The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians

Front matter

Papin egtye

Diy a Le}

Jaa (eee bags

Preface

THERE were within my reach as I wrote this exposition of Philippians the Commentaries of Lipsius and Dibelius, the majority of recent English works on the epistle, Bengel’s Gnomon, the quaint Commentary of John Trapp, as well as the Welsh Commentary of T. Isfryn Hughes. The articles on the epistle in the various Bible Dictionaries and in the Encyclopaedia Britannica have been consulted, as have also the Introductions of Zahn, Moffatt, and Goguel. I do not suppose there is one of these works to which I am not in some measure beholden.

I have not been able to resist the force of the arguments that have been adduced in recent years in favour of Ephesus as the place in which the epistle was written. These arguments have been collected and well set forth by Professor Clayton R. Bowen in two articles in the American Journal of Theology, vol. xxiv, nos. 1 and 2 (January and April1g20). I desire to acknowledge my special obligation to these articles in Section 5 of the Introduction.

Je. Ma

§z. PAUL AND PHILIPPI

THERE is no more vivid passage in the Acts of the Apostles than the brief paragraph in chap. 16 which describes how Paul came to enter Macedonia for the first time (vers. 6-10). It is here—at ver. 1o—that the first of the ‘ we ’-sections of Acts begins. Accompanied by Silas, Timotheus, and the diarist (who is also in all probability the historian), Paul makes his way to Philippi. The city is described as ‘the Roman colony of Philippi, which is the foremost town of the district of Macedonia ’ (ver.12). The story of the events that occurred during the Apostle’s stay in the city is told with great vividness. Here Lydia, ‘a dealer in purple, who belonged to the town of Thyatira,’ was converted, and baptized ‘ along with her household ’ (vers. 13-15) ; here, too, the slave-girl ‘ possessed by a spirit of ventriloquism ’ lost the power which made her a source of gain to her owners when Paul ordered the spirit out of her in the name of Jesus Christ (vers. 16-18). The outcome of this was that Paul and Silas were arrested, flogged, and put into prison. There follows a graphic account of the earthquake ‘ which shook the very foundations of the prison,’ of the conversion of the jailer, who was baptized with all his family, of the release of the apostles and their refusal to leave the city until the praetors, alarmed by the discovery that they had flogged and imprisoned Roman citizens, had come in person entreating them to depart, and, finally, of their departure after they had encouraged the brethren assembled in the house of Lydia (vers. 19-40).

Some five years later, at the close of his ministry in Ephesus, Paul ‘ went his way to Macedonia’ (Acts 20:1). We may assume that Philippi was visited on this occasion, for we read that the Apostle passed ‘ through the districts of Macedonia, . .. encouraging the people at length.’ From Macedonia he went to Greece, where he spent three months. He returned through Macedonia on his last journey to Jerusalem. We are told that he sailed from Philippi ‘ after the days of unleavened bread’ (Acts 20 : 2-6).

§2. THE City oF PHILIPPI

The history of the city in which Christianity first took root in Europe stretches far back beyond the time when it received the name of ‘ Philippi’ from Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. Influenced by its strategic position and by the gold-mines in its vicinity, Philip refounded the city. It was in the neighbourhood of Philippi that Octavian and Antony in 42 B.c. defeated the Republican forces under Brutus and Cassius. Octavian made it a military colony, bestowing upon it the Ius Italicum, which conferred various privileges on its citizens. The narrative of Acts 16 reflects the pride of the inhabitants in their Roman citizenship. Their duumviri are styled ‘ praetors’ (vers. 20, 22, 35, 36, 38), and the attendants are ‘lictors’ (vers. 35, 38). Their pride reveals itself also in the words spoken by the owners of the slave-girl when they bring Paul and Silas before the praetors. ‘These fellows,’ they say, ‘are Jews who are making an agitation in our town; they are proclaiming customs which as Romans we are not allowed to accept or observe!’ (vers. 20, 21). When in 31 B.c. Octavian defeated Antony at the battle of Actium, the victor refounded the city of Philippi, settling there some of the defeated followers of Antony. The number of Jews in the city appears to have been small.

§ 3. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS

The genuineness of our epistle is taken for granted by almost all modern scholars. From time to time, however, its claim has been disputed on various grounds; but even to enumerate these grounds is no longer necessary. The letter exhibits all the tokens of Pauline authorship, and no apparent

x motive for fabrication suggests itself. Allusions to it are to be found in several second-century writers, and the influence of its thought and language is seen even in the early letter of Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth.

§4. Dors THE EPISTLE CONTAIN AN INTERPOLATION ?

In the middle of the first verse of chap. 3 there occurs a sudden and unexpected change of tone and subject. This change has given rise to much discussion. Some scholars would divide our epistle at this point into two distinct letters. One writer—Heinrichs—has suggested that 3:1-4:19 is a letter addressed to the leaders of the Philippian Church, and I: I-2: 30, 4: 21-23, a letter addressed to the Church as a whole; but this suggestion has little to commend it.

Among those who think the epistle contains an interpolated passage is Kirsopp Lake. In an article on the ‘Critical Problems of the Epistle to the Philippians’ in the Expositor (June 1914) he argues for the presence of an interpolation extending from 3:10 to 4:3. The majority of scholars, however, see no necessity for postulating an interpolation at all. They think the sudden change at the beginning of chap. 3 may be adequately accounted for by the effect on Paul either of some disturbing occurrence at the place at which he was writing, or else of some happening at Philippi news of which had just reached him. Of these two suggestions the latter is much the more probable, for it is in the highest degree unlikely that the Apostle would break out into the passionate invective of chap. 3 because of some occurrence in his own vicinity and not say one word regarding the cause of the sudden outburst.

The sudden change, however, is difficult to account for except on the hypothesis of interpolation. The main cause of the general reluctance to recognize the presence of an interpolation is the difficulty felt by many of discovering a place at which the interpolation manifestly comes to an end. But is not the close of ver. 19 a place at which it naturally ends? Beyond all doubt ver. 20 in the true text opens with ‘ for,’ not with ‘but,’ as in our translation. When ‘ for’ is read, ver. 20 does

xi not follow at all easily after ver. 19, whereas it follows most naturally after ver. 1a. It is true that attempts have been made to attach ver. 20 in its true and original form to ver. 19, but they cannot be said to be convincing. The appropriateness of the sequence is immediately evident when ver. 20 follows ver. Ia: ‘ Well then, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord, for we are a colony of heaven.’ This new arrangement reminds us of the words of Jesus spoken on the return of the Seventy: ‘ Rejoice because your names are enrolled in heaven’ (Luke Io: 20); and there are other hints discernible in Paul’s words that the Lucan passage was in his mind as he wrote. All this helps to confirm the suggestion that the section of chap. 3 extending from ver. 16 to ver. 19 is an interpolation. (See the article entitled ‘ The Philippian Interpolation: Where does it End?’ in the Expositor for January 1920.) In the present commentary the section is treated as an interpolation. It is undoubtedly from the pen of Paul, but for whom it was first written and how it came to be embedded in our epistle are questions which may never be answered. Perhaps it originally formed part of another letter sent to Philippi. The hypothesis that the interpolation ends at 3:19 is much more probable than the theory of Kirsopp Lake, according to which, as we have seen, it extends as far as 4:3; for surely the first three verses of chap. 4 attest themselves unmistakably as belonging not to the interpolation but to Philippians proper. Attempts have been made to discover points of connexion between the verses which we regard as interpolated and the rest of the epistle, with the object of discrediting the theory of interpolation, but the attempts are not convincing.

§5. WHERE WAS PAUL WHEN HE WROTE THE EPISTLE ?

From the epistle itself we learn that the Apostle was a prisoner when he wrote it. The Acts of the Apostles records imprisonments at Philippi, Caesarea, and Rome. Philippi, of course, is ruled out, and until quite recent times the discussion of the place of origin resolved itself into an examination of the | rival claims of Caesarea and Rome.

(a) The claims of Rome are much stronger than those of

xil

Caesarea, and are looked upon as conclusive by most scholars. They may be summarized as follows :—

(1) It is known that Paul was imprisoned in Rome.

(2) Reference is made in I : 13 to the praetorian guard, whose headquarters were in Rome.

(3) In 4: 22 greetings are sent from the saints among the Imperial slaves.

(4) The general situation reflected in the epistle is said to suit Rome. The Church in the place at which Paul is imprisoned is strong and energetic, and the Apostle is facing the possibility of execution.

(5) Paul associates Timotheus with himself in the salutation, as he does in the salutations of Colossians and Philemon, which are presumed to have been written in Rome.

(6) There is a certain amount of early tradition in favour of Rome, such as that of the Monarchian Prologue to the epistle. !

Until quite recent times these reasons were regarded by most writers as establishing the Roman hypothesis beyond the possibility of contradiction.

(5) Now, however, the claims of another city are being advanced by an influential group of scholars. This city is Ephesus, and the scholars who recognize its claims include Lisco, Albertz, Feine, Lake, Goguel, C. R. Bowen, and A. H. McNeile. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, pp. 229, 230) and E. W. Winstanley (Expositor, June 1915, pp. 495, 496) both incline to the view that Philippians comes from an Ephesian imprisonment, though they are less certain in its case than in the case of the other prison epistles. A full and exhaustive statement of the case for Ephesus is given by Bowen in two articles entitled ‘ Are Paul’s Prison Letters from Ephesus?’ which appeared in the American Journal of Theology for January and April 1920 (vol. xxiv, nos. I and 2).

Of the six reasons enumerated above in favour of Rome, the last-mentioned is not of much moment, for the early tradition is meagre, and may only be an example of ‘ the guesswork which is honoured as ‘“‘tradition’’’ (Moffatt, Hebrews, p. 1x). Of the remaining five, there is not one that

xill is not as applicable to Ephesus as it is to Rome. Let us consider them from this point of view.

(1) It can be shown beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt that Paul was imprisoned at Ephesus. See Bowen, as above, and also B. W. Robinson in the Journal of Biblical Literature for 1910, pp. 181-9. Not much importance need be attached to the fact that a building at Ephesus is called ‘Paul’s Prison,’ though the absence from the New Testament of any definite mention of an Ephesian imprisonment lessens the probability that the name of the building is an attempt to provide support for a mere inference. Of more account is the reference to an imprisonment at Ephesus in the Apocryphal Acts of Paul (see M. R. James, A pocryphal New Testament, pp. 291, 292). The Monarchian Prologue to Colossians tells in so many words that that epistle was written when Paul was a prisoner in Ephesus; and the suggestion of Corssen and Moffatt that the meaning of the statement is that Paul was in Ephesus as a prisoner on his way to Rome is not convincing in view of the detailed story of the voyage to Rome in the Acts of the Apostles.

If Rom. 16 was sent to Ephesus, as may well have been the case, it is by no means far-fetched to see in vers. 4 and 7 allusions to an imprisonment of Paul in that city. The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written at Ephesus, and in it Paul speaks of ‘ fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus ’ (15 : 32). If, as is quite possible, his words mean that he had literally faced wild beasts at Ephesus, that would place the question of an imprisonment in that city beyond all doubt. It is very probable that chaps. 10-13 of 2 Corinthians originally formed part of the painful letter which Paul sent to the Corinthians from Ephesus (see 2 Cor. 2:3, 4, 9, and 7:8, 12). Now, in 2 Cor. 11: 23 he speaks of being much ‘in prisons ’—and the words were written before the imprisonments at Caesarea and Rome. They do not prove that the Apostle was imprisoned in Ephesus, but they strengthen the probability that he was. The testimony of 2 Cor. 1: 8-10 is more explicit. ‘Now I would like you to know,’ writes the Apostle, ‘ about the distress which befell me in Asia, brothers. I was crushed, crushed

XIV far more than I could stand, so much so that I despaired even of life ; in fact I told myself it was the sentence of death. But that was to make me rely not on myself but on the God who raises the dead ; he rescued me from so terrible a death, he rescues still, and I rely upon him for the hope that he will continue to rescue me.’ The reference is probably to some experience that befell the Apostle in the city of Ephesus, and the words are most naturally understood of an actual condemnation to death and of an unexpected rescue when all hope had been abandoned.

Goguel interprets 1: 12 ff. of our epistle to mean that the preaching of the Gospel was temporarily checked by the arrest of the Apostle at the place in which he was imprisoned when he was writing (Introduction au Nouveau Testament, p. 376, especially note"). He does not think Paul came to the place as a prisoner, and it must be admitted that this is a natural interpretation of Paul’s words; and if it is the correct interpretation, it tells strongly in favour of Ephesus as against Caesarea and Rome.

The silence of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles regarding an imprisonment at Ephesus may at first sight seem to constitute a strong argument against the view that the Apostle was imprisoned there—until we remind ourselves that Paul in his epistles makes mention of several experiences about which Luke is utterly silent. In 2 Cor. 11: 25, for example, he says he was three times shipwrecked—and that was before the shipwreck on the voyage to Rome—but Acts does not mention any one of the three occasions.

Other arguments have been brought forward against the view that Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus, but they fall far short of nullifying the cumulative force of the arguments that support the view.

(2) The word translated ‘ praetorian guard’ in 1: 13 often denotes the official residence of the governor of a province; and as Ephesus was the virtual capital of the province of Asia, it follows that if Paul was writing from Ephesus the reference might be to the palace of the Proconsul. At the same time the rendering ‘ praetorian guard’ may be correct even if the

XV letter was sent from Ephesus, for detachments of the praetorian guard were often sent to the provincial capitals, and as a matter of fact we possess inscriptional evidence of the presence of praetoriant at Ephesus (see, for example, McNeile, St. Paul, p. 229, note’). Clearly there is nothing in 1: 13 to preclude an Ephesian origin for our epistle.

(3) The same may be said of 4:22. Rome was not the only place at which Imperial slaves were to be found. There is extant in this case also inscriptional evidence that favours the Ephesian hypothesis. We know that there existed in Ephesus associations of Imperial freedmen and slaves (see McNeile, loc. cit., note*, and Dibelius on 4: 22).

(4) As to the general situation reflected in our epistle, it cannot be said to be less compatible with Ephesus than with Rome. We know from Acts 1g: 10 that the new faith prospered greatly in Ephesus as the result of Paul’s ministry. Nothing is said or implied in our epistle regarding the Church at the place where Paul was writing but would suit the Church in Ephesus quite as well as it suits the Church in Rome. Nor is the fact that Paul is expecting his execution out of harmony with the situation at Ephesus. We have seen already that the words of 2 Cor. 1: 8-10 speak of an occasion on which the Apostle, as it seems, was condemned, and rescued from the very jaws of death. Moreover, in 2 Cor. 11 : 23 he writes: ‘I have been often at the point of death’ ; and if that chapter was written at Ephesus, some of the episodes to which Paul refers may well have occurred in that city. If, again, Rom. 16 was sent to Ephesus, it is natural to see in ver. 4a reference to some experience in that city from which the Apostle was rescued through the intervention of Prisca and Aquila. It may be the same experience as the distress of 2/Oor.) 8) 58,

(5) The association of Timotheus with Paul in the salutation of our epistle cannot be used as an argument for Rome as against Ephesus. Even if Colossians and Philemon, in each of which Timotheus’s name appears in the opening salutation, were written at Rome, we are not bound to conclude that Philippians must have been written there just because it also

Xvi has his name in the salutation; and, furthermore, there is much to be said for the view, now held by many scholars, that Colossians and Philemon were written at Ephesus.

We know that Timotheus was with Paul in Ephesus, whereas we have no knowledge, apart from that furnished by the prison epistles on the supposition of their Roman origin, of his being in Rome ; although, as Kennedy says, ‘ there is nothing to oppose the hypothesis that Timothy visited Rome ; in fact, it would be surprising if he had never seen his beloved master during so long a period of suspense ’ (Philippians, p. 405). We also know that Paul did send Timotheus from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts 19 : 22), which harmonizes with the intention expressed in Phil. 2: 19-23, and that he went himself soon after, which accords with the confidence expressed in Phil. S324.

(c) The evidence furnished by the arguments considered so far is too evenly balanced to enable us to decide with any confidence either for Rome or for Ephesus. Are there, then, any considerations which will make it possible for us to reach a definite conclusion? Some arguments that favour Ephesus may be mentioned first.

(x1) At the time of his last journey to Jerusalem, Paul was minded to turn his face towards Italy and the West. His determination to visit Rome after he had been to Jerusalem is recorded in Acts 19:21, and his words to the Ephesian elders reported in Acts 20 : 25 point to his intention of leaving the eastern sphere in which he had so far been labouring. He gives expression to the same desires and determinations in Rom. I: 10-15 and 15: 190-29. Vers. 23 and 24 of chap. 15 contain an unequivocal statement of his determination to change the scene of his toil: ‘ But now, as I have no further scope for work in these parts, and as for a number of years I have had a longing to visit you whenever I went to Spain, I am hoping to see you on my way there, and to be sped forward by you after I have enjoyed your company for a while.’ In view of all this, is it in the least degree probable that in his prison in Rome he should contemplate paying the Philippians a visit immediately upon his liberation? That is what he is

XVii contemplating in Phil. 1:25 and 2:24. This is a strong argument against Rome, and it tells with equal force against the Roman origin of Philemon, in which (ver. 22) the Apostle is hopeful of paying Colossae an early visit.

(2) Although not without some slender hope of release, it is clear that when he wrote Philippians the Apostle in his inmost heart was expecting sentence of death. This also tells strongly for Ephesus and against Rome; for whatever may have been the actual issue of his Roman imprisonment, it is not likely that Paul at Rome expected a verdict of execution. Lightfoot (Philippians, pp. 3, 4) remarks that Paul’s accusers had every reason for not hastening his trial, because ‘ they must have foreseen plainly enough the acquittal of a person whom the provincial governor himself had declared to be innocent.’ But if the Apostle had no anticipation of death in Rome, he himself tells us that in Asia, which in all probability means in Ephesus, he at one time despaired even of life (2 Cor. r: 8, 9).

(3) The resemblances between Philippians and the earlier epistles of Paul should also be considered in this connexion. They supply Lightfoot with one of his main arguments in his contention that Philippians was written earlier in the Roman imprisonment than were Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon (op. cit., pp. 42-4). The resemblances are set forth fully and minutely by Bowen in the interests of the theory of Ephesian origin (American Journal of Theology, April 1920, pp. 277-84). He takes cognizance of similarities in the writer’s moods and situations as well as of resemblances in words and expressions. The use of similar words and expressions does not prove much, for we cannot think that only at one period of his life is a writer able to employ certain words and phrases. Similarities in mood and situation may, however, be used as evidence that two writings belong to the same period ; and such similarities are discernible between our epistle and some of Paul’s earlier writings. The mood that lies behind the words of 2 Cor. 5 : I-9 is similar to that which led to the writing of Phil. 1 : 21-23, and Bowen suggests that the warmth of the Apostle’s statement of his gratitude to the Macedonians in 2 Cor. 8 : 1-5 may

Xviil not unnaturally be supposed to be due in part to their personal kindness to himself.

Then there are similar situations. Some of the afflictions chronicled in 2 Cor. 6: 4, 5 must surely have belonged to the Ephesus period; and if so, the Apostle while in Ephesus must have been in just the condition that would move the Philippians to send him aid. We have already seen that Timotheus was as a matter of fact sent from Ephesus to Macedonia (see Acts 19:22, and compare Phil. 2: 19-23). We also know from Acts 19:21, r Cor. 16:5, 2 Cor. 1: 16, that Paul was minded to go from Ephesus to Macedonia (compare Phil: 1 ¢ 25,.2,924).\(\) Acts 20::\1, 2 Cor. 2.923).°7-:0'5} show that the intention was carried out.

(4) We have argued in an earlier section of this Introduction that 3: 1b-19 of our epistle is an interpolation. If, however, these verses were a part of the original letter, that would strongly support the earlier date, inasmuch as the period of keen Judaistic controversy, to which it manifestly belongs, was past when the Apostle was taken to Rome. The paragraph exhibits some striking resemblances to 2 Cor. II, a chapter that probably formed part, as we have seen, of the painful letter sent from Ephesus to Corinth. Compare especially Phil. 3:2 with 2 Cor. 11:13, Phil. 3:3 with @ Cor, 12:18; and Phil:’3::4 ff. with 2 Cor: 11; 27 ff.

(5) The journeyings implied in our epistle between Philippi and the place of Paul’s imprisonment would be more intelligible if that place was Ephesus. The route of travel between Philippi and Rome is about 840 miles, and at that time the single journey took a whole month. Particularly significant is Paul’s expectation that he will be enheartened by news sent to him from Philippi after Timotheus has arrived there (2: 19) ; and yet Timotheus was not to leave the Apostle until he knew whether his imprisonment was to issue in release or in condemnation! Is it at all probable that, in the event of an adverse verdict, the Apostle would expect the round trip between Rome and Philippi to be completed in the time that would elapse between the giving of the verdict and the execution? Even if we place the imprisonment at

xix

Ephesus, it is not easy to see how the double journey could be accomplished in the interval between the Apostle’s condemnation and execution ; but the difficulty is much increased if he was in Rome. It may be that we are taking his words too literally: perhaps it was only in the event of his release that he expected news to reach him. Be that as it may, the manner in which the Apostle expresses himself in 2 : 24 shows that he was not without hope of being with the Philippians soon ; and it is difficult to believe that he would have expressed himself just as he does if the long double journey between Rome and Philippi had to be undertaken before he himself could set out. It must be admitted, however, that whereas the Ephesian hypothesis renders less acute the problems raised by this paragraph concerning the sending of Timotheus (2: 19-24), it does not solve them altogether and thereby remove the grounds for suspecting its genuineness which are set forth in the notes on the passage.

(Z2) Let us now look at the arguments that have been brought against the hypothesis of Ephesian origin.

(x) It has been urged that if Philippians was written from Ephesus it would inevitably have contained some reference to the collection for the Jerusalem saints which the Apostle was at that time so strenuously promoting. See Maurice Jones, Philippians, p. xxxiv, and Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the N.T., third edition, Appendix C, p. 622. But there is not much force in this argument from silence, for we cannot decide what Paul must have said in any particular letter ; and there are considerations in the present case which make the omission appear less strange than it otherwise would have been. Paul had already, as we shall see presently, sent a letter to the Philippians after receiving the gift which they had sent by the hand of Epaphroditus ; and Epaphroditus was just about to leave for Philippi with the present letter. Moreover, Timotheus (if we can accept the testimony of 2: 19-23) would be going soon, and the Apostle had some hope of going himself (2:24). Under these circumstances it is not surprising that our epistle should make no mention of the collection.

XX

(2) Jones (on pp. xxxiv, xxxv) employs another argument. He urges that inasmuch as the Corinthian epistles were written in a stormy and turbulent period of the Apostle’s life, the agitation would of necessity have been reflected in our epistle had it been written in the same period. But surely we may think that, with death staring him in the face, the Apostle could write to his friends at Philippi just such a note as we find in our epistle.

(ec) What conclusion are we to draw in regard to the place of origin? The arguments that have been adduced against the Ephesian hypothesis seem to us to have much less force than those that have been urged in its favour. The epistle, we conclude, was composed when Paul was a prisoner at Ephesus.

§6. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE

Paul spent over two years in Ephesus, leaving, as it seems, in the year 55. Whether our epistle was written early or late in the Ephesian period it is impossible to say. Feine places it after 1 Corinthians, about half-way through the stay at Ephesus. Goguel places it before 1 Corinthians, but late in the Ephesian period—‘ towards the end of the year 55.’

Of those who maintain the Roman origin of our epistle there is scarce one who does not reject the view of Lightfoot, by whom it is placed early in the Roman imprisonment. If it was written in Rome, it is almost certain that it should be assigned to the closing period of the imprisonment.

§ 7. PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PHILIPPIANS, AND THE OCCASION OF THE PRESENT LETTER