Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 1:18 - 1:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_1:18. On τί γάρ , scil. ἐστι , comp. on Rom_3:3, where, however, γάρ is not, as here, conclusive (see on 1Co_11:22[67]); comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered necessary by the πλήν that the mark of interrogation should not be placed (as it usually is) after τί γάρ , but the question goes on to καταγγέλλεται (comp. Hofmann); and it is to be observed that through πλήν the τί γάρ receives the sense of τί γὰρ ἄλλο (see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C). Hence: what else takes place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc., i.e. what else than that by every sort of preaching, whether it is done in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed? and therein, that it is always Christ whom they preach, I rejoice, etc. How magnanimous is this liberality of judgment as to the existing circumstances in their reference to Christ! By προφάσει and ἀληθείᾳ is indicated the characteristic difference in the two kinds of preachers, Php_1:15-17, and thus παντὶ τρόπῳ receives the more precise definition of its respective parts. As regards the first class, the preaching of Christ was not a matter of sincerity and truth—wherein they, in accordance with their sentiments, were really concerned about Christ, and He was the real αἰτία of their working (see on the contrast between αἰτία and πρόφασις , Polyb. iii. 6. 6 ff.)—but a matter of pretence, under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts envy, strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavours. For instances of the antithesis between πρόφασις and ἀλήθεια or τἀληθές , see Raphel, Polyb.; Loesner and Wetstein. To take πρόφασις as opportunity, occasion (Herod. i. 29, 30, iv. 145, vi. 94; Dem. xx. 26; Antiph. v. 21; Herodian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14),—as, following the Vulgate, Luther, Estius, Grotius (“nam occasione illi Judaei, dum nocere Paulo student, multos pertrahebant ad evang.”), and others understand it,—is opposed to the context in Php_1:15-17, in which the want of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic mark of these persons. On πλήν in the sense of ἤ , comp. Kühner, II. 2, p. 842.
ἐν τούτῳ ] the neuter: therein, in accordance with the conception of that in which the feeling has its basis. Comp. Col_1:24; Plat. Rep. x. p. 603 C; Soph. Tr. 1118; Kühner, II. 1, p. 403. In the Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται lies the apostle’s joy.
ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι ] surpassing the simple χαίρω by a plus, and therefore added in a corrective antithetical form (imo etiam); comp. on 1Co_3:2; 2Co_11:1. To begin a new sentence with ἀλλά (Lachmann, Tischendorf), and to sever χαρήσομαι from its connection with ἐν τούτῳ (Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert generally that he will continue to rejoice also in the future), interrupts, without sufficient reason, the flow of the animated discourse, and is also opposed by the proper reference of οἶδα γάρ in Php_1:19. This applies also in opposition to Hinsch, p. 64 f.
[67] According to Weiss, γάρ is intended to establish the οἰόμενοι κ . τ . λ ., so far as the latter is only an empty imagination. But this is an unnecessary seeking after a very obscure reference. The τι γάρ draws, as it were, the result from vv. 15–17. Hence also we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense: “it then so, as they think?”
REMARK.
Of course this rejoicing does not refer to the impure intention of the preachers, but to the objective result. See, already, Augustine, c. Faust. xxii. 48; c. Ep. Parm. ii. 11. Nor does παντὶ τρόπῳ apply to the doctrinal purport of the preaching (Gal_1:8), but to its ethical nature and method, to disposition and purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow him. Nevertheless the apostle’s judgment may excite surprise by its mildness (comp. Php_3:2), since these opponents must have taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must consider, first, the tone of lofty resignation in general which prevails in this passage, and which might be fitted to raise him more than elsewhere above antagonisms; secondly, that in this case the danger did not affect, as it did in Asia and Greece, in Galatia and Corinth, his personal sphere of apostolical ministry; thirdly, that Rome was the very place in which the preaching of Christ might appear to him in itself of such preponderating importance as to induce him in the meantime, while his own ministry was impeded and in fact threatened with an imminent end, to allow—in generous tolerance, the lofty philosophical spirit of which Chrysostom has admired—of even un-Pauline admixtures of doctrine, in reliance on the discriminating power of the truth; lastly, that a comparison of Php_3:2 permits the assumption, as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of a less important grade of anti-Pauline doctrine,[68] and especially of a tenor of teaching which did not fundamentally overthrow that of Paul. Comp. also on Php_3:2. All the less, therefore, can the stamp of mildness and forbearance which our passage bears be used, as Baur and Hitzig[69] employ it, as a weapon of attack against the genuineness of the epistle. Comp. the appropriate remarks of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 314 ff.; in opposition to Hinsch, see on Php_1:15. Calvin, moreover, well says: “Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis, nunquam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset ministros.”
[68] Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 388.
[69] Who thinks that he recognises here an indistinct shadow of Tacitus, Agric. 41: “Optimus quisque amore et fide, pessimi malignitate et livore.”