Philippians, Epistle to the

Philippians Epistle To The

1. Author.-This document purports (1) to be a letter sent from St. Paul and Timothy to the Christian community in Philippi. Although Timothy is mentioned in the address as joint author, the letter throughout is St. Pauls own. He commences at once in the 1st person singular- (Php 1:3)-and continues so throughout. When he does use the plural (1st person), it is not at all clear that he simply means Timothy and himself. Thus in Php 3:3 – -the meaning seems to be that Christians are the real people of God. Zahn (Introd. to the NT, Eng. tr._, i. 538) opposes this view, maintaining that St. Paul and Timothy alone are meant, because they were circumcised; but his argument is forced and inconclusive. What St. Paul says is that we who worship in the spirit of God and put no confidence in the flesh are the true circumcision, and this would apply to Pauline Christians generally, not simply to St. Paul and Timothy. Again, in Php 3:17, Brethren, unitedly imitate me, and mark (approvingly) those so walking even as you have us as an example ( ), other leaders are probably included as well as Timothy. And in Php 3:15; Php 3:20 f, Php 4:20, and in those passages of inferior MS_ authority where the 1st plur. occurs, e.g. Php 1:3 – (a reading approved by Zahn, op. cit. i. 535, and by Haupt in Meyers Kommentar ber das NT7, in loco, for different reasons)- Php 1:28-29 ( for ), the reference is general. Not even in Php 4:21, the final salutation, where one might naturally expect it, is Timothy mentioned. Moreover, he is spoken of in the 3rd person, and his character and intentions are described quite objectively (Php 2:19-23): But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy speedily to you, that I may be encouraged, when I come to know your affairs. For I have none like-minded with him, who will genuinely concern himself about your affairs. For all seek their own, not the things of Christ Jesus. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with a father, he served with me in spreading the gospel. Him then I hope to send at once, whenever I come to know how my affairs turn out.

The letter, then, on its face value is St. Pauls own, nor is there any reason for exercising false subtlety to account for the presence of Timothys name in the address. His presence with St. Paul at the time of writing, and especially his intimate relations with the Philippians in the past, and his coming visit are a sufficient explanation. (Timothy was with St. Paul at the founding of the Church [Act 16:12 ff.]. When St. Paul left, he seems to have stayed behind. He was sent to Corinth through Macedonia [Act 19:22, 1Co 16:10]. When 2 Cor. was written, he was again with St. Paul in Macedonia.) Nor is there any reason to doubt the genuineness of the letter because of St. Pauls use of the 1st person singular throughout in spite of Timothys name at the beginning (as W. C. van Manen, EBi_ iii. 3705). In Col 1:3, 1Th 1:2, 2Th 1:3, and 2Co 1:5 the joint authorship is indeed remembered, but we have a parallel in 1Co 1:4, where it is at once forgotten, as here.

Besides Timothy, St. Paul associates with himself in the closing salutation the brethren, (Php 4:22). Who these were we are not told, but they can have had no part in the composing of the letter, as they are evidently those referred to in Php 2:21 and accused of selfishness. Their own interests came before the interests of the Philippian Church, to which St. Paul probably asked them to convey authoritative tidings of himself. Nor would the saints as a whole (i.e. the Christians generally, but especially those of Caesars household) know anything of the letter save that it was being sent. The saints of Caesars household were not members of the ruling family but freedom and slaves connected with the imperial court (cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 171 f.; Zahn, op. cit. i. 550).

It is possible that the letter was written by Epaphroditus (that Epaphroditus is mentioned in the 3rd person is no absolute objection to this) if the phrase true yokefellow ( , Php 4:3) is to be taken as an appellative. The meaning is, however, very doubtful, and the most varied suggestions have been made-Christ, Lydia, Pauls wife, Timothy, Peter, Pauls brother, an allegorical personage, etc. Lightfoot (in loc.) and Zahn (op. cit. i. 537) are of the opinion that Epaphroditus, who was either beside St. Paul as he wrote or who actually wrote the letter, was directly addressed in this way. This Epaphroditus was a messenger () sent by the Philippian Church to St. Paul with a monetary gift (Php 4:18), and his experience is described in the letter: I think it needful to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, your messenger and minister of my need. For he was home-sick for you all, and distressed because you heard he was ill. And indeed he was nigh to death; but God had pity on him, and not on him alone but also on me, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. I am sending him then all the more eagerly, that you may rejoice again when you see him, and that I may sorrow the less. Receive him then in the Lord with all joy; and have such in honour, because on account of the work of Christ he came near to death, hazarding ()_ his life to make up what was wanting in your ministry to me (Php 2:25-30).

But it is perhaps better to regard Synzygus as a proper name-possibly the person to whom the letter would directly come before it was read in the church assembly. The author, in a passage full of earnest passion, runs hurriedly over certain autobiographical details. He was of true Hebrew descent-circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as regards the Law a Pharisee, as regards zeal persecuting the Church, with a clean record as far as Law-righteousness went. But all these privileges he considered loss and still so considers them for Christs sake. To knew Christ (perhaps is here used as being admitted to His intimate friendship; cf. ; Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 288, Eng. tr._, p. 383), to gain Him, to be found in Him, that is worth all, and the rest is worth nothing in comparison with it. Earthly fortune, future, and fame are but stable-sweepings compared with this (Ramsay says Paul gave up literally his patrimony and was disowned, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, London, 1895, p. 34 ff.). For by faith in Christ the writer has been pardoned and empowered to live a new righteous life-the very thing the Law could not do. Thus the power which animated Christ in His resurrection, in His life and Passion, in His death is working in St. Paul, and St. Paul is energizing to live in the absolute newness of life that this implies. Absolute attainment is not yet his, but it is his single aim. Whatever his past progress may have been, he is not contented with that. Past attainment is not perfection, but it brings nearer the realization of what is implied in the high calling of God in Christ Jesus (Php 3:4-14).

Here then is a letter purporting to be from one with such a history who specially associates Timothy with himself, who sends greetings from brethren, especially those of Caesars household with whom was Epaphroditus, to a Christian community in Philippi. Does a careful study of the letter itself substantiate such a view? Is there anything in the letter itself (as Baur and others think) inconsistent with its own account of its origin and authorship?

Before we can answer we must ask who were the recipients and what were their relations with the writer.

2. The recipients of the letter.-The letter is written to all the saints in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons (Php 1:1). Throughout the letter, however, there is no further mention of officials; and there is a remarkable impartiality as well as cordiality towards the members of the community as a whole (cf. the use of , Php 1:1; Php 1:4; Php 1:7-8; Php 1:25, Php 2:17; Php 2:26, Php 4:21). We have an account by an eye-witness in Act 16:12-40 of the founding of the Philippian Church-a Church interesting to us as being the first Christian community on European soil. It is, however, to be remembered that the distinction between Europe and Asia was not anything like so real to men in ancient times as it is now. Dubiety is at once raised by the mention of bishops and deacons, but this is largely due to modern associations. We think of these words in their modem sense or in their 3rd cent. sense. That they are not so used here is evident from the fact that what we have is bishops, not bishop. That the author of the letter is not advocating any special ecclesiastical organization is evident from the casualness of the reference, and from the absence of any further allusion to those officials. It may be taken for granted that every church would have an organization of some sort. It was not easy-perhaps not possible-for the individual Christian to maintain his position without the social strength of his brethren behind him. Is it possible, then, to think of two orders in a church like that of Philippi, in the lifetime of St. Paul? There were officers in the Thessalonian Church called , , (1Th 5:12), but it is clear that their authority was a moral one, and their position due to their spiritual influence. The terms used evidently describe the same persons from different points of view. Haupt regards both terms in our letter as applied to the same persons, but it is probable that two orders are in view.

Elsewhere (Act 20:2 ff.) we understand that the essential constituted officials were , and that these were also known as bishops. They formed the essence of church government.

From the Pastorals also it is clear that and are interchangeable terms (Tit 1:5 ff., 1Ti 3:1-2). With the alterations in later times in the usage of these terms we are not concerned; only with this, that there seems no ground for suspicion as regards their occurrence here. It is certainly preferable to regard them as interpolations than to reject the whole letter as spurious, but it is not necessary to do this if the terms are dissociated from later associations. As we shall see, one main cause of writing the letter was to thank the Philippians for monetary help, and it is not inappropriate to regard these persons as being instrumental in the collecting and dispatching of this money.

Certain individuals are mentioned by name, especially two women-Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3). Euodia I beseech, and Syntyche I beseech that they show practical agreement in the Lord. It is surely the reductio ad ridiculum of criticism to find here, under assumed names, subtle references to church parties. Zahn gives an account of the subtle hidden meanings found in these names (now proved to be so common, although not yet attested for Philippi) by Schwegler, Baur, Hitzig, and Holsten, and calls them fantastic conceits (op. cit. i. 561 f.). This is now the unanimous opinion, so that one need not further dwell on it. What we have to do with is a quarrel between two women, the origin or extent of which we know not (although it cannot have been serious). A certain person (Synzygus) is asked to help in their reconciliation: I would request you (), genuine Synzygus (or yoke-fellow), help those women, inasmuch as they laboured with me in the gospel and with Clement and other fellow-labourers of mine whose names are in the book of life (Php 4:2-4). There is some doubt as to the interpretation of the passage. Some take the writer to mean that Clement and his fellows should help in settling this difference (Lightfoot, Zahn); others-and this seems the only feasible view-that the women laboured with the apostles and with Clement. Indeed, from the tone of the passage one would naturally conclude that Clement was already dead. To identify this Clement with Clement of Rome on the ground that no other of that name is known to us from either history or legend (Baur, Paul, Eng. tr._ 2, 2 vols., London, 1873-75, pp. 63, 77), is foolish, as the name Clement seems to have been common (cf. Zahn, op. cit. i. 534). Moreover, this Clement is a Philippian, not a Roman. That women should have a conspicuous place in the Philippian Church agrees with Acts 16, and, indeed, as Lightfoot points out (Philippians, p. 56), with the conditions in Macedonia generally. Various attempts have been made to identify one or other of these women with Lydia, on the ground that Lydia is not a proper name but simply moans the Lydian lady; but there is no certainty in the results. It is certainly curious that neither Lydia nor the jailer is mentioned, but the omission of their names is no ground for identifying the one with Euodia or Syntyche or the other with Clement. It seems a strong proof of authenticity rather than the reverse.

The only other person mentioned in the letter as belonging to Philippi is Epaphroditus (see above). He is, however, with the writer at the time of writing, preparing to go back after having delivered their gift to St. Paul: I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the things that come from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God (Php 4:18).

That St. Paul should have written to Philippi is a priori very probable. Is there any reason to reject our present letter, then, as an authentic communication by the Apostle to this church? It is extremely difficult to see anything in this artless affectionate letter which raises any suspicion, and the onus probandi lying on him who would reject it owing to difficulties which may reasonably be explained otherwise is very great.

3. Purpose of the letter.-As Edith Bellendens letter revealed its purpose in a postscript (see Scott, Old Mortality), so this letter also. The Philippians had sent monetary help by Epaphroditus, and St. Paul hereby acknowledges receipt of it ( [], a terminus technicus, as is now abundantly proved) (Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1897, p. 56, Eng. tr._, Bible Studies, Edinburgh, 1901, p. 229, Licht vom Osten, p. 77 f., Eng. tr._, p. 110 f.; see also Exp_, 7th ser., vi. [1908] 91). The language of the whole passage is full of half-humorous allusions to a financial transaction. He tells them how he is filled with Christian joy because of the proof it furnished him of the revival of their interest in him. They had, indeed, always thought about him (that he knew), but they lacked opportunity (very probably owing to poverty; cf. Php 1:9-11, where possibly he expects that by a more enlightened on their part this may be avoided in the future). His joy is not that of one whose material necessities have for the moment been relieved. The fact is that he has learned the true secret of contentment (), and is able to endure any material situation. He can do this not in his own strength but in the strength of Him in whom is his life (cf. ) and the source of his energy. Nevertheless, he feels keenly the transparent goodness of their succour when thus they shared in his affliction. It is, indeed, what was to be expected of them, in view of their past liberality. For he is glad to recall that at the very beginning of his European mission they opened, as it were, a bank account with him-even sending twice help to him while he was yet in Thessalonica, and, besides, when he had left Macedonia they regularly contributed to his support (cf. 2Co 11:8-9). It is not the present gift itself, qua gift, that pleases him, but the spiritual reality it represents. It shows him that they feel their indebtedness to him. As he gave them spiritual riches, so they give him material help. His God is thus become their banker, and He pays large interest, now and especially hereafter, when Christ through whom His riches are mediated appears in glory. Their gift then-as an exhibition of their spiritual gratitude for His unspeakable gift (cf. 2Co 9:15)-is a sweet-smelling savour and an acceptable and well-pleasing sacrifice to God (Php 4:10-20).

Now that Epaphroditus has sufficiently recovered and is about to return to them, St. Paul thus acknowledges their generosity. He takes advantage of his intended departure to dispatch this letter (cf. Cic. ad Atticum, I. ix. 1). It may seem strange thus to postpone mention of their gift if this be the main object of sending the letter, but there are references in the very beginning also when the Apostle thanks God for their in the furtherance of the gospel from the first day until now (cf. Php 4:15, in the beginning of the gospel); and for this very reason he feels convinced that God will carry on in them the good work till Christs day and complete it. Their spiritual condition, as evidenced by their liberality, is a proof that the perseverance of the saints shall be effective in them.

He cannot otherwise regard them-his affections being witness-for, indeed, they are fellow-participators with him in grace because thus they have shown their identity with him both in his chains and in his defence and confirmation of the gospel. What more graceful reference could be made than this, and what more spiritual inferences drawn from Christian liberality?

Besides, there is the reference to their offering in Php 2:25 ( ).

There are, however, other objects for the letter as well as this main one. For one thing, the Philippians had heard of the sickness of Epaphroditus and were anxious about him (Php 2:26), and the Apostle tenderly refers to him and commends him to them, in view of his return, for his works sake. Epaphroditus was evidently sent by the Philippians in order to stay with St. Paul and minister to him, and his return home so soon needed explanation, perhaps apology, and the Apostle does this in graceful and affectionate language. How he came to know of their feelings as regards Epaphroditus we are not told, but it is natural to infer that they had meanwhile written to him about this and other matters as well. Indeed, the letter becomes much more intelligible when we regard it as answering questions and meeting a situation unfolded in an actual correspondence of recent date from Philippi, which was before the Apostle as he wrote, and which may well have conditioned the order of his topics. (That such communications took place is self-evident. He would surely have acknowledged their previous gifts, and these would be accompanied by writing.) There is some ground, indeed, for explaining the difficult passage (Php 3:1) as referring to a letter written shortly before this by the Apostle to them. At any rate, to explain the from the contents of the letter itself is not easy, and the reference to other communications is a feasible one. Zahn has used this clue in the interpretation of the letter (cf. also W. Lock, Exp_, 5th ser., vi. [1897] 65 ff.; and especially J. Rendel Harris, ib., 5th ser., viii. [1898] 161 ff.).

It is clear that the Philippians were inclined to take a pessimistic view of the effect of St. Pauls imprisonment and situation in general on the cause of the gospel. The statement in Php 1:12 ff. is a correction of this, and we may well explain the repeated injunctions to joy as proof that they were apt to be dispirited owing to the seeming failure of the Apostles missionary activity.

Perhaps also they needed to be told that their gifts were thoroughly appreciated by the Apostle, and that there was no feeling of disappointment in his mind in regard to the tardiness or smallness of their liberality. The Philippians must recently have expressed their dissatisfaction with what they had done to support Paul and his work, and their doubt as to whether Paul had been satisfied with the same. The tone in which Paul speaks of the matter throughout the letter (Php 2:17; Php 2:25; Php 2:30, Php 4:10-20) is natural only on the supposition that this feeling had been very strongly expressed, and the Church had lamented and apologised for the smallness and tardiness of their last remittance (Zahn, op. cit. i. 527).

St. Paul also is anxious to tell of his intention to visit them (Php 2:24, ) and to assure them that their prayers help to this end. It is possible that they spoke of him in their letter as their (Php 1:26; cf. Rendel Harris, Exp_, 5th ser., viii. 178). The sharp change of tone in Php 3:2 may also be due to a fear expressed by the Philippians of a possible Judaistic propaganda among them. It may, however, be quite well explained out of St. Pauls own experience.

Besides all this, there are the differences of opinion in the Church itself and the consequent reiterated charges to present a united front to the enemy, and as in all his letters there are the Christian moral injunctions based on the great Christian verities. It is not difficult thus to get a pretty clear conception of the purposes and aims of the writer in this Epistle, nor can it be held that there is anything in this incompatible with the Pauline authorship. What one has to fear in interpretation is over-subtlety and the tendency to forget that the canons of criticism that apply to a modern theological treatise are not applicable to an informal letter which its author never intended as a .

4. Genuineness

(a) External evidence.-So much attention is given by recent critics to internal evidence that the external is apt to be undervalued or overlooked, although it is as strong as one can reasonably expect. The first unmistakable reference of a direct kind to St. Pauls Epistle is found in Polycarps letter to the same church (ad Phil. iii. 2):

For neither I nor anyone else like me can attain to the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who while he was among you taught those then living the words of truth accurately and vigorously, who also in his absence wrote letters to you ( ).

That our letter is referred to here seems clear. Indeed, it is evident that Polycarp knew it well, as there are distinct echoes of it in his short epistle (cf. ad Phil. i. 1=Php 2:17; Php 4:10; ii. 1=Php 2:10, Php 3:21; ix. 2=Php 2:16 [or Gal 2:2]; x. 1=Php 2:2-5; xii. 3=Php 3:18). The difficulty is to account for the plural letters. It is sometimes explained as if it were simply equivalent to the singular (cf. examples in Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 140 ff.). Others, however, point out that Polycarp appreciates the difference between the singular and the plural in this epistle (cf. xiii. 2), and that we must here understand a real plural. Zahn (op. cit. i. 536) and others accordingly explain it on the supposition that 1 and 2 These. and Philippians formed a Macedonian group, and Zahn shows that Tertullian so regarded them (Scorp. 13), and probably Polycarp himself (xi. 3); cf. also Harnack, TU_, new ser., Php 3:3 [1900] 86 f. It may be said, however, that a later tradition supports the theory of more letters than one (cf. Georgius Syncellus, who quotes Php 4:3 as occurring in St. Pauls first letter [Chronographia, i. 651]; cf. also Studia Sinaitica, ed. A. S. Lewis, i. [Cambridge, 1894] 11 ff., for the mention of a Second Epistle in the Syrian Canon, c._ a.d. 400). As we shall see later on, this is used freely to support modern theories of fusion in our extant Epistle, but it remains to be proved on its own merits that the present Epistle contains two or more letters joined together; for there is every likelihood that many letters written by St. Paul are now lost, and possibly among them one or more to Philippi. It is, however, problematical if lost letters are here referred to, as it is quite possible to explain the plural otherwise, and it is not likely that if more letters than one existed in Polycarps time they would have been lost afterwards.

The statement in ad Phil. xi. 3-qui estis in principio epistolae eius-is difficult. Some supply laudati (you who are praised) in the beginning of his letter. Others, however, say the text is meaningless (sinnlos) (cf. E. Hennecke, Handbuch zu den neutest. Apokryphen, Tbingen, 1904, p. 103), and translate in the beginning of his gospel [cf. Php 4:15] or his mission, (E. Nestle acc. to Zahn, op. cit. i. 536). Others again, referring to 2Co 3:2-3, make epistolae plural, Yon who are his epistles. The latter is not likely. There can be no doubt, however, that Polycarp (c._ 125-130] knew our letter, although it is doubtful if he knew of more than one. It is also quoted in his Martyrdom, i. 2 (= Php 2:4).

There is also cumulative evidence that both Ignatius and Clement of Rome were acquainted with our letter (see Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 75 f.). It is quoted by Eusebius (HE_ v. ii. 2) in the Epistle from Lyons and Vienne. According to Clem. Alex. and Hippolytus it was recognized by the heretical Valentians and Sethites who quoted Php 2:6, the latter to prove their own doctrine. The Apologists recognize it (Epistle to Diognetus, Php 2:9 = Php 3:20 and elsewhere), and it is found in all the 2nd cent. canons as well as in the Apostolicum of Marcion. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen also recognize it. The fact is, the genuineness of the letter was never questioned till within recent times, and that solely on internal grounds (see Vincent, ICC_, Philippians and Philemon, Introd.; C. R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the NT, Edinburgh, 1907, and, indeed, all books on the Canon of Scripture).

(b) Internal evidence.-It is impossible and fortunately unnecessary to review in detail the various arguments that have been brought against the authenticity of the Epistle to the Philippians since F. C. Baur (Paul, Eng. tr._ 2, ii. 45-79). Perhaps the three most formidable opponents are Baur himself, Holsten, and van Manen. Baur laid special stress on Gnostic affinities, especially in Php 2:6 ff. According to him, the writer knew the theories concerning the aeon Sophia, its bold actus rapiendi to gain an equality with the All-Father and its consequent degradation into the region of darkness and emptiness ( ). The occurrence of words like and (not ) lends colour to this view, and the Gnostic descent into hell was, it is held, well known to the writer. The whole passage is thus explicable only on the supposition that the writers mind was filled with certain Gnostic ideas current at the time (Eng. tr._ 2, vol. ii. p. 46). The writer was not, of course, advocating these ideas, but they were employed by him with the necessary modifications for his own purpose. O. Pfleiderer still holds to this view (Das Urchristentum, Berlin, 1887, p. 320 f.), although he believes in the genuineness of the letter, and so is compelled to regard the passage as interpolated (ib. p. 153). It was, however, given up by Holsten, and van Manen (EBi_, art._ Philippians [Epistles]) does not refer to it.

More recently attempts have been made to trace the genesis of the conceptions used in the passage to primitive apocalyptic traditions (see W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, Gttingen, 1907) of an , or Urmensch, pre-existent in the highest heaven, who descended to the lowest, such a view for instance as is given in the Ascensio Isaiae, x. 29 f. Isaiah hears God telling His Son to descent into the world, and the stages of this descent through the heavens are given. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs we have phrases which readily suggest affinity with Php 2:6 ff. (cf. Benj. x. 7: worshipping the king of the heavens who appeared on earth, ; Zeb. ix. 8: ). These, however, are probably borrowed from Christian traditions. It is well known that Philo had the conception of an ideal man (de Conf. Ling., ed. Mangey, i. 411), and that there are vague indefinite references in Enoch (Simile), Psalms of Solomon, Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.

Moffatt quotes (LNT_, p. 172) from Poimandres (after Reitzenstein) the description of this Original Man: .

Holsten was greatly concerned with the representation of Christ in Philippians because it contradicted the heavenly man view of Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15. But it is clear, on a careful examination of these passages, that what St. Paul has in mind is the contrast between the glorified pneumatic body of the Redeemer and the earthly bodies of His people. Holsten is right, however, in maintaining that in Philippians what we have is not a Christ originally man-but a Divine Being, and a Divine Being showing His Divinity in becoming man and in the energy of His exalted power. It is extremely doubtful if St. Paul has in his writings at all the conception of a pre-existent man either ideal or actual (see H. A. A. Kennedy, Exp_, 8th ser., vii. [1914] 97 ff.). The danger in these researches into origins is to conclude that vague hints in popular traditions suggest to St. Paul the facts. The facts were prior and creative, causes not effects. They were not suggested by his early acquaintance with a Rabbinic doctrine of a Heavenly Man.

Whatever the affinities or affiliations with vague traditions may be-whether he has Adam, Lucifer (Isa 14:12-15) or an in mind is very uncertain; what is certain is that Christs life on earth and St. Pauls own experience of His exalted power necessarily suggest to him these transcendent views of His worth (cf. 2Co 8:9, and especially Col.).

The attempts of Baur to find in the (Php 4:3) a mediator of the two extreme parties in early Christianity and the identification of the Clement of our Epistle with Clemens Romanus and T. Flavius Clemens need not be further commented on (see above). Objections also to our Epistle on the ground of what Baur calls the questionableness of some of the historical data-viz. the references to the Praetorium and the saints of Caesars household-are due to an inadequate exegesis, and Baur himself readily admits their credibility were it not for his theory of a conflict of parties in the early Church. Besides, the mention of bishops and deacons (Php 1:1) lends no support to the theory of false historical references when one remembers that bishops are just the presbyters found in all churches, and the deacons servants of the Christian community under them. We are not to think of these officers as sacramentally mediating grace, but as spiritually guiding the community. One feels that the objections to such terms are to a large extent exhibitions of annoyance at our own ignorance of 1st cent. conditions, and are largely biased by modern associations.

The objections on the score of doctrinal divergences from the Hauptbriefe are forcibly set forth by Holsten (as also by Baur) and van Manen. It is said that the Epistle is vague and nebulous, that it lacks any leading idea, that it is characterized by monotonous repetition, by lack of profound connexion of ideas, and by poverty of thought, of which the author himself is conscious when he writes Php 3:1. St. Paul is said here also to show a desire for self-glorification (Php 3:4-17); his acknowledgment of the Philippians gift is lacking in grace; his acceptance of it is contrary to his statement in 1Co 9:12 ff.; he shows uncertainty as to his future, even expressing doubt as to his participation in the resurrection (Php 3:11). His views of justification, perfection, and the Parousia are not what we would expect from the genuine St. Paul. He imitates freely and skilfully, especially 2 Cor. and Rom.; but, like all imitators, wrongly (cf. his use of , Php 1:19). His attitude of rejoicing in the preaching of those who preach Christ in pretence is wholly unlike the real St. Paul. Holsten collects words used which are un-Pauline and anti-Pauline as well as non-Pauline. The autobiographical section is based on 2Co 11:13 ff. In short, whatever agrees with the Hauptbriefe is imitated, and whatever does not is invented. This kind of criticism looks too much like the story of the wolf and the lamb to carry conviction save by opposition. Let any one read van Manens column (EBi_ iii. 3709) as to the views of the writer of Philippians concerning Christ, arranged by the critic to convince us that they could not have been held by St. Paul, and one feels at once that if these were not St. Pauls views we simply know not what they were.

Van Manen feels it necessary to defend the writer from the charge of fraudulency, declaring that he wrote more from modesty than from arrogance. His very defence shows the uneasiness of his conscience. There are difficulties in the Epistle to the Philippians, but they are not difficulties like the above. One of these-perhaps the must serious-is the change of tone in Php 3:1 ff.; and the unsatisfactoriness of the various attempts to explain the reveals the difficulty and has given rise to various theories as to the integrity of the letter itself-all more or less motived by this so-called chasm. Many feel as if here two distinct strata appear; and, although it is not possible to say definitely where the second ends, it is, they say, clear that it begins here. This leads us to consider various theories regarding the integrity of the letter.

5. Integrity.-Various attempts since Heinrichs (1810) and Paulus (1799) have been made to find in our Epistle two or more letters fused together. The suggestion was first put forward in 1685 by S. le Moyne (Moine or Mayne), in Varia Sacra, ii. 332 ff., and it is the view (in varying forms) favoured still by many critics (cf. Bacon, The Story of St. Paul, London, 1905, p. 367 f.; and Kirsopp Lake, Exp_, 8th ser., vii. [1914] 487 f.). There is, however, little unanimity as to what portions make up the different letters, or, indeed, how many letters are incorporated in the single canonical Epistle (J. E. Symes, Interpreter, x. 2 [1914] gives five). The view of Heinrichs is that Php 3:1 to Php 4:19 is an interpolated communication addressed to the leaders of the Philippian Church, and that Php 1:1 to Php 2:30, Php 4:21-23 was a letter to the church as a whole. It is difficult to reconcile this view with Php 4:10 where the whole church is addressed and where the tone of rejoicing is again heard. Accordingly, Kirsopp Lake adopts the theory that the interpolated letter stops at Php 4:3. Both are genuinely Pauline letters. A simpler view is that we have two letters, chs. 1 and 2 forming the first (but in time the second), and 3 and 4 forming the second-in point of time the first (Hausrath, Paulus, Heidelberg, 1865, p. 486 ff.; cf. also Bacon, op. cit. It may be objected to this view that neither of these sections is a complete letter in itself, and also that we have no clear mention of their gift in the first one save the allusion in Php 2:25, for although the Apostle speaks of their fellowship yet this is too indefinite in itself to be a thanksgiving for their contribution. Besides, it is doubtful if it really explains anything, although it creates fresh difficulties. It is meant to free us of Php 3:1 ff., as indeed all such theories are, but with little success. It is surely not necessary to see any contradiction in what is said in Php 2:21 regarding the brethren with St. Paul and what is said in Php 1:14, nor to equate those spoken of in ch. 3 with those referred to in Php 1:18 (so also Moffatt, LNT_, p. 175). The view elaborated by D. Vlter (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1892, pp. 10-14, 117-146) and others as to various interpolations is also due to a large extent to the difficulty of explaining the of ch. 3 and its different tone, as is also Ewalds view that St. Paul wrote first chs. 1 and 2, and then after an interruption the remainder, possibly in two postscripts. This is in itself quite conceivable and less violent than the other theories of a similar kind.

Is there any external ground for holding to the theory of a double letter? We have already discussed the evidence in Polycarp (see above), of which so much is made, and have come to the conclusion that nothing definite can be found there to substantiate a double letter. Nor is the comparison with 2 Corinthians 10-13 wholly convincing. There is nothing a priori improbable in the idea that St. Paul wrote more letters than one to Philippi; indeed, there is every reason to suppose this to have been the case, yet it goes no way towards proving that we have these communications fused together in our extant Epistle. If this theory can be established, it must be established on other grounds, and it must satisfy the facts better than the one-letter theory. The chief difficulty is to explain the . Does this refer to the contents of the letter itself, or to some special prominent thought in it? Some find this leading idea to be rejoicing. This is Baurs idea: The refers to nothing but the , that is, to the contents of the Epistle generally, for the key-note and the leading thought of it are expressed in this constantly recurring (Paul, Eng. tr._2, vol. ii. p. 70). But it cannot be said that this is convincing although it is the most natural thought that one would gather from the words. The idea occurs often in the letter (Php 1:18; Php 2:17-18; Php 2:28; Php 3:1; Php 4:4; Php 4:10; also Php 1:4; Php 1:25, Php 2:2; Php 2:29, Php 4:1), but why should there be special safety in repeating it?

Others say that the reference is to the dangers of dissensions already present in the Church at Philippi (Php 1:27, Php 2:2-4) (Lightfoot), and this agrees with the passage following, although the language (, ) is very strong considering the vagueness of the allusions to these previous dissensions. Some critics find the idea referred to in , or in (so Maurice Jones, Exp_, 8th ser., viii. [1914] 471), but both these suggestions are far from self-evident. The idea that perhaps St. Paul was referring to previous written communications accordingly suggests itself, and perhaps satisfies the conditions better, or the similar idea that he was interrupted, and that in the meantime he had received disconcerting news of probable Jewish aggressiveness in Philippi. It may however, be explained on subjective grounds. If St. Paul himself was at this point suddenly arrested by the experience of Jewish fanaticism towards himself, it might very well occasion this outburst, which is undoubtedly characteristic of the Apostle, although it is difficult to account for on such a view.

At any rate there is not here sufficient ground either for eliminating Php 3:1 or, what is worse, discrediting the unity of the letter itself. This unity is apparent in spite of the admitted difficulty; and no one has recognized it more clearly than van Manen: The epistle as a whole does not present the appearance of patchwork. Rather does it show unity of form: we find a letter with a regular beginning and ending (Php 1:1 f., Php 4:20-23); a thanksgiving at the outset for the many excellences of the persons addressed (Php 1:3-11; cf. Rom 1:8-12, 1Co 1:4-9), notwithstanding the sharp rebukes that are to be administered later; personalia; exhortations relating to the ethical and religious life; all mingled together yet not without regard to a certain order. Here and there some things may be admitted to interrupt the steady flow of the discourse; Php 3:1 or Php 3:1 b raises the conjecture of a new beginning; the things spoken of here are not different from those which we meet with elsewhere in other Pauline Epistles-even in Romans , 1 and 2 Cor., Gal. There also, just as here, we repeatedly hear a change of tone, and are conscious of what seems to be a change of spirit. Yet even apart from this, to lay too great stress upon the spiritual mood which expresses itself in Php 3:2-6, as contrasted with that of Php 1:3-11, or, on the whole, of 1-2, would, be to forget what we can read in Php 1:15-17, Php 2:21 and the calm composure shown in 3f. (EBi_ iii. 3708). What one has to remember is that in real letters we must expect such sudden changes. A recent editor (J. D. Duff) of Plinys Letters (bk. vi., London, 1906, Introd. p. xix) says: these letters [i.e. Plinys] are not genuine letters in the sense that they were not written merely for the information or pleasure of the person addressed but mainly with an eye to future publication. If they are compared with genuine letters such as Ciceros the difference is at once apparent. Pliny never repeats himself, never sends news which has to be corrected in a later letter, never betrays a sign of real excitement or depression. He never jumps from one subject to another, and then back again as everyone does in a natural letter to a friend. Few people are so fortunate in their surroundings that their letters to intimate friends contain nothing but praise of the persons mentioned (cf. Php 2:21). If these be the criteria of a real letter, they are all present in this one-repetitions, excitement, depression, jumps from one subject to another, and possibly expectations that were not fulfilled.

The is not explained by fusion, for it is even more probable that a redactor would see the break sooner than St. Paul himself would. We must either hold that the reference is to earlier communications which have been lost, or, to explain it of our present letter, admit that we cannot be sure what exactly in it is spoken of, recognizing, however, that the change of tone is quite in the manner of St. Paul. The double (Php 3:1 and Php 4:8) might lend colour to the view of amalgamation, but it is possible that with St. Paul it is not very much stronger than (cf. Kennedy, EGT_, Philippians, in locis, and G. Milligan, Thessalonians, London, 1908, on 1Th 4:1). At any rate in a letter one is not astonished to find such usages. There is nothing in the style either to suggest spuriousness or fusion. It is simple and artless, rising at times to a rhythmical height. This is clearly seen in Php 2:6 ff. and also in Php 4:11-13 (cf. J. Weiss, Beitrge zur paulin. Rhetorik, Gttingen, 1897, pp. 28, 29). One can naturally explain this as due to emotion such as even an ordinary preacher often feels and which produces a rhythmic poetic style. Php 3:1 b is an iambic trimeter, , -possibly a quotation, more probably due to accident and unconscious. Baur has noticed the repetition of the same word (Php 1:9; Php 1:18; Php 1:25, Php 2:17-18; Php 2:27, Php 3:2, Php 4:2; Php 4:17) and the use of synonyms (Php 1:20, Php 2:1-2; Php 2:16; Php 2:25).

Certain words occurring nowhere else in St. Paul are suggestive, as , Php 4:8; , Php 1:12; and (only in Pastorals) as well as unusual combinations of common words, e.g. , , (noun). The latter can be explained, however, by LXX_ usage; and possibly the former. There is nothing astonishing in St. Pauls acquaintance with such common words, which perhaps came to him through popular Stoic usage (see Lightfoot, Philippians 4, St. Paul and Seneca, p. 270 f.), nor can any safe general inference be drawn from them as to a change in his style away from the LXX_ towards a more literary form.

A more thorough knowledge of inscriptions has revealed the fact that the Pauline vocabulary and style are largely the natural ones of his time. There is no importance to be attached to the recurrence of , which in itself is a common word, occurring once in 1Co 11:11. The quotations from the OT are mere echoes (Php 2:10; Php 2:15-16, Php 4:3; Php 4:18), save Php 1:19 from Job 13:18, which is evidently quoted with the original context clearly in view. Nothing is more precarious than arguments from style, and in this case account has to be taken of the directness and lack of dogmatic content which were uncalled for by the circumstances. All things considered, the style and vocabulary are genuinely Pauline.

6. Date and place of origin.-The solution of the second question largely determines the first. There is no definite Abfassungsort mentioned in the letter itself, so that we are thrown back on internal evidence, and have to determine what period of St. Pauls life best suits the circumstances. He was a prisoner (Php 1:7). He had been a prisoner for some time, for the Philippians had sent Epaphroditus to him with a gift of money under the impression that he needed it. The messenger had arrived and fallen ill. The news of his illness had reached them (either orally or in writing), and they had again sent communications expressing their anxiety. Some change had taken place in St. Pauls circumstances since he became a prisoner, which they construed pessimistically. The Apostle informs them that already he had made his apologia with gratifying results (Php 1:7), evidently a preliminary defence before the judicial authorities. The result was that the brethren were thereby encouraged to resume their preaching of Christ with greater freedom and boldness. Wherever he was, there were many preachers, some of them opposed to his views of Christianity, others favourable. He rejoiced in the renewed energy of both as far as objective results went, though he could not but deplore the motives of those who disagreed with him. He is confident that the issue of his affairs at present will be final deliverance, and that he will soon see them again (Php 2:23). If, however, it should otherwise happen, then before he is finally condemned-the case is not yet settled-he will speak with such clearness and boldness that Christ shall be magnified in his body either by life or death. By death he would see Christ face to face ( ), their faith already established would be perfected (Php 2:17). The possibility of death is always a real one, imprisonment or no imprisonment, but it is no ground of despondency. At present he proposes to send Timothy to them, but let them be sure that his own coming will follow shortly thereafter, for he has every reason to regard hopefully his situation. In the whole Praetorium his imprisonment is viewed in the proper light. Misunderstandings regarding the nature of the charge against him have been removed owing to recent events, and this is the case generally. He is glad to tell them that, besides the brethren with him, the saints of Caesars household especially send their Christian greetings. He deplores that he had no one to send to them at present, as his associates at the time refused to go as envoys (Php 2:20).

Of what place could these facts be spoken? The three main points are (1) his imprisonment, (2) Praetorium, (3) Caesars household.

(1) St. Paul was often in prison (2Co 11:23): in Philippi itself (Act 16:23), in Caesarea (Acts 23), and in Rome (Acts 28). According to Clement (ad Rom. i, 56), he was no fewer than seven times in gaol: , . Jerusalem and Philippi are ruled out, but there still remain the possibilities of Rome, Caesarea, and Ephesus if we can be sure of an imprisonment there. The fact of imprisonment then is not decisive.

(2) Praetorium.-There is considerable divergence of opinion as to what this term means. Elsewhere it is used of the tower of Antonia (Mar 15:16), and of Herods palace (Act 23:35). It occurs nowhere else in St. Pauls writings. If a locality is meant (and this is not ruled out by the phrase ; cf. CIG_ i. 1770), then the term indicates some princely building, the residence of a prince or procurator. There is no evidence, however, that the Palatium-the Roman Imperial residence-was so called, although it is possible that a provincial writing in Rome might loosely describe it by this term. Herods residence where Felix stayed in Caesarea was a praetorium. Or the reference is to the camp of the praetorian guards, built by Tiberius and situated at the Porta Viminalis. This is doubtful; at any rate there seems no evidence to prove that this camp was called praetorium (see Zahn, op. cit. i. 551).

It is possible, however, that the term is used of persons, and even so two views have found supporters:-(a) There is no doubt, after Lightfoots researches, that the term praetorium may mean the praetorian guard, and it would admirably suit St. Pauls case in Rome as we learn that from Acts 28. (b) Mommsen, however, believes that the praefectus(-i) praetorii(-o) and associates are referred to, in which case the term would mean the legal authorities. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 357) agrees with this (but he has latterly given his opinion in favour of the praetorian guard). The objection to it is that a large body is referred to-in the whole praetorium-and on the face of it this does not suit well the theory of the judicial authorities, nor is it clear that the term praetorium simpliciter was so used. We are thus restricted either to the meaning, the soldiers of the praetorian guard or else the provincial residence of a procurator, so that this term does not definitely decide the origin of the letter, although the preponderance of evidence is in favour of Rome.

(3) The saints of Caesars household.-The meaning of this phrase seems clearly to be servants of the Imperial house, not blood-relations of the Emperor. This appears to militate against the argument of many who uphold the Caesarean origin, who equate this term with the praetorium; on the other hand, it is possible that such slaves existed in provincial towns like Caesarea or Ephesus. It is, however, a strong evidence in favour of Rome.

We are thus largely thrown back on the evidence furnished by the Apostles condition at the time of writing, or on the relation of this letter to other letters whose origin we know. On this ground many have defended the Caesarean origin, St. Paul was undoubtedly in prison here for two years (Act 23:35), and in a praetorium. He had been imprisoned through Jewish hostility, and in Philippians (Php 3:1 ff.) he writes with bitterness of the Judaizers. But this is surely no argument, because St. Pauls experience of this hatred was so uniform that such an outburst as Philippians 3 is explicable at any period in his career. It is said that we have no proof that Timothy was ever in Rome with St. Paul (outside the imprisonment letters), but have we any direct proof that he was with him in Caesarea? The greed of Felix was aroused, it is maintained, by the gift St. Paul received from Philippi. This involves a circulus in probando. The impression given in Acts is that Felix thought St. Paul a man of standing and substance, H. Bttger (Beitrge zur historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die paulinischen Briefe, Gttingen, 1837) urges strongly that we cannot conceive of such a delay in the judicial proceedings as is implied in the letter, taking place at Rome. It is sufficient to refer to what Lightfoot has said to the contrary (Philippians, p. 3 ff.; cf. also Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Church, Eng. tr._, 2 vols., London, 1864-80, i. 312). The strongest argument against Rome is the stylistic and doctrinal-the difference in doctrine and style between Philippians and both Colossians and Ephesians, and the affinities with Romans , 1 and 2 Corinthians. It was for this reason that Lightfoot, who gives an elaborate list of parallels between Philippians and Romans, placed our letter early in the Roman imprisonment in order to give time for doctrinal development, and Haupt also has felt the force of this argument so keenly as to say: wenn nur die Annahme einer rmischen Abfassung mglich wre, wrde ich ohne weiteres die Echtheit der beiden Briefe preisgeben, obwohl die Annahme der rmischen Abfassung bis in dies Jhdt. hinein die allgemeingltige gewesen und auch noch jetzt von einer grossen Anzahl von Gelehrten verteidigt ist. He would give up unreservedly the genuineness of Colossians and Ephesians if he were compelled to regard them as written in Rome where Philippians was written, and that in spite of the fact that so many scholars still defend the Roman origin of all the three letters (Haupt in Meyers Kommentar7, p. 70).

But it is not clear that either of these views would in any way help us out of the difficulty, for on Lightfoots view St. Paul changed his style within two years and his doctrine developed and deepened. Two years is too short a period for this. On Haupts view St. Pauls profound style and doctrine in Colossians and Ephesians were due to his confinement in Caesarea when he had time to brood and ponder such as he had not before. This enforced inactivity deepened and widened his views of Christ. But the weakness of this explanation is that St. Paul again goes back in Philippians to the old simple style.

Recently, however, a theory has been advocated which seems to solve this difficulty. The theory is that Philippians was written from Ephesus, and the other imprisonment letters from Rome or Caesarea (so M. Albertz, in SK_ iv. [1910] 551 ff.). Thus the Philippian Epistle is ranged alongside Romans and the Corinthian Epistles; and the mission of Timothy (Act 19:22, 1Co 16:11) is explained. The initial difficulty, however, is to prove an Ephesian imprisonment. There is no mention of it by St. Luke, but does not St. Paul himself refer to it (1Co 15:32, 2Co 4:8-10; 2Co 6:9-10)? The extra-canonical arguments used by Albertz are of little value-the seven imprisonments mentioned by Clem. Rom. (ad Cor. I. 2Co 6:6), the account in Nicephorus Kallisti of St. Pauls fight in the arena, the testimony of the Acts of Paul, and the tower still in Ephesus known as Pauls Prison (see art._ Philippi for references). The real argument is, however, the fighting with beasts at Ephesus (1Co 15:32).

The theory as advocated by H. Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, Berlin, 1900) is sharply criticized by Albertz himself (especially his view that Rome was a Hafengebiet in Ephesus, which is a curiosity of criticism), though Lisco seems to have first raised the possibility of an Ephesian imprisonment. Deissmann, who claims for himself the originating of the theory (Licht vom Osten, p. 171 n._, Eng. tr._, p. 229 n._), unfortunately is surer of the Ephesian origin of Colossians and Ephesians than he is of the Ephesian origin of Philippians. The stylistic argument he explains on psychological grounds (ib.). Albertzs article is worthy of serious attention, and Kirsopp Lake claims a hearing for it (Exp_, 8th ser., vii. [1914] 492 f.). On this view, it is held, it is easier to imagine St. Paul influencing the few praetorians in Ephesus than the 9000 in Rome. The house of Caesar offers no difficulty, for slaves of the Imperial house were scattered all over the provinces, and there is epigraphic evidence for their existence in Ephesus (q.v._). St. Pauls intention of going to Philippi is explicable, whereas if the letter was written from Rome we would expect him to go farther west. His expression (Php 1:16; cf. Php 1:7) refers to a real trial-an appearance before the court. Then, if the letter is written from Rome, the reference to the Philippians gift is sarcastic ( ), as ten years had elapsed since they had helped him, and this is unthinkable. The difficulties about this theory are to prove St. Pauls Ephesian imprisonment, and especially his fighting with beasts, for he was a Roman citizen, and this indignity would accordingly not be suffered by him. Lukes silence is again a serious matter; and, indeed, his account militates against an imprisonment, nor is it likely that St. Paul would take for granted that the Philippians would understand the references to the praetorium and the household of Caesar without further explanation. Above all, his situation as described in Philippians does not easily fit anything we know of his stay in Ephesus. The doctrinal and linguistic argument, which is really the motive of all these theories, can well be explained on psychological grounds, and the different conditions of the churches addressed (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 359; Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 171, Eng. tr._, p. 229; Moffatt, LNT_, p. 170).

We know so little of the procedure in cases of appeal that it is difficult to be sure of the situation St. Paul was in when Philippians was written, but the present writer concludes that the Apostle wrote Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon earlier than Philippians, that when he wrote Philippians most of his trusted associates (see Colossians and Philemon) had gone on missions to churches, and he had difficulty in finding any one to go to Philippi. It was thus either at the end of his two years confinement in his hired house (Act 28:30), or at a later date when he was more immediately occupied with his appearing before the judicial authorities. We believe that he had already made a preliminary defence and that he was actually set free shortly after this, either because the Jews had no case and failed to appear, or else because their case broke down on examination. Whether we can interpret Philippians as meaning that St. Paul had now to undergo a stricter custody than that described in Acts is doubtful though not improbable; if it took place it was not due to a breaking down of his case but to judicial arrangements. Thus the dating of the letter depends on the view which we take of Pauline chronology generally. The two points to be fixed are Gallios governorship of Achaia and Festus stay in Caesarea (see C. H. Turner, HDB_ i. 415 ff., and Deissmann, St. Paul, Eng. tr._, London, 1912, Appendix I.). The present writer is of the opinion that St. Paul came to Rome in 60 at the latest, and that he was liberated towards the end of 61. We must therefore place the authorship of Philippians in this year, and that of the other imprisonment letters earlier.

7. Contents of the letter

(a) The fellowship of the gospel (Php 1:1-11, Php 4:10-23).-The teaching of the beginning and ending of the letter centres round the thought of fellowship (), and this central idea itself is suggested to the Apostle by the liberality of his Philippian converts. The foundation of this fellowship is the grace of Jesus Christ (Php 4:23) or of God the Father (Php 1:2), God being regarded as the source of this grace, and Christ as the agent through whom it is mediated. Peace is the result of grace, or grace viewed in relation to the quality of life which grace produces. Grace is this new relationship viewed as to its origin. The fellowship of Christians follows from their being in Christ. St. Paul and Timothy are His -a term expressing dignity as well as humility. Some of those addressed are overseers and deacons of His flock, all are consecrated in Him. They are thus united in an indissoluble union with one another, under the Lordship of Christ-a Lordship of grace. This free redeeming favour is at once the origin, the atmosphere, and the ideal of Christian life. It is a subject at once of benediction and of prayer (Php 4:23). It is a common Christian possession ( ), shown not only in trust in Christ, but also in suffering on His behalf (Php 1:29; cf. Php 1:7). Grace as it comes with its lavish offer to men is the gospel, and the earnest endeavour to proclaim the good news, or the support of those entrusted with this proclamation, is the fellowship in the gospel (Php 1:5). The Philippians by sending monetary help to St. Paul have demonstrated their place in this fellowship. Their material gifts are effects of their spiritual communion-life, and the steady flow_ of their liberality all along from their first acceptance of the gospel until now is a proof of their growing appreciation of this communion and a proof of its coming completed realization in them (Php 1:3-6). Because they are in Christ, at the day of Christ they shall be perfect sharers of the rich life which He has in glory with God the Father, and which is mediated through Him to His people (Php 4:19). This revelation of their character-through their liberality-is to St. Paul a theme of thankful prayer and rejoicing (Php 4:3), of prayer which shall be answered because he knows that it is really God Himself who began this work in them and He will complete it, of rejoicing also because they appreciate what the fellowship of the gospel is, and are not severed from it by afflictions (Php 4:14). Their spiritual condition fills him with Christ-like yearning for them that their -their spirit of Christian brotherhood-should develop along the Divinely appointed lines of practical wisdom and tactful discrimination, in a world where enthusiasm often fails in insight, and insight in kindly consideration of others (Php 1:10).

His thankfulness and his joy are not due to his appreciation of their personal kindness to himself, nor yet to the betterment of their own material circumstances. It is more deeply rooted and grounded on deeper insight. For himself he can meet plenty or poverty in the sustaining power of Christ, who enables him and has enabled him hitherto to cope with all situations. He had no need of any further gift to prove their attachment to him. The past can supply rich evidence of that. Nor is it this exhibition of their material prosperity that makes him rejoice. It is the fact rather that thus he has a fresh proof of the reality of their fellowship in the gospel. It is given thus to them (as to him) to defend and strengthen the gospel, to offer to God an acceptable and pleasing sacrifice-to reap already the fruit of that uprightness of life which is produced through Christ (Php 1:11), and to sow the seeds of yet richer harvests. For their spiritual prosperity is really their willingness to support the gospel. Spiritual expenditure is the accumulation of spiritual capital. Spiritual liberality is the plan of campaign for Gods successful stewards, for the supply will be according to the demand both here and hereafter. Their riches are with the glorified Christ, and these riches are increased for them by appropriation and use. They will receive full possession of the inheritance on His day.

Never was Christian liberality so exalted and so spiritually interpreted, never were donors thanked in such a fashion save when the Master said: Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me (Mat 25:40). On this is grounded his conviction as to their perseverance and his assurance of their final salvation.

(b) The furtherance of the gospel ( ) (Php 1:12-26).-The Philippians were afraid that St. Pauls recent experiences boded ill for the success of the gospel. He dispels their pessimism (1) by an appeal to present facts. His present condition has not, as a matter of fact, hindered the progress of the gospel; it has extended it and enabled it-as far as he himself is concerned-to shine forth in its true light, sharply defined where it was apt to be mingled with other issues (Php 1:12-13). It has quickened it also into fresh activity and vigorous boldness in the case of others-and these include the majority of his brother preachers. His chains have not insulated the Word of God, but are a vehicle of its diffusion. The fact that some preachers (these are not included in the of Php 1:14) are motived by partisanship and personal opposition to himself does not lessen his joy, because he rejoices in the preaching of Christ, and the gospel is relatively independent of the preachers personal motives. The gospel then advances, and this advancement is due to his chains. Let them therefore rejoice with him. He dispels their pessimism in regard to the success of the gospel also (2) by a consideration of the future. A new reason is introduced in Php 1:18 b ( ). At present the gospel is furthered by his chains, but should his condition change, what cause have they to fear that thereby Christs cause shall suffer? As far as he is concerned a prolongation of his life on earth means the preaching of Christ, which shall be fruitful also in furthering the gospel; it means, besides, a strengthening of their own faith and a vindication of their Christian exultation in him. So convinced is he of their need of him that he is sure their prayers will thus be answered, and the rich supply of Christs Spirit to him will enable him in life yet to magnify Christ among them. But if his trial should issue in his death even then also Christs Spirit will enable him to speak freely and boldly, so that Christ shall be magnified in his death as in his life. This is his earnest hope, and it is a hope that will not be disappointed, that in either case Christ shall have the glory; yea, even they themselves also would thus have their faith completed, for his death would be a crowning of its reality and utter devotion (Php 2:17). Besides, the present situation, whatever the issue, will bring nearer his own salvation either by his personal liberation or his reunion with Christ ( possibly but not certainly = liberation). The latter prospect is to him over-poweringly attractive, so much so that he cannot say what actually he would desire for himself. To depart and see Christ is far better than any earthly lot, but then he knows the will of God to be that he should yet continue here, because they need him.

(c) The faith of the gospel ( ) (Php 1:27 to Php 2:5, Php 3:1 to Php 4:9).-The Philippians were anxious as to how St. Pauls state would affect the cause of Christ, and he also is anxious for them, not so much as to their condition viewed by itself, but as to its effect on the gospel as a whole. If his coming is to bring them Christian exultation, then it is on condition that they live worthily of the gospel whether he be with them or not.

The gospel is the charter of the commonwealth to which they belong, and fidelity to it is therefore imperative. By faith here we are to understand not individual trust in Christ, but a communal esprit de corps. The community to which they really belong is not simply their own church in Philippi, but the heavenly. This is the ideal, yet it is through participation in it that all existing Christian communities receive their value. Besides, their Lord, whom they expect, will give them full possession of this commonwealth and prepare them for it by giving them each an organism freed from all the weaknesses and debasing associations of the present body. His power to do this is unlimited (Php 3:20-21).

Fidelity to the gospel then is imperative, and is to be exhibited negatively and positively. (1) Fidelity to the gospel is to be exhibited negatively by their presenting a strenuous united front to their enemies. They are to be as one single person. The elements of personality are spirit and soul, and both these in their communal life are to be unified in themselves and together in a determined stand against opponents. Their united determination will be a proof of their salvation-a Divine salvation-and will terrify their enemies into a hastening destruction. So then let them not be scared as horses are sometimes scared by shadows, for to suffer on Christs behalf is a Divine favour-as they see in his own case-as surely as that Christ called them to rely on Him is a favour. Who these enemies were we are not told, but it is reasonable to believe that they are referred to in ch. 3, because there we have illustrations of their opponents, as in ch. 4 we have illustrations of the perils which threaten their inward unity. These passages are the illustrative exemplifications of the double warnings conveyed in Php 1:27 to Php 2:5. They were Jews and libertines. Of the former they are to beware. They have nothing to gain from them. Let them learn from his own case. He had all the privileges that these Jews could give, but for the excellency of Christs friendship he parted with them all, and he is as convinced now, as when he first did this, that he did right.

For Christ gave him the power to get into right relations with God on the ground of faith, while Judaism trusts in a legal righteousness which cannot save. It is true that even he has not yet reached perfection, but Christ is leading him on, and he strenuously and lovingly follows Him. The power of Christs Resurrection-life is being gradually realized in him, inasmuch as he is able to follow Him into sufferings; and the spirit which enabled Jesus to suffer as He did suffer is in St. Paul also, and when it takes complete possession of him then he shall perfectly participate in the glorified exalted life of the Redeemer. The righteousness which is in Christ is not a modification of the present earthly status quo-as the Jews thought-but a complete transformation of it by the power of Christ, who already has perfection and who shall bring His people into it as He Himself came into it through sufferings and death. It is thus a call-but not therefore like the longing of Tantalus, or the labour of Sisyphus; it is attainable, but it needs all the energy of the soul; it demands perfect absorption of interest, because it is their Lords own grasp that is uplifting them out of spiritual death into a life of glory. This he can personally testify. Let them beware also of those who live for earthly things, forgetting their high calling, and their great hope, men who claim spiritual perfection, but are really concerned with earthly gratification and spiritual liberty, meaning thereby sensual licence. I call them, says the Apostle, enemies of the Cross of Christ, for they fail to understand to my sorrow and their own wce that the flesh has no function in the spiritual commonwealth over which Christ is King and from which He shall come to prepare His people by furnishing them with bodies like His own present glorified body (Php 3:18 ff.).

(2) Positively they must show their fidelity to the gospel by inward union. In ch. 4 they are directly reminded of the variance between Euodia and Syntyche, and both these women are exhorted to practical unity in the Lord. Others are to help them to attain this end-recognizing their former diligence and associations with St. Paul and his fellow-labourers. This unity is enforced by their standing in Christ. From this vantage-point the Apostle can appeal to them with strong and tender persuasion. Are they not loving brethren and fellow-participators in the Spirit? He can also add his own personal appeal, for they are his beloved, his joy and his crown. Therefore let them abjure party-strife, and vainglory, and let them imitate their Lord in His self-denying humility for others. Let His example be their constant rule. Let them do all things without murmurings and disputings, for the word of life is theirs. Let their light shine before men, lest his labour among them end in shame instead of exultant joy, for he is ready even to be poured out as a libation to complete the self-denial of their faith, and he does this with joy; let them also with single and united effort imitate him; for none else but God Himself is energizing in them to effect the complete salvation they long for. Let them keep their eye on him and those who walk as he walks, maintaining their place in the way, waiting for Gods light to shine on the path along which they now advance. Whatever they learned, and received, and heard from him, whatever they saw in him, let them do (Php 4:9). Let them also think constantly of those moral virtues which are everywhere recognized. Let them remember the nearness of their Lords approach, and let them wait upon Him in prayer. Then shall their life be freed from the paralysis of distraction and graced with the calm sweetness and orderliness of the forward full vision, with the joy of singlemindedness. For God gives peace-i.e. a life full of self-sufficiency and inward security-and this peace shall like a garrison safeguard them in Christ (Php 4:4-7). Let them then rejoice in the Lord. Let all men see the strength, the sweetness, and the sensibleness of their faith.

We have already dealt with St. Pauls references to Timothy and Epaphroditus (Php 2:19-30). We must look a little more closely at their Great Example.

(d) The imitation of Christ (Php 2:5-11).-This famous passage cannot be discussed with any fullness here. It is evident from the rhythmical structure that thought and language have been carefully arranged and elaborated, yet the whole statement is brought forward as a practical motive, not as an exhaustive theological statement.

Christ first comes into the Apostles vision-as he considers Him in this passage in His pre-incarnate state-before His appearance on earth. In this state, the Apostle says, He was in the form of God. What does this mean? It must mean something that Christ could lay aside, of which He did empty Himself, something that forms a direct contrast to the form of a servant. From the phrase it is not too much to say that it is equipollent to Himself, His personality. His personality then was essentially identical with that of God. Is it not absurd to say of any one, however, that he empties himself of his personality? Logically it is, but really it is not. We know what is meant by a denial of oneself, an effacement of oneself. The fact is that these ethical activities transcend the bare laws of logical consistency. The form of God then seems to describe Christs pre-incarnate personality in terms of the Divine nature. is, of course, not used here as an accurate terminus technicus of philosophy, but it does seem in St. Paul to express (cf. Rom 8:29, Gal 4:19, 2Co 3:18, Php 3:10) a personality with adequate means for the expression of personal activities, and to St. Paul Christ in His pre-incarnate state was a Divine Personality, with a spiritual organism perfectly adequate for the manifestation of His Divine glory. This is implied in , which still retains traces of its original perceptual reference. St. Paul does not say that this was identical with our Lords post-Resurrection spiritual body, far less that He had a quasi-material , but he does seem to say that it was functionally as perfect for the expression of His Divinity then as the latter is for the expression of His redemptive Lordship now. In this pre-incarnate state He did not grasp at equality with God ( ). It is difficult if not impossible to find here a reference to our Lords earthly life. That has yet to come before the Apostles mind. Psychologically, of course, the self-denying life of Jesus on earth was the temporal prius from which the Apostle developed his view of Christs nature, but here it is the ordo eventuum in the pre-earthly life of Christ which he describes, not the psychological order of his own thinking. What, however, does it mean to say that He did not consider equality with God a thing to be snatched? How could He seize on equality with God if He was already in the form of God? If the two phrases are identical is there not here a manifest absurdity? Lightfoot and others get out of this difficulty by translating-did not consider equality with God as a prize to be retained, to be clung to; but the phrase indicates more than retaining-it indicates a positive grasping. Others again refer this grasping to His future Lordship which God gave Him (as a gift) in virtue of His obedience. He might have used the miraculous powers inherent in His Divine nature in such a way as to compel men, without further ado, to worship Him as God (Kennedy, EGT_, Philippians, p. 437a).

But the insuperable objection to this opinion is that the phrase expresses a pre-incarnate activity and not an incarnate one. The truth in this view is that equality with God is regarded as a relation-a recognition of Divine equality from others-spiritual beings. Christ did not think of claiming this in heaven before His appearance on earth. The redemption of men being in view He on the contrary voluntarily determined to undertake it, and thereby did not snatch at this Divine recognition. In one word the self-humiliation of our Lord was first transacted on the theatre of His own Divine mind above before it was concretely manifested here below, and it was not simply a renunciation touching Himself only, but a renunciation in spite of a positive essential nisus that heavenly beings, might in virtue of His nature have expected Him to have exerted. The Apostle no doubt argued from Jesus earthly activity, but he naturally projects this activity into the pre-incarnate state. As His action was on earth so it was formerly in heaven. The Apostle in the expression is not concerned with defending Christ from blame, but with commending Him as the transcendent moral Example. He might-at any rate, all others would-have exercised self-assertion: it was, as it were, His right. But He did not do so. The difficulties here are not those of formal logic, but the ever-present difficulties of visualizing eternal infinite activities in finite temporal categories. Then the second vision which the Apostle has of His Master is on earth. He emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, being or becoming in human likeness, and being found in human guise, He still humbled Himself unto death-yea the Cross-death. Here we have the Apostles description of our Lords incarnate life. What is involved in His self-emptying we cannot say. The how of it is beyond our understanding, but the fact of it and its absolute moral value are full of force. The Apostle does not mean by the likeness of men or in fashion as a man that Jesus was less than human, but that He was truly human, tried by all experimental tests-yet more. The is not physical annihilation but moral effacement. To discuss theologically the possible theories that have been used to explain this is not called for here. They are neither useless, however, nor futile, but due to an essential thought-impulse in us. The difficulties, of theory must not obscure the glory of the fact to be explained. Milton has this passage in mind when he says:

That glorious Form, that Light unsufferable,

And that far-beaming blaze of Majesty,

Wherwith he wont at Heavns high Councel-Table,

To sit the midst of Trinal Unity,

He laid aside; and here with us to be,

Forsook the Courts of everlasting Day,

And chose with us a darksom House of mortal Clay

(On the Morning of Christs Nativity, 8-14).

Men saw Him here as they saw other men, subject to the limitations to which man as man is subject.

The third vision is the Exalted Christ-yet still the same Person, but now freed from earthly limitations, highly exalted, gifted with universal Lordship by God because of His obedience, possessing now the ineffable Name in recognizing which all are to worship to the glory of God the Father. The Apostles view of the imitation of Christ is not a slavish copying of His earthly habits or actions but a possession of His Spirit as the spirit of humility and obedience to the will of God. This Lordship of Christ is central in St. Pauls teaching. It gives duty its obligation, for Christ is the law and light of the individual conscience. It supplies virtue with striving and sustaining power, guarantees it with the sure hope of ultimate success and reward in the day of Christ, the day when His Lordship shall be known and recognized. It supplies the good with its content, for the glory of the Lord-the riches of that glory-is the true inheritance and life of the saints. It gives moral judgment a norm and a finality, for the Lord is the ultimate Judge. It gives evangelism its programme of advance. It enforces sanctification because it sees in Christian men God Himself at work. It assures salvation. It gives life on earth a purpose and robs death of its terror and transforms suffering into a grace. The day of the full revelation of this Lordship is the day of Christ. Its date is not told, but it is near. The measurement used is the prophetic not the chronological. To the Apostle death means to be with the Lord-to see His face. There is no word here of a sleep of the saints (). The coming of Christ means the transformation of the body of humiliation into the likeness of Christs own body of glory, so that in contrast with that glorious life this life of striving, pent in the body, is like death. Whether this happens immediately after death or after an interval is not said. St. Paul does not say that the Philippian community will be alive at Christs coming, but he seems to regard it as a possibility (Php 1:10).

For these reasons it is held by some that St. Paul changed his view of eschatology, that he gave up the idea of a of the saints, and favoured the idea of immediate reunion with Christ after death (W. Beyschlag, NT Theology, Eng. tr._, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1895, ii. 267 ff.). The influence under which this change took place, according to this view, is the sure prospect of his own death. But many others had died in Christ before him, and it is impossible to think that St. Paul had not considered that question seriously. He is working with the resurrection of Christ Himself as the norm of his thinking on this subject as far as the case of Christians is concerned. He believes in a general resurrection for all (Rom 2:8; Rom 14:10, 2Co 5:10), but for the Christian the Resurrection means a glorified body like to Christs own, which shall be given him at Christs coming. How he is clothed in the interval is not said. That St. Paul regarded this Parousia of Christ as near at hand is evident, but it is equally evident that he did not claim to know the date and that he did not lay stress on it. What is of value for practice and for hope is that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He shall come.

Literature.-There is no attempt to give an exhaustive bibliography. For exegesis the following commentaries are useful: J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 4, London, 1878; M. R. Vincent, ICC_, Philippians and Philemon, Edinburgh, 1897 (strong philologically); C. J. Ellicott, Philippians, Colossians, and Phm 1:5, London, 1888; but especially E. Haupt, in Meyers Kommentar ber das NT7, Gttingen, 1902, and H. A. A. Kennedy, EGT_, Philippians, London, 1903. The history of the exegesis before 1859 is given in B. Weiss, Der Philipper-Brief, Berlin. 1859; M. R. Vincent. op. cit. supra, p. xi ff., has a good select list. J. Moffatt (LNT_, Edinburgh, 1911, p. 165a) gives a very full list of commentaries since Calvin.

Homiletics and Theology:-R. Rainy, Expositors Bible, Philippians, London, 1893; H. C. G. Moule, Cambridge Greek Testament, Philippians, Cambridge, 1897, Philippian Studies, London, 1897 (full of sympathetic insight); C. J. Vaughan, Lectures on Philippians 2, Cambridge, 1864, Greek Text with Notes, London, 1885; J. Eadie, Commentary to the Ep. to the Philippians, do., 1857 (still very useful); H. von Soden, Der Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Philipper, Freiburg i. B., 1889 (2 Tbingen, 1906).

There is a whole library on 2:5-11; see Meyers Kommentar7 for list of earlier books. Note esp. E. H. Gifford, The Incarnation, London, 1897 (very thorough but explains terms too rigidly); A. B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ2, Edinburgh, 1881; D. Somerville, St. Pauls Conception of Christ, do., 1897, p. 188 f.; J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 4, pp. 127-137; W. Weiffenbach, Auslegung der Stelle Philipper, 25-44, Karlsruhe, 1884; and indeed all commentaries.

For criticism a good account is given in R. A. Lipsius, in Handkommentar zum NT2, Freiburg i. B., 1891; T. Zahn, Introduction to the NT, Eng. tr._, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1909, vol. i. (excellent); and the problems are luminously set and answered in J. Moffatt, op. cit. supra, p. 165 ff., where the literature is also given. J. Weiss, Die Schriften des NT2, Gottingen, 1906-07, ii. 372-390, gives a good popular exegesis; see also Exp_, 8th ser., vii. [1914] 481 ff., viii. [1914] 143 ff., 457 ff., ix. [1915] 235 ff., 481ff.

D. Mackenzie.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Philippians, Epistle to the

I. HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, OCCASION, AND CHARACTER

(See also PHILIPPI).

The Philippians, who were much endeared to St. Paul (i, 3, 7; iv, 1) had already on former occasions and under various circumstances sent him pecuniary aid, and now on learning of his imprisonment at Rome (Acts 27-28) they sent him to Epaphroditus, one of their number, to bear him alms and minister to his needs (ii, 25-29; iv, 18). St. Paul received him gladly, rejoicing in the affectionate and Christian sentiments of the Philippians (iv, 10-19), and in the generally satisfactory condition of their Church as reported to him by Epaphroditus. It may be that Epaphroditus had been the Apostle’s companion and assistant at Philippi (ii, 25); at least he became such at Rome (ii, 30), but he fell dangerously ill and was at the point of death (ii, 27). This news was distressing to the Philippians, and as soon as he recovered he was eager to return home (ii, 26). Paul therefore hastened to send him (ii, 26-28) and profited by the opportunity to confide to him a letter to the faithful and the heads of his Church. In this letter, probably written by Timothy at his dictation, Paul expresses the sentiments of joy and gratitude which he cherishes in regard to the Philippians. This is the keynote of the letter. It is an outpouring of the heart, breathing a wholly spontaneous and paternal intimacy. In it the loving heart of the Apostle reveals itself completely, and the affectionate tone, sincerity, and delicacy of the sentiments must have charmed its readers and won their admiration and love. Hence, this letter is much more epistolary in style than the other Epistles of St. Paul. Familiar expressions of joy and gratitude are mingled with dogmatic reflexions and moral exhortation, and it is useless to seek for orderly arrangement or strict sequence.

On the other hand, although the general condition of the Church of Philippi was excellent and St. Paul did not have to deal with grave vices, there were nevertheless certain things which were not altogether satisfactory or which aroused apprehension. Paul had heard that the pride and vainglory of some, especially of two women, Evodia and Syntyche, had aroused misunderstandings and rivalries. Moreover a greater and more serious danger threatened them, perhaps on the part of Judaizers, who, though there is no need to assume their presence or propaganda at Philippi itself, had, it seems, disseminated their baneful doctrines throughout the neighbouring regions. Hence the exhortations to fraternal charity and concord as well as to disinterestedness; these exhortations (i, 8, 27; ii, 2, 3, 14, 16; iv, 2 sq.) Paul bases on exalted dogmatic considerations taken from the example of Christ, and he also proposes to them the example of his own way of thinking and acting, which had but a single object, the glory of God and Christ. But when he warns the Philippians against the Judaizers he returns to the tone of deep sorrow and unmitigated indignation which characterizes the Epistle to the Galatians.

II. ANALYSIS

For the reasons stated above a definite plan or clear division must not be sought in this Epistle. The Letter is a succession of exhortations and effusions which may be collected under the following heads:

A. Introduction

After the superscription, in which he addresses himself to bishops, deacons, and faithful (i, 1-2), St. Paul rejoices in the excellent condition of the Church of the Philippians and gives thanks that by their alms they have shared in the merits of his captivity and the spread of the Gospel (3-8); he loves them with an intense love, ardently desiring and urgently entreating that God would deign to complete in them the work of perfection (9-11).

B. Body of the Epistle

(1) Paul begins by giving news, as a whole very satisfactory — with regard to his own situation and that of the Church in Rome. But what he relates concerning himself must have been meant for a tacit but no less eloquent appeal to abnegation and detachment, for Paul depicts himself as seeking in all things not his own glory or personal advantage, but solely the glory of Christ. His captivity becomes to him a cause of joy, since it avails for the propagation of the Gospel (i, 12-14); what does it matter to him that some preach the Gospel out of unworthy zealotry, provided Christ be preached? (15-18); given a choice of life and death he knows not which he prefers, life which permits him to do good for souls, or death, which shall be a testimony for Christ and shall unite him to Him (19-25). He thinks, however, that he will be set free and may still labour for the spiritual progress of the Philippians.

(2) he exhorts them more directly to lead a life worthy of the Gospel (i, 27a), and especially to concord and abnegation (i, 27b-ii, 4) (i) by the example of Christ Who being in the Divine form and possessing supreme independence nevertheless, for our good, annihilated himself and assumed the condition of a slave, even undergoing death; (ii) by the desire for a heavenly reward, such as Christ received (ii, 5-11). He concludes by repeating his general exhortation to Christian perfection and by affirming that to procure them this perfection he would gladly sacrifice his life.

(3) The Apostle tells the Philippians that as soon as he knows the outcome of his affairs he will send to them Timothy, his devoted companion, who is so well-disposed towards the Philippians (ii, 19-24); in the meantime he sends them Epaphroditus, his fellow-labourer and their delegate to him (see above); he asks them to receive him with joy and to honour him greatly, because of the love which he bears them and the danger of death to which he was exposed while fulfilling his mission (25-30).

(4) Desiring to end or abbreviate his Epistle Paul begins the conclusion (iii, 1a, the To loipon), but suddenly interrupts it in order again to put the Philippians on their guard against the Judaizing teachers, which he does by once more presenting to them his own example: Has he not all the benefits and titles in which the Judaizers are accustomed to glory and much more? But all this he has despised and rejected and counted as dung that he might gain true justice and perfection, which are secured, not by the works of the law, but by faith (iii, 1-11). This perfection, it is true, he had not yet attained, but he never ceased to press toward the mark and the prize to which God had called him, thus refuting by his own example those who in their pride call themselves perfect (12-16); he incites his readers to imitate him (17) and not to follow those who loving the things of this world, have depraved habits (18-iv, 1).

(5) To this general exhortation Paul adds a special admonition. He binds two women, Evodia and Syntyche, to concord (iv, 2-3), and exhorts all to spiritual joy, urging the observance of goodness and gentleness among them (5), bidding them be disturbed by nothing, but have recourse to God in all their anxieties (6-7), and endeavour to attain to Christian perfection in all things (8-9).

C. Epilogue

Paul concludes his Epistle by a more explicit renewal of thanks to the Philippians for their alms, using the most delicate expressions and making his manner of acceptance a final exhortation to detachment and abnegation (11-19). This is followed by the Doxology and salutations. Especially noteworthy are his salutations to those of the household of the emperor (20-23).

III. AUTHENTICITY, UNITY, AND INTEGRITY

The authenticity of the Epistle as a whole, which was generally accepted until the middle of the nineteenth century, was first denied by the Tübingen School (Baur, 1845; Zeller; Volckmar). Their arguments, namely lack of originality, the evidence of a semi-Gnostic idea, a doctrine of justification which could not be that of St. Paul etc., were triumphantly refuted by Lünemann, Brückner, Schenkel etc. But other contradictors subsequently arose, such as van Manen and especially Holsten (for their chief arguments see below). At present the authenticity may be said to be universally admitted not only by Catholic exegetes but also by most Protestants and Rationalists (Hilgenfeld, Harnack, Zahn, Jülicher, Pfleiderer, Lightfood, Gibb, Holtzmann).

(1) External Criticism

Arguments from external criticism permit no doubt on the subject. We will not deal with the quotations from or reminiscences of the Epistle which some authors profess to find in early ecclesiastical writers, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle to Diognetus etc. (see Cornely, “Introductio”, IV, 491; Jacquier, p. 347; Toussaint in “Dict. De la Bible”, s.v. Philippiens). About 120 St. Polycarp speaks explicitly to the Philippians of the letters (or the letter, epistolai) which Paul has written to them, and some passages of his letter prove that he had read this Epistle to the Philippians. Subsequently the Muratorian Canon, St. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Apostolicon of Marcion attribute it expressly to St. Paul. After Tertullian the testimonies become numerous and incontestable and the unanimity was maintained without the slightest exception until the middle of the nineteenth century.

(2) Internal Criticism

The difficulties drawn from the Epistle itself, which some authors have urged against tradition, are misleading, as is now admitted by the most prominent Rationalists and Protestants.

(a) Language and style. The hapax legomena (which occur about forty times) prove nothing against the Pauline origin of the Epistle, since they are met with in almost the same proportion in the certainly authentic Epistles. Moreover, certain words (about twenty) quite peculiar to the Epistles of St. Paul, certain forms of expression, figures, methods of style (i, 22, 27, 29; iii, 8, 14), and repetitions of words demonstrate the Pauline character of the Epistle.

(b) Doctrine. The two chief objections brought forward by Holsten (Jahrb. Für Prot. Theol., I, 125; II, 58, 282) have found little credit among exegetes, while Holsten himself in a more recent work (“Das Evangelium des Paulus”, Berlin, 1898, II, 4) concedes that the theology of the Epistle to the Philippians is thoroughly Pauline. In fact (a) the Christology of the Epistle to the Philippians, which portrays Christ pre-existing in the form of God and made man through the Incarnation, does not contradict that of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xv, 45), which depicts the Risen Christ as a heavenly Man, clothed with His glorified body, or that of the other Epistles which, in a simpler form, also show us Christ pre-existing as a Divine Being and made man through he Incarnation (Galatians 4:4; Romans 7:3; 2 Corinthians 8:9). (b) The doctrine on justification by faith and not by works set forth in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, is not contradicted here (iii, 6); if indeed St. Paul speaks here of legal justice it is obviously to show its powerlessness and nothingness (7-9).

The unity and integrity of the Epistle have also been denied or doubted by some authors. Völter and Spitta maintained that this Epistle is a compilation of another authentic Epistle to the Philippians and an apocryphal one written about A.D. 120. Clemen saw in it a compilation of two authentic Epistles. These theories met with little success while the arguments which have been brought forward in their behalf, viz. The double conclusion (iii, 1, and iv, 4) mingled with personal details, moral counsels, doctrinal instructions etc., are sufficiently explained by the familiar and consequently free and unrestrained character of the Epistle.

Place and Date

There is not the shadow of a doubt that the Epistle to the Philippians was written during the Apostle’s captivity (i, 7, 13, 14, 17; ii, 24). Moreover, it is certain that it was written not at Cæsarea, as some have maintained, but at Rome (A.D. 62-64). Such is the nearly unanimous opinion even of those who claim that the three other Epistles of the Captivity were written at Cæsarea [see i, 13 (the prætorium); iv, 22 (the house of Cæsar); i, 17 sqq. (this supposes a more important Church than that of Cæsarea)]. Critics do not agree as to whether the Epistle was written at the beginning of the sojourn at Rome or at the end, before or after the other three Epistles of the captivity. Most of them incline towards the second view (Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann, Zahn, Jülicher etc.). For the arguments pro and con see the works of the various critics. The present author, however, is of the opinion that it was written towards the end of the captivity.

———————————–

The following are general works and commentaries, in which the reader will find a more extensive bibliography, and information concerning earlier works and commentaries.

BEELEN, Commentarius in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Philippenses (2nd ed., Louvain, 1852); IDEM, Het nieuwe Testament (Bruges, 1892); BISPING, Erklärung der Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper und Kolosser (Münster, 1866); LIPSIUS, Brief an die Galater, Römer, Philipper (Handcommentar zum N. T.), adapted by Holtzmann (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1892); MOULE, The Epistle to the Philippians (Cambridge, 1895); CORNELY, Introductio specialis in singulos N. T. libros (Paris, 1897); MÜLLER, Der Ap. Paulus Brief an die Philipper (Freiburg, 1899); VAN STEENKISTE, Commentarius in omnes S. Pauli Epistolas (Bruges, 1899); FUNK, Patres Apostolici (Tübingen, 1901); VINCENT, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon (2nd ed., Edinburgh, 1902); HAUPT, Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe (8th ed., Göttingen, 1902); JACQUIER, Historie des livres du Nouveau Testament, I (Paris, 1904); SHAW, The Pauline Epistles (2nd ed., Edinburgh, 1904); CLEMEN, Paulus, sein Leben und Wirken (Giessen, 1904); BELSER, Einleitung in das neue Testament (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1905); LE CAMUS, L’œuvre des Apotres (Paris, 1905) PÖLZL, Der Weltapostel Paulus (Ratisbon, 1905); LIGHTFOOT, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (16th ed., London, 1908); FILLION IN VIGOUROUX, Dict. De la Bible, s. v. Philippes; TOUSSAINT, ibid, s. v. Philippiens; IDEM, Epitres de S. Paul (Paris, 1910); PRAT, La Théologie de S. Paul (Paris, 1909); FOUARD, Saint Paul, ses dernières années (Paris, 1910); VIGOUROUX-BACUEZ-BRASSAC, Manuel Biblique, IV (Paris, 1911).

A. VANDER HEEREN

Transcribed by Paula J. Eckardt

Dedicated in loving memory, and with deep gratitude, to my father, Paul A. Eckardt, 1917-2000

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Philippians, Epistle To The

the sixth in order of the Pauline letters in the N.T. The following article treats the subject from the Scriptural as wvell as the modern point of view.

I. The canonical authority, Pauline authorship, and integrity of this epistle were unanimously acknowledged up to the end of the 18th century. Marcion (A.D. 140), in the earliest known canon. held common ground with the Church touching the authority of this epistle (Tertullian, Adr. AMucirdon, 4:5; 5:20): it appears in the Muratorian Fragment (Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, 1:395); among the “acknowledged” books in Eusebius (H.E. 3:25); in the lists of the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 365, and the Synod of Hippo, 393; and in all subsequent lists, as well as in the Peslito and later versions. Even contemporary evidence may be claimed for it. Philippian Christians who had contributed to the collections for Paul’s support at Rome, who had been eye and ear witnesses of the return of Epaphroditus and the first reading of Paul’s epistle, may have been still alive at Philippi when Polycarp wrote (A.D. 107) his letter to them, in which (cl. 2, 3) he refers to Paul’s epistle as a well-known distinction belonging to the Philippian Church. It is quoted as Paul’s by several of the early Church fathers (Irenaels, 4:18, 4; Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1:6, 52, and elsewhere; Tertullian. Adv. Mar 5:20; De Res. Carn. chapter 23). A quotation from it (Php 2:6) is found in the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, A.D. 177 (Eusebius, H.E. 5:2). The testimonies of later writers are innumerable. SEE CANON.

It is only in very recent times that any doubt has been suggested as to the genuineness of this epistle. Sclrader (Der Ap. Paulus, 5:233) first insinuated that the passage Php 3:1 to Php 4:9 is an interpolation; but he adduces no reason for this but the purely gratuitous one that the connection between Php 2:30 and Php 4:10 is disturbed bv this intervening section, and that by the excision of this the epistle becomes “more rounded off, and more a genuine occasional letter” as if any sound critic would reject a passage from an ancient author because in hfis opinion the author’s composition would be improved thereby! Baur goes farther than this, and would reject the whole epistle as a Gnostic compositions of a later age (Paulus, page 458 sq.). But when he comes to point out “the Gnostic ideas and expressions” by which the epistle is marked, they will be found to exist only in his own imagination, and can only by a perverse ingenuity be forced upon the words of the apostle. Thus, in the statement that Christ (Php 2:5-6), Baur finds an allusion to the Gnostic aeon Sophia, in which “existed the outgoing desire with all power to penetrate into the essence of the supreme Father.” But not only is this to give the apostle’s words a meaning which they do not bear (for however we translate , it evidently expresses an act in the past, not an aim tor the future), but it is manifest that the entire drift of the passage is not to set forth any speculative doctrine, but to adduce a moral inference. This is so manifest that even Baur himself admits it, and by so doing overturns his own position; for it is only on the supposition that what the apostle refers to is a fact, and not a mere speculative fancy, that any moral conclusion can be drawn from it. Equally futile is the attempt to find Docetism in the use of the term a term used by the apostle in reference to the divine nature or of the terms , , and , all of which occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, and are here used to denote simply that Jesus Christ presented himself to the view of men actually as one of themselves (Linemann, Pauli ad Phil. Ep. cont. Baurium defensa, Gott. 1847; Bruckner, Ep. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata cont. Baur. Lips. 1848). Baur was followed by Schwegler (1846), who argued from the phraseology of the epistle and other internal marks that it is the work not of Paul, but of some Gnostic forger in the 2d century. He too has been answered by Linemann (1847), Brickner (1848), and Resch (1850). ‘Even if his inference were a fair consequence from Baur’s premises, it would still be neutralized by the strong evidence in favor of Pauline authorship, which Palev (Horae Paulinae, chapter 7) has drawn from the epistle as it stands. The arguments of the Tubingen school are briefly stated in Reuss (Gesch. d. N.T. 130-133), and at greater length in Wiesinger’s Commentary. Most persons who read them will be disposed to concur in the opinion of dean Alford (N.T. 3:27, ed. 1856), who regards them as an instance of the insanity of hypercriticism. The canonical authority and the authorship of the epistle may be considered as unshaken.

A question has been raised as to whether the extant Epistle to the Philippians is the only one addressed by Paul to that Church. What has given rise to this question is the expression used by the apostle (Php 3:1), , …, where the writing of the same things to them is supposed to refer to the identity of what he is now writing with what he had written in a previous letter. It has also been supposed that Polycarp knew of more than one epistle addressed by the apostle to the Philippians, from his using the plural ( ) in reference to what he had written to them. To this, however, much weight cannot be attached, for there can be no doubt that the Greeks used for a single letter, as the Latins used litera (see a multitude of examples in Stephans’s Thesaurus, s.v.). That Polycarp knew of only one epistle of Paul to the Philippians has been supposed by some to be proved by the passage in the 11th chapter of his letter, preserved in the Latin version, where he says, “Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatlis Paulus qui estis in principio epistolae ejus,” etc. But, as Meyver points out, “epistole” here is not the genitive singular, but the nominative plural; and the meaning is not “who are in the beginning of his epistle,” which is hardly sense, but (with allusion to 2Co 3:1) “who are in the beginning [i.e., from the beginning of his preaching the Gospel among you a common use of , which was the expression probably used by Polycarp] his epistle.” It is going too far, however, to say that this passage has no bearing on this question; for if Meyer’s construction be correct, it shows that Polycarp did use for a single epistle. Meyer, indeed, translates “who are his epistles;” but if the allusion is to 2Co 3:1, we must translate in the singular, the whole Church collectively being the epistle, and not each member an epistle. But though the testimony of Polycarp for a plurality of epistles may be set aside, it is less easy to set aside the testimony of the extant epistle itseli in the passage cited. To refer to the preceding seems somewhat difficult, for nowhere previously in this epistle has the apostle expressly enjoined on his readers , and one does not see what on this hypothesis is the propriety of such expressions as and ; and to lay the stress on the , as Wieseler proposes (Chronologie des Ap. Zeit. page 458), so as to make the apostle refer to some verbal message previously sent to the Philippians, the substance of which he was now about to put into writing, seems no less so; for not only does the epistle contain no allusion to any oral message, but in this case the writer would have said .

A large number of critics follow Pelagius in the explanation, “eadem repetere que presens dixeram;” but it may be doubted if so important a clause may be legitimately dragged in to complete the apostle’s meaning, without any authority from the context. Hence many have concluded that the apostle alludes to some written communication previously sent by him to the Philippians (so Hahnlein, Flatt, Meyer, Bleek, Schenkel, etc.). But, besides the lack of all evidence of such lost epistles in general, the assumption here must be pronounced ill a high degree doubtful and precarious. Hence we conclude that refers to the , which is the pervading thought of the epistle (Php 1:4; Php 1:18; Php 2:17, etc.), and which seems to have been the more dwelt upon as the actual circumstances of the case might very naturally have suggested the contrary feeling (hence ). See Ellicott, ad loc. Ewald (Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, page 431) is of opinion that Paul sent several epistles to the Philippians; and he refers to the texts Php 2:12 and Php 3:18 as partly proving this. But some additional confirmation or explanation of this conjecture is requisite before it can be admitted as either probabre or necessary.

There is a break in the sense at the end of the second chapter of the epistle, which every careful reader must have observed. It is indeed quite natural that an epistle written amid exciting circumstances, personal dangers, and various distractions should bear in one place at least a mark of interruption. Le Moyne (1685) thought it was anciently divided into two parts. Heinrichs (1810), followed by Paulus (1817), has conjectured from this abrupt recommencement that the two parts are two distinct epistles, of which the first, together with the conclusion of the epistle (4:21-23), was intended for public use in the Church, and the second exclusively for the apostle’s special friends in Philippi. It is not easy to see what sufficient foundation exists for this theory, or what illustration of the meaning of the epistle could be derived from it. It has met with a distinct reply from Krause (1811 and 1818); and the integrity of the epistle has not been questioned by recent critics.

II. Time and Place of Writing. The constant tradition that this epistle was written at Rome by Paul in his captivity was impugned first by Oeder (1732), who, disregarding the fact that the apostle was in prison (Php 1:7; Php 1:13-14) when he wrote, imagined that he was at Corinth (see Wolfs Cure Philologicae, 4:168, 270); and then by Paulus (1799), Schulz (1829), Bottger (1837), and Rilliet (1841), in whose opinion the epistle was written during the apostle’s confinement at Csesarea (Act 24:23). But the references to the “palace” (praetorium, Act 1:13), and to “Caesar’s household” (Act 4:22), seem to point to Rome rather than to Caesarea; and there is no reason whatever for supposing that the apostle felt in Ceesarea that extreme uncertainty of life connected with the approaching decision of his cause which he must have felt towards the end of his captivity at Rome, and which he expresses in this epistle (Php 1:19-20; Php 2:17; Php 3:10); and, further, the dissemination of the Gospel described in Php 1:12-18 is not even hinted at in Luke’s account of the Caesarean captivity, but is described by him as taking place at Rome (comp. Act 24:23 with Act 28:30-31). Even Reuss (Gesch. d. N.T. 1860), who assigns to Caesarea three of Paul’s epistles which are generally considered to have been written at Rome, is decided in his conviction that the Epistle to the Philippians was written at Rome.

Assuming then that the epistle was written at Rome during the imprisonment mentioned in the last chapter of the Acts, it may be shown from a single fact that it could not have been written long before the end of the two years. The distress of the Philippians on account of Epaphroditus’s sickness was known at Rome when the epistle was written; this implies four journeys, separated by some indefinite intervals, to or from Philippi and Rome, between the commencement of Paul’s captivity and the writing of the epistle. The Philippians were informed of his imprisonment, and sent Epaphroditus; they were informed of their messenger’s sickness, and sent their message of condolence. Further, the absence of Luke’s name from the salutations to a Church where he was well known implies that he was absent from Rome when the epistle was written: so does Paul’s declaration (Php 2:20) that no one who remained with him felt an equal interest with Timothy in the welfare of the Philippians. By comparing the mention of Luke in Col 4:14 and Phm 1:24 with the abrupt conclusion of his narrative in the Acts, we are led to the inference that he left Rome after those two epistles were written and before the end of the two years’ captivity. Lastly, it is obvious from Php 1:20 that Pail. when he wrote, felt his position to be very critical, and we know that it became more precarious as the two years drew to a close. Assuming that Paul’s acquittal and release took place in 58, we may date the Epistle to the Philippians early in that year.

III. Personal Circumstances of the Writer at the Time.

1. Paul’s connection with Philippi was of a peculiar character, which gave rise to the writing of this epistle. That city, important as a mart for the produce of the neighboring gold-mines, and as a Roman stronghold to check the rude Thracian mountaineers, was distinguished as the scene of the great battle fatal to Briutus and Cassiuls, B.C. 42. More than ninety years afterwards Paul entered its walls, accompanied by Silas, who had been with him since he started from Antioch, and by Timothy and Luke, whom he afterwards attached to himself; the former at Derbe. the latter quite recently at Troas. It may well be imagined that the patience of the zealous apostle had been tried by his mysterious repulse, first from Asia, then from Bithynia and Mysia, and that his expectations had been stirred up by the vision which hastened his departure with his new-found associate, Luke, from Troas. A swift passage brought him to the European shore at Neapolis, whence he took the road, about ten miles long, across the mountain ridge called Symbolum to Philippi (Act 16:12). There, at a greater distance from Jerusalem than any apostle had yet penetrated, the long-restrained energy of Paul was again employed in laying the foundation of a Christian Church. Seeking first the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he went on a Sabbath-dav with the few Jews who resided in Philippi to their small Proseucha on the bank of the river Gangites. The missionaries sat down and spoke to the assembled women. One of them, Lydia, not born of the seed of Abraham, but a proselyte, whose name and occupation, as well as her birth, connect her with Asia, gave heed unto Paul, and she and her household were baptized, perhaps on the same Sabbath-day. Her house became the residence of the missionaries. Many days they resorted to the Proseucha, and the result of their short sojourn in Philippi was the conversion of many persons (Act 16:40), including at last their jailer and his household. Philippi was endeared to Paul, not only by the hospitality of Lydia, the deep sympathy of the converts. and the remarkable miracle which set a seal on his preaching, but also by the successful exercise of his missionary activity after a long suspense, and by the happy consequences of his undaunted endurance of ignominies which remained in his memory (Php 1:30) after a long interval. Leaving Timothy and Luke to watch over the infant Church, Paul and Silas went to Thessalonica (1Th 2:2), whither they were followed by the alms of the Philippians (Php 4:16), and thence southwards. Timothy, having probably carried out similar directions to those which were given to Titus (1:5) in Crete, soon rejoined Paul. We know not whether Luke remained at Philippi. The next six years of his life are a blank in our records. At the end of that period he is found again (Act 20:6) at Philippi.

After the lapse of five years, spent chiefly at Corinth and Ephesus, Paul, escaping from the incensed worshippers of the Ephesian Diana, passed through Macedonia, A.D. 54, on his way to Greece, accompanied by the Ephesians Tychicus and Trophimus, and probably visited Philippi for the second time, and was there joined by Timothy. His beloved Philippians, free, it seems, from the controversies which agitated other Christian churches, became still dearer to Paul on account of the solace which they afforded him when, emerging from a season of dejection (2Co 7:5), oppressed by weak bodily health, and anxious for the steadfastness of the churches which he had planted in Asia and Achaia, he wrote at Philippi his second Epistle to the Corinthians.

On returning from Greece, unable to take ship there on account of the Jewish plots against his life, he went through Macedonia, seeking a favorable port for embarking. After parting from his companions (Act 20:4), he again found a refuge among his faithful Philippians, where he spent some days at Easter, A.D. 55, with Luke, who accompanied him when he sailed from Neapolis.

Finally, in his Roman captivity (A.D. 57), their care of him revived again. They sent Epaphroditus, bearing their alms for the apostle’s support, and ready also to tender his personal service (Php 2:25). He stayed some time at Rome, and while employed as the organ of communication between the imprisoned apostle and the Christians, and inquirers in and about Rome, he fell dangerously ill. When he was sufficiently recovered, Paul sent him back to the Philippians, to whom he was very dear, and with him our epistle. SEE PHILIPPI.

2. The state of the Church at Rome should be considered before entering on the study of the Epistle to the Philippians. Something is to be learned of its condition about A.D. 55 from the Epistle to the Romans, and more about A.D. 58 from Acts 28. Possibly the Gospel was planted there by some who themselves received the seed on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii, 10). The converts were drawn chiefly from Gentile proselytes to Judaism, partly also from Jews who were such by birth, with possibly a few converts direct from heathenism. In A.D. 55 this Church was already eminent for its faith and obedience: it was exposed to the machinations of schismatical teachers; and it included two conflicting parties, the one insisting more or less on observing the Jewish law in addition to faith in Christ as necessary to salvation, the other repudiating outward observances even to the extent of depriving their weak brethren of such as to them might be really edifying. We cannot gather from the Acts whether the whole Church of Rome had then accepted the teaching of Paul as conveyed in his epistle to them. But it is certain that when he had been two years in Rome, his oral teaching was partly rejected by a party which perhaps may have been connected with the former of those above mentioned. Paul’s presence in Rome, the freedom of speech allowed to him, and the personal freedom of his fellow-laborers were the means of infusing fresh missionary activity into the Church (Php 1:12-14). It was in the work of Christ that Epaphroditus was worn out (Php 2:30). Messages and letters passed between the apostle and distant churches; and doubtless churches near to Rome, and both members of the Church and inquirers into the new faith at Rome addressed themselves to the apostle, and to those who were known to be in constant personal communication with him. Thus in his bondage he was a cause of the advancement of the Gospel. From his prison, as from a centre, light streamed into Caesar’s household and far beyond (Php 4:22; Php 1:12-19). SEE ROME.

IV. Efect of the Epistle. We have no account of the reception of this epistle by the Philippians. Except doubtful traditions that Erastus was their first bishop, and that he with Lydia and Parmenas was martyred in their city, nothing is recorded of them for the next fortynine years. But about A.D. 107 Philippi was visited by Ignatius, who was conducted through Neapolis and Philippi, and across Macedonia, on his way to martyrdom at Rome. His visit was speedily followed by the arrival of a letter from Polycarp of Smyrna, which accompanied, in compliance with a characteristic request of the warm-hearted Philippians, a copy of all the letters of Ignatius that were in the possession of the Church of Smvrna. It is interesting to compare the Philippians of A.D. 58, as drawn by Paul, with their successors in A.D. 107 as drawn by the disciple of John. Steadfastness in the faith, and a joyful sympathy with sufferers for Christ’s sake, seem to have distinguished them at both periods (Php 1:5, and Polyc. Ephesians 1). The character of their religion was the same throughout, practical and emotional rather than speculative: in both epistles there are many practical suggestions, much interchange of feeling. and an absence of doctrinal discussion. The Old Testament is scarcely, if at all, quoted; as if the Philippian Christians had been gathered for the most part directly from the heathen. At each period false teachers were seeking, apparently in vain, an entrance into the Philippian Church, first Judaizing Christians, seemingly putting out of sight the resurrection and the judgment which afterwards the Gnosticizing Christians openly denied (Philippians 3, and Polyc. 6, 7). At both periods the same tendency to petty internal quarrels seems to prevail (Php 1:27; Php 2:14; Php 4:2; and Polyc. 2:4, 5:12). The student of ecclesiastical history will observe the faintly marked organization of bishops, deacons, and female coadjutors to which Paul refers (Php 1:1; Php 4:3), developed afterwards into broadly distinguished priests, deacons, widows, and virgins (Polyc. 4, 5, 6). Though the Macedonian churches in general were poor, at least as compared with commercial Corinth (2Co 8:2), yet their gold-mines probably exempted the Philippians from the common lot of their neighbors, and at first enabled them to be conspicuously liberal in alms-giving, and afterwards laid them open to strong warnings against the love of money (Php 4:15; 2Co 8:3; and Polyc. 4, 6, 11).

Now though we cannot trace the immediate effect of Paul’s epistle on the Philippians, yet no one can doubt that it contributed to form the character of their Church, as it was in the time of Polycarp. It is evident from Polycarp’s epistle that the Church, by the grace of God and the guidance of the apostle, had passed through those trials of which Paul warned it, and had not gone back from the high degree of Christian attainments which it reached under Paul’s oral and written teaching (Polyc. 1, 3, 9, 11). If it had made no great advance in knowledge, still unsound teachers were kept at a distance from its members. Their sympathy with martyrs and confessors glowed with as warm a flame as ever, whether it was claimed by Ignatius or by Paul. They maintained their ground with meek firmness among the heathen, and still held forth the light of an exemplary though not a perfect Christian life.

V. Scope and Contents of the Epistle. Paul’s aim in writing is plainly this: while acknowledging the alms of the Philippians and the personal services of their messenger, to give them some information respecting his own condition, and some advice respecting theirs. Perhaps the intensity of his feelings and the distraction of his prison prevented the following out his plan with undeviating closeness. For the preparations for the departure of Epaphroditus, and the thought that he would soon arrive among the warm- hearted Philippians, filled Paul with recollections of them, and revived his old feelings towards those fellow-heirs of his hope of glory who were so deep in his heart (Php 1:7) and so often in his prayers (Php 1:4).

Full of gratitude for this work of friendly remembrance and regard, Paul addressed to the Church in Philippi this epistle, in which, besides expressing his thanks for their kindness, he pours out a flood of eloquence and pathetic exhortation, suggested partly by his own circumstances, and partly by what he had learned of their state as a Church. That state appears to have been on the whole very prosperous, as there is much commendation of the Philippians in the epistle, and no censure is expressed in any part of it either of the Church as a whole, or of any individuals connected with it. At the same time the apostle deemed it necessary to put them on their guard against the evil influences to which they were exposed from Judaizing teachers and false professors of Christianity. These cautions he interposes between the exhortations suggested by his own state, and by the news he had received concerning the Philippians, with which his epistle commences and with which it closes. We may thus divide the epistle into three parts. In the first of these (Php 1:2), after the usual salutation and an outpouring of warm-hearted affection towards the Philippian Church (Php 1:1-11), the apostle refers to his own condition as a prisoner at Rome; and, lest they should be cast down at the thought of the unmerited indignities he had been called upon to suffer, he assures them that these had turned out rather to the furtherance of that great cause on which his heart was set, and for which he was willing to live and labor, though, as respected his personal feelings, he would rather depart and be with Christ, which he deemed to be far better” (Php 1:12-24). He then passes by an easy transition to a hortatory address to the Philippians, calling upon them to maintain steadfastly their profession, to cultivate humanity and brotherly love; to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, and concluding by an appeal to their regard for his reputation as an apostle, which could not but be affected by their conduct, and a reference to his reason for sending to them Epaphroditus instead of Timothy, as he had originally designed (Php 1:25; Php 2:30). In part second he strenuously cautions them, as already observed, against Judaizing teachers, whom he stigmatizes as “dogs” (in reference, probably, to their impudent, snarling, and quarrelsome habits), “evil-workers,” and “the concision;” by which latter term he means to intimate, as Theophylact remarks (ad loc.), that the circumcision in which the Jews so much gloried had now ceased to possess any spiritual significance, and was therefore no better than a useless mutilation of the person. On this theme he enlarges, making reference to his own standing as a Jew, and intimating that, if under the Christian dispensation Jewish descent and Jewish privileges were to go for anything, no one could have stronger claims on this ground than he; but at the same time declaring that however he had once valued these, he now counted them “all but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ” (Php 3:1-12). A reference to his own sanctified ambition to advance in the service of Christ leads him to exhort the Philippians to a similar spirit; from this he passes to caution tjaem against unnecessary contention, and against those who walk disorderly, concluding by reminding them of the glorious hopes which, as Christians, they entertained (Php 3:13-21). In the third part we have a series of admonitions to individual members of the Church at Philippi (Php 4:1-3), followed by some general exhortations to cheerfulness, moderation, prayer, and good conduct (Php 4:4-9); after which come a series of allusions to the apostle’s circumstances and feelings, his thanks to the Philippians for their seasonable aid, and his concluding benedictions and salutations (Php 4:10-23).

VI. Characteristic Features of the Epistle. Strangely full of joy and thanksgiving amid adversity, like the apostle’s midnight hymn from the depth of his Philippian dungeon, this epistle went forth from his prison at Rome. In most other epistles he writes with a sustained effort to instruct, or with sorrow, or with indignation; he is striving to supply imperfect, or to correct erroneous teaching, to put down scandalous impurity, or to heal schism in the Church which he addresses. But in this epistle, though he knew the Philippians intimately, and was not blind to the faults and tendencies to fault of some of them, yet he mentions no evil so characteristic of the whole Church as to call for general censure on his part or amendment on theirs. Of all his epistles to churches, none has so little of an official character as this. He withholds his title of apostle” in the inscription. We lose sight of his high authority, and of the subordinate position of the worshippers by the river-side; and we are admitted to see the free action of a heart glowing with inspired Christian love, and to hear the utterance of the highest friendship addressed to equal friends conscious of a connection which is not earthly and temporal, but in Christ, for eternity. Who that bears in mind the condition of Paul in his Roman prison can read unmoved of his continual pravers for his distant friends, his constant sense of their fellowship with him, his joyful remembrance of their past Christian course, his confidence in their future, his tender yearning after them all in Christ, his eagerness to communicate to them his own circumstances arid feelings, his carefulness to prepare them to repel any evil from within or from without which might dim the brightness of their spiritual graces? Love, at once tender and watchful that love which “is of God” is the key-note of this epistle; and in this epistle only we hear no undertone of any different feeling. Just enough, and no more, is shown of his own harassing trials to let us see how deep in his heart was the spring of that feeling, and how he was refreshed by its sweet and soothing flow.

VII. Commentaries. The following are the exegetical helps specially on this entire epistle; a few of the most important are indicated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Vietorinus, In Ep. ad Ph. (in Mai, Script. Vet. III, 1:51; Pseudo-Hieronymus, Commentarii (in Opp. [Suppos.], 11:1011); Chrysostom, Homiliae (Gr. et Lat. in Opp. 11:208; also in Erasmi Opp. 8:319; in Engl. [including other epistles] in Lib. of Fathers, 14, Oxf. 1843, 8vo); Zwingli, Annotationes (Tigur. 1531, 4to; also in Opp. 4:504); Hoffmann, Commentarius (Basil. 1541,8vo); Brenz, Explicatio (Franc. 1548, 8vo; also in Opp. 7); Calvin, Commentarii (in Opp. often; separately in Engl. by Becket, Lond. 1584, fol.; by Johnston [includ. Colossians], Edinb. 1842, 12mo; by Pringle [includ. Colossians and Thessalonians], Edinb. 1851, 8vo); Major, Enarratio [includ. Colossians and Thessalonians] (Vitemb. 1554, 1561, 8vo); Ridley, Exposition (in Richmond’s Fathers, 2); Weller, Commentaries [includ. Thessalonians] (Norib. 1561, 8vo); Salbont, Commentarii [includ. other epistles] (Antw. 1561, 8vo; also in Opp. Colossians Agr. 1568, fol.); Musculus, Commentarius [includ. Colossians, Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy] (Basil. 1565, 1578, 1595, fol.); Aretius, Commentarii [includ. Colossians and Thessalonians] (Morg. 1580, 8vo); Olevian, Notae [includ. Colossians] (Genesis 1580, 8vo); Steuart (Roman Cath.), Commentarius (Ingolst. 1595, 4to); Zanchius, Commentarius [includ. Colossians and Thessalonians] (Neost. 1595, fol.; also in Opp. 6); Weinrich, Explicatio (Lips. 1615, 4to); Airay, Lectures (Lond. 1618, 4to); Battus, Commentarius (Rost. 1627, 4to); Velasquez (Rom. Cath.), Commentarii (Lugd. 1628-32; Antw. 1637, 1651; Ven. 1646, 2 volumes, fol.); Schotan, Commentaria (Franeck. 1637, 4to); Crell, Commentarius (in Opp. 1:501); Meelfuhr, Commentationes (Altorf, 1641, 4to); Cocceius, Commentarius (in Opp. 5); Daille, Exposition (2d ed. Genesis 1659-60, 2 volumes, 8vo; in English by Sherman, Lond. 1841, 8vo); Scheid, Disputationes (Argent. 1668, 4to); Breithaupt, Animadversiones (Hol. 1693, 1703, 4to); Hazevoet, Verklaaring (Leyd. 1718, 4to); Van Til, Verklaaring ([includ. Romans] Harlem, 1721. 4to; in Lat. [includ. 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians] Amst. 1726, 4to); Busching, Introductio (Hal. 1746, 4to) ; Storr. Diss. exegetica (Tub. 1783, 4to; also in Opusc. 1:301-67); Am Ende, Annotationes (fasc. 1, 2, Torg. 1789-92; Viteb. 1798-1803, 8vo); Paulus, De tempore, etc. (Jen. 1799, 4to); Lang, Bearbeit. (Nuremb. and Alt. 1800, 8vo); Krause, An diversis hom. script., etc. (Regiom. 1811, 4to; also in Opusc. pages 1-22); Hoog, De Philip. conditione (L.B. 1825, 8vo); *Rheinwald, Commentar (Berl. 1827, 8vo); Acaster, Lectures (Lond. 1827, 8vo); Rettig, Quaestiones (Giess. 1831, 8vo); Schinz, D. Christl. Gemeine zu Phil. (Zur. 1833, 8vo); Eastburn, Lectures (N.Y. 1833, 8vo); Passavant, Auslegung (Basle, 1834, 8vo); Baynes, Commentary (Lond. 1834, 12mo); Matthies, Erklad. (Greifsw. 1835, 8vo); *Steiger, Exegese [includ. Colossians] (Par. 1837, 8vo); *Van Hengel, Commentarius (L.B. 1838, 8vo); Holemann, Commentarii (Lips. 1839, 8vo) ; Anon., Erklar. (Hanov. 1839, 8vo); Neat, Discourses (Lond. 1841, 8vo); Rilliet, Commentaire (Genesis and Par. 1841, 8vo); Hall, Exposition (Lond. 1843, 8vo); Neander, Erlauf. (Berl. 1849, 8vo; in Engl. by Mrs. Conant, N.Y. 1851, 12mo); Robertson, Lectures (Lond. 1849, 12mo); B. Crusius, Commentar (Jen. 1849, 8vo); Kohler, Auslegung (Kiel, 1855, 8vo); Toller, Discourses (Lond. 1855, 12mo); *Weiss, Auslegung (Berl. 1858, 8vo); *Ellicott, Commentary [includ. Colossians and Philemon] (Lond. 1858, 8vo); Jatho, Erklar. (Hildesh. 1858, 8vo); *Eadie, Commentary (Lond. 1858, 1861, 8vo); Shulte, Commentary (Lond. 1861, 8vo); Schenkel, Erlaut. [includ. Ephesians and Colossians] (Leipz. 1862, 8vo); Newland, Catena (Lond. 1862, 8vo); Vaughan, Lectures (2d ed. Lond. 1864, 8vo); Todd, Expositions (Lond. 1864, 8vo); *Lightfoot, Commentary (Lond. 1868, 1870, 8vo); Johnstone, Lectures (Lond. 1875, 8vo). SEE EPISTLE.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Philippians, Epistle to the

Of this part of the Apostle Paul’s writings the authenticity has never been questioned. Professing to be written by that distinguished servant of Christ, it bears on every part of it the impress of his peculiar style, manner of thought, and form of doctrine; and the internal evidence of authenticity arising from the incidental allusions in it to persons and circumstances is very strong.

From allusions in the epistle itself, it is evident that it was written at Rome during the period of the apostle’s two years’ imprisonment in that city, and in all probability towards the close of that period (Php 1:13-14; Php 1:23; Php 1:26; Php 2:18; Php 2:25). It seems to have been composed on the occasion of the return to Philippi of Epaphroditus, a member of the church in that place, who had been deputed to Rome with a pecuniary contribution from the church in aid of the apostle. Full of gratitude for this work of friendly remembrance and regard, Paul addressed to the church in Philippi this epistle, in which, besides expressing his thanks for their kindness, he pours out a flood of eloquence and pathetic exhortation, suggested partly by his own circumstances, and partly by what he had learned of their state as a church. That state appears to have been on the whole very prosperous, as there is much commendation of the Philippians in the epistle, and no censure is expressed in any part of it either of the church as a whole, or of any individuals connected with it. At the same time the apostle deemed it necessary to put them on their guard against the evil influences to which they were exposed from Judaizing teachers and false professors of Christianity. These cautions he interposes between the exhortations suggested by his own state and by the news he had received concerning the Philippians, with which his epistle commences and with which it closes. We may thus divide the epistle into three parts. In the first of these (Philippians 1-2), after the usual salutation and an outpouring of warm-hearted affection towards the Philippian church (Php 1:1-11), the apostle refers to his own condition as a prisoner at Rome; and lest they should be cast down at the thought of the unmerited indignities he had been called upon to suffer, he assures them that these had turned out rather to the furtherance of that great cause on which his heart was set, and for which he was willing to live and labor, though, as respected his personal feelings, he would rather depart and be with Christ, which he deemed to be ‘far better’ (Php 1:12-24). He then passes by an easy transition to a hortatory address to the Philippians, calling upon them to maintain steadfastly their profession, to cultivate humanity and brotherly love, to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, and concluding by an appeal to their regard for his reputation as an apostle, which could not but be affected by their conduct, and a reference to his reason for sending to them Epaphroditus instead of Timothy, as he had originally designed (Php 1:25; Php 2:19-30). In part second he strenuously cautions them, as already observed, against Judaizing teachers, whom he stigmatizes as ‘dogs’ (in reference probably to their impudent, snarling, and quarrelsome habits), ‘evil-workers,’ and ‘the concision;’ by which latter term he means to intimate, as Theophylact remarks (in loc.), that the circumcision in which the Jews so much gloried had now ceased to possess any spiritual significance, and was therefore no better than a useless mutilation of the person. On this theme he enlarges, making reference to his own standing as a Jew, and intimating, that if under the Christian dispensation Jewish descent and Jewish privileges were to go for anything, no one could have stronger claims on this ground than he; but at the same time declaring, that however he had once valued these, he now counted them ‘all but lost for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ’ (Php 3:1-12). A reference to his own sanctified ambition to advance in the service of Christ leads him to exhort the Philippians to a similar spirit; from this he passes to caution them against unnecessary contention, and against those who walk disorderly, concluding by reminding them of the glorious hopes which, as Christians, they entertained (Php 3:13-21). In the third part we have a series of admonitions to individual members of the church at Philippi (Php 4:1-3), followed by some general exhortations to cheerfulness, moderation, prayer, and good conduct (Php 4:4-9); after which come a series of allusions to the apostle’s circumstances and feelings, his thanks to the Philippians for their seasonable aid, and his concluding benedictions and salutations (Php 4:10-23).

This epistle is written throughout in a very animated and elevated style. It is full of the most sublime thoughts and the most affectionate exhortations. It resembles more the production of a father addressing his children, than that of an apostle laying down authoritatively what is to be received and followed. The whole of it shows, as Theophylact observes, how very much he loved and estimated those to whom it was addressed.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Philippians, Epistle to the

This epistle is of profound interest on account of certain marks in it, which connect the truth presented with a state of things much akin to that of the present day. The testimony is not viewed as opposed by the Jewish leaders, as in the beginning of the Acts, nor in conflict with Judaising influences, as at Antioch; but as in contact with the world power (Rome), which was holding Paul, the vessel of it, in bondage.

Further, in Philippians 3 the Jews are viewed as utterly debased, and are spoken of as ‘the concision;’ and in the same chapter many of those professedly Christian are described as ‘enemies of the cross of Christ,’ serving their own desires, whose end is destruction.

Again, as regards the preaching of the gospel, though the apostle could rejoice in the fact of its being preached, he could find but little satisfaction in the motives that prompted activity in it. All this exhibits a state of things to which Christendom in our own day presents a striking analogy.

The immediate occasion of the epistle was the effect produced on the apostle by the practical expression which the Philippians had given to their fellowship with him in the gospel; and the object of his writing was that they might complete his joy in perfectly answering to God’s mind for them down here. This was in order that, in the complete abnegation of self, as to the state of their minds, by the death of Christ, they might by God’s power be manifest as a divine generation (children of God), occupying collectively the place which Christ had occupied in the world – lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. This is the proper place of the church in testimony here.

The second part of the epistle (Phil. 3 and Phil. 4) is intensely individual. In view of religious pretensions, in which men gloried, the apostle presents himself as the example of a man running a race. The course meant the distancing in spirit, at every step, all that which gave importance to him as a man after the flesh – all was in his account dross and dung for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord. At the same time every step brought his soul more distinctly under the power of the calling above of God in Christ Jesus.

While encouraging saints to follow him, he exhorts them to walk in unity by the same rule, to mind the same thing. In contrast to many who were earthly-minded, he reminds them that their citizenship was in heaven, and they were expecting Christ as Saviour from heaven completely to conform them to Himself.

The closing chapter shows the apostle’s interest in, and consideration of individuals; his anxiety that saints should by prayer and supplication be kept in divine peace as to everything that might naturally occasion anxiety; and the moral superiority in which he himself was maintained through circumstances: the secret being his absolute confidence in the goodness of the God whom he had faith to appropriate as ‘my God.’

The epistle was written when Paul was a prisoner at Rome, and probably near the close of his imprisonment, about A.D. 62, when he was expecting to be released and again to visit the Philippian saints.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary