Bible Commentaries

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.