PHILIP
PHILIP 835
a eee
significant reminiscences, some characteristics of those two friends of his youth.
Philip’s Eepmpt reply to our Lord’s inquiry in Jn6™ suggests that he had anticipated his Master’s compassionate desire to feed the multitude in the wilderness, and had reckoned up (privately, but not unobserved by Jesus) the minimum sum re- quired for the purpose,* without any thought, seemingly, of miraculous intervention. Philip’s Greek name, given to him, perhaps, in honour of Philip the tetrarch (Lk 3"), led probably to the “Greeks who came up to worship at the feast’ selecting him as a medium of introduction to Christ ; but it was an ΒΡΌΡΟΡΣΙΑΙΘ coincidence that those who wished to ‘see Jesus’ should have applied to one who had said to Nathanael, ‘Come an see.’ Philip’s application to Andrew (who also bore a Greek name, and, like Philip, had brought another into Christ’s presence), to take part, as principal (Jn 123 RY), in the desired introduction, arose probably not from any doubt as to our Lord’s willingness (Jn 1016), but from modesty and a sense of the importance of the occasion, The request of Philip, on the occasion of Christ’s address on the night before the Passion (148), for some such revelation, presumably, of God the Father as Moses had enjoyed (Ex 33%), indicates the union of earnest religious aspiration with somewhat dull ot aa apprehension. He was seeking after the
‘adow of a theophany, when the substance of the incarnation was already given to him; just as he had formerly concerned himself about the need of 200 pence, when the riches of Christ’s miraculous pee were available. Philip’s motto i eee to
ve been ‘Seeing is Believing,’ both in the signi- fication of undue dependence upon testimony addressed to the senses, and in the worthier meaning of an appreciation of the value of ex- Peemuenial evidence. The main lesson to be earned from the incidents of Philip’s history as related in the Gospel is this, that while a sincere believer needs to be thoroughly ‘proved’ (Jn 6°) and instructed before he is fit to ‘go forth’ asa leader and pastor of the Church ; on the other hand, if the portion of truth already apprehended be faithfully held, he may, amid defective knowledge σα 15 ‘son of Joseph’) and imperfect spiritual
ight, possess the genuinely missionary spirit, be instrumental in leading others to Christ, and advance the kingdom of heaven.t
Philip’s life and work after the Ascension are obscured by the widely prevalent confusion in early times between this apostle and the evan- gelist Philip, who was one of the ‘Seven.’¢ The confusion arose, doubtless, from the wider use, after Pentecost, of the word ‘apostle,’ as including others besides the Twelve (see APOSTLE). It seems best to accept as reliable the earliest distinct testi- mony regar ing Philip’s later career furnished by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in the latter part of the 2nd cent., who was aor to have been well- informed. Polycrates (quoted by Eusebius, iii. 31) states that Philip, ‘one of the Twelve,’ lived as
* A denarius or ‘penny’ (about 94d.) purchased 12 wheat or 86 barley ‘loaves ’(Mishna, Peah, viii. 7 and Rev 6®)—round cakes an inch thick and a span in diameter. 200 ‘ pence’ would thus procure a scant meal (Jer 87%, Lk 116) for 5000 men and 2200 women and children.
ἡ Clement of Alex. (Strom. lil. 4) records 8 tradition that Philip was the disciple referred to in Mt 5% as asking Christ for permission ‘firat to go and bury my father.’ If so, the incident belongs to Philip’s call, not to discipleship, but to apni en permanent departure from home was in- i ‘Thus Tertullian (de Bapt. 18) speaks of the Apostle Phill
‘snatched away from the eunuch’; the Philip of Ac 6 referred to in the Apost. Const. vi. 7 a8 ruraworredes | and in Calendars of the Coptic and Armenian Churches there is a commemoration of Philip as‘ Deacon and Apostle '(Assem. Bild. Or. iil, 645; cf. Wright, Apoc. Acts of Ap. il. p. 691f., where the history is given of Philip, ‘Apostle and Evangelist’). Even Euseblus in the confusion (H iil. 31)
one of the ‘great lights of Asia,’ and is ‘ buried at Hierapolis along with his two aged virgin daugh- ters’ ; and he adds that another daughter, who ‘lived in (fellowship with) the Holy Spirit,’ was buried at Ephesus.* The statement of Polycrates is supported by the apocryphal Journeyings of Philip the Apostle (ard cent.), which represent Hierapolis as the chief scene of his labours, and associate him significantly with Bartholomew (who is described, however, as one of the Seventy); by Theodoret, the historian, who records in his Com- mentary on Ps 116 (Eng. 117] that ‘the apostle ee controverted the error of the Phrygians’ (to whose country Hierapolis belonged); by pseudo- Dorotheus, who states in his Synopsis that Phili of Bethsaida preached in Phrygia, and is buri with his daughters in Hierapolis; and by pseudo- Epiphanius, who makes a similar declaration (Lip- sius, Apokr. Apost. i. pp. 211-213, iii. 25, 26).+ In substantial harmony, so far, with Polycrates is his contemporary Clement of Alexandria, who states (Strom. iii. 6) that the ‘apostles Peter and Philip begat children,’ and that the latter apostle ‘gave his daughters in marriage’ (which would account for the burial of one daughter in Ephesus and not in Hierapolis). The fact of Philip the Evangelist having had four virgin daughters who prophesied, does not invalidate the early testimony to Philip the Apostle having also bad notable daughters, although it may have led to confusion on the part of later or less well-informed writers; and the apostle’s settlement and labours in Asia Minor harmonize with the introduction of his name on three occasions into the Gospel written at Ephesus by St. John.t