Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philemon 1:12 - 1:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Phm_1:12. The rectified text[74] is: ὋΝ ἈΝΈΠΕΜΨΆ ΣΟΙ · ΣῪ ΔῈ ΑὐΤῸΝ , ΤΟΥΤΈΣΤΙ ΤῸ ἘΜᾺ ΣΠΛΆΓΧΝΑ (without ΠΡΟΣΛΑΒΟῦ ).
On ἈΝΈΠΕΜΨΑ , remisi, comp. Luk_23:11.
τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα ] that is, my heart, by which Onesimus is designated as an object of the most cordial affection. So Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many. ἐμὰ has an ingeniously-turned emphasis, in contrast to ΑὐΤΌΝ . According to others, the thought would be: ἐμος ἐστιν υἱὸς , ἐκ τῶν ἐμῶν γεγέννηται σπλάγχνων , Theodoret (comp. also Chrysostom); so too Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, and others, following the Syriac. See instances in Pricaeus and Wetstein, and comp. the Latin viscera. But in this way the relation already expressed in Phm_1:10 would be only repeated, and that in a form, which would be less in keeping with that spiritual fatherhood. Paul, moreover, statedly uses σπλάγχνα for the seat of the affection of love (2Co_6:12; 2Co_7:15; Php_1:8; Php_2:1; Col_3:12; Phm_1:7; Phm_1:20; comp. also Luk_1:78; 1Jn_3:17), and so also here, where the person to whom one feels himself attached with tender love (which, according to Phm_1:10, is certainly felt as paternal; comp. Wis_10:5; 4Ma_16:20; 4Ma_16:25) is designated by the lover as his very heart, because its feelings and inclinations are filled by this object. Comp. on this expression of feeling, the Plautine meum corculum (Cas. iv. 4. 14), meum cor (Poen. i. 2. 154). When we set aside προσλαβοῦ as not genuine (see the critical remarks), the verb is wanting, so that the passage is anacoluthic; the apostle is involuntarily withheld by the following relative clause presenting itself, and by what he, in the lively flow of his thoughts, further subjoins (Phm_1:13 ff.) from adding the governing verb thought of with σὺ δὲ αὐτόν , until at length, after beginning a new sentence with Phm_1:17, he introduces it in another independent connection, leaving the sentence which he had begun with ΣῪ ΔῈ ΑὐΤΌΝ in Phm_1:12 unclosed. Comp. on Rom_5:2 ff.; Gal_2:16. See generally, Winer, p. 528 ff. [E. T. 709 ff.]; Wilke, Rhetor, p. 217 f. With classic writers, too, such anacoluthic sentences broken off by the influence of intervening thoughts are not rare, specially in excited or pathetic discourse, e.g. Plat. Symp. p. 218 A; Xen. Anab. ii. 5.13; and Krüger in loc.; Aeschin. adv. Ctesiph. 256, and Wunderlich in loc.; Bremi, ad Lys. p. 442 f., 222, who rightly observes: “Hoc anacoluthiae genus inter scriptores sacros nulli frequentius excidit quam Paulo ap., epistolas suas dictanti”
[74] See the critical remarks. The text of Lachmann, ὃν ἀνεπ . σοι , αὐτὸν , τοῦτʼ ἔστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλ ., is followed by Hofmann, so that αὐτόν is in apposition to ὅν (see, on the other hand, Winer, p. 140 [E. T. 184]).