216
, Ρ ἀποτίσω᾽
. ΕῚ Lal , c 2 Cor. ix. ἐμῇ χειρι, 4. d νε eg ΞΕ φέιλεις.]
ΠΡῸΣ ΦΙΛΗΜΟΝΑ ζ20-
Γ x / ο ϱ A , wa μὴ λέγω σοι οτι και σεαυτον μοι προσο-
es 20. “vat, ἀδελφέ, ἐγώ σου " ὀναίμην ἐν kuplw* ἀνάπαυ- ε Lal ae Pa σόν µου τὰ σπλάγχνα ‘év Χριστῷ.2 21. " Πεποιθὼς τῇ " ὑπακοῇ om. Xvi. Ν ιο... σου ἔγραψά σοι, ἐιδὼς ὅτι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἃ ὃ λέγω ποιήσεις. 22. ἅμα & Phil.i.14. 0, ΤΆΤ , ᾽ k μα Δι ο δν ος κ bh Rom. ἶ.5. δὲ kat” | ἑτοίμαῖέ μοι " ξενίαν “ ἐλπιζω γὰρ ὅτι ᾿ διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν 1 Cor. vil. 9 a 15, Χ. 5, 6, ὑμῶν "᾿ χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν. 23. ᾿Ασπάζεταί" σε "᾿Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ Heb. , 2 a? A Ρ , q? , Seer x “συναιχμάλωτός µου ἐν Χριστώ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 24. "Μάρκος, Ἱ᾿Αρίσταρχος, 14, 22. i2 Lim. ii. 41, 1 Cor. ii. 9, Heb. xi. 16. k Acts xxviii. 23. 1 Rom. xii. 3, Gal. i. 18, Phil. i. 19. m Acts iii. 14, xxvii. 24, 1 Cor. ii. 12. n Col. i. 7, iv. 12. o Rom. xvi. 7, Col. iv. 10. p Col iv. 10. q Acts xxvii. 2.
i + ev κνριω D*E*, 30 DE, a, rec.
amanuensis ; the quasi-private character of the letter would account for this. See, further, Lightfoot’s note on Gal. vi. 11. --ἀποτίσω: a stronger form than the more usual ἀποδώσω. As a matter of fact St. Paul, in a large measure, had repaid whatever was due to Philemon by being the means whereby the latter received his slave back, but see Intr. § III. --ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι: a kind of men- tal ejaculation, as though St. Paul were speaking to himself; the σοι does not properly belong to the phrase; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 4.--καὶ σεαυτόν: the reference is to Philemon’s conversion, either directly due to St. Paul, or else indirectly through the mission into Asia Minor, which had been the means whereby Philemon had become a Christian; in either case St. Paul could claim Phile- mon as his spiritual child in the sense that he did in the case of Onesimus (see v. 10).—pot προσοφείλεις: “thou owest me over and above”’. See further, on ὀφειλή, Deissmann, Neue
Bibelst., p. 48, Licht vom Osten, pp. 239. Ver. 20. val: cf. Phil. iv. 3, vat
ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ.---ὁ ὃ ελ φ έ: an affectionate appeal, cf. Gal. iii. 15s vi. I-18.—é γώ:
“The emphatic éy identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own ”’ (Lightfoot). —cov ὀναίμην: ἅπ. dey. in Ν.Τ., it occurs once in the Septuagint (Ecclus. xxx. 2), and several times in the Igna- tian Epp. (Eph. ti. 2, Magn. ii. 12, Rom. ν. 2, Pol. i. 1, vi. 2). Ov. is a play on the name Onesimus, lit., “ May I have profit of thee”; Lightfoot says that the common use of the word ὀναίμην would suggest the thought of filial offices, and gives a number of instances of its use. It is the only proper optative in the N.T. which is not in the third person (Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, p.
2 xvpiw EK, a, rec. 4ασπαζονται KL, a, rec.
τ0ρ5).--ἀνάπανσον: see note on Vv. 7. —év Χριστῷ: St. Paul refers to the real source from which the ἀναπαύειν gets its strength.
Ver. 21. τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου: ahint regarding the authority which St. Paul has a right to wield. τέ ἔγραψα: see note on v. 19.---ὖ πὲρ ἅ: 48 1ί stands this is quite indefinite, but there is much point in Lightfoot’s supposition that the thought of the manumission of Phile- mon was in St. Paul’s mind; “ through- out this epistle the idea would seem to be present to his thoughts, though the word never passes his lips. This re- serve is eminently characteristic of the Gospel. Slavery is never directly at- tacked as such, but principles are incul- cated which must prove fatal to it.”— λέγω: note the tense here, a very vivid touch after ἔγραψα.