Lectionary Calendar
Tuesday, February 27th, 2024
the Second Week of Lent
There are 33 days til Easter!
For 10¢ a day you can enjoy StudyLight.org ads
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!

Bible Commentaries

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and HomileticalLange's Commentary

- Philippians

by Johann Peter Lange

to the
General Superintendent At Altenburg, Saxony


Professor In The Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.



The following schedule exhibits to us the heads under which these may be arranged:—

Sec. I. ADDRESS AND SALUTATION (Philippians 1:1-2).


(1) The Apostle’s gratitude and joy before God on account of the church at Philippi (Philippians 1:3-11).

After joyful thanksgiving for the fellowship of the church in the gospel (Philippians 1:3-5), and the expression of his confident hope that God will make this perfect (Philippians 1:6-8), he offers a fervent prayer for them (Philippians 1:9-11).

(2) The gospel, in spite of insincere or false brethren and threatening danger of death, makes progress during the Apostle’s captivity at Rome (Philippians 1:12-26).

After referring to the happy effects of his ministry in bonds (Philippians 1:12-14), among sincere and insincere witnesses for Christ (Philippians 1:15-17), he expresses his views respecting this varied experience (Philippians 1:18-20), and calmly revolves the question whether life or death may be better for him (Philippians 1:21-26).


(1) A true Christian deportment the condition of the Apostle’s joy in the church (Philippians 1:27-30). Characteristics of a Christian walk (Philippians 1:27-28 a); encouraging motives (Philippians 1:28-30).

(2) Christ’s example on the way through humiliation to exaltation (Philippians 2:1-11).

After entreating them earnestly and eloquently to stand together in harmony (Philippians 2:1-4), he holds up to view the person of the Redeemer (Philippians 2:5-6), His state of humiliation (Philippians 2:7-8), and His state of exaltation (Philippians 2:9-11).

(3) God strengthens believers to walk in Christ’s footsteps along the painful way of obedience (Philippians 2:12-14), to its glorious end (Philippians 2:15-18).

Sec. IV. PAUL’S ASSISTANTS AND CO-LABORERS (Philippians 2:19-30).

(1) Timothy and his speedy mission to Philippi (Philippians 2:19-24).

(2) Sending back of Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-30).


(1) The spirit of these teachers as distinguished from that of Paul (Philippians 3:1-16).

He warns them against the disposition of such errorists, especially their pride (Philippians 3:2-7), points out the opposition between the righteousness of the law and that of faith (8–11), and speaks of his humble striving after perfection (Philippians 3:12-14), with an exhortation to harmony among the Philippians (Philippians 3:15-16).

(2) Opposite destiny of false and true Christians (Philippians 3:17Philippians 4:1).

He confirms his exhortation to imitate himself and others like-minded (Philippians 3:17) by two contrasts: the destruction of the worldly, and the glorification of the righteous believers (Philippians 3:18-21); and concludes (Philippians 4:1) with an exhortation to steadfastness.


(1) Individuals exhorted to harmony (Philippians 4:2-3).

(2) General exhortation to joyfulness (Philippians 4:4-7).

(3) General and final summons to Christian progress (Philippians 4:8-9).

(4) Thanksgiving for the gifts of love from them (Philippians 4:10-20).

His joy on this account (Philippians 4:10), caution against misapprehension (Philippians 4:11-13), grateful recognition of their kindness (Philippians 4:14-17), and assurance of the Divine blessing (Philippians 4:18-20).

Sec. VII. SALUTATION AND BENEDICTION (Philippians 4:21-23).

The ground tone of this Epistle is found in the antithesis of joy and sorrow which runs through every part of it, not only in Paul’s references to his own joy in his diversified relations (Philippians 1:4; Philippians 1:18; Philippians 2:2; Philippians 2:17; Philippians 4:1; Philippians 4:10), but also in his exhortations to the church to cherish this spirit. The feeling of joy animates the Apostle in his darkest hours, and that joy is the mark which he has always in view. With Zöckler (Vilmar’s Pastoraltheologische Blätter, 1864, Heft 5 and 6, p. 239 sq.) we shall find the ground-thought in that divine mystery which Peter (1 Peter 1:11) designates as “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” (τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας), and describes as an object of hope and longing to the angels in heaven. Expressed in one sentence it is this: Only humble, loving self-denial, after the example of Christ, who has passed through the condition of self-abasement to His exaltation in heaven, can lift us up to true honor, to a full, abiding enjoyment of the Christian life.


(1) The character of the letter distinguishes it in a marked way from the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, The theme is not here as in those letters divided in its treatment into a theoretical and a hortatory part. It is a genuine outgush of the heart, and bears more than any other a familiar character (Wiesinger). It is a natural and unstudied expression of feeling, without doctrinal purpose or strict plan (Zöckler), although the beautiful organism of the letter is not to be overlooked, and Holtzmann (Herzog’s Real-encyk. Vol. xx. p. 401) should not say that it is wanting in close connection and progress of the thought. Even the single but extremely important doctrinal passage (Philippians 2:5-11) is ethically conceived, and bears directly with all its force upon practical life. As Meyer well remarks: “The entire contents breathe an inmost and touching love for this favorite Church. No other letter is so rich in heartfelt expressions and tender allusions—none so characteristically epistolary, without exact arrangement, without doctrinal discussions, without Old Testament citations and dialectic argumentations. None is so completely a letter of the heart, an outburst of passionate longing for the fellowship of love amid outward desertion and affliction; so that although at times almost elegiac in its tone, it is a model of the union of tender love with apostolic dignity and boldness.” Although the letter of a prisoner near death, it is melior alacriorque et blandior ceteris (Grotius). Written in view of death, yet full of unshaken hope of life, under heavy oppression, yet full of unbending courage, amid grievous conflicts, yet full of fresh zeal, it passes from expressions of tender love for the church to the severest denunciations of dangerous adversaries. With passages full of elegant negligence (Philippians 1:29), like Plato’s dialogues, and Cicero’s letters, it has passages of wonderful eloquence, and proceeds from entirely outward, special, relations and circumstances to wide-reaching thoughts and grand conceptions.

(2) Hence the importance of the letter, apart from the one doctrinal passage (Philippians 2:5-11), lies in the province of practical life. It treats of the mutual relations of the minister and his church, and also of the general Christian life, especially in regard to self-discipline and proper demeanor in circumstances of difficulty and towards various persons.

The Church has therefore selected from it four portions to be read on the fourth Sunday after Advent (Philippians 4:4-7), on Palm Sunday (Philippians 2:5-11), on the twenty-second (Philippians 1:3-11) and the twenty-third Sunday after Trinity (Philippians 3:17-21).


This unity appears from § § 1, 2, and it would be unnecessary to refer to it, had not Heinrichs (Novum Testamentum ed. Koppe VII. Proleg. p. 31 sqq.) and Paulus (Heidelb. Jahrb. 1817, 7, p. 702 sq.) brought forward the idea that there were two letters here, the one (Philippians 1:1 to Philippians 3:1, as far as χαίρετε ἐν κνριῳ, and Philippians 4:21-23) addressed to all the Philippians, and the other (Philippians 3:1Philippians 4:20) addressed to his more intimate friends, the ἐπίκοποι and διάκονοι; and that the exoteric and esoteric parts were first united by another hand. This view finds no exegetical support in λοιπόν (Philippians 3:1), τέλειοι (Philippians 3:15), as the explanation of the passages shows. It deserves to be forgotten, or to be mentioned only as a curiosity.


(1) The letter itself designates the Apostle Paul as the author (Philippians 1:1), represents Timothy as one of his associates (Philippians 1:1; Philippians 2:19), and refers to his imprisonment (Philippians 1:7), and to his former preaching in Macedonia (Philippians 4:15), in a manner entirely natural and in harmony with his actual relations. On this point, therefore, there is no room for doubt.

(2) The external testimonies maintain Paul’s authorship. Polycarp cites it (ad Philippians 3:11) as a letter of Paul’s, according to its position in Muratori’s Canon, after the Epistle to the Ephesians, and before that to the Colossians (Eph. § 4, 2), and in this he is followed by Ignatius, Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius who reckons it among the ὁμολογούμενα. Marcion also regards it as an epistle of Paul.

(3) It bears undeniably the Pauline impress in its contents and spirit, its delicate turns and allusions, its language and mode of representation (Meyer, comp. § 2,1). It should be remarked too that from the subordination of the doctrinal element, as also from the prominence of its characteristics as fresh, original, and called forth by a special occasion, all suspicion of forgery in the interest of doctrine is excluded (Meyer). Hence Olshausen could still say that this letter belongs to the few writings of the New Testament of which the genuineness has never been disputed.

(4) Schrader leads the way to the more recent assaults on this Epistle (Der Apostel Paulus, V. p. 233 sq.). According to his view, the passage Philippians 3:1 to Philippians 4:9 is interpolated between Philippians 2:30 and Philippians 4:10, destroying the symmetry of the letter and its character as a letter of friendship. This arbitrary assumption falls away at once before an unprejudiced interpretation of the passage in question.

The leader of the Tubingen School, Baur (especially in his Paulus, 1845, pp. 458–475) whom his pupil, Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeitalter II. 133–135), ably supports, makes the attack in a different way. Baur’s arguments group themselves under three heads:—

(a) The letter moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas, not combating them, but attaching itself to them. Consequently the passage, Philippians 2:5 sq., must have this import: ἁρπαγμός points to the Valentinian Sophia, which strives to force itself into the being of the Father (ἴσα τῷ θεῷ εἶναι) and thus sinks down from the πλήρωμα into the κένωμα; “Being found in the likeness of men,” etc. (ἐν ὁμοιώματι� and σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος) are Docetic; and the division into the three regions of ἐπουρανίων, ἐπιγείων καταχθονίων is purely Gnostic. This view also is utterly untenable in the light of impartial exegesis.

(b) The character of the letter justifies a doubt of its Pauline origin. The expression κύνες (Philippians 3:2) is indelicate; and the antithesis of κατατομή and περιτομή forced and out of place. The statement in Philippians 3:2 sq. is copied from 2 Corinthians 11:18 sq., and that in Philippians 4:15 contradicts 1 Corinthians 9:15 (ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ κέχρημαι οὐδενὶ τούτων), or at least 2 Corinthians 11:9, according to which the contribution did not reach him at the beginning of his Macedonian labors, but at a later period. The passage in Philippians arose probably from that in Corinthians by an exaggeration. The passage Philippians 4:16 is not historically correct, since Paul did not make a long stay there; further Philippians 3:1 (τὰ αὐτὰ γραφεῖν) indicates poverty of thought; and Philippians 3:6 (δικαιοσύνη ἐν νόμῳ) is un-Pauline. These charges also prove unfounded when we examine the passages.

(c) The historical relations all point to a post-Pauline period. Κλήμεντος (Philippians 4:3), in connection with ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας (Philippians 4:22), compels us to think of the relation of the Emperor Tiberius, Flavius Clemens, who on account of impiety (ἀθεότης) was condemned to death, and thus for the first time the προκοπὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Philippians 1:12) becomes clear, together with Paul’s joyful hope of a speedy release (Philippians 2:24). Further, in the fact that this Clemens, a genuine disciple of Peter, had become a συνεργός of Paul, we see the writer’s tendency to harmonize the representatives of the Jewish and Gentile Christians, Εὐοδία and Συντύχη (Philippians 4:2). Ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις (Philippians 1:1) is an anachronism in a Pauline Epistle. As to these objections also an unbiassed exegesis removes every difficulty.

Such objections to the genuineness of the letter become in reality vouchers for it. If there are no others against Paul’s authorship, we need not be concerned. They serve only to make us feel how uncertain are the decisions of critics who recognize such delicacy of feeling on the part of the writer, and yet complain of monotonous repetitions, poverty of thought, and a want of any definite theme or purpose. Lünemann (Pauli ad Phil. Ep. contra Baurium defendit, 1847) and Brückner (Ep. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata contra Baurium defendit, 1848) have triumphantly vindicated the genuineness of this letter.


(1) Their external relations. Not merely in the superscription (Philippians 1:1, ἐν Φιλίπποις) does the Apostle designate the place of the church, but also (which he seldom does except under deep emotion) in the body of the letter, where he mentions their gifts of love to him (Philippians 4:15 : Φιλιππήσιοι). Philippi is first mentioned in Acts 16:12. It was originally called Κρηνίδες from the great number of fountains in that region, afterwards Δάτος, and finally, when Philip, the son of Amyntas, king of Macedonia, enlarged and fortified it as a bulwark against the Thracians, about B. C. 358, it was named Φίλιπποι. It became still more celebrated on account of the battle fought there B. C. 42 between the Triumviri and Brutus and Cassius (which decided the fate of the republic), after which it was made a Roman colonia (Κολωνία, Acts 16:12) with the jus italicum; but it obtained its greatest glory as the first city of Europe in which the gospel was preached with great success by Paul (A. D. 53) on his second missionary journey (Acts 16:9-40). When it is said (Acts 16:12): ἐκεῖθεν εἰς Φιλίππους, ἥτις ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς μέριδος τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις, this πρῶτη evidently designates only its local position (ἐκεῖθεν, i.e., from Neapolis), not its political importance. It lies not far from the sea,1 and after Neapolis, the port of Philippi, reckoned at that time as in Thrace (Van Hengel Comment. Ep. ad. Phil. p. 4), is the first city reached on coming from Neapolis to Macedonia. The capital of Macedonia was Amphipolis (Liv. 45, 29). Comp. Acts of the Apostles, Lange’s Series, p. 304. Paul, along with the happy results of his preaching in the conversion of Lydia and the jailor, had suffered many trials there (1 Thessalonians 2:2 : προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες). After probably a short stay at Philippi on his third missionary journey (Acts 20:1-2), he remained there somewhat longer on his return, though still not a long time (Acts 20:6).

[Some of the later commentators (even Meyer, Comment, über die Briefe an die Philipper, etc., p. 1, 1859) speak of a village, Felibah, as still occupying the ancient site. This is incorrect. Cousinery wrote nearly forty years ago: “La ville célébre de Philippi ne renforme aujourdh’ hui que des animaux sauvages; l’ oiseau de Minerva se y régénère au milieu des debris” (Voyage dans la Macedonie, p. 17, tome 2, Paris, 1831). The nearest human habitation at present is a Greek κατάλυμα, or caravansary, a mile or more from the ruins, though the ancient name undoubtedly still lingers among the peasants of the country. The nearest village is Bereketli, several miles distant. The ruins consist principally of the remains of a theatre or amphitheatre on the side of the hill which formed the acropolis of Philippi, mounds of rubbish containing broken columns and fragments of marble, two lofty gateways supposed to have belonged to a colossal temple of the emperor Claudius, and a portion of the ancient city wall on the east side towards Kavalla (Neapolis). Latin inscriptions are still found there, which show that the place was once occupied by Romans. (See the addition to Colony in the American edition of Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Vol. I. p. 447).

The river of which Luke speaks in Acts 16:13 is undoubtedly the Gangas or Gangites mentioned by ancient writers (Herod. vii. 113), and said to be known still as Anghista. It is not a permanent stream, but, like many of the so-called rivers (ποταμοί) in the East, may be entirely dry in summer, but flow with water in the rainy season. When the writer was there on the 13th of December, 1859, it was a rapid torrent, rushing and foaming over its rocky bed, varying in depth at different points from one and two feet to four and five feet, and covering a bed of about thirty feet in width. The stones at the bottom showed the action at times of a still more powerful current. The channel of this stream is only a few rods beyond the circuit of the city, as indicated by the parts of the wall which still remain. For other information respecting the site of Philippi and its harbor, Neapolis, the present Kavalla, see Bibl. Sacra, Vol. xvii. 873 ff. It was on the bank of this stream that the Jews or Jewish proselytes assembled for worship (Acts 16:13), and hence, as Luke’s expression indicates (for we are to read there, ἐκ πύλης, out of the gate and not ἐκ πόλεως, out of the city), they had only to pass out of the gate, and would then come at once to the river-side.—H.]

Nearly all the inhabitants of Philippi were heathen, among whom were a few Jews, who did not have even a synagogue, but only a place of prayer (Acts 16:13, Lange’s Series, p. 304), without the city, near the river, where also a few proselytes worshipped with them. Among these undoubtedly the Apostle gained his first converts. The church must have been composed principally of Gentiles. We cannot infer, on sufficient grounds, that the church was wealthy, either from the case of Lydia or the jailor, or from their gifts to the Apostle. Polycarp indeed, in his letter to the Philippians, censures their love of money; but he died A. D. 168 at the age of 86, and wrote his letter at least fifty or sixty years after Paul wrote to the Philippians. During this period great changes may have taken place even in the outward circumstances of the church.2

2. The internal condition of the church was, on the whole, very favorable. The church could not have remained weak, as the Jewish congregation there had been; for it had ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι (Philippians 1:1). It must therefore have been also well regulated. We must not overlook the fact that Paul writes πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (Philippians 1:1). This πᾶσιν is omitted in his letter to the Colossians, who were known to him, and in his letter to the Ephesians, while in his letter to the Romans, who were as yet unknown to him, and in his second letter to the Corinthians, it occupies a different position. He also not merely salutes πάντα ἅγιον (Philippians 4:21), but rejoices in them all (Philippians 2:17). In like manner Epaphroditus longs earnestly, not after Philippi merely, but even after them all (Philippians 2:26), and is anxious because they have heard of his sickness. More than once, before the Apostle arrived at Corinth, did they contribute to his support (Philippians 4:15-16), nor did they probably fail to share in the gifts of love which were sent from Macedonia to Corinth (2 Corinthians 11:9), and now again they have forwarded by a messenger their gifts to him at Rome (Philippians 4:10-20). It was this last act, together with the return of Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-30), which gave occasion for the letter. They have their trials (Philippians 1:29), but remain faithful. Adversaries (ἀντικείμενοι) come among them (Philippians 1:28), also false teachers (Philippians 3:2 sq.), and enemies to Christ (Philippians 3:18-19), but it is always evident that they do not come forth from them nor succeed among them. He has no fear of intellectual or doctrinal errors among them, but only calls their attention to the approaching danger. The false teachers are Judaistic, as among the Galatians, but with this difference, that among the latter they had arisen in the church itself, and had met with success, whereas here they had entered the church from without, and had hitherto met with no success. He is obliged indeed to exhort them to harmony (Philippians 2:1-4; Philippians 4:2-3), to pray for their furtherance in knowledge and experience (Philippians 1:9), to warn them against strife and vanity (Philippians 2:3-4); but not in a tone of accusation or of reproach on account of grievous errors, as in the case of the Corinthians and others. If therefore officiousness or a striving for pre-eminence existed among them, or the conceit of moral perfection (Wiesinger), the rivalship of spiritual pride, which leads one by turns to arrogate to himself or to disclaim Christian perfection (Meyer), the tinder of this pride, ever ready for the spark, namely, a tendency to excessive self-estimation (Schenkel), or ascetic jealousy (De Wette), we are to understand this as applicable to single persons, or occurrences, or as pertaining to the natural man, from whom even the true Christian is not freed. Without this view of the case, Paul’s high commendation of the Philippians (Philippians 4:1, χαρὰ καὶ στεφανος μου), the praise awarded to them at the beginning of the letter (Philippians 1:3-11), the account of his external condition (Philippians 1:12-20), and also of his state of mind (Philippians 1:21-26; Philippians 3:7-15), become unintelligible.


(1) Facts of the letter. According to Philippians 1:7; Philippians 1:13-20; Philippians 4:22, it is evident that Paul is a prisoner: that he has freedom and opportunity to preach: that he has been in that situation for some time, and is in such relations with the well-known: Prætorium (τῷ πραιτορἰῳ) that his person and work have become known throughout that camp (ἐν ὄλῳ) and among all the others (τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν) who would here come into question. There is a church there, which is also not without witnesses for Christ, of whom some indeed are “contentious” (οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας), so that we are to think of an important place in which such dissension would be comparatively of little account; and as, finally, the imperial palace (ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία) is there, the place thus variously indicated must be Rome.

Since Paul has been there for some time, he cannot have written this letter in the beginning of his imprisonment, but must have written it towards its close;—an inference which is confirmed by his uncertainty as to whether he will be finally released, or meet with a martyr’s death. Hence we conclude that this letter was written at Rome, A. D. 63 or 64, a year after that to the Colossians, and in the spring, which we infer not from ἀνεθάλετε (see on Philippians 4:10), but from the return of Epaphroditus, which the opening of the spring navigation rendered practicable. The subscriptions of the Codices from the fourth century and onwards (B. and others at the end) favor this conclusion.

The Church, which divided the letters of Paul into those addressed to churches and those addressed to individuals, arranged them according to their stichometric length, and thus our letter stands before Colossians. Only the epistle to the Ephesians, which with its 155 verses contains only six more verses than Galatians (in the cod. Sin. however, 48 στοῖχοι), is placed after Galatians, because in comparison with the latter composition the difference in length was of minor importance. (Laurent, Neutestamentliche Studien, p. 43 sq.).

(2) The following are different views: Oeder [De tempore et loco epistolæ ad Phil scriptœ. Onoldi, 1731), transfers the letter to the time of Paul’s sojourn of a year and a half at Corinth (Acts 18:11). But the Apostle was not then in prison, and not in danger of death, as at Rome.

D. Paulus (1799), Böttger, (Beiträge, Göttingen, 1837), and others, refer the letter to the time of Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea. Böttger, not without acuteness and learning, founds his argument upon the misunderstood judicial procedure, according to which an appeal must be answered within five or ten days. Maintaining that Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, resulting from his appeal to the emperor, could last only five days, he assumes (since Paul was in prison there during two years, Acts 28:30), a second imprisonment, and by a forced explanation understands τῷ πραιτωρίῳ (Philippians 1:13), and ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία (Philippians 4:22), of imperial edifices out of Rome, and on account of ἐν τῷ πραιτωρίῳ Ἡρώδου (Acts 23:35) he places these at Cæsarea. But on this view he does not explain the other indications (above noticed) which point out the time and place of composition, and creates a new perplexity, namely, how Luke (Acts 28:16-23) forgot to mention that Paul was released, and was not imprisoned at Rome until a later period.


For General Works see the Introduction to Ephesians, § 7.
Special Works.—Melanchthon.—Argumentum Ep. Pauli ad. Phil. (Corp. Ref. XV. pp. (1283–1294).—Musculus: Comment.—Am Ende: Ep. ad. Phil. Grœce, nova versione lat. et annot. perpet. illustr., 1789.—Heinrichs, in N. T. ed. Koppe, vol. VII. p. II. 1826.—Rheinwald: Comment, über den Brief an die Philipper, 1827.—Matthies: Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Philipper 1835.—Van Hengel: Comm. perpet. in Ep. ad. Phil. 1838, (distinguished for philological accuracy).—Hölemann: Comm. in Ep. D. Pauli ad. Phil. 1839 (too artificial).—Rilliet: Commentaire sur l’ épître de l’ apôtre Paul aux Philippiens 1841.—Wiesinger in Olshausen’s Commentary on the N. T., vol. 5, 1850, (with fine remarks).—Conr. Müller: Commentatio de locis quibusdam Ep. ad. Phil. 1843.—Schinz: (of Zürich) die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi, 1833.

On the important passage Philippians 2:5-11, compare especially the following: Umbreit, in the review of Rheinwald’s Commentar in “Studien und Kritiken,” pp. 593–596.—Stein, ibid. 1837, pp. 165–180. Ernesti, ibid., 1848, pp. 858–924; 1851, pp. 595–630; and Tholuck’s Pfingstprogramm, Phil 1847: Disputatio christologica de loc. Paul. Phil. II. 6–9.

For a practical exposition see, besides those mentioned in the Introduction to Ephesians, [§ 7], which include our epistle, Schleiermacher: Predigten über den Brief an die Philipper Werken. 2 Abtheilung, 10 Band, S. 337–804.—Passavant: Versuch einer practischen Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Philipper, 1834.—Menken: In Homiletischen Blättern, 1835, S. 300–419.—Kähler: Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Philipper in 25 Predigten, 1855.

[The following additional works may be mentioned:

In German:

1) Dr. August Neander: Der Brief Pauli an die Philipper praktisch erläutert, with Luther’s version corrected by F. Th. Schneider (pp. 1–162; Berlin, 1849). This work is translated by Mrs. H. Conant (pp. 1–140; New York, 1851). The quotations from Neander in the pages which follow are to be accredited to this translation.

2) Gr. Fr. Jatho: Pauli Brief an die Philipper (1857).

3) Dr. Bernhard Weiss: Der Philipper Brief ausgelegt und die Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt (Berlin, 1859). An important work for illustrating the relations of the epistle to dogmatic theology.

4) Dr. D. Schenkel: Die Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper, und Colosser (1862).

In English:

1) Rev. John Trapp, A. M.: Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians, contained in his Commentary on the New Testament (edited by Rev. W. Webster, Lond., 1865). Some extracts from this work are given among the Homiletic and Practical remarks.

2) Rev. Robert Hall, A.M.: A Practical Exposition of the Epistle to the Philippians, in Twelve Discourses, delivered at Cambridge in 1801 and 1802. (Stenographic notes, but very full, with reference both to the ideas and the language of the preacher. They are good specimens of pulpit exposition by one of the great masters of sacred eloquence).

3) Rev. Fr. D. Maurice: Epistle to the Philippians, pp. 549–558, in his Unity of the New Testament (1854).

4) Webster and Wilkinson: New Testament, with Notes Grammatical and Exegetical, II. 506–528 (London, 1861).

5) T. B. Lightfoot, D. D.: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (London, 1868).

6) Prof. John Eadie: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul on Philippians (Edinburg and New York, 1859).

The remarks of Professor Stuart on Philippians 2:5-8 are in the best style of that eminent interpreter (Miscellanies, Andover, 1846).

The older Commentaries of Calvin, Bengel, Henry, Macknight, Doddridge, and the later Commentaries of Barnes, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott, and Wordsworth, are too well known to be formally cited.

Lectures on the Character of St. Paul. By the Rev. J. Howson, D. D. (2d ed., London, 1864). The author has drawn some of his finest illustrations from the Epistle to the Philippians. He shows that the heart of the great Apostle, that the distinctively personal traits of his character, are revealed more fully in this letter than in any of his other writings.

The articles on Philippi and Neapolis in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie and in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible may be consulted with advantage on the persons and places mentioned in the Epistle.—H.]


[1][It is somewhat less, certainly, than 10 miles. The recent French explorers (Mission Archéologique) make the distance from 12 to 13 kilomètres, i.e., about 9 Roman miles. From the crags which overlook the road across Symbolum from Kavalla, the ancient Neapolis, to the site of Philippi, the traveller has both places in sight at the same time.—H.]

[2] Polycarp charges two members of the Philippian church with the vice of avarice, but exonerates the church as a whole from any participation in their sin. See Prof. Lightfoot’s Commentary, p. 63, note 1.—H.]

adsFree icon
Ads FreeProfile