Philippians 1 - Introduction

Title. Πρὸς Φιλιππησίους. So אABK2 and many cursives. D2G2 read αρχεται προς Φιλιππησιους (D2, -ηνσιους). L has του αγιου αποστολου Παυλου επιστολη προς Φιλιππησιους; and several other forms of the title appear, all considerably later than that given in the text.

A. ST PAUL’S RESIDENCE AT ROME

(Introduction, Ch. 1)

“ST PAUL arrived in Rome, from Melita, in the spring of A.D. 61, probably early in March. There he spent ‘two full years’ (Acts 28:30), at the close of which, as we have good reason to believe, he was released.

“In the long delay before his trial[7] he was of course in custody; but this was comparatively lenient. He occupied lodgings of his own (Acts 28:16; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:30), probably a storey or flat in one of the lofty houses common in Rome. It is impossible to determine for certain where in the City this lodging was, but it is likely that it was either in or near the great Camp of the Prætorians, or Imperial Guard, outside the Colline Gate, just N.E. of the City[8]. In this abode the Apostle was attached day and night by a light coupling-chain to a Prætorian sentinel, but was as free, apparently, to invite and maintain general intercourse as if he had been merely confined by illness.

[7] Due probably to procrastination in the prosecution and to the caprice of the Emperor. See Lewin, vol. II. p. 236, for a parallel case.

[8] See Bp Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 9 &c., 99 &c.; and our note on Philippians 1:13.

“The company actually found in his rooms at different times was very various. His first visitors (indeed they must have been the providers of his lodging) would be the Roman Christians, including all, or many, of the saints named in a passage (Romans 16) written only a very few years before. Then came the representatives of the Jewish community (Acts 28:17; Acts 28:23), but apparently never to return, as such, after the long day of discussion to which they were first invited. Then from time to time would come Christian brethren, envoys from distant Churches, or personal friends; Epaphroditus from Philippi, Aristarchus from Thessalonica, Tychicus from Ephesus, Epaphras from Colossæ, John Mark, Demas, Jesus Justus. Luke, the beloved physician, was present perhaps always, and Timotheus, the Apostle’s spiritual son, very frequently. One other memorable name occurs, Onesimus, the fugitive Colossian slave, whose story, indicated in the Epistle to Philemon, is at once a striking evidence of the perfect liberty of access to the prisoner granted to anyone and everyone, and a beautiful illustration both of the character of St Paul and the transfiguring power and righteous principles of the Gospel.

“No doubt the visitors to this obscure but holy lodging were far more miscellaneous than even this list suggests. Through the successive Prætorian sentinels some knowledge of the character and message of the prisoner would be always passing out. The right interpretation of Philippians 1:13[9] is, beyond reasonable doubt, that the true account of Paul’s imprisonment came to be ‘known in the Prætorian regiments, and generally among people around’; and Philippians 4:22 indicates that a body of earnest and affectionate converts had arisen among the population of slaves and freedmen attached to the Palace of Nero. And the wording of that passage suggests that such Christians found a welcome meeting place in the rooms of the Apostle; doubtless for frequent worship, doubtless also for direct instruction, and for the blessed enjoyments of the family affection of the Gospel. Meanwhile (Philippians 1:15-16) there was a section of the Roman Christian community, probably the disciples infected with the prejudices of the Pharisaic party (see Acts 15, &c.), who, with very few exceptions (see Colossians 4:11 and notes), took sooner or later a position of trying antagonism to St Paul; a trial over which he triumphed in the deep peace of Christ.

[9] See Bp Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 99 &c., and our notes on Philippians 1:13.

“It is an interesting possibility, not to say probability, that from time to time the lodging was visited by inquirers of intellectual fame or distinguished rank. Ancient Christian tradition[10] actually makes the renowned Stoic writer, L. Annæus Seneca, tutor and counsellor of Nero, a convert of St Paul’s; and one phase of the legend was the fabrication, within the first four centuries, of a correspondence between the two. It is quite certain that Seneca was never a Christian, though his language is full of startling superficial parallels to that of the N.T., and most full in his latest writings. But it is at least very likely that he heard, through his many channels of information, of St Paul’s existence and presence, and that he was intellectually interested in his teaching; and it is quite possible that he cared to visit him. It is not improbable, surely, that Seneca’s brother Gallio (Acts 18:12) may have described St Paul, however passingly, in a letter; for Gallio’s religious indifference may quite well have consisted with a strong personal impression made on him by St Paul’s bearing. Festus himself was little interested in the Gospel, or at least took care to seem so, and yet was deeply impressed by the personnel of the Apostle. And, again, the Prefect of the Imperial Guard, A.D. 61, was Afranius Burrus, Seneca’s intimate colleague as counsellor to Nero, and it is at least possible that he had received from Festus a more than commonplace description of the prisoner consigned to him[11].

[10] The first hint appears in Tertullian, cent. ii–iii.

[11] We cannot but think that Bp Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 301) somewhat underrates the probability that Gallio and Burrus should have given Seneca an interest in St Paul.

“Bp Lightfoot, in his Essay, ‘St Paul and Seneca’ (Philippians, pp. 270, &c.), thinks it possible to trace in some of the Epistles of the Captivity a Christian adaptation of Stoic ideas. The Stoic, for example, made much of the individual’s membership in the great Body of the Universe, and citizenship in its great City. The connexion suggested is interesting, and it falls quite within the methods of Divine inspiration that materials of Scripture imagery should be collected from a secular region. But the language of St Paul about the Mystical Body, in the Ephesian Epistle particularly, reads far more like a direct revelation than like an adaptation; and it evidently deals with a truth which is already, in its substance, perfectly familiar to the readers[12].

[12] It appears in the First Ep. to the Corinthians, written a few years before the Ep. to the Ephesians. See 1 Corinthians 12.

“Other conspicuous personages of Roman society at the time have been reckoned by tradition among the chamber-converts of St Paul, among them the poet Lucan and the Stoic philosopher Epictetus[13]. But there is absolutely no evidence for these assertions. It is interesting and suggestive, on the other hand, to recall one almost certain case of conversion about this time within the highest Roman aristocracy. Pomponia Græcina, wife of Plautius the conqueror of Britain, was accused (A.D. 57, probably), of ‘foreign superstition,’ and tried by her husband as domestic judge. He acquitted her. But the deep and solemn seclusion of her life (a seclusion begun A.D. 44, when her friend the princess Julia was put to death, and continued unbroken till her own death, about A.D. 84), taken in connexion with the charge, as in all likelihood it was, of Christianity, ‘suggests that, shunning society, she sought consolation in the duties and hopes of the Gospel[14],’ leaving for ever the splendour and temptations of the world of Rome. She was not a convert, obviously, of St Paul’s; but her case suggests the possibility of other similar cases.”

[13] For the curiously Christian tone of Epictetus’ writings here and there, see Bp Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 313 &c. The Manual of Epictetus is a book of gold in its own way, but still that way is not Christian.

[14] Bp Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 21.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (in Cambridge Bible for Schools), Introduction, pp. 16–19.

1. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. So אBD2 109 copt: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is the order of G2 and the large majority of other copies vulg syr (pesh and harkl). St Paul’s love of the order Χ. Ἰ. inclines us to it in this case, though the adverse documentary evidence is weighty. LTTr Ell Ltft WH Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.

C. BISHOPS AND DEACONS. (CH. Philippians 1:1)

THESE words have suggested to Bp Lightfoot an Essay on the rise, development and character of the Christian Ministry, appended to his Commentary on the Epistle (pp. 189–269), and now included also in his Biblical Essays. The Essay is in fact a treatise, of the greatest value, calling for the careful and repeated study of every reader to whom it is accessible. Along with it may be usefully studied a paper on the Christian Ministry in The Expositor for July, 1887, by the Rev. G. Salmon, D. D., now Provost of Trinity College, Dublin.

All we do here is to discuss briefly the two official titles of the Philippian ministry, and to add a few words on the Christian Ministry in general.

Bishops, ἐπίσκοποι, i.e. Overseers. The word occurs here, and Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; besides 1 Peter 2:25, where it is used of our Lord. The cognate noun, ἐπισκοπή, occurs Acts 1:20 (in a quotation from the O.T.); 1 Timothy 3:1; and in three other places not in point. The cognate verb, ἐπισκοπεῖν, occurs Hebrews 12:15 (in a connexion not in point); 1 Peter 5:2.

On examination of these passages it appears that within the lifetime of SS. Peter and Paul there existed, at least very widely, a normal order of Church-officers called Episcopi, Superintendents. They were charged no doubt with many varied duties, some probably semi-secular. But above all they had spiritual oversight of the flock. They were appointed not by mere popular vote, certainly not by self-designation, but in some special sense “by the Holy Ghost” (Acts 20:28). This phrase may perhaps be illustrated by the mode of appointment of the “Seven” (Acts 6:3), who were presented by the Church to the Apostles, for confirmatory ordination, as men already (among other marks of fitness) “full of the Holy Ghost.”

The ἐπίσκοπος was evidently not an official comparatively rare; there were more ἐπίσκοποι than one in the not very large community of Philippi.

Meanwhile we find another designation of Church-officers who are evidently in the same way shepherds and leaders of the flock; πρεσβύτεροι, Elders. They are mentioned first, without comment, at the time of the martyrdom of James the Great. See Acts 11:30; Acts 14:23; Acts 15:2; Acts 15:4; Acts 15:6; Acts 15:22-23; Acts 16:4; Acts 20:17; Acts 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:1; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Timothy 5:19; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1 (and perhaps 5). See also 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1. These elders appear Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; as “constituted” in local congregations by an Apostle, or by his immediate delegate.

It would appear that the N.T. ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are in fact the same official under differing designations; ἐπίσκοπος, a term borrowed mainly from the Gentiles, with whom it signified a superintending commissioner; πρεσβύτερος, from the “Eldership” of the Jews. This appears from Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28, where St Paul, addressing the Ephesian “elders,” says that they have been appointed “bishops” of the flock. In the Pastoral Epistles it is similarly plain that the titles coincide. See also 1 Peter 5:1-2, in the Greek.

Whether both titles were from the first in use everywhere we cannot be sure. But it is not improbable. In the very earliest post-apostolic writings we find “presbyters” at Corinth (Clem. Rom. to the Corinthians, i. cc. 42, 44, but also references to ἐπίσκοποι, ἐπισκοπή) and “bishops” (with “deacons,” as in Philippians 1:1) in the further East (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. 15).

We trace the same spiritual officials under more general designations, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; Hebrews 13:17; and perhaps 1 Corinthians 12:28 (κυβερνήσεις), and Ephesians 4:11 (ποιμένες καὶ διδάσκαλοι).

Deacons, διάκονοι, i.e. Workers. The title does not occur in the Acts, nor anywhere earlier than this Epistle, except Romans 16:1, where Phœbe is called a διάκονος of the church at Cenchreæ[15]. Here only and in 1 Timothy 3:8; 1 Timothy 3:12, is the word plainly used of a whole ministerial order. But in Acts 6. we find described the institution of an office which in all likelihood was the diaconate. The functions of the Seven are just those which have been ever since in history, even till now, assigned to deacons. And tradition, from cent. ii. onwards, is quite unanimous in calling the Seven by that title.

[15] There is evidence of the existence in apostolic times of an organized class of female helpers in sacred work (see 1 Timothy 5:3-16). A little later the famous letter of Pliny to Trajan shews that such helpers (ministræ) were known in the Churches of Asia Minor. The order of “deaconesses” was abolished before cent. xii.

Deacons are very possibly indicated by the word ἀντιλήψεις in 1 Corinthians 12:28.

The deacon thus appears to have been primarily the officer ordained to deal with the temporal needs of the congregation. But he was assumed to be a “spiritual man,” and he was capable of direct commissioned spiritual work.
It thus appears then that during the lifetime of SS. Peter and Paul the word ἐπίσκοπος did not yet designate a minister presiding over and ruling other ministers; a “bishop” in the later and present sense. The ἐπίσκοπος was an “overseer” of not the shepherds but simply the flock, and might be (as at Philippi) one of several such in the same place.

This fact, however, leaves quite open the question whether such a presiding ministry, however designated at first, did exist in apostolic times and under apostolic sanction. That it did so may be inferred from the following evidence, very briefly stated.
It is certain that by the close of cent. ii. a definite presidential “episcopacy” (to which the word ἐπίσκοπος was then already appropriated, seemingly without the knowledge that it had once been otherwise) appears everywhere in the Church. As early probably as A.D. 110 we find it, in the Epistles of St Ignatius, a prominent and important fact of Church life, at least in the large circle of Churches with which Ignatius corresponded[16]. Later Church history presents us with the same constitution, though occasionally details of system vary[17], and the conceptions of function and power were highly developed, not always legitimately. Now between Ignatius and St John, and even St Paul, the interval is not great; 30 or 50 years at the most. It seems, to say the least, unlikely that so large a Church institution, over whose rise we have no clear trace of controversy or opposition, should have arisen quite out of connexion with apostolic precedent. Such precedent we find in the N.T., (a) in the presidency of Apostles during their lifetime, though strictly speaking their unique office had no “successors”; (b) in the presidency of their immediate delegates or commissioners (perhaps appointed only pro tempore), as Timothy and Titus; (c) in the presidency of St James the Lord’s Brother in the mother-church of Christendom; a presidency more akin to later episcopacy than anything else in the N.T.

[16] He does not mention the bishop in writing to the Roman Church. But there is other good evidence for the then presence of a bishop at Rome.

[17] At Alexandria, till at least A.D. 260, the bishop appears to have been chosen and ordained by the presbyters. In the Church of Patrick (cent. v.) in Ireland and Columba (cent. vi.) in Scotland, the bishop was an ordainer, but not a diocesan ruler. See Boultbee, Hist. of the Church of England, p. 25.

We find further that all early history points to Asia Minor as the scene of the fullest development of primitive episcopacy, and it consistently indicates St John, at Ephesus, as in a sense its fountainhead. It is at least possible that St John, when he finally took up his abode in Asia, originated or developed there the régime he had known so well at Jerusalem.

Meanwhile there is reason to think that the episcopate, in this latter sense, rather grew out of the presbyterate than otherwise. The primeval bishop was primus inter pares. He was not so much one of another order as the first of his order, for special purposes of government and ministration. Such, even cent. v., is St Jerome’s statement of the theory. And St Jerome regards the bishop as being what he is not by direct Divine institution, but by custom of the Church.

Not till late cent. ii. do we find the sacerdotal[18] idea familiarly attached to the Christian ministry, and not till cent. iii. the age of Cyprian, do we find the formidable theory developed that the bishop is the channel of grace to the lower clergy and to the people.

[18] It will be remembered that the word ἱερεύς, sacerdos, is never in N.T. a designation of the Christian minister as such.

On the whole, the indications of the N. T. and of the next earliest records confirm the statement of the Preface to the English Ordinal that “from the Apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” On the other hand, having regard to the essentially and sublimely spiritual character of the Church in its true idea, and to the revealed immediate union of each member with the Head, by faith, we are not authorized to regard even apostolic organization as a matter of the first order in such a sense as that we should look on a duly ordained ministry as the indispensable channel of grace, or should venture to unchurch Christian communities, holding the apostolic faith concerning God in Christ, but differently organized from what we believe to be on the whole the apostolic model[19]. On the other hand, no thoughtful Christian will wish to forget the sacred obligations and benefits of external harmony and unity of organization, things meant to yield only to the yet greater claims of the highest spiritual truth.

[19] This was fully owned by the great Anglican writers of cent. xvii See Bp Andrewes writing to Du Moulin; Bp Cosin to Basire; and Bp Hall’s Peace Maker, § 6. Cp. Bp J. J. S. Perowne, Church, Ministry, and Sacraments, pp. 6, 7, and the Editor’s Outlines of Doctrine, ch. 10.

B. “SAINTS AND FAITHFUL BRETHREN.” (CH. Philippians 1:1)

“IT is universally admitted … that Scripture makes use of presumptive or hypothetical language.… It is generally allowed that when all Christians are addressed in the New Testament as ‘saints,’ ‘dead to sin,’ ‘alive unto God,’ ‘risen with Christ,’ ‘having their conversation in heaven,’ and in other like modes, they are addressed so hypothetically, and not to express the literal fact that all the individuals so addressed were of this character; which would not have been true.… Some divines have indeed preferred as a theological arrangement a secondary sense of [such terms] to the hypothetical application of it in its true sense. But what is this secondary sense when we examine it? It is itself no more than the true sense hypothetically applied.… Divines have … maintained a Scriptural secondary sense of the term ‘saint,’ as ‘saint by outward vocation and charitable presumption’ (Pearson on the Creed, Art. IX.); but this is in very terms only the real sense of the term applied hypothetically.”

J. B. MOZLEY: Review of Baptismal Controversy, p. 74 (ed. 1862).

5. ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας. So אABP with some other (scanty) evidence. D2G2K2L, and most cursives, with good patristic support, give. ἀ. πρ. ἡμ. This is here durior lectio, and, possessing considerable documentary evidence, seems to us the better. Ell Ltft πρώτης, LTTr WH τῆς πρώτης.

7. συγκοινωνούς. Συνκοινωνούς is the spelling of אAB*D2G2. So σύνψυχοι (Philippians 2:2) and other similar words. WH (N. T. in Gr. § 393–404) deal with the question of spelling in MSS. generally, and conclude that the spellings of the best MSS. are the most trustworthy within our reach; more likely to be transmitted from the autographs than introduced at the date of transcription.

11. καρπὸν … τὸν. So אObadiah 1:2 G2K2L, several cursives, vulg (fuld καρπῶν) and some Greek fathers. P, the great majority of cursives, some copies of vulg syr (pesh and harkl) copt, Chrys Theophylact read καρπῶν … τῶν. St Paul elsewhere tends to use the singular rather than the plural of καρπός, and this, with the documentary evidence, inclines the scale to καρπὸν here. LTTr Ell Ltft WH καρπὸν … τὸν.

14. λ. τοῦ θεοῦ. So אObadiah 1:2*P, several cursives, vulg goth syr (pesh and harkl) copt and some other versions, Chrys (in two places) and some other fathers. The large majority of cursives omit τοῦ θεοῦ.

16, 17. οἱ μὲν ἐξ� … οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας. The documentary evidence is strong for this order of the clauses, reversing that of A.V. So אObadiah 1:2*G2P, the important cursives 17 37 73 80, and several others, vulg goth copt syr (pesh) (omitting the words οἱ μὲν ἐξ�) and some other versions, and quotations by Basil Tertull and some other fathers. The other order is read (in certain recensions) in D2KL (with some difference in detail), the great majority of cursives, and quotations by Chrys Theodoret Damasc. To the favourable documentary evidence must be added that of the subsequent context; Philippians 1:18 follows much more naturally on the Philippians 1:17 of this order than on the Philippians 1:17 of the other. So all recent Editors.

18. πλὴν ὅτι. SO אHaggai 2 P, 17 and several other cursives, sah Athan Cyr Theophyl. πλὴν alone is given by D2KL, the great majority of cursives, syr (pesh and harkl) arm æth, Chrys Theodoret. LTTr Ltft WH πλὴν ὅτι. Ell om. ὅτι.

23. συνέχομαι δὲ. Many cursives, syr (pesh) Theodoret and Origen (translated), read συν. γὰρ. But the evidence for δὲ is decisive. So all recent Editors.

πολλῷ γὰρ. So אaABC, the important cursives 17 67 and five others, Clem Alex Or Ambrst Aug (who makes use of enim in an argument, de Doctr. Chr iii. 2). Γὰρ is omitted by א*D2FGKLP, the great majority of cursives, vulg syr (pesh and harkl) and some other versions, Chrys Theodoret and some other fathers. LTTr Ltft WH πολλῷ γὰρ. Ell πολλῷ. The evidence of copies and versions on the whole is for the omission of γὰρ.

25. παραμενῶ. So אABCD2*G2, 17 67 80 and a few other cursives, arm. Meanwhile συμπαραμενῶ is read by D2cKLP, the great majority of cursives, Chrys (who dwells on the word: συμπαραμενῶ· τοῦτʼ ἐστίν, ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς), Theodoret and other Greek fathers. Συμπαραμενῶ thus has considerable support, and is recommended besides by its comparative unlikelihood. It is easier to suppose the unusual double compound shortened to παραμενῶ than παραμενῶ expanded without any obvious call from the context. All recent Editors παραμενῶ.

28. ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς. So אABCD2*G2, the important cursives 17 178 and two others, vulg (some copies) goth arm. D2cP, 47 and some other cursives, Chrys Theophyl, read ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς μὲν. KL, the great majority of cursives, syr (harkl), Theodoret Damasc read αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστιν. All recent Editors ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς.

ὑμῶν. So אABC2P, 17 and three other cursives, arm syr (pesh), Chrys Aug. D2cKL, the great majority of cursives, vulg copt goth æth, Theodoret Ambrst and other fathers, read ὑμῖν, which is also attested indirectly by C*D*G2, which read ἡμῖν. All recent Editors ὑμῶν. Ltft says of ὑμῖν and αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστιν, “These are obviously corrections for the sake of balancing the clauses and bringing out the contrast.” They are thus rejected on the principle of preferring the durior lectio, which certainly ὑμῶν is. Otherwise, both rejected readings have considerable support, ὑμῖν especially.