Philippians 1:1

(1) Paul and Timotheus, (the) servants of Jesus Christ. — To the Philippian, as to the Thessalonian Church (see 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1), St. Paul does not think it needful to assert his apostleship; but writes, in a tone of affectionate and confident familiarity, as to those whom he could thoroughly trust. Here he and Timotheus are simply “servants” (not, as in our version, “the servants” in any position of special eminence) “of Jesus Christ” — a title of humility assumed by St. James and St. Jude (James 1:1; Jude 1:1), but nowhere else by St. Paul without the addition of some title of apostolic authority. (Comp. Romans 1:1; Titus 1:1.) Even in Galatians 1:10 he declares that he is “the servant of Christ,” chiefly to show that he cannot and need not “please men.” It is to be noted also that here, as again (with Silas) in the Thessalonian Epistles, Timotheus is joined with St. Paul almost on a footing of equality whereas in other Epistles (see 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1), he is separated from the Apostle and distinguished as “Timotheus the brother.” This is probably to be accounted for partly by the absence of all necessity for assertion of his own apostleship, partly also by the fact that (with Silas) Timotheus was St. Paul’s fellow-worker in the conversion of the Macedonian Churches, and accordingly his chosen messenger to them from time to time (Acts 19:22; Acts 20:5).

The saints in Christ Jesus. — The same expression is used in the salutations which commence other Epistles of this period (see Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1): “the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus.”

With the bishops and deacons. — In this passage the word “bishop” is, for the first time, used as a title, although in Acts 20:28 (“over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers”) it is employed as a description of duty, with a distinct reference to its etymological meaning and origin. In the Pastoral Epistles we find it similarly used (as 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7). There is now no question — and but for supposed ecclesiastical necessities there never could have been any question — that in Holy Scripture, as also in the First Epistle of an Apostolical Father (St. Clement to the Corinthians, Php. 19), the two titles of “bishop” and “presbyter” are applied to the same persons — the latter, however, being in St. Paul’s Epistles the more frequent and conventional term, while the former seems almost always used with reference to its actual meaning. The two titles are of diverse origin. The “presbyter,” or “elder,” is a Jewish title, so directly descended from the synagogue that the institution of the presbyterate is not, like that of the diaconate, recorded as a historical creation in the Church. The title of “bishop,” or “overseer,” is of heathen origin, used in classical Greek for a commissioner from head-quarters, applied in the LXX. to various secular offices (2 Kings 11:19; 2 Chronicles 24:12; Nehemiah 11:9; Nehemiah 11:14; Nehemiah 11:22; Isaiah 60:17). The former is simply a title of dignity, like the many derivations from the Latin senior which have passed into modern language. The latter is a title of official duty. Like the word “pastor” and “apostle,” it belongs properly only to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the “Apostle of God” (Hebrews 3:1), and “the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls” (1 Peter 2:25); but derivatively to His ministers, as having the oversight of His Church. This is directly shown in the application of the title to the Ephesian presbyters (Acts 20:28; see also 1 Peter 5:1), and the idea of responsible oversight is brought out clearly in the description of the office of the “bishop “in 1 Timothy 3:1. The in-different use of the two names is made absolutely clear in Titus 1:5 : “Ordain elders in every city... if any be blameless... For a bishop must be blameless as a steward of God.” It is only necessary to remark briefly that this identification of the two titles (of which St. Clement’s Epistle is the last example) in no way weakens the significance of the undoubted historical fact of the development of what we call the Episcopate in the early part of the second century, and the overwhelming probability of its origination, under the sanction of St. John, when the representatives of the higher order of the Apostolate passed away.

The name “deacon” is also used for the first time, unless, indeed, as is probable, it is applied officially to Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Although the office of the Seven, in Acts 6:1, is undoubtedly the germ of the diaconate, and although the cognate words (“ministration” and “serve”) are used in connection with them (see Philippians 1:1), yet the actual title of deacons is nowhere given to them.

This mention of the ministers as distinct from the Church in salutation is unique. It has been conjectured, with great probability, that in the Letter of the Philippian Church, which no doubt accompanied the mission of alms by Epaphroditus, the presbyters and deacons were so distinguished; as in the letter of the Council at Jerusalem, according to the ordinary reading of Acts 15:23 (“the apostles and elders and brethren”). Some ancient authorities held that Epaphroditus was “the apostle” (or what we should call the bishop) of the Church at Philippi, and that he is not named here simply because he was with St. Paul: so that in the Philippian Church the three orders were already represented. (But on this see Philippians 2:25.)