Albert Barnes Commentary Philippians 1

Paul and Timotheus. Paul frequently joins some person with himself in his epistles. (See Barnes on 1 Corinthians 1:1).

It is clear from this that Timothy was with Paul at Rome. Why he was there is unknown. It is evident that he was not there as a prisoner with Paul; and the probability is that he was one of the friends who had gone to Rome to show his sympathy with Paul in his sufferings. (See Barnes on 2 Timothy 4:9).

There was special propriety in the fact that Timothy was joined with the apostle in writing the epistle, for he was with him when the church was founded and doubtless felt a deep interest in its welfare (Acts 16). Timothy had remained in Macedonia after Paul went to Athens, and it is not improbable that he had visited them afterwards.

The servants of Jesus Christ. (See Barnes on Romans 1:1).

To all the saints in Christ Jesus. This is the common designation given to the church, denoting that it was holy. (See Barnes on Romans 1:7).

With the Bishops. sun episkopois. (See Barnes on Acts 20:28).

The word used here occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: Acts 20:28, translated overseers; and Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25, in each of which places it is rendered bishop. The word properly means an inspector, overseer, or guardian, and was given to the ministers of the gospel because they exercised this care over the churches or were appointed to oversee their interests.

It is a term, therefore,which might be given to any of the officers of the churches and was originally equivalent to the term presbyter. It is evidently used in this sense here. It cannot be used to denote a diocesan bishop, or a bishop having the care of the churches in a large district of country and of a superior rank to other ministers of the gospel, for the word is used here in the plural number, and it is in the highest degree improbable that there were dioceses in Philippi.

Moreover, it is clear that they were the only officers of the church here, except "deacons," and the persons referred to, therefore, must have been those invested simply with the pastoral office.

Thus, Jerome, one of the early fathers, says concerning the word bishop: "A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And until divisions arose in religion, churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. But afterwards, it was everywhere decreed that one person, elected from the presbyters, should be placed over the others." He continues, "Philippi is a single city of Macedonia; and certainly there could not have been several (such as are now called bishops) in the same city at one time. But as, at that time, they called the same individuals bishops whom they also called presbyters, the apostle spoke of bishops as of presbyters without distinction." (Annotations on the Epistle to Titus, as quoted by Dr. Woods on Episcopacy, p. 68).

And Deacons. On the appointment of deacons and their duty, (See Barnes on Acts 6:1).

The word deacons does not occur before this place in the common version of the New Testament, though the Greek word here rendered deacon frequently occurs. It is rendered minister and ministers in Matthew 20:26; Mark 10:43; Romans 13:4; Romans 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 11:15, 23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 1:7, 23, 25; Colossians 4:7; 1 Timothy 4:6; servant and servants in Matthew 22:13; Matthew 23:11; Mark 9:35; John 2:5, 9; John 12:26; Romans 16:1; and deacon or deacons in Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 12.

The word properly means servants, and is then applied to the ministers of the gospel as being the servants of Christ and of the churches. Hence it came especially to denote those who had charge of the alms of the church and who were the overseers of the sick and the poor. In this sense, the word is probably used in the present passage, as the officers referred to here were distinct in some way from the bishops.

The apostle here mentions only two orders of ministers in the church at Philippi; and this account is of great importance in its bearing on the question about the way in which Christian churches were first organized, and about the officers who existed in them. In regard to this, we may remark:

1. That only two orders of ministers are mentioned. This is undeniable, whatever rank they may have held.

2. There is no intimation whatever that a minister like a prelatical bishop had ever been appointed there, and that the incumbent of the office was absent, or that the office was now vacant. If the bishop was absent, as Bloomfield and others suppose, it is remarkable that no allusion is made to him, and that Paul should have left the impression that there were, in fact, only two "orders" there.

   If there were a prelate there, why did not Paul refer to him with affectionate salutation? Why does he refer to the two other "orders of clergy" without the slightest allusion to the man who was set over them as "superior in ministerial rank and power?" Was Paul jealous of this prelate?

   But if they had a prelate and the see was then vacant, why is there no reference to this fact? Why no condolence at their loss? Why no prayer that God would send them a man to enter into the vacant diocese? It is a mere assumption to suppose, as the friends of prelacy often do, that they had a prelatical bishop but that he was then absent. But even granting this, it is an inquiry that has never been answered why Paul did not make some reference to this fact and ask their prayers for the absent prelate.

3. The church was organized by the apostle Paul himself, and there can be no doubt that it was organized on the "truly primitive and apostolic plan."
4. The church at Philippi was in the center of a large territory, was the capital of Macedonia, and was not likely to be placed in subjection to the diocesan of another region.
5. It was surrounded by other churches, as we have express mention of the church at Thessalonica and the preaching of the gospel at Berea (Acts 17).

6. There is more than one bishop mentioned as connected with the church at Philippi. But these could not have been bishops of the Episcopal or prelatical order. If Episcopalians choose to say that they were prelates, then it follows:

   1. That there was a plurality of such persons in the same diocese, the same city, and the same church—which is contrary to the fundamental idea of Episcopacy.

   2. It also follows that what Episcopalians call the "second order" of clergy was entirely wanting in the church at Philippi; that a church was organized by the apostles defective in one of the essential grades, with a body of prelates without presbyters—that is, an order of men of "superior" rank, designated to exercise jurisdiction over "priests" who had no existence. If there were such presbyters or "priests" there, why did not Paul name them? If their office was one contemplated in the church and was then vacant, how did this happen? And if this were so, why is there no allusion to so remarkable a fact?

7. It follows, therefore, that in this church there were only two orders of officers; and, further, that it is right and proper to apply the term bishop to the ordinary ministers of the churches.

   As no mention is made of a prelate, and as there are only two orders of men mentioned to whom the care of the church was entrusted, it follows that there was at least one church organized by the apostles without any prelate.

8. The same thing may be observed in regard to the distinction between "teaching" elders and "ruling" elders. No such distinction is referred to here; and however useful such an office as that of ruling elder may be, and certain as it is that such an office existed in some of the primitive churches, yet here is one church where no such officer is found. This fact proves that such an officer is not essential to the Christian church.

Grace be unto you, etc. See Barnes "Romans 1:7".

I thank my God upon every remembrance of you (Philippians 1:3). A marginal note suggests mention. The Greek word means recollection, remembrance. This recollection could have been prompted either by his own reflections on what he had seen, by what he had heard about them from others, or by the favors they had bestowed on him, which reminded him of them.

The meaning is that whenever he thought of them, regardless of the cause, he found reason for thankfulness. He states that he thanked his God, indicating that the Philippians' conduct was a proof of God's favor to him. In other words, he regarded their piety as one of the signs of God's favor to his own soul, because he had been mainly instrumental in producing that piety.

Always. There is much emphasis in the expressions used here. Paul labors to show them that he never forgot them; that he always remembered them in his prayers.

In every prayer of mine. This was a proof of particular and special affection, that while there were so many objects demanding his prayers, and so many other churches that he had founded, he never forgot them. The person or object that we remember in every prayer must be very dear to the heart.

For you all. Not for the church in general, but for the individual member. "He diligently repeats the word all, so that he might show that he loved them all equally well, and so that he might more successfully prompt them to demonstrate the same love and benevolence." Wetstein.

Making request with joy. With joy at your consistent walk and benevolent lives—mingling thanksgiving with my prayers because of your holy walk.

For your fellowship in the Gospel. "For your liberality towards me, a preacher of the gospel." Wetstein. There has been, however, considerable difference of opinion about the meaning of this phrase.

Many—as Doddridge, Koppe, and others—suppose it refers to the fact that they participated in the blessings of the gospel from the first day that he preached it until he wrote this epistle. Others suppose that it refers to their constancy in the Christian faith.

Others—as Pierce, Michaelis, Wetstein, Bloomfield, and Storr—suppose it refers to their liberality in contributing to the support of the gospel: to their participating with others, or sharing what they had in common with others, for the maintenance of the gospel. That this is the true sense seems apparent:

1. Because it accords with the scope of the epistle and what the apostle elsewhere says of their benefactions. He speaks particularly of their liberality, and indeed this was one of the principal occasions of his writing the epistle (Philippians 4:10–12, 15-18).

2. It accords with a frequent meaning of the word rendered fellowship—koinonia. It denotes that which is in common, that of which we participate with others: communion, fellowship (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:16; Philemon 1:6). Then it means communication, distribution, contribution (Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13).

   That it cannot mean "accession to the gospel," as has been supposed (see Rob. Lex.), is apparent from what he adds—"from the first day until now." The fellowship must have been something constant and continually manifest.

   The general meaning is that in relation to the gospel—to its support, privileges, and spirit—they all shared in common. They felt a common interest in everything that pertained to it, and they showed this in every suitable way, especially in ministering to the needs of those who were appointed to preach it.

From the first day. This refers to the time when the gospel was first preached to them. They had been constant. This is honourable testimony. It is much to say of a church, or of an individual Christian, that they have been constant and uniform in the requirements of the gospel. Alas, of how few can this be said! On these verses (Philippians 1:3–5) we may remark:

1. One of the highest joys a minister of the gospel can have is that furnished by the holy walk of the people to whom he has ministered (Compare 3 John 1:4). It is joy like that of a farmer when he sees his fields whiten for a rich harvest; like that of a teacher in the good conduct and rapid progress of his scholars; like that of a parent in the virtue, success, and piety of his sons.

   Yet it is superior to all that. The interests are higher and more important, the results are more far-reaching and pure, and the joy is more disinterested. Probably there is nowhere else on earth any happiness so pure, elevated, consoling, and rich, as that of a pastor in the piety, peace, benevolence, and growing zeal of his people.

2. It is right to commend Christians when they do well. Paul never hesitated to do this and never supposed that it would do harm. Flattery would do harm—but Paul never flattered. Commendation or praise, in order to do good and not harm, should be:

   1. The simple statement of the truth;

   2. It should be without exaggeration;

   3. It should be connected with an equal readiness to rebuke when wrong, to admonish when in error, and to counsel when one goes astray. Constant fault-finding, scolding, or fretfulness does no good in a family, a school, or a church. The tendency is to dishearten, irritate, and discourage.

      To commend a child when he does well may be as important, and as much a duty, as to rebuke him when he does wrong. God is as careful to commend his people when they do well as He is to rebuke them when they do wrong—and that parent, teacher, or pastor has greatly mistaken the path of wisdom who supposes it to be his duty always to find fault.

      In this world, there is nothing that goes so far in promoting happiness as a willingness to be pleased rather than displeased, to be satisfied rather than dissatisfied with the conduct of others.

3. Our absent friends should be remembered in our prayers. On our knees before God is the best place to remember them. We do not know their condition. If they are sick, we cannot minister to their needs; if in danger, we cannot run to their relief; if tempted, we cannot counsel them.

   But God, who is with them, can do all this; and it is an inestimable privilege to be permitted to commend them to his holy care and keeping in this way. Besides, it is a duty to do it. It is one way—and the best way—to repay their kindness.

   A child may always be repaying the kindness of absent parents by supplicating the Divine blessing on them each morning; and a brother may strengthen and continue his love for a sister, and in part repay her tender love, by seeking, when far away, the Divine favour to be bestowed on her.