Lectionary Calendar
Sunday, July 20th, 2025
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
Take your personal ministry to the Next Level by helping StudyLight build churches and supporting pastors in Uganda.
Click here to join the effort!
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Commentaries
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Meyer's Commentary
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Philippians 4". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/philippians-4.html. 1832.
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Philippians 4". Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/
Whole Bible (50)New Testament (19)Individual Books (13)
Introduction
CHAPTER 4
Philippians 4:3 . Instead of ναί Elz. has καί , against decisive witnesses.
Instead of ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Îµ γνήÏιε , γνήÏιε ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Îµ should be written, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence.
On decisive testimony, in Philippians 4:12 , instead of οἶδα δὲ ÏÎ±Ï . (Elz.), οἶδα καὶ ÏÎ±Ï . is to be received. The δΠhas taken its rise from the last syllable of οἶδα ; hence we also find the reading δὲ καί .
Philippians 4:13 . After με Elz. has ΧÏιÏÏá¿· , in opposition to A B D* × , vss. (also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended by Reiche, but it is an addition from 1 Timothy 1:12 , from which passage also are found the amplifications in Or, Χ . ἸηÏοῦ and Χ . Ἰ . Ïá¿· ÎºÏ Ïίῳ ἡμῶν .
Ver 16. Îµá¼°Ï ] wanting in A D* E**, min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But after δÎΣ , á¼ÎΣ might the more readily be omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might, indeed, on account of the absence of an object for á¼ÏÎÎ¼Ï ., appear offensive.
Philippians 4:19 . With Lachm. and Tisch., the form Ïὸ ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï is to be adopted upon decisive testimony. See on 2 Corinthians 8:2 .
Philippians 4:23 . ÏάνÏÏν á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ ] A B D E F G P × **, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pel. have Ïοῦ ÏνεÏμαÏÎ¿Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ . So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Galatians 6:18 , whence also in Elz. ἡμῶν has likewise crept in after ÎºÏ ÏÎ¯Î¿Ï .
Verse 1
Philippians 4:1 . Conclusion drawn from what precedes, from Philippians 4:17 onwards. We are not justified in going further back (de Wette refers it to the whole exhortation, Philippians 3:2 ff., comp. also Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), because the direct address to the readers in the second person is only introduced at Philippians 4:17 , and that with á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ïοί , as in the passage now before us; secondly, because the predicates á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏοὶ ⦠ÏÏÎÏανÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï place the summons in that close personal relation to the apostle, which entirely corresponds with the words ÏÏ Î¼Î¼Î¹Î¼Î·Ïαί Î¼Î¿Ï Î³Î¯Î½ÎµÏθε in Philippians 4:17 ; thirdly, because á½¥ÏÏε finds its logical reference in that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is connected with the exhortation ÏÏ Î¼Î¼Î¹Î¼Î·Ïαί κ . Ï . λ . in Philippians 4:17 ; and lastly, because οá½ÏÏ in Philippians 4:1 is correlative to the οá½ÏÏ in Philippians 3:17 . [175]
á½¥ÏÏε ] accordingly; the ethical actual result, which what has been said of the ἡμεá¿Ï in. Philippians 3:20 f. ought to have with the readers. Comp. Philippians 2:12 ; 1 Corinthians 15:58 .
á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏοί κ . Ï . λ .] “blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat, quae tamen non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris,” Calvin.
How might they disappoint and grieve such love as this by non-compliance!
á¼ÏιÏÏθηÏοι ] longed for , for whom I yearn (comp. Philippians 1:8 ); not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.; comp. App. Hisp . 43; Eust. Opusc , p. 357. 39; Aq. Ezekiel 23:11 ( á¼ÏιÏÏθηÏÎ¹Ï ); Psalms 139:9 ( á¼ÏιÏÏθημα ); Ael. N. A . vii. 3 ( ÏοθηÏÏÏ ).
ÏÏÎÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï ] comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:19 ; Sir 1:9 ; Sir 6:31 ; Sir 15:6 ; Ezekiel 16:12 ; Ezekiel 23:42 ; Proverbs 16:31 ; Proverbs 17:6 ; Job 19:9 . The honour , which accrued to the apostle from the excellent Christian condition of the church, is represented by him under the figure of a crown of victory . Comp. ÏÏÎÏανον εá½ÎºÎ»ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï μÎγαν , Soph. Aj . 465; Eur. Suppl . 313; Iph. A . 193, Herc. F . 1334; Thuc. ii. 46; Jacobs, ad Anthol . IX. p. 30; Lobeck ad Aj. l.c.; also ÏÏεÏανοῦν (Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic . I. p. 684), ÏÏεÏάνÏμα , Pind. Pyth . i. 96, xii. 9, ÏÏεÏανηÏοÏεá¿Î½ , Wis 4:2 , and Grimm in loc . The reference of ÏαÏά to the present time, and of ÏÏÎÏ . to the future judgment (Calvin and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbitrarily a reflective distinction of ideas, which is not in keeping with the fervour of the emotion.
οá½ÏÏ ] corresponding to the ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï that has just been set forth and recommended to you (Philippians 3:17 ff.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret: so, as ye stand , so that Paul “praesentem statum laudando ad perseverantiam eos hortetur,” Calvin. This is at variance with the context, for he has just adduced others as a model for his readers; and the exhortation would not agree with ÏÏ Î¼Î¼Î¹Î¼ . μ . γίνεÏθε , Philippians 3:17 , which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally advanced community, still does not presuppose the existence already of a normal Christian state.
á¼Î½ ÎºÏ Ïίῳ ] Comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:8 . Christ is to be the element in which the standing fast required of them is to have its specific character, so that in no case can the moral life ever act apart from the fellowship of Christ.
á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏοί ] “ ÏεÏιÏÎ±Î¸á½´Ï haec vocis hujus á¼Î½Î±ÏοÏά ,” Grotius. In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied the expressions of love and praise of his readers; a strong testimony certainly as to the praiseworthy condition of the church, from which, however, Weiss infers too much. Here, as always (Romans 12:19 ; 2Co 7:1 ; 2 Corinthians 12:19 ; Philippians 2:12 ; 1 Corinthians 10:14 ; Hebrews 6:9 , et al .), moreover, á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏοί stands as an address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is not to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with á¼Î½ ÎºÏ Ïίῳ .
[175] In opposition to which Hofmann quite groundlessly urges the objection, that Paul in that case would have written ÏεÏιÏαÏεá¿Ïε instead of ÏÏήκεÏε . As if he must have thought and spoken thus mechanically! The ÏÏήκεÏε is in fact substantially just a ÏεÏιÏαÏεá¿Î½ which maintains its ground.
Verse 2
Philippians 4:2 f. After this general exhortation, Philippians 4:1 , the apostle, still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to him, finds it requisite to give a special admonition to and for two meritorious women , [176] through whose disagreement, the details of which are unknown to us, but which probably turned on differences of their working in the church, a scandal had occurred, and the ÏÏήκειν á¼Î½ ÎºÏ Ïίῳ might more or less be imperilled. Whether they were deaconesses in Philippi (as many conjecture), must remain undecided. Grotius has erroneously considered both names, Hammond and Calmet only the second, to be masculine , [177] and in that case αá½Ïαá¿Ï in Philippians 4:3 is made to apply to others (viz. ÎἽΤÎÎÎÏ Î . Τ . Î . ). For the two feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori. With Tischendorf and Lipsius ( Gramm. Unters . p. 31), Î£Ï Î½ÏÏ Ïή is to be treated as oxytone. Comp. generally Kühner, I. p. 256. The twice used ÏαÏακ .: “quasi coram adhortans seorsum utramvis, idque summa cum aequitate,” Bengel. An earnestly individualizing á¼Î ÎÎÎÎÎ (Bremi, ad Aeschin . p. 400).
Ïὸ αá½Ïὸ ÏÏον .] see on Philippians 2:2 .
á¼Î ÎΥΡ . ] characterizes the specifically Christian concord, the moral nature and effort of which are grounded on Christ as their determining vital principle. Paul does not desire a union of minds apart from Christ.
Whether the disunion, which must be assumed, had its deeper root in moral pride on account of services in the cause of the gospel (Schinz), is not clear.
[176] According to Baur, indeed, they are alleged to be two parties rather than two women; and Schwegler ( nachapostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 135) makes out that Euodia represents the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the Gentile-Christian party, and that γνήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Î¿Ï applies to Peter! On the basis of Constitutt. ap. vii. 46. 1 (according to which Peter appointed an Euodius, and Paul Ignatius, as Bishop of Antioch), this discovery has been amplified with further caprice by Volkmar in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 147 ff. But exegetical fiction in connection with the two feminine names has been pushed to the utmost by Hitzig, z. Krit. Paulin. Br. p. 5 ff., according to whom they are supposed to have their origin in Genesis 30:9 ff.; he represents our author as having changed Asher and Gad into women in order to represent figuratively two parties, and both of them Gentile-Christian.
[177] Theodore of Mopsuestia quotes the opinion that the two were husband and wife.
Verse 3
Philippians 4:3 . Indeed, I entreat thee also , etc. This bringing in of a third party is a confirmation of the previous admonition as regards its necessity and urgency; hence the ναί ; comp. Philemon 1:20 . See also on Matthew 15:27 .
ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Îµ is erroneously understood by Clemens Alexandrinus, Isidorus, Erasmus, Musculus, Cajetanus, Flacius, and others, as referring to the wife of the apostle; an idea which, according to 1 Corinthians 7:8 , compared with 1 Corinthians 9:5 , is at variance with history (see, already, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact), and at the same time at variance with grammar, as the adjective must in that case have stood in the feminine ( Test. XII. Patr . p. 526; Eur. Alc . 314, 342, 385). Others understand the husband of one of the two women (so, although with hesitation, Chrysostom, also Theophylact, according to whom, however, he might have been a brother , and Camerarius; not disapproved by Beza); but what a strangely artificial designation would “genuine conjux ” be! Weiss prefers to leave undecided the nature of the bond which connected the individual in question with the two women. But if, in general, a relation to the women were intended, and that apart from the bond of matrimony, by the term ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Îµ Paul would have expressed himself very awkwardly; for the current use of the word ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Î¿Ï , and also of ÏÏ Î¶Ï Î³Î®Ï ( 3Ma 4:8 ) and ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î¾ (Eur. Alc . 924), in the sense of conjux (comp. ÏÏ Î¶ÎµÏ Î³Î½Ïναι , Xen. Oec . 7. 30; Herodian, iii. 10. 14), must have been well known to the reader. The usual mode of interpreting this passage (so Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, following Pelagius and Theodoret) has been to refer it to some distinguished fellow-labourer of the apostle , well known, as a matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his abode in Philippi and deserved well of the church there by special services. Some have arbitrarily fixed on Silas (Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on Timothy (Estius), and even on Epaphroditus (Vatablus, Grotius, Calovius, Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hofmann also would have us understand as referred to, inasmuch as he regards him as the amanuensis of the epistle, who had therefore heard it dictated by the apostle, and then heard it again when it came to be read in the church, so that he knew himself to be the person addressed . What accumulated invention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all, unsuitable confession before the church that he was himself the person thus distinguished by the apostle! According to Luther’s gloss, Paul means “ the most distinguished bishop in Philippi.” Comp. also Ewald, who compares ÏÏ Î¼ÏÏεÏβÏÏεÏÎ¿Ï , 1 Peter 5:1 . But how strange would such a nameless designation be in itself! How easily might the preferential designation by γνήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï have seemed even to slight other fellow-labourers in Philippi! Besides, Paul, in describing his official colleagues, never makes use of this term, ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Î¿Ï , which does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., and which would involve the assumption that the unknown individual stood in quite a special relation to the apostle corresponding to this purposely-chosen predicate. Laying aside arbitrariness, and seeing that this address is surrounded by proper names (Philippians 4:2-3 ), we can only find in ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Îµ a proper name , in which case the attribute γνήÏιε corresponds in a delicate and winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp. Philemon 1:11 ); genuine Syzygus , that is, thou who art in reality and substantially that which thy name expresses: “ fellow-in-yoke,” i.e. yoke-fellow , fellow-labourer. We may assume that Syzygus had rendered considerable services to Christianity in Philippi in joint labour with the apostle, and that Paul, in his appellative interpretation of the name, followed the figurative conception of animals in the yoke ploughing or thrashing (1 Corinthians 9:9 ; 1 Timothy 5:18 ), a conception which was suggested to him by the very name itself . The opposite of γνήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï would be: οá½Îº á½Î½ÏÏÏ á½¤Î½ (comp. Plat. Polit . p. 293 E), so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be á¼ÏÏÎ½Ï Î¼Î¿Ï (Eur. Phoen . 1500; Soph. Aj . 430), Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr . p. 272 f. He bore this his name, however, as á½Î½Î¿Î¼Î± á¼ÏήÏÏ Î¼Î¿Î½ ( Del. Epigr . v. 42). This view of the word being a proper name to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent decidedly defends [178] in his Neut. Stud . p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of in his Lexicon , and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects [179] simply on account of the usus loquendi of γνήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï not being proved was already held by ΤÎÎÎÏ in Chrysostom; comp. Niceph. Call. ii. p. 212 D; Oecumenius permits a choice between it and the explanation in the sense of the husband of one of the two women. It is true that the name is not preserved elsewhere; but with how many names is that the case? Hence it was unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of the name ÎÎ¿Î»Î»Î·Î³á¾¶Ï (Joseph. Bell . vii. 3. 4), in connection with which, moreover, it would be hard to see why Paul should have chosen the word ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Î¿Ï elsewhere not used by him, and not ΣΥÎÎΡÎÎÏ , or the like. [180] To refer the word to Christ , who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a mistake.
ÏÏ Î»Î»Î±Î¼Î² . αá½Ïαá¿Ï ] lay hold along with them , that is, assist them (Luke 5:7 ; Herod, vi. 125; Xen. Ages . 2. 31; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil . 280; Lex. Plat . III. p. 294), namely, for their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious action.
αἵÏÎ¹Î½ÎµÏ ] utpote quae , giving the motive, comp. Philippians 1:28 ; see on Romans 1:25 ; Romans 2:15 ; Romans 6:2 , et al .
á¼Î½ Ïá¿· εá½Î±Î³Î³ .] the domain, in which they , etc. Comp. Romans 1:9 ; 1 Thessalonians 3:2 . It was among women that the gospel had first struck root in Philippi (Acts 16:13 ), and it is to be assumed that the two women named had rendered special service in the spread and confirmation of Christianity among their sex, and therein had shared the conflict of affliction and persecution with Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:2 ). On ÏÏ Î½Î®Î¸Î»Î·Ïαν , comp. Philippians 1:27 .
ÎÎΤᾺ ÎÎá¿ ÎÎÎÎÎÎΤÎÏ Î . Τ . Î . ] and in what fellowship, so honourable to them , have they shared my conflict for Christ’s sake? in association also with Clement and , etc. The reference of the καί is to ÎÎÎ ; their joint-striving with Paul had been a fellowship in striving also with Clement, etc.; they had therein stood side by side with these men also . On καὶ ⦠καί , the first ÎÎá¿ meaning also , comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph . I. p. 891; on its rarer position, however, between preposition and noun, see Schaefer, Ind. ad Gregor. Cor . p. 1064; Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 143; Kühner, II. 1, p. 480 f. The connection of μεÏá½° κ . Îλ . κ . Ï . λ . with ΣΥÎÎÎÎÎ . Îá½Î¤Îá¿Ï (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann) is opposed by the facts, that Paul has committed the service of mediation to an individual , with which the general impress now given to this commission is not in keeping, and that the subsequent ὧν Ïá½° á½Î½ÏμαÏα κ . Ï . λ ., in the absence of any specification of the churches, would neither be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and would be strangest of all in the event of Paul’s having intended, as Hofmann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons mentioned in Philippians 1:1 . The λοιÏοὶ ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγοί , as well as generally the more special circumstances of which Paul here reminds his readers, were if ÎÎΤᾺ ÎÎá¿ Î . Τ . Î . be joined with ΣΥÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎ ÎÎÎ , beside which it stands historically known to these readers, although unknown to us.
That Clement was a teacher in Philippi (so most modern expositors; according to Grotius, a presbyter in Philippi, but “Romanus aliquis in Macedonia negotians”), must be maintained in accordance with the context, seeing that with him those two Philippian women laboured as sharing the conflict of the apostle; and of a travelling companion of this name, who had laboured with the apostle in Macedonia, there is no trace to be found; and seeing that the λοιÏοὶ ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγοί also are to be regarded as Philippians , because thus only does the laudatory expression ὧν Ïá½° á½Î½ÏμαÏα κ . Ï . λ . appear in its vivid and direct set purpose of bespeaking for the two women the esteem of the church . The more frequent, however, in general the name of Clement was, the more arbitrary is the old view, although not yet known to Irenaeus (3:3. 3), that Clement of Rome is the person meant. [181] So most Catholic expositors (not Döllinger), following Origen, ad Joh . i. 29; Eusebius, H. E . iii. 15; Epiphanius, Haer . xxvii. 6; Jerome, Pelagius, and others; so also Francke, in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol . 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengel, who conjectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman women who had assisted the apostle in Rome , and had travelled with Epaphroditus to Philippi. See generally, besides Lünemann and Brückner, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep . p. 167 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff.; and Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter , p. 92 ff.
ὧν Ïá½° á½Î½Ïμ . κ . Ï . λ .] refers merely to Ïῶν λοιÏῶν κ . Ï . λ ., whom Paul does not adduce by name , but instead of this affirms of their names something so great and honourable. God has recorded their names in His book, in which are written down the future partakers of the everlasting Messianic life; so surely and irrevocably is this life assigned to them . What Paul thus expresses by this solemn figure, he knew from their whole Christian character and action, in which he recognised by experience “ quasi electionis [182] absconditae sigilla ” (Calvin). See, moreover, on Luke 10:20 , and Wetstein on our passage; it is different in Hebrews 12:23 (see Lünemann in loc ). á¼ÏÏί must be supplied, not the optative , as Bengel thinks; and it must remain an open question, whether the persons referred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be regarded as already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be inferred from ὧν Ïá½° á½Î½ÏμαÏα κ . Ï . λ .; see Luke 10:20 ; Hermas, Pastor i. 1. 3. It is at all events certain that this predicate, which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially honourable one, and does not simply convey what holds true of all Christians (so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of μεÏá½° καὶ κ . Ï . λ .). At Luke 10:20 , and Revelation 13:8 also, it is a mark of distinction .
[178] In doing so, Laurent takes the reference of ÏÏν contained in the name as general: “helper of all labour in the vineyard of the Lord.” More thoughtful, however, is the reference to the apostle himself, whose true yoke-fellow is to supply his place with his former female fellow-strivers ( ÏÏ Î½Î®Î¸Î» . μοι ) ; comp. also subsequently ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγῶν Î¼Î¿Ï .
[179] According to our view, γνήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï is, in fact, taken in no other sense than that which is current in all Greek authors, viz. á¼Î»Î·Î¸Î¹Î½ÏÏ , verus, as Hofmann himself takes it. Whether we refer it thus to ÏÎ¯Î¶Ï Î³Îµ as an appellative word, or as the appellative contents of a name is a matter which leaves the linguistic use of γνήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï altogether untouched. As is well known, νÏÎ¸Î¿Ï has the same general linguistic usage in the opposite sense (see e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 536 A; Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. i. 103. 3).
[180] This holds at the same time against the view of Pelagius: “Germanus dictus est nomine, qui erat compar officii.” He is followed by Lyra.
[181] Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur builds up a whole fabric of combinations, which are intended to transfer the date of our epistle to the post-apostolic age, when the Flavius Clemens known in Roman history, who was a patruelis of Domitian (Suet. Deuteronomy 15:0; Deuteronomy 15:0 ), and a Christian (Lami, de erud. apost. p. 104; Baur, II. p. 68), had already become the well-known Clement of Roman tradition. Comp. Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1856, p. 309, according to whom the Roman Clement is to be here already assumed as a martyr. Indeed, according to Schwegler and Hitzig, z. Krit. paulin. Br. p. 13, a first attempt is made here to connect this Clement also with Peter (for no other in their view is the ÏÏÎ¶Ï Î³Î¿Ï ). Thus, no doubt, the way is readily prepared for bringing down our epistle to the days of Trajan. Round the welcome name of Clement all possible fictions crystallize.
[182] The detailed discussion of the question as to the ground of the divine electio here portrayed (the Reformed theologians, “the decretum absolutum;” the Lutherans, “the praevisa fides;” the Catholics, “the praevisa opera”) is out of place here. Flacius, Clav. s. v. “liber,” justly observes that it is not fatalis quaedam electio which is pointed to, but ob veram justitiam, qualis Christi est, credentes eo referri et inscribi.
Verse 4
Philippians 4:4 f. Without any particle of transition, we have once more general concluding admonitions, which begin by taking up again the encouraging address broken off in Philippians 3:1 , and now strengthened by ÏάνÏοÏε the key-note of the epistle. They extend as far as Philippians 4:9 ; after which Paul again speaks of the assistance which he had received.
ÏάνÏοÏε ] not to be connected with Ïάλιν á¼Ïá¿¶ (Hofmann), which would make the Ïάλιν very superfluous, is an essential element of the Christian ÏαίÏειν ; comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:16 ; 2 Corinthians 6:10 . Just at the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in significantly. Paul desires joyfulness at all times on the part of the believer, to whom even tribulation is grace (Philippians 1:7 ; Philippians 1:29 ) and glory (Romans 5:3 ), and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by the certainty of atonement (Romans 8:1 ); to whom everything must serve for good (Romans 8:28 ; 1 Corinthians 3:21 f.), and nothing can separate him from the love of God (Romans 8:38 f.).
Ïάλιν á¼Ïá¿¶ ] once more I will say . Observe the future , which exhibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer; consequently not equivalent to Ïάλιν λÎÎ³Ï , 2 Corinthians 11:16 ; Galatians 1:9 . ÎÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï á¼Î´Î¹ÏλαÏίαÏεν , á¼Ïειδὴ Ïῶν ÏÏαγμάÏÏν ἡ ÏÏÏÎ¹Ï Î»ÏÏην á¼ÏικÏε , διὰ Ïοῦ διÏλαÏιαÏμοῦ Î´ÎµÎ¯ÎºÎ½Ï Ïιν , á½ Ïι ÏάνÏÏÏ Î´Îµá¿ ÏαίÏειν , Chrysostom.
Τὸ á¼ÏÎ¹ÎµÎ¹Îºá½²Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ ] your mildness [ Lindigkeit , Luther], that is, your gentle character , as opposed to undue sternness (Polyb. v. 10. 1 : ἡ á¼Ïιείκεια καὶ ÏιλανθÏÏÏία , Lucian, Phal. Proverbs 2 : á¼ÏÎ¹ÎµÎ¹Îºá½´Ï Îº . μÎÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï , Herodian, ii. 14. 5, ix. 12; 1 Timothy 3:3 ; Titus 3:2 ; Jam 3:17 ; 1 Peter 2:18 ; Psalms 85:5 ; Add. to Esther 6:8 ; 2Ma 9:27 ). Comp. on 2 Corinthians 10:1 . The opposite: á¼ÎºÏÎ¹Î²Î¿Î´Î¯ÎºÎ±Î¹Î¿Ï , Arist. Eth. Nic . v. 10. 8, ÏκληÏÏÏ . As to the neuter of the adjective taken as a substantive, see on Philippians 3:8 ; comp. Soph. O. C . 1127. It might also mean: your becoming behaviour; see e.g . the passages from Plato in Ast, Lex . I. p. 775. But how indefinite would be such a requirement as this! The general duty of the Christian walk (which Matthies finds in the words) is not set forth till Philippians 4:8 . And in the N. T. á¼Ïιεικ . always occurs in the above-named special sense.
γνÏÏθήÏÏ Ïá¾¶Ïιν á¼Î½Î¸Ï .] let it be known by all men , through the acquaintance of experience with your conduct. Comp. Matthew 5:16 . The universality of the expression (which, moreover, is to be taken popularly: “let no man come to know you in a harsh, rigorous aspect”) prohibits our referring it to their relation to the enemies of the cross of Christ , against whom they should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others), or to the Judaists (Rheinwald), although none of these are excluded, and the motive for the exhortation is in part to be found in the outward circumstances full of tribulation, face to face with an inclination to moral pride.
The succession of exhortations without any outward link may be psychologically explained by the fact, that the disposition of Christian joyfulness must elevate men quite as much above strict insisting upon rights and claims as above solicitude (Philippians 4:6 ). Neither with the former nor with the latter could the Christian fundamental disposition of the ÏαίÏειν á¼Î½ ÎºÏ Ïίῳ subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding love and casts all care upon God.
ὠκÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼Î³Î³ÏÏ ] points to the nearness of Christ’s Parousia , 1 Corinthians 16:22 . Comp. on á¼Î³Î³ÏÏ , Matthew 24:32 f.; Luke 21:31 ; Revelation 1:3 ; Revelation 22:10 ; Romans 13:11 . The reference to God , by which Paul would bring home to their hearts, as Calvin expresses it, “ divinae providentiae fiduciam ” (comp. Psalms 34:18 ; Psalms 119:151 ; Psalms 145:18 ; so also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zanchius, Wolf, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, Cornelius Müller, and others), is not suggested in Philippians 4:1-2 ; Philippians 4:4 by the context, which, on the contrary, does not refer to God until Philippians 4:6 . Usually and rightly, following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have been attached to what precedes . [183] If the Lord is at hand, who is coming as the Vindex of every injustice endured and as the ÏÏÏÎ®Ï of the faithful, how should they not, in this prospect of approaching victory and blessedness (Philippians 3:20 ), willingly and cheerfully renounce everything opposed to Christian á¼Ïιείκεια ! The words therefore convey an encouragement to the latter. What follows has its complete reference, and that to God, pointed out by the antithesis á¼Î»Î»Ê¼ á¼Î½ ÏανÏá½¶ κ . Ï . λ .
[183] They do not belong, by way of introduction, to what follows , as Hofmann thinks, who understands “the helpful nearness of the Lord” (Matthew 28:20 ; James 4:8 ) in the present, and consequently the assurance of being heard in the individual case. Comp., rather, on the á¼Î³Î³ÏÏ habitually used of the future final coming, in addition to the above passages, Matthew 3:2 ; Matthew 4:17 ; Matthew 10:7 ; Mark 1:15 ; Luke 21:8 ; Luke 21:28 ; Romans 13:12 ; Hebrews 10:25 ; James 5:8 ; 1 Peter 4:7 ; and the á¼ÏÏομαι ÏαÏÏ of the Apocalypse. The simply correct rendering is given after Chrysostom by Erasmus ( “instat enim adventus Christi” ), Grotius, and others.
Verse 6
Philippians 4:6 . The μεÏιμνᾶÏε is not to be limited in an arbitrary way (as by Grotius, Flatt, Weiss, and others, to anxious care); about nothing (neither want, nor persecution, nor a threatening future, etc.) are they at all to give themselves concern, but on the contrary, etc.; μηδÎν , which is emphatically prefixed, is the accusative of the object (1 Corinthians 7:32 ff; 1 Corinthians 12:25 ; Philippians 2:20 ). Comp. Xen. Cyrop . viii. 7. 12: Ïὸ Ïολλὰ μεÏιμνᾶν καὶ Ïὸ μὴ δÏναÏθαι ἡÏÏ Ïίαν á¼Ïειν . Caring is here, as in Matthew 6:0 , the contrast to full confidence in God. Comp. 1 Peter 5:7 . “Curare et orare plus inter se pugnant quam aqua et ignis,” Bengel.
á¼Î½ ÏανÏί ] opposed to the μηδÎν ; hence: in every case or affair (comp. Eph 5:24 ; 2 Corinthians 4:8 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:18 ; Plat. Euthyd . p. 301 A), not: at all times (Syriac, Grotius, Bos, Flatt, Rheinwald).
Ïá¿ ÏÏοÏÎµÏ Ïῠκ . ÏῠδεήÏει ] by prayer and supplication . On the distinction between the two (the former being general , the latter supplicating prayer), see on Ephesians 6:18 . The article indicates the prayer, which ye make; and the repetition of the article, otherwise not required, puts forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kühner, II. 1, p. 529).
μεÏá½° εá½ÏÎ±Ï .] belongs to γνÏÏιζ . κ . Ï . λ ., which, excluding all solicitude in the prayer, should never take place (comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:18 ; Colossians 3:17 ) without thanksgiving for the proofs of divine love already received and continually being experienced, of which the Christian is conscious under all circumstances (Romans 8:28 ). In the thanksgiving of the suppliant there is expressed entire surrender to God’s will, the very opposite of solicitude.
Ïá½° αἰÏήμαÏα á½Î¼ .] what ye desire (Plat. Rep . viii. p. 566 B; Dionys. Hal. Antt . vi. 74; Luke 23:24 ), that is, in accordance with the context: your petitions (1 John 5:15 ; Daniel 6:7 ; Daniel 6:13 ; Psalms 19:6 ; Psalms 36:4 , et al.; Schleusner, Thes . I. p. 100).
γνÏÏιζÎÏÎ¸Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï Ï . ÎεÏν ] must be made known towards God; ÏÏÏÏ , versus; it is the coram of the direction. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Is . iii. 25. The expression is more graphic than the mere dative would be; and the conception itself ( γνÏÏιζ .) is popularly anthropopathic; Matthew 6:8 . Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks on the subject-matter: “qui desideria sua praepostero pudore ac diffidenti modestia ⦠velant, suffocant ac retinent, curis anguntur; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expromunt, expediuntur. Confessionibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi.”
Verse 7
Philippians 4:7 . The blessed result , which the compliance with Philippians 4:6 will have for the inner man. How independent is this blessing of the concrete granting or non-granting of what is prayed for!
ἡ εἰÏήνη Ï . Îεοῦ ] the peace of soul produced by God (through the Holy Spirit; comp. ÏαÏá½° á¼Î½ ÏνεÏμαÏι á¼Î³Î¯á¿³ , Romans 14:17 ), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God’s counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and variance are excluded, such as it is expressed e.g . in Romans 8:18 ; Romans 8:28 . So in substance most expositors, including Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer. This view and not (in opposition to Theodoret and Pelagius) that explanation of peace in the sense of harmony with the brethren (Romans 15:33 ; Romans 16:20 ; 2 Corinthians 13:11 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:23 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:16 ), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the correlative á½ ÎÎµá½¸Ï Ïá¿Ï εἰÏÎ®Î½Î·Ï in Philippians 4:9 is here required on the part of the context, both by the contrast of μεÏιμνᾶÏε in Philippians 4:6 , and by the predicate ἡ á½ÏεÏÎÏÎ¿Ï Ïα ÏάνÏα νοῦν . The latter, if applicable to the peace of harmony , would express too much and too general an idea; it is, on the other hand, admirably adapted to the holy peace of the soul which God produces, as contrasted with the μÎÏιμνα , to which the feeble Î½Î¿á¿¦Ï by itself is liable; as, indeed, in the classical authors also (Plat. Rep . p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere ( Wis 3:3 ), εἰÏήνη denotes the tranquillitas and securitas , the mental γαλήνη (Plat. Legg . vii. p. 791 A) and ἡÏÏ Ïία a rest, which here is invested by Ïοῦ Îεοῦ with the consecration of divine life. Comp. εἰÏήνη Ïοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ , Colossians 3:15 ; John 14:27 ; and, on the other hand, the false εἰÏήνη κ . á¼ÏÏάλεια , 1 Thessalonians 5:3 . It is therefore not to be understood, according to Romans 5:1 , as “pax, qua reconciliati estis Deo ” (Erasmus, Paraphr.; so Chrysostom, ἡ καÏαλλαγὴ , ἡ á¼Î³Î¬Ïη Ï . Îεοῦ ; and Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Estius, Wetstein, and others, including Storr, Matthies, and van Hengel), which would be too general and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is the presupposition of the divinely produced moral feeling which is here meant; the former is εἰÏήνη ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸν ÎεÏν , the latter εἰÏήνη Ïοῦ Îεοῦ .
ἡ á½ÏεÏÎÏÎ¿Ï Ïα ÏάνÏα νοῦν ] which surpasses every reason , namely, in regard to its salutary power and efficacy; that is, which is able more than any reason to elevate above all solicitude , to comfort and to strengthen. Because the reason in its moral thinking, willing, and feeling is of itself too weak to confront the power of the ÏάÏξ (Romans 7:23 ; Romans 7:25 ; Galatians 5:17 ), no reason is in a position to give this clear holy elevation and strength against the world and its afflictions. This can be effected by nothing but the agency of the divine peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing heart, when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving it has elevated itself to God and has confided to Him all its concerns, 1 Peter 5:7 . Then, in virtue of this blessed peace, the heart experiences what it could not have experienced by means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. According to de Wette, the doubting and heart-disquieting Î½Î¿á¿¦Ï is meant, which is surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is based upon faith and feeling. In opposition to this, however, stands the ÏάνÏα , according to which not merely all doubting reason, but every reason is meant. No one , not even the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its action what he has through the peace of God. Others have explained it in the sense of the incomprehensibleness of the peace of God, “the greatness of which the understanding cannot even grasp” (Wiesinger). So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoelemann and Weiss. Comp. Ephesians 3:20 . But the context, both in the foregoing μηδὲν μεÏιμνᾶÏε and in the ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏήÏει κ . Ï . λ . which follows, points only to the blessed influence , in respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of reason whatever, and consequently is more efficacious than it. It is a á½ÏεÏÎÏειν Ïá¿ Î´Ï Î½Î¬Î¼ÎµÎ¹ ; Paul had no occasion to bring into prominence the incomprehensibleness of the εἰÏήνη Îεοῦ .
On á½ÏεÏÎÏειν with the accusative (usually with the genitive, Philippians 2:3 ), see Valckenaer, ad Eur. Hippol . 1365; Kühner, II. 1, p. 337.
ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏήÏει κ . Ï . λ .] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact: á¼ÏÏαλίÏαιÏο , Luther, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), but custodiet (Castalio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection against all injurious influences (comp. 1 Peter 1:5 ) is promised . Comp. Plat. Rep . p. 560 B: οἱ ⦠á¼ÏιÏÏοι ÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïοί Ïε καὶ ÏÏÎ»Î±ÎºÎµÏ á¼Î½ á¼Î½Î´Ïῶν θεοÏιλῶν εἰÏá½¶ Î´Î¹Î±Î½Î¿Î¯Î±Î¹Ï . Eur. Suppl . 902: á¼ÏÏοÏÏει ( ÏÎ¿Î»Î»Î¿á½ºÏ ) μηδὲν á¼Î¾Î±Î¼Î±ÏÏάνειν . “ Animat eos hac fiducia,” Erasmus, Annot . This protecting vigilance is more precisely defined by á¼Î½ Χ . Ἰ ., which expresses its specific character, so far as this peace of God is in Christ as the element of its nature and life, and therefore its influence, protecting and keeping men’s hearts, is not otherwise realized and carried out than in this its holy sphere of life, which is Christ. The ÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïά which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, as it were, the ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏαÏÏία (Xen. Mem . iv. 4. 17). Comp. Colossians 3:15 , where the εἰÏήνη Ïοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ βÏαβεÏει in men’s hearts. Others consider á¼Î½ Χ . Ἰ . as that which takes place on the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God would keep them, namely “ in unity with Christ , in His divinely-blessed, holy life,” de Wette; or á½¥ÏÏε μÎνειν καὶ μὴ á¼ÎºÏεÏεá¿Î½ αá½Ïοῦ , Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Matthies, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss. But the words do not affirm wherein watchful activity is to keep or preserve the readers (Paul does not write ÏηÏήÏει ; comp. John 17:11 ), but wherein it will take place; therefore the inaccurate rendering per Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so far more correct. The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann (“Christo fere cinguli instar Ïá½°Ï ÎºÎ±ÏÎ´Î¯Î±Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ κ . Ï . λ . circumcludente,” etc.) is all the less warranted, the more familiar the idea á¼Î½ ΧÏιÏÏá¿· was to the apostle as representing the element in which the life and action, as Christian, move.
The pernicious influences themselves , the withholding and warding off of which are meant by ÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏήÏει κ . Ï . λ ., are not to be arbitrarily limited, e.g . to opponents (Heinrichs), or to Satan (Beza, Grotius, and others), or sin (Theophylact), or pravas cogitationes (Calvin), or “ omnes insultus et curas ” (Bengel), and the like; but to be left quite general, comprehending all such special aspects. Erasmus well says ( Paraphr .): “adversus omnia, quae hic possunt incidere formidanda.”
Ïá½°Ï ÎºÎ±Ïδ . á½Î¼ . κ . Ïá½° νοήμ . á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ ] emphatically kept apart. It is enough to add Bengel’s note: “cor sedes cogitationum.” Comp. Roos, Fundam. psychol. ex sacr. script . III. § 6: “causa cogitationum interna eaque libera.” The heart is the organ of self-consciousness, and therefore the moral seat of the activity of thought and will. As to the νοήμαÏα (2 Corinthians 3:14 ) as the internal products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore including purposes and plans (Plat. Polit . p. 260 D; 2 Corinthians 2:11 ), comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl . p. 59, and Delitzsch, Psychol , p. 179. The distinction is an arbitrary one, which applies Ï . καÏδ . to the emotions and will, and Ï . νοήμ . to the intelligence (Beza, Calvin).
Verse 8
Philippians 4:8 f. A summary closing summons to a Christian mode of thought and (Philippians 4:9 ) action, compressing everything closely and succinctly into a few pregnant words, introduced by Ïὸ λοιÏÏν , with which Paul had already, at Philippians 3:1 , wished to pass on to the conclusion. See on Philippians 3:1 . This Ïὸ λοιÏÏν is not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the old expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in Philippians 3:1 (Hofmann), for in that passage it introduced quite a different summons; but, without any reference to Philippians 3:1 , it conveys the transition of thought: “what over and above all the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is: everything that ,” etc. According to de Wette, it is intended to bring out what remained for man to do, in addition to that which God does, Philippians 4:7 . But in that case there must have been expressed , at least by á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï before á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ïοί or in some other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be done on the part of man .
á½ Ïα ] nothing being excepted, expressed asyndetically six times with the emphasis of an earnest á¼Ïιμονή . Comp. Philippians 2:1 , Philippians 3:2 ; Buttmann, Neut. Gr . p. 341 [E. T. 398].
á¼Î»Î·Î¸á¿ ] The thoroughly ethical contents of the whole summons requires us to understand, not theoretical truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally true; that is, that which is in harmony with the objective standard of morality contained in the gospel . Chrysostom: ἡ á¼ÏεÏή · ÏÎµá¿¦Î´Î¿Ï Î´á½² ἡ κακία . Oecumenius: á¼Î»Î·Î¸á½´ δΠÏηÏι Ïá½° á¼Î½Î¬ÏεÏα . Comp. also Theophylact. See 1 John 1:6 ; John 3:21 ; Eph 5:9 ; 1 Corinthians 5:8 . To limit it to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself arbitrary, and not in keeping with the general character of the predicates which follow, in accordance with which we must not even understand specially unfeigned sincerity (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others; comp. Ephesians 4:21 ; Plat. Phil . p. 59 C: Ïὸ á¼Î»Î·Î¸á½²Ï καὶ ὠδὴ λÎγομεν εἰλικÏινÎÏ ), though this essentially belongs to the morally true.
Ïεμνά ] worthy of honour , for it is in accordance with God . Comp. 1 Timothy 2:2 : εá½Ïεβείᾳ καὶ ÏεμνÏÏηÏι . Plat. Soph . p. 249 A: Ïεμνὸν καὶ ἠγιον νοῦν . Xen. Oec . vi. 14: Ïὸ Ïεμνὸν á½Î½Î¿Î¼Î± Ïὸ καλÏν Ïε κá¼Î³Î±Î¸Ïν . Dem. 385. 11; Herodian, i. 2. 6; Ael. V. H . ii. 13, viii. 36; Polyb. ix. 36. 6, xv. 22. 1, xxii. 6. 10.
δίκαια ] upright , as it ought to be; not to be limited to the relations “erga alios” (Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the narrower sense would be meant (so Calvin: “ne quem laedamus, ne quem fraudemus;” Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others). Comp., on the contrary, Theogn. 147: á¼Î½ δικαιοÏÏνῠÏÏ Î»Î»Î®Î²Î´Î·Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïʼ á¼ÏεÏή á¼ÏÏι .
á¼Î³Î½Î¬ ] pure, unstained , not: chaste in the narrower sense of the word (2 Corinthians 11:2 ; Dem. 1371. 22; Plut. Mor . p. 268 E, 438 C, et al .), as Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Heumann, and others would explain it. Calvin well says: “castimoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus.” Comp. 2 Corinthians 6:6 ; 2 Corinthians 7:11 ; 1 Timothy 5:22 ; James 3:17 ; 1 Peter 3:2 ; 1 John 3:3 ; often so used in Greek authors. Comp. Menand. in Clem. Strom , vii. p. 844: Ïá¾¶Ï á¼Î³Î½ÏÏ á¼ÏÏιν ὠμηδὲν á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿· κακὸν ÏÏ Î½Î¹Î´Ïν .
ÏÏοÏÏιλῠ] dear, that which is loved . This is just once more Christian morality , which, in its whole nature as the ethical καλÏν , is worthy of love; [184] Plat. Rep . p. 444 E; Soph. El . 972: ÏÎ¹Î»Îµá¿ Î³á½°Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïá½° ÏÏηÏÏá½° Ïá¾¶Ï á½Ïᾶν . “Nihil est amabilius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligendum, Cic. Lael . 28. Comp. ad Famil . ix. 14; Xen. Mem . ii. 1. 33. The opposite is the αἰÏÏÏÏν , which deserves hate (Romans 7:15 ). Chrysostom suggests the supplying Ïοá¿Ï ÏιÏÏοá¿Ï κ . Ïá¿· Îεῷ ; Theodoret only Ïá¿· Îεῷ . Others, as Calovius, Estius, Heinrichs, and many: “amabilia hominibus ” But there is no necessity for any such supplement. The word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., although frequently in classical authors, and at Sir 4:8 ; Sir 20:13 . Others understand kindliness , benevolence, friendliness, and the like. So Grotius; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr .: “quaecumque ad alendam concordiam accommoda.” Linguistically faultless (Ecclus. l.c.; Herod, i. 125; Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x. 5. 6), but not in keeping with the context, which does not adduce any special virtues.
εá½Ïημα ] not occurring elsewhere either in the N. T., or in the LXX., or Apocrypha; it does not mean: “quaecumque bonam famam conciliant ” (Erasmus; comp. Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Heinrichs, and others, also Rheinwald); but: (Luther), which has an auspicious (faustum) sound, i.e . that which, when it is named, sounds significant of happiness, as, for instance, brave, honest, honourable , etc. The opposite would be: δÏÏÏημα . Comp. Soph. Aj . 362; Eur. Iph. T . 687: εá½Ïημα ÏÏνει . Plat. Leg . vii. p. 801 A: Ïὸ Ïá¿Ï ᾠδá¿Ï γÎÎ½Î¿Ï Îµá½Ïημον ἡμá¿Î½ . Aesch. Suppl . 694, Agam . 1168; Polyb. xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, Prom . 3. Storr, who is followed by Flatt, renders it: “ sermones, qui bene aliis precantur. ” So used in later Greek authors (also Symmachus, Psalms 62:6 ); but this meaning is here too special.
εἴ ÏÎ¹Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] comprehending all the points mentioned: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise; not if there be yet another , etc. (de Wette).
á¼ÏεÏή used by Paul here only, and in the rest of the N. T. only in 1Pe 2:9 , 2 Peter 1:3 ; 2 Peter 1:5 , [185] in the ethical sense: moral aptitude in disposition and action (the opposite to it, κακία : Plat. Rep . 444 D, 445 C, 1, p. 348 C). Comp. from the Apocrypha, Wis 4:1 ; Wis 5:13 , and frequent instances of its use in the books of Macc.
á¼ÏÎ±Î¹Î½Î¿Ï ] not: res laudabilis (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, and many others; comp. Weiss), but praise (Erasmus: “laus virtutis comes”), which the reader could not understand in the apostle’s sense otherwise than of a laudatory judgment actually corresponding to the moral value of the object. Thus, for instance, Paul’s commendation of love in 1 Corinthians 13:0 is an á¼ÏÎ±Î¹Î½Î¿Ï ; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble, the peacemakers, the merciful, etc., or the like. “Vera laus uni virtuti debetur,” Cic. de orat . ii. 84. 342; virtue is καθʼ αá½Ïὴν á¼ÏαινεÏή , Plat. Def . p. 411 C. Mistaken, therefore, were such additions as á¼ÏιÏÏÎ®Î¼Î·Ï (D* E* F G) or disciplinae (Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius).
ÏαῦÏα λογίζεÏθε ] consider these things , take them to heart, in order, (see Philippians 4:9 ) to determine your conduct accordingly. “Meditatio praecedit, deinde sequitur opus,” Calvin. On λογίζεÏθαι , comp. Psalms 52:2 ; Jeremiah 26:3 ; Nahum 1:9 ; Psalms 35:4 ; Psalms 36:4 ; Malachi 4:4; Malachi 4:4 ; Soph. O. R . 461; Herod, viii. 53; Dem. 63, 12; Sturz, Lex. Xen . III. p. 42; the opposite: θνηÏá½° λογίζεÏθαι , Anthol. Pal . xi. 56. 3.
Philippians 4:9 . The Christian morality, which Paul in Philippians 4:8 has commended to his readers by a series of predicates, he now again urges upon them in special reference to their relation to himself, their teacher and example, as that which they had also learned , etc. The first καί is therefore also , prefixing to the subsequent ÏαῦÏα ÏÏάÏÏεÏε an element corresponding to this requirement, and imposing an obligation to its fulfilment. “Whatsoever also has been the object and purport of your instruction, etc., that do.” To take the four times repeated καί as a double as well ⦠as also (Hofmann and others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of separation. Îαί in the last three cases is the simple and , but so that the whole is to be looked upon as bipartite: “Duo priora verba ad doctrinam pertinent, reliqua duo ad exemplum ” (Estius).
á¼ ] not á½Î£Î again; for no further categories of morality are to be given, but what they are bound to do generally is to be described under the point of view of what is known to the readers , as that which they also have learned , etc.
ÏαÏελάβεÏε ] have accepted . Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:1 ; John 1:11 ; Polyb. xxxiii. 16. 9. The interpretation: “ have received ” (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most expositors, including Rheinwald, Rilliet, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Hofmann), which makes it denote the instruction communicated (1 Thessalonians 2:13 ; 1 Thessalonians 4:1 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ; 1 Corinthians 11:23 ; Galatians 1:9 ; Galatians 1:12 ; Colossians 2:6 ; comp. Plat. Theaet . p. 198 B: ÏαÏαλαμβάνονÏα δὲ μανθάνειν ), would yield a twofold designation for the one element, [186] and on the other hand would omit the point of the assensus , which is so important as a motive; moreover, from a logical point of view, we should necessarily expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp. Galatians 1:12 ).
ἠκοÏÏαÏε ] does not refer to the proper preaching and teaching of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Elsner, Rheinwald, Matthies), which is already fully embraced in the two previous points; nor does it denote: “audistis de me absente ” (Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Rilliet, Hofmann), for all the other points refer to the time of the apostle’s presence , and consequently not merely the “ de me ,” but also the “ absente ” would be purely imported. No, by the words ἠκοÏÏαÏε and Îá¼¼ÎÎΤΠ, to both of which á¼Î½ á¼Î¼Î¿Î¯ belongs, he represents to his readers his own example of Christian morality , which he had given them when he was present, in its two portions , in so far as they had perceived it in him ( á¼Î½ á¼Î¼Î¿Î¯ , comp. Philippians 1:30 ) partly by hearing , in his whole oral behaviour and intercourse with them, partly by seeing , in his manner of action among them; or, in other words, his example both in word and deed .
ÏαῦÏα ÏÏάÏÏεÏε ] these things do , is not related to ÏαῦÏα λογίζεÏθε , Philippians 4:8 , as excluding it, in such a way that for what is said in Philippians 4:8 the ÎÎÎÎÎÎΣÎÎÎ merely would be required, and for what is indicated in Philippians 4:9 the ΠΡÎΣΣÎÎÎ ; on the contrary, the two operations, which in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses, are formally separated in accordance with the mode of expression of the parallelism. Comp. on Philippians 2:8 and Romans 10:10 .
καὶ á½ ÎεÏÏ Îº . Ï . λ .] in substance the same promise as was given in Philippians 4:7 . God, who works peace (that holy peace of soul, Philippians 4:7 ), will be with you , whereby is meant the help given through the Holy Spirit; and His special agency, which Paul here has in view, is unmistakeably indicated by the very predicate Ïá¿Ï εἰÏÎ®Î½Î·Ï .
[184] Luther well renders it: “lieblich,” and the Gothic: “liubaleik;” the Vulgate: “amabilia.”
[185] We are not entitled to assume (with Beza) as the reason why Paul does not use this word elsewhere, that it is “verbum nimium humile, si cum donis Spiritus Sancti comparetur.” The very passage before us shows the contrary, as it means no other than Christian morality. Certainly in Paul’s case, as with the N. T. authors generally and even Christ Himself, the specific designations of the idea of virtue, which correspond more closely to the sphere of theocratic O. T. ideas, such as δικαιοÏÏνη , á½Ïακοή , á¼Î³Î¹ÏÏÎ·Ï , á¼Î³Î¹ÏÏÏνη , á½ÏιÏÏÎ·Ï , κ . Ï . λ ., too necessarily suggested themselves to his mind to allow him to use the general term for morality, á¼ÏεÏή , as familiar, however worthily and nobly the Platonic doctrine, in particular, had grasped the idea of it ( Îµá¼°Ï á½ Ïον Î´Ï Î½Î±Ïὸν á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏῳ á½Î¼Î¿Î¹Î¿á¿¦Ïθαι Îεῷ , Plat. Rep. p. 613 A, 500 C, et al.) .
[186] Real distinctions have, indeed, been made, hut how purely arbitrary they are! Thus Grotius (comp. Hammond) makes á¼Î¼Î¬Î¸ . apply to the primam institutionem, and ÏαÏελάβ . to the exacliorcm doctrinam. Rilliet explains it differently, making the former denote: “son enseignement direct,” and the latter: “les instructions, qu’il leur a transmises sous une forme quelconque.”
REMARK.
It is to be noticed that the predicates in Philippians 4:8 , á¼Î»Î·Î¸á¿ ⦠εá½Ïημα , do not denote different individual virtues , but that each represents the Christian moral character generally , so that in reality the same thing is described, but according to the various aspects which commended it . Comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 106: á¼Î½ Ïὸ á¼Î³Î±Î¸á½¸Î½ Ïολλοá¿Ï á½Î½ÏμαÏι καλοÏμενον . Cic. de fin . iii. 4. 14: “ una virtus unum, istud, quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, decorum .” That it is Christian morality which Paul has in view, is clearly evident from Philippians 4:9 and from the whole preceding context. Hence the passage cannot avail for placing the morality of the moral law of nature (Romans 2:14 f.) on an equality with the gospel field of duty, which has its specific definition and consecration as also, for the reconciled whom it embraces, the assurance of the divine keeping (Philippians 4:7 ; Philippians 4:9 ) in the revealed word (Philippians 4:9 ), and in the enlightening and ethically transforming power of the Spirit (comp. Romans 12:2 ).
Verse 10
Philippians 4:10 . Carrying on his discourse with δΠ, Paul now in conclusion adds, down to Philippians 4:20 , some courteous expressions , as dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid which he had received . Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work of love briefly and casually (Philippians 2:25 ; Philippians 2:30 ). In the aid itself Baur discovers a contradiction of 1 Corinthians 9:15 , and conjectures that the author of the epistle had 2 Corinthians 11:9 in view, and had inferred too much from that passage. But, in fact, Baur himself has inferred too much, and incorrectly, from 1 Corinthians 9:15 ; for in this passage Paul speaks of payment for his preaching , not of loving gifts from persons at a distance, which in point of fact put him in the position to preach gratuitously in Achaia, 2 Corinthians 11:8 ff. There is, besides, in our passage no mention of regular sendings of money.
á¼Î½ ÎºÏ Ïίῳ ] as in Philippians 3:1 , Philippians 4:4 . It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart from Christ; οὠκοÏÎ¼Î¹Îºá¿¶Ï á¼ÏάÏην , ÏηÏὶν , οá½Î´á½² βιÏÏÎ¹Îºá¿¶Ï , Chrysostom .
μεγάλÏÏ ] mightily . Comp. LXX., 1 Chronicles 29:9 ; Nehemiah 12:42 ; Polyb. iii. 87. 5; Polyc. 1 . The position at the end is emphatic. See on Matthew 2:10 ; and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaedr . p. 256 E, Menex . p. 235 A.
á½ Ïι ἤδη ÏοÏΠκ . Ï . λ .] is to be rendered: “ that ye have at length once again come into the flourishing condition of taking thought for my benefit, in behalf of which ye also TOOK thought, but had no favourable opportunity. ”
ἤδη ÏοÏÎ ] taken in itself may mean: already once; or, as in Romans 1:10 : tandem aliquando . The latter is the meaning here, as appears from á¼Ïʼ á¾§ κ . Ï . λ . Chrysostom justly observes (comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes ÏÏÏνον μακÏÏν , when namely that θάλλειν had not been present, which has now again (comp. Philippians 4:15 f.) set in. Comp. Baeumlein, Partik . p. 140. This view of ἤδη ÏοÏÎ is the less to be evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in the passage ( á¼ÏιÏίμηÏÎ¹Ï , Chrysostom) is not by any means conveyed in it, as indeed from the delicate feeling of the apostle we might expect that it would not, and as is apparent from the correct explanation of the sequel.
á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î»ÎµÏε ] ye have again become green ( refloruistis , Vulgate), like a tree or an orchard which had been withered, and has again budded and put forth new shoots ( θαλλοÏÏ ). [187] It cannot be the revival of their care-taking love which is meant, so that the readers would have previously been á¼ÏομαÏανθÎνÏÎµÏ á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼Î»ÎµÎ·Î¼Î¿ÏÏνῠ(Oecumenius, also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors, who rightly take á¼ÎÎÎÎÎ . as intransitive , as well as all who take it transitively; see below); for how indelicate would be such an utterance, which one could not, with Weiss, acquit from implying an assumption that a different disposition previously existed; and how at variance with the á¼Ïʼ á¾§ á¼ÏÏονεá¿Ïε κ . Ï . λ . which immediately follows, and by which the continuous care previously exercised is attested! No, it is the flourishing anew of their prosperity (comp. Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite of which is afterwards expressed by ἠκαιÏεá¿Ïθε , that is denoted, as prosperous circumstances are so often represented under the figure of becoming green and blooming. Comp. Psalms 28:7 : á¼ÎÎÎÎÎÎΠἩ ΣÎΡΠÎÎÎ¥ , Wis 4:3 f.; Hes. Op . 231: ÏÎθηλε ÏÏÎ»Î¹Ï , Pind. Isth . iii. 9: á½Î»Î²Î¿Ï ⦠θάλλÏν , Pyth . vii. 22: Î¸Î¬Î»Î»Î¿Ï Ïαν εá½Î´Î±Î¹Î¼Î¿Î½Î¯Î±Î½ . Plat. Legg . xii. p. 945 D: ἡ Ïá¾¶Ïα οá½ÏÏ Î¸Î¬Î»Î»ÎµÎ¹ Ïá½² καὶ εá½Î´Î±Î¹Î¼Î¿Î½Îµá¿ ÏÏÏα κ . ÏÏÎ»Î¹Ï . Of frequent occurrence in the tragedians; comp. also Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr . viii. 97. It is therefore inconsistent, both with delicate feeling and with the context, to take á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î» . transitively: “revirescere sivistis solitam vestram rerum mearum procurationem” (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus, Grotius, Heinrichs, Hammond, and others, including Rilliet, de Wette, Weiss), although the transitive use of á¼Î½Î±Î¸Î¬Î»Î»ÎµÎ¹Î½ in the LXX. and also in the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezekiel 17:24 ; Sir 1:16 ; Sir 11:20 ; Sir 50:10 ; see generally Schleusner, Thes . I. p. 220 f.); and that of θάλλειν is also current in classical authors (Pind. Ol . iii. 24; Aesch. Pers . 622 (608); Jacobs, ad Anthol . VII. p. 103; Kühner, II. 1, p. 265). An unfounded objection is brought against the view which explains it of the revival of prosperity , that it is inappropriate as a subject of joy in the Lord (see Weiss); it is appropriate at all events, when such a use is made of the revived prosperity.
Ïὸ á½Ïá½²Ï á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ ÏÏονεá¿Î½ ] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of á¼ÎÎÎÎÎ ., [188] so understood that Ïὸ is taken together with ΦΡÎÎÎá¿Î , and this must be regarded as the accusative of more precise definition , which is only distinguished by its greater emphasis from the mere epexegetical infinitive. See Bernhardy, p. 356; Schmalfeld, Syntax d. Griech. Verb . p. 401 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 222. Comp. van Hengel: “negotium volo mihi consulendi.” But the whole view which takes ÏÏ with ΦΡÎÎÎá¿Î is set aside by the following á¼Î¦Ê¼ ᾯ Î . á¼Î¦Î¡ÎÎÎá¿Î¤Î ; seeing that á¼Î¦Ê¼ ᾯ , unless it is to be rendered at variance with linguistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr), or just as (Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its á¾§ the previous ΤῸ á½Î á¿Î¡ á¼ÎÎῦ ΦΡÎÎÎá¿Î , and would consequently yield the logically absurd conception: á¼Î¦Î¡ÎÎÎá¿Î¤Î á¼Î ῠΤῷ á½Î á¿Î¡ á¼ÎÎῦ ΦΡÎÎÎá¿Î , whether á¼Î¦Ê¼ ᾯ be taken as equivalent to Îá½ á¼ÎÎÎÎ (Beza) or qua de re (Rheinwald, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, and others), or in eo quod (Erasmus), in qua re (Cornelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or et post id (Grotius), and the like. Recourse has been had, by way of helping the matter, to the suggestion that ÏÏονεá¿Î½ á¼Ïί is a thinking without action , and ÏÏονεá¿Î½ á½ÏÎÏ a thinking with action (de Wette, Wiesinger; comp. Ewald); but how purely arbitrary is this view! Less arbitrarily, Calvin and Rilliet (“vous pensiez bien à moi”) have referred á¾§ to á¼ÎÎῦ , by which, no doubt, that logical awkwardness is avoided; but, on the other hand, the objection arises, that á¼Î¦Ê¼ ᾯ is elsewhere invariably used by Paul as neuter only, and that it is difficult to see why, if he desired to take up á½Ïá½²Ï á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ in a relative form, he should not have written á½Î á¿Î¡ Îá½ , since otherwise in á¼Î Î , if it merely went back to á¼ÎÎῦ , the more precise and definite reference which he must have had in view would not be expressed, and since the progress of the thought suggested not a change of preposition , but only the change of the tenses ( καὶ á¼ÏÏονεá¿Ïε ). Weiss, interpreting á¼Î¦Ê¼ ᾯ as: about which to take thought, refers it back to á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î»ÎµÏε a reference, however, which falls to the ground with the active interpretation of that word. Upon the whole, the only right course seems to be to take Ïὸ á½Ïá½²Ï á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ together (comp. Ïá½° ÏεÏá½¶ á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ , Philippians 2:20 ; also ΤᾺ Î ÎΡʼ á½Îá¿¶Î , Philippians 4:18 ; and see generally, Krüger, § 50. 5. 12; Kühner, II. 1, p. 231 f.), and that as the accusative of the object to ÏÏονεá¿Î½ (comp. Bengel, Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann): “ to take into consideration that which serves for my good ,” to think of my benefit; on á½Ïá½²Ï , comp. Philippians 1:7 . Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal, logical, and delicately-turned reference, namely, when á¼Î¦Ê¼ ᾯ applies to ΤῸ á½Î á¿Î¡ á¼ÎÎῦ . Taking this view, we have to notice: (1) that á¼Î Î is used in the sense of the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 475; Kühner, II. 1, p. 435): on behalf of which, for which , comp. Soph. O. R . 569; (2) that Paul has not again written the mere accusative ( ὠκαὶ á¼ÏÏ .), because á¼Î¦Ê¼ ᾯ is intended to refer not alone to Î . á¼Î¦Î¡ÎÎÎá¿Î¤Î , but also to the antithesis ἨÎÎÎΡÎá¿Î£ÎÎ ÎÎ , consequently to the entire Î . á¼Î¦Î¡ ., ἨÎÎÎΡ . ÎÎ ; [189] (3) that the emphasis is placed on á¼Î¦Î¡ÎÎ . as the imperfect , and καί indicates an element to be added to the ÏÏονεá¿Î½ which has been just expressed; hence ÎÎá¿ á¼Î¦Î¡ . intimates: “in behalf of which ye not only are taking thought (that is, since the á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î»ÎµÏε ), but also were taking thought (namely, ÏÏÏÏθεν , before the á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î»ÎµÏε );” lastly, (4) that after á¼Î¦Î¡ . there is no ÎÎÎ inserted, because the antithesis is meant to emerge unprepared for, and so all the more vividly.
ἨÎÎÎΡÎá¿Î£ÎÎ ] ye had no favourable time; a word belonging to the later Greek. Diod. exc. Mai . p. 30; Phot., Suid. The opposite: εá½ÎºÎ±Î¹Ïεá¿Î½ , Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 125. Unsuitably and arbitrarily this is explained: “deerat vobis opportunitas mittendi ” (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, and others). It refers, in keeping with the á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î»ÎµÏε , not without delicacy of description, to the unfavourable state of things as regards means (Chrysostom: οá½Îº εἴÏεÏε á¼Î½ ÏεÏÏὶν , οá½Î´á½² á¼Î½ á¼Ïθονίᾳ ἦÏε ; so also Theophylact; while Oecumenius adduces this interpretation alongside of the previous one) which had occurred among the Philippians, as Paul might have learned from Epaphroditus and otherwise. Comp. εá½ÎºÎ±Î¹Ïεá¿Î½ Ïοá¿Ï Î²Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï in Polyb. xv. 21. 2, xxxii. 21. 12; and also the mere Îá½ÎÎÎΡÎá¿Î in the same sense, iv. 60. 10; Îá½ÎÎÎΡÎÎ : xv. 31. 7, i. 59. 7; á¼ÎÎÎΡÎÎ : Plat. Legg . iv. p. 709 A; Deuteronomy 16:4 ; Polyb. iv. 44. 11.
[187] The conjecture, on the ground of this figurative expression, that the Philippians might have sent to the apostle in spring, and that ἠκαιÏεá¿Ïθε δΠapplies to the winter season (Bengel), is far-fetched and arbitrary. The figurative á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î» . does not even need to be an image of spring, as Calvin, Estius, Weiss, and others understand it.
[188] In the transitive interpretation (see, against it, supra ) the Ïὸ ÏÏονεá¿Î½ which would likewise be taken together, would be the accusative forming the object of á¼Î½ÎµÎ¸Î¬Î» . See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 226 [E. T. 263]; Kühner, II. 2, p. 603.
[189] All the more groundless, therefore, is Hofmann’s objection, that ÏÏονεá¿Î½ á¼Ïί Ïινι means: to be proud about something. This objection, put thus generally, is even in itself incorrect. For ÏÏονεá¿Î½ á¼Ïί Ïινι does not in itself mean: to be proud about something, but only receives this signification through the addition of μÎγα , μεγάλα , or some similar more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 D, Alc. I. p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p. 217 A: Dem. 181. 16, 836. 10), either expressly specified or directly suggested by the context. Very artificial, and for the simple reader hardly discoverable, is the view under which Hofmann takes the fact expressed by καὶ á¼ÏÏονεá¿ÏÏ as the ground, “upon, or on account of, which their re-emergence from an unfavourable position has been a revival unto care for him.” If the reference of á¼°Ïʼ á¾§ to Ïὸ á½Ïá½²Ï á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦ were not directly given in the text, it would be much simpler to take á¼Ïʼ á¾§ as in Romans 5:12 , Philippians 3:12 , 2 Corinthians 5:4 , in the sense of propterea quod, and that as a graceful and ingenious specification of the reason for the great joy of the apostle, that they had flourished again to take thought for his benefit; for their previous omission had been caused not by any lack of the ÏÏονεá¿Î½ in question, but by the unfavourableness of the times.
Verse 11
Philippians 4:11 . Obviating of a misunderstanding.
οá½Ï á½ Ïι ] as in Philippians 3:12 : my meaning is not, that I say this in consequence of want , that is, this my utterance of joy in Philippians 4:10 f. is not meant as if it were the expression of felt want, from which your aid has delivered me. On καÏά , sccundum , in the sense of propter , see Kühner, II. 1, p. 413, and ad Xen. Mem . i. 3. 12. According to van Hengel’s interpretation: “ ut more receptum est penuriae , s. hominibus penuria oppressis,” καÏά could not have been united with an abstract noun (Romans 3:5 , et al .).
á¼Î³á½¼ Î³á½°Ï á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î¿Î½ κ . Ï . λ .] for I, as regards my part (although it may be different with others), have learned in the circumstances, in which I find myself, to be self-contented , that is, to have enough independently without desiring aid from others. It is evident from the reason thus assigned that in οá½Ï . á½ Ïι καθʼ á½ÏÏ . λ . he has meant not the objective, but the subjective state of need.
á¼Î³Ï ] with noble self-consciousness, there being no need to supply, with Bengel, “in tot adversis.”
á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î¿Î½ ] signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat. Symp . p. 182 C: á¼Ïγῳ δὲ ÏοῦÏο á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î¿Î½ καὶ οἱ á¼Î½Î¸Î¬Î´Îµ ÏÏÏαννοι ), and all that accordingly he can , he owes to the strengthening influence of Christ , Philippians 4:13 .
á¼Î½ Î¿á¼·Ï Îµá¼°Î¼Î¹ ] in the situation, in which I find myself . See examples in Wetstein and Kypke; comp. also Mätzner, ad Antiph . p. 131. Not merely his position then , but, generally, every position in which he finds himself, is meant, although it is not exactly to be taken as: “ in quocunque statu sim ” (Raphel, Wetstein, and others), which would be ungrammatically expressed. In opposition to the context (see Philippians 4:12 ), Luther: among whom ( Î¿á¼·Ï , masculine) I am . As to αá½ÏάÏκεια as applied to persons, the subjective self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not make the satisfaction of his needs dependent upon others, but finds it in himself, comp. Sir 40:18 ; Xen. Mem . iv. 7. 1; Dem. 450. 14; Stob. v. 43; and see on 2 Corinthians 9:8 .
Verse 12
Philippians 4:12 . Paul now specifies this his αá½ÏάÏκεια (in Plat. Def . p. 412 B, termed ÏελειÏÏÎ·Ï ÎºÏήÏεÏÏ á¼Î³Î±Î¸á¿¶Î½ ).
οἶδα ] I understand how (1 Thessalonians 4:4 ; Colossians 4:6 ; 1 Timothy 3:5 ; Matthew 7:11 ; Soph. Aj . 666 f.; Anth. Pal. vii. 440. 5 ff.); [190] result of the á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î¿Î½ .
καὶ ÏαÏειν ]. also to be abased , namely, by want, distress, and other allotted circumstances which place the person affected by them in the condition of abasement. Paul understands this, inasmuch as he knows how to bear himself in the right attitude to such allotted circumstances, namely, in such a way that, independently thereof, he finds his sufficiency in himself, and does not seek it in that which he lacks. We find a commentary on this in 2Co 4:8 ; 2 Corinthians 6:9-10 . οἶδα καὶ ÏεÏιÏÏεÏειν is to be understood analogously, of the right attitude to the matter, so that one is not led away by abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter instead of in himself. Pelagius well says: “ut nec abundantia extollar , nec frangar inopia.”
The first καί adds to the general á¼Î Îá¼¿Ï ÎἸÎÎ the special statement on the one side, to which thereupon the second “ also ” adds the counterpart. The contrast , however, is less adequate here than subsequently in ÏεÏιÏÏεÏειν καὶ á½ÏÏεÏεá¿Ïθαι , for ΤÎÎ ÎÎÎÎῦΣÎÎÎ is a more comprehensive idea than the counterpart of ÏεÏιÏÏεÏειν , and also contains a figurative conception. Some such expression as á½ÏοῦÏθαι would have been adequate as the contrast of ΤÎÎ ÎÎÎ . (Matthew 23:12 ; 2 Corinthians 11:7 ; Philippians 2:8-9 ; Polyb. v. 26. 12). There is a lively versatility of conception, from not perceiving which some have given to this Î ÎΡÎΣΣÎÎÎÎÎ ( to have a superfluity ) the explanation excellere (Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to ÏαÏειν . the meaning to be poor, to be in pitiful plight , á½Î»Î¯Î³Î¿Î¹Ï κεÏÏá¿Ïθαι , Theophylact (Estius and others; comp. also Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Rheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hofmann), which even the LXX., Leviticus 25:39 , does not justify.
In what follows, á¼Î Î ÎÎΤῠΠ. á¼Î ΠᾶΣΠis not to be regarded as belonging to ΤÎÎ ÎÎÎÎῦΣÎÎÎ and Î ÎΡÎΣΣÎÎÎÎÎ (Hofmann), but is to be joined with ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ . We are dissuaded from the former connection by the very repetition of the Îá¼¾ÎÎ ; and the latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which rests upon á¼Î Î ÎÎΤῠΠ. á¼Î ΠᾶΣΠheading the last clause, as also by the correlative Î ÎÎΤΠat the head of Philippians 4:13 . Further, no comma is to be placed after Î¼ÎµÎ¼Ï Î®Î¼Î±Î¹ , nor is á¼Î Î ÎÎΤῠ⦠ÎÎÎÎ¥ÎÎÎÎ to be explained as meaning: “ into everything I am initiated ,” and then καὶ ÏοÏÏάζεÏθαι κ . Ï . λ . as elucidating the notion of “ everything ”: “cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate et fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiaritatem, ut rationem teneam iis bene utendi,” van Hengel; comp. de Wette, Rilliet, Wiesinger; so also, on the whole, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many others, but with different interpretations of ÏανÏί and ΠᾶΣÎÎ . This view is at variance with the fact, that ÎÎ¥Îá¿Î£ÎÎÎ has that into which one is initiated expressed not by means of á¼Î½ , but and that most usually in the accusative (Herod, ii. 51; Plat. Gorg . p. 497 C, Symp . p. 209 E; Aristoph. Plut . 845 ( á¼Î¼Î¼Ï εá¿Ïθαι ); Lucian, Philop . 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon . 11), or genitive (Heliod. i. 17; Herodian, i. 13. 16); hence Ïᾶν κ . ÏάνÏα , or Î ÎÎΤῠΠ. ΠᾶΣÎÎ , or Î ÎÎÎ¤á¿¸Ï Î . Î ÎÎΤΩΠmust have been written (in 3Ma 2:30 it has ÎÎΤΠwith the accusative). No; Paul says that in everything and in all , that is, under every relation that may occur and in all circumstances, he is initiated into , that is, made completely familiar with, as well the being satisfied as the being hungry, as well the having superfluity as want; in all situations, without exception, he quite understands how to assume and maintain the right attitude to these different experiences, which in Philippians 4:11 he characterizes by the words αá½ÏάÏÎºÎ·Ï Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹ . á¼Î½ ÏανÏá½¶ κ . á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïι is accordingly to be taken after the analogy of á¼Î Îá¼¿Ï ÎἸÎÎ , Philippians 4:11 , and therefore as neuter . It was purely arbitrary to render á¼Î½ ÏανÏί : ubique (Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others), or to refer it to time (Chrysostom, Grotius), or to time and place (Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, also Matthies). Luther and Bengel explain ÏανÏί correctly as neuter, but make ΠᾶΣÎÎ (as in 2 Corinthians 11:6 ) masculine (Bengel: “respectu omnium hominum”). It is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words; and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which only indicates the total absence of any exception (comp. analogous expressions in Lobeck, Paral , p. 56 ff.), there is no occasion for artificial explanation.
In German we say: in Allem und Jedem [in all and each], Comp. on á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïι on Colossians 1:18 . With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes á¼Î Î ÎÎΤῠΠ. á¼Î ΠᾶΣΠdenote everything that is a necessary of life (in detail and in whole). In that case certainly the contrast of ÏοÏÏάζ . and Î ÎÎÎá¾¶Î is unsuitable!
ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ ] the proper word for the various grades of initiation into the mysteries (Casaubon, Exerc. Baron , p. 390 ff.; Lobeck, Aglaoph . I. p. 38 ff.) is here used in a figurative sense, like initiatum esse , of a special, unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar acquaintance with something. See Munthe, Obss . p. 383; Jacobs, ad Anthol . III. p. 488. The opposite is á¼Î¼ÏηÏÎ¿Ï .
The climax should here be noticed, á¼ÎÎÎÎΠ⦠Îá¼¾ÎΠ⦠ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ . Philippians 4:13 places beyond doubt to whom the apostle owes this lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circumstances. As to the later form Î ÎÎÎá¾¶Î instead of Î ÎÎÎá¿Î , see Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 61; Jacobs, ad Ael . II. p. 261.
[190] It is the moral understanding, having its seat in the character. Comp. Ameis, Anh. z. Hom. Od. ix. 189.
Verse 13
Philippians 4:13 . After the special statement, the consciousness of the αá½ÏάÏκεια now finds fresh utterance generally; and in the grand brevity of the latter how marked is the assurance, and, at the same time, the humility!
á¼°ÏÏÏÏ ] of moral strength, homogeneous as to category with á¼Î¼Î±Î¸Î¿Î½ in Philippians 4:11 , and with οἶδα and μεμÏημαι in Philippians 4:12 , because these predicates also were dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice. There is therefore the less reason for limiting ÏάνÏα in any way (van Hengel: “omnia memorata;” comp. Weiss); there is nothing for which Paul did not feel himself morally strong; for every relation he knew himself to be morally adequate. ÏάνÏα is the accusative of the object . Galatians 5:6 ; James 5:16 . The opposite to it: μηδὲν á¼°ÏÏÏÏÏιν , Plat. Crit . p. 50 B, Ael. V. H . xii. 22, et al .
á¼Î½ Ïá¿· á¼Î½Î´Ï ν . με ] Not in his own human ability does Paul feel this power, but it has its basis in Christ , whose δÏÎ½Î±Î¼Î¹Ï the apostle experiences in his fellowship of life with Him (2 Corinthians 12:9 ). Comp. 1 Timothy 1:12 ; 2 Timothy 2:1 ; 2 Timothy 4:17 . Thus he is able to do all things á¼Î½ Ïá¿· κÏάÏει Ïá¿Ï á¼°ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ , Ephesians 6:10 .
Verse 14
Philippians 4:14 . Πλήν ] Nevertheless . (1 Corinthians 11:11 ; Ephesians 5:33 ), apart from the fact that with such moral power I am equal to all emergencies, and therefore, as far as want is concerned, do not need aid (comp. Philippians 4:11 ). “Cavet, ne fortiter loquendo contemsisse ipsorum beneficium videatur,” Calvin. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact.
ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï ] in the moral sense.
ÏÏ Î³ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½ . Î¼Î¿Ï Ïá¿ Î¸Î»Î¯Ï .] characterizes the work according to its high ethical value ( á½ Ïα ÏοÏίαν , Ïá¿¶Ï á¼ÏαίÏει Ïὸ ÏÏᾶγμα , Theophylact): that ye became partakers with me in my affliction . He who renders the aid enters into the relation of a participant in the position of the afflicted one, inasmuch as by his very work of love he, in common with the latter, shares and bears his θλá¿ÏÎ¹Ï . Comp. Romans 12:13 . It is a practical participation, and not merely that of feeling and emotion. Comp. Ephesians 5:11 ; Revelation 18:4 ; Revelation 1:9 . By Ïá¿ Î¸Î»Î¯Ï ., Paul means his position at the time as a whole, not: want (which also in 2 Corinthians 8:13 it does not mean). The dative is governed by ÏÏ Î³ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½ . (Ephesians 5:11 ; Revelation 18:4 ; Romans 12:13 ; Romans 15:27 , et al .); and Î¼Î¿Ï is, in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken as if μοι were in the text (comp on Philippians 2:2 ; and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep . p. 518 C, Symp . p. 215 C). The aorist participle coincides as to time with á¼ÏοιήÏαÏε (see on Ephesians 1:9 ); as to the participle with ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï Ïοιεá¿Î½ , see Winer, p. 323 f. [E. T. 434].
Verse 15
Philippians 4:15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the very beginning of the gospel the Philippians had distinguished themselves by such manifestation of love towards Paul .
δΠ] carrying the discourse onward: But what ye have done connects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very first !
οἴδαÏε δὲ κ . Ï . λ .] but it is known also to you, Philippians, that , etc. Hofmann very erroneously derives the object of οἴδαÏε from what precedes , and takes á½ Ïι in the sense of because . He makes the apostle say, namely, to the Philippians: That they had done well in helpfully taking part in his affliction they knew also , as other churches knew that it was well done; by experience they knew it, because it was not the first time that they had sent similar gifts to him, etc. This explanation is erroneous, because invariably where οἶδα ( οἴδαμεν , οἴδαÏε , κ . Ï . λ .) is accompanied, not with an accusative of the object, but with á½ Ïι , the latter conveys the contents ( that ), and not the reason or the cause ( because ), of the οἶδα (comp. Philippians 1:19 ; Philippians 1:25 ; Romans 3:2 ; 1 Corinthians 3:16 ; 1 Corinthians 12:2 ; Galatians 4:13 , and innumerable other passages); secondly, because the previously attested ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï á¼ÏοιήÏαÏε , while perfectly suitable to be expressed by the grateful apostle , was not so suited to be transferred to the consciousness of the donors , to which it was self-evident, and to be appealed to by them; thirdly, because the καί in the alleged reference to other churches would be very unsuitable, since the question here concerns merely a work of love of the Philippians , but other churches could only know generally that it was well done to aid the apostle, into which general idea, therefore, Hofmann insensibly transforms the object of οἴδαÏε , instead of abiding strictly by the concrete ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï á¼ÏοιήÏαÏε as its object; finally, it would be strange and not in keeping with the thoughtful manner of the apostle, to furnish the idea: “ye know that ye did well therein” (which οἶδαÏε is supposed to convey) with the altogether external specification of a ground for it: “because ye have already formerly and repeatedly supported me.” The contents attributed by Hofmann to οἴδαÏε needed no assignment of a causal ground, or if any one internal, ethical, and in harmony with the subtle delicacy of the apostle.
Observe, moreover, in connection with οἴδαÏε κ . á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï , that in that which the readers also know (consequently in á½ Ïι κ . Ï . λ .) the stress lies upon the negative οá½Î´ÎµÎ¼Î¯Î± κ . Ï . λ .
καὶ á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï ] ye also , as I. [191]
ΦιλιÏÏήÏιοι ] addressing them by name, not because he desires to assert something of them which no other church had done (Bengel: for in this case Paul would have written á½ Ïι á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï , ΦιλιÏÏ .), but in his increasing earnestness . Comp. 2 Corinthians 6:11 .
á¼Î½ á¼ÏÏá¿ Ï . εá½Î±Î³Î³ .] glancing back, certainly, to the second missionary journey (Weiss); but the relative expression is used from the standpoint of the time then present , behind which lay the founding of the Macedonian churches about ten years back; a long past which seemed, in relation to the present and to the wider development of the church now attained, as still belonging to the period of the beginning of the gospel. Comp. Clement. Cor . I. 47. An epexegetical more precise definition of this expression which does not betray the hand of a later author (Hinsch) for the date intended is: á½ Ïε á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ á¼Ïὸ Îακεδ ., when I departed from Macedonia , Acts 17:14 . Paul, therefore, immediately on leaving that country , received aid from the infant church, when the brethren Ïὸν Παῦλον á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλαν ÏοÏεÏεÏθαι á½¡Ï á¼Ïá½¶ Ïὴν θάλαÏÏαν and ἤγαγον á¼ÏÏ á¼Î¸Î·Î½á¿¶Î½ , Acts l.c . Doubtless the money which Paul subsequently received in Corinth (see 2 Corinthians 11:9 ) through Macedonian delegates was sent, if not exclusively, at least jointly by the Philippians, so that they thereby gave continued active proof of the fellowship Îµá¼°Ï Î»Ïγον δÏÏ . κ . Î»Î®Ï ., into which they had entered with the apostle at his very departure. But this receipt of money at Corinth is not the fact meant by á¼ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½ÏνηÏεν κ . Ï . λ ., in which case á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ would have to be taken, with Estius, Flatt, van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, in the sense of the pluperfect (Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 343]); for the latter would be the more unwarranted in the context, seeing that Paul himself by á¼Î½ á¼ÏÏá¿ Ïοῦ εá½Î±Î³Î³ . carries them back to the earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (Philippians 4:16 ) to a period even antecedent to the á½ Ïε á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ . The aorist , however, has its justification in this purely historical statement of fact, although the imperfect also, but following a different conception, might not, however (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection), must have been used.
á¼ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½ÏνηÏεν Îµá¼°Ï Î»Ïγον δÏÏεÏÏ Îº . Î»Î®Ï .] entered into fellowship with me in reference to account of giving and receiving , a euphemistic indication, calculated to meet the sense of delicacy in the readers, of the thought: “ has entered into the relation of furnishing aid towards me. ” On κοινÏνεá¿Î½ Îµá¼°Ï , comp. on Philippians 1:5 . The analysis of the figurative description is this: The Philippians keep an account of expenditure on Paul and income from him; and the apostle likewise keeps account of his expenditure on the Philippians and income from them. This mutual account-keeping, in which the δÏÏÎ¹Ï on the one part, agrees with the λá¿ÏÎ¹Ï on the other, is the κοινÏνία Îµá¼°Ï Î»Ïγον κ . Ï . λ . It is true that in this case no money -amount is entered in the account of the Philippians under the heading of λá¿ÏÎ¹Ï , or the account of the apostle under the heading of δÏÏÎ¹Ï ; instead of this, however, comes in the blessing , which the readers were to receive from their gifts of love , according to Philippians 4:17 , as if it were an income corresponding to this expenditure, and coming in from it. We are therefore not justified in adopting the view, that δÏÏ . and λá¿Ï . apply to Paul alone (Schrader), or that δÏÏεÏÏ applies to the Philippians and Î»Î®Ï . to Paul (“Ego sum in vestris expensi tabulis, vos in meis accepti ,” Grotius; comp. Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Ewald); for the words require the idea of an account under both headings on the side of both parties. Others, maintaining indeed this reciprocity, but arbitrarily introducing ideas from 1 Corinthians 11:11 , comp. Romans 15:27 , consider that the δÏÏÎ¹Ï on the part of the apostle, and the λá¿ÏÎ¹Ï on the part of the Philippians, consisted in the spiritual benefits brought about by the preaching of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius, Zeger, Estius, Hammond, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others); whilst others, again, import into the words the thought: “Quae a Philippensibus accepit in rationes Dei remuneratoris refert Paulus” (Wetstein, Rosenmüller; comp. Wolf, Schoettgen, and already Ambrosiaster). Rheinwald finds the λá¿ÏÎ¹Ï of the Philippians and the δÏÏÎ¹Ï of the apostle even in the assumption that he also had assisted them , namely, out of the sums of money collected in the churches, an error which is at variance with the context, and which ought to have been precluded both by the prominence given to the statement of the date, and also by the exclusion of all other churches, as well as by the inappropriateness of the mention just in this passage of such a λá¿ÏÎ¹Ï on the part of the Philippians.
On λÏÎ³Î¿Ï , ratio, account , comp. Matthew 12:36 ; Luke 16:2 ; Romans 14:12 ; 1Ma 10:40 ; Dem. 227. 26; Diod. Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv. 34. 2. The rendering which takes Îµá¼°Ï Î»Ïγον : in respect to (Bengel, Heinrichs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Lünemann), would no doubt be linguistically correct (Dem. 385. 11; Malachi 1:14; Malachi 1:14 ; and see Krüger on Thuc . iii. 46. 3), but is to be rejected on account of the context, as expressions of accounting follow (comp. Cic. Lael . 16: “ ratio acceptorum et datorum ”). For instances from Greek writers of δÏÏÎ¹Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ λá¿ÏÎ¹Ï ( Sir 41:14 ; Sir 42:7 ) as expenditure and income , see Wetstein. Comp. Plat. Rep . p. 332 A B: ἡ á¼ÏÏδοÏÎ¹Ï Îº . ἡ λá¿ÏÎ¹Ï . As to the corresponding ××©× ×××ª× , see Schoettgen, Hor . p. 804.
[191] To express this, Paul was not at all under the necessity of writing οἴδαÏε αá½Ïοί , as Hofmann objects. The latter would convey a different conception, namely: ye know without my reminding you (Acts 2:22 ; 1 Thessalonians 2:1 ; 1 Thessalonians 3:3 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:7 ).
Verse 16
Philippians 4:16 . á½Ïι ] since, indeed, ye also already in Thessalonica , etc. It is argumentative , namely, outbidding the early definition of date á¼Î½ á¼ÏÏῠ⦠ÎÎ±ÎºÎµÎ´Î¿Î½Î¯Î±Ï , in Philippians 4:15 , by one even antecedent , and thus serving more amply to justify that specification of time, [192] for which purpose the á½Î¤Î specifying the reason was quite sufficient, and (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) no ÎÎΡ was necessary. The opinion of Wiesinger, that á½Î¤Î Î . Τ . Î . is intended to explain that it was only with the aid sent after Paul at a distance that the readers had entered into such a connection with the apostle as is previously mentioned, is bound up with the untenable interpretation of á¼Îá¿ÎÎÎÎ as pluperfect. The rendering of á½Î¤Î by that (Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Lünemann, Weiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic οἴδαÏε καὶ á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï , Philippians 4:15 , accords doubtless with the exclusion of other churches in Philippians 4:15 , it does not accord with Philippians 4:16 (“ ye also know that ye have sent ⦠to me!”), to which it would stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the uncalled-for inversion of the order of time , which would result. Hofmann’s explanation, which makes á½ Ïι in Philippians 4:16 parallel to the á½Î¤Î in Philippians 4:15 and places it in causal relation to Îá¼¼ÎÎΤΠ, falls with his erroneous view of Philippians 4:15 .
The ÎÎÎ before á¼Î ÎÎΣΣÎÎ . , for which Hinsch, following Baur, thinks that he finds a reference in 2 Corinthians 11:9 , is the simple also in the sense of also already; a climax as regards time; see Hartung, Partik . I. p. 135; Kühner, II. 2, p. 797.
á¼Î½ ÎεÏÏαλ .] is not used, in the sense of the bearers having arrived, for Îá¼¸Ï , for there is no certain instance of á¼Î ÎΣΤÎÎÎÎÎÎ or Î ÎÎÎ ÎÎÎ with á¼Î in this sense (Thuc. vii. 17 must, with Becker and Krüger, be read: á¼Ï Τá¿Î ΣÎÎÎÎÎÎÎ ); but the preposition is used from the standpoint of the receiver: “ also at Thessalonica (when I was there) ye sent to me.” Thus this sending took place in Thessalonica . Comp. on Matthew 10:16 ; Poppo and Krüger on Thuc . iv. 27. 1.
καὶ á¼ Ïαξ καὶ Î´Î¯Ï ] Comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:18 . The conception is: “when the first aid arrived, the á¼ÏÎμÏαÏε had taken place once; when the second arrived, it had taken place both once and twice .” Paul has not written Î´Î¯Ï merely, nor yet á¼Î ÎÎ Î . ÎÎÏ ( 1Ma 3:30 ; Xen. Anab . iv. 7. 10), but by καὶ á¼ Ï . κ . ÎÎÏ he sets forth the repetition of the matter more emphatically , to the praise of his readers (Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 144). Comp. καὶ Î´á½¶Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÏÎ¯Ï , Plat. Phaed . p. 63 D, Phil . p. 59 E; Herod, ii. 121, iii. 148. The opposite: οá½Ï á¼ Ïαξ οá½Î´á½² Î´Î¯Ï , Plat. Clit . p. 410 B.
Îµá¼°Ï Ï . ÏÏείαν ] on behalf of the necessity , in order to satisfy it; comp. Philippians 2:15 . The article indicates the necessity that had been existing in Paul’s case. On ÏÎμÏαι , used absolutely, comp. Acts 11:29 . What they sent, they knew.
[192] If Baur had noticed this correct logical connection, he would not have made an improper use of our passage to fortify his opinion of the affair of the aid being an invented incident. The same assistance which is meant in ver. 15 cannot be meant in ver. 16, as some not attending to the καί (comp. Luther, Castalio, and others) have thought. This view is also at variance with the specification of time á½ Ïε á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ , ver. 15; for Paul abode several weeks in Thessalonica (Acts 17:2 ), and then there still followed his sojourn in Beroea (Acts 17:10 ff.), ere he quitted Macedonia and travelled to Athens.
Verse 17
Philippians 4:17 . Just as in Philippians 4:11 Paul anticipated a possible misunderstanding in respect to Philippians 4:10 , so here in reference to the praises contained in Philippians 4:14 ff. This, he would say, is not the language of material desire, but, etc.
οá½Ï á½ Ïι κ . Ï . λ .] as in Philippians 4:11 : I do not mean by this to convey that my desire is directed towards the gift (the emphasis being laid on Ïὸ δÏμα ) this, namely, taken in and by itself in which case the article means the donation accruing to him as the case occurred , and the present á¼ÏιζηÏá¿¶ denotes the constant and characteristic striving after (Bernhardy, p. 370): it is not my business, etc. The compound verb indicates by á¼Ïί the direction . Comp. on á¼ÏιÏοθῶ , Philippians 1:8 , and on Matthew 6:33 ; Romans 11:7 . The view which regards it as strengthening the simple verb ( studiose quaero , so Hoelemann and others) is not implied in the context any more than the sense: insuper quaero (Polyb. i. 5. 3); so van Hengel, who indelicately, and notwithstanding the article, explains Ïὸ δÏμα as still more gifts .
á¼Î»Î»Ê¼ á¼ÏιζηÏá¿¶ ] The repetition of the verb after á¼Î»Î»Î¬ makes the contrast stand out independently with special emphasis; comp. Romans 8:15 ; 1 Corinthians 2:7 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom . II. p. 137.
Ïὸν καÏÏὸν κ . Ï . λ .] This is what Paul desires, towards which his wishes and endeavours are directed: the fruit which abounds to your account; not, therefore, a gain which he wishes to have for himself, but gain for the Philippians. So completely is his á¼ÏιζηÏεá¿Î½ devoid of any selfish aim , which, however, would not be the case, if the á¼ÏιζηÏá¿¶ Ïὸ δÏμα were true. This applies against Hofmann’s objection, that the καÏÏÏÏ must be something which Paul himself desires to have; the notion of á¼ÏιζηÏá¿¶ is anquiro, appeto , and this indeed applies to personal possession in the negative half of the sentence; but then the second half expresses the real state of the case, which does away with the notion of selfishness.
The καÏÏÏÏ itself cannot be the fruit of the gospel (Ewald), or of the labour of the apostle (Weiss); but, in accordance with the context, only the fruit of the δÏμα , that is, the blessing which accrues from the gift to the givers; comp. on Philippians 4:15 . By this is meant [193] the divine recompense at the judgment (2 Corinthians 9:6 ), which they will then receive, as if it were the product of their account, for their labour of love (Matthew 25:34 ff.). This produce of their δÏμα is figuratively conceived as fruit , which is largely placed to the credit of their account, in order to be drawn by them at the day of harvest (comp. also Galatians 6:7 ff.). Comp. Philippians 4:19 . In substance it is the treasure in heaven that is meant (Matthew 19:21 ; Matthew 6:20 ), which will be received at the Parousia. Comp. on Colossians 1:5 . The figurative Îµá¼°Ï Î»Ïγον á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ , which here also is not to be understood, with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Rilliet, and others, as equivalent to Îµá¼°Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï , is the completion of the figure in Philippians 4:15 ; although there is no need to explain καÏÏÏÏ as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in Ïλεονάζ . of compound interest , Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difficult to see why Paul, if he used this figure, should not have applied to it the proper term ( ÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï ), and because the idea of interest is quite alien to that of the δÏμα ( a present ).
Ï . Ïλεονάζ . Îµá¼°Ï Î»Ïγον á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ ] to be taken together (see above); Îµá¼°Ï states the destination of the Ïλεομάζ . Van Hengel and de Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling Îµá¼°Ï Î»Ïγ . á½Î¼ . with á¼ÏιζηÏá¿¶ , because Ïλεονάζειν with Îµá¼°Ï is not used elsewhere by Paul (not even 2 Thessalonians 1:3 ). The preposition is in fact not determined by the word in itself, but by its logical reference, and may therefore be any one which the reference requires.
[193] Not the active manifestation of the Christian life (Matthies, Rilliet, Hofmann; comp. Vatablus, Musculus, Piscator, Zanchius; Flatt and Rheinwald mingle together heterogeneous ideas); for only the fruit of the δÏμα can be meant, not the δÏμα itself as fruit, which is produced in the shape of the love-gift (Hofmann).
Verse 18
Philippians 4:18 . ÎÎ ] The train of thought is: “not the gift do I seek, but the fruit (Philippians 4:17 ); and as regards what has been received from you in the present instance, I have everything already, and need nothing further.” That this refers to the desire of the church to know what he possibly still needed (Hofmann), is a very unnecessary assumption.
á¼ÏÎÏÏ Î´á½² ÏάνÏα ] not: habeo autem omnia (Vulgate); not a mere acknowledgment of receipt (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, and others); nor yet equivalent to ÏεÏιÏÏεÏÏ (Rheinwald); but, in keeping with the sense of the compound: I have everything away , so that I have nothing left to desire at your hands. Comp. Philemon 1:15 ; Matthew 6:2 ; Matthew 6:5 ; Matthew 6:16 ; Luke 6:24 ; Callim. ep . 22; Arrian. Epict . iii. 2. 13, iii. 24. 17; Jacobs, ad Anthol . VII. pp. 276, 298. ΠάνÏα , therefore, according to the context ( á¼ÏιζηÏá¿¶ Ï . δÏμα , Philippians 4:17 ), is: everything which I could desire , although there is no necessity for introducing specially, with Chrysostom and Oecumenius, Ïá½° á¼Î»Î»ÎµÎ¹ÏθÎνÏα á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ÏαÏελθÏνÏι ÏÏÏνῳ . The emphasis , moreover, is laid, not on ÏάνÏα , but on á¼ÏÎÏÏ , in contrast to á¼ÏιζηÏεá¿Î½ .
καὶ ÏεÏιÏÏεÏÏ ] and my wants are thus so fully satisfied, that I have over .
ÏεÏλήÏÏμαι ] forms a climax to ÏεÏιÏÏ .: I am full , I have abundance. The gift must have been ample; but gratitude sets this forth in all the stronger a light. To ÏεÏÎ»Î®Ï . is attached Î´ÎµÎ¾Î¬Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Îº . Ï . λ .
á½Ïμὴν εá½ÏÎ´Î¯Î±Ï Îº . Ï . λ .] This apposition to Ïá½° ÏαÏʼ á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ , expressing a judgment as to the latter (see on Romans 12:1 ), sets forth, to the honour of the givers, the relation in which the gifts received stand towards God , by whom they are esteemed as a sacrifice well-pleasing to Him . As to á½Ïμὴ εá½ÏÎ´Î¯Î±Ï , smell of a sweet savour , רֵ××Ö· × Ö°××Ì×Ö· (genitive of quality), which is used of free-will offerings, see on Ephesians 5:2 . It describes the thing according to its effect on God, namely, that it is acceptable to Him; Î¸Ï Ïίαν κ . Ï . λ ., however, describes it according to what it is.
δεκÏὴν , εá½Î¬ÏεÏÏ .] acceptable, well-pleasing, a vividly asyndetic climax (on the former, comp. Sir 32:7 ); Ïá¿· Îεῷ , however, applies to the whole apposition á½Ïμὴν ⦠εá½Î±Ï . The asyndetic juxtaposition of several epithets is frequent also in classical authors, from Homer onward (Ameis z. Od. iv., Anh.). As to the view, originating in the O. T., which regards works well-pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see the expositors on Romans 12:1 ; 1 Peter 2:5 ; Hebrews 13:16 . Comp. Philo, de vit. Mos. II. p. 151: ἡ Î³á½°Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸á½´Ï ἱεÏÎ¿Ï Ïγία ÏÎ¯Ï á¼Î½ εἴη Ïλὴν ÏÏ Ïá¿Ï θεοÏÎ¹Î»Î¿á¿¦Ï Îµá½ÏÎβεια ; passages from the Rabbins in Schoettg. Hor. p. 1006.
Verse 19
Philippians 4:19 . The thought starts from Ïá¿· Îεῷ . But God , to whom your gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will recompense you.
Paul says ὠδὲ ÎεÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï (comp. Philippians 1:3 ), because he himself had been the recipient of that which they had brought as a sacrifice pleasing to God; as his God (to whom he belongs and whom he serves, comp. on Romans 1:8 ), therefore, will God carry out the recompense.
ÏληÏÏÏει ] used with significant reference to ÏεÏÎ»Î®Ï ., Philippians 4:18 , according to the idea of recompense. Not, however, a wish (hence also in Codd. and in the Vulgate the reading ÏληÏÏÏαι ), as Chrysostom, Luther, and others take it, but a promise .
Ïá¾¶Ïαν ÏÏείαν á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ ] likewise corresponding to the service which the readers had rendered; for they had sent Îµá¼°Ï Ïὴν ÏÏείαν (Philippians 4:16 ) of the apostle. To be understood as: every need which ye have , not merely bodily (so usually, following Chrysostom, who explains it as the fulfilment of the fourth petition , also van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger), and not merely spiritual (Pelagius, Rilliet, also mainly Weiss), but as it stands: every need. It is not, however, an earthly recompense which is meant (Hofmann), but (comp. on Philippians 4:17 ) the recompense in the Messiah’s kingdom , where, in the enjoyment of the ÏÏÏηÏία , the highest satisfaction of every need (comp. on ÏÎ»Î·Ï . ÏÏείαν , Thuc. i. 70. 4, and Wetstein in loc .) shall have set in amidst the full, blessed sufficiency of the eternal ζÏή (comp. Romans 8:17 f.; Revelation 21:4 ). [194] There are specifications of this satisfaction in the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:0 ; comp. especially the ÏοÏÏαÏθήÏεÏθε and γελάÏεÏε , Luke 6:21 , also the οὠμὴ διÏήÏá¿ Îµá¼°Ï Ïὸν αἰῶνα in John 4:14 , and the sarcastic κεκοÏεÏμÎνοι , in 1 Corinthians 4:8 . That it is the Messianic satisfaction in the á¼Î»ÎµÏ θεÏία Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï Ïῶν ÏÎκνÏν Ïοῦ Îεοῦ (Romans 8:21 ), in the possession of the ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï Ïá¿Ï κληÏÎ¿Î½Î¿Î¼Î¯Î±Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ (Ephesians 1:18 ), which is to be thought of, Paul himself states by á¼Î½ δÏξῠ, which is to be taken as instrumental (Ephesians 1:23 ; Ephesians 5:18 ) and dependent on ÏÎ»Î·Ï .: with glory , whereby the Messianic is indicated. Hofmann also, though he rejects the instrumental view, comes ultimately to it: “ Therewith and thus will God fulfil all their need, in that He gives them glory .” [195] Others , who also correctly join the words with ÏÎ»Î·Ï ., take them as a modal definition : in a glorious way , that is, amply, splendide , and the like. See Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss. But what an indefinite yet peculiarly affected, and withal by its so habitual reference elsewhere to the final judgment misleading expression would this be for so simple an idea! And how far would it be from the apostle’s mind, considering his expectation of the nearness of the Parousia (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:29 ; 1 Corinthians 7:31 ), to promise on this side of it a hearty recompense, which was to take place, moreover, á¼Î½ ΧÏιÏÏá¿· ἸηÏοῦ ! An appeal is wrongly made to 2 Corinthians 9:8 , where an increase of means for further well-doing, to be granted through God’s blessing, and not the recompense , is the point under discussion. Others erroneously join á¼Î½ δÏξῠwith Ïὸ ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ (Grotius, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, and others): “ pro amplissimis suis divitiis , id est, potestate sua omnia excedente,” Heinrichs. It is true that á¼Î½ δÏξῠmight be attached without a connecting article (according to the combination ÏÎ»Î¿Ï Ïεá¿Î½ á¼Î½ Ïινι , 1 Timothy 6:8 ; comp. 1 Corinthians 1:5 ; 2 Corinthians 9:11 ); but Paul always connects ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï with the genitive of the thing, and ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï in particular, said of God, is so constantly used by him, that it seems altogether unwarranted to assume the expression ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î½ δÏξῠin this passage. See Romans 9:23 ; Ephesians 1:18 ; Ephesians 3:16 ; Colossians 1:27 . He would have written: καÏá½° Ïὸ ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ , comp. Romans 9:23 .
καÏá½° Ïὸ ÏλοῦÏÎ¿Ï Î±á½Ïοῦ ] that is, in conformity with His being so rich , and consequently having so much to give. Comp. Romans 10:12 ; Romans 11:33 . This assures what is promised.
á¼Î½ ΧÏιÏÏá¿· ἸηÏοῦ ] definition annexed to ÏληÏÏÏει ⦠δÏξῠ; that which is promised has its causal ground in Christ , who by His work has acquired for believers the eternal δÏξα . Christ is, in fact, ἡ á¼Î»Ïá½¶Ï Ïá¿Ï δÏÎ¾Î·Ï , Colossians 1:27 .
[194] Hofmann very irrelevantly objects that it is out of place to speak of want in that kingdom. But just, in fact, on that account is the bliss of the kingdom the complete satisfaction of every need. Comp. Rev 7:16 f.; 2 Timothy 4:7 f. Thus also is the perfect then put in the place of that which is in part. Consequently the idea of the satisfaction of every ÏÏεία in eternal life, where man even beholds God, and where He is all in all, is anything but a “monstrous thought.”
[195] In order, however, to bring out of the passage, notwithstanding this á¼Î½ δÏξῠ, the idea of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes δÏξα mean the glory of the children of God which is hidden from the world , and which is the fulfilment of every want only in proportion “as there is lacking in us what, either corporally or spiritually, is necessary for the completion of our divine sonship.” Instead of such arbitrary inventions, let us keep clearly before us how great a weight in the very word of promise, which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies in the fact that the grand aim of all promise and hope, i.e. the glory of eternal life (Romans 5:2 ; Romans 8:18 ; Romans 8:21 ; Romans 9:23 ; 1 Corinthians 15:43 ; 2 Corinthians 4:17 ; Colossians 3:4 ; and many other passages), is once more presented to the reader’s view.
Verse 20
Philippians 4:20 . The conception of the superabundant salvation, which Paul has just promised from God, forces from his heart a doxology .
ÏαÏÏί ] through Christ, in virtue of our Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏία , Romans 8:15 ; Galatians 4:5 . As to Ï . Îεῷ κ . ÏαÏÏá½¶ ἡμ . comp. on Galatians 1:5 .
ἡ δÏξα ] sc . εἴη , the befitting glory. See on Ephesians 3:21 ; Romans 11:36 ; Romans 16:27 , et al .
Îµá¼°Ï ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î±á¼°á¿¶Î½ . Ïῶν αἰÏν .] Galatians 1:5 ; 1 Timothy 1:17 ; 2 Timothy 4:18 ; Hebrews 13:21 ; 1 Peter 4:11 ; 1 Peter 5:11 , and frequently in Rev. As to the analysis of the expression, see on Ephesians 3:21 .
Verses 21-23
Philippians 4:21-23 . ΠάνÏα ἠγιον ] every one , no one in the church being excepted, a point which is more definitely expressed by the singular. [196]
á¼Î½ Χ . Ἰ .] is not to be joined to ἠγιον (so usually, as by Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to á¼ÏÏÎ¬Ï . (comp. Romans 16:22 ; 1 Corinthians 16:19 ), denoting the specifically Christian salutation, in conveying which the consciousness lives in Christ . This is the connection adopted by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Heinrichs, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot, and it is the right one, since with ἠγιον it is self-evident that Christians are meant, and there would be no motive for specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in the address Philippians 1:1 , where Ïοá¿Ï á¼Î³Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï á¼Î½ Χ . Ἰ . bears a certain formal character.
οἱ Ïὺν á¼Î¼Î¿á½¶ á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ï .] is the narrower circle of those Christians who were round the apostle in Rome, including also the official colleagues who were with him, though there is no ground for understanding these alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even pointing distinctly to Timothy, Linus , and Clement . The difficulty, which has been raised in this case by a comparison of Philippians 2:20 , is unfounded, since, in fact, the expression in Philippians 2:20 excludes neither the giving of a salutation nor the mention of brethren; groundless, therefore, are the attempted solutions of the difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either Philippians 2:20 is meant οὠÏεÏá½¶ Ïῶν á¼Î½ Ïá¿ ÏÏλει , or that Paul οὠÏαÏαιÏεá¿Ïαι καὶ ÏοÏÏÎ¿Ï Ï á¼Î´ÎµÎ»ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÎºÎ±Î»Îµá¿Î½ (comp. Oecumenius, who brings forward the latter as a proof of the ÏÏλάγÏνα of the apostle). Misapprehending this second and in itself correct remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction being drawn between two classes of companions in office, namely, travelling companions , such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas, and those who were resident in the places where the apostle sojourned (among whom van Hengel reckons in Rome, Clement, Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epaphroditus), and holds that only the latter class is here meant. The limits of the narrower circle designated by οἱ Ïὺν á¼Î¼Î¿á½¶ á¼Î´ . are not at all to be definitely drawn. Estius well says: “Qui ⦠mihi vincto ministrant, qui me visitant, qui mecum hic in evangelio laborant.”
ÏάνÏÎµÏ Î¿á¼± ἠγιοι ] generally, all Christians who are here; comp. on 2 Corinthians 13:12 ; 1 Corinthians 16:20 .
μάλιÏÏα δΠ] but most of all, pre-eminently; they have requested the apostle to give special prominence to their salutation. Comp. Plat. Critias , p. 108 D: ÏοÏÏ Ïε á¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï Ï ÎºÎ»Î·ÏÎον καὶ δὴ καὶ Ïá½° μάλιÏÏα ÎνημοÏÏνην . Whether these persons stood in any personal relations to the Philippians, remains uncertain. It is enough to assume that Paul had said to them much that was honourable concerning the church to which he was about to write.
οἱ á¼Îº Ïá¿Ï ÎαίÏαÏÎ¿Ï Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¯Î±Ï ] sc . ἠγιοι as is plain from the connection with the preceding (in opposition to Hofmann): those from the emperor’s house (from the Palatium , see Böttger, Beitr . II. p. 49) who belong to the saints. We have to think of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to Grotius, Hitzig, and others: freedmen ), who dwelt , or at least were employed, in the palace . In this way there is no need for departing from the immediate meaning of the word, and taking it in the sense of household (Hofmann). In no case, however, can we adopt as the direct meaning of οἰκία the sense of domestic servants , a meaning which it does not bear even in Xen. Mem . ii. 7. 6; Joseph. Antt . xvi. 5. 8; and Tac. Hist . ii. 92; [197] domestic servants would be οἰκεÏεία . Others have taken ÎἸÎÎÎ , in accordance with current usage, as family (1 Corinthians 16:15 , and frequently), and have understood kinsmen of the emperor , a meaning which in itself seems by no means shown by Philo in Flacc . p. 190 A to be at variance with linguistic usage [198] (in opposition to Hofmann). So recently Baur, who needed this point for his combinations against the genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengel. [199] But apart from the fact that through Nero himself this family was greatly diminished, and that conversions among those related to the emperor were à priori (comp. also 1 Corinthians 1:26 ff.) very improbable, doubtless some historical traces of such a striking success would have been preserved in tradition. [200] Matthies, quite arbitrarily, understands the Praetorians , as if Paid had written: οἱ á¼Îº Ïοῦ ÏÏαιÏÏÏÎ¯Î¿Ï (Philippians 1:13 ). This also applies, in opposition to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt . p. 420, who, considering the Praetorium to be a portion of the palace (see remark on Philippians 1:13 ), thinks the apostle alludes especially to the Praetorians. Those who transfer the epistle to Caesarea (see Introduction, § 2), suppose the Praetorium of Herod in that place to be intended, and consequently also think of Praetorians , Acts 23:35 (Paulus, Böttger); or (so Rilliet) taking οἰκία as familia , of administrators of the imperial private domain, called Caesariani or Procurators a view against which the plural should have warned them; or even of “the family of the imperial freedman Felix ” (Thiersch). What persons , moreover, were meant (various of the older expositors have even included Seneca [201] among them), is a point just as unknown to us, as it was well known to the Philippians or became known to them through Epaphroditus. The general result is, that people from the imperial palace were Christians, and that those could obtain access to the apostle probably with special ease and frequency; hence their especial salutation. The question also, whether one or another of the persons saluted in Romans 16:0 should be understood as included here (see especially J. B. Lightfoot, p. 173 ff.), must remain entirely undecided. Calvin, moreover, well points to the working of the divine mercy, in that the gospel “in illam scelerum omnium et flagitiorum abyssum penetraverit.”
ἡ ÏάÏÎ¹Ï Ï . ÎºÏ Ï . Ἰ . Χ .] see on Galatians 1:6 .
ÎÎΤᾺ Î ÎÎΤΩΠá½Î . ] Comp. Romans 16:24 ; 1 Corinthians 16:24 ; 2 Corinthians 13:13 ; 2 Thessalonians 3:18 ; Titus 3:15 .
[196] Since Paul does not here express, as in other cases (Romans 16:17 ; 1 Corinthians 16:20 ; 2 Corinthians 13:12 ), the conception of mutual salutation ( á¼Î»Î»Î®Î»Î¿Ï Ï ), he has in á¼ÏÏάÏαÏθε had in view the immediate recipients of the epistle (presbyters and deacons, Philippians 1:1 ). So also 1 Thessalonians 5:26 .
[197] Where it is said of those who entered the service of the emperor: “in domum Caesaris transgressi.” Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9: ÏÏὶν Îµá¼°Ï Ïὸν βαÏίλειον οἶκον ÏαÏιλθεá¿Î½ .
[198] For in Philo l.c. it is said regarding Herod Agrippa: “Even though he were not king, but only one of the emperor’s kinsmen ( á¼Îº Ïá¿Ï ÎαίÏαÏÎ¿Ï Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¯Î±Ï ), it would still be necessary to prefer and honour him.”
[199] Whether Chrysostom and his successors understood here members of the imperial family, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chrysostom does not take the word itself, οἰκία as family, but explains it by Ïá½° βαÏίλεια , palace, and finds in the salutation a purpose of encouragement: εἰ Î³á½°Ï Î¿á¼± á¼Î½ Ïοá¿Ï βαÏÎ¹Î»ÎµÎ¯Î¿Î¹Ï ÏάνÏÏν καÏιÏÏÏνηÏαν διὰ Ïὸν βαÏιλία Ïῶν οá½Ïανῶν , Ïολλῷ μᾶλλον αá½ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÏÏá½´ ÏοῦÏο Ïοιεá¿Î½ Comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact.
[200] Certainly Baur believes that he has found these traces in sufficient number. Flavius Clemens, namely, was a kinsman of Domitian (see on ver. 3). Now, since out of this Clement grew the Clemens Romanus of Christian tradition, the latter also must have been a kinsman of the imperial family, as indeed the Homil. Clement, iv. 7, comp. xiv. 10, designate him as á¼Î½á½´Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï Î³ÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï Î¤Î¹Î²ÎµÏÎ¹Î¿Ï ÎαίÏαÏÎ¿Ï He, therefore, would be exactly the man, in whom Christianity was represented in the circle of the imperial house itself. “Concluding from one that there were several, the author of the epistle might make his apostle write earnest salutations to the church in Philippi from beliveing members of the imperial house in the plural,” etc. Thus does criticism, departing from the solid ground of history, lose itself in the atmosphere of subjective inventions, where hypothesis finds no longer either support or limit. Indeed, Baur now goes further beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and discovers that the mention of Clement even throws a new light over the whole plan of the epistle. With this Clement, namely, and the participation, as attested by him, of the imperial house in the gospel, is given the ÏÏοκοÏá½´ Ïοῦ εἰαγγ (Philippians 1:12 ), and with the latter the feeling of joyfulness, which expresses itself throughout the epistle as the ground-tone of the apostle (Philippians 2:17 f., comp. Philippians 3:1 , Philippians 4:1 ; Philippians 4:4 ; Philippians 4:10 ), and which is again and again the refrain of each separate section. Only by the preponderance of this feeling is it to be explained that the author makes his apostle even express the hope of a speedy liberation (Philippians 2:24 ). But with this joy there is also blended, with a neutralizing effect, the idea of a nearly approaching death, Philippians 1:20-24 , and this divided state of mind between life and death betrays an author “who had already before his eyes as an actual fact the end of the apostle, which was so far from harmonizing with all these presuppositions.”
[201] See generally on “Paul and Seneca,” and the apocryphal fourteen Latin letters exchanged between them, Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1858, 2. 3; Reuss in Herzog’s Encyklop. XIV. p. 274 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, Exc. II. p. 268 ff., 327 ff.; latest edition of the text of these epistles in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1867, p. 609 ff.