Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους.[44]

[44] The Philippians are also called Φιλιππήσιοι by Steph. Byz., Φιλιππηνοί by Polyb. (according to Steph. Byz.), Φιλιππεῖς in the Corp. Inscript.

A B D E F G א have merely πρὸς Φιλιπτησίους

CHAPTER 1

Php 1:1. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Lachm. and Tisch. read Χριστοῦ Ιησοῦ. The same in Php 1:6; Php 1:8. This is to be preferred on account of the strong attestation of B D E א (the latter, however, only in Php 1:1; Php 1:8), which is reinforced in Php 1:8 by A; it was readily supplanted by the more usual Ἰ. Χ.

Php 1:7. Elz. has merely τῇ ἀπολογ. without ἐν. Lachm. has ἐν, which Griesb., Matth., Scholz, and Tisch. adopt, in brackets. It is found in B D** E K L P א, min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. Looking at this indecisive attestation, and seeing that ἐν might more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than omitted, it should be deleted.

Php 1:8. ἐστίν] after μου is defended by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., following B F G א*, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Chrys. An addition made from a reminiscence of Romans 1:9.

Php 1:9. περισσεύῃ] B D E have περισσεύσῃ. So Lachm., who has placed περισσεύῃ in the margin, and Tisch. 7. With the considerable testimony which exists in favour of the Recepta, restored also by Tisch. 8, it should be retained, as περισσεύσῃ might very easily originate in the similarity of sound in the following final syllables: ἐπιγνώΣΕΙ, πάσΣΗΙ, and σἰσθήΣΕΙ. The Recepta is also supported by the readings περισσεύει and περισσεύοι.

Php 1:11. Elz. has καρπῶν … τῶν, against decisive testimony. An emendation.

Php 1:14. Lach. and Tisch. 8 have τοῦ Θεοῦ after λόγον, although, according to testimony of some weight (such as A B א, Clem.), only an explanatory addition, which some Codd. give in a different position, while others change it into τοῦ κυρίου.

Php 1:16-17. Elz. reverses their position: οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας … μου· οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἀγάπης … κεῖμαι, against decisive testimony. A transposition intended to produce uniformity with Php 1:10.

Instead of ἐγείρειν (Griesb., Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has ἐπιφέρειν, which is defended by Matth. and Scholz, and vindicated by Reiche. But ἐγείρ. is decisively attested by the preponderance of uncials (including א) and vss.; ἐπιφέρειν, instead of which Theophyl. ms. has προσφέρειν, is an ancient gloss.

Php 1:18. πλήν] B has ὅτι; A F G P א, min. some vss. and Fathers: πλὴν ὅτι. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the πλήν not being understood, it was explained by the ὅτι written on the margin, which has in some cases (B) supplanted the πλήν, and in others passed into the text along with it.

Ver 21. Χριστός] χρηστόν was so isolated and weak in attestation (Ar. pol.), that it should not have been recommended by Griesb., following earlier authority.

Php 1:23. Elz. has γάρ instead of δὲ, against decisive testimony. The γὰρ after πολλῷ is neither critically nor exegetically to be rejected. See Reiche, Comm. crit.

Php 1:24. ἐν τῇ σαρκί] ἐν is wanting in A C P א, min. Clem. Or. Petr. alex. Cyr. Chrysost. Wrongly condemned by Griesb. and Tisch. 8; for ἐν might easily be absorbed by the final syllable of ἐπιμένειν, especially as it is frequently used elsewhere with the simple dative.

Php 1:25. συμπαραμενῶ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read παραμενῶ, which Griesb. also approved of, following A B C D* F G א, min. A neglect of the doubly compound verb, attested certainly more weakly, but yet by D*** E K L P, Chrys. al. and many min., which took place all the more readily, because the word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and even its meaning might be offensive.

Php 1:27. Instead of ἀκούσω, Lach. and Tisch. 8 read ἀκούω, but without a preponderance of testimony in its favour.

Php 1:28. ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς] Elz. has αὐτοῖς μὲν ἐστίν, against decisive testimony.

ὑμῖν] A B C** א, min. vss. Aug. read ὑμῶν. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the dative is a mechanical alteration in accordance with the preceding αὐτοῖς and the following ὑμῖν.

Php 1:30. Elz. has ἴδετε. But εἴδετε is attested by A C D* E* א, min and Fathers, and was supplanted by ἴδετε through Itacism.

CONTENTS.

After the greeting to his readers (Php 1:1-2), Paul assures them of his gratitude towards God on account of their condition as Christians (Php 1:3-5), while as regards the future also he has confidence, in accordance with his heartfelt love towards them, as to the continued work of God in their case (Php 1:6-8). His prayer is, that their love may increase yet more and more on behalf of Christian perfection to the glory of God (Php 1:9-11). He then declares how his present position redounds to the furtherance of the gospel, to which even the preaching of those who are actuated by impure motives contributes (Php 1:12-18), because Christ in fact is preached, which must tend to his—the apostle’s—salvation, since now nothing else but the glorification of Christ in his case will be the result, whether he remains alive in the body or not (Php 1:19-21). Which of the two he should prefer, he knows not; since, however, the former is more needful for the sake of his readers, he is convinced that it will be the case for their furtherance and joy (Php 1:22-26). Only their conduct should be in conformity with the gospel, in order that he, if he should come again to them, or should be absent, might learn their Christian unity and fearlessness (Php 1:27-30).

Php 1:1-2. Καὶ Τιμόθ.] not as amanuensis, although he may have been so (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:21; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Colossians 4:18; and see on Galatians 6:11), for from Romans 16:22 we must assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the superscription; nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting (Estius, Weiss), for Php 1:1 is the address of the epistle, and as such names those from whom it emanates; but as subordinate joint-writer of the letter (comp. on 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1), who, as a distinguished helper of the apostle, and well known to the readers, adopts the teachings, exhortations, etc. of the letter, which the apostle had previously discussed with him, as his own. At the same time, the apostle himself remains so completely the proper and principal writer of the epistle, that so early as Php 1:3 he begins to speak solely in his own person, and in Php 2:19 speaks of Timothy, who was to be sent to them, as a third person. Nevertheless this joint mention of Timothy must have been as accordant with the personal relation existing between the latter and the readers (Acts 16:10 ff; Acts 19:22), as it was serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of Timothy (Php 2:19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a testimony of the intimate fellowship between the apostle and his subordinate fellow-labourer.[45]

δοῦλοι Χ. Ἰ] The fact that Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic dignity by the side of Timothy (as in 2 Corinthians 1:1, Colossians 1:1), may be explained by the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the Philippians; for in regard to them he saw no external cause, and felt no internal need, for making this assertion; and we may assume the same thing in Philemon 1:1. The non-mention of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they were composed, to be similarly explained (see Lünemann on 1 Thessalonians 1:1). In their joint designation as δοῦλοι Ἰ. Χ. (see on Romans 1:1),—a designation resulting from the deep consciousness of the specific vocation of their lives (1 Corinthians 4:1),—both the apostleship of Paul and the official position of Timothy (comp. Romans 16:21 : Τιμόθ. ὁ συνεργός μου; Colossians 4:12) are included. Compare σύνδουλος, Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:7.

τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] see on Romans 1:7, and on ἡγιασμένος ἐν Χ. Ἰ., 1 Corinthians 1:2.

σὺν ἐπισκ. κ. διακόν.] along with overseers and deacons. Paul writes to all[46] the Christians at Philippi (comp. Romans 1:7), bishops and deacons being expressly included (σύν, comp. Acts 14:5). As official designations, the words did not require the article (Kühner, ad. Xen. Anab. Php 3:5. 7: στρατηγοὶ δὲ καὶ λοχαγοί), although particular persons are meant (in opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded, however, just as office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially mentioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, must be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the aid which had been conveyed to Paul could not have been collected without the guidance, and co-operation otherwise, of these office-bearers.[47] They might even have transmitted to him the money by means of an accompanying letter in the name of the church (Ewald; compare Hofmann); there is, however, no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Cornelius a Lapide and Grotius: that he thus arranged the salutation with reference to Epaphroditus, who was one of the ἐπίσκοποι; by Matthias: that the ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟΙ and ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟΙ had specially distinguished themselves among the Philippians by their zeal and energy; by Rilliet and Corn. Müller: that the intention was to describe the church as a regularly constituted one, or as an undivided whole (Rheinwald), a collective body organized into unity (Hofmann) (which, in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were also); or that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to self-exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet other explanations.

The writing of the words as one: συνεπισκόποις (B** D*** K, Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be rejected, because ΣῪΝ would be without appropriate reference, and the epistle is addressed to the whole community. See already Theodore of Mopsuestia.

As to the bishops, called from their official duty ἐπίσκοποι (Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7), or figuratively ΠΟΙΜΈΝΕς (Ephesians 4:11), and after the Jewish theocratic analogy ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΕΡΟΙ, see on Acts 20:28, Ephesians 4:11. And how much the plural is at variance with the Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The absence also of any mention of presbyters[48] strikingly shows that the latter were still at that time identical with the bishops. Comp. particularly Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28; and see Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 400 ff.; also J. B. Lightfoot, p. 93 ff., and Jul. Müller, dogmat. Abh. p. 581. Mistaken view in Döllinger’s Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who makes out of σύζυγε γνήσιε the bishop κατʼ ἐξοχήν. As to the διακονία, the care of the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on Romans 12:7; Romans 16:1; 1 Corinthians 12:28. We may add that the placing of the officials after the church generally, which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by σὺν, are characteristic of the relation between the two, which had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation. Comp. Acts 15:4; Hebrews 13:24. Cornelius a Lapide, following Thomas Aquinas, sagely observes, that “the shepherd who rules goes behind the flock!”

χάρις ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ.] See on Romans 1:7.

[45] In general, when Paul names others besides himself in the address, the ground for it must be sought for in the relation in which those named—who were then present with Paul—stood to the churches concerned, and not in any wish on his part to give by that means to the epistles an official and public character (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom Corn. Müller agrees, Commentat. de loc. quibusd. ep. ad Phil., Hamb. 1843, p. 5); for in that case the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians would least of all bear the apostle’s name alone. To him, too, with his personal consciousness of his high apostolic standing (Galatians 1:1), the need of any confirmation or corroboration by others must have been an idea utterly foreign. Lastly, this very Epistle to the Philippians bears less of the official and more of the familiar character than any of the others.—The fact, moreover, that in almost all the epistles, in the superscription of which Paul does not name himself alone, Timothy is mentioned with him (Silvanus being named with the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a proof that Timothy was the apostle’s most intimate companion, and was highly esteemed among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only, Sosthenes, and not Timothy, is mentioned along with Paul in the address.

[46] For all had, in fact, by their common readiness in offering given occasion to the apostolic letter. Thus the decorum of reply naturally gave rise to the insertion of the otherwise superfluous πᾶσι, without its implying any special design of not putting to shame those who possibly had not contributed (van Hengel). And when Paul still further in this Epistle makes mention repeatedly and earnestly of all his readers (Php 1:4; Php 1:7 f., 25, Php 2:17; Php 2:26, Php 4:22), the simple and natural explanation is to be sought in the feeling of special all-embracing love, by which he was attached to this well-constituted church not divided by any factions. Hence there is no ground for seeking further explanation, as e.g. de Wette does, by suggesting erroneously that “Paul wished to manifest his impartiality with regard to the dissension in the church.”

[47] There is therefore the less ground for Baur bringing forward the mention of bishops and deacons in this passage to help the proof of a post-apostolic composition of the epistle, as is also done by Hinsch in the passage specified. See, against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 f.

[48] In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, πρεσβύτεροι and διάκονοι are spoken of as existing in Philippi, but no ἐπίσκοπος. See especially chap. v. 6. Therefore even at this later period bishops and presbyters were identical in Philippi.

Php 1:3 f. Comp. Romans 1:9; 1 Corinthians 1:4; Ephesians 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; Philemon 1:4; Colossians 1:3.

ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμ.] not: in every recollection, but, as the article requires: in my whole recollection of you, so that the sense is not: as often as I remember you (so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther), but: my remembrance of you in its entire tenor and compass is mingled with thankfulness towards God. On ἐπί with the dative, comp. Php 2:17. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, Michaelis, Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making ὑμῶν genitive of the subject (and ἐπὶ as stating the ground, 1 Corinthians 1:4): “that ye are constantly mindful of me,” or “on account of your collective remembrance” (Hofmann), which is supposed to imply and include the aid transmitted to him as a single μνεία. That for which Paul thanks God—and it is here, as in the openings of the other epistles, something of a far higher and more general nature—does not follow until Php 1:5.

μνείᾳ] is to be rendered in the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:3), and not, as by van Hengel, in that of mention, which it only obtains in the passages—certainly otherwise corresponding

Romans 1:9, Ephesians 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 1:2, Philemon 1:4, by the addition of ποιεῖσθαι. In this case it is the μνείαν ἔχειν (1 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:3; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 798 A), and not the μν. ποιεῖσθαι, that is thought of.

πάντοτε] cannot belong to εὐχαριστῶ in such a way that the following ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει κ.τ.λ. should be separated from it and joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann[49] desires. It is true that πάντοτε down to ὑμῶν is closely linked with what precedes; but the connection is of such a character that πάντοτε already finds the befitting limitation through ἐπὶ πάσῃ τ. μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, and now by πάντοτε κ.τ.λ. can be announced, when the εὐχαριστῶ τ. Θ. μ. ἐπὶ π. τ. μν. ὑμ. takes place, namely, “at all times, in every request which I make for you all, thanksgiving towards my God is joined with my entire remembrance of you.” Negatively expressed, the sense up to this point therefore is: “I never (πάντοτε) make my intercessory prayer for you all, without always (πάντοτε, as in Romans 1:10, Colossians 1:4) in it associating thanks towards my God with my entire remembrance of you.” This does not render the πάντων inappropriate, as Hofmann objects, the fact being that the apostle constantly bears all his Philippians upon his heart, and cannot help praying for them all; he feels this, and expresses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many others, including Weiss, connect as follows: “whilst I at all times in all my praying for you all make the prayer with joy,” the expression ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος, as thus linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology. Instead of μετὰ χαρ. τ. δ. ποιούμ., Paul would have simply and naturally written the mere χαίρων. This applies also to the view of Huther, who (in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p. 400) substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly connects ὑπὲρ παντ. ὑμ. with εὐχαριστῶ (Romans 1:8; Ephesians 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:3). Against this it may be urged, that the otherwise too general ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει μου needs[50] an addition more precisely defining it; and the words ΜΕΤᾺ ΧΑΡ. ΤῊΝ ΔΈΗΣ. ΠΟΙΟΎΜ. which follow, show that the thought is still occupied with the prayer, and has it as yet in prospect to express the object of the thanks. Lastly, the article in τὴν δέησιν points back to a more precisely defined δέησις, the specification of which is contained in this very ὙΠ. Π. ὙΜ. Comp. Colossians 1:3.

As to the distinction between ΔΈΗΣΙς and ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΉ (Php 1:9; Php 4:6), see on Ephesians 6:18.

On the emphatic sequence of ΠΆΣῌ, ΠΆΝΤΟΤΕ, ΠΆΣῌ, ΠΆΝΤΩΝ, comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations, but the fulness of his heart suggests them to him; comp. 2 Corinthians 9:8.

μετὰ χαρᾶς κ.τ.λ.] His heart urges him, while mentioning his prayer for them all, to add: “when I make with joy the (mentioned) prayer (τὴν δ.),”—a feature which is met with in the opening of this epistle only. Php 1:4 is not to be placed in a parenthesis (as by Luther), nor yet from μετὰ χαρ. onwards, for ΠΟΙΟΎΜ. is connected with ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤῶ (in opposition to Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic definition of mode for ΔΈΗΣΙς ὙΠ. ΠΆΝΤ. ὙΜ.

[49] According to whom Paul is supposed to say that “he thanks his God for their collective remembrance at all times, in each of his intercessory prayers making the request for them all with joy.” Thus, however, the apostle would in fact have expressed himself in a manner extravagant even to falsehood, because implying an impossibility.

[50] This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who attaches ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, and to Hofmann, who at the same time joins ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει, to the participial clause. The participial clause only begins with the emphatically prefixed μετὰ χαρᾶς.

Php 1:5 f. Ἐπὶ τῇ κοινων. ὑμ. εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ.] is to be taken together with εὐχαριστῶ, Php 1:3 (1 Corinthians 1:4), and not with μετὰ χαρ. κ.τ.λ. (Calvin, Grotius, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann); for in that case, with the right explanation of ἐπὶ πάσῃ τ. μν. ὑμ., the specification of the ground for thanks would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your fellowship in respect of the gospel; by this Paul means the common brotherly coherence (Acts 2:42) which united the Philippians together for the gospel (as the aim to which the κοινωνία has reference), that is, for its furtherance and efficiency. The great cause of the gospel was the end at which, in their mutual coherence, they aimed; and this, therefore, gave to their fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy destination. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the context in Php 1:9, where that which is here expressed by ἡ κοινωνία ὑμῶν is characterized, under the category of the disposition on which this κοινωνία is based, as ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν. As this view is in full harmony with both words and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, it excludes divergent interpretations. We must therefore reject not only the explanation which refers κοινωνία to the aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be taken actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, 287), although it is never so used in the N. T. (comp. on Romans 15:26; Galatians 6:6; Philemon 1:6), but also the view of Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, and others: “quod evangelii participes facti estis,” as if it ran τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Theodoret: κοινωνίαν δὲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν πίστιν ἐκάλεσε). Chrysostom and Theophylact, who are followed by most of the recent interpreters (including Schinz, Weiss, Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann), understand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle, that is, ὅτι κοινωνοί μου γίνεσθε κ. συμμερισταὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ εὐαγγ. πόνων, Theophylact; consequently, their co-operation with him in spreading the gospel, in which case also a reference to the aid rendered is included. In this case, since the text says nothing about a “service” devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), an addition like μετʼ ἐμοῦ (1 John 1:3, et al.), or some other more precise definition, like that in Php 1:7, would be an essential element—not arising (as in Galatians 2:9) out of the context—which therefore must have been expressed, as indeed Paul must have said so, had he wished to be understood as referring to fellowship with all who had the cause of the gospel at heart (Wiesinger). The absolute “your fellowship,” if no arbitrary supplement is allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the members of the church themselves.

The article is not repeated after ὑμῶν, because κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ. is conceived as forming a single notion (comp. on κοινωνεῖν εἰς, Php 4:15; Plato, Rep. p. 453 A).

ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμ. ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν] is usually connected with τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κ.τ.λ. This connection is the true one, for the constancy of the κοινωνία, that has been attested hitherto, is the very thing which not only supplies the motive for the apostle’s thankfulness, but forms also the ground of his just confidence for the future. The connective article (τῇ before ἀπὸ) is not requisite, as ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν was construed as ἐπὶ τῷ κοινωνεῖν ὑμᾶς (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 171]). It cannot be connected with τ. δέησιν ποιούμ. (Weiss), unless ἐπὶ τ. κοινων. κ.τ.λ. is also made to belong hereto. If joined with πεποιθώς (Rilliet, following Lachmann, ed. min.), it would convey an emphatically prefixed definition of the apostle’s confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the previous conduct of the readers, which by the connection with πεποιθ. would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with εὐχαριστῶ (Beza, Wolf, Bengel), the words—seeing that the expression πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει has already been used, and then in ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κ.τ.λ. a transition has already been made to the object of the thanks—would contain a definition awkwardly postponed.

The first day is that in which he first preached the gospel to them, which was followed by immediate and decided results, Acts 16:13 ff. Comp. Colossians 1:6.

πεποιθώς] confidence by which Paul knows his εὐχαριστεῖν, Php 1:3-5, to be accompanied. Without due ground, Hofmann confuses the matter by making a new prolonged paragraph begin with πεποιθώς.[51]

αὐτὸ τοῦτο] if taken according to the common usage as the accusative of the object (comp. Php 1:25), would not point to what follows, as if it were τοῦτο merely (Weiss), but would mean, being confident of this very thing, which is being spoken of (Php 2:18; Galatians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 2:3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken as ob id ipsum,[52] for this very reason (2 Peter 1:5; Plato, Symp. p. 204 A, and Stallb. ad loc.; Prot. p. 310 E; Xen. Anab. 1:9. 21, and Kühner in loc., also his Gramm. II. 1, p. 267; see also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 178], and comp. on Galatians 2:10), namely, because your κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ., from the first day until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my confidence for the future, ὍΤΙ Ὁ ἘΝΑΡΞΆΜΕΝΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.

Ὁ ἘΝΑΡΞΆΜΕΝΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.] God. Comp. Php 2:13. That which He has begun He will complete, namely, by the further operations of His grace. The idea of resistance to this grace, as a human possibility, is not thereby excluded; but Paul has not to fear this on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in the case of the Galatians, Galatians 1:6; Galatians 3:3.

ἐν ὑμῖν] That Paul did not intend to say among you (as Hoelemann holds), but in you, in animis vestris (comp. Php 2:13; 1 Corinthians 12:6), is shown by ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν following, by which the language Ὁ ἘΝΑΡΞ. ἘΝ ὙΜΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. expresses a confidence felt in respect to all individuals.

ἔργον ἀγαθόν] without article, hence: an excellent work, by which is meant, in conformity with the context, the κοινωνία ὑμ. εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ.

ἄχρις ἡμέρας Ἰ. Χ.] corresponding to the ἈΠῸ ΠΡΏΤΗς ἩΜΈΡ. ἌΧΡΙ ΤΟῦ ΝῦΝ, Php 1:5, presupposes the nearness of the παρουσία (in opposition to Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in the N. T., and especially in Paul’s writings (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 297, ed. 2). Comp. Php 1:10; Php 3:20. The device by which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) gratuitously introduce qualifying statements,” Perseverat autem in illum usque diem, quicunque perseverat usque ad mortem suam” (Estius), whereby is meant not “continuitas usque ad illum diem,” but “terminus et complementum perfectionis, quod habituri isto die erimus” (Calovius), is just as un-Pauline as Calvin’s makeshift, “that the dead are still in profectu, because they have not yet reached the goal,” and as Matthies’ philosophical perverting of it into the continual and eternal Parousia.

[51] He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute a protasis, whose apodosis is again divided into the protasis καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοί and the apodosis corresponding thereto. But this apodosis of the apodosis begins with διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με, ver. 7, and yet is only continued after the words μάρτυς γ. ὁ Θεός, ὡς ἐπιποθῶ ὑμᾶς, which are a parenthesis, in vv. 8, 9. Such a dialectically involved and complicated, long-winded period would be most of all out of place in this epistle; and what reader would have been able, without Hofmann’s guidance, to detect it and adjust its several parts?

[52] Hofmann also adopts this explanation of αὐτὸ τοῦτο.

Php 1:7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed in Php 1:6. How should he otherwise than cherish it, and that on the ground of his objective experience (αὐτὸ τοῦτο), since it was to him, through his love to his readers, a duty and obligation! Not to cherish it would be wrong. “Caritas enim omnia sperat,” Pelagius.

As to καθώς, which, in the conception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, comp. on Php 3:17; 1 Corinthians 1:6; Ephesians 1:4; Matthew 6:11.

On δίκαιον, comp. Acts 4:19; Ephesians 6:1; Php 4:8; Colossians 4:1; 2 Peter 1:12. A classical author would have written: δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο φρονεῖν (Herod. i. 39; Dem. 198. 8; Plat. Symp. p. 214 C), or: δίκαιός εἰμι τοῦτο φρ. (Herod. i. 32; Dem. 1469. 18, and frequently; Thuc. i. 40. 3).

τοῦτο φρονεῖν] to have this feeling, this practical bent of mind in favour of you, by which is meant the confidence expressed in Php 1:6, and not his striving in prayer for the perfecting of his readers’ salvation (Php 1:4), which the sense of the word φρονεῖν does not admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is not equivalent to ζητεῖν (comp. on Colossians 3:2). See besides, Huther, l.c. p. 405 f.

On ὑπέρ, comp. Php 4:10; 2Ma 14:8; Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f.; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3; on τοῦτο φρ., Galatians 5:10, οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρ. The special reference of the sense of φρονεῖν: to be mindful about something, must have been suggested by the context, as in Php 4:10; but is here insisted on by Hofmann, and that in connection with the error, that with καθώς the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The φρονεῖν is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized by τοῦτο as a εὖ φρονεῖν, which Paul feels himself bound to cherish in the interest of the salvation of all his readers (ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν).

διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς] An expression of heartfelt love (comp. 2 Corinthians 7:3) on the part of the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers towards him (Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmüller, am Ende, Flatt), thus making ὑμᾶς the subject; although the sing. καρδία (comp. Ephesians 4:18; Ephesians 5:19; Ephesians 6:5; Romans 1:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15, and elsewhere) is not against this view, the position of the words is opposed to it, as is also the context, see Php 1:8. The readers are present to the apostle in his loving heart.

ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς κ.τ.λ.] so that, accordingly, this state of suffering, and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, cannot dislodge you from my heart. See already Chrysostom and Pelagius. These words, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς κ.τ.λ., set forth the faithful and abiding love, which even his heavy misfortunes cannot change into concern for himself alone. They contain, however, the two points, co-ordinated by τέ … καί (as well … as also): (1) The position of the apostle, and (2) his employment in this position. The latter, which, through the non-repetition of the article before βεβ., is taken as a whole (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both antithetical, the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it, that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc., its verification; comp. Hebrews 6:16; Romans 15:8; Mark 16:20; Thucyd. i. 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 309 C; Wis 5:18. For an instance of this kind of βεβαίωσις during the earliest period of the apostle’s captivity at Rome, see Acts 28:23. Hofmann, taking a groundless objection to our explanation from the use of τέ … καί (see, however, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 225), refuses to connect the τέ with the following καί; he prefers to connect with the one ἔχειν, namely with the ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, another, namely an ἔχειν συγκοινωνούς. This is an artificial conjunction of very different references of the ἔχειν, yielding the illogical formalism: I have you (1) in my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc. The latter would indeed be only a more precise qualitative definition of the former. The question, moreover, whether in τῇ ἀπολ. κ. βεβ. τοῦ εὐαγγ. Paul intended to speak of his judicial examination (Heinrichs, van Hengel), or of his extra-judicial action and ministry during his captivity, cannot be answered without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were meant. For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial defence (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 430), since the ἀπολογία might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists, but also to Gentile judges.

τοῦ εὐαγγ.] belongs to τῇ ἀπολ. κ. βεβαιώσει, and not to βεβ. only; the latter view would make τῇ ἀπολ. denote the personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, and others), but is decisively opposed by the non-repetition—closely coupling the two words—of the article before βεβ. But to interpret ἀπολογία and βεβαίωσις as synonymous (Rheinwald), or to assume an ἓν διὰ δυοῖν for ἀπολογίᾳ εἰς βεβαίωσιν (Heinrichs), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the connection. It is also contrary to the context (on account of τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ) to understand the βεβαίωσις τ. εὐαγγ. as the actual confirmation afforded by the apostle’s sufferings (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others).

συγκοινωνούς μου κ.τ.λ.] characterizes the ὑμᾶς, and supplies a motive for the ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.: since you, etc. This love to you, unalterable even in my affliction, is based on the real sympathy, which results from all of you being joint-partakers with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on συγκ. and then on πάντας, which is correlative with the previous πάντων. The idea of the grace which the apostle had received (τῆς χάριτος) is defined solely from the connection, and that indeed by the two points immediately preceding, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου and τῇ ἀπολ. κ. βεβ. τοῦ εὐαγγ., namely, as God’s gift of grace enabling them to suffer for the gospel (comp. Php 1:29 f.; see also Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 2:19), and therewith to defend and confirm instead of falling away from and denying it. “Magnus in hac re honos, magna praemia” (Grotius). Paul knew that the experience of this grace—for the setting forth of which the context itself amply suffices, without the need of any retrospective ταύτης (as is Hofmann’s objection)—had been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all his Philippian converts, who like him had had to suffer for Christ (Php 1:29 f.); and thus, in his bonds, and whilst vindicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of the holy similarity in this respect between his and their experience, sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his fellow-sharers of this grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he was suffering, and defending and confirming the gospel, he had all his readers as συμπάσχοντες, συναπολογούμενοι, συμβεβαιοῦντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, and that in virtue of the above-named grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had recognised his bonds, and his activity for the gospel in these bonds. Others interpret it much too generally and vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of the context, as the “gratiosa evangelii donatio” (Hoelemann, comp. Wolf, Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any more immediate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is its explanation of the apostolic office (Romans 1:5, et al.), the Philippians being said to be active promoters of this through their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia); along with which a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr, am Ende, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Hofmann; comp. also Weiss)—which assistance has come to be regarded as a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (but see on Php 1:5), as Hofmann expresses it. Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does not mention at the very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered to him, prescribe a certain line for the apostle; which, however, he does not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the Philippians in subjects of a higher and more general interest, and puts off his expression of thanks, properly so called, to the end of the epistle. Lastly, the translation gaudii (Vulgate, Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Sedulius) is derived from another reading (χαρᾶς).

The σύν in συγκοινωνούς refers to μου, my joint-partakers (Php 4:14) of the grace, thus combining συγκ. with a double genitive of the person and the thing, of the subject and the object (Kühner, II. 1, p. 288; Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]), and placing it first with emphasis; for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in question.

As to the repetition of ὑμᾶς, see Matthiae, p. 1031, and on Colossians 2:13; comp. Soph. O. C. 1278, and Reisig in loc.

REMARK.

Whether ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς … εὐαγγ. should be connected with the preceding διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, and many; also Huther), or with συγκ. κ.τ.λ. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be determined. Still the former, as of a less periodic character, is more in harmony with the fervent tone of feeling. Besides, the repetition of ὑμᾶς betrays a break in the flow of thought after τ. εὐαγγ.

Php 1:8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance, that he had his readers in his heart, etc. Comp., on the connection, Romans 1:9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly observes: οὐχ ὡς ἀπιστούμενος μάρτυρα καλεῖ τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλὰ τὴν πολλὴν διάθεσιν οὐκ ἔχων παραστῆσαι διὰ λόγου.

ὡς ἐπιποθῶ κ.τ.λ.] how much I long after you all, etc., which would not be the case if I did not bear you in my heart (γάρ), as announced more precisely in Php 1:7. On ἐπιποθῶ, comp. Romans 1:11; Php 2:26; 1 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Timothy 1:4. The compound denotes the direction (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 855 F; Herod. v. 93; Diod. Sic. xvii. 101; Sir 25:20), not the strength of the ποθεῖν (comp. on 2 Corinthians 5:2), which is conveyed by ὡς; comp. Romans 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:10.

ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ] is not, with Hofmann,[53] to be connected with what follows (see on Php 1:9); it is an expression of the heartiness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest possible terms. ἐν, on account of the sensuous expression which follows (ΣΠΛΆΓΧΝΑ, like רַחֲמְים, as seat of the affections, especially of heartfelt love, Php 2:1; Colossians 3:12; Philemon 1:7; Philemon 1:12; Philemon 1:20; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally: in the heart of Jesus Christ; that is, so that this longing of mine is not my own individual emotion, but a longing which I feel in virtue of the dwelling and working of Christ in me. Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his inmost life is not that of his human personality, of himself, but that Christ, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal principle and agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings. Comp. on Galatians 2:20. Filled with the feeling of this holy fellowship of life, which threw his own individuality into the background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual ζωή was thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances of his ἐπιποθεῖν, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him, as if Christ’s heart throbbed in him for his Philippians. Bengel aptly says: “In Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur visceribus.” Comp. Theodoret: οὐκ ἀνθρώπινον τὸ φίλτρον, πνευματικόν. Not doing justice to the Pauline consciousness of the unio mystica which gives rise to this expression, some have rendered ἘΝ in an instrumental sense, as in Luke 1:78 (Hofmann); others have taken it of the norma: “according to the pattern of Christ’s love to His people” (Rosenmüller, Rilliet); and some have found the sense of the norma in the genitival relation: “in animo penitus affecto ut animus fuit Christi” (van Hengel). So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and earlier expositors; whilst Storr refers ἘΝ ΣΠΛ. Ἰ. Χ. even to the readers (sc. ὄντας). For many other interpretations, see Hoelemann and Weiss. The merely approximate statement of the sense, given by Grotius and others: “amore non illo communi, sed vere Christiano,” is in substance correct, but fails to give its full development to the consciousness of the ΧΡΙΣΤῸς ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ (Galatians 2:20; Galatians 4:19; Romans 8:10; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Ephesians 3:17); notwithstanding which Hofmann regards the identification of Paul’s own heart with the heart of Christ as simply impossible; thus, however, applying to the mysticism of deep pious feeling, and the living immediate plastic form in which it finds expression, a criterion alien to its character, and drawing around it a literal boundary which it cannot bear.

[53] According to Hofmann, namely, ἐν σπλ. Χ. Ἰ. asserts with reference to the following καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχ. that Christ’s heart towards those who are His produces such prayer in the apostle, and manifests itself therein.

Php 1:9. After having stated and discussed, in Php 1:3-8, the reason why he thanks God with respect to his readers, Paul now, till the end of Php 1:11, sets forth what it is that he asks in prayer for them. “Redit ad precationem, quam obiter tantum uno verbo attigerat (namely, Php 1:4); exponit igitur summam eorum, quae illis petebat a Deo” (Calvin).

καί] the simple and, introducing the new part of,[54] and thus continuing, the discourse: And this (which follows) is what I pray,—so that the object is placed first in the progress of the discourse; hence it is καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, and not κ. προσεύχ. τοῦτο. Hofmann’s explanation of the καί in the sense of also, and his attaching ἐν σπλ. Χ. Ἰ. to Php 1:9, are the necessary result of his perverse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running on from πεποιθώς in Php 1:6, into a lengthened protasis and apodosis,—a construction in which the apodosis of the apodosis is supposed to begin with ἐν σπλ. Χ. Ἰ.; comp. on Php 1:6.

ἵνα] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under the form of its design (Colossians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Matthew 24:20), and thus explains the preparatory τοῦτο. Comp. on John 6:29. “This I pray, that your love should more and more,” etc.

ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν], not love to Paul (van Hengel, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, and others),—a reference which, especially in connection with ἔτι μᾶλλον κ. μᾶλλον, would be all the more unsuitable on account of the apostle having just received a practical proof of the love of the Philippians. It would also be entirely inappropriate to the context which follows (ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ.τ.λ.). Nor is it their love generally, without specification of an object for it, as a proof of faith (Hofmann); but it is, in accordance with the context, the brotherly love of the Philippians one to another, the common disposition and feeling at the bottom of that κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγ., for which Paul has given thanks in Php 1:5.[55] This previous thanksgiving of his was based on the confidence, ὅτι ὁ ἐναρξάμενος κ.τ.λ., Php 1:6, and the contents of his prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The connection is misapprehended by Calovius and Rheinwald, who explain it as love to God and Christ; also by Matthies (comp. Rilliet), who takes it as love to everything, that is truly Christian; comp. Wiesinger: love to the Lord, and to all that belongs to and serves Him; Weiss: zeal of love for the cause of the gospel,—an interpretation which fails to define the necessary personal object of the ἀγάπη, and to do justice to the idea of co-operative fellowship which is implied in the κοινωνία in Php 1:5.

ἔτι μᾶλλον] quite our: still more. Comp. Homer, Od. i. 322, xviii. 22; Herod. i. 94; Pind. Pyth. x. 88, Olymp. i. 175; Plat. Euthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 35; Diog. L. ix. 10. 2. See instances of μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον in Kypke, II. p. 307. With the reading περισσεύῃ note the sense of progressive development.

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ. πάσῃ αἰσθήσει] constitutes that in which—i.e. respecting which—the love of his readers is to become more and more abundant. Comp. Romans 15:13; 2 Corinthians 3:9 (Elz.), 2 Corinthians 8:7; Colossians 2:7; Sir 19:20 (24). Others take the ἐν as instrumental: through (Heinrichs, Flatt, Schinz, and others); or as local: in, i.e. in association with (Oecumenius, Calvin, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others),

περισσ. being supposed to stand absolutely (may be abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις, and not to the love, shows that Paul had in view not the growth in love, but the increase in ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις, which the love of the Philippians was more and more to attain. The less the love is deficient in knowledge and αἴσθησις, it is the more deeply felt, more moral, effective, and lasting. If ἐπίγνωσις is the penetrating (see on 1 Corinthians 13:12; Ephesians 1:17) cognition of divine truth, both theoretical and practical, the true knowledge of salvation,[56] which is the source, motive power, and regulator of love (1 John 4:7 ff.); αἴσθησις (only occurring here in the New Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either through the bodily senses[57] (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 5, Anab. iv. 6. 13, and Krüger in loc.; Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), which are also called αἰσθήσεις (Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), or spiritually[58] (Plat. Tim. p. 43 C; Dem. 411. 19, 1417. 5), must be, according to the context which follows, the perception which takes place with the ethical senses,—an activity of moral perception which apprehends and makes conscious of good and evil as such (comp. Hebrews 5:14). The opposite of this is the dulness and inaction of the inward sense of ethical feeling (Romans 11:8; Matthew 13:15, et al.), the stagnation of the αἰσθητήρια τῆς καρδίας (Jeremiah 4:19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility, incapacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about. Comp. LXX. Proverbs 1:7; Exodus 28:5; Sir 20:17, Rec. (ΑἼΣΘΗΣΙς ὈΡΘΉ); 4Ma 2:21. Paul desires for his readers every (πάσῃ) ΑἼΣΘΗΣΙς, because their inner sense is in no given relation to remain without the corresponding moral activity of feeling, which may be very diversified according to the circumstances which form its ethical conditions. The relation between ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς and ΑἼΣΘΗΣΙς is that of spontaneity to receptivity, and the former is the ἩΓΕΜΟΝΙΚΌΝ for the efficacy of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and misapprehending are not correlative to the former, and deception to the latter (Hofmann); both contrast with both.

[54] The word προσεύχομαι, which now occurs, points to a new topic, the thanksgiving and its grounds having been previously spoken of. Therefore κ. τ. προσεύχ. is not to be attached, with Rilliet and Ewald, to the preceding verse: and (how I) pray this. Two different things would thus be joined. The former portion is concluded by the fervent and solemn ver. 8. Jatho also (Br. an d. Phil., Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with ὡς, namely thus: and how I pray for this, namely, to come to you, in order that I may edify you. But to extract for τοῦτο, out of ἐπιποθῶ ὑμᾶς, the notion: “my presence with you,” is much too harsh and arbitrary; for Paul’s words are not even ἐπιποθῶ ἰδεῖν ὑμάς, as in Romans 1:11.

[55] The idea that “your love’ means the readers themselves (Bullinger), or that this passage gave rise to the mode of addressing the hearers that has obtained since the Fathers (very frequently, e.g. in Augustine) in the language of the church (Bengel), is purely fanciful.

[56] Not a mere knowledge of the divine will (Rheinwald), which leads to the right objects, aims, means, and proofs of love (Weiss; comp. Hofmann). This, as in Colossians 1:9, would have been expressed by Paul. Neither can ἐπιγν. be limited to the knowledge of men (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others).

[57] “Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, i. e. sensus investigativi et fruitivi” (Bengel).

[58] “Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, i. e. sensus investigativi et fruitivi” (Bengel).

Php 1:10-11. Εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν κ.τ.λ.] states the aim of the περισσ. ἐν ἐπιγν. κ. π. αἴσθ., and in ἵνα ἧτε εἰλικρ. κ.τ.λ. we have the ultimate design. δοκιμάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα is to be understood, as in Romans 2:18 : in order to approve that which is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Flatt, Rheinwald, Rilliet, Ewald, and others. See on διαφέρειν, praestantiorem esse (Dem. 1466. 22; Polyb. iii. 87. 1; Matthew 10:31), and τὰ διαφέροντα, praestantiora (Xen. Hier. i. 3; Dio Cass. xliv. 25), Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 711 f. Comp. διαφερόντως, eximie (Plat. Prot. p. 349 D, and frequently). For δοκιμάζ., comp. Romans 14:22, et al. Others understand it as a testing of things which are morally different (Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and others; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Corn. Müller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point of usage, this is equally correct; see on δοκιμάζ., in both senses, 1 Thessalonians 2:4. But in our view the sense which yields a definition of the aim of the words περισσ. ἐν ἐπιγν. κ. π. αἰσθ., as well as the antecedent of the εἰλικρίνεια which follows, seems more consistent with the context. The testing of good and evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of the ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις. Looking at the stage of Christian life which must be assumed from Php 1:5; Php 1:7 (different in Romans 12:2), the former, as an aim, does not go far enough; and the εἰλικρίνεια is the result not of that testing, but of the approbation of the good. Hofmann’s view is therefore unsuitable, that it means the proving of that which is otherwise; otherwise, namely, than that towards which the Christian’s love is directed. This would amount merely to the thought of testing what is unworthy of being loved (= τὰ ἕτερα)—a thought quite out of keeping with the telic mode of expression.

εἰλικρινεῖς], pure, sincere = καθαρός; Plat. Phil. p. 52 D. Comp., on its ethical use, Plat. Phaedr. p. 66 A, and Stallbaum in loc., 81 C; 2 Peter 3:1; 1 Corinthians 5:8; 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 2:17; Wis 7:25, and Grimm in loc.

ἀπρόσκοποι] practical proof of the εἰλικρίνεια in reference to intercourse with others (2 Corinthians 6:3): giving no offence; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Ignat. Trall. interpol. 7; Suicer, Thes. s.v. As Paul decidedly uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. l.c. (comp. Ecclus. 35:21), this meaning is here also to be preferred to the in itself admissible intransitive,—viz. not offending (Acts 24:16; comp. John 11:9),—in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and others.

εἰς ἡμέρ. Χ.], to, i.e. for, the day of Christ, when ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judgment seat. Comp. Php 2:16; Ephesians 4:30; Colossians 1:22; 2 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:7; 2 Timothy 1:12; also Judges 1:24 f. These passages show that the expression is not equivalent to the ἄχρις ἡμέρας Χ. in Php 1:6 (Luther, Erasmus, and others), but places what is said in relation to the decision, unveiling, and the like of the day of the Parousia, which is, however, here also looked upon as near.

Php 1:11. πεπλ. καρπὸν δικ.] modal definition of the εἰλικριν. κ. ἀπρόσκ., and that from the positive side of these attributes, which are manifested and tested in this fruitfulness—i.e. in this rich fulness of Christian virtue in their possessors. καρπὸς δικαιοσ. is the fruit which is the product of righteousness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state. Comp. καρπ. τοῦ πνεύματος, Galatians 5:22; κ. τοῦ φωτός, Ephesians 5:9; κ. δικαιοσύνης, Jam 3:18, Hebrews 12:11, Romans 6:21 f., Proverbs 11:30. In no instance is the genitive with καρπός that of apposition (Hofmann). The δικαιοσύνη here meant, however, is not justitia fidei (justificatio), as many, even Rilliet and Hoelemann, would make it, but, in conformity with Php 1:10, a righteous moral condition, which is the moral consequence, because the necessary vital expression, of the righteousness of faith, in which man now καρποφορεῖ τῷ Θεῷ ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος, Romans 7:5 f.; comp. Romans 6:2, Romans 8:2; Colossians 1:10. We must observe that the emphasis is laid not on δικαιοσύνης, but on καρπόν,—which therefore obtains more precise definition afterwards,—so that δικαιοσύνης conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already conveyed in Php 1:10, of the right moral condition. Comp. on δικαιοσύνη, Ephesians 5:9; Romans 6:13; Romans 6:18; Romans 6:20; Romans 14:17, et al.

On the accusative of the remote object, comp. Psalm 105:40; Psalm 147:14; Sir 17:6; Colossians 1:9 (not 2 Thessalonians 1:11); Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 287]. A classical author would have used the genitive (Elz.) or the dative.

τὸν διὰ Ἰ. Χ.] sc. ὄντα, the more exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar sacred essence and dignity of which are made apparent, seeing that it is produced, not through observance of the law, or generally by human power, but through Christ, who brings it about by virtue of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:22; Ephesians 4:7 f., 17; John 15:14, et al.).

εἰς δόξαν κ.τ.λ.] belongs to πεπληρ. κ.τ.λ., not specially to τὸν διὰ Ἰ. Χ. How far this fruitfulness tends to the honour of God (comp. John 15:8), see Ephesians 1:6-14. God’s δόξα is His majesty in itself; ἔπαινος is the praise of that majesty. Comp. Ephesians 1:6; Ephesians 1:12; Ephesians 1:14. This ἔπαινος is based on matter of fact (its opposite is ἀτιμάζειν τ. Θεόν, Romans 2:23), in so far as in the Christian moral perfection of believers God’s work of salvation in them, and consequently His glory, by means of which it is effected, are manifested. Comp. 1 Corinthians 6:20. The whole work of redemption is the manifestation of the divine δόξα. See John 12:27 f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim and constant refrain of all Christian perfection, Php 2:11; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Ephesians 3:21; 1 Peter 4:11; Romans 11:36.

Php 1:12. See, on Php 1:12-26, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p. 558 ff.

Paul now proceeds by the δέ of continuation to depict his own position down to Php 1:26. See the summary of contents.

The element of transition in the train of thought is that of the notification which Paul now desires to bring before them; γινώσκειν is therefore placed first: but ye are to know. It is otherwise in 2 Timothy 3:1, also 1 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 2:1.

τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ] my circumstances, my position, as in Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7; Tob 10:9; 2Ma 3:40, et al.; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 16; Ael. V. H. ii. 20.

μᾶλλον] not to the hindrance, but much the contrary. See Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 304]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as existing, on the part of his readers, which, before going further, he wishes to relieve. There is no trace even here of a letter received from them with the contribution (Hofmann; comp. Wiesinger); comp. on Php 1:1. Hoelemann: “magis, quam antea contigerat;” but this meaning must have been intimated by a νῦν or ἤδη.

προκοπήν] progress, i.e. success. Comp. Php 1:25; 1 Timothy 4:15. As to the later Greek character of this word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85. In consequence of the apostle’s fate, the gospel had excited more attention, and the courage of its preachers had increased; see Php 1:13 f. As to whether a change had taken place in his condition, which the readers regarded as a change for the worse, as Hofmann requires us to assume, we have no specific hint whatePhilippians Philippians 1 :The situation of the apostle generally, and in itself, abundantly justified their concern, especially since it had already lasted so long.

ἐλήλυθεν] evenit, i.e. has redounded. Comp. Acts 19:27; Wis 15:5; Herod. i. 120; Soph. Aj. 1117 (1138); Plat. Gorg. p. 487 B. So the matter stands; note the perfect.

Php 1:13. Ὥστε κ.τ.λ.] so that my bonds became manifest in Christ, etc. This ὥστε introduces the actual result of that προκοπή, and consequently a more precise statement of its nature.[59] Ἐν Χριστῷ does not belong to ΤΟῪς ΔΕΣΜΟΎς ΜΟΥ, alongside of which it does not stand; but ΦΑΝΕΡΟῪς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤ. is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on ΦΑΝΕΡΟΎς, so that the ΔΕΣΜΟΊ did not remain ΚΡΥΠΤΟΊ or ἈΠΟΚΡΎΦΟΙ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ, as would have been the case, if their relation to Christ had continued unknown, and if people had been compelled to look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary prisoner detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not exist; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ, in so far, namely, that in their causal relation to Christ—in this their specific peculiarity—was found information and elucidation with respect to his condition of bondage, and thus the specialty of the case of the prisoner, became notorious. If Paul had been only known generally as δέσμιος, his bonds would have been ΟὐΚ ἘΜΦΑΝΕῖς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ; but now that, as ΔΈΣΜΙΟς ἘΝ ΚΥΡΊῼ or ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ (Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 3:1; Philemon 1:9), as ΠΆΣΧΩΝ Ὡς ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΌς (1 Peter 4:16), he had become the object of public notice, the ΦΑΝΈΡΩΣΙς of his state of bondage, as resting ἐν Χριστῷ, was thereby brought about,—a ΦΑΝΕΡῸΝ ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ, consequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the ἐν Χριστῷ. It is arbitrary to supply ὌΝΤΑς with ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ (Hofmann). Ewald takes it as: “shining in Christ,” i.e. much sought after and honoured as Christian. Comp. also Calvin, and Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 457. But, according to New Testament usage, φανερός does not convey so much as this; in classical usage (Thuc. i. 17. 2, iv. 11. 3; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58, Anab. vii. 7. 22 and Krüger in loc.) it may mean conspicuous, eminent.

ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ] ΠΡΑΙΤΏΡΙΟΝ is not the imperial palace in Rome (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, also Mynster, Rheinwald, and Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 300), which is denoted in Php 4:22 by ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία, but was never called praetorium.[60] It could not well, indeed, be so called, as τὸ πραιτώριον is the standing appellation for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Matthew 27:27; John 18:28; John 19:9; Acts 23:35); hence it might and must have been explained as the Procurator’s palace in Caesarea, if our epistle had been written there (see especially Böttger, Beitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the Roman castrum praetorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard (Camerarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and others), whose chief was the praefectus praetorio, the στρατοπέδων ἔπαρχος, to whom Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Rome (Acts 28:16). It was built by Sejanus, and was situated not far from the Porta Viminalis, on the eastern side of the city.[61] See Suet. Tib. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus, Thesaur. antiq. III. 174; and especially Perizonius, de orig., signif. et usu vocc. praetoris et praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his Disquisitio de praetorio ac vero sensu verborum Phil. i. 13, Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. Lightfoot, p. 97 ff. τὸ πραιτώριον does not mean the troop of praetorian cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to οἱ πραιτωριανοί (Herodian, viii. 8. 14).[62]

The becoming known in the whole praetorium is explained by the fact, that a praetorian was always present with Paul as his guard (Acts 28:16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his preaching without hindrance (Acts 28:30 f.).

καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσι] not in the sense of locality, dependent on ἐν (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), but: and to all the others, besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inexact way of putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known among the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be left without any more specific definition. This extensive proclamation of the matter took place in part directly through Paul himself, since any one might visit him, and in part indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, disciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like.[63] Van Hengel, moreover, understands it incorrectly, as if οἱ λοιποί were specially “homines exteri,” “Gentiles,”—a limitation which could only be suggested by the context, and therefore cannot be established by the use of the word in Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 4:13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of Hofmann: that it refers to those, who already knew about him.

[59] “Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1012. Hofmann’s view, that it stands in the sense of εἰς τοῦτο ὥστε, also amounts to this. But Hoelemann is in error in making it assert the greatness of the προκοπή. Not the greatness, but the salutary effect, is indicated.

[60] Act. Thom. § 3, 17, 18, 19, in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f., cannot be cited in favour of this designation (in opposition to Rheinwald); the πραιτώρια βασιλικά there spoken of (§ 3) are royal castles, so designated after the analogy of the residences of the Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. Aug. 72; Tib. 39, et al.; Juvenal, x. 161.

[61] Doubtless there was a praetorian guard stationed in the imperial palace itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16). See Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404, who understands the station of this palace-guard to be here referred to. But it cannot be proved that after the times of Tiberius, in whose reign the castra praetoriana were built in front of the Viminal gate (only three cohorts having previously been stationed in the city, and that sine castris, Suetonius, Octav. 49), anything else than these castra is to be understood by the wonted term praetorium, στρατόπεδον, when mentioned without any further definition (as Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 7: πρὸ τοῦ βασιλείου).

[62] Not even in such passages as Tacitus, Hist. ii. 24, iv. 46; Suetonius, Ner. 7; Plin. H. N. xxv. 2, 6, et al., where the prepositional expression (in praetorium, ex praetorio) is always local.

[63] This suffices fully to explain the situation set forth in ver. 13. The words therefore afford no ground for the historical combination which Hofmann here makes: that during the two years, Acts 28:30, the apostle’s case was held in abeyance; and that only now had it been brought up for judicial discussion, whereby first it had become manifest that his captivity was caused, not by his having committed any crime against the state, but by his having preached Christ, which might not be challenged (?) on the state’s account. As if what is expressly reported in Acts 28:31 were not sufficient to have made the matter known, and as if that διετία ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι precluded the judicial preparation of the case (ver. 7)! As if the increased courage of the πλείονες, ver. 14, were intelligible only on the above assumption! As if, finally, it were admissible to understand, with Hofmann, among these πλείονες all those who “even now before the conclusion of the trial were inspired with such courage by it”!

Php 1:14. τοὺς πλείονας] the majority, 1 Corinthians 10:5; 1 Corinthians 15:6, et al. It is not to be more precisely specified or limited.

ἐν κυρίῳ] belongs not to ἀδελφῶν (Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, and others)—in which case it would not indeed have needed a connecting article (Colossians 1:2; Colossians 4:7), yet would have been entirely superfluous—but to πεποιθότας, along with which, however, it is not to be rendered: relying upon the Lord with respect to my bonds (Rheinwald, Flatt, Rilliet, comp. Schneckenburger, p. 301). It means rather: in the Lord trusting my bonds, so that ἐν κυρίῳ is the specific modal definition of πεποιθ. τοῖς δ. μ., which trust is based and depends on Christ. Comp. Php 2:24; Galatians 5:10; Romans 14:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:4. On the dative, comp. 2 Corinthians 10:7; Philemon 1:21, and the ordinary usage in the classics; in the New Testament mostly with ἐπί or ἐν. Ἐν κυρίῳ is placed first as the correlative of the ἐν Χριστ., Php 1:13. As the apostle’s bonds had become generally known as in Christ, so also in Christ (who will not abandon the work of His prisoner that had thus become so manifest) may be found the just ground of the confidence which encourages the brethren, Paul’s fellow-Christians in Rome, ἀφόβως τ. λ. λαλεῖν. They trust the bonds of the apostle, inasmuch as these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging example of patience (Grotius), but also (comp. Php 3:8; Colossians 1:24 f.; 2 Timothy 2:8 f.; Matthew 5:11 f., and many other passages) a practical guarantee, highly honourable to Christ and His gospel, of the complete truth and justice, power and glory of the word,[64] for the sake of which Paul is in bonds; thereby, instead of losing their courage, they are only made all the bolder in virtue of the elevating influence of moral sympathy with this situation of the apostle in bonds. Weiss explains as if the passage ran τῇ φανερώσει τῶν δεσμῶν μου (which would tend to the recommendation of the gospel); while Hofmann thinks that, to guard themselves against the danger of being criminally prosecuted on account of their preaching, they relied on the apostle’s imprisonment, in so far as the latter had now shown itself, in the judicial process that had at length been commenced, to be solely on account of Christ, and not for anything culpable. The essential elements, forsooth, are thus introduced in consequence of the way in which Hofmann has construed for himself the situation (see on Php 1:13).

περισσοτ.] i.e. in a higher degree than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in bonds. Their ἀφοβία in preaching had increased. This, however, is explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above hypothesis, by the fact that the political guiltlessness of preaching Christ had now been established,—thus referring, in fact, the increase of their fearless boldness to a sense of legal security. But the reason of the increased ἀφοβία lay deeper, in the sphere of the moral idea, which manifested itself in the apostle’s bonds, and in accordance with which they trusted those bonds in the Lord, seeing them borne for the Lord’s sake. They animated the brethren to boldness through that holy confidence, rooted in Christ, with which they imbued them.

τὸν λόγου λαλεῖν] i.e. to let the gospel become known, to preach, Acts 11:19, and frequently. On ἀφόβως, comp. Acts 4:31.

[64] Oecumenius well says: εἰ γὰρ μὴ θεῖον ἧν, φησὶ, τὸ κήρυγμα, οὐκ ἂν ὁ Παῦλος ἠνείχετο ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ δεδέσθαι Comp. ver. 16.

Php 1:15. This is not indeed the case with all, that they ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότες τοῖς δεσμ. μου περισσοτ. τολμ. κ.τ.λ. No, some in Rome preach with an improper feeling and design; but some also with a good intention. (Both parties are described in further detail in Php 1:16-17.) In either case

Christ is preached, wherein I rejoice and will rejoice (Php 1:18).

τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον κ. ἔριν] These do not form a part of those described in Php 1:14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are characterized by ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθ. τοῖς δεσμ. μου quite otherwise, and indeed in a way which excludes the idea of envy and contention (comp. also Huther, l.c.), and appear as the majority to which these τινές stand in contrast as exceptions; but they are the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must have pursued their practices in Rome, as in Asia and Greece, and exercised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and his gospel.[65] We have no details on the subject, but from Romans 14 we see that there was a fruitful field on which this tendency might find a footing and extend its influence in Rome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the Pauline school, who nevertheless hated the apostle personally (Wiesinger, comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputation, and impugned his mode of action (Weiss), is at variance with the previous ἐν κυρίῳ, assumes a state of things which is in itself improbable, and is not required by the utterance of Php 1:18 (see the remark after Php 1:18). See also Schneckenburger, p. 301 f.

ΚΑΊ] indicates that, whilst the majority were actuated by a good disposition (Php 1:14), an evil motive also existed in several,—expresses, therefore, the accession of something else in other subjects, but certainly not the accession of a subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same persons designated in Php 1:14 (Hofmann).

διὰ φθόνον κ. ἔριν] on account of envy and strife, that is, for the sake of satisfying the strivings of their jealousy in respect to my influence, and of their contentious disposition towards me. Comp. Php 1:17. On διὰ φθόνον, comp. Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10; Plat. Rep. p. 586 D: φθόνῳ διὰ φιλοτιμίαν.

ΤΙΝῈς ΔῈ ΚΑΊ] But some also; there also are not wanting such as, etc. Observe that the δὲ καί joins itself with ΤΙΝΈς, whereas in ΜῈΝ ΚΑΊ previously the ΚΑΊ is attached to the following ΔΙᾺ ΦΘΌΝΟΝ. The ΤΙΝΈς here are they who in Php 1:14 were described as ΠΛΕΊΟΝΕς, but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the ΤΙΝῈς ΜΈΝ, the other portion of the preachers, without any renewed reference to their preponderance in numbers, which had been already intimated.[66]

διʼ εὐδοκίαν] on account of goodwill, that is, because they entertain a feeling of goodwill towards me. This interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the antithesis διὰ φθόνον κ. ἔριν, and also in Php 1:16 : ἘΞ ἈΓΆΠΗς. As to the linguistic use of ΕὐΔΟΚΊΑ in this sense (Php 2:13), see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 372. Comp. on Romans 10:1. Others take it, contrary to the context, as: “ex benevolentia, qua desiderant hominum salutem” (Estius, comp. already Pelagius); or, “quod ipsi id probarent,” from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and others), from taking delight in the matter generally (Huther), or in the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or in his preaching (Weiss).

[65] For the person to whom individually their φθόνος and ἔρις (as likewise the subsequent εὐδοκία) had reference was self-evident to the readers, and Paul, moreover, announces it to them in ver. 16 f. Without due reason Hinsch finds in this the mark of a later period, when the guarding of the apostle’s personal position alone was concerned. See against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 180 f.

[66] Van Hengel has not taken this into account, when he assumes that in τινὲς δὲ καί Paul had in view only a portion of those designated in ver. 14. It is an objection to this idea, that what is said subsequently in ver. 16 of the τινὲς δὲ καί completely harmonizes with that, whereby the πλείονες generally, and not merely a portion of them, were characterized in ver. 14 (ἐν κυρ. πεπ. τ. δεσμ.). This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, according to whom the two τινές, ver. 15 f., belong to the πλείονες of ver. 14, whom they divide into two classes. Hofmann’s objection to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say that the one party preach solely out of envy and strife, and the other solely out of goodwill, is irrelevant. He could not, indeed, have desired to say this, and does not say it; but he could describe in general, as he has done, the ethical antitheses which characterized the two parties. Moreover, ἔρις means everywhere in the N. T., and especially here in its conjunction with φθόνος (comp. Romans 1:29; 1 Timothy 6:4), not rivalry—the weaker sense assigned to it here, without a shadow of justification from the context, by Hofmann (“they wish to outdo him”)—but strife, contention. Just as little is ἐριθεία to be reduced to the general notion of egotism, as is done by Hofmann; see on ver. 17.

Php 1:16-17. We have here a more detailed description of both parties in respect to the motives which actuated them in relation to the δεσμοί of the apostle.

οἱ μέν … οἱ δέ] corresponds to the two parties of Php 1:15, but—and that indeed without any particular purpose—in an inverted order (see the critical remarks), as in 2 Corinthians 2:16, and frequently in classical authors (Thuc. i. 68. 4.; Xen. Anab. i. 10. 4). In Php 1:18 the order adopted in Php 1:15 is again reverted to.

οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης] sc. ὄντες, a genetic description of the ethical condition of these people: those who are of love, i.e. of loving nature and action; comp. Romans 2:8; Galatians 3:7; John 18:37, et al. We must supply what immediately precedes: τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν, of which εἰδότες κ.τ.λ. then contains the particular moving cause (Romans 5:3; Romans 5:6; Romans 5:9; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 6:8 f., et al.). We might also take οἱ μέν (and then οἱ δέ) absolutely: the one, and then bring up immediately, for ἐξ ἀγάπης, the subsequent τ. Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν (so Hofmann and others). But this would be less appropriate, because the progress of the discourse does not turn on the saying that the one preach out of love, and the other out of contention (for this has been said in substance previously), but on the internal determining motives which are expressed by εἰδότες κ.τ.λ. and οἰόμενοι κ.τ.λ.; besides, οὐχ ἁγνῶς would then follow as merely a weak and disturbing auxiliary clause to ἐξ ἐριθείας.

ὅτι εἰς ἀπολ. τοῦ εὐαγγ. κεῖμαι] that I am destined, am ordained of God for (nothing else than) the defence of the gospel—a destination which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me, feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labour sympathetically hand in hand with me.

κεῖμαι] as in Luke 2:34; 1 Thessalonians 3:3; comp. Plat. Legg. x. p. 909; Thuc. iii. 45, 2, 47, 2; Sir 38:29, and other passages in which “κεῖσθαι tanquam passivum verbi ποιεῖσθαι vel τιθέναι videtur,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 943. Others render: I lie in prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, am Ende, Huther, and others); but the idea of lying under fetters, which κεῖμαι would thus convey (comp. Eur. Phoen. 1633; Aesch. Ag. 1492), does not harmonize with the position of the apostle any more than the reference of its meaning thereby introduced: they know that I am hindered in my preaching, and therefore they “supplent hoc meum impedimentum sua praedicatione,” Estius. See, on the contrary, Acts 28:30-31; Php 1:7. Van Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss): “me ad causam rei Christianae, ubi urgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hic in miseria jacere.” Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46; Soph. Aj. 316 (323); Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 496.

οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθ.] sc. ὄντες, the factious, the cabal-makers. See on Romans 2:8; 2 Corinthians 12:20; Galatians 5:20. So also Ignatius, ad Philadelph. 8. It corresponds with the φθόνον κ. ἔριν, Php 1:15.

τὸν Χ. καταγγ. οὐχ ἁγνῶς] belong together. καταγγ. is, in substance, the same as κηρύσσειν, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the Messiah (Acts 17:3; Acts 17:23; Colossians 1:28, et al.). The words τ. Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν might have been left out, following the analogy of Php 1:16, but are inserted to bring out the tragic contrast which is implied in preaching Christ, and yet doing so οὐχ ἁγνῶς, non caste, not in purity of feeling and purpose. καθαρῶς is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a mental reference (Hesiod. ἔργα, 339). Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D; 2 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Php 4:8, et al.; 2 Corinthians 6:6.

οἰόμενοι κ.τ.λ.] thinking to stir up affliction for my bonds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they intend to do, and that is the immoral moving spring of their unworthy conduct; but (observe the distinction between οἰόμενοι and εἰδότες in Php 1:16) Paul hints by this purposely-chosen word (which is nowhere else used by him), that what they imagine fails to happen. On οἶμαι with the present infinitive, see Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 283. The future infinitive would not convey that what is meant is even now occurring. See generally Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 52 C; comp. Phaed. p. 116 E. How far they thought that they could effect that injurious result by their preaching, follows from Php 1:15 and from ἐξ ἐριθείας; in so far, namely, that they doubtless, rendered the more unscrupulous through the captivity of the apostle, sought by their preaching to prejudice his authority, and to stir up controversial and partisan interests of a Judaistic character against him, and thus thought thoroughly to embitter the prisoner’s lot by exciting opponents to vex and wrong him. This was the cabal in the background of their dishonest preaching. That by the spread of the gospel they desired to provoke the hostility of the heathen, especially of Nero, against Paul, and thus to render his captivity more severe, is a groundless conjecture imported (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others; comp. already Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius).

On ἐγείρειν (see the critical remarks) comp. ἐγ. ὠδῖνας, Plat. Theaet. p. 149 C, and similar passages.

Php 1:18. On τί γάρ, scil. ἐστι, comp. on Romans 3:3, where, however, γάρ is not, as here, conclusive (see on 1 Corinthians 11:22[67]); comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered necessary by the πλήν that the mark of interrogation should not be placed (as it usually is) after τί γάρ, but the question goes on to καταγγέλλεται (comp. Hofmann); and it is to be observed that through πλήν the τί γάρ receives the sense of τί γὰρ ἄλλο (see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C). Hence: what else takes place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc., i.e. what else than that by every sort of preaching, whether it is done in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed? and therein, that it is always Christ whom they preach, I rejoice, etc. How magnanimous is this liberality of judgment as to the existing circumstances in their reference to Christ! By προφάσει and ἀληθείᾳ is indicated the characteristic difference in the two kinds of preachers, Php 1:15-17, and thus παντὶ τρόπῳ receives the more precise definition of its respective parts. As regards the first class, the preaching of Christ was not a matter of sincerity and truth—wherein they, in accordance with their sentiments, were really concerned about Christ, and He was the real αἰτία of their working (see on the contrast between αἰτία and πρόφασις, Polyb. iii. 6. 6 ff.)—but a matter of pretence, under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts envy, strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavours. For instances of the antithesis between πρόφασις and ἀλήθεια or τἀληθές, see Raphel, Polyb.; Loesner and Wetstein. To take πρόφασις as opportunity, occasion (Herod. i. 29, 30, iv. 145, vi. 94; Dem. xx. 26; Antiph. v. 21; Herodian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14),—as, following the Vulgate, Luther, Estius, Grotius (“nam occasione illi Judaei, dum nocere Paulo student, multos pertrahebant ad evang.”), and others understand it,—is opposed to the context in Php 1:15-17, in which the want of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic mark of these persons. On πλήν in the sense of ἤ, comp. Kühner, II. 2, p. 842.

ἐν τούτῳ] the neuter: therein, in accordance with the conception of that in which the feeling has its basis. Comp. Colossians 1:24; Plat. Rep. x. p. 603 C; Soph. Tr. 1118; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403. In the Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται lies the apostle’s joy.

ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι] surpassing the simple χαίρω by a plus, and therefore added in a corrective antithetical form (imo etiam); comp. on 1 Corinthians 3:2; 2 Corinthians 11:1. To begin a new sentence with ἀλλά (Lachmann, Tischendorf), and to sever χαρήσομαι from its connection with ἐν τούτῳ (Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert generally that he will continue to rejoice also in the future), interrupts, without sufficient reason, the flow of the animated discourse, and is also opposed by the proper reference of οἶδα γάρ in Php 1:19. This applies also in opposition to Hinsch, p. 64 f.

[67] According to Weiss, γάρ is intended to establish the οἰόμενοι κ.τ.λ., so far as the latter is only an empty imagination. But this is an unnecessary seeking after a very obscure reference. The τι γάρ draws, as it were, the result from vv. 15–17. Hence also we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense: “it then so, as they think?”

REMARK.

Of course this rejoicing does not refer to the impure intention of the preachers, but to the objective result. See, already, Augustine, c. Faust. xxii. 48; c. Ep. Parm. ii. 11. Nor does παντὶ τρόπῳ apply to the doctrinal purport of the preaching (Galatians 1:8), but to its ethical nature and method, to disposition and purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow him. Nevertheless the apostle’s judgment may excite surprise by its mildness (comp. Php 3:2), since these opponents must have taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must consider, first, the tone of lofty resignation in general which prevails in this passage, and which might be fitted to raise him more than elsewhere above antagonisms; secondly, that in this case the danger did not affect, as it did in Asia and Greece, in Galatia and Corinth, his personal sphere of apostolical ministry; thirdly, that Rome was the very place in which the preaching of Christ might appear to him in itself of such preponderating importance as to induce him in the meantime, while his own ministry was impeded and in fact threatened with an imminent end, to allow—in generous tolerance, the lofty philosophical spirit of which Chrysostom has admired—of even un-Pauline admixtures of doctrine, in reliance on the discriminating power of the truth; lastly, that a comparison of Php 3:2 permits the assumption, as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of a less important grade of anti-Pauline doctrine,[68] and especially of a tenor of teaching which did not fundamentally overthrow that of Paul. Comp. also on Php 3:2. All the less, therefore, can the stamp of mildness and forbearance which our passage bears be used, as Baur and Hitzig[69] employ it, as a weapon of attack against the genuineness of the epistle. Comp. the appropriate remarks of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 314 ff.; in opposition to Hinsch, see on Php 1:15. Calvin, moreover, well says: “Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis, nunquam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset ministros.”

[68] Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 388.

[69] Who thinks that he recognises here an indistinct shadow of Tacitus, Agric. 41: “Optimus quisque amore et fide, pessimi malignitate et livore.”

Php 1:19. Reason assigned not only for the ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι, but for the entire conjoint assertion: ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω, ἀλλὰ κ. χαρ. For both, for his present joy and for his future joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground in the certainty now to be expressed.

τοῦτο] the same thing that was conveyed by ἐν τούτῳ in Php 1:18, this fact of Christ’s being preached, from whatever different motives it may be done,—not: my present, τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ (Hofmann).

εἰς σωτηρίαν] is, in conformity with the context, not to be explained of the deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Musculus, Heinrichs), or of the preservation of the apostle’s life (Oecumenius), or of the triumph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of the salvation multorum hominum (Grotius); nor is it to be more precisely defined as the eternal Messianic redemption (van Hengel, Weiss; comp. Matthies and Hoelemann), or as spiritual salvation (Rheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary, the expression: “it will turn out to my salvation” (comp. Job 13:16), will be salutary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel, to be left without any more precise modal definition; for Paul himself only announces, as the discourse proceeds (Php 1:20), how far he expects salutary results for himself to arise out of the state of things in question. Bengel aptly remarks: “non modo non in pressuram,” Php 1:17. On ἀποβήσεται, will turn out, issue, comp. Luke 21:13; Job 13:16; 2Ma 9:24; Plat. Lys. p. 206 A; de virt. p. 379 C; Rep. p. 425 C; Dem. 1412. 10.

Through the entreaty of his Philippians, Paul knows, it will be salutary for him (comp. 2 Corinthians 1:11; Romans 15:31; 2 Thessalonians 3:12; Philemon 1:22), and through supply of the Spirit of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supplying him with help, strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on ἐπιχορηγ., Ephesians 4:16). The words διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως … Χριστοῦ, embrace, therefore, two elements which work together and bring about the ἀποβήσ. εἰς σωτηρ., one of these on the part of the readers themselves (hence ὑμῶν is placed first), the other on the part of the Holy Spirit. After καί, διά is to be again understood; the article, however, is not repeated before ἐπιχορ., not because the entreaty and the ἐπιχορηγία are to be taken together as one category, which in this passage would be illogical,[70] but because Paul conceived the second member of the clause without the article: supply (not the supply) of the Spirit. τοῦ πνεύματος is the genitive of the subject; as genitive of the object (Wiesinger, in accordance with Galatians 3:5) the expression would be inappropriate, since Paul already has the Spirit (1 Corinthians 7:40), and does not merely expect it to be supplied, though in his present position he does expect the help, comfort, etc., which the Spirit supplies. Comp. Theodoret: τοῦ θείου μοι πνεύματος χορηγοῦντος τὴν χάριν. Respecting the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, see on Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17. Paul here designates the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the inmost consciousness of the apostle, the main interest and aim of his entire discourse, Php 1:18 ff.

[70] Bengel well says: “precationem in coelum ascendentem; exhibitionem de coelo venientem.” If, however, ἐπιχορηγίας is still to be included in dependence on τῆς ὑμῶν (so Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers would at all events appeal as those communicating, which would yield an incongruous idea.

Php 1:20. It will prove salutary for me in conformity with my earnest expectation (see, regarding ἀποκαραδοκία, on Romans 8:19) and my hope, that I, etc. (object of the earnest expectation and hope). Others take ὅτι as argumentative (Vatablus, Estius, Matthies); but by this interpretation the κατὰ τ. ἀποκ. κ. ἐλπ. μ. seems, after the οἶδα already expressed, to be an addition for which there is no motive, and the flow of the discourse is interrupted. No, when Paul says with ὅτι κ.τ.λ. what it is that he earnestly expects and hopes (comp. Romans 8:20 f.), he thereby supplies the precise definition of the former merely general expression εἰς σωτηρίαν.

This is neither clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of ἀποκαραδ., as Hofmann thinks, who goes back with ὅτι to the far distant οἶδα, and finds it convenient to co-ordinate it with the first ὅτι. Paul would have made this alleged conjunction convenient and at the same time intelligible, only in the event of his having written καὶ ὅτι.

ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι] that I shall in no point (2 Corinthians 6:3; 2 Corinthians 7:9; Jam 1:4), in no respect, be put to shame; that is, in no respect will a result ensue tending to my shame,—a result which would expose me to the reproach of having failed to accomplish my destiny (comp. the sequel). Comp. on σἰσχύνεσθαι, 2 Corinthians 10:8, 1 John 2:28, and the passages of the LXX. in Schleusner, I. p. 98 f.; also Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 1118 E. Matthies understands it differently: “in nothing shall I show myself shamefaced and fearful;” comp. van Hengel: “pudore confusus ab officio deflectam.” But the context, in which Paul desires to explain more in detail (comp. Php 1:21) the words μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν, Php 1:19, will not harmonize with any other than the above-named purely passive interpretation; not even with the sense that Paul would not “stand disgraced” (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful to his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the glorifying of Christ. The connection requires a description, not of Paul’s behaviour, but of the fate in which the τοῦτο of Php 1:19 would issue for him. Hoelemann takes ἐν οὐδενί as masculine, of the preachers described in Php 1:15 ff., who in their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, “ita esse versaturos, ut inde non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat quum ipse, tum etiam in re sua quasi Christus.” This interpretation is opposed both by the context, which from Php 1:18 onwards brings forward no persons at all; and also by the sense itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made to express a confidence in the labours of those teachers which, as regards the malicious portion of them (Php 1:17, comp. Php 1:15), would not be befitting. The σἰσχύνεσθαι of the apostle was indeed the very object which they had in view; but, he means to say, οὐκ αἰσχύνομαι, τουτέστιν οὐ περιέσονται, Chrysostom.

ἀλλʼ ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ κ.τ.λ.] the contrast to ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι; for the apostle can receive no greater honour and triumph (the opposite to the αἰσχύνεσθαι) than to be made the instrument of glorifying Christ (Php 3:7 f.): but with all freeness, as always, so also now, Christ will be magnified in my body.

ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησ.] ἐν πάσῃ corresponds to the previous ἐν οὐδενί, so that every kind of freeness, which is no way restrained or limited (comp Acts 4:29; Acts 28:31; 2 Corinthians 3:12), is meant, which amounts substantially to the idea, “une pleine liberté” (Rilliet and older expositors); comp. Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 141 f. The subject of the freeness is Paul himself, inasmuch as it was in his body that the fearless glorifying of Christ was to be manifested (see below); but he expresses himself in the passive (μεγαλυνθήσεται) and not in the active, because, in the feeling of his being the organ of divine working, the μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν (Php 1:19) governs his conceptions and determines his expression. Hofmann’s view, that ἐν π. παῤῥησ. means “in full publicity,” as an unmistakeable fact before the eyes of all, is linguistically erroneous. See, in opposition to it, on Colossians 2:15.

ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν] so that the present circumstances, however inimical they are in part towards me (Php 1:15-18), will therefore bring about no other result than this most happy one for me, which has always taken place.

ἐν τῷ σώματί μου] instead of saying: ἐν ἐμοί, he says: in my body, because the decision was now close at hand, whether his body should remain alive or be put to death. But whichever of these possible alternatives should come to pass, he earnestly expected and hoped that the glory of Christ would be thereby secured (εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου), in so far, namely, as through his remaining in the body his apostolic labours would be continued to the glory of Christ, and by the slaying of his body there would take place, not the mere closing of his witness for Christ, as Hofmann, in opposition to the text (Php 1:21-23), refines away this point, but his union with Christ. Thus, therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death; but, on the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely, practically glorified, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great gain which he shall acquire through death (Php 1:21), will with unwavering joyfulness—with the frank joyful courage of the martyr who is being perfected—die to the glorifying of Christ. Comp. John 21:19. In any case, accordingly, the result must ensue, that in his body, just as it has always hitherto been the living personal instrument of Christ’s glory, now also the free glorification of Christ shall be made manifest, whether this result be secured through its being preserved alive or being slain; “nam et corpus loquitur et corpus moritur,” Grotius. Hoelemann erroneously refers ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥ. to the bold preaching of the various teachers described in Php 1:15-18, from which now, as always, the glory of Christ shall result; and that indeed, through the influence which such a fearless working would have on the fate of the apostle, in his body, whether Christ grant to him a longer course of life or death, in either of which cases the Lord will manifest Himself to him as augustissimum auxiliatorem. But against this view it may be urged, that ἐν οὐδενί does not refer to the teachers (see above); that παῤῥησίᾳ is the contrast to αἰσχυνθήσομαι, so that the subject of the latter must be also the subject of the former; and lastly, that Paul would thus be made to say that the fearless working of others had always shown forth Christ’s honour in his body,—an expression which, as regards the last point, might be suited to the present position of the apostle, but not to the ὡς πάντοτε. Rilliet takes μεγαλυνθήσεται not in the sense of praising (Luke 1:46; Acts 5:13; Acts 10:46; Acts 19:17; Thuc. viii. 81; Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 13), but in the material signification of grandir (Matthew 23:5; Luke 1:58; 2 Corinthians 10:15), making it apply to the mental indwelling of Christ (Galatians 2:20; Romans 8:10; Galatians 4:19); so that Paul is made to hope that Christ may grow ever more and more in him, that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the principle of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he himself live or die. But ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ would be an inappropriate definition of this idea; and ἐν τῷ σώματί μου would also be inappropriate, as if Christ would have, even by the apostle’s death, to grow in his body; lastly, neither the foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human body; while the similar idea in Galatians 4:19 is there very peculiarly and clearly suggested by the context.

Php 1:21. Justification not of the joy, Php 1:18 (Weiss), which has already been justified in Php 1:19 f., but of the εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου just expressed: For to me the living is Christ, that is, if I remain alive, my prolonged life will be nothing but a life of which the whole essential element and real tenor is Christ (“quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum vivo,” Bengel), as the One to whom the whole destination and activity of my life bear reference (comp. on Galatians 2:20); and the dying[71] is gain, inasmuch as by death I attain to Christ; see Php 1:23. Whichever, therefore, of the two may come to pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ; the former, inasmuch as I continue to labour freely for Christ’s glory; the latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall suffer death with joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Müller, who, however, assumes that in the second clause Paul had the thought: “et si mihi moriendum est, moriar Christo, ita etiam morte mea Christus celebratur,” but that in the emotion of the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to be carried away by the conception of the gain involved in the matter. This assumption is altogether superfluous; for, to the consciousness of the Christian reader, the reference of the κέρδος to Christ must of itself have been clear and certain. But the idea of ΚΈΡΔΟς, which connects itself in the apostle’s mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming that he meant to say that it was a matter of no moment to him personally whether he lived or died (Wiesinger); for on account of the κέρδος in death, his own personal wish must have given the preference to the dying (see Php 1:23). Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatchbull, et al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in the second clause, been led to the still more erroneous assumption, in opposition both to the words and linguistic usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject and κέρδος the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to be explained by ΠΡΌς or ΚΑΤΆ, so that Christ “tam in vita quam in morte lucrum esse praedicatur.” Lastly, in opposition to the context, Rheinwald and Rilliet take τὸ ζῆν as meaning life in the higher, spiritual sense, and καί as: and consequently, which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the preceding alternative εἴτε … εἴτε. This explanation is refuted by the very ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ which follows in Php 1:22, since ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ contains not an antithesis to the absolute ΤῸ ΖῆΝ, but on the contrary a more precise definition of it. Although the ΔΙᾺ ΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ and ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ contrasted with the ΖῆΝ, as also Php 1:20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the view that takes ΤῸ ΖῆΝ in the higher ethical sense, that view has still been adopted by Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the correlation and parallelism of τὸ ζῆν and ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, oddly supposes that, while ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, is the subject in the second clause, ΤῸ ΖῆΝ is yet predicate in the first. Like τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸ ζῆν must be subject also.

ἐμοί] is emphatically placed first: to me, as regards my own person, though it may be different with others. Comp. the emphatic ἡμῶν, Php 3:20.

For profane parallels to the idea, though of course not to the Christian import, of ΤῸ ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ ΚΈΡΔΟς,[72] see Wetstein. Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f.; Eur. Med. 145.

[71] Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On the combination of the Inf. pres. (continuing) and aor. (momentary), comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 4 : προείλετο μᾶλλον τοῖς νόμοις ἐμμένων ἀποθανεῖν ἢ παρανομῶν ζῆν, Eur. Or. 308: σὺν σοὶ κατθανεῖν αἱρήσομαι καὶ ζῆν, Epictet. Enchir. 12; 2 Corinthians 7:3. See generally Mätzn. ad Antiph. p. 153 f.; Kühner, II. 1, p. 159. The being dead would have been expressed, as in Herod. 1:31, by τεθνάναι.

[72] Compare also Spiess, Logos Spermaticos, 1871, p. 330 f.

Php 1:22. Δέ] carrying onward the discourse to the comparison between the two cases as regards their desirability. Weiss understands δέ as antithetic, namely to τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος, and Hofmann as in contrast also to the ἐμοὶ τὸ ζῆν Χριστός, but both proceed on an erroneous view of what follows; as does also Huther.

According to the τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος just expressed, the ἀποθανεῖν was put as the case more desirable for Paul personally; but because the ζῆν, in which indeed Christ is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official labours, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, as consequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in doubt respecting a choice between the two.

The structure of the sentence is accordingly this, that the apodosis sets in with καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι, and nothing is to be supplied: “But if the remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work, I refrain from a making known what I should choose.” We have to remark in detail: (1) that εἰ does not render problematical that which was said of the ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, but in accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul’s writings, frequent (Romans 5:17; Romans 6:15, and often) syllogistic usage (Herbst and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the undoubted certainty (Wilke, Rhetor. p. 258), which would take place in the event of a continuance of life; (2) that Paul was the more naturally led to add here the specially defining ἐν σαρκί to τὸ ζῆν (comp. Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 10:3), because, in the previously mentioned κέρδος, the idea of life apart from the body (comp. 2 Corinthians 5:8) must have been floating in his mind; (3) that τοῦτο again sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. Romans 7:10) the τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί which had just been said, and calls attention to it (Bernhardy, p. 283; Kühner, II. 1, p. 568 f.; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219), for it was the remaining in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the ἀποθανεῖν), which was necessarily to the apostle καρπὸς ἔργου; (4) that καρπός is correlative to the preceding κέρδος, and embodies the idea emolumentum (Romans 1:13; Romans 6:21, et al.; Wis 3:13), which is more precisely defined by ἔργου: work-fruit, gain of work, i.e. advantage which accrues to my apostolical work; comp. on the idea, Romans 1:13; (5) that καί, at the commencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, showing that if the one thing takes place, the other also sets in; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146; Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 164, ed. 3; comp. on 2 Corinthians 2:2; (6) that τί stands in the place of the more accurate πότερον (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 17; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 168; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 219; Winer, p. 159 [E. T. 211]), and that the future αἱρήσομαι (what I should prefer) is quite in order (see Eur. Hel. 631, and Pflugk in loc.; and Winer, p. 280 [E. T. 374]), while also the sense of the middle, to choose for himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked; comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29: οἱ δὲ μὴ εἰδότες ὅ τι ποιοῦσι, κακῶς δὲ αἱρούμενοι, Soph. Ant. 551: σὺ μὲν γὰρ εἵλου ζῆν; (7) that οὐ γνωρίζω is not to be taken, as it usually has been, according to the common Greek usage with the Vulgate, in the cense of ignoro, but, following the invariable usage of the N. T. (comp. also 3Ma 2:6; 3 Maccabees 3 Esr. 6:12; Aesch. Prom. 487; Athen. xii. p. 539 B; Diod. Sic. i. 6), as: I do not make it known, I do not explain myself on the point, give no information upon it.[73] Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schenkel, also Bengel, who, however, without any ground, adds mihi. Paul refrains from making and declaring such a choice, because (see Php 1:23 f.) his desire is so situated between the two alternatives, that it clashes with that which he is compelled to regard as the better.

The conformity to words and context, and the simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation (so, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld),—in which, however, καρπ. ἔργου is not to be taken as operae pretium (Calvin, Grotius, and others), nor καί as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and others), nor Οὐ ΓΝΩΡΊΖΩ as equivalent to ΟὐΚ ΟἾΔΑ (see above),—exclude decisively all other interpretations, in which ΤΟῦΤΟ and the ΚΑΊ of the apodosis have been the special stumbling blocks. Among these other explanations are (a) that of Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lachmann, who places a stop after ἔργου), that ἘΣΤΊ is to be understood with ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ, that the apodosis begins with ΤΟῦΤΟ, and that ΚΑῚ ΤΊ ΑἹΡ. Κ.Τ.Λ. is a proposition by itself: “if the living in the flesh is appointed to me, then this has no other aim for me than by continuous labour to bring forth fruit,” etc. (Huther, l.c. p. 581 f.). But how arbitrarily is the simple ἐστί, thus supplied, interpreted (mihi constitutum est)! The words τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου, taken as an apodosis, are—immediately after the statement ἘΜΟῚ ΓᾺΡ ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς, in which the idea of ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ is substantially conveyed already—adapted less for a new emphatic inference than for a supposition that has been established; and the discourse loses both in flow and force. Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explanation.[74] (b) Beza’s view, that εἰ is to be taken as whether: “an vero vivere in carne mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro.” This is linguistically incorrect (καρπὸς ἔργου), awkward (ΕἸ … ΚΑῚ ΤΊ), and in the first member of the sentence un-Pauline (Php 1:24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis after ἔργου: if life, etc., is to me ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ, “non repugno, non aegre fero” (so Corn. Müller), or, “je ne dois pas désirer la mort” (Rilliet). See Winer, p. 557 f. [E. T. 751]; Meineke, Menand. p. 238. This is quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional character of the passage, which is in fact very calm. (d) Hoelemann’s explanation—which supplies καρπός from the sequel after ΖῆΝ, takes ΤΟῦΤΟ, which applies to the ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, as the beginning of the apodosis, and understands ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ as an actual fruit: “but if life is a fruit in the flesh (an earthly fruit), this (death) is also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantial, real fruit)”—is involved, artificial, and contrary to the genius of the language (καρπ. ἔργου!). (e) The explanation of Weiss is that, after ἐν σαρκί, κέρδος is to be again supplied as a predicate, so that ΤΟῦΤΟ, which is made to apply to the entire protasis, begins the apodosis: “but if life is a gain, that is a fruit of his labour, because the successes of his apostolic ministry can alone make his life worth having to him” (Php 1:24). This supplying of ΚΈΡΔΟς, which was predicated of the antithesis of the ΖῆΝ, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably forced; and, indeed, according to Php 1:21, not ΚΈΡΔΟς merely would have to be supplied, but ἘΜΟῚ ΚΈΡΔΟς; and, since ΚΈΡΔΟς is not to be taken from ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ, of which it is predicate, we should have to expect an also before τὸ ζῆν, so that Paul would have written: ΕἸ ΔῈ (or ἈΛΛʼ ΕἸ) ΚΑῚ ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚῚ ἘΜΟῚ ΚΈΡΔΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.

[73] Not as if Paul intended to say that “he kept it to himself,” a sense which Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this declaration. He intends to say rather that he refrains from a decision regarding what he should choose. The dilemma in which he found himself (comp. ver. 23) caused him to waive the giving of such a decision, in order not to anticipate in any way the divine purpose by his own choice.

[74] If it be life in the flesh, namely, which I have to expect instead of dying (?), then this, namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce of labour, in so far as by living I produce fruit, and thus then (καί) it is to me unknown, etc. This interpretation of Hofmann’s also is liable to the objection that, if Paul intended to say that he produced fruit by his life, logically he must have predicated of his ζῆν ἐν σαρκί, not that it was to him καρπὸς ἔργου, but rather that it was ἔργον καρποῦ, a work (a working) which produces fruit.

Php 1:23. Respecting the τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω, Paul expresses himself more fully in Php 1:23-24, proceeding with the explicative δέ; for δέ is not antithetical (Hofmann: “on the contrary”), but, in fact, the reading γάρ is a correct gloss, since the situation now follows, which necessitates that relinquishment of a choice. But I am held in a strait (comp. Luke 12:50; Acts 18:5; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Wis 17:11; Dem. 396. 22, 1484. 23; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 E, Theaet. p. 165 B; Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 46) of the two points, namely the ἀποθανεῖν and the ζῆν,[75] of which he has just said, τί αἱρ. οὐ γνωρ. These δύο are not conceived in an instrumental sense, which is expressed with συνέχ., by the dative (Matthew 4:24; Luke 8:37; Acts 18:5; Plat. Soph. p. 250 D; Eur. Heracl. 634), but as that from which the συνεχέσθαι proceeds and originates (Bernhardy, p. 227 f.; Schoem. ad Is. p. 348; Mätzner, ad Antiph. p. 167).

τὴν ἐπιθυμ. ἔχων κ.τ.λ.] since my longing is to die. The article denotes, not “votum jam commemoratum” (Hoelemann), for Paul has not indeed as yet expressed an ἐπιθυμεῖν, but doubtless the desire, which Paul has. He says that his desire tends towards dying, etc.,[76] but that life is more necessary; and therefore he knows that not that for which he longs, but that which is the more necessary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (Php 1:25). Augustine aptly observes: “Non patienter moritur, sed patienter vivit et delectabiliter moritur.”

ἀναλῦσαι] comp. 2 Timothy 4:6; Isaiah 38:12. Dying is conceived as a breaking up (a figure taken from the camp) for the departure, namely, from this temporal life to Christ (comp. ὑπάγειν, Matthew 26:24; ἘΚΔΗΜΕῖΝ, 2 Corinthians 5:8 f.; and similar passages); hence the ΚΑῚ ΣῪΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ΕἾΝΑΙ immediately added.[77]

πολλῷ γ. μᾶλλ. κρεῖσσον] by much in a higher degree better; a cumulative expression in the strength and vividness of feeling. As to μᾶλλον with the comparative, see on Mark 7:36; 2 Corinthians 7:13; and Kühner, II. 2, p. 24 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 5; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. p. 137, Goth. If here interpreted as potius (Php 1:12), it would glance at the preference usually given to life; but nothing in the context leads to this. The predicate κρεῖσσον (a much better, i.e. happier lot) refers to the apostle himself; comp. below, διʼ ὑμᾶς. Eur. Hec. 214: θανεῖν μου ξυντυχία κρείσσων ἑκύρησεν.

[75] It is therefore more in harmony with the context to refer ἐκ τῶν δύο to what precedes than to what follows (Luther, Rheinwald, Corn. Müller, and others). Note that the emphasis is laid on συνέχομαι, which is the new climactic point in the continuation of the discourse. The word συνεχ. itself is rightly rendered by the Vulgate: coarctor. The mere teneor (Weiss and earlier expositors) is not sufficient according to the context. Paul feels himself in a dilemma between two opposite alternatives.

[76] It is thus explained why Paul did not write τοῦ ἀναλῦσαι (as Origen reads). εἰς is not dependent τὴν ἐπιθ. (ἐπιθ. is never so construed; comp. Corn. Müller); but τὴν ἐπιθ. is absolute, and εἰς τὸ ἀναλ. expresses the direction of τὴν ἑπιθ. ἔχων: having my longing towards dying. Comp. Thuc. vi. 15. 2.

[77] Bengel: “Decedere sanctis nunquam non optabile fuit, sed cum Christo esse ex novo testamento est.” This Christian longing, therefore, has in view anything rather than a “having emerged from the limitation of personality” (Schleiermacher).—The translation dissolvi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to another reading (ἀναλυθῆναι).

Php 1:24. Ἐπιμένειν involves the idea: to remain still (still further), to stay on, comp. Romans 6:1.

ἐν τῇ σαρκί] in my flesh. Not quite equivalent to the idea involved in ἐν σαρκί without the article (Php 1:22). The reading without the ἐν (see the critical remarks) would yield an ethical sense here unsuitable (Romans 6:1; Romans 11:22; Colossians 1:23).

ἀναγκαιότ.] namely, than the for me far happier alternative of the ἀναλῦσαι κ. σ. Χ. εἶναι. The necessity for that is only a subjective want felt by the pious mind. But the objective necessity of the other alternative has precedence as the greater; it is more precisely defined by διʼ ὑμᾶς, regarded from the standpoint of love. “Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua causa, sed eorum, quibus utilis est.” Seneca, ep. 98; comp. ep. 104.

διʼ ὑμᾶς] applies to the Philippians, who would naturally understand, however, that Paul did not intend to refer this point of necessity to them exclusively. It is the individualizing mode of expression adopted by special love.

Php 1:25-26. Τοῦτο πεποιθ.] τοῦτο does not belong to οἶδα, but to πεποιθ., and refers to the case of necessity just expressed; having which is the object of his confidence, Paul knows that, etc., so that ὅτι is dependent on οἶδα alone,—in opposition to Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, under whose view the οἶδα would lack the specification of a reason, which is given in this very τοῦτο πεποιθ., as it was practically necessary. On the accusative of the object with πεποιθ., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106; Kühner, II. 1, p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. O. T. 259 f. Observe that we may say: πεποίθησιν πέποιθα, 2 Kings 18:19. Comp. on Php 2:18.

μενῶ] I shall remain; contrast to the ἀναλῦσαι, which was before expressed by ἐπιμένειν ἐν τ. σαρκί. Comp. John 12:34; John 21:22 f.; 1 Corinthians 15:6. The loving emotion of the apostle (Php 1:8) leads him to add to the absolute μενῶ: καὶ συμπαραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, and I shall continue together with all of you; I shall with you all be preserved in temporal life. From Php 1:6; Php 1:10 there can be no doubt as to the terminus ad quem which Paul had in view; and the πᾶσιν (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:51; Romans 13:11) shows how near he conceived that goal to be (Php 4:5). Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this view, which is both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic, and invents instead one which makes Paul mean by μενῶ the remaining alive without his co-operation, and by παραμενῶ, which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see the critical remarks), his remaining willingly, and which assumes that the apostle did not conceive the καὶ παραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν as dependent on ὅτι, but conveys in these words a promise to remain with those, “from whom he could withdraw himself.” What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas and separation of things that belong together! and what a singular promise from the apostle’s lips to a church so dear to him: that he will not withdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them (Schneider and Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 2)! If παραμενῶ is the true reading, Paul says quite simply: I know that I shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and continue with you all, i.e. and that I shall be preserved to you all; comp. Hebrews 7:23; Sir 12:15; Hom. Il. xii. 402; Plat. Menex. p. 235 B; Lucian. Nigr. 30; Herodian. vi. 2. 19.

παραμενῶ, to continue there, just like μενῶ in the sense of in vita manere, Herod. Php 1:30. Hence συμπαραμένειν (Thuc. vi. 89. 3; Men. in Stob., lxix. 4, 5), to continue there with, to remain alive along with. Thus LXX. Psalm 72:5; Basil, I. p. 49; Gregory of Nazianzus, I. p. 74 (joined with συνδιαιωνίζειν).

εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν … πίστ.] ὑμῶν, as the personal subject of the προκοπή and χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως, is placed first, with the emphasis of loving interest; the latter genitive, however, which is the real genitive of the subject, belongs to both words, προκοπὴν κ. χαράν. Hence: for your faith—furtherance and joy. Both points are to be advanced by the renewed labours of the apostle among them (Php 1:26). The blending of them together by an ἓν διὰ δυοῖν (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erroneous. Weiss, however, is also in error in urging that τῆς πίστ. cannot belong to προκοπήν also, because it would be in that case the genitive of the object; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive thing, 2 Corinthians 10:15.

Php 1:26. ἵνα τὸ καύχημα κ.τ.λ.] the special and concrete aim of the general proposition εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκ. κ. χ. τ. πίστ., which is consequently represented as the ultimate aim of the μενῶ καὶ συμπαραμ. πᾶσ. ὑμ. Comp. Php 1:10. The καύχημα, because ὑμῶν is placed along with it (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 9:15; 2 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 9:3), is that of the readers and not of the apostle (Chrysostom: μειζόνως ἔχω καυχᾶσθαι ὑμῶν ἐπιδόντων, Ewald: my pride in you at the last day); nor is it equivalent to καύχησις, gloriatio (Flatt and many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does,[78] materies gloriandi (Romans 4:2; 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 9:15 f.; 2 Corinthians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 5:12; Galatians 6:4). Hence: that the matter in which you have to glory, i.e. the bliss as Christians in which you rejoice (compare previously the χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως), may increase abundantly (comp. previously the προκοπὴ τῆς πίστεως). The ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ that is added expresses the sphere in which the περισσεύειν is to take place, and characterizes the latter, therefore, as something which only develops itself in Christ as the element, in which both the joyful consciousness and the ethical activity of life subsist. If the ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ took place otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally abnormal and aberrant thing; as was the case, for example, with some of the Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians, whose ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ was based and grew upon works of the law. The normal ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ of the ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ of the Philippians, however, namely, its ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ, shall take place—and this is specially added as the concrete position of the matter

ἘΝ ἘΜΟῚ ΔΙᾺ ΤῊς ἘΜῆς ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑς Π. ΠΡῸς ὙΜᾶς, that is, it shall have in me by my coming again to you its procuring cause; inasmuch as through this return in itself, and in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your καύχημα, and thus the ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ will rest in me. Consequently the ἐν in ἘΝ Χ. Ἰ., and the ἘΝ in ἘΝ ἘΜΟΊ, are differently conceived; the former is the specific, essential definition of περισσεύῃ, the latter the statement of the personal procuring ground for the περισσ. ἐν Ἰ. Χ., which the apostle has in view in reference to the ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ of his readers,—a statement of the ground, which is not surprising for the service of an instrument of Christ (Hofmann), and which quite accords with the concrete species facti here contemplated, the personal return and the apostolic position and ministry. The interpretation of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that the increase of their glorying is given to the readers in the person of the apostle, in so far as the having him again among them would be a matter of Christian joy and pride to them. Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object and contents of the καυχᾶσθαι, which would neither be consistent with the logical relation of the ἽΝΑ to the preceding ΕἸς Τ. ὙΜ. ΠΡΟΚΟΠῊΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., nor with Paul’s own deep humility (1 Corinthians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Ephesians 3:8), which he satisfies also in 2 Corinthians 1:14 by the mutual nature of the καύχημα between himself and his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many (see Calvin, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Rilliet, and others) ἐν Χ. Ἰ., and by some even ἘΝ ἘΜΟΊ (Storr, Flatt, Huther), are referred, contrary to the position of the words, to ΤῸ ΚΑΎΧΗΜΑ ὙΜῶΝ, with various arbitrary definitions of the sense, e.g. Flatt: “so that ye shall have still more reason, in reference to me, to glorify Jesus Christ (who hath given me again to you);” Rheinwald: “If I shall be delivered by the power of Christ, ye will find abundant cause for praising the Lord, who has done such great things for me.”

πάλιν] is connected, as an adjectival definition, with ΠΑΡΟΥΣ. See on 2 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 8:7.

[78] This applies also against Huther, l.c. p. 585, who, in support of the signification gloriatio, appeals to Pind. 1sth. v. 65: καύχημα κατάβρεχε σιγᾷ. But in this passage also καύχημα means that in which one glories, as the Scholiast has appropriately explained it: εἰ καὶ τηλικαῦτα εἰσὶ τῶν Αἱγινητῶν τὰ κατορθώματα, βρίκι καὶ ἐπικάλυπτε τῇ σιωπῇ.

REMARK.

From Php 1:20-26 we are not to conclude that Paul at that time was in doubt whether he should live to see the Parousia (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 355, and others). For in Php 1:20 he only supposes the case of his death, and that indeed, in Php 1:21, as the case which would be profitable for himself, and for which, therefore, he protests in Php 1:23 that he longs. But on account of the need for his life being prolonged (Php 1:24), he knows (Php 1:25) that that case will not come to pass. This οἶδα (Php 1:25) is not to be weakened into a probabiliter sperare or the like (Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald; comp. Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet), with which Grotius, from connecting οἶδα πεποιθ., even brings out the sense, “scio me haec sperare, i.e. malle;” whilst others fall back upon the argumentum a silentio, viz. that Paul says nothing here of any revelation (see Estius, Matthies, and others), but only expresses an inference in itself liable to error (Weiss). No, although he has supposed the possibility (comp. Php 2:17) of his being put to death, he nevertheless knew that he should remain alive; and it must withal be confessed that the result did not correspond to this definite οἶδα, which Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen propheticum. By no means, however, is an imaginary situation[79] to be suspected here (Baur), and just as little can a second imprisonment at Rome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and many others, also Wiesinger); as to the relation of this passage to Acts 20:25, see on Acts.

We have further to notice that Paul, according to Php 1:23, assumes that, in case he should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into heaven to Christ,—a conviction of the bliss attending martyrdom which is found in 2 Corinthians 5:8 and in the history of Stephen, Acts 7:59, and therefore does not occur for the first time in the Apocalypse (Revelation 6:9 ff., Revelation 7:9 ff.).[80] Wetstein’s idea is a mere empty evasion, that by ἈΝΑΛῦΣΑΙ is doubtless meant the dying, but by ΣῪΝ Χ. ΕἾΝΑΙ only the time following the resurrection (comp. also Weitzel, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 954 ff.); as also is that of Grotius, that σὺν Χ. εἶναι means: “in Christi custodia esse,” and “nihil hinc de loco definiri potest.” It is also altogether at variance with the context (see Php 1:20-21), if, with Kaeuffer, we interpret ἀναλῦσαι as the change that takes place at the Parousia (“ut quasi eximeretur carne”). Comp. on the contrary, Polycarp: ad Phil. 9, ὅτι εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον αὐτοῖς τόπον εἰσὶ παρὰ τῷ ΚΥΡΊΩ, ᾯ ΚΑῚ ΣΥΝΈΠΑΘΟΝ, Clem. Rom. 1 Corinthians 5, of Peter: μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὁφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης, and of Paul: εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, Martyr. Ignat. 26. It is an intermediate state, not yet the fully perfected glory, but in heaven, where Christ is (Php 3:20 f.). Georgii, in Zeller’s theolog. Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 22, following Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 368, erroneously discovers in our passage a modification of the New Testament view, developed only when the hope of a speedy Parousia fell into the background. Comp. Neander and Baumgarten Crusius (whose view amounts to an inconsistency of the conceptions). Opposed to these views, even apart from 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Acts 7:59, is the fact that the speedy Parousia appears still to be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particularly Php 3:20 f. But we find nothing said in the New Testament as to an intermediate body between death and resurrection. See remark on 2 Corinthians 5:3. There is a vague fanciful idea in Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 443 f., who in p. 419 ff., however, forcibly shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul.

[79] Hinsch even assigns, l.c. p. 71, to the passage with its vivid emotion the character of a historico-critical reflection. He represents the author of the epistle as having in view the various opinions current in his age regarding the close of the apostle’s life, in other words, the question, whether his captivity at that time ended in his being put to death, or in his being set at liberty and beginning a new course of labour. The author adduces the grounds of both views, putting them in the mouth of the apostle, and in ver. 24 decides in favour of the second; the original, of which the present passage is an imitation, is to be found (as Baur also thinks) in 2 Corinthians 5:8, Romans 14:8. See Hilgenfeld, in opposition to Baur and Hinsch.

[80] All we can gather from Romans 8:10 f. is merely that the life of believers remains unaffected by the death of the body; as at John 11:25 f. They remain in fellowship with Christ; but as to the mode and place of this fellowship, of which they might indeed be partakers even in Hades (Paradise, Luke 16:22 ff; Luke 23:43; Php 2:10), as little is said in that passage as in Romans 8:38, Romans 14:8. But in the passage we are considering, the words σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι point to an actual being with the Lord in heaven (comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. l.c.), and do not therefore apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to Güder, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 111, and others); see also 2 Corinthians 5:8. This union with Christ, however, is not the δόξα as the ultimate goal of hope; see Php 3:20 f.; Colossians 3:3. To the latter belongs also the bodily transfiguration, which can only take place at the Parousia, 1 Corinthians 15:23. This applies also in opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff., whose distinction between corporeality and materiality [Leiblichkeit und Körperlichkeit] is not in harmony with the New Testament, which distinguishes rather between σῶμα and σάρξ.

Php 1:27. To these accounts regarding his own present position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations to right conduct for his readers.

μόνον] without connecting particle, as in Galatians 2:10; Galatians 5:13. With the above assurance, namely, that he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object of this preserving of his life (Php 1:25) may be accomplished in them, needs only to summon them to be in a way worthy of the gospel members of the Christian community (πολιτεύεσθε); nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence of his finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously, the only counter-demand made for it.

τοῦ Χριστοῦ] of Christ. See on Mark 1:1.

πολιτεύεσθε] comp. on Acts 23:1. See also 2Ma 6:1; 2Ma 11:25; 3Ma 3:4; Joseph. Antt. iii. 5. 8, Vit. 2; Wetstein ad loc., and Suicer, Thes. II. p. 709 ff. The word, which is not used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles to express the conduct of life, is here purposely chosen, because he has in view the moral life, internal and external, of the Christian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of the gospel (πολιτεύεσθαι, to be citizen of a state, to live as citizen). See the sequel. It is also selected in Acts 23:1, where the idea of the official relation of service is involved (πολιτεύεσθαι, to administer an office in the state). Comp. 2Ma 6:1; 2Ma 11:25; 3Ma 3:4. In the absence of such references as these, Paul says περιπατεῖν (Ephesians 4:1; Colossians 1:10, with ἀξίως). Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3 : πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ καθήκον τῷ Χριστῷ, and ch. 54: πολιτευόμενος τὴν ἀμεταμέλητον πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ch. 21: ἀξίως αὐτοῦ πολιτευόμενοι.

εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ.τ.λ.] a parenthetic definition as far as ἀπών, so that ἀκούσω then depends on ἵνα: in order that I—whether it be when I have come and seen you, or during my absence from you—may hear, etc. The two cases εἴτε … εἴτε do not refer to the liberation and non-liberation of the apostle; but they assume the certainty of the liberation (Php 1:25 f.), after which Paul desired to continue his apostolic journeys and to come again to the Philippians; and indeed trusted that he should come (Php 2:24), but yet, according to the circumstances, might be led elsewhere and be far away from them (εἴτε ἀπών). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that he may come to learn the affairs of the church in their excellence as described by ὅτι στήκετε κ.τ.λ. It cannot surprise us to find the notion of learning expressed by the common form of the zeugma,[81] corresponding to the εἴτε ἀπών; and from the ἈΚΟΎΣΩ accordingly employed there naturally suggests itself a word of kindred import to correspond with ΕἼΤΕ ἘΛΘῶΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., such as ΓΝῶ. The rash opinion, repeated even by Hofmann, that ἈΚΟΎΣΩ only refers to the second case, does the apostle the injustice of making his discourse “hiulca” (Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being supposed that he intended to write either: “ut sive veniens videam vos, sive absens audiam,” or: “sive quum venero et videro vos, sive absens audiam de statu vestro, intelligam utroque modo,” etc. Calvin allows a choice between these two interpretations; the latter is approved of by de Wette and Weiss (comp. Rilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written εἴτε ἈΠῺΝ ἈΚΟΎΣΩ ΤᾺ ΠΕΡῚ ὙΜῶΝ (which words are to be taken together), as if he had previously put ΕἼΤΕ ἘΛΘῺΝ ὌΨΟΜΑΙ ὙΜᾶς; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply the verbs that should have depended on ἵνα, and of which two[82] would have been needed! The passage employed for comparison, Romans 4:16, with its close, concise, and clear dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkwardness. Hoelemann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary way, as if Paul had written: ἵνα, εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ. ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς, εἴτε ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούσας τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, στήκητε κ.τ.λ., thus making the participles absolute nominatives.

τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν] the object of ἀκούσω, so that ὅτι στήκετε κ.τ.λ., that, namely, ye stand, etc., is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, and the like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. It has been awkwardly explained as absolute: “quod attinet ad res vestras” (Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, and others), while van Hengel not more skilfully, taking εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τ. π. ὑμ. together, afterwards supplies ἀκούσω again. Grotius, Estius, and am Ende take τά even for ταῦτα, and Hoelemann makes Paul express himself here also by an anakoluthon (comp. above on εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ.τ.λ.), so that either ὅτι should have been omitted and στήκητε written, or τά should not have been inserted.

ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι] is to be joined with στήκετε, alongside of which it stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it absolutely (2 Thessalonians 2:15). It is the common element, in which they are to stand, i.e. to remain stedfast (Romans 5:2; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Corinthians 16:13); πνεύματι, however, refers not to the Holy Spirit (Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss), but, as the context shows by μιᾷ ψυχῇ, to the human spirit; comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The perfect accord of their minds in conviction, volition, and feeling, presents the appearance of one spirit which the various persons have in common. De Wette well says: “the practical community of spirit.” Comp. Acts 4:32. It is, as a matter of course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of the human spirit is brought about by the Holy Spirit (see on Ephesians 4:3 f., 23), but ἑνὶ πνεύμ. does not say so. Moreover the emphasis is on this ἐν ἑνὶ πν., and therefore μιᾷ ψ. is subsequently placed first.

The special mode, which this standing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is contained in the sequel down to ἀντικειμ.

μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλ. κ.τ.λ.] The ψυχή, as distinguished from the πνεῦμα, is the principle of the individual personal life, which receives its impressions on the one hand from the πνεῦμα as the principle of the higher divine ζωή, and on the other hand from the outer world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and emotion, the sympathetic unity of which in the church is here described (comp. on Luke 1:46 f.). Comp. ἰσόψυχος, Php 2:20; σύμψυχοι, Php 2:2; Herodian. vi. 5. 15: μιᾷ τε γνώμῃ καὶ ψυχῇ, Romans 15:6, ὀμοθυμαδόν, 4Ma 14:20, ὁμόψυχος, 1 Peter 3:8, ὁμόφρων. But μιᾷ ψ. does not also belong to στήκετε (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, and others), for συναθλ. requires a modal definition in harmony with the context.

συναθλοῦντες] in keeping with στήκετε, according to the conception of a contest (comp. Php 1:30), under which the activity of Christian faithfulness is presented in relation to all hostile powers. Comp. Colossians 2:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7, et al.; also Soph. O. C. 564; Eur. Suppl. 317; Aesch. Prom. 95. The compound, striving together (comp. Php 4:3, and συναγωνίζεσθαι, Romans 15:30), is not to be overlooked, as if συναθλ., with the dative of the thing expressed merely the entering or stepping into the lists for it (Hofmann). It does not refer, however, to the fellowship of the Philippians themselves (“quasi facto agmine contra hostes evang.,” Grotius; comp. Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, and others, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius). Paul looks upon himself as a combatant (Php 1:30, comp. Php 1:7), and the Philippians as striving with him, and affording him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) as his σύναθλοι in defending the faith (objectively viewed), protecting it and rendering it victorious. That they were to do this with one accord, is stated emphatically by μιᾷ ψυχῇ, but is not conveyed by συναθλ. in itself. If, however, Paul is the combatant, the passage cannot be understood in the sense: “adjuvantes decertantem adversus impios evangelii fidem,” Erasmus, Paraphr.; comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, Flatt, Lightfoot,—even apart from the fact that such a personification of πίστις is unprecedented, and must have been suggested by the text, as in the case of τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, 1 Corinthians 13:6.

τῇ πίστει is the dative commodi (comp. Judges 1:3), not instrumenti (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, Rheinwald, and others), which μιᾷ ψυχῇ was. As to the genitive of the object with πίστις, see on Romans 3:22.

[81] It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]) to suppose that in a zeugma the directly appropriate verb must be joined to the first member. It can also be joined with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 12, and Kühner in loc;. Plat. Rep. p. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc;. Hom. Il. iii. 327, and Faesi in loc.; generally Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 179, ed. 3; Bremi, ad Lys. p. 43 ff.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 1075 f.

[82] But why two? He would only have needed to insert μαθῶ or γνῶ before ὅτι. This would have suited both halves of the alternative discourse, in the confused form in which Hofmann makes it run; and there would be no necessity whatever for two verbs.

Php 1:28. On πτύρεσθαι, to become frightened (of horses, Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 34; Plut. Fab. 3; Marc. 6), to be thrown into consternation (Diod. xvii. 37 f.; Plat. Ax. p. 370 A; Plut. Mor. p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Genesis 41:8 Aquila has καταπτύρεσθαι.

ἐν μηδενί] in no point, nulla ratione, Php 1:20; 2 Corinthians 6:3; 2 Corinthians 7:9; Jam 1:4.

The ἀντικείμενοι (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:9) are the non-Christian opponents of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the Judaizers and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent false teachers (Matthies). This follows from Php 1:30, since the whole position and ministry of the apostle was a conflict with such adversaries, comp. Php 1:7.

ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς κ.τ.λ.] which is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding μὴ πτύρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμ., to which Paul desires to encourage them. This undauntedness in the συναλθεῖν, and not the latter itself (Hofmann), is now the leading idea, with which what has further to be said connects itself; hence ἥτις is not to be taken as referring to the sufferings, as it is by Ewald (comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:5), who subsequently, although without critical proof, would read ἀπωλείας ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δέ.

αὐτοῖς] τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις is to be taken simply as dative of reference: which is to them an indication of perdition. Ὅταν γὰρ ἴδωσιν, ὅτι μυρία τεχναζόμενοι οὐδὲ πτῦραι ὑμᾶς δύνανται, οὐ δεῖγμα τοῦτο σαφὲς ἕξουσιν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν ἀπολοῦνται, τὰ δὲ ὑμέτερα ἰσχυρὰ καὶ ἀνάλωτα καὶ αὐτόθεν ἔχοντα τὴν σωτηρίαν; Theophylact. The ἥτις involving a reason is just as in Ephesians 3:13, See on that passage. This would be still more emphatically expressed by ἥτις γε (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 305). But the fact that the ἀντικείμενοι do not recognise in the undauntedness of those persecuted a proof (not: causa, as in the Vulgate; but comp. Romans 3:25 f.; 2 Corinthians 8:24; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 341 E; Legg. xii. p. 966 C) of their own perdition, and on the other hand of the salvation of the persecuted (ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that the μὴ πτύρεσθαι is in reality objectively such an ἔνδειξις to them. It is, indeed, the σημεῖον of the righteous divine cause, and of its necessary final victory. Perdition and salvation: both without more precise definition; but the reader knew what reference to assign to each, viz. the Messianic perdition and salvation. Comp. on the matter, 2 Thessalonians 1:5 ff.; Romans 8:17; 2 Timothy 2:12; Luke 12:32, et al.

καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] and that (see on Romans 13:11) of God, thus certain, therefore, and infallible. It adds force to the encouragement conveyed by ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας; for the context shows by the ὑμῖν which is emphatically placed first in Php 1:29,—without making the reading ὑμῖν necessary, however, in Php 1:28 (Hofmann); see the critical remarks,—that τοῦτο refers only to this second and main part of ἥτις κ.τ.λ. (Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann), and not to both halves of ἥτις (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wiesinger, Weiss, and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any purpose of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what follows (ὅτι, that) (Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, and recently Rilliet); in which case the (preparative) τοῦτο would receive an uncalled-for importance, and yet ἀπὸ Θεοῦ would be obviously intelligible through ἐχαρίσθη.

Php 1:29. Ὅτι is argumentative. “Καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ,” I say, “since indeed to you it was granted,” etc. This grant distinguishing you is the practical proof, that the just expressed ἀπὸ Θεοῦ is indubitably right, and that consequently the ἔνδειξις of your final salvation which is afforded to the adversaries in your undauntedness is a divine ἔνδειξις, a token given by God.[83] Hofmann’s view, that ὅτι specifies the reason why God imparts to them what has been before stated, is based upon the erroneous reading ὑμῖν in Php 1:28; and is itself erroneous, because ὅτι would introduce merely the self-evident thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully, but had had it given to them by God, and because, for the purpose of marking the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not ὑμῖν, but ἀπὸ Θεοῦ again would have been emphatically prefixed, and consequently Paul must have written: ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη κ.τ.λ. Hofmann curiously explains the emphasized ὑμῖν, as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their sufferings the case stood exactly as with his own. In that case he must at least have written, in prospect of Php 1:30, καὶ ὑμῖν, to you also.

ὑμῖν] emphatically put first, corresponding to the previous ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας.

ἐχαρίσθη] donatum est; by whom, is self-evident. 1 Corinthians 2:12.

τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ] as if the πάσχειν was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this unwritten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the first place the idea of ὑπέρ, as Hofmann artificially explains. But here his full heart interposes, after τ. ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, and before he writes πάσχειν, the fresh thought οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτ. πιστεύειν, so that ἀλλὰ καὶ must now be also added; and, on account of the different prepositional relation (εἰς) introduced, the τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ already expressed is again taken up by τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. Thus οὐ μόνον … ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ appears as a parenthesis of more special definition, after which the πάσχειν, which had been prepared for by τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, but is only now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis: “to you the gift of grace is granted, in behalf of Christ—not only to believe on Him, but also for Him—to suffer.” Plat. Legg. x. p. 802 C: εἰ δὲ φανήσεται ψυχὴ πρῶτον, οὐ πῦρ οὐδὲ ἀὴρ, ψυχὴ δὲ ἐν πρώτοις γεγενημένη. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 431; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 501. It is an awkward construction, to take τὸ ὑπὲρ Χ. absolutely and (notwithstanding the subsequent ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ) in the sense: as to what concerns Christ (Beza, Camerarius, Calovius, and others, including Matthies and Rilliet). For the conception of suffering for Christ as a high divine distinction, see already Acts 5:41; comp. Matthew 5:11 f. Comp. on Php 1:7.

[83] At the same time it is to be observed here also (comp. on ver. 28) that this divine pointing to the final salvation of believers was in fact before the adversaries, and that their non-recognition of it altered nothing in this objective relation.

Php 1:30. So that ye have the same conflict, etc., serves to characterize the ὑμῖν ἐχαρ. τὸ ὑπὲρ Χ. πάσχειν just asserted; and Paul’s intention in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the high dignity and distinction of suffering for Christ, which is involved in the consciousness of fellowship in conflict with the apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true explanation of what goes before (see on Php 1:29), to find in τὸν αὐτόν, that they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as little as the apostle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have received it as a gift of grace from God (Hofmann). The participle might have been put by Paul in the nominative (instead of the dative), because ὑμεῖς was floating before his mind as the logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Ephesians 3:18; Ephesians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 1:7; Colossians 2:2; Colossians 3:16; Php 3:19; Kühner, II. 2, p. 661 f. There is therefore neither a logical nor a grammatical reason, with Bengel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. also Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 299]), to treat ἥτις … πάσχειν as a parenthesis,—a construction which would be only an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse.

τὸν αὐτόν] namely, in respect of the object; it is the conflict for Christ (Php 1:29) and His gospel (Php 1:7).

οἷον εἴδετε κ.τ.λ.] as ye have seen it in my person (viz. whilst I was still with you in Philippi; see scenes of this conflict in Acts 16:16 ff.; comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:2), and now (from my epistle which is read out to you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks to the Philippians as if they were listening to him in person; thus they hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in the statements of the apostle. This explanation is all the less unfitting, as Hofmann terms it (comparing the ἐν ἡμῖν in 1 Corinthians 4:6), since Paul must necessarily have assumed that the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings would not fail to receive more detailed description in Philippi on the part of Epaphroditus. The rendering de me for the second ἐν ἐμοί, adopted by Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Flatt, is erroneous.