Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 4:10 - 4:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_4:10. Carrying on his discourse with δέ , Paul now in conclusion adds, down to Php_4:20, some courteous expressions, as dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid which he had received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work of love briefly and casually (Php_2:25; Php_2:30). In the aid itself Baur discovers a contradiction of 1Co_9:15, and conjectures that the author of the epistle had 2Co_11:9 in view, and had inferred too much from that passage. But, in fact, Baur himself has inferred too much, and incorrectly, from 1Co_9:15; for in this passage Paul speaks of payment for his preaching, not of loving gifts from persons at a distance, which in point of fact put him in the position to preach gratuitously in Achaia, 2Co_11:8 ff. There is, besides, in our passage no mention of regular sendings of money.
ἐν κυρίῳ ] as in Php_3:1, Php_4:4. It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart from Christ; οὐ κοσμικῶς ἐχάρην , φησὶν , οὐδὲ βιωτικῶς , Chrysostom.
μεγάλως ] mightily. Comp. LXX., 1Ch_29:9; Neh_12:42; Polyb. iii. 87. 5; Polyc. 1. The position at the end is emphatic. See on Mat_2:10; and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 256 E, Menex. p. 235 A.
ὅτι ἤδη ποτέ κ . τ . λ .] is to be rendered: “that ye have at length once again come into the flourishing condition of taking thought for my benefit, in behalf of which ye also TOOK thought, but had no favourable opportunity.”
ἤδη ποτέ ] taken in itself may mean: already once; or, as in Rom_1:10 : tandem aliquando. The latter is the meaning here, as appears from ἐφʼ ᾧ κ . τ . λ . Chrysostom justly observes (comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes χρόνον μακρόν , when namely that θάλλειν had not been present, which has now again (comp. Php_4:15 f.) set in. Comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 140. This view of ἤδη ποτέ is the less to be evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in the passage ( ἐπιτίμησις , Chrysostom) is not by any means conveyed in it, as indeed from the delicate feeling of the apostle we might expect that it would not, and as is apparent from the correct explanation of the sequel.
ἀνεθάλετε ] ye have again become green (refloruistis, Vulgate), like a tree or an orchard which had been withered, and has again budded and put forth new shoots ( θαλλούς ).[187] It cannot be the revival of their care-taking love which is meant, so that the readers would have previously been ἀπομαρανθέντες ἐν τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ (Oecumenius, also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors, who rightly take ἈΝΕΘΆΛ . as intransitive, as well as all who take it transitively; see below); for how indelicate would be such an utterance, which one could not, with Weiss, acquit from implying an assumption that a different disposition previously existed; and how at variance with the ἐφʼ ᾧ ἐφρονεῖτε κ . τ . λ . which immediately follows, and by which the continuous care previously exercised is attested! No, it is the flourishing anew of their prosperity (comp. Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite of which is afterwards expressed by ἠκαιρεῖσθε , that is denoted, as prosperous circumstances are so often represented under the figure of becoming green and blooming. Comp. Psa_28:7 : ἈΝΈΘΑΛΕΝ Ἡ ΣΆΡΞ ΜΟΥ , Wis_4:3 f.; Hes. Op. 231: τέθηλε πόλις , Pind. Isth. iii. 9: ὄλβος … θάλλων , Pyth. vii. 22: θάλλουσαν εὐδαιμονίαν . Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 D: ἡ πᾶσα οὕτω θάλλει τὲ καὶ εὐδαιμονεῖ χώρα κ . πόλις . Of frequent occurrence in the tragedians; comp. also Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. viii. 97. It is therefore inconsistent, both with delicate feeling and with the context, to take ἀνεθάλ . transitively: “revirescere sivistis solitam vestram rerum mearum procurationem” (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus, Grotius, Heinrichs, Hammond, and others, including Rilliet, de Wette, Weiss), although the transitive use of ἀναθάλλειν in the LXX. and also in the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Eze_17:24; Sir_1:16; Sir_11:20; Sir_50:10; see generally Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 220 f.); and that of θάλλειν is also current in classical authors (Pind. Ol. iii. 24; Aesch. Pers. 622 (608); Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 103; Kühner, II. 1, p. 265). An unfounded objection is brought against the view which explains it of the revival of prosperity, that it is inappropriate as a subject of joy in the Lord (see Weiss); it is appropriate at all events, when such a use is made of the revived prosperity.
τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν ] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of ἈΝΕΘΆΛ .,[188] so understood that τὸ is taken together with ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ , and this must be regarded as the accusative of more precise definition, which is only distinguished by its greater emphasis from the mere epexegetical infinitive. See Bernhardy, p. 356; Schmalfeld, Syntax d. Griech. Verb. p. 401 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 222. Comp. van Hengel: “negotium volo mihi consulendi.” But the whole view which takes τό with ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ is set aside by the following ἘΦʼ ᾯ Κ . ἘΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ ; seeing that ἘΦʼ ᾯ , unless it is to be rendered at variance with linguistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr), or just as (Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its ᾧ the previous ΤῸ ὙΠῈΡ ἘΜΟῦ ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ , and would consequently yield the logically absurd conception: ἘΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ ἘΠῚ Τῷ ὙΠῈΡ ἘΜΟῦ ΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ , whether ἘΦʼ ᾯ be taken as equivalent to ΟὟ ἝΝΕΚΑ (Beza) or qua de re (Rheinwald, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, and others), or in eo quod (Erasmus), in qua re (Cornelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or et post id (Grotius), and the like. Recourse has been had, by way of helping the matter, to the suggestion that φρονεῖν ἐπί is a thinking without action, and φρονεῖν ὑπέρ a thinking with action (de Wette, Wiesinger; comp. Ewald); but how purely arbitrary is this view! Less arbitrarily, Calvin and Rilliet (“vous pensiez bien à moi”) have referred ᾧ to ἘΜΟῦ , by which, no doubt, that logical awkwardness is avoided; but, on the other hand, the objection arises, that ἘΦʼ ᾯ is elsewhere invariably used by Paul as neuter only, and that it is difficult to see why, if he desired to take up ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ in a relative form, he should not have written ὙΠῈΡ ΟὟ , since otherwise in ἘΠΊ , if it merely went back to ἘΜΟῦ , the more precise and definite reference which he must have had in view would not be expressed, and since the progress of the thought suggested not a change of preposition, but only the change of the tenses ( καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε ). Weiss, interpreting ἘΦʼ ᾯ as: about which to take thought, refers it back to ἀνεθάλετε —a reference, however, which falls to the ground with the active interpretation of that word. Upon the whole, the only right course seems to be to take τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ together (comp. τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν , Php_2:20; also ΤᾺ ΠΑΡʼ ὙΜῶΝ , Php_4:18; and see generally, Krüger, § 50. 5. 12; Kühner, II. 1, p. 231 f.), and that as the accusative of the object to φρονεῖν (comp. Bengel, Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann): “to take into consideration that which serves for my good,” to think of my benefit; on ὑπὲρ , comp. Php_1:7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal, logical, and delicately-turned reference, namely, when ἘΦʼ ᾯ applies to ΤῸ ὙΠῈΡ ἘΜΟῦ . Taking this view, we have to notice: (1) that ἘΠΊ is used in the sense of the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475; Kühner, II. 1, p. 435): on behalf of which, for which, comp. Soph. O. R. 569; (2) that Paul has not again written the mere accusative ( ὁ καὶ ἐφρ .), because ἘΦʼ ᾯ is intended to refer not alone to Κ . ἘΦΡΟΝΕῖΤΕ , but also to the antithesis ἨΚΑΙΡΕῖΣΘΕ ΔΈ , consequently to the entire Κ . ἘΦΡ ., ἨΚΑΙΡ . ΔΈ ;[189] (3) that the emphasis is placed on ἘΦΡΟΝ . as the imperfect, and καί indicates an element to be added to the φρονεῖν which has been just expressed; hence ΚΑῚ ἘΦΡ . intimates: “in behalf of which ye not only are taking thought (that is, since the ἀνεθάλετε ), but also were taking thought (namely, πρόσθεν , before the ἀνεθάλετε );” lastly, (4) that after ἘΦΡ . there is no ΜΈΝ inserted, because the antithesis is meant to emerge unprepared for, and so all the more vividly.
ἨΚΑΙΡΕῖΣΘΕ ] ye had no favourable time; a word belonging to the later Greek. Diod. exc. Mai. p. 30; Phot., Suid. The opposite: εὐκαιρεῖν , Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 125. Unsuitably and arbitrarily this is explained: “deerat vobis opportunitas mittendi” (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, and others). It refers, in keeping with the ἀνεθάλετε , not without delicacy of description, to the unfavourable state of things as regards means (Chrysostom: οὐκ εἴχετε ἐν χερσὶν , οὐδὲ ἐν ἀφθονίᾳ ἦτε ; so also Theophylact; while Oecumenius adduces this interpretation alongside of the previous one) which had occurred among the Philippians, as Paul might have learned from Epaphroditus and otherwise. Comp. εὐκαιρεῖν τοῖς βίοις in Polyb. xv. 21. 2, xxxii. 21. 12; and also the mere ΕὐΚΑΙΡΕῖΝ in the same sense, iv. 60. 10; ΕὐΚΑΙΡΊΑ : xv. 31. 7, i. 59. 7; ἈΚΑΙΡΊΑ : Plat. Legg. iv. p. 709 A; Dem. 16. 4; Polyb. iv. 44. 11.
[187] The conjecture, on the ground of this figurative expression, that the Philippians might have sent to the apostle in spring, and that ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ applies to the winter season (Bengel), is far-fetched and arbitrary. The figurative ἀνεθάλ . does not even need to be an image of spring, as Calvin, Estius, Weiss, and others understand it.
[188] In the transitive interpretation (see, against it, supra) the τὸ φρονεῖν which would likewise be taken together, would be the accusative forming the object of ἀνεθάλ . See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 226 [E. T. 263]; Kühner, II. 2, p. 603.
[189] All the more groundless, therefore, is Hofmann’s objection, that φρονεῖν ἐτί τινι means: to be proud about something. This objection, put thus generally, is even in itself incorrect. For φρονεῖν ἐπί τινι does not in itself mean: to be proud about something, but only receives this signification through the addition of μέγα , μεγάλα , or some similar more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 D, Alc. I. p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p. 217 A: Dem. 181. 16, 836. 10), either expressly specified or directly suggested by the context. Very artificial, and for the simple reader hardly discoverable, is the view under which Hofmann takes the fact expressed by καὶ ἐφρονεῖτς as the ground, “upon, or on account of, which their re-emergence from an unfavourable position has been a revival unto care for him.” If the reference of ἰφʼ ᾧ to τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ were not directly given in the text, it would be much simpler to take ἐφʼ ᾧ as in Rom_5:12, Php_3:12, 2Co_5:4, in the sense of propterea quod, and that as a graceful and ingenious specification of the reason for the great joy of the apostle, that they had flourished again to take thought for his benefit; for their previous omission had been caused not by any lack of the φρονεῖν in question, but by the unfavourableness of the times.