“`html
body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 800px; margin: auto; padding: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { font-family: Georgia, serif; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
blockquote { border-left: 3px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
ol { list-style-type: decimal; margin-left: 20px; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
An Exegetical Analysis of Philemon 1:5: The Direction of Philemon’s Faith and Love
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Philemon 1:5 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 26, 2023. The discussion centered on the syntactical complexities of Philemon 1:5, particularly regarding the referents of Philemon’s ‘love’ (ἀγάπην) and ‘faith’ (πίστιν). The verse, where Paul states he hears of Philemon’s love and faith ‘which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints,’ raises questions about whether both virtues are directed to both Jesus and the saints, or if a more nuanced relationship exists between each virtue and its respective object.
The primary exegetical issue in Philemon 1:5 concerns the precise relationship between the nouns ἀγάπην and πίστιν and the subsequent prepositional phrases πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν and εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. The grammatical construction allows for multiple interpretations, specifically whether πίστιν is exclusively directed toward Christ and ἀγάπην toward the saints (a chiastic structure), or if both ἀγάπην and πίστιν are understood as being directed to both Christ and the saints. The choice among these interpretations significantly impacts the understanding of Philemon’s spiritual character and the nature of Paul’s commendation, making a careful grammatical and rhetorical analysis essential.
ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- For Philemon 1:5, the text of Nestle 1904 is identical to that of SBLGNT 2010. No textual variants are recorded for this verse in major critical editions, indicating strong manuscript agreement across the textual tradition.
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
Textual Criticism (NA28): The critical apparatus of NA28 shows no significant variants for Philemon 1:5. The consensus among manuscripts is robust, affirming the reading as presented in Nestle 1904, SBLGNT 2010, and other major critical editions. This lack of variation suggests the text is well-attested from an early stage, precluding any textual critical issues from influencing the exegetical debate.
Lexical Notes:
- ἀγάπην (agapēn, “love”): BDAG defines ἀγάπη as ‘the love of God for man, the love of man for God and for man, love feast.’ In the New Testament, especially in Pauline theology, ἀγάπη often refers to a selfless, unconditional love that is characteristic of God and should be characteristic of believers towards one another (cf. 1 Cor 13). Kittel (TDNT I, 21-55) emphasizes its distinctiveness from classical Greek terms for love, highlighting its ethical and theological profundity as divine love expressed in human action, particularly within the Christian community.
- πίστιν (pistin, “faith”): BDAG provides several meanings for πίστις, including ‘trust, faith,’ ‘faithfulness, reliability,’ and ‘the content of faith.’ In the context of “toward the Lord Jesus,” it almost invariably denotes trust or belief in him as savior. Kittel (TDNT VI, 204-230) extensively details πίστις as a central concept in Pauline thought, signifying not merely intellectual assent but a profound commitment, trust, and reliance on God through Christ, which leads to salvation. It also carries the connotation of faithfulness and loyalty.
- πρός (pros, “toward”): BDAG notes that πρός with the accusative indicates direction, movement toward, or relationship ‘with’ someone. Here, in “πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν,” it signifies the direct object or recipient of the virtue. It denotes an active orientation or disposition towards Christ.
- εἰς (eis, “into, toward”): BDAG indicates εἰς with the accusative expresses movement into something, or a goal/aim. In “εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους,” it similarly denotes the direction or recipient of the action or attitude, emphasizing an internal movement or extension of the virtue towards the saints. The use of two distinct prepositions, πρός and εἰς, while often interchangeable in Hellenistic Greek, can sometimes signal a subtle distinction, prompting closer exegetical scrutiny in this passage.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core exegetical challenge in Philemon 1:5 resides in how the two virtues, ἀγάπην (love) and πίστιν (faith), relate to their respective objects, πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν (toward the Lord Jesus) and εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους (toward all the saints). Several grammatical and rhetorical interpretations are possible:
- Chiastic Interpretation: This is perhaps the most widely accepted and grammatically compelling interpretation. It proposes a chiastic structure where Paul hears of Philemon’s faith toward the Lord Jesus and his love toward all the saints. In this reading, the two virtues are paired with the two objects in a crisscross fashion: Faith (A) toward Jesus (B), and Love (B’) toward the saints (A’). Grammatically, the relative pronoun ἣν (which) refers back to both ἀγάπην and πίστιν. The use of two different prepositions, πρός and εἰς, while often semantically overlapping, can be seen as deliberate to distinguish the objects. Theologically, this makes excellent sense: πίστις is fundamentally directed to or in Christ, while ἀγάπη is predominantly expressed towards fellow believers (and generally, others). This interpretation highlights the two inseparable dimensions of Christian life: vertical relationship with God (faith) and horizontal relationship with humanity (love).
- Both Virtues to Both Objects: An alternative, though less probable, interpretation suggests that both Philemon’s love and his faith are directed toward the Lord Jesus *and* toward all the saints. This would imply Philemon has both love and faith directed at Christ, and both love and faith directed at the saints. While love toward Christ and love toward the saints are standard Christian concepts, “faith toward the saints” is highly unusual and lacks strong theological precedent in the New Testament. The use of καὶ (and) could conjoin the phrases broadly, but the specific theological implications of “faith toward the saints” make this reading less attractive. Grammatically, it would require both prepositional phrases to serve as joint complements for both virtues, which is syntactically possible but semantically strained for πίστιν.
- Faith and Love Primarily Toward Jesus, with Love Extended to Saints: A third view might propose that the primary direction of both faith and love is “toward the Lord Jesus,” and the phrase “and toward all the saints” modifies primarily, or perhaps solely, “love.” This would emphasize the centrality of Christ for both virtues. However, the parallel structure of the prepositional phrases (πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους) makes it more natural to see them as balanced and distinct objects. If only “love” were extended to the saints, the phrasing would likely be more explicit, perhaps with an additional verb or rephrasing.
Rhetorically, Paul’s commendation of Philemon in this manner serves to highlight his exemplary Christian character, embodying both a fervent devotion to Christ and a tangible compassion for the Christian community. The chiastic structure (Interpretation 1) provides a balanced and elegant summary of Christian living, which would resonate powerfully with Philemon and the community reading the letter.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the grammatical analysis and theological coherence, the chiastic interpretation of Philemon 1:5 is the most exegetically sound. This reading aligns best with Pauline theology concerning the distinct objects of faith and love, and it provides a rhetorically balanced and meaningful commendation of Philemon’s character.
- “I hear of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints.”
This translation explicitly renders the chiastic structure, separating faith’s object (Jesus) from love’s object (the saints), which is the most probable interpretation. - “I hear of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints.”
This more literal rendering preserves the ambiguity of the original Greek, allowing for the possibility that both virtues apply to both objects, though it can be misunderstood regarding “faith toward the saints.” - “I hear of your devotion to the Lord Jesus and your affection for all God’s people.”
This version offers a dynamic equivalent that captures the likely intent of the chiastic structure, using synonyms that highlight the vertical and horizontal dimensions of Philemon’s virtues, making the distinction clearer for modern readers.
“`
Hello B-Greekers, I have a question about Chiastic structure in Philemon 5. Here’s the Greek text and an attempted transliteration:
ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς
πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους AKOUWN SOU THN AGAPHN KAI THN PISTIN HN ECEIS PROS TON KURION IESOUN KAI EIS PANTAS TOUS AGIOUS Philemon 5
My question concerns chiastic structure, which seems to be the basis for most modern translations rendering it something like this: “I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints.” However, I’ve only seen this shown as an example of chiastic structure, and not explained. If PISTIS is understood as solely faith in Christ, then I can understand why chiastic structure is necessary, but if PISTIS includes a larger sense like faithfulness, then might AGAPHN and PISTIN refer to both the saints and to Jesus? I’m sure there are good reasons to interpret it according to the chiastic structure with an A B B A pairing, but to a Greek newbie and ancient literature neophyte it seems rather arbitrary and out of place, especially for a personal letter.
Thanks!
Alex Poulos
From: Tony Pope
To: B-Greek
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 8:26:43 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Chiastic Structure in Philemon 5
I notice you have had no reply to your question, so I’ll say something. I agree with your sentiments
entirely. I have never been happy with the interpretation of this verse as a chiastic structure. As
I understand it, interpreters are driven to it because, as you suggest, they feel unable to give a
“non-religious” meaning to PISTIS. The assumption is that the statement must be the same as in
Colossians 1.4, especially as it is supposed to have been written at the same time as the letter to
Philemon.
I don’t profess to be able to explain why PROS is used in one phrase and EIS in the other, but the
fact that there is a difference encourages me in the view that PISTIS is meant to apply to both TON
KURION and TOUS hAGIOUS. Perhaps the formulation was intended in some way to prepare Philemon for
what was to come later in the letter, as undoubtedly verse 6 was.
PISTIS could mean faithfulness, or it could mean trust. Trust in human beings who belong to the Lord
could perhaps be mentioned right after trust in the Lord they belong to, given the theme of the
letter. Josephus, War 2.257, has been cited as an example of PISTIS as trust in human beings. The
context is the nervousness caused by the attacks of the Sicarii, who used to knife their victims and
disappear into the crowds.
προεσκοποῦντο δὲ πόρρωθεν τοὺς διαφόρους, καὶ οὐδὲ τοῖς φίλοις προσιοῦσιν πίστις ἦν, ἐν μέσαις δὲ
ταῖς ὑπονοίαις καὶ ταῖς φυλακαῖς ἀνῃροῦντο:
PROESKOPOUNTO DE PORRWQEN TOUS DIAFOROUS, KAI OUDE TOIS FILOIS PROSIOUSIN PISTIS HN, EN MESAIS DE
TAIS hUPONOIAIS KAI TAIS FULAKAIS ANHROUNTO.
Men watched at a distance for their enemies and would not trust their friends when they came
near to them. Yet, in spite of their suspicions and precautions, they were murdered; (Cornfeld’s
tr.)
Tony Pope
George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 3 10:55:46 EST 2009
The attempts to find a chiastic structure everywhere reminds me of the saying, “To a man with a hammer everything is a nail.”
george
gfsomsel
Col 1:3-4 is indeed an important background for understanding how Paul
introduces many of his letters:
The text is:
3 Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ [καὶ] πατρὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντοτε περὶ
ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι,
4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε εἰς πάντας
τοὺς ἁγίους
EUCARISTOUMEN TWi QEWi (KAI PATRI TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU) PANTOTE PERI
hUMWN PROSEUCOMENOI,
AKOUSANTES THN PISTIN hUMWN EN CRISTWi IHSOU KAI THN AGAPHN hHN ECETE EIS PANTAS
TOUS hAGIOUS
The text in Philemon has many similarities:
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
4 EUCARISTW TWi QEWi MOU PANTOTE MNEIAN SOU POIOUMENOS EPI TWN PROSEUCWN MOU
5 AKOUWN SOU THN AGAPHN KAI THN PISTIN hHN ECEIS PROS TON KURION IHSOUN KAI EIS
PANTAS TOUS hAGIOUS
In both cases Paul is thanking God in his prayers for the addressee since he has
had a good report of their faith in Jesus and love towards all the saints.
We find a similar statement in Eph 1:15-16 but with the reason before the
thanksgiving:
15 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ ἀκούσας τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην
τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους
16 οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου
DIA TOUTO KAGW AKOUSAS THN KAQ’ hUMAS PISTIN EN TWi KURIWi IHSOU KAI THN AGAPHN
THN EIS PANTAS TOUS hAGIOUS
16 OU PAUOMAI EUCARISTWN hUPER hUMWN MNEIAN POIOUMENOS EPI TWN PROSEUCWN MOU
In all of these Paul is referring to what he has heard.
Also consider 2 Thes 1:3:
Εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν τῷ θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστιν, ὅτι
ὑπεραυξάνει ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν καὶ πλεονάζει ἡ ἀγάπη ἑνὸς ἑκάστου πάντων ὑμῶν εἰς
ἀλλήλους
EUCARISTEIN OFEILOMEN TWi QEWI PANTOTE PERI hUMWN, ADELFOI, KAQWS AXION ESTIN,
hOTI hUPERAUXANEI hH PISTIS hUMWN KAI PLEONAZEI hH AGAPH hENOS hEKASTOU PANTWN
hUMWN EIS ALLHLOUS
PISTIS in Paul’s writings has as its object God or Jesus, not people, and this
is so much expected that the word often occurs without an object, since the
reader can easily supply it.
In 1 Thes 1:2-3 there is a similar thanksgiving in prayer because of their ERGON
THS PISTEWS KAI KOPOS THS AGAPHS.
PISTIS is directed to God and AGAPH to other people. Paul obviously sought and
received reports about these two things from the churches. How is your faith (in
Jesus)? How do you express that faith in your love towards one another? (cf. Gal
5:6 πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη – PISTIS DI’ AGAPHS ENERGOUMENH).
IMO, this practice of Paul is enough to show that the intention in Phm 1:5 is
that PISTIS is directed to Jesus – PROS TON KURION IHSOUN – and love is directed
to people – EIS PANTAS TOUS hAGIOUS.
Paul, of course, is very familiar with Hebrew chiasms, and the letter to
Philemon is not a casual, hurriedly written letter, but a fine piece of
rhetoric, so I don’t have a problem with the chiasm here – although I do not
subscribe to all examples of chiasms that commentaries have suggested.
Iver Larsen
In the majority of instances it is true that PISTIS has a divine object in Paul, but this does not
seem to be the case in Galatians 5.22, where PISTIS occurs in a list of qualities that are directed
towards fellow human beings, nor in Titus 2.10, where PASAN … PISTIN AGAQHN must by contrast
denote a quality exhibited by slaves towards their masters. Nor probably in Titus 3.15, ASPASAI TOUS
FILOUNTAS hHMAS EN PISTEI, which according to Spicq reflects a standard form of expression combining
friendship (hence FILEW) and fidelity (PISTIS).
Incidentally, Spicq’s article on PISTIS in Vol. 3 of his Theological Lexicon of the New Testament
(Hendrickson, 1994) is to be recommended for broadening one’s horizons on the different senses of
PISTIS that were used in NT times. (As it is on a lot of other words too. For those who read French,
the original Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament is available from Editions Cerf.)
What determines the sense of a word is, as we are so often in danger of forgetting, the immediate
context. It strikes me that this is a particular danger when coming across examples of words that
are often elsewhere used in theologically weighty statements. We tend to shoehorn every example into
the “primary” sense. It’s particularly a problem for words that are traditionally translated by a
“religious” word. Thus all examples of CHARIS must everywhere mean grace, APOSTOLOS must everywhere
refer to one of the twelve apostles or Paul, GRAMMATEUS must everywhere refer to a Jewish scribe,
EUAGGELION must everywhere mean gospel, BAPTIZW must everywhere mean to baptize, KAQARIZW must
everywhere mean to cleanse ritually, etc. etc. But if you think about it, such an approach would
impose enormous restrictions on anyone who wants to speak or write the language.
Also, and this I believe is crucial, when you are dealing with a relatively small corpus of written
material there will inevitably be cases where a word is commonly used in one sense but also used
maybe only once or twice in a different sense that can only be exampled from outside biblical Greek.
Begging the moderator’s pardon and not wishing to reopen a closed thread “by the back door”, but
merely to point out what is lexically attested and thereby put the record straight, re KAQARIZW and
KAQAIRW, see lines 6-7 of the BAGD entry for KAQARIZW. For one interesting attested object of
KAQARIZW, see LSJ: “prune away, PERISSA BLASTHMATA [superfluous shoots] P. Lond. 1.131r 192 (i.
A.D.)” The object of KAQARIZW is in that case the item removed. (There are more given for KAQAIRW.)
In the NT itself, Matt 8.3b EKAQARISQH AUTOU hH LEPRA [his leprosy cleared, i.e. disappeared] comes
under this head. It is not the ritual cleansing that is being recorded at that point.
Tony Pope
Hello B-Greekers, I have a question about Chiastic structure in Philemon 5. Here’s the Greek text and an attempted transliteration:
ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς
πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους AKOUWN SOU THN AGAPHN KAI THN PISTIN HN ECEIS PROS TON KURION IESOUN KAI EIS PANTAS TOUS AGIOUS Philemon 5
My question concerns chiastic structure, which seems to be the basis for most modern translations rendering it something like this: “I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints.” However, I’ve only seen this shown as an example of chiastic structure, and not explained. If PISTIS is understood as solely faith in Christ, then I can understand why chiastic structure is necessary, but if PISTIS includes a larger sense like faithfulness, then might AGAPHN and PISTIN refer to both the saints and to Jesus? I’m sure there are good reasons to interpret it according to the chiastic structure with an A B B A pairing, but to a Greek newbie and ancient literature neophyte it seems rather arbitrary and out of place, especially for a personal letter.
Thanks!
Alex Poulos
From: Tony Pope
To: B-Greek
Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 8:26:43 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Chiastic Structure in Philemon 5
I notice you have had no reply to your question, so I’ll say something. I agree with your sentiments
entirely. I have never been happy with the interpretation of this verse as a chiastic structure. As
I understand it, interpreters are driven to it because, as you suggest, they feel unable to give a
“non-religious” meaning to PISTIS. The assumption is that the statement must be the same as in
Colossians 1.4, especially as it is supposed to have been written at the same time as the letter to
Philemon.
I don’t profess to be able to explain why PROS is used in one phrase and EIS in the other, but the
fact that there is a difference encourages me in the view that PISTIS is meant to apply to both TON
KURION and TOUS hAGIOUS. Perhaps the formulation was intended in some way to prepare Philemon for
what was to come later in the letter, as undoubtedly verse 6 was.
PISTIS could mean faithfulness, or it could mean trust. Trust in human beings who belong to the Lord
could perhaps be mentioned right after trust in the Lord they belong to, given the theme of the
letter. Josephus, War 2.257, has been cited as an example of PISTIS as trust in human beings. The
context is the nervousness caused by the attacks of the Sicarii, who used to knife their victims and
disappear into the crowds.
προεσκοποῦντο δὲ πόρρωθεν τοὺς διαφόρους, καὶ οὐδὲ τοῖς φίλοις προσιοῦσιν πίστις ἦν, ἐν μέσαις δὲ
ταῖς ὑπονοίαις καὶ ταῖς φυλακαῖς ἀνῃροῦντο:
PROESKOPOUNTO DE PORRWQEN TOUS DIAFOROUS, KAI OUDE TOIS FILOIS PROSIOUSIN PISTIS HN, EN MESAIS DE
TAIS hUPONOIAIS KAI TAIS FULAKAIS ANHROUNTO.
Men watched at a distance for their enemies and would not trust their friends when they came
near to them. Yet, in spite of their suspicions and precautions, they were murdered; (Cornfeld’s
tr.)
Tony Pope
George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 3 10:55:46 EST 2009
The attempts to find a chiastic structure everywhere reminds me of the saying, “To a man with a hammer everything is a nail.”
george
gfsomsel
Col 1:3-4 is indeed an important background for understanding how Paul
introduces many of his letters:
The text is:
3 Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ [καὶ] πατρὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντοτε περὶ
ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι,
4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε εἰς πάντας
τοὺς ἁγίους
EUCARISTOUMEN TWi QEWi (KAI PATRI TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU) PANTOTE PERI
hUMWN PROSEUCOMENOI,
AKOUSANTES THN PISTIN hUMWN EN CRISTWi IHSOU KAI THN AGAPHN hHN ECETE EIS PANTAS
TOUS hAGIOUS
The text in Philemon has many similarities:
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
4 EUCARISTW TWi QEWi MOU PANTOTE MNEIAN SOU POIOUMENOS EPI TWN PROSEUCWN MOU
5 AKOUWN SOU THN AGAPHN KAI THN PISTIN hHN ECEIS PROS TON KURION IHSOUN KAI EIS
PANTAS TOUS hAGIOUS
In both cases Paul is thanking God in his prayers for the addressee since he has
had a good report of their faith in Jesus and love towards all the saints.
We find a similar statement in Eph 1:15-16 but with the reason before the
thanksgiving:
15 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ ἀκούσας τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην
τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους
16 οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου
DIA TOUTO KAGW AKOUSAS THN KAQ’ hUMAS PISTIN EN TWi KURIWi IHSOU KAI THN AGAPHN
THN EIS PANTAS TOUS hAGIOUS
16 OU PAUOMAI EUCARISTWN hUPER hUMWN MNEIAN POIOUMENOS EPI TWN PROSEUCWN MOU
In all of these Paul is referring to what he has heard.
Also consider 2 Thes 1:3:
Εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν τῷ θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστιν, ὅτι
ὑπεραυξάνει ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν καὶ πλεονάζει ἡ ἀγάπη ἑνὸς ἑκάστου πάντων ὑμῶν εἰς
ἀλλήλους
EUCARISTEIN OFEILOMEN TWi QEWI PANTOTE PERI hUMWN, ADELFOI, KAQWS AXION ESTIN,
hOTI hUPERAUXANEI hH PISTIS hUMWN KAI PLEONAZEI hH AGAPH hENOS hEKASTOU PANTWN
hUMWN EIS ALLHLOUS
PISTIS in Paul’s writings has as its object God or Jesus, not people, and this
is so much expected that the word often occurs without an object, since the
reader can easily supply it.
In 1 Thes 1:2-3 there is a similar thanksgiving in prayer because of their ERGON
THS PISTEWS KAI KOPOS THS AGAPHS.
PISTIS is directed to God and AGAPH to other people. Paul obviously sought and
received reports about these two things from the churches. How is your faith (in
Jesus)? How do you express that faith in your love towards one another? (cf. Gal
5:6 πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη – PISTIS DI’ AGAPHS ENERGOUMENH).
IMO, this practice of Paul is enough to show that the intention in Phm 1:5 is
that PISTIS is directed to Jesus – PROS TON KURION IHSOUN – and love is directed
to people – EIS PANTAS TOUS hAGIOUS.
Paul, of course, is very familiar with Hebrew chiasms, and the letter to
Philemon is not a casual, hurriedly written letter, but a fine piece of
rhetoric, so I don’t have a problem with the chiasm here – although I do not
subscribe to all examples of chiasms that commentaries have suggested.
Iver Larsen
In the majority of instances it is true that PISTIS has a divine object in Paul, but this does not
seem to be the case in Galatians 5.22, where PISTIS occurs in a list of qualities that are directed
towards fellow human beings, nor in Titus 2.10, where PASAN … PISTIN AGAQHN must by contrast
denote a quality exhibited by slaves towards their masters. Nor probably in Titus 3.15, ASPASAI TOUS
FILOUNTAS hHMAS EN PISTEI, which according to Spicq reflects a standard form of expression combining
friendship (hence FILEW) and fidelity (PISTIS).
Incidentally, Spicq’s article on PISTIS in Vol. 3 of his Theological Lexicon of the New Testament
(Hendrickson, 1994) is to be recommended for broadening one’s horizons on the different senses of
PISTIS that were used in NT times. (As it is on a lot of other words too. For those who read French,
the original Lexique théologique du Nouveau Testament is available from Editions Cerf.)
What determines the sense of a word is, as we are so often in danger of forgetting, the immediate
context. It strikes me that this is a particular danger when coming across examples of words that
are often elsewhere used in theologically weighty statements. We tend to shoehorn every example into
the “primary” sense. It’s particularly a problem for words that are traditionally translated by a
“religious” word. Thus all examples of CHARIS must everywhere mean grace, APOSTOLOS must everywhere
refer to one of the twelve apostles or Paul, GRAMMATEUS must everywhere refer to a Jewish scribe,
EUAGGELION must everywhere mean gospel, BAPTIZW must everywhere mean to baptize, KAQARIZW must
everywhere mean to cleanse ritually, etc. etc. But if you think about it, such an approach would
impose enormous restrictions on anyone who wants to speak or write the language.
Also, and this I believe is crucial, when you are dealing with a relatively small corpus of written
material there will inevitably be cases where a word is commonly used in one sense but also used
maybe only once or twice in a different sense that can only be exampled from outside biblical Greek.
Begging the moderator’s pardon and not wishing to reopen a closed thread “by the back door”, but
merely to point out what is lexically attested and thereby put the record straight, re KAQARIZW and
KAQAIRW, see lines 6-7 of the BAGD entry for KAQARIZW. For one interesting attested object of
KAQARIZW, see LSJ: “prune away, PERISSA BLASTHMATA [superfluous shoots] P. Lond. 1.131r 192 (i.
A.D.)” The object of KAQARIZW is in that case the item removed. (There are more given for KAQAIRW.)
In the NT itself, Matt 8.3b EKAQARISQH AUTOU hH LEPRA [his leprosy cleared, i.e. disappeared] comes
under this head. It is not the ritual cleansing that is being recorded at that point.
Tony Pope