Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philemon 1:6 - 1:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Phm_1:6. Ὅπως κ . τ . λ .] cannot, as is usually held (also by Winer, de Wette, Demme, Koch, Ellicott, Bleek, and Hofmann), introduce the aim of the intercession, Phm_1:4, since μνείαν σου ποιούμ . κ . τ . λ . was only an accompanying definition, and ἀκούων κ . τ . λ . already pointed back to εὐχαριστῶ κ . τ . λ . (see on Phm_1:5). It attaches itself (so rightly, Grotius, Bengel, Wiesinger, Ewald) in its telic sense (not in the sense of so that, as Flatt and older expositors would have it taken) to Phm_1:5, specifying the tendency of ἣν ἔχεις . For the sake of making this attachment Paul has put the ἣν ἔχεις , which would be otherwise superfluous.
ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ] is by no means to be explained as if ἡ κοινωνία σου τῆς πίστεως (or σου εἰς τὴν πίστιν ) stood in the text, which would have to be the case, if we take the rendering of Hofmann (“the fellowship of faith, in which Philemon stands with his fellow-believers”). In order to the right interpretation observe further, on the one hand, that κοινωνία is with Paul, as mostly also with classical writers, when it is not accompanied by the genitive of the personal pronoun (Php_1:5), always so employed, that the genitive therewith connected denotes that with which the fellowship, or in which the participation, takes place (1Co_1:9; 1Co_10:16; 2Co_13:4; 2Co_8:13; Php_2:1; Php_3:10; Eph_3:9, Elz.), consequently is the genitive not subjecti, but objecti; and, on the other hand, that κοινωνία signifies not communicatio, but communio, consortium. Accordingly there is at once set aside—(1) the traditional interpretation since the time of Chrysostom and Theophylact: “fides tua, quam communem nobiscum habes,” Bengel, comp. Luther, Wetstein, and many; in which case the genitive has been taken subjectively, as by Wiesinger: thy faith-fellowship with all saints; and by Ewald: “that thou believest in Christ not merely for thyself.” And there fall also (2) all interpretations, which transform the notion of κοινωνία into communicatio, such as that of Beza (comp. Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Hammond, Heinrichs): “officia benignitatis in sanctos promanantia ex fide efficaci.” Similarly also Calvin: “fidei communicationem appellat, quum intus non latet otiosa, sed per veros effectus se profert ad homines;” he is followed substantially by de Wette (and Koch): “the communion of thy faith (genitivus subjecti), as well in the display of love towards individuals as in the advancement of the gospel,” which latter element cannot be brought hither from συνεργ ., Phm_1:1, and is out of place (comp. Phm_1:7). As the correct interpretation there remains only this, keeping the notion of πίστις in consistency with Phm_1:5 : the fellowship entered into with thy Christian fidelity. So faithful a Christian as Philemon draws all other saints (Phm_1:5), who come into relations of experience with him, sympathetically to himself, so that they form with him the bond of association unto like effort, and therewith become κοινωνοί of his πίστις .
ἐνεργὴς γένηται κ . τ . λ .] This fellowship with his fidelity is not to be an idle sympathy, but to become effective,[66] to express itself in vigorous action—this is what Philemon wishes and aims at—and that by virtue of the knowledge of every Christian saving-blessing,[67]—a knowledge which, in such pious fellowship, unfolds itself ever more fully and vividly, and which must be the means of powerfully prompting all Christian activity (Eph_1:17 f.; Col_2:2; Col_3:10). And the final aim of this activity? Toward Christ Jesus it is to take place, i.e. εἰς Χρ . Ἰ ., which is neither, with Calvin, Estius, and others, to be annexed to τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν , nor, with Hofmann, to ἀγαθοῦ , nor even, with Grotius, to πίστεως , but to ἐνεργ . γένηται , in which case alone it has the significance: Christ Jesus’ will, work, kingdom, honour, and so forth, are to be their holy destination and relative aim. Consequently the whole passage might be paraphrased something in this way: And with this thy Christian fidelity thou hast the sacred goal of fellowship in view, that whoever enters into the participation of the same, may make this partaking through knowledge of every Christian blessing effective for Christ Jesus. An appeal to the profound Christian consciousness of Philemon, by way of preparation for the designed intercession on behalf of Onesimus, whom Paul in fact was now on the point of introducing to that κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως of his friend! Respecting the manifold other explanations of ἐνεργὴς γένηται κ . τ . λ ., it is to be observed, on the one hand, that we have not, with many (including Wiesinger and Hofmann), arbitrarily to restrict the notion of ἐνεργής to the exercise of love, but to extend it to the collective activity of the Christian life; and, on the other hand, that as the subject of the κοινωνία is not Philemon, but others (comp. also Bleek), the latter, namely the κοινωνοὶ τῆς πίστεώς σου , must also be the subject of ἐπίγνωσις ; by which all expositions, according to which Philemon is held to be this knowing subject, are set aside, whether παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ be taken in the moral sense, of every virtue (Chrysostom), of good works and the like, or (although in itself correctly) of the Christian blessings of salvation, which are to be known. Hence we have to reject the interpretation of Oecumenius: διὰ τοῦ ἐπιγνῶναί σε καὶ πράττειν πᾶν ἀγαθόν , in which case the doing is arbitrarily imported, as is also done by Theophylact, according to whom ἐπιγινώσκειν is held to be equivalent to ἀγαπᾶν καὶ μεταχειρίζεσθαι . So likewise in substance de Wette, who mixes up moral action as keeping equal pace with moral knowledge, and takes τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν as: the good which is as to principle and spirit in us Christians; he is followed by Demme and Koch. We have further to reject the explanation of Flatt (so in substance also Osiander, Calovius, Bengel): “thy faith shows itself active through love, by means of a grateful recognition of all the benefits,” etc., or (as Wiesinger puts it): “inasmuch as it (namely, thy fellowship of faith) recognises—which is possible only for love—in the other the good which is in him.” We have to set aside, lastly, the explanation of Hofmann, who, after the example of Michaelis,[68] retaining the reading ἐν ὑμῖν , and taking παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ as masculine, finds in ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ . τ . λ . the meaning, that every one in the Christian sense good, every true Christian among the Colossians,[69] Philemon should know as being that which he is; only by virtue of such knowing would his fellowship of faith show itself effectively operative through the exercise of Christian love—which would not be the case with those “whose Christian virtuousness he failed to know.” Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Pricaeus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, have done rightly in not referring the ἐπίγνωσις to Philemon as the knowing subject, but wrongly in understanding ἘΠΊΓΝ . of becoming known, as e.g. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “adeo ut nullum sit officium Christianae caritatis, in quo non sis et nolus et probatus.” Beza: “ut hac ratione omnes agnoscant et experiantur, quam divites sitis in Christo,” etc.
ἀγαθοῦ ] Comp. Rom_14:16; Gal_6:6; Luk_1:53; Luk_12:18-19; Heb_9:11; Heb_10:1; Sir_12:1; Sir_14:25, al.; πᾶν ἀγαθὸν τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν really expresses quite the same thing as is expressed at Eph_1:3 by ΠᾶΣΑ ΕὐΛΟΓΊΑ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΉ .
ΤΟῦ ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ ] applies to the Christians generally, these being regarded as a whole. The blessings are in the Christian community.
[66] The translation of the Vulgate, evidens, is based upon the reading ἐναργής ; so codd. Lat. in Jerome, Pelagius (Clar. Germ.: manifesta).
[67] Such blessings, by which Christ has enriched us (comp. on 2Co_8:9), are faith, hope, love, patience, peace, joy in the Holy Spirit, etc. In devout fellowship these become ever more fully, vividly, and experimentally known as regards their nature and value.
[68] “Who interprets: “as often as thou contest to know a good man among the Colossians!”
[69] If the reading ἐν ὑμῖν were genuine, it could only, in accordance with the context, be referred to Philemon himself and to those adduced along with him in ver. 2. The Colossian church is brought in after a purely arbitrary way by Michaelis and Hofmann.