1–3]

¹?????S, d?s??? ???st?? ??s?? ?a? ????e?? ? ?de?f??, F?????? t? ??ap?t? ?a? s??e??? ??? ²?a? ?pf?? t? ?de?f? ?a? ????pp? t? s??st?at??t? ??? ?a? t? ?at’ ????? s?? ?????s??? ³????? ??? ?

1–3. ‘Paul, now a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy a brother in the faith, unto Philemon our dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in the Gospel, and unto Apphia our sister, and unto Archippus our fellow-soldier in Christ, and to the Church which assembles in thy house. Grace and peace to you all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’

1. d?s???] The authoritative title of ‘Apostle’ is dropped, because throughout this letter St Paul desires to entreat rather than to command (ver. 8, 9); see the note on Phil. i. 1. In its place is substituted a designation which would touch his friend’s heart. How could Philemon resist an appeal which was penned within prison walls and by a manacled hand? For this characteristic reference to his ‘bonds’ see the note on ver. 13.

????e??] Timothy seems to have been with St Paul during a great part of his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), and could hardly have failed to make the acquaintance of Philemon. For the designation ? ?de?f?? applied to Timothy see the note on Col. i. 1.

F?????? ?.t.?.] On the persons here addressed, and the language in which they are described, see the introduction p. 369 sq.

s??e???] It would probably be during St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus that Philemon had laboured with him: see above p. 31 sq.

???] should probably be attached to ??ap?t? as well as to s??e???; comp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 1 Cor. x. 14, Phil. ii. 12.

2. t? ?de?f?] For this the received text has t? ??ap?t?. Internal probabilities can be urged in favour of both readings. On the one hand ??ap?t? might have been introduced for the sake of conformity to the preceding ??ap?t?; on the other ?de?f? might have been substituted for ??ap?t? on grounds of false delicacy. Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. Solesm. I. p. 154), who had the reading ??ap?t?, feels an apology necessary: ‘Istius temporis (i.e. of the present time) homines propemodum omnes in crimine vocandos esse existimant, modo si audierint nomen charitatis. Apostolus vero non sic sentiebat; sed contrario etc.’ I have preferred t? ?de?f?, because the preponderance of ancient authority is very decidedly in its favour.

s??st?at??t?] These spiritual campaigns, in which Archippus was his comrade, probably took place while St Paul was at Ephesus (A.D. 54–57). For the word s??st?at??t?? see Phil. ii. 25. The metaphor of st?ate?a, st?ate?es?a?, is common in St Paul.

t? ?at’ ????? ?.t.?.] probably at ColossÆ; see above p. 370 sq. For the meaning of the expression see the note on Col. iv. 15.

4, 5]

? ?a? e????? ?p? Te?? pat??? ??? ?a? ?????? ??s?? ???st??.

⁴???a??st? t? Te? ?? p??t?te, ?e?a? s?? p????e??? ?p? t?? p??se???? ??, ⁵?????? s?? t?? ???p?? ?

4–7. ‘I never cease to give thanks to my God for thy well-doing, and thou art ever mentioned in my prayers. For they tell me of thy love and faith—thy faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and thy love which thou showest towards all the saints; and it is my prayer that this active sympathy and charity, thus springing from thy faith, may abound more and more, as thou attainest to the perfect knowledge of every good thing bestowed upon us by God, looking unto and striving after Christ. For indeed it gave me great joy and comfort to hear of thy loving-kindness, and to learn how the hearts of God’s people had been cheered and refreshed by thy help, my dear brother’.

The Apostle’s thanksgiving and intercessory prayer (ver. 4)—the cause of his thanksgiving (ver. 5)—the purport of his prayer (ver. 6)—the joy and comfort which he has in Philemon’s good deeds (ver. 7)—this is the very simple order of topics in these verses. But meanwhile all established principles of arrangement are defied in the anxiety to give expression to the thought which is uppermost for the moment. The clause ?????? ?.t.?. is separated from e??a??st? ?.t.?., on which it depends, by the intervening clause ?e?a? s?? ?.t.?. which introduces another thought. It itself interposes between two clauses ?e?a? s?? ?.t.?. and ?p?? ? ???????a ?.t.?., which stand in the closest logical and grammatical connexion with each other. Its own component elements are dislocated and inverted in the struggle of the several ideas for immediate utterance. And lastly, in ?a??? ??? ?.t.?. there is again a recurrence to a topic which has occurred in an earlier part of the sentence (t?? ???p?? ... e?? p??ta? t??? ??????) but which has been dropped, before it was exhausted, owing to the pressure of another more importunate thought.

4. ???a??st?] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 2.

p??t?te] should probably be taken with e??a??st? (rather than with ?e?a? ?.t.?.), according to St Paul’s usual collocation in these opening thanksgivings: see the notes on Col. i. 3, Phil. i. 3.

?e?a? s?? ?.t.?.] ‘making mention of thee.’ For ?e?a? p??e?s?a? see the note on 1 Thess. i. 2. Here the ‘mention’ involves the idea of intercession on behalf of Philemon, and so introduces the ?p?? ?.t.?. of ver. 6. See the note there.

5. ??????] This information would probably come from Epaphras (Col. i. 7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesimus. The participle is connected more directly with e??a??st? than with the intervening words, and explains the grounds of the Apostle’s thanksgiving.

t?? ???p?? ?.t.?.] i.e. ‘the faith which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus Christ and the love which thou showest to all the saints.’ The logical order is violated, and the clauses are inverted in the second part of the sentence, thus producing an example of the figure called chiasm; see Gal. iv. 4, 5. This results here from the Apostle’s setting down the thoughts in the sequence in which they occur to him, without paying regard to symmetrical arrangement. The first and prominent thought is Philemon’s love. This suggests the mention of his faith, as the source from which it springs. This again requires a reference to the object of faith. And then at length comes the deferred sequel to the first thought—the range and comprehensiveness of his love. The transition from the object of faith to the object of love is more easy, because the love is represented as springing from the faith. Some copies transpose the order, reading t?? p?st?? ?a? t?? ???p??—an obvious emendation. Others would obviate the difficulty by giving to p?st?? the meaning ‘fidelity, stedfastness’: Winer § 1. p. 511 sq. Thus they are enabled to refer both words, p?st?? ?a? ???p??, equally to both the clauses which follow. But, though this is a legitimate sense of p?st?? in St Paul (see Galatians, p. 155), yet in immediate connexion with ?? ??e?? p??? t?? ?????? ??s???, it is hardly possible that the word can have any other than its proper theological meaning. See the opening of the contemporary epistle, Col. i. 4.

6]

? ?a? t?? p?st?? ?? ??e?? p??? t?? ?????? ??s??? ?a? e?? p??ta? t??? ??????, ⁶?p?? ? ???????a t?? p?st??? s?? ??e???? ????ta? ?? ?p????se? pa?t?? ??a??? t?? ?? ?

p??? ?.t.?.] The change of prepositions, p??? t?? ?????? ‘towards the Lord’ and e?? t??? ?????? ‘unto the saints’, deserves attention. It seems to arise from the instinctive desire to separate the two clauses, as they refer to different words in the preceding part of the sentence. Of the two prepositions the former (p??-?) signifies direction ‘forward to’, ‘towards’; the latter (??-?) arrival and so contact, ‘in-to’, ‘unto.’ Consequently either might be used in either connexion; and as a matter of fact e?? is much more common with p?st?? (p?ste?e??), as it is also with ???p?, p??? being quite exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 ? p?st?? ??? ? p??? t?? Te??; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4). But where a distinction is necessary, there is a propriety in using p??? of the faith which aspires towards Christ, and e?? of the love which is exerted upon men. Some good copies read e?? here in both clauses.

6. ?p?? ?.t.?.] to be taken with ?e?a? s?? p????e??? ?.t.?., as giving the aim and purport of St Paul’s prayer. Others connect it with h?? ??e??, as if it described the tendency of Philemon’s faith, ‘ita ut’; but, even if ?p?? could bear this meaning, such a connexion is altogether harsh and improbable.

? ???????a ?.t.?.] Of many interpretations which have been, or might be, given of these words, two seem to deserve consideration. (1) ‘Your friendly offices and sympathies, your kindly deeds of charity, which spring from your faith’: comp. Phil. i. 5 ?p? t? ???????? ??? e?? t? e?a???????, Heb. xiii. 16 t?? e?p??"?a? ?a? ???????a?, whence ???????a is used especially of ‘contributions, almsgiving’, Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13. (2) ‘Your communion with God through faith’: comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, and see also 2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Joh. i. 3, 6, 7. The parallel passages strongly support the former sense. Other interpretations proposed are, ‘The participation of others in your faith, through your example’, or ‘your communion with me, springing out of your faith’. This last, which is widely received, is suggested by ver. 17; e? ???????? e?, f?s?, ?at? t?? p?st??, writes Chrysostom, ?a? ?at? t? ???a ?fe??e?? ??????e?? (comp. Tit. i. 3 ?at? ?????? p?st??): but it seems quite out of place in this context.

??e????] ‘effective’. The Latin translators must have read ??a????, for they render the word evidens or manifesta. Jerome (ad loc.) speaks of evidens as the reading of the Latin, and efficax of the Greek text. The converse error appears in the MSS of Clem. Hom. xvii. 5, ?????e?a for ?????e?a.

?? ?p????se? ?.t.?.] ‘in the perfect knowledge of every good thing’. This ?p????s??, involving as it does the complete appropriation of all truth and the unreserved identification with God’s will, is the goal and crown of the believer’s course. The Apostle does not say ‘in the possession’ or ‘in the performance’ but ‘in the knowledge of every good thing’; for, in this higher sense of knowledge, to know is both to possess and to perform. In all the epistles of the Roman captivity St Paul’s prayer for his correspondents culminates in this word ?p????s??: see the note on Col. i. 9. This ?p????s?? is the result and the reward of faith manifesting itself in deeds of love, ?p?? ? ???????a t?? p?ste?? ?.t.?. For the sequence comp. Ephes. iv. 13 e?? t?? ???t?ta t?? p?ste?? ?a? t?? ?p????se?? ?.t.?., Tit. i. 1 ?at? p?st?? ???e?t?? Te?? ?a? ?p????s?? ????e?a? t?? ?at’ e?s?e?a?. The ?p????s?? therefore which the Apostle contemplates is Philemon’s own. There is no reference to the force of his example on others, as it is sometimes interpreted, ‘in their recognition of every good thing which is wrought in you’.

7]

? ??? e?? ???st??. ⁷?a??? ??? p????? ?s??? ?a? pa?????s?? ?p? t? ???p? s??, ?t? t? sp?????a t?? ????? ??ap?pa?ta? d?? s??, ?de?f?. ?

t?? ?? ???] ‘which is in us Christians’, ‘which is placed within our reach by the Gospel’; i.e. the whole range of spiritual blessings, the complete cycle of Christian truth. If the reading t?? ?? ??? be adopted, the reference will be restricted to the brotherhood at ColossÆ, but the meaning must be substantially the same. Though ??? has somewhat better support, we seem to be justified in preferring ??? as being much more expressive. In such cases the MSS are of no great authority; and in the present instance scribes would be strongly tempted to alter ??? into ??? from a misapprehension of the sense, and a wish to apply the words to Philemon and his household. A similar misapprehension doubtless led in some copies to the omission of t??, which seemed to be superfluous but is really required for the sense.

e?? ???st??] ‘unto Christ’, i.e. leading to Him as the goal. The words should be connected not with t?? ?? ???, but with the main statement of the sentence ??e???? ????ta? ?.t.?.

7. ?a??? ???] This sentence again must not be connected with the words immediately preceding. It gives the motive of the Apostle’s thanksgiving mentioned in ver. 4. This thanksgiving was the outpouring of gratitude for the joy and comfort that he had received in his bonds, from the report of Philemon’s generous charity. The connexion therefore is e??a??st? t? Te? ?? ...... ?????? s?? t?? ???p?? ... ?a??? ??? p????? ?s??? ?.t.?. For ?a??? the received text (Steph. but not Elz.) reads ?????, which is taken to mean ‘thankfulness’ (1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. i. 3); but this reading is absolutely condemned by the paucity of ancient authority.

t? sp?????a] ‘the heart, the spirits’. On t? sp?????a, the nobler viscera, regarded as the seat of the emotions, see the note on Phil. i. 8. Here the prominent idea is that of terror, grief, despondency, etc.

??ap?pa?ta?] ‘have been relieved, refreshed’, comp. ver. 20. The compound ??ap??es?a? expresses a temporary relief, as the simple pa?es?a? expresses a final cessation: Plut. Vit. Lucull. 5 p????? a???? ??a??????t?? t?? ?????dat???? p??e?? ?f? ??????

8, 9]

? ⁸ ??? p????? ?? ???st? pa???s?a? ???? ?p?t?sse?? s?? t? ??????, ⁹ d?? t?? a??p?? ????? pa?a?a??, t????t?? ?? ?? ?a???? p?es?t?? ???? d? ?a? d?s??? ?

a?t?? ?? pepa?s?a? ???’ ??apepa?s?a?. Thus it implies ‘relaxation, refreshment,’ as a preparation for the renewal of labour or suffering. It is an Ignatian as well as a Pauline word; Ephes. 2, Smyrn. 9, 10, 12, Trall. 12, Magn. 15, Rom. 10.

?de?f?] For the appeal suggested by the emphatic position of the word, comp. Gal. vi. 18. See also the note on ver. 20 below.

8–17. ‘Encouraged by these tidings of thy loving spirit, I prefer to entreat, where I might command. My office gives me authority to dictate thy duty in plain language, but love bids me plead as a suitor. Have I not indeed a right to command—I Paul whom Christ Jesus long ago commissioned as His ambassador, and whom now He has exalted to the rank of His prisoner? But I entreat thee. I have a favour to ask for a son of my own—one doubly dear to me, because I became his father amidst the sorrows of my bonds. I speak of Onesimus, who in times past was found wholly untrue to his name, who was then far from useful to thee, but now is useful to thee—yea, and to myself also. Him I send back to thee, and I entreat thee to take him into thy favour, for in giving him I am giving my own heart. Indeed I would gladly have detained him with me, that he might minister to me on thy behalf, in these bonds with which the Gospel has invested me. But I had scruples. I did not wish to do anything without thy direct consent; for then it might have seemed (though it were only seeming) as if thy kindly offices had been rendered by compulsion and not of free will. So I have sent him back. Indeed it may have been God’s providential design, that he was parted from thee for a season, only that thou mightest regain him for ever; that he left thee as a slave, only that he might return to thee a beloved brother. This indeed he is to me most of all; and, if to me, must he not be so much more to thee, both in worldly things and in spiritual? If therefore thou regardest me as a friend and companion, take him to thee, as if he were myself’.

8. ???] i.e. ‘Seeing that I have these proofs of thy love, I prefer to entreat, where I might command’.

pa???s?a?] ‘confidence’, literally ‘freedom’ or ‘privilege of speech’; see the notes on Col. ii. 15, Ephes. iii. 12. It was his Apostolic authority which gave him this right to command in plain language. Hence the addition ?? ???st?.

t? ??????] ‘what is fitting’: see the note on Col. iii. 18.

9. d?? t?? ???p??] ‘for love’s sake’, i.e. ‘having respect to the claims of love’. It is not Philemon’s love (vv. 5, 7,) nor St Paul’s own love, but love absolutely, love regarded as a principle which demands a deferential respect.

t????t?? ?? ?.t.?.] ‘being such an one as Paul an ambassador, and now also a prisoner, of Christ Jesus’. Several questions of more or less difficulty arise on these words. (1) Is t????t?? ?? to be connected with or separated from ?? ?a???? ?.t.?.? If separated, t????t?? ?? will mean ‘though as an Apostle I am armed with such authority’, and ?? ?a???? ?.t.?. will describe his condescension to entreaty, ‘yet as simply Paul, etc.’ But the other construction is much more probable for the following reasons., (a) t????t?? ?? so used, implying, as it would, something of a personal boast, seems unlike St Paul’s usual mode of speaking. Several interpreters indeed, taking t????t?? ?? separately, refer it to ver. 8, ‘seeing that this is my disposition’, i.e. ‘seeing that I desire to entreat’; but t????t?? suggests more than an accidental impulse. (b) As t????t?? and ?? are correlative words, it is more natural to connect them together; comp. Plato Symp. 181 E p??sa?a????e?? t? t????t?? ?spe? ?a? ?.t.?., Alexis (Meineke Fragm. Com. III. p. 399) t????t? t? ??? ?st?? ?spe? ?? ????. Such passages are an answer to the objection that t????t?? would require some stronger word than ??, such as ????, ??, or ?ste. Even after such expressions as ? ??t??, t? ??t?, instances occur of ?? (?spe?): see Lobeck Phryn. p. 427, Stallbaum on Plat. PhÆd. 86 A. Indeed it may be questioned whether any word but ?? would give exactly St Paul’s meaning here. (c) All the Greek commentators without a single exception connect the words t????t?? ?? ?? ?a???? together. (2) Assuming that the words t????t?? ?? ?? ?.t.?. are taken together, should they be connected with the preceding or the following sentence? On the whole the passage is more forcible, if they are linked to the preceding words. In this case the resumptive pa?a?a?? (ver. 10) begins a new sentence, which introduces a fresh subject. The Apostle has before described the character of his appeal; he now speaks of its object. (3) In either connexion, what is the point of the words t????t?? ?? ?? ?a???? ?.t.?.? Do they lay down the grounds of his entreaty, or do they enforce his right to command? If the view of p?es?t?? adopted below be correct, the latter must be the true interpretation; but even though p?es?t?? be taken in its ordinary sense, this will still remain the more probable alternative; for, while p?es?t?? and d?s??? would suit either entreaty or command, the addition ???st?? ??s?? suggests an appeal to authority.

?? ?a????] The mention of his personal name involves an assertion of authority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp. Gal. v. 2, with the note there. Theodoret writes, ? ?a???? ????sa? t?? ????????? ????e? t?? ?????a, ??? ?a? ?a??tt?? t?? ?e?????, t?? ??????? t? s?e???, ?.t.?.

p?es?t??] Comparing a passage in the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi. 20 ?p?? ?? p?ese?? ?? ???se?, it had occurred to me that we should read p?ese?t?? here, before I was aware that this conjecture had been anticipated by others, e.g. by Bentley (Crit. Sacr. p. 93) and by Benson (Paraphrase etc. on Six Epistles of St Paul p. 357). It has since been suggested independently in Linwood’s Observ. quÆd. in nonnulla N. T. loca 1865, and probably others have entertained the same thought. Still believing that St Paul here speaks of himself as an ‘ambassador’, I now question whether any change is necessary. There is reason for thinking that in the common dialect p?es?t?? may have been written indifferently for p?ese?t?? in St Paul’s time; and if so, the form here may be due, not to some comparatively late scribe, but to the original autograph itself or to an immediate transcript. In 1 Macc. xiv. 21 the Sinaitic MS has ?? p?es?te??? (a corruption of ?? p?es?ta? ??, for the common reading is ?? p?ese?t?? ??); in xiv. 22 it reads p?es?ta? ???da???; but in xiii. 21 p?ese?ta?: though in all passages alike the meaning is ‘ambassadors’. Again the Alexandrian MS has p?es?ta? in xiii. 21, but p?ese?ta? in xiv. 22, and ?? p?ese?te ?? (i.e. ?? p?ese?t?? ??) in xiv. 21. In 2 Macc. xi. 34 this same MS has p?es?te, and the reading of the common texts of the LXX (even Tischendorf and Fritzsche) there is p?es?ta?. Grimm treats it as meaning ‘ambassadors’, without even noticing the form. Other MSS are also mentioned in Holmes and Parsons which have the form p?es?t?? in 1 Macc. xiii. 21. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 31 again the word for ‘ambassador’ is written thus in the Vatican MS, though the e is added above the line; and here too several MSS in Holmes and Parsons agree in reading p?es?ta??. Thus it is plain that, in the age of our earliest extant MSS at all events, the scribes used both forms indifferently in this sense. So also Eusebius on Isaiah xviii. 2 writes ? de ????a? p?es?ta? ???d??e? e?p??, (? ?p?st????? ?? ?a??ss? p?es?ta?. Again in Ignat. Smyrn. 11 ?e?p?es?t?? is the form in all the MSS of either recension, though the meaning is plainly ‘an ambassador of God.’ So too in Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 6 the MSS read ? t?? ????e?a? p?es?t??, which even Schwegler and Dressel tacitly retain. See also Appian Samn. 7, where p?ese?t?? is due to the later editors, and Acta ThomÆ § 10, where there is a v. l. p?es?t?? in at least one MS. And probably examples of this substitution might be largely multiplied. The main reason for adopting this reading is the parallel passage, which suggests it very strongly. The difficulty which many find in St Paul’s describing himself as an old man is not serious. On any showing he must have been verging on sixty at this time, and may have been some years older. A life of unintermittent toil and suffering, such as he had lived, would bring a premature decay; and looking back on a long eventful life, he would naturally so think and speak of himself. Thus Roger Bacon (Opus Majus I 10, p. 15, ed. Jebb; Opus Tertium p. 63, ed. Brewer) writes ‘me senem’, ‘nos senes’, in 1267, though he appears to have been not more than fifty-two or fifty-three at the time and lived at least a quarter of a century after (see E. Charles Roger Bacon, Sa Vie etc. pp. 4 sq., 40). So too Scott in his fifty-fifth year speaks of himself as ‘an old grey man’ and ‘aged’ (Lockhart’s Life VIII. pp. 327, 357). It is more difficult to understand how St Paul should make his age a ground of appeal to Philemon who, if Archippus was his son, cannot have been much younger than himself. The commentator Hilary says that the Apostle appeals to his friend ‘quasi coÆvum Ætatis’, but this idea is foreign to the context. The comment of Theophylact is, t????t?? ??, f?s?, p?ese?t??, ?a? ??t?? ????? ????es?a?, ?? e???? ?a???? p?es?t??, t??t?st? ?a? ?p? t?? d?das?a????? ????at?? ?a? t?? ?????? t? a?d?s??? ????ta ?.t.?. Does he mean to include both meanings in p?es?t??? Or is he accidentally borrowing the term ‘ambassador’ from some earlier commentator without seeing its bearing?

?a? d?s???] Another title to respect. The mention of his bonds might suggest either an appeal for commiseration or a claim of authority: see the note on ver. 13. Here the addition of ???st?? ??s?? invests it with the character of an official title, and so gives prominence to the latter idea. To his old office of ‘ambassador’ Christ has added the new title of ‘prisoner’. The genitive ???st?? ??s?? belongs to p?es?t?? as well as to d?s???, and in both cases describes the person who confers the office or rank.

10]

? ???st?? ??s??. ¹⁰pa?a?a?? se pe?? t?? ??? t?????, ?

10. pa?a?a?? se ?.t.?.] St Chrysostom remarks on the Apostle’s withholding the name, until he has favourably disposed Philemon both to the request and to the object of it; t?s??t??? d? p????a?a? a?t?? t?? ?????, ??d? e????? ???a?e t? ???a, ???? t?sa?t?? p???s?e??? a?t?s?? ??a???eta? ?.t.?. The whole passage deserves to be read.

11]

? ?? [???] ??????sa ?? t??? des???, ???s???, ¹¹t?? p?t? ?

?? ??????sa ?.t.?.] So too 1 Cor. iv. 15. In Gal. iv. 19 he speaks of himself as suffering a mother’s pangs for his children in the faith. Comp. Phil. Leg. ad Cai. 8 (II. p. 554) ??? ?st? t?? ???????? ????? Ga???? ????? a?t?? ? ??? ?tt?? t?? ?????? ?e??????a.

?? t??? des???] He was doubly dear to the Apostle, as being the child of his sorrows.

???s???] for ???s??? by attraction, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 ?? ??? ?pe?ef???sa ??a????, ??t?? ?st??. Henceforward he will be true to his name, no longer ?????t??, but ???s???: comp. Ruth i. 20 ‘Call me not Naomi (pleasant) but call me Mara (bitter) etc.’ The word ????st?? is a synonyme for ?????t??, Demosth. Phil. iii. § 40 (p. 121) ?pa?ta ta?ta ????sta ?p?a?ta ?????ta ?.t.?.: comp. Pseudophocyl. 37 (34) ???st?? ???s??? ?st?, f???? d’ ?d???? ?????t??. The significance of names was a matter of special importance among the ancients. Hence they were careful in the inauguration of any great work that only those who had bona nomina, prospera nomina, fausta nomina, should take part: Cic. de Div. i. 45, Plin. N.H. xxviii. 2. 5, Tac. Hist. iv. 53. On the value attached to names by the ancients, and more especially by the Hebrews, see Farrar Chapters on Language p. 267 sq., where a large number of instances are collected. Here however there is nothing more than an affectionate play on a name, such as might occur to any one at any time: comp. Euseb. H.E. v. 24 ? )?????a??? fe?????? t?? ?? t? p??s??????, a?t? te t? t??p? e?????p????.

12]

? s?? ????st??, ???? d? [?a?] s?? ?a? ??? e????st??? ?? ???pe?? s??. ¹²a?t??, t??t?st?? t? ?? sp?????a, ?

11. ????st??, e????st??] Comp. Plat. Resp. iii. p. 411 A ???s??? ?? ????st?? ... ?p???se?. Of these words, ????st?? is found only here, e????st?? occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the New Testament. Both appear in the LXX. In Matt. xxv. 30 a slave is described as ???e???. For the mode of expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 ? ?? ?s?f?? ???’ ?? s?f??. Some have discovered in these words a reference to ???st??, as commonly pronounced ???st??; comp. Theoph. ad Autol. i. 12 t? ???st?? ?d? ?a? e????st?? ?.t.?. and see Philippians p. 16 note. Any such allusion however, even if it should not involve an anachronism, is far too recondite to be probable here. The play on words is exhausted in the reference to ???s???.

?a? ???] An after-thought; comp. Phil. ii. 27 ????se? a?t??, ??? a?t?? d? ???? ???? ?a? ??. This accounts for the exceptional order, where according to common Greek usage the first person would naturally precede the second.

???pe?a] ‘I send back’, the epistolary aorist used for the present: see the notes on Phil. ii. 25, 28. So too ???a?a, ver. 19, 21 (see the note). It is clear both from the context here, and from Col. iv. 7–9, that Onesimus accompanied the letter.

12. a?t?? ?.t.?.] The reading of the received text is s? d? a?t??, t??t?st? t? ?? sp?????a, p??s?a??. The words thus supplied doubtless give the right construction, but must be rejected as deficient in authority. The accusative is suspended; the sentence changes its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed till ver. 17 p??s?a?? a?t?? ?? ??, the grammar having been meanwhile dislocated. For the emphatic position of a?t?? comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes. i. 22.

t? ?? sp?????a] ‘my very heart’, a mode of speech common in all languages. For the meaning of sp?????a see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp. Test. Patr. Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both which passages Christ is called t? sp??????? of God, and in the first it is said ??ete e?sp?a????a? ... ??a ?a? ? ?????? e?? ??? sp?a????s???? ????s? ???? ?t? ?a??e ?p’ ?s??t?? ?e??? ? Te?? ?p?st???e? t? sp??????? a?t?? ?p? t?? ??? ?.t.?. Otherwise t? ?? sp?????a has been interpreted ‘my son’ (comp. ver. 10 ?? ??????sa ?.t.?.), and it is so rendered here in the Peshito. For this sense of sp?????a comp. Artemid. Oneir. i. 44 ?? pa?de? sp?????a ?????ta?, ib. v. 57 t? d? sp?????a [?s?a??e] t?? pa?da, ??t? ??? ?a? t?? pa?da ?a?e?? ???? ?st?. With this meaning it is used not less of the father than of the mother; e.g. Philo de Joseph. 5 (II. p. 45) ???s?? e????a ?a? ????? ?????a? ?e?sa????? ... t?? ??? sp???????, Basil. Op. III. p. 501 ? ?? p??te??eta? t? sp?????a t??? t?? t??f??. The Latin viscera occurs still more frequently in this sense, as the passages quoted in Wetstein and Suicer show. For this latter interpretation there is much to be said. But it adds nothing to the previous ?? ??????sa ?.t.?., and (what is a more serious objection) it is wholly unsupported by St Paul’s usage elsewhere, which connects sp?????a with a different class of ideas: see e.g. vv. 7, 20.

13, 14]

? ¹³?? ??? ??????? p??? ?a?t?? ?at?e?e??, ??a ?p?? s?? ?? d?a???? ?? t??? des??? t?? e?a??e????? ¹⁴????? ?

13. ???????] ‘I was of a mind’, distinguished from ?????sa, which follows, in two respects; (1) While ???es?a? involves the idea of ‘purpose, deliberation, desire, mind’, ???e?? denotes simply ‘will’; Epictet. i. 12. 13 ????a? ???fe??, ?? ????, t? ?????? ???a; ?? ???? d?d?s??a? ???e?? ?? de? ???fes?a?, iii. 24, 54 t??t?? ???e ????, ?a? ?? ???e? ??e?. (2) The change of tenses is significant. The imperfect implies a tentative, inchoate process; while the aorist describes a definite and complete act. The will stepped in and put an end to the inclinations of the mind. Indeed the imperfect of this and similar verbs are not infrequently used where the wish is stopped at the outset by some antecedent consideration which renders it impossible, and thus practically it is not entertained at all: e.g. Arist. Ran. 866 ??????? ?? ??? ????e?? ????de, Antiph. de Herod. cÆd. I (p. 129) ??????? ?? ... ??? d? ?.t.?.; IsÆus de Arist. hÆr. I (p. 79) ??????? ?? ... ??? d? ??? ?? ?s?? ?.t.?., Æsch. c. Ctes. 2 (p. 53) ??????? ?? ???, ? )????a??? ... ?pe?d? d? p??ta ?.t.?., Lucian Abd. I ??????? ?? ??? t?? ?at????? ?.t.?. ... ???? d? ?.t.?.; see KÜhner § 392 b (II. p. 177). So Acts xxv. 22 ??????? ?a? a?t?? t?? ?????p?? ????sa?, not ‘I should wish’ (as Winer § xli. p. 353) but ‘I could have wished’, i.e. ‘if it had not been too much to ask’. Similarly ??e??? Gal. iv. 20, ?????? Rom. ix. 3. See Revision of the English New Testament p. 96. So here a not improbable meaning would be not ‘I was desirous’, but ‘I could have desired’.

?at??e??] ‘to detain’ or ‘retain’, opposed to the following ?p????, ver. 15.

?p?? s?? ?.t.?.] Comp. Phil. ii. 30 ??a ??ap????s? t? ??? ?st???a t?? p??? ? ?e?t?????a?, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 t? ??te??? ?st???a a?t?? ??ep????sa?. See the note on Col. i. 7. With a delicate tact the Apostle assumes that Philemon would have wished to perform these friendly offices in person, if it had been possible.

?? t??? des???] An indirect appeal to his compassion: see vv. 1, 9, 10. In this instance however (as in ver. 9) the appeal assumes a tone of authority, by reference to the occasion of his bonds. For the genitive t?? e?a??e????, describing the origin, comp. Col. i. 23 t?? ??p?d?? t?? e?a??e????. They were not shackles which self had riveted, but a chain with which Christ had invested him. Thus they were as a badge of office or a decoration of honour. In this respect, as in others, the language of St Paul is echoed in the epistles of St Ignatius. Here too entreaty and triumph alternate; the saint’s bonds are at once a ground for appeal and a theme of thanksgiving: Trall. 12 pa?a?a?e? ??? t? des? ??, Philad. 7 ??t?? d? ?? ?? ? d?dea?, Ephes. 11 ?? ? (i.e. ???st? ??s??) t? des? pe??f???, t??? p?e?at????? a??a??ta?, Smyrn. 10 ??t?????? ??? t? p?e?? ?? ?a? t? des? ??, Magn. 1 ?? ??? pe??f??? des??? ?d? t?? ?????s?a?; see also Ephes. 1, 3, 21, Magn. 12, Trall. 1, 5, 10, Smyrn. 4, 11, Polyc. 2, Rom. 1, 4, 5, Philad. 5.

14. ????? ?.t.?.] ‘without thy approval, consent’; Polyb. ii. 21. 1, 3, ????? t?? sfet??a? ?????, ????? t?? a?t?? ?????: similarly ??e? [t??] ?????, e.g. Polyb. xxi. 8. 7, Ign. Polyc. 4.

15, 16]

? d? t?? s?? ????? ??d?? ?????sa p???sa?, ??a ? ?? ?at? ??????? t? ??a??? s?? ?, ???? ?at? ????s???? ¹⁵t??a ??? d?? t??t? ?????s?? p??? ??a?, ??a a?????? a?t?? ?p????, ¹⁶????t? ?? d?????, ???? ?p?? d?????, ?

?? ?at? ???????] St Paul does not say ?at? ??????? but ?? ?at? ???????. He will not suppose that it would really be by constraint; but it must not even wear the appearance (??) of being so: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 ?? ?? ?f??s???. See Plin. Ep. ix. 21 ‘Vereor ne videar non rogare sed cogere’; where, as here, the writer is asking his correspondent to forgive a domestic who has offended.

t? ??a??? s??] ‘the benefit arising from thee’, i.e. ‘the good which I should get from the continued presence of Onesimus, and which would be owing to thee’.

?at? ????s???] as in Num. xv. 3. The form ?a?’ ????s?a? is perhaps more classical: Thuc. viii. 27 ?a?’ ????s?a? ? p??? ?e ??????. The word understood in the one case appears to be t??p?? (Porphyr. de Abst. i. 9 ?a?’ ????s??? t??p??, comp. Eur. Med. 751 ????s?? t??p?); in the other, ????? (so ????s??, ?? ????s?a?, etc.): comp. Lobeck Phryn. p. 4.

15. t??a ??? ?.t.?.] The ??? explains an additional motive which guided the Apostle’s decision: ‘I did not dare to detain him, however much I desired it. I might have defeated the purpose for which God in His good providence allowed him to leave thee’.

?????s??] ‘He does not say’, writes Chrysostom, ‘For this cause he fled, but For this cause he was parted: for he would appease Philemon by a more euphemistic phrase. And again he does not say he parted himself, but he was parted: since the design was not Onesimus’ own to depart for this or that reason: just as Joseph also, when excusing his brethren, says (Gen. xlv. 5) God did send me hither.’

p??? ??a?] ‘for an hour’, ‘for a short season’: 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5. ‘It was only a brief moment after all’, the Apostle would say, ‘compared with the magnitude of the work wrought in it. He departed a reprobate; he returns a saved man. He departed for a few months; he returns to be with you for all time and for eternity’. The sense of a?????? must not be arbitrarily limited. Since he left, Onesimus had obtained eternal life, and eternal life involves eternal interchange of friendship. His services to his old master were no longer barred by the gates of death.

?p????] In this connexion ?p??e?? may bear either of two senses: (1) ‘to have back, to have in return’: or (2) ‘to have to the full, to have wholly’, as in Phil. iv. 18 ?p??? p??ta (see the note). In other words the prominent idea in the word may be either restitution, or completeness. The former is the more probable sense here, as suggested by ?at??e?? in verse 13 and by ?????s?? in this verse.

16. ?? d?????] St Paul does not say d????? but ?? d?????. It was a matter of indifference whether he were outwardly d????? or outwardly ??e??e???, since both are one in Christ (Col. iii. 11). But though he might still remain a slave, he could no longer be as a slave. A change had been wrought in him, independently of his possible manumission: in Christ he had become a brother. It should be noticed also that the negative is not ???t?, but ????t?. The negation is thus wholly independent of ??a ... ?p????. It describes not the possible view of Philemon, but the actual state of Onesimus. The ‘no more as a slave’ is an absolute fact, whether Philemon chooses to recognise it or not.

17–19]

? ?de?f?? ??ap?t??, ???sta ???, p?s? d? ????? s?? ?a? ?? sa??? ?a? ?? ?????. ¹⁷e? ??? e ??e?? ????????, p??s?a?? a?t?? ?? ??? ¹⁸e? d? t? ?d???s?? se ? ?fe??e?, t??t? ??? ?????a. ¹⁹??? ?a???? ???a?a ?

?de?f?? ??ap?t??] ?a? t? ????? ?e???da?a? ?a? t? p???t?t?, writes Chrysostom, apostrophizing Philemon.

p?s? d? ????? ?.t.?.] Having first said ‘most of all to me’, he goes a step further, ‘more than most of all to thee’.

?a? ?? sa??? ?.t.?.] ‘In both spheres alike, in the affairs of this world and in the affairs of the higher life.’ In the former, as Meyer pointedly says, Philemon had the brother for a slave; in the latter he had the slave for a brother: comp. Ign. Trall. 12 ?at? p??ta e ???pa?sa? sa??? te ?a? p?e?at?.

17. ??e?? ????????] ‘thou holdest me to be a comrade, an intimate friend’. For this use of ??e?? comp. Luke xiv. 18 ??e e pa??t?????, Phil. ii. 29 t??? t????t??? ??t???? ??ete. Those are ????????, who have common interests, common feelings, common work.

18–22. ‘But if he has done thee any injury, or if he stands in thy debt, set it down to my account. Here is my signature—Paul—in my own handwriting. Accept this as my bond. I will repay thee. For I will not insist, as I might, that thou art indebted to me for much more than this; that thou owest to me thine own self. Yes, dear brother, let me receive from my son in the faith such a return as a father has a right to expect. Cheer and refresh my spirits in Christ. I have full confidence in thy compliance, as I write this; for I know that thou wilt do even more than I ask. At the same time also prepare to receive me on a visit; for I hope that through your prayers I shall be set free and given to you once more’.

18. e? d? t?] The case is stated hypothetically but the words doubtless describe the actual offence of Onesimus. He had done his master some injury, probably had robbed him; and he had fled to escape punishment. See the introduction.

? ?fe??e?] defining the offence which has been indicated in ?d???se?. But still the Apostle refrains from using the plain word ???e?e?. He would spare the penitent slave, and avoid irritating the injured master.

?????a] ‘reckon it in’, ‘set it down’. This form must be adopted instead of ?????e? which stands in the received text, as the great preponderance of authority shows. On the other hand we have ?????e?ta? Rom. v. 13 (though with a v. l. ??????ta?), ??????????? Boeckh C. I. no. 1732 A, and ?????e?s?a? Edict. Diocl. in Corp. Inscr. Lat. III. p. 836. But the word is so rare in any form, that these occurrences of ?????e?? afford no ground for excluding ??????? as impossible. The two forms might be employed side by side, just as we find ??e?? and ??ee??, ????? and ???e??, ???t?? and ???te?? (Matt. xv. 23), and the like; see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 112 (II. p. 53). The word ?????, as used by Lucian Lexiph. 15 (where it is a desiderative ‘to be eager to speak’, like f????, ?a?at??, fa?a???, etc.), has nothing to do with the use of ??????? here.

19. ??? ?a????] The introduction of his own name gives it the character of a formal and binding signature: comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2 Thess. iii. 17. A signature to a deed in ancient or mediÆval times would commonly take this form ??? ? de??a,—‘I so and so’; where we should omit the marks of the first person.

???a?a] An epistolary or documentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too ???pe?a ver. 11. See the note on ???a?a Gal. vi. 11. The aorist is the tense commonly used in signatures; e.g. ?p???a?a to the conciliar decrees.

This incidental mention of his autograph, occurring where it does, shows that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand. This procedure is quite exceptional, just as the purport of the letter is exceptional. In all other cases he appears to have employed an amanuensis, only adding a few words in his own handwriting at the close: see the note on Gal. l.c.

20]

? t? ?? ?e???, ??? ?p?t?s?? ??a ? ???? s??, ?t? ?a? sea?t?? ?? p??s?f???e??. ²⁰?a?, ?de?f?, ??? s?? ??a??? ?? ?????? ???pa?s?? ?? t? sp?????a ?? ???st?. ?

??a ? ????] ‘not to say’, as 2 Cor. ix. 4. There is a suppressed thought, ‘though indeed you cannot fairly claim repayment’, ‘though indeed you owe me (?fe??e??) as much as this’, on which the ??a ? ?.t.?. is dependent. Hence p??s?f???e?? ‘owest besides’; for this is the common meaning of the word.

sea?t??] St Paul was his spiritual father, who had begotten him in the faith, and to whom therefore he owed his being; comp. Plato Legg. iv. p. 717 B ?? ???? ?f?????ta ?p?t??e?? t? p??t? te ?a? ???sta ?fe???ata ... ????e?? d?, ? ???t?ta? ?a? ??e?, p??ta e??a? t?? ?e???s??t?? ... ????e??? ?p? t?? ??s?a?, de?te?a t? t?? s?at??, t??ta t? t?? ?????, ?p?t????ta da?e?sata ?.t.?.

20. ?a?] introducing an affectionate appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 ?a? ???t? ?a? s?.

?de?f?] It is the entreaty of a brother to a brother on behalf of a brother (ver. 16). For the pathetic appeal involved in the word see the notes on Gal. iii. 15, vi. 1, 18; and comp. ver. 7.

???] ‘I seem to be entreating for Onesimus; but I am pleading for myself: the favour will be done to me’; comp. ver. 17 p??s?a?? a?t?? ?? ??. The emphatic ??? identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own.

s?? ??a???] ‘may I have satisfaction, find comfort in thee’, i.e. ‘may I receive such a return from thee, as a father has a right to expect from his child.’ The common use of the word ??a??? would suggest the thought of filial offices; e.g. Arist. Thesm. 469 ??t?? ??a??? t?? t?????, Lucian Philops. 27 p??? t?? ???? t?? ?????, ??t?? ??a???, ?f?, t??t??, Ps-Ignat. Hero 6 ??a??? s??, pa?d??? p??e????, Synes. Ep. 44 ??t? t?? ?e??? f???s?f?a? ??a??? ?a? p??s?t? t?? pa?d??? t?? ?a?t??, with other passages quoted in Wetstein. So too for ??as?a?, ???s??, compare Eur. Med. 1025 sq. p??? sf?? ??as?a? ... ????? ??’ ???, ? t???’, ??e??e????, Alc. 333 ???? d? pa?d??? t?? d’ ???s?? )e???a? ?e??? ?e??s?a?, Philem. Inc. 64 (IV. p. 55 Meineke) ?te??? e, ?te?, ?a? ?????t? s?? t????? ???s??, ?spe? ?a? d??a??? ?st? s??, Ecclus. xxx. 2 ? pa?de??? t?? ???? a?t?? ???seta? ?p’ a?t? (the only passage in the LXX where the word occurs). The prayer ??a??? s??, ??a??? ???, etc., occurs several times in Ignatius; Polyc. 1, 6, Magn. 2, 12, Ephes. 2. It is not unlikely that ??a??? here involves a reference to the name Onesimus; see the note on ver. 11. The Hebrew fondness for playing on names makes such an allusion at least possible.

21, 22]

? ²¹?ep????? t? ?pa??? s?? ???a?? s??, e?d?? ?t? ?a? ?p?? ? ???? p???se??. ²²?a d? ?a? ?t??a?? ?? ?e??a?? ??p??? ??? ?t? d?? t?? p??se???? ??? ?a??s??s?a? ???. ?

?? ?????] As he had begotten Philemon ?? ????? (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 15, 17), so it was ?? ????? that he looked for the recompense of filial offices.

???pa?s?? ?.t.?.] See the note ver. 7.

21. ???a?a] ‘I write’: see the note on ver. 19.

?p?? ? ???? ?.t.?.] What was the thought upmost in the Apostle’s mind when he penned these words? Did he contemplate the manumission of Onesimus? If so, the restraint which he imposes upon himself is significant. Indeed throughout this epistle the idea would seem to be present to his thoughts, though the word never passes his lips. This reserve is eminently characteristic of the Gospel. Slavery is never directly attacked as such, but principles are inculcated which must prove fatal to it.

22. ?a d? ?.t.?.] When St Paul first contemplated visiting Rome, he had intended, after leaving the metropolis, to pass westward into Spain; Rom. xv. 24, 28. But by this time he appears to have altered his plans, purposing first to revisit Greece and Asia Minor. Thus in Phil. ii. 24 he looks forward to seeing the Philippians shortly; while here he contemplates a visit to the Churches of the Lycus valley.

There is a gentle compulsion in this mention of a personal visit to ColossÆ. The Apostle would thus be able to see for himself that Philemon had not disappointed his expectations. Similarly Serapion in Eus. H.E. vi. 12 p??sd???t? e ?? t??e?.

?e??a?] ‘a lodging’; comp. Clem. Hom. xii. 2 p??a??s?? t?? ?e??a? ?t??????te?. So the Latin parare hospitium Cic. ad Att. xiv. 2, Mart. Ep. ix. 1. This latter passage, ‘Vale et para hospitium’, closely resembles St Paul’s language here. In the expression before us ?e??a is probably the place of entertainment: but in such phrases as ?a?e?? ?p? ?e???, pa?a?a?e?? ep? ?e??a?, f???t??e?? ?e??a?, and the like, it denotes the offices of hospitality. The Latin hospitium also includes both senses. The ?e??a, as a lodging, may denote either quarters in an inn or a room in a private house: see Philippians p. 9. For the latter comp. Plato Tim. 20 C pa?? ???t?a? p??? t?? ?e???a, ?? ?a? ?ata???e?, ?f???e?a. In this case the response would doubtless be a hospitable reception in Philemon’s home; but the request does not assume so much as this.

?a??s??s?a?] ‘I shall be granted to you’. The grant (?a???es?a?) of one person to another, may be for purposes either (1) of destruction, as Acts xxv. 11 ??de?? e d??ata? a?t??? ?a??sas?a? (comp. ver. 16), or (2) of preservation, as Acts iii. 14 ?t?sas?e ??d?a f???a ?a??s???a? ???, and here.

23–25. ‘Epaphras my fellow-captive in Christ Jesus salutes you. As do also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow-labourers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with thee and thy household, and sanctify the spirit of you all.’

23 sq. For these salutations see the notes on Col. iv. 10 sq. Epaphras is mentioned first because he was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12) and, as the evangelist of ColossÆ (see p. 29 sq.), doubtless well known to Philemon. Of the four others Aristarchus and Mark belonged to the Circumcision (Col. iv. 11), while Demas and Luke were Gentile Christians. All these were of Greek or Asiatic origin and would probably be well known to Philemon, at least by name. On the other hand Jesus Justus, who is honourably mentioned in the Colossian letter (iv. 11), but passed over here, may have been a Roman Christian.

23–25]

? ²³?sp??eta? se ?paf??? ? s??a?????t?? ?? ?? ???st? ??s??, ²⁴??????, ???sta????, ????, ??????, ?? s??e???? ??.

²⁵? ????? t?? ?????? [???] ??s?? ???st?? et? t?? p?e?at?? ???.

? s??a?????t??] On the possible meanings of this title see Col. iv. 10, where it is given not to Epaphras but to Aristarchus.

25. ? ????? ?.t.?.] The same form of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22.

???] The persons whose names are mentioned in the opening salutation.