Still stronger, I am full, having received, etc. The things sent by you are characterized as a pleasing sacrifice offered to God. T 0εw belongs to all the parts of the apposition. 'Ooun evwdías describes the sacrifice in respect of its efficacy, as a sweet smelling odour. It is the in of the Old Testament, Lev. i. 9, 13, etc., comp. Eph. v. 2. This is predicated only of free-will offerings (177). On this New Testament view of a sacrifice, which has of late been again justly brought into prominence, and its practical importance held forth, compare such passages as Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Heb. xiii. 16; Phil. ii. 17.-Ver. 19. De Wette correctly: advancing from the idea of acceptability to that of recompense. On my God, comp. i. 3. God recompenses what is done to him, as he is God. Пanpo, with reference to ελýpoμaι, ver. 18, loses in force if not viewed as a pure fut. ; the apostle makes an express promise. The promise is differently understood, some explaining Tãoav Xpeiuv of bodily, others of spiritual wants, and others of both. It is scarcely possible to settle this point on grammatical grounds or from the context. For xpeía in itself, as De Wette has observed in opposition to Van Hengel, decides as little for the reference to bodily, comp. Eph. iv. 29, as πhouтоç, to spiritual necessities. Still from the signification of xpɛía at ver. 16 and the parallel, 2 Cor. ix. 8-11, to which De Wette has already referred, I also am inclined to regard the reference to the bodily need as the more natural, and in no case would we be at liberty to exclude this. Meyer understands every want both bodily and spiritual, but refers λnpwoε not to the earthly recompense, but to the recompense in the kingdom of the Messiah, for which he finds conclusive ground in the v δόξη which is to be viewed as instrumental, dependent on πληρώσει, and denoting the Messianic glory. But this idea of the Messianic glory is warranted neither by the indefinite expression ¿v dósŋ, nor by iv Xplor 'I., which, according to Meyer himself, expresses nothing more than the causal confirmation of the promise. And if the apostle says of himself, πεπλήρωμαι, why should he in πληρώσει refer his readers to the day of the second coming for the supply of their every want? He does not do this in 2 Cor. ix. 8, seq.; and the Lord himself does not refer his people to a period beyond the present life for the supply of their every want, Matth. vi. 33. 'Ev dós as also ev Χριστῷ Ἰ. belongs to πληρώσει. The former either designates the object with which God satisfies their need (Eph. v. 18; Col. iv. 12, etc.), or denotes the manner of this satisfaction. 'Ev dós is however δόξῃ no fitting expression for the object corresponding to every need (especially if by xpeía are understood wants pertaining to the body), and would, in this case, have certainly been more exactly defined. All the passages cited above, in which λŋpov occurs with iv, have a clearly defined object. Quite differently again 2 Cor. ix. 8. We δόξῃ can therefore understand er dós only as denoting the way and manner in which God will supply every want; in glory, according to his riches. Against the connexion of iv dósy with houтov, Meyer has justly observed, that it is not to be overlooked why the apostle has not adhered to the usual expression, and written τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. Finally, the words ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰ. shew wherein this πληρώσει has its ground; they are therefore not to be rendered in communione Christi, as the verb to which they belong does not denote a human action; what Muskulus says is however substantially true: this supply is to be looked for by them only in so far as they abide in Christ, i. e., in the faith and religion of Christ. (Van Hengel, p. 326.) Ver. 20.-The thought of the glorious recompense from God calls forth the ascription of praise to God. Comp. Eph. iii. 20; Rom. xi. 36. At i dóža supply εin. Comp. Harless on Eph. iii. 20, "the glory that belongs to God is ascribed to him, and that for ever and ever, or through all ages." Comp. Gal. i. 5; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 18, etc.; comp. Olshausen on Eph. iii. 21, and Harless on alúv, Eph. ii. 2. Vers. 21-23.- Salutations and benediction. Salute every saint, applies to the whole church; it is a mutual greeting, as at Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12, where one another is used. Similarly 1 Thess. v. 26, all the brethren. In all these passages the words with a holy kiss, instead of as here, in Christ Jesus, mark the Christian character of the salutation, a salutation which derives its significance from the consciousness of fellowship with Christ. So Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Meyer has with reason rejected the connexion of ἅγιον with ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰ. The expression every saint, not all the saints, denotes that each individual is specially saluted. The brethren which are with me, as distinguished from all the saints ver. 22, denote the inner circle of the apostle's acquaintance, those mentioned i. 14, from which also those indicated ii. 20 need not be excluded; for there is no reason to suppose that a salutation might not be sent from them. He then sends a salutation, ver. 22, from all the saints at Rome, chiefly from those that are of Cæsar's household, οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας. The ambiguity of these words appears in the variety of interpretations assigned to them. Some understand, relations of the emperor, others, servants of the emperor, others, inhabitants of a house belonging to the emperor. Decisive for the settlement of this point, is the question whether the oixía Kaíoapos here is the same as the pairóptov i. 13. If they are identical, then oikia Kaíoapoç cannot mean the imperial palace in Rome, which is never called рairóptov, but palatium. But neither can we well suppose the prætorium in Rome to be meant, as it is most improbable that this would be called Kaíoapoç oixía in Rome itself, where the emperor lived. This difficulty does not attach certainly to the view taken by Böttger, that Kaioapos oikia is the palace of Herod in Cæsarea, which after the death of Herod Agrippa the elder, had become, like every other royal house, an oixía Kaíoapoç, and was used as a Tрairóрtov (Acts xxiii. 35). This oikia, as the only one of the kind in Cæsarea, might properly enough be designated Kaíoapos oixía. But, apart from his other reasons in proof of this epistle's having been written in Cæsarea (on which see Introd.) Böttger has not proved, and will not be able to prove, that πραιτώριον, i. 13, and ἡ Καίσαρος oikía here, are necessarily the same. Allowing that we are justified in maintaining that this epistle was written from Rome, we may without much hesitation abide by the opinion that ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία is different from the prætorium, i. 13, and denotes the imperial palace, while by the οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας are most probably meant servants belonging to the emperor's household, with whom the apostle had come into contact through his residence in the prætorium. There is little probability in itself of relations being meant (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 15), besides the absence of all historical ground for such a supposition, and also, that had such been the case, it would have been brought into greater prominence. Matthies' view that prætorians in Rome are meant, is disproved in what has been said. That procurators in Cæsarea are meant (Rill.) is contradicted even by the plural, apart altogether from the question with regard to Cæsarea. For what remains on this subject comp. Böttger's learned treatise, in his Beiträgen ii. p. 47, seq. Olshausen also holds the view here developed. Why they of Cæsar's household should be mentioned as especially saluting the Christians at Philippi, cannot be determined. That the apostle aimed at encouraging the Philippians, as Chrysostom supposes, is not a sufficient explanation, as he could not send such a salutation except in consequence of an actual commission. Ver. 23.-The apostle concludes with the usual benediction: the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Comp. Rom. xvi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 23, etc. Manuscripts of some authority read, Tou πνεύματος, instead of πάντων, and Lachmann and Tischendorff have received it into the text. The form here has then most resemblance to Gal. vi. 18. |