PREFACE
BY THE GENERAL EDITOR
THE General Editor does not hold himself responsible, except in the most general sense, for the statements, opinions, and interpretations contained in the several volumes of this Series. He believes that the value of the Introduction and the Commentary in each case is largely dependent on the Editor being free as to his treatment of the questions which arise, provided that that treatment is in harmony with the character and scope of the Series. He has therefore contented himself with offering criticisms, urging the consideration of alternative interpretations, and the like; and as a rule he has left the adoption of these suggestions to the discretion of the Editor.
The Greek Text adopted in this Series is that of Dr Westcott and Dr Hort with the omission of the marginal readings. For permission to use this Text the thanks of the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press and of the General Editor are due to Messrs Macmillan & Co.
TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
1 December, 1906.
PREFACE
WHEN I accepted the invitation of the late General Editor (the present Bishop of Ely, Dr Chase) to write a commentary upon the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, I hardly realized the difficulty of the task or the length of time that it would require for its accomplishment.
For not only is the Epistle to the Colossians one of the hardest of St Paul’s writings, but the existence of two such admirable commentaries as those by Bishop Lightfoot and Bishop Moule, though affording invaluable help towards the elucidation of the Epistle, lays a heavy burden on him who attempts to follow them. It had been comparatively easy, but, alas, superlatively dishonest, to extract the pith of their work and knead it into a new form. But this being out of the question, nothing remained but to use concordances (Geden for the New Testament, Hatch-Redpath for the Septuagint), and Grammars (Winer-Moulton, 1870, Blass, E. Tr. 1898, and latterly J. H. Moulton’s Prolegomena), as thoroughly as possible, and only after an independent examination of the language and thoughts of the Epistle to refer to commentaries upon it. A list of those that have been used will be found on p. lxv.
But the work would have been much more imperfect than it still is if the present General Editor had not given to it much painstaking care, and made many suggestions.
A. L. W.
Advent, 1906.
INTRODUCTION TO PHILEMON
I
CANONICITY AND GENUINENESS
The Epistle is so short and so personal that it does not easily lend itself to quotation, especially by writers who, as for example Irenaeus, are chiefly occupied with doctrinal questions.
1. Orthodox
i. Ignatius possibly has echoes of it in Eph. § 2 κατὰ πάντα με� (cf. Philemon 1:7; Philemon 1:20), and ὀναίμην ὑμῶν διὰ παντός (cf. Philemon 1:20). Compare Magn. § 2 οὐ γὰρ ὀναίμην, and ad Polyc. §§ 1, 6.
ii. Theophilus ad Autol. i. 1 (? 183–185 A.D.) too has the same play upon εὔχρηστος … ἄχρηστος that is found in Philemon 1:11.
iii. The Muratorian Canon names it before the Epistles to Titus and Timothy; “ad filemonem unam.”
iv. Tertullian does not quote it, but shows that he received it by his remark about Marcion (vide infra).
v. Origen appears to be the earliest writer who actually quotes it. He also ascribes it to St Paul: ὅπερ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ἐπιστάμενος ἔλεγεν ἐν τῇ πρὸς Φιλήμονα ἐπιστολῇ τῷ Φιλήμονι περὶ Ὀνησίμου· ἵνα μὴ κατʼ ἀνάγκην τὸ�, ἀλλὰ καθʼ ἑκούσιον (= Philemon 1:14, Hom. xix. on Jeremiah 2). Cf. Matt. Comm. §§ 66, 72.
vi. Eusebius doubtless includes it among his ὁμολογούμενα, for he does not mention it by name among the ἀντιλεγόμενα or the νόθα (H.E. iii. 25), and also says τοῦ δὲ Παύλου πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεὶς αἱ δεκατέσσαρες (iii. 3).
vii. On the other hand there are reasons for thinking that it was not included in the earliest form of the Syriac Canon, for (a) Ephraem does not comment upon it, (b) the Armenian version, which appears to have been based upon the Syriac (vide supra, p. lix., cf. Zahn, Canon II. pp. 564 n. 1003), does not show traces of Syriac influence here. Ephraem accepted, and commented fully upon, the spurious Third Epistle to the Corinthians, and this is also found in the Armenian Version. Perhaps the early Syriac Canon made up the recognised number (14) of St Paul’s epistles by including it instead of the Epistle to Philemon (see J. Arm. Robinson, Euthaliana, 1895, p. 91).
2. Unorthodox
Marcion included it in his Canon, presumably on account of its brevity; cf. Tertullian, soli huic epistolae brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet (c. Marc. Jeremiah 2:21).
We thus find that not only is it used by early writers, but also it is included in the earliest lists of the Pauline Epistles (Marcion, the Muratorian Canon), and that its absence from the earliest form of the Syriac Canon may be satisfactorily explained.
The genuineness of the Epistle has not been denied until recent times, and even so hardly for any other reason than its close connexion with Col. See a summary of the opinions of Baur, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, in van Manen’s article in the Encycl. Bibl. coll. 3693 sq. He himself after urging our ignorance of Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus, says that the “surprising mixture of singular and plural both in the persons speaking and in the persons addressed”[79] indicates an unnatural style, and suggests that “the epistle was written under the influence of a perusal of ‘Pauline’ epistles, especially those to the Ephesians and the Colossians.” It was therefore written in the second century (see coll. 3634). He further supposes that the author made use of the incident mentioned in Pliny’s letter (see below, p. lxix.), but changed the freedman into a slave, and idealised the subject from a Christian standpoint. It was probably written in Syria (or, it may be, in Asia Minor) about 125–130.
[79] Is this so? In W.H. the first and the second persons singular are used throughout, except in Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 2:6; Jeremiah 2:22; Jeremiah 2:25, where the reason for the plural is obvious.
This theory is so far valuable that its author perceives that Phm. is closely connected with Col., but for all else it is much too fine spun to command the general acceptance of scholars. He quite fails to show sufficient reason for the forgery of such a simple and touching letter. Why, if the letter be genuine, we should be expected to know much about the persons to whom it was addressed, does not appear.
On the connexion between the Epp. of Col. and Phm. see the Introduction to Col. p. li. and on the presence of Onesimus in Rome, ib. pp. xlviii. sq.
II
THE EPISTLE IN RELATION TO SLAVERY
1. It must not be thought that no progress in right opinion upon the subject of slavery had been made before the influence of Christianity. In Rome at least a law issued by Augustus expressly limited the absolute power of a master over his slaves, and appointed a judge in cases of serious difference between them[80], and Claudius issued an edict giving “the Latin freedom” to slaves abandoned by their masters for serious illness. But it was not until the time of Hadrian (117–138 A.D.) that the power of life and death over slaves was actually taken away from their masters.
[80] Cf. Zahn, Sclaverei u. Christenthum in der alten Welt, 1879, p. 155. The reference appears to be to the Lex Petronia, which prohibited masters from making their slaves fight with wild beasts in mere caprice without an order from a judge. The state of slaves in Rome had become much worse in the first century B.C. than in earlier times; see Triebs, Studien zur Lex Dei, 1905, pp. 188 sqq.
Seneca again urged in the first century that knight and freeborn and slave were but names due to vanity or wrong, and protested against the gladiatorial shows, saving, Man is a holy thing to man, and he is killed for play and sport! So also he praises his friend for treating his slaves in a friendly and trustful way: “They are slaves, you urge; nay, they are men. They are slaves; nay, they are comrades. They are slaves; nay, they are humble friends. They are slaves; nay, they are fellow-slaves, if you reflect that fortune has the same power over both[81].” And though he recalls the proverb of fearful import in a community where slaves out-numbered their masters, “so many slaves, so many enemies,” he adds, “We do not have them as enemies, we make them so,” and he bids his reader “make thyself respected rather than feared[82].”
[81] Lightfoot’s translation in St Paul and Seneca (Phil. p. 280).
[82] Zahn, loc. cit.
The letter of Pliny the younger (Ep. ix. 21) to a friend pleading for a freedman of the latter is translated in full by Lightfoot (Philemon, pp. 384 sq.). It is very touching, but the possibility mentioned is very suggestive: “concede something to his youth, something to his tears, something to your own indulgent disposition. Do not torture him, lest you torture yourself at the same time.”
2. The true precursor however of Christian teaching upon slavery is not heathenism, even at its best in philosophic utterance, but Judaism.
True that slavery of a kind was permitted in the Old Testament, but it was very different from that prevalent among the heathen. It was, as regards Israelite slaves, tempered alike by the remembrance, religiously inculcated and often repeated, that all Israelites had sprung from one stock, and were all alike under the special protection of the one God, and also by special legislation enjoining the emancipation of Israelitish slaves every seven years[83], and also the emancipation of a slave who had been seriously injured by his master (Exodus 21:26). Slaves of heathen origin were doubtless included under the command to rest on the Sabbath, a charge enforced on their masters by the reminder that they themselves had once been slaves in Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:14-15). There is no trace in Old Testament history of the harshness and cruelty which was common in Greece or Rome. In fact Job’s words, when pressed to their legitimate issue, result in Christian teaching: “If I did despise the cause of my manservant or my maidservant … did not He that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:13-15.)
[83] Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12. See Philo, De Septenario, § 9 (II. p. 286).
Further, this element of mercy had been strengthened by the later teaching of Jewish leaders. Philo speaking of servants says, “it is not the condition of fortune, but the harmony of nature, which, in accordance with the Divine law, is the rule of justice[84].” He also says that the Essenes possessed no slaves, for they considered slavery to be contrary to the dignity of man: “They do not use the ministrations of slaves, looking upon the possession of servants or slaves to be a thing absolutely and wholly contrary to nature, for nature has created all men free[85].”
[84] De Spec. Leg. § 25 (II. p. 323) in Yonge’s translation.
[85] De Vitâ Contemp. § ix. (II. p. 482 Yonge’s translation). Cf. also Josephus, Antt. XVIII. 1. 5.
3. What was the attitude of the Christian Church towards slavery?
i. It is evident that four courses were open. The Church might condone and even praise it. This has been the attitude of individuals, even among the clergy, in times when slavery has become a prominent question; or it might take up the cause of the slave so vehemently as to bring about a social upheaval; or it might put the matter on one side, regarding it as out of its province; or it might, as it actually did, teach that slavery could not be defended upon principle, and discourage it as far as possible, waiting however for time to produce a strong feeling against it.
For it must be remembered, first, that Christianity does not profess to improve the world, but does proclaim the redemption of the world[86]. It was no more the business of the Church than it was the business of the incarnate Christ (Luke 12:14) to be a judge in earthly matters. The Church was to be a great tree, under the shadow of whose legislation the nations were eventually to take shelter, and it was to be leaven, ultimately leavening the whole lump of human thought and action.
[86] “Das Evangelium ist nicht ein Programm der Weltverbesserung, sondern Verkündigung einer Welterlösung.” Zahn, op. cit. p. 160.
ii. Slavery was a question of grave importance to the Church from the very first. A large proportion of its members must have belonged to the slave class. But to become a Christian brought to a slave temptations of a special kind[87]. If his master was a believer he might think that because he was equal to his master both in Divine worship and in relation to the one Master in heaven, he was therefore justified in considering himself on an equality with him in all else. Against this St Paul writes 1 Timothy 6:2.
[87] Cf. Bigg on 1 Peter 2:18.
Again, if his master was still a heathen, and treated him harshly, he might, with his new learning of the duty of justice and mercy, be the more shocked at him and feel justified in trying to resist him (1 Peter 2:18); or he might feel that he had as a Christian no right to remain a slave of any mere man, and endeavour in some way to escape from so galling a condition (1 Corinthians 7:21).
For it was not only a matter of service and compulsory obedience; there was also the question of whether it was allowable to a Christian to take part, even under compulsion, in the many practices of heathen daily life that had reference to religion. “At every turn he must have been called upon to bow his head in the house of Rimmon, to fetch the incense for his master to burn, to dress the doors with branches on pagan festivals, to wear clothing embroidered with idolatrous emblems[88].”
[88] Bigg, loc. cit.
But if he did set his mind on obtaining his freedom, he might think that fresh opportunities came to him by belonging to a Christian community. Might not some of the contributions raised Sunday by Sunday be used to buy him from his master and so to set him free? That this was a real temptation may be seen from Ignatius’ words to Polycarp (§ 4), “Let them not long to be set free at the expense of the community, lest they be found slaves of their own desires[89].”
[89] μὴ ἐράτωσαν�, ἵνα μὴ δοῦλοι εὑρεθῶσιν ἐπιθνμίας.
iii. But the Church (in at least its early days) remained free from all complicity with slavery. There is no example in the Christian literature of the first three centuries of a Christian selling his own slave, or any Christian slave, to another master[90]. And on the other hand no Church office was shut to slaves as such[91]. Chrysostom could say with truth, “The Church knows no difference between slaves and masters[92].”
[90] Zahn, op. cit. p. 174.
[91] Callistus Bishop of Rome (218–223 A.D.) had been a slave, and a runaway slave, of whose manumission we know nothing, but while Hippolytus rakes up everything against him that he can he never mentions his slavery as an objection to him.
[92] Zahn, op. cit. p. 176.
4. In the formation of a right Christian opinion the Epistle to Philemon must have played an important part. It was written by the greatest of all the apostles on behalf of a slave; whom he says he regarded as his own bowels; for whom he entreated the sympathy of the very master from whom the slave had once fled, and whom, as it seems, this slave had robbed; without (in all probability) hinting that Philemon should set Onesimus free, yet implying that he, with the other Christians who met for worship in his house, should honour Onesimus even though a slave, and admit him to full Christian privileges. Thus the letter emphasizes the enormous change that Christianity had brought to all slaves. It showed by a concrete example the truth stated in the contemporary letter that in Christ there is neither bond nor free (Colossians 3:11), and that earthly connexion or condition is unimportant compared with spiritual relationship to God. It was the abolition of the slavery of his will, and its consequent freedom to serve God, that turned Onesimus from a slave in heart to a free man in Christ. That it was a contradiction of the ideal of freedom to be enslaved in body when the soul was free—however important relatively this latter was—a very slight philosophical training could readily discover. Men might be trusted to see, in other words, that slavery was ideally, and therefore fundamentally, opposed to Christianity, even though it was not easy to see how the bodily liberty of all Christian people could be secured without overthrowing the fabric of society.
Nor indeed was the problem solved until society itself became changed. As men learned that manual labour was in itself no disgrace; as the system spread of paying money for services rendered; as it was perceived with increasing clearness—though the vision is far from perfect even yet—that Christian principles must pervade every department of life, so was it more and more evident that slavery was contrary to the will of God and to the rights of man.
5. Into the history of the abolition of slavery in Christian lands this is not the place to enter. It is more important to note that while no professing Christian nation now holds slaves there are still very many millions of slaves in heathen and Mohammadan countries. It is indeed impossible even to guess at all accurately at their number. When however it is stated by an eyewitness that only eleven years ago there were probably five million slaves in Hausa-land alone[93] (though now these are supposed to have been set free), and we are also told that one Arab dhow captured in 1902 contained 700 slaves[94], we can form some idea of the vastness of human misery that slavery is still causing among nations and peoples who have not known the teaching of Christ, and we can appreciate the better the greatness of the change already brought about by the Gospel.
[93] Canon C. H. Robinson at the annual meeting of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 1905.
[94] Sir William Lee-Warner at the same meeting.
III
ANALYSIS
Colossians 3:1-3. Address and greeting.
Colossians 3:4-7. Introductory thanksgiving for Philemon’s faith and kindness to the saints.
Colossians 3:8-20. The request.
Colossians 3:21-22. Sure of Philemon’s obedience he hopes to come to him soon.
Colossians 3:23-24. Salutations from friends.
Colossians 3:25. Final benediction.
IV
COMMENTARIES
The list for the Epistle to the Colossians applies very closely to the Epistle to Philemon. In the International Critical Commentary however Philemon has been taken by M. R. Vincent (1897) instead of T. K. Abbott. Quite recently Dr A. H. Drysdale has issued a suggestive devotional commentary on our Epistle, with a valuable bibliography (1906).