Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 1:13 - 1:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_1:13. Ὥστε κ . τ . λ .] so that my bonds became manifest in Christ, etc. This ὥστε introduces the actual result of that προκοπή , and consequently a more precise statement of its nature.[59] Ἐν Χριστῷ does not belong to ΤΟῪς ΔΕΣΜΟΎς ΜΟΥ , alongside of which it does not stand; but ΦΑΝΕΡΟῪς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤ . is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on ΦΑΝΕΡΟΎς , so that the ΔΕΣΜΟΊ did not remain ΚΡΥΠΤΟΊ or ἈΠΟΚΡΎΦΟΙ ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ , as would have been the case, if their relation to Christ had continued unknown, and if people had been compelled to look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary prisoner detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not exist; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ, in so far, namely, that in their causal relation to Christ—in this their specific peculiarity—was found information and elucidation with respect to his condition of bondage, and thus the specialty of the case of the prisoner, became notorious. If Paul had been only known generally as δέσμιος , his bonds would have been ΟὐΚ ἘΜΦΑΝΕῖς ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ; but now that, as ΔΈΣΜΙΟς ἘΝ ΚΥΡΊῼ or ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ (Eph_4:1; Eph_3:1; Phm_1:9), as ΠΆΣΧΩΝ Ὡς ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΌς (1Pe_4:16), he had become the object of public notice, the ΦΑΝΈΡΩΣΙς of his state of bondage, as resting ἐν Χριστῷ , was thereby brought about,—a ΦΑΝΕΡῸΝ ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ , consequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the ἐν Χριστῷ . It is arbitrary to supply ὌΝΤΑς with ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ (Hofmann). Ewald takes it as: “shining in Christ,” i.e. much sought after and honoured as Christian. Comp. also Calvin, and Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 457. But, according to New Testament usage, φανερός does not convey so much as this; in classical usage (Thuc. i. 17. 2, iv. 11. 3; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58, Anab. vii. 7. 22 and Krüger in loc.) it may mean conspicuous, eminent.
ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ ] ΠΡΑΙΤΏΡΙΟΝ is not the imperial palace in Rome (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, also Mynster, Rheinwald, and Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 300), which is denoted in Php_4:22 by ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία , but was never called praetorium.[60] It could not well, indeed, be so called, as τὸ πραιτώριον is the standing appellation for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Mat_27:27; Joh_18:28; Joh_19:9; Act_23:35); hence it might and must have been explained as the Procurator’s palace in Caesarea, if our epistle had been written there (see especially Böttger, Beitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the Roman castrum praetorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard (Camerarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and others), whose chief was the praefectus praetorio, the στρατοπέδων ἔπαρχος , to whom Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Rome (Act_28:16). It was built by Sejanus, and was situated not far from the Porta Viminalis, on the eastern side of the city.[61] See Suet. Tib. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus, Thesaur. antiq. III. 174; and especially Perizonius, de orig., signif. et usu vocc. praetoris et praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his Disquisitio de praetorio ac vero sensu verborum Phil. i. 13, Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. Lightfoot, p. 97 ff. τὸ πραιτώριον does not mean the troop of praetorian cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to οἱ πραιτωριανοί (Herodian, viii. 8. 14).[62]
The becoming known in the whole praetorium is explained by the fact, that a praetorian was always present with Paul as his guard (Act_28:16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his preaching without hindrance (Act_28:30 f.).
καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσι ] not in the sense of locality, dependent on ἐν (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), but: and to all the others, besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inexact way of putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known among the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be left without any more specific definition. This extensive proclamation of the matter took place in part directly through Paul himself, since any one might visit him, and in part indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, disciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like.[63] Van Hengel, moreover, understands it incorrectly, as if οἱ λοιποί were specially “homines exteri,” “Gentiles,”—a limitation which could only be suggested by the context, and therefore cannot be established by the use of the word in Eph_2:3; Eph_4:17; 1Th_4:13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of Hofmann: that it refers to those, who already knew about him.
[59] “Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1012. Hofmann’s view, that it stands in the sense of εἰς τοῦτο ὥστε , also amounts to this. But Hoelemann is in error in making it assert the greatness of the προκοπή . Not the greatness, but the salutary effect, is indicated.
[60] Act. Thom. § 3, 17, 18, 19, in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f., cannot be cited in favour of this designation (in opposition to Rheinwald); the πραιτώρια βασιλικά there spoken of (§ 3) are royal castles, so designated after the analogy of the residences of the Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. Aug. 72; Tib. 39, et al.; Juvenal, x. 161.
[61] Doubtless there was a praetorian guard stationed in the imperial palace itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16). See Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404, who understands the station of this palace-guard to be here referred to. But it cannot be proved that after the times of Tiberius, in whose reign the castra praetoriana were built in front of the Viminal gate (only three cohorts having previously been stationed in the city, and that sine castris, Suetonius, Octav. 49), anything else than these castra is to be understood by the wonted term praetorium, στρατόπεδον , when mentioned without any further definition (as Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 7: πρὸ τοῦ βασιλείου ).
[62] Not even in such passages as Tacitus, Hist. ii. 24, iv. 46; Suetonius, Ner. 7; Plin. H. N. xxv. 2, 6, et al., where the prepositional expression (in praetorium, ex praetorio) is always local.
[63] This suffices fully to explain the situation set forth in ver. 13. The words therefore afford no ground for the historical combination which Hofmann here makes: that during the two years, Act_28:30, the apostle’s case was held in abeyance; and that only now had it been brought up for judicial discussion, whereby first it had become manifest that his captivity was caused, not by his having committed any crime against the state, but by his having preached Christ, which might not be challenged (?) on the state’s account. As if what is expressly reported in Act_28:31 were not sufficient to have made the matter known, and as if that διετία ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι precluded the judicial preparation of the case (ver. 7)! As if the increased courage of the πλείονες , ver. 14, were intelligible only on the above assumption! As if, finally, it were admissible to understand, with Hofmann, among these πλείονες all those who “even now before the conclusion of the trial were inspired with such courage by it”!