Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 4:21 - 4:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_4:21-23. Πάντα ἅγιον ] every one, no one in the church being excepted,—a point which is more definitely expressed by the singular.[196]
ἐν Χ . Ἰ .] is not to be joined to ἅγιον (so usually, as by Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to ἀσπάσ . (comp. Rom_16:22; 1Co_16:19), denoting the specifically Christian salutation, in conveying which the consciousness lives in Christ. This is the connection adopted by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Heinrichs, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot, and it is the right one, since with ἅγιον it is self-evident that Christians are meant, and there would be no motive for specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in the address Php_1:1, where τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χ . Ἰ . bears a certain formal character.
οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφ .] is the narrower circle of those Christians who were round the apostle in Rome, including also the official colleagues who were with him, though there is no ground for understanding these alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even pointing distinctly to Timothy, Linus, and Clement. The difficulty, which has been raised in this case by a comparison of Php_2:20, is unfounded, since, in fact, the expression in Php_2:20 excludes neither the giving of a salutation nor the mention of brethren; groundless, therefore, are the attempted solutions of the difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either Php_2:20 is meant οὐ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει , or that Paul οὐ παραιτεῖται καὶ τούτους ἀδελφοὺς καλεῖν (comp. Oecumenius, who brings forward the latter as a proof of the σπλάγχνα of the apostle). Misapprehending this second and in itself correct remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction being drawn between two classes of companions in office, namely, travelling companions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas, and those who were resident in the places where the apostle sojourned (among whom van Hengel reckons in Rome, Clement, Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epaphroditus), and holds that only the latter class is here meant. The limits of the narrower circle designated by οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδ . are not at all to be definitely drawn. Estius well says: “Qui … mihi vincto ministrant, qui me visitant, qui mecum hic in evangelio laborant.”
πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι ] generally, all Christians who are here; comp. on 2Co_13:12; 1Co_16:20.
μάλιστα δέ ] but most of all, pre-eminently; they have requested the apostle to give special prominence to their salutation. Comp. Plat. Critias, p. 108 D: τούς τε ἄλλους κλητέον καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα Μνημοσύνην . Whether these persons stood in any personal relations to the Philippians, remains uncertain. It is enough to assume that Paul had said to them much that was honourable concerning the church to which he was about to write.
οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας ] sc. ἅγιοι as is plain from the connection with the preceding (in opposition to Hofmann): those from the emperor’s house (from the Palatium, see Böttger, Beitr. II. p. 49) who belong to the saints. We have to think of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to Grotius, Hitzig, and others: freedmen), who dwelt, or at least were employed, in the palace. In this way there is no need for departing from the immediate meaning of the word, and taking it in the sense of household (Hofmann). In no case, however, can we adopt as the direct meaning of οἰκία the sense of domestic servants, a meaning which it does not bear even in Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 6; Joseph. Antt. xvi. 5. 8; and Tac. Hist. ii. 92;[197] domestic servants would be οἰκετεία . Others have taken ΟἸΚΊΑ , in accordance with current usage, as family (1Co_16:15, and frequently), and have understood kinsmen of the emperor, a meaning which in itself seems by no means shown by Philo in Flacc. p. 190 A to be at variance with linguistic usage[198] (in opposition to Hofmann). So recently Baur, who needed this point for his combinations against the genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengel.[199] But apart from the fact that through Nero himself this family was greatly diminished, and that conversions among those related to the emperor were à priori (comp. also 1Co_1:26 ff.) very improbable, doubtless some historical traces of such a striking success would have been preserved in tradition.[200] Matthies, quite arbitrarily, understands the Praetorians, as if Paid had written: οἱ ἐκ τοῦ πραιτωρίου (Php_1:13). This also applies, in opposition to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420, who, considering the Praetorium to be a portion of the palace (see remark on Php_1:13), thinks the apostle alludes especially to the Praetorians. Those who transfer the epistle to Caesarea (see Introduction, § 2), suppose the Praetorium of Herod in that place to be intended, and consequently also think of Praetorians, Act_23:35 (Paulus, Böttger); or (so Rilliet) taking οἰκία as familia, of administrators of the imperial private domain, called Caesariani or Procurators—a view against which the plural should have warned them; or even of “the family of the imperial freedman Felix” (Thiersch). What persons, moreover, were meant (various of the older expositors have even included Seneca[201] among them), is a point just as unknown to us, as it was well known to the Philippians or became known to them through Epaphroditus. The general result is, that people from the imperial palace were Christians, and that those could obtain access to the apostle probably with special ease and frequency; hence their especial salutation. The question also, whether one or another of the persons saluted in Romans 16 should be understood as included here (see especially J. B. Lightfoot, p. 173 ff.), must remain entirely undecided. Calvin, moreover, well points to the working of the divine mercy, in that the gospel “in illam scelerum omnium et flagitiorum abyssum penetraverit.”
ἡ χάρις τ . κυρ . Ἰ . Χ .] see on Gal_1:6.
ΜΕΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ὙΜ .] Comp. Rom_16:24; 1Co_16:24; 2Co_13:13; 2Th_3:18; Tit_3:15.
[196] Since Paul does not here express, as in other cases (Rom_16:17; 1Co_16:20; 2Co_13:12), the conception of mutual salutation ( ἀλλήλους ), he has in ἀσπάσασθε had in view the immediate recipients of the epistle (presbyters and deacons, Php_1:1). So also 1Th_5:26.
[197] Where it is said of those who entered the service of the emperor: “in domum Caesaris transgressi.” Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9: πρὶν εἰς τὸν βασίλειον οἶκον παριλθεῖν .
[198] For in Philo l.c. it is said regarding Herod Agrippa: “Even though he were not king, but only one of the emperor’s kinsmen ( ἑκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας ), it would still be necessary to prefer and honour him.”
[199] Whether Chrysostom and his successors understood here members of the imperial family, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chrysostom does not take the word itself, οἰκία as family, but explains it by τὰ βασίλεια , palace, and finds in the salutation a purpose of encouragement: εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις πάντων κατιφρόνησαν διὰ τὸν βασιλία τῶν οὐρανῶν , πολλῷ μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς χρὴ τοῦτο ποιεῖν Comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact.
[200] Certainly Baur believes that he has found these traces in sufficient number. Flavius Clemens, namely, was a kinsman of Domitian (see on ver. 3). Now, since out of this Clement grew the Clemens Romanus of Christian tradition, the latter also must have been a kinsman of the imperial family, as indeed the Homil. Clement, iv. 7, comp. xiv. 10, designate him as ἀνὴρ πρὸς γένους Τιβεριου Καίσαρος He, therefore, would be exactly the man, in whom Christianity was represented in the circle of the imperial house itself. “Concluding from one that there were several, the author of the epistle might make his apostle write earnest salutations to the church in Philippi from beliveing members of the imperial house in the plural,” etc. Thus does criticism, departing from the solid ground of history, lose itself in the atmosphere of subjective inventions, where hypothesis finds no longer either support or limit. Indeed, Baur now goes further beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and discovers that the mention of Clement even throws a new light over the whole plan of the epistle. With this Clement, namely, and the participation, as attested by him, of the imperial house in the gospel, is given the προκοπὴ τοῦ εἰαγγ (Php_1:12), and with the latter the feeling of joyfulness, which expresses itself throughout the epistle as the ground-tone of the apostle (Php_2:17 f., comp. Php_3:1, Php_4:1; Php_4:4; Php_4:10), and which is again and again the refrain of each separate section. Only by the preponderance of this feeling is it to be explained that the author makes his apostle even express the hope of a speedy liberation (Php_2:24). But with this joy there is also blended, with a neutralizing effect, the idea of a nearly approaching death, Php_1:20-24, and this divided state of mind between life and death betrays an author “who had already before his eyes as an actual fact the end of the apostle, which was so far from harmonizing with all these presuppositions.”
[201] See generally on “Paul and Seneca,” and the apocryphal fourteen Latin letters exchanged between them, Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1858, 2. 3; Reuss in Herzog’s Encyklop. XIV. p. 274 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, Exc. II. p. 268 ff., 327 ff.; latest edition of the text of these epistles in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1867, p. 609 ff.