really poor they should," clearly introduces into the passage some-
thing which is not at all in it. We shall therefore be able to explain
Kahonoielv only of doing good in general. But certainly the context
requires us to refer KahoTroielv principally to the affectionate, indul-
gent, treatment of the brethren, so that ver. 15 contains a more par-
ticular elucidation of this term. In ver. 14 the connexion of &d -nfc
t-Tnaro/1% is disputable ; it admits of being joined with what precedes
or what succeeds. The position of the TOVTOV, however, favours the
former ; for, if the meaning were, " denounce him by a letter," rovrov
would stand before did Tfjg emarohrjs ; then too the article would have
to be omitted before tmaTo/l?/, as a definite epistle would be denoted by
340 SECOND THESSALONIANS III. 16-18.
the TTfr. (But see Winer's remarks, Gr. p. 99, note.) As to the
meaning of orjfieiovadai we may doubt whether it denotes indicare or
adnotare. But in the former case ?}fuv would scarcely be wanting ;
we therefore prefer the meaning " to note." However, the term is
not to be understood of an outward noting or registering, but figur-
atively of an inward noting in one's own mind. The o-ekteaOai dno
in ver. 6 is more closely defined by {it) owavapiywaOai here , it denotes
the breaking off church-communion (see on 1 Cor. v. 9), more inti-
mate intercourse, therefore excommunication, but in the lowest
form. (See Winer's Eucyclop. vol. i., p. 158, seq.) The aim of this
punishment is humiliation, i. e., amendment, by true repentance.
(See on ivrpi^Eodai at 1 Cor. iv. 14 ; Tit. ii. 8. 'E^Opof as an anti-
thesis to ddeA^of denotes no personal enemy, but God's enemy, i. e.,
one altogether fallen away from the faith.)
Ver. 16. A prayer for peace from the Lord of peace, who bears
it complete in himself, and can, therefore, impart it to others in every
relation for spiritual and external needs, then closes the epistle.
(Lachmann has, after A.D.F.G., put TOTTCJ in the text for rpoTrw.
But, as the epistle is addressed merely to Thessalonians, this read-
ing seems quite inadmissible ; it might, according to Schott's pro-
able conjecture, have crept in here from other passages, as 1 Cor. i.
2 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14 ; 1 Tim. ii. 8.)
Vers. 17. 18. Paul usually dictated his epistles ; Timothy seems
to have written these two. (See 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1.) But,
to meet such abuses as were touched on at 2 Thess. ii. 2, Paul added
a salutation with his own hand, as a mark of his genuine epistles.
It might indeed surprise us that Paul promises this mark t'v -n d o y
emarokq, whereas it is found in some only ; what was requisite,
however, on this circumstance, has already been mentioned in the
Introd. to these two epistles, 2.
EXPOSITION
OF THE
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS,
LIC. AUGUSTUS WIESINGER.
INTRODUCTION.
1. OF THE CHUBCH AT PHILIPPI.
WE shall let Olshausen himself speak here, and shall only, where
it appears necessary, supplement what he has written with some
additional remarks.*
The city of Philippi lay in Macedonia near to the Thracian
boundary, at a distance from the sea, on which stood its haven
Neapolis. It bore anciently the name of Kpyvidegj fountain-city ;
but about 358 A. c. Philip of Macedon enlarged it, and called it
after himself, Philippi. At a later period the Triumviri gained near
this city the famous victory over the Kepublicans. As a result of
that battle Koman colonists settled at Philippi, which, becoming a
Roman colony, received the jus Italicum. (Comp. on this and on
the expression Trpcor?? nofa.?, which is applied by Luke to the city
Philippi, the Comm. on Acts xvi. 12.) f In that city, also, con-
tinues Olshausen, lived some Jews, who had there an oratory (no
synagogue)4 This small Jewish community was increased by some
* The introduction to thi3 epistle, and that also to the pastoral epistles, is from Ols-
hausen's own pen, and was left in a state of complete readiness for the press.
f I perfectly agree with what Olshausen remarks there on the irpuTri TrdAtf . It could
not be called the chief city on the ground, to which reference is there made, that in that
particular district, where Philippi lay, Amphipolis held such a place comp. Liv. xlv. 29.
Equally groundless is the other opinion, that Philippi received the appellation on account
of its peculiar privileges. The intention and meaning of this epithet, admit, on the con-
trary, in my judgment, of being perfectly determined from the connexion of the narra-
tive in Acts. It had already been intimated xvi. 6, 7 that the course which the
proclamation of the gospel should take, was of Divine direction, In ver. 9 the vision is
related in which a man from Macedonia calls on the apostle to " come over and help
them ;" and in ver. 10, we are told of the apostle's straightway purposing to go into Mace-
donia. What, then, is more natural than that in the report of the journey at ver. 12,
" and thence to Philippi, f/rif earl TtpuTT) rfjf pepcdof r?)f Manedoviaf nohif, KoAuvia," we
should think of its geographical position, and in connexion with that should perceive a
reference to the fulfilment of the call in ver. 9. Even the "thence," and the pronoun
ftnf, ut quse) point to this. So, after Van Til, in particular Rettig. Quaest. Philipp.
tfiss. 1831, Van Hengel p. 6, and Winer Real- Wort. That the expression was literally
correct in this view of it, since Neapolis was reckoned to belong to Thrace, see Van
Hengel, Introd., p. 4.
\ Van Hengel, however, may be quite right in saying, that the expression in Acts
xvi. 13, ov Ivofii&To Trpocevxi) dvcu says nothing of an oratory, but only, as also Luther
translates, where they were wont to pray.
X
344 INTRODUCTION.
proselytes, and it was among these first that Christianity diffused
itself.
Paul came to Philippi on his second mission tour, about the year
53. It was the first city of Europe in which he preached the gos-
pel. The first person who gave heed to the preaching of the apostle,
was a seller of purple, by name of Lydia, belonging to Thyatira,
who received baptism, with all her house. A female slave, who had
a spirit of soothsaying, occasioned the apostle soon again to leave
Philippi. For, when Paul expelled the spirit, the owners of the
slave, who had employed her soothsaying to their own account,
raised an outcry against him. He was beaten and thrown into
prison, the jailor of which he converted, with all his house. He was
soon, however, set at liberty again, with a request that he would
leave the city. (Comp. besides Acts xvi. 19, seq., also 1 Thess. ii.
2.) It is only at Acts xx. 6, on the apostle's return from Greece,
that we subsequently find him again at Philippi. But there is good
ground for believing that on his going thither he had made a stay
there, though probably but a short one (Acts xx. 2), as is also sup-
posed by Van Hengel.
According to our epistle the church in Philippi had exhibited
the Christian life with remarkable purity.* The apostle says much
good of it, and commends it more highly than any other church
(ch. i. 3-8, iv. 1). On its part also, it clung with strong and lively
affection to its teacher, which it endeavoured to evince by contribu-
tions of money, of which it sent one by Epaphroditus to Rome,
where he was in chains. This Paul gladly and thankfully received
as an expression of their sincere love (iv. 10-18 ; 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9).
This character of the church in Philippi, and the occasion of the
epistle (it being a letter of thanks for the support ministered to
him by the church), explains the fact that this epistle, more than
any other of Paul, should possess so entirely an epistolary character,
full of warm and friendly feeling. It naturally arose from the gen-
eral relation of Paul as an apostle, and the special teacher of the
Philippians, that exhortations should not be wanting ; but in gen-
eral Paul gives in this epistle utterance to his feelings, speaks freely
of himself and of his ministry, even of his personal relation to the
Lord, and his striving after perfection. So Olshausen. And cer-
tainly, more than any particular statements regarding the condition
of the church, the tone of the whole epistle shews how much reason
the apostle had to be satisfied with the Philippian church generally.
A relation had been formed between him and this church, more near
and intimate than with any other. He was not merely its apostle
* On the condition of the church comp. J. Hoog de Ccetus Christ. Philipp. conditione
primseva Lugd. B., 1825, and particularly Schintz. die Christliche Geraoinde zu Philippi,
Zurich, 1833.
INTRODUCTION. 345
and teacher, as in the case of other churches, but was bound to them
closely by ties of personal sympathy and affection. This everywhere
discloses itself to us in perusing the epistle, and throws the clearest
light on the state of the church itself.
The supposition of Eichhorn, Kheinwald, and others, continues
Olshausen, that Judaizing and Gnostic heretics had been at work at
Philippi, is destitute of all semblance of truth. Judaizing heretics,
like those who had been busy among the Galatians, are certainly
described in Phil. iii. 2, seq., but not as if they were actually in
Philippi, or had obtained influence among the Christians there.
Paul warns them against the itinerant Judaists, who, he was well
aware, would endeavour also at Philippi to undermine his labours.
Not the least trace, however, of G-nosticizing false teachers is to be
found in our epistle. The apostle certainly warns the disciples (i.
27, seq.), very urgently and at some length against spiritual pride,
and presents before them the Eedeemer as an example of deep hu-
mility ; but there is an utter want of the more specific traits, which
might justify us in regarding this discourse as directed against
Gnostic presumption. The only actual evil to which the epistle
bears distinct testimony, is that certain jarrings appear to have
sprung up in the church (ii. 2, seq., iv. 2). These were probably
occasioned by the conceit of some members of the church, and hence
the apostle's extended exhortation to humility.
This view of the state of the church at Philippi has been suc-
cessfully defended against the various dissenting opinions, by Schinz
in his treatise on the Christian church at Philippi (Zurich, 1833).
But when Schinz, at the close of his treatise, on the ground that the
church at Philippi was infested by no heretical teachers, would
prove that it was composed entirely of converted heathens, without
any intermixture of Jewish Christians, he seems to go too far. The
learned author, indeed, justly remarks that the epistle to the Phi-
lippians contains absolutely no reference to the Old Testament. This
indicates, he thinks, that the Chistians at Philippi were of heathen
origin ; but the conclusion, as appears to me, is not sufficiently
grounded. According to the teaching of the Apostle Paul the Old
Testament was not merely for Jews and Jewish Christians, but also
for the heathen and converts from among them. The Philippians
must, besides, as proselytes, which they must have been according
to Schinz's view, have been acquainted with the Old Testament.
Hence, we may fairly regard the want of citations from the Old
Testament in this epistle as accidental.
But even granting that all the Christians at Philippi were born
heathen, this would still not suffice to explain the freedom. ^ of the
church there from false teachers. The Gentile Christians might as
readily have been misled as the Jewish ; nay, so far as regards the
346 INTRODUCTION.
Gnostic tendencies, as they manifested themselves in Colosse, they
were even more liable to deception, as they could not be so firmly
settled in those fundamental views which the others had received
with their mother's milk. We can ascribe the excellent condition
of this favourite church of the apostle only to the fidelity of its mem-
bers, and to their preservation from seducers.
2. OCCASION AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
There can be no doubt as to the occasion of the epistle and its
immediate object ; its contents render both abundantly plain (iv.
10-20). In its immediate design it was a letter of thanks from the
apostle to the church at Philippi for the support ministered to him
at Rome through Epaphroditus. The apostle gave this letter to the
bearer of this gift of love, as he was about to return (ii. 25, seq.),
as, at the same time, a testimonial to him. With the expression
of his thankfulness he couples accounts concerning himself, as was
due to a people who had given him such a proof of their profound
fellow-feeling by the gift of love they had sent him. But he ad-
dresses also a word of exhortation and warning to them ; for how-
ever satisfactory might be the condition of the church as a whole,
there still could not fail to be short-comings in the Christian life
among them, and dangers from without. And he may perhaps
have learned as much from Epaphroditus respecting the church.
These are the essential component parts of our epistle, very natur-
ally and simply arising out of the existing relations.
After the introduction, i. 1-11, follow first of all the apostle's
reports concerning himself, 12-26. Then comes a word of exhorta-
tion to the church, i. 27 ii. 18, followed up by the section ii. 19-
30, in which the apostle shews how he also in point of fact cares
for the church. Then passing to the conclusion, he adds a double
warning, iii. 1 iv. 1. Some special admonitions are then given, iv.
2-9, after which he expresses his gratitude for the gift that had
been sent, 10-20. Salutations and the usual benediction form the
conclusion, 21-23. How naturally these several parts of the epistle
adhere together, how clear and easy the connexion and progress of
thought is throughout the entire epistle, I deem it unnecessary to
exhibit farther here, as it will be made to appear in the exposition it-
self. Though the object of the epistle possesses no force to control its
particular parts, and mould them to its own unity, this unity only dis-
covers itself the more palpably in its tone and tenor. Not only the
circumstance of the epistle resting upon the ground of a close per-
sonal relation, indicating and expressing in all its parts the heart-
felt love of the apostle to this spiritual community, so that more
INTRODUCTION. 347
than other epistles it appears a genuine outpouring of cordial affec-
tion, and bears a familiar character ; not only does this general
tenor of the epistle, which suits its character so well as a letter of
thanks, give to it an impress of unity, but there is one thing espe-
cially which may be regarded as the key note of the epistle, which
is ever and anon struck, and pervades the whole ; the feeling of joy
with which the heart of the apostle was filled, and to which he
sought also to raise his beloved Philippians. This shews itself even
on the surface in the frequently recurring %aipG> and ^cwpere, but still
more to a profoundly penetrating scrutiny. From this springs the
declaration " I rejoice," made in i. 18 ; in relation to this joy he
utters the exhortations in i. 27 ii. 18. With a call to rejoice, he
commences anew at iii. 1, while again at the close, iv. 4, he exhorts
the whole church above all to rejoice.
3. THE TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
We point here, in the first instance, to what Olshausen has
written in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Bphesians, Introd.
3. He justly maintains, that the Epistle to the Philippians, on
account of the similarity of the relations under which it was com-
posed, cannot in respect to time have been far separate from those
to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.
In the serial connexion also of these four epistles, there exists a
proof that the Epistle to the Colossians and that to Philemon were
composed at the same time ; then the Epistle to the Ephesians, at
the most only a few weeks later ; and finally comes the Epistle to
the Philippians, composed in the latter period of the apostle's impris-
onment, as the three others were during the earlier. This suppo-
sition in respect to the Epistle to the Philippians is justly grounded
on the passages i. 12, seq., ii. 26, seq., according to which the apos-
tle had already spent a considerable time in the place of his impris-
onment, and was able to mark the fruit of his labours. Further
also, upon iii. 24, where it is said that he would soon come to them,
while the distant hope of this is only for the first time expressed in
Philern. 22. And we might add, on the . probable supposition of
Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) being the same person as the Epaphras
named in Col. i. 17, iv. 12 ; Philem. 23, that as he was the bearer of
the epistle to Philippi, this epistle must have been composed later
than those in which he is spoken of as present.
Where now was the place of composition ? Apart from the
supposition of (Eder (de tempore et loco epistolse ad Philippenses
scriptse, Onoldi, 1731), who ascribes it to the one and a half year's
sojourn of the apostle in Corinth, which is disposed of by the sin-
348 INTRODUCTION.
gle fact that Paul suffered no imprisonment during that time, a
double course lies open ; either to suppose the period that of the
imprisonment in Csesarea (Acts xxiii. 23, seq.), or that of the first
Roman imprisonment (Acts xxviii. 16, seq.) The latter is the view
of most recent interpreters (Bertholdt, Hug, Rheinwald, Flatt, De
Wette, Matthies, Meyer, Neander, etc.), as it is also the tradition
of the church, comp. the passages in Holemann (p. 11), and the sub-
scription at the end of the epistle.
It was ascribed to the Cassarean imprisonment, first by Dr.
Paulus (in a Programme of 1799, and in the theol. Lit.-Bl. Zur Allg.
Kchztg. 1834, No. 140), and afterwards by Bottger (Beitriige Gott,
1837). Bottger argues there with much learning and acuteness
from the judicial proceedings at Rome, that Paul could not have
been detained long at Rome ; at the most, five days. But on the
other side, see Neander's just and important remark (History of
Planting, etc., 4th ed., i., p. 469), that the delay of five or ten days
did not refer to the continuance of the judicial procedure, but to the
objection against the appeal (= literre dimissorice) ; that it indi-
cated nothing as to the duration of the action itself. Farther, Bott-
ger seeks to prove the agreement of the Acts with this event, and
to invalidate the data, which have usually been regarded as decisive
in the Epistle to the Philippians, for referring it to the Roman
imprisonment. These are the passages, i. 13, and iv. 22, which
speak of a npairupiov, and an olxta Kaioapog. Bottger has certainly
proved that these expressions are not conclusive in behalf of Rome,
but were also applicable to palaces of the emperor out of Rome,
as, in particular, we read of the npairupiov of Herod, in Acts xxiii.
35, and as Olshausen remarks there, the epistles elsewhere pre-
sent too few determinate points of contact for deciding But as
regards the close of the Acts, I must entirely accord with Olshausen,
that it does not square with Bottger's supposition of an imprison-
ment of a few days. Neander justly remarks, in the place referred
o above, that we cannot imagine, if, as Bottger maintains, the
apostle's liberation lay between ch. xxviii. 16, and ver. 23, Luke
should have failed to notice it. And what must the words xxviii.
.30, 31, " And he abode two whole years in his own hired house, and
received all that came jn unto him, no one forbidding him," indi-
cate, if not the still advantageous position of the apostle, notwith-
standing his continued imprisonment ? Do these words admit of
being understood of the contrast, as Bottger supposes, between the
rest which Paul now enjoyed, and the storms of his past life ? The
notices in the Acts, therefore, do not here withdraw from us the
historical ground for the composition of the four closely connected
epistles. We may add that Aristarchus and Lucas, according to
Acts xxvii. 2, were with the apostle in Rome, and we also find them
INTKODUCTION. 349
both actually with him in Col. iv. 10 ; Philem. ver. 24 ; that Paul,
according to Eph. vi. 19, 20, had freedom to preach the gospel ;
that according to i. 12, seq., of our epistle, important results bad
sprung from his imprisonment, as also that the apostle awaits the
final decision of his cause either for life or death (i. 20), yet with a
confident anticipation of deliverance and of being able soon again
to visit the Philippians (i. 25, 26 ; ii. 24). Uniting all these circum-
stances, we cannot wonder that neither Olshausen nor the more re-
cent expositors, as De Wette. Meyer, and Neander (in his history
of the Planting, etc.), have dissented from the view of Bottger, and
adhered to the tradition of the church.
The composition of the epistle consequently falls, according to
the common reckoning, in the year 63 or 64.
4. GENUINENESS AND INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE.
1. GENUINENESS.
Olshausen could justly say, " the Epistle to the Philippians be-
longs to the few writings of the New Testament, whose genuineness
has never been called in question." But since then, D. Baur (in his
Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ, Stuttg., 1845), has extended his
attacks against the New Testament writings also to this epistle
without, however, having yet met with approval. Apart from
Schwegler (Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, 1846, ii., p. 133-135), all
the more recent commentators appear as defenders of the epistle,
and Liinemann and Bruckner have vindicated it in separate produc-
tions (Pauli ad Phil. ep. contra Baurium defendit Liinemann, Gott.,
1847, and Bruckner : ep. a Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata contra
Baurium. Lips. 1848). So also Meyer in the critical remarks of his
commentary, p. 61, etc. The epistle is so well accredited by the
testimonies of ecclesiastical antiquity* (see these in Kheinwald, p.
42, seq., Holemann, p. 32, seq.) ; its matter and tone give so little
ground for suspicion of any designed falsification ; it bears through-
out, according to the general judgment, so thoroughly the Pauline
impress, that its authenticity, if that of any, must be regarded
as unquestionable. What grounds, then, has Baur for calling in
question the general opinion ? There are three points chiefly,
which he reckons unfavourable to the epistle. 1. The epistle moves
in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions, and in such a manner,
as not to oppose, but rather to coincide with them. The leading
* Polyc. ep. ad Phil., cap. i. 11, Marc, in Epip. hser. 42 ; Tert. contra Marc. v. 19 ;
de prsescr, 36 Canon, in Muratori. in Origin, in Euseb. Besides these testimonies, there
are citations in Iren. adv. haer., iv. 18 ; Clem. Alex, pasd., i. 107 ; Tert. de resur., c. 23 ;
etc.
350 INTRODUCTION.
passage referred to in proof of this is chap. ii. 5, seq., "Of fa
Qeov v-ndpxuv, K. r. A,. This, according to Baur, could be said only
with respect to the ideas of the Gnostics ; and on no other supposi-
tion than that Gnostic opTray^df of the Valentinian Sophia, which
with all might would penetrate into the nature of the Eternal
Father, and so descends from the Pleroma into the Kenoma (Iren.
adv. haer. i. 2, 2 ; i. 4, 1), can the passage admit of explanation.
What is said there in a speculative sense of a metaphysical occur-
rence, he would have here, by a spiritual application, transferred to
the moral procedure of Jesus Christ, though at the same time it is
made devoid of meaning. So the expressions " in the likeness of
men," and " being found in fashion as a man," admit only of a do-
cetic meaning. Finally, the inovpaviw myeiw K,ara\Qnviwv ,
through which the power and dominion of Christ are extended alike
to the three regions, the heavenly, the earthly, and the subterra-
nean, are also genuine Gnostic terms.
I must here, in order not to be tedious, refer to the commentary
on the particular verses. It is there shewn in respect to the chief
passage, ii. 5-8, that it can only be understood of the incarnation,
speaking after the manner of John, the ivadpK,wai<; of the Logos ; and
that the form of existence before and after is expressed by the
contrast of that which he did not and that which he did wish.
This explanation does away with Baur's allegation that we have
here only a moral refraining from the dpnayfiog (a thing in itself
inconceivable) on the ground that it is senseless), to say that
Christ would not, before his moral probation, arrogate to himself
what he could only attain through his probation. Whence could