Philippians 4

CHAPTER IV

The Little Case of Euodia and Syntyche

Philippians 4:2

2 Much has been read into these two simple verses, and most of it is rather fanciful. Some treat these two sentences as if they were intended to be a charade, each name having some hidden meaning.

Euodia I admonish, and Syntyche I admonish—Paul treats them exactly alike—to keep minding the same thing in the Lord. We decline to preface this statement with “Beloved” by drawing this address from v. 1 to v. 2 as though Paul were informing the whole “beloved” congregation of the fact that he is admonishing these two members in their midst. Will the letter, when it is read, not show this without an address? Paul constantly uses the verb παρακαλῶ in the sense of “I admonish” and not in the sense of “I beseech” (A. V.). Zahn, Introduction I, 562, rightly calls the allegorizings of the two names “fantastic conceits.” These are two women of Philippi and not two peculiar parties. They bore rather common names: twenty-three or twenty-four other Euodias have been found, twenty-five Syntyches; Zahn thinks that further search may yield even double these numbers.

All that we know about these two women is contained in the relative clause in v. 3, and all efforts to extract more is love’s labor lost. The two women once worked together with Paul in bringing the gospel forward, and it seems they had advanced the cause of the gospel since that time. We thus gather that they were both energetic. The supposition that they were deaconesses or that they held some office cannot be substantiated. Why they both needed the admonition “to keep minding the same thing,” they and the Philippians knew, we do not. All that we note is that both women were equally at fault.

The brevity of Paul’s statement shows that this case is quite minor and incidental. Paul had received knowledge of it through Epaphroditus (2:25, etc:). These two energetic women were not pulling together. This is not an unusual occurrence when energetic personalities are engaged in the same cause. No doctrine was involved but only what each woman considered the better or the best way of furthering the work of the church, and this as to certain details. All that can safely be assumed is that the disagreement was not one of a day or a week but of long standing, otherwise Paul would have passed it by.

It was not a good thing for these two to differ as they did. It was not a good example for the other members to witness. It did not increase the joint efficiency of the two and the benefit the congregation should have had from their efforts. When one horse pulls and the other lags, and when this is reversed at the next effort, the wagon does not move as it does when both throw themselves into the harness with the same mind.

Paul teaches us a bit of practical theology by the way in which he handles this case. He applies brief, gentle admonition to the women themselves, and he asks one of the esteemed members in the congregation to lend aid. Paul does not address the women directly, which means that he treats their case objectively. Paul does not scold them, either jointly or separately. Paul avoids negative, “don’ts.” “Mind the same thing in the Lord!” is the proper admonition. Are they not both “in the Lord”?

Do they not both intend to mind whatever they mind “in the Lord”? Then, surely, they both should equally mind “the same thing,” i. e., have the same thing in their thoughts and in their efforts. It is so simple, so natural, and should be so easy. Paul feeds no little spark of dissent in order to bring on a flame; he gently quenches the spark itself.

These two are women, and the Philippian church began with a woman convert. In fact, some have advanced the thought that one of these women was Lydia, the term “Lydia” being regarded, not as her personal name, but as one that was derived from her former country Lydia, she thus being called “the Lydian.” But Acts 16:14 says that her “name” was Lydia, and Horace repeatedly uses this as a woman’s name as do other writers. Whether Lydia was still in Philippi no one knows. Zahn offers no proof for thinking she was one of these two. Lightfoot tells us with a good deal of evidence that women generally played prominent parts in Macedonia. But look at the names of women mentioned in Rom. 16:3 etc.; we find them in the Gospels; also “honorable women” in Acts 13:50 and 17:12.

The church has always had many intelligent and zealous women. Macedonia as a country deserves no special credit in this respect.

Philippians 4:3

3 Yes, I request also thee, genuine Syzygus, be of assistance to them, who are such as strove with me together also with Clement and my other fellow workers whose names (are) in the Book of life.

“Yes” = I do even this, namely “request also thee,” etc. “Also thee” means “thee” especially and thus in a way requests also others who may be able to lend assistance. Is it possible that after two personal names (Euodia and Syntyche) and before a third (Clement) Paul should not write the personal name of the one whom he even addresses directly and personally, that Paul should designate this one person of the four only by a descriptive term, “true yokefellow”? To ask the question seems to us already to answer it. Where did Paul ever call an assistant of his or of anybody else a σύζυγος? They are his συνεργοί as in this very verse. But the name “Syzygus” cannot be duplicated from books, inscriptions, etc.; hence it is claimed that it cannot be a proper name here.

The usual answer given is too mild, namely that this is not convincing. We must say more. Since when has the canon been established that, unless at least two persons are found in ancient writings with the same name, one person alone cannot have such a name? Let someone go through the list of ancient names and report to us how many lack duplication. The result should be interesting.

Would the mere appellation “genuine yokefellow” suggest to this unnamed person and to the rest of the Philippians the person to whom Paul refers? Was there only one man in the Philippian church who was a “genuine yokefellow,” and were all the Philippians cognizant of this strange fact? Such questions answer themselves.

Those commentators who do not regard Syzygus as a proper noun differ widely in regard to the identity of the person addressed “genuine yokefellow.” Here are some of their suggestions.

(1) Paul’s wife. We are told that he did not take her along on his journeys, in substantiation of which 1 Cor. 9:5 is quoted, although Paul is now not on a journey and has been a prisoner for four years. Moreover, the adjective “genuine,” γνήσιε, is masculine; if it were the feminine γνησία it would mean “legitimate wife” and might imply that Paul also had one or more concubines!

(2) Lydia, despite the masculine adjective.

(3) Christ.

(4) Paul’s brother who is thought to reside in Philippi.

(5) Timothy, despite the fact he is the co-writer of this epistle (1:1).

(6) Γνήσιος is taken to be an Arminian proper noun, the Greek word for “Chenisi” or “Khenesis.”

(7)Silas.

(8) The husband or the brother of one of the two women.

(9) Epaphroditus. This is the suggestion of Victorinus which was adopted by Grotius and others, among whom we find Lightfoot, von Hofmann, and Zahn. Zahn thinks that Epaphroditus is sitting at Paul’s side, is perhaps serving as Paul’s scribe, and that Paul at this moment is addressing him with the vocative “genuine yokefellow.”

Since duplication of proper names has been called for by some of these commentators, we feel entitled to apply their canon to themselves. Let them show us another letter that is intended for persons living at a distance in which the writer addresses a friend sitting at his side at the moment of the writing, who is perhaps himself doing the writing! Zahn points to Col. 4:17; but Archippus was in Colosse, Paul is not addressing him, he is addressing the Colossians.

It is unfair when Zahn mentions only Laurent as supporting the view that Syzygus is a proper name; many others who have never heard of Laurent support this as being the only tenable view. It is again unfair when Zahn (Introduction I, 538) places between the idea that the name means Chenisi (Khenesis) and the idea that it means Christ—two impossibilities!—the idea that Syzygus is itself a proper name, thereby leaving the impression that this is likewise an impossible idea.

When Paul writes “genuine Syzygus” he plays on the beautiful meaning of this man’s name. One whose own personal name is Σύζυγος, “Yoked together,” may well demonstrate the propriety of his name by helping to yoke these two women together, henceforth to pull together and to work hand in hand for the congregation. So a “Frederick” may be told to act as a genuine “Peacemaker” or a woman named “Grace” to do a gracious deed. Even the tone in which Paul refers to the etymological meaning of this brother’s name accords with the kindly way in which Paul treats the case of these two women. A little assistance will be good for them from one whose very name points to what they both need in the way of assistance.

Most significant in this direction is the relative clause that is introduced with αἵτινες (qualitative and causal): “they being such as,” “because they are such as,” etc. When Paul worked in Philippi, either on the occasion of his first visit or when he went from Ephesus to Corinth and spent some time in Macedonia, these two women had shown themselves not only of a type to be yoked up with Paul but actually “to strive strenuously together with him in the gospel” (i. e., in the missionary work). Nor were they the only ones; Paul mentions Clement as another and names him, no doubt, because of his equally energetic cooperation. There was, in fact, a whole company of this type; Paul calls them “the rest of my fellow workers.”

Note the first point: all these acted σύν, i. e., in finest cooperation, and now it ought surely to be an easy matter for these two women again to cooperate thus, especially if someone gives them a little assistance (note σύν even in the imperative). Then note also the second most beautiful point: the strongest one of the three terms used refers to these two women and to Clement. Of these alone he says that, like athletes, they strove together (σύν) with him; regarding the others of this type he uses the lesser word, they worked together (σύν) with him. So also of the one brother he asks only that he take hold together (σύν) with the two women, i. e., that he assist them. Thus we see why Paul plays on his name Syzygus, which contains these three σύν in a double way, namely in its prefix σύν and in its root “yoke,” the yoke harnessing two to pull together.

John’s delicate sense of propriety has been noted in John 11:5 where he mentions not only the two sisters as being loved by Jesus but also Lazarus. We have the same delicacy here when Paul adds Clement and the rest to the two women who strove together with Paul. When Paul says of the other fellow workers that “their names are in the Book of life,” he uses Old Testament language (Exod. 32:32; Ps. 69:28; Dan. 12:1) that is copied in Rev. 3:5 (13:8 negative; also Jer. 17:13) for praising them. Superficially considered, this seems to lift the fellow workers above Euodia, Syntyche, and Clement; but in reality it does not, for if those who worked with Paul are thus praised, shall not those who strove jointly with him have equal praise?

All God’s children are written in the Book of life. The Scriptures speak of blotting out of the Book of life when one ceases to be a child of God. Thus the expression Book of life may be used with reference to our justification: when we are justified, our names are written in the Book of life. Yet Rev. 13:8 goes back to eternity: “from the foundation of the world.” So we may refer the expression also to our eternal election (Eph. 1:4), but always as making Christ “the true Book of life” (C. Tr. 1067, 13). “Thus the entire Holy Trinity, God Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, directs all men to Christ, as to the Book of life, in whom they should seek the eternal election of the Father. For this has been decided by the Father from eternity, that whom he would save he would save through Christ, as he himself says, John 14:6: ‘No man cometh unto the Father but by me.’ And again, John 10:9: ‘I am the door; by me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved.’” C.

Tr. 1085, 66. “Therefore, whoever would be saved should not trouble or harass himself with thoughts concerning the secret counsel of God, as to whether he also is elected and ordained to eternal life, with which miserable thought Satan usually attacks and annoys godly hearts. But they should hear Christ, who is the Book of life, and of God’s eternal election of all God’s children to eternal life: He testifies to all men without distinction that it is God’s will ‘that all men should come to him’ who labor and are heavy laden with sin, in order that he may give them rest and save them, Matt. 11:28” (1085, 70). “Moreover, this doctrine gives no one a cause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely when men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and his holy gospel, as in the Book of life, which excludes no penitent sinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubled sinners to repentance and the knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ and promises the Holy Ghost for purification and renewal,” etc. (1093, 89).

The καί before Clement and the feminine αἵτινες have been made the reason for separating the phrase “together also with Clement,” etc., from the relative clause and for construing this phrase with the main clause: “I request also thee, genuine Syzygus—together both with Clement and the rest of the workers,” etc. The punctuation of our versions leaves this point in doubt. The idea that all these people are to help the two women in minding the same thing (even if some of them were women) is untenable. Too many cooks spoil the broth; nor does this assistance need such a host of assistants. No ordinary reader would refer the μετά phrase back to the vocative. Kennedy names no less than five writers who use καί just as Paul does here: “together also with,” etc. By referring the phrase back one loses the effect of the σύν in “strove jointly with me in company with Clement and the rest of the workers,” namely that Euodia and Syntyche are now not pulling together whereas at one time they pulled together so strenuously with Paul, with Clement, and with the other fellow workers.

The claim that this Clement is Clemens Romanus of a later day, and that thus Paul did not write this letter, needs no refutation. We know no more about this Clement than we know about Euodia and Syntyche; no more than is said here. “Whose names are in the Book of life (Life’s Book)” does not imply that Clement and the rest of the workers were dead when Paul wrote.

Verses 2, 3 are a beautiful text for any meeting of Christian women.

Paul Summarizes the Whole Christian Spirit and Life

Philippians 4:4

4 Verses 4–9 are added without a connective and present a lovely picture of the temper, the quality, and the motivation of all true Christian hearts. This is the substantial conclusion of the epistle, leaving only Paul’s thanks for the gift the Philippians had sent him. Euodia and Syntyche (v. 2) are, of course, also to show this spirit toward each other, but it is to fill the entire congregation both for its own sake and for all with whom it comes in contact.

Rejoice in the Lord alway! Again I will say, Rejoice! The purest, highest, truest joy is to fill the Christian life like sunshine. Paul wrote this as a prisoner, as one who had been conformed to the death of Christ. Nothing is ever to dim our spiritual joy. Paul is not dwelling on the source of this joy, on all the streams of grace and blessings that produce this rejoicing. He is rather picturing the life that is animated by the joy with which it shines. In 3:1 he calls on us “to rejoice in the Lord” even while we beware of errorists, knowing that we have the true righteousness and the hope of the blessed resurrection (3:9–11, 20, 21). Here he adds “alway,” no matter what the circumstances of our life may be. Our sun of grace is “always” shining.

Paul repeats: “Again I will say, Rejoice!” The future is volitive: he will decidedly say this again. It is such a blessed thing to do. But the imperative “rejoice” is thus repeated, for the whole stress is on this activity of the heart. Add Eph. 5:19, 20 regarding how we are to give expression to this joy with songs on our lips and constant thanksgiving in our hearts to God for everything. No; the Christian life is not gloomy, it is the happiest life in the world. All its joy is genuine, not a bit of it is artificial like all the joys of the world. This epistle sparkles with joy, for its very subject and its occasion call for the sweet admonition to rejoice with true joy.

Philippians 4:5

5 Your yieldingness, let it get to be known to all men! Ever filled with joy and happiness in all heavenly blessings that are ours, anything like rigorousness must be foreign to us, sweet gentleness, considerateness, Lindigkeit (Luther’s beautiful rendering) must ever emanate from us so that all men with whom we come in contact may get to realize, feel, and appreciate it (ingressive and effective aorist). Does this exclude people like those mentioned in 3:2? The question is evaded when it is remarked that Judaizers had not yet appeared in Philippi. Why should these or even pagan persecuters be excluded? Many will not appreciate this gentleness; but oh, the victories it has won among the worst enemies! Paul knows of no exception when he writes “all men.”

The neuter τὸἐπιεικές = the abstract ἐπείκεια and is often used by Paul and by the author of Hebrews and in the higher type of the Koine (B.-D. 263, 2; R. 763). Would that we had a good English equivalent for this noble term! We lack one, hence the A. V. offers “your moderation,” the R. V. “your forbearance,” margin ”gentleness,” Matthew Arnold “your sweet reasonableness.” Yet each of these touches only one side of the Greek concept. When we are preaching we should know just what is meant so that we may at least describe with exactness.

Trench is a good teacher: the derivation is from εἴκω, ἔοικα, Latin cedo, hence the meaning is “yielding,” not insisting on one’s legal rights as these are often inserted into moral wrongs by making the summum jus the summa injuria. The word always refers to the treatment of others while “meekness” is an inner quality. Many angles converge in “yieldingness” such as clementia, aequitas, modestia. Even the Latin lacks a real equivalent. God and Christ exhibit what is meant. God deals so leniently with men, he remembers that we are dust, he withholds justice so long.

Christ is gentle, kind, patient, more than only fair. Only our perverted reason would think that “yieldingness” might include a yielding of truth to error, of right to wrong, of virtue to vice and crime.

Kennedy quotes W. Pater’s Marius the Epicurean, which describes the spirit of the new Christian society as it appeared to a pagan: “As if by way of a clue, recognition of some immeasurable divine condescension manifest in a certain historic fact, its influence was felt more especially at those points, which demanded some sacrifice of one’s self, for the weak, for the aged, for little children, and even for the dead. And then, for its constant outward token, its significant manner or index, it issued in a certain debonair grace, and a certain mystic attractiveness, a courtesy, which made Marius doubt whether that famed Greek blithe-ness or gaiety or grace in the handling of life had been, after all, an unrivaled success.”

Yes, this is not the yieldingness of a slave or of an inferior but of a superior in a noble and generous spirit. The Christian keeps his high nobility, he condescends; he considers the weak and the needy and also the pitifulness of the world’s haughty and tyrannical. He has that purest and noblest grace which few are able to resist. All of this lies in this term epieikeia. Let it shine out from your joyous hearts!

Like a revealing flash the one statement: The Lord (is) near! shows what produces this “yielding-ness.” This is not the constant, invisible nearness of Christ; it is the nearness of his Parousia. No man knew the hour of his coming, every Christian lived as if he might come at any time. So we do to this day. Why, then, stress this word as though Paul were sure Christ would come before Paul died while pressing other statements of Paul’s to make him contradict himself by saying that he would die before Christ came? Here the great point is the connection: we who live in constant expectation of the Parousia, of our resurrection (3:11), of our glorification (3:20, 21), we, filled with abounding joy, cannot but show this noble gentleness, this generous yielding to all men. Those who live for time alone, for this life alone, who ever mind only earthly things (3:19), they will act meanly, selfishly, rigorously, or with false, hollow gaiety, as Marius correctly estimated the blithe grace of the pagan Greek attitude toward life.

Philippians 4:6

6 But what about our troubles in daily life, some of which are painful and depressing, indeed? Look at Paul, a prisoner while he is writing this. Worry about nothing but in everything by means of your prayer and your petition together with thanksgiving let your askings be made known to God!

Martha “was bothered about many things” (Luke 10:41). The verb means “to be of a divided mind,” to be anxious, whether to seek this way out or that, to use this means or that. The Christian is never to worry thus about a single thing. 1 Pet. 5:7: “All your worry cast on him, seeing that he is taking care of you.” Certainly, unless we can constantly get rid of our worries before they worry us, joy would cease, and that noble, gracious yieldingness would disappear. But we need do no more than to let God know. The scoffer will say, “Do you first have to inform God?” God certainly knows even before we ask (Matt. 6:8); but God bids us ask and promises to give us what we ask. Those who, like the skeptic, refuse to ask simply do not have (James 4:2).

Paul’s exhortation is elaborate; he uses three terms: “in everything” or “in every case” that may worry you, “by means of your prayer and your petition (the articles have the force of the possessive) let your askings (the things asked) be made known to God.” The datives denote means: “by means of prayer and petition,” the nominative is the subject: “askings.” Jesus, too, used three terms: ask—seek—knock. We are to pray and not to shrink from petitioning and to let τὰαἰτήματα, the actual things asked for, be ever and ever made known to God. Then no worry will ever be able to arise. In what better hands can any trouble of ours rest than in God’s hands? Paul’s very words contain the assurance that God will attend to all that we ask by either giving this to us or giving us something better above what we ask or think. Our prayer and our petition will naturally be accompanied by (μετά) “thanksgiving,” will thus be offered with constant joy.

Only the thankful heart is a joyful heart. Without thankfulness for what God has already given to us and done for us, how can we ask him for more? The heartthrob of all true prayer is thankfulness.

Philippians 4:7

7 And the peace of God which exceeds all understanding will guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus.

The καί has consecutive force: “and so,” R. 1183; it states the blessed result of leaving everything in God’s hands by means of prayer with thanksgiving. “The peace of God” (see 1:2) is to be taken objectively, the condition of shalom when by God’s act all is well with us. “Of God” is to indicate source: God creates and bestows this peace. The fact that the objective condition of well-being is referred to we see from the verb: this peace “will guard” (voluntative and not merely futuristic). Like a guard or sentry it will stand over our hearts and thoughts lest anything disturb them.

The greatness of this peace assures its ability so to guard us, for it is the peace “exceeding all understanding.” The point of this attributive modifier is often indistinctly apprehended or entirely misapprehended. Paul is not telling us that the peace of God, either objectively or subjectively conceived, is beyond our comprehension. The Scriptures tell us at length how God has wrought peace in Christ Jesus, and all of us upon whom this peace has been bestowed know its sweetness from our own experience. What Paul says is that this is the peace “exceeding all mind” in what it is able to do for us regarding our hearts and our thoughts. The Christian does not depend on his νοῦς, his mind, to fend off worry from his heart and his νοήματα or thoughts. That is the best that worldly men are able to do.

We read much in the way of advice as to how to manage the mind (νοῦς) so that it shall keep the heart and the thoughts clear of worry. Paul points the Christian to something that “exceeds all mind” and all that mind can do in this regard. It is “the peace of God” bestowed upon us as a gift in Christ Jesus.

In the Scriptures the heart is the center of the personality. There dwells the νοῦς which produces the νοήματα, the thoughts, theoretical and practical reasonings with their purposes, plans of action, and personal decisions. Heart, mind, and thoughts are constantly subject to assaults which distress, harass, and worry us. The νοῦς or mind bravely tries to hold the fort but is ever a poor guard and protector. The peace of God exceeds all mind in this function.

Turn to Psalms 73. There is the mind trying to guard and protect itself. “Why does God allow me to suffer so? Why does he allow the ungodly to flourish and thrive?” In v. 16 and 22 the psalmist confesses the inability of his own mind to protect itself from the assaults of such thoughts. In v. 23, 24 he makes the peace of God his refuge, where all his harassing thoughts are answered and brought to rest.

“In Christ Jesus” is to be construed with the verb and thus also with its two objects just as in Eph. 1:4, for the action is “in connection with Christ Jesus,” and the objects of that action cannot be in some other connection. As far as the feeling of peace (subjective) is concerned, we need scarcely say a word. Where the actual state of peace exists with its great guarding effects, how can the feeling of peace, the enjoyment of it, be absent? If the feeling ever declines, this divine guard will revive it. All we need is prayer, petition, asking, i. e., getting back under the protection of our guard, then we shall feel safe and happy again and shall joyfully offer thanksgiving.

Philippians 4:8

8 As for the rest, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things revered, whatever things righteous, whatever things pure, whatever things lovely, whatever things of good report, if anything (is) excellence, and if anything praise, with these things reckon! What things you both learned and received as well as heard and saw in me, these things practice! And the God of this peace will be with you.

Τὸλοιπόν has nothing to do with the adverbial accusative occurring in 3:1 and does not resume it. It connects most closely with v. 4–7: no worry but prayer and “for the rest” these two, that you reckon in your thoughts with the right things (v. 8) and that you practice them by deeds (v. 9). This close connection is put beyond question by the mention of “peace” in v. 9b which corresponds to its mention in v. 7.

Paul’s list has six items in one series. All six designate the same things. True things are at the same time revered, righteous, pure, etc. So each predicate applies to every item in the list. The indefinite and comprehensive “whatever” includes everything “true,” etc. All of these things Paul turns first in one way and then in another and shows them now from this side as being “true,” now from another as being “revered,” now from a third as being “righteous,” and so on.

Six is not a rhetorical number. In symbolical connections it denotes one short of the sacred seven, i. e., the antichristian group (in Rev. 13:18: 6 × 10 × 10 plus 6 × 10 plus 6 = 666, the number of the beast). Our passage has no symbolism. So we ask whether this 6 = 3 + 3 or 2 + 2 + 2 or 4 + 2 or 2 + 4? We note that two “if” follow. Also the two: “lovely” and “of good report,” go together.

We thus regard this list as being made up of three pairs: true things are revered—as righteous they are pure—as lovely they are of good report. In other words, Paul has a rhetorical three, each of which is a pair. All are thus “virtue” and as such are also “praise.” “Whatever” regards them as a mass; “anything” considers any and every one singly. All this is typically Pauline rhetorical formulation and worthy of appreciation as such.

Some eliminate doctrine and restrict the list to conduct. True, these things refer to conduct yet not as though conduct could ever be divorced from doctrine. These things are taught and are received as being taught (v. 9); in 2:1–4 our lowly-mindedness is to rest on the great doctrine concerning Christ’s self-humiliation. If we only remember that “doctrine” is simply a statement of a fact or of a set of facts we shall not divorce doctrine from conduct, for the latter is only the expression of the former in our daily lives.

“Whatsoever things are true,” spiritually true and real, not lying, false, fictitious, imaginary—reckon with these! True things in doctrine and in life count, for they are bound to assert themselves as being true in the end. All false things will be unmasked as being false in the end, and those who carry them out in their lives, thinking them to be true, will go down in dismay when they find that they are not true at all. It is not a true thing that God does not care what we believe and how we act in consequence. This is a damnable, destructive lie. So we may go on with doctrine after doctrine and with the life it supports. Only the true stands now and forever.

All true things are σεμνά, i. e., they may show their face anywhere at any time and be “respected,” honored, and “revered” as true. Only liars sneer at them, refuse to answer, respect, honor them, and by so doing seal their own doom. The opposite of “things revered” are “things worthy of scorn.” Derived from σέβομαι, the word connotes what is divinely august and thus worthy of worshipful reverence.

“Righteous” and “pure” throw another light on these things. The divine Judge declares them right in all his verdicts. The opposite are things that this Judge condemns in all his verdicts. In order to receive the verdict “righteous” or “right” these things must naturally be “pure,” without stain of error or sin. The opposite is “unclean,” a term that is applied to the demons and not only to what they do. There is no restriction to sex as some suppose, just as “true” means vastly more than veracity in speech. Such restrictive reading of the terms divides them whereas they are not to be separated.

Being true, etc., they are certainly also “lovely” so that the heart should incline toward them (πρός) in affection (φιλεῖν) and embrace them. The opposite is what one should despise, hate, and thrust away. Those who divide the items think of lovable personal bearing toward others, our manners should be pleasing. But more is implied. We ourselves are to love and to embrace these things.

“Lovely things” will naturally be spoken of accordingly, will be “of good report,” ansprechend, appealing, not “high-toned,” for the opposite is δύσφημα, “of ill report.” In 2 Cor. 6:8 Paul says of himself: “through ill report and good report.” Evil men slander us and our doctrine and our life, but this is not a stain on us but on such men themselves.

Paul now individualizes: “if anything (is) excellence, and if praise,” (speaking of it as put in the way in which it deserves to be mentioned). Both terms are, of course, to be regarded from the Christian standpoint like the other items. Paul is not using the terms employed by pagan, namely Stoic, moralists; Christian exhortation does not need to borrow from pagans, it is rich in its own linguistic right. The two terms used here refer to personal possession (“excellence”) and to Christian estimate (“praise”).

Ἀρετή, much used by secular writers but seldom found in the New Testament, means Tuechtigkeit, “efficient ability,” and does not well lend itself to Christian thought. “Virtue” in its older English sense will do but not in the usual sense as being the opposite of “vice.” C.-K. 163, etc., rightly states that our passage is not to be restricted to moral virtues or to anything specifically moral as little as the previous terms are. “Excellence” includes faith as well as life and thus all that also goes with faith. Its opposite must be just as broad. Lightfoot’s view is unacceptable: “Whatever value may exist in (heathen) virtue”—none exists there for the Christian. Deissmann’s “splendor of God” is out of line, nor does “praise” mean the praise that is due to his splendor. The opposite of the effective excellence here referred to is spiritual worthlessness, either objective or subjective.

“These things keep reckoning with,” not merely “think on” them (our versions) but ever take account of them as what they are and never appropriate any but these. To reckon with them is to treat them as being the genuine values.

Philippians 4:9

9 To the reckoning, which is found in the enlightened mind, Paul thus adds: “These things keep practicing,” namely in your lives. Paul uses two verbs, but he does so because they go together. Whoever reckons only with these things as being the only true, righteous ones, etc., will at the same time practice them. Carrying them in his heart and his mind, he will use none others in his faith and his life. Again we should not narrow to what we call “morality”; John 6:40 makes our seeing the Son and believing him most essential. The whole activity of faith is included in πράσσετε, all our receiving and embracing and not only our producing and our good works.

Now Paul defines “these things” in a new way, in one that is concrete and personal: “What things you both learned and received as well as heard and saw in me.” These things have been exemplified in Paul’s own person (ἐν = in the case or person of, R. 587) and have been personally communicated to the Philippians. We do not correlate twice: “both learned as well as received, both heard as well as saw.” For learning and receiving is the one act, hearing and seeing the other, “in me” is to be construed only with the second. Paul had taught them these things in their true value, and they had learned and received them, made them their own. Paul had ever exemplified these things in his own person (faith and life), and they had heard this from many sources, heard what Paul was before he came to Philippi, heard what he was after he left Philippi even as they are now hearing it in the epistle, they had also seen it right in Philippi every time he was in their midst. Paul lived what he taught; he could say: “Be joint imitators of mine” (3:17). Every preacher should be able to say this. “Like priest, like people” should be raised from being a fling at preachers to honest praise of them.

“And” is again consecutive (v. 7). “And so the God of this peace (article of previous reference to peace in v. 7) will be with you.” Instead of “the peace of God” Paul now has “the God of this peace,” he himself who bestows this peace with its power will be with you with this peace. No wonder this peace will be so mighty in guarding and protecting their very hearts and thoughts. It is plain that “this peace” is as objective as God himself. Blessed, indeed, will all Paul’s readers be who heed these exhortations of his and receive the fulfillment of the promises assured to them.

Paul Thanks the Philippians for the Gift They Sent Him by the Hand of Epaphroditus

Philippians 4:10

10 This he reserves for the last. It is by no means the real reason for writing this letter; regarding that reason see the introduction. Paul had sent his thanks at once when the companions of Epaphroditus returned to Philippi. That is why: “I thank you!” does not occur in this paragraph. After having properly sent his thanks Paul writes about this gift, states what it means to him, namely beautiful fruit from the Philippians that rejoices his heart. Paul has not referred to the gift in the previous parts of the letter, not even in 2:25, 30.

Now I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last you were letting your being minded for my benefit bloom anew—since you, indeed, were minding but were having no opportunity.

Transitional δέ introduces the new subject. Robertson, W. P., does not explain why the verb is a timeless aorist so that it may be translated with the English present: “I rejoice”; he may be trying to justify the translation of the R. V. This is a simple aorist of fact (A. V.): Paul rejoiced when the gift was presented to him, and the aorist places his readers at the moment when that joy came to him because of the sweet surprise.

In English we use the perfect to express actions that are recently past (R. 842, etc.) and we may do so here: “I have rejoiced greatly in the Lord.” Here the word for joy is again found, the last time it occurs in this epistle. Its connection with the Lord is evident when we see the unselfish, spiritual quality of this joy. Here alone “greatly” is associated with rejoicing, and it lets us see how surprised and delighted Paul was when a handsome gift was so unexpectedly presented to him by the messengers from the Philippian church.

Ὅτι states the reason for this rejoicing: “that now at last you were letting bloom anew your being minded for my benefit,” i. e., your mindfulness in my behalf. This makes the verb causative and transitive, the substantivized infinitive its object. Equally good is the intransitive: “that now at last you were blooming anew in regard to your being minded for my benefit,” the infinitive being the adverbial of respect. See B.-P. 84. This verb is used in both ways. This point of grammar should not cause us to overlook the beauty of the expression. Like a flowering plant the Philippians were sending out new bloom as they did twice before in the same way (v. 15). The imperfect tense pictures the process, the bud starting, swelling, bursting into flower.

Here we again have φρονεῖν, the minding which takes interest, makes plans, and then proceeds to act. It is the proper word and is used several times in this letter (v. 2; 2:2, 5; 3:15, 19) and twice here. The subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the verb: “your minding.” The durative present tense states that the Philippians have always had Paul in mind—a fine touch, indeed. We shall find the same delicacy running through the paragraph.

Τό is scarcely to be construed with the phrase alone: minding “the thing in behalf of me,” although this verb governs the accusative; in the Greek this would be τά, the plural, also because τά could not be construed with the infinitive. The relative phrase is causal: “since,” see in extenso on Rom. 5:12, and compare 3:12 and 2 Cor. 5:4. The classics would use the plural ἐφʼ οἷς. We need not discuss the efforts to have the phrase mean “in which,” “upon which,” etc. (R., W. P., and others; “seeing that” in the R. V. margin is correct, not so “wherein” in the A. and R. V. texts).

Καί and δέ contrast: “since you also or indeed were minding but were having no opportunity.” What the present infinitive implies is stated outright by the imperfect: the Philippians “were minding,” i. e., all along had Paul in mind, wanted to do something for him but were not in a position to do anything. Paul does not say why they had no opportunity. We have, however, 2 Cor. 8:1–3 which mention the hard times that had struck the Macedonians and put them into great poverty. While that occurred about six years before this time, the tenses used by Paul justify the conclusion that these bad times continued, and that the situation had not improved until this time.

This explains ἤδεποτέ, ποτέ indicating the indefinite past, ἤδη the immediate present: “now at last,” i. e., so soon they flowered in their generosity after the long depression of the past. We likewise see the causal force of the relative clause. They were now at last flowering because they minded all along although they were all along unable to do anything. This is beautiful praise of the Philippians. Just as soon as they could they went into bloom because they had it in mind all along and had been prevented only from showing it. But some turn the praise into blame: Paul has been waiting with impatience for this last remittance from Philippi and is glad that they have now at last sent it.

Paul then tries to soften the blame by adding that they thought of him but had no opportunity to forward their gift, but this still leaves the sting that, if they had tried hard enough, they would have found an opportunity and obviated this delay. We do not, of course, agree with this view.

Philippians 4:11

11 Not that I am speaking with regard to lack (lacking, being short of means) as though this were the reason for Paul’s joy at receiving the Philippians’ gift. No; his joy is without this thought about himself and his personal circumstances; it lies entirely in the thought about the Philippians, about their flowering so promptly in their thoughtfulness regarding him the moment their circumstances improved somewhat.

“For” explains: For I on my part learned, (the English prefers: have learned) in what circumstances I am, to be content. I know both to be made lowly, I know as well to abound; in everything and in all ways I have been initiated both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound as well as to lack (be behind, short of necessities).

The emphatic “I on my part” is not in contrast to other people but in reference to the statement just made that Paul is not referring to any lack in means when he expresses his joy because of the gift sent him. He has long since learned to be content in whatever circumstances (ἐνοἷς, not masculine, Luther) he is. The Stoics practiced the virtue of being “content” in all circumstances by letting no joy elate, no adversity depress them, and bearing everything “stoically” as we still say. The idea they had was to be self-sufficient. What a gulf between the pagan and the Christian conception! The pagan virtue is self-made, the Christian rests on God, on his provident love and care.

Philippians 4:12

12 Paul specifies: “I know both to be made lowly (2:3), I know as well to abound.” Καί—καί is “both—and (as well)”; the repetition of “I know” makes the two infinitives more emphatic and equal. It is incorrect to say that οἷδα = I know by experience when this is the meaning so often attributed to γινώσκω. The difference between these verbs is stated by C.-K. 388. Here only the relation of the two objects to Paul is stated and not his relation to them. The idea of experience lies in the infinitives. Paul is well acquainted with these opposite experiences: to be made very lowly—to abound in or to be amid plenty. The idea is that he knows how to adjust himself to either with equal contentment. 1 Thess. 6:6.

Paul explains still farther: “In everything and in all ways (as in Eph. 1:23: ἐνπᾶσι, in all ways, or in all respects, adverbial; not: in all things) I have been initiated both to be filled as well as to hunger, both to abound as well as to lack.” The perfect tense implies that, once having been initiated, Paul remains so. We take issue with those who claim that Paul borrows this verb from the initiatory rites of the pagan mystery cults and refer the word μυστήριον, which is derived from this verb μύω, to the same source. Kennedy even inverts the usage of this verb by claiming that the technical sense came first and the general sense later. Scores of words prove the opposite. All sciences, for instance, take common words in their ordinary use and often attach a technical meaning to them for technical purposes. Only at times, when no common word is at hand, a brand-new one is coined, which may then come into commoner use.

This verb and its noun “mystery” are beyond question such as belong to the former. “To learn a secret” is as old as women’s gossip. I do not use the language of the lodge every time I say “mystery,” “secret,” “I have learned a secret or mystery,” “I am let in on one,” “I am initiated.” I am not talking like a Stoic when I use “content” or “contentment” (1 Tim. 6:6). Nor is Paul.

Now “both—as well as” are doubled, first with the specific idea of being filled with plenty of food and then also being in hunger for food; secondly, with the broad abounding in all that one needs and in being behind, short of what one really needs. Note “in necessities” and “in (forced) fastings” (2 Cor. 6:4, 5); “we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked” (1 Cor. 4:11), “in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness”; compare Matt. 25:35, 36; Heb. 11:37b. Paul was ever in God’s hands. If he was to perish from want, it would be God’s will.

Philippians 4:13

13 He reaches out still farther. For everything I am strong in connection with him who empowers me. Enduring want is among the least of the matters that Paul faces. He does not regard it such a great achievement to be content when he is lacking necessities; he had much more that taxed his strength. Πάντα is called a cognate accusative by R. 413; it seems to be an adverbial accusative: “as to everything I am strong,” “everything” with its natural limitation to what the Lord may send. The participle is the stronger, being derived from δύναμις, “power,” while the verb is derived from the lesser ἰσχύς, “strength.” The ἐν is not instrumental but = “in connection with.” Being connected with the Lord who keeps empowering him, Paul always has the strength for everything in his life and his work.

All that is stated about himself is not said boastfully, nor is it said in order to let the Philippians know that he could have done without their recent gift. It is said in order to put the gift and Paul’s joy because of it on the true plane, not that of mere use that Paul could make of the gift toward filling his need, but of what the gift revealed about the givers themselves. I might say: “Thank you; I am glad for the gift and can surely use it!” Paul says: “I rejoice greatly over you givers, over what I see in you, beautiful flowering and fruit (v. 17)!” The spiritual mind moves on the higher plane. Then, too, Paul says all this about himself in order to instill a like spirit in his readers. He does not need to use the admonitory form, the Philippians will feel that they, too, should rise to this height. They had passed through hard times and might have to do so again.

Some are always poor. Nor was poverty the only burden that needed strength from him who empowers us. This is a good text for hard times in the common meaning of the expression and also in its wider meaning.

Philippians 4:14

14 After the digression with the import indicated Paul returns to the main point of what made him rejoice so greatly in regard to the gift. Πλήν has the same force it had in 3:16. Only you did nobly in jointly fellowshipping my affliction. Σύν in the participle means that the Philippians acted jointly in this matter. They all combined their efforts in fellow-shipping Paul’s affliction. See how beautifully Paul thus describes their gift: he regards it as their joint coming to share his affliction, his condition as a prisoner in behalf of the gospel. This is what their gift means to him, and by saying it he elevates the thought of his readers so that their gift will mean the same to them. For that is the real nobleness of their act. Καλῶς is more than: you did “well”; it is “excellently,” “nobly.” Paul’s straightforward commendation is the best kind of thanks. Yet note that it does not turn on the monetary value for Paul but on the spiritual value of the act of the givers in their relation to Paul.

Philippians 4:15

15 This is not all that Paul is able to say. He vividly recalls the days, some ten years ago, when the Philippians had done the same thing. Moreover, also you Philippians know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left from Macedonia, not a single church fellowshipped me as regards an account of giving and receiving except you alone, (namely) that even in Thessalonica both once and again you sent for my need.

“Moreover” adds this old item to the new one, and it is to the credit of the Philippians. “Also you Philippians know” means: as well as I know and will never forget. “Philippians” is not a vocative (R. V.) but an apposition (A. V.) “The beginning of the gospel” is like the caption of Mark’s Gospel. Read together: “in the beginning of the gospel when I left from Macedonia.” This marks the time. There is no need to debate as to whether this “beginning” refers to the standpoint of the readers, the beginning of gospel work in Europe, or includes Paul’s previous work in Galatia. In either case “beginning” denotes not a day but a time. So also the clause “when I left from Macedonia” does not mean “when I had left” or “after I had left.” It simply notes the time, and there is no need to insist on the imperfect: “when I was leaving.”

Ὅτε = at the time when I left, before I got entirely away. For Thessalonica is located in Macedonia, and there the two gifts that were sent from Philippi reached Paul. That is why καί, “even” is added: “even in Thessalonica,” before I actually got farther away. Two points are stressed: 1) the Philippian church had just been founded yet, infant church that it was, sent gifts to Paul; 2) it did this immediately, when Paul left Macedonia, while he was in Thessalonica, before he got any farther away from Philippi. Not a single other church ever fellowshipped Paul in this way “save you (Philippians) only.” None had this distinction save this one. Credit to whom credit is due!

Because of its simple aorists some think that “when I left from Macedonia” intends to point to 2 Cor. 11:9; and this passage is then taken to mean that the Philippians sent a collection to Paul while he was in Corinth whereas this passage states that “the brethren who came from Macedonia” helped Paul who was at the time without funds. Windisch goes to extremes and thinks that Paul had ordered mit Nachdruck that a general collection be taken in all the Macedonian churches and be given to him! 2 Cor. 11:9 does not mention a collection or a church but only some brethren who helped Paul. It is unlikely that they came from Philippi. This idea is unacceptable here where the two gifts that were sent to Thessalonica follow (v. 16), a gift that was sent to Corinth cannot precede.

Paul remains on the high plane: none “fellow-shipped me.” “Not a single church” omits reference to individuals who acted as did those mentioned in 2 Cor. 11:9. But he now expresses himself in the technical language of business: “as regards an account of giving and receiving,” i. e., as opening a ledger account with credit and debit columns. Does this mean 1) an account kept by Paul or 2) one kept by such a church or 3) one kept by both? Opinions are divided. Yet the subject is not Paul nor Paul plus a church; it is “not a single church” that opened such an account save you Philippians alone. No; Paul would not think of keeping a business account of what he gave and what he received.

The most that he ever said in this respect Isaiah 1 Cor. 9:11; in v. 12 he adds that he used no such power, in v. 18 that he preached the gospel gratis. A man who works gratis keeps no ledger, for he has no entries to make.

While Paul is praising the Philippians he is not blaming the other churches for never having sent him a gift; pay and regular support he always absolutely refused; read the reason in 1 Cor. 9. The gifts sent to him by the Philippians he could not refuse without insulting and offending this church. Yet he neither expected nor wanted even an occasional gift, his wealth was his contentment.

Philippians 4:16

16 Neither the ὅτι in v. 15 nor this one in v. 16 = “because.” Our versions think the latter should be so translated (“for”), but we should then expect γάρ. The clause is explicative: “except you only, (namely) that even (already) in Thessalonica both once and again you sent for my need.” Καὶἅπαξκαὶδίς = a couple of times (B.-P. 311), meaning twice. “Both—and” makes prominent the “one time” (ἅπαξ) and, with the other gift coming, “two times” (δίς): both once, yes, even twice, cf. 1 Thess. 2:18. Here we have Paul’s own word for it that he had received two gifts from Philippi.

Philippians 4:17

17 Not that I am out for the gift but I am out for the fruit, that which increases to your account.

Paul is not making a complaint and does not want a reader to think that he is. Such a thing is far from his mind. R., W. P., is right, this is not “nervous anxiety to clear himself” of wanting a gift but “delicate courtesy.” “The gift,” like “the fruit,” considers both concrete and actual, hence the articles. In v. 15 Paul writes δόσις, “giving,” the act; here δόμα, “gift,” the thing given. R. 151.

The two verbs = “to seek after,” to be intent on getting. “Fruit” continues the idea of bloom mentioned in v. 10. Yet to say that Paul is seeking after “the fruit” is still liable to be misunderstood as though he wanted “the gift” as “the fruit” for his own consumption; no, he does not want the fruit for himself, he wants only “that fruit which, of whatever it consists, grows to your account,” “to the account of you.” This is again the commercial use of λόγος. Paul is seeking for one thing only, to make the credit side of the ledger of all his churches grow as large as possible. Christ will settle the account as he himself pictures it for us in Luke 19:15, etc.; Matt. 25:19, etc.

Philippians 4:18

18 Moreover, I duly have everything and abound; I have been filled by having received from Epaphroditus the things from you, an odor of sweet odor, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.

The connection of thought is simple: Paul is not after the gift, but he is after what redounds to the credit of the Philippians; δέ, “moreover,” as far as their gifts is concerned, it actually makes Paul feel rich and surely is to the credit of the Philippians. We have noted the mercantile terms Paul uses, for instance, λόγος, “account,” just preceding. Ἀπέχω is another such term which was used by Jesus in the same way (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). The papyri and the ostraca have it in the sense of: “I have received in full,” as we give a receipt in full for moneys or goods received. As is the case regarding a few other verbs, ἀπό has the force of “duly.” Yet Paul is not sending the Philippians a formal receipt. If he intended to do that he would stop with this statement: “Now I receipt in full for everything.” Paul is only adopting this business term and uses it together with two other verbs, not in the sense of assuring the Philippians of a receipt in full, but to let them know how rich he feels. Epaphroditus, we are certain, had not come alone.

We have seen that he was more than the bearer of the gift to Paul; the Philippians had sent him as a gift to be Paul’s assistant in their place (see 2:25). The companions of Epaphroditus had returned to Philippi and had reported that the gift had been duly delivered to Paul. A formal receipt at this later writing would be out of place. But the language employed in receipts joined with other expressions that indicate Paul’s feeling of being very rich are very much in place.

He has duly received everything—which may not have been only money—and so he “abounds” as one who has more than enough. Without a connective he adds: “I have been filled” like a vessel to the very brim, the perfect tense indicating that he continues to be full. The asyndeton indicates that this verb includes the two that precede, it is like an apposition. Hence the participle does not modify the three verbs; it modifies only the last.

Epaphroditus was the leader of the little party that brought the gift. The emphasis is, however, on the character of the gift “from you,” namely that it is “an odor of sweet odor,” etc., which recalls Eph. 5:2. Both words are derived from ὄζω, to emit an odor; our word “odor” is a derivative. The Hebrew reach nichoach = odor of soothing, the second noun being ein Ersatz von “versoehnend,” “angenehm” (Ed. Koenig, Woerterbuch 276); it is used thus in Gen. 8:21 and repeatedly in Leviticus. The genitive may be adjectival: “a sweet-odored odor” (“a sweet-smelling savor,” A.

V. in Eph. 5:2; but “an odor of a sweet smell” in the A. V. of our passage). Incense was burned, so were the burnt sacrifices, and they emitted an odor, the true sweetness of which consisted in the spiritual condition of the persons bringing the sacrifice, cf., Lev. 26:31; Amos 5:21, 22; Ps. 5:16, 17.

Bringing out still more the thought that the gift of the Philippians is really an offering to God, Paul adds: “a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.” We need not say that θυσία drops the idea of a slaughter sacrifice. Since it is appositional to “odor,” the thought centers on the odor of the sacrifice that was burned and thus sent up an odor. The entire designation is figurative: what the old Jewish sacrifices at the Temple were this gift of the Philippians is, it has the same sweet odor for God and is thus “acceptable, well-pleasing to God.” Would that all our gifts deserved this characterization!

Philippians 4:19

19 I have been filled by you, God will fill you. Now my God will fill every need of yours according to his riches in glory in connection with Christ Jesus. “My God” because Paul was the recipient of the gift which was in reality a sacrifice pleasing to God. The future is volitive: God will fill every need of those who are well-pleasing to him, he has said so: “Give, and it shall be given to you” (Luke 6:38; Prov. 19:17). The fact that God often employs the agency of men for this makes no difference. The idea that this promise refers to the coming Messianic kingdom is an undue restriction of its meaning. Like other promises of this character, this one, too, refers to the present life, to its bodily needs, and to its spiritual needs, to “every” one of them.

In heaven we shall have no needs, and it is only rationalizing to contend that we shall have, for all of them will then be supplied. In v. 16 Paul mentions his own need which was certainly one of this life; so he now refers to the need of his readers which was also of this life. Paul cannot repay the Philippians, Paul’s God will.

How bountifully! “According to his riches in glory in connection with Christ Jesus.” We read this as it stands: the riches are in glory, and the glory is in Christ. Incredible, we are told, because Paul should then write: “according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.” Paul means, we are told: “God will fill your every need in glory,” but then there is a debate as to whether ἐν is instrumental: “with glory,” or modal, “in a glorious manner.” The phrase is supposed to place the filling of every need into the glory of the hereafter although some add: not exclusively.

These contentions overlook the fact that, if Paul meant what they think he says, he would have written the phrase where it ought to stand: “will fill your every need in glory according to his riches,” etc. Are not God’s riches “in glory” as well as “riches of his glory”? And all this glory is the shining forth of his love and his grace “in Christ Jesus.” Paul wants all three included in his κατά phrase which denotes the norm and measure God will use when he fills every need of the Philippians: God will use his great riches, the riches that shine “in glory,” and this is the glory connected with Christ Jesus, our blessed Savior. It is about as grand a way of expressing what norm God will use as one can devise. What are our litte needs here on earth when God uses this norm?

Philippians 4:20

20 Now to our God and Father the glory for the eons of the eons! Amen. This doxology marks the end. To the glory which is God’s own eternal possession is added the glory we ascribe to him when we know, praise, worship, and glorify him. This is an exclamation. Since they follow the one article, “God and Father” are considered a unit, “our” modifies both. Regarding the εἰς phrase with its duplicated plurals compare Gal. 1:5 where “amen” is also added.

The Conclusion

Philippians 4:21

21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus! This is the usual way of sending greetings (see Rom. 16:3, etc.), not: “I salute,” but “do you salute,” literally “embrace” for me. The view that “in Christ Jesus” does not modify “every saint” because “saint” already includes connection with Christ, and that the phrase is to be construed with the verb: “salute in Christ Jesus,” is answered by 1:1: “to all the saints in Christ Jesus,” where no verb is used. We do not know why Paul greets no one in Philippi by name. See the full discussion at the end of Ephesians where no greetings whatever are sent.

There salute you the brethren with me. These are the assistants of Paul. We do not know just who they were. There is no difficulty regarding 2:20, where Paul does not say that he has no one with him but that he has no one who is equally minded with Timothy.

Philippians 4:22

22 There salute you all the saints, especially those from Caesar’s household. “All the saints” = the congregations at Rome. In the first and original congregation there were many “from Caesar’s household.” The reason that Paul is able to send greetings from them “especially” is most likely due to the fact that they had more easy access to Paul or more frequent access. These were neither members of Nero’s family nor praetorian soldiers (see 1:13).

“Those from Caesar’s household” are the imperial slaves who came into Nero’s possession upon the death of their former masters, Aristobulus and Narcissus. See the author’s exposition of Rom. 16:10, 11. In Rom. 16:3, etc., there is mentioned the whole original Roman congregation to which Paul addressed Romans; here this whole congregation sends greetings. Prominent in it were the two groups of slaves who were now belonging to Nero. But these slaves were not uneducated, menial servants. Parables such as Luke 19:12 with its δοῦλοι, Matt. 25:14 with its “slaves,” offer us clearness on that matter.

Great lords used many slaves as managers of their estates, their finances, their business. These were highly educated men who were often abler than their lords. The emperor needed many of them. How they became Christians, apparently before they came into Nero’s possession (in Rom. 16 Paul still names them after their former masters), is an intriguing question; but they did. Their membership in the Roman congregation explains, at least in part, how Paul came to write a letter as grand as Romans to this congregation.

The fact that these men of the emperor’s own great household are especially mentioned as sending greetings reveals the truth that at this time, when Paul’s case was up before the imperial court, they are in closer touch with him. At an earlier time, when Paul wrote Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, this was not the case. Naturally; for now the trial, so long awaited, was bringing not only Paul’s own case but also the whole cause of the gospel to an issue. Who would now be more concerned than these slaves of Nero’s own household?

From the original congregation in Rome, to whom Paul had addressed Romans from Corinth, we must distinguish the great mass of Jewish Christians whom Paul had converted during his stay of two years in Rome, see the author’s exposition of Acts 28:17–31. These Jewish Christians remained together in their own synagogues. They were altogether too numerous to enter into the old congregation en masse; nor was there any reason that they should not remain in their own synagogues. At least three or four of the seven large synagogues in Rome were entirely Christianized. Paul’s πάντεςοἱἅγιοι perhaps included also these saints as well as those of the old Jewish and Gentile church. See also the author’s introduction to Hebrews.

Philippians 4:23

23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ with your spirit! Some texts read “with you all” (A. V.). “With your spirit” is thought to have been taken from Gal. 6:18; but why this should be done is not stated. Substantially there is no difference: if grace is with us, it is with our spirit. “Grace” (1:2) is the saving favor of the Lord plus all its gifts. It is always undeserved, unmerited, even in the case of “saints,” whom the word itself thus reminds that they are still sinners. “Amen” at the end may be textually genuine although our R. V. does not think so.

The note at the end: “To the Philippians,” appears in most of the important texts yet amounts to no more than the ancient title which was affixed by the copyists also to the outside of the manuscript roll. This title was expanded by some of the copyists: “To the Philippians written from Rome through Epaphroditus” (A. V.). “From Rome” is correct, but “through Epaphroditus” is only an ancient tradition. We do not know whether Paul employed Epaphroditus as his amanuensis for this letter. The fact that Epaphroditus carried the letter to Philippi is almost certain.

Soli Deo Gloria

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

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

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.