INTRODUCTION to The Epistle to the Philippians

NEW

TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

Exposition of Philippians

William Hendriksen

BAKERBOOKS

A DIVISION OF BAKER BOOK HOUSE CO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49516

Originally published in separate volumes:

First printing, December 1995

Published by Baker Books

a division of Baker Book House Company

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516–6287

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010–2606–7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

ISBN 0–8010–2078–6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The letters in book-abbreviations are followed by periods. Those in periodical-abbreviations omit the periods and are in italics. Thus one can see at a glance whether the abbreviation refers to a book or to a periodical.

A. Book Abbreviations

H.B.A. Hurlbut, Bible Atlas (most recent edition)

W.H.A.B. Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible

B. Periodical Abbreviations

AThR Anglican Theological Review

Bib Sac Bibliotheca Sacra

Coll Mech Collectanea Mechliniensia

ExT Expository Times

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JThS Journal of Theological Studies

NTS New Testament Studies

Please Note

In order to differentiate between the second person singular (see Phil. 4:3) and the second person plural (see Phil. 1:3), we have indicated the former as follows: “you”; and the latter as follows: “you.”

PHILIPPIANS

INTRODUCTION to The Epistle to the Philippians

I. REASONS FOR STUDYING PHILIPPIANS

The search for “tranquility” is on, and in a big way! In order to attain peace of mind Americans are swallowing tons of tranquilizers. In addition to the drugs there are the tranquilizing books. These have become bestsellers overnight, single editions running into the hundreds of thousands. Those who read them are urged to wind themselves like clocks, and to begin the day by saying to themselves:

“What a wonderful morning this is! And what an exceptionally fine wife (or husband) I have! And what lovely children! What a wholesome and delicious breakfast awaits me! And what a congenial boss I have at my job!”

But such “peacefulizers” may do more harm than good. They provoke the following objections:

First, whenever the soothing thought fails to comport with reality, the ease of mind which results will fail to be of an enduring character.

Secondly, the most stubborn fact of all is sin. No amount of mental push-ups or “positive thinking” can brush it aside.

Thirdly, the only peace that is worthy of the name is peace with God. This cannot be self-manufactured.

Fourthly, those trusting in tranquilizers, whether books or pills, could be proceeding from the false assumption that spiritual unrest or soul-struggle is an evil in itself. But it is often far better to face reality than to try to escape it. Evasion leads to spiritual torpor. Confronting the facts about oneself is the only course which can lead to “the peace of God that surpasses all understanding.”

Now if one wishes to know how this real peace or tranquility of heart and mind can be obtained, he should turn to that epistle which contains the very expression which was just quoted (Phil. 4:7). This little gem of four sparkling chapters pictures a man who has actually found it. He has unearthed life’s most cherished treasure. He is “the happiest man in the world.” Listen to him, as he says in this epistle:

“Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice.”

“I have learned in whatever circumstances I am to be content. I know what it means to live in straitened circumstances, and I also know what it means to have plenty. In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret, both to be filled and to be hungry, both to have plenty and to be in want. I can do all things in him who infuses strength into me … I am amply supplied.”

And this man who had learned life’s greatest secret was a prisoner in Rome, facing possible death by execution!

So, the reasons for studying the epistle to the Philippians are the following:

1. It reveals the secret of true happiness. How this happiness can be obtained is clearly disclosed in this letter.

2. It reveals the man who had learned the secret. Philippians is one of the most personal of all of Paul’s epistles. It shares this characteristic with II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. Nowhere are we brought closer to the real Paul, pouring out his heart to those whom he deeply loves.

3. It reveals the Christ who taught him the secret. Christ as our Pattern and Enabler is portrayed here in the greatness of his condescending love (Phil. 2:5–11; 4:13).

II. THE CITY OF PHILIPPI

Without a knowledge of the history and geography of Philippi it is impossible to derive the most benefit from a study of Philippians.

A man of restless energy, determination, and organizing talent was Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great. When he seized the throne in 359 b.c., the “Macedonia” over which he began to reign was about the size of the state of Vermont or of Maryland. Consult a map of Northern Greece. (It was a small segment of that vast region which originally was called Thrace.) To the East it did not even touch the Strimon River. To the South it left the three-fingered Chalcidice Peninsula outside its boundary. To the West it hardly touched what is now Albania. And to the North it pushed up for a distance of perhaps nowhere more than forty miles into what is now Jugoslavia.¹ Philip set about at once to “modernize” his army. He gave it longer spears, charging cavalry, better organization, etc. With this new tool he began to extend his domain.

Armies and expeditions, however, are expensive. So Philip annexed the gold-region² in the neighborhood of a place which because of its numerous springs was called Krenides, meaning “The Little Fountains.” He enlarged this town, naming it after himself, “Philippi.” With such eagerness did he work the gold-mines that he secured from them more than one thousand talents a year, using some of the revenue to maintain his army and some to enlarge his kingdom by means of bribes. He is reported to have made the statement, “No fortress is impregnable to whose walls an ass laden with gold can be driven.” And so, “This gold of Krenides spread itself over Greece, preceding the phalanx like an advance guard and opening more gates than the battering rams and catapults” (Heuzey). And the territorial expansion begun by Philip was continued on an even larger scale by his son, Alexander.

Inestimable consequences flowed from this conquest. It has been truly said that if Philip and Alexander had not gone East, Paul and the gospel which he proclaimed could not have come to the West. For, these conquerors brought about the one world of Hellenistic speech that made possible the spread of the gospel to many regions.

The city founded by Philip was situated fully ten miles inland from the Gulf of Neapolis (now Kolpos Kavallas), northwest of the island of Thasos in the Aegean Sea. By Paul it must have been regarded as a city in the North, for while the place of his birth, Tarsus, was situated 37° N. lat. (like Springfield, Missouri), and Jerusalem where he received his training 32° N. lat. (like Montgomery, Alabama), Philippi was located 41° N. lat. (like the city of New York). To reach Philippi from the sea a person would have to enter a port which, in common with many other places, bore the name Neapolis (cf. “Naples”), that is, “new city.” Probably because this was the place where Paul landed, bringing the gospel of Christ, it was subsequently called Christopolis. It still exists under the name of Kavalla, and is today the heart of the Greek tobacco industry.³

Proceeding from Kavalla a person crosses the Pangaeus Range through a narrow depression. A stretch of the old Roman highway, the Via Egnatia, connects the port with the ruins of Philippi. From the crest of the hill between the thriving port and these ruins one has a marvelous view. Looking back, one beholds the Aegean Sea with its islands: Thasos to the southeast and Samothrace much farther away, to the east. One can even discern to the south the towering summit of Athos. Looking ahead one sees the plain of Drama, skirted by mountains and watered by the Gangites. This plain can be lovely. It can also be a terrible marsh. The contrast depends on the season of the year when one happens to view it. On a hill which dominates this plain lay Philippi. An air-view reveals the ruins of two churches and the remains of the Roman forum.⁴

Two centuries after the founding of Philippi Rome conquered Macedonia, and divided it into four political districts. To the famous Roman general Aemilius Paulus belongs the credit for the decisive victory at Pydna (near Mt. Olympus) on the western shore of the gulf of Salonica (168 b.c.).⁵By this time, however, the gold mines having become nearly exhausted, the city of Philippi had been reduced to “a small settlement” (Strabo VII. 41). In the year 146 b.c., Macedonia became one of the six provinces governed by Rome.

The subsequent enlargement of the city resulted from the important event which occurred here in 42 b.c. It was then that the historic battle of Philippi took place between Brutus and Cassius, defenders of the Roman republic, on one side, and Antony and Octavian, avengers of Caesar’s death, on the other. After two engagements Antony and Octavian were victorious, Brutus and Cassius were dead.⁶

Soon afterward Philippi was made a Roman colony and was called Colonia Julia Philippensis. Antony settled some of his disbanded veterans there. There followed (31 b.c.) the naval battle of Actium, an ancient Grecian promontory in Epirus off the Ionian Sea (see N.T.C. on Titus 3:12). It was here that Octavian won the victory over Antony, who had become hopelessly infatuated with the woman who was his undoing, namely, Cleopatra, the romantic Egyptian queen who previously had been the mistress of Julius Caesar. Realizing the hopelessness of their cause both Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide.⁷

Octavian had now become sole head of the Roman Empire. His new name was Caesar Augustus: in 29 b.c. he was declared Imperator; in 27 Augustus. When he dispossessed the partisans of Antony of their estates in Italy, these people were now given the privilege of joining earlier Latin-speaking settlers in Philippi. The name of this city now became

COLONIA JULIA AUGUSTA VICTRIX PHILIPPENSIUM

Philippi, then, was a Roman colony. As such it was a Rome in miniature, a reproduction on a small scale of the imperial city. Its inhabitants were predominantly Romans, though the natives lived alongside of them and gradually coalesced with them. The Roman citizens naturally took great pride in being Romans. Moreover, they enjoyed all the rights of Roman citizens everywhere, such as freedom from scourging, from arrest except in extreme cases, and the right to appeal to the emperor. Their names remained upon the rolls of the Roman tribes. Their language was Latin. They loved to dress according to Roman style. The coins of Philippi bore Latin inscriptions. Each veteran received from the emperor a grant of land. Upon the entire community, moreover, the Jus Italicum was conferred, so that the inhabitants of this city enjoyed not only economic privileges, such as exemption from tribute and the right to acquire, hold, and transfer property, but also political advantages, such as freedom from interference by the provincial governor, and the right and responsibility to regulate their own civic affairs.

In control of the government of the city was a pair of officials who were fond of calling themselves praetores duumviri, that is, the two civic commanders, freely translated στρατηγοί in Greek. And as in Rome, these civic commanders or magistrates had their fasces-carrying lictores, that is, policemen or constables (ῥαβδοῦχοι).

In creating here and there such colonies Rome knew what it was doing. The advantages were mutual: not only did the colonists receive many privileges, as has been shown, but also Rome profited by this arrangement, for thus its frontiers were being safeguarded against the enemy and its veterans were being rewarded.

We are now in a better position to understand (a) Luke’s account in Acts 16 with reference to the establishment of the church in Philippi, and (b) Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. As to the former, see the next section: The Church at Philippi. As to the latter, note the following:

(1) Paul, writing from a prison in Rome, mentions the progress of the gospel among the members of the praetorian guard (1:13). He refers to this guard because he knows that his readers, many of whom belonged no doubt to the families of veterans, would have a lively interest in it. In no other epistle does the apostle mention this guard.

(2) He says, “Only continue to exercise your citizenship in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (1:27).⁸ In the light of the facts which have been enumerated it is probable that the earthly (Roman) citizenship of which the Philippians were proud is the underlying idea of the heavenly citizenship to which the apostle refers. Spiritual realities, however, always transcend earthly symbols. Thus, though many citizens of Philippi probably felt perfectly at home in their city, so that they would not have exchanged Philippi for Rome to take up residence there, believers, on the contrary, can never feel at home here on earth. They realize that their homeland, the country to which they as citizens belong, is in heaven, and that they are sojourners and pilgrims here below (Phil. 3:20).

(3) He speaks about the grievous suffering which the readers have to endure and the bitter conflict in which they are engaged (1:27–30). Philippi, being Roman to the core, had its imperial cult. It can be assumed that the non-Christian community — especially the Augustales who deified the emperor — exerted heavy pressure upon the Christians to join in this emperor-worship. Resistance to this pressure resulted in reproach and persecution. This, no doubt, was part of their suffering. It was not the whole of it. See comments on the passage.

(4) Here in a Roman colony, more than almost anywhere else, there was a tendency to flatter Nero with divine titles and honors. Hence, it is in such an epistle as this that the glory of Christ, his full deity, is set forth (2:5–10), in order that the readers may remain unswervingly loyal to him as to their only God and Savior.

(5) Greetings from members of Caesar’s household (4:22) are mentioned in this letter only. See on 4:22.

III. THE CHURCH AT PHILIPPI

In the course of his second missionary journey (a.d. 50/51–53/54) Paul, accompanied by Silas and Timothy, reached Troas, located to the south of what is considered the site of ancient Troy. Although Troas is today a deserted ruin, in the time of the apostle it was one of Asia’s chief ports. Here the vision of “the man of Macedonia” summoned the missionaries to Europe. Here also they were joined by Luke (Acts 16:9, 10). The ship on which they sailed must have passed the Aegean outlet of the Hellespont, for it made a straight course to the island of Samothrace, where Demetrius had set up the world-famous statue of Victory. On the next day the party reached Neapolis, Philippi’s port. Here the boat-trip ended. It had been a speedy one, having taken only two days. The winds must have been favorable; contrast the trip in the opposite direction — Neapolis to Troas — toward the close of the third missionary journey, which was going to take five days (Acts 20:6). From Neapolis the missionaries proceeded at once on foot to Philippi. In obedience to the direction of the Spirit Paul performed most of his labors in important centers; such as Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome. It has long been held that this was a policy which he followed in the firm belief that from the more strategic centers the gospel-message would fan outward,⁹ as it actually did. At any rate, Philippi was an important center. Luke says, “and from there to Philippi, since it is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a colony” (Acts 16:12). In addition to political, Philippi also had geographical and commercial significance. From Philippi on the Egnatian Way the traffic moved via Dyrrachium, Brundisium and the Appian Way, to Rome (and vice versa).

This city of Philippi was so unlike any which the travelers had visited thus far that they had to spend a few days here to get their bearings. Then came their first Sabbath in Europe. At the western exit of the city a great colonial arch-way spanned the Via Egnatia, which about a mile farther crossed the swift and narrow Gangites River that empties into the Strymon. Somewhere along the bank of the Gangites the men found “a place of prayer.” The word used in the original occurs at times as a synonym for “synagogue.” Here, however, there seems not to have been a synagogue: no men were present; there was no formal worship, and no reading of law and prophets. There were probably few Jews in Philippi. Is it possible that also in showing a hostile spirit toward the Jews this Roman colony had followed the mother-city? These were the days of Emperor Claudius (a.d. 41–54) who, though at first friendly to the Jews, had subsequently ordered them to leave Rome (a.d. 50 or shortly afterward). At any rate, Paul and his companions spoke to the women that were gatherered at this place of prayer for their Jewish religious devotions.

In the little group assembled here was a woman named Lydia. Her home-town was Thyatira (now Akhisar, Turkey), on the way from Pergamum to Sardis (Rev. 2:12, 18; 3:1), in the province of Lydia, in what today is called Western Asia Minor. Though a born pagan, she had become acquainted — in her native town? — with the religion of the Jews and had accepted it as her own, having become a proselyte of the gate. Hers surely was a far superior way of worshipping God than any pagan cult with it foolish idolatry and gross immorality. Yet, somehow it had failed to give her complete satisfaction, the peace which her soul craved.

She was a business-woman, and may have been a widow who was continuing the pursuit of her late husband. We may think of her as an importer. She was a seller of purple. That should cause no surprise, for the place of her birth was located in the heart of the region of the purple-garment industry. Such garments were expensive, for the purple dye was derived from the shellfish in the waters of Thyatira, and the throat of each shellfish produced only one drop of the dye! (A cheaper grade was obtained by simply crushing the shellfish.) Now since Philippi was a Roman colony it was naturally an excellent market for purple garments. Romans loved the royal color! With it they trimmed togas and tunics. They wove it into their rugs and tapestries. Philippians were eager to copy Rome and its customs. To handle such an expensive product Lydia must have been a woman of means. The account in Acts supports this conclusion, for it implies that she had a spacious mansion in Philippi, perhaps a typical Roman town-house of the better class, one that had ample room to accommodate several guests.¹⁰

As has often been remarked, Lydia had come from Asia with her earthly treasures, and was about to discover spiritual treasures in Europe. Though she probably had to walk a considerable distance to get to the place of prayer on the river-bank outside the city, and though she did not expect, perhaps, that the scheduled meeting would be of any great significance, she went! And here she met the missionaries, who spoke with great conviction, proving that the Old Testament prophecies, with which she was acquainted, had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The chief speaker was Paul. Whether Lydia was converted at that first meeting or subsequently is not clear from the text and is unimportant. The main fact is that by means of the preaching of Paul this woman, whose heart the Lord had opened, was led to accept Christ. So was her “household” subsequently. Then she and all the members of her family were baptized.

At once Lydia gave evidence of the genuine character of the great change in her life. Her eager generosity reminds one of Mary of Bethany (see N.T.C. on John 12:1–8). With rare tact she extended an invitation which the missionaries could not refuse, for rejecting it would have amounted to an insult. She said, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” Her wish, so urgently expressed, prevailed (Acts 16:15).

It is clear from Acts 16:40 that Lydia was by no means the only convert in Philippi. Moreover, men as well as women were translated from the kingdom of darkness into that of light. But while matters were proceeding favorably something occurred which at the time must have been considered an unpleasant interruption. One day, as the missionaries were going to the place of prayer, a female fortune-teller met them. She was a slave owned by masters who were making money out of her gift. Her lot was indeed a sorry one. She had “a spirit, a Python” (thus literally, Acts 16:16).

In Greek mythology the word Python refers, first of all, to a serpent or dragon that dwelt in the region of Pytho at the foot of Parnassus in Phocis, north of the Gulf of Corinth. It was believed that this dragon used to guard the oracle of Delphi with its oracular sanctuary. He was, however, slain by the god Apollo, as Ovid describes most interestingly.¹¹

By an easy transition this word Python began to be applied to divination or fortune-telling in general, so that “a spirit, a Python” indicated “a spirit of divination.”

Plutarch, Greek essayist and biographer (about a.d. 46–120), tells us that in his day ventriloquists were called Pythons. But though it is possible that the slave-girl referred to in Acts 16:16 was a ventriloquist, this cannot be proved. The meaning here seems to be simply that she had “a spirit of divination.”¹² She was a demon-possessed girl who was regarded by the superstitious people of this region as being able to predict future events. And they were willing to pay for her predictions.

Now one day as she was going into or toward the city, she met the missionaries who were on their way to the prayer-meeting outside the city’s gates. But having met them she first walked past them and then turned around and followed them. She began to cry out, “These men are servants of the Most High God who proclaim to you a way (or “the way”) of salvation.”¹³

It is understandable that Paul did not cherish the idea of being advertised by a demon-possessed girl (cf. Luke 8:28, 29), as if there were some connection between the kingdom of light and that of darkness, between the servants of the Most High God and … Beelzebub! So at last, after the girl had behaved in this fashion for several days, the apostle, worn out through and through by the unwelcome notoriety he was receiving, suddenly turned around and said to the spirit, “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to get out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

But now the real trouble started. The masters of the slave-girl, men who had been making money out of her, became very bitter, and having grabbed Paul and Silas (as the most important of the four?) dragged them to the Agora, the public square or forum. Brought before the praetors, the two bringers of good tidings were denounced as Jewish trouble-makers. How shrewd this charge and also how inconsistent! The accusers were proud of being Romans, not Jews! But they forgot that they were never more like wicked Jews than they were right now! Note the similarity:

The charge of the Jewish leaders against Jesus:	The charge of these Romans against Jesus’ messengers: Paul and Silas:
“We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding (us) to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2). It was a lie and a piece of hypocrisy. The real reason for their agitation is stated in Matt. 27:18: “Out of envy they had delivered him up.”	“These men, being Jews are exceedingly disturbing our city, and are advocating customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to practise, since we are Romans.” This, too, was a lie and a piece of hypocrisy. The real reason for their agitation is stated in Acts 16:19: “Her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone.”

The charge was of an inflammatory character, for Roman colonists were very jealous of their rights and customs as Romans. Besides (as was stated earlier), had not the emperor Claudius recently ordered all Jews from Rome? And now here were these two Jewish vagrants making trouble in Miniature-Rome! Roused by the infuriated, wailing rabble, the praetors caused the two men to be stripped and beaten with rods. Such a flogging was exceedingly painful. Moreover, among the Romans there was no fixed number of lashings, no rule limiting them to “forty stripes less one.” To make matters even worse, when the lictors had inflicted many blows, Paul and Silas were thrown into prison, and the jailer was charged to guard them securely. That individual, having received the order, threw them into the inner dungeon, a musty hole, where their feet were locked wide apart in gruesome stocks. Were their wrists also manacled in irons, attached to chains which were bolted into the walls, as was the case with other prisoners? Truly horrible was their condition. Yet this, too, was providential, for it meant that deliverance from such profound agony, from such seemingly unbreakable bonds, would stand out all the more clearly as an act of God and not of man!

As happens so often, “man’s extremity was God’s opportunity.” At midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God. Were any of the following among these hymns: Psalm 2, 16, 20, 23, 27, 42, 43, 46, 68, 69, 71, 130? Such singing surely required a very special measure of God’s grace. And then suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At one stroke all the prison-doors were opened, the bolts in the tottering walls loosened, and the locks in the stocks sprung. Naturally the jailer, asleep in the house which adjoined the prison, woke up, and came rushing out to the prison-court. It being night he could not see much. Yet, through the semi-darkness he discerned that the prison-doors were open! Filled with terror, he quickly concluded that this could mean one thing only, namely, that the prisoners had escaped. This, he was sure, meant shameful death for him (cf. Acts 12:19). Rather than suffer such a disgrace, he would take his own life. Was not this in effect what Cassius and Brutus had done in this very vicinity? Had not Antony and Cleopatra also committed suicide? Was not Seneca constantly defending suicide as a right and privilege? Though the jailer may not have been acquainted with the opinions of the philosophers, it is at least certain that, being a pagan, he cannot have evaluated life as highly as did the Jew (King Saul, Ahithophel, Zimri, and Judas Iscariot were exceptions) and especially the Christian. So, in despair he quickly drew his sword and would have killed himself had not Paul, having by this time perhaps stationed himself before the main entrance where he saw what was about to happen, called out loudly, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” The astonished jailer then called for lights. Trembling with fear the man fell down before Paul and Silas, brought them outside to the prison-court, and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” What did he mean? Merely this, “How can I escape from my present predicament, and hold on to my job?” In the light of the entire situation and also of the answer which he received it is hard to believe that this was all he meant. The following items must not be overlooked:

a. The demon-possessed girl had been telling the people, “These men are servants of the Most High God who proclaim to you a way (or “the way”) of salvation.” It is very well possible that the jailer had heard about this.

b. It is also not improbable that the man had been for some time worried about the condition of his soul.

c. He must have noticed that the behavior of Paul and Silas under the terrible lashings which they received and subsequently in the dungeon was entirely different from anything he had ever seen or heard.

d. It is wholly probable that he knew that at Paul’s word the slave-girl had experienced a remarkable change. News, especially of this character, travels fast. And did he perhaps see a connection between these men and the occurrence of the earthquake? Had he become convinced, therefore, that the slave-girl might not have been entirely wrong, that there was indeed a close relation between these two men and divinity, and that they would be in a position to answer the deepest question of his soul?

All these considerations lead me to conclude that the explanation which the man in the pew generally ascribes to the jailer’s question is probably the right one. And on this basis the answer which he received was very fitting: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Of course, this advice needed amplification. So Paul and Silas, having entered the jailer’s house, spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer and to all that were there. Moreover, those who heard the message accepted it. And their faith revealed its genuine character in loving deeds. Having taken the missionaries back to the courtyard, where there must have been a cistern or tank with water, or perhaps a spring, the jailer now tenderly washed their wounds. Then immediately he himself was baptized and all those of his household. In the house once more, the jailer set the table for the missionaries. General rejoicing followed.

At break of day the praetors sent the lictors, saying to the jailer, “Release those men.” What may have been the motivation of the praetors’ change of mind? Can it be that Codex Bezae is correct when it suggests that the authorities had seen a connection between the earthquake and the missionaries, and that in their fear they had arrived at the conclusion: Paul and Silas are actually what they claim to be? Or had thorough investigation convinced the praetors that the strangers had been falsely accused? Whatever may have been the reason for the sudden turnabout, one fact is definitely stated, namely, that, informed by the jailer that he had been officially instructed to release the prisoners, the latter, who meanwhile had re-entered their dungeon, refused to heed the command: “Now therefore come out and go in peace.” Instead of leaving the prison, Paul said, “They have beaten us publicly, without trial, men that are Romans, and have thrown us into prison, and do they now throw us out secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and lead us out!”

Gross injustice had been done, and Roman law had been violated on more than one count: Roman citizens had been scourged, publicly disgraced, and imprisoned; all this without a trial! Moreover, justice had been trampled by its would-be defenders! The honor of the missionaries, the rights of every Christian in Philippi, the cause of the gospel, and even the good reputation of Roman jurisprudence demanded that the men who had been “shamefully treated” (cf. II Thess. 2:2) be officially vindicated. Hence, Paul acted with sound judgment when he insisted on an honorable discharge for himself and his companion. In fact, that was the least he could have demanded!

When the lictors reported to their superiors the true state of affairs regarding these prisoners, particularly that they were Romans, the praetors were frightened. They realized that not only their position but their very life was in danger because of the crimes which they had committed. Hence, they readily complied with Paul’s request. It must have been quite a scene: purple-robed praetors descending into the dungeon and then “eating crow,” offering humble apologies as they politely led Paul and Silas to liberty! And when they had brought them out, they begged them to leave the city. The colonists of Philippi must not get to know that the two strangers who had come into town and had been so deeply humiliated were Roman citizens! Surely, these colonists would not have spared the praetors. So, the sooner the strangers leave the city the better!

The latter, in turn, were willing enough to comply with the urgent request. The work in Philippi had met with a considerable measure of success. Lydia and the jailer were by no means the only converts. This appears from the fact that when the missionaries have departed from the prison and have re-entered Lydia’s hospitable mansion, they find a number of “brothers” there. To this assembled congregation, the first church in Europe, they speak words of encouragement. Then Paul and Silas wend their way to Thessalonica. Timothy accompanies them or follows a little later. For the present Luke remains in Philippi.

Glancing back at this account of the establishment of the church at Philippi we see that among those who undoubtedly continued for some time to exert a wholesome influence upon it there were especially two that were alike in their unselfish devotion to the cause of Christ and in their big-heartedness, namely, Lydia and Luke. In Lydia’s home believers were always more than welcome. And as to Luke, in his Gospel he reveals not only the love of God in Christ but also his own personality. Hence, as we read it we are not surprised to see how mercy is bestowed upon the penitent prodigal, how the sick are healed, the weary strengthened, women (especially widows) and children honored. Moreover, if to these two (Lydia and Luke) a third must be added, the converted jailer certainly deserves consideration (in view of Acts 16:33, 34).

Now the church of Philippi seems to have drawn its character from that of its leading members. Accordingly we are not surprised to learn that when on this second missionary journey Paul was proclaiming the gospel in the next place after Philippi, namely, Thessalonica, he was cheered once and again by a gift from the church of Lydia and Luke (Phil. 4:16). The same thing happened a little later, making possible the work in Athens and Corinth (Phil. 4:15; and see also II Cor. 11:9). Paul’s second visit to Philippi and vicinity occurred during his third missionary journey, outward bound. Writing to the Corinthians he praises the eager generosity of the churches of Macedonia (among them, of course, Philippi), in contributing toward the relief of the Jerusalem saints (II Cor. 8:1–5). The third visit to Philippi occurred on this same third missionary journey, but now homeward bound. Paul had planned to set sail directly from Corinth to Syria, when a plot was discovered which caused him to change his plans. So he reversed his course and proceeded toward Jerusalem by way of Macedonia. At this time, however, his contact with the church of Philippi seems to have been very brief. One event of some significance is clearly implied, however: at Philippi Luke rejoined him (Acts 20:5, note “us”). (Some add that Paul attended a Passover at Philippi, but that is not necessarily implied in Acts 20:6.)

For the purpose of understanding the epistle to the Philippians the next contact, though it was not a visit of Paul to the church, is the most important of all. This contact, so characteristic of the church at Philippi, occurred during the apostle’s first imprisonment in Rome. See the next section: Paul’s Purpose in Writing Philippians.

During this imprisonment Paul wrote that he hoped to send Timothy to visit the church, and he added, “But I trust in the Lord that I myself shall also come soon” (Phil. 2:19, 24). It is certainly within the realm of probability that the apostle actually carried out this plan, and that upon his release he journeyed from Rome by way of Crete and Asia Minor to Philippi. The latter may have been his headquarters when he wrote the epistles known to us as I Timothy and Titus (see N.T.C. on The Pastoral Epistles, pp. 39–42). As far as we know this was Paul’s last visit to the church at Philippi.

Fully a half century afterward Polycarp wrote his Letter to the Philippians.¹⁴ The occasion was as follows: Ignatius, on his way to Rome and martyrdom, had passed through Philippi. The Philippians had written to Polycarp concerning Ignatius and had expressed a desire that the former make a collection of the latter’s letters. Perhaps they had also asked for advice concerning a matter of discipline. Polycarp now answers them, praising them for having followed the pattern of true love and having shown sympathy to those who were bound in chains. He tells them that he rejoices about the fact that the firm root of their faith, famous in times past, is still flourishing and bearing fruit for Christ. He remarks about the incomparable wisdom of the glorious and blessed Paul who had been among them, and he reminds them of the fact that Paul had boasted about them to all the churches. He warns them, however, against avarice. In this connection he states that he feels deeply grieved for Valens and his wife (called by Light-foot “the Ananias and Sapphira of the Philippian community”), and offers advice with respect to the treatment which such offenders should receive. This writing of Polycarp is at the same time a covering letter, for in the same package Polycarp includes the letters of Ignatius for which the Philippians had asked.

All in all it appears, therefore, that two generations after Paul’s death the church at Philippi was still standing firm. The information which has come down to us concerning the state of the church in the immediately succeeding centuries is too scanty to furnish a basis for generalization. A not too encouraging glimpse into the situation that obtained there about the fifth century is afforded by the inscription in marble which was attached to the city gate on the Egnatian Way (toward Neapolis). This inscription contains the wholly spurious correspondence which king Abgar V is alleged to have had with Jesus! By the Philippians of that later day the inscription was regarded as a charm against enemies and catastrophies! But the charm was wholly ineffective. During the Middle Ages the city was repeatedly attacked by hostile forces and ravaged by earthquakes and fires. The last inhabitants finally left the swampy place.

There are, however, a few records of bishops of Philippi whose names are appended to the decisions of various councils (held in the years 344, 431, 451). We also know that in the year 1212 Philippi must still have been a town of some importance, for in that year Pope Innocent III made it a see. Its last archbishop died in the year 1721. However, it would seem that the see outlived the city itself.

An arched enclosure built by the Romans is held by many to have been the prison where Paul and Silas sang their songs and the jailer was converted. This belief receives some support from the fact that in a day when presumably the memory of these things had not yet faded away the enclosure was covered with a chapel. In the vicinity of Philippi evidences — such as grotto-shrines and chiseled reliefs — of several different pagan religions have been found. One shrine was devoted to the Egyptian gods Isis and Serapis.

From 1914–1938 a French archaeological expedition excavated this region. It found what remained of paved streets and squares, the forum, temples, public buildings, and pillared arcades. However, many of the discoveries concern the post-apostolic history of the city. Except for a few inscriptions — for example, a monument which a presbyter set up in honor of his parents and his wife — and the remains of Byzantine churches, especially the huge piers of the Derekler basilica, there remains today little evidence of the Christianity which once flourished here to such an extent that Paul called this church “my joy and crown.” But the apostle’s letter to the Philippians makes up for the loss.¹⁵

IV. PAUL’S PURPOSE IN WRITING PHILIPPIANS

One day, while Paul was in prison, he received a welcome visitor. His name was Epaphroditus. He was a leader in the church at Philippi. He had been sent to Paul as a delegate from that church. He carried with him a generous gift from the Philippians. If he took the land-route, his journey was comparable to that from New York to Chicago. In both cases it would be a journey of a little more than eight hundred miles of actual travel, from east to west, and from 41 N. lat. (for Philippi and for New York) to 42 N. lat. (for Rome and for Chicago). However, due to the radical difference in modes of travel, ancient versus modern, it took Philippi’s messenger much longer than it would take us to travel the comparable distance. He was probably on the way about a month.¹⁶ Moreover, the journey by land from Philippi to Rome would have taken even longer had it not been for those good Roman roads, the products of excellent highway engineering. They were usually about fourteen feet wide, of sturdy construction (large blocks of carefully fitted hard stone laid on concrete which capped a well-prepared base), well maintained, relatively safe, pointing straight ahead in spite of obstacles, and marked by milestones.¹⁷ From Philippi to Dyrrachium on the Adriatic one would take the Egnatian Way; then, after crossing the Adriatic to Brundisium (this crossing would take about a day), one would continue on the Appian Way to Rome. It is possible, however, that Epaphroditus made his journey by the sea-route, either through the Gulf of Corinth or around the promontory of Malea. Under favorable circumstances one could save some time by doing this.

The background of the epistle may now be summarized as follows:

(1) Between the delegate’s arrival in Rome and the writing of Philippians there had been a time-interval of at least two months, probably more. (See the next section: The Time and the Place of Writing.) The gift which Epaphroditus had brought was deeply appreciated by Paul. It was, indeed, a meaningful Remembrance, and in a sense the messenger who had brought it was also himself a gift from the church which he represented, for the intention probably was that he should be the apostle’s constant attendant and assistant. Grateful written acknowledgment was surely in order.

(2) Epaphroditus must also have brought a Report about conditions that prevailed in the Christian community which he had left. Moreover, it is entirely possible that, in the weeks which followed, others had added to this report. It must be borne in mind that, due to Philippi’s strategic location on the Egnatian Way and also because of blood-relationships and political ties between the inhabitants of the two cities, travel between Philippi and Rome was heavy and constant. It is at any rate clearly evident that, although by now several weeks had elapsed since Epaphroditus had arrived in Rome, the apostle’s knowledge about conditions in the church at Philippi continued to be rather up-to-date (Phil. 1:5; 1:27–29). He had heard that although the Philippians were certainly adorning their confession with a life to God’s honor, were willing even to suffer in behalf of Christ, were ever ready to do more than their share in contributing toward the need of others, were, in fact, setting a wonderful example for others to follow, nevertheless their church was not entirely free from personal friction (Syntyche and Euodia, for example, were not of the same mind, Phil. 4:2) and from every danger of giving heed to “those dogs,” “those evil workers,” namely, “the concision” (Judaistic teachers). See Phil. 3:1–3. There were those, moreover, “whose god is the belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their mind on earthly things” (Phil. 3:19).

(3) Epaphroditus (and others too, perhaps) had also told Paul, we may well assume, that the church at Philippi was deeply concerned about the apostle, and that it wanted to know more about his present condition. Did Paul think that he would soon be set at liberty? What was his own spiritual reaction to the bonds which he had to endure? If he regained his liberty, would he favor them with an early visit? Questions such as these amounted to a Request for detailed information about Paul. See Phil. 1:12–26; 4:18, 19.

(4) Finally, Epaphroditus, having been exposed to considerable danger, having suffered and recovered from grave illness, and having become deeply concerned about the effect of all this upon the church which had delegated him, was anxious to wend his way homeward to Philippi. This expressed desire met with the apostle’s full approval, so that the latter not only allowed him to go back but actually sent him back (Phil. 2:25). But surely those by whom he had been delegated (the church at Philippi, especially its officers) had never intended that he would return to them so soon. What kind of Reception would be accorded him upon his return? Would it be critical or friendly?

In view of this background — and linked with it point by point — the purpose of Paul’s letter can now be stated. The immediate occasion for dispatching a letter at this time was undoubtedly the return of Epaphroditus to Philippi. In all probability he carried with him the apostle’s letter and delivered it to the church.¹⁸ Paul’s purpose, then, was as follows:

(1) To give written expression to his Gratitude.

In all probability, when the apostle received the gift he had acknowledged it as soon as possible, either by mouth of those who presumably had accompanied Epaphroditus on his journey to Rome and had immediately returned or through others who a few days or weeks later had traveled from Rome to Philippi. But, some time having now elapsed, the apostle also wishes to express his appreciation in writing. (It is possible that Paul’s letter was delayed by the illness of Epaphroditus.) That the Epistle to the Philippians is indeed the first written acknowledgment seems to be clearly implied in Phil. 4:10, 18. However, not only does Paul thank the Philippians for their gift; he also thanks God for the Philippians! See Phil. 4:10–20; then 1:3–11.

(2) To provide the spiritual Guidance which the congregation needed.

Let the Philippians continue to exercise their citizenship in a manner that is worthy of the gospel of Christ (Phil. 1:27–30). Let them remain united in mind and purpose (Phil. 2:2). Let the attitude of Christ who humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross, be descriptive also of them (Phil. 2:1–11). In the midst of a crooked and perverse generation let them be light-bearers, holding forth the word of life (Phil. 2:14–16). Let them beware of the Judaizers (Phil. 3:1–3). Let them not think that spiritually they have already “arrived.” On the contrary, imitating Paul, let them “press on toward the goal” (Phil. 3:4–16). Their homeland being in heaven, let them beware of sensualists, the enemies of the cross, whose god is the belly (Phil. 3:17–21) . Let them, in brief, strive after courage (Phil. 1:27, 28), oneness (Phil. 2:2; 4:2, 3), lowliness (2:3), helpfulness (2:4), obedience (2:12), perfection (3:12–16), holiness (3:17, 20), steadfastness (4:1), joy and trust in the Lord (4:1–7). In reaching out toward this ideal let them fix their attention on “whatever things are true, honorable, just, pure,” etc. Then the God of peace will be with them (Phil. 4:8, 9).

(3) To fill the minds and hearts of the Philippians with the spirit of Gladness.

Do the Philippians request information about Paul? “Do not be unduly disturbed about me,” he says, as it were: “The things that have happened to me have fallen out to the advantage of the gospel (Phil. 1:12–17).… In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I shall continue to rejoice, for I know that … this will turn out to my salvation … Now as always Christ will be magnified in my person, whether by life or by death … For the rest, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord … Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say Rejoice … Now I rejoice in the Lord greatly.” From beginning to end the letter is bathed in this sunshine of joy. We can understand Bengel when he said: Summa epistolae: Gaudeo, gaudete (The sum of the epistle is: I rejoice; you must rejoice), even though we would not put it quite that strongly. Not less than sixteen times do the words joy, rejoice occur in this letter: Phil. 1:4; 1:18 (twice); 1:25; 2:2; 2:17 (twice); 2:18 (twice); 2:28; 2:29; 3:1; 4:1; 4:4 (twice); and 4:10. Yet, it is hardly correct to say that joy is the summary or theme of the letter.

Now the joy of which Paul makes repeated mention is the joy unspeakable and full of glory. It is the great joy which, far from being dependent upon outward circumstances, wells up from the heart of this prisoner who faces possible death and is chained night and day to a soldier, with few friends to comfort him and several enemies who are ever ready to raise up affliction to him in his bonds (Phil. 2:20, 21; 1:15–17). The apostle writes this letter in order that the readers, by fully sharing in this joy, may make full his own joy. Paul’s case is in process before the imperial court. There had been a trial (Phil. 1:7), and the final verdict cannot be long delayed. Is he going to be set free? Deep down in his heart he believes that this is exactly what is going to happen. Yet, he does not exclude the opposite possibility. But, come what may, he is ready. See Phil. 1:22–26. As soon as the verdict has been made known, he will send Timothy to Philippi with the news. He adds, “But I trust in the Lord that I myself shall also soon come” (Phil. 2:19–24).

(4) To prevail upon the Philippians’ Spirit-wrought Goodness of heart to extend to Epaphroditus a most cordial “Welcome Home.”

A wonderful person, this Epaphroditus! The apostle calls him “my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier,” as well as “your messenger and minister to my need.” In the course of his labors for Christ the King he had suffered much. He had, in fact, risked his life, and had experienced days of illness so grievous that he had lain at death’s very door. But God had shown mercy to this hero and had healed him. Meanwhile Epaphroditus had been informed that the members of the home-church, having heard about his illness, were worried about him. Epaphroditus naturally wants to remove that anxiety and so does Paul. Hence, the apostle decides to send him back to Philippi, and in his letter he states the purpose, namely, “Accordingly, I am sending him back the more eagerly in order that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less sorrowful. So extend to him a most joyful welcome in the Lord, and hold such men in honor” (Phil. 2:28–29). Thus the apostle provides a hearty reception for Epaphroditus, upon his probably unexpectedly early return.

V. THE PLACE AND THE TIME OF WRITING

Philippians belongs to a group of four letters — Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians — that are commonly designated the Prison Epistles. Here for the first time Paul writes as a prisoner (Col. 4:3, 18; Philem. 10, 13, 22, 23; Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6:20; Phil. 1:7, 13; 2:17).¹⁹ In reading these letters one notices how deeply the writer is affected by his imprisonment. Nevertheless, he does not lose heart. Is he not the prisoner of Christ Jesus? The greatness of Christ Jesus is described in Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians. Tychicus seems to be the bearer of the letter to the Colossians and the one to Philemon. The fugitive slave Onesimus accompanies him and must be returned to his master in Colossae; not as a slave, however, but as a brother. See Col. 4:7–9; Philem. 10–12, 16. It is not at all surprising that Tychicus also has a letter for the church at Ephesus (Eph. 6:21, 22), located near Colossae. It is clear, therefore, that Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians belong together. They are in all likelihood delivered to their respective addresses by the same person, Tychicus. And though Philippians seems to have been brought to its destination by someone else, namely, Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25–29; 4:18), and therefore, in a way stands outside the group of three, nevertheless, all four have this in common, as already noted, that they are Prison Epistles, which by most interpreters are regarded as having been written during the same imprisonment.

Now the question arises: Where was this prison? According to the book of Acts Paul was in prison in Philippi (Acts 16:23–40), in Jerusalem (Acts 21:33–23:30), in Caesarea (Acts 23:35–26:32), and in Rome (Acts 28:16–31). However, Philippi and Jerusalem can be ruled out at once, for the apostle did not have the time to write from these prisons. (Besides, as far as Philippians is concerned, the prison in Philippi would be ruled out anyway: one does not write to the Philippians from Philippi!) There remain Caesarea and Rome, to which (because of what Paul writes in I Cor. 15:32; II Cor. 1:8–11; 6:5; and II Cor. 11:23) some would add Ephesus.

As a result we now have four theories with respect to the place from which these letters may have been written: (a) the traditional position, according to which they were written from Rome; (b) the view that they were composed in Caesarea; (c) the theory which supports Ephesus as the place of their origin; and (d) the “mixed” hypothesis, according to which a distinction is made of one kind or another; for example, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians were written from Caesarea, but Philippians was written from Rome (or, according to others, from Ephesus); or the three were written from Ephesus, Philippians from Rome.²⁰

In harmony with most interpreters, ancient and modern, I accept the Rome-view for all four Prison Epistles. It is true that the distance between Rome and Philippi was greater than, for example, that between Ephesus and Philippi. But since there was an excellent and much-traveled “highway” between Rome and Philippi, this matter of greater distance has very little value as an argument against the view that the apostle was at Rome when he wrote the four Prison Epistles. In fact, it is so weak that it can be disregarded.

The following points may be adduced in refutation of the Caesarean and Ephesian hypotheses and in favor of the Rome-view. Instead of enumerating them in haphazard fashion, I have tried to arrange them in such a manner that the grouping is both logical and memorizable. It will be seen that the first three points concern the general situation pertaining to Paul’s imprisonment: he was under guard; which, as we know from the book of Acts, was true in Rome; he was experiencing a lengthy imprisonment; and he was in a city where there was a multitude of preachers. The fourth point has to do with the contents of the Prison Epistles. Points five and six pertain to the verdict which Paul was awaiting: he more or less expected it to be favorable; he knew that it would be decisive. Points seven, eight, and nine fix the attention on: a faithful church, few faithful friends, and the ever-faithful Christ.

So far, Philippians has been the starting-point for much of the argumentation, though wherever possible the other three Prison Epistles have also furnished material for arriving at a conclusion. Points ten and eleven, however, are derived not from Philippians but from Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians. Point twelve is a tradition-summary touching all four letters. We now consider these twelve points.

1. “Throughout the whole praetorian guard,” and “Caesar’s household”

It has been argued that the expression “throughout the whole praetorian guard” (Phil. 1:13) should be rendered “in the whole praetorium,” and that since a praetorium is simply a government house or provincial governor’s residence (see N.T.C. on John 18:28) it may have been located at Caesarea (cf. Acts 23:35), or even at Ephesus; but not at Rome.

However, in the present instance the phrase is immediately followed by “and to all the rest,” and refers, therefore, to people, not to a building. According to the most natural interpretation it indicates the imperial guard, nine thousand in number, which was instituted by Augustus.²¹ It is exactly at Rome that the apostle would be constantly guarded by a soldier from this guard and because it rotated, the reason why this remarkable man was imprisoned would gradually become known “throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest.”

In the same category is the expression, “All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22). Here again the most natural interpretation would refer the expression to that large number of slaves and freemen who served in the emperor’s palace at Rome. They were household servants, cooks, gardeners, porters, doorkeepers, etc. See also on Phil. 4:22.

2. Established Facts versus Questionable Inferences. A Lengthy Imprisonment as a New Way of Life

In order to prove the Ephesian theory an appeal is made to four passages in Paul’s Corinthian correspondence: I Cor. 15:32 (“If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus”), II Con 1:8–11 (“… the affliction which befell us in Asia …”), II Cor. 6:5 (“in imprisonments”), and II Cor. 11:23 (“in far more imprisonments”). The argument is as follows: since these passages antedate both the Caesarean and Roman imprisonments, they show that Paul must have been in prison during his stay at Ephesus, while he was on his third missionary journey.

However, when examined carefully, in the light of their contexts, these passages do not compel one to accept that conclusion. As to I Cor. 15:32, this can hardly be taken literally. It is not easy to believe that Paul, the Roman citizen, would have been literally cast before beasts at Ephesus. As to II Cor. 1:8–11, the “affliction in Asia” was not necessarily an imprisonment. As the context clearly indicates, it was of a kind that is still continuing, now that the apostle has reached Macedonia. The other two passages may, but do not necessarily, refer to an imprisonment in Ephesus. But even if they refer to an Ephesian imprisonment, it is very doubtful whether the latter would be of the nature implied in the Prison Epistles. These letters imply a lengthy period of imprisonment, imprisonment as a new way of life and not as a brief experience. Paul’s ministry of less than three years at Ephesus, a ministry filled with kingdom-activity (see Acts 19:8, 10), leaves no room for such a protracted incarceration. Moreover, in his detailed account of Paul’s activity in Ephesus Luke has not a word to say about it.

On the other hand, from the book of Acts (Chapter 28; cf. 23:11) we know that Paul was a prisoner in Rome. It is possible that when he wrote Philippians he had been transferred from his “rented house” (Acts 28:30) to the soldiers’ barracks or that in some other way he had been placed under stricter custody (custodia militaris instead of custodia libera). But it is hard to prove this. One thing, however, is clear: in general, the conditions of Paul’s imprisonment as described in Acts were the same as those which are implied in the Prison Epistles: for example, soldiers guarded Paul (cf. Acts 28:16 with Phil. 1:13, 14); he enjoyed freedom to receive visitors (cf. Acts 28:30 with Phil. 4:18); and he had the opportunity to bear testimony concerning his faith (cf. Acts 28:31 with Phil. 1:12–18; Col. 4:2–4; Eph. 6:18–20). As to this last item, it would seem that at Caesarea the apostle’s opportunities to reach others with the gospel were far more limited (see Acts 23:35 and 24:27).

Hence, the view that Paul wrote these four epistles while he was a prisoner in Rome rests on the established facts with reference to his Roman imprisonment, while other theories are based on questionable inferences.

3. The Multitude of Preachers

From Phil. 1:14–18 it appears that in the city of his imprisonment there were many heralds of the gospel. Some were motivated by envy and rivalry, others by love. This multitude of preachers suits the large city of Rome far better than the far smaller Caesarea. (Cf. also Col. 4:2–4; Eph. 6:18–20.)

4. Arguments Based on Contents

It is urged that in material contents Philippians approaches the earlier epistles (especially Romans and Galatians; but see also I and II Corinthians; e.g., II Cor. 11), and that for this reason it cannot belong to the period a.d. 61–63 when Paul was imprisoned in Rome, but must be earlier, dating back to Ephesus and in general to the third missionary journey (a.d. 53/54–57/58). Reference is made, for example, to the scathing denunciation of what the apostle contemptuously calls the concision and to the immediately following emphatic affirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Phil. 3:2–16). This is then compared with similar emotion-filled utterances on the same subject in Romans (2:25–29; 9:30–33; 10:3); and Galatians (3:1–14; 4:12–20; 5:1–12; 6:12–16).

But even if it be granted that the subject-matter here in Phil. 3:2–16 is the same as that in Galatians (which is true except that Paul rebukes the Galatians, but warns the Philippians), similarity in subject-matter by no means proves identity in the place from which one is writing. The apostle wrote as the concrete situation in any given case demanded! And the warmth with which he was able to write on the theme of salvation not by law-works but solely by grace through faith never left him. We find touches of it even in the Pastoral Epistles (see I Tim. 1:12–17 and Titus 3:4–7). Moreover, if a change in subject-matter indicates a change in the author’s whereabouts, then, considered by and large, the Prison Epistles (so largely Christological) and the Earlier Epistles (largely Soteriological) must come from different places!

Some, favoring the Caesarean theory, link the denunciation of the concision (Phil. 3:2–16) with the hostility which the Jews showed to Paul during the latter’s Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 24:1; 25:7). But Phil. 3 is clearly not directed against Christ-hating Jews but against Judaizers, so-called “converted” (nominally Christian) Jews who were still clinging to the Mosaic ritual. See on Phil. 3:2–16.

It is exactly the contents of the Prison Epistles that point away from Ephesus and Caesarea. For, if written from Ephesus, during the third missionary journey, when Paul had on his mind the collection for the needy saints at Jerusalem, they would in all probability have contained references to this subject. Moreover, had Paul been in Ephesus, Epaphroditus, his friend and prison-attendant, could have made a quick visit to Philippi. All this discussion about “sending (back)” Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25–30) would not have been necessary.

And if these epistles had been written from Caesarea, they would most likely have contained a kind word about Philip the evangelist who lived there and who a moment before had so generously entertained the apostle (Acts 21:8). In none of the Prison Epistles is anything said about this man or about his four remarkable daughters. The entire situation is clearly different. Paul is now in Rome, not in Ephesus or Caesarea.

5. Expectation of a Favorable Verdict

There are passages in these Prison Epistles which show that Paul hopes and, to a certain extent, expects to be acquitted (Phil. 1:25; 2:24). Upon his release he plans to go to Colossae and asks that a guest-room be kept ready for him there (Philem. 22). Now his plan had been to visit Spain (Rom. 15:28). The question is asked, accordingly, “If it were true that Paul was writing from Rome, with plans to proceed farther West, to Spain, would he have asked that a guest-room be kept ready for him at a place located not at all on the way from Rome to Spain but in the very opposite direction?”

The answer is that the plan to visit Spain had been announced when the apostle was still a free man, writing Romans from Corinth on his third missionary journey. At that time he intended to go to Rome and then to Spain. From there he probably planned to return to the churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, etc. But God willed differently. Paul did indeed go to Rome after his third missionary journey, but as a prisoner! In all, his Caesarean and Roman imprisonments probably lasted about five years (cf. Acts 24:27; 25:1; Chap. 27; 28:30). It is altogether natural that when now at last he expects to be released, he announces a revision in his plan: he will first see the familiar faces in the East — moreover, in Asia Minor a dangerous heresy is threatening! —, and then visit strangers in the far West. In all probability the apostle carried out this revised plan.

Besides, the very expectation of a favorable verdict fits Rome far better than, for example, Caesarea. For Paul to be released while at Caesarea would have meant either bribing Felix (Acts 24:26) or consenting to the wish of Festus, namely, to be tried by the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts 25:9). Paul will have nothing to do with either suggestion. When the second one is made, he immediately appeals to Caesar in Rome (Acts 25:10). — On the other hand the closing chapters of Acts point toward release from Roman imprisonment. See N.T.C. on Pastoral Epistles, pp. 25–27; 39–40.

6. The Decisive Character of the Verdict

Though Paul rather expected to be released, he did not exclude from his mind the thought that he might, after all, be sentenced to death. One thing he knew for sure: the verdict, whatever it was, would be decisive: it would mean either life or death, with no possibility of further appeal (Phil. 1:20–23; 2:17, 23). Hence, he must have been at Rome when he wrote these letters, for at Ephesus or at Caesarea he, as a Roman citizen, would have been able to appeal to Caesar. In neither of these two places would the verdict have been decisive.

7. A Faithful Church Established Long Ago

In Phil. 4:15 Paul gratefully recalls what the Philippians had done for him “in the early days [literally, “in the beginning”] of the gospel.” And they had remained faithful ever since. This sounds as if those early days were “long ago.” But when the apostle was in Ephesus on his third missionary journey, the church at Philippi, established on the second missionary journey, was only a few years old. The solution: Philippians was written from Rome, as were the other Prison Epistles.

8. Few Faithful Friends, Timothy a Notable Exception

Often Timothy is enlisted in the cause of the Ephesian theory. The argument runs as follows: We know that Timothy was with Paul in Ephesus, but there is no source that informs us that he was with the apostle in Rome, though he may have been. We also know definitely that Paul sent Timothy from Ephesus (I Cor. 4:17; 16:10) to Macedonia, in which Philippi was located (Acts 19:22). And this exactly harmonizes with Paul’s intention as expressed in Phil. 2:19–23. Hence, Paul must have been at Ephesus when he wrote Philippians. See, for example, J. H. Michael, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians (in The Moffatt New Testament Commentary), New York, 1929, pp. xvi, xvii.

This argument impresses me as being rather superficial. There is nothing to prove that I Cor. 4:17 (cf. 16:10) and Phil. 2:19–23 refer to the same errand. The context, in fact, argues strongly against this identification. For in Phil. 2:21 the apostle states, that, with the exception of Timothy, all those who are with him “look after their own affairs, not those of Jesus Christ.” But surely this expression even when interpreted in a qualified sense (see on 2:21) would not have suited Ephesus where the apostle had very many warm friends (cf. Acts 20:36–38), among them Priscilla and Aquila, his helpers in Christ Jesus who were ever ready to sacrifice their very lives for him (Rom. 16:3, 4; cf. Acts 18:18, 19, 26).

An expression such as this (Phil. 2:21) suits the last days of the first Roman imprisonment. It does not suit any other place or time, least of all Ephesus and the third missionary journey

Moreover, as to Timothy’s having been (or not having been) with Paul in Rome, we know from the book of Acts that both Timothy and Aristarchus accompanied Paul to Jerusalem where Paul was arrested (Acts 20:4–6); also, that Aristarchus was with the apostle aboard the ship, when the apostle departed from Caesarea to go to Rome (Acts 27:2). (For the idea of Lightfoot, namely, that Aristarchus disembarked at Myra, there is no evidence whatever.) It must certainly be considered very probable that ever-faithful Timothy, if he was not actually with Paul on that ship, followed his master soon afterward. Any other course would have been unlike Timothy. See N.T.C. on the Pastoral Epistles, pp. 33–36.

9. The Faithful Christ, Not the Roman Emperor, Is God

As has been pointed out in Section II (The City of Philippi), the Roman citizen Paul and the inhabitants of the Roman colony of Philippi had much in common. In Rome emperor-worship reached its climax. Of course, it was also found elsewhere, in fact throughout the Roman empire, but elsewhere particularly in the Roman colonies, such as Philippi. If Paul is writing from a prison in Rome it is even easier to understand his words to the effect that writer and readers are “engaged in the same conflict” (Phil. 1:30, note especially the context, Phil. 1:27) than if he is writing from any other place. If he is writing from Rome his reason for placing added stress on the fact that the faithful Christ, and he alone, is God, becomes doubly clear (Col. 1:15; 2:9; Phil. 2:6).

10. The Flight of Onesimus

The purpose of one of the Prison Epistles was to secure a kind reception for the fugitive slave Onesimus upon his return to his master, Philemon, who lived in Colossae. See the epistle addressed to the latter (cf. Col. 4:9). The slave had found his way to the city of Paul’s imprisonment, had been brought into contact with the apostle, through whose instrumentality he had been converted. It is argued, accordingly, that it is easier to imagine that from Colossae Onesimus had fled to Ephesus, only about a hundred miles away, or even to Caesarea, about five hundred miles, than all the way to Rome, about a thousand miles of actual travel.

Now this reasoning may be correct when it pertains to a certain class of fugitives in any age. In the case of others, however, it is faulty. Understandably they love distance, and they love to boast about it (“I took my flight and ran away, All the way to Canaday!”). They also long to hide behind the curtain of anonymity which the large city with its teeming multitudes provides. Rome has been called “a haven for runaways”!

11. The Return of Onesimus

In this same connection some say that had the three epistles — Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians — been written from Rome, Onesimus, who was returning to his master in the company of Tychicus, would have reached Ephesus before reaching Colossae, and, therefore, would have been commended to the Ephesian as well as to the Colossian church. They argue that the omission of his name from Ephesians (contrast Col. 4:9) indicates that Tychicus, traveling from Paul’s prison in Caesarea, had already left Onesimus at Philemon’s home in Colossae. Alone he traveled on to Ephesus.

But this argument, too, is very unrealistic. To have commended the fugitive slave to the church at Ephesus, so that this church would have been urged to accept him with open arms even before his own master at Colossae had had the opportunity to act in the case would have been a breach of etiquette, to say the least.

12. The Voice of Tradition

According to the tradition of the early church it was from Rome that Paul wrote the four Prison Epistles. Not until about the year 1800 did the Caesarea theory arise, and not until 1900 the Ephesus theory. In the absence of any cogent reasons to depart from the traditional position it is certainly wise to cling to it.

As has been indicated, in all probability Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians were despatched at the same time and were carried to their respective destinations by the same messenger, namely, Tychicus. The only remaining question, then, is this: Did these three letters precede or did they follow Philippians? Some defend the latter position²² but on grounds that have failed to impress most commentators. Lightfoot, arguing for the priority of Philippians, says that in this letter we have “the spent wave” of the Judaistic controversy which was brought so prominently to the fore in earlier epistles, especially in Romans (cf. Phil. 3:3 with Rom. 2:28; Phil. 3:9 with Rom. 9:30–33; 10:3), while in Colossians and Ephesians we are beginning to deal with incipent Gnosticism which subject is continued in the Pastorals. But about four years must have elapsed between Romans and Philippians, while, on the other hand, the time-interval between Philippians and the other Prison Epistles cannot have been much more than a year (perhaps less; cf. Philem. 22 with Phil. 2:23, 24). It is hard to believe that in this very brief interval there can have been any great change either in the character of the heresy by which the church, as a whole, was threatened, or in the system of thought which (as some assume) was gradually being developed in the apostle’s mind. Whatever difference in emphasis there be between Philippians, on the one hand, and Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, on the other, is mainly due to difference in situations and needs of the respective readers.

Although the question which letter was first or last cannot be answered with certainty, yet, if any choice must be made, placing Philippians last, as is done by most interpreters, seems to have by far the better of the argument. Among the many reasons that have been advanced for this position the following are, perhaps, the most convincing:

(1) Luke and Aristarchus, who accompanied Paul on his perilous journey to Rome (Acts 27:2), and were still with him when he wrote Colossians (4:10, 14) and Philemon (23), are no longer with him when he writes Philippians.

(2) Between Paul’s arrival in Rome and the despatch of Philippians much time has elapsed. See Phil. 2:25–30; 4:10, 18. The distance between Philippi and Rome had probably been covered no less than four times:

a. Someone travels from Rome to Philippi with the news of Paul’s arrival and imprisonment in Rome.

b. The Philippians collect a gift for Paul and send it to him by the hand of Epaphroditus.

c. Epaphroditus becomes gravely ill, and someone conveys this information to the Philippians.

d. Someone from Philippi reaches Rome and tells Epaphroditus (who in the meantime has fully recovered) about the deep concern of the Philippians for his health and safety.²³

(3) The reaction of the praetorian guard and that of two categories of gospel-heralds to the presence and preaching of Paul (Phil. 1:12–18) indicates that when Philippians was written the apostle had been in Rome for some time.

(4) The apostle is expecting a verdict any moment (Phil. 2:23, 24; cf. 1:7). Yet, though there surely is a difference between Philemon 22 and Phil. 2:23, 24, inasmuch as in the former passage the apostle expresses the hope that release from imprisonment will take place, whereas in the latter he expresses the confidence that such a release is about to take place, the implied difference in the time of writing was probably rather brief. If we place all four Prison Epistles in the period a.d. 61–63, ²⁴ with Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians followed shortly afterward (and toward the close of the first Roman imprisonment) by Philippians, we are probably about as near to the truth as we can get.

VI. AUTHORSHIP AND UNITY

The question, “Who wrote Philippians?” is readily answered. It was the apostle Paul. Timothy, to be sure, was associated with him, so that we read, “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,” but from the fact that Paul is throughout writing in the first person singular it is clear that it is Paul with whom the main responsibility rests. Not Timothy but Paul was the author.

It was Ferdinand Christian Baur who, conducting a siege against the fortresses of traditional Christian doctrine, assailed the Pauline authorship of all the letters passing under the apostle’s name, except Galatians, I and II Corinthians, and Romans. See his Paulus, Stuttgart, 1845. His arguments against Philippians were in the main as follows:

(1) The mention of “overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1) points to a post-Pauline stage of church government.

Answer: A study of Acts 6:1–6; 11:30; 14:23; 30:27, 28; and I Thess. 5:12, 13 indicates that these offices existed long before Philippians was written. See on Phil. 1:1.

(2) The epistle shows no originality. It is full of imitations of Paul’s genuine epistles.

Answer: If Paul wrote Philippians as well as Romans, etc., similar expressions would be entirely natural.

(3) The epistle shows traces of Gnosticism, especially in 2:5–8, where the writer was thinking of the last of the aeons, namely, Sophia, who, attempting to comprehend the Absolute, falls from fulness into emptiness.

Answer: This weird interpretation contradicts the context. See on Phil. 2:5–8; also II Cor. 8:9.

(4) The epistle is a post-Paulinic attempt to reconcile the Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian parties, typified respectively by Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2).

Answers: The context (see especially Phil. 4:3) clearly indicates that these names belong to women in the church at Philippi, and that neither of them had ever been the leader of any party that opposed Paul. On the contrary both had been “laboring with Paul” in the gospel. Baur’s interpretation must be considered a very fanciful application of his Hegelian principle, a notion hardly worthy of consideration.

At first Baur’s arguments were accepted by several of his Tübingen school disciples. But soon some began to disagree. Among those who regarded most of Baur’s arguments as irrelevant or worse it was especially Karl Christian Johann Holstein who, nevertheless, revived the attack against the genuineness of the letter. He accepted in modified form one of the arguments of Baur that has not yet been mentioned, namely, that the doctrine of justification which Philippians sets forth is not that of Paul. He added other arguments. His reasoning, then, was as follows:

(1) Paul’s doctrine of forensic, imputed righteousness is here in Philippians replaced by that of infused righteousness (see Phil. 3:9–11).

Answer: The author of Philippians clearly speaks of imputed righteousness in Phil. 3:9: “not having a righteousness of my own, which (is) of the law, but that (which is) through faith in Christ, the righteousness (which is) from Cod (and rests) on faith” (cf. Rom. 3:21–24; even Titus 3:4–8 is no different). It is true, of course, that by means of an infinitive of purpose the passage in Philippians links this imputed righteousness with subjective righteousness: “that I may know him,” etc. (Phil. 3:10, 11).

(2) According to Paul the pre-incarnate Christ was a heavenly man (I Cor. 15:47–49), but according to Philippians (2:6: “existing in the form of God”) this pre-incarnate Christ belongs to an order of beings higher than heavenly humanity.

Answer: The Corinthian passage refers not to the preincarnate but to the risen and ascended Christ, as is evident from the context (see I Cor. 15:49).

(3) The same people who are denounced by Paul (Gal. 1:6, 7) are more than tolerated by the author of Philippians (1:15–18). While Paul says that they are accursed individuals who pervert the gospel of Christ, Philippians says that they are proclaiming the Christ, a fact in which he rejoices though they preach Christ from envy and rivalry.

Answer: These are not the same persons. Those to whom Phil. 1:15–18 refers are not preaching a different doctrine. They are proclaiming the true Christ, but their motives are not pure. As to the people who are condemned in Gal. 1:6, 7, these are probably referred to in Phil. 3:2, where the denunciation is similarly sharp.

(4) The real Paul is no boaster. He says, “When I would do good, evil is present” (Rom. 7:21). But the author of Philippians says that he was blameless when measured by the standard of the law (Phil. 3:6).

Answer: There is no contradiction. A person can be blameless, indeed, with respect to the law considered as an external commandment, but he may still be very guilty with respect to the law viewed in its deeply spiritual meaning.

It will have become evident that the arguments against the Pauline authorship of Philippians are very superficial. They have been called frivolous. Scholarship in general, throughout the centuries, has always considered this letter to be a genuine product of the mind and pen of Paul. Weizsäcker was right when he said that the reasons for attributing the epistle to Paul are “overwhelming.” And so was McGiffert when he declared: “It is simply inconceivable that anyone else would or could have produced in his name a letter in which the personal element so largely predominates and the character of the man and the apostle is revealed with so great vividness and fidelity” (The Apostolic Age, p. 393).

Not only does the letter claim to have been written by Paul, and not only do the conditions reflected in it harmonize, on the whole, with those described in Acts 28, as has already been indicated, but the character of Paul, as revealed in his other letters, is also clearly expressed in Philippians. Here, too, we find a person who is deeply interested in those whom he addresses (cf. Phil. 1:3–11, 25, 26; 2:25–30 with Rom. 1:8, 9; I Thess. 1:2 ff.; II Thess. 1:3, 11, 12); is anxious to see them (cf. Phil. 2:24 with Rom. 1:11; I Thess. 2:17, 18); and loves to encourage and praise them (cf. Phil. 4:15–17 with II Cor. 8:7; I Thess. 1:3, 6–10). Nevertheless, here, as well as in the other epistles, his praise never ends in man but always in God (cf. Phil. 1:6 with Rom. 8:28–30; Gal. 5:22–25; I Thess. 1:4, 5; II Thess. 2:13). Here, too, as elsewhere, he likes to review his past relations with the church (cf. Phil. 2:12; 4:15, 16 with I Cor. 2:1–5; 3:1, 2; I Thess. 2:1–12). He shows great tact in admonishing (cf. Phil. 4:2, 3 with II Cor. 8:7; I Thess. 4:9, 10; Philem. 8–22). Nevertheless, he is never afraid to assert his authority (cf. Phil. 2:12–18; 4:1–9 with I Cor. 16:1; I Thess. 5:27). He is a very humble man who is filled to overflowing with gratitude for the mercies which God showed to one so unworthy (cf. Phil. 3:4–14 with I Cor. 15:9; II Cor. 11:16–12:10; Eph. 3:8).

The testimony of the early church is in harmony with the conclusion which has been derived from the epistle itself.

Thus Eusebius, having made a thorough investigation of the oral and written judgment of the church, writes: “But clearly evident and plain are the fourteen (letters) of Paul; yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the (letter) to the Hebrews” (Ecclesiastical History III.iii). Obviously Eusebius, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, knew that the entire orthodox church accepted Philippians as being among “the true, genuine, and recognized” epistles of Paul (op cit., III.xxv).

From Eusebius we go back to Origen (fl. 210–250). His works are full of quotations from Philippians; for example, “For we do not hesitate to affirm that the goodness of Christ appears in a greater and more divine light because … he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even death on a cross, than if he had judged existence in a manner equal to God something to keep in his grasp, and had shrunk from becoming a servant for the salvation of the world” (Commentary on John I.xxxvii), clearly a reference to Phil. 2:6–8. He considered Paul to be the author of Philippians (same book I.xvii, a comment on Phil. 1:23).

Hippolytus, said to have been a bishop of Portus near Rome, was martyred somewhere about a.d. 235–239. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. Hippolytus quotes from Philippians again and again. Among the passages from this epistle which he uses frequently is the very one of which Origen was also fond, namely, Philippians 2:6–8. And he ascribes Philippians to “the blessed Paul” (Fragment from Commentaries, on Gen. 49:21–26).

From Origen we can go back to his teacher, Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200), and from Hippolytus we can go back to his teacher, Irenaeus. But before doing so, it is necessary to point out that also Tertullian who in his famous work against Marcion (begun a.d. 207) combats the notion that such expressions as “form of a servant” and “fashion as a man” prove that Christ did not truly become man, thereby definitely indicates that he was well acquainted with Philippians (Against Marcion V.xx). Moreover, references to that epistle abound in his various writings. He considers Paul the author (see, for example, Antidote to the Scorpion’s Sting, Chapter XIII).

This brings us then to Clement of Alexandria and to Irenaeus. So frequently does the former refer to Philippians, which he regards to be the work of “the apostle,” that in his Stromata or Miscellanies he quotes more than once from each of its four chapters.

What Irenaeus says about the authorship of Philippians must be considered of great significance, and this because of his many travels and intimate acquaintance with almost the entire church of his day. His voice in a matter as important as this may be considered the voice of the church. Now in his work Against Heresies (written about a.d. 182–188) he refers to passages from every chapter of Philippians. Particularly instructive is his explanation of the phrase “obedient unto death” (V.xvi.3, on Phil. 2:8), and the one with reference to Christ’s subsequent exaltation (I.x.1, on Phil. 2:10, 11). Without the least hesitation he ascribes Philippians to Paul (III.xii.9) that is, to “the one who received the apostolate to the Gentiles” (IV.xxiv.2).

The Muratorian Fragment, an incomplete list of New Testament books, written in poor Latin and deriving its name from Cardinal L. A. Muratori (1672–1750) who discovered it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, may be assigned to the period 180–200. It contains the following: “Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who will understand. First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians against circumcision, and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them — each of which it is necessary for us to discuss, seeing that the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name in the following order: to the Corinthians (first), to the Ephesians (second), to the Philippians (third), to the Colossians (fourth), to the Galatians (fifth), to the Thessalonians (sixth), to the Romans (seventh).” Philippians is also included in Marcion’s Canon and in the Old Latin and Old Syriac Versions.

How gloriously did the Christians of Lyons and Vienna, many of whom were subjected to indescribable torture for the sake of their faith and to the cruelest forms of death, make use of Phil. 2:5–8! They became imitators of their Lord’s humility and refused even to be called “martyrs.” See their unforgettable Letter to the Brothers in Asia and Phrygia. This letter was written a.d. 177, and is found in Eusebius, op. cit., V.i, ii.

But it is possible to go back even farther. Polycarp’s beautiful Letter (or Letters) to the Philippians has (or have) already been described (see Section III, The Church At Philippi). Those who accept the two letter theory give the dates as a.d. 135 and 115. He definitely states that the blessed and glorious Paul had written to the Philippians. In his day, therefore, that fact was well-known.

Ignatius, on his journey to Rome, where he was going to be killed by beasts in the amphitheatre (about a.d. 108), wrote several letters. He clearly shows that he is well acquainted with Philippians. It is true that a few of the references are rather vague, but surely when he describes people who are “enemies of the cross of Christ … whose god is the belly” (To the Magnesians IX; To the Trallians XI), he is quoting Phil. 3:18, 19.

Finally, Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthians probably about the last decade of the first century, uses a few expressions which remind one immediately of Paul’s letter to the Philippians. This resemblance is seen especially when both are read in the original or in a translation that adheres closely to the original:

Philippians	I Clement
“Only continue to exercise your citizenship in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (1:27).	“(This will be so) if we are not exercising our citizenship in a manner worthy of him” (i.e., worthy of Christ, XXI).
“in (the) beginning of the gospel” (4:15).	“in (the) beginning of the gospel” (XLVII).

The conclusion of the entire matter is this: All the evidence, external and internal, points to Philippians as a genuine, authentic epistle, recognized as such already in the earliest written sources that have been preserved, and, whenever ascribed to anyone, always ascribed to Paul.

Closely connected with the authorship of Philippians is its unity. It is well at the very outset to define the exact question that is of importance in this connection. That question is not, “Did Paul write more than one letter to the Philippians?” The possibility that he did can be readily granted. Did he not also write a letter to the Corinthians which has not come down to us? See the reference to it in I Cor. 5:9. There are scholars who believe that the proposition, “Paul wrote more than one letter to the Philippians,” can be defended on the basis of Polycarp’s statement, “For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who … when he was absent wrote epistolas to you” (To the Philippians III.2). Others, for various reasons, dispute this conclusion. The real question, however, is this, “Does the existing, canonical letter of Paul to the Philippians consist of more than one letter?” Among those who deny the unity of Philippians are the following: Beare, Goodspeed, Hausrath, Lake, McNeile, Rahtjen, J. Weiss. Their reasons (with individual variations) are as follows:

(1) The tone of the letter suddenly changes from that of tender address to that of harshness, as the apostle begins to use terms like dogs, evil workers, the concision. Cf., 3:1 with 3:2 ff.

(2) The content also changes. There is a sudden attack on Judaizers, out of keeping with the contents of the rest of the letter. This is followed by a warning against sensualists. Clearly, the section 3:2–4:1 is an interpolation, which must have belonged to another letter. Then there is also the note of thanks for the gift that had been brought to the apostle by Epaphroditus (4:10–20). This, too, stands by itself, must be viewed as a separate letter. Perhaps this was written first of all.

This shows that what we actually have here is three letters (complete or incomplete): a. 4:10–20; b. 1:1–3:1; 4:2–9, 21–23; and c. 3:2–4:1. (It must be added immediately, however, that the critics are by no means united on the extent of each of the letters that supposedly entered into the combination which we now call Philippians.)

(3) The word finally (3:1) also indicates that the letter is about to end at this point, but in the canonical epistle it introduces two entire chapters, and stands nowhere near the end of the letter.

Reasons for rejecting this view and maintaining the unity of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians:

(1) The change of tone (if it is correct to call it that) can be easily explained. See my comments on 3:1, 2.

(2) It is not true that the section 3:2–4:1 comes as a complete surprise. Paul has already spoken about the adversaries (1:28) and about a crooked and perverse generation (2:14). Besides, the change from one subject to another when writing to friends is altogether natural. Must we assume, for example, that when Paul in a thrilling manner climaxes his glorious paragraph on the Resurrection and the Second Coming with the exclamation, “O death, where is thy victory,” etc., and adds a very fitting and moving admonition, “Wherefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast,” etc. (I Cor. 15), and then suddenly changes to “Now concerning the collection” (I Cor. 16:1), he must have made use of two letters to convey these sentiments?

The unity of Philippians stands out very strikingly. The same ideas recur again and again; such as: the note of rejoicing, the oscillation between expectation of acquittal and leaving room for the possibility of being sentenced to death, eschatological references, the evil of disharmony. The thank-you note (4:10–20) also has been anticipated (see 1:5–7; 2:25).

(3) It is not true that the words used in the original and translated “Finally” necessarily indicate that the letter will end almost immediately. See my comments on 3:1, footnote 124.

(4) Philippians appears, as a letter of Paul, in all the Canons of Scripture during the second century. In them all the reference is to one letter, never to two or three letters. No valid evidence has been presented to upset that well-established tradition. A fine and very recent article confirming the unity of the epistle is that by B. S. Mackay, “Further Thoughts on Philippians,” NTS, Vol. 7, Number 2, (Jan. 1961) pp. 161–170.

VII. GENERAL CONTENTS

Attempts have been made repeatedly to construct a formal outline for Philippians, a central theme with its subdivisions. Several themes have been tried; for example, Christ-mindedness (suggested by Phil. 2:5), Paul’s Joy in Christ, etc. But such themes either lack distinctiveness (is not Christ-mindedness in action in all the epistles?) or comprehensiveness (though joy is certainly a very prominent characteristic of this letter, it is not an all-inclusive theme: faith, hope, and love are also in evidence). What we have here is a genuine letter from Paul to his beloved church at Philippi. The writer passes from one subject to another just as we do today in writing to friends. (The difference is that Paul’s letter is inspired; ours are not) What holds these subjects together is not this or that central theme but the Spirit of God, mirrored forth, by means of a multitude of spiritual graces and virtues, in the heart of the apostle, proclaiming throughout that between God, the apostle, and the believers at Philippi there exists a blessed bond of glorious fellowship.²⁵

And what a marvelous heart, what a rich and many-sided personality, was that of Paul! We see the apostle first of all as a joyful servant of Christ Jesus: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus.… I thank my God every time I remember you, always in every supplication of mine in behalf of you all making my supplication with joy …” (Phil. 1:1, 3).

Presently we see him as an optimistic prisoner (prisoner of the Lord, that is!): “Now I want you to know, brothers, that the things that have happened to me have in reality turned out to the advantage of the gospel … and most of the brothers have been heartened in the Lord through my bonds” (Phil. 1:12, 14).

Again we see him as a humble cross-bearer: “… in humblemindedness each counting the other better than himself. In your inner being continue to set your mind on this, namely, on that which (was) also in Christ Jesus, who … humbled himself.… In fact, even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I rejoice, and I rejoice with you all” (Phil. 2:3, 5, 7, 17).

Anon we see him as a thoughtful administrator: “But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon so that I also may be heartened by knowing your affairs. For I have no one likeminded who will be genuinely interested in your welfare.… But I consider it necessary to send (back) to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need” (Phil. 2:19, 25).

Then we see him as an indefatigable idealist (and in that sense, perfectionist): “Not that I have already gotten hold or have already been made perfect, but I am pressing on (to see) if I can also take hold of that … for which I was laid hold on … forgetting what lies behind (me) and eagerly straining forward to what lies ahead, I am pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:12–14).

Next we see him as a tactful pastor: “I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord.… Lend these women a hand, for they strove side by side with me in the gospel” (Phil. 4:2, 3).

And finally we see him as a grateful recipient: Nevertheless, you did nobly in sharing my affliction.… I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts (that came) from you, a fragrant odor, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:14, 18).

Two further items must be stressed, in this connection. First, that the various facets of Paul’s rich personality, the multiple categories in which he functions, overlap. Not a single one of them can be separated from any of the others. The same man who writes as a joyful servant of Christ Jesus is also writing as an optimistic prisoner, humble crossbearer, etc. Hence, in the following arrangement of the contents the name by which Paul is characterized in any given section is a matter not of rigid classification but merely of emphasis.

Secondly, throughout our attention is riveted not alone on Paul himself, but on him in relation to his dearly beloved Philippians. Remember the fellowship!

Thus understood, the contents of this genuine letter may be summarized as follows:

The Apostle Paul Pours Out His Heart to the Philippians, Whom He Prizes Highly and Loves Profoundly.

Chapter I

Verses 1–11

The Joyful Servant of Christ Jesus

by means of

salutation,

thanksgiving,

and prayer,

revealing his warm affection for the Philippians with whom he is united in a blessed fellowship.

Verses 12–30

The Optimistic Prisoner

rejoicing in his imprisonment for the advantage of the gospel, and in the fact that Christ will be magnified in his person whether by life or by death; and exhorting the Philippians to remain steadfast, united, and unafraid.

Chapter II

Verses 1–18

The Humble Cross-bearer

by an appeal to a fourfold incentive exhorting the Philippians to live the life of oneness, lowliness, and helpfulness, after the example of Christ Jesus, and to shine as lights in the midst of a wicked world, thereby filling the hearts of Paul and of themselves with joy.

Verses 19–30

The Thoughtful Administrator

promising to send Timothy to the Philippians as soon as his (Paul’s) own case has been decided,

and even now sending Epaphroditus back to them.

Chapter III

(the entire chapter)

The Indefatigable Idealist

warning against evil workers (the concision) who by placing confidence in flesh seek to establish their own righteousness and perfection; as contrasted with God’s true servants (the circumcision);

for example, with Paul, who could boast of many prerogatives, but has rejected them all, and relies completely on the righteousness of Christ, in whom he is pressing on to perfection;

exhorting the Philippians to imitate him, to honor the friends and beware of “the enemies of the cross,” sensualists, who set their minds on things of earth, while believers know that their homeland is in heaven.

Chapter IV

Verses 1–9

The Tactful Pastor

in general, exhorting the brothers at Philippi to remain firm; and in particular, entreating Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind, and Syzygus to help these gospel-women;

urging the Philippians to rejoice in the Lord, to be big-hearted to all, and instead of worrying to bring everything to God in prayer that brings peace: finally, admonishing the addressees to meditate only on praiseworthy things, practising these in imitation of Paul and with promise of rich reward.

Verses 10–23

The Grateful Recipient

rejoicing in the generosity of the Philippians, and testifying that he has learned the secret of contentment and of readiness for every task;

resuming and completing his expression of appreciation for the generosity which the Philippians have shown both in the more recent and in the more distant past;

confessing his faith in God who will supply every need, and ascribing glory to him; and

concluding his letter with words of greeting and benediction.

¹ See the map on p. 313 of H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, Garden City, New York, Star-edition, 1930; cf. this with the map “Lands of the Bible Today” in the December, 1956 issue of The National Geographic Magazine.

² Cf. Strabo VII, 34.

³ See the article “Jerusalem to Rome in the Path of St. Paul,” in The National Geographic Magazine, December 1956, p. 747; also the photograph on p. 179 of Everyday Life in Ancient Times, 1953, published by the National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.; and the air-views in connection with the text of Acts 16 and of Philippians 1 on pp. 18 and G11 of The Good News, The New Testament with over 500 Illustrations and Maps, published by The American Bible Society.

⁴ Cf. W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, reprint 1949, Grand Rapids, pp. 219–226; Herodotus vi. 46, 47; vii. 113; Strabo VII. 34, 35; 41–43; W. Keller, The Bible As History, New York, 1957, p. 384; E. G. Kraeling, Rand McNally Bible Atlas, New York, 1956, pp. 438–440; and G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology, London, 1957, pp. 255–257.

⁵ Plutarch’s Aemilius Paulus is unforgettable; especially the manner in which he contrasts the Roman general with the Macedonian king, Perseus.

⁶ Cf. Plutarch, Brutus XXXVI–LIII and (same author) Caesar LV–LXIX (Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is based on Plutarch); also F. B. Marsh, A History of the Roman World From 146 to 30 b.c., London, second edition 1953, pp. 281–284.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁷ Cf. Plutarch, Antony; see especially XXV–LXXXVII; Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra (based on Plutarch); Dryden, All For Love (a reworking of Shakespeare); G. B. Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (dealing with Cleopatra’s earlier years); F. B. Marsh, op. cit., pp. 295–311.

⁸ Cf. W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, op. cit., pp. 223–226; Raymond R. Brewer, “The Meaning of POLITEUESTHE in Philippians 1:27, ” JBL LXXIII, Part II (June, 1954), pp. 76–83.

⁹ In Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, Richmond, Va., 1959, J. Mund rejects this idea.

¹⁰ Cf. N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 392. For the general plan of a Roman house of the well-to-do see T. G. Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Nero and St. Paul, New York, 1922, ch. 9; also Everyday Life in Ancient Times, pp. 322, 323.

¹¹

“Accordingly, when the earth, mud-covered by reason of the recent deluge, became heated up by the hot and genial rays of the sun, she brought forth innumerable species of life; in part she restored the ancient shapes; and in part she created new monsters.

“She, indeed, would have wished not to do so, but she then also bore you, enormous Python, you hitherto unknown snake. You were a terror to the new population, so vast a space of mountainside did you occupy.

“This monster the god of the glittering bow destroyed with arms never before used except against does and wild she-goats, well-nigh emptying his quiver, crushing him with countless darts till his poisonous blood flowed from black wounds.

“And in order that the fame of his deed might not perish through lapse of time he instituted sacred games whose contests throngs beheld. These were called Pythian from the name of the serpent he had overthrown” (Metamorphoses I. 434–447. See also T. Bulfinch, The Age of Fable, New York, edition 1942, pp. 21, 159, 297.

¹² Cf. M.M., p. 559.

¹³ Was she hinting that there were several ways of salvation, and that what Paul and his companions proclaimed was only one way out of many? Note that the original lacks the definite article, and can therefore be translated a way, instead of the way. But over against this stands the fact that in Greek the article is not always necessary to make a word definite.

¹⁴ Perhaps there were two letters. The one-letter theory does not fully explain the final sentence in Chapter 13, which seems to imply that when it was written Ignatius was still alive (or at least that Polycarp had not yet been informed about Ignatius’ death), while according to Chapters 1–12 (see especially Chapter 9) Ignatius is considered dead. Hence, there are those who think that what the manuscripts have handed down as a single letter of Polycarp to the Philippians is in reality two letters, and that the earlier of these two letters comprises Chapters 13 and 14 of the traditional text. See P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Letters to the Philippians, London, 1936.

¹⁵ For archaeological sources see General Bibliography at the end of this book; also I.S.B.E., art. “Philippi” (note “Literature” at the close of the article); and article “Archaeology, Christian” (and Bibliography at the end of that article) in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, Volume I of The Twentieth Century augmentation.

¹⁶ For proof see J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1953, p. 38, footnote 1.

¹⁷ See the pictures and description in W.H.A.B., p. 77; Everyday Life in Ancient Times, pp. 304, 305; G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology, Philadelphia, 1957, p. 265; T. G. Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Nero and St. Paul, New York, 1922, pp. 16–29; and L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible (tr. of Atlas Van De Bijbel), New York (Thomas Nelson and Sons), 1956, p. 134.

¹⁸ For a different view see one of the two suggestions offered by S. Greydanus, Bizondere Canoniek, Kampen, 1949. Vol, II, p. 159.

¹⁹ It is true that at a later time also II Timothy was written from prison, but that epistle is in an altogether different category. Like I Timothy and Titus it was written to one of the apostles’ official representatives, comparable, but only to a certain extent, to “pastors.” Hence, these three form a group. See N.T.C. on The Pastoral Epistles.

²⁰

For the various views consult J. Schmid, Zeit und Ort der Paulinischen Gefangenschaftsbriefe, 1931. For the view that all were written from Rome see J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, reprint Grand Rapids, Mich., 1953, p. 30; R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 325–329, 699, 700; M. R. Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon (in I.C.C.), New York, 1906, pp. xxii–xxv and 160–162; S. Greydanus, Bizondere Canoniek, Kampen, 1949, Vol. II, pp. 127–140. The influence of the Caesarean and of the Ephesian theories is gradually beginning to “wear off,” and in most recent works the traditional Rome-view, which was the view either expressed or assumed by all the earlier exegetes, is beginning to be endorsed more strongly than ever. As far as Philippians is concerned, the Rome-theory has never been eclipsed. In The Interpreter’s Bible E. F. Scott favors Rome for Philippians, and F. W. Beare likewise favors Rome for Colossians; but John Knox seems to incline toward Ephesus for Philemon. F. W. Grosheide supports the traditional Rome-view (Openbaring Gods In Het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1953, pp. 204, 208).

The Caesarean theory was proposed by H. E. G. Paulus, Philologisch-kritischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Lübeck, 1800–1804). It has had many defendants since his day. (See especially E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon, Göttingen, 1930; Meyer’s Kommentar.) Among others who favor this view are J. Macpherson, F. Spitta, and O. Holtzmann.

The Ephesian theory was advanced by H. Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, Berlin, 1900). However, three years earlier A. Deissmann, while lecturing at the Theological Seminary at Herborn, had already introduced it with application to Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians (see Light From the Ancient East, tr. from the German by L. R. M. Strachan, New York, 1927, pp. 237, 238, in which book he endorses this theory for all four Prison Epistles). What is, perhaps, the best defense of the Ephesian theory is found in G. S. Duncan’s book, St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry, New York, 1930. Cf. D. Rowlingson’s article “Paul’s Ephesian Imprisonment, An Evaluation of the Evidence,” AThR, XXXII (1950), pp. 1–7. Among others the following favor this theory: Bowen, Appel, and Michaelis.

²¹ See J. B. Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 99–104; M.M., pp. 532, 533.

²² J. B. Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 30–46. Thus also Bleek, Sanday, Hort, and Beet.

²³ Lightfoot’s attempt to reduce these four journeys to two (op. cit., pp. 35–37) has left most exegetes (myself included) unconvinced. But a criticism of this point belongs to a Commentary on the Book of Acts (27:2).

²⁴ For a discussion of this date and of the entire Pauline chronology see my Bible Survey, pp. 62–64, 70.

NTS New Testament Studies

²⁵ In his excellent book, Philippians, The Gospel at Work, M. C. Tenney has a fine chapter on “The Fellowship of the Gospel,” pp. 35–50. And see also my comments on Phil. 1:5.

↑ Back to top