Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

—
:
Philemon, 6. 259
mon's love and faith, not love and truth, as Flatt, Hagenbacli and
Meyer, who thus seek to escape the harshness of referring rijv marcv
to eig Tovg ndvrag^ which however
to Tcpbg rov Kvpiov, and t/)v dya-rrz/v
contains nothing extraordinary (Winer's Gr. § 50, 2, p. 365), and is
supported by the change of prepositions -npog and elg. So De Wette,
Demme, Koch, Grotius, Calvin, the Fathers. It is objected that
rriv dydnrjv has already its limitation in oov. But this may belong
equally to rrjv ttigtiv, and apparently from its preceding the limited
subject does belong to it. And fjv txeig can certainly as well
belong also to dyd-nr} as aiTLveg, 1 Tim. i. 5, to [ivdoL. It is an objection
to taking niajK; as " truth," that Paul is accustomed always
to connect dyd-nri and -niarLg in a doctrinal sense, as the two fundamental
pillars of Christianity; Eph. i. 15 ; 1 Thess. iii. 6, etc, particularly
Col. i. 4. From the contemporaneous composition of the
two epistles, and the general resemblance of their introductions, I
regard it as wholly unnatural to interpret marLg differently in the
two passages. Meyer's remark, in reply, that faith elsewhere takes
the precedence in the genetic relation is unquestionably correct
but the apostle could certainly proceed in the reverse order from the
fruit to the root, and here love would naturally take the first place,
as the principle to which he is specially to appeal. He thus mentions
first love and then the root, in order to bring out Philemon's
entire moral condition; complectitur totam Christiani hominis perfectionem—Calvin.
A further argument against this explanation of
-nloTLg is that immediately after, the signification of the word must be
changed (as Hagenbach), or if adhered to (as by Meyer), at the expense
of any fitting sense. On dytoi, Phil. i. 1. lidvrag must be noticed
as indicating the diffusiveness of Philemon's love, whence we may
also reason to its intensity. For the unobjectionable character of the
expression ttigtiv t%etv irpog riva, see Winer's Gr. § 50, 2, p. 365.
Ver. 6.
"Ono)g, not ita ut, but " in order that" (Winer's Gr.,
§ 53, 6, p. 410). But of what does it express the purpose ? "Orro)?
is referred to ixveiav Trocovfxevog, " making mention in order that," etc.
(so De Wette, Winer, etc.), or to e,\'efc, marking the striving of Philemon
(so Bengel, Meyer). The former construction would require that
aKovGjv be connected with i-iv. noiov. assigning the reason for this rather
than for the "giving thanks" : and as the introductory intercession
and thanksgiving refer elsewhere to the relative deficiency of the readers,
the construction with l^x^ig seems also preferable in sense. But
what, it is specially asked, are we to understand by the Koivuvla rfjg
moTe(jjg, and what the sense of the entire clause ?
KoLvcovia can denote
communication (Calvin, De Wette), or share, participation in
something (Meyer), or fellowship, in the sense of Acts ii. 42; Phil. i. 5.
In the first sense it is taken by Calvin : "fides quum intus nou latet
So De Wette
otiosa, sed per veros effectus se profert ad homines."