Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 1:27 - 1:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_1:27. To these accounts regarding his own present position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations to right conduct for his readers.
μόνον ] without connecting particle, as in Gal_2:10; Gal_5:13. With the above assurance, namely, that he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object of this preserving of his life (Php_1:25) may be accomplished in them, needs only to summon them to be in a way worthy of the gospel members of the Christian community ( πολιτεύεσθε ); nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence of his finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously, the only counter-demand made for it.
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ] of Christ. See on Mar_1:1.
πολιτεύεσθε ] comp. on Act_23:1. See also 2Ma_6:1; 2Ma_11:25; 3Ma_3:4; Joseph. Antt. iii. 5. 8, Vit. 2; Wetstein ad loc., and Suicer, Thes. II. p. 709 ff. The word, which is not used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles to express the conduct of life, is here purposely chosen, because he has in view the moral life, internal and external, of the Christian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of the gospel ( πολιτεύεσθαι , to be citizen of a state, to live as citizen). See the sequel. It is also selected in Act_23:1, where the idea of the official relation of service is involved ( πολιτεύεσθαι , to administer an office in the state). Comp. 2Ma_6:1; 2Ma_11:25; 3Ma_3:4. In the absence of such references as these, Paul says περιπατεῖν (Eph_4:1; Col_1:10, with ἀξίως ). Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3 : πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ καθήκον τῷ Χριστῷ , and ch. 54: πολιτευόμενος τὴν ἀμεταμέλητον πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ , ch. 21: ἀξίως αὐτοῦ πολιτευόμενοι .
εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ . τ . λ .] a parenthetic definition as far as ἀπών , so that ἀκούσω then depends on ἵνα : in order that I—whether it be when I have come and seen you, or during my absence from you—may hear, etc. The two cases εἴτε … εἴτε do not refer to the liberation and non-liberation of the apostle; but they assume the certainty of the liberation (Php_1:25 f.), after which Paul desired to continue his apostolic journeys and to come again to the Philippians; and indeed trusted that he should come (Php_2:24), but yet, according to the circumstances, might be led elsewhere and be far away from them ( εἴτε ἀπών ). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that he may come to learn the affairs of the church in their excellence as described by ὅτι στήκετε κ . τ . λ . It cannot surprise us to find the notion of learning expressed by the common form of the zeugma,[81] corresponding to the εἴτε ἀπών ; and from the ἈΚΟΎΣΩ accordingly employed there naturally suggests itself a word of kindred import to correspond with ΕἼΤΕ ἘΛΘῶΝ Κ . Τ . Λ ., such as ΓΝῶ . The rash opinion, repeated even by Hofmann, that ἈΚΟΎΣΩ only refers to the second case, does the apostle the injustice of making his discourse “hiulca” (Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being supposed that he intended to write either: “ut sive veniens videam vos, sive absens audiam,” or: “sive quum venero et videro vos, sive absens audiam de statu vestro, intelligam utroque modo,” etc. Calvin allows a choice between these two interpretations; the latter is approved of by de Wette and Weiss (comp. Rilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written εἴτε ἈΠῺΝ ἈΚΟΎΣΩ ΤᾺ ΠΕΡῚ ὙΜῶΝ (which words are to be taken together), as if he had previously put ΕἼΤΕ ἘΛΘῺΝ ὌΨΟΜΑΙ ὙΜᾶς ; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply the verbs that should have depended on ἵνα , and of which two[82] would have been needed! The passage employed for comparison, Rom_4:16, with its close, concise, and clear dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkwardness. Hoelemann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary way, as if Paul had written: ἵνα , εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ . ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς , εἴτε ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούσας τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν , στήκητε κ . τ . λ ., thus making the participles absolute nominatives.
τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν ] the object of ἀκούσω , so that ὅτι στήκετε κ . τ . λ ., that, namely, ye stand, etc., is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction οἶδά σε τίς εἶ , and the like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. It has been awkwardly explained as absolute: “quod attinet ad res vestras” (Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, and others), while van Hengel not more skilfully, taking εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τ . π . ὑμ . together, afterwards supplies ἀκούσω again. Grotius, Estius, and am Ende take τά even for ταῦτα , and Hoelemann makes Paul express himself here also by an anakoluthon (comp. above on εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ . τ . λ .), so that either ὅτι should have been omitted and στήκητε written, or τά should not have been inserted.
ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ] is to be joined with στήκετε , alongside of which it stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it absolutely (2Th_2:15). It is the common element, in which they are to stand, i.e. to remain stedfast (Rom_5:2; 1Co_15:1; 1Co_16:13); πνεύματι , however, refers not to the Holy Spirit (Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss), but, as the context shows by μιᾷ ψυχῇ , to the human spirit; comp. 1Th_5:23. The perfect accord of their minds in conviction, volition, and feeling, presents the appearance of one spirit which the various persons have in common. De Wette well says: “the practical community of spirit.” Comp. Act_4:32. It is, as a matter of course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of the human spirit is brought about by the Holy Spirit (see on Eph_4:3 f., 23), but ἑνὶ πνεύμ . does not say so. Moreover the emphasis is on this ἐν ἑνὶ πν ., and therefore μιᾷ ψ . is subsequently placed first.
The special mode, which this standing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is contained in the sequel down to ἀντικειμ .
μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλ . κ . τ . λ .] The ψυχή , as distinguished from the πνεῦμα , is the principle of the individual personal life, which receives its impressions on the one hand from the πνεῦμα as the principle of the higher divine ζωή , and on the other hand from the outer world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and emotion, the sympathetic unity of which in the church is here described (comp. on Luk_1:46 f.). Comp. ἰσόψυχος , Php_2:20; σύμψυχοι , Php_2:2; Herodian. vi. 5. 15: μιᾷ τε γνώμῃ καὶ ψυχῇ , Rom_15:6, ὀμοθυμαδόν , 4Ma_14:20, ὁμόψυχος , 1Pe_3:8, ὁμόφρων . But μιᾷ ψ . does not also belong to στήκετε (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, and others), for συναθλ . requires a modal definition in harmony with the context.
συναθλοῦντες ] in keeping with στήκετε , according to the conception of a contest (comp. Php_1:30), under which the activity of Christian faithfulness is presented in relation to all hostile powers. Comp. Col_2:1; 1Th_2:2; 1Ti_6:12; 2Ti_4:7, et al.; also Soph. O. C. 564; Eur. Suppl. 317; Aesch. Prom. 95. The compound, striving together (comp. Php_4:3, and συναγωνίζεσθαι , Rom_15:30), is not to be overlooked, as if συναθλ ., with the dative of the thing expressed merely the entering or stepping into the lists for it (Hofmann). It does not refer, however, to the fellowship of the Philippians themselves (“quasi facto agmine contra hostes evang.,” Grotius; comp. Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, and others, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius). Paul looks upon himself as a combatant (Php_1:30, comp. Php_1:7), and the Philippians as striving with him, and affording him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) as his σύναθλοι in defending the faith (objectively viewed), protecting it and rendering it victorious. That they were to do this with one accord, is stated emphatically by μιᾷ ψυχῇ , but is not conveyed by συναθλ . in itself. If, however, Paul is the combatant, the passage cannot be understood in the sense: “adjuvantes decertantem adversus impios evangelii fidem,” Erasmus, Paraphr.; comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, Flatt, Lightfoot,—even apart from the fact that such a personification of πίστις is unprecedented, and must have been suggested by the text, as in the case of τῇ ἀληθείᾳ , 1Co_13:6.
τῇ πίστει is the dative commodi (comp. Jud_1:3), not instrumenti (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, Rheinwald, and others), which μιᾷ ψυχῇ was. As to the genitive of the object with πίστις , see on Rom_3:22.
[81] It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]) to suppose that in a zeugma the directly appropriate verb must be joined to the first member. It can also be joined with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 12, and Kühner in loc;. Plat. Rep. p. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc;. Hom. Il. iii. 327, and Faesi in loc.; generally Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 179, ed. 3; Bremi, ad Lys. p. 43 ff.; Kühner, II. 2, p. 1075 f.
[82] But why two? He would only have needed to insert μαθῶ or γνῶ before ὅτι . This would have suited both halves of the alternative discourse, in the confused form in which Hofmann makes it run; and there would be no necessity whatever for two verbs.