sed contrario etc.’
I have preferred τῇ ἀδελφῇ, because the preponderance of ancient
authority is very decidedly in its favour.
συνστρατιώτῃ] These spiritual campaigns, in which Archippus was his
comrade, probably took place while St Paul was at Ephesus (A.D. 54–57).
For the word συνστρατιώτης see Phil. ii. 25. The metaphor of στρατεία,
στρατεύεσθαι, is common in St Paul.
τῇ κατ’ οἶκον κ.τ.λ.] probably at Colossæ; see above p. 370 sq. For the
meaning of the expression see the note on Col. iv. 15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4, 5]
καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
^4Εὐχαριστῶ τᾷ Θεῷ μου πάντοτε, μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν
μου, ^5ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην
4–7. ‘I never cease to give thanks to my God for thy well-doing, and
thou art ever mentioned in my prayers. For they tell me of thy love and
faith—thy faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and thy love which
thou showest towards all the saints; and it is my prayer that this
active sympathy and charity, thus springing from thy faith, may abound
more and more, as thou attainest to the perfect knowledge of every good
thing bestowed upon us by God, looking unto and striving after Christ.
For indeed it gave me great joy and comfort to hear of thy
loving-kindness, and to learn how the hearts of God’s people had been
cheered and refreshed by thy help, my dear brother’.
The Apostle’s thanksgiving and intercessory prayer (ver. 4)—the cause of
his thanksgiving (ver. 5)—the purport of his prayer (ver. 6)—the joy and
comfort which he has in Philemon’s good deeds (ver. 7)—this is the very
simple order of topics in these verses. But meanwhile all established
principles of arrangement are defied in the anxiety to give expression
to the thought which is uppermost for the moment. The clause ἀκούων
κ.τ.λ. is separated from εὐχαριστῶ κ.τ.λ., on which it depends, by the
intervening clause μνείαν σου κ.τ.λ. which introduces another thought.
It itself interposes between two clauses μνείαν σου κ.τ.λ. and ὅπως ἡ
κοινωνία κ.τ.λ., which stand in the closest logical and grammatical
connexion with each other. Its own component elements are dislocated and
inverted in the struggle of the several ideas for immediate utterance.
And lastly, in χαρὰν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. there is again a recurrence to a topic
which has occurred in an earlier part of the sentence (τὴν ἀγάπην ...
εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους) but which has been dropped, before it was
exhausted, owing to the pressure of another more importunate thought.