Philippians 2:27

‘For indeed he was sick, nigh to death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only, but on me also, that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow.'

Paul stresses that Epaphroditus had genuinely been seriously ill. Indeed his illness had been so serious that it had nearly proved fatal. But God's mercy had been such that he had recovered, and Paul stresses that that mercy had not only benefited Epaphroditus, but had also benefited Paul himself who would otherwise have had another burden of sorrow added to the trials that he was already facing. Paul's contentedness with his lot did not mean that he did not feel deeply the sorrows with which he was burdened. Contentedness, confidence and sorrow can go hand in hand.

We are given no indication of what the illness was or what caused it. It may have been an illness contracted on the way to Paul which he refused to allow to hinder his fulfilling his commission to take the Philippians' gift to Paul. Or it may have been something contracted in Rome as a result of his service for Paul, possibly the dreaded Roman fever. There was much disease in Rome, and he may have contracted it as he moved around on Paul's behalf among poverty stricken Christians, or even among Christians in filthy prisons (not all were Roman citizens enjoying immunity from bad treatment). Or it may have resulted from he himself being arrested, imprisoned in bad conditions, and examined by the Roman authorities as a possible criminal because of his obvious sympathy with Paul's aims. While the authorities left it to friends to see to the wellbeing of prisoners, it could always be dangerous to be associated with them, especially for men. (It may well have been because he could not stand the pressure involved in being with Paul that Demas had gone to Thessalonica to save his own skin, in total contrast to Epaphroditus). This may well have been part of the reason why it was such a necessity for him to return to Philippi, in that he had become a marked man who was being kept under observation, something which might well have put other visitors in danger.

There is an indication here that the healing of disease was by this time no longer looked on as a foregone conclusion, even with a man like Paul present. The days when the Apostles healed instantly all who were sick were seemingly past. It is true that healing did in fact take place in the end, but it was clearly recognised that it might not have done.

There is an interesting contrast between this verse and Philippians 1:21, ‘to me to live is Christ, to die is gain'. If the latter is true, how then was it in God's mercy to keep Epaphroditus alive? Would it not have been more merciful for him to go immediately to be with the Lord? The answer may lie in the fact that, as with Paul and other fellow-workers, Epaphroditus' continuance in this life was seen as important for the churches, and for Paul. Alternatively it might simply be seen as a natural reaction against premature death when it was not by martyrdom (where clear testimony could be given). Nothing was gained by dying of disease.