Philippians 1:1

The only significance belonging to the mention of Timothy is that he was a well-known figure at Philippi (Acts 16:1-12; Acts 19:22; Acts 20:3-6), that they owed much to him, and that he was about to visit them again. The Epistle claims, of course, to be exclusively Paul's own. δοῦλοι. Already in O.T. δ. is used in a distinctly religious sense; see esp [16] Psalms (LXX). As used by Paul, while expressing intense fervour of devotion, it includes the idea of a special calling and function in Christ's kingdom, parallel to its application in O.T. to the prophets; see Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:10, also Titus 1:1. There is genuine humility in the contrast between δοῦλοι and ἁγίοις. He only calls himself ἀπόστολος when he assumes a commanding mood (Chr [17] ad loc.). Χρ. Ἰ. The order strikes the keynote of Paul's attitude towards his Master. He delights to think of Him in royal dignity, the Messiah who was once Jesus being now Κύριος. For a good discussion of the respective designations Χ. Ἰ. and Ἰ. Χ., see Von Soden in Abhandlungen C. von Weizsäcker gewidmet, p. 118. πᾶσιν τ. ἁγίοις. It is difficult to say whether πᾶσιν is emphatic or not. It is, at least, remarkable how often πᾶς appears in the opening paragraphs of this Epistle, as if to show Paul's strict impartiality, perhaps in the face of some pretensions to superiority which appeared in the Philippian Church. But, on the other hand, see 2 Corinthians 1:1; Romans 1:7, where the same phrase seems to have no special emphasis. τ. ἁγίοις. Really a terminus technicus of the early Church. Having as its basis that idea of consecration to God, and consequent participation in His Divine majesty which bulks so largely in O.T. religion (e.g., Leviticus 11:44-45; Judges 13:7), and continues to have full prominence in the N.T. (Acts, almost all Epistles, Rev.), it suggests also in every N.T. instance that side of Christian life which stands in most glaring contrast with the impurity and sensuality of the Gentiles, holiness of heart and conduct. This would naturally come into view as the result of the working of the Holy Spirit; see McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 509 ff.; Hltzm [18], N.T. Theol., ii., p. 152. The best commentary on the expression is John 17:11; John 17:14-23. In his salutations Paul uses the word as practically = ἐκκλησία (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, with 1 Thessalonians 1:1). For the Christian Church is the spiritual successor of the sacred community of Israel. Ideally, all Christians are “saints,” cf. ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χ. Ἰ. (1 Corinthians 1:2). The Spirit is, of course, the Sanctifier, but He only deals with those who are in Christ Jesus. ἐν Χ. Ἰ. These words sum up Paul's Christianity. They denote the most intimate living union that can be conceived between the soul of the believer and the Risen Lord. He, as Spirit, is the atmosphere in which the new life is lived. Cf. the Rabbinic use of מָקוֹם (place or space) as a name of God; see Taylor, Sayings of Jewish Fathers, 2nd ed., p. 39. The phrase occurs eight times in Phil. The same idea is expressed by Χριστὸς ἐν ἐμοί; see esp [19] Galatians 2:20. “The gist of this formula εν Χριστῷ is nothing else than Paul's mystic faith, in which the believer gives up himself, his own life, to Christ, and possesses the life of Christ in himself: he in Christ, and Christ in him; he dead with Christ, and Christ become his life” (Pfl [20], Paulinism, E. Tr., i., p. 198). For the extraordinarily central place of the idea in Paul's teaching, see Deissmann, Die Neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu” (Marburg, 1892). σὺν ἐπισκόποις κ. διακόνοις. These keenly-discussed terms can only be most briefly examined. Who were the ἐπίσκ.? In LXX almost always = an official in charge of work being done (e.g., repairs in Temple; rebuilding of Jerusalem) or an officer in the army (much less frequently). In N.T., besides this passage, (a) Acts 20:28, applied by Paul to the πρεσβύτεροι of Ephesus, whom the Holy Ghost has made ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ; (b) 1 Peter 2:25, of Christ, who is called τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν; (c) 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7, where it is almost universally admitted to be synonymous with πρεσβύτερος. Two points are clear from N.T. evidence: 1. The ἐπίσκοπος is, at least, often the same person as the πρεσβύτερος. 2. The ἐπίσκ. is concerned with shepherding the flock of God. Have we any information to corroborate these facts? As to the first there is the strong tradition of the early Church, e.g., Jerome, Ep., 69, 3: apud veteres iidem episcopi et presbyteri; there is the admitted fact that in 1 Clem. the name πρεσβύτεροι is given to the ἐπίσκοποι; and Tertullian (Apologet., 39) designates the officials who preside over the congregation probati quique seniores; see esp [21] F. Loofs, SK [22], 1890, pp. 639 641. The second fact mentioned above conflicts with the celebrated theory of Hatch and Harnack (who has, however, greatly modified his standpoint; see his important review of Loening's Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums in Th. LZ [23], 1889, coll. 418 429), that the ἐπίσκοποι were distinct finance and cultus officials, who only gradually came into possession of more spiritual functions. But it seems hazardous to narrow down the duties of the ἐπίσκ. No doubt the name may, in certain cases, have been suggested by that of the ἐπίσκοπος or (more commonly) ἐπιμελητής, who exercised administrative control over the property of private associations and guilds existing at that time in the Hellenic world and enforced the rules of such associations (see J. Réville, Les Origines de l'Épiscopat, Paris, 1894, pp. 160 163). But just as the functions of these persons were left comparatively vague and undefined, so we might expect to find the beginnings of local administration in the Christian Church still less clearly marked. An additional reason for this would lie in the pre-eminent authority of the Apostles and the high place assigned to the possessors of “gifts”. Accordingly it appears wise to use great caution in making any distinction between πρεσβυτ. and ἐπίσκ. Probably the truth lies in the direction of regarding πρεσβ. as a title of status, while ἐπίσκ. is one of function. Probably all ἐπίσκοποι were πρεσβύτεροι, while the converse may not be true. The difference of name may point to some early (and unknown) difference of administration. The ἐπίσκ. may have had some special connexion with the celebration of the Eucharist as the central rite of Christian worship (see Sohm's strong insistence on this point, Kirchenrecht, pp. 84 ff., 121 ff.) and with the management of Church property, which would originally consist of voluntary gifts offered to God in Christian worship. Gradually, as those endowed with extraordinary “charisms” (e.g., prophets, teachers, evangelists) passed away, their functions would tend to be assumed by the leading office-bearers in each congregation. So the sphere, e.g., of the ἐπίσκ., would be greatly enlarged. But we must be content, for lack of evidence, to do without precise definitions, only concluding as to the general equivalence in the earliest times of πρεσβ. and ἐπίσκ., and granting that their oversight and guidance were concerned with the spiritual as well as the material well-being of the organisation. Deacons are first mentioned here in the N.T. It is often tacitly assumed that they hold the office or function whose institution is described in Acts 6. This was an early tradition; e.g., Iren., iii., 12, 10: Stephanus … qui electus est ab apostolis primus diaconus. But there are considerable arguments against this view. These are admirably summarised by Gwatkin (Hastings' B.D., i., 574). (1) The seven are nowhere in N.T. called διάκονοι. (2) The qualifications laid down (Acts 6:3) for the seven are much higher than those of 1 Timothy 3:8. (3) Stephen was largely a preacher and Philip an evangelist. (4) The seven evidently rank next to the Apostles at Jerusalem. Hpt [24] (Myr [25] 6 ad loc.) holds that ἐπίσκ. and διάκ. denote here the same persons, the ἐπισκοπή being a διακονία towards the Church, and compares 1 Thessalonians 5:12, τοὺς κοπιῶντας καὶ προϊσταμένους. And the vague use of the word to denote any kind of Christian service (in earlier parts of N.T.) might seem to justify the idea. But considering the late date of Phil., it appears more reasonable to connect the office with that of 1 Timothy 3., where a clear distinction is drawn between the διάκ. and the ἐπίσκ. In the early Church the most necessary Christian service would be the care of the sick and poor. So the deacon must neither be double-tongued (δίλογος) nor a “lover of dirty gain” (so Gwatk. tr. αἰσχροκερδής), for in his work of visiting he would have temptations to “gossip and slander” on the one hand, and to “picking and stealing from the alms” on the other (Gwatk loc. cit.). Many reasons are assigned fo the mention of these officers here. But it seems quite natural that Paul should specify those who stood in the forefrom of the Church's work and life, more especially as the letter is one of thanks for the gift which has been sent to him, a gift the management of which would be in the hands of the controlling authorities in the Church.

[16] especially.

[17] Chrysostom.

[18]ltzm. Holtzmann.

[19] especially.

[20] Pfleiderer.

[21] especially.

[22] Studien und Kritiken.

[23] Theologische Literaturzeitung.

[24] Haupt.

[25] Meyer.