III. Tinu andPlaa ofWriting. This is generally held
to b( e of the letters i the others are Ephesians, ( lolos-
sians, Philippians, and Hebrews) which the apostle wrote during his first captivity al Rome. The arguments which Bhow that he « rote the Epistle to the I lolossians in that city and ai thai period involve the same conclusion in regard to this; for ii is evident from Col. iv, 7. 9, as compared with the contents of this epistle, that Paul wrote the two letters at the same time, and forwarded i in in to their destination by the hands of Tycliicus and Onesimus. who accompanied each other to Colossae. A I few modern critics, as Schulz, Schott, BSttger, Meyer, maintain that this letter and the others assigned usually to the first Roman captivity were written during the two years that Paul was imprisoned at Csesarea (Acts xxiii. :;.">; xxiv. 27). But this opinion, though sup- ported by some plausible arguments, can be demonstra- ted with reasonable certainty to be incorrect. Se< I r> lossians, Epistle to the.
The Hun when Paul wrote may be fixed with much precision. 'The apostle at the close of the letter ex- presses a hope of his Bpeedy liberation. He speaks in like manner of his approaching deliverance in his Epis- tle to the Philippians (ii, 23, 24), which was written during the same imprisonment. Presuming, therefore, that he had good reasons for such an expectation, and thai he was not disappointed in the result, we may con- dude that this letter was written by him early in the year A.D. 58.
IV. Design and Effect — Our knowledge respecting
the occasion and object of the letter we must derive from declarations or inferences furnished by the letter itself. For the relation of Philemon and Onesimus to each other, the reader will see the articles on those names. Paul, so intimately connected with the master and the servant, was anxious naturally to effect a reconciliation between them. He wished also (waiving the dvijicov, the matter of duty or right i to give Philemon an oppor- tunity of manifesting his < ihristian love in the treatment of Onesimus, and his regard, at the same time, for the persona] convenience and wishes, not to say official au- thority, of his spiritual teacher and guide. Paul used his influence with Onesimus (avkmu-ylsa, in ver. 12) to
induct- him to return to ( loloSSK, and place himself again at the disposal "I his master. Whether Onesimus as- Beilted merely to the proposal of the apostle, or had a desire at the same time to revisit his former home, the
epistle does not enable us to determine. < >n his depart- ure Paul put into his hand this letter as evidence thai Onesimus was a true and approved disciple of Christ, and entitled as Mich to he received, in it as a servant, but above a servant, as a brother in the faith, as the repre- sentative and equal in that respect of the apostle him- self, and worthy of the same consideration and love. It is instructive to observe how entirely Paul identifies himself with Onesimus, and pleads his cause as if it were his own. He interci des for him as his own child, promises reparation if he had done any wrong, demands for him not only a remission of all penalties, but the re- ception of sympathy, affeetion, Christian brother! I;
and. W hile he solieils I heSC lav 0TS for allot lor. consents
to receive them with the same gratitude and sense of obligation as if they were bestowed on himself. See
( )MSIMI s.
The result of the appeal cannot DC doubted. Il iii-iv
be assumed from the character of Philemon that the
PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO
apostle's intercession for Onesimus was not unavailing.
There can he no doubt that, agreeably to the express instructions of the letter, the past was forgiven; the master and the servant were reconciled to each other; and if the liberty which Onesimus hail asserted in a spirit of independence was not conceded as a boon or right, it was enjoyed at all event- under a li'im of ■< r- vitude which henceforth was such in name only. So much must he regarded as certain: or it follows that the •apostle was mistaken in his opinion of Philemon's char- acter, and his efforts for the welfare of Onesimus were frustrated. Chrysostom declares, in hi- impassioned style, that Philemon must have been less than a man, must have hroii alike destitute of Bensibility and reason (iraiioc, \&oc, Troloi' dqptov), not to he moved by the arguments and spirit of such a letter to fulfil every wish and intimation of the apostle. Surely no fitting response to his pleadings for Onesimus could involve less than a cessation of everything oppressive and harsh in his civil condition, as far a- ii dep< nded on Philemon to mitigate or neutralize the e\ ils of a legalized system of bondage, as well as a cessation of everything violative of his rights as a Christian. How much farther than this an impartial explanation of the epistle obliges ns or author- izes us to go has n"i yet been settled by any very gen- eral consent of interpreters. Many of the best critics construe certain expressions (to ayaSov in ver. It. and inr'tp o \iyui in ver. 21 I as conveying a distinct expec- tation on the part of Paul that Phile n would liberate