聖書注解書

CHAPTER 1

Philemon 1:1-2. Instead of ἀδελφῇ, Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ἀγαπητῇ. But the former, which is approved by Griesb. and Reiche, is attested by A D* E* F G א, and some min. vss. Hesych. Jerome, and was easily supplanted by the ἀγαπ. written on the margin in conformity with Philemon 1:1 (vss. Ambrosiast. and Pelag. have ἀδελφῇ ἀγαπ).

Philemon 1:5. πρός] Lachm.: εἰς, following A C D* E, 17, 137. An alteration, occasioned by πίστιν.

Philemon 1:6. Instead of ἡμῖν, Elz. has ὑμῖν, in opposition to A C D E K L, min. vss. and Fathers. The latter reading is to be traced to the mechanical copyists, who, as in the opening of the Epistle, had in view Philemon and those around him (Philemon 1:3). The preceding τοῦ is deleted by Lachm, on too weak counter-evidence (A C, 17); how easily might it be passed over after the final syllable of ἀγαθοῦ!

Philemon 1:7. Instead of χαράν, Elz. Tisch. have χάριν, in opposition to decisive evidence; the latter found its way into the text through reference to εὐχαριστῶ, Philemon 1:4. Comp. Reiche.

ἔχομεν] Lachm. has ἔσχον, which was also recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A C F G א, min. vss. Fathers. The other witnesses are divided between ἔχομεν and ἔσχομεν, but remain too weak to warrant either of these two readings. The plural appears an inappropriate following up of ἐν ἡμῖν in Philemon 1:6, and ἔσχομεν also tells indirectly in favour of Lachm. The position after πολλ. is decidedly attested (Lachm.).

Philemon 1:10. Before ἐγέννησα Lachm. ed. min. had ἐγώ, following A, min. Syr. p. Slav, ms. Chrys. Rightly; the emphasis resting upon ἐγώ, in accordance with the context, was overlooked; and it is more likely to have been dropped out on occasion of the following ΕΓΕ, than to have been introduced by the writing of ΕΓ twice.

After δεσμ. Elz. Scholz have μου, in opposition to decisive testimony.

Philemon 1:11. After ἀνέπεμψα we have, with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A C D* E א* 57), to take in σοι, the omission of which is to be explained from the following σύ.

Philemon 1:12. σὺ δέ] is wanting in A C א* 17. Lachm., who, like Tisch., has deleted also προσλαβοῦ after σπλάγχνα. This προσλαβοῦ is wanting in A F G א* 17, while some min. place it immediately after σὺ δέ; Arm. Boern. Theodoret, on the other hand, after αὐτόν. It is, though afresh defended by Reiche, to be looked upon as a supplement from Philemon 1:17; the absence of the verb, however, involved, by way of redressing the construction, the omission of σὺ δέ, so that αὐτόν was regarded as governed by ἀνέπεμψα (comp. Lachm.: ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν, τουτέστιν τὰ ἐμα σπλάγχνα).

Philemon 1:13. The position of μοι before διακ. (Elz. in reverse order) is decisively attested.

Philemon 1:18. The form ἐλλόγα is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in conformity with A C D* (ἐνλ.) F G א, 17, 31; ἐλλόγει was imported from the familiar passage, Romans 5:13.

Philemon 1:20. Instead of Χριστῷ, Elz. has κυρίῳ. Repetition from what precedes, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Philemon 1:21. ὑπὲρ ὅ] Lachm.: ὑπὲρ ἅ, in accordance with A C א, Copt. We have no means of deciding the point.

Philemon 1:23. Instead of ἀσπάζεται, Elz. has ἀσπάζονται, which has decisive witnesses against it. An emendation.

CONTENTS.

After the address and apostolic greeting (Philemon 1:1-3), there follows a glorious testimony to the Christian character of Philemon (Philemon 1:4-7); then the proper object of the Epistle, intercession for Onesimus (Philemon 1:8-21); and finally, the bespeaking of a lodging, in the hope of being liberated (Philemon 1:22). Salutations and concluding wish, Philemon 1:23-25.

Philemon 1:1. Δέσμιος Χρ. Ἰ.] i.e. whom Christ has placed in bonds. See on Ephesians 3:1. This self-designation (not ἀπόστολος, or the like) at the head of the letter is in keeping with its confidential tone and its purpose of moving and winning the heart, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὴν χάριν ἑτοιμότερον λαβεῖν, Chrysostom.

κ. Τιμόθ.] See on Php 1:1; Colossians 1:1.

συνεργῷ] The particular historic relations, on which this predicate is based, are unknown to us; yet comp. Philemon 1:2 : τῇ κατʼ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησ.; perhaps he was an elder of the church.

ἡμῶν] namely, of Paul and Timothy. It belongs to ἀγαπ. and συνεργῷ. Although, we may add, the Epistle is, as to its design and contents, a private letter, yet the associating of Timothy with it, and especially the addressing it to more than one (Philemon 1:2), are suitably calculated with a view to the greater certainly of a successful result (comp. already Chrysostom). Hofmann incorrectly holds that in the directing of the letter also to the relatives and to the church in the house the design was, that they should, by the communication of the letter to them, become aware of what had induced Philemon to do that which was asked of him. This they would in fact have learned otherwise from Philemon, and would have believed his account of the matter.

Philemon 1:2. That Appia was the wife of Philemon (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and many) does not indeed admit of proof, but is the more probable, in proportion as the intercession for the slave was a matter of household concern, in which case the méstress of the house came into view. On the form of the name with πφ instead of ππ (Acts 28:15), comp. Ἀπφιανός in Mionnet, Description des midailles, III. 179, IV. 65, 67, and the forms ἀπφύς and ἀπφά. See also Lobeck, Paral. p. 33.

τῇ ἀδελφῇ] in the sense of Christian sisterhood, like ἀδελφός, Philemon 1:1.

Archippus, too (see on Colossians 4:17), must have belonged to the family circle of Philemon. But whether he was precisely son of Philemon (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Rosenmüller, Olshausen, Hofmann, and already Theodore of Mopsuestia) we cannot determine. Chrysostom and Theophylact take him to be a friend of the household; Theodoret, to be the teacher to the household.

τῷ συστρατ. ἡμ.] As in Php 2:25. The relation cannot be more precisely ascertained. He may have been deacon (according to Ambrosiaster and Jerome, he was even bishop), but must have endured conflict and trouble for the gospel. Comp. likewise 2 Timothy 2:3.

καὶ τ. κατʼ οἶκ. σ. ἐκκλ.] not to be understood of the family of Philemon (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact: πάντας τοὺς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ πιστοὺς λέγει, συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ δούλους, comp. Calvin and Storr), but of the section of the Christians at Colossae, which met in his house.[65] See on Colossians 4:15. Wisely (see on Philemon 1:1) does Paul—although otherwise in Philemon 1:4-24 he only speaks to Philemon—enlist the interest not merely of Appia and Archippus, but also of the church in the house, and therewith embrace the whole circle, in which there was to be prepared for the converted fugitive a sanctuary of pardon and affection. But farther than this he does not go; not beyond the limits of the house, since the matter, as a household-affair, was not one suited to be laid before the Christian community collectively. To the latter, however, he at the same time (Colossians 4:9) commended his protégé, though without touching upon the particular circumstances of his case. Correct tact on the part of the apostle.

[65] Perhaps it is to this part of the address, which directed the letter to a congregational circle, that we are indebted for the preservation of the document—the only one of the certainly very numerous private letters, which the apostle wrote in the prosecution of his many-sided labours.

f

Philemon 1:4 f. Comp. Romans 1:8; 1 Corinthians 1:4; Php 1:3; Colossians 1:3; Ephesians 1:16.

πάντοτε] belongs not to μνείαν κ.τ.λ. (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, and many others), but to εὐχαριστῶ κ.τ.λ. (comp. on Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:2), as the main element, for the completeness and emphasis of which it serves. The participial definition μνείαν κ.τ.λ. specifies whereupon Paul sees himself always moved to give thanks to God, namely, when he makes mention of Philemon in his prayers; and the following ἀκούων κ.τ.λ. is likewise an accompanying definition to εὐχαριστῶ κ.τ.λ., stating whereby he finds himself induced to such thanksgiving, namely, because he hears, etc. It is not the intercession that has its motive explained by ἀκούων (de Wette, Koch), otherwise the logically necessary statement, for what Paul gives thanks to God, would be entirely wanting, whereas the mention of Philemon in the prayer had no need of a motive assigned for it, and would have taken place even without the ἀκούειν κ.τ.λ. Moreover, Paul does not by μνείαν κ.τ.λ. express the intercession, but in general the mention in prayer, which is a much wider notion and also may be other than intercessory (in opposition to Hofmann).

ἀκούων] continually, though Onesimus in particular. It is otherwise with ἀκούσαντες, Colossians 1:4.

τὴν ἀγάπην] the standing notion of Christian love to the brethren, as in Colossians 3:14.

κ. τὴν πίστιν] is more precisely defined by the following ἣν ἔχεις … ἁγίους, and hence is not specially to be understood of faith in the dogmatic sense, to which εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους would not be suitable. It is faithfulness; comp. Galatians 5:22; Romans 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; Matthew 23:23; Titus 2:10; often in the LXX., Apocrypha, and Greek authors. So Michaelis and Hagenbach (Flatt with hesitation), also Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 511 f]. But usually (see already Theodoret, and especially Grotius) expositors assume a chiasmus, so that πρὸς τ. κύρ. Ἰ. is to be referred to τ. πίστιν, and εἰς π. τ. ἁγίους to τὴν ἀγάπ. (de Wette, Wilke, Rhetor, p. 372; Demme, Koch, Wiesinger, Ewald), to which also Bleek and Hofmann come in the end. Against this may be decisively urged ἣν ἔχεις, whereby πρὸς τ. κύριον … ἁγίους is attached as one whole to τὴν πίστιν. With τὴν ἀγάπην the ἣν ἔχεις has nothing whatever to do; the former has, on the contrary, its own definition of subject by means of σου, which again does not stand in any connection with τὴν πίστιν. Comp. Colossians 1:4. The usual objection to the interpretation faithfulness, namely, that the dogmatic sense of πίστις is the stated one when it goes along with ἀγάπη, does not hold good, inasmuch as ἀγάπη stands first (comp. also Galatians 5:22); in the stated combination of faith and love the faith precedes (in accordance with the inner genetic relation, Galatians 5:6), as 1 Corinthians 13:13; Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Timothy 1:14; 2 Timothy 1:13, al.; hence the transposition τ. πίστιν κ. τ. ἀγάπην is found here too in D E, min. vss. and Ambrosiaster. The interchange of πρός and εἰς can occasion no surprise, inasmuch as Paul is fond of varying the prepositions (see on Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 1:7), as this is also of frequent occurrence with classical writers, without the design of expressing a different relation. On πρός, comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 4Ma 15:21; 4Ma 16:22; Dem. 656, 19; Lucian, Tox. 41. It is to be observed withal, that the stated notion: faith in Christ, is never indicated by πρός, a fact which likewise tells against the ordinary interpretation.

Philemon 1:6. Ὅπως κ.τ.λ.] cannot, as is usually held (also by Winer, de Wette, Demme, Koch, Ellicott, Bleek, and Hofmann), introduce the aim of the intercession, Philemon 1:4, since μνείαν σου ποιούμ. κ.τ.λ. was only an accompanying definition, and ἀκούων κ.τ.λ. already pointed back to εὐχαριστῶ κ.τ.λ. (see on Philemon 1:5). It attaches itself (so rightly, Grotius, Bengel, Wiesinger, Ewald) in its telic sense (not in the sense of so that, as Flatt and older expositors would have it taken) to Philemon 1:5, specifying the tendency of ἣν ἔχεις. For the sake of making this attachment Paul has put the ἣν ἔχεις, which would be otherwise superfluous.

ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου] is by no means to be explained as if ἡ κοινωνία σου τῆς πίστεως (or σου εἰς τὴν πίστιν) stood in the text, which would have to be the case, if we take the rendering of Hofmann (“the fellowship of faith, in which Philemon stands with his fellow-believers”). In order to the right interpretation observe further, on the one hand, that κοινωνία is with Paul, as mostly also with classical writers, when it is not accompanied by the genitive of the personal pronoun (Php 1:5), always so employed, that the genitive therewith connected denotes that with which the fellowship, or in which the participation, takes place (1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 2 Corinthians 13:4; 2 Corinthians 8:13; Php 2:1; Php 3:10; Ephesians 3:9, Elz.), consequently is the genitive not subjecti, but objecti; and, on the other hand, that κοινωνία signifies not communicatio, but communio, consortium. Accordingly there is at once set aside—(1) the traditional interpretation since the time of Chrysostom and Theophylact: “fides tua, quam communem nobiscum habes,” Bengel, comp. Luther, Wetstein, and many; in which case the genitive has been taken subjectively, as by Wiesinger: thy faith-fellowship with all saints; and by Ewald: “that thou believest in Christ not merely for thyself.” And there fall also (2) all interpretations, which transform the notion of κοινωνία into communicatio, such as that of Beza (comp. Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Hammond, Heinrichs): “officia benignitatis in sanctos promanantia ex fide efficaci.” Similarly also Calvin: “fidei communicationem appellat, quum intus non latet otiosa, sed per veros effectus se profert ad homines;” he is followed substantially by de Wette (and Koch): “the communion of thy faith (genitivus subjecti), as well in the display of love towards individuals as in the advancement of the gospel,” which latter element cannot be brought hither from συνεργ., Philemon 1:1, and is out of place (comp. Philemon 1:7). As the correct interpretation there remains only this, keeping the notion of πίστις in consistency with Philemon 1:5 : the fellowship entered into with thy Christian fidelity. So faithful a Christian as Philemon draws all other saints (Philemon 1:5), who come into relations of experience with him, sympathetically to himself, so that they form with him the bond of association unto like effort, and therewith become κοινωνοί of his πίστις.

ἐνεργὴς γένηται κ.τ.λ.] This fellowship with his fidelity is not to be an idle sympathy, but to become effective,[66] to express itself in vigorous action—this is what Philemon wishes and aims at—and that by virtue of the knowledge of every Christian saving-blessing,[67]—a knowledge which, in such pious fellowship, unfolds itself ever more fully and vividly, and which must be the means of powerfully prompting all Christian activity (Ephesians 1:17 f.; Colossians 2:2; Colossians 3:10). And the final aim of this activity? Toward Christ Jesus it is to take place, i.e. εἰς Χρ. Ἰ., which is neither, with Calvin, Estius, and others, to be annexed to τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, nor, with Hofmann, to ἀγαθοῦ, nor even, with Grotius, to πίστεως, but to ἐνεργ. γένηται, in which case alone it has the significance: Christ Jesus’ will, work, kingdom, honour, and so forth, are to be their holy destination and relative aim. Consequently the whole passage might be paraphrased something in this way: And with this thy Christian fidelity thou hast the sacred goal of fellowship in view, that whoever enters into the participation of the same, may make this partaking through knowledge of every Christian blessing effective for Christ Jesus. An appeal to the profound Christian consciousness of Philemon, by way of preparation for the designed intercession on behalf of Onesimus, whom Paul in fact was now on the point of introducing to that κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως of his friend! Respecting the manifold other explanations of ἐνεργὴς γένηται κ.τ.λ., it is to be observed, on the one hand, that we have not, with many (including Wiesinger and Hofmann), arbitrarily to restrict the notion of ἐνεργής to the exercise of love, but to extend it to the collective activity of the Christian life; and, on the other hand, that as the subject of the κοινωνία is not Philemon, but others (comp. also Bleek), the latter, namely the κοινωνοὶ τῆς πίστεώς σου, must also be the subject of ἐπίγνωσις; by which all expositions, according to which Philemon is held to be this knowing subject, are set aside, whether παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ be taken in the moral sense, of every virtue (Chrysostom), of good works and the like, or (although in itself correctly) of the Christian blessings of salvation, which are to be known. Hence we have to reject the interpretation of Oecumenius: διὰ τοῦ ἐπιγνῶναί σε καὶ πράττειν πᾶν ἀγαθόν, in which case the doing is arbitrarily imported, as is also done by Theophylact, according to whom ἐπιγινώσκειν is held to be equivalent to ἀγαπᾶν καὶ μεταχειρίζεσθαι. So likewise in substance de Wette, who mixes up moral action as keeping equal pace with moral knowledge, and takes τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν as: the good which is as to principle and spirit in us Christians; he is followed by Demme and Koch. We have further to reject the explanation of Flatt (so in substance also Osiander, Calovius, Bengel): “thy faith shows itself active through love, by means of a grateful recognition of all the benefits,” etc., or (as Wiesinger puts it): “inasmuch as it (namely, thy fellowship of faith) recognises—which is possible only for love—in the other the good which is in him.” We have to set aside, lastly, the explanation of Hofmann, who, after the example of Michaelis,[68] retaining the reading ἐν ὑμῖν, and taking παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ as masculine, finds in ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ.τ.λ. the meaning, that every one in the Christian sense good, every true Christian among the Colossians,[69] Philemon should know as being that which he is; only by virtue of such knowing would his fellowship of faith show itself effectively operative through the exercise of Christian love—which would not be the case with those “whose Christian virtuousness he failed to know.” Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Pricaeus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, have done rightly in not referring the ἐπίγνωσις to Philemon as the knowing subject, but wrongly in understanding ἘΠΊΓΝ. of becoming known, as e.g. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “adeo ut nullum sit officium Christianae caritatis, in quo non sis et nolus et probatus.” Beza: “ut hac ratione omnes agnoscant et experiantur, quam divites sitis in Christo,” etc.

ἀγαθοῦ] Comp. Romans 14:16; Galatians 6:6; Luke 1:53; Luke 12:18-19; Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 10:1; Sir 12:1; Sir 14:25, al.; πᾶν ἀγαθὸν τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν really expresses quite the same thing as is expressed at Ephesians 1:3 by ΠᾶΣΑ ΕὐΛΟΓΊΑ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΉ.

ΤΟῦ ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ] applies to the Christians generally, these being regarded as a whole. The blessings are in the Christian community.

[66] The translation of the Vulgate, evidens, is based upon the reading ἐναργής; so codd. Lat. in Jerome, Pelagius (Clar. Germ.: manifesta).

[67] Such blessings, by which Christ has enriched us (comp. on 2 Corinthians 8:9), are faith, hope, love, patience, peace, joy in the Holy Spirit, etc. In devout fellowship these become ever more fully, vividly, and experimentally known as regards their nature and value.

[68] “Who interprets: “as often as thou contest to know a good man among the Colossians!”

[69] If the reading ἐν ὑμῖν were genuine, it could only, in accordance with the context, be referred to Philemon himself and to those adduced along with him in ver. 2. The Colossian church is brought in after a purely arbitrary way by Michaelis and Hofmann.

Philemon 1:7. Not the assigning of a reason for the intercession (de Wette and others; see in opposition thereto, on Philemon 1:6), but a statement of the subjective ground (the objective one was contained in Philemon 1:5 f.) of the thanksgiving, Philemon 1:4. Jerome already aptly remarks: “plenius inculcat et edocet, quare dixerit: gratias ago,” etc.

χαράν] emphatically prefixed. The aorist ἔσχον (see the critical remarks) relates to the point of time, at which the ἀκούειν, Philemon 1:5, had hitherto taken place.

πολλήν] applies to both substantives.

παράκλησιν] for Paul is δέσμιος, Philemon 1:1; Philemon 1:9. Comp. παρηγορία, Colossians 4:11.

ὅτι τὰ σπλ. κ.τ.λ.] More precise explanation to ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου: because, namely, the hearts (comp. Philemon 1:20, as also 2 Corinthians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Php 1:8, al.) of the saints are refreshed by thee. There is no more particular information as to the work of love referred to; and it is quite arbitrary to refer τῶν ἀγ. specially to the poor Christians (Grotius, Rosenmüller, and others), or even still more specially to “the mother-church of Christendom” (Hofmann), which is not to be made good either by 1 Corinthians 16:1 or by Romans 12:13.

ἀδελφέ] not emphatic (“brother in truth,” de Wette, whom Koch follows; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), but touching affection. Comp. Galatians 6:18.

Philemon 1:8. Διό] explains the ground for the following διὰ τ. ἀγάπ. μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ: Wherefore (because I have so much joy and solace from thee), although I am by no means wanting in great boldness (1 Timothy 3:13; 2 Corinthians 3:12; Php 1:20) to enjoin upon thee what is becoming, I will rather for love’s sake exhort, will make exhortation take the place of injunction. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact (comp. also Theodoret), Erasmus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others attach διό to the participial assertion. This is unpsychological; what Paul has said in Philemon 1:5 [7] accords not with commanding, but with entreaty.

ἐν Χριστῷ] In Christ, as the element of his inner life, Paul knows that his great confidence has its basis. But this fellowship of his with Christ is not merely the general Christian, but the apostolic, fellowship.

τὸ ἀνῆκον] that which is fitting, that is, the ethically suitable; Suidas: τὸ πρέπον; not used in this sense by Greek writers. Comp. however, Ephesians 5:4; Colossians 3:18; 1Ma 10:40; 1Ma 10:42; 1Ma 11:35; 2Ma 14:8. Thus Paul makes that, which he desires to obtain from Philemon, already to be felt as his duty.

διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην] is understood by some of the love of Philemon (Calvin and others, Cornelius a Lapide: “ut scilicet solitam tuam caritatem in servum tuum poenitentem ostendas”); by others, of the love of the apostle to Philemon (Estius and others); by others again, ἣν κἀγὼ ἔχω πρός σε, καὶ σὺ πρὸς ἐμέ (Theophylact; comp. Oecumenius and others; Grotius: “per necessitatem amicitiae nostrae”). But all these limitations not expressed in the text are arbitrary; it is to be left general: on account of love, in order not to check the influence of the same (which, experience shows, is so great also over thee), but to allow it free course. It is the Christian brotherly love in abstracto, conceived of as a power; 1 Corinthians 13.

f

Philemon 1:9 f. Before τοιοῦτος we have to place a full stop; the participial predication τοιοῦτος ὤν sums up the quality which was expressed in Philemon 1:8 by πολλὴν … μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ; and lastly, ὡς Παῦλος … Χριστοῦ supports the παρακαλῶ σε κ.τ.λ. of Philemon 1:10, from a consideration of the personal position of the apostle in such a way, that the granting of the request could not but appear to Philemon as a matter of dutiful affection. Consequently: Seeing that I am so constituted,[70] since such is my manner of thinking and dealing, that, namely, in place of commanding thee, I rather for love’s sake betake myself to the παρακαλεῖν, I exhort thee as Paul, etc. A very mistaken objection to this view of τοιοῦτος ὤν is that Paul would not have said at all that he was so constituted, but only that he did so in the given case (Hofmann, following Wiesinger). He, in fact, says even now with τοιοῦτος ὤν itself that such is his nature. Observe, moreover, that the supporting elements, ὡς Παῦλος κ.τ.λ., are prefixed with all the emphasis of urgency to the παρακαλῶ, since in them lies the progress of the representation, namely, that which comes in as additional to the παρακαλῶ, already said before. Usually τοιοῦτος is taken as preparative, so that ὡς Παῦλος κ.τ.λ. is the more precise explanation of it; in which case some (as Luther, Calvin, and others, including Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald) find only two elements, taking ὡς Π. πρεσβύτης together; others (most expositors since the time of Chrysostom, including Bleek and Hofmann), three elements

Παῦλος, πρεσβύτης, δέσμιος. Expositors have differed in defining the significance of the particulars in their bearing on the matter in hand,[71] while recognising on the whole the “pondus ad movendum Philemonis animum” (Estius). According to de Wette (comp. Wetstein), τοιοῦτος ὤν κ.τ.λ. is to be held parallel to the participial clause of Philemon 1:8, in accordance with which the participle would thus have to be resolved by although. But the whole mode of interpretation, which takes τοιοῦτος as preparative, is untenable. It must of necessity point back, summing up under the notion of personal quality what was said by πολλὴν … παρακαλῶ in Philemon 1:8; for if ΤΟΙΟῦΤΟς is not already defined (as is here the case by reference to Philemon 1:8), it may, doubtless, become defined either by an adjective immediately following, or by a following οἷος (Plato, Conv. p. 199 D; Dem. 41, 3), or ὅς (Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2; Plat. Phaed. p. 92 B; Hebrews 8:1), or ὅσος (Isocr. Paneg. 21), or by ὥστε with the infinitive (Plato, Conv. p. 175 D, al.), but never by ὡς, which neither actually occurs (the usually cited passage from Andocides in Wetstein, de Wette has rightly described as not here relevant[72]) nor can take place logically, since ὡς, that is, as (not like, which it means after τοιόνδε in Aesch. Pers. 180), already presupposes the definiteness of τοιοῦτος. This more precise definiteness is not, however, to be relegated to the mere conception or mode of view of the writer (Wiesinger: “I, in my circumstances”), according to which ὡς is then held to introduce an appositional definition, to which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come; but it is to be taken from what Paul has previously said, because it results from that quite simply and suitably. Comp. on τοιοῦτος ὤν, which always in classical writers also—where it is not followed by a corresponding ΟἿΟς, Ὅς, ὍΣΟς, or ὭΣΤΕ—summarily denotes the quality, disposition, demeanour, or the like, more precisely indicated before; Plato, Rep. p. 493 C; Xen. Anab. i. 1. 30; Hellen. iv. 1. 38; Cyrap. i. 5, 8; Soph. Aj. 1277 (1298); Lucian, Cont. 20, and many other places. It is further to be noted, (1) that the true explanation of τοιοῦτος ὢν κ.τ.λ. of itself imperatively requires that we connect these words with the following παρακαλῶ (Flatt, Lachmann, who, however, parenthesises Ὡς ΠΑῦΛΟς, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann), not with that which precedes (as formerly was usual), in which case the second παρακαλῶ is understood as resumptive, an ΟὖΝ (Theophylact), inquam, or the like, being supplied in thought (so Castalio, Beza, Hagenbach, and many). (2) The elements expressed by ὡς Παῦλος … Χριστοῦ stand—seeing that ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΗς is a substantive and has not the article—in such relation to each other, that πρεσβύτης and ΝΥΝῚ ΔῈ ΚΑῚ ΔΈΣΜΙΟς Κ.Τ.Λ. are two attributive statements attaching themselves to Παῦλος; consequently: as Paul, who is an old man, and now also a prisoner, etc. (3) The (flexible) notion of πρεσβύτης must by no means have its meaning altered, as is done e.g. by Calvin, who makes it denote “non aetatem, sed officium;” but, at the same time, may not be rigidly pressed in so confidential a private writing, in which “lepos mixtus gravitate” (Bengel), prevails, especially if Philemon was much younger than Paul. Observe, withal, that the apostle does not use some such expression as γέρων, but the more relative term ΠΡΕΣΒ.; comp. Titus 2:2 with the contrast ΤΟῪς ΝΕΩΤΈΡΟΥς in Philemon 1:6. He sets himself down as a veteran in contradistinction to the younger friend, who was once his disciple. At the stoning of Stephen, and so some twenty-six or twenty-seven years earlier, Paul was still νεανίας (Acts 7:58); he might thus be now somewhere about fifty years of age.

ΔΈΣΜΙΟς Ἰ. Χ.] as in Philemon 1:1.

ΤΈΚΝΟΥ] tenderly affectionate designation of his convert (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:14 f.; Galatians 4:19; 1 Peter 5:13), in connection with which the conception of his own child is brought more vividly into prominence by the prefixed ἐμοῦ and by ἘΓΏ (see the critical remarks), and ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΔΕΣΜΟῖς[73] makes the recommendation yet more affecting and urgent.

Ὀνήσιμον] Accusative, in accordance with a well-known attraction; see Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 205]; Buttmann, p. 68 [E. T. 78],

[70] The Vulgate erroneously referred ὤν to Philemon: “cum sis talis,” which Cornelius a Lapide unsuccessfully defends.

[71] So e.g. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “Quid enim neges roganti? primum Paulo: cum Paulum dico non paulum rerum tibi significo; deinde seni: nonnihil tribui solet et aetati … nunc etiam vincto: in precibus nonnihil ponderis habet et calamitas obtestantis; postremo vincto Jesu Christi: sic vincto favere debent, qui profitentur Christi doctrinam.” Similarly Grotius and others; while, according to Heinrichs, by Παῦλος there was to be awakened gratitude; by πρεσβ. the readiness to oblige, natural towards the aged; and by δέσμιος Ἰ. Χρ. compassion. Hofmann holds that “the name Paul puts Philemon in mind of all that makes it a historical one,” and that the impression of this becomes thereupon confirmed by the other two elements.

[72] The passage runs: ὃ δὲ πάντων δεινότατόν ἐστι, τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς εὔνους τῷ δήμῳ τοὺς λόγους ποιεῖται. Here, precisely as in our passage, ὡς εὔνους belongs not to τοιοῦτος ὤν, but to what follows, and τοιοῦτος ὤν sums up what had been said before.—The comparison of τοιόσδε, Hom. od. xvi. 205 (Hofmann), where besides no ὡς follows, is unsuitable, partly on the general ground of the well-known diversity of meaning of the two words (comp. Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 7. 5), which is not to be abandoned without special reason, partly because in that passage ἐγὼ τοιόσδε stands absolutely and δεικτικῶς (hicce ego talis), so that the following παθὼν κ.τ.λ. belongs to ἤλυθον.

[73] That the expression: in the bonds, was suitable only to Rome and not to Caesarea, is incorrectly inferred by Wieseler, p. 420, from Acts 24:23. See on that passage. It was likewise incorrect to assign the Epistle, on account of πρεσβύτης, to the alleged second imprisonment at Rome (Calovius).