Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philemon 1:9 - 1:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
f
Phm_1:9 f. Before τοιοῦτος we have to place a full stop; the participial predication τοιοῦτος ὤν sums up the quality which was expressed in Phm_1:8 by πολλὴν … μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ ; and lastly, ὡς Παῦλος … Χριστοῦ supports the παρακαλῶ σε κ . τ . λ . of Phm_1:10, from a consideration of the personal position of the apostle in such a way, that the granting of the request could not but appear to Philemon as a matter of dutiful affection. Consequently: Seeing that I am so constituted,[70] since such is my manner of thinking and dealing, that, namely, in place of commanding thee, I rather for love’s sake betake myself to the παρακαλεῖν , I exhort thee as Paul, etc. A very mistaken objection to this view of τοιοῦτος ὤν is that Paul would not have said at all that he was so constituted, but only that he did so in the given case (Hofmann, following Wiesinger). He, in fact, says even now with τοιοῦτος ὤν itself that such is his nature. Observe, moreover, that the supporting elements, ὡς Παῦλος κ . τ . λ ., are prefixed with all the emphasis of urgency to the παρακαλῶ , since in them lies the progress of the representation, namely, that which comes in as additional to the παρακαλῶ , already said before. Usually τοιοῦτος is taken as preparative, so that ὡς Παῦλος κ . τ . λ . is the more precise explanation of it; in which case some (as Luther, Calvin, and others, including Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald) find only two elements, taking ὡς Π . πρεσβύτης together; others (most expositors since the time of Chrysostom, including Bleek and Hofmann), three elements
Παῦλος , πρεσβύτης , δέσμιος . Expositors have differed in defining the significance of the particulars in their bearing on the matter in hand,[71] while recognising on the whole the “pondus ad movendum Philemonis animum” (Estius). According to de Wette (comp. Wetstein), τοιοῦτος ὤν κ . τ . λ . is to be held parallel to the participial clause of Phm_1:8, in accordance with which the participle would thus have to be resolved by although. But the whole mode of interpretation, which takes τοιοῦτος as preparative, is untenable. It must of necessity point back, summing up under the notion of personal quality what was said by πολλὴν … παρακαλῶ in Phm_1:8; for if ΤΟΙΟῦΤΟς is not already defined (as is here the case by reference to Phm_1:8), it may, doubtless, become defined either by an adjective immediately following, or by a following οἷος (Plato, Conv. p. 199 D; Dem. 41, 3), or ὅς (Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2; Plat. Phaed. p. 92 B; Heb_8:1), or ὅσος (Isocr. Paneg. 21), or by ὥστε with the infinitive (Plato, Conv. p. 175 D, al.), but never by ὡς , which neither actually occurs (the usually cited passage from Andocides in Wetstein, de Wette has rightly described as not here relevant[72]) nor can take place logically, since ὡς , that is, as (not like, which it means after τοιόνδε in Aesch. Pers. 180), already presupposes the definiteness of τοιοῦτος . This more precise definiteness is not, however, to be relegated to the mere conception or mode of view of the writer (Wiesinger: “I, in my circumstances”), according to which ὡς is then held to introduce an appositional definition, to which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come; but it is to be taken from what Paul has previously said, because it results from that quite simply and suitably. Comp. on τοιοῦτος ὤν , which always in classical writers also—where it is not followed by a corresponding ΟἿΟς , Ὅς , ὍΣΟς , or ὭΣΤΕ —summarily denotes the quality, disposition, demeanour, or the like, more precisely indicated before; Plato, Rep. p. 493 C; Xen. Anab. i. 1. 30; Hellen. iv. 1. 38; Cyrap. i. 5, 8; Soph. Aj. 1277 (1298); Lucian, Cont. 20, and many other places. It is further to be noted, (1) that the true explanation of τοιοῦτος ὢν κ . τ . λ . of itself imperatively requires that we connect these words with the following παρακαλῶ (Flatt, Lachmann, who, however, parenthesises Ὡς ΠΑῦΛΟς , de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann), not with that which precedes (as formerly was usual), in which case the second παρακαλῶ is understood as resumptive, an ΟὖΝ (Theophylact), inquam, or the like, being supplied in thought (so Castalio, Beza, Hagenbach, and many). (2) The elements expressed by ὡς Παῦλος … Χριστοῦ stand—seeing that ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΗς is a substantive and has not the article—in such relation to each other, that πρεσβύτης and ΝΥΝῚ ΔῈ ΚΑῚ ΔΈΣΜΙΟς Κ . Τ . Λ . are two attributive statements attaching themselves to Παῦλος ; consequently: as Paul, who is an old man, and now also a prisoner, etc. (3) The (flexible) notion of πρεσβύτης must by no means have its meaning altered, as is done e.g. by Calvin, who makes it denote “non aetatem, sed officium;” but, at the same time, may not be rigidly pressed in so confidential a private writing, in which “lepos mixtus gravitate” (Bengel), prevails, especially if Philemon was much younger than Paul. Observe, withal, that the apostle does not use some such expression as γέρων , but the more relative term ΠΡΕΣΒ .; comp. Tit_2:2 with the contrast ΤΟῪς ΝΕΩΤΈΡΟΥς in Phm_1:6. He sets himself down as a veteran in contradistinction to the younger friend, who was once his disciple. At the stoning of Stephen, and so some twenty-six or twenty-seven years earlier, Paul was still νεανίας (Act_7:58); he might thus be now somewhere about fifty years of age.
ΔΈΣΜΙΟς Ἰ . Χ .] as in Phm_1:1.
ΤΈΚΝΟΥ ] tenderly affectionate designation of his convert (comp. 1Co_4:14 f.; Gal_4:19; 1Pe_5:13), in connection with which the conception of his own child is brought more vividly into prominence by the prefixed ἐμοῦ and by ἘΓΏ (see the critical remarks), and ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΔΕΣΜΟῖς [73] makes the recommendation yet more affecting and urgent.
Ὀνήσιμον ] Accusative, in accordance with a well-known attraction; see Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 205]; Buttmann, p. 68 [E. T. 78],
[70] The Vulgate erroneously referred ὤν to Philemon: “cum sis talis,” which Cornelius a Lapide unsuccessfully defends.
[71] So e.g. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “Quid enim neges roganti? primum Paulo: cum Paulum dico non paulum rerum tibi significo; deinde seni: nonnihil tribui solet et aetati … nunc etiam vincto: in precibus nonnihil ponderis habet et calamitas obtestantis; postremo vincto Jesu Christi: sic vincto favere debent, qui profitentur Christi doctrinam.” Similarly Grotius and others; while, according to Heinrichs, by Παῦλος there was to be awakened gratitude; by πρεσβ . the readiness to oblige, natural towards the aged; and by δέσμιος Ἰ . Χρ . compassion. Hofmann holds that “the name Paul puts Philemon in mind of all that makes it a historical one,” and that the impression of this becomes thereupon confirmed by the other two elements.
[72] The passage runs: ὃ δὲ πάντων δεινότατόν ἐστι , τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς εὔνους τῷ δήμῳ τοὺς λόγους ποιεῖται . Here, precisely as in our passage, ὡς εὔνους belongs not to τοιοῦτος ὤν , but to what follows, and τοιοῦτος ὤν sums up what had been said before.—The comparison of τοιόσδε , Hom. od. xvi. 205 (Hofmann), where besides no ὡς follows, is unsuitable, partly on the general ground of the well-known diversity of meaning of the two words (comp. Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 7. 5), which is not to be abandoned without special reason, partly because in that passage ἐγὼ τοιόσδε stands absolutely and δεικτικῶς (hicce ego talis), so that the following παθὼν κ . τ . λ . belongs to ἤλυθον .
[73] That the expression: in the bonds, was suitable only to Rome and not to Caesarea, is incorrectly inferred by Wieseler, p. 420, from Act_24:23. See on that passage. It was likewise incorrect to assign the Epistle, on account of πρεσβύτης , to the alleged second imprisonment at Rome (Calovius).