Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philemon 1:19 - 1:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Phm_1:19. Promissory note under his own hand, in which by the elsewhere so weighty ἐγὼ Παῦλος (Gal_5:2; 2Co_10:1, al.) the friendly humour of the connection is rendered the more palpable through force of contrast. Whether Paul wrote the whole Epistle with his own hand (the usual view; see already Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret), or only from this point onward, cannot be determined. In the latter case the raillery comes out the more prominently.
ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι κ . τ . λ .] Comp. 2Co_2:5, and the Latin ne dicam: “est σχῆμα παρασιωπήσεως sive reticentiae, cum dicimus omittere nos velle, quod maxime dicimus,” Grotius. The ἵνα denotes the design which Paul has in the ἔγραψα … ἀποτίσω ; he will, so he represents the matter, by this his note of hand avoid saying to Philemon—what he withal might in strictness have to say to him—that he was yet far more indebted to the apostle. Without sufficient reason, Wiesinger after a harsh and involved fashion attaches ἵνα , notwithstanding the intervening clause, to τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα , and then takes the σοί , which according to the usual view belongs without emphasis to λέγω , as emphatic (sc. ἐλλόγα ); “that reckon to me, not to say: to thee.” So too Hofmann, according to whose arbitrary discovery in the repetition of the ἐγώ the emphatic ἐμοί is held “to continue sounding,” until it finds in the emphatic σοί its antithesis, which cancels it. Why should not Paul, instead of this alleged “making it sound on,” have put the words ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοί , ὅτι κ . τ . λ . (because, according to Hofmann) immediately after τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα , in order thereupon to conclude this passage with the weighty ἐγὼ Παῦλος κ . τ . λ .? Besides, there would be implied in that emphasizing and antithetic reference of the σοί a pungent turn so directly and incisively putting him to shame, that it would not be in keeping with the whole friendly humorous tone of this part of the letter, which does not warrant us in presupposing a displeasure on Philemon’s part meriting so deeply earnest a putting him to shame (Hofmann). The very shaming hint, which the passage gives, is affectionately veiled in an apparent reticence by ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι κ . τ . λ . Chrysostom already says aptly: ἐντρεπτικῶς ἅμα καὶ χαρίεντως .
The σοί added to λέγω is in keeping with the confidential tone of the Epistle. Paul would not willingly remind his friend, of his debt.
καὶ σεαυτόν ] also thine own self, διʼ ἐμοῦ γὰρ , φησὶ , τῆς σωτηρίας ἀπήλαυσας · καὶ ἐντεῦθεν δῆλον , ὡς τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ἠξιώθη διδασκαλίας ὁ Φιλήμων , Theodoret. Through his conversion he was indebted to the apostle for his own self, namely, as subject of the ξωὴ αἰώνιος . The same view is found at Luk_9:25. See on that passage.
προσοφείλεις ] insuper debes, Herod. vi. 59; Dem. 650, 23; Thucyd. vii. 48. 6; Xen. Cyrop. iii. 2. 16, Oec. 20. 1; Polyb. v. 88. 4. 8, viii. 25. 4; Lucian. Sacrif. 4. The conception, namely, is: “not to say to thee, that thou (namely, because I have made thee a Christian) owest to me not merely that, which I have just declared my wish to pay to thee, out also ( καί ) thine own self besides.” With due attention to the correlation of καί and πρός , the force of the compound would not have been overlooked (Vulgate, Luther, Fliatt, and others).