Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:1 - 3:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:1. Τὸ λοιπόν ] introduces what is still to be done by the readers in addition to what has been hitherto communicated; see on Eph_6:10. Hence it is of frequent occurrence towards the close of the epistles, as bringing in a further request, exhortation, etc. Comp. Php_4:8; 2Co_13:11; 1Th_4:1; 2Th_3:1. To the closing address thus introduced, but at once abandoned again in Php_3:2, Paul would have attached his giving of thanks for the aid sent to him (comp. Php_4:8; Php_4:10 ff.). This is contrary to the view of Schinz and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul has not yet expressed his thanks, conclude that he did not at this point desire to proceed to the closing of the letter. We need not search for a connection with what precedes (Chrysostom: ἔχετε Ἐπαφρόδιτον , διʼ ὃν ἠλγεῖτε , ἔχετε Τιμόθεον , ἔρχομαι κἀγώ , τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐπιδίδωσι · τί ὑμῖν λείπει λοιπόν ; comp. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, and others). The preceding topic is closed, and the exhortation beginning with τὸ λοιπ . which now follows stands by itself; so that we are not even justified in saying that Paul here passes from the particular to the general (Schinz, Matthies), but must simply assume that he is proceeding to the conclusion, which he desired to commence with this general encouragement.
χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ ] is a summons to Christian joyfulness, which is not κατὰ κόσμον (see Chrysostom), but has its ground in Christ, and is thereby specifically defined, inasmuch as Christ—through the Holy Spirit—rules in the believing heart; hence the χαρὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου (1Th_1:6) or ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Rom_14:17) are in substance not different from this (comp. Gal_5:22). The subsequent double repetition of this encouragement (Php_4:4) is the result of the apostle’s special love for his readers, and of the whole tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in ἐν κυρίῳ we are not to seek for a new special element, preparing the way for the transition to the explanations which follow (Weiss, Hofmann); for Paul could not in what went before mean any other joy, either on his own part (Php_1:18) or on the part of his readers (Php_2:17 f., 28), and in other passages also he does not add to χαίρετε the self-evident definition ἐν κυρίῳ (2Co_13:11; 1Th_5:16). Another joy in the Christian life he knew not at all.
τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ] “Hic incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere,” Calvin. After χαίρ . χ ἐν κ . there is a pause; Paul breaks off. τὰ αὐτά has been erroneously referred to χαίρ . ἐν κ ., and in that case the retrospective reference which Paul had in view is either not explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae), or is believed to be found in Php_2:18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in Php_1:27 f. (Matthies, Rilliet), or in Php_1:27 to Php_2:16 (Storr). This view is at variance, not indeed with the plural τὰ αὐτά (see, on the contrary, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 19 D; Mätzner, ad Antiph. p. 153; Kühner II. 1, p. 60), but with the facts, first, that there is no express summons whatever to Christian joyfulness generally, given in the previous portion of the epistle (not even in Php_2:18); secondly, that so simple and natural a summons—which, moreover, occurs again twice in Php_4:4—would certainly have least of all given rise to an apology for repetition; and lastly, that ἀσφαλές , in accordance with its idea (without danger), points not to the repetition of a summons of this kind, but to a warning, such as follows immediately in the context.[145] The accusation of poverty of thought (Baur) is therefore all the more groundless here. And as the altogether vague reference of Theodoret and Erasmus (Annotat.) to the numerous exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the fundamental tone of the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance with the literal import of the words, τὰ αὐτά cannot be interpreted as applicable to anything but the subsequent warning against the false teachers. This warning, however, has not occurred previously, either at Php_1:15 f., or indirectly in Php_1:27, as Lünemann thinks, or in Php_1:27 to Php_2:18, as Ewald assumes. Hence many have caught at the explanation: “eadem repetere, quae praesens dixeram” (Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, so also Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others; de Wette undecidedly). But this quae praesens dixeram is quite gratuitously imported; it must at least have been indicated by τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ γρ . ὑμ . or in some other way. The same objection applies against Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f.), who takes τὰ αὐτά as contrasted with the oral communications, which would be made to the readers by Epaphroditus and especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation, therefore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is expressly rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already written what follows in an earlier epistle to the Philippians [146] which is not preserved, and that he here repeats the same. So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt, Flatt, Köhler, in the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834, III. 1, p. 18 f.; Feilmoser, Bleek, Jatho, Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann; de Wette undecidedly. It must remain uncertain, however, whether this repetition covers Php_3:2 only, or Php_3:3 also, or a still larger portion of the sequel; as also, how far the repetition is a literal one, which seems to be the case with Php_3:2 from its peculiar character.
ὀκνηρόν ] irksome, matter of scruple (Dem. 777. 5; Theocr. xxiv. 35; Pind. Nem. xi. 28; Herodian vi. 9, 7; Soph. O. R. 834), comp. οὐκ ὀκνητέον , Polyb. i. 14. 7, also Plat. Ep. II. 310 D: τἀληθῆ λέγειν οὔτε ὀκνήσω οὔτε σἰσχυνοῦμαι .
ἀσφαλές ] safe, so that ye will the more firmly rely thereon for the determination of your conduct. Comp. Act_25:26; Heb_6:19; Wis_7:23; Plat. Rep. 450 E; Phaed. p. 100 D E; Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15. Hofmann, without any precedent of usage, assigns to ὀκνηρόν the sense of indolent cowardice, and takes ἀσφαλές as prudent, which linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231 A), but would be unsuitable to the ὑμῖν . The apostle wishes to say, that the repetition is for himself not irksome ( ὄκνος , haesitatio), and is for his readers an ἀσφαλὲς τεκμήριον (Eur. Rhes. 94.) to be attended to.
[145] The expedient to which Wiesinger has recourse is gratuitously introduced, when he connects the χαίρετε ἐν κ . more closely with the warning that follows by imagining that, in χαίρ . ἐν κ ., he detects already the idea on which the sequel is based, namely the στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ , Php_4:1.
[146] Comp. also Credner, Einl. I. p. 333.
NOTE.
This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle, Paul had already written another to the Philippians,[147] is confirmed by Polycarp,[148] who, ad 3, says: τοῦ μακαρίου κ . ἐνδόξου Παύλου , ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἐδίδαξεν ἀκριβῶς κ . βεβαίως τὸν περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον , ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὰς , εἰς ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε , δυνήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι κ . τ . λ . It is true that the plur. in this passage ( ἐπιστολὰς , εἰς ἅς ) is usually explained as referring to one epistle (see Cotelerius in loc.; and Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. II. p. 914 f.; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, p. 210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as it is well known that also in profane authors ἑπιστολαί (comp. literae) is used of one despatch (Thuc. i. 132. 6, viii. 39. 2), sometimes generally in a generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes specially of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446; Blomf. and Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3; Rettig, Quaest. Phil. II. p. 37 f. But there is the less ground for assuming this construction here, since doctrinal epistles, both in the N. T. and also in the apostolic Fathers, are always described by the singular when only one epistle is intended, and by the plural (as in 1Co_16:3; 2Co_10:9-11; 2Pe_3:16; comp. Act_9:2; Act_22:5) if more than one are meant,—a practice from which there is no exception (not even in 1Co_16:3), as, in fact, Polycarp, in regard to ἐπιστολή , elsewhere very definitely distinguishes between the singular and plural. See ch. 13: τὰς ἐπιστολὰς Ἰγνατίου τὰς πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν ὑπʼ αὑτοῦ καὶ ἄλλας ὅσας εἴχομεν παρʼ ἡμῖνʼ ἐπέμψαμεν ὑμῖν , καθὼς ἑνετείλασθε · αἵτινες ὑποτεταγμέναι εἰσὶ τῆ πιστολῇ ταύτῃ . In order to prove that Polycarp in ch. 3. did not mean more than one epistle to the Philippians, an appeal has been made to ch. 4., where, in the Latin version, which alone has been preserved, it is said: “Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui estis (non-genuine addition: laudati) in principio epistolae ejus; de vobis enim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quæ Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem nondum noveramus.” But epistolae ejus cannot here be the epistle to the Philippians, for the idea: “ye are in the beginning of his epistle,” would be simply absurd; epistolae is, on the contrary, the nominative plural, and the sense is: “Ye are originally his epistles,” that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase allusion is made to 2Co_3:1 ff.[149] The correctness of this explanation, which Wieseler has substantially adopted, is corroborated by the sequel: de vobis enim gloriatur, etc.
It is, moreover, à priori intelligible and likely enough that Paul should have corresponded with this church—which enjoyed his most intimate confidence, and the founding of which marked his entrance on his European labours—at an earlier period than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Polycarp was sufficiently close to the time of the apostle, not merely to have inferred such a correspondence from our passage, but to have had a historical knowledge of it (in opposition to Hofmann).
[147] Ewald also acknowledges the composition of more than one epistle to the Philippians, but finds traces of them not here, but at Php_2:12, Php_3:18.
[148] I cannot at once accept the view that the passages in question, ch. 3 and 11, are interpolated (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 588 ff.). The interpolations in the Ignatian epistles are at any rate of another kind. Besides, we have from Polycarp only the one epistle; and we have therefore no sufficient objective standard of comparison, in the absence of which a judgment founded on taste is very uncertain. But even assuming the interpolation, we should still have the result that the interpolator was acquainted with several epistles of Paul to the Philippians. Otherwise he would have had no reason for using the plural, especially as it was already distinction enough for the church to have had one epistle addressed to it by the apostle.
[149] Hofmann also explains the expression from 2Co_3:1 ff., but errs in taking epistolae as the genitive; he makes this epistle to be the whole of the Christians gathered by Paul, and thus represents Polyearp as declaring, in reference to the Philippian church, that it stands first in this epistle, because it is reckoned among his earliest acquisitions. According to this interpretation, a vast aggregate of churches would be depicted as one epistle, in which one church would stand written first, and others after it, each therefore being marked by name in the order of its date. What a different picture this would yield from that presented in 2 Corinthians 3, and one, too, delineated singularly enough! And how unsuitable would such a precedence, as to time, be for the church at Philippi! By how long a period had the establishment of all the churches of Asia preceded it! Hofmann’s objection to our view, viz. that the present estis would be unsuitable, does not apply, since Polycarp realizes the state of matters as it stood with the church in principio ( ἐν ἀρχῇ , i.e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as present; hence also he subsequently says gloriatur (not gloriabatur). The conception is this: Paul in all the churches of that early Christian age boasts of the excellent Philippian church, and so this church serves him as so many letters of recommendation, which by his gloriari he communicates, and as it were reads before, those other churches.