m 0 t : i fc^f! Djyjnity Library Am 55 ¦.r^r "i.",'/ ''¦'' ''•S'l"':K '<>' ¦•'¦¦ •YAILE-^MWIEI&Sinnr- Drv-nsriTY school TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY NOTES ON THE GREEK TEXT EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON, AS THE BASIS OF A EEVISION OF THE COMMON ENGLISH VEKSION; A REVISED VERSION, WITH NOTES. Uavra S's Soxifia^era' to v.olbv y-ais^sre (1 Thess. 5 : 21). 3SrE"W TOEK: AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. LOUISVILLE: BIBLE REVISION ASSOCIATION. LONDON : TRUBNER & CO., No. 60 PATERNOSTER ROW. 1860. AMERICAN BIBLE UNION, No. 350 Broome Sikeet, New York, J All the revisions, thus far published by the American Bible Union, are preliminary. They are circulated in the expectation that they will be subjected to a thorough criticism, in order that their imperfections, whatever they may be, may be disclosed, and corrected by the Pinal Committee. Until adopted by the Union, the views expressed are those of the respective revisers. WM. H. WYCKOFF, Corresponding Secretary, Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by THE AMERICAN BIBLE UNION, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thom.13 Houum, Printer ass Stereotyper, Net Yore. P K E F A C E. Of the two principal parts which compose this publication, the second is obviously dependent on the first, though the first is complete, in a certain sense, without the second. An exposition of the text, as a mental process at least, on the part of the interpreter (though the results may not be written out), must precede a translation. The Notes, therefore, here laid before the reader, have the same interest and value as a means of understanding the text of the Epistle, as if they were unaccompanied by a revision of the Common English Version. But the other portion of the work has also its separate claims on the attention of the Biblical student. An addition of this nature has become, within a few years, a common feature in the best exegetical works published in this country, and in 5 PREFACE. England. The fact sets forth an important truth. It is felt more and more that critical attempts to explain the meaning of the Scriptures should, as the proper test of their deiiniteness and precision, term inate in an endeavor to express the sense as nearly as possible in our own language ; and furthermore, that they must assume this form, in order to render such studies available in any great degree to the bulk of English readers. The topic last suggested here deserves a word further. This matter of the history of the current translation of the Bible, and a comparison of its renderings, with those of the preceding transla tions* out of which the Common Version has arisen, are opening to us a range of study, com paratively new and attractive certainly to those who enter upon it. Some of the best scholars of * It can not have escaped notice that the various English readings have begun to form an important new material in our works of Biblical criticism. Professor Alexander of the Prince ton Theological Seminary, whose recent death is a calamity to the cause of sacred learning, has enriched greatly his New Testament Commentaries by his copious illustrations of this character. 6 PREFACE. the day are giving their attention to it. The stu dent of English literature will reap profit as well as gratification from it. The different epochs of our language are well marked in the style of the differ ent versions. We learn, thence, that the English race, even since the dawn of Protestantism, and during some of the most effective periods of the national development, have not been dependent upon any single translation of the Bible, but have received their knowledge of the gospel through va rious channels. It is no disservice to be taught that the power of Christianity resides in its doctrines and ideas, and not in any set of words or phrases which it may outgrow with the advance of Biblical science, and the mutations of language, and must then, or should, discard for other forms. It is seen from such recurrence to the past, to be the wisdom of the church, to which have been committed the Oracles of God, to open promptly every source of religious knowledge to the many as well as the few. The names of Wiclif, Tyndale, Frith, Cover- dale, are witnesses how slowly this truth has made its way in the world, in regard to the use and treatment of translations of the Sacred word into PREFACE. the vernacular tongue of a people. The history of the English Bible has been, from first to last, a singular history of conflicts between an excessive conservatism on the one hand, and the promptings of a more expansive religious spirit on the other, and a history, at the same time, of victories on the side of truth and progress. It is well that the public mind is turning itself back to inquiries which are so interesting and adapted to reassert and en force principles of vital importance. There is much misapprehension still, I imagine, respecting the precise nature of the enterprise, in the interest of which this volume has been prepar ed. The object is not to supersede, but revise the current Version of the English Scriptures. A new translation of the original text, and a revision of the translation of that text, are very different things ; and yet, different as they are, are con founded by many persons who would not be un friendly to what is attempted, if they would keep in mind this important distinction. It is not pro posed to discard the present Version ; to cast away its manifold advantages ; to introduce rash and doubtful innovations ; to substitute a cumbrous PREFACE. Latinized style for the simple, nervous, idiomatic English, which brings the familiar Version so home to the hearts of the people ; but simply to do upon the work of our translators what they did upon that of their predecessors ; to survey it afresh in the light of the knowledge which has been gained during the more than two centuries since they passed away ; to make such changes, and such only, as the general verdict of the best scholarship of the age has pronounced to be due to truth and fidelity ; to make these changes in a style of delicate har mony with the present language of the English Bible ; to confirm its accuracy, where it is correct, against false or unsupported interpretations, as well as to amend it where it is confessedly incorrect ; and thus, in a word, carry forward from our posi tion, if we might, the labors of the revisers (for such they were) of James' age, as they carried for ward the labors of the generations before them. On some other occasion I may have an oppor tunity to speak of the Greek text on which the revision is founded, and some other kindred topics. I have endeavored to unfold the contents of the Epistle with candor and impartiality, and would 9 PREFACE. hope that those who may examine the work will judge of it in the same spirit. As to the rest, the following words which I adopt from Arnaud's Preface to his recent French Version of the New Testament* will vindicate me against the charge of any thing extravagant in my aims and expecta,- tions : " Nos versions usuelles, qui remontent a plus d'un siecle, sont susceptibles de nombreuses ameliorations sous le triple rapport de la purete! du texte, du sense et du style, et de divers cot^s se fait sentir le besoin d'un nouveau travail sur l'un et l'autre Testament. Nous avons voulu apporter notre humble pierre au monument que nous esperons de l'avenir ; que le public n'y voie pas une preuve de t6m6- rite\ mais de bon vouloir." Newton Centre, April 13, 1860. * Le Nouveau Testament, etc., Version nouvelle, par E. Ar- naud, Pasteur. Paris, 1858. Pasteur Arnaud is favorably known to scholars as the author of an able Commentary in French on the Epistle of Jude. 10 CONTENTS. PAGE PREFACE 5 INTRODUCTION Genuineness of the Epistle 13 Time and Place of Writing , 16 Persons of the Epistle 19 Occasion and Object of the Letter 25 Its Esthetic Character 28 NOTES ON THE GREEK TEXT 33 The Salutation 35 Character of Philemon 39 Intercession in behalf of Onesimus 47 The Greetings of Friends 64 REVISED ENGLISH VERSION, WITH PHILOLOG ICAL NOTES 69 REVISED ENGLISH VERSION, WITH MARGINAL READINGS 79 APPENDIX 85 1. Letter of Pliny to Sabinianits 87 2. Received Translation of Philemon 89 INTRODUCTION. §1. GEOTmnarEss of the epistle. Nothing is wanting to confirm the genuineness of this epistle. The external testimony is unim peachable. It is not quoted so often by the earlier Christian fathers as some of the other letters ; its brevity and the fact that its contents are not di dactic or polemic, account for that omission. We need not urge the expressions in Ignatius, cited often as evidence of that apostolic father's knowl edge and use of the epistle ; though it is difficult to regard the similarity between them and the lan guage in v. 20 as altogether accidental. See Kirch- hofer's Sammlung, p. 205. The Canon of Muratori, which comes to us from the second century (Credner, Geschichte des Kanons, p. 69 sq.), enumerates this epistle as one of Paul's epistles. Tertullian men tions it and says that Marcion admitted it into his collection. Sinope in Pontus, the birth-place of Marcion, was not far from Colossse where Philemon 13 INTRODUCTION. lived, and the letter would find its way to the neigh boring churches at an early period. Origen and Eusebius include it among the universally acknowl edged writings {6/j.oXoyov/zeva) of the early Christian times. The epistle is so well attested historically, that as De Wette says (Einleitung, p. 278), its gen uineness on that ground is beyond doubt. Nor does the epistle itself offer anything to con flict with this decision. It is impossible to conceive of a writing more strongly marked within the same limits by those unstudied assonances of thought, sen timent, and expression, which indicate an author's hand, than this short epistle as compared with Paul's other productions. Paley has a paragraph in his Horas Paulina?, which illustrates this feature of the letter in a very just and forcible manner. It will be found also that all the historical allusions which the apostle makes to events in his own life, or to other persons with whom he was connected, har monize perfectly with the statements or incidental intimations contained in the Acts of the Apostles or the other epistles of Paul. It belongs to the commentary to point out the instances of such agree ment. Baur, a leader in the destructive school of crit icism, would divest the epistle of its historical char acter, and make it the personified illustration from some later writer, of the idea that Christianity unites 14 INTRODUCTION. and equalizes in a higher sense those whom outward circumstances have separated. See his Paulus, p. 475 sq. He does not impugn the external evidence. But not to leave his theory wholly unsupported, he sug gests some linguistic objections to Paul's authorship of the letter, which must be pronounced unfounded and frivolous. He finds, for example, certain words in the epistle, which are alleged to be not Pauline ; but to justify that assertion, he must deny the gen uineness of such other letters of Paul, as happen to contain these words. He admits that the apostle could have said onlay/va. twice, but thinks it sus picious that he should use it three times. A few terms he adduces, which are not used elsewhere in the epistles ; but to argue from these that they" dis prove the apostolic origin of the epistle, is to assume the absurd principle that a writer, after having produced two or three compositions, must for the future confine himself to an unvarying circle of words, whatever may be the subject which he dis cusses, or whatever the interval of time between his different writings. The arbitrary and purely subjective character of such criticisms can have no weight against the varied testimony admitted as decisive by Christian scholars for so many ages, upon which the canonical authori ty of the Epistle to Philemon is founded. They are worth repeating only as illustrating Baur's own re- 15 INTRODUCTION. mark, that modern criticism in assailing this par ticular book runs a greater risk of exposing itself to the imputation of an excessive distrust, a morbid sensibility to doubt and denial, than in questioning the claims of any other epistle ascribed to Paul. §2. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. The letter to Philemon was one of the several letters (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians) which Paul wrote during his first captivity at Rome. The arguments which show that he wrote the epistle to the Colossians in that city and at that period, in volve the same conclusion in regard to this epistle ; for it is evident from Col. 4 : 7, 9, as compared with the contents of this epistle, that Paul wrote the two epistles at the same time, and forwarded them to their destination by the hands of Tychicus and Ones- imus who accompanied each other to Colossas. A few modern critics, as Schulz, Schott, Bottger, Meyer, maintain that this letter and the others assigned usually to the first Roman captivity, were written during the two years that Paul was imprisoned at Cesarea (Acts 23 : 35 ; 24 : 27). But this opinion, though supported by some plausible arguments, can be demonstrated with reasonable certainty to be 16 INTRODUCTION. incorrect. The question belongs properly to a gen eral introduction to the Roman group of letters, and may be passed over here without further remark. The time when Paul wrote may be fixed with much precision. The apostle at the close of the letter expresses a hope of his speedy liberation. He speaks in like manner of his approaching de liverance in his epistle to the Philippians (2 : 23, 24), which was written during the same imprisonment. Presuming, therefore, that he had gofsd reasons for such an expectation, and that he was not disappoint ed in the result, we may conclude that this letter was written by him about the year A.D. 63, or early in A.D. 64 ; for it was in the latter year, according to the best chfonologists, that he was freed from his first Roman imprisonment. Tychicus was the bearer also of the epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 6 : 21, 22), and hence that epistle and the two to the Colossians and Philemon were all written, no doubt, on the eve of the apostle's acquittal. Men never traversed the Appian Way, or crossed the Adriatic, bearing with them treasures of such value to the human race, as the two mes sengers who conveyed these writings of Paul to Ephesus and Colossas. It is very possible that the letter to the Laodiceans (Col. 4 : 16), which has not come down to us, was entrusted to the same hands. We do not know what circumstances may have con- 17 INTRODUCTION. trolled the course of the journey. The most direct way was to cross the northern part of the Greek peninsula. They would embark at Brundusium, and disembark at Dyrrhachium, on the other side. They would then traverse the Egnatian Way, along which Paul had passed and scattered the seed of the word. They would meet with Christian hospitality at Thes- salonica. Apollonia and Amphipolis were on the route. The disciples at Philippi would be eager to hear tidings of the beloved apostle. From the Pass over Symbolum they would look forth once more upon the waters which divided Europe from their native Asia.1 Neapolis, the port of Philippi, lay at the base of that range of hills, and would afford them the means to cross to Troas or to the mouth of the Cayster or the Masander, whence they could proceed to Ephesus, Laodicea, and Colossal in such order as their convenience, or the nature of their errand might require. a In a recent journey to Macedonia, the writer found that the site of Philippi, with its ruins, and the present Cavalla, the Neapolis of the Acts (16 : 11), may be seen distinctly in their opposite directions from a hight overhanging the road across Symbolum, which leads from the coast to Philippi. The places are about ten miles distant from each other. 18 INTRODUCTION. §3. PERSONS OF THE EPISTLE. As to the persons to whom, and for whom the letter was written, all that we know we must gather from the epistle itself, and from the few intimations in the epistle to the Colossians. Philemon, whose name the letter bears, lived in all probability at Colossse, a city of Phrygia, on the Lycus, a branch of the Meander. The present Chonas in the same neighborhood (Arundel, Seven Churches, p, 158) per petuates the ancient name. Though it does not follow certainly that Phile mon dwelt in Colossae, because Qnesimus was a Colossian, yet the obvious presumption from that fact is that they belonged to the same place. Wieseler's idea (Chronologie, p. 452), that he was a Laodicean, not only disregards this presumption, but rests on a false inference from Col. 4 : 17, that Archippus (see v. 1) was a Laodicean, because the apostle names him in that place (which was accidental merely), after speaking of the Church in Laodicea. Paul addresses the rfware in that pas sage to the Colossians, and hence Archippus must have been one of their number, and consequently Philemon one of them also, since the two are joined in the same salutation at the beginning of 19 INTRODUCTION. the epistle (vv. 1, 2). Theodoret states the ancient opinion in saying that the recipient of the letter was a citizen of Colossse, and that his house was pointed out there as late as the fifth century. Philemon was a man of property and influence, since he is represented as the head of a numerous household, and as exercising an expensive liberality towards his friends and the poor in general. All the circumstances under which he appears in the letter, indicate the possession of ample means and a superior social rank. He was indebted to the apostle Paul as the medium of his personal parti cipation in the gospel. All interpreters agree in assigning that significance to oeavTov /ioi nqoaofukeis in v. 19. It is not certain under what circum stances they became known to each other. If Paul visited Colossa? when he passed through Phrygia on his second missionary journey (Acts 16 : 6), it was undoubtedly there and at that time, that Phile mon heard the gospel and attached himself to the Christian party. On the contrary, if Paul never visited that city in person, as many critics infer from Col. 2:1, then the supposition which agrees best with the history is that he was converted during Paul's protracted stay at Ephesus (Acts 19 : 10), about A.D. 54-57. That city was the relig ious and commercial capital of Western Asia Minor. The apostle labored there with such success that it 20 INTRODUCTION. is said " all they who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus Christ." Phrygia was a neighboring province, and among the strangers who repaired to Ephesus and had an opportunity to hear the preaching of Paul, may have been the Colossian Philemon. It is evident that on becom ing a disciple, he gave no common proof of the sincerity and power of his faith. His character, as shadowed forth in this epistle, is one of the noblest which the sacred record makes known to us. He was full of faith and good works, was docile, con fiding, grateful, was forgiving, sympathizing, charita ble, and a man who on a question of simple justice needed only a hint of his duty to prompt him to go even beyond it. Any one who studies the epis tle will perceive that it ascribes to him these varied qualities ; it bestows on him a measure of com mendation, which forms a striking contrast with the ordinary reserve of the sacred writers. It was by the example and activity of such believers that the primitive Christianity evinced its divine origin, and spread with such rapidity among the nations.' Onesimus was a native or certainly an inhabitant of Colossas, since Paul in writing to the Church » The legendary history supplies nothing on which we can rely. It is related that Philemon became Bishop of Colossae [Constit. Apost., 7 46), and died as a martyr under Nero. 21 INTRODUCTION. there speaks of him (Col. 4 : 9) as Sg lonv if ifimv, one of you. This expression confirms the presump tion which his Greek name affords, that he was a Gentile, not a Jew, as some have argued from /udhara l/iol in v. 16. Slaves were numerous in Phrygia, and the name itself of Phrygia was almost synonymous with that of slave. Hence it happened that in writing to the Colossians (3 : 22 sq. ; 4 : 1) Paul had occasion to instruct them concerning the duties of masters and servants to each other. Onesi- mus was one of this unfortunate class of persons, as is evident both from the manifest implication in oix etc wg SovXov in v. 16, and from the general tenor of the epistle. There appears to have been no differ ence of opinion on this point among the ancient commentators, and there is none of any critical weight among the modern. The man escaped from his master and fled to Rome, where in the midst of its vast population he could hope to be concealed, and to baffle the efforts which were so often made in such cases for retaking the fugitive. See Walter, Die Geschichte des Rom. Rechts, II., p. 63 sq. It must have been to Rome that he directed his way, and not to Cesarea, as some contend ; for the latter view stands connected with an indefensible opinion respecting the place whence the letter was written. Whether Onesimus had any other motive for the flight than the natural love of liberty, we have not 22 INTRODUCTION. the means of deciding. It has been very generally supposed that he had committed some offense, as theft or embezzlement, and feared the punishment of his guilt. But as the ground of that opinion we must know the meaning of TjSixrjae in v. 18, which is uncertain, not to say inconsistent with any such imputation. Commentators at all events go entirely beyond the evidence when they assert that he belonged to the dregs of society, that he robbed his master, and confessed the sin to Paul. Thougli it may be doubted whether Onesimus heard the gospel for the first time at Rome, it is beyond question that he was led to embrace the gospel there through the apostle's instrumentality. The language in v. 10 is explicit on this point. As there were believers in Phrygia when the apostle passed through that region on his third missionary tour (Acts 18 : 23), it is not improbable that Onesi mus was brought into contact with some of them at Colossae or elsewhere, and consequently may have known something of the Christian doctrine before he went to Rome. How long a time elapsed between his escape and conversion, we can not de cide ; for w^os cSpav in v. 15, to which appeal has been made, is purely a relative expression, and will not justify any inference as to the interval in question. After his conversion, the most happy and friendly 23 INTRODUCTION. relations sprung up between the teacher and the dis ciple. The situation of the apostle as a captive and an indefatigable laborer for the promotion of the gospel (Acts 28 : 30, 31) must have made him keenly alive to the sympathies of Christian friendship and dependent upon others for various services of a personal nature, important to his efficiency as a minister of the Word. Onesimus appears to have supplied this twofold want in an eminent degree. We see from the letter that he won entirely the apostle's heart, and made himself so useful to him in various private ways, or evinced such a capacity to be so (for he may have gone back to Colossae quite soon after his conversion), that Paul wished to have him remain constantly with him." His attachment to him as a disciple, as a personal friend, and as a helper to him in his bonds, was such that he yielded him up only in obedience to that spirit of self-denial, and that sensitive regard for the feelings or the rights of others, of which his conduct on this occasion displayed so noble an example. There is but little to add to this account, when we pass beyond the limits of the New Testament. The traditionary notices which have come down a The opinion that he desired his co-operation as a Christian teacher does not agree with iva /tot Siaxovfi, in v. 13. 24 INTRODUCTION. to us, are too few and too late to amount to much as historical testimony. Some of the later fathers assert that Onesimus was set free, and was subse quently ordained Bishop of Bercea in Macedonia (Constit. Apost., 7, 46). The person of the same name mentioned as Bishop of Ephesus in the first epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (Hefele, Patrum Apost. Opp., p. 152) was a different person. See Winer, Realw., II., p. 175. It is related also that Onesimus finally made his way to Rome again, and ended his days there as a martyr during the perse cution under Nero. §4. OCCASION AND OBJECT OF THE LETTER. Under this head, too, all our knowledge must be derived from declarations or inferences furnished by the epistle. As the parties in the transaction were all Christians, and Paul sustained such inti mate relations to the two who were estranged from each other, he was naturally desirous of effecting a reconciliation between them. He wished also (waiving the avfjxov, the matter of duty or right) to give Philemon an opportunity of manifesting his Christian love in the treatment of Onesimus, and his regard, at the same time, for the personal con venience and wishes, not to say official authority, 25 INTRODUCTION. of his spiritual teacher and guide. Paul used his influence with Onesimus (avsTte/iya, in v. 11) to in duce him to return to Colossas, and place himself again at the disposal of his master. Whether Onesimus assented merely to the proposal of the apostle, or had a desire at the same time to revisit his former home, the epistle does not enable us to determine. On his departure, Paul put into his hand this letter as evidence that Onesimus was a true and approved disciple of Christ, and entitled as such to be received not as a servant, but above a servant, as a brother in the faith, as the repre sentative and equal in that respect of the apostle himself, and worthy of the same consideration and love. It is remarkable to observe how entirely Paul identifies himself with Onesimus, and pleads his cause as if it were his own. He intercedes for him as his own child, promises reparation if he had done any wrong, demands for him not only a remis sion of all penalties, but the reception of sympathy, affection, Christian brotherhood ; and while he solic its these favors for another, consents to receive them with the same gratitude and sense of obliga tion as if they were bestowed on himself. Such was the purpose, and such was the argument of the epistle. It may be assumed from the known character of Philemon, that the apostle's intercession for Onesi- 26 INTRODUCTION. mus was not unavailing. There can be no doubt that agreeably to the express instructions of the letter, the past was forgiven ; the master and the servant were reconciled to each other ; and if the liberty which Onesimus had asserted in a spirit of independence was not conceded as a boon or right, it was enjoyed at all events under a form of servi tude, which henceforth was such in name only. So much must be regarded as certain ; or it follows that the apostle was mistaken in his opinion of Philemon's character, and his efforts for the wel fare of Onesimus were frustrated. Chrysostom de clares, in his impassioned style, that Philemon must have been less than a man, must have been alike destitute of sensibility and reason not to be moved by the arguments and spirit of such a letter to ful fill every wish and intimation of the apostle. Sure ly, no fitting response to his pleadings for Onesimus could involve less than a cessation of every thing oppressive and harsh in his civil condition as far as it depended on Philemon to mitigate or neutralize the evils of a legalized system of bondage, as well as a cessation of every thing violative of his rights as a Christian. How much further than this an impartial explanation of the epistle obliges us or authorizes us to go, has not yet been settled by any very general consent of interpreters. Many of the best critics construe certain expressions (to 27 INTRODUCTION. aya&dv in v. 14, and tit'eg 8 Xeyca in y. 21) as con veying a distinct expectation on the part of Paul, that Philemon would liberate Onesimus. Nearly all agree that he could hardly have failed to confer on him that favor, even if it was not requested in so many words, after such an appeal to his senti ments of humanity and justice. The traditions to which I have alluded indicate an ancient opinion that such was the result of the apostle's mediation. §5. ITS .ESTHETIC CHARACTER. The epistle has been universally admired as a model of delicacy and skill in the department of composition to which it belongs. The writer had peculiar difficulties to overcome. He was the com mon friend of the parties at variance. He must conciliate a man who supposed that he had good reason to be offended. He must commend the offender, and yet neither deny nor aggravate the imputed fault. He must assert the new ideas of Christian equality in the face of a system which hardly recognized the humanity of the enslaved." a Ample information respecting the system of slavery among the Greeks and Romans will be found in Bceckh's Staatsliaushal- 28 INTRODUCTION. He could have placed the question on the ground of his own personal rights, and yet must waive them in order to secure an act of spontaneous kind ness. His success must be a triumph of love, and nothing be demanded for the sake of the justice which could have claimed every thing. He limits his request to a forgiveness of the alleged wrong, and a restoration to favor and the enjoyment of future sympathy and affection, and yet would so guard his words as to leave scope for all the gen erosity which benevolence might prompt towards one whose condition admitted of so much allevia tion. These are contrarieties not easy to harmon ize; but Paul, it is confessed, has shown a degree of self-denial and a tact in dealing with them, which in being equal to the occasion could hardly be greater. " The epistle," says Luther in the Preface to his Commentary upon it, "presents a charming and masterly example of Christian love. St. Paul takes the poor Onesimus to his heart, stands as repre sentative for him with his master, intercedes for him as if it was himself who had sinned and not Onesimus, divests himself of his own rights, and so tung der Athener, which Mr. Lamb has translated (Boston, 1857) ; Becker's Gallus, and Becker's Charicles (both exist in English) ; Schweppe, Romische Rechtsgeschichte, \ 343 sq. ; and the article Serous, in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Rom. Antiquities. 29 INTRODUCTION. compels Philemon to relinquish also his." Eras mus says of the letter : " Cicero never wrote with greater elegance." Bengel's gnomic description is, " mire aoreiog." " It is a precious relic," says Meyer, " of a great character. It pursues its object with so much Christian love and wisdom, with so much psychological tact, and without a renunciation of the apostolic authority, is so ingenious and suggest ive, that this letter, viewed merely as a specimen of the Attic elegance and amiability, may rank among the epistolary master-pieces of antiquity." "It is impossible to read it," says Doddridge, " without being touched with the delicacy of senti ment, the masterly address that appear in every part of it. We see here in a most striking light, how perfectly consistent true politeness is, not only with the warmth and sincerity of the friend, but even with the dignity of the Christian and the apostle. If this letter were to be considered in no other view than as a mere human composition, it must be allowed to be a master-piece of its kind." Buckminster, in his admirable discourse on this epis tle, describes it in the same terms. There is an extant letter of the younge^JPliny\ which he wrote to a friend whose servant haoT deserted him, in which he intercedes for the fugi tive who was anxious to return to his master, but dreaded the effects of his anger. Thus the occasion 30 INTRODUCTION. of the correspondence was similar to that between the apostle and Philemon. It has occurred to scholars to compare this celebrated letter with that of Paul in behalf of Onesimus ; and as the result they hesitate not to say, that not only in the spirit of Christian love, of which Pliny was ignorant, but in dignity of thought, argument, pathos, beauty of style, eloquence, the communication of the apostle is vastly superior to that of the polished Roman writer.1 Some of those traits of the epistle which have led to such an estimate of its merits, admit of being illustrated in the notes ; but it must be left mainly to a careful perusal of the epistle itself, combined with a distinct view of the circumstances under which it was written, to show how fully it deserves the commendation which it has received. See Appendix, No. I. 31 NOTES ON THE GREEK TEXT EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON, AS THE BASIS OF . EEVISION OF THE COMMON ENGLISH TORSION. Yale Divinity Library flew Haven, Conn. NOTES ON THE GREEK TEXT THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON. IIP OS &IAHMONA. UAYAOS Beo-fiios Xpio-rov 'Irjaov, kcu TifioBeos 6 a8e\(f)o?, <&i\r]ixovi rqi ayaTTrjTco kcu avvepytS rj/xooi/, /cat 'A7r(pia rfj dya7T7]Tfj, /cat 'Apxi7nra> ra> o-vo-rpaTicorr) rjp.a>v, /cat rfj /car* olkov crov 4kk\t] o-ia.' X"/,iy vplv /cat elprjvq cltto Oeov irarpos r]p.oov /cat ILvpiov 'Irjaov XpicrTov. V. 2. aSeXffj in good MSS. VERSES 1-3. The Salutation. V. 1. Paul omits the apostolic title which stands usually at the head of the epistles, because he writes as a friend to solicit a favor, and not as a teacher to expound and enforce the truth. jdovlog y.al anoaroXos Seafiios in some copies is a worthless reading. deoiuos Xqiaxov 'Irjaov, a prisoner of Christ Jesus (Epb. 3 : 1 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 8), i. e., who belongs to Christ, whose he is, and 35 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. whom he serves; or, more probably after the analogy of rots Seofiols rov ciayyeXiov in v. 13, genit. subjecti, i. e., a prisoner whom Christ has made such, whose cause has brought him to that condition. See Winer, §30, 2, /?. This allusion to his captivity was suited to awaken sympathy, and dispose Philemon to listen more favorably to the sufferer's request. Timothy was with Paul at this time (Col. 1 : 1), and, as 6 aSeltpoe shows, was not unknown to those addressed in the letter. He assisted the apostle during his ministry at Ephesus (Acts 19 : 22), and could have met with Philemon and other Colossians at that period, or could have become acquainted with them at Colossae, if Paul went thither, since Timothy was Paul's companion in that journey (Acts 16 : 1, 6). Koch regards the relation in 6 aSeXyog as the universal one which makes every Christian the brother of all other Christians, and not any specific relation in which Timothy stood to Paul and the Colossians. Evpepyep fj/aSv, our fellow-laborer. This term was applied often to preachers of the gospel (2 Cor. 8 : 23 ; Philip. 2 : 25 ; Col. 4 : 11) ; but there is no evidence that Philemon sustained that office, and without doubt other and more private modes of Chris tian co-operation are intended here. In opening his house for public worship, and in performing so many benevolent acts for the disciples of Christ, we see some of the proofs of his claim to such an appellation. Priscilla is called owegybg in Rom. 16 : 3, who certainly was not a preacher. Some critics connect tjfitSv with aya7crjrfi>, as well as ovvEqyQ, because the latter wants the arti cle. Put another rule also makes avve^yc^ anarthrous, viz., that the two nouns are appellatives of the same person. Winer, §19, 3, c j Buttm., N. T. Spr., p. 86. The conclusion may be a just qne, but a better proof here would be that Paul is so apt to limit this epithet ; compare Eom. 16 : 5, 8, 9 ; 1 Cor. 10 : 14 ; 1 Thess. 2:8; Philip. 4 : 1. The construction would fee less doubtful if q/ialv were attached to the first noun, instead of the 36 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. second. On the contrary, aycatrfibs stands often alone, meaning beloved and inferentially to be loved, wherever the person is known or may be known. V. 2. 'Ait KoXoaaals 37 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. ayioig, to designate the Colossian believers in general, and hence the limitation here after ixxXijaiq indicates that he refers not to the entire body of Christians at Colossae, but to a certain number of them, who were accustomed to meet for worship at the house of Philemon. We have the same distinction in Col. 4 : 15 ; see also Rom. 16 : 5, and 1 Cor. 16:19. Further, to regard the letter as addressed to all the Colossians would be inconsistent with the private nature of its contents. This local assembly would consist naturally in part of those who belonged to Philemon's family, and of others who were led as a matter of convenience, or from personal connections, to assemble with him. The expression does not war rant the opinion that all the members of his family were con verts. 2ov after olxov refers to Philemon and not to the nearer name, because he is the leading person, and is always meant when this pronoun occurs (vv. 4, 6, 7). In such assemblies messages from the apostles were announced or read (Col. 4 : 15, 16) ; hymns were sung (Col. 3 : 16) and prayers offered (1 Tim. 2:1); the Scriptures were read and explained (1 Tim. 4 : 13) ; the Lord's supper commemorated (Acts 2 : 46 ; 20 : 11) ; and in the weekly meetings, at least, probably collections were taken up when some exigency required it (1 Cor. 16 : 2, unless nag iavrcp implies that the contribution was private). Scenes like this Onesimus may have witnessed under his master's roof; though his heart was not touched till he heard the truth again in a foreign land (v. 10). V. 3. Jofis xal ci^r)vrj, grace and peace, undeserved favor, and all good, temporal and spiritual, which flows from that source. The optative e'lrj and not eatm is the suppressed verbal form. Winer, \ 64, 26. Xdqig, x. r. X. takes the place of the classical Xaipeiv or ev rtpdrreiv. It was a new form of salutation sub stituted perhaps for the common one, because the latter as a sort of prayer to the gods had a taint of heathenism. 38 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 'Aitb &eov, x. t. X., from God our Father. The terms differ in this, that the former marks the relation which God sustains to all men ; the latter that which he sustains to his spiritual chil dren, or such as believe on Christ. Kal connects the nouns with this sense in some passages ; comp. Gal. 1 : 4. 'HfidSv may belong to xvgiov as well as to nargos, but more probably limits itself to the latter as the personal designation of that relationship. Kvqiov may omit the article as a well-known title, but must omit it if fj/itiSv be repeated. Buttm., N. T. Spr., p. 87. * Ev)(apLo-Tco T(S Oeis renders aov unnecessary before ayamjv, though the article there does not exclude the pronoun. The sentence here, as nearly all interpreters agree, involves a manifest chiasm (%iaofi6g). The grammatical order would be aov tr)v tiiotiv r)v %xeis icqos tov Kvqiov 'Itjoovv xal rrjv ayaTtrjv rjv I#£«s els Ttdvzag roig ayiovg, i. e., thy faith which thou, hast towards the Lord Jesus, and the love which thou hast unto all the saints. So Theodoret, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Koch, Rothe, De Wette, Wiesin- ger, Alford and others. A few critics, chiefly in order to avoid this transposition, render itiortv fidelity, instead of faith ; and thus the word would denote qualities which Philemon could exercise at the same time towards Christ and towards his followers. But nlaxig has this sense very rarely in the New Testament, and never when coupled thus with ayani] ; compare Eph. 1:15; 1 Thess. 3 : 6 ; 1 Tim. 1 :14; 2 Tim. 1 :13; see also Col. 1 :4. Meyer objects to the above passages as irrelevant, because there the order is niang, aydTtrj, and different from that here. But no writer is so mechanical as to place his words always in the same order, and aydTtrj, as the fruit of faith, may be men tioned first, as naturally as itiorig, the antecedent or source of love. EUicott suggests that tr)v Ttiarcv may belong, in its ordinary sense, to Ttqbg rbv Kioiov 'Irjoovv xal elg ndvras rovg ayiovg, i. e., faith towards the Lord Jesus, which is evinced at the same time unto the saints. But that view leaves rr)v dyditrjv without any specified object to which the love is directed (since rjv Uxeis would strictly carry forward zr)v Ttioriv only) , and overlooks the manifest relation in which this passage stands to Col. 1 : 4, where the terms in question are distributed without ambiguity. That passage was written at the same time with this, and must reflect the same meaning. 41 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. "Ayiovg (niC!"i&) designates Christians as Italy or consecrated, i. e., to the service of Christ or God. As used in the New Testament, it belongs to all who profess to be disciples, and does not distinguish one class of them as superior in point of excellence to another. It refers to the normal or prescribed standard of Christian character rather than the actual one ; for we find it applied sometimes to those who were censured for their want of a correct Christian life. See 1 Cor. 1 : 2, as compared with 1 Cor. 3:2; 11 : 21. V. 6. Some refer otiios (as Meyer) to r]v exetg, which thou hast (viz., love and faith) in order that, etc. The reasons for this connection, says Winer (§53, 6), are groundless. There are posi tive objections to it. What immediately precedes is too sub ordinate to attract the thought here. Faith in Christ is an act which the believer performs essentially for its own sake and for himself, and not with a view to the cultivation of other graces, or the benefit of other persons. After saying that he prayed so con stantly for his friend, Paul would naturally mention what it was that he desired for him. The telic oncoi points out that object, and must depend on /iveiav noioifievos. As to the rest, the meaning of the verse turns chiefly upon y.oiviovia rijg niorems. It is not easy to decide confidently on the sense of this expression. The following are the principal in terpretations : 1. The meaning may be the fellowship or communion of thy faith, i. e., genit. subjecti, or auctoris — the participation of Phile mon along with others in the virtues, blessings, hopes, which ac company faith in the Redeemer. For y.oiviovia, as denoting a coexistent participation (extended to different objects), see 2 Cor. 6 : 14 ; 8:4; Phil. 2:1; 3:10. For this genitive relation, compare Sixaeoavvij rrjs niorecog (Rom. 4 : 13), the righteousness or justifi cation which faith secures, and xa?<* T^s niorecos (Philip. 1 : 25), the joy which results from faith. Koivcovov, in v. 17, implies 42 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. this idea of Christians as linked to each other by certain com mon ties. The proximity of that term to this may be a finger- sign to the meaning here. Koivtovia i/ucov els to eiayyeXtov, in Philip. 1 : 5, many of the best critics understand in the same maimer. Approximations to the same thought, with variations in the language, see in 1 Cor. 9 : 22 ; Eph. 3:6; 4 : 13 ; Col. 1 : 12 ; 1 Tim. 6:2; Heb. 3 : 1 ; 1 Pet. 5 : 1. The apostle John's y.oiviovia involves this same idea of a co partnership between believers which unites them at the same time with God and with one another ; though in his use the subjective part, the kindredship of character, may prevail over that of the personal benefits of the common faith (1 John 1 : 6, 7). The train of thought then would be this : " Having such evi dence (dxovcov, x. r. X.) that Philemon was a sharer in the grace of the gospel, the apostle prays that his friend's participation in the Christian fellowship, founded on his faith and evinced as so real by his love, may become more and more perfect by his full comprehension of all the duties and virtues (rtavrbg dyafrov) which honor the Christian name (els Xcnorbv 'Iijoovv). Meyer's objection, that the genitive after y.oiviovia (except that of a per son) points out generally the object in which the participation consists, is not conclusive. Nothing is more common than the genitive of the cause or source, and nothing in xoiviovia forbids its connection with that noun. 2. Another rendering is the community of thy faith, i. e., the faith which thou hast in common with others (= xard y.oivrjv Ttianv, in Titus 1:4). This explanation limits the Christian unity to a single point, and fails to recognize the entire contents of the y.oiviovia as unfolded in other passages. This is the view, however, more generally adopted than any other. 3. The participation of thy faith means the participation of others in the fruits of this faith, i. e., in his charities and other acts of piety ; and the prayer of the apostle relates not to Phile- 43 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. mon but to those who received his favors. So Meyer, and after him Ellicott. But in the preceding verse it is the love which is shown to the saints, while Christ is the object of the faith; and hence with that meaning, we should expect rrjg dydnrjs oov instead of rfjg nioreiog. It is still more decisive, that /iveiav oov noioifievog becomes so unmeaning, if oniog turns the mind thus abruptly in a new direction, and leaves Philemon out of the class of persons prayed for. 4. It is understood of the impartation (communication in that sense) of his faith, i. e., by the same metonymy as before, of its effects in the form of charitable acts. But in this instance, too, rrjg dydnr/g would be a more obvious word than rijs Ttloreios. It may be urged also that the phraseology with that sense is un like Paul's. It is characteristic of him that he shrinks as it were instinctively from giving any apparent countenance to the idea that one person may impart faith to another. 'Ev eniyvtioei, x. r. X., in a knowledge of every good thing, i. e., relating to Christian truth and duty, every thing which it becomes the believer to know (see the theoretical side in Col. 2:2), and which it becomes him to do (see the practical side in Philip. 4:8); not every blessing enjoyed by him, since en yvioaei can not mean experience. It is understood of course that the knowledge in this case is not latent, but appears in the life, nothing else being true Christian knowledge. OEcumenius : did. rov eniyviovai oe xal nqdrreiv nav aya&ov. Theophylact : tv rip eniyviooxeiv as nav aya&bv, rovr eanv ayanav y.al jueraxeigioi^eo&ai, x. r. X. This clause, therefore, defines the mode in which the apostle prays that Philemon's faith may show its increase or power, i. e., in his attainment of a still deeper insight into the truth, and his manifestation of all the fruits of such wisdom. To understand ini- yvtooet of the knowledge which others might acquire from Phile mon's example is to wrest the logical subject (niarecos aov) and the predicate from each other, and is contrary to the altogether 44 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. analogous passage in Philip. 1 : 9. That faith and knowledge, truth and obedience, may lean upon each other, may go hand in hand, is everywhere, as here, the burden of the apostle's prayer for the saints. 'Ev ijfiiv, in us, is the true reading, and not iv v/ilv, in you, as in the English Version, after the received text. The soul is the sphere in which the believer's faith operates. The fluctuating text as De Wette observes, arose from the idea that the pronoun must refer to the Colossians. Elg Xqiorbv 'Irjoovv, unto Christ Jesus, i. e., his praise, honor ; not in, as in the Common Version. The evidence for omitting the words is unimportant. Some MSS. have Xqiorbv only. V. 7. Xaqav ydq eaxov, x. t. X., j 'or I had (or we have) much joy and consolation, rdq assigns the reason why Paul offers this prayer with thanksgiving in Philemon's behalf. It refers not to any one word or clause, but to the entire thought in the reader's mind at this stage of the discourse. Meyer restricts the ydq to eixaqi- orco- but that word is not complete without the adjuncts. UoX- Xtjv belongs to both nouns. The apostle's joy (xaqdv) alleviated the sorrow of his captivity, and naqdxlrjotv describes that effect of the happy tidings. Xdgiv has less support, but would mean gratitude to God, i. e., for such piety in Philemon. Green (Developed Criticism, p. 164) decides for x<* though having much boldness in Christ. This boldness or confidence is that which Paul possessed as an apostle, and might assert on this occasion, if he had thought it necessary to exercise his authority in that sphere. 'Emrdaauv aoi rb avfjxov, to enjoin upon thfie that which is becoming, or proper; compare Eph. 5:4; Col. 3 : 18. 'Avrjxov retains this sense in the Romaic. The term, as Meyer remarks, is generic, and includes the forgiveness and reception of Onesimus as an instance of the category. V. 9. did rr)v dydmjv, for love's sake ; i. e., as a tribute, so to speak, to that principle, Paul asks that Philemon would exem plify his benevolence in the present case. The article defines the love not as Philemon's, but as the characteristic virtue of all Christians. This expression, therefore, and Sib do not repeat each other, as some needlessly represent. The particular love shown by Philemon (v. 7.) proved that he was not deficient in this element of the Christian's nature, and hence (Sw) that he could be moved by an appeal to it in behalf of Onesimus. MakXov naqaxaXio, I beseech rather, i. e., than enjoin. MSiXov has often this alternative sense ; compare Matt. 10 : 6 ; 1 Cor. 5:2; Eph. 4 : 28 ; Philip. 1 : 12, etc. Though the apostle might command, he waives that right, and takes the attitude of one who entreats. The act of the one verb (entrdaaeiv) is op posed to that of the other ; and naqaxaXdi is left purposely with out any object. The insertion of the pronoun here (C. V.) encumbers the thought. If ah belonged to the verb in both 48 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. instances, it would naturally accompany the first, and be under stood after the second. A colon, not a comma, should separate this clause from the next. Tischendorf has the correct punc tuation. Towvros cov, being such a one, i. e., as he who lays aside his office, and appeals tc the benevolence and sympathy of his friend. Toiovros, as so taken, draws its antecedent from the preceding context. The numerous instances in the New Testament, in which this pronoun has such a retrospective force (see Brud. Concord, s. v.), suggest that reference here. So most of the later critics, as Hagenbach, De Wette, Meyer, Wiesinger, Elli- cott, and others, understand the passage. " The Greek," says Prof. Sophocles, "demands this explanation.'' Some of the older writers advance the same view. See Wetstein ad loc., and Storr, Opusc. Academ., H., p. 231. The more common opinion is that cos defines roiovros, and that the terms are cor relative to each other ; but the pronoun, as so used, responds to olos, mare, and not to tig. A sort of intermediate view makes roiovrog indefinite, being such a one as I am known to be, and cog enumerative, to wit, as Paul, etc. The participial clause belongs at all events to the second naqaxaXco, and not to the first, as arranged in some editions of the text. In cos, UavXog, x. r. X., as Paul an old man, etc., cog points out the character (compare rig SeiaiSai/ioveariqovs, in Acts 17 : 22), in which, after having said that he would beseech and not com mand, he proceeds to apply himself to this work of persuasion. JTavXos recalls the individual to whom the specified traits belong, and does not suggest the apostleship as one of the grounds of appeal, since /iSXXov naqaxaXcS puts that argument expressly aside. His age and his captivity are the considerations which Paul urges, to give effect to his entreaty. Hqeapvrrjg, an old man (compare Luke 1 : 18 ; Titus 2 : 2) is not an official name, elder, which would be nqeo/Svreqos, and being destitute of the 49 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. article, does not point him out as the aged one, as if he were known in that distinctive way. If Paul was converted at the age of thirty (i.e., 36 A.D.), and wrote this letter just before the close of his first Roman captivity (64 A.D.), he was now about sixty years old. See Commentary on the Acts, pp. 26 and 144. According to Hippocrates a man was called nqeofivrrjs from forty-nine to fifty-six, and after that ykqiov. There was another estimate, which fixed the beginning of the later period (yrjetag) at sixty-nine. See Coray's note in his SvvexSrjfiog, p. 167. If Philemon was a much younger man than Paul, the latter might call himself old, in part with reference to that disparity. Ewald (Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus. p. 457) finds an intimation in nqeafivrrjs that Philemon was converted in early life, and had been known to the apostle for many years before this correspond ence ; the fact may have been so, though the ground for such a conclusion here must be held to be very slight. d'eofiios brings the apostle to his friend's mind as bound with a chain to his keeper, and unable to take a step except under his surveillance. V. 10. Jleql rov ifiov rexvov, concerning my child, as the term imports, and not son, as in the current version, which would be much less expressive. The apostle refers to his agency in the conversion of Onesimus, as appears from the next words. Com pare 1 Cor. 4 : 14; GaL 4 : 19. Ewald (p. 459) observes this distinction in his rendering of the passage. Vv . . . . Sea/tots, whom I begot in my bonds; and whom, therefore, as the sharer of his afflictions, he loved so much the more tenderly. Hence not to heed the apostle was to turn away a father pleading for his child. The later critics drop /tov, after Sea/iotg, but the article points to the same relation. Pressense (Histoire des trois premiers Siecles, vol. H., p. 56) infers from the language here that Paul found Onesimus in prison, and was the means of his conversion there. He overlooks the fact 50 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. that Onesimus must have been at large, in order to labor so effectually for the advantage of the apostle (v. 11), and at all events must have been released before the present letter was written, as the apostle otherwise would have had no control over his movements (v. 12). The bonds mentioned are those of Paul only, and the nature of his confinement was such (Acts 28 : 31) that all who desired could repair to him, and hear the Word without molestation (dxcoXvriog). 'Ovrjoifiov belongs in sense to rexvov, but has been drawn into the case of the relative. Winer, v aveneftipa, whom I have sent back to thee. The reason for the restoration is that assigned in v. 14. The best authorities add aoi after the verb. The epistolary aorist here views the let ter as already in the hands of the reader ; compare Gal. 4:8; Eph. 6 : 22 ; Philip. 2 : 28. Winer, |41, 5, 2. V. 12. 2t> Sh avxov, but do thou receive him, i. e., to your con- 52 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. fidence and affection. 4s, adversative, excludes the idea of any other reception than precisely this. The common text has nqooXa- fiov, but inserts it from v. 17. The correct reading is ov S'e avrov, without any verb. The construction is anacoluthic, but not ob scure. The sequel of the sentence occurs in v. 17, and what inter venes is an instance of the turning aside to pursue other thoughts which crowd upon the mind of the writer by the way, of which Paul's fervid style affords many examples. See Winer, \ 63, 1. Tovr %otiv, x. r. X., that is my own flesh, lit. my bowels = his heart, as in v. 17, i. e., object of his tenderest love, dear to him as his own soul, as part of himself. According to others, anXdyxva means son of my bowels, his offspring, spiritual child (Theodoret, Chrysostom, Wordsworth). " But," as Meyer replies, " this mode of describing the paternal relation would hardly be congruous with ov eyewr/aa in v. 10. Paul constantly uses anXdyxva to denote the seat of the affections (2 Cor. 6 : 12 ; 7 : 15 ; Philip. 1:8; 2:1; Col. 3 : 12 ; Philem. v. 7, 15 ; compare also Luke 1 : 78 ; 1 Tim. 3 : 17) ; and has so used it here, where the person beloved is called the heart itself, because1 he occupies so large a space in its affections. All languages have a similar expression." V. 13. "Ov iyco ipovXofiijv, whom I could have wished, i. e., had it been a question merely of my own feelings or convenience. The translation of the English Version is entirely defensible here. The Greeks employed the imperfect of this verb (and so evxb/nyv) to express a present wish with which as a matter of politeness, or from the necessity of the case, they did not expect a compli ance. See note on Acts 25 : 22 ; Winer, |41, 2 ; Buttmann, \ 139, 13, N. Some make ZfiovXofirjv the epistolary imperfect, was wishing, i. e., when he wrote, and still wished, but would not allow the desire to influence his conduct. The idea remains nearly the same, though the other is a much finer idiom in this connection. Some render was purposing, on the supposition that this verb and Md'eXco differ always, as willed and wished in 53 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. English. But the words, like our corresponding terms, have in terchangeably a stronger or weaker sense, and the speaker's tone at the moment, or the emphasis of the expression must show whether the one or the other sense is meant in a given instance. See Rost and Palm, Lex., I., p. 779. It is not to be supposed that Paul, with his view of the claims of the dydnrj, would be come willing to restore Onesimus after a previous determination to retain him, but rather that he would be kept even from any such incipient purpose by his unwillingness to violate the perfect law of love. Scholars differ still respecting the relation of j3ov- Xofiai and e&eXco to each other ; and any exegesis on that basis merely is uncertain. See, e. g., Vomel, Synonymisches Wbrter- buch, p. 275, on one side, and Tittmann, Synon. in N. Testamento, p 124, on the other. Uqbs ifiavrbv xarexeiv, to keep with myself, where the verb implies not merely detention or delay, but firm or permanent pos session. 'Efiavrbv, in this position, marks the collision of claim or interest between Paul and Philemon. 'Tneq aov, in thy stead, as his representative, substitute ; com pare 2 Cor. 5 : 20. On iniq, see Winer, §47, 5, 1. The assumed idea here is that the convert is indebted always to the teacher ; and hence, as Paul on that principle had an undischarged claim against Philemon, he says, in effect, that he would accept the service of the slave, as an equivalent for what was due from the master. Mol Siaxovjj, might minister to me. The tense represents the service as a present and continued one. Coneybeare (Life and Epistles, II., p. 467) says, too strongly, that Paul wished to employ Onesimus in the service of the gospel. Mol appears to limit the act of the verb (put before it in the best copies) to the apostle, and refers, in all probability, to the personal offices for which, as a captive, he was so dependent on the kindness of others. For this meaning of the verb, see Matt. 4:11; 25 : 44 ; Mark 1:13; 54 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Luke 8 : 3. The ministry (Staxovia) in Acts 11 : 29 ; 1 Cor. 16 : 15 ; and 2 Cor. 11 : 8, was one of sympathy and benevolence, which the disciples performed toward each other. The fact merely of his being a slave would not show that Onesimus could not have aided Paul as a preacher ; for the ancient slaves were not excluded by law from the means of instruction, and there was a class of them among the Romans called literati, on account of the use which their masters made of their literary abilities. Becker's Gallus, p. 121. 'Ev rols Sea/cols rov evayyeXiov, in the bonds of the gospel, i. e., genit. auctoris, into which he had been brought, as a herald of the gospel ; see on v. 1. " The bonds," says Wilke (Rhetorik, p. 143), "are those which the gospel suffers in the person of its advocate." But it impairs the force of the tacit appeal to the reader's sympathy to make the work here more prominent than the agent. V. 14. Xcoqlg S'e rfjs arjg yvciftrjs, but without thy consent; not, thy mind, as a vox media, i. e., a knowledge of his disposition whether favorable or unfavorable, since. Paul could have no doubt of his friend's generosity, if he could only act freely in the case. OvSiv rj&eXrjoa noifjaai, I wished to do nothing, i. e., in the way of retaiuining Onesimus. The stronger sense of the verb (willed, as Wordsworth) would be entirely appropriate here, but is not necessary. It is a question whether rb dya&6v aov is to be taken as specific or general. In the first case, the benefit of thee (genit. subjecti), i. e., received from thee, means the favor for which Paul would be indebted to Philemon in being allowed to have the presence and the aid of so valuable an assistant. The reason, then, which he assigns for returning Onesimus is, that without taking that step Philemon would seem merely to acquiesce in the surrender of his servant (xard avdyxrjv) ; whereas, by having him under his control again, Philemon could place him at the disposal 55 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. of the apostle, and so testify his friendship for him, xara Sxov- awv, i. e., in a voluntary manner, and by an unequivocal act. Kara ixoiaiov demands this view, if to dyad-bv denotes the benefit of his having Onesimus with him to minister to him ; for unless by sending back Onesimus it was to be left to the master's option whether he would comply with Paul's known wishes or not, the alternative of a voluntary or enforced concession was out of the question. But if to dyad-bv, instead of this exclusive reference to his retaining Onesimus, means thy good, or goodness in general, any act of friendship (Calvin, Meyer, Ellicott), then the apostle states a principle or rule, viz., that he could accept no favor from Philemon in any instance, unless it was entirely free and unconstrained. Hence, as the connection between him self and Onesimus had taken place altogether without the mas ter's agency or knowledge, he must send back the servant, since even an acquiescence on the part of Philemon post factum, would be (cos) apparently xara dvdyxr/v, and not xard ixovaiov. The favor, according to this view, would be an extorted one in the eyes of Paul, if Philemon could approve it only after the act. The phrases to dyad-bv, to xaXbv, to nqenbv, and the like, have more commonly this abstract sense, and indicate that sense here. To understand the apostle otherwise, is to make his wish a command. He surely would not say : " I desire the service of this man, but must have your consent ; and therefore I send him back to you, in order to see whether you will oblige me, or keep him to yourself." We should miss here altogether the deli cacy which marks his conduct in every other part of the trans action. V. 15. Tdxa yap Sid rovro excopia&rj, for perhaps on this account he departed; which is another reason (yap) why Paul had sent back Onesimus. He was unwilling to detain him, much as he may have desired it on his own account, lest by so doing he should thwart a possible design of Providence. That this is a 56 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. concurrent and subordinate reason, not the only one (Wiesinger, Meyer, Ellicott), is evident from the preceding verse (Iva, as re lated to rjd-eXr/aa). Paul says rdxa, because he had no certain knowledge of the divine purposes. Men can speak of them with confidence only as they are revealed to them, and the apostle makes no claim to such a revelation in this instance. He says departed (ixiopiadrj), not fied, because he would not censure the conduct of Onesimus, or awaken a resentful feeling in the mas ter. The passive form has a middle sense (Acts 1:4; 18 : 1), and the rendering, was separated, i. e., apologetic, not so much by his own act as by a sort of providence, is incorrect. The use of this verb excludes Schrader's singular opinion that Onesimus was so worthless and incorrigible that his master drove him away, and would not have him in his service. 4id rovro antici pates the clause which follows. See Winer, \ 23, 5. Hqbs copav, being opposed to alcoviov, is a relative expression, and does not decide how long Onesimus had been absent from Colossal The interval between his conversion and the return was no doubt brief. °Iva alcoviov avrbv dne%T)s, that thou mightest have him fully, (lit. off, so that nothing remains) forever. Alcoviov is an adjeetive with the force of an adverb. Winer, § 54, 2. The forever is the entire future both here and hereafter. The relation in this case can not be that of master and servant, which is temporary, but must be that of believers irf Christ, which makes them equal sharers in the blessings of a kingdom which has no end. The purpose (iva) is that of God, not Onesimus. The words of Joseph to his brethren (Gen. 45 : 5, sq.) illustrate the teleological rela tion. The intensive dnexjjs, as applied here to the new spiritual bond, was suggested perhaps by the civil relation of the parties to each other. The verb signifies to have in full, to possess ex haustively (compare Matt. 6:2; Luke 6 : 24 ; Philip. 4 : 18), and the meaning here is, that Philemon, in gaining Onesimus as a 57 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Christian friend, had come into a relationship to him which made him all his own. V. 16. Ovx en cos SovXov, no longer as a servant, i. e., in that relation as the only one in which they would henceforth stand to each other. The meaning is not necessarily that the relation itself would cease (the expression neither demands nor excludes that limitation), but that a new element would enter into it, which would raise Onesimus above the condition of a, servant under human laws, and give to him a title to the justice (Col. 4: 1), humanity, love, and entire religious equality, which the Christian brotherhood (dSeXcpia) confers on all believers, whether they are Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female (Gal. 3 : 28). In vnep SovXov the preposition may denote a superincumbent relation, as well as a superseding one. For inip = more than, see v. 21 ; Matt. 10 : 37 ; Acts 26 : 13 ; Heb. 4 : 12. The contrasted emphasis lies upon rig and inep, and the doctrine is that the Christian master must forget the slave in the brother. MdXiara Ifioi, especially to me (beyond all others except Phile mon), since Onesimus was so endeared to him as his son in the faith, and as the sharer of his bonds. 'Efiol is the dative of inter est or relation (Winer, §31, 4), and not the dative of the agent after a passive verbal. Similar to this is dyanrjrol ijfiiv lyevrr 3-rjre in 1 Thess. 2 : 8. Kal ev aapxl, x. r. X., both in the flesh, i. e., his temporal or earthly relations, and in the Lord, i. e., his Christian or spiritual relations. 'Ev aapxl answers here precisely to y.ard aaoxd in Eph. 6 : 5, where Paul treats of the same subject. 2dpi; passes readily to this meaning from its common use, as denoting that which is natural to man in distinction from the new principle, or nvevfia imparted to him in virtue of his union with Christ. The apostle employs the term often, as Koch remarks (p. 103), to designate that outward side of human existence, which is appre hended by the senses as opposed to the inner and unseen life. 58 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Onesimus had claims on Philemon which he could not have on the apostle or any other stranger, because he had lived with him, and labored for him so long, had been one of his household, perhaps had been reared with him from infancy, and been an object of his care and protection. The expression affords no proof of any natural relationship between Philemon and Onesimus. Kara aapxd in Eph. 6 : 5 forbids utterly that inference. V. 17. El ovv fie, x. r. X., if tlierefore (Onesimus being sent back under such circumstances) thou hast me as a partner, dost count me a sharer with thyself in the faith, love, blessings of the gospel. To spurn Onesimus, therefore, was to put the apostle himself out of the pale of the Christian fellowship : that is the argument. So nearly all critics, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, De Wette, Koch, Meyer, Wiesinger, Ellicott, though with some difference as to the relative prominence, which they assign to the different effects of the gospel in this experience of believers which makes them one. Not being limited by any term, xoivcovbv must include as much as the relation itself, which it defines, includes. As applied to Titus in 2 Cor. 8 : 23, it means not merely a friend, but a friend endeared to Paul by a conscious sympathy in all Christian things. For the nature and extent of this xoi viovia, see references in note on v. 6. That in xoivcovbv Paul would remind Philemon of an admitted right of Christians to share in each other's worldly possessions (partner in that sense), as a reason why he should receive what he asks for Onesimus, is far-fetched, and no longer urged as a possible meaning. This singular view appears in the Geneva Version. UpoaXafiov, x. r. X., receive him as me, i. e., not merely as a partner, but as my representative in that character. IIpooXa/3ov resumes the construction broken off in v. 12. 'Qs identifies the persons, and makes the reception a corollary of that identity. Onesimus, in his character as a believer, had the same rights as Paul had, and could claim their recognition as fully and justly as 59 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. the apostle himself. So one Christian could appeal to another. Pliny, in his letter to Sabinianus, entreats his friend not to torture the wretch who was a suppliant for his mercy. The Roman laws, which were severer in this respect than the Greek laws, allowed a master to take the life of an absconding servant. See Becker's Charihles, p. 370. A brand-mark at least (oriyfia) was the penalty of an unsuccessful attempt to escape from servi tude. The Spanetrjs eony/ievog (Aristoph. Aves, 759), or brand ed fugitive, was a common sight on the estates of the wealthy Athenians. V. 18. El Se ri, x. t. X., but if he wronged thee in any thing, or oweth aught (n repeated). The two verbs in the protasis may be understood of two distinct acts ; the first of running away, the second of some peculation or dishonesty before the flight; or they may both refer to the same act under different aspects, viz., the running away viewed first as an injustice, which Paul asks his friend entirely to overlook for his sake ; or (if that was too much, and he must be indemnified for the wrong, then) as a debt, which Paul says he was prepared to pay. Tovro favors the view of a single act, since ravra would be more natural, if Paul referred to the escape as one thing, and a previous theft as another. It may be urged, too, that r}Sixrjoe is too comprehensive, if bcpeiXei adds another misdemeanor ; for if there was stealing in addition to the escape, rjSixrjoe has included that offense already. Unless bcpeiXei refers to the same act, it falls naturally into a different ethical category from rjSixr/as. The last objection, it is true, does not apply to Meyer's interpretation (also Calvin, Bengel, De Wette), viz., that TjSixrjoe alludes to a theft or some other fraud, which bcpeiXei defines euphemistically as a debt. But the greater diffi culty arises then, that we have no reference whatever to the special offense of which Onesimus had been guilty, and which Paul would be expected to exert his utmost skill to induce the master to overlook. If, too, he had been alluding to an act 60 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. which was an immorality per se, a bolder expression than the hesitating el (so appropriate to the running away) would have been more natural. Schrader, Koch, Hemsen, and others deny utterly that the passage affords any reason for impeaching the man's character before the flight, and Lardner says, sharply, that it is no better than calumny to charge a person with crime on such evidence. The copies read iXXbya, iXXoyei, and ivXoya, but favor the first. Fritzsche decides (Epist. ad Rom. I., p. 311) that the second is the only possible form. The word is not found out of the New Testament (here and in Rom. 5 : 13), except in some obscure fragments (Rost and Palm, Lex., s. v.) ; but analogous words leave no doubt of the meaning. 'EXXbyet = v.araXoyrjoai (Hesych.). V. 19. The addition of IlavXog strengthens the emphatic Iyco. A written pledge with such a name needed no other security. 'Eypaxpa, *. r. X., I have written it vrith my own hand, I will repay. The first verb derives its immediate object from tovto eftol iX.X6ya, and anoriaco repeats the assurance that he will discharge the obligation (avyypacpr)) thus acknowledged by his own hand. 'inoriam belongs to the phraseology of pecuniary compacts. Paul would not be apt to employ the hand of another to write a brief 'and friendly letter like this. There is no proof that he had such help in this instance. The emphasis falls evidently upon eyri IlavXog (note the repeated eyri), and not upon eypaipa, which rfi ififj xecpl accompanies for descriptive effect merely, as in Gal. 6:11. The lyri eypaya does not except the other parts of the letter any more than eyri elnov attached to eyri anoriaco in a speech, would prove that one person had uttered that declaration, and another the rest of the discourse. Theodoret : avrl ypaftfiariov rrjvSe xarexe rr)v enioroXrjv' naaav avrr)v yeypacpa. "Iva fir) Xeyco (= ne dicam), not to say, is an instance of the oxfjfia Ttaqaoiitmrjoecos or prateritio, by which a person says in reality what he professes to pass over in silence. So Iva fin 61 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Xiycoftev in 2 Cor. 9 : 4. See Wilke, Rhetorik, p. 365. The iva may depend on eypaya or a suppressed thought ; "Accept this pledge that I may not have occasion to insist upon my rights." °Ori xal, x. r. X., that unto me thou owest also thyself besides, i. e., in addition to the favor requested for Onesimus. Kal and npbs in the verb strengthen each other. The indebtedness is that of Philemon for Paul's agency in his conversion. Hence as the apostle would say playfully, he was Philemon's owner in a much better sense, than Philemon could claim to stand in that relation to Onesimus. V. 20. Nal .... bvaifirjv, yea, brother, let me have joy or profit of thee, be gratified with this evidence of thy loving spirit. The phrase was a familiar one, implying the compliment, that to obtain a favor we need appeal only to the giver's benevolence or desire to make others happy. Eisner's examples (Observationes, II., p. 331) are very incomplete. The usage is well illustrated in Rost and Palm, Lex. s. v. Nal anticipates the affirmation of the request. It snatches the answer from the mouth of the re spondent before he can utter it, like our familiar " Ves, you will." The claim on Philemon's gratitude, intimated in the last verse, is the ground of this confidence. 'Ovaifir/v (aorist middle, from bvi- vrj/ii) is an uncommon word, and hence many critics suppose it to be chosen for the sake of the alliterative resemblance to 'Ovtjoi- uos. The purport of the figure would be : " It is but fair, as a matter of reciprocity, that I should receive profit from you (bvai- firjv) if you have profit from him ^Ovr/oifios) whom I send back to you." Vet writers by no means agree in the admission of such a witticism here. Meyer insists upon it with confidence. Winer (§68, 2) is undecided. De Wette rejects the idea as fanci ful. The received text has xvpicp, instead of XpiarcS, but against decisive witnesses. V. 21. Henoi&ris .... aoi, liaving confidence in thy obedience, 62 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. as due not to Paul but Christ or God, since that which the apostle had requested merely, the spirit of the gospel demanded as a duty. For iTcaxorj in this absolute use, see Rom. 6 : 16 ; 16 : 19. It was natural that Paul should glance at this higher ground of obligation, but it would disagree with the tone of the letter to insist on his own wishes merely as claiming obedience. I concede that the majority of critics put the latter sense on the expression. 'Eypaxpd aoi, have written to thee, i. e., at this time ; not wrote (Common Version), as if he had written once already. See Schole- field, Hints, etc., p. 128. The province of the Greek aorist em braces some of the uses of our perfect. °Ori .... notrjaeis, that thou wilt do also above what I say, as well as (xai) according to it. 'Tn'ep S has the emphasis. Whether the pronoun should be o or a is uncertain. Lachmann adopts the latter, Tischendorf has both in different editions. It is impossible for me to resist the impression that Paul meant here that Philemon should liberate Onesimus, and allow him to return to Rome, or use his liberty henceforth as his own master. Having asked every thing short of that already, nothing but that seems to remain for inep 6. Storr, De Wette, Hagenbach, Koch, Alford, are among those who recognize a hint here that Philemon would do well to crown his generosity to the slave by making him a free man. On the contrary, some find the expres sion to be a delicate compliment merely to Philemon's philanthro py. Paul wrote to him so freely, he would say, because he knew that his brother would grant not only what he had asked, but more too, if he had asked it. Calvin's note on the passage de serves to be read. We may be sure that whatever Philemon understood the apostle to say or intend, he was not slow to per form. Our having the epistle in our hands at this moment is good proof that he was not remiss in acting up to every intimation of what was expected from his friendship and love of justice ; for our own feelings assure us that he would never have allowed such a 63 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. letter to see the light, if it was to exist only as a perpetual wit ness of his ingratitude and his severity. 22 "Apia 8e /cat eroipw^e p.01 ^eviav iXir'i^co yap on 8id tcov irpoaev^tav vpcov ^apiaOrjao- p.ai vpiv. 23 ' Aaird^eral