Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 1:7 - 1:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_1:7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed in Php_1:6. How should he otherwise than cherish it, and that on the ground of his objective experience ( αὐτὸ τοῦτο ), since it was to him, through his love to his readers, a duty and obligation! Not to cherish it would be wrong. “Caritas enim omnia sperat,” Pelagius.
As to καθώς , which, in the conception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, comp. on Php_3:17; 1Co_1:6; Eph_1:4; Mat_6:11.
On δίκαιον , comp. Act_4:19; Eph_6:1; Php_4:8; Col_4:1; 2Pe_1:12. A classical author would have written: δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο φρονεῖν (Herod. i. 39; Dem. 198. 8; Plat. Symp. p. 214 C), or: δίκαιός εἰμι τοῦτο φρ . (Herod. i. 32; Dem. 1469. 18, and frequently; Thuc. i. 40. 3).
τοῦτο φρονεῖν ] to have this feeling, this practical bent of mind in favour of you, by which is meant the confidence expressed in Php_1:6, and not his striving in prayer for the perfecting of his readers’ salvation (Php_1:4), which the sense of the word φρονεῖν does not admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is not equivalent to ζητεῖν (comp. on Col_3:2). See besides, Huther, l.c. p. 405 f.
On ὑπέρ , comp. Php_4:10; 2Ma_14:8; Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f.; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3; on τοῦτο φρ ., Gal_5:10, οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρ . The special reference of the sense of φρονεῖν : to be mindful about something, must have been suggested by the context, as in Php_4:10; but is here insisted on by Hofmann, and that in connection with the error, that with καθώς the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The φρονεῖν is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized by τοῦτο as a εὖ φρονεῖν , which Paul feels himself bound to cherish in the interest of the salvation of all his readers ( ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν ).
διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς ] An expression of heartfelt love (comp. 2Co_7:3) on the part of the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers towards him (Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmüller, am Ende, Flatt), thus making ὑμᾶς the subject; although the sing. καρδία (comp. Eph_4:18; Eph_5:19; Eph_6:5; Rom_1:21; 2Co_3:15, and elsewhere) is not against this view, the position of the words is opposed to it, as is also the context, see Php_1:8. The readers are present to the apostle in his loving heart.
ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς κ . τ . λ .] so that, accordingly, this state of suffering, and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, cannot dislodge you from my heart. See already Chrysostom and Pelagius. These words, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς κ . τ . λ ., set forth the faithful and abiding love, which even his heavy misfortunes cannot change into concern for himself alone. They contain, however, the two points, co-ordinated by τέ … καί (as well … as also): (1) The position of the apostle, and (2) his employment in this position. The latter, which, through the non-repetition of the article before βεβ ., is taken as a whole (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both antithetical, the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it, that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc., its verification; comp. Heb_6:16; Rom_15:8; Mar_16:20; Thucyd. i. 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 309 C; Wis_5:18. For an instance of this kind of βεβαίωσις during the earliest period of the apostle’s captivity at Rome, see Act_28:23. Hofmann, taking a groundless objection to our explanation from the use of τέ … καί (see, however, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 225), refuses to connect the τέ with the following καί ; he prefers to connect with the one ἔχειν , namely with the ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ , another, namely an ἔχειν συγκοινωνούς . This is an artificial conjunction of very different references of the ἔχειν , yielding the illogical formalism: I have you (1) in my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc. The latter would indeed be only a more precise qualitative definition of the former. The question, moreover, whether in τῇ ἀπολ . κ . βεβ . τοῦ εὐαγγ . Paul intended to speak of his judicial examination (Heinrichs, van Hengel), or of his extra-judicial action and ministry during his captivity, cannot be answered without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were meant. For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial defence (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 430), since the ἀπολογία might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists, but also to Gentile judges.
τοῦ εὐαγγ .] belongs to τῇ ἀπολ . κ . βεβαιώσει , and not to βεβ . only; the latter view would make τῇ ἀπολ . denote the personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, and others), but is decisively opposed by the non-repetition—closely coupling the two words—of the article before βεβ . But to interpret ἀπολογία and βεβαίωσις as synonymous (Rheinwald), or to assume an ἓν διὰ δυοῖν for ἀπολογίᾳ εἰς βεβαίωσιν (Heinrichs), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the connection. It is also contrary to the context (on account of τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ ) to understand the βεβαίωσις τ . εὐαγγ . as the actual confirmation afforded by the apostle’s sufferings (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others).
συγκοινωνούς μου κ . τ . λ .] characterizes the ὑμᾶς , and supplies a motive for the ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς κ . τ . λ .: since you, etc. This love to you, unalterable even in my affliction, is based on the real sympathy, which results from all of you being joint-partakers with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on συγκ . and then on πάντας , which is correlative with the previous πάντων . The idea of the grace which the apostle had received ( τῆς χάριτος ) is defined solely from the connection, and that indeed by the two points immediately preceding, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου and τῇ ἀπολ . κ . βεβ . τοῦ εὐαγγ ., namely, as God’s gift of grace enabling them to suffer for the gospel (comp. Php_1:29 f.; see also Act_5:41; 1Pe_2:19), and therewith to defend and confirm instead of falling away from and denying it. “Magnus in hac re honos, magna praemia” (Grotius). Paul knew that the experience of this grace—for the setting forth of which the context itself amply suffices, without the need of any retrospective ταύτης (as is Hofmann’s objection)—had been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all his Philippian converts, who like him had had to suffer for Christ (Php_1:29 f.); and thus, in his bonds, and whilst vindicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of the holy similarity in this respect between his and their experience, sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his fellow-sharers of this grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he was suffering, and defending and confirming the gospel, he had all his readers as συμπάσχοντες , συναπολογούμενοι , συμβεβαιοῦντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον , and that in virtue of the above-named grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had recognised his bonds, and his activity for the gospel in these bonds. Others interpret it much too generally and vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of the context, as the “gratiosa evangelii donatio” (Hoelemann, comp. Wolf, Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any more immediate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is its explanation of the apostolic office (Rom_1:5, et al.), the Philippians being said to be active promoters of this through their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia); along with which a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr, am Ende, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Hofmann; comp. also Weiss)—which assistance has come to be regarded as a κοινωνία εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (but see on Php_1:5), as Hofmann expresses it. Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does not mention at the very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered to him, prescribe a certain line for the apostle; which, however, he does not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the Philippians in subjects of a higher and more general interest, and puts off his expression of thanks, properly so called, to the end of the epistle. Lastly, the translation gaudii (Vulgate, Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Sedulius) is derived from another reading ( χαρᾶς ).
The σύν in συγκοινωνούς refers to μου , my joint-partakers (Php_4:14) of the grace, thus combining συγκ . with a double genitive of the person and the thing, of the subject and the object (Kühner, II. 1, p. 288; Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]), and placing it first with emphasis; for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in question.
As to the repetition of ὑμᾶς , see Matthiae, p. 1031, and on Col_2:13; comp. Soph. O. C. 1278, and Reisig in loc.
REMARK.
Whether ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς … εὐαγγ . should be connected with the preceding διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, and many; also Huther), or with συγκ . κ . τ . λ . which follows (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be determined. Still the former, as of a less periodic character, is more in harmony with the fervent tone of feeling. Besides, the repetition of ὑμᾶς betrays a break in the flow of thought after τ . εὐαγγ .