Philemon 1:4

David Lim wrote: cwconrad wrote:Philemon wrote:4 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου, 5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, 6 ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν· 7 χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν ἔσχον καὶ παράκλησιν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα τῶν ἁγίων ἀναπέπαυται διὰ σοῦ, ἀδελφέ.

I see that nobody has yet responded to this. I’ll offer what may appear to be an unguarded opinion and allow those who can or will to go ahead and prove it wrong: I am not convinced that there’s a significant difference in NT Koine Greek, when there’s a substantive referring to a person or persons, between (1) a dative, (2) πρὸς with accusative, (3) εἰς with accusative. I know the mantra: “Choice implies difference” — but I think that the burden of demonstration of a difference between these three NT Koine Greek ways of expressing “to, towards, for, in association with” rests upon those who believe there is a difference. I rather suspect that usage of εἰς + acc. and ἐν + dat. when the object is a substantive referring to a person or persons is in many instances impossible or exceedingly difficult to distinguish.

I interpreted both to mean “for (for the reason of)”, and for the first instance I also think it depends on what the prepositional phrase is construed with; ακουω σου την αγαπην ην εχεις εις παντας τους αγιους και την πιστιν εχεις προς τον κυριον. As for the second instance, this is how I read it: δια τι εστιν παν αγαθον εν ημιν? εις χριστον παν αγαθον εν ημιν εστιν. Carl, did you mean to imply that the first instance should be construed with “την πιστιν”? Also, do you mean that “εν ημιν” is just the same as “εις ημας” here? I read it to mean “in us” and not “to/for us”.

Actually, in my earlier response, I wasn’t commenting on the text at hand at all, but rather making a general observation about the semantic equivalence of modifier phrases constructed with εἰς and πρὸς with the accusative and ἐν with the dative of a substantive indicating a person. In Philemon 5 above, I think that πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν and εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους both mean “directed toward [the Lord Jesus/all the saints]; I also think that there’s rarely any significant difference between εἰς τὸν Χριστόν and ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ. And there’s no difference whatsoever between λέγει πρὸς αὐτόν and λέγει αὐτῷ.

I do not think that εἰς + acc. in these phrases will mean “for the reason of” — I would expect that if the acc. object of εἰς is a person or persons, one would use διὰ + acc. or ὑπὲρ + gen.

As for the text of Philemon 4-6, there’s quite a problem of sorting out the alternative ways of reading/understanding several of the words and construing the syntactic elements. I think that the NET Bible has an excellent note on these alternatives that need to be sorted out. I think that construing that final εἰς Χριστόν in verse 6 is especially difficult. Koine Greek often seems to use prepositional phrases in rather loose syntactic connection; I’d like to construe that phrase with ἐνεργὴς γένηται: “be efficacious in association with Christ” — simply because I would prefer to construe prepositional phrases adverbially. But I’m not really very confident of that way of putting this text together. I do think, however, that εἰς Χριστόν here could just as well be ἐν Χριστῷ without a difference of meaning. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 3rd, 2012, 7:57 pm

Philemon 1:6

There was a question about this challenging verse on Dec 18, 1998 with one response on Dec 21. But it has a number of challenges, so I thought it would be worthwhile picking it up. All English versions are struggling. The NIV 2011 redid the previous rendering rather drastically, but IMO without getting it right.

ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν hOPWS hH KOINWNIA THS PISTEWS SOU ENERGHS GENHTAI EN EPIGNWSEI PANTOS AGAQOU TOU EN hHMIN EIS CRISTON

There are some textual variations, the major one whether it is EN hHMIN or EN hUMIN. The textual evidence is fairly evenly divided, but it does not make any significant difference to the meaning. Some mss have Jesus after Christ at the end, but again, that does not change the meaning.

First, hOPWS. This conjunction normally refers to purpose or goal and may be rendered as “with a view to”. It probably relates back to “my prayers” in verse 4, and many English versions make that explicit by adding “I pray that…” It does not introduce the direct content of the prayer, but more the gist of it, the main goal of his prayers for Philemon and the local saints/believers whom Philemon are commending for loving in v. 5.

Second, we have a nuclear clause followed by two prepositional phrases where the first one is complex with another embedded prepositional phrase. The nuclear clause is ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται hH KOINWNIA THS PISTEWS SOU ENERGHS GENHTAI. Paul is praying that the KOINWNIA may become ENERGHS. Vulgate had fiat evidens, Tyndale said fruitful, Luther powerful (kraftig werde). BDAG has “effective, active, powerful”. LSJ mentions that it is used to describe medicines as strong, powerful. So far, we don’t have too much of a problem. Paul prays that this KOINWNIA may become (more) powerful or strong.

What is the meaning of KOINWNIA in the NT? I would say it is the status and activities of believers who have the strong bond of a common faith in Jesus. This feeling of commonality may express itself in different ways. The believers may come together to encourage one another and strengthen that bond (Acts 2:42). They may express their feeling of being in a community together by collecting money for fellow believers in need (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:4, 9:13). Sometimes one of the key bonds that ties them together is described by a genitive (1 Cor 1:9 – fellowship of Jesus Christ, our Lord; 1 Cor 10:16 – fellowship of the blood of Christ, the body of Christ; 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 2:1 – fellowship of the Holy Spirit; Php 3:10 – fellowship of the sufferings of Jesus). Sometimes, the people that experience this commonality and bond are described as in Gal 2:9 where the common ministry is affirmed between Paul and Barnabas on one side and the other apostles on the other side. In 1 John we have this fellowship with somebody (META) expressed several times. For Philemon, NLT zeroed in on the generosity aspect, but I do not think that is correct in this context. Vulgate had communicatio. This was picked up by KJV as “communication”. I don’t know what this word meant 400 years ago, but KOINWNIA certainly does not mean “communication” in English today. I suppose the KJV tried to express being in a community together, or they simply followed the Vulgate. NIV1984 and several other English versions talk about “sharing your faith”, and that is close to the modern “communication”, but it is not an attested meaning of KOINWNIA as far as I know. This was dropped in the revised NIV.

How is the genitive ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου hH KOINWNIA THS PISTEWS SOU to be understood? The SOU must refer to Philemon. But is it “the fellowship of his faith” or is it “his fellowship of faith”? This is ambiguous. My preference is to see the THS PISTEWS genitive as a description of the bond that ties the community together, a faith-fellowship or a fellowship centred around a common faith in Jesus. Philemon would probably be a part of other social or business fellowships, but this one is a faith fellowship. The SOU would then indicate Philemon’s relationship to that faith-fellowship. It is his fellowship, not Paul’s, so I do not think it is matter of the fellowship between Paul and Philemon. It is Philemon’s, not in the sense that he owns it, but in the sense that he is part of it and may even have been the instigator of that faith-fellowship. It is likely that there was a group of believers whom Philemon took care of and they may have met in his house, since he was a well-to-do man. Verse 5 talks about Philemon’s love for the local believers, the saints, and v. 7 about how he has refreshed or brought to a position of rest (ANAPAUW – ἀναπαύω). Although KOINWNIA primarily refers to the activity of having fellowship, it cannot be separated from the believers who engage in that activity. It is the fellowship that should become powerful, but that is tied to Philemon (and probably also the local believers) becoming powerful in what they do. NIV2011 says “your partnership with us in the faith.” My main problem with that is the addition of “with us” which is not in the text. The Danish authorized version of 1948 said in an English back translation: “the fellowship around/pertaining to the faith that you are part of.”

How is this KOINWNIA to become powerful? By means of a full/complete understanding/recognition – EN EPIGNWSEI PANTOS AGAQOU TOU EN hHMIN – ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν. The object of EPIGNWSIS would be: every good thing which is in us (or you). In other words, you people who have this fellowship of faith need to understand your potential for good, recognize fully every good thing that God has given you (to serve him). Paul prays for the believers in terms of this full understanding of truth, God and his will/plans. This will help them to be powerful/effective as they live out the fellowship they have that is centred around their common faith. There is a similar prayer in 2 Thess 1:11: προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἵνα … πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης καὶ ἔργον πίστεως ἐν δυνάμει PROSEUCOMEQA PANTOTE PERI hUMWN, hINA…PLHRWSHi PASAN EUDOKIAN AGAQWSUNHS KAI ERGON PISTEWS EN DUNAMEI – we always pray for you-all that … he (God) may (ful)fill every intention/desire for goodness and a powerful work of faith.

Finally, we have EIS CRISTON εἰς Χριστόν – towards Christ. The good things we (or they) have, as given by God, need to be used in the direction of Christ, to glorify him. This is somewhat parallel to 2 Thess 1:10. The NET has a good note at Philemon 6, but I cannot agree with them translating EIS CRISTON as if it had been EN CRISTWi. It is not “in Christ”, but “towards Christ”. I suppose the “in Christ” is simply carried over into so many English versions from the KJV which apparently got it from the Vulgate “in Christo Iesu”. The Bishop’s NT had “towarde” and Darby “towards.”

Any comments? It has many challenges, so I am not expecting much agreement.

Iver Larsen