Php 1:1-2. Καὶ Τιμόθ.] not as amanuensis, although he may have been so (comp. 1Co 16:21; 2Th 3:17; Col 4:18; and see on Gal 6:11), for from Rom 16:22 we must assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the superscription; nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting (Estius, Weiss), for Php 1:1 is the address of the epistle, and as such names those from whom it emanates; but as subordinate joint-writer of the letter (comp. on 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Col 1:1; Phm 1:1), who, as a distinguished helper of the apostle, and well known to the readers, adopts the teachings, exhortations, etc. of the letter, which the apostle had previously discussed with him, as his own. At the same time, the apostle himself remains so completely the proper and principal writer of the epistle, that so early as Php 1:3 he begins to speak solely in his own person, and in Php 2:19 speaks of Timothy, who was to be sent to them, as a third person. Nevertheless this joint mention of Timothy must have been as accordant with the personal relation existing between the latter and the readers (Act 16:10 ff; Act 19:22), as it was serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of Timothy (Php 2:19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a testimony of the intimate fellowship between the apostle and his subordinate fellow-labourer.[45]
δοῦλοι Χ. Ἰ] The fact that Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic dignity by the side of Timothy (as in 2Co 1:1, Col 1:1), may be explained by the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the Philippians; for in regard to them he saw no external cause, and felt no internal need, for making this assertion; and we may assume the same thing in Phm 1:1. The non-mention of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they were composed, to be similarly explained (see Lünemann on 1Th 1:1). In their joint designation as δοῦλοι Ἰ. Χ. (see on Rom 1:1),-a designation resulting from the deep consciousness of the specific vocation of their lives (1Co 4:1),-both the apostleship of Paul and the official position of Timothy (comp. Rom 16:21 : Τιμόθ. ὁ συνεργός μου; Col 4:12) are included. Compare σύνδουλος, Col 1:7; Col 4:7.
τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] see on Rom 1:7, and on ἡγιασμένος ἐν Χ. Ἰ., 1Co 1:2.
σὺν ἐπισκ. κ. διακόν.] along with overseers and deacons. Paul writes to all[46] the Christians at Philippi (comp. Rom 1:7), bishops and deacons being expressly included (σύν, comp. Act 14:5). As official designations, the words did not require the article (Kühner, ad. Xen. Anab. Php 3:5. 7: στρατηγοὶ δὲ καὶ λοχαγοί), although particular persons are meant (in opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded, however, just as office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially mentioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, must be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the aid which had been conveyed to Paul could not have been collected without the guidance, and co-operation otherwise, of these office-bearers.[47] They might even have transmitted to him the money by means of an accompanying letter in the name of the church (Ewald; compare Hofmann); there is, however, no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Cornelius a Lapide and Grotius: that he thus arranged the salutation with reference to Epaphroditus, who was one of the ἐπίσκοποι; by Matthias: that the ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟΙ and ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟΙ had specially distinguished themselves among the Philippians by their zeal and energy; by Rilliet and Corn. Müller: that the intention was to describe the church as a regularly constituted one, or as an undivided whole (Rheinwald), a collective body organized into unity (Hofmann) (which, in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were also); or that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to self-exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet other explanations.
The writing of the words as one: συνεπισκόποις (B** D*** K, Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be rejected, because ΣῪΝ would be without appropriate reference, and the epistle is addressed to the whole community. See already Theodore of Mopsuestia.
As to the bishops, called from their official duty ἐπίσκοποι (Act 20:28; 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:7), or figuratively ΠΟΙΜΈΝΕς (Eph 4:11), and after the Jewish theocratic analogy ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΕΡΟΙ, see on Act 20:28, Eph 4:11. And how much the plural is at variance with the Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The absence also of any mention of presbyters[48] strikingly shows that the latter were still at that time identical with the bishops. Comp. particularly Act 20:17; Act 20:28; and see Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 400 ff.; also J. B. Lightfoot, p. 93 ff., and Jul. Müller, dogmat. Abh. p. 581. Mistaken view in Döllinger’s Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who makes out of σύζυγε γνήσιε the bishop κατʼ ἐξοχήν. As to the διακονία, the care of the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on Rom 12:7; Rom 16:1; 1Co 12:28. We may add that the placing of the officials after the church generally, which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by σὺν, are characteristic of the relation between the two, which had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation. Comp. Act 15:4; Heb 13:24. Cornelius a Lapide, following Thomas Aquinas, sagely observes, that “the shepherd who rules goes behind the flock!”
χάρις ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ.] See on Rom 1:7.
[45] In general, when Paul names others besides himself in the address, the ground for it must be sought for in the relation in which those named-who were then present with Paul-stood to the churches concerned, and not in any wish on his part to give by that means to the epistles an official and public character (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom Corn. Müller agrees, Commentat. de loc. quibusd. ep. ad Phil., Hamb. 1843, p. 5); for in that case the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians would least of all bear the apostle’s name alone. To him, too, with his personal consciousness of his high apostolic standing (Gal 1:1), the need of any confirmation or corroboration by others must have been an idea utterly foreign. Lastly, this very Epistle to the Philippians bears less of the official and more of the familiar character than any of the others.-The fact, moreover, that in almost all the epistles, in the superscription of which Paul does not name himself alone, Timothy is mentioned with him (Silvanus being named with the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a proof that Timothy was the apostle’s most intimate companion, and was highly esteemed among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only, Sosthenes, and not Timothy, is mentioned along with Paul in the address.
[46] For all had, in fact, by their common readiness in offering given occasion to the apostolic letter. Thus the decorum of reply naturally gave rise to the insertion of the otherwise superfluous πᾶσι, without its implying any special design of not putting to shame those who possibly had not contributed (van Hengel). And when Paul still further in this Epistle makes mention repeatedly and earnestly of all his readers (Php 1:4; Php 1:7 f., 25, Php 2:17; Php 2:26, Php 4:22), the simple and natural explanation is to be sought in the feeling of special all-embracing love, by which he was attached to this well-constituted church not divided by any factions. Hence there is no ground for seeking further explanation, as e.g. de Wette does, by suggesting erroneously that “Paul wished to manifest his impartiality with regard to the dissension in the church.”
[47] There is therefore the less ground for Baur bringing forward the mention of bishops and deacons in this passage to help the proof of a post-apostolic composition of the epistle, as is also done by Hinsch in the passage specified. See, against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 f.
[48] In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, πρεσβύτεροι and διάκονοι are spoken of as existing in Philippi, but no ἐπίσκοπος. See especially chap. v. 6. Therefore even at this later period bishops and presbyters were identical in Philippi.
Php 1:3 f. Comp. Rom 1:9; 1Co 1:4; Eph 1:16; 1Th 1:2; Phm 1:4; Col 1:3.
ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμ.] not: in every recollection, but, as the article requires: in my whole recollection of you, so that the sense is not: as often as I remember you (so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther), but: my remembrance of you in its entire tenor and compass is mingled with thankfulness towards God. On ἐπί with the dative, comp. Php 2:17. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, Michaelis, Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making ὑμῶν genitive of the subject (and ἐπὶ as stating the ground, 1Co 1:4): “that ye are constantly mindful of me,” or “on account of your collective remembrance” (Hofmann), which is supposed to imply and include the aid transmitted to him as a single μνεία. That for which Paul thanks God-and it is here, as in the openings of the other epistles, something of a far higher and more general nature-does not follow until Php 1:5.
μνείᾳ] is to be rendered in the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1Th 3:6; 2Ti 1:3), and not, as by van Hengel, in that of mention, which it only obtains in the passages-certainly otherwise corresponding
Rom 1:9, Eph 1:16, 1Th 1:2, Phm 1:4, by the addition of ποιεῖσθαι. In this case it is the μνείαν ἔχειν (1Th 3:6; 2Ti 1:3; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 798 A), and not the μν. ποιεῖσθαι, that is thought of.
πάντοτε] cannot belong to εὐχαριστῶ in such a way that the following ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει κ.τ.λ. should be separated from it and joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann[49] desires. It is true that πάντοτε down to ὑμῶν is closely linked with what precedes; but the connection is of such a character that πάντοτε already finds the befitting limitation through ἐπὶ πάσῃ τ. μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, and now by πάντοτε κ.τ.λ. can be announced, when the εὐχαριστῶ τ. Θ. μ. ἐπὶ π. τ. μν. ὑμ. takes place, namely, “at all times, in every request which I make for you all, thanksgiving towards my God is joined with my entire remembrance of you.” Negatively expressed, the sense up to this point therefore is: “I never (πάντοτε) make my intercessory prayer for you all, without always (πάντοτε, as in Rom 1:10, Col 1:4) in it associating thanks towards my God with my entire remembrance of you.” This does not render the πάντων inappropriate, as Hofmann objects, the fact being that the apostle constantly bears all his Philippians upon his heart, and cannot help praying for them all; he feels this, and expresses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many others, including Weiss, connect as follows: “whilst I at all times in all my praying for you all make the prayer with joy,” the expression ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος, as thus linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology. Instead of μετὰ χαρ. τ. δ. ποιούμ., Paul would have simply and naturally written the mere χαίρων. This applies also to the view of Huther, who (in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p. 400) substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly connects ὑπὲρ παντ. ὑμ. with εὐχαριστῶ (Rom 1:8; Eph 1:16; 1Th 1:2; 2Th 1:3). Against this it may be urged, that the otherwise too general ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει μου needs[50] an addition more precisely defining it; and the words ΜΕΤᾺ ΧΑΡ. ΤῊΝ ΔΈΗΣ. ΠΟΙΟΎΜ. which follow, show that the thought is still occupied with the prayer, and has it as yet in prospect to express the object of the thanks. Lastly, the article in τὴν δέησιν points back to a more precisely defined δέησις, the specification of which is contained in this very ὙΠ. Π. ὙΜ. Comp. Col 1:3.
As to the distinction between ΔΈΗΣΙς and ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΉ (Php 1:9; Php 4:6), see on Eph 6:18.
On the emphatic sequence of ΠΆΣῌ, ΠΆΝΤΟΤΕ, ΠΆΣῌ, ΠΆΝΤΩΝ, comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations, but the fulness of his heart suggests them to him; comp. 2Co 9:8.
μετὰ χαρᾶς κ.τ.λ.] His heart urges him, while mentioning his prayer for them all, to add: “when I make with joy the (mentioned) prayer (τὴν δ.),”-a feature which is met with in the opening of this epistle only. Php 1:4 is not to be placed in a parenthesis (as by Luther), nor yet from μετὰ χαρ. onwards, for ΠΟΙΟΎΜ. is connected with ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤῶ (in opposition to Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic definition of mode for ΔΈΗΣΙς ὙΠ. ΠΆΝΤ. ὙΜ.
[49] According to whom Paul is supposed to say that “he thanks his God for their collective remembrance at all times, in each of his intercessory prayers making the request for them all with joy.” Thus, however, the apostle would in fact have expressed himself in a manner extravagant even to falsehood, because implying an impossibility.
[50] This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who attaches ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, and to Hofmann, who at the same time joins ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει, to the participial clause. The participial clause only begins with the emphatically prefixed μετὰ χαρᾶς.
Php 1:5 f. Ἐπὶ τῇ κοινων. ὑμ. εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ.] is to be taken together with εὐχαριστῶ, Php 1:3 (1Co 1:4), and not with μετὰ χαρ. κ.τ.λ. (Calvin, Grotius, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann); for in that case, with the right explanation of ἐπὶ πάσῃ τ. μν. ὑμ., the specification of the ground for thanks would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your fellowship in respect of the gospel; by this Paul means the common brotherly coherence (Act 2:42) which united the Philippians together for the gospel (as the aim to which the κοινωνία has reference), that is, for its furtherance and efficiency. The great cause of the gospel was the end at which, in their mutual coherence, they aimed; and this, therefore, gave to their fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy destination. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the context in Php 1:9, where that which is here expressed by ἡ κοινωνία ὑμῶν is characterized, under the category of the disposition on which this κοινωνία is based, as ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν. As this view is in full harmony with both words and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, it excludes divergent interpretations. We must therefore reject not only the explanation which refers κοινωνία to the aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be taken actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, 287), although it is never so used in the N. T. (comp. on Rom 15:26; Gal 6:6; Phm 1:6), but also the view of Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, and others: “quod evangelii participes facti estis,” as if it ran τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Theodoret: κοινωνίαν δὲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν πίστιν ἐκάλεσε). Chrysostom and Theophylact, who are followed by most of the recent interpreters (including Schinz, Weiss, Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann), understand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle, that is, ὅτι κοινωνοί μου γίνεσθε κ. συμμερισταὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ εὐαγγ. πόνων, Theophylact; consequently, their co-operation with him in spreading the gospel, in which case also a reference to the aid rendered is included. In this case, since the text says nothing about a “service” devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), an addition like μετʼ ἐμοῦ (1Jn 1:3, et al.), or some other more precise definition, like that in Php 1:7, would be an essential element-not arising (as in Gal 2:9) out of the context-which therefore must have been expressed, as indeed Paul must have said so, had he wished to be understood as referring to fellowship with all who had the cause of the gospel at heart (Wiesinger). The absolute “your fellowship,” if no arbitrary supplement is allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the members of the church themselves.
The article is not repeated after ὑμῶν, because κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ. is conceived as forming a single notion (comp. on κοινωνεῖν εἰς, Php 4:15; Plato, Rep. p. 453 A).
ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμ. ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν] is usually connected with τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κ.τ.λ. This connection is the true one, for the constancy of the κοινωνία, that has been attested hitherto, is the very thing which not only supplies the motive for the apostle’s thankfulness, but forms also the ground of his just confidence for the future. The connective article (τῇ before ἀπὸ) is not requisite, as ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν was construed as ἐπὶ τῷ κοινωνεῖν ὑμᾶς (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 171]). It cannot be connected with τ. δέησιν ποιούμ. (Weiss), unless ἐπὶ τ. κοινων. κ.τ.λ. is also made to belong hereto. If joined with πεποιθώς (Rilliet, following Lachmann, ed. min.), it would convey an emphatically prefixed definition of the apostle’s confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the previous conduct of the readers, which by the connection with πεποιθ. would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with εὐχαριστῶ (Beza, Wolf, Bengel), the words-seeing that the expression πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει has already been used, and then in ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κ.τ.λ. a transition has already been made to the object of the thanks-would contain a definition awkwardly postponed.
The first day is that in which he first preached the gospel to them, which was followed by immediate and decided results, Act 16:13 ff. Comp. Col 1:6.
πεποιθώς] confidence by which Paul knows his εὐχαριστεῖν, Php 1:3-5, to be accompanied. Without due ground, Hofmann confuses the matter by making a new prolonged paragraph begin with πεποιθώς.[51]
αὐτὸ τοῦτο] if taken according to the common usage as the accusative of the object (comp. Php 1:25), would not point to what follows, as if it were τοῦτο merely (Weiss), but would mean, being confident of this very thing, which is being spoken of (Php 2:18; Gal 2:10; 2Co 2:3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken as ob id ipsum,[52] for this very reason (2Pe 1:5; Plato, Symp. p. 204 A, and Stallb. ad loc.; Prot. p. 310 E; Xen. Anab. 1:9. 21, and Kühner in loc., also his Gramm. II. 1, p. 267; see also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 178], and comp. on Gal 2:10), namely, because your κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ., from the first day until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my confidence for the future, ὍΤΙ Ὁ ἘΝΑΡΞΆΜΕΝΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.
Ὁ ἘΝΑΡΞΆΜΕΝΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.] God. Comp. Php 2:13. That which He has begun He will complete, namely, by the further operations of His grace. The idea of resistance to this grace, as a human possibility, is not thereby excluded; but Paul has not to fear this on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in the case of the Galatians, Gal 1:6; Gal 3:3.
ἐν ὑμῖν] That Paul did not intend to say among you (as Hoelemann holds), but in you, in animis vestris (comp. Php 2:13; 1Co 12:6), is shown by ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν following, by which the language Ὁ ἘΝΑΡΞ. ἘΝ ὙΜΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. expresses a confidence felt in respect to all individuals.
ἔργον ἀγαθόν] without article, hence: an excellent work, by which is meant, in conformity with the context, the κοινωνία ὑμ. εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ.
ἄχρις ἡμέρας Ἰ. Χ.] corresponding to the ἈΠῸ ΠΡΏΤΗς ἩΜΈΡ. ἌΧΡΙ ΤΟῦ ΝῦΝ, Php 1:5, presupposes the nearness of the παρουσία (in opposition to Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in the N. T., and especially in Paul’s writings (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 297, ed. 2). Comp. Php 1:10; Php 3:20. The device by which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) gratuitously introduce qualifying statements,” Perseverat autem in illum usque diem, quicunque perseverat usque ad mortem suam” (Estius), whereby is meant not “continuitas usque ad illum diem,” but “terminus et complementum perfectionis, quod habituri isto die erimus” (Calovius), is just as un-Pauline as Calvin’s makeshift, “that the dead are still in profectu, because they have not yet reached the goal,” and as Matthies’ philosophical perverting of it into the continual and eternal Parousia.
[51] He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute a protasis, whose apodosis is again divided into the protasis καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοί and the apodosis corresponding thereto. But this apodosis of the apodosis begins with διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με, ver. 7, and yet is only continued after the words μάρτυς γ. ὁ Θεός, ὡς ἐπιποθῶ ὑμᾶς, which are a parenthesis, in vv. 8, 9. Such a dialectically involved and complicated, long-winded period would be most of all out of place in this epistle; and what reader would have been able, without Hofmann’s guidance, to detect it and adjust its several parts?
[52] Hofmann also adopts this explanation of αὐτὸ τοῦτο.
Php 1:7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed in Php 1:6. How should he otherwise than cherish it, and that on the ground of his objective experience (αὐτὸ τοῦτο), since it was to him, through his love to his readers, a duty and obligation! Not to cherish it would be wrong. “Caritas enim omnia sperat,” Pelagius.
As to καθώς, which, in the conception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, comp. on Php 3:17; 1Co 1:6; Eph 1:4; Mat 6:11.
On δίκαιον, comp. Act 4:19; Eph 6:1; Php 4:8; Col 4:1; 2Pe 1:12. A classical author would have written: δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο φρονεῖν (Herod. i. 39; Dem. 198. 8; Plat. Symp. p. 214 C), or: δίκαιός εἰμι τοῦτο φρ. (Herod. i. 32; Dem. 1469. 18, and frequently; Thuc. i. 40. 3).
τοῦτο φρονεῖν] to have this feeling, this practical bent of mind in favour of you, by which is meant the confidence expressed in Php 1:6, and not his striving in prayer for the perfecting of his readers’ salvation (Php 1:4), which the sense of the word φρονεῖν does not admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is not equivalent to ζητεῖν (comp. on Col 3:2). See besides, Huther, l.c. p. 405 f.
On ὑπέρ, comp. Php 4:10; 2Ma 14:8; Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f.; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3; on τοῦτο φρ., Gal 5:10, οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρ. The special reference of the sense of φρονεῖν: to be mindful about something, must have been suggested by the context, as in Php 4:10; but is here insisted on by Hofmann, and that in connection with the error, that with καθώς the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The φρονεῖν is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized by τοῦτο as a εὖ φρονεῖν, which Paul feels himself bound to cherish in the interest of the salvation of all his readers (ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν).
διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς] An expression of heartfelt love (comp. 2Co 7:3) on the part of the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers towards him (Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmüller, am Ende, Flatt), thus making ὑμᾶς the subject; although the sing. καρδία (comp. Eph 4:18; Eph 5:19; Eph 6:5; Rom 1:21; 2Co 3:15, and elsewhere) is not against this view, the position of the words is opposed to it, as is also the context, see Php 1:8. The readers are present to the apostle in his loving heart.
ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς κ.τ.λ.] so that, accordingly, this state of suffering, and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, cannot dislodge you from my heart. See already Chrysostom and Pelagius. These words, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς κ.τ.λ., set forth the faithful and abiding love, which even his heavy misfortunes cannot change into concern for himself alone. They contain, however, the two points, co-ordinated by τέ … καί (as well … as also): (1) The position of the apostle, and (2) his employment in this position. The latter, which, through the non-repetition of the article before βεβ., is taken as a whole (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both antithetical, the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it, that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc., its verification; comp. Heb 6:16; Rom 15:8; Mar 16:20; Thucyd. i. 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 309 C; Wis 5:18. For an instance of this kind of βεβαίωσις during the earliest period of the apostle’s captivity at Rome, see Act 28:23. Hofmann, taking a groundless objection to our explanation from the use of τέ … καί (see, however, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 225), refuses to connect the τέ with the following καί; he prefers to connect with the one ἔχειν, namely with the ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, another, namely an ἔχειν συγκοινωνούς. This is an artificial conjunction of very different references of the ἔχειν, yielding the illogical formalism: I have you (1) in my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc. The latter would indeed be only a more precise qualitative definition of the former. The question, moreover, whether in τῇ ἀπολ. κ. βεβ. τοῦ εὐαγγ. Paul intended to speak of his judicial examination (Heinrichs, van Hengel), or of his extra-judicial action and ministry during his captivity, cannot be answered without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were meant. For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial defence (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 430), since the ἀπολογία might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists, but also to Gentile judges.
τοῦ εὐαγγ.] belongs to τῇ ἀπολ. κ. βεβαιώσει, and not to βεβ. only; the latter view would make τῇ ἀπολ. denote the personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, and others), but is decisively opposed by the non-repetition-closely coupling the two words-of the article before βεβ. But to interpret ἀπολογία and βεβαίωσις as synonymous (Rheinwald), or to assume an ἓν διὰ δυοῖν for ἀπολογίᾳ εἰς βεβαίωσιν (Heinrichs), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the connection. It is also contrary to the context (on account of τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ) to understand the βεβαίωσις τ. εὐαγγ. as the actual confirmation afforded by the apostle’s sufferings (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others).
συγκοινωνούς μου κ.τ.λ.] characterizes the ὑμᾶς, and supplies a motive for the ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.: since you, etc. This love to you, unalterable even in my affliction, is based on the real sympathy, which results from all of you being joint-partakers with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on συγκ. and then on πάντας, which is correlative with the previous πάντων. The idea of the grace which the apostle had received (τῆς χάριτος) is defined solely from the connection, and that indeed by the two points immediately preceding, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου and τῇ ἀπολ. κ. βεβ. τοῦ εὐαγγ., namely, as God’s gift of grace enabling them to suffer for the gospel (comp. Php 1:29 f.; see also Act 5:41; 1Pe 2:19), and therewith to defend and confirm instead of falling away from and denying it. “Magnus in hac re honos, magna praemia” (Grotius). Paul knew that the experience of this grace-for the setting forth of which the context itself amply suffices, without the need of any retrospective ταύτης (as is Hofmann’s objection)-had been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all his Philippian converts, who like him had had to suffer for Christ (Php 1:29 f.); and thus, in his bonds, and whilst vindicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of the holy similarity in this respect between his and their experience, sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his fellow-sharers of this grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he was suffering, and defending and confirming the gospel, he had all his readers as συμπάσχοντες, συναπολογούμενοι, συμβεβαιοῦντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, and that in virtue of the above-named grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had recognised his bonds, and his activity for the gospel in these bonds. Others interpret it much too generally and vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of the context, as the “gratiosa evangelii donatio” (Hoelemann, comp. Wolf, Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any more immediate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is its explanation of the apostolic office (Rom 1:5, et al.), the Philippians being said to be active promoters of this through their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia); along with which a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr, am Ende, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Hofmann; comp. also Weiss)-which assistance has come to be regarded as a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (but see on Php 1:5), as Hofmann expresses it. Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does not mention at the very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered to him, prescribe a certain line for the apostle; which, however, he does not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the Philippians in subjects of a higher and more general interest, and puts off his expression of thanks, properly so called, to the end of the epistle. Lastly, the translation gaudii (Vulgate, Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Sedulius) is derived from another reading (χαρᾶς).
The σύν in συγκοινωνούς refers to μου, my joint-partakers (Php 4:14) of the grace, thus combining συγκ. with a double genitive of the person and the thing, of the subject and the object (Kühner, II. 1, p. 288; Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]), and placing it first with emphasis; for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in question.
As to the repetition of ὑμᾶς, see Matthiae, p. 1031, and on Col 2:13; comp. Soph. O. C. 1278, and Reisig in loc.
REMARK.
Whether ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς … εὐαγγ. should be connected with the preceding διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, and many; also Huther), or with συγκ. κ.τ.λ. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be determined. Still the former, as of a less periodic character, is more in harmony with the fervent tone of feeling. Besides, the repetition of ὑμᾶς betrays a break in the flow of thought after τ. εὐαγγ.
Php 1:8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance, that he had his readers in his heart, etc. Comp., on the connection, Rom 1:9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly observes: οὐχ ὡς ἀπιστούμενος μάρτυρα καλεῖ τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλὰ τὴν πολλὴν διάθεσιν οὐκ ἔχων παραστῆσαι διὰ λόγου.
ὡς ἐπιποθῶ κ.τ.λ.] how much I long after you all, etc., which would not be the case if I did not bear you in my heart (γάρ), as announced more precisely in Php 1:7. On ἐπιποθῶ, comp. Rom 1:11; Php 2:26; 1Th 3:6; 2Ti 1:4. The compound denotes the direction (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 855 F; Herod. v. 93; Diod. Sic. xvii. 101; Sir 25:20), not the strength of the ποθεῖν (comp. on 2Co 5:2), which is conveyed by ὡς; comp. Rom 1:9; 1Th 2:10.
ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ] is not, with Hofmann,[53] to be connected with what follows (see on Php 1:9); it is an expression of the heartiness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest possible terms. ἐν, on account of the sensuous expression which follows (ΣΠΛΆΓΧΝΑ, like רַחֲמְים, as seat of the affections, especially of heartfelt love, Php 2:1; Col 3:12; Phm 1:7; Phm 1:12; Phm 1:20; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally: in the heart of Jesus Christ; that is, so that this longing of mine is not my own individual emotion, but a longing which I feel in virtue of the dwelling and working of Christ in me. Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his inmost life is not that of his human personality, of himself, but that Christ, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal principle and agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings. Comp. on Gal 2:20. Filled with the feeling of this holy fellowship of life, which threw his own individuality into the background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual ζωή was thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances of his ἐπιποθεῖν, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him, as if Christ’s heart throbbed in him for his Philippians. Bengel aptly says: “In Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur visceribus.” Comp. Theodoret: οὐκ ἀνθρώπινον τὸ φίλτρον, πνευματικόν. Not doing justice to the Pauline consciousness of the unio mystica which gives rise to this expression, some have rendered ἘΝ in an instrumental sense, as in Luk 1:78 (Hofmann); others have taken it of the norma: “according to the pattern of Christ’s love to His people” (Rosenmüller, Rilliet); and some have found the sense of the norma in the genitival relation: “in animo penitus affecto ut animus fuit Christi” (van Hengel). So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and earlier expositors; whilst Storr refers ἘΝ ΣΠΛ. Ἰ. Χ. even to the readers (sc. ὄντας). For many other interpretations, see Hoelemann and Weiss. The merely approximate statement of the sense, given by Grotius and others: “amore non illo communi, sed vere Christiano,” is in substance correct, but fails to give its full development to the consciousness of the ΧΡΙΣΤῸς ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ (Gal 2:20; Gal 4:19; Rom 8:10; 2Co 13:5; Eph 3:17); notwithstanding which Hofmann regards the identification of Paul’s own heart with the heart of Christ as simply impossible; thus, however, applying to the mysticism of deep pious feeling, and the living immediate plastic form in which it finds expression, a criterion alien to its character, and drawing around it a literal boundary which it cannot bear.
[53] According to Hofmann, namely, ἐν σπλ. Χ. Ἰ. asserts with reference to the following καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχ. that Christ’s heart towards those who are His produces such prayer in the apostle, and manifests itself therein.
Php 1:9. After having stated and discussed, in Php 1:3-8, the reason why he thanks God with respect to his readers, Paul now, till the end of Php 1:11, sets forth what it is that he asks in prayer for them. “Redit ad precationem, quam obiter tantum uno verbo attigerat (namely, Php 1:4); exponit igitur summam eorum, quae illis petebat a Deo” (Calvin).
καί] the simple and, introducing the new part of,[54] and thus continuing, the discourse: And this (which follows) is what I pray,-so that the object is placed first in the progress of the discourse; hence it is καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, and not κ. προσεύχ. τοῦτο. Hofmann’s explanation of the καί in the sense of also, and his attaching ἐν σπλ. Χ. Ἰ. to Php 1:9, are the necessary result of his perverse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running on from πεποιθώς in Php 1:6, into a lengthened protasis and apodosis,-a construction in which the apodosis of the apodosis is supposed to begin with ἐν σπλ. Χ. Ἰ.; comp. on Php 1:6.
ἵνα] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under the form of its design (Col 1:9; 1Th 1:10; Mat 24:20), and thus explains the preparatory τοῦτο. Comp. on Joh 6:29. “This I pray, that your love should more and more,” etc.
ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν], not love to Paul (van Hengel, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, and others),-a reference which, especially in connection with ἔτι μᾶλλον κ. μᾶλλον, would be all the more unsuitable on account of the apostle having just received a practical proof of the love of the Philippians. It would also be entirely inappropriate to the context which follows (ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ.τ.λ.). Nor is it their love generally, without specification of an object for it, as a proof of faith (Hofmann); but it is, in accordance with the context, the brotherly love of the Philippians one to another, the common disposition and feeling at the bottom of that κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ., for which Paul has given thanks in Php 1:5.[55] This previous thanksgiving of his was based on the confidence, ὅτι ὁ ἐναρξάμενος κ.τ.λ., Php 1:6, and the contents of his prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The connection is misapprehended by Calovius and Rheinwald, who explain it as love to God and Christ; also by Matthies (comp. Rilliet), who takes it as love to everything, that is truly Christian; comp. Wiesinger: love to the Lord, and to all that belongs to and serves Him; Weiss: zeal of love for the cause of the gospel,-an interpretation which fails to define the necessary personal object of the ἀγάπη, and to do justice to the idea of co-operative fellowship which is implied in the κοινωνία in Php 1:5.
ἔτι μᾶλλον] quite our: still more. Comp. Homer, Od. i. 322, xviii. 22; Herod. i. 94; Pind. Pyth. x. 88, Olymp. i. 175; Plat. Euthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 35; Diog. L. ix. 10. 2. See instances of μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον in Kypke, II. p. 307. With the reading περισσεύῃ note the sense of progressive development.
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ. πάσῃ αἰσθήσει] constitutes that in which-i.e. respecting which-the love of his readers is to become more and more abundant. Comp. Rom 15:13; 2Co 3:9 (Elz.), 2Co 8:7; Col 2:7; Sir 19:20 (24). Others take the ἐν as instrumental: through (Heinrichs, Flatt, Schinz, and others); or as local: in, i.e. in association with (Oecumenius, Calvin, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others),
περισσ. being supposed to stand absolutely (may be abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις, and not to the love, shows that Paul had in view not the growth in love, but the increase in ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις, which the love of the Philippians was more and more to attain. The less the love is deficient in knowledge and αἴσθησις, it is the more deeply felt, more moral, effective, and lasting. If ἐπίγνωσις is the penetrating (see on 1Co 13:12; Eph 1:17) cognition of divine truth, both theoretical and practical, the true knowledge of salvation,[56] which is the source, motive power, and regulator of love (1Jn 4:7 ff.); αἴσθησις (only occurring here in the New Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either through the bodily senses[57] (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 5, Anab. iv. 6. 13, and Krüger in loc.; Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), which are also called αἰσθήσεις (Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), or spiritually[58] (Plat. Tim. p. 43 C; Dem. 411. 19, 1417. 5), must be, according to the context which follows, the perception which takes place with the ethical senses,-an activity of moral perception which apprehends and makes conscious of good and evil as such (comp. Heb 5:14). The opposite of this is the dulness and inaction of the inward sense of ethical feeling (Rom 11:8; Mat 13:15, et al.), the stagnation of the αἰσθητήρια τῆς καρδίας (Jer 4:19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility, incapacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about. Comp. LXX. Pro 1:7; Exo 28:5; Sir 20:17, Rec. (ΑἼΣΘΗΣΙς ὈΡΘΉ); 4Ma 2:21. Paul desires for his readers every (πάσῃ) ΑἼΣΘΗΣΙς, because their inner sense is in no given relation to remain without the corresponding moral activity of feeling, which may be very diversified according to the circumstances which form its ethical conditions. The relation between ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς and ΑἼΣΘΗΣΙς is that of spontaneity to receptivity, and the former is the ἩΓΕΜΟΝΙΚΌΝ for the efficacy of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and misapprehending are not correlative to the former, and deception to the latter (Hofmann); both contrast with both.
[54] The word προσεύχομαι, which now occurs, points to a new topic, the thanksgiving and its grounds having been previously spoken of. Therefore κ. τ. προσεύχ. is not to be attached, with Rilliet and Ewald, to the preceding verse: and (how I) pray this. Two different things would thus be joined. The former portion is concluded by the fervent and solemn ver. 8. Jatho also (Br. an d. Phil., Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with ὡς, namely thus: and how I pray for this, namely, to come to you, in order that I may edify you. But to extract for τοῦτο, out of ἐπιποθῶ ὑμᾶς, the notion: “my presence with you,” is much too harsh and arbitrary; for Paul’s words are not even ἐπιποθῶ ἰδεῖν ὑμάς, as in Rom 1:11.
[55] The idea that “your love’ means the readers themselves (Bullinger), or that this passage gave rise to the mode of addressing the hearers that has obtained since the Fathers (very frequently, e.g. in Augustine) in the language of the church (Bengel), is purely fanciful.
[56] Not a mere knowledge of the divine will (Rheinwald), which leads to the right objects, aims, means, and proofs of love (Weiss; comp. Hofmann). This, as in Col 1:9, would have been expressed by Paul. Neither can ἐπιγν. be limited to the knowledge of men (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others).
[57] “Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, i. e. sensus investigativi et fruitivi” (Bengel).
[58] “Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, i. e. sensus investigativi et fruitivi” (Bengel).
Php 1:10-11. Εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν κ.τ.λ.] states the aim of the περισσ. ἐν ἐπιγν. κ. π. αἴσθ., and in ἵνα ἧτε εἰλικρ. κ.τ.λ. we have the ultimate design. δοκιμάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα is to be understood, as in Rom 2:18 : in order to approve that which is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Flatt, Rheinwald, Rilliet, Ewald, and others. See on διαφέρειν, praestantiorem esse (Dem. 1466. 22; Polyb. iii. 87. 1; Mat 10:31), and τὰ διαφέροντα, praestantiora (Xen. Hier. i. 3; Dio Cass. xliv. 25), Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 711 f. Comp. διαφερόντως, eximie (Plat. Prot. p. 349 D, and frequently). For δοκιμάζ., comp. Rom 14:22, et al. Others understand it as a testing of things which are morally different (Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and others; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Corn. Müller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point of usage, this is equally correct; see on δοκιμάζ., in both senses, 1Th 2:4. But in our view the sense which yields a definition of the aim of the words περισσ. ἐν ἐπιγν. κ. π. αἰσθ., as well as the antecedent of the εἰλικρίνεια which follows, seems more consistent with the context. The testing of good and evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of the ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις. Looking at the stage of Christian life which must be assumed from Php 1:5; Php 1:7 (different in Rom 12:2), the former, as an aim, does not go far enough; and the εἰλικρίνεια is the result not of that testing, but of the approbation of the good. Hofmann’s view is therefore unsuitable, that it means the proving of that which is otherwise; otherwise, namely, than that towards which the Christian’s love is directed. This would amount merely to the thought of testing what is unworthy of being loved (= τὰ ἕτερα)-a thought quite out of keeping with the telic mode of expression.
εἰλικρινεῖς], pure, sincere = καθαρός; Plat. Phil. p. 52 D. Comp., on its ethical use, Plat. Phaedr. p. 66 A, and Stallbaum in loc., 81 C; 2Pe 3:1; 1Co 5:8; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 2:17; Wis 7:25, and Grimm in loc.
ἀπρόσκοποι] practical proof of the εἰλικρίνεια in reference to intercourse with others (2Co 6:3): giving no offence; 1Co 10:32; Ignat. Trall. interpol. 7; Suicer, Thes. s.v. As Paul decidedly uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. l.c. (comp. Ecclus. 35:21), this meaning is here also to be preferred to the in itself admissible intransitive,-viz. not offending (Act 24:16; comp. Joh 11:9),-in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and others.
εἰς ἡμέρ. Χ.], to, i.e. for, the day of Christ, when ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judgment seat. Comp. Php 2:16; Eph 4:30; Col 1:22; 2Pe 2:9; 2Pe 3:7; 2Ti 1:12; also Jud 1:24 f. These passages show that the expression is not equivalent to the ἄχρις ἡμέρας Χ. in Php 1:6 (Luther, Erasmus, and others), but places what is said in relation to the decision, unveiling, and the like of the day of the Parousia, which is, however, here also looked upon as near.
Php 1:11. πεπλ. καρπὸν δικ.] modal definition of the εἰλικριν. κ. ἀπρόσκ., and that from the positive side of these attributes, which are manifested and tested in this fruitfulness-i.e. in this rich fulness of Christian virtue in their possessors. καρπὸς δικαιοσ. is the fruit which is the product of righteousness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state. Comp. καρπ. τοῦ πνεύματος, Gal 5:22; κ. τοῦ φωτός, Eph 5:9; κ. δικαιοσύνης, Jam 3:18, Heb 12:11, Rom 6:21 f., Pro 11:30. In no instance is the genitive with καρπός that of apposition (Hofmann). The δικαιοσύνη here meant, however, is not justitia fidei (justificatio), as many, even Rilliet and Hoelemann, would make it, but, in conformity with Php 1:10, a righteous moral condition, which is the moral consequence, because the necessary vital expression, of the righteousness of faith, in which man now καρποφορεῖ τῷ Θεῷ ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος, Rom 7:5 f.; comp. Rom 6:2, Rom 8:2; Col 1:10. We must observe that the emphasis is laid not on δικαιοσύνης, but on καρπόν,-which therefore obtains more precise definition afterwards,-so that δικαιοσύνης conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already conveyed in Php 1:10, of the right moral condition. Comp. on δικαιοσύνη, Eph 5:9; Rom 6:13; Rom 6:18; Rom 6:20; Rom 14:17, et al.
On the accusative of the remote object, comp. Psa 105:40; Psa 147:14; Sir 17:6; Col 1:9 (not 2Th 1:11); Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 287]. A classical author would have used the genitive (Elz.) or the dative.
τὸν διὰ Ἰ. Χ.] sc. ὄντα, the more exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar sacred essence and dignity of which are made apparent, seeing that it is produced, not through observance of the law, or generally by human power, but through Christ, who brings it about by virtue of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit (Gal 2:20; Gal 3:22; Eph 4:7 f., 17; Joh 15:14, et al.).
εἰς δόξαν κ.τ.λ.] belongs to πεπληρ. κ.τ.λ., not specially to τὸν διὰ Ἰ. Χ. How far this fruitfulness tends to the honour of God (comp. Joh 15:8), see Eph 1:6-14. God’s δόξα is His majesty in itself; ἔπαινος is the praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph 1:6; Eph 1:12; Eph 1:14. This ἔπαινος is based on matter of fact (its opposite is ἀτιμάζειν τ. Θεόν, Rom 2:23), in so far as in the Christian moral perfection of believers God’s work of salvation in them, and consequently His glory, by means of which it is effected, are manifested. Comp. 1Co 6:20. The whole work of redemption is the manifestation of the divine δόξα. See Joh 12:27 f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim and constant refrain of all Christian perfection, Php 2:11; 1Co 10:31; Eph 3:21; 1Pe 4:11; Rom 11:36.
Php 1:12. See, on Php 1:12-26, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p. 558 ff.
Paul now proceeds by the δέ of continuation to depict his own position down to Php 1:26. See the summary of contents.
The element of transition in the train of thought is that of the notification which Paul now desires to bring before them; γινώσκειν is therefore placed first: but ye are to know. It is otherwise in 2Ti 3:1, also 1Co 11:3, Col 2:1.
τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ] my circumstances, my position, as in Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; Tob 10:9; 2Ma 3:40, et al.; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 16; Ael. V. H. ii. 20.
μᾶλλον] not to the hindrance, but much the contrary. See Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 304]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as existing, on the part of his readers, which, before going further, he wishes to relieve. There is no trace even here of a letter received from them with the contribution (Hofmann; comp. Wiesinger); comp. on Php 1:1. Hoelemann: “magis, quam antea contigerat;” but this meaning must have been intimated by a νῦν or ἤδη.
προκοπήν] progress, i.e. success. Comp. Php 1:25; 1Ti 4:15. As to the later Greek character of this word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85. In consequence of the apostle’s fate, the gospel had excited more attention, and the courage of its preachers had increased; see Php 1:13 f. As to whether a change had taken place in his condition, which the readers regarded as a change for the worse, as Hofmann requires us to assume, we have no specific hint whatePhilippians Philippians 1 :The situation of the apostle generally, and in itself, abundantly justified their concern, especially since it had already lasted so long.
ἐλήλυθεν] evenit, i.e. has redounded. Comp. Act 19:27; Wis 15:5; Herod. i. 120; Soph. Aj. 1117 (1138); Plat. Gorg. p. 487 B. So the matter stands; note the perfect.
Php 1:13. Ὥστε κ.τ.λ.] so that my bonds became manifest in Christ, etc. This ὥστε introduces the actual result of that προκοπή, and consequently a more precise statement of its nature.[59] Ἐν Χριστῷ does not belong to ΤΟῪς ΔΕΣΜΟΎς ΜΟΥ, alongside of which it does not stand; but ΦΑΝΕΡΟῪς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤ. is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on ΦΑΝΕΡΟΎς, so that the ΔΕΣΜΟΊ did not remain ΚΡΥΠΤΟΊ or ἈΠΟΚΡΎΦΟΙ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ, as would have been the case, if their relation to Christ had continued unknown, and if people had been compelled to look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary prisoner detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not exist; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ, in so far, namely, that in their causal relation to Christ-in this their specific peculiarity-was found information and elucidation with respect to his condition of bondage, and thus the specialty of the case of the prisoner, became notorious. If Paul had been only known generally as δέσμιος, his bonds would have been ΟὐΚ ἘΜΦΑΝΕῖς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ; but now that, as ΔΈΣΜΙΟς ἘΝ ΚΥΡΊῼ or ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ (Eph 4:1; Eph 3:1; Phm 1:9), as ΠΆΣΧΩΝ Ὡς ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΌς (1Pe 4:16), he had become the object of public notice, the ΦΑΝΈΡΩΣΙς of his state of bondage, as resting ἐν Χριστῷ, was thereby brought about,-a ΦΑΝΕΡῸΝ ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ, consequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the ἐν Χριστῷ. It is arbitrary to supply ὌΝΤΑς with ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ (Hofmann). Ewald takes it as: “shining in Christ,” i.e. much sought after and honoured as Christian. Comp. also Calvin, and Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 457. But, according to New Testament usage, φανερός does not convey so much as this; in classical usage (Thuc. i. 17. 2, iv. 11. 3; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58, Anab. vii. 7. 22 and Krüger in loc.) it may mean conspicuous, eminent.
ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ] ΠΡΑΙΤΏΡΙΟΝ is not the imperial palace in Rome (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, also Mynster, Rheinwald, and Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 300), which is denoted in Php 4:22 by ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία, but was never called praetorium.[60] It could not well, indeed, be so called, as τὸ πραιτώριον is the standing appellation for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Mat 27:27; Joh 18:28; Joh 19:9; Act 23:35); hence it might and must have been explained as the Procurator’s palace in Caesarea, if our epistle had been written there (see especially Böttger, Beitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the Roman castrum praetorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard (Camerarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and others), whose chief was the praefectus praetorio, the στρατοπέδων ἔπαρχος, to whom Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Rome (Act 28:16). It was built by Sejanus, and was situated not far from the Porta Viminalis, on the eastern side of the city.[61] See Suet. Tib. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus, Thesaur. antiq. III. 174; and especially Perizonius, de orig., signif. et usu vocc. praetoris et praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his Disquisitio de praetorio ac vero sensu verborum Phil. i. 13, Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. Lightfoot, p. 97 ff. τὸ πραιτώριον does not mean the troop of praetorian cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to οἱ πραιτωριανοί (Herodian, viii. 8. 14).[62]
The becoming known in the whole praetorium is explained by the fact, that a praetorian was always present with Paul as his guard (Act 28:16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his preaching without hindrance (Act 28:30 f.).
καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσι] not in the sense of locality, dependent on ἐν (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), but: and to all the others, besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inexact way of putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known among the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be left without any more specific definition. This extensive proclamation of the matter took place in part directly through Paul himself, since any one might visit him, and in part indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, disciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like.[63] Van Hengel, moreover, understands it incorrectly, as if οἱ λοιποί were specially “homines exteri,” “Gentiles,”-a limitation which could only be suggested by the context, and therefore cannot be established by the use of the word in Eph 2:3; Eph 4:17; 1Th 4:13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of Hofmann: that it refers to those, who already knew about him.
[59] “Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1012. Hofmann’s view, that it stands in the sense of εἰς τοῦτο ὥστε, also amounts to this. But Hoelemann is in error in making it assert the greatness of the προκοπή. Not the greatness, but the salutary effect, is indicated.
[60] Act. Thom. § 3, 17, 18, 19, in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f., cannot be cited in favour of this designation (in opposition to Rheinwald); the πραιτώρια βασιλικά there spoken of (§ 3) are royal castles, so designated after the analogy of the residences of the Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. Aug. 72; Tib. 39, et al.; Juvenal, x. 161.
[61] Doubtless there was a praetorian guard stationed in the imperial palace itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16). See Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404, who understands the station of this palace-guard to be here referred to. But it cannot be proved that after the times of Tiberius, in whose reign the castra praetoriana were built in front of the Viminal gate (only three cohorts having previously been stationed in the city, and that sine castris, Suetonius, Octav. 49), anything else than these castra is to be understood by the wonted term praetorium, στρατόπεδον, when mentioned without any further definition (as Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 7: πρὸ τοῦ βασιλείου).
[62] Not even in such passages as Tacitus, Hist. ii. 24, iv. 46; Suetonius, Ner. 7; Plin. H. N. xxv. 2, 6, et al., where the prepositional expression (in praetorium, ex praetorio) is always local.
[63] This suffices fully to explain the situation set forth in ver. 13. The words therefore afford no ground for the historical combination which Hofmann here makes: that during the two years, Act 28:30, the apostle’s case was held in abeyance; and that only now had it been brought up for judicial discussion, whereby first it had become manifest that his captivity was caused, not by his having committed any crime against the state, but by his having preached Christ, which might not be challenged (?) on the state’s account. As if what is expressly reported in Act 28:31 were not sufficient to have made the matter known, and as if that διετία ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι precluded the judicial preparation of the case (ver. 7)! As if the increased courage of the πλείονες, ver. 14, were intelligible only on the above assumption! As if, finally, it were admissible to understand, with Hofmann, among these πλείονες all those who “even now before the conclusion of the trial were inspired with such courage by it”!
Php 1:14. τοὺς πλείονας] the majority, 1Co 10:5; 1Co 15:6, et al. It is not to be more precisely specified or limited.
ἐν κυρίῳ] belongs not to ἀδελφῶν (Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, and others)-in which case it would not indeed have needed a connecting article (Col 1:2; Col 4:7), yet would have been entirely superfluous-but to πεποιθότας, along with which, however, it is not to be rendered: relying upon the Lord with respect to my bonds (Rheinwald, Flatt, Rilliet, comp. Schneckenburger, p. 301). It means rather: in the Lord trusting my bonds, so that ἐν κυρίῳ is the specific modal definition of πεποιθ. τοῖς δ. μ., which trust is based and depends on Christ. Comp. Php 2:24; Gal 5:10; Rom 14:14; 2Th 3:4. On the dative, comp. 2Co 10:7; Phm 1:21, and the ordinary usage in the classics; in the New Testament mostly with ἐπί or ἐν. Ἐν κυρίῳ is placed first as the correlative of the ἐν Χριστ., Php 1:13. As the apostle’s bonds had become generally known as in Christ, so also in Christ (who will not abandon the work of His prisoner that had thus become so manifest) may be found the just ground of the confidence which encourages the brethren, Paul’s fellow-Christians in Rome, ἀφόβως τ. λ. λαλεῖν. They trust the bonds of the apostle, inasmuch as these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging example of patience (Grotius), but also (comp. Php 3:8; Col 1:24 f.; 2Ti 2:8 f.; Mat 5:11 f., and many other passages) a practical guarantee, highly honourable to Christ and His gospel, of the complete truth and justice, power and glory of the word,[64] for the sake of which Paul is in bonds; thereby, instead of losing their courage, they are only made all the bolder in virtue of the elevating influence of moral sympathy with this situation of the apostle in bonds. Weiss explains as if the passage ran τῇ φανερώσει τῶν δεσμῶν μου (which would tend to the recommendation of the gospel); while Hofmann thinks that, to guard themselves against the danger of being criminally prosecuted on account of their preaching, they relied on the apostle’s imprisonment, in so far as the latter had now shown itself, in the judicial process that had at length been commenced, to be solely on account of Christ, and not for anything culpable. The essential elements, forsooth, are thus introduced in consequence of the way in which Hofmann has construed for himself the situation (see on Php 1:13).
περισσοτ.] i.e. in a higher degree than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in bonds. Their ἀφοβία in preaching had increased. This, however, is explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above hypothesis, by the fact that the political guiltlessness of preaching Christ had now been established,-thus referring, in fact, the increase of their fearless boldness to a sense of legal security. But the reason of the increased ἀφοβία lay deeper, in the sphere of the moral idea, which manifested itself in the apostle’s bonds, and in accordance with which they trusted those bonds in the Lord, seeing them borne for the Lord’s sake. They animated the brethren to boldness through that holy confidence, rooted in Christ, with which they imbued them.
τὸν λόγου λαλεῖν] i.e. to let the gospel become known, to preach, Act 11:19, and frequently. On ἀφόβως, comp. Act 4:31.
Php 1:15. This is not indeed the case with all, that they ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότες τοῖς δεσμ. μου περισσοτ. τολμ. κ.τ.λ. No, some in Rome preach with an improper feeling and design; but some also with a good intention. (Both parties are described in further detail in Php 1:16-17.) In either case
Christ is preached, wherein I rejoice and will rejoice (Php 1:18).
τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον κ. ἔριν] These do not form a part of those described in Php 1:14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are characterized by ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθ. τοῖς δεσμ. μου quite otherwise, and indeed in a way which excludes the idea of envy and contention (comp. also Huther, l.c.), and appear as the majority to which these τινές stand in contrast as exceptions; but they are the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must have pursued their practices in Rome, as in Asia and Greece, and exercised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and his gospel.[65] We have no details on the subject, but from Romans 14 we see that there was a fruitful field on which this tendency might find a footing and extend its influence in Rome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the Pauline school, who nevertheless hated the apostle personally (Wiesinger, comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputation, and impugned his mode of action (Weiss), is at variance with the previous ἐν κυρίῳ, assumes a state of things which is in itself improbable, and is not required by the utterance of Php 1:18 (see the remark after Php 1:18). See also Schneckenburger, p. 301 f.
ΚΑΊ] indicates that, whilst the majority were actuated by a good disposition (Php 1:14), an evil motive also existed in several,-expresses, therefore, the accession of something else in other subjects, but certainly not the accession of a subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same persons designated in Php 1:14 (Hofmann).
διὰ φθόνον κ. ἔριν] on account of envy and strife, that is, for the sake of satisfying the strivings of their jealousy in respect to my influence, and of their contentious disposition towards me. Comp. Php 1:17. On διὰ φθόνον, comp. Mat 27:18; Mar 15:10; Plat. Rep. p. 586 D: φθόνῳ διὰ φιλοτιμίαν.
ΤΙΝῈς ΔῈ ΚΑΊ] But some also; there also are not wanting such as, etc. Observe that the δὲ καί joins itself with ΤΙΝΈς, whereas in ΜῈΝ ΚΑΊ previously the ΚΑΊ is attached to the following ΔΙᾺ ΦΘΌΝΟΝ. The ΤΙΝΈς here are they who in Php 1:14 were described as ΠΛΕΊΟΝΕς, but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the ΤΙΝῈς ΜΈΝ, the other portion of the preachers, without any renewed reference to their preponderance in numbers, which had been already intimated.[66]
διʼ εὐδοκίαν] on account of goodwill, that is, because they entertain a feeling of goodwill towards me. This interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the antithesis διὰ φθόνον κ. ἔριν, and also in Php 1:16 : ἘΞ ἈΓΆΠΗς. As to the linguistic use of ΕὐΔΟΚΊΑ in this sense (Php 2:13), see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 372. Comp. on Rom 10:1. Others take it, contrary to the context, as: “ex benevolentia, qua desiderant hominum salutem” (Estius, comp. already Pelagius); or, “quod ipsi id probarent,” from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and others), from taking delight in the matter generally (Huther), or in the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or in his preaching (Weiss).
[65] For the person to whom individually their φθόνος and ἔρις (as likewise the subsequent εὐδοκία) had reference was self-evident to the readers, and Paul, moreover, announces it to them in ver. 16 f. Without due reason Hinsch finds in this the mark of a later period, when the guarding of the apostle’s personal position alone was concerned. See against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 180 f.
[66] Van Hengel has not taken this into account, when he assumes that in τινὲς δὲ καί Paul had in view only a portion of those designated in ver. 14. It is an objection to this idea, that what is said subsequently in ver. 16 of the τινὲς δὲ καί completely harmonizes with that, whereby the πλείονες generally, and not merely a portion of them, were characterized in ver. 14 (ἐν κυρ. πεπ. τ. δεσμ.). This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, according to whom the two τινές, ver. 15 f., belong to the πλείονες of ver. 14, whom they divide into two classes. Hofmann’s objection to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say that the one party preach solely out of envy and strife, and the other solely out of goodwill, is irrelevant. He could not, indeed, have desired to say this, and does not say it; but he could describe in general, as he has done, the ethical antitheses which characterized the two parties. Moreover, ἔρις means everywhere in the N. T., and especially here in its conjunction with φθόνος (comp. Rom 1:29; 1Ti 6:4), not rivalry-the weaker sense assigned to it here, without a shadow of justification from the context, by Hofmann (“they wish to outdo him”)-but strife, contention. Just as little is ἐριθεία to be reduced to the general notion of egotism, as is done by Hofmann; see on ver. 17.
Php 1:16-17. We have here a more detailed description of both parties in respect to the motives which actuated them in relation to the δεσμοί of the apostle.
οἱ μέν … οἱ δέ] corresponds to the two parties of Php 1:15, but-and that indeed without any particular purpose-in an inverted order (see the critical remarks), as in 2Co 2:16, and frequently in classical authors (Thuc. i. 68. 4.; Xen. Anab. i. 10. 4). In Php 1:18 the order adopted in Php 1:15 is again reverted to.
οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης] sc. ὄντες, a genetic description of the ethical condition of these people: those who are of love, i.e. of loving nature and action; comp. Rom 2:8; Gal 3:7; Joh 18:37, et al. We must supply what immediately precedes: τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν, of which εἰδότες κ.τ.λ. then contains the particular moving cause (Rom 5:3; Rom 5:6; Rom 5:9; Gal 2:16; Eph 6:8 f., et al.). We might also take οἱ μέν (and then οἱ δέ) absolutely: the one, and then bring up immediately, for ἐξ ἀγάπης, the subsequent τ. Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν (so Hofmann and others). But this would be less appropriate, because the progress of the discourse does not turn on the saying that the one preach out of love, and the other out of contention (for this has been said in substance previously), but on the internal determining motives which are expressed by εἰδότες κ.τ.λ. and οἰόμενοι κ.τ.λ.; besides, οὐχ ἁγνῶς would then follow as merely a weak and disturbing auxiliary clause to ἐξ ἐριθείας.
ὅτι εἰς ἀπολ. τοῦ εὐαγγ. κεῖμαι] that I am destined, am ordained of God for (nothing else than) the defence of the gospel-a destination which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me, feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labour sympathetically hand in hand with me.
κεῖμαι] as in Luk 2:34; 1Th 3:3; comp. Plat. Legg. x. p. 909; Thuc. iii. 45, 2, 47, 2; Sir 38:29, and other passages in which “κεῖσθαι tanquam passivum verbi ποιεῖσθαι vel τιθέναι videtur,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 943. Others render: I lie in prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, am Ende, Huther, and others); but the idea of lying under fetters, which κεῖμαι would thus convey (comp. Eur. Phoen. 1633; Aesch. Ag. 1492), does not harmonize with the position of the apostle any more than the reference of its meaning thereby introduced: they know that I am hindered in my preaching, and therefore they “supplent hoc meum impedimentum sua praedicatione,” Estius. See, on the contrary, Act 28:30-31; Php 1:7. Van Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss): “me ad causam rei Christianae, ubi urgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hic in miseria jacere.” Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46; Soph. Aj. 316 (323); Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 496.
οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθ.] sc. ὄντες, the factious, the cabal-makers. See on Rom 2:8; 2Co 12:20; Gal 5:20. So also Ignatius, ad Philadelph. 8. It corresponds with the φθόνον κ. ἔριν, Php 1:15.
τὸν Χ. καταγγ. οὐχ ἁγνῶς] belong together. καταγγ. is, in substance, the same as κηρύσσειν, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the Messiah (Act 17:3; Act 17:23; Col 1:28, et al.). The words τ. Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν might have been left out, following the analogy of Php 1:16, but are inserted to bring out the tragic contrast which is implied in preaching Christ, and yet doing so οὐχ ἁγνῶς, non caste, not in purity of feeling and purpose. καθαρῶς is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a mental reference (Hesiod. ἔργα, 339). Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D; 2Co 7:11; 2Co 11:2; Php 4:8, et al.; 2Co 6:6.
οἰόμενοι κ.τ.λ.] thinking to stir up affliction for my bonds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they intend to do, and that is the immoral moving spring of their unworthy conduct; but (observe the distinction between οἰόμενοι and εἰδότες in Php 1:16) Paul hints by this purposely-chosen word (which is nowhere else used by him), that what they imagine fails to happen. On οἶμαι with the present infinitive, see Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 283. The future infinitive would not convey that what is meant is even now occurring. See generally Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 52 C; comp. Phaed. p. 116 E. How far they thought that they could effect that injurious result by their preaching, follows from Php 1:15 and from ἐξ ἐριθείας; in so far, namely, that they doubtless, rendered the more unscrupulous through the captivity of the apostle, sought by their preaching to prejudice his authority, and to stir up controversial and partisan interests of a Judaistic character against him, and thus thought thoroughly to embitter the prisoner’s lot by exciting opponents to vex and wrong him. This was the cabal in the background of their dishonest preaching. That by the spread of the gospel they desired to provoke the hostility of the heathen, especially of Nero, against Paul, and thus to render his captivity more severe, is a groundless conjecture imported (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others; comp. already Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius).
On ἐγείρειν (see the critical remarks) comp. ἐγ. ὠδῖνας, Plat. Theaet. p. 149 C, and similar passages.
Php 1:18. On τί γάρ, scil. ἐστι, comp. on Rom 3:3, where, however, γάρ is not, as here, conclusive (see on 1Co 11:22[67]); comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered necessary by the πλήν that the mark of interrogation should not be placed (as it usually is) after τί γάρ, but the question goes on to καταγγέλλεται (comp. Hofmann); and it is to be observed that through πλήν the τί γάρ receives the sense of τί γὰρ ἄλλο (see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C). Hence: what else takes place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc., i.e. what else than that by every sort of preaching, whether it is done in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed? and therein, that it is always Christ whom they preach, I rejoice, etc. How magnanimous is this liberality of judgment as to the existing circumstances in their reference to Christ! By προφάσει and ἀληθείᾳ is indicated the characteristic difference in the two kinds of preachers, Php 1:15-17, and thus παντὶ τρόπῳ receives the more precise definition of its respective parts. As regards the first class, the preaching of Christ was not a matter of sincerity and truth-wherein they, in accordance with their sentiments, were really concerned about Christ, and He was the real αἰτία of their working (see on the contrast between αἰτία and πρόφασις, Polyb. iii. 6. 6 ff.)-but a matter of pretence, under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts envy, strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavours. For instances of the antithesis between πρόφασις and ἀλήθεια or τἀληθές, see Raphel, Polyb.; Loesner and Wetstein. To take πρόφασις as opportunity, occasion (Herod. i. 29, 30, iv. 145, vi. 94; Dem. xx. 26; Antiph. v. 21; Herodian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14),-as, following the Vulgate, Luther, Estius, Grotius (“nam occasione illi Judaei, dum nocere Paulo student, multos pertrahebant ad evang.”), and others understand it,-is opposed to the context in Php 1:15-17, in which the want of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic mark of these persons. On πλήν in the sense of ἤ, comp. Kühner, II. 2, p. 842.
ἐν τούτῳ] the neuter: therein, in accordance with the conception of that in which the feeling has its basis. Comp. Col 1:24; Plat. Rep. x. p. 603 C; Soph. Tr. 1118; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403. In the Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται lies the apostle’s joy.
ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι] surpassing the simple χαίρω by a plus, and therefore added in a corrective antithetical form (imo etiam); comp. on 1Co 3:2; 2Co 11:1. To begin a new sentence with ἀλλά (Lachmann, Tischendorf), and to sever χαρήσομαι from its connection with ἐν τούτῳ (Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert generally that he will continue to rejoice also in the future), interrupts, without sufficient reason, the flow of the animated discourse, and is also opposed by the proper reference of οἶδα γάρ in Php 1:19. This applies also in opposition to Hinsch, p. 64 f.
[67] According to Weiss, γάρ is intended to establish the οἰόμενοι κ.τ.λ., so far as the latter is only an empty imagination. But this is an unnecessary seeking after a very obscure reference. The τι γάρ draws, as it were, the result from vv. 15-17. Hence also we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense: “it then so, as they think?”
REMARK.
Of course this rejoicing does not refer to the impure intention of the preachers, but to the objective result. See, already, Augustine, c. Faust. xxii. 48; c. Ep. Parm. ii. 11. Nor does παντὶ τρόπῳ apply to the doctrinal purport of the preaching (Gal 1:8), but to its ethical nature and method, to disposition and purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow him. Nevertheless the apostle’s judgment may excite surprise by its mildness (comp. Php 3:2), since these opponents must have taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must consider, first, the tone of lofty resignation in general which prevails in this passage, and which might be fitted to raise him more than elsewhere above antagonisms; secondly, that in this case the danger did not affect, as it did in Asia and Greece, in Galatia and Corinth, his personal sphere of apostolical ministry; thirdly, that Rome was the very place in which the preaching of Christ might appear to him in itself of such preponderating importance as to induce him in the meantime, while his own ministry was impeded and in fact threatened with an imminent end, to allow-in generous tolerance, the lofty philosophical spirit of which Chrysostom has admired-of even un-Pauline admixtures of doctrine, in reliance on the discriminating power of the truth; lastly, that a comparison of Php 3:2 permits the assumption, as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of a less important grade of anti-Pauline doctrine,[68] and especially of a tenor of teaching which did not fundamentally overthrow that of Paul. Comp. also on Php 3:2. All the less, therefore, can the stamp of mildness and forbearance which our passage bears be used, as Baur and Hitzig[69] employ it, as a weapon of attack against the genuineness of the epistle. Comp. the appropriate remarks of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 314 ff.; in opposition to Hinsch, see on Php 1:15. Calvin, moreover, well says: “Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis, nunquam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset ministros.”
[68] Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 388.
[69] Who thinks that he recognises here an indistinct shadow of Tacitus, Agric. 41: “Optimus quisque amore et fide, pessimi malignitate et livore.”
Php 1:19. Reason assigned not only for the ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι, but for the entire conjoint assertion: ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω, ἀλλὰ κ. χαρ. For both, for his present joy and for his future joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground in the certainty now to be expressed.
τοῦτο] the same thing that was conveyed by ἐν τούτῳ in Php 1:18, this fact of Christ’s being preached, from whatever different motives it may be done,-not: my present, τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ (Hofmann).
εἰς σωτηρίαν] is, in conformity with the context, not to be explained of the deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Musculus, Heinrichs), or of the preservation of the apostle’s life (Oecumenius), or of the triumph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of the salvation multorum hominum (Grotius); nor is it to be more precisely defined as the eternal Messianic redemption (van Hengel, Weiss; comp. Matthies and Hoelemann), or as spiritual salvation (Rheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary, the expression: “it will turn out to my salvation” (comp. Job 13:16), will be salutary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel, to be left without any more precise modal definition; for Paul himself only announces, as the discourse proceeds (Php 1:20), how far he expects salutary results for himself to arise out of the state of things in question. Bengel aptly remarks: “non modo non in pressuram,” Php 1:17. On ἀποβήσεται, will turn out, issue, comp. Luk 21:13; Job 13:16; 2Ma 9:24; Plat. Lys. p. 206 A; de virt. p. 379 C; Rep. p. 425 C; Dem. 1412. 10.
Through the entreaty of his Philippians, Paul knows, it will be salutary for him (comp. 2Co 1:11; Rom 15:31; 2Th 3:12; Phm 1:22), and through supply of the Spirit of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supplying him with help, strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on ἐπιχορηγ., Eph 4:16). The words διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως … Χριστοῦ, embrace, therefore, two elements which work together and bring about the ἀποβήσ. εἰς σωτηρ., one of these on the part of the readers themselves (hence ὑμῶν is placed first), the other on the part of the Holy Spirit. After καί, διά is to be again understood; the article, however, is not repeated before ἐπιχορ., not because the entreaty and the ἐπιχορηγία are to be taken together as one category, which in this passage would be illogical,[70] but because Paul conceived the second member of the clause without the article: supply (not the supply) of the Spirit. τοῦ πνεύματος is the genitive of the subject; as genitive of the object (Wiesinger, in accordance with Gal 3:5) the expression would be inappropriate, since Paul already has the Spirit (1Co 7:40), and does not merely expect it to be supplied, though in his present position he does expect the help, comfort, etc., which the Spirit supplies. Comp. Theodoret: τοῦ θείου μοι πνεύματος χορηγοῦντος τὴν χάριν. Respecting the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, see on Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; 2Co 3:17. Paul here designates the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the inmost consciousness of the apostle, the main interest and aim of his entire discourse, Php 1:18 ff.
[70] Bengel well says: “precationem in coelum ascendentem; exhibitionem de coelo venientem.” If, however, ἐπιχορηγίας is still to be included in dependence on τῆς ὑμῶν (so Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers would at all events appeal as those communicating, which would yield an incongruous idea.
Php 1:20. It will prove salutary for me in conformity with my earnest expectation (see, regarding ἀποκαραδοκία, on Rom 8:19) and my hope, that I, etc. (object of the earnest expectation and hope). Others take ὅτι as argumentative (Vatablus, Estius, Matthies); but by this interpretation the κατὰ τ. ἀποκ. κ. ἐλπ. μ. seems, after the οἶδα already expressed, to be an addition for which there is no motive, and the flow of the discourse is interrupted. No, when Paul says with ὅτι κ.τ.λ. what it is that he earnestly expects and hopes (comp. Rom 8:20 f.), he thereby supplies the precise definition of the former merely general expression εἰς σωτηρίαν.
This is neither clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of ἀποκαραδ., as Hofmann thinks, who goes back with ὅτι to the far distant οἶδα, and finds it convenient to co-ordinate it with the first ὅτι. Paul would have made this alleged conjunction convenient and at the same time intelligible, only in the event of his having written καὶ ὅτι.
ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι] that I shall in no point (2Co 6:3; 2Co 7:9; Jam 1:4), in no respect, be put to shame; that is, in no respect will a result ensue tending to my shame,-a result which would expose me to the reproach of having failed to accomplish my destiny (comp. the sequel). Comp. on σἰσχύνεσθαι, 2Co 10:8, 1Jn 2:28, and the passages of the LXX. in Schleusner, I. p. 98 f.; also Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 1118 E. Matthies understands it differently: “in nothing shall I show myself shamefaced and fearful;” comp. van Hengel: “pudore confusus ab officio deflectam.” But the context, in which Paul desires to explain more in detail (comp. Php 1:21) the words μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν, Php 1:19, will not harmonize with any other than the above-named purely passive interpretation; not even with the sense that Paul would not “stand disgraced” (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful to his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the glorifying of Christ. The connection requires a description, not of Paul’s behaviour, but of the fate in which the τοῦτο of Php 1:19 would issue for him. Hoelemann takes ἐν οὐδενί as masculine, of the preachers described in Php 1:15 ff., who in their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, “ita esse versaturos, ut inde non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat quum ipse, tum etiam in re sua quasi Christus.” This interpretation is opposed both by the context, which from Php 1:18 onwards brings forward no persons at all; and also by the sense itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made to express a confidence in the labours of those teachers which, as regards the malicious portion of them (Php 1:17, comp. Php 1:15), would not be befitting. The σἰσχύνεσθαι of the apostle was indeed the very object which they had in view; but, he means to say, οὐκ αἰσχύνομαι, τουτέστιν οὐ περιέσονται, Chrysostom.
ἀλλʼ ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ κ.τ.λ.] the contrast to ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι; for the apostle can receive no greater honour and triumph (the opposite to the αἰσχύνεσθαι) than to be made the instrument of glorifying Christ (Php 3:7 f.): but with all freeness, as always, so also now, Christ will be magnified in my body.
ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησ.] ἐν πάσῃ corresponds to the previous ἐν οὐδενί, so that every kind of freeness, which is no way restrained or limited (comp Act 4:29; Act 28:31; 2Co 3:12), is meant, which amounts substantially to the idea, “une pleine liberté” (Rilliet and older expositors); comp. Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 141 f. The subject of the freeness is Paul himself, inasmuch as it was in his body that the fearless glorifying of Christ was to be manifested (see below); but he expresses himself in the passive (μεγαλυνθήσεται) and not in the active, because, in the feeling of his being the organ of divine working, the μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν (Php 1:19) governs his conceptions and determines his expression. Hofmann’s view, that ἐν π. παῤῥησ. means “in full publicity,” as an unmistakeable fact before the eyes of all, is linguistically erroneous. See, in opposition to it, on Col 2:15.
ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν] so that the present circumstances, however inimical they are in part towards me (Php 1:15-18), will therefore bring about no other result than this most happy one for me, which has always taken place.
ἐν τῷ σώματί μου] instead of saying: ἐν ἐμοί, he says: in my body, because the decision was now close at hand, whether his body should remain alive or be put to death. But whichever of these possible alternatives should come to pass, he earnestly expected and hoped that the glory of Christ would be thereby secured (εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου), in so far, namely, as through his remaining in the body his apostolic labours would be continued to the glory of Christ, and by the slaying of his body there would take place, not the mere closing of his witness for Christ, as Hofmann, in opposition to the text (Php 1:21-23), refines away this point, but his union with Christ. Thus, therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death; but, on the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely, practically glorified, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great gain which he shall acquire through death (Php 1:21), will with unwavering joyfulness-with the frank joyful courage of the martyr who is being perfected-die to the glorifying of Christ. Comp. Joh 21:19. In any case, accordingly, the result must ensue, that in his body, just as it has always hitherto been the living personal instrument of Christ’s glory, now also the free glorification of Christ shall be made manifest, whether this result be secured through its being preserved alive or being slain; “nam et corpus loquitur et corpus moritur,” Grotius. Hoelemann erroneously refers ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥ. to the bold preaching of the various teachers described in Php 1:15-18, from which now, as always, the glory of Christ shall result; and that indeed, through the influence which such a fearless working would have on the fate of the apostle, in his body, whether Christ grant to him a longer course of life or death, in either of which cases the Lord will manifest Himself to him as augustissimum auxiliatorem. But against this view it may be urged, that ἐν οὐδενί does not refer to the teachers (see above); that παῤῥησίᾳ is the contrast to αἰσχυνθήσομαι, so that the subject of the latter must be also the subject of the former; and lastly, that Paul would thus be made to say that the fearless working of others had always shown forth Christ’s honour in his body,-an expression which, as regards the last point, might be suited to the present position of the apostle, but not to the ὡς πάντοτε. Rilliet takes μεγαλυνθήσεται not in the sense of praising (Luk 1:46; Act 5:13; Act 10:46; Act 19:17; Thuc. viii. 81; Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 13), but in the material signification of grandir (Mat 23:5; Luk 1:58; 2Co 10:15), making it apply to the mental indwelling of Christ (Gal 2:20; Rom 8:10; Gal 4:19); so that Paul is made to hope that Christ may grow ever more and more in him, that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the principle of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he himself live or die. But ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ would be an inappropriate definition of this idea; and ἐν τῷ σώματί μου would also be inappropriate, as if Christ would have, even by the apostle’s death, to grow in his body; lastly, neither the foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human body; while the similar idea in Gal 4:19 is there very peculiarly and clearly suggested by the context.
Php 1:21. Justification not of the joy, Php 1:18 (Weiss), which has already been justified in Php 1:19 f., but of the εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου just expressed: For to me the living is Christ, that is, if I remain alive, my prolonged life will be nothing but a life of which the whole essential element and real tenor is Christ (“quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum vivo,” Bengel), as the One to whom the whole destination and activity of my life bear reference (comp. on Gal 2:20); and the dying[71] is gain, inasmuch as by death I attain to Christ; see Php 1:23. Whichever, therefore, of the two may come to pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ; the former, inasmuch as I continue to labour freely for Christ’s glory; the latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall suffer death with joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Müller, who, however, assumes that in the second clause Paul had the thought: “et si mihi moriendum est, moriar Christo, ita etiam morte mea Christus celebratur,” but that in the emotion of the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to be carried away by the conception of the gain involved in the matter. This assumption is altogether superfluous; for, to the consciousness of the Christian reader, the reference of the κέρδος to Christ must of itself have been clear and certain. But the idea of ΚΈΡΔΟς, which connects itself in the apostle’s mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming that he meant to say that it was a matter of no moment to him personally whether he lived or died (Wiesinger); for on account of the κέρδος in death, his own personal wish must have given the preference to the dying (see Php 1:23). Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatchbull, et al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in the second clause, been led to the still more erroneous assumption, in opposition both to the words and linguistic usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject and κέρδος the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to be explained by ΠΡΌς or ΚΑΤΆ, so that Christ “tam in vita quam in morte lucrum esse praedicatur.” Lastly, in opposition to the context, Rheinwald and Rilliet take τὸ ζῆν as meaning life in the higher, spiritual sense, and καί as: and consequently, which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the preceding alternative εἴτε … εἴτε. This explanation is refuted by the very ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ which follows in Php 1:22, since ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ contains not an antithesis to the absolute ΤῸ ΖῆΝ, but on the contrary a more precise definition of it. Although the ΔΙᾺ ΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ and ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ contrasted with the ΖῆΝ, as also Php 1:20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the view that takes ΤῸ ΖῆΝ in the higher ethical sense, that view has still been adopted by Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the correlation and parallelism of τὸ ζῆν and ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, oddly supposes that, while ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, is the subject in the second clause, ΤῸ ΖῆΝ is yet predicate in the first. Like τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸ ζῆν must be subject also.
ἐμοί] is emphatically placed first: to me, as regards my own person, though it may be different with others. Comp. the emphatic ἡμῶν, Php 3:20.
For profane parallels to the idea, though of course not to the Christian import, of ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ ΚΈΡΔΟς,[72] see Wetstein. Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f.; Eur. Med. 145.
[71] Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On the combination of the Inf. pres. (continuing) and aor. (momentary), comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 4 : προείλετο μᾶλλον τοῖς νόμοις ἐμμένων ἀποθανεῖν ἢ παρανομῶν ζῆν, Eur. Or. 308: σὺν σοὶ κατθανεῖν αἱρήσομαι καὶ ζῆν, Epictet. Enchir. 12; 2Co 7:3. See generally Mätzn. ad Antiph. p. 153 f.; Kühner, II. 1, p. 159. The being dead would have been expressed, as in Herod. 1:31, by τεθνάναι.
[72] Compare also Spiess, Logos Spermaticos, 1871, p. 330 f.
Php 1:22. Δέ] carrying onward the discourse to the comparison between the two cases as regards their desirability. Weiss understands δέ as antithetic, namely to τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος, and Hofmann as in contrast also to the ἐμοὶ τὸ ζῆν Χριστός, but both proceed on an erroneous view of what follows; as does also Huther.
According to the τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος just expressed, the ἀποθανεῖν was put as the case more desirable for Paul personally; but because the ζῆν, in which indeed Christ is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official labours, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, as consequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in doubt respecting a choice between the two.
The structure of the sentence is accordingly this, that the apodosis sets in with καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι, and nothing is to be supplied: “But if the remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work, I refrain from a making known what I should choose.” We have to remark in detail: (1) that εἰ does not render problematical that which was said of the ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, but in accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul’s writings, frequent (Rom 5:17; Rom 6:15, and often) syllogistic usage (Herbst and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the undoubted certainty (Wilke, Rhetor. p. 258), which would take place in the event of a continuance of life; (2) that Paul was the more naturally led to add here the specially defining ἐν σαρκί to τὸ ζῆν (comp. Gal 2:20; 2Co 10:3), because, in the previously mentioned κέρδος, the idea of life apart from the body (comp. 2Co 5:8) must have been floating in his mind; (3) that τοῦτο again sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. Rom 7:10) the τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί which had just been said, and calls attention to it (Bernhardy, p. 283; Kühner, II. 1, p. 568 f.; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219), for it was the remaining in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the ἀποθανεῖν), which was necessarily to the apostle καρπὸς ἔργου; (4) that καρπός is correlative to the preceding κέρδος, and embodies the idea emolumentum (Rom 1:13; Rom 6:21, et al.; Wis 3:13), which is more precisely defined by ἔργου: work-fruit, gain of work, i.e. advantage which accrues to my apostolical work; comp. on the idea, Rom 1:13; (5) that καί, at the commencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, showing that if the one thing takes place, the other also sets in; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146; Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 164, ed. 3; comp. on 2Co 2:2; (6) that τί stands in the place of the more accurate πότερον (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 17; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 168; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 219; Winer, p. 159 [E. T. 211]), and that the future αἱρήσομαι (what I should prefer) is quite in order (see Eur. Hel. 631, and Pflugk in loc.; and Winer, p. 280 [E. T. 374]), while also the sense of the middle, to choose for himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked; comp. 2Th 2:13; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29: οἱ δὲ μὴ εἰδότες ὅ τι ποιοῦσι, κακῶς δὲ αἱρούμενοι, Soph. Ant. 551: σὺ μὲν γὰρ εἵλου ζῆν; (7) that οὐ γνωρίζω is not to be taken, as it usually has been, according to the common Greek usage with the Vulgate, in the cense of ignoro, but, following the invariable usage of the N. T. (comp. also 3Ma 2:6; 3 Maccabees 3 Esr. 6:12; Aesch. Prom. 487; Athen. xii. p. 539 B; Diod. Sic. i. 6), as: I do not make it known, I do not explain myself on the point, give no information upon it.[73] Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schenkel, also Bengel, who, however, without any ground, adds mihi. Paul refrains from making and declaring such a choice, because (see Php 1:23 f.) his desire is so situated between the two alternatives, that it clashes with that which he is compelled to regard as the better.
The conformity to words and context, and the simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation (so, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld),-in which, however, καρπ. ἔργου is not to be taken as operae pretium (Calvin, Grotius, and others), nor καί as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and others), nor Οὐ ΓΝΩΡΊΖΩ as equivalent to ΟὐΚ ΟἾΔΑ (see above),-exclude decisively all other interpretations, in which ΤΟῦΤΟ and the ΚΑΊ of the apodosis have been the special stumbling blocks. Among these other explanations are (a) that of Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lachmann, who places a stop after ἔργου), that ἘΣΤΊ is to be understood with ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, that the apodosis begins with ΤΟῦΤΟ, and that ΚΑῚ ΤΊ ΑἹΡ. Κ.Τ.Λ. is a proposition by itself: “if the living in the flesh is appointed to me, then this has no other aim for me than by continuous labour to bring forth fruit,” etc. (Huther, l.c. p. 581 f.). But how arbitrarily is the simple ἐστί, thus supplied, interpreted (mihi constitutum est)! The words τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου, taken as an apodosis, are-immediately after the statement ἘΜΟῚ ΓᾺΡ ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς, in which the idea of ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ is substantially conveyed already-adapted less for a new emphatic inference than for a supposition that has been established; and the discourse loses both in flow and force. Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explanation.[74] (b) Beza’s view, that εἰ is to be taken as whether: “an vero vivere in carne mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro.” This is linguistically incorrect (καρπὸς ἔργου), awkward (ΕἸ … ΚΑῚ ΤΊ), and in the first member of the sentence un-Pauline (Php 1:24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis after ἔργου: if life, etc., is to me ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ, “non repugno, non aegre fero” (so Corn. Müller), or, “je ne dois pas désirer la mort” (Rilliet). See Winer, p. 557 f. [E. T. 751]; Meineke, Menand. p. 238. This is quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional character of the passage, which is in fact very calm. (d) Hoelemann’s explanation-which supplies καρπός from the sequel after ΖῆΝ, takes ΤΟῦΤΟ, which applies to the ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, as the beginning of the apodosis, and understands ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ as an actual fruit: “but if life is a fruit in the flesh (an earthly fruit), this (death) is also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantial, real fruit)”-is involved, artificial, and contrary to the genius of the language (καρπ. ἔργου!). (e) The explanation of Weiss is that, after ἐν σαρκί, κέρδος is to be again supplied as a predicate, so that ΤΟῦΤΟ, which is made to apply to the entire protasis, begins the apodosis: “but if life is a gain, that is a fruit of his labour, because the successes of his apostolic ministry can alone make his life worth having to him” (Php 1:24). This supplying of ΚΈΡΔΟς, which was predicated of the antithesis of the ΖῆΝ, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably forced; and, indeed, according to Php 1:21, not ΚΈΡΔΟς merely would have to be supplied, but ἘΜΟῚ ΚΈΡΔΟς; and, since ΚΈΡΔΟς is not to be taken from ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, of which it is predicate, we should have to expect an also before τὸ ζῆν, so that Paul would have written: ΕἸ ΔῈ (or ἈΛΛʼ ΕἸ) ΚΑῚ ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚῚ ἘΜΟῚ ΚΈΡΔΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.
[73] Not as if Paul intended to say that “he kept it to himself,” a sense which Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this declaration. He intends to say rather that he refrains from a decision regarding what he should choose. The dilemma in which he found himself (comp. ver. 23) caused him to waive the giving of such a decision, in order not to anticipate in any way the divine purpose by his own choice.
[74] If it be life in the flesh, namely, which I have to expect instead of dying (?), then this, namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce of labour, in so far as by living I produce fruit, and thus then (καί) it is to me unknown, etc. This interpretation of Hofmann’s also is liable to the objection that, if Paul intended to say that he produced fruit by his life, logically he must have predicated of his ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, not that it was to him καρπὸς ἔργου, but rather that it was ἔργον καρποῦ, a work (a working) which produces fruit.
Php 1:23. Respecting the τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω, Paul expresses himself more fully in Php 1:23-24, proceeding with the explicative δέ; for δέ is not antithetical (Hofmann: “on the contrary”), but, in fact, the reading γάρ is a correct gloss, since the situation now follows, which necessitates that relinquishment of a choice. But I am held in a strait (comp. Luk 12:50; Act 18:5; 2Co 5:14; Wis 17:11; Dem. 396. 22, 1484. 23; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 E, Theaet. p. 165 B; Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 46) of the two points, namely the ἀποθανεῖν and the ζῆν,[75] of which he has just said, τί αἱρ. οὐ γνωρ. These δύο are not conceived in an instrumental sense, which is expressed with συνέχ., by the dative (Mat 4:24; Luk 8:37; Act 18:5; Plat. Soph. p. 250 D; Eur. Heracl. 634), but as that from which the συνεχέσθαι proceeds and originates (Bernhardy, p. 227 f.; Schoem. ad Is. p. 348; Mätzner, ad Antiph. p. 167).
τὴν ἐπιθυμ. ἔχων κ.τ.λ.] since my longing is to die. The article denotes, not “votum jam commemoratum” (Hoelemann), for Paul has not indeed as yet expressed an ἐπιθυμεῖν, but doubtless the desire, which Paul has. He says that his desire tends towards dying, etc.,[76] but that life is more necessary; and therefore he knows that not that for which he longs, but that which is the more necessary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (Php 1:25). Augustine aptly observes: “Non patienter moritur, sed patienter vivit et delectabiliter moritur.”
ἀναλῦσαι] comp. 2Ti 4:6; Isa 38:12. Dying is conceived as a breaking up (a figure taken from the camp) for the departure, namely, from this temporal life to Christ (comp. ὑπάγειν, Mat 26:24; ἘΚΔΗΜΕῖΝ, 2Co 5:8 f.; and similar passages); hence the ΚΑῚ ΣῪΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ΕἾΝΑΙ immediately added.[77]
πολλῷ γ. μᾶλλ. κρεῖσσον] by much in a higher degree better; a cumulative expression in the strength and vividness of feeling. As to μᾶλλον with the comparative, see on Mar 7:36; 2Co 7:13; and Kühner, II. 2, p. 24 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 5; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. p. 137, Goth. If here interpreted as potius (Php 1:12), it would glance at the preference usually given to life; but nothing in the context leads to this. The predicate κρεῖσσον (a much better, i.e. happier lot) refers to the apostle himself; comp. below, διʼ ὑμᾶς. Eur. Hec. 214: θανεῖν μου ξυντυχία κρείσσων ἑκύρησεν.
[75] It is therefore more in harmony with the context to refer ἐκ τῶν δύο to what precedes than to what follows (Luther, Rheinwald, Corn. Müller, and others). Note that the emphasis is laid on συνέχομαι, which is the new climactic point in the continuation of the discourse. The word συνεχ. itself is rightly rendered by the Vulgate: coarctor. The mere teneor (Weiss and earlier expositors) is not sufficient according to the context. Paul feels himself in a dilemma between two opposite alternatives.
[76] It is thus explained why Paul did not write τοῦ ἀναλῦσαι (as Origen reads). εἰς is not dependent τὴν ἐπιθ. (ἐπιθ. is never so construed; comp. Corn. Müller); but τὴν ἐπιθ. is absolute, and εἰς τὸ ἀναλ. expresses the direction of τὴν ἑπιθ. ἔχων: having my longing towards dying. Comp. Thuc. vi. 15. 2.
[77] Bengel: “Decedere sanctis nunquam non optabile fuit, sed cum Christo esse ex novo testamento est.” This Christian longing, therefore, has in view anything rather than a “having emerged from the limitation of personality” (Schleiermacher).-The translation dissolvi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to another reading (ἀναλυθῆναι).
Php 1:24. Ἐπιμένειν involves the idea: to remain still (still further), to stay on, comp. Rom 6:1.
ἐν τῇ σαρκί] in my flesh. Not quite equivalent to the idea involved in ἐν σαρκί without the article (Php 1:22). The reading without the ἐν (see the critical remarks) would yield an ethical sense here unsuitable (Rom 6:1; Rom 11:22; Col 1:23).
ἀναγκαιότ.] namely, than the for me far happier alternative of the ἀναλῦσαι κ. σ. Χ. εἶναι. The necessity for that is only a subjective want felt by the pious mind. But the objective necessity of the other alternative has precedence as the greater; it is more precisely defined by διʼ ὑμᾶς, regarded from the standpoint of love. “Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua causa, sed eorum, quibus utilis est.” Seneca, ep. 98; comp. ep. 104.
διʼ ὑμᾶς] applies to the Philippians, who would naturally understand, however, that Paul did not intend to refer this point of necessity to them exclusively. It is the individualizing mode of expression adopted by special love.
Php 1:25-26. Τοῦτο πεποιθ.] τοῦτο does not belong to οἶδα, but to πεποιθ., and refers to the case of necessity just expressed; having which is the object of his confidence, Paul knows that, etc., so that ὅτι is dependent on οἶδα alone,-in opposition to Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, under whose view the οἶδα would lack the specification of a reason, which is given in this very τοῦτο πεποιθ., as it was practically necessary. On the accusative of the object with πεποιθ., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106; Kühner, II. 1, p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. O. T. 259 f. Observe that we may say: πεποίθησιν πέποιθα, 2Ki 18:19. Comp. on Php 2:18.
μενῶ] I shall remain; contrast to the ἀναλῦσαι, which was before expressed by ἐπιμένειν ἐν τ. σαρκί. Comp. Joh 12:34; Joh 21:22 f.; 1Co 15:6. The loving emotion of the apostle (Php 1:8) leads him to add to the absolute μενῶ: καὶ συμπαραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, and I shall continue together with all of you; I shall with you all be preserved in temporal life. From Php 1:6; Php 1:10 there can be no doubt as to the terminus ad quem which Paul had in view; and the πᾶσιν (comp. 1Co 15:51; Rom 13:11) shows how near he conceived that goal to be (Php 4:5). Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this view, which is both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic, and invents instead one which makes Paul mean by μενῶ the remaining alive without his co-operation, and by παραμενῶ, which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see the critical remarks), his remaining willingly, and which assumes that the apostle did not conceive the καὶ παραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν as dependent on ὅτι, but conveys in these words a promise to remain with those, “from whom he could withdraw himself.” What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas and separation of things that belong together! and what a singular promise from the apostle’s lips to a church so dear to him: that he will not withdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them (Schneider and Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 2)! If παραμενῶ is the true reading, Paul says quite simply: I know that I shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and continue with you all, i.e. and that I shall be preserved to you all; comp. Heb 7:23; Sir 12:15; Hom. Il. xii. 402; Plat. Menex. p. 235 B; Lucian. Nigr. 30; Herodian. vi. 2. 19.
παραμενῶ, to continue there, just like μενῶ in the sense of in vita manere, Herod. Php 1:30. Hence συμπαραμένειν (Thuc. vi. 89. 3; Men. in Stob., lxix. 4, 5), to continue there with, to remain alive along with. Thus LXX. Psa 72:5; Basil, I. p. 49; Gregory of Nazianzus, I. p. 74 (joined with συνδιαιωνίζειν).
εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν … πίστ.] ὑμῶν, as the personal subject of the προκοπή and χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως, is placed first, with the emphasis of loving interest; the latter genitive, however, which is the real genitive of the subject, belongs to both words, προκοπὴν κ. χαράν. Hence: for your faith-furtherance and joy. Both points are to be advanced by the renewed labours of the apostle among them (Php 1:26). The blending of them together by an ἓν διὰ δυοῖν (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erroneous. Weiss, however, is also in error in urging that τῆς πίστ. cannot belong to προκοπήν also, because it would be in that case the genitive of the object; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive thing, 2Co 10:15.
Php 1:26. ἵνα τὸ καύχημα κ.τ.λ.] the special and concrete aim of the general proposition εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκ. κ. χ. τ. πίστ., which is consequently represented as the ultimate aim of the μενῶ καὶ συμπαραμ. πᾶσ. ὑμ. Comp. Php 1:10. The καύχημα, because ὑμῶν is placed along with it (comp. 1Co 5:6; 1Co 9:15; 2Co 2:14; 2Co 9:3), is that of the readers and not of the apostle (Chrysostom: μειζόνως ἔχω καυχᾶσθαι ὑμῶν ἐπιδόντων, Ewald: my pride in you at the last day); nor is it equivalent to καύχησις, gloriatio (Flatt and many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does,[78] materies gloriandi (Rom 4:2; 1Co 5:6; 1Co 9:15 f.; 2Co 1:14; 2Co 5:12; Gal 6:4). Hence: that the matter in which you have to glory, i.e. the bliss as Christians in which you rejoice (compare previously the χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως), may increase abundantly (comp. previously the προκοπὴ τῆς πίστεως). The ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ that is added expresses the sphere in which the περισσεύειν is to take place, and characterizes the latter, therefore, as something which only develops itself in Christ as the element, in which both the joyful consciousness and the ethical activity of life subsist. If the ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ took place otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally abnormal and aberrant thing; as was the case, for example, with some of the Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians, whose ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ was based and grew upon works of the law. The normal ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ of the ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ of the Philippians, however, namely, its ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ, shall take place-and this is specially added as the concrete position of the matter
ἘΝ ἘΜΟῚ ΔΙᾺ ΤῊς ἘΜῆς ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑς Π. ΠΡῸς ὙΜᾶς, that is, it shall have in me by my coming again to you its procuring cause; inasmuch as through this return in itself, and in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your καύχημα, and thus the ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ will rest in me. Consequently the ἐν in ἘΝ Χ. Ἰ., and the ἘΝ in ἘΝ ἘΜΟΊ, are differently conceived; the former is the specific, essential definition of περισσεύῃ, the latter the statement of the personal procuring ground for the περισσ. ἐν Ἰ. Χ., which the apostle has in view in reference to the ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ of his readers,-a statement of the ground, which is not surprising for the service of an instrument of Christ (Hofmann), and which quite accords with the concrete species facti here contemplated, the personal return and the apostolic position and ministry. The interpretation of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that the increase of their glorying is given to the readers in the person of the apostle, in so far as the having him again among them would be a matter of Christian joy and pride to them. Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object and contents of the καυχᾶσθαι, which would neither be consistent with the logical relation of the ἽΝΑ to the preceding ΕἸς Τ. ὙΜ. ΠΡΟΚΟΠῊΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., nor with Paul’s own deep humility (1Co 3:21; 1Co 15:9; Eph 3:8), which he satisfies also in 2Co 1:14 by the mutual nature of the καύχημα between himself and his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many (see Calvin, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Rilliet, and others) ἐν Χ. Ἰ., and by some even ἘΝ ἘΜΟΊ (Storr, Flatt, Huther), are referred, contrary to the position of the words, to ΤῸ ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ ὙΜῶΝ, with various arbitrary definitions of the sense, e.g. Flatt: “so that ye shall have still more reason, in reference to me, to glorify Jesus Christ (who hath given me again to you);” Rheinwald: “If I shall be delivered by the power of Christ, ye will find abundant cause for praising the Lord, who has done such great things for me.”
πάλιν] is connected, as an adjectival definition, with ΠΑΡΟΥΣ. See on 2Co 11:23; Gal 1:13; 1Co 8:7.
[78] This applies also against Huther, l.c. p. 585, who, in support of the signification gloriatio, appeals to Pind. 1sth. v. 65: καύχημα κατάβρεχε σιγᾷ. But in this passage also καύχημα means that in which one glories, as the Scholiast has appropriately explained it: εἰ καὶ τηλικαῦτα εἰσὶ τῶν Αἱγινητῶν τὰ κατορθώματα, βρίκι καὶ ἐπικάλυπτε τῇ σιωπῇ.
REMARK.
From Php 1:20-26 we are not to conclude that Paul at that time was in doubt whether he should live to see the Parousia (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 355, and others). For in Php 1:20 he only supposes the case of his death, and that indeed, in Php 1:21, as the case which would be profitable for himself, and for which, therefore, he protests in Php 1:23 that he longs. But on account of the need for his life being prolonged (Php 1:24), he knows (Php 1:25) that that case will not come to pass. This οἶδα (Php 1:25) is not to be weakened into a probabiliter sperare or the like (Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald; comp. Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet), with which Grotius, from connecting οἶδα πεποιθ., even brings out the sense, “scio me haec sperare, i.e. malle;” whilst others fall back upon the argumentum a silentio, viz. that Paul says nothing here of any revelation (see Estius, Matthies, and others), but only expresses an inference in itself liable to error (Weiss). No, although he has supposed the possibility (comp. Php 2:17) of his being put to death, he nevertheless knew that he should remain alive; and it must withal be confessed that the result did not correspond to this definite οἶδα, which Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen propheticum. By no means, however, is an imaginary situation[79] to be suspected here (Baur), and just as little can a second imprisonment at Rome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and many others, also Wiesinger); as to the relation of this passage to Act 20:25, see on Acts.
We have further to notice that Paul, according to Php 1:23, assumes that, in case he should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into heaven to Christ,-a conviction of the bliss attending martyrdom which is found in 2Co 5:8 and in the history of Stephen, Act 7:59, and therefore does not occur for the first time in the Apocalypse (Rev 6:9 ff., Rev 7:9 ff.).[80] Wetstein’s idea is a mere empty evasion, that by ἈΝΑΛῦΣΑΙ is doubtless meant the dying, but by ΣῪΝ Χ. ΕἾΝΑΙ only the time following the resurrection (comp. also Weitzel, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 954 ff.); as also is that of Grotius, that σὺν Χ. εἶναι means: “in Christi custodia esse,” and “nihil hinc de loco definiri potest.” It is also altogether at variance with the context (see Php 1:20-21), if, with Kaeuffer, we interpret ἀναλῦσαι as the change that takes place at the Parousia (“ut quasi eximeretur carne”). Comp. on the contrary, Polycarp: ad Phil. 9, ὅτι εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον αὐτοῖς τόπον εἰσὶ παρὰ τῷ ΚΥΡΊΩ, ᾯ ΚΑῚ ΣΥΝΈΠΑΘΟΝ, Clem. Rom. 1 Corinthians 5, of Peter: μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὁφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης, and of Paul: εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, Martyr. Ignat. 26. It is an intermediate state, not yet the fully perfected glory, but in heaven, where Christ is (Php 3:20 f.). Georgii, in Zeller’s theolog. Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 22, following Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 368, erroneously discovers in our passage a modification of the New Testament view, developed only when the hope of a speedy Parousia fell into the background. Comp. Neander and Baumgarten Crusius (whose view amounts to an inconsistency of the conceptions). Opposed to these views, even apart from 2Co 5:8 and Act 7:59, is the fact that the speedy Parousia appears still to be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particularly Php 3:20 f. But we find nothing said in the New Testament as to an intermediate body between death and resurrection. See remark on 2Co 5:3. There is a vague fanciful idea in Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 443 f., who in p. 419 ff., however, forcibly shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul.
[79] Hinsch even assigns, l.c. p. 71, to the passage with its vivid emotion the character of a historico-critical reflection. He represents the author of the epistle as having in view the various opinions current in his age regarding the close of the apostle’s life, in other words, the question, whether his captivity at that time ended in his being put to death, or in his being set at liberty and beginning a new course of labour. The author adduces the grounds of both views, putting them in the mouth of the apostle, and in ver. 24 decides in favour of the second; the original, of which the present passage is an imitation, is to be found (as Baur also thinks) in 2Co 5:8, Rom 14:8. See Hilgenfeld, in opposition to Baur and Hinsch.
[80] All we can gather from Rom 8:10 f. is merely that the life of believers remains unaffected by the death of the body; as at Joh 11:25 f. They remain in fellowship with Christ; but as to the mode and place of this fellowship, of which they might indeed be partakers even in Hades (Paradise, Luk 16:22 ff; Luk 23:43; Php 2:10), as little is said in that passage as in Rom 8:38, Rom 14:8. But in the passage we are considering, the words σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι point to an actual being with the Lord in heaven (comp. 1Th 4:14; 1Th 4:17; Act 7:59; 2 Cor. l.c.), and do not therefore apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to Güder, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 111, and others); see also 2Co 5:8. This union with Christ, however, is not the δόξα as the ultimate goal of hope; see Php 3:20 f.; Col 3:3. To the latter belongs also the bodily transfiguration, which can only take place at the Parousia, 1Co 15:23. This applies also in opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff., whose distinction between corporeality and materiality [Leiblichkeit und Körperlichkeit] is not in harmony with the New Testament, which distinguishes rather between σῶμα and σάρξ.
Php 1:27. To these accounts regarding his own present position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations to right conduct for his readers.
μόνον] without connecting particle, as in Gal 2:10; Gal 5:13. With the above assurance, namely, that he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object of this preserving of his life (Php 1:25) may be accomplished in them, needs only to summon them to be in a way worthy of the gospel members of the Christian community (πολιτεύεσθε); nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence of his finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously, the only counter-demand made for it.
τοῦ Χριστοῦ] of Christ. See on Mar 1:1.
πολιτεύεσθε] comp. on Act 23:1. See also 2Ma 6:1; 2Ma 11:25; 3Ma 3:4; Joseph. Antt. iii. 5. 8, Vit. 2; Wetstein ad loc., and Suicer, Thes. II. p. 709 ff. The word, which is not used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles to express the conduct of life, is here purposely chosen, because he has in view the moral life, internal and external, of the Christian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of the gospel (πολιτεύεσθαι, to be citizen of a state, to live as citizen). See the sequel. It is also selected in Act 23:1, where the idea of the official relation of service is involved (πολιτεύεσθαι, to administer an office in the state). Comp. 2Ma 6:1; 2Ma 11:25; 3Ma 3:4. In the absence of such references as these, Paul says περιπατεῖν (Eph 4:1; Col 1:10, with ἀξίως). Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3 : πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ καθήκον τῷ Χριστῷ, and ch. 54: πολιτευόμενος τὴν ἀμεταμέλητον πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ch. 21: ἀξίως αὐτοῦ πολιτευόμενοι.
εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ.τ.λ.] a parenthetic definition as far as ἀπών, so that ἀκούσω then depends on ἵνα: in order that I-whether it be when I have come and seen you, or during my absence from you-may hear, etc. The two cases εἴτε … εἴτε do not refer to the liberation and non-liberation of the apostle; but they assume the certainty of the liberation (Php 1:25 f.), after which Paul desired to continue his apostolic journeys and to come again to the Philippians; and indeed trusted that he should come (Php 2:24), but yet, according to the circumstances, might be led elsewhere and be far away from them (εἴτε ἀπών). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that he may come to learn the affairs of the church in their excellence as described by ὅτι στήκετε κ.τ.λ. It cannot surprise us to find the notion of learning expressed by the common form of the zeugma,[81] corresponding to the εἴτε ἀπών; and from the ἈΚΟΎΣΩ accordingly employed there naturally suggests itself a word of kindred import to correspond with ΕἼΤΕ ἘΛΘῶΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., such as ΓΝῶ. The rash opinion, repeated even by Hofmann, that ἈΚΟΎΣΩ only refers to the second case, does the apostle the injustice of making his discourse “hiulca” (Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being supposed that he intended to write either: “ut sive veniens videam vos, sive absens audiam,” or: “sive quum venero et videro vos, sive absens audiam de statu vestro, intelligam utroque modo,” etc. Calvin allows a choice between these two interpretations; the latter is approved of by de Wette and Weiss (comp. Rilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written εἴτε ἈΠῺΝ ἈΚΟΎΣΩ ΤᾺ ΠΕΡῚ ὙΜῶΝ (which words are to be taken together), as if he had previously put ΕἼΤΕ ἘΛΘῺΝ ὌΨΟΜΑΙ ὙΜᾶς; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply the verbs that should have depended on ἵνα, and of which two[82] would have been needed! The passage employed for comparison, Rom 4:16, with its close, concise, and clear dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkwardness. Hoelemann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary way, as if Paul had written: ἵνα, εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ. ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς, εἴτε ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούσας τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, στήκητε κ.τ.λ., thus making the participles absolute nominatives.
τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν] the object of ἀκούσω, so that ὅτι στήκετε κ.τ.λ., that, namely, ye stand, etc., is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, and the like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. It has been awkwardly explained as absolute: “quod attinet ad res vestras” (Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, and others), while van Hengel not more skilfully, taking εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τ. π. ὑμ. together, afterwards supplies ἀκούσω again. Grotius, Estius, and am Ende take τά even for ταῦτα, and Hoelemann makes Paul express himself here also by an anakoluthon (comp. above on εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ.τ.λ.), so that either ὅτι should have been omitted and στήκητε written, or τά should not have been inserted.
ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι] is to be joined with στήκετε, alongside of which it stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it absolutely (2Th 2:15). It is the common element, in which they are to stand, i.e. to remain stedfast (Rom 5:2; 1Co 15:1; 1Co 16:13); πνεύματι, however, refers not to the Holy Spirit (Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss), but, as the context shows by μιᾷ ψυχῇ, to the human spirit; comp. 1Th 5:23. The perfect accord of their minds in conviction, volition, and feeling, presents the appearance of one spirit which the various persons have in common. De Wette well says: “the practical community of spirit.” Comp. Act 4:32. It is, as a matter of course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of the human spirit is brought about by the Holy Spirit (see on Eph 4:3 f., 23), but ἑνὶ πνεύμ. does not say so. Moreover the emphasis is on this ἐν ἑνὶ πν., and therefore μιᾷ ψ. is subsequently placed first.
The special mode, which this standing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is contained in the sequel down to ἀντικειμ.
μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλ. κ.τ.λ.] The ψυχή, as distinguished from the πνεῦμα, is the principle of the individual personal life, which receives its impressions on the one hand from the πνεῦμα as the principle of the higher divine ζωή, and on the other hand from the outer world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and emotion, the sympathetic unity of which in the church is here described (comp. on Luk 1:46 f.). Comp. ἰσόψυχος, Php 2:20; σύμψυχοι, Php 2:2; Herodian. vi. 5. 15: μιᾷ τε γνώμῃ καὶ ψυχῇ, Rom 15:6, ὀμοθυμαδόν, 4Ma 14:20, ὁμόψυχος, 1Pe 3:8, ὁμόφρων. But μιᾷ ψ. does not also belong to στήκετε (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, and others), for συναθλ. requires a modal definition in harmony with the context.
συναθλοῦντες] in keeping with στήκετε, according to the conception of a contest (comp. Php 1:30), under which the activity of Christian faithfulness is presented in relation to all hostile powers. Comp. Col 2:1; 1Th 2:2; 1Ti 6:12; 2Ti 4:7, et al.; also Soph. O. C. 564; Eur. Suppl. 317; Aesch. Prom. 95. The compound, striving together (comp. Php 4:3, and συναγωνίζεσθαι, Rom 15:30), is not to be overlooked, as if συναθλ., with the dative of the thing expressed merely the entering or stepping into the lists for it (Hofmann). It does not refer, however, to the fellowship of the Philippians themselves (“quasi facto agmine contra hostes evang.,” Grotius; comp. Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, and others, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius). Paul looks upon himself as a combatant (Php 1:30, comp. Php 1:7), and the Philippians as striving with him, and affording him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) as his σύναθλοι in defending the faith (objectively viewed), protecting it and rendering it victorious. That they were to do this with one accord, is stated emphatically by μιᾷ ψυχῇ, but is not conveyed by συναθλ. in itself. If, however, Paul is the combatant, the passage cannot be understood in the sense: “adjuvantes decertantem adversus impios evangelii fidem,” Erasmus, Paraphr.; comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, Flatt, Lightfoot,-even apart from the fact that such a personification of πίστις is unprecedented, and must have been suggested by the text, as in the case of τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, 1Co 13:6.
τῇ πίστει is the dative commodi (comp. Jud 1:3), not instrumenti (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, Rheinwald, and others), which μιᾷ ψυχῇ was. As to the genitive of the object with πίστις, see on Rom 3:22.
[81] It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]) to suppose that in a zeugma the directly appropriate verb must be joined to the first member. It can also be joined with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 12, and Kühner in loc;. Plat. Rep. p. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc;. Hom. Il. iii. 327, and Faesi in loc.; generally Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 179, ed. 3; Bremi, ad Lys. p. 43 ff.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 1075 f.
[82] But why two? He would only have needed to insert μαθῶ or γνῶ before ὅτι. This would have suited both halves of the alternative discourse, in the confused form in which Hofmann makes it run; and there would be no necessity whatever for two verbs.
Php 1:28. On πτύρεσθαι, to become frightened (of horses, Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 34; Plut. Fab. 3; Marc. 6), to be thrown into consternation (Diod. xvii. 37 f.; Plat. Ax. p. 370 A; Plut. Mor. p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Gen 41:8 Aquila has καταπτύρεσθαι.
ἐν μηδενί] in no point, nulla ratione, Php 1:20; 2Co 6:3; 2Co 7:9; Jam 1:4.
The ἀντικείμενοι (comp. 1Co 16:9) are the non-Christian opponents of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the Judaizers and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent false teachers (Matthies). This follows from Php 1:30, since the whole position and ministry of the apostle was a conflict with such adversaries, comp. Php 1:7.
ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς κ.τ.λ.] which is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding μὴ πτύρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμ., to which Paul desires to encourage them. This undauntedness in the συναλθεῖν, and not the latter itself (Hofmann), is now the leading idea, with which what has further to be said connects itself; hence ἥτις is not to be taken as referring to the sufferings, as it is by Ewald (comp. 2Th 1:5), who subsequently, although without critical proof, would read ἀπωλείας ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δέ.
αὐτοῖς] τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις is to be taken simply as dative of reference: which is to them an indication of perdition. Ὅταν γὰρ ἴδωσιν, ὅτι μυρία τεχναζόμενοι οὐδὲ πτῦραι ὑμᾶς δύνανται, οὐ δεῖγμα τοῦτο σαφὲς ἕξουσιν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν ἀπολοῦνται, τὰ δὲ ὑμέτερα ἰσχυρὰ καὶ ἀνάλωτα καὶ αὐτόθεν ἔχοντα τὴν σωτηρίαν; Theophylact. The ἥτις involving a reason is just as in Eph 3:13, See on that passage. This would be still more emphatically expressed by ἥτις γε (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 305). But the fact that the ἀντικείμενοι do not recognise in the undauntedness of those persecuted a proof (not: causa, as in the Vulgate; but comp. Rom 3:25 f.; 2Co 8:24; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 341 E; Legg. xii. p. 966 C) of their own perdition, and on the other hand of the salvation of the persecuted (ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that the μὴ πτύρεσθαι is in reality objectively such an ἔνδειξις to them. It is, indeed, the σημεῖον of the righteous divine cause, and of its necessary final victory. Perdition and salvation: both without more precise definition; but the reader knew what reference to assign to each, viz. the Messianic perdition and salvation. Comp. on the matter, 2Th 1:5 ff.; Rom 8:17; 2Ti 2:12; Luk 12:32, et al.
καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] and that (see on Rom 13:11) of God, thus certain, therefore, and infallible. It adds force to the encouragement conveyed by ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας; for the context shows by the ὑμῖν which is emphatically placed first in Php 1:29,-without making the reading ὑμῖν necessary, however, in Php 1:28 (Hofmann); see the critical remarks,-that τοῦτο refers only to this second and main part of ἥτις κ.τ.λ. (Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann), and not to both halves of ἥτις (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wiesinger, Weiss, and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any purpose of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what follows (ὅτι, that) (Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, and recently Rilliet); in which case the (preparative) τοῦτο would receive an uncalled-for importance, and yet ἀπὸ Θεοῦ would be obviously intelligible through ἐχαρίσθη.
Php 1:29. Ὅτι is argumentative. “Καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ,” I say, “since indeed to you it was granted,” etc. This grant distinguishing you is the practical proof, that the just expressed ἀπὸ Θεοῦ is indubitably right, and that consequently the ἔνδειξις of your final salvation which is afforded to the adversaries in your undauntedness is a divine ἔνδειξις, a token given by God.[83] Hofmann’s view, that ὅτι specifies the reason why God imparts to them what has been before stated, is based upon the erroneous reading ὑμῖν in Php 1:28; and is itself erroneous, because ὅτι would introduce merely the self-evident thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully, but had had it given to them by God, and because, for the purpose of marking the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not ὑμῖν, but ἀπὸ Θεοῦ again would have been emphatically prefixed, and consequently Paul must have written: ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη κ.τ.λ. Hofmann curiously explains the emphasized ὑμῖν, as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their sufferings the case stood exactly as with his own. In that case he must at least have written, in prospect of Php 1:30, καὶ ὑμῖν, to you also.
ὑμῖν] emphatically put first, corresponding to the previous ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας.
ἐχαρίσθη] donatum est; by whom, is self-evident. 1Co 2:12.
τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ] as if the πάσχειν was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this unwritten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the first place the idea of ὑπέρ, as Hofmann artificially explains. But here his full heart interposes, after τ. ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, and before he writes πάσχειν, the fresh thought οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτ. πιστεύειν, so that ἀλλὰ καὶ must now be also added; and, on account of the different prepositional relation (εἰς) introduced, the τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ already expressed is again taken up by τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. Thus οὐ μόνον … ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ appears as a parenthesis of more special definition, after which the πάσχειν, which had been prepared for by τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, but is only now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis: “to you the gift of grace is granted, in behalf of Christ-not only to believe on Him, but also for Him-to suffer.” Plat. Legg. x. p. 802 C: εἰ δὲ φανήσεται ψυχὴ πρῶτον, οὐ πῦρ οὐδὲ ἀὴρ, ψυχὴ δὲ ἐν πρώτοις γεγενημένη. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 431; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 501. It is an awkward construction, to take τὸ ὑπὲρ Χ. absolutely and (notwithstanding the subsequent ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ) in the sense: as to what concerns Christ (Beza, Camerarius, Calovius, and others, including Matthies and Rilliet). For the conception of suffering for Christ as a high divine distinction, see already Act 5:41; comp. Mat 5:11 f. Comp. on Php 1:7.
[83] At the same time it is to be observed here also (comp. on ver. 28) that this divine pointing to the final salvation of believers was in fact before the adversaries, and that their non-recognition of it altered nothing in this objective relation.
Php 1:30. So that ye have the same conflict, etc., serves to characterize the ὑμῖν ἐχαρ. τὸ ὑπὲρ Χ. πάσχειν just asserted; and Paul’s intention in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the high dignity and distinction of suffering for Christ, which is involved in the consciousness of fellowship in conflict with the apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true explanation of what goes before (see on Php 1:29), to find in τὸν αὐτόν, that they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as little as the apostle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have received it as a gift of grace from God (Hofmann). The participle might have been put by Paul in the nominative (instead of the dative), because ὑμεῖς was floating before his mind as the logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Eph 3:18; Eph 4:2; 2Co 1:7; Col 2:2; Col 3:16; Php 3:19; Kühner, II. 2, p. 661 f. There is therefore neither a logical nor a grammatical reason, with Bengel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. also Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 299]), to treat ἥτις … πάσχειν as a parenthesis,-a construction which would be only an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse.
τὸν αὐτόν] namely, in respect of the object; it is the conflict for Christ (Php 1:29) and His gospel (Php 1:7).
οἷον εἴδετε κ.τ.λ.] as ye have seen it in my person (viz. whilst I was still with you in Philippi; see scenes of this conflict in Act 16:16 ff.; comp. 1Th 2:2), and now (from my epistle which is read out to you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks to the Philippians as if they were listening to him in person; thus they hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in the statements of the apostle. This explanation is all the less unfitting, as Hofmann terms it (comparing the ἐν ἡμῖν in 1Co 4:6), since Paul must necessarily have assumed that the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings would not fail to receive more detailed description in Philippi on the part of Epaphroditus. The rendering de me for the second ἐν ἐμοί, adopted by Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Flatt, is erroneous.
1. Paul and Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ While Paul is accustomed, in the inscription of his epistles, to employ titles of distinction, with the view of procuring credit for himself and his ministry, there was no need of lengthened commendations in writing to the Philippians, who had known him by experience as a true Apostle of Christ, and still acknowledged him as such beyond all controversy. For they had persevered in the calling of God steadfastly, and in an even tenor. (24)
Bishops He names the pastors separately, for the sake of honor. We may, however, infer from this, that the name of bishop is common to all the ministers of the Word, inasmuch as he assigns several bishops to one Church. The titles, therefore, of bishop and pastor, are synonymous. And this is one of the passages which Jerome quotes for proving this in his epistle to Evagrius, (25) and in his exposition of the Epistle to Titus. (26) Afterwards (27) there crept in the custom of applying the name of bishop exclusively to the person whom the presbyters in each church appointed over their company. (28) It originated, however, in a human custom, and rests on no Scripture authority. I acknowledge, indeed, that, as the minds and manners of men are, there cannot be order maintained among the ministers of the word, without one presiding over the others. I speak of particular bodies, (29) not of whole provinces, much less of the whole world. Now, although we must not contend for words, it were at the same time better for us in speaking to follow the Holy Spirit, the author of tongues, than to change for the worse forms of speech which are dictated to us by Him. For from the corrupted signification of the word this evil has resulted, that, as if all the presbyters (30) were not colleagues, called to the same office, one of them, under the pretext of a new appellation, usurped dominion over the others.
Deacons. This term may be taken in two ways — either as meaning administrators, and curators of the poor, or for elders, who were appointed for the regulation of morals. As, however, it is more generally made use of by Paul in the former sense, I understand it rather as meaning stewards, who superintended the distributing and receiving of alms. On the other points consult the preceding commentaries.
(24) “Sans se desbaucher;” — “Without corrupting themselves.”
(25) “Evagrius, a native of Antioch, and a presbyter apparently of the Church of Antioch. He traveled into the west of Europe, and was acquainted with Jerome, who describes him as a man acris ac ferventis ingenii , (of a keen and warm temper.)” — Smith’s Dictionary of Greek Biography and Mythology. — Ed.
(26) The reader will find both of the passages referred to quoted at full length in the Institutes, vol. iii. pp. 75, 76. — Ed.
(27) “Depuis les temps de l’Apostre;” — “After the times of the Apostle.”
(28) “Ordonnoyent conducteur de leur congregation;” — “Appointed leader of their congregation.”
(29) “De chacun corps d’Eglise en particulier;” — “Of each body of the Church in particular.”
(30) “Tous prestres et pasteurs;” — “All priests and pastors.”
3. I give thanks. He begins with thanksgiving (31) on two accounts — first, that he may by this token shew his love to the Philippians; and secondly, that, by commending them as to the past, he may exhort them, also, to perseverance in time to come. He adduces, also, another evidence of his love — the anxiety which he exercised in supplications. It is to be observed, however, that, whenever he makes mention of things that are joyful, he immediately breaks forth into thanksgiving — a practice with which we ought also to be familiar. We must, also, take notice, what things they are for which he gives thanks to God, — the fellowship of the Philippians in the gospel of Christ; for it follows from this, that it ought to be ascribed to the grace of God. When he says, upon every remembrance of you, he means, “As often as I remember you.”
(31) “Vne protestation, qu’il est ioyeux de leur bien;” — “A protestation, that he is delighted on account of their welfare.”
4. Always in every prayer. Connect the words in this manner: “Always presenting prayer for you all in every prayer of mine. ” For as he had said before, that the remembrance of them was an occasion of joy to him, so he now subjoins, that they come into his mind as often as he prays. He afterwards adds, that it is with joy that he presents prayer in their behalf. Joy refers to the past; prayer to the future. For he rejoiced in their auspicious beginnings, and was desirous of their perfection. Thus it becomes us always to rejoice in the blessings received from God in such a manner, as to remember to ask from him those things that we are still in need of.
5. For your fellowship. He now, passing over the other clause, states the ground of his joy — that they had come into the fellowship of the gospel, that is, had become partakers of the gospel, which, as is well known, is accomplished by means of faith; for the gospel appears as nothing to us, in respect of any enjoyment of it, until we have received it by faith. At the same time the term fellowship may be viewed as referring to the common society of the saints, as though he had said that they had been associated with all the children of God in the faith of the gospel. When he says, from the first day, he commends their promptitude in having shewn themselves teachable immediately upon the doctrine being set before them. The phrase until now denotes their perseverance. Now we know how rare an excellence it is, to follow God immediately upon his calling us, and also to persevere steadfastly unto the end. For many are slow and backward to obey, while there are still more that fall short through fickleness and inconstancy. (32)
(32) “Qui se reuoltent ou defaillent en chemin par legerete;” — “Who revolt or fall back in the way through fickleness.”
6. Persuaded of this very thing. An additional ground of joy is furnished in his confidence in them for the time to come. (33) But some one will say, why should men dare to assure themselves for to-morrow amidst so great an infirmity of nature, amidst so many impediments, ruggednesses, and precipices? (34) Paul, assuredly, did not derive this confidence from the steadfastness or excellence of men, but simply from the fact, that God had manifested his love to the Philippians. And undoubtedly this is the true manner of acknowledging God’s benefits — when we derive from them occasion of hoping well as to the future. (35) For as they are tokens at once of his goodness, and of his fatherly benevolence towards us, what ingratitude were it to derive from this no confirmation of hope and good courage! In addition to this, God is not like men, so as to be wearied out or exhausted by conferring kindness. (36) Let, therefore, believers exercise themselves in constant meditation upon the favors which God confers, that they may encourage and confirm hope as to the time to come, and always ponder in their mind this syllogism: God does not forsake the work which his own hands have begun, as the Prophet bears witness, (Psa 138:8; Isa 64:8;) we are the work of his hands; therefore he will complete what he has begun in us. When I say that we are the work of his hands, I do not refer to mere creation, but to the calling by which we are adopted into the number of his sons. For it is a token to us of our election, that the Lord has called us effectually to himself by his Spirit.
It is asked, however, whether any one can be certain as to the salvation of others, for Paul here is not speaking of himself but of the Philippians. I answer, that the assurance which an individual has respecting his own salvation, is very different from what he has as to that of another. For the Spirit of God is a witness to me of my calling, as he is to each of the elect. As to others, we have no testimony, except from the outward efficacy of the Spirit; that is, in so far as the grace of God shews itself in them, so that we come to know it. There is, therefore, a great difference, because the assurance of faith remains inwardly shut up, and does not extend itself to others. But wherever we see any such tokens of Divine election as can be perceived by us, we ought immediately to be stirred up to entertain good hope, both in order that we may not be envious (37) towards our neighbors, and withhold from them an equitable and kind judgment of charity; and also, that we may be grateful to God. (38) This, however, is a general rule both as to ourselves and as to others — that, distrusting our own strength, we depend entirely upon God alone.
Until the day of Jesus Christ The chief thing, indeed, to be understood here is — until the termination of the conflict. Now the conflict is terminated by death. As, however, the Spirit is accustomed to speak in this manner in reference to the last coming of Christ, it were better to extend the advancement of the grace of Christ to the resurrection of the flesh. For although those who have been freed from the mortal body do no longer contend with the lusts of the flesh, and are, as the expression is, beyond the reach of a single dart, (39) yet there will be no absurdity in speaking of them as in the way of advancement, (40) inasmuch as they have not yet reached the point at which they aspire, — they do not yet enjoy the felicity and glory which they have hoped for; and in fine, the day has not yet shone which is to discover the treasures which lie hid in hope. And in truth, when hope is treated of, our eyes must always be directed forward to a blessed resurrection, as the grand object in view.
(33) “Qu’il se confioit d’eux qu’ils perseuereroyent de reste de leur vie;” — “That he had confidence in them that they would persevere during the remainder of their life.”
(34) “Entre tant d’empeschemens, mauuais passages et fascheuses rencontres, voire mesme des dangers de tomber tout a plat en perdition;” — “Amidst so many impediments, hard passes, and disagreeable collisions, nay, even so many hazards of falling headlong into perdition.”
(35) See CALVIN on the Corinthians, vol. 2, p. 121.
(36) “Il ne se lasse point en bien faisant, et son thresor ne diminue point;” — “He does not weary himself in doing good, and does not diminish his treasure.”
(37) “Enuieux et desdaigneux;” — “Envious and disdainful.”
(38) “Pour recognoistre le bien que Dieu leur a fait, et n’estre point ingrats enuers luy;” — “That we may acknowledge the kindness which God has shewn them, and may not be ungrateful to him.”
(39) “Extra teli jactum “ — Virgil makes use of a corresponding phrase — “intra jactum teli;” — “Within the reach of a dart.” Virg. Æn. 11:608. — Ed.
(40) “En voye de proufiter, ou auancer;” — “In the way of making progress, or advancement.”
7. As it is reasonable. For we are envious (42) valuators of the gifts of God if we do not reckon as children of God those in whom there shine forth those true tokens of piety, which are the marks by which the Spirit of adoption manifests himself. Paul accordingly says, that equity itself dictates to him, (43) that he should hope well of the Philippians in all time to come, inasmuch as he sees them to be associated with himself in participation of grace. It is not without due consideration that I have given a different rendering of this passage from that of Erasmus, as the judicious reader will easily perceive. For he states what opinion he has of the Philippians, which was the ground of his hoping well respecting them. He says, then, that they are partakers with him of the same grace in his bonds, and in the defense of the gospel.
To have them in his heart is to reckon them as such in the inmost affection of his heart. For the Philippians had always assisted Paul according to their ability, so as to connect themselves with him as associates for maintaining the cause of the gospel, so far as was in their power. Thus, although they were absent in body, yet, on account of the pious disposition which they shewed by every service in their power, he recognises them as in bonds along with him. “I have you, therefore, in my heart; ” this is, sincerely and without any pretense, assuredly, and with no slight or doubtful opinion — as what? as partakers of grace — in what? in my bonds, by which the gospel is defended. As he acknowledged them to be such, it was reasonable that he should hope well respecting them.
Of my grace and in the bonds. It were a ludicrous thing in the view of the world to reckon a prison to be a benefit from God, but if we estimate the matter aright, it is no common honor that God confers upon us, when we suffer persecution for the sake of his truth. For it was not in vain that it was said,
Blessed shall ye be, when men shall afflict and harass you with all kinds of reproaches for my name’s sake. (Mat 5:11)
Let us therefore bear in remembrance also, that we must with readiness and alacrity embrace the fellowship of the cross of Christ as a special favor from God. In addition to bonds he subjoins the defense and confirmation of the gospel, that he may express so much the better the honourableness of the service which God has enjoined upon us in placing us in opposition to his enemies, so as to bear testimony to his gospel. For it is as though he had entrusted us with the defense of his gospel. And truly it was when armed with this consideration, that the martyrs were prepared to contemn all the rage of the wicked, and to rise superior to every kind of torture. And would that this were present to the mind of all that are called to make a confession of their faith, that they have been chosen by Christ to be as advocates to plead his cause! For were they sustained by such consolation they would be more courageous than to be so easily turned aside into a perfidious revolt. (44)
Here, however, some one will inquire, whether the confirmation of the gospel depends on the steadfastness of men. I answer, that the truth of God is in itself too firm to require that it should have support from any other quarter; for though we should all of us be found liars, God, nevertheless, remains true. (Rom 3:4.) There is, however, no absurdity in saying, that weak consciences are confirmed in it by such helps. That kind of confirmation, therefore, of which Paul makes mention, has a relation to men, as we learn from our own experience that the slaughter of so many martyrs has been attended at least with this advantage, that they have been as it were so many seals, by which the gospel has been sealed in our hearts. Hence that saying of Tertullian, that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church,” — which I have imitated in a certain poem: “But that sacred blood, (45) the maintainer of God’s honor, will be like seed for producing offspring.” (46)
(42) “Maigres et desdaigneux;” — “Miserable and disdainful.”
(43) “Raison mesme et equite luy disent;” — “Even reason and equity tell him.”
(44) “Ils seroyent si constans et fermes, qu’ils ne pourroyent estre aiseement induits a se reuolter laschement et desloyaument;” — “They would be so steadfast and firm, that they could not be easily induced to revolt in a cowardly and disloyal manner.”
(45) Sanctus at ille cruor, divini assertor honoris,
Gignendam ad sobolem seminis instar erit
(46) “A l’imitation duquel au chant de victoire composé par moy en Latin en l’honneur de Jesus Christ, 1541, et lequel depuis a este reduit en rime Francois, i’ay dit : —
‘Or le sang precieux par martyre espandu
Pour auoir a son Dieu tesmoignage rendu,
A l’Eglise de Dieu seruira de semence
Dont enfans sorteront remplis d’intelligence.’“
“In imitation of which, in the song of victory composed by me in Latin in honor of Jesus Christ, in 1541, and which has since that time been rendered into French rhyme, I have said: —
‘But the precious blood shed by martyrs
That it might be as a testimony rendered to its God,
Will in the Church of God serve as seed
From which children shall come forth, filled with understanding.’“
8. For God is my witness. He now declares more explicitly his affection for them, and, with the view of giving proof of it, he makes use of an oath, and that on good grounds, because we know how dear in the sight of God is the edification of his Church. It was, too, more especially of advantage, that Paul’s affection should be thoroughly made known to the Philippians. For it tends in no small degree to secure credit for the doctrine, when the people are persuaded that they are beloved by the teacher. He calls God as a witness to the truth, inasmuch as he alone is the Truth, and as a witness of his affection, inasmuch as he alone is the searcher of hearts. In the word rendered long after, a particular term is made use of instead of a general, and it is a token of affection, inasmuch as we long after those things which are dear to us.
In the bowels He places the bowels of Christ in opposition to carnal affection, to intimate that his affection is holy and pious. For the man that loves according to the flesh has respect to his own advantage, and may from time to time change his mind according to the variety of circumstances and seasons. In the meantime he instructs us by what rule the affections of believers ought to be regulated, so that, renouncing their own will, they may allow Christ to sit at the helm. And, unquestionably, true love can flow from no other source than from the bowels of Christ, and this, like a goad, ought to affect us not a little — that Christ in a manner opens his bowels, that by them he may cherish mutual affection between us. (47)
(47) Beza, when commenting on the expression, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, observes, “Alibi solet dicere, In Christo. Ut autem significet ex quo fonte promanet affectus iste, et quo etiam feratur, additum visceribus nomen magnum pondus addit sententiæ, ut intimus amor significetur. Solent enim Hebraei רחמים, rachamim, id est, viscera omnes teneros ac veluti maternos affectus vocare;” — “He is accustomed in other cases to say, In Christ. But to intimate from what fountain that affection flows, and in what direction also it tends, the addition of the term bowels adds great weight to the statement, so as to express intimate affection. For the Hebrews are accustomed to employ the term רחמים rachamim, that is, bowels, to denote all tender and as it were motherly affections.” — Ed.
9. This I pray that your love He returns to the prayer, which he had simply touched upon in one word in passing. He states, accordingly, the sum of those things which he asked from God in their behalf, that they also may learn to pray after his example, and may aspire at proficiency in those gifts. The view taken by some, as though the love of the Philippians denoted the Philippians themselves, as illiterate persons are accustomed very commonly to say, “Your reverence,” — “Your paternity,” is absurd. For no instance of such an expression occurs in the writings of Paul, nor had such fooleries come into use. Besides, the statement would be less complete, and, independently of this, the simple and natural meaning of the words suits admirably well. For the true attainments of Christians are when they make progress in knowledge, and understanding, and afterwards in love. Accordingly the particle in, according to the idiom of the Hebrew tongue, is taken here to mean with, as I have also rendered it, unless perhaps one should prefer to explain it as meaning by, so as to denote the instrument or formal cause. For, the greater proficiency we make in knowledge, so much the more ought our love to increase. The meaning in that case would be, “That your love may increase according to the measure of knowledge.” All knowledge, means what is full and complete — not a knowledge of all things. (48)
(48) “The word rendered judgment is capable of being rendered sense (πάσὟ αἰσθήσει) in all sense. ‘I pray that you may have your spiritual senses in excerise — that you may have a judicious distinguishing sense.’ For what? Why, ‘that ye may approve things that are excellent,’ — so it follows, or, as the words there may be read, to ‘distinguish things that differ.’“ — Howe’s Works, (Lond. 1822,) vol. 5, p. 145. — Ed.
10That ye may approve the things that are Here we have a definition of Christian wisdom — to know what is advantageous or expedient — not to torture the mind with empty subtleties and speculations. For the Lord does not wish that his believing people should employ themselves fruitlessly in learning what is of no profit: From this you may gather in what estimation the Sorbonnic theology ought to be held, in which you may spend your whole life, and yet not derive more of edification from it in connection with the hope of a heavenly life, or more of spiritual advantage, than from the demonstrations of Euclid. Unquestionably, although it taught nothing false, it well deserves to be execrable, on the ground that it is a pernicious profanation of spiritual doctrine. For Scripture is useful, as Paul says, in 2Ti 3:16, but there you will find nothing but cold subtleties of words.
That ye may be sincere. This is the advantage which we derive from knowledge — not that every one may artfully consult his own interests, but that we may live in pure conscience in the sight of God.
It is added — and without offense The Greek word ἀπροσκοποι is ambiguous. Chrysostom explains it in an active sense — that as he had desired that they should be pure and upright in the sight of God, so he now desires that they should lead an honorable life in the sight of men, that they may not injure their neighbors by any evil examples. This exposition I do not reject: the passive signification, however, is better suited to the context, in my opinion. For he desires wisdom for them, with this view — that they may with unwavering step go forward in their calling until the day of Christ, as on the other hand it happens through ignorance, (49) that we frequently slip our foot, stumble, and turn aside. And how many stumbling blocks Satan from time to time throws in our way, with the view of either stopping our course altogether, or impeding it, every one of us knows from his own experience.
(49) “Par ignorance et faute de prudence;” — “Through ignorance and want of prudence.”
11Filled with the fruits of righteousness. This now belongs to the outward life, for a good conscience produces its fruits by means of works. Hence he desires that they may be fruitful in good works for the glory of God. Such fruits, he says, are by Christ, because they flow from the grace of Christ. For the beginning of our well-doing is, when we are sanctified by his Spirit, for he rested upon him, that we might all receive of his fullness. (Joh 1:16.) And as Paul here derives a similitude from trees, we are wild olive-trees, (Rom 11:24,) and unproductive, until we are ingrafted into Christ, who by his living root makes us fruitbearing trees, in accordance with that saying, (Joh 15:1,) I am the vine, ye are the branches. He at the same time shews the end — that we may promote the glory of God. For no life is so excellent in appearance as not to be corrupted and become offensive in the view of God, if it is not directed towards this object.
Paul’s speaking here of works under the term righteousness, is not at all inconsistent with the gratuitous righteousness of faith. For it does not immediately follow that there is righteousness wherever there are the fruits of righteousness, inasmuch as there is no righteousness in the sight of God, unless there be a full and complete obedience to the law, which is not found in any one of the saints, though, nevertheless, they bring forth, according to the measure, the good and pleasant (50) fruits of righteousness, and for this reason, that, as God begins righteousness in us, through the regeneration of the Spirit, so what is wanting is amply supplied through the remission of sins, in such a way that all righteousness, nevertheless, depends upon faith.
(50) “Bons et aimables;” — “Good and amiable.”
12But I wish you to know We all know from our own experience, how much the flesh is wont to be offended by the abasement of the cross. We allow, indeed, Christ crucified to be preached to us; but when he appears in connection with his cross, then, as though we were thunderstruck at the novelty of it, (51) we either avoid him or hold him in abhorrence, and that not merely in our own persons, but also in the persons of those who deliver to us the gospel. It may have happened to the Philippians, that they were in some degree discouraged in consequence of the persecution of their Apostle. We may also very readily believe, that those bad workmen (52) who eagerly watched every occasion, however small, of doing injury, did not refrain from triumphing over the calamity of this holy man, and by this means making his gospel contemptible. If, however, they were not successful in this attempt, they might very readily calumniate him by representing him as hated by the whole world; and at the same time leading the Philippians to dread, lest, by an unfortunate association with him, (53) they should needlessly incur great dislike among all; for such are the usual artifices of Satan. The Apostle provides against this danger, when he states that the gospel had been promoted by means of his bonds. The design, accordingly, of this detail is, to encourage the Philippians, that they may not feel deterred (54) by the persecution endured by him.
(51) “Estans estonnez comme d’vne chose nouuelle et non ouye;” — “Being astonished as at a thing new and unheard of.”
(52) “Et faux apostres;” — “And false apostles.”
(53) “En prenant ceste dangereuse accointance de S. Paul;” — “By contracting this dangerous acquaintance with St. Paul.”
(54) “Afin qu’ils ne soyent point destournex;” — “That they may not be turned aside.”
13So that my bonds He employs the expression — in Christ, to mean, in the affairs, or in the cause of Christ, for he intimates that his bonds had become illustrious, so as to promote the honor of Christ. (55) The rendering given by some — through Christ, seems forced. I have also employed the word illustria (illustrious) in preference to manifesta , (manifest,) — as having ennobled the gospel by their fame. (56) “Satan, indeed, has attempted it, and the wicked have thought that it would turn out so, that the gospel would be destroyed; but God has frustrated both the attempts of the former and the expectations of the latter, (57) and that in two ways, for while the gospel was previously obscure and unknown, it has come to be well known, and not only so, but has even been rendered honorable in the Praetorium , no less than in the rest of the city.” By the praetorium I understand the hall and palace of Nero, which Fabius (58) and writers of that age call Augustale , (the Augustal.) For as the name praetor was at first a general term, and denoted all magistrates who held the chief sway, (hence it came that the dictator was called the sovereign praetor, (59)) it, consequently, became customary to employ the term praetorium in war to mean the tent, either of the consul, (60) or of the person who presided, (61) while in the city it denoted the palace of Caesar, (62) from the time that the Cesars took possession of the monarchy. (63) Independently of this, the bench of praetor is also called the praetorium (64)
(55) “Ses liens ont este rendus celebres, et ont excellement serui a auancer la gloire de Christ;” — “His bonds had become celebrated, and had admirably contributed to advance the glory of Christ.”
(56) “Pource qu’il entend que le bruit qui auoit este de ses liens, auoit donné grand bruit a l’Euangile;” — “Because he means that the fame, which had arisen from his bonds, had given great fame to the gospel.”
(57) “Dieu a aneanti les efforts malicieux de Satan, et a frustré les meschans de leur attente;” — “God has made void the malicious efforts of Satan, and has disappointed the wicked of their expectation.”
(58) Our author has most probably in view an expression which occurs in the writings of Quinctilian, (Instit. Orator., lib. 8, 2, 8,) — “tabernaculum ducis Augustale;” — (“a general’s tent is called the Augustal.”) In the best editions of Quinctilian, however, the reading of Augurale , as synonymous with auguraculum , or auguratorium ; — (an apartment for the augur’s taking omens.) — Ed.
(59) The dictator is called by Livey, “praetor maximus ; ” — “the highest praetor. ” — (Liv. 7:3.) — Ed.
(60) “La tente ou du consul, ou de celuy qui estoit chef de l’armee, quelque nom qu’on luy donast;” — “The tent of the consul, or of the person who was head of the army, whatever name was applied to him.”
(61) “Praeibat ” — There is manifestly an allusion here to the etymology of praetor, as being derived from praeire, to go before, or preside. — Ed.
(62) “At Rome it “(the term praetorium )” signified the public hall where causes were tried by the praetor; but more usually it denoted the camp or quarters of the praetorian cohorts without the city..... The name of praetorium was, in the provinces, given to the palace of the governors, both because they administered justice, and had their guards stationed in their residence. Hence it is inferred that, although the Apostle was at Rome when he wrote this, and although the circumstances to which he refers occurred in that city, yet, writing to persons residing in the provinces, he uses the word praetorium in the provincial sense, and means by it the emperor’s palace. ” — Illustrated Commentary. — Ed.
(63) “Depuis que les empereurs usurperent la monarchie;” — “From the time that the emperors usurped the monarchy.”
(64) “Pretoire signifioit aussi le lieu ou le preteur tenoit la cour, et exerçoit sa iurisdiction;” — “The praetorium signified also the place where the praetor held his court, and exercised jurisdiction.”
14Many of the brethren. By this instance we are taught that the tortures of the saints, endured by them in behalf of the gospel, are a ground of confidence (65) to us. It were indeed a dreadful spectacle, and such as might tend rather to dishearten us, did we see nothing but the cruelty and rage of the persecutors. When, however, we see at the same time the hand of the Lord, which makes his people unconquerable, (66) under the infirmity of the Cross, and causes them to triumph, relying upon this, (67) we ought to venture farther than we had been accustomed, having now a pledge of our victory in the persons of our brethren. The knowledge of this ought to overcome our fears, that we may speak boldly in the midst of dangers.
(65) “Confiance et asseurance;” — “Confidence and assurance.”
(66) “Courageux et inuincibles;” — “Courageous and unconquerable.”
(67) “Estans assuerez sur ceste main et puissance du Seigneur;” — “Confidently relying upon this hand and power of the Lord.”
15Some indeed. Here is another fruit of Paul’s bonds, that not only were the brethren stirred up to confidence by his example — some by maintaining their position, others by becoming more eager to teach — but even those who wished him evil were on another account stirred up to publish the gospel.
16Some, I say, from contention. Here we have a lengthened detail, in which he explains more fully the foregoing statement; for he repeats that there are two classes of men that are stirred up by his bonds to preach Christ — the one influenced by contention, that is, by depraved affection — the other by pious zeal, as being desirous to maintain along with him the defense of the gospel. The former, he says, do not preach Christ purely, because it was not a right zeal. (68) For the term does not apply to doctrine, because it is possible that the man who teaches most purely, may, nevertheless, not be of a sincere mind. (69) Now, that this impurity was in the mind, and did not shew itself in doctrine, may be inferred from the context. Paul assuredly would have felt no pleasure in seeing the gospel corrupted; yet he declares that he rejoices in the preaching of those persons, while it was not simple or sincere.
It is asked, however, how such preaching could be injurious to him? I answer, that many occasions are unknown to us, inasmuch as we are not acquainted with the circumstances of the times. It is asked farther, “Since the gospel cannot be preached but by those that understand it, what motive induced those persons to persecute the doctrine of which they approved?” I answer, that ambition is blind, nay, it is a furious beast. Hence it is not to be wondered if false brethren snatch a weapon from the gospel for harassing good and pious pastors. (70) Paul, assuredly, says nothing here (71) of which I have not myself had experience. For there are living at this very day those who have preached the gospel with no other design, than that they might gratify the rage of the wicked by persecuting pious pastors. As to Paul’s enemies, it is of importance to observe, if they were Jews, how mad their hatred was, so as even to forget on what account they hated him. For while they made it their aim to destroy him, they exerted themselves to promote the gospel, on account of which they were hostile to him; but they imagined, no doubt, that the cause of Christ would stand or fall (72) in the person of one individual. If, however, there were envious persons, (73) who were thus hurried away by ambition, we ought to acknowledge the wonderful goodness of God, who, notwithstanding, gave such a prosperous issue to their depraved affections.
(68) “Pource que leur zele n’estoit pas pur;” — “Because their zeal was not pure.”
(69) “Il se pent bien faire, que celuy qui enseignera vne doctrine pure et saine, aura toutesfois vne mauvaise affection;” — “It may quite well happen, that the man who teaches pure and sound doctrine, will have, nevertheless, an evil disposition.”
(70) “Certes le sainct Apostre ne dit rien yci;” — “Certainly the holy Apostle says nothing here.”
(71) “Il ne se faut esbahir si les faux-freres prenent occasion de l’evangile, et s’ils s’en forgent des bastons pour tormenter les bons et fideles pasteurs;” — “It ought not to appear surprising, if false brethren take occasion from the gospel, and contrive weapons for themselves for torturing good and faithful pastors.”
(72) “Mais voyla: il leur sembloit que la doctrine consistoit ou tomboit bas;” — “But mark! it seemed to them that doctrine stood or fell.”
(73) “Que si c’estoit d’autres que Juifs, ascauoir quelques enuieux de Sainct Paul;” — “But if there were other than Jews — some that were envious of St. Paul.”
17That for the defense. Those who truly loved Christ reckoned that it would be a disgrace to them if they did not associate themselves with Paul as his companions, when maintaining the cause of the gospel; and we must act in such a manner, as to give a helping hand, as far as possible, to the servants of Christ when in difficulty. (74) Observe, again, this expression — for the defense of the gospel For since Christ confers upon us so great an honor, what excuse shall we have, if we shall be traitors to his cause, (75) or what may we expect, if we betray it by our silence, but that he shall in return desert our cause, who is our sole Advocate, or Patron, with the Father? (76) (1Jo 2:1.)
(74) “Estans en quelque necessite;” — “When they are in any emergency.”
(75) “Praevaricatores ” The term is employed by classical writers in the sense of betraying the cause of one’s client, and by neglect or collusion assisting his opponent. See Quinct. 9:2. — Ed.
(76) “Si nous nous entendons auec la partie aduerse d’iceluy;” — “If we should connect ourselves with the party opposed to him.”
18But in every way. As the wicked disposition of those of whom he has spoken might detract from the acceptableness of the doctrine, (77) he says that this ought to be reckoned of great importance, that they nevertheless promoted the cause of the gospel, whatever their disposition might be. For God sometimes accomplishes an admirable work by means of wicked and depraved instruments. Accordingly, he says that he rejoices in a happy result of this nature; because this one thing contented him — if he saw the kingdom of Christ increasing — just as we, on hearing that that impure dog Carolus (78) was scattering the seeds of pure doctrine at Avignon and elsewhere, we gave thanks to God because he had made use of that most profligate and worthless villain for his glory: and at this day we rejoice that the progress of the gospel is advanced by many who, nevertheless, had another design in view. But though Paul rejoiced in the advancement of the gospel, yet, had the matter been in his hand, he would never have ordained such persons as ministers. We ought, therefore, to rejoice if God accomplishes anything that is good by means of wicked persons; but they ought not on that account to be either placed by us in the ministry, or looked upon as Christ’s lawful ministers.
(77) “Pouuoit diminuer l’authorite de la doctrine;” — “Might diminish the authority of the doctrine.”
(78) Our Author appears to refer here to Peter Carolus, of whom the reader will find particular mention made by Beza in his Life of CALVIN. — CALVIN’S Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 30, 31. — Ed.
19For I know that As some published the gospel with the view of rendering Paul odious, in order that they might kindle up against him the more the rage of his enemies, he tells them beforehand that their wicked attempts will do him no harm, because the Lord will turn them to a contrary design. “Though they plot my destruction, yet I trust that all their attempts will have no other effect but that Christ will be glorified in me — which is a thing most salutary to me.” For it is evident from what follows, that he is not speaking of the safety of the body. But whence this confidence on the part of Paul? It is from what he teaches elsewhere, (Rom 8:28,) — that all things contribute to the advantage of God’s true worshippers, even though the whole world, with the devil, its prince, should conspire together for their ruin.
Through your prayer That he may stir them up to pray more ardently, he declares that he is confident that the Lord will give them an answer to their prayers. Nor does he use dissimulation: for he who depends for help on the prayers of the saints relies on the promise of God. In the mean time, nothing is detracted from the unmerited goodness of God, on which depend our prayers, and what is obtained by means of them.
And the supply. Let us not suppose, that because he joins these two things in one connection, they are consequently alike. The statement must, therefore, be explained in this manner: — “I know that all this will turn out to my advantage, through the administration of the Spirit, you also helping by prayer,” — so that the supply of the Spirit is the efficient cause, while prayer is a subordinate help. We must also observe the propriety of the Greek term, for ἐπιχορηγία is employed to mean the furnishing of what is wanting, (79) just as the Spirit of God pours into us everything of which we are destitute.
He calls him, too, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, to intimate, that if we are Christians, he is common to all of us, inasmuch as he was poured upon him with all fullness, that, according to the measure of his grace, he might give out, so far as is expedient, to each of his members.
(79) “The word ἐπιχορηγία which we translate supply, signifies also furnishing whatever is necessary.” — Dr. A. Clarke. — Ed.
20According to my expectation. Should any one object, “From what do you derive that knowledge?” he answers, “From hope.” For as it is certain that God does not by any means design to frustrate our hope, hope itself ought not to be wavering. Let then the pious reader carefully observe this adverb secundum , (according to,) that he may be fully assured in his own mind, that it is impossible but that the Lord will fulfill our expectation, inasmuch as it is founded on his own word. Now, he has promised that he will never be wanting to us even in the midst of all tortures, if we are at any time called to make confession of his name. Let, therefore, all the pious entertain hope after Paul’s example, and they will not be put to shame.
With all confidence We see that, in cherishing hope, he does not give indulgence to carnal desires, but places his hope in subjection to the promise of God. “Christ, ” says he, “will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death ” By making express mention, however, of the body, he intimates that, amongst the conflicts of the present life, he is in no degree doubtful as to the issue, for we are assured as to this by God. If, accordingly, giving ourselves up to the good pleasure of God, and having in our life the same object in view as Paul had, we expect, in whatever way it may be, a prosperous issue, we shall no longer have occasion to fear lest any adversity should befall us; for if we live and die to him, we are his in life and in death. (Rom 14:8.) He expresses the way in which Christ will be magnified — by full assurance. Hence it follows, that through our fault he is cast down and lowered, so far as it is in our power to do so, when we give way through fear. Do not those then feel ashamed who reckon it a light offense to tremble, (80) when called to make confession of the truth? But how much ashamed ought those to feel, who are so shamelessly impudent as to have the hardihood even to excuse renunciation?
He adds, as always, that they may confirm their faith from past experience of the grace of God. Thus, in Rom 5:4, he says, Experience begets hope.
(80) “De varier et chanceler;” — “To shift and waver.”
21For to me to live. Interpreters have hitherto, in my opinion, given a wrong rendering and exposition to this passage; for they make this distinction, that Christ was life to Paul, and death was gain. I, on the other hand, make Christ the subject of discourse in both clauses, so that he is declared to be gain in him both in life and in death; for it is customary with the Greeks to leave the word πρός to be understood. Besides that this meaning is less forced, it also corresponds better with the foregoing statement, and contains more complete doctrine. He declares that it is indifferent to him, and is all one, whether he lives or dies, because, having Christ, he reckons both to be gain. And assuredly it is Christ alone that makes us happy both in death and in life; otherwise, if death is miserable, life is in no degree happier; so that it is difficult to determine whether it is more advantageous to live or to die out of Christ. On the other hand, let Christ be with us, and he will bless our life as well as our death, so that both will be happy and desirable for us.
22But if to live in the flesh. As persons in despair feel in perplexity as to whether they ought to prolong their life any farther in miseries, or to terminate their troubles by death, so Paul, on the other hand, says that he is, in a spirit of contentment, so well prepared for death or for life, because the condition of believers, both in the one case and in the other, is blessed, so that he is at a loss which to choose. If it is worth while; that is, “If I have reason to believe that there will be greater advantage from my life than from my death, I do not see which of them I ought to prefer.” To live in the flesh, is an expression which he has made use of in contempt, from comparing it with a better life.
23For I am in a strait Paul did not desire to live with any other object in view that that of promoting the glory of Christ, and doing good to the brethren. Hence he does not reckon that he has any other advantage from living than the welfare of the brethren. But so far as concerns himself personally, it were, he acknowledges, better for him to die soon, because he would be with Christ. By his choice, however, he shews what ardent love glowed in his breast. There is nothing said here as to earthly advantages, but as to spiritual benefit, which is on good grounds supremely desirable in the view of the pious. Paul, however, as if forgetful of himself, does not merely hold himself undetermined, lest he should be swayed by a regard to his own benefit rather than that of the Philippians, but at length concludes that a regard to them preponderates in his mind. And assuredly this is in reality to live and die to Christ, when, with indifference as to ourselves, we allow ourselves to be carried and borne away withersoever Christ calls us.
Having a desire to be set free and to be with Christ These two things must be read in connection. For death of itself will never be desired, because such a desire is at variance with natural feeling, but is desired for some particular reason, or with a view to some other end. Persons in despair have recourse to it from having become weary of life; believers, on the other hand, willingly hasten forward to it, because it is a deliverance from the bondage of sin, and an introduction into the kingdom of heaven. What Paul now says is this; “I desire to die, because I will, by this means, come into immediate connection with Christ.” In the mean time, believers do not cease to regard death with horror, but when they turn their eyes to that life which follows death, they easily overcome all dread by means of that consolation. Unquestionably, every one that believes in Christ ought to be so courageous as to lift up his head on mention being made of death, delighted to have intimation of his redemption. (Luk 21:28.) From this we see how many are Christians only in name, since the greater part, on hearing mention made of death, are not merely alarmed, but are rendered almost lifeless through fear, as though they had never heard a single word respecting Christ. O the worth and value of a good conscience! Now faith is the foundation of a good conscience; nay more, it is itself goodness of conscience.
To be set free This form of expression is to be observed. Profane persons speak of death as the destruction of man, as if he altogether perished. Paul here reminds us, that death is the separation of the soul from the body. And this he expresses more fully immediately afterwards, explaining as to what condition awaits believers after death — that of dwelling with Christ We are with Christ even in this life, inasmuch as the kingdom of God is within us, (Luk 17:21,) and Christ dwells in us by faith, (Eph 3:17,) and has promised that he will be with us even unto the end of the world, (Mat 28:20,) but that presence we enjoy only in hope. Hence as to our feeling, we are said to be at present at a distance from him. See 2Co 5:6. This passage is of use for setting aside the mad fancy of those who dream that souls sleep when separated from the body, for Paul openly declares that we enjoy Christ’s presence on being set free from the body.
25And having this confidence. Some, reckoning it an inconsistent thing that the Apostle (82) should acknowledge himself to have been disappointed of his expectation, are of opinion that he was afterwards freed from bonds, and went over many countries of the world. Their fears, however, as to this are groundless, for the saints are accustomed to regulate their expectations according to the word of God, so as not to promise themselves more than God has promised. Thus, when they have a sure token of God’s will, they in that case place their reliance also upon a sure persuasion, which admits of no hesitation. Of this nature is a persuasion respecting a perpetual remission of sins, respecting the aid of the Spirit for the grace of final perseverance, (as it is called,) and respecting the resurrection of the flesh. Of this nature, also, was the assurance of the Prophets respecting their prophecies. As to other things, they expect nothing except conditionally, and hence they subject all events to the providence of God, who, they allow, sees more distinctly than they. To remain, means here, to stay for a little while: to continue, means, to remain for a long time.
(82) “Vn tel sainct Apostre;” — “So holy an Apostle.”
26That your glorying. The expression which he employs, ἐν ἐμόι, I have rendered de me (as to me,) because the preposition is made use of twice, but in different senses. No one assuredly will deny that I have faithfully brought out Paul’s mind. The rendering given by some — per Christum , (through Christ,) I do not approve of. For in Christ is employed in place of Secundum Christum , (According to Christ,) or Christiane , (Christianly,) to intimate that it was a holy kind of glorying. For otherwise we are commanded to glory in God alone. (1Co 1:31.) Hence malevolent persons might meet Paul with the objection, How is it allowable for the Philippians to glory as to thee? He anticipates this calumny by saying that they will do this according to Christ — glorying in a servant of Christ, with a view to the glory of his Lord, and that with an eye to the doctrine rather than to the individual, and in opposition to the false apostles, just as David, by comparing himself with hypocrites, boasts of his righteousness. (Psa 7:8.)
27Only in a manner worthy of the gospel. We make use of this form of expression, when we are inclined to pass on to a new subject. Thus it is as though he had said, “But as for me, the Lord will provide, but as for you, etc., whatever may take place as to me, let it be your care, nevertheless, to go forward in the right course.” When he speaks of a pure and honorable conversation as being worthy of the gospel, he intimates, on the other hand, that those who live otherwise do injustice to the gospel.
That whether I come As the Greek phrase made use of by Paul is elliptical, I have made use of videam , (I see,) instead of videns (seeing.) If this does not appear satisfactory, you may supply the principal verb Intelligam , (I may learn,) in this sense: “Whether, when I shall come and see you, or whether I shall, when absent, hear respecting your condition, I may learn in both ways, both by being present and by receiving intelligence, that ye stand in one spirit. ” We need not, however, feel anxiety as to particular terms, when the meaning is evident.
Stand in one spirit This, certainly, is one of the main excellences of the Church, and hence this is one means of preserving it in a sound state, inasmuch as it is torn to pieces by dissensions. But although Paul was desirous by means of this antidote to provide against novel and strange doctrines, yet he requires a twofold unity — of spirit and soul. The first is, that we have like views; the second, that we be united in heart. For when these two terms are connected together, spiritus (spirit) denotes the understanding, while anima (soul) denotes the will. Farther, agreement of views comes first in order; and then from it springs union of inclination.
Striving together for the faith This is the strongest bond of concord, when we have to fight together under the same banner, for this has often been the occasion of reconciling even the greatest enemies. Hence, in order that he may confirm the more the unity that existed among the Philippians, he calls them to notice that they are fellow-soldiers, who, having a common enemy and a common warfare, ought to have their minds united together in a holy agreement. The expression which Paul has made use of in the Greek (συναθλοῦντες τὣ πίστει) is ambiguous. The old interpreter renders it Collaborantes fidei , (laboring together with the faith.) (83) Erasmus renders it Adiuvantes fidem , (Helping the faith,) as if meaning, that they gave help to the faith to the utmost of their power. As, however, the dative in Greek is made use of instead of the ablative of instrumentality, (that language having no ablative,) I have no doubt that the Apostle’s meaning is this: “Let the faith of the gospel unite you together, more especially as that is a common armory against one and the same enemy.” In this way the particle σύν, which others refer to faith, I take as referring to the Philippians, and with greater propriety, if I am not mistaken. In the first place, every one is aware how effectual an inducement it is to concord, when we have to maintain a conflict together; and farther, we know that in the spiritual warfare we are armed with the shield of faith, (Eph 6:16,) for repelling the enemy; nay, more, faith is both our panoply and our victory. Hence he added this clause, that he might shew what is the end of a pious connection. The wicked, too, conspire together for evil, but their agreement is accursed: let us, therefore, contend with one mind under the banner of faith.
(83) In accordance with the Vulgate, Wiclif (1380) renders as follows: “traueilynge to gidre to the feith of the gospel.” — Ed.
28And in nothing terrified. The second thing which he recommends to the Philippians is fortitude of mind, (84) that they may not be thrown into confusion by the rage of their adversaries. At that time the most cruel persecutions raged almost everywhere, because Satan strove with all his might to impede the commencement of the gospel, and was the more enraged in proportion as Christ put forth powerfully the grace of his Spirit. He exhorts, therefore, the Philippians to stand forward undaunted, and not be thrown into alarm.
Which is to them a manifest proof. This is the proper meaning of the Greek word, and there was no consideration that made it necessary for others to render it cause. For the wicked, when they wage war against the Lord, do already by a trial-fight, as it were, give a token of their ruin, and the more fiercely they insult over the pious, the more do they prepare themselves for ruin. The Scripture, assuredly, nowhere teaches, that the afflictions which the saints endure from the wicked are the cause of their salvation, but Paul in another instance, too, speaks of them as a manifest token or proof, (2Th 1:5,) and instead of ἔνδειξιν, which we have here, he in that passage makes use of the term ἔνδειγμα (85) This, therefore, is a choice consolation, that when we are assailed and harassed by our enemies, we have an evidence of our salvation. (86) For persecutions are in a manner seals of adoption to the children of God, if they endure them with fortitude and patience: the wicked give a token of their condemnation, because they stumble against a stone by which they shall be bruised to pieces. (Mat 21:44.)
And that from God. This is restricted to the last clause, that a taste of the grace of God may allay the bitterness of the cross. No one will naturally perceive the cross a token or evidence of salvation, for they are things that are contrary in appearance. Hence Paul calls the attention of the Philippians to another consideration — that God by his blessing turns into an occasion of welfare things that might otherwise seem to render us miserable. He proves it from this, that the endurance of the cross is the gift of God. Now it is certain, that all the gifts of God are salutary to us. To you, says he,it is given, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him. Hence even the sufferings themselves are evidences of the grace of God; and, since it is so, you have from this source a token of salvation. Oh, if this persuasion were effectually inwrought in our minds — that persecutions (87) are to be reckoned among God’s benefits, what progress would be made in the doctrine of piety! (88) And yet, what is more certain, than that it is the highest honor that is conferred upon us by Divine grace, that we suffer for his name either reproach, or imprisonment, or miseries, or tortures, or even death, for in that case he adorns us with his marks of distinction. (89) But more will be found that will rather bid God retire with gifts of that nature, than embrace with alacrity the cross when it is presented to them. Alas, then, for our stupidity! (90)
(84) “La force et constance de courage;” —”Strength and constancy of courage.”
(85) “Là où il vse d’vn mot qui descend d’vn mesme verbe que celuy dont il vse yci;” —”Where he makes use of a word which comes from the same verb as that which he employs here.”
(86) “Cela nous est vne demonstrance et tesmoignage de nostre salut;” —”This is to us a clear proof and token of our salvation.”
(87) “Les afflictions et persecutions;” — “Afflictions and persecutions.”
(88) “Combien aurions — nous proufité en la doctrine de vraye religion;” —”How much progress we would make in the doctrine of true religion.”
(89) “Il nous vest de sa liuree;” — “He arrays us in his livery.”
(90) “Maudite donc soit nostre stupidite;” — “Accursed, then, be our stupidity.”
29. To believe. He wisely conjoins faith with the cross by an inseparable connection, that the Philippians may know that they have been called to the faith of Christ on this condition — that they endure persecutions on his account, as though he had said that their adoption can no more be separated from the cross, than Christ can be torn asunder from himself. Here Paul clearly testifies, that faith, as well as constancy in enduring persecutions, (91) is an unmerited gift of God. And certainly the knowledge of God is a wisdom that is too high for our attaining it by our own acuteness, and our weakness shews itself in daily instances in our own experience, when God withdraws his hand for a little while. That he may intimate the more distinctly that both are unmerited, he says expressly — for Christ’s sake, or at least that they are given to us on the ground of Christ’s grace; by which he excludes every idea of merit.
This passage is also at variance with the doctrine of the schoolmen, in maintaining that gifts of grace latterly conferred are rewards of our merit, on the ground of our having made a right use of those which had been previously bestowed. I do not deny, indeed, that God rewards the right use of his gifts of grace by bestowing grace more largely upon us, provided only you do not place merit, as they do, in opposition to his unmerited liberality and the merit of Christ.
(91) “Les afflictions et persecutions;” — “Afflictions and persecutions.”
30Having the same conflict. He confirms, also, by his own example what he had said, and this adds no little authority to his doctrine. By the same means, too, he shews them, that there is no reason why they should feel troubled on account of his bonds, when they behold the issue of the conflict.
