Chú giải Kinh Thánh

In this epistle we have, I. The preface, Phm 1:1-7. II. The substance and body of it, Phm 1:8-21. And then the conclusion, Phm 1:22-25.

INTRODUCTION

The testimonies to its authenticity are--ORIGEN [Homily 19, on Jeremiah, vol. 1., p. 185, Edition Huetius], cites it as the letter of Paul to Philemon concerning Onesimus; TERTULLIAN [Against Marcion, 5.21]: "The brevity of this Epistle is the sole cause of its escaping the falsifying hands of Marcion." EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.25], mentions it among "the universally acknowledged Epistles of the canon"; JEROME [Commentary on Philemon, vol. iv., p. 442], argues for it against those who objected to its canonicity on the ground of its subject being beneath an apostle to write about. IGNATIUS [Epistle to the Ephesians, 2; Epistle to the Magnesians, 12], seems to allude to

Phm 20.

Compare Epistle to Polycarp [1 and 6]. Its brevity is the cause of its not being often quoted by the Fathers. PALEY [Horæ Paulinæ], has shown striking proofs of its authenticity in the undesigned coincidences between it and the Epistle to the Colossians.

PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING.--This Epistle is closely linked with the Epistle to the Colossians. Both were carried by the same bearer, Onesimus (with whom, however, Tychicus is joined in the Epistle to the Colossians),

Col 4:9.

The persons sending salutations are the same, except one, Jesus called Justus

(Col 4:11).

In both alike Archippus is addressed

(Phm 2; Col 4:17).

Paul and Timothy stand in the headings of both. And in both Paul appears as a prisoner

(Phm 9; Col 4:18).

Hence it follows, it was written at the same time and place as the Epistle to the Colossians (which was about the same time as the Epistle to the Ephesians), namely, at Rome, during Paul's first imprisonment, A.D. 61 or 62.

OBJECT.--Onesimus, of Colosse ("one of you,"

Col 4:9),

slave of Philemon, had fled from his master to Rome, after having probably defrauded him

(Phm 18).

He there was converted to Christianity by Paul, and being induced by him to return to his master, he was furnished with this Epistle, recommending him to Philemon's favorable reception, as being now no longer a mere servant, but also a brother in Christ. Paul ends by requesting Philemon to prepare him a lodging, as he trusted soon to be set free and visit Colosse. This Epistle is addressed also to Apphia, supposed from its domestic subject to have been Philemon's wife, and Archippus (a minister of the Colossian Church,

Col 4:17),

for the same reason, supposed to be a near relative.

Onesimus in the Apostolical Canons [73], is said to have been emancipated by his master. The Apostolical Constitutions [7.46] state that he was consecrated by Paul, bishop of Berea, in Macedonia, and that he was martyred at Rome. IGNATIUS [Epistle to the Ephesians, 1], speaks of him as bishop of the Ephesians.

STYLE.--It has been happily termed, from its graceful and delicate urbanity, "the polite Epistle." Yet there is nothing of insincere compliment, miscalled politeness by the world. It is manly and straightforward, without misrepresentation or suppression of facts; at the same time it is most captivatingly persuasive. ALFORD quotes LUTHER'S eloquent description, "This Epistle showeth a right, noble, lovely example of Christian love. Here we see how St. Paul layeth himself out for the poor Onesimus, and with all his means pleadeth his cause with his master, and so setteth himself as if he were Onesimus, and had himself done wrong to Philemon. Yet all this doeth he, not with force, as if he had right thereto, but he stripped himself of his right, and thus enforceth Philemon to forego his right also. Even as Christ did for us with God the Father, thus also doth St. Paul for Onesimus with Philemon: for Christ also stripped Himself of His right, and by love and humility enforced [?] the Father to lay aside His wrath and power, and to take us to His grace for the sake of Christ, who lovingly pleadeth our cause, and with all His heart layeth Himself out for us; for we are all His Onesimi, to my thinking."

Introduction to Philemon

Section 1. The History of Philemon

On Philemon, to whom this Epistle was addressed, almost nothing more is known than can be ascertained from the Epistle itself. It is short, and of a private character; but it is a bright and beautiful gem in the volume of inspiration.

From Colossians 4:9, it may be inferred that the person to whom it was addressed was an inhabitant of Colossae, since Onesimus, concerning whom this Epistle was written, is there mentioned as "one of them." See the notes on that verse; compare the ingenious remarks of Paley, Hor. Paul., on Colossians, No. IV. He is said by Calmet and Michaelis to have been wealthy; but this cannot be determined with certainty, though it is not improbable. The only circumstances which seem to indicate this, are, that Onesimus had been his "servant," from which it has been inferred that he was an owner of slaves; and that he appears to have been accustomed to show hospitality to strangers, or, as Michaelis expresses it, "traveling Christians;" see Plm 1:22 of the Epistle. But these circumstances are not sufficient to determine that he was a man of property. There is no evidence, as we shall see, that he was a slave-holder; and Christians in moderate circumstances were accustomed to show hospitality to their brethren. Besides, it is not said in Plm 1:22 that he was accustomed to show general hospitality; but Paul merely asks him to provide for him a lodging. It is probable that he had been accustomed to remain with him when he was in Colossae.

It is quite clear that he had been converted under the ministry of the apostle himself. This appears from what is said in Plm 1:19; "I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self." This cannot be understood otherwise than as implying that he had been converted under his preaching, unless the apostle, on some former occasion, had been the means of saving his life, of which there is no evidence. Indeed, it is manifest, from the general tone of the Epistle, that Philemon had been converted by the labors of the author. It is just such a letter as it would be natural and proper to write on such a supposition; it is not one which the apostle would have been likely to write to any one who did not sustain such a relation to him. But where and when he was converted, is unknown. It is possible that Paul may have met with him at Ephesus; but it is much more probable that he had himself been at Colossae, and that Philemon was one of his converts there. See the introduction to the Epistle to the Colossians.

It is evident from the Epistle that Paul regarded him as a sincere Christian; as a man of strict integrity; as one who could be depended on to do right. Thus Plm 1:5-7, he says that he had heard of his "love and faith toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;" thus he confidently asks him to provide for him a lodging when he should come Plm 1:22; and thus he expresses the assured belief that he would do what was right towards one who had been his servant, who, having been formerly unfaithful, was now converted, and, in the estimation of the apostle, was worthy of the confidence and affection of his former master.

In regard to his rank in the Christian church, nothing whatever is known. Paul calls him Plm 1:1 his "fellow-laborer;" but this appellation is so general, that it determines nothing in regard to the manner in which be co-operated with him in promoting religion. It is a term which might be applied to any active Christian, whether a preacher, an elder, a deacon, or a private member of the church. It would seem clear, however, that he was not a traveling preacher, for he had a home in Colossae Plm 1:2, Plm 1:22; and the presumption is, that he was an active and benevolent member of the church, who did not sustain any office. There are many private members of the churches, to whom all that is said of Philemon in the Epistle would apply. Yet there have been various conjectures in regard to the office which he held. Hoffmann (Introduction a.d. Lection. Eph. a.d. Colossenses, 18) supposes that he was bishop of Colossae; Michaelis supposes that he was a deacon in the church; but of either of these, there is no evidence whatever.

Nothing is known of his age, his profession, or of the time and circumstances of his death. Neither is it certainly known what effect this Epistle had on him, or whether he again received Onesimus under his roof. It may be presumed, however, that such a letter, addressed to such a man, would not fail of its object.

Section 2. The Occasion upon which the Epistle was written

This can be learned only from the Epistle itself, and there the circumstances are so marked as to make a mistake impossible.

(1) Philemon had had a servant of the name of Onesimus. Of the character of this servant, before Paul became acquainted with him, nothing more is known than that he had been "unprofitable" to Philemon PLamentations 1:11, and that he bad probably done him some wrong, either by taking his property, or by the fact that he had escaped from him; Plm 1:18. It is not necessary to suppose that he was a slave: for all that is implied of necessity in the word which is employed to designate his condition in Plm 1:16 (δοῦλος doulos), and all that is stated of him in the Epistle, would be met by the supposition that he was bound to Philemon, either by his parents or guardians, or that he had bound himself to render voluntary service; see the notes at Plm 1:16.

(2) for some cause, this servant had fled from his master, and had gone to Rome. The cause of his escaping is unknown. It may be that he had purloined the property of his master, and dreaded detection; or that he had, by his base conduct in some other way, exposed himself to punishment; or that he merely desired freedom from oppression; or that he disregarded the bonds into which he himself, or his parents or guardians, had entered, and had therefore escaped. Nothing can be inferred about his condition, or his relation to Philemon, from the fact that he ran away. It is perhaps quite as common for apprentices to run away, as it is for slaves; and they who enter into voluntary bonds to render service to another, do not always regard them.

(3) in some way, when at Rome, this servant had found out the apostle Paul, and had been converted by his instrumentality. Paul says Plm 1:10 that he had "begotten him in his bonds" - ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου en tois desmois mou; which seems to imply that Onesimus had come to him, and not that Paul had searched him out. It does not appear that Paul, when a prisoner at Rome, was allowed to go at large (compare Acts 28:30), though he was permitted to receive all who came to him. Why Onesimus came to the apostle, is not known. It may have been because he was in want, and Paul was the only one in Rome whom he had ever seen; or it may have been because his mind had become distressed on account of sin, and he sought him out to obtain spiritual counsel. Conjecture on these points is useless, where there is not even a hint that can serve as a clew to find out the truth.

(4) from some cause, equally unknown, Onesimus, when converted, was desirous of returning to his former master. It is commonly assumed that his returning again was at the instigation of the apostle, and that this furnishes an instance of his belief that runaway slaves should be sent back to their masters. But, besides that there is no certain evidence that he ever was a slave, there is as little proof that he returned at the instigation of Paul, or that his return was not wholly voluntary on his part. For the only expression which the apostle uses on this subject Plm 1:12, "whom I have sent again" - ἀνεπέμπσα anapempsa - does not necessarily imply that he even proposed it to him, still less that he commanded it. It is a word of such general import, that it would be employed on the supposition that Onesimus desired to return, and that Paul, who had a strong wish to retain him, to aid him in the same way that Philemon himself would do if he were with him (compare Plm 1:13), had, on the whole, concluded to part with him, and to send him again, with a letter, to his friend Philemon. It is just such language as he would have used of Timothy, Titus, or Epaphroditus, if employed on an important embassy at the request of the apostle; compare Luke 7:6, Luke 7:10, Luke 7:19; Luke 20:13; Acts 10:5; Acts 15:22; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 9:3; Ephesians 6:22; Philippians 2:19, Philippians 2:23, Philippians 2:25, Philippians 2:28; 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 1 Thessalonians 3:5; Titus 3:12, for a similar use of the word "send" (πέμπω pempō).

There is nothing in the statement which forbids us to suppose that Onesimus was himself disposed to return to Philemon, and that Paul "sent" him at his own request. To this, Onesimus might have been inclined from many causes. He may have repented that he left his master, and had forsaken the comforts which he had enjoyed under his roof. It is no uncommon thing for a runaway apprentice, or servant, when he has seen and felt the misery of being among strangers and in want, to wish himself well back again in the house of his master. Or he may have felt that he had wronged his master in some way (compare the notes at Plm 1:18), and, being now converted, was desirous of repairing the wrong. Or he may have had friends and kindred in Colossae whom he was desirous of seeing again. Since any one of these, or of many other supposable causes, may have induced him to desire to return to his master, it should not be assumed that Paul sent him against his will, and thence be inferred that he was in favor of sending back runaway slaves to their masters against their will. There are many points to be proved, which cannot be proved, to make that a legitimate inference; see the notes at Plm 1:12.

(5) whatever were the reasons why Onesimus desired to return to Philemon, it is clear that he was apprehensive of some trouble if he went back. What those reasons were, it is impossible now to determine with absolute certainty, but it is not difficult to conjecture what they may have been, and any of the following will account for his apprehensions - either:

(a) that he had done his master wrong by the mere act of leaving him, depriving him of valuable services which he was bound to render; or

(b) that he may have felt that the mere act of running away had injured the character of his master, for such an act always implies that there is something in the dealings of a master which makes it desirable to leave him; or

(c) that he had in some way injured him in respect to property, by taking that which did not belong to him, Plm 1:18; or

(d) that he owed his master, and he may have inferred from his leaving him that he meant to defraud him, Plm 1:18; or

(e) that the laws of Phrygia were such that Onesimus apprehended that if he returned, even penitent, it would be judged by his master necessary to punish him, in order to deter others from committing a similar offence.

The laws of Phrygia, it is said, allowed the master to punish a slave without applying to a magistrate. See Macknight. It should be said also that the Phrygians were a severe people (Curtius, Lib. v. c. 1), and it is not improbable that, from the customs there, Onesimus may have apprehended harsh treatment if he returned. - It is not proper to assume that any one of these was certainly the reason why he feared to return, for this cannot be absolutely determined. We should not take it for granted that he had defrauded his master - for that is not necessarily implied in what is said in Plm 1:18, and we should not impute crimes to men without proof; nor should we take it for granted that he feared to be punished as a runaway slave - for that cannot be proved; but someone or more of these reasons doubtless operated to make him apprehensive that if he returned he would meet with, at least, a cold reception.

(6) to induce his master to receive him kindly again, was the main object of this courteous and kind Epistle. For a view of the arguments upon which he urges this, see the Analysis of the Epistle. The arguments are such, that we should suppose they could not be resisted, and we may presume, without impropriety, that they had the desired effect upon the mind of Philemon - but of that we have no certain evidence.

Section 3. The Time and Place of Writing the Epistle

There can be no doubt that this letter was written from Rome about the time when the Epistle to the Colossians was written; compare the introduction to that Epistle. The circumstances which conduct to this conclusion are such as the following:

(1) Paul at the time when it was written was a prisoner; Plm 1:1. "Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ;" Plm 1:10. "Whom I have begotten in my bonds;" compare Plm 1:23. "Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus."

(2) it was written when he had hopes of obtaining his liberty, or when he had such a prospect of it that he could ask Philemon, with confidence, to "prepare him a lodging;" Plm 1:22.

(3) Timothy was with him at the time when it was written Plm 1:1, and we know that Paul desired him to come to him to Rome when he was a prisoner there as soon as possible; 2 Timothy 4:9. "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me."

(4) we know that Onesimus was actually sent by Paul to Colossae while he was a prisoner at Rome, and it would be morally certain that, under the circumstances of the case, he would send the letter to his master at that time. No other instance is mentioned in which he sent him to Colossae, and the evidence is as certain as the nature of the case admits, that that was the time when the Epistle was written; see Colossians 4:9.

(5) the same persons are mentioned in the salutations in the two Epistles, at least they are so far the same as to make it probable that the Epistles were written at the same time, for it is not very probable that the same persons would in another place, and on another occasion, have been with the apostle. Thus, Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas, join in the salutations both to the church at Colossae and to Philemon. Probably at no other time in the life of Paul were all these persons with him, than when he was a prisoner at Rome. These considerations make it clear that the Epistle was written while Paul was a prisoner at Rome and at about the same time with the Epistle to the Colossians. If so, it was about a.d. 62.

Section 4. The Character of this Epistle

This letter is almost wholly of a private character, and yet there is scarcely any portion of the New Testament of equal length which is of more value. It is exquisitely beautiful and delicate. It is a model of courtesy and politeness. It presents the character of the author in a most amiable light, and shows what true religion will produce in causing genuine refinement of thought and language. It is gentle and persuasive, and yet the argument is one that we should suppose would have been, and probably was, irresistible. It is very easy to conceive that the task which the apostle undertook to perform was one which it would be difficult to accomplish - that of reconciling an offended master to a runaway servant. And yet it is done with so much kindness, persuasiveness, gentleness, and true affection, that, as the letter was read, it is easy to imagine that all the hostility of the master was disarmed, and we can almost see him desiring to embrace him who bore it, not now as a servant, but as a Christian brother; Plm 1:16 "It is impossible," says Doddridge, "to read over this admirable Epistle without being touched with the delicacy of sentiment, and the masterly address, that appear in every part of it. We see here, in a most striking light, how perfectly consistent true politeness is, - not only with all the warmth and sincerity of a friend, but even with the dignity of the Christian and the Apostle. And if this letter were to be considered in no other view than as a mere human composition, it must be allowed to be a master-piece in its kind.

As an illustration of this remark, it may not be improper to compare it with an epistle of Pliny, that seems to have been written on a similar occasion (Lib. ix. Let. 21); which, though penned by one that was reckoned to excel in the epistolary style, though it has undoubtedly many beauties, yet must be acknowledged by every impartial reader vastly inferior to this animated composition of the apostle." As a specimen of the courtesy and politeness which the Christian ought to practice at all times, as well as furnishing many valuable lessons on Christian duty (see the remarks at the close), it deserves a place in the volume of inspiration; and a material chasm would be produced in the instructions which are needful for us, if it were withdrawn from the sacred canon.

The Epistle embraces the following subjects:

I. The salutation; Plm 1:1-3.

II. A mention of the excellent account which the apostle had heard of Philemon, and the occasion which he had for thankfulness on his behalf; Plm 1:4-7.

(a) He always remembered him in his prayers; Plm 1:4.

(b) He had heard of his faith and love, and of his kindness toward those who bore the Christian name; Plm 1:5.

(c) He desired that his goodness in making others, in common with him, partakers of the expression of his faith, might be even more effective in securing the proper acknowledgment of it wherever it might be known; Plm 1:6.

(d) He says that he had great joy and consolation from the happiness which he had conferred on Christians who needed his aid; Plm 1:7.

III. The main subject of the Epistle - the desire that he would receive his servant Onesimus again, and the arguments to persuade him to do it; Plm 1:8-21.

(1) he places it on the ground of entreaty, not of command. He might, in virtue of his apostolic office, enjoin many things on him, and possibly this, yet he chooses to place it entirely on other grounds, and to make it a matter of personal friendship; Plm 1:8.

(2) Particular reasons why he should do it:

(a) For love's sake - love to Paul - now an old man, and in prison on account of their common religion; Plm 1:9.

(b) Paul regarded Onesimus as his own son, and asked that he might be received and treated as such; Plm 1:10.

(c) He assures Philemon that, whatever he might have been formerly, he would now find him to be profitable to himself; Plm 1:11.

(d) He assures him that Onesimus was especially dear to him, and that he would have been very useful to him in his circumstances, but that he did not think it proper to retain him with him without the consent of Philemon. Onesimus, therefore, was not sent back as a worthless vagabond, and Philemon, in receiving him, might be sure that he was receiving one who Paul believed was fitted to be eminently useful; Plm 1:12-14.

(e) He suggests to Philemon that probably it was so arranged by divine Providence, that Onesimus should depart in order that he might receive him again in a far more tender and endearing relation, not as a servant, but as a Christian brother; Plm 1:15-16

(f) He appeals to the personal friendship of Philemon, and asks that if he regarded him as a participator with him in the hopes of the gospel, or as a fellow-laborer in a common cause, he would receive him as he would himself; Plm 1:17.

(g) He says that he would himself become security for Onesimus if he owed Philemon anything, or had in any way wronged him; Plm 1:18-19.

He concludes the argument by referring to the happiness which it would give him if Philemon would receive his former servant again; and with the expression of his conviction that he would do more than he asked in the matter, and then asks that, while he showed favor to Onesimus, he would also prepare a lodging for him, for he hoped soon to be with him; Plm 1:20-22.

Perhaps by this last suggestion he hoped also to do much to favor the cause of Onesimus - for Philemon could hardly turn him away when he expected that Paul himself would soon be with him. Such an argument would be likely to be effectual in the case. We do not like to deny the request which a friend makes in a letter, if we expect soon to see the writer himself. It would be much more easy to do it if we had no expectations of seeing him very soon.

IV. The Epistle closes with affectionate salutations from certain persons who were with Paul, and who were probably well known to Philemon, and with the customary benediction; Plm 1:23-25.

Preface to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Philemon

It may be thought strange that a short letter, written entirely on a private subject, without reference to the proof or defense of any doctrine of the Gospel, should, by the general consent of the Church of God, from the highest Christian antiquity, have been received into the sacred canon, not only as a genuine production of St. Paul, but as a piece designed by the Holy Spirit for the edification of the Church. However, such is the fact; and we may add, that this very piece was held so sacred that even the ancient heretics did not attempt to impugn its authenticity or corrupt its matter, while making dangerously free with the four gospels, and all the other epistles!

Philemon, the person to whom it is addressed, was undoubtedly, at the time in which this epistle was sent, an inhabitant of Colosse, (concerning which city, see the preface to the Epistle to the Colossians), and was probably a Colossian by birth, though some suppose that he was of Ephesus. It is evident, from Plm 1:19 of this epistle, that he was converted to the Christian faith by St. Paul; this is agreed on all hands; but as some suppose that the apostle had not visited Colosse previously to the writing of this epistle, they think it probable that he might have met with him at Ephesus, or in same other part of Asia Minor, where he formed an acquaintance with him, and became the means of his conversion. But there is no need for this supposition, as it is most probable that the apostle had not only visited Colosse prior to this, but that the Gospel was planted in that city, as in all other parts of Phrygia, by himself. See the preface to the Colossians, and the note on Colossians 2:1.

That Philemon was a person of some consideration in his own city, and in the Church in that place, is very evident from this epistle. He had a Church in his house, Plm 1:2, and was so opulent as to be extensive in works of charity, and in entertaining those Christians who from different quarters had occasion to visit Colosse. See Plm 1:5-7.

Whether he had any office in the Church is not clear: some think he was a bishop, others an elder or deacon; but of this there is no evidence. He was probably no more than a private member, whose house, hand, and property were consecrated to God, his Church, and the poor. He who, by the good providence of God, has property and influence thus to employ, and a heart to do it, need not envy the state of the highest ecclesiastic in the Church of Christ. Both the heart and the means to do secular good are possessed by few, whereas multitudes are found willing both to teach in and govern the Church.

The occasion of writing this letter was the following: Onesimus, a slave, had on some pretense or other run away from his master Philemon, and had come to Rome, where St. Paul was at that time in prison, though not in close confinement, for he dwelt in his own hired house, in which he assiduously preached the Gospel, being guarded only by one soldier. See Acts 28:16, Acts 28:23.

It appears that Onesimus sought out Paul, whose public preaching, both to Jews and Gentiles, had rendered him famous in the city; and it is very likely that he was led to visit the apostle from having formerly seen him at his master's house in Colosse, and the word of life, preached by the apostle, became the means of his conversion. Being thus brought back to God, he became affectionately attached to his spiritual father, and served him zealously as his son in the Gospel. Onesimus, being thus brought to the acknowledgment of the truth which is according to godliness, gave the apostle a full account of his elopement from his master, and no doubt intimated his wish to return and repair the breach which he had made.

Though he was now both dear and necessary to St. Paul, yet, as justice required that reparation should be made, he resolved to send him back; and to remove all suspicion from the mind of Philemon, and to reconcile him to his once unfaithful servant, he wrote the following letter, in which, as Dr. Macknight expresses it, "with the greatest softness of expression, warmth of affection, and delicacy of address, he not only interceded for Onesimus's pardon, but urged Philemon to esteem him, and put confidence in him as a sincere Christian; and because restitution, by repairing the injury that had been done, restores the person who did it to the character he had lost, the apostle, to enable Onesimus to appear in Philemon's family with some degree of reputation, bound himself in this epistle, by his handwriting, Plm 1:18, Plm 1:19, not only to repay all that Onesimus owed to Philemon, but to make full reparation also for whatever injury he had done to him by running away." It is generally thought that Onesimus had robbed his master; but there is certainly nothing in the epistle from which this can be legitimately inferred; the words, "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account," Plm 1:18, certainly do not prove it; they only state a possible case, that he might have wronged his master, or have been under some pecuniary obligation to him; and the apostle, by appearing to assume this, greatly strengthened his own argument, and met the last objection which Philemon could be supposed capable of making. There is neither justice nor piety in making things worse than they appear to be, or in drawing the most unfavourable conclusions from premises which, without constraint, will afford others more consonant to the spirit of charity.

That this epistle was written about the same time with those to the Philippians and Colossians is proved by several coincidences. "As the letter to Philemon and that to the Colossians were written," says Dr. Paley, "at the same time, and sent by the same messenger, the one to a particular inhabitant, the other to the Church of Colosse, it may be expected that the same or nearly the same persons would be about St. Paul, and join with him, as was the practice, in the salutations of the epistle. Accordingly we find the names of Aristarchus, Marcus, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas, in both epistles. Timothy, who is joined with St. Paul in the superscription of the Epistle to the Colossians, is joined with him in this. Tychicus did not salute Philemon because he accompanied the epistle to Colosse, and would undoubtedly there see him." It will not be forgotten that Onesimus, the bearer of this epistle, was one of the bearers of that sent to the Colossians, Colossians 4:9; that when the apostle wrote that he was in bonds, Colossians 4:3, Colossians 4:18, which was his case also when he wrote this; (see Plm 1:1, Plm 1:10, Plm 1:13, Plm 1:23); from which, and various other circumstances, we may conclude that they were written about the same time, viz. the ninth year of Nero, a.d. 62. Other particulars relative to this epistle will be pointed out in the course of the notes, and particularly the uses which the Church of God and the private Christian may derive from it.

Paul's salutation to Philemon, and the Church at his house, Plm 1:1-3. He extols his faith, love, and Christian charity, Plm 1:4-7. Entreats forgiveness for his servant Onesimus, Plm 1:8-14. Urges motives to induce Philemon to forgive him, Plm 1:15-17. Promises to repair any wrong he had done to his master, Plm 1:18, Plm 1:19. Expresses his confidence that Philemon will comply with his request, Plm 1:20, Plm 1:21. Directs Philemon to prepare him a lodging, Plm 1:22. Salutations and apostolical benediction, Plm 1:23-25.

INTRODUCTION TO PHILEMON

This epistle was written by the Apostle Paul, when a prisoner at Rome, as appears from its inscription and subscription; and seems to have been written at the same time, in the year 60, and sent by the same hand, as the epistle to the Colossians; seeing the same persons were with the apostle at the writing of both, and send their Christian salutations in the one, as in the other; compare Plm 1:23 with Colossians 4:10 and Archippus, the minister in Colosse, is made mention of in both, Plm 1:2 and it is very probable that Philemon, to whom it was written, was a Colossian, since Onesimus, his servant, on whose account, and by whom it was sent, is said to be one of the Colossians, Colossians 4:9. Philemon is said to be one of the seventy disciples, and afterwards Bishop of Gaza; Luke 10:1. The occasion of the epistle was this; Philemon's servant, Onesimus, having either embezzled his master's goods, or robbed him, ran away from him, and fled to Rome, where the apostle was a prisoner in chains in his own hired house, under the custody of a soldier, and where he received all that came, and preached the Gospel to them, Acts 28:30 and among those that went to hear him, this fugitive servant was one, and was converted under his ministry; and who not only received the grace of God, but had such gifts bestowed on him as qualified him to be a preacher of the word. Now the design of this epistle is to reconcile Philemon to his servant, and to entreat him to receive him again, not only as a servant, but as a brother in Christ; and the most proper and prudent methods and arguments are used to engage him to it. The epistle, though it is a familiar one, and short, is very instructive; it shows great humility in the apostle, and that he did not think it below him to be concerned in doing such an office as to reconcile a master to his servant, and which is worthy of imitation; as also it teaches the right that masters have over their servants, which is not lost by their becoming Christians, and even ministers of the Gospel; and that recompense should be made unto them for injuries done by them: it likewise displays the riches of the grace of God, in the conversion of such a vile creature: and the wonderful providence of God in overruling that which was sinful in itself, running away from his master, to the greatest good, even the conversion of him; and is an instance of surprising grace: and from hence may be learned, that there is salvation in Christ for the chief of sinners; and that the conversion of them is not to be despaired of. The authority of this epistle was not questioned by the ancient writers, and stands always in their catalogues of the canon of the Scripture; and Marcion the heretic, who either rejected, or changed, or mutilated the rest of the epistles, could not lay his hands on this, because of the brevity of it, as Tertullian (a) and Jerom (b) observe.

(a) Advers. Marcion. l. 5. c. 21. (b) Proaem. in Philem.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO

PHILEMON.

The Epistle to Philemon.

BY

THE RIGHT REV. ALFRED BARRY, D.D.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO

PHILEMON.

I. The Date, Place, and Occasion of the Epistle.—These are all perfectly clear. The Epistle is of the same date as the Epistle to the Colossians, sent by Onesimus, who was one of the bearers of that Epistle (Colossians 4:9); dwelling emphatically on St. Paul’s imprisonment (Philemon 1:1; Philemon 1:9), looking forward confidently to a speedy release and a return to Asia (Philemon 1:22). Even the salutations, with one exception, are the same in both (Philemon 1:23-24, comp. with Colossians 4:10-14). It is written to intercede with Philemon for Onesimus, his slave—formerly “unprofitable,” a runaway, and probably a thief, but now converted to a new life by St. Paul at Rome, and after his conversion becoming at once “profitable” to St. Paul for ministration in his captivity, and likely to be profitable also to his old master, to whom, accordingly, St. Paul sends him back, with this letter of intercession.

II. The Persons to whom it is addressed.—All we know of Philemon is gathered from this Epistle. It is nowhere actually said he was a Colossian; but this is inferred from the fact that Onesimus, his slave, is described as of Colossæ (Colossians 4:9). It is clear that he was St. Paul’s convert; but, as the Apostle had not visited Colossæ (Colossians 2:1), we may probably conjecture that he had been brought under his influence during his long stay at Ephesus. Possibly, like Epaphras (Colossians 1:7), he had been, under St. Paul’s auspices, an evangelist of his native place. For he is evidently a man of mark; “the Church” gathers “in his house;” he is able, by his love, “to refresh the hearts of the saints,” probably by temporal as well as spiritual gifts; to him St. Paul entrusts the charge of preparing a lodging for his hoped-for visit, and describes that visit as “being granted,” “through his prayers,” to him and his. We note also that the Apostle treats him as almost an equal—as a “brother” (not “a son”), as “a fellow-labourer,” and as a “partner.”

This last phrase—used distinctively, and without any words of limitation to some particular work—is unique. It occurs in close connection with the promise on St. Paul’s part to take upon himself the pecuniary responsibility of any default of Onesimus—a promise emphasised by the writing of a bond of obligation in legal form. Accordingly, it has been supposed that Philemon was St. Paul’s partner in the “tent-making” by which he maintained himself with Aquila and Priscilla—first, certainly, at Corinth (Acts 18:3), and afterwards, as it appears (Acts 20:35), at Ephesus; that he may have still had in his hands some of the money earned by that common labour, and that from this St. Paul offers to discharge the obligation taken upon himself for Onesimus. The supposition is ingenious, and certainly quite possible; but it revolts against all our conceptions of St. Paul’s character to suppose that he would work beyond what was actually necessary for maintenance, so as to accumulate money, and keep a regular debtor and creditor account with Philemon. Nor is it easy to see why, if this was so, he should have so urgently needed in prison the supplies sent from Philippi (Philippians 4:10-13). Accordingly, it seems better to refer the “partnership” or “communion” (see Philippians 4:6 of the Epistle) principally, if not exclusively, to some united work of evangelisation or beneficence (possibly devised during the common labour at Ephesus) for the Churches of Asia, and especially for the Church of Colossæ. Ecclesiastical tradition, as usual, makes Philemon the Bishop of Colossæ in the hereafter.

Of Apphia we know nothing, except that tradition, and the style in which the Epistle mentions her, both support the idea that she was Philemon’s wife. Archippus, a minister of the Church, either of Colossæ or Laodicea (see Note on Colossians 4:7), is on the same ground supposed to have been his son. The tone of the whole Epistle gives the impression of some wealth and dignity in the family, nobly used for the relief of necessity and the knitting closer of the bonds of Christian unity.

III. The Genuineness of the Epistle.—It is notable that, unlike the other two personal Epistles—the Second and the Third of St. John, if, indeed, the Second be really personal—this Epistle found its place in all catalogues, from the Muratorian Canon downwards, and in all the ancient versions. We might have supposed that, in respect of such reception, it would have suffered from the improbability of any public reading in the Church, from the want of adaptability to theological or ecclesiastical uses, and from the idea which seems to have prevailed—which is noticed by St. Chrysostom on the Epistle, and which St. Jerome in his preface to the Epistle (vol. vii., p. 742, ed. Vallarsii, 1737) refutes with his usual strong sense and trenchancy—that the occasion and the substance of the Epistle were too low for the Apostolic inspiration. “They will have it,” St. Jerome says, “either that the Epistle which is addressed to Philemon is not St. Paul’s, or that, even if it be his, it has nothing in it tending to our edification; and that by many of the ancients it was rejected, since it was written for the purpose merely of commendation, not of instruction.’ But this kind of criticism did not prevail against the common acceptance of its authenticity. Even Marcion did not tamper with it, as Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 42) and St. Jerome expressly declare. Origen, the great critic of the East, as St. Jerome of the West, quotes it without hesitation. In the Church generally it remained unshaken as one of the Epistles accepted by all.

In the larger criticism of modern times the very reasons which induced doubt in the fourth and fifth centuries will be accepted as the strongest internal evidence of its genuineness. The utter improbability of the forging of such an Epistle, which admits of no controversial or directly theological use, the exquisite beauty and naturalness of the whole style, even the vivid picture which it gives of an ancient Christian family—all have been felt to preclude any except the most wanton scepticism as to its genuineness. It is hard to conceive how any one can read it without feeling that we have in it a picture of the Apostle of the Gentiles, which we could ill afford to lose, but which no hand, except his own, would have ever ventured to paint.

IV. The Substance of the Epistle.—The great interest of this Epistle is two-fold—(1) in its personal relation to St. Paul’s life and character, and (2) in the light which it throws on the attitude of the gospel towards slavery.

(1) It is the only strictly private Letter of St. Paul—the one survivor, we may suppose, of very many—preserved to us in the Canon of Holy Scripture. For all the other Epistles are either Letters to the Churches, or Pastoral Epistles of authoritative direction. Accordingly it exhibits the Apostle in a new light. He throws off, as far as possible, his Apostolic dignity, and his fatherly authority over his converts. He speaks simply as Christian to Christian. He speaks, therefore, with that peculiar grace of humility and courtesy, which has, under the reign of Christianity, developed the spirit of chivalry, and what is called “the character of a gentleman”—certainly very little known in the old Greek and Roman civilisations—while yet in its graceful flexibility and vivacity it stands contrasted with the more impassive Oriental stateliness. It has been customary and natural to compare with it a celebrated letter of the younger Pliny on a like occasion (Ep. ix. 21, quoted in Dr. Lightfoot’s Introduction). But in Pliny himself there was a tone of feeling differing very much from the more ancient Roman character, approaching more nearly to the modern type. It would be curious to inquire, whether in this tone of character, as in the actual tenets of the later Stoicism, there might not be some unknown and indirect influence of the Christianity, which as yet would have been probably despised. Nor will the comparison for a moment place even the highly accomplished and cultivated Roman on a level with the Jewish tentmaker of Tarsus.

There is to us a vivid interest in the glimpse thus given into the private and personal life of St. Paul. We note, for example, the difference of tone—the greater pathos and the less unqualified rejoicing—in which he speaks of his captivity. We observe the gladness with which, when he rightly may, he throws off the isolation of authority, and descends into the familiarity of equal intercourse, lingering with an obvious delight in the very word “brother,” which breathes the very spirit of freedom and equality. We see how, under the Apostolic mission, as under the Apostolic inspiration, free play of personal character and of familiar companionship could still live and flourish. We seem to know St. Paul better, even as an Apostle, because we are allowed to see him when he chooses not to be an Apostle, but a “partner,” and, moreover, “such an one as Paul the aged, and the prisoner of Jesus Christ.” But, even beyond this, we may fairly draw from this Epistle a priceless lesson, as to the place which true courtesy and delicacy occupy in Christian character, and especially as to their entire compatibility with high Apostolic enthusiasm, with a keen insight into realities as distinct from forms, and with the greatest possible plainness of speech in due season. We feel, as we read, how little it accords with the idea that Christian men and Christian ministers “have nothing to do with being gentlemen.” We understand how true courtesy, as distinct from artificial and technical culture of manners, is the natural outgrowth of the “lowliness of mind” in which “each esteems other better than himself,” and of the sympathy of love which “looks not only upon our own things,” but, even in greater degree, “upon the things of others.”

(2) But of far greater interest still is the illustration of the attitude assumed in the New Testament, and in the early Church, towards the monstrous institution of slavery.

How deeply that institution of slavery was engrained in all the history of antiquity, both Eastern and Western, we know well. Nor will this surprise any one who remembers that inequality—physical, mental, and spiritual—is, quite as truly as equality, the law of human life. Service and lordship, in some sense, there must always be; and it is absurd to deny that this law is, because we wish that it were not, or perhaps think that it ought not to be. But equality is the law of the primary qualities and rights of human nature; inequality only of the secondary qualities and rights. If this relation be reversed in practice, we pass from what is natural to that which, however frequent, is yet fatally unnatural. Slavery is just such a reversal. Because one race is stronger, abler, more commanding, more civilised than another, this is made a ground for crushing out, in the weaker race, all the essential attributes of humanity. Primarily by the unnatural agency of war, secondarily by systematised organisation in peace, the slave is made to cease to be a man: he is treated simply as a brute beast of somewhat higher organisation and usefulness than his fellows, or even “as a living chattel or machine”—having no rights whatever, except those which humanity may teach towards the lower creatures, or expediency enforce in relation to the machinery of the prosperity and progress of the master. Since, in some sense, freedom of action and cultivation bring out natural inequalities more and more strikingly, slavery, in the absence of some counterbalancing power, rather advanced than receded with the progress of heathen civilisation. Under the Roman empire, depending mainly on organised force rather than on intellectual cultivation, it presented this characteristic and intolerable incongruity, that it held in bondage men at least as noble in race as their conquerors, men even more highly cultivated, and heirs of more ancient civilisations.

That the Old Testament should recognise the existence of slavery, especially in inferior and degraded races, was only to be expected. That slavery under the patriarchal simplicity should have been lighter than under the higher civilisation of the nation of Israel, though at first sight startling, is yet, on more careful thought, seen to be natural. That the Mosaic law should attempt only to mitigate the irresponsible despotism of the master, and that in this respect it should make a marked distinction between the Israelite and the foreigner, is thoroughly accordant with our Lord’s declaration, that it was made “for the hardness of men’s hearts,” and with the exclusiveness of privilege which it claimed in all things for the chosen race. Slavery, accordingly, continued in the Jewish people, though—thanks to those mitigations of the Law, to the protest against oppression and cruelty so familiar to us in prophecy, and to the very influence of a spiritual religion, wherever this was really accepted—it was actually very far milder than under Greece or Rome. Still it did exist. Nor will this surprise those who have duly weighed—what advocates and opponents of slavery, in dealing with the Old Testament, nave constantly failed to weigh—the essentially imperfect and preparatory character of the Jewish covenant.

But what line would Christianity take? Nothing, of course, could be clearer than that it was radically opposed in principle to the whole conception and practice of slavery. For it brought out the fundamental equality or brotherhood of all, in the regenerate human nature, in which “there was neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free.” It devoted itself with a very special earnestness to redress all existing inequalities, by exalting the humble, by glorifying weakness, by restraining the self-assertion of strength. Above all, it consecrated that brotherhood in Jesus Christ; its whole conception of the spiritual life consisted in the union of each individual soul with God in Christ, so giving to individuality a sacredness utterly incompatible with the very possibility of absolute despotism of one Christian man over another. But of carrying out the principle there were two ways. One was, so to speak, “of law,” embodying it at once in a declaration of freedom, abrogating all slavery within the Christian Church, protesting against it, as against all moral evils, in the world at large. The other was “of the Spirit,” proclaiming the great truth of brotherhood in Christ and sonship of God, and then leaving it gradually to mould to itself all institutions of society, and to eradicate whatever in them was against God’s fundamental law, reasserted in the word of Jesus Christ. Now of these two ways it is not hard to see that to adopt the former way would have been to revolutionise suddenly the whole of society, to preach (though unwillingly) a servile war, and to arm all existing governments by the very instinct of self-preservation against the infant Church, which, even as it was, excited their suspicion and alarm. Independently of all thought of consequences, we could not but anticipate that by its very nature Christianity would take the way of the Spirit, rather than the Law. But there can be no doubt that, historically, this was the way which it did take without hesitation or reserve. The principle laid down broadly by St. Paul (1Corinthians 7:20-24) was that “every man should abide” in the outward condition “in which he was called,” only “with God,” in the new spiritual unity with God sealed to him in the blood of Jesus Christ. He applied that principle to the cases of circumcision and uncircumcision, marriage and celibacy; he did not shrink from applying it for the Christian community to the case of submission to “the powers that be,” even to death, and for the individual to the crucial and extreme case of slavery and freedom. However we may interpret his words in 1Corinthians 7:21 (where see Note), they clearly imply that to one who is at once “the Lord’s freeman” and “Christ’s slave” the outward condition matters comparatively little. It may be that in this case, as in the case of marriage, St. Paul was partly influenced by the consideration that “the time was short.” Yet his teaching really depended, not on this expectation, but on the fundamental principle and method of Christianity. The declaration, “Not now a slave but a brother,” a “brother beloved,” and “a brother beloved in the Lord,” brought the forces of human duty and human affection, under the inspiration of religious faith, to bear on the prison-house of slavery. Deeply founded as its walls were, and cemented by the use of centuries, they could not but fall under the combined attack of these three irresistible powers.

Meanwhile the gospel set itself to two immediate works. First, to raise the self-respect of the slave, to comfort his sorrow, to nerve him to bear the hardships of his cruel lot. This it did sometimes by glorifying suffering, in the bold declaration to the slave that his suffering, whatever it was, was a brotherhood in the suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ, who Himself “took upon Him the form of a slave,” and “suffering for us left an ensample,” in which even the helpless and despised slave could “follow His steps” (1Peter 2:18-25). Sometimes, on the other hand, by setting forth to him the spiritual freedom, which no “master after the flesh” could take away, and by declaring that all service was ultimately a service to the Lord, to be rendered not only “from the heart,” but “of good will,” and rewarded here and hereafter with the heavenly prize (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25). Under both these convictions it taught the slave still to be patient under “subjection,” till the end should come. Next, Christianity turned to the masters. It bade them remember their responsibility to the same Master in heaven, under whom their slaves served, and who would certainly make, in His strict retribution, no “respect of persons;” it claimed that they should “do the same things” to their slaves, recognising a mutual duty, and giving them all that was “just and equal,” due to the indefeasible rights of humanity; above all that they should recognise in them a common brotherhood in Christ.

Now this is precisely the line which St. Paul pursues in respect of Onesimus. He, the runaway slave of Philemon, apparently an idler and a thief, had made his way to Rome, “the sink,” as its writers bitterly complained, “of the civilised world.” There St. Paul had somehow found him, and had regenerated the true humanity which had been degraded in him. He had found him a dear son; he had felt the comfort of his affectionate ministration. How deeply this had impressed on his mind the whole question of slaves and masters we see by the strong emphasis, marked by almost verbal coincidence, with which, in the Ephesian and Colossian Epistles, he dwells on the subject generally. But, coming to the particular case, he bids Onesimus acknowledge the mastership of Philemon, and go back to submit to him, and to offer atonement for his past misdeeds and flight. He will not even interpose by authority, or, by keeping Onesimus at Rome, put any constraint on Philemon’s freedom to use his legal power. But he shows, by his own example, that the slave is to be treated as a son. He sends him back, not as a slave, but as “a brother beloved in the Lord.” He “knew that Philemon would do even more than he said.” He may have looked forward in prophetic foresight to the time when the whole Christian community, like Philemon, should draw the inference, unspoken but irresistible, and set absolutely free those who were not slaves, but brethren.

That expectation has been realised. It is remarkable that from very early days the iron cruelty of this Roman slave law began to give way. We may allow much in this respect to the growing dominion of universal law, and to the influence of the nobler philosophies; but we may be permitted to doubt whether the unacknowledged principes of Christianity were not already leavening public opinion, and beginning to make the change even in law, which was afterwards seen in the codes of Christian emperors. But one thing is certain historically, that in the abolition, certainly of ancient serfship in Europe, and perhaps of modern serfship in Russia, in the prohibition of the slave trade, in the great sacrifices for emancipation made by England in the last generation, and the United States of America in this, it was Christianity, and not simple philanthropy, which actually did the beneficent work. The battle was the battle of humanity; but it was fought under the banner of the Cross. Even while we wonder that the victory should have been so long in coming, we must confess that it has been won; and against all forms of mitigated slavery in modern society, experience certainly warns us to trust, not to the sense of common interest, the conviction of mutual duty, or even the enthusiasm of philanthropy, but to the faith which recognises in the poorest and the weakest, even in the idler and the sinner, “a brother beloved in the Lord.”

[This Epistle divides itself naturally into—

(1)SALUTATION to Philemon and his house (Philemon 1:1-3).

(2)THANKSGIVING for their faith and love (Philemon 1:4-7).

(3)INTERCESSION, FOR ONESIMUS, as now the Apostle’s “son” in the faith, and “the brother,” not slave, of his master Philemon, with promise to make good any default of his in times past (Philemon 1:8-15).

(4)CONCLUSION, expressing St. Paul’s confidence in Philemon, his hope of visiting them, and final salutation (Philemon 1:21-25).]

Title

The oldest known form is the briefest, To Philemon. That in the A.V. is from the Textus Receptus. Other forms are, Paul’s (or The holy Apostle Paul’s) Epistle to Philemon. One title runs, These sure things writes Paul to faithful Philemon.[113]

[113] The omission of one syllable in this Greek title (so as to read βαιὰ instead of (βέβαια) makes it run as a hexameter line, and gives the sense“Paul on a slender theme thus writes to the faithful Philemon.”If we are right in this guess, perhaps this title was devised by a depreciator (pp. 147, 148) of the Epistle, and afterwards altered, at the expense of metre, by some wiser man.

See note on the title of Colossians.