Philippians 1

CHAPTER I

Paul Sends to the Philippians Joyful Information about Himself and about Epaphroditus, Combined with Prayer and Admonition

Greeting

Philippians 1:1

1 Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, those who are in Philippi, together with overseers and deacons: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

The form is stereotyped: nominatives—datives—nominatives (see Eph. 1:1, 2). Regarding the Roman name “Paul” note the discussion in Acts 13:9; and regarding Timothy see Acts 16:1, etc. Timothy joins Paul in this letter, not as though he helped to compose it, but as seconding it. He helped to found the congregation and was to be sent to it again (2:19, etc.).

In 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1, and Col. 1:1 the distinction between “apostle” and “brother” is retained because of the authoritative contents of these letters. They are apostolic as far as they come from Paul, fraternal as being seconded by the co-writer. In the case of the contents of Philippians this is not necessary. This is the only caption in which one and the same apposition modifies both the writers. Both are termed “slaves of Christ Jesus.” What they have to say is to be received from them as being such. Paul is not dropping his apostolic authority for the time being, he is now only not making it felt.

The genitive is possessive, and whether the order is “Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:1) or “Christ Jesus” makes no appreciable difference. These “slaves” belong to Christ Jesus, whose office and whose personal name mean so much to them and to their readers.

“Slaves” does not refer to office although Paul at times applies this word only to himself. Paul and Timothy are Christ’s because he has both bought them and taken them into his service. No special form of service is indicated by the word. It, of course, denotes work, and many who today love to be called “church workers” should learn what Paul means by “slaves,” namely men who in all their work have no will of their own but only their Owner’s will and Word. That is why the Philippians will gladly read what these two men say.

In view of Rom. 1:7 and 2 Cor. 1:1 no special stress can be laid on “all the saints” although this “all” appears a number of times in the beginning of the epistle but not always with reference to persons. The idea that Paul and Timothy intend to be strictly impartial to all despite certain pretensions of superiority on the part of some, is refuted when it is noted that this “all” is lacking in the admonitory paragraphs. The use of “saints” to designate Christians is regular in the New Testament beginning with Acts 9:13 and is probably to be traced to Christ’s prayer, John 17:16–20, where also separation from the world and the cleansing power of the truth of the Word are indicated. By faith to know, to believe, and to keep God’s Word takes one out of the world and makes him a saint (John 17:3–6), and the more this Word of God enters him, the more he is sanctified and deserves the name “saint.” Perfectionism is not suggested by the term.

The Philippians are “saints in connection with (ἐν) Christ Jesus.” We need not repeat the discussion of this phrase; see Eph. 1:1; also Rom. 6:11. The context always determines the nature of the connection or union with Christ. It contains nothing mystical; anything of a mystical nature is expressed only by the context. Although “Christ Jesus” is repeated, no point is to be made of this as though Paul and Timothy are “slaves of Christ Jesus” while the Philippians are “saints of Christ Jesus.” The latter points to the spiritual blessings received, the former to the work assigned, yet only in a silent way. After an intervening genitive the article is repeated; in English “who are in Philippi” is enough. The name of the city is a masculine plural.

The organization of the apostolic congregations has been much discussed. As far as the πρεσβύτεροι, “elders,” and the ἐπίσκοποι, “overseers,” are concerned, only the designation and not the function differs. The former is first used in Acts 11:30; Paul himself uses the latter in Acts 20:28, “overseers to shepherd the flock,” when addressing “the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). This is plain enough.

One might think that an apostle would choose to call himself an “overseer” in preference to an “elder,” but the reverse is done (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1). “Elder” expressed the dignity of the office, “overseer,” the work. In the LXX ἐπίσκοποι was used to designate the overseers of the repairs to the Temple, less frequently to designate army officers. Not until a time that is much later than the New Testament does episcopoi appear in the sense of our present “bishops,” men who are placed over several congregations and their pastors. This was, however, only a human arrangement. In the apostolic churches a group of elders or overseers attended to the congregation’s work, the best men in each congregation being chosen for this purpose.

The difference between these and the “deacons” is most clearly seen in 1 Tim. 3:1–10. The latter were like the deaconess Phoebe of Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1); they attended to the common needs of the poor and of the sick and to minor chores. The deacons seem to have been duly appointed, the name suggesting voluntary service. No form of church government was prescribed by Christ beyond that of the pastoral office (the ministry), see Eph. 4:11. The arrangement of having several elders or overseers in a congregation was an adoption of the system that was followed in the Jewish synagogues. Yet the Christian office was a divine institution, and its ideal became “to labor in the Word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17).

What we call church government, the organization of many congregations under one overseer or bishop, developed at a later time, not jure divino, but jure humano, and was a product of Christian liberty, and the offices were by human appointment only. More need not be said in the present connection.

This is the only letter in which Paul mentions the pastors and the deacons in the address. We naturally ask why. Σύν is associative: “together with,” “in association with,” and in a beautiful way expresses the relation of “all the saints in union with Christ Jesus” to their overseers and deacons. The absence of the articles makes the two nouns qualitative, lends them the force of “such as are overseers and deacons,” and thereby avoids the idea of a particular class. The best answer to our question is that these servants of the congregation were instrumental in gathering the gift that was sent to Paul, that Paul knew this, and in an unobtrusive way indicates his appreciation.

Philippians 1:2

2 “Grace to you and peace,” etc., is exactly like Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2, which see.

Paul Tells the Philippians about his Joyful Prayers for Them

Philippians 1:3

3 In his Introduction I, 534, etc., Zahn follows von Hofmann and prefers the reading: ἘγὼμὲνεὐχαριστῶτῶΚυρίῳἡμῶν. The textual support for this reading is so weak that Souter, for instance, disregards this variant reading. In order to justify its preference Zahn states that those who reject it must explain how it came into existence if Paul did not himself write it. Hundreds of variants exist which neither Zahn nor any other interpreter attempt to explain, which no man can explain, which also are therefore rejected by most text critics. We are not obliged to accept this inferior reading because we may not be able to explain how it came into existence and in a few texts altered the preferred reading.

In the present instance we are able to explain its origin. This inferior reading is that of Codex D, the author of which loves to edit. In the Acts he does this to such an extent that Zahn thinks that Luke wrote two editions of the Acts, the second of which contains many corrections. This editing copyist thought that in Philippians Paul ought to write an ἐγώ, for Paul has just written “Paul and Timothy” in v. 1 and now writes only about himself as thanking God, εὐχαριστῶ, and continues with “my God,” “my petition.” This insertion of ἐγώ is not an editorial improvement, for the insertion of this emphatic pronoun “I for my part” injects a contrast between Paul and Timothy that is foreign to Paul’s mind. We note many similar instances in the alterations made by Codex D. The alterations it offers often spoil the correct meaning of the original.

Zahn’s reason for following von Hofmann in adopting this inferior reading is more serious. We see what Zahn has in mind when he offers this translation: “I for my part thank our Lord for all your substantial remembrance (of me and indeed) always in each of my prayers, offering up my prayer for you all with joy on the ground of your participation for the purpose of the gospel (i. e., your cooperation in the missionary work) from the first day until now,” etc. Several ideas are expressed: 1) that Paul thanks the Lord for the many gifts the Philippians have been sending him; 2) that by means of these many gifts the Philippians have been participating in Paul’s missionary work until now; 3) that Paul is answering a letter just received from the Philippians, in which they express the fear that their last gift, which was sent by Epaphroditus some time before this, has been delayed too long to the dis satisfaction of Paul and to the regret of the Philippians themselves. So Paul is thought to write: “I for my part” (ἐγώ) do not feel as you do about this your last gift; you have always been helping my missionary work. What is wrong about this? A good deal aside from the inferior reading.

Years ago Paul has received two gifts from Philippi (4:16) and not until recently, after an interval of years, had he received a third by the hand of Epaphroditus (4:10). The word μνεία does not mean “substantial remembrance,” and μνείαὑμῶν does not mean: “your remembrance (of me) in sending me regular support for my missionary work”; but “(my) remembrance of you” (objective genitive).

In v. 3–8 Paul states what induces him to pray for the Philippians. He does not say anything about money. I thank my God upon all the remembrance of you, always in every petition of mine for you all making the petition with joy on the basis of your fellowship as regards the gospel from the first day until the present, etc.

Paul begins in the same natural way as he does in some of his other letters. There is no reason for contrasting himself with anyone else by the use of an ἐγώ. Every time he remembers the Philippians he is grateful to God. Ἐπί states occasion and time (R. 604): “upon all the remembrance of you” (objective genitive). Here the article: πάσῃτῇμνείᾳ, is pertinent, R. 772. First Corinthians 4:1 is different, ἐπί states the ground for Paul’s thanksgiving, namely “the grace of God given to the Corinthians in Christ Jesus.” The difference is due to the objects: “the grace of God” is objective, a divine gift to the Corinthians, while “remembrance of you” is subjective, something in Paul’s mind.

“All the remembrance of you” needs no “my,” for Paul is certainly speaking of his own remembrance and not of that of someone for him. Moreover, “my God” precedes, and “my” would thus also not be repeated. Here the word means “remembrance”; only when it is used with ποιεῖν does it mean “to make mention.” “All” is added, not only because Paul’s recollection of the Philippians takes in all that he remembers of them, but because all of it induces him to thank God. All of it comes to his mind whenever he thinks of them, and then his heart is grateful to God. He remembers his first work in Philippi, even the beating and the imprisonment he and Silas suffered, and God’s wonderful deliverance. He remembers his other visits in Philippi and all the reports he had received from time to time.

“Of you” makes the Christians in Philippi the objects of Paul’s remembrance, their faith and faithfulness, their loyal adherence to the gospel, etc. The fact that 4:16 need not be excluded is self-evident; for 4:16 itself is written in remembrance. To restrict the remembrance to this item and then to enlarge it into a constant flow of gifts, disregards the context that follows, to say nothing of 4:10–19 where Paul dwells at length on the matter of this gift.

Philippians 1:4

4 We construe as a unit: “always in every petition of mine for you all making this petition with joy on the basis of your fellowship as regards the gospel from the first day until the present,” not even placing a comma between v. 4 and 5. We cannot construe: “I thank my God … for your fellowship,” because too much lies between these expressions. This in answer to our versions. Because in 1 Thess. 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 Cor. 1:4; Col. 1:3; Philemon 4 we have “I thank always,” some would find the same statement here by joining “always,” or “always in every petition,” or this plus “for you all,” to v. 3. But in the other passages “always” is placed next to “I thank (my) God”; not so here nor in Rom. 1:10 where “always” is to be construed with what follows.

“Always in every petition of mine in behalf of you all” belongs together. Every time Paul makes such a petition, “he makes this petition (article of previous reference) with joy,” etc. By expressing this with a participial clause Paul makes it subordinate to “I thank my God.” When Paul thanks his God he does so for past blessing to the Philippians which he appreciates; when he then always adds his petition for all the Philippians in his whole remembrance of them he asks something for all of them for their present and their future needs. The participial clause is thus not modal; it adds a subsidiary thought even as thanks and petition go together. Note: “upon all the remembrance” (article) and: “in every petition” (no article). With abstract nouns the difference is erased, the idea of “all” and “every” flowing together. Here, however, the two nouns appear as concretes so that the difference remains.

Δέησις is Bittgebet, petition for some gift, and is much narrower than προσευχή, “prayer,” which is general. One may ask why Paul does not use the more general word here. We have already indicated that thanks accompanies remembrance of the past, petition the future. While Paul has so much for which to thank God in all his remembrance of the Philippians he petitions God for all of them that God may ever bless them so that all Paul’s added remembrance may also be coupled with thanks.

The two statements make it plain that, as in the past so in the future, all the blessings of the Philippians flow only from God. Him Paul thanks, to him he sends his every petition. “Always in every petition of mine” denotes continuous, ever-repeated petition. Who would become weary when, “Ask, and ye shall receive!” is the command and the promise? “In behalf of you all” is intercession. In v. 3, 4 we have four “all,” and more follow. Paul’s heart is truly large and wide. “For you all” includes every child, every backward and faulty member. We do not share the view that Paul prays for all although some have been remiss toward him.

When the “remembrance” is thought to be remembering Paul with gifts, this derogatory implication in “you all” lies near. This thought can be extended farther; it might seem that, because the Philippians had sent Paul money, he keeps petitioning God for them as a kind of return favor.

The emphasis is undoubtedly on the phrase “with joy.” In English we are forced to place it at the end. The more Paul remembers about the Philippians for which to thank his God, the greater is his joy in making his petitions for them. Some place the emphasis elsewhere, yet “with joy” is the distinctive point, the first of the many expressions of joy in this epistle. See the introduction on the emotions of Paul.

Philippians 1:5

5 With joy Paul makes this petition “on the basis of your fellowship as regards the gospel from the first day until now.” The close connection with v. 4 should not be interrupted by even a comma (our versions). This “fellowship” is active, devoted to the interest of the gospel as the εἰς phrase shows. When Paul points back to “the first day,” he has in mind Acts 16:15, the day he baptized Lydia, the day she insisted that he and his assistants lodge at her house. That was the start of this fellowship as regards the gospel. “Until now” takes us to the present when this fellowship manifested itself anew in the sending of a gift to Paul while he was at Rome.

Yet neither here nor in 2 Cor. 8:4 and 9:13 does κοινωνία mean contribution of money. In the latter passage this word is translated “distribution” in the A. V. and “contribution” in the R. V. Commentators adopt it, and some dictionaries follow the commentators. See the writer’s exposition of the passages and of Rom. 15:26.

Zahn defines the word: “Your cooperation in missionary work” (Introduction I, 535). Repeated contributions of money for Paul’s work are then supplied, each of which was followed by a receipt on the part of Paul. But “your fellowship as regards the gospel” is as broad as Acts 2:42, the fellowship of faith in the gospel, of confession of the gospel, of worship and of Christian life in the grace of the gospel. The Philippians, of course, had the gospel preached and taught in their midst “from the first day until now” and kept winning new converts. They, of course, continued a lively interest in Paul’s work for the gospel. Their fellowship regarding the gospel was active in all manner of ways.

“Your fellowship,” with its pronoun, does not mean merely “your fellowship with each other,” nor only “your fellowship with me.” “Your” means that the Philippians were in the great fellowship that concerned itself with the gospel. Paul’s joyful petition for the Philippian church rests on the whole fellowship this church had maintained from its birth to the present day. This includes all the manifestations of this fellowship and thus not alone their love for Paul and the three gifts they had sent him. Thus, too, we may define Paul’s petition for them: he prayed to God that they might ever continue in this fellowship.

Philippians 1:6

6 Paul adds: being confident of this very thing that he who began in you a good work will finish it up to Jesus Christ’s day.

This clause modifies all that precedes, the main verb in v. 3 plus its participial addition in v. 4. Paul states the inner conviction from which his thanks to God and his petition for the Philippians flow. “He who began in you a good work” takes up the phrase “from the first day until now,” all the blessed past for which Paul thanks God. “Will finish it until the day of Jesus Christ” covers all that Paul has asked for in his petition for the future of the Philippians. So also the perfect participle “being confident” has the full meaning of a perfect: this confidence began long ago and still continues, i. e., from the first day until now (B.-D. 290, 4). Many men are confident enough, but when we look at the contents of what they hold to we see that it will never come to pass. The thing of which Paul is confident is of a different sort.

Πείθω does not govern the accusative. Hence arise the difficulties regarding αὐτὸτοῦτο, Zahn making it mean: “for this very reason,” others, eben deswegen, referring it back to v. 5, Paul’s reason for being confident being the fellowship of the Philippians. When, in addition, “your fellowship” is regarded as referring to contributions of money, this idea becomes untenable. R. 478 and W. P. call this an accusative of inner content. Winer 33, 5 is correct: αὐτὸτοῦτοὅτι belong together; similarly in v. 25.

This verb πείθω is construed with ὅτι, and “this very thing” merely introduces “that he who began,” etc. God began a good work in the hearts of the Philippians, certainly not in order to let it end in nothing, but to bring it to its full completion (ἐπί in the verb), which will take him “up to the day of Jesus Christ.” This future tense is not merely futuristic (R. 889), it is voluntative: it is God’s will to do this. It is to be noted that Paul does not say “the good work” and refer to this fellowship of which he speaks in v. 5. “He who began in you a good work” is perfectly clear; all that God had begun in them was “a good work” because God had begun it, because it was his work. Note that Paul attributes all of it to God alone, not only its beginning but equally its consummation.

No article is needed with “Jesus Christ’s day” since there is only one day of this kind, the genitive defining it: “Jesus Christ’s day,” the last great day of the world. The moment we ask ourselves how at that terminus God will complete the good work he had begun in the Philippians, all the doubtful ideas found in Paul’s statement disappear. The completion will consist in raising the dead believers’ bodies, these bodies being glorified and joined again to their souls. As to the question regarding those believers who may still be living, 1 Thess. 4:15–17 supplies the answer.

Paul implies nothing as to the time when this day will come; he does not know the time, never pretends that he does but ever keeps to Christ’s word that the day may come at any time and that we must ever be ready. Thus we reject the views that “in you” means the congregation as a congregation in distinction from individuals, that Paul thus expected this congregation to continue in Philippi until the end of the world, and that he believed that this end was coming soon. But some of those living in Philippi had died, as some had at a much earlier time died in Thessalonica. (1 Thess. 4:13). The completion of God’s good work pertains to individuals.

Philippians 1:7

7 Paul now speaks of the relation of the Philippians to himself, which has been only implied thus far: even as it is right for me to mind this in behalf of you all because of having you in my heart both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all as being my joint-fellowshipers of the grace.

“Meet for me” (A. V.) is incorrect; “right for me” (R. V.) is correct, it would be wrong, ἄδικον, if Paul were minded otherwise. “To think this of you all” (A. V.) is likewise incorrect. Paul has not been telling what he thinks about the Philippians but has spoken of the confidence that accompanied his continuous petition “on behalf of them all.” In fact, this veryphrase is now repeated from v. 4. It must have the same meaning in both verses, a fact which R. 632 overlooks when he translates “concerning you all” as being the meaning in v. 7.

Verses 3–6 = τοῦτο, “this” that Paul is minding “on behalf of, for the benefit of, you all.” To thank God as he does, to make petition as he states, to do both of these in the confidence he describes, are so “right,” that if he did not mind and attend to these things, his own heart would condemn him. While this verb is used also in the sense of thinking, it here has its original sense: the action of the φρήν, being affected in the phrēn, being moved to mind something and to attend to it (Ewald 51, etc.).

It is right for Paul to be minding this “because I have you in my heart both in my bonds,” etc. All that follows διά should be read as one clause and not as two (our versions). Ὄντας is not an accusative absolute (R. 1131), nor does it mean “inasmuch as you are” (our versions). It merely expands the appositional object: “I have you … you all as being joint-fellowshipers of my grace.” As such he has them, and that means all of them, in his heart. The R. V. margin: “Ye have me in your heart,” reverses subject and object, both of which are accusatives in the Greek. But there is no doubt about which is which: not only is ἔχεινμε together, “I have,” but in the preceding φρονεῖν the subject doing the minding is Paul. The R. V. margin should be stricken.

“I have you in my heart” means more in the Greek than it does in the English; for in the Greek the heart is not the seat of the affections, these are located in the viscera (v. 8). The heart is the seat of the personality with its mind, feeling, and will, notably the latter. Paul is not merely holding the Philippians dear, he is holding them, we may say, as part of himself, his mind and his will ever being concerned about them, and that not in general only, i. e., as being believers, but “as being joint-fellowshipers of my grace” in connection with both his imprisonment and now his trial before the imperial court. Permit the coining of “joint-fellowshipers” in order to conserve the similarity in wording between κοινωνία in v. 5 and συγκοινωνοί. In v. 5 Paul rests his petition on their fellowship as regards the gospel; here this idea is now advanced, they are all in joint fellowship with Paul’s grace in his bonds and in his stand for the gospel at his trial.

Instead of τε—καί, “both—and,” the former has been made equivalent to “and” so as to produce two clauses: “have you in my heart and have you as being fellow partakers,” etc. But Paul has written only one “have you.” The bonds and the defense are also plainly correlated and call for “both—and.” By the δεσμά Paul refers to his entire imprisonment (all that confines; the masculine plural is sometimes used in the same sense, v. 13). The word itself does not mean chains but, like imprisonment, may include also fetters of some kind among the things that confine. Paul had been in confinement for nearly four years, a δέσμιος (Eph. 3:1; 4:1), prisoner. Now his trial had come.

Some would regard “my defense and confirmation of the gospel” in a broad sense and refer it to Paul’s gospel advocacy in general during his long imprisonment; but why, when “both—and” pairs the imprisonment and the defense plus the confirmation? Ἀπολογία is the regular term for what the defendant pleads in a court trial or before a judge (the verb is used in Acts 26:2). Since it is here combined under one article with βεβαίωσις, another term with a reference to a court in this combination, we are sure that Paul is referring to his trial. The imperial court wanted not only Paul’s plea in his defense (the apologia) but together with it the “confirmation” (βεβαίωσις), the factual proofs that would be convincing to the judge or the judges. Both are regular legal terms.

Yet note the difference: “my bonds” but not “my defense.” It is the defense and confirmation of a far greater defendant, namely “of the gospel.” The fate of his person was of the least concern to Paul, the fate of the gospel was everything. That it should not suffer when he pleaded his case and proved his facts before the emperor’s court was his one concern. Now during both his whole imprisonment and his trial involving the gospel he has all the Philippians in his heart as people who fellowship his grace.

The enclitic μου modifies the noun that precedes it just as it does in v. 3; the following articulated noun: “of the grace,” which is dependent on “my fellowshipers,” like the articulated “remembrance” in v. 3, thus becomes Paul’s also. This grace is the grace of God which was using Paul as a prisoner for so long, was now at last using him at the imperial trial in the defense and the confirmation of the gospel before the supreme court, “to bear Christ’s Name before the Gentiles and kings” (Acts 9:15). What fellowship the Philippians had in this grace is evident: they believed and held to this same gospel, their cause was before this court, they would all be affected by the outcome. The fact that they all sympathized with Paul, prayed for him, etc., is natural yet secondary and should not be permitted to overshadow the chief part of the fellowship.

So also, while their recent gift to Paul is not excluded as a manifestation of this fellowship, it is only in the background. If the Philippians had not sent a gift at this time they would, nevertheless, have been in the full fellowship of this grace. Thus also nothing of a pointed nature should be read into πάνταςὑμᾶς, which repeats the “all” of the two ὑπέρ phrases (v. 4, 7a), namely any fear on the part of the Philippians that Paul was perhaps not satisfied with some of them, that a recent letter voiced this fear, and that Paul was now allaying it in his reply. This “all” is to be construed with “all remembrance,” “always,” “every petition,” all the time from the first day until now. A long time has elapsed since Paul had been with the Philippians, and many new members had come into the congregation. All of them, whether they had had personal contact with Paul or not, are in this fellowship with him, “the fellowship regarding the gospel,” as he has already stated it (v. 5). So now again he puts the gospel forward: “defense and confirmation of the gospel,” for this gospel is the bond of this fellowship.

Philippians 1:8

8 With “for” Paul adds the final personal note and completes the picture of his relation to the Philippians. For God is my witness how I long for you all in the viscera of Christ Jesus.

This is usually regarded as an explanation as to how Paul has the Philippians in his heart; but his having them thus is a part of what precedes, namely of his thanking God every time he remembers them and thus making petition on their behalf. All of this will be more fully appreciated by the Philippians when they know how Paul longs again to be in their midst.

“My witness God” is not an oath as some seem to think. Note the same expression in Romans 1:9; also in v. 11, the longing to see the Romans. The longing is hidden in the heart, hence God alone is a direct witness of its presence. Paul names him as such, “witness of mine” thus being placed forward. This is Christian assurance and nothing more. Since he had been absent from Philippi for so long a time he longed the more to get back. He had not forgotten (“remembrance” in v. 3); he had not grown cold; his love had not lessened. He longed to see the old faces again but he says “all you,” for he yearned to see all the new members also.

If Paul had said “in my viscera,” all would have been simple. For the Greek made the nobler viscera, lungs, heart, and liver, the seat of the feelings as we now speak of the heart (see M.-M. 584); “bowels” (A. V.) is incorrect, for this usually refers to the intestines. “Tender mercies” (R. V.) is interpretative and thus satisfactory.

Many curious interpretations are on file, which are deserving no notice unless one is making a collection of oddities. One of the best interpretations is that of Bengel, which is adopted also by others: In Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non in Pauli sed Jesu Christi movetur visceribus. Bengel thinks that Paul is using mystical language and confuses mystical language with the unio mystica. We have mystical language in Rom. 6:4, etc.: buried, dead, raised with Christ, what happened to Christ physically in these saving acts happens in us spiritually in saving effects, the interval of time being disregarded, the means of grace being the medium. see Rom. 6. We at once see that when Paul longs “in the viscera of Christ Jesus” he is not using mystical language. Nor does ἐν indicate the unio mystica, for this denotes that Christ dwells in us and we in him by means of Word and Sacrament; nor can we leave out one of these two, either his “in us” or our “in him.” Yet this is what Bengel does in his exposition. Finally, it is impossible to think of the physical viscera of Christ, and still more impossible to think of a union of these with ours in anything like the unio mystica.

Paul omits the article. “Christ Jesus’ viscera,” as in 2:1, is not to be understood in the physical but in the metaphorical sense: the tender feelings and yearnings of Christ Jesus (not necessarily “mercies,” R. V.). The identification goes no farther than the feelings of Christ and of Paul. We are not taken beyond 2:5: “Let this mind (here also feeling) be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” We may say that this unity of minding the identical thing (2:5) and thus also having the same feelings (viscera, metaphorical) is the result of being mystically, spiritually joined to Christ. Surely, this is ample in every way. With Paul’s longing for the Philippians we connect 2:24.

Paul States the Contents of His Joyful Prayer for the Philippians

Philippians 1:9

9 We learn what that petition is which Paul ever makes “in behalf of you all.” And this I keep praying, that your love may yet more and more abound in full knowledge and in all perception so that you may keep testing the things that differ in order that you may be unalloyed and uninjured in regard to Christ’s day, filled with fruit of righteousness, this (fruit) through Jesus Christ, for God’s glory and praise.

This is the whole prayer in brief form. “And” joins it in a natural way to what Paul has been saying about his petition for the Philippians, his confidence in God, and his feelings for them. The idea that “and” connects with v. 8 is untenable because Paul is not saying that God is his witness that he is praying for these things and not for other things. His use of “I keep praying” (durative present tense) is not an objection to connecting it with “all my petition” in v. 4 as if this construction would require “I keep petitioning.” For this prayer is a petition, a great and comprehensive one. All petitioning is praying. Perhaps Paul used “I keep praying” because he wants to indicate that this petition was not the whole of his prayer but only the petition part of it, to which he adds the thanksgiving of v. 3.

Ἵνα is non-final in apposition with τοῦτο, an object clause stating the contents of the praying. “That your love may yet more and more abound in full knowledge and in all perception” implies that it is already to a degree abounding in both—surely thus justifying v. 3. This subjoining of knowledge to love is truly Pauline. In Romans 14 love must use the knowledge of the strong Christian so as not to hurt the weak. Gnõsis puffs up, love builds up (1 Cor. 8:1). To have all gnōsis but not love is to be nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). Ἀγάπη is the love of true knowledge and understanding coupled with corresponding purpose (see Eph. 1:4). But this understanding and purpose are fully emphasized here as belonging to love.

The less of these, the less of love; also vice versa. Paul is only partially understood unless one enters fully into this entire conception of love (agape) and its relation to knowledge, wisdom, understanding, etc. In Eph. 1:15 and 17 Paul prays for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding after having heard of the faith and love.

It is unwarranted to discover behind this prayer special failings on the part of the Philippians either in their relation to Paul or otherwise. Since they are already abounding, Paul’s desire is that no decline may ever set in but steady, healthy increase, for in every congregation, even also in the case of the best members in it, this is the mark of virile spiritual life. Ἐπίγνωσις, ErKenntnis, as distinguished from γνῶσις, Kenntnis, is full, true, genuine knowledge, here, of course, spiritual knowledge. Paul often uses the word in the sense of knowledge of the heart and not mere knowledge of the head. He adds “all perception.” While this word is used regarding the senses, it applies equally to the mind and the heart. Perceptions are due to experiences, hence Paul uses “all” with this noun. “Perception” is more precise than “judgment” (A. V., and margin: “sense”) or “discernment.”

Paul’s prayer is, then, that love may abound in its natural, native connection with true knowledge of the heart and with all the perception brought by experiences in life. This means stronger, wiser, abler love. Love is an active attribute, it reaches out and bestows; knowledge and perception bring into love what its nature requires for its work. The fact that this love is the fruit only of true faith, which likewise contains the knowledge of that in which it trusts, is ever understood in the Scriptures.

Philippians 1:10

10 Εἰςτόκτλ., indicates the result contemplated by Paul. Love that has this knowledge and this perception is to keep testing the things that differ. Δοκιμάζειν is a favorite word of Paul’s. Metals and coins were subjected to tests; in those days some coins were under weight, and any metal might be spurious or mixed with too much base alloy. The idea of testing the things that differ is thus not quite complete, hence the purpose clause is added in order to indicate the idea underlying the test.

The arresting thing in this clause is the fact that it does not deal with outside objects that are to be tested, some being appropriated because they are genuine, others being discarded because they are spurious or do not measure up to the test, but with the Philippians themselves: “in order that you may be unalloyed and uninjured in regard to Christ’s day,” when he makes the final test in the last judgment. This is masterly thinking. It drops the intermediate step and at once leaps to the ultimate. We test this or that, find it so or so; but even in the case of coins and metals, to say nothing about divine truth and base religious lies, moral excellence and moral deceits, we who do the testing or fail to do it, we who test with real knowledge and perception or with half-knowledge, not perceiving as we should, really ourselves undergo the test, are ourselves shown to be up to par or to be inferior.

Εἰλικρινής = of unmixed substance and in this sense sincerus, pure, i. e., “unalloyed.” Some accept the etymology which refers to the sun: the brightest sunlight showing no blemish (C.-K. 636); but this is uncertain, see especially Trench, Synonyms. The other etymology refers to rolling in a sieve in order to remove all worthless substances. The difference between this sort of cleanness and that expressed by καθαρός (both words are often found together) is that admixture makes unclean and again stain or filth clings to something. Of course, both “to test” and “unalloyed” are here to be understood in the ethical sense. But the terms correspond. Our versions, which translate “sincere,” are inadequate, for one with no real equipment or ability for testing may go at it sincerely enough, but his test amounts to nothing, and he himself is thus tested and found to be below par.

The debate regarding an ἀπρόσκοπος is whether this is active or passive, offering damage or undamaged, “uninjured” ourselves. Both meanings are found, here the context favors the latter. Doubly so, for this second adjective completes the idea of the first. For Christ’s great day we are to be people who are genuine through and through (without unspiritual alloy or admixture), and at the same time we are to be whole and complete, without injury. Keep the idea of a blow that damages. A genuine article may be damaged and worthless for this reason.

The idea of “offense” as a meaning of the blow is only a metaphorical turn. This second adjective rounds out: the ignorant tester first proves himself below par because of his alloy of ignorance, and thus by his ignorant testing gets a blow, gets damage to himself. We are to keep Christ’s day before us so that his test may not show any alloy or any damage in us which would necessitate our rejection.

Philippians 1:11

11 The perfect participle, which is added without a connective, is predicative to the adjective: “unalloyed and uninjured” by “having been and thus continuing to be filled (this is the force of the perfect) with fruit of righteousness, (the fruit that is produced) through Jesus Christ.” “Filled as to fruit” (the accusative with the passive) and remaining filled means leaving no room for anything that is not such fruit. We have a practical compound: Gerechtigkeitsfrucht. The phrase “through Jesus Christ” might modify the participle, but the article unites it with “fruit.” The emphasis is thus on the character of the fruit with which we are ever to be filled; no fruit of another character is to be mixed in at any time. It is the “righteousness-fruit” (qualitative genitive) described in Gal. 5:22, etc., and regarded as righteous by the Judge and by the norm of this Judge. This “fruit” consists of good works (Eph. 2:10); filled = Ps. 126:6b. At “Christ’s day” the Judge will pronounce a righteous judgment on all men’s works (Matt. 25:31–46). Paul wants all the Philippians to appear then as being filled with nothing but fruit of a righteous quality.

None of it can they produce by their own powers, hence this second and attributive (τόν) qualification “through Jesus Christ.” God fills the Philippians, but this fruit that passes the test at Christ’s day is such as develops and ripens only through the mediation (διά) of Jesus Christ, he enables its production. His grace, Spirit, Word, and gifts must be productive in us who are to be good trees (Matt. 7:17–19), good soil (Matt. 13:23). The figures used in v. 10 and 11 match. Fruit, too, is tested, critically examined, either accepted on examination or rejected. Let our baskets contain no admixture of fruit of the flesh or of unrighteousness, none that is σαπρός, “worthless” (Matt. 7:17).

“For God’s glory and praise” is like Eph. 1:6, 12, 14, and modifies the entire object for which Paul prays. see John 15:8. God’s glory is to be reflected in all that our hearts and our lives contain, and thus his praise is to fill all who have these contents. The genitive is objective: God is to be glorified and praised. This final phrase rounds out Paul’s prayer and completes its thought.

Survey this most comprehensive and beautiful prayer as a whole: love abounding (durative present)—in knowledge and all perception—ever making true tests (present iterative)—the purpose being that we ourselves may be unalloyed and uninjured for Christ’s judgment day—our hearts and lives filled with fruit, all righteous, all mediated by Christ—and all this to the glory and praise of God. What a sermon in parvo!

Paul Informs the Philippians with Joy about the Good Effects of the First Stage of his Trial

Philippians 1:12

12 Transitional δέ introduces the great and joyful news Paul has to impart. We see the fine spirit which thinks first of the spiritual interests of the Philippians (v. 3–11) and then turns to Paul’s own situation. Paul has great news to tell. The long-expected trial has begun, the first hearing has been most favorable. Since the Philippians are so anxious about Paul, he makes no delay in the letter, he tells about it right here. But while all centers on his own person, on his fate, acquittal or condemnation, Paul merges all in the gospel, in the effects his trial and its outcome are bound to have on the advancement or the retardation of the gospel work in Rome and in the Roman world generally.

Paul is only a pawn, the king in the game is the supreme issue. This fact is supreme, and nothing blurs or dims it in Paul’s eyes. That is why this section contains so little detailed information about Paul himself, the things so many of us would like to know and yet cannot extract from this man who writes chiefly about the gospel. Should we, too, not rise to his height, be less eager about these details, more satisfied with the great story of the gospel work?

Now I want to inform you, brethren, that the things pertaining to me have gone rather for the gospel’s advancement so that my bonds got to be published as in connection with Christ in the entire praetorium and (among) all the rest, and that more of the brethren in the Lord, being confident due to my bonds, the more dare fearlessly to utter the Word of God.

This is the great news about the gospel in Rome. Paul tells it with great joy. “I want to inform you” (“you to know”) is little more than a common epistolary formula for introducing special information. It is only a bit choice, not so much, by using βούλομαι instead of the commoner θέλω, but by using the present infinitive γινώσκειν instead of the common perfect εἰδέναι, which also explains why this infinitive is placed forward. Here is a piece of news that the Philippians are not to get to know only once, this being enough (perfect εἰδέναι), but one which will affect them personally for a long time (durative γινώσκειν). The former expresses only the relation of the subject to the object (C.-K. 388); hence the tense is as significant as the choice of the verb. “Brethren” is in line with this thought, the address also marks the new subject that is of such interest to Paul’s brethren.

“The things concerning me” (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; Rom. 1:15) means more than “my affairs,” for the phrase is stronger than a mere genitive “my.” Paul has in mind the recent developments in his case. We should like to know the full details, but Paul offers no hint. The messenger who carried Paul’s letter supplied the details as Tychicus did in Ephesus (Eph. 6:21). We gather only this, that Paul’s appeal to Caesar has recently come before the imperial court for decision, he has had his first hearing or hearings. Claudius was accustomed to attend to these in person, Nero is known to have referred them to his representative, and most likely did so in Paul’s case. Paul’s case had not yet been decided; it might, of course, still go wrong, but the start had been auspicious, and Paul’s hopes are strong. Thus he writes “that the things pertaining to me have gone rather for the gospel’s advancement.” The perfect tense, literally, “have gone,” means that they now continue in this condition.

He adds “rather” and thus touches upon all the fears and misgivings that were rife prior to his first hearing; things have, indeed, gone “rather” better than they might have gone.

The word used for “advancement” (it is not found in the classics, other examples are given in M.-M.) means to administer a blow and impel forward; “furthermore” (A. V.) is good. General advancement is meant, hence there is no article, it is concerned with “the gospel,” Paul merges all personal thoughts about his prospective freedom in this supreme concern. What an example for all present-day preachers! How many could write as Paul does?

Philippians 1:13

13 Ὥστε with its two infinitives states the actual double result and thus shows what a great advancement the gospel received in Rome. But note the difference in the tenses: ingressive aorist infinitive, “did get to be”—durative present, “dare the more.” The fact result (aorist) is followed by the continuous effect result (present). The fact was published far and wide that Paul’s imprisonment was connected with no crime or criminal charge but with “Christ,” and the effect of this was the greater daring with which so many brethren told everybody the Word of God.

On “bonds” see v. 7; masculine and neuter plural have the same meaning: “imprisonment” or “confinement.” The assumption that the neuter always = fetters and chains is incorrect. The datives in v. 7 and 14 seem also to be masculine. We should get the idea in φανεροὺςγενέσθαι: “got to be public or published.” Read the notes on the grand publication made in 2 Cor. 3:3. Here there is another. Paul’s case had all at once become a cause célèbre. If there had been dailies in Rome, Paul would have been on the front page. No; he was not averse to that, he was filled with joy. But not because of any glory this shed on him but only because of the publicity it gave the gospel which is itself news.

Rome’s prison had held many prisoners, also many Romans who made appeal to Caesar and who were proved innocent. The fact that Paul was another of the latter class was not news; it would have been such only if he had been a high Roman official or otherwise renowned in the empire; but he was not a great figure of this kind. The great thing on which the public eye was all at once focused is suggested by the phrase “in connection with Christ.”

Leave it where Paul placed it. It is not a modifier of “my imprisonment” but is placed between φανεροὺς—γενέσθαι and modifies this expression. To be sure, the emphasis on “among” whom this strange fact got to be public is evident; but this emphasis would be pointless without its own climactic point that in this publication in these great circles Paul’s confinement was connected with Christ. Christ was the cynosure of this public news. Paul’s innocence of any crime really interested no one. His release as an innocent man would scarcely have called out a remark.

The brevity of the phrase “in Christ” should not surprise us. Paul’s words: “in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (v. 7) are our cue. During the hearing of the appeal of this prisoner to Caesar his great legal defense and its legal confirmation of fact presented the gospel and all that it contained about Christ.

Never had such a case come before the imperial court. Never had such an ἀπολογία and such a βεβαίωσις been heard by its judge. The divine gospel itself and its Messiah Christ were before the supreme court of the world. May we not assume that Christ fulfilled his promise (Luke 12:11; 21:12–15; Mark 13:11; Matt. 10:19) to Paul so that the gospel and Christ lost nothing when Paul stood before this court? It was Christ’s own promise that had brought Paul there (Acts 9:15; 23:11). Christ had arranged everything from start to finish in order to produce the very effect here briefly described. Thus came about this great publicity “in the entire praetorium and (among) all the rest.”

The A. V. is incorrect in both text and margin. The emperor’s “palace” was never called τὸπραιτώριον, was “Caesar’s court” so named. This was the name for the barracks of the emperor’s guard, the castra praetoria outside the Porta Viminalis, or the name of this imperial guard itself which was also called cohortes praetoriae. From the time of Tiberius to that of Vespasian this guard consisted of nine cohorts, 1, 000 men in each (Tacitus). It was a picked body, all of its members were of Italian birth.

They received double pay and enjoyed special privileges, every soldier ranked with the centurions of the regular legions. The entire guard was not always stationed at Rome, certain divisions were at times posted in adjacent towns. Because of its numbers and its position the praetorian guard wielded a powerful influence in the state; the emperor often courted its favor and on his ascension bestowed liberal donations upon it. The praetorium cannot designate a place because “all the rest” cannot mean “all other places.” Both terms signify persons. We may regard both datives after ἐν in the sense of “among” although some regard the second as an indirect object: “in the whole praetorium and to all the rest” of the people.

Was Paul removed from his own rented house when his trial began? We can only guess. The court did not sit in the barracks, hence to place him there would not have made him promptly available at call. The praefectus praetorio had his office in the emperor’s palace, and Paul may have been placed there, say in the guardroom of the praetorian cohort on duty there. Wherever he was, his friends had full access to him, and he is able to dictate and to send this letter.

The way in which Paul writes “in the entire praetorium” and then refers to “the rest” evidently has back of it a special connection of Paul’s case with the praetorium. For two years, day after day, soldier after soldier had guarded Paul in his rented house. In this way Paul gained entrance into the praetorian cohorts. His daily guards heard all he said and did, talked about it in their barracks, became interested in the case, and, when it was now up for hearing, when it was established that the imprisonment had to do with this Christ of Paul’s teaching, the whole influential body of the imperial guard became thoroughly conversant with and interested in the case.

“All the rest” cannot mean only the praefectus who presided at Paul’s hearing; he commanded the praetorians and thus belonged to what Paul calls “the whole praetorium.” He and his officials heard Paul’s defense and confirmation as a matter of course. “Getting public” is a different thing from being brought to the judge’s ears in a courtroom; it is getting to the attention and into the talk of others, and here Paul even writes “all the rest.” This cannot mean less than Rome in general. The people of the capital of the world and its dominating military force, in the remarkable providence of God, through this lowly prisoner Paul, heard the whole gospel story of Christ. Since the imperial court had thus far acted favorably, all this publicity was likewise favorable. No wonder Paul was joyful.

Philippians 1:14

14 This had a marked effect upon “the brethren in the Lord” in Rome. It is thought that Paul coined this designation, but see Col. 1:2 and remember in how many ways he uses “in the Lord” and “in Christ.” “The brethren in the Lord” is such a natural expression that it may well have been current for a long while, and nobody knew who first used it. Paul refers to the members of the congregation in Rome. In Rom. 16:3–16 Paul names all those who were prominent in the congregation about four years before he wrote this epistle (see the author’s exposition of these salutations). Two large groups in the emperor’s very own household, slaves of the deceased Aristobulus and Narcissus (Rom. 16:10, 11), belonged to these brethren in the Lord. Paul mentions them as “those of Caesar’s house” in Phil. 4:22.

But we must add many more. On Paul’s arrival in Rome he began a great missionary work among the Jews in Rome. All the rabbis and other Jewish leaders came to Paul’s house; half of them came to faith that first day (Acts 28:24), and Paul continued this work among the Jews as Luke describes it in Acts (see the author’s exposition of this section of Acts). Now Rome had no less than seven great synagogues. After the conversion of about half of all the Jewish leaders we can see how many Jewish “brethren in the Lord” there must have been in Rome at the end of the two years. The host of Jewish converts did not unite with the original congregation of Rom. 16:3–16. Several of the synagogues became Christian congregations in the great city, these were composed exclusively of converted Jews.

Now all this favorable publicity about the connection of Paul’s imprisonment with Christ inspired more of these many brethren with confidence “the more (περισσοτέρως) to dare fearlessly to utter the Word of God.” Our versions are correct, the dative cannot mean: “trusting or relying on my bonds (imprisonment),” but means: “confident by or through my imprisonment,” i. e., “due to it” (dative of means or of cause), now that all Rome knew the connection of this imprisonment with Christ and Paul’s vindication soon to be declared by the court. The clouds that had so long been hanging over the head of the great exponent of Christianity in Rome, no less a man than the apostle, were disappearing. Instead of being silent, more brethren than ever, with more courage than ever, were fearlessly speaking aloud (λαλεῖν) the Word of God. Openly and boldly they confessed their faith by letting all men hear the Word of God, the gospel of Christ.

Brave hearts had done this before when nobody as yet had any intimation as to how Paul’s case would fare before the imperial court. Even these now showed greater daring (τολμᾶν). Their number was increased. It was still daring, it still required fearlessness to speak out. Paul’s case had not been concluded. An evil turn might yet make it go wrong.

If the imperial court condemned Paul to exile, to the mines, or to death, to have talked Christianity so openly in the capital itself might entail serious consequences. But the prospect was now markedly favorable. Paul is praising all these many brethren. He is not blaming either those who had been or those who still were timid. Courage must develop even as faith must have time to grow. But to see so many now so courageous made Paul’s heart joyful indeed.

Philippians 1:15

15 Some, indeed, are preaching Christ because of envy and strife, some, indeed, because of good will—from love, having come to know that I am placed for the gospel’s defense; those are proclaiming the Christ from self-seeking, not with pure motive, thinking to be raising up affliction for my bonds.

All this gold of speaking the Word fearlessly in Rome was not without alloy. Here is the place to recall v. 10, Paul’s prayer that the Philippians may be “unalloyed and uninjured.” When some read this letter, they think that Paul’s words may reflect the conditions found only in Philippi. May they not reflect Paul’s own experiences right here in Rome? Well, here were Roman brethren who were not “unalloyed and uninjured.”

Τινὲςμέν—τινὲςδέ is exactly like the following οἱμέν—οἱδέ: “some—some.” The two καί help to emphasize the phrases and have somewhat the force of “indeed.” It is plain that Paul is dividing the brethren mentioned in v. 14 into two groups, one that has grave faults, the other of noble nature and motive. The view that he cannot call the former “brethren in the Lord” who have gained confidence due to Paul’s bonds clashes with the way in which Paul writes “some—some,” which every normal reader will refer to v. 14. These faulty brethren, Paul himself says, preach the Christ; they are not Judaizers, heretics. Paul calls the faulty Galatians, Corinthians, and others, “brethren” despite their very grave faults. Calvin writes: “Paul says nothing here which I myself have not experienced.”

“Because of envy and strife” = because these men are envious of Paul and thus intend to raise up strife and dispute with him. The meanness thus manifested is the greater because their own boldness in preaching was due to the way in which Paul’s case was going. They had the benefit of that, and this was the manner in which they repaid it! Many of this type have appeared in the church, who are envious because God has given greater gifts and more influential positions to other men. They feel thrust into the background, their authority and their following have been reduced, hence they carp, find fault, raise strife. The fact that Rome had some of these causes little wonder.

Not only had Paul been prominent and successful from the start (Acts 28:24), all Rome was now talking about him. All this irked them: people always quoting Paul, praising Paul. Were there not also other men in Rome, meaning themselves? Well, they would show Paul and everybody else; they would preach the Christ with such vim as to draw all eyes on themselves and away from Paul.

Contrast this conduct with the noble and magnanimous spirit with which Paul writes about them. He shows not the least resentment. It takes two to have strife, and Paul is not going to be the other person. He rejoices and will rejoice in the main thing which ever remains that Christ be proclaimed as widely as possible. This does not imply that he is indifferent to the faults of these men. Is he not pointing out the faults which these men display so publicly?

Others, indeed, do their testifying “because of good will,” “good pleasure” (used regarding God in Eph. 1:5, 9), the free determination to do the good thing, here, it seems, in their relation to Paul, loving, honoring, aiding him as the great apostle of the church. The word κηρύσσειν is used only in the sense of the preceding λαλεῖν so that we do not restrict it to “preachers” in the narrow sense, “elders” of the Roman congregations.

Philippians 1:16

16 The A. V. transposes v. 16 and 17 contrary to the better texts and spoils the chiasm, the very thing Paul intends for both effect and beauty of form. Since “some—some” precedes, we regard οἱμέν—οἱδέ as subjects: “these—those”; and not as the American Committee proposes which substantivizes the phrases: “they that are moved by love—they that are factious.” As is done in v. 15, the verb is omitted in the first clause, and that of the second answers for both in neat and effective fashion.

Ἐκ = the source of the action and states the inner motive: “these, from love” (see v. 9), the love of real understanding and purpose. As in v. 9 Paul wants this love to be full of real, true knowledge, so he here adds: “having come to know (aorist) that I am placed for the gospel’s defense.” Theirs is enlightened, intelligent love in regard to the very point here involved. They act on it accordingly. “Love is blind,” but never ἀγάπη. Nor is it informed only in a general way (which satisfies so many); in any of its actions it has to have a knowledge of the special fact or facts involved in those actions otherwise it will after all not be “unalloyed” (v. 10). These brethren did not merely “like” Paul; they saw what his office and his imprisonment meant in the plans of God and acted accordingly.

Κεῖμαι = “to lie”; the present tense is used as a present perfect, a substitute for the unused passive of τίθημι (R. 906): “I am placed or set,” i. e., “I stand for the gospel’s defense.” This is, however, the same “defense” as that mentioned in v. 7. The law and court term denotes Paul’s pleading before the imperial court where in Paul’s view not he himself but the gospel is on trial, he being only its mouthpiece, a prisoner in God’s plan for that very reason. Knowing this inner fact, these brethren acted accordingly in what they did for the gospel “from love.”

Philippians 1:17

17 The others, indeed, also “announce” or “proclaim the Christ” (“speak the Word of God,” v. 14); and this is the same as “preach the Christ,” which is said of those who do it in good will (v. 15). But the others do it “from self-seeking,” ἐριθεία; this word is explained in Rom. 2:8, which see. Their motive is mercenary in the sense of being selfish; “of contention” (A. V.), “of faction” (R. V.) are incorrect renderings. “Not purely” defines the thought that their motive is not unmixed; it has this self-seeking as a base alloy. Their love is not pure gold throughout. “Thinking to be raising up affliction for my bonds (imprisonment)”—or is this a dative of place: “in my bonds” (R.

V.)? They thought they were vexing Paul. Imagining him to be actuated by motives and thoughts like their own, they supposed that any special success on their part would make him envious of them, would make him chafe in his confinement which prevented him from competing as fully with them as he otherwise might.

Philippians 1:18

18 Little did they understand the man whom they intended to afflict. What then? Only that in every way, whether with pretense, whether with truth, Christ continues to be proclaimed! And in this I rejoice, yea, also will continue to rejoice.

Τίγάρ; is an idiom: “Well now!” “What about it?” Some would construe it with the following: “What, then, except that,” etc. The writer halts as if to consider for a moment and then with πλήν singles out the main thing in the whole affair, which is that in every possible way Christ be continually proclaimed: “only,” “at any rate” (B.-D. 449; though see R. 646).

“Whether with pretense” is made clear by the opposite, “whether with truth.” The latter is from a true, unalloyed motive; hence the former is with a pretense of such a true motive. In the early church this passage was used to shield heretics so that Chrysostom and others had to protest. R., W. P., says: “Some Christ is better than no Christ,” as though Christ can be divided! A bridge that reaches within a foot of the opposite bank is not a bridge. Those who think that these envious promulgators of Christ were Judaizers find it difficult to explain Paul’s joy.

No false doctrine ever found as much as tolerance on the part of Christ or on the part of the apostles. The tolerance of unionism was a later practice of errorists. The error (lack of ἐπίγνωσις, v. 9) in the early misapplication of this passage is evident: motive is confused with substance.

“Christ” and “the Christ” are used identically with regard to both kinds of preachers: the substance was identical. The motives differed; in one group they pretended to be the true ones but were not; Paul states what they really were. That is why Paul could bear them in Christian longsuffering. He did not condone them; he condemns these motives just as he did when he was writing to the Christians in Rome.

But he keeps his balance. His own person and its luster fade into the background; even whether he lives or dies is unessential (v. 20). This selfish ambition that tried to outshine him and hurt his feelings did not disturb his equanimity even for a moment. “In this” that Christ is being preached in every way although from wrong motives by some, he says, “I rejoice!” Paul was no light-minded optimist who laughed when he should weep. The faults in Christian hearts are not held so close to his eyes that he no longer sees Christ preached over all of Rome. Here is his note of joy again, doubled at that.

Paul Tells the Philippians of His One Desire to Magnify Christ during the Rest of his Trial

Philippians 1:19

19 From what has transpired at the start of his trial Paul turns to what the outcome of it may be. Whether this be life for him as he hopes, or death, his one desire is that Christ be magnified. The words in which he concentrates his thought (v. 21) find an echo in all true Christian hearts; poets have clothed them in metrical forms:

“For me to live is Jesus,

For me to die is gain;

To Christ I gladly yield me,

And pass where he has lain.”

The last words of v. 18: “Yea, also I will continue to rejoice!” have been drawn to what follows by some because Paul now deals with the future. These punctuate accordingly. Since “I will rejoice” is decidedly emphatic, following, as it does, “I do rejoice,” these commentators seek to find a still greater cause for joy, one that rises above the preaching of Christ in all Rome. They find it in the words: “I know that this for me shall turn out for salvation” by assuming this to be Paul’s own personal final salvation. Yet Paul never places a personal benefit above the spread of the gospel. He has no climax of this kind.

Paul does this: with “I rejoice” he lifts himself above all the despite he suffers from those who proclaim Christ in order to cause him affliction in his imprisonment; and with “I will rejoice” he lifts himself above any other despite that these or any others may in the future try to offer him. Verse 18 belongs to the preceding.

Paul now turns to the possible outcome of his trial, and not merely as this may affect only himself, but as it may affect also the Philippians. The prospect is bright indeed: he expects to be set free. But he considers also the other possibility. He views both in their bearing on the Philippians but sees as his supreme desire only this, that Christ may be magnified among men, whether this be by his own life or by his death. The thing that is supreme for Paul in v. 12–18 is the same as that which is supreme in v. 19–26: Christ.

For I know that this for me shall turn out for salvation through your petition and supply from the Spirit of Jesus Christ according to my earnest expectation and hope that in not a single thing shall I be made ashamed, but in all boldness, as always, also now Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by means of life, whether by means of death.

All this explains (γάρ) how Paul can say, not only that he is rejoicing, but also that he will continue to do so. He knows one great fact which rejoices him now and will do so in the future, however his trial may turn out: “this for me shall turn out for salvation through the petition that comes from you (genitive of source) and the supply (in consequence of that petition) that comes from the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” Paul “knows” this fact, and it assures his joy in all that he has yet to face in his trial.

He alludes to Job 13:16: “He also my salvation,” yeshuʿah, and uses the very words of the LXX but in the sense of the original. Delitzsch translates:

“Schon das waere mir zum Heile, Dass nicht darf vor ihm ein Ruchloser erscheinen.”

“Already this would be for my preservation that no hypocrite dare appear before him.” Job is on trial as Paul is. He may go down physically but not morally. Already this is his great moral advantage that no false person dare stand before God as Job is doing, whose heart is filled with integrity. The word “salvation” is not to be taken in its deeper sense; es bedeutet hier Heil als Sieg im Rechtstreit, Delitzsch: being saved in a judicial trial. The comments which think of heavenly salvation are beside the mark. Neither Job nor Paul have that in mind.

We must take the whole of what Paul says just as we must keep to the context in Job. Neither has in mind a “salvation” that implies that he is to live on. Job says: “though he slay me”; Paul: “whether through death.” Both may, or also may not, be slain. That is in the hands of God, and they leave it there. They are saved from what would be far worse for them. In the case of Job this is the thought that God would find him to be a Ruchloser or hypocrite in this trial induced by the accusation of his false comforters.

In the case of Paul it is the idea that during the rest of his trial before the imperial court he disgrace Christ and the gospel. Nor are these two men diverse. If in his defense at court Paul should think only of himself he would be inwardly false, the type of a man that Job says dare not stand before God.

Paul says that he knows he will be saved from anything like this. By τοῦτο he refers to his trial: this will turn out safely for him so that he will not disgrace the gospel through cowardice, fear, lack of free utterance, or any inadequacy. He states the thing that will help him in his “defense and confirmation of the gospel” (v. 7), the only thing about which he is concerned. The means (διά) on which he relies is “the petition from you and supply from the Spirit of Jesus Christ”; one article unites the two, both are genitives of source.

Paul makes “petition” for the Philippians (v. 4), they make “petition” for him. We see what the latter is: that he may have an abundance of “the supply” which, according to Christ’s own promise (Matt. 10:19, 20; Luk. 12:12; 21:14, 15), the Holy Spirit will furnish the apostle and the Christians when they are haled before earthly judges. Jesus said that they are not even to study in advance what and how they shall make answer, at the critical moment the Holy Spirit will put the correct answer into their mouth. We see why Paul writes “the Spirit of Jesus Christ”; he knows all about that promise. On “supply” see Eph. 4:16. The genitive is not appositional: supply = the Spirit; it is subjective: supply which the Spirit furnishes.

Philippians 1:20

20 Paul unfolds his thought still further. He knows that this trial shall turn out safely for him as far as his doing full justice to the gospel is concerned since so many besides himself are praying that the Spirit may supply him all that he needs. The thought that this affair of his will turn out safely is modified by the phrase, “according to my earnest expectation and hope that in not a single thing I shall be made ashamed.” The thing that he knows accords with this expectation and hope (one article joins these two). Without this knowledge this expectation and hope in his heart would have no basis. Paul has used ἀποκαραδοκία (papyri) also in Rom. 8:19: watching for something with head stretched forward to see its very first appearance, “hope” completes the idea.

The verb is passive and implies an agent; hence the thought is not that Paul will in no thing become ashamed by what he may say or do at his trial but that the Spirit of Jesus Christ will make Paul ashamed in not one thing by failing to give him due supply of what and how to speak at his trial. Paul’s hope and expectation is that not even in a single thing (the phrase is placed forward) will the Spirit on whom he counts fail him and thus put him to shame in his hope. Rom. 5:5.

The opposite is: “but (that) in all freedom of utterance, as always, also now Christ shall be magnified,” etc. Paul does not say, that I shall magnify Christ; the verb is again a future passive, again the Spirit is the implied agent, he will use Paul as the instrument to magnify Christ. This is Paul’s earnest expectation and hope. “In all boldness, as always, also now,” means free speech that is restricted and cowed by no fear or no consideration of Paul’s own person. So he had “always” spoken the gospel when he was a free man, so the Spirit will help him to speak “also now” in the rest of his trial before his Roman judge.

Give this a little thought. Suppose you were to appear as a preacher before the U. S. Supreme Court, and suppose this Court to be thoroughly pagan. Would it be so easy to speak with perfect freedom “as always,” as in your own pulpit, your own town? And this free utterance, remember, is not just a free tongue but utterance that in not a single word, expression, or implication hurts the cause of Christ or falls short in doing it perfect justice. That is what Paul means. After a critical occasion we think often too late of just the way in which we should have said something. In the case of Paul such a danger will be excluded. He himself will marvel at what the Spirit led him to say.

In John 7:4 and Col. 2:15 ἐνπαρρησίᾳ means “in public.” B.-P. 1007, some commentators, and the author formerly (Eisenach Epistle Selections) so interpret here. Yet here the phrase has the addition “all.” While “in public” would fit “as always,” it does not fit “also now” because this refers to the courtroom of Caesar where appeals were heard, which was not open to the public. The idea that the phrase cannot refer to Paul personally because the statement is objective does not note “in my body” which is subjective enough. “In my body” is used instead of “in me” since “whether by means of life, whether by means of death” follows. The reference is to the outcome of the trial “now” in progress. The Spirit will magnify Christ in all the frank and free utterance he will enable Paul to make, no matter what means the Spirit will use for the outcome. He may use life for Paul’s body, again he may use death.

That is for the Spirit to determine. As far as the Spirit’s supply is concerned which enables Paul to speak in all boldness before his judge, Paul’s life or his death at the termination of the trial in no way affects that. Note that διά is to express means, and that the agent in the passive (the Spirit of Jesus Christ) is the one who employs the means.

Philippians 1:21

21 There is no reason to think that γάρ elucidates “I shall continue to rejoice,” and to go back as far as v. 18, or “I shall not be ashamed” in v. 20. The connection, the emphasis, the meaning itself are clear. For for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

Every reader can see that this explains “Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by means of life, whether by means of death.” Here there are the very infinitives “to live,” “to die,” that take up the nouns “life,” “death” that precede. Here, too, is the same word “Christ.” He will be magnified as well by means of Paul’s death as by means of his life, “for” for Paul to live is Christ, and to die is to have all the gain Christ promises us.

The same is true with regard to the emphasis on the ἐμοί which is placed forward. Here, too, there is a difference of opinion. The majority say: to me, whatever the case may be with regard to others. But v. 20 has indicated no others. Some refer back to v. 15–18, to those who proclaim Christ from envy, from intent to place Paul into the shade. But the last persons to be mentioned are found in v. 19, the Philippians who are making petition for Paul, with whom he is not in contrast.

This “for me” is in contrast with the divine agent implied in the preceding verb, who will magnify Christ in Paul’s body whether by Paul’s life, whether by Paul’s death. This magnifying is what he, this agent (God or the Spirit of Jesus Christ), will do by means of either Paul’s life or his death; and now Paul explains (“for”) what this living or dying, which this divine agent will use, is to him. The one is an objective statement about Paul’s body living or dead that tells us what the Spirit will do with it; the other is subjective and tells us what this living or dying is for Paul personally. The Spirit could not magnify Christ in Paul’s body by means of life if for Paul to live were not Christ; nor in Paul’s body by means of death if for Paul to die were not gain. But both are “for me,” Paul says, these very things. In either way, then, by the Spirit Christ will be magnified in my body.

Τὸζῆν is properly a present durative infinitive, for living is continuous; but τὸἀποθανεῖν must be a punctiliar aorist, for “to die” is a momentary act. Who would think that immediately after saying: “in my body, whether by life, whether by death,” the next words: “to be living—to die” are to be understood in a different sense and introduce a new contrast: “to be living spiritually—to die bodily”? Yet after von Hofmann introduced this exegesis others followed him. Despite the exactly parallel wording: τὸζῆνΧριστός—τὸἀποθανεῖνκέρδος we are told that this is a chiasm, that both infinitives are not subjects, nor both unarticulated nouns are predicates, but that Paul says: “For me Christ (subject) means that I live spiritually (predicate), and that I die (subject) means gain (predicate).” We are told that any reader would at once see this chiasm, that he must see it since in v. 20 Paul writes “body” in connection with “life” and with “death,” and in v. 22, “to live in the flesh”; but here in v. 21, “to live” without a modifier such as “body” or “flesh,” therefore this unmodified “to live” must be taken in a different sense: “to live spiritually,” and is also in a different construction, it is not a subject but a predicate.

But millions of readers, in fact, the church as such have never seen this. Paul’s γάρ connects v. 21 with v. 20. The English may have two sentences, but they belong most closely together, no matter how we punctuate. Since Paul starts with bodily life and closely follows with “to live” when he elucidates, this means “to live bodily” even as the new sentence (v. 22) goes on speaking about another thing (δέ) in this bodily living. A contrast that is as great as living in the body and flesh and living spiritually, the spiritual being placed between the other two, would call for an indication by at least a word: “to live spiritually” or “to live in spirit.” Even then, in order to have a chiasm Paul would have had to place the terms chiastically: “for me Christ means to live spiritually; to die means gain.” Chiasms are written chiastically so the eye may see them: subject—predicate;—predicate—subject. Here: noun—infinitive; infinitive—noun. Yet Paul did not write in this way.

Ζωή and ζῆν may, indeed, be used to designate both bodily and spiritual life and living. That is why Paul adds “in my body” (v. 20) and “in the flesh” (v. 22) in order to indicate that here, where he speaks of “life” and “death” or “living” and “dying,” these terms refer to the body. Having referred both to the body in v. 20, they remain so in v. 21. When he further speaks about “fruit,” and this is spiritual, one might think that now (v. 22), since Paul has said his life is Christ, he may intend “to live” in the spiritual sense. But no; Paul says that he is still speaking of the bodily life: “to live in the flesh.” Also this (in v. 23) is still the subject as in v. 21 where, if Χριστός were the subject, the word would have the article. What impresses some who read von Hofmann’s interpretation of living spiritually is this spiritual feature, it sounds more profound.

But what profundity is there in saying that to a man like Paul, Christ means to be living spiritually? Even the deeper sense that is sought is, when tested, disappointing.

What Paul says is arresting, namely that for him to be living this bodily life “is Christ.” He does not identify the two, for that thought would require the article with the predicate “Christ” (R. 768). It would also not be true, for then to die bodily would be to lose Christ. This statement introduced with γάρ elucidates “Christ shall be magnified in my body by means of life.” The great thing said in elucidation is that all Paul’s bodily living (durative infinitive), all his bodily life activity, “is Christ.” This is a new and a concentrated way of saying that he is a δοῦλος or “slave of Christ” who has no will of his own, that Christ alone moves his body and all its members according to his will. That is why he turns from the noun “life” used in v. 20 to the infinitive “to be living,” and to this in the present tense. Recall all that Paul says in different places about the Christian’s body and its members, for instance in Rom. 12:1; 6:12, 13; 6:19, where “fruit” follows in 6:22 as it does here in v. 23. Note the connection with the magnifying of Christ mentioned in v. 20. Look at Paul’s life and living day by day, it is all “Christ.” And it is thus that “Christ will ever be magnified in his body.”

“And” is not “but”; nor is there an adversative thought or a contrast in the thought that Paul’s getting to die (aorist) is gain. These two go together as though they were one: bodily living—Christ; bodily undergoing death—gain. Here not the noun “death” used in v. 20 is in place but the infinitive “to die.” There is not an “antithesis” between “to live” and “to die.” If this were the case, the predicates ought to indicate wherein the two are antithetical; but the predicates do not do so: “Christ” and “gain” (profit of any kind) are not in antithesis. Paul does not write δέ. And has Paul not already removed all antithesis by the wording: “in my body, whether by means of life, whether by means of death”? Life and death are not antitheses, they are alternatives.

The aorist infinitive is simply the close of the durative infinitive: “to live” at last reaches the point marked by “to die.” The long line eventually comes to this end Paul views it thus. In their conjunction both statements elucidate the magnifying of Christ in Paul’s body as v. 20 shows with conjunctive “whether—whether.” Neither statement could stand by itself. Only the living that is Christ reaches the getting to die that is gain; no dying is gain unless it closes the living that is Christ. Christ will not be magnified by means of a death that does not close a life that has already magnified him. So Paul might have said what he does say in a slightly different form in Rom. 14:8: “For me to live is Christ, and for me to die is also Christ.” It would be true. He practically does say that in v. 20.

By saying “gain” in the second clause he says more. He tells us what more he means when he speaks of it in v. 23 as being “by far better” and calls it “to be with Christ.” Yes, he is with Christ now, both while he lives and when he dies, but only spiritually, by faith; when he is dead he will be “with Christ” in the way in which he has long desired to be with him, namely visibly, gloriously. This is the “gain.”

“Gain” thus goes beyond “Christ” used in the first clause, but only in the way indicated. “Gain” takes us only one step farther. “Christ” is not left behind, “gain” only has him to magnify him in a new, in a glorious association. Yes, it is “gain” when our living is Christ. But the word fits better at the end of life, for it means the profit one obtains from a previous investment. It is what one cashes in at the end. Thus “gain” adds the subjective part to the objective, what Paul gets at the end when he comes to die: that he is then with Christ in glory after a life of living Christ, of spiritually making Christ the sum and substance of his living.

One line on the page, scarcely that; yet so blessed, so glorious the substance expressed!

Philippians 1:22

22 Now if (it is) to go on living in the flesh, this for me (means) fruit of work. And what shall I choose? I do not know. Moreover, I am held from the two (sides), having the desire for getting to depart and to be with Christ, for it is very far better; yet to go on remaining in this flesh is more necessary on account of you.

The margin of the R. V. shows how translators vary regarding v. 22. We need not discuss the matter except to say that “this is the fruit of my labor” is incorrect; Paul writes: “This (to go on living, durative present as in v. 21) for me (is, i. e., means—supply the same copula in the same sense as in v. 21) fruit of work.” In an objective way he views the possibility that his trial before the imperial court may permit him to go on living; hence there is no copula in the protasis, and we must supply an indicative: “If it is (or shall be) that I am to go on living.” This, he says, means for me “fruit of work,” i. e., that I shall do more work as an apostle because of my prolonged life and secure more fruit (“fruit,” in Rom. 1:13). To get such further fruit makes Paul want to go on living. All his past apostolic life had been just this: “fruit of labor” (genitive of origin). We have already explained why “in the flesh” is added.

We do not regard this sentence as an anacoluthon (contra R. 1023). When Paul does use an anacoluthon he has a reason for doing so. There is no such reason here. While the question with the indicative future might be indirect and deliberative (R. 875) as in the classics, we agree with B.-D. 368 that this can scarcely be the case here. Robertson admits that it would be the only instance in the New Testament. Nothing prevents us from regarding it as a direct question: “And what shall I choose for myself (middle)?” Paul confesses: Οὐγνωρίζω, “I do not know.” Our versions have the archaic: “I wot not.” Here, too, there is a debate, for in the New Testament this verb is used in the causative sense “to make known.” Hence some prefer that sense here: “I do not make known.” One does not, of course, make known a thing that he himself does not know.

The papyri, however, show that this verb continued to be used also in its original classic meaning “to know” (B.-P. 256). We agree with C.-K. 257 that it is so used here: Ich erkenne es nicht. The causative sense really lurks in the word as it is here used, for which reason neither οἶδα nor γινώσκω is in place. By using γνωρίζω Paul intends to say: “I am without cause of knowing,” i. e., God does not let me know. The thought is: nothing has enabled Paul to know just what to prefer for himself. We should note that he is not speaking of what will come to pass, whether life or death, but only of what he should prefer if he alone had the choice. Any hint from God in either direction would at once be decisive for Paul, but God had given him no hint as to the choice to make.

Philippians 1:23

23 That is why he adds something (δέ) regarding this matter of making a choice: “Moreover, I am held (restrained) from the two” alternatives or sides, “I am in a strait between the two” (our versions). Yet ἐκ points to the source from which the double impetus comes. “The two” is definite, for Paul has named them: life or death. When he again names them he makes a fine distinction in two ways. To indicate the possibility of dying he uses a participle as if this were a minor thing; to express the possibility of living for the benefit of his readers he uses a finite expression. This is not accidental. Again, the thought of death is expressed subjectively: “having the desire to depart”; the thought of living is put objectively: “to remain is more necessary.” Both differences show how exactly Paul weighed the two alternatives.

The one was combined with his personal desire, which he regards as minor because it is only his own desire; the other is combined with a necessity regarding his readers, which Paul thus regards as major. But note well that he speaks only of the pressing in upon him of these considerations. The real alternatives remain: life—death; this desire and this necessity are only attached to these in exerting pressure upon Paul.

One often simply yields to his own personal desire over against something that is really more necessary. Paul’s wording shows that he clearly distinguished between the two and does not yield to the former. He adds no undue weight to his personal desire; he subtracts no weight from the special necessity. In other words, if death is to be his lot, he will be happy in having his desire fulfilled, but if life is to be his lot, he will be happy in serving others with the fruit of his further work (v. 22). What a fine example, and what a perfect way of stating the alternatives! The meaning of ἐπιθυμία is determined by the context which often gives the word the meaning “lust,” plural “lusts”; here the connotation is good: “desire for getting to depart,” the εἰς phrase = a dative (R. 1076). The infinitive means “to break camp,” thus to leave or depart, it is properly an aorist.

Departure from this life means for Paul “to be with Christ,” σύν to indicate the heavenly association with him. “The opinion constantly bobbing up, a view of the apostle ever fluctuating and getting into contradiction with itself regarding the nearness of the Parousia and the relation of death to this event, and regarding the proximate circumstances of the end, belong to the most ill-considered and fanciful notions which the newer criticism has cultivated.” Wohlenberg’s severe verdict is only too true. These critics have Paul say: he is certain he will see the Parousia, he is certain he will not see it; the believing dead will sleep in unconsciousness, will be in the dim, dark sheol, realm of the dead, will come back during the millennium, etc. That a man who so often faced immediate death should reckon with the thought of dying soon is too plain to need comment. That an apostle should pretend to know more than Jesus about the time of the Parousia is incredible. It might come at any time or might be long delayed. Paul speaks accordingly.

The body alone sleeps in death, after death the soul is with Christ, glorious, in bliss (Acts 7:59, 60). The millennium is a fiction. Let this suffice. “To be with Christ” is the assured hope of every dying Christian, which all the fancies of “the newer criticism” (Wohlenberg) will never disturb.

Philippians 1:24

24 Paul adds regarding thus being with Christ, literally: “for (this) is rather by much better,” in English: “for it is much better.” The same thought is expressed in 2 Cor. 5:8. The two comparatives match: “better”—“more necessary.” Each balances between two alternatives; each puts a plus against a minus, but at one time the plus is on the one, at another time on the other side. It is this that puts Paul into his undecided state. Who can blame him? Whichever the Lord will allot to him as the outcome of his trial, Paul is bound to be happy, for he is bound to get either the one plus or the other.

Yet the two plus are diverse. The one is “better” by a good deal for Paul personally, the other is “more necessary on account of you,” Paul’s readers, namely for Paul “to remain on in this flesh.” In v. 22 ἐνσαρκί needs no article, here the article of previous reference is in place. “Flesh” = “my body” (v. 20), and this does not meat “sinful flesh,” for sinfulness is foreign to the discussion. The article leads us to think that ἐν is genuine; even without it the dative would = place.

Philippians 1:25

25 Paul does not know which alternative to choose as far as choosing on his part is concerned. So he does not choose. Another will attend to this for him. The point he now treats is: can he determine in any way which the Lord will choose for him? To a degree he can, and this even on the basis of the analysis he has just made. When it comes to what is better for Paul alone and what is more necessary for many others, the great probability is that the Lord will choose the latter unless, indeed, still other factors enter such as the Lord alone knows and weighs.

And in regard to this having become confident, I know that I shall remain, even remain by the side of all of you for the advancement of you and joy about the faith in order that your reason for boasting may increase in Christ Jesus in connection with myself through my own presence back with you.

This knowing is qualified, is different from that mentioned in v. 19, qualified by the thing of which Paul has become confident, namely that “to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for you.” In v. 6, “having become confident of this very thing that” refers forward as the word order itself shows. Now the word order is reversed, τοῦτο refers back, and ὅτι alone belongs after “I know.” Paul’s knowing rests on only this confidence of his; he does not know absolutely, in an unqualified way. Some refer to their interpretation of v. 19 and thus find a contradiction, but none exists; see v. 19.

Moulton (Einleitung 187, etc.) draws attention to the Greek idiom of using a simplex after a compound verb, the simplex to be understood in the same sense as the compound: “to remain on in the flesh—I shall remain,” both mean to remain alive. R. 828 points out that in the second compound the stress is on the preposition: “I shall remain (alive in general)—I shall remain by the side of all of you (with you all).” Hence καί is ascensive: “even.” The latter is more than the former.

But Paul now adds the qualifier: remain with you all “for the advancement of you and joy about the faith, in order that,” etc. This alone is the thing for which the Lord, Paul is confident, will want him to remain. This, then, is what he thinks he can say that he knows. If it were not for this necessity regarding Paul’s readers the Lord would most likely fulfill Paul’s desire to depart and to be with his Lord.

Paul is not flattering himself as though his readers still need him. He says only that he is confident they do, and he describes in what respect he thinks they do. He was in a position to know, and we know that he judged correctly, that the Lord did let him remain on. He was released from his imprisonment and lived on for a few years. Then came his second and fatal imprisonment, during which he wrote in an entirely different way (2 Tim. 4:6–8).

One article connects the two nouns “advancement and joy” exactly as in the διά phrase in v. 19. Each noun also has a genitive attached and placed chiastically as in v. 19. Whereas there the genitives are both subjective: petition which the Philippians make, supply which the Spirit furnishes, here they are both objective: advancement of the Philippians, joy about the faith. In regard to the former there is no question, hence there should be none in regard to the second since the governing nouns are used with one article. That means that “the faith” is objective: joy over what the Philippians believe and not merely over their act of believing. Yet this does not appeal to some; they confuse the genitives by making one objective, the other subjective or possessive, and usually “the faith” is subjective faith (qua creditur), hence Glaubensfreude. We are told that πίστις is never objective although it is so in a score of instances when it is used with the article.

We should note Vitelli’s idea in M.-M. 487, etc., that παραμένω is a euphemism for “to serve,” and Schmid’s finding that in late Greek the word means “to remain alive” Yet Schmid produces no examples to substantiate his idea of παραμένω, and here Paul’s simplex: “I know that I shall remain,” plainly means “that I shall remain alive.” The examples offered for the meaning “to serve” lack the idea of serving; they mention only length of time: “remain with” so or so long a time just as Paul uses the words here. Εἰς states the object for which Paul knows that he will remain for the Philippians. This object consists of what he will furnish them.

Philippians 1:26

26 With ἵνα he adds the purpose, the intention regarding what they may have when Paul’s object is attained: “that your reason for boasting (καύχημα, not καύχησις, the action) may continue to increase (present, durative) in Christ Jesus in me through my own presence back with you.” The “advancement and joy” are evidently referred to as “the reason for boasting” and being elated. They will, of course, abound “in connection with Christ Jesus,” for all advancement and joy ever remain in the sphere that is bounded by Christ. The emphasis is on the phrases “in me through my own presence back with you.” That is why “in me” is amplified. “In me” = “in connection with my person” (see R. 587), namely Paul’s own personal presence back with the Philippians. Yes, when Paul is again in their midst, his very presence and the stimulation (προκοπή) and the joy it will produce will increase their reason for boasting of what Christ has done for them.

Παρουσία is the word used with reference to the presence of Christ when he returns at the last day; it has become technical for that but here has its common meaning. Ἐμῆς, the possessive adjective “my own,” is emphatic; the enclitic μου would not be. The first meaning of πάλιν is “back” (place), the second “again” (time). Here the former fits well, for the idea of πρός is “face-to-face.” It is often used to indicate intimate personal contact and is very expressive in the present connection.

The note of “joy” is sounded again (v. 25). What a happy time that will be when the apostle is back again face to face with his beloved Philippians, is again able in his own person to preach to them, to advance them, to give them joy in their faith and greater elation in Christ Jesus! All this will be the greater because of the dark days of Paul’s long imprisonment, because of the uncertainty about the outcome of his appeal to Caesar. But now the sun is breaking through, Paul is able to write that he will most likely soon be back in Philippi. He writes only about them, and we do not think that “all you” in v. 25 refers to all his congregations everywhere. That Paul will visit also other congregations, that these will have similar joy goes without saying. As far as that is concerned, the Philippians will rejoice only the more.

Paul Adds the Admonition That the Philippians ever Stand Fast, United and Unafraid, Against the Adversaries

Philippians 1:27

27 The admonition is added in the most natural way and even refers to Paul’s presence or absence. It is naturally general and not directed at any specific evils that were found in Philippi. Only continue conduct in a way worthy of the gospel of Christ in order that, whether getting to come and getting to see you, whether being away, I may get to hear regarding the things concerning you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one soul contending together for the faith of the gospel, and scared in nothing by the adversaries; which is for them an indication of perdition but of your salvation, and this from God, seeing that to you there has been graciously granted this in behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer in behalf of him, having the same conflict such as you have seen in me and now hear about in me.

“Only” (μόνον) stresses the main thought. It is debated as to how much of the idea of citizenship is left in πολιτεύομαι, and some will naturally think that more (R. V. margin), some that less is still found in the verb. Both here and in Acts 23:1 very little of this idea seems to be left. The examples cited in M.-M. are political and thus cannot well apply to Paul’s two uses of the word; the two non-political examples given use the word in the sense of περιπατέω but are not taken from the papyri. All that can safely be said is that these two verbs are synonymous and indicate conduct, the former the conduct that is touched with the connotation of living together as a community or unit body.

It is asked why Paul uses this word instead of the commoner “to walk,” and the answer is given that he prefers πολιτεύομαι. But here, at any rate, the reason for the preference is evident: this πολίτευμα has “adversaries,” and his readers must thus keep together as a unit in order to stand against them.

We thus do not accept the connotation of living under gospel rules and regulations; also the other, that Paul has in mind his own Roman citizenship and, since Philippi was a Roman colony, the similar standing of his readers, which seems rather farfetched.

The adverb “worthily (in a way worthy) of the gospel” contains the idea of weight: the conduct of weight to the gospel of Christ (genitive of origin). Yet this gospel is not thought of as laying down laws and regulations but as offering salvation and blessedness. The conduct of this united band of believers in the gospel is to match the blessed saving gifts they have received. The conduct is to reflect what the gospel and its riches have made of the Philippian congregation (1 Pet. 2:9).

Paul adds a personal note because of the close bond existing between him and the Philippians: “in order that, whether getting to come and getting to see you (ingressive aorists), whether being away (durative present), I may get to hear (again ingressive aorist) regarding the things concerning you (most likely only an adverbial accusative) that you are standing firm (στήκετε) in one spirit (this animating you all), with one soul contending together (or jointly) for the faith of the gospel,” etc. That he expects to be able to come and to see them Paul has already said. This will, of course, be only a visit, aside from that he will be absent from them. Hence we do not understand the participles as balancing between two possibilities, that of getting to see them or of not getting to see them at all (life—death, in v. 20). The texts vary between the aorist ἀκούσω and the present ἀκούω, “get to hear”—“continue to hear,” either of which is good. Either is the subjunctive after ἵνα. “Whether—whether” balances only the participles.

“That you continue firm—contending” matches the idea of πολιτεύεσθε as already explained. The present tense to indicate continuousness is important, implying, as it does, that the Philippians are now standing thus. We deem the discussions about the constitutional difference between pneuma, and psyche out of place in the present passage since both are ethical and not constitutional to man’s immaterial part. When it is used with reference to many persons, “one spirit” means one animus, here the true Christian animus. It, of course, dwells in the spirit of each person and is placed there by the Holy Spirit; yet “in one spirit” intends to designate neither of these two although some think that it signifies one or the other.

The dative of means “with one soul” is so like “one heart and soul” in Acts 4:32 that the ethical meaning is plain. The variation from “one spirit” to “one soul” is ethically slight; let us say, the one animus that dwells in each Christian’s spirit, the one life activity that comes from each Christian’s soul. Hence we stand in one spirit but contend by means of one soul. The dictionaries are disappointing; C.-K. 1141 has only a meaningless reference regarding “soul”; B.-P. 1422 only einmuetig for the same; Thayer 520, 2 is no better: one soul = “one heart.” All seem to avoid even a remark on “one spirit.”

The σύν in the participle means to contend (as in an athletic contest) jointly; Jude 3 has the compound with ἐπί, “contend earnestly.” Paul is not saying, “Contend together with me,” and certainly not, “Contend with each other.” “For the faith” is the dativus commodi: to get victory “for the faith of the gospel.” Here “the faith” is objective (as in v. 25) and not subjective. The genitive “of the gospel” is either appositional: the faith = the gospel; or possessive: “the faith” is the contents which belongs to the gospel. “The faith” is as clearly objective as it is in Jude 3. It is to be maintained against “the adversaries” who deny this faith, this gospel contents. The idea that the Philippians are to contend only for their believing is too tenuous to maintain even when this believing is said to be objectivized, the act being made objective by speaking of it, a sort of “technical term” as it has been called, with the genitive naming what is believed.

In the first place, the implied contrast is not that these adversaries might make the Philippians stop believing, that the latter are to fight only for themselves. Their adversaries deny the truth of the contents of the gospel, want to down the gospel contents with their lies, want their lies to be victorious so that the gospel shall not spread. That is the real contest or battle.

In the second place, “faith” is always a correlative term: the act of believing always involves the thing I believe; vice versa, the thing calls for the act. I always trust something, and this something intends that I trust it. Subjective faith is nothing without the objective faith; “the faith,” objective, could not have this name without “faith,” subjective. Applied here, this means that as being believers themselves the Philippians defend what they believe. Unless they are able to do that they cannot defend their own action of believing. To this day the battle is always about the what; only so is our act attacked even as we stop believing and cease this act only when this what is made uncertain for us.

Philippians 1:28

28 The two participles belong together: that you stand firm, “contending and scared in nothing by the adversaries” (generic: whoever they may be). The verb is used regarding horses’ taking fright. While it is expressed negatively, the thought is really positive: unscared means joyfully courageous. So Paul had been when at the time of the founding of the church he and Silas had sung hymns of praise in their dungeon cell.

It is asked who the adversaries are, and some think of hostile Jews. The trouble with this view is that there were only a few Jews in Philippi, that Paul’s clash, too, had not been with Jews, and that he even refers to this clash of his as a sample. No, these opponents must be pagan and, judging from v. 30, such opposition as could move the city authorities. Both “contending and not scared” speak of the fight. Paul wants hearty, fearless fighters. Hence we should not take his thought to mean fear lest the Philippians give up their faith and sink back into paganism. Paul’s thought is only that the Philippians may not fight joyfully, assuredly enough, that some at least may fight, indeed, but all the while be exceedingly frightened.

That is why he adds: “Which is for them an indication of perdition (objective genitive) but (an indication) of your salvation, and this from God.” Why, then, should they not stand firm, contend, be unafraid? Ἥτις is feminine because of the predicate ἔνδειξις and is qualitative with a causal touch: since this is a thing of this kind, an indication, etc. The question as to the antecedent, whether this is “not scared,” “contending,” or “stand firm,” is easily answered; for each of the three, or any two of them, is incomplete in thought when taken independently. The thought to which the relative refers is that of all three: this your standing firm in contending and being unscared, “this is a thing of such a kind as to constitute for them an indication of perdition,” etc.

Paul does not call it “a sign” but only a pointer in that direction, ἔνδειξις. It seems that some copyists did not understand Paul when he wrote: “For them an indication of perdition but of your salvation,” and so changed the genitive into another dative: “but for you of salvation,” some even making it: “for us.” But Paul wrote a dative and then a genitive and placed both in the emphatic forward position. This thing is an indication “for them” although they do not see that it is a thing of this kind, but Paul sees it, and the Philippians are to see it as such a thing. But it is an indication “of your (ὑμῶν) salvation,” the salvation you already possess and enjoy. Perdition is not yet upon them, it still awaits them; but salvation is already yours. They may still escape perdition if they should get to see this indication of it in the right light, see that their opposition means perdition for them, see that it means your salvation.

Ἀπώλεια (intransitive) and σωτηρια are opposites. The former = “the condition after death, the exclusion from salvation as a final fact, when, instead of having become what one could have become, he is ruined, has perished” (C.-K. 789), “the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, in eternal misery, perdition” (Thayer). Both Judas (John 17:12) and the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3) are called “the son of the perdition.” It is said that Paul does not describe this perdition, but all that he as well as Jesus say about hell and damnation is all that anybody can ask in the way of a description. The word never means annihilation as has, in view of the translation “destruction,” been claimed by those who attempt to abolish hell. In his Offenbarung Zahn agrees with these people: to be thrown into the lake of fire he states is annihilation. “Salvation” includes both an act of rescue and the resultant state of safety. This is already ours but attains its consummation in the future. The fact that “salvation,” “to save,” and “Savior,” are mentioned more often than “perdition,” “to perish,” should not surprise us, for the Scriptures are full of “salvation.”

Paul adds: “and this thing (is) from God,” τοῦτο, neuter, this whole thing which is of such a kind as has just been stated. “This” is neither an accusative nor idiomatic (R., W. P.) It is a natural and proper nominative. The antecedent of “this thing,” τοῦτο, is the whole clause, yes, this clause as defining what kind of a thing (ἥτις) the valiant action of the Philippians is; hence τοῦτο is neuter. The antecedent is not the feminine ἔνδειξις, nor what is said only about “your salvation.” Ἀπό points out to the Philippians that everything: their standing firm in contending and being unafraid comes to them “from God” even as Paul adds “graciously granted to you,” ἐχαρίσθη (v. 29).

Philippians 1:29

29 Here, we submit, is an instance of what R. 1001 calls the consecutive ὅτι, which is best rendered by “seeing that.” Only a few seem to know about it so that we commonly have the translation “because” or “for” (A. V.). The point is that Paul does not give us the reason or cause why “this thing is from God.” Does that need proof? Nor is what Paul says proof. This ὅτι states what underlies the whole admonition from v. 27 onward; the whole of it applies, “seeing that” or in view of the fact that, etc. Consecutive ὅτι does not state what follows from a thing but the thing from which what has been mentioned follows. It does so here: “seeing that to you (emphatic) there was granted (by God’s gracious act when you were converted) this ‘in behalf of Christ,’ (namely) not only this thing of believing in him but also this thing of suffering ‘in his behalf.’” Consecutive to what is thus said should be what Paul bids the Philippians do.

So highly God has favored you. Graciously he granted (historical aorist) as the most precious gift to you, τὸὑπὲρΧριστοῦ, “this thing that we all know as ‘in behalf of Christ,’” the article making a noun of the phrase. All Christians wear this precious jewel as God’s dearest gift to them, which is engraved: IN BEHALF OF CHRIST. It is terser and more beautiful in the Greek, ὙΠΕΡΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ. The brevity requires the appositional explanation: “this thing (called) In Behalf of Christ,” it is “not only ‘this thing of believing in him,’ but also (as going with the believing) ‘this thing of suffering in his behalf,’” the significant “in behalf” being repeated. The three τό neatly substantivize, one τό the phrase, two τό the infinitives. The second two τό do not divide the first one, together they state the defining apposition.

This Hyper Christou necessarily includes the thing called “believing in him” (durative, εἰς directing all our confidence, ueberzeugungsvolle und zuversichtliche Anerkennung, toward him); but in addition to this it includes what naturally goes with this believing (καί), the thing called “suffering in his behalf,” with suffering (durative, iterative present) belongs ὑπὲραὐτοῦ, with believing only εἰςαὐτόν. The former could not be possible without the latter although Paul’s contrast in the two phrases is the idea that believing as believing only reaches and embraces Christ for itself, does not yet step in for him, endure and suffer “in his behalf.” This “in behalf of him” is implied in God’s grant, which, as it were, doubles his gift and crowns the believing in him with the suffering for him.

Philippians 1:30

30 The nominative participle “having” is not irregular as though it depends on the dative “to you” (v. 29). Calling it “anacoluthic” or “pendent,” etc., overlooks the fact that in the Greek the participle has both number and case and is thus used with perfect clearness whereas the English is hampered by lacking both. Being a participle, it expresses a subsidiary thought that goes with the main thought, which here reaches back to v. 27, to the joint contending, and now resumes this with “conflict”: “having the same conflict of the kind you saw in me (in my case, R. 587, cf., v. 26) and are now hearing in me” (in my case). The aorist refers to what the Philippians “saw” when Paul was beaten and thrown into prison, cf., Acts 16:19, etc. The present refers to what they “are now hearing” about Paul’s imprisonment and trial in Rome.

But Paul qualifies: it is “the same” conflict or contest that requires strength and endurance, yet only the same as being of the same general kind, namely as being due to hostility against the gospel. The treatment Paul received in Philippi was worse than the treatment he was receiving in Rome. So the Philippians will suffer more or less, in one way or in another, now and again after a while. This is even God’s gracious grant to them. From the way in which Paul writes we may conclude that the Philippians were not suffering persecution at this time. The fact that they had “adversaries” who were opposed to the gospel is only what they had from the start. Paul’s admonition is that they ever continue their firm stand, be ready for any eventualities, and face them unitedly (as a πολιτεία—πολιτεύεσθε in v. 27) and perfectly unafraid.

R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.