Jerome

I always give thanks to my God, making mention of thee in my prayers, hearing of thy charity and faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus and towards all the saints: that the communication of thy faith may be made evident in the acknowledgment of every good that is in you in Christ. "This, now not as Paul and Timothy, to Philemon and others; but as Paul alone, speaks only to Philemon: "I give thanks," he says, "always to my God, making mention of thee in my prayers." It is said ambiguously, whether he always gives thanks to his God, or whether he always mentions him in his prayers. And both can be understood. For whoever commands others to give thanks to God in all things, cannot be restricted by any difficulties to himself not to give thanks to God always. But if Paul always prayed for the saints and for the better ones (Philemon, who is indeed a saint, who also demonstrated such great faith and love that he was known not only by his reputation, but also by his works) and it is likely that he always prayed for Philemon, so that the faith and love he had in Christ, and in all his holy ones, through the communication of faith and the operation of knowledge, would be kept by the mercy of Christ in all goodness. And indeed the interpretation of the love that he had in Christ Jesus, and in all his holy ones, is not difficult: by which we are commanded to love God and our neighbors. Now the question is, how can someone have the same faith in Christ Jesus and in all his saints, since charity you have in the Lord Jesus and in all his holy ones resonates in common, and the faith you have in the Lord Jesus and in all his holy ones. To illustrate this point from Exodus, let us take an example: "The people believed God and Moses, His servant" (Exod. 19). The same belief is attributed to Moses and to God so that the people who believed in the Lord may be said to have likewise believed in His servant. But this is not only true of Moses; it is true of all His saints, so that anyone who believes in God cannot really receive His faith save by believing also in His saints. For to love God perfectly and to have faith in Him, we must not hate or have infidelity toward His ministers. But what I say is this: someone believes in God as the creator: he cannot believe unless he first believes that what is written about his holy things is true: Adam was created by God, Eve was made from his rib, Enoch was translated, Noah alone was saved from the flood; Abraham was the first to be commanded to leave his homeland and his kin, he left behind for his posterity the circumcision which he had received as a sign of future generations; Isaac was offered up as a victim, and for him a ram was slain, crowned with briars, and prefigured the passion of the Lord; Moses and Aaron afflicted Egypt with ten plagues; at the voice and prayers of Jesus, the son of Naue, the sun stood still at Gabaon, and the moon in the vale of Ajalon. It is long to go through all the deeds of the Judges: and to draw the whole story of Samson, to the true sun (for his name indeed means this) is to bring sacrament. I will come to the books of Kings ("or" The Books of Kings) when, during the harvest time, at Samuel's entreaty, rains fell from heaven, and rivers suddenly overflowed: David was anointed king: and Nathan and Gad prophesied mysteries; when Elijah was carried up in a fiery chariot, and Elisha, dead with twofold spirit, raised the dead. These and other things which are written about the saints, unless someone believes them all, he will not be able to believe in the God of the saints, nor will he be brought to faith in the Old Testament, unless he approves whatever is narrated in history about the patriarchs, and prophets, and other notable men, so that, through faith in the Law, he may come to faith in the Gospel, and the justice of God may reveal in him through faith to faith, as it is written: “but the just man liveth by faith” (Habakkuk 2). It is commanded in another place: "Be holy, for I am holy, says the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:2). Likewise, holiness is owed to both servants and the Lord: all are sanctified from one. Let us not consider Philemon's preaching lightly, if he has the same faith in the saints as in God. Whoever believes that God is holy does not err. But if anyone believes that a man who is not holy is holy, and joins him to the fellowship of God, he violates Christ, of whose body we are all members. "Whoever says," he says, "that the just are unjust, and the unjust just, is abominable to God" (Proverbs 17:15); similarly, whoever says that someone who is not holy is holy, or vice versa, is saying that the holy is abominable to God. According to the Apostle, all believers become the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 6). Whoever wanders and falls in the body of Christ, asserting that a member of his is either holy when it is not, or not holy when it is, sees what kind of crime he becomes subject to: 'Woe,' Isaiah says, 'to those who call sweet bitter, and bitter sweet: who put darkness for light, and light for darkness' (Isaiah 5:20). Sweet, I think, is holiness: bitter, that which is contrary to holiness; light can be understood in the same way as holiness, darkness as its opposite. Do you think that a crafty moneychanger, experienced in testing our coins, will not err in judging the saints? One who has equal charity and faith toward God or His saints, ought also to have an equal share in the communication of His faith, so that as he believes and loves, he may also consummate his love and faith by his works. He says, "Let it become clear in knowing all good"; or as is better had in Greek, "effective"; for it can be properly translated "effective" or "operative"; so that we may not only believe that faith and charity towards God and His saints are sufficient for us, but also that what we believe is accomplished by action. However, it may happen that someone has faith and consumes it by actions: truly and simply, however, not having knowledge or understanding of it, according to that of the Apostle: "I bear witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). Today, most of the simple practice works of justice, and they do not have knowledge of what they are working on. Hence, it was added: "That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledgment of every good thing." To what degrees and with what leaps, does the apostle strive towards higher things in his speech? Someone may have charity and faith in God and his saints: but perhaps he may not communicate it equally in all directions. Perhaps he may communicate it to all, but he may not fulfill it in action: someone may fulfill it with willingness and action, but he cannot have a perfect understanding of his deeds. There is such a person who has both skill and knowledge, but not every understanding of good; for he is unequal to his own virtues in some part, though doing many things justly, gently and studiously. Isn't Philemon such a person? He indeed has a participation in the working faith and knowledge of all good things. And although it is in the apostles, we should not consider it perfect just because it is in them, but rather that it is full in Christ, since Christ is the source from which all the good in Philemon is praised and taken from the example of the apostles. Therefore, it is good, because it is derived from the source of Christ.

I am writing to you because of the confidence I have in Christ Jesus, commanding you to do what is proper for the sake of love. I urge you even more, as one such as Paul, an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus. With many praises given to Philemon before him, considering the matter at hand, which would be both excellent and helpful to the requester, Paul was able to command rather than request. And this confidence came from the fact that whoever had done such great works for Christ could not be unequal to himself in other aspects. But he wishes to ask more than to command, with the authority of one asking for something great being proposed, through which both the Apostle begs, and the old man and prisoner of Jesus Christ. But that for which he is asking the whole time is: Onesimus, the servant of Philemon, he had fled and compounded some domestic item by theft: hence he had gone to Italy, so that he would not be easily apprehended in the near future, he had squandered his master's money through luxury. Lest anyone think this rashly, and that it is made up as we please, let him learn in the following. For Paul would never say: "If he has harmed you or owes anything, put it to my account: I, Paul, have written with my own hand; I will repay it." Nor would he become the surety of a lost thing, and if that which was lost had not been squandered. Therefore, when Paul was in prison in Rome because of the confession of Christ, he believed in Christ; and after being baptized by him, he wiped away the stains of his former life with worthy penance, to such an extent that the apostle himself became a witness of his conversion, who had once rebuked Peter for not walking rightly in the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2). Therefore regarding sin and wrongdoing, in which he had injured the lord, he doesn't deserve forgiveness; however, regarding the testimony of the Apostle, who knows that he has been fully converted, he is burdened with great weight, since he is being asked who was once a fugitive slave and a robber, yet had become a minister of the Apostle. (And what other ministry does the Apostle have except the Gospel of Christ Jesus?) Now he is no longer to be forgiven as if by his master, but rather as if by a fellow servant and co-evangelist, as he too is a servant of Christ and a minister.

"I beseech you concerning my son, whom I have begotten in chains, Onesimus, who was once useless to you, but is now useful to both you and me, whom I have sent back to you. But you, receive him, that is, my own heart, whom I wished to keep with me, so that he might serve me on your behalf in the chains of the gospel. " In wishing to obtain what he asks for, he now asserts that he is pleading not for Philemon's slave, but for his own son. And regarding that son whom he has begotten in the chains of the gospel, that is, which he endured for the sake of Christ's gospel: who, although he was once useless to his master (for a slave who steals and runs away harms no one but his own master), now on the contrary, by way of compensation for his usefulness to both his master and Paul, and to others through Paul, he deserves more love than he had previously deserved hatred. He says, "Who was useless to you at one time." "To you alone," he says, "not to others: but now it is useful to both me and you." It is useful to the master in that he could serve Paul as his master; Paul, however, is useful in this: that he could minister to him in the Gospel while he was being held in prison and chains. And at the same time we admire the magnanimity of the apostle and his fervent mind in Christ. He is held in prison, is bound in chains, is oppressed by the filth of his body, by separation from his loved ones, is cramped by penal darkness, and yet he feels no wrong, he is not tortured by pain, he knows nothing else but to think about the Gospel of Christ. He knew the slave, he knew the fugitive, he knew that he had been converted to the faith of Christ by a kidnapper. It is a great effort for a man to persevere in what he has begun. Therefore, he impresses, repeats, and urges his son and the son of bonds, and minister of the Gospel who is imprisoned, that Philemon, praised only in the preface, would not dare to refuse, lest he appear unworthy of his own praises. And what he says: "But you accept him, that is, my heart," this is what I said a little earlier, that "heart" signifies the internal affection of the heart and the full willingness from the soul, when everything that is in us is received from the one asking. But otherwise, all children are the parents' hearts.

"But I did not want to do anything without your advice, so that your goodness would not be like a necessity, but voluntary." This question, which is asked by many and often withdrawn, can be solved from the present place, why God, creating man, did not create him good and right. For if God is good voluntarily, and not out of necessity, creating man, he ought to have made him in his image and likeness, that is, so that he too would be voluntarily, and not out of necessity, good. But those who assert that it should have been done so that evil could not be received, say this: he should have been made who was good out of necessity and not of his own accord. If such a result had been done that is good not by will, but by necessity, it would not be similar to God: who is good therefore because he wills, not because he is compelled. From which it is clear that they demand opposing things from each other. For from what they say, 'Man ought to become similar to God', they ask that free will should be obtained, just as God himself has. However, from what they infer, 'Such an individual ought to be made who could not obtain evil'; while they impose necessity upon a person for the sake of good, they desire that man should not become similar to God. And so the Apostle Paul was able to retain Onesimus for himself in service without the consent of Philemon. But if he had done this without Philemon’s consent, it would have been a good thing, but not voluntary. And what is not voluntary is argued to be not good in another way. For nothing can be called good unless it is voluntary. From this it follows that the prudence of the Apostles must be considered: he who sends back a fugitive slave to his master, so that he may be of use to his master, does so for the benefit of his master, who could not benefit if the slave were held in the absence of the master. Therefore, the question is solved in this way: God was able to make man good without his will. Moreover, if He had done this, it would not have been voluntary goodness, but of necessity. But that which is good by necessity is not good, and is argued to be evil of another kind. Therefore, leaving us with our own free will, He created us more in His image and likeness. And to be like God is absolutely good.

Perhaps for this reason he departed from you for a time, so that you might receive him forever. No longer as a servant, but more than a servant, a beloved brother, especially to me: but how much more to you both in the flesh, and in the Lord." Sometimes, evil is the cause of good things, and God can turn the wicked intentions of men to good. What I am saying will become clearer through an example. Joseph's brothers, incited by jealousy, sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver (Gen. 37). From this evil beginning, good things came to his father, his brothers, and all of Egypt. Finally, he said to his brothers: "You thought evil of me: but God turned it into good." (Gen. 45:8). We can understand a similar thing in the case of Onesimus, that bad beginnings were the occasion of a good thing. For if he had not fled his master, he would never have come to Rome where Paul was imprisoned. If he had not seen Paul in chains, he would not have received faith in Christ. If he had not had faith in Christ, he would never have been sent out for the work of the gospel as Paul's son. Thus little by little, and by its own steps, with changing judgments, Onesimus became a minister of the gospel, because he had fled from his master. And with a beautiful addition, he tempered his judgment, saying, "perhaps." The judgments of God are hidden, and it is reckless to pronounce as certain what is doubtful. "Perhaps," he said, "this happened": cautiously, timidly, tremblingly, without taking a firm stand: as if he had not said "perhaps," all the slaves would have fled, and become as apostates. But what he added, "for an hour," we must take for a time. For in comparison with eternity, all time is brief. "That you might receive him as if he were eternal." No eternal lord has a servant: for his power, and the condition of each, ends in death. But Onesimus, who has become eternally so through the faith of Christ, was eternal to Philemon, because he too had believed in Christ, and had received the spirit of liberty, so that he no longer was a slave, but had begun to be a brother from a slave, a most dear brother, an eternal brother; eternal to his Apostle and Lord also, to whom Onesimus had been subject as long as he was in the flesh, but afterwards united by the spirit. And thus we may understand that a servant who has believed in Christ is bound by a twofold law to two masters, so that he may be united to them by the necessity of the flesh for a time, and by the spirit in eternity.

"So, brother, I might enjoy you in the Lord." The Latin language does not clarify the Greek word 'proprietatem'. What he says, "yes, brother, yes" is something like the adverb of flattery. But we interpreters sound more flowing and diluted as "so, brother," something else more than what is written. For as Anna's Hebrew word frequently translated by the seventy interpreters as "oh yes", indicates a prayerful attitude in their own language. Hence sometimes Symmachus translated Anna as "I pray," that is, "I beseech." We also suffer the same strength in the Greek language that Greeks sustain in the Hebrew language. What he says, "I might enjoy you in the Lord," is understood as something far more than it is thought. The Apostle enjoys nothing but that which has many virtues and sings in itself, and everything that is called Christ for a variety of reasons: namely, wisdom, justice, self-restraint, gentleness, temperance, chastity: Philemon invokes these to abound in them, so that he himself may be fulfilled in enjoying them. And lest you think that fruition is said, in which we often delight in the presence of our own, he added, "in the Lord:" so that from the fact that the name of the Lord is added, it is understood that there is another enjoyment, by which one enjoys without the Lord.

"Renew my being in Christ." Thus just as Philemon wanted to enjoy him in the Lord, so he wants his own being Onesimus, whom also previously he called by the same name, to be renewed through Philemon, and it is said ambiguously: whether it is Onesimus' being in Christ that is of Paul, or whether it must be said that Onesimus' being is to be renewed through Philemon in Christ. If you wish to understand the former, correctly you will say that Onesimus is of Paul's being in Christ whom he begot in Christ's chains. If the latter applies: Onesimus is to be renewed in Christ through Philemon, as he is trained by his teachings in Christ.

"Confident in your obedience, I have written to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say." Whoever presumes of him whom he is about to ask, prejudices himself in a certain manner, that it may not be lawful for him to deny what he is asked. Moreover, if he who asks knows that he will be asked for more than he has asked, he seeks smaller things, that he may have the voluntary compliance of the person asked, and a greater reward in return. But if Philemon does these things according to the precept of man: how much more will he do them for the love of God? Therefore, he is justly praised by the voice of the Apostle, because he anticipated his commands by his actions and could say, "Let the voluntary offerings of my mouth be pleasing to you, Lord" (Ps. 119:108), doing more than the precept required, he conquers those who only did what was commanded and are ordered to say, "We are useless servants because we have done what we were obliged to do" (Lk. 17:10). Virginity is also awarded a greater prize for this reason: because the precept of the Lord does not have it and it extends beyond what was ordered.

"But at the same time prepare a lodging for me." I do not think that the Apostle was so rich, and occupied with such great burdens, that he needed a prepared lodging, and that he would not be content with a single cell, a house of small size for his body's limited capacity, but rather to do what he was asked while he was being waited for by Philemon. However, if someone thinks that he was given a command to prepare a lodging for himself, not in a discretionary manner, but truly, the Apostle had to prepare a lodging more than Paul. He was about to go to a new city, to preach the Crucifix, and to impart unheard-of dogmas, knowing that many would come to him; and it was necessary first, that the house be in a celebrated place of the city, to which he could easily be convened. Then, that it be empty of all importunity: that it be spacious, so that it could hold many listeners: not near places of spectacle, not in an unseemly and detestable neighborhood; finally, that it be located on a level site rather than in a cenacle. For which reason, I believe he even stayed in Rome for two years (( "Al." biennio)). And the dwelling place, as I think, was not small, to which the crowds of Jews flowed every day.

For I hope that I will be given to you through your prayers. The Son pleads to the Father, and God grants indulgence, and a brother is often saved by the prayer of his brother. But the Apostle is granted by the prayers of the whole Church, for the benefit of those who are going to hear him. And this gift is said not so much to be on him to whom it is given who is prepared from martyrdom to martyrdom, as on those to whom the Apostle is sent. But that Paul was frequently in prison and was freed from chains, he himself says in another place: "In prisons frequently" (2 Cor. 11), from which sometimes, with the help of the Lord, and frequently even his persecutors finding nothing worthy of death in him, he was let go. For there had not yet been decrees of the Senate against the name of Christian; nor had Nero's sword as yet grown red with Christian blood. But, for the novelty of the new name, either through the envy of wicked men, or the zeal of people eager to destroy their ancient customs, they were sent to prison and again released in a frenzy of popular excitement, which soon subsided. And this is how we say it to be, Acts of the Apostles testify, in which Felix also speaks to Agrippa: that Paul could have been released, if he had not appealed to Caesar (Acts 25). And because he found no reason except for some questions about his own religion, and a certain Jesus, whom Paul preached as alive. From this we observe that, and similarly from other judges, they could have been released, the Lord causing a new preaching to be spread throughout the whole world.

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. As we mentioned earlier, the letter to the Colossians was written at the same time and through the same person as the letter to Philemon, and the names of those who send greetings are mentioned in both letters. In fact, in the letter to the Colossians, it is written: "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, and Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ" (Colossians 4:10, 12). And a little later: "Luke the beloved physician greets you, and Demas; greet Archippus, who is in the Lord. See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord" (Colossians 4:14, 17); and: "Remember my chains" (Colossians 4:18). But if someone does not consider the writings to be equally authorized, because a few names that are not mentioned here are written to the Colossians, let them know that not all are friends to everyone or are known; and that it is one thing to write a private letter to one individual, and another to write a public letter to the entire Church. "Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you," he says. As for who Epaphras, Paul's fellow prisoner, is, we have received such a story: They say that the parents of the apostle Paul were from the region of Gyscalis in Judea; and when the whole province was laid waste by the Roman forces, and the Jews were dispersed throughout the world, they were sent to the city of Tharsus in Cilicia; and young Paul followed his parents' condition. And so it can be said that what he testifies about himself is true: "They are Hebrews, so am I. They are Israelites, so am I. They are descendants of Abraham, so am I" (2 Cor. 11:22). And elsewhere: "A Hebrew of Hebrews" (Philip. 3:5): and other things that indicate him as a Jew rather than from Tarsus. If this is so, we can suspect that Epaphras was captured at the same time as Paul, and when he was released placed with his parents in the city of Colossae in Asia, he later received Christ's words. Hence to the Colossians, as we have said above, is written: "Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you" (Col. 4:12). If this is so, then Aristarchus, who is said to have been his fellow prisoner in the same Epistle, will be interpreted in the same way, unless perhaps something hidden and sacred, as some think, is shown in the word captivity ("Al." shows) that those who were captured and bound were brought ( "Al." led) into this valley of tears. And if neither [interpretation] is accepted, from what has been added here 'in Christ Jesus,' we can suspect that they endured the same bonds for Christ as Paul did at Rome; and just as a prisoner of Christ [referring to Paul], so also to one caught [in the bonds of Christ]. Or certainly because he is noble himself among the apostles, like Andronicus and Julia, about whom it is written to the Romans: 'Greet Andronicus and Julia, my relatives and fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, and who were in Christ before me' (Romans 16:7). This is about Epaphras. Furthermore, when writing to Philemon about his Gospel and its constraints, he lists Mark, whom I believe to be the founder of the Gospel, and Aristarchus, whom we previously mentioned, and Demas, about whom he complains elsewhere: "Demas has abandoned me, because he loves the present age, and he went to Thessalonica." And Luke the physician, who, abandoning the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles for the Churches, has been turned from a fisherman of fish to a fisherman of men by the Apostles (Matth. 4): so of the physician of bodies, he has been changed to a physician of souls, of whom it is also said elsewhere: "I have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel through all the churches" (2 Cor. 8:18): every time his book is read in the churches, his medicine is unfailing.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." As the people of Israel are numbered according to their tribes (Num. 1:2) from the better part of the head of man, so indeed in the whole man, and in every part of the saints, there is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. But from the greater and better part, that is, from the spirit, it is said by synecdoche for the whole man: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." Since grace is in the spirit, it makes the whole man spiritual; that the flesh also serves the spirit, and the soul is not overcome by the flesh, and is brought together in the substance of the spirit, so that it clings to the Lord; for whoever clings to the Lord is one spirit (2 Cor. 6). "Paul, admirable," is interpreted according to the Jews ('Al.' Hebrews). Timothy, a benefactor. Philemon, wonderfully gifted," or "mouth of bread," from the mouth, not the bone. "Apphia, continent," or "freedom. Archippus, length of work. Onesimus, responsive. Epaphras, fruitful," and "seeing," or "growing. Mark, sublime in command. Aristarchus, a mountain of greater work. Demas, silent. Luke, rising himself." If you wish to understand these names according to their meaning, it is not difficult to write wonderfully and benevolently to him for whom all faults are granted and whose mouth is open to heavenly bread. Then for the continent, the free, and the length of the work: that they never cease from holy labors. But to write for he who will answer by his own testimony, and also for him, (whom the letter) is specifically dedicated to, greetings (from the) growing abundance. And (for) him who has (been) made (through) sublime commands, and also (for) him, who has risen up through great works to the mountain, even (for) him who has set a guard upon his mouth, and a fortified gate upon his lips: who perhaps was silent for this reason, because he had left the Apostle for a little while. And finally, (for) him, who rising up daily by himself, grows and has a progress: while the world is filled with his Gospel, and increases as often as it is heard and read, it builds up.

[Daniel 7:13-14] "And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man." He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven" (Acts 1:11).

"...And He arrived unto the Ancient of days, and they brought Him before His presence, and He gave unto Him authority and honor and royal power." All that is said here concerning His being brought before Almighty God and receiving authority and honor and royal power is to be understood in the light of the Apostle's statement: "Who, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and was found in His condition to be as a man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:6-8). And if the sect of the Arians were willing to give heed to all this Scripture with a reverent mind, they would never direct against the Son of God the calumny that He is not on an equality with God.

"...And He is the one whom all the peoples, tribes, and language-groups shall serve. His authority is an eternal authority which shall not be removed, and His kingdom shall be one that shall never be destroyed..." Let Porphyry answer the query of whom out of all mankind this language might apply to, or who this person might be who was so powerful as to break and smash to pieces the little horn, whom he interprets to be Antiochus? If he replies that the princes of Antiochus were defeated by Judas Maccabaeus, then he must explain how Judas could be said to come with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man, and to be brought unto the Ancient of days, and how it could be said that authority and royal power was bestowed upon him, and that all peoples and tribes and language-groups served him, and that his power is eternal and not terminated by any conclusion.