Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philemon 1:4 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
f
Phm_1:4 f. Comp. Rom_1:8; 1Co_1:4; Php_1:3; Col_1:3; Eph_1:16.
πάντοτε ] belongs not to μνείαν κ . τ . λ . (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, and many others), but to εὐχαριστῶ κ . τ . λ . (comp. on Col_1:3; 1Th_1:2), as the main element, for the completeness and emphasis of which it serves. The participial definition μνείαν κ . τ . λ . specifies whereupon Paul sees himself always moved to give thanks to God, namely, when he makes mention of Philemon in his prayers; and the following ἀκούων κ . τ . λ . is likewise an accompanying definition to εὐχαριστῶ κ . τ . λ ., stating whereby he finds himself induced to such thanksgiving, namely, because he hears, etc. It is not the intercession that has its motive explained by ἀκούων (de Wette, Koch), otherwise the logically necessary statement, for what Paul gives thanks to God, would be entirely wanting, whereas the mention of Philemon in the prayer had no need of a motive assigned for it, and would have taken place even without the ἀκούειν κ . τ . λ . Moreover, Paul does not by μνείαν κ . τ . λ . express the intercession, but in general the mention in prayer, which is a much wider notion and also may be other than intercessory (in opposition to Hofmann).
ἀκούων ] continually, though Onesimus in particular. It is otherwise with ἀκούσαντες , Col_1:4.
τὴν ἀγάπην ] the standing notion of Christian love to the brethren, as in Col_3:14.
κ . τὴν πίστιν ] is more precisely defined by the following ἣν ἔχεις … ἁγίους , and hence is not specially to be understood of faith in the dogmatic sense, to which εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους would not be suitable. It is faithfulness; comp. Gal_5:22; Rom_3:3; 1Th_1:8; Mat_23:23; Tit_2:10; often in the LXX., Apocrypha, and Greek authors. So Michaelis and Hagenbach (Flatt with hesitation), also Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 511 f]. But usually (see already Theodoret, and especially Grotius) expositors assume a chiasmus, so that πρὸς τ . κύρ . Ἰ . is to be referred to τ . πίστιν , and εἰς π . τ . ἁγίους to τὴν ἀγάπ . (de Wette, Wilke, Rhetor, p. 372; Demme, Koch, Wiesinger, Ewald), to which also Bleek and Hofmann come in the end. Against this may be decisively urged ἣν ἔχεις , whereby πρὸς τ . κύριον … ἁγίους is attached as one whole to τὴν πίστιν . With τὴν ἀγάπην the ἣν ἔχεις has nothing whatever to do; the former has, on the contrary, its own definition of subject by means of σου , which again does not stand in any connection with τὴν πίστιν . Comp. Col_1:4. The usual objection to the interpretation faithfulness, namely, that the dogmatic sense of πίστις is the stated one when it goes along with ἀγάπη , does not hold good, inasmuch as ἀγάπη stands first (comp. also Gal_5:22); in the stated combination of faith and love the faith precedes (in accordance with the inner genetic relation, Gal_5:6), as 1Co_13:13; Eph_1:15; Col_1:4; 1Th_1:3; 1Th_3:6; 1Ti_1:14; 2Ti_1:13, al.; hence the transposition τ . πίστιν κ . τ . ἀγάπην is found here too in D E, min. vss. and Ambrosiaster. The interchange of πρός and εἰς can occasion no surprise, inasmuch as Paul is fond of varying the prepositions (see on Rom_3:20; Gal_2:16; Eph_1:7), as this is also of frequent occurrence with classical writers, without the design of expressing a different relation. On πρός , comp. 1Th_1:8; 4Ma_15:21; 4Ma_16:22; Dem. 656, 19; Lucian, Tox. 41. It is to be observed withal, that the stated notion: faith in Christ, is never indicated by πρός , a fact which likewise tells against the ordinary interpretation.