This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/
LOle d. 73
ZT. and 7. Clark's Publications.
Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
LECTURES ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.
BY
JOHN HUTCHISON, D.D.
‘These lectures are a fine specimen of the Scottish Presbyterian practice of pulpit exposition. .. . The standpoint is that of general and intelligent orthodoxy. We very cordially commend this book, as a model of what pulpit exposition should be.’—British Quarterly Review.
‘If we are pleased with our author's choice of subject, we are none the less gratified with his way of dealing with it. In our opinion he strikes the happy medium between rigid, precise, and exhaustive comment on the one side, and loose and far-fetched declama- tion on the other. In the best sense of the term these lectures are a clear and simple exposition, emphasizing most of all the matters which throw light upon the character. of the apostle, and the varied duties of Christian life.’— Watchman.
‘We have read this book with real interest, and we are sure that it will furnish much help to clergymen who may undertake the work of expository preaching, and that both clergymen and laymen will find it helpful and edifying.’—Church Bells.
‘These lectures embody the results of the conscientious labour of years, by one whose scholarly instincts and training make it a necessity for him to leave no means unused for ascertaining the precise meaning of the sacred writers; and who as a faithful pastor is eager to present the outcome of his studies in the plainest and most practical form.’— United Presbyterian Record.
‘We have not—at least amongst modern works—many commentaries on these epistles in which the text is at once treated with scholarly ability and turned to popular and practical account.’— Baptist,
‘Models of pulpit exposition. . . . Would that we had many expositions as thoughtful and scholarly as Dr. Hutchison’s.’—Methodist Recorder.
‘That these lectures are the product of much thought and extensive study will be readily acknowledged. . . . It is certainly one of the ablest and best commentaries on the Epistles to the Thessalonians that we have ever read, The style is crisp and clear, and the scholarship is in no sense of a superficial or pretentious order.’—Evangelical Magazine,
T. and T: Clark's Publications.
ps ops SSG
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s., STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
BY
ALEXANDER MAIR, D.D.
‘Dr. Mair has made an honest study of Strauss, Renan, Keim, and “Supernatural Religion,” and his book is an excellent one to put into the hands of doubters and inquirers.’—English Churchman.
‘Will in every way meet thejtwants of the class for whom it is intended, many of whom are “wayworn and sad” amid the muddled speculations of the current day.’— Ecclesiastical Gazette.
‘ This is one of the very best treatises of modern times upon a subject that can never fail to be important, no less than interesting, the simple“style of which commends it to the reader’s immediate attention, whilst it sweeps away by conclusive argument every shadow of doubt which may be raised against the belief of the recorded facts of the Christian faith.’-—Bell’s Weekly Messenger.
‘A work sure to command wide attention, from the clearness of his statements, the freshness of his information, and the judicial fairness of his conclusions.'—British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
‘As a help to the sincere doubter, and an effective exposure of the shallow objections to the Christian scheme, urged by presuming sciolists, it is one of the most serviceable volumes that we have seen.'—Christian Leader.
‘ All that we need say of this volume is, that it is one of the very best we have perused on the subjects herein treated of.'— Evangelical Magazine.
‘Uniting fulness of knowledge andjstrength of mental grip with a luminous and forcible style, the author has succeeded in producing a volume eminently fitted to confirm faith and to remove doubt on this all-important subject.’—Literary World.
‘ The reasoning is cogent, the style clear and pleasant, the spirit admirable.’— Methodist Recorder. ‘
‘An admirable popular introduction to the study of the Christian Evidences.’— Baptist.
‘The volume before us is one of the most useful for its purpose of any that we have seen. —Church Bells.
‘The book is a good and powerful one, and calculated to be of great use to students.’ —Literary Churchman.
A COMMENTARY
ON
THE PHILIPPIANS.
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR
T & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDOK, . . . . » HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, . . . . . GEORGE HERBERT.
NEW YORE, . . . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.
A COMMENTARY
ON THE
GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL
TO
THE PHILIPPIANS.
BY THE LATE
JOHN EADIE, D.D., LLD.,
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS TO THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
SECOND EDITION.
EpITrep BY THE Rev. W. YOUNG, M.A., Guascow.
EDINBURGH: T & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 1884.
Die Theologie selbst nichts Anderes ist, als eine Grammatik ‘angewandt auf die Grammata des Heiligen Geistes.—LUTHER.
The wise and well-couched order of Saint Paul’s own words.— MILTON.
Nec putemus in verbis scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu ; non in superficie, sed in medulla ; non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis.—JEROME.
Si parmi les écrits de Paul il en est un, qui plus que d’autres, porte l’empreinte de la spontanéité, et repousse toute apparence de falsification motivée par l’intérét d’une secte, c’est sans contredit Pépftre aux Philippiens.—RILLIET.
Der Inhalt ist brieflicher, als in irgend einem andern an eine Gemeinde gerichteten Schreiben.—Dz WETTE,
TRUSTEES’ NOTE.
—0-——
THE Trustees on Dr. Eadie’s Estate have resolved to issue a new edition of his Commentaries on the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, three of which are out of print. They believe the republication to be called for, as the dis- tinctive place which these Commentaries hold has not yet been filled by other expository works. They also feel it to be due to the memory of the distinguished author, who, by his rare ability, extensive learning, and remarkable acquirements, all of which, through Divine grace, were consecrated to the study and interpretation of sacred Scripture, was enabled to bequeath a legacy so valuable to the Church of Christ. Few exegetical works will be found to equal these Commentaries in exact scholarship, while there are none, it may be truly said, that excel them in spiritual insight, in clear and masterly exhibition of the mind of the Divine Spirit, and in thorough sympathy with evangelical truth. The use of them will prove especially helpful in the study of the Divine word.
The Rev. William Young, M.A., of Parkhead Church, Glasgow, at the request of the Trustees, has kindly erigaged to edit the volumes, In his qualifications for
lv TRUSTEES’ NOTE.
this work, which requires both scholarship and ability, . they have the fullest confidence. While he has applied a careful scrutiny to all the references, and suggested such corrections and additions as he felt to be necessary, he has made no alteration on the text, which is wholly as it came from the hand of the author.
The Trustees are gratified to add, that the repub- lication of the Commentaries has been undertaken by the Firm of Messrs. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, to whose enterprise in the publication of valuable theological works, the Christian Church is so much indebted. |
The issue commences with the Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, which was the first of the
author's exegetical works. GEORGE JEFFREY.
DENNISTOUN, GLASGOW, October 1st, 1883.
PREFACE.
—n () oes
I HAVE little to add to the explanations made in the prefaces to my previous Commentaries on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. My object is still the same, however far I may fall short of realizing my own ideal—the development and illustration of the great apostle’s thoughts, as they are expressed in his “ weighty and powerful” letters. I humbly trust, that through a prolonged intimacy with his genius and style, my “profiting may appear to all” For one forms a gradual and happy acquaintance with the peculiarities of his mind and language through careful and continuous observation and study; just as, had we lived in those early times, we should have grown familiar, from being much in his company, with his gait, voice, features, and dress. While he writes after the same general pattern as do the other sacred: penmen of the New Testament, he has an unmistakeable type of his own, has his own favourite turns and points, his own recurring modes of putting an argument or giving edge to an appeal, of rebutting an objection, or going off by some sudden suggestion into a digression or parenthesis. While these special features may be recognized in all his epistles, they occur naturally in a letter like that to the Philippians, which is thrown off with- out any steady or definite aim, and where neither designed exposition nor reproof forms the burden of the com- munication.
vi PREFACE,
The first question then is—What is the precise meaning of these sentences which the apostle wrote to the church in Philippi? or what is the sense which the church in that city would most naturally ascribe to them? It is to be supposed that they understood the document, and our effort is simply to place ourselves in their intellectual or spiritual position. We seek to comprehend the epistle by a careful analysis of its clauses, an anxious survey of the context, and a cautious comparison of similar idioms and usages; while through a profound sympathy with the writer, we seek to penetrate into his mind, and be carried along with him in those mental processes which, as they create the contents of the composi- tion, impart to it its character and singularity. Our know- ledge of Greek is perfect only in so far as it enables us to attach the same ideas to his words, which the apostle intended to convey by them. Every means must be employed to secure this unity of intelligence—every means which the progress of philological science places within our reach. At the same time, there is much which no grammatical law can fix, for the meaning of a particle is often as much a matter of esthetics as of philology. The citation of a grammatical canon, in such cases, often proves only the possibility of one meaning out of many, but does not decide on any one with certainty ; while reliance on such isolated proof is apt to degenerate into mere subtileness and refinement. The exegesis, or the ascertainment of the course of thought, must determine many minute questions, not. against grammar, but in harmony with its spirit and laws. Contextual scrutiny and grammatical legislation have a happy reactionary influ- ence, and any attempt to dissever them must tend to produce one-sided and unsatisfactory interpretation.
But the meaning of the epistle to those who originally
PREFACE. vii
received it being ascertained, the second question is—What are the value and signification of the same writing for us? What was simply personal between Paul and Philippi was so far temporary, though it does suggest lessons of permanent interest. But believing that the apostle was inspired, I accept his dogmatic and ethical teaching as divine truth— truth derived from God, and by God’s own impulse and revelation communicated to the churches. This unreserved acceptance of scriptural truth is not at all hostile to the free spirit of scientific investigation. But it is wholly contrary to such a belief, and at variance with what I hold to be the origin and purpose of the New Testament, to regard the apostle’s theology as made up of a series of Jewish theories, not always clearly developed or skilfully combined and ad- justed ; or to treat it as the speculations of an earnest and Inquisitive mind, which occasionally lost itself among “deep things,” and mistook its modified and relative views for uni- versal and absolute truth, What are called “St. Paul’s opinions,” are conceived, worded, or presented by a conscious mind, according to its own habits and structure; but they are in themselves enunciations of divine truth, in and through the Spirit of God, for all ages; while the private matters mixed up with them show, that inspiration did not lift a man above what is natural, that divine guidance did not repress the instincts of a human temperament, check the genial out- burst of emotion, or bar the record of mere impressions about future and unrevealed events, such as the alternatives of the apostle’s own release or martyrdom.
With such convictions, and under this broad light, I have endeavoured to examine this epistle; and “my heart’s desire and prayer to God is,” that He who “gave the Word,” and “hath given us an understanding that we may know Him
-
Vill PREFACE.
that is true,’ may bless this honest and earnest effort to expound a portion of the “lively oracles.” The love of the truth is homage to Him who shows Himself as the Spirit of Truth, while He is coming into His heritage as the Spirit of Love. On the reception and diffusion of the truth in no narrow spirit, and in no cold and crystallized formulas, but in all the breadth and living power with which Scripture contains and reveals it, depend what so many good men are now sighing for—the reunion of the churches and the con- version of the world.
JOHN EADIE.
f 18 LaNspownE CRESCENT, GLASGOW, November 1858.
THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. a (Jee I.—~PHILIPPI, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL.
How the course of the apostle was divinely shaped, so that it brought him to Philippi, is stated in Acts xvi. 6-12 :—“ Now, when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. And they, passing by Mysia, came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There stood a man of Mace- donia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly. gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. Therefore, loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; and from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.” The apostle, during his second great mission- ary journey, had gone through a large portion of Asia Minor, and wished to extend his tour into proconsular Asia. But a curb, which he durst not-resist, was laid upon him, though its precise object he might not be able at the moment to con- jecture. The Holy Ghost, in forbidding him to preach in Asia, meant to turn his steps towards Europe. But he and his colleagues reached Mysia, and when they made an effort to pass into Bithynia, they were suddenly stopped on the frontier, for the “Spirit of Jesus” suffered them not to enter. This double check must have warned them of some ultimate purpose. Passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas, but
x THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
not to labour, as they might have anticipated, in a city sur- rounded by the scenes of so many classical associations. The divine leading had so shut up their path as to bring them to the seaport from which they were to set sail fora new region, and for a novel enterprise. As Peter had been instructed and prepared by a vision to go to the house of a Roman soldier, so by a similar apparition Paul was beckoned across the Atgean sea to Europe. The low coasts of the Western world might be dimly seen by him under the setting sun; the spiritual wants of that country, still unvisited by any evangelist, must have pressed upon his mind; the anxious ponderings of the day prepared him for the vision of the night, when before him “there stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us.” He was now in a condition to respond to the prayer, for a narrow sea was the only barrier between him and the shores of northern Greece. The object of the vision could not be mistaken, and the supernatural limitations set to previous inland journeys would now be comprehended. The prediction had been verified in the apostle and his colleagues —“TI will bring the blind by a way that they knew not, I will lead them in paths that they have not known ;” and the promise, too, was now fulfilled—*I will make darkness light before thee, and crooked things straight,” for the vision so im- pressed them that they were “assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” No time was lost—they loosed from Troas; the wind was fair— no weary tacking, no idle flapping of the sails in a calm; a steady southern breeze urged them through the current that rushes from the Dardanelles; they passed the island of Imbros, running “with a straight course to Samothracia,” and cast anchor the same night, in the smooth water of its northern shore. Half the voyage had been made, and next day, after skirting the isle of Thasos, they arrived at Neapolis, a harbour that seems to have stood in such a relation to Philippi as Ostia to Rome, Cenchrea to Corinth, Seleucia to Antioch, and Port-Glasgow, according to the original intentions of its founders, to Glasgow. When, at a subsequent period, Paul recrossed from Philippi to Troas, the voyage occupied five 1 Conybeare and Howson, vol. i. p. 306.
LYDIA AND THE PYTHONESS, xl
days; but now, “the King’s business required haste,” and to speed it, “by His power He brought in the South Wind.” The historian briefly adds, “ and from thence to Philippi ;” that is, along a path ten miles in length, ascending first a low ridge of hills, and then leading down to the city and the great plain between Haemus and Pangaeus, where their last battle was fought and lost by the republican leaders of Rome. After a sojourn of “certain days,” the apostle and his companions went out to an oratory on the side of the river Gangites, and met with a few pious Jewish women and proselytes “which resorted thither.” This humble spot was the scene of Paul’s first preaching in Europe; but the divine blessing was vouchsafed, and the heart of Lydia was opened as she listened “unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” It was “aman of Macedonia” that invited the apostle across into Europe; but his first convert was a woman of Thyatira, in Asia. The heart of a proselyte, who must have been an anxious inquirer before she relinquished Paganism, was in a more propitious state for such a change than either Jew or heathen, as it was neither fettered by the bigotry of the one, nor clouded by the ignorance of the other. The dispossession of a female slave, “ who had a spirit of divination,’ happened soon after; her rapacious and disappointed masters, a co- partnery trading in fraud, misery, and souls, finding that the hope of their gain was gone, dragged Paul and Silas into the forum—eis T9v ayopdv—before the magistrates, who, on hear- ing the charge, and without any judicial investigation, ordered the servants of God to be scourged, and then imprisoned. But their courage failed them not. On losing a battle in that neighbourhood, the vanquished warriors dared not to survive their defeat. The intriguing Cassius, “the last of the Romans,” hid himself in his tent, and in his panic ordered his freedman to strike. Brutus fell upon his sword, and his sullen and desperate spirit released itself by this self-inflicted wound. But Paul and Silas, unjustly condemned at the bidding of a mob, “ thrust into the inner prison, and their feet made fast in the stocks,” fixed in that tormenting position, and their backs covered with “ wounds and bruises and putre- fying sores which had not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment ”—these victims of wanton
xii THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
outrage did not bewail their fate, nor curse their oppressors, nor arraign a mysterious Providence, nor resolve to quit a service which brought them into such troubles, and desert a Master who had not thrown around them the shield of His protection, nor conclude that the vision at Troas had been a cunning and malignant lure to draw them on to Philippi, and to these indignities of stripes and a dungeon. No,-“at mid- night Paul and Silas, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name,” “prayed and sang praises unto God, and the prisoners heard them.” The prison was shaken, and their “ bands were loosed;” the jailor and all his house believed in God, and “he and all his were baptized.” The pretors—ot orparyyol—in the morning sent an order to the lictors for the release of the prisoners; but Paul’s assertion of his privilege as a Roman citizen, when reported to them, alarmed them ; and knowing what a penalty they had incurred by their infraction of the Valerian and Porcian laws, they came in person, and urged the departure of the evangelists from the city. “They went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed,” passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, and taking up their abode for a brief season in Thessalonica. Such were the apostle’s experiences when he first trod the soil of Europe, and such the first conflict of Christianity with Hellenic heathenism and the savage caprice of Roman authority.
' The apostle had not paused at Samothrace—an island renowned for its sanctity and its amulets, its gods and orgies, its Cybele and Cabiria—a scene where the mysteries of Eastern and Western superstition seem to have met and blended. Nor did he stop at Neapolis, the harbour of the Strymonic gulf, but he pressed on to Philippi; and the ground of his preference seems to be given in the statement —‘ which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony "-—#ris éorly mrparn tis pepldos Tis Maxedovlas trodes xod\wvia, <A reason is often assigned by the use of #jres— “inasmuch as it is.” The adjective mparn may admit of a political or a geographical meaning. Some have regarded it as signifying “chief,” much in the same way as it is rendered jn our version, It cannot indeed mean the chief or capital
PHILIPPI—A CHIEF CITY AND A COLONY. xiii
city of the province, for that was Thessalonica; and if. there ‘existed at that period a minuter subdivision, the principal town was.Amphipolis.’ Others look on the epithet as merely designating the first city that lay on the apostle’s route; Neapolis being either regarded as only its seaport, or rather as a town belonging to Thrace, and not to Macedonia. Meyer, preceded by Grotius and followed by Baumgarten,’ advances another view, which joins weds and cokwvia—“ the first colony and city,” and Philippi, in the Peutinger Tables, stands before Amphipolis. Without entering into any dis- cussion of these opinions, we may only remark, that each of them furnishes a sufficient reason for the apostle’s selection of Philippi as the spot of his first systematic labours in Europe. If it was the first city of the province that lay on his journey, then he naturally commenced to give it the help which the man of Macedonia had prayed for. If it was a chief city in that part, there was every inducement to fix upon it as the centre of farther operations ; and if it enjoyed special advan- tages as a city and colony, then, its importance in itself, and in relation to other towns and districts, made it a fitting place both for present work and subsequent enterprise. You may either say that Paul went to Philippi as the first. city on his path, for he had been summoned into Macedonia, and he could never think of passing the first city which he came to; or that he formally selected Philippi because of its rank, and because of its privileges as a Roman colony. If the apostle had taken this tour of his own accord, or as the result of plans previously matured; if he had traced out the itinerary of an evangelistic campaign before he set out, then the latter hypo- thesis would appear the more plausible; but if, as was the case, his purpose was hastily formed, and the general idea of traversing the province without any distinct regard to the order or arrangements of the visits, was suggested by the prayer of the representative man, then the first would appear to be the more natural and simple hypothesis. Philippi was anciently called Kpnvides or the “ Springs,” on
1 Livy, xlv. 29. Wordsworth, in his Commentary on Acts (London, 1857), supposes yspis to mean a frontier or strip of borderland—viz. that by which Macedonia is divided from Thrace, and of which conjinium Philippi was the chief city.
2 Apostolical History, vol. ii. p. 1143 Edinburgh (Clark).
X1v THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
account of its numerous fountains, in which the Gangites has its sources. Philip, about 358 B.c., enlarged the old town, and fortified it, in order to protect the frontiers against Thracian invaders, and named it after himself—®/Auwirot |\—- to commemorate the addition of a new province to his empire. After the famous battle fought and won in its neighbourhood by the Triumvirs, Augustus conferred special honours upon the city, and made it a Roman colony.” A military settle- ment—cohors preetoria emerita—had been made in it, chiefly of the soldiers who had been ranged under the standard of Antony, so that it was a protecting garrison on the confines of Macedonia; such settlements being, as Cicero calls them, propugnacula impertt. A colonia was a reproduction, in Miniature, of the mother city Rome. The Roman law ruled, and the Roman insignia were everywhere seen. The muni- cipal affairs were managed by duumvirs or pretors, Philippi had also the Jus Italicwm, or Quiritarian ownership of the soil;* its lands enjoying the same freedom from taxation as did the soil of Italy. It thus possessed a rank far above that of a municipium or a civitas libera ; but there is no proof that Augustus gave it the title of wpwrn aoNs, or that it ever assumed such an appellation like Pergamus, Smyrna, and Ephesus, The historian calls it xodwvia, the proper Roman name, and does not use the Greek term azroixia, which had a very different meaning—a settlement founded by a body of adventurers or emigrants, Its distinctive name seems here to be given it on account of the events which so soon transpired in connection with the apostle’s labours. | Highly favoured as Philippi had been, it was in need of “help.” Political franchise and Roman rights, Grecian tastes and studies, wide and varied commerce, could not give it the requisite aid. It was sunk in a spiritual gloom, which needed a higher light than Italian jurisprudence or Hellenic culture could bring it. It was helpless within itself, and the “man” 1 Strabo, of vty Sidsworos woass Kpnvidss ixadrovves es warasy, vii. 48; vol. ii. p. 86. Ed. Kramer, 1847. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, vol. ii, sub voce.
2 Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. Akerman’s Numismatic Illustrations,
p. 45. London, 1846. § Dion Cassius, li, 4. In provincia Macedonia Philippenses juris Italici sunt, Dig. Leg. xv. 68,
GRECIAN PHILOSOPHY—NOT THE TRUE LIGHT. XV
- ‘who represented it had appealed to the sympathies of a Jewish stranger, whose story of the cross could lift the darkness off its position and destiny. The spear and phalanx of Macedonia had been famous, and had carried conquest and civilization through a large portion of the Eastern world; the sun of Greece had not wholly set, and Epicureans and Stoics yet mingled in speculation, and sought after “wisdom ;” the sovereignty of Rome had secured peace in all her provinces, and her great roads not only served for the march of the soldier, but for the cortege of the trader; art and law, beauty and power, song and wealth, the statue and the drama, survived and were adored; but there was in many a heart a sense of want and of powerlessness, an indefinite longing after some higher good and portion, a painless and restless agita- tion, which only he of Tarsus could soothe and satisfy, with his preaching of the God-man—the life, hope, and centre of humanity. Probably about the year 53 Paul paid his first visit to Philippi. .A second time does he seem to have visited it on his journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, Acts xx. 1, 2; and again when, to avoid the plots.of his enemies, he returned to Asia through Macedonia, Acts xx. 6. Many remains of antiquity, such as are supposed to belong to the forum and the palace, are on the site of Philippi. The Turks now name it Felibedjik. Copies of its old coins may be seen in Eckhel, vol. ii. p. 75. The scenes and the ruins are described by Leake, Northern Greece, vol. iii, and Cousinéry, Voyage dans Maced, vol. ii. Mannert, Geogr. der Griech. und Rém. vol. vii, p. 217. Forbiger, Alt. Geog. vol, iii. p. 1070,
IL——THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE,
The genuineness of the epistle had not been questioned till a very recent period. The early external testimonies in its favour are very abundant. Thus Polycarp, ad Philip. iii’— ore yap éym obsre GAXos Spotos euot Sdvatar KataxorovOjoat 7H codla tod paxapiov Kat evdofou Tlavvov, bs nab atrav tyiv éyparpey emictoNas. It is not necessary, as a matter of phi- lology, to take the last noun as plural and as denoting more epistles than one, as Cotelerius, Hefele, and Jacobson have
1 Patres Apostol, vol. ii. p. 470; ed. Jacobson.
Xvi . THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
shown in their notes on this quotation. Rettig, Quest. Philip. p. 37, The same father, in the eleventh chapter of this same epistle to them, says——Eyo autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus qui estis (laudati) in principio epistole ejus. Meyer, who holds that from the style of the New Testament and the Apostolical Fathers, the word éwtoroAds in the first, quotation must be plural, supports his view by the somewhat strange device of making epistola here the nominative plural, as if the meaning were—“ who are in the beginning his epistles,” or commendatory letters. But in 2 Cor, iii. 2, 3, the place cited in proof by him, the noun is in the singular—emioror) Hudv, emicroAn Xpsorod ; and the use of the plural epistole, according to Meyer's own understanding of the clause, shows that the plural form may have a singular reference even in Polycarp’s style. Irenzeus, Adversus Heres, also writes, Quemadmodum e¢ Paulus Phi- lippensibus ait,’ referring to the apostle’s acknowledgment of the subsidy sent to him by Epaphroditus; and again, in quoting this epistle, iv. 17, Non inquiro datum, sed inqutro JSructum, he prefaces by saying—propter hoc e Paulus, There are other allusions of the same kind, as rursus ad Philippenses ait, quoting iii. 20; or apostolus in ea que est ad Philippenses, quoting iii, 10; or hoc est quod a Paulo dicitur, quoting ii, 15.2 Clement of Alexandria, in allusion to the apostle’s confession ——-“ Not as though I had attained,” etc. — says avrod oporoyobvros rob IIavXov sept éavrov. Pedag. i. 634 The epistle is quoted by Clement in various portions of his writings :—thus i. 13, 29, ii, 1, 20, iv. 12, are quoted in the fourth book of the Stromata ; i. 20 in the third book; i. 9, ii. 10 in the first book; iii. 19 in Pedag. ii.; ii, 15 in Poedag. iii,; ii. 6 in Cohort. ad Gentes, These quotations are made by Clement generally without any affirmation that they belong to the epistle to the Philippians, though sometimes they are ascribed to Paul. Tertullian’s evidence is as full :-— thus, De Resurrectione Carnis, cap. 23, quoting the declaration —<“If by any means I may attain to the resurrection of the dead ”’—he prefaces by saying, tpse (Paulus) cum Philippensibus 1 Patres Apostol. vol. ii. p. 486; ed. Jacobson.
2 iv. 18, 4, vol. i. 616; Opera, ed. Stieren, 1853. 3 Jbid. vol, i. pp. 588, 752, 753, 571. ‘4P, 107; Opera, Colonia, 1688.
TESTIMONIES TO ITS GENUINENESS. XVli
scribit ;} then, in the twentieth chapter of his fifth book against Marcion; he employs this epistle as an argument against the heretic; again, in his De Prescript. cap. xxxvi., speaking of the places where the authentic litere of the apostles are read, he says, St non longe es a Macedonia habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses.® From Ephiphanius too, we learn that Mar- cion received this epistle; for among the ten epistles of Paul acknowledged by him he reckons Sexdrn apos Pidctrarnalous. Haer. 42.4 In the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, preserved in Eusebius’ Hist. Eccles, lib. v. 2, ii, 6°is quoted. Cyprian, also, Test. iii. 39, quoting 11. 6, prefixes wzem Paulus ad Philippenses.© Eusebius placed this epistle among the universally acknowledged ones—oporgoyoupévors. It is found in the Syriac version, and in all the early synopses or cata- logues of canonical books. Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. i. p. 61, objects that Clemens Romanus does not quote the Epistle to the Philippians, when he might have done so in the sixteenth chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he incul- cates the grace of humility. The argument is precarious. It cannot prove that Clement was unacquainted with our epistle, but only that he has omitted a citation directly to his purpose. Besides, as Briickner has remarked, we have the ~ testimony of Polycarp, which belongs to this period.
Prof. Baur of Tiibingen, in his Die so-genannte Pastoralbriefe des Apost. Paulus, published in 1835, suspected the genuine- ness of this epistle, because of the mention of bishops and deacons in it, as if these offices belonged to a later age. In the following year, in an article in the third part of the Tiibing. Zeitschrift, p. 196, he intimated his doubts more decidedly. In 1841, in the Introduction to his Die Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes, where he treats of the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ as taught in the New Testament, no citation is made of any passages from this epistle, not even of 11,6. At length, in 1845, in his Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi, he formally attacked the epistle, and the next year his assault was followed up by his disciple Schwegler, whom Liinemann well
1Vol. ii. p. 497; Opera, ed. Oehler, 1854. 7 Jbid. p. 383. 3 Ibid. p. 34. 4 Opera, p. 188; ed. Basil, 1544. > P. 290 ; Opera, Parisiis, 1836. 6 P, 458; Stuttgart, 1845,
XVlli THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
names impiger sententiarum Baurianarwm interpres ac pro- pugnator. Das nachapostol. Zeitalter, etc., vol. i. p. 143; Tiibingen, 1846. The objections are trivial, and the wonder is, that a mind so-acute and accomplished as that of Baur should ever have proposed them. They are arranged by him under three separate heads; though we shall consider them in a somewhat different order from that in which their author has set them forth. Two excellent replies were made to Baur :—Pawli ad Philip. Epistola. Contra F. C. Bauriwm defendit G. C. Amadeus Liinemann, e collegio Repetentum ac Dr. Ph.; Gottingen, 1847—LEpistola ad Philip. Paulo auctori vindicata contra Baurium. Scripsit Brenno Bruno Briickner, Cand. Theol.; Lipsie, 1848.
I. Baur alleges some palpable anachronisms and contra- dictions.
1. The mention of Clement—iv. 3—is adduced to show that the writer of the epistle must have lived in post- apostolic times. Without any proof whatever, he identifies this Clement with him whom tradition associates with Peter at Rome, and him again with another of the same name, who was a relative of the later imperial house. He refers to Flavius Clement of Domitian’s time, whom that emperor put to death as an atheist, and who is referred to by Suetonius; Dion Cassius,” and Eusebius.® But it is contrary to all evidence, to identify the Clement of Rome or the Clement of the Homilies with the kinsman of this emperor. The writers who refer to them never confound them—never con- found a bishop of one age with a consul of another. The author of the Epistle to the Corinthians stands out in his own individuality to the men of his own and the following epoch. Clemens Romanus is said to have been well-born—¢€£ evryevods pifns—and was connected with the imperial family—srpds yévous imdpyov Kaicapos—TiBeplov. Clementine Homilies, iv. 7,xiv.10. But Flavius Clement was related to Domitian, who put him to death—x«alrep aveyridy dvra—and banished his wife. As Suetonius says, he was charged ex tenutssima
1 Domitianus, xv.
2 Hist, ixvii. 14. His espousal of Jewish opinions—#én ray "lovdaiar—giving rise to a charge of atheism—tyxAnux aésirnros—was evidently his becoming a Christian convert. * Hist. Heclea, iii, 14.
BAUR’S OBJECTIONS—SUPPOSED ANACHRONISMS. x1x
suspicione, there being alleged against him in his office— contemptissima inertia. Nor, if the Clement of this epistle were even Clemens Romanus, would the fact raise any difficulty. There is, however, no proof that he was; at least he was at Philippi when this epistle was written. See Hefele, Ap. Patr. Prolegomena, p. 19; Ritschl, Geschichte der Entstehung der alt. kathol. Kirche, p. 284. You may admit an intermingling of traditions about the two Clements, and yet maintain that the men were distinct. There is no proof that the Roman Clement was a martyr; at least Irensous, Eusebius, and Jerome know nothing of such a death. The questions as to whether he was a Jew or a Gentile; whether he was a disciple of Peter or of Paul; whether he followed Linus or Cletus, or preceded them; whether his first epistle be interpolated, and his second be spurious altogether ;—such questions affect not the identity of the man, and the distinction in position, office, and end, between him and the Clement the husband of Domitilla, under Domitian. See the article “Clement von Rom,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopédie, vol. ii. p. 720. The trick of Baur is very manifest. It is a series of assumptions. He assumes, first, that the Clement of this epistle, of whom nothing is given but the name, and about whom nothing can be conjectured but his present residence at Philippi, is Clemens Romanus; next, that this Clemens Romanus is a myth, or that he must be really Flavius Clemens, the martyred kinsman of Domitian ;' next, that the writer of our epistle refers to him, and to this well-known imperial relationship, when he speaks of his bonds being known in the preetorium, and sends a salutation from them of Cesar’s household; and the inference is, that as the Clemens of our epistle is no other than this later Clemens, such a reference must show that the epistle could not be written by Paul, but by some forger long after his time. The ingenuity is too transparent. Would a forger have placed such a Clement at Philippi? and would he not have given him greater prominence ? for certainly the apostle’s joy in his bonds, the publicity of these bonds in the pretorium, his “strait between two,” and his other expressed emotions, can all be explained without reference to any such hypothesis.
‘Baur says at p. 472—‘‘ Diess ist die historische Grundlage der Sage vom Rémischen Clemens.”
XX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
2. It is alleged by Baur, that the mention of “ bishops and deacons” in the first verse, betrays also a post-apostolical origin. The proof, however, tends all the other way. The organization of the churches presupposes such office-bearers, as may be seen in Acts vi. 1-6, xx. 28; Rom. xvi. 1. The bishop and presbyter were then identical, and the names are sufficiently indicative of the character of the office.
3. Baur alleges that the author of the Epistle to the Philippians has totally misunderstood the apostle’s pecuniary relations to the church at Philippi’ But he must have been a novice in fabrication, if with the other epistles before him he could allow himself to be so easily detected. The apostle writes thus in iv. 14, 15, 16— Notwithstanding ye have well done that ye did communicate with my affliction. Now, ye Philippians, know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me, as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.” Baur quotes, as opposed to this, 1 Cor. ix. 15—“ But I have used none of these things; neither have I written these things,
that it should be so done unto me: for 7 were better for me .
to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.” Baur’s exegesis is, that this passage plainly teaches that Paul stood in no such relation to any church, as our epistle repre- sents him as sustaining to the Philippian church, for he would not own himself indebted to any of them. But the apostle is not affirming that he refused all support from every church ; he only says, that he merely waived his right for good reasons with regard to the Corinthian church ; for when he was in the city of Corinth, he wrought as a tentmaker, and no doubt for the best of reasons. Besides, that he took support from other churches, while he would not take it from them, is plain from his own declaration, that they were an exception to his usual course—2 Cor. xi. 7, 8—‘“ Have I committed an offence in
1 Es lisst uns demnach auch das, was Phil. iv. 10 f., iiber eine speciellere Veranlassung des Briefs gesagt worden ist, nicht klar in die Verhaltnisse hineinsehen, unter welchen er vom Apostel selbst geschrieben worden seyn soll, und es kénnte somit schon diess die Vermuthung begriinden, dass wir hier keine wirklichen Verhaltnisse, sondern nur eine fingirte Situation vor uns haben, was, je naher wir die geschichtliche Motivirung des Briefs betrachten, nur um so wahrscheinlicher werden kann. P. 469.
THE APOSTLE’S PECUNIARY RELATIONS TO THE CHURCHES. xxi
abasing myself, that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” Nay more, in connection with this passage now quoted, the apostle affirms—verse 9—‘“ And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied; and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep mysedf.” Now this is an assertion of the very same kind with that which Baur so strongly objects to as un-Pauline, in the epistle before us. The use of «as in the phrase érz wal év Oecoanrovinn—iv. 16 —cannot support his argument, as if the forger had 2 Cor. xi. 9 before his eyes, and took his cue from it, for the xaé is used precisely in the same way in 1 Cor. i. 16—éSdmrica dé kal Tov ZtTepava olxov. See comment on iv. 16. It is of no use to allege, as Baur does, that the apostle’s stay in Thessalonica was brief—so brief, that two contributions could scarcely be necessary—for we know not all the circumstances ; but we do know that in that city, and as a reproof probably to the sloth which he so earnestly reprimands in both his letters, he set an example of industry, working with his own hands, and might therefore be in need of the gift which was sent south to him from Philippi. Both Briickner and Liine- mann slyly remark, that it is odd that Baur should, in proof of Paul’s short stay in Thessalonica, cite the Acts of the Apostles—a book which he declares to be un@orthy of all historical credit. Paulus der Apostel, pp. 146-150, 243. What more natural for the apostle than to refer to the earli- ness of their first pecuniary presents; or to say, that when he was leaving Macedonia, they supplied him; nay, to affirm, that prior to the period of his departure from the province, and when he was yet in Thessalonica, they sent once and a second time to his necessities? Baur seems to suppose that he who wrote these verses forgot that Thessalonica was in Macedonia. He renders—“ when I was no more in Mace- donia,” no church communicated with me but you, for even in Thessalonica ye sent to me, as if Thessalonica had been a place reached after his departure from the Macedonian pro- vince. But this, again, is a complete misapprehension of the
XXil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
apostle’s statement, which is of this kind—When I went out of Macedonia ye helped me; nay, at an earlier period still and before I left the province, ye helped me. So feeble are Baur’s objections against the genuineness of the epistle, taken from supposed anachronisms or contradictions of fact alleged to be found in it.
II. Baur also raises objections from the style. Few forms of subjective reasoning and criticism are so deceptive as this. What belongs to esthetics, and not to logic or history, can never form a wise or valid antagonism. For there are others as well qualified to judge as Baur can be, some of whom have on his and similar principles rejected others of the epistles but who yet declare unhesitatingly in favour of this one. De Wette, who will not admit Ephesians, has everything to say in favour of Philippians.
1. To object, with Baur, that subjectivity of feeling prevails in this epistle, is only to commend it,! for the writer had no definite polemical end in view, there being no special error or inconsistency in the Philippian church requiring rebuke or warning. Therefore he composes a letter to thank his beloved Philippians for a needed gift sent all the way to Rome, and remembers their repeated kindnesses to him from the very first. No wonder there is that he opens his heart and speaks in the fulness of his joy, follows no regular plan, but expresses his emotions as they rise within him; nay, in the fervour of his soul, occasionally repeats himself—his clauses bein#¥offhand and artless, and now and then complex because unstudied, the whole being the outpouring of a spirit that was gladdened alike by memory and hope and present relationship—blessing his distant converts for their past fidelity, and urging them to higher and yet higher spiritual attainment, cautioning them against errors into which they might be tempted, and portraying his own experience as an outline with which theirs might recognize a growing similarity, and find increasing blessedness, as the likeness filled and brightened into complete identity. This epistle is a convey- ance of thanks—a matter wholly personal, so that individuality
‘Im Uebrigen unterscheidet er sich von Ihnen (Ephesians and Colossians)
hauptsdchlich durch die tn ihm vorherrschende Subjectivitat des Gefihls, P. 464,
STYLE OF THE EPISTLE. Xxill
and emotion must predominate. The apostle could not repress his feelings, like a man mechanically signing a receipt in a counting-room ; but he utters his heart, or as one may say, he puts himself into his letter. An epistle of thanks for monies se received, could not but be a matter of feeling, and the gratitude of the apostle’s loving and confiding heart would be no common emotion, and therefore his acknowledgment is no common composition.
2. To say, with Baur, that the epistle discovers no sufficient motive for the composition of it, is to shut one’s eyes; to affirm with him, that it is stale and flat,’ is not only to be steeled against the exuberance of its sentiment, but also to turn a deaf ear to the very rhythm of many of its paragraphs ; to object that it is marked by poverty of thought,’ is to forget that it is not a treatise like the Epistle to the Romans, or an argumentative expostulation like the Epistles to the Corin- thians; and to attack it, because it wants a certain formal unity, is tastelessly to overlook its naturalness, as it moves from one topic to another, referring now to one class of persons near the writer in Rome, and now to his own emotions in his imprisonment; then turning to his converts and bid- ding them be of good cheer in the midst of hostility ; exhort- ing them to cultivate humility, love, and self-denying generosity, as seen in the example of Christ; next, telling them how he hopes to see them soon, and meanwhile sends Epaphroditus home to them; farther, improving the oppor-
1 Hiemit hangt zusammen, was hauptsdchlich ein weiteres Kriterium zur Beurtheilung des Briefs ist, dass man iiberhaupt eine motivirte Veranlassung zur Abfassung eines solchen Schreibens, einen bestimmter ausgesprochenen Zweck und Grundgedanken vermisst. Zwar wird gegen jiidische Gegner pole- misirt, aber man kann sich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, es geschehe diess nur desswegen, weil es einmal zum stehenden Character der paulinischen Briefe zu gehoren schien. Es fehlt dieser Polemik durchaus an Frische und Natiirlich- keit, an der Objectivitat der gegebenen Verhiiltnisse. Pp. 464-5.
2 Wie matt und interesselos das Ganze, P. 466.
3 Man riihmt diess als einen eigenthiimlichen Vorzug des Briefs, aber so zart und ansprechend auch die Empfindungen und Gesinnungen sind, die in ihm sich kund geben, so wenig ist dabei zu tibersehen, dass monotone Wiederholung des zuvor schon Gesagten, Mangel an einem tiefer eingreifenden Zusammenhang, und eine gewisse Gedankenarmuth, deren Bewusstseyn den Verfasser selbst gedriickt zu haben scheint, wenn er zu seiner Entschuldigung sagt iii. 1—ra aire yedQuy dpiv, iol ply obs sxvngiv, duiv 31 deQaais—nicht minder hervor- stechende Ziige des Briefes sind. P. 464,
XXIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
tunity, and bidding them beware of false teachers and of inconsistent professors; summoning them, as he proceeds, to rejoice, to be of one mind, and to seek for perfection in the exercise of virtue; and, lastly, sending his acknowledgment for the gift which they had so kindly and considerately sent him, and wafting to them salutations from the brethren, and from the saints of Ceesar’s household.
Baur fixes upon iii. 1—‘“ To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe,” as a proof of poverty of thought. See our interpretation of the passage. The phrase, so far from arguing scantiness of ideas, is only an index of earnestness ; or rather a proof, that while a throng of new subjects might be pressing on the writer's mind, he could even forego the pleasure of introducing them, and for the safety of his readers, reiterate statements pre- viously made to them. Baur also objects to the phrase Sucavoovyvnv tiv év vopw—iii. 6—but the apostle is there speaking from a previous standpoint—from a point of view which he had occupied in his unconverted state.
3. The record of the apostle’s experience, iii. 4, is declared to be a feeble copy of 2 Cor. xi.18.' There is similarity, but not great similarity. Both are references to his past life, and therefore we anticipate a necessary likeness of allusion. But the purposes are different. In the second epistle to the Corinthians the vindication is of his public or official life and its sufferings and successes; in this epistle the self- portraiture has reference to personal experience. In the former he speaks as an apostle, but in the latter as a saint. The first is terse and vehement—a lofty and disdainful chal-
' Wie lasst sich verkennen, dass der Verfasser des Briefs die Stelle im Corin- thierbriefe vor Augen hatte, und an sie auf eine Weise sich hielt, wie vom Apostel selbst nicht geschehen seyn kann? Nur aus der starken heftigen Sprache, in welcher der Apostel—2 Cor. xi.—sich gegen seine Gegner aus- spricht, lisst es sich auch erklaren, wie der Verfasser in der steigernden Weise der Nachahmer sich sogar den Ausdruck xvrss erlauben konnte. Wie un- motivirt, wie mit Gewalt herbeigezogen ist aber hier dieses Reden des Apostels von sich, wenn wir es mit der Art und Weise vergleichen, wie er sich mit seinen Gegnern in der Originalstelle auseinandersetzt wo man sogleich sieht, welche Sache es gilt. Welches schwache leblose Nachbild haben wir dagegen hier ! Wie Allbekanntes sagt der Apostel iiber seine friihern Lebensverhiltnisse, wie kleinlich ist die Hervorhebung der achttigigen Beschneidung, wie unpaulinisch der Begriff einer dixasoovvn bv vou, wie matt und interesselos das Ganze. P. 466.
OBJECTIONS TO PECULIAR WORDS. XXV
lenge to his antagonists, if ever they had done what he had done, or endured what he had endured: the last is calm in its fervour, and exhibits his soul in its perfect repose upon Christ Jesus his Lord, and in its aspirations after complete likeness to Him. The idea of plagiarism is wholly out of the question when the subjects are so different. Detail in speak- ing of his Jewish descent is natural to him—Rom. xi. 1—for the subject admitted of minute and climactic treatment.
4. Baur objects to peculiar words. Granted that «cararoyn, the concision, is a hard expression ;* but fully harder is daro- xowovrat, Gal. v. 12, as very many explain it. Granted that the epithet xvves is not fine; but neither are yevdazrocroXor, epydrat Sontot; of Suaxovos avrovu-—Jaravas, in 2 Cor. xi. 13 14, 15, and «vves did not at least sound in the East so awk- wardly as with us. Baur mistakes the nature of the contrast between repro and xatratrous. The apostle does not by any means degrade the Abrahamic rite in itself, or call Jews the false, circumcision; but he simply implies that the cir- cumcision which the Judaists insisted on as essential to salvation is useless and spurious. Compare too, for similar ideas, Rom. ii. 25-29—an epistle which Baur acknowledges to be genuine. Nor is it the case that the contrast is distorted, as if the idea of quality in aep:roun were opposed to that of quantity expressed by xatarouy. The notion of quality belongs to both nouns, and it alone could the apostle Inean to express. See our comment on the place.
On the other hand, many terms and phrases in this epistle, being such as we find in the other epistles, indicate identity of authorship. Liinemann has made a considerable collection of them. The following are Pauline phrases :—ywwoecKey vpas BovrAopat, i. 2—compare 1 Cor. x. 1, xi. 3; Rom. i. 13, xi. 25: Soxupatew ra Svapépovra, i, 10—found in Rom. ii. 18: xavyacOa: dv Xpiorg, iii. 3—found in 1 Cor. i 31; 2 Cor. x. 17: pdprus yap pov éorly o Geds, i. 8—found in Rom. i. 9: muorevew eis Xptoroy, i. 29, exceedingly common
1 Wie unfein wird sie iii 2, durch die harten Worte Aaiwses res xvvas, wie gezwungen durch den gesuchten Gegensatz zwischen xararou# und wiprops, Zerschnittene und Beschnittene, eingeleitet! Die Christen sollen die wahre wipirouy, dio Juden die falsche oder die xarareye4 seyn, aber wie schief ist der
qualitative Unterschied zwischen der wahren und falschen Beschneidung durch die quantitative Steigerung der weproe4 zu einer xarareem ausgedriickt. P. 465.
XXVl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
in the Gospel of John, but also found in Paul, as in Rom. x. 14; Gal. ii 16; Acts xix. 4. The names Xpictos, Inoods, Kuptos, preceded by év, to denote the sphere of spiritual action, feeling, or enjoyment, as to “hope in the Lord,” “rejoice in the Lord,” etc.—allusions to 7 juépa Xpiorod, as the period of glory and perfection—characterize this epistle and all the others ascribed to the apostle. We have épyop Xpicrod in ii. 30, and épyor Kuplov, in the same sense, in 1 Cor. xvi. 10; eds xevoy éS5apyoy in ii. 16, and in the same view ets xevoy Tpéxyw 7 ESpapov, Gal. ii. 2. It is true there are some draf Neyoueva, but we have them in every epistle. We have such as aloOnats, i. 9; cuvabréw, i. 27, iv. 3; wrvper Oat, i. 28; cvprypuyor, ii. 2; dpmaypos, ii. 6 ; drepvyoor, ii. 9; KxatayOovws, ii. 10; icoyrvyov, ii, 20; adnpoveiy, ii. 26; wapamAnovov, ii. 27; wapaBorevew, ii. 30; cxvBadror, iii. 8; é€avdoraces, iii, 11; évrenreiver Oa, iii. 14; mpoodirHs, iv. 8; dpern, iv. 8; avabadrw, iv. 10; peuinpas, iv. 12. But the occurrence of such terms can never be a proof of spuriousness, for dmra& Xeyoueva are found in the Epistles to Rome, Corinth, and Galatia, which Baur himself receives as genuine. At the same time, we have certain Pauline terms —words all but peculiar to the apostle, and the use of which betokens his authorship. Thus we have tiydp, i. 18 ; etzrws, iii. 11; ody Stu, iii. 12; 70 Aosroy, iv. 8—turns of expression common with the apostle. Again, such words as ampockorot, i. 10; éeweyopnyia, i. 19; amoxapodoxia, i 20; aytixetpevor, i. 28; etdsxpuveis, i. 10; xevodokia, ii. 3; Sixacocvvn, iii. 9; BpaBeiov, iii. 14; and Aovros, iv. 19—are favourite and characteristic terms. The adjective «xevos, and the phrase eis
xevoy, are the Pauline phrases, in this and the other epistles, ' for failure real or anticipated, and xo7mi@y is the peculiar verb employed to denote apostolical labour. Have we not, in a word, the image and likeness of the apostle in this style, not only in its separate and characteristic idioms and expressions, but in its entire structure—in its sustained passages as well as in its briefer clauses—in its longer arguments as well as in its more abrupt transitions? Why, in a word, be entangled among such minutise, when the whole letter is so Pauline in what is peculiar to itself, and in what is common to it with other epistles ? in its order and in its loose connection; in its
DOCTRINAL OBJECTIONS. XXVli
unwonted expressions and in its mannerisms; in its doctrines insisted on and in its errors warned against ; in its illustration of his teaching by the experience of the teacher; in his spirit of disinterested zeal in spite of every drawback ; in his manly confession that he felt his privations while he was contented under them; and in his constant recognition of union to Christ as the sphere of joy, love, strength, hope, stedfastness, confidence, peace, and universal spiritual ful- ness.
ITI. Baur adduces doctrinal objections. The only dogmatic part of the epistle—ii, 6-11—is, according to him, Gnostic in its ideas and: language. Indeed, the whole epistle, as he affirms, “moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions ” —not opposing them, but rather acquiescing in them.’ The phrases ov»y dptraypoy nyjoato 76 elvat ica Geg, ev opormparte avOparav yevouevos, expats evpeels ws dvOpwrros, émroupaviay —xatayOoviov, are laid hold of as belonging to the Gnostic vocabulary; and as proving that he who has so employed them, must have lived after the apostle’s time, and when the Gnostic heresy had acquired wide range and influence. Now, if a heresy shall arise which clings to Scripture for support, what can you expect but it shall, in its speculations and defences, employ the words of Scripture, and dexterously affix its own meaning to them? What has heresy usually been but such artful or innocent misinterpretation ? In the daring and dreamy descriptions of the divine nature and of the celestial hierarchy, which characterize Gnosticism, such terms as the apostle has used may be found; but the natural infer- ence is, that the epistle gave rise to them, and not they to the epistle. Some of the passages referred to by Baur are found in Ireneus. In his book, Contra Hereses, i. 1, he has the words—dpoiov re wal loov rm wpoBadrrAovte;? and the mother of another Zon is described—spogacw pév dyarrns,
1 Wie die beiden zuvor erérterten Briefe (Eph. and Colos.) bewegt sich auch der Philipperbrief im Kreise gnostischer Ideen und Ausdriicke, und zwar gleich- falls so, dass er sie nicht sowohl bestreitet, sondern sich vielmehr an sie ansch- liesst und mit der néthigen Modification sich aneignet. Die in dogmatischer Hinsicht stets fiir ebenso wichtig als schwierig gehaltene Stelle Phil. ii. 5, scheint nur aus der Voraussetzung erklirt werden za kinnen, dass der Verfasser des Briefs gewisse gnostische Zeitideen vor Augen hatte. P. 458.
#3, 1, 1, vol. i. p. 14; Opera, ed. Stieren, 1855. 2
XXVIII THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
rods 86.1 We have such phrases as rrapavrixa 8 xevwbeioay,’ or éy eixovt Tod dopdtov tatpos. But what do these ex- pressions prove? They are not similar in meaning with those found in this epistle, and they belong to the domain of meta- physical mysticism. Our interpretation of the passage gives the sense we attach to it. See in loc.
The expression ob» dprayyov ayjoato is in no way de- rogatory to Christ’s claim and dignity. The alternatives were To elvat loa Oe@, and éavtov xevodv, and Jesus voluntarily preferred the latter, and assumed humanity. For Christ’s pre-existence is a Pauline doctrine, though Baur denies it. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 36; 1 Cor. viii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 9. Does not pop) Ocod resemble eixav tov Ocov? 2 Cor. iv. 4. What absurdity to find a parallel to this dpzrayyos and the origin of the term in the wild, daring, and restless attempt of the Valentinian Sophia to penetrate the essence of the All-father, and become one with Him—the Absoluté’ or, as Baur says of this Hon—er will das Absolute erfassen, begreifen, thm gletch, mit thm Eins werden? To give the phrase év opowpate av@parrav a Docetic meaning, is ridiculous, and is affixing a technical sense to a popular term. Rom. viii. 3. The mean- ing is, he appeared as other men appeared; notwithstanding his possession of a divine nature, his appearance was the ordinary appearance of humanity. He had the form of God, _and he assumed as really the form of a man. Baur also frames a dilemma—*“ Were he already God, wherefore should he first desire to become what he already was? and were he not yet like God, what an eccentric, unnatural, and self-con- tradictory thought *—‘to be equal with God’!” The true meaning is, not that He was originally less than God, and
1 Iren. i, 2, 2, p. 18. 2 Ibid. i. 4, 1, p. 46.
3 Ibid. i. 5, 1, p. 58.
4 Welche eigenthiimliche Vorstellung ist es doch, von Christus zu sagen, er habe es, obgleich er in géttlicher Gestalt war, nicht fiir einen Raub gehalten, oder, wie die Worte grammatisch genauer zu nehmen sind, es nicht zum Gegen- stand eines actus rapiendi machen zu miissen geglaubt, Gott gleich zu seyn. War er schon Gott, wozu wollte er erst werden, was er schon war, war er aber noch nicht Gott gleich welcher excentrische, unnatiirliche, sich selbst wider- sprechende Gedanke ware es gewesen, Gott gleich zu werden? Soll nicht eben dieses Undenkbare eines solchen Gedankens durch den eigenen Ausdruck ody &praypoy iyreare bezeichnet werden ? Wie kommt denn aber der Verfasser dazu, etwas so Undenkbares auch nur verneinend von Christus zu sagen? P. 458.
GNOSTIC NOMENCLATURE. XX1X
strove to be on equality with Him. Nor is being God, and being like God, the same idea. It is not, as Baur would seem to suppose—being God, He thought it no robbery to be equal with God. For it is not of essence, but of form, that the apostle speaks, Equality with God, in the possession of this form, was no object of ambition to him; he laid it aside, and assumed the form of a servant. Very different this from the Gnostic and Valentinian image of Wisdom descend- ing from the wA7pwpa into the Kéevwpa. The phrase éxévwoev éavrop is identical in spirit with érrwyevoe, though different in form—2 Cor. viii. 9—and has no sort of affinity with the Gnostic yevéoOa: év xevwpatt, which seems to mean that annihilation which happened to the AXon Sophia, or rather to its cupidity—édvOvpnors. The Gnostic nomenclature has much the same connection with the Pauline writings as the book of Mormon has with the English Scriptures ; and were the Greek original lost, some critic might rise up a thousand years after this, and affirm with some show of erudition, and a parade of parallel terms, that the most of the epistles of the English Testament did not originate under James VI., but must have been fabricated by men who knew the system of the Latter-day saints, and had studied its so-called Bible. It is needless to enlarge. Neither ingenuity nor erudition cha- racterizes the objector’s argument against the epistle; so far from borrowing Gnostic ideas and terms, it again and again, as if by anticipation, condemns the heresy. It calls the Saviour Lord or Kugvos, which, according to Epiphanius, the Gnostics would not. It ascribes a body to the exalted Jesus —which the Gnostics denied; and assigns a body also to glorified believers, but the Gnostics held that it would be burnt up and destroyed. Of the day of Christ, or the coming of Christ, Gnosticism knew nothing, for its benighted disciples - did not hope, after death, “to be with Christ.”' But, indeed, the entire argument of Baur against the genuineness of this epistle, is what Alford calls “the very insanity of hypercriti- cism. . . . According to him, all usual expressions prove its spuriousness, as being taken from other epistles; all unusual expressions prove the same, as being from another than St. Paul. Poverty of thought, and want of point, are charged 1 Brickner, p. 13.
XXX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
against it in one page; in another, excess of point, and undue vigour of expression.”
We need say nothing in conclusion of the attack of this epistle by the English Evanson, in his Dissonance of the Four Gospels, who, indeed, was earlier than Baur in cold and insipid negation. Nor need we do more than allude to Schrader,’ who has thrown suspicion on the latter part of the epistle, and for reasons not a whit stronger than those of Baur. A Paley” says on this topic—‘ Considering the Philippians as his readers, a person might naturally write upon the subject as the author of the epistle has written, but there is no sup- position of forgery with which it will suit.”
III.—UNITY AND INTEGRITY.
Heinrichs in his Prolegomena started the idea that the epistle as we have it is made up of two distinct letters, the first reaching to the end of the first clause in ii. 1—“ Finally, brethren, farewell in the Lord,” along with iv. 21, 23, intended for the church; and the second, including the remaining por- tion of the epistle, and meant for the apostle’s more intimate friends. Paulus, adopting the hypothesis, but reversing its order, imagines that the first letter was for the bishops and deacons. The theory is baseless, for the use of rd Aowroy may be otherwise explained. See Commentary on the phrase. Though we should admit that the phrase ta avra ypddew may imply that the apostle had written other epistles to the Philippians, there is still no proof that we have a sample of any of them in our present canonical book. Heinrichs’ argu- ments are not worth refutation; but they have been replied to, seriatim, by Krause, Hoelemann, and Matthies.® The first part of the epistle may be more general, and the second more special; but to divide any production on such a principle would be chimerical in the extreme. May not a man have a general and a special purpose in writing a single letter? Nay more, is not the latter half of the second chapter as special as
1 Der Apostel Paulus, vol. v. pp. 231-238, 240. See, on the other hand, Hoelemann’s Prolegomena, p. 59 ; Neudecker’s Hinleit. § 93.
2 Hore Pauline, chap. vii.
3 See also Schott’s [sagoge, § 70.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PHILIPPIAN CHURCH. Xxxl
any paragraph in the third or-fourth chapters; and are not the four last verses of the third chapter, and the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth verses of the fourth chapter, as general as any paragraph in the earlier half of the epistle? There is nothing of an exoteric or esoteric tone about its various sections, nor is any such distinction warranted by the use of rédetos, iii. 15. The transitions depend upon no logical train —as the thoughts occurred they were dictated. And we can never know what suggested to the apostle the order of his topics. We can conceive him about to finish his epistle at iii, 1, and with ro Aosrov ; but a conversation with Epaphro- ditus, or some train of thought in his own mind, directed and moulded by the Spirit of God, may have led him to launch out again after he seemed to be nearing the shore.
IV.—THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PHILIPPIAN CHURCH, AND THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. —
This Epistle was not written for any polemical or practical purpose. Its object is neither to combat error nor establish truth, nor expose personal or ecclesiastical inconsistencies, nor vindicate his apostolical prerogative and authority. A gift had. been sent him to Rome, from a people that had dis- tinguished themselves by similar kindnesses in former times. The churches in Macedonia were poor, but “their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.” They contributed the gift to the apostle when he needed it, and it was enhanced alike by their poverty and his want. As a prisoner he could not support himself by labour as at Thes- salonica and Corinth, and he might not feel that he had a claim for maintenance upon the church in Rome. He had not founded the church there, and as he was not sowing “ spiritual things” he did not expect to reap “carnal things.” The gift from this small, poor, and distant people, whom he had not seen for some years, was therefore very opportune; and the receipt of it, combined with a knowledge of all their circumstances, was to him a source of great exhilaration. Epaphroditus, who had brought the contribution, was to convey the apostle’s thanks to the donors, and he takes occa- sion, in returning these thanks, to address some counsels to
XXxli THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE
his beloved people, to tell them how he prayed for them and hoped well of them, and what was his own condition at Rome, as they would be anxious to hear of it from himself; to inform them what a spirit of tender considerateness ought to reign among them; how Timothy was soon coming to them; how they ought to be on their guard against false teachers and immoral free-thinkers; how they should rejoice in the Lord, and pursue all that is spiritually elevated and excellent; and all this—before he formally acknowledges the receipt of the subsidy. His thoughts turn to himself and them alternately. They had not, like other churches, given him reason for regret or censure. He was fond of them, and what he had suffered among them had endeared them to him. He did not forget that “we were shamefully entreated at Philippi;” but the recollection made them all the dearer to him, by what he had endured for them. The majority of the church seem to have been proselytes or converted heathens, and to the paucity of Jews in the membership may be ascribed this continuous attachment to their spiritual founder, and the absence of those prejudices and misunderstandings that so soon sprang up in some of the other churches.
That the Philippian church was in trial and exposed to danger is evident from several allusions. At an earlier period they had “a great trial of affliction,” and the conclusion of the first chapter indicates that the same perils still continued. The apostle says, 1. 28, 29, 30 :—“ And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake; having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear éo be inme.” We cannot tell who their antagonists were. There is no ground for supposing that they were Jews especially, for there were apparently so few in the place that they do not seem to have possessed a synagogue.' The probability is, that the popula-
1 The place of worship, wgec1wy%, was by the river-side—and as the correct reading is tw riis evans—‘‘ without the gate.’’ ThusJosephus, Antig. xiv. 10, 28, says of the magistrates of an Eastern city, that they allowed to the Jews— ras wportuxas wosiobas weds ry bardoon, xara +6 weer thes. Tertullian also says
of the Jews—per omne litus quocunque in aperto aliquando jam preces ad celum mittunt. De Jejun. xvi. vol. i. p. 877; Opera, ed. Oehler. The same author
COURAGE IN THE MIDST OF PERSECUTION. XXXili
tion generally was hostile to them, and that the rancorous feeling manifested against Paul and Silas on their first visit, continued to show itself in a variety of forms against their converts. But persecution did not intimidate them. They did not become cowardly and regretful, or sullen and spiteful. They had “ abundance of joy,” feeling as James counsels his readers—“ My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.” That joy the apostle bids them still cherish, and the soul of his letter is—<‘“ Rejoice in the Lord.” Because the opposition which they encountered drove all worldly gladness from them, it forced them to a more vivid realization of their union to Christ, the source of all joy.. Persecution only raked away the ashes, so that the spiritual flame was steady and brilliant.
But this very condition had a tendency to create spiritual pride. Men so upborne are apt to forget themselves. As Dr. Davidson remarks '—“ The highest spirituality stands near the verge of pride, superciliousness, and vainglory.” The earnest injunctions enforced by the example of Christ, in the beginning of the second chapter, plainly point to such a tendency. There were also two ladies who are entreated by the apostle to be of the same mind in the Lord, and others are asked to help them to this reconciliation. The Philip- pians are exhorted “to stand fast in one spirit and one mind.” We dare not say that factions actually existed, but there were jealousies and alienations of feeling. Yet there is no proof that false teaching had created parties and produced schism;? so that the broad assertions and hypotheses of many on this subject cannot be received. The Philippians are warned against Judaizers, but there is no evidence that Judaizers had, as in Galatia, made havoc among them ; and they are told of others who are enemies of the cross, not from dogmatic perversity, but from immoral lives,
speaks of the Jewish orationes littorales. Ad Nationes, xiii. ibid. p. 334. When the proseuche in Alexandria were destroyed, the Jews resorted to the neigh- bouring beaches—ia? rots wAncioy aizsmaods. Philo, in Flac. p. 982. Thus, too, In qua te quero proseucha? Juvenal, iii. 295. Biscoe on the Acts, p.181; ed. Oxford, 1840. ;
1 Introduction, vol. ii. p. 881.
2 Schinz, Die Christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi. Hin exegetischer Versuch von W. i. Schinz; Ziirich, 1833. Cruse, De statu Philip., etc.; Hafnie, 1784 ; or Walch, Acta Pauli Philippensia ; Jenz, 1786.
C
XXXIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
Storr, Flatt, Eichhorn, Guericke, and Rheinwald are as much without evidence in supposing the existence of a Judaizing faction, as is Bertholdt in imagining that the apostle condemns certain false doctrines which sprang from Sadducean influence. As if they had still been safe and uncontaminated, they are commanded so to stand in the Lord as to form a contrast to those whose end is destruction, and their fellowship for the gospel had been uninterrupted. Against the errors and tendencies incidental to their situation, or which might be originated by their history, experience, and temperament, their sagacious monitor frankly warns them. For the stream, if it receive tributaries which have flowed through a muddy soil, is in danger of being discoloured.
V.—PLACE AND TIME AT WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN.
The general opinion has been, that the epistle was written at Rome. (Eder! proposed Corinth; Paulus and Béttger? fix on Cesarea; and Rilliet thinks this theory plausible. The probabilities are all against Czesarea. The phrase oixia Kaioapos could not surely be applied to Herod’s family. The dwelling of Herod at Cesarea is indeed called mwpastwpzop, for the word had a secondary or general significance; and it is used of the dwelling of the Procurator in Jerusalem. See under i. 13. When he was in custody at Cesarea, Paul, as a Roman citizen, could at any time appeal to Cesar against any sentence passed upon him, and his condition could not there- fore have that uncertainty about it which he speaks of in 1, 23, 24, 25. There he could ward off martyrdom at least for a period. All the allusions are best explained by the supposition, that the apostle wrote the epistle in Rome—his bonds being made known in the barracks of the imperial life- guards—his enemies filled with spite, and his life in danger— and the gospel achieving such signal triumphs as warranted him to send salutations to Philippi from Czsar’s household.
The tone of the epistle in reference to himself, seems to
1 De tempore scripte prioris ad Ttmotheum atque ad Philippenses epistole Pauline Progr.; Jene, 1799. See, on the other hand, Credner, Hinleitung, p. 425; Wolf's Prolegomena ; and Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus, etc., p. 680,
2 Beitrdge, etc., i. 47.
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. XXXV
place it later than those written by him to Ephesus and Colosse. Dangers were thickening around him, sorrows were pressing upon him, and the future was wrapt in dark uncer- tainty. The period must have been later than the two years with which the book of the Acts closes—the period when he was at liberty to preach and to teach, “with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” Still more, Epaphroditus had brought him money, and tarried so long as allowed the Philippians time to hear that their messenger had been sick; nay, the apostle had heard that they had received such intelligence. Some considerable time therefore must have elapsed. He does not now ask their prayers for “utterance,” as when he wrote to the Ephesians. Eph. vi. 19. Burrus, the prefect of the pretorian guards—the orparomedapyns—to whose care Paul as a prisoner was entrusted, was a man of a benignant spirit, and under him the two years of comparative freedom may have been enjoyed. But Burrus died or was poisoned! in 62; and the government of Nero rapidly degenerated. The power of Seneca over the emperor was destroyed by the death of Burrus, and he sank into undisguised infamy.” He married a Jewish proselytess, and she might listen to the apostle’s Jewish antagonists. These changes wrought a correspondent alteration in the apostle’s circumstances. His liberty was abridged ; he was lodged in the pretorium, and a violent death seemed to be at hand. Such was his condition, when in the summer or autumn of 63, or in the beginning of 64, he composed the Epistle to the Philippians. Wieseler places it in 62 (Chronologie des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 458); and Davidson agrees with him. Lardner had adopted the same chronology. Works, vol. vi. p. 74; ed. London, 1834.
VL—CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. Address and Salutation.
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops
’ Incertum valetudine an veneno. Tacitus, Annal, xiv. 51.
2 Tacitus, Annal. xiv. 52. Mors Burri infregit Senece potentiam, quia nec bonis artibus idem virtum erat, altero velut duce amot>, et Nero ad deteriores inclinabat. .
XXXVl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
and deacons, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Proof of his Attachment.
I thank my God on my whole remembrance of you, always in every supplication of mine, making, with joy, supplication for you all, on account of your fellowship for (in favour of) the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun in you a good work, will perform it until the day of Christ Jesus, even as it is right in me to think this on behalf of you all, because I have you in my heart, both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel—you, all of you, as being fellow- partakers with me of grace. For God is my witness, how I do long for you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus; and this I pray, that your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and in all judgment, so that ye may distinguish things that differ, in order that ye may be pure and offenceless ‘anent the day of Christ—being filled with the fruit of righteousness, which is by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
History of the Writer's own Condition, and rts Results.
But I wish you to know, brethren, that things with me have resulted to the furtherance of the gospel, so that my bonds have become known in Christ in the whole pretorium, and to all the rest ; and the greater part of the brethren putting in the Lord confidence in my bonds are more abundantly bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed, even for envy and contention, but some also for goodwill, preach Christ,— the one party indeed, of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; but the other party proclaim Christ out — of faction, not purely, thinking to stir up affliction to my bonds. What then? Notwithstanding, in every way, whether in pre- tence or in sincerity Christ is proclaimed, even in this I do rejoice, yea and I shall rejoice. For I know that this shall fall out for salvation to me, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ; according to my firm expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. XXxvVil
with all boldness, as always, so also now Christ shall be mag- nified in my body, whether by life or by death: for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if to live in the flesh, if this to me be fruit of labour, then what I shall choose I wot not ; yea, [am put into a strait on account of the two, inasmuch as I have the desire for departing to be with Christ, for it is much by far better, but to abide in the flesh is more necessary on your account. And being persuaded of this I know that I shall abide and remain with you all for the advancement and joy of your faith, that your boasting may abound in Jesus Christ in me, on account of my coming again to you.
General Admonttion in the Circumstances.
Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel of Christ, in order that whether having come and seen you, or whether being absent I may hear of your affairs, that ye are standing in one spirit, with one soul striving together for the faith of the gospel, and in nothing terrified by the adversaries— the which is to them a token of perdition, but to you of salva- tion, and that from God. For to you was it granted, on behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also on behalf of Him to suffer; as you have the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear of in me.
Special Injunctions.
If, then, there be any exhortation in Christ, if any comfort’ of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mer- cies, fulfil ye my joy, to the end that ye mind the same thing, having the same love, with union of soul minding the one thing—minding nothing in the spirit of faction nor in the spirit of vainglory, but in humility, counting others better than themselves—looking each of you not to your own things, but each of you also to the things of others.
This last Injunction illustrated and enforced by the Example of Christ. For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus ;
1 Ellicott in his version omits to translate wapapidser, [Correct in Second Edition. ]
XXXVill THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
who, being in the form of God, reckoned not the being on a parity with God a prize to be snatched at, but emptied Him- self, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men, and having been found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death—yea, unto the death of the cross. Wherefore God also did highly exalt Him, and gave Him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow——of them in heaven, of them on earth, and of them under the earth—and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Inferential Counsels to guide them, and secure the Apostle’s own Reward.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, carry out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for God it is who worketh in you both to will and to work, of His own good pleasure. All things do without murmurings and doubts, that ye may be blameless and pure; children of God beyond reach of blame, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye appear as luminaries in the world; holding forth the word of life for rejoicing to me against the day of Christ, that I did not run in vain nor yet labour in vain. But, if I am even being poured out on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and give joy to you all; yea, for the very same reason do ye also joy and give joy to me.
Personal Matters,
But I hope in the Lord Jesus shortly to send Timothy to you, that I also may be of good spirit when I have known your affairs; for I have no one like-minded who will really care for your affairs, for the whole of them seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ. But his tried character ye know, that as a child a father, he served with me for the gospel. Him, then, I hope to send immediately, whenever I shall have seen how it will go with me; but I trust in the Lord that I myself also shall shortly come. Yet I judged it necessary to send Epaphroditus on to you, my brother
PERSONAL MATTERS. XXX1X
and fellow-labourer, and fellow-soldier, but your deputy and minister to my need, forasmuch as he was longing after you all, and was in heaviness, because ye heard that he was sick; for he really was sick, nigh unto death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him alone, but on me also, that I should not have sorrow upon sorrow. The more speedily, therefore, have I sent him, in order that having seen him ye may rejoice again, and that I too may be the less sorrowful. On that account receive him in the Lord with all joy, and hold such in honour, because for the work of Christ he came near even to death, having hazarded his life that he might supply your deficiency in your service towards me. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord.
Warning against Judaists.
To write to you the same things to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Look to the dogs, look to the evil-workers, look to the concision. For we are the circum- cision, who by the Spirit of God do serve and make our boast in Christ Jesus, and have no trust in the flesh—though I am in possession too of trust in the flesh.
The Apostle’s Spiritual History and Experience.
If any other man thinketh that he has confidence in the flesh, I more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal persecuting the church, as to the righteousness which is in the law being blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, these for Christ’s sake I have reckoned loss; yea, indeed, for that reason I also (still) reckon them all to be loss, on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I suffered the loss of them all, and do account them to be but refuse, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ—the righteousness which is of God upon faith; so that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, while I am being made conformable to His death, if anyhow I may
xl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
arrive at the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained, either have already been perfected ; but I am pressing on, if indeed I may seize that for which also I was seized by Christ. Brethren, I do not reckon myself to have seized; but one thing I do—forgetting indeed the things behind, but stretching forth to the things before, towards the mark I am pressing on for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let as many of us then as be perfect think this, and if in any respect ye think otherwise,’ yea this shall God reveal to you. Howbeit whereto we have reached,’ by the same do ye walk on.
Other Warnings.
Be together followers of me, brethren, and observe them who are walking in such a way as ye have us for an example: for many walk, of whom many times I told you, but now tell you even weeping, that they are those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—persons they, who are minding earthly things. For our country is in heaven, out of which we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall transform the body of our humiliation, so that it be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working of His power even to subdue all things to Him- self. Wherefore, my brethren, beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand in the Lord, beloved.
Minuter Counsels to Members of the Church.
Euodia I exhort, and Syntyche I exhort, to be of one mind in the Lord; yea, I ask thee too, true yoke-fellow, assist these | women, for they laboured hard with me in the gospel, along with Clement, too, and my other fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life. Rejoice in the Lord always; again
, Bishop Horsley, in his twenty-seventh sermon, renders the clause thus— ‘* And if in any thing you be variously minded, God shall reveal even this to you—that is, the thing concerning which you have various minds.”
2 The three verbs—zerarriew, iAraBor, ipédéeapsy, are rendered by the one English verb ‘‘attain ’—‘‘ attained,” both in the Authorized Version and in that of Ellicott. The Greek words present the same idea under different images, but the difference might be marked in the translation.
‘
WARNINGS AND COUNSELS. xhi
will I say, rejoice. Let your forbearance be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known before God; and so the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true; whatsoever things are seemly ; whatsoever things are right; whatsoever things are pure; whatsoever things are lovely; whatsoever things are of good report; whatever virtue there is, and whatever praise there is, these things think upon; the things which also ye learned and received, and heard and saw in me, these things do. And the God of peace shall be with you.
Business,
But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye flourished again in mindfulness for my interest, for which indeed ye were mindful, but ye lacked opportunity. Not that I speak on account of want, for I have learned, in the circumstances in which I am, to be content. I know also to be abased, I know. also to abound; in everything and in all things, I have been instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want. I can do all things in Him strengthening me. Howbeit ye did well in that ye had fellowship with my affliction. But you, Philip- pians, are yourselves also aware, that in the introduction of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church com- municated with me to account of gift and receipt but you only ; for even in Thessalonica, both once and a second time, ye sent to me for my necessity. Not that I seek for the gift, but I seek for the fruit which does abound to your account. But I have all things and I abound ; I have been filled, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you—an odour of a sweet smell—a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. Now to God and our Father be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Conclusion. Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. There salute you the
xi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE.
brethren who are with me: there salute you all the saints, chiefly they who are of Czxsar’s household. @he grace of the Lord Jesus be with pour Spirit.
VII.——-COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE,
We need scarcely mention the commentaries of the Greek Fathers—Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, with others found in the Catena, or those of the Latin Pelagius and Ambrosiaster, or those of Erasmus, Calvin, Zuingli, Bucer, Beza, Hunnius, Grotius, Schmidius, Crocius, Zanchius, Piscator, Aretius, etc. There are the Romish Estius, a-Lapide, and Justiniani; and there are also the Protestant Clericus, Calovius, Calixtus, Vorstius, Schotanus, Balduin, Tarnovius, Musculus, Hyperius, Wolf, van Til, Jaspis, Kiittner, Heumann, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Hammond, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Whitby, Pierce, Macknight, Heinrichs, and Schrader. Every one knows the New Testaments of Bloomfield and Alford, and the quartos of Conybeare and Howson, Of more special expositions on the epistle, we have Velasquez—ZIn Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses, Commentari ; Antverpie, 2 vols. folio, 1637. Breithaupt—Animadversiones exeget, et dogmat. pract. in Epistolam ad Philippenses; Hale, 1703. Am Ende—Pauli Ap. ad Philipp., Epistola ex recen- sione Griesbach.—nova versione Latina et annotatione perpetua ilustrata ; Witteberge, 1798. J. F. Krause—Observat. crit. exeget.in Pauli Epistolam ad Philippenses, cap. i. i1.; Regiomont. 1810. F. A. W. Krause—Dvee Briefe an die Philipper und Thessalonicher ; Frankfurt am Main, 1790. Rheinwald— Commentar iiber den Brief Pault an die Philipper ; Berlin, 1827. Matthies— Zrkliérung des Briefes Pauli an die Philipper ; Greifswald, 1835. Van Hengel—Commentarius Perpetuus in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses; Lugduni Batavorum et Amstelodami, 1838. Hoelemann—Commen- tarius in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses ; Lipsize, 1839. Rilliet — Commentaire sur UEpttre de UVApttre Paul aus Philippiens ; Genéve, 1841. Miiller—Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistole Pauli ad Philippenses ; Hamburgi, 1843. De Wette—Kuree Erklérung der Briefe an die Colosser, an Philemon, an die Epheser und Philipper; Leipzig, 1843.
COMMENTATORS, xliii
Meyer—Xritisch exegetisches Handbuch iiber den Brief an die Philipper ; Gottingen, 1847. Baumgarten-Crusius—Com- mentar iiber die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper und Thessalonc- cher; Jena, 1848. Peile—Annotations on the Apostolical Epistles, vol. 1i1.; London, 1849. Wiesinger— Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus, und Philemon; Konigsberg, 1850. Beelen, Commentarius in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Philippenses; ed. secunda, Lovanii, 1852. Bisping — £rkldrung der Briefes an dre LEpheser, Philipper, Kolosser, und des ersten Briefes an die Thessaloni- cher ; Miinster, 1855. Ellicott—A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon, with a Revised Translation ; London, 1857. Ewald—Die Sendschrerben des Apostels Paulus wbersetzt und erkldért ; Gottingen, 1857. We need scarcely allude to more popular treatises, such as Daillé—Sermons sur [Epttre auc Philippiens ; 1644-47. De Launay—Paraph. et Expos. sur les Epttres de St. Paul; Charenton, 1650. Passavant— Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung des Briefes Pault an die Philipper ; Basel, 1834. Kahler—Auslegung der Epistel Pault an dee Philipper in 25 Predigten ; Kiel, 1855. Florey—Buibelstunden tiber den Brief St. Pauli an die Philipper; Leipzig, 1857. There are similar works in English, of very unequal merit, such as Airay, 1618; Acaster, 1827; Baynes, 1834; Neat, 1841 ; Hall, 1843; Toller, 1855.
NOTE.
In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthic, Kiihner, Winer, Stuart, Green, Jelf, Madvig, Scheuerlein, and Kriiger are simply quoted, the reference is to their respective Greek grammars; and when Suidas, Suicer, Passow, Robinson, Pape, Wilke, Wahl, Bretschneider, and Liddell and Scott are named, the reference is to their respective lexicons. If Hartung be found without any addition, we mean his Lehre von den Parttkeln der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols. Erlangen, 1832 ; and the mention of Bernhardy without any supplement, repre- sents his Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache ; Berlin, 1829. The majority of the other names are those of the commentators or philologists enumerated in the previous chapter. The references to Tischendorf’s New Testament are to the second edition.
COMMENTARY ON THE PHILIPPIANS.
CHAPTER I.
AFFER the usual address and salutation, the apostle, turning at once to the close and confidential relations subsisting between him and the Philippian church, tells them that his entire reminiscence of them gave him unmixed satisfaction, and led him to thank God for them; that in this cheerful state of mind he prayed always in all his prayers for all of them; that his special ground of thanksgiving was their FELLOWSHIP FOR THE GOSPEL, which had existed among them from the period of their conversion to the present moment, and which, he was persuaded, God would perpetuate and mature among them. Then he intimates that this favourable opinion of them was no notion loosely taken up by him, but one well warranted, since he loved them dearly as joint par- takers of grace with himself. That Christian affection was no idle emotion, for it found expression in constant and joyous prayer. And that prayer which he had mentioned in the fourth verse as his uniform practice, had this for its theme, that their love might grow, and be furnished with a fuller knowledge and a truer spiritual discrimination, so that a higher state of moral excellence might be attained by them, along with a life of ampler fruits—to the glory and praise of God.
(Ver. 1.) Ilaiados nat Tipodeos, Soiro. Xpicrod ’Inoos— “ Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus.” The received text reads "Inood Xpictov, but B, D, E., etc., declare for the reverse order of the names. For some remarks on Timothy and the association of his name with that of the apostle, see under Col. i. 1. There, indeed, Paul calls himself an apostle, but here both are simply and equally designated S0%\0:—the
2 _PHILIPPIANS I. 1.
following genitive being that of possession, and the epithet itself being one of close relationship as well as labour. 1 Cor. vil. 22. There is no sure ground for the conjecture of Rulliet, that Timothy is mentioned because probably he wrote the letter from Paul’s dictation. As little foundation is there for the opinion of Miiller, taken from Huther, that the addition by Paul of another name to his own was intended to show that the letter was written per muneris officium et publice, for the epistle is without any traces of such a purpose; and there is no great likelihood in the notion of Van Hengel, that the apostle placed Timothy on a level with himself, because as he was so soon to despatch him to Philippi, he wished him to appear invested with all his own great authority. Timothy is associated with Paul as one who was well known to this church, who had been with him on his first visit, who after- wards was sent by him to labour in Macedonia, and who cherished a fervent regard for the welfare of the Philippian saints. Acts xvi. 1, 10, xix. 22; Phil. it 19, 20.
Paul does not here style himself an apostle as is his wont, either because his apostolical prerogative had not been called in question among them, or because their intimacy with him was 80 close, that he felt that his office was ever in their thoughts of him and their care for him, associated with his person. That it is rash to make decided inferences from the style of the apostle’s address, is evident from the fact, that five different forms are employed by him. 1. He names himself alone and formally as an apostle—Rom. i. 1; 1 Cor. i. 1; Gali. 1; Eph. i. 1; and, as might be expected, in the pastoral epistles. 2. He associates another name with his own, but still marks out his own apostleship, as “ Paul an apostle, and Timothy our brother ”—2 Cor. i.1; Col. i. 1. 3. He joins others to himself without giving any distinctive epithet either to himself or them; as, “ Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,” in both Epistles to the Thessalonians. 4. In the letter to Philemon he calls himself a prisoner, and subjoins Timothy as a brother. 5. In this epistle he adds Timothy, but unites both under the simple and comprehensive term SodAor. The corresponding epithet in Hebrew had already been consecrated, Num. xii. 7; Josh. i. 2, ix. 24; 1 Chron. vi. 49; and SodAos occurs in the Septuagint, Neh. x. 29.
PHILIPPIANS I. 1. 3
In its Oriental form it passed away from its more distinctive meaning, and was incorporated into proper names, as in Abdallah, Abednego, etc.
maow Tots ayios év Xpiot@ 'Incod, rots ovow év Pidit- mol, ovv émisxotros Kal Scaxovors—to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” Consult our note on dys, Eph.i.1. The pre- position é€y points out the source and sustentation of this dytorns—union with Christ Jesus. As Theophylact says, those who are in Christ Jesus are dytou dvtrws. In the fulness of his heart, the apostle writes to ALL the saints, not, as van Hengel supposes, that he wished to show that he made no distinction in his regard between those who had, and those who had not, sent him a pecuniary gift. There would be probability in the notion of De Wette, that the apostle for- mally embraced them all, to intimate his elevation above their parties and conflicts, if the term did not occur again and again in the epistle, as the expression of the writer’s earnest and universal affection—i 4, 7, 8, 25, ii 17, 26, iv. 23. The city of Philippi, and the entrance of the gospel to it, have been spoken of in the Introduction.
The apostle adds, ov émixomos xat Suaxovos. The preposition avy intimates close connection—Cohaerenz, as Kriiger calls it, and so far differs from perd, which indicates mere co-existence, Kriiger, § 68,13. The reading cuvem- oxotrots, followed by Chrysostom, and found in B’, D*, and C, must be at once rejected. Following it, the Greek Father understands the epistle to be addressed to the clergy—7@ KAnp@, the compound noun being taken as if in apposition with dyiows. But why should bishops and deacons be so unwontedly singled out ? Chrysostom answers, Because they had sent the pecuniary gift through Epaphroditus to the apostle. Others more generally, as Meyer, that they had been instrumental in collecting the sums for which he thanks them in the conclusion of the epistle. Heinrichs opines that the mention of office-bearers was only mero casu ; Miiller and Rilliet, that the phrase merely describes or represents a pro- perly organized church. The opinion of Wiesinger is at least as probable, that the real reason is to be found in the circum- stances of the church, and that there was a tendeney to undue
4 PHILIPPIANS I. 2.
assumption on the part of some individuals, which needed such an effective check as was implied in the special acknow- ledgment of those who bore office in it. The official term émiaxorros, of Greek origin, is in the diction of the New Testament the same as mpeoSvrepos, of Jewish usage—the name expressive of gravity and honour; Ssd«ovos being the correlate found in connection with the former, and vewrTepos or veavioxos standing in a similar relation to the latter— Acts xx. 17, 28; 1 Pet. v. 1, 5; Tit.i5, 7. The Syriac
renders the term here by Jaz20 —elders. The origin
of the special office of deacon is given in Acts vii—the end of the institution being Scaxovety tparéfais, or to exercise a supervision, él tis ypelas tavrns. The epithet Staxovos is not, as Chrysostom seems to suppose, a second name for the bishop; for he says «at Sidxovos o émrloxomos érxéyero. A bishop might indeed be a “server,” as Paul was a servant; but the word, as is plain from other portions of the New Testament, describes a distinct class of office-bearers. The mention of évioxo7vro: in the plural, and the naming of both classes of office-bearers after the general body of members, indicate a state of things which did not exist in the second century.—See Canon Stanley’s Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, p. 67, and compare Neander, Vitringa, Bingham, Rothe, Baur, and other authors on the general subject. Hammond, in order to vindicate the form of modern Episcopacy, maintains that the bishops were those of a dis- trict of which Philippi was a metropolitan centre, but the language warrants no such inference. Chrysostom has asked, “Were there several bishops in one city? Certainly not; but he thus called the presbyters,’"—dAAa Tovs mpeaButépous ovtws éxddeoe. The placing of the office-bearers after the church seems to have scandalized Thomas Aquinas, but he saves his hierarchical convictions by suggesting—apostolum servasse ordinem nature, quo grex solet precedere suum pastorem; hine in processtonibus, populus procedit, clerus et prelatt sequuntur.
(Ver. 2.) Xdpis tyiv nal eipnyn aro Ocod Tlarpés nyayv, xat Kuplov ’Incot Xpictrod —“Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
PHILIPPIANS L & 5
See at length on the terms of the salutation under Eph. i, 2.
(Ver. 3.) Evyapiora re Oe@ pov érl wrdaon TH pveia bpov —*“TI thank my God on the whole remembrance of you.” How different this evyapiord +H Oe@ pov from the abrupt Gauvpdfo Ste of Gal. i 6 '—satisfaction expressed in the one, and surprise and sorrow in the other. The noun pyvela is rendered “mention” in the margin of the English Bible, and the rendering is adopted by van Hengel. The idea of mention is indeed based on that of remembrance; for it is that kind of mention which memory so naturally prompts and fashions, and may therefore be expressed by roceitoOae pvelay, as in Rom. i. 9; Eph. i 16. But such a verb is not employed here, and “remembrance” is the better rendering. The preposition éwf marks the ground, or occasion, of the apostle’s gratitude. Winer, however, gives it a temporal signification, § 48. The phrase, évi mrdcy rH pvelg, is not to be translated “on every remembrance,” though such an inter- pretation be as old as Chrysostom—oodais tpav avapyncba. Beelen and Conybeare follow this rendering of the Authorized Version; but the article forbids it. Winer, § 18,4.) The meaning is not, “as often as I remember you, I thank my God,” but “on my whole remembrance of you, I thank my God.” There was no disturbing element, no sharp or sudden recollection, which suggested any other exercise than thanks- giving. His entrance to the city, the oratory by the river-side, Lydia’s baptism, and the jailor’s conversion — his entire connection with them filled his memory with delight. The incidents of his second visit are not recorded; but his whole association with the Philippian church prompted him to devout acknowledgment. He has changed at once in this verse to the first person, for, though Timothy’s name occurs in the salutation, the epistle is in no sense a joint production. Few will agree with Pierce, Homberg, and others, that tuay is subjective, and that the meaning is, “I thank my God for your whole remembrance of me.” For the grounds
1 This inexact rendering is also adopted by Ellicott in his version [upon all my remembrance in Second Edition], but the older English versions are correct. Thus Wycliffe—‘ I do thankingis to my God in al mynde of you ;” and Tyndale —‘*] thank my God with all remembrance of you.”
D
6 PHILIPPIANS I. 4.
of his thanksgiving, as subsequently stated, determine the
reference.
(Ver. 4.) ITavrote év macy Senoes pov trép mdavrav buov peta yapas rHv Sénow Trovovpevos— Always in every suppli- cation of mine making supplication for you all with joy.” It does not affect the sense whether izrép wdvray duov, standing in the middle of the verse, be joined to the words before it— Sejoet pov, as in the English Version, or to those after it, r7v Sénow trovovpevos. The latter construction cannot be pleaded for from the absence of the article before drép mavtwr, Winer, § 20, 2. The second Sénoxs with its article, refers to the previous Sénors, but the first term needs not be limited or defined by vrép wavtwv. The participial connection with the previous verse is common in the apostle’s style. Many, such as Theophylact, Bengel, and Rilliet, join a portion of this verse to the preceding—“I thank my God on the whole remembrance of you always in every prayer of mine for you all.” The verse so understood details the periods, or scenes, when the memory of the apostle excited him to thanks; but such a connection is not necessary. Hoelemann connects evyaptoT® with imép mavrwv tpov. “I thank my God on account of you all;” but such a connection is unnatural, destroys the point, and encumbers the order of the thought. The apostle says, in the third verse, that his whole remem- brance of them prompted him to thanksgiving; and in the verse before us, he tells them that he prayed—déyow zrovov- pevos; that they were included in every prayer of his—éy mwaoy Senoe; that he prayed not for a fraction of them, but for the -whole of them—7dyrwyv; that he did this, not periodically, but always—rravrore ; that this supplication had the companionship of a gladdened heart—wpera yapds; and that this gladness of heart in prayer based itself—éml adoy TH pveia tov. The recurrence of the terms wdoy, mayvtore, mwaon, wavtwy in these two verses, shows the exuberant feeling of the writer. “To make request with joy,” is not, as Baumgarten-Crusius says, a mere circumlocution for thanks- giving; but it implies that the suppliant thanks while he asks, and blesses as he petitions. The apostle might pray for others in anguish or doubt; but he knew so much of the Philippian church, of its faith, its consistency, and its attach-
. BoE ad -_ ow ” Seve re ba Sl -
“eT
PHILIPPIANS I. &. 7
ment to the truth and to himself, that when he prayed for it so uniformly, no suspicions clouded his soul. What higher rapture could an apostle feel than that occasioned by the memory of his successes, and their gracious and permanent results? No heart was more susceptible of this joy than the apostle’s, and none felt more keenly the pang of dis- appointment and sorrow, when either truth was forsaken or. adulterated, or love was supplanted by envying and strife. (Ver. 5.) "Em 1H Kxowovia tov eis To edaryédsoy amo TpoTns huépas aypt tod vov—"On account of your fellow- ship in favour of the gospel, from the first day even until now. The apostle in these words expresses the grounds of his evyaptoto. Calvin, Grotius, De Wette, van Hengel, and Ewald connect the verse with the preceding one, as if it gave the ground of the wera yapas. The statement is true so far, for the joy which accompanied the apostle’s prayer sprang from the very same source as his thanksgiving. The thanks- giving was based on memory, and the joy on present know- ledge; but still both alike pointed especially to this cowwyvia. The recollection prompted thanksgiving, for the fellowship had commenced at an early period; and when he made supplication, he pleaded with gladness, for that fellowship had remained unbroken from its origin to the present time, so that évi 79 xowevia is primarily connected with evyapicra, and has, at the same time, a subordinate relation to pera xapas. It is true that evyapsorm is followed twice by ez; but it does not result, as De Wette maintains, that the prepo- sition has two different significations. The connection in both cases is nearly the same. I thank my God on account of, emt, “my whole remembrance of you,” and then a parallel and explanatory clause intervening—the special element in that remembrance which excited thanksgiving, is brought out by the same particle, éri 19 xowovla tpov. We cannot agree with Ellicott’s remarks on the alleged double sense of émré, that verse 4 marks the object on which the thanksgiving rests, verse 5 when it takes place, and verse 6 why it takes place ;? for it is the third verse which, looking to the past, points out the ground or occasion of the thanksgiving—his whole remembrance ; while verse 4 shows how it expressed 1 [These numbers seem to be misprints in Ellicott for 3, 4, 5.]
8 - PHILIPPIANS I. 8.
itself in prayer, verse 5 gives more ‘fully its solid foundation, as Mr. Ellicott had already said, and verse 6, glancing into the future, shows how the feeling was intensified by the apostle’s persuasion about them.
But what is the meaning of the unusual phrase—xowovla eis TO Evaryryédtov 2
1. It is plain that whatever xo.vwvia means, the phrase eds TO evaryyédoy cannot be taken as a genitive, as if the mean- ing were “on account of your participation of the gospel.” This is one view of Calvin, and the opinion of Estius, Flatt, and Heinrichs, following the interpretation of Theodoret, xoweviav 5é Tod evarryédvoy THY Trlotw éxarece.
2. Some would restrict the fellowship to intercourse or community of interest with the apostle, and that in either of two aspects. The lower view is that of Bisping and others, who take the term as referring principally to giving and re- ceiving—the pecuniary symbols of affection. The higher view is that of Chrysostom and Theophylact, who understand the word as including sympathy with the apostle in his labours and sufferings; the latter thus explaining it—érzu Kowwwvot pou yiverOe Kat ouppepictal tay él Te evaryyerio movev. Both these views may be implied; but still they are only two indications or fruits of fellowship.
3. Nor can we wholly coincide in the opinion of Meyer, Miller, and Alford, that «xowavia means “ entire accord, unanimous action ;” or as Rilliet has it,‘ bon accord.” First, it is plain that there was a tendency in the Philippian church to faction, disunion, and jealousy. The prayer, in verse 9, that their love might abound yet more and more, is referred to by Meyer as a proof that love existed; but still such a prayer is a token that love was deficient. The pointed ex- hortation in i, 27, “to stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together;” the injunction in il 2, to “be like- minded, of one accord, of one mind;” the call to lowliness, and the caution against vainglory in ii 3, 4, 5,6, 7; the command to “do all things without murmuring,” in ii. 14; the similar lesson in iii. 16, 17; and the personal request to two women to be “of the same mind,” iv. 2 ;—all betoken that the apostle more than suspected tendencies to alienation and feud; and his joy must have been modified by the
=
PHILIPPIANS I. 5. 9
lamented imperfection of that very grace which Meyer supposes him to select and eulogize as its principal source.
4, The noun xowwvia, with its cognate verb and adjective, which have been variously rendered by our translators, has, for its generic idea, that of common participation. That par- ticipation may be a palpable copartnery, Luke v. 10; 1 Cor. x. 18; 2 Cor. viii. 23; 1 Tim. v. 22; Heb. ii. 14, x. 33. Or it may be participation in pecuniary generosity, Rom. xii. 13, xv. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13; Gal. vi.6; Philiv. 15; 1 Tim. vi. 18; Heb. xiii. 16. In five of these passages, Rom. xu. 13, xv. 26, 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13, Heb. xiii. 16, the reference is to eleemosynary contribution, and some of them may bear an active sense. But there is also a special evangelical fellow- ship, which is often named, as in Rom. xv. 27,1 Cor. i. 9, 1 John i. 3; and that fellowship is characterized as being of the spirit, 2 Cor. xiii, 14, Phil. ii. 1, or as being with the Son of God generally, 1 Cor. i. 9,1 John i. 3, 6, and with His sufferings especially, Phil. iii. 10, 1 Pet. iv. 13. The noun is followed by the genitive of the thing participated in, or with e¢s, denoting its object. Winer, § 49, a. We there- fore take xowwyvia in a general sense, and the following clause so closely connected with it, through the non-repetition of the article, as assigning its end or purpose. Winer,§ 20,2. Thus understood, it denotes participation, or community of interest, in whatever had the gospel for its object. All that belonged to the defence and propagation of the gospel was a matter of common concern to them—of sympathy and co-operation. The pecuniary contributions sent to the apostle and acknowledged in this epistle, are, of necessity, included. Such generally is the view of Wiesinger, Schinz, van Hengel, Hoelemann, and Ellicott, and in it on the whole we concur. For in the seventh verse the apostle seems more fully to explain his meaning, when he calls the Philippians cuyxotvmyots pov, as if in reference to the xowwvia of the verse before us. Now the relation of that fellowship for the gospel is there described as being “in its defence and confirmation.” Viewed as a Christian community, they had exhibited a fellowship in reference to the gospel—xowwvia eis T6 evaryryédvov—and the apostle thanked God for it. Immediately, as he dwells on the same idea, that fellowship takes a more personal aspect,
10 PHILIPPIANS I. 6.
inasmuch as it included himself in its circle—ouvyxowwvous pov—and its purpose, as he refers to his own work, assumes a more definite form, év rH atrodoyia nal BeBatwoe Tod evay- yediov.!
This fellowship had continued without interruption—
amd Tparns hupas dypt Tod viv, “from the first day until now.” It had not been like an intermittent spring, but like a fountain of perpetual outflow. The clause is thus connected with xotywyia, and marks its unbroken duration. Some, like Beza and Bengel, connect it with evyapicor®—a connection which would be tautological, for the idea is expressed already; and others, as Meyer, Rilliet, and Lachmann join it to the following participle, vrerro:Ows. This is also erroneous. It needs not that 77 be repeated before amo mpwrns any more than before ets To evayyéduov. The apostle’s purpose is to point out the ground of his thanksgiving, and to give it prominence. Remembrance excited his gratitude, but the past merged into the present, and memory and consciousness coalesced, because the fellowship was not simply a thing of days gone by, for it had lasted from its first manifestation to that very moment; nay, its existence was proved and illustrated by the delegation of Epaphroditus to Rome. The development of the apostle’s thought necessitates the connection of this clause with xowwvia, as a “subordinate temporal definition ;” and it also starts the idea which is followed out in the subsequent verse.
(Ver. 6.) Tewowes airo toidto, dts o évapEdpevos ev tpiy Epyov ayabdr, éruredécer dypis nuépas’Inood Xpiorod—“ Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun in you a good work, will perform it until the day of Christ Jesus.” The apostle usually places zrevrotOws at the beginning of the sentence, i. 25, i, 24, Philem. 21, 2 Cor. ii. 3, and uses other parts of the verb in a similar way. Gal. v. 10; Rom. li, 19; 2 Thess. ili. 4; Heb. xiii 18. The participle is parallel to zrovovpevos, and like it dependent on evyapioTo. He thanked and he prayed in this confidence, a confidence which at once deepened his gratitude, and gave wings of joy to his supplications. The participle may have a faint causal
1 Pierce and the Improved Version render the clause, ‘‘as being joint-contri- butors to the gift which I have received !”
PHILIPPIANS I. 6 11
force as Ellicott says, “seeing I am confident;” but the idea is only auxiliary to the main one expressed in the preceding verse. The emphatic phrase avrd rodro, “this very thing,” refers to what follows, which is the real accusative, and is introduced by @%a in Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8; by &rws in Rom. ix. 17; and here by dts. Winer, § 23, 5. The use of the demonstrative pronouns is not, as Madvig says, § 27, a, “to mark the contents and compass (der Inhalt und Umfang) of the action,” which is done by the clause beginning with dre —but rather to emphasize it—and show that in the writer's mind it has a peculiar unity and prominence, The reference in o évap£dpevos is to God, and is all the more impressive that He is not formally named. The participle, though it often takes the genitive, here governs the accusative. Kiihner, § 512, 5. We cannot lay any stress on the preposition dy, in composition with it, as may be shown by its use both in the classics and in the Septuagint. The words év ipiy are “in you,” not among you, for in the following verse the apostle records an individual judgment of them. By épyov ayaGov is not meant vaguely and generally a work of faith and love, as a-Lapide and Matthies suppose; but that special good work, that xocvwvia, which the apostle has just particu- Jarized. The article is not prefixed, but the reference is plain. That fellowship is a work divine in its source, and bears the stamp of its originator. He who began it will carry it on—émmvredécer, and that—dypis tyépas Xpiorod ‘Inco’. The position of these proper names is reversed in some codices. The expression is not to be frittered down into & mere perpetuo,as Am Ende does, nor can we agree with . Theophylact and C£cumenius, in supposing the apostle to include in the phrase, successive generations of those whom he addressed. The period of consummation specified by the apostle has been much disputed. The opinion is very common that the second: and personal advent of the Saviour is meant, . the apostle believing that it was to happen soon, and in his own day. Without passing a definite and dogmatic opinion on the subject, we may only say, that we cannot well compre- hend how an inspired man should have been permitted to teach a falsehood, not simply to give it as his own private judgment or belief, but to place it on record, authoritatively,
12 -PHILIPPIANS I. 6.
among the true sayings of God. The day of Christ is His return; but may it not be such a return as He promised to the Eleven at the Last Supper, “I will come again and receive you unto myself”? The apostle’s confidence that their united public spirit would continue, rested on his knowledge of God’s character and methods of operation. The good work originated by Him is not suffered to lapse, but is fostered and blessed till His end be accomplished. His own connection with the work, and its inherent goodness, pledge Him to the continua- tion of it. So wayward and feeble is the human heart, even when it binds itself by a stipulation, or fortifies itself by a vow, that had this fellowship depended on themselves, the apostle would have had no confidence in its duration. His sad experience had shown him that men might repeat follies even while they were weeping over them, and engage anew in sins, while they were in the act of abjuring them. On the other hand, and to his deep vexation, had he seen graces languish amidst professed anxiety for their revival, and good works all but disappear under the admitted necessity of their — continuance and enlargement.
Those who maintain the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, take proof from this verse, though certainly without un- disputed warrant, and it must be in the form of development ; for it refers to a particular action, and is not in itself a general statement of a principle; and those who oppose this tenet are as anxious to escape from the alleged inference. The Fathers of the Council of Trent qualify the statement by the addition, nist ipst homines illius gratie defuerint. Beelen, professor of the Oriental Languages in the Catholic University of Louvain, gives the verse this turn or twist, conjfido fore ut Deus perficrat, hoc est, confido fore ut vos per. Dei gratiam perficiatis opus bonum quod cepistis. Such a perversion is not much better than Wakefield’s, who translates, “he among you who has begun a good work, will continue to do well till death.’ Nor, in fine, can we say with (icumenius, that the apostle ascribes the work to God, wa pn dpovdct péya, “lest they should be filled with too much pride.” He had a higher motive in giving utterance to the precious truth, that what is good in the church, has its root and life in God, that therefore He is to be thanked for it, as is most due, and that prayer is to
PHILIPPIANS I. 7. 13
be offered joyously about it, in the assurance that He who began it will not capriciously desert it, but will carry it forward to maturity. It is edvyapsora—dénow rorovpevos— metrovOas. The apostle now proceeds to vindicate the assertion which he had made.
(Ver. 7.) Kaas dors Sixasov éyol rovro dpovety imép may- tov vyov—“ Even as it is right for me to think this on behalf of you all” The form xaGes, from «aa, cao, belongs to the later Greek (Phrynichus, Lobeck, p. 426), and is probably of Alexandrian origin. Matt. xxi. 6; Eph.i. 4; 1 Cor. i. 6. The verb is not “to care for,’ as Wolf contends, nor, a8 van Hengel thinks, is it to be confined to the prayer— “sine scrupulo interpretamur sicutt me decet hoc volis omnibus appetere ; scilicet, omni cura et precibus.” Inthe interpretation of Storr, followed by Hoelemann, the accusative rovro simply expresses manner—‘“ I give thanks to God, and offer prayer for all of you with joy, as indeed it becomes me thus to think concerning you.” But it refers to the good opinion already expressed in the previous verse—avro rodro. By the use of irép the apostle indicates that his opinion was favourable to them, and by Sé«avoy he characterizes that opinion as one which it behoved him in the circumstances to entertain. Col. iv.i; Eph. vi 1. The mode of expression in classic Greek would be different—dSixasos eyo eins, Herodotus, i. 32; and Sixasoy éorw éué, Herodotus, i. 39; Jelf, § 669, 677.
5: 76 Exew pe év tH xapdta bpyas— because I have you in my heart ”——the heart being the seat or organ of affection. 2 Cor. vii. 3. Am Ende, Oeder, Storr, and Rosenmiiller, reverse this interpretation—‘“ Because you have me in your heart.” The position of the pronouns may warrant such a translation ; but the apostle is writing of himself and of his relation to the church in Philipps The expression denotes strong affection—as in Latin, in sinu gestare, Terent. Adelph. iv. 5, 75; or, as in Ovid’s 7rist. v. 2, 24, Ze tamen in toto pectore semper habet. The apostle vindicates the favourable opinion he had formed of them from his love to them, as standing in a special relation towards him. Though this opinion sprang from his affection, it was still a mght one— éixavoyv—and not one formed merely secundum legem caritatis, as van Hengel and Ellicott suppose.
14 PHILIPPIANS I. 7.
The connection of the next clause is matter of dispute :-—
év te Tots Seopots prov, Kat év tH atrodoyia Kal BeBavices TOU evayyedov, cvyKolvwvods pov THS YdpiTos TWavTas opas dvras—*“ both in my bonds and in the defence and confirma- tion of the gospel, you all as being partakers with me of grace.” Chrysostom, Meyer, De Wette, and Alford join the first clause to the preceding one :—‘ Because I have you in my heart both in my bonds and in the defence and confirma- tion of the gospel.” The sense is tolerable; but it does not ‘harmonize with the course of thought. To say that he loves them in his bonds, and when he pleaded the cause of the gospel, is not assigning a reason why he thought so highly of them—-~re7rovfws—but to say that they were partakers of his grace both in his bonds and in his evangelical labours, and as such beloved by him, is a proof that he was justified in forming and expressing such a good opinion and anticipation of them. He had thanked God for the xowwvia eis 10 evay- yéAtov; and being assured that such a good work was divine in its origin, and would be carried on till the day of Christ, it became him to give utterance to this thought, on account of the affection he bore to them as participants with him of grace. .
The apostle calls them ouvyxowwvovs pov Ths yapiTos mrav- Tas vas ovras—“all of you as being fellow-partakers with me of grace.” The reading gaudit in the Vulgate, and some Latin fathers, comes from the reading yapas. The repetition of vpdas, though such a form is not used by the most correct writers (Bernhardy, 275), is‘ only pleonastic in appearance, but really emphatic in nature, and made necessary by the length of the intervening sentence and the use of mdvras. Matthiae, § 465, 4. The pronoun pov is most probably con- nected with the adjective ocuyxowwvovs, and not as by Rilliet with ydpros; so that the rendering will not be as Alford gives it—* partakers of my grace,” but rather “ partakers with me of grace.” Matthiae, § 325; § 405,1. The construction of two genitives of different relations with a noun does not often happen. Winer, § 30, 3. The yapes is certainly not, as Rilliet makes it, reconnaissance, “ acknowledgments ”—-and as certainly not the apostolic office,as Am Ende and Flatt take it—both explanations quite foreign to the order of
PHILIPPIANS I. 7. 15
thought. Nor can we understand the term simply and broadly of the grace of the gospel, as is done by Robinson, Hoelemann, Heinrichs, De Wette, and Alford. The previous clause limits the grace, or decides it to be that form of grace which is appropriate to imprisonment and evangelical labour. But we cannot, with Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Rheinwald, and Meyer, restrict it to suffering, as we hold that the ydpis refers equally to dzrodoyia with Seopois, for the fellowship, which is the leading idea, was not confined to suffering, but had existed from the first day to the present, and that entire period was not one of unbroken tribulation to the apostle. It is true that at that moment the apostle was in bonds, and in those bonds did defend and confirm the truth. But the idea seems to be that they had been co- partakers of his grace in evangelical labour, and that such participation with him did not cease, even though he was a prisoner in Rome. For he says :—
éy te tots Seopois pou—“ both in my bonds;” and he adds—
kai év TH atrodoyia nal BeBardcer Tod evaryyediov, “ and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel.” The use of te— xai, indicates that the two clauses contain separate ideas, and that the one preceded by xa’ has the stress laid on it. Har- tung, i 98; Klotz, Devarius, ii. 740; Winer, § 53,4. The genitive belongs to both substantives, which are not synony- mous as Rheinwald supposes, and do not form a hendiadys as Am Ende and Heinrichs regard them — dzodoyia eis BeBaiwowv. The words are distinct in sense; the first mean- ing a pleading or defence as before a tribunal, Acts xxii. 1, xxv. 16; or in a less authoritative mode, 1 Cor. ix. 3, 1 Pet. ui. 15. It is needless to restrict the meaning to such a formal defence as is recorded in 2 Tim. iv. 16. It was the apostle’s uniform work, on all times and occasions, to answer for the gospel against its adversaries, whether they impugned its doctrines or suspected its tendencies, libelled its preachers or called in question the facts and evidences on which it rested. But, as the non-repetition of the article shows, the defence and confirmation were closely connected, were but different aspects of one course of action. The first was more elementary, and the last more positive and advanced—the
16 PHILIPPIANS I. 8
first warded off objections, and the second might consist of proofs. The confirmation resulted from the defence. The gospel stood out in power and demonstration, when its oppon- ents were silenced, and the objections brought against it, no matter from what quarter, found to be groundless, That grace which had enabled the apostle to bear his chain, and to defend and confirm the gospel, was common to the Philip- pians with himself; therefore did he cherish them in his heart, and thank God for such fellowship, And he appends a further vindication of his sentiment.
(Ver. 8.) Mdprus yap pov o @cos—“ For God is my witness.” The Stephanic text adds éoriv, on the authority of A, D, E, J, K, and many mss. and versions, and we are inclined to receive it, though it be wanting in B, F,G. True, its inser- tion by a transcriber appears like a natural completion of the common formula, but the balance of evidence is in its favour. .The apostle appeals to the Searcher of hearts for the truth of his statements. It was not the language of courteous exaggera- tion, nor that intensity of phrase in which common friendship so often clothes itself, never dreaming that its words are to be literally interpreted. But the apostle wrote only the truth—his words were the coinage of his heart. Rom.i 9; | 1 Thess. i. 5. “God is my witness ”—
Os ériro0a mavtas tas év ordayyvous Xpiorov ’Inood— “how I long for you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus.” The order of the proper names is inverted in the received text. The particle ws may either introduce the fact of the apostle’s longing, or may indicate its intensity. It may be either “that,” or “how much.” The strong language of the verse may decide for the latter, against Rilliet and Miiller. The apostle wishes them to know not so much the fact as the earnestness of his longings. Chrysostom says beautifully— ov Tolvuy Suvaroy eitreiy Tas erriT0O@' ov yap Sivapat Tapac- Tioal T@ Aoyw Tov moOov. The verb is sometimes followed by an infinitive, as in Rom. i. 11, 2 Cor. v. 2; occasionally - by mpos; but here by the accusative of person, as in 2 Cor. ix. 14, Phil. ii. 26. He does not indicate any special blessing he craved for them; he longed after themselves. They were the objects of his warmest affection, and though he was absent from them, he yearned toward them—a proof surely
PHILIPPIANS I. & 17
that he had them in his heart. The simple form of the verb is not found in the New Testament, and this compound form represents more than one Hebrew word in the Septuagint. ’Evri, as in some other compound verbs, does not intensify the meaning, but rather indicates direction—wrdOov éyew émi Twa. Fritzsche, ad Rom. vol. i. p. 30, 31;+ Winer, § 30, 10, (). The verb is diluted in meaning, if it be regarded as signifying only to love; though in Ps. cxix. 131 it represents the Hebrew 38. And the mode is described by the following clause :— év omndayyvous X. ’I., “in the bowels of Christ Jesus.” For the usage of odayyva, see under Col. iii, 12. The strange peculiarity of this phrase has led not a few to weaken its force. We wonder that Storr should have taken up the opinion that owAayyva may mean objects of love, and éy be equivalent to tangquam—“I love you as being the objects of the love of Christ Jesus.” Such a rendering has not a shadow of support. At the other extreme is the view of Hoelemann, that the words mean, “as the Lord loves His own.” Nor is X. I. the genitive of object—“I love you with a heart glowing with love to Christ;” nor yet that of origin—‘“I love you with an affection originated by Christ.” Nor can we assent to Rilliet, who gives év the sense of “after the manner of,’— I love you after the model of Christ—+el étant; or, as van Hengel paraphrases, in animo penitus affecto, ut animus futt Christi Jesu; or, as Beza has it, tenert et materni affectis. We agree with Meyer, that éy retains its local sense, and that the apostle identifies himself with Christ, as in Gal. ii. 20, “Christ liveth in me.” The Christian nature of that longing he felt for them is expressed by this striking clause; for he had the heart of Christ within him, and under its impulses he fondly yearned over his Philippian converts. As Beelen, abridging Bengel, says, an pectore Pauli non tam ipsius quam 1 Fritzsche says that in the fourth dialogue of Lucian, the simple and com- pound verbs are used indiscriminately—promiscue ponuntur. We are inclined to demur to this statement. Ganymede says of his father—wels ya’ ddn abriv— and Jupiter afterwards tells him, that if he tasted nectar, he would never desire milk again—evs ie: webieus ci yeédw. But when Jupiter bids him be of good | courage and be merry, and long no more for earth, he says—se) pomdds basridss cay xave. That is to say, the use of isi to denote direction, gives a slight force
to the meaning—this pointing of the verb by means of the preposition towards its object, indicates additional emotion.
18 PHILIPPIANS I. 9.
Christi cor palyitabat. Krause, Grotius, Hoog, and Heinrichs approach this sense, but lose its point when they give as the general meaning, amorem vere Christianum.
(Ver. 9.) The apostle had shown them what kind desires he felt towards them, and what joyous anticipations he cherished for them. He had also intimated that he uniformly prayed for them, and he now proceeds to tell them the substance of his prayer.
Kal rotro mpocevyopuas tva— And this I pray that.” The xat may look back to verse 4, or it may be regarded simply as connecting the two statements—his opinion about them, and his prayer for them. There is no ground for Rilliet’s and Miiller’s idea that wpooevyowar depends on «ds, as does é7re- woe. Quite a new sentiment is started, and the preceding verse winds up and corroborates the ardent expressions which go before it. The accusative rov7vo gives emphasis to the theme of petition in itself, and that petition, viewed in its purpose, is preceded by iva, as often occurs. There is little doubt that the contents of the prayer are also so far indicated by the conjunction. To pray for this end is not very different from to pray for this thing.
His prayer was on this wise—
iva} aydtrn bpav ets paAXov Kat paddov Trepiccevy ev emt- yvoce Kat tacy aicOjoex— that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” Love existed gmong them, but yet it was deficient, if not in itself, yet in some endowments. The precise nature of this love has been variously understood. Strange is the freak of Bullinger and others, that 7 daydamrn tvuorv is, as in old ecclesiastical language, the abstract used for a concrete, and simply a form of address—“I pray, beloved, that ye may grow yet more and more.” Suicer, sub voce,
1. Some take it for love to the apostle himself, as do the Greek fathers, with Grotius and van Hengel. But the epithets which follow could not apply to a mere personal attachment.
2. Nor can we, with Calovius and others, take it as love to God and Christ, as that is not specially the grace in question.
3. Neither can we, with others, regard it as love to God and men—Christian love in its high and comprehensive essence and form, for we think that the context specifies its province
PHILIPPIANS I. 9. 19
and mode of operation. Alford and Meyer are right in refer- ring it to xowwvia; but as they restrict the meaning of this word to mutual accord, so they regard dydsrn as only signify- ing love to one another. We give xocywvia a more extensive meaning, and consider ayd7n as its root and sustaining power. It is love for Christ’s image and Christ’s work—for all that represents Him on earth—-His people and His cause; that holy affection which, while it unites all in whom it dwells, impels them to sympathize with all suffering, and co-operate with all effort, in connection with the defence and confirmation of the gospel. Such is generally also the view of Ellicott and Wiesinger. The apostle prayed that their love might grow— & énvyvece: kal wraon aicOnce. The two substantives are not synonymous, as Rheinwald and Matthies hold. There is no ground for Bisping’s distinction of them, that the first signifies more theoretical, and the other more practical know- ledge. The first substantive denotes accurate knowledge. See under Eph. i. 17. The second, which occurs only here, means power of perception. Physically, it denotes perception by the senses, especially that of touch; and in the plural, it signifies the organs of such perception—the senses themselves. The transition to a spiritual meaning such as that of apprehension is obvious. See under Col.i.9. It might be rendered ethical tact, that faculty of moral discernment which is quick and unerring in its judgment, and by a peculiar insight arrives easily and surely at its conclusions, It is not experimental or practical knowledge, as some have thought; but that faculty of discernment which works as if from an inner sense. A similar allusion is made by the apostle in Heb, v. 14, where he describes such as have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil—ra aicOnryjpia. The apostle adds macy, all discernment. We regard wacy as intensive, and cannot agree with those who seem to deny that it rarely, if ever, has such a meaning. In these two elements, the apostle prayed that their love should grow yet more and more —Eért padrov cal parrov. Pindar, Pyth. 10, 88; Raphel. in loc. The év does not signify “through,” as Heinrichs and Schinz take it, nor does it mean “along with,” as Rheinwald and Hoelemann suppose. Winer,§ 50,5. For é& following mepiooevwm usually points out that in which the increase
20 PHILIPPIANS I. 10.
consists. 1 Cor. xv. 58; 2 Cor, iii. 9, viii 7; Col. ii. 7. Their love was to increase in these qualities, knowledge and insight. De Wette takes év as denoting manner and way. But in only one of the instances adduced by him does this verb occur (Eph. i. 8), and there the connection is doubtful. The apostle’s desire was that the love of the Philippians might acquire a profounder knowledge, and not be tempted to misplace itself, and that it might attain a sharper and . clearer discernment, and so be prevented from being squandered on unworthy subjects, or directed to courses of conduct which had the semblance but not the reality of Christian rectitude and utility. If love grew in mere capacity, and without the increase of these safeguards, it was in hazard of forming unworthy and profitless attachments. Passion, without such guides or feelers, is but blind predilection. “Fellowship for the gospel” is still the thought in the apostle’s mind, and that love which had led them to it, needed for its stability a deeper knowledge of the truths which characterized the gospel, and required for its development a clearer faculty of apprehending the character of the men best qualified, and the measures best adapted to its “defence and confirmation.” One purpose was—
(Ver. 10.) Eis 76 Soxipatew tas ra Siahépovra—iva— So that ye may distinguish things that differ.” Two purposes are specified in this verse, the nearer expressed by eds ro, and the ultimate by %a,. Commentators differ as to the meaning of the clause, and philologically the words will bear either inter- pretation, They have been. supposed to mean, as in our version, to “approve the things that are excellent,” as in the Vulgate—wut probetis potiora. This view has been espoused by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, Piscator, Bengel, Flatt, Storr, Am Ende, Rosenmiiller, Rheinwald, Rilliet, Meyer, Bisping, Beelen, and Ellicott. On the other hand, the translation we have first given, is adopted by Theodoret, Beza, Wolf, Pierce, Heinrichs, Matthiae, van Hengel, Hoelemann, Hoog, Miiller, De Wette, Wiesinger, Alford, Robinson, Bretschneider, and Wahl. In itself the difference is not material; for this dis- crimination is made among things that differ, just that things — which are excellent may be approved. But as discrimination is the immediate function of ala@nou, we prefer giving such a signification to the clause. The verb Soxpdfew denotes to
ere ae vr ee eC Cie;
F PHILIPPIANS I. 10. 21
try or test, as metal by fire—1 Cor. iii, 13—and then gene- rally to distinguish as the result of such trial, and thence to approve. Rom. xiv. 22; 1 Cor. xvi 3; 1 Thess. ii. 4. In the phrase ra Svadépovra, difference is the prime idea, but as such difference is based on comparison or contrast, the secondary notion of betterness, value, or excellence, is naturally developed. Matt. x. 31, xii. 12; Luke xii. 7,24. In these three passages .the comparison is distinctly brought out, and the difference idiomatically marked. Some even render the word by oupudépovra—things which are useful or convenient, utilia. We prefer, then, the ordinary meaning of the terms. See Bretschneider, sub voce S:ahépw, and Theophylact on Rom. ii. 18, where he thus explains the word—a«pivew +i Set mpafas Kal tL un Set wpakar.
The final purpose is thus announced by #a—
iva are eiduxpweis xal amrpocKxoTrat— that ye may be pure and offenceless.” The composition of the first term is disputed, whether it be e?An xpivw, to prove by the sunlight, or elAos [etAn] xpivw, to test by rapid shaking, volubili agita- tione. The former opinion is usually adopted,though Stallbaum' contends for the latter. Hesychius renders the term by to xaQapov, adorov, and sometimes it is defined by rd dpuyés. Whatever. be its derivation, its meaning is apparent. It refers to internal disposition, to the absence of sinister motive and divided allegiance, or it describes the purity and sin- cerity of that heart which is guided by the spiritual tact and discriminative power which the apostle prays for. ,
The epithet dzpdoxoros is taken sometimes in an active sense, not causing others to stumble, as in 1 Cor. x. 32. Meyer adopts this view, and Alford’s objection to it cannot be sustained, viz., “that in the text other men are not in question.” For the leading term ayazn necessarily implies other men as its objects, and that souwevia in which it em- bodies itself, has other men as its allies and auxiliaries. "While the intransitive meaning gives a good sense, we are inclined to Meyer’s view, inasmuch as the possession of love, and the growth of it in knowledge and’ discernment, would prevent them from rudely jostling others not of their own opinion, or doing anything which, with a good intention, might mislead
1 Plato, Phaedo, 77, A. E
22 PHILIPPIANS I. 11.
or throw a stumbling-block in the path of those round about them.
It is needless, with Ewald and others, to give a wholly doctrinal sense to ta Svadepovra, though it would be wrong to exclude it altogether. Love without that guidance which has been referred to, might form unworthy attachments, might wound itself in its blindness, and retard the very interests for the promotion of which it had eagerly set itself. It must understand the gospel in its purity, and learn to detect unwarranted additions and supplements. It must have tact to distinguish between the real and the seeming, between the claims of an evangelist, and the specious pretensions of a Judaizer. And, thus, if that love which had shown itself in fellowship for the gospel, grew in knowledge and power of perception, they would be pure; their affection ruled by in- telligence would have but one desire, to defend and confirm the gospel, in participation of the apostle’s own grace; and they would give no offence, either by a zeal which in its excess forgot the means in the end, or cherished suspicions of such as did not come up to its own warmth, or could not sympathize with its favourite modes of operation or expression.
eis juepay Xptorov—“ for the day of Christ.” More than time is implied. Verse 6, @ypis. The day of Christ is kept in view, and this sincerity and offencelessness prepare for it, and lead to acceptance in it.
(Ver. 11.) HerAnpwpévoe xaprov Stxaroovvns tov 81a ’Inaod Xpicrod, eis Sofay wal Erawov Oeod. The singular form xaprov Tov, is preferred to the plural of the Received Text on preponderant authority. “ Being filled with the fruit of righteousness, which is by Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.” The passive participle has xapmcy in the accusative, Winer, § 32, 5, though the genitive is also found, as in Rom. xv.14. The difference of aspect seems to be that the genitive marks that out of which the fulness is made up, while the accusative points out that on which the action of the verb takes effect in making up the fulness, and not simply that, as Ellicott says, toward which the action tends. On xdprros, see Eph. v.9; Col. i. 9. The meaning of dccavocdvyn is not so clear. Some, like Rilliet and Bisping, refer it to justification. That idea is involved in it; but the term,
PHILIPPIANS I. 11. 23
without any adjunct, and as applied to character, seems to signify moral rectitude, and is noted by its obedience to the divine law. Rom. v. 7, vi. 13. See under Eph. v. 9. The fruit which springs from this righteousness is to be possessed not sparingly, but richly; and for such fulness does the apostle present his prayer. His pleading for them is, that their life might not be marked merely by the absence of insincerity and offence, but that they might be adorned with all such Christian graces as result from the new nature—the deeds which characterize the “new man created in righteousness.” And this was the last subject or purpose of the petition; for love increasing in knowledge and spiritual discernment, know- ing what genuine obedience is, and what is but the semblance of it, appreciating the gospel and cherishing communion with those who oftentimes in suffering extend and. uphold it, keeping the day of Christ in view and preparing for it— moves and enables the whole nature to “ bring forth fruit unto holiness.”
And such fruit is not self-produced, but is—
S:a ’Inootd Xpiorod— by Jesus Christ,” in and through His gracious operations upon the heart by His Spirit. Right- eousness is of His creation, and all the fruits of it are through Him, not by His doctrine or by faith in Him, but through Himself. The apostle emphasizes this element rov—éia *I. X.
The phrase eis S0fav xad érravov @cob— to the glory and praise of God,” does not seem to belong to the previous words merely, but to the entire clause. The being filled with such fruits of righteousness—fruits grown only through Christ, redounds to the glory and praise of God—the ultimate end of all His works. Glory is the manifestation of His nature and character, and praise is that grateful homage which salutes it on the part of His people. Eph.i.6; Phil. 13,11. Wecan scarcely suppose with the Greek fathers, that the apostle, with such thoughts and emotions in his soul, tacitly forms in this clause a contrast between any merit that might be imagined to belong to him as founder and teacher of the Philippian church, and the glory which is due to God alone.
After this affectionate greeting, commendation, and prayer, the apostle turns to his present condition. As the Philippians were aware of his imprisonment, he strives at once to console
24 PHILIPPIANS I. 12.
them by the assurance that his bonds had rather favoured - than retarded the progress of the gospel—for the cause and nature of his incarceration had not only become widely known, but the greater part of the brethren had derived fresh courage from his captivity for the more abundant proclamation of the word. There was, indeed, a party hostile to him, who preached Christ to give him new annoyance ; but these others did it from affection to him, and in co-operation with his great work. So far, however, from being chafed or grieved that his antagonists preached from so bad a motive, he rejoiced that Christ was preached in any way; and he would still con- tinue to rejoice, since it would contribute to his salvation through their prayers, and the supply of the Divine Spirit. For he had the expectation and hope, that he would have no reason to take shame to himself; but that, on the other hand, Christ should be magnified in his body, whether he should survive or die—magnified, in the one case, because for him to live was Christ; and magnified, in the other case, for death was gain: his life, if prolonged, being service for Christ, and his death the enjoyment of Christ’s presence and reward. So that he did not know which to choose—death on the one hand being in itself preferable, for it is being with Christ; but life on the other hand being needful for the spiritual benefit of the Philippian church. Finally, the apostle intimates his persua- sion that he shall remain, in order to aid their Christian graces, so that they might have ground of spiritual exultation by his return to them.
(Ver. 12.) Twooxew 5 tuads BovrAopat, aderhoi—* But I wish you to know, brethren.” By the use of dé, the apostle passes on to new and individual matter—to his own present condition and its results. No doubt the members of the Philippian church sympathized with him, bewailed his thral- dom, and earnestly prayed for his liberation. Perhaps they had expressed a wish for definite information from himself. Therefore, as far as possible, he relieves their anxieties, takes an elevated and cheering view of his circumstances, and assures them that his incarceration had rather forwarded the great cause to which his life had been directed. He is solici- tous that they should be acquainted with a few striking facts —yweooxev—placing the term in the first and emphatic
PHILIPPIANS I. 12. ‘25
position. The more usual forms of similar expression are found in Rom. i. 13 ; 1 Cor. xii. 1; 2 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 13. What he proceeds to tell must have been both novel and gratifying to those saluted by the endearing appellation— “brethren.” For he announces—
Stu Ta Kat éue paddXov eis wrpoxomny Tov evaryyelou éd7- Avdev—* that things with me have resulted rather to the furtherance of the gospel.” The phrase «ar’ éué, as in Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, signifies “what belongs to me”—my pre- sent condition. It does not signify “things against me,” as Erasmus and others suppose. For a somewhat similar use of the verb, see Rom. iii. 8. The phrase seems to intimate an overruling providence, for it was by no accident that the event was so, and his enemies did not intend it. In the use of paddov, the idea of comparison is not wholly dropt. Winer, § 35, 4. His imprisonment must have been considered in itself as adverse to the propagation of the gospel ; and the comparison in #aAXov is—more than might have been antici- pated. Imprisonment had defeated its purpose, and, so far from suppressing, had promoted Christianity. It was not meant to do this, nor yet was it expected; but he says érnrvbev, “it has so turned out.” Wisd.xv. 5. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee.” The term mpoxomy belongs to the later Greek, though the verb mpoxdrrevy was of classical usage. Lobeck, ad Phryn. 85; 1.Tim. iv. 15. Hesychius defines it by av&yous. The word occurs often in Plutarch, Polybius, Diodorus, Josephus, and Philo. Compare Elsner, Loesner, especially Wetstein, 7 Joc. When the Philippians were made aware of this fact, their sorrow at his captivity would be somewhat modified, and though they might grieve at the confinement of the man, they would be comforted that the cause with which he was identified had not been arrested in its progress. In the last chapter of the epistle, he tells them that, personally, he was content; and here he assures them that the word of the Lord was not bound along with its preacher. Nowhere does he commiserate his condition, dwell on the weight of his chain, or deal out invectives against his foes. He omits the purely personal, and hastens to set before his readers the features of alleviation. What happened then at Rome has often occurred in the history of the church ;
26 PHILIPPIANS I. 13.
hostile influences ultimately contributing to the advancement of the church. Man proposes, but God disposes. The cloud, while it obscures the sun, sends down the fertilizing shower. The first effect of his imprisonment is next given—
(Ver. 13.) "Dore tovs Seopovs pov havepors ev Xpior@ yeveoOas év Siw TO Wpatrtwpie Kal Trois Nowrrois TAaTW— So that my bonds have become known in Christ in the whole preetorium, and to all the rest.” The conjunction acre is fol- lowed by the infinitive denoting result, and, as often happens, no demonstrative precedes. On the difference of dare with the infinitive, and with the indicative, see Klotz, Devarius, 11. p. 772. The apostle gives a first result of his present con- dition, which tended to forward the gospel. The cause of his imprisonment had come to. be known widely, and such knowledge could not be without its fruits. We agree with Meyer and Wiesinger that the words davepovs év X. must be connected —“ made manifest in Christ.” The position of the terms seems to demand this connection—and not such an arrangement as Tovs Serpovs pov ev X., as De Wette construes it. “In Christ” is, in connection with Christ, Eph. iv. 1. His incarceration had come to be understood in its connection with Christ; not surely the fact of it, but the cause and character of it. Waiting under an appeal to the emperor, he had been discovered to be no common prisoner. It had transpired that his official connection with Christ, and his fearless prosecution of the work of Christ, had led to his apprehension and previous trial in Palestine, and not sedition, turbulence, or suspected loyalty—the usual political crimes of his nation. It was widely known that he suffered asa Christian and as an apostle, especially as the preacher of a free and unconditioned gospel to the Gentiles. And his bonds were naturally made manifest in Christ, first in the edifice where he dwelt—
év O\@ T@ Tpattwpio. Our translators adopted a common idea in rendering mrpavtwpcov by palace. In this they followed the Greek commentators—one of whom says, “For up to that time they so called the palace.” Erasmus, Beza, Estius, a-Lapide, Bengel, and Rheinwald hold, with some variation, the same opinion. The word does sometimes, in a general way, signify the palace of a king, as in Juvenal x. 161—
PHILIPPIANS I. 13. 27
sedet ad preetoria regis. Also in Act. Thom. § 3, we have the phrase mpa:tmpia Baciuxd. Others, from its name, have Supposed it to be the judgment-hall of the pretor. So Luther renders it, “ Richthaus,” and he is followed by the early English translators, as by Wycliffe, who gives “in eche moot halle.” The word is so used in the Gospels, in connection with the scene of our Lord’s trial, Matt. xxvii. 27; Mark xv. 16, etc. Cicero refers to Verres as dwelling in domo pretorio, que regis Hieronis fuit. Thus Huber, Calvin, Grotius, Rhein- wald, and Mynster, regard it as a part of the royal edifice— urbanum juri dicendo auditorium. The noun thus denoted sometimes the dwelling of a provincial governor—nay, it came to signify a magnificent private building (alternas servant pretoria ripas, Statius, 8. 1, 3, 25), much in the same way that a Glasgow merchant, building a turreted summer residence on some rock or eminence on the western coast, dignifies it by the name of a “castle.” But the palace of the Roman emperor was never called pretorium. The noun signifies here, the castra pretoriana—the barracks of the imperial life- guards. The tent of the commander-in-chief was originally called the pretorium—head-quarters ; and a council of war, from being held there, received the same designation—{ pretorio dimisso, Livy, xxx. 5). The name was ultimately given to the imperial body-guards, and was naturally transferred to the edifice in Rome which contained them. It was built by Sejanus, not far from the Porta Viminalis. The cohorts were stationed there, who did duty in turn at the imperial residence. The emperor himself was regarded as pretor, the immediate commanding-officer being called prajfectus pretorio,, and in Greek orpatomeddpyns. Thus we read, that when Paul was brought to Rome, 6 éxatovrapyos rapédwxe rovs Seculous TH otpatotredapyy, Acts xxviii. 16. Such an office was at this time held by Burrus, and the apostle was probably committed to his charge. A portion of this military mansion was close upon the palace, or domus palatina—zradratwv—of which it is said, that in it o Kaiocap @xeu at éxet ro otpariyiov elye,
1 This meaning was first vindicated by Perizonius in an ecademic tract on the subject, Franeker, 1687. Huber produced a reply in the following year, and Mynster attempts to vindicate a similar view in his Kleine Theol. Schriften, p-. 178, Copenhagen, 1825.
28 PHILIPPIANS I, 13.
Dio Cassius, liii. 16. Suetonius, Octav. 49. Drusus, we are told by the last author, when imprisoned in the pretorium, was located in ima parte palatw. A large camp of the pre- - torian guards was also established outside the walls—(castra pretorianorum, Tacitus, Hist. i. 31); but those on immediate duty had their residence near the royal dwelling. It may be added, that Josephus carefully distinguishes between the palace and the pretorium, between the Baovdreov and that otparorredoyv in which Agrippa was imprisoned under: a military guard. Thus, the soldiers who relieved one another in keeping the apostle, came to learn that he was no vulgar malefactor, but that he had been the expounder of a new faith—a man of pure and irreproachable life—no fanatic or leveller, or selfish demagogue. And there is no doubt that many of them must have been impressed with his serene heroism, and the visible peace of his untroubled conscience, as he waited for a trial which might send him to the block. And the cause of his imprisonment was not only known in the whole pretorium, but beyond it—
Kat Tois NovTrois Taow—- and to all the rest ;” not simply to others of the body-guards, more than those which came into contact with him, or to those of the cohort beyond the city, as Wieseler and Conybeare narrow the allusion, but to persons beyond the pretorium. Nor does the language refer to places, as some of the Greek fathers suppose, when they supply év. Neither can tots Aourots have any conventional signification, such as that which van Hengel assigns it—hominibus exteris quibuscunque. The texts referred to by him cannot for a moment sustain his strange exegesis, The expression is a popular and broad one, meaning that his bonds were made known in Christ, far beyond the imperial barracks; that in a large circle in the city itself, the reason of his incarceration was fully comprehended and appreciated. How, indeed, could it be otherwise? Immediately on his arrival, he assembled the chiefs of the Jews, and addressed them in a style which led to no little disputation among themselves; and we are told, also, that for the space of two years, the apostle “received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him,”
PHILIPPIANS I. 14. 29
Acts xxviii. 30, 31. The second result of his imprisonment follows.
(Ver. 14.) Kal rots mrelovas trav dderghav év Kupig srerros- Portas Tois Seopois pov, wepicaotépws ToApav adoBus Tov AOyov ANadetv— And the greater part of the brethren putting in the Lord confidence in my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word without fear.” This verse represents another result of the apostle’s imprisonment, and shows how it rather tended to the progress of the gospel. He is happy in the majority ; his imprisonment had an inspiriting effect on them. The words év Kupi» may be joined to ddeAdav, as they are by Luther, van Hengel, De Wette, and Alford; but, more probably, as Winer—§ 20, 2—suggests, they qualify the participle zrevouforas, Gal. v. 10; Phil. ii. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 4; and so Rilliet, Meyer, and Bisping take them. The words denote having, or taking confidence in the Lord. The phrase év Kupiw does not mean the ground of confidence, but defines its nature or sphere. Meyer and others rightly take rois deopots as the ground or occasion of confidence—vertrauend meinen Banden—inasmuch as these bonds were a testimony to the entire truth, power, and glory of the gospel. They were the proofs of his inflexible integrity, of his honest and sincere convictions as to the freedom and simplicity of the gospel. The majority gathered confidence from them. They were charmed and convinced by his manly integrity, his undaunted endurance, his open and candid avowal of his past career, and his willingness to seal his testimony with his Llood. What might have been supposed to damp and dis- courage them, had the opposite effect; it cheered and stimulated them. The result was natural; past timidity vanished, and they “ventured more abundantly to speak the word without fear.” The adverb vepsccorépws is not, with Grotius, to be taken as qualifying agoPws, or as forming with it a comparative afoBortépws. Its position connects it with ToAwav— more abundantly ventured ;” the comparison being —more than when he had not been imprisoned. The adverb apoBws is not pleonastic—those brethren had ventured to preach before, but perhaps with some caution; now they dared more frequently, and with perfect composure. The sight of the apostle inspired them with his own heroism. It
30 PHILIPPIANS I. 15.
might have been feared that his bonds would have made his friends more wary, lest they should incur a similar fate; but so far from such an ignoble result, there was a positive revival of courage and zeal among them; their labours multiplied in number, and increased in boldness, and thus the apostle’s circumstances had resulted rather to the furtherance of the gospel. Some codices have, after Aoyov, rod Geod, and others tov Kupiov. On the authority of A and B, Lachmann adopts the former, as do many of the versions. But the reading seems to be a gloss, adopted from the familiar expression— “word of God,” as in Acts iv. 31.
(Ver. 15.) But while the apostle in this statement includes the majority, there were some exceptions. There was a party actuated by a very different spirit—
Ties pev xat 81a pOovov nat épv—tov Xpiorov enpvcoovory. “Some indeed, also, for envy and contention, preach Christ.” By twvés, the apostle does not refer to a section of the previous wrcloves. The «ai indicates that another and distinct party is noticed; not, as Rilliet writes, parmi les Chrétiens qui ont repris courage, and as Rheinwald and Hoelemann suppose. Had he merely meant to characterize the aAetoves into two parties, there was no occasion to say twvés. There is, as Ellicott says, an implied contrast in «ai, while it points out an additional party. Hartung, 1, 136, etc. The preposition dud refers to the motive, not the purpose of preaching—envy and contention. Winer, § 49,c; Matt. xxvii. 18 ; Mark xv. 10. This class of men were jealous of the apostle’s influence, and strove to defy him, to undermine his reputation and authority, and gall and gainsay him by their modes of speech and action. What this party was, will be immediately discussed. It was an Anti-Pauline faction, but we cannot regard it as simply a Judaizing one. The apostle adds—
tuves S€ kat Sv edvdoxiay tov Xprorov enpvacovor— but some also preach Christ for goodwill” The persons indicated by tuvés are probably those contained in mAeéoves, and so named, or spoken of as a party here, from being placed in contrast with the first ravés. The preposition dsdé points out, again, the motive, and that motive is goodwill to the apostle himself, and not, as many suppose, either goodwill to the cause, or to men’s salvation. The ¢fovos and épis on the one hand, and
PHILIPPIANS I. 16. 31
this evdoxia on the other hand, are purely personal to the apostle, as indeed he proceeds at once to explain.
The 16th and 17th verses are transposed in the Received Text. The idea of preserving conformity to the division of parties in the preceding verse, seems to have suggested the change, as if, when the apostle had referred to the envious and contentious preachers first, he must, in the same order, give his explanation of them. Heinrichs, without any authority, reckons both explanatory verses as spurious. Miiller vindicates the arrangement of the Textus Receptus for very frivolous reasons. The best MSS. place them in the reverse order of the Received Text, and by putting the verse last which describes the factious preachers, the force of rf yap, in the 18th verse, is more vividly brought out.
(Ver. 16.) O¢ pév e& dydrns, eidores Ste eis atroXoyiay Tod evayyediou Keiyat— The one party indeed (preach Christ) of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.” The first clause is a nominative, and the supplement is “preach Christ.” For we agree with Alford, against Meyer, van Hengel, De Wette, and Ellicott, that of é& ayadarns and ot é& épiOeias, are not simply generic descriptions, as in Rom. ii. 8; Gal. iii. 7. Ellicott objects that in this verse é& ayamns would only be a repetition of da eddoxiav. And so it is, but with an explanatory purpose—and so with the other pair of opposite terms. And the apostle does not “reiterate” simply the nature of the difference of feeling in the two parties, but he adds the cause of it, for the participles eiSorys and oidpevor preserve their true causal signification. Under the hypothesis which we are opposing, the words Tov Xpio roy catayyédAXovow come in awkwardly, and would hardly be expressed in verse 17; but they occur in our construction as the expected complement, Still the meaning is not very different, whether the party is characterized by love, or whether love be assigned as the motive of their preaching. Yet, as preaching is specially regarded in the paragraph as the development or result of feeling, we take the clause as describing that feeling; not as simply designating a party, but as specifying a motive in active operation, They preached Christ out of love; and their affection was intelligently based—
eidotes Ste eis atroNoylay Tod evaryyeXiou Ketyar— knowing
32 PHILIPPIANS I. 16.
that I am appointed for the defence of the gospel.” The noun atroXoyla is “ vindication ””—the defence of the truth, freeness, adaptation, and divine origin of the gospel. Luther, Estius, Am Ende, Matthies, and van Hengel, take xetyac in a literal sense—I lie in prison, or in misery.” The idea is far- fetched and unnecessary. The verb means as often, “to be set aside for,” or “to be appointed to.” Luke iil. 34; 1 Thess. li 3. What then is the reference ?
1. Some, as Estius, a-Lapide, and Pierce, understand by atronoyla, the apostle’s formal vindication of himself and his cause before Nero. But this is too restricted a view, though such a defence is not to be excluded.
2. Chrysostom’s idea of azroAoyia is peculiar. He refers us to Paul’s answer at the judgment-seat of God. “I am appointed to preach, they help with me, and they are diminish- _Ing the weight of that account which I must give to God.” The apostle, however, is not speaking of his account to God, but of his special work in defending the gospel, which those who loved him knew how to appreciate (verse 7); nor is amroXoyia ever used of the solemn and final reckoning.
3. Others bring out this thought,—These friends see me Imprisoned, and they supply my forced abstinence from labour by their preaching. Such is the view of Estius, Hoelemann, and van Hengel. But this lays the emphasis more on the apostle’s imprisonment than on his high function; and the latter is more expressly in the writer’s view.
4. Meyer, Wiesinger, and De Wette, place the emphasis properly on the words—“ for the defence of the gospel.” His friends recognized the apostle’s position and task, and laboured in sympathy to assist him in it. It was not because he could not defend the gospel that they took the work upon them, for they had been engaged in similar effort before; only his incarceration gave them new spirit and intrepidity. They had recognized the apostle’s special function; it struck a tender chord in their hearts, and so far as in them lay they carried out his labours. As they well knew that he had been set for the defence of the gospel, they felt that they could not better probe their love to him than by appreciating his vocation, acting in his spirit, and seeking, above all things, to realize the noble end to which he had devoted his life.
PHILIPPIANS I. 17. 33
(Ver. 17.) Oc 8é é& épifeias tov Xpiotov KxatayyéAXovow ovy ayvas— But the others preach Christ of faction, not purely.” There is no specific difference between xnpvocovor and xatrayyéAAovet, Acts xvii. 3, 23; Col. i. 28. The first verb is already applied to both parties. Hesychius defines the one term by the other; but the former verb is of most frequent occurrence; the latter being confined to the book of Acts and Paul’s epistles. The noun é¢p:Oeia is not from épus, and signifying “ contention,” as Theodoret has it—7o tis Erdos aaGos; for the apostle formally distinguishes épis and épbeda in 2 Cor. xii. 20 and in Gal. v. 20, in both which cases the two nouns occur in the same verse. It is from épuOos, a day- labourer, Hom. J/. xviii. 550; the resemblance to épvoy being perhaps accidental—Passow, sub voce ; Benfey, i.56—Fritzsche, in his Hxcursus appended to the second chapter of Romans. The idea of “ mercenary ” soon followed that of labour for hire, out of which sprang that of emulation and worthless self- seeking—malitiosa fraudum machinatio. The term épvela, as Fritzsche remarks, includes both the @0ovos and épss of the fifteenth verse. Liddell and Scott fall away from the true meaning of the word, and do not distinguish it from pss, when in their Lexicon they give “ contention” as its meaning in the New Testament. The qdsAovecia of Suidas and Theo- phylact comes nearer the true idea. This party, therefore, in proclaiming Christ, did not do it dyvas—preach with pure intent. ‘“Ayvas xai xafapds, Hesiod, Opera et Dies, 339. Thus the adjective is used, 2 Cor. vii 11. The adverb cha- racterizes not the contents, but the motive or spirit of their preaching. Bengel’s idea is baseless, when he says they preached—non sine fermento Judaico; or, as Am Ende says in the same spirit, that in their preaching—multa igitur addunt, multa silent. And the motive of their preaching is truly nefarious—
olopevor OrAApw éyeipew tors Seopois wov— thinking to stir up affliction to my bonds,” meaning it, but not effecting it! °Eryelpew, on the conclusive authority of A, B, D’, F, G, is preferred to the émipépew of the Received Text, which was probably in its origin an explanatory term, like the
1 Nist quod mihi nocere se crediderunt, is Cicero’s translation (Tusc. i. 41) of the Greek—aaa’ cispsves BAdwesuv, Plato, Apologia Soc. § 33.
34 PHILIPPIANS I. 17.
mpoodépew of Theophylact. The participle ofouevor is parallel to eidéres, and with the same causal force, though it is at the same time explanatory of ovy ayvds. Their purpose was to ageravate the apostle’s imprisonment. They did God’s work in the devil’s spirit. No wonder Chrysostom exclaims—N THS w@poTnros, @ THs SiaBorsKIs évepyevas—O, the cruelty ! O, the devilish energy!” In what way they thought to accomplish their object, it is difficult now to tell. Chrysos- tom simply calls them unbelievers. We cannot agree with Grotius, Le Clerc, Balduin, and those who tmagine that this party were Jews, who went about calumniating the gospel and its preachers, with the view of bringing more hardships upon the apostle; the result being that they only excited curiosity, and led many to inquire about the real nature of the new sect. Nor do we think that they were Judaizers of the ordinary class, who represented the apostle as an enemy to the law, and excited the Jews against him. That they belonged to this class, has been held by many, and, among others, by Neander, Meyer, De Wette, and Ellicott. It is difficult to suppose that these preachers were Judaizers. For—
1. The apostle usually condemns the Judaizers—calls them by many bitter epithets, and represents them as sub- verting the gospel to such an extent, that upon their theory Christ had died in vain, Gal. ii, 21. And the apostle, as ‘Wiesinger says, would in this case have appeared “ double- tongued ” to the Philippians; for in this very epistle, referring to such errorists, he inveighs with special antipathy against them——‘ Beware of dogs ; beware of evil workers ; beware of the concision.” In this passage, however, the apostle says nothing of erroneous teaching, but only of a bad spirit. He does not reject their doctrines as mutilated or adulterated : he only reprobates their motives.
2. They are represented as preaching Christ. It is true the article is used, 6 Xpuoros, which some suppose to have a special reference to the Messiahship and their proclamation of it in a Jewish orsecular sense. But then the well-affected party are said also to preach the Christ—rov Xpicrov. The preaching in its substance was the same with both. Nor can any difference be inferred from the employment of two verbs
PHILIPPIANS I. 17. 35
—xnpvocw and xatayyéAdw ; the one denoting the work of a herald, and the other that of a messenger; for the first verb in verse 15 characterizes the preaching of both parties; and in the preaching described by the second verb in verse 18, the apostle expresses his hearty concurrence. Can it be sup- posed for a moment that the apostle could call any form of Judaistic teaching the preaching of Christ; or use the same emphatic phrase as descriptive both of sound and of pernicious instruction ? His friends “ preach Christ,” and no one doubts that by this language he approved of their doctrine; those disaffected toward him “ preach Christ” too, the difference being in their respective spirit and motives.
3. The apostle virtually sanctions such preaching. For, no matter in what spirit Christ is preached, whether in pretence or in truth—provided He is preached at all, the prisoner is contented and happy. Surely he could never have employed such language, if false views of Christ had been propounded, such views as the Judaizers were in the habit of insisting upon—the necessity of circumcision, and the perpetual obli- gation of the Mosaic law. Was it possible for Paul to rejoice in a style of preaching at Rome, which he so strongly denounced in Galatia? Or could he regard the promulgation of such views as in any sense the “ furtherance of the gospel”? The conclusion then is, that a form of preaching called, without reserve or modification, the preaching of Christ, and one in which the apostle rejoices, in spite of the malicious and perverse motives of those who engaged in it, cannot be the common and carnal Judaistic error which plagued and injured so many of the early churches, Neander’ is obliged to make the supposition, that Paul thinks of the Judaizing gospel in its effects upon the heathen, when he thus speaks of it. But there is no ground for such an assumption, and such a preach- ing would profit them nothing. Had the Judaizers given the mere facts of Christ’s life, it might have been well; but such a simple narrative would not have suited their purpose, for they could not detail those facts without connecting with them certain dogmas on the obligation and character of the Mosaic ritual. Nor can Meyer be listened to, when he says that Judaizing preaching was less displeasing to the apostle
1 On Philippians, p. 26; Edin., Clark.
36 PHILIPPIANS 1. 17.
in Rome, than in Greece or Asia, as the church there had not been founded by him, and was not specially under his apostolical jurisdiction. What this preaching was not, one may thus safely decide.
But it is not so easy to determine what this preaching of Christ was, or how it could be intended to add affliction to the apostle’s bonds. Chrysostom and his followers hold that the intention of such preaching was to stir up the hostility of Nero, and other enemies of the gospel, so that the apostle’s situation might be embittered ; the preaching of Jesus as the Christ being most offensive to the Romans, and the unbeliev- ing Jews making use of it to enrage the heathen rulers. But the apostle does not say that the Jews charged. the Christians with preaching the Messiahship ; the Christians did it them- selves, And if they preached the Messiahship in any such form as made it a rival to the imperial sovereignty, would not such a course have equally endangered themselves, and led to their own apprehension and trial? Nor can we sup- pose the meaning to be, that by their busy publication of Judaizing doctrine, his antagonists thought to annoy the apostle by preaching what they knew he had so resolutely condemned, and to endanger him by holding him up as an enemy to the Mosaic institute, and the venerated “ customs” of his country. For we have endeavoured to show in the preceding paragraphs that such preaching could not be called, as the apostle calls it—preaching Christ ; nor could he have tolerated it, far less have given it his seeming approval and countenance. Others, again, as Storr, van Hengel, and Rilliet, suppose that by “ affliction” the apostle means mental suffer- ing, produced by such factious disposition and conduct. It is possible that this view may be the most correct. The noun OAdypus will bear such a meaning, and it is the intended result of that épv@e/a—unprincipled emulation and intrigue. The apostle speaks of affliction in addition to his bonds—not a closer imprisonment, or a heavier chain, or an attempt to infuriate the emperor and prejudge his appeal, but something over and above his bonds—perhaps chagrin and sorrow at the misrepresentation of his position and character. May we not therefore regard the phrase ——“I rejoice, and will rejoice,” as the opposite of those emotions which they strove
PHILIPPIANS I. 17. 37
to produce within him? They laboured to surround him with circumstances which should cause him “ affliction,” but they failed. He could not but blame their motives, while he rejoiced in the result. They must have set -themselves in rivalry with him, must have hoped to ruin his reputation, and damage his apostolical commission, in the way in which they did his work. By their detraction of his character in and through an imitation of his labours, they trusted to chafe and vex him. But as they deserved, they were egregiously disappointed. They thought that he would be afflicted, but he was rejoiced.
If this hypothesis be correct, as we think it is, then we may come to a more satisfactory conclusion as to the nature of the faction referred to. That it consisted of Jews is almost certain. But these Jews might not be Judaizers. In the Corinthian church there was a party that said, “I am of Cephas”— followers of the apostle of the circumcision, and hostile to those who named themselves from Paul. It is very probable that this Petrine party held high views about the law; but there is no hint in the epistle to the Corinthian church that they either held or taught such mischievous errors as were propagated in Galatia. Minor matters of ceremonial seem rather to have occupied them. Chap. vili. and x. But there is no question that the apostle’s authority was impugned in Corinth, and in all likelihood by the Petrine party, because he had not been personally called by Jesus, as Simon had been; and by the same party, his right to pecuniary support from the churches seems to have been denied or disputed. While, therefore, there was comparative purity in the section that took Peter for its head and watchword, there was also keen and resolute opposition to the person and prerogative of the apostle of the Gentiles. To meet all the requirements of the case before us, we have only to suppose that such a party was found at Rome, and the fourteenth chapter of the epistle to that church seems to indicate their existence. If there was a company of believing Jews, who held the essential doctrines of the gospel, but was combative on points of inferior value, and in connection with the social institutions of their people, and who, at the same time, were bitter and unscrupulous antagonists of the apostle from such ‘an impression
F
38 PHILIPPIANS I. 18.
of his opinions as is indicated by James in Acts xxi. 20, 21 —then such a party might preach Christ, and yet cherish toward Paul all those feelings of envy and ill-will which he ascribes to them. Chrysostom touches the truth when he represents them as being jealous of the apostle—q@ovodvrtes tm Sofp. Calvin writes feelingly—‘“ Paul assuredly says nothing here, which I myself have not experienced. For there are men living now who have preached the gospel with no other design, than to gratify the rage of the wicked by persecuting pious pastors.”
(Ver. 18.) Té yap; wah wavtl rpdrw etre mpopdcer etre arnOeia, Xpioros Katayyédretat, nal év tTovT@ yaipw, adda Kal yapynocowat— What then? but yet, in every way, that Christ is preached—whether in pretence, whether in truth— even in this I do rejoice, yea, and I shall rejoice.” The ellip- tical phrase ri yap expresses an interrogative inference, and is much the same as the guid enim, or quid ergo, of the Latin authors! Rom. iii. 3. There is no use in attempting to fill out the idiom with Svadéper, or GAA or pos péAet, as is done by the Greek expositors ; nor is the refert of Bengel, or the sequitur of Grotius, at all necessary. Kiihner, § 8332, i.; Klotz, ad Devar. ii. p. 247, etc. ; Hartung, i. p. 479 ; Hoogeveen, Doctrina Part. p. 539. The adverb aA? has also in such idiom a peculiar meaning, nur dass, as Passow gives it—“ only that.” As if the paraphrase might be—‘“ What then? shall I fret because some men preach Christ of strife and intrigue, and think to embitter my imprisonment? No, for all that; in spite of all this opposition to myself, only let Christ be preached from any motive, false or genuine, yes, in the fact of such preaching I rejoice.” The first answer to r/ ydp is only implied, and not written—shall I feel affliction added to my bonds? shall I be chafed or grieved? while the second in contrast to it 1s expressed—the antagonism being noted by aAnv. Though in the phrase zrayr) rpom@ the apostle says —‘“every form,” yet the following words show that he had two forms especially in his eye, for he adds :—
eire. rpopdoe elre adnGeiqg— whether in pretence or in
1 Cicero, de Fin. ii. 22, 72 ; Horace, Sat. i. 1, 7. 2 After wany, A, F, G insert és; while B has simply és, without wasy. Probably both are results of an ancient gloss, as Meyer conjectures.
PHILIPPIANS IL. 18. 39
sincerity.” These two nouns are often opposed by Philo and the classical writers, as is shown in the collected examples of Loesner, Raphelius, and Wetstein. The dative in both cases is that of manner, or is a modal case. Winer, §31,6.! The first noun, mpodaccs, is employed to express a prominent ele- ment of the old Pharisaical character, its want of genuineness ; or that its professed motive was not its real one, that its exceeding devotion was but a show, Matt. xxiii. 13; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47. When the sailors, during Paul’s voyage to Rome, wished to escape from the ship, and for this purpose lowered a boat under the pretext of preparing to let go an anchor, their manceuvre is described by the same term, Acts xxvii. 30. The word denotes that state of mind in which the avowed is not the true motive; in which there is made to appear (as the etymology indicates) what does not exist. Hos. x. 4; John xv. 22. The contrasted noun, adA7Oea, signifies here genuineness or integrity, John iv. 23, 24; 1 John iii. 18, The Hebrew MOS has occasionally a similar meaning, Ex. xviii. 21; Neh. vii. 2; and especially 1 Sam. xii. 24; 1 Kings ii. 4, iii. 6, where it is represented by the Greek term before us. Xpiords xatayyéAXerar ; see Col. i. 28. A different meaning is assigned to the first noun by the Vulgate, which renders per occastonem ; followed by Luther, who translates zufallens ; and vindicated by Grotius, and by Hammond who brings out this idea—“ by all means, whether by occasion only, that is, accidentally, and not by a designed causality ; or whether by truth, that is, by a direct real way of efficiency.” But though the term has sometimes such a meaning, the antithesis in the clause itself, the common usage of the two confronted nouns, and the entire context dis- countenance the supposition. In fact, wpddacis is simply the ody dyvas of the 17th verse; while dA70ea embodies the dc evdoxidav of the 15th, and the é& ayamns of the 16th verses. The two nouns so placed in opposition represent, not difference in the substance, but in the purpose of preaching. They have an ethical reference. For if Christ was preached in either way, the apostle must allude not to contents, but design. In the one case, Christ was really preached, but the motive was
1 Both nouns in a similar idiom are often found in the accusative, among the classical writers. Kriiger, § 46, 3,5; Matthiae, § 425.
40 PHILIPPIANS I, 18.
hollow and fallacious, It was neither from homage to Him, or love to souls, or an earnest desire to advance the gospel. In the other case, preaching was a sincere service—“ out of a true heart, and with faith unfeigned.” The apostle, looking at the fact, and for a moment overlooking the motive, exclaims :—
cal év TovT@ yalpw addXrAA Kal yapnoowat—“ and in this I rejoice ; yea, and I will rejoice.” For yalpw év, see Col. i. 24. The pronoun tovrm does not refer specially to Christ ; nor yet, vaguely, to the entire crisis, as Meyer takes it; but directly to the preaching. To render it, with Ellicott, “in this state of things,” is too broad, and would not be wholly true: for the apostle must have grieved over the wicked motives of those preachers, though he rejoiced in their preaching. We must subtract from “this state of things,” what must have caused him sorrow; there being left the fact that Christ was proclaimed, and in that he rejoiced. “In this preaching, be the motive what it may, I rejoice.” The ddArAd is still slightly adversative, as it stands between the present xaipw and the future yapyoouzat—not only now, or at present, but I will also rejoice. See an explanation of the idiom under Eph. v. 24. As happens with many barytone verbs, in Attic the future of ya/pw is yatpjow—but in the other dialects, and in the New Testament, the middle form is employed. Matthiae, § 255; Winer, § 15. The apostle felt that impurity of motive might modify, but not prevent all good result; and that, as long as its true character was concealed, such preaching might not be without fruit. He knew the preach- ing of Christ to be a noble instrument, and though it was not a clean hand which set in motion, still it might effect incalculable good. For truth is mighty, no matter in what spirit it is published ; its might being in itself, and not in the breath of him who proclaims it. Disposition and purpose belong to the preacher and his individual responsibility ; but the preaching of Christ has an innate power to win and save. The virtue lies in the gospel, not in the gospeller; in the exposition, and not in the expounder.
Not that the apostle was or could be indifferent to the motive which ought to govern a preacher of the gospel. Not as if he for a moment encouraged neutrality or lukewarm-
PHILIPPIANS I. 18. 41
ness, or thought that unconverted men might be safely entrusted with the precious function. But he simply regards the work and its fruits, and he leaves the motive with Him who could fully try it—the Judge of all. Vindictive and jealous feeling toward himself, he could pity and pardon, provided the work be done. He could well bear that good be achieved by others, even out of envy to himself. The mere eclat of apostleship was nothing to him, and he could not for- bid others, because they did not follow himself. Those men who so preached Christ, were therefore neither heretics nor gross Judaizers,’ subverting the faith. Their preaching is supposed to be the means of saving souls. The Greek ex- positors notice the abuse which some heretics—rivés dvonrot ——made of the apostle’s statement, and they answer, that he does not warrant such a style of preaching—does not say xatayyeAdécOw, but xataryyéAXerar—merely relating a fact, not issuing a sanction. Chrysostom calls attention to the apostle’s calmness—that he does not inveigh against his enemies, but simply narrates what has occurred.
This verse was the subject of long and acrimonious dispute during the Pietist controversy in Germany. The question was generally, Whether unconverted men are warranted or qualified to preach the gospel; or specially, Whether the religious knowledge acquired by a wicked man can be termed theology, or how far the office and ministry of an impious man can be pronounced efficacious, or whether a licentious and godless man be capable of divine illumination? It is obvious that such questions are not determined by the apostle, and that there is no solution of them in this passage. His language is tuo vague, and the whole circumstances are too obscure, to form a foundation for judgment. The party referred to here preached Christ from a very unworthy personal motive, and the apostle rejoiced in the preaching, though he might compassionate and forgive the preachers. We cannot argue a general rule from such an exceptional case. But apart from any casuistry, and any fanaticism which the Pietists might exhibit, their general principle was correct, and it was in opposition to their tenets, and as a re- bound from them, that men were admitted into pulpits to preach
1 Chrysostom admits that they preached sound doctrine—syiss wiv ixapueeos,
42 PHILIPPIANS I. 19,
the gospel without any evidence that they believed in it, and that it was not required of them to be religious themselves, ere they taught religion to others. In the same way scholars were installed into chairs, from which they taught the language of Abraham, as the readiest means of scoffing at Abraham’s faith, and descanted on the writings of the apostles, as the most effectual method of reviling and undermining that religion which they had founded. We hold it to be the right principle—that the best preparation for preaching the Crucified One, is to have His spirit; that to be His, is the sure quali- fication for obeying His commission, and that an unchristian man has no call to take part in the vindication or enforcement of the religion of Christ.
(Ver. 19.) OlSa yap ote tobTo pot aroRycerat eis cwrnpiay —“For I know that this shall fall out unto my salvation.” Lachmann, by his punctuation, connects this clause immedi- ately with the preceding one, and he is right. The apostle’s avowal of future joy bases itself on an anticipated result. He felt a joy which others might not suppose, and it was no evanescent emotion, for it was connected with the most momentous of all blessings—his salvation. The ydp intro- duces a confirmatory explanation or reason. That this salva- tion—owrnpia—is not, as many from the Greek fathers downwards suppose, temporal deliverance, is evident from the instrumentality referred to—‘* your intercession, and the supply of Christ’s spirit.” These were not indispensable to his libe- ration, but to his soul’s health. A change in Nero’s heart, a mere whim of the moment, might have secured his freedom. The prior question, however, is the reference in rovro.
1. Many, with Theodoret, refer it to the afflictive circum- stances in which the apostle was placed, or to the dangers which lowered around him, in consequence of the envious and vindictive preachers—ot évred0ev guopevor xivdvvor. But the apostle thought too lightly of this danger, if it really existed, to give it such prominence. What was merely personal, had no interest for him ; what concerned the cause, at once concen- trated his attention, and begat emotion within him.
2. Theophylact, Calvin, Rhbheinwald, van MHengel, De Wette, and Beelen, refer rodro to the 17th verse—the preaching of Christ out of envy and strife, and for the
PHILIPPIANS I. 19. 43
purpose of adding to the apostle’s troubles, “Such preach- ing, instead of adding to my aifliction, shall contribute to my salvation.” But this connection carries back the reference too far, and breaks the continuity.
3. Others suppose the allusion to be to the preaching of the gospel ; to its greater spread, as Rilliet, Matthies, and Alford ; or to the general character of it, as Hoelemann—+si vel interdum de causis subdolis factum. These opinions appear to be some- what away from the context:
4. For we apprehend that it is simply to the sentiment of the preceding verse that the apostle refers. In that verse he tells them that, in spite of the opposite conclusion some might come to, he rejoiced in the fact that Christ was preached, whatever might be the motive of the preacher. And now he assigns the reason of that joy. He does not mean either that the gospel so proclaimed would achieve the salvation of others, as Grotius imagined, or with Heinrichs, that it would pro- duce his own, for it had already been secured. The preach- ing of the gospel to others, and the spread of it in Rome, or in Italy, could not in itself exercise any saving power upon him; nor could he have any doubt that the gospel which himself had believed and preached, should issue in his eternal happiness. We therefore understand the rovro to refer to the state of mind described in the former verse—his joy in the preaching of Christ, from whatever motive. For this state of mind indicated his supreme regard for Christ—that he preferred Him above everything—that he could bear to be an object of malevolence and jealousy, if so his Master was exalted—and that, provided Christ was preached, he cared not for tarnished fame or heavier affliction. This mental condition was an index to him of a healthy spiritual state. Salvation must be the issue, when Christ was so magnified in the process. On the contrary, if he had felt chagrin and dis- appointment—if he had grudged that any should preach but himself, or any name should obtain prominence in the churches but his own—if actual or apprehended addition to his sufferings had either made him repent his own preaching, or infuriated him at the preaching of others—then a temperament so unlike Him whom he professed to serve, might justly have made him doubt his salvation, or the certainty of its future possession.
44. PHILIPPIANS I. 19.
But his present Christ-like frame of spirit was salvational, if the expression may be coined—it was an index of present attainment, and the sure instrument of subsequent glory. It was the “ear,” which is seen not only to follow the blade, but which also betokens the “full corn.” There is no good ground for Alford’s confining the meaning of owrnpia to salvation, “ in degree of blessedness, not in reference to the absolute fact.” The verb amoSnoeras rather forbids it. Salvation will turn out to be the result—-salvation, first as a fact, and also in every element which the apostle expected. Luke xxi. 13. The clause occurs in the Septuagint. Job xiii. 16. And in this spirit the apostle adds—
Sua ris tpav Senocws—* through your supplication.” He knew that they prayed for him—such was their vivid interest in him, and such a conviction the use of the article r7s seems to imply. And he believed in the efficacy of their prayers— that their entreaty would bring down blessing upon him. His high function as an apostle did not elevate him above the need of their intercession. 2 Thess. iii, 1, 2; Philem. 22. He virtually claims it, for he professes to enjoy their sympathy. And, as the general result of their prayers, he subjoins—
kai éruyopnyias Tod mvevparos Incod Xpiorov—* and the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ.” ’Eacyoprpyia, see Eph. iv. 16. Conybeare says, “% émeyopnyia rod xoprryod would mean the supplying of all needs of the chorus by the choregus ; and that therefore the phrase before us signifies the supplying of all needs by the spirit.” Theophylact and Ccumenius, Zanchius, Grotius, Rilliet, Alford, and Wiesinger take the genitive as that of object, viz. that the Holy Spirit Himself forms the supply. Theophylact explains by saying, emvyo- pnyn89 awdelov +6 wvedua. With Theodoret, Calvin, Rhein- wald, van Hengel, and Ellicott, we prefer taking the genitive as that of subject—zsvevparos yopyyodvtos thy yapw. The apostle refers to that necessary supply which the Holy Spirit furnishes, that universal and well-timed assistance which He imparts. This seems to be on the whole the better and more natural interpretation. The use of the participle ervyopnyav with 76 avedpa in Gal. iii. 5, affords no ground of decision as to the genitive of the noun here; nor can the use of the genitive in Eph. iv. 16 determine the matter. Neither can
PHILIPPIANS I. 20. 45
we assent to Alford’s argument, taken from the position of the words, as such an argument is often doubtful, and no author has always followed tamely the same order. The connection of the two clauses has been disputed; that is, whether tuav belongs to éreyopryias as well as Serjcews. Meyer, Alford, and Baumgarten-Crusius hold that the con- nection is of this nature—‘“through your prayer and your supply of the Spirit of Christ.” But such an exegesis cannot be defended on the ground that d:d, or Sa tHs, or the simple article, is not repeated; for such a repetition is unnecessary, and according to a well-known law, the article is omitted before a second noun, when both nouns have a defining genitive. Winer, § 19, 5. Still the apostle’s thought seems. to be, that the supply of the Spirit to him would be the result of their prayers for him. For the Spirit is not to be explained away as merely meaning divine power, vis divina,as Am Ende renders. It is the Holy Spirit—who is here called the Spirit of Jesus Christ. The reason of such an appellation, it is not difficult to discover; for it does not rest on any dogmatic grounds, or any metaphysical views of the distinctions and relations of the persons in the Trinity. The genitive is that of possession or origin, the spirit which Jesus has or dispenses. The exaltation of the Redeemer secured the gift of the Holy Ghost, which it is His exalted prerogative to bestow. The Spirit represents Christ, for He comes in Christ's name, as another Paraclete, enlightens with Christ’s truths, purifies with Christ’s blood, comforts with Christ’s promises, and seals with Christ’s image.
(Ver. 20.) Kara ryv dtroxapadoxiay wai éd7rida pov, Ore év ovderi aicyuvOncouar— According to my firm expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed.” The preposi- tion xatd is in connection with olda ydp of the preceding verse. My knowledge that it shall issue in my salvation, is based upon, or rather is “in accordance with,” my expectation and hope. The two nouns, doxapadoxla and édzis, have much the same signification, only the latter has a meaning in advance of the former—hope being surer than expectation— and having in it a deeper conviction of certainty, or resting itself on a surer foundation. The view of Bretschneider, sub voce, is the reverse, but wrong. Hope is expectation combined
46 PHILIPPIANS I, 20.
with assurance. The noun dmoxapaooxia is found in Rom. viii. 19. Its composition has been variously resolved ; most probably it is «dpa, “the head,” and S8oxevew, “to observe.” It is, according to the Etymologicum Magnum, Th xebard mpoPAérew, or as CEcumenius describes it here, as édzida Hv Tis Kal aurnv éemixwav thy Kepadnv Soxever Kal tTepioKoTre.. The preposition do is not, as some say, meaningless or quiescent; but it is not properly intensive; rather, as Ellicott says, it is local It marks the point from which one looks out, or the place whence the thing expected is to come; and the additional idea is to look out, or continue to look out, till the thing looked for comes out of its place. The notion 1s, therefore, more that of continuance than earnestness, though certainly a persistent look will deepen into an earnest one. The word is well discussed in that family production, Fritzschi- orum Opuscula, p.150. The apostle did not speak at random, or from any vague and dreamy anticipations. He felt that he was warranted so to write. And what he had referred to was not something in which he had little interest, something which might happen in the course of events, but towards which he was indifferent. He was tremblingly alive to the result, and his soul was set upon it.
The next clause tells the personal object of his hope— “that in nothing I shall be ashamed.” It is wrong on the part of Estius and Matthies to render Orr, “for,” or “ because,” as if the clause were confirmative. The d7¢ introduces the object of hope; but with the other view the expectation and hope would refer vaguely to the preceding verse. The verb represents the Heb. waa in the Septuagint. Ps. xxxiv. 4, lxix. 3; 2 Cor. x. 8; 1 John ii. 28. The apostle does not mean to say, that in nothing should he be put out, as the common phrase is, or made to appear abashed and terrified. This is the view of Matthies and van Hengel, the latter of whom gives it as, ut in nulla re ab officio deflectam. A different view is held by Chrysostom, who has these words, “Whatever happens, I shall not be ashamed, «ae. they will not obtain the mastery over me.” “They, forsooth, expected to catch Paul in this snare, and to quench the freedom of the gospel.” This view is too restricted, for the apostle says, ev ovdevi, “in nothing,” not simply in living and preaching. The
PHILIPPIANS I. 20. 47
idea is not that shame would fall upon him principally if he died, or ceased to speak with boldness. The pronoun ovdevd is neuter, and does not refer either to the Philippians, as if he were saying, “in none of you I shall be ashamed,” or to those preaching Christ at Rome, as if he meant to affirm, “in none of them shall 1 be ashamed.” “In nothing,” says the apostle, “shall I feel ashamed.” He should preserve his trust and confidence ; no feeling of disgrace or disappointment should creep over him. He should maintain his erectness of spirit, and not hang his head like one who had come short of his end, or had been the victim of vain expectations. The verb aicyuvOncouas is in virtual contrast with dmoPyoetas eis cwrnpiy. He felt assured that neither in this hope nor any other should he be ashamed. His state of mind was such, that no emotion of shame could come near him. Christ’s work was doing in the meantime, and in that he rejoiced, no matter what the motive that led to it; and though he was a fettered prisoner, and his enemies might be traducing him, yet he was assured that now, as heretofore, heshould not be brought into shame, as if his life had been a failure ; for, should he live, Christ should be glorified ; and should he die, the same result would equally happen. And he speaks now in a more positive tone—
aXN’ ev Tdoy Tappnola ws TravtoTe Kal viv peyaduvOrjceTat Xpicros €v Tw cwpati pou“ but with all boldness, as always and now, Christ shall be magnitied in my body.” Shame is the contrast of boldness, for he who feels ashamed is a coward. "Ev wdoy is in antithesis to év ovdev’. He had been bold in days gone by, in crises which had passed away; and as it had been always, so it would be now—«ai vov. What the apostle expected and hoped was, that Christ should be magnified in his body. The verb peyaAvyw is to make or declare great, and often in the sense of praise; for praise is the laudatory expression of the divine greatness. It tells how great He is, or how great He has disclosed Himself to be. The meaning here is, that Christ should be evinced in His greatness—dis- closed in His majesty. Rilliet takes the verb in the sense of grandir—se developper; the development of Christ within himself, in allusion to Gal. ii, 20,iv. 19. But, as has been well remarked by Wiesinger, “the added words, év T@ ca@pati pov, are fatal to this supposition.” Nor is there any instance
48 PHILIPPIANS I. 21.
of the use of the term in such a personal sense. In Luke i. 58, it is said that the Lord made great His mercy—exhibited extraordinary kindness.
The next words are peculiar. The apostle does not say “in me,” but “in my body "—év r@ capari pov. The two forms of expression are not to be confounded. The following clause explains why terms so precise have been employed. Life and death are ‘both predicated of the body; therefore he says, in my body—
etre Sua Cwijs etre Sa Oavdrov—“ whether by life or by death.” It is all one—whether he live or die, the magnifying of Christ is secured on either alternative. If he lived, he should yet labour for Christ; and if his life were cut short, Christ should be glorified in the courage of his martyrdom, and the entrance of the martyr to heaven. Come what may—the glorification of Christ—the highest aim of his heart is secured.
The apostle rejoiced that Christ was preached, no matter what might be the motive; and this prevailing emotion, he was assured, would result in salvation. He was confident that he should not be left in shame: for the glorification of Christ, the prime object of