πάντοτε] should probably be taken with εὐχαριστῶ (rather than with
μνείαν κ.τ.λ.), according to St Paul’s usual collocation in these
opening thanksgivings: see the notes on Col. i. 3, Phil. i. 3.
μνείαν σου κ.τ.λ.] ‘_making mention of thee_.’ For μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι see
the note on 1 Thess. i. 2. Here the ‘mention’ involves the idea of
intercession _on behalf of_ Philemon, and so introduces the ὅπως κ.τ.λ.
of ver. 6. See the note there.
5. ἀκούων] This information would probably come from Epaphras (Col. i.
7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesimus. The participle is connected
more directly with εὐχαριστῶ than with the intervening words, and
explains the grounds of the Apostle’s thanksgiving.
τὴν ἀγάπην κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘the faith which thou hast towards the Lord
Jesus Christ and the love which thou showest to all the saints.’ The
logical order is violated, and the clauses are inverted in the second
part of the sentence, thus producing an example of the figure called
chiasm; see Gal. iv. 4, 5. This results here from the Apostle’s setting
down the thoughts in the sequence in which they occur to him, without
paying regard to symmetrical arrangement. The first and prominent
thought is Philemon’s love. This suggests the mention of his faith, as
the source from which it springs. This again requires a reference to the
object of faith. And then at length comes the deferred sequel to the
first thought—the range and comprehensiveness of his love. The
transition from the object of faith to the object of love is more easy,
because the love is represented as springing from the faith. Some copies
transpose the order, reading τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην—an obvious
emendation. Others would obviate the difficulty by giving to πίστιν the
meaning ‘fidelity, stedfastness’: Winer § 1. p. 511 sq. Thus they are
enabled to refer both words, πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην, equally to both the
clauses which follow. But, though this is a legitimate sense of πίστις
in St Paul (see _Galatians_, p. 155), yet in immediate connexion with ἣν
ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, it is hardly possible that the word can
have any other than its proper theological meaning. See the opening of
the contemporary epistle, Col. i. 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6]
καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς
ἁγίους, ^6ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστέως σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει
παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν
πρὸς κ.τ.λ.] The change of prepositions, πρὸς τὸν Κύριον ‘_towards_ the
Lord’ and εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους ‘_unto_ the saints’, deserves attention. It
seems to arise from the instinctive desire to separate the two clauses,
as they refer to different words in the preceding part of the sentence.
Of the two prepositions the former (προ-ς) signifies _direction_
‘forward to’, ‘towards’; the latter (ἐν-ς) _arrival_ and so _contact_,
‘in-to’, ‘unto.’ Consequently either might be used in either connexion;
and as a matter of fact εἰς is much more common with πίστις (πιστεύειν),
as it is also with ἀγάπη, πρός being quite exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 ἡ
πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4). But where a
distinction is necessary, there is a propriety in using πρός of the
faith which aspires _towards_ Christ, and εἰς of the love which is
exerted _upon_ men. Some good copies read εἰς here in both clauses.
6. ὅπως κ.τ.λ.] to be taken with μνείαν σου ποιούμενος κ.τ.λ., as giving
the aim and purport of St Paul’s prayer. Others connect it with hὲν
ἔχεις, as if it described the tendency of Philemon’s faith, ‘ita ut’;
but, even if ὅπως could bear this meaning, such a connexion is
altogether harsh and improbable.
ἡ κοινωνία κ.τ.λ.] Of many interpretations which have been, or might be,
given of these words, two seem to deserve consideration. (1) ‘Your
friendly offices and sympathies, your kindly deeds of charity, which
spring from your faith’: comp. Phil. i. 5 ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον, Heb. xiii. 16 τῆς εὐποι"ίας καὶ κοινωνίας, whence κοινωνία
is used especially of ‘contributions, almsgiving’, Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor.
viii. 4, ix. 13. (2) ‘Your communion with God through faith’: comp. 1
Cor. i. 9, and see also 2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Joh. i. 3, 6, 7. The parallel
passages strongly support the former sense. Other interpretations
proposed are, ‘The participation of others in your faith, through your
example’, or ‘your communion with me, springing out of your faith’. This
last, which is widely received, is suggested by ver. 17; εἰ κοινωνὸς εἶ,
φησί, κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, writes Chrysostom, καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ὀφείλεις
κοινωνεῖν (comp. Tit. i. 3 κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν): but it seems quite out
of place in this context.
ἐνεργής] ‘_effective_’. The Latin translators must have read ἐναργής,
for they render the word _evidens_ or _manifesta_. Jerome (_ad loc._)
speaks of _evidens_ as the reading of the Latin, and _efficax_ of the
Greek text. The converse error appears in the MSS of _Clem. Hom._ xvii.
5, ἐνέργεια for ἐνάργεια.
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ.τ.λ.] ‘_in the perfect knowledge of every good thing_’.
This ἐπίγνωσις, involving as it does the complete appropriation of all
truth and the unreserved identification with God’s will, is the goal and
crown of the believer’s course. The Apostle does not say ‘in the
possession’ or ‘in the performance’ but ‘in the knowledge of every good
thing’; for, in this higher sense of knowledge, to know is both to
possess and to perform. In all the epistles of the Roman captivity St
Paul’s prayer for his correspondents culminates in this word ἐπίγνωσις:
see the note on Col. i. 9. This ἐπίγνωσις is the result and the reward
of faith manifesting itself in deeds of love, ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς
πίστεως κ.τ.λ. For the sequence comp. Ephes. iv. 13 εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς
πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως κ.τ.λ., Tit. i. 1 κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ
καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν. The ἐπίγνωσις therefore which
the Apostle contemplates is Philemon’s own. There is no reference to the
force of his example on others, as it is sometimes interpreted, ‘in
their recognition of every good thing which is wrought in you’.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7]
ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν. ^7χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν ἔσχον καὶ παράκλησιν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ
σου, ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα τῶν ἁγίων ἀναπέπαυται διὰ σοῦ, ἀδελφέ.
6. ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστόν.
τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν] ‘_which is in us Christians_’, ‘which is placed within our
reach by the Gospel’; i.e. the whole range of spiritual blessings, the
complete cycle of Christian truth. If the reading τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν be
adopted, the reference will be restricted to the brotherhood at Colossæ,
but the meaning must be substantially the same. Though ὑμῖν has somewhat
better support, we seem to be justified in preferring ἡμῖν as being much
more expressive. In such cases the MSS are of no great authority; and in
the present instance scribes would be strongly tempted to alter ἡμῖν
into ὑμῖν from a misapprehension of the sense, and a wish to apply the
words to Philemon and his household. A similar misapprehension doubtless
led in some copies to the omission of τοῦ, which seemed to be
superfluous but is really required for the sense.
εἰς Χριστόν] ‘_unto Christ_’, i.e. leading to Him as the goal. The words
should be connected not with τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, but with the main statement of
the sentence ἐνεργὴς γένηται κ.τ.λ.
7. χαρὰν γάρ] This sentence again must not be connected with the words
immediately preceding. It gives the motive of the Apostle’s thanksgiving
mentioned in ver. 4. This thanksgiving was the outpouring of gratitude
for the joy and comfort that he had received in his bonds, from the
report of Philemon’s generous charity. The connexion therefore is
εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου ...... ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην ... χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν
ἔσχον κ.τ.λ. For χαράν the received text (Steph. but not Elz.) reads
χάριν, which is taken to mean ‘thankfulness’ (1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. i.
3); but this reading is absolutely condemned by the paucity of ancient
authority.
τὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘_the heart, the spirits_’. On τὰ σπλάγχνα, the nobler
viscera, regarded as the seat of the emotions, see the note on Phil. i.
8. Here the prominent idea is that of terror, grief, despondency, etc.
ἀναπέπαυται] ‘_have been relieved, refreshed_’, comp. ver. 20. The
compound ἀναπάυεσθαι expresses a temporary relief, as the simple
παύεσθαι expresses a final cessation: Plut. _Vit. Lucull._ 5 πολλῶν
αὖθις ἀνακινούντων τὸν Μιθριδατικὸν πόλεμον ἔφη Μάρκος
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8, 9]
^8 Διὸ πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων ἐπιτάσσειν σοι τὸ ἀνῆκον, ^9
διὰ τὴν αγάπην μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ, τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης νυνὶ δὲ
καὶ δέσμιος
9. νῦν δὲ καὶ δέσμιος.
αὐτὸν _οὐ πεπαῦσθαι_ ἀλλ’ _ἀναπεπαῦσθαι_. Thus it implies
‘relaxation, refreshment,’ as a preparation for the renewal of labour or
suffering. It is an Ignatian as well as a Pauline word; _Ephes._ 2,
_Smyrn._ 9, 10, 12, _Trall._ 12, _Magn._ 15, _Rom._ 10.
ἀδελφέ] For the appeal suggested by the emphatic position of the word,
comp. Gal. vi. 18. See also the note on ver. 20 below.
8–17. ‘Encouraged by these tidings of thy loving spirit, I prefer to
entreat, where I might command. My office gives me authority to dictate
thy duty in plain language, but love bids me plead as a suitor. Have I
not indeed a right to command—I Paul whom Christ Jesus long ago
commissioned as His ambassador, and whom now He has exalted to the rank
of His prisoner? But I entreat thee. I have a favour to ask for a son of
my own—one doubly dear to me, because I became his father amidst the
sorrows of my bonds. I speak of Onesimus, who in times past was found
wholly untrue to his name, who was then far from useful to thee, but now
is useful to thee—yea, and to myself also. Him I send back to thee, and
I entreat thee to take him into thy favour, for in giving him I am
giving my own heart. Indeed I would gladly have detained him with me,
that he might minister to me on thy behalf, in these bonds with which
the Gospel has invested me. But I had scruples. I did not wish to do
anything without thy direct consent; for then it might have seemed
(though it were only seeming) as if thy kindly offices had been rendered
by compulsion and not of free will. So I have sent him back. Indeed it
may have been God’s providential design, that he was parted from thee
for a season, only that thou mightest regain him for ever; that he left
thee as a slave, only that he might return to thee a beloved brother.
This indeed he is to me most of all; and, if to me, must he not be so
much more to thee, both in worldly things and in spiritual? If therefore
thou regardest me as a friend and companion, take him to thee, as if he
were myself’.
8. Διό] i.e. ‘Seeing that I have these proofs of thy love, I prefer to
entreat, where I might command’.
παρρησίαν] ‘_confidence_’, literally ‘_freedom_’ or ‘_privilege of
speech_’; see the notes on Col. ii. 15, Ephes. iii. 12. It was his
Apostolic authority which gave him this right to command in plain
language. Hence the addition ἐν Χριστῷ.
το ἀνῆκον] ‘_what is fitting_’: see the note on Col. iii. 18.
9. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην] ‘_for love’s sake_’, i.e. ‘having respect to the
claims of love’. It is not Philemon’s love (vv. 5, 7,) nor St Paul’s own
love, but love absolutely, love regarded as a principle which demands a
deferential respect.
τοιοῦτος ὢν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_being such an one as Paul an ambassador, and now
also a prisoner, of Christ Jesus_’. Several questions of more or less
difficulty arise on these words. (1) Is τοιοῦτος ὤν to be connected with
or separated from ὡς Παῦλος κ.τ.λ.? If separated, τοιοῦτος ὤν will mean
‘though as an Apostle I am armed with such authority’, and ὡς Παῦλος
κ.τ.λ. will describe his condescension to entreaty, ‘yet as simply Paul,
etc.’ But the other construction is much more probable for the following
reasons., (_a_) τοιοῦτος ὤν so used, implying, as it would, something of
a _personal_ boast, seems unlike St Paul’s usual mode of speaking.
Several interpreters indeed, taking τοιοῦτος ὤν separately, refer it to
ver. 8, ‘seeing that this is my disposition’, i.e. ‘seeing that I desire
to entreat’; but τοιοῦτος suggests more than an accidental impulse.
(_b_) As τοιοῦτος and ὡς are correlative words, it is more natural to
connect them together; comp. Plato _Symp._ 181 E προσαναγκάζειν τὸ
τοιοῦτον ὥσπερ καὶ κ.τ.λ., Alexis (Meineke _Fragm. Com._ III. p. 399)
τοιοῦτο τὸ ζῆν ἐστιν ὥσπερ ὁι κύβοι. Such passages are an answer to the
objection that τοιοῦτος would require some stronger word than ὡς, such
as οἷος, ὅς, or ὥστε. Even after such expressions as ὁ ἀυτός, τὸ ἀυτό,
instances occur of ὥς (ὥσπερ): see Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 427, Stallbaum on
Plat. _Phæd._ 86 A. Indeed it may be questioned whether any word but ὡς
would give exactly St Paul’s meaning here. (_c_) All the Greek
commentators without a single exception connect the words τοιοῦτος ὢν ὥς
Παῦλος together. (2) Assuming that the words τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς κ.τ.λ. are
taken together, should they be connected with the preceding or the
following sentence? On the whole the passage is more forcible, if they
are linked to the preceding words. In this case the resumptive παρακαλῶ
(ver. 10) begins a new sentence, which introduces a fresh subject. The
Apostle has before described the character of his appeal; he now speaks
of its object. (3) In either connexion, what is the point of the words
τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς Παῦλος κ.τ.λ.? Do they lay down the grounds of his
_entreaty_, or do they enforce his right to _command_? If the view of
πρεσβύτης adopted below be correct, the latter must be the true
interpretation; but even though πρεσβύτης be taken in its ordinary
sense, this will still remain the more probable alternative; for, while
πρεσβύτης and δέσμιος would suit either entreaty or command, the
addition Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ suggests an appeal to authority.
ὡς Παῦλος] The mention of his personal name involves an assertion of
authority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp. Gal. v. 2, with the note there.
Theodoret writes, ὁ Παῦλον ἀκούσας τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀκούει τὸν κήρυκα, γῆς
καὶ θαλάττης τὸν γεωργόν, τῆς ἐκλογῆς τὸ σκεῦος, κ.τ.λ.
πρεσβύτης] Comparing a passage in the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi.
20 ὑπὲρ ὁῦ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, it had occurred to me that we should read
πρεσβευτής here, before I was aware that this conjecture had been
anticipated by others, e.g. by Bentley (_Crit. Sacr._ p. 93) and by
Benson (_Paraphrase etc. on Six Epistles of St Paul_ p. 357). It has
since been suggested independently in Linwood’s _Observ. quæd. in
nonnulla N. T. loca_ 1865, and probably others have entertained the same
thought. Still believing that St Paul here speaks of himself as an
‘ambassador’, I now question whether any change is necessary. There is
reason for thinking that in the common dialect πρεσβύτης may have been
written indifferently for πρεσβευτής in St Paul’s time; and if so, the
form here may be due, not to some comparatively late scribe, but to the
original autograph itself or to an immediate transcript. In 1 Macc. xiv.
21 the Sinaitic MS has οι πρεσβυτεροι (a corruption of οι πρεσβυται οι,
for the common reading is οἱ πρεσβευτὰι οἱ); in xiv. 22 it reads
πρεσβυται Ιουδαιων; but in xiii. 21 πρεσβευτας: though in all passages
alike the meaning is ‘ambassadors’. Again the Alexandrian MS has
πρεσβυτας in xiii. 21, but πρεσβευται in xiv. 22, and οι πρεσβευτε οι
(i.e. οἱ πρεσβευτὰι οἱ) in xiv. 21. In 2 Macc. xi. 34 this same MS has
πρεσβυτε, and the reading of the common texts of the LXX (even
Tischendorf and Fritzsche) there is πρεσβῦται. Grimm treats it as
meaning ‘ambassadors’, without even noticing the form. Other MSS are
also mentioned in Holmes and Parsons which have the form πρεσβυτης in 1
Macc. xiii. 21. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 31 again the word for ‘ambassador’ is
written thus in the _Vatican_ MS, though the ε is added above the line;
and here too several MSS in Holmes and Parsons agree in reading
πρεσβύταις. Thus it is plain that, in the age of our earliest extant MSS
at all events, the scribes used both forms indifferently in this sense.
So also Eusebius on Isaiah xviii. 2 writes ὁ δε Ἀκύλας _πρεσβύτας_
ἐξέδωκεν εἰπών, (Ο ἀποστέλλων ἐν θαλάσσῃ πρεσβύτας. Again in Ignat.
_Smyrn._ 11 θεοπρεσβύτης is the form in all the MSS of either recension,
though the meaning is plainly ‘an ambassador of God.’ So too in _Clem.
Hom._ Ep. Clem. 6 the MSS read ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας πρεσβύτης, which even
Schwegler and Dressel tacitly retain. See also Appian _Samn._ 7, where
πρεσβευτοῦ is due to the later editors, and _Acta Thomæ_ § 10, where
there is a v. l. πρεσβύτης in at least one MS. And probably examples of
this substitution might be largely multiplied. The main reason for
adopting this reading is the parallel passage, which suggests it very
strongly. The difficulty which many find in St Paul’s describing himself
as an old man is not serious. On any showing he must have been verging
on sixty at this time, and may have been some years older. A life of
unintermittent toil and suffering, such as he had lived, would bring a
premature decay; and looking back on a long eventful life, he would
naturally so think and speak of himself. Thus Roger Bacon (_Opus Majus_
I 10, p. 15, ed. Jebb; _Opus Tertium_ p. 63, ed. Brewer) writes ‘me
senem’, ‘nos senes’, in 1267, though he appears to have been not more
than fifty-two or fifty-three at the time and lived at least a quarter
of a century after (see E. Charles _Roger Bacon, Sa Vie etc._ pp. 4 sq.,
40). So too Scott in his fifty-fifth year speaks of himself as ‘an old
grey man’ and ‘aged’ (Lockhart’s _Life_ VIII. pp. 327, 357). It is more
difficult to understand how St Paul should make his age a ground of
appeal to Philemon who, if Archippus was his son, cannot have been much
younger than himself. The commentator Hilary says that the Apostle
appeals to his friend ‘quasi coævum ætatis’, but this idea is foreign to
the context. The comment of Theophylact is, τοιοῦτος ὤν, φησι,
_πρεσβευτής_, καὶ ὅυτως ἄξιος ἀκούεσθαι, ὡς εἰκὸς Παῦλον πρεσβύτην,
τουτέστι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ διδασκαλικοῦ ἀξίωματος καὶ _τοῦ χρόνου_ τὸ
αἰδέσιμον ἔχοντα κ.τ.λ. Does he mean to include both meanings in
πρεσβύτης? Or is he accidentally borrowing the term ‘ambassador’ from
some earlier commentator without seeing its bearing?
καὶ δέσμιος] Another title to respect. The mention of his bonds might
suggest either an appeal for commiseration or a claim of authority: see
the note on ver. 13. Here the addition of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ invests it with
the character of an official title, and so gives prominence to the
latter idea. To his old office of ‘ambassador’ Christ has added the new
title of ‘prisoner’. The genitive Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ belongs to πρεσβύτης as
well as to δέσμιος, and in both cases describes the person who confers
the office or rank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10]
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. ^{10}παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνον,
10. παρακαλῶ σε κ.τ.λ.] St Chrysostom remarks on the Apostle’s
withholding the name, until he has favourably disposed Philemon both to
the request and to the object of it; τοσούτοις δὲ προλέανας αὐτοῦ τὴν
ψυχήν, οὐδὲ εὐθέως ἐνέβαλε τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ τοσαύτην ποιησάμενος αἴτησιν
ἀναβάλλεται κ.τ.λ. The whole passage deserves to be read.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11]
ὃν [ἐγὼ] ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς, Ὀνήσιμον, ^{11}τόν ποτέ
ὃν ἐγέννησα κ.τ.λ.] So too 1 Cor. iv. 15. In Gal. iv. 19 he speaks of
himself as suffering a mother’s pangs for his children in the faith.
Comp. Phil. _Leg. ad Cai._ 8 (II. p. 554) ἐμόν ἐστι τοῦ Μάκρωνος ἔργον
Γαΐος· μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἢ οὐχ ἧττον τῶν γονέων γεγέννηκα.
ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς] He was doubly dear to the Apostle, as being the child
of his sorrows.
Ὀνήσιμον] for Ὀνησίμου by attraction, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 ὃν ἐγὼ
ἀπεκεφάλισα Ἰώαννην, οὗτός ἐστιν. Henceforward he will be true to his
name, no longer ἀνόνητος, but ὀνήσιμος: comp. Ruth i. 20 ‘Call me not
Naomi (pleasant) but call me Mara (bitter) etc.’ The word ἄχρηστος is a
synonyme for ἀνόνητος, Demosth. _Phil._ iii. § 40 (p. 121) ἅπαντα ταῦτα
_ἄχρηστα_ ἄπρακτα _ἀνόνητα_ κ.τ.λ.: comp. Pseudophocyl. 37
(34) χρηστὸς ὀνήσιμός ἐστι, φίλος δ’ ἀδικῶν ἀνόνητος. The significance
of names was a matter of special importance among the ancients. Hence
they were careful in the inauguration of any great work that only those
who had _bona nomina_, _prospera nomina_, _fausta nomina_, should take
part: Cic. _de Div._ i. 45, Plin. _N.H._ xxviii. 2. 5, Tac. _Hist._ iv.
53. On the value attached to names by the ancients, and more especially
by the Hebrews, see Farrar _Chapters on Language_ p. 267 sq., where a
large number of instances are collected. Here however there is nothing
more than an affectionate play on a name, such as might occur to any one
at any time: comp. Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24 ὁ )Ειρηναῖος φερώνυμός τις ὢν τῇ
προσηγορίᾳ, αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρόπῳ εἰρηνόποιος.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12]
σοι ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ δὲ [καὶ] σοὶ καὶ ἑμοὶ εὔχρηστον· ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι.
^{12}αὐτόν, τουτέστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα,
11. ἄχρηστον, εὔχρηστον] Comp. Plat. _Resp._ iii. p. 411 A χρήσιμον ἐξ
ἀχρήστου ... ἐποίησεν. Of these words, ἄχρηστος is found only here,
εὔχρηστος occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the New Testament. Both
appear in the LXX. In Matt. xxv. 30 a slave is described as ἀχρεῖος. For
the mode of expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλ’ ὡς σόφοι.
Some have discovered in these words a reference to χριστός, as commonly
pronounced χρηστός; comp. Theoph. _ad Autol._ i. 12 τὸ χριστὸν ἡδὺ καὶ
εὔχρηστον κ.τ.λ. and see _Philippians_ p. 16 note. Any such allusion
however, even if it should not involve an anachronism, is far too
recondite to be probable here. The play on words is exhausted in the
reference to Ὀνήσιμος.
καὶ ἐμοί] An after-thought; comp. Phil. ii. 27 ἠλέησεν αὐτόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν
δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ. This accounts for the exceptional order, where
according to common Greek usage the first person would naturally precede
the second.
ἀνέπεμψα] ‘_I send back_’, the epistolary aorist used for the present:
see the notes on Phil. ii. 25, 28. So too ἔγραψα, ver. 19, 21 (see the
note). It is clear both from the context here, and from Col. iv. 7–9,
that Onesimus accompanied the letter.
12. αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ.] The reading of the received text is _σὺ δὲ_
αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, _προσλαβοῦ_. The words thus
supplied doubtless give the right construction, but must be rejected as
deficient in authority. The accusative is suspended; the sentence
changes its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses; and
the main point is not resumed till ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, the
grammar having been meanwhile dislocated. For the emphatic position of
αὐτόν comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes. i. 22.
τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘_my very heart_’, a mode of speech common in all
languages. For the meaning of σπλάγχνα see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp.
_Test. Patr._ Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both which passages Christ is called
τὸ σπλάγχνον of God, and in the first it is said ἔχετε εὐσπλαγχνίαν ...
ἵνα καὶ ὁ Κύριος εἰς ὑμᾶς σπλαγχνισθὲις ἐλέησῃ ὑμᾶς· ὅτι καίγε ἐπ’
ἐσχάτων ἡμερῶν ὁ Θεὸς ἀποστέλλει τὸ σπλάγχνον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κ.τ.λ.
Otherwise τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα has been interpreted ‘_my son_’ (comp. ver. 10
ὃν ἐγέννησα κ.τ.λ.), and it is so rendered here in the Peshito. For this
sense of σπλάγχνα comp. Artemid. _Oneir._ i. 44 οἱ παῖδες σπλάγχνα
λέγονται, _ib._ v. 57 τὰ δὲ σπλάγχνα [ἐσήμαινε] τὸν παῖδα, οὕτω γὰρ καὶ
τὸν παῖδα καλεῖν ἔθος ἐστι. With this meaning it is used not less of the
father than of the mother; e.g. Philo _de Joseph._ 5 (II. p. 45) θηρσὶν
εὐωχία καὶ θοίνη γέγονας γευσαμένοις ... τῶν ἐμῶν σπλάγχνων, Basil.
_Op._ III. p. 501 ὁ μὲν προτείνεται τὰ σπλάγχνα τιμὴν τῶν τροφῶν. The
Latin _viscera_ occurs still more frequently in this sense, as the
passages quoted in Wetstein and Suicer show. For this latter
interpretation there is much to be said. But it adds nothing to the
previous ὃν ἐγέννησα κ.τ.λ., and (what is a more serious objection) it
is wholly unsupported by St Paul’s usage elsewhere, which connects
σπλάγχνα with a different class of ideas: see e.g. vv. 7, 20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13, 14]
^{13}ὃν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν κατέεχειν, ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ ἐν
τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου· ^{14}χωρὶς
13. ἐβουλόμην] ‘_I was of a mind_’, distinguished from ἠθέλησα, which
follows, in two respects; (1) While βούλεσθαι involves the idea of
‘purpose, deliberation, desire, mind’, θέλειν denotes simply ‘will’;
Epictet. i. 12. 13 βουλόμαι γράφειν, ὡς θέλω, τὸ Δίωνος ὄνομα; οὔ ἀλλὰ
διδάσκομαι θέλειν ὡς δεῖ γράφεσθαι, iii. 24, 54 τοῦτον θέλε ὁρᾷν, καὶ ὃν
βούλει ὄψει. (2) The change of tenses is significant. The imperfect
implies a tentative, inchoate process; while the aorist describes a
definite and complete act. The will stepped in and put an end to the
inclinations of the mind. Indeed the imperfect of this and similar verbs
are not infrequently used where the wish is stopped at the outset by
some antecedent consideration which renders it impossible, and thus
practically it is not entertained at all: e.g. Arist. _Ran._ 866
ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὐκ ἐρίζειν ἐνθάδε, Antiph. _de Herod. cæd._ I (p. 129)
ἐβουλόμην μὲν ... νῦν δὲ κ.τ.λ.; Isæus _de Arist. hær._ I (p. 79)
ἐβουλόμην μὲν ... νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου κ.τ.λ., Æsch. _c. Ctes._ 2 (p. 53)
ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὖν, ὦ )Αθηναῖοι ... ἐπειδὴ δὲ πάντα κ.τ.λ., Lucian _Abd._
I ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὖν τὴν ἰατρικὴν κ.τ.λ. ... νυνὶ δὲ κ.τ.λ.; see Kühner §
392 _b_ (II. p. 177). So Acts xxv. 22 ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἀκοῦσαι, not ‘I should wish’ (as Winer § xli. p. 353) but ‘I could have
wished’, i.e. ‘if it had not been too much to ask’. Similarly ἤθελον
Gal. iv. 20, ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3. See _Revision of the English New
Testament_ p. 96. So here a not improbable meaning would be not ‘I was
desirous’, but ‘I could have desired’.
κατέχειν] ‘_to detain_’ or ‘_retain_’, opposed to the following ἀπέχῃς,
ver. 15.
ὑπὲρ σοῦ κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Phil. ii. 30 ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς
πρὸς μὲ λειτουργίας, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ
ἀνεπλήρωσαν. See the note on Col. i. 7. With a delicate tact the Apostle
assumes that Philemon would have wished to perform these friendly
offices in person, if it had been possible.
ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς] An indirect appeal to his compassion: see vv. 1, 9, 10.
In this instance however (as in ver. 9) the appeal assumes a tone of
authority, by reference to the occasion of his bonds. For the genitive
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, describing the origin, comp. Col. i. 23 τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου. They were not shackles which self had riveted, but a chain
with which Christ had invested him. Thus they were as a badge of office
or a decoration of honour. In this respect, as in others, the language
of St Paul is echoed in the epistles of St Ignatius. Here too entreaty
and triumph alternate; the saint’s bonds are at once a ground for appeal
and a theme of thanksgiving: _Trall._ 12 παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς τὰ δεσμά μου,
_Philad._ 7 μάρτυς δὲ μοι ἐν ᾧ δέδεμαι, _Ephes._ 11 ἐν ᾧ (i.e. Χριστῷ
Ἰησοῦ) τὰ δεσμὰ περιφέρω, τους πνευματικοὺς μαργαρίτας, _Smyrn._ 10
ἀντίψυχον ὑμῶν τὸ πνεῦμά μου καὶ τὰ δεσμά μου, _Magn._ 1 ἐν οἷς περιφέρω
δεσμοῖς ᾄδω τὰς ἐκκλησίας; see also _Ephes._ 1, 3, 21, _Magn._ 12,
_Trall._ 1, 5, 10, _Smyrn._ 4, 11, _Polyc._ 2, _Rom._ 1, 4, 5, _Philad._
5.
14. χωρὶς κ.τ.λ.] ‘_without thy approval, consent_’; Polyb. ii. 21. 1,
3, χωρὶς τῆς σφετέρας γνώμης, χωρὶς της αὐτοῦ γνώμης: similarly ἄνευ
[τῆς] γνώμης, e.g. Polyb. xxi. 8. 7, Ign. _Polyc._ 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15, 16]
δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης οὐδὲν ἠθέλησα ποιῆσαι, ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην τὸ
ἀγαθόν σου ᾖ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον· ^{15}τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς
ὥραν, ἵνα αἴωνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχῃς, ^{16}οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον, ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον,
ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην] St Paul does not say κατὰ ἀνάγκην but ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην.
He will not suppose that it would really be by constraint; but it must
not even wear _the appearance_ (ὡς) of being so: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 ὡς
ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ. See Plin. _Ep._ ix. 21 ‘Vereor ne videar non rogare sed
cogere’; where, as here, the writer is asking his correspondent to
forgive a domestic who has offended.
τὸ ἀγαθόν σου] ‘_the benefit_ arising _from thee_’, i.e. ‘the good which
I should get from the continued presence of Onesimus, and which would be
owing to thee’.
κατὰ ἑκούσιον] as in Num. xv. 3. The form καθ’ ἑκουσίαν is perhaps more
classical: Thuc. viii. 27 καθ’ ἑκουσίαν ἢ πάνυ γε ἀνάγκῃ. The word
understood in the one case appears to be τρόπον (Porphyr. _de Abst._ i.
9 καθ’ ἑκούσιον τρόπον, comp. Eur. _Med._ 751 ἑκουσίῳ τρόπῳ); in the
other, γνώμην (so ἑκουσίᾳ, ἐξ ἑκουσίας, etc.): comp. Lobeck _Phryn._ p.
4.
15. τάχα γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] The γὰρ explains an additional motive which guided
the Apostle’s decision: ‘I did not dare to detain him, however much I
desired it. I might have defeated the purpose for which God in His good
providence allowed him to leave thee’.
ἐχωρίσθη] ‘He does not say’, writes Chrysostom, ‘_For this cause he
fled_, but _For this cause he was parted_: for he would appease Philemon
by a more euphemistic phrase. And again he does not say _he parted
himself_, but _he was parted_: since the design was not Onesimus’ own to
depart for this or that reason: just as Joseph also, when excusing his
brethren, says (Gen. xlv. 5) _God did send me hither_.’
πρὸς ὥραν] ‘_for an hour_’, ‘_for a short season_’: 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal.
ii. 5. ‘It was only a brief moment after all’, the Apostle would say,
‘compared with the magnitude of the work wrought in it. He departed a
reprobate; he returns a saved man. He departed for a few months; he
returns to be with you for all time and for eternity’. The sense of
αἴωνιον must not be arbitrarily limited. Since he left, Onesimus had
obtained eternal life, and eternal life involves eternal interchange of
friendship. His services to his old master were no longer barred by the
gates of death.
ἀπέχῃς] In this connexion ἀπέχειν may bear either of two senses: (1)
‘_to have back, to have in return_’: or (2) ‘_to have to the full, to
have wholly_’, as in Phil. iv. 18 ἀπέχω πάντα (see the note). In other
words the prominent idea in the word may be either _restitution_, or
_completeness_. The former is the more probable sense here, as suggested
by κατέχειν in verse 13 and by ἐχωρίσθη in this verse.
16. ὡς δοῦλον] St Paul does not say δοῦλον but ὡς δοῦλον. It was a
matter of indifference whether he were outwardly δοῦλος or outwardly
ἐλεύθερος, since both are one in Christ (Col. iii. 11). But though he
might still remain a slave, he could no longer be _as_ a slave. A change
had been wrought in him, independently of his possible manumission: in
Christ he had become a brother. It should be noticed also that the
negative is not μηκέτι, but οὐκέτι. The negation is thus wholly
independent of ἵνα ... ἀπέχῃς. It describes not the possible view of
Philemon, but the actual state of Onesimus. The ‘no more as a slave’ is
an absolute fact, whether Philemon chooses to recognise it or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17–19]
ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, μάλιστα ἐμοί, πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν
Κυρίῳ. ^{17}εἰ οὖν με ἔχεις κοινωνόν, προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ· ^{18}εἰ δέ
τι ἠδίκησέν σε ἢ ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἑμοὶ ἐλλόγα. ^{19}ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα
ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν] καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ κεκέρδακας καὶ τῇ ποίοτητι, writes
Chrysostom, apostrophizing Philemon.
πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον κ.τ.λ.] Having first said ‘most of all to me’, he goes a
step further, ‘more than most of all to thee’.
καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ κ.τ.λ.] ‘In both spheres alike, in the affairs of this
world and in the affairs of the higher life.’ In the former, as Meyer
pointedly says, Philemon had the brother for a slave; in the latter he
had the slave for a brother: comp. Ign. _Trall._ 12 κατὰ πάντα με
ἀνέπαυσαν σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύματι.
17. ἔχεις κοινωνόν] ‘_thou holdest me to be a comrade, an intimate
friend_’. For this use of ἔχειν comp. Luke xiv. 18 ἔχε με παρῃτημένον,
Phil. ii. 29 τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντιμοὺς ἔχετε. Those are κοινωνοί, who have
common interests, common feelings, common work.
18–22. ‘But if he has done thee any injury, or if he stands in thy debt,
set it down to my account. Here is my signature—_Paul_—in my own
handwriting. Accept this as my bond. I will repay thee. For I will not
insist, as I might, that thou art indebted to me for much more than
this; that thou owest to me thine own self. Yes, dear brother, let me
receive from my son in the faith such a return as a father has a right
to expect. Cheer and refresh my spirits in Christ. I have full
confidence in thy compliance, as I write this; for I know that thou wilt
do even more than I ask. At the same time also prepare to receive me on
a visit; for I hope that through your prayers I shall be set free and
given to you once more’.
18. εἰ δέ τι] The case is stated hypothetically but the words doubtless
describe the actual offence of Onesimus. He had done his master some
injury, probably had robbed him; and he had fled to escape punishment.
See the introduction.
ἢ ὀφείλει] defining the offence which has been indicated in ἠδίκησεν.
But still the Apostle refrains from using the plain word ἔκλεψεν. He
would spare the penitent slave, and avoid irritating the injured master.
ἐλλόγα] ‘_reckon it in_’, ‘_set it down_’. This form must be adopted
instead of ἐλλόγει which stands in the received text, as the great
preponderance of authority shows. On the other hand we have ἐλλογεῖται
Rom. v. 13 (though with a v. l. ἐλλογᾶται), ἐλλογουμένων Boeckh _C. I._
no. 1732 A, and ἐνλογεῖσθαι _Edict. Diocl._ in _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III.
p. 836. But the word is so rare in any form, that these occurrences of
ἐλλογεῖν afford no ground for excluding ἐλλογᾶν as impossible. The two
forms might be employed side by side, just as we find ἐλεᾶν and ἐλεεῖν,
ξυρᾶν and ξυρεῖν, ἐρωτᾶν and ἐρωτεῖν (Matt. xv. 23), and the like; see
Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ § 112 (II. p. 53). The word λογᾶν, as used by
Lucian _Lexiph._ 15 (where it is a desiderative ‘to be eager to speak’,
like φονᾶν, θανατᾶν, φαρμακᾶν, etc.), has nothing to do with the use of
ἐλλογᾶν here.
19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος] The introduction of his own name gives it the character
of a formal and binding signature: comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2
Thess. iii. 17. A signature to a deed in ancient or mediæval times would
commonly take this form ἐγὼ ὁ δεῖνα,—‘_I_ so and so’; where we should
omit the marks of the first person.
ἔγραψα] An epistolary or documentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too
ἀνέπεμψα ver. 11. See the note on ἔγραψα Gal. vi. 11. The aorist is the
tense commonly used in signatures; e.g. ὑπέγραψα to the conciliar
decrees.
This incidental mention of his autograph, occurring where it does, shows
that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand. This procedure is
quite exceptional, just as the purport of the letter is exceptional. In
all other cases he appears to have employed an amanuensis, only adding a
few words in his own handwriting at the close: see the note on Gal.
_l.c._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20]
τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω· ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι, ὅτι καὶ σεαυτόν μοι
προσοφέιλεις. ^{20}ναί, ἀδελφέ, ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν Κυρίῳ· ἀνάπαυσόν μου
τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐν Χριστῷ.
ἵνα μὴ λέγω] ‘_not to say_’, as 2 Cor. ix. 4. There is a suppressed
thought, ‘though indeed you cannot fairly claim repayment’, ‘though
indeed you owe me (ὀφείλεις) as much as this’, on which the ἵνα μὴ
κ.τ.λ. is dependent. Hence προσοφέιλεις ‘_owest besides_’; for this is
the common meaning of the word.
σεαυτόν] St Paul was his spiritual father, who had begotten him in the
faith, and to whom therefore he owed his being; comp. Plato _Legg._ iv.
p. 717 B ὡς θέμις ὀφέιλοντα ἀποτίνειν τὰ πρῶτά τε καὶ μέγιστα ὀφειλήματα
... νομίζειν δὲ, ἃ κέκτῃται καὶ ἔχει, _πάντα εἶναι τῶν γεννησάντων_
... ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας, δεύτερα τὰ τοῦ σώματος, τρίτα τὰ τῆς
ψυχῆς, _ἀποτίνοντα δανείσματα_ κ.τ.λ.
20. ναί] introducing an affectionate appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 ναὶ ἐρωτῶ
καὶ σέ.
ἀδελφέ] It is the entreaty of a brother to a brother on behalf of a
brother (ver. 16). For the pathetic appeal involved in the word see the
notes on Gal. iii. 15, vi. 1, 18; and comp. ver. 7.
ἐγώ] ‘I seem to be entreating for Onesimus; but I am pleading for
_myself_: the favour will be done to me’; comp. ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν
ὡς ἐμέ. The emphatic ἐγώ identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own.
σου ὀναίμην] ‘_may I have satisfaction, find comfort in thee_’, i.e.
‘may I receive such a return from thee, as a father has a right to
expect from his child.’ The common use of the word ὀναίμην would suggest
the thought of filial offices; e.g. Arist. _Thesm._ 469 οὕτως ὀναίμην
τῶν _τέκνων_, Lucian _Philops._ 27 πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν τῶν _υἱέων_,
οὕτως ὀναίμην, ἔφη, τούτων, Ps-Ignat. _Hero_ 6 ὀναίμην σου,
_παιδίον_ ποθεινόν, Synes. _Ep._ 44 οὕτω τῆς ἱερᾶς φιλοσοφίας
ὀναίμην καὶ προσέτι τῶν _παιδίων_ τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ, with other passages
quoted in Wetstein. So too for ὄνασθαι, ὄνησις, compare Eur. _Med._ 1025
sq. πρὶν σφῷν _ὄνασθαι_ ... ἄλλως ἄρ’ ὑμᾶς, ὦ _τέκν’_,
ἐξεθρεψάμην, _Alc._ 333 ἅλις δὲ _παίδων_· τῶν δ’ _ὄνησιν_
)εύχομαι θεοῖς γενέσθαι, Philem. _Inc._ 64 (IV. p. 55 Meineke) ἔτεκές
με, μῆτερ, καὶ γένοιτό σοι _τέκνων ὄνησις_, ὥσπερ καὶ δίκαίον ἐστί
σοι, Ecclus. xxx. 2 ὁ παιδεύων τὸν _ὑὶον_ αὐτοῦ _ὀνήσεται_ ἐπ’
αὐτῷ (the only passage in the LXX where the word occurs). The prayer
ὀναίμην σου, ὀναίμην ὑμῶν, etc., occurs several times in Ignatius;
_Polyc._ 1, 6, _Magn._ 2, 12, _Ephes._ 2. It is not unlikely that
ὀναίμην here involves a reference to the name Onesimus; see the note on
ver. 11. The Hebrew fondness for playing on names makes such an allusion
at least possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21, 22]
^{21}Πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου ἔγραψά σοι, εἰδὼς ὅτι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω
ποιήσεις. ^{22}ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν· ἐλπίζω γὰρ ὅτι διὰ τῶν
προσευχῶν ὑμῶν χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν.
ἐν Κυρίῳ] As he had begotten Philemon ἐν Κυρίῳ (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 15,
17), so it was ἐν Κυρίῳ that he looked for the recompense of filial
offices.
ἀνάπαυσον κ.τ.λ.] See the note ver. 7.