so well known ? Neither history nor tradition, according to Baur
himself, knows of any other. Was the name of Clemens forged,
and the epistle a fabrication ? Or, was it really an epistle from
the church at Rome to that at Corinth, which first in the way of
tradition was ascribed to that Clemens, though he never lived, as
the tradition reports him to have done ? Such a thing is in-
conceivable with an epistle, written in the name of the church at
Rome, and from the first held in such high estimation, and attested
by Dionysius, the bishop of that very church to which it was ad-
dressed, and at a time scarcely 50 years from its production. Nor
can the Roman Clemens after all serve as a fac simile of the Flavius
INTRODUCTION. 359
Clemens referred to. Baur maintains that the death of this Clemens
had excited a great stir among the Komans, on account of the fright-
ful phenomena that followed it ; whence its great importance in the
Christian traditional records may more easily be understood. But
why then in these records is nothing said of the death of Clemens ?
They are silent about the very thing to which he owed his great-
ness. A tradition of the fourth century only informs us that he died
as a martyr.
But even with the Clemens of Christian tradition, to use the
language of Baur, the Clemens of the epistle before us does not
coincide. For this Clemens is not to be sought at Borne, but at
Philippi ; and, even if he may have been the same person who af-
terwards became bishop at Rome, still it is not as that Roman
Clemens that he is introduced and spoken of here. So that the
ground on which the salutation from those of Cassar's household is
connected with him for the purpose of establishing his relationship
to the imperial family, falls entirely away. Nor indeed does the ex-
pression KK r?/f Kaiaapog oltciag necessarily denote relatives of the
emperor; it may as well at least mean, the servants of his household.
Our epistle, then, has lost again the clear light which it has re-
ceived from the Clemens of Baur. All that he can adduce in sup-
port of a disciple of Peter under that name, and a fellow-worker of
Paul, is ch. iv. 3, where he is put in a series with other fellow-workers,
and nothing more is said of him than that he like those women who
need admonition, had been the fellow-combatant of the apostle.
There is no special salutation to him in ch. iv. 22. This Clemens
should have played an entirely different part in the epistle to give
even the appearance of plausibility to Baur's hypothesis. Nor is
this hypothesis needed to explain what is said of the furtherance of
the gospel in ch. i. 12, and of the apostle's joyful state of mind, in
which he would have his readers to sympathize with him. Rather,
if that joy could be understood only by a reference to Clemens, the
author must have made the apostle state distinctly the ground of his
joy. But the words, " in all the prastorium and all other places," do
not point to Clemens ; nor does the joy, of which the apostle speaks in
ch. i. 18, refer to the entrance which the gospel found here or there,
but to the circumstance that Christ was everywhere preached. Still
less has the %aipeiv of the apostle in the other passages this restricted
reference. Assuming only that the relations were such as the epis-
tle describes, everything is clear and self-consistent : obscurity and
confusion come in only with Baur's hypothesis. The division of
mind between life and death in ch. i. 21-24, which Baur presses in
support of his view, is explained by the apostle himself, when he
represents the difficulty of choice as arising from the twofold re-
spect he had, first to himself, ana then to the interest of the
360 INTRODUCTION.
churches. It is not correct to say, that his mind was divided
between living and dying ; for he knew that he should continue
in life. And when in ch. ii. 17 he puts the case of his going to
be sacrificed, it is obviously a mere supposition without any re-
ference to its realization. But when Baur asks whether such a
divided ness of mind under so splendid a prospect for the cause of
the gospel, were not much less suitable for the apostle, than for an
author who already had before him as a matter of fact the end of
the apostle, apparently so little harmonizing with those prospects ;
we can oppose to it, and with more right, the counter question, how
should this author, who, according to Baur, had the end of the
apostle before him in this very imprisonment as a matter of fact,
have come to represent the apostle as confidently assuring himself of
a deliverance from it ?
In conclusion, Baur has pointed to the mention of bishops and
deacons in ch. i. 1 as an anachronism. I deem it unnecessary to go
into this point here, as it has been investigated in the Introduction
to the pastoral epistles, where the untenableness of such an objection
is rendered manifest. How far, finally, there is any ground for ob-
jecting to the mode of naming Euodia and Syntyche, and introdu-
cing the still rarer av&yoc;, will be shewn in the exposition. It
is more probable, from the other contents of the epistle, that
the two names belong to two women, and that the ov&yog had
been a worthy fellow-labourer of the apostle, than that Euodia re-
presented the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the heathen-Chris-
tian party, and that the dear yoke-fellow was, after the Clementine
homilies, a designation of the Apostle Peter. So Schwegler in his
Nachapost Zeitalter ii. p. 135. I refer, further, in respect to the
genuineness of the epistle, to the short but excellent remarks of
Neander in his work already noticed, and to Meyer's Commentary.
2. INTEGRITY.
r
Having discussed at length the genuineness of the epistle, we
can be the shorter on this second point. The question with which
we have here to do, and which Heinrichs (N. T. ed. Koppe, vol. vii.,
Proleg.) was the first to bring upon the field, though the subject
has since been prosecuted by others, is this whether the epistle be
one whole, as we now have it in our hands, or whether it has been
formed into a whole by some strange hand, out of two epistles of
the apostle to the Philippians according to Heinrichs embracing
respectively a wider and a narrower circle, and according to D
Paulus the one addressed to the church, the other to the bishops
and deacons.
The only appearance of support that can be brought from the
INTRODUCTION. 361
epistle Itself for this later hypothesis, is the passage ch. iii. 1. But
does this hypothesis solve the difficulties connected with it ? Does
not Heinrichs' surprise, that the apostle after the salutation-formula,
as he regards it (TO Xonrbv xaipere v /cfpfu), should commence anew,
rest upon a pure misunderstanding of these words ? And does he
not himself deprive his hypothesis of all support by viewing the
next words (" to write the same things to you, to me indeed is not
grievous," etc.) without respect to any connexion with the other
epistle, and seeking the emphasis in ypdfaiv, and reverting to some
earlier oral declarations of the apostle ? Without attempting here
to settle the correct meaning of the verse, we must still allow that
the other hypothesis of Grotius, Krause, Hoog, Eheinwald, accord-
ing to which the apostle meant to conclude with TO hoitrov, K. r. /L,
but afterwards added the remainder of the epistle, affords as prob-
able a solution of the difficulty, though, as we shall see, there is no
necessity even for resorting to this supposition. Support has also
been sought for the hypothesis of two epistles, an exoteric and eso-
teric, by referring to the passage in Polycarp 's ep. ad Phil. c. 3, o?
(namely Paul) ical a-nuv vplv gypaifjev Kmarohdg. We certainly can-
not, on the opposite side, refer to the other passage in Polycarp, c.
11, qui estis in principio epistolse ejus, as has already been remarked
by Van Hengel, and on still juster grounds by Meyer. But why
conclude, if with Meyer we urge the plural Kmarokdg, that the epis-
tle was composed of two separate epistles, and not rather that Paul
may, as believed by Hemsen, have previously written other letters
to the Philippians in connexion with the supplies they sent him ?
It is clear that the hypothesis rests on very weak grounds. And
how utterly contemptible is the proof brought from other parts of
the epistle ! How completely groundless is the supposition of an
exoteric and an esoteric portion in the epistle drawn from the occur-
rence of the word rekeioc in ch. iii. 15 ! How unworthy of the apos-
tle are the reasons assigned against his uttering what is said of the
Jewish adversaries in iii. 2, of the presents in iv. 10, on Euodia and
Syntyche in iv. 2, to the entire church ! How inexplicable the ar-
bitrary combination of two epistles through violent inversions ! But
all this has already been shewn at length by others ; see Krause,
An epist. ad Phil, in duas epp. . . dispescenda sit. Regiom, 1811,
Schott Einl. p. 283 ; Hemsen, as referred to, p. 680-694 ; Rhein-
wald, p. 45-55 ; Holemann, p. 34-44 ; Mnithies, Einl. p. 22, etc.
I perfectly agree with Credner, Van Hengel, and others, that the
whole hypothesis deserves to fall into oblivion. On Schrader's kin-
dred view, in his work Der Apostel Paulus, 5 part, comp. Hole-
mann Einl. p. 59, seq.
362 INTRODUCTION.
5. LITERATURE
At length in Rheinwald, Comm. p. 235-242 ; Holemann, p. 54-
59. As special works on the epistle we may here mention Storr diss.
exeg. in ep. ad Phil. Tub. 1783 ; J. a. Am Eode, Pauli Ap. ad Phil,
ep. Viteb. 1798 ; J. F. Krause, observ. crit. exeg. Kegiom. 1810 ;
Rheinwald, Comm. on the ep. to the Phil. 1827 ; Flatt's prelections,
ed. by Kling, Tub. 1829 ; Matthies' Erkl. des Briefs Pauli an die
Phil. Greifswald, 1835 ; Van Hengel's Comm. perpet. in ep. Phil.
Lugd. B. 1838 ; Holemann, do. Lips. 1839 ; A. Rilliet. Comm. sur
T epitre de 1' ap. P. aux Phil. Gen. 1841 ; De Wette's exeget.
Handbuch, Leips. 1847 ; Meyer, Krit-exeg, Comm. 9 Abtheil. 1. Hiilfte,
Gott. 1847. Treatises on particular points are cited at the appro-
priate places. We have a practical exposition by Passavant ; Ver-
such einer prakt. Auslegung, Basel, 1834.
EXPOSITION
OF THE
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
1. INSCRIPTION AND THANKSGIVING FOB THEIR STEADFASTNESS
IN THE FAITH.
(i. 1-11.)
Ver. 1. " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to
all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the over-
seers and deacons/' etc.
As in others of his epistles (1 Cor. i. 1, 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Col. i. ; 1
Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ; Philem. 1) one or several persons are
named along with the apostle in the inscription, so here we find the
name of Timothy, which indeed oftenest occurs in this connexion.
This implies, in the first place, that the person so named was pres-
ent with the apostle, and, in the second place, that he stood in a
somewhat close relation to those who are addressed ; it also implies
that he sympathized with the apostle in the sentiments expressed
in the epistle, and in his solicitudes and prayers in behalf of those
to whom it was written. We are not, however, to suppose that the
person so named had any share in the writing of the epistle, as is
evident from the constant use throughout of the first person singular,
i. 3, and passages such as ii. 19. This last passage affords proof at
the same time of the warm regard which Timothy felt towards the
church at Philippi, in the planting of which he indeed assisted the
apostle, as appears from Acts xvi. 17. Besides the naming of Tim-
othy here is all the more appropriate, as the epistle announces his
speedy arrival amongst the Philippians. Whether he acted as its
penman must remain undetermined.
By the phrase servants of Jesus Christ, the apostle designates
himself in common with Timothy, whilst in Col. i. 1 he designates
himself as an apostle, and Timothy as his brother. We may cer-
tainly infer from this that the apostle had no occasion to vindicate
his apostolical authority to the church at Philippi, and that the
364 PHILIPPIANS I. 1.
omission of his official designation here was therefore not merely ac-
cidental. And how well does this agree with the contents of the
epistle, which represents the church as resting on the foundation of
a close personal relationship to the apostle, and which was imme-
diately occasioned by his having to send his thanks for a favour he
had received from them ! There is no ground for supposing that,
in naming Timothy along with himself, the apostle wished to procure
for him the same honour that would be given to himself. To all the
saints in Christ Jesus. To these the inscription and salutation are
addressed, saints through their fellowship with Christ. On rdl<;
djioiq compare Rom. i. 7, where Olshausen well observes that, with
reference to the New Testament church, the idea contained in this
word is, the impartation of a new and higher principle of life. That
which makes them holy is their fellowship with Christ ; by HUM us
of this are they sanctified, and sin in its principle is overcome within
them, although their victory over it in reality is but gradual.
That emphasis is intended to be laid on the word all, is plain
from the repetition of this word, 1, 4, 7, 8. But those commenta-
tors go too far who suppose that the apostle had particularly in his
mind either those referred to in ii. 3, who were shewing a spirit of
strife, or those perhaps who had not contributed anything to the
gift that was sent to him, and that he used this expression purposely
to include them, and in order to make no difference. It is rather
to be regarded, as Meyer also supposes, simply an expression of
affection. The imano-noi and Sidnovot, are in this passage alone par-
ticularly named by the apostle. How little reason there is for
doubting the existence of such office-bearers in the apostolic time is
shewn in the Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles. The manifest
identity in this passage between i-niano-noi and TtpeoftvTepoi, and the
plurality of the i-rrioKOTrot, are unmistakeable features of the apos-
tolic era. The special notice however of these office-bearers in this
epistle is striking. It has been explained by supposing that they
had been specially instrumental in collecting the contributions which
had been transmitted to the apostle, and for which he returns thanks
in this epistle. Meyer thinks this a probable explanation. But on
this supposition might we not reasonably expect that the apostle
would have made a more distinct acknowledgment of the services
rendered by these office-bearers ? Besides, the passage at 2 Cor.
viii. 9 does not warrant this conjecture. Shall we not rather look
for the reason in the circumstances of the church ? With all the
strength and sincerity of its faith, the church at Philippi was in
danger of division from the vainglory of some of its members. And
as, on the one hand, the existence of office-bearers presupposes
a certain unity of the faith in the church, so that we are not sur-
prised to find no particular reference to such office-bearers in those
PHILIPPIANS I. 2-4. 365
epistles, the design of which is to lead to a right apprehension of
the truth, and unity of the faith, so, on the other hand, against
any undue assumption of individual importance, no more effective
check can be applied than the restraints of public officers whom
the apostle here recognizes in connexion with the church. Comp.
also ii. 29.
Ver. 2. Grace be with you, etc. The apostle's usual salutation,
upon which see the excellent observations of Olshausen at Rom. i. 7.
Ver. 3-11. In which the apostle's feelings toward the church
are expressed in hearty thanksgiving to God on their behalf, 2-5,
confidence that the good work will be carried on in them, 6-8, and
earnest prayers for them, 9-11.
Ver. 3. As in his other epistles (Gal. i. 6 excepted), so in this
the apostle sets out by giving thanks to God for what he finds good
and praiseworthy in the church at Philippi. / thank my God upon
every remembrance of you. In the expression my God, he gives the
reader a glance into his own near relation to God. Fellowship with
God, although resting on one and the same basis for all, yet takes a
particular form in the case of each individual, according to the par-
ticular experiences which he has of this fellowship, and which entitle
him to call the God of all his God. And when is this consciousness
of special relationship to God more felt than in prayer ?
In all my remembrance of you. With Meyer, I see no reason
to interpret this as most commentators do : upon every remem-
brance of you. The apostle says rather, the remembrance of them,
as it were in all its elements, in its every relation, constrains him to
give thanks to God. So \ivda, used as here by itself, and without
TToieladai, signifies not mention, but remembrance.
Ver. 4. The words of this verse are variously connected. Many
expositors regard the words, always in every prayer of mine for you
all, as merely explanatory of the words, upon every remembrance
of you. This, however, is inadmissible, because the latter phrase
does not mean, every time I remember you ; chiefly, however, be-
cause then the additional phrase, for you all, is entirely inappropri-
ate. For with what propriety could the apostle say that as often
as he prays for them all he remembers them ? Better to join rcdv-
rore with et^apttfToi, as other passages also shew, e. y., 1 Cor. i. 4 ;
Col. i. 3 ; 1 Thess. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i, 3. Thus the apostle says that
every time he remembers them he gives thanks ; and the meaning
of ndvTore is rendered more apparent by what follows, viz., in every
prayer of mine for you all. (Comp. Col. i. 3 ; 1 Thess. i. 2.) The
phrase for you all, in which the tenderness of the apostle's regard
for every member of the church finds expression, is not to be joined
to what follows. It forms the required limitation to the words pre-
ceding, viz., in every prayer of mine, conip. with this Col. i. 3 ; 1
366 PHILIPPIANS I. 5.
Thess. i. 2, where the apostle says only, praying for you, or, in our
prayers. It is altogether wrong to separate the words, for you all,
from their connexion with what goes before and what follows, and
to join them with, I give thanks. Compare Meyer against this view.
He says then that he never prays for them without giving thanks to
God on the remembrance of them. But his delight in this church
constrains him to add, that he prays for them with joy. Such inter-
cessions coming from a joyful heart lead naturally to thanksgiving,
and form the ground of the E-vxapiarti in ver. 3. (The article in ri\v
dirjaiv points back to the preceding <57<7^.)
Ver. 5. The apostle now states more particularly for what he
gave thanks to God in his prayers for them. 'Errt is therefore to be
joined with et%apt<rnD, not as has been recently maintained by Van
Hengel and De Wette, with d^mv, for then there would be no
specific statement of what was the subject of the apostle's thanks,
and the words, from the Jirst day until now, would have no proper
meaning. As the apostle in other passages, where he expresses
thanks, generally specifies the subject of his thanksgiving, so here he
gives thanks to God for their felloivship in the gospel from the first
day until now. It is self-evident that icoivuvia d$ TO evayytXiov is
not the same as rov evayyeAtov, and cannot be rendered by " quod
participes facti estis evangelii," to which u%pi rov vvv would not cor-
respond. The connexion between d$ and itoivuveZv is certainly not
so close as to warrant our taking d$ to be a circumlocution for the
genitive. We shall therefore, with most modern expositors, trans-
late the phrase, for your fellowship in reference to the gospel. Hero
too a double meaning is possible, according as d<; cvayy&tov is con-
nected more or less closely with Koiwvia. In the latter case icoivuvia
will express that fellowship of faith and love, that sweet concord, as
Meyer expresses it, in which the Philippians were united to one an-
other, while dg evayysAtov determines more strictly the nature of
that fellowship, a fellowship, namely, " the centre point of which
was the gospel." Against this view, the omission of the article be-
fore d$ gyayyt'Atov seems to me to be conclusive. As the words stand,
they must be closely connected so as to form one idea. Comp.
Winer's Gr. 19, 2, p. 155. Besides, it appears to me not consistent
with other passages of the epistle, that the apostle should first and
foremost acknowledge with thankfulness to God, the unity and mu-
tual love of the church at Philippi. Comp. i. 27, ii. 1, iv. 2. Meyer,
in support of the view which we here controvert, refers to verse 9,
where the expression, your love, according to him, means the same
thing as your fellowship. But is it so clear that that expression in
the 9th verse means their love toward one another ? If, on the
other hand, we connect els TO evayysXiov with icoiwvia more closely,
so as to express one idea, then this fellowship will mean, not that
PHILIPPIANS I. 6-8. 367
of the Philippians with one another, but their fellowship with all
those who have the interests of the gospel at heart, who earnestly
desire its increase and success. And this active interest in what
pertained to the furtherance of the gospel, flowing from their deep
and warm attachment to it, was precisely what distinguished the
Christians at Philippi from the very beginning. The apostle had a
fresh proof of this, in the gift which they sent to him, and which
occasioned his particular allusion to this feature in their character,
but the words he here employs are not to be confined in their appli-
cation to that which occasioned them, nor in general to any pecu-
niary offerings. The Philippians brought whatever they had of
Christianity into the service of the gospel. Chrysostom and Theo-
phylact have given substantially the true meaning of this passage,
OTI. Koivuvoi (J,ov yiveo'de, Kal av^epLoral TG>V em TO> evayyeA/w
So also Van Hengel and others. In this interpretation, jue
needs not to be supplied, as Meyer has objected with reference to a
similar interpretation brought forward by others. For the apostle
does not thank God for their fellowship with himself so much as for
their belonging to the fellowship of those who are concerned for the
furtherance of the gospel. According to this view, nothing needs
to be supplied. In G-al. ii. 9, and Acts ii. 42, the word icoivuvia will
be found in the same signification as here. And for elg TO emyye/l-
LOV in the sense of furtherance of the gospel, see ver. 12, and 1 Cor.
ix. 14. Thus does the apostle render thanks for their fellowship in
the gospel, but he adds that this fellowship had existed from the
first day of their having received the gospel until the present time.
How different from this was his experience in regard to other
churches ! In the words d%pt TOV vvv there is a reference to the
fresh proof of this which he had just received, in the gift that was
transmitted to him. These words, from the first day until now, so
appropriate when taken in connexion with your fellowship, become
tame and meaningless, if, with Meyer and others, we connect them
with being confident, ver. 6, or with / give thanks, ver. 3. Khein-
wald and Van Hengel are also of this opinion. The absence of the
article will not prove such a view of the passage to be correct. Com-
pare for example ver. 26.
Vers. 6-8. The apostle's confidence with regard to them. Ver.
6. The apostle is led by the words he had just used, viz., until now,
to look forward from the present to the end of their course. He
thanks God for what he had seen in them up till the present time,
d%pi TOV vvv, and as to what will happen betwixt the present and the
final issue a%pi$ r/jwepaf XptaTov 'Irjaov. he declares his confidence, a
confidence which mingles with and deepens the thankfulness of his
heart on their behalf. His confidence is not to be regarded as the
moving cause of his thankfulness, but only as an accompanying cir-
368 PHILIPPIANS I. 7.
cumstance ; TTSTTOIO^ means, whilst I confidently hope. The phrase,
this very thing, sets forth that what was the ground of his giving
thanks was also the subject-matter of his assured hope. This sub-
ject-matter is here, however, spoken of in general as a good work.
And the Divine agency in bringing it about is held up to view, as
the apostle's confidence was based on this Divine causality, not on
the feeble will of man. The apostle then expresses the confidence
he felt with regard to the subject-matter of the thanksgiving, viz.,