Php_1:5 f.
Ἐπὶ
τῇ
κοινων
.
ὑμ
.
εἰς
τὸ
εὐαγγ
.] is to be taken together with
εὐχαριστῶ
, Php_1:3 (1Co_1:4), and not with
μετὰ
χαρ
.
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. (Calvin, Grotius, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann); for in that case, with the right explanation of
ἐπὶ
πάσῃ
τ
.
μν
.
ὑμ
., the specification of the ground for thanks would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your fellowship in respect of the gospel; by this Paul means the common brotherly coherence (Act_2:42) which united the Philippians together for the gospel (as the aim to which the
κοινωνία
has reference), that is, for its furtherance and efficiency. The great cause of the gospel was the end at which, in their mutual coherence, they aimed; and this, therefore, gave to their fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy destination. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the context in Php_1:9, where that which is here expressed by
ἡ
κοινωνία
ὑμῶν
is characterized, under the category of the disposition on which this
κοινωνία
is based, as
ἡ
ἀγάπη
ὑμῶν
. As this view is in full harmony with both words and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, it excludes divergent interpretations. We must therefore reject not only the explanation which refers
κοινωνία
to the aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be taken actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, 287), although it is never so used in the N. T. (comp. on Rom_15:26; Gal_6:6; Phm_1:6), but also the view of Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, and others: “quod evangelii participes facti estis,” as if it ran
τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου
(Theodoret:
κοινωνίαν
δὲ
τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου
τὴν
πίστιν
ἐκάλεσε
). Chrysostom and Theophylact, who are followed by most of the recent interpreters (including Schinz, Weiss, Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann), understand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle, that is,
ὅτι
κοινωνοί
μου
γίνεσθε
κ
.
συμμερισταὶ
τῶν
ἐπὶ
τῷ
εὐαγγ
.
πόνων
, Theophylact; consequently, their co-operation with him in spreading the gospel, in which case also a reference to the aid rendered is included. In this case, since the text says nothing about a “service” devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), an addition like
μετʼ
ἐμοῦ
(1Jn_1:3, et al.), or some other more precise definition, like that in Php_1:7, would be an essential element—not arising (as in Gal_2:9) out of the context—which therefore must have been expressed, as indeed Paul must have said so, had he wished to be understood as referring to fellowship with all who had the cause of the gospel at heart (Wiesinger). The absolute “your fellowship,” if no arbitrary supplement is allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the members of the church themselves.
The article is not repeated after
ὑμῶν
, because
κοινωνία
εἰς
τὸ
εὐαγγ
. is conceived as forming a single notion (comp. on
κοινωνεῖν
εἰς
, Php_4:15; Plato, Rep. p. 453 A).
ἀπὸ
πρώτης
ἡμ
.
ἄχρι
τοῦ
νῦν
] is usually connected with
τῇ
κοινωνίᾳ
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. This connection is the true one, for the constancy of the
κοινωνία
, that has been attested hitherto, is the very thing which not only supplies the motive for the apostle’s thankfulness, but forms also the ground of his just confidence for the future. The connective article (
τῇ
before
ἀπὸ
) is not requisite, as
ἐπὶ
τῇ
κοινωνίᾳ
ὑμῶν
was construed as
ἐπὶ
τῷ
κοινωνεῖν
ὑμᾶς
(Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 171]). It cannot be connected with
τ
.
δέησιν
ποιούμ
. (Weiss), unless
ἐπὶ
τ
.
κοινων
.
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. is also made to belong hereto. If joined with
πεποιθώς
(Rilliet, following Lachmann, ed. min.), it would convey an emphatically prefixed definition of the apostle’s confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the previous conduct of the readers, which by the connection with
πεποιθ
. would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with
εὐχαριστῶ
(Beza, Wolf, Bengel), the words—seeing that the expression
πάντοτε
ἐν
πάσῃ
δεήσει
has already been used, and then in
ἐπὶ
τῇ
κοινωνίᾳ
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. a transition has already been made to the object of the thanks—would contain a definition awkwardly postponed.
The first day is that in which he first preached the gospel to them, which was followed by immediate and decided results, Act_16:13 ff. Comp. Col_1:6.
πεποιθώς
] confidence by which Paul knows his
εὐχαριστεῖν
, Php_1:3-5, to be accompanied. Without due ground, Hofmann confuses the matter by making a new prolonged paragraph begin with
πεποιθώς
.[51]
αὐτὸ
τοῦτο
] if taken according to the common usage as the accusative of the object (comp. Php_1:25), would not point to what follows, as if it were
τοῦτο
merely (Weiss), but would mean, being confident of this very thing, which is being spoken of (Php_2:18; Gal_2:10; 2Co_2:3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken as ob id ipsum,[52]for this very reason (2Pe_1:5; Plato, Symp. p. 204 A, and Stallb. ad loc.; Prot. p. 310 E; Xen. Anab. 1:9. 21, and Kühner in loc., also his Gramm. II. 1, p. 267; see also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 178], and comp. on Gal_2:10), namely, because your
κοινωνία
εἰς
τὸ
εὐαγγ
., from the first day until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my confidence for the future,
ὍΤΙ
Ὁ
ἘΝΑΡΞΆΜΕΝΟς
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
.
Ὁ
ἘΝΑΡΞΆΜΕΝΟς
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
.] God. Comp. Php_2:13. That which He has begun He will complete, namely, by the further operations of His grace. The idea of resistance to this grace, as a human possibility, is not thereby excluded; but Paul has not to fear this on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in the case of the Galatians, Gal_1:6; Gal_3:3.
ἐν
ὑμῖν
] That Paul did not intend to say among you (as Hoelemann holds), but in you, in animis vestris (comp. Php_2:13; 1Co_12:6), is shown by
ὑπὲρ
πάντων
ὑμῶν
following, by which the language
Ὁ
ἘΝΑΡΞ
.
ἘΝ
ὙΜΙΝ
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
. expresses a confidence felt in respect to all individuals.
ἔργον
ἀγαθόν
] without article, hence: an excellent work, by which is meant, in conformity with the context, the
κοινωνία
ὑμ
.
εἰς
τὸ
εὐαγγ
.
ἄχρις
ἡμέρας
Ἰ
.
Χ
.] corresponding to the
ἈΠῸ
ΠΡΏΤΗς
ἩΜΈΡ
.
ἌΧΡΙ
ΤΟῦ
ΝῦΝ
, Php_1:5, presupposes the nearness of the
παρουσία
(in opposition to Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in the N. T., and especially in Paul’s writings (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 297, ed. 2). Comp. Php_1:10; Php_3:20. The device by which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) gratuitously introduce qualifying statements,” Perseverat autem in illum usque diem, quicunque perseverat usque ad mortem suam” (Estius), whereby is meant not “continuitas usque ad illum diem,” but “terminus et complementum perfectionis, quod habituri isto die erimus” (Calovius), is just as un-Pauline as Calvin’s makeshift, “that the dead are still in profectu, because they have not yet reached the goal,” and as Matthies’ philosophical perverting of it into the continual and eternal Parousia.
[51] He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute a protasis, whose apodosis is again divided into the protasis
καθώς
ἐστιν
δίκαιον
ἐμοί
and the apodosis corresponding thereto. But this apodosis of the apodosis begins with
διὰ
τὸ
ἔχειν
με
, ver. 7, and yet is only continued after the words
μάρτυς
γ
.
ὁ
Θεός
,
ὡς
ἐπιποθῶ
ὑμᾶς
, which are a parenthesis, in vv. 8, 9. Such a dialectically involved and complicated, long-winded period would be most of all out of place in this epistle; and what reader would have been able, without Hofmann’s guidance, to detect it and adjust its several parts?
[52] Hofmann also adopts this explanation of
αὐτὸ
τοῦτο
.