* SEP 21 1909 * 
 ty SE ραν ουθρ αν 
 “ἔα ρρραι se 
 
 Division 
 Section ‘ 
 r ey = 
 Bits © ν᾿ εἰ J ree 
 ΒΕ. 
 | 
 
 
 

 

 

 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/commentaryongreekphil00eadi 
 
ow 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 EEE LT. Ee PE A ΝΥ 
 
Exegetical GHorks 
 
 JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D, 
 
 Professor of Biblical Literature to the United Presbyterian Church. 
 
 Ι 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL 
 TO THE EPHESIANS. Second Edition, revised throughout, 8vo, in the press. 
 
 11. 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL 
 TO THE COLOSSIANS. δυο, 10s. 6d., cloth. 
 
 Iil. 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL 
 TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 8δνο,, 10s. 6d., cloth. 
 
 IV. 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL 
 TO THE GALATIANS. 8yo, in preparation. 
 
COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE GREEK TEXT 
 
 GE TERE EPISTLE OF: PAUL TO 
 
 THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN BADIE, ΤῊΝ, ἔτ 
 
 PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE TO THE UNITED ESB AN CHURCH 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS; 
 285 BROADWAY. 
 1859. 
 
Die Theologie selbst nichts Anderes ist, als eine Grammatik angewandt auf die 
 Grammata des Heiligen Geistes—Lururr. 
 
 The wise and well-couched order of Saint Paul’s own words.—MitTon. 
 
 Nee putemus in yerbis scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu; non in super- 
 ficie, sed in medulla; non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis.—JEROME. 
 
 
 
 Si parmi les écrits de Paul il en est un, qui plus que d’autres, porte l’empreinte de 
 la spontanéité, et repousse toute apparence de falsification motivée par Vintérét d’une 
 secte, c’est sans contredit l’épitre aux Philippiens.—RiLuer. 
 
 Der Inhalt ist brieflicher, als in irgend einem andern an eine Gemeinde gerich- 
 teten Schreiben.—Dr Wertz. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I HAVE little to add to the explanations made in the prefaces 
 to my previous commentaries on the epistles to the Ephesians 
 and Colossians. My object is still the same, however far I 
 may fall short of realizing my own ideal—the development 
 and illustration of the great apostle’s thoughts, as they are 
 expressed in his “weighty and powerful”’ letters. I humbly 
 trust, that through a prolonged intimacy with his genius and 
 style, my “ profiting may appear to all.” For one forms a 
 gradual and happy acquaintance with the peculiarities of his 
 mind and language through careful and continuous observa- 
 tion and study ; just as, had we lived in those early times, we 
 should have grown familiar, from being much in his company, 
 with his gait, voice, features, and dress. While he writes 
 after the same general pattern as do the other sacred penmen 
 of the New Testament, he has an unmistakeable type of his 
 own, has his own favourite turns and points, his own recur- 
 ring modes of putting an argument or giving edge to an 
 appeal, of rebutting an objection, or going off by some sudden 
 suggestion into a digression or parenthesis. While these 
 special features may be recognized in all his epistles, they 
 occur naturally in a letter like that to the Philippians, which 
 is thrown off without any steady or definite aim, and where 
 
v1 PREFACE. 
 
 neither designed exposition nor reproof forms the burden of 
 the communication. 
 
 The first question then is—What is the precise meaning of 
 these sentences which the apostle wrote to the church in 
 Philippi? or what is the sense which the church in that 
 city would most naturally ascribe to them? It is to be 
 supposed that they understood the document, and our effort 
 is simply to place ourselves in their intellectual or spiritual 
 position. We seek to comprehend the epistle by a careful 
 analysis of its clauses, an anxious survey of the context, 
 and a cautious comparison of similar idioms and usages; 
 while through a profound sympathy with the writer, we seek 
 to penetrate into his mind, and be carried along with him in 
 those mental processes which, as they create the contents of 
 the composition, impart to it its character and singularity. 
 Our knowledge of Greek is perfect only in so far as it enables 
 us to attach the same ideas to his words, which the apostle 
 intended to convey by them. Hvery means must be employed 
 to secure this unity of intelligence—every means which the pro- 
 gress of philological science places within our reach. At the 
 same time, there is much which no grammatical law can fix, for 
 the meaning of a particle is often as much a matter of esthetics 
 as of philology. The citation of a grammatical canon, in such 
 cases, often proves only the possibility of one meaning out of 
 many, but does not decide on any one with certainty ; while 
 reliance on such isolated proof is apt to degenerate into mere 
 subtileness and refinement. The exegesis, or the ascer- 
 tainment of the course of thought, must determine many 
 minute questions, not against grammar, but in harmony with 
 its spirit and laws. Contextual scrutiny and grammatical 
 legislation have a happy reactionary influence, and any 
 attempt to dissever them must tend to produce one-sided and 
 
 unsatisfactory interpretation. 
 
PREFACE. vu 
 
 But the meaning of the epistle to those who originally 
 received it being ascertained, the second question is—What are 
 the value and signification of the same writing forus? What 
 was simply personal between Paul and Philippi, was so far 
 temporary, though it does suggest lessons of permanent interest. 
 But believing that the apostle was inspired, I accept his dog- 
 matic and ethical teaching as divine truth—truth derived from 
 God, and by God’s own impulse and revelation communicated 
 to the churches. This unreserved acceptance of scriptural truth 
 is not at all hostile to the free spirit of scientific investigation. 
 But it is wholly contrary to such a belief, and at variance 
 with what I hold to be the origin and purpose of the New 
 Testament, to regard the apostle’s theology as made up of a 
 series of Jewish theories, not always clearly developed or 
 skilfully combined and adjusted ; or to treat it as the specula- 
 tions of an earnest and inquisitive mind, which occasionally 
 lost itself among “deep things,” and mistook its modified and 
 relative views for universal and absolute truth. What are 
 called “St. Paul’s opinions,” are conceived, worded, or pre- 
 sented by a conscious mind, according to its own habits and 
 structure ; but they are in themselves enunciations of divine 
 truth, in and through the Spirit of God, for all ages; while the 
 private matters mixed up with them show, that inspiration did 
 not lift a man above what is natural, that divine guidance did 
 not repress the instincts of a human temperament, check the 
 genial outburst of emotion, or bar the record of mere impres- 
 sions about future and unrevealed events, such as the alterna- 
 tives of the apostle’s own release or martyrdom. 
 
 With such convictions, and under this broad light, I have 
 endeavoured to examine this epistle; and “my heart’s desire 
 and prayer to God is,” that He who “gave the Word,” and 
 “hath given us an understanding that we may know Him 
 
 that is true,’ may bless this honest and earnest effort to 
 
Vill PREFACE. 
 
 expound a portion of the “lively oracles.” The love of the 
 truth is homage to Him who shows Himself as the Spirit of 
 Truth, while He is coming into His heritage as the Spirit of 
 Love. On the reception and diffusion of the truth in no narrow 
 spirit, and in no cold and crystallized formulas, but in all the 
 breadth and living power with which Scripture contains and 
 reveals it, depend what so many good men are now sighing 
 for—the reunion of the churches and the conversion of the 
 world. 
 
 JOHN EADIE. 
 
 13 LANSDOWNE CRESCENT, GLASGOW, 
 November, 1858. 
 
THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 
 
 I.—PHILIPPI, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 How the course of the apostle was divinely shaped, so that it 
 brought him to Philippi, is stated in Acts xvi. 6-12 :—“ Now, 
 when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of 
 Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the 
 word in Asia, after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to 
 go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. And 
 they, passing by Mysia, came down to Troas. And a vision 
 appeared to Paul in the night: There stood a man of Mace- 
 donia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, 
 and help us. And after he had seen the vision, immediately 
 we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering 
 that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto 
 them. Therefore, loosing from Troas, we came with a straight 
 course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; and 
 from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of 
 Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding 
 certain days.” ‘The apostle, during his second great mission- 
 ary journey, had gone through a large portion of Asia Minor, 
 and wished to extend his tour into proconsular Asia. Buta 
 curb, which he durst not resist, was laid upon him, though its 
 precise object he might not be able at the moment to con- 
 jecture. The Holy Ghost, in forbidding him to preach in 
 Asia, meant to turn his steps towards Europe. But he and 
 his colleagues reached Mysia, and when they made an effort 
 to pass into Bithynia, they were suddenly stopped on the 
 frontier, for the “ Spirit of Jesus” suffered them not to enter. 
 This double check must have warned them of some ultimate 
 purpose. Passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas, but 
 
 b 
 
x THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 not to labour, as they might have anticipated, in a city sur- 
 rounded by the scenes of so many classical associations. The 
 divine leading had so shut up their path as to bring them to 
 the sea-port from which they were to set sail for a new region, 
 and for a novel enterprise. As Peter had been instructed 
 and prepared by a vision to go to the house of a Roman 
 soldier, so by a similar apparition Paul was beckoned across 
 the Augean sea to Europe. The low coasts of the Western 
 world might be dimly seen by him under the setting sun; 
 the spiritual wants of that country, still unvisited by any 
 evangelist, must have pressed upon his mind; the anxious 
 ponderings of the day prepared him for the vision of the 
 night, when before him “there stood a man of Macedonia, 
 and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia and help 
 us.” He was now in a condition to respond to the prayer, 
 for a narrow sea was the only barrier between him and the 
 shores of northern Greece. ‘The object of the vision could not 
 be mistaken, and the supernatural limitations set to previous 
 inland journeys, would now be comprehended. The predic- 
 tion had been verified in the apostle and his colleagues—“ I 
 will bring the blind by a way that they knew not, I will lead 
 them in paths that they have not known ;”’ and the promise, 
 too, was now fulfilled—“I will make darkness light before 
 thee, and crooked things straight,” for the vision so impressed 
 them that they were “assuredly gathering that the Lord had 
 called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” No time was 
 lost—they loosed from 'Troas ; the wind was fair—no weary 
 tacking, no idle flapping of the sails in a calm; a steady 
 southern breeze urged them through the current that rushes 
 from the Dardanelles; they passed the island of Imbros, run- 
 ning “ with a straight course to Samothracia,” and cast anchor 
 the same night, in the smooth water off its northern shore. 
 Half the voyage had been made, and next day, after skirting 
 the isle of Thasos, they arrived at Neapolis, a harbour that 
 seems to have stood in such a relation to Philippi as Ostia 
 to Rome, Cenchrea to Corinth, Seleucia to Antioch, and Port- 
 Glasgow, according to the original intentions of its founders, 
 to Glasgow. When, at a subsequent period, Paul recrossed 
 
 1 Conybeare and Howson, vol, i. p. 306. 
 
LYDIA AND THE PYTHONESS. ΧΙ 
 
 from Philippi to Troas, the voyage occupied five days; but 
 now, “‘the King’s business required haste,” and to speed it, 
 “by His power He brought in the South Wind.” The 
 historian briefly adds, and “from thence to Philippi;’’ that is, 
 along a path ten miles in length, ascending first a low ridge of 
 hills, and then leading down to the city and the great plain 
 between Haemus and Pangaeus, where their last battle was 
 fought and lost by the republican leaders of Rome. After a 
 sojourn of “certain days,” the apostle and his companions 
 went out to an oratory on the side of the river Gangites, 
 and met with a few pious Jewish women and _ proselytes 
 “‘ which resorted thither.” This humble spot was the scene of 
 Paul’s first preaching in Europe; but the divine blessing 
 was vouchsafed, and the heart of Lydia was opened as she 
 listened “unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” It 
 was “a man of Macedonia” that invited the apostle across 
 into Europe; but his first convert was a woman of Thyatira, 
 in Asia. The heart of a proselyte, who must have been an 
 
 anxious inquirer before she relinquished Paganism, was in a 
 ᾿ more propitious state for such a change than either Jew or 
 heathen, as it was neither fettered by the bigotry of the one, 
 nor clouded by the ignorance of the other. The dispossession of 
 a female slave, ‘who had a spirit of divination,” happened soon 
 after; her rapacious and disappointed masters, a copartnery trad- 
 ing in fraud, misery, and souls, finding that the hope of their gain 
 was gone, dragged Paul and Silas into the forum—els τὴν ἀγοράν 
 —hefore the magistrates, who, on hearing the charge, and with- 
 out any judicial investigation, ordered the servants of God to be 
 scourged, and then imprisoned. But their courage failed them 
 not. On losing a battle in that neighbourhood, the vanquished 
 warriors dared not to survive their defeat. The intriguing 
 Cassius, “the last of the Romans,” hid himself in his tent, 
 and in his panic ordered his freedman to strike. Brutus fell 
 upon his sword, and his sullen and desperate spirit released 
 itself by this self-inflicted wound. But Paul and Silas, 
 unjustly condemned at the bidding of a mob, “ thrust into 
 the inner prison, and their feet made fast in the stocks,” fixed 
 in that tormenting position, and their backs covered with 
 ‘“‘ wounds and bruises and putrefying sores which had not been 
 
ΧΙΪ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment’’— 
 these victims of wanton outrage did not bewail their fate, nor 
 curse their oppressors, nor arraign a mysterious Providence, 
 nor resolve to quit a service which brought them into such 
 troubles, and desert a Master who had not thrown around 
 them the shield of His protection, nor conclude that the vision 
 at ‘Troas had been a cunning and malignant lure to draw them 
 on to Philippi, and to these indignities of stripes and a 
 dungeon. No, “at midnight Paul and Silas, rejoicing that 
 they were “counted worthy to suffer shame for His name,” 
 “prayed and sang praises unto God, and the prisoners heard 
 them.’’ The prison was shaken, and their “bands were 
 loosed;” the jailor and all his house believed in God, and “he 
 and all his were baptized.’ The preetors—oi otpatnyoi—in 
 the morning, sent an order to the lictors for the release of the 
 prisoners; but Paul’s assertion of his privilege as a Roman 
 citizen, when reported to them, alarmed them; and knowing 
 what a penalty they had incurred by their infraction of the 
 Valerian and Porcian laws, they came in person, and urged the 
 departure of the evangelists from the city. “They went out of 
 the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia; and when they 
 had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed,” 
 passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, and taking up 
 their abode for a brief season in Thessalonica. Such were 
 the apostle’s experiences when he first trod the soil of Europe, 
 and such the first conflict of Christianity with Hellenic 
 heathenism and the savage caprice of Roman authority. 
 
 The apostle had not paused at Samothrace—an island 
 renowned for its sanctity and its amulets, its gods and orgies, 
 its Cybele and Cabiria—a scene where the mysteries of Eastern 
 and Western superstition seem to have met and blended. Nor 
 did he stop at Neapolis, the harbour of the Strymonie gulf, but 
 he pressed on to Philippi; and the ground of his preference seems 
 to be given in the statement—‘ which is the chief city of that 
 part of Macedonia, and a colony” —#jrus ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς μερίδος 
 τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις κολωνία. A reason is often assigned by 
 the use of ἥτις ---ἰς inasmuch as it is.” The adjective πρώτη 
 may admit of a political or a geographical meaning. Some have 
 regarded it as signifying “ chief,” much in the same way as it is 
 
PHILIPPI—A CHIEF CITY AND A COLONY. ΧΕΙ 
 
 rendered in our version. It cannot indeed mean the chief or 
 capital city of the province, for that was Thessalonica; and if 
 there existed at that period a minuter subdivision, the princi- 
 pal town was Amphipolis.t. Others look on the epithet as 
 merely designating the first city that lay on the apostle’s 
 route; Neapolis being either regarded as only its sea-port, or 
 rather as a town belonging to Thrace, and not to Macedonia. 
 Meyer, preceded by Grotius and followed by Baumgarten,? 
 advances another view, which joins πολίς and cokwvia— the 
 first colony and city,” and Philippi, in the Peutinger Tables, 
 stands before Amphipolis. Without entering into any dis- 
 cussion of these opinions, we may only remark, that each of 
 them furnishes a sufficient reason for the apostle’s selection of 
 Philippi as the spot of his first systematic labours in Europe. 
 If it was the first city of the province that lay on his journey, 
 then he naturally commenced to give it the help which the 
 man of Macedonia had prayed for. If it was a chief city 
 in that part, there was every inducement to fix upon it as the 
 centre of farther operations; and if it enjoyed special advan- 
 tages as a city and colony, then, its importance in itself, and in 
 relation to other towns and districts, made it a fitting place both 
 for present work and subsequent enterprise. You may either 
 say that Paul went to Philippi as the first city on his path, 
 for he had been summoned into Macedonia, and he could never 
 think of passing the first city which he came to; or that he for- 
 mally selected Philippi because of its rank, and because of its 
 privileges as a Roman colony. If the apostle had taken this 
 tour of his own accord, or as the result of plans previously 
 matured ; if he had traced out the itinerary of an evangelistic 
 campaign before he set out, then the latter hypothesis 
 would appear the more plausible; but if, as was the case, his 
 purpose was hastily formed, and the general idea of travers- 
 ing the province without any distinct regard to the order or 
 arrangements of the visits, was suggested by the prayer of 
 
 1 Livy, xlv. 29. Wordsworth, in his Commentary on Acts (London, 1857), 
 supposes μερίς to mean a frontier or strip of borderland—viz. that by which 
 Macedonia is divided from Thrace, and of which confinium Philippi was the chief 
 city. 
 
 2 Apostolical History, vol. ii. p. 114; Edinburgh, 1854. 
 
X1V THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 the representative man, then the first would appear to be the 
 more natural and simple hypothesis. 
 
 Philippi was anciently called ἸΚρηνίδες or the “ Springs,” on 
 account of its numerous fountains, in which the Gangites has 
 its sources. Philip, about 358 B.c., enlarged the old town, 
 and fortified it, in order to protect the frontiers against 
 Thracian invaders, and named it after himself—®(dum7os 1— 
 to commemorate the addition of a new province to his empire. 
 After the famous battle fought and won in its neighbourhood 
 by the Triumvirs, Augustus conferred special honours upon 
 the city, and made it a Roman colony.? A military settlement 
 —cohors practoria emerita—had been made in it, chiefly of the 
 soldiers who had been ranged under the standard of Antony, 
 so that it was a protecting garrison on the confines of Mace- 
 donia; such settlements being, as Cicero calls them, propug- 
 nacula imperit. A colonia was a reproduction, in miniature, 
 of the mother city Rome. The Roman law ruled, and the 
 Roman insignia were everywhere seen. The municipal affairs 
 
 were εἶν: ἢ by duumvirs or praetors. Philippi had also 
 the Jus Ftulicum, or Quiritarian ownership of the soil ;? its 
 
 lands enjoying fie same freedom from taxation as did the Aa of 
 Italy. It thus possessed a rank far above that of a municipium 
 or a civitas libera ; but there is no proof that Augustus gave it 
 the title of πρώτη πόλις, or that it ever assumed such an appel- 
 lation like Pergamus, Smyrna, and Ephesus. The historian 
 calls it κολωνία, the proper Roman name, and does not use 
 the Greek term ἀποικία, which had a very different meaning— 
 a settlement founded by a body of adventurers or emigrants. 
 Its distinctive name seems here to be given it on account of 
 the events which so soon transpired in connection with the 
 apostle’s labours. 
 
 Highly favoured as Philippi had been, it was in need of 
 “help.” Political franchise and Roman rights, Grecian tastes 
 
 1 Strabo, οἱ νῦν Φίλιπποι πόλις Κρηνίδες ἐκαλοῦντο τὸ παλαιόν. Vil. Vol. ii. p. 86. Ed. 
 Kramer, 1847. Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. Vol. ii., sub 
 voce. 
 
 5 Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. Akerman’s Numismatic Illustrations, p. 45. 
 London, 1846. 
 
 ὅ Dion Cassius, li. 4. In provincia Macedonia Philippenses juris Italici sunt Γ ig. 
 Leg. xv. 68 
 
GRECIAN PHILOSOPHY—NOT THE TRUE LIGHT. XV 
 
 and studies, wide and varied commerce, could not give it the 
 requisite aid. It was sunk ina spiritual gloom, which needed 
 a higher light than Italian jurisprudence or Hellenic culture 
 could bring it. It was helpless within itself, and the “man” 
 who represented it had appealed to the sympathies of a Jewish 
 stranger, whose story of the cross could lift the darkness 
 off its position and destiny. The spear and phalanx of 
 Macedonia had been famous, and had carried conquest and 
 civilization through a large portion of the Hastern world; the 
 sun of Greece had not wholly set, and Epicureans and Stoics 
 yet mingled in speculation, and sought after “ wisdom;” the 
 sovereignty of Rome had secured peace in all her provinces, 
 and her great roads not only served for the march of the 
 soldier, but for the cortege of the trader; art and law, beauty 
 and power, song and wealth, the statue and the drama, 
 survived and were adored; but there was in many a heart a 
 sense of want and of powerlessness, an indefinite longing after 
 some higher good and portion, a painless and restless agita- 
 tion, which only he of Tarsus could soothe and satisfy, with 
 his preaching of the God-man—the life, hope,-and centre of 
 humanity. Probably about the year 53 Paul paid his first 
 visit to Philippi. A second time does he seem to have visited 
 it on his journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, Acts xx. 1-2; 
 and again when, to avoid the plots of his enemies, he returned 
 to Asia through Macedonia, Acts xx. 6. Many remains of 
 antiquity, such as are supposed to belong to the forum 
 and the palace, are on the site of Philippi. The Turks now 
 name it Felibedjik. Copies of its old coins may be seen in 
 Kekhel, vol. 11. p. 75. The scenes and the ruins are described 
 by Leake, Northern Grece, vol. 111.. and Cousinéry, Voyage 
 dans Maced., vol. i. Mannert, Geogr. der Giriech. und Rém., 
 vol. vil. Ὁ. 217. Forbiger, Alt. Greog., vol. 111. p. 1070. 
 
 IIl.—THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The genuineness of the epistle had not been questioned till 
 a very recent period. ‘The early external testimonies in its 
 favour are very abundant. Thus Polycarp ad Philip. iii1— 
 
 1 Patres Apostol. vol. ii. p. 470; ed. Jacobson, 
 
Xvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 οὔτε γὰρ ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι 
 τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου ἸΤαύλου, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν 
 ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολάς. It is not necessary, as a matter of phi- 
 lology, to take the last noun as plural and as denoting more 
 epistles than one, as Cotelerius, Hefele, and Jacobson, have 
 shown in their notes on this quotation. Rettig, Quest. Philip., 
 p- 37. The same father, in the eleventh chapter of his same 
 epistle to them,! says—Lgo autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel 
 audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus qui estis (laudati) in 
 principio epistole ejus. Meyer, who holds that from the style 
 of the New Testament and the Apostolical Fathers, the word 
 ἐπιστολάς in the first quotation must be plural, supports 
 his view by the somewhat strange device of making epistole 
 here the nominative plural, as if the meaning were— who 
 are in the beginning his epistles,’ or commendatory letters. 
 But in 2 Cor. iii. 2, 38, the place cited in proof by him, the 
 noun is in the singular—ézioton) ἡμῶν, ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ; 
 and the use of the plural epistole, according to Meyer’s own 
 understanding of the clause, shows that the plural form may 
 have a singular reference even in Polycarp’s style. Irenzus, 
 Adversus Haeres., also writes, Quemadmodum et Paulus Phi- 
 lippensibus ait,? referring to the apostle’s acknowledgment of 
 the subsidy sent to him by Epaphroditus; and again, in 
 quoting this epistle, iv. 17, Non inquiro datum, sed inqutro 
 fructum, he prefaces by saying—propter hoc et Paulus. There 
 are other allusions of the same kind, as rursus ad Philippenses 
 ait, quoting 1. 20; or apostolus in ea que est ad Philippenses, 
 quoting i. 10; or hoc est quod a Paulo dicitur, quoting 11. 
 15.3 Clement of Alexandria, in allusion to the apostle’s con- 
 fession— Not as though I had attained,’ &c.—says αὐτοῦ 
 ὁμολογοῦντος τοῦ ἸΠαύλου περὶ ἑαυτοῦ. Padag. i. 6.4 The 
 epistle is quoted by Clement in various portions of his 
 writings :—thus 1. 18, 29, ii. 1, 20, iv 12, are quoted in the 
 fourth book of the Stromata ; i. 20 in the third book; i. 9, 
 11. 10 in the first book ; iii. 19 in Pedag. ii.; ii. 15 in Peedag. 
 iil.; ἢν Ὁ in Cohort. ad Gentes. These quotations are made 
 
 1 Patres Apostol. vol. ii. p. 486; ed. Jacobson. 
 
 2 iy. 18, 4, vol. i. 616; Opera ed Stieren, 1853. 
 
 3 Ibid. vol. i. pp. 583, 752, 753, 571. £ p. 107; Opera, Colonie, 1688. 
 
TESTIMONIES TO ITS GENUINENESS. XVll 
 
 by Clement generally without any affirmation that they 
 belong to the epistle to the Philippians, though sometimes 
 they are ascribed to Paul. Tertullian’s evidence is as full :-— 
 thus, De Resurrectione Carnis, cap. 23, quoting the declaration 
 — “Tf by any means I may attain to the resurrection of the 
 dead”—he prefaces by saying, ¢pse (Paulus) cum Philippensibus 
 scribit ; then, in the twentieth chapter of his fifth book against 
 Marcion,? he employs this epistle as an argument against the 
 heretic; again, in his De Prescript., cap. Xxxvi., speaking of 
 the places where the authentice liter of the apostles are read, 
 he says, Si non longe es a Macedonia habes Philippos, habes 
 Thessalonicenses.2? From Ephiphanius too, we learn that Mar- 
 cion received this epistle; for among the ten epistles of Paul 
 acknowledged by him he reckons δεκάτη πρὸς Φιλιππησίους. 
 Haer.42.* In the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, 
 preserved in Eusebius’ /Zist. Ece., lib. v. 2, 11. 6 is quoted. 
 Cyprian, also, Test. iii. 89, quoting 11. 6, prefixes item Paulus 
 ad Philippenses. | Eusebius placed this epistle among the 
 universally acknowledged ones—oponroyouyévors. It is found 
 in the Syriac version, and in all the early synopses or cata- 
 logues of canonical books. Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1. p. 61, 
 objects, that Clemens Romanus does not quote the epistle to 
 the Philippians, when he might have done so in the sixteenth 
 chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, where he incul- 
 eates the grace of humility. The argument is precarious. 
 It cannot prove that Clement was unacquainted with our 
 epistle, but only that he has omitted a citation directly to his 
 purpose. Besides, as Briickner has remarked, we have the 
 testimony of Polycarp, which belongs to this period. 
 
 Prof. Baur of Tiibingen, in his Die so-genannte Pastoralbriefe 
 des Apost. Paulus, published in 1835, suspected the genuineness 
 of this epistle, because of the mention of bishops and deacons 
 in it, as if these offices belonged to a later age. In the fol- 
 lowing year, in an article in the third part of the Tiibing. 
 Zeitschrift, p. 196, he intimated his doubts more decidedly. In 
 1841, in the Introduction to his Die Christliche Lehre von der 
 Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes, where he treats of 
 
 1 vol. ii. p. 497; Opera ed. Oehler, 1854. 2 Tbid. p. 888. 
 3 Ibid. p. 84. * Opera, p. 138; ed. Basil, 1544. ° p.290; Opera, Parisiis, 1836. 
 
XViill THE LITERATURE CF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ as taught in the 
 New Testament, no citation is made of any passages from this 
 epistle, not even of 1.6. At length, in 1845, in his Paulus 
 der Apostel Jesu Christi,’ he formally attacked the epistle, 
 and the next year his assault was followed up by his disciple 
 Schwegler, whom Liinemann well names. dmpiger sententiarum 
 Baurianarum interpres ac propugnator. Das nachapostol. Zeit- 
 alter, jc. vol. ii. p. 148; Tiibingen, 1846. The objections 
 are trivial, and the wonder is, that a mind so acute and 
 accomplished as that of Baur should ever have proposed them. 
 They are arranged by him under three separate heads ; though 
 we shall consider them in a somewhat different order from 
 that in which their author has set them forth. ‘Two excellent 
 replies were made to Baur:—Pauli ad Philip. Epistola. Contra 
 F. OC. Baurium defendit G. C. Amadeus Liinemann, e collegio 
 Repetentum ac Dr. Ph. ; Gottingen, 1847— Hpistola ad Philip. 
 Paulo auctori vindicata contra Baurium.  Scripsit Brenno 
 Bruno Briickner, Cand. Theol. ; Lipsiae, 1848. 
 
 I. Baur alleges some palpable anachronisms and contra- 
 dictions. 
 
 1. The mention of Clement—iv. 3—is adduced to show 
 that the writer of the epistle must have lived in post-apostolic 
 times. Without any proof whatever, he identifies this 
 Clement with him whom tradition associates with Peter at 
 Rome, and him again with another of the same name, who was 
 a relative of the later imperial house. He refers to Flavius 
 Clement of Domitian’s time, whom that emperor put to death 
 as an atheist, and who is referred to by Suetonius,? Dion 
 Cassius,’ and Eusebius.t But it is contrary to all evidence, 
 to identify the Clement of Rome, or the Clement of the 
 Homilies with the kinsman of this emperor. The writers who 
 refer to them never confound them—never confound a bishop 
 of one age with a consul of another. The author of the epistle 
 to the Corinthians stands out in his own individuality to the 
 men of his own and the following epoch. Clemens Romanus 
 
 ΤΡ, 458; Stuttgart, 1845. 2 Domitianus, Xv. 
 
 3 Hist. xvii. 14, His espousal of Jewish opinions—#@» τῶν Iovda/av—giving rise 
 to a charge of atheism—iyzayuc &beormros—was evidently his becoming a Christian 
 convert. 4 Hist. Fecles. iii. 14. 
 
BAUR’S OBJECTIONS—SUPPOSED ANACHRONISMS. ΧῊΣ 
 
 is said to have been well-born—é& εὐγενοῦς pifms—and was 
 connected with the imperial family—srpos γένους ὑπάρχων Kai- 
 σαρος---Τιβερίου. Clementine Homilies, iv. 7, xiv. 10. But 
 Flavius Clement was related to Domitian, who put him to 
 death—xaimep ἀνεψιὸν dvta—and banished his wife. As 
 Suetonius says, he was charged ex tenwissima suspicione, 
 there being alleged against him in his office—contemptissima 
 inertia. Nor if the Clement of this epistle were even Clemens 
 Romanus, would the fact raise any difficulty. There is, how- 
 ever, no proof that he was; at least he was at Philippi when 
 this epistle was written. See Hefele, Ap. Patr. Prolegomena, 
 p- 19; Ritschl, Geschichte der Entstehung der alt. kathol. Kirche, 
 p- 284. You may admit an intermingling of traditions about 
 the two Clements, and yet maintain that the men were 
 distinct. There is no proof that the Roman Clement was 
 a martyr; at least Ireneus, Eusebius, and Jerome know 
 nothing of such a death. The questions as to whether he 
 was a Jew or a Gentile; whether he was a disciple of Peter 
 or of Paul; whether he followed Linus or Cletus, or preceded 
 them; whether his first epistle be interpolated, and his second 
 be spurious altogether ;—such questions affect not the identity 
 of the man, and the distinction in position, office, and end, 
 between him and the Clement the husband of Domitilla, 
 under Domitian. See the article “ Clement von Rom,” in Her- 
 zog’s Real. Hncylopddie, vol. 11. p. 720. The trick of Baur is 
 very manifest. It is a series of assumptions. He assumes, 
 first, that the Clement of this epistle, of whom nothing is 
 given but the name, and about whom nothing can be conjec- 
 tured but his present residence at Philippi, is Clemens 
 Romanus; next, that this Clemens Romanus is a myth, or 
 that he must be really Flavius Clemens, the martyred kins- 
 
 man of Domitian ;? next, that the writer of our epistle refers to 
 him, and to this well-known imperial relationship, when he 
 
 speaks of his bonds being known in the pretorium, and sends 
 a salutation from them of Cesar’s household; and the infer- 
 ence is, that as the Clemens of our epistle is no other than 
 this later Clemens, such a reference must show that the epistle 
 
 1 Baur says at p. 472—“‘ Diess est die historische Grundlage der Sage vom Rémischen 
 Clemens. 
 
xx THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 could not be written by Paul, but by some forger long after 
 his time. The ingenuity is too transparent. Would a forger 
 have placed such a Clement at Philippi; and would he not 
 have given him greater prominence ? for certainly the apostle’s 
 joy in his bonds, the publicity of these bonds in the preetorium, 
 his “strait between two,” and his other expressed emotions, 
 can all be explained without reference to any such hypothesis. 
 2. It is alleged by Baur, that the mention of “ bishops and 
 deacons”’ in the first verse, betrays also a post-apostolical 
 origin. The proof, however, tends all the other way. The 
 organization of the churches presupposes such office-bearers, 
 as may be seen in Acts vi. 1-6, xx. 28; Rom. xvi. 1. The 
 bishop and presbyter were then identical, and the names are 
 sufficiently indicative of the character of the office. 
 
 3. Baur alleges that the author of the epistle to the Philippians 
 has totally misunderstood the apostle’s pecuniary relations to 
 the church at Philippi.t. But he must have been a novice in 
 fabrication, if with the other epistles before him he could 
 allow himself to be so easily detected. The apostle writes 
 thus in iv. 14, 15, 16—‘ Notwithstanding ye have well done 
 that ye did communicate with my affliction. Now, ye Philip- 
 pians, know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when 1 
 departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me, 
 as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even 
 in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.” 
 Baur quotes, as opposed to this, 1 Cor. ix. 15—“ But I have 
 used none of these things; neither have I written these things, 
 that it should be so done unto me: for zt were better for me to 
 die, than that any man should make my glorying void.”” Bauy’s 
 exegesis 18, that this passage plainly teaches that Paul stood 
 in no such relation to any church, as our epistle represents 
 him as sustaining to the Philippian church, for he would not 
 own himself indebted to any of them. But the apostle is not 
 
 1 Es lisst uns demnach auch das, was Phil. iv. 10, f. iiber eine speciellere Veran- 
 lassung des Briefs gesagt worden ist, nicht klar in die Verbiiltnisse hineinsehen, 
 unter welchen er yom Apostel selbst geschrieben worden seyn soll, und es kénnte 
 somit schon diess die Vermuthung begriinden, dass wir hier keine wirklichen Ver- 
 hiltnisse, sondern nur eine fingirte Situation vor uns haben, was, je niiher wir die 
 geschichtliche Motivirung des Briefs betrachten, nur um so wahrscheinlicher werden 
 kann. P. 469, 
 
THE APOSTLE’S PECUNIARY RELATIONS TO THE CHURCHES. ¥X1 
 
 affirming that he refused all support from every church ; he 
 only says, that he merely waived his right for good reasons 
 with regard to the Corinthian church; for when he was in the 
 city of Corinth, he wrought as a tent-maker, and no doubt for 
 the best of reasons. Besides, that he took support from other 
 churches, while he would not take it from them, is plain from 
 his own declaration, that they were an exception to his usual 
 course—2 Cor. xi. 7, 8—‘“ Have I committed an offence in 
 abasing myself, that ye might be exalted, because I have 
 preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other 
 churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” Nay 
 more, in connection with this passage now quoted, the apostle 
 affirms—verse 9—“ And when I was present with you, and 
 wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was 
 lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia sup- 
 plied; and in all things I have kept myself from being 
 burdensome unto you, and so will 1 keep myself.” Now this 
 is an assertion of the very same kind with that which Baur so 
 strongly objects to as Unpauline, in the epistle before us. 
 The use of καί in the phrase ὅτι καὶ ἐν Ococadovien—iv. 16— 
 cannot support his argument, as if the forger had 2 Cor. xi. 9 
 before his eyes, and took his cue from it, for the καί is used 
 precisely in the same way in 1 Cor. 1. 16---ἐβάπτισα δὲ καὶ τὸν 
 Στεφανᾶ οἶκον. See comment on iv. 16. It is of no use to 
 allege, as Baur does, that the apostle’s stay in Thessalonica was 
 brief—so brief, that two contributions could scarcely be neces- 
 sary—for we know not all the circumstances ; but we do know 
 that in that city, and as a reproof probably to the sloth which 
 he so earnestly reprimands in both his letters, he set an 
 example of industry, working with his own hands, and might 
 therefore be in need of the gift which was sent south to him 
 from Philippi. Both Briickner and Liinemann slyly remark, 
 that it is odd that Baur should in proof of Paul’s short stay 
 in Thessalonica cite the Acts of the Apostles—a book which he 
 declares to be unworthy of all historical credit. Paulus der 
 Apostel, pp. 146-150, 243. What more natural for the apostle 
 than to refer to the earliness of their first pecuniary presents ; 
 or, to say, that when he was leaving Macedonia, they supplied 
 him; nay, to affirm, that prior to the period of his departure 
 
Xxil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 from the province, and when he was yet in Thessalonica, they 
 sent once and a second time to his necessities? Baur seems 
 to suppose that he who wrote these verses forgot that Thessa- 
 lonica was in Macedonia. He renders—“ when I was no 
 more in Macedonia,” no church communicated with me but 
 you, for even in Thessalonica ye sent to me, as if Thessalonica 
 had been a place reached after his departure from the Mace- 
 donian province. But this, again, is a complete misapprehen- 
 sion of the apostle’s statement, which is of this kind— When 1 
 went out of Macedonia ye helped me; nay, at an earlier period 
 still, and before I left the province, ye helped me. So feeble 
 are Baur’s objections against the genuineness of the epistle, 
 taken from supposed anachronisms or contradictions of fact 
 alleged to be found in it. 
 
 II. Baur also raises objections from the style. Few forms 
 of subjective reasoning and criticism are so deceptive as this. 
 What belongs to esthetics, and not to logic or history, can 
 never form a wise or valid antagonism. For there are others 
 as well qualified to judge as Baur can be, some of whom have 
 on his and similar principles rejected others of the epistles, 
 but who yet declare unhesitatingly im favour of this one. 
 De Wette who will not admit Ephesians has everything to 
 say in favour of Philippians. 
 
 1. To object, with Baur, that subjectivity of feeling prevails 
 in this epistle, is only to commend it,’ for the writer had no 
 definite polemical end in view, there being no special error 
 or inconsistency in the Philippian church requiring rebuke 
 or warning. Therefore he composes a letter to thank his 
 beloved Philippians for a needed gift sent all the way to 
 Rome, and remembers their repeated kindnesses to him from 
 the very first. No wonder there is that he opens his heart 
 and speaks in the fulness of his joy, follows no regular plan, 
 but expresses his emotions as they rise within him; nay, 
 in the fervour of his soul, occasionally repeats himself—his 
 clauses being off-hand and artless, and now and then complex 
 because unstudied, the whole being the outpouring of a spirit 
 that was gladdened alike by memory and hope and present 
 
 1 In Uebrigen unterscheidet er sich von Ihnen (Ephesians and Colossians) haupt- 
 sichlich durch die in thm vorherrschende Subjectivitit des Gefiihis. Ῥ. 464. 
 
STYLE OF THE EPISTLE. XX1li 
 
 relationship—blessing his distant converts for their past 
 fidelity, and urging them to higher and yet higher spiritual 
 attainment, cautioning them against errors into which they 
 might be tempted, and portraying his own experience as an 
 outline with which theirs might recognize a growing similarity, 
 and find increasing blessedness, as the likeness filled and 
 brightened into complete identity. This epistle is a convey- 
 ance of thanks—a matter wholly personal, so that individuality 
 and emotion must predominate. The apostle could not repress 
 his feelings, like a man mechanically signing a receipt in a 
 counting-room ; but he utters his heart, or as one may say, he 
 puts himself into his letter. An epistle of thanks for monies 
 so received, could not but be a matter of feeling, and the 
 gratitude of the apostle’s loving and confiding heart would be 
 no common emotion, and therefore his acknowledgment is no 
 common composition. 
 
 2. Το say, with Baur, that the epistle discovers no sufficient 
 motive for the composition of it,! is to shut one’s eyes; to 
 affirm with him, that it is stale and flat, is not only to be 
 steeled against the exuberance of its sentiment, but also to 
 ‘turn a deaf ear to the very rhythm of many of its paragraphs ; 
 to object that it is marked by poverty of thought,’ is to forget 
 that it is not a treatise like the epistle to the Romans, or an 
 argumentative expostulation like the epistles to the Corin- 
 thians; and to attack it, because it wants a certain formal unity, 
 
 1 Hiemit hingt zusammen, was hauptsiichlich ein weiteres Kriterium zur 
 Beurtheilung des Briefs ist, dass man iiberhaupt eine motivirte Veranlassung zur 
 Abfassung eines solchen Schreibens, einen bestimmter ausgesprochenen Zweck und 
 Grundgedanken vermisst, Zwar wird gegen jiidische Gegner polemisirt, aber man 
 kann sich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, es geschehe diess nur desswegen, weil es 
 einmal zum stehenden Character der paulinischen Briefe 2u gehéren schien. Es 
 fehlt dieser Polemik durchaus an Frische und Natiirlichkeit, an der Objectivitit der 
 gegebenen Verhiiltnisse. Pp. 464-5. 
 
 ? Wie matt und interesselos das Ganze. P. 466. 
 
 3 Man riihmt diess als einen eigenthiimlichen Vorzug des Briefs, aber so zart und 
 ansprechend auch die Empfindungen und Gesinnungen sind, die in ihm sich kund 
 geben, so wenig ist dabei zu iibersehen, dass monotone Wiederholung des zuyor 
 schon Gesagten, Mangel an einem tiefer eingreifenden Zusammenhang, und eine 
 gewisse Gedankenarmuth, deren Bewusstseyn den Verfasser selbst gedriickt zu 
 haben scheint, wenn er zu seiner Entschuldigung sagt ili. l—s& αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν, 
 ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ ὀκνηρὸν, ὑμῖν δὲ &ogxa?s—nicht minder hervorstechende Ziige des Briefes 
 sind. P. 464. 
 
ΧΧΙΥ͂ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 is tastelessly to overlook its naturalness, as it moves from one 
 topic to another, referring now to one class of persons near 
 the writer in Rome, and now to his own emotions in his 
 imprisonment; then turning to his converts and bidding them 
 be of good cheer in the midst of hostility ; exhorting them to 
 cultivate humility, love, and self-denying generosity, as seen 
 in the example of Christ; next, telling them how he hopes to 
 see them soon, and meanwhile sends Epaphroditus home to 
 them; farther, improving the opportunity, and bidding them 
 beware of false teachers and of inconsistent professors ; sum- 
 moning them, as he proceeds, to rejoice, to be of one mind, 
 and to seek for perfection in the exercise of virtue; and, 
 lastly, sending his acknowledgment for the gift which they 
 had so kindly and considerately sent him, and wafting to them 
 salutations from the brethren, and from the saints of Cesar’s 
 household. 
 
 Baur fixes upon 11]. 1—‘To write the same things to you to 
 me, indeed, is not grievous, but for you it is safe,” as a proof 
 of poverty of thought. See our interpretation of the passage. 
 The phrase, so far from arguing scantiness of ideas, 15 only an 
 index of earnestness; or rather a proof, that while a throng 
 of new subjects might be pressing on the writer’s mind, he 
 could even forego the pleasure of introducing them, and for 
 the safety of his readers, reiterate statements previously made 
 to them. Baur also objects to the phrase δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν 
 vou@—iii. 6—but the apostle is there speaking from a previous 
 stand-point—from a point of view which he had occupied in 
 his unconverted state. 
 
 3. The record of the apostle’s experience, 111. 4, 1s declared 
 to be a feeble copy of 2 Cor. xi. 18.1 There is similarity, but 
 
 1 Wie liisst sich verkennen, dass der Verfasser des Briefs die Stelle im Corinthier- 
 briefe vor Augen hatte, und an sie auf eine Weise sich hielt, wie vom Apostel selbst 
 nicht geschehen seyn kann? Nur aus der starken heftigen Sprache, in welcher der 
 Apostel—2 Cor. xi.—sich gegen seine Gegner ausspricht, liisst es sich auch erkliren, 
 wie der Verfasser in der steigernden Weise der Nachahmer sich sogar den Ausdruck 
 “ὕνες erlauben konnte. Wie unmotivirt, wie mit Gewalt herbeigezogen ist aber hier 
 dieses Reden des Apostels von sich, wenn wir es mit der Art und Weise vergleichen, 
 wie er sich mit seinen Gegnern in der Originalstelle auseinandersesst, wo man 
 sogleich sieht, welche Sache es gilt. Welches schwache leblose Nachbild haben wir 
 dagegen hier! Wie Allbekanntes sagt der Apostel iiber seine friihern Lebensyer- 
 
OBJECTIONS TO PECULIAR WORDS. XXV 
 
 not great similarity. Both are references to his past life, and 
 therefore we anticipate a necessary likeness of allusion. But 
 the purposes are different. In the second epistle to the 
 Corinthians the vindication is of his public or official life 
 and its sufferings and successes; in this epistle the self- 
 portraiture has reference to personal experience. In the 
 former he speaks as an apostle, but in the latter asa saint. 
 The first is terse and vehement—a lofty and disdainful chal- 
 lenge to his antagonists, if ever they had done what he had 
 done, or endured what he had endured: the last is calm in its 
 fervour, and exhibits his soul in its perfect repose upon Christ 
 Jesus his Lord, and in its aspirations after complete likeness 
 to Him. The idea of plagiarism is wholly out of the question 
 when the subjects are so different. Detail in speaking of his 
 Jewish descent is natural to him—Rom. xi. 1—for the subject 
 admitted of minute and climactic treatment. 
 
 5. Baur objects to peculiar words. Granted that κατατομή, 
 the concision, is a hard expression ;? but fully harder is 
 ἀποκόψονται, Gal. v. 12, as very many explain it. Granted 
 that the epithet κύνες is not fine; but neither are ψευδα- 
 πόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι; οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ --- Σατανᾶς, in 
 2 Cor. xi. 18, 14, 15, and κύνες did not at least sound in the 
 East so awkwardly as with us. Baur mistakes the nature 
 of the contrast between περιτομή and κατατομή. The apostle 
 does not by any means degrade the Abrahamic rite in itself, 
 or call Jews the false circumcision; but he simply implies 
 that the circumcision which the Judaists insisted on as essential 
 to salvation is useless and spurious. Compare too, for similar 
 ideas, Rom. ii. 25-29—an epistle which Baur acknowledges 
 to be genuine. Nor is it the case that the contrast is dis- 
 torted, as if the idea of quality in περιτομή were opposed to 
 
 hiiltnisse, wie kleinlich ist die Hervorhebung der achttigigen Beschneidung, wie 
 unpaulinisch der Begriff einer δικαιοσύνη ἐν νόμῳ, Wie matt und interesselos das Ganze. 
 P. 466. 
 
 1 Wie unfein wird sie iii. 2, durch die harten Worte βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, wie gezwun- 
 gen durch den gesuchten Gegensatz zwischen zerarou% und περιτομὴ, Zerschnittene 
 und Beschnittene, eingeleitet! Die Christen sollen die wahre περιτομὴ, die Juden 
 die falsche oder die κατατομοὴ seyn, aber wie schief ist der qualitative Unterschied 
 zwischen der wahren und falschen Beschneidung durch die quantitative Steigerung 
 der sigitou7% Zu einer κατατομὴ ausgedriickt. P. 465. 
 
XXVi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 that of quantity expressed by xatatouy. The notion of 
 quality belongs to both nouns, and it alone could the apostle 
 mean to express. See our comment on the place. 
 
 On the other hand, many terms and phrases in this epistle, 
 being such as we find in the other epistles, indicate identity 
 of authorship. Liinemann has made a considerable collection 
 of them. The following are Pauline phrases :—qywookew 
 ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, i. 12—compare 1 Cor. x. 1, xi. 3; Rom. 
 i. 13, xi. 25: δοκιμάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα, i. 10—found in Rom. 
 ii. 18: καυχᾶσθαι ἐν Χριστῷ, iti. 3—found in 1 Cor. 1. 31; 
 2 Cor. x. 17: μάρτυς yap pou ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός, 1. 8—found in 
 Rom. i. 9: πιστεύειν εἰς Χριστόν, i. 29,exceedingly common 
 in the gospel of John, but also found in Paul, as in Rom. 
 x.14; Gal. ii. 16; Acts xix.4. The names Χρίστος, ᾿Ιησοῦς; 
 Κύριος, preceded by ἐν, to denote the sphere of spiritual 
 action, feeling, or enjoyment, as to “hope in the Lord,” 
 “ rejoice in the Lord,” &c.—allusions to ἡ ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ, as 
 the period of glory and perfection—characterize this epistle and 
 all the others ascribed to the apostle. We have ἔργον Χριστοῦ 
 in ii. 80, and ἔργον Κυρίου, in the same sense, in 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 10; εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον in ii. 16, and in the same view εἰς 
 κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον, Gal. 11. 2. It is true there are some 
 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, but we have them in every epistle. We 
 have such as αἴσθησις, 1.9; συναθλέω, 1. 27, iv. 3; πτύρεσ- 
 θαι, i. 28; σύμψυχοι, ii. 2; ἁρπαγμός, li. 6; ὑπερυψοῦν, 
 ii. 9; καταχθόνιος, ii. 10; ἰσόψυχον, 11. 20; ἀδημονεῖν, 11. 26; 
 παραπλήσιον, ii. 27; παραβολεύειν, 11. 80; σκύβαλον, 111. 8 ; 
 ἐξανάστασις, iii. 11; ἐπεκτείνεσθαι, ili. 14; προσφιλής, iv. 8; 
 ἀρετή, iv. 8; ἀναθάλλω, iv. 10; μεμύημαι, iv. 12. But the 
 occurrence of such terms can never be a proof of spuriousness, 
 for ἅπαξ λεγόμενα are found in the epistles to Rome, Corinth, 
 and Galatia, which Baur himself receives as genuine. At the 
 same time, we have certain Pauline terms—words all but pecu- 
 liar to the apostle, and the use of which betokens his authorship. 
 Thus we have τί γάρ, i. 18; εἴπως, iii. 11; ody ὅτι, 111. 125; τὸ 
 λοιπόν, iv. 8—turns of expression common with the apostle. 
 Again, such words as ἀπρόσκοποι, i. 10; ἐπιχορηγία, 1. 19; 
 ἀποκαροδοκία, i. 20; ἀντικείμενοι, i. 28; ἐϊλικρινεῖς, 1. 10; 
 κενοδοξία, li. 3; δικαιοσύνη, iii. 9; βραβεῖον, 111. 14; and 
 
DOCTRINAL OBJECTIONS. XXVii 
 
 πλοῦτος, iv. 19—are favourite and characteristic terms. The 
 adjective κενός, and the phrase εἰς cevov,are the Pauline phrases, 
 in this and the other epistles, for failure real or anticipated, 
 and κοπιᾶν is the peculiar verb employed to denote apostolical 
 labour. Have we not, in a word, the image and likeness of the 
 apostle in this style, not only in its separate and characteristic 
 idioms and expressions, but in its entire structure—in its 
 sustained passages as well as in its briefer clauses—in its 
 longer arguments as well as in its more abrupt transitions ? 
 Why, in a word, be entangled among such minutie, when 
 the whole letter is so Pauline in what is peculiar to itself, 
 and in what is common to it with other epistles; in its order 
 and in its loose connection ; in its unwonted expressions and 
 in its mannerisms; in its doctrines insisted on and in its 
 errors warned against; in its illustration of his teaching by 
 the experience of the teacher; in his spirit of disinterested 
 zeal in spite of every drawback ; in his manly confession that 
 he felt his privations while he was contented under them; 
 and in his constant recognition of union to Christ as the 
 sphere of joy, love, strength, hope, steadfastness, confidence, 
 peace, and universal spiritual fulness. 
 
 II. Baur adduces doctrinal objections. The only dog- 
 matic part of the epistle—ii. 6-11—is, according to him, 
 Gnostic in its ideas and language. Indeed, the whole epistle, 
 as he affirms, “ moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expres- 
 sions ”—not opposing them, but rather acquiescing in them.’ 
 The phrases οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ἐν ὁμοιώ- 
 ματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, 
 ἐπουρανίων---καταχθονίων, are laid hold of as belonging to 
 the Gnostic vocabulary ; and as proving that he who has so 
 employed them, must have lived after the apostle’s time, and 
 when the Gnostic heresy had acquired wide range and influ- 
 ence. Now, if a heresy shall arise which clings to Scripture 
 
 1 Wie die beiden zuvor erérterten Briefe (Eph. and Colos.) bewegt sich auch der 
 Philipperbrief im Kreise gnostischer Ideen und Ausdriicke, und zwar gleichfalls so, 
 dass er sie nicht sowohl bestreitet, sondern sich vielmehr an sie anschliesst und mit 
 der néthigen Modification sich aneignet. Die in dogmatischer Hinsicht stets fiir 
 ebenso wichtig als schwierig gehaltene Stelle Phil. ii. 5, scheint nur aus der Voraus- 
 
 setzung erklirt werden zu kénnen, dass der Verfasser des Briefs gewisse gnostische 
 Zeitideen vor Augen hatte. P. 458. 
 
XXV1li THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 for support, what can you expect but it shall, in its specula- 
 tions and defences, employ the words of Scripture, and 
 dexterously affix its own meaning to them? What has heresy 
 usually been but such artful or innocent misinterpretation ? 
 In the daring and dreamy descriptions of the divine nature 
 and of the celestial hierarchy, which characterize Gnosticism, 
 such terms as the apostle has used may be found; but the 
 natural inference is, that the epistle gave rise to them, and 
 not they to the epistle. Some of the passages referred to by 
 Baur are found in Ireneus. In his book, ContraHereses, 1. 1, 
 he has the words—épovdy τε καὶ ἶσον τῷ προβαλλόντι ;1 and 
 the mother of another on is described—mpogacw μὲν ἀγάπης, 
 τόλμης δέ." We have such phrases as παραυτίκα δὲ κενωθεῖσαν;,3 
 or ἐν εἰκόνι τοῦ ἀοράτου πατρός. But what do these expres- 
 sions prove? They are not similar in meaning with those 
 found in this epistle, and they belong to the domain of meta- 
 physical mysticism. Our interpretation of the passage gives 
 the sense we attach to it. See pp. 97-128. 
 
 The expression οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο is in no way dero- 
 gatory to Christ’s claim and dignity. The alternatives were 
 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, and ἑαυτὸν κενοῦν, and Jesus voluntarily 
 preferred the latter, and assumed humanity. For Christ’s 
 pre-existence is a Pauline doctrine, though Baur denies it. 
 Rom. ix. 5, xi. 36; 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 9. Does not 
 μορφὴ Θεοῦ resemble εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ὁ 2 Cor. iv. 4. What 
 absurdity to find a parallel to this ἁρπαγμός and the origin 
 of the term in the wild, daring, and restless attempt of the 
 Valentinian Sophia to penetrate the essence of the All-father, 
 and become one with him—the Absolute; or, as Baur says of 
 this Alon—er will das Absolute erfassen, begreifen, thm gleich, 
 mit thn Eins werden? To give the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι 
 ἀνθρώπων a Docetic meaning, 15 ridiculous, and is affixing a 
 technical sense to a popular term. Rom. viii. 3. The meaning 
 is, he appeared as other men appeared; notwithstanding his 
 possession of a divine nature, his appearance was the ordinary 
 appearance of humanity. He had the form of God, and he 
 assumed as really the form of a man. Baur also frames a 
 
 1], 1, 1, vol. i. p. 14; Opera, ed. Stieren, 1855. 2 Ibid, ἃ. 2. 2p: 18. 
 3 [bid. i. 4, 1, p. 46. 4 Ibid. i. 5, 1, p. 58. 
 
GNOSTIC NOMENCLATURE. ΧΧΙΧ 
 
 dilemma.—“ Were he already God, wherefore should he 
 first desire to become what he already was, and were he not 
 yet like God, what an eccentric, unnatural, and self-contra- 
 dictory thought4—‘to be equal with God?’”’ The true 
 meaning is not that He was originally less than God, and 
 strove to be on equality with him. Nor is being God, and 
 being like God, the same idea. It is not, as Baur would seem 
 to suppose—being God, he thought it no robbery to be equal 
 with God. For it is not of essence, but of form, that the apostle 
 speaks. Equality with God, in the possession of this form, 
 was no object of ambition to him; he laid it aside, and 
 assumed the form of a servant. Very different this from the 
 Gnostic and Valentinian image of Wisdom descending from 
 the πλήρωμα into the κένωμα. The phrase ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτόν is 
 identical in spirit with ἐπτώχευσε, though different in form 
 —2 Cor. viii. 9—and has no sort of affinity with the Gnostic 
 γενέσθαι ἐν κενώματι, Which seems to mean that annihilation 
 which happened to the Adon Sophia, or rather to its cupidity 
 -σἰνθύμησις. The Gnostic nomenclature has much the same 
 connection with the Pauline writings as the Book of Mormon 
 has with the English Scriptures; and were the Greek original 
 lost, some critic might rise up a thousand years after this, and 
 affirm with some show of erudition, and a parade of parallel 
 terms, that the most of the epistles of the English Testament 
 did not originate under James VI., but must have been fabri- 
 cated by men who knew the system of the Latter-day-saints, 
 and had studied its so-called Bible. It is needless to enlarge. 
 Neither ingenuity nor erudition characterizes the objector’s 
 argument against the epistle; so far from borrowing Gnostic 
 ideas and terms, it again and again, as if by anticipation, 
 
 
 
 1 Welche eigenthiimliche Vorstellung ist es doch, von Christus zu sagen, er habe 
 es, obgleich er in gittlicher Gestalt war, nicht fiir einen Raub gehalten, oder, wie 
 die Worte grammatisch genauer zu nehmen sind, es nicht zum Gegenstand eines 
 actus rapiendi machen zu miissen geglaubt, Gott gleich zuseyn. War er schon Gott, 
 wozu wollte er erst werden, was er schon war, war er aber noch nicht Gott gleich 
 welcher excentrische, unnatiirliche, sich selbst widersprechende Gedanke wiire es 
 gewesen, Gott gleich zu werden? Soll nicht eben dieses Undenkbare eines solchen 
 Gedankens durch den eigenen Ausdruck οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο bezeichnet werden ἢ 
 Wie kommt denn aber der Verfasser dazu, etwas so Undenkbares auch nur vernein- 
 end von Christus zu sagen? P. 458. 
 
XXX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 condemns the heresy. It calls the Saviour Lord or Κύριος, 
 which, according to Epiphanius, the Gnostics would not. It 
 ascribes a body to the exalted Jesus—which the Gnostics 
 denied; and assigns a body also to glorified believers, but 
 the Gnostics held that it would be burnt up and destroyed. 
 Of the day of Christ, or the coming of Christ, Gnosticism 
 knew nothing, for its benighted disciples did not hope, after 
 death, “to be with Christ.”’* But, indeed, the entire argu- 
 ment of Baur against the genuineness of this epistle, is what 
 Alford calls “the very insanity of hypercriticism. 
 According to him, all wswal expressions prove its spuriousness, 
 as being taken from other epistles; all wnwswal expressions 
 prove the same, as being from another than St. Paul. 
 Poverty of thought, and want of point, are charged against it 
 in one page; in another, excess of point, and undue vigour of 
 expression.”’ 
 
 We need say nothing in conclusion of the attack of this 
 epistle by the English Evanson, in his Dissonance of the Four 
 Gospels, who, indeed, was earlier than Baur in cold and insipid 
 negation. Nor need we do more than allude to Schrader,’ 
 who has thrown suspicion on the latter half of the epistle, and 
 for reasons not a whit stronger than those of Baur. As Paley? 
 says on this topic— ‘Considering the Philippians as his 
 readers, a person might naturally write upon the subject as 
 the author of the epistle has written, but there is no supposi- 
 tion of forgery with which it will suit.” 
 
 IlI.—UNITY AND INTEGRITY. 
 
 Hernricus in his Prolegomena started the idea, that the 
 epistle as we have it is made up of two distinct letters, the 
 first reaching to the end of the first clause in ii. 1—“ Finally, 
 brethren, farewell in the Lord,” along with iv. 21, 23, intended 
 for the church; and the second, including the remaining por- 
 tion of the epistle, and meant for the apostle’s more intimate 
 friends. Paulus, adopting the hypothesis, but reversing its 
 
 1 Briickner, p. 13. f 
 
 2 Der Apostel Paulus, vol. v. pp. 231-233, 240. See, on the other hand, Hoele- 
 
 mann’s Prolegomena, p. 59; Neudecker’s Hinleit. § 93. 
 8 Hore Pauline, chap. vii. 
 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PHILIPPIAN CHURCH, ἘΣΣΙ 
 
 order, imagines, that the first letter was for the bishops and 
 deacons. The theory is baseless, for the use of τὸ λούπόν may 
 be otherwise explained. See Commentary on the phrase. 
 Though we should admit that the phrase τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν 
 may imply that the apostle had written other epistles to the 
 Philippians, there is still no proof that we have a sample of any 
 of them in our present canonical book. Heinrichs’ arguments 
 are not worth refutation; but they have been replied to, seri- 
 atim, by Krause, Hoelemann, and Matthies.t_ The first part 
 of the epistle may be more general, and the second more special ; 
 but to divide any production on such a principle would be 
 chimerical in the extreme. May not a man have a general 
 and a special purpose in writing a single letter? Nay more, 
 is not the latter half of the second chapter as special as any 
 paragraph in the third or fourth chapters; and are not the 
 four last verses of the third chapter, and the fifth, sixth, 
 seventh, and eighth verses of the fourth chapter, as general 
 as any paragraph in the earlier half of the epistle? There 
 is nothing of an exoteric or esoteric tone about its various 
 sections, nor is any such distinction warranted by the use of 
 τέλειοι, iii. 15. The transitions depend upon no logical train 
 as the thoughts occurred they were dictated. And we can 
 never know what suggested to the apostle the order of his 
 topics. We can conceive him about to finish his epistle at 
 iii. 1, and with τὸ λουπόν ; but a conversation with Epaphro- 
 ditus, or some train of thought in his own mind, directed 
 and moulded by the Spirit of God, may have led him to 
 launch out again after he seemed to be nearing the shore. 
 
 
 
 IV.—THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PHILIPPIAN CHURCH, 
 AND THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Tus Epistle was not written for any polemical or practical 
 
 purpose. Its object is neither to combat error nor establish | 
 truth, nor expose personal or ecclesiastical inconsistencies, nor 
 vindicate his apostolical prerogative and authority. A gift 
 had been sent him to Rome, from a people that had dis- 
 tinguished themselves by similar kindnesses in former times. 
 
 1_See also Schott’s Isagoge, § 70. 
 
XXXil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The churches in Macedonia were poor, but “their deep 
 poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.”” They 
 contributed the gift to the apostle when he needed it, and it 
 was enhanced alike by their poverty and his want. As a 
 prisoner he could not support himself by labour as at Thes- 
 salonica and Corinth, and he might not feel that he had a 
 claim for maintenance upon the church in Rome. He had not 
 founded the church there, and as he was not sowing “spiritual 
 things” he did not expect to reap “carnal things.” The 
 gift from this small, poor, and distant people, whom he had 
 not seen for some years, was therefore very opportune; and 
 the receipt of it, combined with a knowledge of all their 
 circumstances, was to him a source of great exhilaration. 
 Epaphroditus, who had brought the contribution, was to 
 convey the apostle’s thanks to the donors, and he takes occa- 
 sion, in returning these thanks, to address some counsels to 
 his beloved people, to tell them how he prayed for them and 
 hoped well of them, and what was his own condition at Rome, 
 as they would be anxious to hear of it from himself; to form 
 them what a spirit of tender considerateness ought to reign 
 among them; how Timothy was soon coming to them; how 
 they ought to be on their guard against false teachers and im- 
 moral free-thinkers ; how they should rejoice in the Lord, and 
 pursue all that is spiritually elevated and excellent; and all this 
 —hefore he formally acknowledges the receipt of the subsidy. 
 His thoughts turn to himself and them alternately. They had 
 not, like other churches, given him reason for regret or censure. 
 He was fond of them, and what he had suffered among them 
 had endeared them to him. He did not forget that “ we were 
 shamefully entreated at Philippi;” but the recollection made 
 them all the dearer to him, by what he had endured for them. 
 The majority of the church seem to have been proselytes or 
 converted heathens, and to the paucity of Jews in the mem- 
 bership may be ascribed this continuous attachment to their 
 spiritual founder, and the absence of those prejudices and 
 misunderstandings that so soon sprang up in some of the other 
 churches. 
 
 That the Philippian church was in trial and exposed 
 to danger is evident from several allusions. At an earlier 
 
COURAGE IN THE MIDST OF PERSECUTION, XXXuUl 
 
 period they had “a great trial of affliction,” and the con- 
 clusion of the first chapter indicates that the same perils 
 still continued. The apostle says, i. 28, 29, 30:—“ And in 
 nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an 
 evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that 
 of God. For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not 
 only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His bee : 
 having the ss conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear 
 to be in me.” We cannot tell who their antagonists were. 
 There is no ground for supposing that they were Jews espe- 
 cially, for there were apparently so few in the place that they 
 do not seem to have possessed a synagogue.!_ The probability 
 is, that the population generally was hostile to them, and that 
 the rancorous feeling manifested against Paul and Silas on 
 their first visit, continued to show itself in a variety of forms 
 against their converts. But persecution did not intimidate 
 them. They did not become cowardly and regretful, or sullen 
 and spiteful. They had “abundance of joy,” feeling as 
 James counsels his readers—“ My brethren, count it all joy 
 when ye fall into divers temptations.” That joy the apostle . 
 bids them still cherish, and the soul of his letter is—“ Rejoice 
 in the Lord.” Because the opposition which they encountered 
 drove all worldly gladness from them; it forced them to a more 
 vivid realization of their union to Christ, the source of all joy. 
 Persecution only raked away the ashes, so that the spiritual 
 flame was steady and brilliant. 
 
 But this very condition had a tendency to create spiritual 
 pride. Men so upborne are apt to forget themselves. As 
 Dr. Davidson remarks*—“ The highest spirituality stands near ἢ 
 
 1 The place of worship, προσευχή, was by the river side—and, as the correct reading 
 is ἔξω τῆς sta%je—“* without the gate.” Thus Josephus, Antig. xiv. 10, 23, says of the 
 magistrates of an eastern city, that they allowed to the Jews—ras προσευχὰς ποιεῖσθαι 
 πρὸς τῇ ϑαλάσσῃ, κατὰ τὸ πάτριον ἔθος. Tertullian also says of the Jews—per ommne litus 
 quocunque in aperto aliquando jam preces ad celum mittunt. De Jejun. xvi. vol. i. 
 p- 817; Opera, ed. Oehler. The same author speaks of the Jewish orationes littorales. 
 Ad Nationes, xiii. Ibid., p. 334. When the proseuche in Alexandria were 
 destroyed, the Jews resorted to the neighbouring beaches—ési τοὺς πλησίον αἰγιωλούς. 
 Philo i Flac., p. 982. Thus, too—In qua te quero proseucha? Juyenal, ili. 295. 
 Biscoe on the Acts, p. 181; ed. Oxford, 1840. 
 
 2 Introduction, vol. ii. p. 381. 
 
XXXIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 | the verge of pride, superciliousness, and vain-glory.” The 
 earnest injunctions enforced by the example of Christ, in 
 the beginning of the second chapter, plainly point to such a 
 tendency. ‘There were also two ladies who are entreated by 
 the apostle to be of the same mind in the Lord, and others 
 are asked to help them to this reconciliation. The Philip- 
 pians are exhorted “to stand fast in one spirit and one 
 mind.’’ We dare not say that factions actually existed, 
 but there were jealousies and alienations of feeling. Yet 
 there is no proof that false teaching had created parties 
 and produced schism ;* so that the broad assertions and 
 hypotheses of many on this subject cannot be received. The 
 Philippians are warned against Judaizers, but there is no 
 evidence that Judaizers had, as in Galatia, made havoc among 
 them; and they are told of others who are enemies of 
 the cross, not from dogmatic perversity, but from immoral 
 lives. Storr, Flatt, Hichhorn, Guericke, and Rheinwald, are 
 as much without evidence in supposing the existence of a 
 Judaizing faction, as is Bertholdt in imagining that the apostle 
 condemns certain false doctrines which sprang from Sadducean 
 influence. As if they had still been safe and uncontaminated, 
 they are commanded so to stand in the Lord as to form a con- 
 trast to those whose end is destruction, and their fellowship 
 for the gospel had been uninterrupted. Against the errors 
 and tendencies incidental to their situation, or which might 
 be originated by their history, experience, and temperament, 
 their sagacious monitor frankly warns them. For the stream, 
 if it receive tributaries which have flowed through a muddy 
 soil, is in danger of being discoloured. 
 
 V.—PLACE AND TIME AT WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN. 
 
 The general opinion has been, that the epistle was written 
 at Rome. (&der? proposed Corinth; Paulus and Béttger? fix 
 
 1 Schinz, Die Christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi. Ein exegetischer Versuch von W. 
 H. Schinz; Ziirich, 1833. Cruse, De statu Philip., &c.; Hafnie, 1734; or Walch, 
 Acta Pauli Philippensia; Jenx, 1736. 
 
 2 De tempore scripte prioris ad Timotheum atque ad Philippenses epistole Pauline 
 Progr.; Tene, 1799. See, on the other hand, Credner, Hinleitung, p. 425; Wolf's 
 Prolegomena; and Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus, &e., p. 680. 
 
 3 Beitntge, &e., i. 47. 
 
WRITTEN FROM ROME. XXXV 
 
 on Cesarea; and Rilliet thinks this theory plausible. The 
 probabilities are all against Cxsarea.. The phrase οἰκία 
 Kaicapos could not surely be applied to Herod’s family. The 
 dwelling of Herod at Czesarea is indeed called πραιτώριον, for 
 the word had a secondary or general significance; and it is 
 used of the dwelling of the Procurator in Jerusalem. See 
 under i. 13. When he was in custody at Ceesarea, Paul, asa 
 Roman citizen, could at any time appeal, to Cesar against any 
 sentence passed upon him, and his condition could not therefore 
 have that uncertainty about it which he speaks of in 1. 23, 24, 
 25. There he could ward off martyrdom at least for a period. 
 All the allusions are best explained by the supposition, that 
 the apostle wrote the epistle in Rome—his bonds being made 
 known in the barracks of the imperial life-guards—his enemies 
 filled with spite, and his life in danger—and the gospel 
 achieving such signal triumphs as warranted him to send salu- 
 tations to Philippi from Ceesar’s household. 
 
 The tone of the epistle in reference to himself, seems to 
 place it later than those written by him to Ephesus and 
 Colosse. Dangers were thickening around him, sorrows were 
 pressing upon him, and the future was wrapt in dark uncer- 
 tainty. The period must have been later than the two years 
 with which the book of the Acts closes—the period when he was 
 at liberty to preach and to teach, ‘with all confidence, no man 
 forbidding him. Still more, Epaphroditus had brought him 
 money, and tarried so long as allowed the Philippians time to 
 hear that their messenger had been sick; nay, the apostle had 
 heard that they had received such intelligence. Some con- 
 siderable time therefore must have elapsed. He does not now 
 ask their prayers for “utterance,” as when he wrote to the 
 Ephesians. Eph. vi. 19. Burrus, the prefect of the preetorian 
 guards—the στρατοπεδάρχης---ἰο whose care Paul as a prisoner 
 was entrusted, was a man of a benignant spirit, and under him 
 the two years of comparative freedom may have been enjoyed. 
 But Burrus died or was poisoned! in 62; and the government 
 of Nero rapidly degenerated. The power of Seneca over the 
 emperor was destroyed by the death of Burrus, and he sank 
 
 1 Incertum valetudine an veneno. Tacitus, Annal. xiv. 51. 
 
ΧΧΧΥΙΪ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 into undisguised infamy.t He married a Jewish proselytess, 
 and she might listen to the apostle’s Jewish antagonists. 
 These changes wrought a correspondent alteration in the 
 apostle’s circumstances. His liberty was abridged; he was 
 lodged in the pretorium, and a violent death seemed to be at 
 hand. Such was his condition, when in the summer or 
 autumn of 63, or in the beginning of 64, he composed the 
 epistle to the Philippians. Wieseler places it in 62 (Chro- 
 nologie des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 458); and Davidson agrees 
 with him. Lardner had adopted the same chronology. Works, 
 vol. vi. p. 74; ed. London, 1884. 
 
 VI.—CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 Address and Salutation. 
 
 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the 
 saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops 
 and deacons, Grace to you and peace from God our Father, 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Proof of His Attachment. 
 
 I thank my God on my whole remembrance of you, always 
 in every supplication of mine, making, with joy, supplication 
 for you all, on account of your fellowship for (in favour of) the 
 gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this 
 very thing, that He who has begun in you a good work, will 
 perform it until the day of Christ Jesus, even as it is right in 
 me to think this on behalf of you all, because I have you in my 
 heart, both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation 
 of the gospel—you, all of you, as being fellow-partakers 
 with me of grace. For God is my witness, how I do long for 
 you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus; and this I pray, that 
 your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and 
 in all judgment, so that ye may distinguish things that differ, 
 in order that ye may be pure and offenceless anent the day of 
 
 1 Tacitus Annal. xiv. 52. Mors Burri infregit Senece potentiam, quia nec bonis 
 artibus idem virium erat, altero velut duce amoto, et Nero ad deteriores inclinabat. 
 
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. XXXVI 
 
 Christ—being filled with the fruit of righteousness, which is 
 by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. 
 
 History of the Writer's own Condition, and its Results. 
 
 But I wish you to know, brethren, that things with me 
 have resulted to the furtherance of the gospel, so that my 
 bonds have become known in Christ in the whole pretorium 5 
 and to all the rest; and the greater part of the brethren putting 
 in the Lord confidence in my bonds are more abundantly bold 
 to speak the word without fear. Some indeed, even for envy 
 and contention, but some also for goodwill, preach Christ,— 
 the one party indeed, of love, knowing that I am set for the 
 defence of the gospel; but the other party proclaim Christ out 
 of faction, not purely, thinking to stir up afiliction to my bonds. 
 What then? Notwithstanding, in every way, whether in pre- 
 tence or in sincerity Christ is proclaimed, even in this I do 
 rejoice, yea and [1 shall rejoice. For I know that this shall 
 fall out for salvation to me, through your supplication and the 
 supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ; according to my firm 
 expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but 
 with all boldness, as always, so also now Christ shall be mag- 
 nified in my body, whether by life or by death: for to me to 
 live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if to live in the flesh, 
 if this to me be fruit of labour, then what I shall choose I wot 
 not; yea, I am put into a strait on account of the two, inasmuch 
 as I have the desire for departing to be with Christ, for it is 
 much by far better, but to abide in the flesh is more necessary 
 on your account. And being persuaded of this I know that 
 I shall abide and remain with you all for the advancement 
 and joy of your faith, that your boasting may abound in 
 Jesus Christ in me, on account of my coming again to you. 
 
 General Admonition in the Circumstances. 
 
 Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel of 
 Christ, in order that whether having come and seen you, or 
 whether being absent I may hear of your affairs, that ye are 
 standing in one spirit, with one soul striving together for the 
 faith of the gospel, and in nothing terrified by the adversaries— 
 
XXXVill THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 the which is to them a token of perdition, but to you of salva- 
 tion, and that from God. For to you was it granted, on behalf 
 of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also on behalf of 
 Him to suffer; as you have the same conflict which you saw 
 in me, and now hear of im me. 
 
 Special Injunctions. 
 
 If, then, there be any exhortation in Christ, if any comfort? 
 of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mer- 
 cies, fulfil ye my joy, to the end that ye mind the same thing, 
 having the same love, with union of soul minding the one 
 thing—minding nothing in the spirit of faction nor in the 
 spirit of vain-glory, but in humility, counting others better ἢ 
 than themselves—looking each of you not to your own things, 
 but each of you also to the things of others. 
 
 This last Injunction tllustrated and enforced by the example 
 of Christ. 
 
 For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus ; 
 who, being in the form of God, reckoned not the being on a 
 parity with God a prize to be snatched at, but emptied Him- 
 self, having taken the form of a servant, having been made 
 in the likeness of men, and having been found in fashion as 
 a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto 
 death —yea, unto the death of the cross. Wherefore God also 
 did highly exalt Him, and gave Him the name which is above 
 every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow 
 —of them in heaven, of them on earth, and of them under the 
 earth—and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
 is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 
 
 
 
 Inferential counsels to guide them, and secure the Apostle’s 
 own reward. 
 
 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye always obeyed, not as in my 
 presence only, but now much more in my absence, carry out 
 your own salvation with fear and trembling, for God it is who 
 worketh in you both to will and to work, of His own good 
 
 1 Ellicott in his version omits to translate παραμύθιον. 
 
PERSONAL MATTERS. XXXI1X 
 
 pleasure. All things do without murmurings and doubts, that 
 ye may be blameless and pure; children of God beyond reach 
 of blame, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, 
 among whom ye appear as luminaries in the world; holding 
 forth the word of life for rejoicing to me against the day of 
 Christ, that I did not run in vain nor yet labour in vain. But, 
 if [ am even being poured out on the sacrifice and service of 
 your faith, I rejoice and give joy to you all; yea, for the very 
 same reason do ye also joy and give joy to me. 
 
 Personal Matters. 
 
 But I hope in the Lord Jesus shortly to send Timothy to 
 you, that I also may be of good spirit when I have known 
 your affairs; for [ have no one like-minded who will really 
 care for your affairs, for the whole of them seek their own 
 things, not the things of Jesus Christ. But his tried character 
 ye know, that as a child a father, he served with me for the 
 gospel. Him, then, I hope to send immediately, whenever I 
 shall have seen how it will go with me; but I trust in the 
 Lord that I myself also shall shortly come. Yet I judged it 
 necessary to send Epaphroditus on to you, my brother and 
 fellow-labourer, and fellow-soldier, but your deputy and 
 minister to my need, forasmuch as he was longing after you 
 all, and was in heaviness, because ye heard that he was sick ; 
 for he really was sick, nigh unto death, but God had mercy 
 on him, and not on him alone, but on me also, that I should 
 not have sorrow upon sorrow. ‘The more speedily, therefore, 
 have I sent him, in order that having seen him ye may rejoice 
 again, and that I too be the less sorrowful. On that account 
 receive him in the Lord with all joy, and hold such in honour, 
 because for the work of Christ he came near even to death, 
 having hazarded his life that he might supply your deficiency 
 in your service towards me. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in 
 
 the Lord. 
 Warning against Judaists. 
 
 To write to you the same things to me indeed is not grie- 
 vous, but for you it is safe. Look to the dogs, look to the 
 evil-workers, look to the concision. For we are the circum- 
 
xl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 cision, who by the Spirit of God do serve and make our boast 
 in Christ Jesus, and have no trust in the flesh—though I am 
 in possession too of trust in the flesh. 
 
 The Apostle’s Spiritual History and Experience. 
 
 If any other man thinketh that he has confidence in the 
 flesh, I more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of 
 Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as 
 to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal persecuting the church, as to 
 the righteousness which is in the law being blameless. But 
 whatever things were gain to me, these for Christ’s sake I 
 have reckoned loss; yea, indeed, for that reason I also 
 (still) reckon them all to be loss, on account of the excellency 
 of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake 
 I suffered the loss of them all, and do account them to be 
 but refuse, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not 
 having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that 
 which is through the faith of Christ—the righteousness which 
 is of God upon faith ; so that I may know Him, and the power 
 of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, while 
 I am being made conformable to His death, if anyhow I may 
 arrive at the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have 
 already obtained, either have already been perfected ; but Iam 
 pressing on, if indeed I may seize that for which also I was 
 seized by Christ. Brethren, I do not reckon myself to have 
 seized; but one thing I do—forgetting indeed the things 
 behind, but stretching forth to the things before, towards the 
 mark I am pressing on for the prize of the high calling of God 
 in Christ Jesus. Let as many of us then as be perfect think 
 this, and if in any respect ye think otherwise,’ yea this shall 
 God reveal to you. Howbeit whereto we have reached,? by 
 the same do ye walk on. 
 
 1 Bishop Horsley, in his twenty-seventh sermon, renders the clause thus—“ And 
 if in any thing you be variously minded, God shall reveal even this to you—that is, 
 the thing concerning which you have various minds.” 
 
 2 The three verbs—zuravricu, ἔλαβον, ἐφθάσαμεν, are rendered by the one English 
 verb ‘ attain’’—“ attained,” both in the authorized version and in that of Ellicott. 
 The Greek words present the same idea under different images, but the difference 
 might be marked in the translation. 
 
WARNINGS AND COUNSELS. xl 
 
 Other Warnings. 
 
 Be together followers of me, brethren, and observe them who 
 are walking in such a way as ye have us for an example: for 
 many walk, of whom many times I told you, but now tell you 
 even weeping, that they are those who are the enemies of the 
 cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, whose God is their 
 belly, and whose glory is in their shame—persons they, who 
 are minding earthly things. For our country is in heaven, 
 out of which we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 shall transform the body of our humiliation, so that it be 
 conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working 
 of His power even to subdue all things to Himself. Where- 
 fore, my brethren, beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, 
 so stand in the Lord, beloved. 
 
 Minuter Counsels to Members of the Church. 
 
 Euodia I exhort, and Syntyche I exhort, to be of one mind 
 in the Lord; yea, I ask thee too, true yoke-fellow, assist these 
 women, for they laboured hard with me in the gospel, along 
 with Clement, too, and my other fellow-labourers, whose 
 names are in the book of life. Rejoice in the Lord always; 
 again will I say, rejoice. Let your forbearance be known to 
 allmen. The Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing; but 
 in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, 
 let your requests be made known before God; and so the 
 peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall guard 
 your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus. Finally, 
 brethren, whatsoever things are true; whatsoever things are 
 seemly ; whatsoever things are right; whatsoever things are 
 pure; whatsoever things are lovely ; whatsoever things are of 
 good report; whatever virtue there is, and whatever praise 
 there is, these things think upon; the things which also ye 
 learned and received, and heard and saw in me, these things 
 do. And the God of peace shall be with you. 
 
 Business. 
 
 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye 
 flourished again in mindfulness for my interest, for which 
 6 
 
xhi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 indeed ye were mindful, but ye lacked opportunity. Not 
 that I speak on account of want, for I have learned, in the 
 circumstances in which I am, to be content. I know also to 
 be abased, I know also to abound; in everything and in 
 all things, I have been instructed both to be full and to be 
 hungry, both to abound and to be in want. I can do all 
 things in Him strengthening me. Howbeit ye did well in 
 that ye had fellowship with my affliction. But you, Philip- 
 pians, are yourselves also aware, that in the introduction of the 
 gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church commu- 
 nicated with me to account of gift and receipt but you only; 
 for even in Thessalonica, both once and a second time, ye sent 
 to me for my necessity. Not that I seek for the gift, but I 
 seek for the fruit which does abound to your account. But I 
 have all things and I abound; I have been filled, having 
 received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you—an 
 odour of a sweet smell—a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing 
 to God. But my God shall supply all your need according 
 to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. Now to God and our 
 Father be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 
 
 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. There salute you the 
 brethren who are with me: there salute you all the saints, 
 chiefly they who are of Cesar’s household. @bhe grace of the 
 Lord GFesus be With nour Spirit. 
 
 VIL—COMMENTATORS ON THE EPISTLE. 
 
 We need scarcely mention the commentaries of the Greek 
 Fathers—Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 with others found in the Catena, or those of the Latin 
 Pelagius and Ambrosiaster, or those of Erasmus, Calvin, 
 Zuingli, Bucer, Beza, Hunnius, Grotius, Schmidius, Crocius, 
 Zanchius, Piscator, Aretius, &c. There are the Romish 
 Estius, a-Lapide, and Justiniani; and there are also the 
 Protestant Clericus, Calovius, Calixtus, Vorstius, Schotanus, 
 Balduin, Tarnovius, Musculus, Hyperius, Wolf, van Til, 
 Jaspis, Kiittner, Heumann, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Hammond, 
 
COMMENTATORS. xliii 
 
 Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Whitby, Pierce, Macknight, Hein- 
 richs, and Schrader. Every one knows the New Testaments 
 of Bloomfield and Alford, and the quartos of Conybeare and 
 Howson. Of more special expositions on the epistle, we have 
 Velasquez—In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses, Commentarit ; 
 Antverpie, 2 vols. folio, 1637. Breithaupt—Animadversiones 
 exeget. et dogmat. pract. in Epistolam ad Philippenses ; Hale, 
 1703. Am Ende—Pauli Ap. ad Philipp., Epistola ex recen- 
 stone Griesbach.—nova versione Latina et annotatione perpetua 
 illustrata ; Wiitteberge, 1798. J. F. Krause— Observat. 
 crit. exeget. in Pauli Epistolam ad Philippenses, cap. 1., 11., 
 Regiomont. 1810. F. A. W. Krause—Die Briefe an die 
 Philipper und Thessalonicher; Frankfurt am Main, 1790. 
 Rheinwald— Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Philipper ; 
 Berlin, 1827. Matthies—Erklirung des Briefes Pauli an die 
 Philipper ; Greifswald, 1835. Van Hengel—Commentarius 
 Perpetuus in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses ; Lugduni 
 Batavorum et Amstelodami, 1838. Hoelemann—Commen- 
 tartus in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses ; Lipsiae, 1839. 
 Rilliet—Commentaire sur [ Epitre del Apétre Paul aux Philip- 
 piens ; Geneve, 1841. Miiller—Commentatio de locis quibus- 
 dam Epistole Pauli ad Philippenses ; Hamburgi, 1843. De 
 Wette—Kurze Lrklérung der Briefe an die Colosser, an 
 Philemon, an die Ephesier und Philipper ; Leipzig, 1843. 
 Meyer—Avritisch eaxegetisches Handbuch iiber den Brief an die 
 Philipper ; Gottingen, 1847. Baumgarten-Crusius— Com- 
 mentar iiber die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper und Thessaloni- 
 cher ; Jena, 1848. Peile—Annotations on the Apostolical 
 Epistles, vol. i1.; London, 1849. Wiesinger—Die Briefe des 
 Apostel Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus, und 
 Philemon ; Kéonigsberg, 1850.  Beelen, Commentarius in 
 Epistolam S. Pauli ad Philippenses ; ed. secunda, Lovanii, 
 1852. Bisping—Lrklérung der Briefes an die Ephesier, 
 Philipper, Kolosser, und des ersten Briefes an die Thessalont- 
 cher ; Miinster, 1855. Ellicott—A Critical and Grammatical 
 Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, 
 and to Philemon, with a Revised Translation; London, 1857. 
 Ewald—Die Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus iibersetzt und 
 erklart ; Gottingen, 1857. We need scarcely allude to more 
 
xliv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 popular treatises, such as Daillé—Sermons sur l Epitre aux 
 Philippiens ; 1644-47. De Launay—Faraph. et Expos. sur les 
 Epitres de St. Paul ; Charenton, 1650. Passavant— Versuch 
 einer praktischen Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Philip- 
 per ; Basel, 1834. Kihler—Auslequng der Hpistel Pauli an 
 die Philipper in 25 Predigten; Kiel, 1855. Florey—Bibel- 
 stunden iiber den Brief St. Pauli an die Philipper ; Leipzig, 
 1857. There are similar works in English, of very unequal 
 merit, such as Airay, 1618; Acaster, 1827; Baynes, 1834 ; 
 Neat, 1841; Hall, 1843; Toller, 1855. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthiae, Kiihner, 
 Winer, Stuart, Green, Jelf, Madvig, Scheuerlein, and Kriiger, 
 are simply quoted, the reference is to their respective Greek 
 grammars; and when Suidas, Suicer, Passow, Robinson, Pape, 
 Wilke, Wahl, Bretschneider, and Liddell and Scott are named, 
 the reference is to their respective lexicons. If Hartung be 
 found without any addition, we mean his Lehre von den 
 Partikeln der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols.; Erlangen, 1832, 
 and the mention of Bernhardy without any supplement, repre- 
 sents his Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache ; 
 Berlin, 1829. The majority of the other names are those of 
 the commentators or philologists enumerated in the previous 
 chapter. The references to Tischendorf’s New Testament are 
 to the second edition. 
 
COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 AFTER the usual address and salutation, the apostle, turning 
 at once to the close and confidential relations subsisting 
 between him and the Philippian church, tells them that his 
 entire reminiscence of them gave him unmixed satisfaction, 
 and led him to thank God for them; that in this cheerful 
 state of mind he prayed always in all his prayers for all of 
 them; that his special ground of thanksgiving was their 
 FELLOWSHIP FOR THE GOSPEL, which had existed among them 
 from the period of their conversion to the present moment, 
 and which, he was persuaded, God would perpetuate and 
 mature among them. Then he intimates, that this favourable 
 opinion of them was no notion loosely taken up by him, but 
 one well warranted, since he loved them dearly as joint par- 
 takers of grace with himself. That Christian affection was 
 no idle emotion, for it found expression in constant and 
 joyous prayer. And that prayer which he had mentioned in 
 the fourth verse as his uniform practice, had this for its 
 theme, that their love might grow, and be furnished with a 
 fuller knowledge and a truer spiritual discrimination, so that 
 a higher state of moral excellence might be attained by them, 
 along with a life of ampler fruits—to the glory and praise of 
 God. 
 
 (Ver. 1.) Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος, δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ ᾿Ἰησοῦ--- 
 “ Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus.” The received 
 text reads Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, but B. D. E., &c., declare for the 
 reverse order of the names. For some remarks on Timothy 
 and the association of his name with that of the apostle, see 
 under Colos.i.1. There, indeed, Paul calls himself an apostle, 
 
 A 
 
2 PHILIPPIANS I. 1. 
 
 but here both are simply and equally designated S0%A0.—the 
 following genitive being that of possession, and the epithet 
 itself being one of close relationship as well as labour. 1 Cor. 
 vii. 22. There is no sure ground for the conjecture of Rilliet, 
 that ‘Timothy is mentioned because probably he wrote the 
 letter from Paul’s dictation. As little foundation is there for 
 the opinion of Miiller, taken from Huther, that the addition 
 by Paul of another name to his own was intended to show 
 that the letter was written per muneris offictum et publice, for 
 the epistle is without any traces of such a purpose ; and there 
 is no great likelihood in the notion of van Hengel, that the 
 apostle placed Timothy on a level with himself, because as he 
 was so soon to despatch him to Philippi, he wished him to 
 appear invested with all his own great authority. ‘Timothy 
 is associated with Paul as one who was well-known to this 
 church, who had been with him on his first visit, who after- 
 wards was sent by him to labour in Macedonia, and who 
 cherished a fervent regard for the welfare of the Philippian 
 saints. Acts xvi, 1, 10% sax. 225 Phi aoa) 
 
 Paul does not here style himself an apostle as is his 
 wont, either because his apostolical prerogative had not been 
 called in question among them, or because their intimacy with 
 him was so close, that he felt that his office was ever in their 
 thoughts of him and their care for him, associated with his 
 pergon. That it is rash to make decided inferences from the 
 style of the apostle’s address, is evident from the fact, that five 
 different forms are employed by him. 1. He names himself 
 alone and formally as an apostle—Rom. 1. 1; 1 Cor.i. 1; Gal. 
 i. 1; Eph. i. 1; and, as might be expected, in the pastoral 
 epistles. 2. He associates another name with his own, but 
 still marks out his own apostleship, as ‘‘ Paul an apostle, and 
 Timothy our brother’”—2 Cor. i. 1; Col.i.1. 3. He joins 
 others to himself without giving any distinctive epithet either 
 to himself or them; as, “ Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,” in both 
 epistles to the Thessalonians. 4. In the letter to Philemon 
 he calls himself a prisoner, and subjoins Timothy as a brother. 
 5. In this epistle he adds Timothy, but unites both under the 
 simple and comprehensive term δοῦλοι. The corresponding 
 epithet in Hebrew had already been consecrated, Num. xii. 7 ; 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 1. 3 
 
 Joshua i. 2, ix. 24; 1 Chron. vi. 49; and δοῦλος occurs in 
 the Septuagint, Nehem. x. 29. In its Oriental form it passed 
 away from its more distinctive meaning, and was incorporated 
 into proper names, as in Abdallah, Abednego, &e. 
 
 πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπ- 
 ποις, σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις---““ἴτο all the saints in 
 Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and 
 deacons.” Consult our note on ἅγιος, Eph. 1. 1, The pre- 
 position ἐν points out the source and sustentation of this 
 ayioTns—union with Christ Jesus. As Theophylact says, 
 those who are in Christ Jesus are ἅγιοι ὄντως. In the fulness 
 of his heart, the apostle writes to ALL the saints, not, as van 
 Hengel supposes, that he wished to show that he made no 
 distinction in his regard between those who had, and those 
 who had not, sent him a pecuniary gift. There would be 
 probability in the notion of De Wette, that the apostle for- 
 mally embraced them all, to intimate his elevation above their 
 parties and conflicts, if the term did not occur again and again 
 in the epistle, as the expression of the writer’s earnest and 
 universal affection—i. 4, 7, 8, 25; ii. 17,26; iv. 23. The city 
 of Philippi, and the entrance of the gospel to it, have been 
 spoken of in the Introduction. 
 
 The apostle adds, σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. The 
 preposition σύν intimates close connection—Cohaerenz, as 
 Kviiger calls it, and so far differs from μετά, which indicates 
 mere co-existence. Kriiger, ὃ 68,13. The reading, συνεπι- 
 σκόποις, followed by Chrysostom, and found in B’, D*, and 
 C, must be at once rejected. Following it, the Greek Father 
 understands the epistle to be addressed to the clergy—ro 
 κλήρῳ, the compound noun being taken as if in apposition 
 with ἁγίοις. But why should bishops and deacons be so 
 unwontedly singled out? Chrysostom answers, Because 
 they had sent the pecuniary gift through Epaphroditus to 
 the apostle. Others more generally, as Meyer, that they had 
 been instrumental in collecting the sums for which he thanks 
 them in the conclusion of the epistle. Heinrich opines that 
 the mention of office-bearers was only mero casu ; Miiller and 
 Rilliet, that the phrase merely describes or represents a pro- 
 perly organized church. The opinion of Wiesinger is at least 
 
4 PHILIPPIANS I. 1, 2. 
 
 as probable, that the real reason is be found in the circum- 
 stances of the church, and that there was a tendency to undue 
 assumption on the part of some individuals, which needed 
 such an effective check as was implied in the special acknow- 
 ledgment of those who bore office in it. The official term 
 ἐπίσκοπος, of Greek origin, is in the diction of the New 
 Testament the same as πρεσβύτερος, of Jewish usage—the 
 name expressive of gravity and honour; διάκονος being the 
 correlate found in connection with the former, and νεώτερος or 
 νεανίσκος standing in a similar relation to the latter—Acts xx. 
 17,28; 1 Peter v. 1,5; Titusi. 5,7. The Syriac renders the 
 term here by |avac—elders. The origin of the special office 
 of deacon is given in Acts vii—the end of the institution being 
 διακονξιν τραπέζαις, or to exercise a supervision, ἐπὶ τῆς 
 χρείας ταύτης. The epithet διάκονος is not, as Chrysostom 
 seems to suppose, a second name for the bishop; for he says 
 καὶ διάκονος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐλέγετο. A bishop might indeed be 
 a “server,” as Paul was a servant; but the word, as is plain 
 from other portions of the New Testament, describes a distinct 
 class of office-bearers. The mention of ἐπίσκοποι in the 
 plural, and the naming of both classes of office-bearers after 
 the general body of members, indicate a state of things which 
 did not exist in the second century.—See Canon Stanley’s 
 Sermons and Hssays on the apostolic age, p. 67, and compare 
 Neander, Vitringa, Bingham, Rothe, Baur, and other authors 
 on the general subject. Hammond, in order to vindicate the 
 form of modern Episcopacy, maintains that the bishops were 
 those of a district of which Philippi was a metropolitan centre, 
 but the language warrants no such inference. Chrysostom has 
 asked, ‘“ Were there several bishops in one city? Certainly 
 not; but he thus called the presbyters,’—adrd τοὺς πρεσ- 
 βυτέρους οὕτως ἐκάλεσε. The placing of the office-bearers 
 after the church seems to have scandalized Thomas Aquinas, 
 but he saves his hierarchical convictions by suggesting— 
 apostolum servasse ordinem natura, quo grex solet precedere 
 suum pastorem ; hinc in processionibus, populus precedit, cle- 
 rus et praclati sequuntur. 
 
 (Ver. 2.) Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἸΠατρὸς ἡμῶν, 
 καὶ Ἰζυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ---“ Grace to you, and peace from 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 8. 5 
 
 God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” See at 
 length on the terms of the salutation under Eph. i. 2. 
 
 (Ver. 3.) Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου ἐπὶ πάσῃ TH μνείᾳ ὑμῶν 
 —“T thank my God on the whole remembrance of you.” 
 How different this εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου from the abrupt 
 θαυμάζω ὅτι of Galatians i. 6; satisfaction expressed in the 
 one, and surprise and sorrow in the other. The noun μνεία 
 is rendered “mention” in the margin of the English Bible, 
 and the rendering is adopted by van Hengel. The idea of 
 mention is indeed based on that of remembrance; for it is 
 that kind of mention which memory so naturally prompts and 
 fashions, and may therefore be expressed by ποιεῖσθαι μνείαν, 
 asin Rom. 1. 9; Ephes. 1. 106. But such a verb is not em- 
 ployed here, and “remembrance” is the better rendering. 
 The preposition ἐπί marks the ground, or occasion, of the 
 apostle’s gratitude. Winer, however, gives it a temporal 
 signification, § 48. The phrase, ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ, is not 
 to be translated “on every remembrance, though such an 
 interpretation be as old as Chrysostom—oodxis ὑμῶν avap- 
 νησθῶ. Beelen and Conybeare follow this rendering of the 
 authorised version; but the article forbids it. Winer, 
 § 18, 41 The meaning is not, “as often as 1 remember 
 you, I thank my God,” but “on my whole remembrance 
 of you, I thank my God.” There was no disturbing 
 element, no sharp or sudden recollection, which suggested 
 any other exercise than thanksgiving. His entrance to the 
 city, the oratory by the river-side, Lydia’s baptism, and 
 the jailor’s conversion—his entire connection with them filled 
 his memory with delight. The incidents of his second visit 
 are not recorded; but his whole association with the Philip- 
 pian church prompted him to devout acknowledgment. He 
 has changed at once in this verse to the first person, for, 
 though 'Timothy’s name occurs in the salutation, the epistle is 
 in no sense a joint production. Few will agree with Pierce, 
 Homberg, and others, that ὑμῶν is subjective, and that the 
 meaning is, “I thank my God for your whole remembrance 
 
 i This inexact rendering is also adopted by Ellicott in his version, but the older 
 
 English versions are correct. Thus Wycliffe—“I do thankingis to my God in al 
 mynde of you;” and Tyndale—“I thank my God with all remembrance of you.” 
 
6 PHILIPPIANS I: 4. 
 
 of me.”’ For the grounds of his thanksgiving, as subsequently 
 stated, determine the reference. . 
 
 (Ver. 4.) Πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει μου ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν 
 μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν Trovovpevos—* Always in every suppli- 
 cation of mine making supplication for you all with joy.” It 
 does not affect the sense whether ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, standing 
 in the middle of the verse, be joined to the words before it— 
 δεήσει μου, as in the English version, or to those after it, τὴν 
 δέησιν ποιούμενος. The latter construction cannot be pleaded 
 for from the absence of the article before ὑπὲρ πάντων. Winer, 
 § 20, 2. The second δέησις with its article, refers to the pre- 
 vious δέησις, but the first term needs not be limited or defined 
 by ὑπὲρ πάντων. The participial connection with the pre- 
 vious verse is common in the apostle’s style. Many, such as 
 Theophylact, Bengel, and Rilliet, join a portion of this verse 
 to the preceding—“I thank my God on the whole remembrance 
 of you always in every prayer of mine for you all.” The verse 
 so understood details the periods, or scenes, when the memory 
 of the apostle excited him to thanks; but such a connection is 
 not necessary. Hoelemann connects εὐχαριστῷ with ὑπὲρ 
 πάντων ὑμῶν. “1 thank my God on account of you all;” but 
 such a connection is unnatural, destroys the point, and encum- 
 bers the order of the thought. The apostle says, in the third 
 verse, that his whole remembrance of them prompted him to 
 thanksgiving ; and in the verse before us, he tells them that 
 he prayed—Sdénovwy ποιούμενος, that they were included in every 
 prayer of his—ev πάσῃ δεήσει; that he prayed not for a fraction 
 of them, but for the whole of them—dyrwr; that he did this, 
 not periodically, but αἰνγαγθ--- πάντοτε; that this supplica- 
 tion had the companionship of a gladdened heart — pera 
 χαρᾶς; and that this gladness of heart in prayer based itself 
 -ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν. The recurrence of the terms πάσῃ, 
 πάντοτε, πάσῃ, πάντων in these two verses, shows the exube- 
 rant feeling of the writer. “To make request with joy,” is 
 not as Baumgarten-Crusius says, a mere circumlocution for 
 thanksgiving ; but it implies that the suppliant thanks while 
 he asks, and blesses as he petitions. The apostle might pray 
 for others in anguish or doubt; but he knew so much of 
 the Philippian church, of its faith, its consistency, and its 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 5. 7 
 
 attachment to the truth and to himself, that when he prayed 
 for it so uniformly, no suspicions clouded his soul. What 
 higher rapture could an apostle feel than that occasioned by 
 the memory of his successes, and their gracious and perma- 
 nent results? No heart was more susceptible of this joy than 
 the apostle’s, and none felt more keenly the pang of disappoint- 
 ment and sorrow, when either truth was forsaken or adulte- 
 rated, or love was supplanted by envying and strife. 
 
 (Ver. 5.) "El τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐωγγέλιον ἀπὸ 
 πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ vov—“ On account of your fellowship 
 in favour of the gospel, from the first day even until now.” 
 The apostle in these words expresses the grounds of his evya- 
 ριστῶ. Calvin, Grotius, De Wette, van Hengel, and Ewald, 
 connect the verse with the preceding one, as if it gave the 
 ground of the μετὰ χαρᾶς. The statement is true so far, for 
 the joy which accompanied the apostle’s prayer, sprang 
 from the very same source as his thanksgiving. The thanks- 
 giving was based on memory, and the joy on present know- 
 ledge; but still both alike pointed especially to this κοινωνία. 
 The recollection prompted thanksgiving, for the fellowship 
 had commenced at an early period; and when he made sup- 
 plication, he pleaded with gladness, for that fellowship had 
 remained unbroken from its origin to the present time, so 
 that ἐπὶ τὴ κοινωνίᾳ is primarily connected with εὐχαριστῶ, 
 and has, at the same time, a subordinate relation to μετὰ 
 χαρὰς. It is true that εὐχαριστῶ is followed twice by ἐπί; 
 but it does not result, as De Wette maintains, that the prepo- 
 sition has two different significations. ‘The connection in both 
 eases is nearly the same. I thank my God on account of, 
 ἐπί, “my whole remembrance of you,’ and then a parallel 
 and explanatory clause intervening—the special element in 
 that remembrance which excited thanksgiving, is brought out 
 by the same particle, ἐπὶ τὴ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν. We cannot agree 
 with Ellicott’s remarks on the alleged double sense of ἐπέ, that 
 verse 4 marks the object on which the thanksgiving rests, 
 verse 5 when it takes place, and verse 6 why it takes place ; 
 for it is the third verse which, looking to the past, points out 
 the ground or occasion of the thanksgiving—his whole re- 
 membrance; while verse 4 shows how it expressed itself in 
 
8 PHILIPPIANS I. 5. 
 
 prayer, verse 5 gives more fully its solid foundation, as Mr. 
 Ellicott had already said, and verse 6, glancing into the future, 
 shows how the feeling was intensified by the apostle’s per- 
 suasion about them. 
 
 But, what is the meaning of the unusual phrase—xowwvia 
 εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον ? 
 
 1. It is plain that whatever κοινωνία means, the phrase εἰς 
 τὸ εὐωγγέλιον cannot be taken as a genitive, as if the meaning 
 were “on account of your participation of the gospel.” This 
 is one view of Calvin, and the opinion of Estius, Flatt, and 
 Heinrichs, following the interpretation of Theodoret, κοινωνίαν 
 δὲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν πίστιν ἐκάλεσε. 
 
 2. Some would restrict the fellowship to intercourse or com- 
 munity of interest with the apostle, and that in either of two 
 aspects. The lower view is that of Bisping and others, who 
 take the term as referring principally to giving and receiving 
 —the pecuniary symbols of affection. The higher view is 
 that of Chrysostom and Theophylact, who understand the 
 word as including sympathy with the apostle in his labours 
 and sufferings; the latter thus explaining 1{---ὅτε κοινωνοί μου 
 γίνεσθε καὶ συμμερισταὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ πονῶν. Both 
 these views may be implied; but still they are only two 
 indications or fruits of fellowship. 
 
 3. Nor can we wholly coincide in the opinion of Meyer, 
 Miiller, and Alford, that κοινωνία means “ entire accord, una- 
 nimous action;” or as Rilliet has it, “bon accord.” First, 
 it is plain that there was a tendency in the Philippian church 
 to faction, disunion, and jealousy. The prayer, in verse 9, that 
 their love might abound yet more and more, is referred to by 
 Meyer as a proof that love existed; but still such a prayer is 
 a token that love was deficient. ‘The pointed exhortation in 
 i. 27, “to stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving 
 together ;” the injunction in ii. 2, to “ be like-minded, of one 
 accord, of one mind;” the call to lowliness, and the caution 
 against vainglory in ii. 3, 4, 5,6, 7; the command to “do 
 all things without murmuring,” in ii. 14; the similar lesson 
 in 111. 16,17; and the personal request to two women to be 
 “ of the same mind,” iv. 2;—all betoken that the apostle more 
 than suspected tendencies to alienation and feud; and his joy 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 5 9 
 
 must have been modified by the lamented imperfection of 
 that very grace which Meyer waaiin him to select and eulo- 
 gize as its principal source. 
 
 4. The noun κοινωνία, with its cognate verb and adjective, 
 which have been variously rendered by our translators, has, 
 for its generic idea, that of common participation. That par- 
 ticipation may be a palpable copartnery, Luke v. 10; 1 Cor. x. 
 18; 2 Cor. viii. 23; 1 Tim. v. 22; Heb. ii. 14, x. 33. Or, it may 
 be participation in pecuniary generosity, Rom. xii, 13, xv. 26; 
 2 Cor. vui. 4, ix. 13; Gal. vi. 6; Phil. iv. 15; eRe vi. 18; 
 Bebe: xiii. 16. in ne of fee passages, Boni, iy Ὁ KV. 
 26; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13; Heb. xii. 16, the reference is to 
 eleemosynary contribution, and some of them may bear an 
 active sense. But there is also a special evangelical fellow- 
 ship, which is often named, as in Rom. xv. 27; 1 Cor. 
 i. 9; 1 John i. 3; and that fellowship is characterized as 
 being of the spirit, 2 Cor. xi. 14; Philip. 11. 1, or as being 
 with the Son of God generally, 1 Cor.i.9; 1 John i. 3, 6, 
 and with His sufferings specially, Philip. 111.10; 1 Pet. iv. 13. 
 The noun is followed by the genitive of the thing participated 
 in, or with εἰς, denoting its object. Winer, § 49,a. We, 
 therefore, take κοινωνία in a general sense, and the following 
 clause so closely connected with it, through the non-repetition 
 of the article, as assigning its end or purpose. Winer, § 20, 2. 
 Thus understood, it denotes participation, or community of 
 interest, in whatever had the gospel for its object. All that 
 belonged to the defence and propagation of the gospel, was a 
 matter of common concern to them—of sympathy and co- 
 operation. The pecuniary contributions sent to the apostle 
 and acknowledged in this epistle, are, of necessity, included. 
 Such generally is the view of Wiesinger, Schinz, van Hengel, 
 Hoelemann, and Ellicott, and in it on the whole we concur. For 
 in the seventh verse the apostle seems more fully to explain 
 his meaning, when he calls the Philippians συγκοινωνούς μου, 
 as if in reference to the κοινωνία of the verse before us. Now 
 the relation of that fellowship for the gospel, is there described 
 as being “in its defence and confirmation.” Viewed as a 
 Christian community, they had exhibited a fellowship in 
 reference to the gospel—xowwvia eis τὸ evaryyéXvov—and the 
 
10 PHILIPPIANS I. 6. 
 
 apostle thanked God for it. Immediately, as he dwells on the 
 same idea, that fellowship takes a more personal aspect, 
 inasmuch as it included himself in its cirele—cvyxowwvovs 
 jov—and its purpose, as he refers to his own work, assumes 
 a more definite form—év τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ evay- 
 γελίου.1 
 
 This fellowship had continued without interruption— 
 
 ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, “from the first day until 
 
 now.” It had not been like an intermittent spring, but like a 
 fountain of perpetual outflow. The clause is thus connected with 
 κοινωνία, and marks its unbroken duration. Some, like Beza 
 and Bengel, connect it with εὐχαριστῶ---ἃ connection which 
 would be tautological, for the idea is expressed already; and 
 others, as Meyer, Rilliet, and Lachmann join it to the follow- 
 ing participle, πεποιθώς. This is also erroneous. It needs 
 not that τῇ be repeated before ἀπὸ πρώτης any more than 
 before εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. The apostle’s purpose is to point 
 out the ground of his thanksgiving, and to give it prominence. 
 Remembrance excited his gratitude, but the past merged into 
 the present, and memory and consciousness coalesced, because 
 the fellowship was not simply a thing of days gone by, for it 
 had lasted from its first manifestation to that very moment ; 
 nay, its existence was proved and illustrated by the delegation 
 of Epaphroditus to Rome. The development of the apostle’s 
 thought necessitates the connection of this clause with κοινωνία, 
 as a “ subordinate temporal definition ;” and it also starts the 
 idea which is followed out in the subsequent verse. 
 
 (Ver. 6.) Πεποιθὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ évapEdpevos ἐν ὑμῖν 
 ἔργον ἀγαθὸν, ἐπιτελέσει ἄχρις ἡμέρας ᾿Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ---“Βείηρ' 
 confident of this very thing, that He who has begun in you a 
 good work, will perform it until the day of Christ Jesus.” 
 The apostle usually places πεποιθώς at the beginning of the 
 sentence, 1. 25, 11.24; Philemon 21; 2 Cor. ii. 3, and uses 
 other parts of the verb in a similar way. Galat. v.10; Rom. 
 i. 19; 2'Thes. 11. 4; Heb. xiii. 18. The participle is parallel 
 to ποιούμενος, and like it dependent on εὐχαριστῶ. He thanked 
 and he prayed in this confidence, a confidence which at once 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Pierce and the Improved Version render the clause, “as being joint-contribu- 
 tors to the gift which I have received !” Ε 
 
PHILIPPIANS |. 6. 1 
 
 deepened his gratitude, and gave wings of joy to his suppli- 
 cations. The participle may have a faint causal force as 
 Ellicott says, “ seeing I am confident ;” but the idea is only 
 auxiliary to the main one expressed in the preceding verse. 
 The emphatic phrase αὐτὸ τοῦτο, “ this very thing,” refers to 
 what follows, which is the real accusative, and is introduced 
 by ἵνα in Eph. vi. 22, Coloss. iv. 8; by ὅπως in Rom. ix. 
 17; and here by ὅτ. Winer, ὃ 23, 5. The use of the 
 demonstrative pronouns is not as Madvig says, § 27, a, “ to 
 mark the contents and compass (der Inhalt und Umfang) of 
 the action,” which is done by the clause beginning with ὅτι-- 
 but rather to emphasize it—and show that in the writer’s mind 
 it has a peculiar unity and prominence. The reference in 
 ὁ évapEdpevos is to God, and is all the more impressive that 
 He is not formally named. The participle, though it often 
 take the genitive, here governs the accusative. Kiihner, 
 § 512, 5. We cannot lay any stress on the preposition ἐν, in 
 composition with it, as may be shown by its use both in 
 the classics and in the Septuagint. The words ἐν ὑμίν, are 
 “in you,’ not among you, for in the following verse the 
 apostle records an individual judgment of them. By ἔργον 
 ἀγαθὸν is not meant vaguely and generally a work of faith 
 and love, as a-Lapide and Matthies suppose; but that special 
 good work, that κοινωνία, which the apostle has just particu- 
 larized. The article is not prefixed, but the reference is 
 plain. That fellowship is a work divine in its source, and 
 bears the stamp of its originator. He who began it will carry 
 it οῃ---ἐπιτελέσει, and that—aypis ἡμέρας Χριστοῦ ᾿ΪΙησοῦ. 
 The position of these proper names is reversed in some codices. 
 The expression is not to be frittered down into a mere perpetuo, 
 as Am Ende does, nor can we agree with Theophylact and 
 (Xcumenius, in supposing the apostle to include in the phrase, 
 successive generations of those whom he addressed. The period 
 of consummation specified by the apostle has been much dis- 
 puted. The opinion is very common that the second and 
 personal advent of the Saviour is meant, the apostle believing 
 that it was to happen soon, and in his own day. Without 
 passing a definite and dogmatic opinion on the subject, we 
 may only say, that we cannot well comprehend how an 
 
12 PHILIPPIANS I. 6. 
 
 inspired man should have been permitted to teach a falsehood, 
 not simply to give it as his own private judgment or belief, but 
 to place it on record, authoritatively, among the true sayings of 
 God. The day of Christ is His return; but may it not be 
 such a return as He promised to the Eleven at the Last Sup- 
 per, “I will come again and receive you unto myself?” The 
 apostle’s confidence that their united public spirit would con- 
 tinue, rested on his knowledge of God’s character and methods 
 of operation. The good work originated by Him, is not 
 suffered to lapse, but is fostered and blessed till His end be 
 accomplished. His own connection with the work, and its 
 inherent goodness, pledge Him to the continuation of it. 
 So wayward and feeble is the human heart, even when it 
 binds itself by a stipulation, or fortifies itself by a vow, that 
 had this fellowship depended on themselves, the apostle 
 would have had no confidence’in its duration. His sad expe- 
 rience had shown him that men might repeat follies even 
 while they were weeping over them, and engage anew in 
 sins, while they were in the act of abjurimg them. On the 
 other hand, and to his deep vexation, had he seen graces lan- 
 guish amidst professed anxiety for their revival, and good 
 works all but disappear under the admitted necessity of their 
 continuance and enlargement. 
 
 Those who maintain the doctrine of the perseverance of the 
 saints, take proof from this verse, though certainly without un- 
 disputed warrant, and it must be in the form of development ; 
 for it refers to a particular action, and is not in itself a general 
 statement of a principle ; and those who oppose this tenet are as 
 anxious to escape from the alleged inference. The Fathers of the 
 Council of Trent qualify the statement by the addition, nis¢ 
 tpst homines illius gratiw defuerint. Beelen, professor of the 
 Oriental Languages in the Catholic University of Louvain, 
 gives the verse this turn or twist, conjido fore ut Deus perfi- 
 ciat, hoc est, confido fore ut vos per Det gratiam perficiatis opus 
 bonum quod capistis. Such a perversion is not much better 
 than Wakefield’s, who translates, “ he among you who has 
 begun a good work, will continue to do well till death.” Nor, 
 in fine, can we say with CGicumenius, that the apostle ascribes 
 the work to God, iva μὴ φρονῶσι μέγα, ‘lest they should be 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 7. 13 
 
 filled with too much pride.” He had a higher motive in 
 giving utterance to the precious truth, that what is good in 
 the church, has its root and life in God, that, therefore, He 
 is to be thanked for it, as is most due, and that prayer is to 
 be offered joyously about it, in the assurance that He who 
 began it, will not capriciously desert it, but will carry it for- 
 ward to maturity. It is εὐχαριστῶ-- δέησιν ποιούμενος--- 
 πεποιθώς. The apostle now proceeds to vindicate the asser- 
 tion which he had made. 
 
 (Ver. 7.) Καθώς ἐστι δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάν- 
 tov vuav— Even as it is right for me to think this on behalf 
 of you all.” The form καθώς, from καθά, καθό, belongs to the 
 later Greek, (Phrynichus, Lobeck, p. 426,) and is probably 
 of Alexandrian origin. Matt. xxi. 6; Ephes. i. 4; 1 Cor. 
 i. 6. The verb is not “to care for,” as Wolf contends, nor as 
 van Hengel thinks, is it to be confined to the prayer— sine 
 scrupulo interpretamur, sicutt me decet hoc vobis omnibus appe- 
 tere ; scilicet, omnt cura et precibus. In the interpretation of 
 Storr, followed by Hoelemann, the accusative τοῦτο, simply 
 expresses manner—“I give thanks to God, and offer prayer 
 for all of you with joy, as indeed it becomes me thus to think 
 concerning you.” But it refers to the good opinion already 
 expressed in the previous verse—av70 τοῦτος. By the use of 
 ὑπέρ the apostle indicates that his opinion was favourable to 
 them, and by δίκαιον he characterises that opinion as one 
 which it behoved him in the circumstances to entertain. Col. 
 iv. 1; Eph. vi. 1. The mode of expression in classic Greek 
 would be different—dixavos éyw εἰμι, Herodotus, 1, 39; or 
 δίκαιον ἐστιν ἐμέ, Herodotus, 1, 32; Jelf, § 669, 677. 
 
 διὰ τὸ ἔχειν pe τῇ καρδίᾳ twas— because I have you in 
 my heart’’—the heart being the seat or organ of affection. 
 2 Cor. vii. 3. Am Ende, Oeder, Storr, and Rosenmiiller, 
 reverse this interpretation—“ Because you have me in your 
 heart.” The position of the pronouns may warrant such a 
 translation; but the apostle is writing of himself and of his 
 relation to the church in Philippi. The expression denotes 
 strong affection—as in Latin, in sinu gestare, Terent. Adelph., 
 4, 5, 75; or, as in Ovid’s Trist., v. 2, 24, Te tamen in toto pec- 
 tore semper habet. The apostle vindicates the favourable 
 
14 PHILIPPIANS I. 7. 
 
 opinion he had formed of them from his love to them, as 
 standing in a special relation towards him. Though this 
 opinion sprang from his affection, it was still a nght one— 
 δίκαιον--- not one formed merely secundum legem caritatis, 
 as van Hengel and Ellicott suppose. 
 
 The connection of the next clause is matter of dispute :— 
 
 ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου, Kal TH ἀπολογίᾳ Kal βεβαιώσει τοῦ 
 εὐαγγελίου, συγκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος πάντας ὑμᾶς ὄντας--- 
 “both in my bonds and in the defence and confirmation of the 
 gospel, you all as being partakers with me of grace.”” Chrysos- 
 tom, Meyer, De Wette, and Alford, join the first clause to the 
 preceding one :—“ Because I have you in my heart both in my 
 bonds and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel.” The 
 sense is tolerable; but it does not harmonize with the course of 
 thought. ΤῸ say that he loved them in his bonds, and when 
 he pleaded the cause of the gospel, is not assigning a reason 
 why he thought so highly of them—zezrov@as—but to say 
 that they were partakers of his grace both in his bonds and in 
 his evangelical labours, and as such beloved by him, is a proof 
 that he was justified in forming and expressing such a good 
 opinion and anticipation of them. He had thanked God for 
 the κοινωνία eis τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ; and being assured that such a 
 good work was divine in its origin, and would be carried on 
 till the day of Christ, it became him to give utterance to 
 this thought, on account of the affection he bore to them as 
 participants with him of grace. 
 
 The apostle calls them σογκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος πάν- 
 Tas ὑμᾶς dvras—“‘ all of you as being fellow-partakers with 
 me of grace.” The reading gaudii in the Vulgate, and some 
 Latin fathers, comes from the reading χαρᾶς. The repeti- 
 tion of ὑμᾶς, though such a form is not used by the most 
 correct writers (Bernhardy, 275), is only pleonastic in appear- 
 ance, but really emphatic in nature, and made necessary by 
 the length of the intervening sentence, and the use of πάντας. 
 Matthiae, § 465, 4. The pronoun μου is most probably con- 
 nected with the adjective συγκοινωνούς, and not as by Rilliet 
 with χάριτος ; so that the rendering will not be as Alford gives 
 it—“ partakers of my grace,” but rather “ partakers with me 
 of grace.”’ Matthiae, 8 325; § 405, 1. The construction of 
 
PHILIPPIANS T. 7. 15 
 
 two genitives of different relations with a noun does not often 
 happen. Winer, § 30,3. The χάρις is certainly not, as Rilliet 
 makes it, reconnaisance, ‘ acknowledgments ’’— and as cer- 
 tainly not the apostolic office, as Am Ende and Flatt take it— 
 both explanations quite foreign to the order of thought. 
 Nor can we understand the term simply and broadly of 
 the grace of the gospel, as is done by Robinson, Hoelemann, 
 Heinrichs, De Wette, and Alford. The previous clause 
 limits the grace, or decides it to be that form of grace 
 which is appropriate to imprisonment and evangelical labour. 
 But we cannot with Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, 
 Rheinwald, and Meyer, restrict it to suffering, as we hold 
 that the χάρις refers equally to ἀπολογίᾳ with δεσμοῖς, for 
 the fellowship, which is the leading idea, was not confined to 
 suffering, but had existed from the first day to the present, 
 and that entire period was not one of unbroken tribulation to 
 the apostle. It is true that at that moment the apostle was 
 in bonds, and in those bonds did defend and confirm the 
 truth. But the idea seems to be that they had been co-par- 
 takers of his grace in evangelical labour, and that such par- 
 ticipation with him did not cease, even though he was a 
 prisoner in Rome. For he says :— 
 
 ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς pou—‘ both in my bonds;’ 
 adds— 
 
 καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “and in 
 the defence and confirmation of the gospel.” The use οἵ τε--- 
 καί, indicates that the two clauses contain separate ideas, and 
 that the one preceded by καί has the stress laid on it. 
 Hartung, i. 98; Klotz, Devarius, ii. 740; Winer, § 53, 4. 
 The genitive belongs to both substantives, which are not 
 synonymous as Rheinwald supposes, and do not form a 
 hendiadys as Am Ende and Heinrichs regard them—dzondoyla 
 els BeBatoow. The words are distinct in sense; the first 
 meaning a pleading or defence as before a tribunal, Acts xxii. 
 1, xxv. 16; or in a less authoritative mode, 1 Cor. ix. 3; 
 1 Pet. ui. 15. It is needless to restrict the meaning to 
 such a formal defence as is recorded in 2 Tim. iv.16. It was 
 the apostle’s uniform work, on all times and occasions, to 
 answer for the gospel against its adversaries, whether they 
 
 > and he 
 
16 PHILIPPIANS I. 8. 
 
 impugned its doctrines or suspected its tendencies, libelled 
 its preachers or called in question the facts and evidences on 
 which it rested. But as the non-repetition of the article shows, 
 the defence and confirmation were closely connected, were 
 but different aspects of one course of action. The first was 
 more elementary, and the last more positive and advanced— 
 the first warded off objections, and the second might consist of 
 proofs. The confirmation resulted from the defence. The 
 gospel stood out in power and demonstration, when its 
 opponents were silenced, and the objections brought against 
 it, no matter from what quarter, found to be groundless. 
 That grace which had enabled the apostle to bear his chain, 
 and to defend and confirm the gospel, was common to the 
 Philippians with himself; therefore did he cherish them in his 
 heart, and thank God for such fellowship. And he appends 
 a farther vindication of his sentiment. 
 
 (Ver. 8.) Μάρτυς γάρ pov ὁ Geds—“ For God is my 
 witness.”” The Stephanic text adds ἐστίν, on the authority 
 of A, D, E, J, K, and many MSS. and versions, and we are 
 inclined to receive it, though it be wanting in B, F,G. True, 
 its insertion by a transcriber appears like a natural completion 
 of the common formula, but the balance of evidence is in its 
 favour. The apostle appeals to the Searcher of hearts for the 
 truth of his statement. It was not the language of courteous 
 exaggeration, nor that intensity of phrase in which common 
 friendship so often clothes itself, never dreaming that its 
 words are to be literally interpreted. But the apostle wrote 
 only the truth—his words were the coinage of his heart. Rom. 
 i. 9; 1 Thes. 11.5. “ God is my witness ”— 
 
 ὡς ἐπιποθῶ πάντας υμᾶς ἐν σπλάγχνοιςΧρι στοῦ ᾿Ἰησοῦ--- 
 “ον I long for you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus.”” The 
 order of the proper names is inverted in the received text. 
 The particle ὡς may either introduce the fact of the apostle’s 
 longing, or may indicate its intensity. It may be either 
 “that,” or “how much.” The strong language of the verse 
 may decide for the latter against Rilliet and Miiller. The 
 apostle wishes them to know not so much the fact as the 
 earnestness of his longings. Chrysostom says beautifully— 
 ov τοίνυν δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν πῶς ἐπιποθῶ" οὐ yap δύναμαι Tapac- 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 8. 17 
 
 τῆσα! TO λόγῳ τὸν πόθον. The verb is sometimes followed 
 by an infinitive, as in Rom. i. 11; 2 Cor. v. 2; occasionally by 
 mpos; but here by the accusative of person, as in 2 Cor. ix. 14; 
 Philip i. 26. He does not indicate any special blessing he 
 craved for them; he longed after themselves. They were the 
 objects of his warmest affection, and though he was absent from 
 them, he yearned toward them—a proof surely that he had 
 them in his heart. The simple form of the verb is not found 
 in the New Testament, and this compound form represents 
 more than one Hebrew word in the Septuagint. ’Evr/, as in 
 some other compound verbs, does not intensify the meaning, 
 but rather indicates direction—7ro6ov ἔχειν ἐπί twa. Fritzsche 
 ad Rom., Vol. i. p. 30, 31; Winer, § 30,10. The verb is 
 diluted in meaning, if it be regarded as signifying only to 
 love; though in Ps. exix. 131, it represents the Hebrew 2x. 
 
 And the mode is described by the following clause :— 
 
 ἐν σπλάγχνοις X. 1., “in the bowels of Christ Jesus.” For 
 the usage of σπλάγχνα, see under Col. ii. 12, The strange 
 peculiarity of this phrase has led not a few to weaken its 
 force. We wonder that Storr should have taken up the opi- 
 nion, that σπλάγχνα may mean objects of love, and ἐν be 
 equivalent to tanquam—I love you as being the objects 
 of the love of Christ Jesus.” Such a rendering has not a 
 shadow of support. At the other extreme is the view of 
 Hoelemann, that the words mean, “as the Lord loves His 
 own.’ Nor is X. I. the genitive of object—“ I love you with 
 a heart glowing with love to Christ ;” nor yet that of origin— 
 “T love you with an affection originated by Christ.” Nor can 
 we assent to Rilliet, who gives ἐν the sense of “after the 
 manner of,’’—I love you after the model of Christ—tel étant ; 
 or, as van Hengel paraphrases, in animo penitus affecto, ut 
 
 1 Fritzsche says that in the fourth dialogue of Lucian, the simple and compound 
 verbs are used indiscriminately—promiscue ponuntur. We are inclined to demur to 
 this statement. Ganymede says of his father—zoid yxe ἤδη «trov—and Jupiter 
 afterwards tells him, that if he tasted nectar, he would never desire milk again— 
 οὐκ ἔτι ποθήσεις τὸ γάλα. But when Jupiter bids him be of good courage and be 
 merry, and long no more for earth, he says—zei μηδὲν ἐπιπόθει τῶν κάτω. That is to 
 say, the use of :z/ to denote direction, gives a slight force to the meaning—this 
 pointing of the verb by means of the proposition towards its object, indicates addi- 
 tional emotion. 
 
 B 
 
18 PHILIPPIANS I. 9. 
 
 animus furt Christi Jesu ; or, as Beza has it, teneri et maternt 
 affectis. We agree with Meyer, that ἐν retains its local sense, 
 and that the apostle identifies himself with Christ, as in Gal. 
 ii. 20, “ Christ liveth in me.” The Christian nature of that 
 longing he felt for them is expressed by this striking clause ; 
 for he had the heart of Christ within him, and under its 
 impulses he fondly yearned over his Philippian converts. 
 As Beelen, abridging Bengel, says, ὧν pectore Pauli non 
 tam ipsius quam Christi cor palpitabat. Krause, Grotius, 
 Hoog, and Heinrichs approach this sense, but lose its 
 point when they give as the general meaning, amorem vere 
 Christianum. 
 
 (Ver. 9.) The apostle had shown them what kind desires 
 he felt towards them, and what joyous anticipations he che- 
 rished for them. He had also intimated that he uniformly 
 prayed for them, and he now proceeds to tell them the sub- 
 stance of his prayer. 
 
 Kal τοῦτο προσεύχομαι ἵνα--- “ And this I pray that.” The 
 καί may look back to verse 4, or it may be regarded simply 
 as connecting the two statements—his opinion about them 
 and his prayer for them. There is no ground for Rillet’s-and 
 Miiller’s idea that προσεύχομαι depends on ὡς, as does ἐπί- 
 ποθῶ. Quite a new sentiment is started, and the preceding 
 verse winds up and corroborates the ardent expressions which 
 go before it. The accusative τοῦτο gives emphasis to the 
 theme of petition in itself, and that petition, viewed in its 
 purpose, is preceded by ἵνα, as often occurs. There is little 
 doubt that the contents of the prayer are also so far indicated 
 by the conjunction. ‘To pray for this end is not very different 
 from to pray for this thing. 
 
 His prayer was on this wise :— 
 
 ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπι- 
 γνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει---““ that your love may abound yet 
 more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” Love 
 existed among them, but yet it was deficient, if not in itself, 
 yet in some endowments. ‘The precise nature of this love has 
 been variously understood. Strange is the freak of Bullinger 
 and others, that ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν is, as in old ecclesiastical lan- 
 guage, the abstract used for a concrete, and simply a form of 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 9. 19 
 
 address—“‘ I pray, beloved, that ye may grow yet more and 
 more.” Suicer sub voce. 
 
 1. Some take it for love to the apostle himself, as do the 
 Greek fathers, with Grotius and van Hengel. But the epi- 
 thets which follow could not apply to a mere personal attach- 
 ment. 
 
 2. Nor can we with Calovius and others take it as love to 
 God and Christ, as that is not specially tie grace in question. 
 
 ὃ. Neither can we, with others, regard it as love to God 
 and men—Christian love in its high and comprehensive essence 
 and form, for we think that the context specifies its province 
 and mode of operation. Alford and Meyer are right in refer- 
 ring it to κοινωνία ; but as they restrict the meaning of this 
 word to mutual accord, so they regard ἀγάπη as only signify- 
 ing love to one another. We give κοινωνία a more extensive 
 meaning, and consider ἀγάπη as its root and sustaining power. 
 It is love for Christ’s image and Christ’s work—for all that 
 represents Him on earth—His people and His cause; that holy 
 affection which, while it unites all in whom it dwells, impels 
 them to sympathize with all suffering, and co-operate with all 
 effort, in connection with the defence and confirmation of the 
 gospel. Such is generally also the view of Ellicott and Wie- 
 singer. ‘he apostle prayed that their love might grow— 
 
 ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει. The two substantives 
 are. not synonymous as Rheinwald and Matthies hold. There 
 is no ground for Bisping’s distinction of them, that the first 
 signifies more theoretical, and the other more practical know- 
 ledge. The first substantive denotes accurate knowledge. 
 See under Eph. 1. 17. The second, which occurs only here, 
 means power of perception. Physically, it denotes perception 
 by the senses, especially that of touch; and in the plural, it 
 signifies the organs of such perception—the senses themselves. 
 The transition to a spiritual meaning such as that of apprehen- 
 sion is obvious. See under Col.i. 9. It might be rendered 
 ethical tact, that faculty of moral discernment which is quick 
 and unerring in its judgment, and by a peculiar insight 
 arrives easily and surely at its conclusions. It is not experi- 
 mental or practical knowledge, as some have thought ; but that 
 faculty of discernment which works as if from an inner sense 
 
20 PHILIPPIANS I. 10. 
 
 A similar allusion is made by the apostle in Heb. v. 14, 
 where he describes such as have their senses exercised to 
 discern both good and evil~ra αἰσθητήρια. The apostle 
 adds πάσῃ, all discernment. We regard πάσῃ as intensive, 
 and cannot agree with those who seem to deny that it rarely, 
 if ever, has such a meaning. In these two elements, the apostle 
 prayed that their love should grow yet more and more—ére 
 μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον. Pindar, Pyth. 10, 88; Raphel. in loc. 
 The év does not signify “through,” as Heinrichs and Schinz 
 take it, nor does it mean “along with,” as Rheinwald and 
 Hoelemann suppose. Winer, § 50,5. For ἐν following περισ- 
 σεύω usually points out that in which the increase consists. 
 ior, xv. 583 ὦ (οι: 111. 9. wi. 75. ΘΙ ταὶ do το να 
 was to increase in these qualities, knowledge and insight. 
 De Wette takes ἐν as denoting manner and way. But in 
 only one of the instances adduced by him does this verb occur 
 (Eph. i. 8), and there the connection is doubtful. The apos- 
 tle’s desire was that the love of the Philippians might acquire 
 a profounder knowledge, and not be tempted to misplace itself, 
 and that it might attain a sharper and clearer discernment, 
 and so be prevented from being squandered on unworthy 
 subjects, or directed to courses of conduct which had the sem- 
 blance, but not the reality of Christian rectitude and utility. 
 If love grew in mere capacity, and without the increase of 
 these safeguards, it was in hazard of forming unworthy and 
 profitless attachments. Passion, without such guides or 
 feelers, is but blind predilection. ‘‘ Fellowship for the gospel”’ 
 is still the thought in the apostle’s mind, and that love which 
 had led them to it, needed for its stability a deeper knowledge 
 of the truths which characterized the gospel, and required for 
 its development a clearer faculty of apprehending the character 
 of the men best qualified, and the measures best adapted to its 
 ‘“‘ defence and confirmation.” One purpose was— 
 
 (Ver. 10.) Eis τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ Svapépovta—itva—“ So 
 that ye may distinguish things that differ.” ‘Two purposes are 
 specified in this verse, the nearer expressed by εἰς τό, and the 
 ultimate by ἵνα. Commentators differ as to the meaning of 
 the clause, and philologically the words will bear either inter- 
 pretation. They have been supposed to mean as in our 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 10. 9. 
 
 version, to “approve the things that are excellent,” as in the 
 
 Vulgate—ut probetis potiora. ‘This view has been espoused by 
 Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, Piscator, Bengel, Flatt, Storr, 
 Am Ende, Rosenmiiller, Rheinwald, Rilliet, Meyer, Bisping, 
 Beelen, and Ellicot, On the other hand, the translation we 
 have first given, is adopted by Theodoret, Beza, Wolf, Pierce, 
 Heinrichs, Matthiae, van Hengel, Hoelemann, Hoog, Miiller, 
 De Wette, Wiesinger, Alford, Robinson, Bretschneider, and 
 Wahl. In itself the difference is not material; for this discri- 
 mination is made among things that differ, just that things 
 which are excellent may be approved. But as discrimination 
 is the immediate function of αἰσθήσις, we prefer giving such 
 a signification to the clause. The verb δοκιμάζειν denotes 
 to try or test,.as metal by fire—1 Cor. ii. 13—and then gene- 
 rally to distinguish as the result of such trial, and thence to 
 approve. Rom. xiv. 22; 1 Cor. xvi.3; 1 Thess. 11. 4. In the 
 phrase ta διαφέροντα, difference is the prime idea, but as such 
 difference is based on comparison or contrast, the secondary 
 notion of betterness, value, or excellence, is naturally devel- 
 oped. Mat. x. 31; xu.12; Luke xu. 7, 24. In these three 
 passages the comparison is distinctly brought out, and the 
 difference idiomatically marked. Some even render the word 
 by cupdépovra—things which are useful or convenient, utilia. 
 We prefer then’ the ordinary meaning of the terms. See 
 Bretschneider, sub voce διαφέρω, and Theophylact on Rom. ii. 
 18, where he thus explains the word—xpiverw τὶ δεῖ πρᾶξαι 
 κὰν TL μὴ δεῖ πρᾶξαι. 
 
 The final purpose is thus announced by ἵνα--- 
 
 iva ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀπρόσκοποι ---- “ that ye may be 
 pure and offenceless.”” The composition of the first term is 
 disputed, whether it be εἵλη κρίνω, to prove by the sunlight, 
 or εἴλος [εἴλη] κρίνω, to test by rapid shaking, volubili agita- 
 tione. ‘The former opinion is usually adopted, though Stallbaum! 
 contends for the latter. Hesychius renders the term by τὸ 
 καθαρόν, ἄδολον, and sometimes it is defined by τὸ ἀμιγές. 
 Whatever be its derivation, its meaning is apparent. — It 
 refers to internal disposition, to the absence of sinister motive 
 and divided allegiance, or it describes the purity and sin- 
 
 ! Plato, Phaedo, 77, A. 
 
22 PHILIPPIANS I. 10. 
 
 cerity of that heart which is guided by the spiritual tact and 
 discriminative power which the apostle prays for. 
 
 The epithet ἀπρόσκοποι is taken sometimes in an active 
 sense, not causing others to stumble, as in 1 Cor. x. 32. 
 Meyer adopts this view, and Alford’s objection to it cannot 
 be sustained, viz., “that in the text other men are not in 
 question.” For the leading term ἀγάπη necessarily implies 
 other men as its objects, and that κοινωνία in which it embo- 
 dies itself, has other men as its allies and auxiliaries. While 
 the intransitive meaning gives a good sense, we are inclined 
 to Meyer’s view, inasmuch as the possession of love, and the 
 growth of it in knowledge and discernment, would prevent 
 them from rudely jostling others not of their own opinion, or 
 doing anything which, with a good intention, might mislead 
 or throw a stumbling-block in the path of those round about 
 them. 
 
 It is needless, with Hwald and others, to give a wholly 
 doctrinal sense to τὼ διαφέροντα, though it would be wrong to 
 exclude it altogether. Love without that guidance whicl has 
 been referred to, might form unworthy attachments, might 
 wound itself in its blindness, and retard the very interests for 
 the promotion of which it had eagerly set itself. It must 
 understand the gospel in its purity, and learn to detect 
 unwarranted additions and supplements. It must have tact 
 to distinguish between the real and the seeming, between the 
 (claims of an evangelist, and the specious pretensions of a 
 ‘Judaizer. And, thus, if that love which had shown itself in 
 fellowship for the gospel, grew in knowledge and power of 
 perception, they would be pure; their affection ruled by in- 
 telligence would have but one desire, to defend and confirm 
 the gospel, in participation of the apostle’s own grace; and 
 they would give no offence, either by a zeal which in its 
 excess forgot the means in the end, or cherished suspicions of 
 such as did not come up to its own warmth, or could not 
 sympathize with its favourite modes of operation or expression. 
 
 εἰς ἡμέραν Xprotov— for the day of Christ.” More than 
 time is implied. Verse 6, ἄχρις. The day of Christ is kept 
 in view, and this sincerity and offencelessne$s prepare for it, 
 and lead to acceptance in it. 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 11. 23 
 
 (Ver. 11.) Πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ, εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον Θεοῦ. The singular form 
 καρπὸν τὸν, is preterred to the plural of the Received Text 
 on preponderant authority. ‘Being filled with the fruit of 
 righteousness, which is by Jesus Christ to the glory and 
 praise of God.” The passive participle has καρπόν in the 
 accusative, Winer, § 32, 5, though the genitive is also found, 
 as in Rom. xv. 14. The difference of aspect seems to be that 
 the genitive marks that out of which the fulness is made up, 
 while the accusative points out that on which the action of the 
 verb takes effect in making up the fulness, and not simply 
 that, as Ellicott says, toward which the action tends. On 
 κάρπος---866. Eph. v. 9; Col.i.9. The meaning of δικαιο- 
 σύνη is not so clear. Some, like Rilliet and Bisping, refer it 
 to justification. ‘That idea is involved in it; but the term, 
 without any adjunct, and as applied to character, seems to 
 signify moral rectitude, and is noted by its obedience to the 
 divine law. Rom. v. 7, vi. 15. See under Eph. v. 9. The fruit 
 which springs from this righteousness is to be possessed not 
 sparingly, but richly; and for such fulness does the apostle 
 present his prayer. His pleading for them is, that their life 
 might not be marked merely by the absence of insincerity 
 and offence, but that they might be adorned with all such 
 Christian graces as result from the new nature—the deeds 
 which characterize the “ new man created in righteousness.” 
 And this was the last subject or purpose of the petition ; for 
 love increasing in knowledge and spiritual discernment, know- 
 ing what genuine obedience is, and what is but the semblance 
 of it, appreciating the gospel and cherishing communion with 
 those who oftentimes in suffering extend and uphold it, keep-, , 
 ing the day of Christ in view and preparing for it—moves 
 and enables the whole nature to “ bring forth fruit unto holi- 
 ness.” 
 
 And such fruit is not self-produced, but is— 
 
 διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xpictov— by Jesus Christ,’ in and through 
 His gracious operations upon the heart by His spirit. Right- 
 eousness is of His creation, and all the fruits of it, are through 
 Him, not by His doctrine or by faith in Him, but through 
 Himself. The apostle emphasizes this element rov—dua 1. X. 
 
 
 
24 PHILIPPIANS I. 11. 
 
 The phrase eis δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον Oeod—* to the glory and 
 praise of God,” does not seem to belong to the previous words 
 merely, but to the entire clause. The being filled with such 
 fruits of righteousness—fruits grown only through Christ, re- 
 dounds to the glory and praise of God—the ultimate end of 
 all His works. Glory is the manifestation of His nature and 
 character, and praise is that grateful homage which salutes it 
 on the part of His people. Eph. 1. 6; Phil. ii. 11. We can 
 scarcely suppose with the Greek fathers, that the apostle, with 
 such thoughts and emotions in his soul, tacitly forms in this 
 clause a contrast between any merit that might be imagined 
 to belong to him as founder and teacher of the Philippian 
 church, and the glory which is due to God alone. 
 
 After this affectionate greeting, commendation, and prayer, 
 the apostle turns to his present condition. As the Philippians 
 were aware of his imprisonment, he strives at once to console 
 them by the assurance, that his bonds had rather favoured 
 than retarded the progress of the gospel—for the cause and 
 nature of his incarceration had not only become widely known, 
 but the greater part of the brethren had derived fresh courage 
 from his captivity for the more abundant proclamation of 
 the word. ‘There was, indeed, a party hostile to him, who 
 preached Christ to give him new annoyance ; but these others 
 did it from affection to him, and in co-operation with his great 
 work. So far, however, from being chafed or grieved that 
 his antagonists preached from so bad a motive, he rejoiced 
 that Christ was preached in any way; and he would still con- 
 tinue to rejoice, since it would contribute to his salvation 
 through their prayers, and the supply of the Divine Spirit. 
 For he had the expectation and hope, that he would have no 
 reason to take shame to himself; but that, on the other hand, 
 Christ should be magnified in his body, whether he should 
 survive or die—magnified, in the one case, because for him to 
 live was Christ; and magnified, in the other case, for death 
 was gain: his life, if prolonged, being service for Christ, and 
 his death the enjoyment of Christ’s presence and reward. So 
 that he did not know which to choose—death on the one hand 
 being in itself preferable, for it is being with Christ; but life 
 on the other hand being needful for the spiritual benefit of the 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS I, 12. 25 
 
 Philippian church. Fimally, the apostle intimates his persua- 
 sion that he shall remain, in order to aid their Christian 
 graces, so that they might have ground of spiritual exultation 
 by his return to them. 
 
 (Ver. 12.) Γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, ἀδελφοί--- But I 
 wish you to know, brethren.” By the use of δέ, the apostle 
 passes on to new and individual matter—to his own present 
 condition and its results. No doubt the members of the 
 Philippian church sympathized with him, bewailed his thral- 
 dom, and earnestly prayed for his liberation. Perhaps they 
 had expressed a wish for definite information from him- 
 self. Therefore, as far as possible, he relieves their anxieties, 
 takes an elevated and cheering view of his circumstances, and 
 assures them that his incarceration had rather forwarded the 
 great cause to which his life had been directed. He is soli- 
 citous that they should be acquainted with a few striking 
 facts—ywooxev—placing the term in the first and emphatic 
 position. The more usual forms of similar expression are 
 found in Rom. i. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 1; 2 Cor. i. 8; -1 Thess. iv. 
 13. What he proceeds to tell must have been both novel and 
 gratifying to those saluted by the endearing appellation— 
 “brethren.” For he announces— 
 
 OTL TA κατ᾽ ἐμὲ μᾶλλον εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλή- 
 λυθεν--- that things with me have resulted rather to the 
 furtherance of the gospel.” The phrase κατ᾽ ἐμέ, as in 
 Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7, signifies “what belongs to me’— 
 my present condition. It does not signify “ things against 
 me,’ as Erasmus and others suppose. For a somewhat simi- 
 lar use of the verb, see Rom. ii. 8. The phrase seems to 
 intimate an overruling providence, for it was by no accident 
 that the event was so, and his enemies did not intend it. In 
 the use of μᾶλλον, the idea of comparison is not wholly dropt. 
 Winer, § 35, 4. His imprisonment must have been consid- 
 ered in itself as adverse to the propagation of the gospel ; 
 and the comparison in μᾶλλον is—more than might have been 
 anticipated. Imprisonment fad defeated its purpose, and, 
 so far from suppressing, had promoted Christianity. It was 
 not meant to do this, nor yet was it expected; but he says 
 ἐλήλυθεν, “it has so turned out.’? Wisdom xv. 5. “ Surely 
 
25 PHILIPPIANS I. 13. 
 
 the wrath of man shall praise Thee.’ The term προκοπή 
 belongs to the later Greek, though the verb προκόπτειν was 
 of classical usage. Lobeck ad Phryn. 85; 1 Tim. iv. 15. 
 Hesychius defines it by αὔξησις. ‘The word occurs often in 
 Plutarch, Polybius, Diodorus, Josephus, and Philo, Compare 
 Elsner, Loesner, especially Wetstein iz loc. When the Phi- 
 lippians were made aware of this fact, their sorrow at his 
 captivity would be somewhat modified, and though they might 
 grieve at the confinement of the man, they would be comforted 
 that the cause with which he was identified had not been 
 arrested in its progress. In the last chapter of the epistle, 
 he tells them that, personally, he was content; and here he 
 assures them that the word of the Lord was not bound along 
 with its preacher. No where does he commiserate his condi- 
 tion, dwell on the weight of his chain, or deal out invectives 
 against his foes. He omits the purely personal, and hastens 
 to set before his readers the features of alleviation. What 
 happened then at Rome has often occurred in the history of 
 the church; hostile influences ultimately contributing to the 
 advancement of the church. Man proposes, but God disposes. 
 The cloud, while it obscures the sun, sends down the fertilizing 
 shower. The first effect of his imprisonment is next given— 
 
 (Ver. 13.) “Ὥστε τοὺς δεσμούς μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ 
 γενέσθαι ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ καὶ τοὶς λοιποῖς. racw— So 
 that my bonds have become known in Christ in the whole 
 pretorium, and to all the rest.” The conjunction ὥστε is fol- 
 lowed by the infinitive denoting result, and, as often happens, 
 no demonstrative precedes. On the difference of ὥστε with 
 the infinitive, and with the indicative, see Klotz, Devarius, 11. Ὁ. 
 772. The apostle gives a first result of his present condition, 
 which tended to forward the gospel. The cause of his im- 
 prisonment had come to be known widely, and such knowledge 
 could not be without its fruits. We agree with Meyer and 
 Wiesinger that the words φανεροὺς ἐν X. must be connected— 
 “made manifest in Christ.” The position of the terms seems 
 to demand this connection—and not such an arrangement as 
 τοὺς δεσμούς μου ἐν X., as De Wette construes it. “In Christ” 
 is, In connection with Christ, Eph. iv.1. His incarceration 
 had come to be understood in its connection with Christ ; not 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 18. 27 
 
 surely the fact of it, but the cause and character of it. Wait- 
 ing under an appeal to the emperor, he had been discovered to 
 be no common prisoner. It had transpired that his official 
 connection with Christ, and his fearless prosecution of the 
 work of Christ, had led to his apprehension and previous 
 trial in Palestine, and not sedition, turbulence, or suspected 
 loyalty—the usual political crimes of his nation. It was 
 widely known that he suffered as a Christian and as an 
 apostle, especially as the preacher of a free and unconditioned 
 gospel to the Gentiles. And his bonds were naturally made 
 manifest in Christ, first in the edifice where he dwelt— 
 
 ἐν ὅλῳ TO πραυιτωρίῳ. Our translators adopted a common 
 idea in rendering πραιτώριον by palace. In this they fol- 
 lowed the Greek commentators—one of whom says, “ For up 
 to that time they so called the palace.”’ Hrasmus, Beza, 
 Estius, a-Lapide, Bengel, and Rheimwald hold, with some 
 variation, the same opinion. The word does sometimes, in a 
 general way, signify the palace of a king, as in Juvenal x. 
 161—sedet ad pretoria regis. Also in Act. Thom., ὃ 3, we 
 have the phrase πραιτώρια βασιλικά. Others, from its name, 
 have supposed it to be the judgment-hall of the pretor. So 
 Luther renders it, “ Richthaus,” and he is followed by the 
 early English translators, as by Wycliffe, who gives “ im eche 
 moot halle.” The word is so used in the gospels, in connec- 
 tion with the scene of our Lord’s trial, Mat. xxvii. 27; Mark 
 xy. 16, ἄς. Cicero refers to Verres as dwelling im domo 
 pretorio, que regis Hieronis fut. ‘Thus Huber, Calvin, 
 Grotius, Rheinwald, and Mynster, regard it as.a part of the 
 royal edifice—urbanum jurt dicendo auditorium. ‘The noun 
 thus denoted sometimes the dwelling of a provincial governor 
 nay, it came to signify a magnificent private building 
 (alternas servant pretoria ripas, Statius, 8. 1, 3, 25), much, 
 in the same way, that a Glasgow merchant, building a tur- 
 -reted summer residence on some rock or eminence on the 
 western coast, dignifies it by the name of a “castle.” But the 
 palace of the Roman emperor was never called pretorium. 
 The noun signifies here, the castra pretorianga—the barracks 
 of the imperial life-guards. The tent of the commander-in- 
 chief was originally called the pratoriwm—head-quarters ; 
 
 
 
28 PHILIPPIANS I. 13. 
 
 and a council of war, from being held there, received the same 
 designation—( pretorio dismisso, Livy, xxx. 5.) The name 
 was ultimately given to the imperial body-guards, and was 
 naturally transferred to the edifice in Rome which contained 
 them. It was built by Sejanus, not far from the Porta Vimi- 
 nalis. The cohorts were stationed there, who did duty in turn 
 at the imperial residence. The emperor himself was regarded 
 as pretor, the immediate commanding-officer being called 
 prefectus pretorio; and in Greek, στρατοπεδάρχης. Thus 
 we read, that when Paul was brought to Rome, ὁ ἑκατόι- 
 Tapxos παρέδωκε τοὺς δεσμίους τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῃ, Acts 
 xxviii. 16. Such an office was, at this time, held by 
 Burrus, and the apostle was probably committed to his 
 charge. A portion of this military mansion was close upon 
 the palace, or domus palatina—raddrvov—of which it 15 said, 
 that in it ὁ Καῖσαρ ᾧκει καὶ ἐκεῖ TO στρατήγιον εἶχε, Dio 
 Cassius, lili. 16. Suetonius, Octav., 49. Drusus, we are 
 told by the last author, when imprisoned in the preetorium, 
 was located in ima parte palatii. A large camp of the pre- 
 torian guards was also established outside the walls—(castra 
 pretorianorum, Tacitus, Hist., i. 31); but those on immediate 
 duty had their residence near the royal dwelling. It may be 
 added, that Josephus carefully distinguishes between the palace 
 and the preetorium, between the Βασίλειον and that στρατόπεδον 
 in which Agrippa was imprisoned under a military guard. 
 Thus, the soldiers who relieved one another in keeping the 
 apostle, came to learn that he was no vulgar malefactor, but 
 that he had been the expounder of a new faith—a man of 
 pure and irreproachable life—no fanatic or leveller, or selfish 
 demagogue. And there is no doubt that many of them must 
 have been impressed with his serene heroism, and the visible 
 peace of his untroubled conscience, as he waited for a trial 
 which might send him to the block... And the cause of his © 
 imprisonment was not only known in the whole pretorium, 
 but beyond it— 
 
 
 
 1 This meaning was first vindicated by Perizonius in an academic tract on the 
 subject, Franeker, 1687. Huber produced a reply in the following year, and 
 Mynster attempts to vindicate a similar view in his Kleine Theol. Schriften, p. 
 178, Copenhagen, 1825. 
 
ΞΕ: 
 ἘΞ 
 
 Se. 
 > 
 
 = others rightly take τοῖς δεσμοῖς as the ground or occasion of 
 
 PHILIPPIANS I. 14. 29 
 
 καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς Taow— and to all the rest;” not simply 
 to others of the body-guards, more than those which came 
 into contact with him, or to those of the cohort beyond the 
 city, as Wieseler and Conybeare narrow the allusion, but 
 to persons beyond the pretorium. Nor does the language 
 refer to places, as some of the Greek fathers suppose, when 
 they supply ἐν. Neither can τοῖς λουποῖς have any conven- 
 tional signification, snch as that which van Hengel assigns it 
 —hominibus exieris quibuscunque. The texts referred to by 
 him cannot for a moment sustain his strange exegesis. The 
 expression is a popular and broad one, meaning that his bonds 
 were made known in Christ, far beyond the imperial barracks ; 
 that in a large circle in the city itself, the reason of his incar- 
 ceration was fully comprehended and appreciated. How, in- 
 deed, could it be otherwise? Immediately on his arrival, he 
 assembled the chiefs of the Jews, and addressed them in a 
 style which led to no little disputation among themselves; and 
 we are told, also, that for the space of two years, the apostle 
 “yeceived all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom 
 of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord 
 Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him,” Acts 
 xxviii. 30,31. The second result of his imprisonment follows. 
 
 (Ver. 14.) Καὶ τοὺς πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ πεποι- 
 θότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου, περισσοτέρως τολμᾷν ἀφόβως τὸν 
 λόγον λαλεῖν----ἰ And the greater part of the brethren putting 
 in the Lord confidence in my bonds, are more abundantly 
 bold to speak the word without fear.” This verse repre- 
 sents another result of the apostle’s imprisonment, and shows 
 how it rather tended to the progress of the gospel. He is 
 happy in the majority; his imprisonment had an inspiriting. 
 effect on them. The words ἐν Κυρίῳ may be joined to 
 ἀδελφῶν, as they are by Luther, van Hengel, De Wette, and 
 Alford; but, more probably, as Winer—§ 20, 2—suggests, 
 they qualify the participle πεποιθότας, Gal. v.10; Phil. ii. 
 24; 2 Thess. ii. 4; and so Rilhet, Meyer, and Bisping take 
 them. ‘The words denote-having, or taking confidence in the 
 Lord. The phrase ἐν Κυρίῳ does not mean the ground of 
 confidence, but defines its nature or sphere. Meyer and 
 
30 PHILIPPIANS I- 15. 
 
 confidence—vertrauend meinen Banden—inasmuch as these 
 bonds were a testimony to the entire truth, power, and glory 
 of the gospel. They were the proofs of his inflexible integ- 
 rity, of his honest and sincere convictions as to the freedom 
 and simplicity of the gospel. The majority gathered confi- 
 dence from them. ‘They were charmed and convinced by 
 his manly integrity, his undaunted endurance, his open and 
 candid avowal of his past career, and his willingness to seal 
 his testimony with his blood. What might have been sup- 
 posed to damp and discourage them, had the opposite effect ; 
 it cheered and stimulated them. ‘The result was natural, 
 past timidity vanished, and they “ventured more abundantly 
 to speak the word without fear.” The adverb περισσοτέρως 
 is not with Grotius to be taken as qualifying ἀφόβως, or 
 as forming with it a comparative ἀφοβοτέρως. Its position 
 connects it with todwadv— more abundantly ventured ;”’ the, 
 comparison being—more than when he had not been im- 
 prisoned. The adverb ἀφόβως is not pleonastic — those 
 brethren had ventured to preach before,-but perhaps with 
 some caution; now they dared more frequently, and with 
 perfect composure. The sight of the apostle inspired them 
 with his own heroism. It might have been feared that his 
 bonds would have made his frends more wary, lest they 
 should incur a similar fate; but so far from such an ignoble 
 result, there was a positive revival of courage and zeal among 
 them; their labours multiplied in number, and increased in 
 boldness, and thus the apostle’s circumstances had resulted 
 rather to the furtherance of the gospel. Some codices have, 
 after λόγον, Tod θεοῦ, and others τοῦ κυρίου. On the authority 
 of A and B, Lachmann adopts the former, as do many of the 
 versions. But the reading seems to be a gloss, adopted from 
 the familiar expression—‘ word of God,” as in Acts iv. 31. 
 
 (Ver. 15.) But while the apostle in this statement includes 
 the majority, there were some exceptions. There was a party 
 actuated by a very different spirit— 
 
 Τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν---τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν. 
 “* Some indeed, also, for envy and contention, preach Christ.” 
 By τινές, the apostle does not refer to a section of the previous 
 πλείονες. The καί indicates that another and distinct party is 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 16. 31 
 
 noticed; not, as Rilliet writes, parmé les Chrétiens qui ont repris 
 courage, and as Rheinwald and Hoelemann suppose. Had he 
 merely meant to characterize the πλείονες into two parties, there 
 was no occasion to say τινές. There is, as Ellicott says, an im- 
 plied contrast in καί, while it points out an additional party. 
 Hartung, 1, 136, &e. The preposition διά refers to the 
 motive, not the purpose of preaching—envy and contention. 
 Winer, § 49, c.; Mat. xxvii. 18; Mark xv. 10. This class 
 of men were jealous of the apostle’s influence, and strove to 
 defy him, to undermine his reputation and authority, and gall 
 and gainsay him by their modes of speech and action. What 
 this. party was, will be immediately discussed. It was an 
 Anti-Pauline faction, but we cannot regard it as simply a 
 Judaizing one. The apostle adds— 
 
 τινὲς δὲ καὶ δὲ εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστὸν Knpvccovor—* but some 
 also preach Christ for goodwill.” The persons indicated by 
 τινές are probably those contained in πλείονες, and so named, 
 or spoken of as a party here, from being placed in contrast 
 with the first τινές. The preposition διά points out, again, the 
 motive, and that motive is goodwill to the apostle himself, and 
 not, as many suppose, either goodwill to the cause, or to men’s 
 salvation. The φθόνος and ἔρις, on the one hand, and this 
 εὐδοκία, on the other hand, are purely personal to the apostle, 
 as indeed he proceeds at once to explain. 
 
 The 16th and 17th verses are transposed in the Received 
 Text. The idea of preserving conformity to the division of 
 parties in the preceding verse, seems to have suggested the 
 change, as if, when the apostle had referred to the envious 
 and contentious preachers first, he must, in the same order, 
 give his explanation of them. Heinrichs, without any autho- 
 rity, reckons both explanatory verses as spurious. Miiller 
 vindicates the arrangement of the Textus Receptus for very 
 frivolous reasons. ‘The best MSS. place them in the reverse 
 order of the Received Text, and by putting the verse last 
 which describes the factious preachers, the force of τί γάρ, in 
 the 18th verse, is more vividly brought out. 
 
 (Ver. 16.) Oc μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ 
 εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι---“ The one party indeed (preach Christ) of 
 love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.” 
 
32 PHILIPPIANS I. 16. 
 
 The first clause is a nominative, and the supplement is 
 “ preach Christ.” For we agree with Alford, against Meyer, 
 van Hengel, De Wette, and Ellicott, that οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης and οἱ 
 ἐξ ἐριθείας, are not simply generic descriptions, as in Rom. ii. 
 8; Gal. iii. 7. Ellicott objects that in this verse ἐξ ἀγάπης 
 would only be a repetition of διὼ εὐδοκίαν. And so it is, but 
 with an explanatory purpose—and so with the other pair of 
 opposite terms. And the apostle does not “reiterate” simply 
 the nature of the difference of feeling in the two parties, but 
 he adds the cause of it, for the participles εἰδότες and οἰόμενοι, 
 preserve their true causal signification. Under the hypo- 
 thesis which we are opposing, the words τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέ- 
 λουσιν come in awkwardly, and would hardly be expressed 
 in verse 17; but they occur in our construction as the ex- 
 pected complement. Still the meaning is not very different, 
 whether the party is characterized by love, or whether love be 
 assigned as the motive of their preaching. Yet as preaching 
 is specially regarded in the paragraph as the development or 
 result of feeling, we take the clause as describing that feeling ; 
 not as simply designating a party, but as specifying a motive 
 in active operation. They preached Christ out of love; and 
 their affection was intelligently based— 
 
 εἰδότες OTL εἰς ἀπολογίαν TOD εὐωγγελίου Keiwat—* knowing 
 that I am appointed for the defence of the gospel.”” The noun 
 ἀπολογία is “vindication’’—the defence of the truth, freeness, 
 adaptation, and divine origin of the gospel. Luther, Estius, 
 Am Ende, Matthies, and van Hengel, take κεῖμαι in a literal 
 sense—“ I lie in prison, or in misery.” The idea is far- 
 fetched and unnecessary. The verb means as often, “to be 
 set aside for,” or “to be appointed to.” Luke ii. 34; 1 Thess. 
 11. 3. What then is the reference? 
 
 1. Some, as Estius, a-Lapide, and Pierce, understand by 
 ἀπολογία, the apostle’s formal vindication of himself and his 
 cause before Nero. But this is too restricted a view, though 
 such a defence is not to be excluded. 
 
 2. Chrysostom’s idea of ἀπολογία is peculiar. He refers us 
 to Paul’s answer at the judgment-seat of God. “I am 
 appointed to preach, they help with me, and they are di- 
 minishing the weight of that account which I must give to 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 17. . 33 
 
 God.” ‘The apostle, however, is not speaking of his account 
 to God, but of his special work in defending the gospel, which 
 those who loved him knew how to appreciate (verse 7); nor 
 is ἀπολογία ever used of the solemn and final reckoning. 
 
 8. Others bring out this thought,—These friends see me 
 imprisoned, and they supply my forced abstinence from labour 
 by their preaching. Such is the view of Estius, Hoelemann, 
 and van Hengel. But this lays the emphasis more on the 
 apostle’s imprisonment than on his high function; and the 
 latter is more expressly in the writer’s view. 
 
 4. Meyer, Wiesinger, and De Wette, place the emphasis 
 properly on the words—“ for the defence of the gospel.” His 
 friends recognized the apostle’s position and task, and laboured 
 in sympathy to assist him in it. It was not because he could 
 not defend the gospel, that they took the work upon them, for 
 they had been engaged in similar effort before ; only his incar- 
 ceration gave them new spirit and intrepidity. They had 
 recognized the apostle’s special function ; it struck a tender 
 chord in their hearts, and so far as in them lay they carried 
 out his labours. As they well knew that he had been set for 
 the defence of the gospel, they felt that they could not better 
 prove their love to him than by appreciating his vocation, 
 acting in his spirit, and seeking, above all things, to realize 
 the noble end to which he had devoted his life. 
 
 (Ver. 17.) Οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν Χριστὸν κατωγγέλλουσιν 
 οὐχ ayvas—“ But the others preach Christ of faction, not 
 purely.” There is no specific difference between κηρύσσουσι 
 and καταγγέλουσι, Acts xvii. 3, 23; Col. 1. 28. The first 
 verb is already applied to both parties. Hesychius defines 
 the one term by the other; but the former verb is of most 
 frequent occurrence; the latter being confined to the book of 
 Acts and Paul’s epistles. The noun ἐριθεία is not from ἔρις, 
 and signifying “contention,” as Theodoret has it—ro τῆς ἔριδος 
 πάθος ; for the apostle formally distinguishes épus and ἐριθεία 
 in 2 Cor. xii. 20, and in Gal. v. 20, in both which cases the 
 two nouns occur in the same verse. It is from ἔριθος, a day- 
 labourer, Hom. J/., xviii. 550; the resemblance to ἔριον being 
 perhaps accidental—Passow, sub voce; Benfey, 1.56— Fritzsche, 
 in his Kxcursus appended to the second chapter of Romans. 
 
 c 
 
34 PHILIPPIANS I. 17. 
 
 The idea of “mercenary” soon followed that of labour for 
 hire, out of which sprang that of emulation and worthless 
 self-secking—malitiosa fraudum machinatio. The term €pe- 
 θεία, as Fritzsche remarks, includes both the φθόνος and ἔρις 
 of the fifteenth verse. Liddell and Scott fall away from the 
 true meaning of the word, and do not distinguish it from 
 ἔρις, when in their Lexicon, they give “contention” as its 
 meaning in the New Testament. The φιλονεικία of Suidas 
 and Theophylact comes nearer the true idea. This party, 
 therefore, in proclaiming Christ, did not do it ayvaés—preach 
 with pure intent. “Ayvéas καὶ καθαρῶς, Hesiod, Opera et Dies, 
 339. Thus the adjective is used, 2 Cor. vii. 11. The adverb 
 characterizes not the contents, but the motive or spirit of their 
 preaching. Bengel’s idea is baseless, when he says they 
 preached—non sine fermento Judaico; or, as Am Ende says in 
 the same spirit, that in their preaching—multa igitur addunt, 
 multa silent. And the motive of their preaching is truly 
 nefarious— 
 
 οἰόμενοι θλίψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς pou—‘thinking to 
 stir up affliction to my bonds,” meaning it, but not effecting 
 1.1 ’Eryedpew is preferred to the ἐπιφέρειν of the Received 
 Text, on the conclusive authority of A, B, D', F, G, and 
 was probably in its origin an explanatory term, like the προσ- 
 φέρειν of Theophylact. The participle οἰόμενοι is parallel to 
 εἰδότες, and with the same causal force, though it is at the 
 same time explanatory of οὐχ ἁγνῶς. ‘Their purpose was to 
 ageravate the apostle’s imprisonment. They did God’s work 
 in the devil’s spirit. No wonder Chrysostom exclaims—’OQ 
 τῆς ὠμότητος, ὦ τῆς διαβολικῆς evepyévas— O, the cruelty ! 
 O, the devilish energy!”’ In what way they thought to 
 accomplish their object, it is difficult now to tell. Chrysos- 
 tom simply calls them unbelievers. We cannot agree with 
 Grotius, Le Clerc, Balduin, and those who imagine that this 
 party were Jews, who went about calumniating the gospel and 
 its preachers, with the view of bringing more hardships upon 
 the apostle; the result being that they only excited curiosity, 
 
 1 Nist quod mihi nocere se crediderunt, is Cicero’s translation (Tusc. i. 41.) of the 
 Greek ---ἀλλ᾽ οἰόμενοι βλέ τειν, Plato, Apologia Soc. § 32. 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 17. 35 
 
 and led many to inquire about the real nature of the new sect. 
 Nor do we think that they were Judaizers of the ordinary 
 class, who represented the apostle as an enemy to the law, and 
 excited the Jews against him. That they belonged to this 
 class, has been held by many, and, among others, by Neander, 
 Meyer, De Wette, and Ellicott. It is difficult to suppose that 
 these preachers were Judaizers. For :— 
 
 1. The apostle usually condemns the Judaizers—calls them 
 by many bitter epithets, and represents them as subverting the 
 gospel to such an extent, that upon their theory Christ had 
 died in vain, Gal. 11. 21. And the apostle, as Wiesinger says, 
 would in this case have appeared “ double-tongued” to the 
 Philippians; for in this very epistle referring to such errorists, 
 he inveighs with special antipathy against them—“ Beware of 
 dogs; beware of evil workers; beware of the concision.” 
 In this passage, however, the apostle says nothing of erroneous 
 teaching, but only of a bad spirit. He does not reject their 
 doctrines as mutilated or adulterated: he only reprobates their ' 
 motives. 
 
 2. They are represented as preaching Christ. It is true 
 the article is used, ὁ Χριστός, which some suppose to have a 
 special reference to the Messiahship and their proclamation of 
 it in a Jewish or secular sense. But then the well-affected 
 party are said also to preach the Christ—rov Χριστόν. The 
 preaching in its substance was the same with both: Nor can 
 any difference be inferred from the employment of two verbs 
 --κηρύσσω and καταγγέλλω ; the one denoting the work of a 
 herald, and the other that of a messenger ; for the first verb in 
 verse 15 characterizes the preaching of both parties; and in 
 the preaching described by the second verb in verse 18, the 
 apostle expresses his hearty concurrence. Can it be supposed 
 for a moment that the apostle could call any form of Judaistic 
 teaching the preaching of Christ; or use the same emphatic 
 phrase as descriptive both of sound and of pernicious instruc- 
 tion? His friends “preach Christ,”” and no one doubts that 
 by this language he approved of their doctrine; those dis- 
 affected toward him “ preach Christ” too, the difference being 
 in their respective spirit and motives. 
 
 3. The apostle virtually sanctions such preaching. For, no 
 
36 PHILIPPIANS I. 17. 
 
 matier in what spirit Christ is preached, whether in pretence 
 or in truth—provided He is preached at all, the prisoner is 
 contented and happy. Surely he could never have employed 
 such language, if false views of Christ had been propounded, 
 such views as the Judaizers were in the habit of insisting 
 upon—the necessity of circumcision, and ‘the perpetual obli- 
 gation of the Mosaic law. Was it possible for Paul to rejoice 
 in a style of preaching at Rome, which he so strongly de- 
 nounced in Galatia? Or could he regard the promulgation of 
 such views as in any sense the “furtherance of the gospel ?” 
 The conclusion then, is, that a form of preaching called, 
 without reserve or modification, the preaching of Christ, and 
 one in which the apostle rejoices, in spite of the malicious 
 and perverse motives of those who engaged in it, cannot be 
 the common and carnal Judaistic error which plagued and 
 injured so many of the early churches. Neander? is obliged 
 to make the supposition, that Paul thinks of the Judaizing 
 gospel in its effects upon the heathen, when he thus speaks of 
 it. But there is no ground for such an assumption, and such 
 a preaching would profit them nothing. Had the Judaizers 
 given the mere facts of Christ’s life, it might have been well; 
 but such a simple narrative would not have suited their pur- 
 pose, for they could not detail those facts without connecting 
 with them certain dogmas on the obligation and character of 
 the Mosaic ritual. Nor can Meyer be listened to, when he says 
 that Judaizing preaching was less displeasing to the apostle 
 in Rome, than in Greece or Asia, as the church there had not 
 been founded by him, and was not specially under his apos- 
 tolical jurisdiction. What this preaching was not, one may 
 thus safely decide. 
 
 But it is not so easy to determine what this preaching of 
 Christ was, or how it could be intended, to add affliction to the 
 apostle’s bonds. Chrysostom and his followers hold that the. 
 intention of such preaching was to stir up the hostility of Nero, 
 and other enemies of the gospel, so that the apostle’s situation 
 might be embittered; the preaching of Jesus as the Christ, 
 being most offensive to the Romans, and the unbelieving Jews 
 making use of it to enrage the heathen rulers. But the apostle 
 
 1 On Philippians, p. 26, Edin., Clark. 
 
Ἄν PHILIPPIANS I. 17. 37 
 
 does not say that the Jews charged the Christians with preach- 
 ing the Messiahship; the Christians did it themselves. And 
 if they preached the Messiahship in any such form as made it 
 a rival to the imperial sovereignty, would not such a course 
 have equally endangered themselves, and led to their own 
 apprehension and trial? Nor can we suppose the meaning to 
 be, that by their busy publication of Judaizing doctrine, his 
 antagonists thought to annoy the apostle by preaching what 
 they knew he had so resolutely condemned, and to endanger 
 him by holding him up as an enemy to the Mosaic institute, 
 and the venerated “customs” of his country. For we have 
 endeavoured to show in the preceding paragraphs that such 
 preaching could not be called as the apostle calls it—preaching 
 Christ ; nor could he have tolerated it, far less have given it, 
 his seeming approval and countenance. Others, again, as Storr, 
 van Hengel, and Rilliet suppose, that by “affliction” the 
 apostle means mental suffering, produced by such factious dis- 
 position and conduct. It is possible that this view may be the 
 most correct. The noun θλίψις will bear such a meaning, 
 and it is the intended result of that év@e¢a—unprincipled 
 emulation and intrigue. The apostle speaks of affliction in 
 addition to his bonds—not a closer imprisonment, or a heavier 
 chain, or an attempt to infuriate the emperor and prejudge his 
 appeal, but something over and above his bonds—perhaps 
 chagrin and sorrow at the misrepresentation of his position and 
 character. May we not, therefore, regard the phrase—“I re- Ὁ 
 joice, and will rejoice,” as the opposite of those emotions 
 which they strove to produce within him? They laboured to 
 surround him with circumstances which should cause him 
 ( afflietion,’’ but they failed. He could not but blame their 
 motives, while he rejoiced in the result. They must have set 
 themselves in rivalry with him, must have hoped to ruin his 
 reputation, and damage his apostolical commission, in the way 
 in which they did his work. By their detraction of his charac- 
 ter in and through an imitation of his labours, they trusted to 
 chafe and vex him. But as they deserved, they were egre- 
 giously disappointed. They thought that he would be 
 afflicted, but he was rejoiced. 
 
 If this hypothesis be correct, as we think it is, then we may 
 
38 PHILIPPIANS I. 18. 
 
 come to a more satisfactory conclusion as to the nature of the 
 faction referred to. That it consisted of Jews is almost certain. 
 But these Jews might not be Judaizers. In the Corinthian 
 church there was a party that said, “I am of Cephas”— 
 followers of the apostle of the circumcision, and hostile to 
 those who named themselves from Paul. It is very probable 
 that this Petrine party held high views about the law; but 
 there is no hint in the epistle to the Corinthian church that 
 they either held or taught such mischievous errors as were 
 propagated in Galatia. Minor matters of ceremonial seem 
 rather to have occupied them. Chap. vili. and x. But there 
 is no question that the apostle’s authority was impugned in 
 Corinth, and in all likelihood by the Petrine party, because 
 he had not been personally called by Jesus, as Simon had 
 been; and by the same party, his right to pecuniary support 
 from the churches seems to have been denied or disputed. 
 While, therefore, there was comparative purity in the section 
 that took Peter for its head and watchword, there was 
 also keen and resolute opposition to the person and pre- 
 rogative of the apostle of the Gentiles. To meet all the 
 requirements of the case before us, we have only to suppose 
 that such a party was found at Rome, and the fourteenth 
 chapter of the epistle to that church seems to indicate their 
 existence. If there was a company of believing Jews, who 
 held the essential doctrines of the gospel, but was combative 
 on points of inferior value, and in connection with the social 
 institutions of their people, and who, at the same time, were 
 bitter and unscrupulous antagonists of the apostle from such 
 an impression of his opinions as is indicated by James in 
 Acts xxi. 20, 21—then such a party might preach Christ, and 
 yet cherish toward Paul all those feelings of envy and ill-will 
 which he ascribes to them. Chrysostom touches the truth 
 when he represents them as being jealous of the apostle— 
 φθονοῦντες τῇ δόξῃ. Calvin writes feelingly—‘ Paul assuredly 
 says nothing here, which I myself have not experienced. For 
 there are men living now who have preached the gospel with 
 no other design, than to gratify the rage of the wicked by 
 persecuting pious pastors.” 
 
 (Ver. 18.) Τί γάρ; πλὴν παντὶ τρόπῳ εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 18. 39 
 
 ἀληθείᾳ, Χριστὸς κατωγγέλλεται, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω, ἀλλὰ 
 καὶ χαρήσομαι--“ What then? but yet, in every way, that 
 Christ is preached—whether in pretence, whether in truth— 
 even in this I do rejoice, yea, and I shall rejoice.’’ The ellip- 
 tical phrase τί γάρ, expresses an interrogative inference, and is 
 much the same as the guid enim, or quid ergo, of the Latin 
 authors.! Rom. iii.3. There is no use in attempting to fill out 
 the idiom with διαφέρει, or ἄλλο or μοι μέλει, as is done by the 
 Greek expositors; nor is the refert of Bengel, or the sequitur 
 of Grotius, at all necessary. Kiihner, ὃ 833 1.; Klotz ad Devar. 
 il. p. 247, &c.; Hartung, i. p. 479; Hoogeveen, Doctrina Part. 
 p. 539. The adverb Aj? has also in such idiom a peculiar 
 meaning, nur dass, as Passow gives it—‘ only that.” As if 
 the paraphrase might be— What then? shall I fret because 
 some men preach Christ of strife and intrigue, and think to 
 imbitter my imprisonment? No, for all that; in spite of all 
 this opposition to myself, only let Christ be preached from 
 any motive, false or genuine, yes in the fact of such preaching 
 I rejoice.” The first answer to τί γάρ is only implied, and 
 not written—shall I feel affliction added to my bonds? shall 
 I be chafed or grieved? while the second in contrast to it is 
 expressed—the antagonism being noted by πλήν. Though in 
 the phrase παντὶ τρόπῳ, the apostle says—“ every form,” yet 
 the following words show that he had two forms especially in 
 his eye, for he adds :— 
 
 εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε adynGeia— whether in pretence or in 
 sincerity.” These two nouns are often opposed by Philo and 
 the classical writers, as is shown in the collected examples of 
 Loesner, Raphelius, and Wetstein. The dative in both cases 
 is that of manner, or is a modal case. Winer, § 31, 6.5 The 
 first noun, πρόφασις, is employed to express a prominent ele- 
 ment of the old Pharisaical character, its want of genuineness; 
 or that its professed motive was not its real one, that its 
 exceeding devotion was but a show, Matt. xxii. 13; Mark 
 
 1 Cicero, dé Fin. ii. 22, 72; Horace, Sat. i. 1, 7. 
 
 2 After σλήν, A, F, G, insert ὅτι ; while B has simply ὅτι, without πλήν. Probably 
 both are results of an ancient gloss, as Meyer conjectures. 
 
 3 Both nouns in a similar idiom are often found in the accusative, among the 
 classical writers. Kriiger, § 46, 3,5; Matthiae, § 425. 
 
40 PHILIPPIANS I. 18. 
 
 xii. 40; Luke xx. 47. When the sailors, during Paul’s 
 voyage to Rome, wished to escape from the ship, and for this 
 purposé lowered a boat under the pretext of preparing to let 
 go an anchor, their manceuvre is described by the same term, 
 Acts xxvii. 80. The word denotes that state of mind in which 
 the avowed is not the true motive; in which there is made 
 to. appear (as the etymology indicates) what does not exist. 
 Hosea x. 4; John xv. 22. The contrasted noun, ἀλήθεια, 
 signifies here genuineness or integrity, John iv. 23, 24; 1 John 
 iii. 18. The Hebrew πον has occasionally a similar mean- 
 ing, Ex. xviii. 21; Neh. vii. 2; and especially 1 Sam. xu. 
 24; 1 Kings ii. 4, iii. 6, where it is represented by the Greek 
 term before us. Χριστὸς καταγγέλεται; see Col. 1. 28. A 
 different meaning is assigned to the first noun by the Vulgate, 
 which renders per occastonem; followed by Luther, who tran- 
 slates zufallens ; and vindicated by Grotius, and by Hammond 
 who brings out this idea—‘‘ by all means, whether by occasion 
 only, that is, accidentally, and not by a designed causality ; 
 or whether, by truth, that is, by a direct real way of effi- 
 ciency.” But though the term has sometimes such a meaning, 
 the antithesis in the clause itself, the common usage of the 
 two confronted nouns, and the entire context discountenance 
 the supposition. In fact, πρόφασις is simply the οὐχ ἁγνῶς 
 of the 17th verse; while ἀλήθεια embodies the δὲ εὐδοκίαν of 
 the 15th, and the ἐξ ἀγάπης of the 16th verses. The two 
 nouns so placed in opposition represent, not difference in the 
 substance, but in the purpose of preaching. They have an 
 ethical reference. For if Christ was preached in either way, the 
 apostle must allude not to contents, but design. In the one 
 case, Christ was really preached, but the motive was hollow 
 and fallacious. It was neither from homage to Him, or love 
 to souls, or an earnest desire to advance the gospel. In the 
 other case, preaching was a sincere service—“ out of a true 
 heart, and with faith unfeigned.” The apostle, looking at the 
 fact, and for a moment overlooking the motive, exclaims :— 
 καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι--- and in this I 
 rejoice; yea, and I will rejoice.” For χαίρω ἐν, see Col. i. 
 24. The pronoun τούτῳ does not refer specially to Christ ; 
 nor yet, vaguely, to the entire crisis, as Meyer takes it; but 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 18. 41 
 
 directly to the preaching. To render it with Ellicott, “in 
 this state of things,” is too broad, and would not be wholly 
 true: for the apostle must have grieved over the wicked 
 motives of those preachers, though he rejoiced ἴῃ their 
 preaching. We must subtract from “this state of things,” 
 what must have caused him sorrow; there being left the fact 
 that Christ was proclaimed, and in that he rejoiced. “ In this 
 preaching, be the motive what it may, I rejoice.” The ἀλλά 
 is still slightly adversative, as it stands between the present 
 χαίρω, and the future χαρήσομαι---τιοῦ only now, or at present, 
 but 1 will also rejoice. See an explanation of the idiom under 
 Kph. v. 24. As happens with many barytone verbs, in Attic 
 the future of χαίρω is yatpjcw—but in the other dialects, and 
 in the New Testament, the middle form is employed. Matthiae, 
 § 255; Winer, § 15. The apostle felt that impurity of motive 
 might modify, but not prevent all good result; and that, as 
 long as its true character was concealed, such preaching might 
 not be without fruit. He knew the preaching of Christ to 
 be a noble instrument, and though it was not a clean hand 
 which set it in motion, still it might effect incalculable good. 
 For truth is mighty, no matter in what spirit it is published ; 
 its might being in itself, and not in the breath of him who 
 proclaims it. Disposition and purpose belong to the preacher 
 and his individual responsibility ; but the preaching of Christ 
 has an innate power to win and save. The virtue lis in the 
 gospel, not in the gospeller; in the exposition, and not in the 
 expounder. 
 
 Not that the apostle was, or could be indifferent to the 
 motive which ought to govern a preacher of the gospel. Not 
 as if he for a moment encouraged neutrality or lukewarm- 
 ness, or thought that unconverted men might be safely 
 intrusted with the precious function. But he simply regards 
 the work and its fruits, and he leaves the motive with Him 
 who could fully try it—the Judge of all. Vindictive and 
 jealous feeling toward himself, he could pity and pardon, pro- 
 vided the work be done. He could well bear that good be 
 achieved by others, even out of envy to himself. The mere 
 eclat of apostleship was nothing to him, and he would not for- 
 bid others, because they did not follow himself. Those men 
 
42 : PHILIPPIANS I. 18. 
 
 who so preached Christ, were, therefore, neither heretics, nor 
 gross Judaizers,) subverting the faith. Their preaching is 
 supposed to be the means of saving souls. The Greek ex- 
 positors notice the abuse which some heretics—rwvés ἀνόητοι 
 —made of the apostle’s statement, and they answer, that 
 he does not warrant such a style of preaching—does not 
 say κατωγγεχλέσθω, but KcatayyédXerarc—merely relating a 
 fact, not issuing a sanction. Chrysostom calls attention to the 
 apostle’s calmness—that he does not imveigh against his 
 enemies, but simply narrates what has occurred. 
 
 This verse was the subject of long and acrimonious dispute 
 during the Pietist controversy in Germany. ‘The question 
 was generally, Whether unconverted men are warranted or 
 qualified to preach the gospel; or specially, Whether the 
 religious knowledge acquired by a wicked man can be termed 
 theology, or how far the office and ministry of an impious 
 man can be pronounced efficacious, or whether a licentious 
 and godless man be capable of divine illumination? It is 
 obvious that such questions are not determined by the 
 apostle, and that there is no solution of them in this passage. 
 His language is too vague, and the whole circumstances are 
 too obscure, to form a foundation for judgment. The party 
 referred to here preached Christ from a very unworthy 
 personal motive, and the apostle rejoiced in the preaching, 
 though he might compassionate and forgive the preachers. 
 We cannot argue a general rule from such an exceptional 
 case. But apart from any casuistry, and any fanaticism 
 which the Pietists might exhibit, their general principle was 
 correct, and it was in opposition to their tenets, and as a re- 
 bound from them, that men were admitted into pulpits to preach 
 the gospel without any evidence that they believed in it, and 
 that it was not required of them to be religious themselves, ere 
 they taught religion to others. In the same way scholars were 
 installed into chairs, from which they taught the language of 
 Abraham, as the readiest means of scoffing at Abraham’s faith, 
 and descanted on the writings of the apostles, as the most 
 effectual method of reviling and undermining that religion 
 
 1 Chrysostom admits that they preached sound doctrine—dyidis μὲν ἐκήρυττον. 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 19. 43 
 
 which they had founded. We hold it to be the right 
 principle—that the best preparation for preaching the Crucitied 
 One, is to have His spirit; that to be His, is the sure quali- 
 fication for obeying His commission, and that an unchristian 
 man has no call to take part in the vindication or enforcement 
 of the religion of Christ. 
 
 (Ver. 19.) Οἶδα yap ὅτι τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτη- 
 plav—“ For I know that this shall fall out unto my salva- 
 tion.”’ Lachmann, by his punctuation, connects this clause 
 immediately with the preceding one, and he is right. The 
 apostle’s avowal of future joy bases itself on an anticipated re- 
 sult. He felt a joy which others might not suppose, and it was 
 no evanescent emotion, for it was connected with the most 
 momentous of all blessings—his salvation. The ydp intro- 
 duces a confirmatory explanation or reason. That this salva- 
 tion—cornpia—is not, as many from the Greek fathers 
 downwards suppose, temporal deliverance, is evident from the 
 instrumentality referred to—“ your intercession, and the supply 
 of Christ’s spirit.” ‘These were not indispensable to his libe- 
 ration, but to his soul’s health. A change in Nero’s heart, a 
 mere whim of the moment, might have secured his freedom. 
 The prior question, however, is the reference in τοῦτο. 
 
 1. Many, with Theodoret, refer it to the afflictive circum- 
 stances in which the apostle was placed, or to the dangers 
 which lowered around him, in consequence of the envious and 
 vindictive preachers—oi ἐντεῦθεν φυόμενοι κίνδυνοι. But the 
 apostle thought too lightly of this danger, if it really existed, 
 to give it such prominence. What was merely personal, had 
 no interest for him; what concerned the cause, at once concen- 
 trated his attention, and begat emotion within him. 
 
 2. Theophylact, Calvin, Rheinwald, van Hengel, De 
 Wette, and Beelen, refer τοῦτο to the 17th verse — the 
 preaching of Christ out of envy and strife, and for the 
 purpose of adding to the apostle’s troubles. “Ἢ Such preach- 
 ing, instead of adding to my affliction, shall contribute to my 
 salvation.” But this connection carries back the reference 
 _too far, and breaks the continuity. 
 
 3. Others suppose the allusion to be to the preaching of the 
 gospel ; to its greater spread, as Rilliet, Matthies, and Alford ; 
 
44 PHILIPPIANS 1. 19. 
 
 or to the general character of it, as Hoelemann—-s? vel interdum 
 de causis subdolis factum. 'These opinions appear to be some- 
 what away from the context: 
 
 4, For we apprehend that it is simply to the sentiment of the 
 preceding verse that the apostle refers. In that verse he tells 
 them that, in spite of the opposite conclusion some might come 
 to, he rejoiced in the fact that Christ was preached, whatever 
 might be the motive of the preacher. And now he assigns 
 the reason of that joy. He does not mean either that the 
 gospel so proclaimed would achieve the salvation of others, 
 as Grotius imagined, or with Heinrichs, that it would pro- 
 duce his own, for it had already been sécured. The preach- 
 ing of the gospel to others, and the spread of it in Rome, or 
 in Italy, could not in itself exercise any saving power upon 
 him; nor could he have any doubt that the gospel which 
 himself had believed and preached, should issue in his eternal 
 happiness. We, therefore, understand the τοῦτο to refer to 
 the state of mind described in the former verse—his joy in 
 the preaching of Christ, from whatever motive. For this 
 state of mind indicated his supreme regard for Christ—that 
 he preferred Him above everything—that he could bear to 
 be an object of malevolence and jealousy, if so his Master was 
 exalted—and that, provided Christ was preached, he cared 
 not for tarnished fame, or heavier affliction. This mental 
 condition was an index to him of a healthy spiritual state. 
 Salvation must be the issue, when Christ was so magnified in 
 the process. On the contrary, if he had felt chagrin and dis- 
 appointment—if he had grudged that any should preach but 
 himself, or any name should obtain prominence in the churches 
 but his own—if actual or apprehended addition to his sufferings 
 had either made him repent his own preaching, or infuriated 
 him at the preaching of others—then a temperament so unlike 
 Him whom he professed to serve, might justly have made him 
 doubt his salvation, or the certainty of its future possession. 
 But his present Christ-like frame of spirit was salvational, if 
 the expression may be coined—it was an index of present attain- 
 ment, and the sure instrument of subsequent glory. It was 
 the “ear,” which is seen not only to follow the blade, but 
 which also betokens the “full com.” There is no good ground 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 19. 45 
 
 for Alford’s confining the meaning of σωτηρία to salvation, “in 
 degree of blessedness, not in reference to the absolute fact.” 
 The verb ἀποβήσεται rather forbids it. Salvation will turn 
 out to be the result—salvation, first as a fact, and also in every 
 element which the apostle expected. Luke xxi. 18. The 
 clause occurs in the Septuagint. Job xiii. 16. And in this 
 spirit the apostle adds— 
 
 Sia τῆς ὑμῶν Sexoews— through your supplication.” He 
 knew that they prayed for him—such was their vivid interest 
 in him, and such a conviction the use of the article τῆς seems 
 to imply. And he believed in the efficacy of their prayers— 
 that their entreaty would bring down blessing upon him. His 
 high function as an apostle did not elevate him above the need 
 of their intercession. 2 Thess. ili. 1,2; Philem. 22. He vir- 
 tually claims it, for he professes to enjoy their sympathy. 
 And, as the general result of their prayers, he subjoins— 
 
 καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ---. and the 
 supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ.” ᾿Εὐτιχορηγία, see Eph. 
 iv. 16. Conybeare says, “ἡ ἐπιχορηγία τοῦ χορηγοῦ would 
 mean the supplying of all needs of the chorus by the choregus; 
 and that, therefore, the phrase before us signifies the supplying 
 of all needs by the spirit.” Theophylact and Cicumenins, 
 Zanchius, Grotius, Rilliet, Alford, and Wiesinger, take the 
 genitive as that of object, viz., that the Holy Spirit himself 
 forms the supply. Theophylact explains by saying, ἐπύχο- 
 ρηγηθῇ πλεῖον τὸ πνεῦμα. With Theodoret, Calvin, Rhein- 
 wald, van Hengel, and Ellicott, we prefer taking the genitive 
 as that of subject—vevpatos χορηγοῦντος τὴν χάριν. The 
 apostle refers to that necessary supply which the Holy Spirit 
 furnishes, that universal and well-timed assistance which he 
 imparts. ‘This seems to be on the whole the better and more 
 natural interpretation. The use of the participle ἐπυχορηγῶν 
 with τὸ πνεύμα in Gal. iii. 5, affords no ground of decision as 
 to the genitive of the noun here; nor can the use of the geni- 
 tive in Ephes. iv. 16, determine the matter. Neither can we 
 assent to Alford’s argument, taken from the position of the 
 words, as such an argument is often doubtful, and no author 
 has always followed tamely the same order. The connec- 
 tion of the two clauses has been disputed; that is, whether 
 
46 PHILIPPIANS I. 20. 
 
 ὑμῶν belongs to ἐπιχορηγίας as well as δεήσεως. Meyer, Al- 
 ford, and Baumgarten-Crusius hold that the connection is of 
 this nature— through your prayer and your supply of the 
 Spirit of Christ.” But such an exegesis cannot be defended on 
 the ground that διά, or διὰ τῆς, or the simple article, is not 
 repeated; for such a repetition is unnecessary, and according 
 to a well-known law, the article is omitted before a second 
 noun, when both nouns have a defining genitive. Winer, § 
 19,5. Still the apostle’s thought seems to be, that the supply 
 of the Spirit to him would be the result of their prayers for 
 him. For the Spirit is not to be explained away as merely 
 meaning divine power, vis divina, as Am Ende renders. It 
 is the Holy Spirit—who is here called the Spirit of Jesus 
 Christ. The reason of such an appellation, it is not difficult 
 to discover; for it does not rest on any dogmatic grounds, or 
 any metaphysical views of the distinctions and relations of the 
 persons in the Trinity. The genitive is that of possession or 
 origin, the spirit which Jesus has or dispenses. The exaltation 
 of the Redeemer secured the gift of the Holy Ghost, which it 
 is His exalted prerogative to bestow. ‘The Spirit represents 
 Christ, for He comes in Christ’s name, as another Paraclete, 
 enlightens with Christ’s truths, purifies with Christ’s blood, 
 comforts with Christ’s promises, and seals with Christ’s image. 
 
 (Ver. 20.) Kata τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, ὅτι ἐν 
 οὐδενὶ aicyvvOncowar— According to my firm expectation 
 and hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed.” The preposi- 
 tion κατά is in connection with οἶδα yap of the preceding verse. 
 My knowledge that it shall issue in my salvation, is based 
 upon, or rather is“‘in accordance with” my expectation and hope. 
 The two nouns, ἀποκαραδοκία and ἐλπὶς, have much the same 
 signification, only the latter has a meaning in advance of the 
 former—hope being surer than expectation—and having in it 
 a deeper conviction of certainty, or resting itself on a surer 
 foundation. The view of Bretschneider, sub voce, is the re- 
 verse, but wrong. Hope is expectation combined with assur- 
 ance. The noun ἀποκαραδοκία is found in Rom. viii. 19. 
 Its composition has been variously resolved ; most probably it 
 is κάρα, “the head,” and δοκεύειν, “to observe.” It is, accord- 
 ing to the Ktymologicum Magnum, τῇ κεφαλῇ προβλέπειν, or 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 20. ' A 
 
 as (Ecumenius describes it here, as ἐλπίδα ἥν τις καὶ αὐτὴν 
 ἐπικινῶν τὴν κεφαλὴν δοκεύει Kal περισκοπεῖ. The preposi- 
 tion ἀπό is not, as some say, meaningless or quiescent; but 
 it is not properly intensive; rather, as Ellicott says, it is local. 
 It marks the point from which one looks out, or the place whence 
 the thing expected is to come ; and the additional idea is to 
 look out, or continue to look out, till the thing looked for comes 
 out of its place. The notion is, therefore, more that of conti- 
 nuance than earnestness, though certainly a persistent look 
 will deepen into an earnest one. The word is well discussed 
 in that family production, Fritzschiorum Opuscula, p. 150. 
 The apostle did not speak at random, or from any vague and 
 dreamy anticipations. He felt that he was warranted so to write. 
 And what he had referred to was not something in which he 
 had little interest, something which might happen in the course 
 of events, but towards which he was indifferent. He was 
 tremblingly alive to the result, and his soul was set upon it. 
 The next clause tells the personal object of his hope— 
 “that in nothing I shall be ashamed.” It is wrong on the 
 part of Estius and Matthies to render ὅτι, “for,” or “because,” 
 as if the clause were confirmative. The ὅτι introduces the 
 object of hope; but with the other view the expectation and 
 hope would refer vaguely to the preceding verse. The verb 
 represents the Heb. wa in the Septuagint. Ps. xxxiv. 4, 6, 
 lxix, 2; 2 Cor. x. 8; 1 John ii. 28. The apostle does not 
 mean to say, that in nothing should he be put out, as the 
 common phrase is, or made to appear abashed and terrified. 
 This is the view of Matthies and van Hengel, the latter of whom 
 gives it as, ut in nulla re ab officio deflectam. A different view 
 is held by Chrysostom, who has these words, ‘‘ Whatever hap- 
 pens, I shall not be ashamed, 7.e., they will not obtain the 
 mastery over me.” “ They, forsooth, expected to catch Paul 
 in this snare, and to quench the freedom of the gospel.” This 
 view is too restricted, for the apostle says, ἐν οὐδενί, “in nothing,” 
 not simply in living and preaching. The idea is not that 
 shame would fall upon him principally if he died, or ceased 
 to speak with boldness. The pronoun οὐδενί is neuter, and 
 does not refer either to the Philippians, as if he were saying, 
 “in none of you I shall be ashamed,” or to those preaching 
 
48 - PHILIPPIANS I. 20. 
 
 Christ at Rome;” as if he meant to affirm, ‘in none of them shall 
 I be ashamed.”’ “In nothing,” says the apostle, “ shall I feel 
 ashamed.” He should preserve his trust and confidence ; no 
 feeling of disgrace or disappointment should creep over him. 
 He should maintain his erectness of spirit, and not hang his 
 head like one who had come short of his end, or had been 
 the victim of vain expectations. The verb αἰσχυνθήσομαι is 
 in virtual contrast with ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν. He felt 
 assured that neither in this hope nor any other should he be 
 ashamed. His state of mind was such, that no emotion of shame 
 could come near him. Christ’s work was doing in the mean- 
 time, and in that he rejoiced, no matter what the motive that led 
 to it; and though he was a fettered prisoner, and his enemies 
 might be traducing him, yet he was assured that now, as 
 heretofore, he should not be brought into shame, as if his life 
 had been a failure; for should he live, Christ should be 
 glorified; and should he die, the same result would equally 
 happen. And he speaks now in a more positive tone— 
 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν μεγαλυνθήσεται 
 Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σωματί μου---“ but with all boldness, as always 
 and now, Christ shall be magnified in my body.” Shame is 
 the contrast of boldness, for he who feels ashamed is a coward. 
 Ἔν πάσῃ is in antithesis to ἐν οὐδενί He had been bold in 
 days gone by, in crises which had passed away; and as it had 
 been always, so it would be now—xai viv. What the apostle 
 expected and hoped was, that Christ should be magnified in 
 his body. ‘The verb, μεγαλύνω, is to make or declare great, and 
 often in the sense of praise: for praise is the laudatory expres- 
 sion of the divine greatness. It tells how great He is, or how 
 great He has disclosed Himself to be. The meaning here is, 
 that Christ should be evinced in His greatness—disclosed in 
 His majesty. Rilliet takes the verb in the sense of grandir— 
 se developper ; the development of Christ within himself, in allu- 
 sion to Gal. 11. 20, iv. 19. But, as has been well remarked by 
 Wiesinger, “the added words, ἐν τῷ cwparti μου, are fatal to 
 this supposition.” Nor is there any instance of the use of the 
 term in such a personal sense. In Luke 1. 58, it is said that 
 the Lord made great his merey—exhibited extraordinary 
 kindness. 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 21. 49 
 
 The next words are peculiar. The apostle does not say “in~ 
 me,” but “in my body” —év τῷ σώματί μου. The two forms of 
 expression are not to be confounded. The following clause 
 explains why terms so precise have been employed. Life and 
 death are both predicated of the body; therefore he says, in 
 my body— 
 
 εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς cite διὰ Oavdtov—“ whether by life or by 
 death.” It is all one—whether he live or die, the magnifying 
 of Christ is secured on either alternative. If he lived, he 
 should yet labour for Christ; and if his life were cut short, 
 Christ should be glorified in the courage of his martyrdom, 
 and the entrance of the martyr to heaven. Come what may 
 —the glorification of Christ—the highest aim of his heart is 
 secured. 
 
 The apostle rejoiced that Christ was preached, no matter 
 what might be the motive; and this prevailing emotion, he 
 was assured, would result in salvation. He was confident 
 that he should not be left in shame: for the glorification of 
 Christ, the prime object of his existence, would be brought 
 about in his body, whether he lived or whether he died. 
 While one party preached Christ of love, in alliance with him, 
 and in acknowledgment of his high position; and the other 
 preached Christ of envy and self-seeking—supposing to add 
 affliction to his bonds; in the midst of this turmoil, he was 
 happy and contented. His trial was pending, and he felt that 
 Christ would be glorified, whether he should be liberated from 
 prison to preach again, or whether he should leave his cell only 
 ‘to be conducted to the block. If, in either case, Christ should 
 be glorified, his salvation was a secure result. And he 
 proceeds to prove what he has said of the magnification of 
 Christ, whether by life or by death. or in either way it may 
 happen—there may be two forms, but there is only one result. 
 
 (Ver. 21.) Ἐμοὶ yap τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς, καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν 
 xépdos— For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” } 
 The particle γάρ introduces the confirmatory statement. Christ 
 shall be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death— 
 
 1 We need scarcely allude to the reading—xex7r¢,—suggested by the Arabic 
 version of Walton’s Polyglott, adyocated by Michaelis and Verschuir, and placed 
 even by Griesbach among readings not to be wholly slighted. 
 
 D 
 
50 PHILIPPIANS I. 21. 
 
 by life, for to me to live is Christ; by death, for death to me 
 is gain. 
 
 A considerable number of expositors take the verse as one 
 connected sentence, with κέρδος as the one predicate—“ for to 
 me in life and in death Christ is gain” —mihi enim in vivendo 
 Christus est et moriendo lucrum. Such is the view of Calvin, 
 Beza, Musculus, E. Schmid, Raphelius, Knatchbull, a-Lapide, 
 Porstius, Gataker, Airay,! Suicer, ἄς. But it cannot be sup- 
 ported. It requires such adjustment and assistance as to give 
 it a very unnatural appearance. Though κατά should be sup- 
 plied to both infinitves, the sentence has a very clumsy and 
 unpauline shape. Besides, the infinitives are not of the kind 
 that form such an absolute accusative as is usually, but 
 erroneously resolved by κατά. Jelf. ὃ 581; Kriiger, § 46, 4, 1. 
 Such an accusative has what this last grammarian calls Erstrec- 
 ken, or extended reference; but such a construction, while it 
 might apply to the first infinitive, could not to the last. The 
 natural division is to take Χριστός with the first clause as 
 predicate, and κέρδος with the last. In such an exegesis as 
 that we have referred to, Χριστός would be most anomalously 
 placed. Nor would the verse so understood be in close connec- 
 tion with the preceding statement as either illustrative or 
 confirmatory of it. The sentiment, To me living or dying, 
 Christ is gain, is in itself no proof of the assertion that Christ 
 would be magnified in his body, whether by life or by death. 
 Personal gain to himself in either case is not surely identical 
 with the glorification of Christ—at least there is nothing in the 
 language to justify or explain such a conclusion. Besides, as 
 the alternatives are strongly marked—“ by life or by death;” 
 and as they are in direct antagonism, we expect to find that 
 the mode of glorification will also differ, and that such a dif- 
 ference will be implied in the clause added for explanation 
 and proof. But there is no such distinction if this unwarranted 
 exegesis be admitted. 
 
 Luther again reverses the order of subject and predicate, 
 and renders “ Christus ist mein Leben, und Sterben ist mein 
 Gewinn”’—Christ is my life, and death is my gain. This 
 
 1 Gataker, in his edition of M, Antoninus, p. 350, says of Airay—solus interpretum 
 reverendus 1). Airevs noster apostoli mentem assecutus videtur. 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 21. bi | 
 
 exposition is adopted by Storr and Flatt, the former of whom 
 attaches the first clause to the preceding verse. Micumenius 
 had also paraphrased αὐτὸν ἔχω τὴν ζωήν. But the translation 
 is forbidden by the use of the infinitive with the article as the 
 subject, and by the position of the terms. Rilliet looks upon 
 ζῆν as referring to the higher spiritual life—la vie par excellence 
 —TIa vie seule digne de ce nom, and as in contrast with τὸ ζῆν ἐν 
 σαρκί in verse 22. But this last phrase, so far from being in 
 contrast with τὸ Gy in this verse, is only exegetical of it. 
 The life which the apostle refers to is life on earth, opposed to 
 death, or the cessation of his present being—the ζωή of the 
 preceding verse. And the contrast implied in ἀποθανεῖν would 
 be all but destroyed. He speaks of continuance on earth, and 
 of departure from it, and shows how, in each case, Christ 
 should be magnified in his body. 
 
 Christ, says the apostle, shall be magnified in my body by 
 life, “‘for to me to live is Christ.” The position of ἐμοί shows 
 the special stress which the writer lays upon it. He speaks 
 solely of himself and his personal relation. The force of the 
 ethical dative is—“ in so far as I am personally concerned.” ? 
 It does not mean “in my judgment,” as Beelen gives it both 
 in his commentary and his recently-published grammar,? § 31, 
 B. The phrase τὸ ζῆν is similarly found in some authors, as 
 quoted by Wetstein. If I live, he affirms, my life shall be 
 Christ, an expressive avowal indeed. The use of such terms 
 shows the completeness of Paul’s identification with Christ. 
 
 Christ and life were one and the same thing to him, or, as. 
 
 Bengel puts it—quicquid vivo, Christum vivo. Might not the 
 sentiment be thus expanded? For me to live is Christ—the 
 preaching of Christ the business of my life; the presence of 
 Christ the cheer of my life; the image of Christ the crown of 
 my life; the spirit of Christ the life of my life} the love of Christ 
 the power of my life; the will of Christ the law of my life ; 
 and the glory of Christ the end of my life. Christ was the 
 absorbing element of his life. If he travelled, it was on 
 Christ’s errand; if he suffered, it was in Christ’s service. 
 When he spoke, his theme was Christ; and when he wrote, 
 
 1 Michelsen, Casuslehre der Lat. Sprach., p. 212. 
 2 Grammatica Graecitatis Novi Testamenti, ὅσο. Lovanii, 1857. 
 
Ὁ PHILIPPIANS I. 21. 
 
 Christ filled his letters. There is little doubt that the apostle 
 refers in his utmost soul to the glorification of Christ by the 
 diffusion of the gospel. It had been so, and the spirit of his 
 declaration is, that it would be so still. Nay, it was his 
 ‘pride or his effort to preach where the name of Jesus had 
 ever been proclaimed. He liked to lay the foundation, 
 leaving the erection of the structure to others. He chose the 
 distant parts of labour and danger—the “ regions beyond ”— 
 and he would not “ boast in another man’s line of things made 
 ready to his hand.” 
 
 And when did the apostle utter this sentiment? It was not 
 as he rose from the earth, dazzled into blindness by the 
 Redeemer’s glory, and the words of the first commission were 
 ringing in his ears. It was not in Damascus, while, as the 
 scales fell from his sight, he recognized the Lord’s goodness 
 and power, and his baptism proclaimed his formal admis- 
 sion to the church. Nor was it in Arabia, where supernatural 
 wisdom so fully unfolded to him the facts and truths which 
 he was uniformly to proclaim. It sprang not from any 
 momentary elation as at Cyprus, where he confounded the 
 sorcerer, and converted the Roman proconsul. No, the reso- 
 lution was written at Rome in bonds, and after years of 
 unparalleled toil and suffering. His past career had been 
 signalized by stripes, imprisonment, deaths, shipwreck, and 
 unnumbered perils, but he did not regretthem. He had been 
 “in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger 
 and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness,” but his 
 ardour was unchilled ; and let him only be freed, and his life 
 prolonged, and his motto still would be—‘ For me to live is 
 Christ.” It did not repent the venerable confessor now, when 
 he was old, infirm, and a prisoner, with a terrible doom sus- 
 pended over him, that he had done so much, travelled so 
 much, spoken so much, and suffered so much for Christ, 
 Nor was the statement like a suspicious vow in a scene of 
 danger, which is too often wrung from cowardice, and held up 
 as a bribe to the Great Preserver, but forgotten when the 
 erisis passes, and he who made it laughs at his own timidity. 
 No. [Ὁ was no new course the apostle proposed—it was only 
 a continuation of those previous habits which his bondage had 
 
_ PHILIPPIANS I. 21. <3 53 
 
 for a season interrupted. Could there be increase to a zeal 
 that had never flagged, or could those labours be multiplied 
 which had filled every moment and called out every energy ? 
 In fine, the saying was no idle boast, like that of Peter at the 
 Last Supper—the flash of a sudden enthusiasm so soon to be 
 drowned in tears. For the apostle had the warrant of a long 
 career to justify his assertion, and who can doubt that he would 
 have verified it, and nobly shown that still, as hitherto, for 
 him to live was Christ? He sighed not under the burden, as 
 if age needed repose; or sank into self-complacency, as if he 
 had done enough, for the Lord’s commission was still upon him, 
 and the wants of the world were so numerous and pressing, 
 as to claim his last word, and urge his last step. It was 
 “such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of 
 Jesus Christ,” who placed on record the memorable clause, 
 inscribed also on his heart—“ for me to live is Christ.” 
 
 καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν Képdos— and to die is gain.” The tense of 
 the verb is changed in this clause from the present to the past. 
 In the first clause, the presence or duration of life—ro ζῆν--- 
 is Christ ; but in the second clause it is not the act of dying, 
 but the result of it, or that which supposes it to be past and 
 over—ro a7roavetv—which is gain. Wiesinger expresses the 
 real difficulty of this clause, when he says—“ from its close 
 relation to μεγαλυνθήσεται, we expect an explanation of how 
 Christ is to be magnified by the apostle’s death; but κέρδος 
 really expresses nothing upon it.” ΤῸ surmount this diffi- 
 culty, some apply the κέρδος to Christ. Miiller says—gquod 
 autem alteram versus partem attinet, et mori est lucrum, t.e., 
 sors etiam exoptatior, scriptor haud dubie in animo habebat, quod 
 oppositum flagitat ; et si mihi moriundum est morior Christo, 
 itaque etiam morte mea Christus celebratur ; sed fervidiore 
 animi commotione abrepto, alia cogitatio obversatur que eum id 
 quod dicturus erat plene proloqui non sinit. This explanation 
 necessitates a filling up of the sentence, which its simplicity 
 neither needs nor warrants. The emphatic μοί confines the 
 κέρδος personally to the apostle. Nor is there any ground on 
 the same account for the exegesis of Grotius—morte mea 
 aliquos Christo lucrabor ; or that of Heinrichs—sin subeundum 
 supplicium, vel inde lucrum enascetur, et laetitiores faciet res 
 
δ4 PHILIPPIANS I. 21. 
 
 Christiana profectus. Nor does Wiesinger himself meet 
 the difficulty which himself describes. He looks back 
 especially to the 19th verse, and to the phrase—“it shall turn 
 out for salvation to him, according to the firmly-cherished hope, 
 that Christ will be magnified in him, whether by life or by 
 death, since to him individually, it is all one whether he should 
 live or die, whether Christ should be magnified by his life or 
 by his death.” This is true so far, for the apostle speaks 
 personally—éyoi. But still, if he say—Christ shall be mag- 
 nified in my death—you expect him to say how, since he has 
 explained the parallel clause—Christ shall be magnified in 
 my life. Wiesinger inserts the thought—“ it is all the same 
 to me whether He be magnified by the one way or the other ;” 
 an assertion which may be true in itself, and warranted by 
 what follows, but something more than can be borne out by the 
 simple γάρ. And even with this explanation, κέρδος does 
 seem to involve some element of glorification to Christ, as 
 Wiesinger admits, but does not explain. There is no doubt that 
 ἐμοί means—as far as regards myself individually ; and there 
 is no doubt that the clause—tor me to live is Christ, explains 
 how Christ should be magnified in his life. And we therefore 
 take it for granted, that the next clause explains how Christ 
 should be glorified in his death. And how? Because that 
 death would be gain, and the fact of its being gain to him was 
 a magnification of Christ. “For me to live is Christ, and I 
 shall magnify Him; and to die is gain, and therefore He is 
 magnified in 10. There are thus two questions—why death 
 was gain, and how in that gain Christ was magnified ? 
 
 Death, it cannot be doubted, was gain to the apostle in a 
 personal sense. It removed him from suffering and disquietude, 
 lifted him up out of a prison, and translated him into the 
 presence of Christ. It gave him heaven for earth, enjoyment 
 for labour, and spiritual perfection for incomplete holiness. It 
 brought him into the presence of his exalted Lord, to bear His 
 image, live in His splendour, and hold pure and uninterrupted 
 fellowship with Him. That gain is not to be counted—it 
 surmounts calculation. It was to leave the imperfect society 
 of earth for the nobler fellowship of the skies; to pass from 
 service involving self-denial, tears, and suffering, to the crown 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 22. DO 
 
 which cannot fade; to rise above the process of discipline 
 involving constant watchfulness and prayer, to a perfect 
 assimilation to his Divine Master. There is also a comparison 
 implied in κέρδος. While life would be Christ, death would 
 be Christ too, but in a far higher sense. Still there would be 
 the glorification of Christ, but in another form, and the 
 superiority of the last to the first is indicated by κέρδος. 
 To live is “ Christ;”’ but, as he himself says, death is “to be 
 with Christ,’ and, therefore, in comparison with life, it is 
 gain. For it would be Christ to him more fully than life 
 could be—Christ to be praised for ever, without the clog 
 of an animal frame to exhaust the worshipper, or the warring 
 of the law in his members to distract or suspend his adora- 
 tion and joy. And in his possession of such a gain, Christ 
 would be magnified, for His love had prepared it, His 
 death had brought it within his reach, and His grace and 
 Spirit had prepared him for it. And if he should be called to 
 suffer as a martyr, and such a prospect could not but rise 
 before the mind of a prisoner in the pretorium, pending an 
 appeal to the frantic and ungovernable Nero, then his courage 
 and constancy in sealing his testimony with his blood, and in 
 being made conformable to his Lord’s death, would of itself 
 glorify Christ in the exhibition of that meek and majestic 
 demeanour, which the consciousness of Christ’s presence alone 
 could inspire and sustain. The expression about the gain of 
 death seems to have been of proverbial currency. Socrates 
 (Plato, Apolog. 32) declares under certain suppositions—xépdos 
 ἔγωγε λέγω; but Lucian pronounces as might be expected— 
 οὐδενὶ τὸ θανεῖν κέρδος. Many examples in which death is 
 called loss, ζημία, may be found in Wetstein. Libanius, Or. 
 XXVI1., Says, with a feeling very different from the apostle’s—oés 
 βαρὺ τὸ ζῆν, κέρδος ὁ θάνατος. So in Sophocles, Antig. 474. 
 Bos Exercit. p. 193. 
 
 (Ver. 22.) Ed δὲ τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκὶ, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου, 
 καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι, οὐ yvopifo— But if to live in the flesh, if 
 this to me be fruit of labour, and what I shall choose, I know 
 not.” The general purport of this verse with its connection 
 - is pretty apparent, but from its compactness, it 15 not easy to 
 furnish a strict analysis. The apostle felt that both in life and 
 
56 PHILIPPIANS 1. 22. 
 
 death, Christ should be magnified, and in the preceding verse 
 he assigns the reason; nay, it would seem, that he prefers 
 that Christ should be glorified in his death, as death to him 
 would be gain. But ina moment he feels that really he ought 
 to have no preference. By the use of κέρδος he has given a 
 preference to death ; but the commands of Christ, the claim 
 of the churches, and the wants of the world, rush upon him, 
 and he so far retracts his preference as to allow, that if pro- 
 longed life be necessary to the full harvest of his ministry, he 
 will not make a choice. He had virtually made a choice in 
 saying “death is GAIN;” but still, if there was more work for 
 him on earth, he would at least hesitate in coming to a 
 decision. And then he depicts his state of mind; there is in 
 it the strong desire to depart and be with Christ, which 
 nobody can doubt is far better; but there is also the obliga- 
 tion, if the Lord so will it, to abide on earth, and be of service 
 in the gospel. 
 
 The particle εἰ is syllogistic, or puts a case, and may be 
 almost rendered by “ since,” as it presents a fact in the form of 
 a premiss. Aé is continuative, but introduces a contrast. It 
 is plain that τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί describes his natural life or its pro- 
 longation, as if there had been present to his mind an ideal 
 - contrast between the higher and future life unclothed, which is 
 involved in κέρδος, and the present and lower form of embodied 
 existence on earth. It does not seem necessary, with Beza, 
 van Hengel, and others, to attach any collateral idea to σάρξ, 
 such as that of frailty —afficta et misera. Gal. ii. 20; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 50; Heb. ii. 14. There are different ways of pointing 
 and reading the verse, most of them abounding more or less 
 in supplement. Hoelemann thus disguises and reads it—e¢ δὲ 
 τὸ ζῆν καρπὸς ἐν σαρκὶ τοῦτό (7.e., τὸ ἀποθανεῖν), μοι καρπὸς 
 épyou— but if to live be fruit in the flesh, or mere earthly 
 fruit, then this (that is, death) is to me fruit in reality.” But 
 the contrasts here supposed are not tenable—that of τό with 
 τοῦτο, and of σαρκί with ἔργου. Granting that debility and 
 fragility are often associated with odp&, yet we can scarcely 
 take ἐν σαρκί as an adverbial phrase qualifying κάρπος under- 
 stood; nor can ἔργου, even with such a contrast, signify “ in 
 reality.” We should have expected ἐν ἔργῳ at the least ; but 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 22. δὲ 
 
 ἔργον never has such a meaning, even in the phrase which 
 Hoelemann adduces—év λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ (Col. 111. 17), where it 
 signifies in act, and not in reality. It may be remarked that 
 καρπός has been apparently suggested by «épdos—the last is 
 gain ultimate and positive; the other is the fruit of apostolic 
 service in the present life. The apostle is ready to resign for 
 a season the κέρδος, that he may reap a little longer this inter- 
 mediate ξαρπός. 
 
 Another interpretation which takes καρπὸς ἔργου in an 
 unwarranted sense, is that of Beza, followed by Cocceius 
 and several other critics, who give the words the Latin 
 sense of opere pretium, thus—An vero vivere in carne mihi 
 operee pretium sit, et quid eligam, ignoro— Whether to live in 
 - the flesh be worth my while, and what I shall choose, I know 
 not.”” In sentiment, this exegesis is opposed to the distinct 
 assertions of the following verses. The apostle could not be 
 ignorant whether it were of advantage to remain on earth— 
 nay, he takes it for granted that it was worth his while to stay, 
 as his life was needful to the churches, and would result in the 
 furtherance and joy of their faith. Nor can καρπὸς ἔργου be 
 well rendered into oper pretium. Besides, if in dependence 
 on ov γνωρίζω, the clause εἰ τὸ Gv and the clause καὶ τί 
 αἱρήσομαι do not correspond in structure. The exegesis we 
 have just considered is virtually that of Conybeare, who 
 renders— but whether this life in the flesh be my labour’s 
 fruit, and what I shall choose, I know not.” The place given 
 to τοῦτο in the translation, cannot be defended, and it is liable 
 generally to the last objection stated. 
 
 A third form of exegesis supplies ἐστί μοι, and makes a 
 complete sentence of the words down to καὶ ri—“ And if to 
 live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour,” as in the 
 authorized version. If I am to live, then I shall have the 
 more fruit of my labour, as Bengel says—hunc fructum inde 
 habeo, ut plus operis facere possim. He takes the words 
 καρπὸς ἔργου as if in apposition—Paulus ipsum opus pro fructu 
 habet. A similar exposition was held by Pelagius, and is also 
 adopted by Storr, Flatt, and Matthies who renders— wenn 
 aber das Leben im Fleische, so ist mir dieses ein—kaptros 
 ἔργου----“ 1. there is life in the flesh, it is to me fruit of 
 
58 PHILIPPIANS I. 22. 
 
 labour.” This exegesis, which makes the second clause form 
 the apodosis, seems, besides introducing a supplement, to render 
 καί superfluous in the next clause, and introduces a grating 
 ellipse. 
 
 A fourth mode of explanation supposes an aposiopesis, and 
 therefore endeavours to express the latent thought of the 
 apostle. Thus Zegerus—“and if to live in the flesh is the 
 fruit of my labour, and if to die is gain, then what to choose I 
 wot not.” ‘That is to say, the apostle is supposed not to express 
 the second member of the sentence—alterum jam mente per- 
 tractans. Rilliet’s paraphrase is—“‘I ought not to desire 
 death ;” and it is to this mental thought that the apostle adds 
 —“and I know not which I should choose.” Miiller holds a 
 similar supposition. Nobody doubts the existence of such a 
 figure of speech, though critics have unduly multiplied 
 instances of it. But it is found principally in sentences 
 uttered under excitement, where well-known idioms occur, or 
 where words are supplied by tone and gesture. There, in 
 fact, appears no necessity for reverting to it here, though the 
 meaning brought out is generally correct. 
 
 The Greek fathers generally, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, 
 Schrader, van Hengel, De Wette, Meyer, Wiesinger, Bisping, 
 Peile, Ellicott, and Alford, connect the verb γνωρίζω with the 
 clause before it, and regard the words down to καί as forming 
 one sentence. De Wette’s version is—“If life in the flesh, 
 this be my labour’s fruit, what I shall choose, I know not.” 
 Meyer’s paraphrase is—“ but if remaining in fleshly life, this, 
 and none other, is to me fruitful for my official work, so am I 
 in uncertainty as to the choice which I should make between 
 both.” Among such as hold this view, which we regard as 
 the right one, there are minor differences, and also errors. 
 
 The pronoun τοῦτο represents and sums up the entire phrase 
 --τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί. See under Eph. ii. 8. There is no 
 Hebraism in the usage, as Glassius supposes, Phil. Sae. i. 
 177. The use of ἐκεῖνα in Mark vii. 15, referred to by Winer, 
 § 23, 4, is somewhat similar. Bernhardy, § 283. If to live in 
 the flesh, ‘‘this,’’ Meyer says—‘‘this, and not death.” Perhaps 
 he makes the contrast rather strong. It may be “this” on which 
 I have laid so little stress, as to call death in comparison with 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 22. 59 
 
 it gain. We cannot agree with Meyer in rendering καρπός--- 
 emolumentum, nor does Rom.i.13 sustain such asense. It means 
 product or result, the context showing of what nature it is. 
 The genitive ἔργου refers to his special work. Acts. xiii. 2; 
 1 Thes. v. 13. It is not the genitive of object, as if the mean- 
 ing were “fruitful for the work,” but the genitive of subject, 
 and is simply —“ fruit from my work,” or in connection with it. 
 The apostle then affirms virtually that his continuance in life 
 would be tantamount to reaping additional fruit in his 
 work. If he lived, he should work, and that work by God’s 
 blessing would not be in vain. The train of thought is this: 
 he had said —“ for me death is gain;” but in an instant he 
 pauses, not to retract the thought, but to subordinate it to 
 present duty, for abode on earth would yet add to the spiritual 
 harvest which his labours had produced. As if he meant to 
 say—but since to live in the flesh, since this will be fruit to 
 me from my labour, then I know not what choice to make. 
 And so the Syriac reads—vea34 oS AY 385. 
 
 The apostle thus shows, that it was not weariness of life, 
 chagrin, or present evil, that prompted the expression—“ death 
 is gain.” Very different was his motive from that expressed 
 by the pagan—@avety ἄριστόν ἐστι ἢ ζῆν ἀθλίως-- “« better die 
 than live miserably.” Phil. apud Stobeum. His was a calm 
 and settled conviction ; and had there been no more work for 
 him on earth, he would have longed to enjoy the gain. So 
 that he did not know what election to make—on which alter- 
 native to place the preference :— 
 
 καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ yvopif»— and what 1 shall choose, I 
 know not.” The τί stands for the more precise worepov—as 
 quis for uter in Latin. Mat. ix. 5, xxi. 31, &e. The verb 
 γνωρίζω usually signifies to make known or declare, and many, 
 as Rheinwald and van Hengel, give it such a meaning here— 
 non dico. Bengel has—non explico mihi. Probably the 
 meaning is—“T do not apprehend,” and thus it is different from 
 οἶδα and γινώσκω. Ast, Lex. Plat. sub voce. It seems to inti- 
 mate, that with a desire or effort to know, such knowledge 
 could not be attained. ‘And what I shall choose, I cannot 
 make out.” The future αἱρήσομαι is used for the subjunctive. 
 Winer, § 41, 4,2. The two forms have very much the connec- 
 
60 PHILIPPIANS I. 23. . 
 
 tion which the forms “will” and “would” originally had in 
 English. The verb is in the middle voice— what I shall take 
 for myself.” The principal difficulty, however, is in relation 
 to καί, at the beginning of the sentence. Peile takes it as the 
 apostle’s substitute for the Hebrew vaw, and quotes, as strictly 
 analogous, a line of the Agamemnon—kai τίς 70d ἐξίκοιτ᾽ ἂν 
 ἀγγέλων Taxos—“ and what messenger could come with such 
 speed?” But there is not a full analogy, for the question 
 occurs in a dialogue. Clytemnestra had asserted that Troy 
 was taken just last night; the Chorus cannot credit the intel- 
 ligence, but knowing the great distance of the city, ery — 
 “ And what messenger could come with such fleetness?” In 
 Scottish dialogue, it is very common to put “and” at the 
 commencement of a question which implies either doubt or 
 wonder— And how did it happen,” &e. Crocius and 
 Heinsius take καί in a somewhat similar way, and give, as an 
 illustration, Mark x. 26—xai τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; but the 
 passages are by no means analogous. It is also out of the 
 question to render καί, ideo or sane, or by any other explana- 
 tory particle. The καί is to be taken as signifying and or also, 
 and as placed at the commencement of the apodosis. Of this 
 there are many examples in the New Testament, and among the 
 classical writers. Hartung, I., 130. It carries this sense, that 
 what follows καί, is described as the result of what precedes, 
 or as in close connection with it. This granted, “and”’ that will 
 follow. The meaning then is—if to remain in the flesh, if this 
 be to me labour’s fruit, I am flung back on the other alternative, 
 and what I shall choose, I wot not. 11 look simply at result, 
 “to die is gain,” I have no hesitation; but there is the other 
 idea, that “to live is Christ;’ I therefore find myself in a 
 dilemma, and know not which to select. In the following 
 verse, the apostle states the alternatives more distinctly. 
 
 (Ver. 23.) Συνέχομαι de ἐκ τῶν SUo— But I am pressed on 
 account of the two.”’ There is no doubt that δέ is preferable 
 to yap, as it has the great majority of MSS., versions, and 
 quotations in its favour. The verb συνέχομαι denotes—to be 
 held together, distressed, or perplexed, as.in Luke xii. 50; 
 Acts xviil. 5; 2 Cor. v.14. In using ἐκ, the apostle points 
 out the sources of his strait; and, by δύο with the article, he 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 23. 61 
 
 marks the alternatives stated in the preceding, and not in the 
 succeeding context, as Rheinwald and Miiller suppose. He 
 has just said—‘what to choose I wot not,” and the choice lay 
 between two things, life and death; and now he adds— 
 between these two I am held in suspense. Miiller seems to 
 imagine that a retrospective reference would have required 
 ἐξ ἐκείνων δύο. The following clauses, however, though not 
 grammatically referred to in δύο, are yet contained in it, and 
 are now more fully explained in the text. 
 
 The apostle describes his dilemma, and it is an extraordinary 
 one. Though he had a strong desire for heaven, and, indeed, 
 had been in it (2 Cor. xii, 1-4) and knew it, yet was he 
 willing to forego the pleasure for the sake of Christ’s church 
 on earth. For he thus describes himself— 
 
 τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς TO ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σῦν Χριστῷ εἶναι--- 
 “having,” or “inasmuch as I have the desire for departing 
 and to be with Christ.” The verb ἀναλύω signifies to 
 unloose, to depart, and then emphatically to depart from life. 
 2 Tim. iv. 6. It is needless to inquire on what the image is 
 based; whether, as Jaspis and Elsner maintain, on the 
 departure of guests from a feast; or whether, as Perizonius 
 supposes, from equestrian custom; or, as others conjecture, 
 from the weighing of the anchor prior to the sailing of the 
 vessel; or, as Miiller preceded by Gataker imagines, from 
 the nomad custom of striking the tent before the march. 
 Departure, as the name or image of death is so natural and 
 so universal, that one needs not to give it any special or local 
 origin. It is wrongly translated in the Vulgate by dissolvt, 
 derived perhaps from the classical use of solvo. Drusius 
 absurdly conjectured that the active stood for a passive. 
 Compare also Schoettgen, Hore Heb. i. 796. The construc- 
 tion with εἰς is rather unusual—l Thess. ii. 12, 13—for 
 ἐπιθυμία is usually construed with the genitive, and some- 
 times with the infinitive preceded by the article. . There is no 
 reason to take it for the genitive, τοῦ ἀναλῦσαι; and we agree 
 with Meyer that εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι stands in relation to the entire 
 clause—rtnv ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων; the language having a certain 
 strength and emphasis. ‘That desire pointed steadily and uni- 
 formly εἰς “ in the direction of” decease. Winer, § 49,2. The 
 
62 PHILIPPIANS I. 23. 
 
 result of departure is to be “ with Christ,” and therefore death 
 was gain. The apostle was in no ignorance as to his future 
 state! His death was not to him simply a departure from 
 earth, or as Socrates (Plato, Apolog. 32) vaguely and cheer- 
 lessly calls it, a removal—eds ἄλλον τόπον. He knew what 
 awaited him; and his fondest view of heaven is expressed by 
 the term—ovv Χριστῷ: And so in 1 Thessal. iv. 17, v. 10, 
 preceded by John xii. 26, xvii. 24. He rejoices to look on 
 heaven in its positive aspect. It is to him the presence of 
 Christ, and not merely deliverance from the evils of life; not 
 merely— 
 « To leave all disappointment, care, and sorrow ; 
 
 To leave all falsehood, treachery, and unkindness ; 
 
 All ignominy, suffering, and despair, 
 
 And be at rest for ever.” 
 
 Of death, as an escape from such miseries, he does not speak, 
 though few had felt them so severely, for he had been weak in 
 every man’s weakness, and burned with every man’s offence. 
 2 Cor. xi. 29. Τὸ him life is Christ, and death is being with 
 Christ—the same blessedness in two aspects and stages, with 
 no time or region of dreary unconsciousness between. He 
 knew where Christ was, and where he should be with Him— 
 “at the right hand of God;” and he defers his “ gain”’ to no 
 remote period, which supposes the resurrection to be passed, 
 but contemplates the being with Christ as the sure and 
 immediate result of that departure which he desired. Though 
 his body should have fallen into the tomb, he speaks of himself’ 
 as being with Christ, himself though unembodied—assured of 
 his identity, and preserving his conscious personality, and so 
 being with Christ, as to derive from such fellowship enjoy- 
 ments so pure and ample, that the thought of it impels him 
 to ecstacy :— 
 
 πολλῷ γὰρ μᾶλλον Kpetrcov—“ for it is much by far better.” 
 The language is exuberant, the simple comparative being in- 
 creased by another, μᾶλλον, and both intensified by πολλῷ. Mark 
 vil. 36; Winer, ὃ 35,1. The authorities as to γάρ are divided. 
 It has in its favour A, B, and C, but it is omitted in D, E, 
 F,G,J, K. Some of them have πόσῳ for πολλῷ. Tischen- 
 
 1 Lechler, Das Apostolische und das nachapost. Zeitalter, Stuttgart, 1857 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 24. 63 
 
 dorf and Lachmann prefer γάρ, and perhaps rightly. ‘The 
 preference of death over life was a personal matter. It was 
 better for him; far better for him to be with Christ, than to 
 be away from Christ; far better to enjoy Christ than to preach 
 Christ; far better to praise Him than to suffer for Him; far | 
 better to be in His presence in glory, than to be bound ina | 
 prison for Him at Rome. The contrast in the apostle’s mind, | 
 and as is evident from verse 21, is not between heaven and 
 earth generally, or between a world of sin and trial and death, 
 and a region of spiritual felicity and beauty, but specially 
 between the service of Christ here, and fellowship with Him 
 in glory. Even on the lowest view of the matter, his avowal 
 indicates the superior knowledge which the Gospel had 
 furnished to the world. How melancholy the last words of 
 Socrates in the famed Apology—orrotepos δὲ ἡμῶν ἔρχονται 
 ἐπὶ ἄμεινον πρῶγμα, ἄδηλον παντὶ πλὴν ἢ τῷ θεῷ. Plat. Op. 
 ii., p. 866, Ed. Bek. Individually, the servant of Christ-would 
 not for a moment hesitate in making his choice; as a saint, he 
 could not have the slightest doubt; but as an apostle, he felt 
 that if earth was to be the scene of further successes for Christ, 
 he would yet consent to stay upon it, would, with all his long- 
 ing to depart, and with all his predilection for being with 
 Christ, still remain away from Him, for the benefit of the 
 churches. For he adds— 
 
 (Ver. 24.) To δὲ ἐπιμένειν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἀναγκαιότερον δι᾽ 
 ὑμᾶς--““ But to abide in the flesh is more necessary on account 
 of you.” To remain in the flesh, or to continue in my present 
 life—r# capxi—is placed in contrast to his departure. And 
 he calls this survival “more necessary,” not more beneficial, as 
 Loesner, Am Ende, and others change it. The phrase δι᾽ ὑμᾶς 
 is— for your sakes, on your account”’—placing his readers in 
 strong antithesis to himself and his own personal likings. 
 The force of the comparative ἀνωγκαιότερον, has been variously 
 resolyed. Meyer understands it—as if the remaining were 
 more needful than the departure; Van Hengel—that it is too 
 necessary to allow of his longing being realized. Nor is there 
 any need of saying with Alford, “that the comparison contains 
 in itself a mixed construction between ἀναγκαῖον and αἱρετώ- 
 τερον, or the like.” And it is refinement in Ellicott to suggest 
 
64 PHILIPPIANS I. 25. 
 
 a personal ἀναγκαῖον opposed to the comparative—departure a 
 thing felt needful, but remaining a thing more needful. There 
 is undue pressure in each of these forms of exegesis. The 
 apostle says, departure is better, stay more necessary; the 
 one better for himself, and the other more necessary for the 
 churches. The form of thought is changed. The κρεῖσσον, 
 already expressed in reference to himself, is not repeated in 
 reference to his converts—better for me to decease, better for 
 you that I stay; but the idea of “better” is deepened into 
 “more necessary,” and is thus the more palpably bodied out, 
 so as to give foundation to the avowal of the following verses. 
 
 (Ver. 25.) Καὶ τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα ὅτι μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ 
 πᾶσιν ὑμῖν---“ And being persuaded of this, I know that I shall 
 remain and remain with you 81]. The τοῦτο is governed 
 by πεποιθώς, not by οἶδα, and refers to the sentiment of the 
 last clause—“ Being assured of this, that abiding in the flesh is 
 more needful for you.” In expressing the idea of his stay, the 
 apostle, in the fullness of his heart, uses two verbs, first μενῶ and 
 then παραμενῶ. Tischendorf prefers the unusual compound 
 συμπαραμενῶ, found in H, J, K, and some of the Greek fathers, 
 whereas παραμενῶ has the primary authority of A, B, C, Dt, F, 
 G. The second verb becomes personal in its reference, “I 
 shall remain and remain with.” Not only should he survive, 
 but survive in their company—the datives πᾶσιν ὑμῖν being 
 governed by παρά in composition. Another compound of the 
 same verb, ἐπιμένειν, had been already employed in ver. 24. 
 The verb οἶδα retains its ordinary meaning, though the object 
 known may be something with a future existence. And the 
 effect of his remaining with them is next stated— 
 
 els τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν Kal χαρὰν THs mlaotews— for the 
 advancement and joy of your faith.” The genitive πίστεως 
 is not, as by van Hengel and Baumgarten-Crusius, to be sepa- 
 rated from προκοπήν, and attached solely to χαράν, as if the 
 meaning were ‘for your advancement, and for the joy of your 
 faith ;” nor can this hypothesis be reversed, as by Beausobre— 
 pour votre avancement dans la foi et pour votre joie, “ for your 
 progress in faith and for your joy.”’ Nor yet is Macknight 
 correct in rendering, “for the advancement of the joy of your 
 faith.” Nor is the phrase a hendiadys, as Am Ende and Flatt 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 26. 65 
 
 resolve it—that there may be a joyful increase of your faith. 
 It refers equally to both nouns. Winer, § 19, 4; Middleton, 
 p- 868. One end was—the advancement of their faith. It 
 would be greatly increased by the apostle’s presence and 
 teaching; might grow into deeper vigour, and widen in the 
 circuit of its objects. And his stay would be also for the joy 
 of their faith. The genitive is in both cases that of posses- 
 sion. Their faith possessed a susceptibility of progress, and 
 it would be excited and urged on; that faith, too, possessed 
 or had in it an element of joy, which would be quickened 
 and developed. There is no good reason for Ellicott’s view 
 in relation to the two nouns, that the genitive has a difference 
 of aspect, in the last case being that of origin. Joy does spring 
 out of faith—the genitive of origin; but faith may be equally 
 well regarded as possessed of the joy which it originates. 
 Alford makes the genitive that of subject, but this in the case 
 of the second noun appears awkward; their faith was to 
 increase, that is, to be the subject of increase; and also to 
 rejoice: but joy has more of a personal character. Progress 
 and joy are therefore predicated as equally belonging to their 
 faith, or as equally possessed by it. 
 
 (Ver. 26.) “Iva τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ ἐν Χριστῷ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ --- That your matter of boasting may abound 
 in Jesus Christ inme.” The iva introduces a further purpose, 
 and καύχημα is matter of boasting. Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 
 6, ix. 15. We cannot, with Ellicott, regard this clause as 
 merely a definite and concrete form of the previous abstract 
 statement—“ for the furtherance and joy of your faith.” It 
 contains a concrete representation, but it also describes an 
 ulterior purpose. It supposes the increase of their joy and 
 faith, and expresses what this should effect. And the matter 
 of boasting is not vaguely their Christian state, or their posses- 
 sion of the gospel, but the conscious result brought out in the 
 last clause of the previous verse. That matter of boasting 
 was to abound in Christ Jesus—He being the inner sphere of 
 its abundance. The connection adopted by Rilliet is wrong, for 
 he joins ἐν X.1. to καύχημα, as if the meaning were, that their 
 boasting was occasioned—par leur union avec Christ. The 
 phrase ἐν ἐμοί, on the other hand, marks the outer element or 
 
 E 
 
 
 
66 PHILIPPIANS I. 26. 
 
 sphere of this matter of boasting. We cannot agree with 
 Alford in giving ἐν two senses in these two clauses, as if it 
 described the field of increase, on its first occurrence, and were 
 to be rendered “ by means of,” on its second occurrence. We 
 think that it bears the same signification in both instances— 
 that in both it describes the sphere of abounding joy—first, 
 higher and spiritual—in Christ; and secondly, lower and 
 mediate—in the apostle. And in him for the following 
 reason— 7 
 
 διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς bwas— “on account of 
 my coming again to you.” While ἐν has marked one relation 
 of this abounding joy to the apostle, διά points out another 
 of a public or instrumental nature. In the occurrence of 
 mapovola—r pos, the primary force of the preposition is not lost. 
 The return of the released prisoner to Philippi would be of 
 incalculable benefit. It would furnish occasion for deeper and 
 more extended lessons on Christianity, so as that their faith 
 might make progress, and its joy might be resuscitated, and 
 this possession of a faith conscious of progress and buoyant 
 with gladness, would furnish matter of abundant boasting in 
 Christ Jesus, through the apostle’s visit. 
 
 In the previous paragraph, the apostle makes no allusion to 
 the Second Advent. Some, indeed, have held that originally 
 he imagined that he was to survive till that period, but that 
 afterwards he gradually and completely changed his mind; 
 his belief being once, that Christ was coming to take him, 
 but ultimately, that he must depart, in order to be with Christ. 
 Now, it will not do to apply the dictum of Professor Jowett, 
 that “Providence does not teach men what they can teach 
 themselves,” 1 for in Paul’s case, he received the gospel “ by 
 the revelation of Jesus Christ,” and surely a doctrine so impor- 
 tant must have been among the lessons supernaturally com- 
 municated, for it formed an essential portion of the truth. 
 Nor will it suffice to say with Alford,? that as Jesus did not 
 know the day himself, higher knowledge cannot be expected 
 of his servant. Mark. xiii. 32. Granting that this interpretation 
 of Christ’s words is correct, yet surely the same ignorance could 
 not be predicated of the exalted Saviour, whose Spirit dwelt in 
 
 
 
 1 On 1 Thessalonians, p. 96. 2 On 1 Thessalonians v. 13. 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 26. 67 
 
 the apostle, for the delegation of all power to Him must insure 
 the possession of all knowledge. Besides, to say that the 
 apostle did not know the period, is not a sufficient argument, 
 for he does not admit his ignorance; nay, on the contrary, as 
 these scholars hold, he taught that the Second Coming was an 
 imminent event. He who says, in the First Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians—“ then,” that is, after the dead in Christ are 
 raised, “we which are alive and remain shall be caught up,” 
 if he meant to affirm that he and those to whom he wrote would 
 survive till the Lord’s descent, must have very soon altered his 
 belief, for in a letter written to the same church shortly after- 
 wards, he bids them, on no account, and under no teaching, 
 whatever its pretensions, to entertain the notion that the day of 
 Christ was at hand. Then he sketches a portentous form of 
 spiritual tyranny and impiety, which must be developed and 
 destroyed prior to the Second Coming, and yet, in the very same 
 document, he prays God to direct the hearts of his readers 
 “into patient waiting for Christ.’ Could the apostle, after 
 what he had written, still believe that Christ was coming in 
 his own day, or did he suppose that himself was to witness the 
 growth, maturity, and overthrow of the Man of Sin? In the 
 Epistle to the Romans also, he describes the inbringing of the 
 Jewish race, but at that time, this inbringing could be regarded 
 as no event very soon to happen, for they were enemies so 
 malignant, that he prays and asks the Roman Christians to pray 
 with him, that he “‘may be delivered from them.” We cannot, 
 therefore, believe, with such indications of his earliestsentiments 
 before us, that the apostle, after waiting in vain for his Lord’s 
 coming, changed or modified his view. Nor in the discourses 
 recorded in the Acts do we find any tokens of such fluctuation. 
 In his address at Athens, he refers to a day in which God will 
 “judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained,” and 
 as the resurrection precedes the judgment, that Man Himself 
 calls this period of His wondrous power “ the last day.” John 
 vi. 89, 40. Nor can we for a moment admit to Jowett, that 
 Jesus himself shifts his ground in his various answers to ques- 
 tions as to the time of His coming, for the different replies 
 indicate that the “‘coming”’ was by the questioners differently 
 understood. Could the same Speaker understand his “coming”’ 
 
68 PHILIPPIANS I. 26. 
 
 in the very same sense, when he speaks of Jerusalem com- 
 passed with armies, as one token of it, and yet affirms that 
 the gospel must be preached to all nations before the “end” 
 shall come? Can the words—“I will come again and receive 
 you unto myself”—have the same fulfilment as these other 
 words—“ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and. 
 all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the 
 throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all 
 nations ?” 
 
 The declaration—“ 1 have a desire to depart”—is by no 
 means at variance with that other avowal—“ not for that we 
 would be unclothed.” 2 Cor. v. 4. In the chapter where this 
 last statement occurs, the apostle still says—“ Willing rather to 
 be absent from the body, and present with the Lord ”—verse 8. 
 The reluctance to be unclothed is natural, the spirit does not 
 will to be unfleshed, but it submits to the intermediate process 
 of divestment, nae as a step toward ultimate and spiritual 
 nye MME “Foard being finally “clothed upon.” Or, the 
 meaning may be—we would prefer to be at once “ clothed 
 upon,” without dying at all, that our mortal part may be 
 “swallowed up,” absorbed and assimilated by life, as in the 
 translation of Enoch and Elijah, and in the sudden transmu- 
 tation which shall pass over living believers when the Saviour 
 comes. But in this paragraph of Second Corinthians, there is 
 no allusion to such coming, as forming any part of the argu- 
 ment; the course of illustration being suggested and condi- 
 tioned by the initial statement, as to the dissolution of the 
 earthly tabernacle. 
 
 The apostle has expressed himself very confidently as to his 
 survival, liberation, and proposed visit to the Philippian 
 church. He could scarcely have made a stronger asseveration 
 —‘ Having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and con- 
 tinue with you all; that your rejoicing may be more abundant ; 
 by my coming to you again.” Was the apostle’s confidence 
 warranted? Or was his anticipation verified? According to 
 the chronology adopted by some, only a brief period elapsed 
 between the writing of this letter and the decapitation of the 
 apostle, the epistle being written in 62 or 63 A.D., and the 
 martyrdom taking place in 64, Others affirm that the apostle 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 26. 69 
 
 was released as he expected, and that he made another and a 
 last missionary tour into Asia Minor, passing over to Mace- 
 _donia, and being “ filled with the company” of the church at 
 Philippi. The question of a second imprisonment at Rome 
 has been long and keenly agitated, but this is not the place 
 to enter into any analysis of the conflicting evidence derived 
 either from traditionary hints, or certain exegetical inferences 
 in the pastoral epistles. Suffice it to say, that difficulties are 
 great on either hypothesis, and that such men as Baronius, 
 Tillemont, Usher, Pearson, Mosheim, Hug, Gieseler, Nean- 
 der, Olshausen, and Alford are on one side; while Petavius, 
 Lardner, Hemsen, De Wette, Winer, Wieseler, Davidson, 
 Schaff, and Meyer, are on the other, holding that there was 
 only one imprisonment. The apostle’s assertion in the pre- 
 ceding paragraph is firm and decided; but we dare not argue 
 upon it, becanse it comes into direct collision with an assertion 
 as firm and decided, in Acts xx. 25—“ And now I know that 
 ye all among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of 
 God, shall see my face no more.” If the apostle were im- 
 prisoned but once, the declaration written to the Philippians 
 is not in accordance with fact; and if he were released, and 
 allowed again to travel, then the previous declaration spoken 
 to the Ephesian elders at Miletus, was not in accordance with 
 fact. So that in the discussion, no stress can be laid on the 
 apostle’s own language—the οἶδα of Phil. i. 25, which would 
 favour a release and a second imprisonment, being balanced 
 by the οἶδα of Acts xx. 25, which would as certainly discoun- 
 tenance it. The announcement of verse 25 sprang from deep 
 longing and affection, and is rather the outburst of emotion 
 than the utterance of prophetic insight. Tor by the time the 
 apostle comes to the middle of the second chapter, the impulse 
 of the moment had passed away, his confidence had drooped, 
 the shadow had fallen upon him, and he writes under a 
 different forecasting—“ Yea, and if I be offered upon the 
 sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with 
 youall. I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come 
 shortly.” Still different is his sentiment when he thus 
 addresses Philemon—“ Withal prepare me also a lodging, for 
 I trust that through your prayers 1 shall be given unto you.” 
 
70 PHILIPPIANS I. 26. 
 
 Amidst these alternations, perhaps this last saying expresses 
 the real or prevailing state of the apostle’s mimd—his hope 
 that the prayers of the church might be heard for him, and 
 that God, in gracious answer to them, might prolong his life 
 and his usefulness. It seems, therefore, to be taught us, that 
 the apostle had no revelations ordinarily as to his own personal 
 future; and that, though he possessed the Holy Spirit when 
 he expounded the gospel, and therefore expounded it without 
 error or the possibility of it, he was unable to divine what 
 was to befall himself in time to come, save in so far as it was 
 formally communicated to him. Such revelations were not 
 essential to the discharge of his duty, and were no portion of 
 that truth which he was inspired to make known. Nay more, 
 as if to show us that himself recognized such a distinction as we 
 have been making, he says— And now, behold I go bound in 
 the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall 
 befall me there ;” but he adds, that this ignorance was dissi- 
 pated, though only in a general way—“ save that the Holy 
 Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions 
 abide me.” Acts xx. 22, 23. Inspiration for official labour 
 was necessarily bestowed, and did not descend to the minor 
 sphere of personal contingencies. It did not keep Paul from 
 errors of opinion as to the course of his travels—‘‘ We were 
 forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia” — 
 “They assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered 
 them not.”’ Acts xvi. 6, 7. Nor did it preserve in him a per- 
 fect recollection of the past, for he could not tell at the moment 
 how many persons he had baptized at Corinth. 1 Cor. 1. 16. 
 We have thus endeavoured to meet the difficulty suggested by 
 the text, and such a solution is surely better than with many 
 to dilute the plain meaning of οἶδα into probabiliter sperare, or 
 to adopt the adventurous paraphrase of Peile—“ Of this I feel 
 quite sure, that in the event of my continuing in the flesh, it 
 will be for your furtherance and joy in the faith.” 
 
 The apostle now passes from these more personal matters. 
 As the hope of revisiting his Philippian converts, and gladden- 
 ing them with his presence, rose up before him, he naturally, as 
 if in anticipation of this result, and in preparation for it, asks 
 them to live and act in the meantime in harmony with their 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 27. 71 
 
 profession, especially to cherish a true unity in defence of the 
 gospel, and to exhibit a fearless courage in front of their 
 antagonists. For their self-possession would be a token of 
 perdition to such adversaries, but to themselves one of salva- 
 tion. And this divine augury they were to accept and trust 
 in, inasmuch as it was given them to suffer for Christ, as well 
 as to believe in Him; faith being the means of salvation, and 
 suffering its index. Then, and to inspirit them under such 
 tribulation, the apostle likens their conflict to his own—such 
 as they had seen it at Philippi, and now heard of it as still 
 raging at Rome. ‘The idea of unity recurs to his mind while 
 he speaks of the conflict, for unity was indispensable to 
 success, and he reverts to it in the beginning of next chapter. 
 The joy which he anticipated on his visit depended on their 
 cultivation of it, and it was essential also to that “ fellowship 
 for the gospel” by which they had been so eminently charac- 
 terized, and for which he gave unceasing thanks to God. 
 (Ver. 27.) Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐωγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολι- 
 tever e— Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel 
 of Christ.” The adverb μόνον gives oneness to the advice, 
 places it by itself, as if in solitary prominence—“ my impres- 
 sions being as I have described them, this one or sole thing 
 would I enjoin upon you in the meanwhile.” In Gal. ii. 10, 
 v. 13, the adverb is used with similar specialty. Here it is 
 placed emphatically before the verb, as in Mat. vii. 8, ix. 21, 
 xiv. 36. Gersdorf, Beitrdge, &c., p. 488. The verb πολυτεύεσθε 
 occurs only here in the epistles, but is used by the apostle 
 of himself. Acts xxiii. 1. It denotes to be a citizen in a 
 state, or to live as such a citizen, and then generally to live, 
 to conduct oneself. Passow, sub voce. In Thucydides vi. 92, 
 Alcibiades says, in self-vindication, “I kept my patriotism 
 only while I enjoyed my civil rights ᾽᾿---ἐπολιτεύθην ; but the 
 verb came at length to be used quite vaguely. Here, how- 
 ever, it defines life in its public aspect, and is often so employed. 
 Thus, in 2 Mace. vi. 1, and xi. 25, it occurs with νόμοις in the 
 first instance, and ἔθη in the second, denoting that according 
 to which life is or should be regulated. It is found often in 
 Josephus, and is a favourite term with the Church Fathers. 
 See Wetstein, Suicer, Krebs, and Loesner for examples. The 
 
72 PHILIPPIANS I. 27. 
 
 apostle, in similar exhortations, uses περυπατεῖν, as in Eph. iv. 
 1; Col. i. 10; 1 Thess. ii. 12. In each of these cases, as 
 here, that verb is construed with ἀξίως, followed respectively 
 by τῆς κλήσεως ; τοῦ κυρίου, and Tod θεοῦ. For a somewhat 
 similar purpose the apostle employs ἀναστρέφεσθαι. 1 Tim. iii. 
 15; Heb. xiii. 18; Eph. i. 3. A πολίτευμα is implied, and 
 all who form it, or are its citizens, are to demean themselves 
 in harmony with the gospel. Jor the nature of the Christian 
 πολίτευμα, Which may have suggested this πολιτεύεσθε, see 
 under iii. 20. The apostle, in his choice of this peculiar verb in 
 preference to his more favourite one, looks at them as members 
 of a community, bound closely by reciprocal connections, and 
 under obligations to various correspondent duties, and there- 
 fore “ the gospel of Christ” should be the norm or standard by 
 which they ought to be guided. The genitive τοῦ X. is that of 
 origin—the gospel which Jesus has communicated. Winer, 
 however, prefers to take it as the genitive of object, § 30, 1. 
 But the phrase quoted by him and Ellicott does not sustain 
 their view—“ the gospel of God concerning his Son.’’ The 
 genitive θεοῦ is there that of origin, and the object is introduced 
 by περί. Why should εὐαγγελίον X. differ from εὐαγγελίον 
 Θεοῦ ὃ The meaning then is—this sole request do I make, live 
 as the gospel prescribes ; and as the genitive τοῦ X., and the last ὦ 
 clause of the verse would seem to suggest, let your church-life 
 be in harmony with its spirit and precepts—that rectitude, 
 courage, and love, which Christ illustrated in His teaching, 
 and exemplified in His life. And one purpose of the injunc- 
 tion was— 
 
 ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τὰ περὶ 
 juav— in order that, whether having come and seen you, or 
 whether being absent, I may hear of your affairs.” The con- 
 struction is idiomatic; the verb ἀκούσω belongs properly and 
 formally to εἴτε dm@v— or whether being absent, I may 
 hear ;”’ but it belongs really also to the first clause—eire 
 ἐλθών, and stands in antithesis to ἰδών. The construction is, 
 therefore, not full or perfect, and various supplements have 
 been proposed. Meyer suggests that the course of thought is 
 —that “whether having come and seen you, I may hear from 
 your own mouths how your affairs are, or else being absent, 1 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 27. 19 
 
 may hear of them from others.” But the contrast is too 
 specially marked to be thus eked out; for the idea of being 
 present with them and seeing them, carries in it the thought 
 that all information would be at once obtained. Others supply 
 a verb—‘ in order that, whether having seen you, or whether 
 being absent I hear of your affairs, J may know that ye stand 
 fast.” De Wette and Alford espouse this view. Van Hengel 
 repeats the verb—“ in order that, whether having come and 
 seen you, or whether being absent, I hear of your affairs, 1 
 may hear that ye stand fast.” Rilliet supposes a zeugma— 
 the verb ἀκούσω referring specially to ἀπών, and generally, 
 but less correctly, expressing the result of ἰδών. The verse is 
 informal from its hurried thought—the ἀκούσω being emphatic, 
 and the sense of the first clause remaining incomplete. The 
 supposition of his absence is last expressed, and that dwelling 
 on his mind moulds or appropriates the construction ; the verb 
 that would have been used on the hypothesis of seeing them 
 is dropped, and that which implies his absence is alone 
 expressed. The construction is easily understood, and it 
 needs not a formal supplement. As a question of psychology, 
 it is interesting to note, that the apostle’s mind, though under 
 the guidance of the Holy Spirit, moved with perfect ease and 
 freedom, and fell into those colloquial idioms and loose dis- 
 turbed constructions, which so naturally happen when a warm- 
 hearted man is rapidly and confidentially throwing his thoughts 
 into a letter. By the phrase ra περὶ ὑμῶν is meant generally 
 “your affairs or condition” —not absolutely, as Rheinwald and 
 Matthies suppose, for the general phrase τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν is 
 explained and specialized by the clause ὅτε στήκετε. Hoele- 
 mann’s resolution of the idiom as an anakolouthon, is very 
 clumsy, supposing that ὅτι may be omitted, and στήκετε 
 (στηκήτε) connected with fa; or supposing that the article 
 may be dropt before περὶ ὑμῶν, as in the versions of the Vul- 
 gate and Syriac. The precise element of their condition, 
 which the apostle wished to hear about, is next told— 
 
 ὅτι στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ TvevpaTi— that ye are standing in one 
 spirit.” For the attraction involved in the construction of 
 ἀκούσω with ὅτι, see Winer, § 66,5. The verb στήκω formed 
 from ἕστηκα, and wholly unknown to classic usage, is often 
 
74 PHILIPPIANS I. 27. 
 
 used of Christian condition—iv. 1; 1 Thess. 11. 8—and often 
 expresses the adjoined idea of permanence or that of resolve 
 and promptitude to maintain what is already possessed or 
 enjoyed. 1 Cor. xvi. 13; Gal. v. 1; 2 Thess. ii. 15. The 
 image here is that of spiritual conflict, to which unity of action 
 on their part was indispensable. The πνεῦμα is not the Holy 
 Spirit, as is maintained by Erasmus, Beza, Matthies, and van 
 Hengel. For the following phrase μιᾷ ψυχῇ, shows that the 
 apostle describes the Christian spirit. He hoped to hear that 
 they stood in one spirit—pervaded with one genuine spiritual 
 emotion—and not arrayed into separate parties with divided 
 sentiments. And he further explains what this unity should 
 engage in— 
 
 μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες TH πίστει τοῦ evayyehiou— with 
 one soul striving together for the faith of the gospel.” It is 
 wrong on the part of Chrysostom and others to join μιᾷ ψυχῇ 
 to στήκετε. Some of the ancient versions, such as the Syriac 
 and Vulgate, follow the same syntax. The participle συναθ- 
 λοῦντες, while it points to antagonism, also implies co-opera- 
 tion among themselves. The σὺν refers to themselves, and 
 not to any co-operation with the apostle, as Luther, Beza, 
 Bengel, van Hengel, and Meyer suppose. ‘The reference in 
 ver. 30, to the apostle’s own conflict, is to something which 
 they had seen in the past, and could imagine in the present— 
 something to which their conflict was similar, but yet separate 
 in reality. The object for which, or on behalf of which they 
 were to contend, is the faith of the gospel, πίστει being the 
 dativus commodi, or as Theodoret gives it, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας. 
 Jude 3, This is better than with Calvin, Beza, and Rhein- 
 wald, to understand πίστει as the dative of instrument—the 
 weapon with which the conflict is to be maintained. The view 
 of Erasmus, adopted by Mynster, is still worse, for it personifies 
 faith, and paraphrases thus—adjuvantes decertantem adversus 
 imptos evangelii fidem. By πίστει εὐαγγελίου, 15 not meantGod’s 
 calling of the Gentiles without subjecting them to the cere- 
 monial law, as Pierce supposes, for Judaizing opponents are not 
 in question. Nor can πίστις signify objectively the system of 
 truth contained in the gospel—a sense which it never undis- 
 putedly has in the New Testament, though such a usage is 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 28. 10 
 
 very frequent among Christian writers of later times. In the 
 passages adduced by Robinson as bearing this sense, there 
 will be found the distinctive idea of belief—not truth in the 
 aspect of something presented for belief, but of something 
 forming the matter of belief. The apostle uses both πνεῦμα 
 and ψυχή, and therefore recognized a distinction between them. 
 In their separate use they are apparently interchangeable; for 
 though they really represent different portions or aspects of 
 our inner nature, it may be loosely designated by either of 
 them. But the adjectives πνευματικός and ψυχικός are con- 
 trasted in reference to the body—1 Cor. xv. 44; and there is 
 a similar contrast of character in Jude 19. Tvedati is the 
 higher principle of our spiritual nature, that which betokens 
 its divine origin, and which adapts it to receive the Holy 
 Spirit, and in which He works and dwells. Ψυχή, on the 
 other hand, is the lower principle—the seat of instinct, emo- 
 tions, and other powers connected with the animal life. It is 
 allied to καρδία, but πνεῦμα to νοῦς. ΤΙνεῦμα is the term 
 applied generally to Christ in the gospels; but in the account 
 of the agony ψυχή occurs—yuvy7} and σῶμα make up living 
 humanity. Olshausen’s Opuscula, p. 145; Usteri, Paulin. 
 Leirbeg. p. 404, The Philippians were to stand in one spirit, 
 united in their inmost conviction, and they were to strive 
 with one soul—those convictions not allowed to be latent, 
 but stirring up volition, sympathy, and earnest co-operation. 
 Such concord was essential to success, and on their possession 
 of it the apostle’s joy on his proposed visit to Philippi greatly 
 depended. Chap. ii. 2. Wiesinger says, ‘“ even the caricature 
 of true unity of mind and soul, a self-formed esprit du corps, 
 what a power it has! What ought our church to be, what 
 might it be, were it but to attest this uniting power of the 
 divine Spirit?” If there be oneness of conviction and belief, 
 should there not be “one spirit?” and if there be oneness of 
 feeling, interest, and purpose, should there not be “one soul ?” 
 and as concert is indispensable to victory, should there not be 
 mutual co-operation—“ striving together?” But not only are 
 unity and mutual support necessary to this conflict on behalf 
 of the faith—there must also be a calm and stedfast courage. 
 (Ver. 28.) Kat μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμένων 
 
76 PIHILIPPIANS I. 28. 
 
 —“ And in nothing terrified by the adversaries.”’ Luke xiii. 
 17, xxi. 15; 1 Cor. xvi.9. The participle πτυρόμενοι, a word 
 originally applied to ascared animal," is parallel to the previous 
 συναθλοῦντες. They were to feel a panic in no respect, or in 
 nothing were they to manifest trepidation or alarm. As those 
 ‘adversaries’? were known to themselves, the apostle does not 
 specify them, and whatever their number, stratagem, or ferocity, 
 the Philippian athletes were not to waver for a moment, far less 
 to retreat. Their enemies were either the malignant Jewish 
 or Pagan population which surrounded them, and made them 
 “suffer,” and before whose machinations some might be 
 tempted to a compromise,-or even to a relapse. The awful 
 explanation is subjoined— 
 
 ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας--- 
 “which is to them a token of perdition, but to you of your 
 salvation.” The reading is disputed. The words ἥτις ἐστὶν 
 αὐτοῖς have weighty authority. Some MSS., such as A, B, C?, 
 have ὑμῶν, but some, not of equal value, have ὑμῖν, and others 
 ἡμῖν. Meyer, Lachmann, and Alford prefer ὑμῶν, as if ὑμῖν 
 had been corrected and adapted to αὐτοῖς. The relative ἥτις is 
 feminine by attraction with ἔνδειξις, and has for its antecedent 
 the preceding clause. Winer, ὃ 24,3; Kiihner, § 786, 3. The 
 peculiar form of this pronoun is also explicative, or expresses an 
 opinion. Eph. ii. 15. “ And in nothing intimidated by your 
 adversaries : inasmuch as this non-alarm on your part is a token 
 to them of perdition, but to you of salvation.” The noun ἔνδειξις 
 is “evidence” marked and manifest. Rom. 11. 25; 2 Cor. viii. 
 24. The Vetus Itala renders it by ostensio, and the Vulgate 
 by causa, a rendering which Erasmus and a-Lapide attempted 
 to shield, and which, though Beelen does not receive it, seems 
 to have suggested to him the following strange statement— 
 Obiter nota, perspicue hic doceri dogma de merito bonorum ope- 
 rum. ᾿Απώλεια, in contrast with σωτηρία, is spiritual ruin, 
 and αὐτοῖς is governed by ἔνδειξις. The courage of the suf- 
 ferer is proof to the persecutor of his sin, whether he will take 
 it or not, and is also a witness to himself of his final bliss and 
 safety. Very strange is the turn which Pierce gives to the 
 
 1 It is applied to scared horses—Diodorus Sie. ii. 19; and it may be followed either 
 by the dative or the accusative. 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 29. te 
 
 clause—“ which conduct of yours they will esteem a certain 
 evidence of your destruction.” This is against the plain 
 meaning. Pierce wrongly supposes the adversaries to be 
 Judaizers, and with such men, it is no new thing to make those 
 things conditions of salvation which God has not, and “then 
 unmercifully to damn those who do not submit to them.” 
 The token to the adversary of his perdition must be, that in 
 the unshaken stedfastness of the Christian sufferer, he may 
 infer the truth of the belief which sustains him so to do and 
 dare, and learn what must be his own doom, if he continue to 
 oppose it, and persecute its adherents. On the other hand, 
 were the adversary to terrify the convert, or induce him to 
 hesitate or recant, then such cowardice and vacillation would 
 naturally lead him to despise a religion which could be so 
 easily renounced, or was valued less than life, and he would 
 be confirmed in his blindness and cruelty :— 
 
 καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ---““ and this from God.” The reference 
 in τοῦτο is to the sentiment of the whole verse, and not as 
 Matthies and Hoelemann hold, to the perdition and salvation; 
 nor simply to the salvation, as Calvin, Piscator, and Flatt 
 argue ; nor yet, as Wolf and Alford take it, merely to ἔνδειξις. 
 Neither can τοῦτο refer to the following verse, as Clement of 
 Alexandria’ and Theodoret understand it, followed by Am 
 Ende and Rilliet. In Eph. 11. 8, 1 Cor. vi. 6, the reference in 
 a similar τοῦτο is to a previous sentiment, and in the verse 
 before us the construction, on any other hypothesis, would be 
 awkward and tautological. It is not the token itself which is 
 from God, but the token with what it points to, and what gives 
 it significancy. The courageous constancy of the sufferer, is a 
 sign to the adversary of his perdition, and to its own possessor 
 of salvation, and the whole is of God. Not simply salvation, 
 but the token of salvation ; not simply perdition, but the token 
 of it—this unique and singular phenomenon is of God. Rom. 
 vil. 17; 2 Tim. 11. 12; 2 Thess. i. 5. The apostle, in the next 
 place, proves and illustrates the statement. 
 
 (Ver. 29.) Ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὐ μόνον τὸ 
 εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν---““ For 
 to you was it granted, on behalf of Christ not only to believe 
 
 1 Strom. iv. p. 510; Opera Colonia, 1688. 
 
78 PHILIPPIANS 1. 29. 
 
 on Him, but also on behalf of Him to suffer.” The pronoun 
 
 ὑμῖν has an emphatic prominence. The aorist is used, as the 
 apostle refers indefinitely to an early period of their past 
 Christian history ; but that the suffering continued, also, to the 
 moment of his writing, is evident from the following ἔχοντες. 
 As Wiesinger remarks, Meyer wrongly confines ὅτι to the con- 
 firmation of the clause καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ. We understand the 
 reference to be broader, to cover, in fact, the statement of the 
 entire preceding verse. It is not simply—the token to you is 
 of God, for on you he has conferred the double grace of faith 
 and suffering; but it is—you have a token of salvation which 
 others have not; for, while others have faith, you have more. 
 You are called to suffer, and your courage in suffering is an 
 augury of salvation. Had you not been privileged to suffer as 
 well as to believe, this peculiar token had not been enjoyed. 
 Or, why have you this token of salvation in your own Christian 
 fortitude? Because God has given you to suffer, as well as 
 to believe. Faith in Christ is the means of salvation; but 
 suffering is the evident token of salvation. ‘The one secures 
 it, the other foreshows it. The martyr is not saved, indeed, 
 because he suffers; but his undaunted suffering betokens a 
 present Saviour and a near salvation. 
 
 The construction of the next clause is reduplicated. After 
 saying τὸ ὑπὲρ X., the apostle seems to have intended to add 
 πάσχειν ; but he interjects a new thought—ov uovov—for the 
 sake of an illustrative emphasis, and then resumes by repeating 
 ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. ‘There is no occasion to suppose a pleonasm. 
 The construction indicates a natural and full-minded writer, 
 who sometimes interrupts the regular flow of his thoughts by 
 the sudden insertion of a modifying or explanatory clause, 
 and then at once resumes, by a formal or a virtual repetition of 
 the connecting words. Rom. 11. 25, 26; Eph. i. 13. The 
 English version is, therefore, wrong in taking τὸ ὑπὲρ X. 
 absolutely—‘ to you it is given in the behalf of Christ.” It 
 is a weak dilution of the phrase ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, to render it “in 
 Christ’s cause,” as is done by Matthies and Rilliet, after Beza 
 and Zanchius. The suffering has a reference as personal as 
 the faith—ets αὐτόν---ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. The apostle felt that Christ’s 
 cause and Himself were one; nay more, so personal was the 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 29. 19 
 
 ~ love of the early Christians, so much did the Redeemer Him- 
 self stand out in close relation to themselves, that the mere 
 abstract idea of his cause never occurred to them. It was 
 Himself on whom they believed, and not the testimony given 
 by the apostles concerning Him. It was Himself for whom 
 they suffered, and not for their own convictions and belief 
 about Him. It had been given them, not only to believe on 
 Christ, but also to suffer for Him—a double gift; and though 
 the apostle does not say which is the higher, yet certainly 
 that which shows the path may be inferior only to that which 
 has opened it. Matt. v. 11,12; Rom. v.3; 2 Cor. xii.10. Such 
 suffering in believers, who, nevertheless, are in nothing terri- 
 fied by their adversaries, is a divine gift, as well as faith, and 
 indeed presupposes it; for no one can suffer for Christ till he 
 has believed on Him. While then τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν is 
 ὄργανον σωτηρίας, this τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν becomes 
 ἔνδειξις σωτηρίας. The older expositors strain the apostle’s 
 language, when they employ it as a polemical weapon against 
 different forms of Pelagianism: for he simply regards their con- 
 dition generally and in both its features as a divine gift, or as 
 the result of God’s kindness. While their own adherence to 
 Christianity exposed them to suffering, and the malice of un- 
 belief wantonly wreaked itself upon them, yet this suffering 
 is viewed as of a higher origin. ‘The apostle is not teach- 
 ing dogmatically that faith is of God’s inworking; but he is 
 telling historically that faith and suffering had been theirs, 
 and that the coexistence of the two being a privilege of divine 
 bestowment, warranted them to regard their undaunted belief 
 as a token of salvation. The reasons adduced by Chrysostom 
 and his followers for the apostle’s sentiment cannot be all 
 sustained. The object of the apostle is to encourage the Phi- 
 lippian church, and not, as Chrysostom supposes, to warn it 
 against pride, by ascribing its faith and its suffering alike to 
 God. The Greek father dwells on the value of the gift, and 
 uses this striking comparison—this divine gift is higher than 
 raising the dead; “ for, in this case, I am only a debtor;” but, 
 “in the other” (‘if I suffer for Christ”), “ I have Christ as a 
 debtor to me.” The language is bold, indeed, and rhetorical, 
 and not without an element of truth. But deductions like 
 
80 PHILIPPIANS I. 80. 
 
 these are rather far-fetched; nor do the apostle’s words war- 
 rant them. His one object is to inspirit the Christians at 
 Philippi, by showing that undauntedness in the midst of 
 their tribulation would be an evidence of salvation granted 
 by God; for the twofold gift of faith and suffering is from 
 Him, the one as securing, and the other as foretokening sal- 
 vation. The apostle now associates himself with his suffering 
 brethren— 
 
 (Ver. 80.) Tov αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ 
 νῦν ἀκούετε ἐν éuoti— As you have the same conflict which 
 you saw in me, and now hear of in me.” The construction is 
 changed to the nominative—tpets being directly before the 
 writer’s mind—you the sufferers; the clause with ὑμῖν being 
 so far subsiqdiary, but not making a formal parenthesis. Winer, 
 § 63, 2; Kiihner,§ 677. The apostle describes their struggle 
 by asserting its similarity to his own, as if to show them that 
 such suffering might have been anticipated, and that it ought, 
 by them as by him, to be borne in hope and patience. 
 
 The form εἴδετε is the true reading, and is now generally 
 adopted. The last phrase—év ἐμοί--ἰβ not as the Vulgate 
 renders it—de me. It supposes the ideal presence of those to 
 whom he wrote, and points out the scene of conflict. They had 
 seen his conflict with enemies on his first visit to them—Acts 
 xvi. 16, &.; 1 Thess. ii. 2—and they now heard in this 
 epistle of his being engaged at Rome in a similar warfare. 
 The apostle seems to allude to what he had been stating as to 
 his condition at Rome, and to the personal antagonism which 
 he encountered. Meyer refers us back to verse 7, overlooking 
 what the apostle had just been writing about himself. It is 
 both on the part of the Philippians and himself a conflict with 
 personal enemies or non-believers—not precisely with teachers 
 of false doctrine. The apostle, while some preached of envy 
 and strife against him, was imprisoned, and these rival 
 preachers thought to stir up affliction to his bonds, but 
 failed, while his enemies and accusers strove, no doubt, to 
 bring him to trial and death. There may have been a party 
 from Palestine waiting to charge him before the emperor’s 
 tribunal; and with them, and all whom they instigated to 
 seek his life, he was in conflict. It is evident that he spoke 
 
PHILIPPIANS I. 30. 81 
 
 from experience when he tells the Philippians of the double 
 grace of faith and suffermg—verses 7 and 29. 
 
 The entire paragraph, though it do not take the form of 
 admonition after the first clause of verse 27, is still to the same 
 effect ; and the apostle, by so earnestly describing the condi- 
 tion of which he wished to hear as belonging to them, virtually 
 exhorts them to seek and maintain it. If he hoped to hear 
 certain things about them, such as their struggle in concert for 
 the faith of the gospel, and their unscared courage before their 
 enemies, it is implied that they should possess those features of 
 social state and character. And what is this when divested 
 of these immediate peculiarities, but that ‘fellowship for the 
 gospel,” on account of which he thanked God on his whole 
 remembrance of them, and which had distinguished them 
 “from the first day until now?” In the 5th verse, he mentions 
 generally ‘fellowship for the gospel” as the prime distinction 
 of the Philippian church; and in this last section he only 
 throws it into bold relief, by describing the united struggle 
 it necessitated, the opposition it encountered, and the calm 
 intrepidity which it ought ever to maintain. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Tae apostle’s mind has been carried away for a moment by a 
 reference to the hostility which was frowning upon the Philip- 
 pian church. But he immediately reverts to the admonition 
 which he had started in verse 27. His theme is unity, the 
 cultivation of the feelings which maintain it, and the repres- 
 sion of that selfishness and pride which always retard and so 
 often destroy it. He had joy in their spiritual welfare, but 
 he would have fulness of joy in their harmony and love. 
 Therefore he solemnly calls upon them by four distinct 
 appeals, to fill up the measure of his gladness. ( His earnest- 
 ness makes it evident that he apprehended the existence 
 among them of a spirit of jealousy, selfishness, and faction. ) 
 This suspicion haunted and grieved him, or at least it 
 moderated that delight which he would otherwise have felt in 
 them, and which he so ardently longed to possess. His 
 happiness would be at its height, provided that the one soul 
 and the one mind reigned in the church. What a motive to 
 conciliation and peace lay in the thought that his joy was so 
 far dependent on the absence of feuds and schisms among 
 them. Could they be so unthinking as to grieve their apostle 
 by any report of their differences? And they were to beware 
 of strife and vain-glory as elements of disunion, and to cherish 
 a spirit of humility and kind regard for one another’s welfare. 
 For Christ is then held up as the great model of self-denying 
 condescension— He whom as Master, they had engaged to 
 obey ; and whom as Example, they were pledged to imitate. 
 (Ver. 1.) Ei τις οὖν. The illative particle οὖν carries us back 
 in thought to verse 27, and not to the clauses immediately before 
 it. The “exhortation” and “comfort” are not spoken of, as 
 Barnes supposes, in reference to the afflictions and persecutions 
 just referred to. They had been exhorted to “stand fast in 
 one spirit, with one mind striving together ;”’ and now they are 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 1. 83 
 
 solemuly adjured to study unanimity of opinion and action. 
 The simple verb ἐστί is to be supplied to the clauses. The 
 structure of the appeal is peculiar. In using εἴ, the apostle 
 does not doubt the existence of these graces or feelings either 
 absolutely, or as existing among the Philippians; but he says, 
 If these do exist among you, put them into action, or manifest 
 them, so as to fill up my joy. The admonition amounts in 
 fact to an adjuration. Hoogeveen, Doctr. Part. Ed. Schiitz, p. 
 151.1 By the existence of such graces among you—by the 
 exhortation which is in Christ, by the comfort of love, by 
 the fellowship of the Spirit, and by the attachments and 
 sympathies of the gospel, I adjure you to fulfil my joy by 
 being like-minded. ‘That is to say, the four clauses are really 
 so many arguments why the Philippian church should perfect 
 the apostle’s happiness by their constant and cordial oneness 
 of judgment and pursuit. And these four clauses, beginning 
 each with the same formula εἴ tvs, mark the intensity of the 
 apostle’s desire ; the arguments so expressed possessing a dis- 
 tinct individual power, and having also a united energy arising 
 from their rapid accumulation. For the apostle writes, as 
 Chrysostom describes his style—durapds, σφοδρῶς, μετὰ 
 συμπαθείας πολλῆς. 
 
 Ei τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν XpiotrO—“ If there be any 
 exhortation in Christ.” In the modal phrase ἐν Χριστῷ, 
 the preposition ἐν means neither per nor propter, means 
 neither “by” Christ, nor “on account of” Christ, as Storr 
 and Heinrichs are disposed to render it. The words are taken 
 by some to denote the sphere of this παράκλησις ; by others 
 to point out its source. In the one case, the meaning is, “if 
 in Christ there be any exhortation;” in the other, if ‘there 
 be any consolation felt,” or “if ye have any consolation 
 through union with Christ” —in communione Christi, as van 
 Hengel dilutes it. We prefer the former, viewing παράκλησις 
 as objective. Remote from the right exegesis is the idea of 
 Erasmus and Am Ende, that ἐν X. is for τοῖς ἐν X.—“ among 
 those who are Christians.” Our exegesis does not, as van 
 Hengel affirms, require ἣ ἐν X. Winer, § 20, 2. 
 
 The noun παράκλησις, and its verb, have two distinct 
 
 1 As in Iliad, i. 40; Aneid, iii. 448. 
 
2 
 
 84 PHILIPPIANS II. i. 
 
 meanings in the New Testament—that of exhortation, but 
 different from διδάσκειν; and that of comfort or encouragement. 
 Examples of both are so numerous that they need not be 
 quoted. The meanings are allied in this way, that the exhor- 
 tation is often intended to impart comfort, or results in it. 
 Thus, Rom. xv. 4—8a τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν, 15 not 
 simply through the consolation contained in Scripture, but the 
 body of consolatory truth which Scripture exhibits; or, again, 
 Mat. ii. 18--Ῥαχὴλ--- οὐκ ἤθελε wapaxdnOjva.— Rachel 
 would not be comforted,’ would not feel the effect of words of 
 condolence and solace presented to her. See 1 Cor. 1. 10, 
 and many other places. We do not thus take it here in 
 its specifically Hellenistic sense of comfort, as is done by 
 the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Grotius, and 
 Heinrichs, but rather in that of exhortation or hortatory 
 power. 1 Cor. xiv. 3; 2 Cor. viii.4; 1 Thes. 1. 8, 11. Such 
 is the view of Luther, Bos, De Wette, van Hengel, Rheinwald, 
 and Meyer. Those who give the noun the meaning of com- 
 fort, add the idea of affording comfort to the apostle. Thus 
 Theodoret—e? twa ἐμοὶ παράκλησιν προσενεγκεῖν βούλεσθε--- 
 “if ye wish to afford me any comfort.” Such also is the view 
 of Calvin. The supposition of Peter Lombard is as baseless 
 —viz., that the apostle means personal consolation found in 
 the possession of spiritual blessing. But it is not warranted 
 by the words, nor the strain of address; nor yet is the notion 
 of Storr and others, who, giving a peculiar emphasis to τίς; 
 render— if exhortation tendered in Christ’s name is of any 
 value among you.” We therefore take παράκλησις as mean- 
 ing that kind of exhortation which moves or induces, and 
 which has its sphere of action in Christ. 
 
 The nature of this hortative address is to be gathered from 
 the context. It is not simply exhortation to good, derived 
 from the pardon which Christ bestows, the Spirit which He 
 
 sends down, the power which He communicates, or the 
 fe example which He has bequeathed. But it is implied that it 
 
 is exhortation to unity and concord—exhortation which has 
 its element, and by consequence finds its power in Christ. 
 The dhostls exhorts, but, in doing so, he leads them at the 
 same time to a Higher than himself :— 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 1. 85 
 
 el TL παραμύθιον ayarns— if any comfort of love.” Asin 
 the former case, very many render this term vaguely by “‘com- 
 fort ;” but Matthies, De Wette, van Hengel, and Hoelemann, 
 assign it rather the sense of encouragement—blandum collo- 
 guium. With the latter we are disposed to agree, for we think 
 that this sense prevails uniformly in the New Testament. 
 John xi. 19—Many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary— 
 ἵνα παραμυθήσονται avtas— that they might speak kind 
 words to them.’”’ So 1 Thess. 1.11, and 1 Thess. v. 14—where 
 the phrase occurs—zrapapvOeia be τοὺς ddvyovyovs—“ encour- 
 age the weak-minded.” The noun therefore means verbal 
 encouragement, kind conversation, or that tender address which 
 cheers or excites. The neuter form of the word only occurs 
 * here, but another and earlier form? is found—1 Cor. xiv. 3— 
 λαλεῖ οἰκοδομὴν Kai παράκλησιν καὶ TapayvOlav— uttereth 
 edification, and exhortation, and comfort.’’ The following noun 
 ἀγάπης is the genitive of source. The apostle does not mean his 
 own love to them, as van Hengel and Bretschneider suppose ; 
 nor yet does he specially allude, as Heinrichs, Schrader, and 
 Storr imagine, to consolation or love specially on the part of 
 the Philippians towards himself. The expression is general. 
 If there exist the *‘ comfort of love,” and that it does exist 
 the apostle does not doubt, then he calls upon them to fulfil 
 his joy. For if such παραμύθιον springs from love, should 
 it not exercise itself in disarming prejudice, in hushing strife, 
 in smoothing asperities, in removing misunderstandings, in 
 preventing aberrations, and generally, by “its still small 
 voice,” knitting together the members of the church, and charm- 
 ing away those evils which so seriously endanger its peace ? 
 The apostle thus appeals to another basis of harmony—loye, 
 and its winning tongue :— 
 
 εἴ τις κοινωνία Tvevpatos—“if any fellowship of the Spirit,” 
 the genitive being that of object, as in 1 Cor. 1.9. That this 
 striking expression denotes only community of feeling among 
 themselves, or between them and the apostle, is the view of 
 many expositors, though some of them, as De Wette, Usteri,? 
 
 1 As to the comparative age, &c., of nouns ins» and ιον, see Lobeck, ad Phryn, 
 p. 517. 
 2 Paulin. Lehrgeb. p. 295. 
 
86 PHILIPPIANS II. 1. 
 
 Rilliet, van Hengel, and Wiesinger, speak of such common 
 feeling as produced by the Holy Ghost. We feel that such a 
 meaning does not come up to the Pauline phrase, and that it 
 is to the Holy Spirit that the apostle refers. For instances 
 of πνεῦμα, &c., with and without the article, see under Eph. 
 i. 17. Wiesinger admits, that in the apostolic benediction, 
 2 Cor. xiii. 13, the phrase may have such a signification; 
 but, indeed, what other could it have there? Nay, he adds, 
 “ How remote would the connection be, between the existence 
 of such a fellowship with the Spirit of God, and the exhorta- 
 tion which follows—‘fulfil ye my joy.’”” This appears to us to 
 be atotal and unaccountable misapprehension. [or the fellow- 
 ship of the Divine Spirit is the very basis of that like-minded- 
 ness, the existence and development of which the apostle 
 covets among them. ‘That correct apprehension of the same 
 truths which leads to like-mindedness, the felt reception of 
 common blessings which creates one-heartedness, position 
 in the church as an organic unity which guards against 
 schism—all is effected by the Spirit of God, of whom they 
 partake. If there be the joint participation of the Spirit, as 
 indeed there is, then it becomes a mighty inducement and 
 power in securing the concord which would fulfil the apostle’s 
 joy, and give them the elements of character which he imme- 
 diately depicts. For, then, participation of the Spirit would 
 produce similarity of tastes, pursuits, and predilections; nay, 
 this κοινωνία πνεύματος was the real basis of that κοινωνία ets 
 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον to which he had already adverted :— 
 
 εἴ τις σπλάγχνα Kal oixkTipwoi—* if any bowels and mercies.” 
 The singular form—tis—has the preponderant authority of A, 
 B,C, Ὁ, E, F, G, J; and of the Greek fathers, Chrysostom, 
 (Ecumenius, and Theophylact, and has therefore been received 
 by Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann. But Winer rejects it, ὃ 
 59, 4, 6, &e. Tischendorf also, in spite of all this evidence, 
 has twa in his text, and he is followed by Alford and Ellicott. 
 Meyer says that τινὰ is necessary; De Wette, that τις is 
 grammatically impossible. These critics look upon τὰς as a 
 copyist’s blunder ; but how could such an ungrammatical 
 blunder be so widely circulated? ‘There was some temptation 
 to change τίς into τίνα, but none to write Tes, which would have 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 1. 87 
 
 the appearance of a grievous solecism. It is needless to 
 imagine, with van Hengel, that the apostle wrote εἴ σπλάγχνα, 
 and that the pronoun from a pedantic desire of uniformity was 
 inserted by some transcriber. Nor will it do, as some propose, 
 to supply ἔχει for οἰκτιρμοί, for that would be a yet greater 
 difficulty. We are disposed to think that the anomaly is only 
 formal. The two nouns σπλάγχνα and οἰκτιρμοί are techni- 
 cally plural, though singular in meaning, and haying only the 
 plural form in the New Testament, came, like similar words, 
 to be treated as singulars in sense. Both as representing one 
 Hebrew plural contain only one idea, so that the last of them 
 is sometimes put in the genitive—“ bowels of mercy.” Stand- 
 ing out to the apostle’s mind as one generic idea, he prefixed 
 the singular tis, just as we say in common English—“ if 
 there is any news.” In the same way the phrase—“ bowels 
 of mercy ’’—is taken as one Christian characteristic. The sub- 
 stantive σπλάγχνα represents the Hebrew onm, and denotes 
 the thoracic viscera, or as we say—“‘heart.” Οἰκτιρμοίτορτο- 
 sents the same Hebrew term without a figure. See under 
 Col. i. 12; Tittmann, Synon. i. p. 69; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
 i. 315. The bearing of this on the unity of the church is 
 very apparent—that union which is described in the follow- 
 ing verse by various connected epithets. For where tender 
 feeling, as expressed by σπλάγχνα, does not exist, such union 
 is impossible. Universal callousness would be universal 
 antipathy. And then, as offences must come—and do often 
 come—as one member may hurt his neighbour by love of 
 pre-eminence, stiff adherence to his own opinion, or depreciation 
 of such as differ from him, there is need for the exercise of 
 these “mercies” in forgiving a brother’s trespass up to “seventy 
 times seven.’ By the existence of such kind and compassion- 
 ating temper, the apostle pleads that they should fulfil his 
 joy. 
 
 The relation of these four clauses has been variously under- 
 stood. Calovius takes the “love” of the second clause as the 
 love of God, and imagines, that in the three clauses, there is 
 a reference to the Trinity, Son, Father, and Spirit. This 
 dogmatic notion does not harmonize with the tenor of the 
 context. Meyer again takes the first and third as objective, 
 
88 PHILIPPIANS II. 2. 
 
 and the second and fourth as subjective. ‘This is true so far, 
 and he supposes all the four things described as existing 
 on the part of the readers of the epistle, as if it were said, “ If 
 there be among you exhortation in Christ,” ἄς. But we rather 
 regard each as absolute, and this is the strongest way of 
 putting the case. The apostle does not say “among you,” but 
 speaks in general terms. It is implied, indeed, that such quali- 
 fications or arguments for unity were among them; but the 
 apostle specifies them in themselves, without asserting them to 
 be embodied in the Philippian community. Wiesinger again 
 takes the two first clauses as representing what proceeds from 
 the apostle; and the third and fourth, what is to exist on the 
 part of his readers. He supposes the παράκλησις and παρα- 
 μύθιον to be tendered by the apostle, and the “ fellowship of 
 the Spirit,” and “bowels and mercies” to exist among the 
 Philippians. But his argument against Meyer may be turned 
 against himself—‘‘ Why should not the apostle have expressed 
 this, if such was his meaning?” ‘There being in short no indi- 
 cation of any change of reference, all the four clauses must be 
 similar. There seems to be no warrant for adding any formal 
 reference, either to himself or his readers, to any of them. It 
 is as if he had said, If there be such an impulsive power as 
 exhortation in Christ; if there be such a preventive of strife 
 as the kind speech of love; if there be such a basis of unity 
 as the fellowship of the Spirit; if there be such a guard and 
 balance as loving and compassionating temper,—then I adjure 
 you by these to fulfil my joy by your visible and growing 
 harmony. 
 
 (Ver. 2.) Πληρώσατέ μου τὴν yapav— Fulfil ye my joy ;” 
 that is, make my joy full or perfect. The pronoun is, as often, 
 placed before its governing substantive. Winer, § 22, 7,1, 
 Gersdorf, Beitr. 456. He rejoiced over them, and in their 
 spiritual welfare ; but he enjoins them by all these considera- 
 tions to give him perfect gladness in them. If a spirit of unity 
 reigned among them, it would be the fulness of his joy :— 
 
 ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε--- that you think the same thing.” 
 The conjunction ἵνα indicates purpose. The object of his 
 obtestation was, that they might possess unanimity, and that 
 is represented to his own mind by fa. But in such a form of 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 2. 89 
 
 expression, and after the imperative, that purpose assumes the 
 aspect of result. He besought them, by all the arguments of 
 the previous verse, to fulfil his joy, but that is only personal 
 and incidental; for above and beyond it, and yet connected 
 with it as its cause, the ultimate end he sought was their 
 concord and union. It is clumsy in van Hengel to make 
 ἵνα dependent on a ταύτην understood before χαράν. Bengel 
 regards the clauses as four in number, and as correspond- 
 ing in order to the four arguments of the previous verse. 
 This is more ingenious than sound. Only three clauses are 
 employed by the apostle to depict that condition of the church 
 in which he should so heartily rejoice. Nor is there very 
 material difference among them. The first clause is the more 
 general, or it describes the result which the apostle proposed 
 to himself in so solemnly counselling them—‘that ye think the 
 same thought.” The last clause brings back the same idea 
 strengthened—* with united soul thinking the one thing ;”’ 
 while the intermediate clause may be taken to specify the 
 means by which the double result is obtained—“ having the 
 same love.” Hoelemann refers τὸ αὐτὸ to the sentiments of the 
 previous verse, but this connection is unwarranted in itself, 
 and by the ordinary use of τὸ αὐτὸ, as in Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 
 2 Cor. xii. 11; and in the same epistle, iv. 2; nor can it 
 mean, tdem atque ego. Some, as Meyer and Wiesinger, look 
 on the first clause as more fully defined by those which suc- 
 ceed it. Beza takes the first as the theme, and the others as 
 the expansion of it. Calvin divides the idea, giving one 
 clause a reference to doctrine, and one to the exercise of 
 mutual charity. Musculus, Crocius, Am Ende, and Matthies, 
 hold a similar view. As we have indicated, we take the first 
 phrase as denoting that result which thé apostle coveted, and 
 held up to himself as his chief design in this earnest and tender 
 injunction. This “thinking of the same thing” is not to be 
 confined to any sphere of opinion, but to all that might occupy 
 their minds, or to all that pertained to the church. Not in 
 trade, politics, or the common concerns of life, indeed, but in 
 all things on which, as members of the church, they might be 
 expected to form a judgment, they were to think the same 
 thing, or to come to a unanimous decision, And this would 
 
90 PHILIPPIANS II. 2. 
 
 not be a difficult achievement if they followed the next 
 counsel :— 
 
 τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην éxovres— having the same love.” We 
 regard this as the great or only source and accompaniment of 
 unanimity, though Chrysostom takes it as synonymous with the 
 preceding clause. Equal love would develop equal opinions. 
 The head would be ruled by the heart. The effect of mutual 
 affection in creating oneness of sentiment is of daily experience, 
 Seeming diversities are cemented, like as lumps of various 
 metals, cast into the crucible, come out in refined and perfect 
 amalgamation. Offensive individualism disappears in brotherly 
 love :— 
 
 σύμψυχοι τὸ ἕν ppovodvTes— with union of soul minding 
 the one thing.” The use of this compound adjective, which 
 occurs only here in the New Testament, intensifies the clause, 
 as the third expression of a somewhat sist sentiment, and, 
 therefore, it 15 most natur ally taken along with the participle. 
 It is ba. only—“that ye mind the same thing,” but—“fellow- 
 souled,” or “in deep sympathy minding the one thing.” We 
 want English terms for those expressive Greek compounds. 
 Van Hengel looks on this epithet, σύμψυχοι; as pointing out the 
 source of the “same love.” We regard it rather as a special 
 result, as expressing that state of oa which this sameness of 
 love βεοή ροῦν which, piling each to each, makes them to be 
 like-souled—opolws καὶ φιλεῖν καὶ sfanilecblas (Chrysos.). This 
 last clause brings up the sentiment of the first in a more 
 earnest and distinct form. ΤῸ avoid a supposed tautology, 
 Wells long ago proposed to give τὸ ἕν the sense of ‘the one 
 thing needful; while Grotius, followed by Bishop Middleton, 
 assigns it a reference to the following verse—minding this one 
 thing, viz., doing nothing in a factious spirit. ‘The distine- 
 tion made by Tittmann, and the reference suggested by him to 
 the fourth verse, are both artificial (De Synon. p. 68). The 
 apostle’s ordinary phrase is τὸ αὐτὸ, and this peculiar form 
 occurs only here. It is probable that τὸ ἕν differed very little 
 from τὸ αὐτὸ, or only as being the stronger expression. ‘This 
 accumulation of clauses as the result of mental excitement 
 and anxiety, imparts intensity to the counsel, without making 
 any formal climax. His soul glowed as it dwelt on its 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 3. 91 
 
 theme; and recurrent phrases, not frigid repetitions, are the 
 natural expressions of its warmth. The same earnestness 
 accounts for the connection of the verb with its own participle, 
 ,Φρονῆτε--- φρονοῦντες ; ; Jelf. 8 τοῦ, 8; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 532. 
 “The two idioms are sometimes ean in the same sentence as in 
 Xenophon, Cyroped. p. 58; Ed. Hutch.; or in Polybius, i. 4 
 -πρὸς ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν σκοπόν ; or in Latin, tdemque et 
 unum, Sueton. Nero, 4, ὃ ; wnum atque idem, Cicero, Cat. 4, 
 7. “Ev, without the article, would, as Green says (Greek 
 Gram. p. 201), “signify numerical unity, as opposed to 
 plurality, but the abstract implies uniformity, as contrasted 
 with diversity.” The reference does not seem to be to 
 any apprehended differences on matters of faith, but simply 
 Lie differences as might arise in ecclesiastical relation- 
 ship. Toward one another they were to feel, speak, and act 
 in this spirit, so that inviolable unity should characterize 
 them. . 
 
 It is true that the apostle repeats virtually the same idea. 
 Baal, says Chrysostom, ποσάκις τὸ αὐτὸ λέγει ἀπὸ διαθέσεως 
 πολλῆς. Yet, as we have said, we think it is not mere repe- 
 tition, the first clause with ἵνα describing the purpose or the 
 coveted result ; the second pointing out in what spirit it is to 
 be obtained ; the third expressing a closer intimacy which 
 ends in inking the same thing, or being actually and visibly 
 one-minded. ‘The apostle then warns them :— 
 
 (Ver. 3.) Μηδὲν κατὰ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν --- 
 “Minding nothing in the spirit of faction and vain-glory.” 
 The reading is doubtful. Instead of μηδὲ, the Received Text 
 has ἢ, which, however, has not the same amount of external 
 authority as μηδὲ κατά. 
 
 The apostle here rebukes the passions which are so fatal to 
 union. The best supplement is φρονοῦντες---τιοῦ ποιοῦντες, as 
 so many suppose; the former being more in unison with the 
 train of thought. The common and modal sense of κατά glides 
 sometimes into that of occasion and motive (Winer, ὃ 49, d) ; 
 but here it retains its first signification. It tells how, or after 
 what way, the action of the supplied participle is done. With 
 the first of the nouns, ἐκ is used—i. 17—and presents a differ- 
 ent aspect of relation. On the meaning of the first noun, see 
 
92 PHILIPPIANS Ii. 3. 
 
 under i. 17. In its connection with κενοδοξία, one peculiar 
 aspect of its meaning is brought out, and that is, that it does 
 not signify contention for the love δὲ it, fecha the waters 
 to enjoy the confusion, but such contention as tends and is 
 designed to secure pre-eminence. It is self-seeking—the rest- 
 less battle to be first, no matter what opposition be encoun- 
 tered, or whose feelings or interests may suffer. Κενοδοξία 
 occurs only here in the New Testament. Wisdom, xiv. 14. This 
 self-conceit is silly, indeed, but prejudicial to peace. Inordi- 
 nate self-display absorbs brother-love. What I think is 
 soundest, what I propose is best, my reasons are irrefragable, 
 and my schemes cannot be impugned; to differ from me is 
 evidence of want of judgment; and to oppose me must be 
 ascribed to consummate folly, or unpardonable obstinacy. I 
 must lead; why should not I? all must follow; and why 
 should not they ? 
 
 ἀλλὰ TH ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας 
 ἑαυτῶν---““ but in humility regarding others as better than 
 themselves.” The words τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ are not to be joined 
 to the participle, as dativus excellentiae, or as forming norma 
 judicii, as if the meaning were, Let each regard the other on 
 account of his humility, better than himself. Baumgarten- 
 Crusius thus gives it, and then eulogizes it as etn sinnreicher 
 Spruch. But the position of the words plainly joins them to 
 the participle ἡγούμενοι, and they are a modal dative, not, 
 however, exchangeable with κατά and an accusative, or they 
 may be a dynamical and influential dative, meaning “in” or 
 “under the influence of’ humility. The article is prefixed to 
 the noun as an abstract term—the virtue of humility. Kiihner, 
 § 485; Middleton, on Greek Article, Ὁ. 91. This humility is one 
 of the distinctive features of Christianity, for it rests in absolute 
 dependence upon God for everything. Some of the heathen 
 sages might arrive at its meaning, so far as creaturely relations 
 could teach it. But that meaning is immeasurably deepened 
 by the aspect of a sinner’s relation to a Redeemer, who died 
 for him in his state of utter unworthiness, bestows upon him 
 blessings to which he has no claims, and notwithstanding all 
 his demerits, maintains the spiritual life within him. Ever 
 unworthy, and yet ever receiving, yea, having nothing that he 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 4. 93 
 
 has not received, how lowly the opinion one should ever form of 
 himself.) See under Eph. iv. 2; Col. π|. 12. This humility, 
 placed here as the contrast to self-seeking and vain-glory, was 
 to be the spirit in which they should regard one another. It is 
 the true way of forming an estimate. Humility dispels the 
 self-importance which is continually taking and asserting the 
 measure of its own claims, when it comes into contact with 
 others. The one bids its possessor undervalue all about him ; 
 the other bids him prefer them. The motto of the former is 
 τς —first, either first or nothing; the sentiment of the latter is 
 — less than the least of all saints.” The older casuists, and 
 many commentators, refer to the difficulty of forming such an 
 estimate of others. Is it possible to regard all others as 
 superior to ourselves? But the answer is not difficult. Every 
 man that knows his own heart finds, and must find, much in 
 it to give him a low estimate of himself, and he cannot tell 
 what graces may be cherished in the bosoms of those around 
 him; they may be superior to his own. Nor has he any cause 
 to be vain of any gifts conferred on him—“ What maketh thee 
 to differ?’ The original gift, and the impulse to cultivate it, 
 are alike from above. Not that any man is to underrate him- 
 self, or in any way to conceal his gifts or graces, for he would, 
 by such a spurious modesty, be contravening the design of 
 the great Benefactor. Jon tam stultae humilitatis, said 
 Luther, ut dissimulare velim dona Det in me collata. Hu- 
 mility is not undue self-depreciation, but may coexist with 
 fervent gratitude for gifts enjoyed, a thorough consciousness of 
 their number and value, and the utmost desire to lay out “ the 
 ten talents”? to the utmost possible advantage. But where 
 there is self-assertion or rivalry to secure the “chief seat” and 
 win applause, then the impulses of such vanity necessarily 
 create alienation and disorder. There is no warrant to make 
 the distinction of Storr, referring “strife” to the Jew; or of 
 Rheinwald, referring “‘ vain-glory” to the philosophic Gentile. 
 
 (Ver. 4.) Μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ 
 ἑτέρων Exacto—‘ Looking each of you not to your own things, 
 but each of you.also to the things of others. The plural 
 ἕκαστοι is preferred on good authority, such as A, B, F,G, ἄς, 
 
 1 Neander, Geschichte der Pflanz. p. 759; Trench on Synon. p. 71. 
 
94 PHILIPPIANS II. 4. 
 
 though in other cases it occurs only in the singular, and the 
 participle σκοποῦντες is preferred to σκοπεῖτε, as the reading 
 of A, B,C, Ὁ, E, F, G. This counsel is still in unison with 
 the preceding advices. Some understand it as explanatory 
 of the third verse—Regard not every man his own virtues 
 and excellencies, but regard also the virtues and excellencies 
 of others. Calvin, Musculus, Raphelius, Kiel, Hoelemann, 
 Miiller, and Baumgarten-Crusius are of this opinion; but it 
 is not so agreeable to the common idiom as the prevalent 
 one, and it does not harmonize with the example of Christ 
 which is immediately set forth. The verse brings out one 
 special phasis of the duty—let each regard others better than 
 himself. The verb σκοπεῖν connected with such a phrase as 
 Ta ἑαυτῶν, is to regard one’s affairs, or seek his own individual 
 benefit, and is not, as Meyer remarks, materially different 
 from ζητεῖν, similarly used in 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xii. 5; Phil. 
 ii. 21. Examples abound in the classics, as may be seen in 
 the collection of them by Wetstein. Ζητεῖν is, however, the 
 stronger form, for it is the modal or instrumental idea of σκο- 
 πεῖν embodied in active search. In the phrase ἀλλὰ καί, the 
 contrast is softened. Winer, ὃ 55,8; Fritzsche ad Varc. 788. 
 The first clause, if taken in an absolute sense, would forbid 
 all regard, and in every form, to one’s own interests; but the 
 introduction of καί so far modifies it, that it is supposed to be 
 allowed to a certain extent. The καί is, therefore, far from 
 being superfluous, as Beelen loosely affirms. (The apostle 
 ,condemns exclusive selfishness—légoisme, as Rilliet calls it, 
 and he inculcates Christian sympathy and generosity. One’s 
 “own things” are not worldly, but spiritual things. This verse 
 is, in fact, the theme which is illustrated down to the 17th 
 verse. The Philippians were not to consult each his own 
 interests, but to cherish mutual sympathy, and engage in 
 mutual co-operation. They were not to disregard their own 
 things on pretence of caring for each other’s—for unless they 
 had first cared for their own things, they were not qualified to 
 care for the things of others., Undue curiosity and impertinent 
 meddlings are far from the apostle’s thought, but he requires 
 a holy solicitude and warm fellow-feeling—not absolute self- 
 
 1 Opuscula, p. 172, Lipsiw, 1821. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 5. 95 
 
 Ἢ abnegation, but a vivid substantial interest in the spiritual 
 welfare of others. It is not myself alone or in isolation, as if 
 others did not exist, but myself with them and they with me, 
 in earnest brotherhood and love. My object must not be simply 
 to outstrip them in religious attainment, but to bring them and 
 myself to a higher stage of Christian excellence. Though 
 charity seeketh not her own, still she has her own. 
 
 (Ver. 5.) Τοῦτο yap φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 — “For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ 
 Jesus.” Codices A, B, C1, Ὁ, E, F, G, have φρονεῖτε, and 
 the Vulgate and Syriac support the reading. The reading 
 φρονείσθω is found in Οὐ, J, Κι, and many other codices, 
 and is adopted by Alford. But φρονεῖτε has high uncial 
 authority, and eannot well be overthrown by any internal 
 argument derived from the structure of the sentence. The 
 probability is that the syntactic difficulty suggested φρονείσθω 
 as an emendation. The particle γάρ is not found in A, B, 
 C1, and is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Meyer 
 suggests that the omission was caused by regarding the ἕκαστοι 
 of the last verse as the beginning of this one. If it be genuine, 
 its meaning is more than explicative, or as Ellicott renders, 
 “verily.” It enforces, or gives a reason for the previous 
 injunction. We should expect the sentence to run thus— 
 Have ye this mind in you which Christ had also in Him; 
 whereas the clause reads—“ which also was in Christ Jesus.” 
 The passive aorist ἐφρονήθη must be supplied, and not ἣν, as 
 is done by Hoelemann. Kat, after the relative, indicates a 
 comparison between the two parts of the clause. Klotz, 
 Devarius, vol. 11. p. 636. The phrase ἐν ὑμῖν is not— among 
 you,’ nor is it in any sense superfluous. It points out the 
 inner region of thought which this feeling is to occupy. “This 
 mind” is not a superficial deduction, nor a facile and supine 
 conviction, but a feeling which cannot be dislodged, and which 
 manifests its vitality and power in its incessant imitation of 
 Christ’s example. The pronoun τοῦτο, placed emphatically, 
 refers, in our opinion, to the duty inculcated in the preceding 
 verse. ‘he meaning is not, that every feature in Christ’s 
 character should have a counterpart in theirs, as if the apostle 
 had generally said, Let the same mind be in you as was in 
 
96 PHILIPPIANS II. 5. 
 
 Christ Jesus—ita animati estote, ut Christus Jesus erat ani- 
 matus. Nor is the reference directly, as Keil and others suppose, 
 to the lowliness of mind already inculcated in y. 3; it is rather 
 to the self-denying generosity and condescension enjoined in 
 the previous verse, though these certainly can have no place 
 where self-seeking and vain-glory occupy a ruling position. 
 Thus Victorinus—imitantes Dominum, nos de aliis potius cogi- 
 temus, quam de nobis ipsis. 
 
 Now, the example of Christ is living legislation—law em- 
 bodied and pictured in a perfect humanity. Not only does it 
 exhibit every virtue, but it also enjoins it. In showing what 
 is, it enacts what ought to be. When it tells us how to live, 
 it commands us 50 to live. 
 
 What the apostle means by the mind which was in Christ 
 Jesus, he proceeds to explain. His object, in the following 
 paragraph, is neither to prove Christ’s Divinity, so as to con- 
 firm their faith, nor to argue the perfection of His atonement, 
 so as to brighten their hopes. It is not his intention to 
 dwell on His manhood, with a demonstration of its reality; or 
 to adduce His death with evidence of its expiatory worth ; 
 or to dilate on His royal glories, with a summons that 
 every one should look up and worship. His purpose is in 
 no sense polemical. His appeal is not to the merits of His 
 abasement, but to the depth and spirit of it; not to the saving 
 results of His service, but to the form and motives of it. 
 In short, he developes that “mind” which was in Christ, and 
 which was manifested in His self-denying incarnation and 
 death. The apostle’s text is—‘ Look not every man at his 
 own things, but every man also at the things of others;” 
 and his argument is, Not only is this your duty, because there 
 is precept for it; but ‘it is your duty, because there is the 
 noblest of all models for it. It was truly exemplified by Him 
 — Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to 
 be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and 
 took upon him the form of a servant.” 
 
 The “form of God” on the one hand, and obedience to the 
 death on the other, are the two termini; or the extent of our 
 Lord’s self-denying grace is measured by the distance between 
 equality with God, and a public execution on a gibbet. The 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 5. 97 
 
 question depends to a great extent on the reference in the 
 clause—“ Who being in the form of God.” Is it after He 
 was born that the apostle so describes Him? [5 it of the man 
 Jesus, as He was among men, that this is predicated, or does 
 the apostle take a backward step, and point to the previous 
 impulse which had brought Him down to earth to be one of 
 ourselves? Is the “form of God” descriptive of his incar- 
 nate dignity—Aoyos ἔνσαρκος---ΟΥ of his simple Divinity prior 
 to his assumption of humanity—)oyos ἄσαρκος ἡ Many 
 maintain the former view, that it is solely of Jesus in his 
 earthly state that the apostle speaks. But as the incarnation 
 is not referred to till the next verse, and in the words— He 
 emptied Himself, and took on Him the form of a servant ;”’ 
 may it not be fairly inferred, that what is said of Him in 
 the preceding clauses, describes Him as He was before this 
 period of self-divestment, this assumption of a bondman’s 
 aspect, and His subsequent humiliation? De Wette argues 
 from the use of the historic name Christ Jesus, the ante- 
 cedent to ὅς. But by what other name could the apostle 
 designate Him? For it is to the Mediator that he refers; so 
 that while he gives Him his official designation and human 
 name, may he not under these concrete terms include His 
 pre-existent state? Though first applied to Him infleshed, 
 these names designated a person who combined in his mys- 
 terious constitution divinity and humanity. What violation 
 of propriety is there in saying that Christ Jesus was a 
 possessor of the glory of the Godhead anterior to his incarna- 
 tion? ‘The application of these epithets does not, therefore, 
 necessarily limit the apostle’s allusion to one aspect of our 
 Lord’s nature and career. The names are given to the 
 ascended Saviour in verses 10th and 11th, for He still wears 
 humanity, though He is now seen to be “ equal with God.” 
 Nor can it be objected, as on the part of Philippi,! that 
 because the historical Jesus alone is our model, there can be 
 on that account no descriptive allusion to His higher nature. 
 For what made Him become the historical Jesus—what 
 induced Him to discharge the functions of the Christ, and 
 take the name of Jesus? The very application to Him of 
 1 Die Thiitige Gehorsam Christi, p. 3, Berlin, 1841. 
 
 G 
 
98 PHILIPPIANS II. 5. 
 
 the names Jesus Christ, presupposed a “mind” in Him, 
 which prompted Him to leave the glories and felicities of 
 His Father’s bosom—a mind which, in our place and circum- 
 stances, we are summoned to imitate, though at an infinite 
 distance. For the apostle does not propose a literal imita- 
 tion of our Lord’s example in all its various steps down to 
 erucifixion. That would be an impossibility. It is true 
 that no man can imitate Christ’s incarnation; but it is 
 equally true that no one can, in its nature and purpose, imi- 
 tate His death. But it is not the action, so much as the 
 spirit of it, that the apostle delineates, and Christians may be 
 summoned to possess in their own spheres and limits, as well 
 the condescension that brought Him down to the manger, as 
 the self-abasing generosity which led Him to the Cross. It 
 is another extraordinary statement of Philippi, that as the 
 humiliation here spoken of was put an end to by the ascension, 
 then, if that humiliation is held to consist of His assumption 
 of our nature, it must follow that when He ascended, He left 
 our nature behind Him. But we do not hold that it lay 
 solely in the incarnation, and every one sees that the glorifi- 
 cation of the incarnate nature was as really the termination 
 of its inferior state, as would have been its abandonment. 
 The historical title, Christ Jesus, suggested the lesson which 
 the apostle wished to impress, for it belonged to the Saviour 
 in His state of condescension and suffering ; and it still identi- 
 fies the ‘‘ Man of sorrows,” with Him who was in the “ form 
 of God,” and with the exalted ‘“ Lord,’ to whom has been 
 given the name above every name. 
 
 As this passage has long been‘a chosen field of challenge in 
 polemical warfare, we need not wonder that so many names 
 can be quoted on both sides of the view which we have been 
 considering. For the opinion which we have defended are 
 Chrysostom and the Greek expositors; of the Reformation 
 period and subsequently, Beza, Vatablus, Zanchius, Clarius, 
 Calixtus, Cocceius, Crocius, Aretius; among the Catholics, 
 Kstius, and a-Lapide; and among others of later date, Semler, 
 Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hufnagel, Seiler, Liinemann, 
 Miller, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Pye Smith, Neander, Meyer, 
 Ellicott, Alford, Lechler, Beelen, and Bisping. Among those 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 99 
 
 who hold the opposite doctrine are to be found Novatian and 
 Ambrose among the Latin Fathers; Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, 
 Piscator, Hunnius, Cameron, Musculus, Calovius, Le Clerc, 
 Grotius, Bengel, Vorstius, Zachariae, Kesler, Heinrichs, van 
 Hengel, Am Ende, Rheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 De Wette, Philippi, and Conybeare. 
 
 (Ver. 6.) Ὅς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ brdapywv— W ho being (or exist- 
 ing) in the form of God.” ‘The meaning assigned to μορφή is of 
 primary importance. It denotes shape or figure; and we be- 
 lieve with Pott, that it has no connection by metathesis with the 
 Latin forma, Hesychius defines it by ἰδέα, εἴδος ; Suidas ee 
 to these πρόσωψις; and the Syriac renders by flaQxs,5 “1 
 likeness.’ If this be its meaning, it is not to be ae 
 with φύσις or οὐσία. It may imply the possession of nature or 
 essence, but it does not mean either of them. The Greek 
 " es and after them Calvin, Beza, Miiller, Robinson and 
 others, have fallen into this blunder. Thus Chrysostom says 
 ---οοὐκοῦν καὶ ἡ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεοῦ φύσις. Gregory of Nyssa 
 maintains the same definition— μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταὐτόν Ty 
 οὐσίᾳ πάντως ἐστίν. Orat. contra Hunomium 11. Ὁ. 566; Ed. 
 Paris, 1638. Cyril of Alexandria has the same notion of the 
 identity of form and essence. Athanasius explains μορφή by 
 πλήρωμα, and Augustine by naturalis plenttudo. Suicer, sub 
 voce. Petavius, too, says (De Incarnatione, 111. 6)—formam hie 
 pronatura sumi perspicuum est. Phavorinus, professing exact- 
 ness of definition, gives—7 μορφὴ κυρίως, ἡ οὐσία. The Greek 
 commentators, as may be seen in Chrysostom, were polemically 
 necessitated to give the term such a meaning, and the pressure 
 of the same feeling has shown itself in almost every century. 
 
 Wherever the word occurs in the New Testament, it refers to. 
 visible form, as in the next verse, and in Mark xvi. 12. And 
 so, too, with μόρφωσις, 2 Fim. iii. 5. The verb μεταμορφόω, 
 as applied to the transfiguration in Mat. xvii. 2, Mark ix. 2, 
 has the same signification, referring simply to change of external 
 aspect, and neither of essence nor person. In the Septuagint, 
 μορφή represents the Chaldee w, denoting external appear- 
 ance, and is applied to ἜΤ Ἐπ in reference to his 
 lunacy; to Belshazzar, when he saw the handwriting, and 
 was appalled, and his “ form was changed;” and to Daniel 
 
100 PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 
 
 himself (vu. 28), “my form returned to me.” In the refer- 
 ence to Belshazzar and the prophet, the verb ἀλλοιόω is 
 employed, and the change is principally one of countenance. 
 It represents man in Isaiah xliv. 13—@s μορφὴν ἀνδρός, 
 an idol in shape of a man; and also mma, Job iv. 16—xai 
 οὐκ ἣν μορφὴ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν μου. The instances sometimes 
 adduced to show that μορφή may mean nature, will not sus- 
 tain the assertion. Robinson, after Schleusner, quotes 
 Euripides, Bacch. 54—popdyv τ᾽ ἐμὴν μετέβαλον εἰς avdpos 
 φύσιν. Besides that this is the somewhat loose language of 
 poetry, it may be remarked, that the quotation rather shows 
 that φύσις may signify form, and not μορφή signify nature. 
 Bacchus means not to say that he had abandoned Divinity, 
 but only that he had concealed its form in an assumed 
 humanity. He declares, in the previous clause, that he had 
 changed his form into a mortal one; but he does not aver that 
 he had ceased to be immortal in essence. Toward the com- 
 mencement of the drama, similar language is employed— 
 Μορφὴν δ᾽ ἀμείψας ἐκ θεοῦ βροτησίαν πάρειμι---( And having 
 taken a mortal form in exchange for that of a God, I am here.” 
 Another passage is adduced from Plato, where he says of God 
 the Best—péver ἀεὶ ἁπλῶς ἐν TH αὑτοῦ μορφῇ. It is hard to 
 say how much Plato’s idea of the Divinity was anthropomor- 
 phic; but the sense is, not simply that He remaineth always 
 simply in the same essence, but that He unchangeably mani- 
 fests the same characteristics. Other and similar passages 
 have been adduced, in which μορφή is supposed to signify not 
 form, but that which form represents. But even granting 
 an occasional metonomy, we find the word used with precise 
 discrimination. Thus Josephus (Contra Apion, 11. 22) speaks 
 of God as being beginning, middle, and end of all things, and 
 adds, that by His works and blessings He is manifest, and more 
 glorious, too, than any being; while, as to His form and mag- 
 nitude, He is to us most obscure—popdypy τε καὶ μέγεθος ἡμῖν 
 apavéctatos. The meaning, as the context shows, is, that 
 while so much may be learned from His works and ways, 
 there is no visible shape of Him—nothing to warrant any 
 idolatrous image. In the 34th chapter of the same treatise, the 
 author, in reprobating the lewdness and follies of the mytho- 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 101 
 
 logy of the Greeks, says, that they had deified madness and 
 fraud, and others of the vilest passions; or, as he expresses it, 
 els θεοῦ φύσιν καὶ μορφὴν ἀνέπλασαν. The two nouns are 
 here distinguished ; those vile passions are supposed, first, to 
 receive the nature of God, and then to get His form. They are 
 conceived of as divine, and then their divinity is represented 
 by a visible shape or idol. The examples selected by Wet- 
 stein from the classics are scarcely to our poimt—since every 
 god had his special form, though μορφή and forma are always 
 used of shape or likeness, and not of mere essence, and have 
 very much the meaning of person.1 We hold, therefore, that 
 μορφή is form, and neither nature nor condition, though it 
 may represent them. Now form is that by which we know 
 or distinguish anything—that by means of which objects are 
 recognized. One person is known from another by his form. 
 True, God has no form, being pure spirit—‘ Ye saw no man- 
 ner of similitude in the day that the Lord spake to you in 
 Horeb.” ‘The form of God must therefore signify—the mode 
 of _divine ine_manifestation—that by 1 which His _appearance 15 
 understood and characterized. It was the hi bright cloud for a 
 long period in the history of ancient Israel. The insignia of 
 Godhead were oft revealed in the olden time; and we have 
 what we take to be several descriptions of the form of God, in 
 Deut, xxxii. 2;> Ps) xvii. 6=15; Dan. vii. 9,10; Hab. 11. 
 3-11. Such passages, describing the sublime tokens of a 
 Theophany, afford a glimpse into the meaning of the phrase 
 —form of God. It is not the divine nature, but the visible 
 display of it—that which enables men to apprehend it, and 
 prompts them to adore it. 
 
 Now Jesus was in this form of God—é ὑπάρχων: The 
 participle has a fuller meaning than wy. It represents some- 
 thing on which stress is laid, something which is to be borne 
 in mind as essential to the argument. Gal. ". 14; Acts xvii. 
 27-29, xxi. 20. Suidas makes it equivalent to mpoetvas. 
 Pye Smith? speaks of it as, “in many cases, denoting a mode 
 already established, conspicuous, and dating from a prior 
 
 
 
 1 Thus μορφὰς τῶν θεῶν, Xenophon, Mem., iv.; forma deorum, Cicero De Natura 
 Deorum, ii. 2; formacque deorum, Ovid, Metam., i., 73, ἄς, ἄς. 
 2 Seripture 1estimony, vol. ii. p. 405. 
 
 J 
 
102 PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 
 
 point of time.’’ Still it would not be warrantable to render 
 it “pre-existing in the form of God.” There is no use in 
 resolving the participial reference by dum, or by the conces- 
 sive “although” with Ellicott. The simple statement is the 
 most emphatic. 
 
 This meaning, which we give to μορφή, is in harmony with 
 the spirit of the whole passage, and it is not materially differ- 
 ent from εἶδος, John v. 37. See under Col. i. 15. It stands 
 here in contrast with the phrase μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. He 
 exchanged the form of God for that of a servan 
 the highest point of dignity to the lowest in the social scale. 
 And we are the more confirmed in our view, because of the 
 following verb ἐκένωσε, as this self-divestment plainly refers to 
 the previous μορφή. It cannot mean divinity itself, for surely 
 ed esus never cast it off. But He laid aside the form pe God, the 
 * splendour of divinity, and not the nature of it—the glory af the 
 Godhead, and not the essence of it. Those who hold that the 
 passage refers to Christ in his incarnate state, regard “the form 
 of God” in various ways—some, like De Wette, referring it to 
 the glory of the Godhead potentially (potentié) in Himself; 
 others, like Grotius, finding it in His miracles; or, like Wet- 
 stein, in His transfiguration; or as many others, generally in 
 His sayings and doings. At the same time, while we think 
 that the apostle selects with special care the term μορφή, as 
 signifying something different from nature, we must hold that 
 no one can be in the form of God without being of the nature 
 of God, the exhibition of the form implying the possession 
 of the essence. Of Him who was in the form of God, it is 
 now predicated— 
 
 οὐχ ἁρπωγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ evar ica Θεῷ. The phrase τὸ 
 εἶναι ica Θεῷ is peculiar, and as τό indicates, it expresses 
 a united idea. Instead of the adverb ἴσως, the neuter 
 singular and plural, are frequently used. Passow, sub voce. 
 Winer, ὃ 27, 8. Many instances occur in the Septuagint. 
 The case is common with other words, as πάντα, πολλά. 
 Matthiae, ὃ 443, ὁ. It is, therefore, too rigid in Matthies to 
 take ica as denoting equal in the manifoldness of essence. It 
 needs not κατά to be supplied, as some grammatical pedants 
 contended, for adverbs of measure and degree have, with the 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 103, 
 
 verb of existence, the sense of predicates—Bernhardy, p. 337 ; 
 John v. 18; Homer, Odyssey, x. 303—ica θεοῖς. The idea 
 expressed by the adverb is not resemblance, but sameness of 
 quantity or measure; and so Pye Smith renders the clause— 
 “the being on a parity with God.” Tertullian employs the 
 phrase pariari Deo! What this parity is, and what its 
 relation is to the μορφὴ Θεοῦ, we shall afterwards consider. 
 The phrase τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ, is the object to the verb 
 ἡγήσατω, while ἁρπαγμόν, as predicate, is emphatic from its 
 position. 
 
 The meaning of this clause has excited no little inquiry, 
 and principally with regard to dp7ayyos. The term is of 
 rare occurrence, and therefore its meaning cannot be deter- 
 mined beyond dispute. ‘To theorize upon its formation does 
 not fully satisfy; for the meanings, abstract and concrete, 
 respectively attached to nouns ending in wos and wa, pass 
 into one another—(Buttmann, ὃ 119, 2, 11)—the first, accord- 
 ing to Kiihner, § 370, embodying the intransitive notion of 
 the verb—the act of seizure; and the second expressing the 
 result of its transitive notion—the thing seized. Such varia- 
 tions are seen in διωγμός, δίωγμα; φωτισμός, φώτισμα; βαπ- 
 τισμός, βάπτισμα; βδελυγμός, βδέλυγμα ; ὀνειδισμός, ὀνεί- 
 δισμα, while θεσμός, χαχμός, χρησμός, and other terms, have 
 the meaning of a word ending in wa.? So that from the mere 
 form of the uncommon substantive little definite can be gleaned. 
 Nor can we gather much from its use. It occurs nowhere 
 else in the New Testament, and, so far as known, only in two 
 other places among Greek authors, where it is not professedly 
 a quotation from this verse. The first is an ugly quotation 
 from a tract ascribed to Plutarch, where the word might be 
 rendered “rape.”? 'The other is from Cyril of Alexandria, in 
 a passage where he says, ‘‘ The angels declined Lot’s invita- 
 tion; and had the patriarch been a churl, he would not have 
 pressed them further, but would have thought it fortunate 
 that they declined.” But the good and generous host urged 
 
 1 Adver. Mare. v. 20, &c.; Opera, vol. iii. p. 334, Ed. Oehler, Lipsiae, 1854. 
 
 2 Eustathius on Homer says—Q: δὲ ξεσμὸς, Howe, οὕτω δεσμὸς, δέσμα. “Ῥωχμοὸς δὲ καὶ 
 ῥῆγμα ταῦτα ἐστὶν, ὡς καὶ βρεχμὸς καὶ βεέχμα, καὶ πλεχμὸς καὶ πλέχμα. ὙῈΑΚοΒοΙα, Sylva 
 Crit., Pars iii. p. 112. 
 
 Se ᾿ oh 4 ; : 
 3 Καὶ τοὺς μὲν Θήβησι καὶ τοὺς "Ἤλιδι φευκτέον ἔρωτας καὶ τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον ἁρπαγ- 
 
 μόν.---1)6 Lib. Educat., Opera Mor., vol. 1., p. 41. Ed. Wyttenbach. 
 
104 PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 
 
 them the more, and “ did not out of a listless and imbecile 
 soul make their declinature a catch, or thing to be caught at 
 —aptraypyov.”+ The word has not the same meaning in these 
 two places. In the first quotation, it signifies an action, which 
 Strabo explains by ἁρπαγή ; and, like the English translation 
 we haye already given of it, and which is in fact derived from 
 it, it denotes a crime named from the force or violence employed 
 in connection with it. In the second instance, it points out 
 ideally something which an inhospitable and niggardly soul 
 would lay hold of; viz., that if one declines an invitation, you 
 reckon his denial something you gladly seize on as a pretext 
 for dropping the subject.. Therefore the train of thought, 
 connection, and logical dependence, must chiefly guide us 
 to the meaning of the term. The sense hinges very much, as 
 Pye Smith technically puts it, on the solution of the question, 
 where the protasis is supposed to end, and the apodosis to 
 begin. 
 
 I. Many join the two clauses closely, as if the one 
 explained or strengthened the other, or were a species of 
 deduction from it. The noun is then taken in an active sense 
 —“and did not think it robbery or a seizure to be equal with 
 God.” But those who hold this general view, hold it with 
 many subordinate differences. 
 
 1. Some take the word in the plain and easy sense—of a 
 thing not one’s own—He did not regard equality with God as 
 a possession not His by right, did not look upon it in any 
 sense as a usurpation. This has been a common exegesis, as 
 may be seen in Chrysostom, Theophylact, icumenius, Augus- 
 tine, Pelagius, Beza, Calvin, Mynster, Estius, and many others. 
 There are shades of distinction, again, among such as hold 
 this view, but the general meaning with them all is, that 
 Jesus, in personating God, in assuming His name or receiving 
 His worship, deemed Himself guilty of no usurpation, or did 
 not in any sense take what was not His own, for He was really 
 and properly God.? Some forms of this exposition are tinged 
 more or less with inferential admixtures. Thus— 
 
 1 "Ὃ δὴ καὶ συνεὶς ὁ δίκαιος μειζόνος κατεβιάφετο, καὶ οὐχ ἀφπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς &dga- 
 
 Opera, vol. i. Pp. 2, 25. 
 2 Thus Augustine—Natura quippe illi fuerat Dei aequalitas, non rapina 
 
 
 
 νοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο φρενός. 
 
 quia non alienum arbitratus est esse quod natus est, sed tamen quamvis aequalitatem 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 105 
 
 2. If one obtain booty, he glories in it, boasts of it, or 
 makes a show of it. So some present this idea—He did not 
 make a show of His equality with God. 
 
 Such generally is the notion of Luther, Grotius, Meric, 
 Casaubon, Osiander, Piscator, Wolf, Cameron, Calovius, Krebs, 
 Rosenmiiller, Heinrich, Flatt, and Rheinwald.t. Their main 
 idea is—that Jesus on earth did not revel in His divinity, 
 but vailed it, did not make an ostentatious display of His 
 Godhead, but concealed it. But in the opinion of many, not 
 all who hold it, this exegesis is often bound up with a mean- 
 ing given to μορφὴ Θεοῦ which we have already considered, 
 and assigned reasons for rejecting—to wit that the phrase, 
 “form of God,” describes the incarnate Jesus, and it is so far 
 consistent with itself in giving ἁρπαγμός the sense we have 
 alluded to. 
 
 3. Again, if a person have usurped a thing, he grasps it 
 very closely, the secret consciousness of his want of right not 
 allowing him to abandon it fora moment. This signification 
 therefore is assigned—He would not retain equality with God, 
 as arobber does his prey. Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, 
 Matthies, Kesler, Hoelemann, and Usteri hold this notion. 
 The views of these critics differ, indeed, in colouring, though 
 we need not for our present purpose distinguish them.? 
 
 Dei non fuerit arbitratus alienam, sed suam, semetipsum exinanivit. Contra Max. Lib. 
 i. 4, p. 1050, vol. viii. ; Opera, Parisiis, 1837. Or, again, in his De Symbolo—Non 
 rapuit, quia naturaliter habuit. P. 935, vol. vi.; Opera, do, So also Beza—WNon 
 ignoravit, se in ea re nullam injuriam cuiquam facere, sed suo jure uti, nihilominus 
 tamen quasi suo jure cessit; similarly Calvin—Sciebat sibi jus et fas esse non in carne 
 humili apparere, nihilominus jure suo cessit. Estius, too—Non existimavit aequalita- 
 tem Dei sibi esse rapinam, hoc est, rem alienam et ex rapto usurpatam, ut propter hoc 
 tantopere semet humiliaverit . . quasi dicat, Non haec est causa humilitatis Christi, 
 quippe qui non usurpative, sed vere Deus esset. Calvin, however, gives ἡγησάτο a 
 subjunctive meaning, ἄν being understood; as if the sense were—non fuisset injuria, 
 si aequalis Deo apparuisset. This is not much better than the suggestion of 
 Michaelis, that ὑπάρχων is or may be the genitive plural of draeyés. 
 
 1 Thus Cameron, in his Myrothecium, p. 214—Optime sic Gallice vertas, Il ne fit 
 point de triomphe, de ce qwil était égal ἃ Dieu; hoc est, non jactavit, non visus est 
 gloriari et insolescere. Thus, too, Pelagius—Quod erat, humilitate celavit, dans nobis 
 exemplum, ne in his gloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus. 
 
 2 Chrysostom’s illustration is—‘t Whatever a man robs and seizes contrary to 
 his right, he dares not lay aside. He who possesses a dignity which is natural to 
 him, fears not to descend from that dignity ;” and then he adds—“t What do we 
 say then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from His right, for He did 
 
106 PHILIPPIANS IL. 6. 
 
 But none of these opinions commend themselves, for though 
 they give ἁρπαγμός the usual meaning of nouns ending in 
 μος, still the philology is no firm ground of explanation. Itis 
 vain to refer to the uses of ἁρπάζω, as in the words ascribed 
 by Chrysostom to Arius—ovy ἥρπασε, and to the instances of 
 ἁρπάγμα in later writers. Heliodorus often uses it in the 
 sense of a thing to be caught at, and once connects it with 
 the verb ἡγεῖται. Lib. vii. § 20. Besides, these interpreta- 
 tions not only make the two clauses virtually the same in 
 meaning, but they destroy the parallel between the precept 
 given, and this example adduced in commendation of it. 
 The primary object of the apostle is not to tell how great 
 Christ was by nature, and how low He became, though in 
 his illustration he has done so; but to show how He looked 
 to the things of others, or in what state of mind He descended 
 to the earth. That purpose is so far missed in the previous 
 exegesis. We therefore regard the apodosis as commencing 
 with the clause under review. It begins the tale of His humi- 
 liation by referring to the state of mind which led to it; and 
 we look on the clause as having the prime emphasis laid upon 
 it, as virtually asserting that He did not regard His own things, 
 and as saying, in connection with the preceding phrase, what 
 His own things were, and what was His feeling towards them. 
 Though the form of God was His, He did not regard it with 
 a selfish and exclusive attachment, but He laid it aside and 
 became man. So that we agree with those who give the word 
 that signification in which it is used by Cyril in the sentence 
 already quoted in reference to Lot. Therefore— 
 
 II. Not a few give ἁρπωγμός this meaning—a seizure, or 
 thing to be snatched at; or, as Miiller renders it—“ non rem 
 not regard his Deity as a matter of robbery. He was not afraid that any one 
 should strip Him of that nature or that right, when He laid it aside, being assured 
 that He should resume it. . . He hid it, judging that He was not degraded by 
 so doing, wherefore the apostle says not, ‘ He seized not,’ but He did not reckon it 
 a seizure, because He possessed not that estate by robbery, but by nature—as some- 
 thing not given Him, but permanent and safe.” “Ὅταν ἁςπάσῃ τις καὶ παξὰ τὸ προςῆ- 
 nov λαβῆ, τοῦτο ἀποθέσθαι οὐ τολμό, δεδοικὼς μὴ ἀπολεῖται, μὴ ἐκπέσῃ" ἀλλὰ διὰ παντὸς αὐτὸ 
 “ατέχει. ὁ μέντοι φυσικόν τι ἔχων ἀξίωμα, οὐ δέδοικε καταβῆναι ἀπ’ ἐκείνου τοῦ ἀξιώματος. Τί 
 οὖν φησί; ὅτι ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ids οὐκ ἐφοβήθη καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀξιώματος" οὐ γὰς ἁςταγμὸν ἡγή- 
 σατο τὴν θεότητα, οὐδὲ ἐδεδοίκει μή τις αὐτὸν ἀφέληται τὴν φύσιν ἢ τὸ ἀξίωμα" διὸ καὶ ἔκοψεν, 
 
 4 ᾿ ~ . “υ ~ = , Ἂ 
 οὐδὲν ἡγούμενος ἐλαττοῦσθαι ἀπὸ τούτου. διὰ τοῦτο, οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐχ ἥφρπασεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἁςπαγμεὸν 
 Η͂ , > : Εν tie : ΄ a. ‘ < 
 
 ἡγήσατο. οὐχ ἁςπάσας εἶχεν τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἀλλὰ φυσικὴν, οὐ δεδομένην ἀλλὰ μόνιμον καὶ ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ, 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 107 
 
 sibi arripiendam et usurpandam indicavit.”. This view is 
 held by Musculus, Elsner, Bengel, Am Ende, Storr, Keil, 
 Stein, Schrader, Rilliet, De Wette, Beelen, Bisping, Wiesin- 
 ger, Liinemann, Philippi, Miiller, Briickner, and others. 
 Though these writers agree in so understanding the noun, 
 they differ greatly among themselves as to what is to be 
 understood by τὸ εἶναι ica Θεῷ, for the views of many of them 
 are modified by referring the passage simply to Christ as 
 incarnate and on earth. Some regard it as a possession He 
 had, but did not use; others, as something He had not, yet 
 did not aspire to. We have already said, the phrase means 
 —““the being on a parity with God,” a parity possessed in His 
 pre-incarnate state. Those who apply the term, “form of God” 
 to Jesus incarnate, consistently regard this phrase as referring 
 to His abode on earth. While he was among men, lowly 
 and despised, yet He did not aspire to an equality with God, 
 but continued still in the form of a servant. Bengel under- 
 stands the reference thus—Fsse pariter Deo dicit plenitudinem 
 et altitudinem. Van Hengel thus takes it—Hoce vero, vehemen- 
 ter dubito an aliter explicari possit quam aequali modo vivere, 
 quo vivit Deus, and the meaning is thus given further and 
 
 
 
 fully by him—Christus hac in terra, quanquam poterat, glori- 
 osus esse noluit. Rilliet’s notion is somewhat peculiar. He 
 supposes that the element of equality to God is His invisi- 
 bility, which the apostle signalizes as the distinctive charac- 
 teristic of the Father—cette invisibilité Christ y a renoncé au 
 liew de la vie évdvabéros—immanent, il a accepté Vexistence 
 mpopopixos—manifestée. His interpretation proceeds upon a 
 wrong idea of μορφή, and does not harmonize with the context. 
 For “form” implies of itself visibility or splendour, and this was 
 parted with. Nay more, the Second Person of the Trinity had, 
 as the Angel of the Covenant, been often patent to the senses, 
 prior to the incarnation. Stein and De Wette understand 
 the phrase of the divine honour, a meaning which we reject 
 as limited and insufficient. We do not regard the two phrases, 
 “form of God,” and “equal with God,” as identical in meaning, 
 for then there needed no such repetition; though we cannot ven- 
 ture to say with van Hengel, that in such a case a simple τοῦτο 
 would have been sufficient. Meyer pleads for the sameness of 
 
108 PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 
 
 
 
 the two statements—at least with this distinction, that the first 
 refers to Christ as to His appearance, and the second as to His 
 essence—Lirscheinungs-Form- Wesen. Wiesinger’s view is not 
 very different—/forma Det, conditio divina, quum in forma Det 
 esset, non arripiendum οὐδὲ duxit conditione divina uti. Our view 
 is somewhat different from any of these, and still, as we think, 
 more in accordance with the spirit of the context. The apostle 
 affirms that Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state, was “in the form 
 of God ;” and adds, that He thought it not a seizure, or a thing 
 to be snatched at, to be on a parity with God, but emptied 
 Himself. Now, it seems to us very plain that the parity 
 referred to is not parity in the abstract, or im anything not 
 found in the paragraph, but parity in possession of this form 
 of God. He was in the form of God, and did not think it a 
 thing to be eagerly laid hold of to be equal with God in 
 having or exhibiting this form. The apostle adds, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἑαυτὸν éxévwcev— but emptied himself,” and the clause is in 
 broad and decided contrast with ἁρπαωγμὸν οὐχ ἡγήσατο τὸ 
 εἶναι ica τῷ Θεῷ. That is to say, the one clause describes the 
 result of the other. It was because He did not think it a 
 seizure to be equal with God, that He emptied Himself. And 
 of what did He empty Himself, but of this Form? He was not 
 anxious to be ever on a parity with God in possessing it, and 
 therefore He divested Himself of it. He did not look simply 
 to His own things—the glories of the Godhead ; but He looked’ 
 to the things of others, and therefore descended to humanity 
 and death. His heart was not so set upon His glory, that 
 He would not appear at any time without it. There was 
 something which He coveted more—somewhat which He felt 
 to be truly a ἁρπαγμός, and that was the redemption of a 
 fallen world by His self-abasement and death. Or, to speak 
 after the manner of men, two things were present to His mind 
 —either continuance in the form of God, and being always 
 equal with God, but allowing humanity to perish in its guilt; 
 or vailing this form and foregoing this equality for a season, 
 and delivering, by His condescension and agony, the fallen 
 progeny of Adam. He chose the latter, or gave it the prefer- 
 ence, and therefore “humbled Himself, and became obedient 
 unto death.” From His possession of this “mind,” and in 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 109 
 
 indescribable generosity He looked at the things of others, 
 and descended with His splendour eclipsed—appeared not as 
 a God in glory, but clothed in flesh; not in royal robes, but 
 in the dress of a village youth; not as Deity in fire, but a 
 man in tears; not in a palace, but in a manger; not with the 
 thunderbolt in His hand, but with the hatchet and hammer of 
 a Galilean mechanic. And in this way He gave the church 
 an example of that self-abnegation and kindness which the 
 apostle has been inculcating, and which the Lord’s career is 
 adduced to illustrate and confirm. 
 
 The view of Meyer, followed so far by Alford, and which 
 strives to keep that meaning of ἁρπαγμός which its formation 
 indicates, cannot be borne out. He explains it as—ein Ver- 
 hdltniss des Beutemachens—He did not regard equality with God 
 to be such a relation as is implied in the seizure of a prey, or 
 of a possession which belonged to others. Meyer might object 
 to some things in Wiesinger’s inferential expansion of his 
 view, but he says, himself, that this clause, corresponding to 
 the previous one— looking not each at his own things ’— 
 describes what Christ’s own things were—His equality with 
 God. But whom would Christ have robbed, if, instead of 
 emptying Himself, He had retained equality with God? 
 Without unduly pressing Wiesinger’s question as to the 
 parties whom such a ἁρπαωγμός would have emptied or robbed, 
 could it have taken place, it may be replied that the idea is 
 out of unison with the course of thought, and that the exegesis ὦ 
 based upon it omits the turning point of the illustration—the 
 mind that was in Christ Jesus—and places the idea of 
 “others” in a totally different relationship from that expres- 
 sed in verse 5th. 
 
 The exposition of Liinemann and Briickner is also incorrect. 
 They understand in this clause a reference to that κυριότης 
 which God possesses, and which, though Christ was in God’s 
 form, He did not wish to possess, save in the way of obedience 
 and death, while He might have chosen otherwise. This 
 notion is founded upon a supposition as inadmissible as that 
 which Turnbull? introduces—‘“ did not meditate a usurpation 
 to be equal with God;” “ that is, did not avail Himself of His 
 
 1 Translation of Paul’s Epistles, in oc. 
 
110 PHILIPPIANS II. 6. 
 
 original character, and attempt a sole theocracy for His own 
 exaltation.”” Really such a supposition borders on profanity 
 —to say of Jesus, that He did not pervert His divinity to 
 accomplish selfish ends in a spirit of rivalry with God. 
 Bretschneider, too, sub voce, gives this explanation—Christ 
 did not deem equality with God a thing to’ be seized on οὐ 
 et astutid, but desired rather to merit the honour by His 
 obedience unto the death. But the objections to these views 
 is, that parity with God is not something to which Christ has 
 been raised as the reward of His obedience, but something 
 which He originally possessed as one of His own things, 
 which He. did not so cherish as to exclude all regard to the 
 things of others. The error of Arius, so sharply rebuked by 
 Chrysostom, led him to explain the clause of Christ as Θεὸς 
 ἐλάττων---ἃ lesser God, who did not aspire to equality with 
 God τῷ weyako—“ with God the Great, who was greater than 
 He.” The Greek father asks, in triumph, “is there then a 
 ereat and a less God? And do ye introduce the doctrines of 
 the heathens intothe church? . . . If He were little, how 
 could He be God? If man is not greater or less, but his nature 
 is one, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, 
 how can there be a less or a greater God, who is not of that 
 same nature.”! Socinian views are lower still. Thus, in the 
 notes to the Improved Version, we are told that—“ being in the 
 form of God, means being invested with extraordinary divine 
 powers ;”” and of the second clause, it is said— the meaning 
 is, He did not. make an ostentatious display of His miraculous 
 powers. Or if it should be translated with the public version, 
 He thought it not robbery to be as God, the sense would be, 
 He did not regard it as an act of injustice to exert upon 
 proper occasions His miraculous powers.” One knows not 
 how to characterize the weakness and perversity of such 
 misinterpretation. Slichting says—Propterea nec ob tantam 
 divinitatem ac dignitatem suam superbut, nec eam longius 
 
 
 
 1 Οὐ φησὶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι Θεὸς ὧν ἐλάττων, οὐχ ἥρπασε τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῶ τῷ μεγάλῳ καὶ μεΐξονι. 
 μικρὸς καὶ μέγας Θεὸς ἔνι; καὶ τὰ ᾿Ελληνικὰ τοῖς τῆς ἐκκλησίας δόγμασιν ἐπεισάγετε; μέγας 
 γὰρ καὶ μικρὸς παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς Θεός. εἰ δὲ καὶ rag’ ὑμῖν, οὐκ οἵδα: παεὰ μὲν γὰρ ταῖς γραφαῖς, οὐδα- 
 μοῦ εὑρήσεις" ἀλλὰ μέγαν μὲν πανταχοῦ, μικρὸν δὲ οὐδαμοῦ. εἰ γὰ καὶ usneds, πῶς Θεός ; εἰ 
 μικρὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος, καὶ μέγας: ἀλλὰ μία φύσις" καὶ εἴ τι οὐκ ἔστι τῆς φύσεως ταύτης τῆς 
 wines οὐκ ἄνθρωπος: πῶς ἂν εἴη μικρὸς Θεὸς καὶ wives; εἰ τοίνυν ὁ Πατὴς μέγας, καὶ Θεός: ὁ μὴ 
 
 ὧν ἐκείνης τῆς φύσεως, οὐ Θεός. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 7. 111 
 
 ac diutius retinuit quam auctor et dator illius vellet, sed ad 
 ejus nutum ac voluntatem protinus ed se abdicavit. But 
 every good man is expected to resign a gift, when God 
 pleases; and in this clause, it is Christ’s own generosity, not 
 His submission to any divine mandate, which the apostle is 
 commending, and holding up to the imitation of the Philip- 
 pian church. The contrast is now brought out— 
 
 (Ver. 7.) ᾿Αλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε. The pronoun is placed em- 
 phatically, but the meaning of this clause is of course shaped or 
 modified by the view which expositors have taken of the preced- 
 ing clauses. The verb κενόω is literally to make empty, or bring 
 about that which κενός represents—exinanivit, as in the Vul- 
 gate. It does not vaguely mean, as Grotius and others render, 
 He became poor, or made Himself poor, or He led a poor life— 
 Libenter duxit vitam inopem—for the image is not in harmony 
 with the preceding clauses. Those who maintain that Christ 
 is described here only in His historical state, are driven to 
 such an interpretation. ‘Thus, Tittmann and Keil, followed 
 by van Hengel, give it generally—sed semet ipse depressit—a 
 meaning which the word does not bear, and which anticipates 
 the subsequent ἐταπείνωσεν. De Wette refers the phrase not 
 to the first, but the second preceding clause, and understands 
 it as denoting something He might have had, but did not 
 actually possess. But we must not forget, that in his opinion, 
 the reference is to the earthly existence of Christ, and that 
 equality with God means divine honour. Miiller holds a 
 similar view. When he puts the question, “‘ of what did Jesus 
 despoil Himself?” He replies, “ not of the form of God, for 
 He neither did nor could lay aside the divine nature; but he 
 laid aside equality with God.” Now this confusion proceeds 
 from a previous error—a mistaken idea of the meaning of 
 popoyj—for we have shown that this noun does not signify 
 nature, but external and distinctive aspect, or that by which 
 nature displays itself ~The same confusion of thought mars 
 the exegesis of Ellicott, and for the same reason, that he 
 blends the idea of the form of God too much with that of the 
 nature of God, which it implies, but from which it is quite dis- 
 tinct. When we put the question, “of what did He empty 
 Himself?” our reply at once7is, “of the form of God >” and 
 
112 PHILIPPIANS II. 7. 
 
 if it be asked why He did so? the apostle also answers, because 
 He thought it no object of desire, in comparison with man’s 
 salvation, to be equal with God, or to be in the possession of 
 this form. When He came to earth, He divested Himself of 
 His glory. There was an occasional gleam, as one may still 
 recognize the sun even when obscured by a cloud. If we go 
 back to the Old Testament, and contemplate the “ form of 
 God,” as there pourtrayed, then keeping still to the sacred 
 imagery employed, we might in all reverence add the follow- 
 ing sentences:—Christ came not in that Majesty which He 
 possessed, and by which the old world had been dazzled. 
 No troops of angels girt Him about; nature did not do Him 
 homage as God; the voice of the seven thunders was silent ; 
 the “wings of the wind” were collapsed and motionless; and 
 the “coals of fire’? were quenched. Darkness was not His 
 pavilion; Lebanon did not tremble, nor was Jordan: driven 
 back. The lamps of the sky were not trimmed to honour the 
 night in which this “man-child was born into the world.” 
 Tt was not Jehovah, ‘‘as He bowed the heavens and came 
 down,” but Jesus made of a woman, and cradled in a 
 manger. It was in short a birth, not a theophany. But 
 Jesus was originally in the form of God, and might have 
 appeared in the world with the appalling majesty of Sinai; 
 or as when the psalmist described Him robed in cloud, storm, 
 and fire-mist, and guarded by a thick spray of burning coals ; 
 or as when Habbakuk sublimely sings of Him heralded by 
 the pestilence, the everlasting mountains scattered, and the 
 perpetual hills bowing before Him; or as when He appeared 
 transfigured, His face as the sun, and His raiment as the 
 light. Still further, the apostle says of Him— 
 
 μορφὴν δούλου AaBov—“ having taken the form of a 
 servant.’ The participle points out the mode in which this 
 self-emptying was accomplished, and the mode indicates also 
 the means. Kiihner, § 668. The act expressed by the aorist 
 participle seems coincident in time with that denoted by the 
 verb. Bernhardy, p. 383; Stallbaum Phaedo, 62,d. When 
 the process of assuming a servant’s form was completed, that 
 of self-divestment was completed too. He exchanged the 
 form of God for the form οἵ ἃ servant. The two phrases, 
 
PHILIPFIANS II. 7. 118 
 
 ψορφὴ Θεοῦ and μορφὴ δούλου, are, therefore, in pointed 
 contrast. Ifthe “form of God” signify the external aspect or 
 distinctive characteristics of God, the “form of a servant” will 
 signify the external aspect or distinctive characteristics of a 
 servant. 
 
 The phrase is not to be taken as expressing either the 
 humility or sorrow of Christ’s life, as Piseator, Heinrichs, and 
 Hoelemann emphasize it. The general meaning is—He 
 bore about Him the marks of servitude. The service re- 
 ferred to is service to God; His uniform declaration being 
 —that He came to do His Father’s will. But service which 
 was primarily offered to God, was also in itself of benefit to 
 man, intended for him and done for him. Isaiah 111. 13, 15; 
 Mat. xx. 28; Luke xxii. 27; Rom. xv. 8. The servant of the 
 Father condescended to minister to man; and Jesus, girt with 
 a towel, and laving the water on Peteyr’s feet, is seen truly in 
 “the form of a servant.” Some, however, lay too much 
 stress on His service, as being almost wholly done to men, 
 while Meyer, Wiesinger, van Hengel, Miiller, and Baum- 
 garten-Crusius hold to the idea of exclusive divine service. 
 But in obeying God, He laboured for men. He who might 
 have been served upon the throne, stood before it serving. 
 Such is the striking contrast which the apostle brings out. 
 Chrysostom remarks on the use of the two participles—zept 
 τῆς θεότητος, ὑπῆρχε, περὶ δὲ THs ἀνθρωπότητος, ἔλαβεν--- 
 
 ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων yevouevos— being made in the like- 
 nessofmen.” Meyer prefers, “ having made His appearance ”’ 
 —referring for examples to Mark i. 4, and Memorab. iii, 3, 6. 
 This clause points out how the form of a servant was assumed, 
 though there be no connecting particle. Kiihner, § 676 ; Stuart, 
 § 188. Christ became a servant in becoming man. It is 
 pressing the participle too much to give it, with Rilliet, the 
 strict sense of being born—yiveo@at, a le sens de naitre ; nor 
 does it serve any purpose, with the same author and Rhein- 
 wald, to resolve the phrase into—éovos avOp@rous—though 
 abstract nouns with a preposition are frequent in Hellenistic 
 Greek. Meyer would take ἐν in the sense of angethanseins— 
 that is, to be in, as one is in his clothes, to be clothed in; a 
 mere refinement. ᾿Ανθρώπων is plural, “ approaching,” as 
 
 H 
 
114 PHILIPPIANS II. 7. 
 
 Robinson says, ‘ to the nature of an adjective,” and signify- 
 ing men generally. Jesus had the likeness of men, or: 
 appeared as men usually appear, was in no way as a man 
 distinguished from men. But the use of such a noun as 
 ὁμοίωμα may imply, as has been often said, that still He was 
 different from other men. He was not identical in all respects 
 with other men. As Meyer says, He was not purus putus 
 homo ; or, as Theophylact said before him, He was not ψιλὸς 
 ἄνθρωπος. He was Divinity incarnate—the Word made 
 flesh. The superhuman was personally allied to the human 
 —the higher nature was united to His manhood. Whether 
 the adjuncts of humanity are referred to in the ὁμοίωμα, may 
 be a question. It is probable that all the ills that characterize 
 humanity generally may be included; for had Christ markedly 
 wanted any of its common characteristics, His likeness to man 
 would have been lessened in proportion. His sinlessness, 
 indeed, did not seem to impress his contemporaries, for they 
 called Him wine-bibber, sabbath-breaker, blasphemer, demo- 
 niac, and rebel. But He shared in the common lot of men, 
 and never wrought a miracle to exempt Himself from it. 
 When hungry, He would not change the stones into bread ; 
 when wearied, He lay down on the well of Jacob; when faint 
 on the cross He exclaimed, “I thirst.” But the mere phrase 
 will not of itself express that scorn, contempt, ignominy, and 
 sorrow which threw their shadow over the Saviour’s historical 
 career. There is, however, something more in the words than 
 van Hengel deduces—Christum quamquam Dei imaginem re- 
 ferret, Deique filius esset, se hominum tamen instar mandatis ejus 
 subjecisse. 
 
 The apostle pauses, as if for a moment, in his rapid 
 accumulation. He had described Christ as. being in the 
 form of God, as not regarding equality with God as a seizure, 
 and, therefore, as emptying Himself, having taken upon Him 
 the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 
 This is, however, only the first portion of the representation 
 —Christ’s assumption of a serving humanity, but the picture 
 is not complete. From heaven to earth He descended by 
 emptying Himself; but after being on earth, He humbled 
 Himself by His obedience to the death. Or He laid aside the 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 8. 115 
 
 form of God, and took that of a servant ; but in that servant’s 
 form He still abased Himself even to the cross. The transition 
 from the one depth to the yet lower depth is marked by καὶ 
 evpeJeis—the subject is taken up at this point—such a resump- 
 tion imparting freshness and emphasis. ΤῸ make the next 
 clause the concluding one of the description, while the finishing 
 account would then begin abruptly by the verb ἐταπείνωσεν, 
 is bald and disjointed. 
 
 (Ver. 8.) Kat σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς dvOpmmos— And having 
 been found in fashion as a man.” Winer, § 31, 6. The noun 
 σχῆμα, from σχεῖν---ἔχειν, denotes the way in which one 
 holds limself. It sometimes signifies dress—so important in 
 one’s tout-ensemble—but here it comprehends more, namely, 
 that complex variety of things which, taken together, make 
 up a man’s aspect and bearing. The Syriac translator had no 
 equivalent term, and therefore he has introduced the Greek 
 word into his version. It carries neither the notion of dignity, 
 nor of its opposite. Nor is it in any case redundant, as some 
 have conjectured. Examples of its use are given by Raphelius 
 and Elsner. Passow sub voce. But it is not synonymous with 
 the previous μορφή and ὁμοίωμα. Perhaps, as to use, the dis- 
 tinction is, that the first is the more comprehensive ; the second 
 is modal; while the third still further illustrates and confirms. 
 The “form of a servant” does not of itself imply humanity, 
 while the “likeness of men” is only fully evinced by the outer 
 manifestations of this σχῆμα. If He have the σχῆμα, you 
 infer the ὁμοίωμα; and both éxplain the μορφὴ δούλου. Or μορφὴ 
 δούλου is in direct contrast with μορφὴ Θεοῦ; ὁμοίωμα ἀνθρώ- 
 mov has in it an oblique reference to ica Θεῷ, while the clause 
 ἐν σχήματι ὡς ἄνθρωπος depicts the Saviour as He was seen 
 to be, when the form of a servant and the likeness of men 
 could be predicated of Him with equal truth. There is no 
 need whatever to take the particle ὡς as representing the 
 Hebrew Caph veritatis, though some of the older commen- 
 tators do so. It is simply the adverb of manner. The 
 participle εὕρεθεις is not identical with ὦν, as Elsner, Keil, 
 and Rheinwald regard it, for it preserves its own significa- 
 tion. Herodian 11. 12; Luke xvii. 18; Rom. vii. 10; Gal. ii. 
 17; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Peter 11. 22. This verb, and the verb 
 
116 PHILIPPIANS II. 8. 
 
 of simple existence, differ as fully as the English phrases 
 —to be, and to be found to be. Nor is there any warrant for 
 giving to ἄνθρωπος, other than its usual and natural significa- 
 tion. The phrase is neither ows, “as the first man,” with 
 Grotius; nor as a man vile and despised, according to others. 
 Christ was fully ascertained to be a man. All about Hin, 
 His form and fashion, proclaimed it. He was seen to possess 
 a man’s shape and symmetry, to be endowed with a man’s 
 organs, senses, and instincts, to use a man’s food and apparel, 
 and to speak, think, act, and walk, like the other partakers of 
 flesh and blood around him. He showed Himself possessed 
 of a true body and a rational soul—that body no phantom or 
 disguise, but an organism like that of all men born of woman, 
 and within it a soul which grew in wisdom as His body grew 
 in stature, being subject to human emotions, and possessed of 
 the usual powers of thought and will. He was “found in 
 fashion as ἃ man”’ by those who lived with Him, who saw Him 
 in all aspects, and in every variety of attitude and circumstance ; 
 —his mother and kinsmen; his fellow-villagers and friends; 
 his disciples and followers; his enemies and executioners. 
 
 Another verb is now used by the apostle, which is not to 
 be confounded in meaning or application with the preceding 
 ἐκένωσεν--- 
 
 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτόν---“ He humbled Himself.” The posi- 
 tion of the verb shows that the emphasis is laid upon the 
 action it represents. In the phrase ἑαυτὸν éxévace, the weight, 
 as Meyer remarks, is laid on the reflexive reference of the act, 
 but here on the reflexive act itself. That is to say, in the 
 first case, when the self-emptying is described, the idea of 
 “ Self” predominates, for that “ Self” possessed God’s form 
 and was on a parity with Him; whereas, in the latter case, 
 His glory being vailed in human nature, it is the act of humi- 
 liation which arrests the attention: His person underwent no 
 further change, but He stooped to extreme obedience and 
 death. We cannot agree in the opinion of Meyer, that the 
 two verbs stand in a climactic relation, nor can we say with 
 Keil, that they are synonymous, and surely the paraphrase of 
 van Hengel comes short of the full import—et cwm habitu suo 
 deprehenderetur, ut homo quilibet, Det minister esse, submisse 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 8. 117 
 
 se gessit, Nor can we say with Wiesinger, that ἐταπείνωσεν 
 denotes the humiliation which ἐκένωσεν already presupposes. 
 We rather regard the words as quite distinct in reference. By 
 ~ the first verb, ἐκένωσεν, is described the process by which He 
 became man, or laid aside God’s form and took upon Him a 
 servant’s—in other words, the process by which Divinity be- 
 came incarnate; but in the second, ἐταπείνωσεν, is described 
 a further act, after the incarnation and dwelling on our world 
 had taken place—something which He did after being in 
 man’s nature. Κένωσις is predicated of Him as being in the 
 form of God, but ταπείνωσις of Him in the likeness and 
 fashion of man. ‘He emptied Himself” in becoming man, but 
 as man “ He humbled Himself.” The reference in this verb is 
 therefore to something posterior to the action implied in éxé- 
 vecev. Nor is there a climax in this interpretation, for the 
 descent from the throne to the manger is infinitely greater 
 than the step from the manger to the cross. . The self-empty- 
 ing might have existed without this humiliation, for there 
 might have been life, humanity, and service without it. 
 
 We do not separate γενόμενος ὑπήκοος from the verb éra- 
 πείνωσεν, the participle expressing the mode in which this 
 self-humiliation was exemplified ; but we connect them with 
 the words μέχρι θανάτου, and do not with Bengel and van 
 Hengel join these last terms to the verb ἐταπείνωσεν. The 
 meaning is not, He humbled Himself unto death, but “He 
 humbled Himself having become, or in that He became, obe- 
 dient unto death.” The preposition μέχρι we regard as one 
 of degree and not of time. 2 Tim. 11.9; Heb. xii. 4. That 
 death is further and sharply pointed out as indeed the death 
 of the cross— 
 
 μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ cravpov—“ unto death, the death, 
 ay, of the cross.’ The particle δὲ, from such a position and 
 use, with a repeated word, makes its clause intensive. Winer, 
 § ὅθ, 7, Ὁ; Hartung, i. 168-169. His obedience reached to 
 the point of death, and not only so, but to show its depth and 
 submissiveness, it reached to the most painful and shameful of 
 deaths—the death of the cross. Verily, in doing so, He hum- 
 bled Himself. 
 
 In the term ὑπήκοος is implied some one to whom obedience 
 
118 PHILIPPIANS II. 8. 
 
 is rendered, and the obvious meaning is, that such obedience 
 is offered to God, for on this account God highly exalted Him. 
 Grotius, however, represents it thus—non opposuit vim illam 
 divinam his captentibus se, damnantibus, interficientibus. Rosen- 
 miiller and Krause agree with him, but the exegesis is wholly 
 unwarranted by the context. Obedience unto death is thus 
 predicated of Christ in His incarnate state—obedience not 
 merely in action, but in suffermg. He obeyed as far as it is 
 possible for man to obey—obeyed to the surrender of His life. 
 Death in its most awful form was calmly encountered and 
 willingly endured. And there was no force compelling Him: 
 it was no dark fate or inscrutable destiny which, turn as He 
 might, He could not shun. Nor was it, on the other hand, 
 the sudden outbreak of a wild enthusiasm, or of an irrepressible 
 gallantry, which would not reflect and could not be guided. 
 With all its heroism in meeting the degradation and shock of 
 a public execution, it was yet a calm and collected obedience 
 to a Higher will, under which He had spontaneously placed 
 Himself. 
 
 And this death, the death of the cross, was one of special 
 torture and disgrace. Under Roman law, it was inflicted only 
 on slaves and the vilest class of malefactors, and when carried 
 into any of the provinces, its stigma still followed it. Juvenal, 
 vi. 184. <A death of glory may excite ardour, but death on a 
 gibbet is revolting. Some forms of violent death are sudden 
 and almost painless, but the cross was the means of intense 
 and protracted torture—a thousand deaths in one; and then, 
 to be treated as a felon, to be hanged on a tree by heathen 
 hands and under a sentence of public law,—the shame was 
 worse than the agony. The sun would not gaze upon the 
 scene, and the sky covered itself in sackcloth. Aaron ascended 
 to the summit of Mount Hor, and calmly expired at God’s bid- 
 ding. Moses climbed the hills of Moab, and, descending into 
 some lonely inner valley, put off in the Divine presence his 
 earthly tabernacle. But so far did God’s own Son carry His 
 obedience, that he shrunk not from scorn and anguish, for He 
 was reviled as a blasphemer and taunted as an impostor and 
 traitor during the trial that led Him to death; ay, and that 
 death was the doom of a felon, and He was stripped and nailed 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 8. 119 
 
 in nakedness to the cross, amidst hooting and execrations, 
 gibes and merriment, as if He had been the veriest wretch 
 and criminal in all Judea. And this victim of sorrow and 
 persecution, of the fury and sport of men, seized and killed so 
 wantonly and cruelly by them, nay, killed by the cross, as if 
 any other form of death would have been insufficient to mark 
 their sense of his baseness—this man, so hanged upon a tree, | 
 was originally in the form of God, and thought it no robbery” } 
 to be equal with God. 
 
 In this paragraph there are many deep things, and many 
 questions are suggested which we cannot answer. The incar- 
 nation is, indeed, a mystery—especially the existence of the 
 two natures in Christ, and their mutual relations and influ- 
 ences. Speculation has always existed on this subject, and the 
 names of Nestorius, Eutyches, Sabellius, Arius, and others, 
 are mingled up from an early period in the controversies. But 
 this passage was especially the theme of keen discussion in 
 Germany in the beginning of the seventeenth century, between 
 the divines of Giessen and Tijbingen. The former party, 
 such as Menzer in his Defensio (1621), and Feuerborn in his 
 Sciagraphia (1621), and his Κενωσιγραφία (1627), held that 
 Jesus, during His abode on earth, renounced the possession 
 of the divine attributes; while the latter party, such as 
 Nicolai, and Thummius in his Ταπεινωσυγραφία (1627), 
 maintained, more in accordance with sound exegesis, that 
 Jesus kept the possession of the divine attributes, but without 
 their use—a κτῆσις without a ypjouw—and that there was 
 only a κρύψις, or concealment of them. The contest in- 
 volved not a few dialectical subtleties (on the unio hypostatica, 
 and the communicatio tdiomatum, &c.), as, for example, with 
 regard to Christ’s omnipresence—His immensitas in seipso, 
 and His adessentia, or omnipresentia operativa. It needs no 
 great dexterity on this mysterious subject, to suggest and 
 press difficulties which seem to imply contradiction, to raise 
 arguments on detached phraseology, and to put questions, the 
 attempt to answer which proves our ignorance of such first 
 principles as are necessary to a full solution. Divinity, in all 
 we are told of it, is so unlike humanity in all we feel of it, 
 that we cannot wonder that the union of these two natures in 
 
120 PHILIPPIANS II. 8. 
 
 Christ should present apparent contradictions in development 
 and result. Mystery envelopes us as soon as we think of a 
 human consciousness in personal oneness with a divine essence, 
 for we know not how they coalesce, what reciprocal connection 
 they sustain, or what is the boundary between them. It is 
 easy, and also correct, to employ the ordinary common-places, 
 that there is a personal union without mixture or confusion,’ 
 that the divine is not transmuted into the human, nor the 
 human lifted or expanded into the divine. But the New 
 Testament does not indulge in those distinctions, and He who 
 had these natures premises no such distinction Himself, when 
 in one place He disclaims omniscience, and confesses that He 
 does not know the period of the judgment, and in another 
 gives a promise which implies the possession of omnipresence 
 -- Το, 1 am with you alway.” So that, on the points 
 involved in this discussion, such acute men as Chemnitz, 
 Hollaz, Gerhard, and Quenstedt, could with no great trouble 
 invest an inimical theory with difficulties beyond solution, 
 thrust an opponent into a dilemma, or put the case against 
 him, so as to fasten the charge of inconsistency upon his argu- 
 ment, and heresy upon his conclusions. Recent reviews, of 
 this controversy will be found in Thomasius, Christi Person 
 und Werk, vol. ii. Erlangen, 1857; in the second volume 
 of the Entwickelung-geschichte of Dorner, who does not agree 
 on many points with Thomasius; in Hoffmann’s Schrift- 
 beweis S§c.; in the Christologie of Gess and Liebner; in 
 Lechler’s das Apostol. und nachapostol. Zeitalter, 1857; in 
 Schmid’s Dogmatik der Evanglisch-Lutherischen Kirche, 3rd 
 edit., 1853 ; in Sartorius; and in Baur’s die Christliche Lehre 
 von der Dreteinigheit und Menschwerdung Gottes, vol. 111. Ὁ. 
 415, &e. ‘ 
 
 So vivid is the apostle’s picture of the mind which was in 
 Christ. So intently did He look at the things of others, so 
 little was He bound up in His own, that he threw a vail of 
 flesh over His glory and descended to earth, and not only so, 
 but when on earth He humbled Himself to yet a lower degree, 
 and suffered the ignominy and death of a public execution. 
 
 Or, as in the language of the Council of Chalcedony, the union of the two natures 
 
 15-τοἀλσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 9. 191 
 
 But such self-denial and generosity, involving a κένωσις of 
 infinite extent, a subsequent ταπείνωσις of unfathomed depth, 
 with a parallel δουλεία of more than human compass, are not 
 to pass unrewarded. The exaltation is in proportion to the 
 depth of the earlier self-devotion. 
 
 (Ver. 9.) Διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν irepitvaceyv— Wherefore, 
 too, God highly exalted Him.” The διό refers to the previous 
 statement—not the obedience in itself, but to that obedience 
 with the previous self-emptying and self-humiliation. On its 
 account, and as a recompense, did God exalt Him. The καὶ 
 strengthens the inference—connecting it more closely, and 
 by way of contrast, with the premises, while 6 Θεός occupies 
 an emphatic position. This is the natural connection, and 
 it is not to be explained away as by Calvin, Crocius, Wolf, 
 and others, who render guo facto, or ex quo, as if the formula 
 only indicated the order of events, and not their close and 
 causal connection. It is the doctrine of Scripture that Christ 
 in dying for men, and because He did die for them, has 
 won for himself eternal renown. Luke xxiv. 26; John x. 
 17; Heb. ii. 9, xii. 2, &e. Verbs compounded with ὑπέρ 
 are favourites with the apostle! and this compound term 
 represents the immeasurable height of his exaltation. We 
 cannot say with Ellicott that the meaning of ὑπέρ is purely 
 ethical, for the ethical is figured by a local elevation, which 
 also gives imagery to the following clauses. Ps. xevii. 9, 
 xXxxvi. 35, xcvi. 10; Dan. iv. 34. The phrase is general, 
 though it contains a reference to the previous verbs, ἐκένωσεν 
 and ἐταπείνωσεν. He divested Himself of the Divine form, 
 and came down; but lower and lower still did He descend, till 
 He was put to death along with vulgar criminals, and therefore | 
 the exaltation rises in proportion to the previous depth—from 
 the cross up to the crown. It was no common obedience, and 
 therefore it is no common reward. Nothing could be lower 
 than the degradation of the cross, nothing higher than the 
 mediatorial crown. Infinite condescension surely merits high- 
 est glory. The compound verb ὑπερύψωσεν compacts into 
 itself the three several terms used in Isaiah li. 13. 
 
 The apostle speaks of the God-man, but of Him especially 
 
 1 A list will be found in Fritzsche on Rom., vol. i., p. 351. 
 
122 PHILIPPIANS II. 9. 
 
 in that nature in which he obeyed to the death. This supreme 
 exaltation implies His resurrection, as proof of the acceptance 
 of His obedience, and His ascension to heaven. The character 
 of His elevation is now stated— 
 
 καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν Gvowa.— and has 
 given Him the name which is above every name.” We prefer 
 τό before ὄνομα on the good authority of A, B,C,17. Winer, 
 § 20-4— note. The article specifies the name as something 
 known and honoured. Whether ὄνομα should mean dignity, 
 or have its literal signification, has been disputed. Many 
 assign it the former sense—that of dignity and majesty,— 
 giving emphasis to the word, as when we say in English, 
 He has made himself a name. So the Reformers, Luther, 
 Calvin, and Beza, and among the moderns, Storr, Hein- 
 richs, Hoelemann, Am Ende, Matthies, and Rheinwald. 
 It is, however, more than doubtful, whether ὄνομα by itself 
 can bear such a meaning. Such may at times be its sense, 
 but not its undoubted signification. The name itself is still 
 thought of as the centre of the celebrity which it bears. Mark 
 vi. 14; John xii. 28; Acts 11.16; Rom. i. 5. (See van Hen- 
 gel zn loc.) In fact, the word in classic Greek has two oppo- 
 site senses, evinced by the context. It has on the one hand, 
 the accessory idea of renown or honour, and on the other that 
 of pretext and deceit—a name and nothing else. See under 
 Eph. 1. 21. 
 
 That name is above every name, and in this lies its glory. 
 There are many high names, but it is higher than all of them. 
 No name is equal to it, all are beneath it, and without excep- 
 tion. What then is this name of lustre? Not the title, Son 
 of God—vids @ecod—as Theophylact and Pelagius thought ; 
 nor as De Wette takes it—Kvpvos ; or as van Hengel gives it 
 —nomen domini regni divini; nor is it Θεός, as Aquinas, 
 Estius, Philippi, and Beelen argue ; nor yet Χριστός, as Miiller 
 contends for. But the context shows that the person who 
 bears this name is Jesus, who for His high function is termed 
 Κύριος. The name referred to, therefore, is Jesus, and the 
 appellation κύριος, with which every tongue is to greet Him, 
 characterizes that universal presidence with which He is now 
 
 
 
 1 See Gesenius sub voce OW, Numb. xvi. 2; 1 Chron. xii, 30; Nehem. ix. 10. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 10. 123 
 
 intrusted. Jesus is Lord. Acts 11.36; Heb.i.4. The mean- 
 ing is, that through His exaltation, He who wears the common 
 name of Jesus, has in it the loftiest of all appellations. Acts 
 ix.5. It commands unlimited homage, and it does so, because 
 of the suffering He has endured, and the reward conferred 
 upon Him by the Father, in consequence of His conde- 
 scension and death. In the verb ἐχαρίσωτο is implied the 
 notion of a gift—without denying that it is compensative in 
 nature. Christ won it, and the Father therefore bestowed it— 
 
 (Ver. 10) “Iva ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπου- 
 
 ρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων---“΄ That in the name of 
 
 Jesus every knee should bow, both of beings heavenly, and 
 earthly, and under the earth.” It is foreign to the entire 
 spirit of the passage to render ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι “in the name,” 
 if it be supposed with van Hengel and De Wette that the 
 reference is to mediate homage presented in Christ’s name to 
 God. Nor yet does the formula stand for εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, as Storr, 
 
 συ and Keil suppose, and thus mean “in honour of.” 
 τὸ 
 
 he phrase points out the foundation or sphere of the homage, | 
 
 as Meyer remarks. 1 Cor. vi. 11; Ephes. v. 20; Col. iti. 17; 
 James.v. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 14. See under Eph. v. 20; Col. 11. 
 17. In such passages, at least in the majority of them, the 
 same idea is apparent, modified more or less by the context. 
 “Tn the name of Jesus” is in recognition of it, or of the authority 
 and majesty of Him who bears it. The dative is usually 
 placed after κάμπτειν, to express the object worshipped, but 
 here no object is expressed, as in 2 Chron. xxix. 29, and the 
 inference is, that the object is not Θεῷ, as van Hengel supplies. 
 If beings bow in recognition of the name of Jesus, it is to 
 Jesus Himself as bearing such a name, that they offer 
 homage. Acts vii. 59, ix. 14, xxii. 16; Rom. x. 13; 1 Cor. 
 i. 2. According to Pliny’s testimony, the early Christians 
 sang hymns Christo quasi Deo.’ It has been remarked, too, 
 that the angels “in heaven” do not need to bow the knee 
 through a mediator, but they bow to Him as Lord. The 
 church adores Him as its Saviour, and the universe adores 
 Him for having saved His Church. Rey. v. 8-13. The 
 phrase expresses homage to Jesus, universal and direct— 
 
 1 Epistolarum, Lib. x. p. 457, ed. 1650. 
 
! 
 
 194 PHILIPPIANS II. 10. 
 
 πᾶν γόνυ Kaprrn—“‘every knee should bow.” This 
 posture is one of homage. Ps. xcv. 6; Isaiah xlv. 23; Acts 
 xxi. 5; Rom. xiv. 11; Eph. ui. 14. And this profound 
 adoration is not limited in its sphere; it is the homage— 
 
 ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ KatayPoviov— of beings in 
 heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.” These words are 
 evidently to be fe aie not in the neuter, but in the masculine. 
 The first term designates the Lert of heaven; but why 
 should Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford confine it ἰδ angels, 
 when the New Testament declares that saints are in glory, 
 too? The second epithet describes the inhabitants of earth. 
 But who are meant by the καταχθονίοι, a word which occurs 
 only here? A large number suppose it to mean the dead, as 
 Alford and Ellicott, or the inhabitants of Hades, as Theodoret, 
 Grotius, Meyer, De Wette, Rilliet, Rheinwald, &c., &c. 
 Many, on the other hand, understand the phrase of, demons, 
 such as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cicumenius, with not a 
 few of the scholastic interpreters, and also Wiesinger. The 
 καταχθονίοι may be taken as the population of Hades, or the 
 
 | Underworld, in which Hades is pictured as being—and that 
 
 population is two-fold, devils and lost souls. That both are: 
 there, is the doctrine of Scripture. As to the last, see Deut. 
 xxxii. 22; Ps. ix. 17; Prov. xxiii. 14; Matt. xi. 23; Luke xvi. 
 23: and as to the former, Luke viii. 31; Rev. xx. 3; Matt. 
 xxy. 41. There is no doubt, however, that Hades is some- 
 
 ‘times a general term for the spirit-world of the departed, 
 
 | without reference to character. As the result of death, it is 
 
 “personified. 1 Cor. xv. 55; Rev. xx. 13, 14. At the same 
 
 time, it is the doctrine of the apostle and of the New Testa- 
 ment, that the souls of the blessed are with Christ in heaven. 
 Perhaps, however, the three terms are not to be too strongly 
 pressed. The apostle, by the use of them, seems to designate 
 all ranks of beings in the universe—that is, every form of 
 rational existence in it. For the apostle dwells on the idea of 
 universality—a name above every name—every knee shall bow 
 —every tongue confess. Isaiah xlv. 23. The name above ever δὴ 
 name deianads universal submission. No sphere is exempted, 
 
 no rank of creatures is beyond its jurisdiction, all shall bend 
 the knee; angels, and happy human spirits; all who have 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 11. 125 
 
 lived, or shall live upon earth; the souls of even the finally 
 impenitent; nay, Satan and all his fiends. James 11. 19. It 
 is scarcely worth while to refer to some other interpretations, 
 such as the fancy of Lakemacher, who supposes the heathen 
 gods, heavenly, earthly, and subterranean, to be represented by 
 the three terms. That idea is far from the apostle’s thoughts. 
 As grotesque is the folly of Stolz, that the term denotes the dead, 
 the living, and the unborn, there being supposed an allusion in 
 the last term to Ps. exxxix. 15; or that of those who suppose 
 that the apostle so designates Christians, Jews, and Gentiles ; 
 or that of Teller, who takes the triple classification to be one of 
 rank—homines sortis nobilioris, mediae, et infimae. Estius and 
 Bisping suppose the allusion to be to purgatory. Pudet has 
 nugas. 
 
 (Ver. 11.) Kat πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται ὅτι κύριος 
 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός. The future form of 
 the verb is read in A, C, D, Ἡ, G, J, and K, but the common 
 form—é£ouoroyjontat—is found in B, and is retained by 
 Lachmann, a reading probably from Rom. xiv. 11. The 
 noun—yA@ooa—is not used in the figurative sense of nation 
 or people—zavra τὰ €@va—as Theodoret paraphrases it. 
 ““Hvery tongue” corresponds to “every knee ;” or, as Wiesin- 
 ger says, ‘the tongue confesses that at which the knee bows.” 
 The compound verb adds strength to the idea, for though the 
 Hellenistic usage delights in such verbs, still here the apostle 
 certainly wished to express a plenary confession. See Fritzsche 
 on Matt. ui. 6. The meaning of the verb is not to praise, 
 as Rheinwald and van Hengel understand it, adopting a pecu- 
 liar view of the connection. The confession made is, “that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord” —that He who vailed His glory, assumed 
 human nature, and in it humbled Himself to death, yea, the 
 death of the cross, that He who stooped to the lowest point of 
 ignominy and agony, has been raised to the highest glory, 
 and now is Universal Governor. For meaning and use of | 
 κύριος, see under Eph. i. 2. Compare Eph. iv. 10; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 27, &. The worship of Jesus is absolute, not relative, 
 as some authors quoted by Ellicott seem to hold. They who 
 believe with Bull,t Pearson, Cudworth, and others, that the 
 
 1 Naturam perfectionesque divinas Patri Filioque competere non collateraliter, aut 
 
126 ’  PHILIPPIANS II. 11. 
 
 Son in some sense has His origin from the Father, and yet 
 hold Him to be divine, coeternal —ovvaidvos—and yet 
 derived, not co-ordinate, but subordinate, may suppose that 
 the worship of the Son is reflected upon the Father. See 
 under Eph. i. 17. We cannot, however, regard the statement 
 as sound or scriptural—ew Deo Patre (Filius) traxit originem. 
 
 \|But the honour paid to Christ as Mediator redounds to the 
 . \Father’s glory, for the Father set Him apart for the media- 
 ‘torial work, sustained Him under it, and rewarded Him for it. 
 
 What now is the connection of εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός, “ to 
 the glory of God the Father?” © Eis cannot signify ἐν, as it 1s 
 rendered by Pelagius and Bengel, who follow the Vulgate 
 rendering, Quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est Det 
 Patris. Their idea is, that the Lord Jesus Christ possesses 
 the glory of the Father, which is not the statement of the 
 apostle. Calvin regards the clause as connected more with, 
 ὅτι, than introduced by it,—that Jesus Christ is Lord, or 
 that as the glory of God was manifested by Christ to men, so 
 it is reflected in Christ, and the Father is glorified in the Son. 
 The most natural connection is with the verb ἐξομολογήσεται, 
 and the previous clauses also. The acknowledgment of 
 Christ’s exaltation tends to or issues in the glory of God the 
 Father. The economical subordination of the Son to the 
 Father is implied, both in the obedience and in the reception 
 of the reward. ‘ ᾿ 
 
 The teaching of the apostle on the exaltation of the 
 Saviour is :— 
 
 1. That it is the reward of His self-denial and death. | 
 “ Wherefore—é:o—God hath highly exalted Him.” He had 
 come down on an errand of love; the execution of it involved 
 
 the indescribable suffering and ignominy of the cross; and ) ~ 
 
 the Father, when He had served in this awful enterprise, 
 promoted Him to the highest honour as He returned in tri- 
 umph. Heb. 11. 6, 9. This honour, therefore, He has earned 
 for Himself, through the divine appreciation of his career. 
 But might not the results of the service in themselves have 
 
 co-ordinate, sed subordinate, hoc est, Filium eandam quidem naturam divinam cum 
 Patre communem habere, sed a Patre communicatam. Thesis Prima. Works, vol. v. 
 p- 14, Oxford, 1827; Pearson on the Creed, vol. i. pp. 170-181, Oxford, 1847. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 11. 127 
 
 been sufficient reward? It may be replied, that there are 
 certain functions which Christ’s exaltation enabled Him to 
 discharge. The government or headship of the Church is 
 committed to Him, and He is to be final Judge. But apart 
 from these public reasons, which are not prominently before 
 the apostle’s mind, Christ’s exaltation proved God’s hearty 
 concurrence in the self-abnegation and death of His Son. It 
 exhibits in bright relief those elements of character which God 
 delights to honour. It teaches ‘the universe the majesty of 
 grace, and excites the earth to imitate its ‘Lord’s magnanimous 
 example,—“ for he that humbleth himself shall be sealed i 
 
 2. That His reward is exaltation to universal government. 
 It is the name above every name—every knee bowing to it, 
 and every tongue confessing that He who bears it is Lord or 
 Governor. Ne Ὁ name is surrounded with such splendour, or 
 commands such veneration. He has no superior and no rival. 
 No sphere, however high or distant, is exempted from His 
 control: no creature, however mighty and godlike, has a 
 _ co-ordinate jurisdiction. Verily, it is the name above every 
 name! If honour consist in elevation, what station can be 
 higher than the throne of the universe? If it consist in ado- 
 ration, what homage can be nobler than that of cherub and 
 seraph, and every order of holy intelligence throughout His 
 vast domains ? 
 
 3. That such honour is bestowed especially on His huma- 
 nity. This exaltation of Jesus is no argument, as some would 
 allege, against our exegesis, that the phrase “ form of God” 
 refers to Christ’s pre-existent state. It has been objected, 
 that this gift on the part of the Father is a gift of something 
 Christ did not possess before, and which He must have pos- 
 sessed, if the “form of God” describes a pre-incarnate con- 
 dition. The inference does not hold, for it is not of Christ . 
 simply as Divine the apostle speaks, but of the God-man, and | 
 Him especially as possessing the form of a servant, and assum- 
 
 
 
 ing the likeness of men. Nor is it a relative exaltation in | ' 
 
 reference to us, but a positive advancement to honour and glory. 
 This glory and government He who was in the form of God 
 must have possessed, for by the “Word” all things were 
 made, “and by Him all things consist,” but He did not 
 
128 PHILIPPIANS II. il. 
 
 possess them as God-man or the Son of Man, in this complex 
 person, till the Father bestowed them. Theodoret says 
 similarly—ov τοινῦν ἔλαβεν ἃ μὴ πρότερον εἶχεν ὡς θεὸς, ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἔλαβεν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἅπερ εἶχεν ὡς θεός. It has again been 
 asked—if Jesus in His pre-incarnate state be thus described, 
 how can additional honour be conferred on God? The course 
 of the apostle’s thought is,—that this form of God was laid 
 aside in the days of His humiliation and obedience, and that 
 in His exaltation He has not simply reassumed it, but a higher 
 glory has now been conferred on Him. Not that the infinite 
 lustre of the Godhead can in itself be increased, but a new 
 element is introduced—the human nature of Christ. The 
 nature in which He vailed His glory and stooped to death, 
 ay such a death, has been elevated; or, in other words, He 
 has added a new glory to His original splendour, the glory 
 acquired as Redeemer in our nature to that originally posses- 
 sed “with the Father ere the world was.” This is ‘“ His own 
 glory ”—what He fondly calls “my glory.” John xvii. 24. 
 There is special reference to the element of humanity, and pro- 
 bably this is suggested by the striking phrase “at the name of 
 JEsUS;” Jesus being His human name, the name which He 
 bore asaman; and which, though it had a special significance, 
 as indicated by the angel, yet passed among men as the familiar 
 appellation of the Son of Mary. He that was known as Jesus 
 among men, specifically as Jesus of Nazareth, He it is who 
 in this very nature commands the homage of the universe. 
 The tablet above Him in his agony indicated this as the name 
 of the sufferer. But the brow once crowned with thorns now 
 wears upon it the diadem of universal sovereignty ; and that 
 hand once nailed to the cross now holds in it the sceptre of 
 unlimited dominion. The man Jesus is Lord of all—our nature 
 in His person occupies the loftiest position in God’s empire. 
 
 4, The result is—the divine glory—‘ to the glory of God 
 the Father.” Meyer speaks of a strong monotheism being 
 manifest in this passage— Absolute Godhead can be ascribed 
 only to the Father—only the Father is ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Oeds.” 
 Still economic subordination, as of the Son to the Father, and 
 the Holy Spirit to both, is very different from essential or 
 absolute inferiority. If the Son be not God in the highest 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 12. 129 
 
 sense, would not this universal worship be universal idolatry ? 
 and might not the same charge be brought against the 
 homage and minstrelsy described as being offered to the 
 Lamb throughout the Apocalypse? Christ as God has the 
 right to the adoration of the universe, but as God-man He has 
 for His special service received a special investiture. He 
 could not be worshipped at ail, if He were not God, and He is 
 now worshipped on this peculiar ground, because He has 
 done and suffered as the apostle tells us. But the prime place 
 is occupied by God the Father, to whom service was rendered 
 by Christ, while the success of such service and its consequent 
 reward by Him are a source of glory to Him. In the honour 
 paid to His exalted Son, His own character is more fully seen 
 and admired.—See under Eph. 1. 14. 
 
 Were we to be guided simply by what appears to be the 
 train of thought and counsel, we should say that the apostle 
 now proceeds to apply the lesson. He had begun with the 
 charge—‘ Look not every man on his own things, but every 
 man also on the things of others;” and in order to confirm 
 the admonition, he has adduced the wondrous example of 
 Jesus, showing how He minded not His own things, but laid 
 aside His glory, and submitted to death, in pursuance of the 
 welfare of others; and how the Father, for this unparalleled 
 generosity, raised Him to the throne of the universe. And 
 now we naturally expect him to bring home the great practical 
 truth to be gathered from such an inspiring statement. 
 
 (Ver. 12.) Ὥστε, ἀγαπητοί pov. The particle ὥστε intro- 
 duces an inferential lesson. 1 Cor. il. 21, iv. 5, x. 12, 
 1 Thes. iv. 18, &c. Followed thus by the imperative, this 
 particle which is so often followed by the infinitive, has the 
 sense of itague—@o-re. Tittmann, 11. 6; Winer, ὃ 41, 5,1; 
 Klotz, Devarius, 11. p. 776. It does not reach back in its sweep 
 to all the preceding statements. We cannot, with Wiesinger, 
 give this as its ground—“ Christ has attained to His glory 
 only by the path of self-demial,— Wherefore.”’ We take in the 
 whole picture from the 6th to the 11th verse—‘ wherefore,” or 
 since such were Christ’s spirit and career, such His self-denial 
 and reward, since such an example is set before you, you are 
 bound by your very profession to “work out.” If He has set 
 
 I 
 
130 PHILIPPIANS II. 12. 
 
 it, shall you hesitate to follow it? Will it not endear itself to 
 your imitation as you look upon 1{---ἀφορῶντες τὸ Tapddevypa ? 
 The heart of the apostle warms towards them, his soul is bound 
 in them, and he calls them “my beloved,” adding a prefatory 
 note— 
 
 καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε, μὴ ὡς ἐν TH παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον 
 ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ μου---κατεργάζεσθε. 
 The apostle appeals to their uniform obedience rendered in 
 one sense to himself, but primarily to God, having the same 
 object as ὑπήκοος applied to Christ in verse 8. There should 
 be a comma after ὑπηκούσατε, for the next words belong to 
 the concluding clauses, as the use of μή---νῦν seems to indi- 
 cate. The construction of the verse is peculiar from its very 
 compactness. ‘Two comparisons are inwoven—my presence, 
 my absence—or “ not in my presence only, but much more in 
 my absence;” and ‘“‘as ye have always obeyed,” ‘‘so now carry 
 out your salvation.” The fervid heart of the apostle was not 
 fettered by the minutie of formal rhetoric; parallel thoughts 
 are intertwined, and ideas that should follow in succession are 
 blended in the familiar haste of epistolary composition. 
 Παρουσία, in contrast with ἀπουσία, is not a future presence, 
 as Wiesinger renders it. 2 Cor. x. 10. It is, indeed, applied 
 especially to a future advent of Christ, a presence not now, 
 but afterwards, to be enjoyed. The apostle uses in this epistle 
 the words παρουσία πάλιν, 1. 26. The adverb ὡς does not 
 simply denote comparison, but it indicates a supposed or 
 imagined quality which the apostle, indeed, warns against, and 
 will not believe to exist. Rom. ix. 82; 2 Cor.ii1.17; Gal. iii. 16. 
 The claim of the injunction did not cease with his presence. 
 His absence did not make the obligation less imperative, but 
 it demanded more earnestness and vigilance from them in the 
 discharge of the duty. His voice and person were a guide and 
 stimulant, his addresses and conversations reproved their 
 languor, and excited them to assiduous labour, so that His 
 presence among them wrought like a charm. And now that 
 he was not with them, and they were left to themselves, they 
 were so much the more to double their diligence, and work out 
 salvation. This was to be done peta φόβου καὶ tpouov— with 
 fear and trembling.”—See under Eph. vi. 5, where the phrase 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 12. 131 
 
 has been explained. 1 Cor. ii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 15,4.PS\ aie. “Che 
 phrase means something more than Jerome’s non cum negli- 
 gentia. It restricts the feeling described too much to one 
 aspect of it, to suppose it to be awe before an omnipresent 
 God, as do the Greek expositors; or a sense of dependence 
 on God, as does De Wette; or the apprehension that the 
 work is not performed sufficiently, as do Meyer and Wiesin- 
 ger. In fact the phrase describes that state of mind which 
 ought ever to characterize believers—distrust of themselves— 
 earnest solicitude in every duty—humble reliance on divine 
 aid, with the abiding consciousness that after all they do come 
 far short of meeting obligation. There does not seem to be 
 any reference, as some suppose, to the spirit of Christ’s δουλεία, 
 but there may be a warning against that pride and vain- 
 glory already reprobated by the apostle. In this spirit they 
 are enjomed— 
 
 τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν Katepyaterbe— carry out your own 
 salvation.” The compound verb here expresses the idea 
 of carrying out, or making perfect. Fritzsche on Rom. ii. 
 9; also Raphelius, vol. 11. p. 495. This sounder phi- 
 lology opposes the explanation of Chrysostom—ov« εἶπεν 
 ἐργάζεσθε, ἀλλὰ κατεργάζεσθε, τουτέστι μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς 
 σπουδῆς, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἐπιμελείας. The verb describes 
 not the spirit in which the work is done, but the aim and 
 issue—“ carry through;’’ while the idea of the Greek Father is 
 only inferential. In the translation—“ work out one another’s 
 salvation’’—which is that of Pierce, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, 
 and Matthies, we should at once concur, but for a reason to 
 be immediately stated. The reciprocal meaning given to 
 ἑαυτῶν may be found in Eph. iv. 82; Col. i. 16; 1 Pet. iv. 
 8,10. The context, as van Hengel admits, is in favour of the 
 latter translation which we have given. De Wette contends 
 that the reference in the verse is quite general—an idea which 
 the inferential particle ὥστε does not sanction; and he 
 earries the reference back to 1. 27, without any warrant what- 
 ever. Rheinwald, Rilliet, and others, uphold the idea that 
 the verse is an inference from the preceding exhibition of 
 Christ’s example. We think that this cannot be doubted, so 
 close and inseparable is the connection. But what is that 
 
 
 
132 PHILIPPIANS Il. 12. 
 
 example intended to illustrate? Might we not say the 
 injunction—“ Look not every man on his own things, but 
 every man also on the things of others.’ If the career of 
 our Lord be introduced to show us what mind was in Him, 
 surely the lesson deduced will be in unison. If he bid them 
 have the mind of Christ, and then go on to show what it is, 
 surely his inference must be ‘that they should, in their own 
 sphere, exhibit the same mind. Now the great truth which 
 the exhibition of Christ’s example illustrates is self-denying 
 generosity—the very charge He has already given them, and 
 the inference is expected to be in harmony with the starting 
 lesson. The command—riv ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάξεσθε 
 —will, therefore, be synonymous in spirit with the previous 
 one in verses 4, 5. In this way the ὥστε would connect homo- 
 geneous ideas. If the words be rendered, ‘‘ work out your own 
 salvation,” we do not see how it can with the same force be 
 derived as a lesson. The connection brought out by Alford is 
 — considering the immense sacrifice which Christ has made 
 for you, and the lofty eminence to which God has now raised 
 Him, be ye more than ever earnest, that you miss not your own 
 share in such salvation.’’ But there is no hint of this connec- 
 tion in the preceding verses: for in referring to Christ, the 
 apostle does not speak of Him as a Saviour, nor yet of the 
 salvation which He has secured. He does not say He died for 
 sin, or died for us. His reference is to the spirit of His death, 
 and not to its character and results. It is true that His exal- 
 tation proved His mission divine, and His mediation effectual. 
 But the apostle does not allude to this, nor does he in this para- 
 graph in any way connect the glory of Jesus with a completed 
 redemption. If he had said—He has died and risen again to 
 save you, the connection could easily be—therefore salvation 
 is perfect, and you are summoned either to receive it, or more 
 fully to realize it. But it is simply of the fact that Christ 
 denied Himself to benefit others that the apostle writes, and 
 the Philippians are to do service to others, and thus evince that 
 the same mind is truly in them which was also in Christ 
 Jesus. Nay more, the connection usually brought out seems 
 also to have this peculiarity, that it seems to make the apostle 
 begin the paragraph with one injunction, and end it by enforc- 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 13. 133 
 
 ing its opposite. He commences formally—“ Look not every 
 man on his own things ;” and he ends by saying virtually— 
 “Look every man on his own things—work out your own 
 salvation.” Is he to be understood as either modifying or 
 withdrawing his first injunction, an injunction commended by 
 the example of Christ Jesus ? 
 
 The only difficulty in the way of this view is philological. 
 The pronoun ἑαυτῶν is used in verse 4th, to signify one’s own 
 things; and in verse 21st, it is used with the same meaning, 
 and how should the same word in the intervening verse 12th, 
 be used with precisely an opposite signification? We feel 
 the difficulty to be insuperable, while the leading of the 
 context is so decided. And perhaps this may be the idea— 
 carry forward your own salvation with fear and trembling, 
 for with such a work in progress, and such emotions within 
 you, you will possess the mind of Christ; for he who thus 
 carries out his own salvation will sympathize with the toils 
 and labours of others, and look not alone at his own things. 
 Their own salvation being secured and carried out, they 
 would not be so selfish as to be wholly occupied with it, so 
 unlike Him who made Himself of no reputation, as to creep 
 up to heaven in selfish solitude. For the law of the kingdom 
 is, that he who stoops the lowest shall rise the highest— 
 Christ the first, and each after Him inorder. This loving and 
 lowly spirit God rejoices in—it is the heart of His Son, and 
 the genius of His gospel. How this duty is to be discharged, 
 the apostle does not say, but he adverts to its spirit—‘ in 
 fear and trembling.” 
 
 (Ver. 13.) Ὃ Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν 
 καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν, ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας---““ For God it is who work- 
 eth in you both to will and to work, in consequence of His 
 own good pleasure.” The article of the Received Text before 
 Θεός is omitted in A, B, C, D', F, G, and K. Its absence 
 fixes attention upon Divinity, as in contrast to that humanity 
 in which He wills and works. The γάρ indicates the connec- 
 tion, not by assigning a reason in the strict sense of the term, 
 but by introducing an explanatory statement:—Engage in this 
 duty; the inducement and the ability to engage in it are 
 inducement and ability alike from God. It is too much to 
 
134 PHILIPPIANS II. 13. 
 
 infer that the Philippians were despondent, and that this verse 
 is to be regarded as an encouragement. But that they needed 
 excitement to duty is plain, however, from the statement— 
 “and now much more in my absence’’—though certainly 
 Bengel’s filling up is far-fetched—Deus presens vobis, etiam 
 absente me. It is, as if he had said—‘ Work out with fear 
 and trembling, for God it is that worketh in you. Engage in 
 the duty, for God prompts and enables you; engage in it with 
 fear and trembling—emotions which the nature of the work 
 and such a consciousness of the Divine presence and co-opera- 
 tion ought always to produce.” If the impulse sprang from 
 themselves, and drew around it the ability to obey, there 
 might be “strife and vain-glory ;” but surely if the motive 
 and the strength came alike from God, then only in reli- 
 ance on Him, and with special humility and self-subduing 
 timidity, could they proceed, in reference to their own salva- 
 tion, or in offering one another spiritual service. 
 
 The position of Θεός shows the emphasis placed upon it by 
 the apostle. God it is who worketh in you—alluding to the 
 inner operation of Divine grace—for ἐν ὑμῖν is not among 
 you. ‘There is special force in the form ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν. 
 Winer, ὃ 45, 5, note; Fritzsche ad Roman. vol. 11. p. 212. 
 And the result is twofold— 
 
 καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ évepyetv— both to will and to work,” 
 first and naturally volition, and then action. Rom. vi. 18. 
 The double καί is emphatic. Winer, § 53, 4. The apostle 
 uses ἐνεργεῖν both of cause and effect—évepyav—evepyetv— 
 whereas the verb denoting the ultimate form of action was 
 κατεργάζεσθε. The difference is very apparent. The latter 
 term, the one employed by the apostle in the exhortation of 
 verse 12th, represents the full and final bringing of an enter- 
 prise to a successful issue; whereas ἐνεργεῖν describes action 
 rather in reference to vital power or ability, than form or 
 result. The will and the work are alike from God, or from 
 the operation of His grace and Spirit; not the work without 
 the will—an effect without its cause; not the will without the 
 work—an idle and effortless volition. 
 
 - The concluding words—zrép τῆς evdoxias—have given rise to 
 ,a good deal of discussion. The phrase has no pronoun, and what 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 13. 135 
 
 then is its reference? The Syriac renders ἢ ON) ἘΞ i? pes 
 —that which you wish. And so Ambrosiaster, followed partly 
 by Erasmus, Grotius, and Michaelis. But εὐδοκιά, as is 
 indicated by the article, belongs here to the subject of the 
 verb. The preposition ὑπέρ is not “according to,” as it 
 is rendered by Luther and Cameron, nor pro, as Beza and 
 Bengel write it. It signifies “on account of.” John xi. 4; Acts 
 v.41; Rom. xv. 8; Winer, ὃ 47, b. It is not very different 
 in result from δὲ evdoxiav—i. 15—though the mode of repre- 
 sentation somewhat varies—the ὑπέρ giving a reason, not in 
 a logical, but rather in an ethical aspect. See under Eph. i. 5. 
 The noun itself is defined by Suidas—r6 ἀγαθὸν θέλημα τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. Suicer 1.1241. Cicumenius gives the true meaning in 
 his paraphrase—vo7rép τοῦ πληρωθῆναι εἰς ὑμᾶς τὴν εὐδοκίαν 
 καὶ τὴν βουλὴν αὐτοῦ. It is in consequence of, or to follow out 
 His own good pleasure, that He works in believers both to 
 will and to work. He is not an absolute or necessary, but a 
 voluntary or spontaneous cause. He does it because He freely 
 wills it, or because it seems good to Him. His efficacious 
 grace is at His own sovereign disposal. Conybeare joins ὑπὲρ 
 τῆς εὐδοκίας to the following verse, but the connection is 
 neither natural nor warranted. 
 
 The sentiments of the preceding verses have been adduced 
 as objections both to Pelagianism and Calvinism. Augustine 
 made good use of them in his day, in defence of the doctrine 
 of divine grace, and in overthrow of that meagre system which 
 is based at once on shallow conceptions of man’s nature, and 
 superficial expositions of scripture, and which in denuding the 
 gospel of its mysteries, robs it of its reality and profound 
 adaptations. In later times, commentators on this passage 
 have attacked with it what is usually called Calvinism. 
 “The Calvinistic writers,’ says Bloomfield in his Recensio 
 Synoptica, “are exceedingly embarrassed with it ;”’ and after 
 reprehending Doddridge for a paraphrase of the verses, not a 
 whit worse or weaker than his ordinary dilutions, he adds, 
 ‘When we see so sensible a writer, and so good a man, acting 
 so disingenuous a part, we cannot but perceive the weakness 
 of the system of doctrines he adopts, which drives him to 
 such unwarrantable measures.” Now, if we understand Cal- 
 
136 PHILIPPIANS II. 13. 
 
 vinism at all, these two verses express very definitely its 
 spirit, belief, and practice. Divested of technical points it is 
 this—profound and unquestioning trust in God, united to the 
 utmost spiritual activity and necessarily leading to it—acting 
 because acted upon, as the apostle here describes. The terms 
 employed by him exclude a vast amount of questions often 
 raised upon the verses—as the injunction is addressed, not to 
 the unbelieving and unregenerate, but ‘to saints in Christ 
 Jesus,” to those who not only believed in Christ, but had 
 suffered for Him. The allusion is not to man’s laying hold of 
 salvation, or to his first reception of it, and the necessity of 
 gratia preveniens, and therefore queries as to freeé-will and 
 grace—their existence or antagonism—are away from the 
 point. ‘The apostle, writes to persons who have received sal- 
 vation, and he bids them carry it out. And who doubts that 
 man’s highest energies are called out in the work—that every 
 faculty and feeling is thrown into earnest operation? What 
 self-denial and vigilance—what wrestling with the Angel of 
 the Covenant—what study of the Lord’s example—what busy 
 and humble obedience—what struggles with temptation—what 
 putting forth of all that is within us—what fervent improve- 
 ment of all the means of grace—industry as eager and resolute 
 as if no grace had been promised, but as if all depended on 
 itself! The believer’s own conscious and continuous effort in 
 the work of his sanctification, is a very prominent doctrine of 
 Scripture, and the apostle often describes his own unrelaxing 
 diligence. On the other hand, the doctrine of divine influence 
 is caricatured by any such hypothesis as is implied in the phrase 
 —homo convertitur nolens—or, when even under its “ Dordra- 
 cene”’ representation, it is styled, as by Ellicott, “all but 
 compelling grace.”” For in no sense can faith be forced; and 
 the freest act of the human spirit is the surrender of itself 
 under God’s grace to Himself. The rational nature is not 
 violated, the mental mechanism is never shattered or dislo- 
 cated, and the freedom essential to responsibility is not for a 
 moment disturbed or suppressed. Though God work and work 
 effectually in us “to will,” our will is not passively bent and 
 broken, but it wills as God wills it; and though God work 
 and work effectually in us “ to do,” our doing is not a course 
 
PHILIPPIANS IT. 13. 137 
 
 of action to which we are helplessly driven; but we do, 
 because we have resolved so to do, and because both resolve 
 and action are prompted and shaped by His power that work- 
 eth in us—agimur ut agamus. This carrying out of our sal- 
 vation is a willing action; but the will and the acts, though 
 both of man and by him as agent, are not in their origin from 
 him—the vis from which they spring being non nativa sed dativa. 
 Lazarus came forth from the tomb by his own act, but his 
 life had been already restored by Him in whom is life. The 
 Hebrews walked every weary foot of the distance ‘between 
 Egypt and Canaan, yet to God is justly ascribed their exodus 
 from the one country and their possession of the other. As 
 man’s activities are prompted and developed by Him who 
 works in us both to will and to do, so is it that so many calls 
 and commands are issued, urging him to be laborious and 
 indefatigable; for still he is dealt with as a creature that acts 
 from motive, is deterred by warning, swayed by argument, and 
 bound to obey divine precept. And what an inducement to 
 work out our salvation—God Himself working in us—volition 
 and action prompted and sustained by Him who “ knoweth 
 our frame.’ It is wrong to say with Chrysostom—* If thou 
 wilt, in that case, He will work in thee to will.” For the 
 existence of such a previous will would imply that God had 
 wrought already. The exposition of Pelagius was, that as 
 there are three things in man, posse, velle, agere, and that as 
 the first is from God, and the other two from ourselves, so the 
 apostle here puts the effect for the cause—Deus operatur velle, 
 ad est, posse, quia dat mihi potentiam ut possim velle. Lex et 
 doctrina are with him equivalent to, or are the explanation of 
 gratia divina. But law and revelation only tell what is to be 
 done, and as Augustine says, gua gratia agitur, non solum ut 
 facienda noverimus, verum etiam ut cognita faciamus.— Opera, 
 vol. x. p. 538. Ed. Paris, 1838. The command, “work out 
 your own salvation,” is certainly not in itself opposed to what 
 Ellicott calls the “Dordracene doctrine of irrevocable election ;” 
 for the divine purpose does not reduce man to a machine, but 
 works itself out by means in perfect harmony with the free- 
 dom and responsibility of his moral nature; so that every 
 action has a motive and character. Were this the place, one 
 
138 PHILIPPIANS II. 14. 
 
 might raise other inferential questions—whether this divine 
 operation in the saints can be finally resisted, and whether it 
 may be finally withdrawn? or, in another aspect, whether a 
 man whom God has justified can be at last condemned? or 
 whether the divine life implanted by the Spirit of God may 
 or can die out? But the discussion of such questions belongs 
 not to our province, nor would the mere language of these 
 verses warrant its introduction. 
 
 (Ver. 14.) Πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισ- 
 pov—do all things without murmurings and doubts.” This 
 counsel is still in unison with the preceding injunctions, 
 and is not to be taken, with Rheimwald, as an isolated or 
 independent statement. The duties inculcated might be 
 discharged in form, yet not in the nght spirit. The term 
 πάντα is restricted in its reference by the context. The noun 
 γογγυσμός, which Paul uses only here, and which is an imita- 
 tive Ionic sound like the English murmur, denotes the expres- 
 sion of dissatisfaction with what is said, done, or ordered, Acts 
 vi. 1; Ex. xvi. 7, 8; or in the use of the verb, 1 Cor. x. 10; 
 Sept. Num. xi. 1, ἄς, The other noun, διαλογισμός, passed 
 from its original meaning to signify reasoning or thought, and 
 then descended to denote disputation. Luke ix. 46; 1 Tim. 
 ii. 8. In Luke xxiv. 38, the reference is to secret doubts; 
 but our Lord read the heart, and but for His presence, the heart 
 would soon have prompted the lips to speak out. The Vul- 
 gate translator has rendered the term by haesttationibus. The 
 two nouns are closely connected, and express the same general 
 idea of dissatisfaction and doubt-—opposed to the cheerful 
 and prompt discharge of present duty. That the last term 
 refers to such disputes as endanger the peace and unity of the 
 church, is the idea of Chrysostom, but it is not supported by 
 the immediate context, though it might be a result of the 
 conduct condemned; but the notion of Grotius, that the 
 apostle refers to debates with philosophers, is vain. Nor can 
 we agree with Theodoret, that there is reference to persecu- 
 tions—rods ὑπὲρ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κινδύνους ; for such adverse 
 dispensations are not glanced at. The apostle is not speak- 
 ing of murmuring under trial, but in discharge of duty. 
 Meyer contends for Tittmann’s distinction between ἄνευ and 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 15. 139 
 
 χωρίς, that the former depicts the absence of the object from 
 the subject; and the latter, the separation of the subject 
 from the object. Tittmann, Syn. p. 94. See under Hph. 1. 
 12. The apostle Paul never uses ἄνευ, but always χωρίς, 
 while Peter—iv. 9—has ἄνευ γογγυσμῶν. The distinction 
 is therefore more of an ideal or etymological nature, than 
 one carried out in use and practice. It seems to us too 
 restricted on the part of Meyer and De Wette, to take God as 
 the Being murmured against; or with Estius and ‘Hoele- 
 mann, to make the objects of this murmuring the office- 
 bearers in the church; or with Calvin and Wiesinger, the 
 members of the church. Alford regards both words as having 
 a human reference, but without satisfactory proof. The feel- 
 ing of dissatisfaction and hesitation is expressed generally, 
 and its particular causes and objects are not assigned. No 
 matter what may tend to excite it, it must not be indulged ; 
 whether the temptation to it be the divine command, the 
 nature of the duty, the self-denial which it involves, or the 
 opposition occasionally encountered. There was neither 
 erudge nor reluctance with Him whose example is described 
 in the preceding verses—no murmur at the depth of His 
 condescension, or doubt as to the amount or severity of the 
 sufferings which for others He so willingly endured. The 
 purpose of the injunction is then stated— 
 
 (Ver. 15.) “Iva γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι καὶ axépacoc—“ That ye 
 may be blameless and pure.” ‘This reading of the verb has 
 considerable authority, but so has ἦτε, which is adopted by 
 Lachmann. ‘The ordinary reading may, perhaps, be pre- 
 ferred. The two adjectives express the same idea in dif- 
 ferent aspects, the first meaning that to which no blame is 
 attached, and the latter that of which moral simplicity can be 
 asserted. There is, therefore, a climax in the statement—not 
 simply blameless, or to escape censure, but possessing that 
 spiritual integrity which secures blamelessness. Mat. x. 16; 
 Rom. xvi. 19. Or, as Meyer suggests, the two adjectives 
 correspond to the two previous nouns. If they did all things 
 without murmurings, they should be “ blameless :᾽ if without 
 doubts, they should be “sincere.” None should censure them, 
 if they were cheerful in duty; and none could censure them, 
 
 
 
140 PHILIPPIANS II. 15. 
 
 if this inner integrity characterized them. The conjunction 
 iva brings out this clause as the end or object. If they did 
 all these things without murmurings and doubts, what surer 
 proof of having reached the possession of the same mind 
 which was also in Christ Jesus? Nay, more, they should 
 be— 
 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ ἀμώμητα---“ children of God, blameless.” For 
 ἀμώμητα, which has good authority, A, B, C, read ἄμωμα, 
 the more common form in the New Testament, the previous 
 word occurring only twice. They were already the children of 
 God, but they were to be blameless children of God. How 
 far ἄμεμπτοι, in the previous clause, differs from ἀμώμητα in 
 the present clause, it is difficult to say. Perhaps the last is 
 really a stronger term than the first. If the first mean 
 unblamed, or without moral defect, the second may rise to 
 the higher meaning of without cause of blame, without ground 
 of moral challenge—children breathing the spirit, possessing 
 the image, and exhibiting the purity of their Father-God. 
 And the blamelessness of their character would be the more 
 apparent from the contrast— 
 
 μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς Kal Svectpaypévns— in the midst of 
 a crooked and perverse generation.” The adverbial form 
 μέσον has preponderant authority over the common reading 
 ἐν wéom—the former having in its favour A, B,.C, D', F, G. 
 The term is used adverbially. Winer, § 54, 6, note; Num. 
 xxxv. 5. The clause is virtually quoted from Deut. xxxii. 5 
 -- τέκνα μώμητα, γενὲα σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη. 
 
 The noun γενεά is generation—the men living at that 
 period. Matt. xi. 16, xvii. 17; Acts 1.40. ‘The first epithet, 
 σκολιά, meaning bent or crooked, has a similar tropical 
 signification. Act. 11.40; 1 Pet. 11. 18; and the second term, 
 διεστραμμένη, signifies physically and ethically what is 
 twisted or distorted. Matt. xvii. 17; Luke ix. 41; Acts xx. 
 30. The two adjectives have the same general meaning, the 
 one referring to the inner disposition, and the other to its outer 
 manifestation ; and both pointing out, not so much the dulness 
 of disobedience, as its caprices ; not so much its fatal stupidity, 
 as its wayward and eccentric courses.. What the apostle de- 
 scribes is not spiritual torpor, but spiritual obliquity; his mental 
 
PHILIPPIANS Il. 15. 141 
 
 reference being to those examples of periodical insanity for 
 which Israel of old was proverbial, and by which Moses had 
 been so surprised and grieved. Sin brought chastening, and 
 though penitence followed punishment, it was soon succeeded 
 by another wanton outbreak. It was sunshine to-day, but 
 shadow to-morrow—a song on the bank of the Red Sea—and 
 then, after a few weeks’ advance, the blasphemous howl— 
 (( Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the 
 land of Egypt.”’ They were always overmastered by the idea of 
 the moment, the passion of the hour—sinning and suffering, 
 fretting and praying, mere children without firmness of temper 
 or stability of resolve. Their character was uniform only in its 
 variableness and perversity— tears for their chains the one 
 month ; tears for the flesh-pots the next. A character not iden- 
 tical certainly, but similar in some respects, the apostle ascribes 
 to the Philippian population of that day, not as sunk into sullen 
 unbelief, but moved by tortuous impulses to reject what they 
 could not disprove, and persecute what they could not but 
 admit was innocent in its civil aspect, and pure and benig- 
 nant in its spiritual results. Nothing would please them ; 
 give them one argument, and they cry for another. Tell 
 them of the simplicity of the gospel, and they pray you to 
 dilate on its mysteries; speak of its power, and they bid you 
 dwell on its charity. Both Jew and Pagan at Philippi may 
 have shown such a spirit to the church. The impeachment 
 is not only open wickedness, as Grotius gives it, but also a 
 want of candour and sincerity ; public avowals at variance 
 with secret convictions ; objections made on mere pretence, the 
 ostensible motive not the true one; one purpose secretly crossed 
 or overlaid by another; their conduct a riddle, and their life a 
 lie. Our Lord depicted a similar feature of his own age. Matt. 
 xi. 16, &c. In the midst of such society, the Philippian 
 believers were to do all things with cheerfulness and prompti- 
 tude, so as to approve themselves the sons of God by their 
 spiritual integrity and purity, for it was true of them— 
 
 ἐν ois φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ ---“΄ among whom ye 
 appear as luminaries in the world.’ The verb is taken as an 
 imperative by not a few, such as Cyprian, who renders 
 lucete, and by Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Storr, Rhein- 
 
142 PHILIPPIANS II. 16. 
 
 wald, and Baumgarten-Crusius. The indicative is preferable, 
 as the clause describes an existing or actual condition, and so it 
 is understood by most modern expositors. The plural οἷς 
 represents the individuals comprised in the yeved, a frequent 
 form of construction according to the sense. Matt. xii. 54; 
 dike π΄. Acta: ya. 5; 2 Cor. τι. 13.5’, Wainer, 58, ΟῚ. ἢ: 
 Wiesinger and Meyer remark that the verb φαίνεσθε is 
 improperly rendered, “ ye shine,” though the lexicographers 
 appear to give it that signification.” It has this meaning in 
 the active, and is so employed. John 1. 5, v. 35; 2 Peter i. 
 19; but in the passive, it signifies “to appear.” Still, when 
 coupled with such a word as φωστῆρες, 10 may be rendered 
 shine, without any impropriety—for to appear as luminaries, 
 is simply to shine. In the term φωστῆρες, the allusion is to 
 the heavenly bodies; not to light-houses certainly, as Barnes 
 supposes ; nor yet to torches, as is imagined by Beza and 
 Cornelius a-Lapide. The concluding words ἐν κόσμῳ do not 
 belong to the verb, which has already ἐν οἷς before it, but to 
 φωστήρες. ἸΚόσμος wants the article (Winer, § 19), and it 
 serves no purpose in figures of this popular nature to assign 
 this noun an ethical sense, as Ellicott does. It is strange that 
 Rheinwald, preceded by Drusius, should take κόσμος to mean 
 the firmament. Hoelemann, Rilliet, and van Hengel supply 
 among whom “as stars shine in the world 
 
 
 
 a verb φαίνονται 
 ye shine ’—but this is not necessary. The figure is, simply, 
 that the sons of God are in the world what the heavenly 
 luminaries are to it. The world is the sphere in which they 
 revolve and shine. The point of comparison is obvious. It 
 is not first nor simply eminence in virtue, nor conspicuous 
 position, nor elevation above worldly pursuits and likings,* but 
 the diffusion of light. Matt. v.14,15,16. They did not only 
 enjoy the light, but they reflected it. They appeared as 
 luminaries in the world, and its only spiritual light came from 
 them. There was deep gloom around them, but they tended 
 to disperse it. What in fact has not the world learned from 
 the church? The apostle now describes the mode of illumi- 
 nation— 
 
 (Ver. 16.) Δόγον ζωῆς éméyovres— Holding forth the 
 
 1 Non amant terrena. Anselm. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 16. 145 
 word of life.” We look on this clause as descriptive or 
 illustrative of the one before it. Robinson and Baumgarten- 
 Crusius connect it with the epithets ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι, a 
 . hypothesis which sadly dislocates the paragraph, and is not in 
 harmony with the figure. By λόγον ζωῆς we understand the 
 gospel; or, as Theodoret explains it—ro κήρυγμα, ἐπειδὴ τὴν 
 αἰώνιον προξενεῖ ζωήν. It is the “word of life’’—life being 
 the grand blessing which it reveals—while it proclaims its 
 origin, how it has been secured, and by what means it is 
 applied, what is its present nature, and what shall be its 
 ultimate and glorious destiny. Rom. i. 16; John vi. 63; Acts 
 v. 20. ‘To understand Christ Himself by the phrase, as did 
 some of the older expositors, is unwarranted. Nor can we, 
 with others, such as Am Ende, give the genitive a subjective 
 sense, and render the “ living word;” or, with Beza and others, 
 the vivifying word —vivijicum ab effectu. 
 
 The participle ἐπέχοντες has been variously understood. 
 1. The Syriac translator interprets, but does not render, when 
 he gives theclause—LKX AAO-> σιν ἢ 50Ν)» “to be 
 to them for a place of salvation.” He is followed by Michaelis, 
 Zachariae, Flatt, and Storr, who gives it —et vitae loco esse. The 
 view, however, cannot be maintained by any strong arguments. 
 
 2. The literal meaning of the verb is “to have on;”’ and so 
 Meyer takes it in the simple sense of “ possessing,” a meaning 
 it has in the classical writers. Yet in the passages adduced by 
 him from Herodotus and Thucydides, the word signifies to 
 oceupy or govern a district. Meyer’s idea is, however, good 
 in itself, for had they not possessed the word of life, the essence 
 of which is light, they should be as dark as the world round 
 about them. 
 
 3. Others give the participle the sense of “ holding fast” — 
 the word of life. Hesychius defines it by κρατοῦντες, and 
 Suidas by φυλάσσοντες. ‘This view is held by Luther, Bengel, 
 Hoelemann, Heinrichs, De Wette, Robinson, Bretschneider, 
 and Wahl. ‘The verb does not seem to have such a meaning 
 anywhere in the New Testament, certainly not in Acts xix. 
 22. This idea is illustrated by Chrysostom—‘ What means,” 
 he asks, “‘ holding fast—éméyovres—the word of life? Being 
 destined to live, being of the saved.” And he asks again 
 
144 PHILIPPIANS II. 16. 
 
 —‘ What means the word of life? Having the seed of life 
 —that is, having pledges of life, holding fast—xatéyovtes— 
 life itself.” 
 
 4. We agree with those who understand the word as 
 meaning “ holding up or forth.” Of this opinion, generally, 
 are van Hengel, Erasmus, Grotius, Rheinwald, and Matthies. 
 Meyer allows that such a meaning does belong to the verb, 
 but objects that it does not harmonize with the figure which 
 represents the subjects themselves as luminaries. Now it may 
 be replied, that this clause describes the mode in which 
 believers are luminaries. ‘They appear as lights in the world © 
 —as, or when, or because they are holding forth the word of 
 life. Possessing the word of life they shine, says Meyer ; 
 holding up the word of life they are luminaries, is our idea of 
 the image. ‘The possession of the gospel is in itself a source 
 of individual enlightenment, but the exhibition of that gospel 
 throws its light on others. 
 
 There is abundant evidence that this is a common meaning 
 of the verb, and such a meaning harmonizes with the context. 
 Numerous examples are given by Passow and the other lexi- 
 cographers—Iliad ix. 489, &c., xvi. 444—where the verb 
 occurs with οἶνον, as in other places with pafov, ἕο. The 
 gospel or word of life was held forth, and its holders were 
 light-givers in the world. As they made known its doctrines, 
 and impressed men with a sense of its importance, as their 
 actions, in their purity and harmony, exhibited its life and 
 power, did they hold it forth. From them the world learned 
 its true interest and destiny, its connection with God and 
 eternity; they were its only instructors in the highest of the 
 sciences. As Balduin quaintly but truly remarks, Christ is 
 φῶς, and they are φωστῆρες. 
 
 Thrice out of the five times in which ἐπέχειν occurs in 
 the New Testament, it signifies to ‘‘mark, or give or take 
 heed to.” Theodoret gives it the same meaning here, though 
 the construction would require a dative—T@ λόγῳ προσέ- 
 χοντες τῆς ξωῆς--- 
 
 εἰς καύχημα ἐμοὶ εἰς ἡμέραν Xprcrov-— for rejoicing to me 
 against the day of Christ.” Καύχημα is matter of rejoicing, 
 See under c. i. 26. The first preposition denotes result. 
 
PHILIPPIANS It. 16. 145 
 
 2 Cor. 1. 14; and the second points to the period for which this 
 result is, as it were, laid up. For the meaning of ἡμέρα X. see 
 under i.6. The apostle indicates the joy which obedience 
 to his counsels would finally create—a proof too, that his 
 labours had not been ineffectual— 
 
 ὅτι οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον, οὐδὲ εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπίασα“ that 
 I did not run in vain, nor labour in vain.” The expression 
 is somewhat proverbial,—to run in vain was to lose the prize. 
 Compare 1 Cor. ix. 26; Gal. ii. 2; iv-11; 1 Thess. ii. 5; 
 2 Tim. iv.7; Josephus, Antig. xix. 1,4. The aorists are used 
 to mark the time, as from the stand-point of the day of Christ. 
 The double form of expression—the one a pointed trope, the 
 other more general—and the repetition of εἰς κενόν, mark the 
 intensity of the sentiment. The phrase εἰς κενόν (Diodorus 
 Sic. xix. 9), equivalent in result to μάτην and εἰκῆ and cor- 
 responding to the Hebrew >, resembles similar expressions, 
 . as els καλοῦ Kriiger, § 68, 21,11; 2 Cor. vi. 1; Gal. ii. 2; 
 1 Thess. 11. 5. The second verb is as expressive as the first. 
 If the image of the race-course suggest previous training 
 (1 Cor. ix. 25, 27) and violent exertion, the putting forth of 
 the utmost power in direction of the goal and the garland— 
 the second verb has in it the broader notion of continuous and 
 earnest effort ; for the apostle was ἐν κόποις, 2 Cor. vi. 5—nay, 
 ἐν κόποις περισσοτέρως, 2 Cor. xi. 23. It is very tame, on the 
 part of Wetstein, to explain the figure of running by this 
 matter of fact—longum citer Hierosolymis per totam Macedoniam. 
 
 The apostle looks forward to the period when all secrets shall 
 be unfolded, when the results of pastoral labour shall be fully 
 disclosed, and he anticipates that when, in the light of eternity, 
 he should behold the result of his apostolic efforts, his bosom 
 should be filled with joy. What purer joy can be imagined 
 than this—what joy nearer in fulness and loftiness to His, 
 who, on the same day, ‘“ shall see of the travail of His soul 
 and shall be satisfied?”’ And what, in a word, does the apostle 
 regard as the consummation of his labours, or when, in the 
 history of a church, does he reckon that his ministerial services 
 have fully succeeded ? The preceding verses afford an answer ; 
 for it is only when a church feels and acts as the apostle has 
 counselled, that he sees in its experience and destiny the crown 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 | 
 
146 PHILIPPIANS II. 17. 
 
 and reward of his sufferings and toils. Its prosperity is neither 
 in its number nor its wealth, but in its spiritual progress—in its 
 purity and enlightening power—in short, in its possession and 
 exhibition of the “mind which was also in Christ Jesus.” 
 
 (Ver. 17.) "AAW εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουρ- 
 γίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν---“ But if even I am being poured out 
 on the sacrifice and service of your faith.’ ᾿Αλλά is not guin, 
 as Beza translates it, and he is generally followed by Am 
 Ende and others, who find no contrast. De Wette connects 
 it with i. 25, which is too remote for such a purpose, as is also 
 i, 21, the reference of Storr. Hoelemann supposes the con- 
 trast to be with εἰς cavynwa— Quid, O Paule, recordaris τοῦ 
 καυχήματος, quum undique stipent et urgeant, que tristissima 
 presagiant ? But such an association had no place in the fear- 
 less and elevated heart of the apostle. Rilliet supposes the 
 reference to be to an unexpressed thought—“I have not 
 laboured in vain—“non,” pense-t-il en lwi-méme je n'ai pas tra- 
 vaillé en vain, mais au contraire. The antithesis in ἀλλά is 
 to the general thought implied in the previous verse. Not 
 that, as Alford, following Schrader and van Hengel, says, he 
 tacitly assumes he should live till the day of Christ. He would 
 have cause of joy laid up for the day of Christ, if he saw the 
 Philippians acting as he had enjoined them; on the other hand, 
 should he be cut off, that joy would not be frustrated. 
 
 The phrase εἰ «al—“ if even,” supposes a case which has 
 some probability of occurrence, not a case put for argument or 
 illustration—a form indicated by the reverse position of the 
 particles καὶ εἰ. Klotz, Devarius, ii. p. 519. If even I am 
 being poured out, as I feel that I am—e? «ai— ; and if I am 
 poured out, should it really come to this, as it may—cal εἰ, 
 
 The next clause is a vivid sacerdotal image. The reference 
 in σπένδομαι is to the libation poured upon the sacrifice, or at 
 least round the altar, and is to be understood of his own death. 
 Numbers xv. 5; xxviii. 7. Hesychius and Suidas explain it 
 by @vowa:—an explanation right as to general sense, but not 
 correct as to special meaning or form of representation. The 
 preponderant use of θυσία in the New Testament, is the thing 
 sacrificed, but it is not, as Ellicott affirms, its uniform meaning. 
 It denotes the sacrifice, not simply the process as a rite, but the 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 17. 147 
 
 victim offered in the performance of that rite—a devoted thing 
 or animal in its ritual presentation to God. The noun λει- 
 roupyia is the priestly ministration, as in Luke i. 23; Heb. 
 viii. 6; ix. 21—ministration which the apostle supposes him- 
 self to conduct, and not their ministration in promoting 
 Christianity,as Wahl makes it. (Sub voce θυσία.) The genitive 
 πίστεως is that of object, and is related to both the nouns with 
 a common article. Their faith was the matter of the sacrifice, 
 that which the priestly ministration handled. The apostle’s 
 image is that of an altar, on which their faith is laid by him 
 as priest, while his own blood is being poured out as the usual 
 drink-offering or libation. It is an error, both in philology 
 and imagery, on the part of Rilliet, to render—Je suis aspergé, 
 ou j'ai recu Vaspersion, as if the allusion were to a victim on 
 which a libation had been poured so as to consecrate it for the 
 altar—xataorévéw being in that case the appropriate term, 
 and it is the term occurring in the majority of the quotations 
 in Wetstein, who adopts the same view. It is.no less wrong 
 to suppose the Philippians to be as priests offering their own 
 faith to God—connecting ὑμῶν exclusively with λειτουργία, 
 than to regard the Philippians themselves as constituting the 
 θυσία, for the image is different here from Rom. xv. 16. We 
 need scarcely mention the opinion that the money gift of the 
 Philippians is referred to, or quote the view of Rettig, that 
 Christ is the θυσία, thus separating it from πίστεως, and the 
 
 
 
 λειτουργία this pecuniary present. We take ἐπί in its ordi- 
 nary acceptation, “ upon,” not as meaning wahrend—‘ during,” 
 with Meyer, nor with Ellicott as signifying “ in addition to,” 
 or “in,” denoting merely a concomitant act.1_ Ellicott’s objec- 
 tion to the rendering “upon” is, that the libation among the 
 Jews was poured not on the altar, but around it. But it is 
 needless to suppose, that in using such a figure the apostle 
 was bound to keep by the strict letter of the Hebrew rubric, 
 for the very supposition of a drink-oftering of human blood was 
 of all things most opposed to it; and he here speaks of his own 
 violent death, or, as Theophylact strips the figure—ei καὶ 
 τελευτῶ. As their faith is laid by himself upon the altar, and 
 
 1 For illustrations of the pagan form of the ceremonial, see Raphelius in loco. 
 See also Suicer sub voce. 
 
148 PHILIPPIANS II 18. 
 
 he is engaged in the act of presenting-it, his own blood is 
 poured out upon it, and serves as a libation to it,—the blood 
 of the officiating priest, suddenly slain, would naturally be 
 sprinkled over the sacrifice which he was offering to God. 
 The apostle’s death, as a martyr, was felt by him to be a very 
 likely event; and ΒΝ that death would be a judicial murder, 
 it would yet be an offering poured out on the faith of his Philip- 
 pian converts. But the prospect of such a death did not fill 
 him with gloomy associations, for he adds in a very different 
 opal 
 
 χαίρω καὶ συγχαίρω πᾶσιν Suto —é I rejoice and give joy 
 to you 811. That the compound verb may bear this sense in 
 the active voice, is plain from many examples. Passow sub voce. 
 The Vulgate has congratulor. In the New Testament when 
 persons are the objects, it seems to bear the same meaning. 
 Luke i. 58—Elizabeth’s neighbours and relatives heard of the 
 birth of her son—«al συνέχαιρον αὐτῇ---ἃπα they rejoiced with 
 her, or gave her their congratulations. Luke xv. 6, 9—on the 
 part of the shepherd who has found his wandered sheep, and 
 on the part of the housewife who has recovered her lost piece of 
 silver, the cordial call to friends and kinsfolks 1s—ovyxapnré 
 por—trejoice with me, that is, be partakers of my 107: or wish 
 me joy. See also Sept Gen. κι Ὁ Mace..1.8. “The 
 ground of this joy and congratulation is Ot eae marked 
 by the previous ἐπί Such appears to be the view of Chry- 
 sostom; but ἐπί is specially connected with σπένδομαι, and 
 in Paul’s style usually follows χαίρω when connected with it. 
 1 Cor. xiii. 6; xvi. 17. The cause of the joy is what is told 
 in the entire verse. His martyrdom, viewed in the light in 
 which he presents it, was anticipated with joy and congratu- 
 lations. The reference in i. 20 is explanatory to some extent, 
 but cannot be taken, with De Wette, as either a full or an 
 apposite illustration. The apostle is not content with what 
 he has said, but he invites a perfect reciprocity of feeling :— 
 
 (Ver. 18.) Τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑμεῖς χαίρετε, καὶ συγχαίρετέ μοι 
 —‘ Yea, for the very same reason, do ye also joy and offer 
 joy tome.” ‘The pronominal formula or accusative of refer- 
 ence—7o δ᾽ avto—is governed by χαίρετε. Matt. xxvii. 44; 
 Winer, § 32,4; Kiihner, §553; Anmerk.1. The alternative 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 19. 149 
 
 of his martyrdom was not to dispirit them; they were to 
 rejoice and to congratulate him—so nearly were they con- 
 cerned in it; their faith being the sacrifice in the offering of 
 which the apostle is engaged, when his blood, like a drink- 
 offering, is poured out as an accompaniment. 
 
 (Ver. 19.) “Edmifm δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ, Τιμόθεον ταχέως 
 πέμψαι ὑμῖν--- But I hope in the Lord Jesus, shortly, to 
 send Timothy to you.” Though the apostle has expressed 
 himself with this ardour, still he feels that the prospect of 
 martyrdom is not sure beyond doubt.” It was a possibility, a 
 probability even, but his mind at once turns from it to imme- 
 diate business—the mission of Timothy, and his own projected 
 journey to Philippi. The particle δέ indicates transition to 
 an opposite train of thought; and the phrase ἐν Kupi@ Ἰησοῦ 
 gives the sphere of his hope, while ἐπί with the dative 
 would have marked its foundation. He expected to send 
 Timothy, and that expectation was based upon Christ; that 
 He would prepare the way, and so order events that Timothy’s 
 mission might come to pass. Only if Christ so willed it, 
 could it happen, and he felt and hoped that his intention to 
 send Timothy, after a brief interval, was in accordance with 
 the mind of Christ. A fuller form of expression occuis in 
 1 Cor. xvi. 7—“‘I hope to tarry awhile with you”’—éav ὁ Κύριος 
 ἐπιτρέπῃ, “if the Lord permit.” The dative ὑμῖν is not the 
 same in reference as πρὸς ὑμὰς in v. 25, as if intimating the 
 direction or end of his journey, but it rather points out the 
 persons with whom he should find himself, or who should 
 receive him as the apostle’s representative. John xv. 26; 
 1 Cor. iv. 17; Kiihner,§ 571. And the purpose of the mission 
 is thus briefly expressed— 
 
 iva κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ, γνοὺς τὰ περὶ Yu@v— that I also may 
 be of good spirit, when I have known your affairs.” The 
 καί means—‘ I, as well as you’’—you will be of good heart 
 when you know my affairs, and I, too, shall be of good heart 
 when I know yours—rta@ περὶ ὑμῶν. Eph. vi. 22. The verb 
 εὐψυχέω is found only here in the New Testament; but 
 εὐψυχία, εὐψυχής, εὔψυχος and εὐψύχως are used by the clas- 
 sics in both prose and poetry. 2 Mace. xiv. 18; Prov. xxx. 31; 
 1 Mace. ix. 14; Josephus, Antig. 11.6. The imperative of the 
 
150 PHILIPPIANS II. 20, 21. 
 
 verb is found also on monuments, recording the farewell of 
 survivors. (Passow swb voce.) The expression implies that the 
 apostle was solicitous about them, as various hints and counsels 
 in this epistle already intimate; but he hoped to receive such 
 accounts through Timothy as should dispel all his anxieties 
 and apprehensions. And he assigns, for his choice of Timothy 
 as his messenger, a reason which could not but commend 
 him to the Philippian church as he discharged his embassy 
 among them. 
 
 (Ver. 20.) Οὐδένα yap ἔχω ἰσόψυχον, ὅστις γνησίως τὰ 
 περὶ ὑμῶν μεριμνήσει---“( For I have no one like-minded, who 
 will really care for your affairs.” The adjective ἰσόψυχον, 
 which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, though 
 found in the Septuagint (Ps. liv. 13), states a resemblance, 
 not between Timothy and others, as Beza, Calvin, and 
 Rilliet suppose, but between Timothy and the apostle him- 
 self as the subject of the sentence. The use of ὅστις is 
 somewhat different from its meaning in some previous verses, 
 and signifies—“ as being of a class.” Kriiger, § 51,8. The 
 adverb γνησίως qualifies the verb, or describes the genuineness 
 of that solicitude which Timothy would feel for the Philip- 
 pian converts. The verb, as usual with Paul, governs the 
 accusative, though it has the dative—Mat. vi. 25—and is also 
 followed by zepi—“ to care about,” and v7ép— to care for.” 
 Timothy is of such a nature, has a soul so like my own, that 
 when he comes among you, he will manifest—wepiprvjcer—a 
 true regard for your best interests. What higher eulogy could 
 the apostle have pronounced upon him? And he was shut 
 up to the selection of Timothy— 
 
 (Ver. 21.) Οἱ πάντες yap τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, οὐ τὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ---“ For the whole seek their own things, not the 
 things of Jesus Christ.” The οἱ πάντες specifying the entire 
 number, corresponds to the οὐδένα of the previous verse. (For 
 similar use of the article and pronoun, compare Acts xix. 7, 
 xxvii. 87; 1 Cor. ix. 22; Bernhardy, p. 320; Middleton on 
 Greek Article, p. 104, note by the Editor.) All, with the 
 exception of Timothy, seek their own things. This is a 
 sweeping censure, and, therefore, many, such as Hammond, 
 Estius, Rheinwald, and Flatt, seek to modify it in number, by 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 22. 151 
 
 rendering οἱ πάντες, “the majority ;” while others, as Eras- 
 
 mus, Calvin, and Hoelemann, seek to modify it in severity, 
 by inserting a comparison—all seek their own more than the 
 things of Jesus Christ. But while these modifications are 
 inadmissible, it must at the same time be borne in mind, that 
 the apostle’s words should be limited to such persons as were 
 with him, and, farther, to those who might be supposed to be 
 eligible for such an enterprise; so that probably the brethren 
 mentioned in i. 15 are to be excluded from the estimate. 
 It is impossible for us now to ascertain on whom the apostle’s 
 censures light, though Demas may be a representative of the 
 class. 2 Tim. iv. 10. In the last chapter of the epistle to the 
 Colossians, some persons are noticed, but Wiesinger remarks, 
 after stating that Luke was probably not at Rome, “the 
 apostle’s words do not apply to any of those of his fellow- 
 labourers, in reference to whom they would have excited our 
 surprise.” Ewald is inclined to regard them as persons from 
 Philippi, or well acquainted with its affairs, but hostile to the 
 apostle. The persons so referred to had not that like-souled- 
 ness with the apostle which he ascribes to Timothy; did not 
 love Christ’s cause above everything; were not so absorbed 
 in it as to allow nothing, neither ease nor safety, home nor 
 kindred, to bar them from advancing it. On the other hand, 
 the eulogy pronounced on Timothy is based upon acknowledged 
 evidence— 
 
 (Ver. 22.) Τὴν δὲ δοκιμὴν αὐτοῦ yweoKxere— But ye know 
 his tried character.” Aé introduces the contrast between him 
 and those just referred to. The noun δοκιμή signifies trial— 
 experimentum—and then the thing tried. Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. 
 ii. 9, ix. 13. The process of proof they had possessed already 
 —Acts xvi.—and therefore γινώσκετε is indicative, not im- 
 perative. They were no strangers to his excellence—it had 
 been tested during previous visits. And the apostle briefly 
 and tenderly sketches it— 
 
 ὅτι, ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον, σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον 
 —that as a child ἃ father, he served with me for the gospel.” 
 Some supply σύν before πατρί, and render with our version— 
 “as a son with a father.” But this supplement mars the 
 beauty of the eulogy; nor is it in strict accordance with 
 
152 PHILIPPIANS II. 23. 
 
 grammatical usage. A preposition, inserted in the first of a 
 series of clauses, may be omitted in the subsequent ones; but 
 the reverse rarely, if ever, happens. Bernhardy, p. 204; 
 Kiihner, ὃ 625. And the apostle designedly varies the aspect 
 of the relation. ‘The expected construction would be—‘ as a 
 child serves a father, so he served me for the gospel;” but it 
 is changed into—“ served with me.” Winer, ὃ 63, 2,1. As 
 a child serves a father, is an expressive image, denoting 
 loving, devoted, and confidential service. But the apostle felt 
 that in missionary labour it was not he who directly received 
 the service from Timothy, and he therefore changed the rela- 
 tion into σὺν éuoi—still bringing out the idea that Timothy’s 
 service, though directed to a common object with his own, 
 was yet subordinate to his, was filial, ardent, and unwearied. 
 Timothy is thus represented not as serving Paul, though Paul 
 seems to have prescribed his labours and travels, but as 
 serving with him—both being common servants of the same 
 Master. But in this service Timothy was directed and go- 
 verned by his spiritual father, with whom he was so like- 
 minded. The phrase εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is “for the gospel,” 
 asin a..);, mot “1m at,” 
 
 (Ver. 23.) Τοῦτον μὲν οὖν ἐλπίζω πέμψαι---“ Him, then, I 
 hope to send immediately” --ἐξαυτῆς. Τοῦτον is placed em- 
 phatically—jeév corresponding to δέ of the following verse, 
 and ovv taking up again and repeating, after the break, what 
 has been said in verse 19. ᾿Εξαυτῆς, Mark vi. 25; Acts x. 33. 
 
 ὡς ἂν apidw τὰ περὶ éue— whenever I shall have seen 
 how it will go with me.” The form ἀφίδω is supposed 
 to have arisen from the pronunciation of the word with the 
 digamma (Winer, § 5, 1), and is found in A, B’, Dt, F, G; 
 Jonah iv. 5. The ἀπό seems to be local, as in many other 
 verbs compounded with it—prospicere. ‘The verb, used only 
 here, is followed by the simple accusative, but sometimes by 
 εἰς and πρός. Herod. iv. 22; Joseph. Antig. ii. 6, 1; 4 Mace. 
 xvii. 23.. See under i. 20. The phrase τὰ περὶ €ue—“ the 
 things about me ’’—may have in it the idea of development. 
 The idiom ὡς ἄν marks the writer’s uncertainty as to the 
 time when the events which are the subject of ἀφίδω, shall 
 take place. Chrysostom’s paraphrase is ὅταν ἴδω ἐν τίνι 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 24, 25. 153 
 
 ἕστηκα καὶ ποῖον ἕξει τέλος TA κατ᾽ ἐμέ. The apostle, as long as 
 his fate was undetermined, wished to keep Timothy with him. 
 When there might be a decision he could not tell, only he 
 hoped it would be soon; and as soon as he could ascertain the 
 issue, he would at once despatch Timothy to Philippi. But 
 he has, at the same time, a persuasion that he will speedily 
 visit them himself. 
 
 (Ver. 24.) Πέποιθα δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ἐλεύσο- 
 parc—* But I trust in the Lord, that I myself also shall shortly 
 come.” The δέ corresponds to the μέν of the previous verse, 
 and ἐν Κυρίῳ marks the sphere or nature of his trust, ver. 19. 
 Not only did he hope to send Timothy soon, but he cherishes 
 the prospect of a speedy visit in person also—xal αὐτός. The 
 relative period of his own visit is specified by ταχέως, as that 
 of Timothy’s mission has been by ἐξαυτῆς. Meyer and Elli- 
 cott suppose that ταχέως refers to a later period than ἐξαυτῆς 
 —that Paul hoped to send Timothy soon, and come himself 
 shortly after; but both expressions date from the writing of 
 the epistle, and they are to be taken in a popular sense. A 
 and C, with some versions and Fathers, add πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The 
 expression πέποιθα is stronger than the previous ἐλπίζω. See 
 under 1. 25. 
 
 (Ver. 25.) ᾿Αναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην, ᾿Ιπαφρόδιτον---πέμψαι 
 πρὸς vuas— Yet I judged it necessary to send Epaphroditus 
 to you.” ‘The δέ 15 so far in contrast with the preceding state- 
 ment, that he hoped to send Timothy, and trusted also to come 
 himself; but in the meantime he judged it necessary to send 
 Epaphroditus. The necessity, however, did not arise out of the 
 mere probability or the possible delay of his own and Timothy’s 
 visit, but it is stated at length in the subsequent verses. The 
 prospect of a speedy visit from himself and Timothy did not 
 supersede the mission of Epaphroditus, for there were other 
 reasons for it. He might have gone in Paul’s company, but 
 he is to precede him. The verb ἡγησάμην is in what is called 
 the epistolary aorist, the time being taken from the ideal period 
 of the reception of the letter, so that ἡγέομαι to the writer passes 
 into ἡγησάμην to the readers. Winer, 40, 5, b. 2. Of Epa- 
 phroditus nothing farther is known. Everything is against 
 the supposition of Grotius and Schrader that he is the same 
 
154 PHILIPPIANS II. 25. 
 
 as the Epaphras mentioned in the epistle to the Colossians, 
 i. 7; iv. 12; and in Philemon, 23. The name was a common 
 one. Wetstein has given several examples of it from Sueto- 
 nius, Josephus, and Arrian. Kpaphras might be a contracted 
 form of Epaphroditus, and Epaphras was also about this time 
 in Rome. But who could suppose that the Asiatic Epaphras, a 
 pastor at Colosse and a native of it, could be Epaphroditus, 
 a messenger delegated to Paul with a special gift from the 
 distant European church of Philippi, and by him sent back to 
 it with this lofty eulogy, and as having a special interest in 
 its affairs and members? Other traditions are still more base- 
 less,—that he had been one of the seventy disciples, a bishop, 
 or one of those commissioned to ordain bishops or proselytes, 
 —the freedman or secretary of Nero, to whom Josephus dedi- 
 cated his two books against Apion. Epaphroditus is then 
 heartily commended, and the apostle first characterizes him 
 through his relation to himself,— 
 
 τὸν ἀδελφὸν καὶ συνεργὸν Kal συστρατιώτην jov— my 
 brother, and fellow-labourer, and fellow-soldier.” The epi- 
 thets rise in intensity,—first a Christian brother—then a 
 colleague in toil—and then a companion in scenes of danger 
 and conflict. Philemon, 2; 2 Tim. 11. 58. Not simply a bro- 
 ther, but an industrious one—not industrious only in times 
 of peace, but one who had met the adversary in defence of the 
 gospel. And this was not all, he sustained at the same time 
 a peculiar relation to the Philippian church,— 
 
 ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον Kal λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας μου---( but 
 your deputy and minister to my need.” In the collocation— 
 μου, ὑμῶν 5é—there is a marked antithetical connection—the 
 pronoun ὑμῶν defining both the nouns after it which want the 
 article. ᾿Απόστολος is used in its original, and not in its 
 ecclesiastical sense as a delegate or one who did Paul’s work 
 among them, 2 Cor. viii. 23—far less in its emphatic sense of 
 apostle, or special founder of a church, or bishop of this 
 church as Beelen and Whitby assume. He had been sent 
 by the Philippian church with a gift to Paul, so that he 
 
 1 Of Nero Suetonius says (49), ferrum jugulo adegit, juvante Epaphrodito a 
 libellis, and of this secretary the same author tells again (Domitian, 14), Epaphro- 
 ditum a libellis capitali pena condemnavit. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 26, 27. 0 
 
 became the minister of his πϑοᾶ---ς τὰ rap’ ὑμῶν ἀποστα- 
 λέντα κομίσαντα χρήματα, as it is explained by Theodoret. 
 The noun λειτουργός has the general sense of minister, in con- 
 nection with the discharge of a religious duty. The apostle’s 
 “need”? was simply his want of such things as their gift 
 could supply. The apostle says merely “send,” not send 
 back; perhaps, as Bengel conjectures, nam ¢deo ad Paulum 
 venerat, ut cum eo maneret.. One special reason why the 
 apostle wished to send Epaphroditus is next given :— 
 
 (Ver. 26.) Ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποθῶν ἣν πάντας bwas—“ Forasmuch 
 as he was longing after you all.” The conjunction ἐπειδή--- 
 “since now’’—assigns the reason why the apostle thought it 
 necessary to send back Epaphroditus. Klotz, Devarius, ii., 
 p- 548. Not only is the epistolary imperfect ἣν employed, 
 but it is here used with the present participle, to denote the 
 continuance’ of the longing. Winer, ὃ 45, 5. Epaphroditus 
 had not forgotten them, his longing was great towards them 
 —éri. See under i. 8, page 17. 
 
 καὶ ἀδημονῶν, διότι ἠκούσατε ὅτι Haobévnoe—* and was in 
 heaviness, because ye heard that he was sick.” The infini- 
 tive ἀδημονεῖν describes our Lord’s agony in Matt. xxvi. 37; 
 Mark xiv. 33. Its derivation is uncertain. How did the 
 intelligence conveyed to them that he was sick cause Epaphro- 
 
 _ditus to long for them? Was it to remove their anxiety and 
 sorrow, or did he apprehend some disastrous consequences as 
 the result of the rumour? Or would some parties between 
 whom he had mediated in the church take advantage of it, 
 and fall again into animosity ? 
 
 (Ver. 27.) Kat yap ἠσθένησε παραπλήσιον Oavate—* For 
 he really was sick, nigh unto death.” It was a true report 
 about his sickness which they had heard, and the apostle 
 earnestly corroborates it—xal γάρ is a strong affirmation. 
 Hartung, i. 152, 138. And his sickness had been all but 
 mortal—rapatAjovov is, as Ellicott says, “the adverbial 
 neuter followed by the dative of similarity.” Bernhardy, p. 
 96; Kriiger, § 48, 13, 8. Many examples might be cited. 
 The idiom is no technical figure of speech, nor do we need to 
 supply ἀφίκετο. As little ground is there for Bengel’s saying 
 that the apostle did not wish to alarm them about Epaphro- 
 
156 PHILIPPIANS II. 28. 
 
 ditus. His malady had indeed brought him to the gates of 
 death, but he had been mercifully spared— 
 
 GAN ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἠλέησεν" οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal 
 ἐμέ, ἵνα μὴ λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην σχῶ--- but God had mercy on 
 him, and not on him alone, but on me also, that I should not 
 have sorrow upon sorrow.” ‘The apostle refers his recovery 
 to God’s great mercy, which does not seem however to have 
 wrought by miracle, but, as one may naturally imagine, in 
 answer to the apostle’s fervent intercession. The reading ἐπὶ 
 λύπην, in preference to the more common and classical con- 
 struction with the dative,! is well sustained. “ The subjunc- 
 tive cy,” as Ellicott says, “is used after the preterite, to 
 mark the abiding character his sorrow would have assumed.” 
 Winer, ὃ 41,1. The apostle felt one sorrow, but the death 
 of Epaphroditus would have been an additional sorrow. The 
 sorrow which he already possessed, and of such an addition 
 to which he was afraid, was not, as Chrysostom and others 
 assume, the sickness of HEpaphroditus; for, even after his 
 convalescence, he speaks of himself as only lightened in 
 sorrow, but not entirely freed from it. A sorrow would still 
 remain after Epaphroditus had departed, as is intimated in the 
 next verse, the sorrow produced by his present situation— 
 his captivity and all its embarassments. This statement is 
 in no way inconsistent with what he had written 1. 20, &c., 
 for his condition is there looked at from a very different point 
 of view. 
 
 (Ver. 28.) Σπουδαιοτέρως οὖν ἔπεμψα avtov— The more 
 speedily therefore have I sent him,” or in English idiom, as 
 he carried the letter, ‘I send.” The force of the comparative 
 σπουδαιοτέρως is obvious. Winer, ὃ 35,4. He would have 
 detained him longer, if they had not received that intelligence 
 of his sickness which greatly grieved Kpaphroditus. It is not 
 as Bengel puts it—citius quam Timotheum— 
 
 iva ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε, Kay@ ἀλυπότερος O—“ in 
 order that having seen him ye may again rejoice, and I too 
 be less sorrowful.” Beza, Grotius, De Wette, with Knapp 
 and other editors, join πάλιν to ¢ddvtes—a connection which, 
 
 1 See examples in Wetstein and Kypke; also Polybius, i 57; Jeremiah iv. 20; 
 Ezek. vii. 26. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 29. 151 
 
 at first sight, seems very natural. The Philippians would 
 rejoice when they saw again their Epaphroditus. But the 
 usage of the apostle is against this exposition, for he commonly 
 places πάλιν before the verb with which it is connected, 
 Examples of this usage are numerous. Rom. xi. 23; xy. 10, 
 PP Corvin es 2 Cor i163 a. Ts °y. 19: ΣΕ ΤΟΣ "πὶ: 
 foots Gali 9173 us 1, 185 iv. 19. ve Ts Phihp) iv 4; 
 Heb. 1.6; iv. 7; v.12; vi.1,6. There are, however, some 
 exceptions, such as 2 Cor. x. 7, where the emphatic position 
 of τοῦτο throws πάλιν behind the verb; Gal. iv. 9, where the 
 form of the question produces the same result; and Gal. v. 3, 
 where the first reason may be again assigned. See Gersdorf’s 
 Beitrage, p. 490. The meaning will be—that as they had been 
 depressed when they heard of the alarming illness of Epa- 
 phroditus, so when they should see him they should rejoice 
 “again,” or as heretofore, in his presence and labours; and 
 while they rejoiced, he himself should be less sorrowful— 
 ἀλυπότερος (a word used only here); not without sorrow 
 absolutely, for he had it through his imprisonment, but a 
 weight would be taken off his mind, and in proportion as they 
 rejoiced would his grief be lessened through his oneness of 
 heart with them. The sorrow which should thus be mitigated 
 is not cogitatio anaietatis vestre, as van Hengel misunderstands 
 it, for the apostle ascribes this feeling to Epaphroditus, not to 
 himself. 
 
 (Ver. 29.) TIpocdéyecOe οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν Κυρίῳ peta πάσης 
 xapas— Receive him, therefore, in the Lord with all joy.” 
 The οὖν refers to the statement of the apostle’s purpose in the 
 previous verse. Such a reception has its element ἐν Κυρίῳ--- 
 a reception, therefore, Christian in its fervour and object. It 
 was no cold welcome the apostle enjoined or anticipated, but 
 one peta πάσης yapas— with all joy,” and no wonder that 
 it should be so— 
 
 καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους éyere—“ and hold such in ho- 
 nour,” that is, such as Epaphroditus. The more usual classic 
 form of expression is, ἐντιμῶς ἔχειν. Ast, Lewicon Platon. 
 sub voce. The class of men οἱ τοιοῦτοι, of whom Epaphroditus 
 is a noted example, deserve the esteem and gratitude of the 
 church for their self-denying and disinterested labours. And 
 the apostle assigns a special reason in his case— 
 
158 PHILIPPIANS II. 30. 
 
 (Ver. 30.) Οτι διὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Χριστοῦ μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισε 
 — Because that for the work of Christ he came near even 
 to death.’ On the solitary authority of C, Tischendorf omits 
 τοῦ X., while B, F, G omit the article, and A has Κύριου. 
 The peculiar phrase—péyps θανάτου ijyyioe—repeats more 
 graphically what he had already said in verse 27. Μέχρι is 
 not unlike és! in Ps. evil. 18---ἤγγισαν ἕως τῶν πυλῶν τοῦ 
 θανάτου. Similar idioms are found in the Septuagint, though 
 not so distinctive as the one before us. The verb is sometimes 
 followed by the simple dative, as Ps. lxxxvill. 83—7) ζωή μου 
 τῷ ἅδῃ Hyyece—and sometimes by εἰς with the accusative, as 
 Job xxxill. 22---ἤγγισε δὲ εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ. May 
 there not be a tacit reference in μέχρι θανάτου here to the 
 same expression in verse 8? as if to show that the mind which 
 was in Christ was in Epaphroditus, and was shown in his 
 self-denial and suffering “ for the work of Christ’’— 
 
 διὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The clause is placed emphati- 
 cally. The work of Christ, as is explained in the next clause, 
 is not preaching, as Storr, van Hengel, Matthies, and Rilliet 
 contend for. It is service done to the apostle, and through 
 him to Christ. So much was he identified with Christ, that 
 service rendered to him, being directly instrumental in promot- 
 ing Christ’s cause, might be styled the work of Christ. How 
 he came so nigh to death, the apostle describes by the striking 
 words— 
 
 . παραβολευσάμενος τῇ Wvyn—* having hazarded his life.”’ 
 The reading is disputed ; many preferring παραβουλευσάμενος, 
 which signifies as in our version—“ not regarding his life.” 
 This last reading is retained by Tischendorf in his second 
 edition, being found in C, J, K, and in the Greek Fathers. 
 The majority of editors and more modern expositors prefer 
 the first form, which has the authority of A, B, D, Εἰ, F, G. 
 Both words occur nowhere else in classic Greek authors, 
 though the second be often used by the Greek commentators. 
 The Versions are undecided. The Vetus Ltala has parabo- 
 latus est de anima sua; the Vulgate, tradens animam suam ; 
 the Syriac version renders by ,A4—spernens; and the 
 Gothic has ufarmunnonds satvalai*® seinat, “ forgetting his 
 own life.’ The verb is formed from srapa8or0s—“ risking, 
 
 1 Found here in Codices D, F, G. 2 Saivalai=seele, soul. 
 
PHILIPPIANS II. 30. 159 
 
 venturesome ”—and like many verbs in evw, which combine 
 the force of the adjective and auxiliary verb, is equivalent in 
 meaning to παράβολον εἶναι, just as ἐπισκοπεύειν 15 ἐπίσκο- 
 πον εἶναι. Winer, 8 10, 1, note. Hxamples will be found as in 
 Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 67, and in the third of his Parerga, 
 p- 591. Wilke, Lexicon Append. p. 552. In result, the word 
 is not different from the better known παραβάλλεσθαι, as in 
 Diodorus Siculus, 111.386 —éxpwav παραβαλλέσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς; 
 or in Polybius, 1. 37, or ii. 90---μήτε παραβάλλεσθαι μήτε 
 διακινδυνεύειν. The example adduced by Phrynichus is— 
 παραβάλλομαι TH ἐμαυτοῦ κεφαλῇ --- 1 risk my head,”’} 
 The verb is here used with the dative of reference, as is also 
 παραβάλλεσθαι, in the example cited from Diodorus Siculus. 
 Polybius, 11. 26. The apostle testifies of Epaphroditus, that 
 he risked or ventured his life; the participle thus giving the 
 reason why he was nigh unto death—éréppupev ἑαυτὸν τῷ 
 θανάτῳ, as Theophylact renders it. And the reason why he 
 had so exposed himself was— 
 
 iva ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρός με λειτουργίας--- 
 “that he supply your deficiency in your service to me.” The 
 conjunction indicates purpose, and the compound verb—ava- 
 πληρώσῃ .--ἰβ to fill up; the ava having the notion of “up 
 to” an ideal measure. 1 Cor. xvi. 17. Or, as Erasmus 
 explains it—accessione implere, quod plenitudini perfecte 
 deerat. The noun ὑστέρημα has two genitives; that of sub- 
 ject—vtpov, as in 2 Cor. viii. 14, ix. 12, xi. 9; and that of 
 reference—ectoupyias ; the first genitive pointing out those 
 of whom the want is predicated; and the second showing in 
 what. the want consisted, Kiihner, § 542, 3; Winer, ὃ 30, 3; 
 Anmerk, 3. The ὑμῶν is not to be joined with λειτουργίας, as 
 is done by Beza and van Hengel, who renders—ut suppleret 
 defectum ministerti a vobis mihi facti. The noun λειτουργία 
 is used not in the general sense of service, but signifies the 
 
 1 The desperate persons who exposed themselves to combat with wild beasts— 
 bestiarii—were called παφάβολοι. The self-denying Christians who undertook the 
 hazardous office of nursing the sick, especially during the outbreak of some terrible 
 epidemic, were named Parabolani. The Theodosian code makes special mention of 
 them at Alexandria, where they were numerous; and where, being “‘men of a bold 
 and daring spirit,” they were occasionally turbulent, and were put under strict 
 discipline. Bingham’s Antiquities, vol. i. p. 391. London, 1843. 
 
160 PHILIPPIANS II. 30. 
 
 special religious service in the money-gift which Epaphroditus 
 had brought from them. He has called him that brought it 
 λειτουργός, V. 25, and he calls itself ‘an odour of a sweet smell, 
 a sacrifice acceptable,” iv. 8. They did this service for the 
 apostle—rpos με; but there was a lack on their part which 
 Epaphroditus supplied. The lack was not in the gift itself, but in 
 the ministration of it. They were absent, and could not minister 
 to the apostle; but Epaphroditus, by his kind and assiduous 
 attentions, fully made up what was necessarily wanting on their 
 part. The meaning, therefore, is not that assigned by Hoele- 
 mann—defectus cui subvenistis rerum necessariarum ; nor is it 
 with Chrysostom, “ Healonedid, what you all were bound to do.” 
 Homberg’s view is as unfounded—uwt impleret defectum in minis- 
 terio meo. The λειτουργία did not lack anything in itself, but 
 the Philippians lacked something on their part in connection 
 with it—they did not personally tender it. How Epaphroditus 
 had endangered his life by a sickness nigh unto death, on 
 account of the work of Christ, we know not. There is no 
 proof that he was exposed to persecution, as Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, and a-Lapide suppose. Nor is there any proof 
 that his evangelical labours had exhausted his physical 
 strength. The probability is, either that his attendance on 
 the apostle in Rome had exposed him in some way or 
 other to a dangerous maiady, or that, in his extreme haste to 
 convey the Philippian gift and tender personal service to the 
 prisoner, he had brought on an alarming sickness during his 
 journey. This concluding statement is a pathetic and power- 
 ful appeal, and enforces the injunction—“ Receive him there- 
 fore in the Lord with all gladness.” There is no reproof in 
 the words, as Chrysostom wrongly supposes, nor any censure 
 on them, as if they had left one to do the work which was 
 obligatory on them all. The tendency and purpose are the 
 very opposite. It is—Epaphroditus has not only discharged 
 his trust, and is deserving of thanks, but he has also ministered 
 unto me, and done what you could not, though you would; 
 nay, in this personal service he risked his very life, and, 
 therefore, he is entitled to a joyous welcome, and a high place 
 in your affectionate esteem. 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 1. 161 
 
 CHAPTER, IIE. 
 
 (VER. 1.) Τὸ λουπόν---“ Finally.”” The reader is furnished 
 in the Introduction with some notice of the disputes about 
 the connection of these two following chapters with the 
 previous two; disputes originating in the use of τὸ λοιπόν, 
 when so much literary matter comes after it—indeed, about 
 one-half of the epistle. Suffice it now to say, that the use of 
 the phrase implies that the primary object of the writer has 
 been gained; that what especially prompted him to compose 
 the epistle h has already found a place in it, and that what 
 follows is more or less supplementary in its nature. 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 11; ; Eph. vi. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 1. The 
 phrase orks Peatition, but toward that which is to form the 
 conclusion. It is therefore wrong on the part of Elsner and 
 others to regard it as a formula of mere transition; nor does 
 it, as Schinz would suppose, simply indicate the turning from 
 the special to the general. Van Hengel, following the interpre- 
 tation of τὸ λουπτόν given by Elsner, Matthies, and Bertholdt— 
 which assigns it the meaning of “ in addition to,” or simply 
 “in continuation” '—agrees also with Schinz, that the apostle 
 could not here contemplate a conclusion, because he has not 
 as yet expressed his thanks to the Philippian church. But 
 might not the apostle intend to place this thanksgiving in 
 this very conclusion? And who will say that a mere expres- 
 sion of thanks was so important as to be set in the principal 
 portion of the letter? It is argued, too, that the use of τὸ 
 λοιπόν shows that the apostle intended to conclude here, 
 though he was unconsciously carried farther; but surely the 
 writer knew well what were still to be the contents of his 
 letter, though he regarded them in such a light, or in such 
 
 1 Talis est ut ad utrumque caput conglutinandum inserviat. Van Hengel. 
 2 Die Christl. Gemeinde zu Philippi, p. 88, Ziirich, 1833. 
 L 
 
162 PHILIPPIANS III. 1. 
 
 a supplementary connection with the preceding portion, that 
 he designedly prefaced them by τὸ λοιπόν. 
 
 As to the connection, Chrysostom, with Cicumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Michaelis, Estius, and a-Lapide, deduce it from the 
 previous paragraph. Sources of sorrow are mentioned there, 
 but in God’s good providence they have ceased to exist. 
 Chrysostom paraphrases—‘“‘ You no longer have cause for 
 despondency—you have Epaphroditus, for whose sake you 
 Were sorry—you have Timothy, and myself am coming to you 
 —the gospel is gaining ground. What henceforth is wanting 
 to you? rejoice!” But such a connection is not apparent, 
 and, indeed, τὸ λουπόν breaks up the immediate connection, 
 and the apostle at once passes away from the subject which 
 he had just handled—from the personalities which he had just 
 been detailing. Besides, the addition of ἐν Κυρίῳ shows that 
 the joy is not of such a nature as to be simply prompted by 
 the circumstances to which the writer had been adverting in 
 the conclusion of the second chapter. But while we object to 
 such a connection as that proposed by Chrysostom, we do 
 not think that there is any break produced by some interrup- 
 tion, or indicating any lapse of time, as not a few are inclined 
 to suppose. Nor can the notion of Heinrichs be adopted, 
 that χαίρετε signifies leben wohl—tfarewell. 
 
 The apostle addresses the Philippian converts, “as my 
 brethren ’—adergot pov. See our comment on Col. 1. 1. 
 There was no official hauteur with him, no such assumption 
 of superiority as would place him in a higher or more select 
 brotherhood than that which belonged to all the churches. 
 
 The injunction is, ‘ rejoice in the Lord” —ya/pere ἐν Kupig. . 
 The modifying phrase ἐν Κυρίῳ does not mean, “ on account 
 of Christ,” or as becomes Christians, but it defines the sphere 
 and character of the joy. Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Thess. i. 6; Gal. 
 v. 22; Col.i.11. The Christian religion is no morose sys- 
 tem, stiffling every spring of cheerfulness in the heart, or 
 converting its waters mto those of Marah. It lifts the spirit 
 out of the thrall and misery of sin, and elevates it to the 
 enjoyment of the divine favour, and the possession of the divine 
 
 1 Οὐκ ἔχετε λοιπὸν ἀθυμίας ὑπόθεσιν, ἔχετε ᾿Επαφρόδιτον δι᾿ ὅν ἠλγεῖτε, ἔχετε Τὶ μόθεον, ἔρχομω 
 χἀγὼ--τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐπιδίδωσι. Τί ὑμῖν λείπει λοιπόν ; χαίρετε. 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 1. 163 
 
 image; nay, there is a luxury in that sorrow which weeps 
 tears of genuine contrition. Therefore, to mope and mourn, 
 to put on sackcloth and cleave to the dust, is not the part of 
 those who are in the Lord, the exalted Saviour, who guaran- 
 tees them “pleasures for evermore.’’ Such joy is not more 
 remote from a gloomy and morbid melancholy, on the one 
 hand, than it is, on the other hand, from the delirious ecstasies 
 of fanaticism, or the inner trances and raptures of mystic 
 Quietism. Chrysostom remarks that this joy is not κατὰ 
 Tov Koopov— according to the world,” and his idea, according 
 to his view of the connection is, that these tribulations or 
 sorrows referred to, being according to Christ, bring joy. This 
 last opinion, however, is not from the context, though certainly 
 the first remark is correct, for the joy of the world is often as 
 transient as the crackling of thorns under a pot; and it often 
 resembles the cup which, as it sparkles, tempts to the final 
 exhaustion of its bitter dregs. The express definition or limi- 
 tation in ἐν Κυρίῳ may be meant to show, that beyond the 
 Lord this joy is weakened, or has no place; and that, if the 
 Lord alone is to be rejoiced in, the Lord alone must be trusted 
 in. The sentiment thus warned and fortified them against the 
 Judaizers, whose opinions, in proportion as they tended to 
 lead away from the Lord, must have retarded all joy in Him; 
 while, if the Philippian believers continued to rejoice in the 
 Lord, that emotion, from its source and nature, guarded them 
 against such delusions. The next clause has seemed to many 
 to be an abrupt transition— 
 
 τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ ὀκνηρὸν, ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλές 
 —‘“ to write to you the same things, to me indeed is not grie- 
 vous, but for you it is safe.’’ The theories to which the 
 phrase τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν have given rise, have been examined 
 in the introduction. It is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory 
 conclusion. ‘To suppose the meaning to be—“ to write the 
 same things which I have already spoken to you,” is a gra- 
 tuitous conjecture, and places an unwarranted emphasis on 
 γράφειν ; but it is the view of Erasmus, Pelagius, Calvin, 
 Beza, Estius, Rheinwald, and Schrader. Nor can we, with 
 Heinrichs and Wieseler,! frame the contrast thus— to write 
 
 1 Chronologie des Apostol. Zeitalters, §c., p. 459. 
 
164 PHILIPPIANS III. 1. 
 
 the same things as I have previously given in charge to 
 Epaphroditus,” or say with Macknight—“ to write the same 
 things to you as to other churches.” Or, is the meaning this 
 —‘ the same things which I have already mentioned in this 
 epistle,” or “ the same things which I have written in a pre- 
 vious letter?” ‘The former view is held by Bengel, Michaelis, 
 Matthiae, van Hengel, Rilliet, and Wiesinger; and the latter 
 by Hunnius, Flatt, Meyer, and others. See Introduction. 
 The reference in the first hypothesis is supposed to be to the 
 expression of joy in the first or second chapter, repeated in 
 the commencing clause of the verse before us. Some, as van 
 Hengel and Wiesinger, refer to 11. 18; but it is a serious 
 objection that the rejoicing enjoined in 11. 18 is not specially 
 rejoicing in the Lord, but rejoicing with the apostle in the 
 idea of his martyrdom. Wiesinger contends that the joy mm 
 both places is the same. But the joy in every previous 
 reference is special and limited. The ‘ joy of faith” referred 
 to is somewhat similar; but it is not writing the “same things” 
 to them to bid them “rejoice in the Lord.” Some refer “ the 
 same things’’ to the caution given in the following verse, as 
 if it were repeated from i. 27, 28; but we cannot perceive the 
 resemblance. As De Wette remarks, the occurrence of the 
 word ἀσφαλές leads to the conclusion that what the apostle 
 repeats has reference to dangers threatening the Philippian 
 church—such dangers, in all likelikood, as are presupposed in 
 the following admonitions. This statement is fatal to the notion 
 of Alford, espoused also by Ellicott, and already glanced 
 at, that the reference in Ta αὐτά is to χαίρετε. The use of 
 the plural pronoun in reference to a single injunction would 
 indeed be no objection against their view. Jelf, ὃ 383. We 
 admit too, that spiritual joy would be a main safeguard against 
 Judaistic error. But the abruptness of the sentiment, the 
 precise epithets—“ irksome”’ to him, “ safe” to them—and the 
 passing on, without further remark or connecting link, to forms 
 of dangerous teaching, lead us to suppose that more is meant 
 by the apostle than the mere repetition of sentiments previously 
 and vaguely expressed. The passages quoted by Ellicott as 
 implied in τὰ αὐτά, such as i. 4, 18, iv. 10, are of a different 
 nature altogether, for they speak of the apostle’s own joy, and 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 2. 165 
 
 it would be no repetition of a phraseology descriptive of his 
 personal feeling to call on them to rejoice. We are therefore 
 brought to the conclusion, that the apostle refers to some 
 previous letter to the Philippians. They had sent once and 
 again to him, and he may have written once and again to 
 them, and given them such counsels and warnings as he here 
 proceeds to repeat. See Introduction. And this is the view 
 of Meyer, Beelen, and Bisping. 
 
 The adjective ὀκνηρός signifies “tedious.” To repeat the 
 same truth is to me no task of irksome monotony. Yet Baur 
 finds in this incidental expression a proof of the writer’s 
 poverty of mind and ideas. The apostle only repeats what 
 was profitable to them, for the purpose of more deeply im- 
 pressing it, and the epithet implies that, in other circumstances, 
 such a repetition might have been a weary and ungrateful 
 task. 
 
 The adjective ἀσφαλές signifies safe—safe in consequence 
 of being confirmed. Josephus, Anfig. 111. 2,1. Prov. 111. 18. 
 Luther renders machet euch desto gewissen, much as the Syriac 
 renders « ας QAN5 NYS. Hilary has necessarium, but 
 it is wrong from this to conjecture the reading to have been 
 avayxés, or paraphrase with Krasmus, guod non vitari potest. 
 
 (Ver. 2.) Βλέπετε τοὺς cvvas— Look to the dogs,” so as 
 to be warned against them. ‘The article points them out as a 
 well-known class. ‘The verb is here followed by a simple 
 accusative, and not by ἀπό with the genitive, and has there- 
 fore its original signification only rendered more emphatic. 
 Observe them so as to understand them, the inference being 
 that when they are understood, they will be shunned. Winer, 
 § 32, 2. So the Vulgate has observate. This hard expression, 
 κύνας, must be judged of by Eastern usage and associations. 
 In very early times the name was applied as an epithet of 
 reproach. In Homer the term is not of so deep a stain 
 especially as given to women ; yet it resembled, in fact, the 
 coarse appellative employed among the outcasts of society. 
 Iris calls Athena, and Hera calls Artemis, by the term 
 κύων; nay Helen names herself one. Jl. viii. 423, xxi. 
 481. In the Odyssey too, the female servants of Ulysses re- 
 ceive the same epithet. Odyss. xviii. 338, xix. 91, 154, 1721. 
 
166 PHILIPPIANS III. 2. 
 
 In countries to the east of Greece, the term was one of extreme 
 contempt, and that seemingly from the earliest times. The 
 dogs there were wild and masterless animals, prowling in the 
 evening, feeding on garbage, and devouring unburied corpses, 
 as savage generally as they were greedy. Isaiah lvi.11. The 
 fidelity ot the dog is recognized in the Odyssey, xvii. 291, and 
 by Auschylus, Agam. 607. But rapacity and filth (2 Pet. 
 ii. 22) are the scriptural associations. Ps. lix. 6, 14. 1 Kings 
 xiv. 11, xvi. 4, xxi. 19—compared with 1 Sam. xvi. 43; 
 2 Kings viii. 15. In Hebrew 32 was the epithet of the vilest 
 and foulest sinners. Deut. xxii. 19; Rev. xxu.15. The term 
 was therefore a strong expression of contempt, andwas given by 
 the Jews to the heathen, Matt. xv. 26, as it is by Moham- 
 medans to a Christian at the present day, when, without often 
 meaning a serious insult, they are in the habit of calling him 
 Giaour. We must suppose the apostle to use the word in its 
 general acceptation, and as indicative of impurity and pro- 
 fanity. To indicate more minute points of comparison, such 
 as those of shamelessness, selfishness, savageness, or male- 
 volence, is merely fanciful. The view of van Hengel is 
 peculiarly far-fetched—apostates from Christianity to Judaism 
 —the dog returning to his vomit. 2 Pet. 11. 22. 
 
 Who then are the persons on whom the apostle casts this 
 opprobrious epithet? The general and correct opinion is that 
 they were Judaizers, or, as Chrysostom styles them, “ base 
 and contemptible Jews, greedy of filthy lucre and fond of 
 power, who, desiring to draw away numbers of believers, 
 preached at the same time both Christianity and Judaism, 
 corrupting the gospel—éxjputtov καὶ τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν καὶ 
 τὸν ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸν, παραφθείροντες τὸ evayyédov.”” One is apt 
 to infer that the apostle here gives them the name which they 
 themselves flung about so mercilessly against the heathen. As 
 in the last clause he nicknames their boasted circumcision, so 
 here he calls them by a designation which in their contemp- 
 tuous pride they were wont to lavish on others. They were 
 dogs in relation to the purity and privileges of the Church, 
 ‘without’ which they were. 
 
 βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς épyatas— look to the evil-workers.”’ 
 ‘The verb is repeated for the sake of emphasis, and not because 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 2. 167 
 
 a second class of persons is pointed out to their wary in- 
 spection. The substantive, applied literally in many places 
 of the New Testament to labourers in the fields and vine- 
 yards, is transferred to workers in the church, or with a 
 general signification. Luke xii. 27; 2 Tim. 11. 15; 2 Cor. 
 xi. 13, where it has the epithet δόλιοι attached to it. The 
 adjective κακούς describes their character as base and mali- 
 cious. If they were ‘dogs,’ they must work according to 
 their nature. They were not, as Baldwin weakens the force 
 of the epithet, stmpliciter errantes, but they were set on evil ; 
 theirs was no inoperative speculation; they were not mere 
 opinionists, but restless agitators; they were not dreamy 
 theorists, but busy workers—earnest and indefatigable in the 
 support and propagation of their errors. 
 
 βλέπετε τὴν KaTaTounv— look to the concision.’”’ In the 
 contemptuous and alliterative term, the abstract is used for 
 the concrete, as is the case with περιτομή in the following 
 verse. The term occurs only here, and the apostle, in his 
 indignation, characterizes the class of Judaizers by it. Not 
 that he could speak so satirically of circumcision as a divine 
 institute, but of it only when, as a mere manual mutilation, 
 apart from its spiritual significance, it was insisted on as the 
 only means of admission to the church—as a rite never to be 
 discontinued, but one that was obligatory as well on the Gen- 
 tile races as on the descendants of Abraham. The term justly 
 designates the men whose creed was, “ except ye be circum- 
 cised and keep the whole law of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” 
 Viewed in this light, and as enforced for this end, it was 
 ‘only a cutting, and so the apostle calls those who made so 
 much of it “the slashers.’’ Chrysostom well says of them, 
 that so far from performing a religious rite, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ποι- 
 οῦσιν ἤ τὴν σάρκα Katatéwvovow—“ they merely cut their 
 flesh.” See our comment on Col. ii. 11, where the apostle says 
 that Christians have a spiritual circumcision— the offputting 
 not of the foreskin, but of the body of the flesh.” Such seems 
 to be the natural meaning of the phrase, as understood in the 
 light of the succeeding context. This play upon words is 
 frequent with the apostle, Winer, § 68,2; though some in- 
 stances of so-called paronomasia cannot be at all sustained. 
 
168 PHILIPPIANS III. 2. 
 
 Other ideas have, however, been found in the apostle’s 
 expression. Theodoret originated one of these theories, when 
 he says of the Judaists—ripy yap περιτομὴν κηρύττοντες, καὶ 
 τέμνειν πειρῶντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας TO σῶμα, and he is virtually 
 followed by Calvin and Beza, Grotius and Hammond, Elsner 
 and Zachariae, and in the English versions of Tyndale and 
 Cranmer. A similar idea was entertained by Luther, as if 
 the sense or implication were the excision of the heart from 
 faith or from the church. Such a thought does not seem 
 to be in the apostle’s mind, and it is not in contrast with 
 περιτομή, which besides has a passive, and not an active 
 signification. Beza, again, seems to find an allusion to Lev. 
 xix. 28, xxi. 5, to the Hebrew term x, referring to marks 
 or cuttings made in honour of idol-gods. 1 Kings xvii. 28. 
 Storr and Flatt follow this view, as if the apostle meant to 
 say, that such a circumcision as they insisted on and gloried 
 in was on a level with an idolatrous incision. The theory has 
 scarcely the credit of ingenuity. A more extraordinary view 
 still is broached in one of the Ignatian epistles—partum virginis 
 circumcidentes—hominem a Deo dividentes. Heumann sup- 
 poses the reference to be to the speedy abscission or destruction 
 of Judea. 
 
 The repetition of the verb proves the anxiety and stern 
 ardour of the apostle. Winer. ὃ 65, 5. “ For you it is safe,” 
 and their safety lay to some extent in being formally and 
 emphatically warned. Like three peals of a trumpet giving 
 a certain blast, do the three clauses sound with the thrice- 
 repeated verb—Prérere. That the same classes of persons 
 are referred to, we have no doubt. Van Hengel supposes that 
 three distinct kinds of errorists are pointed out ;— first, apos- 
 tates who have relapsed to Judaism ; secondly, actual corrupters 
 of the gospel; and thirdly, men so reliant on circumcision as 
 to despise Christ. This interpretation is more than the words 
 will bear, and there is no conjunction or particle employed so 
 as to indicate different parties. The same men are described 
 in each clause—as impure and profane, as working spiritual 
 mischief, and as taken up with a puerile faith in flesh-cutting. 
 In the first clause you have their character, in the second their 
 conduct, and in the third their destructive creed. The absurd 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 3. 169 
 
 stress they placed on a mere mutilation warranted the satirical 
 epithet of the concision; but their convictions on this point 
 drove them into a course of mischievous agitations, and they 
 became the evil-workers; then from their belief, character, 
 and actings, they stood out as impure and shameless—as 
 dogs. Men who insisted on circumcision as essential to salva- 
 tion made the rite ridiculous—Judaized ere they Christianized. 
 To circumcise a Gentile was not only to subject him to a rite 
 which God never intended for him, but it was to invest him 
 with a false character. Circumcision to him was a forgery, and 
 he carried a lie in his person. Not a Jew, and yet marked as 
 one—having the token without the lineage—the seal of descent 
 and not a drop of Abraham’s blood in his veins. To hinge 
 salvation, especially in the case of a Gentile, on circumcision, 
 was such a spurious proselytism—such a total misappreciation 
 ef the Jewish covenant—such a miserable subversion of the 
 liberty of the gospel—such a perverse and superstitious reliance 
 cna manual rite, that its advocates might be well caricatured 
 and branded as the concision. The rite, so misplaced, was both 
 a fiction and an anachronism; for the benefits of circumcision 
 were to be enjoyed in Palestine, and not in Europe, and 
 enjoyed up to the period “of the abolition of the law of. 
 commandments contained in ordinances.” What these persons 
 were may be seen in the Introduction. They might not have 
 done damage as yet in Philippi, but there was a danger of 
 their doing so. Such a warning, repeated, would put the 
 Philippians on their guard and contribute to their safety. 
 
 (Ver. 3.) Ἡμεῖς yap ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομὴ---“ For we are the 
 circumcision.” The γάρ gives areason. Those Judaists are 
 but the concision, for we are the circumcision—the abstract 
 again used for the concrete; and by the term is to be under- 
 stood Paul and the members of the Philippian church, whether 
 they were Jews or Gentiles. There were Jews in that church, 
 and forming the original nucleus of it; though, perhaps, the 
 greater part might be of Gentile extraction. 
 
 The members of the Christian church are now the circumci- 
 sion. Theirs is a spiritual seal. Whatever the old circumcision 
 typified, they enjoy. They are really Abraham’s children— 
 blessed with believing Abraham. Gal. i. 9, 14; Rom. ii. 29; 
 
170 PHILIPPIANS III. 3. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v. 2,6. The Jewish circumcision was a 
 
 mark of Abrahamic descent. ‘‘ And God said unto Abraham, 
 Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed 
 after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant, which 
 ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee 5 
 Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And ye 
 shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a 
 token of the covenant betwixt me and you.” Gen. xvii. 9, 10, 
 11. As the circumcised descendants of the Father of the faith- 
 ful, the Jews enjoyed certain privileges. They were God's 
 people, His by His choice, and shown to be His by His 
 tender protection. They had access to Him in worship, and 
 enjoyed His ordinances. They dwelt in a country which He 
 had selected for them, and which they held by a divine charter. 
 The true circumcision enjoys correspondent benefits, especially 
 do they possess the promised Spirit. The spiritual offspring 
 of Abraham have nobler gifts by far than his natural seed— 
 _ blessing not wrapped up in civil franchise, or dependent upon 
 time, or restricted to territory. So Justin says in the dialogue 
 with Trypho,—«at ἡμεῖς οἱ διὰ τούτον προσχωρήσαντες TO Θεῷ, 
 οὐ ταύτην τὴν κατὰ σάρκα παρελάβομεν περιτομὴν ἀλλὰ πνευ- 
 ματικήν. See our comment on Ephesians 11. 11, and Colos- 
 sians 11. 11— 
 
 οἱ πνεύματι Θεοῦ AaTpevovTes— who, by the Spirit of God 
 are serving.” ‘The reading Θεοῦ, adopted by Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf, has decided authority over the common reading 
 Θεῴ. The dative form may have sprung from the idea of its 
 connection with the participle. The differences of reading 
 are of an early date. Augustine, Pelagius, and Ambrose refer 
 to them—gu?t Spiritu Det serviunt, vel qui Spiritu Deo serviunt. 
 Bishop Middleton defends Θεῷ, misled by his own theory of 
 the Article. See under Eph.i.17. At the same time, the 
 language is peculiar. The verb λατρεύω, specially applied in 
 the New Testament to religious service, is here used abso- 
 lutely, as in Luke 11. 87; Acts xxvi. 7; Heb. ix. 9. The 
 phrase πνεύματι Θεοῦ refers to divine influence put forth 
 upon the heart by the Spirit of God. The words do not 
 point out the norm—spiritualiter, as van Hengel supposes, nor 
 yet the object—Spiritum Det colimus, but the agency or influ- 
 
 —_ 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 3. 17a 
 
 ence which prompts and accompanies the service. The Spirit 
 of God is He who dwells in the hearts of believers, sent by 
 God for this purpose. It follows, indeed, as a natural infer- 
 ence, that if the Spirit prompt and guide the worship, it will 
 be spiritual in its nature. There is thus a quiet but telling 
 allusion to the external formalities of the Jewish service, to 
 which the dogmatists were so inordinately attached. The 
 Mosaic worship, properly so called, could be celebrated only 
 on one spot, and according to a certain ritual. Though of 
 divine institution, and adapted to express in a powerful form 
 the religious emotions of the people, it often degenerated into 
 mere parade. It became a pantomime. Jehovah represents 
 himself as being satiated with sacrifices, and wearied out by 
 the heartless routine. Only on one altar could the victim be 
 laid, and only one family was privileged to present it. But 
 the Christian worship may be presented anywhere and at 
 any time, in the hut and in the cathedral. The Being we 
 worship is not confined to temples made with hands, nor yet 
 is He restricted to any periods for the celebration of His wor- 
 ship. Whenever and wherever the Spirit of God moves the 
 heart to grateful sensation, there is praise; or touches it with 
 a profound sense of its spiritual wants, there is prayer and 
 service. How superior this self-expansive power of Chris- 
 tianity to the rigid and cumbrous ceremonial of Israel after 
 the flesh, and especially to the stiff and narrow bigotry of the 
 concision— 
 
 καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ “Inood—“ and are making our 
 boast in Christ Jesus. The meaning of καυχώμενοι, emphatic 
 from its position, is different from χαίρω used in the first 
 verse. It is better rendered in Rom. ii. 23, than here—“ thou 
 that makest thy boast in the law.’’ They gloried not in 
 themselves, or in anything about themselves—not in circum- 
 cision or Abrahamic descent, but in Christ Jesus, and in Him 
 alone—not in Him and Moses—not in Son and servant alike; 
 gloried in Him; in His great condescension ; His birth and 
 its wonders; His lite and its blessings; His death and its 
 benefits ; His ascension and its pledges; His return, and its 
 stupendous and permanent results. The spiritual circumcision 
 boasted themselves in Christ Jesus; the implication being, 
 
172 PHILIPPIANS III. 4. 
 
 that the concision boasted themselves in Moses and external 
 privilege— 
 
 καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ merroiOotes—“and have no trust in the 
 flesh.” The adverb οὐ with a participle as a predicate, is an 
 unqualified negative. Winer, § 55, 5. This clause is in contrast 
 with the preceding clauses. What the apostle understands 
 by σάρξ, he proceeds at once to define. It is not circumcision 
 simply, though the word occurs markedly in Gen. xvu. 11, 
 13; Lev. xii. 3; Rom. ii. 28. The “flesh” is another 
 name for external privilege, such as descent, and points to 
 such merit as pride thinks due to formal obedience. It is a 
 ground of confidence opposed to the righteousness of Christ 
 —verse 9. Such then, as contrasted with the concision, is the 
 circumcision ; the children of believing Abraham, and blessed 
 with him; serving God by His Spirit in a higher and more 
 elastic worship; glorying in Him who has won such privileges 
 and blessings for them, and having no trust in any externals 
 or formalities on which the Judaizer laid so much stress as 
 securing salvation, or as bringing it within an available reach. 
 
 (Ver. 4.) Καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν capxi— 
 “Though I am in the possession of confidence too in the 
 flesh.” The apostle has just classed himself with those who 
 had no trust in the flesh, and now he aftirms that he too has 
 trust in the flesh. It seems, but only seems to be a paradox. 
 The conjunction καίπερ, used only here by Paul, qualifies the 
 previous assertion. Devarius, Klotz, 11.723. Instead of using 
 the simple participle πεποιθώς, he says—éyov πεποίθησιν. 
 Had he used the simple participle, there might have been a 
 direct contradiction. He could not have it, and yet have it at 
 the same time. But he says—éyov zrezrol@now—he has it in 
 possession, but not in use; as one may have a staff, though 
 he does not lean upon it; may have money, though he does 
 not spend it. Such is the plain meaning of the words, and 
 thus literally understood, they present no difficulty. 
 
 Various attempts have been made to get rid of the supposed 
 difficulty. Our translators have a rendering which the words 
 do not justify— though I might also have confidence in the 
 flesh ’?—a translation similar to that of Storr, Rilliet, Matthies, 
 Schinz, and virtually Rheinwald, who resolve it by ἔχειν 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 4. 173 
 
 dvvauevos. Neither is there any reason with Beza, Calvin, 
 Am Ende, and Hoelemann, to take πεποίθησις by any 
 metonymy for ground or reason of confidence; nor yet with 
 van Hengel, to refer the language to the past periods of Paul’s 
 unconverted life. The apostle had declared of himself, that 
 he belonged to those who have no confidence in the flesh ; and 
 lest his opponents should imagine that his want of confidence 
 in the flesh was simply the absence of all foundation for it, 
 and that he was making a virtue of necessity, he adds, that he 
 had all the warrant any man ever had—nay, more warrant 
 than most men ever had—to trust in the flesh. And, therefore, 
 he subjoins— 
 
 el τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐγὼ waddrov— if 
 any other man thinketh that he has confidence in the flesh, 
 I more.” Our translators again follow such as make the 
 verb jiducie materiam habere— that he hath whereof he might 
 trust in the flesh.” The verb δοκεῖ may denote either to think 
 or to seem,—if any man thinketh in himself, or if any man 
 appear to others, &c. Both meanings are found in the New 
 Testament, and Meyer need scarcely have appealed to Ast’s 
 Lexicon Platonicum in favour of the latter signification. With 
 Wiesinger and De Wette we prefer the first meaning given— 
 1 Cor. 1. 18, viii. 2—as being apt and natural, for the apostle 
 refers to such actual possession as he is about to describe. 
 
 As his manner is, the apostle “ goes off” in an allusion to 
 his own history and experience. As he proceeds the emotion 
 deepens into vehemence, and while he muses for a moment 
 on his own inner life, the thoughts welling “ out of the abun- 
 dance” of his heart arrange themselves into a lyrical modu- 
 lation. He boasts of being a true son of Israel, not sprung 
 from one of the tribes which had so early apostatized, but 
 from the honoured tribe of Benjamin. He was also of 
 untainted descent—an adherent of the “ most straitest sect ”’ 
 —ardent in his profession, as evinced by his persecution of 
 the church—performing with scrupulous exactness every rite 
 of fasting, tithing, or sacrifice, so that had salvation been 
 awarded to the fervent and punctual devotions of the chamber 
 or the sanctuary, he might have died in confidence and peace. 
 Therefore he now proceeds to enumerate the advantages which 
 
174 PHILIPPIANS III. 5. 
 
 he possessed, in which he might have trusted, and in some 
 of which he did once trust. The Judaizing fanatics could 
 not say, that he made light of these privileges because he 
 had none of them; for he had more than most of them, 
 and yet he felt their utter insignificance. The persons whom 
 the apostle had in his eye were in some respects behind him: 
 at least, he says—“‘I more.” Some of them might be prose- 
 lytes circumcised in manhood; others might be of mixed 
 blood; others may have been originally of Sadducean creed ; 
 while few of them had manifested that uniform obedience to 
 the law which had distinguished him, and that downright 
 devotedness to Judaism which had led him to seek the extir- 
 pation of its young and vigorous rival by violence and blood. 
 (Ver. 5.) Περιτομῇ oxranpepos— As to circumcision, an 
 eighth-day one,” literally,—‘ circumcised on the eighth day.” 
 The reading of the first noun in the nominative by Erasmus, 
 Bengel, and others, is inadmissible. It is the dative of refer- 
 ence. Winer, ὃ 38, 6. The adjective is used, like similar 
 nouns of number, as τεταρταῖος, John xi. 99 --- τριήμερος, 
 Greg. Naz., 8vo, 25; Mare. Anton. 8,---δωδεκαταῖος, Theoe. 
 ii. 157. Circumcision on the eighth day was according to di- 
 vine enactment. Gen. xvii. 12; Levit. χα]. ὃ. The apostle was 
 a born Jew, and on the appointed day had received the seal of 
 the Abrahamic covenant. The rite was for no reason deferred, 
 and if any merit accrued from strict compliance with the law, 
 he had it. The apostle makes good his declaration not only 
 of éyaéyar, but of ἐγὼ μᾶλλον. The proselytes and Idume- 
 ans could not say so, for only in riper years could they be cir- 
 cumcised. Paul, therefore, left all such boasters behind him— 
 ἐκ γένους ᾿Ισραὴλ---“ of the race of Israel.” See under 
 Ephes. ii. 12. He had been circumcised on the eighth day ; 
 and not only was he not a proselyte, but he was not the son 
 of proselytes, who might want for their child what they had 
 not in childhood received themselves. No: he was a member 
 of the chosen race, and not of Ishmael or Esau, or any other 
 Abrahamic clan than that of Jacob. The term ᾿Ισραήλ too 
 expresses spiritual nobility, and carries a higher honour than 
 either the epithet Hebrew or Jew. Rom. ix. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 22— 
 φυλῆς Bevrayiv— of the tribe of Benjamin.” ‘The apostle 
 
 bk: ei a enh 
 
 OL a a 
 
 ee rrr ee  ριυωλιων 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 5. 17D 
 
 means to derive some honour from his tribal lineage. It could 
 scarcely be from this, that the first king of Israel belonged to 
 this tribe, or that the apostle bore the royal name. Benjamin 
 was a favourite son by a favourite wife, and the tribe is styled 
 by Moses the “ beloved of the Lord.” Deut. xxxii. 12. That 
 tribe also had the capital and temple in its canton, was long 
 identified with the great tribe of Judah, and had returned with 
 it to Palestine, while the more northern tribes had almost 
 ceased to exist as distinct branches of the house of Israel. 
 He could give his genealogy. Rom. xi. 1— 
 
 ‘EBpaios ἐξ ‘EBpaiwv— a Hebrew of the Hebrews.”? The 
 phrase is often used in reference to speech, and in contrast 
 with Hellenist. Acts vi. 1. It does not seem to be employed 
 in such a sense here, though Gicumenius affirms it, and he is 
 followed by Witsius, Crellius, and Michaelis. Nor can it 
 refer to place of birth, for Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, 
 Acts xxii. 3—a statement in opposition to the tradition men- 
 tioned by Jerome that he was born at Gischala in Galilee, and 
 that on the capture of the place by the Romans, his parents and 
 he emigrated to Tarsus. Nor has it, as Carpzoff and Noesselt 
 think, any religious reference, for it was the political name of 
 the nation—that by which they were known among foreigners. 
 The phrase denotes purity of lineal extraction—not simply 
 that he was sprung of an old Hebrew family, as Jaspis 
 and Rheinwald suppose—but that none of his ancestors had 
 been other thana Jew. Meyer’s view is, that both his parents 
 were Hebrews, especially his mother. But the force of the 
 phrase goes beyond immediate parentage. He was aware 
 of no hybrid Gentile admixture, though his ancestors may 
 have lived in Gentile countries. He was sprung of pure 
 Hebrew blood, there having been no cross marriage to taint the 
 descent. Thus does the apostle characterize his lineage :— 
 circumcised on the eighth day, and therefore no foreign con- 
 vert admitted in mature life, but having parents who coveted 
 and transmitted the Abrahamic rite for their family ;—of the 
 stock of Israel, and having a hereditary right to the seal of 
 the national covenant with all its blessings ;—of the tribe of 
 
 1 Examples of similar phraseology are given by Wetstein and Kypke, such as— 
 iz βασιλέων βασιλεῦσιν---δούλους Ex δούλων, &e. 
 
176 PHILIPPIANS III. 5. 
 
 Benjamin, able to ascertain and prove his descent, and not of 
 one of any of the tribes geographically lost or individually ab- 
 sorbed by the rest;—a Hebrew of the Hebrews, descended from 
 a long line of pure ancestry, without any accidental infusion 
 on either side of foreign blood. There is a species of climax. 
 A proselyte might circumcise his child on the eighth day ; 
 another might be of the stock of Israel and yet his mother 
 might not be a Jewess, as was the case with Obed and Timothy; 
 for such a one might be of the tribe of Benjamin and yet not 
 a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Extraction of undoubted purity 
 distinguished him, while some of his opponents, with all their 
 Judaizing zeal, could make no such assertion—éy® μᾶλλον. 
 DON. Kis 22. 
 
 Having enumerated his privileges as a member of Abra- 
 ham’s race, the apostle proceeds to show how he improved 
 them. What he had enjoyed as a child was not lost upon 
 him as aman. He was not contented with being one of the 
 Jewish mass, but he sought, in riper years, to realize the 
 advantages of his birth. Not satisfied with a passive posses- 
 sion of blood and birth, he laboured to appropriate all its 
 blessings. He was a religious man—sincerely and intelligently 
 attached to the law and all the venerated traditions of the 
 fathers, and not simply a born Jew, proud of his ancestry, but 
 indifferent to their faith—venerating the name of Moses, but 
 careless of his law, save in so far as national customs had 
 habituated him to its observance. Could the same be said 
 of all his adversaries who now made such an outcry about 
 the Abrahamic rite ? 
 
 κατὰ νόμον Papicaios— touching the law a Pharisee.” It 
 is wrong to give νόμος the meaning of αἵρεσις, as do Heinrichs, 
 Am Ende, and Rheinwald, nor can it be rendered by secta or 
 disciplina. Nor need it be understood, with van Hengel, as 
 meaning— with regard to the interpretation of the law "--- 
 quod legis attinet interpretationem. In his relation to the law 
 he was a Pharisee. Acts xxvi.5. The Pharisee was noted for 
 his strong attachment to the law’—for his observance of all 
 
 1 Josephus says of them—zeei τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα δοκοῦσιν τῶν ἄλλων ἀπκειβείᾳ διαφέρειν 
 
 Vita, 88; also Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 14. Nay, the apostle himself says, that he lived 
 a Pharisee—zer& τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας ϑοησκείας. Acts xxyi. 5. 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 6. 177 
 
 its ceremonial minutize—and his determination, at all hazards, 
 to uphold its validity. Winer; Real-Wéorterbuch, sub voce. 
 Nay, Paul was not only a Pharisee, but “the son of a Pha- 
 risee ’’—brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, a famous teacher 
 of the sect. His mind had never been tainted by Sadducean 
 unbelief, nor had he been fascinated by the ascetic theosophy 
 of the Essene. If the apostle would not bind the law on the 
 Gentile churches, it was not because he had not studied it or 
 had not understood it, nor yet because he had either lived in 
 indifference to its claims or been trained in prejudice against 
 its venerable authority. 
 
 (Ver. 6.) Κατὰ Gros διώκων τὴν éxxrynolav— As to zeal 
 persecuting the church.” The neuter form ζῆλος has, in its fa- 
 γοῦν, A, B, D, F, G. Some MSS., of no high authority, add 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ after ἐκκλησίαν, but the noun often stands by itself. 
 The present participle tells precisely what the apostle means to 
 say, and it would be wrong to follow Grotius, Heinrichs, Am 
 Ende, and Jaspis, and give it the meaning of διώξας. Nor is it 
 necessary to make it a species of substantive with Alford, or of 
 adjective with Ellicott, for it marks his conduct at the same 
 point of time as when he had trust in the flesh, and thought 
 himself blameless. The apostle gives his unconverted state 
 an ideal present time. Compare Acts xxi. 20; Rom. x. 2; 
 Gal. 1.13; 1 Tim. 1. 13. The apostle had been no passive 
 supporter of the law. While he upheld it he upheld it with 
 his might. And when the supremacy of that law seemed 
 to be endangered by the growth of Christianity, with charac- 
 teristic ardour and impetuosity he flung himself into the 
 contest. He could not be a supine and listless spectator. 
 The question was to him one of conscience and submission to 
 divine authority, and therefore he deemed it his duty to 
 imprison, torture, and kill the abetters of the infant faith, 
 whose most malignant feature, as he thought, was its antago- 
 nism to Moses. Others might stand aloof, fold their hands in 
 indifference, and yield a facile acquiescence in events as they 
 occurred. But the disciple of Gamaliel was in terrible 
 earnest. Believing that in speaking “ words against Moses” 
 there was open blasphemy, and that the glory of God and the 
 spiritual interests of his country were in imminent hazard, he 
 
 M 
 
178 PHILIPPIANS III. 6. 
 
 felt himself doing God’s service when he resolved to hunt 
 down and extirpate the rising heresy, and “ breathed out 
 threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.” 
 Foremost among the zealots stood Saul of Tarsus. Had his 
 adversaries ever shown a similar fervour—had they so openly 
 committed themselves? His zeal for the law outstripped 
 theirs—éy® μᾶλλον. If he did not now enforce the Mosaic 
 ceremonial, it was not because he had never loved it, or had 
 been quite careless when it was assaulted. Not one had 
 laboured for it so prodigiously, or fought for it so ferociously 
 —‘the witnesses laid their clothes at a young man’s feet, 
 whose name was Saul.’’ Higher still— 
 
 κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος---΄ as 
 regards righteousness which is in the law being blameless.” 
 The noun δικαιοσύνη, when so used, departs from its ordi- 
 nary classic sense, and represents one special meaning of the 
 Hebrew py. It does not signify either equity or fair dealing 
 between man and man, but depicts that aspect of state or 
 relation to the Divine law, which secures, or is believed to 
 secure, acceptance with God. It is here characterized as 
 τὴν ἐν vouw—as being found in the law, or having its 
 source in obedience to the law. With respect to such right- 
 eousness, he was perfect—yevdmevos ἄμεμπτος. 1. 15. He 
 thought himself, and others thought him, without flaw. He 
 did whatever the law had enjoined; abstained from whatever 
 the law had forbidden; omitted no duty, and committed no 
 violation of legal precept. In form at least, and in external 
 compliance, his obedience was exemplary, without occasional 
 lapse or visible inconsistency. It is altogether too restricted to 
 understand the “law’’ of Pharisaic enactment, or simply of the 
 ceremonial law, and worse still to adopt the idea of Grotius 
 and Am Ende, that Paul speaks but of the civil law, as if the 
 miserable meaning were—nthil se fecisse quod morte aut ver- 
 beribus castigandum esset. It was indeed and in itself what 
 Matthies styles it—eine scheinheilige Werkgerechtigkeit ; but 
 the apostle speaks from the stand-point of his earlier days. 
 Matt. xix. 20. Such then is the record of the apostle’s 
 grounds of confidence in the flesh, and who of those opposed 
 to him could boast of more of them? He had no confidence 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 7. 179 
 
 in the flesh, or mere externalism; and yet, if any man was 
 ever warranted to have such confidence, it was he who had 
 more of it than most, but who now with changed views so 
 vehemently decried it, as opposed to the spirituality of the 
 gospel and fatal to salvation. For he adds with power— 
 (Ver. 7.) ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν X pic- 
 τὸν ζημίαν---““ But whatever things were gains to me, these I 
 have reckoned loss for Christ.” The conjunction ἀλλά intro- 
 duces a striking and earnest contrast. In the use of ἅτινα, 
 which is placed emphatically, the apostle refers to these previous 
 things enumerated as a class—that class of things which were 
 objects of gain; the plural κέρδη intimating their quantity and 
 variety, and not simply corresponding in number with the 
 plural ἅτινα. Kriiger, ὃ 44, 3,5. The dative μοι is that of 
 “profit,” and not that of opinion, as is supposed by Erasmus, 
 Beza, Rheinwald, De Wette, and Hoelemann. The apostle 
 still speaks from his old stand-point—they were objects of 
 gain, inasmuch as and so long as they were believed to 
 secure acceptance with God. The ζημία is opposed to κέρδη, 
 and is used in its literal sense in Acts xxvii. 10,21. The 
 ταῦτα is emphatic—these, yes these, I have reckoned loss; and 
 the κέρδη is not, as van Hengel makes it—non vera lucra, sed 
 opinata. ‘The perfect tense may bear the meaning of the 
 present—Buttmann, § 113, 7—yet the use of the present 
 immediately after confines us to the past signification. These 
 things I have set down as loss, and do so still. He had come 
 to form a very opposite opinion of them. It is needless to 
 take ζημία in the sense of mulcta, or στέρησις. It stands 
 simply in unity, opposed to κέρδη in plurality—many gains as 
 one loss—denoting the total revolution in the apostle’s mind 
 and opinions. Theophylact adds daeSadkopyrv—“ and have 
 cast them away,” but not correctly, or in strict unison with the 
 previous declaration, for the apostle still had them, and says 
 that he still had them—éyov πεποίθησιν. Nor is there more 
 propriety in Calvin’s figure, virtually adopted and deteriorated 
 by Macknight, taken from navigation, when men make loss 
 of the cargo to lighten the ship, and save themselves. The 
 apostle now states the grand reason for his change of estimate— 
 διὰ τὸν Xpiotov— on account of Christ.” Not “in respect 
 
180 PHILIPPIANS III. 8. 
 
 of Christ,” as Heinrichs ; nor specially to enjoy fellowship with 
 Him, as van Hengel. “On account of Christ ”—that is to say, 
 what was once gain was now reckoned loss, either because 
 it did not commend him to Christ, or what was held as some- 
 thing won was regarded now as loss, for it did not enable to 
 win Christ, nay, kept him from winning Christ. When he 
 won, he was losing; nay, the more he won, the more he must 
 lose. All his advantages in birth, privilege, sect, earnestness, 
 and obedience, were not only profitless, but productive of posi- 
 tive loss, as they prevented the gaining of Christ, and of 
 justification through the faith of Christ. 
 
 (Ver. 8.) ᾿Αλλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι--- 
 “‘ But indeed, therefore, I also count or continue to count them 
 all to be loss.”” Winer, ὃ 53, 7, says that ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν 
 may be rendered at sane quidem. Klotz Devarius, 663, 
 ἄς. The ἀλλά puts the two tenses, past and present, into 
 contrast; while the καί qualifies ἡγοῦμαι, and gives it special 
 significance, and does not, as Rilliet supposes, connect itself 
 with πάντα, as if there were a climax—‘ what things were 
 gain, these I counted loss; yea, doubtless, 1 count even all 
 things 1055. This exegesis would require, as Meyer says, the 
 verbal order to be καὶ πάντα ἡγοῦμαι. Nor can πάντα mean 
 all things absolutely. It has not the article, indeed, but the 
 meaning is limited by the context—all things of the class and 
 character described—the things of which he says immediately 
 that he had suffered the loss. The estimate was not a hasty 
 conclusion from fallacious premises, nor the sudden leap of an 
 enthusiasm which had for a moment urged him. It was his 
 calm and deliberate judgment still. And again he adduces a 
 reason— 
 
 διὰ TO ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου 
 poou—‘‘ on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ 
 Jesus my Lord.” The participle ὑπερέχον is used as a sub- 
 stantive. Bernhardy, p. 156; Matthiae, § 570. There is no 
 occasion to supply any noun. “ Thucydides,” says Jelf, 
 “ abounds in neuter participles thus used.” ὃ 436, &c. Besides 
 this way of expressing abstract notions, there are several other 
 points of resemblance between the style of the Greek historian 
 and that of the apostle. There is a comparison implied in the 
 
PIIILIPFIANS III. 8. 181 
 
 epithet. It transcends all the things to which the apostle has 
 referred. Still, there is no occasion, with Am Ende and 
 Rheinwald, to resolve the phrase into dia τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν 
 γνῶσιν. ‘The apostle does not refer to the knowledge simply, 
 but to one feature of it, its superior excellence, in comparison 
 with which all things are accounted loss. That knowledge has 
 for its object Christ Jesus, whom the apostle names in a burst of 
 veneration and attachment—“‘ my Lord.” Let the elements 
 of loss be calculated. The “ gains” were :—circumcision 
 performed without any deviation from legal time or method— 
 membership in the house of Israel, and connection with one 
 of its most honoured tribes—descent from a long line of 
 pure-blooded ancestry—adherence to a sect, whose prominent 
 distinction was the observance of the old statutes—earnest and 
 uncompromising hostility to a community accused of under- 
 mining the authority of the Mosaic code, and a merit based on 
 blameless obedience to the law. ‘These, once gloried and 
 confided in, were counted as a loss, for the sake of a superior 
 gain in the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus. 
 Chrysostom has a long and not very satisfactory argument 
 to show, that the heretics who abused the law could not plead, 
 for their vilification of it, the apostle’s language in this place. 
 “He does not say the law zs loss, but I count it loss.” The 
 true reply is, that it is not to the law in itself, but to his mis- 
 conception of its position and of his own relation to it, that the 
 apostle refers. Jerome on Habakkuk, referring to the same 
 abuse of the apostle’s words, says he does not refer to the law 
 as such, but has in view doctrine Phariseorum, et precepta 
 hominum, et δευτερώσεις Judworum. Augustine, also, has 
 more than once written in a similar strain. 
 
 The apostle was surely justified in making such a compa- 
 rison. He was no loser by the loss he had willingly made, 
 for the object of knowledge was the Divine Saviour. To 
 understand His person and character, with His work and its 
 relations, and so to understand them through a living interest 
 in them, is surely knowledge of superior excellence. Is it not 
 supereminent knowledge to know Him as the “Christ,” not 
 simply because He has been anointed, “ with the oil of glad- 
 ness,” but because we too “have an unction from the Holy One,”’ 
 
182 PHILIPPIANS III. 8. 
 
 —to know Him as “ Jesus,” not simply because He wears our 
 nature, but because we feel His human heart throbbing in unison 
 with ours under trial and sorrow,—to know Him as Prophet, 
 not simply because He is Light, but because we are light in 
 Him,—to know Him<as Priest, not simply because He has 
 laid Himself on the altar, but because the blood of sprinkling 
 is manifest wpon our conscience,—to know Him as “ Lord,” 
 not simply because He wears a crown and wields a sceptre, but 
 because we bow to His loving rule and gather the spoils of the 
 victory which He has won and secured? ‘The apostle made 
 a just calculation; for neither ritualism, nor Israelitism, nor 
 Pharisaism, nor zealotism, nor legalism could bring him those 
 blessings with which the knowledge of Christ was connected ; 
 nay, until they were held as loss, this gain of gains could not 
 be acquired. The apostle repeats— 
 
 &¢ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην--““ for whom I have suffered the 
 loss of them 411. It serves no purpose, with van Hengel and 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, to make this clause a parenthesis, for it 
 is closely connected with the succeeding one. ‘On account 
 of whom,” that is to say—Christ Jesus, my Lord. The πάντα, 
 as qualified by the article, refers to the things already specified 
 —all these things. Itis wrong in Chrysostom then to describe 
 them as καὶ τὰ πάλαι Kal τὰ παρόντα, and in a-Lapide to write 
 thus—non tantum bona Judaism, sed omnia que mundus hic 
 amat et miratur. The one accusative is still retained with the 
 passive, as in Matt. xvi. 20. Winer, § 39,1. Van Hengel 
 and others needlessly differ from Wiesinger, Meyer, and De 
 Wette, in giving the passive form a middle signification. 
 
 καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα εἶναι --- and do count them to be 
 refuse.” The infinitive εἶναι is omitted by Lachmann, as not 
 being found in B, D!, F, G, nor is the correspondent Latin term 
 in the Vulgate and in many of the Latin Fathers. But it 
 occurs in A, D’, E, I, K, in almost all the versions, and Greek 
 Fathers. One can more easily account for its omission than 
 for its insertion. The contemptuous term σκύβαλον is usually 
 derived from ἐς κύνας βαλλεῖν (Suidas, sub voce), much in the 
 same way as Stamboul, the name of the Byzantine capital, is 
 compounded of ἐς τὰν πόλιν. It signifies refuse, sweepings, 
 manure, κόπρος, stercora. Sirach, 27,4. The Greek Fathers 
 
 -“- 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 9. 183 
 
 understand it to mean husks, chaff, ἄχυρον, and they contrast 
 it with otros. It expresses not only the utter insignificance 
 which the apostle now attached to the grounds of his former 
 trust, but the aversion with which he regarded them, especially 
 when placed in comparison with Christ. For the end was 
 
 iva Χριστὸν Kepdjyoa— that I may gain Christ.” The verb 
 κερδήσω is used in correspondence with κέρδη in verse 7, and 
 in contrast with ζημία and ἐζημιώθην. The clause with ἵνα 
 expresses the great purpose of the apostle, in order to attain 
 which he had made the previous estimate and suffered the 
 previous loss. The phrase is somewhat peculiar. One is apt 
 to smile at the gambling figure of Heumann—obolum perdidi, 
 amicum accept. Nor is the meaning merely, to gain the favour 
 of Christ, as Grotius, Am Ende, and Wilke suppose ; nor yet 
 is 10 simply to be a Christian, as Krause weakens it. Robin- 
 son virtually agrees with Grotius, and many others are some- 
 what vague in their explanations. To win Him is to have 
 Him—the idea of gain being suggested by the previous 
 mention of loss. Nor can we say that the verb is explained 
 by the following clauses, or by any one of them in particular. 
 They are elements indeed of this gain; but the term “ Christ’ 
 seems to denote Him in every aspect, and to win Him is to 
 enjoy Him in every aspect. It is to have Him as mine, and to’ 
 feel that in comparison with such a possession all else may be 
 regarded as truly loss. To the apostle Christ was so identified 
 with the truth, that when he gained Him he gained the highest 
 knowledge; so identified with life, that when he gained Him 
 he was endowed with the noblest form of it; and so identified 
 with spiritual influence, that when he gained Him his whole 
 nature was filled with power and gladness. The name of 
 Christ, so used, covers His entire work and relations, and, as 
 Wiesinger says—“ Christ comes as gain in the place of the 
 loss he has suffered.” And the possession of Christ is real 
 gain compared with Hebrew lineage, the seal of Abrahamic 
 descent, or devotedness to the Mosaic ritual and law. 
 
 (Ver. 9.) Kai εὑρεθῶ ἐν ait@— And be found in Him.” 
 The verb is not to be taken with an active sense, as it is taken 
 by Calvin—et inveniam in zpso—thus explained, Paulum re- 
 nunciasse omnibus que habebat, ut recuperaret in Christo. Nor 
 
 
 
184 PHILIPPIANS III. 9. 
 
 has εὑρεθῆναι the same meaning with the simple εἶναι, as is 
 affirmed by Grotius, Am Ende, and Heinrichs. It has the 
 additional idea of being discovered to be, or proved to be. 
 Rom. vii. 10; Gal. ii. 17. See underii. 8. It does not simply 
 assert a condition, but it looks at ascertained result. When 
 we see how the apostle connects with this animated expression 
 of his feelings “the resurrection of the dead,” we would not be 
 so decided as are Meyer and De Wette, in denying Beza’s 
 supposition of a tacit relation to the day of judgment. The 
 apostle, however, desires above all things to be found in Him, 
 now and ever. We would not say with Meyer, that the pre- 
 vious clause, ‘‘ that I may win Christ,” is subjective, and that 
 this clause corresponds objectively to it. The former clause 
 we regard as a general and comprehensive declaration, and 
 this one as a more special result. ΤῸ gain Him comprises 
 every blessing, and underlies every aspect of His work—to 
 be found in Him isa special and personal relation to Him. 
 The first effect of gaining Christ is union to Him, and the 
 apostle counts all but loss that this union may not only exist, 
 but may maintain and exhibit its reality—so as that, at the 
 final inquisition, he may be found in Christ and enjoy the 
 resurrection of the dead. The phrase “ in Him” signifies no 
 form of external fellowship, nor is it to be explained away as 
 denoting mere discipleship. It is a union as close, tender, 
 vital, and constant, as between the members and the head—a 
 union effected and perpetuated by the Spirit of God, —the same 
 Spirit dwelling in Christ and in all who are His. Participation 
 in blessing depends upon it, as the living and identifying bond 
 which secures communion in all He is and has. Yet more— 
 
 μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ vowou—< not having mine 
 own righteousness which is of the law.” We would not 
 connect this clause so closely with the preceding one as, 
 like Tischendorf and Lachmann, not to place a comma 
 between them. The meaning brought out in this way 
 by van Hengel is—et deprehendar in communione ejus non 
 meam qualemeunque habere probitatem— and be found in 
 Him not to have mine own righteousness.” This idea is 
 not in harmony with the course of thought, which in form is 
 simple and consecutive. Besides, in such a case, as Meyer 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 9. 185 
 
 remarks, ἐν αὐτῷ would be superfluous. We take it and 
 what follows it as descriptive of the results of gaining 
 Christ and of being found in Him. The syntax connects it 
 most closely with εὑρεθῶ. It gives an objective view of the 
 apostle’s condition. ‘The subjective particle μή is used, because 
 the absence of his own righteousness is a mental conception, is 
 expressed as purpose, and not as an actual fact. Winer, § 59, 
 4. The participle is simply “having,” as Meyer and De Wette 
 maintain against those who would give it a more pregnant sense 
 of “holding fast.” The meaning of δικαιοσύνη we have already 
 referred to. The apostle characterizes it as his own—éuyv— 
 as wrought out and secured by himself. Rom. x. 3. And he 
 points out its source by calling it τὴν ἐκ vowou—“ which is 
 out of the law,” the law being regarded as its origin, and 
 “works” as its means. The apostle had felt how vain such 
 a righteousness was, as he has shown in Rom. iii. 19, 20; 
 Gal. τι. 16, 21; and he regarded his being found in Christ as 
 utterly incompatible with such a personal and legal righteous- 
 ness. The preposition ἐκ is often similarly employed as in 
 the two places last quoted. In contrast he now adds— 
 
 ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ---““ but that which is through 
 the faith of Christ.’ The apostle changes the preposition, 
 for he intends to express a very different relation. His own 
 righteousness was out of the law, or originated by the law, and 
 it was through his own effort that he obtained it, for the pro- 
 noun ἐμή has in itself the notion of διά. But this other 
 righteousness is of God, as he says in the next clause, and its 
 instrument is faith—éva πίστεως Χριστοῦ. Χριστοῦ is not 
 the genitive of source, as Am Ende and Jaspis regard it, but 
 that of object. Through faith in Christ, as the subjective 
 medium, is this righteousness enjoyed or' received by all who 
 are found in Him. Having referred to the means of this 
 righteousness, he must also characterize its source— 
 
 τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει---ἰο wit, “ the right- 
 eousness which is of God on faith.” His own righteousness 
 was ἐκ νόμου, but this is ἐκ @eot—having God for its origin, 
 and it rests—ézi τῇ miorec—upon faith. The phrase does not 
 signify in faith orm fide, as the Vulgate renders it; nor per 
 Jidem, as Beza supposes it; nor on account of faith, as De Wette. 
 
186 PHILIPPIANS III. 9. 
 
 explains it; nor yet exactly on the condition of faith, as is 
 the view of Matthies, Rilliet, and van Hengel—a view which 
 is rather secondary and inferential, than primary and exegeti- 
 cal. Meyer regards those words as depending on an under- 
 stood ἔχων, repeated after ἀλλά. The view does not appear 
 tenable. ‘In this case,’ as Wiesinger asks, “ would not 
 ἔχων have been repeated?” Meyer objects that the connec- 
 tion of this righteousness with faith has been already described 
 by διὰ πίστεως X., and that it would be mere repetition to 
 join ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει to δικαιοσύνην. ‘To this objection we 
 demur. For, first, the use of various prepositions to express 
 the different relations of an object, is precisely one of the 
 apostle’s peculiarities of style. And, secondly, the difference 
 of relation expressed by the different prepositions, prevents 
 tautology. In the first case, when he uses διά, he has a 
 special contrast in view, which he sharply brings out. He 
 tells the origin of his own righteousness, and then he con- 
 trasts it with evangelical righteousness, not in its origin, but 
 in its means—ova πίστεως. Then he reverts to its origin 
 emphatically—é« @eod—and he connects that origin with its 
 basis in one general expression. If you ask what is the 
 instrument of this righteousness, it is by faith—éua πίσ- 
 Tews—as opposed to personal effort or merit—éuy. If you 
 inquire for its source, it is ἐκ Θεοῦ, opposed to ἐκ vowov. And 
 if you seek for its nature and adaptation, it rests ἐπὶ τῇ 
 mictec—on faith. So that δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει forms 
 really one complex idea, and the non-repetition of the article 
 before ἐπί is no valid objection. Winer, 8 20, 2. Wiesinger - 
 understands the first clause—édva πίστεως X.—as describing 
 faith objectively, and the second—ezt τῇ wiorec—as pointing 
 out the individual or subjective foundation. Alford renders 
 “Con my faith,’ but the phrase seems to be a portion of a general 
 definition. At all events, while the apostle does not bring out 
 the points of a contrast with the finical order of a rhetorician, 
 he holds up two different aspects of faith—faith as the means, 
 and faith as the foundation. The reason of the διά is to be 
 found in the ἐπί It is because this righteousness has faith 
 for its ground, that faith becomes its instrument. Such is its 
 peculiar nature, that its effect is made to depend upon faith ; 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 9. 187 
 
 therefore, by faith is it realized and appropriated. Physical ] ἢ 
 life is dependent on respiration ; therefore, by respiration is 
 it sustained. 
 
 This righteousness—dccavoovvn—which the apostle as- 
 pired to possess, is the only ground of acceptance with God. 
 In itself it is not ἐμή, but of God—é« Θεοῦ---ϑ in His grace 
 He has provided it, so that it is said of us—éccavotpevos δωρεὰν 
 τῇ αὐτοῦ χαρίτι. Rom. 111. 24, It is wrought out by Christ, 
 and in His blood—éy τῷ αἵματι avtod—Rom. v. 9; or it is 
 διὰ THs ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Rom. iii. 24. 
 It becomes ours through faith, being in one aspect ἐπὶ τῇ 
 πίστει, in another διὰ πίστεως, and in another still, ἐκ πίσ- 
 tews. Rom. v. 1. And this connection of faith is further 
 described thus—Aoyiferau ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην ; or, subjec- 
 tively, καρδίᾳ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom. x. 10. Of 
 the possessor of such righteousness it may be 5816 ---δικαιοῦται 
 παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. Gal. i. 11. Christ obeyed the law for us, and 
 for us suffered its penalty, and the merit of this obedience 
 unto the death becomes ours, as soon as we can say of ourselves 
 Kal ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν. Gal. ii. 16. He 
 who was ἄδικος, becomes δίκαιος, and escapes that κατάκριμα 
 which sin merits, Rom. viii. 1, the ὀργὴ Oect—Rom. i. 18; 
 nay, enjoys the benefit of redemption—77v ἄφεσιν τῶν παρα- 
 πτωμάτων. Eph.i. 7. When ἔργα τοῦ vowou—works of law 
 are disclaimed, and faith is simply reposed on God—ézt τὸν 
 δικαιοῦντα Tov ἀσεβῆ--- οὐ} is cancelled, acceptance is enjoyed, 
 and such a change of state entails a change of character: those 
 in whom the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, “ walk not 
 after the flesh, but after the spirit.”” Rom. viii. 4. The sinner | 
 is not indeed held by any legal fiction to be innocent. The | 
 entire process implies his guilt, but he is no longer exposed to| 
 the penalty ; he is held, or dealt with, as a righteous person, 
 “‘the external justice of Christ Jesus being imputed to him.’” 
 And the result is—ovds δὲ ἐδικαίωσε, τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν. Rom. 
 vill. 30. This righteousness, divine in its origin, awful in its 
 medium, and fraught with such results, was the essential 
 
 1 Hooker, Works, vol. ii. p. 621. ed. Oxford, 1841. See also Usteri, Entwick. des 
 
 Paulin. Lehrg. p. 86; Lechler, die Apostol. und Nachapost. Zeitalter. p. 112, Stutt- 
 gart, 1857. 
 
188 PHILIPPIANS III. 10. 
 
 element of Paul’s religion, and the distinctive tenet of Paul’s 
 theology. His purpose was— 
 
 (Ver. 10). Tod γνῶναι adtov— So that I may know Him.” 
 The construction beginning with ἵνα is here changed into the 
 infinitive—no uncommon change in the style of the apostle. 
 Rom. vi. 6; Col. 1. 9,10. Bernhardy (p. 357) shows that the 
 proper meaning of the genitive is preserved in such a construc- 
 tion. But what is the connection ? 
 
 1. Some take the phrase as parallel with ἵνα κερδήσω καὶ 
 εὑρεθῶ, and as if it simply stood for ἵνα γνῶ. Such is the 
 view of Estius, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, Rilliet, van Hengel, 
 De Wette, and Hoelemann. But the very change of construc- 
 tion argues a peculiarity, and seems to connect the sense, not 
 as a thought parallel with the previous ἵνα, but rather as the 
 result of an intermediate statement. 
 
 2. The Greek Fathers connect it with ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, and so 
 do Calvin, Grotius, and Bengel. It is thus supposed to 
 describe the source or the nature of faith—faith in order to 
 know Him. But the syntax does not seem to warrant such a 
 narrow connection. 
 
 3. Rosenmiiller, followed to some extent by Matthies and 
 Peile, joins it to δικαιοσύνην, as if the meaning were—felicita- 
 tem, inquam, cognoscendi eum. This exegesis is wrong, both 
 in its syntax and in the meaning assigned to δικαιοσύνη. 
 
 4. Meyer connects it with the clause μὴ ἔχων, and Wiesin- 
 ger inclines to join it to εὑρεθῶ We prefer connecting it 
 with both, that is, with εὑρεθῶ primarily, but as modified and 
 explained by the clause μὴ ἔχων. The apostle reckons all 
 but loss to gain Christ, and be found in Him—found in Him 
 possessed of a peculiar qualification, divine righteousness, and 
 all this “so as to know Him and the power of His resurrection.” 
 His object was not simply to be found in Christ so as to know 
 Him, but to be found in Him, divinely justified by faith in 
 Him, so as to know Him. The “ excellency of the knowledge 
 of Christ Jesus’’ is still before his mind, and he does not 
 revert formally to what he had stated as to the superior 
 excellence of this knowledge, for the idea has never left him ; 
 and now he avows the design of being in Christ, and of being 
 justified by faith in Him, and that is, to know Him. Not 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 10. 189 
 
 that to this knowledge two prerequisites are asserted to be 
 equally necessary—union to Christ, and the possession of the 
 righteousness of faith. No: union with Christ is the great 
 qualification, that union giving righteousness, and both leading 
 to the knowledge of Christ. The realization of this union to 
 Christ, and the possession of this righteousness, bring one to 
 the inner knowledge of Him in whom we are, and by faith in 
 whom this righteousness is received. 
 
 From this statement, and from the following clauses, it is plain 
 that this knowledge is that of a deep and deepening experience. 
 It is not historical insight, nor general and theoretic informa- 
 tion. The apostle aimed to know Him as being in Him. 
 Such knowledge is inspired by the consciousness—not elabo- 
 rated by the intellect. Itrises up from within—is not gathered 
 from without. It does not accumulate evidence to test the 
 truth—it “has the witness” in itself. It needs not to repair 
 to the cistern and draw—it has in itself “a well of water 
 springing up unto everlasting life.” It knows, because it 
 feels; it ascertains, not because it studies, but because it 
 enjoys union, and possesses the righteousness of God through 
 faith. She that touched the tassel of His robe had a know- 
 ledge of Christ deeper and truer by far, than the crowds that 
 thronged about Him; for “ virtue” had come out of Him, and 
 she felt it in herself. Only this kind of knowledge possesses 
 “the excellency,” for it is connected with justification, as was 
 intimated by Isaiah ; and it is “ eternal life,” as declared by 
 Jesus. Is. 111. 11; John xvii. 3. The apostle could not set so 
 high a value on a mere external knowledge, or a mere acquain- 
 tanceship with the facts and dates of Christ’s career. For it is ' 
 quite possible for a man to want the element of living experi- 
 ence, and yet to be able to argue himself into a belief of 
 the Messiahship of the Son of Mary; quite possible for him, 
 without a saving interest in the themes of his study, to stand 
 at the manger and prove the babe’s true humanity; to gaze on 
 His miracles, and deduce from them a divine commission, 
 without bowing to its authority; ay, and to linger by the cross, 
 and see in it a mysterious and complete expiation, without 
 accepting the pardon and peace which the blood of atonement 
 secures. Still farther— 
 
190 PHILIPPIANS III. 10. 
 
 Kal τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως avTov— and the power of 
 His resurrection.” It is an odd notion of Bengel that ἀνά- 
 στασις 15 not resurrection, but exortus sive adventus Messiae. 
 The power of His resurrection is not, as Grotius and Matthies 
 say, the power which caused His resurrection, or which was 
 put forth upon Him, or was experienced by Him when He 
 rose again. It is the power which belongs to His resurrec- 
 tion; that is, the power which His resurrection has or puts 
 forth on those who are in Him, and who are justified by faith 
 in Him. But what is its sphere of operation? Meyer con- 
 fines it to justification, and the evidence which it affords of it, 
 as in Rom. iv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 17; Acts xiii. 37, 38. Storr, 
 De Wette, and Schinz, restrict it especially to triumph over 
 death—2 Cor. iv. 10; while Wiesinger takes it to be that 
 power which the apostle aims at experiencing in himself, by 
 the renunciation of all that belongs to the old man and the 
 flesh, so as to attain to the object indicated in verse 11. 
 Lastly; others, as van Hengel, identify it with the spiritual 
 power of regeneration. 
 
 If the phrase be connected closely with the previous con- 
 text, then each of these views is more restricted than that 
 context warrants. The knowledge which the apostle coveted 
 is allied to his previous purpose to gain Christ, and to be 
 found in Him, possessed of a righteousness accepted by faith. 
 The power of Christ’s resurrection will therefore have respect 
 to those prior points of character or state. The apostle 
 counted all things but vile refuse, that he might gain Christ 
 —Christ in contrast with elements of proud and self-righteous 
 Jewish confidence. May it not be inferred, that the apostle 
 refers to the power of His resurrection in vindication of His 
 Christship? It proved Him to be the promised Messiah, 
 He also coveted to be found in Him—in union with Him; 
 and His resurrection may be viewed in its vivifying power. 
 At least the resurrection of the Lord is viewed in that 
 aspect in the two epistles written about the same period— 
 that to the Ephesians, i. 19, 20, and that to the Colossians, 11. 
 11,12. To be in Christ is to enjoy newness of life; and to 
 » know the power of His resurrection may be to feel more 
 vividly the pulsations of this existence, or, as Wiesinger says, 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 10. 191 
 
 “this manifestation of the life of Jesus.” Then there is no 
 doubt that the apostle refers to the power of His resurrection 
 as giving a warrant for our justification ; for it not only proved Λ 
 his mission to be divine, but it proclaimed the success of His | 
 mediatorial work. 
 
 But perhaps the phrase is in closer connection with what 
 succeeds—fellowship with his sufferings, and conformity to 
 His death. The idea of suffering and death naturally precedes 
 that of resurrection. Christ suffered and died and rose again, 
 and the apostle covets to know the participation of his suffer- 
 ings, being conformed to His death. In referring to his own 
 experience, he reverses the order of the historical facts—points 
 to the result so dear to him, before he alludes to the previous 
 stages— 
 
 Kal τὴν κοινωνίαν TOV παθημάτῶν a’Too— and the fellow- 
 ship of His sufferings,” that is, “and to know”’ the fellowship 
 of His sufferings. It is plain that fellowship does not mean 
 fruition, as it would if the idea of Calovius were sustained, 
 that the fellowship of His sufferings is the appropriation of 
 their atoning merits. Nor is it a spiritual participation, as 
 Bengel and Zanchius suppose, and take from Gal. ii. 20. Nor 
 is it, as Matthies and van Hengel assume, suffering endured for 
 Christ’s sake—crucitatibus Christi causa subeundis. Nor is 
 there any necessity, on the part of Hoelemann and others, to 
 throw in any expression corresponding to δύναμιν in the pre- 
 ceding clause —neither vim et pondus, nor dulcedinem ac 
 sanctitatem, nor honorem, as is done by Am Ende and Jaspis ; 
 nor yet, as Bengel puts it—wnd ecnsehen dass Ich wie Christus 
 Leiden erdulden muss—the perception that I, like Christ, must 
 endure suffering. 
 
 The general idea is much the same as that which occurs in 
 Col. 1. 24. A share in Christ’s actual sufferings was im- 
 possible to him. But the sufferings of Christ were not ended 
 —they are prolonged in his body, and of those the apostle 
 desired to know the fellowship. He longed so to suffer, for 
 such fellowship gave him assimilation to his Lord, as he 
 drank of His cup, and was baptized with His baptism. It 
 brought him into communion with Christ, purer, closer, and 
 tenderer than simple service for Him could have achieved. It 
 
192 PHILIPPIANS III. 10. 
 
 gave Him such solace as Christ Himself enjoyed. To suffer 
 together creates a dearer fellow-feeling than to labour together. 
 Companionship in sorrow forms the most enduring of ties,— 
 afflicted hearts cling to each other, grow into each other. The 
 apostle yearned for this likeness to his Lord, assured that to 
 suffer with Him was to be glorified with Him, and that the 
 depth of His sympathies could be fully known only to such 
 as “through much tribulation’? must enter the kingdom. 
 Christ indeed cannot be known, unless there be this fellow- 
 ship in His sufferings. 
 
 συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ. ‘This form of the par- 
 ticiple has higher authority (such as A, B, D') than συμμορ- 
 φουμένος, or than the συνφορτιζομένος of F and G. The 
 participle is connected with γνῶναι, and not with εὑρεθῶ. 
 The present participle, dependent on γνῶναι, carries the idea 
 — while I am being made conformable to His death.” The 
 use of the nominative makes an anacolouthon, and this form 
 of syntax is frequent with the apostle. Winer, §64. Wiesin- 
 ger virtually denies that there is any reference to the apostle’s 
 martyrdom; at least he thinks that the phrase can be 
 explained without any such allusion. Others, with van 
 Hengel and Rilliet, take it in a spiritual sense, the last say- 
 ing—en subsistant dans sa propre vie le changement qui dott 
 résulter pour le chrétien Vappropriation qwil se fait a lui-méme 
 de la mort de son Maitre. But perhaps what he has already 
 said in the previous chapter may bring us to an opposite con- 
 clusion. Nor can the phrase be explained simply by the 
 language in Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24, where our Lord uses a 
 striking figure; nor by the diction of the apostle in Rom. vi. 
 3,5. The clause has a closer connection with the declaration 
 made by the apostle in 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11. This conformity to 
 His death accompanies the power of His resurrection and the 
 fellowship of His suffermmgs. The death of Jesus was ever 
 before the apostle’s mind, and he died daily. The process of 
 conformity was advancing ;—like Him im suffering, ike Him 
 in death—a violent and bloody death as a servant of God. 
 It mattered not what its external form was—whether by the 
 sword or the cross, at the stake or on the arena; whether it 
 was the fate of Stephen or the end of James, the similarity 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 11. 193 
 
 desired was one of spirit and state. In all things Paul coveted 
 conformity to His Lord—even in suffering and death. Assured 
 that Christ’s career was the noblest which humanity had ever 
 witnessed, or had ever passed through, he felt a strong desire 
 to resemble Him—as well when He suffered as when He la- 
 boured—as well in His death as in His life. Christ’s death 
 was a sacrifice, and his own was contemplated in the same 
 light—“ I am now ready to be offered.’’ Christ’s decease at 
 Jerusalem was characterized by unfaltering submission to the 
 will of God, complete devotion to the welfare of humanity, 
 and generous forgiveness of His murderers; so, no doubt, the 
 apostle gained his wish, and the martyrdom at Rome was 
 signalized by a similar calmness and faith—met with a sere- 
 nity which the apparatus of death could not disturb, and 
 accompanied with such intercession for his executioners as 
 Jesus had offered, and the first martyr had imitated. 
 
 (Ver. 11.) Εὔπως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ 
 vexpoav— Τῇ anyhow I may attain to the resurrection from the 
 dead.” This form of the Greek reading has the highest 
 authority, having in its favour A, B, D, E. The conjunc- 
 tion εἴπως does not imply doubt, as is supposed by Grotius 
 and van Hengel, nor yet does it formally denote final purpose, 
 as Theodoret supposes. Winer, ὃ 41. It is sometimes followed 
 by the optative—Acts xxvii. 12—but here, not, as some sup- 
 pose, by the future indicative, but by the aorist subjunctive. 
 The verb, in its literal sense, “to come down or opposite to,” 
 is followed by the simple accusative in Acts xx. 15, but more 
 usually by εἰς, both in its literal and tropical signfication. 
 It denotes, to reach to the possession of, here, to obtain as an 
 earnestly desired result. Eph. iv. 13. The object to be 
 obtained is éEavdoracis—a compound term only used here, 
 and giving greater vividness to the image.’ ‘The verb occurs 
 in a different sense, signifying to raise up into existence, as in 
 Mark xii. 19; Luke xx. 28. Why the apostle should use a 
 different word from that of the succeeding verse, it is difficult 
 to say. Some, without any authority, as Grotius and Rosen- 
 miiller, give the word the meaning of resurrectio plena ; others, 
 
 
 
 1 The noun is used in the sense of complete expulsion, Polybius ii, 21, or 11. 35— 
 οὔτε τὴν τελευταίων ἐξανάστασιν. 
 
 Ν 
 
194 PHILIPPIANS III. 11. 
 
 as Bengel, distinguish it from the simple term, thus— Christo 
 ἀνάστασις, Christiano ἐξανάστασις. ‘'Theophylact presents 
 the notion ἐξ---εἰς τὸν ἀέρα. ‘The later Greek was fond of 
 compound terms. It is as if he fancied himself laid in a 
 tomb, and resurrection to him suggested the image of being 
 brought up and out of that tomb, an image made more promi- 
 nent by the words τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν. The context with such 
 phraseology as “the power of His resurrection,” “ being made 
 conformable to His death,” forbids us to adopt the notion of 
 Balduin, Cocceius, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
 others, that the noun refers to spiritual or ethical resurrection. 
 The last verse of the chapter brings out more fully the idea which 
 
 the apostle seems to have had in his mind. The exegesis of van 
 Hengel is, st forte perveniam ad tempus reditus mortuorum in 
 
 vitam—“ if perchance I may come to the time of the return of 
 the dead to life,” that is, the time when Jesus shall return for 
 this purpose. He is therefore compelled to take the previous 
 clause in a spiritual sense—as if the meaning were, that he 
 wished to die to the world—so that, escaping danger, he might 
 live on to the second advent. The hypothesis does not hang 
 well together, nor can the language at all justify it. In the 
 use of the verb time is implied, but time not as the object to 
 be reached. In Eph. iv. 13, quoted by van Hengel, the idea’ 
 is not, till we arrive at the time when—but till we arrive at 
 the consummation itself—that consummation being imaged 
 as future. ‘Time is the implied or subordinate idea in the 
 clause. Acts xxvi. 7. The reference is to the resurrection of 
 the Just—Luke xx. 35—that resurrection described also in 
 1 Thess. iv. 16, &c. The resurrection of the dead was an 
 article of his former creed, which the apostle did not need to 
 change on his conversion. Acts xxii. 6. But it was the resur- 
 rection to eternal life secured by Christ, that the apostle 
 aspired to reach. A glorious privilege—to rise out of the ashes 
 of the tomb, and meet the descending Lord, to assume a body 
 which is a fitting home for the pure and perfect soul, to pass 
 into heaven arrayed in an entire humanity, and to feel in the 
 resurrection, that augmented happiness which is the crown of 
 redemption! This blessed consummation the apostle aspired 
 to reach. Nothing if possible should keep him from reaching 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 12. 195 
 
 it. And the aspiration is closely connected with the preceding 
 verse. 2 Tim. ii. 12. Such participation in Christ’s sufferings 
 so identifies the sufferer with Him, that the power of His 
 resurrection is necessarily experienced. Such conformity to 
 His death secures conformity to His resurrection— 
 “ This I will find, we two are so joined, 
 He'll not be in glory and leave me behind.” 
 
 Now this burst of individual rapture must not be taken as 
 the index of overweening and self-deluded confidence. Every 
 one was not precisely in his circumstances, or endowed with 
 his temperament; though certainly his train of emotions has 
 presented in outline the grand features of the Christian life. 
 But though the change on him had been so decided, and had 
 brought with it such a complete revolution of opinion that 
 what had been gain was now reckoned loss, nay, held to be as 
 refuse ; though the present Paul was so wholly another man 
 from the former Saul; and though his aspirations for uni- 
 versal likeness to his Lord were so vehement and continuous, 
 perfection. He felt that deep though his convictions were, 
 they might be deepened ; that eager though his longings were, 
 _they might still be intensified. His aim was to be found in 
 Christ, justified by a Divine righteousness; but he was only 
 reaching a full realization of this union, and had not gathered 
 all its blessed fruits. His experience was ample, but it ad- 
 mitted still of amplification ; his sufferings had been many and 
 various, but they had not reached their climax in a death like 
 his Lord’s; his happiness was great, but its measure was not 
 filled up, nor could it reach its consummation till the resur- 
 rection of the just—7 ανάστασις ἡ πρώτη. So that, lest he 
 should be misunderstood, he adds in explanation— 
 
 (Ver. 12.) Οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον, ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι--- Not 
 that I already have attained, either already have been per- 
 fected.” The phrase οὐχ ὅτι warns against misconception. 
 John vii. 22; 2 Cor. 1. 24; Philip. iv. 17. It is almost 
 equivalent to οὐκ ép@—ov λέγω. Bernhardy, p. 352; Winer, 
 § 64,6; Hermann ad Viger., p. 804. In the verb ἔλαβον there 
 is the idea of laying hold of something before him which he had 
 not yet reached—“ Nor have I been perfected.” He had not 
 
 { 
 
196 PHILIPPIANS III. 12. 
 
 yet realized the Divine ideal. The verb ἔλαβον has no formal 
 accusative, and its object is left in vagueness. To what then 
 does the apostle refer? The reference is supposed by De Wette, 
 Robinson, and van Hengel, to be to the “ excellent know- 
 ledge ”—a reference not only too remote, but severed by many 
 intermediate objects of aspiration. Nor can we refer the verb 
 to Χριστόν, with Theodoret; nor with Rheinwald to the 
 resurrection ; nor with Matthies to the attainment of it, for 
 in that case the expression would be a truism; nor yet with 
 Grotius to the jus resurrectionis, for it would imply too low 
 an estimate of the apostle’s faith and privilege. Nor, with 
 Hoelemann, can we take it to be simply moral perfection. 
 More readily would we, with Calvin and Alford, refer it to 
 the previous general statement, for the paragraph itself seems 
 to contain the reference. The figure of the race and its prize 
 rose up directly to the apostle’s mind, and as he is about to 
 give it shape, other ideas intrude themselves and claim a 
 prior expression ; that is to say, what the apostle had not yet 
 attained to is what he has been describing in the previous 
 verses, but that now especially imaged to his mind as the prize 
 given to one who is victor in the race-course. In the first 
 clause of the 13th verse, the apostle resumes the figure, and 
 in a few vivid touches completes it. We agree, then, with 
 Bengel, Am Ende, Rilliet, and Meyer, that βραβεῖον is really 
 the object, as would seem also to be indicated by the use of 
 διώκω more generally in this verse, and more pointedly in 
 the 14th verse. In the repetition of ἤδη the apostle empha- 
 sizes the notion—that at the present moment he did not regard 
 
 himself as perfected. The first verb is an aorist, and keeps 
 its proper past signification, while the second, in the perfect 
 
 tense, takes up the same thought, and brings it down to the 
 present time. At no past period could I say that “1 attained ;” 
 nay, “up to the present moment, I have not been perfected.” 
 Winer, § 40, 5. It serves no purpose, with Hammond, Rilliet, 
 and others, to give τετελείωμαι a technical reference to the 
 stadium. It is better explained by the various but unwar- 
 ranted reading—#) ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι. But defect begets effort— 
 
 1 Hammond in loc.; Stuart on Hebrews xii. 2; Loesner, p. 354. Among some 
 of the Fathers, τελειοῦσθαι is to suffer martyrdom. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. viii. 15, 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 12. 197 
 
 διώκω δὲ, εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήφθην ὑπὸ Xpic- 
 tou— but I press on, if indeed I may seize that, for which 
 also 1 was seized by Christ.”” Aé here connects two thoughts 
 —the latter no negation of the former, but still of an oppo- 
 site nature. Klotz Devarius, 11. 360. The verb διώκω is 
 employed to express the intense action of the runner in the 
 stadium, and may be either taken absolutely or with an ideal 
 βραβεῖον. Kypke in loc.; Lucian, Hermot. 77; Loesner in 
 loc+ For the phrase εἰ καί see under 11.17. The double use 
 of the verb is Pauline (1 Cor. xiii. 12); the compound verb 
 (κατα) deepens the sense, while the καί seems to bring out 
 this idea—“ If over and above this pressing on I may also seize 
 the prize;” or, as De Wette says, it may correspond to the καί 
 of the following clause. Some difficulty lies in the formula 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, and various meanings have been assigned to it. The 
 meaning of “because that ”—propterea quod—has been pre- 
 ferred by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Am Ende, Meyer, and 
 Bisping; others, as Cicumenius and Rheinwald, give it the 
 sense “ whereto,” or “in order to which,”—gquo consilio ; 
 while Calvin is followed by van Hengel in affixing the 
 more general sense of guemadmodum. ‘The two former 
 meanings may both be justified by abundant usage. Exam- 
 ples of the first may be found in Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 4; 
 Matt. xix. 9; Acts iv. 21;—and of the second, Gal. νυ. 13; 
 Philip. iv. 10, ἄς, Winer, ὃ 48, c.; Kruger, ὃ 68, 41. If 
 we adopt the first interpretation, then the verb is supposed to 
 be used somewhat absolutely—“ If indeed I may seize, be- 
 cause indeed I was seized by Christ.” In the other case an 
 object or antecedent is supposed— If indeed I may also seize 
 that, in order to which I was also seized myself by Christ.” 
 The Syriac has TADS, ρῶν... for the sake of which.” 
 The second signification, adopted by Rilliet, Ellicott, and 
 Alford, is preferable—“‘I press on to seize the prize, to 
 attain which Christ seized me.” This gives a closer connec- 
 tion than the other method. This second καί, as Ellicott 
 suggests, is not connected with a supposed ἐγώ, nor yet with 
 the verb, but with the preceding relative—“ for which, too, 
 
 1 Thus Theophylact—#r: φησὶν, ἐναγώνιος εἶμι ἔτι διώκω. Chrysostom too—za) οὐκ εἶπε, 
 
 τρέχω, ἀλλὰ διώκω" εἰκότως. ὁ γὰρ διώκων ἰστε μεθ᾽ ὕσου τόνου διώκει. 
 
198 PHILIPPIANS III. 13. 
 
 for which very salvation I was apprehended.”* He means to 
 say, not merely that he pursues a certain course of action 
 because he has been converted, but because this course of 
 action is in unison with the purpose of his conversion. Christ 
 seized him, that he might seize the prize. The apostle’s con- 
 version is no less graphically than truly represented as a 
 seizure. The Lord laid hold on him with a sharp and sudden 
 grasp, and ever afterwards wielded him at His pleasure. He 
 was overtaken in the vicinity of Damascus—the vision of 
 Jesus produced instantaneous conviction, and with a force 
 which convulsed him as he fell to the earth. It was not a 
 slow and calm process of judgment, a prolonged and delicate 
 balancing of arguments, or a daily ripening of views and 
 opinions as the mists gradually cleared away, but the shock 
 of a moment, which so changed his entire nature as to make 
 him an utter contrast to his previous self. And Jesus grasped 
 him, that he might grasp the prize. His aim was im unison 
 with his destiny, that aim being to seize the prize as completely 
 as the Master had seized him, while to this very destiny had 
 he been converted and set apart. Some of the Greek Fathers 
 introduce the idea, that Paul was fleeing from Christ when he 
 was arrested. Thus Chrysostom—xal yap αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ἐδίωκε 
 φεύγοντας αὐτόν ; but there is no ground for such a supple- 
 mentary image. Not content with what he has uttered, he 
 still proceeds in the same spirit— 
 
 (Ver. 13.) ᾿Αδελφοὶ, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι 
 — Brethren, I do not reckon myself to have attained,” or “ to 
 have laid hold.” The apostle writes ἀδελφοί in his affectionate 
 confidence, as if he had felt that in the experiences of the 
 Christian life official rank did not raise him above them. He 
 clasps them to him, as he unfolds the earnest struggles and 
 ambition of his soul, and repeats the previous sentiment. The 
 phrase ἐγὼ ἐμαυτόν is emphatic in its form and position. Winer, 
 § 44, 3; John v. 30, vii. 17. It is the apostle’s deliberate 
 opinion of himself—the result of a formal judgment about 
 himself. One is almost tempted to adopt the idea of Zanchius 
 
 1 In connection with the relative, Klotz remarks—per particulam zai significamus 
 
 nos de alia quoque ve cogitare aut persona preter eam, de qua hoc predicatur. Klotz 
 Devarius, li, 636. 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 14. 199 
 
 —audio inter vos nonnullos esse qui _fastidientes doctrinam evan- 
 gelit jactant sese yam satis novisse Christum—lI, for my part, 
 make no such boast. The form οὔπω for οὐ appears to be an 
 exegetical alteration. Self-complacency was no feature of the 
 apostle’s character. He was not injured by undue elation, 
 either from his labours or his honours—his sufferings or his 
 successes—his history or his prospects—the grace he enjoyed 
 or the spiritual gifts he had conveyed. ‘The reason is, he 
 looked not to the past, but to the future ; not at what had been, 
 but what was still to be. He viewed not so much the progress 
 made as the progress still to be made—surveyed rather the 
 distance yet before him—between him and the goal, than 
 the space that now lay behind him—between him and the 
 starting-point. Truly a correct and salutary mode of mea- 
 surement—nil actum reputans, dum quid superesset agendum. 
 Satisfaction is fatal to progress. But the apostle, in looking 
 forward to the “ mark,” and conscious, too, that he was yet 
 at some distance from it, did not dream away his energies, or 
 content himself with wondering either why he was not nearer 
 the prize, or when he should reach it. But he adds the follow- 
 ing sentiment with a noble ardour, kindled by the image he 
 employed, and throwing its glow over the words he writes. 
 The picture is that of a racer in his agony of struggle and 
 hope! You see him !—every muscle strained, and every vein 
 starting—the quick and short heaving of his chest—the big 
 drops gathered on his brow—his body bending forward, as if 
 with frantic gesture he already clutched the goal—his eye, 
 now glancing aside with a momentary sparkle at objects so 
 rapidly disappearing behind him, and then fixing itself on the 
 garland in eager anticipation. The apostle is not leaving 
 “the things behind,” but he is “ forgetting’ them: he is not 
 merely looking to “the things which are before,” but he is 
 “yeaching forth”? unto them; not only does he run, but he 
 “presses toward the mark”; nor was he occupied, weakened, 
 or delayed, by a variety of pursuits—“ this one thing I do.” 
 Quicquid voluit, valde volutt. 
 
 (Ver. 14.) “Ev 6é&—“ But one thing I do.” Such, with so 
 many expositers, we regard as the proper supplement; not 
 ἐστι, with Beza; nor λογίζομαι, with Heinrichs; nor the 
 
 é 
 
200 PHILIPPIANS III. 14. 
 
 following verb διώκω, with Pierce and van Hengel. Van 
 Hengel insists that διώκω must have an expressed accusative; 
 and not being used absolutely, it must govern &. On the 
 other hand, see Buttmann’s Lewtlogus, p. 232.1 Nor with 
 Matthies and Hoelemann can we take it absolutely—/ins 
 aber, unum contra—nor find with Rheinwald an instance of 
 aposiopesis. Winer, ὃ 66,1, b. There was unity of action, 
 and therefore assurance of success; his energies were not dis- 
 sipated; his eye was single, and therefore his progress in the 
 race was visible— 
 
 τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος ---“΄ forgetting the things 
 behind.” The use of the compound middle verb is Pauline, 
 the preposition giving the image of “over and beyond,” and 
 so intensifying the idea of the simple verb. It here governs 
 the accusative, though the simple form takes the genitive. 
 Bernhardy, p. 181. By the phrase τὰ ὀπίσω are not to be 
 understood the things which in verses 5, 6, and 7 the apostle 
 has already condemned: for these things—that is, trust in 
 lineage, blood, sect, zeal, and law—belonged to an antecedent 
 period altogether. The apostle had not then entered on the 
 course. The “things behind” are in the Christian race, 
 and are the earlier and past attainments of his Christian 
 life—things left behind since he had listened to the high 
 summons, and commenced to run. His conversion was the 
 point at which he started, and he describes by “ things 
 behind,” his attainments and progress from that moment up 
 to the present epoch of his life. ‘ Behind” measures the 
 distance from the period at which he writes, back to the day 
 when he heard the words—‘I am Jesus whom thou perse- 
 cutest.” These past attainments were forgotten; that is, the 
 apostle did not rest and luxuriatein them—Upward and onward 
 was his motto. The term “forgetting” is used with special 
 reference to the figure here employed, for the apostle cherished 
 the memory of former manifestations, and thanked God for the 
 least of them. But in his Christian course, he did not repose 
 on memories. What had been gained was only an excitement 
 to farther progress. While he did not despise “ the day of small 
 things,” he laboured to hasten on to the day of large things,— 
 
 1 Fishlake’s Translation, London, 1840. 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 14. 201 
 
 τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν érrexrervouevos—* but stretching fort’ to 
 the things before.” The participle ἐπεκτεινόμενος, followed by 
 the dative of direction, carries in it a vivid image—the keen 
 attitude of the racer stretching his body out—é«—and toward 
 —éri—the goal. The things that are in front are not the 
 prize, as some suppose, but the things that le between him 
 and the prize, along the distance which is still to be gone 
 over ere he reach the goal. The apostle did not detain him- 
 self with things behind, nor did he linger among things round 
 about him, but he stretched forward to things which he had 
 not yet reached. Progress was made by him, and that pro- 
 gress is still the law of the Christian life. Never satisfied, 
 still a sense of want; never saying, Enough, but still erying 
 More; forward and yet forward, and nearer and yet nearer 
 the mark. This being his ruling passion— 
 
 κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως TOD 
 Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ---““ Toward the mark I press on, for 
 the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”’ Σκοπός 
 is found only in this place. Karta σκοπόν is “in the direction 
 of the mark,” and is not to be rendered “according to my 
 aim,” with Pierce, following Augustine’s secundum inten- 
 tzonem ; or “in a prescribed course,” with Peile; or “along 
 the mark,” that is, within the marked line, with Macknight. 
 Bisping distorts the figure when he makes the σκοπός Christ 
 Himself: it is the calx or τέρμα. The noun σκοπός is used 
 in the Septuagint for the Hebrew mx», to denote the point 
 which an archer aims at. Job. xvi. 12, 19: Lam. iii. 12.1 
 The prize is to be found only at the goal, and to that goal the 
 racer ever strives. If he move away from the course pre- 
 scribed, he misses the mark, and loses the garland: for 
 racing is not recreation, where one may turn aside as fancy 
 leads him; the path is chalked out, the law of the course must 
 be observed, and the aim and effort must always be κατὰ 
 σκοπόν. While this phrase marks the aim of the race, the 
 words ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον" express the final object, the coveted 
 
 1 Thus also Pindar, Olymp. Carmen ii. 160—teeye νῦν σκοπῷ τόξον. 
 
 ? It is difficult to say whether the reading should be εἰς or ?x/—the last being found 
 in’D, E, F, G, J, K, in Chrysostom and Theodoret, and the first in A, B, Clement, 
 and others, and it is preferred by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, and Alford. 
 
202 PHILIPPIANS III. 14. 
 
 crown. ‘Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown.” 
 The prize is certainly eternal perfection and blessedness— 
 “an incorruptible crown.” It is to be enjoyed only at the 
 termination of the course. And surely it is sufficient to 
 stimulate ardour, and sustain energy, since it is the realiza- 
 tion of man’s highest destiny—the woe and sin of the fall not 
 merely neutralized, but a higher glory conferred than the first 
 man of our race originally enjoyed; not the first Adam, but 
 the second Adam being the type as well as the author of the 
 new life with its glory. For the prize is that of the high 
 ealling of God in Christ Jesus— 
 τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ--- of the high 
 calling of God in Christ Jesus.”’ The prize, as the genitive 
 indicates, is connected with the Divine calling. Meyer calls 
 it the genitive of subject. According to De Wette, κλῆσις is 
 not the act of calling, but that to which one is called. But 
 the place adduced in proef by him and others, 2 Thess. 1. 11, 
 is no proof, for the word there, as elsewhere, is the act of call- 
 ing. Eph. i.18,iv.1. The adverb ἄνω characterizes the call, 
 and the phrase is parallel to Heb. 1.1. Grotius, Rheinwald, 
 and van Hengel take ἄνω as dvabev—“ from above,” but with- 
 out ground. We cannot agree with Meyer in regarding the. 
 adexb as pointing out the specialty of the apostle’s own call” 
 
 and conversion; for though he details his own experience, Hess Lr 
 
 summons the church to imitate him, and virtually admits in 
 the injunction of the next verse, that they too were to 
 run the race, so as to obtain the prize of their high calling. 
 The call is “ above ”—dvw—and stands in contrast to what is 
 below. Sin is degradation, for what is ignorance but lowness 
 of mind; or sensuality but lowness of heart; or misery but 
 lowness of spirit? But this calling exists in a sphere of moral 
 elevation, high or heavenly in its connection with the most 
 High God, by whom it is issued to men. Col. 111.1, 2. Nor can 
 we acquiesce in the view of Chrysostom, followed by Meyer, 
 that ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ is to be connected with διώκω. The 
 Greek Father remarks—év Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦτο ποιῶ, φησιν. 
 But the words are far separated, and the natural union 
 is with κλῆσις--- ἐν marking its medium or sphere of operation. 
 Such a construction does not need the repetition of the article, 
 
 τ᾽ 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 15. 203 
 
 of which usage Winer has given many examples. § 20, 2. 
 Nor is this further definition of the calling superfluous, as 
 Meyer argues. The call is described in an ideally local 
 aspect as high, then it is asserted to be the call of God. But 
 it is not a call of naked Godhead, of bare Divine authority ; 
 it approaches us in Christ Jesus. It is from God—a Divine 
 summons that pierces the spirit and insures compliance, but 
 it is in Christ, for it is a call which the blood of Christ con- 
 secrates, and to which His grace gives effect. 1 Cor. vii. 22; 
 1 Pet. v.10. It is hard to say whether the apostle carries 
 the figure so fully out as Grotius, Hoelemann, Am Ende and 
 others suppose, to wit, that he represents God as βραβεῦτης, 
 summoning by heralds the runners into the course. Only 
 Meyer’s argument against it cannot hold, for he objects, that 
 in such a case, the calling would be common to all Christians, 
 a conclusion which we believe. Nor is De Wette’s objections 
 of higher moment, when he says that such a view would 
 necessitate the taking of κλῆσις as the act of calling, for this 
 is the translation which we hold as the correct one. 
 
 
 
 (Ver. 15.) Ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν----““ Let as many 
 of us therefore as are perfect think this.” Οὖν introduces the 
 inference based on a retrospect. The use of τέλειος is strik- 
 ing, especially in contrast with τετελείωμαι in the 12th verse. 
 There, he says—‘ Not as if I had takenthe prize, or were already 
 perfected ;” and now he says—“ Let as many as are perfect,” 
 not ‘as many as would, or wish to be perfect,” as Peile and 
 Macknight translate. The adjective has plainly a somewhat 
 different sense from the verb. The adjective refers to rela- 
 tive, but the verb to absolute perfection. The one is predicated 
 of him who is in the race and has made some progress; and 
 the other of him who has reached the goal and taken the prize. 
 Perfecti viatores, says Augustine, nondum perfecti possessores. 
 The apostle’s use of the term sanctions this idea. Heelse- 
 where speaks of two classes in the church—* babes and perfect 
 men. ἢν (ὉΠ: it. 6.5. Eph, av. 12913 ΕΘ 1. 13,14... The 
 terms νήπιος and τέλειος are in contrast. See also 1 Cor. xiv. 
 20. In the first passage referred to, the allusion is to respective 
 degrees or attainments in knowledge. It is too restricted a 
 view, on the part of Heinrichs, Rheinwald, and Conybeare, to 
 
204 PHILIPPIANS III. 15. 
 
 adopt such an allusion here, as it is not of knowledge solely, 
 but also of Christian experience generally, that the apostle has 
 been speaking. Chrysostom well says, od περὶ δογμάτων ἀλλὰ 
 περὶ βίου τελειότητος. The phrase ὅσοι---τέλειοι does not 
 mean we who are perfect, but ‘as many of us as are perfect,” 
 leaving it to each of themselves to determine whether the 
 epithet be applicable to him or not. The perfect ones, among 
 whom by the idiom he employs he places himself, are 
 those who have burst the fetters of intellectual and spiritual 
 bondage; who have made some advancement in the divine 
 life; who are acquainted with the higher forms of truth, and 
 are no strangers to the impulses and powers of divine grace ; 
 who are the circumcision; who, by the Spirit, worship God; 
 who are conscious of union with Christ, of possessing right- 
 eousness through faith in Him, and some measure of con- 
 formity to Him, and who cherish through Him the hope of a 
 happy resurrection. And perhaps, if we take in the previous 
 context, the imperfect are those whose minds had not been 
 able so fully to rise above all confidence in the flesh; who still 
 thought circumcision might not be wholly without value ; who 
 would scruple to count all such things dead and positive loss, 
 but hankered after some of them; and who, in formally 
 renouncing them, secretly or unawares clung to them, and 
 might not distinctly comprehend the freeness, adaptation, and 
 perfection of that righteousness which is through the faith of 
 Christ. They could not be perfect runners in that course which 
 the apostle has traced, for they had not laid aside “every 
 weight.” They were entangled at every step, and progress 
 was impeded. Wiesinger’s view is different. He supposes 
 that a believer is called τέλειος, not in a comparative sense, 
 but solely on account of that moral nature which he has 
 received through fellowship with Christ, and that his being 
 τέλειος is the strongest call to strive after the τελειοῦσθαι. 
 The general truth is correct, but the statement does not invali- 
 date what we have said. The language used by the apostle 
 —éoo.—intimates that all were not τέλειοι in the Philippian 
 church; the idea of relative progress is therefore involved. 
 Nor does it, as Wiesinger objects, in any way give counte- 
 nance to self-esteem, for he neither names the τέλειοι, nor 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 15. 205 
 
 points out precisely in what their perfection consists. On the 
 other hand, he classes himself among the τέλειοι, and yet he 
 has declared of himself that he was yet not perfected. In 
 fact, the perfect one was only in the way of being perfected ; 
 none knew his imperfection so much, or felt it so deeply, and 
 therefore he strove with quenchless ardour to move fleetly 
 onward to the end of the race, and obtain the crown. For 
 one may be perfect in aim, and yet be far from realizing it. 
 The perfection referred to was such a progress as vividly 
 showed defect; such a stage in the race as revealed most 
 painfully the distance lying still in front; such light which, 
 as it grew, served also to enlarge the circle of darkness round 
 about it. Chrysostom’s notion is peculiar— What means 
 the word? (τέλειος) This—that we should forget those 
 things which are behind. Therefore it belongs to him who 
 is perfect, not to regard himself as perfect : ””— 
 
 τοῦτο Ppovayev— let us be of this mind.” The reference in 
 the pronoun is disputed, some making it of wider, and others 
 of narrower extent. Calvin, Aretius, Zanchius, Hoelemann, 
 and others down to De Wette, take it from the previous con- 
 text. Thus Vatablus—hoc, justitiam esse non ex lege, sed ex fide 
 Christi. De Wette glances especially at verses 8—11, while 
 van Hengel restricts τοῦτο to βραβεῖον, and gives φρονῶμεν the 
 unwarranted sense of expetamus. With Meyer we regard the 
 special reference to be that which had just been said, beginning 
 with verse 12. Let this be our thought, not to sit down 
 satisfied with past progress, but heedless of it, and feeling as if 
 nothing were done till all were done, to speed uniformly onward 
 to higher attainment. And yet there is no question that all the 
 previous verses of the chapter are closely connected ; and it is 
 implied that, in order so to feel, and so to act, so to think of 
 the past, and so to throw himself into the future, one must be 
 found in Christ, and be filled with ardent desire to know Him 
 and the power of His resurrection. If he be a Jew, he must 
 abandon trust in external privilege, and cling unreservedly to 
 Jesus. When he loses, then shall he gain, and having won 
 Christ, he is to go “ from strength to strength,” until having 
 attained to the resurrection from the dead, his whole nature is 
 crowned with perfection. As these various attainments floated 
 
206 PHILIPPIANS III. 15. 
 
 before the apostle’s mind, the pursuit of them gradually assumed 
 a pointed form, and took the image of a race—a race which 
 demands vigilant perseverance from all who have entered 
 upon it, and ¢hds, the untiring energy of acquisition or progress, 
 was to be a deep and permanent thought within every one of 
 them. 
 
 καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως ppovetre—“ and if in any respect ye think 
 otherwise.” The conjunction εἰ is followed by the indicative, 
 implying condition “if, as may be the case.” Winer, ὃ 41, 2; 
 Klotz Devarius, ii. 455. Ts is the accusative of reference, 
 and that reference is certainly not to any essential points of 
 doctrine, but to aspects of truth or elements of spiritual 
 experience, which the apostle has been presenting. They 
 might not see those relations of truth so clearly as the apostle, 
 and their convictions might not be so profound, or their progress 
 so rapid and uniform. The adverb ἑτέρως is only used here in 
 the New Testament. This meaning has been assigned to the 
 phrase by Hunnius and others—s? qui vestrum a falsis doctoribus 
 vobis aliter persuaderi passi estis. ‘The person of the verb is 
 changed, but there is no reason to suppose with Bengel, 
 Hoelemann, and Rilliet, that the same class of persons is not 
 addressed, and that the νήπιοι are now appealed to. The 
 apostle excludes himself, and so could not use the first person 
 plural. Van Hengel, following out the meaning he assigns to 
 the verb, renders in bald Latin—s7i guid boni per aliam viam 
 expetitis. ‘To disprove this position, there is no occasion with 
 Meyer to introduce one use of ἑτέρως as meaning adversus. 
 He might also have adduced its occasional employment as a 
 euphemism for κακός, Passow, sub voce. For the true idea is 
 brought out simply by the implied contrast. This difference 
 must be wrong, so far as it does not correspond with the 
 apostle’s mind, and the amount of error is just in proportion to 
 the amount of difference; and that it is wrong, is also shown 
 from the apostle’s expectation, that God would set them right. 
 The revelation which the apostle promises they should enjoy, 
 had for its purpose to remove such disagreement, and bring 
 them to his mind. Chrysostom’s explanation 15--τουτέστιν εἰ 
 δέ τις νομίζει τὸ πᾶν κατωρθωκέναι. But this is by far too 
 limited a notion, for it is not so much the spirit in which 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 15. 207 
 
 perfection is to be sought that the apostle refers to, as the way 
 in which to reach it by a knowledge of its constituent element. 
 The apostle thus takes for granted that there might be a 
 difference, and it must have been one not wholly of minor 
 moment, or one which their own judgment, or sense of duty 
 or propriety, might rectify. For he predicts— 
 
 καὶ τοῦτο ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει---“ yea, this shall God 
 reveal to you.” Meyer quotes Hartung, 1. p. 135, for render- 
 ing καί auch noch; as if the idea were—as God had already 
 revealed other things, so will he also reveal this. Such is also 
 the view of Alford, and Ellicott in his commentary, though 
 not in his translation. We prefer the rendering, “ even this ” 
 —this matter of difference in which they were wrong,—yea, 
 this God would reveal to them. But what is the reference in 
 tovro—what is it that God would reveal? Is it the fact-that 
 they were otherwise minded, as Gicumenius and Fritzsche? 
 suppose, or is it the measure of difference, that God should 
 reveal? The reference is to 7 When they read the vivid 
 record of the apostle’s experience, they might at once, and of 
 themselves, discover what want of harmony was between them 
 and him. But the meaning of the apostle is, that God, by 
 revealing the difference and showing the fault of it, would 
 remove it. The verb ἀποκαλύψει is‘ future, and has not the 
 optative sense which some would give it. It predicts or pro- 
 mises divine illumination. Winer, § 40,6; Eph.i.17. Such 
 spiritual enlightenment was frequent in those times, when the 
 written oracles of the New Testament were not in circulation, 
 and indeed is needed at all times, to give the mind a just and 
 abiding perception of the truth. Ps. xxv. 9; 1 John ii. 20, 
 It is plain, therefore, that the difference of view was not some 
 wilful and wicked misconception, or some wretched prejudice, 
 adhered to with inveterate or malignant obstinacy. It was 
 rather some truth not fully seen in all its bearings—some 
 principle not so perceived as to be carried out in all its details 
 and consequences—some department of duty which they might 
 apprehend rather than appreciate—or some state of mind 
 which they might admire in the apostle, but did not really 
 covet for themselves. The apostle throws his own teaching 
 
 1 Dissert. ii. in 2 Cor., p. 92. 
 
208 PHILIPPIANS III. 16. 
 
 into the shade, and ascribes the coming enlightenment to God. 
 He might have taught them the necessary lesson, or it might 
 be found in the previous details of the chapter, or Kpaphro- 
 ditus on returning might be commissioned to explain and 
 enforce it; yet all might be insufficient, and therefore the work 
 is taken out of man’s hand, and the needed insight is declared 
 to be the gift of the Father of Lights. Chrysostom puts the 
 distinction well—o Θεὸς ὑμᾶς πείσει οὐχὶ διδάξει ἁπλῶς" 
 ἐδίδασκε μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἸΠαῦλος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Θεὸς ἐνῆγε. 
 
 (Ver. 16.) Πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν. ““Πον- 
 beit, whereto we have attained, by the same do ye walk.” The 
 Received Text adds κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν. ‘The words are 
 omitted in A and B, in the Coptic and Aithiopic versions, and 
 by Hilary and Augustine. There are other forms of various 
 reading ;—D, HE, F, G, omit κανόνι, and there are several 
 transpositions. These incidents serve to prove an interpola- 
 tion, taken probably from Gal. vi. 16, and Phil. 11. 2. The 
 adverb πλήν is rendered τέως, “ meanwhile,” by Chrysostom, 
 and interim by Estius and Beelen, but without sufficient war- 
 rant in usage, though it may bear such a sense inferentially. 
 See under 1. 18. ‘“ Nevertheless”—“even though there be those 
 who are otherwise minded.” ‘The infinitive, as in στοιχεῖν, 
 may be used for the imperative, but that only in the second 
 person. Kriiger, ὃ 55, 1, 5; Kiihner, § 644. There is an 
 undertone of desire or wish, and on this such a use of 
 the infinitive depends. It is needless, on the part of Bengel, 
 Am Ende, and Rheinwald, to supply δεῖ. The verb φθάνω 
 has its complement in eés—though sometimes with ἐπί in 
 reference to persons. The reference in ἐφθάσαμεν has been 
 variously understood. The apostle has been supposed to refer 
 to revelations of knowledge, or to attainments in the spiritual 
 life. That is to say, the reference may be to the last verse, 
 or, generally, to the preceding context. But ere we look at 
 this question, there are two opposite modes of connection 
 which may be briefly glanced at. 
 
 1. As στοιχεῖν is in the infinitive, some would make it 
 dependent on the preceding verb ἀποκαλύψει. Fritzsche con- 
 tends for this, and thus renders—preterea instituet vos, ut, quam 
 ego consecutus sum τῷ βραβείῳ intentam mentem, ejusdem par- 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 16. 209 
 
 tictpes fiert ipsi annitamint. Homberg thus shapes it—hoc 
 sentiamus, non alio quam eodem canoni incedere et idem sentire. 
 Photius, too, makes the orovyety the theme of the revelation. 
 Meyer has remarked that the plural ἐφθάσαμεν is fatal to such. 
 an exegesis. Besides, the syntax would certainly be involved 
 and awkward. 
 
 2. Michaelis and Rilliet connect it with the next verse. 
 But this connection also has little to recommend it. It is best 
 to take the verse by itself as to its construction. But the 
 question recurs as to whai is supposed to be attained :— 
 
 1. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and, with some minor varia- 
 tions, Schinz and van Hengel, suppose the apostle to refer to 
 the spiritual life and its progress. The apostle’s figure is that 
 of a race representing spiritual advancement, and he is now 
 supposed to say—‘ Do not deviate from that line, on which 
 up toa certain point you have already made progress; but 
 still persevere in it.” This is a great truth, as well as a 
 solemn warning against deviation. ‘To such a view, however, 
 there are several objections. ‘They could not,” as Wiesinger 
 observes, ‘“ be all at the same point of attaimment;’ each had 
 made progress peculiar to himself—one behind and another 
 farther on. But this deeper meaning cannot be deduced from 
 the simple clause, εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν. The paraphrase, “on the 
 line on which we have advanced to a given point, let us 
 persevere,” is the assigning of a meaning rather than the 
 evolution of it. The εἰς 6 and τῷ αὐτῷ are not so correlated 
 as to warrant such a sense, for εἰς 6 is “up to the point,” and 
 not along the line, we have attained. ‘The use of στουχεῖν 
 will not, though Meyer insists on it, bear out this exegesis. 
 Granted that it may be correlative with ἐφθάσαμεν, it does 
 not of itself describe spiritual progress, but signifies simply 
 to walk by step or rule, and is opposed to irregular or random 
 motion. ‘Taking into view the tenor of the apostle’s remarks, 
 the record of his own aspirations, and his earnest desire that 
 in all their fervour they should be cherished by the Philippian 
 church ; and remembering his conviction that there was difter- 
 ence of opinion between them which prevented the completion 
 of this harmony of view, and also his hope and expectation 
 that the discrepancy would be cleared away by a divine 
 
 O 
 
210 PHILIPPIANS III. 16. 
 
 enlightenment ;—we imagine that when he speaks in the next 
 breath of attainment, he refers to the point up to which there 
 was oneness of mind among them, and exhorts them to walk 
 according to it—according to the measure of their present 
 knowledge. 
 
 2. Thus we agree with many expositors, who connect the 
 verse closely with the one before it—as containing a cautionary 
 counsel after a promise. Such is the view of De Wette, 
 Rheinwald, Matthies, and Hoelemann. ‘Then the two verbs 
 are in contrast—the future in ἀποκαλύψει, and the aorist in 
 ébOdcawev—that is, the apostle speaks of a future and farther 
 enlightenment in connection with spiritual progress; but 
 meanwhile he speaks of a degree of present light, and the 
 duty consequent on the possession of it. The two verbs will 
 then refer to the same thing. The revelation may contain new 
 informat‘on, but it is also additional information. It presup- 
 poses a present amount of knowledge, and the apostle insists 
 upon its use even prior to that accession of insight which God’s 
 illumination should bring. God shall reveal so as to clear up 
 the difference, but that difference in some things implies a 
 common agreement in other things, and up to this point to 
 which we attained, let us walk. 
 
 The spirit of the warning or injunction is, that knowledge 
 already enjoyed and proved in a spiritual race, should not lie 
 dormant because it is defective. It needed not so much to be 
 rectified, as to be supplemented. ‘Therefore, as far as you 
 have its guidance, take it. Walk up to the light you have, 
 and you will get more. Walk with me so far as you discern 
 the common path, and at the point of divergence God shall 
 rightly direct you as to the subsequent course. He who 
 employs what he has, prepares himself for further gifts. 
 When the morning bursts suddenly on one wakened out 
 of sleep, it dazzles and pains him; but to him who on his 
 journey has blessed the dawn, and walked by its glimmer, 
 the solar radiance brings with it a gradual and cheering in- 
 fluence. The following remarks of Neander will be read with 
 interest :—“ Paul, accordingly, points to this truth, that the 
 Spirit of God, who revealed ‘to them the light of the Gospel, 
 will perfect this His revelation in them, and conduct it to that 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 16. 211 
 
 mark of maturity in Christianity,—that He will yet more and 
 more further them in true Christian knowledge, and even in 
 that in which they still err and vary in opinion, will cause 
 them to find the one right thing. We should not, therefore, 
 precipitately enter into controversy, by which our distance 
 from each other is so easily widened, and by which, through 
 obstinate adherence to our once formed views, we so readily 
 become hardened in opposition ; much less should we condemn 
 each other, but endeavour to preserve that unity of the Chris- 
 tian spirit, which is raised above all subordinate differences. 
 To the common Teacher, the Holy Spirit, should all yield 
 themselves, and all trust, that He, who is the best Teacher, 
 will yet more and more further them and each other. While all 
 proceeds from the Divine foundation once laid, the unfolding 
 and progressive purification of the Divine work should be left 
 to the operation of the Holy Spirit, who first began it in each. 
 No attempt should be made to do violence from without to the 
 unfolding of the Divine life in another, which follows its own 
 law, grounded in the specialities of his character; or substitute 
 anything imposed from without, in place of the free develop- 
 ment which proceeds from within. This would be tantamount 
 to seeking to penetrate into the inmost soul of man by human 
 arts of persuasion, which can avail nothing, where they find 
 no sympathetic link in the already existing views of a man, 
 and to bring forth what alone can be effected by the Holy 
 Spirit, the inner Teacher, whom, without constraint and with 
 the entire accord of their freedom, all follow. Everything, 
 alike in each individual, proceeds only from the leavening 
 process of the same leaven of Divine truth, which gradually 
 shall pervade the whole spiritual life, expurgating every hete- 
 rogeneous element. And when Paul here speaks of a revelation 
 by the Holy Spirit, through which the progressive insight of 
 the believer is effected, this has for its basis the truth, pre- 
 supposed and expressed throughout Holy Scripture, that all 
 Divine things can be known only in the light of the Holy 
 Spirit ; as he says elsewhere, ‘No man can call Jesus Jord, 
 but by the Holy Ghost.’ The notion of revelation, however, 
 before us, by no means excludes the agency of human thought, 
 which developes and works out according to the laws of human 
 
212 PHILIPPIANS III. 17. 
 
 reason, that which it has received from the Divine light. But 
 it is assumed that the agency of man’s spirit is inspired and 
 guided by the Holy Spirit, who is the soul of ‘his whole 
 spiritual life; hence all is referred to the Holy Spirit as cause, 
 in so far as all originates in His revelation, guidance, and 
 inspiration ; all immediate or mediate progressive insight, 
 proceeding from the Holy Spirit, is included in the notion of 
 revelation.” On Philippians, p. 58; Edinburgh, 1851. 
 
 (Ver 17.) Συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, adehpoi— Be together 
 imitators of me, brethren.” 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1; 1 Thess. 1. 
 Gor: 2 Thess. 11: 9. “See also 1 Cor x69); 1 ἴσασιν 
 12; Titus ii. 7. Some difficulty lies in the reference con- 
 tained in συν. With whom? Not surely, as Bengel says— 
 “followers with me of Christ,’ for no such idea is expressed. 
 Nor can we take it with Meyer and Beelen, preceded by 
 Estius, a-Lapide, and Theophylact, as signifying — “ along 
 with others who follow me.” There is no allusion, either 
 distinct or remote, to members of other churches. We prefer 
 the view of Calvin, van Hengel, Hoelemann, De Wette, and 
 Alford, that the apostle says—be followers, “ one and all,” of 
 me, or be unitedly imitators of me. If it be asked—in what ? 
 then the previous context may easily determine the question, 
 Nay farther— 
 
 καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτως περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον 
 ἡμᾶς---““ἀπα observe those who walk in such a way as ye 
 have us for an example.” Wherever they found the life of the 
 apostle imitated or displayed, they were to mark it, and make 
 it their pattern. Any excellence which they thus discovered, 
 they might by God’s grace attain to. It was not some dis- 
 tant spectacle which they were to gaze at and admire, but an 
 embodiment of earnest faith, walking on the same platform 
 with them, and speaking, acting, praying, suffering, and 
 weeping among them. What had been possible to others, 
 was surely not impossible to them. Why should they be 
 behind in any gift or attainment, when the same means of 
 acquisition were within their reach ? 
 
 Τύπος means exemplar, as in several other places, and is in 
 the singular, to express the unity of the pattern, though 
 exhibited by a plurality of persons. Kiihner, ὃ 407, 2; 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 17. 218 
 
 Bernhardy, p. 60. In καθώς is expressed the manner 
 implied in the previous οὕτως, and not as Meyer says, an 
 argument for the injunction in the first clause. The argu- 
 ments of Meyer have been well disposed of by Alford. Meyer 
 lays stress on ἔχετε as used instead of ἔχουσι ; but the apostle 
 is writing to the Philippians, and does not merely say—“‘ Mark 
 them that walk after our example,’ but mark them who 
 walk in such a way as ye see us walking; the τύπος, which 
 these persons followed, is set directly before the Philippians 
 as a model which they were to inspect, a standard which 
 themselves are to apply to the conduct and character of 
 others. The meaning then is—mark them which walk so, 
 just as ye have us for an example (for “them” and “us” are 
 evidently not the same class of persons), and not—be joint 
 followers of me, and mark such as walk in unison with me, 
 inasmuch as ye possess us as a pattern. By “us” we under- 
 stand not the apostle himself, as Jaspis and Ellicott incline 
 to believe—‘ not him and all who so walked,” for this last 
 notion confounds those who set with those who followed the 
 example; but the reference is—the apostle and those whom 
 he was in the habit of identifying so closely with himself. 
 Their example was in harmony with their teaching. They 
 did not simply and timidly say, Walk as we bid you, but 
 they boldly challenged inspection, and said, walk as we do. 
 The reason why the apostle proposed his own example, and 
 that of his associates, is now given by him. His life and theirs 
 was in contrast with that of many others. There were men 
 among them, professedly Christian, whose character was shame- 
 lessly sensual and secular. Motives of various kinds must 
 have influenced not a few of the early converts, and brought 
 them within the pale of the church. Novelty might have its 
 share in producing a change which could be only superficial. 
 Minds disgusted with gross superstitions and idolatries might 
 relish the pure theism of the gospel, admire its benevolent 
 and comprehensive ethics, and be entranced with its authori- 
 tative announcement of immortality. Yet they might not 
 penetrate into its spirit, nor feel its transforming power. 
 Change of opinion is not conversion, nor is the admiration 
 of truth identical with the reception of its influence; while 
 
214 PHILIPPIANS III. 18. 
 
 belief in immortality may create a distant cloudland where 
 one may wander in fancy, and yet be far from inducing hearty 
 and prolonged preparation for heaven. It seems, however, to 
 be not speculative error in itself, but practical inconsistency, 
 perhaps connected with or springing out of it, to which the 
 apostle here refers. Already has he demonstrated the folly 
 of trust in the flesh, of confidence in external privilege; and 
 opening his bosom he has shown his own sensations—what 
 he did once rely on, and might have still relied on. But what 
 a revolution had passed over him; how he panted above all 
 things to be found in Christ, to be justified by His righteous- 
 ness; to know Him, and to be fully conformed to Him in 
 life and death; how he relates that he is conscious of many 
 short-comings, that he is far from being what he hopes yet to 
 be, but that, in the meanwhile, he spares no pains to realize his 
 ideal, while he hopes that the Philippian church will exhibit 
 the same earnest and unwearying effort. His mind naturally 
 reverts to those who do not manifest this spirit; who live in 
 the present, and for it; who prefer sensual gratification to 
 spiritual enjoyment and prospect; and whose souls, so far 
 from soaring in kindred aspiration with his, are absorbed in 
 earthly things. The apostle felt that their sluggish and 
 worldly life was fatal to them; nay, as his own attachment 
 to the cross was the source of all his energy and eagerness, so 
 he affirms that their low and grovelling state was the proof 
 and the result of their enmity to the cross. 
 
 (Ver. 18.) Πολλοὶ yap περιπατοῦσιν, ods πολλάκις ἔλεγον 
 ὑμῖν, νῦν δὲ Kal κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ---“΄ For many walk, of whom I often told (or used to 
 tell) you, but now tell you even weeping, that they are those 
 who are the enemies of the cross of Christ.’ ‘There is some 
 peculiarity of syntax, which has given rise to various methods 
 of construction. Rilliet, De Wette, Wiesinger, and others, 
 following Erasmus, suppose a break in the expression, or 
 rather, such a grammatical change as indicates that the apostle 
 did not follow out his original intention. ‘They suppose him 
 to begin a description of a course of conduct, and then to glide 
 away to a description of the persons. That is, in περιπατοῦσιν 
 there is a reference to conduct, and some epithets characterizing 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 18. py ἢ 
 
 that conduct might be expected to follow; but stead of these 
 a relative sentence intervenes, and not the walk itself, but the 
 persons who so walk, are then brought into view—“‘the enemies 
 of the cross of Christ.” It is certainly simpler to regard τοὺς 
 ἐχθρούς as placed in the accusative by its relation to ἔλεγον--- 
 “Ὁ told you often before of them, and now weeping tell you 
 of them, as the enemies of the cross of Christ.’ In similar 
 expressions ὅτι frequently intervenes, though the conceit of 
 van Hengel to change οὕς into ὡς is wholly groundless. The 
 verb περιπατοῦσιν stands emphatically, and without any added 
 characteristic. It is awkward, on the part of Calvin, to 
 connect it directly with one of the following clause, thus— 
 περιπατοῦσιν---οἱ Ta ἐπίγεια Ppovovvtes—placing the inter- 
 mediate words in parenthesis; and it dilutes the sense to 
 subjoin κακῶς or ἑτέρως, or any other epithet. The verb is 
 certainly to be taken in its usual tropical or ethical meaning, 
 and is not, with Storr and Heinrichs, to be rendered circu- 
 lantur—* go about.” The apostle, in the previous verse, had 
 referred to his own life and to those who walked like himself— 
 τοὺς οὕτως περιπατοῦντας, and now he speaks of others who do 
 not so walk. But he does not formally express the difference 
 by an adverb—he does it more effectually by an entire clause. 
 As he refers to them, their personality rises up vividly before 
 him, and instead of characterizing their conduct, he pictures 
 themselves. In this view the verb περιπατοῦσιν is in no way 
 regarded as equivalent to εἰσί, though in using it the apostle 
 sketches its subjects ere he describe its character. The in- 
 troductory yap shows the connection, by stating a reason in 
 the introduction of a contrast,—‘‘ Mark them who walk like me, 
 and there is the more need of this, for many are walking who 
 must be branded as enemies of the cross of Christ, and to 
 whom, in this aspect of their conduct, I have frequently 
 directed your attention.” The persons referred to were not a 
 few, but πολλοί --ἰ many ;” and the apostle’s mind was so 
 oppressed with the idea of their number and criminality that 
 he had often spoken of them. ‘There were many of them, and 
 he had many times mentioned {Ποιη---πολλοί, πολλάκις. Lo- 
 beck, Paralipomena, pp. 56,57. The apostle did not throw a 
 veil over such enormities, nor did he apologize for them. The 
 
216 PHILIPPIANS III. 18. 
 
 world might laugh at them, but he wept over them. He had 
 frequently, and in firm tones, stigmatized them—either in 
 former epistles, or more likely when he visited Philippi. The 
 class of persons now referred to may not be those mentioned in 
 the second verse, for these were probably teachers, distinguished 
 by ascetism rather than by sensual indulgences. As the apostle 
 thought of their flagrant inconsistencies, his eye filled, and 
 tears fell upon the manuscript which his secretary was writing. 
 “Wherefore weeping”? asks Chrysostom, and he answers— 
 ‘‘ Because the evil was urgent, because such deserved tears”’ 
 - τι ἐπέτεινε τὸ κακόν, ὅτι δωκρύων ἄξιοι οἱ τοιοῦτοι. There- 
 fore the apostle uses no disguise— 
 
 νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω---“ but now even weeping.” More 
 in grief than indignation did he refer to them. He wept as he 
 thought of their lamentable end, of their folly and delusion, and 
 of the miserable misconception they had formed of the nature 
 and design of the gospel. He grieved that the gospel should, 
 through them, be exposed to misrepresentation, that the world 
 should see it associated with an unchanged and licentious life. 
 The Lord had shed tears over devoted Jerusalem, and His 
 apostle, in His spirit, wept over these incorrigible reprobates, 
 who wore the name, but were strangers to the spirit and 
 power of Christianity. And they are, with one bold and 
 startling touch, signalized as— 
 
 τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Xpiarov—“‘ the enemies of the 
 cross of Christ.’”’ The article gives the noun special prominence, 
 or points out the class. The verb λεγώ does not, as Grotius 
 and van Till render, signify to call—“ whom now weeping I 
 call the enemies,”’ &c.—dolens appello hostes. Why should the 
 apostle so characterize them, or why specify the cross as the 
 prime object of their enmity? The words are more pointed 
 and precise than Calvin supposes them to be, when he renders 
 them simply evangelii hostes ; or than Wilke imagines, when he 
 supposes the “ enemies ”’ to be pseudo-apostles, who would not 
 place their hopes of salvation in Christ’s death, but on the obser- 
 vance of rites ea Jude@orum mente. Nor can we, with Rilliet and 
 Bretschneider, regard them as non-Christians, for the context 
 plainly supposes that they were within the pale of the church. 
 As far wrong, on the one hand, is it for Heinrichs to consider 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 18. Dy 
 
 them as Roman magistrates guilty of persecution, as, on the 
 other hand, it is for a-Lapide to assert that they were members 
 of the church in Corinth. As to the nature and form of this 
 enmity : 
 
 1. Many hold it to be doctrinal—to be a species of polemi- 
 cal antipathy to the cross. Theodoret says they are so named 
 ὡς διδασκόντας ὅτι δίχα τῆς νομικῆς πολιτείας ἀδύνατον τῆς 
 σωτηρίας τυχεῖν. Theodoret has been followed in this opinion 
 
 
 
 
 
 by many interpreters, such as Thomas Aquinas, and in later 
 times by Estius, Rheinwald, Matthies, and Schinz. But there 
 is no hint of this nature in the passage. It was not as in 
 Corinth, where to one party requiring a sign the cross was a 
 “stumbling-block,”’ and to another faction seeking after wisdom 
 it was ‘ foolishness ;” the former regarding it as impossible 
 that their Messiah should die in such ignominy, or be executed 
 under a sentence of law like a malefactor; and the other 
 deeming it wholly preposterous, that a story so simple as that 
 of Jesus crucified should be a record of divine wisdom, or be 
 the vehicle of divine power and intervention. Nor was it as 
 in Galatia, where the law of Moses was assumed to be of per- 
 petual obligation, and the merit of Christ’s death was virtually 
 disparaged ; where, under the error of justification by works 
 of law, the sufferings of Jesus were regarded as superfluous, 
 so that in their bosoms there rankled sore and keenly the 
 “offence of the cross.” No charge of speculative error is 
 brought against those whom the apostle here describes—as 
 if they regarded the cross simply as the scene of a tragedy, 
 or of a martyrdom; or as if they thought the atonement 
 unnecessary, or undervalued the agony of Christ as devoid of 
 explatory merit. 
 
 2. Many take another view, as if this enmity to the cross 
 consisted in their reluctance to bear it themselves. Thus 
 Chrysostom exclaims—‘ Was not thy Master hung upon a 
 tree ?—crucify thyself, though none crucify thee” -- σταύρωσον 
 σεαυτὸν κἂν μηδείς σε σταυρώσῃ. This interpretation, which 
 has various aspects, has many supporters. Such men will 
 not take up their cross—will not submit to self-denial—will 
 neither crucify the flesh nor endure persecution for the cross of 
 Christ. Therefore they will not, as in the opinion of Meyer, 
 
218 PHILIPPIANS III. 18. 
 
 suffer with Christ, or seek any fellowship with His sufferings, 
 or any conformity unto His death. This may be true, and 
 may be included in the true interpretation ; but it seems to us 
 somewhat subtle and recondite. So that we prefer another 
 opinion. 
 
 3. We rather regard the apostle as speaking of the cross in 
 its ultimate purpose, as pointing not so much to its expiatory 
 agony, as to its sanctifying power. Their hostility to the cross 
 lay in their not realizing its great design. For Christ died at 
 once to provide pardon and secure sanctification, and the recep- 
 tion of the first blessing is meant to prepare for the ultimate 
 process. They are, therefore, the enemies of the cross who 
 see not in it the evil of sin, so as to forsake it, who remain 
 strangers to its attractions, and who will not submit to the 
 authority, or conform themselves to the example of Him who 
 died upon it. If the following verse describe, as it seems to do, 
 the character and destiny of these enemies of the cross, then 
 it would seem that their antagonism lay in thwarting its influ- 
 ence, and refusing to feel its elevating and spiritualizing virtue. 
 If their supreme pleasure was in the indulgence of animal 
 appetite, and if their soul was immersed in earthly pursuits 
 and gratifications, then, certainly, all that the cross had done 
 for them was of no avail; what it provided, was not received ; 
 what it secured, was not realized ; its design was contravened, 
 and its lessons were flung aside; the love of the dying victim 
 was not seen in its tenderness and majesty; nor could His 
 anguish be understood in those causes which made it a neces- 
 sity, or appreciated as to those results which it was designed to 
 produce, and which it alone can produce, in heart and life. Eph. 
 ν. 25-7; Titus 11. 13,14. Those men who walked in refusal of 
 of its claims, in violation of its design, and in defiance of its les- 
 sons, were surely the enemies of the cross, whether they were 
 Jews or Gentiles. How they justified their conduct to them- 
 selves, or how they attempted to reconcile their lives with a 
 profession of Christianity, we know not. We cannot tell what 
 theory led to such practice; whether they wilfully turned 
 “the grace of our God into lasciviousness;” or whether, by some 
 strange perversion, they took warrant to “ continue in sin, that 
 grace might abound ;” or whether, under the intoxication of 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 19. 219 
 
 some antinomian theory, they dreamed that there was “ no 
 law,” and that there could therefore be “ no transgression.” 
 
 (Ver. 19.) Ὧων τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια---“ΟΥ whom the end is 
 destruction,’ whose special and ultimate fate is destruction. 
 Rom. vi. 21; 2 Cor. xi. 15; Heb. vi. 8,&c. The clause and 
 context will not warrant the notion of Heinrichs, that ἀπώλεια 
 bears an active signification, and that the meaning may be— 
 whose final purpose is the destruction of the church. The 
 term ἀπώλεια 15 the opposite of σωτηρία, and denotes a terrible 
 issue. Matt. vil. 13, and in many other places; Phil. i. 28; Rom. 
 ix. 22; 2 Thess. 11.13. They do not realize the end of their 
 being, and fall short of the glory of God. The cross has not 
 sanctified them, and they cannot enter heaven. The purpose 
 of Christ in dying has not been wrought out in them, and 
 such a failure necessitates exclusion from His presence. The 
 Lamb is the theme of high praise before the throne, but their 
 enmity to the cross incapacitates them from joining in such 
 melodies. Nay, as sin has reigned unchecked within them, 
 in spite of all that has been done and suffered for them, 
 they carry the elements of hell within them; their nature 
 remaining unsanctified, in scorn of Christ’s blood and his 
 apostle’s tears. Gross sensualism characterized them— 
 
 ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ KotAia— whose god is their belly.” Rom. xvi. 
 18. Theodoret adds—édiadhepovtas yap οἱ 1 υδαῖοι πολλὴν 
 ποιοῦνται τροφῆς ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ δικαιοσύνης ὅρον νομίζουσι 
 τὴν ἐν σαββάτῳ χλιδήν. But there is no real ground for 
 supposing the persons referred to to be Jews. The expression 
 is a strong one, and the general meaning is, that they found 
 their divinest happiness in the gratification of animal appetite. 
 This god they loved and served. No idolatry is so unworthy 
 of a rational being; no worship so brutal in form, and bru- 
 tifying in result. Intemperance, for example, ruins fortune 
 and forfeits character, erazes the body and damns the im- 
 mortal spirit. And if, as in the figure of the apostle, a man’s 
 belly be his god, then his hearth is his altar, and his liturgy 
 turns on the questions, “ What shall we eat, or what shall we 
 drink?” or repeats the chant—“ Let us eat and drink, for to- 
 morrow we die.” Many passages from the classics have been 
 adduced which refer to such sensuality. Such men are named 
 
220 PHILIPPIANS ΠῚ. 19. 
 
 κοιλιοδαίμονες by Atheneeus. The Cyclops in Euripides, 335, 
 boasts about his beasts—‘‘T sacrifice to no one but myself, 
 not to the gods, but to this my belly, the greatest of the 
 gods ”"— 
 
 Καὶ τῇ μεγίστῃ τῇδε δαιμόνων-- 
 
 “for to eat and drink each day, is the god for wise men ”’— 
 
 Ἂς A at LJ "2 = ΄ 
 Ζεὺς οὗτος ἀνθρώποισι τοῖσι σώφροσιν. 
 
 The cross has for its object to lift man above such ignoble 
 pleasures—to spiritualize and refine him—to excite him to 
 cultivate the nobler part of his nature, that he may rise to com- 
 munion with the Father of all. But men indulging in these 
 low and unworthy pursuits which darken and endanger the 
 soul, persisting in this γαστριμαργία, as Theodoret calls it, 
 are the enemies of the cross of Christ. Still worse— 
 
 καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν TH αἰσχύνῃ avtav— and whose glory is in 
 their shame.” ‘That is, they find their glory in what is really 
 their shame. It is their shame, though they do not reckon it 
 so; as Origen says—éq’ οἷς ἔδει αἰσχύνεσθαι, ἐπὶ τουτοῖς 
 οἴονται δοξάζεσθαι. ‘The context does not warrant any allu- 
 sion to circumcision and the parts affected by it, in pudendis, 
 as is held by some of the Latin Fathers, by Bengel, Michaelis, 
 and Storr; nor yet does it specially describe libidinous indul- 
 gence, as Rosenmiiller and Am Ende suppose. The simple 
 αἰσχύνη cannot of itself bear either signification. ‘These ene- 
 mies of the cross were not hypocrites, but open and avowed 
 sensualists, conscious of no inconsistency, but rather justifying 
 their vices, and thus perverting the gospel formally for such 
 detestable conduct. These victims of gross and grovelling 
 appetites disqualifying themselves from fulfilling the end of 
 their being—to glorify God and to enjoy Him—frustrated the 
 purpose of the cross, and therefore were its enemies. Lastly— 
 
 οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια Ppovodvtes—“ they are those who mind earthly 
 things.’ Col. i. 2. The nominative is now used, or to give 
 the clause special emphasis, the original construction is re- 
 sumed. Winer, § 63,2; Kiihner, §677. The phrase “ earthly 
 things”? cannot, as Pierce supposes, mean any portion or 
 section of Jewish ordinances. ‘heir heart was set on earthly 
 things—such things as are of the earth in origin, and do not 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 19. 20 
 
 rise above it in destiny. ‘The contrast is—heavenly things— 
 to the love and pursuit of which the cross is meant to raise 
 us who died with Christ, and with Him rose again. When 
 men are so absorbed in earthly things, in the lust of power, 
 pleasure, wealth, fame, or accomplishment, as to forget their 
 high calling to glory, honour, and immortality ; when they 
 live so much in time and sense as to be oblivious of life eternal, 
 and seek not a title to it, nor cherish the hope of it, nor yet 
 make preparation for it; they surely are the enemies of the 
 cross, and their end is destruction. On the other hand, listen 
 to Augustine—‘ O anima mea, suspira ardenter et desidera 
 vehementer, ut possis pervenire ad illam supernam civitatem de 
 qua tam gloriosa dicta sunt.” Vol. vi. p. 1399, ed. Paris, 1837. 
 
 It is matter of surprise, first, that persons of such a character 
 were found in the early church; and, secondly, that they 
 were not shamed out of it by the earnest piety and the 
 spiritual lives of so many in the same community. Perhaps 
 the novelty of the system attracted numbers toward it, and the 
 freshness of its statements induced their adhesion to it, though 
 they felt not its ner power. As we have said ona recent page, 
 polytheism had lost its hold on many thinking heathens, who 
 had been wearied out with scholastic disputations, and were glad 
 to embrace what proposed some certainties, such as a spiritual 
 worship, an authoritative law, and an assured immortality. But 
 their convictions might be purely intellectual, the truths adopted 
 being held only as opinions, and such change of views might 
 happen without change of heart. The power of Christianity 
 was neither relished nor understood. The cross in its agony 
 might thrill them, but the cross in its spiritual penetration 
 was a mystery. It might be taken as the scene and the 
 symbol of sorrow and triumph, of suffering and bliss, but 
 its efficacy to raise and ennoble, while admitted in theory, 
 might be refused in practice. Such persons lived in a new 
 circle of ideas and associations, but their soul was untouched 
 and unquickened, and, therefore, under this sad hallucination, 
 they gratified without stint their animal propensities, and 
 were immersed in earthly occupations and epicurean delights. 
 We could not have believed in the possibility of such delu- 
 sions, had not similar forms of misconception and antagonism 
 
pags PHILIPPIANS III. 20. 
 
 been frequently witnessed in the history of the church. On 
 the other hand, the apostle affirms— 
 
 (Ver. 20.) Ἡμῶν yap τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει--- 
 “ For our country is (or exists) in heaven.” The noun πολί- 
 τευμα has a variety of meanings, among which we may 
 choose :— 
 
 1. Our English version, following the Vulgate, renders it 
 —conversation, that is, mode or form of life, vite ratio ; or, as 
 van Hengel gives it— vivendi ratio. His general rendering is 
 approved by Calvin, Grotius, Matthies, and De Wette. The 
 translation is so far favoured by the context—They mind 
 earthly things, and are totally opposed to us, for our life is in 
 heaven. One course of conduct is placed in contrast with 
 another. Still the language so interpreted would be peculiar. 
 The apostle says, in Col. iii. 3, “ Our life is hid with Christ 
 in God,” but he refers to the principle of life, and not certainly 
 to its present manifestations. It is one thing to say that the 
 origin of our life is in heaven, but very different to say that 
 its actual mode, habit, or manner is in heaven. If you explain 
 this by saying, that its law is in heaven, then you affix a 
 new meaning to the noun, or blend, like Rheinwald, several 
 assumed meanings together. Nor does the word ever seem to 
 have such a sense in any place where it occurs; the meaning 
 is alleged from the verb πολυτεύω, which sometimes signifies 
 “to be or live as a citizen.” See under i. 27. 
 
 2. The noun denotes often what is termed policy—that 
 course of action or those measures by which the adminis- 
 tration of a state is conducted, as frequently in Plato and 
 Demosthenes. From its connection with πολυτεύω we would 
 infer this to be a frequent sense. Such measures imply a 
 certain form or constitution, and then we have such a phrase 
 as πολίτευμα δημοκρατίας, or, as in Josephus—Oeoxpariav 
 ἀπέδειξε TO πολίτευμα. Contra Ap. u.6. The words have, 
 in this way, been rendered municipatus noster, as by Tertul- 
 lian. But— 
 
 3. The word passed into another meaning, and that not 
 very different from πολιτεία----ὃ, state or organized common- 
 wealth. Such is a common tropical change—the measures of 
 a government—the nature of such a government—and then the 
 
PIHILIPPIANS III. 20. 223 
 
 state so constituted and governed.’ Not exactly, but somewhat 
 similarly, ἱεράτευμα, though from ἱερατεύω, signifies an orga- 
 nized priestly caste, and not sacerdotal routine. Ex. xix. 6. 
 ἸΠολίτευμα may mean, as it does often, “state or country.” 
 It has this meaning in Polybius, as applied by him to Rome 
 and Carthage—airtd te Ta πολιτεύματα, ἀκμὴν ἀκέραια. 1. 13. 
 The Hellenistic writers, Philo and Josephus, also use it in 
 this way—the former writing thus, τῷ μεγίστῳ καὶ τελειο- 
 TaT@ πολιτεύματι ἐγγραφέντες. De Op. p. 33; and the other 
 has similar phraseology. Contra Ap. 11. 21. In 2 Maccabees 
 xii. 7, we have likewise this phrase—“ As if he would come 
 back to extirpate”—7Td0 σύμπαν τῶν ᾿Ιοππιτῶν πολίτευμα. 
 Theophylact thus explains—dote τὰ ἄνω δεῖ ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν 
 πρὸς τὴν πατρίδα ἡμῶν σπεύδειν, ἔνθα καὶ πολιτεύεσθαι 
 ᾿ἐτάχθημεν. Similarly says Philo of the souls of the wise, 
 De Confus. Ling.—ratpida μὲν τὸν οὐράνιον χῶρον, ἐν ᾧ 
 πολιτεύονται, ξένον δὲ τὸν περίγειον ἐν ᾧ παρῴκησαν vopi- 
 fovea. This citation virtually explains the meaning— 
 not “our citizenship ’—Biirgerrecht—but “our city is in 
 heaven.’’ The confederacy to which we belong, or the 
 spiritual state in which we are enrolled as citizens, is in 
 heaven, and is no doubt that “ Jerusalem which is above 
 all.” Gal. iv. 26. In that beautiful fragment—the letter to 
 Diognetus, it is said of Christians—émt γῆς διατρίβουσιν, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ TodTevovTac—“‘ they live on earth, but they 
 are citizens in heaven.” The idea was not unknown to tiie 
 ancient philosophy. ‘Thus Anaxagoras is reported by Dio- 
 genes Laertius to have replied to one who charged him with 
 want of love of country—é€ywol yap σφόδρα μέλει τῆς πατρίδος, 
 δείξας τὸν οὐρανόν. Heraclitus, dd Amphidamanta, says also 
 -πολιτεύσομαι οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν θεοῖς. 
 
 And this translation is quite in keeping with the context. 
 The particle γάρ connects it with what precedes, as if the train 
 thought of were—“ they mind earthly things, and therefore are 
 enemies of the cross ; but, on the other hand, ye have us for an 
 example —for our country is in heaven, and therefore, though 
 earthly things are around us, we do not mind them.” The 
 
 1 Aristotle, vol. iii. 7 
 
 ΥΩ ΄ \ ‘ 
 
 » ϑαγ5---τολιτεία μὲν καὶ πολίτευμα σημαίνει ταὐτὸν πολίτευμα δ᾽ 
 ; : ae 
 
 ἔστιν τὸ κύριον Ty πόλτων. 
 
224 PHILIPPIANS III. 20. ‘ees 
 
 ὃ 
 
 double γάρ interweaves the thoughts. Walk as ye see us 
 walking, for many walk most unworthily ;—walk as ye see us 
 walking, for our country is in heaven. The second γάρ seems 
 to have this force, while it more specially and closely brings 
 out the contrast between the apostle’s life and that of the per- 
 sons whom he reprobates. He does not use a simple adversative, 
 but yap at once assigns a reason by introducing a contrasted 
 statement. The verb ὑπάρχει gives peculiar force to the 
 assertion. See under 11. 06. The plural form of οὐρανοῖς has 
 no specific difference of meaning attached to it. 
 
 The apostle then says, “ our city is in heaven.” This is 
 certainly true of Christians. Their true country is not on 
 earth. Here they are strangers in a strange land—living in 
 temporary exile. On the earth, they are not of it—among 
 earthly things, they are not attracted by them. The census 
 of the nation includes them, but their joy is that ‘‘ God shall 
 count”? them, when “‘ He writeth up the people.” They do 
 not abjure citizenship here; nay, like the apostle, they may 
 sometimes insist on its privileges, yet they are denizens of 
 another commonwealth. Like him, too, they may have a special 
 attachment to their “ brethren, their kinsmen according to the 
 flesh;”” but they have ties and relationships of a more sacred 
 and permanent character with their “ fellow-citizens,” ‘“ the 
 living in Jerusalem.” The persons reprobated by the apostle 
 minded earthly things, and the surest preservative against such 
 grovelling inconsistency is the consciousness of possessing this 
 city in heaven. For as we cherish our franchise, we shall long 
 to enjoy it, and be so elevated by the prospect as to nauseate 
 sensual pursuits and mere animal gratifications. He who has 
 his home in the future will be only a pilgrim for the present, 
 and cannot stoop to what is low and loathsome, for his heart 
 is set on the inheritance into which “ nothing can enter that 
 defileth.” The apostle turns now to the second advent— 
 
 ἐξ οὗ καὶ Σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, Κύριον ᾿Τησοῦν Χριστὸν--- 
 “whence also we await the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 The phrase ἐξ οὗ might agree with πολίτευμα in form, and 
 Bengel and others assume this, but this can scarcely be sup- 
 posed to be the reference. The abode of Jesus is always 
 spoken of as the heavens—the heavens received Him, and 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 20. 225 
 
 out of the heavens He comes again. Πολίτευμα is a spiri- 
 tual idea, but οὐρανοί implies a locality, out of which Jesus is 
 expected to descend. The ἐξ οὗ refers to οὐρανοῖς, and forms 
 a species of adverb. Winer, § 21,3. The καί indicates the 
 harmony of this sentiment with the one expressed in the pre- 
 vious clause, and precedes Σωτῆρα, which has the emphasis— 
 the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour. The apostle uses the full title. 
 He is in heaven the exalted Governor or “Lord,” and cometh in 
 lordly grandeur; but that glory has not deified His humanity 
 —it only envelops it; He is still ‘“ Jesus,” “ the same Jesus 
 taken up from us into heaven ;”’ and as His commission has 
 not ceased, though His abode on earth has terminated, He is 
 “Christ.” Nay more, He is expected as Saviour—artipa. He 
 has not resigned this function, and He comes to complete it. 
 Salvation has been in process, now it is to be in fulness. The 
 work ascribed to the Lord Jesus in the next verse, is the last 
 and completing act. And therefore it is as Saviour that He 
 comes, to fit man in his entire nature for glory—to accomplish 
 the deliverance of his body from the penalty of death, and 
 assimilate our whole humanity to His own as its blessed proto- 
 type. Salvation has this pregnant meaning in Rom. xiii. 11, 
 and Heb. ix. 28. See also under Eph.i.13,14. The middle 
 verb denotes earnest or wishful expectation—‘“ we await.” 
 i) Cor. 1.7; “Rom. vii. 19. See under i. 20.. The advent 
 has been promised, and as it will secure such blessed results 
 we cannot be indifferent to it; nay, though it be one of trans- 
 cendent awfulness, we are not alarmed at the prospect— 
 ( Amen, even so come, Lord Jesus.” 
 
 Now, we should have expected the verse we have considered to 
 run thus—“Our country is in heaven, in which we hope soon to 
 be,” or some such expression. But he says— from which also, 
 as Saviour, we expect the Lord Jesus Christ.” The result, how- 
 ever, is the same, for the Lord Jesus comes to prepare His people 
 through the resurrection for entering ‘ by the gate into the 
 city.”’ But the mode in which the apostle states these ideas 
 serves two purposes. First, he characterizes Jesus as Saviour, 
 or as expected in the character of Saviour, and thus suggests an 
 awful contrast, in point of destiny, between himself and those 
 like-minded with him, and the party reprobated by him in 
 
 Ρ 
 
226 PHILIPPIANS III 21. 
 
 the two preceding verses. Their end is destruction, but ours 
 is salvation ;—to the one He descends as Judge, but to us as 
 Saviour. If there be such visible difference in present cha- 
 racter, there is more awful contrast in ultimate destiny— 
 aTréneta— a wTnpia—the two poles of humanity—“ everlasting 
 punishment ’”’—“ life eternal.” Thus, in his own way, the | 
 apostle inserts a quiet antithesis. And then, secondly, he 
 describes Jesus as giving our body a likeness to His own— 
 a change which in its nature, necessity, and results, conveyed 
 a reproof to such as worshipped their animal appetites and 
 found supreme gratification in such indulgence, and a lesson 
 to them also, not the less striking, if any of them imagined 
 that the body was but a temporary possession, whose lowest 
 instincts might be indulged to satiety, as if the spirit alone 
 were capable of entering, through its essential immortality, 
 into the heavenly world. For that body which gives man at 
 present so many earthly affinities was destined to a heavenly 
 abode, so that from its connection with Jesus it should be 
 preserved in purity, while from the process of refinement to 
 pass over it, it shall be divested of those very qualities or 
 susceptibilities of abuse for which it was deified by the ene- 
 mies of the cross. or the work of Jesus is thus told— 
 (Ver. 21.) “Os μετασχηματίσει TO σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως 
 ἡμῶν σύμμορφον TO σώματι τῆς δόξης avtTov— Who shall 
 transform the body of our humiliation, so as to be conformed 
 to the body of His glory.” The phrase εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό 
 of the Received Text is an evident supplement or filling in of 
 the syntax, and has but the inferior authority of D*, E, J, Καὶ, 
 ἄς. The language implies that this change of our bodies is 
 the special function which Christ shall discharge at His 
 coming. We look for Him to do this—we anticipate it at 
 His advent. Both genitives are those of possession, and by 
 τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως Huav— the body of our humilia- 
 tion,” we understand not simply τὸ σῶμα τὸ ταπεινόν, as 
 Robinson vaguely explains it, but the body which belongs to 
 and also characterizes our humble state. The nouns ταπεί- 
 voots and δόξα mark two states in contrast, but connected 
 by their common possession of a σῶμα. “The body of our 
 humiliation” is the body possessed by us in this state, and 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 227 
 
 which also marks its humiliation. It connects us with the 
 soil, out of which it was formed, and by the products of 
 which it is supported; on which it walks, and into which it 
 falls at death. It keeps us in constant physical connection 
 with earth, whatever be the progress of the spirit towards 
 its high destiny—its commonwealth in heaven. Nay more, 
 it limits intellectual power and development, impedes spiritual 
 growth and enjoyment, and is soon fatigued with the soul’s 
 activity. Let one will as he pleases, his body presents a 
 check on all sides, and at once warns him by the exhaustion 
 he feels, and the curbs which so suddenly bring him to a 
 pause. In it, too, are the seeds of disease and pain, from 
 functional disorder and organic malady. It is an animal 
 nature which, in spite of a careful and vigilant government, is 
 prone to rebellious outbreaks. Such has been the general 
 view. But Meyer objects, and endeavours to give the words a 
 more specific reference. He supposes that the enemies of the 
 cross are those who shun the sufferings which arise from 
 fellowship with Him who died upon it, and that this clause 
 pictures that state of privation, persecution, and sufferings, 
 which affects the body, and springs from connection with the 
 eross. Thus Chrysostom—“ Our body suffereth many things ; 
 it is bound with chains, it is scourged, it suffereth innumerable 
 evils, but the body of Christ suffered the same.”! These may 
 be included, but not alone. It is true that ἡμεῖς stands in 
 contrast with τοὺς ἐχθρούς, and we apprehend that the apostle 
 refers to the body and its future change principally because 
 the class condemned by him so notoriously indulged them- 
 selves in animal gratifications, and made a god of their belly. 
 
 The verb μετασχηματίσει expresses change, and the result 
 is described by the next clause—cvppopdoy τῷ σώματι τῆς 
 δόξης αὐτοῦ. The curt or proleptic form of construction is 
 referred to by Winer, 8 66, 3; and Kiihner, § 477, 3. Rom. 
 vill. 29; 1 Thess. iii. 13. The adjective σύμμορφον expresses 
 a conformity which is the result of the change, though it agrees 
 with σῶμα, the object acted on by the Lord Jesus. The term 
 δόξης characterizes Christ’s σῶμα, as containing or possessing it. 
 For that body is enshrined in lustre, and occupies the highest 
 
 1 Πολλὰ πάσχει νῦν τὸ ὑμέτερον cue, δεσμεῖται, μωστίξεται, μυρίῳ πάσχει δεινά, S&C, 
 
228 PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 
 
 position in the universe. We know not all the elements of 
 its glory. But we know somewhat. The scene on the hill of 
 transfiguration was an anticipative glimpse, when the face 
 “marred more than any man’s,” glowed with deeper than 
 solar splendour, and the robes, soiled and tattered by frequent 
 journeys, shone with a purer lustre than the snow. When 
 He appeared at the arrest of Saul in the neighbourhood of 
 Damascus, His glory dimmed the mid-day sun, and before 
 the symbolical apparition in Patmos, the disciple who had lain 
 in His bosom was so overpowered, that He “fell at His feet as 
 dead.”’ After He rose, and even before He ascended, His body 
 had lost all its previous sense of pain and fatigue, and pos- 
 sessed new and mysterious power of self-conveyance. Now 
 it lives in heaven. Our body is therefore reserved to a high 
 destiny—it shall be like His. The brightness of heaven 
 does not oppress Him, neither shall it dazzle us. Our huma- 
 nity dies, indeed, and is decomposed; but when He appears, 
 it shall be raised and beautified, and fitted to dwell in a 
 region which “flesh and blood cannot inherit.” Man has 
 been made to dwell on earth, and on no other planet. If 
 he is to spend a happy eternity in a distant sphere, his 
 physical frame must be prepared for it. If he is to see God 
 and yet live—to serve Him in a world where there is no night 
 and no sleep—to worship Him in company with angels which 
 have not the clog of an animal frame, and like them to adore 
 with continuous anthem and without exhaustion—then, 
 surely, his body must be changed, for otherwise it would soon 
 be overpowered by such splendours, and would die of ecstasy 
 amidst such enjoyments. The glory of heaven would speedily 
 become a delicious agony. ‘Therefore these bodies shall 
 cease to be animal without ceasing to be human bodies, 
 and they shall become “ spiritual’? bodies — etherealized 
 vehicles for the pure spirit which shall be lodged within 
 them. ‘This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this 
 mortal must put on immortality.”” Theodoret remarks, that 
 the language does not signify change of figure, but deliverance 
 from corruption; and he adds, that this assimilation to the 
 body of Christ’s glory shall be enjoyed—ovd κατὰ τὴν ποσό- 
 TnTa τῆς δόξης, ἀλλὰ κατὰ THY ποιότητα. Still, the body of 
 
PHILIPPIANS III, 21. 229 
 
 Christ’s glory is the pattern, and not, as Delitzsch imagines, 
 the body of the first man in its original state, and prior to the 
 extraction of Eve.? 
 
 Why then should the body be now degraded and besotted ? 
 Is it not an essential portion of humanity, specially cared for, 
 and to be permanently glorified by the Lord Jesus? If such 
 is to be its end, what should be its present honour? Should 
 it not be preserved in purity, for the sake of Him who made it, 
 and in fealty to Him who is to assimilate it to His own glorious 
 body. Such a prospect would be a perfect safeguard against 
 those vicious and grovelling indulgences which the apostle 
 denounces in the previous verses. 
 
 As in the second chapter, the apostle does not formally 
 teach the divinity of Christ, though he introduces it as giving 
 effect and example to the lesson which he inculcates; so 
 here it is also to be noted, that the apostle is not teaching the 
 doctrine either of a resurrection of the dead, or a change of 
 the living at the second advent. He is conducting no argu- 
 ment or exposition of this nature. On the other hand, he is 
 inculcating a pure and spiritual life, contrasting his own 
 demeanour with that of other parties who were sunk in 
 sensual pursuits. The reference to the change and glorifica- 
 tion of the body is introduced, as well to show why the apostle 
 so acted, as to point out the inconsistency of those sensualists 
 and worldlings. It may be that they either denied or mis- 
 understood the doctrine of the resurrection. At least, in the 
 other European churches of the east, as at Corinth and Thes- 
 salonica, similar errors prevailed. Not that there was among 
 them any direct Gnostic dogma of the inherent sinfulness of 
 matter, but the creed had become a common one, that the grave 
 should never open, nor the urn yield up its ashes; and that, 
 though the spirit should be immortal, the material frame 
 might never be summoned out of its resting-place. So that 
 there was a strong temptation to the sins reprobated by the 
 apostle. Some of the Philippian converts might deem bliss 
 
 1 Sie werden sein wie der Leib des ersten Adam vor der geschlechtlichen Differ- 
 enzirung, aber herrlicher, als dieser, weil sie die Herrlichkeit erlangt haben werden, 
 welche der psychische Leib des ersten Adam erlangen sollte und durch den Fall 
 verwirkte. Delitasch, Bibl. Psychologie, p. 401. 
 
230 PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 
 
 of soul enough, and reckon, as at least a harmless thing, 
 the undue gratification of animal appetite, for the body with 
 all belonging to it was soon to pass into eternal oblivion. 
 Contented with the idea of the spirit’s immortality, as revealed 
 in the gospel, they might feel it no disgrace to eat and drink 
 to licentious satiety, since the instrument of such indulgence 
 had no share in their hopes, and no connection with their 
 future personality, but was speedily to sink into darkness and 
 dust, and cease for ever to be a part of them. Therefore the 
 apostle refers so pointedly to the future existence of the body ; 
 and not only so, but describes its high destiny. It is to exist 
 for ever, though in a changed and nobler form. It will still 
 be the soul’s minister and tabernacle. ‘The saved spirit is to 
 be hereafter embodied, but in no newly created mansion. 
 Therefore the body must now be esteemed as sacred, and 
 kept free from contamination. It is not to be enslaved as 
 subordinate, or despised as temporary. It is an essential and 
 eternal constituent of man’s nature—a recipient, according to 
 its capabilities and functions, of the redeeming work of Christ. 
 Must it not then be treated as reason dictates, and the gospel 
 warrants? The apostle does not speak of the resurrection, 
 but of its results. He passes over the intermediate stages, 
 and simply describes the ultimate condition or quality of the 
 body. (On the question whether the apostle’s language war- 
 rants the notion that he hoped to survive till the second 
 advent, see under i. 26.) And Christ’s ability to effect this 
 change cannot be doubted, for this is His range of prerogative— 
 
 κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν TOD δύνασθαι αὐτὸν Kai ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ 
 τὰ πάντα---“΄ according to the imworking of his ability, even 
 to subdue to Himself all things.’’ The form αὐτῷ in prefer- 
 ence to ἑαυτῷ has the authority of A, B*, D', F,G. On the 
 relations of ἐνέργεια and δύναμις, see Ephesians 1.19. Κατά 
 has its usual ethical force, and which, as it really points out 
 the norm or measure, inferentially advances an argument for 
 the previous statement. The two infinitives are not simply 
 connected by καί, as Rheinwald and Hoelemann construe, 
 but the one governs the other—the first being governed 
 itself by the substantive, and virtually taking the place of 
 a genitive, but expressing more than the noun would—the 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 231 
 
 permanence and sweep of His power. Winer, ὃ 44,4; 1 Cor. 
 ix. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 17, &. We take τὰ πάντα without limi- 
 tation, while «ai is emphatic and ascensive. He is able to 
 change the body, and not only so, but also to subdue all 
 things. If He can subject everything to Himself or His own 
 purposes, He can surely so change our body as to give it 
 a full and final conformity to His own. Thus Chrysostom 
 -ἔδειξε μείζονα ἔργα τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, ἵνα καὶ τούτοις 
 πιστεύσῃς. ‘That all things are under Christ’s control is the 
 apostle’s doctrine, and his virtual inference in this verse from 
 the greater to the less cannot be disputed. Mind and matter 
 are alike subservient—“ all power is given to Me in heaven 
 and in earth.” The apostle, in 1 Cor. xv. 35, &c., shows 
 some of the manifestations of this all-subduing power—the 
 harvest springing from the seed which had died under the clod, 
 and according to the species sown; the various forms of exist- 
 ence in the universe, both in animal constitutions on earth and in 
 the orbs or the angels of heaven—proofs that matter can assume 
 vast differences of shapes, and be endowed with an exhaustless 
 number of qualities—and that therefore such a change as is 
 here predicted is neither beyond possibility or without parallel. 
 The apostle does not say, as Ellicott argues, that Christ will 
 subject all things. He speaks only of His ability, though the 
 inference may be that He will put it forth. While omniscience 
 is the actual possession or exercise of all knowledge, omni- 
 potence is universal ability, which may or may not yet have 
 put forth all its energies, for what is possible to it may not 
 have been effected by it. But Christ shall put forth His 
 power, as we know from other sources, and death itself shall 
 be swallowed up in victory—that which has swallowed up all 
 humanity shall be surrounded by a wider vortex and be itself 
 engulphed. 
 
 How the change of σχῆμα in reference to the body shall be 
 effected we know not. It is a process far beyond our concep- 
 tion, and outside the limits of our experience, but not above 
 the all-subduing power of the Redeemer. The statement is, 
 that the body, this body of our humiliation, shall feel the 
 wondrous transforming energy. The apostle speaks of the 
 body, σῶμα, and not of the flesh, σάρξ. Resurrection is not 
 
 
 
252 PHILIPPIAN § III. 21. 
 
 formally predicated of the flesh in the New Testament, but only 
 of the man, or of the dead—“T will raise him up.” The kind 
 of distinction we refer to is seen in the double question— 
 “How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come ?”’ 
 Change implies difference, in this case an inconceivable dif- 
 ference, but the identity of the body is not in every sense 
 destroyed by the change. That identity cannot certainly 
 consist of mere physical material, nor does Scripture ever say 
 so. The reader may remember how that subject is discussed 
 in Locke’s “‘ Second Reply ” to the Bishop of Worcester.1_ The 
 changes of which matter is susceptible are indeed beyond con- 
 ception, and if, as is alleged by some profound investigators, 
 the ultimate elements of matter are indivisible points, without 
 extension and surrounded by spheres of forces; then such 
 spheres of attraction being changed, new bodies would be 
 exhibited without any alteration in their so-called chemical 
 constitution. Such hypotheses point to the possibility of 
 infinite changes—all within the reach of Him “ who is able 
 to subdue all things unto Himself.” According to the 
 apostle’s illustration, the glorious body bears such a relation 
 to the earthly one, as the grain on the stalk in autumn bears 
 to the seed cast into the furrow in spring, and dying and 
 being decomposed under the clod. The body is therefore the 
 same in relationship, but different in material and structure 
 —once organized for a Ψυχή, or animal life; now prepared to 
 suit a πνεῦμα, or the higher spiritual life. 1 Cor. xv. 36-50. 
 The soul out of the body is said to be “naked.” It has been 
 a common opinion, current among the Rabbins and vaguely 
 seen in the Fathers, that this epithet is only relative, and that 
 the soul has, as Miiller says, “some organ of self-revelation 
 even in death,’’? or possesses what Delitzsch calls “an imma- 
 terial corporeity ”—immaterielle Letblichkett.2 Lange, Kern, 
 Goeschel, Schubert, and Rudloff, might be quoted to the 
 
 1 Works. Vol. iv.; London, 1823. 
 
 * Die Christliche Lehre von der Siinde. Vol. ii., p. 415. 
 
 5. Diese immaterielle Leiblichkeit ist, verglichen mit der materiellen, einerseits 
 nur ein Schemen dieser, andererseits aber, so zu sagen, ihre Essenz oder ibr Extract. 
 Psychologie, p. 370. 
 
 * Die Lehre vom Menschen nach Geist, Seele und Leib, &c., p. 54, &e. Leipzig, 
 1858. 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 233 
 
 same effect. These speculations bring us near the “ vehicular 
 state”? which that curious thinker, Abraham Tucker, has 
 described, in the twenty-first chapter of his Light of Nature 
 Pursued. The arguments for the theory are specious, but of 
 little weight. It is no proof in favour of it, from physiology, 
 that a man feels, or seems to feel pains located for a long 
 period in an organ or limb which has been amputated, as such 
 nervous sensations may be otherwise accounted for. Nor is 
 there any force in Delitzsch’s argument, drawn from the appear- 
 ance of Samuel to the witch of Endor, or that of Moses and 
 Elias on the hill of transfiguration, or from the pictures of the 
 population of Hades or Heaven in Scripture—as in the parable 
 of the rich man and Lazarus, and in the Apocalypse. The 
 language in such cases is plainly that of popular delineation ; 
 for metaphysical exactness would be unintelligible. Spirits are 
 not spoken of as essences, but are pictured as persons, feeling, 
 speaking, and being clothed, in such a way that their human 
 identity may be at once recognized. The present life throws 
 such a reflection upon the future life, as enables us to comprehend 
 it and feel its oneness with ourselves. For the spirit-world 
 revealed in Scripture is no dreamy or shadowy sphere, where 
 personality is either obscured or is blended with the great 
 Source of existence. The individual life is still single and 
 separate as on earth, yet not inert, but endowed with its own 
 consciousness, and possessed of its own memories and hopes. 
 So that it is naturally represented as having its prior face, form, 
 and garb. Not for identical, but for analogous reasons, similar 
 language is employed to set out the personality of God—the 
 Great Spirit. He covers Himself “ with light as with a 
 garment’’—He speaks “face to face”—He opens “ His 
 hand,” and makes bare “ His holy arm ’’—“ His eyes run to 
 and fro”—the waters feel “the blast of the breath of His 
 nostrils ”’—“ His lips are full of indignation ”—“ the voice of 
 the Lord is powerful ’’—and “ the clouds are the dust of His 
 tect. 
 
 Nor does Scripture furnish any definite proof. 2 Cor. v. 
 1, 3,—does not speak of a Zwischenleiblichkeit, an interim 
 corporeity; or, as Reiche? calls it—mortud organum quast provi- 
 
 1 Commentarius Criticus, p. 353. 
 
234 PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 
 
 sortum, and as Schott, Lange, Nitzsch, and Martensen suppose. 
 The third verse has been variously understood, but its meaning, 
 as a confirmative explanation of the previous verse, is opposed 
 to the theory to which we are referring. It may either be ;— 
 “seeing that when we are also clothed, we shall not be found 
 naked ;”’ or rather, ‘‘seeing in fact that we shall really be found 
 clothed, not naked.” The apostle had no desire to be unclothed, 
 but divestment was a necessary stage in the process of glori- 
 fication. The unclothing is unnatural, but it prepares for 
 the assumption of the final raiment, when mortality shall be 
 swallowed up in life. See under i. 23-26, p. 68. 
 
 And this Nerven-geist—what, and whence is it? Is it an 
 inner envelop which the soul already possesses, intermediate 
 between its own subtleness and the grossness of its outer 
 covering, something that aids its power of sensation, per- 
 ception, and thought? No such inner film is necessary, as 
 the mind at once receives impressions, and needs no re-presen- 
 tative medium, but is directly conscious of what is beyond 
 it, without the intervention of what were once called ideas 
 or phantasms. Or if it do not exist now, is it created for the 
 spirit when it leaves the body; or does the spirit evolve it 
 out of those finer particles of its corporeity, and clothe itself 
 with it? Would consciousness be extinguished without it ? 
 or without it would the faculty of communication with the 
 world of spirit or matter around it cease? The sphere of 
 sensation and perception is indeed enveloped in mystery, for 
 it is that bourne where self and not-self come into contact, 
 and where the spiritual subject seems to blend with the 
 material object. But there needs no subjective re-presentation 
 of objective realities—the connection involved in sensation is 
 immediate, and the conviction produced rests upon a primi- 
 tive and irresistible belief—the ‘‘ common sense ’’ of mankind. 
 
 Nor can such a psychological theory help us either to a better 
 proof or a clearer conception of corporeal identity. Nitzsch 
 indeed says—‘ Whoever supposes that the departed are with- 
 out a body prior to the resurrection will scarcely find, in the 
 mere ashes of the mouldered body, a connecting point for the 
 identity of the past and future corporeity. The medium of 
 identity must be sought rather in that corporeity in which the 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 235 
 
 departed soul remains.”’? And this is changed or developed so 
 as to enable it to reach its final state. Such a notion seems 
 to deny a resurrection in the ordinary sense of the term, and 
 is no way parallel to or typified by the great historical fact of 
 Christ’s resurrection. It is not the so-called Nerve-spirit that 
 the Saviour is to develop, and brighten into the likeness of 
 His own body ; but it is “ the body of our humiliation” which 
 He is to change and conform to the body of His glory. Each 
 body fits in to the spirit which inhabits it, imparts a character 
 to it, and derives a character from it—possesses, in short, such 
 an individuality as may give us some proof of a resurrection, 
 but it unfolds nothing of its mystery. This “body of our 
 humiliation” has therefore some surviving element, or some 
 indissoluble link, which warrants the notion and shall secure 
 the consciousness of identity, in whatever that identity may 
 consist; for it is indispensable to that judgment where each 
 shall receive according to deeds done in the body—ra dua τοῦ 
 o@patos—that is, “deeds done by the body” as an organ, as 
 the instrument of responsible action. We need again and 
 again on this subject to be reminded of the Lord’s rebuke to 
 the Sadducees—“ Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor | 
 the power of God.” / 
 
 1 System der Christlichen Lehre, § 217. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Now follows a pointed and brief application, which should 
 have been joined to the preceding chapter. Matthies and 
 van Hengel connect it unnaturally with the following counsels. 
 The particle ὥστε carries us back to the preceding statements, 
 and marks a deduction from them. 
 
 (Ver. 1.) Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπιπόθητοι, χαρὰ 
 καὶ στέφανός μου, οὕτως στήκετε ἐν ἹΚυρίῳ, ἀγαπητοί---“«ὙΥΠοτο- 
 fore, my brethren, loved and longed for, my joy and crown, 
 so stand in the Lord, beloved.’ The apostle’s mind turns 
 away from the enemies of the cross to the genuine believers ; 
 and his heart opens itself to them, and opens all the more 
 unreservedly from the contrast. He weeps over the one party, 
 as he thinks of their awful destiny; but his soul is filled 
 with holy rapture when he turns to the other party, and as 
 he contemplates their coming glory. The epithets are the 
 coinage of a jubilant spirit. The accumulation of them pro- 
 ceeds from his conscious inability to express all his ardour. 
 Indeed the language of endearment is fond of such repetitions. 
 
 Meyer says that we need not carry the reference in ὥστε 
 farther than the 17th verse, where the address in the second 
 person commences,—“ Be followers of me.” This idea is so 
 far correct; yet, though the counsel in the last section rises 
 to a climax, the entire chapter is closely compacted, and in 
 the very first verse there is a direct personal appeal. One 
 might say, too, that the injunction, “stand fast in the Lord,” 
 naturally results from such warnings as are found as far back 
 as the second verse. At all events, the narrow view of Grotius 
 cannot be sustained—quum tanta nobis preposita sunt premia ; 
 and the opposite view of De Wette and Wiesinger, is at the 
 same time too vague. We might conclude, that ὥστε is 
 generally and in spirit an inference from the entire chapter, 
 and in form and more especially from its last paragraph, 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 1. Jot 
 
 which describes such power as believers hope to be realized 
 at the second advent. (On the meaning of ὥστε with the 
 imperative, see under ii. 12.) The apostle terms them 
 “ brethren beloved ’—children of one spiritual Parent—form- 
 ing one happy family—and rejoicing to meet at length in the 
 Father’s house of “many mansions.” They were spiritually 
 dear to him ;—his heart clasped them with special fondness— 
 ἐπιπόθητοι. See i. 8; ii. 26. The word occurs only here in 
 the New Testament. The apostle’s heart yearned toward 
 them, and there was reason for this indescribable longing,— 
 they were his “joy and crown”—yapa καὶ στέφανός μου. 
 1 Thess. ii. 19. There is no reason for Calvin’s taking the first 
 term as referring to the present, and the second to the future, 
 or for Alford referring both to the future. The words are both 
 the expression of present emotion. They were a source of 
 gladness to him, in their rescue from sin and danger, in their 
 spiritual change, and in its visible development. Nay, as he 
 had been so instrumental in their conversion, they were to 
 him even now a wreath of honour. The term στέφανός is 
 often used in a similar sense. Sophocles, Ajax, 478— 
 
 a ΘΙΌΝ ΟΝ ΄ > ΄ ΄ 
 ὧν αὐτὸς ἐσχε στέφωνον εὐκλείας MEO, 
 
 where, however, the noun is explained by the genitive which 
 it governs ; or Philoct. 841— 
 
 τοῦδε γὰρ ὁ στέφανός, 
 
 where, however, the image is different. See also Proverbs iv. 9, 
 xi. 4, xiv. 24, xvi. 31, xvii. 16; Isaiah xxviii. 5. The expres- 
 sion was acommon one. The scene of the first introduction of 
 the gospel to Philippi recurred for a moment to his memory— 
 the preaching of the truth, the impression made, the anxious 
 inquiries put, the decided change produced, the organization 
 of the church, and its growth and prosperity, as the result of 
 his labours, prayers, and sufferings. His success he wore as a 
 garland of imperishable verdure. If he who saved in battle 
 the life of a Roman citizen received from his grateful country- 
 men an oaken garland, οὗ civem servatum, how much more might 
 their apostle call them saved and blessed by his ministry, 
 “my crown?” He was not insensible to the high honour 
 of being the founder and guardian of such a community. 
 
238 PHILIPPIANS IV. 1. 
 
 That this joy might not fail, and that this crown might not 
 wither, he adds in earnest and loving tone— 
 
 οὕτως στήκετε ἐν Kupio— so stand in the Lord.” 1 Thess. 
 iii. 8. The preposition ἐν points out the sphere or element. 
 To stand, or stand fast, in the Lord, is neither to wander out 
 of Him, or even to waver in connection with Him, but to 
 remain immovable in fellowship with Him,—to live in Him 
 without pause—to walk in Him without digression—to love 
 Him without rival—and serve Him without compromise. It is 
 here to be untouched by the ceremonial pride of the concision, 
 and especially to be proof against the sensualism of the enemies 
 of the cross. But what is implied in οὕτως ---ἰ thus?” [5 it, 
 “ stand so as you are doing,” or, “so as I have prescribed ?” 
 The former view, which is that of the Greek Fathers, Calvin, 
 Bengel, and Am Ende, is not so utterly untenable as Meyer 
 represents it; for the apostle has already praised them for 
 consistency and perseverance (i. 6), and the verb might bear 
 such a pregnant meaning. Yet, as Meyer, De Wette, and 
 others argue, there may be a reference to ili. 17—“ Be ye 
 unitedly followers of me,” and οὕτως here may correspond to 
 οὕτως there. Van Hengel is self-consistent in bringing out 
 this idea—ut vivendi ratio quam sequamini in coelis sit. ‘To 
 give it the turn which Elsner proposes in his translation— 
 ita dilecti—is out of the question, nor is Drusius warranted 
 so to Hebraize as to bring out this sense—state recte. We 
 therefore take the reference as being especially to the two 
 preceding verses, and as being in virtual contrast with the 
 description of verses 18, 19. In opposition to those who 
 were sunk in sensuality and earthliness, and on whom the 
 cross of Christ exercised no spiritualizing power, they were to 
 live as the citizens of a better country, their mind lifted above 
 the world by such an ennobling connection, and thrilled at 
 the same time with the prospect of the Saviour’s advent, to 
 transform and prepare their physical nature for that realm in 
 which they should have an ultimate and a permanent resi- 
 dence. And he concludes with a second dyamnrol,—so great 
 is the reaction from καὶ κλαίων, and so great his attachment 
 to his Philippian converts; or, as Theodoret describes it, μετ᾽ 
 εὐφημίας πολλῆς ἡ παραίνεσις. 
 
 
 
 πο ΨΈΣ ΒΟ». Ψ ΨΟΝΘΝΝ 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 2. 239 
 
 The remaining statements and counsels are somewhat de- 
 tached in their nature—are the ethical miscellany with which 
 the apostle often concludes an epistle. They are personal, 
 too, in character, and presuppose a confidential intimacy. 
 
 (Ver. 2.) Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ, καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ, τό 
 αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν ἹΚυρίῳ--- Euodias I exhort and Syntyche I 
 exhort to be of one mind in the Lord.” ‘That these are the 
 Greek names of women is plain from the feminine pronouns 
 of the following verse, to which they are the antecedents. 
 The words ἐν ΚΚύριῳ point out the sphere of this concord, and 
 belong not to the verb παρακαλῶ, as Beza and Storr suppose, 
 nor yet can we sustain the rendering of Grotius—propter 
 Dominum. Who these women were, what was their position 
 in the church, and about what they had disagreed, we know 
 not. Not a few suppose them to have been deaconesses— 
 πρεσβύτιδες. At all events, they had laboured in the gospel 
 with earnestness and success. The apostle does not say on 
 whose side the fault lay, but he repeats the παρακωλῶ, not 
 simply, as Alford limits it, to ‘hint at their present separa- 
 tion,’”’ but to show that he placed the like obligation on each 
 of them. He does not exhort the one to be reconciled to the 
 other, for they might have doubted who should take the 
 initiative, and they might wonder, from the position of their 
 names and construction of the sentence, to which of them the 
 apostle attached the more blame. But he exhorts them both, 
 the one and the other, to think the same thing—not only to 
 come to a mutual understanding, but to preserve it. See under 
 ii. 2. Van Hengel needlessly supposes that they had laboured 
 with the apostle at Rome, and were now about to proceed 
 to Philippi with Epaphroditus—this counsel to them being, 
 that in all things they did for the gospel they should act in 
 concert. But the previous intimations in the epistle prove 
 that there had been tendencies to disunion in the church, and 
 the second verse of the second chapter these women might 
 read with a special and personal concern. The cause of quarrel 
 might be some unworthy question about priority or privilege 
 even in the prosecution of the good work—vainglory leading 
 to strife, as already hinted by the apostle toward the com- 
 mencement of the second chapter. It does not seem to have 
 
240 PHILIPPIANS IV. 3. 
 
 been any difference in creed or practice, and wholly groundless 
 is the hypothesis of Baur and Schwegler, that the names 
 represent two parties in the church at Philippi—Euodia the 
 Jewish, and Syntyche the heathen party. 
 
 (Ver. 3.) Nal ἐρωτῶ καὶ σὲ, γνήσιε σύνζυγε---“ Yea, I ask 
 thee too, true yoke-fellow.”” A third party is appealed to, to 
 interpose his good offices—a proof that the apostle reckoned 
 the harmony of these two women a matter of no small impor- 
 tance. The vai is preferred to καί on preponterant authority, 
 and is confirmatory in its nature. The v rb ἐρωτάω, as 
 different from αἰτέω, carries in it the idea of authority. 
 Trench, Synon. p. 164. What this third person was to do is 
 thus stated 
 
 συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ συνήθλησάν 
 μοι---“ ΠΕΡ these women, as being persons who (or because 
 they) have striven along with me in the gospel.’’ The first 
 middle verb signifies to assist—‘‘ Take them up together.” 
 Luke v. 7. It was not to help them pecuniarily, as Justinian 
 absurdly imagines, but he, whoever he was, was to be a 
 mediator, and to use all his influence with them, so that they 
 should make advances to each other. And there was the 
 more reason for his benign interference, for these women 
 had been specially useful. They had (airwes—gquippe que) 
 striven side by side with Paul in the gospel. The verb 
 contains an idea more intense than that represented by 
 “laboured,” as also in i. 27. In the place now referred to, the 
 object for which agonistic exertion is made is placed in the 
 simple dative—here the sphere of the striving is represented 
 by the preposition év. They strove together in the gospel, and 
 for its furtherance. They had rendered the apostle essential 
 assistance in his evangelical efforts and toils, and if they were 
 so labouring still in their own spheres, they must be reconciled. 
 From their past efforts, their misunderstanding was the more 
 unseemly, and the more necessary it was to heal the breach. 
 Spheres of labour for females were specially open in such 
 cities as Philippi, and among their own sex, to whom they 
 might have access (for the yuvarxwvitis was kept in jealous 
 seclusion), and whose delicacies and difficulties they could 
 instinctively comprehend or remove. Rom. xvi. 3-12. 
 
 
 
 —————— 
 
PHILIPPIANS IY: ὃ. 241 
 
 Women were the first who received the gospel at Philippi. 
 Acts xvi. 13. These women were not the apostle’s only 
 fellow-workers, for he adds, that they laboured— 
 
 μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος Kat TOV λοιπῶν συνεργῶν wou— along 
 with Clement, too, and my fellow-labourers.” The insertion 
 of καί between the preposition and its noun is not common, 
 though other particles are placed in this way. Hartung, 1., p. 
 143. By the use of καί . . καί, things or persons are 
 simultaneously thought of or represented. Winer, § 53, 4. 
 It is out of the question to join this clause with ἐρωτῶ, as if 
 the request were his and Clement’s. Clement is mentioned 
 nowhere else. ‘There is no solid ground for supposing that 
 he was the well-known Clemens Romanus, as ecclesiastical 
 tradition, Jerome, van Hengel, and Baur for his own purpose, 
 suppose.’ All we know of him is, that in fellowship with 
 those women, he had laboured along with the apostle at 
 Philippi, in diffusing the gospel and building up the church. 
 Euodia, Syntyche, and Clement must have been hearty and 
 prominent in their co-operation; and Clement is mentioned 
 as if the apostle had such a cordial recollection of him, that he 
 could not but mention him. Others are also referred to, but 
 not named. Some, as Storr, Flatt, and Cocceius, would join 
 the clause to συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς ; but as Meyer suggests, 
 not μετά, but the simple dative would in that case be 
 appropriate — καὶ τῷ Κλήμεντι. Of Clement’s colleagues, 
 the apostle adds— 
 
 ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ Sons— whose names are in the 
 book of life.” The book of life is a figure, sometimes having 
 reference to present life, as in Athens, where the catalogue 
 of living citizens was scrupulously kept. Ps. lxix. 28; Ezek. 
 ἘΠῚ 9) see also Wx,’ xxx. 32): Is: iv. 3.° ‘Then it came 
 to be used in reference to life beyond the grave. Dan. xii. 
 ΓΕ Rev. mi; 5, xii. 8, xx. 15; xxi. 27; and somewhat 
 differently, Luke x. 20; Heb. xii. 23. This inscription of 
 their names shows the certainty of their future happiness, for 
 those names will not be erased. The image of such a register 
 presents to us the minuteness and infallibility of the divine 
 
 1‘O Κλήμης + . Παύλου συνεργός. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 4; Winer, Real. Wort. sub 
 voce. 
 
 Q 
 
242 ς PHILIPPIANS IV. 8. 
 
 omniscience, and the assured glory of Christ’s followers and 
 servants. The relative has τῶν λοιπῶν for its antecedent, and 
 probably the phraseology was suggested by the fact, that their 
 names are unnoticed in the epistle. The apostle does not 
 name them, they are summed up ina brief and anonymous 
 Tov λοιπῶν ; but they are not forgotten, for their names are 
 written by no human hand in the register of that blessed 
 assemblage which shall inherit eternal life. A greater honour 
 by far than being mentioned even in the list of an apostle’s 
 eulogy. 
 
 But who was the third party so earnestly appealed to by 
 the apostle as γνήσιε σύνζυγεὁ ‘The noun, commonly spelt 
 σύζυγος, occurs only here in the New Testament. 
 
 1. It is often used of a wife in classic Greek, and hence 
 some would understand by it the spouse of the apostle. 
 Clement of Alexandria? alludes to it, so does Isidore, and the 
 view is held by Erasmus, Flacius, Musculus, Cajetan, Zuingh, 
 Bullinger, and Justinian. Many popish interpreters keenly 
 rebut this opinion, and Bellarmine confronts it with five distinct 
 areuments. ‘The adjective ought, in such a case, to be femi- 
 nine. Then, too, the notion would seem to contradict what 
 Paul himself has said of his unmarried state in 1 Cor. vu. 7, 
 &c.2 Theodoret justly remarks, that this view is held by 
 some ἀνοήτως. 
 
 2. Dwelling still upon the same usage, some suppose the 
 person referred to to be the husband of one of the women. 
 Chrysostom says— ἀδελφόν twa αὐτῶν ἤ καὶ ἄνδρα μιᾶς 
 
 1 Stromata, li. ὅ8-τ- αὶ ὅγε Παῦλος οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἔν τινι ἐπιστολὴ τὴν αὐτοῦ προσαγορεύειν 
 
 .», ἡ 
 
 σύζυγον, ἥν οὐ περιεκόμοιζε διὰ τὸ τῇ 
 
 2 Whether Paul had ever been married cannot be determined. Much depends on 
 the precise meaning of the phrase zerjveyze Liigov—' I gave my vote against them.” 
 Acts xxvi. 10. If the words are to be taken in their literal acceptation, and there 
 appears no good reason why they should not, then they imply that Saul was at the 
 period a member of the Sanbedrim; and one necessary qualification for a seat in 
 that high court was to be a husband and a father. But his wife and children had 
 not long survived, for when the apostle wrote to the church in Corinth he was 
 unmarried. One objection to this view is, that chiefly men of years were admitted 
 to the Sanhedrim, and Saul must have been comparatively young at the time. But 
 perhaps his zeal and courage may have opened the path to him, and as for the 
 qualification referred to, we know that it was customary for the Jews to marry at a 
 rather early age. 
 
 . aes ik poor 
 ς ὑπηρεσίας εὐσταλές. 
 
 EE 
 
 δ. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 4. P 243 
 
 αὐτῶν οὕτω καλεῖ. But there are no grounds for such an 
 opinion. The yoke is supposed to be borne in company with 
 the apostle, and not with any of these women. 
 
 3. Passing to the plain meaning of the term, many give it 
 the rendering of our version—a colleague in labour, either in 
 actual pastoral office, or at least one who had done good service 
 to the church in Philippi, and was so well known as not to 
 require to be named. This honour is assigned to various 
 persons. Grotius, Cocceius, and Michaelis, assign it to 
 Epaphroditus, though he was at this period with the apostle 
 in Rome. Zeltner and Bengel put in a claim for Silas 
 Estius upholds Timothy—Koehler pleads for Barnabas. Still 
 the great majority regard the words as meaning fellow- 
 labourer—germane compar, as in the Vulgate. Should this 
 interpretation be adopted, it would follow, as Bengel remarks, 
 that the term denotes a closer union than συνεργός ; and it 
 looks as if the person referred to were he to whom the epistle 
 should be first carried, and by whom it should be first read. 
 It might be Epaphroditus, who, though present with the 
 apostle, was so addressed, for he was to carry the epistle to 
 Philippi, and as the pastor reading it, and being so addressed 
 in it, might thus exhibit his commission as a peace-maker. 
 
 4, Another idea, started by Chrysostom and C&cumenius, 
 and strenuously contended for by Meyer, is that σύζυγος is a 
 proper name !—“ 1 ask thee, genuine Syzygus;” that is, his 
 name was a symbol of his character and labours. Chrysostom 
 says, as if by the way—tuveés δέ φασι ὄνομα ἐκεῖνο κύριον εἶναι 
 
 
 
 
 
 τὸ Σύζυγε, but adds πλὴν εἴτε τοῦτο, εἴτε ἐκείνο, οὐ σφόδρα 
 ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι δεῖ. This hypothesis has the advantage of 
 singling out an individual and addressing him, but the only 
 plausible argument for it is, that as proper names occur in 
 these verses, this in all likelihood is a proper name too. 
 It is a strange conceit of Wieseler (Chronol. p. 458), that the 
 “true yoke-fellow ” is Christ Himself, and that ναί introduces 
 a prayer to Him. But the question cannot be fully determined. 
 
 (Ver. 4.) Χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ πάντοτε: πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε--- 
 
 1 Storr and Heinrichs hold it to be a translation of the name Κολληγᾶς found in 
 
 Josephus. Bell. Jud. vii. 3, 4. Primasius and Peter Lombard are inclined to make 
 the epithet a proper name. 
 
244 PHILIPPIANS IY. 4. 
 
 “ Rejoice in the Lord always; again will I say, rejoice.” ‘The 
 apostle reverts to what he had started with in the Ist verse 
 of the third chapter. There is no need to suppose any con- 
 nection between this and the preceding verse. ‘The adverb 
 πάντοτε, Which refers to time and not to place, belongs to the 
 first clause. Κύριος, as usual, designates Christ, while ἐν 
 points to Him as the element or sphere of this joy. The joy 
 was to be continual—not a fitful rapture, but a uniform 
 emotion. And the apostle repeats the injunction, which is 
 very different in meaning from the Latin valete, and Cicero’s 
 formula—vale, vale et salve.1 The apostle wished them to 
 come to a full appreciation of their position and their connec- 
 tion with Christ. Could they but judge truly their condition 
 and prospects, and contrast them with their past state of gloom 
 and unhappiness—could they but realize the nobleness and 
 power of the truth they had embraced, and the riches and cer- 
 tainty of the hopes they were cherishing—could they estimate 
 the saving change effected in their souls, and picture too that 
 glorification which was to pass over their bodies-—then, as 
 they traced all blessing to Christ and to union with Him, 
 they would rejoice in the Lord, not in themselves as recipients, 
 but in Him as Source, not only in the gifts conferred, but in 
 Him especially as the gracious benefactor. To rejoice in Him 
 is to exult in Him, not asa dim abstraction, but as a living 
 person—so near and so loving, so generous and so powerful, 
 that the spirit ever turns to him in admiring grateful homage, 
 covets His presence as its sunshine, and revels in fellowship 
 with Him. Despondency is weakness, but joy is strength. Is 
 it rash to say, in fine, that the churches of Christ are strangers 
 by far too much to this repeated charge of the apostle—that 
 the current ideas of Christ are too historic in their character, 
 and want the freshness of a personal reality—that He is 
 thought of more as a Being in remoteness and glory, far above 
 and beyond the stars, than as a personal and sympathizing 
 
 
 
 1 That χαΐρειν is often employed in the sense of valere, every one knows, as in 
 Xenophon viii. 5, 42--- χαίρειν ταύτην τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν πελεύω----(1 bid this happiness 
 farewell,” or Euripides, Herc. Fur. δ16---- χαιρόντων x6voi—* farewell toils.” The 
 English idiom is similar—farewell, or fare ye well—in itself a wish for happiness, 
 though losing entirely such a sense in its idiomatic use, as in ‘‘ Farewell, sour annoy,” 
 —“ Farewell, world and sin.” 
 
 νου. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 4. 245 
 
 Saviour—that salvation is regarded more as a process a man 
 thankfully submits to, than a continuous and happy union 
 with Jesus—and that therefore, though Christians may run 
 and are not weary, and may walk and are not faint, they 
 seldom mount up with wings as eagles, and then, if they do, 
 is not their flight brief and exhaustive? On the reduplication 
 of the precept, Chrysostom briefly says—xar@s τὸν λόγον 
 ἐδιπλασίασεν. The earliest English expositor of this epistle 
 thus writes—‘ Now see how it pleaseth the Lord, that as the 
 Apostle comes againe and againe unto this holy exhortation, 
 and leaves it not with once or twice, but even the third time 
 also exhorteth them to rejoyce in the Lord; so I should come 
 unto you againe and againe, even three severall times with 
 the same exhortation to rejoyce in the Lord. <Agazne, saith the 
 Apostle, I say rejoyce, even in the Lord ulwayes, for that is to 
 be added, and resumed to the former place. From which 
 doubling and redoubling of this exhortation, I observe both 
 how needfull and withall how hard a matter it is to perswade 
 this constant rejoycing in the Lord, to rejoyce in the Lord 
 alwayes. For to this end doth the Holy Ghost often in the 
 Scriptures use to double and redouble His speech, even to 
 shew both the needfulness of His speech, and the difficultie in 
 repect of man of enforcing His speech. In the Psalme, how 
 often doth the Prophet exhort the faithful unto the praises 
 of the Lord, even before all the people, that they and their 
 posteritie might know them, saying, O that men would there- 
 fore praise the Lord for His goodnesse, and declare the wonders 
 that He doth for the children of men! Even foure several 
 times in that one Psalme. And wherefore ? but to shew how 
 neediull it was they should do so, and how hardly men are 
 drawne to do so. How often likewise doth our Saviour 
 exhort His disciples unto humilitie and meekness? sometimes 
 ‘saying unto them, Learne of Me that I am meeke and lowly in 
 heart ; sometimes telling them, that whosoever among them 
 would be great, should be servant unto the rest; sometimes 
 washing their feete, &c., thereby to teach them humilitie. 
 And wherefore doth He so often beate upon it, but to shew 
 how needfull it was they should be humble and meeke, and 
 likewise how hard a thing it is to draw men unto humilitie 
 
246 PHILIPPIANS IV. 4. 
 
 and meeknesse ? How often likewise doth the Holy Ghost 
 exhort to the putting off of the old man, and the putting on 
 of the new man? No part of Scripture throughout the whole 
 Bible, wherein the Holy Ghost doth not speake much, though 
 not haply in these words, yet to this purpose. And where- 
 fore else is it, but to imply both how needfull a matter it is to 
 be perswaded, and how hard a matter it is to perswade the 
 mortification of the old man, and the quickening of the new 
 man? And to let other instances passe, in the point whereof 
 we now speake, how oft doth our Saviour exhort to rejoyce 
 and be glad in persecution, because of the reward laid up for 
 us by God in heaven; to rejoyce because our names are 
 written in heaven by the finger of God’s own hand; to be of 
 good comfort, because He hath overcome the world, that is, 
 to rejoyce in the Lord? And wherefore, but to show how 
 needfull it is to rejoyce in the Lord, and how hard it is to 
 perswade this rejoicing? So that by the usuall course of the 
 Scripture it appeareth, that our Apostle doubling and redoub- 
 ling this his exhortation, thereby sheweth both how needfull, 
 and withall how hard a matter it is to perswade this constant 
 rejoycing in the Lord, to rejoyce in the Lord alwayes: so 
 needfull, that it must be perswaded again and again, and 
 withall so hard to be perswaded, that it cannot be too much 
 urged and beaten upon. 
 
 “ But it will not be amisse yet a little more particularly to 
 looke into the reasons why it is so needfull to rejoyce in the 
 Lord alwayes, and why we are so hardly perswaded to rejoyce 
 in the Lord alwayes. Who seeth not, that considereth any- 
 thing, what mightie enemies we have alwayes to fight withall, 
 the flesh within us to snare and deceive us, the world without 
 us to fight and wage warre against us, and the devil ever 
 seeking like a roaring lion whom he may devour? Who 
 seeth not, what fightings without, what terrors within, what 
 anguishes in the soul, what griefes in the bodie, what perils 
 abroade, what practices at home, what troubles we have on 
 every side? When then Satan that old dragon casts out many 
 flouds of persecutions against us; when wicked men cruelly, 
 disdainfully, and despitefully speake against us; when lying, 
 slandering, and deceitfull mouthes are opened upon us; when 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 5. 247 
 
 we are mocked and jested at, and had in derision of all them 
 that are about us; when we are afflicted, tormented, and made 
 the world’s wonder; when the sorrowes of death compasse us, 
 and the flouds of wickednesse make us afraid, and the paines 
 of hell come even unto our soule: what is it that holds up our 
 heads that we sinke not? how is it that we stand either not 
 shaken, or if shaken, yet not cast downe? Is it not by our 
 rejoycing which we have in Christ Jesus?”! The next 
 injunction is— 
 
 (Ver. 5.) Τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις--- 
 “ Let your forbearance be known to all men.” The phrase τὸ 
 ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν has much the force of a substantive with the 
 possessive pronoun. Kiihner, § 479, 6. See under iii. 8. 
 The adjective bears a variety of meanings. Composed of ἐπὶ 
 and εἰκός---ἔοικω, it signifies originally what is meet or fitting, 
 or characterizes any object or quality as being what it should 
 be. It also describes what is proper or fair, or what is kind 
 and reasonable, especially in the form of considerateness and 
 as opposed to the harshness of law. ‘That it should at length 
 settle down intothe meaning of gentleness, or rather forbearance, 
 was natural; and this is a meaning found in Plato, Polybius, 
 Plutarch, and also in Philo. Hesychius defines the adverb— 
 πάνυ λίαν πράως. Plato’s first definition of it 15---δικαίων καὶ 
 συμφερόντων ἐλάττωσις ; and his second 15-- μετριότης ἐν συμ- 
 βολαίοις. Definit. Opera, ed. Bekker, vol. ix. p. 265. Aristotle 
 draws the contrast—o μὴ ἀκριβοδίκαιος ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, GAN 
 ἐλαττικώτατος καίπερ ἔχων τὸν νόμον βοηθὸν ἐπιεικής ἐστιν, 
 καὶ ἕξις αὔτη ἐπιείκεια. Lith. Νίοοηι. ν. 10. The prevailing sense 
 in the New Testament seems to be that of forbearance. Thus, 
 too, in Ps. Ixxxvi. ὅ---ὅτε σὺ Κύριε χρηστὸς καὶ ἐπιεικὴς καὶ 
 πολυέλεος. It is associated in the New Testament with 
 πραότης, 2 Cor. x. 1; with ἄμαχος twice, 1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. 
 il. 2; with εὐπειθής, James iii. 17; and with ἀγαθός, 1 Pet. 
 u. 18. As Trench justly says of it—clementia sets forth 
 one side; eguitas another; and, -perhaps, modestia a third.” 
 Theodoret restricts the meaning by far too much, when he 
 
 1 Lectures on the whole Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, by the Reverend and 
 Faithful Servant of Christ, Henry Airay, Doctor in Divinity and late Provost of 
 Queen’s College; London, 1618. 
 
248 PHILIPPIANS IV. 5. 
 
 paraphrases—p7 ἀμύνεσθε κακῷ τὸ κακόν. It is not gentleness 
 as an innate feeling, but as the result of self-restraint. It 
 bears no resemblance to the selfish calculation often expressed 
 by those words which have acquired an ethical significance— 
 mm medio tutissimus ibis. It does not insist on what is its 
 due; it does not stand on etiquette or right, but it descends 
 and complies. It is opposed to that rigour which never bends 
 nor deviates, and which, as it gives the last farthing, uniformly 
 exacts it. It is not facile pliability—a reed in the breeze— 
 but that generous and indulgent feeling that knows what is 
 its right, but recedes from it, is conscious of what is merited, 
 but does not contend for strict proportion. It is, in short, that 
 grace which was defective in one or other, or both of the 
 women, who are charged by the apostle to be of one mind 
 in the Lord. For slow to take offence, it is swift to forgive it. 
 Let a misunderstanding arise, and no false delicacy will pre- 
 vent it from taking the first step towards reconciliation or 
 adjustment of opinion. And truly such an element of charac- 
 ter well becomes a man who expects a Saviour in whom this 
 feeling was so predominant. This grace was to be notorious 
 among them—yvacbjTe, “let it be known” to all men—not 
 simply to the enemies of the cross, or of the gospel, or to one 
 another, as many allege, but to all without exception. It was 
 so to characterize them, that if any one should describe their 
 behaviour, he could not overlook it, but must dwell upon it. 
 Our life is seriously defective without it; and let a man be 
 zealous and enterprising, pure and upright, yet what a rebuke 
 to his Christianity if he is universally declared to be stiff, 
 impracticable, unamiable, and austere in general deportment ! 
 If this joy in the Lord were felt in its fulness, the spirit so 
 cheered and exalted would cease to insist on mere personal 
 right, and practise forbearance. It is solemnly added— 
 
 ὁ Kupuos ἐγγύς, “the Lord is near.” We are inclined to take 
 Ἰκύριος as referring to Jesus—such being its common reference 
 in Pauline usage, though many, including Luther, Calvin, 
 Rheinwald, Rillet, and Miiller, suppose that God is meant. 
 Ihe language—ii. 11, 111. 20—and the reference of the term 
 in the first three verses of the chapter, oblige us to understand 
 Jesus by the epithet. *Eyyis may be used either of place or 
 
 miidiunninn ie 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 6. 249 
 
 time—‘ The Lord is at hand,” either in position or approach. 
 If the clause be connected with the preceding counsel, the mean- 
 ing might be—‘ Let your forbearance be known to all men,” 
 and one great motive is, ‘the Lord is at hand.” Storr and De 
 Wette take the view of the Greek Fathers, that God is thought 
 of as judge, and that this idea is an inducement to cherish 
 clemency even toward enemies, for God, the Judge and 
 redresser of every injury, is near. Velasquez and Beelen 
 take it more generally, referring it—ad auwiliarem opem quam 
 Deus suis afferre consuevit. Such an extension of meaning is 
 not warranted, though certainly one might be invited to mani- 
 fest the grace by this consideration, that the Lord will be 
 judge in all such cases as call for its exhibition, and by Him- 
 self this virtue has been specially and fully exhibited. 
 
 Or the clause may be connected with the following admoni- 
 tion. Meyer adopts this view—that is, the near coming of 
 Jesus ought to prevent all His people from cherishing an 
 undue anxiety. “Be careful for nothing,” Christ is at hand, 
 and abundance will be the result of his advent. Or, “be careful 
 for nothing,’ He is ever near to supply all your wants. We 
 prefer to take ἐγγύς in reference to time, and the general 
 meaning of the formula may be gathered from Matt. xvi. 28 ; 
 ine xxi. 31+) 1 Cor, xvi. 22; James v. 9; 1 Peteriv. 7; 
 1 John ii. 28. It cannot mean “ always present or near,” as in 
 Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 18. The notion here is, that 
 one who has been away is returning, and will soon arrive. 
 But may not the clause be connected with both verses? It 
 has no formal connection with either. And as it stands by 
 itself, and seems to represent a familiar Christian idea, may it 
 not be at the same time mentally joined to the charges both 
 before and after it? It is introduced after a counsel to exhibit 
 forbearance, and may be regarded as a motive to it; but while 
 the apostle writes it, there starts up in his mind another use 
 of it, and in consequence of its appropriateness, he subjoins— 
 ““be careful for nothing.” It thus becomes a link in a train 
 of thought, suggested by what precedes, and suggesting what 
 follows it. 
 
 (Ver. 6.) Μηδὲν μεριμνῶτε---““ Be careful for nothing.” The 
 accusative μηδέν, emphatic from position, is that of object. 
 
250 PHILIPPIANS IV. 6. 
 
 The verb is followed sometimes by the dative, expressing 
 that on account of which anxiety is felt, though περί and 
 ὑπέρ are also used, as well as εἰς in Matt. νἱ. 84. There is no 
 occasion with Wahl to supply μετά, nor with Hoelemann to 
 suppose the accusative used adverbially. Chrysostom connects 
 this with the previous verse,— If their enemies opposed them, 
 and they saw the wicked live in luxury, they were not to be dis- 
 tressed.” But the apostle has passed away from that previous 
 thought, and speaks now of another subject. The solicitude 
 euarded against is that state of mind in which one frets himself 
 to know more than he is able, or reach something too far 
 beyond him, or is anxious to make provision for contingencies, 
 to guard against suspected evils, and nerve himself against 
 apprehended failures and disasters. ‘The spirit is thrown 
 into a fever by such troubles, so that joy in the Lord is 
 abridged, and this forbearance would be seriously endangered. 
 Not that the apostle counsels utter indifference, for indifference 
 would preclude prayer; but his meaning is, that no one of 
 them should tease and torment himself about anything, when. 
 he may get what he wants by prayer. ‘There is nothing any 
 one would be the better of having, which he may not hope- 
 fully ask from God. Why then should he be anxious ?— 
 why, especially, should any one prolong such anxiety, or nurse 
 it into a chronic distemper? Matt. vi. 25; 1 Peter v. 7. 
 The apostle does not counsel an unnatural stoicism. He was 
 a true friend of humanity, and taught it not how to despise, 
 but how to lighten its burdens. If it could not bear them 
 itself, he showed it how to cast them on God. For thus he 
 counsels— 
 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ Kal TH δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας 
 Ta αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν Ocov-—* but in every- 
 thing by prayer and supplication, along with thanksgiving, 
 let your requests be made known to God.” The noun αἴτημα 
 means literally a thing asked. Luke xxi. 24; 1 John v. 15. 
 By a natural process it also signifies, as here, a thing desired 
 and therefore to be asked. Hence the phrase τὼ αἰτήματα τὴς 
 καρδίας. Ps. xxxvii. 4. Let the things you seek be made 
 known—rrpos τὸν Θεόν. The construction is peculiar. ‘This 
 preposition is often used after verbs of similar meaning, and 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 6. 251 
 
 seems to signify, as Ast gives it—apud, coram. Lex. Platon., 
 sub voce. It points out destination or direction—“ Let your 
 requests be made known toward God ”—disclosed before Him, 
 that they may reach him, The simple dative would liave merely 
 implied direct information to Him; but πρός points to the 
 hearer of prayer as One in whose august presence petitions 
 are to be made known. Acts vii. 24. See under 1]. 19. 
 
 The form which the presentation of such requests was to 
 assume Was τῇ προσευχῇ Kal TH δεήσει----“( by prayer and suppli- 
 cation.” The datives express the manner or means, for the one 
 involves the other, by which the action enjoined in γνωριζέσθω 
 was to be performed. Bernhardy, p. 100. The two nouns are 
 not synonymous, and mean something more than Storr’s sociis 
 precibus. See under Eph. vi. 18 for the peculiar distinction. 
 The repetition of the article gives each of the nouns a special 
 independence. Winer, § 19, 8. By the use of the first noun 
 they are bidden tell their wants to God in religious feeling 
 and form; and by the second they are counselled to make 
 them known in earnest and direct petition, in every case as 
 the circumstances might require. But to this exercise of 
 prayer and supplication is added thanksgiving—peta edya- 
 ’ This noun has 
 not the article, and, as Ellicott says, only twice has it the 
 article in the writings of the apostle—1 Cor. xiv. 16; 2 Cor. 
 iv. 15. Alford’s idea is, that the article is omitted “ because 
 the matters themselves may not be recognized as grounds of 
 εὐχαριστία, but tt should accompany every request.” Ellicott 
 thinks that “ εὐχαριστία, thanksgiving for past blessings, is 
 in its nature more general and comprehensive.” Both notions, 
 though true in themselves, ave rather limited in the grounds 
 assigned for them. For not only are there many reasons for 
 thanksgiving to God, who has already conferred on us so much, 
 while we are asking for more, but thankfulness is also due 
 to Him for the very privilege of making known our requests 
 to Him; for the promises He has given us, and of which we 
 put Him in remembrance when we pray to Him; for the 
 confidence He has created in us that such solicitations shall 
 not be in vain; and for the hope that He will do for us 
 “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.” That 
 
 ptotias—“ accompanied with thanksgiving.’ 
 
252 PHILIPPIANS LV. 7. 
 
 He is on a throne of grace, and is ever accessible—that He 
 is never weary with our asking—and that His gifts are never 
 exhausted and never lose their adaptation, is surely matter of 
 thankfulness to be ever expressed before Him by all supphants. 
 i Thess. v.18; 1 Tim. ii. 1. See under Colossians iv. 2. 
 
 The apostle advises such a practice universally— 
 
 ἐν παντι--“΄ in everything.” The Syriac version renders the 
 phrase SjS40 —“in all time,” and this rendering is adopted 
 by Grotius and Rheinwald. The phrase, however, stands in 
 direct contrast to wydév—care for nothing, but in everything 
 pray, 1 Cor. 1.5; 2 Cor. 1v..8, vid, vai, 1m) ΠΡ de hneaes 
 v. 18. Chrysostom thus explains—év πάντι, τουτέστι, πράγ- 
 ματι. Matthies proposes to connect both meanings—that of 
 time and place, but this would mar the directness of antithesis. 
 The apostle makes no exception. Nothing should disturb 
 their equanimity, and whatever threatened to do it should be 
 made matter of prayer—that God would order it otherwise, 
 or give grace to bear it; or deepen reliance on Himself; or 
 give them that elevation and quiet which spring from the 
 assurance that “the Lord is at hand.” Such prayer and 
 supplication with thanksgiving relieves the spirit, evinces its 
 confidence in God, deepens its earnestness, and prepares it for 
 the expected answer. 
 
 (Ver. 7.) Kat ἡ εἰρήνη tod Θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν, 
 φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ 
 Ἰησοῦ---“ And the peace of God which passes all understand- 
 ing shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ 
 Jesus.” The connection indicated by καί is that of result, 
 and it might be paraphrased “and then,” or “and so.” Winer, 
 § 53, 3. We find two extremes of misconception as to the 
 meaning of εἰρήνη τοῦ Ocov—Geod being the genitive of origin, 
 and not of cbject, as Green supposes. Greek Gram., p. 262. 
 The Greek Fathers, followed by Erasmus, Estius, Crocius, 
 and Matthies, understand the phrase of reconciliation :— 
 “ Peace,” says Chrysostom, “that is, the reconciliation, the 
 love of God” —1) ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ. No doubt this peace is the 
 result of reconciliation or peace πρὸς τὸν Θέον. But this peace 
 flowing from pardon and acceptance was already possessed by 
 them—they had been reconciled; and what the apostle refers 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 7. 59 
 
 to is a state of mind which has this reconciliation for its basis. 
 The former peace has a special relation to God, the contro- 
 versy between Him and the soul being terminated—the latter 
 is more personal and absolute. This peace is but another 
 name for happiness, for it is beyond the reach of disturbance. 
 Come what will, it cannot injure—come when it likes, it is 
 welcome—and come as it may, it is blessing in disguise. 
 It can neither dissolve union to Christ, nor cloud the sense of 
 God’s forgiving love, nor exclude the prospect of heavenly 
 glory. It is not indigenous: it is the “peace of God.” 
 Man may train himself to apathy, or nerve himself into 
 hardihood—the one an effort to sink below nature, and the 
 other to rise above it. But this divine gift—the image of 
 God’s own tranquillity—is produced by close relationship to 
 Himself, is the realization of that legacy which the Elder 
 Brother has bequeathed. John xiv. 27. To know that it is 
 well with me now, and that it shall be so for ever—to feel that 
 God is my guide and protector, while His Son pleads for me 
 and His spirit dwells within me as his shrine—to feel that I 
 am moving onward along a path divinely prescribed and 
 guarded, to join the eternal banquet in the company of all I 
 love and all I live for—the emotion produced by such strong 
 conviction is peace, ay the “peace of God.” This view is 
 adopted generally by expositors. See what is said in our 
 comment under Colossians 11. 15. Augustine, followed by 
 Anselm and Beelen, explains the phrase—‘ peace of God ””— 
 as pax, qua ipse Deus pacatus est. De Civ. Dei, lib, xxii. 29. 
 We may place two English expositors side by side—Mack- 
 night, who understands by “peace of God” the hope of 
 eternal life, and Pierce, who takes it to mean, “ a sense of the 
 great advantage of having peace with God.” In much the 
 same spirit, men of the school of Glassius would take τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ as the so-called Hebrew superlative,—an idiom unknown 
 to the New Testament, and a miserable dilution of the sense. 
 
 The notion of Meyer, preceded by Hammond and Michaelis, 
 that this ‘ peace of God” is unity or ecclesiastical concord 
 cannot be sustained. Εἰρήνη, according to him, has always 
 a relative meaning—verhaltniss zu andern Menschen oder zu 
 Gott ; but the places quoted by him will not suffice as proof. 
 
 
 
 
 
254 PHILIPPIANS IV. 7. 
 
 In the majority of them peace is described as a personal bless- 
 ing. Rom. xv. 33; John xiv. 27. It is true that the apostle, 
 in the second and third verses of this chapter, counsels the 
 healing of a breach, or the restoration of peace, but he has 
 now passed from these matters to other advices. He has 
 uttered the key-note— Rejoice in the Lord,” and he now 
 speaks in its spirit. There may in the ἐπιεικές be an allusion 
 to the exhortation to Euodia and Syntyche—as Theodoret 
 supposes in his reference, ὡς ὑπαλλήλων ὄντων τῶν διωγμῶν 
 but the contrast to εἰρήνη lies in μηδέν μεριμνᾶτε. Now, this 
 “being careful”? could scarcely be the ground of disunion 
 among the Philippians, as Meyer’s hypothesis would make it ; 
 for it seems to have been vain-glory and ostentation. The 
 allusion is more general—and if this solicitude be relieved 
 by free and cordial prayerfulness, then unbroken tranquillity 
 should guard the soul. 
 
 The apostle describes this peace as a gift “ passing all 
 knowledge ”’—1) ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν. See what is said 
 under Eph. iii.19. The participle here governs the accusative, 
 and not, as is common with verbs of its class, the genitive. 
 Kiihner, ὃ 537; or Jelf, § 504, Obser. 2. The noun νοῦς is here 
 used of mind in its power of grasp or conception, as in Luke 
 xxiv. 45, where it is said—rore διήνοιξεν αὐτῶν τὸν vodv— 
 “then opened He their mind that they might understand the 
 Scriptures,” Rey. xiii. 18. The mind cannot rightly estimate 
 this peace, or rise to an adequate comprehension of it. It is so 
 rich, so pure, so noble, so fraught with bliss, that you cannot 
 imagine its magnitude. It is out of the question to suppose, 
 with De Wette, who forgets the sweep of the epithet πάντα, 
 that vods is a doubting or distracted mind, which can find 
 neither end nor issue, and that therefore this peace passes all 
 understanding, as it rests on faith and feeling. Chrysostom, 
 influenced by the signification he has attached to peace, gives 
 another turn to the meaning, as in this question—ris γὰρ ἂν 
 προσεδόκησε τίς δὲ ἂν ἤλπισε τοσαῦτα ἔσεσθαι ἀγαθά; The 
 opinion of Estius is somewhat similar, while Calvin, looking 
 
 
 
 more to the result, says—guia nihil humano ingenio magis 
 adversum, quasi in summa desperatione nihilominus sperare. 
 ‘The apostle means that even its possessor is not able fully to 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 7. 255 
 
 understand its nature and blessedness. He then says what 
 this peace, which is above all conception, shall effeet— 
 
 φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν Kai τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν---““ shall 
 euard your hearts and your thoughts.” The verb is used of 
 a military guard, like that set over a prisoner. 2 Cor. x1. 32; 
 Gal. iti. 23; Xen. Cyro. i. 2,12; Josephus, Bell. Jud. 111. 
 8,2; Thucyd.iu.17. The verb is in the future and is to be 
 so translated and understood, and not, with many, as if it 
 were in the subjunctive and expressed a charge, or as if it 
 were optative and contained a wish. It predicts a sure result 
 of the habit described and enforced in the preceding verse. 
 The last of the two nouns, νοήματα, signifies the results 
 or offspring of the active νοῦς, while καρδία in such a 
 connection may denote the seat or source of feeling and 
 thought. But νοῦς is so allied to the καρδία, the centre of all 
 spiritual life and activity, that these νοήματα are supposed to 
 spring from the latter. Usteri, Paulin. Lehrb. p. 411. Both 
 the one and the other shall be guarded—the heart kept from 
 disquietude, and the same unrest warded away from the 
 thoughts and associations. Whatever should enter into the 
 one and beget uneasiness, or suggest such a train of ideas, 
 forebodings, or questions to the other, as should tend to per- 
 plexity and alarm, is charmed away by “ the peace of God.” 
 For while that against which heart and thoughts are guarded 
 is taken absolutely, it may, specially, be the origination of such 
 a state as is implied in the warning—pdév μεριμνῶτε, and not 
 generally enemies, or Satan, or evil cogitations, or, as Theo- 
 phylact expounds — ὥστε μηδὲ εννοῆσαί te πονηρόν. The 
 apostle next refers to the sphere in which that safe-keeping 
 takes place— 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ---“ in Christ Jesus.” Ἢν is not synony- 
 mous with διά, is neither per nor propter. This guardianship 
 of heart and thought takes effect only “in Christ Jesus.” 
 Nay, the peace itself is based on union with Jesus, and its 
 vigilance and success are derived from a closer enjoyment of 
 the presence and a more vivid appreciation of the promises of 
 Christ. Others take this clause as indicating the result of the 
 verb dpouvpyjcec—“ shall keep your hearts and your thoughts 
 in Christ Jesus,” that is, shall preserve your union with Him. 
 
256 PHILIPPIANS IV. 8. 
 
 De Wette holds this view in imitation of Luther, and it is 
 adopted by Storr, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Rilliet, and 
 Wiesinger. Chrysostom had already stated as the result— 
 ὥστε μένειν καὶ μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτοῦ τῆς πίστεως. But it is 
 rather union with Christ which secures this peace, and not 
 this peace which cements the union. ‘The more one realizes 
 this union, the more does he possess of such a peace. And 
 as every gift of God is in Christ conferred, and every act of 
 God is done in Him, so in Him too does the peace of God 
 exert its guarding influence. As the result of prayer, of the 
 unbosoming of themselves to God about everything, they 
 should enjoy profound tranquillity. Committing their way 
 unto God, they would feel that ‘‘ He would make perfect that 
 which concerned them,” and should have within them an 
 unruffled calm—bliss beyond all conception. 
 
 (Ver. 8.) The apostle brings this section to a conclusion by 
 the common formula—ro λουπόν---( in fine.” In a composi- 
 tion like this letter, where compactness is not to be expected, 
 it would be finical to refer this τὸ λουπόν to that occurring in 
 ui. 1. There it introduces, here it terminates a section, The 
 apostle winds up the sundry counsels contained in the preced- 
 ing verse. We admit a connection, and therefore deny van 
 Hengel’s notion—ad rem alius argumenti transgreditur, ut 
 ostendit formula τὸ λουπόν. But we cannot wholly acquiesce 
 in De Wette’s idea, that the connection is of this kind—verse 
 seventh showing what God does, and verse eighth what remains 
 for man to do. Perhaps the previous verses suggested this 
 summing up to the apostle, which is still in the spirit of the 
 precept, ‘‘ Rejoice in the Lord,’’ and they intimate that while 
 there is freedom from solicitude through prayer, there should be 
 a reaching after perfection; and that in order to preserve this 
 peace unbroken within them, they should sedulously cultivate 
 those elements of Christian morality which are next enume- 
 rated with singular fervour and succinctness. 
 
 The syntax is peculiar. Six ethical terms are employed, 
 and each has ὅσα prefixed, and in token of emphasis the whole 
 is prefaced by ἀδελφοί. The rhythm and repetition are im- 
 pressive. We do not think with Wiesinger that the apostle 
 means to designate the entire compass of Christian morality. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 8. 25% 
 
 We rather think that the virtues referred to are such as not 
 only specially adorn “ the doctrine of God our Saviour,” but 
 also such as may have been needed in Philippi. In each 
 case, the apostle does not use abstract terms, but says— 
 “¢ Whatever things,” that is, what things come under the cate- 
 gory of each designation—* these things meditate,” the ὅσα 
 giving to each the notion of universality, and of course that 
 of conformity to the verb λογίζεσθε. And first— 
 
 ὅσα ἐστὶν adkynOj— whatsoever things are true.” It is too 
 vague, on the part of Gicumenius, to explain ἀληθῆ by τὰ 
 évapeta— the excellent.” The adjective does not signify 
 what is credible in opposition to what is fictitious, or what is 
 substantial in contrast with what is shadowy. Nor should we, 
 with Robinson, Meyer, and De Wette, confine the epithet to 
 the gospel and its truth; nor with Theodoret, Bengel, and 
 Bisping, to language ; nor with others, to the absence of dis- 
 simulation. We take it to mean generally— morally truth- 
 ful,” whether specially referred to and illustrated in the gospel 
 or not. For truth exists independently of the gospel, though 
 the gospel has shed special light on its nature and obligation. 
 They are to think on “the true” in everything of which it 
 can be predicated—both in reference to God and man, the 
 church and the world, themselves and others—the true in its 
 spiritual and secular relations, in thought, speech, and position. 
 See under Eph. iv. 25. 
 
 ὅσα σεμνά---“ whatsoever things are grave,” or “ decorous.”’ 
 The adjective characterizes persons in 1 Tim.i. 8,11, and Titus 
 ii. 2, in which places it stands opposed to a double tongue, to 
 intemperance and avarice, to slander and unfaithfulness, and 
 may denote becomingness or gravity of conduct. In classic 
 Greek it has the sense of revered or venerated, from its 
 connection with σέβομαι. Benfey, Wurzellex. 1. p. 407. As 
 applied to things, it may denote what in itself commands 
 respect—what is noble or honourable—magnijica, as in Am- 
 brosiaster. The pudica of the Vulgate is too limited. Our 
 translators have used the epithet “honest” in its Latin or 
 old English sense, signifying, but in fuller form, what is now 
 termed “honourable.” Thus, in the Bible of 1551—“ and 
 upon those members of the body which we thynke lest honest, 
 
 R 
 
258 PHILIPPIANS IV. 8. 
 
 put we moste honestie on.” “ Goodness,” says Sir William 
 Temple, in his Essay on Government, “in our language, goes 
 rather by the name of honesty.” Or in Ben Jonson—“ You 
 have honested my lodgings with your presence.” Richardson’s 
 Dictionary, sub voce. To illustrate this restricted sense of the 
 term, one may recall the lines of Burns about the Scottish 
 
 Muse— 
 ‘“« Her eye, even turned on empty space, 
 Beamed keen with honour.” 
 
 But σεμνά has a wider reach of meaning. We find it asso- 
 ciated with such epithets as ἅγιον, μέτριον, καλὸν κ᾽ ἀγαθόν, 
 and μεγαλοπρεπές, and it may point out the things which in 
 dignity and honour, in gravity and nobleness, befit the posi- 
 tion, character, and destiny of a believer. It is opposed to 
 what is mean, frivolous, indecorous, and unworthy. Quid 
 verum atque decens curo et rogo, et omnis in hoc sum. Horace, 
 Hips labeii« 1. 
 
 ὅσα dikata— whatsoever things are right ’’—whatsoever 
 things are in accordance with eternal and unchanging recti- 
 tude. We would not with many restrict it to equity or justice 
 as springing out of mutual relations. Thus Calvin—ne quem 
 ledamus, ne quem fraudemus, which is only one province of the 
 right. The last epithet appeals more to sentiment, but this 
 to principle. The right does not depend on legislation, but is 
 everlasting andimmutable. It is but a fallacious word-worship 
 on the part of Horne Tooke to assert that right is simply 
 what is ordered, rectum—(regitum), but quite in accordance 
 with the theory of Hobbes. Dugald Stewart’s Philosophical 
 Essays, Essay v., 2 ed.; Edin. 1816. 
 
 ὅσα ayva-—“ whatsoever things are pure.” The Vulgate 
 renders sanctd, as if the Greek epithet had been ayia. Titt- 
 mann’s Syn. i. p. 22. This term is used specially of chastity 
 or modesty—2 Cor. xi. 2; Titus 11. 5—and several critics, 
 as Grotius and Estius, take such to be its meaning here. We 
 take it in the broader sense in which it is found in 2 Cor. 
 vi. 6, vii. 11; 1 Tim. v. 22; James 111. 17. “ Whatever things 
 are pure’’—which are neither tainted nor corrupt—free from 
 all debasing elements, clear in nature, transparent in purpose, 
 leaving no blot on the conscience and no stain on the character. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 8. 259 
 
 In Pindar it is the epithet of Apollo or the Sun—xal ἁγνὸν 
 ᾿Απόλλωνα. Pyth.ix.112. Chrysostom’s distinction between 
 this and the preceding epithet is, τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς ἔξω ἐστὶ 
 δυνάμεως, TO δὲ ἁγνὸν τῆς ψυχῆς. 
 
 ὅσα mpoopiry— whatsoever things are lovely.” This 
 term occurs only here in the New Testament. It is, however, 
 not uncommon with classical writers, and signifies what is 
 dear to any one, or has in it such a quality as engages affection 
 —lovely as exciting love. Sirach iv. 7, xx.13. The meaning 
 is too much diluted by the Greek expositors and others who 
 follow them in giving the term a relation τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ 
 τῷ Θεῷ. Grotius and Erasmus hold another view, which is not 
 warranted by the context. According to them, it may denote 
 “ benignant,”’ or “ kindly disposed.”’ But special virtues, as 
 Meyer says, are not here enumerated. ‘“ Whatsoever things are 
 lovely ’—whatever modes of action tend to endear him that 
 does them, to give him with others not simply the approval of 
 their judgment, but to open for him a place in their hearts— 
 whatever things breathe the spirit of that religion which is 
 love, and the doing of which would be homage to Him who 
 is Love—‘ these things think on.” 
 
 ὅσα evpnwa— whatsoever things are of good report.” 
 This word, like the former, is found only here in the New 
 Testament, though the noun occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 8. Its 
 composition tells its force—“ what is well spoken of.” It 
 had a peculiar meaning in Pagan usage—that which is of 
 good omen, and a similar meaning Meyer would find here 
 —was einem gliicklichen Laut hat. But the result is not 
 different in the more ordinary acceptation. Hesychius gives 
 it the meaning of ἐπαινετά. Storr, without ground, prefers 
 another sense, which makes the verb mean bene precari—to 
 express good wishes for others, and he renders the adjective 
 by benedictum. Whatever things on being seen lead all who 
 behold them to exclaim—‘ Well-done !’’—or indicate on the 
 part of the actor such elements of character as are usually 
 admired and well spoken of; deeds that sound well on being 
 named, whether they consist of chivalrous generosity or meek 
 condescension—a great feat or a good one—noble in idea or 
 happy in execution. An action as right is vindicated by the 
 
260 PHILIPPIANS IV. 8. 
 
 judgment, as good it is approved by the heart, but as indi- 
 cating generosity or nobleness of soul it is applauded. ‘The 
 apostle subjoins in his earnestness— 
 
 el τις ἀρετὴ, Kal εἴ τις érawvos— whatever virtue there is, 
 and whatever praise there is.” Some MSS., as D?, Et, F, G, 
 add ἐπιστήμης; Vulgate, discipline. In the phrase εἴ tus 
 there is no expression of doubt, on the one hand; nor, on the 
 other hand, is the meaning that assigned by De Wette, van 
 Hengel, Rheinwald, and others—if there be any other virtue, 
 or any other object of praise, that is, other than those already 
 mentioned, but not formally expressed. The clause is an 
 emphatic and earnest summation. See under 11. 1. The term 
 ἀρετή is only here used by Paul. In the philosophical 
 writings of Greece it signified all virtue, and not any special 
 form of it, as it does in Homer and others. ‘The apostle 
 nowhere else uses it—it had been too much debased and 
 soiled in some of the schools, and ideas were oftentimes 
 attached to it very different from that moral excellence which 
 with him was virtue. It is therefore here employed in its 
 widest and highest sense of moral excellence—virtus, that 
 which becomes a man redeemed by the blood of Christ and 
 tenanted by the Holy Spirit. It is spoken of God in 1 Pet. 
 ii. 9. From its connection with the Sanscrit vwr7—to be 
 strong—Latin, vir—vires—virtus ; or with "Apns—aptotos, it 
 seems to signify what best becomes a man—manhood, strength 
 or valour, in early times. Benfey, Wurzellex. 1. p. 315. But 
 the signification has been modified by national character and 
 temperament. The warlike Romans placed their virtue in 
 military courage ; while their successors, the modern degene- 
 rate Italians, often apply it to a knowledge of antiquities 
 or fine arts. The remains of other and nobler times are 
 articles of virtu, and he who has most acquaintance with them 
 is a virtuoso or man of virtue. In our common Knglish, a 
 woman’s virtue is simply and alone her chastity, as being first 
 and indispensable; and with our Scottish ancestors virtue 
 was thrift or industry.1_ Amidst such national variations, and 
 
 1 An old act commands schools or houses of “‘ vertue,” in which might be manufac- 
 tured ““ cloth and sergis,” to be erected in every shire. Jamieson’s Scottish Dictionary 
 Supplement. 
 
 a 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 9. 261 
 
 the unsettled metaphysical disquisitions as to what forms virtue 
 or what is its basis, it needed that He who created man for 
 Himself should tell him what best became him—what he was 
 made for and what he should aspire to. The noun ὄπαινος is 
 praise in itself, and not res laudabilis, a thing to be praised, 
 though many, including the lexicographers Robinson, Wahl, 
 and Bretschneider, take such a view. It is not therefore any- 
 thing to be praised, but any praise to be bestowed—laus comes 
 virtutis, as Erasmus writes; or as Cicero—consentiens laus 
 bonorum, incorrupta vox bene judicantium de excellente virtute. 
 Meyer gives as an example the thirteenth chapter of 1 Cor. 
 —the praise of charity. And the apostle concludes with the 
 expressive charge— 
 
 ταῦτα NoyifeoGe— these things think upon.” They were to 
 ponder on these things, not as matters of mere speculation, but 
 of highest ethical moment, and of immediate practical utility. 
 
 The apostle does not mean to exhibit every element of a 
 perfect character, but only some of its phases. Cicero says, 
 De Fin, i. 4, 14— Quonam modo, inquam, si una virtus, unum 
 istud, quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, decorum—erit 
 enim notius quale sit pluribus notatum vocabulis idem declaran- 
 tibus. These ethical terms are closely united, nay they blend 
 together; the true, the decorous, the right, and the pure, are 
 but different aspects or exemplifications of one great principle, 
 leaves on the same stem. ‘The first four terms seem to be 
 gathered together into ἀρετή; the two last—‘ lovely and of 
 good report’’—into ἔπαινος. The true, the becoming, the 
 right, and the pure are elements of virtue or moral excellence 
 in themselves; but when exhibited in the living pursuit and 
 practice of them, they assume the form of the lovely and well- 
 reported, and then they merit and command praise. In still 
 closer connection, the apostle enjoins— 
 
 (Ver. 9.) “A καὶ ἐμάθετε, καὶ παρελάβετε, καὶ ἠκούσατε, καὶ 
 εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, ταῦτα πράσσετε---“, which things also ye learned 
 and received, and heard and saw in me, these things do.” 
 Bengel says, with his usual point—facit transitionem a gene- 
 ralibus ad Paulina. By the pronoun & the apostle refers to 
 things just enumerated and enforced, and not to other things 
 yet and now to be spoken of. He does not write ὅσα, but a— 
 
 ᾽ 
 
‘262 PHILIPPIANS IV. 9. 
 
 —giving precision and definiteness to his counsels. The first 
 καί, as Meyer remarks, is simply “ also,” the meaning being vir- 
 tually “which things” —those of ver. 8—“‘ye have also learned 
 of me.” The sentences, at the same time, are so far distinct as 
 the concluding verbs of each indicate. The four verbs are 
 simply connected by καί, and the meaning is not—which ye 
 have as well learned as received, as in the recent version of 
 Ewald—was thr wie lerntet so annahmet wie hirtet so sahet an 
 mir. The four verbs are to be distinguished, for they are 
 neither synonymous nor is the clause tautological. The first, 
 ἐμάθετε, refers to instruction. Rom. xvi. 17; Col.i. 7. The 
 next term, παρελάβετε, denotes the result of instruction, the 
 appropriation of the knowledge conveyed, or the fact that they 
 had assented to it or had embraced it. 1 Cor. xv.1; Gal. 1. 
 12; 1 Thess. 1.13. They had been instructed, and they had 
 accepted the instruction, and therefore were they bound to 
 abide by it. It is unwarranted in Grotius to find in ἐμάθετε 
 the sense of prima institutio, and in παρελάβετε that of exac- 
 tior doctrina. Uoelemann as groundlessly refers the first verb 
 to the genus, and the others to the species, though he admits 
 that the structure of the verse does not favour his view. 
 Rilliet, too, makes this distinction—son enseignment direct, 
 μανθάνω, les instructions qwil leur a transmises sous une 
 forme quelconque—raparaupBavo. But more precisely— 
 
 καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν éuoi—“ and heard and saw in 
 me.” ‘The phrase ἐν ἐμοί is connected with both verbs. The 
 apostle has referred to his public instructions, and now he 
 concludes with his personal example. What they heard in 
 connection with him is the report about him circulating in 
 the church—the character which was usually given him. Chap. 
 iii. 17. Calvin and some others suppose the “ hearing” to 
 refer to Paul’s oral instructions in Philippi—les recits, as 
 Rilliet writes; but after the two preceding verbs this would 
 be a needless repetition. Nor does it vaguely signify de me 
 absente, as Hoelemann gives it. “ And saw in me”—what 
 they had witnessed in his conduct and character. His appeal 
 is as in 1 Thess. ii. 9-12. The two first verbs seem to refer 
 to his official conduct, and the two last to his private demean- 
 our. In connecting ἐν ἐμοί with ἠκούσατε, as well as εἴδετε, 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV, 9. 263 
 
 it is needless to resort to the supposition of a zeugma. Nor 
 is there any use in supposing, with Rillet and van Hengel, 
 that ἐν ἐμοί belongs equally and formally to all the four 
 verbs. And the charge is— 
 
 ταῦτα Tpacoere— these things practise.” It is not simply 
 now—royiferGe. Chrysostom says—pr) λέγετε μόνον, ἀλλὰ 
 καὶ πράττετε, but no contrast of this nature is intended, for 
 the one term includes the other. Meyer supposes that there 
 is a kind of formal parallelism—that both verbs really belong 
 to both verses. Rom. x. 10. Perhaps this is too refined. 
 The apostle first enumerates the things possessed of certain 
 specified qualities, and bids his readers think on them, for a 
 mindless obedience would be accidental, and therefore worth- 
 less. But then he connects the previous general statement 
 with his personal instructions, and their received tuition; nay, 
 embodies it in his own character, and therefore he boldly 
 bids them reproduce his lessons and example in their own 
 experience and life. The four verbs are a species of climax: 
 —éuabete, παρελάβετε, ἠκούσατε, eldere—“ ye learned,” 
 more general; ‘ye took up,’ more pointed; “ye heard,” 
 more personal; ‘‘ ye saw in me,” decided and definite. It 
 is not simply Paul the teacher, but Paul the man, how he 
 was reported of, nay, how he demeaned himself. It is not, 
 do as I taught you, but also do as ye heard of me doing and 
 saw me doing, in reference to all the elements of virtue and 
 praise. And then— 
 
 καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθ᾽ vuov—< and then,” or 
 “and so the God of peace shall be with you.” The meaning 
 of καί is as in the beginning of verse 7. The phrase God 
 of peace is parallel to the preceding one—peace of God. In 
 the former case the peace is described in its connection with 
 God, and now God is pointed out as the inworker of this 
 peace. It characterizes him, and in this aspect belongs to 
 what Scheuerlein calls die dominirenden Kigenschaften., p. 115. 
 The phrase ‘ God of peace” must not be weakened into Deus 
 benignissimus. The words μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν resemble a common 
 expression in the Old Testament—nmy. To specify any 
 single purpose which the presence of the God of peace with 
 them should accomplish is useless and restricted, for He will 
 
264 PHILIPPIANS IV. 10. 
 
 work out every purpose—suvepyés τῶν ὅλων. The presence 
 and operations of the God of peace are like the peace of God 
 —they pass all understanding. And this sounds like the 
 apostle’s farewell—a pledge of peace to those who were aim- 
 ing at the high Christian excellence described in the two 
 previous verses, in whom the faith of the gospel had wrought 
 a change which might ripen at length into the perfection of 
 ethical symmetry and beauty. 
 
 (Ver. 10.) “Eydpny δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ peyaiws— But I rejoiced 
 in the Lord greatly.” The apostle with the metabatic δέ passes 
 to the business part of the letter—a personal subject which 
 seems to have in part suggested. the composition of the epistle. 
 A gift had been brought to him, and he acknowledges it. 
 The style of acknowledgment is quite like himself. In the 
 fulness of his heart he first pours out a variety of suggestive 
 and momentous counsels, and towards the conclusion he adds 
 a passing word on the boon which Kpaphroditus had brought 
 him. He rejoiced over the gift in no selfish spirit; his joy 
 was ἐν Κυρίῳ, in the Lord. ii. 1; iv. 1. That is to say, his 
 was a Christian gladness. The gift was contributed in the 
 Lord, and in a like spirit he exulted in the reception of it. 
 It was a proof to him, not simply that personally he was not 
 forgotten, but also that his converts still realized their special 
 and tender obligations to him as their spiritual father. And 
 his joy was rapturous— μεγάλως. 1 Chron, xxix. 9---εὐφράνθη 
 μεγάλως. Nehem. xi. 43—0 Θεὸς ηὔφρανεν αὐτοὺς μεγάλως. 
 In the past tense of the verb, the apostle refers to his emotion 
 when he first touched the gift, and for the form ἐχάρην 
 see Buttmann, § 114. 
 
 The apostle now uses expressive phraseology ; the figure 
 being suggested not by the season of the year at which the 
 gift was sent, as Bengel’s fancy is, but the thought in its 
 freshness budded into poetry— 
 
 ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ hpovetv-— that now at 
 length ye have flourished again in mindfulness for me.’? The 
 language implies that some time had elapsed since the state 
 expressed by the first verb had been previously witnessed. 
 The interval may have exceeded five years, and Chrysostom 
 specifying it as μακρόν, thinks, without foundation, that 
 
 ~~ 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 10. 265 
 
 the clause implies a rebuke. The ποτέ throws a shade of inde- 
 finiteness over the ἤδη. Devarius, Klotz, vol. 11. Ὁ. 607; Kypke, 
 ad Rom. i. 10. The apostle does not deny the existence of 
 the φρονεῖν at any moment; he simply hints that for some 
 time it had not been in a fertile or productive state. The 
 churches of Macedonia are highly praised for their liberality. 
 2 Cor. viii. 1, 2. We take the infinitive φρονεῖν as simply 
 dependent upon ἀνεθάλετε used in an intransitive sense, and 
 τὸ ὑπερ ἐμοῦ as its object. 
 
 There is indeed no grammatical objection to the transitive 
 meaning. The word is found only here in the New Testament; 
 but in the Hellenistic Greek of the Septuagint and Apocrypha 
 it occurs often with the transitive sense. Ezek. xvii. 24; Sirach 
 τ xi 223110) It is taken in this sense here by 'Coe- 
 ceius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, and De Wette. It is difficult to 
 render the sentence literally into English. In their care of the 
 apostle they had put forth new shoots; they had been asa 
 tree which had been bare and blossomless in winter, but 
 they had grown green again and had yielded fruit; for this 
 last idea is implied in the context. The transitive form of 
 the verb would preserve the notion of activity or conscious 
 effort on their part, as one source of the apostle’s joy. On the 
 other hand, many, perhaps the majority, prefer the passive sig- 
 nification, adopted by the Greek expositors and many others. 
 Thus Chrysostom—éml δένδρων βλαστησάντων, εἶτα Enpav- 
 θέντων, καὶ πάλιν βλαστησάντων. The word occurs with 
 this signification in Ps. xxvii. 7; Wisdom, iv. 4. ‘hus we 
 may either speak of a tree revived, or a tree putting forth its 
 buds and foliage. Wiesinger objects to the transitive sense, 
 because ἀναθάλλειν is represented as not having been depen- 
 dent on the will of the Philippians. But this is to press the 
 figure too hardly, and to destroy the merit of the gift. The 
 apostle’s idea is—that the season had been inclement, and 
 that during its continuance they could not flourish in their 
 eare of him, though they greatly desired it. Their bud had 
 been nipped, but revirescence had begun. Meyer, objecting 
 to the transitive sense, holds that τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν is 
 not the object of ἀνεθάλετε, and that the verb is simply con- 
 nected with the infinitive φρονεῖν. But in his opinion, they 
 
266 PHILIPPIANS IV 10. 
 
 flourished green again, not in their care for the apostle, which 
 had never withered, but in their own temporal circumstances. 
 In this view he had been preceded by Schleusner, Wahl, 
 Matthies, and van Hengel, who says—ut Philippenses ad 
 priscam prosperitatem rediise significaret. ‘The idea, however, 
 is not supported by the context—they did care, the apostle 
 affirms, but they wanted oportunity, not ability. He there- 
 fore seems to say, that their care of him had been for a time 
 like sap and life in the veins of a tree, but an inclement 
 season had prevented it from forming foliage and blossom. 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε. What is the proper meaning of ἐφ᾽ @? 
 We cannot, with Calvin, Rilliet, and Bretschneider, make pou 
 the antecedent, or supply to ὦ the name of the apostle—erga 
 quem—the formula being invariably used by the apostle in 
 the neuter gender. Various other renderings have been given. 
 Thus De Wette—qua de re; a-Lapide, in qua re; while 
 others make it in quo, in respect of which. Not a few con- 
 tend for an adverbial signification, the Vulgate having scut, 
 and van Hengel quemadmodum, Luther wiewohl, and Winer 
 weshalb. To give to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ the entire clause as antecedent 
 would, as Meyer and Wiesinger say, bring out this strange 
 collocation — éppoveite ἐπὶ τῷ TO ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν; yet 
 Wiesinger inclines to adopt it, and he is followed by Ellicott. 
 Wiesinger gives φρονεῖν a somewhat different sense in the 
 two clauses, and says—‘‘ Could not the apostle, while he 
 regarded the first φρονεῖν as a proof of their solicitude for 
 him, say with perfect propriety, such an actual care for me 
 was the object of your care?” that is, you were solicitous to 
 show or prove your solicitude. But this construction does 
 appear clumsy and illogical. The phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ might indeed 
 be taken in an adverbial sense, might be rendered “ for,” or 
 propterea quod. Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 4. Thus Thomas 
 Magister—颒 6, ἀντὶ δίοτι. So also Phavorinus—颒 6, 
 ἀντὶ τοῦ δίοτι. See under iii. 12, p. 195. See also Meyer, 
 Fritzsche, Philippi, and Olshausen on Rom. v.12. It might 
 then be rendered—“ I rejoiced that you have flourished again 
 in your care for me, because indeed ye were caring for me, 
 but ye lacked opportunity.” But perhaps the phrase τὸ 
 ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν is best resolved, as we have said, by 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 10. 267 
 
 taking τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ as the object of the verb, and regard- 
 ing it as meaning “my interest ;” and then τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ 
 becomes the antecedent to ἐφ᾽ @—“ for which,” that is, for 
 my interest, or as to what specially befits me, ye were also 
 mindful. The cause of his joy was not their care for him in 
 itself—that had never been absent, as he says; but he rejoiced 
 that it had found renewed opportunity of manifestation. 
 Θάλλειν could once be predicated of their solicitude, as when 
 they sent once and again to Thessalonica to his necessities ; 
 but the season became unpropitious. What made it so we 
 know not—probably the distance of the apostle from them ; 
 or perhaps they thought that other churches should take upon 
 them the obligation. ‘Their solicitude was during all this 
 period still in existence, but θάλλειν could not be predicated 
 of it—they were unproductive. But now they burst into 
 verdure, and the apostle says to them ave@ddkeTe—ye came into 
 leaf again. They were not to suppose that he censured them 
 for forgetting him; and lest his language should be so mis- 
 construed, he adds—for my interest ye were also mindful. 
 The contrast, then, lies between the simple imperfect ἐφρονεῦτε 
 —the care of him being all the while present—and the dve- 
 θάλετε φρονεῖν, a new and flourishing manifestation of it. 
 The apostle, in a word, does not joy over the existence of 
 their care, for of its existence he had never doubted, but over 
 its second spring. Meyer thinks that the omission of μέν 
 after ἐφρονεῖτε gives emphasis to the contrast. For examples 
 of the opposite—of μέν without d6é—see Acts i. 1, iv. 16. 
 ἠκαιρεῖσθε S5é— but ye lacked opportunity.” The verb 
 belongs to the later Greek. Phryn. Lobeck, p.125. It occurs 
 only here in the New Testament; ἀκαίρως is used in 2 Tim. 
 iv. 2; but the opposite compound εὐκαιρεῖν and its substantive 
 and adjective are found several times. The phrase may mean 
 more than opportunitas mittendi—ye would, but ye could not 
 find an opportune period or occasion. Circumstances were 
 unpropitious, but we have no means of discovering the actual 
 cause. So that the view of Chrysostom cannot be sustained 
 —ovx εἴχετε ἐν χερσίν. He says that this meaning which he 
 gives the verb was a common one, derived from popular use 
 -ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς συνηθείας. Theodore of Mopsuestia has the 
 
 
 
268 PHILIPPIANS IV. 11. 
 
 same view. As vain is it, on the part of Storr and Flatt, to 
 refer the obstacle to Judaizing teachers. It may be remem- 
 bered that one of the earliest fruits of the apostle’s labours at 
 Philippi was the kindness of hospitality. Lydia said, ‘‘ Come 
 into my house and abide there, and she constrained us.” 
 And the jailor even, when his heart had been touched, ‘“ took 
 them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes ”— 
 “brought them into his house and set meat before them.” 
 Acts xvi. 15, 33, 84. If the mindfulness of the Philippian 
 church resembled these specimens, the apostle could have no 
 hesitation in saying—‘ ye were also careful, but ye lacked 
 opportunity.” 
 
 The apostle now with a peculiar delicacy guards himself 
 
 against misconstruction. He might have referred to the lofty 
 
 disinterestedness of his past life; to the fact that he had 
 wrought with his own hands to supply his necessities; that he 
 had not been ashamed to stoop to the craft he had learned in 
 youth, and earn by it a scanty subsistence—waiving in some 
 cases the right which he had firmly vindicated, and based 
 more on equity than generosity, that ‘ they which preach the 
 gospel should live of the gospel.” 
 
 (Ver. 11.) Οὐχ ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν A€Eyo—* Not that I speak 
 on account of want.” The formula οὐχ ὅτι, introducing an 
 explanation, occurs in ii. 12, iv. 17; 2 Cor. 1. 24; 2 Thess. 
 iii. 9. Winer, § 64, 6. See under i. 12, p.195. The cara 
 has the signification here which it has in various places, and 
 denotes: “occasion.” Matt. xix. 3; Acts im. 17; Winer, 
 § 49, a; Robinson, sub voce; Raphel. in loc. The Syriac 
 has given it quite correctly—‘ 1 have not spoken because 
 there is need to me,” and Wycliffe—“ I seie not as for nede.” 
 Van Hengel’s care to give κατά its ordinary meaning, “ after 
 the manner of,” is superfluous—ut more receptum est pecunie. 
 Theophylact explains it by διά. The two senses of the pre- 
 position are intimately connected, the one suggesting and 
 warranting the other. It was not the pressure of penury that 
 prompted the apostle’s joy, nor yet the mere value of that sum 
 sent to secure relief. He was in straits—the Roman law 
 allowed no luxury to its prisoners; but he was excited to this 
 utterance not by a sense of want, but by other motives of a 
 
 
 
 —_—— ρΝΝΣΟ. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 11. 269 
 
 higher and nobler nature. The gold and silver sent to him 
 were not valued and made a matter of thanksgiving simply 
 as the means of rescue from indigence, or as enabling him 
 either to procure this comfort or to discharge that obligation. 
 He rose above such a feeling, for to want he was no stranger, 
 and he had learned contentment under all circumstances. At 
 the same time, as Wiesinger says, “ he does not deny the fact 
 of his being in want.” But he received the gift as the symbol 
 of spiritual good wrought in Philippi by his preaching, and 
 the reception of it proving their tender attachment to him still, 
 was all the more soothing and refreshing amidst the coldness 
 and hostility which he was encountering at Rome. Chap. 
 i. 12, &c. He proceeds to give the great reason why it was 
 that he had so spoken, but not for want’s sake— 
 
 ἐγὼ yap ἔμαθον, ἐν οἷς εἰμὶ, αὐτάρκης eivar— for I (for my 
 part) have learned in the circumstances in which 1 am to be 
 content.” The epithet αὐτάρκης means self-sufficing, having 
 within one what produces contentment. The special idea of 
 not being dependent on others is sometimes found in it, as πόλιες 
 αὐτάρκης, a city that does not need to import. Thucyd. 1. 37. 
 Perhaps, however, this idea is not formally connected with 
 the word when used ethically, though still it may be implied. 
 Wiesinger objects that this state of self-competence, or of not 
 requiring the assistance of others, never can be learned. Now, 
 surely there is no lesson more frequent: for the mind, as it is 
 thrown upon its own resources, learns its strength, and becomes 
 through such discipline its own support. The apostle was 
 content, and that state of contentment was the result of a long 
 and varied experience—éuafov. He does not, by the use of 
 this verb, refer, as Pelagius and Bengel imagine, to divinely- 
 given instruction—a Christo.” Heb. v. 8. In the use and 
 position of the ἐγώ, he gives prominence to his own individual 
 training, and its result—“T for my part.” The apostle 
 learned contentment, but he does not say that he had created 
 it within him. He had learned it in whatever way it could 
 be acquired, and he cherished it. It was not self-infused, but 
 experience had brought it to him. This was true philosophy, 
 for discontent could not have removed the evil, and would 
 only have embittered what little good remained. The captive 
 
270 PHILIPPIANS IV. 11. 
 
 may shake the chain, but as he cannot shake it off, his impa- 
 tient effort only galls his limbs with aggravated severity. 
 And that contentment was not an incidental state of mind, 
 
 nor restricted to his present state, for he says—év οἷς εἰμί, “in 
 the condition in which I am.” The relative is neuter, and not 
 masculine, as Luther renders it. Kypke, Odserv. 11. p. 319. The 
 right translation is not “‘in whatever state I may be,” but “ in ¥ 
 whatever state I am”—realizing as present, not only each of the δον 
 various states described in the following verse, but any state . 
 in which Providence might place him. ‘The contentment 
 which the apostle universally and uniformly possessed, sprang 
 not from indifference, apathy, or desperation. It was not sul- 
 len submission to his fate, nor the death of hope within him. 
 He_felt-what_want.was, and keenly felt it, and therefore he 4 
 gladly accepted of relief, and rejoiced in all such manifestations _»4 2: 
 of Christian sympathy. Nor was he self-sufficient in the 
 ordinary or the common sense of the term. It was no ego- ¥ 
 tistic delusion that upheld him, nor did he ever invoke the ' 
 storm to show that he could brave it. But his mind ΠΕΡΙ κ Lovet 
 bowed to the will of God in every condition in which he wa 
 placed. For that wondrous equanimity and Siecle 
 which far excelled the stolid and stubborn endurance ascribed \ 
 to heathen stoicism, gave him the mastery over circumstances. 
 
 adh Ale felt the evil, but surmounted it—a purer triumph than 
 with a petrified heart to be unconscious of it. Socrates in 
 Stobeus, lib. v. § 43, is reported to have said—avrdpKea 
 φύσεώς εστι πλοῦτος. See Barrow’s five sermons on this 
 text. Jeremy Taylor, Holy Living, iv., with his wonted 
 wealth of genius, writes :—“ If your estate be lessened, you 
 need the less to care who governs the province, whether he 
 be rude or gentle. I am crossed in my journey, and yet I 
 ’scaped robbers; and I consider, that if I had been set upon 
 by villains, I would have redeemed that evil by this, which I 
 now suffer, and have counted it a deliverance: or if I did fall 
 into the hands of thieves, yet they did not steal my Jand. Or 
 I am fallen into the hands of publicans and sequestrators, and 
 they have taken all from me: what now? let me look about 
 me. They have left me the sun and moon, fire and water, a 
 loving wife, and many friends to pity me, and some to relieve 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 12. 971 
 
 me, and I can still discourse; and, unless I list, they have 
 not taken away my merry countenance, and my cheerful 
 spirit, and a good conscience: they still have left me the 
 providence of God, and all the promises of the gospel, and 
 my religion, and my hopes of heaven, and my charity to them 
 too; and still I sleep and digest, I eat and drink, I read and 
 meditate, I can walk in my neighbour’s pleasant fields, and 
 see the varieties of natural beauties and delight in all that in 
 which God delights, that is, in virtue and wisdom, in the 
 whole creation, and in God himself. And he that hath so 
 many causes of joy, and so great, is very much in love with 
 sorrow and peevishness, who loses all these pleasures, and 
 chooses to sit down upon his little handful of thorns. Is that 
 beast better, that hath two or three mountains to graze on, 
 than a little bee tnat feeds on dew or manna, and lives upon 
 what falls every morning from the storehouses of heaven, 
 clouds and Providence? Can aman quench his thirst better 
 out of a river than a full urn, or drink better from the fountain, 
 which is finely paved with marble, than when it swells over 
 the green turf? Pride and artificial gluttonies do but adul- 
 terate nature, making our diet healthless, our appetites im- 
 patient and unsatisfiable, and the taste mixed, fantastical, and 
 meretricious. But that which we miscall poverty, is indeed 
 nature: and its proportions are the just measures of a man, 
 and the best instruments of content. But when we create 
 needs that God or nature never made, we have erected to 
 ourselves an infinite stock of trouble, that can have no period. 
 Sempronius complained of want of clothes, and was much 
 troubled for a new suit, being ashamed to appear in the 
 theatre with his gown a little threadbare: but when he got 
 it, and gave his old clothes to Codrus, the poor man was 
 ravished with joy, and went and gave God thanks for his new 
 purchase; and Codrus was made richly fine and cheerfully 
 warm by that which Sempronius was ashamed to wear; and 
 yet their natural needs were both alike.” 
 
 (Ver. 12) Οἶδα καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι, οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν---“1 
 know also to be abased, I know also to abound.’ The καί after 
 the first οἶδα is accepted on preponderant authority, instead 
 of the δέ of the common text. In οἶδα the apostle speaks not 
 
972 PHILIPPIANS IV. 12. 
 
 of the results, but of the sources of ἐμάθον. And that knowledge 
 was not one-sided, or an acquaintance with only one aspect 
 of life --καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι. The first καί is “also,” connecting 
 special instances with the previous general statement. Winer, 
 § 53, 3. The verb here refers to condition, not to mental 
 state. Lev. xxv. 39; Prov. xiii. 7; 2 Cor. xi. 7. Its opposite 
 ὑψοῦσθαι is not employed, but another verb of a more general 
 nature. For the apostle did not mean to mark such a narrow 
 contrast as—‘ I know also to be elevated;’”’ but he writes καὶ 
 περισσεύειν. This second καί, not in itself but from the 
 sense, contrasts as it connects. The two verbs are not to be 
 taken in any confined signification, but with a general sense 
 as indicative of two opposite states; the one marking 
 depression and want, and the other sufficiency and more. 
 The repetition of οἶδα exhibits the earnest fulness of his 
 heart; and the rhetoric is even a proof of his uniform satis- 
 faction and complacency, for he writes as equably of the one 
 condition as of the other. He does not curse his poverty, 
 nor sting with satirical epithets, but he verifies the remark ἐν 
 οἷς εἰμί. Nay, warming with his subject, he adds in higher 
 emphasis— 
 
 ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, “in everything and in all 
 things I have been initiated.” It seems a refinement on the 
 part of many to define the two adjectives separately. Thus 
 Luther takes the first as neuter, and the second as masculine ; 
 Conybeare renders, “in all things, and among all men;” while 
 Chrysostom refers πάντι to time, and Beza and Calvin to place 
 following the reading of the Vulgate—ubique. To supply 
 either χρόνῳ or τόπῳ is too precise. 2 Cor. ix. 8, x1. 6. The 
 phrase, in its repetition, expresses the unlimited sphere of 
 initiation. We cannot follow Meyer and Alford in connect- 
 ing the phrase so closely with the two following infinitives. 
 For if the infinitives stand as direct accusatives to μεμύημαιυ, 
 then we should almost expect the definite article to precede 
 them. Kiihner, § 643. It is true that this verb usually 
 governs two accusatives of person and thing, and in the 
 passive has the latter, and that the thing into which one is 
 initiated is put in the accusative, and not in the dative 
 preceded by ἐν. But we do not regard the phrase as pointing 
 
 ——— 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 12. 273 
 
 out that in which he was instructed, but as an adverbial 
 formula showing the universality of the initiation, and not 
 its objects. Nay, opposites or extremes are chosen to show 
 the warrant he had for the sweeping assertion—éy πάντι καὶ 
 ἐν πᾶσιν. Nor do we with Meyer regard it as analogous to 
 ἐν οἷς εἰμί, but simply as qualifying μεμύημαι; while the 
 infinitives are generally illustrative of the entire clause, as 
 well of the objects of initiation as of the universality. The 
 verb is borrowed from the nomenclature of the Grecian 
 mysteries, and signifies the learning of something with pre- 
 paratory toil and discipline. Hesychius defines μύησις by 
 μάθησις. There is no idea of secret training — disciplina 
 arcana, as Bengel puts it. The Greek Fathers explain it by 
 πεῖραν ἔλαβον πάντων ; but it is more than this, for it is not 
 simply to have experience, but to have profited, or to have 
 been instructed by that experience. ὃ Maccabees, 1]. 20; 
 Miinthe, Odservat. p. 383. I am instructed— 
 
 καὶ χορτάζεσθαι καὶ πεινᾶν, Kal περισσεύειν Kal ὑστερεῖσθαι 
 —“ both to be filled and to be famished, both to abound and 
 to be in want.”” Χορτάζω, literally to feed with hay or grass, 
 represents the Hebrew viv in the Septuagint, and is a word 
 of the later Greek in its application to persons. Sturz, De 
 Malecto Maced. p. 200-202. It is used frequently in the 
 Gospels. The peculiar form πεινᾶν for πεινῆν also belongs 
 to the later writers. Phryn. Lobeck, p. 61; A. Buttmann, 
 p- 88; Winer, § 18 32 Περισσεύειν has its proper antithesis 
 in ὑστερεῖσθαι. ‘The apostle’s experience had led him to 
 touch both extremes. It was not uniform penury under 
 which he was content. The scene was checkered—shadow 
 and sunshine—no wnmanly depression in the one, no undue 
 elation in the other. LEquable, contented, patient, and hope- 
 ful was he in every condition. The verbs employed by the 
 apostle are ἔμαθον---οἶδα--- μεμύημαι, but they do not form a 
 climax, as some suppose. ‘The first is general, and looks 
 to experiential result, or the lesson of contentment. How he 
 came to that lesson he tells us in οἶδα, and how he acquired 
 this knowledge he says in μεμύημαι. See Suicer, sub voce. 
 
 ! Grammatik der Neutest. Sprach. In Anschlusse an Philip Buttmann’s Griech. 
 Grammatik, ven Alex. Buttmann. Lrste Abth. Berlin, 1857. 
 
 5 
 
274 PHILIPPIANS IV. 13. 
 
 There was first the initiation into the various states, then the 
 consequent knowledge of their nature, and lastly, the great 
 practical lesson of contentment which was learned under them. 
 The apostle waxes yet bolder, and exclaims— 
 
 (Ver. 13.) Tldvta ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί we—“ I can do 
 all things in Him strengthening me.” The Χριστῷ in the 
 Received Text has in its favour 198, E, F, G, J, K, and the 
 Syriac also, while some of the Fathers read Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
 and other forms occur, as in Origen and others. But the 
 omission of the name has the higher authority of A, B, D', 
 with the Vulgate and others. The reference is unmistakeable, 
 and the omission of the name gives a peculiar point to the 
 starting declaration. It is wrong to insert an infinitive between 
 ἰσχύω and πάντα, for πάντα is the accusative of object, as in 
 Gal, v. 6; James v. 16, in which places τὸ and πολύ are 
 similarly employed with πάντα. Wisdom xvi. 20.1. Such an 
 accusative expresses measure or extent—das Mass und die Aus- 
 dehnung. Madvig, § 27. It is to spiritual might that the verb 
 refers, and that might has no limitations. For πάντα (not τὰ 
 πάντα) is not bounded by the preceding references, as van 
 Hengel gives it in omnia memorata. Knowledge is power; 
 and the apostle rises from knowledge to power—tells what he 
 knows, and then what he can achieve. It was no idle boast, 
 for he refers at once to the source of this all-daring energy— 
 
 ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με. 2 Cor. xii. 9. The preposition ἐν 
 marks the union through which this moral energy is enjoyed 
 —in Him strengthening me,” that is, in His strength com- 
 municated to me. Acts ix. 22; Eph. vi. 10; 1 Tim.1. 12; 
 2 Tim. iv. 17; Heb. x1.34. We have the simple form of the 
 verb in Col. i. 11. Had we retained the term, “ inforce,” with 
 the same meaning as its common compound “ re-inforce,” we 
 should have had a good and equivalent translation of the 
 participle. Richardson gives an instance from old English 
 —“clasping their legges together, they inforce themselves 
 with strength.” The rendering of the Vulgate employs a verb 
 from the same root—gui me confortat. The apostle boasts 
 not only of a high courage in reference to such triumphs 
 
 1 Wahl proposes to insert such an infinitive as the Latin ferre, and thereby also 
 narrows unduly the meaning of the verse. 
 
 ——— 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 14. wares 
 
 as he had achieved, and others of a similar class or nature, 
 but he claims a moral omnipotence, and allows no limit to its 
 sweep and energy. His allusion is probably, however, to a 
 certain sphere of operation, such as that presented in outline in 
 the previous verses. Where unassisted humanity should sink 
 and be vanquished, he should prove his wondrous superiority. 
 Privation, suffering, and martyrdom, could not subdue him, 
 and what might seem impracticable should be surmounted by 
 him in his borrowed might. He could attempt all which duty 
 required, and he could succeed in all; for to him the epithet 
 impossible, in an ethical aspect, had no existence. ‘The verse 
 is virtually climactic. After saying that he had learned con- 
 tentment under every condition, and telling that he had known 
 so many varieties and extremes of condition—it being implied 
 that he was uninfluenced by any of them—he adds, in earnest 
 and final summation—Not these alone, but all things I can do 
 in Him strengthening me. It is also to be borne in mind, 
 that this ability came not from his commission as an apostle, 
 but from his faith as a saint. The endowment was not of 
 miracle, but of grace. 
 
 (Ver. 14.) Πλὴν καλῶς ἐποιήσατε, συγκοινωνήσαντές μου 
 τῇ θλίψει---. Howbeit ye did well in that ye had fellowship 
 with my affliction.” By checking himself and writing πλήν, 
 the apostle guards against a misinterpretation of what he had 
 just uttered. Sce underi. 18, iii.16. Thgugh he had learned 
 contentment in every situation, and his mind could accommo- 
 date itself to every change of circumstances; though he had 
 fresh and inexhaustible sources of consolation within himself, 
 and had been so disciplined as to acquire the mastery over his 
 external condition and to achieve anything in Christ, yet he 
 felt thankful for the sympathy of the Philippian church, and 
 praised them for it. His humanity was not absorbed in his 
 apostleship, and his heart, though self-sufficed, was deeply 
 moved by such tokens of affection. Notwithstanding what 
 I feel and have said, and though I am not dependent for 
 happiness on such gifts—‘ ye did well.” For this common 
 use of καλῶς see Mark vii. 9; Acts x. 33. The phrase 
 καλῶς ἐποιήσατε is connected with the participle, and the 
 action in the participle, while it is of the same time as the 
 
276 PHILIPPIANS IV. 15. 
 
 verb ἐποιήσατε, points out that in which their well-doing 
 was exhibited. They did well, when or in that they did 
 this. Winer, § 45, 6. The same form of construction is 
 found in Acts x. 33. Elsner, in loc. ; Raphelius, en loc. The 
 participle presents the ethical view in which the apostle 
 regarded their pecuniary gift, and συγκοινωνεῖν means “ to be 
 a partaker with.” Eph.v.11. They had become, through 
 their substantial sympathy, partakers of his affliction, and 
 in so far they had lightened his burden, for θλῖψις depicts 
 not simply his penury, but his entire state. See under i. 7, 17. 
 Though he was contented, he yet felt that there was “affliction”’ 
 —loss of liberty—jealous surveillance—inability to fulfil the 
 great end of his apostolic vocation. This sympathy on the part 
 of the Philippians with the suffering representative of Christ 
 and His cause, is the very trait of character which the Judge 
 selects for eulogy at last. Matt. xxv. 35, &c. The apostle 
 proceeds to remind them that such intercourse was no novelty 
 on their part. They had distinguished themselves above 
 other churches for it and similar manifestations, and he has 
 already given thanks to God ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν. See i. 5. 
 How the church at a later period did communicate in tempo- 
 ral and spiritual things with the affliction of sufferers, may be 
 seen in Tertullian’s address ad Martyras.1 
 
 (Ver. 15.) Οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιελυππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ 
 εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία 
 ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήψεως, εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς povoi— 
 “ But you, Philippians, are also yourselves aware, that at the 
 introduction of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no 
 church communicated with me to account of gift and receipt, 
 but you alone.” Οἴδατε καὶ ὑμεῖς is—‘ you know as well as I,” 
 and by δέ the apostle goes back in contrast to previous gifts 
 and services. The phrase cannot have the meaning which 
 Peile inclines to give it—‘ of yourselves ye must remember.” 
 And in the fulness of his heart he names them. 2 Cor. vi. 11; 
 Gal. ii. 1. The insertion of the name is a peculiar emphasis, 
 
 1 Thus he writes—Jnter carnis alimenta, benedicti martyres designati, que vobis et 
 domina mater ecclesia de uberibus suis, et singuli fratres de opibus suis propriis in 
 carcerem subministrant, capite aliquid et a nobis, quod faciat ad spiritum quoque 
 educandum. Vol. i. p. 3. Opera, ed. Oehler, 1853. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 15. Zit 
 
 but it is not “my Philippians,” as a term of endearment. 
 The phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ Tod εὐωγγελίου is—“ in the beginning or 
 introduction of the gospel’’—the period when they received 
 it, as the following clause intimates. 
 
 The phrase εἰς λόγον δόσεως Kal λήψεως has been variously 
 understood. ‘The peculiar use of λόγος in verse 17 points to a 
 similar sense here. There it denotes “‘to your account,” or, to 
 be included in such reckoning as belongs to you. Matt. xviii. 23; 
 Luke xvi. 2. It therefore signifies here more than “in reference 
 to,” though Bengel, van Hengel, Liinemann, and Briickner, so 
 regard it. As to the words δόσις καὶ λήψεις, the earliest opinion 
 was, that in the first term the apostle alludes to the temporal 
 remuneration which the Philippians gave him, and by the 
 second to the spiritual instruction which they in return received. 
 So Chrysostom, Gicumenius, and Theophylact, the first of 
 whom calls this intercommunication εἰς λόγον δόσεως, τῶν 
 σαρκικῶν, Kal Aj ews, TOV πνευματικῶν. The same exegesis 
 is adopted by Pelagius and Calvin, Estius and a-Lapide, by 
 Zanchius and Hammond, Wiesinger, Bisping, and Ellicott. 
 It is true that the apostle in other places vindicates this recip- 
 rocal communication, affirms that the sowing of spiritual things 
 warrants in equity the reaping of carnal things, and indicates 
 the inferiority of a church that did not discharge this duty to 
 its teachers—spiritualia dantes, temporalia accipientes. 1 Cor. 
 ix. 1-15; 2 Cor. xi. 9, xii. 13. But there does not seem to 
 be any such allusion in the verse before us. The apostle is 
 not conducting an argument as to the duty of the church, 
 nor could the simple terms employed bear such a complex 
 meaning. He alludes simply to the fact of communication, and 
 not to its principles or obligation. Nor does he seem to hint 
 at the spiritual good which he had effected among them. 
 
 The same objections apply to a second form of explanation, 
 adopted by Meyer and Alford :—the Philippians kept an account 
 of outlay to Paul and receipt by him ; and so, on the other hand, 
 the apostle kept an account of what was given to the Philip- 
 pians and its receipt by them. But the idea of such reciprocity 
 is not contained in the words; for the entire context seems 
 to refer simply to what the apostle received from the church, 
 Meyer is obliged to confess, that according to his theory the 
 
278 PHILIPPIANS IV. 15. 
 
 accounts were curiously kept—that in the Philippian account- 
 book the column of receivings would be empty, and so in that 
 of Paul would be the column of givings—an idea whieh virtu- 
 ally destroys that of reciprocity. Meyer’s explanation is well 
 styled by Briickner, nimis artificiose. Nor, thirdly, should we 
 look at the words so literally as to suppose δόσεις to refer to the 
 Philippians who gave, and λῆψις to Paul who allowed himself 
 to receive. Rheinwald reverses this order, and thinks while 
 the Philippians gave the money, they also recerved from him 
 similar gifts in return—gifts collected by the other churches. 
 The Macedonian churches made liberal collections, but we do 
 not read that any were ever made for them. Others, again, 
 have this notion—No church gave me a sum 50 large as to be 
 worth entering in an account-book, but you. Thus Hoog—tot 
 tantaque erant, ut digna essent, quare in libro notarentur. Pro- 
 bably we may regard the phrase as idiomatic, and as express- 
 ing generally pecuniary transactions. ‘Thus Sirach xli. 7— 
 δόσις καὶ λῆψις πάντι ἐν γραφῇ ; or Cicero—ratio acceptorum 
 et datorum. Lael. 16. See also Schoettgen, vol. i. p. 804, 
 No church entered into pecuniary reckonings with me, but 
 yourselves. ‘The apostle means of course gifts for himself, and 
 not as when some churches had intrusted him with funds on 
 behalf of the poorer saints. He is anxious still to show that 
 the gift sent to Rome was no novelty, but that such inter- 
 course between him and the Philippian church is of an old 
 date, though it had been suspended fora season. He refers 
 back to the introduction of the gospel among them, and 
 more specifically — 
 
 ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Maxedovias—“ when I departed from 
 Macedonia.” Many, like van Hengel, De Wette, and Wie- 
 singer, are disposed to take the aorist as a pluperfect,—“ after 
 Thad taken my departure from Macedonia.” The reference 
 is then supposed to be to the monies received by him at 
 Corinth, alluded to in 2 Cor. xi. 9. The aorist may have in 
 some cases a pluperfect meaning. Winer, § 40,5; Jelf,§ 404? 
 But we agree with Meyer that this supposition is needless. 
 
 1 De Coetus Philip. conditione, ἕο, p. 95; Lugduni Batavorum, 1825. 
 2 Τὸ is a strange feat of legerdemain that Pierce performs with this word— 
 ὅτε ἐξῆλθον 15 put for ὅτε ἄν ἐξῆλθον, and that for ἄν ἐξέλ Oot ras. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 16. 279 
 
 Wiesinger presents the difficulty —“ Wherefore does the apostle 
 mention in the next verse what is earlier in point of time ?” 
 We believe the apostle to refer to two points of time, close 
 indeed on one another—the introduction of the gospel, and his 
 departure from Macedonia. As he was leaving their province 
 and going away from them, they helped him. It may have been 
 the remissness of the Thessalonian church which impressed 
 the benefaction more deeply on his mind, or it may have been 
 the circumstance that he had got the gift as he was leaving 
 the province; or it may be that the period of his departure is 
 fixed upon, since it was the commencement of a correspondence 
 with him as a labourer in foreign stations—the first of a series 
 of contributions sent him on his distant missionary tours, 
 and when he had no longer a personal claim for imme- 
 diate service rendered. So long as he was in their province 
 he might feel himself to be at home with them. But to 
 justify the expression the apostle recurs to an earlier period, 
 even before he had left Macedonia, and says— 
 
 (Ver. 16.) “Ore καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς εἰς τὴν 
 χρείαν μοι éerréurpate— For even in Thessalonica both once 
 and a second time ye sent to me for my necessity.”” Hoelemann, 
 van Hengel, Rilliet, and others give ὅτι the sense of “ that,” 
 and so connect it with οἴδατε; but the verse in that case 
 would want a definite purpose, and the connection would be 
 awkward and entangled. On the other hand, we take this 
 verse with Luther, Meyer, and others, as expressing an 
 argument. ‘The apostle reverts to a period earlier than his 
 departure from the province, and says, that even in Thessalo- 
 nica, and before he had gone from the province of Macedonia 
 in which Thessalonica was situated, they more than once 
 communicated with him. When labouring at Thessalonica, 
 the apostle speaks thus of himself—“ labouring night and 
 day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you.” 
 1 Thess. 11. 9. And he says in his second epistle—iii. 8, 9— 
 “‘ Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought, but wrought 
 with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be 
 chargeable to any of you; not because we have not power, 
 but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.” 
 The sums sent from Philippi did not fully supply the need 
 
280 PHILIPPIANS EV. 16. 
 
 of the apostle, for he was still obliged to work; but it 
 argued good-will on the part of the Philippian church, and 
 the apostle refers with gratitude to their liberality. Even in 
 Thessalonica, a neighbouring city, which ought to have 
 supported him, but where for several reasons he did not have 
 support or rather refused to have it, the Philippian brethren 
 had shown a noble spirit and sent to him. Not only when he 
 left the province, but at a prior period they had shown their 
 generous appreciation of his services, and sent what the 
 apostle without any false delicacy names—ets τήν χρείαν μοι 
 —to my need’’—a need they well understood, and sought 
 to relieve. Eds marks destination. Winer, ὃ 49,a. This 
 they did ἅπαξ καὶ δίς. The phrase represents in the Septua- 
 gint different Hebrew formulas, such as cms ore, Nehemiah 
 xill. 20, or oves-oren, 1 Sam. 1.10. The repetition of the 
 conjunction καί---καί gives a conscious force. Mark ix. 22; 
 Rom. xiv..9;, 1 Thess. 1. 18: 1 Mace.in. 303. Hartung, 
 Ρ. 143. The use of both numerical terms is a rhetorical 
 formula, in which the repetition is warmly dwelt on, and so 
 acquires prominence. ‘The similar phrase dis καὶ τρίς occurs 
 also in the classics, as in Herodotus 11.121. But the language 
 does not warrant us to suppose with Michaelis that the Philip- 
 pians sent to the apostle an “annual bounty.” The καί be- 
 fore ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ signifies even, etiam. Hartung, i. 135. 
 Chrysostom’s explanation of the καί is, that it insinuates the 
 importance of Thessalonica: even in such a great city—eév τῇ 
 petpoTrove—he was supported by the Christians of a smaller 
 one. The verb ἐπέμψατε has no formal accusative—it being 
 supplied by the sense of the clause. Acts xi. 29. The words ἐν 
 Θεσσαλονίκῃ occur by a common idiom. It is somewhat 
 tame to connect them with wou— to me being in Thessalonica 
 ye sent.” This is indeed the sense, but the apostle more 
 pregnantly expresses it. His shade of meaning is not merely 
 that they had sent the gift into Thessalonica, but that 
 the deputies had travelled into Thessalonica, and in it had 
 found the apostle, and had put into his hands the liberality of 
 the Philippian church. ’Ep is not used for εἰς. Winer, ὃ 56, 
 4; Thucydides, iv. 14. The various readings of the verse 
 are εἰς omitted in A, D1, E?, as well as in the Syriac—an 
 
 
 
 “. 
 
 ee ον" 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 17. :81 
 
 omission probably caused through the similar final letters (cs) 
 of the preceding word; and μοι is the true reading in opposi- 
 tion to μου; which has only a few inferior authorities. Chry- 
 sostom’s remark is finical,—the apostle does not say tas ἐμάς 
 —my wants, but speaks absolutely, ἁπλῶς. The apostle is 
 jealous lest this free-speaking should be misunderstood, lest 
 he should be supposed to rate the contribution only at its 
 money value, and perhaps, too, lest his thankfulness for past 
 benefactions should be construed into a quiet hint that future 
 and larger favours are expected by him. Such a misinterpre- 
 tation he at once disclaims— 
 
 (Ver. 17.) Ody ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ Soua— Not that I seek for 
 the gift ’’—that is, not precisely the gift he had got, but such 
 a gift as that on which he had been commenting, and for 
 which he had so earnestly thanked them. The compound 
 verb denotes desire towards—ézié marking direction. See 
 p- 17. It is useless, on the part of Rosenmiiller and Am 
 Ende, to say that δόμα stands for δόσις. The gift in itself 
 excited no desire. The apostle uses the present tense, as 
 Meyer says, to denote the usual and characteristic tendency 
 of his mind, but perhaps also to show that, even at the present 
 moment, and when a prisoner in need, and debarred also from 
 the slight remuneration of a manual employment, he does not 
 set his heart upon the gift for itself. In receiving the gift, and 
 eulogizing them for it, there is something he intimates as 
 higher than it—something he desires of nobler interest. Οὐχ 
 ὅτι is the same as in verse 11. See also 11.12. The unself- 
 ish soul of the apostle looked not to its ‘ own things;” it 
 could willingly “ endure all things for the elects’ sake ;” “ not 
 yours, but you,” was its motto— 
 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιζητῶ τὸν καρπὸν τὸν πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν--- 
 “but I seek for the fruit that does abound to your account.” 
 The repetition of the verb adds a certain emphasis—my heart 
 is not set upon that, but my heart is set upon this. Similar 
 repetition may be found, Eph. i. 17, 19; Rom. vii. 15; 
 Heb. xii. 18, 22, The substantive καρπός is not fruit gene- 
 rally, as many understand, or as Rilliet phrases it—“ fruits 
 de vie religieuse.”’ It is plainly, fruit as future recompense 
 connected with the δόμα. It is not the gift he covets, but 
 
282 PHILIPPIANS IV. 17. 
 
 that rich spiritual blessing which the gift secures to its donor. 
 The words εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν may be connected either with 
 ἐπιζητῶ, or the participle πλεονάζοντα. In behalf of the 
 former, it is urged by van Hengel that πλεονάξω is never in 
 Paul’s writing, followed by εἰς. The statement is scarcely 
 correct. We cannot indeed say with Meyer, that 2 Thess. i. 
 3, is an exception to van Hengel’s remark, for there we think 
 εἰς ἀλλήλους is evidently connected with ἑνὸς ἑκάστου πάντων 
 -—the intensive phrase, “ each one of you all,’ demands the 
 filling up εἰς ἀλλήλους. Similar is 1 Thess. 11. 12. In other 
 instances it is used intransitively, and without any comple- 
 ment, so that the non-occurrence of πλεονάξω with εἰς will not 
 invalidate the proposed connection here—a connection which 
 is at once natural and logical. The very phrase—rov καρπὸν 
 τὸν Theovatovra—seems to necessitate such a complement as 
 εἰς λόγον bywav—an idiom which evidently bases itself on the 
 previous εἰς λόγον δόσεως. This suggests that the first phrase 
 has special reference to the apostle’s giving and receiving, 
 reckoned or put down by him to his own account; but he 
 wishes the fruit that abounds to their account. The κάρπος 
 is their fruit springing from the δόμα and put down to the 
 donor’s credit. ‘The apostle wished them to reap the grow- 
 ing spiritual interest of their generous expenditure. Not for his 
 own sake but theirs, does he desire the gift. He knew that 
 the state of mind which devised and contributed such a gift, 
 was blessed in itself; that it must attract divine blessing, for 
 it indicated the depth and amount of spiritual good which the 
 apostle had done to them, and for which they thus expressed 
 their gratitude; and it showed their sympathy with the cause of 
 Christ, when they had sought to enable their spiritual Founder 
 in former days to give his whole time, without distraction or 
 physical exhaustion, to the work of his apostleship. This was 
 a spiritual condition which could not but meet with the divine 
 approbation, and secure the divine reward. Having, in the 
 words following οὐχ ὅτι, not only guarded himself against 
 misconstruction, but also given a positive revelation of his feel- 
 ings, he proceeds again to the course of thought found in verses 
 14, 15,16. He thanks them for their gift, assures them that 
 he has not forgotten their previous kindness, in doing which 
 
 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 18. 283 
 
 they stood alone among the churches at the time, and which 
 they commenced at an early period. And now, as the result 
 of their last benefaction, he says— 
 
 (Ver. 18.) ᾿Απέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω---(“Βὺ: I have all 
 things, and 1 abound.” The particle δέ is closely allied to the 
 17th verse— not that I desire a gift—but I am so well gifted, 
 that I can say I have all.” It may also resume the sentiment 
 of verse 14, and be illustrative of the words καλῶς ἐποιήσατε 
 —“ye did well,”’ for the result is, “TI have all.” If Meyer’s 
 view be adopted, that this verse has a connection only with the 
 preceding one, it would suppose the apostle to give a second 
 and subsidiary reason why he did not desire the gift. Now he 
 has given the real reason in the second clause of the previous 
 verse ; and this clause cannot be an additional reason, unless 
 the meaning of the phrase—“ not that I desire the gift”—he, 
 not that I desire any farther gift. But such is not its precise 
 meaning, and therefore we understand him to say—ye did 
 well in communicating: well; but now I have all things, 
 and abound—éé suggested by the statement in the imme- 
 diately previous verse. A strange view is entertained of the 
 phrase ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα by Krasmus, Grotius, Beza, a-Lapide, 
 and others, as if it were a form of receipt, ackowledging on 
 his part the possession of the whole gift. The marginal read- 
 ing of our version is— I have received all.” It is a dull 
 remark of Bloomfield— ἀπέχω is for éy@,” corrected in his 
 “Supplemental Volume” thus—“It is rightly rendered by 
 accept, or acceptum: teneo.”’ ‘The groundlessness of this view 
 is shown by the close connection of ἀπέχω with περισσεύω, 
 for the apostle speaks not of the possession as a matter of 
 acknowledgment, but as a matter of conscious enjoyment. 
 The result of their gift was, that he had enough, and to spare. 
 The compound verb ἀπέχω is to have in full, or to have all 
 one needs or expects. Winer, § 40, 4; Palairet, ad Matt. iv. 
 5; Observat. p. 25. ‘Thus, inthe impersonal form ἀπέχει--- 
 “it suffices,” and Hesychius defines it by ἐξαρκεῖ. But the 
 apostle had not only enough, he had more than enough—«at 
 περισσεύω, “and 1 abound.” The verb is used absolutely, 
 without any complement, as in verse 12, The gift more than 
 sufficed for all the apostle’s wants. As he was rich in his own 
 
284 PHILIPPIANS IY. 18. 
 
 contentment, he was easily satisfied with pecuniary benefac- 
 tions, and he does not for a moment balance the amount of the 
 gift either against his own claims, or against their ability or 
 resources. He took it cheerfully, and blessed them for it; for 
 it was to him a relief, nay, a portion of it was a present super- 
 fluity. He says—aréyw, περισσεύω. He adds in climax— 
 
 meTTANnp@pwat— I have been filled.” ‘The verb is used abso- 
 iutely, and not the less intensely on that account. How he had 
 been filled, the apostle next declares— 
 
 δεξάμενος παρὰ "Emadpoditov τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν---“ having 
 received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you.” The 
 words παρὰ ’Ezradpoditov are omitted in A; D1, KE’, read τό, 
 and insert πεμφθέν; while F and G have πεμφθέντα; the 
 Vulgate gue misistis ; so the Syriac 8Lsza:; and Wycliffe 
 “which ye senten.” By the preposition παρά the apostle 
 characterizes the gift in a double but similar relationship, 
 “from Epaphroditus ’—“ from you.” The participle, while 
 it exhibits the ground of the fulness, defines also its time. 
 But he at once rises above the human aspect of the transaction. 
 It was a donation made by the Philippians to him, but it had 
 another and loftier phase. It was, while presented to him, an 
 offering also to God; while it was hailed by him, it was 
 acceptable to God. He thanked them for the gift, but God 
 delighted in the oblation— 
 
 ὀσμὴν evwodias— an odour of a sweet smell,’”’ The genitive 
 is not used for the adjective εὐώδης. Winer, ὃ 34, p. 212, note. 
 The phrase represents the nim m of the Levitical statute. 
 The accusative ὀσμήν is in apposition with the previous τὰ 
 map vuov—the same contribution in its two aspects. By 
 this clause in apposition the apostle expresses an opinion of 
 the gift. Ellicott objects, that the “ apposition is not to the 
 verbal action contained in the sentence.” It may not, nor is 
 it necessary, for it is the gift as brought from them, to 
 himself in his need, which the apostle characterizes by 
 ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. ‘The apostle does not, and could not say, he 
 received it as a sacrifice, yet the things received were in his 
 judgment a sacrifice. It was a gift in which God delighted, 
 fragrant as the sweet-smelling incense which burned in the 
 censer. Eph. v. 2. More plainly 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 18. 285 
 
 θυσίαν δεκτὴν, εὐάρεστον τῷ Oed—“ a sacrifice acceptable, 
 well-pleasing to God.” The dative τῷ Θεῷ belongs to the 
 two adjectives. In using θυσία the apostle employs a strong 
 term in a figurative sense. The word originally designated 
 a victim, an animal slain and offered to God. As to its 
 secondary sense, see Rom. xii. 1; Heb. xiii. 15, 16; 1 Pet. 
 ii. 5, and in this epistle, 1. 17. The two adjectives express 
 generally the same idea, Isaiah lvi. 7. Their benefaction is 
 thus set out by the apostle in the aspect of a sacrifice. ‘The 
 idea of a spiritual or figurative sacrifice is found in the Old 
 Testament, and was the result of a natural development of 
 ideas and associations. The Levitical statute prescribed 
 certain offerings on the altar, but the primary notion was 
 always presentation to God. The first-fruits and the victim 
 were given to God, in token that originally they are His. 
 The worshipper took them from his fields, and they were his 
 in a lower sense, but the presentation was an acknowledgment 
 that they were also His ina higher sense. Consecration to 
 God of what was theirs through His bounty was apart from 
 the idea of expiation, the central conception. And that con- 
 ception naturally extended beyond the legal ceremonial, and 
 sprang up with peculiar freshness under the New Testament. 
 It was felt that God is supreme benefactor, and that all pos- 
 sessions are His gracious gift ; that these have an end beyond 
 the mere personal enjoyment of them; that they may and 
 ought to be employed in God’s service; and that the spirit of 
 such employment is the entire dedication of them to Him. 
 Thus the apostle has spoken of the sacrifice of their faith, 
 ii. 17 and elsewhere of the “ sacrifice of praise.’’ Heb. xii. 15. 
 Beneficence is also a sacrifice. Heb. xii. 16. The Gentile 
 believers are an “ offering.” Rom. xv. 16. Their “ bodies” are 
 a “living sacrifice.” Rom. xu.1. The “ holy priesthood ” 
 present “ spiritual sacrifices.” 1 Pet. 1.5. There were, as 
 Hammond remarks, two altars in the Jewish temple, the 
 altar of incense and the altar of burnt-offering, and “on 
 these two were offered all things that were offered to God.” 
 A figure uniting both is found here. In the case before us 
 the apostle, by the use of this sacrificial language, teaches 
 that the Philippians had been discharging a religious duty. 
 
286 PHILIPPIANS IV. 19. 
 
 The money, while contributed to him, was offered to God. 
 It was not simply a token of friendship, an act of common 
 generosity, or opportune aid to a friendless prisoner; but the 
 remittance was an offering to Him “ whose is the silver and 
 whose is the gold,” in token of their thankfulness to Him by 
 whom the apostle’s steps had been directed to Philippi, and 
 by whose blessing his labours and sufferings had been pro- 
 ductive of so many and so permanent benefits. They dis- 
 charged a spiritual function in doing a secular act—* the altar 
 sanctifieth the gift.” And the acceptance of the sacrifice 
 would bring down rich compensative blessing, for the apostle 
 thus promises— 
 
 (Ver. 19.) Ὃ δὲ Θεός μου πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν--- 
 “ But my God shall supply all your need.” ‘The reading 
 πληρώσαι in the aorist optative is not sufficiently supported, 
 and is evidently an exegetical emendation. By the particle 
 dé the apostle passes not to a different theme, but to a differ- 
 ent feature or aspect of it. The idea of Hoelemann presses 
 too far—gquemadmodum vos. In the phrase “my God,” 
 emphatic from its position, the apostle does not merely express 
 his own relationship to God, as in 1. 3, but he means his 
 readers to infer this idea—this God who accepts your sacrifice 
 is “my God;” and “my God,” so honoured and so pleased 
 with your gift to me, will supply all your need. I who receive 
 your contribution can only thank you, but my God who 
 accepts the sacrifice will nobly reward you. You have supplied 
 one element of my need—eis τὴν χρειάν μοι, but my God will 
 supply every need of yours—7racav χρείαν ὑμῶν. 1 have been 
 filled, he says in verse 18---πεπλήρωμαι, and God, my God, 
 willin turn fill all your ποοά--πλήρωσει. Chrysostom notices, 
 in his comment, a different reading, χάριν or χαράν, but does 
 not adopt it. ‘The apostle uses the simple future, as if he 
 pledged himself for God; for he felt most assured, that 
 God as his God would act as he promised in His name. 
 
 It is surely a limited view, or the part of Chrysostom and 
 many modern commentators, to confine the meaning of the noun 
 to bodily necessities—“ He blesses them that they may abound 
 and have wherewith to sow. . . For it is not unseemly to 
 pray for sufficiency and plenty for those who thus use them.” 
 
 
 
 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 19. 287 
 
 It would be rash and wrong to exclude this idea, for God has 
 many ways of temporally rewarding liberality displayed in His 
 cause, though certainly no one can expect the blessing who 
 gives with such a selfish calculation and motive, and tries to 
 traffic with God in the hope of receiving a high interest or 
 return. It is as restricted, on the other hand, to refer the 
 promise solely to spiritual need. Thus Rilliet bases his argu- 
 ment on the occurrence of the term πλοῦτος, as if it uniformly 
 referred to spiritual blessings. But in the citations made by 
 him πλοῦτος has its meaning modified by a following geni- 
 tive, or as in Rom. x. 12, where the participle is used, the 
 context limits and explains the signification. The usage, 
 therefore, forms no argument why χρεία here should apply 
 exclusively to spiritual necessity, especially when it is uni- 
 versalized by πᾶσαν. It is true that χρεία is used of bodily 
 need in the context, and this is generally its sense in the 
 classics ; and no wonder, for the heathen could scarcely know 
 of any other. But the apostle, as if to show that he meant 
 more than physical necessity, adds, “ according to His riches 
 in glory ’—language, one would think, too noble to be dwarfed 
 into a description of the source of mere pecuniary compensa- 
 tion. While we agree with Meyer in giving this broad sense 
 to πᾶσαν χρείαν, we cannot accede to his view that such 
 supply is to be received only in the future kingdom of 
 Messiah; for we hold that even now the promise is realized. 
 The loving-kindness of God surrounds and blesses His people 
 who are so interested in His cause, implanting every absent 
 grace, giving health and power to every grace already im- 
 planted. The very appreciation, on the part of the Philippian 
 church, of the apostle’s position, labours, and relations, implied 
 the existence of a genuine piety among them, which God 
 would foster by his Spirit, while He blessed them at the same 
 time “in their basket and store.” Wiesinger well asks— 
 “Tf 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; and the Lord himself does not refer his people 
 to a period beyond the present life for the supply of their 
 every want.” Matt. vi. 33. Mark x. 29, 30. 
 
288 PHILIPPIANS IY. 19. 
 
 κατὰ TO πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν SEH ἐν Χριστῷ *Inood—“ accor- 
 ding to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.’”’ The neuter 
 form τὸ πλοῦτος is preferred to the masculine on the authority 
 of A, B, D', F, G, &e. The mode or measure of supply is 
 indicated by κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος. According to their “deep” 
 poverty they might supply his need, but God according to His 
 riches would supply all their need. The connection of the 
 next words ἐν δόξῃ is attended with some difficulty. Grotius, 
 Rheinwald, Heinrichs, Flatt, Storr, and Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 join them to the preceding πλοῦτος, as if they indicated in 
 what this glory consisted, or as if it were “ according to His 
 riches of glory,” or cata τὸ πλοῦτος THs δόξης. It is objected 
 to this that such a construction with ἐν is never employed by 
 the apostle, but always the genitive of the object. Rom. 11. 4, 
 ix. 25>) ΠΡ απ τ 18; πὸ} aL 6s Colossi ἢ τ ae 
 separated then from τὸ πλοῦτος, the phrase may denote either 
 that by which the action of the verb is realized, or the manner 
 in which that action is performed. Meyer takes the former 
 view, which is quite consistent with his theory, which refers 
 the supply to the glory to be awarded at the second coming. 
 The verb in Eph. v. 18 is followed by ἐν, with special refer- 
 ence to the Spirit, and sometimes the simple dative is em- 
 ployed. But believing that χρεία comprehends temporal need, 
 we cannot see how glory could be used as an adequate term 
 for its supply. Nor indeed could the term be used in any 
 sense for supply of want—grace being the word more usually 
 employed. Glory is not on earth the means of supply—it 
 results from this supply, but is not its material. Therefore 
 we take ἐν δόξῃ not as the complement—“ with glory,” as 
 Ellicott takes it, but as a modal qualification—“ in a glorious 
 way.” Such is the view of van Hengel, Hoelemann, and 
 Rilliet. He will supply every want in glory—lke Himself 
 —not grudgingly or with a pittance, but with divine gene- 
 rosity. And He would do this as He does all things— 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ “Inood—“ in Christ Jesus.” This designates 
 the sphere of God’s action. In Christ Jesus will He supply 
 their wants, or from the fulness in Him, His merit and 
 mediation being the ground of it. What a glorious promise 
 for the apostle to make on God’s behalf to them!—a perfect 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 20. 289 
 
 supply for every want of body or soul, for time or eternity, 
 for earth or heaven. If man is but a mass of wants, wants 
 for this world and wants for the world to come, and if God 
 alone can supply them, what confidence should not such a 
 pledge produce? Is it physical fare?—He heareth “the 
 young ravens” when they cry. Is it the forgiveness of sin ? 
 —He “delighteth in mercy.” Is it purification of soul ?— 
 His Spirit produces His own image. Is it courage ?—He is 
 “ Jehovah-Nissi.” Is it enlightenment ?—His words are, 
 (7 will instruct thee.” Is it the hope of glory ?—Then it is 
 “ Christ in you.’”’ Is it preparation for heaven ?—He makes 
 “us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in 
 light.” Is it contentment in any circumstances ?—AlI things 
 may be done in the strength of Christ. Nor was it rash in 
 Paul to make such a promise, nor did he exceed his commission. 
 He did not speak without a warrant. He knew the character 
 of his God, and did not take His name in vain, for his varied 
 and prolonged experience had fully informed him, and he was 
 assured that the state of heart in the Philippian church must 
 attract towards it the blessing. Would God resile from His 
 servant’s pledge, or act as if in thus vouching for Him he 
 had taken too much upon him? The idea of his close and 
 tender relationship to God as his God, and his assurance that 
 the promise made in His name would be realized; the thought 
 of such a promise, so ample in its sweep, and so glorious in 
 its fulfilment, with the idea that all whether pledged or 
 enjoyed is of God the Giver, suggest the brief doxology of 
 the following verse— 
 
 (Ver. 20.) Τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς 
 αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ᾿Αμήν---Νον to God and our Father be 
 glory for ever and ever. Amen.” The apostle does not mean 
 by this glorification to conclude ; it bursts from the fulness of 
 his heart,'as in Rom. xi. 36; Gal.1.5; Eph. im. 21; 1 Tim. 
 i.17; 2 Tim. iv. 18. ‘O Θεὺς καὶ o Hatjp forms one 
 distinctive and complete title, followed sometimes by a 
 genitive as here, and in Gal.i.4. For the meaning of the 
 last intensive phrase, and generally of the whole verse, see 
 under Eph. iii. 21. The optative εἴη may be supplied to 
 δόξα, which has the article specifying it as the glory which 
 
 T 
 
290 PHILIPPIANS IV. 21. 
 
 especially and characteristically is God's. Rom. xi. 36, 
 xvi. 275, Gala. 5; Hph. ii 215 2 Tim. ᾿ν 48: Hebs ani 
 21; 2 Pet. ii. 18. The last phrase—“ to the ages of the 
 ages ’’—is an imitation of the Hebrew superlative omy oir) 
 (Gal. 1, 5; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 18), and means a very 
 long and indefinite period—the image taken from the cycles or 
 calendars of time, to represent an immeasurable eternity. God 
 is glorified in the aspect or character of Father, and “ cur 
 Father,” implying that thosé whose wants are supplied by 
 Him, are His children. Rom. viii. 15. To God, even our 
 Father, the kind and liberal supplier of every want to every 
 child, be eternal glory ascribed. The ascription of praise is 
 the language of spiritual instinct, which cannot be repressed. 
 Let the child realize its relation to the Father who feeds it, 
 clothes it, and keeps it in life, who enlightens and guides it, 
 pardons and purifies it, strengthens and upholds it, and all 
 this in Christ Jesus, and it cannot but in its glowing con- 
 sciousness cry out—‘‘ Now to God and our Father be the 
 glory for ever.”+ The Amen is a fitting conclusion. As the 
 lips shut themselves, the heart surveys again the facts and 
 the grounds of praise, and adds—So be it. 
 
 The apostle had praised them for their κοινωνία εἰς τὸ 
 εὐαγγέλιον already, and he bids them give another practical 
 manifestation of it— 
 
 (Ver. 21.) ᾿Ασπάσασθε πάντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησού--- 
 “Salute every saint in Christ Jesus.” The singular indi- 
 vidualizes—singulatiém, as Bengel gives it. The words ἐν 
 Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ may be connected either with ἅγιον, as in i. 1, 
 or with the verb. We prefer the opinion of those who take 
 the latter view, inasmuch as ἅγιος can stand by itself, 
 whereas ἀσπάσασθε would seem to require some qualifying 
 term, in order to define its character. The addition of ἐν 
 Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ in the address of the epistles, has a specific 
 purpose not needed on the ordinary recurrence of the epithet. 
 Thus ἐν Κυρίῳ in Rom. xvi. 22, and 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Salu- 
 tation in the Lord is in His name to one of His members. 
 
 1 We are tempted to place in contrast the doxology with which Velasquez con- 
 
 cludes his Commentary on this Epistle— Ommnipotenti Deo, purissime Deipare, sanctis- 
 simis Paulo et Ignatio, honor et gloria. Vol. ii., 552. 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 22. 291 
 
 And every saint was to be so greeted; the spirit of universal 
 affection was to prevail. The apostle sends one cluster of 
 salutations — 
 
 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ aderdoi— the brethren with 
 me greet σου." And then he adds another— 
 
 (Ver. 22.) ᾿Ασπάζονται ὑμᾶς πάντες οἱ ayvor— All the 
 saints salute you.” Of course the brethren are saints, but all 
 the saints are not brethren in the very same sense. The 
 apostle refers to two circles of Christians about him; those 
 bound by some nearer and more special tie to him, and named 
 “brethren ;” and those beyond them having no such familiar 
 relationship with him, “the saints.” Who composed this inner 
 circle we know not. He may refer to the brethren spoken of 
 ini. 14, or principally to those mentioned by him in the epistles 
 written at this period to the church in Colosse, and to Phile- 
 mon. Chrysostom alludes to a difficulty. The apostle has 
 said, in 11. 20, 21, that none with him were like-minded with 
 Timothy, and that all sought their own, and his solution is, that 
 “he did not refuse to call even them brethren.’”’ Nor might 
 all these brethren be qualified for such a mission as Timothy’s. 
 See p. 151. A special class are subjoined— 
 
 μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Kaicapos otxias—“but chiefly they of 
 Ceesar’s household.” A special prominence is attached to 
 their salutation. The very source of it must have excited 
 wonder and gratitude. Calvin remarks—ae eo quidem admi- 
 rabilius, quo varius est exemplum, sanctitatem in aulis regnare. 
 They of Ceesar’s household must have taken a deep interest 
 in the apostle, and might have been converted by him during 
 his imprisonment. They must also, so far as permitted to 
 them, have ministered to his comfort, and they could not but 
 feel a special sympathy for a church which had sent Epaphro- 
 ditus to do a similar service. Who they were, has been 
 keenly disputed. 
 
 The term οἰκία is not the same with πραιτώριον, but refers 
 to the imperial residence. Matthies indeed says—so ist dieses 
 am natiirlichsten hier zu verstehen, und an solche aus der 
 Kaiserlichen Leibwache zu denken. But the statement is 
 unsupported. It has been supposed to mean :— 
 
 1. The emperor’s family or relatives. So van Hengel and 
 
292 PHILIPPIANS IV. 23. 
 
 many others, including Baur, for a sinister purpose of his 
 own. ‘The words may bear such a signification—1 Cor. xvi. 
 15, οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ; Luke 1. 27, 11. 4, ἐξ οἴκου 
 Δαυίδ. 
 
 2. The word is used in an inferior sense to signify domes- 
 tics generally. So in Josephus, Antig. xvii. ὅ--8---τοῦ Kai- 
 capos τὴν οἰκίαν. Also Philo—rov ἐπίτροπον τῆς οἰκίας, and 
 in a yet more honourable 5θη56---εἰ δὲ μὴ βασιλὲυς ἀλλὰ τις 
 τῶν ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας---- if he had not been king, but 
 only one of Ceesar’s household, ought he not to have had some 
 precedence and honour? In Flaccum. vol. 11. p. 522. Or 
 Tacitus, Hist. 11. 92—quidam in domum Cesaris transgresst, 
 atque tpsis dominis potentiores. Nero, as has been often 
 remarked, had but few relations,’ and the probability is, that 
 domestics, either slaves or freedmen, are here intended. The 
 persons referred to are not named, as Epaphroditus could give 
 the Philippians the requisite information. It is almost needless 
 to allude to any hypothesis on this subject; yet out of this 
 reference arose the fiction of Paul’s correspondence with 
 Seneca, Nero’s preceptor. Lucan the poet, Seneca’s nephew, 
 has also been included.? Hstius refers to two names, Evellius 
 and Torpetes, as being Neronis familiares, and as occupying 
 a place in the Roman martyrology of this period. But this is 
 all uncertainty. Witsius gives Pomponia Grecina, a name 
 occurring in Tacitus. Meletem. Leid. p. 212, and some have 
 fixed on Poppzea Sabina, Nero’s wife. These domestics were, 
 in all probability, brought into contact with the apostle 
 during his confinement in the pretorium. For the opinions 
 of those who think that this epistle was written at Cexsarea 
 the reader may turn to the Introduction. 
 
 (Ver. 23.) Ἢ χάρις tod Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ peta τοῦ 
 πνεύματος ὑμῶν--- The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be 
 with your spirit.” The reading ἡμῶν after Κυρίου, has very 
 little support. ‘The received reading is peta πάντων ὑμῶν, 
 which Meyer retains. The new reading is supported by A, 
 D, E, F, G, 17, 677, 73-80, by the Vulgate, &c., and is adopted 
 
 1 Suetonius—Galba, iimProgenies Cesarwn in Nerone defecit; or Eutropius— 
 
 vii. J—in Nerone omnis familia Augusti consumpta est. 
 2 Jercm2—de Viris Tllustr. Winer—Bib/. Realwért.—Art. “ Paul and Gallio.” 
 
PHILIPPIANS IV. 23. 293 
 
 by Lachmann and Tischendorf, &c. The common reading 
 is found in B, J, K, the Syriac, and in Chrysostom and 
 Theodoret. It is difficult to say which reading is preferable, as 
 the new one may have been formed from Gal. vi. 18; Philem. 
 25; or 2 Tim. iv. 22. The sense in either case is not mate- 
 rially different. He wished them to enjoy that grace which 
 Christ bestows. If the critical reading be adopted, then the 
 apostle wished the favour of Christ to descend upon their 
 higher nature, or that portion of their nature for which it 
 was specially fitted, and which indeed could alone enjoy it. 
 Tischendorf rejects the ᾿Α μήν, and Lachmann puts it within 
 brackets. The apostle concludes with a benediction or salu- 
 tation—probably an autograph. Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess, iii. 17. 
 In parting from his readers, he wishes them to possess the grace 
 of the Lord Jesus; that grace which blesses and cheers, wach ξ 
 strengthens and aaslese and at last ripens into Mer J The~ 
 unauthorized postscript is variously read, both in the MSS., 
 Versions, and Fathers; the Received Text Rene ὦ 
 Φιλιππησίους ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης dv ’Exadpoditov. 
 
ERRATA IN THE WORK. 
 
 Page 13, line 30 from the top, ἐν omitted before TH καρδίᾳ. 
 
 “cc 
 
 14, 
 26, 
 33, 
 
 “ce 
 
 4 
 24 
 28 
 22 
 24 
 
 6c 
 
 > 
 εν 
 
 (( 
 
 " σοὶς λοιποῖς 
 
 καταγγέλουσι 
 and 
 
 wia 
 
 σωματί 
 
 σῦν 
 
 εὐδοκιά 
 
 Δόγου 
 
 Or: 
 
 στέφανός 
 
 478 
 
 ce 
 
 an 9 —, ὌΝ Ἄ 
 Τῇ απο OVI. 
 read τοῖς λοιποῖς. 
 
 καταγγέλλουσι. 
 which. 
 
 wa. 
 
 σώματί. 
 
 σὺν. 
 
 εὐδοκία. 
 
 στέφωνος. 
 
 465. 
 
IND 
 
 Accusative, the real, how introduced, 11. 
 
 Affliction which the false preachers would 
 have occasioned Paul, 37. 
 
 Advent, Christ’s second, 66. 
 
 Benediction, the, 292. 
 
 Boast of the Philippians, the, 171. 
 
 Bodies of Christians glorified, how and. 
 when, 226. ] 
 
 Book of Life, the, 241. 
 
 Business part of the epistle, 264. 
 
 Calvinism defended, 125. 
 
 Carefulness, in what sense forbidden, 250. 
 
 Clergy, the epistle not specially to them, 3. 
 
 Character to be aimed at, 139. | 
 
 of the Philippians, 141. 
 
 Christ as a man, 113. 
 
 as a servant, 112. 
 
 , how magnified in Paul, 48. 
 
 Christians’ condition in Christ, 184. 
 
 Circumcision, the, 169. 
 
 Clement, 241. | 
 
 Commentators on the epistle, xlii. 
 
 Concision, the, 167. 
 
 Conduct of Philippians, to be how charac- 
 terized, and why, 71, 142. 
 
 Confidence in the flesh disclaimed, 172. 
 
 —— of prolonged life, Paul’s, 64. 
 
 Conformity to Christ’s death, 192. 
 
 Contentment of Paul, its nature and 
 source, 269. 
 
 Courage of Philippians, its import to 
 themselves and their adversaries, 76. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ——,, the reason of its significance, 77. 
 — compared with Paul’s, 80. 
 
 Day of Christ, the, 11. 
 
 Death of Christ, the, 117. 
 
 — to Paul, what it was, 53, 59, 61. 
 Dilemma, the apostle’s, 60. 
 
 Doxology, the, 289. 
 
 Epaphroditus, his character, 154. 
 ——,, his sickness and recovery, 155. 
 , his devotedness, 158. 
 —, ᾿ his return to the Philippians. 
 Epistle, this, where and when written, 
 XXxiy. 
 ——,, its contents, xxxvi. 
 Equality of Christ with the Father, 102. 
 Exaltation of Christ, its nature, 121. 
 —-, summary of Paul’s teaching con- 
 cerning it, 126. 
 
 
 
 FX. 
 
 Example of Christ, its end, 129. 
 
 of Paul recommended, 261. 
 
 Exhortation to KEuodias and Syntyche, 
 239. 
 
 External privileges no ground of confi- 
 dence—See Paul’s own case, 172. 
 
 
 
 | Externalism, Paul’s changed opinion of 
 
 it, and why, 179. 
 
 Faith, that of Philippians, how infiuenced 
 by Paul’s continuance with them, 64. 
 ——,, the effect of its increase, 65. 
 , that of the early Christians, 79. 
 Fellowship of the Philippians with Paul, 
 8, 14, 85. 
 
 
 
 
 
 | Forbearance, Christian, its nature, 247. 
 
 
 
 , motives to its manifestation, 248. 
 
 | Form, the, of God, 99. 
 
 Gain, Christ so reckoned, 50. 
 Genuineness of the epistle, xv. 
 
 Heaven to the Christian, 222. 
 History of Paul, 174. 
 
 Honest, its old English meaning, 257. 
 Hope, the object of Paul’s, 47. 
 Household, Ceesar’s, 291. 
 
 Humanity of Christ, the, 113, 119. 
 Humility, 92. 
 
 Humiliation of Christ, 96, 111. 
 
 Illumination, spiritual, promised, 207. 
 Imprisonment of Paul a second time at 
 Rome, discussed, 69. 
 Incarnation of Christ, 119. 
 Inconsistency of believers, 
 characterized, 214. 
 Influence of the Spirit, 133, 170. 
 Inspiration of Paul, its extent, 70. 
 ——,, its effect on the train of thought, 73. 
 
 how to be 
 
 Joy in God enjoined, 243. 
 
 Joyfulness, characteristic of the gospel, 
 162. 
 
 Joy, Paul's, in prospect of his martyr- 
 dom, 148. 
 
 , at the preaching of the gospel, 40, 
 
 144. 
 
 
 
 Knowledge of Christ, Paul’s aim, 188. 
 ——, spiritual, its proper use, 210. 
 
 Life of Paul our example, 212. 
 
296 
 
 Life to Paul, what it was, 49, 55, 63. 
 Light, the Christian’s character, 141. 
 Longing, Paul’s, after the Philippians, 16. 
 Love, increase of, to what end, 20. 
 
 Magnification of Christ, 48. 
 
 Mind of Christ, the, 96. 
 
 Mindfulness of Philippians for Paul, its 
 earlier manifestations, 276. 
 
 , why intermitted, 267. 
 
 , renewed, 264. 
 
 ——., the good it reflects on themselves, 
 281, 286. 
 
 , its character in the eyes of God, 284. 
 
 ——., its propriety, and His recognition of 
 it, 275. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nervengeist, 234. 
 
 Parties who preached to afflict Paul, who 
 they are, 30, 34. 
 
 Paul, was he married? 242. 
 
 Paul and Timothy, reason of their con- 
 junction in the salutation, 2. 
 
 Peace of God, the result of prayer, 252. 
 
 , its nature, 252, 263, 
 
 ——,, its extent, 254. 
 
 , its operation, 256. 
 
 Pelagius on the Spirit’s influence, 137. 
 
 Perfection to be aimed at—See Paul, 195. 
 
 attainable, and its effects, 203. 
 
 Persecution, furthering the gospel—See 
 Paul, 25, 29: 
 
 Perseverance of the saints, the, 12. 
 
 Philippian church, its circumstances, and 
 occasion of the epistle, xxxi. 
 
 Philippi, and the introduction of the 
 gospel, ix. 
 
 Pietist controversy, 42. 
 
 Prayers of Philippians for Paul, their 
 effect, 48. 
 
 Preaching of Christ, motives to it, 30. 
 
 Prize of the Christian’s race, the, 201. 
 
 Professor’s end, the mere, 219. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Race, the Christian, 199. 
 Repetition of phrases, to what end, 245. 
 Requests, how to be made to God, 250. 
 
 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Resurrection of the body, 231. 
 
 of Christ, its power, 190. 
 
 of the dead, 193. 
 
 Reward of Paul’s labour, the, 145. 
 
 Righteousness, the discussion of word so 
 rendered, 23. 
 
 , whence to us, 23, 185. 
 
 ——., its fruits, their end, 24. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Salvation, the working it out, 131. 
 
 Salutations, in the Introduction, 4. 
 
 , in the Farewell, 290. 
 
 Selfseeking condemned, 93. 
 
 Sensualism of some professors, 219. 
 
 Servant, Christ as such, 112. 
 
 Soul, its condition after death, 232. 
 
 Spirit, the, the doctrine of its influence, 
 133. 
 
 of Jesus Christ, so-called, 46. 
 
 Strength, Paul’s, where to be found, 274. 
 
 Sufferings of Paul, their effect on the 
 spread of the gospel, 25. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Syzygus, 243. 
 
 | Thanksgiving, the extent and reason of 
 
 iin OE 
 
 Timothy’s mission to the Philippians, 
 149, 152. 
 
 Timothy’s character, 150. 
 
 | Trust of the Philippians, the, 172. 
 
 Unity and integrity of the epistle, xxx. 
 of Philippians wherein to consist, 
 73, 88. 
 
 , reasons for cultivating it, 82. 
 
 , dangers to and preservatives of it, 91. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Virtue, 260. 
 Visit to the Philippians, Paul’s hope of 
 one, 153. 
 
 Warned, those of whom Philippians are, 
 165. 
 Work, the fruit of Paul’s, 59. 
 
 Yoke-fellow, true, who so called, 242, 
 
᾿Αγάπη ὑμῶν, 1. 9. 
 ἁγνός, Tver 
 αἴσθησις, i. 9. 
 ἀκαιρέω, iv. 10. 
 ἀλήθεια, i. 18. 
 ἀμώμητος, ii. 15, 
 ἀναθάλλω, iv. 10, 
 ἀναλύω, 1. 23. 
 
 ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, iv. 16. 
 ἀποκοαροαδοπκία, i. 20. 
 ἀπολογία, i. 7, 16. 
 ἀρετή, iv. 8. 
 ἁρπαγμός, ii. 6. 
 αὐτάρκης, iv. 11. 
 
 Βλέπετε, 111. 2. 
 
 Γενεὰ σπολία, ii. 15. 
 γνωρίζω, i. 22. 
 yoyyurnmdes, li. 14, 
 
 Διάκονος, i. 1. 
 διαλογισμός, ii. 14. 
 διαφέρω, i. 10. 
 δικαιοσύνη, i. 11, iii. 6. 
 δοκιμάζω, i. 10. 
 
 ᾿Εβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων, iii. δ. 
 εἰλιπκρινής, i. 10. 
 
 ἐλπίζω ἐν ἹΚυρίῳ, ii. 19. 
 ἐξανάστασις, iii. 11. 
 ἐπέχοντες, λόγον φωῆς, ii. 16. 
 ἐπίψνωσις, i. 9. 
 
 ἐπιεικές, τὸ, iv. 5. 
 
 ἐπιποθῶ, i. 8. 
 
 ἐπίσκοπος, ἱ. 1. 
 
 ἐπιχορηγίο,, i. 19. 
 
 ἐριθεία, i. 17. 
 
 ἑτέρως, iii. 15. 
 
 εὐδοκίας, ὑπὲρ τῆς, ii. 13. 
 εὔφημος, iv. 8. 
 
 εὐχαριστία, iv. 6. 
 
 εὐψυχέω, ii. 19. 
 
 ἐφ᾽ a, iv. 10. 
 
 Ζητέω, ii. 22. 
 Θυσίω, ii. 17. 
 
 Κάθως, i. 7. 
 xnedion, i. 7. 
 καταγγέλλω, i. 17. 
 κατατομτή, ili. 2. 
 καταχθονίοι, ii. 10, 
 xevodozi, ii. 8. 
 κενόν, εἰς, li. 16. 
 
 INDEX OF GREEK TERMS MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO 
 
 
 
 
 
 (ae ER z - 
 ποινωνίω εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 1. δ. 
 πκολωνίο;, Introd. xiv. 
 
 κύνες, iil, 2. 
 
 Λατρεύω, iii. 8. 
 λειτουργία, ii. 17. 
 λειτουργός, ii. 95. 
 λόγον, εἰς, iv. 15, 17. 
 λοιπόν, τὸ, 111. 1. 
 
 Μεγαλύνω, 1. 20 
 μνεία, i. 8. 
 μορφή Θεοῦ, ii. 6. 
 
 Νόμος, iii. 5. 
 
 Oizia, ἹΚαΐσαρος, iv. 92. 
 ὀκταήμερος, ili. δ. 
 
 Πάλιν, ii. 28. 
 
 παρα βολεύομσι, 11. 80, 
 παράκλησις, ii. 1. 
 παραμύθιον, ii. 1, 
 παρουσία, ii, 12, 
 
 πίστις, i. 27. 
 
 πνεῦμα, 1. 27. 
 
 πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς, iii, 20. 
 πολιτεύω, i. 27, 
 πραιτώριον, i. 18, 
 πρεσβύτερος, i. 1. 
 προκοπή, i, 18. 
 
 προσευχή, Introd. xxxiii. 
 προσφιλής, iv. 8. 
 πρόφασις, i. 18, 
 
 πρώτη πολίς, Introd. xii. 
 
 Devos, iv. 8. 
 
 σποπέω, ii. 4. 
 
 σποπός, iii. 14. 
 
 σπύβαλον, iii. 8, 
 
 σπένδομιοι, 11.17. 
 
 σαλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί, ii. 1. 
 σπλάγχνα, i. 8. 
 
 στέφανος, iv. 1. 
 
 στοιχεῖν, 111. 16. 
 
 σύζυγος or σύνξυγος, ἵν. 3. 
 συνέχομαι, i, 23, 
 
 σχήμα, ii. 8. 
 
 σωτηρίαν zureoyaCopos, ii. 12. 
 
 Téacsos, 111. 15. 
 τύπος, iii, 17. 
 
 Χορτάζω, iv. 12. 
 χωρίς, ii. 14. 
 
 Ψυχή, i. 21. 
 

 
 Ρ 
 
 "William Mackenzie, Printer, Glasgow, Ὁ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 δ᾽) 
 ᾿ “vem ae 
 coon Ἢ at re, 
 7 Ρ ae 
 Ὗ | BE this 
 ᾿ rt | Χ « ᾿ 
 
 
 
 
 
 rT a. ΟΝ ἀμ δὲς ὦ 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
BS2705 .E11 
 A commentary on the Greek text of the 
 
 Princeton Theological Semin 
 
 IMU 
 
 1 pes en 6663