Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

Philemon, 9, 10. 263
These corametitators are also right in rejecting the view which constructs
ToiovTog oyv with the preceding napaicaXoJ, or sets off roiovrog
— XpiGTov between two colons, and they both refer it to the following
napaicaXCJ, which forms otherwise an awkward asyndeton. They
differ however in the more definite conception of roiovrog cjv in that
Meyer regards it as a summing up of the quality expressed in ver. 8,
noXX-qv— iidXXov -napaicaXd), and ojg UavXog— Xpiorov as enforcing the
following -napanaXo) from Paul's personal relation : De Wette, on
the contraiy, takes rotovrog cov as an indefinite designation of the
entire character, whose special points are given with the o)g, and is
inclined, in fact, to assume a parallelism between this and the preceding
participial clause t^wt-, and find here a like thought as in the
preceding, not as Schrader, a threat, but nearly as Wetstein ; cum
talis sim ut tibi imperare possim, magis tamen hortor ; tanquam
senex, inquam, imo etiam vinctus hortor. It seems inconsistent
with Meyer's view, that ver. 8 furnishes no such description of
character which can be summed up in roiovrog wv. Since what
from special reasons he does once, does not therefore assume
the character of a personal quality. And why this summing up
which but adds diffuseness to the discourse ? It seems to me much
more suited to the living language of the epistle not to refer roiovrog
wv back, nor again to take it as a mere preparatory term to be defined
by the words which follow : I regard it rather as a direct,
life-like reference to the person of the apostle, " being such an one,"
sc. as I am, and as a further, but independent, statement of the
character of the subject as conceived and represented, cbg HavXog
7Tpea(3vrr]gj vvvl de Kal 6eap.iog (in which the descriptive points are not
three but two, UavXog not expressing a quality co-ordinately with
the others). The necessary reference of roiovrog to what precedes
is neither true in itself nor in this particular case ; nor does Meyer's
doctrine affect our exposition, that