Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Philemon 1:8 - 1:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Earnest intercession for the fugitive Onesimus, and commendation of him
Phm_1:8-21
Phm_1:9. [ Äéὰ ôὴí ἀãÜðçí , for love’s sake;i. e., as a tribute, so to speak, to that principle, Paul asks that Philemon would exemplify 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 äéὸ do not repeat each other, as some needlessly represent. The particular love shown by Philemon (Phm_1:7) proved that he was not deficient in this element of the Christian’s nature, and hence ( äéü ) that he could be moved by an appeal to it in behalf of Onesimus.—H.] Consequently it is not the Apostle’s love to Philemon, or that of Philemon to the Apostle, which is to operate as the motive here, but Christian love in general, whose voice Philemon should hear speaking to him, and urging him to receive Onesimus to his heart.—I beseech rather ( ðáñáêáëῶ ), in opposition to ἐðéôÜóóåéí . [ Ìᾶëëïí has often this alternative sense; comp. Mat_10:6; 1Co_5:2; Eph_4:28; Php_1:12, &c. Though the Apostle might command, he waives that right, and takes the attitude of one who entreats. Note the emphasis on ðáñáêáëῶ , which is properly without an object here, because it points out the act to be done, and not as yet the direction of the act. The insertion of the pronoun (thee), as in the A. V., encumbers the thought. If óὲ belonged to the verb in both instances, it would naturally accompany the first, and be understood after the second. A colon, not a period, should separate this clause from the next. Tischendorf has the correct punctuation.—H.]—Being such an one, ôïéïῦôïò ὤí (or, according to Luther, since I am such). These words we are not to connect immediately with the preceding ðáñáêáëῶ , but regard them as the beginning of a new sentence. “With ôïéïῦôïò the whole character is shadowed forth indefinitely, while by ὡò , explicative as (Col_2:20; Col_3:12), specific traits or qualities are brought out and emphasized” (De Wette). [The best view may be that ôïéïῦôïò draws its antecedent from the preceding context, i. e., being such an one as he who lays aside his office, and appeals to the benevolence and sympathy of his friend. Thus Ellicott and others: “At I am such an one, who would rather beseech for love’s sake, than avail myself of my ðáῤῥçóßáí ἐðéôÜóóåéí .” “Unless the Greek be irregular,” says Prof. Sophocles, “ ôïéïῦôïò and ὥò cannot be reciprocal terms.” Some of the alder writers take the same view. See Wetstein, Nov. Test. (in loc), and Storr, Opusc. Academ. ii., p. 231. The more common opinion has been (the one which most readily suggests itself from the rendering of the A. V.) that ὡò Ðáῦëïò defines ôïéïῦôïò , and that the terms are correlative to each other; but the pronoun, when defined thus, responds properly to ïἷïò , ὥóôå , and not to ὥò . A sort of intermediate view makes ôïéïῦôïò indefinite, being such an one as I am known to be, and ὡò enumerative, to wit, at Paul, &c. Wiesinger seems to prefer this explanation. The participial clause belongs at all events to the second ðáñáêáëῶ , and not to the first, as arranged in some editions of the text.—H.] Paul then strengthens his request by referring to three peculiarities or characteristics. First, he is Paul, the well-known, whose name has already so pleasant a sound in the ear of his friend Philemon; secondly, an old man ( ðñåóâýôçò ), whose word may be heard with mildness and deference, and not be at once thrust aside; and finally, a prisoner of Christ Jesus (see on Phm_1:1), for whose comfort and alleviation Philemon surely will be ready to contribute all in his power. So the words were divided very early (Chrysostom); and we find also in the earnest tone and evident climax of the discourse no sufficient reason for connecting Ðáῦëïò and ðñåóâýôçò immediately with each other, and equally as little (Calvin and others) for identifying ðñåóâýôçò as an official name. [The official name, elder, would be ðñåóâýôåñïò , and the article would be necessary if ðñåóâýôçò (comp. Luk_1:18 and Tit_2:2) meant the aged (A. V.), as if well known in that distinctive way. If Paul was converted at the age of thirty (i.e., A. D. 36), and wrote this letter to Philemon just before the close of his first Roman captivity (A. D. 64), he was now about sixty years old. According to Hippocrates, a man was called ðñåóâýôçò from forty-nine to fifty-six, and after that ãÝñùí . There was another estimate of the Greek physiologists, which fixed the beginning of the later period ( ãῆñáò ) at sixty-nine. See Coray’s note in his ÓõíÝêäçìïò Ἱåñáôéêüò , p. 167. If Philemon was a much younger man than Paul, the latter might call himself old, in part with reference to that disparity.—H.] The views of critics differ as to the special emphasis which lies upon each one of the three titles employed in this entreaty. (See Meyer on the passage.) The main point is, that Paul brings his own personality as concretely and vividly as possible before the eyes of Philemon, as if he would thus screen, as it were, the figure of Onesimus, now discerned for the first time behind him, from the anger of his master.
Phm_1:10. I beseech thee, a repeated ðáñáêáëῶ (Phm_1:9), which stands in opposition to the right of command ( ἐðéôÜóóåéí ) so entirely proper for him to exercise, but freely renounced, and which therefore must cause the granting of his request to appear to Philemon as a matter of piety.—For my son ( ôÝêíïõ , child), a surprising turn for Philemon as he read this. Paul had a son, then, and one whom I have begotten in my bonds (who was converted by my preaching; comp. 1Co_4:14; Gal_4:19); two shields, therefore, which effectually cover the hated name that must now at length be uttered: Onesimus, the harsh sound of which, for the ear of Philemon, is at once essentially softened by so admirably adjusting the order of the words to the idea. [Onesimus may have been standing in person before his master, and yet Philemon never have surmised the object of the letter till he reached this name so skilfully introduced. Supported I by such an advocate, and knowing the character of the man in whose hands he had consented to place himself again, the fugitive could present the letter in silence and await the result without anxiety.—H.]
Phm_1:11. Who in time past ( ðïôå , formerly) was unprofitable to thee. The name ὈíÞóéìïò [which was not uncommon among the Greeks; Wets., Nov, Test., in loc.] signifies profitable or useful. Hence the Apostle seeks by a stroke of pleasantry to let his friend know that the slave who had hitherto answered so little to this fine name would do so far more hereafter. [It was saying: “He did not show himself truly an Onesimus; but he is changed now, and become worthy, yea, twice worthy ( óïὶ êáὶ ἐìïß ) of that expressive name.”—H.] This allusion to the sense of the word, it is true, has not been noticed by the Greek commentators; but this by no means proves that it is imaginary only, or unworthy of the Apostle. [Rothe remarks that ÏíÞóéìïò would naturally have called up ἀíüíçôïí rather than ἄ÷ñçóôïí as the contrastive term. But, as Winer suggests (Gramm., § 68. 2, 6th ed.), the correspondence may lie in the meaning of the name, not in the sound. The majority of the later critics, as Meyer, De Wette, Ellicott, Wiesinger, Alford, Wordsworth, recognize this play on the name.—H.]—Unprofitable ( ἄ÷ñçóôïò ) Onesimus had been hitherto to his master. By this remark Paul anticipates, as it were, the unpleasant recollections which the mention of his name must inevitably excite in Philemon’s mind, so as at once to counteract or allay them. “Inutilis: litotes, erat enim noxius” (Bengel).—But now ( åὔ÷ñçóôïò ) useful, fit to use (comp. 2Ti_2:21; 2Ti_4:11). That both adjectives should involve at the same time a tacit allusion to the name of Christ (Olshausen and others: formerly without Christ, now a good Christian), is improbable in itself, and at variance also with the subjoined pronouns: to thee and me. Onesimus was useful in different senses. To his master he is now to be a benefit, since he serves him better than before; to the Apostle, on the contrary, he is to be such, since he is a fruit of his labor, and to be his rejoicing in the day of Christ. Others explain in other ways. [Meyer (whom Ellicott follows) understands the åý÷ñçóôßá as spiritual with reference to Philemon, whom as partaker of the same faith and spirit he would help in the religious life. The term ( åὔ÷ñçóôïò ) would then have the same sense in both relations; and it is better, certainly, to find it the same, and not different, i. e., worldly or personal advantage in the one case, and spiritual in the other. But after all, does not ἐìïὶ åὔ÷ñçóôïò ( ìïý ) receive its natural explanation from äéáêïíῇ ìïé , which follows just below? See on Phm_1:13. If we take this view, then the service in behalf of both Paul and Philemon would be similar again, i. e., not religious in one sphere and personal in the other (or religious in both, as Meyer), but temporal or personal in both. It is easy to see that there were numberless ways in which the convenience and happiness of the captive Apostle might have been promoted by the efforts of a friend like Onesimus.—H.]—Whom I have sent back [to thee]. The pronoun belongs to the text here (Lachmann, Tischendorf). The time of the verb is that of the reception of the letter, and is the same, therefore, as: whom I send back with this letter. On this epistolary use of the aorist, see Winer, Gramm., § 41, 5, 2; [and comp. Gal_6:11; Eph_6:22; Php_2:28.]
Phm_1:12. But do thou, &c. Luther: “Here we see how Paul takes to himself the poor Onesimus, and makes the case his own, as if he himself were Onesimus.” But do thou receive him, i. e., to thy confidence and affection; comp. Rom_14:1. [ ÄÝ , adversative, excludes the idea of any other reception than precisely this.] If ðñïóëáâïῦ , on the authority of A. F. G. 17, must be expunged, as Lachmann and Tischendorf decide, we must then ascribe the anacoluthic character of the sentence to earnestness of feeling on the part of the writer, and yet we must insert in thought this or a similar verb. [The sequel of the sentence occurs in Phm_1:17, and what intervenes is an instance of the turning aside to pursue other, thoughts which crowd upon the mind as the pen moves forward, of which Paul’s fervid style affords so many examples. See Winer, Gramm., § 63, 1. It is a mark of the Apostle’s hand, therefore, which attests the genuineness of the letter.—H].— Ôὰ ἐìὰ óðëÜã÷õá , my own flesh, lit. bowels; not as denoting his paternal relation to Onesimus (so Conybeare and Howson: “Children are called the óðëÜã÷íá of their parents”); but a general expression of the most tender love, somewhat like corculum in Latin, or cor meum in Plautus and others. See Meyer on this passage [who remarks justly that the other meaning ascribed to óðëÜã÷íá here would hardly be congruous with ὃí ἐãÝííçóá in Phm_1:10. Paul constantly uses óðëÜã÷íá to denote the seat of the affections (2Co_6:12; 2Co_7:15; Php_1:8; Php_2:1; Col_3:12; Philem. vers 7, 20; comp. also Luk_1:78; 1Jn_3:17); and has pertinently used it so here, where the person beloved is called the heart itself, because he occupies so large a space in its affections. All languages have a similar expression. Calvin: “Nihil ad molliendam Philemonis iraeundiam efficacius dici potuit, nam si in servum suum fuisset implacabilis, in Pauli viscera hoc modo sœviebat. Mira vero Pauli bonitas, quod vile mancipium, deinde furem [sic] et erronem recipere quodammodo in sua viscera non dubitavit, ut ab iracundia domini sui protegeret.”—H.]
Phm_1:13. Whom I would have retained with myself ( ὃí … êáôÝ÷åéí ). The Apostle says as it were in passing, what as for himself he was inclined at first to do with Onesimus, so as in this way to revive and strengthen Philemon’s shaken confidence in this person. Ἐâïõëüìçí expresses a momentary inclination; ἠèÝëçóá , on the contrary, the firmer determination which has taken the place of the former. [The Greeks employed the imperfect of this verb (and so åὐ÷üìçí ) to express a present wish with which as a matter of politeness, or from the necessity of the case, they did not expect a compliance, and therefore put in the past as decided and out of the question. See Winer, Gramm., § 41, 2; Buttmann, N. T. Sprach gebr., & 139, 13, N. Some make ἐâïýëïìçí 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, both as a Greek and an English expression.—H.]—That in thy stead [ ὑðὲñ óïῦ , i. e., not only in gratiam tuam (Meyer), but vice tua] he might have ministered (more correctly might minister) unto me, &c. Grotius rightly: “Ut mihi prœstaret, quœ tu si hic esses, prasstiturus mihi omnia esses.” [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 ( ὑðὲñ óïῦ ) for what was due from the master. The tense of äéáêïíῇ represents the service as a present and continued one. Ìïß 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. If preaching the gospel were meant here (Conybeare, Life of Paul, ii. p. 467), the Apostle would more naturally speak of it as a service rendered to Christ, not to himself. Observe with what delicacy he changes the structure of the sentence in Php_2:22, just to avoid the appearance of putting his fellow-laborers in the gospel on a different level from his own in that relation. “The services meant in äéáêïíῇ ,” says De Wette, “are personal services.” For this meaning of the verb, see Mat_4:11; Mat_25:44; Mar_1:13; Luk_8:3, and often.—H.] The Apostle, therefore, does not doubt for a moment that Philemon, in case he had been near his friend, would have shown to him the warmest love. In itself considered, of course, Paul had naturally no right to the labors of any other man’s servant; but the thought of Philemon’s love had almost induced him to allow the slave to render to him the assistance which the master could not render, but which surely he would have approved with all his heart as soon as he knew of it. The Apostle, however, had given up this thought again, and for a reason which he mentions in the following verse.— Ἐí ôïῖò äåóìïῖò ôïῦ åὐáããåëëßïõ , in the bonds of the gospel, i. e., genit, auctoris, into which he had been brought, as a herald of the gospel, which the gospel had laid upon him; see on Phm_1:1. “The bonds,” says Wilke (Rhetorik des N. T., 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, and is against the analogy of other passages.—H.]
Phm_1:14. But without thy mind, i. e., a knowledge of thy opinion in the matter.—I would do (lit. wished to do) nothing [i. e., in the way of retaining Onesimus.]—That thy benefit, &c. The benefit ( ôὸ ἀãáèüí óïõ ) which is meant here, cannot be the manumission of Onesimus (De Wette); for there is not the slightest allusion to this act here, or even in Phm_1:16. Equally out of the question is the favorable reception of Onesimus by his master (Hofmann, SchrifTb. ii. 387); for then the opposition between Phm_1:13-14 is destroyed, i. e., what Paul should receive and what Philemon should do in the person of Onesimus. But the reference is exclusively to the good which would accrue to the Apostle if he had been able to retain Onesimus with him. In this case (see on Phm_1:13) Philemon would have served him by means of his slave ( ἵíá äéáêïíῇ ), and Paul accordingly would have received a benefit indirectly from Philemon. This is the very thing he does not wish. The good which Philemon confers on him should not be such that it would appear ὡò êáôὰ ἀíÜãêçí , almost extorted (Bengel: “ ὡò particula mitigans, nam etsi non coactus fuisset Philemon, tamen voluntas ejus minus apparuisset”); but, on the other hand, should be exclusively the work of a loving, free service ( ἀëëὰ êáôὰ ἑêïýóéïí ). It is entirely arbitrary to infer from this last expression that Paul desired the sending back of Onesimus to Rome as an assistant to him there. The Apostle speaks of the good ( ôὸ ἀãáèüí ) as something to be shown to himself personally; and had he wished to request a favor expressly for Onesimus, the favor surely would not have consisted in a deed affecting not so much him as another.—[But many interpreters, as Calvin, Meyer, Ellicott, understand to ôὸ ἀãáèüí óïõ (thy good) of Philemon’s beneficence or goodness in general, whether manifested in allowing Paul to retain Onesimus, or in other merciful acts which his benevolence might prompt. According to this view the Apostle states here 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 himself and Onesimus had taken place altogether without the master’s agency or knowledge, he must send back the servant, since even an acquiescence on the part of Philemon post factum would be ( ὡò ) apparently êáôὰ ἀíÜãêçí , and not êáôὰ ἑêïýóéïí . 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 ôὸ ἀãáèὸí , ôὸ êáëὸí , ôὸ ðñåðὸí , and the like, are frequent in this abstract sense, and may indicate that sense here. At all events, as suggested at the close of the last paragraph, Paul could not mean (as the ἀãáèüí ) that he expected Philemon to send back Onesimus to him and in fact had put the servant in his control again for the purpose of securing that act of friendship To understand the Apostle in this manner, 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 delicacy which marks his conduct in every other part of the transaction.—H.]
Phm_1:15. For perhaps he departed. The words which follow here must not be regarded as a motive for the manumission of Onesimus (De Wette), but as a further statement of the reasons why Paul had not executed his previous idea of retaining Onesimus with himself. Had he expressed himself in a decided tone respecting the object of the brief separation between Philemon and Onesimus, it would not only have grated harshly on the feelings of the sensitive master, but have been a positive declaration concerning a definite Divine purpose which he could have known only by special revelation. Hagenbach: “Caute apposuit ôÜ÷á , truippe qui non supremi numinis vias quasi digito demonstrare, sed tantum significare ausus sit, toto cœlo diversus ab istis homuncionibus, qui, pios sermones semper in ore gerentes, superstitionis suæ qualiaœunque commenta tanquam divina or acuta venditare affectant.” [That this ( ãÜñ ) is a concurrent and subordinate reason, not the only one (as Wiesinger, Meyer, Ellicott seem to imply), is evident from the preceding verse ( ãíá , as related to ἠèÝëçóá ). He says departed ( ἐ÷ùñßóèç ), not fled, because he would not censure the conduct of Onesimus, or awaken a resentful feeling in the master. The passive form has a middle sense (Act_1:4; Act_18:1), and the rendering, was separated, i. e., apologetic (Macknight, Buckminster), 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.— Äéὰ ôïῦôï (therefore, on this account) anticipates the clause which follows. See Winer, Gramm., § 23, 5.—H.]—How long or short a time Onesimus had been separated from Philemon, is uncertain; but in every case a temporary separation is ðñὸò ὣñáí (see 2Co_7:8; 1Th_2:17), as compared with the eternal reunion. [Even with this contrast, the naturally suggested idea is that the interval between the conversion and the return of Onesimus was not long.—H.]—That thou Brightest receive him [fully] forever; an intimation ( ἵíá ) of the supposed Divine purpose in his departure. [The words of Joseph to his brethren (Gen_45:5) illustrate the teleological relation: “Now, therefore, be not grieved nor angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before yon to preserve life”; áἰþíéïí is not neuter, but masculine, i. e., as one áἰþíéïí . For this use of adjectives as adverbs, see Win., § 54, 2 (6th ed.).—H.] As believers in Christ Jesus, Philemon and Onesimus were also destined, in the approaching advent of the Lord (1Th_4:17), to be united forever.— ἈðÝ÷ῃò , tibi haberes; comp. Php_4:18; Mat_6:2.—[This peculiar word, as applied here to the new spiritual bond, was suggested perhaps by the civil relation of the parties to each other. It signifies to have in full, to possess exhaustively, and hence the meaning here is that Philemon, in gaining Onesimus as a Christian brother, had come into a relationship to him which made him all his own, and ( áἰþíéïí ) forever.—H.]
Phm_1:16. Not now [no longer, ïὐê ἔôé ] as a servant [slave]. The Apostle will by no means break up violently the subordinate relation in which Onesimus stood to Philemon, but apprises him that this relation has now of itself passed into a higher one. Even if Onesimus remained externally a slave, it could still be said of him: But a brother beloved. He was the latter, and now remained such, just the same whether he continued a slave or not; and for this reason we cannot assent to those interpreters who insist that Paul meant to urge here the emancipation of Onesimus as his direct object. It is not the immediate cessation, but amelioration and sanctification of the earthly relation, that the Apostle has in his thoughts. [But this amelioration itself was so comprehensive, that, if it left the name of slave, it would leave nothing but the name, and would destroy utterly the spirit and reality of the relation. It would raise Onesimus at once above the condition of a slave under human laws, and give him a title to all that is “just and equal” between man and man (Col_4:1), and to all the sympathy love, and entire religious equality which the Christian brotherhood ( ἀäåëößá ) confers on all believers, Whether they are Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female (Gal_3:28). For ὑðÝñ , above, more than, see Phm_1:21; Mat_10:37; Act_26:13; Heb_4:12. See Win., § 49, c (6th ed.). The contrasted emphasis lies upon ὡò us and ὑðÝñ forty, and the doctrine is that the Christian master must forget the slave in the brother.—H.]—Especially to me ( ìÜëéóôá ἐìïß ), for the reason stated in Phm_1:10 [viz., that he was his son in the faith and the sharer of his bonds. Ἐìïß is the dative of interest or relation (Win., Gramm., § 31, 3), not dative of the agent after a passive verbal. Similar to this is ἀãáðçôïὶ ἡìῖí ἐãåíÞèçôå in 1Th_2:8. ἈãáðçôÝ ìïé ἀäåëöἐ is a common address in modern Greek when one Christian friend writes to another.—H.]—But how much more to thee,—since they were bound to each other by the twofold connection which the next words point out.—Both in the flesh and in the Lord, i. e., as well in the merely material as the higher spiritual relation. Meyer says to the point: “ ἐí óáñêß , in the flesh, Philemon has Onesimus as slave; ἐí êõñßῳ , in the Lord, he has the slave as brother; how greatly must he have him in both respects as a brother beloved!” ÓÜñî , in other words, refers to Onesimus in his temporal or earthly relation, ἐí êõñßῳ to his Christian or spiritual relation. This ἐí óáñêß answers precisely to êáôὰ óÜñêá in Eph_6:5, where Paul speaks of “masters who are such in a temporal sense, as distinguished from Christ who is our master in a spiritual sense. ÓÜñî passes readily to this meaning from its common use, as denoting that which is natural to man in distinction from the new principle, or ðíåῦìá 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 apprehended by the senses as opposed to the inner and unseen life. Onesimus had claims on Philemon, his sympathy and love ( ἐí óáñêß ), which he could not have on the Apostle or any other stranger, because he had lived with him, and shared his labors, 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, therefore, affords no proof of any natural relationship between Philemon and Onesimus. Êáôὰ óÜñêá , in Eph_6:5, utterly forbids that inference.—H.]
Phm_1:17. If therefore [ ïὖí , i. e., Onesimus being sent back under such circumstances] thou countest me a partner ( êïéíùíüí ), i. e., not merely a friend or companion in general, according to the rule: “Amicorum omnium communia;” but especially a partaker of the faith (see Phm_1:6, and the remarks there) and of the blessings which spring from it. Åἰ does not express any doubt, but a supposition which Paul tacitly affirms, and on which he expressly founds his request. [To spurn Onesimus, therefore—such is the force of Paul’s argument—was to deny the Apostle’s claim to a place in the church, was to put him in effect out of the pale of Christian fellowship.—H.]— Ðñïóëáâïῦ áὐôüí , receive him, signifies expressly a kind, joyous reception (comp. Act_28:2; Rom_14:1; Rom_14:3). [The verb resumes the connection broken off in Phm_1:12. See remarks there.—H.]—As me. What joy would have entered the abode of Philemon, if lie captive Apostle had suddenly and unexpectedly stood before their eyes in the possession of his recovered liberty! Such a reception he now wishes that Onesimus may enjoy in the house of his master. [ Ὡò 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 the Apostle himself. Such is the power which the gospel gives one Christian to intercede with another. Pliny, in his letter to Sabinianus, could only entreat 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 even to take the life of an absconding servant. See Becker’sCharikles, p. 370. A brand-mark at least ( óôßãìá ) was the penalty of an unsuccessful attempt to escape from servitude. The äñáðÝôçò ἐóôéãìÝíïò (Aristoph., Aves, 759), or branded fugitive, was a common sight on the estates of the wealthy Athenians.—H.]
Phm_1:18. If he hath wronged thee. That which the Apostle might have stated probably in decided terms, he expresses hypothetically with Attic urbanity, in order to remove a difficulty that might prejudice the desired reconciliation.—Or oweth aught, defines more nearly the circumstance in which the supposed injury consisted. Perhaps Onesimus had acknowledged to Paul that he had committed a theft, and had fled to escape being punished. [According to this view, the first verb of the protasis states the crime, viz., some theft or fraud, which the second describes euphemistically as a debt (Meyer, Bengel, De Wette, Ellicott). But it may be doubted still whether Paul would speak of an immorality per se like stealing (even as practised among slaves, see Tit_2:10) in so hesitating a tone ( åἰ ἠäßêçóá ); and whether, if Onesimus had sinned in that way, he would not have taken a nearer way to the heart of Philemon by a full, unextenuating admission of the wrong, if he knew that Onesimus had been thus guilty. It is this explanation of ἠäßêçóá , and this only, which has led some critics to form so unfavorable an opinion of the character of Onesimus, and to brand him as a thief or robber, in addition to the act of running away and as the motive for it. “He belonged to the dregs of society,” says Conybeare, “robbed his master, and confessed the sin to Paul.” “It is strange,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that Onesimus could have been so wicked in so pious a family, and should have left his master in so infamous a manner.”—H.]—[But it is possible that the verbs ( ἠäßêçóå , ὀöåßëåé ) may refer not to any crime properly so called which Onesimus had committed, but to his running away as viewed under two aspects: first as an act of injustice (if Philemon chose so to regard it), which the Apostle would have his friend wholly overlook for his sake; and (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. It may be urged for this view, first, that Paul otherwise makes no reference whatever to the escape, the special offence which he might be expected to exert his utmost skill to induce Philemon to overlook; second, that the questioning form ( åἰ ) is more appropriate to the running away than to a moral misdemeanor; and third, that as the loss of service would in the nature of the case be of much more account than any single act of dishonesty or peculation, the Apostle would naturally enough think of that as the chief pecuniary obstacle, and so engage to make all needed restitution. Schrader, Koch, Hemsen, and others deny utterly that the passage under remark affords any reason for impeaching the man’s character before the flight; and Lardner (Credibility of the Gospel History) says, sharply, that it is no better than calumny to charge a person with crime on such evidence.—H.]—Put that to my account [lit. reckon to me]. This may be said of the punishment which Onesimus deserved, as well as of the debt which he had to cancel. Calvin: “Tanto itaque major Paul: humanitas, qui pro maleficio quoque satisfacere paratus est.” The humanity, bonhomie, displayed here, and in the next verse, taking almost the form of a good-natured jest, gives us at the same time a deep insight into the affectionate soul of the greathearted Paul.—[For ἐëëüãá , see remarks on the text.]
Phm_1:19. [I Paul, where the addition of Ðáῦëïò strengthens the emphatic ἐãþ . A written pledge with such a name needed no other security.—H.]—With my own hand. If the Apostle dictated this letter to an amanuensis, as his custom was (comp. Rom_16:22), perhaps he took the pen at this moment from the writer, and with his own fettered hand wrote the promissory word: I will pay it (“lepide sane hœc profert”, Theoph.) [The first verb ( ἔãñáøá ) derives its immediate object from ôïῦôï ἐìïὶ ἐëëüãá , and ἀðïôßóù repeats the assurance that he will discharge the obligation ( óõããðáöÞ ) thus acknowledged by his own hand. Ἀðïôßóù belongs to the phraseology of pecuniary compacts, and is aptly chosen here.—H.] In the worst case he trusts he shall not be wanting in the means necessary for meeting the demand, but trusts also that his friend and brother Philemon will not allow it to come to such a result.—[Not to say ( ἱíá ìÞ ëÝãù = ne dicam), is an instance of the ó÷ῆìá ðáñáóéùðÞóåùò or prœteritio, by which a person says in reality what he profesess to pass over in silence. So ἵíá ìἡ ëÝãùìåí in 2Co_9:4. See Wilke, N. T. Rhetorik, p. 365. The ἵíá may depend on ἔãñáøá or a suppressed thought: “Accept this pledge, that I may not have occasion to insist upon my rights.”—H.]—That thou owest, &c. In all probability Philemon had been converted by the preaching of Paul, and had therefore indirectly to thank him for the life of his soul. Ðñïóïöåßëåéò (insuper debes), owest besides, i. e., in addition to that which I just now promised to pay thee, thou owest also thyself to me, thy proper and true I, as an heir of eternal life; comp. Luk_9:25. So far from its being the case, therefore, that Philemon would have anything to demand from Paul, if there should ever be a reckoning between him and the Apostle, Philemon would have to pay something to Paul; and from this incalculable debt of love and gratitude he could now obtain a discharge, if he granted to Onesimus the kindness desired for him. After this delicate hint (though any further encitement must be unnecessary) the Apostle adds something still to all that precedes.
Phm_1:20. Yea, brother, &c. Íáß is not to be taken in the sense of a request, i. e., I pray, but confirmatory. [It snatches, as it were, the answer from the mouth of the respondent before he can utter it, like our familiar “Yes, you will.”—H.]— Ἐãþ óïõ ὀíáßìçí , let me have joy [or profit] of thee, contains an allusion to the name of Onesimus. See Win., Gramm., § 68,2 (6th ed.). [So nearly all the later commentators, except De Wette.—H.] Ὀíßíáìáß ôéíïò means properly to derive advantage, profit from something, and also further, to be made glad by another, to have joy in him. This joy Philemon would impart to Paul if he fulfilled his wish expressed here in Phm_1:12-19. [If we admit an alliteration, therefore, between ὀíáßìçí and ὀíÞóéìïò , it may have an import like this: “Let the joy in this matter be mutual; and if you have profit from him whom I send back, let me have profit from you.”—H.]—In the Lord ( ἐí êõñßῳ ) is added in order to designate the joy which Paul would so gladly share as Christian in its nature, as a joy produced by the most intimate communion with Christ, although it relates to an earthly affair.—Refresh my heart, óðëÜã÷íá (comp. Phm_1:7; Phm_1:12). This refers not to Onesimus as an object of affection, but to Paul’s own loving heart, which has been so troubled on this subject, but will be revived if Philemon grants to him his request.
Phm_1:21. Having confidence in thy obedience, the final word a tutiori at the same time a delicate allusion to Phm_1:8-9, by which Philemon was to be reminded that he who pleads so earnestly for a proof of love, might also, in virtue of his apostolic authority, require obedience. [In this case, the ὑðáêïῇ , obedience, is viewed as that due to the Apostle himself; and so many others, as Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, understand the expression. But the term is not limited in the Greek, and the obedience, as some prefer, may be that due to God or Christ, since that which the Apostle had requested merely, the spirit of the gospel demanded as a duty. For ὑðáêïῇ in this absolute use, see Rom_6:16; Rom_16:19. So Michaelis, Heinrichs, Koch, and others. It was natural that the Apostle should glance at this higher ground of obligation in the nature of the gospel itself; but it would not agree so well with the tone of the letter to find him referring to his own personal wishes, or his official character, as authorizing him to claim obedience on that account.—H.]— Ἔãñáøá , have written (not wrote). See on ἔðåìøá , in Phm_1:11. [Will also do, i. e., more than ( ὑðὲñ ὅ ) as well as so much as I say.—H.]—As if fearful that Philemon might find the expression of an unreasonable distrust in the last remark.—The question, what Paul means by the words: êáὶ ὑðὲñ ὃ ëÝãù , he leaves to the understanding and the heart of his friend to answer. The thought of the manumission of Onesimus, though not absolutely demanded, could hardly fail to arise of itself in the mind of Philemon. [It is difficult, certainly, to resist the impression that Paul meant here that Philemon should liberate Onesimus, and allow him as his own master to return to Paul at Rome, or to use his liberty in any other way, as he pleased. Having asked everything short of that already, nothing but that seems to remain as the something ( ὑðὲñ ὅ ) which he has not asked. According to De Wette, the sense is: “Thou wilt not only pardon him and give him his freedom (as requested before in Phm_1:16), but also confer (other) favors.” So also Schrader: “Paul, instead of contenting himself with having Onesimus set free (which is presupposed after what is said in Phm_1:16), desires now that he should be dismissed with such other manifest tokens of good will, as it was right to expect from a man of Philemon’s noble spirit.” Rosenmüller: “Hœc verba ad libertatem servo reduci concedendam alludere non absimile est vero.” “This verse serves,” says Alford, “to put Philemon in mind of Paul’s apostolic authority, and hints delicately at the manumission of Onesimus, which he has not yet requested.” Webster and Wilkinson: “Perhaps the Apostle refers in Phm_1:21 to the possibility of Philemon giving Onesimus his freedom.” “In the words ἐéäὼò , ὃôé , ê . ô . ë .,” says Koch (p. 124), “the Apostle expresses his assurance that Philemon will not only cheerfully forgive the converted Onesimus his offence, and grant him his freedom, but will go further than this ( ὑðὲñ ὅ ), that is, anticipate any other wants, and supply them.” Dr. Bleek says: “Without doubt, what the Apostle principally means is that Philemon should grant to Onesimus his liberty; which he has nowhere definitely expressed as his desire in what precedes (not even in Phm_1:16). But as a freedman also Onesimus might after that stand in a still closer personal relation to him, and remain in his service, as was very often the case with freedmen, the liberti.” See his Vorlesungen, &c., p. 169.—On the contrary, some others find here merely a general compliment to Philemon’s character. The meaning is said to be that Paul had the fullest confidence in him as a Christian brother, who would do for Onesimus, who was also their brother, not only what the Apostle has asked for him, but more too, if he had asked it. The request is not specific in this case, and no one favor expected of him more than another. So Rothe (p. 57): “Mihi Paulus, cum hœc scribebat, non certam aliquam rem in mente habuisse, sed eo modo locutus videtur esse, quo in vita communi solemus loqui, cum alicui non dubisare nos, quin sit in not officiosissimus affirmare volumus.”—Meyer holds that there is no reference to the emancipation either in this verse or in Phm_1:13.—“It is doubtful,” says Ellicott, “whether this alludes to the manumission of Onesimus. The tenor of the Epistle would seem to imply something more than confidence on the part of the Apostle, that Philemon would show to the fugitive even greater kindness, and a more affectionate reception than he had pleaded for.”—We may say in conclusion, at all events, that whatever Philemon understood the Apostle to say or intimate, he was not slow to perform The fact of our having this Epistle in our hands at the present moment is good proof that he was not remiss in acting up to every intimation of what was to be expected from his friendship or his love of justice; for our own feelings assure us that he would never have allowed such a letter to see the light, if it was to exist only as a perpetual witness of his ingratitude and his severity.—H.]
Footnotes:
Phm_1:8.—[The participial structure, as in the Greek ( ἔ÷ùí ), is better than the verbal (E. V.). See the Notes.—“Convenient” (for ἀíῆêïí ) is obsolete in its earlier Latin sense. Tyndale and the Genevan version render that which becometh. It is one of those many words in the English Scriptures which have changed their meaning, concerning which Archbishop Whately remarks that “they are much more likely to perplex and bewilder the reader, than those entirely out of use. The latter only leave him in darkness; the others mislead him by a false light.” See his Annotations on Bacon’s Essays, No. 34.—H.]
Phm_1:9.—[Omit thee, as suggested in the Notes.—The exegesis (see infra) requires a semicolon or period after “beseech” ( &