Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 1:1 - 1:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_1:1-2. Καὶ Τιμόθ .] not as amanuensis, although he may have been so (comp. 1Co_16:21; 2Th_3:17; Col_4:18; and see on Gal_6:11), for from Rom_16:22 we must assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the superscription; nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting (Estius, Weiss), for Php_1:1 is the address of the epistle, and as such names those from whom it emanates; but as subordinate joint-writer of the letter (comp. on 1Co_1:1; 2Co_1:1; Col_1:1; Phm_1:1), who, as a distinguished helper of the apostle, and well known to the readers, adopts the teachings, exhortations, etc. of the letter, which the apostle had previously discussed with him, as his own. At the same time, the apostle himself remains so completely the proper and principal writer of the epistle, that so early as Php_1:3 he begins to speak solely in his own person, and in Php_2:19 speaks of Timothy, who was to be sent to them, as a third person. Nevertheless this joint mention of Timothy must have been as accordant with the personal relation existing between the latter and the readers (Act_16:10 ff; Act_19:22), as it was serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of Timothy (Php_2:19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a testimony of the intimate fellowship between the apostle and his subordinate fellow-labourer.[45]
δοῦλοι Χ . Ἰ ] The fact that Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic dignity by the side of Timothy (as in 2Co_1:1, Col_1:1), may be explained by the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the Philippians; for in regard to them he saw no external cause, and felt no internal need, for making this assertion; and we may assume the same thing in Phm_1:1. The non-mention of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they were composed, to be similarly explained (see Lünemann on 1Th_1:1). In their joint designation as δοῦλοι Ἰ . Χ . (see on Rom_1:1),—a designation resulting from the deep consciousness of the specific vocation of their lives (1Co_4:1),—both the apostleship of Paul and the official position of Timothy (comp. Rom_16:21 : Τιμόθ . ὁ συνεργός μου ; Col_4:12) are included. Compare σύνδουλος , Col_1:7; Col_4:7.
τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χ . Ἰ .] see on Rom_1:7, and on ἡγιασμένος ἐν Χ . Ἰ ., 1Co_1:2.
σὺν ἐπισκ . κ . διακόν .] along with overseers and deacons. Paul writes to all[46] the Christians at Philippi (comp. Rom_1:7), bishops and deacons being expressly included ( σύν , comp. Act_14:5). As official designations, the words did not require the article (Kühner, ad. Xen. Anab. Php_3:5. 7: στρατηγοὶ δὲ καὶ λοχαγοί ), although particular persons are meant (in opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded, however, just as office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially mentioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, must be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the aid which had been conveyed to Paul could not have been collected without the guidance, and co-operation otherwise, of these office-bearers.[47] They might even have transmitted to him the money by means of an accompanying letter in the name of the church (Ewald; compare Hofmann); there is, however, no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Cornelius a Lapide and Grotius: that he thus arranged the salutation with reference to Epaphroditus, who was one of the ἐπίσκοποι ; by Matthias: that the ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟΙ and ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟΙ had specially distinguished themselves among the Philippians by their zeal and energy; by Rilliet and Corn. Müller: that the intention was to describe the church as a regularly constituted one, or as an undivided whole (Rheinwald), a collective body organized into unity (Hofmann) (which, in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were also); or that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to self-exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet other explanations.
The writing of the words as one: συνεπισκόποις (B** D*** K, Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be rejected, because ΣῪΝ would be without appropriate reference, and the epistle is addressed to the whole community. See already Theodore of Mopsuestia.
As to the bishops, called from their official duty ἐπίσκοποι (Act_20:28; 1Ti_3:2; Tit_1:7), or figuratively ΠΟΙΜΈΝΕς (Eph_4:11), and after the Jewish theocratic analogy ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΕΡΟΙ , see on Act_20:28, Eph_4:11. And how much the plural is at variance with the Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The absence also of any mention of presbyters[48] strikingly shows that the latter were still at that time identical with the bishops. Comp. particularly Act_20:17; Act_20:28; and see Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 400 ff.; also J. B. Lightfoot, p. 93 ff., and Jul. Müller, dogmat. Abh. p. 581. Mistaken view in Döllinger’s Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who makes out of σύζυγε γνήσιε the bishop κατʼ ἐξοχήν . As to the διακονία , the care of the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on Rom_12:7; Rom_16:1; 1Co_12:28. We may add that the placing of the officials after the church generally, which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by σὺν , are characteristic of the relation between the two, which had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation. Comp. Act_15:4; Heb_13:24. Cornelius a Lapide, following Thomas Aquinas, sagely observes, that “the shepherd who rules goes behind the flock!”
χάρις ὑμῖν κ . τ . λ .] See on Rom_1:7.
[45] In general, when Paul names others besides himself in the address, the ground for it must be sought for in the relation in which those named—who were then present with Paul—stood to the churches concerned, and not in any wish on his part to give by that means to the epistles an official and public character (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom Corn. Müller agrees, Commentat. de loc. quibusd. ep. ad Phil., Hamb. 1843, p. 5); for in that case the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians would least of all bear the apostle’s name alone. To him, too, with his personal consciousness of his high apostolic standing (Gal_1:1), the need of any confirmation or corroboration by others must have been an idea utterly foreign. Lastly, this very Epistle to the Philippians bears less of the official and more of the familiar character than any of the others.—The fact, moreover, that in almost all the epistles, in the superscription of which Paul does not name himself alone, Timothy is mentioned with him (Silvanus being named with the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a proof that Timothy was the apostle’s most intimate companion, and was highly esteemed among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only, Sosthenes, and not Timothy, is mentioned along with Paul in the address.
[46] For all had, in fact, by their common readiness in offering given occasion to the apostolic letter. Thus the decorum of reply naturally gave rise to the insertion of the otherwise superfluous πᾶσι , without its implying any special design of not putting to shame those who possibly had not contributed (van Hengel). And when Paul still further in this Epistle makes mention repeatedly and earnestly of all his readers (Php_1:4; Php_1:7 f., 25, Php_2:17; Php_2:26, Php_4:22), the simple and natural explanation is to be sought in the feeling of special all-embracing love, by which he was attached to this well-constituted church not divided by any factions. Hence there is no ground for seeking further explanation, as e.g. de Wette does, by suggesting erroneously that “Paul wished to manifest his impartiality with regard to the dissension in the church.”
[47] There is therefore the less ground for Baur bringing forward the mention of bishops and deacons in this passage to help the proof of a post-apostolic composition of the epistle, as is also done by Hinsch in the passage specified. See, against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 f.
[48] In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, πρεσβύτεροι and διάκονοι are spoken of as existing in Philippi, but no ἐπίσκοπος . See especially chap. v. 6. Therefore even at this later period bishops and presbyters were identical in Philippi.