τῆς Se 
 
The 
 
 International Critical Commentary 
 
 on the Holp Acriptures of the Old and 
 δε Cestaments 
 
 UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF 
 
 THE REv. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.LITT. 
 
 Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, 
 Union Theological Seminary, New York; 
 
 THE REv. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LITT. 
 Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford} 
 
 THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D. 
 Master of University College, Durham. 
 
Ghe International Crifical Commentary 
 on the Θοίη Scriptures of the Old and 
 
 New Gestaments. 
 
 EDITORS’ PREFACE. 
 
 THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
 written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
 homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
 the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
 Speaker’s Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
 The Expositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
 special place and importance. But they do not enter into 
 the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
 series of Commentaries as the Kuragefasstes exegetisches 
 Handbuch sum A. T.; De Wette’s Kuragefasstes exegetisches 
 Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
 mentar; Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblischer Commentar uber das 
 A..T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiietisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s 
 Handkommentar zum A. T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar 
 zum NN. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
 and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
 speaking public; others are in process of translation. But 
 no corresponding series by British or American divines 
 has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
 by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
 Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has 
 come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
 when it is practicable to combine British and American 
 scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 
 
EDITORS PREFACE 
 
 Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- 
 ship, and in a measure lead its van. , 
 
 Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
 T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
 series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
 under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, D.D., in America, 
 and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
 the Rev. ALFRED PLumme_ER, D.D., for the New Testament, 
 in Great Britain. 
 
 The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
 fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
 bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
 the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
 jnterpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
 clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
 book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
 of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
 still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
 in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
 section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
 or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
 philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
 matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- 
 ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
 possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
 with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books 
 will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
 with critical notices of the most important literature of 
 the subject. Historical and Archeological questions, as 
 well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
 plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
 Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series, 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 TueE following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the 
 Volumes named below: 
 
 Genesis 
 
 Exodus 
 Leviticus 
 Numbers 
 Deuteronomy 
 
 Joshua 
 
 Judges 
 
 Samuel 
 Kings 
 Chronicles 
 Ezra and 
 
 Nehemiah 
 
 Psalms 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 Job 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The Rev. JoHN SKINNER, D.D., Professor of Old 
 Testament Language and Literature, College of 
 Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, 
 England. 
 
 The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 
 
 J. F. Stenninc, M. A., Fellow of Wadham Col- 
 lege, Oxford. 
 
 G. BuCcHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
 Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 
 
 The Rev. 5. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
 Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Mow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. GrEorGE ADAM Situ, D.D., LL.D., 
 Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, 
 Glasgow. 
 
 The Rev. GEORGE Moore, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
 fessor of Theology, Harvard University, Cam- 
 bridge, Mass. [Now Ready. 
 
 The Rev. H. P. Smitn, D.D., Professor of Biblical 
 History, Amherst College, Mass. [Mow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., 
 Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 
 Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 
 
 The Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of 
 St. Marks Church, New York City, sometime 
 Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 The Rev. Cuas. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Pro- 
 
 fessor of Theological Encyclopzedia and Symbol- 
 ics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 
 
 [Vol. J Now Ready, Vol. 77 in Press, 
 The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
 
 Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
 [Now Ready. 
 
 The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
 Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
 
She Infernationaf Critica? Commentary. 
 
 Isaiah Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN 
 Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 Isaiah Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., 
 D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
 Jeremiah The Rev. A. F. Kirxpatrickx, D.D., Master of 
 
 Selwyn College, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 
 Cambridge, England. 
 
 Ezekiel By the Rev. G. A. Cooker, M.A., Fellow Mag- 
 dalen College, andthe Rev. CHARLEs F. BURNEY, 
 M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. Johns 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 Daniel The Rev. Joun P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., some- 
 time Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
 Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, 
 New York City. 
 
 Amos and Hosea W. R. Harpsr, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the 
 University of Chicago, Illinois, [Now Ready. 
 
 Micah to Haggai Prof. Joun P. Smitu, University of Chicago; 
 Prof. CHARLES P. FaGnanI, D.D., Union Theo- 
 logical Seminary, New York ; W. HAvES WarD, 
 D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New 
 York; Prof. Juttus A. BEvER, Union Theolog- 
 ical Seminary, New York, and Prof. H. G. 
 MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University. 
 
 Zechariah to Jonah Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D.; Prof. Joun P. SMITH 
 and Prof. J. A. BEVER. 
 
 Esther The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, Hartford Theological Seminary. 
 Ecclesiastes Prof. GrorcEe A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of 
 Biblical Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. 
 Ruth, Rev. CHarves A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Profes- 
 Song of Songs sor of Theological Encyclopzdia and Symbolics, 
 
 and Lamentations Union Theological Seminary, New York. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 St. Matthew The Rev. WILLouGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow 
 of Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 St. Mark The late Rev. E. P. σου, D.D., sometime Pro- 
 fessor of New Testament Literature, P. E. Divinity 
 School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready. 
 
 St. Luke The Rev. ALFRED PLummgrR, D.D., sometime 
 
 Master of University College, Durham. 
 [Vow Ready. 
 
The International Critica? Commentary. 
 
 St. John 
 
 Harmony of the 
 Gospels 
 
 Acts 
 
 Romans 
 
 Corinthians 
 
 Galatians 
 
 Ephesians and 
 Colossians 
 
 Philippians and 
 Philemon 
 
 Thessalonians 
 
 The Pastoral 
 Epistles 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 St. James 
 
 Peter and Jude 
 
 The Epistles of 
 St. John 
 
 Revelation 
 
 The Very Rev. Joun Henry BERNARD, D.D., 
 Dean of St. Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, 
 University of Dublin. 
 
 The Rev. WiLL1AmM Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
 Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the 
 Rev. WILLouGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
 Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Mag- 
 dalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, 
 M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of 
 London. 
 
 The Rev. WiLiiam Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
 Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of 
 Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. 
 Heap.iam, M.A.,, D.D., Principal of Kings Col- 
 lege, London. [Vow Ready. 
 
 The Right Rev. ARCH. ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., 
 Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the Rev. RICHARD J. 
 KNOWLING, D.D., Professor of Divinity, Uni- 
 versity of Durham. 
 
 The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of 
 New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 
 
 The Rev. T. K. Assott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime 
 Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, 
 Dublin, now Librarian of thesame. [Vow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. Marvin R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor 
 
 of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Semi- 
 nary, New York City. [Vow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. JAmes E. Frame, M.A., Professor of 
 Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 
 New York. 
 
 The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble 
 College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 
 
 The Rev. A. ΝΑΙΕΝΕ, M.A., Professor of Hebrew 
 in Kings College, London. 
 
 The Rev. JAmEs H. Ropss, D.D., Bussey Professor 
 of New Testament Criticism in Harvard Uni- 
 versity. 
 
 The Rev. CHARLES Bicc, D.D., Regius Professor 
 of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ 
 Church, Oxford. [Mow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. E. A. Brooke, A.M., Fellow of Kings 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 The Rev. Ropert H. CuHares, M.A., D.D., Pro- 
 eel of Biblical Greek in the University of 
 
THE EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS 
 AND TO PHILEMON 
 
 Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. 
 
YA ΝΣ 
 Oo \OC 
 THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY MAR 29 1939 
 
 A 
 
 ERITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS 
 AND TO PHILEMON 
 
 BY 
 
 Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, DD. 
 
 BALDWIN PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL 
 SEMINARY, NEW YORK 
 
 NEW YORK 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
 1906 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1897, BY 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
 
PREFACE 
 
 THE two epistles treated in this volume have always had a 
 peculiar attraction for both readers and expositors. On the 
 Epistle to the Philippians more than a hundred commentaries 
 have been produced, some of them by scholars of the first 
 rank. It would be strange, therefore, if this work did not 
 contain a great deal which has appeared elsewhere; and I am 
 sure that the call for its publication has not arisen from the 
 deficiencies of my predecessors. 
 
 I find, nevertheless, some satisfaction in the thought that 
 the knowledge of any subject is promoted, in however small a 
 degree, by the independent and honest treatment of each new 
 expositor, who, by approaching his work from a different direc- 
 tion, seeing his material at a different angle and in the light of 
 the most recent criticism, and shifting the points of emphasis, 
 may reawaken attention to what is already familiar, and thus 
 stimulate inquiry if he does not widen the sphere of knowledge. 
 
 The main object in this commentary has been to exhibit 
 St. Paul’s thought in these two letters which I am fully con- 
 vinced are from his pen. ‘To this end all comment — gram- 
 matical and lexical as well as exegetical—has been directed, 
 and special care has been given, to the paraphrases with which 
 the several sections are prefaced, and to the illustration of the 
 apostle’s nervous and picturesque diction upon which the marks 
 of his personality are so deeply set. The theological bearings 
 of certain passages it is manifestly impossible to overlook; and 
 the student is entitled to demand of the commentator such 
 notice and treatment of these as are consistent with the recog- 
 
 nised difference between a commentary and a theological trea- 
 v 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 tise. To such passages I trust that I have brought no dogmatic 
 bias to prevent or to modify the application of strict exegetical 
 principles. 
 
 I am conscious of the difficulties which attach, at certain 
 points, to all attempts to place the Philippian letter in its 
 complete and truthful historical setting. These difficulties are 
 inevitable in the present fragmentary and limited state of our 
 knowledge concerning some conditions of the Roman and Phi- 
 lippian churches which are presupposed in the epistle, so that 
 whatever conclusions may be reached by the most conscientious 
 study will awaken question and criticism. 
 
 I have had constantly in view the fact that these two letters 
 are familiar and informal productions, and have allowed that 
 fact due weight in the exegesis. Epistolary colloquialisms pre- 
 sent serious difficulties to an interpreter who refuses to recognise 
 them, and who insists upon the rigid application of rhetorical, 
 logical, and dogmatic canons to the unstudied and discursive 
 effusions of the writer’s heart. 
 
 In seeking to avoid the se/va selvaggia of technical discussion 
 which impairs the value of some most important works of this 
 class, I have not felt bound to go to the opposite extreme of 
 dogmatic conciseness. A brief discussion has sometimes seemed 
 necessary; but, as a rule, I have given my own interpretation 
 with the reasons for it at the beginning of each note, appending 
 a simple statement of different views with the names of those 
 who hold them. 
 
 I avail myself of this opportunity to acknowledge gratefully 
 my obligations to previous workers in this field, and not least 
 to some of those from whom I have often had occasion to differ. 
 
 MARVIN ΚΕ. VINCENT. 
 
 UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK, 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Ξε ὁ----- 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS: 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 TEXT . 
 COMMENTARIES 
 ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 To THE PHILIPPIANS 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO PHILEMON: 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 TEXT 
 
 COMMENTARIES 
 
 To PHILEMON . ὁ 5 - 3 5 3 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS . ς : ὃ é - 5 
 
 INDEX OF GREEK WoRDS . ᾿ ᾿ = : κ 
 
 vii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 171 
 
 Be 
 
 . 175 
 
 195 
 
 . 199 
 
ae EPISTLE OF ΘΤ ῬΑ TO 
 THE PHILIPPIANS 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 I 
 MACEDONIA 
 
 In the earliest times, Macedonia was included in that vast 
 region called Thrace, which had no definite boundaries, but was 
 regarded as comprising all that part of Europe lying to the north 
 of Greece. 
 
 The original seats of the Macedonians were bounded on the 
 west by the chain of Scardus, the northerly continuation of 
 Pindus; on the south by the Cambunian Mountains which 
 formed the northwestern boundary of Thessaly; on the east by 
 Mt. Bermius. The northern boundary cannot be determined. 
 The original Macedonia, therefore, did not reach the sea. 
 
 The country included within these boundaries is mountainous ; 
 but between the lateral ridges connecting with the main line of 
 Scardus were three wide alluvial basins, two of which were pos- 
 ‘sessed by the original Macedonians. The territory was fertile, 
 affording abundant pasture and cornland. The inhabitants of the 
 mountains and of the plains acknowledged a common ethnical 
 name, though distinguished from each other by local titles. 
 Their language differed from those of the Illyrians, Thracians, 
 and Greeks. The different sections, at first distinct and inde- 
 pendent, were finally absorbed into one under the name of 
 Macedonia, having its centre at AXge or Edessa, the modern 
 Vodhena, which, according to Phrygian legends, was the site of 
 the gardens of Midas. Edessa was always retained as the royal 
 
 1x 
 
x INTRODUCTION 
 
 burying-place, and was regarded as the religious centre of the 
 nation. 
 
 Such was the position of the Macedonians in the seventh cen- 
 tury B.c. It was changed by a family of exiled Greeks of the 
 Herakleid or Temenid race of Argos (Hdt. viii. 137, 138). 
 According to Herodotus, Perdiccas was the founder of the new 
 Macedonian dynasty ; and he gives a list of five successive kings 
 from Perdiccas to Alexander, the son of Amyntas (B.C. 520-500). 
 During the reigns of Amyntas and Alexander, Macedonia became 
 implicated with the affairs of Greece. The Temenid kings ex- 
 tended their dominions on all sides. Among their conquests was 
 Pieria, between Mt. Bermius and the sea, which gave them the 
 command of a part of the coast of the Thermaic Gulf. 
 
 Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, ascended the Mace- 
 donian throne B.c. 360. He subjugated the Pzonians and Illy- 
 rians, recovered Amphipolis, and gained possession of Pydna, 
 Potidea, and Krenides, into which last-named place he intro- 
 duced colonists and named it, after himself, Philippi. By the 
 battle of Chzronea (B.c. 338), he became master of all Greece. 
 At his death Macedonia had become a compact empire. Its 
 boundaries had been extended as far as the Propontis, and from 
 the coast of the Propontis to the Ionian Sea, and the Ambracian, 
 Messenian, and Saronic gulfs. 
 
 His son Alexander succeeded him B.c. 336. The victory over 
 the Persians at the Granicus.in Troas (B.c. 334) was followed 
 by the submission of nearly all Asia Minor. The campaign 
 against the Persians ended in the battles of Issus (B.c. 333) and 
 Arbela (B.c. 331), which decided the fate of the Persian Empire 
 and were followed by the submission of Syria and Phcenicia. Pass- 
 ing into Egypt, he founded Alexandria, and carried his conquests 
 into the far East, where Babylon, Susa, Persepolis, and Pasargadze 
 fell into his hands. This wonderful campaign closed B.c. 327, by 
 which time his design had become manifest to combine Mace- 
 donia, Greece, and the East into one vast empire. The execution 
 of this plan was cut short by his death (B.c. 323). The ultimate 
 bearing of Alexander’s conquests upon the diffusion of Christianity 
 is familiar to every student. 
 
 After Alexander’s death the Macedonian empire fell into the 
 hands of his principal generals, and after a series of wars extend- 
 
INTRODUCTION xi 
 
 ing over twenty-two years, it was broken into three great states, 
 — Macedonia, Egypt, and Syria. 
 
 Macedonia was first brought into contact with Rome through 
 the Carthaginian victories at Trasimene and Cannz (B.c. 217, 
 216). Philip, the son of Demetrius, then king of Macedonia, 
 sent to Hannibal proffering his alliance; and a treaty was con- 
 cluded a year later. The result of this treaty was the first Mace- 
 donian war with Rome, which was terminated by the treaty of 
 Dyrrhachium (B.c. 205). A second war followed, which ended 
 in the annihilation of the Macedonian army at Cynocephalz 
 (B.c. 197). A peace was concluded which destroyed the polit- 
 ical standing of the Macedonians, and by which all the states 
 which had previously been subject to Philip were declared free. 
 
 Philip was succeeded by his son Perseus, whose efforts against 
 Eumenes of Pergamus, the ally of the Romans, brought on a third 
 war (B.C. 171). The Macedonians experienced a crushing defeat 
 at Pydna (B.c. 168), by the Roman army under Lucius A‘milius 
 Paullus. The whole country was divided into four districts (Livy, 
 xlv. 29), each of which was to constitute a separate republic ; but 
 the citizens of each were forbidden to form any commercial or 
 connubial relations with those of any of the others. ‘Thus per- 
 ished the empire of Alexander the Great, a hundred and forty-four 
 years after his death. The isolation of Macedonia was secured, 
 while the people were amused with a show of liberty. 
 
 Two claimants for the Macedonian throne, both professing to 
 be sons of Perseus, successively attempted to stir the Macedonians 
 to revolt. The Achzans broke with Rome. L. Mummius was 
 sent to Greece B.c. 146, and burned the city of Corinth. By the 
 commission which arrived from Rome soon after, all Greece south 
 of Macedonia and Epirus was formed into a Roman province 
 under the name of Achaia, and Macedonia with Epirus into 
 another province. 
 
 Upon the succession of Augustus the provinces were divided 
 between the emperor and the senate (B.c. 27 ; see Suet. Augustus, 
 47). The provinces which enjoyed absolute peace were assigned 
 to the senate, while the frontier provinces, which required military 
 force, fell to the emperor. Augustus thus strengthened his own 
 military power, under pretence of relieving the senate of the cares 
 and dangers of the empire. 
 
xii INTRODUCTION 
 
 The governors of the senatorial provinces were called procon- 
 suls. Their term of office was one year. They had no military 
 authority, and therefore no power of life or death over the soldiers 
 in their provinces. ‘The full title of governors of the imperial 
 provinces was “ Legatus Augusti pro Praetore.’”’ They were ap- 
 pointed by the emperor, and their term of office depended upon 
 his pleasure. Their long residence made them familiar with the 
 country and the people. There were fewer temptations to pecu- 
 lation, and the imperial provinces were so much better governed 
 than the senatorial, that the people of the latter sometimes peti- 
 tioned to be transferred to imperial supervision ; especially as the 
 expenses of proconsular administration were paid by the provinces, 
 and the proconsuls were able to practise sundry abuses by which 
 the amounts were increased. Macedonia and Achaia, which orig- 
 inally fell to the senate, were, at their own request, made imperial 
 provinces by Tiberius (Tac. “1211. i. 76). By Claudius they were 
 again placed under the senate (Suet. Claud. 25). 
 
 LITERATURE 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HISTORY OF ALEXANDER 
 
 C. MULLER: Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 1841. 
 
 A. SCHAFER u. H. Nissen: Aédriss der Quellenkunde der griech. u. rom. 
 Geschichte, 1885-1889. 
 
 FABRICIUS : Bibliotheca Graeca. 
 
 J. G. Droysen: Die Materialien zur Geschichte Alexanders. 
 
 A. FRANKEL: Die Quellen der Alexandergeschichte, 1883. 
 
 J. ΚΑΕΚΒΤ: Forschungen zur Gesch. d. Alex. d. Gr., 1887. 
 
 Fragments of lost writers collected by R. GEIER: Scriptores Historiarum 
 Alex. Mag. acetate suppares, 1844; and 
 
 C. MULLER: Scriptores Rerum Alex. Mag., 1846. 
 
 FOR THE ROMAN PERIOD 
 
 POLYBIUS : covering 220-144 B.C. 
 
 Dioporus SICULUS: Βιβλιοθήκη ἹΙστορική, B. xi—xx., from the second Persian 
 war (B.C. 480) to B.C. 302. 
 
 Livy: B. xxxi.-xlv. (201-167 B.C.). 
 
 TEUFFEL : Gesch. d. rim. Lit., 5 Aufl., 1890. 
 
 G. HERZBERG: Gesch. Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Rimer, 1886. 
 
 W. SCHOEN: Gesch. Griechenlands von der Entstehung des Gtolischen und 
 achiischen Bundes bis auf die Zerstérung Korinths, 1883. . 
 
INTRODUCTION xiii 
 
 HISTORY OF ALEXANDER AND HIS SUCCESSORS 
 
 J. G. DRoysen: Gesch. Alex. d. Gr., 1833; Gesch. des Hellenismus, 1836, 
 1843. Comes down to B.c. 220. The two works in a 
 2d ed. under the title Gesch. α΄. Hellenismus, 1877, 1878. 
 
 B. NIESE: Gesch. d. griech. τὸ. maked. Staaten seit der Schlacht bet 
 Chaeronea, Ft. i. to B.C. 281. Good bibliography. 1893. 
 
 THIRLWALL: Hist. Greece, to B.C. 146. GROTE: to B.C. 301. CURTIUS: 
 to B.C. 338. 
 
 α. FINDLAY: Hist. Greece, 1877. Β. G, NIEBUHR: Lectures on Anc. 
 
 fiist.; trans. by Schmitz; 1852. 
 
 E. A. FREEMAN: Alex. G. and Greece during the Maced. Period; review of 
 Niebuhr. Alex. G.,; review of Grote. ¢storical Essays, 
 2d ser. 
 
 ROMAN PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION 
 
 J. MARQUARDT: émische Staatsverwaltung, 2 Aufl, 1881. 
 
 W. T. ARNOLD: Zhe Roman System of Provincial Administration to the 
 Accession of Constantine the Great, 1879. 
 
 TH. MoMMSEN: The Provinces of the Roman Empire; trans. by Dickson, 
 1886. 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 “Corpus” of Gk. and Rom. Insc., Berlin Akad. ; supplemented by the Collec- 
 tion of LE Bas-WADDINGTON, Voyage Archéologique en 
 Gréce et en Asie Mineure, 1847. 
 Later and more complete Berlin Collection, 1877-1883. 
 ‘A. J. LETRONNE: Recueil des Inscr. Grecques et Latines de l’ Egypte, 1842. 
 Collection of Ancient Greek Inscr. in Brit. Mus., 1874. 
 E. L. Hicks: <A Manual of Greek Historical Inscr., 1882. 
 
 COINS 
 
 J. H. EckuHeL: Doctrina Numorum Veterum, 1792-1798. 
 
 MIONNET : Description de Médailles Antiques Grecques et Romaines, 
 1806. 
 
 B. V. HEAD: Historia Numorum, 1887. 
 
 II 
 PHILIPPI 
 
 The district occupied by Philippi was originally called Krenides, 
 ‘Little Fountains’ (Strabo, 331 ; Appian, Be//. Civ. iv. 105), from 
 the numerous springs which arose in the mountains on the north, 
 and ran into the neighboring marsh. 
 
xiv INTRODUCTION 
 
 According to Appian (Bed. Civ. iv. 105), Krenides was also 
 known as Datos or Daton. ‘This statement has been too hastily 
 set down as an error, largely on the authority of Leake (VV. Greece, 
 iii. 223. See Lightf, Pr%p., p. 47; Rawlinson, Herodotus, on 
 ix. 75). It appears that Daton was a Thasian town near the 
 Strymonic Gulf, and was the centre of the continental possessions 
 of the Thasians. According to Strabo (vii. frag. 36), Neapolis 
 was a dependency of Daton. The name of the town passed into 
 a proverb, as a place endowed with all good things. The proba- 
 bility is that the first Thasian colony of Daton originally extended 
 up to the plain of Krenides, and included it in its territory, but 
 had fallen into the hands of the northern barbarians. About 
 360 B.c. the Thasians, aided by the banished Athenian orator 
 Callistratus, with some Athenian adventurers, founded a new 
 colony at Krenides under the old name. The year 360, which 
 followed the arrival of Callistratus at Thasos, is noted by Diod. 
 Sic. (xvi. 3) as the date of the occupation of the mines of Kre- 
 nides by the Thasians. It is an interesting fact that the coins 
 struck by the Thasians on the occasion of reviving the mines of 
 Krenides, and which bore the head of the Thasian Hercules, 
 the tripod (the symbol of foundation) and the legend @ASION 
 HIIEIPO, were preserved by the city of Philippi with only a 
 change of inscription (see Heuzey and Daumet, A/tssion Arche- 
 ologique de Macédoine, p. 60 ff. Comp. Curtius, Hist. Greece, 
 Trans. v. 53). 
 
 The site was between the rivers Strymon and Nestus, and an- 
 swered, geographically, to the basin of the Angites (Hdt. vii. 113), 
 which issued from the right bank of the Strymon, and formed, two 
 leagues from the sea, the lake Kerkinitis. The basin might rather 
 be described as a plain, now known as the plain of Drama, and 
 framed on every side by mountains. The vast masses of Pangzeus 
 separated it from the sea; but at one point the range was de- 
 pressed, affording easy access to the gulf where now the Turkish 
 harbor of Kavala, the ancient Neapolis, opens, opposite to the 
 island of Thasos. 
 
 Thrace contained rich deposits of gold. Golden particles from 
 Hzemus were borne down by the waters of the Hebrus, and the 
 Pzonian laborers, according to Strabo (vii. frag. 35), turned them 
 up with their ploughshares. But the treasures of Pangzeus and of 
 
INTRODUCTION XV 
 
 the mountains adjoining Krenides surpassed all others in richness. 
 Gold-mining was the principal industry of the region for a long 
 series of years ; and from the time that the treasures of the moun- 
 tains were first brought to light by the Phoenicians, they played an 
 important part in the history of the northern kingdoms. The 
 feverish greed for gain did not promote the advance of civilisa- 
 tion ; agricultural and commercial interests suffered, and the rapa- 
 city of foreign invaders was stimulated. 
 
 The Thasians, at the instigation of Callistratus, in the year 
 before the accession of Philip of Macedon, penetrated into the 
 interior to the plain of the Angites, and revived Krenides as a 
 centre of mining operations. But the assaults of the Thracians 
 upon the new colony soon compelled it to seek the assistance 
 of Philip. He drove back the Thracians, annexed to Macedonia 
 all the country as far as the Nestus, and built a fortress which 
 became the centre of the mining district. He also gave the place 
 his own name, Philippi. The plural form of the name seems to 
 indicate that the new town, at the time when it fell into his hands, 
 was composed of several distinct groups of dwellings defended by 
 detached works for the protection of the miners, and not by a 
 common and continuous enceinte. A fort on the hill which com- 
 manded the defile was a necessity. Under the protection of this 
 work it was sufficient to bar the defile by a temporary wall in order 
 to allow an important group of dwellings to be erected at the foot 
 of the rocks. Philip improved the region, drying up the marshes 
 and laying out roads, and Theophrastus ( Causae Plantarum, v.14) 
 relates that by these works the climate was perceptibly modified. 
 
 The gold-mining industry yielded to Philip an annual revenue 
 of a thousand talents, —a treasure which furnished him with the 
 means of establishing and maintaining a navy, and which was quite 
 as potent as his army in securing the future triumphs of Macedonia. 
 “The gold of Krenides spread itself over Greece, preceding the 
 phalanx like an advance-guard, and opening more gates than the 
 battering-rams and catapults ” (Heuzey). 
 
 On the mines, see Curtius, Hist. Greece, v.52; Appian, Bell. Civ., iv. 106; 
 
 Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens ; Heuzey and Daumet, Mission Archéolo- 
 
 gigue. See especially their interesting description of the rock formations of 
 
 Philippi, and the comparison with the auriferous rocks of California (p. 55 ff.). 
 On mining under the Romans, Marquardt, Rim. Staatsverwaltung, Bad. ii. 
 
 245, 252-258. 
 
xvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Romans became masters of this region upon the defeat of 
 the Republican forces under Brutus and Cassius by Octavianus 
 and Antony (8.c. 42). Philippi was the scene of the final conflict. 
 The Republicans occupied two hills facing the town to the south- 
 east, while the triumviral army was posted in the open plain. Two 
 battles were fought: the first indecisive, resulting in the death of 
 Cassius ; the second, twenty days later, which decided the fate of 
 the republic. 
 
 The sojourn of Octavianus at Philippi revealed to him its im- 
 portance both as a military position and as a source of revenue. 
 After his victory, and in commemoration of it, he made Philippi a 
 military colony, and bestowed upon it the jus Ltalicum. The 
 inscription COHOR. PRAE. PHIL. found on little copper coins 
 of Philippi goes to show that this colony was originally composed 
 of a division of veterans belonging to the prztorian cohorts of the 
 triumvirate. It bore the name COLONIA JULIA AUGUSTA 
 VICTRIX PHILIPPENSIUM. ‘The colony was not a mere 
 town with its outskirts, but a great department, with boroughs 
 and secondary towns, of which Philippi was the administrative 
 centre. The Romans succeeded the Macedonians in the working 
 of the mines, but never made them as profitable as the Mace- 
 donians had done. 
 
 Communities in the Roman provinces were either municipia 
 (free towns) or coloniae (colonies). The colony represented trans- 
 planted citizenship, while the municipium was engrafted upon the 
 state. A provincial town became a municifium when its inhabi- 
 tants received the Roman franchise, and a constitution from a 
 Roman governor or commissioner. At the time of the Republic, 
 and among the Italian cities, the municipia were the more import- 
 ant; but in the imperial period the colonies outranked them. 
 Extraordinary privileges were mostly, if not exclusively, confined 
 to the colonies. The principal of these privileges was the jus 
 Italicum, which was a grant to the community, not to individuals, 
 and consisted in the right of proprietorship according to the 
 Roman civil status. This right involved the acquisition of owner- 
 ship by long use or prescription (wsucapio) ; the right of trans- 
 ferring ownership by a fictitious suit (7# jure cessio) ; the right of 
 ᾿ the purchase or transfer of property (mancipatio), and the right 
 of civil action or lawsuit (vindicatio). As, according to Roman 
 
INTRODUCTION xvii 
 
 law, landed property in Italy was exempt from taxation, the jus 
 Ltalicum conferred the same immunity upon provincial land. The 
 right was never given except to a colony ; but all colonies did not 
 possess it, and when they did not, the colonists were subjected to 
 both a poll-tax and a land-tax. 
 
 A colony was a miniature Rome. The colonists proceeded to 
 their destination under their standards, and marked out with the 
 plough the limits of the new city. The land was divided into 
 sections of two hundred acres, which were subdivided into lots 
 (sor¢es), and in military colonies these were apportioned accord- 
 ing to rank. Even in the form and appearance of the city the 
 mother-city was imitated. The coinage bore Roman inscriptions. 
 The colonies were free from any intrusion by the governor of the 
 province. Their affairs were regulated by their own magistrates 
 called Duumviri, who delighted to style themselves Praefores 
 (στρατηγοί). The officers of Philippi are referred to by Luke 
 under this title (Acts xvi. 20-38). 
 
 On colonies see Marquardt, Rim. Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 360 ff.; 
 
 Savigny, Gesch. des rim. Rechts; ‘Coloni,’ in Philological Museum, ii. 
 
 117; Walther, Gesch. des rom. Rechts; Arnold, Roman Provincial Aa- 
 
 ministration. Good summaries in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and 
 Epistles of St. Paul, ch. ix., and Lewin, Life and Eps. of St. P., ch. xi. 
 
 _ The name Philippi was long preserved in the village of Fili- 
 bedjik or Filibat, but has now disappeared. The only inhabited 
 place near the enceinte of Philippi is the village of Ratchka, half 
 ‘hidden in a ravine of the mountain a little on one side of the 
 ancient acropolis. In the higher town, which represents the an- 
 cient Macedonian city, an enclosure of rough stones preserves 
 ,traces of the Hellenic wall. The whole plain at the foot of the 
 mountains is covered with ruins. The circular outline of the 
 theatre on the steep slope of the acropolis facing Pangzeus may 
 still be seen. The neighboring rocks are covered with numerous 
 pious inscriptions, and with images of the deities venerated by the 
 colonists, together with the names of their worshippers. At the 
 foot of these rocks are vestiges of a temple of Silvanus, one of 
 .the deities most revered by the Romans of the imperial period, as 
 the guardian of plantations, as one of the household gods, and 
 _ as the protector of the empire and of the emperor. His worship 
 extended everywhere over the provinces. Two large statues of 
 
XViil INTRODUCTION 
 
 this deity have been discovered, one of which appears to have 
 been the image worshipped in the sanctuary of the temple; also 
 tablets containing lists of offerings for the construction and deco- 
 ration of the temple, and of the names of the members of the 
 sacred college. Among these names are some which are familiar 
 to the readers of the Acts and Pauline epistles; as Crescens, 
 Secundus, Trophimus, Pudens, etc. In the lower town is found a 
 ruin known by the Turks as Dérék/er or ‘the columns,’ consisting 
 of a portion of a wall and four massive columns, and which cannot 
 be identified. It is supposed to have been a public bath. Lewin 
 (Life and Eps. etc., i. 211) says, without any authority for the state- 
 ment, that this was the forum where the apostles were scourged. 
 
 See the Mission Archéologique de Macédoine by Heuzey and Daumet, 
 one of the most interesting and important of modern contributions to the 
 study of the history and antiquities of Macedonia. The expedition was 
 undertaken in 1861 under the auspices of Napoleon III. 
 
 ΠῚ 
 PAUL IN MACEDONIA 
 
 Philip and Alexander, A‘milius, Mummius, and Octavianus had 
 thus prepared the way for Paul. According to the account in 
 Acts xvi., Paul, at Alexandria Troas, saw in a vision a Macedonian 
 man who said to him, “ Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 
 
 Professor Ramsay (S¢. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 
 p- 201) says that Paul did not infer the Macedonian origin of the man 
 in the dream from his words, but recognised him as a Macedonian by sight; 
 and since the Macedonians dressed like Greeks, it follows that the man in 
 the vision was personally known to him. Professor R. also holds with Renan 
 (St. Paul, ch. v.) that Luke was a Macedonian. I do not know the grounds 
 of his statement that it has been generally recognised that Luke must have 
 had some connection with Philippi. In our ignorance of Luke’s antecedents 
 the possibility of his having been a Macedonian cannot be denied. 
 
 Paul, therefore, embarked at Troas with Luke, Timothy, and 
 Silvanus (Acts xv. 49, xvi. 1, 3. Comp. Acts xvi. 8, 10), and land- 
 ing at Neapolis, proceeded over Mt. Pangzeus, about eight miles, 
 to Philippi, by a branch of the great Via Egnatia. 
 
 See Renan’s beautiful description of the route (.S%. Paul, ch. vi.). Cou- 
 sinéry ( Voyage dans la Macédoine) and Tafel (De Via Militari Romanorum 
 
INTRODUCTION xix 
 
 Egnatia) have endeavored unsuccessfully to identify the site of Neapolis 
 
 with Eski Kavala, fifteen miles S.W. of Kavala. 
 
 With the arrival of Paul at Neapolis the gospel first entered 
 Europe. Yet the apostle was not consciously entering a new 
 continent. The distinction between Europe and Asia did not 
 exist for him. Asia, in the New Testament, denotes the Roman 
 province of that name, and the word Europe does not occur. To 
 St. Paul these later divisions represented only sections of the one 
 Roman world. 
 
 In Acts xvi. 12, Philippi is described as ἥτις ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς 
 μερίδος Μακεδονίας πόλις KoAwvia. There is probably an error in 
 the text. To the epithet πρώτη explained as denoting the political 
 rank of Philippi, it is objected that Thessalonica was the general 
 capital, and that πρώτη, though common as an honorary title of — 
 cities in Asia, was not so used in Greece or Macedonia. Again, 
 if μερὶς be explained as denoting one of the four districts into 
 which Macedonia was divided by A®milius, it may be replied 
 that that division was made more than two hundred years before 
 Paul’s arrival, and continued for only twenty-two years to the time 
 when the country was formed into a single province ; so that the 
 fourfold division had long been abandoned and was perhaps for- 
 gotten. Moreover, if this division had survived, the centre of this 
 district would have been Amphipolis and not Philippi. 
 
 Even stronger are the objections against taking πρώτη to mean 
 the first city which Paul reached in his Macedonian tour (so 
 Erasm., Beng., Olsh., Lightf., and others). Philippi was not the 
 first city of Macedonia at which Paul arrived. It cannot be 
 shown that Neapolis was at this time regarded as a Thracian town 
 (Lightf., Prz7., p.50. See contr. Hort, WV. 7. Notes on Select 
 Readings, ad loc.). Μερίδος, on this interpretation, is apparently 
 superfluous ; for Philippi was, in that case, regarded not as the 
 first city of that district, but of all Macedonia. Neither ἥτις nor 
 ἐστὶν suit this meaning, since both are used for characterising, and 
 ἦν would probably have been chosen to mark a mere stage of the 
 apostle’s journey. Moreover, πρῶτος by itself never has the local 
 sense. If there is no error in the text, πρώτη, I think, must 
 denote rank; though, even if it were proved that Luke was a 
 Macedonian, I should not be disposed to accept Professor Ram- 
 say’s view that Luke exaggerated the dignity of Philippi from 
 
XX INTRODUCTION 
 
 pride in his own city (54 Paul the Traveller, etc., p. 206). Mepis, 
 which does not mean ‘province’ (ἐπαρχία), may indicate some 
 subdivision, not recognised in the formal political arrangement, of 
 which Philippi was the centre ; and πρώτη may mark an emphasis 
 on its colonial rank as possessing the jus Jfalicum (note the 
 emphatic position of κολωνία) ; so that Philippi is designated as 
 the most considerable colonial city of this part of Macedonia, 
 πόλις κολωνία being taken together. In this designation lies the 
 motive expressed by ἥτις ἐστὶν, ‘seeing it is,’ —that the promi- 
 nence of the city led Paul to choose it as the starting-point of his 
 missionary work. 
 
 See Wendt’s Meyer on Acts xvi. 12; Ramsay, 7he Church in the Roman 
 Empire, p.156f.; O. Holtzmann, Veutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, p. 104; 
 Lightf., Pxz/., p. 50. 
 
 The events of St. Paul’s Macedonian ministry are related in 
 Acts xvi., xvii. Imprisoned at Philippi, and then expelled by the 
 magistrates, he went to Thessalonica, and thence to Bercea, from 
 both which places he was driven by the fanatical opposition of the 
 Jews. From Bercea he went to Athens. 
 
 The narrative in Acts is sketchy and full of movement, dwelling 
 only upon salient points, and furnishing no definite information as 
 to the length of the apostle’s stay in Philippi. Slight hints like 
 ἡμέρας τινάς (xvi. 12), and ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας (xvi. 18), and the 
 fact that some time must have been required to form a circle of 
 “brethren ” (xvi. 40), and to develop those strong and affectionate 
 relations which appear in the Philippian letter, seem to indicate a 
 longer stay than might be inferred from the surface of the narrative. 
 
 See Clemen, Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe, s. 192; Klépper, 
 Komm. Einleit., 5. 3. 
 
 From the dropping of the first person plural at Acts xvi. 40, it 
 . has been inferred that Luke remained behind in Philippi. About 
 five. years later the apostle again visited Macedonia, and having 
 gone thence to Corinth, was about to return to Syria by sea, when 
 a plot against his life determined him to return to Macedonia 
 (Acts xix. 21, xx. 1-3; 2 Cor. i. 15, 17, ii. 13, vil. 5). The last 
 meeting with his Philippian converts is noted (Acts xx. 6), after 
 which he departed for Troas. This is our last notice of the 
 Philippians until the time of the Roman imprisonment. 
 
INTRODUCTION XX1 
 
 IV 
 PAUL AT ROME 
 
 After the shipwreck at Malta, Paul arrived at Rome in the spring 
 of 56 Α.Ὁ., during the reign of Nero (54-68). Burrhus, the preeto- 
 rian prefect, a rough but kindly disposed soldier, extended to him 
 every liberty which the law allowed ; permitting him to occupy a 
 lodging of his own under the charge of a pretorian soldier (Acts 
 xxviii. 16), and allowing his friends and other visitors free access 
 to him (Acts xxviii. 30). 
 
 I follow the chronology of Harnack, Die Chronol. d. altchr. Lit, bis Euse- 
 dius, Bd. i. S. 233. See also O. Holtzmann, Veutest. Zettgesch. S.132; and | 
 Prof. A. McGiffert, Amer. Journ. Theol. Jan. 1897, p. 147. Against these 
 see Schiirer, Gesch. d. suid, Volkes, 2 Aufl. i. S. 483 ff. (Clarks’ Trans. Divis. i. 
 Vol. ii. p. 182), and Professor Ramsay, Expositor, May, 1896, p. 338, and 
 April, 1897, p. 245 ff. 
 
 The church at Rome had been for some time in existence before 
 the apostle’s arrival, although we are ignorant of the circumstances 
 of its foundation. In Acts xxviii. 15 its existence is assumed, and 
 the company which meets Paul at Appii Forum has the character 
 of a deputation. Nor is it likely that the church was insignificant 
 either in numbers or influence, since the important letter to it, 
 with its numerous salutations, was composed three or four years 
 before his arrival at Rome. 
 
 His influence quickly made itself felt in the pretorian guard, 
 and among his visitors from the city; and the brethren of the 
 Roman church were stimulated to greater boldness and zeal in 
 the proclamation of the gospel (Phil. i. 12-14). His presence 
 and activity also stirred up certain hostile elements in the church 
 itself; men who made the preaching of the gospel a means οὗ 
 promoting their own partisan interests, and of venting their envy 
 and spite against the apostle. See on ch. i. 15, 16. 
 
 Paul’s long detention before his trial was nothing unusual, as is 
 shown by Josephus’ account of some Jewish priests sent by Felix 
 to Rome, who were not released for three years (Jos. Vita, 3). 
 The delay may have been caused by the non-arrival of his prose- 
 cutors, and possibly by the loss in the shipwreck of the official 
 record of the proceedings forwarded by Festus; although there 
 
ΧΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION 
 
 was a law of Claudius which permitted the discharge of a prisoner 
 if the prosecutors did not appear within a certain time (Di. Cass. 
 Ix. 28). The pressure of judicial business also was enormous: a 
 long time might have been required for bringing witnesses from 
 Syria and Proconsular Asia after the arrival of the prosecutors ; and 
 a vacation occurred during the winter months when judicial pro- 
 ceedings were suspended (Suet. Aug. 32; Claud. 23; Galba, 14). 
 
 See Wieseler, Chron., and Geib, Gesch. d. rémischen Criminalprocess. 
 
 ν 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS: WHERE AND WHEN COMPOSED 
 
 That the Philippian letter was written from Rome is now gener- 
 ally conceded. The view of Paulus (1799), Bottger (1837), 
 Rilliet (1841), Thiersch (1879), placing its composition at Czesa- 
 rea, has been mostly abandoned, and even those who assign 
 Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon to Cesarea, hold that Philip- 
 pians was written at Rome. The environment of the apostle as 
 indicated by the letter itself, the different groups of persons which 
 it includes, the number and complexity of the relations, and the 
 different and influential party tendencies do not suit the narrow 
 limits of a provincial city; while the pretorian guard and the 
 saints of Czsar’s household clearly point to Rome. Paul’s expec- 
 tation of a speedy decision of his case (ii. 23) agrees better with 
 Rome. Ini. 25, 27, ii. 24, he expresses the hope of returning to 
 Philippi in the event of his liberation, while in Czsarea he would 
 still have been directing his thought to Rome. 
 
 The date of composition as related to that of the three Asiatic 
 letters cannot be determined with certainty. The majority of 
 critics assign the epistle to the later period of Paul’s imprison- 
 ment, and place it last of the four (Mey., Weiss, Alf., Ellic., K1., 
 Godet, Lips., Holtzn., Jiil.). 
 
 The reasons assigned for this opinion are the following: 1. The 
 evidence assumed to be furnished by the epistle that a long period 
 of imprisonment has elapsed (i. 12 ff.). 2. The abandonment of 
 the apostle by his more intimate companions (ii. 20), and the 
 absence of salutations from Luke and Aristarchus. 3. The time . 
 required for journeys in the communications between Rome and 
 
INFRODUCTION XXill 
 
 Philippi implied in the letter. 4. A spirit of depression assumed 
 to be manifest in the epistle, indicating a later stage of confine- 
 ment and increased severity of treatment. 5. The expectation 
 expressed of a speedy release. 
 
 Lightfoot’s ingenious discussion (Comm. p. 30 ff.) does little 
 more than to show the futility of these reasons. No decisive evi- 
 dence of a long imprisonment is furnished by i. 12 ff. All the 
 results detailed in i. 13-17 might easily have come to pass in a 
 few months after the apostle’s arrival, especially since he was in 
 constant contact with the pretorian soldiers, the residents of the 
 city had free access to him, and the church in Rome had been 
 founded some years before. Our ignorance of the movements of 
 his companions forbids any positive conclusions from the allusions | 
 in the letter. The statement in ii. 20, 21, is quite inexplicable 
 (see note). The names of Luke and Aristarchus, which occur in 
 Colossians and Philemon, are wanting in Ephesians, together with 
 that of Timothy, and an argument from silence is in any case 
 precarious. The tone of depression ascribed to the epistle is a 
 pure fancy. The letter is preéminently joyful and hopeful. If the 
 date assigned to St. Paul’s arrival in Rome is correct, the events 
 which are assumed to have increased the rigor of the apostle’s 
 treatment and thus to have depressed his spirits — the death of 
 Burrhus, the accession of Tigellinus as pretorian prefect, and 
 Nero’s marriage to Poppzea— are too late. Poppzea’s influence 
 over Nero did not begin until 58 (Tac. Amn. xiii. 45, 46), and the 
 marriage was not celebrated until 62 (Tac. Aun. xiv. 60). Burrhus 
 died and was succeeded by Tigellinus in 62 (Tac. Ana. xiv. 51). 
 The expectation of a speedy release is also expressed in the letter 
 to Philemon. 
 
 As to the time necessary for sending a message to Philippi 
 announcing Paul’s imprisonment, for Epaphroditus’ journey to 
 Rome with the contribution, for the message to Philippi con- 
 cerning Epaphroditus’ sickness, and for the message to Rome 
 announcing that the Philippians had received this report, — the 
 distance between Rome and Philippi was only seven hundred 
 miles, and even with the imperfect means of travelling, all the four 
 journeys could have been accomplished in four months. Light- 
 foot’s attempt to reduce the four journeys to two is founded on 
 the assumption that Aristarchus left Paul at Myra and proceeded 
 
XXiV INTRODUCTION 
 
 to Thessalonica, thus carrying the news of the apostle’s removal 
 to Rome. But for this there is not a particle of evidence. 
 
 On the other hand, Lightfoot’s constructive argument for the 
 earlier date of the letter is anything but conclusive, and is, I 
 venture to think, illogical in method, although it has the weighty 
 indorsement of Dr. Hort. Lightfoot urges that in style and tone 
 this epistle more resembles the earlier letters than do the epistles 
 to the Ephesians and Colossians ; that it represents the transition 
 from the conflict with Pharisaic Judaism to that with the new type 
 of error which was emerging in the Asiatic churches. But grant- 
 ing the striking parallels between Romans and Philippians, and 
 granting that Ephesians and Colossians exhibit an advanced stage 
 of development in the churches both on the side of heresy and 
 of Christian knowledge, surely it by no means follows that the 
 order of composition corresponds with the stages of development. 
 The special circumstances in the case of each church must be 
 taken into the account. I cannot see the force of Farrar’s state- 
 ment (/au/, ii. p. 419) that the Philippian epistle, if it had been 
 written later than the Asiatic epistles, must have borne traces of 
 the controversy with the incipient gnosticism of the Colossian 
 church. Why?— “The incipient gnosticism of the Colossian 
 church” had not reached Philippi. As Professor Ramsay ob- 
 serves, “ It was not in Paul’s way to send to Philippi an elaborate 
 treatise against a subtle, speculative heresy which had never af- 
 fected that church.”” And, in any case, it is not easy to construct, 
 on the data furnished by these epistles, a scale of church develop- 
 ment so accurately graded as to furnish a satisfactory basis of 
 reasoning in a case like this. Philippians, it is true, presents 
 some striking parallels with Romans; but parallels with Romans 
 may be pointed out in both Ephesians and Colossians (see v. 
 Soden, Hand-Comm. Koloss., Einl. iv.) ; and it would not be dif- 
 ficult to make out a case for a development in the Philippian 
 church quite as advanced as that represented in Ephesians, though 
 possibly on different lines. 
 
 Nothing in the epistle compels us to place it later than the 
 others, and nothing prevents our placifig it earlier; but it must 
 be admitted that positive evidence for the earlier date is lacking. 
 It may be remarked that the Philippians would follow the apostle’s 
 movements as closely as possible. It is not impossible that the news 
 
INTRODUCTION XXV 
 
 of his departure for Rome might have reached them from Asia be- 
 fore his arrival, especially as the voyage was so long. In that case 
 their gift would probably have reached him comparatively early. 
 The tone of the letter, so far as it relates to himself, seems to indi- 
 cate fresh impressions rather than those received after a long and 
 tedious confinement. 
 
 VI 
 OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE 
 
 The immediate occasion of the epistle was a contribution of 
 money brought by Epaphroditus from the members of the Philip- 
 pian church (ii. 25, iv. 18). They had sent him similar tokens of 
 their affection on former occasions (iv. 15, 16 ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 9) ; 
 but an opportunity of repeating their gifts had been long wanting 
 (iv. το). Whether from the hardships of the journey, or from 
 over-exertion in forwarding Paul’s work in Rome, Epaphroditus 
 became dangerously sick (ii. 27, 30). On his recovery he was 
 troubled lest the Philippians should be anxious about him, and 
 was eager to return in order to relieve their fears, besides suffer- 
 ing, no doubt, from the homesickness peculiar to an invalid in a 
 foreign land (ii. 26). Paul therefore sent him back, and sent by 
 him this letter (ii. 25, 28), containing not only thanks for the gift 
 (iv. 10-18), but also information about his own condition, his 
 success in preaching the gospel, and other matters of special 
 interest to the Philippians ; besides such exhortations and admon- 
 itions as the condition of the church as reported by Epaphroditus 
 seemed to demand. 
 
 VII 
 CRITICAL QUESTIONS 
 
 The external evidence for the authenticity and genuineness of 
 the epistle is substantially the same as for the principal epistles. 
 It appeared in Marcion’s Canon, and Hippolytus (/aerves. v. 143, 
 x. 318) says that the Sethians, an Ophite sect of the second cen- 
 tury, interpreted Phil. ii. 6, 7, to explain their doctrines. The 
 excerpts from the Valentinian Theodotus preserved by Clement 
 of Alexandria contain two references to Phil. ii. 7 (35, 43). The 
 
 letter of Polycarp to the Philippians appeals to the epistle or 
 
XXVi INTRODUCTION 
 
 epistles of Paul to the Philippian church (c. iii. See note on 
 Phil. iii. 1). A few passages which have the appearance of 
 reminiscences of the Philippian letter occur in Clement (4d 
 Cor. xvi., xlvii.) ; Ignatius (Rom. 11. ; Philad. viii.) ; The Epistle 
 to Diognetus, 5, and Theophilus of Antioch (4d Autolycum). 
 The Muratorian Canon places it among the letters of Paul. It is 
 included in the Syriac (Peshitto) and Old-Latin versions. At the 
 close of the second century it is in use by Irenzeus, Tertullian, and 
 Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 See Iren. iv. 18, 4; Clem. Alex. Paedag. i. 524; Strom. iv. 12, 19, 943 
 Tert. De Resur. 23; Cont. Marc. v. 20; De Praescr. 26. 
 
 It is cited in the letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienne 
 to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia (a.p. 177, Euseb. . £. v. τ, 
 2). Origen and Eusebius admit and use it as a work of Paul. 
 From the time of Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria its authen- 
 ticity and genuineness were generally recognised. 
 
 The epistle was first assailed by Baur (Paulus, 1845; Zh. /,, 
 1849, 1852), followed by several representatives of the Tiibingen 
 school, — Schwegler (/Vachap. Zeital., 1846), Planck (Zh. /., 1847), 
 Kostlin (Zh. /., 1850), Volkmar (7%. /., 1856, 1857), Bruno Bauer 
 (Christus und die Cisaren, 1877). The grounds of attack were: 
 lack of originality and imitation of other epistles ; traces of gnostic 
 ideas ; the antedating of the offices of Bishop and Deacon; and 
 the disagreement of the statements concerning justification by 
 faith with Paul’s statements elsewhere. The epistle was a product 
 of the second century, intended to reconcile the two parties then 
 struggling in the church. These parties were symbolically repre- 
 sented by Euodia and Syntyche (iv. 2). Clement of Rome was a 
 myth, founded upon the conversion of Flavius Clemens, the kins- 
 man of Domitian. The writer of the Clementine Homilies, in 
 order to represent Clement as the disciple of Peter, represents 
 him as the kinsman of Tiberius. The Pauline writer of Philip- 
 pians, accepting this fiction, and anxious to conciliate the Petrine 
 faction, represents this fictitious disciple of Peter as the fellow- 
 laborer of Paul (iv. 3). 
 
 These objections are mainly imaginary. On the antedating of 
 the episcopate see Excursus on i. 1. ‘The identification of Cle- 
 ment with Flavius Clemens is absurd. The assumed imitation 
 
INTRODUCTION XXV1i 
 
 of other epistles amounts only to an occasional relationship in 
 expression, the absence of which would be remarkable, and which 
 does not imply dependence. Baur asserted that in ii. 5-8 the 
 writer had in view the gnostic Sophia, the last of the zons, which, 
 in the attempt to grasp the knowledge of the absolute One, fell 
 from the πλήρωμα into κένωμα or emptiness. The ambition of the 
 zon was contrasted with the self-emptying of the eternal Christ. 
 Volkmar explained Euodia (‘right path’) as a synonym for ortho- 
 doxy, and Syntyche (‘ partner’) as designating the Gentile church. 
 Such vagaries are their own refutation. 
 
 The assault was renewed after an interval by Hitzig (Zur 
 Krit. paulin. Br., 1870) ; Kneucker (Die Anfinge d. rim. Chris- 
 tenthums, 1881) ; Hinsch (Zw. Zh., 1873) ; Hoekstra (Zh. /., 
 1875) ; Biedermann ( Christ. Dogmatih, ii. 1885) ; and especially 
 by Holsten, in a vigorous and searching critique ( 722. Zh., 1875, 
 1876). 
 
 The objections of this group of critics turned mainly on alleged 
 divergencies in style and matter from the acknowledged Pauline 
 epistles. The principal points are the following : 
 
 1. The sharp contrast between the divine and the human form 
 of existence (ii. 6-11) is unpauline. In 1 Cor. xv. 47-49, Paul 
 conceives Christ in his preéxistence as ἄνθρωπος ἐπούρανιος, ‘a 
 heavenly man,’ — an ideal man (see Excursus on ii. 6-11). Ac- 
 cording to the Epistle to the Philippians, Christ’s manhood begins 
 with his incarnation, while his preincarnate state is described as 
 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. In other words, according to 1 Corinthians, 
 the preincarnate Christ would be only an ideal man. According 
 to Philippians, the preincarnate Christ would belong to an order 
 of beings higher than the heavenly humanity. 
 
 The error lies in the misinterpretation of ἐπούρανιος. It is true 
 that Phil. 11. 6 presents a notion of the preincarnate Christ superior 
 to that of a mere heavenly man; but ἐπούρανιος in 1 Corinthians 
 does not refer to the preincarnate Christ, but to the risen and glo- 
 rified Christ. According to Corinthians, while the first man, Adam, 
 is of earthly origin (ἐκ γῆς, xoixds), the second man, Christ, is of 
 heavenly derivation (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ), and is in heaven with his glorified 
 body in which he will appear at his second coming. ‘O ἐπούρανιος. 
 ‘ is he who is in heaven, not as the heavenly archetype existing 
 ideally in the mind of God, but as exalted to heaven (Eph. iv. 8; 
 
XXVIil INTRODUCTION 
 
 Phil. ii. 9). This appears from the term ἐπουράνιοι applied to 
 risen and glorified Christians (comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21). The_ 
 question which Paul is answering in 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff., is, “ With 
 what kind of a body do they come?” and the question is an- 
 swered by showing the relation of the resurrection-body, not to 
 that of the preincarnate Christ, but to that of the risen and glori- 
 fied Christ. Hence there is no contradiction between the ἐν 
 μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων by which Paul represents the preincarnate 
 glory of Christ, and the ἐπούρανιος by which he represents Christ 
 risen and glorified. In Corinthians Paul is not contemplating the 
 mode of Christ’s preéxistence at all, but the mode of his existence 
 as the risen and glorified Saviour, in which all true believers shall 
 share. 
 
 2. Divergences from the Pauline theology in the conception of 
 Jewish law and the doctrine of justification (iii. 4-11). Such are: 
 the assumption that Paul is blameless as touching the righteous- 
 ness that is in the law; the antithesis of δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ νόμου and 
 δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ ; the representation of justification by faith as 
 δικαιοσύνη ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει ; the connecting of objective and subject- 
 ive righteousness ; the putting of communion with Christ’s resur- 
 rection before communion with his death. 
 
 Some of these objections are treated in the notes on iii. 4-11. 
 The words, “‘as touching the righteousness which is of the law, 
 blameless” (iii. 6), have their parallel in Gal. i. 14; and, in any 
 case, are used of merely legal righteousness, and are to be read in 
 the light of Paul’s conception of righteousness in vs. 9. The 
 doctrine of justification by faith is not treated otherwise than in 
 Romans, except that the appropriation of Christ by the act of 
 faith and the union of the life with Christ are combined in one 
 conception and are not considered separately as in Romans. 
 
 3. Indifference to the objective truth of his gospel (i. 15-18). 
 The same parties who, in Gal. i. 6, 7; 2 Cor. xi. 4, are said to 
 preach another Jesus and another gospel, are declared to be 
 preaching Christ, instead of being anathematised as in Gal. i. 8, 9. 
 
 But the parties are not the same (see notes oni. 15, 16). The 
 words concerning the Judaisers in ch. iii. 2 have the indignant 
 flavor of Galatians and 2 Corinthians, and exhibit no indifference ; 
 to the objective truth. 
 
 .4; Paul ‘expresses uncertainty concerning his, resurrection (ii, 
 
INTRODUCTION XXix 
 
 11), which is inconsistent with the assurance that he displays 
 elsewhere (Rom. v. 17, 18, 21, viii. 38, 39; 2 Cor. v.1ff.). But 
 the words εἴ πως are an expression of humility and self-distrust, 
 not of doubt. He elsewhere urges the necessity of caution and 
 watchfulness against a possible lapse from the faith (ii. 12; 1 Cor. 
 x. 12; Gal. iii. 3, v. 4), and he takes the same caution to himself 
 (see note on iii.11). He displays no uncertainty as to the object- 
 ive basis of salvation, and the fellowship of suffering with Christ 
 as the subjective condition of sharing his glory agrees with Rom. 
 vili. 17. 
 
 5. Self-glorification on the part of Paul in setting himself before 
 his readers as a type of the righteousness of the law, and after- 
 wards of justification by faith (111. 4-17). This requires no answer. 
 Where he speaks of his advantages as a legally righteous Jew, 
 he describes them as a trusting in the flesh (vs. 4), while as 
 a Christian he expressly disclaims confidence in the flesh (vs. 3, 
 7-12). 
 
 6. Contradictory expressions as to his expectations for the 
 future. On the one hand, he looks for a speedy release (i. 25, 
 ii. 24) ; on the other, he contemplates martyrdom (ii. 17). But 
 he says nothing but what is compatible with the alternations of 
 hope and fear which are natural to a prisoner ; and circumstances 
 might have awakened his hopes at one time, and clouded them at 
 another. 
 
 7. The words concerning the gift of the Philippians (iv. 10-19) 
 contradict 1 Thess. ii. 9. There is no contradiction. The latter 
 passage confirms the statement of iv. 15, that the Thessalonians 
 were not among the Macedonians who contributed to Paul while 
 in Corinth. Holsten’s assertion that Paul’s way of thanking the 
 Philippians is thankless, is nonsense. Nothing can be more 
 delicate, more hearty, and more manly than his expression of 
 gratitude. 
 
 8. Differences in style from the acknowledged Pauline letters. 
 Holsten collects these, and classifies them as non-pauline, un- 
 pauline, and anti-pauline. ; 
 
 It would seem self-evident that any writer whose mind is alive 
 and whose thoughts do not move always in the same round, will 
 use in one book or letter words and phrases which he does not 
 
 use in another. The difference in subject or mood may be suffi- 
 
XXX INTRODUCTION 
 
 cient to account for this. The mere counting of unique words in 
 any single epistle amounts to little or nothing. To forty-three 
 hapaxlegomena in Ephesians, there are above a hundred in 
 Romans, and more than two hundred in 1 Corinthians. In 
 Ephesians the special treatment of the unity of the Christian 
 body accounts for a group of words with σύν not found in the 
 other epistles. 
 
 But Pauline words abound in this λας For a very full table, 
 see Speaker's Commentary on Phil., supplementary ‘note at the 
 close of the Introduction, “ On the Pauline Diction of this Epistle.” 
 For parallels with Romans, see Lightf. Comm. p. 43. 
 
 Schiirer (cit. by Godet) says: “All the reasons advanced in 
 this sphere against the authenticity, have weight only with him 
 who makes the Apostle Paul, that most living and mobile spirit 
 the world has ever seen, a man of habit and routine, who behoved 
 to write each of his letters like all the others, to repeat in the fol- 
 lowing ones what he had said in the preceding, and to say it again 
 always in the same way and in the same terms.” 
 
 The authenticity and genuineness of the epistle are defended 
 by Liinemann (Pauk ad Phil. Ep. contra Baurium defendit, 
 1847) ; B. Briickner (22. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata contra 
 Baurium, 1848) ; Ernesti (Stud. u. Krit., 1848, 1851) ; Grimm 
 (Zw. Th., 1873) ; Hilgenfeld (Zw. 7h., 1873, 1875, 1877, 1884) ; 
 Schenkel (Bidellex. iv. 534, Christusbild der Apostel) ; Weizsacker 
 (Jad. Th., 1876; Apost. Zeital.) ; A. Harnack (ZXG. ii, 1878) ; 
 Mangold (Der Rémerbrief, 1884, and Bleek’s Zin/. in d. XN. T., 
 1886) ; Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum,; Paulinismus) ; Davidson 
 (Introd. to the Study of the N.T.); Lipsius (Hand-Comm. ii., 
 Einl. z. Phil.) ; Godet (Introd. au Nouv. Test., pt. 1., 1893) ; 
 B. Weiss (Lehré. ad. inl. in d. N. T., 1889) ; Jiilicher (znd. in 
 ad. N. T., 1894) ; Klopper (Paulus an die Philipper, 1893) 
 
 H. J. Holtzmann (Zin/. in d. N. T. 3 Aufl., 1892) says: “It 
 is the testament of the apostle which we have before us, and he 
 wrote it at Rome.” It is accepted by Reuss and Renan. 
 
 For the history of the controversy, see the Introds. of Holtz- 
 mann and Weiss, and Lips. in the Hand-Comm., Bd. ii. See also 
 Knowling (Zhe Witness of the Epistles, p. 6 ff.) and Theo. Zahn 
 (Die Briefe des Paulus seit fiinfzig Jahren im Feuer der Kritih, 
 ZWL., 1889). 
 
INTRODUCTION XXxi 
 
 VIII 
 INTEGRITY 
 
 To any one reading this epistle as a familiar letter of Paul to a 
 greatly beloved church, intended to inform them concerning his 
 own circumstances, to thank them for their generous care for him, 
 and to give them such counsel as his knowledge of their condition 
 might suggest, its informal and unsystematic character, and its 
 abrupt transitions from one theme to another, will appear entirely 
 natural. Modern criticism, however, refuses to be satisfied with 
 this view of the case, and has discovered, as it thinks, substantial 
 reasons for challenging the integrity of the letter. 
 
 The principal stumbling-block is at 111. 2, where, after being 
 about to close the letter, as is claimed (vs. 1), the apostle begins 
 afresh, and proceeds to the discussion of most important matters, 
 and then returns thanks for the contribution, which the letter con- 
 veyed to Philippi by Epaphroditus could not have omitted. This, 
 it is asserted, forms an abrupt and harsh transition, since the point 
 at which he proposed to close is really the middle of the epistle. 
 Holtzmann remarks that “the rush of all the tides of criticism 
 upon this passage raises the suspicion of a hidden rock.” 
 
 Stephan Lemoyne (Varia Sacra), Heinrichs (in Koppe’s NW. T., 1803), 
 Paulus (Hezdelb. Jhrb., 1812), Hausrath (VV. 7. Zettgesch. iii. 2 Aufl., 1873- 
 1877; Der Apostel Paulus, 2 Aufl., 1872), Weisse (Beitr. 2. Kritik d. 
 paulin, Br., 1867), —all assumed two letters. The last four assumed that 
 iii. I-iv. 20 was addressed to a narrower circle of readers, —~- perhaps the 
 superintendents of the church. MHausrath held that the first letter was 
 written after Paul’s first hearing before the imperial tribunal, and the sec- 
 ond some weeks later, after his receipt of the gift. Schrader (Der Apostel 
 Paulus) regarded iii. I-iv. 9 as an interpolation; while Ewald (Sendschr. 
 des Ap. Paulus, 1857), Schenkel (Azbellex.), and Reuss (Gesch. d. heil. 
 Schr. N. T., 1874) held the portion from iii. 1 to be a later addition, 
 prompted by fresh information received by Paul. Vélter (7%. /., 1892) 
 holds that there were two letters, —a genuine and a spurious one. The 
 former consisted of i. 1, 2 (exc. ἐπισκ. καὶ διακ.), 3-7, 12-26, ii. 17-30, 
 iv. 10-20, 21, and perhaps 23; the latter of i. 8-11, 27-30, ii. 1-16, iii. 1- 
 iv.9. Liinemann, Ewald, Schenkel, Hilgenfeld, and Mangold hold that 
 iii, I implies former and lost Philippian letters; and the question thus 
 becomes complicated with the interpretation of the passages in Polyc. ad 
 Phil, iii., xiii. (see note on iii. 1). 
 
ΧΧΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION 
 
 The theory of two letters rests mainly on the assumption that τὸ 
 λοιπόν in ili. 1 indicates an intention to close the letter. But while 
 τὸ λοιπόν may mean ‘ finally,’ it also means ‘for the rest’; ‘as to 
 what remains,’ as 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 1. The phrase is 
 common with Paul where he loosely attaches, even in the middle 
 of an epistle, a new subject to that which he has been discussing. 
 In 1 Thess. iv. two entire chapters follow τὸ λοιπόν in vs. 1. If 
 Paul had meant to close the letter at iii. 1, he would surely have 
 expressed his thanks for the Philippians’ gift before reaching that 
 point. Τὸ λοιπόν means there ‘as to what remains,’ and is an 
 introduction to what follows, not the close of what precedes. 
 
 The abrupt transition and apparent lack of connection accord, 
 as has been remarked, with the unsystematic, informal, familiar 
 character of the whole letter. Ifthe Judaistic and Libertine influ- 
 ences as a germ of discord demanded such an utterance as iii. 2 ff., 
 the transition was not easy to make in a familiar letter to those 
 with whom the apostle’s relations were so intimate and affection- 
 ate. The want of connection, however, is rather apparent than 
 real, since the divisions likely to be created by these dangerous 
 influences would militate against that unity and concord which the 
 apostle urges in the former part of the letter. Without specifying 
 and pressing some such definite points, the earlier exhortations 
 might have appeared abstract and vague. 
 
 There seem to be, therefore, no sufficient grounds for disputing ᾿ 
 the integrity of the epistle. If the partition theory is admitted, 
 the attempt to fix the dividing lines must be regarded as hopeless 
 in the face of the differences between critics. 
 
 See R. A. Lipsius (Hand-Comm. Einl. z. Phil.), Holtzmann (Zini. 
 N. T.), Ki6pper (Komm. Einl.), Lightfoot (Pi/. p. 69). 
 
 ΙΧ 
 CONTENTS AND GENERAL CHARACTER 
 
 The opening salutation is of unusual length, consisting of the 
 first eleven verses, and containing thanks to God for the Philip- 
 pians’ former Christian fellowship with the apostle, and their 
 cooperation in promoting the gospel, expressions of confidence 
 in the completion of the good work begun in them by God, and 
 prayer for their spiritual growth. 
 
INTRODUCTION XXXiil 
 
 From vs. 12 to vs. 26 St. Paul describes his own condition as a 
 prisoner, the progress of the gospel, the work of his opposers, 
 the increased zeal and boldness of the Christians in Rome, and 
 expresses his own feelings in view of the alternative of his speedy 
 death or of his continuing to live and labor for the church. 
 
 With vs. 27 he begins an exhortation to Christian unity and 
 courage which extends to the fourth verse of ch. ii., where he 
 introduces the example of Jesus Christ as an exhibition of the 
 humility and self-abnegation which are essential to the maintenance 
 of their fellowship. A few words of exhortation follow ; and ch. ii. 
 closes with an expression of the hope of his speedy release, his 
 intention of sending Timothy to Macedonia, and the announce- 
 ment of the sickness, recovery, and return of Epaphroditus. 
 
 Chapter 111. opens with an exhortation to joy, after which he 
 proceeds to warn the church against the possible attempts of the 
 Judaisers to influence its members, characterises them in severe 
 terms, and contrasts their religious attitude and teachings with 
 those of the true household of faith; the true circumcision with 
 the false ; the power of faith with the inefficiency of works and 
 ordinances ; and adduces in illustration a comparison of his own 
 early education, aims, and religious attainments with his present 
 position and hopes as a Christian. He follows this with an exhor- 
 tation to steadfastness, a lament over those who had yielded to 
 the influence of the Epicurean Libertines, and had thus fallen into 
 sensuality and worldliness, and a contrast of such with the citizen 
 of heaven, who minds not earthly things, but confidently awaits 
 the appearing of the Lord Jesus as Saviour. 
 
 Chapter iv. begins with a repetition of the exhortation to stead- 
 fastness. Two prominent women of the church are urged to 
 reconcile their differences, and a former fellow-laborer of the 
 apostle is entreated to aid them in this. Then follow exhorta- 
 tions to forbearance, trustfulness, prayer, and giving of thanks, to 
 the cultivation of all holy and gracious thoughts and dispositions, 
 and to the imitation of his own Christian example as they had 
 seen it in the days of their former intercourse. ‘To all is added 
 the promise of the comfort of God’s peace. 
 
 With iv. τὸ begins the acknowledgment of the gift received 
 from the church, accompanied with hearty commendations of 
 “their habitual thoughtfulness and generous care for himself, and 
 
XXXIV INTRODUCTION 
 
 an expression of his assurance that such a spirit and such ministry 
 will redound to their spiritual growth. 
 
 The closing salutations are general. No names are mentioned. 
 The epistle ends with the benediction, “The grace of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ be with your spirit.” 
 
 The pervading tone of the letter is imparted by Paul’s strong 
 personal attachment to the church, in which respect it resembles 
 the first Thessalonian epistle. It is entirely devoid of official 
 stateliness. The official title is dropped from the opening saluta- 
 tion, and the apostle greets the church as their friend and fellow- 
 servant of Jesus Christ. The character of the epistle is almost 
 wholly commendatory, in strong contrast with the epistle to the 
 Galatians and with portions of the two Corinthian letters. While 
 2 Corinthians is tumultuous, often stern, sometimes almost men- 
 acing, this letter flows on to the end in a steady stream of thankful 
 joy. It breathes the spirit of unimpaired confidence. It some- 
 what resembles Ephesians in the freedom with which the apostle 
 abandons himself to those spontaneous impulses of thought which 
 lead away from the direct line of his subject into the profound 
 depths of some divine counsel, or bear his soul upward in impas- 
 sioned prayer. It exhibits ‘none of the sensitiveness about the 
 behavior of his converts to himself which appears in Galatians 
 and 2 Corinthians ; none of the earnestness about points of differ- 
 ence, none of the consciousness of the precarious basis of his 
 authority in the existing state of the two churches” (Jowett). 
 There is the assumption throughout of frank understanding and 
 Christian friendship. 
 
 The epistle is also marked by the absence of formulated doc- 
 trinal statement. It exhibits the substance and heart of the gospel 
 rather than its relation to any specific form of doctrinal error. 
 The doctrinal points elaborated in other epistles are here matters 
 of allusion rather than of discussion. Between the apostle and 
 his readers there is assumed a community of faith in the truths 
 to which he so confidently appeals for the enforcement of all that 
 is pure, lovely, and of good report, and a knowledge of those 
 truths which renders formal instruction unnecessary. 
 
 Where points of doctrine are touched, it is invariably with a 
 view to their practical application. The ethical character of the 
 epistle is very pronounced. Even the splendid passage, ii. 5-11, 
 
INTRODUCTION XXXV 
 
 is introduced, not for the purpose of formulating the doctrine of 
 Christ’s preéxistence and of defining the nature of his humanity 
 as related to his preincarnate condition, but in order to enforce 
 the practical exhortation to humility. Thus, too, the doctrine of 
 justification by faith as treated in ch. iii. lacks none of the essen- 
 tial elements of the discussion in Romans ; yet it gains in practical 
 force and attractiveness by being intertwined with the doctrine of 
 mystical union with Christ. It is this which makes that passage, 
 brief as it is, so valuable for the study of the real Pauline doctrine 
 of justification, affording as it does no room for that scholastic 
 and mechanical interpretation according to which justification is 
 resolved into a forensic adjustment effected by a legal fiction of 
 imputed righteousness. 
 
 Yet the attitude of the epistle towards doctrinal error is neither 
 hesitating nor compromising. Its dealing with the Judaisers in 
 ch. iii. reminds us that the writer is still the Paul of the Galatian 
 and second Corinthian letters. None the less it bears witness to 
 the discriminating quality of a ripe charity, to the sound wisdom 
 of Christian love which knows how to draw the line between weak- 
 ness and perverseness ; between the occasional lapses of Christian 
 immaturity and the wicked obstinacy of an estranged heart; 
 between the mistakes of an untutored conscience and the selfish 
 persistence of unholy desire. 
 
 But while the character of the epistle is ethical rather than doc- 
 trinal or controversial, it gives no countenance to the tendency to 
 resolve the gospel into a mere code of morals. The moral inspira- 
 tion which it represents has its impelling centre in a person and a 
 life, and not ina code. The personal Christ is its very heart. It 
 exhibits Christ zz Paul rather than defore him. Christ is not a 
 subject of controversy ; he is not simply a pattern of conduct. 
 He is the sum of Paul’s life. Paul’s ideal is to be found in him. 
 His death is not a sorrowful reminiscence ; it has been shared by 
 the apostle in his own death to sin. The view of the resurrection, 
 which this letter in common with that to the Romans presents, is 
 a standing rebuke to the superficial conception and the loose 
 grasp which the church too often brings to that truth. The res- 
 urrection of the Lord is to Paul a present, informing energy and 
 not only a memory and a hope. He would know the power of 
 the resurrection now and here as well as hereafter. He not only 
 
XXXVI INTRODUCTION 
 
 lives according to Christ’s life, he lives it. Christ loves, obeys, 
 suffers, sympathises, toils, and hopes in him. Under the power 
 of this life his own natural affection is transfigured. He knows 
 not men after the flesh, but loves and longs for them in the heart 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 With the exhibition of these facts goes the corresponding em- 
 phasis of the apostle’s personality. The letter is more distinct- 
 ively personal than any of the epistles to the churches except 
 2 Corinthians. In this lies largely its peculiar fascination. But 
 the personality is accentuated on a different side. Its sensitive, 
 indignant, self-vindicatory aspect, so marked in the Corinthian 
 letter, is completely in the background here. The Paul of the 
 Philippian letter is not the man whose apostolic credentials have 
 been challenged, and whose personal motives have been impugned ; 
 not the vindicator of himself and of his ministry against the pre- 
 tensions of false apostles; not the missionary who is reluctantly 
 constrained in his own defence to unfold the record of his labors 
 and sufferings. He is the disciple who counts all things but loss 
 for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord ; for 
 whom to live is Christ, and to die is to be with Christ. What a 
 blending of the restfulness of faith with the tenseness of aspira- 
 tion! What an upreach of desire! With an experience behind 
 him unique in its depth and richness and variety, with the mem- 
 ory of personal vision of Christ and of ravishment into the third 
 heaven, with a profound knowledge of the mysteries of divine 
 truth won through heart-shaking moral crises, in solitary medita- 
 tion and in the vast experience of his missionary career, — his 
 attainment is only a point for a larger outlook, an impulse to more 
 vigorous striving. In Christ he is in a sphere of infinite possibili- 
 ties, and he counts not himself to have apprehended, but stretches 
 forward under the perpetual stress of his heavenward calling. 
 
TEXT 
 
 THE epistle presents no textual questions of importance. The 
 authority for the sources is Tischendorf’s 8th ed. Crit. May. I 
 have also used the 4th ed. of Scrivener’s /atroduction to the Critt- 
 cism of the N. T., ed. Miller, and in some places have noted the 
 readings of Weiss in his recent Zextkritische Untersuchungen und © 
 Textherstellung, 1896. 
 
 The text followed is that of Westcott and Hort with two or 
 three exceptions. 
 
 The following manuscripts are referred to: 
 
 PRIMARY UNCIALS 
 
 Ν᾿ Cod. Sinaiticus: 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in the convent 
 of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, in 1859. Now at St. Petersburg. Con- 
 tains both epistles complete. Correctors: ΝΆ, nearly contemporary; 
 xb, 6th century; x°, beginning of 7th century, treated by two correct- 
 ors, — NC8 νοῦ, 
 
 A. Cod. Alexandrinus: 5th century. British Museum. Contains both 
 epistles entire. 
 
 B. Cod. Vaticanus.: 4th century. Vatican Library. Contains both epistles 
 
 _», entire. Correctors: B?, nearly the same date; B%, roth or 11th century. 
 
 C. Cod. Ephraem: 5th century. Palimpsest. National Library, Paris. 
 Very defective. Wanting from τοῦτο οὖν (Eph. iv. 17) to καὶ τί αἱρή- 
 σομαι (Phil i. 22), and from pew (Βενιαμειν) (Phil. iii. 5) to the end. 
 Correctors: (2, 6th century; C%, 9th century. — 
 
 D. Cod. Claromontanus. 6th century. Grzeco-Latin. National Library, 
 Paris. Contains both epistles entire. Corrector: D>, close of 6th 
 century. ; 
 
 F. Cod. Augiensis: gth century. Greco-Latin. Library of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. Philippians entire; Philemon wanting in the Greek from 
 πεποιθὼς (vs. 21) to the end. 
 
 G. Cod. Boernerianus.: gth century. Greco-Latin. Dresden. Wanting 
 Greek and Latin, Philem. 21-25. 
 
 An asterisk added to the title of a MS., as D*, signifies a correction made 
 by the original scribe. 
 XXXVii 
 
XXXVIli TEXT 
 
 ae 
 
 SECONDARY UNCIALS 
 
 Cod. Mosquensis : gth century. Moscow. Contains both epistles entire. 
 
 Cod. Angelicus: oth century. Angelican Library of Augustinian monks 
 at Rome. Wanting from ἐξουσίαν (Heb. xiii. 10) to the end of 
 Philemon. 
 
 Cod. Porphyrianus : beginning of 9th century. Palimpsest. St. Peters- 
 burg. Both epistles entire, but many words illegible. 
 
 MINUSCULES 
 
 National Library, Paris: 9th or roth century. Both epistles entire. 
 
 . British Museum: 11th century. Both epistles entire. 
 . Library of Town Council of Leicester: 15th century. Both epistles 
 
 entire. See Miller’s Scrivener, vol. i. 202. 
 
 . Bodleian Library: 11th century. Both epistles entire. 
 . Vienna: I1th century. Both epistles entire. 
 . Vatican: 11th century. Philippians entire; Philemon mutilated. 
 
 137. Paris: 13th or 14th century. Both epistles entire. 
 VERSIONS 
 Latin : 
 Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.). Vulgate (Vulg.). 
 Egyptian : 
 
 Coptic, Memphitic, or Bohairic (Cop.). | Bashmuric (Basm.). 
 Sahidic (Sah. ). 
 
 Syriac : 
 Peshitto (Pesh.). Syr.4t (Peshitto and Harclean 
 Harclean (Harcl.). versions). 
 Syr.#h (Schaaf’s ed. of Peshitto). Syr.P (Harclean). 
 
 Other versions : 
 
 Armenian (Arm. ). Ethiopic (£th.). 
 Gothic (Goth.). 
 
COMMENTARIES 
 
 PATRISTIC 
 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gicumenius, Theophylact, Theodore of | 
 Mopsuestia. 
 
 Chrysostom’s commentary is in the form of fifteen homilies. It 
 is not regarded as one of his best, but it illustrates his peculiarities 
 as an expositor: his honest effort to discover and interpret his 
 author’s meaning; his sound grammatical and historical treat- 
 ment; his avoidance of forced and fanciful allegorical interpre- 
 tations ; his felicitousness in illustration, fluency of style, dramatic 
 power, and general knowledge of Scripture. Migne’s Patrol- 
 gia, Paris, 1863; Trans. Library of the Fathers, Oxford, 1843 ; 
 Schaff’s Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 Theodoret: simple and literal, mingling the expository and 
 apologetic. Migne. 
 
 The commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia remain only in a 
 few Greek fragments and a Latin version. They are valuable as 
 a protest against the vicious allegorical method of the Alexandrian 
 school. Theodore is distinguished by close adherence to the text, 
 attention to grammatical points and textual variations, — by his 
 exegetical instinct and his effort to adhere to the line of his 
 author’s thought. Zheodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the 
 Minor Epistles of St. Paul: The Latin Version with the Greek 
 Fragments. Ed. from the MSS., with Notes and an Introduction, 
 by H. B. Swete, Cambridge University Press. 
 
 EARLIER COMMENTARIES 
 
 Among these may be named those of Erasmus, Bucer, Zwingli, 
 Beza, Calvin, Calixtus, Daillé, Musculus or Meusslin, Velasquez, 
 ΧΧΧΙΧ 
 
xl COMMENTARIES 
 
 Le Clerc, Hyperius, Vorstius, Grotius, Crocius, Aretius, Piscator, 
 Estius, a Lapide, Breithaupt, am Ende, Rheinwald, Matthies, van 
 Hengel, Hoelemann, Bengel, Rilliet. 
 
 JoHN CALVIN is marked by solid learning, contempt for exegetical tricks, 
 independence, thoroughness, terseness, and precision 
 of language. 
 
 JOHN ALBERT BENGEL: Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Ed. of Steudel, 1855. 
 Translations by Fausset, Edinburgh, and Lewis and 
 Vincent, Philadelphia, 1860. While most of his criti- 
 cal work is obsolete, he remains distinguished for keen 
 spiritual insight, terse and pithy diction, and suggest- 
 ive exposition of the force and bearing of individual 
 words. Always mentioned with respect by modern 
 commentators. 
 
 A. RILLIET: Commentatre sur ὦ ’Epitre de l’Apotre Paul aux Philip- 
 piens. 1841. With illustrative essays. Learned, — 
 not controversial or dogmatic, — interesting, Scriptural, 
 clear in statement. Issued before the attacks of the 
 Tiibingen school. 
 
 MODERN COMMENTARIES 
 
 HENRY ALFORD: Greek Testament, 1849-1861 and later. Largely a digest 
 of German exegesis which he was the first to introduce 
 to the scholars of the established church in England. 
 He is judicial rather than original, sometimes too much 
 given to balancing opinions after the earlier German 
 method; but in his treatment of this epistle, his judg- 
 ments show considerable independence and decisive- 
 ness, and the commentary contains matter which is 
 still valuable. 
 
 W. M. L. DE WETTE: Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testa- 
 ment. Kurze Erklarung der Briefe an die Kolosser, 
 an Philemon, an die Epheser und Philipper. 1836- 
 1848. Wide and accurate scholarship; sound exegeti- 
 cal tact, — independent, acute, concise. 
 
 H. A. W. MEYER: KXritisch exegetisches Handbuch iiber die Briefe an die 
 Philipper, Kolosser, und an Philemon, 5 Aufl. A. H. 
 Franke, 1886. New ed. in preparation. This volume 
 of the Kommentar tiber das Neue Testament was pre- 
 pared by Dr. Meyer’s own hand. Meyer stands in the 
 very front rank of exegetes. Great learning; remark- 
 able exegetical insight; devout, fair, independent, clear 
 and forcible in statement; strong historic sense. He 
 leans somewhat towards excessive literalism, and is not 
 
COMMENTARIES xli 
 
 _a good authority on text. The American edition, 1885, 
 4th Germ., contains the notes of President T. Dwight 
 of Yale University. These are discriminating and help- 
 ful. Dr. Dwight has a rare faculty of putting into a 
 clear and simple form the factors of a complicated 
 exegetical discussion. 
 
 C. J. ELLIcotT: A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s 
 Lpistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. 
 5th ed. Ripe exegetical judgment; careful discrimi- 
 nation of grammatical niceties; remarkable power of 
 stating fine distinctions and shades of meaning; great 
 accuracy. His commentary is still most valuable. 
 
 J. B. Licutroot: Sz. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Revised Text with 
 Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. ist ed. 1868; 
 12th ed. 1896, a reprint of the revised and slightly 
 altered 4th ed. of 1885. Has long held a very high 
 rank among commentaries on this epistle. The la- 
 mented author’s large and varied learning appears 
 especially in the essays and excursuses which so de- 
 lightfully exhibit the historical setting of the letter. In 
 point of exegesis, the commentary, while always sug- 
 gestive, is not equal to some others. 
 
 B. WEISS: Der Philipperbrief ausgesetat und die Geschichte seiner 
 Auslegung kritisch dargestellt, 1859. A most thorough 
 piece of work. It leaves no point untouched, and treats 
 every point with ample learning, conscientious pains- 
 taking, independence, and positiveness. It is valuable 
 in studying the history of the exegesis. 
 
 ALBERT KLOPPER: Der Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper. 1893. 
 A commentary which must be reckoned with. Care- 
 fully and conscientiously done, with adequate scholar- 
 ship. Needlessly elaborated; too diffuse; but the 
 reader who has the patience to make his way through 
 the mazes of an involved style will commonly be re- 
 warded for his pains. His critical tendencies are radi- 
 cal, but he accepts and defends the authenticity of the 
 epistle. 
 
 JOsEPH AGAR BEET: 4 Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Ephesians, 
 Philippians, and Colossians, and to Philemon. 1891. 
 With a good scholarly basis. It can hardly be called 
 a popular commentary, but does not meet the demands 
 of a full critical commentary. In the attempt to con- 
 dense, some things are passed over with mere state- 
 ment which deserve more careful notice. 
 
 J. RAwson Lumby: The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Schaff’s Popular 
 Commentary, 1882. Bright, interesting, and suggestive. 
 
xlii 
 
 KARL BRAUNE: 
 
 R. A. Lipsius: 
 
 H. von SODEN: 
 
 JouHN EADIE: 
 
 COMMENTARIES 
 
 Die Briefe Sti Pauli an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper, 
 theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. Lange’s Bibelwerk, 
 1867. Trans. with additions by H. B. Hackett, Schaff’s 
 Lange, 1870. The value of Lange’s Bibelwerk is im- 
 paired by an accumulation of doctrinal, ethical, homi- 
 letical, and practical material. The quality of Dr. 
 Hackett’s work is always good, and his additions are 
 valuable. 
 
 Bricfe an die Galater, Romer, Philipper. Hand-Com- 
 mentar zum Neuen Testament, von Holtzmann, Lip- 
 situs, Schmiedel, und von Soden. Bad. ii. Abth. 2, 2 
 Aufl., 1892. In striking contrast with most earlier Ger- 
 man commentaries in which conflicting opinions are 
 elaborately discussed; terse and condensed; learned, 
 acute, penetrating, and clear. Introduction valuable. 
 Represents the radical German school of N. T. criticism. 
 
 Der Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Philipper. 1889. 
 A charming homiletical exposition. 
 
 A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul 
 to the Philippians, 2d ed. 1884. A full and useful 
 commentary; too much of the homiletic element. 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 
 
 Ambrost. Ambrosiaster. Ign. Ignatius. 
 
 Ans. Anselm. Jer. Jerome. 
 
 Aug. Augustine. Joh. Dam. John of Damascus. 
 Chr. Chrysostom. Jos. Josephus. 
 
 Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria. | Just. M. Justin Martyr. 
 Clem. Rom, Clement of Rome. (Ec. CEcumenius. 
 
 Cyr. Alex. Cyril of Alexandria. Polyc. Polycarp. 
 
 Euseb. Eusebius. Tert. Tertullian. 
 
 Greg. Nys. Gregory of Nyssa. Thdrt. Theodoret. 
 
 Hil. Hilary. Theo. Mop. Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
 Hippol. Hippolytus. Theoph. Theophylact. 
 
 CLASSICAL WRITERS 
 
 &s. fEschylus. Hdt. Herodotus. 
 
 App. Appian. Hom. Homer. 
 
 Aristid. Aristides. Juv. Juvenal. 
 
 Aristoph. Aristophanes. Ov. Ovid. 
 
 Aristot. Aristotle. Petron. Petronius. 
 
 Athen. Athenzus. Pind. Pindar. 
 
 Corp. 1. Lat. Corpus Inseriptionum | Plut. Plutarch. 
 Latinarum. Polyb. Polybius. 
 
 Corp.I.Gr. Corpus Inscriptionum | Q. Curt. Quintus Curtius. 
 Graecarum. Soph. Sophocles. 
 
 Dem. Demosthenes. Suet. Suetonius, 
 
 Diod. Sic. Diodorus Siculus. Tac. Tacitus. 
 
 Dion. H. Dionysius of Halicarnas- | Ter. Terentius. 
 sus. Thuc. Thucydides. 
 
 Eur. Euripides. Xen. Xenophon. 
 
 COMMENTATORS AND WRITERS ON N. T. 
 
 Alf. Alford. Aq. Aquila. 
 am E. am Ende. B. Crus. Baumgarten Crusius. 
 
Ead. 
 Ellic. 
 Erasm. 
 Ew. 
 Grot. 
 Heinr. 
 Hack. 
 Hofn. 
 Holtzn. 
 Holst. 
 Hoel. 
 Jil. 
 Kl. 
 Lips. 
 Lightf. 
 Lum. 
 
 Burt. 
 Crem. 
 
 Herz. 
 
 Hesych. 
 
 Suid. 
 Thay. 
 Win. 
 
 WH. 
 Tisch. 
 
 R.V. 
 A.V. 
 TR. uf 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS 
 Bengel. Luth. Luther. 
 Bleek. Mey. Meyer. 
 Calovius. Matth. Matthies. 
 Calvin. Mich. Michaelis. 
 Conybeare and Howson. | Nedr. Neander. 
 Crocius. Pfl. Pfleiderer. 
 De Wette. Pisc. Piscator. 
 Dwight. Rhw. Rheinwald. 
 Eadie. Ril. Rilliet. 
 Ellicott. Rosenm. Rosenmiiller. 
 Erasmus. Str. Storr. 
 Ewald. Symm. Symmachus. 
 Grotius. v. ΕἸ. von Flatt. 
 Heinrichs. van Heng. van Hengel. 
 Hackett. van Oos. van Oosterzee. 
 Hofmann. v. Sod. von Soden. 
 Holtzmann. Weizs. Weizsacker. 
 Holsten. Westc. Westcott. 
 Hoelemann. Wetst. Wetstein. 
 Jiilicher. Wiesel. Wieseler. 
 Kldépper. Wies. Wiesinger. 
 Lipsius. W. St. Vincent: Word Studies 
 Lightfoot. in the N. T. 
 
 Lumby. 
 
 GRAMMARIANS AND ESI COGRAPHERS 
 
 Burton: WV. 7. Moods and Tenses. 
 
 Cremer: Bidlico- Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek. 
 
 Herzog: Keal-Encyclopadie fiir protestantische Theologie und 
 Kirche. 
 
 Hesychius: Lexicon. 
 
 Suidas: Lexicon. 
 
 Thayer: Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. 
 
 Winer: Grammar of N. T. Greek, 8th ed. of Eng. Transl. by 
 Moulton. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 
 8 Aufl., von P. W. Schmiedel. 1 Theil, 1894. 
 
 TEXTUAL 
 
 Westcott and Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek. 
 
 Tischendorf: Movum Testamentum Graece. LEditio Octava Cri- 
 tica Major. 
 
 Revised Version of 1881. 
 
 Authorized Version. 
 
 Textus Receptus. 
 
ABBREVIATIONS xlv 
 
 PERIODICALS 
 
 Zw.Th. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie. 
 
 Th. LZ. Theologische Literaturzeitung. 
 
 LUTE Theologische Jahrbiicher. 
 
 Th. T. Theologisch Tijdschrift. 
 
 Sp. Th. Jahrbiicher fiir protestant. Theologie, 
 
 Stud. τε. Krit. Studien und Kritiken. 
 
 Jad. Th. Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie. 
 
 Heidelb. Jhrb. Heidelberg Jahrbiicher. 
 
 ZEG. Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. 
 
 ZWL. Luthardt’s Zeitschrift fiir kirchl, wissenschaft und kirchl, Leben, 
 
 OTHER ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 Apocr. Apocrypha. Const. Construe. 
 
 Art. Article. LXX Septuagint Version. 
 Bib. Gk. _ Biblical Greek. Sap. Wisdom of Solomon. 
 Bib. Bible. Sir. Wisdom of Sirach. 
 Class. Classics or Classical. = Equivalent to. 
 
 Comp. Compare. 
 
TO THE PHEEPETIANS 
 
 L 1-11. THE PROLOGUE 
 
 THE Prologue contains : 
 
 AN ADDRESS AND GREETING (1-2) } 
 A THANKSGIVING (3-5) ; 
 A COMMENDATION AND PRAYER (6-11). 
 
 Paul and Timothy, bendservants of Jesus Christ, send greeting 
 to the members and officers of the church at Philippi. Grace and 
 peace to you from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 All my remembrance of you ts mingled with thanksgiving to God. 
 On every occasion of my prayers I joyfully make my petition for you 
 all, giving thanks for your cooperation in promoting the gospel from 
 the time it was first preached among you until the present, and with 
 confidence that God will perfect the good work which he has begun 
 in you and will show it completed in the day when Christ shall 
 appear. And my confidence in you is justified by my personal 
 affection for you, by your sympathy with me in my imprisonment, 
 and by the aid which you give me in the defence and establishment 
 of the gospel; thus showing yourselves to be sharers in the grace 
 which enables me to preach Christ and to suffer for his sake. 
 
 God ts my witness how I long after you all with a Christly affec- 
 tion. I pray that you may abound in intelligent and discriminating 
 love: that in your inquiries into truth and duty you may approve 
 that which is supremely good: that you may be sincere and blame- 
 less in view of the day when Christ shall appear: and that you 
 may be filled with the fruit of righteousness which shall redound 
 to the glory and praise of God. 
 
 The character of the whole Epistle is reflected in this introduc- 
 tion. It is unofficial, affectionate, familiar, unlike the opening of 
 B I 
 
2 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 
 
 the Galatian Epistle, and more nearly resembling the introductions 
 to the two Thessalonian letters. At the same time it is solemn 
 and deeply earnest. 
 
 ADDRESS AND GREETING 
 
 1. Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος : So in the introductions of 2 Cor., Col., 
 and Philem., and of 1 and 2 Thess. where the name of Silvanus is 
 added. Timothy was well known to the Philippian Church as 
 Paul’s intimate friend and companion. He was with Paul at 
 Rome. He had been his companion in his first visit to Mace- 
 donia (Acts xvi. 1, 3, 10,13). He had visited Macedonia later 
 (Acts xix. 22, xx. 1, 4); and Paul was proposing to send him 
 again as his representative to the Philippian Church (Phil. ii. 19-- 
 23). His name, however, in this letter, is associated with Paul’s 
 only in the salutation, although the omission of Paul’s apostolic 
 title is not due to his naming Timothy with himself. (Comp. 
 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1.) That Timothy acted as amanuensis is pos- 
 sible, but is not indicated by anything in this letter. The omission 
 of the title “‘ apostle’ (comp. Introductions to 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., 
 and Gal.) accords with the familiar and unofficial character of the 
 letter, and also with the fact that his apostolic claims were not 
 challenged by a Judaising party in Philippi as they were in Galatia 
 and Corinth. 
 
 Δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: Δοῦλος occurs in Paul’s introductory 
 ᾿ salutations only here and in Rom. and Tit. The phrase ‘ bond- 
 
 servants of Jesus Christ’ exhibits the general conception under 
 which ‘apostle’ is classed. Jerome observes: “ Ambo servi, non 
 ambo apostoli. Omnis enim apostolus servus, non omnis autem 
 servus apostolus.”” The servile element does not enter into Paul’s 
 use of the expression. It carries for him the thoughts of cheerful 
 and willing service which, in his view, is inseparable from true 
 freedom (Rom. vi. 18, 22) ; of dependence upon Christ; of 
 ownership by Christ (1 Cor. iii. 23, vii. 22) ; and of identification 
 with Christ in his assuming the form of a bondservant (Phil. ii. 7). 
 The term may be slightly colored with a reference to his special 
 calling, as is διάκονος in 1 Cor. iii. 5; 2 Cor. iii. 6; Eph. iii. 7. 
 -He would thus announce himself as not acting in his own name, 
 but as the agent of another. (Comp. Gal. i. 10; Rom. i. 1; 
 Col. iv. 12.) The phrase si! 4ay, LXX δοῦλος θεοῦ or κυρίου, is 
 often applied to the O.T. prophets ina body. (See Amos iii. 7 ; 
 Jer. vii. 25 ; Ezra ix. 11; Dan. ix. 6.) Also to Moses, Jos. i. 2 
 (6 θεράπων) ; to Joshua, Jud. ii. 8 (δοῦλος) ; to David, Ps. xxxvi. 
 (xxxv.), title, xxviii. (Ixxvii.) 70, Ixxxix. (Ixxxviii.) 4, 21 (δοῦλος). 
 It is found in the introductory greetings of Rom., Tit., Jas., Jude, 
 2 Pet., “showing,” as Professor Sanday justly remarks, “that as 
 the apostolic age progressed, the assumption of the title became 
 
1.1] THE PROLOGUE 3 
 
 established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how quietly 
 St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets and leaders of the 
 Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes the name of his 
 own Master in a connection hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah” 
 (Comm. on Rom., i. 1). 
 
 The MS. readings of the Pauline introductions vary between "Ingots 
 Χριστὸς and Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. For a table of the variations see Sanday’s 
 note on Rom. i. 1. 
 
 From this it appears that IX is peculiar to the earlier group of intro- 
 ductions, and X’I to the later; 1 and 2 Cor. and Rom. being doubtful. The 
 change seems to point to the increasing use of Χριστὸς as a proper name 
 instead of a title. Nevertheless, in the bodies of the Epistles both designa- 
 tions occur; in Rom., Gal., Eph., Col., and the Pastorals, almost equally, 
 while X’I predominates in 1 and 2 Cor. and Phil., and ἸΧ predominates 
 decidedly only in the Thessalonian Epistles. 
 
 πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις : It will be observed that the letter is addressed 
 to all the individual Christians in Philippi, though the superin- 
 tendents and ministers are named immediately after. See farther 
 in Excursus on Bishops and Deacons. “Ayos, which is rare in 
 classical Greek, in the LXX is the standard word for “holy.” 
 Both the LXX and N.T. writers bring it out of the background in 
 which it was left by classical writers. Its fundamental idea is 
 setting apart. ‘Thus, in class., “ devoted to the gods.”’ Occasion- 
 ally in a bad sense, “ devoted to destruction” ; “ accursed”’; but 
 not in Biblical Greek. Jn O.T., “set apart to God,” as priests 
 (Lev. xxi. 6, 7) ; the tithe of the land (Lev. xxvii. 30) ; the holy 
 place in the house of God (τ K. viii. 10; comp. Heb. ix. 2) ; the 
 most holy place (Ex. xxvi. 33 ; comp. Heb. ix. 3) ; the Israelites, 
 as separated from other nations and consecrated to God (Ex. xix. 
 6; Lev. xx. 26; Deut. vii. 6; Dan. vii. 22; 2 Esdras viii. 28). 
 This idea is transferred to the N.T. and applied to Christians 
 peta seg, 92,40 >: Rom, 1; ὙΠΟ vie 3,250) Petiit..@). 
 Ideally ἅγιος implies personal holiness; moral purity. See Lev. 
 Xi. 44, xix. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 34; 1 Pet.i, 16. Of John the Baptist 
 (Mk. vi. 20) ; of Christ (Acts iii. 14); of God (1 Sam. vi. 20; 
 Jn. xvii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 15) ; of God’s law (Rom. vii. 12) ; of the 
 Spirit of God (Acts ii. 33, 38; Rom.v.5; etc.). Paul uses it 
 here as a common designation of Christians belonging to the 
 Philippian community. It does not imply actual holiness, but 
 holiness as appropriate to those addressed and obligatory upon 
 them, as persons set apart and consecrated. In this sense it 
 does not occur in the Gospels (except, possibly, Mt. xxvii. 52) 
 or in the Epistles of Pet. and John. It is rare in Acts. It 
 appears in the opening salutations of all Paul’s letters to Churches 
 except Gal. and 1 and 2 Thess. It is applied to Jewish Christians 
 (4 Cor. xvi. 1,515); 2°Cor, viii; 4, ix. 1, ¥a'3 Rom: χῦ: 25» 20; 45), 
 Chrys. remarks: “It was likely that the Jews too would call 
 
4 PHILIPPIANS [1.1,2 
 
 themselves ‘saints’ from the first oracle, when they were called 
 ‘a holy and peculiar people’ (Ex. ix. 6; Deut. vii. 6). For this 
 reason he added ‘that are in Christ Jesus.’ For these alone are 
 holy, and those henceforward profane.”” Similarly Theoph. (See 
 Delitzsch, Art. “ Heiligkeit Gottes” in Herz. ΑΔ. Enc.) 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: Connect with τοῖς ἁγίοις. This, and the 
 kindred formulas ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν Ἰησοῦ, ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἐν αὐτῷ, are com- 
 mon Pauline expressions to denote the most intimate communion 
 of the Christian with the living Christ. Ἔν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ occurs 
 48 times, ἐν Χριστῷ 34, ἐν Κυρίῳ 50. These phrases are not found 
 in the Synoptic Gospels, though their equivalent appears in John 
 in the frequent ἐν éuoc. The conception is that of a sphere or 
 environment or element in which a Christian lives, as a bird in the 
 air, a fish in the water, or the roots of a tree in the soil. Christ 
 glorified, Christ as πνεῦμα (2 Cor. ili. 17), is the normal life- 
 element of the believer. He “puts on” Christ as a garment 
 (Gal. iii. 27). In Christ alone he truly lives, and his powers 
 attain their full range and efficiency. The order is invariably év 
 Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 The formula is elaborately and ably discussed by G. A. Deissmann in his 
 monograph Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘in Christo Jesu, Marburg, 1892. 
 He carefully traces the use of ἐν with the personal singular through the 
 Classics, the LXX and the N.T., and concludes that the phrase is original 
 with Paul. His discussion as to whether a material conception is at the 
 bottom of it, or whether it is a purely rhetorical mode of speech is not 
 important. 
 
 > 4 Ν ’ 
 συν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις : 
 
 Β8 DK read συνεπισκοποις, “to the fellow-bishops.” So Chrys., Theoph. 
 
 Render: ‘with the superintendents and ministers,’ and notice 
 that the mention of these officials is appended to the more special 
 salutation to the members of the Church. See Excursus at the 
 end of this chapter. 
 
 2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ: So in Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Eph. Col. omits 
 καὶ κυρ. IX. 1 Thess. has χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ ἘΣΤΊΝ 2 Thess. omits 
 ἡμῶν after πατρὸς. 1 and 2 Tim. add ἔλεος to χάρις and εἰρήνη 
 and have Χτοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Tit.: χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ 
 θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χτοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. Notice the com- 
 - bination of the Greek and Hebrew forms of salutation. Χάρις is 
 primarily that which gives joy or pleasure (χαρά, χαίρειν). Its 
 higher, Christian meaning is based on the emphasis of /veeness in 
 a gift or favor. It is the free, spontaneous, absolute lovingkind- 
 ness of God towards men. Hence it often stands in contrast with 
 the ideas of debt, law, works, sin. Sometimes the cause is put for 
 the effect ; so that it means the s/aée of grace into which God’s 
 freely-bestowed favor brings Christians (Rom. v. 2; Gal. v. 4), 
 
I. 2, 3] THE PROLOGUE 5 
 
 and consequently the capacity or ability due to that gracious state 
 (Eph. iv. 7). It is this free favor of God, with all that follows it, 
 that Paul in his salutation desires for his readers. Eipyvy is not 
 tranquillity or repose, save as these are conceived as resulting from 
 the cessation of hostility between God and man. Reconciliation 
 is always at the basis of the Pauline conception of peace. Simi- 
 larly Ps. xxix. 11, lxxxv. 8; Is. liii.5. These terms, therefore, 
 are not to be regarded as mere equivalents of the ordinary forms 
 of salutation. ‘They link themselves with these, and it is also true 
 that Paul does not use them with any distinct dogmatic purpose ; 
 but it is inconceivable that he should have employed them with- 
 out some consciousness of the peculiar sense which attaches to 
 them throughout his letters. Thus Weiss justly says that “the 
 fact that these terms connect themselves with the ordinary Greek 
 and Hebrew greetings does not exclude the employment of ‘ grace’ 
 in its specifically Christian and Pauline sense in which it denotes 
 the unmerited divine operation of love, which is the source and 
 principle of all Christian salvation. Similarly, ‘peace’ is not to 
 be understood primarily in the technical sense of Rom. v. 1, as 
 the first-fruit of justification; but we may be sure that, in Paul’s 
 mind, the whole state of tranquillity and general well-being which 
 was implied in ‘ peace’ attached itself at the root to the fact of 
 reconciliation with God.” 
 
 The fact that God and Christ appear on an equality in the salu- 
 tation cannot be adduced as a positive proof of the divine nature 
 of Christ, though it falls in with Paul’s words in ch. ii., and may 
 be allowed to point to that doctrine which he elsewhere asserts. 
 We cannot be too careful to distinguish between ideas which 
 unconsciously underlie particular expressions, and the same ideas 
 used with a definite and conscious dogmatic purpose. This Epis- 
 tle especially has suffered from the overlooking of this distinction. 
 
 THE THANKSGIVING 
 3. Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ 
 δεήσει μου, ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος : 
 
 εὐχαριστω τω θεω μου αὶ ABDKLP, Vulg., Syr.u, Cop., Basm. 
 eyw μεν εὐχαριστω Tw κυριω ἡμων D* FG. 
 
 Render: ‘I thank my God in all my remembrance of you; 
 always, in every supplication of mine, making my supplication for 
 you all with joy.’ Thus πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει pov is attached to 
 the following words, and ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν belongs, not to ἐν πάσῃ 
 δεήσει μου, but to τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος. 
 
 This is the most natural and simple arrangement of the words (so Weiss, 
 Kl, Lips., Weizs.) Lightf. makes a single clause of πάντοτε... ὑμῶν and 
 
6 PHILIPPIANS [I. 3-5 
 
 attaches it to the foregoing words; and makes μετὰ χαρᾶς... ποιούμενος a 
 separate explanatory clause defining the character of πάσῃ δεήσει. He 
 joins πάντοτε with εὐχαριστῶ. E)lic. connects ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν with 
 δεήσει μου, as Mey. 
 
 Comp. 1: Thess..i. 2; Rom. i. 9, 10; Eph.i. 16; Coliog; 
 Philem. 4. 
 
 τῷ θεῷ μου: For pov with the sense of personal relationship, see 
 Acts xxvii. 23; Rom. i. 8; Philem. 4. 
 
 ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν : The local sense of ἐπὶ runs into the 
 temporal, and blends with it (Jelf, Gr. 634, 2). Render ‘in,’ 
 and comp. ii. 17. The sense is similar if not identical where ἐπὶ 
 occurs with the genitive in 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph. i. 16; Philem. 4. 
 But see Ellic. here. Not ‘upon every remembrance’ as A.V., 
 which is precluded by the article with μνείᾳ, but ‘in all my 
 remembrance’; my remembrance of you as a whole is mingled 
 with thanksgiving. Μνεία is not ‘mention’ (as Kl.), a meaning 
 which it has only when joined with ποιεῖσθαι, as Rom. i. 9; Eph. 
 i. 16; τ Thess. i. 2. To make ὑμῶν the subjective genitive, ‘ your 
 thought of me,’ with an allusion to their gift, is against usage, and 
 would require a definite mention of the object of remembrance. 
 Harnack, 7h. LZ., 1889, p. 419, wrongly renders ‘‘ for every mode 
 of your remembrance,” adding “whereby, in the very beginning 
 of the letter, the Philippians’ gift is thought of with tenderness.”’ 
 The thought is quite unsuitable that Paul is moved to remem- 
 brance only by the exhibition of their care for him. 
 
 4. πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει : Πάσῃ δεήσει defines πάντοτε, as πάν- 
 tore marks the occasions of εὐχαριστῶς On every occasion of his 
 praying he makes request for them. Δέησις is petitionary prayer ; 
 ‘supplication.’ Paul alone joins it with προσευχὴ, which is the 
 more general term for prayer. (See Phil. iv. 6; Eph. vi. 18; 
 1 Tim. ii. 1.) Προσευχὴ is limited to prayer to God, while δέησις 
 may be addressed to man. (See Trench, WV. 7. Syn. Ἰι; Schmidt, 
 Synon. 7, 4; Ellic. on 1 Tim. ii. 2; Eph. vi. 18.) Ti δέήεων 
 defines the more general πάσῃ δεήσει, and is in turn defined by 
 ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν. 
 
 μετὰ χαρᾶς : The petitions are accompanied with joy, the cause 
 of which is indicated in vs. 5-7. 
 
 5. ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν : Connect with εὐχαριστῶ, not with τὴν 
 δέησιν ποιούμενος. ἜοΥ, τ. εὐχαριστῶ would thus be left without an 
 object. 2. The ‘fellowship’ is not the subject of Paul’s prayer, 
 but of his thanksgiving. 3. Εὐχαριστεῖν and similar verbs are used 
 by Paul with ἐπὶ, as 1 Cor. i. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 15; but ἐπὶ never 
 occurs with δέησιν ποιούμενος OT δεῖσθαι to mark their cause or 
 ground. Neither should ἐπὶ TH κοινωνίᾳ. be connected with pera 
 xapas which would require τῆς before ἐπὶ. 
 
 κοινωνίᾳ : “ Fellowship’ (κοινὸς, ‘common’). A relation between 
 individuals which involves common and mutual interest and par- 
 
I. 5, 6] THE PROLOGUE 7 
 
 ticipation in a common object. The word occurs often in Paul 
 and in John’s epistles. Occasionally of the particular form which 
 the spirit of fellowship assumes, as the giving of alms (Rom. xv. 26 ; 
 Heb. xiii. 16), but always with an emphasis upon the principle 
 of Christian fellowship which underlies the gift. Here it means 
 sympathetic participation in labor and suffering. 
 
 τῇ κοιν. ὑμῶν : ‘your fellowship.’ ‘Not fellowship with you’ 
 (objective genitive) ; for when Paul uses the objective genitive 
 with κοινωνία, it is to express fellowship with a divine and not a 
 human person (1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Phil. ii. 1). More- 
 over, when κοινωνία is used of fellowship wth (una cum) human 
 persons, the relation is indicated by pera (1 John i. 3, 7). Comp. 
 πρὸς, 2 Cor. vi. 14. Hence ὑμῶν here is subjective. No defining 
 word indicates their fellowship with him. The meaning is their 
 fellowship with each other in the cause of the gospel. If the ref- 
 erence had been particularly to their fellowship with Paul, per 
 ἐμοῦ would probably have been added. 
 
 eis τὸ εὐαγγέλιον : Describes the character and object of the fel- 
 lowship. For κοινωνία with εἰς, see Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 13; 
 and comp. ἐκοινώνησεν eis, Phil. iv. 15. The meaning is not ‘con- 
 tribution,’ though the thought of their gifts may have been dis- 
 tinctly present to the apostle’s mind (so Ellic. and Lightf.) ; nor 
 ‘participation’ in the gospel as sharers of its blessings ; but ‘ your 
 close association in the furtherance of the gospel.’ 
 
 ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας: 
 
 WH. and Weiss retain τῆς with 8 ABP 37. Tisch. omits with DFGKL. 
 
 ‘The first day’ is the day when they received the gospel. (See 
 Acts xvi. 13; Col. i.6.) Connect with τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν, not with 
 πεποιθὼς. 
 
 ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν : As Rom. vill. 22. Only in Paul. 
 
 THE COMMENDATION AND PRAYER 
 
 6. πεποιθὼς : ‘being confident.’ Appended to εὐχαριστῶ and 
 parallel with ποιούμενος. 
 
 αὐτὸ τοῦτο: Not governed by πεποιθὼς, but appended to it as 
 specially marking the content and compass of the action (Ellic.). 
 It prepares the way for the matter introduced by or. (Comp. 
 Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8.) Not ‘for this very reason’ (Mey.), z.e. 
 by reason of your past cooperation, but referring to what follows. 
 
 ὃ ἐναρξάμενος : ‘He’— God —is the source of Paul’s confidence, 
 not only for himself, but for his converts ; God, whom he thanks 
 in all his remembrance of them. For the omission of θεὸς, comp. 
 Rom. viii τὰ ; Gal. i. 6, u. 8, 111. 5, νὰ 8; 1 Thess. v.: 24.) That 
 ἐναρξάμενος contains a sacrificial metaphor, the beginning of the 
 gospel-work among the Philippians being conceived as the inaugu- 
 
8 PHILIPPIANS [I. 6, 7 
 
 ration of a sacrifice (Lightf.), is not probable. The word is used 
 in that sense mostly in poetry, and the conception, in any case, is 
 far-fetched. Lightf. compares ii. 17, but that can hardly be said 
 to be in point. ἊἜνάρχεσθαι occurs three times in the N.T. 
 (2 Cor. viii. 6 ; Gal. iii. 3), only in Paul, and always with ἐπιτελεῖν. 
 
 ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘In you’; in your hearts. Not ‘among you.’ (Comp. 
 11 Ἐν 
 
 ἔργον ἀγαθὸν : Comp. ii. 132. The work begun in their reception 
 of the gospel, and developed in their activity and close fellowship 
 for its promotion. ‘The thought is taken up again in vs. 7. 
 
 ἐπιτελέσει : ‘Complete,’ ‘consummate.’ For the thought, comp. 
 1 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3. The sense is preg- 
 nant ; will carry it on toward completion, and finally complete. 
 
 ἄχρι ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ : ‘ Day of Jesus Christ’ is the second 
 coming or farousia of the Lord. The phrase is varied in Paul’s 
 
 epistles : ἡ ἡμέρα, absolutely (i ὙΠ 655: ἡ 4G x Cor. lil. 13; Rom. 
 
 xiii. 12); ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη ( Thess. i. 10) ; ; ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ (Phil. 
 i, 10, il. 16); ἡμέρα κυρίου or τοῦ ,κυρίου (1 Cor. v. 55 τ Tess 
 v. 2; 2 Thess. il. 2) ; ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ (Χτοῦ) (1 Cor. 
 i 8; 2 Cor. i. 14). It refers to a definite point of time when the 
 Lord will appear, and Paul expects this appearance soon. At- 
 tempts to evade this by referring his expressions to the day of 
 death, or to the advance toward perfection after death until the 
 final judgment, are forced and shaped by dogmatic preconceptions 
 of the nature of inspiration. (See Jowett, “On the Belief of the 
 Coming of Christ in the Apostolical Age,” in Zhe Epistles of St. 
 Paul to the Thessalonians, etc.). 
 
 7. καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν: 
 ‘Even as it is right for me to be thus minded on behalf of you all.’ 
 
 Καθώς is a nearer definition of πεποιθὼς, stating its ground in the 
 affectionate relation between Paul and his readers. For a similar 
 usage, see Gal. ili. 6. I am confident, even as it is right for me 
 to have such confidence. Comp. also iii. 17; Rom. i. 28; 1 Cor. 
 1,6; Eph. 1. 4. 
 
 δίκαιον : in the general moral sense, as iv. 8; Acts iv. 19; Eph. 
 vi. 1; Col. iv. 1; referring, as in classical usage, to the concep- 
 tion of what is normal, yet having at its foundation, not the natural 
 relation of man to man, but the moral relation of man to God. 
 The classical construction of the clause would be δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο 
 φρονεῖν, or δίκαιος cit τοῦτο pp. (See Win. lxvi.) 
 
 φρονεῖν : ‘To be minded’; not as A.V., ‘to think.’ The word 
 denotes rather a general disposition of the mind than a specific 
 act of thought directed at a given point. Comp. iii. 15, 19, iv. 2 ; 
 Rom. viii. 5, xi. 20; 1 Cor. xiii. 11; Gal. v. 10; Matt. xvi. 23; 
 and see on iii. 15. Comp. also φρόνημα (Rom. viii. 6, 7,27). ΜΕΥ: 
 defines ‘the ethical Christian quality.’ Similarly, in class. Greek, 
 φρονεῖν often occurs with εὖ, καλῶς, ὀρθῶς, κακῶς : τά τινος doors 
 
I. 7] THE PROLOGUE 9 
 
 is to be of one’s party or on his side. (See Schmidt, Synon. 147, 
 7,8.) The reference of φρονεῖν here is to πεποιθὼς, not to the 
 ‘supplication’ (vs. 4), which the sense of φρονεῖν does not admit. 
 
 ὑπὲρ παντῶν ὑμῶν : Ὑπὲρ is stronger than περὶ, ‘concerning.’ 
 Const. with φρονεῖν, as iv. το. ‘All,’ collectively. The reference 
 of this frequently recurring ‘all’ to Paul’s deprecation of divisions 
 in the church is far-fetched. 
 
 διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς : ‘ Because I have you in my 
 heart.’ Not, ‘because you have me,’ which is forbidden by the 
 position of the words, and by the following verse (Win. xliv.). 
 It is right for me so to think, because I have a personal affection 
 for you (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 3), as those who are my partakers in 
 grace and my co-laborers in the work of the gospel. This is not 
 to be understood as if Paul’s natural affection for his readers made 
 it right for him to expect that the work begun in them would be 
 completed, but the expectation was justified by his love for them 
 in Christ. He knew no man after the flesh (2 Cor. v. 16) ; he 
 loved them ‘in the heart of Jesus Christ’ (vs. 8), and the reason 
 for his love was also the fundamental reason for his confidence in 
 the completion of the work of God in them. 
 
 ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου, etc.: Not to be taken with the preceding 
 sentence, so as to read ‘I have you in my heart both in my bonds,’ 
 etc. (so Mey., De W., Alf., Beet, Weizs.), but to be attached to 
 the following συνκοινωνούς... ὄντας (so Lips., Lightf., Dw., Weiss, 
 Ellic., Kl., Ead., WH., R.V.), ‘I have you in my heart as being 
 (ὄντας) partakers with me in grace both in my bonds and in the 
 defence,’ etc. The development of the thought as related to 
 κοινωνία (vs. 4) and the repetition of ὑμᾶς, which is more easily 
 accounted for if the new clause begins with ἔν re τοῖς δεσμοῖς, 
 make this connection the more probable one. The apostle is con- 
 fident because of his love for them in Christ, and he cherishes 
 them in his heart because of the evidence furnished by them that 
 in his sufferings and in the defence of the gospel they are united 
 with him in the closest Christian fellowship. 
 
 καὶ ἐν TH ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : 
 
 ev repeated before ry απολογια with Ν᾿ BD>©EKLP. Probably omitted 
 (as in ADFG) because it was wanting before βεβαιωσει, the transcriber 
 overlooking that βεβ. was included with doi. under one article. 
 
 ᾿Απολογία occurs in the sense of defence against a judicial ac- 
 cusation (Acts xxv. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 16). As a defence against 
 private persons (1 Cor. ix. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 11). In a loose sense, 
 including both these (Phil. i. 16; 1 Pet. ili. 15). Here it may 
 include Paul’s defence before the Roman authorities, but it must 
 not be limited to that. It includes all. his efforts, wherever put 
 forth, to defend the gospel. 
 
 BeBaiwors occurs only here and Heb. vi. 16. It is closely allied 
 
10 PHILIPPIANS [1. 7,8 
 
 but not synonymous with ἀπολογία, and does not form a hendiadys 
 with it — ‘defence for confirmation.’ Notice the binding of the 
 two words under the same article. The defence was made for 
 establishment or confirmation, and resulted init. For the kindred 
 verb βεβαιοῦν, see 1 Cor. i. 6, 8; 2 Cor. i. 21. 
 
 συνκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος : vvKowwvos occurs in the N.T. 
 with both persons (1 Cor. ix. 23) and things (Rom. xi. 17). 
 Render ‘ partakers with me of grace,’ not as A.V. ‘ partakers of 
 my grace.’ Against this is the order of the pronouns, and the 
 fact that when Paul speaks of the grace peculiar to himself he 
 never sayS μοῦ ἡ χάρις OF ἡ χάρις pov, but ἡ χάρις ἡ δοθεῖσα μοι 
 (Gal. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. ili. τὸ ; Rom. xii. 3, xv. 15) ; Or ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ 
 ἡ εἰς ἐμὲ (1 Cor. xv. 10). Moreover, the grace is characterised 
 by ‘in my bonds,’ etc. For a similar construction of a noun with 
 a double genitive, of the person and of the thing, see i. 25, ii. 30. 
 The article with χάριτος characterises the absolute grace of God in 
 its peculiar applications to his trials and theirs, and in its manifes- 
 tations in their sympathy and effort. Grace prompted them to 
 alleviate his imprisonment, to cooperate with him in defending 
 and propagating the gospel, and to suffer for its sake. 
 
 8. μάρτυς γάρ μου ὃ θεός: 
 
 The reading μοι for μου, Vulg. mhz, has little support. 
 
 A strong adjuration thrown in as a spontaneous expression of 
 feeling, like “God knows.” (Comp. Rom. i. 9; 2 Cor. i. 23; 
 1 Thess. ii. 5, 10.) Chrys. says it is an expression of his inability 
 to express his feeling, ‘I cannot express how I long.’ Similarly, 
 Aretius, ‘‘ No necessity compels him to this appeal, yet the great- 
 ness of his love does not satisfy itself without betaking itself to 
 God’s tribunal.” 
 
 Some of the earlier interpreters explained the words as an attestation of 
 Paul’s love made with a view of heightening that of his readers; as a 
 formal oath in verification of his teaching; as a protection against slander- 
 ers and against suspicion. Klépper thinks that they were aimed at certain 
 persons in the church who were not in full sympathy with him and did not 
 wholly trust his assurances. All these explanations are forced. The gen- 
 eral statement, ‘I have you in my heart,’ is carried out by the stronger 
 expression. 
 
 ὡς ἐπιποθῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : 
 
 ὡς : ‘how,’ as Rom. 1. 9; 1 Thess. ii. το. Not ‘that.’ (See 
 Thay. Lex. sub voce, i. 6.) 
 
 ἐπιποθῶ : Mostly in Paul. The only exceptions are Jas. iv. 5 ; 
 1 Pet. ii. 2, "Emi denotes the direction, not the intensity of the 
 emotion, as Lightf. and ΚΙ. 
 
 σπλάγχνοις : Σπλάγχνα are the nobler entrails — the heart, liver, 
 and lungs, as distinguished from the intestines (ra ἔντερα), and 
 regarded collectively as the seat of the feelings, the affections and 
 
I. 8, 9] THE PROLOGUE II 
 
 passions, especially anxiety and anger. ‘ Heart’ is used similarly 
 by us. A like usage appears in Hebrew, though the nobler organs 
 are not selected for the metaphorical usage. Thus D'y1, ‘ bowels,’ 
 ‘womb,’ ‘stomach,’ and 37), ‘ bowels,’ ‘ belly,’ ‘womb,’ are both 
 used for the heart as the seat of feeling. The plural of om, ‘the 
 womb,’ ΘΠ, is rendered in the LXX by οἰκτιρμοί, Ps. xxv. (xxiv.) 
 6, xl. (xxxix.) 12 ; by ἔλεος, Is. xlvii. 6 ; by σπλάγχνα, Prov. xii. 10. 
 The word occurs occasionally in the singular, σπλάγχνον, in the 
 tragedians. (See Atsch. Hum. 240; Soph. 47. 995; Eur. Orest. 
 D200, 2/1ppol. 118.) For N.T. usage, see ii. 1; 2: Cor. vi. 12, 
 mies 3 Col. ui, 12‘; Philem. 7, 12, 20. 
 
 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : Paul’s feeling is not his mere natural affection, 
 but an affection so informed with Christ that it is practically 
 Christ’s own love. Christ loves them in him. Thus Beng., “In 
 Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non ἴῃ 
 Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur visceribus.”’ 
 
 9. καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι : With reference to δέησιν in vs. 4. 
 
 Kai not connecting τοῦτο προσ. with ἐπιποθῶ, so as to read ‘ how 
 I long and how I pray’ (so Ril.). This would weaken, if not 
 destroy the force of vs. 8. A new topic is introduced by καὶ. 
 
 Tovro points to what follows, calling attention to the subject of 
 the prayer. ‘This which follows is what I pray.’ 
 
 iva ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ : ‘That your 
 love may abound yet more and more.’ 
 
 Ἵνα marks the purport of the prayer. For zpocevy. iva, see 
 1 (οΥ. xiv, 13. 
 
 There is abundant evidence that ἵνα has, in many cases, lost its telic 
 sense and has come to express result or purport. See, for example, 
 I Thess. v. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 29, and the sensible remarks of Canon Evans 
 on the latter passage in the Sfeaker’s Com. The examples are drawn out 
 and classified by Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of N. T. Greek, 
 191-223. See also Simcox, Language of the N.T., p. 176 ff. 
 
 ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν : Your mutual love ; not your love for me, save as 
 I am one of the common brotherhood. 
 
 ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ : Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 9, 10. 
 Notice the accumulation of comparative phrases so common with 
 Paul, as vs. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. iii. 20. 
 
 For περισσευη, BD 37 read περισσευση; so Weiss, and WH. marg. K* P 
 περισσενει. FG περισσευοι. 
 
 Love, like other Christian graces, grows. (Comp. iii. 12.) Νο- 
 tice the progressive present, ‘may continue to abound.’ Chrys. 
 remarks: “ For this is a good of which there is no satiety.” 
 
 ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει: ‘in knowledge and in all dis- 
 cernment.’ ᾿ἊἜἘπίγνωσις and the kindred verb ἐπιγινώσκειν are 
 favorite words with Paul. “Emi has the force of addition; know- 
 
12 PHILIPPIANS [1. 9, 10 
 
 ledge superadded ; advanced knowledge, rather than (as Thay. 
 and Kl.) direction toward; application to that which is known. 
 (See Sanday on Rom. i. 28, and Evans on τ Cor. xiii. 12.) Thus 
 it signifies here developed knowledge of truth, with more especial 
 reference to the practical knowledge which informs Christian love 
 as to the right circumstances, aims, ways, and means. (See Col. 
 i.g, 10.) The difference between the simple and the compound 
 word is illustrated in 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Rom. i. 21, 28. Ἐπίγνωσις 
 is always applied in the N.T. to the knowledge of things ethical 
 and divine. In all the four epistles of the captivity it is one of 
 the subjects of the apostle’s opening prayer for his readers. It 
 is constructed mostly with a genitive of the object, as ἁμαρτίας, 
 ἀληθείας, and occurs absolutely only in Rom. x. 2. 
 
 αἰσθήσει : Only here in N.T. Comp. αἰσθητήρια (Heb. v. 14). 
 In LXX, Prov.'1.4, 7,22, 11. 20. ¥. 25 Sit. xxil. 10 ; 18: νυ τ 
 Primarily of sensuous, but also of spiritual perception. It is the 
 faculty of spiritual discernment of the bearings of each particular 
 circumstance or case which may emerge in experience. It is more 
 specific than ἐπίγνωσις with the practical applications of which it 
 deals. Πάσῃ is added because this discernment operates in mani- 
 fold ways, according to the various relations of the subject to the 
 facts of experience. Ἔν, which belongs to both nouns, follows the 
 standing usage, περισσεύειν ἐν. (See Rom. xv. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9, 
 viii. 7.) Paul prays for the abounding of love in these two aspects, 
 advanced knowledge and right spiritual discernment; an intelli- 
 gent and discriminating love; love which, however ardent and 
 sincere, shall not be a mere unregulated impulse. Even natural 
 love has a quick perception, an intuitive knowledge ; but without 
 the regulative principle of the spiritual reason, it is not secure 
 against partial seeing and misconception, and results which do not 
 answer to the purity of its motives. ᾿Ἐπίγνωσις is the general 
 regulator and guide. Αἴσθησις applies ἐπίγνωσις to the finer de- 
 tails of the individual life, and fulfils itself in the various phases of 
 Christian tact. 
 
 10. εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ διαφέροντα : ‘That you may put to 
 the proof the things that differ.’ 
 
 Eis governing the infin. with τὸ is frequent in Paul. (See Rom. 
 1. 11, 1]. 26, vii 29 3 Eph. 1. 12.) 
 
 Δοκιμάζειν in class. Gk. of assaying metals. (Comp. LXX, Prov. 
 Vili, 10, xvii..3 3 Sir. i. 55 also τ Cor... 43 51) Pet. 1. 7) Τὴ 
 class. the technical word for testing money (Plato, Zim. 65, c.). 
 Δοκιμάζειν and πυροῦσθαι occur together (Jer. ix. 7; Ps. xii. (xi.) 6, 
 Ixvi. (Ixv.) το). Generally, ‘to prove,’ ‘examine,’ as 1 Cor. xi. 
 28; Gal. vi. 4; 1 Thess. v.21. ‘To accept’ that which is proved 
 to be good. This and the more general sense appear together in 
 1/Cor, xvi. 332) Cor: vili, 22); 1 Thess, it, 4, 
 
 τὰ διαφέροντα : Διαφέρειν, in class. and N.T., means both ‘to 
 
I. 10] THE PROLOGUE 13 
 
 excel” (Matt. vi. 26, x. 31, ΧΙ 12; Luke xii. -7, 24), and ‘to 
 differ’ (1 Cor. xv. 41; Gal. iv. 1, ii. 6). 
 
 Expositors are divided between two renderings. 1. ‘To put 
 to the proof the things that differ,’ and so discriminate between 
 them (so Alf., Ead., Lips., Kl., De W., Weiss, Hack.). 2. ‘To 
 approve the things that are excellent’ (so Ellic., Mey., Beet, 
 Lightf., Vulg., R.V., but with 1 in marg.). The difference is not 
 really essential, since, in any case, the result contemplated is the 
 approval of what is good. But 1 agrees better with what pre- 
 cedes, especially with αἴσθησις. Paul is emphasising the necessity 
 of wisdom and discrimination in love. ‘This necessity arises from 
 circumstances which present moral problems, and develop differ- 
 ences of view, and give room for casuistry. The discrimination 
 of love applies tests, and makes distinctions impossible to the 
 untrained moral sense. ‘Therefore the Romans are urged to be 
 ‘transformed by the renewing of their mind,’ in order that they 
 may prove (δοκιμάζειν) the good and acceptable and perfect will 
 of God (Rom. xii. 2). Paul illustrates this discrimination in the 
 matter of eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor. viil., x. 19-33). 
 In that case love abounds, not only in knowledge, but in percep- 
 tion of a delicate distinction between an act which is right in 
 itself, and wrong in the light of the obligation to the weak con- 
 science. The αἴσθησις of love is the only sure guide in questions 
 which turn upon things morally indifferent. Thus the whole 
 thought is as follows : ‘ May your love increase and abound in ripe 
 knowledge and perceptive power, that you may apply the right 
 tests and reach the right decisions in things which present moral 
 differences.” (Comp. Eph. v. 10; 1 Thess. v. 21; Heb. v. 14.) 
 
 The majority of the Greek fathers explained the differences as those 
 between believers and unbelievers, heretics or errorists, or between true 
 and false doctrine; many of the moderns of the difference between right 
 and wrong. (See Klépper on this pass.) 
 
 ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς Kal ἀπρόσκοποι : 
 
 There is good ancient authority for εἰλικ., both with and without 
 the aspirate. (See WH. WV. 7. Append. sub ‘breathings.’) The 
 word only here and 2 Pet. ili. 1. The kindred noun εἰλικρίνεια in 
 1 Cor.v.8; 2 Cor.i. 12, ii. 17. The meaning is ‘ pure,’ ‘sincere.’ 
 
 None of the etymologies are satisfactory. The usual one is εἵλη, ‘ tested 
 by the sunlight,’ but εἵλη means the ea? of the sun. 
 
 Lightf. suggests a probable(?) derivation from εἴλη, ‘a troop’; others, 
 from εἴλω or ἔλλω, ‘to turn round,’ — hence ‘judged by turning round,’ or 
 ‘sifted by revolution.’ 
 
 ἀπρόσκοποι: Either (1) ‘not causing others to stumble’ (Lips., 
 Mey., Ead.), or (2) ‘not stumbling’ (Alf., Ellic., Kl., Weiss, 
 Lightf.). For 1, see τ Cor. x. 32; and comp. Rom. xiv. 13; 
 2 Cor. vi. 3; for 2, Acts xxiv. 16. The former meaning is clearly 
 
 I 
 
14 PHILIPPIANS [1. 10, 11 
 
 preferable, as related to what precedes. The discernment of love 
 is especially demanded in adjusting a Christian’s true relations to 
 his brethren. Lightf.’s reason for adopting 2 is that the question 
 is solely that of the fitness of the Philippians to appear before the 
 tribunal of Christ, and that therefore any reference to their influ- 
 ence upon others would be out of place. How influence upon 
 others can be left out of the question of such fitness, it is not easy 
 to see. Certainly, if we are to believe Christ himself, the awards 
 of the day of -hrist will be determined quite as much by the 
 individual’s relztions to his fellow-men as by his personal right- 
 eousness, if the two can be separated, as they cannot be. Christ’s 
 thought on that point is unmistakably expressed in Matt. xxv. 40; 
 and Paul furnishes his own interpretation of ἀπρόσκοποι in Rom. 
 xiv. 13; 1 Cor. x. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 3; and especially 1 Cor. viii. 13. 
 εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ: 
 
 eis, not ‘till,’ as A.V., but ‘ for,’ ‘ against,’ as those who are pre- 
 paring for it. For this sense of eis, comp. 11. 16; Eph. iv. 30; 
 @ Tim. 1.12. 
 
 11. πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης : ‘ being filled with the fruit 
 of righteousness.’ Πεπλ. agrees with the subject of ἦτε in vs. 10, 
 and defines εἰλικρινεῖς and ἀπρόσκοποι more fully. Kapzov is the 
 accus. of the remote object, as Col. i. 9g; 2 Thess. i. 11. (Comp. 
 LXX, Ex. xxxi. 3.) Paul elsewhere uses πληροῦν with the genit. 
 or dat. (See Rom. i. 29, xv. 13, 143; 2 Cor. vil. 4.) 
 
 The reading of TR kaprwv... τῶν is feebly supported. 
 
 Καρπὸς in its moral and religious sense occurs in vs. 22, iv. 17; 
 Rom. i. 13, vi. 21, 22, xv. 28; Gal. v. 22, nearly always of a good 
 result. The phrase ‘fruit of righteousness’ is from the O.T. (See 
 Prov. xi. 30; Amos vi. 13. Comp. Jas. ili. 18.) The genit. 
 δικαιοσύνης is not appositional, ‘fruit which consists in righteous- 
 ness,’ but, as Gal. v. 22; Eph. ν. ο ; Jas. 111. 18, ‘the fruit which 
 righteousness produces.’ 
 
 Δικαιοσύνη, not in Paul’s more technical sense of ‘ righteousness 
 by faith,’ but moral rightness; righteousness of life; though, as 
 Mey. justly observes, it is a moral condition which is the moral 
 consequence, because the necessary vital expression of the 
 righteousness of faith, (Comp. Rom. vii. 4; Col. i. 10.) “The 
 technical and the moral conceptions of righteousness may be 
 dogmatically distinguished, but not in fact, since the latter cannot 
 exist without the former’’ (Weiss). This appears from the next 
 clause — τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Notice the defining force of τὸν. 
 
 Righteousness without Christ cannot be fruitful (Jn. xv. 5, 8, 16). 
 
 εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ : Construe with the whole preceding 
 sentence, and not with καρπὸν only. 
 
 Δόξα is not used in N.T. in the classical sense of ‘notion’ or 
 ‘opinion.’ In the sense of ‘reputation’ (Jn. xii. 43; Rom. il. 7, _ 
 
 ’ 
 
 & 
 
I. 11, 12] CAPTIVITY FURTHERS THE GOSPEL 15 
 
 10). As ‘brightness’ or ‘splendor’ (Acts xxil. 11 ; Rom. ix. 4; 
 1 Cor. xv. 40). ‘The glory of God’ expresses the sum total of 
 the divine perfections. It is prominent in the redemptive revela- 
 tion (Is. lx. 1; Rom. v. 2,vi.4). It expresses the form in which 
 God reveals himself in the economy of salvation (Rom. ix. 23 ; 
 Eph. i. 12; 1 Tim.i.11). It is the means by which the redemp- 
 tive work is carried on; in calling (2 Pet. 1, 3) ; in raising up 
 Christ and believers with him (Rom. vi. 4) ; in wsparting strength 
 to believers (Eph. iii. 16; Col. i. 11). It is the joal of Christian 
 hope (Rom. v. 2, viii. 18, 21... Titi aa )ye ΠΕ δ “the redemptive 
 aspect of the phrase which gives the key to its meaning here. 
 The love of God’s children, abounding in discriminating knowl- / 
 edge, their being filled with the fruit of righteousness, redounds/ 
 to (eis) his glory as a redeeming God. It honors him in respect 
 of that which is preéminently his glory. Every holy character is 
 a testimony to the divine character and efficiency of the work of 
 redemption. 
 
 ἔπαινον : The homage rendered to God as a God of ‘glory.’ 
 (See Eph. i. 6, 12, 1451 Pet.i. 7.) 
 
 The apostle now enters upon the subject-matter of the letter. 
 From ys. 12 to vs. 26 he treats of — 
 
 1. The state of the gospel in Rome. 
 (az) Its advancement through his imprisonment (12-14). 
 (ὁ) The different kinds of preachers (15-17). 
 
 2. His own condition and hopes (18-26). 
 
 12-14. Though you may have feared that the cause of the gospel 
 ts suffering by reason of my imprisonment, I wish to assure you 
 that it has rather been promoted thereby. My imprisonment has 
 become known as being for Christ's sake, not only to the whole 
 band of the pretorian troops, but also to the rest of Rome; and 
 the majority of the Christian brethren have had their faith in God 
 strengthened by my example, and their boldness in preaching the 
 gospel increased. 
 
 12. γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι : ‘now I would have you know.’ 
 This phrase does not occur elsewhere in N.T., but Paul uses 
 several similar expressions in order to call special attention to 
 what he is about to say. Thus, θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι (1 Cor. xi. 3 ; 
 Col. ii. 1) ; οὐ θέλω (ομεν) ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (1 Cor: χ. αι; Rom: 1. 13; 
 1 Thess. iv. 13) ; γνωρίζω (ομεν) ὑμῖν (1 Cor. χν. τ ; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ; 
 Gal. i. 11). 
 
 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ : ‘The things pertaining to me’; my experience asa 
 
16 PHILIPPIANS [1. 12, 13 
 
 prisoner. (Comp. Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7.) Not ‘that which has 
 been undertaken against me,’ which would require ἐμοῦ. 
 
 μᾶλλον: Not ‘more’ (quantitatively), but ‘rather.’ Though 
 you feared that my circumstances might injure the cause of the 
 gospel, they have vazher promoted it. ‘The comparative is often 
 used without mention of the standard of comparison. (See ii. 28 ; 
 Rom. xv. 15 ; 1 Cor. vii, 38, xii. 31 ; 2 Cor. vil.’ 7, 1.2. eterna 
 XXXV. 4.) 
 
 προκοπὴν : Only here, vs. 25, and 1 Tim. iv. 15. A word of 
 later Greek, occurring in Plut., Jos., and Philo. (See Wetst.) In 
 LXX, see Sir. li. 17; 2 Macc. viii. 8. The figure in the word is 
 uncertain, but is supposed to be that of pioneers cu¢éing a way 
 before an army, and so furthering its march. ‘The opposite is 
 expressed by ἐγκόπτειν, ‘to cut into,’ ‘to throw obstacles in the 
 way of,’ and so ‘ to hinder’ (Gal. v. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; 1 Pet. iii. 7). 
 
 εὐαγγελίου : Originally ‘a present given in return for good news.’ 
 (See Hom. Od. xiv. 152; Aristoph. Awigh/s, 647; 2 Sam. iv. 10, 
 xviii. 22.) In class. Gk. it meant, in the plu., ‘a sacrifice for good 
 tidings’ ; hence the phrase εὐαγγελία θύειν (Aristoph. Knights, 656 ; 
 Xen. Hell. i. 6, 37, iv. 3, 14). Later, ‘the good news’ itself, as 
 2 Sam. xviii. 20, 25, 27; 2 Kings viil.9. Hence ‘the joyful tid- 
 ings of Messiah’s kingdom —the gospel.’ In the N.T., never in 
 the sense of a book. 
 
 cis . . . ἐλήλυθεν : Not elsewhere in Paul. (See Sap. xv. 5.) 
 ‘Has redounded to’ ; “ fallen out unto.’ 
 
 13. ὥστε τοὺς δεσμούς μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ: 
 
 Ὥστε with the accus. w. inf., as 1 Cor. 1, 7. With an explana- 
 tory force, the explanation being regarded as a result of the notion 
 of προκοπὴν. (See Jelf, Gram. 863, obs. 7.) Render: ‘so that 
 my bonds became manifest in Christ’; not ‘my bonds in Christ,’ 
 against which is the position of the words. Moreover, the force 
 of the statement lies in the fact that his imprisonment has become 
 a matter of notoriety as being for Christ. His confinement as a 
 Christian would excite attention and inquiry. (Comp. Ign. Smyr. 
 xi. δεδεμένος θεοπρεπεστάτοις δεσμοῖς πάντας ἀσπάζομαι : “A pris- 
 oner in bonds which are divine ornaments, I salute all men.”) 
 Jerome says: “ Vincula mea manifesta fierent in Christo. Non 
 solum non obsunt sed etiam profuerunt, dum manifestatur me non 
 pro aliquo crimine, sed pro Christo omnia sustinere.” 
 
 ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ : 
 
 ‘In (or throughout) the whole preetorian guard.’ The pre- 
 torians formed the imperial guard. ‘They were ten thousand in 
 number, picked men, originally of Italian birth, but drawn later 
 from Macedonia, Noricum, and Spain. ‘They were originally 
 instituted by Augustus, who stationed three of their cohorts in 
 Rome, and dispersed the others in the adjacent towns. ‘Tiberius 
 concentrated them all at Rome in a permanent and strongly forti- 
 
I. 13, 14] THE ROMAN BRETHREN TAKE HEART 17 
 
 fied camp. Vitellius increased their number to sixteen thousand. 
 They were distinguished by special privileges and by double pay. 
 Their original term of service was twelve years, afterwards in- 
 creased to sixteen. On retiring, each soldier received a bounty 
 amounting to nearly nine hundred dollars. Paul was committed 
 to the charge of these troops, the soldiers relieving each other in 
 mounting guard over him in his private lodging. (See note at 
 the end of this chapter.) 
 
 καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν : (Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2.) ‘All the rest,’ 
 as distinguished from the preetorians. Not as A.V., ‘in all other 
 places’ (so Chrys., Thdrt., Calv.). His imprisonment as a Christ- 
 ian became known beyond the limits of the guard, in the city at 
 large. Immediately upon his arrival he addressed the chief of the 
 Jews (Acts xxviii. 17), and later a larger number (vs. 23), and 
 for two years received all that came to him (vs. 30). 
 
 14. καὶ τοὺς πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς 
 μου: ‘And the majority of the brethren having confidence in the 
 Lord by reason of my bonds.’ 
 
 τοὺς πλείονας : Not as A.V. ‘many,’ but ‘the greater number.’ 
 (Comp. 1 Cor. x. 5.) 
 
 Differences as to the connection of the words. 1. ἐν κυρίῳ: 
 (2) with ἀδελφῶν, ‘ brethren in the Lord’ (Alf., K1., Dw., Weiss., 
 De W., Weizs. [Trans.]) ; (ὁ) with πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς, ‘ rely- 
 ing on my bonds in the Lord.’ According to this, ἐν κυρίῳ is the 
 modal definition of wer. τ. δεσμ. The ground of confidence is 
 τοῖς δεσμ., not ἐν κυρ., which marks the nature and sphere of the 
 confidence (so Mey., Lightf., Ellic., Lips., Ead.). 2. πεποιθότας : 
 (4) with rots δεσμοῖς, as that in which confidence is reposed 
 (Mey., Kl., Ead., Lightf., Alf., Lips.) ; (4) with ἐν κυρίῳ, as the 
 ground of confidence (Beet, Hack.). 
 
 As to 1 (a), ἀδελφοὶ ἐν κυρίῳ does not occur elsewhere. None 
 of the passages cited by ΚΙ. and others, such as 1 Cor. iv. 17; 
 Col. iv. 7; Philem. 16, are in point, since in none of them does 
 the preposition depend directly on ἀδελφὸς. Moreover, the addi- 
 tion of ἐν x. would seem superfluous. 1 (4) is grammatically 
 defensible. (See Gal. v. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 4.) But the sense is 
 forced, if it can be called sense. What is meant by ‘having con- 
 fidence in,’ or ‘ trusting in my bonds’? 2 (4) is a legitimate con- 
 struction. (See Jer. xxxi. 7, LXX, Aug. Bib. xlviii. 7; Phil. ii. 
 24; and the analogous constructions, Phil. iii. 3, 4.) It is true 
 that in such cases πεποιθ. usually precedes; but the change of 
 position is for the sake of emphasis, as Phil. iii. 3. Ἔν κυρίῳ is 
 the ground of πεποιθ., and τοῖς δεσμ. is instrumental. The sense 
 is thus simple and consistent. By Paul’s bonds the brethren have 
 had their confidence in the Lord strengthened. He has already 
 said that his bonds have become manifest in Christ. The testi- 
 mony borne by his imprisonment has been distinctly that of 
 
 c 
 
18 PHILIPPIANS [1. 14, 15 
 
 Christ’s prisoner, and has therefore encouraged confidence in 
 Christ. 
 
 περισσοτέρως τολμᾷν ἀφόβως τὸν λόγον Tod θεοῦ λαλεῖν : ‘are 
 more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.’ 
 For περισσοτέρως, comp. 2 Cor. i. 12, ii. 43 Gal.i.14. It belongs 
 with τολμᾷν, not with ἀφόβως. 
 
 Τολμᾷν is to carry into action the feeling of resolute confidence 
 expressed by θαρσεῖν. (See 2 Cor. x. 2, and W. Sz. ad loc.) 
 
 τὸν λόγον Tov θεοῦ: The message of God; the gospel. Very 
 frequent in N.T. Once in the sense of ‘the declared purpose of 
 God’ (Rom. ix. 6). Not elsewhere in Paul with λαλεῖν. For the 
 phrase τὸν Ady. λαλ. Or τὸν Ady. He. AaA., see Acts iv. 31, ΧΙ. 46, 
 Xiv. 25. 
 
 Paul’s boldness and patience in his captivity have stirred up the 
 courage and zeal of the Roman Christians, and probably have 
 awakened shame in some recreant disciples. Chrys. remarks that 
 their courage had not failed before, but had grown by the apostle’s 
 bonds. 
 
 15-17. But all those who preach Christ are not actuated by 
 equally pure motives. While some are moved by love and by sym- 
 pathy with meas a defender of the gospel, others, in a spirit of 
 envy, contention, and partisanship, proclaim Christ tnsincerely, 
 seeking to add to the affliction of my captivity. 
 
 15. τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν : ‘some indeed preach 
 Christ even of envy and strife.’ These words are independent of 
 the preceding clause, and introduce a new feature of the condi- 
 tion of the gospel in Rome. ‘The words τὸν Ady. τ. He. AaA. Open 
 to the apostle the general subject of the preaching of the gospel 
 in the metropolis. Much wearisome discussion has arisen on the 
 question whether Paul includes those who preach Christ of envy 
 and strife in the πλείονας of vs. 14, or treats them as a distinct 
 class. It seems apparent on its face that the motives of envy and 
 strife which attach to the τινὲς μὲν cannot be reconciled with the 
 ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθ., nor with the sympathetic consciousness that Paul 
 is set for the defence of the gospel. (See Weiss’ novel effort to 
 reconcile these.) Moreover, the καὶ has its familiar contrasting 
 force, and introduces another and a different class, and not the 
 same class with the addition of a subordinate and baser motive. 
 Thus the τινὲς μὲν are set over against the πλείονας. 
 
 But who are meant by these τινὲς μὲν ῥ᾽ Some of the Fathers, as 
 Chrys., Gic., Theoph., explained of unbelievers who proclaimed 
 Christianity in order to awaken the hatred of Paul’s enemies ; 
 others, as Grot., of Jews, who brought the gospel and its evi- 
 
I. 15] THE ENVIOUS PREACHERS 19 
 
 dences into controversy in order to injure or refute it. Since 
 Beng. the view has prevailed that they were Judaising Christians 
 (so Lightf., Lips., Dw., Mey., Beet, Ellic., Lum., Nedr., Weizs.). 
 But this view does not seem reconcilable with Paul’s words con- 
 cerning the Judaisers in this very epistle (iil. 2), and in the Gala- 
 tian and Second Corinthian letters. Nowhere in his epistles does 
 Paul speak of the Judaisers as preachers of Christ unless it be 
 “another Jesus’’ (2 Cor. xi. 4). Although they accepted Jesus 
 as the Messiah, in their preaching he was thrown into the back- 
 ground behind the claims of the law. Paul found worse enemies 
 among these Christians than among the heathen; yet here he 
 virtually sanctions their preaching, and rejoices in it. To say 
 that they are shown to have been Judaising Christians because 
 they preached Christ of envy and strife, is to argue in a circle. 
 The attempt to solve the difficulty by assuming that the form of 
 Judaistic opposition was milder in Rome than in the East (Mey., 
 Dw., Pfl. Paulinismus, pp. 42, 332) seems like a desperate resource. 
 To say that a conciliation of the Jewish-Christian element in Rome 
 is implied in Paul’s recognition of the value of the old covenant 
 relation (Rom. 111. 1 f., ix. 4, x. 2); in his charity towards a nar- 
 row conscientiousness (xiv. 3-23) ; in his expressions of love and 
 sympathy for his own race (ix. 1-3, x. 1, xi. 1, 13) ; and in his 
 warning of the Gentiles against self-elation (xi. 17-24) —is a 
 piece of special pleading. Paul shows equal respect for narrow 
 conscientiousness in 1 Cor., and he never fails to treat the law 
 and the covenants with respect ; while his love and sympathy for 
 his own race appear everywhere. Weiss (Zin/. ἡ. d. WV. T. § 26) 
 remarks on this passage: “This is generally supposed to refer to 
 Judaistic teachers in Rome, whose appearance is made an argu- 
 ment for the still strongly Jewish-Christian character of the Roman 
 church. But the way in which Paul unreservedly gives expression 
 to his joy respecting this accession of preaching, makes it quite 
 inconceivable that these personal opponents should have preached 
 a gospel in any way differing from that which he preached.” 
 
 While therefore the τινὲς μὲν, etc., may include individual Juda- 
 isers, they are not to be limited to these. I incline rather to 
 regard them as Pauline Christians who were personally jealous of 
 the apostle, and who sought to undermine his influence. It may 
 be, as Weiss suggests, that as the Roman church before Paul’s 
 arrival had no definite leadership, it was easy for ambitious and 
 smaller men to obtain a certain prominence which they found 
 menaced by the presence and influence of the apostle. Comp. 
 the state of things in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. iii. 3, 4). 
 
 διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν : Directed at Paul personally. Διὰ, ‘on 
 account of,’ marking the motive. (Comp. Mt. xxvii. 18; Eph. 
 ii. 4; Rom. xiii. 5.) 
 
 εὐδοκίαν : A purely Biblical word. As related to one’s self, it 
 
20 PHILIPPIANS [I. 15, 16 
 
 means ‘ contentment,’ ‘satisfaction’ (Sir. xxix. 23; 2 Thess. i. 11; 
 on which, see Bornemann, Comm. ad loc.). As related to others, 
 it means ‘ good-will,’ ‘benevolence.’ Of God’s good-will to men 
 (Lk. x. 21; Eph. i. 5, 9; Phil. ii. 13). The meaning ‘desire’ 
 (so Lightf. for Sir. xi. 7, and Rom. x. 1 [see comm. on this pass. ], 
 and Thay. Zex. for Rom. x. 1) cannot be supported. (See Sanday 
 on Rom. x. 1.) For εὐδοκεῖν, see 1 Cor. x. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 10; 
 1 Thess. ii. 12. Here ‘ good-will’ towards Paul and the cause of 
 the gospel. 
 
 τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν: 
 
 Κηρύσσειν, orig. ‘to perform the duty of a herald’ (κήρυξ), is 
 the standard N.T. word for the proclamation of the gospel. Not 
 often in any other sense. Of the preaching of John the Baptist 
 (Mt. iii. 1; Mk. i. 4; Acts x. 37) ; of preaching the claims of the 
 Mosaic law (Acts xv. 21; Gal. v. 11). Chiefly, perhaps wholly, 
 confined to the primary announcement of the gospel, and not 
 including continuous instruction or teaching of believers, which is 
 expressed by διδάσκειν. (See both in Mt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xi. 1.) 
 Yet in passages like 1 Cor. i. 23, ix. 27, xv. 11, the distinction 
 between missionary and church preaching cannot be clearly in- 
 ferred. For the phrase κηρύσσειν Xrov or tiv Χτὸν, Xrov ᾿Ιησοῦν, 
 "I. Xrov, sée‘Acts viii. 5 ; 1 Cor. 1. 23, xv. 12; 2 Cor. i. τὸ, ἂν. 5. 
 
 τον before xTov omitted by x°* BFG. 
 
 16. The TR reverses the order of vs. τό, 17 (so D’* KL., Syr.?, 
 and several Fathers). The change seems to have been made in 
 order to conform to the order of the parties in vs.15. The words 
 in the correct order of our text exhibit a cross-reference (chias- 
 mus), the first specification of vs. 16 referring to the second of 
 vs. 15. Render: ‘They that are of love (preach Christ) because 
 they know that I am set for the defence of the gospel; and they 
 that are of faction (preach Christ) not purely, because they think 
 to add affliction to my bonds.’ 
 
 Οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης and οἱ δε ἐξ ἐριθίας (vs. 17) are generic descrip- 
 tions, and the subjects of καταγγέλλουσιν. 
 
 Others, as Lightf., K1., Alf., Ead., R.V., take οἱ μὲν, of de as the subjects, 
 and ἐξ ἀγ., ἐξ ἐριθ. as qualifying xarayy. Thus the rendering would be: 
 ‘The one preach Christ of love, because they know, etc., and the other 
 class preach Christ of faction because they think,’ etc. According to this 
 construction, however, ἐξ dy. and ἐξ ἐριθ. are substantially repetitions of 
 διὰ εὐδοκ. and διὰ φθόν. kal €p. Lightf.’s objection to the other construc- 
 tion, that thus τὸν Χτὸν xarayy. is made too emphatic, is without force. 
 The emphasis is intended in connection with οὐχ ἁγνῶς. 
 
 For the expressions οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης and οἱ ἐξ ἐριθίας, comp. Jn. xviii. 
 37; Rom. ii. 8; Gal. iii. 7. 
 
 Eidéres and οἰόμενοι (vs. 17) have a causal force ; ‘since they 
 know,’ ‘ since they think.’ 
 
I. 16, 17] THE ENVIOUS PREACHERS 21 
 
 ἀπολογίαν : See on vs. 7. The meaning asthere. Notas Chrys., 
 Theoph., Céc., the ‘account’ of his ministry which Paul was to 
 render to God. 
 
 xetpor: As Luke ii. 34; 1 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Tim.i.9. Orig. ‘to 
 be laid’; ‘ to lie.’ Hence ‘to be appointed or destined.’ 
 
 17. ἐριθίας : Not from ἔρις, but ἔριθος, ‘a hired servant.’ Hence 
 ἐριθία is, primarily, ‘labor for hire’ (see Tob. ii. 11), and is applied 
 to those who serve in official positions for their own selfish pur- 
 poses, and, to that end, promote party-spirit or faction. Render, 
 ‘ faction.’ 
 
 καταγγέλλουσιν : Substantially the same as κηρύσσουσιν, though 
 among the compounds of ἀγγέλλειν it signifies ‘to proclaim with 
 authority,’ with the additional idea of celebrating or commending. 
 Only in Paul and Acts. 
 
 οὐχ ἁγνῶς : ‘ Not purely’ or with unmixed motives, summing up 
 all that is included in διὰ φθόν. καὶ ép., δι᾿ ἐριθ., and οἰόμ. θλίψιν ἐγ. 
 
 The οὐχ ἁγνῶς and τὸν Χτὸν are suggestively in juxtaposition. 
 (See on iv. 8.) 
 
 οἰόμενοι : Only here in Paul, and only twice besides in N.T. 
 (See LXX, Job xi. 2; 1 Macesv.61; 2 Macc. v. 21, vii. 24.) 1 
 denotes, in class. Gk., a belief or judgment based principally upon 
 one’s own feelings, or the peculiar relations of outward circum- 
 stances to himself. In its radical sense it implies the supposition 
 of something future and doubtful. In Attic Gk., an opinion with 
 a collateral notion of wrong judgment or conceit (so in the cita- 
 tions from LXX, above). The knowledge of Paul’s mission by his 
 friends (εἰδότες) is offset by the malicious zmagining (οἰόμενοι) of 
 his enemies. 
 
 θλίψιν ἐγείρειν : ‘to raise up affliction.’ 
 
 TR emipepev with DKL. 
 
 The phrase is unique in N.T., but a similar usage is found in 
 ion; Prov. X, £2, XV. 1, Xvil. 11; Sir. xxxili, ἢ. The meaning 
 is not that they deliberately set themselves to aggravate Paul’s 
 sufferings, but that their malice was gratified by the annoyance 
 which their efforts to promote their own partisan ends caused him. 
 
 18-26. What then comes of this insincere preaching and of this 
 malice towards me? Only this, that whether Christ ts preached 
 in pretext or in truth, he is preached, and in that I rejoice. Yes, 
 and I will continue to rejoice; for I know that this train of affiic- 
 tions will turn out for my salvation in answer to your prayer and~ 
 through that which the Spirit of Christ shall supply to me. And 
 thus will be fulfilled my earnest expectation and my hope that I 
 Shall be put to shame in nothing; but that, as with all boldness 
 
94) Vi PHILIPPIANS [1.18 
 
 I shall continue to preach and to suffer for Christs sake, Christ 
 will be magnified in this afflicted body of mine, whether 7 live or 
 die. For as to life, life to me ts Christ. As to death, tt is gain. 
 Low, tf to continue to live means fruitful labor, I have nothing to 
 say as to my own preference. Lam strongly appealed to from both 
 sides. If I should consult only my own desire, 7 should wish to go 
 and be with Christ, for that ts by far the better thing. But, on 
 the other hand, 7 am assured that, for your sake, it is more neces- 
 sary that I should continue to live; and therefore I know that I 
 shall remain with you, that I may promote your advancement and 
 your joy in your faith; so that, in Christ Jesus, your joy in me 
 may abound through my being present with you again. 
 
 18. τί yap: To be followed by the interrogation-point. Inter- 
 jectional, and called out by what immediately precedes. (Comp. 
 Rom. iii. 3.) They think to raise up affliction for me in my chains. 
 What then? Suppose this isso. (Comp. Eng. ‘for why.’) For 
 yap in interrogations suggested by what precedes, see Mt. xxvil. 23 ; 
 " Rom, iv. 3, ΧΙ. 34; 1 Cor. ii. 16, xi. 22. (See Win; {|| 1) 
 πλὴν ὅτι : ‘only that.’ 
 
 TR omits οτι, as DKL. B reads ore without πλην. 
 
 What does it signify? Only that, in any event, Christ is preached. 
 He leaves the annoying side of the case to take care of itself, and 
 passes on to the encouraging aspect. For πλὴν, comp. iii. τό, 
 iv. 14; 1 Cor. xi.11; Eph.v. 33. Πλὴν with ὅτε only Acts xx, 23, 
 (See Blass, Gramm. § 77, 13.) 
 
 παντὶ τρόπῳ : ‘in every way’ of preaching the gospel. 
 
 εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ : Expanding and defining παντὶ τρόπῳ. 
 
 προφάσει: Using the name of Christ as a cover or mask for 
 personal and selfish ends. For the word, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 5. 
 Used absolutely, Mk. xii. 40; Lk. xx. 47. 
 
 Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται : Christianity thrives even through insin- 
 cere preaching. The enemies of the truth proclaim it by their 
 opposition. The words imply Paul’s confidence in the power of 
 the mere proclamation of Christ as a fact. 
 
 Mey. thinks that the interrogation-point should be placed after katayy.- 
 instead of τί γάρ. In that case the rendering would be: ‘ What else takes 
 place save that Christ is preached?’ But though τί γάρ as an independent 
 question occurs only twice, Paul often uses τί οὖν in that way. There is no 
 instance in his letters of πλὴν ὅτι = τί ἀλλὸ ὅτι. He uses πλὴν elsewhere 
 in the sense given above. The construction of καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω is simpler 
 and more natural if united with πλὴν... καταγγέλλεται than if taken as an 
 answer to a question, Tl... Karayy.; (See Dw.) 
 
 ἐν τούτῳ: In the fact that Christ is preached, though with 
 different motives. 
 
I. 18, 19] SALVATION THROUGH PERSECUTION 23 
 
 χαίρω: Joy is a frequent theme in this letter. Beng. says: 
 “The sum of the epistle is, ‘I rejoice, do ye rejoice.’” (See i. 
 male, 17, 1, 28, 20, ili. I, iv. 1,'4,, 10.) 
 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ χαιρήσομαι : Punctuate with a period or colon after 
 χαίρω, thus connecting οἶδα yap with ἀλλὰ καὶ χαιρήσομαι (so WH., 
 Tisch.), ‘I rejoice. Nay but I will also continue to rejoice, since 
 I know,’ etc. His thought passes from the present to the future 
 joy, which is assured by their prayer and by the supply of the 
 Spirit of Christ. 
 
 19. οἶδα yap ὅτι τοῦτο μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν : ‘for I know 
 that this shall turn out to my salvation.’ 
 
 yap with WH. Tisch. B 37, 61, 116, Sah., read δε. 
 
 Οἶδα as distinguished from γινώσκειν is the knowledge of intuition 
 or satisfied conviction, or absolute knowledge. So often, by John, 
 Bie nnist (ill: TL, V. 32, vi. 6, 61, 64, Vil. 29, Vill. 14, xiii. I,. 11). 
 Se vPaul, of God (2 Cor. xi. 11, xii. 2). In Jn. xxi. 17 the two 
 verbs appear together. Οἶδα is often used by Paul in appealing to 
 what his readers know well, or ought, or might naturally be ex- 
 pected, to know (Rom. ii. 2, vil. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iv. 13; 
 ἘΠ 116 55: 10.6.5. etc. ). 
 
 τοῦτο: In a general sense, explained by τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ (vs. 12). 
 This whole train of afflictions which has attended my preaching 
 of the gospel. 
 
 So Lightf., K1., De W., Lum., Hack., and the patristic interpreters. But 
 Mey., Ellic., Dw., Lips., Weiss, Ead., Alf., Beet, refer to the τούτῳ of vs. 18. 
 It seems unlikely, however, that Paul should have said ‘I know that the 
 fact that in every way Christ is preached will turn out to my salvation.’ 
 Kl. justly remarks that, on this supposition, Paul would have been more 
 likely to express his expectation of a favorable result which would offset 
 the fears or wishes of those who looked for an evil result, than of a result 
 which would redound to his own advantage. 
 
 ἀποβήσεται eis: ‘Shall turn out to’; ‘effectively go to.’ The 
 formula ἀποβαίνειν eis is not used elsewhere by Paul, and only 
 in one other pass. in N.T. (Lk. xxi. 13). In LXX, Job xiii. 16 
 (cited here), xv. 31; Ex. ii. 4. 
 
 σωτηρίαν : Not his release from prison, since the result will be 
 the same whether he lives or dies (vs. 20). Nor ‘ will be salutary 
 for me’ (Mey.), since Paul habitually uses σωτηρία in its Messianic 
 connection. Nor does it mean ‘salvation from eternal destruction’ 
 (Weiss, Kl.). The key to the meaning is found in vs. 28, ii. 12 ; 
 Rom. 1. 16; and especially 2 Thess. 11. 13. It is used here in its 
 widest N.T. sense ; not merely of future salvation, but of the whole 
 saving and sanctifying work of Christ in the believer. 
 
 διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 
 ‘through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus 
 Christ.’ Δέησις ὑμῶν and ἐπιχορηγία τ. rv. IX are thus two dis- 
 
24 PHILIPPIANS [I. 19 
 
 tinct instruments of ἀποβήσεται, and therefore are not both in- 
 cluded under the one article τῆς. 
 
 Lightf., Alf., Lips., Weiss, make τῆς cover both nouns, rendering ‘ through 
 your supplication and supply of the Spirit,’ etc.; 2.4. the supply of the Spirit 
 which you furnish through your supplication. This construction would, 
 further, seem to involve the uniting of ὑμῶν with both nouns. So, dis- 
 tinctly, Weiss, Alf., Lips., and apparently Lightf. It is claimed that if 
 two distinct instruments were intended, τῆς would be repeated. But: 
 I. The absence of a second article does not necessitate the inclusion of 
 both nouns under τῆς, since each has its own defining genitive, and there- 
 fore the second article may be dispensed with (Win. xix. 54). 2. Even if 
 the two were included under the one article, that would not be decisive as 
 to the union of ὑμῶν with both. If the genitive τοῦ πνεῦματος is subjective 
 (see below), there are two personal agents— you, in your supplication, 
 and the Spirit with its supply —codperating for the same end. Nor, if 
 ὑμῶν is taken with δεήσεως only, is the idea excluded that the supply of the 
 Spirit is in answer to the prayer of the Philippians. 
 
 διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως : Paul makes mention of the Philippians in 
 his own supplications (vs. 4). Here he assumes that their fellow- 
 ship with him in furtherance of the gospel (vs. 5), and their 
 partaking with him of grace (vs. 7), will call out their supplica- 
 tions for him. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 25 ; 2 Thess. ili. 1 f.; 2 Cor. i. 
 11; Rom. xv. 30-32; Philem. 22. Also Ign. Philad.v. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ 
 προσευχὴ ὑμῶν με ἀπαρτίσει, ‘ But your prayer will make me perfect.’ 
 
 ἐπιχορηγίας : Only here and Eph. iv. 16. Lightf.’s explanation 
 of ἐπι, bountiful supply, is unwarranted. The force of ἐπι is 
 directive. Comp. ἐπιχορηγῶν (Gal. iii. 5), where the idea of 
 bountifulness resides in the verb. (See Col. ii. 19 ; 2 Cor. ix. το.) 
 In 2 Pet. i. 11, πλουσίως is added to ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται. 
 
 Tov πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: The genitive is subjective, ‘the 
 supply which the Spirit of Jesus Christ affords’; not appositional, 
 ‘the supply which is the Spirit,’ etc. Lightf.’s combination of the 
 two —the Spirit at once the giver and the gift—is contrary to 
 N.T. usage. The exact phrase, wv. IX, occurs only here. Πνεῦμα 
 Χριστοῦ is found Rom. viii.g; 1 Pet. i. 11. The Holy Spirit is 
 called the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6), not as pro- 
 ceeding from Christ (Thdrt.), since the impartation of the Holy 
 Spirit is habitually ascribed by Paul to the Father. (See 1 Cor. 
 vi. 19; Eph. i. 17; Gal. iii. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 8.) In Jn. 11: 24 
 Christ is represented as dispensing the Spirit. The Spirit of Jesus 
 Christ here is the Spirit of God which animated Jesus in his human 
 life, and which, in the risen Christ, is the life-principle of believ- 
 ers (1 Cor. xv. 45; comp. Rom. viii. 9-11). Christ is fully 
 endowed with the Spirit (Mk. i. 10; Jn. i. 32); he sends the 
 Spirit from the Father to the disciples, and he is the burden of 
 the Spirit’s testimony (Jn. xv. 26, xvi. 7, 9, 10,15). The Para- 
 clete is given in answer to Christ’s prayer (Jn. xiv. 16). Christ 
 identifies his own coming and presence with that of the Spirit 
 
Ι. 19, 20] CHRIST WILL BE MAGNIFIED 25 
 
 (Jn. xiv. 17, 18). Paul identifies, him personally with the Spirit 
 (2 Cor. iii. 17). The Spirit which Christ has is possessed also by 
 members of his body (Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6). In Rom. viii. 9, 
 10, Paul uses πνεῦμα θεοῦ, πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, and Χριστὸς as convert- 
 “ible terms. 
 
 20. κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου: Connect with dzo- 
 βήσεται (vs. 19). This shall turn out to my salvation as I am 
 expecting and hoping. 
 
 ἀποκαραδοκίαν : Only here and Rom. viii. 19. A picturesque 
 word: ἀπὸ, ‘away’; κάρα, ‘the head’; δοκεῖν (Ion.), ‘to watch.’ 
 Watching something with the head turned away from other ob- 
 jects; hence zmzfent watching. So Chrys. 7 μεγάλη καὶ ἐπιτετά- 
 μενη προσδοκία. Seldom in patristic Greek. Kapadoxety occurs in 
 class. Gk. (Hdt. vii. 163 ; Xen. Mem. 111. 5, 6; Aristoph. Knzghés, 
 663, etc.), but not the compound ἀποκαρ., which, however, is found 
 in later Gk., as Polybius and Plutarch. Lightf.’s ref. to Josephus, 
 B. J. iii. 7, 26, is felicitous. See also Philo, De Jos. 527 Ὁ. 
 
 Others, however, give ἀπὸ a local sense —the place from which (Ellic., 
 
 Ead.); others an intensive sense, ‘to wait to the end; wait it out’ (Mey. 
 on Rom. viii. 19. See also Crem. and Thay. Zexs.). 
 
 ἐλπίδα : The inward attitude, while ἀποκαρ. represents the out- 
 ward attitude. “EAzis sometimes in N.T. as the odject of hope: 
 fue thing hoped for. (866 Gal. v. 5; Col. i. 5; Heb. vi. 18; 
 Tit. ii. 13.) This can hardly be the meaning here. 
 
 ὅτι : ‘that’; not ‘because.’ It denotes the object of the hope, 
 supplying the specific definition of the more general eis σωτηρίαν 
 (vs. 19). 
 
 ἐν οὐδενὶ, ‘in nothing’: in no point or respect. Not ‘by no 
 one,’ since no persons are brought forward in what follows. 
 
 αἰσχυνθήσομαι : ‘shall I be put to shame.’ Rare in N.T., and 
 only twice in Paul. Frequent in LXX, as Ps. xxxv. (xxxiv.) 4, 26; 
 Ixx. (Ixix.) 2. (Comp. 2 Cor. x. 8.) He will not be brought into 
 disgrace by the frustration of his efforts and the disappointment 
 of his hopes. He will not be shown to be a deluded enthusiast, 
 a fanatic, a preacher of a fancied and impossible good. On the 
 contrary, — 
 
 μεγαλυνθήσεται Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σώματί μου: : 
 
 ῬΜεγαλυνθήσεται = ‘shall be glorified’ ; lit. ‘ enlarged.’ Often in 
 LXX for ὅπη. (See 2 Sam. vii. 26; 1 Chron. xvii. 24; Ps. xxxiv. 
 [xxxiii.] 3, xxxv. [xxxiv.] 27.) 
 
 ἐν τῷ σώματί pov: Instead of the simple ἐμοί; because the 
 question of bodily life or death was imminent. In his afflicted, 
 imprisoned body Christ will be magnified. (Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10; 
 Gal. vi. 17.) 
 
 The force of this positive and general statement, ‘ Christ shall 
 be magnified in my body,’ is heightened by three incidental 
 
26 PHILIPPIANS [I. 20, 21 
 
 clauses, which are to the following effect: 1. Christ will be 
 magnified, though Paul shall refuse to modify his preaching and 
 shall continue to proclaim the gospel with all boldness. 2. Christ’s 
 being magnified in spite of opposition will be nothing new. It has 
 always been so. 3. The result will be the same whether Paul shall 
 live or die. 
 
 ἐν πάσῃ παρρησίᾳ : in contrast with αἰσχυνθήσομαι, as τ Jn. ii. 28 ; 
 LXX, Prov. xii. 5. The primary meaning of παρρησία is ‘ free 
 and bold speaking’; speaking out every word (πᾶν, ῥῆμα). The 
 verb παρρησιάζεσθαι always in N.T. in connection with speaking. 
 The dominant idea of παρρησία is boldness, confidence. (See 
 2 Cor. ili. 12, vil. 4; Eph. vi. 19; αὶ Thess. ii. 2; Philemogeeame 
 Lightf. on Col. ii. 15.) It is opposed to fear (Jn. vii. 13), and to 
 ambiguity or reserve (Jn. xi. 14). The idea of publicity some- 
 times attaches to it, but as secondary (Jn. vil. 4). Πάσῃ, the 
 direct opposite of οὐδενὶ ; every way in which boldness can mani- 
 fest itself. (Comp. Eph. vi. 18.) Christ will be magnified in his 
 bold and uncompromising preaching of the unpalatable truth. 
 
 ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν : ‘As always, so now.’ Kai in the apodosis 
 answers to ws in the protasis. (See Mt. vi. 10; Jn. vi. 57; 
 Gal. i. 9; 1 Jn. 11. 18; Win. liti. 5.). It is the ᾿᾿εδυ θην οἱ 
 history that Christ has always been magnified in spite of oppo- 
 sition. As Paul’s imprisonment has, up to this time, ministered 
 to the progress of the gospel (vs. 12), he is no less confident of 
 the same result now that his fate is hanging in the balance. 
 
 εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου : “ Inimicis suis insultat, quod ei 
 nocere non valeant. Si enim eum occiderint, martyrio coronabi- 
 tur. Si servaverint ad Christum annunciandum, plurimum facient 
 fructum ”’ (Jer.). 
 
 The last words lead him to speak of his own feelings respecting 
 the possible issue of his trial. 
 
 21. ἐμοὶ yap τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς : ‘For to me to live is Christ.’ For 
 Paul life is summed up in Christ. Christ is its inspiration, its aim, 
 its end. To trust, love, obey, preach, follow, suffer, — all things 
 are with and in Christ. So Theoph. καινήν τινα ζωὴν ζῶ, καὶ ὃ 
 Χριστὸς μοί ἐστι τὰ πάντα, καὶ πνοὴ; καὶ ζωὴ, Kat φῶς : “A kind of 
 new life I live, and Christ is all things to me, both breath and life 
 and light.” See further on ἐν αὐτῷ (ch. iii. 9), and comp. iil. 7—10, 
 20, 21; Rom. vi. 11; Gal. fi. 20; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; Col. i. 3. ΔΙ 
 Ign. Eph. iii., IX τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, ‘our inseparable life’ ; 
 and Mag. 1, ἸΧ τοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν, ‘our never-failing life.’ 
 Τὸ ζῇν is the continuous present. In the three other passages of 
 Paul in which it occurs (vs. 22; Rom. viii. 12; 2 Cor. i. 8), it 
 denotes the process, not the principle, of life. eee 
 
 Ι 
 
 ( 
 
I. 21, 22] WHETHER TO LIVE OR DIE? 27 
 
 τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος : ‘to die is gain’; because it will introduce 
 him to complete union with Christ, unhampered by limitations of 
 the flesh. His gain will therefore magnify Christ. (See Rom. viii. 
 17.) ‘This is in striking contrast with the Stoic apathy which, in 
 proud resignation, leaves all to fate. (See a beautiful passage in 
 Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 2 Aufl. p. 219.) 
 22. εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκί, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου; . . . καὶ τί 
 αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω : 
 B reads αἱρησωμαι. 
 
 Render : ‘ But if living in the flesh — (if)-this is fruit of toil to me, 
 then what I shall choose I do not declare.’ 
 
 The protasis is thus εἰ δὲ τὸ (Hv... ἔργου. The apodosis is καὶ τί 
 αἱρήσομαι, etc. The subject of the protasis, τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκί, is resumed by 
 τοῦτο, which brings out the contrast of καρπὸς ἔργου with the subjective 
 personal κέρδος (vs. 21). The apodosis is introduced by καὶ ‘then.’ (So 
 Chrys., CEc., Mey., Ellic., Dw., De W., Alf., Lum., ΚΙ]. Lips., Ead.) Sev- 
 eral other arrangements have been advocated, the principal one of which is 
 to take εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκί as protasis, and τοῦτο... ἔργου as apodosis, 
 making καὶ merely connective: ‘ But if living in the flesh (be my lot), 
 this is fruit of toil to me, and what I shall choose I do not declare.’ 
 (So Weiss and Beet.) Lightf. suggests an arrangement in which he has 
 been anticipated by Rilliet, —to take εἰ as implying an interrogation (as 
 Rom. ix. 22; Acts xxiii. 9), and to regard the apodosis as suppressed: 
 ‘But what if my living in the flesh is to Lear fruit? In fact what to choose 
 I know not.’ The rendering adopted seems to me to satisfy most of the 
 conditions, though neither of those proposed is entirely free from objection. 
 On the one hand, the awkward ellipsis required by the second appears quite 
 inadmissible. On the other hand, the cat introducing the apodosis after a 
 conditional protasis with εἰ is of doubtful authority, though I think that 
 Jas. iv. 15, with the reading ζήσομεν καὶ ποιήσομεν, is a fair case in point, 
 not to mention 2 Cor, ii. 2, which is perhaps a little more doubtful. Some 
 weight also should be allowed to the LXX passages, Ex. xxxill. 22; Lev. 
 xiv. 34, Xxill. 10, xxv. 2; Josh. iii. 8, viii. 24. Though not strictly analo- 
 gous, these imply a sort of condition in the protasis. The exact construc- 
 tion is certainly found in Gk. poetry (see Hom. //. v. 897; Od. xiv. 112). Δὲ 
 is also used in the same way (Hom. //. i. 135, xii. 246; Od. xii.54). In Apoc. 
 ili. 20, kal in the apodosis after ἐάν is retained by Tisch. and stands in marg. 
 in WH. (See Blass, § 77,6.) The use of εἰ as explained by Lightf., though 
 legitimate, leaves some awkwardness attaching to καὶ. (See Win. lxiv. 7.) 
 
 Ei is not conditional or problematical (Beet), but syllogistic. 
 (Comp. Rom. v.17.) It assumes that fruitfulness will follow his 
 continuance in life. Τοῦτο is not redundant, but resumptive and 
 emphatic, calling attention to remaining in life. It was just Zs, 
 in contrast with dying, which was to mean fruit of toil. 
 
 καρπὸς ἔργου : fruit which follows toil and issues from it. 
 
 Ti αἱρήσομαι. Ti for πότερον. (Comp. Mt. ix. 5, xxi. 31; Lk. 
 Vii. 42, Xxii. 27; and see Win. xxv. 1.) The future αἱρήσομαι 
 takes the place of the deliberative subjunctive (Win. xli. 4 4). 
 
 ov γνωρίζω: ‘I do not declare.’ Most modern commentators 
 render ‘I do not perceive’ or ‘know.’ The meaning ‘to make 
 
28 PHILIPPIANS [I. 22, 23 
 
 known,’ ‘ point out,’ ‘declare,’ is extremely rare in class. One 
 case occurs (Aésch. Prom. 487). In the sense of ‘to become 
 known’ (passive) it is found in Plato and Aristotle (see Stallbaum 
 on Phaedrus, 262 B); but the prevailing sense is ‘to become 
 acquainted with,’ ‘to gain knowledge of.’ In the N.T. the sense, 
 without exception, is ‘to make known’ or ‘declare.’ This is also 
 the prevailing sense in LXX, though there are a few instances of 
 the other meaning, as Job xxxiv. 25. See, on the other hand, 
 1 Sam,'vi. 2, x. 8, xiv. 12; Dan. 1.6, 10, v.75; Ps. xvi, (ae 
 cit. Acts ii. 28. For Paul’s usage, see iv. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1; 
 Gal. i. 11. No sufficient reason can be urged for departing from 
 universal N.T. usage. Paul says ‘to die is gain; but if the case 
 is put to me that it is for your interest that I should continue to 
 live, then I have nothing to say.about my personal choice.’ Pos- 
 sibly he felt that under the strong pressure of his desire to depart, 
 he might be tempted to express himself too strongly in favor of 
 his own wish. As it is, he will leave the matter in the hands 
 of his Master. ‘“ Marvellous!” says Chrys. ‘“‘ How great was 
 his philosophy! How hath he both cast, out the desire of the 
 present life, and yet thrown no reproach upon it.” 
 23. συνέχομαι δε ἐκ τῶν δύο: 
 
 The TR ‘ap for δε is very slenderly supported. 
 
 Aé introduces an explanation, and at the same time separates 
 it from that which is to be explained. (See Jn. iii. 19, vi. 393 
 1 Cor. i. 12.) It may be rendered ‘now.’ Ido not declare my 
 preference. Now the reason is that I am in a strait, etc. uve- 
 χομαι is used by Paul only here and 2 Cor. v.14. (See Lk. xii. 
 50; Acts xviii. 5; LXX; Job iii. 24, vii. 11, x. 1, xxxi. 23.) The 
 figure is that of one who is in a narrow road between two walls. 
 I am held together, so that I cannot move to the one or the other 
 side. (Comp. Ign. Rom. vi.) The pressure comes from (ἐκ) both 
 sides, from ‘ ¢he two’ (τῶν δύο) considerations just mentioned, 
 departing and abiding in the flesh. 
 
 τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων : ‘having the desire.’ Τὴν has the force of a 
 possessive pronoun, ‘my’ desire. ἜἘπιθυμία is used in N.T. in both 
 a good and a bad sense. (Comp. Lk. xxii. 15 and Mk. iv. 19; 
 Rom. i. 24, vii. 7; Gal. v. 16; 1 Jn. 11. 16.) 
 
 εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι : Lit. ‘to break up’; ‘unloose’; ‘undo.’ It is 
 used of loosing a ship from its moorings, of breaking camp, and 
 of death. Paul uses ἀνάλυσις of his own death (2 Tim. iv. 6). 
 If he employs the verb here with any consciousness of its figura- 
 tive meaning, the figure is probably that of breaking camp. Paul’s 
 circumstances would more naturally suggest the military than the 
 nautical metaphor; and, singularly enough, nautical expressions 
 and metaphors are very rare in his writings. ‘The idea of striking 
 the tent and breaking camp falls in with 2 Cor. v. 1. For the 
 
I. 23, 24] TO BE WITH CHRIST IS BETTER 29 
 
 construction with εἰς, comp. Rom. i. 11, 11]. 26, xii. 2; 1 Thess. 
 mm. 10; Heb. xi. 3. 
 
 σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι : Beng. says : “ To depart was sometimes desired 
 by the saints (of the O.T.), but to be with Christ is peculiar to 
 the New Testament.” Paul assumes that, on departing this life, 
 he will immediately be with the Lord. (Comp. 2 Cor. v. 6-8 ; 
 Acts vii. 59.) On the other hand, Paul elsewhere treats death as 
 a sleep from which believers will awake at the appearing of the 
 Bord (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iy. 14, 16). 
 
 The passage does not lend itself to controversies on the condi- 
 tion of the dead in Christ. It is not probable that the dogmatic 
 consciousness enters at all into this utterance of the apostle. Dis- 
 cussions like those of Weiss and Klopper as to the agreement or 
 disagreement of the words here with those of Cor. and Thess. 
 are beside the mark, as is the assumption that Paul’s views on this 
 subject had undergone a change which is indicated in this passage. 
 Lightf. is quite safe in the remark that the one mode of represen- 
 tation must be qualified by the other. Weiss (470/. Theol. § 101) 
 justly says that “if the more particular dealing with eschatological 
 proceedings is reserved in the four principal epistles, to a yet 
 greater extent is this the case in the epistles of the captivity, with- 
 out its being possible to show any essential change in the position 
 on these points.” In this familiar epistle, in this passage, written 
 under strong emotion, Paul throws out, almost incidentally, the 
 thought that death implies, for him, immediate presence with 
 Christ. If it be asserted that death introduces believers into a 
 condition of preparation for perfect glorification, that supposition 
 is not excluded by either these words or those in Cor. and Thess. 
 In 2 Cor. v. 8 the intimation is the same as in this passage. In 
 any case we are warranted in the belief that the essential element 
 of future bliss, whether in an intermediate or in a fully glorified 
 state, will be the presence of Christ. ‘These words do not exclude 
 the idea of an intermediate state, nor do the words in 1 Cor. 
 exclude the idea of being with Christ. 
 
 πολλῷ yap μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον: ‘ for it is very far better.’ 
 
 DF®'G read ποόσω for πολλω. 
 
 yap with x* ABC 17, 31, 47,67, WH. Tisch. Omitted by x* DFGKLP, 
 Vulg., Goth., Syr.4*t, Basm., Arm., Ath. 
 
 Notice the heaping up of comparatives according to Paul’s 
 habit. (Comp. Rom. viii. 37 ; 2 Cor. vil. 13, iv. 17 ; Eph. iii. 20.) 
 Render, ‘very far better.’ 
 
 24. τὸ δε ἐπιμένειν TH σαρκὶ : 
 
 For eripevery B reads επιμειναι. 
 BDFGKL add ev with σαρκι. ἐπιμένειν ἐν occurs only in Paul (1 Cor. xvi. 8). 
 
 Observe the change of construction from τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων. 
 Render, ‘to abide by the flesh.’ Not precisely the same as ro ζῇν 
 
30 PHILIPPIANS [I. 24-26 
 
 ἐν σαρκί (vs. 22), which was a little more abstract, expressing life 
 in general, while this refers specifically to his own staying by the 
 flesh. (Comp. Rom. vi. 1.) 
 
 ἀναγκαιότερον : The comparative is slightly illogical. The strong 
 emotion which shaped the comparative πολλῴ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον 
 carries on that form, by its own momentum, to the succeeding 
 adjective. The point of comparison is not definitely conceived. 
 Living is the more necessary under the present circumstances. 
 (Comp. Seneca, Zp. 98: “ Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua 
 causa, sed eorum quibus utilis est.” Also a striking passage 
 Lp. 104). Two practical errors are suggested by these words, — 
 the subsiding of all interest in the future world, and the undue 
 longing for it which strikes at patient submission to the will of 
 God. There is also to be noted the higher grade of self-abnega- 
 tion exhibited by Paul, not in the casting aside of earthly pleasures 
 and honors, which really possessed little attraction for him, but in 
 the subjugation of the higher longing to enjoy the perfect vision 
 of Christ. 
 
 25. καὶ τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα: ‘And being confident of this I 
 know.’ Construe τοῦτο with πεποιθὼς, not with οἶδα, as Lightf., 
 who takes zez. adverbially with οἶδα, ‘I confidently know,’ citing 
 Rom. xiv. 14; Eph. v. 5. But these are hardly in point. (Comp. 
 vs. 6.) Οἶδα is not prophetic. It merely expresses personal 
 conviction. 
 
 μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ : 
 
 TR συμπαραμενω with DEKLP and some Fathers. 
 
 For similar word-plays, see Rom. i. 20, v. 19; 2 Cor. iv. 8, 
 v.43; 2 Thess. iii. 11; Acts vill. 30. Mev® is absolute, ‘to abide 
 in life’: παραμενῶ is relative, ‘to abide with some one.’ Ilapa- 
 μενῶ in a manner defines the simple verb. The value of his 
 remaining in life lies chiefly in his being with his brethren and 
 promoting their spiritual welfare. Paul uses μένειν in the sense of 
 continuing to live, only here and 1 Cor. xv. 6. 
 
 εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως : ‘for your progress 
 and joy in the faith.’ For προκοπὴν, see on vs. 12. The genitives 
 τῆς πίστεως and ὑμῶν to be taken with both nouns. (Comp. i. 20, 
 and see Win. xix.) For the phrase ‘joy of faith,’ comp. χαρὰ ἐν τῷ 
 _ πιστεύειν (Rom. xv. 13). Progressiveness and joyfulness alike 
 
 characterise faith. 
 
 Kl. and Weiss take πίστεως with χαρὰν only. 
 
 26. iva τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ : ‘that your glorying may 
 abound.’ “Iva marks the ultimate aim of μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ, and 
 the clause defines more specifically the general statement εἰς τὴν 
 bp. mpox., etc. Καύχημα is the matter or ground of glorying, not 
 the act of glorying, which would be καύχησις, as Rom. iii. 27 ; 
 2 Cor. i. 12. (Comp. Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 15 ; Gal. vi. 4.) 
 
 Βα των “5. “ὦ 
 
I. 26] I SHALL ABIDE WITH YOU 31 
 
 Ὑμῶν is subjective: Not ‘my ground of glorying in you,’ but 
 ‘your ground of glorying.’ 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: With περισσεύῃ, not with καύχημα. (Comp. 
 i.g; Rom. i. 7; Col. ii. 7.) Christ is the element or sphere in 
 which the abounding develops. Christ is always needed to con- 
 trol, no less than to promote, overflow. The abundant glorying 
 does not take place in the sphere of human ambition, like that of 
 the Jew in his law and his nationality, — the ‘ boasting according 
 Serene Mesh” (2 Cor. xi. 18); ‘in men’ (1 Cor. iil. 21) ; ‘in 
 appearance’ (2 Cor. v. 12). 
 
 ἐν ἐμοὶ : The immediate occasion of the glorying would be Paul. 
 The ground of boasting would attach specially to him as the rep- 
 resentative of the cause which was the great matter of glorying. 
 Ἔν ἐμοὶ is a special cause or ground within the sphere designated 
 by ἐν Xl. 
 
 διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς : Connect with ἐν ἐμοὶ as 
 a special instance. The ground of glorying is first, and compre- 
 hensively, in Christ ; then in Paul as representing Christ ; then in 
 Paul’s personal presence again with them. Παρουσίας, in its ordin- 
 ary sense, as 1]. 12; 1 Cor. xvi.17,etc. There is a slight emphasis 
 on the word as contrasted with letters or messages. How far 
 Paul’s confidence in his liberation and future personal intercourse 
 with the Philippians was justified, it is impossible to determine 
 without more knowledge concerning the latter portion of his 
 career. 
 
 He now proceeds to give his readers some practical exhorta- 
 tions. Until he can personally minister to their faith, he must 
 content himself with writing to them. Their standard of Christian 
 consistency and efficiency must not be regulated by his personal 
 presence or absence. 
 
 27-30. Only, under any circumstances, — whether I shall come 
 to you, as I hope to do, or remain absent, as I may be compelled to 
 @o,—T exhort you to bear yourselves as becomes members of a 
 Christian community, in your steadfastness, unity, and active exer- 
 tion on behalf of the gospel, and in your courage in the face of your 
 adversaries ; which will demonstrate the hopelessness of their efforts 
 and their doom to destruction, and will be God’s own evidence to 
 you of your own salvation. For the privilege conferred upon you 
 of suffering for Christ will show that you are one with him, and 
 partakers of that same grace which has enabled me to contend for 
 his cause, and of that same conflict which you saw me undergo, 
 and which you now hear of my still waging in my Roman prison. 
 
32 PHILIPPIANS : [1. 27 
 
 27. μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε : ‘ only 
 let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ.’ Fora 
 similar usage of μόνον see 1 Cor. vil. 39 ; Gal. 11. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 7. 
 Not as though he would say : ‘ Look to your own conduct and God 
 will take care of me’; nor as though he intended to state the only 
 condition on which he would come to them ; but, ‘ whether I come 
 or not, I have only to say,’ etc. Only on this condition can he 
 successfully minister to their furtherance and joy of faith if he 
 shall come to them, and only thus can these be maintained if 
 he shall not come. 
 
 πολιτεύεσθε : Lit.‘ be citizens’ ; ‘exercise your citizenship.’ The 
 verb occurs in N.T. only here and Acts xxiii. 1. In LXX, see 
 2 Macc. vi. 1, xi. 25. For the kindred noun πολίτευμα see ch. iii. 
 20. Paul’s usual word for Christian conduct is περιπατεῖν, “ to 
 walk’ (Rom. vi. 4, viii. 4; 1 Cor. 111. 3), with ἀξίως, Eph. iv. 1; 
 Col. i. το. The primary reference is to their membership in the 
 church at Philippi; and the word is selected as pointing to their 
 mutual duties as members of a local Christian commonwealth ; 
 probably not without an underlying thought of the universal Christ- 
 jan commonwealth embracing all the saints in earth and heaven. 
 (Comp. iii. 20, and Clem. Rom. ad Cor. iii., xxi., liv.) Clement 
 develops the idea of individual obligation to a spiritual polity by 
 comparison with the obligations due to secular states, in lv. See 
 also Polyc. ad Phil. v. The word would naturally suggest itself to 
 Paul, contemplating from the metropolitan centre the grandeur of 
 the Roman state, and would appeal to the Philippians as citizens 
 of a Roman ‘colonia’ which aimed to reproduce, on a smaller 
 scale, the features of the parent commonwealth. (See Introd. II.) 
 Here, as elsewhere in Paul’s letters, may be detected the influence 
 of Stoicism upon his mode of thought. Stoic philosophy had 
 leavened the moral vocabulary of the civilised world. Its lan- 
 guage was fruitful in moral terms and images and furnished appro- 
 priate forms of expression for certain great Christian ideas. A 
 favorite Stoic conception was that of a world-wide state. (See 
 Lightf.’s essay on “ St. Paul and Seneca,” Comm. p. 270 ff.) 
 
 ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ: ‘in a manner worthy of the 
 gospel of Christ.’ Tod Xrod is the objective genitive, — the gospel 
 which proclaims Christ. This is Paul’s more usual formula. (See 
 i ΠΟΥ ΧΗ a 2 Cor. Ἴ 12: Gal. i735 1 1 1688: 11]: 2.) We find 
 also εὐαγγ. τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (Rom. i. 9); τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
 (2᾿ Thess. i, 8) ; τῆς δόξης τοῦ “Χριστοῦ (: Cor. iv. 4). 
 
 iva εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. 
 x* ACDFGKL read axovew. 
 The construction is rhetorically inexact. Ἵνα goes with ἀκούω, 
 
 and εἴτε ἐλθ. x. id. tu. and εἴτε ἀπ. are appositional with the per- 
 sonal subject of ἀκούω. ᾿Ακούω, which in regular construction 
 
1, 27] IN ONE SPIRIT 33 
 
 would be ἀκούων followed by γνῶ or some similar verb, takes the 
 finite form from the suggestion of the personal subject in ἀπὼν. 
 The construction is moulded by the thought of absence, which is 
 last and most prominent in the writer’s mind. The verb which 
 would have been used on the supposition of his seeing them is 
 dropped, and that which implies his absence is alone expressed. 
 Ta περὶ ὑμῶν, as ii. 19, 20; Col. iv. 8; comp. τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ (ch. i. 12): 
 ‘the things concerning you’; ‘your state’ (R.V.). Render the 
 whole: ‘That whether I come and see you or remain absent, I 
 may hear of your state.’ 
 
 ὅτι στήκετε, etc.: Explaining the details of their ‘state.’ Σ τήκειν 
 mostly in Paul, and always signifying 7721 standing, acquiring that 
 meaning, however, from the context. In Mk. iii. 31, xi. 25, it 
 means simply ‘ to stand.’ 
 
 ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι : ‘in one spirit.’ (Comp. Eph. iv. 4, and see 
 Clem. ad Cor. xlvi.) Πνεῦμα here is not the Holy Spirit (as 
 Weiss), but that disposition which is communicated in Christ to 
 believers, filling their souls, and generating their holy qualities 
 and works. In the possession of this they are πνευματικοί, ---- they 
 are joined to the Lord and are one spirit with him (1 Cor. vi. 17. 
 eet st TO: Th) ny s\n We Gas Aces Wi.) tO). hie 
 character, manifestations, or results of this disposition are often 
 defined by qualifying genitives ; as, the spirit of meekness, faith, 
 power, wisdom. (See Rom. viii. 2, 15 ; 1 Cor. iv. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 
 13; Gal. vi.1; Eph.i.17; 2 Tim.i. 7.) At the same time it is 
 to be carefully observed that these combinations are not mere 
 periphrases for a faculty or disposition of man. The energy of 
 the Holy Spirit is always assumed as behind and animating the 
 disposition in its various manifestations. (See W. St on Rom. 
 Vili. 4.) 
 
 μιᾷ ψυχῇ : ‘with one mind.’ (Comp. ch. ii. 2, 20.) Ψυχὴ is 
 the mind as the seat of sensation and desire. It is that part of 
 the individual, personal life which receives its impressions on the 
 one hand from the πνεῦμα, the higher divine life-principle, and on 
 the other hand from the outer world. There are cases where the 
 meanings of ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα approach very nearly, if indeed they 
 are not practically synonymous. (See Lk. i. 46, 47; Jn. xi. 33, 
 comp. xii. 27; Mt. xi. 29; τ Cor. xvi. 18.) But there must, never- 
 theless, be recognised a general distinction between two sides of 
 the one immaterial nature which stands in contrast with the body. 
 Πνεῦμα expresses the conception of that nature more generally, 
 being used both of the earthly and of the non-earthly spirit ; while 
 ψυχὴ designates it on the side of the creature. Πνεῦμα, and not 
 ψυχὴ, is the point of contact with the regenerating forces of the 
 Holy Spirit, —the point from which the whole personality is 
 moved Godward. Ψυχὴ must not be restricted to the principle 
 of animal life; nor must it be distinguished from πνεῦμα as being 
 
 D 
 
34 PHILIPPIANS [1. 27, 28 
 
 alone subject to the dominion of sin, since πνεῦμα also is described 
 as being subject to such dominion. See 2 Cor. vii.1 ; Eph. iv. 23 ; 
 1 Cor. vii. 34 ; 1 Thess. v. 23, which imply that the πνεῦμα needs 
 sanctification. Ψυχὴ is never, like πνεῦμα, used of God. (See 
 W. St. on Rom. xi. 3.) Here μιᾷ ψυχῇ is not to be construed 
 with στήκετε, but only with συναθλοῦντες. 
 
 συναθλοῦντες TH πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : ‘striving together for the 
 faith of the gospel.’ Σξυναθ. only here and iv. 3. The simple verb 
 ἀθλεῖν occurs in 2 Tim. ii. 5, where it signifies ‘to contend in the 
 games’; but in class. it is used also of contending in battle (Hdt. 
 vii. 212; Hom. 72. vii. 453, xv. 30) ; of conflicts of cities (Plat. 
 Tim. xix.c). The compounded σὺν does not mean with Paul (so 
 Mey.), but in fellowship with each other. Mey. appeals to vs. 30, 
 but there the apostle’s conflict is introduced as a new point. 
 Others refer to iv. 3, but there μοί is written. Lightf., after 
 Erasm., renders ‘in concert with the faith,’ faith being personi- 
 fied. He cites x Cor. xii. 6; 2,Tim.i. 8; 3 Jn. 8. The ΠΌΤΕ 
 fairly in point, but the two others are too much in dispute to be 
 decisive. 
 
 τῇ πίστει : Dat. ofinterest. The trustful and assured acceptamce 
 of Jesus Christ as the Saviour from sin and the bestower of eternal 
 life, is the clear sense of πίστις in the majority of N.T. passages. 
 At the same time, there is an evident tendency of the subjective 
 conception to become objective. The subjective principle of the 
 new life is sometimes regarded objectively as a power. It is the 
 sender or proclaimer of a message (Gal. iil. 2; Rom. x. 16. See 
 Sieffert on Gal. 111. 2, and Bornemann on 1 Thess. ii. 13). It is 
 something to be contended for (Jude 3). It is a precious gift to 
 be obtained (2 Pet.i.1). It is something to be held fast (1 Tim. 
 i. 19). Hence, though not equivalent to doctrina fidei (so Lightf. 
 here and on Gal. iii. 23, and Sanday on Rom. i. 5), its meaning 
 may go beyond that of the subjective energy to that of the faith 
 as a rule of life (so Gal. iii. 23; 1 Tim. i. 19, iv. 1; and here). 
 Thus Kl. explains πίστις here as “the new regimen of those who 
 are Christ’s; the objectively new, obligatory way of life.” The 
 phrase πίστις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου occurs nowhere else inN.T. Accord- 
 ing to the common analogy of genitives with πίστις, εὐαγγελίου 
 would be the objective genitive, ‘ faith in the gospel’; but accord- 
 ing to the meaning of πίστις given above, it will be rather ‘the 
 faith which belongs to the gospel,’ the rule of life which distinct- 
 ively characterises it. 
 
 28. πτυρόμενοι : ‘startled,’ ‘affrighted.’ Used of a frightened 
 horse. 
 
 ἐν μηδενὶ : As 2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4. 
 
 τῶν ἀντικειμένων : ‘your adversaries.’ (See Lk. xiii. 17, xxi. 15 ; 
 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 4.) Of all kinds, Jewish and Pagan. 
 Paul’s sufferings at Philippi had been caused by Gentiles. 
 
I. 28, 29] THE GIFT OF SUFFERING 35 
 
 ἥτις : ‘seeing it is.’ ‘It,’ z.e. your unterrified attitude. The 
 relative, with an explanatory force (as Eph. iii. 13; Col. ili. 5 ; 
 Heb. x. 35), takes its gender from the predicate ἔνδειξις (Win. 
 xxiv, 3), but agrees logically with μὴ πτυρόμενοι, etc. 
 
 αὐτοῖς : whether they recognise the token or not. 
 
 ἔνδειξις : ‘an evidence,’ ‘a proof.’ R.V., ‘evident token.’ The 
 word is notcommonin N.T. (See Rom. ili. 25, 26; 2 Cor. viii. 24.) 
 
 Comp. ἔνδειγμα : 2 Thess. i. 5. The verb ἐνδείκνυσθαι almost 
 entirely confined to Paul. Lit., ‘a pointing out.’ Used in Attic 
 law of a writ of indictment. 
 
 ἀπωλείας : ‘destruction’ or ‘waste’ in general (as Mk. xiv. 4; 
 Acts viii. 20) ; but specially and principally as here, the destruc- 
 tion which consists in the loss of eternal life. The meaning is 
 determined by the contrary σωτηρίας. The undaunted bearing of 
 the Philippians in the face of opposition and persecution will be 
 a token of destruction to their adversaries. It will show that their 
 persecutors are powerless to thwart God’s work ; that their resist- 
 ance is working out their own spiritual ruin ; that they are fighting 
 against God, which can mean only destruction. 
 
 ὑμῶν δε σωτηρίας : ‘but of your salvation.’ 
 
 νμων, as αὶ ABC?P 17, 31, 47, Arm., Syr.?. 
 υμιν in DKL Vulg., Cop., Basm., Goth., Eth. 
 
 Future and eternal salvation as contrasted with ἀπωλείας. 
 
 καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ: ‘and that from God.’ 
 
 Kai has an ascensive force ; not only a token, but a token from 
 God. 
 
 Τοῦτο refers to the whole preceding statement ; viz. that an evi- 
 dence of their enemies’ destruction and of their own salvation is 
 furnished in their brave bearing. Not merely to ἀπωλείας and 
 σωτηρίας, nor merely to ἔνδειξις (as Weiss). “It is not the token 
 alone that is from God, but the token and what it points to” 
 (Ead.). 
 
 29. ori: ‘ because,’ justifies the preceding statement, but with 
 special reference to σωτηρίᾳ. The evidence that your courage is 
 a divine token of salvation lies in the fact that God has graciously 
 bestowed on you, along with faith in Christ, the privilege of suffer- 
 ing with him. For faith implies oneness with Christ, and therefore 
 fellowship with his sufferings (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. 
 11. 12; Phil. iii. 10). That you suffer with Christ proves your union 
 with him, and your union with Christ insures your salvation. 
 
 Ὑμῖν has an emphatic position corresponding with that of ὑμῶν 
 in vs. 28. 
 
 ἐχαρίσθη : ‘it hath been granted’ ; freely bestowed as a gracious 
 gift. The word is significant as opening the conception of suffer- 
 ing from the Christian point of view. God rewards and indorses 
 believers with the gift of suffering. In Paul’s bonds the Philip- 
 
36 PHILIPPIANS [1. 29, 30 
 
 pians are partakers with him of grace (vs. 7. Comp. Acts v. 41). 
 The aorist points to the original bestowment of the gift. (See 
 Mt. v. 11; Mk. x. 38, 39.) 
 
 τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ : ‘on behalf of Christ.’ To belongs to πάσχειν, 
 but the connection is broken by ov povoy .. . πιστεύειν, after which 
 τὸ is repeated. With the whole passage, comp. 2 Thess. i. 4-10. 
 
 30. ἔχοντες : ‘you having,’ or ‘so that you have.’ Character- 
 ising ὅτι ὑμῖν éxap. . . . πάσχειν by the concrete case of their 
 share in his own conflict. The participle agrees with ὑμεῖς, the 
 logical subject of the entire clause. (Comp. similar construction in 
 Eph. iii. 17, iv. 2; 2 Cor.i. 7; Col.ii.2.) Not with στήκετε (vs. 27), 
 making ἥτις... πάσχειν a parenthesis, which would be clumsy. 
 
 ἀγῶνα : ‘conflict.’ (Comp. συναθλοῦντες [ vs. 27] and Col. ii. 1 ; 
 1 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. vi. 12; Heb. xii 1.) The word applied 
 originally to a contest in the arena, but used also of any struggle, 
 outward or inward. For the latter see Col. ii. 1, and comp. 
 Col. iv. 12. The reference here is to his experience in his first 
 visit to Philippi, and to his latest experience in Rome. Their 
 conflict is the same (τὸν αὐτὸν). They too have suffered persecu- 
 tions, and for the same reason, and from the same adversaries. 
 
 εἴδετε : ‘ ye saw,’ when I was with you at Philippi (Acts xvi. 19 ; 
 1 Thess. ii. 2). They saw him scourged and imprisoned. 
 
 viv ἀκούετε : ‘you now hear,’ as you read this letter, and listen 
 to the account of Epaphroditus. 
 
 ἐν ἐμοί : in my person. 
 
 EXCURSUS 
 BISHOPS AND DEACONS (PHIL. I. 1) 
 
 It is evident that these words are related to the large and 
 complicated question of primitive church polity. Do they denote 
 official titles, or do they merely designate functions? What is 
 their relation to the πρεσβύτεροι of the Acts and Pastoral Epistles Ὁ 
 Were the offices of bishop and presbyter originally the same, and 
 the names synonymous; or, was there an original distinction? 
 Were the ἐπίσκοποι the direct successors of the apostles, distinct 
 from the πρεσβύτεροι and higher ; or, was the episcopate a devel- 
 opment from the presbyterate, formed by gradual elevation, and, 
 finally, appropriating to itself the title which was originally com- 
 mon to both, so that the New Testament knows only two orders 
 —presbyters and deacons? What light is thrown on the ques- 
 tion by the use of the terms here? 
 
 To deal adequately with these questions, and with the volumin- 
 ous discussion which they have called out, is manifestly impos- 
 sible within the limits of an excursus, and the result of the most 
 elaborate discussion cannot be decisive, owing to the imperfection 
 of the sources at our disposal. 
 
I. 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS_) . 37 
 
 The theory of the original identity of bishops and presbyters 
 has been a subject of controversy from a very early date. It was 
 opposed to the Roman theory that bishops were the only success- 
 ors of the apostles, and had from the beginning the divine com- 
 mission to rule the church. ‘This latter theory was issued as a 
 dogma by the Council of Trent, and the opposite view was de- 
 clared heretical. The Roman dogma was rejected by the Calvin- 
 ists and Lutherans. About the middle of the seventeenth century 
 the battle over this question raged between the Anglican church 
 on the one hand, and the English Puritans and the French Re- 
 formers on the other. Dissatisfaction with the Roman view devel- 
 oped as the discussion gradually shifted from a dogmatic to a 
 historical basis. The present century has been prolific in attempts 
 to solve the problem. Passing by those of Baur, Kist, Rothe, and 
 Ritschl, the three most significant discussions from 1868 to 1883 
 were those of Lightfoot in his essay on ‘The Christian Ministry ” 
 in his Commentary on Philippians; Watch, in the Bampton Lect- 
 ures for 1880 (Zhe Organisation of the Early Christian Church), 
 and Harnack’s translation and development of Hatch’s work (2. 
 Hatch; Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirchen im 
 Alterthum, tibers. von A. Harnack, 1883). Harnack’s views were 
 further expounded in his Lehre der zwolf Apostel, 1884; his Re- 
 view of Loening’s Gemeindeverfassung in Th. LZ., 1889, No. 17; 
 in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Zexte und Untersuchungen, Bd. ii. 
 Heft 1, 5, and in his Dogmengeschichie. 
 
 Among the most important of the later discussions are: Lechler, 
 Das apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 3 Aufl., 1885 ; 
 Kiihl, Die Gemeindeverfassung in der Pastoralbriefen, 1885; E. 
 Loening, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums, 1889 ; 
 F. Loofs, Die urchristiche Gemeindeverfassung, Stud. u. Krit., 
 1890, Heft 4; Weizsacker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christh- 
 chen Kirche, 2 Aufl., 1892; Rud. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Bd. i., 1892 ; 
 Jean Réville, Zes Origines de 1’ Episcopat, 1894. Harnack is re- 
 viewed by Professor Sanday in Zhe Expositor, 3d ser. vol. v. This 
 and the succeeding volume contain an interesting group of papers 
 by J. Rendel Harris, J. Macpherson, C. Gore, W. Milligan, G. 
 Salmon, G. A. Simcox, and Professor Harnack. 
 
 The Pauline epistles, omitting for the present the Pastorals, 
 exhibit church polity in a rudimentary and fluid state in which 
 official designations are not sharply defined, and the offices them- 
 selves have not taken permanent and definite shape. The forms 
 of polity are simple, founded upon local conditions, and not uni- 
 form over the entire area of the church. The official designations, 
 so far as they have arisen, are the natural and familiar expressions 
 of particular functions. The terms often overlap or are confused, 
 and a term in use in one part of the church does not appear in 
 another part. An apostle, a bishop, a teacher, a deacon, are alike 
 
38 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 
 
 “servants.” An overseer will be likely to be a presbyter, chosen 
 on account of his age and experience. The overseers may be 
 called προϊστάμενοι, ἡγούμενοι, or κυβερνήσεις. The assistants of 
 an overseer may be known as διάκονοι or ἀντιλήμψεις. 
 
 In short, we find within this circle an entire lack of uniformity 
 in the terms applied to church officials, and a marked vagueness 
 in their use. ‘lhe terms do not wholly explain themselves. Most 
 of them are capable of a functional meaning ; and in most, if not 
 all, cases of their occurrence, they may be explained as indicating 
 the peculiar function of an official instead of his official title. This 
 is the case in Acts xx. 28, which is so often cited as decisive of 
 the original identity of presbyter and bishop. ᾿Ἐπίσκοπος occurs 
 but once in these epistles (Phil. i. 1) ; διάκονος but once in an 
 official sense (Phil. i. 1) ; προϊστάμενοι in Rom. xii. 8; 1 Thess. v. 
 12, both times functionally. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, we have, besides 
 apostles, prophets, and teachers, δυνάμεις, ἀντιλήμψεις, and κυβερνή- 
 σεις, Which are abstract terms. Ἐπίσκοπος, διάκονος, προϊστάμενος, 
 however they may be explained in any particular case, denote 
 functions. Ἐπίσκοπος is an overseer; διάκονος a servant; προ- 
 ἱστάμενος one who stands in front. Avaxovia is applied to religious 
 and churchly ministries of all kinds. In Eph. iv. 11, 12, Paul 
 says that Christ gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and 
 teachers to the work of διακονία for the perfecting of the saints. 
 Paul and Apollos, Timothy and the secular ruler, are alike διάκονοι 
 (τ Cor, 1. δ; τ Thess. iii. i23 Shomer Χ1Π:.24}- 
 
 This unsettled state of the nomenclature corresponds with the 
 fact that the primitive church was not a homogeneous body 
 throughout Christendom. While the Jewish-Christian church as- 
 sumed the connection of all local congregations with the mother- 
 church at Jerusalem, there was no similar bond among the Gentile 
 churches. Paul’s zdea/ was one body —the church, as the body 
 of Christ, embracing all Christians of every nationality and social 
 condition. He aspired to found a world-wide society, united 
 neither by national tradition nor by common rites, but by a 
 common faith and a common inspiration (1 Cor. x. 16, xii. 27; 
 Rom. xii. 5; Eph. ii. 14-22). He speaks of “the church of 
 xod ” (1 Cor. x. 32), and of “ the church " (1 Cor. xi. 23) Ηθ 
 labored to hold the provincial churches together by his letters and 
 messengers (1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor.i. 1). The boldness of his 
 ideal, and his profound faith in the truth which he proclaimed, are 
 all the more striking when the heterogeneous character of his 
 churches is considered. (See a fine passage in Réville, Zes Ογί- 
 gines de l’Episcopat, p. 115.) But the Gentile churches were 
 united mainly through their relation to him, and all the churches 
 were not within the sphere of his personal authority and work. 
 Hence a collective Christendom was, as Holtzmann observes, “a 
 genuine, zd@ea/ whole, identical with the body of the Lord, but not 
 
1.1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 39 
 
 an actual fact” (Pastoralbricfe, p. 193). The primitive Pauline 
 church consisted of a number of little fraternities, composed 
 largely of the poor and of the lower orders of society, holding 
 their meetings in the private houses of some of their members. 
 
 These communities were self-governing. The recognition of 
 those who ministered to the congregations depended on the free 
 choice of their members. At Corinth the household of Stephanas 
 is commended by Paul to the church as being the earliest converts 
 in Achaia, and as having voluntarily assumed the work of ministry 
 to the saints (1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16). They were not regularly ap- 
 pointed to office. The church is exhorted to render obedience 
 to them, and also to every one who shall cooperate with them in 
 their ministry. (See Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 2 Aufl. p. 244.) 
 Phoebe is not a deaconess, but a servant of the congregation, a 
 patroness (προστάτις) of Paul and of others (Rom. xvi. 1, 2). The 
 congregation exercises discipline and gives judgment (1 Cor. v. 
 2-72 Cor. i. 6, 7, vil. 11,:12; Gal. vi. τ. In x Cor. v1.1, Paul 
 recommends to the church to settle their differences by arbitra- 
 tion. The alternative is litigation before heathen tribunals. There 
 is, in short, no hint of any one ecclesiastical office endowed with 
 independent authority. “ Paul,” to quote the words of Réville 
 (Ρ. 99), “15 a sower of ideas, not a methodical administrator ; a 
 despiser of ecclesiastical forms and of ritualism ; a mighty idealist 
 filled with Christian enthusiasm, and who knew no other church 
 government than that of Christ himself inspiring his disciples with 
 the knowledge of what they ought to say and do.” 
 
 It is thus evident that within the circle of the generally acknow- 
 ledged Pauline epistles there is no trace of formally constituted 
 church officers, except, apparently, in the Philippian epistle where 
 bishops and deacons are addressed. Of this presently. Certain 
 functions, however, are distinctly recognised by Paul as of divine 
 institution in the church; and to these, necessarily, pertained a 
 degree of prominence and influence in the congregation. 
 
 The measure of this prominence and influence cannot be discussed here. 
 
 Harnack (on Loening, 7%. ZZ., 1889) thinks that the pneumatic functions 
 
 carried with them a “despotic” authority. (See Loening, Cemeinde- 
 verfassung, ch. ii.; Loofs, Stud. u. Krit., 1890, p. 622.) 
 
 Apostles, prophets, and teachers are declared by Paul to have 
 been set by God in the church, and to these are added δυνάμεις, 
 ἰάματα, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν (1 Cor. xii. 28 ; 
 comp. Eph. iv. 11, 12; and see Réville, p. 124 f.). 
 
 I do not agree with Réville that the προϊστάμενοι of 1 Thess. v. 12 
 (comp. Rom. xii. 8) are to be regarded as charismatically endowed. 
 
 These do not represent offices resting on the appointment of 
 the church. Their warrant is a special divine endowment or 
 χάρισμα. Apostles, prophets, teachers, do not signify three official 
 
40 PHILIPPIANS {11 
 
 grades in the church. The same man could be. both a prophet 
 and a teacher. Whatever authority they possessed depended upon 
 the church’s conviction that their charisma was of divine origin. 
 
 In Paul’s two lists in 1 Cor. and Eph. of those who have 
 been divinely commissioned in the church, neither ἐπίσκοποι, 
 πρεσβύτεροι, nor διάκονοι appear. Nor do they appear anywhere 
 in the acknowledged epistles of Paul with the exception of the 
 greeting to the bishops and deacons in the Philippian letter. But 
 in the Ignatian epistles (100-118 a.D.) we find a clear recognition 
 of three orders of ministry, — bishops, presbyters, and deacons, — 
 without which it is asserted that a church is not duly constituted 
 (Zrav. iii.). This ministry is the centre of church order. The 
 bishop is distinguished from the presbyter as representing a higher 
 order. He is to be regarded as the Lord himself (ZA. vi.) ; to 
 be obeyed as Christ and as God (7γαζ. ii.; Mag. ili.). Nothing 
 is to be done without his consent (Podyc. iv.). He is to be fol- 
 lowed as Jesus followed the Father (Smyvr. viii.). The presbyters 
 are to preside after the likeness of the council of the apostles 
 (Mag. vi.). Obedience is to. be rendered to them as to the 
 apostles of Jesus Christ (7γαΐζ. 1i.). The deacons are to be 
 respected as Jesus Christ (Zva/. iii.). In short, we have in 
 these epistles the strongly marked beginnings of the monarchical 
 episcopacy. 
 
 See Lightf. Zenatius, vol. i. p. 389 ff. 
 
 Somewhat earlier, in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 
 (about 96 a.p.), we find a greater variety of names applied to 
 church functionaries. Besides ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, and διάκονοι, 
 occur the titles ἡγούμενοι, προηγούμενοι, πρεσβύτεροι καθεσταμένοι, 
 and ἐλλόγιμοι ἄνδρες. But it is also distinctly asserted (xlii., xliv.) 
 that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons to succeed them 
 because they knew through Christ that strife would arise over the 
 name of the bishop’s office (ἐπισκοπὴ). It is to be noticed that 
 presbyters are not mentioned. 
 
 Assuming the Philippian letter to have been written in 61 or 
 62 A.D., we have less than forty years to the time of Clement’s 
 epistle, and less than sixty to the time of the Ignatian letters. A 
 great development has taken place in those years from the rudi- 
 mentary conditions of church polity which we have been consid- 
 ering. ‘This change did not come at a leap. Its elements must 
 have been long in solution in the fluid and more democratic polity 
 of the earlier time. The important and difficult question is the 
 process by which the earlier and crude forms of polity developed 
 into that system which is more than foreshadowed in Clement, 
 sharply defined in Ignatius, and an accepted fact in Irenzus, 
 Tertullian, and Cyprian. 
 
 Here a difficulty arises as to our sources. Επίσκοποι and 
 
1.1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 41 
 
 διάκονοι appear in Phil.; ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, and διάκονοι in 
 the Pastoral Epistles; ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι in the Acts and 
 τ Pet.; πρεσβύτεροι in Jas., 1 Pet., 2 and 3 Jn., and the Apoca- 
 lypse. Harnack places the Pastorals in the middle of the second 
 century ; Holtzmann, in its former half. The modern radical 
 criticism of the Acts pushes its date forward into the second 
 century (so Harnack) besides impugning its reliability on various 
 grounds. 
 
 See Weizsicker, Afost. ZA. 84 ff., 167 ff., 199 ff.; J. Jiingst, Dze Quellen 
 der Apostelgeschichte, 1895; C. Clemen, Die Chronologie der paulinischen 
 Briefe, 1893. 
 
 The point to be observed is, that if the later date of the Pas- 
 torals be accepted, they must be held to represent an advanced 
 stage in the development toward the episcopal polity. Only let 
 it be noted that Harnack’s date brings us within the circle of the 
 Ignatian polity, and warrants us in expecting a far more precise 
 use of terms in the three epistles than we actually find. There is 
 a great distance between the episcopate of the Pastorals and that 
 of the Ignatian epistles. (See Réville, p. 304.) 
 
 If, on the other hand, the Pastorals be accepted as late products 
 of Paul’s hand, and the Acts as composed within the first century, 
 we have in these, along with the Epistle to the Philippians and 
 the Catholic epistles, traces of the transition from the looser to 
 the better defined polity. We have evidence of the existence of 
 πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοποι in the church contemporary with Paul, 
 without our being compelled to admit either that the ἐπίσκοπος 
 was a regularly ordained ecclesiastical officer, or that πρεσβύτεροι 
 and ἐπίσκοποι are synonymous. We have simply what we have 
 reason to expect ; namely, that the three titles, ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύ- 
 tepot, and διάκονοι, fall within the period of unsettled polity and 
 loose nomenclature. ‘The fact that all these names may represent 
 functions without designating official titles accords with this view. 
 The process of crystallisation is going on. These different desig- 
 nations emerge here and there in the church as local develop- 
 ments, just as the terms προϊστάμενοι and ἡγούμενοι. It may be 
 admitted that one term might, on occasion, have been loosely 
 used for another ; but the recognised and habitual identification 
 of ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι is precluded by the very assumption 
 that these functions had assumed the character of regularly con- 
 stituted church offices or orders of the ministry. If such had 
 been the case, such looseness and confusion in the use of the 
 names of formally appointed and recognised church officers is 
 inconceivable. I think that the indications of the nature of 
 church polity furnished by the Pastorals are far fewer and less 
 definite than is often assumed, and much too scanty to warrant 
 the positive inferences based upon them as to the later date and 
 
42 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 
 
 the non-Pauline authorship of the letters. Harnack’s admission 
 that older documents have been used in the composition of the 
 Pastorals is an important concession, which makes against the 
 theory of their testimony to a later stage of ecclesiastical polity. 
 
 According to our view of the case, therefore, the mention of 
 bishops and deacons in the Philippian letter furnishes no excep- 
 tion to the statement that, within the circle of the acknowledged 
 Pauline letters, there is no evidence of regularly constituted church 
 officers representing distinct orders in the ministry. While the 
 greeting to bishops and deacons is unique, it does not imply a 
 polity differing substantially from that exhibited in 1 Cor. and 
 1 Thess. It will be observed that the greeting is first to the 
 church, and that the letter is addressed to the whole church. 
 The special mention of the bishops and deacons by way of 
 appendage is explained by the fact that the letter was called out 
 by the pecuniary contribution of the Philippian church to Paul, 
 of the collection and sending of which these functionaries would 
 naturally have charge. It will also be noticed that the address 
 assumes several ἐπίσκοποι, showing that the right of administration 
 is possessed by no single one. 
 
 At the same time, I think it must be granted with Harnack 
 (L£xpositor, 3d ser. vol. v. p. 330) that while there cannot yet be 
 any reference to an ecclesiastical authority over the church, the 
 greeting of the Philippian letter implies a development of polity, 
 in that the ministry has become divided into a higher and a lower 
 ministry, and that its functionaries have obtained special designa- 
 tions, so that the name διάκονος has received a narrower significa- 
 tion, and designates a lower grade of ministry. The church at 
 Philippi, at the time when Paul wrote this letter, had been in 
 existence for ten years, and was the oldest Pauline church in 
 Europe. It would not have been strange if its polity had become 
 somewhat matured and more sharply defined, especially since it 
 had suffered less distraction than other churches from conflicts 
 with the Jews. 
 
 The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is most import- 
 ant in its bearing on this subject. This brief church manual or 
 directory, composed, probably in Syria, about 100 a.D., is a valu- 
 able contribution to the literature of the period between the 
 destruction of Jerusalem (a.D. 70) and the middle of the second 
 century, the least-known period of church history. Its special 
 value consists in marking the transition-period from the apostolic 
 to the later church polity, in which the spiritual functions pass 
 over from the apostles, prophets, and teachers to the local officers 
 —the bishops and deacons. On the one side it is linked with the 
 apostolic polity. The principal offices are still the charismatic 
 offices. The apostle, who is to be received as the Lord (xi. 4), is 
 a travelling missionary, and is not to remain for more than two 
 
I. 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 43 
 
 days in a place (xi. 5). The prophet speaks by divine inspira- 
 tion, and is not to be tried or proved, as if for appointment to 
 his office (xi. 7). The prophets are the chief priests (xiii. 3). 
 Comp. the emphasis on prophecy in 1 Cor. xii. 28, xiv. 1-37. 
 Presbyters are not mentioned, though it does not follow from this 
 that they did not exist in some of the Syro-Palestinian churches. 
 (See Réville, p. 259.) But bishops and deacons are distinctly 
 recognised. ‘They are local officers. They are elected to office 
 (xv. 1), and on occasion they are to perform the ministry of the 
 prophets and teachers (xv. 1); that is to say, the distinctively 
 spiritual functions of the prophets may be discharged by them 
 when the prophet is not present (xiil.). 
 
 The testimony of the Didache, therefore, does not bear out the | 
 original prominence which is claimed for the bishop. He is a 
 secondary officer. He falls into the background behind the apos- 
 tles, prophets, and teachers. The testimony, further, goes to show 
 that spiritual functions did not originally attach to the offices of 
 bishop and deacon. The evidence prior to the Didache that 
 bishops or presbyters exercised such functions is very slight. 
 The principal point insisted on is the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 
 iv. 14 [see especially Loening, p. 75 ff.]) and the allusions to the 
 gift of teaching or preaching as a qualification of presbyters or 
 bishops (1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17; Tit. τ. 9). As to ordination, it will 
 be observed that the charisma described as imparted to Timothy 
 is given through the medium of prophecy (διὰ προφητείας). As 
 to teaching or preaching, 1 Tim. v. 17 shows that even if this 
 function was occasionally exercised by presbyters or bishops, it 
 did not pertain to the office as such. “The elders who rule well” 
 are to be accounted worthy of double honor, especially those who 
 labor in word and teaching, which clearly implies that there were 
 elders who did not labor in word and teaching. 
 
 In the Didache the spiritual functions belong, as in 1 Cor., to 
 the prophets and teachers. The prophet is to discharge them 
 when he is present. The prophet alone is allowed the free use of 
 extemporary prayer (x. 7). In other respects the teacher is on 
 the same footing with him. In the absence of the prophet or 
 teacher, his ministry may be assumed by the bishops and deacons 
 (xiii., xv. 1). In other words, the evidence of the Didache is to 
 the effect that, as the special supernatural endowments subside, 
 as the visits of the prophets become less frequent, the ministra- 
 tions of worship devolve more and more upon the subordinate and 
 local officers. 
 
 This view is carried out by Harnack in his discussion of the 
 Apostolical Ordinances or Canons (Tt. u. Unt. ii. 5). One por- 
 tion of this formed a considerable part of the Didache. Two 
 more parts, dating from forty to eighty years later than the 
 Didache, mention the church officers in the following order: 
 
44 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 
 
 bishop, presbyter, reader, deacon. The bishop is the shepherd 
 of the flock. The presbyters, two in number, form the council of 
 the bishop, oversee church discipline, and take part with the 
 bishop in the celebration of the Eucharist. ‘The deacon has 
 charge of the church charities, and keeps an eye upon disorderly 
 members. The reader discharges the duties of an evangelist. 
 He is a preacher or expounder, succeeding the evangelist, who 
 belonged originally to the class of charismatically endowed teach- 
 ers (comp. Eph. iv. 11) ; thus showing how formally appointed 
 officials gradually succeeded to the functions of those who were 
 supernaturally endowed by the Spirit. 
 
 The office of the ἐπίσκοπος thus acquired a different character 
 when it assumed the teaching function. This does not yet appear 
 in Clement. The function is described as λειτουργεῖν and προσφέρ- 
 ειν τὰ δῶρα (xliv.), yet the position is different from that of the 
 Pauline period. With the passing away of the apostles, the 
 authority of the bishop has increased. Its recognition no longer 
 depends so exclusively on the approval of the members. Clement 
 proclaims the apostolic origin and authority of the office, and at 
 least suggests its life-long tenure (xliv.), a theory, as Harnack 
 justly says, which has the appearance of being devised to meet 
 an emergency; while some remnant of the earlier democratic 
 sentiment is apparent in the ejection of the church authorities 
 which was the occasion of Clement’s letter. 
 
 The bishop’s office, therefore, was originally not spiritual but 
 administrative. He had a local function in a particular commun- 
 ity. The question as to the precise nature and range of this 
 function cannot be answered decisively ; but some modern critics 
 have, I think, narrowed it too much. Hatch, following in the 
 track of Renan, Foucart, Liiders, Heinrici, and Weingarten, de- 
 rives the term ἐπίσκοπος from the financial officers in the heathen 
 municipalities or in the confraternities or guilds which were so 
 common in the Roman Empire (see note on τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον σου 
 ἐκκλησίᾳ [Philem. 2]), and regards the original ἐπίσκοπος as 
 simply a financial officer. 
 
 Sanday justly remarks that the evidence, on this theory, is rather better 
 for ἐπιμελητής than for ἐπίσκοπος (Lxpositor, 3d ser. v. p. 98). See also 
 on this point, Réville, Les Origines de l’Episcopat, p. 153. The subject of 
 the relations of the Christian official nomenclature to that of the heathen 
 guilds is ably discussed by Loening, Gemeindeverfassung, pp. 12, 20, 64. 
 See also Sohm, Kirchenrecht, p. 87, and Salmon, £xfositor, 3d ser. vi. 
 Ρ. 18 ff. 
 
 In favor of this view it is also urged that the earliest authorities 
 concur in demanding that bishops should be free from covetous- 
 ness. Thus the Didache requires that bishops and deacons shall 
 be ἀφιλαργύρους (xv. 1). So in τ Tim. iii. 3, a bishop must be 
 ἀφιλάργυρος, and a deacon (vs. 8) μὴ αἰσχροκερδὴς. It is also 
 
I 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 45 
 
 claimed that Tit. i. 7 is to the same effect, the bishop being 
 described as θεοῦ οἰκονόμος. It is assumed, in short, that such 
 expressions were determined by the special temptations which 
 attached to the financial function of the bishop. 
 
 It seems to me quite possible to lay undue stress upon these 
 indications. Without denying that the episcopal function included, 
 and was possibly largely concerned with the financial interests of 
 the church, it could not have been confined to these. It must 
 have extended to the social relations of the community, to 
 inspection of the performance of social duties, to guardianship 
 of those rules and traditions which were the charter of the infant 
 organisation, and to representation of the community in its rela- 
 tions with other Christian churches or with the outside world. It — 
 can hardly be supposed that, in associations distinctively moral 
 and religious, one who bore the title of overseer should have 
 been concerned only with the material side of church life. (See 
 Réville, p. 306 ff.). 
 
 Sohm, whose Kzrchenrecht is among the very latest and strongest con- 
 tributions to this discussion, holds that, though the original character of 
 the bishop’s office was administrative, the teaching function attached itself 
 naturally to his duty of receiving and administering the offerings of the 
 congregation presented at the celebration of the Eucharist. He claims 
 that the episcopal office grew, primarily, out of this celebration, and that 
 the bishop’s distribution of the offerings to the poor involved a cure of souls 
 and the consequent necessity of teaching. See also Réville, pp. 178, 309. 
 
 But though it cannot be shown that the Christian title ἐπίσκοπος 
 was formally imitated from the Pagan official, we are not thereby 
 compelled to deny entirely the influence of the Pagan nomenclat- 
 ure in determining it. No doubt its adoption came about, in 
 both cases, in the same natural way ; that is to say, just as sena- 
 tus, and γερουσία, and πρεσβύτερος passed into official designa- 
 tions through the natural association of authority with age, so 
 ἐπίσκοπος would be almost inevitably the designation of an over- 
 seer. ‘The term was not furnished by the gospel tradition ; it did 
 not come from the Jewish synagogue, and it does not appear in 
 Paul’s lists of those whom God has set in the church. The process 
 of natural selection, however, would be helped by the familiar 
 employment of the title in the clubs or guilds to designate func- 
 tions analogous to those of the ecclesiastical administrator. (See 
 the interesting remarks of Réville, p. 160 f.) The title can hardly, 
 I think, be traced to the Old Testament. The usage there is 
 predominantly functional. There are but two passages in the 
 LXX where ἐπίσκοπος has any connection with religious worship 
 (Num. iv. 16; 2 K. xi. 18). It is applied to God (Job xx. 29), 
 as it is applied to Christ in the New Testament (1 Pet. ii. 25). It 
 is used of officers in the army, and of overseers of workmen. The 
 prevailing meaning of ἐπισκοπὴ is “ visitation,” for punishment, 
 
46 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 
 
 inquisition, or numbering. In any case, little light can be thrown 
 on the question by the derivation of the word, until we clearly 
 understand the functions of the Christian officials. 
 
 Into the complicated question of the origin of the presbyterate 
 it is not necessary to enter. It may be remarked that modern 
 critical opinion has largely abandoned the view maintained by 
 Rothe, Baur, Lightfoot, Hatch, and others, that the original 
 Christian church polity was an imitation of that of the syna- 
 gogue. ‘This is largely due to the investigations of Schiirer into 
 the Jewish church constitution. 
 
 See Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2 Aufl. 
 Bd. ii., 1866, Eng. trans., 2d divis. vol. ii. p. 56 ff.; Die Gemeindeverfassung 
 der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit, 1879. 
 
 The secular and religious authorities of the Jewish communities, 
 at least in purely Jewish localities, are shown by Schiirer to have 
 been the same (comp. Hatch, Lect. iii.),—a fact which is against 
 the probability that the polity was directly transferred to the body 
 of Christian believers. The prerogatives of the Jewish elders have 
 nothing corresponding with them in extent in the Christian com- 
 munity. Functions which emerge later in the Jewish-Christian 
 communities of Palestine do not exist in the first Palestinian- 
 Christian society. At the most, as Weizsacker observes, it could 
 only be a question of borrowing a current name. The use of 
 συναγωγὴ for a Christian assembly occurs but once in the New 
 Testament, and that by James, whose strong Jewish affinities are 
 familiar. The regular designation of the Christian assembly was 
 ἐκκλησία. The Christian society regarded itself as the inaugurator, 
 not of a new worship, not of an ecclesiastical organisation, but of 
 a new society representing the beginnings of the kingdom of God 
 on earth, the institutions of which would soon be definitely and 
 permanently established by the return of the Son of Man in his 
 glory. Such a society would not be satisfied with forming a 
 separate synagogue merely, nor would the mere reading and 
 exposition of the law and the prophets interpret their fresh 
 Christian sentiment. 
 
 See Holtzmann, Pastoralbriefe, p. 217. 
 
 However they originated, in the Acts and the Pastoral Epistles 
 presbyters appear as a factor of church government, forming a 
 collective body in the congregation. Whatever may have been 
 their original functions, in these documents the office of teaching 
 pertains to both them and the bishops. (See τ Tim. ili. 2, v. 17; 
 Tit. 1.. 9.) It is at this point that the tendency to confound and 
 identify the two distinct offices reveals itself. It would be strange 
 if the two were synonymous, and that two names should be given 
 to the same functions. Yet Hatch (Lect. ii. p. 39, note) declares _ 
 
ΕἼ] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 47 
 
 that this identity is so well established that it has been practically 
 removed from the list of disputed questions. Such certainly is 
 not the testimony of later critical discussion in which this question 
 bears a prominent part. The reasons which make against the 
 identity, moreover, are not trifling. Acts xx. 17, 28, which is so 
 often urged as conclusive, proves absolutely nothing, or rather 
 favors the opposite conclusion. Either it may be said that the 
 word ἐπισκόπους is not titular, but expresses function, describing 
 the body of presbyters generally as “‘ overseers” of the flock of 
 God ; or that the ἐπίσκοποι regarded as officers are represented as 
 belonging to the class of presbyters and appointed from their 
 number, which does not imply the identification of the official 
 titles. 
 
 Bishops and deacons are habitually associated, while no mention 
 of presbyters occurs along with them. It is a begging of the 
 question to affirm that presbyters are not mentioned because they 
 are identical with bishops. It cannot be proved for instance that 
 there were not presbyters at Philippi when Paul wrote to that 
 church ; and the probability is that if they had held a rank identi- 
 cal with that of the bishops or equal with it, notice of them would 
 not have been omitted. 
 
 Turning to the Pastoral Epistles, in 1 Tim. iii. 1-13, we find the 
 qualifications of bishops and deacons described, with no mention 
 of presbyters. These are referred to in 1 Tim. v. 17-19, but in 
 an entirely different connection, —-as worthy of a double mainten- 
 ance, and not to be accused except on the testimony of two or 
 three witnesses. In the Epistle of Clement (xlii.) the apostles are 
 declared to have appointed bishops and deacons, not presbyters. 
 Passing on to a later date (140?), the Shepherd of Hermas 
 distinguishes bishops and deacons from presbyters (3 Vis. v. 1; 
 Sim. ix. 27,2. Comp. 2 Vis.iv.2f; 3 Vis.i. 8, ix. 7; Mand. xi. 12). 
 
 The testimony of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is of spe- 
 cial importance. It was written on behalf of the Roman church, 
 rebuking the church at Corinth for ejecting its rulers from office. 
 (See Lightf. Cem. i. p. 82.) The passages in point are in chs. i., 
 ili., xxi., xlii., xliv., xlvii., liv., lvii. 
 
 At first sight it appears as if Clement uses ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύ- 
 Tepos aS Synonymous terms (see especially xliv., liv., lvii.) ; but in 
 chs. i., xxi. the ἡγούμενοι and προηγούμενοι, by whom the bishops 
 are meant, are placed side by side with πρεσβύτεροι as distinct, 
 πρεσβύτεροι in both cases being contrasted with the young. In 
 short, a more careful examination of the epistle goes to show 
 that if the bishops are apparently designated as presbyters, it is 
 because they have been chosen from the body of presbyters, and 
 have retained that name even when they have ceased to hold 
 office. For this reason the deceased bishops are called presby- 
 ters (xliv.). As the presbyters are not designated by Clement 
 
48 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 
 
 among those appointed by the apostles as their successors, it 
 appears that “presbyter” signifies, not an office, but a class or 
 estate. The presbyters are church members of long standing, 
 who have approved themselves by their good works and pure 
 character. The leaders of the church are to be sought among 
 these ; but ‘‘the aged” as such are not described as office-bearers 
 regularly appointed, but merely as a body of persons distinguished 
 by ripe wisdom and approved character. Thus the exhortation 
 “Submit yourselves to the presbyters ”’ (Ivii.) tallies with the same 
 expression in 1 Pet. v. 5, where the younger are bidden to be 
 subject unto the elder. ‘The office-bearers belong to the πρεσβύ- 
 repo, but the πρεσβύτεροι as such are not office-bearers. ‘The 
 bishops are reckoned as πρεσβύτεροι, not because the presbyter as 
 such is a bishop, but because the bishop as such is a presbyter” 
 (Sohm). The “appointed presbyters” (πρεσβύτεροι καθεσταμένοι 
 [liv.]) are not the πρεσβύτεροι collectively, but a smaller circle 
 within the πρεσβύτεροι. It is the bishops who are appointed (xlii., 
 xliv.), and who count with the “aged” from whose ranks they 
 proceed. ‘They are summoned to a specific official activity as 
 ἐπίσκοποι. 
 
 A linguistic usage of the second century which appears in 
 Irenzus goes to confirm this view,—the use of πρεσβύτερος to 
 denote the authorities for the tradition, the survivors of the pre- 
 ceding generation (Iren. “ger. 11. 22, 5, iv. 27, 1, 2, 30, 14, 32,1, 
 v. 5, 1, 33, 3, 36, 1)- (See Weizs., 4p. ZA. p. 618.) The bishops 
 would therefore be called πρεσβύτεροι (/7/aer’. iii. 2, 1, 3, 1), in so 
 far as they successively vouched for the tradition, and thus reached 
 back into the preceding age. 
 
 The qualifications which distinguish a presbyter are indicated 
 at the close of Clement’s epistle in the description of the three 
 commissioners from the Roman church who are the bearers of 
 the letter. They are “old, members of the Roman church from 
 youth, distinguished by their blameless life, believing, and sober” 
 (Ixiii.). No official title is given them. 
 
 To the same effect is the testimony of the Pastoral Epistles. 
 1 Tim. iii. treats of the officers of the church, but only of bishops 
 and deacons, concluding with the statement that this is the direc- 
 tion concerning the ordering of the church as the house of God 
 (vs. 14, 15). The offices are exhausted in the description of 
 bishops and deacons. Nothing is said of presbyters until ch. v., 
 where Timothy’s relations to individual members of the church 
 are prescribed (v. 1) ; and in Tit. ii. 2 ff. these church members 
 are classified as old men (πρεσβύτας), old women, younger men, 
 and servants. Similarly, in 1 Pet. v. 1, the apostle describes him- 
 self as a “fellow-elder” (συνπρεσβύτερος) ; and the church is 
 divided into elders who feed the flock of God, and the younger 
 (νεώτεροι) who are to be subject to the elders. In 1 Tim. v. 17 
 
I. 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 49 
 
 mention is made of “elders who rule well”’ (ot καλῶς προεστῶτες 
 πρεσβύτεροι). Assuming that elders had an official position iden- 
 tical with that of bishops, a distinction between two classes of 
 bishops would be implied, — those who rule well and those who 
 do not. Whereas the distinction is obviously between old and 
 honored church members collectively considered, forming the 
 presbyterial body, and certain of their number who are worthy 
 to be appointed as overseers. All of the presbyters do not fulfil 
 equally well the duty of ruling. All are not alike worthy to be 
 chosen as overseers. Only those are to be accounted worthy of 
 double honor who have approved themselves as presbyters to be 
 worthy of the position of ἐπίσκοποι. The following statement in 
 vs. 19 refers to the rights of the presbyters generally. The pres-. 
 byters as such are not invested with office. There is no formal 
 act which constitutes an elder ora well-ruling elder. The bishops 
 are reckoned among the elders, but the elders as such are not 
 officers. 
 
 Thus are explained the allusions to “appointed” elders. Titus 
 (Tit. i. 5) is enjoined to appoint elders in the Cretan churches, 
 men who shall be blameless, husbands of one wife, having believ- 
 ing children who are free from scandal. Then follows, ‘or the 
 bishop (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον) must be blameless,” etc. The qualifica- 
 tions of the elders are thus fixed by those of the bishop ; and the 
 injunction is to appoint elders to the position of overseers, for 
 the overseers must have the qualifications of approved presbyters. 
 Similarly the ordination of presbyters, in Acts xiv. 23, is to be 
 understood as setting apart elders to the position of superin- 
 tendents. 
 
 The ecclesiastical eldership is, therefore, not identical with the 
 episcopate, though in the unsettled state of ecclesiastical nomen- 
 clature, the names might, on occasion, be interchanged, and though, 
 in the later stage of ecclesiastical development, the assumption of 
 the teaching function by both classes, through the gradual sub- 
 sidence of charismatic endowments, tends to confuse them. The 
 presbyterate denotes an honorable and influential estate in the 
 church on the ground of age, duration of church membership, 
 and approved character. Only bishops are “‘appointed.’”’ There 
 is no appointment to the presbyterate. 
 
 The special office of deacon occurs in the Pastorals, and nowhere 
 else in the writings attributed to Paul; for the deacons in Phil. i. 1 
 do not stand for an ecclesiastical office, although, as has been 
 already observed, they mark an advance towards it. ‘They appear 
 as regular church officers in Clement and in the Didache, and 
 Clement asserts their apostolic appointment. The testimony does 
 not bear out the older view of the origin of the diaconate in the 
 appointment of the seven (Acts vi. 1-6). The terms διάκονος and 
 «διακονία are common expressions of service, either to Christ or to 
 
 E 
 
50 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 
 
 others. Paul habitually uses them in this way, applying them to 
 his own ministry and to that of his associates. Avaxovia is applied 
 to the service of the apostles (Acts 1. 25, vi. 4), and διάκονοι is 
 used of the ministers of Satan in 2 Cor. xi. 15. The appoint- 
 ment of the seven grew out of a special emergency, and was 
 made for a particular service ; and the resemblances are not close 
 between the duties and qualifications of deacons as detailed in 
 1 Tim. and those of the seven. The word διάκονος does not 
 occur at all in the Acts; and when Paul and Barnabas brought 
 the contribution for the poor saints to Jerusalem, they handed it 
 over to the elders. 
 
 Our evidence on this question is, at best, incomplete. Loening 
 does not put the case too strongly when he describes the sources 
 from which alone our knowledge can be drawn as Jickenhaft. 
 Such as the evidence is, however, it seems to be fatal alike to the 
 Roman and to the Presbyterian theory of an apostolic norm of 
 church polity. There can be no doubt that discussions of this 
 subject have too often.been unduly influenced by ecclesiastical 
 preconceptions, and conclusions reached in which the wish was 
 father to the thought. To be able successfully to vindicate for 
 any system of ecclesiastical polity an apostolic origin and sanction 
 is to put into the hands of its representatives a tremendous lever. 
 Investigation of this subject, if it is to lead to the truth, must be 
 conducted on purely historical grounds apart from all dogmatic or 
 ecclesiastical prepossessions. In the conduct of such investiga- 
 tions we shall do well to heed the caution conveyed in the words 
 of Réville. ‘The prolonged and minute analysis of the smallest 
 texts, in which one thinks to find an echo of the first Christian 
 ecclesiastical organisation, tends to a forcing of the meaning and 
 to an exaggeration of the value of each trace that we discover ; 
 because we cannot be satisfied without reconstructing a complete 
 organism, in which all the parts are logically related and mutually 
 adjusted like the wheels of a perfect machine. Not only is the 
 mechanism not complete, but, properly speaking, there is yet no 
 regular mechanism. The organisation of these humble communi- 
 ties which were still unnoticed by the great world, or noticed only 
 to be despised, was not the result of sage legislative labor... . 
 The functions, the dignities, the spiritual magistracies of primitive 
 Christianity emerge little by little by organic growth” (Les Origines 
 de l’ Episcopat, p. 330). 
 
 The forms of church polity were gradual evolutions from primi- 
 tive, simple, crude modes of organisation shaped by existing 
 conditions. Official titles were naturally suggested by official 
 functions. The church was not one body, but only an aggregate 
 of local communities ; and the features of organisation and gov- 
 ernment in any single community and ‘the official titles which 
 their administrators bore were not the same in other communities. 
 
I. 13] NOTE ON πραιτωρίῳ 51 
 
 Nothing is clearer than the absence of any uniform system of 
 ecclesiastical nomenclature in the church of the Pauline period. 
 We see at first a loose, democratic organisation, in which leader- 
 ship depends upon spiritual endowment and its recognition by the 
 spiritual community. The early enthusiasm gradually passes away. 
 The apostle, prophet, and teacher recede, formal election takes 
 the place of general recognition of the gifts of prophecy or 
 tongues ; the spiritual functions pass from the charismatic leaders 
 to the administrative functionaries; gradually the official polity 
 crystallises as the church grows stronger and its intercourse with 
 the outside world and among its several branches extends. The 
 tendency observable in the history of all organisations towards . 
 the concentration of authority in fewer hands develops ; and by 
 the time the first half of the second century is reached, the epis- 
 copal polity has defined itself in the Ignatian letters, and the tide 
 is setting towards the monarchical episcopacy. 
 
 NOTE ON πραιτωρίῳ (1. 13) 
 
 It is impossible to determine with certainty the place of Paul’s confinement 
 in Rome. The explanations of πραιτώριον ( pretorium) are the following: 
 
 I. The prztorian camp at the Porta Viminalis (Kl., Lips., Mey., Weiss, 
 Hack.). 
 
 2. The whole pretorian camp whether within or without the city (Ellic.). 
 
 3. The pretorian barracks attached to the Neronian palace (Alf., Con. H., 
 Weizs. [42. Zeit.], O. Holtzmann [Meutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte], 
 Merivale [Ast. Rom. under the Emp.]). 
 
 4. The pretorian guard (Lightf., Lewin, De W., Beet, Mangold [Bleek’s 
 Einl.)). 
 
 I do not think that Lightf.’s note (Comm. p. 99) has ever been successfully 
 answered or his conclusion shaken. He has shown that there is no sufficient 
 authority for applying the term ‘ preetorium’ to the imperial residence on the 
 Palatine; and his view on this point is confirmed by Mommsen (émisches 
 Staatsrecht, 3 Aufl. ii. p. 807). After stating that the word was used to 
 denote the headquarters of the emperor, Mommsen goes on to argue against 
 Hirschfeld’s assertion that the imperial palace itself was regarded as a camp. 
 “ Against this,” he says, “are both tradition and theory. When the emperor 
 was absent from Rome he was‘ in praetorio,’ and so Juvenal (iv. 34) rightly 
 calls Domitian’s Albanum a camp. But the palace in the city is never called 
 so; for such a designation would be against the existence of the Augustan 
 principate, and Augustus’ tendency to conceal military domination.” 
 
 Livy, xxvi. 15, xxx. 5; Tac. Hist. i. 20, ii. 11, iv. 46; Suet. Mero, 9; Pliny, 
 N. H. xxv. 2, 6, with the testimony furnished by inscriptions, are decisive for 
 the use of ‘ przetorium’ to denote the pretorian guard. 
 
 So Marquardt (Rémische Staatsverwaltung, ii. pp. 460, 464), and Mommsen 
 
52 PHILIPPIANS [11. 1-4 
 
 (Rom. Staatsr. ii. 865, 3 Aufl.), who says of the pratorian troops: “Their 
 collective designation was fraeforium, as appears in the expressions pracfectus 
 in praetorio, mittere ex praetorio, decedere in praetorio. The name of the 
 emperor was not usually added, though Vespasian speaks of the soldiers who 
 have served zz praetorio meo (Corp. I. Lat. p. 583).” 
 
 Professor Ramsay (St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 357) 
 says that ‘preetorium’ means “the whole body of persons connected with the 
 sitting in judgment—the supreme imperial court; doubtless in this case the 
 prefect or both prefects of the pretorian guard, representing the emperor in 
 his capacity as the fountain of justice, together with the assessors and high 
 officers of the court.” For this explanation he cites the authority of Mommsen, 
 but without giving any references. I must confess that this definition of 
 ‘ preetorium’ is new to me, and I am unable to reconcile it with Mommsen’s 
 statements. Mommsen says (Adm. Staatsr. 11. p. 959) that the first emper- 
 ors, for the most part, personally conducted the imperial court. On p. 972 he 
 says: “From the penal sentences of the provincial governors, the appeal, 
 about the middle of the third century, lay to the preetorian prefects; and, as 
 accused persons from the provinces, sent to Rome for judgment, were, in the 
 earlier period, committed to the przetorian prefects as guards (here he cites 
 the case of St. Paul), so, 27 che third century, the judgment of such persons 
 passed over to them.” 
 
 The unquestionable fact that ‘ praetorium’ was used to denote the preetorian 
 guard makes it unnecessary to assume that the apostle in this passage refers 
 to any place, and furnishes a simple explanation and one entirely consistent 
 with the narrative in Acts xxviii. Paul was permitted to reside in his private 
 lodging under the custody of a prztorian soldier. As the soldiers would 
 naturally relieve each other in this duty, it would not be very long before Paul 
 could say, as he does here, that the entire body of the praetorians had become 
 aware that the imprisonment was for Christ’s sake. This explanation, more- 
 over, agrees with καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, which, on the other interpretations, is 
 exceedingly awkward. 
 
 II. 1-4. EXHORTATION TO UNANIMITY, LOVE, AND 
 HUMILITY 
 
 If therefore there is any power of exhortation in your experience. 
 as Christians; if your mutual love affords you any consolation ; 
 if you are in true fellowship with the Spirit of God; if there are 
 any tender mercies and compassions in your hearts —I beseech 
 you to complete my joy by your unanimity and your love to each 
 other. Do not act from a spirit of faction or vainglory, but each 
 of you account his brother as better than himself, and study his 
 interests in preference to your own. 
 
IT. 1] EXHORTATION TO UNANIMITY, LOVE, ETC. 53 
 
 1. εἴτις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ : ‘if there be any exhortation 
 in Christ.’ 
 
 The particular connection of οὖν is clearly with i. 27, ἥτις... 
 ev ἐμοί being a digression, though not parenthetical. The main 
 element of πολιτεύεσθε is brave standing for the gospel in a spirit 
 of concord. It is this which is taken up and expanded in the 
 opening of this chapter. ‘I have exhorted you to stand fast in 
 one spirit; to strive with one mind for the faith of the gospel, 
 unterrified by your adversaries. Zherefore complete my joy by 
 being of one accord and avoiding faction and vainglory.’ Out of 
 this appeal grows, logically, the exhortation to humility, without 
 which such unanimity cannot be maintained. The exhortation 
 opens in the form of an adjuration. The rapid succession and 
 variety of the appeals and the repetition of εἴ τις are peculiarly 
 impressive. Says Chrys.: πῶς λιπαρῶς, σφοδρῶς, μετὰ συμπαθείας 
 πολλῆς! ‘How earnestly, how vehemently, with how much 
 sympathy !” 
 
 This earnestness was largely due to the fact that Paul was dis- 
 turbed by reports of internal dissensions in the Philippian church. 
 This is indicated not only by his words here, but by his moving 
 appeal to the example of Christ; his admonition to do all things 
 without murmurings and disputings (vs. 14); his entreaty of 
 Euodia and Syntyche (iv. 2) ; his exhortation to moderation or 
 forbearance (iv. 5) ; and his reference to the peace of God (iv. 7). 
 
 The appeal is upon four grounds. ‘The first and third set forth 
 objective principles of Christian life ; the second and fourth, sub- 
 jective principles. The appeal is not to what was demanded by 
 the readers’ personal relations to Paul. So Chrys. “If ye wish 
 to give me any comfort in my trials, and encouragement in Christ ; 
 if you have sympathy with me in my sufferings,” etc. So the Gk. 
 Fathers generally. It is the Christian experience of the Philippians 
 that is appealed to. ‘I exhort you by those feelings of which, as 
 Christians, you are conscious.’ 
 
 παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ : If the fact of your being in Christ has 
 any power to exhort you to brotherly concord. (Comp. 1 Cor. 
 ΧΙ]. 12-27; Eph. iv. 15, 16.) 
 
 Παράκλησις from παρακαλεῖν, ‘to call to one’s side’ for help, 
 counsel, etc. Thus παράκλητος, ‘an advocate,’ is one who is 
 called in to plead another’s cause. With this primary sense are 
 associated the ideas of entreaty, exhortation, and consolation. In 
 the sense of ‘entreaty,’ the noun appears in N.T. only in 2 Cor. 
 vill. 4, but the verb is common. (See Mt. viii. 34, xiv. 36; Mk. 
 i. 40, etc.) As ‘consolation’ or ‘comfort,’ the noun, Lk. ii. 25, 
 Vic24 > 2. Cof. ἢ vit: 4; the verb, 2 Gor: i:..4;. 6; vil. ὅς As 
 ‘exhortation’ or ‘counsel,’ the noun, Acts xiii. 15 ; Rom. xii. 8; 
 Heb. xili. 22 ; the verb, Acts ii. 40, xi. 23 ; Rom. xii. 8; Tit. ii. 15. 
 The last sense is the usual one in Paul. 
 
54 PHILIPPIANS [ΣΠ 12 
 
 παραμύθιον : ‘persuasion.’ Only here, but the earlier form παρα- 
 μυθία, τ Cor. xiv. 2. Class. ‘ address,’ ‘ exhortation’ (Plat. Zeg. vi. 
 773 E, ix. 880 A); ‘assuagement’ or ‘abatement’ (Soph. “ic. 
 130; Plat. Huthyd. 272 B). Hence ‘consolation’ (Plat. Repud. 
 329 E). See παρακαλεῖν and παραμυθεῖσθαι together, 1 Thess. 11. 11. 
 Here, the form which παράκλησις assumes —a friendly, mild per- 
 suasion, “ not pedagogic or judicial” (KI.). Paul means, there- 
 fore, ‘if love has any persuasive power to move you to concord.’ 
 
 κοινωνία πνεύματος : ‘fellowship of the Spirit.” (Comp. Rom. 
 xv. 30.) For κοινωνία, see oni. 5. ‘The exact phrase only here, 
 and κοιν. with wv. only 2 Cor. xiii. 13. 
 
 Πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit. The meaning is ‘ fellowship with the 
 Holy Spirit,’ not ‘fellowship of spirits among themselves.’ The 
 genitive is the genitive of that of which one partakes. So habitu- 
 ally by Paul (1 Cor. i. Ὁ, x. 16; 2 Cor. vill. 4, xiii. τῷ; Eph. iii. 9 ; 
 Phil. iii. 10). Not ‘the fellowship which the Spirit imparts,’ which 
 would be grammatical, but contrary to N.T. usage. Hence Paul 
 means, ‘if you are partakers of the Holy Spirit and his gifts and 
 influences.’ 
 
 εἴ τις σπλάγχνα Kal οἰκτιρμοί: ‘if any tender mercies and com- 
 passions.’ 
 
 τις σπλαγχνα with s ABCDFGKLP and nearly all the verss. is over- 
 whelmingly supported agt. τινα in a few minusc., Clem., Chrys., Thdrt., 
 
 Theoph. But the attested reading is a manifest solecism, — either a tran- 
 scriber’s error, or a hasty repetition of τις. 
 
 For σπλάγχνα, see on i. 8, and comp. Philem. 7, 12, 20. The 
 exact phrase σπλ. καὶ oik. only here, but see Jas. v. 11 ; Col. iii. 12. 
 
 Σπλάγχνα is the organ or seat of compassionate emotion: 
 οἰκτιρμοί are the emotions themselves. (See Schmidt, Syzon. 
 143, 4.) 
 
 2. πληρώσατέ pov τὴν χαρὰν : ‘fulfil’ or ‘ fill ye up my joy.’ 
 
 Πληρ., in its original sense, ‘to make full’; the joy regarded 
 as a measure to be filled. (Comp. Jn. iii. 29, xv. 11, xXvil. 13 ; 
 2 Cor. κι δ.) 
 
 Mov before τὴν χαρὰν implies no special emphasis. (See Col. 
 iv. 18; Philem. 20; and often elsewhere.) (Win. xxii.) 
 
 iva: not ‘in order that,’ but to be taken with ‘I bid’ or ‘ exhort,’ 
 which is implied in the imperat. πληρώσατε, and indicating the 
 purport of the bidding. (See oni. 9.) 
 
 Mey. maintains the telic sense, and Lightf. renders ‘so as to,’ but refers 
 to i. 9, where he explains ἕνα as signifying purport. 
 
 τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε: ‘be of the same mind.’ (Comp. Rom. xii. τό, 
 xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil.iv. 2.) For φρονῆτε, see oni. 7. This 
 more general expression is defined by the following two, not three, 
 separate clauses. 
 
II. 2, 3] - SHUN STRIFE AND VAINGLORYING 55 
 
 τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες : ‘having the same love.’ Mutual love, 
 and the one love of God in all. (See Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. iii. 12 ; 
 2 Thess. i. 3; 1 Jn. iv. 12-16.) 
 
 σύνψυχοι τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες : ‘with harmony of soul cherishing 
 the one sentiment.’ This second participial clause points back to 
 τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, and is illustrated by σύνψυχοι, which marks the 
 common disposition under the influence of which unanimity of 
 sentiment is to be attained. So Mey., Alf., Ellic., Weiss, Beet. 
 
 Others, as WH., ΚΙ., Lightf., De W., Lips., Weizs., take σύνψ. and τὸ ὃν 
 pov. as separate predicates. ‘The attempted distinctions between τὸ αὐτὸ 
 and τὸ ἕν are hypercritical. Thus, τὸ ἕν, agreement of mind and will; τὸ 
 αὐτὸ, agreement in doctrine (Calov., Am E., Rosenm.); τὸ αὐτὸ, unanimity 
 in general; τὸ ἕν, the one concrete object of their striving (Weiss). The 
 two are practically synonymous. Wetstein cites λέγοντες Ev καὶ ταὐτὸ 
 (Polyb. v. 441), and ἕν καὶ ταὐτὸ φρονοῦντες (Aristid. Concord. Rhodior. 
 569). This is the only occurrence of σύνψυχος in Bib. Gk. (Comp. ἰσόψυ- 
 χος, VS. 20.) 
 
 For To ev dpov. 8* AC 17, Vulg., Goth., read To αὐτο ¢pov., a mechanical 
 conformation to To auto φρονητε. 
 
 The same exhortation to concord is now put negatively, showing 
 what the requirement excludes. 
 
 3. μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθίαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν : ‘being in nothing 
 factiously or vaingloriously minded.’ (Comp. Ign. PAz/ad. 1., viii.) 
 Supply φρονοῦντες from vs. 2, which is better than ποιοῦντες or 
 πράσσοντες (A.V.; R.V.), since the thought is on the line of 
 moral disposition rather than of doing. For the suppression 
 of the verb, comp. Gal. v. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 6; Mt. xxvi. 5. 
 
 ἐριθίαν : see On 1. 17. 
 
 κατὰ : ‘by way of’; marking the rule or principle according to 
 which something is done. (See Jn. ii. 6; Rom. ii. 2, xi. 21; 
 Win. xlix.) 
 
 κενοδοξίαν : ‘vainglory.’ Only here in N.T., but comp. LXX; 
 Sap. xiv. 14; g Macc. ii. 15, vill. 18; and κενοδοξῶν (4 Macc. v. 
 9) ; also κενόδοξοι (Gal. v. 26). Primarily, ‘vain opinion,’ ‘ error,’ 
 as Ign. Magn. xi., ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας. (See on δόξα, i. 11.) 
 A vain conceit of possessing a rightful claim to honor. Suidas 
 defines, ‘any vain thinking about one’s self.’ It implies a contrast 
 with the state of mind which seeks the true glory of God, as ch. i. 
 26. Its object is vain and fleshly — something which imparts only 
 a‘superficial glitter in the eyes of the worldly-minded. In Gal. 
 v. 26, κενόδοξοι is further defined by ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλή- 
 λοις φθονοῦντες. The temptation to this fault would arise, on the 
 Jewish side, from the conceit of an exclusive divine call, privilege, 
 and prerogative, and an exaggerated estimate of circumcision and 
 the law (Rom. iii. 1, ix. 4). Against these the Philippians are 
 warned in ch. iii. On the Gentile side the temptation would lie 
 
 ee aan a 
 
56 PHILIPPIANS [11. 3,4 
 
 in the conceit of a profound gnosis, and in their self-esteem grow- 
 ing out of their call and the rejection of the Jews. Paul deals 
 with this in Rom. xi. 20-25. They might also be tempted by the 
 fancy of their own superior culture and breadth of view to despise 
 the scruples of weak brethren. (See Rom. xiv. ; 1 Cor. viii.) 
 
 τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ : ‘in lowliness of mind.’ In class. Gk. ταπεινὸς 
 usually implies meanness of condition ; lowness of rank ; abject- 
 ness. At best the classical conception is only modesty, absence 
 of assumption, an element of worldly wisdom, and in no sense 
 opposed to self-righteousness. The word ταπεινοφροσύνη is an 
 outgrowth of the gospel. It does not appear before the Christian 
 era. ‘The virtue itself is founded in a correct estimate of actual 
 littleness conjoined with a sense of sinfulness. It regards man not 
 only with reference to God, but also with reference to his fellow- 
 men, as here. The article τῇ probably denotes the virtue consid- 
 ered abstractly or generically. (Comp. Rom. xii. τὸ ff.) It may, 
 however, be used possessively, ‘your lowliness’ (Lightf.), or as 
 indicating the dve lowliness which should influence each (Ellic.). 
 
 ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν : ‘each counting other 
 better than himself.” (Comp. Rom. xii. 10.) ἩἩγεῖσθαι implies 
 a more conscious, a surer judgment, resting on more careful weigh- 
 ing of the facts, than νομίζειν. (See Schmidt, Syzon. 105, 4} 70, 
 I, 3) 7+) 
 
 Ὑπερέχειν with genit. not elsewhere in Paul. (Comp. iv. 7; 
 Rom. xiii. 1.) 
 
 B reads Tous with vrepexovras. DFG umepexorres. 
 
 4. ἕκωστοι σκοποῦντες ---- ἕκαστοι : 
 
 Ist εκαστοι, as ABFG 17, Vulg.; s CDKLP, Goth., Cop., Arm., Syr.¥t, 
 read εκαστος, WH. marg. 2d εκαστοι, as δαὶ ABCY%! Ds P 17, 31, 47, Cop.; 
 KL, Goth., Syr.u, Arm., read εκαστος. 
 
 For σκοπουντες L with a few Fath. reads σκοπειτε. 
 
 σκοποῦντες : ‘looking.’ For this use of the participle instead of 
 the imperative, comp. Rom. xii. 9; Heb. xiii. 5. It forms an 
 expansion of the previous words. Σκοπεῖν is ‘ to look attentively’ ; 
 to fix the attention upon a thing with an interest init. (See Rom. 
 xvi. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 18; Gal. vi. 1; Phil. iii. 17.) Hence, often, 
 ‘to aim at.’ (Comp. σκοπὸν, 111. 14.) Schmidt defines : “ to direct 
 one’s attention upon a thing, either in order to obtain it, or because 
 one has a peculiar interest in it, or a duty to fulfil towards it. Also 
 to have an eye to with a view of forming a right judgment” (Syzon. 
 11, 12). 
 
 ἀλλὰ kai: Καὶ, ‘also,’ is inserted because Paul would not have it 
 understood that one is to pay no attention to his own affairs. 
 
 ΝΈΑ 17 join 2d εκαστοι with rovr. φρον. following. The previous 
 sentence would therefore end with erepwy, 
 
II. 5, 6] CHRIST THE EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY 57 
 
 Humility is urged because it is necessary to concord, as κενοδοξία 
 is fatal to concord. For the supreme example and illustration of 
 this virtue, the readers are now pointed to Jesus Christ. (Comp. 
 Rom. xv. 3; 2 Cor. viii. g; 1 Pet. ii. 21, and the striking parallel 
 in Clem. ad Cor. xvi.) 
 
 5-8. Cherish the disposition which dwelt in Christ Jesus. For 
 he, though he existed from eternity in a state of equality with God, 
 did not regard that divine condition of being as one might regard a 
 prize to be eagerly grasped, but laid it aside, and took the form of 
 a bondservant, having been made in the likeness of men: and 
 having been thus found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself 
 by becoming obedient to God even so far as to suffer death, yea, 
 the ignominious death of the cross. 
 
 On the whole passage, see note at the end of this chapter. Pp: 7S 
 
 5. τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ Kal ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ : ‘have this mind 
 in you which was also in Christ Jesus.’ 
 
 πὸ DFGKLP, Goth., Syr.?, insert yap after rovro; x* ABC 17, 37, Cop., 
 Arm., AEth., omit yap; φρονειτε with s ABC* DFG 67**, Vulg., Syr.utr; 
 C3 KLP, Cop., Arm., Goth., read φρονεισθω. 
 
 ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘in you’; not ‘among you,’ which is precluded by the 
 following ἐν XI. (Comp. Mt. lii. 9, ix. 3, 21.) "Ev ὑμῖν with 
 the active φρονεῖτε presents no difficulty if it is remembered that 
 φρονεῖν signifies the general mental attitude or disposition. (See 
 on i. 7.) 
 
 ἐν XI: There was a slight difference of opinion as to whether 
 that which is commended to imitation is Christ’s ταπεινοφροσύνη 
 (so the Gk. Fathers), or his self-denying zeal for the salvation of 
 others (Aug. Ans.). It is both combined. They are represented 
 respectively by ἐταπείνωσεν (vs. 8) and ἐκένωσεν (vs. 7). So Beng., 
 ‘qui non sua quaesiverit sed se ipsum demiserit.” 
 
 6. os: Refers to Christ as the subject. It is the subject of both 
 classes of statements which follow, — those predicated of Christ’s 
 preincarnate state and of his human condition. The immediate 
 context defines the specific reference in each case. si 
 
 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ : ‘in the form of God.’ ‘Form’ is an inadequate 
 rendering of μορφὴ, but our language affords no better word. By 
 ‘form’ is commonly understood ‘shape,’ ‘sensible appearance.’ 
 So of Christ’s human form (Mk. xvi. 12). But’ the word in this 
 sense cannot be applied to God. Μορφὴ here means that expres- 
 sion of being which is identified with the essential nature and 
 
58 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6 
 
 character of God, and which reveals it. This expression of God 
 cannot be conceived by us, though it may be conceived and 
 apprehended by pure spiritual intelligences. 
 
 ὑπάρχων : ‘subsisting’ or ‘ though he subsisted.’ Originally ‘ to 
 begin,’ ‘make a beginning’ ; thence ‘ to come forth’ ; ‘ be at hand’ ; 
 ‘be in existence.’ It is sometimes claimed that ὑπάρχειν, as dis- 
 tinguished from εἶναι, implies a reference to an antecedent condi- 
 tion. Thus R.V. marg. ‘ being originally.’ Suidas, = προεῖναι. That 
 it does so in some cases is true. (See Thuc. iv. 18, vi. 86; Hdt. 
 11. 15; Dem. iil. 15, v. 13.) Comp. the meaning ‘to be taken 
 for granted’ (Plat. Symp. τοῦ D; Zim. 30 C). On the other 
 hand, it sometimes denotes a present as related to a future con- 
 dition. (See Hdt. vii. 144; Thue. ii. 64; and the meaning ‘to 
 be in store’ [A#s. Ag. 961].) The most that can be said is that 
 the word is very often used with a relative meaning ; while, at the 
 same time, it often occurs simply as ‘to be.’ (See Schmidt, 
 Synon. 81, 7.) 
 
 οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ : ‘counted it not a prize 
 to be on an equality with God.’ 
 
 “Apraypov is here equivalent to ἅρπαγμα, the more regular form 
 for the object of the action, — the thing seized, — while substan- 
 tives in μος have usually an active sense. There are, however, 
 exceptions to this. Thus θεσμός and χρησμός are neither of them 
 used actively. Φραγμός, ‘a fencing in,’ is also used like φράγμα, 
 ‘a fence.’ ᾿Αγιασμός is both ‘the act of consecration’ and ‘ sanctifi- 
 cation.’ (Comp. ὀνειδισμός, σωφρονισμός, and ἱλασμός.) There is 
 only one example of ἁρπαγμός in any class. author (Plut. AZorad. 
 p- 12 A) where the meaning is apparently active. It occurs in 
 two passages of Cyr. Alex., De Adorat. i. 25, and Cont. Jul. vi., 
 both in a passive sense, and in Euseb. Comm. in Luc. vi., also 
 passive. Max. Conf. Schol. in Lib. de divin. nom. 57 D, explains 
 οὐχ dpm. ny. by οὐκ ἀπηξίωσεν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὑπακοῦσαι. It should 
 also be observed that γαφίρια, by which ἁρπαγμὸν is rendered in 
 the Lat. trans. of Origen and Theo. Mops., is used both actively 
 and passively, the latter in poetry and late Latin. In this condi- 
 tion of the evidence it is certainly straining a point, to say the 
 least, to insist on making the rendering of the passage turn on 
 the active meaning of apwaypov, as Mey. “Apzayya is often used 
 with ἡγεῖσθαι, as ἁρπαγμὸν here, in the sense of ‘to clutch greedily.’ 
 
 ἡγήσατο: See on vs. 3. Weiss suggests that the phrase apm. 7y. 
 may have been chosen with reference to ἡγούμενοι of vs. 3, in order 
 to emphasise the disposition from which Christ’s self-humiliation 
 proceeded. 
 
 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ : Kiva, ‘ to exist’ ; not as the abstract substantive 
 verb ‘to be.’ “Ica is adverbial, ‘in a manner of equality.’ (Comp. 
 Thue. iii. 14; Eurip. Ovest. 882; and other examples in Win. 
 xxvii.) (See LXX; Job v. 14; Sap. vii. 3.) The phrase there- 
 
 Ι 
 
II. 6, 7] THE FORM OF A BONDSERVANT 59 
 
 fore does not mean ‘to be equal with God,’ but ‘ existence in the 
 way of equality with God’ (Mey., Ellic., Weiss, De W., KI.). 
 
 Others, as Lightf., take ἴσα predicatively, and εἶναι as ‘ to be.’ 
 
 7. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν : ‘but emptied himself.’ For the verb, 
 Ἐπ: hom. v.14 5.0 Cor. 1.17, 1x.'15 ;\'2’ Cor. ix.'35 LXX: Jer. 
 xiv. 2, xv. 9. Not used or intended here in a metaphysical sense 
 to define the limitations of Christ’s incarnate state, but as a strong 
 and graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renuncia- 
 tion. It includes all the details of humiliation which follow, and 
 is defined by these. Further definition belongs to speculative 
 theology. On Baur’s attempt to show traces of Gnostic teaching 
 in these words, see Introd. vi. 
 
 μορφὴν δούλου λαβών : ‘having taken the form of a bondservant.’ 
 Characterising ἕαυ. ἐκ. generally. The participle is explanatory, 
 ‘by taking.’ (Comp. Eph.i.g; and see Burt. 145, and Win. xlv.) 
 Μορφὴν, as in vs. 6, an expression or manifestation essentially 
 characteristic of the subject. Christ assumed that form of being 
 which completely answered to and characteristically expressed the 
 being of a bondservant. Only μορφὴ δούλου must not be taken as 
 implying a slave-condition, but a condition of service as contrasted 
 with the condition of equality with God. 
 
 e, as Mey., Ellic., supply θεοῦ, “ servant of God.’ But this limits the 
 ee ta auly. He was not servant of God only, but of men also. (Comp. 
 Mt. xx. 27, 28; Mk. x. 44, 45; Lk. xii. 37; Jn. xiii. 1-5, 13-17.) 
 
 ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος : ‘having become (been made) 
 in the likeness of men.’ Defining pop. dov. AaB. more specifically. 
 Ὁμοιώματι does not imply the reality of Christ’s humanity as μορφὴ 
 Ge. implied the reality of his deity. The former fact is stated in 
 ἐν op. Sov. As that phrase expressed the inmost reality of Christ’s 
 servantship, — the fact that he really became the servant of men, 
 — so ἐν 6p. av. expresses the fact that his mode of manifestation 
 resembled what men are. This leaves room for the other side of 
 his nature, the divine, in the likeness of which he did not appear. 
 His likeness to men was real, but it did not express his whole self. 
 The totality of his being could not appear to men, for that would 
 involve the pop. 6c. The apostle views him solely as he could 
 appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete 
 likeness to humanity. (Comp. Rom. v. 14, vi. 5, vii. 3.) “To 
 affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness”’ 
 (Dickson, Baird Lect., 1883). 
 
 γενόμενος : Contrasted with ὑπάρχων. He entered into a new 
 state. (Comp. Jn. i. 14; Gal. iv. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16.) For the 
 phrase γενόμενος ἐν, see Lk. xxii. 44 ; Acts xxii. 17; Rom. xvi. 7; 
 2 Cor. i Hi; 
 
 καὶ σχήματι sipebeds ws ἄνθρωπος : ‘and being found in fashion 
 
60 PHILIPPIANS [11. 7, 8 
 
 as aman.’ Σχῆμα is the outward fashion which appeals to the 
 senses. The ‘form of a bondservant’ expresses the fact that the 
 manifestation as a servant corresponded to the real fact that Christ 
 came as a servant of men. In ἐν ὄμ. ἄνθ. the thought is still linked 
 with that of his essential nature, which rendered an absolute iden- 
 tity with men impossible. In σχῆμ. εὗρ. the thought is confined 
 to the outward guise as it appealed to human observation. Σχῆμα 
 denotes something changeable as well as external. It is an acci- 
 dent of being. (See 1 Cor. vii. 31.) The compounds of μορφὴ 
 and σχῆμα bring out the difference between the inward and the 
 outward. Thus συμμόρφους, Rom. viii. 29; συμμορφιζόμενος, Phil. 
 iii. 10; μεταμορφούμεθα (otcGe), 2 Cor. ili. 18 ; Rom. xii. 2; μορφω- 
 θῃ, Gal. iv. το ;—all of an inner, spiritual process, while συσχη- 
 ματίζεσθαι (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Ῥεῖ. 1. 14) marks a process affecting 
 that which is outward. See the two together in Phil. iii. 21. See 
 Lightf.’s note on the synonyms μορφὴ and σχῆμα (Comm. p. 127). 
 
 Mey. and De W. take καὶ ox... . ἄνθ. with the preceding clause: 
 ‘becoming in the likeness of men and (so) found in fashion,’ etc. This is 
 plausible, but it makes the next sentence very abrupt, and breaks the pro- 
 gression. Evpe@els introduces a new portion of the history. The laying 
 aside of the form of God — the self-emptying — consisted in his taking the 
 form of a servant and becoming in the likeness of men. In this condition 
 he is found. In this new guise he first becomes apprehensible to human 
 perception; and on this stage, where he is seen by men, other acts of 
 humiliation follow. (Comp. Is. liii. 2.) 
 
 Eipefeis is not a Hebraism, nor does it stand for εἶναι. iva 
 expresses the quality of a person or thing in itself; εὗρ. the quality 
 as it is discovered and recognised. (Comp. Mt. i. 18; Lk. xvii. 
 18; Acts v. 39; Rom. vii. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 12; and see Win. Ixv.) 
 
 ὡς : not whaz¢ he was recognised to be, which would have been 
 expressed by ἄνθρωπος alone; but as, keeping up the idea of 
 semblance expressed in ὁμοιώματι. 
 
 8. ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν : ‘he humbled himself.’ The emphasis 
 is on the act, not on the subject. Not synonymous with ἐκένωσεν. 
 (Comp. .2/Cor, xi..7 5 Phil.iv. 12.) 
 
 The more general ἐταπείνωσεν is now specifically defined. 
 γενόμενος ὑπήκοος : ‘becoming obedient or subject.’ He became 
 as a man; in that condition he humbled himself; his humiliation 
 appeared in his subjection. Tevdu., with an explanatory force, ‘ by 
 becoming.’ Understand θεῷ. (Comp. Mt. xxvi. 39; Rom. v. 19; 
 Heb. ν. 8.) 
 
 μέχρι θανάτου: ‘even unto death.’ To the extent of death. 
 (Comp. Heb. xii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 9.) 
 
 θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ : ‘yea, death of the cross.’ 
 
 Δὲ introduces another and more striking detail of the humilia- 
 tion, and leads on to a climax: ‘death, yea, the most ignominious 
 of deaths.’ For this force of 8, comp. Rom. iii. 22, ix. 20. 
 
II. 8, 9] HUMILIATION ISSUED IN EXALTATION 61 
 
 σταυροῦ: καὶ adds του. The close of the description leaves the 
 reader at the very lowest point of Christ’s humiliation, death as a 
 malefactor ; the mode of death to which a curse was ‘attached in 
 the Mosaic law. (See Deut. xxi. 23; Gal. iii. 13; Heb. xii. 2.) 
 Paul, as a Roman citizen, was exempt from this disgrace. 
 
 The result of this humiliation was the highest exaltation. 
 
 9-11. On this account God exalted him above all creatures, 
 and bestowed on him the name which ts above every name; that in 
 the name of Jesus all beings in heaven, earth, and hades, should 
 bow the knee and acknowledge him as Lord, and by this confession 
 glorify God the Father. 
 
 9. διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν : ‘wherefore also God highly 
 exalted him.’ 
 διὸ: ‘in consequence of which.’ (Comp. Heb. ii. 9, xii. 2.) 
 The idea of Christ’s receiving his exaltation as a reward was 
 repugnant to the Reformed theologians. Calvin attempts to 
 evade it by explaining διὸ as guvo facto, which is utterly untenable. 
 At the same time, it is not necessary to insist on the idea of rec- 
 ompense, since διὸ may express simply consequence ; and exalta- 
 tion is the logical result of humility in the N.T. economy (Mt. 
 xxiii. 12; Lk. xiv. 11, xviii. 14). As Mey. remarks, “ Christ’s 
 saying in Mt. xxiii. 12 was gloriously fulfilled in his own case.” 
 “Die Erniedrigung ist nur die noch nicht eingetretene Herrlich- 
 keit,’’ says Schmidt (Art. “Stand, doppelter Christi,” Herz. R/. 
 £nc.). For διὸ καὶ introducing a result, see Lk. i. 35 ; Acts x. 29. 
 The consequence corresponding to the humiliation is expressed 
 by καὶ. 
 Different explanations of καὶ are given, however. Lightf. and Kl. main- 
 
 tain the sense of reciprocation, — ‘ God, on his part’; Ellic., contrast of the 
 exaltation with the previous humiliation. 
 
 ὑπερύψωσεν : Only here in N.T. In LXX; Ps. xcvii. (xcvi.) 9; 
 Dan. iv. 34. Not in class. Gk. Paul is fond of ὑπὲρ in com- 
 pounds, and the compounds with ὑπὲρ are nearly all in his writ- 
 ings. (See Ellic. on Eph. iii. 20.) Its force here is not ‘more 
 than before,’ nor ‘ above his previous state of humiliation,’ but ‘in 
 superlative measure.’ This exaltation took place through Christ’s 
 ascension (Rom. i. 3, 4, viii. 34; Eph. iv. 9,10; Col.iii.1). But 
 the exaltation is viewed, not in respect of its mode, but as a state 
 of transcendent glory, including his sitting at God’s right hand 
 (Rom. viii. 34 ; Col. iii. 1) ; his lordship over the living and the 
 dead (Rom. xiv. 9); ; and his reign in glory (1 Cor, xv, 25 )- 
 
 καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα: ‘and gave unto 
 him the name which is above every name.’ 
 
62 PHILIPPIANS [11. 9, 10 
 
 ἐχαρίσατο: See on i. 29. Christ obtained as a gift what he 
 renounced as a prize. (See Eph. i. 21; Heb. i. 4.) 
 
 τὸ ὄνομα : Possibly with a reference to the practice of giving a 
 new name to persons at important crises in their lives. (See Gen. 
 Xvil. 5, XXxll. 28; Apoc. ii. 17, iii. 12.) The name conferred is 
 JESUS CHRIST, combining the human name, which points to 
 the conquest won in the flesh, and the Messianic name, ‘the 
 Anointed of God.’ The two factors of the name are successively 
 taken up in vs. 10, 11. 
 
 There is a great variety of explanations on this point: Κύριος (K1., Lips., 
 Weiss), Ἰησοῦς (Ellic., ΕΔ4.), Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (De W., Mey.), Υἱὸς (Thdrt., 
 Pelag., Aug. ), Θεὸς (Theoph., Ec.). Lightf. holds that ὄνομα means ‘ title’ 
 or ‘ dignity,’ and must be taken in the same sense in both verses. (See on 
 next vs. ) 
 
 The reading To ovoua is acc. to αὶ ABC 17. το is omitted by DFGKLP. 
 
 10. iva: Denotes the purpose of the exaltation. 
 
 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ : ‘Zn the name of Jesus’ ; not ‘athe name.’ 
 Ὄνομα with rod κυρ. qu. “IX, or τ. κυρ. L, or κυρ. Ἶ., or αὐτοῦ 
 (Cht.), occurs ten times in Paul. In none of these cases is the 
 word a mere title of address. Paul follows the Hebrew usage, in 
 which the name is used for everything which the name covers, so 
 that the name is equivalent to the person himself. (So Mt. vi. 9, 
 x. 41.) To baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit is to put the subject of baptism symbolically into connection 
 and communion with all that those names represent. He who 
 believes on the name of the Lord believes on the Lord himself. 
 Hence, to bow the knee in the name of Jesus is to pay adoration 
 in that sphere of authority, grace, and glory for which the name 
 stands ; as being consciously within the kingdom of which he is 
 Lord, as recognising the rightfulness of the titles ‘Jesus,’ ‘Saviour,’ 
 ‘Lord,’ and as loyally accepting the obligations which those titles 
 imply. 
 
 πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ : Comp. Is. xlv. 23; Rom. xiv. 11. The mean- 
 ing can only be that Christ is presented as the object of worship ; 
 his claim to that honor being fixed by the previous declarations. 
 Before his incarnation he was on an equality with God. After 
 his incarnation he was exalted to God’s right hand as Messianic 
 sovereign. 
 
 ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων : The whole body of 
 created intelligent beings in all departments of the universe. 
 (See Rom. viii. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. i. 20-22; Heb. 1]. 8; 
 Apoc. v. 13; and comp. Ign. Ζγαζ, ix.; Polyc. Phil. ii.) Ἔπου- 
 ράνιοι are heavenly beings, angels, archangels, etc. (Eph. i. 21, 
 lili. 10; Heb. i. 4-6; 1 Pet. iii. 23) ; ἜἘπίγειοι, beings on earth 
 (1 Cor. xv. 40). 
 
 καταχθονίων : Only here in Bib. and Apocr. In class. of the 
 infernal gods. Chr., Géc., Theoph., and the medizval expositors 
 
 ᾿ ΓΙ 
 
II. 10, 11] JESUS CHRIST IS LORD 63 
 
 explain of the demons, citing Lk. iv. 34; Jas. ii. 19. These, 
 however, are not regarded by Paul as in Hades. (See Eph. ii. 2, 
 vi. 12.) Rather the departed in Hades. Nothing definite as to 
 Christ’s descent into Hades can be inferred from this. 
 
 Lightf. regards all the genitives as neuter, urging that the whole creation 
 is intended, and that the limitation to intelligent beings detracts from the 
 universality of the homage. ‘This, however, seems to be over-subtilising. 
 
 11. ἐξομολογήσηται : ‘should confess.’ The LXX, Is. xlv. 23, 
 has ὀμεῖται, ‘shall swear,’ for which the seventh-century correctors 
 of x read ἐξομολογήσεται. 
 
 WH., Treg., R.T., Weiss. ( 7x¢k. Unt.), read εξομολογησηται with & B; 
 
 Tisch. εξομολογησεται, with ACDFGKLP. It is possible that era: may have 
 been altered to yrac by transcribers in order to conform it to κάμψῃ. 
 
 Lightf. renders ‘confess with thanksgiving.’ He says that the 
 secondary sense of éfouod., ‘to offer thanks,’ has almost entirely 
 supplanted its primary meaning, ‘to declare openly.’ But out 
 of eleven instances in the N.T., four are used of confessing sins, 
 one of Christ’s confession of his servants before the Father, and 
 one of Judas’ ‘agreeing’ or ‘engaging’ with the chief priests. 
 He says, further, that ‘confess with thanksgiving’ is the meaning 
 in Is. xlv. 23. But the reading there is ὀμεῖται. 
 
 Κύριος does not necessarily imply divinity. It is used in LXX 
 of Abraham (Gen. xviii. 12; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 6); of Joseph 
 (Gen. xlii. 10, 33) ; of Elkanah (1 Sam.i. 8). In the Pauline 
 writings the master of slaves is styled both δεσπότης (τ Tim. vi. 1, 
 2; Tit. ii. 9), and κύριος (Eph. vi.g; Col. iv. 1). Often in N.T. 
 in the general sense of ‘ master,’ or in address, ‘sir.’ Of God, 
 Mt. i. 20, 22, 24, ii. 15; Acts xi. 16. ‘O κύριος is used by Mt. 
 of Christ only once (xxi. 3) until after the resurrection (xxviii. 16). 
 In the other gospels much oftener. In the progress of Christian 
 thought in the N.T. the meaning develops towards a specific des- 
 ignation of the divine Saviour, as may be seen in the expressions 
 ‘Jesus Christ our Lord,’ ‘Jesus our Lord,’ etc. Von Soden re- 
 marks: “God gave him the name Jesus Christ. It was necessary 
 that his human, Messianic character should be developed before 
 men would confess that Jesus is Lord. What God as Jehovah in 
 the old Covenant has determined and prepared, Christ shall now 
 carry out.” 
 
 εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός : ‘to the glory of God the Father.’ (Comp. 
 Jn. xii. 28, xiii. 31, 32, Xiv. 13, xvii. 1.) The words are dependent 
 upon ἐξομολ., not on ὅτι. It is che confession that is to be to ther 
 glory of God the Father, not the fact that Christ is Lord. (See 
 Rom. xv. 7-9; Eph. i. 6, 11, 12; 2 Cor. i. 20.) ‘Everywhere 
 where the Son is glorified the Father is glorified. Where the Son 
 is dishonored the Father is dishonored” (Chr.). (See Lk. x. 16; 
 
 Τὰ. 2.2.) 
 
64 PHILIPPIANS [11. 12 
 
 Some practical exhortations are now drawn from the divine 
 example just portrayed, especially from the spirit of subjection 
 exhibited by the incarnate Lord. 
 
 12-18. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, even as you have always 
 manifested a spirit of obedience, so now, not as though I were 
 present, but much more in my absence, carry out your own salva- 
 tion with conscientious caution and self-distrust, because you are 
 appointed to carry out God’s good pleasure; and it is for this that 
 God energises your will and stimulates you to work. That you 
 may thus carry the divine will into effect, perform all tts dictates 
 without murmuring or criticising, that so you may show yourselves 
 blameless and guileless, true children of God in the midst of an 
 ungodly society, in which you are to appear, holding forth the gospel 
 as luminaries in a dark world. Thus I shall have good reason to 
 boast when Christ shall appear, that my labors for you have not 
 been in vain. Yes, even tf, along with the offering of your faith to 
 God, my own blood ts to be poured out like a Libation ata sacrifice, 
 7 rejoice in this, because my death will only promote the working 
 out of your salvation; and this will be a cause of joy to you no 
 less than to me. 
 
 12. wore: ‘so that’; ‘so then.’ The point of connection 
 through wore with the preceding passage is ὑπήκοος in vs. 8. As 
 Christ obtained exaltation and heavenly glory through perfect 
 obedience to God, therefore do you, with like subjection to him, 
 carry out your own salvation. The spirit of obedience is to be 
 shown in their godly fear, in the avoidance of murmuring and 
 skeptical criticism, and in their holy lives and their bold proclam- 
 ation of the gospel in the midst of ungodly men. For a similar 
 use of wore, comp. iv. 1; Rom. vii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 39, xv. 58. 
 
 ὑπηκούσατε : Ὑπακούειν is, properly, to obey as the result of list- 
 ening or hearkening (ἀκούειν). Πειθαρχεῖν, which is much less 
 frequent, is the only word which expresses the conception of obed- 
 ience absolutely —as to authority (ἀρχή). (See Acts v. 29, 32, 
 XXVil. 21; Tit. iii. 1.) The question whether θεῷ or poi is to be 
 supplied is quite superfluous, since ὕπηκ. is used absolutely. Ye 
 have always shown a spirit of obedience, whether to God or to me 
 as his apostle. 
 
 μὴ ὡς ἐν TH παρουσίᾳ pov μόνον : ‘not as in my presence only.’ 
 Connect with κατεργάζεσθε, not with πάντ. ὕπηκ., which would 
 require ov instead of μὴ (see Win. lv, and Burt. 479), and would 
 imply that the readers, left to themselves, had been more obedient 
 than when Paul was with them. 
 
II. 12] CARRY OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION 65 
 
 ὡς : Introduced because Paul could not give an admonition 
 for the time when he would be present. It points to an inward 
 motive by which the readers are not to suffer themselves to be 
 influenced. (Comp. Rom. ix. 32; 2 Cor. il. 17; Philem. 14.) 
 They are not to work out their salvation as zf they were doing it 
 in Paul’s presence merely, neglecting it in his absence. 
 
 ws omitted by Lat., Vet., Vulg., Syr.?, Cop., Arm., Aith., B, 17. WH. 
 bracket. 
 
 μόνον : with ἐν τῇ παρ. μου, on which the emphasis lies. For 
 its position after the emphatic word, comp. Rom. iv. 16, 23; 
 1 Thess. i. 5. 
 
 νῦν : Now that you are deprived of my personal presence. 
 
 ἀπουσίᾳ : Only here in Gk. Bib., and not common anywhere. 
 
 μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε : ‘carry 
 out your own salvation with fear and trembling.’ (Comp. Heb. 
 xii. 28.) 
 
 Φόβος and τρόμος often occur together in LXX. (See Gen. 
 io, bs, xv. τὸ; Is. xix.'26.). In N-T.sée τὶ Cor. 1 35/2 Cor. 
 vii. 15 ; Eph. vi. 5. Φόβος is godly fear, growing out of recogni- 
 tion of weakness and of the power of temptation ; filial dread of 
 offending God. (See Acts ix. 31; Rom. iii. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 
 1 Pet. i. 17, i. 15.) Chr. justly observes that καὶ τρόμου only 
 strengthens the per. 668. Paul would say: ‘The work is great. 
 Failure is possible. Do not be over confident.’ “It is necessary 
 to fear and tremble in each one’s working out of his own salvation, 
 lest he be tripped up (ὑποσκελισθεῖς) and fail of this” (Céc.). 
 
 τὴν ἕαυτ. σωτ. KaTepy.: Κατεργάζεσθαι is ‘to accomplish’; 
 ‘achieve’; ‘carry out or through. So Beng., “usque ad 
 metam”; Calov., “ad finem perducere”; Grot., “peragere.” 
 (see πη εἶν. πο Vv. 3 5.2 Cor. v. 5; Jas. is 3; Eph. vi. 13 ; and 
 comp. especially 2 Cor. vii. 10.) There is no contradiction implied 
 of the truth that salvation is the gift of God’s grace (Eph. ii. 8). 
 That grace itself engenders moral faculties and stimulates moral 
 exertions. ecause grace is given, man must work. The gift of 
 grace is exhibited in making man a co-worker with God (1 Cor. 
 ili. 9) ; the salvation bestowed by grace is to be carried out by 
 man with the aid of grace (Rom. vi. 8-19; 2 Cor. vi.1). What 
 this carrying out includes and requires is seen in Phil. iii. ro, 
 iv. 1-7; Eph. iv. 13-16, 22 ff.; Col.ii.6, 7. For these things the 
 believer is constantly strengthened by the Spirit. The possibility 
 of success appears in Paul’s prayer (Eph. iii. 16-20). Ned a 
 good passage in Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, P. 234. ) 
 
 ἑαυτῶν : ‘your own’; ποΐ ΞΞ ἀλλήλων, “ one another’s,’ as some 
 earlier expositors, against which is the emphatic position of éavr., 
 though the rendering would be grammatically justifiable. (See 
 Mt. xvi. 7, xxi. 38; Eph. iv. 32.) ‘Eavrdv is emphatic as related 
 
 F 
 
66 PHILIPPIANS [11. 12, 13 
 
 to the following θεὸς. God is working in you; do your part as 
 co-workers with God. 
 
 13. θεὸς yap ἐστιν ὃ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν Kai τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν 
 ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας : ‘for it is God that worketh in you both the 
 willing and the working for his good pleasure.’ The reason for 
 the exhortation xarepy. is that it is God’s own work which they 
 have to do. It is God’s good pleasure which they are to fulfil, as 
 did their great example, Jesus Christ ; and it is God who, to that 
 end, is energising their will and their working. (See 2 Cor. v. 18.) 
 This is a serious task, to be performed in no self-reliant spirit, but 
 with reverent caution and dependence on God. 
 
 Tap does not introduce the reason for the fear and trembling 
 especially, but only as these are attached to κατεργ. It gives the 
 reason for the entire clause, κατεργ. . . . τρόμου. 
 
 ὁ ἐνεργῶν : ᾿Βνεργεῖν is ‘to put forth power’; and the kindred 
 ἐνέργεια (always in N.T. of superhuman power) is ‘ power in exer- 
 cise.’ Paul invariably uses the active, ἐνεργεῖν, of the working of 
 God or of Satan, and the middle, ἐνεργεῖσθαι, in other cases, as 
 Rom. vii. 5 ; Gal. v. 6. Never the passive. The verb carries the 
 idea of effectual working, as here ; and the result is often specified. 
 (See Rom. vii. 5 ; Gal. ii. 8, ili. 5 ; Eph.i. 11 ff.) On the different 
 words for ‘ power, in N.T., see W. δ, ΟΠ. ἢ: 12. 
 
 ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘in you,’ as I Cor. xii. 6; 2, Cor. iy. 12; Eph. 15: 
 Col. i. 29. Not ‘among you.’ 
 
 τὸ θέλειν : As between θέλειν and βούλεσθαι, the general distinct- 
 ion is that θέλ. expresses a determination or definite resolution of 
 the will; while Bova. expresses an inclination, disposition, or wish. 
 The two words are, however, often interchanged in N.T. when no 
 distinction is emphasised. (Comp. Mk. xv. 15 and Lk. xxiii. 20; 
 Acts xxvii. 43 and Mt. xxvii. 17; Jn. xviii. 39 and Mt. xiv. 5 ; 
 Mk. vi. 48 and Acts xix. 30.) (See W. S¢ on Mt. i. 19.) Here 
 θέλειν, of a definite purpose or determination. 
 
 τὸ ἐνεργεῖν : The inward working in the soul, producing the 
 determination which is directed at the xarepy. (Comp. 1 Cor. 
 xii. 6; Gal. iii. 5; Eph. iii. 20.) The two substantive-infinitives 
 are used rather than nouns because active energy is emphasised ; 
 and the two xai’s point to the fact that 40¢h —the willing and the 
 working alike—are of God. God so works upon the moral 
 nature that it not only intellectually and theoretically approves 
 what is good (Rom. vii. 14-23), but appropriates God’s will as its 
 own. The willing wrought by God unfolds into all the positive 
 and determinate movements of the human will to carry God’s will 
 into effect. 
 
 ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας : ‘ for the sake of his good pleasure.’ Different 
 connections have been proposed for this clause. That with the 
 succeeding verse, ‘for good will’s sake do all things,’ etc., may be 
 summarily dismissed. The majority of interpreters rightly con- 
 
II. 13-15] SHUN MURMURINGS AND QUESTIONINGS 67 
 
 nect it with 6 ἐνεργῶν : ‘it is God who works in you the willing 
 and the working in order that he may carry out his good pleasure.’ 
 Paul’s thought is this: Carry out your own salvation with holy 
 fear, and especially for the reason that it is God’s good pleasure 
 that you should achieve that result; and therefore he energises 
 your will and your activity in order that you may fulfil his good 
 pleasure in your completed salvation. 
 
 εὐδοκίας : See on i. 15. Not mere arbitrary preference, as if 
 Paul meant that God thus works because it suits him to do so. 
 Nor, as Weiss, the pleasure which he has in working. Rather 
 that his good pleasure is bound up with his fatherly love and 
 benevolence which find their satisfaction in his children’s accom- 
 plished salvation. Hence ὑπὲρ is not= κατὰ, as if εὐδοκία were 
 the norm or standard of God’s working (however true that may 
 be abstractly), but expresses “ the interested cause of the action”’ 
 (Ellic.), as Jn. xi. 4; Rom. xv. 8. 
 
 Certain elements of the owr. xarepy. 
 
 14. πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισμῶν : ‘do all 
 things without murmurings and questionings.’ 
 
 πάντα: Everything that may fall to them to do. (Comp. 
 1 Cor, Χ;. 21.) 
 
 γογγυσμῶν : Not elsewhere in Paul. (See Jn. ν. 12; Acts vi. 1 ; 
 1 Ῥαΐ. τὸ. ο; POCX τὰκ. avis. 75.8; 9) 12; ΝΗ. ἈΝ." 5, τὸ} 
 Murmuring against the dictates of God’s will is meant. (See 
 t Cor..x. το.) 
 
 διαλογισμῶν : Skeptical questionings or criticisms. (Comp. 
 1 Tim. ii. 8.) Usually by Paul in the sense of ‘ disputatious rea- 
 soning.’ “(See Rom. ἢ 21, \x1v..1; 1 Cor. m.20.) So LXX; 
 Ps. lvi. 5 (Iv. 6), xciv. (xciii.) 11; Is. lix. 7. The verb διαλογίζ- 
 εσθαι, always to ‘reason’ or ‘discuss,’ either with another or in 
 one’s own mind. 
 
 *Mey., De W., Lips., Ellic., Ead., render ‘doubtings.’ (Ες., Theoph., 
 Ans., ‘hesitation’ whether to perform God’s commands. So De W. and 
 Mey. Weiss, ‘hesitation’ with reference to things which are to be done or 
 
 suffered for the sake of salvation. Others, ‘doubts’ about future reward, 
 or the divine promises. 
 
 15. ἵνα γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι : ‘that ye may become 
 blameless and guileless.’ 
 
 For γενησθε ADFG, Vet., Lat., Vulg., read τε. 
 
 γένησθε : ‘become,’ in the process of owr. xarepy. 
 
 ἄμεμπτοι : Before both God and men. 
 
 ἀκέραιοι : lit. ‘unmixed,’ ‘ unadulterated,’ describing the inward 
 condition. (Comp. Mt. x. 16; Rom. xvi. g.) 
 
 τέκνα θεοῦ ἄμωμα : ‘children of God without blemish.’ 
 
 Both τέκνον and vids signify a relation based upon parentage. 
 It is usually said that τέκνον emphasises the natural relationship, 
 
68 PHILIPPIANS [11. 15 
 
 while υἱός marks the legal or ethical status (Thay. Zex. sub τέκνον, 
 and Sanday on Rom. viii. 14. Comp. Westcott, Eps. of John, 
 p- 121) ; but this distinction must not be too closely pressed. In 
 LXX both τέκνα and υἱός are applied ethically to the people of 
 Israel as God’s peculiarly beloved people; so τέκνα (Is. xxx. 1; 
 Sap. xvi. 21) ; or so by implication as inhabitants of his favored 
 seat (Joel ii. 23 ; Zech. ix. 13, comp. Mt. xxiii. 37) ; vids (Is. xliii. 
 6; Deut. xiv. 1; Sap. ix. 7, xii. 19, etc.). In the ethical sense, in 
 which the distinctive character is indicated by its source, we find 
 τέκνα ἀδικίας (Hos. x. 9), σοφίας (Mt. xi. 19), ὑπακοῆς (1 Pet. i. 14), 
 φωτὸς (Eph. v. 8), ὀργῆς (Eph. ii. 3). Similarly viol, according 
 to the Hebrew use of 3, 23 to mark characteristic quality as 
 conditioned by origin. Thus viol τῶν ἀνθρώπων, indicating change- 
 ableness, Num. xxiii. 19 ; indicating people accursed, 1 Sam. xxvi. 
 19; vi. TOV αἰῶνος τούτου, φωτὸς, Lk. xvi. 8; ἀπειθίας, Eph. ii. 2 ; 
 διαβόλου, Acts xiii. 10; γεέννης, Mt. xiii. 15. It is true that John 
 never uses vids to describe the relation of Christians to God 
 (Apoc. xxi. 7 15 a quotation) ; but both the ethical relation and 
 the relation of conferred privilege, as well as that of birth, attach 
 to τέκνα. See Jn. i. 12, where believers receive ἐξουσία or con- 
 ferred right to become τέκνα θεοῦ, on the ground of faith. Believ- 
 ers are τέκνα in virtue of the gift of divine love (1 Jn. iii. 1). The 
 τέκνα θεοῦ are manifest as such by their righteous deeds and their 
 brotherly love (1 Jn. iii. 10). On the other hand, those who 
 have the true filial disposition are described as ‘begotten’ or 
 ‘porn’ of God (γεγεννημένοι), Jn. i. 13, iii. 3, 73 I Jn. iil. 9, iv. 7, 
 v. 1, 4, 18. It is also true that Paul often regards the Christian 
 relation, from the legal point of view, as adoption. He alone 
 uses υἱοθεσία (Rom. viii. 15, 23; Gal. iv.5; Eph.i.5). But in 
 Rom. viii. 14, 17, we have both υἱοὶ and τέκνα. ‘They who are 
 led by the Spirit are υἱοὶ ; the Spirit witnesses that they are τέκνα. 
 Both these are ethical. In vs. 21 the legal aspect appears in τὴν 
 ἐλευθερίαν ... τ. τέκ. τ. Oe. (Comp. Eph. v. 1; Rom. ix. 8.) 
 ἄμωμα : ‘without blemish.’ 
 
 αμωμα as δαὶ ABC, 17. DFGKLP read αμωμητα. 
 apwunros never in LXX. The citn. is from Deut. xxxii. 5, and αμωμητα 
 is probably due to μωμητα there. 
 
 For ἄμωμα comp. Eph. i. 4, v. 27; Col. i. 22; ἀμώμητος, ‘ that 
 cannot be blamed,’ only in 2 Pet. iii. 14. 
 
 μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης : ‘in the midst of a crooked 
 and perverse generation.’ (See Deut. xxxii. 5, and comp. Mt. xii. 
 39, xvii. 17.) 
 
 Μέσον (TR ἐν μέσῳ) is adverbial, with the force of a preposition 
 (Win. liv.). 
 
 σκολίας : ‘indocile,’ ‘ froward.’ Only here in Paul. (See Acts ii. 
 40; 1 Pet. ii. 18; LXX; Ps. Ixxviii. [Ixxvii.] 8; Prov. ii. 15, etc.) 
 
II. 15,16] LIGHT-BEARERS IN A DARK WORLD 69 
 
 διεστραμμένης : ‘twisted’ or ‘distorted.’ Only here in Paul. 
 It denotes an abnormal moral condition. xoAtds is the result of 
 διαστρέφειν. Comp. στρεβλοῦν (2 Pet. iii. 16), ‘to twist or dislo- 
 cate on the rack.’ 
 
 ἐν ols φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ : ‘among whom ye are 
 seen (appear) as luminaries in the world.’ 
 
 ots: For the plural after γενεᾶς comp. Acts xv. 36; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; 
 Gal. iv. 19; and see Blass, Gramm. p. 163. 
 
 φαίνεσθε: Not ‘shine,’ which would be φαίνετε. (Comp. Mt. ii. 
 7, xxiv. 27; Jas. iv. 14.) The word is indicative, not imperative. 
 For the thought, comp. Mt. v. 14, 16; Eph. v. 8; 1 Thess. v. 5. 
 
 φωστῆρες : Only here and Apoc. xxi. 11. In LXX of the heav- 
 enly bodies, as Gen. 1. 14, 16. 
 
 ἐν κόσμῳ : With φωστῆρες : luminaries in a dark world (Ellic., 
 Mey., ΚΙ., Lips.). 
 
 Lightf., De W., and Weiss connect with φαίνεσθε. Lightf.’s interpreta- 
 tion turns on his explanation of κόσμος, which, he says, has in the N.T. a 
 sense so dominantly ethical that it cannot well be used here of the physical 
 as distinguished from the moral world. An examination of the number of 
 instances in which κόσμος occurs in a physical sense will show that this 
 view is groundless. If taken with φαίνεσθε, ἐν κόσμῳ would be merely an 
 unmeaning expansion of ἐν οἷς; while with φωστῆρες we have a definite 
 image. For the omission of the article with κόσμῳ see Win. xix. I a. 
 
 16. λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες : ‘holding forth the word of life.’ 
 
 λόγον ζωῆς : the gospel: a word which has life in itself, and 
 which leads to life. The phrase not elsewhere in Paul. (Comp. 
 Jn. vi. 68; Acts v.20; 1 Jn.i. 1.) By ζωὴ is not to be under- 
 stood Christ himself, nor the eternal life, but the life which the 
 Christian possesses through faith in Christ, and leads in fellowship 
 
 “the divinely efficacious vehicle of the spirit of life.’ (Comp. 
 Jn. vi. 68.) Life and light appear in correlation in Jn. 1. 4; 
 Eph. ii. τ ; and especially since heathenism is regarded as a state 
 alike of death and of darkness (Eph. ii. 1; Col. ii. 13). Ζωὴ is 
 the correlative of salvation. With quickening from the death of 
 sin the believer enters upon ‘newness of life’ (Rom. vi. 4, 11). 
 This life, as to its quality, is that which shall be lived with the 
 exalted Christ. Now it is hidden with Christ, because the exalted 
 Christ is still hidden (Col. iii. 3; comp. Col. i. 5). But it will be 
 manifested in glory when Christ, who is our life, shall be mani- 
 fested (Col. iii. 4). Then will come the change into ‘ the likeness 
 of the body of his glory’ (Phil. iii. 21), and “ mortality” will be 
 “swallowed up of life’’ (2 Cor. v. 4). 
 
 ἐπέχοντες : ‘holding forth.’ In Paul only here and 1 Tim. iv. 16. 
 In LXX only in the sense of ‘apply,’ as Job xviii. 2, xxx. 26; or 
 
70 PHILIPPIANS [11. 16 
 
 ‘forbear’; ‘refrain,’ as 1 K. xxii. 6, 15. Lit. ‘to hold upon’ or 
 ‘apply.’ So ‘to fix the attention’ (Lk. xiv. 7; Acts iii. 5, xix. 22). 
 In the sense of ‘to hold out’ or ‘ present’ it occurs only in class. 
 
 ‘Holding forth,’ as Ellic., Alf., Ead., Lightf.; ‘holding fast’ (Luth., 
 Beng., De W.); ‘having in possession’ (K1., Lips., Mey., Weiss). Lightf. 
 regards ἐν ols... κόσμῳ as parenthetical, and connects Ady. ἕω. éréx. with 
 ἵνα yév. ... διεστραμ. (vs. 15). He finds an incongruity in the images 
 φαίν. and émrex. Surely this is hypercritical, ‘Ye appear holding forth 
 the word as a light.’ It is common to personify a luminary as a light- 
 bearer. Paul was not always so consistent in his metaphors as this criticism 
 would imply. See for inst. 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3, and Lightf. on 1 Thess, v. 4, 
 Notes on Eps. of St. P. from unpublished Commentaries. (See Mey.’s citn. 
 from Zest, xit. Patr.) 
 
 eis καύχημα ἐμοὶ: ‘for a matter of glorying unto me.’ For 
 καύχημα see on i. 26. Their success in working out their own 
 salvation and proclaiming the gospel to others will be a cause of 
 boasting to Paul. (Comp. 2 Cor. i. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 19.) Lis 
 καύχ. ἐμ. belongs to the whole passage iva γεν. . . . ἐπέχ.; not 
 merely to Ady. ζω. ἐπέχ. 
 
 εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ : ‘against the day of Christ.’ (See on i. 10, 
 and comp. Gal. iii. 23; Eph. iv. 30.) The day is the point with 
 reference to which the boasting is reserved. Not ‘ wmd/ the day,’ 
 etc. The glorying is put in relation to the decisions and awards 
 of the parousia, as 2 Cor. i. 14. 
 
 Ὅτι may be taken as explicative either of the nature of the 
 glorying (‘that’), or of its ground (‘ because’). 
 
 eis κενὸν : ‘in vain’; ‘fo no purpose.’ See for the phrase, 
 2 Cor. vi. 1; Gal. ii. 2; 1 Thess. ili. 5. LXX, εἰς κενὸν, τὸ κεν.; 
 κενὰ, Lev. xxvi. 20; ΙΟὉ 11. 9; xx. 18, xxxix. 163 Is, χχῖχ. 8 ; 
 Jer. vi. 29. ‘In vain’ is the dominant thought here, as is shown 
 by the repetition. 
 
 ἔδραμον: Metaphor of the stadium, as Gal. ii, 2. (Comp. 
 Acts xx. 24; 1 Cor. ix. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 7.) The aorist is used 
 from the point of view of the day of Christ. 
 
 ἐκοπίασα : Komuay, lit.‘ to labor to weariness’ ; κόπος, ‘ exhausting 
 toil.’ (See 1 Cor. xv. 10 ; Gal. iv. τα ; Col. i. 29 ; 1 Thess. 11. 9, iii. 5.) 
 
 Lightf. thinks that ἐκοπίασα is a continuation of the metaphor in ἔδραμον, 
 — ‘labor such as is bestowed in training for the race.’ In his note on Ign. 
 Polyc. vi. he says that κοπιᾷν is used especially of such training, and cites 
 1 Cor. ix. 24-27; Col.i. 29; 1 Tim. iv. 10. I do not find any evidence of this 
 
 special sense of the verb either in classical or N.T. Greek. Certainly in the 
 athletic contests the wearisome labor was not confined to the preparation. 
 
 Paul does not shrink from these labors. He will rejoice even 
 in his martyrdom, since he believes that it will promote the work 
 of salvation among his Philippian brethren. The assumption that 
 vs. 16 implies his conviction that he will be alive at the Jarousia, 
 and that vs. 17 is an admission of the contrary possibility, is entirely 
 gratuitous. 
 
II. 17] THE LIBATION OF BLOOD 71 
 
 17. ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ : ‘but if even.’ The feebly supported reading 
 καὶ εἰ, which does not appear elsewhere in Paul, would introduce 
 an improbable supposition. Kai refers to the whole clause σπένδ. 
 
 . πίστ., putting the case as possible (Win. liii.). 
 
 σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν : ‘I am 
 poured out (as ἃ libation) in addition to the sacrifice and service 
 of your faith.’ 
 
 "Ext may mean ‘at,’ ‘upon,’ or ‘in addition to.’ Better the 
 last (Ellic., De W., Weiss, KI., Lips.). ‘At’ (Mey.) would give 
 an active meaning to θυσία. ‘Upon’ is precluded by λειτουργία. 
 
 θυσίᾳ : Not the act of sacrificing, but the thing sacrificed. So 
 always in N.T. (See Lk. xiii. 1; Acts vii. 41; Rom. xii. 1; 
 t Cor. x. 18 ; Eph. v. 2.) 
 
 λειτουργίᾳ : ‘ministry’ or ‘service.’ (See Lk. 1. 23; 2 Cor. ix. 
 12; Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21.) From an old adjective λεῖτος or λέϊτος, 
 found only in this compound, ‘belonging to the people,’ and 
 épyov, ‘work.’ Hence, originally, ‘service of the state in a public 
 office.’ In LXX the verb λειτουργεῖν, of the performance of priestly 
 functions (Neh. x. 36) ; λειτουργεῖν and λειτουργὸς, of service ren- 
 deren to men (1K. 1.4) xix. 2τ; 2K. ivi 43, vi. 15). In N.T:, 
 of sacerdotal ministry (Acts xiii. 2; Heb. x. 11; Lk. i. 23; Heb. 
 ix. 21; Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16; Heb. viii. 2). Also of human, non- 
 official ministry (Rom. xv. 27; 2 Cor. ix. 12; Phil. ii. 25, 30). 
 In the general sense of ‘servants of God’ (λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ), 
 Heb. i. 7. Here metaphorically in the priestly sense. Θυσ. and 
 Aer. have the article in common, and form one conception (not a 
 hendiadys), a sacrifice ministered. 
 
 τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν : The objective genitive common to θυσ. and 
 Aer. ; a sacrifice which consists of your faith; a ministry which 
 offers faith as a sacrifice. 
 
 According to Paul’s metaphor, therefore, the Philippians as 
 priests offer their faith to God in the midst of an ungodly genera- 
 tion who had already shed Paul’s blood at Philippi, had impris- 
 oned him at Rome, and would probably put him to death. If 
 they should do this, Paul’s blood would be the libation which 
 would be added to the Philippians’ offering. 
 
 This explanation, in which Lightf. stands almost alone among modern 
 expositors, is preferable because it accords better with the course of thought 
 from vs. 12, in which the Philippians are the agents, and distinctly corre- 
 sponds with Rom. xii. 2, where the Romans are exhorted to present their 
 bodies as a sacrifice (θυσίαν), which is further described as λατρεία, ‘a 
 service rendered to God.’ See note on λατρεύοντες (111. 3). In iv. 8, the 
 gift of the Philippians is described as a sacrifice to God. The other and 
 favorite interpretation makes Paul the priest, the Philippians’ faith the 
 sacrifice, and Paul’s apostolic activity the ministry offering the sacrifice. 
 Then the blood of the priest is poured out upon the sacrifice which he is 
 offering. This explanation is urged principally upon the ground of Rom. 
 
 xv. 16, 17, where Paul represents himself as λειτουργὸς, ministering the 
 gospel in sacrifice, and presenting the Gentiles as an offering to God. But 
 
72 PHILIPPIANS [11. 17, 18 
 
 in that passage Paul is specially exhibiting his apostolic office as a priestly 
 service of offering ordained by Christ, who was himself made a minister 
 that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy (vs. 8). That is the only 
 instance of the figure, and in view of the great variety of Paul’s metaphors 
 cannot be regarded as decisive. 
 
 The fact that Paul is writing from Rome and to a Gentile church 
 seems to indicate that the metaphor is cast in the mould of heathen 
 rather than of Jewish sacrificial usage. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 14, where 
 the picture of a Roman triumph is suggested, with the clouds of 
 incense rising from the altars. 
 
 χαίρω καὶ συνχαίρω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν : “1 joy and rejoice with you all.’ 
 Comp. μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ (i. 25). The natural connection is with 
 εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι as the subject of congratulation, not in itself, but 
 as a means of promoting their salvation—that cause of boasting 
 which he desires to have in them. Thus his joy will be fulfilled 
 in them (vs. 2). 
 
 συνχαίρω : “1 rejoice with.’ This is the natural and appropriate 
 meaning in every N.T. passage in which the word occurs. The 
 rendering ‘congratulate’ (Lightf., Mey.) is admissible in Lk. 
 i. 58, xv. 6, 9, but the other is equally good. ‘Congratulate’ 
 does not suit vs. 18. 
 
 ‘ Rejoice with’ is the rendering of the Gk. Fathers, Luth., Calv., De W., 
 
 Wies., Weiss, Weizs., Lips., von Sod. Mey.’s objection, repeated by Lightf., 
 
 that the apostle would thus summon his readers to a joy which, according to 
 
 vs. 17, they already possessed, requires no notice beyond a reminder of the 
 informal and familiar style of the epistle. 
 
 Paul therefore says: Even if I should be poured out as a liba- 
 tion in addition to the sacrifice of faith which you are offering to 
 God, I rejoice, and rejoice with you, because such a result will 
 promote your salvation, and that will be a cause of joy to us both 
 alike. (Comp. Eph. iii. 13.) 
 
 18. τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑμεῖς χαίρετε καὶ συνχαίρετέ μοι : ‘for the same 
 reason do ye also joy and rejoice with me.’ 
 
 τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ : ‘for the same reason’; to wit, the advancement of 
 the work of your salvation. For the grammatical construction, 
 see Win. xxxil. 4@; and comp. Rom. vi. το. The verbs χαίρ. 
 and ovvyaip. acquire a gvasi-transitive force. 
 
 Rill., Weiss, Lightf., Weizs., R.V., render ‘in the same manner.’ 
 
 χαίρετε καὶ συνχαίρετέ μοι: Comp. the striking figure of the 
 Romans forming a chorus and singing a sacrificial hymn round 
 the martyr Ignatius. (Ign. Rom. ii. ; see also Zra. i.) 
 
 He hopes soon to send Timothy to them. 
 
 19-24. But, though the worst may come to the worst, yet I hope 
 Jor such a favorable issue in my case as will enable me to dispense 
 
II. 19, 20] HE HOPES TO SEND TIMOTHY 73 
 
 with the services of Timothy here and to send him to you, in order 
 that I may be comforted by hearing of your condition. For besides 
 him I have no one likeminded with myself who will care for you 
 with the same fatherly care. For they all are occupied with their 
 own interests, not with the things of Jesus Christ. But Timothy 
 you yourselves have proved; for you know with what filial devotion 
 he served me in the work of promoting the gospel. I hope therefore 
 to send him shortly, as soon as I shall have learned something defin- 
 ite about my own case, but I trust in the Lord that I shall soon be 
 with you in person. 
 
 19. ἐλπίζω δὲ : The δὲ, ‘ but,’ offsets the possibility at which he 
 has hinted in σπένδομαι, and which he knows is disturbing the 
 minds of his faithful friends at Philippi. Mey.’s statement that 
 there is an immediate change from a presentiment of death to a 
 confidence of being preserved in life and liberated, is too strong. 
 The εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι, etc., on its face, at least, merely contemplates 
 a possibility. The words rather revert to i. 25. 
 
 Lightf. and Lips. connect with vs. 12: ‘I urged you to work out your 
 salvation in my absence, 4z¢ I do not mean to leave you without personal 
 superintendence, and therefore I propose to send Timothy. The connec- 
 tion, however, seems too remote and labored. According to Weiss the δὲ 
 offsets the joy to which he has exhorted them with the means which he pro- 
 poses to employ to obtain joyful news from them. 
 
 ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ: The sphere or element in which his hope 
 moves, (Comp. 1.8, 14, iii. 1; Rom. 1x. 1, xiv. 14; 1 Cor. 1. 31, 
 Vil. 29, εἴς.) 
 
 ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ : ‘that I also may be of good heart.’ 
 
 κἀγὼ: ‘I also,’ by the tidings which I shall hear from you, as 
 you by the accounts of me. 
 
 εὐψυχῶ : Not elsewhere in Bib. Gk. Εὔψυχος, -ws, -ia, in LXX ; 
 1 Macc. ix. 14; 2 Macc. vii. 20, xiv. 18. 
 
 20. οὐδένα yap ἔχω ἰσόψυχον : ‘for I have no one likeminded.’ 
 
 yap: reason for sending Timothy. 
 
 ἰσόψυχον : Only here in N.T. (See LXX, Ps. lv. [liv.] 13 [14]-) 
 Supply μοὶ, not Τιμοθέῳ. Timothy was to be sent to minister to 
 them in Paul’s stead. Moreover, the quality of Timothy’s care 
 for them is just that which marks Paul’s care — γνησίως, ‘ naturally,’ 
 ‘by birth-relation,’ and therefore ‘truly’ or ‘genuinely’ ; with such 
 a care as springs from a a/zura/, parental relation. In other words, 
 there is no one who will care for them in a fatherly way as Paul 
 does: . (See rgCor. ἵν. τς; τ Thess. 11. τα; Philem. to}; τ ‘Tim: 
 i. 2; Tit.i. 4.) Timothy would have such a feeling for the Philip- 
 pian Christians, since he was associated with Paul in founding 
 
74 PHILIPPIANS [11. 20-24 
 
 their church. For γνήσιος, see iv. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 8; 1 Tim.i. 2; 
 ὙΠ“: 
 
 Lightf., Lips., Weiss, and others refer ἰσόψυχον to Timothy. 
 
 21. of πάντες yap τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, ob τὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : ‘ for 
 they all seek their own, not the things of Christ Jesus.’ 
 
 oi πάντες : Collective ; the whole number in a body. (See Acts 
 xix. 7; Rom. xi. 32; 1 Cor. x. 17; Eph. iv.13.) The statement 
 is very sweeping, especially in view of the high commendation of 
 Epaphroditus which follows. ‘The common explanations are that 
 all who were likeminded with himself, as Luke, were absent at 
 the time of his writing ; or that those about him were interested 
 in promoting party interests, Gentile or Jewish-Christian. The 
 Fathers attempted various explanations,—as that no one was 
 willing to sacrifice his own quiet and security by undertaking the 
 journey to Macedonia ; that they were unwilling to sacrifice their 
 own honor and profit to the welfare of the church; or that the 
 words were used only in comparison with Timothy’s exceptional 
 zeal and fidelity. None of these help the case. Augustine and 
 Anselm held to the full severity of the charge, maintaining that 
 all the apostle’s companions were mercenary. Without more 
 information a satisfactory explanation seems impossible. 
 
 22. τὴν δοκιμὴν : ‘the proof’ or ‘approvedness.’ Used only by 
 Paul, and meaning both ‘the process of trial’ (2 Cor. viii. 2) and 
 ‘the result of trial,’ as here, Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. il. 9, ix. 13. You 
 know that he has approved himself to you. 
 
 γινώσκετε: Not imperat., for they had known Timothy in 
 Philippi (Acts xvi., xvii.). 
 
 ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν : ‘as a child a father so he 
 served with me.’ Paul began the sentence as if he were going to 
 write, ‘Timothy served me as a child serves a father’; but he was 
 checked by the thought that both himself and Timothy were alike 
 servants of Jesus Christ (i. 1), and also by that of his intimate 
 and affectionate relations with Timothy. Accordingly he wrote 
 ‘with me’ instead of ‘me.’ 
 
 εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον : AS i. 5. 
 
 23. οὖν : Resuming vs. 19; he being thus qualified. 
 
 ws av ἀφίδω: Whenever he shall have definite reports to send 
 them concerning his own fate. The ἀπὸ implies looking away 
 from the present circumstances to what is going to happen, which 
 will decide the question of his sending Timothy. 
 
 24. πέποιθα δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ : See on i. 14; and with Paul’s language 
 here comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17, 19. 
 
 ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ἐλεύσομαι : Expectation of speedy release. 
 (Comp. i. 25.) 
 
 n* ACP with several minusc. add προς υὑμας to ελευσομαι. 
 
11. 25] HE SENDS EPAPHRODITUS 75 
 
 How soon Timothy or Paul himself may be able to visit them 
 is uncertain, but he is sending them a messenger at once. 
 
 25-30. Meanwhile, whether Timothy and I come to you or not, 
 I send you a messenger at once—my brother and fellow-worker 
 and fellow-soldier Epaphroditus, who came as the bearer of your 
 gift to me. TI thought it necessary to send him because he was really 
 homesick, longing to see you, since he feared that you would be dis- 
 tressed by the report of his sickness. And very sick he was, so 
 much so that it seemed as though he would die. But God was 
 merciful to both him and me, and restored him and spared me the 
 additional sorrow of his death. I send him therefore in order 
 that his return to you may restore your cheerfulness, and that the 
 sorrow of my captivity may be mitigated by your joy. Joyfully 
 receive him therefore in the Lord. Such as he are to be honored; 
 Jor he wellnigh died through his zeal for the work of Christ, haz- 
 arding his life in order that he might render to me that sacrificial 
 service of love which, uf it had been possible, you would gladly have 
 performed in your own persons. 
 
 25. ἀναγκαῖον : Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 5. Emphatic as contrasted 
 with the possible visits of Timothy and of himself. I hope to 
 send Timothy and to come in person, but I think it necessary to 
 send Epaphroditus at once. 
 
 ἡγησάμην : See on vs. 6. If this is the epistolary aorist, as is 
 probable, it points to Epaphroditus as the bearer of the letter. 
 (See Introd. v.) 
 
 ᾿Ἐπαφρόδιτον : Mentioned only in this letter. Examples of the 
 name are common in both Greek and Latin inscriptions. (See 
 Wetst.) It is not probable that "Ezadpdas (Col. i. 7, iv. 12) is a 
 contraction of “Ezagpdditos. (See Thay. Zex. sub "Exadpas.) 
 Win. xvi. says “probable”; Schmiedel, Rev. of Win. xvi. 9, 
 “possible.” (See Lightf. Zztrod. and Comm.ad loc.) Even if 
 the names can be shown to be the same, it is unlikely that the 
 persons were the same. Eadie justly remarks that it is scarcely 
 supposable that the Asiatic Epaphras, a pastor at Colosse and a 
 native of that city, 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 lofty eulogy, and as 
 having a special interest in its affairs and members. From two 
 allusions in Suetonius (Vero, 49 ; Domitian, 14), a tradition arose 
 that Epaphroditus was Nero’s secretary. 
 
 ἀδελφὸν, συνεργὸν, συνστρατιώτην : ‘a brother,’ as a Christian ; 
 ‘a fellow-worker,’ in the cause of the gospel; ‘a fellow-soldier,’ 
 
76 PHILIPPIANS [1I. 25-28 
 
 in the conflict with the adversaries of the faith. (Comp. Rom. 
 SVL 3, 9, ἘΠ ΘΙ es Phil. 1.23/40). 5 Vignal. 7) 
 
 ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν THs χρείας μου : ‘ your messenger 
 and minister to my need. ; 
 
 ὑμῶν : With both ἀπόστ. and Aw. A messenger from you and 
 ministering on your behalf. 
 
 ἀπόστολον : Not in the official sense, but a messenger sent on a 
 special commission. So 2 Cor. vili. 23. 
 
 λειτουργὸν : See on vs. 17, and comp. vs. 30. The explanation 
 ‘sacrificial minister’ (Mey., Lightf.), regarding the gift of the 
 Philippians as an offering to God, is favored by iv. 18. Westcott, 
 on Heb. 1. 7, observes that the word seems always to retain some- 
 thing of its original force, as expressing a public, social service. 
 (See Rom. \xv..27/3/2) Coram ae) 
 
 26. ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποθῶν ἣν πάντας ὑμᾶς : ‘Since he was longing after 
 you 411. Giving the reason for vs. 25. The participle with the 
 substantive verb indicates a continued state. For ἐπιποθεῖν, see 
 on i. 8. 
 
 n* ACD add cde after buas. WH. bracket cde. 
 
 ἀδημονῶν : Also with ἦν. Only here in Paul. (See Mt. xxvi. 
 37; Mk. xiv. 33.) In LXX only in second-century revisions 
 (Symm. Eccl. νυν]. τὸ; Ps. ον]. 11 [exv. 2], la. 2 [ix τ: ἢ: 
 Job xviii. 20). The etymology is uncertain. Commonly from 4, 
 δῆμος, ‘away from home.’ (See Lightf. ad loc.) 
 
 27. καὶ yap ἠσθένησεν : ‘and (you were correctly informed about 
 him) for he was sick.’ 
 
 παραπλήσιον θανάτῳ : Ilapar. not elsewhere in Bib. ‘The adv. 
 παραπλησίως, Heb. 11. 14. Here adverbially. Not precisely ‘nigh 
 unto death,’ but ‘in a way nearly resembling death.’ 
 
 ΝῈ ACDFGKL read @avatw; so Tisch., R.T., Weiss, 7:xtk. Unt. πο BP, 
 31, 80, θανατου; so WH. 
 
 λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην : ‘sorrow upon sorrow,’ or ‘ after’ sorrow, as we 
 say ‘wave upon wave,’ ἐπὶ having a sense of motion. (See LXX; 
 Ezek. vii. 26; Is. xxviii. 10, 13; Ps. lxix. [Ixviii.] 27.) Not the 
 sorrow for Epaphroditus’ death following upon the sorrow for his 
 sickness, but the sorrow for Epaphroditus’ death following that of 
 Paul’s imprisonment. 
 
 Weiss prefers the former explanation, for the singular reason that i. 12- 
 24, ii. 16-18, do not indicate sorrow on Paul’s part for his captivity. (See 
 Mey.’s ingenious note. ) 
 
 28. σπουδαιοτέρως : ‘with the greater despatch.’ (Comp. Lk. 
 vii. 4; Tit. iii. 13.) More hastily than I would have done other- 
 wise. For the comparative without statement of the standard of 
 comparison, see on μᾶλλον (i. 12), / 
 
II. 28-30] HAZARD OF LIFE FOR CHRISI’S WORK a7 
 
 The older commentators render ‘ studiosius,’ ‘sollicitius.’ So A.V., ‘ care- 
 fully’; R.V., ‘diligently’; Lightf., ‘with increased eagerness’; Ellic., ‘more 
 diligently.’ Our rendering as Thay. Zex., Ead., Lips., Hack., Weiss, Weizs., 
 Mey., v. Sod. 
 ἔπεμψα: ‘I send.’ Epistolary aorist. 
 iva ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε: ‘that when ye see him ye may 
 rejoice again.’ Construe πάλιν with χαρῆτε, not with ἰδόντες (as 
 R.V.). Paul’s habit is to place πάλιν before the verb which it 
 qualifies. The Philippians’ joy had been clouded by Epaphro- 
 ditus’ sickness. They would rejoice again when he should arrive. 
 
 ἀλυπότερος : ‘the less sorrowful.’ The sorrow of captivity still 
 remains. ‘The word only here. 
 
 29. οὖν : Since I sent him that you might rejoice, ‘ therefore ’ 
 receive him with joy. 
 
 πασῆς χαρᾶς : Every kind of joy. (Comp. i. 20; Eph. vi. 18; 
 i Pet. 11. 1.) 
 
 τοὺς τοιούτους : The article marks Epaphroditus as belonging to 
 the class designated by rowovr. (Comp. Mk. ix. 37; Rom. xvi. 18 ; 
 2 Cor. xi. 13, ΧΙ. 23; Gal. ν. 23, vi. 1 ; and.sée Win. xviii. 4.) 
 
 ἐντίμους ἔχετε : The only occurrence of the phrase in N.T. In 
 class. usually ἐντίμως ἔχ. 
 
 30. ἔργον Χριστοῦ : All his exertions in forwarding Paul’s work 
 in Rome, and the risk and hardship of the journey thither. 
 
 Xpicrov, BFG, 80, Tisch., Weiss. 
 
 tov Χριστου, DEKL, Vulg., Goth., Syr.seh, four Lat. verss. (d, e, f, g). 
 
 For Χριστου, καὶ AP, 17, 3h 47) Cop., Syr.P, P, Arm., A‘th., WH., read κυριου. 
 
 To epyov without addn. Ὁ 
 
 Lightf. reads διὰ τὸ ἔ Zpryov on the sole authority of C, and says it must be 
 the correct reading. He cites Acts xv. 38; Ign. Zph. xiv., Rom. iii., and 
 the analogy of ἡ ὁδός, τὸ θέλημα, and τὸ ὄνομα for the absolute use of τὸ 
 ἔργον. But while τὸ ἔργον is used absolutely in these cases, it is too much 
 to assert, in the face of such strong MS. authority, that Χτοῦ, rod Xrod, or 
 κυρίου are mere “insertions to explain τὸ ἔργον." Κυρίου might be substi- 
 tuted for Χτοῦ in order to assimilate to 1 Cor. xv. 58, xvi. 10; and XY or 
 KY might easily be overlooked and omitted in transcription, as by C. 
 
 μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν : ‘he came nigh unto death.’ (Comp. 
 LXX ; Ps. cvii. [cvi.] 18, Ixxxviii. 3 [Ixxxvii. 4] ; Job xxxili. 22.) 
 παραβολευσάμενος : Only here. A gambler’s word, from zapa- 
 Bodos, ‘ venturesome,’ ‘reckless.’ He gambled with his life ; reck- 
 lessly hazarded it. (Comp. Rom. xvi. 4.) A most generous and 
 appreciative recognition of Epaphroditus’ services. The voluntary 
 visitors of the sick, who, in the ancient church, formed a kind of 
 brotherhood under the supervision of the bishop, were styled 
 ‘Parabolani.’ The graphic description of these in Kingsley’s 
 ffypata is familiar. The word might have been suggested to 
 Paul by seeing the soldiers throwing dice. Comp. «via, ‘ dicing’ 
 (Eph. iv. 14). . 
 TR with CKLP and several Fath, reads παραβουλευσαμενος, " having con- 
 sulted amiss,’ 
 
Ι 
 
 78 PHILIPPIANS [11. 30 
 
 iva ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρὸς me λειτουργίας : “ that 
 he might supply that which was lacking in your service toward 
 me.’ (Comp..1 Cor. xvi. 17} 2° Cor. ix) /72:) 
 
 ἀναπληρώσῃ : Not synonymous with the simple verb πληροῦν, 
 ‘to fill up a total vacancy,’ but denoting the making up of what is 
 lacking to perfect fulness; the filling up of a partial void. So 
 Erasm.: “ Accessione implere quod plenitudini perfectae deerat.” 
 For double compounds of the verb, see 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9; 
 (ΟΙ. 1. 24. 
 
 ὑμῶν : Genitive of the subject, with ὑστέρημα, not with Aeroupyias : 
 ‘the lack which was yours.’ 
 
 λειτουργίας : See on vs. 17. It describes the service as the act 
 of the Philippian community, and as a sacrificial act. So far from 
 implying a censure in τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα, that clause is a most deli- 
 cate, courteous, and sympathetic tribute to both Epaphroditus and 
 the Philippians. The gift to Paul was the gift of the church as a 
 body. It was a sacrificial offering of love. What was lacking, and 
 what would have been grateful to Paul and to the church alike, 
 was the church’s presentation of this offering in person. This was 
 impossible, and Paul represents Epaphroditus as supplying this 
 lack by his affectionate and zealous ministry. He thus, in this 
 single sentence, recognises the devotion of Epaphroditus and the 
 good-will of the Philippians, and expresses the pleasure which he 
 himself would have had in their personal presence and ministry. 
 Withal there is a touch of tender sympathy for Epaphroditus. It 
 would have been a great thing if you could, as a body, have offered 
 this sacrifice of love here in my prison; and poor Epaphroditus 
 made himself sick unto death in his efforts to supply this want. 
 
 πρός με: Πρός combines with the sense of direction that of rela- 
 tion with, intercourse. (Comp. Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. ix. 16; Jn.i.1; 
 Acts iti, 25, xxviii. 25; 1 Thess, iv. 12 ; Col. iv. 5 ; Hebe ἰχ. 20.) 
 Their gift to Paul was a sacrificial offering to God, in which the 
 spirits of Paul and of the Philippians communed. 
 
 EXCURSUS ON VS. 6-11 
 
 Much of the difficulty which appears to attach to this passage 
 arises from the assumption that in it Paul is aiming to formulate a 
 statement of the character of Christ’s mode of existence before 
 and during his incarnation. This is inconsistent with the informal 
 and familiar tone of the letter, and with the obviously practical 
 character of this passage, the principal object of which is to enforce 
 the duty of humility. As the supreme illustration of this virtue, 
 the apostle adduces the example of Jesus Christ in his voluntary 
 renunciation of his preincarnate majesty, and his identification 
 
II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 79 
 
 with the conditions of humanity. The points of the illustration 
 are thrown out in rapid succession, merely stated and not elabo- 
 rated, and are all brought to bear upon the exhortation, ‘‘ Look 
 not every one at his own things, but every one also on the things 
 of others.” Paul does, indeed, rise here above the level of epis- 
 tolary colloquialism ; but the impulse to the higher flight is emo- 
 tional rather than philosophical. MY 
 
 I think that Lightfoot has fallen into the error just mentioned 
 in his excursus on the synonyms σχῆμα and μορφὴ ( Commentary, 
 Ρ. 127 ff.). Prior to the philosophical period of Greek litera- 
 ture, the predominant sense of μορφὴ was “ shape”’ or “ figure.” 
 Schmidt (Syvzon. 182, 4) says it is distinguished from εἶδος and 
 idéa as the outward appearance of a thing considered in and for 
 itself, and partially contrasted with the inner and spiritual being. 
 It includes the coloring and the whole outward appearance — the 
 body itself with no reference to other than outward peculiarities. 
 This sense is retained to some extent in philosophical usage. 
 Both Plato and Aristotle employ μορφὴ with this meaning (Plat. 
 Repub. ii. 381 C; Phaedr. 271 A; Arist. Hist. An. i. 1, 7, li. 10, 
 32) 
 
 But the word has also a far wider meaning in Plato and Aristotle. 
 Both apply it to immaterial things, and it is especially from Aris- 
 totle’s usage that Lightfoot draws the meaning specific character 
 for μορφὴ. That Aristotle uses it in this sense may be granted, 
 though there are three things to be said on that point without 
 entering into discussion: (1) That Aristotle, as has been said 
 already, uses the word in the external and earlier sense also. 
 (2) That his more abstract conception of μορφὴ is not uniform 
 throughout, being more purely intellectual in his logic than in his 
 physics. And (3) that even in his most abstract and immaterial 
 conception of “form” the abstract is brought into concrete real- 
 isation. His doctrine is familiar that sensible objects consist of 
 matter and form ; matter being simply the potentiality of becom- 
 ing, while form makes this potentiality actual, so that matter is 
 not intelligible without form, though the form is not necessarily 
 external or material. 
 
 I do not, however, believe that Paul’s use of the term was 
 derived from this source, or applied in the sense of “ specific 
 character.” The starting-point of his conception lay nearer to 
 the anthropomorphic than to the philosophic: not necessarily 
 that he definitely conceived God as invested with a human form, 
 but that he conceived of the essential personality of God as exter- 
 nalising itself and expressing itself in some mode apprehensible 
 by pure spiritual intelligences if not apprehensible by the human 
 mind. But it seems probable that Paul’s mind touched the con- 
 ception of “the form of God” very slightly and incidentally, 
 and only on its outskirts, and that the application of the term 
 
 J 
 
80 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 
 
 μορφὴ to God was principally a reflection of its application to a 
 bondservant. Christ’s Awmifation was the dominant thought in 
 Paul’s mind, and the μορφὴ of a bondservant therefore came first 
 in the order of thought. The idea of some embodiment of the 
 divine personality was not altogether absent from his mind, but 
 μορφὴ θεοῦ was chiefly a rhetorical antithesis to μορφὴ δούλου. 
 
 Still, there is evidence that Paul uses μορφὴ with a recognition 
 of a peculiar relation of the word to the essential and permanent 
 nature of that which is expressed or embodied, so that μορφὴ is 
 purposely selected instead of σχῆμα, which signifies merely the 
 outward and transient configuration without regard to that which 
 is behind it. This has been clearly shown by Lightfoot in his 
 examination of the compounds into which the two words severally 
 enter. (See Rom. xii. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 18, xi. 13-15 ; Philo vine 
 It is possible that in illustrating this legitimate distinction, Light- 
 foot, in one or two instances, may have refined too much. His 
 remarks on μεταμορφοῦσθαι in Mt. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. 2, are just, 
 since a compound of σχῆμα, denoting merely a change in the 
 outward aspect of Christ’s person and garments, would not have 
 expressed the fact that this change acquired its real character and 
 meaning from the divineness which was essential in Christ’s per- 
 sonality. A foreshadowing or prophecy of his real “ form” — the 
 proper expression of his essential being — comes out in the trans- 
 figuration. He passes for the moment into the form prophetic of 
 his revelation in the glory which he had with the Father before 
 the world was. 
 
 The case is more doubtful in Mk. xvi. 12, where it is said that 
 Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ. It is pos- 
 sible that μορφὴ may have been selected with conscious recogni- 
 tion of the fact that, though the accidents of figure, face, and 
 pierced hands and feet were the same as before, yet the indefin- 
 able change which had passed upon Jesus prefigured his transition 
 to the conditions of his heavenly life ; but it is quite as probable 
 that the writer used μορφὴ in its earlier sense of “ shape.” 
 
 However that may be, I cannot accept Lightfoot’s explanation 
 of μόρφωσις in Rom. ii. 20 as signifying an aiming after or affect- 
 ing the true μορφὴ of knowledge and truth. There was actually 
 a truthful embodiment of knowledge and truth in the law. The 
 law was “holy and just and good,” and Paul habitually recognised 
 in it the impress of the divine character and will. It was this 
 fact which aggravated the culpability of the Jew, to whom had 
 been committed the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2). 
 
 Thus it is quite legitimate to define μορφὴ in this passage as 
 that “ form,” whatever it be, which carries in itself and expresses 
 or embodies the essential nature of the being to whom it belongs. 
 (See note on vs. 6.) 
 
 Μορφὴ, however, applied to God, is not to be identified with 
 
II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 81 
 
 δόξα, as by Weiss (Bid. Theol. § 103 ¢, d, Clarks’ Trans.). Weiss 
 reaches this conclusion by a very circuitous and inconclusive pro- 
 ‘cess. He says: “The identification of the μορφὴ θεοῦ with the 
 δόξα depends on this; that here also the δόξα, which the perfected 
 attain to and which belongs to the glorified body of Christ (Phil. 
 lil. 21), belongs originally to God, who is called (Eph. i. 17) the 
 πατὴρ τῆς va and therefore, on that account, it belongs to 
 the Son of his love in his original heavenly existence.”’ Δόξα is the 
 manifestation, the “‘ unfolded fulness,’’ of the divine attributes and 
 perfections, while μορφὴ θεοῦ is the immediate, proper, and per- 
 sonal investiture of the divine essence. Aoéa attaches to Deity ; 
 μορφὴ is identified with the inmost being of Deity. Δόξα is and 
 must be included in μορφὴ θεοῦ, but δόξα is not μορφὴ. Indeed, 
 the difference may be roughly represented by the English words 
 “olory” and “form.” Glory may belong to one in virtue of 
 birth, natural endowment, achievement, and the possession of 
 great qualities ; but it does not belong to him in the immediate 
 and intimate sense that his form does. 
 
 A study of the usage, both in the Old and in the New Testament, 
 will confirm this distinction. In the Old Testament “i533 applied 
 to God occurs often in connection with theophanies, where, if 
 anywhere, we might expect the peculiar sense of μορφὴ to appear." 
 The passage which seems most to favor this view is Ex. xxxiii. 18— 
 23, Xxxiv. 5-7. But it will be observed that in answer to Moses’ 
 prayer that God will show him his gory, God promises to reveal 
 his goodness, and to proclaim his zame, with the reservation, how- 
 ever, which is put anthropomorphically, that Moses cannot bear 
 that revelation in its fulness, and that therefore it will be tempered 
 for him. In the sequel the Lord descends and proclaims “the 
 Lord God, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in 
 goodness and truth.” This was what Moses desired, not, like 
 Semele, to behold Deity clothed in outward splendor, but to 
 behold the true glory of God as revealed in his moral attributes. 
 
 The phrase “glory of the Lord” (mi “23) is used of the 
 voice and fire on Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 17; Deut. v. 24) ; of the splen- 
 dor which, on different occasions, filled the tabernacle and the 
 temple (Ex. xl. 34; Num. xiv. 10, xv. 19, 42, xx. 6; 2 Chron. v. 
 Τὴν, Vil. τῷ 2) 3-)Nazek.. x. 4, ‘xliti. 4,5, xliv.c4). It appears. asa 
 bow in the cloud (Ezek. i. 28) ; as the glory which the prophet 
 saw by Chebar (Ezek. iii. 23 ; comp. i. 4-28) ; in the fire which 
 consumes the sacrifice on the altar (Lev. ix. 23). In the last three 
 instances the mode or form of the revelation of divine glory is 
 distinctly specified. It appears over the cherubim (Ezek. x. 19, 
 xi. 22); on the threshold of the house and on the mountain 
 
 11 am under obligation to my colleague, Dr. Briggs, for kindly furnishing me 
 with a proof of the article 1,2: from the new Hebrew Lexicon, 
 
 G 
 
82 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 
 
 (Ezek. x. 4, xi. 23). The earth shined with it (Ezek. xliii. 2). 
 None of these exhibitions answer to the definition of μορφὴ θεοῦ. 
 They are mostly symbolical. Again, the glory of the Lord will be 
 revealed in a march through the wilderness to the Holy Land 
 (Is. xl. 5) ; it will be the “rearward” of Israel (Is. lviii. 8) ; the 
 resting-place of the Messiah will be glory (Is. xi. 10). The impos- 
 sibility of identifying such expressions with μορφὴ θεοῦ will be 
 seen if we attempt to substitute this for δόξα. Shall we say “the 
 heavens declare the form of God” (Ps. xix. 1); “the form of God 
 shall dwell in the land”’ (Ps. Ixxxv. 9) ; “the rest of the Messiah 
 shall be the form of God” (Is. xi. 10)? These instances are fairly 
 representative ; and the Old Testament furnishes no others which, 
 any more than these, warrant the identification of μορφὴ θεοῦ with 
 δόξα. 
 
 In the New Testament the following may be specially noted : 
 Jn. xvii. 5, 22, 24. Invs. 5, 24, Jesus speaks of his preincarnate 
 glory which he laid aside in his incarnation. In vs. 22 he speaks 
 of a glory which he had not relinquished, but had retained in his 
 incarnation, and had imparted to his disciples. The two concep- 
 tions cannot be identical. The μορφὴ θεοῦ was laid aside, and could 
 not be imparted (Jn. i. 14). Δόξα was something which Jesus 
 possessed in the flesh, and which the disciples beheld. It could 
 not be identical with μορφὴ θεοῦ (2 Cor. iii. 18). Εἰκὼν approxi- 
 mates more closely to μορφὴ θεοῦ than perhaps any other word 
 in the New Testament. But δόξα here is not the same as εἰκὼν. 
 The zmage of the Lord is attained by a process, through successive 
 stages or grades of glory. (See Heinrici, Comm. ad loc.; 1 Cor. 
 xi. 7.) Man is the image (εἰκὼν) and glory of God. The pre- 
 incarnate Son of God was the effulgence of God’s glory, and the 
 very impress (χαρακτὴρ) of his substance (Heb. i. 3). 
 
 In short, it is apparent that δόξα is used with too large a range 
 and variety of meaning to warrant its identification with an expres- 
 sion which is unique in the New Testament, and entirely wanting 
 in the Old Testament, and which, if the definition given be cor- 
 rect, is strictly limited in its meaning. 
 
 A common error of the Greek Fathers, adopted by Calvin, 
 Beza, and others, was the identification of μορφὴ with οὐσώα, 
 ‘essence,’ and φύσις, ‘nature.’ Μορφὴ is identified with οὐσία, 
 not identical with it. It is the perfect expression of the essence, 
 proceeding from the inmost depths of the perfect being, and into 
 which that being spontaneously and perfectly unfolds, as light 
 from fire. If the two were identical, the parting with the μορφὴ 
 
 in the incarnation would have involved parting with the οὐσία. 
 
 But Jesus did not surrender the divine essence in his incarnation, 
 nor did he surrender the divine nature, which is the οὐσία clothed 
 with its appropriate attributes. Μορφὴ expresses both οὐσία and 
 φύσις, but neither is surrendered in the surrender of the μορφὴ. 
 
II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 83 
 
 The Greek Fathers and Augustine, followed by the Catholic 
 and most of the Reformed expositors, held that vs. 6 referred to 
 Jesus in his preincarnate state; while vs. 7 and 8 referred to the 
 incarnate Saviour. According to this view, Christ exchanged the 
 divine mode of existence for the human, not insisting for the time 
 on holding fast to his divine majesty. The form of God was 
 voluntarily exchanged for the form of a bondservant. 
 
 The majority of the Lutheran and rationalistic expositors, on 
 the other hand, explained vs. 6 of the incarnate Son. According 
 to this view, the form of God was retained by him in his incarnate 
 state, and was displayed in his miracles and words of power. He 
 retained the μορφὴ θεοῦ as his right, not regarding it an act of 
 robbery when he claimed equality with God. Thus the statement 
 was used to vindicate the divinity of our Lord in the flesh. This 
 view shaped the rendering of King James’ Bible. 
 
 But this is contrary to the entire structure and drift of the 
 passage, the main point of which is Christ’s example of humility 
 in renouncing his divine dignity and becoming man. The em- 
 phasis is upon the humanity, not upon the deity, of our Lord. 
 The prominent thought is “thought it not a thing to be grasped.” 
 Moreover, this interpretation utterly destroys the manifest antith- 
 esis οἵ οὐχ dpraypov ἡγήσατο, etc., and ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, which is 
 indicated by ἀλλὰ. It makes the writer say, he maintained the 
 form of God, du¢ emptied himself. It also weakens the sharp 
 contrast between μορφὴ θεοῦ and μορφὴ δούλου. It would imply 
 the contemporaneous existence of the same subject in two oppo- 
 site forms, both having reference to the outward condition. (See 
 Klopper, Comm. ad loc.) 
 
 The doctrine of the preincarnate existence of Christ I assume. 
 Statements like those of 1 Cor. i. 24, viii. 6, xi. 3, x. 3, 4; 2 Cor. 
 vill. g, show that Paul held a real and not a merely ideal preéxist- 
 ence of the Son of God, —a unique position of the preincarnate 
 Christ with God. The truth is well stated by Professor Bruce 
 (St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 330): “To make the 
 conception of Christ’s earthly experience as a humiliation com- 
 plete, is it not necessary to view it as a whole, and regard it as 
 resulting from a foregoing resolve on the part of Christ to enter 
 into such a state? Ifso, then the necessary presupposition of the 
 Pauline doctrine of redemption is the preéxisfence of Christ, not 
 merely in the foreknowledge of God, as the Jews conceived all 
 important persons and things to preéxist, or in the form of an 
 ideal in heaven answering to an imperfect earthly reality, in 
 accordance with the Greek way of thinking, but as a moral 
 personality capable of forming a conscious purpose.’”’ Similarly 
 Weizsacker (Ap. Zect. p. 122), to whom Professor Bruce refers : 
 “He had a personal existence before his human birth, and his 
 earlier life was divine, and absolutely opposed to the dependent 
 
84 PHILIPPIANS (11. 6-11 
 
 life of man upon earth. . . . Christ becomes man by a personal 
 act. ... Precisely because of this the conception is perfectly 
 consistent with the notion of ‘the second man’ who comes from 
 heaven. For the heavenly descent is equivalent to the thought 
 that he was in the form of God, and Paul can therefore say with- 
 out hesitation, that it was Jesus, the Christ, who first existed in 
 the divine form and then humbled himself, just as he says of him 
 that he was rich and voluntarily submitted to poverty. Had he 
 not given his doctrine of Christ this backward extension, the 
 human life of Christ would have become for him a sort of imper- 
 sonal event, and Jesus a mere instrument. His doctrine of the 
 preéxistence accordingly enables him to look upon Christ’s work 
 as a personal act, and to preserve the bond between him and 
 humanity.” 
 
 The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is then to be understood of 
 Christ’s preincarnate state. ‘To say that he was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ is 
 to say that he existed before his incarnation as essentially one with 
 God, and that objectively, and not merely in God’s self-conscious- 
 ness as the not yet incarnate Son — the ideal man. (See Beyschlag, 
 Die Christologie des neuen Testaments, and Neutestamentliche The- 
 ologie, 2 Aufl. vol. 11. p. 77 ff.; Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 2 Aufl. 
 p- 126; Bruce’s discussion of Beyschlag’s view, Humiliation of 
 Christ, p. 431.) 
 
 Do ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων and τὸ εἶναι ἴσα signify the same 
 thing ?>— “ No,” it is said. Equality with God did not inhere in 
 Christ’s preincarnate being. He received it first at his exaltation 
 and as a reward for his perfect obedience. Thus Dorner ( Christ- 
 liche Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 286 f.) says: “ His manhood is raised 
 to a full share in the divine majesty as a reward of its maintaining 
 true obedience. He could not have been exalted if he had not 
 exhibited a faultless development in a true human existence and 
 obedience.” 
 
 Along with this view goes an assumed antithesis between Christ 
 and Adam. Dorner says: “While the first Adam grasped at 
 equality with God, the second obtained exaltation to the divine 
 majesty, since not only would he not assume the divine dignity, 
 but, though himself elevated in dignity, humbled himself and 
 became obedient even unto death.” The parallel is developed 
 by Ernesti (Stud. u. Krit. Hft. 4, p. 858, 1848). Adam would 
 be God ; Christ renounces his godlikeness. Adam suffered death 
 as a doom ; Christ voluntarily. Adam incurred the divine curse ; 
 Christ won the approval of God, and the reward of exaltation to 
 equality with God. 
 
 The same view is held by my friend and colleague Dr. Briggs 
 (Messiah of the Apostles, p. 180). He says: “It was indeed 
 involved in his existing in the form of God that he should be 
 equal in rank with God. From that point of view it might be 
 
II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 85 
 
 said that he would not grasp after his own rank to which he was 
 entitled as the Son of God ; but it is probable that the apostle had 
 in mind the antithesis between the first and the second Adam 
 which is so characteristic of his theology. He is thinking of the 
 sinful grasping of the first Adam after equality with God under 
 the instigation of the serpent. As the second Adam, he will not 
 grasp after equality with God, even though it is his birthright. 
 He will receive it from the hands of God as a gift of love, after he 
 has earned it by obedience, just as the first Adam ought to have 
 done.” Similarly Beyschlag, VV. 7. Zheol.2 Aufl. Bd. ii. p. 88. 
 
 Setting aside for the moment the question of the two Adams, I 
 do not quite see the consistency of Dr. Briggs’ first statement — 
 that equality in rank with God was involved in Christ’s existence 
 in the form of God, and his last statement, that equality with God 
 was something which Christ earned, and received as a recompense 
 for his obedience. The inconsistency is not reconciled by the 
 antithesis between the two Adams. But passing this, these state- 
 ments can mean only that the status of the preincarnate Christ 
 was inferior to that in which he was after his incarnation; that 
 the being whom Paul describes as existing in the form of God was 
 something less than the being whom God highly exalted. This is 
 clearly stated by Beyschlag (lV. 7. Theol. ii. p. 86): ‘The subject 
 of this passage is not Son of God as in the so-called Athanasian 
 symbol, but one sharply distinguished from God. ‘The μορφὴ θεοῦ 
 in which he preeéxisted is not a μορφὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, and the ἴσα θεῴ 
 εἶναι is not an toa τῷ θεῷ εἶναι. There remains between him and 
 the one God who is the Father (vs. 11) so decided a difference 
 that the incomparable glory which Christ won through his self- 
 emptying and obedience unto death does not belong to him as 
 his eternal, natural possession, but is given to him by God’s free 
 grace, and must redound only to the honor of the Father. Hence 
 ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν Cannot signify a laying aside of his divine being, 
 but only the laying aside of his mode of manifestation.” 
 
 Such statements cannot be reconciled with passages like Col. i. 
 15-17. Speaking of the Epistle to the Colossians, Dr. Briggs 
 justly says: “It unfolds the doctrine of the preéxistent Messiah 
 beyond anything that we could be prepared to expect from our 
 study of the other epistles. To the doctrine of the form of God 
 in the Epistle to the Philippians, we have added the doctrine that 
 the preéxistent Son of God was the mediator between God and 
 the creature, in creation, in providence, and in redemption” (JZes- 
 siah of the Apostles, p. 215). Add to this Jn.i. 1, 2, v. 21, vi, 
 x. 18, and especially Heb. i. 2, 3. In this last passage we have a 
 more technical and formal statement, after the manner of the 
 Alexandrian school, and according to this statement the preéxist- 
 ent Christ was the very impress of God’s substance. 
 
 Beyschlag, as Philo (De Somn. i. 39, 41), insists on the distinc- 
 
86 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 
 
 tion between 6 θεός and θεός, claiming that this distinction is 
 observed in Jn. i. 1. But in that passage, θεός, predicated of the 
 λόγος, is used attributively, with a notion of kind, and is thus 
 necessarily anarthrous. It excludes identity of person, but em- 
 phasises unity of essence and nature. Accordingly, what John 
 says is, that the Adyos was with God, and that with no lower nature 
 than God himself. Philo, on the contrary, claims that the anarth- 
 rous θεός describes the λόγος as of subordinate nature — “ δεύτερος 
 eds.” 
 
 Dorner cites Rom. i. 4 to show that Christ was constituted the 
 Son of God with power, only after his resurrection. ‘Therefore, 
 before this, he was not ‘the Son of God with power,’ though he 
 was already the Son (Chr. Glaudens/. ii. p. 284). But this infer- 
 ence rests on a misinterpretation. “Ev δυνάμει does not belong 
 with υἱοῦ θεοῦ, but is adverbial and qualifies ὁρισθέντος. Paul’s 
 statement is that Christ was designated as Son of God in a power- 
 ful, impressive, efficient manner, by his resurrection from the dead 
 as a work of divine power. So Sanday, Mey., Godet, Alf., Moule, 
 Gifford. (Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4 and Eph. i. 19.) 
 
 Besides all this, how can equality with God be conferred or 
 superinduced? The words are τὸ εἶναι ica. It is a matter of 
 essential dezmg. Equality with God can belong only to essence. 
 Equality of power or of rank can be conferred, but not equality 
 of being. 
 
 As to the antithesis of the two Adams. It seems forced at the 
 best, but is there any real antithesis? According to the narrative 
 in Gen. iii., Satan declared that the eating of the fruit would confer 
 a knowledge which would make the eaters as gods, knowing good 
 and evil; and the woman saw that the tree was to be desired to 
 make one wise. Nothing is said of a desire to be equal with God 
 in the absolute and general sense. The temptation and the desire 
 turned on forbidden knowledge. The words “as gods” are defined 
 and limited by the words “knowing good and evil”; and it is 
 nowhere asserted or hinted in Scripture that Adam desired equality 
 with God in the comprehensive sense of that expression. More- 
 over, if Adam had proved obedient, his reward would not have 
 been equality with God. 
 
 ~ Yet something was obtained by Christ as the result of his 
 incarnation and of his perfect obedience therein, which he did 
 not possess before his incarnation, and which he could not have 
 possessed without it. Equality with God he had as his birthright, 
 but his Messianic lordship was something which could come only 
 through his incarnation and its attendant humiliation ; and it was 
 this, and not equality with God, that he received in his exaltation. 
 The διὸ of vs. 9 is not to be taken as if God bestowed exaltation 
 as a reward for perfect obedience, but rather, as Meyer correctly, 
 says, as “the accession of the corresponding consequence.” ‘The 
 
II. 6-11] ON Il. 6-11 87 
 
 sequence is logical rather than ethical. Out of the human life, 
 death, and resurrection of Christ comes a type of sovereignty 
 which could pertain to him only through his triumph over human 
 sin (Heb. i. 3), through his identification with men as their 
 brother. Messianic lordship could not pertain to his preincarnate 
 state. As Messianic lord he could be inaugurated only after his 
 human experience (Acts ii. 36). Messianic lordship is a matter 
 of function, not of inherent power and majesty. The phrase 
 “seated at the right hand of God” is Messianic, and expresses 
 Christ’s Messianic triumph, but not to the detriment of any essen- 
 tial dignity possessed before his incarnation. But the incarnation 
 places him, in a new sense, in actual, kingly relation to the col- 
 lective life of the universe. There cannot be the bowing of every 
 knee and the confession of every tongue so long as Christ merely 
 remains deing in the form of God, — until he has made purifica- 
 tion of sins, redeemed creation, and been manifested to earth, 
 heaven, and hades as the Saviour of men. 
 
 Thus new elements enter into the life and sovereignty of the 
 exalted Christ. He exists no less as Son of God, but now also as 
 Son of Man, which he could be only through being born of woman 
 and made in the likeness of men. The glory of God shines through 
 the bodily form which he carried into heaven with him (Col. ii. 9), 
 yet in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead. He is what 
 he was not before his incarnation, the Great High Priest. Having 
 begun the high-priestly work in his death and sacrifice, he now 
 carries it on in the heavenly places by his work of intervention 
 (ἐντυγχάνειν, Heb. vii. 25) in the lives of those who believe in 
 him. He is the minister of the resurrection-life to his redeemed, 
 ever bringing to bear on them through the Spirit the divine forces 
 which cause them to “walk in newness of life.” Thus lordship 
 won by conquest in incarnation is distinguished from inherent 
 lordship. ‘This is the lordship which Jesus preferred to that 
 which was merely inherent in him as the equal of God, — lordship 
 through self-renunciation, mastery through service. 
 
 And in this fact lies the answer to the much-discussed question, 
 What is the name which God gave him at his exaltation? As the 
 lordship is Messianic, as the Messianic lordship comes only through 
 the human experience and victory, the name will unite the human 
 experience and the Messianic dominion, —‘ Jesus’ the human 
 name, ‘Christ’ the Messianic name. Not ‘Lord,’ for lordship 
 was his inherent right and his prerogative before incarnation. 
 Not Jesus alone, for that represents only the human experience 
 of humiliation ; but JESUS CHRIST — Christ the Messiah only 
 as he was Jesus. Accordingly ‘“ Lord” in vs. 11 is defined by 
 “Jesus Christ.” 
 
 This whole statement in Phil. is, in a broad sense, parallel with 
 the words in Heb. i. 3, and the two passages should be studied 
 
88 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 
 
 together. In both the preincarnate Son’s conditions of being are 
 set forth. To these Heb. adds a statement of the preincarnate 
 activity of the Son. Φέρων is “bearing onward,” not simply 
 “upholding”’ or “sustaining”; for, as Westcott remarks, “ the 
 Son is not an Atlas sustaining the dead weight of the world.” 
 (See Comm. on Heb. ad loc. and the striking parallels cited.) 
 The Son was persistently carrying on from eternal ages the uni- 
 verse of God towards its consummation. Incarnation and atone- 
 ment were not a break in the history of humanity, nor in the 
 eternal activity of God in Christ. They were in the line of the 
 eternal purpose of God. The Lamb was “slain from the founda- 
 tion of the world.” In pursuance of this purpose the Divine Son 
 assumed our humanity, purged our sins, and then “sat down on 
 the right hand of the majesty on high.” 
 
 In Phil. the parallel to this is found in the statement and detail 
 of Christ’s humiliation. In his human nature, in the form of a 
 servant, in the likeness of men, in humbling himself and enduring 
 the death of the cross, he is still bearing on all things, restoring 
 humanity to the divine archetype by making purification of sins 
 and inaugurating the High-Priestly function developed in Heb. 
 In Phil. the mediatorial aspect is not treated, but both passages 
 depict the exaltation which followed the humiliation. 
 
 Whether ἁρπαγμὸν is active or passive is treated in the note. 
 If taken actively, —‘‘an act of robbery,” “a seizing,’ —it ex- 
 presses Christ’s assertion of equality with God ; that is to say, he 
 did not think being equal with God an act of robbery, but claimed 
 it as his right in his incarnate state. The awkwardness of regard- 
 ing a state of being as an ac¢ of robbery needs no comment. If 
 taken passively, —“‘a prize, a thing to be snatched or clutched,” 
 — it expresses the surrender of the preincarnate state of majesty. 
 He did not think equality with God a prize to be eagerly grasped 
 (and held fast), but surrendered it, though it was his right. 
 
 Lightfoot’s citations from the Greek Fathers show that they 
 conceived the passage as carrying the idea of a surrender of 
 preincarnate glory, and a condescension from a higher estate. 
 (Note on “ Different Interpretations of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο," 
 Comm. p. 133.) 
 
 I am not convinced that Lightfoot’s interpretation is wrong by the 
 strictures of Mr. Beet in his Commentary, ad loc., and in the Z£xfositor, 
 3d ser. vol. 5, p. 115, especially when I find him adopting Meyer’s explana- 
 tion. See below. 
 
 It may be observed that Lightfoot does not bring out the full 
 force of his first quotation, from the Letter of the Gallican church 
 (Euseb. . Z. v. 2), which lies in the exhibition of the martyrs’ 
 humility as shown in their refusal to accept the title of “ wit- 
 nesses,’ which they had earned by their sufferings. Thus, in 
 
II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 89 
 
 refusing to insist upon their rightful claim, they imitated Christ, 
 who refused to grasp at the majesty which was rightfully his. 
 Also it should be observed that in Origen om Romans (Lat. v. 
 § 2), vapinam, which is given for ἁρπαγμὸν, occurs in both the 
 active and the passive sense, the latter in late Latin. 
 
 Meyer’s explanation should be noticed. He paraphrases: 
 “ Jesus Christ, when he found himself in the heavenly mode of 
 existence of divine glory, did not permit himself the thought of 
 using his equality with God for the purpose of seizing possessions 
 and honor for himself on earth.” 
 
 He translates “ Nicht als ein Rauben betrachtete er das gott- 
 gleiche Sein” (Not as a robbing did he regard the being equal 
 with God), and then explains that he did not: put being equal with 
 God under the point of view of gaining booty, as if it (being 
 equal with God) was, with respect to its expression in action, to 
 consist in seizing what did not belong to him. 
 
 According to this, ro εἶναι ica is not the object but the subject 
 of the seizing. Christ did not regard equality with God as a 
 means of grasping. ‘This interpretation is adopted by Beet. It 
 is an illustration of the excessive literalism which sometimes mars 
 Meyer’s splendid exegetical qualities. The interpretation turns 
 on the endeavor to preserve the active force of ἁρπαγμὸς, which, 
 in the very ragged condition of the evidence concerning that 
 word, seems desperate. If this had been Paul’s meaning, I can 
 conceive of no mode of expression which he would have been less 
 likely to choose. Moreover, the explanation misses Paul’s point, 
 which is to show the magnitude of the renunciation from the 
 preincarnate and heavenly point of view, and not from the earthly 
 and incarnate side. According to Meyer, Christ’s self-renuncia- 
 tion consisted in his refusal to grasp at earthly possessions and 
 honors by means of his equality with God. According to Paul, it 
 consisted in his relinquishment of heavenly glory and majesty. 
 
 As regards ἑαυτὸν éxévwoev, any attempt to commit Paul to a 
 precise theological statement of the limitations of Christ’s humanity 
 involves the reader in a hopeless maze. The word ἐκένωσεν was 
 evidently selected as a peculiarly strong expression of the entire- 
 ness of Jesus’ self-renunciation, and in order to throw the pre- 
 incarnate glory and the incarnate humiliation into sharp contrast : 
 to show that Christ utterly renounced and laid aside the majesty 
 which he possessed in his original state. Its most satisfactory 
 definition is found in the succeeding details which describe the 
 incidents of Christ’s humanity, and with these exegesis is com- 
 pelled to stop. The word does not indicate a surrender of deity, 
 nor a paralysis of deity, nor a change of personality, nor a break 
 in the continuity of self-consciousness. Christ’s consciousness of 
 deity was not suspended during his earthly life. He knew that 
 he came from God and went to God; that he had glory with the 
 
90 PHILIPPIANS [ III. 1 
 
 Father before the world was, and would receive it back. But he 
 was made in all things like unto his brethren. ‘ He took to him- 
 self all that belongs to the perfection of man’s being. He lived 
 according to the conditions of man’s life, and died under the cir- 
 cumstances of man’s mortality’ (Westcott). 
 
 III. 1-3. A WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 
 
 As for the rest, my brethren, whatever your trials, past, present, 
 or future, continue to rejoice in the Lord. I am not backward 
 about writing to you concerning a matter of which I have spoken 
 in former letters, but 7 am moved by my anxiety for your safety 
 to refer to it again. Beware of those dogs; those evil workers ; 
 those whose boasted circumcision ts no better than a physical mutt- 
 lation without any spiritual significance. It ts we Christians who 
 are the true ‘circumcision’ ; whose service ts prompted by the Spirit 
 of God; whose rejoicing ts in Christ Jesus as the only source of 
 true righteousness, and who do not trust the flesh. 
 
 It is claimed by many that Paul is here about to close the 
 epistle, but that his attention is suddenly diverted, perhaps by 
 some new reports of the doings of his Judaistic adversaries ; and 
 that he is thus drawn on to add to his letter what he had not 
 originally intended. Nothing in the text warrants this conclusion. 
 It is, of course, possible that fresh thoughts may have come to the 
 apostle in the course of his writing; but, on the other hand, we 
 are not forced to conclude that the main topics were not in his 
 mind from the first. (See Introd. VII.) 
 
 1. τὸ λοιπόν : ‘as to what remains.’ It may mean ‘finally,’ as 
 2 Cor. xili. 11; or ‘henceforth,’ as ΜΚ. xiv. 41; 1 Cor. vis 29; 
 Heb. x. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 8; or ‘ for the rest,’ ‘ besides,’ ‘as to what 
 remains,’ as 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. ili. 1. The formula is com- 
 mon with Paul in cases where he attaches, in a somewhat loose 
 way, even in the midst of an epistle, a new subject to that which 
 he has been discussing. In 1 Thess. iv. 1 two entire chapters fol- 
 low the phrase, and here the special subject introduced by it is 
 followed by several others. If Paul had been intendtmg to close 
 his letter, it is likely that he would have added his thanks for the 
 Philippians’ remittance before he reached ro λοιπόν. The formula 
 therefore merely introduces what follows. The preceding topic is 
 closed, and he passes to another. 
 
‘III. 1] A WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS gI 
 
 Ellic., Ead., Lightf., render ‘ finally,’ but as an introduction to what 
 remains. ‘For the rest,’ Kl., De W., Lips., Weizs., Beet. 
 
 χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘rejoice in the Lord.’ (Comp. i. 18, ii. 18, 
 iv. 4, 10.) 
 
 Not as Lightf., ‘ farewell,’ for which there is no sufficient ground. In 
 
 class. the word is used as a salutation both at meeting and parting; but it 
 
 does not occur in N.T. in the sense of ‘farewell.’ 2 Cor. xiii. 11 is more 
 than doubtful. 
 
 The exhortation need not be specifically referred either to what 
 precedes or to what follows. There has been a reason for encour- 
 aging them to rejoice in the face of their former trials, as there is 
 a like reason in the prospect of coming trials of which he is about 
 to speak. The summons to rejoice is general, in view of all trials, 
 past, present, and future, as well as of the eternal consolations 
 of the gospel. 
 
 ἐν κυρίῳ : Comp. i. 14, 11. 19, 24. The sphere or element of 
 rejoicing. 
 
 Several of the older expositors found in ἐν x. a contrast of the joy in 
 
 God with the bitterness of the cross (Calv.); or with all worldly things 
 
 (Theo., Mop., v. Lyra); or with works of the flesh and fleshly renown 
 
 (Ans.); or with the Jewish errors treated in the following verses (Calov., 
 Croc., Pisc.). 
 
 τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν : The reference is probably to a former letter, 
 or to former letters to the Philippians, which are lost. (See 
 Lightf.’s excursus on “ Lost Epistles to the Philippians,” Comm. 
 p-. 138.) This has been inferred from Polyc. ad Pai?. iii. (Comp. 
 xiii., and see Lightf.’s Jenatius, iii. pp. 327, 348.) The question 
 turns on Polyc.’s use of ἐπιστολαὶ, whether it means one letter or 
 several. 
 
 Lightf. decides for the single letter, and collects in his excursus a large 
 number of passages to show the use of the plu. for ‘a letter.’ Mey. thinks 
 that the plu. in Polyc. indicates several letters, and affirms that doctrinal 
 epistles, both in N.T. and the Apost. Fath., are always described in the 
 sing. where only one letter is intended, and in the plu. where several are 
 meant. There can be no doubt that the plu. is used of a single letter in 
 
 individual cases; but the question of usage is not definitely enough settled 
 to warrant a decision. 
 
 Our conclusion rests rather on the antecedent probability of 
 lost letters. Considering Paul’s connection with so many churches 
 during at least twenty-five years, it is highly probable that he wrote 
 more than thirteen letters, and some of them important. Intima- 
 tions of such are found in 1 Cor. v. 9; 2 Cor. x.10, 11; 2 Thess. 
 lil. 15, i. 17. If what have come down to us are his only epistles, 
 we must suppose that he wrote several letters within a short time, 
 while at long intervals he wrote nothing. (See Jowett, Zs. of Sz. 
 Paul, 34 ed. i. p. 107.) Lightf. refers τὰ αὐτὰ to matter in this 
 
92 PHILIPPIANS [1Π1. 1, 2 
 
 epistle concerning divisions or dissensions in the Philippian church ; 
 but intimations to that effect in i. 27, il. 2, 3, 4, are too slight to 
 warrant this inference. The reference is probably to the character 
 and work of the Judaising Christians. To refer ra αὐτὰ to χαίρετε 
 (Alf., Weiss) would be to make Paul say: ‘It is not irksome for 
 me to write to you to rejoice, but it is safe for you.’ 
 
 ὀκνηρόν : ‘irksome’ ; orig. ‘sluggish,’ ‘slothful.’ (See Mt. xxv. 
 26; Rom. xii. 11.) Frequent in LXX, in Prov. 
 
 ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλές : ‘and for you it is safe.’ “Aod. primarily 
 ‘steadfast,’ ‘stable’; thence ‘trustworthy’; a thing τ de relied 
 on as profitable. Notas Luth., Erasm., with an active meaning, 
 ‘that which makes safe or confirms,’ which is contrary to usage. 
 
 2. βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας : ‘behold the dogs.’ Βλέπετε, not ‘ beware 
 of,’ which would be βλέπ. ἀπὸ ; but as 1 Cor. x. 18. A caution, 
 however, is implied, ‘look to’; ‘look out for.’ The article with 
 κύν. indicates a well-known class. ‘Dog’ was a term of contempt 
 and loathing with both Jews and Gentiles. The dog was an unclean 
 animal according to the Levitical law. The price of a dog and the 
 hire of a courtesan were placed in the same category, and an Isra- 
 elite was forbidden to bring either into the house of God in fulfil- 
 ment of a vow (Deut. xxiii. 18). Gentiles were termed ‘ dogs’ by 
 Jews (Mt. xv. 27). Comp. Apoc. xxii. 15, of those whose impurity 
 excludes them from the heavenly city. In Hom. often of the auda- 
 cious or shameless, especially women. The emphasis here is upon 
 the impurity, the profane character of the false teachers contrasted 
 with true Christians. There is no subordinate reference to shame- 
 lessness, greediness, snappishness, disorderly wandering or howling. 
 So some earlier expositors, as Chr., Aug., Calov., Calv., Croc., etc. 
 
 τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας : ‘the evil workers.’ The same persons 
 regarded on the side of their activity and its moral quality; as 
 proselytisers; as ‘huckstering’ (καπηλεύοντες) the word of God 
 (2 Cor. ii. 17) ; as opposing the doctrine of justification by faith. 
 (Comp. Mt. xxiii. 15 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3, 13.) 
 
 τὴν κατατομήν : ‘the concision.’ Not elsewhere in Bib. The 
 word directs attention to the fact that these persons had no right 
 to claim circumcision in the true sense. Unaccompanied by faith, 
 love, and obedience, it was nothing more than physical mutilation. 
 Thus they belonged in the category of those against whom the 
 legal prohibition of mutilation was directed (Lev. xxi. 5). Comp. 
 Paul’s bitter sarcasm in Gal. v. 12. 
 
 Reasons have been given for not identifying the persons charac- 
 terised here with those referred to ini. 15-17. (See note oni. 15.) 
 The reference here is to Judaising Christians. In view of their 
 habit of keeping an eye on the Pauline churches and of introduc- 
 ing their emissaries into them, it is not likely that they had over- 
 looked Philippi; and it is quite probable that Paul had previously 
 found it necessary to warn the church against their designs. Some 
 
III. 2, 3] THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION 93 
 
 fresh intelligence of their operations may have prompted him to 
 repeat those cautions. - 
 
 Against the reference to Jews it may be said that Paul’s dealing with the 
 Jews in 1 Thess. ii. 14-16 would lead us to expect something similar here if 
 the parties had been Jews, since their proceedings against the Christians 
 would probably have been marked by the open violence which they prac- 
 tised against the other Macedonian churches. Here Paul’s warning is 
 directed at the misleading of his converts by false teaching, which was quite 
 according to the Judaising method. Moreover his expressions here are simi- 
 lar to those in 2 Cor. and Gal. as respects the motive, object, and methods 
 of these agitators, and the way in which he meets them. That the Judaisers 
 were referred to in those epistles is not questioned. Their object was the 
 overthrow of Paul’s form ‘of Christian doctrine and the establishment of a 
 Christianity in which the Mosaic law should continue in full force, especially 
 in the matter of circumcision. The Messiah was regarded by them solely 
 in his relation to the Jewish law. The attempt of Croc. to show that Paul 
 here designates three classes, — κύνας, Libertine Christians or backsliders to 
 Judaism; κακ. épy., those who would combine Christianity with Gentile wis- 
 dom or Jewish superstition; karar., unbelieving Jews, — is one of the curi- 
 osities of exegesis. Weiss also thinks that three classes are intended: κύν., 
 heathen; κακ. épy., those mentioned ini. 15; karar., Jews. 
 
 3. ἡμεῖς yap ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή : ‘for we are the circumcision.’ 
 I call them κατατομή, and not περιτομή, for it is we who are the 
 περιτομή. The contemptuous κατατομή suggests the first point of 
 contrast between the judaisers and the true Israel of God. The 
 abstract περιτομή, ‘circumcision,’ stands for the concrete, ‘the 
 circumcised.’ (See Rom. iv. 9; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 11, and 
 the phrase οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, Acts x. 45, xi. 2.) We are the true 
 circumcision as compared with them, for their circumcision is 
 only outward, in the flesh, while the true circumcision is that of 
 the heart. (See Rom. ii. 25-29; Eph. 11. 11; Col. ii. 11 ; comp. 
 Dev. wava..41 } Deut. χ. τό, xxx. 6; Jer: ν]. 10, ἰχ. 25, 26: Ezek. 
 xliv. 7. See also Just. M. Dead. 77. xii., xix., xliii.) 
 
 For this claim three reasons are given : 
 
 (1) οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες : ‘who serve by the spirit of 
 God.’ A.V. ‘who worship God in the Spirit’ follows TR, which 
 reads θεῷ for θεοῦ. 
 
 πνεύματι : Instrumental dat. (See Rom. viii. 14; Gal. v. 5, 18.) 
 Who serve under the impulse and direction of the divine Spirit. 
 (Comp. Rom. il. 29.) 
 
 λατρεύοντες : The verb originally means ‘to serve for hire,’ then 
 simply ‘to serve.’ In N.T. both of ritual service, as Heb. viii. 5, 
 ix. 9, X. 2, ΧΙ. το, and of worship or service generally, as Lk. 
 i. 74; Rom.i.g. Especially of the service rendered to God by 
 Israelites as his peculiar people, as Acts xxvi. 7; λατρεία, Rom. 
 ix. 4; Heb. ix. 1,6. In LXX always of the service of God or of 
 heathen divinities. A Jew would be scandalised by the applica- 
 tion of this term to Christian service. It is purposely chosen with 
 reference to ἡ περιτομή. 
 
94 PHILIPPIANS [111. 3, 4 
 
 (2) καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ : ‘and boast in Christ Jesus.’ 
 
 καυχώμενοι: See Rom. ii. 17; 1 Cor. i. 21; 2 Cor xorg: 
 Gal. vi. 14. 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: As the only source of true righteousness 
 compared with the legal observance of the Jew. 
 
 (3) καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες : ‘and do not trust in the flesh.’ 
 Not the same conception as the preceding (so Chr., Theoph., 
 Calv., De W.), nor is it a more precise definition, to express the 
 purport of xavy. (Weiss). It indicates and repudiates the dispo- 
 sition out of which the false boasting of the Judaiser proceeds. 
 For πεποιθ., 566 1. 14. 
 
 ἐν σαρκὶ : Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18; Gal. vi. 13, 14. Σαρξ is the 
 human nature without the divine Spirit ; the state cr man before 
 or in contrast with his reception of the divine elernent whereby 
 he becomes a new creature ; the whole being of man as it exists 
 and acts apart from the influence of the Spirit. It properly char- 
 acterises, therefore, not merely the lower forms of sensual gratifi- 
 cation, but all,—the highest developments of the life estranged 
 from God, whether physical, intellectual, or esthetic. So here it 
 covers legal observances, circumcision, descent, ritual strictness, 
 as they exist without the spirit of loyalty to God. (See W. Sz. 
 on Rom. vii. 5.) 
 
 In illustration of the statement that Christians have no confi- 
 dence in the flesh, he adduces his own case, showing what excep- 
 tional ancestral and ecclesiastical advantages as a Jew he renounced 
 for Christ’s sake. 
 
 4-7. If any man may think himself warranted in trusting in the 
 flesh, tt is myself. For I was circumcised when eight days old, as 
 a genuine Israelite. Iwas nota proselyte, but of direct Israelitish 
 descent. I belonged to the honored tribe of Benjamin. Iwas a 
 child of Hebrew ancestors who spoke the Hebrew tongue. As a 
 member of the sect of the Pharisees, I was a strict legahst. I was 
 zealous for my religion, even to the extent of persecuting Christians, 
 and I was blameless in my legal righteousness. But all these advan- 
 tages I counted as a loss, and renounced them for Christ’s sake. 
 
 4. καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί: ‘although having 
 myself confidence in the flesh also.’ It might be urged that Paul, 
 in his conversion from Judaism, had renounced and contemned 
 that which he did not himself possess, and of which he did not 
 know the value. He anticipates this by saying that he has 
 renounced advantages which he possessed in an eminent degree, 
 and the value of which no one knew better than himself. This is 
 
III. 4] CONFIDENCE IN THE FLESH 95 
 
 not urged as an attack upon the Judaisers, but only to show that 
 he had already possessed all that upon which the Jews especially 
 prided themselves. He puts himself for the moment at the Jew- 
 ish point of view. If the true ground of confidence is the flesh, he 
 has stronger ground than even his Judaising adversaries. (Comp. 
 2 Cor. xi. 21 ff.) ‘The apparent awkwardness of construction is 
 owing to the quick transition from the plu. πεποιθότες to a similar 
 participial construction in the singular (ἔχων). The ἐγὼ of vs. 4 
 really lies in the ἐσμεν of vs. 3, since Paul reckons himself among 
 the ἡμεῖς. He is separated by ἐγὼ. The sentence proceeds from 
 καίπερ ἐγὼ, as if the previous clause had been, “7 have no confidence 
 in the flesh.’ 
 
 καίπερ: Only here in Paul, and, as usual, with the participle. 
 (Comp. Heb. v. 8, vii. 5, xii. 17.) It may be correctly rendered 
 ‘although’ iff it is remembered that that sense lies in the parti- 
 ciple and not in καίπερ, which literally means ‘ even very much.’ 
 
 ἔχων : Not to be rendered ‘I might have,’ as A.V. and R.V., a 
 translation which grew out of the fear of the older interpreters of 
 seeming to commit Paul to a declaration of his confidence in the 
 flesh. Paul actually possessed these advantages, and, from the 
 Jewish point of view, declares that he had confidence in them. 
 
 πεποίθησιν : ‘confidence’ or ‘ ground of confidence.’ The noun 
 only in Paul. For the phrase πεποίθ. ἔχ., comp. 2 Cor, iii. 4. 
 
 καὶ : In the flesh ‘ a/so.’ ΑΞ well as in Christ. 
 
 Not only have I ground of confidence, but I have more than 
 they. 
 
 εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί: ‘If any one is disposed to 
 think that he has ground of confidence in the flesh.’ The indefin- 
 ite εἴ τις is not introduced for the sake of policy, or in a concilia- 
 tory way, as if Paul were avoiding reference to any particular 
 case, since this assumes a polemic bearing of the words. Nor 
 does δοκεῖ imply that the advantage was only apparent (Chrys., 
 Theoph.), or that they had only arrogated it to themselves 
 (Thdrt.) ; for Paul uses δοκεῖν of himself. He merely says that 
 he possessed advantages on which any Jew might have congratu- 
 lated himself. 
 
 Δοκεῖ may be rendered ‘seems’; so Vulg. widetur; comp. 
 1 Cor. xii. 22; 2 Cor. x. 9; Gal. ii. 9g; or ‘thinks,’ as 1 Cor. iii. 
 18, viii. 2, x. 12. The latter is Paul’s more common usage. So 
 here, ‘if any one is disposed to think.’ (Comp. Mt. iii. 9 ; 1 Cor. 
 ΧΙ. τό. : 
 
 ἐγὼ ἀντι Supply δοκῶ πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί. “1 think that I 
 have reason for confidence in the flesh in a higher degree than 
 they.’ 
 
 The grounds of this last, general statement are now given in 
 the enumeration of Paul’s advantages as a Jew, beginning with his 
 
96 PHILIPPIANS [III. 4, 5 
 
 inherited privileges. First is circumcision, the main point in a 
 Jew’s eyes, and that by which the whole nation was named. 
 
 5. περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος : ‘eight days old in circumcision.’ ’Oxray- 
 pepos not elsewhere in Bib. It denotes here not interval, but dura- 
 tion. ‘I was eight days old when circumcised.’ For the idiom, 
 ‘an eight-day one,’ comp. τεταρταῖος, Jn. xi. 39; δευτεραῖοι, Acts 
 xxviii. 13; and see Wetst. on Jn. xi. 39 for a long list of class. 
 parallels. ‘The dative is the dat. of reference. (See ii. 7; 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 20, etc.; Win. xxxi. 6.) Paul was circumcised on the eighth 
 day as a genuine Israelite (Gen. xvil. 12; Lev. xii. 3). An Ish- 
 maelite was circumcised in his thirteenth year (Gen. xvii. 25). 
 
 He was not a proselyte, but of direct Israelitish descent: ἐκ 
 γένους “Iopand, ‘of the race of Israel.’ (Comp. Rom. xi. 1.) He 
 was descended from the patriarch Jacob, whose name of honor, 
 bestowed by God himself (Gen. xxxii. 28), was the sacred name 
 of the Jews as God’s covenant people (Rom. ix. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 22; 
 Eph. ii. 12), and was therefore the Jews’ especial badge and title 
 of honor. Their descent from Abraham they shared with the 
 Ishmaelites ; their descent from Abraham and Isaac, with the 
 Edomites. The Israelite claimed descent from the patriarch, not 
 as Jacob ‘the supplanter,’ but as Israel, ‘ wrestler with God.’ (See 
 Hos. xii. 3, 4.) Ἰσραήλ is the appositive genit., and is the name 
 of the race (γένος), as Gal. i. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 26. 
 
 φυλῆς Βενιαμείν : Comp. Rom. xi. 1. Benjamin was the son of 
 the beloved wife of Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 17, 18). The tribe of Ben- 
 jamin gave Israel its first king (1 Sam. ix. 1, 2). The tribe was 
 
 alone faithful to Judah at the separation under Rehoboam (1 K. 
 xii. 21). After the return from exile, it formed with Judah the 
 kernel of the new colony in Palestine (Ezra iv. 1). The tribe 
 always held the post of honor in the army. Hence the battle-cry, 
 
 - ‘After thee Benjamin!’ (Jud. v.14; Hos. v. 8). Of the twelve 
 patriarchs, Benjamin only was born in the Land of Promise. The 
 great national deliverance commemorated in the feast of Purim 
 was due to Mordecai, a Benjamite. Paul’s own name, Saul, was 
 probably from the son of Kish, the Benjamite king. 
 
 But Paul’s descent was not only from the choice race and tribe, 
 but from parents of the pure Hebrew stock. ‘There is a climax. 
 
 Ἑβραῖος ἐξ “EBpaiwv : ‘a Hebrew sprung from Hebrews.’ (Comp. 
 
 ‘2 Cor.xi.22.) The Greek Ἑβραῖος (Lat. Hebraeus) comes through 
 the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine (/7edrajaz). Greek and Roman 
 writers, however, rarely used it instead of “Iovdatos ( /udaeus) which 
 prevailed after the exile. In the O.T. ‘Hebrew’ was used habitu- 
 ally and consistently to denote the descendants of Abraham as 
 designated by foreigners, or as applied by the Hebrews themselves 
 when addressing foreigners, or when speaking of themselves in 
 
 ‘contrast with other nations. ‘The name by which the Hebrew 
 
III. 5] A HEBREW OF HEBREWS 97 
 
 nation habitually called itself was ‘Israel’ or ‘the Children of 
 Israel.’ In the N.T. Ἑβραῖος appears in Acts vi. 1, where the 
 native Palestinian Jewish-Christians are distinguished from the 
 Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews. ‘This distinction marks a dif- 
 ference of language. The O.T. does not know the word ‘ Hebrew’ 
 with reference to language. The old Hebrew is called ‘the lan- 
 guage of Canaan’ (Is. xix. 18), indicating the close relationship 
 of this Semitic tongue with that of the Canaanites, especially the 
 Pheenicians. In the Apocr. and N.T. the term ‘ Hebrew’ is used 
 almost exclusively of the Aramaic vernacular. (See Jn. v. 2, xix. 
 τ 7 20; Acts. XXi.\40,. ΧΧΠ 2. ΣΧ ἡ TA.) Exere . the) term 
 expresses the difference of language. Though a Hellenist, Paul 
 was trained in the use of the Hebrew tongue by Hebrew-speaking 
 parents. Though born outside of the Holy Land, yet as a child 
 of Hebrew ancestors, and ‘the son of Pharisees’ (Acts xxiil. 6), 
 in speech and habits of life he remained allied to the people of 
 Palestine. He might have been an Israelite and not a Hebrew 
 speaker; but he emphasises the fact that he was both a true 
 Israelite and one who used the language of his forefathers. He 
 was trained under a Hebrew teacher at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 3) ; 
 he spoke Hebrew, z.e. Aramaic (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2) ; and he 
 quotes often from the Hebrew Scriptures. (See Riehm. Handw. 
 des bibl. Alterthums, sub “ Eber” and “ Hebraer” ; Trench, Syz. 
 ΧΧΧΙΧ.) 
 
 Similar expressions, denoting position or character as resting upon birth 
 from parents of like position and character, are common in class. (See 
 Aristoph. Ran. 730; Soph. Zlect. 589; Philoc. 384; Eur. Ale. 677; Hadt. 
 1.1.3; εἴς.) 
 
 These four specifications of inherited privilege are summed up 
 by Paul in Gal. ii. 15. Matheson, Spzrttwal Development of St. Paul, 
 remarks that a man trained under such influences must, on every 
 side, have been repelled by the spectacle of the cross of Jesus. 
 He was required to accept him precisely at the point where his 
 national characteristics were assailed (pp. 36, 37). 
 
 He now passes to advantages of a distinctly personal character, 
 relating to his theological and ecclesiastical position. 
 
 κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος : ‘as touching the law a Pharisee.’ (Comp. 
 Acts xxii. 3, Xxill. 6, xxvi. 5.) 
 
 νόμον : The Mosaic law, the standing authority of which was the 
 principle on which the Judaisers insisted. ‘This is confirmed by 
 θρησκίας, Acts xxvi. 5 ; by the allusions here to concision and cir- 
 cumcision, and also by the fact that in all the words connected 
 with νόμον in vs. 5, there is an immediate reference to the Jewish 
 race and ideas. Moreover, δικαιοσ. τ. ἐν vou. corresponds with 
 
 H | 
 
98 PHILIPPIANS [111. 5, 6 
 
 similar phrases in Rom. and Gal. where the Mosaic law is contem- 
 plated, as Gal. 11. 11, 12. It was the righteousness of the Mosaic 
 system which Paul had abandoned for Christ. 
 
 These considerations do not seem to favor Lightf.’s explanation, “the 
 Mosaic law regarded in the abstract as a principle of action, being coér- 
 dinated with ζῆλος and δικαιοσύνην." 
 
 No sharp distinction can be fixed between νόμ. and ὁ véu. It is unquest- 
 ionable that νόμ. is used of the Mosaic law as well as ὁ νόμ. If Paul 
 sometimes uses νόμ. in a wider sense,— of law considered as a principle, 
 with the stress upon the conception of law itself, rather than upon its 
 historical and outward form,—the Mosaic law is habitually in the back- 
 ground of his thought as the great embodiment and representative of the 
 conception. 
 
 Φαρισαῖος : Belonging to the party of the most orthodox defend- 
 ers, observers, and expounders of the law. There may be a subtle 
 irony in these words. Paul never ceased to reverence the law 
 itself as the expression of God’s holiness (Rom. 11. 13, 20, ili. 31, 
 vil. 7, 12, 14, etc.) ; but the Pharisees’ treatment of the law struck 
 at its original dignity, since they made it void by the oral tradition 
 with which they overlaid it. (See Mt. xv. 2, 3,6; Mk. vii. 3, 5, 
 8, 9, 13; and comp. Jos. Amfg. xiii. 10,6.) Paul then may mean, 
 ‘I kept the law with Pharisaic strictness, practically dishonoring 
 it ; observing the traditions rather than the law itself.’ From this 
 point of view comp. Gal. i. 14. 
 
 6. κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν : Ironical. “41 was so very 
 zealous that I became ἃ persecutor of the church of Christ.’ Zeal 
 for God, for his house, and for his law, was the highest praise of 
 an O.T. saint. (See Num. xxv. 11, 13; 7 Koxix, 10, τὰ; Eerie: 
 [Ixviii.] 9. Comp. Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3; Rom. x. 2.) Thdrt. 
 comments: οὐ yap διὰ τὴν φιλοτιμίαν, οὐδὲ διὰ δόξαν κενήν, οὐδὲ 
 φθόνῳ βαλλόμενος, ὡς ᾿Ιουδαίων ἄρχοντες, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ τοῦ νόμου 
 φλεγόμενος ζήλῳ, τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐπορθοῦν. ---- “ Not because of ambi- 
 tion nor for empty renown, neither being smitten with envy like 
 the rulers of the Jews, but being inflamed with zeal for the law, I 
 persecuted the church.” 
 
 διώκων : Used adjectively, parallel with ἄμεμπτος. Not as a 
 substantive, as Mey., Weiss, Lips., which occurs with the article 
 (Win. xlv. 7). 
 
 δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ : ‘righteousness which is in the law.’ 
 Δικ. is used abstractly, and then concretely defined by τ. ἐν vou. 
 ‘As regards righteousness ——I mean that which is in the law’: 
 which resides in the righteous law and consists in its strict observ- 
 ance. Δικαιοσύνη is used here in its objective sense of conformity 
 to an external rule of righteousness. The righteousness is in (ἐν) 
 the law, not in the man: in the man only as he conforms to the 
 law. It is not regarded as an inward righteousness like the right- 
 eousness of faith. Comp. ἐκ νύμου (vs. 9), where the righteousness 
 
III. 6, 7] ALL LOST FOR CHRIST 99 
 
 is treated as proceeding from the law. ‘The reference need not be 
 confined to the ceremonial law, for the law is a whole (Gal. iii. το). 
 γενόμενος : ‘having become’: in the course of my pursuit of 
 legal righteousness. 
 ἄμεμπτος : See on ii. 15. Not absolutely blameless, according 
 to God’s standard, but in human judgment. (Comp. Gal. i. 14.) 
 
 On Holsten’s attempt to impugn the authenticity of the epistle by 
 endeavoring to show in this statement a contradiction of Paul’s teaching 
 elsewhere that man is unable perfectly to keep the law, see Introd. vi. 
 The blamelessness here asserted is according to human, Pharisaic standards, 
 
 7. ἀλλὰ ἅτινα ἣν μοι κέρδη : ‘but such things as were gains to 
 me.’ 
 
 ἅτινα : instead of the simple a, because of κέρδη : ‘things which 
 were of such a kind that they could be called xépdy.’ It presents 
 a category of the things specified in vs. 5, 6. See for this usage 
 ical iv. 24; Vv. 19; Phil. u.-20:+ Col. il. 23. 
 
 μοι: dative of advantage ; not of judgment, ‘in my estimation.’ 
 
 κέρδη : ‘ gains,’ taken separately ; the profits of descent, of legal 
 strictness, of zeal, etc., each attended with its own particular gain. 
 
 ταῦτα : defining and emphasising κέρδη. 
 
 ἥγημαι: ‘I have counted’: with deliberate judgment. (See on 
 ii. 6.) 
 
 ζημίαν : ‘a loss.’ The several gains are massed in one loss. 
 The word only in this epistle and Acts xxvii. 10, 21. See farther 
 on ἐζημιώθην (vs. 8). 
 
 From his former experience he now turns to his present Christ- 
 ian ideal and his efforts to attain it. 
 
 8-14. Since the hour of my conversion my estimate of the worth- 
 lessness of my legal righteousness and its profits has not changed. 
 7 continue to count them all but loss as compared with the surpass- 
 ing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. To me they 
 are mere refuse, if I can but make Christ my own and may be 
 Sound living in him, not having a righteousness of my own, which 
 ts of the law, but rather a righteousness which proceeds from God, 
 which ts based upon faith, and which becomes mine through faith 
 in Christ: a righteousness which means such intimate and prac- 
 tical knowledge of Christ as that his risen life shall be a power in 
 my life, and his sufferings shall be mine, even unto death; and 
 that so, at last, if this may be, I may be raised from the dead as 
 he was. TI speak of my desire, not of my attainment, for I have 
 not yet realised my ideal; but 7 am pressing on toward the attain- 
 
100 PHILIPPIANS [111. 8 
 
 ment and fulfilment of that which Christ contemplated in my 
 conversion. No, I have not yet attained; but one thing I do. Not 
 encouraged to self-satisfaction or relaxation of effort by what ἐς 
 past, I stretch forward, like a racer to the goal, toward that high 
 destiny to which God in Christ ts ever summoning me from heaven. 
 
 8. ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι: ‘nay then I am indeed also 
 counting.’ 
 
 BDFGKL read μὲν ουν; μενουνγε 8 AP, 17, 37. 
 
 Μὲν confirms ἡγοῦμαι, and οὖν, strengthened by ye, recurs to 
 ἥγημαι and carries it forward, thus guarding against a possible 
 misunderstanding of the last statement. ‘ Nay then, if my ἥγημαι 
 be thought to have been a mere impulsive ac¢ of breaking with 
 the past,—I am, in truth, also counting all things as loss for 
 Christ’s sake.’ His break with legal righteousness perpetuates 
 itself. For μενοῦνγε see Rom. ix. 20, x. 18. 
 
 Πάντα corresponds with ἅτινα (vs. 7): all things which formed 
 the ground of my false confidence. 
 
 διὰ TO ὑπερέχον THs γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ rev κυρίου pov: ‘ for 
 the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.’ 
 This expands διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν, thus defining more clearly the 
 motive of ἥγημαι ζημίαν. The ἥγημαι was caused by an over- 
 powering impression of Christ; the ἡγοῦμαι by the knowledge of 
 Christ. The ov in the next clause gathers additional force from 
 γνώσεως. Τὸ ὑπ. τ. γνώσ. is not a hendiadys, ‘the exceilent know- 
 ledge,’ as Vulg. ‘eminentem scientiam.’ The neuter participle 
 with the article is more graphic than the noun ὑπεροχή. (See 
 Blass, p. 151.) On substantivised neuters see Win. xxxiv. 2, and 
 comp. Rom. ii. 4, viii. 3, ix. 22; 1 Cor.i. 25; Heb.vi.17. Γνῶσις 
 is used in its original, simple sense, as Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 5, 
 viii. 1. Not in the later, philosophic sense. 
 
 τοῦ κυρίου μου: κυρίου adds emphasis to τὸν Χριστὸν (vs. 7). 
 For pov, with its sense of personal appropriation, comp. i. 3. The 
 knowledge is surpassing because its subject is Lord, to be con- 
 fessed and worshipped by the created universe (ii. 11). Christ, 
 as the subject of this knowledge, is regarded with reference to all 
 that he is or becomes to a believer. So Croc.: ‘‘Complectitur 
 personam, officium et beneficium, quae separari non possunt.” 
 
 The designations of Christ in the Epistles of the Captivity resemble 
 those in the earlier letters. “Ingots alone occurs only in Eph. iv. 21; 
 Phil. ii. 10. Χριστός and ὁ Xp. are very frequent. The title κύριος added 
 to the personal name occurs chiefly in the beginnings of the epistles, as 
 Eph. i. 2; Philem. 3; Phil. i. 2; but Christ is commonly styled κύριος or 
 ὁ κύριος simply, especially in the formula ἐν κυρίῳ. In Phil. ὁ κυρ. 7u.’IX 
 is not found. In Philem., which contains nearly all the formulas, the simple 
 
 ᾿ Xrés occurs only in vs. 6. 
 
 ΄ 
 
 ihe cts has 
 
 Wah. Gans 
 
III. 8, 9] ALL LOST FOR CHRIST IOI 
 
 τὰ πάντα : collectively. (Comp. Rom. viii. 32, xi. 36; 1 Cor. 
 viii. 6.) Accusative of reference. ‘I became loser in respect of 
 all things.’ 
 
 ἐζημιώθην : “1 became loser.’ The verb means ‘to fine,’ ‘to 
 amerce,’ ‘to mulct,’ and is to be taken in its passive sense; not 
 as middle or reflexive, ‘I have made myself lose,’ which is con- 
 trary to N.T. usage. (See Mt. xvi. 26; Lk. ix. 25; 1 Cor. iii. 15 ; 
 Bees vil, Os ΕΧΧ x, xxl. 22} Prov. xix!’ τὸ, xxii. 2.) The 
 middle sense would ascribe ἐζημ. as an act to Paul himself, whereas 
 the thought is that, having been grasped and possessed by Christ, 
 his former possessions fell away. ‘The aorist points to the defin- 
 ite period of his conversion. In that great crisis all his legal 
 possessions were lost. 
 
 καὶ ἡγοῦμαι : continuous present. (See above.) It may be 
 regarded as dependent on δι᾽ ov (Mey., Ellic., Lightf.), or as a 
 new point, and parallel with ἡ γοῦμ. πάν. ζημ. (Weiss). ‘The latter 
 seems a little simpler, ἐζημ. having its motive in δι᾿ ov, and iva 
 κερὸ. being the motive of ἡγοῦμ. σκύβ., thus contrasting the gain 
 with what he threw away as worthless. On the other explanation, 
 iva xepd. adds a motive to δι᾽ ov. 
 
 σκύβαλα : ‘refuse.’ Only here in N.T. (Comp. LXX; Sir. 
 xxvil. 4.) Belonging wholly to later Gk., as Plut., Jos. The 
 derivation cannot be certainly shown. Suidas says κυσιβαλόν ; 
 2.6. τὸ τοῖς κυσὶ βαλλόμενον, ‘that which is thrown to the dogs.’ 
 More probably connected with σκώρ, ‘stercus.’ (See Curtius, G&. 
 Etym. i. 167 [Eng.].) It signifies either ‘excrement’ or ‘the 
 leavings of the table.’ A strong expression from the man who 
 could write Gal. i. 14. Some of the patristic interpreters were 
 embarrassed by this passage because the apparent disparagement 
 of the law was seized upon by Antinomians, and used in their 
 own interest. Hence they tried to modify Paul’s meaning by 
 referring it to the comparative value of the law. The law was a 
 light, but unnecessary after the sun had arisen. It was a ladder, 
 useful to mount by, but useless after one had mounted. On the 
 same line σκύβαλα was explained by the chaff, which is part of the 
 ripening corn, but is thrown away in the threshing. (See Chr.) 
 
 Χριστὸν Kepdyow: Appropriate Christ and make him his own, 
 with all of grace and glory that attaches to him. Paul’s earnest- 
 ness is shown in his reiteration: κέρδη, ζημίαν, ἐζημιώθην, πάντα, 
 Χριστόν, etc. 
 
 He proceeds to show what is involved in winning Christ. 
 
 9. καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ : For εὑρεθῶ, see on ii. 7. Often in the 
 passive in the sense of ‘to be seen, discovered, or proved to be.’ 
 (See Acts v. 39; Rom. vii. 10; 1\Cor. iv. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 12; Gal. 
 ii. 17.) Here pointing to the recognition by others of Paul’s 
 
 i) 
 
102 PHILIPPIANS [111. 9 
 
 union with Christ. (Comp. Ign. #ph. xi.; 7 γαϊ, xiii.) By some 
 commentators it is referred to the last day, either wholly or in 
 part (see Lightf.) ; but the entire line of thought refers to union 
 with Christ in this life. The final result appears in vs. 11. Calv. 
 wrongly makes εὑρεθῶ active, and explains that Paul had renounced 
 all that he had in order that he might find it in Christ. 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ : See on ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (i. 1). The same idea appears 
 ini. 21; Gal. 11. 20: the state of identification with Christ’s life 
 as the principle of salvation; the immanence of that principle in 
 the human life. Comp. also Jn. xiv. 20, xv. 2,4, 5, 7, ἘΠ: 21, 
 23. “The Christian,” says Weiss, ‘ exercises all the functions of 
 his life in Christ. In him, or in fellowship with him, are rooted 
 trust (Phil. ii. 19, 24), joy (Phil. iii. 1, iv. 4, 10), boldness 
 (Philem. 8), Christian refreshment (Philem. 20). In him one 
 speaks (Eph. iv. 17) ; executes his ministry (Col. iv. 17) ; enter- 
 tains another (Phil. ii. 29) ; maintains unanimity with another 
 (Phil. iv. 2); obeys another (Eph. vi. 1). In him one is 
 strengthened, and can do all things (Eph. vi. 10; Phil. iv. 13).” 
 — Bib. Theol. § του. Christ, the personified revelation of the 
 divine love, is the ruling principle of the human personal life, so 
 that this life moves in Christ as in its own peculiar element. To 
 be in Christ is to have the Spirit of Christ and to be one Spirit 
 with him (Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 17). See note at the end of 
 this chapter on Paul’s conception of righteousness by faith. 
 
 μὴ ἔχων : Expressing the mode, not the condition of being in 
 Christ. 
 
 ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην : “ἃ righteousness of my own.’ Not ‘my own 
 righteousness,’ as A.V., for no such thing exists; but a righteous- 
 ness which might be described as my own. ‘ My own righteous- 
 ness’ would be τὴν ἐμὴν dux. (Comp. Rom. x. 3.) 
 
 τὴν ἐκ νόμου: Defining ἐμ. δικ. A righteousness which could 
 be called ‘mine’ would be a righteousness ‘ proceeding from (éx) 
 the law.’ He lays down a general proposition: Human righteous- 
 ness is legal righteousness. It is contained in the law (vs. 6), and 
 passes from the law to the man as the man obeys the law (Rom. 
 x. 5). ‘The man’s righteousness is generated by its precepts. 
 
 διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ : ‘ through faith of (in) Christ.’ Διὰ marks 
 faith as the medium of attaining righteousness. (Comp. Rom. 
 iii. 22 ; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8.) For ‘ faith of Christ’ = ‘faith zm 
 Christ,’ comp. ΜΚ. xi. 22; Rom. iii. 22; 2 Cor. x. 5; Gal. 11. τό, 
 111. 223 12 Thess, di, ng 785: gece 
 
 τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει : ‘the righteousness which 
 is from God resting upon faith.’ A further definition of τὴν διὰ 
 mio. Xp., describing its source and its basis. It proceeds from 
 God, and is therefore in contrast with ἐμὴν dx. The phrase is 
 not synonymous with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Rom. i. 17), which signifies 
 righteousness which is God’s ; which resides in him as his attri-. 
 
III. 9, 10] THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH 103 
 
 bute ; not, as commonly explained, righteousness which is from 
 God, and is bestowed by him upon man. Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is of 
 course assumed in τ. ἐκ Oe. dix. The ideal and the source of right- 
 eousness are in God. God is the source of the atoning work of 
 Christ which contemplates man’s righteousness, and Christ is ‘ the 
 image of his substance’ (Heb. i. 3; see 2 Cor. v. 21, and Sanday 
 on Rom. p. 162). As related to man, the righteousness of God 
 rests upon (ἐπὶ) faith, “re (ry) faith which each man exercises 
 towards God in Jesus Christ. ‘This is the only instance of the 
 phrase ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει in N.T. It expresses διὰ πίστεως a little more 
 definitely, and sets forth the only true basis of all human righteous- 
 ness. It is, indeed, true that righteousness rests ultimately on 
 God, and not on faith ; but if that is an objection, the same would 
 lie against dix. ἐκ πίστ. (Rom. ix. 30, x. 6). Lightf., following Ril. 
 and van Heng., renders ἐπὶ ‘on condition of.’ But Paul is here 
 speaking rather of the essential character of this righteousness 
 than of the terms on which it is received by men. It belongs to 
 the nature of God’s righteousness as imparted to man that it rests 
 upon faith (Rom. iv. 5). 
 
 Lightf. refers to Acts iii. 16, though ἐπὶ there is a doubtful reading. 
 WH. omit, with x* B. Tisch., R.T., and Weiss retain. 
 
 Mey. supplies ἔχων, repeated after ἀλλὰ; ‘having on the ground of faith 
 righteousness through faith,’ which is harsh and quite unnecessary. Equally 
 awkward is the connection of ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει with εὑρεθῶ, as Weiss. Rather 
 it is to be connected with δικαιοσύνην immediately preceding. The omission 
 
 of the article before ἐπὶ τ. rior. has numerous precedents in cases where 
 the whole expression represents one idea. 
 
 He goes on to show in what this righteousness by faith consists. 
 
 10. τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν : ‘that I may come to know him.’ Taken 
 up from the γνώσεως of vs. 8, and explaining it. Tod γνῶναι is the 
 infinitive of design, setting ‘forth | the end contemplated in the 
 righteousness of faith. For this ἃ: ‘usage see Mt. xxiv. 45; Lk. ii. 
 24,27; Acts xxvi. 18; 2:Cor. x. 13; Gal. iii, 10; and Burt. 397; 
 Win. xliv. 4 ὁ. 
 
 Lips. and ΚΊ. codrdinate τοῦ yv. with ἕνα εὑρεθῶ, as representing, not 
 the purpose of being found in Christ, nor the object for which Paul pos- 
 sesses the righteousness of faith, but the #zode in which he desires to be 
 found in Christ. But the dependence on what immediately precedes is 
 most natural. In τὸν Χτὸν xepd. and εὑρεθῶ two elements are given which 
 do not furnish a parallel to τοῦ γνῶναι, and Paul’s habit is to join two 
 parallel clauses of design with a double ἵνα. (See Rom. vii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 3; 
 Gal. iii. 14.) The difference, however, is not important. Calv., Grot., 
 Beng., make τοῦ yv. dependent on τῇ πίστ., describing the power and the 
 nature of faith. But this construction with rior. has no parallel in N.T. 
 The change of construction from ἕνα in vs. 9 to the infin. of design is not 
 uncommon in Paul. (See Rom. vi. 6; Col. i. 9, 10.) 
 
 For γνῶναι, see on i. 19. Paul’s end is, indeed, εἰδέναι, the 
 absolute knowledge ; but he is here speaking rather of his coming 
 
a 
 
 104 PHILIPPIANS [III. 10 
 
 into a knowledge of the riches of Christ in the process of his 
 experience. See Lightf. on Gal. iv. g ; and comp. Jn. vii. 27; 
 t Cor. ii. 11; Gal. iv. 8,9; Eph. v. 5; 1 Jn. i. 18, 20. τ τὴ 
 iv. 16. It should also be noted that, in N.T. Greek, γινώσκειν 
 often implies a personal relation between the knower and the 
 known, involving the influence of the object of knowledge upon 
 the knower. (See Jn. ti. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor.ii. 8; τ] τ πὸ τὸ 
 Jn. the relation itself is expressed by the verb (Jn. xvii. 3, 25; 
 I Jn. 11. 3, 4, Vv. 20). Here, therefore, ‘that I may come to know,’ 
 appropriating with the increase of knowledge. 
 
 The two following details are involved in personal knowledge 
 of Christ : 
 
 καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ: ‘and the power of his 
 resurrection.’ Καὶ is more than a simple connective. It intro- 
 duces a definition and fuller explanation of αὐτὸν. Δύναμιν is not 
 the power by which Christ was raised from the dead (Chr., Géc.), 
 nor, as Theoph., “because to arise is great power”’; nor Christ’s 
 power to raise up believers. Like the preceding expressions, it 
 describes a subjective experience. It is the power of the risen 
 Christ as it becomes a subject of practical knowledge and a power 
 in Paul’s inner life. It is thus within the same circle of thought 
 as Rom. vi. 4-11. (Comp. Col. iii. 1 ff.) The resurrection is 
 viewed, not only as something which Paul hopes to experience 
 after death, nor as a historical experience of Christ which is a 
 subject of grateful and inspiring remembrance, but as a present, 
 continuously active force in his Christian development. The 
 beginning of the life of faith is a moral resurrection, a rising with 
 Christ (Rom. vi. 5; Col. iii. 1), inaugurating ‘newness of life’ 
 (Rom. vi. 4), —life in the Spirit (Rom. vii. 6), a life essentially 
 identical with the ζωὴ αἰώνιος and ἐπουράνιος of the glorified Jesus. 
 Comp. Eph. i. 19, 20, ii.5, 6 ; and see the very suggestive remarks 
 of Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, ch. v. “The rising with Christ is put, 
 not as an object of hope, but as belonging to the present, from 
 the moment when ‘the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the 
 dead’ (Rom. viii. 11) takes up its abode in believers ; so that the 
 rising with Christ is so far a fact as that for them a new life is 
 opened (2 Cor. v. 15; Gal. ii. 19). Thus, equipped with the 
 death-overcoming, spiritual life-power of Christ, they enter upon 
 a condition in which they are enabled to overcome the power of 
 sin in their members, so that sin shall not have dominion over 
 them (Rom. vi. 13, 14; Col. iii. 5).””— A7épper. Thus the 
 knowledge of the power of Christ’s resurrection appears as an 
 element of the righteousness of faith. ‘This explains Paul’s phrase 
 ‘justification of ἄγε ᾽ (Rom. v. 18). ‘This knowledge includes the 
 assurance of immortality. ; 
 
111. 10] FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST’S SUFFERINGS 105 
 
 καὶ κοινωνίάψν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ: ‘and the fellowship of his 
 sufferings.’ 
 
 DFGKLP τὴν before κοιν. 
 
 Som) 2\Cor, 1.5; ἵν. 10, τα ; Gal. vi.’ 1 3 \Col.1. 24.32 Pet. iv. 
 13. A participation in the sufferings which Christ endured in his 
 mortal life. (Comp. Heb. xii. 2, 3.) Such participation is involved 
 in the knowledge of Christ. It is not merely ethical. It does not 
 refer, except by implication, to the victorious power of suffering. 
 Nor is a mere likeness to the sufferings of Christ intended. Like 
 the knowledge of the power of the resurrection, the fellowship of 
 the sufferings is involved in the mystical union with Christ, and is 
 treated by Paul as a verification of this ‘at its hardest and most 
 decisive point’’ (Weiss). Being in Christ involves fellowship with 
 Christ at all points, —his obedient life, his spirit, his sufferings, 
 his death, and his glory. The order of arrangement here is the 
 _ true one. The fellowship of the sufferings follows the experience 
 of the power of the resurrection. For the power of the resurrec- 
 tion appears in justification of life; and the new life in and with 
 Christ puts its subject where Christ was, — in that attitude towards 
 the world which engenders contradiction, reproach, and persecu- 
 tion. As Mey. truthfully observes: “The enthusiastic feeling of 
 drinking the cup of Christ is not possible unless a man bears in 
 his heart the mighty assurance of resurrection through the Lord.” 
 One who is not under the power of the resurrection will not share 
 Christ’s sufferings, because his moral attitude will not be such as 
 to call out the assaults of the world. (Comp. Jn. vii. 7.) How 
 this desire was fulfilled in Paul appears in the Acts, and in allusions 
 in his letters. (See 1 Cor. iv. 10-13, xv. 31; 2 Cor. iv. 8-12; 
 Gal. vi. 17.) Christ had said of him, ‘I will show him how great 
 things he must suffer for my name’s sake’ (Acts ix. 16). 
 
 συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ : ‘becoming conformed unto 
 his death.’ 
 
 xe De EKL συμμορῴφουμενος. 
 FG συνφορτειζομενος, ‘ being burdened together.’ 
 
 The conception of fellowship with Christ’s sufferings is further 
 unfolded to its last point—even unto death. (Comp. ii. 8.) 
 Συμμορφίζεσθαι not elsewhere in Bib. The adj. σύμμορφος occurs 
 ill. 21; Rom. viii. 29. The participle is in apposition with the 
 subject of τοῦ γνῶναι. (Comp. Eph. iv. 2; Col. i. 10.) Not 
 middle, ‘conforming myself to,’ but passive. The conformity is 
 not ethical, as Rom. vi. 3-11, but is a conformity with the suffer- 
 ings of Christ’s earthly life, even unto death. It does not necessa- 
 rily indicate, as Mey., a distinct contemplation of Paul’s martyrdom. 
 (Comp. i. 25, 26, il. 23, 24.) The thought is rather that of 1 Cor. 
 XV. 31; 2 Cor. iv. το. (Comp. Rom. viii. 17.) The suffering of 
 
106 PHILIPPIANS [111. 10, 11 
 
 this present time works together with all things for the good of 
 those who love God (Rom. viii. 28) ; and such God ordained to 
 be ‘ conformed [συμμόρφους ] to the image of his Son’ (Rom. viii. 
 29). ‘The participle indicates the process of development. 
 
 11. εἴ πως καταντήσω eis τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν : ‘if Pos- 
 sibly I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.’ The words 
 connect themselves most naturally with συμμορφ. τῷ θαν. αὖ., ac- 
 cording to Paul’s habitual association of resurrection with death. 
 Resurrection, physical or ethical, is attained only through death. 
 
 Lips., without assigning any reason, and KI. for reasons which seem 
 fanciful, connect with γνῶναι, 
 
 For εἴ πως see Acts xxvil. 12; Rom.i. 10, xi.14. Much unnec- 
 essary difficulty has been made over the apparent uncertainty 
 expressed in these words, and the fancied inconsistency with the 
 certainty elsewhere expressed by Paul, as Rom. viii. 38, 39, v. 17, 
 18, 21; 2 Cor. v.1ff.; Phil. 1. 22,23. He elsewhere unease 
 necessity of caution against a possible lapse from faith (ii. 12 ; 
 1 Cor. x. 12; Gal. iil. 3, v. 4), and he takes the same caution to 
 himself (1 Cor. ix. 27). His words here are an expression of 
 humility and self-distrust, not of doubt. Weiss remarks that while, 
 on the human side, the attainment of the goal may be regarded 
 as doubtful, or at least conditioned upon humble self-estimate, on 
 the side of the working of divine grace it appears certain. 
 
 xatavrav: Only in Paul and Acts. In Paul, of persons, 1 Cor. 
 x. II, xiv. 36; of ethical relations, Eph. iv. 13. In Acts always 
 of places, except xxvi. 7. 
 
 καταντήσω is aor. subj., as καταλάβω (vs. 12). El with the subj. is rare 
 in good class. prose, but occurs in LXX, and is common in later Greek. 
 
 (See Burt. 253, 276.) 
 τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν : 
 KL, Arm., Cop., read ἐξαν. των νεκρων. So TR. 
 
 ᾿Ἐξανάστασις occurs only here in Bib. The verb ἐξανιστάναι is 
 found Mk. xii.9; Lk. xx. 28; Acts xv. 5, but in neither of the 
 passages of the rising of the dead. Why the compound word was 
 selected instead of the simple ἀνάστασις, we cannot explain. Pos- 
 sibly, as Mey., in order to give greater vividness to the image ; 
 but this is far from satisfactory. Beng.’s explanation, that it is 
 intended to mark the resurrection of believers as distinguished 
 from that of Christ, is arbitrary and fanciful. ᾿Ανάστ. or ἐξανάστ. 
 éx is found only three times in N.T. (Lk. xx. 35; Acts iv. 2; 
 r Pet, 4°). 
 
 Lightf. says: “The general resurrection of the dead, whether good or 
 bad, is ἡ ἀνάστ. τῶν vex. (4.5. I Cor. xv. 42); on the other hand, the resur- 
 rection of Christ and of those who rise with Christ is generally [ἡ] ἀνάστ. 
 
III. 11, 12] NOT YET PERFECTED 107 
 
 [ἡ] ἐκ vex.” This can hardly be borne out. See Rom. i. 4, ἀνάστ. vex., of 
 Christ, —so Acts xxvi. 23; I Cor. xv. 42, 43, ἀνάστ. τ. vex., of a resurrection 
 which is in incorruption, glory, and power; Acts xvii. 31, ἐκ vex., of Christ; 
 VS. 32, dvdor. vex. It is true that in every case where ἐκ occurs the reference 
 is to the resurrection of the just, but three instances are not enough to build 
 such a distinction upon. 
 
 The reference here is clearly to the resurrection of believers. 
 The question of the resurrection of the wicked is irrelevant ; and 
 the idea of a reference to a spiritual resurrection while still in the 
 body is entirely without support. 
 
 12. οὐχ ὅτι: See on iv. 11. Supply λέγω, ‘I say not that.’ 
 (Comp. Jn. vi. 46 ; 2 Cor. i. 24, ili. 5 ; Phil. iv. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 9.) 
 
 ἤδη ἔλαβον : Ἤδη ‘now,’ marks the point of time at which all the 
 past experience has arrived. ἔλαβον covers Paul’s entire past up 
 to the time of writing. Its object is not expressed, but is all that 
 is included in vs. 8-11. 
 
 Lightf. is wrong in insisting that the aorist points to a definite past 
 epoch, and translating ‘Not as though by my conversion I did at once 
 attain.’ The aorist is frequently used to express duration extending to the 
 present. See Ellic. on 1 Thess. ii. 16, and comp. Lk. xiv. 18; Rom. ili. 2; 
 Gal. v. 24; Eph. 111. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 16. See also Beet, Expositor, Ist ser. 
 
 i. p. 375, 6. 
 
 The Lem of objects suggested for ἔλαβον is bewildering. A favorite 
 one is βραβεῖον from vs. 14. So Chr., CEc., Theoph., Beng., Ellic., Mey., 
 Fad., Beet, Ril. Meyer says that Bankicesv i is the bliss of Messiah’s king- 
 dom, and that ἔλαβον is to be explained of his having attained in ideal 
 anticipation(!); Beet, “the full blessedness of the kingdom of Christ for 
 which he must wait till the resurrection from the dead.” But who could 
 possibly have imagined that he Aad attained this? There is no reason for 
 anticipating βραβεῖον. 
 
 non τετελείωμαι : ‘am already made perfect.’ 
 
 DFG add 7 76n δεδικαιωμαι. 
 
 TereX. explains ἔλαβον more definitely, or puts literally what ἔλ. 
 had put figuratively. “EX. regards the whole past as a completed 
 act ; rer. the whole past gathered up in its relation to the pres- 
 ent. The perfection referred to is moral and spiritual perfection. 
 (Comp. Eph. iii. 17-19, iv. 13-16 ; Col. i. 28; and Ign. L£ph. ile 
 Οὐ διατάσσομαι ὑ ὑμῖν, ὡς wv τι" εἰ γὰρ καὶ Semi ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, οὔπω 
 ἀπήρτισμαι ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ : ‘I do not command you as though 
 I were somewhat, for even though I am in bonds for the Name’s 
 sake, I am not yet perfected in Jesus Christ.’ Comp. Phz/ad. v.) 
 The verb is used by Paul only here, but is common in Heb. 
 
 διώκω δὲ : ‘but I pursue,’ or as A.V., ‘ follow after’; better than 
 R.V., ‘press on.’ The eagerness of Paul to attain his ideal is 
 emulated by that of some of the commentators to bring βραβεῖον 
 up into this verse. There is no need of supplying it with διώκω, 
 nor need διώκω be taken absolutely. Its object lies in ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ 
 
108 PHILIPPIANS [111. 12 
 
 κατελήμφθην, etc., and is the same as that of ἔλαβον. The pursuit 
 is no groping after something undefined, nor is it prpsecuted with 
 any feeling of doubt as to the attainment of its end. Though he 
 had zealously pursued the ‘law of righteousness’ (Rom. ix. 31) 
 as a son of Israel, he was now pursuing the righteousness of faith 
 with even greater zeal, under a mightier impulse, and with a 
 clearer view of his goal. It is doubtful whether the metaphor of 
 the race comes in here (as Ellic., Mey., Alf., Ead.) : κατελήμφθην 
 does not suit it. Διώκειν is often used by Paul, with: 1t that refer- 
 ence, for striving after the blessings and virtues of the Christian 
 life. (See Rom. ix. 30, 31, xii. 13, xiv. 19,5 Cor, xiv. a 5 5 
 v.15.) Instead of the idea of the race giving color to διώκω, it 
 is quite as likely that διώκω suggested the metaphor in vs. 14. 
 For διώκειν with καταλαμβάνειν, see Rom. ix. 30; J] XX; Sir. xi. 
 10, xxvii. 8. 
 
 εἰ kal καταλάβω ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμῴφθην : ‘if I may .0 grasp that 
 for which I was grasped.’ 
 
 Tisch. omits καὶ before καταλάβω with x* DFG, Syr., Ce , Arm., Goth., 
 fkth. και is found in xe ABDKLP, Syr.2. So WH., R.T., /eiss. 
 
 καὶ: ‘if I may not only pursue but aéso attain.’ For εἰ καὶ, 
 see on ii. 17. For the progression from διώκειν to κιταλαμβάνειν, 
 comp. Rom. ix. 30. From λαμβάνειν to καταλαμ., aid from τρέ- 
 xere to καταλαμ., 1 Cor. ix. 24. Καταλαβεῖν is ‘to overtake and 
 seize.’ (See. Jn. i..5, xi. 355) Rom: ix, so5nn Corsix, 27) 
 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην : The divine grace in Paul’s conversion 
 is the moving power of his Christian development The fulfil- 
 ment of the ideal contemplated by Christ when he transformed 
 him from a persecutor to an apostle is the goal whic} invites him. 
 He desires to grasp that for which he was grasp: d by Christ. 
 The aorist marks the time of his conversion, which τι 4s literally a 
 seizure. Not, however, as Chr. and Thdrt., that Paul is conceived 
 as running to destruction and pursued and seized by “Christ. 
 
 To view his conversion as a seizure is not to deny the work of previous 
 influences upon his mind preparing the way for the crisis of,the journey to 
 Damascus. (See Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, inl. ; Bruce, δὰ Paul’s Con- 
 ception of Christianity, ch. ii.; Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, 
 ch. 11.» ill., —see especially pp. 46, 47.) 
 
 Ἔφ᾽ ᾧ is relative to a suppressed antecedent, sai as Lk. v. 25, 
 ‘ that for which I was grasped.’ ‘ 
 Weiss refers the relative to καταλάβω simply, and renders ‘ wherefore.’ 
 So Lightf. Others, as Chr., Thdrt., Mey., Lips., make ἐφ᾽ ¢ = ἐπὶ τουτῷ 
 
 ὅτι, and render * because,’ taking καταλάβω absolutely. Calv., ‘ quemad- 
 modum, just as.’ 
 
 Kai refers to ἐφ᾽ 6, adding the purpose of his being grasped to 
 the assertion of his effort to grasp: ‘which I not only strive to 
 grasp, but for which aéso I was grasped.’ 
 
111. 13] FORGETTING WHAT IS BEHIND 109 
 
 The next .wo verses substantially repeat the assertions of 
 vs. 12—the disavowal of satisfaction with his attainment, and 
 the declaration of his strenuous pursuit of his spiritual ideal. 
 
 13. ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὔπω λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι : ‘I count not 
 myself yet to have grasped.’ 
 
 ovrw, WH. [], Tisch., R.T., with s ADP, 17, 31, 47, 80, Cop., Syr.P, Ath. ; 
 BDFGKL, VyJg., Goth., Arm., read ov. 
 
 Both ἐγὼ and ἐμαυτὸν are emphatic, expressing strongly his own 
 estimate of himself. (Comp. Lk. vii. 7; Jn. viii. 54; 1 Cor. iv. 3.) 
 It is quite superfluous to introduce an implied comparison with 
 the judgment of others, either of those who think too highly of 
 him, or of th se who think too highly of themselves. Such an 
 estimate, in ij:elf, is in strong contrast with self-righteousness and 
 religious con: “it. 
 
 λογίζομαι : “1 count’ or ‘ reckon,’ very often in Paul, and almost 
 confined to ΠΣ epistles. Only four times elsewhere in N.T. The 
 idea of a pro ess of reasoning always underlies it. 
 
 ἕν δέ: Supply ποιῶ, not λογίζομαι, as Mey., for ἕν refers to what 
 follows, whichis a matter of doing, not of reckoning. 
 
 Others supply φροντίζω, μεριμνῶ, διώκω, οἶδα, λέγω. Such ellipses of 
 the verb are common in Paul; ey. ii. 3, 5; Rom. iv. 9, v. 18; Gal. iii. 5; 
 2 Cor. vi. 13. (See Win. Ixvi. 1 ὁ.) 
 
 τὰ μὲν Oriow: ‘the things which are behind.’ The portion of 
 his Christian Sourse already traversed. Not his experience as a 
 persecutor of the church. With ra ὀπίσω, comp. τοῦ viv (i. 5); 
 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ (1°12); τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν (i. 27, ii. 19, 20); τὰ περὶ ἐμέ 
 
 (il. 23). °Ox’ yw only here by Paul. 
 
 . 
 The metap:; or of the race now first enters. 
 
 ἐπιλανθανόμινος : “ forgetting.’ The word nowhere else in Paul ; 
 sparingly in Synop., Heb., and Jas.; often in LXX. No special 
 emphasis attaches to the compound. In class. it occurs some- 
 times, but rarely, in the sense of ‘forgetting wi/fudly’ (Hdt. iii. 
 147, lv. 43). But so also does the simple verb (Hom. JZ. ix. 537; 
 Esch. Ag. 39). Not to be understood as if Paul were ashamed 
 of what lay behind him in his Christian career, or as if he did not 
 emphasise it 4s exhibiting the grace of God. (See 1 Cor. iv. 11- 
 16, xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 23-xii. 6.) Rather that he does not use 
 the memory of what God has wrought in him and through him to 
 encourage self-satisfaction and relaxatioi. of effort. He is stimu- 
 lated by the past to renewed energy in Christian self-development 
 and in the building-up of Christ’s church. (See 1 Cor. ix. 19-27.) 
 
110 PHILIPPIANS [111. 13, 14 
 
 τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν : The higher attainments in the Christian life. 
 Only here. 
 
 ἐπεκτεινόμενος : ‘stretching forward.’ A graphic word from the 
 arena. The body of the racer is bent forward, his hand is out- 
 stretched towards the goal, and his eye is fastened uponit. “The 
 eye outstrips and draws onward the hand, and the hand the foot” 
 (Beng.). The metaphor is from the foot-race, not from the 
 chariot-race. Lightf. observes that of looking back would be 
 fatal to the charioteer. ‘The word has passed into sporting lan- 
 guage — ‘the home-stretch.’ *Ezex., nowhere else in Bib. "Exreé- 
 νειν, often in Synop. with χείρ. (Comp. ἐκτένεια, Acts xxvi. 7; 
 ἐκτενής, I Pet. iv. 8 ; ἐκτενῶς, Acts xii. 5 ; τ Pet. i. 22.) 
 
 14. κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω : ‘I press on towards the mark.’ 
 
 κατὰ : Bearing down upon. xordv, only here in N.T. That 
 on which one fixes his Zook. (Comp. σκοποῦντες, ii. 4.) In class. 
 a mark for shooting at; also a moral or intellectual end (Plat. 
 Gorg.507D; Phileb.60 A). In LXX; Jobxvi. 13; Lam. iii. 12, 
 of an archer’s mark. It is not used in a technical sense of an 
 appliance of the race course, as R.V. ‘ goal.’ ox) 
 
 διώκω : ““εὐφαντικώτατα δὲ τὸ διώκειν εἶπεν. Ὁ yap διώκων οὐδὲν 
 ἄλλο δρᾷ ἡ πρὸς ὃ σπεύδει, πάντα δὲ παρέρχεται, καὶ τὰ φίλτατα καὶ 
 τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα." “ Most appropriately did he say διώκειν ; for he 
 who pursues sees nothing but that towards which he is hastening, 
 and passes by all things, the dearest and the most necessary” 
 (Theoph.). 
 
 eis τὸ βραβεῖον : Βραβ., only here and 1 Cor. ix. 24. The kin- 
 dred verbs, βραβεύειν, ‘to be umpire,’ and καταβραβεύειν, ‘to be 
 umpire against,’ ‘ to defraud of a prize,’ are peculiar to the Colos- 
 sian letter. (See iii. 15, ii. 18.) βραβ. is not used technically of 
 the prize in the games, the technical word being ἦθλον. Here the 
 heavenly reward; the ‘crown of righteousness’ (1 Cor. ix. 24-- 
 27; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Apoc. ii. 10) ; a share in the glory of the 
 exalted Christ (Rom. vill. 17; 2 Tim. 11. το, 11). “(Comm 
 1 655. i, 12; 1 Tim. vi. 12.) 
 
 τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: ‘of the upward 
 calling of God in Christ Jesus.’ 
 
 The expression ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις is unique. The only analogous 
 phrase in N.T. to βραβ. τ. ἄνω KA. is ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως (Eph. i. 
 18, iv. 4). The genitive of κλ. is the genitive of belonging. The 
 prize is attached to the calling and involved in it. 
 
 Lips. and De W. make the genitive appositional: ‘the prize which is the 
 high calling.’ This would identify the calling with the heavenly reward, and 
 would leave βραβ. without definition. 
 
 ἔλνω means both ‘ above,’ local, as Gal. iv. 26, and ‘ upwards,’ as 
 Jn. xi. 41; Heb. xii. 15. Here the latter. Comp. the striking 
 
111. 14] THE HEAVENWARD CALLING 111 
 
 parall. in Philo, De Plant. oe. § 6. The whole passage is full of 
 movement, onward and upward. (Comp. Col. ili. 2.) 
 
 Most comms., however, make ἄνω = ἐπουράνιος, describing the guadity 
 of the calling as heavenly. (Comp. Heb. iii. 1.) Mey. and Weiss say, 
 ‘because it issues from God in heaven.’ Why not then ἄνωθεν ? 
 
 κλήσεως : The act of calling. Not that to which he is called 
 (De W., Lips.). The word does not lose its active sense in N.T. 
 It may include the original call of God to Paul, but it is not to be 
 limited to that. God is continually summoning men upward in 
 various ways. Nor does the expression suggest God as the judge 
 of the contest, summoning the runners to the race (so some earlier 
 comms. as Wolf, Rosenm., am E., Hoel., van Heng.). The geni- 
 tive is that of the subject, that which offers the prize. God, in 
 calling men upward, calls them to a heavenly reward. The prize 
 is the object of ‘the hope of the calling’ (Eph. i. 18). 
 
 τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ : Connect with κλήσεως. The calling 
 is ‘of God,’ because God is its author, and ‘in Christ Jesus’ as 
 the sphere or element in which it is issued and prosecuted. For 
 the expression ‘called in Christ Jesus,’ comp. 1 Cor. vii. 22; 
 a: Pet: ¥. τὸ: 
 
 Mey. and Weiss connect with διώκω; but the position is against this. 
 
 15-21. Let us, therefore, who, by our profession, are committed 
 to this high Christian ideal of perfection, cherish this spirit of 
 humble dissatisfaction with past attainments and of earnest striv- 
 ing after all that is involved in our heavenward calling. And ff, 
 in any particular, your ideal of the possibilities of Christian attain- 
 ment and of your proper attitude towards these differs from that 
 which 7 have held up to you, God will correct this by future revela- 
 tions; but only on the condition that you act up to the ideal which 
 you already have, and follow the rule which it imposes. Brethren, 
 unite in imitating me, and carefully observe those whose conduct 
 resembles mine. For there are many, of whom I have told you 
 often, and now tell you, even weeping, that their conduct marks 
 them as the enemies of the cross of Christ. The end of such ts 
 destruction. Their god is their belly. Their minds are set upon 
 earthly things. They glory in that which ts their shame. We, on 
 the other hand, are citizens of a commonwealth which is in heaven, 
 whence we await the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ as 
 Saviour; and when he shall appear, he will, by that power which 
 _ enables him to subject all things to himself, refashion this body 
 
112 PHILIPPIANS [III. 15 
 
 which belongs to our mortal state of humiliation, and fashion ti 
 after the likeness of that body which belongs to him in his heavenly 
 
 glory. 
 
 The exhortation of vs. 15, 16 shows the effect of the strong 
 emotion which pervades the preceding passage. The general 
 sense is clear, and becomes embarrassing only when the attempt 
 is made to adjust all its parts and their connection according to 
 rigid rhetorical rules. The apostle has just held up his own lofty 
 ideal of Christian character. He has disclaimed the having at- 
 tained it, because its transcendent greatness will not allow him to 
 be satisfied with past attainments, and only stimulates him to more 
 strenuous effort. In this attitude of humility and aspiring exer- 
 tion, he exhorts his readers to imitate him. At the same time, he 
 recognises the possibility that their ideal of Christian perfection 
 may differ from his own in some particulars, and be lower than 
 his own, in which case God will correct the defect by future reve- 
 lations. But the condition of such revelations is, that they practi- 
 cally carry out their own ideals, such as they are, and live strictly 
 according to the rule of conduct which they impose. 
 
 15. ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν : ‘Let as many of us there- 
 fore as are perfect be thus minded.’ Paul here includes himself 
 among the τέλειοι, although in vs. 12 he has said οὐχ ἤδη τετελεί- 
 wyuot. Evidently the two expressions are not used in the same 
 sense. In vs. 12 he is speaking of adsolute perfection, such as 
 would relieve him of the necessity of further striving. In τέλειοι 
 he is speaking of ve/ative perfection. (Comp. Mt. v. 48.) Τέλειος 
 has two senses in the N.T.: 1. ‘ full-grown,’ ‘ mature,’ in contrast 
 with childish ignorance and weakness, as 1 Cor. ii. 6, xiv. 20; 
 Heb. v. 14. 2. Absolutely, as Mtv. 48; Jas. 1. 4, 111... 2. Ὑεῖ, 
 in this absolute usage, there is a distinction which is illustrated in 
 
 “Mt. v. 48. As used there of the absolute perfection of God, it 
 cannot be used of the perfection which is enjoined by Jesus upon 
 men. That perfection is relative. Similarly here, the ideal con- 
 dition is ascribed to those who are, by their profession, committed 
 to it as their own ideal, just as ἅγιοι is used of those who are, 
 though not absolutely holy, yet consecrated to the holy God. As 
 Rilliet remarks, “The word meaning what ought to be is taken by 
 concession to mean what is, evidently with the intention of attach- 
 ing the reality to the ideal, and of recalling to believers the obli- 
 gations involved in the title.” Τέλειοι here is, therefore, a general 
 designation of the Christian condition in all its aspects, not, as 
 
III. 15] DO NOT CEASE TO STRIVE 113 
 
 Lips., with reference only to Christian knowledge. It is the same, 
 practically, as πνευματικοί (1 Cor. ili. 1; Gal. vi. 1). It does not 
 imply any special contrast, as with weaker brethren, Judaisers, 
 indifferentists, etc., nor is there any reason for attributing to it an 
 ironical sense, as Lightf., who compares 1 Cor. viii. 1. 
 
 Alf., Mey., Lightf., Ead., Beet, explain τέλειοι as ‘ mature,’ ‘advanced in 
 Christian experience.’ 
 
 τοῦτο φρονῶμεν : For dpov., see on i. 7. A more delicate quality 
 is given to the exhortation by Paul’s associating himself with his 
 readers. (Comp. Rom. v. 1.) 
 
 The zmmediate reference of τοῦτο is to vs. 13, 14. Let us 
 beware of thinking that our attainment is such as to make further 
 striving unnecessary. ‘Let us rather cherish that humble self- 
 estimate which shall stimulate us to press toward the mark for 
 the prize of our heavenward calling.’ Nevertheless we cannot 
 entirely separate these two verses from the whole representation 
 of the Christian ideal from vs. 7. To have such an estimate of 
 the greatness of the future as to forget the past, to have such a 
 sense of the magnitude of the prize as to be constantly dissatisfied 
 with former attainments and to be ever pressing on to something 
 higher, to have such an ideal of Christ as to make one constantly 
 feel his own littleness and insufficiency, — implies knowing Christ, 
 being found in Christ, the casting aside of human righteousness, 
 and such knowledge of the eternal possibilities of life in Christ as 
 can be obtained only through mystical union with him. 
 
 καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε: Ki with the indicative implies a case 
 which is quite supposable. “Erépws, only here in N.T. ‘ Other- 
 wise’ than what? The point of comparison must not be too 
 rigidly fixed at any detail of the context, such as the humble self- 
 estimate and the earnest striving, or the great fundamental ele- 
 ments of Christian life, such as having the righteousness of faith, 
 or being found in Christ; for ἑτέρως would express too feebly 
 differences on points so vital, and Paul would have met such with 
 something more than the promise of further revelations. The 
 reference is loose, and concerns mor points in the character- 
 istics of the τέλειοι generally considered. It was entirely possible 
 that many of his readers, although having a genuine faith in Christ, 
 and fully accepting the doctrine of justification by faith, might 
 not have apprehended his profound views of mystical union, or 
 have had the same clear ideas as himself concerning certain prac- 
 tical applications of doctrine; even that they might not have felt 
 the impulse to higher spiritual attainment in its full stringency, 
 and might have been inclined to regard his conduct and senti- 
 ments in certain particulars as exaggerated. Such facts are famil- 
 iar to every Christian pastor. In the first Corinthian letter Paul 
 insists on the unity of the body of Christ and the sin and danger 
 
 I 
 
114 PHILIPPIANS [111. 15, 16 
 
 of breaking it. Yet there were those in that church, many of 
 them, no doubt, sincere and earnest believers, who did not grasp 
 the application of this truth to the question of eating idol-meats. 
 The force of φρονεῖτε should be carefully noted. It has been 
 shown (ch. i. 7) that φρονεῖν signifies the general disposition of 
 mind rather than the specific act of thought; and its use here 
 shows that the apostle is not dealing specially, if at all, with differ- 
 ences of opinion, but rather with dispositions which underlie the 
 spiritual life. The differences concern form, point of emphasis, 
 extent of application, rather than substance or subject-matter. 
 
 Lightf. explains, ‘if progress be your rule, though you are at fau/t on 
 any subject, God will reveal this also to you’; translating ἑτέρως ‘amiss.’ 
 So Ril. and Lum. There is classical precedent for this meaning, but it is 
 entirely unknown in N.T. 
 
 kat τοῦτο : ‘this also’; in addition to what God has already 
 revealed. Τοῦτο refers to τι ; ‘this,’ whatever it be, in which you 
 may be otherwise minded. Not, ‘shall reveal that you are wrong, 
 and that I am right’ ((Ec., Calv., Grot.), nor ‘shall show whether 
 you are right or I’ (Ew.), nor identical with the preceding τοῦτο 
 (Beng.). 
 
 ἀποκαλύψει : ᾿Αποκαλύπτειν is to unveil something that is hidden, 
 thus giving light and knowledge. (See Gal. i. 16, iii. 23; Eph. 
 ili. 5.) Hence, of God’s giving to his servants insight into divine 
 truth (Mt. xi. 25, 27, xvi. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 10, xiv. 30. See West- 
 cott, /ntrod. to the Study of the Gospels, p. 9 ; Trench, Sym. xciv.). 
 Paul here means a revelation by the indwelling Spirit of God 
 (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 10-16), either directly or through apostolic 
 teaching, experience, or other means. 
 
 16. πλὴν : ‘nevertheless’; ‘notwithstanding.’ (Comp. i. 18.) 
 Though there may be things concerning which you need further 
 revelation, ‘nevertheless,’ the condition of your receiving this is 
 your walking according to your present attainment of light and 
 knowledge. 
 
 εἰς ὃ: ‘whereunto’; to whatever divinely revealed knowledge. 
 Thus ὃ carries on the thought of ἀποκαλύψει. You need further 
 revelation, nevertheless, walk according to such revelation as you 
 have received. Notice the καὶ before τοῦτο (vs. 15), implying 
 previous revelation. 
 
 ἐφθάσαμεν: ‘we have attained.’ The verb means, primarily, 
 ‘to come before,’ ‘to anticipate,’ as 1 Thess. iv. 15. In N.T. it 
 mostly loses the sense of anticipation, and signifies simply ‘to 
 come’ or ‘arrive at,’ though occasionally with a sense of sudden- 
 ness or surprise, as Mt. xii. 28 ; 1 Thess. ii. τό. 
 
 τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν : ‘by that same walk.’ That same knowledge 
 already revealed. For the dative of the norm or standard, see 
 Acts xv. 1; Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16; Win, xxxi. 6 ὁ. 
 
IIT. 16, 17] IMITATE HOLY EXAMPLES 115 
 
 Στοιχεῖν from στοίχος, ‘a row.’ Hence ‘ to walk zz Zine.’ (Comp. 
 Acts xxi. 24; Gal. vi. 16.) ‘To march in battle-order’ (Xen. 
 Cyr. vi. 3, 34). Comp. συνστοιχεῖ (Gal. iv. 25), ‘answereth to ;’ 
 z.e. belongs to the same row or column with. Hence the letters 
 of the alphabet were called στοιχεία, and also the elements or 
 parts of asystem. (See Gal. iv. 3,9; Col. ii. 8; 2 Pet. iii. 10.) 
 
 The infin. here for the imperat., as Rom. xii. 15. 
 
 TR. after στοιχεῖν adds kavov To auto φρονειν with x® KLP, Syr.¥; this 
 was inserted from Gal. vi. 16; DEFG, 31, 37, 80, It., Vulg., Goth., Arm., read 
 To αὐτο φρονειν τω αντω στοιχειν; De Εἰ, Vulg., Goth., Arm., add κανονι. 
 
 Alf., Mey., Dw., refer εἰς 6 to the grade of moral and spiritual progress 
 already attained. But this involves an awkwardness in the correlation of 
 eis ὃ and τῷ αὐτῷ. ‘Els ὃ in that case would imply a common point of 
 attainment which it is impossible to determine, and which does not agree 
 with ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε. Lightf. explains τῷ αὐτῷ as the rule of faith opposed 
 to works, and thinks that the words were added as a parting caution against 
 ‘the dogs,’ ‘the concision,’ etc. He renders, ‘let us walk by the same rule 
 whereunto we attained.’ But the rule is not the point of attainment, but 
 only the way to it. KI. explains ἐφ᾽ ὃ of a potentia/ attainment in the 
 possession of the law of righteousness which Israel had not attained in its 
 pursuit (Rom. ix. 30). This norm, in virtue of which they are new creatures, 
 is the rule by which they are to walk. This seems forced. 
 
 17. Στοιχεῖν marks an advance of thought, from the principle 
 and spirit of Christian life (φρονῶμεν) to its practice (περιπατεῖν). 
 The following clause is awkwardly constructed, and lends itself to 
 different interpretations. 
 
 Συνμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, etc.: Render, ‘Brethren, be ye unitedly 
 imitators of me, and carefully observe those who walk as ye have 
 us for an example.’ The exhortation consists of two parts: 
 1. Unite in imitating me. 2. Observe those whose conduct 
 resembles mine. Thus οὕτω and καθὼς are correlative, ‘who 
 walk so, as ye have,’ etc. The awkwardness is in ἔχετε where 
 we should expect ἔχουσι: ‘observe those who walk as ¢hey have 
 us,’ etc. The phrase, however, is compressed, and means ‘ walk 
 as you do who have me for an example.’ 
 
 ἡμᾶς : Paul and his associates, as Timothy, Epaphroditus, and 
 others known to the Philippians. Paul, in speaking of himself, 
 occasionally uses the plural for the singular, as in 2 Cor. i. 23, 24, 
 xi. 21; but the instances are not as numerous as is sometimes 
 supposed. (See Lightf. on 1 Thess. ii. 4.) 
 
 Mey., Weiss, Ellic., render ‘Be imitators wzth others (σὺν) who imitate 
 me (viz. those described i in the next clause), and mark those who walk zz 
 this way (οὕτω absol. and not correl. with καθὼς) : inasmuch as (καθὼς) γε 
 have ws (2.6. both myself and those who εν walk) as an example.’ This 
 relieves the awkwardness of ἔχετε, but: It lays unnecessary emphasis 
 on Paul’s calling attention to his own Siiere 2. It shifts σὺν from its 
 emphatic position in an independent clause to the next clause, from which 
 it is separated by καὶ and another verb. 3, It makes οὕτω περιπ. refer to 
 
116 PHILIPPIANS [III. 17, 18 
 
 συνμιμ. ylv., in which, indeed, it may be implied; but by the other con- 
 struction it is directly and naturally related to what follows by περιπ. of 
 vs. 18. 
 
 συνμιμηταί μου : Σὺν signifies the union of the subjects of γίνεσθε : 
 ‘be wnztedly imitators of me.’ Notas Beng., ‘be imitators along 
 with me in imitating Christ.’ There is no reference to Christ in 
 the context. Svvyip. only here in Bib. No self-conceit is implied 
 in pov. (Comp. 1 Cor. iv. τό, xi. τ, τ Thess. 1.6; 2 Thea 
 7, 9.) 
 
 σκοπεῖτε : See On ii. 4, and comp. Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 18. 
 
 τοὺς περιπατοῦντας : Paul often uses περιπατεῖν to describe con- 
 duct. (See Rom. vi. 4, viii. 1; 1 Cor. iti. 3; Gal. v.16; Eph. ii. 2.) 
 Never in the literal sense. In the Synop., on the other hand, it 
 never occurs in the metaphorical sense, and but once in Acts 
 (xxi. 21). The metaphorical sense appears in John, especially in 
 the Epistles. - (See Jn. (Evy.) vill. 12, xi. 35; 1 Jn. 1: ὁ 7 ΠΟ 
 ΤΊ; Εἴ:) 
 
 τύπον : Frequent in Paul; as Rom. ν. 14, vi. 17; 1 Cor. x. 6, 
 11; 1 Thess.i. 7. Originally ‘the impression left by a stroke’ 
 (τύπτειν). (See Jn. xx. 25.) Generally, ‘image,’ ‘ form,’ always 
 with a statement of the object which it represents. Hence ‘ pat- 
 tern,’ ‘example.’ 
 
 The exhortation is enforced by the contrast presented by those 
 who follow a different example. 
 
 18. πολλοὶ : Precisely who are meant cannot be determined. 
 According to most of the earlier expositors, the Judaisers de- 
 scribed in vs. 2. So Lips. Some later authorities, as Weiss and 
 Ril., the heathen. The majority of modern comms., antinomian 
 Libertines of Epicurean tendencies: nominal Christians of im- 
 moral life. So Lightf., Mey., Kl., De W., Ellic., Alf., Beet. 
 
 Weiss (Am. Journ. of Theol. April, 1897, p. 391) is very severe upon 
 this explanation. He reasons that it is impossible to conceive of such 
 nominal Christians in the beloved Philippian church, and identifies the 
 πολλοὶ with the κύνες of vs. 2, who, according to him, are the heathen. He 
 cites Apoc. xxii. 15 for κύνες, and in his latest commentary, 2 Pet. ii. 22. 
 But the latter passage is distinctly of apostate Christians. 
 
 περιπατοῦσιν : ‘conduct themselves’ ; ‘behave,’ as vs. 17. It is 
 unnecessary to supply a qualifying word, as κακῶς. 
 
 πολλάκις ἔλεγον : When he was at Philippi, or possibly in former 
 letters. (See on vs. 1.) 
 
 νῦν : Contrasted with πολλ. ἐλ. 
 
 κλαίων : This deep emotion would more probably be excited by 
 recreant Christians than by heathen whose sensuality and worldli- 
 ness were familiar to the Apostle. He would be most sorrowfully 
 
III. 18, 19] ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST 117 
 
 affected by the reproach and injury to the church wrought by 
 professing Christians, and by their own unhappy and perilous 
 condition. 
 
 τοὺς ἐχθροὺς : In apposition with the preceding relative ovs. (See 
 Win. lix. 7.) The article marks the class which they represent. 
 
 τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ : Comp. Gal. vi. 12. Σταυρὸς is the 
 usual N.T. word for Christ’s cross. In Acts v. 30, x. 39, both 
 quotations, ξύλον occurs ; also in 1 Pet. ii. 24. Paul uses ξύλον in 
 quotation, Gai. iii. 13, and in his speech at Pisidian Antioch as 
 reported in Acts xiii. 29. (Comp. Ign. Smyr.i.; Tradl. xi.) Differ- 
 ent surmises (for they are little more) have been offered as to the 
 particular point at which Paul conceives this enmity to be directed, 
 such as the preaching of the law against the cross (Theo. Mop., 
 Thdrt.) ; the hatred of the cross through fear of persecution 
 (Grot., Beng.) ; the hatred of the gospel because the cross is its 
 central truth (Calv., Weiss) ; hatred of the cross through reluc- 
 tance to crucify self or to suffer with Christ (Chr., Mey.). Such 
 limitations of the Apostle’s thought are uncalled for. Enmity to 
 the cross might include any or all of these particulars. Assuredly 
 the title ‘enemies of the cross’ was justly applied to such as are 
 described in vs. 19. 
 
 These enemies are more specifically described as to their char- 
 acter and destiny. Their destiny is significantly treated first. 
 
 19. ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια : ‘whose end is destruction.’ 
 
 To marks the definiteness of the point to which their conduct 
 tends.. Τέλος is more than mere termination. Rather consumma- 
 tion ; the point into which the whole series of transgressions finally 
 gathers itself up. (Comp. Rom. vi. 21; 2 Cor. xi.15 ; Heb. vi. 8.) 
 ᾿Απώλεια occurs in N.T. both in the physical and in the moral 
 sense. For the former see Mt. xxvi. 8; Acts viii. 20. The latter 
 is the more common, and Paul always uses it thus. 
 
 ὧν ὃ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία : Comp. Rom. xvi. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 13. The 
 rare word κοιλιοδαίμων, ‘one who makes a god of his belly,’ occurs 
 in the Κόλακες of the comic poet Eupolis, and in Athenzeus. 
 (Comp. Eurip. Cyclops, 335.) Xen. Mem. i. 6, 8, ii. 1, 2, has 
 δουλεύειν γαστρί, ‘to be the slave of the belly’; and Alciphro, ii. 4, 
 γαστρομαντεύομαι, ‘to divine by the belly.’ The contrast appears 
 in Rom. xiv. 17. The suggestion of Lips. (so Theo. Mop.) that 
 the reference may be to Jewish laws about meats, is fanciful. 
 
 καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν : That in which they glory is their 
 disgrace. ‘Their so-called liberty is bondage to slavish lusts. For 
 δόξα, see on i. τι. With ἐν supply ἔστι ; ‘consists in.’ Beng., 
 Mich., Storr, with Lips., refer αἰσχύνη to ‘the concision’ (vs. 2), 
 and explain ‘ pudenda.’ 
 
 οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες : ‘who mind earthly things.’ Their 
 
118 PHILIPPIANS [III. 19, 20 
 
 general disposition and moral tendency are worldly. (See oni. 7.) 
 This is the root of their depravity. A contrast is suggested, prob- 
 ably intended, with τοῦτο φρονῶμεν, vs. 15. (Comp. Col. iii. 2.) 
 
 The change of construction to the nominative οἱ φρονοῦντες is variously 
 explained. Win. xxix. 2, takes οἱ gpov. as a disconnected nominative with 
 an exclamatory force. So De W., Lightf. Mey. and Hack. refer it to the 
 logical subject of what precedes. Ellic. and Alf. regard it as a return to 
 the primary construction, πολλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν. Of these explanations Win. 
 is the least probable. The two others have grammatical precedent, but it 
 is better to place the construction in the category of those instances which 
 are not uncommon in N.T. and in class., where the nominative is introduced 
 in a kind of apposition with what precedes. This is especially frequent in 
 Apoc. (See Mk. vii. 19; Acts x. 37; Apoc. i. 5, vii. 4, xx. 2; Blass, § 31, 
 6; Jelf, 477.) 
 
 Ta ἐπίγ. ppov. is the basis of a new contrast. Their character 
 and conduct mark them as belonging to this world; but we are 
 citizens of a heavenly commonwealth. 
 
 20. ἡμῶν : Emphatic as contrasted with οἱ τὰ ἐπίγ. ppov. (vs. 19). 
 
 yap: As in Gal. ill. 10, v. 5, confirming the statement concern- 
 ing the one party by showing the opposite course or character of 
 the other. The connection is with ἐπίγ. dpov. Their course is the 
 opposite of ours ; 7207, while they mind earthly things, our mind is 
 set upon the interests of the heavenly commonwealth to which we 
 belong. The repetition of φρονεῖν as marking the general moral 
 tendency or disposition is noticeable. 
 
 τὸ πολίτευμα : ‘commonwealth.’ (Comp. πολιτεύεσθε, i. 27, 
 note.) 
 
 No sharp distinction can be drawn between πολίτευμα and πολιτεία. 
 Arist. makes πολίτευμα the concrete of πολιτεία, ‘the government’ as the 
 expression of citizenship (Pol. iii. 6, I, iii. 7, 2), and also identifies the two 
 (Pol. iii. 13, 8, iv. 6,8). He defines πολιτεία as ‘commonwealth’ (Pol. iii. 
 7, 3, iv. 8, I, iv. 4,19). In 2 Macc. iv. 11, viii. 17, πολιτεία is ‘ govern- 
 ment’; in xiii. 14, apparently, ‘state’ or ‘commonwealth.’ Lightf. gives 
 only two meanings of πολίτευμα, ‘the state,’ and ‘ the functions of citizens.’ 
 But it also means ‘an act of administration’; ‘a measure of government’; 
 and ‘a form of government.’ In the absence of any permanent distinction, 
 the rendering ‘ citizenship’ (R.V. ‘commonwealth’ in marg.) is justifiable. 
 The rendering of the A.V., ‘ conversation,’ is founded on the original sense 
 of that word, ‘conduct or behaviour in intercourse with society.’ 
 
 ὑπάρχει : ‘is.’ (See on ii. 6.) Due emphasis must be laid on 
 the use of the present tense. The believer zow zs, in this present 
 world, a citizen of the heavenly commonwealth. The πολίτευμα is 
 not, therefore, as Mey., to be explained as Messiah’s kingdom 
 which has not yet appeared, and of which Christians are citizens 
 only in an ideal or proleptic sense which is to be completely 
 realised at the parousia. While it is true that the full realisation 
 of the heavenly commonwealth will come with the favousza, it is 
 no less true that those who are in Christ, whose ‘life is hid with 
 Christ in God’ (Col. iii. 3), for whom ‘to live is Christ’ (Phil. i. 
 
111. 20] THE HEAVENLY COMMONWEALTH 119 
 
 21), who are ‘ crucified with Christ’ and live their present life by 
 faith in him (Gal. ii. 20), are zow members of the heavenly com- 
 monwealth, and live and act under its laws. Their allegiance is 
 rendered to it. They receive their impulses to action and conduct 
 from it. Their connection with it is the basis of their life of 
 ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’ (Rom. xiv. 
 17), as distinguished from the life of belly-worship and worldliness. 
 They ave ‘ fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of 
 God (Eph. ii. 19). ‘The commonwealth of believers zs an actual 
 fact on earth, because it is one with ‘ the Jerusalem that is above’ 
 (Gal. iv. 26). Comp. .52. zo Diognetus, 5, which describes Christ- 
 ians: ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται ; apparently 
 a reminiscence of this passage. See also Plat. Repub. 592, and 
 the remarkable parall., Philo, De Confus. i. 416. 
 
 The consummation of this citizenship, however, is yet to come. 
 As members of the heavenly commonwealth they are still pressing 
 on in obedience to the upward call (vs. 14). Hence they are in 
 an attitude of expectation. 
 
 ἐξ οὗ: ‘whence’: from heaven. Not from the πολίτευμα as 
 Beng., Lips. The phrase is adverbial. (See Win. xxi. 3.) 
 
 Kai marks the correspondence of the expectation with the fact 
 of the πολίτ. ἐν οὐρ. 
 
 ἀπεκδεχόμεθα : ‘we await.’ (Comp. 1 Thess. i. 10.) The word 
 occurs but twice outside of Paul’s letters (Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. iii. 
 20; comp. Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25; Gal. ν. 5). It denotes earnest 
 expectation. (See on ἀποκαραδοκία [i. 20].) Used habitually in 
 N.T. with reference to the future manifestation of the glory of 
 Christ or of his followers. 
 
 σωτῆρα: ‘as Saviour.’ Without the article, and predicative. 
 Notice the emphatic position. The Lord is also to come as 
 Judge; but they come not into judgment (Jn. iii. 18, v. 24). 
 Among the privileges of Christians described in Heb. xii. 22-24, 
 is that of drawing near to the Judge who is God of all. It is in 
 the capacity of Saviour that they await him — the same capacity 
 in which they have already received and known him. They look 
 for him to complete their salvation, and therewith to deliver them 
 from the sufferings which they have shared with him, and from the 
 infirmities and limitations of the flesh. (Comp. Rom. viii. 19 ff. ; 
 2 Cor. v. 4.) 
 
 To await him as Saviour from ἀπώλεια (Weiss) is quite out of 
 place in a Christian’s expectation of his Redeemer. wrap is 
 found often in 2 Pet. and in the Pastorals. In the other Pauline 
 epistles only Eph. v. 23. In six cases in the Pastorals and one in 
 Jude, it is applied to God. 
 
 κύριον : See on ii. 11. Answering to the idea of πολίτευμα. 
 
120 PHILIPPIANS [111. 21 
 
 The special aspect in which the expected Saviour is viewed is 
 that of a transformer, changing the mortal body of the believer 
 into the likeness of his own glorified body. 
 
 21. ὃς μετασχηματίσει: ‘who shall refashion.’ For the verb 
 see 1 Cor. iv. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 13-15. (See on ii. 8, and comp. 
 ἀλλαγησόμεθα [τ Cor. xv. 51].) The verb signifies the change of 
 the outward fashion (σχῆμα), the sensible vesture in which the 
 human spirit is clothed. See Just. M. Dial. Try. 1., where σχῆμα 
 is used of the philosopher’s dress. 
 
 The Jews looked merely for the restoration of the present body, 
 Paul’s idea includes an organic connection with the present body, 
 but not its resuscitation. ‘The new body is not identical with the 
 present body. ‘There is a change of σχῆμα, but not a destruction 
 of personal identity. ‘‘‘There is a real connection or some corre- 
 lation between the present and the future embodiment, but not 
 identity of substance. ‘The life, the principle of life, the individu- 
 ality of it, shall remain unbroken, but ‘the matter of life,’ as the 
 physiologists say, shall be changed” (Newman Smyth, O/d Faiths 
 in New Light, p. 364). Paul’s conception is developed under the 
 figure of the seed-corn in 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν : ‘the body of our humiliation.’ 
 Not as A.V. ‘vile body.’ To construe the phrase as a hendiadys 
 is grammatically wrong (see on iii. 8), and the apostle is far from 
 characterising the body which Christ honored by his tenancy as 
 base in itself. Such a sense, moreover, would lend countenance 
 to the Stoic contempt for the body. The meaning is, the body in 
 which our mortal state of humiliation is clothed. This body is 
 called ‘ the body of our humiliation,’ primarily in order to emphas- 
 ise the contrast between it and the glorified body of the Lord, 
 but also with a subordinate reference to its weakness, its subjection 
 to vanity, corruption, and death,—its sufferings, and the hin- 
 drances which it offers to Christian striving and spiritual attain- 
 ment. (Comp. Rom. viii. 20-24.) 
 
 There may possibly be an implied contrast of the glory of the transformed 
 body with that glory of the sensualists which is their shame (Ellic., Mey., 
 Weiss), but this must not be pressed. Nor do I find in the expression the 
 hortative element which Ellic. thinks that he detects, and likewise K1., who 
 
 says it is an exhortation to preserve their bodies as temples of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 σύμμορφον : ‘ that it may be conformed.’ 
 TR. adds εἰς To γενεσθαι αὐτὸ with Dbande EKLP, συγ, Probably 
 supplied to meet the apparent difficulty of the appositional accusative. 
 
 The adjective denoting the effect of the transformation is added 
 appositionally instead of forming an independent sentence with 
 cis τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό. (Comp. Mt. xii. 13; 1 Thess. iii. 13; and 
 
111. 21] THE BODY OF CHRIST’S GLORY 121 
 
 see Win. lxvi. 3g.) As μετασχ. denoted change of outward fash- 
 ion, σύμμορφ. denotes conformation to what is essential, per- 
 manent, and characteristic in a body which is the appropriate 
 investiture of Christ’s glorified condition—a ‘spiritual body’: 
 a conformity which is inward and thorough, and not merely 
 superficial On the union of Christians with the spiritual life 
 of Christ which belongs to the heavenly world (Rom. vi. 5), rests 
 their hope that they shall be saved in his life and conformed to 
 its heavenly investiture. (See Rom. v. 9, 10, vili. 10, 11.) 
 
 σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ: ‘to the body of his glory.’ Not as 
 A.V. ‘glorious body,’ by hendiadys, which dilutes and weakens: 
 the conception. See on vs. 8, and for other misapplications of 
 the figure hendiadys, comp. A.V. Rom. viii. 21, ‘glorious liberty’ ; 
 2 Cor. iv. 4, ‘glorious gospel’; Eph. i. 19, ‘mighty power’; 
 1 Pet. i. 14, ‘obedient children.’ The resurrection in the N.T. 
 is habitually conceived in connection with corporeity, but a cor- 
 poreity in keeping with the heavenly life. (See Weiss, διό. Theol. 
 Eng. §§ 19, 34.) The phrase ‘body of his glory’ signifies the 
 body in which he is clothed in his glorified state, and which is the 
 proper investiture of his heavenly glory; the form in which his 
 perfect spiritual being is manifest. ‘This glory is peculiarly and 
 originally the glory of the incorruptible God, and therefore be- 
 longs to an embodiment which retains no trace of earthly materi- 
 ality or corruption, but is altogether informed and determined by 
 the higher vital principle (πνεῦμα) and is its appropriate organ 
 (σῶμα πνευματικόν, τ Cor. xv. 44). Accordingly this glorified 
 body is no longer in antithesis to the πνεῦμα. It is the investiture 
 which the πνεῦμα forms for itself, and which perfectly reveals it. 
 In the resurrection, through which, as completed by the ascension, 
 Christ received this body, he became wholly πνευματικός --- a πνεῦμα 
 ζωοποιοῦν (τ Cor. xv. 45), and therefore is called τὸ πνεῦμα (2 Cor. 
 iii. 17). A foreshadowing of this appeared in his bodily mani- 
 festation between the resurrection and the ascension. His body 
 appeared as πνευματικόν though not in its full manifestation as the 
 σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. (See Newman Smyth, Old Faiths in New 
 Light, p. 358; Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, ch. ii. p. 19- 
 20 5 i Oswald Dykes, " Expositor, Ist ser. lil. p. 161 ; Mey. on 
 1 Cor. xv. 45.) 
 
 The change into the body of Christ’s glory is the consumma- 
 tion of the believer’s life in him. (Comp. vs. 9-11.) The entire 
 passage (vs. 9-21) is acomplete statement of the Pauline doctrine 
 of salvation : 
 
 1. The beginning, the intermediate stages, and the sum of all 
 are Christ (vs. 9). 
 
 2. Justification by faith and mystical union with Christ form 
 one conception — righteousness of God by faith and shige, found 
 in Christ (vs, 9). 
 
122 PHILIPPIANS [111. 21 
 
 3. This conception is carried out on the line of mystical union 
 with Christ: to know him, the power of his resurrection, and the 
 fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death. 
 Notice the repetition of αὐτοῦ, keeping Christ continually before 
 the eye (vs. 10). 
 
 4. The life in Christ is marked by earnest striving to realise the 
 ends for which the believer was grasped by Christ. He follows 
 the beckoning of God which ever summons him heavenward, in 
 order that he may at last win the heavenly prize (12-16). 
 
 5. Vital communion with Christ constitutes him a member of a 
 heavenly commonwealth. ‘To this his allegiance is rendered ; by 
 its laws his life is regulated ; its members are his brethren. As a 
 citizen of this commonwealth he eagerly awaits its consummation 
 in the final triumph and eternal establishment of the Messianic 
 kingdom (vs. 20). 
 
 6. Therefore, living in the power of Christ’s resurrection, he 
 awaits in hope the actual resurrection from the dead, wherein the 
 saving power of Christ will be displayed in the change of the mortal 
 bodies of all believers into the likeness of Christ’s glorified body, 
 and which will inaugurate the absolute and eternal dominion of 
 the commonwealth of God (vs. 21). 
 
 The warrant for this confident expectation is the divine power 
 of Christ to subject all things to himself. 
 
 κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν : ‘according to the working 
 whereby he is able’; or, more literally, ‘according to the energy 
 of his ability.’ 
 
 κατὰ : The change is ‘in accordance with’ or ‘appropriate to’ 
 Christ’s power of universal subjection. The statement both as to 
 the change itself and the power which effects it, is in accordance 
 with 1 Cor. vi. 14, xv. 53, 55; Eph. i. 19. 
 
 "Evépyeta occurs only in Paul. It is power in exercise; “ po- 
 tentia in actu exserens’’ (Calv.), and is used in N.T. only of 
 superhuman power. (See Col. i. 29, ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii.g.) It 
 is the active energy in which δύναμις displays itself. (Comp. Eph. 
 ili. 7, and see on 6 ἐνεργῶν, ii. 13.) The power or virtue which 
 was in Christ when the woman touched the hem of his garment 
 (Mk. v. 30; Lk. viii. 46) was δύναμις. In the healing of the 
 woman it became ἐνέργεια. 
 
 καὶ : ‘also’ or ‘even,’ marking the measure of the power. Able 
 not only to transform the body but aéso to subject all things to 
 himself. 
 
 ὑπόταξαι : Originally ‘to arrange’ or ‘marshal under.’ Often 
 simply ‘to subject.’ (See 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28; Eph. i. 22; Heb. ii. 
 8; Jas. iv. 7.) 
 
 τὰ πάντα : ‘all things,’ collectively, as vs. 8. 
 
111. 8-10] RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 123 
 
 PAUL'S CONCEPTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BY 
 FAITH. 
 
 M. Ménégoz, in his treatise Ze Péché et la Rédemption, says 
 that Phil. iii. 8-ro contains the most precise statement of the 
 Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. Without assenting to 
 his view that Christ was justified by his own death and resurrec- 
 tion, I agree with him as to the importance of the statement 
 contained in these verses. It does not contradict any previous 
 utterance of Paul, nor does it present any new feature; but it 
 combines and exhibits as a single conception what are commonly 
 regarded as two distinct elements of the righteousness of faith. 
 These two elements are assumed to be separately treated in the 
 Epistle to the Romans. They are, the initial, objective, judicial 
 act of declaring righteous, whereby a believer is placed in a state 
 of reconciliation with God, and the establishment, through faith, 
 of a vital union with Christ; or, to put the matter more briefly, 
 the righteousness of faith viewed as objective justification and 
 as subjective sanctification. I say ‘regarded’ and ‘assumed,’ 
 because, both on the ground of this passage and of the Epistle 
 to the Romans, I do not regard this separation as justifiable. 
 For I think that these two elements are inseparably united in 
 the Apostle’s conception of righteousness by faith. The distinc- 
 tion between justification and sanctification I regard as largely 
 technical. They represent, it is true, respectively, the initiation 
 and the consummation of the work of salvation; but Paul uses 
 ἁγιασμός both of the σης and of the process of sanctification ; 
 and that word, in Rom. vi. 19, is associated with the ‘walk in 
 newness of life’ rather than with the consummation of subjection 
 to righteousness. Having become servants of righteousness, the 
 readers stand committed to an economy of sanctification, in which 
 they are to ‘ perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord’ (2 Cor. vii. 1. 
 See Sanday on Rom. vi. 19). The point is well stated by Liddon 
 in his Analysis of Romans, pp. 17, 18: “The δικαιοσύνη which 
 God gives includes these two elements, — acquittal of the guilt of 
 sin, or justification in the narrower sense of the word, and the 
 communication of a new moral life, ‘that the ordinance of the 
 law might be fulfilled in us’ (Rom. viii. 4). These two sides of 
 the gift of δικαιοσύνη can only be separated in thought: in fact 
 they are inseparable.... The true righteousness is one, not two 
 or more. The maxim ‘justitia alia justificationis, sanctificationis 
 alia’ is not Paul’s. Paul knows nothing of an external righteous- 
 ness which is reckoned without being given to man; and the 
 righteousness which faith receives is not external only, but inter- 
 nal; not imputed only, but imparted to the believer. Justification 
 
 Γ 
 
124 PHILIPPIANS [11|. 8-10 
 
 and sanctification may be distinguished by the student as are the 
 arterial and nervous systems in the human body ; but in the living 
 body they are coincident and inseparable.” 
 
 I think that, so far as justification is a judicial act following upon 
 repentance and faith, it is regarded by Paul as the initial stage of 
 a condition of actual inward righteousness, which is to develop 
 itself in the believer’s experience as fruit from seed. (Comp. 
 Lips. Hand-Com. Ep. to Rom. Einl. p. 82.) Hence I differ from 
 Professor Bruce (51 Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 158 ff., 
 Amer. ed.), who claims that the two aspects of justification are 
 separately treated by Paul in Romans. He says: “ He does not 
 refer to the subjective aspect of faith as a renewing power till he 
 has finished his exposition of the doctrine of justification. He 
 takes up faith’s function in establishing a vital union with Christ 
 in the sixth chapter.... Does not this amount to the exclusion 
 of faith’s sanctifying function from the grounds of justification ?”’ 
 I think not. For, as Professor Bruce admits, Paul already alludes 
 to the subjective aspect of justification in the opening of the fifth 
 chapter. Being justified, we have peace with God, joy in hope of 
 glory, in tribulation, and in God himself. But, what is more to 
 the point, Paul, in the third and fourth chapters, does not treat 
 of the oferation of justification. His main point is the essential 
 guality of justification, as being by faith and not by works of the 
 law. When he does take up the operation of justification in ch. vi., 
 he treats the two aspects in combination. He does not confine 
 himself to what follows justification. He begins with the death to 
 sin. With Christ we die to sin; we are raised up with nim unto a 
 walk in newness of life. Union with him by the likeness of his 
 death implies union with him by the likeness of his resurrection. 
 Our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might 
 be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to 
 sin. “But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also 
 live with him (here, not only hereafter) ; knowing that Christ, 
 being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death no more 
 hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died 
 unto sin once for all: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto 
 God. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, 
 but alive unto God in Christ Jesus.” Comp. “ be found in him” 
 (Phil. iii. 9). 
 
 (1) In our passage Paul represents the righteousness of faith 
 as a veal righteousness in the believer. It is not founded upon 
 human merit; it is not a righteousness of legal obedience. It 
 proceeds from God and comes to man through faith in Christ 
 (vs.9). It is not perfect (vs. 12-14). None the less it is an 
 actual righteousness in the man. Justification contemplates right- 
 ness—right living, feeling, and thinking. Faith is not a substi- 
 tute for this rightness. It is its generative principle; its informing 
 
III. 8-10] RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 125 
 
 quality. God’s plan of salvation is not intended to effect, by a 
 mere legal adjustment, something which cannot be an actual fact. 
 It is not true that God practically gives up the possibility of right- 
 eous men, and merely allows the perfect righteousness of Jesus 
 Christ to stand for it. God’s intent is to make men personally 
 righteous. Paul does not teach, nor is it anywhere taught in 
 Scripture, that the requirement of personal righteousness is ful- 
 filled for man by some one else, and that man has only to accept 
 this substitute by faith. Rather Paul declares explicitly that God 
 predestined his children ‘to be conformed to the image of his 
 Son’ (Rom. vill. 29). 
 
 I shall not enter upon the discussion of the meaning of δικαιοῦν, 
 since the question does not turn upon that. It may be conceded 
 that the dominant sense of that word is forensic, ‘to declare or 
 pronounce righteous.’ That that sense can be vindicated in every 
 instance, I very much doubt. (See E. P. Gould on “ Paul’s Use 
 of δικαιοῦν,᾽" Amer. Journ. of Theol. vol. i. No. 1, and W. A. Stevens 
 in vol. i. No. 2.) But, that question apart, it should be noted that 
 the sense of a declared or imputed righteousness, if it belong to 
 δικαιοσύνη at all, is peculiar to Paul. Elsewhere it has the meaning 
 of personal rightness, or righteous quality. In the LXX it occurs 
 in nine instances as the translation of “on, ‘kindness’; while 
 MPT, ‘justice,’ usually translated by δικαιοσύνη, is, in nine cases, 
 rendered by ἐλεημοσύνη, and three times by ἔλεος. In Mt. vi. 1, 
 the TR, with the later uncials and most cursives, read ἐλεημοσύνην 
 for δικαιοσύνην ; while Ν᾿ gives δόσιν. (See Hatch, Essays in Bib- 
 lical Greek, p. 49 ff.) 
 
 (2) This conception of a real righteousness in the believer is 
 opposed to the familiar dogmatic explanation that δικαιοσύνη 
 πίστεως is not a personal but an imputed quality. According to 
 this, the righteousness is not in the man, but in Christ; and 
 Christ’s righteousness is imputed, or reckoned, or set down to his 
 account through his faith. This imputation works no subjective 
 change in the man. It is merely placing to his account the right- 
 eousness of another. He is, though not actually righteous, judi- 
 cially declared to be righteous. Thus Dr. Hodge (Syst Zheol. 
 iii. p. 144 ff.) : The imputation of the righteousness of Christ to 
 a believer for his justification “does not and cannot mean that 
 the righteousness of Christ is infused into the believer, or in any 
 way so imparted to him as to change or constitute his moral char- 
 acter. Imputation never changes the inward, subjective state of 
 the person to whom the imputation is made. . . . When right- 
 eousness is imputed to the believer, he does not thereby become 
 subjectively righteous.” ‘Thus justification, having its foundation 
 in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is only a declarative 
 act whereby a man is pronounced righteous without any actual 
 righteousness in him answering to the declaration, but solely on 
 
126 PHILIPPIANS [III. 8-10 
 
 the ground of another’s righteousness, which, in some inexplicable 
 way, is transferred to his credit. This is simply a legal fiction 
 which reflects upon the truthfulness of God. God declares a man 
 righteous when he is not righteous. “To Paul,” says Sabatier, 
 “the word of God is always creative and full of power. It always 
 produces an actual effect. In declaring a man justified, therefore, 
 it actually and directly creates in him a new beginning of right- 
 eousness’”’ (Apostle Paul, Eng. Trans. p. 300). 
 
 (3) This is clearly not the conception expressed in this passage. 
 The righteousness of faith which Paul here desires for himself is 
 a winning Christ and a being in Christ. ‘This righteousness is first 
 described generally as knowing Christ, and then, more specifically, 
 as knowing the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of 
 his sufferings, and being made conformable unto his death; that 
 is to say, the righteousness of God by faith is a being and dwell- 
 ing in Christ in such wise as that his resurrection, his sufferings, 
 his death, become actual parts of Paul’s experience and active 
 forces in it. Christ is not merely apprehended as an object of 
 trust. He is not merely known as an objective personality. The 
 believer is taken up into his life ; and his life in turn possesses the 
 believer, and becomes his informing principle and prime motor. 
 (See Gal. ii. 20.) 
 
 In short, the conception of the righteousness of faith here pre- 
 sented is not that of an external righteousness made over to the 
 believer by a legal declaration, but that of a righteousness which is 
 a real fact in the man, springing from union with the personal 
 Christ. In this mystical union the life and power of Christ are 
 transfused into the believer’s life, so that, in a sense, the person- 
 ality of Christ becomes his; so that he can say, ‘ for me to live is 
 Christ,’ and ‘not I live but Christ liveth in me.’ The old man, 
 the natural ego, is crucified with Christ ; the new man is raised up, 
 and, in the power of Christ’s risen life, walks in newness of life, 
 in fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. All 
 the righteousness which inheres in that perfect personality becomes 
 potentially his from the moment that faith puts him into living 
 connection with it. All the experience of Christ’s life becomes a 
 fact and a power in his experience. Did Christ die to sin? He 
 also dies to sin. Was Christ justified from sin by death? So 
 likewise is he. Did Christ rise from the dead? He rises from 
 the death of sin, besides sharing finally in Christ’s physical resur- 
 rection. The knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection is not 
 merely an insight into the historical meaning of those facts. Did 
 Christ suffer? The heavenly nature which he receives from Christ 
 insures for him, as it did for Christ, the contradiction of sinners 
 against himself. Was Christ perfected through suffering? He 
 attains perfection by the same road. Does Christ live unto God ? 
 He is alive unto God through Jesus Christ, and all the powers of 
 
= 
 
 111. 8-10] RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 127 
 
 that divine life descend upon him and work in him to conform 
 him to the image of the Son of God. 
 
 Says Calvin (7152. iii. 1): “ First, it is to be held that, so long 
 as Christ is outside of us and we are separated from him, what- 
 ever he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race 
 is useless and without significance to us. Therefore, in order that 
 he may communicate to us what he has received from the Father, 
 he must become ours and dwell in us. Hence he is called our 
 ‘head,’ and ‘the first-born among many brethren’; while we in 
 turn are said to be ingrafted into him and to put him on, because 
 whatever he possesses is nothing to us until we coalesce into one 
 with him.” And again (xi. 10): “Christ, having become ours, 
 makes us partakers of the gifts with which he is endowed. We 
 do not therefore view him as outside of us, so that his righteousness 
 is imputed to us ; but because we put on himself and are ingrafted 
 into his body, he has deigned to make us one with himself. 
 Therefore we boast that we have his righteousness.” So, too, 
 Luther (Werke, Erlang. Ausg. 37, 441) : “ Christ is God’s grace, 
 mercy, wisdom, strength, comfort, and blessedness. I say not as 
 some, causafiter ; that is, that he gives righteousness, and remains 
 without. For in that case righteousness is dead, nay, it is never 
 given. Christ‘is there Azmse/f, like the light and heat of the fire, 
 which are not where the sun and the fire are not.” 
 
 (4) This passage presents a conception of faith different from 
 that implied in the imputative theory. According to that, faith 
 is merely a medium by which the man is put into contact with 
 something outside of himself — “a mere hand,” as Professor Bruce 
 puts it, “to lay hold of an external righteousness.” According to 
 Paul’s teaching here, an ethical quality inheres in faith. Faith is 
 amoral energy. It “works by love” (Gal. v. 6). This accords 
 with Heb. xi., where faith is exhibited as the generator of moral 
 heroism. Righteousness, as already observed, is effected in a 
 believer by the transfusion into him of Christ’s life and character, 
 not by Christ’s righteousness being placed to his account. To 
 assume the latter is to fall back from the gospel upon the law. 
 Paul says, “ not having a righteousness of my own which is of the 
 law’’; but if the righteousness of faith is legally and forensically 
 imputed, it zs of the law. Righteousness has its roots in personal 
 relation to God. Sin is more than bad conduct. Bad conduct is 
 only the result of personal separation and estrangement from the 
 Father, God. The terrible significance of sin lies in the break 
 between a human life and its divine source; and the attainment 
 of righteousness is possible only through the reéstablishment of 
 the original birth-relation, as Christ declared in the words, “ Ye 
 must be born anew.” The mere genealogical fact of sonship must 
 be translated into a living, personal relation. This is possible only 
 through faith. A handbook of laws will-not effect it. Rules will 
 
128 PHILIPPIANS [III. 8-10 
 
 not establish personal relations. Precepts will not put a son’s 
 heart into a man. He will not love to order, nor obey because 
 he is bidden, nor trust because a trustworthy object is commended 
 to him, nor be meek and merciful because it is right to be so. 
 Being righteous is not a matter of assent to a proposition. It is 
 a matter of surrender to a person. Such surrender comes about 
 only through faith, because only faith has in it that element which 
 draws personalities, lives, hearts together. Therefore faith does 
 not count zzs¢ead of righteousness. It counts as making for (εἰς) 
 righteousness ; with a view to righteousness ; as tending to right- 
 eousness, just as the corn of wheat counts for the full corn in the 
 ear. Therein is its value. It is counted for what it is, not for 
 what it is not. It is the prime agent in righteousness. The right- 
 eousness which is of God becomes in man the righteousness of 
 faith, because in faith, which inaugurates the vital union of the 
 man with Christ, which constitutes personal and not mere legal 
 relation, lie enfolded all the possibilities of righteousness. Faith 
 is presumptive righteousness. It is the native element in which 
 righteousness evolves itself. Righteousness is begun, continued, 
 and perfected in the exercise of the faith which holds the life in 
 living contact with the personal source of holiness; in the trust 
 and self-surrender which make possible the inpouring and appro- 
 priation of all heavenly forces. “With the heart man believeth 
 unto righteousness”? (Rom. x. 10). In Christ the believer decomes 
 the righteousness of God (2 Cor. v. 21). “ Faith is that temper 
 of sympathetic and immediate response to another’s will which 
 belongs to a recognised relation of vital communion. It is the 
 spirit of confident surrender which can only be justified by an 
 inner identification of life. Faith is the power by which the con- 
 scious life attaches itself to God ; it is an apprehensive motion of 
 the living spirit by which it intensifies its touch on God; it is 
 an instinct of surrender by which it gives itself up to the fuller 
 handling of God; it is an affection of the will by which it presses 
 up against God, and drinks in divine vitality with quickened 
 receptivity” (Henry Scott Holland, in Zax Mundi, pp. 17, 18). 
 There is no true faith in Christ without the indwelling of Christ. 
 Paul makes the latter the criterion of the former (2 Cor. xiii. 5). 
 
 Pfleiderer’s treatment of this subject i is interesting and suggestive. (See 
 Paulinismus, ch. iv.) 
 
IV. 1] VARIOUS EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY, ETC. 129 
 
 IV. 1-9. VARIOUS EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY, JOY, 
 FORBEARANCE, TRUSTFULNESS, PRAYER, ATTEN-— 
 TION TO ALL VIRTUES, AND THE PRACTICE OF 
 ALL THAT THEY HAVE LEARNED FROM PAUL; 
 WITH ASSURANCES OF THE PRESENCE, GUAR-— 
 DIANSHIP, AND PEACE OF GOD 
 
 In view of this glorious future, do you, my brethren beloved, 
 continue steadfast in the Lord. I learn that Euodia and Syntyche 
 are at variance. TI beseech them to be reconciled, and I entreat 
 you, Synsygus, who are justly so named, to use your influence 10 this 
 end; for those women were my helpers in the gospel work, along 
 with Clement and other faithful laborers. Rejoice in the Lord, 
 always. TI repeat it, rejoice. Let all men see your forbearing 
 spirit; and in no case be anxious, for the Lord ts at hand. Com- 
 mit every matter to God in prayer, and pray always with thankful 
 hearts ; and God’s peace which, better than any human device, can 
 Lift you above doubt and fear, shall guard your hearts and thoughts 
 in Christ Jesus. Finally, my brethren, take account of everything 
 that ts venerable, just, pure, lovely, and of good report—in short, 
 of whatever virtue there is, and of whatever praise attaches to tt. 
 Practise what you have learned from me, and the God of peace 
 shall be with you. 
 
 1. wore: ‘so that’; ‘accordingly.’ (Comp. Mt. xii. 12; Rom. 
 vii. 4, 12; τ Cor. xv. 58; Phil. ii. 12.) Connected immediately 
 with 111. 20, 21; but through those verses with the whole of 
 ch. il., since in heavenly citizenship are gathered up all the 
 characteristics which Paul in that chapter has commended to his 
 readers. This verse may therefore be regarded as the proper 
 conclusion of ch. iii. 
 
 ἐπιπόθητοι : ‘longed for.’ A hint of the pain caused by his 
 separation from them. Only here in N.T. (Comp. Clem. ad 
 Cor. \xv.) The verb ἐπιποθεῖν occurs mostly in Paul. (See Rom. 
 1,11; 2 Cor. v. 2; Phil. i. 8, ii. 26.) "*Ezuoia only in Rom. xv. 
 23. Ἐπιπόθησις, 2 Cor. vii. 7,11. (See oni. 8.) 
 
 χαρὰ καὶ στεφανός μου : ‘my joy and crown.’ (Comp. 1 Thess. 
 ii. 19.) Χαρὰ by metonymy for the subject of joy. redavds in 
 class. mostly of the woven crown—the chaplet awarded to the 
 victor in the games ; a wreath of wild olive, green parsley, bay, or 
 pine ; or the garland placed on the head of a guest at a banquet. 
 
 K 
 
130 PHILIPPIANS [Iv.1, 2 
 
 (See Athen. xv. p. 685; Aristoph. Ach. 636; Plat. Symp. 212.) 
 So mostly in N.T., though στεφανός occurs with χρυσοῦν (Apoc. 
 xiv. 14). The kingly crown is διάδημα, found only in Apoc. The 
 distinction is not strictly observed in Hellenistic Greek. (See 
 Trench, Syz. xxiii.) Neither χαρὰ nor στεφανός applied to the 
 Philippians is to be referred to the future, as Calv., Alf. They 
 express Paul’s sense of joy and honor in the Christian fidelity of 
 his readers. (Comp. Sir. 1. 11, xxv. 6.) 
 
 οὕτως στήκετε: ‘So Stand fast.’ ‘So,’ as I have exhorted you, 
 and as becomes citizens of the heavenly commonwealth. Not, 
 ‘so as ye do stand,’ as Beng., Calv. For στήκετε see on i. 27. 
 The particle wore with the imperative retains its consecutive force, 
 but instead of a fac¢ consequent upon what precedes, there is a 
 consequent exhortation. 
 
 ἐν κυρίῳ : With the exception of Apoc. xiv. 13 only in Paul, who 
 uses it more than forty times. See on ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (i. 1). 
 Denoting the sphere or element in which steadfastness is to be 
 exhibited. (Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8.) 
 
 ἀγαπητοί : repeated with affectionate emphasis. 
 
 B, 17, Cop., Syr.8h, add μου. 
 
 Two prominent women in the church are urged to become 
 reconciled to each other. 
 
 2. Evodiav — ΣΣυντύχην : ‘Euodia—Syntyche.’ Not ‘ Euodias,’ 
 as A.V. Both are female names ; see αὐταῖς (vs. 3). Both occur 
 in inscriptions, and there are no instances of masculine forms. 
 The activity of the Macedonian women in cooperating with Paul 
 appears from Acts xvii. 4, 12. 
 
 I am a little doubtful, however, as to Lightfoot’s view that a higher social 
 influence was assigned to the female sex in Macedonia than was common 
 among the civilised nations of antiquity. I fail to find any notice of this 
 elsewhere. Lightf.’s inference is drawn wholly from inscriptions which do 
 not appear to be decisive. For example, all the inscriptions which he 
 cites to show that monuments in honor of women were erected by public 
 bodies, distinctly indicate Roman influence. The names are Roman, and 
 perpetuate the memory of different Roman gentes, a point which would 
 naturally be emphasised in a Roman co/onia distant from the mother city. 
 His assertion, moreover, that the active zeal of Macedonian women is 
 without a parallel in the apostle’s history elsewhere, seems open to ques- 
 tion in the light of the closing salutations of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 Klépper thinks that the names Euodia and Syntyche represent two women 
 in each of whose houses a separate congregation assembled, the one Jewish- 
 Christian and the other Gentile-Christian. Lipsius thinks this possible. For 
 some of the fanciful interpretations of these two names, see Introd. vi. 
 Theo. Mop. mentions a story he had heard to the effect that they were a 
 married pair, the latter name being Syntyches, and that the husband was 
 the converted jailer of Philippi. ‘The climax is reached by Hitzig (Αγ. 
 paulin. Br. 5 ff.), who affirms that Euodia and Syntyche were reproductions 
 
IV. 2, 3] EUODIA, SYNTYCHE, AND SYNZYGUS 131 
 
 of the patriarchs Asher and Gad; their sex having been changed in the 
 transition from one language to the other; and that they represent the 
 Greek and the Roman elements in the church. 
 
 παρακαλῶ : “1 exhort.’ See on παράκλησις (11. 1). The repeti- 
 tion of the word emphasises the separate exhortation to each. 
 
 τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν : ‘to be of the same mind.’ (See on ii. 2.) 
 
 ἐν κυρίῳ : With τ. ad. dpov. In that accord of which the Lord 
 is the bond: each individually in Christ, and each therefore at 
 one with the other. 
 
 3. vai: ‘yea.’ The reading καὶ has almost no support. (Comp. 
 Mt. xv. 27; Rom. iii. 29 ; Philem. 20.) The preceding exhortation 
 is enforced by introducing a third party. ‘I have urged Euodia 
 and Syntyche to live in harmony; yes, and I entreat you also,’ 
 etc. 
 
 ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ: ‘I beseech thee also.’ “Epwray originally ‘to 
 question,’ as Lk. xxii. 68; Jn. ix. 21. Only in that sense in class. 
 The meaning ‘to entreat’ belongs to later Greek. Thus rendered, - 
 it usually signifies to ask a Jerson ; not to ask a ching of a person ; 
 and to ask a person 29 do, rarely Zo give. See Trench, Syz. xl. ; 
 but his distinction between épwrav and αἰτεῖν does not hold. (See 
 Ezra Abbot, Zhe Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other 
 Critical Essays.) 
 
 γνήσιε Σύνζυγε: ‘Synzygus, who art rightly so named.’ The 
 A.V. ‘ yoke-fellow,’ gives the correct sense of the proper name, 
 and γνήσιε marks the person addressed as one to whom the name 
 is justly applied. (See on γνησίως, ii. 20. Comp. ἑτεροζυγοῦντες, 
 2 Cor. vi. 14.) It is true that this proper name has no confirma- 
 tion from inscriptions ; but such descriptive or punning names are 
 very common, as Onesimus, Chrestus, Chresimus, Onesiphorus, 
 Symphorus, etc. 
 
 The attempts to identify the person referred to are numerous, and the 
 best are only guesses. Clem. Alex., Paul’s own wife; Chr., the husband or 
 brother of Euodia or Syntyche; Lightf., Epaphroditus. But it is improb- 
 able that Paul would have written thus in a letter of which Epaph. was the 
 bearer. Others, Timothy or Silas; Ellic. and De W., the chief bishop at 
 Philippi. Wiesel., Christ; vai introducing a prayer. 
 
 συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς : ‘help those (women).’ Lit. ‘take hold 
 with.’ Assist them in reconciling their differences. (Comp. 
 Lk. v. 7.) 
 
 Lips., following Chr. and Theoph., explains the verb in a general sense: 
 ‘interest yourself in them.’ Grot. refers it to their support as widows. 
 
 αἵτινες : ‘inasmuch as they.’ See on ἅτινα (ili. 7). Not as 
 A.V. ‘who.’ The double relative classifies them among Paul’s 
 helpers, and gives a reason why Synzygus should promote their 
 reconciliation. 
 
132 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 3 
 
 συνηθλησάν por: ‘they labored with me.’ The verb only here 
 and i. 27, on which see note. It indicates an activity attended 
 with danger and suffering. (Comp. 1 Thess. 11. 2.) 
 
 ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ : the sphere of their labors. (Comp. Rom. i. 9 ; 
 1 Thess. iii. 2.) 
 
 μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος : Construe with συνηθ. ‘Who labored with 
 me in the gospel along with Clement and others.’ ‘The position 
 of καὶ between the preposition and the noun is unusual, and shows 
 that the force of the preposition extends over the whole clause. 
 
 Lightf. takes μετὰ Κλήμ. with συλλαμβ. According to this, Paul calls 
 upon Clement and the rest whose names are in the book of life to help the 
 women. But the relative clause ὧν τὰ ὀνόμ., etc., associates itself more 
 naturally with συνηθ. Paul gives this confidential commission to ene per- 
 son, and not to an indefinite number. 
 
 Philippi was probably the scene of the labors referred to, since 
 Paul speaks of- them as familiarly known. Clement appears to 
 have been a Philippian Christian who assisted in the foundation 
 of the church at Philippi. This is suggested by τῶν λοιπῶν. 
 
 The attempt to identify him with Clement of Rome, which originated 
 with Origen (/z Joann. i. 29), is generally abandoned. (See Lightf. 
 Comm. Ὁ. 168 ff.; Langen, Geschichte der Rémischen Kirche, Bd. i. S. 84; 
 Miller, Kirchengeschichte, i. 89; Salmon’s art. “Clemens Romanus” in 
 Smith and Wace, Dict. Chn. Biog.) 
 
 συνεργῶν : Comp. il. 25. Only once in N.T. outside of Paul’s 
 letters. (See 3 Jn. 8.) 
 
 ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς : ‘whose names are in the book of 
 life.’ Supply ἐστί, not εἴη, ‘ may they be,’ as Beng., who says, “‘ they 
 seem to have been already dead, for we generally follow such with 
 wishes of that sort.” The names are in the book of life, though 
 not mentioned in the apostle’s letter. The expression βίβλος or 
 βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς in N.T. is peculiar to Apoc. This is the only 
 exception, and the only case in which ζωῆς occurs without the 
 article. (See Apoc. iii. 5, xiii. 8, xvii. 8, XxX. 12, 15, ΧΧΙ, 7, sean 
 19.) It isan O.T. metaphor, drawn from the civil list or register 
 in which the names of citizens were entered. The earliest refer- 
 ence to it is Ex. xxxii. 32. (Comp. Is. iv. 3 ; Ezek. xiii. 9 ; Dan. 
 xii. 1.) To be enrolled in the book of life is to be divinely 
 accredited as a member of God’s commonwealth (comp. Lk. 
 x. 20), so that the expression falls in with τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς 
 (iii. 20). To be blotted out from the book of life (Ex. xxxii. 32, 
 33; Ps. lxix. 28) is to be disfranchised, cut off from fellowship 
 with the living God and with his kingdom. The phrase was also 
 in use by Rabbinical writers. (See Wetst.) Thus in the Targum 
 on Ezek. xiii. 9: “In the book of eternal life which has been 
 written for the just of the house of Israel, they shall not be written.” 
 Any reference to the doctrine of predestination i is entirely out of 
 
IV. 3-5] REJOICE AND FORBEAR 133 
 
 place. Flacius, cit. by Mey., justly observes that it is not fatalis 
 guaedam electio which is pointed to, but that they are described 
 as written in the book of life because possessing the true right- 
 eousness which is of Christ. 
 
 EXHORTATIONS TO THE CHURCH AT LARGE 
 
 4. χαίρετε: ‘rejoice’; the keynote of the epistle. Not ‘ fare- 
 well.’ (See on iii. 1.) 
 
 πάντοτε: With a look at the future no less than at the present, 
 and at the possibility of future trials. Only as their life shall be 
 ἐν κυρίῳ will they have true joy. 
 
 πάλιν ἐρῶ: ‘again I will say it.’ As if he had considered all 
 the possibilities of sorrow. ‘In spite of them all, I will repeat it 
 — rejoice.’ 
 
 Not as Beng., joining πάντοτε with the second χαίρετε, ‘again I will say, 
 always rejoice.’ 
 
 5. τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν : ‘your forbearance.’ From εἰκός, ‘ reason- 
 able’; hence, ‘not unduly rigorous.’ Aristot. ich. Eth. v. το, 
 contrasts it with ἀκριβοδίκαιος, ‘severely judging.’ The idea is, 
 ‘do not make a rigcrous and obstinate stand for what is your just 
 due.’ Comp. Ign. ZfA. x., ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν εὑρεθῶμεν τῇ ἐπιεικείᾳ: 
 ‘Let us show ourselves their brothers by our forbearance.’ 
 
 *Emceckjs in N.T., 1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. iii. 2, where it is joined with ἄμαχος; 
 
 I Pet. ii. 18; Jas. iti. 17, with ἀγαθὸς and εὐπειθής. ᾿Επιείκεια, Acts xxiv. 4; 
 
 2 Cor. x.1; the latter with πραύτης. LXX, ἐπιεικής, Ps. Ιχχχνὶ, (Ixxxv.) 5: 
 
 ἐπιείκεια, Sap. 11. 19; 2 Mace. ii. 22; 3 Mace. ili. 15. ᾿Επιεικῶς, not in 
 
 N.T., 1 Sam. xii. 22; 2 K. vi. 3; 2 Macc. ix.27. The neuter adjective with 
 
 the article = the abstract noun ἐπιείκεια. (Comp. τὸ χρηστὸν, Rom. ii. 4; 
 
 τὸ μωρὸν, I Cor. i. 25.) 
 
 Mey. remarks that the disposition of Christian joyfulness must 
 elevate men quite as much above strict insistence on their rights 
 and claims as above solicitude. 
 
 πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις : Not to your fellow-Christians only. 
 
 ὃ κύριος ἐγγύς : ‘the Lord is near.’ For κύριος, see on ii. 11. 
 In the Gospels usually ‘God.’ In Paul mostly ‘ Christ,’ and more 
 commonly with the article (Win. xix. 1). The phrase expresses 
 the general expectation of the speedy second coming of Christ. 
 Comp. Μαρὰν ἀθά (τ Cor. xvi. 22), ‘the Lord will come,’ or ‘ the 
 Lord is here.’ See also Rom. xiii. 12; Jas.v.8. “Eyyis, of time. 
 The connection of thought may be either with what precedes, or 
 with what follows ; 2.46. the near approach of Christ may be regarded 
 as a motive to either forbearance or restfulness of spirit. Most 
 modern expositors connect with the former, but the thought pro- 
 ceeds upon the line of the latter. Apart from this fact there is 
 nothing to prevent our connecting 6 κύρ. ἐγ. with both, as Alf. 
 
134 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 5, 6 
 
 and Ellic. ‘Be forbearing ; the Lord is at hand who will right all 
 wrongs and give to each his due. Be not anxious. The Lord is 
 at hand. Why be concerned about what is so soon to pass away? 
 The Lord’s coming will deliver you from all earthly care.’ (Comp. 
 1 Cor. vil. 29-31.) 
 
 Some of the earlier interpreters, taking éyyvs in a local sense, explain 
 of the perpetual nearness of Christ; as Mt. xxviii. 20 (Aug.). Others, taking 
 κύριος = ‘God,’ of the helpful presence of God’s providence; as Ps. xxxiv. 
 18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 18 (am E., Calov., Ril.). But this does not accord with 
 the Pauline usage of κύριος. 
 
 6. μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε : ‘in nothing be anxious.’ Μεριμνᾷν occurs 
 most frequently in the Gospels. In Paul only here and 1 Cor. 
 From the root wep or pap, which appears in the Homeric μερμηρίζ- 
 ev, ‘to be anxious,’ ‘to debate anxiously.’ The verb may mean 
 either ‘to be full of anxiety,’ or ‘to ponder or brood over.’ In 
 N.T. usage it does not always involve the idea of worry or 
 anxiety. See, for inst.,; 1 Cor. vil. 32, xi. 25 ; ΕΠῚῚ ππ τ 1 
 other cases that idea is emphasised, as here, Mt. xiii. 22; Lk. 
 x. 41. (See Prellwitz, Hiymol. Worterb. ad. griech. Sprache, sub 
 μέριμνα ; Schmidt, Syzon. 86, 3; W. Sz. on Mt. vi. 25.) The 
 exhortation is pertinent always to those who live the life of faith 
 (1 Pet. v. 7), and acquired additional force from the expectation 
 of the speedy coming of the Lord. 
 
 ἐν παντὶ : ‘in everything.’ Antithesis to μηδὲν. The formula is 
 found only in Paul. Not ‘on every occasion,’ supplying καιρῷ 
 (see Eph. vi. 18), nor, as Ril., including the idea of time; nor, 
 as Vulg., ‘in omni oratione et obsecratione,’ construing παντὶ with 
 προσ. x. Seno. Prayer is to include all our interests, small and 
 great. Nothing is too great for God’s power; nothing too small 
 for his fatherly care. 
 
 τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει : ‘by prayer and supplication.’ Zhe 
 (or your) prayer and “ke supplication appropriate to each case. 
 In N.T. the two words are joined only by Paul. (See Eph. vi. 18 ; 
 1 Tim. ii. 1, v. 5 ; LXX; Ps. vi. το, lv. [liv.] 2.) For the distinc- 
 tion, see oni. 4. The dative is instrumental. 
 
 μετὰ εὐχαριστίας : ‘with thanksgiving.’ ‘The thanksgiving is to 
 go with the prayer, 221 everything (comp. Col. ili. 17); for although 
 the Christian may not recognise a particular ground of thanks- 
 giving on the special occasion of his prayer, he has always the 
 remembrance of past favors and the consciousness of present 
 blessings, and the knowledge that all things are working together 
 for good for him (Rom. viii. 28). This more comprehensive 
 application of εὐχαριστία may explain the absence of the article, 
 which appears with both προσευχῇ and δεήσει, and which Paul uses 
 with εὐχαρ. in only two instances (1 Cor. xiv. τό ; 2 Cor. iv. 15), 
 where the reason is evident. Rilliet observes that the Christian, 
 
IV. 6,7] THE GUARDIANSHIP OF GOD’S PEACE 135 
 
 “being, as it were, suspended between blessings received and 
 blessings hoped for, should always give thanks and always ask. 
 Remembrance and supplication are the two necessary elements 
 of every Christian prayer.” ‘Thanksgiving expresses, not only the 
 spirit of gratitude, but the spirit of submission, which excludes 
 anxiety, because it recognises in the will of God the sum of its 
 desires. So Calv., “ Dei voluntas votorum nostrorum summa est.” 
 Paul lays great stress upon the duty of thanksgiving. (See Rom. 
 pee (G2 Cor, i, 21, iv. 15, ix τὰ, 12; Eph. v..205;, Col. 
 12} 2 hess. 1.3.) 
 
 τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν : ‘your requests.’ Only here; Lk. xxiii. 24 ; 
 I Jn. v. 15. According to its termination, αἴτημα is ‘a thing 
 requested,’ and so in all the N.T. instances. Vulg. ‘ petitiones.’ 
 
 In class. it sometimes has the sense of αἴτησις, ‘the act of requesting,’ 
 which does not occur in N.T., as Plato, Repud. villi. 566 B. On the other 
 hand, αἴτησις is found in the sense of αἴτημα, as Hdt. vii. 32; LXX; 
 3 K. ii. 16, 20, 
 
 γνωριζέσθω : ‘be declared’ or ‘made known.’ (See oni. 22.) 
 As if God did not know them. (Comp. Mt. vi. 8.) 
 
 πρὸς τὸν θεόν: Not merely ‘fo God,’ but implying intercourse 
 with God, as well as the idea of direction. (See on ii. 30; and 
 comp. Mt. sitio 56%, Mk. vi. 3, ἰχ. τό ; Jn. i. τ; 1 Cor. xvi. 6.) 
 
 7. καὶ: Consecutive ; ‘and so.’ 
 
 ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ: ‘the peace of God.’ Only here in N.T. 
 Comp. 6 θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (vs. 9). Not the objective peace with 
 God, wrought by justification (Rom. v. 1 [Chr., Theoph., Aug.]) ; 
 nor the favor of God (Grot.); nor peace with one another 
 (Thdrt., Lips.), since mutual peace cannot dissipate anxiety ; but 
 the inward peace of the soul which comes from God, and is 
 grounded in God’s presence and promise. It is the fruit of 
 believing prayer; “the companion of joy” (Beng.). Of course 
 - such peace implies and involves the peace of reconciliation with 
 God. In the hearts of those who are reconciled to God through 
 faith in Christ, the peace of Christ rules (Col. iii. 15). As mem- 
 bers of the heavenly commonwealth (ili. 20), they are in a king- 
 dom which is “ righteousness and peace and joy” (Rom. xiv. 17). 
 “The God of hope,” to whom their expectation is directed, fills 
 them “ with all joy and peace in believing” (Rom. xv. 13). They 
 are not disquieted because they know that “ all things are working 
 together for good to them that love God” (Rom. viii. 28). 
 
 ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν : ‘which surpasseth every thought (of 
 man).’ For ὑπερέχειν, ‘to rise above,’ ‘overtop,’ ‘surpass,’ see 
 li. 3, ii. 8. ‘The verb is not common in N.T. Only four times 
 in Paul, and once in 1 Pet. ii. 13. Paul has been enjoining the 
 duty of prayer under all circumstances as a safeguard against 
 anxiety. Hence this assurance that the peace of God surpasses 
 
136 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 7 
 
 every human thought or device as a means of insuring tranquillity 
 of heart. The processes and combinations of human reasoning 
 result only in continued doubt and anxiety. Mere reason cannot 
 find a way out of perplexity. The mysterious dealings of God 
 present problems which it cannot solve, and which only multiply 
 its doubts and questionings. Within the sphere of God’s peace 
 all these are dismissed, and the spirit rests in the Lord, even 
 where it cannot understand. A different and widely-accepted 
 explanation is that of the Greek expositors: that the peace of 
 God is so great and wonderful that it transcends the power of the 
 human mind to understand it. So Ellic., Ril., Alf, Ead. Aug. 
 and Theoph. add that even the angels cannot comprehend it. 
 But this thought has no special relevancy here, while the other 
 explanation is in entire harmony with the context. Comp. also 
 1 Cor. 11. 9-16. 
 
 Νοῦς is the reflective intelligence ; in Paul, mostly as related to 
 ethical and spiritual matters. It is the organ of the natural moral 
 consciousness and knowledge of God (Rom. i. 20, 28, vil. 23). 
 It is related to πνεῦμα as the faculty to the efficient power. Until 
 renewed by the divine πνεῦμα, it cannot exercise right morai judg- 
 ment (Rom. xii. 2); and although it may theoretically approve 
 what is good, it cannot conform the practice of the life to its 
 theory (Rom. vil. 25). It is this which is incapable of dealing 
 with the painful and menacing facts of life in such a way as to 
 afford rest. 
 
 φρουρήσει : ‘shall guard.’ A promise, not a prayer, ‘may the 
 peace of God guard,’ as the Greek Fathers (Chr., however, says it 
 may mean either), some of the older expositors, and Vulg. ‘ custo- 
 diat.’ The word, which is a military term, in the N.T. is almost 
 confined to Paul. (See τ Pet.i.5.) The metaphor is beautiful 
 —the peace of God as asentinel mounting guard over a believer’s 
 heart. It suggests Tennyson’s familiar lines : 
 
 “ Love is and was my King and Lord, 
 And will be, though as yet I keep 
 Within his court on earth, and sleep 
 
 Encompassed by his faithful guard, 
 And hear at times a sentinel 
 Who moves about from place to place, 
 And whispers to the worlds of space, 
 In the deep night, that all is well.” 
 
 All limitations of the promise, such as guarding from the power 
 of Satan, from spiritual enemies, from evil thoughts, etc., are arbi- 
 trary. The promise is general, covering all conceivable occasions 
 for fear or anxiety. ‘He teaches us the certain result of our 
 prayers. He does not, indeed, promise that God will deliver us 
 in this life entirely from calamities and straits, since he may have 
 
 ‘ 
 
IV. 7,8] THE GUARDIANSHIP OF GOD’S PEACE 137 
 
 the best reasons for leaving us in this struggle of faith and patience 
 with a view to his and our greater glory at the appearing of Christ ; 
 but he does promise us that which is greater and more desir- 
 able than all the good things of this life—the peace of God” 
 (Schlichting). 
 
 Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν Kal τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν : ‘your hearts and your 
 thoughts.’ Καρδία in the sense of the physical organ is not used 
 in N.T. It is the centre of willing, feeling, and thinking. Never, 
 like ψυχή, to denote the individual subject of personal life, so as 
 to be exchanged with the personal pronoun; nor as πνεῦμα, of 
 the divine principle of life in man. Like our ‘heart,’ it denotes 
 the seat of feeling, as contrasted with intelligence (Rom. ix. 2, 
 i by) 2 Cor. ἢ ἢ vi. £1,;.Phil..i. 7)... But not this only. . It.is 
 also the seat of mental action— intelligence (Rom. i. 21; Eph. i. 
 18), and of moral choice (1 Cor. vil. 37; 2 Cor. ix. 7). It gives 
 impulse and character to action (Rom. vi. 17; Eph. vi. 5). It is 
 the seat of the divine Spirit (Rom. v. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 22; Gal. iv. 6), 
 and the sphere of his operation in directing, comforting, establish- 
 joe ete. (Col mL 15 5% Thess. ii. 13\; 2 Thess. ii. 17, ii. 5)... It 
 is the seat of faith (Rom. x. 9), and of divine love (Rom. v. 5), 
 and is the organ of spiritual praise (Col. ii. 16). 
 
 νοήματα, only in Paul. Things which issue from the καρδία ; 
 thoughts, acts of the will. Hence, of Satan’s ‘devices’ (2 Cor. ii. 
 ἘΠῚ τς Gee 2 Cor. iii. 14, IV. 4, X. 5, Xi. 3), The two,nouns are 
 emphatically separated by the article and the personal pronoun 
 attached to each. 
 
 Calv.’s distinction between καρδ. and vo. as ‘affections’ and ‘ intelli- 
 gence’ is unpauline. Neither are they to be taken as synonymous, nor as 
 a popular and summary description of the spiritual life (De W.). 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: As so often, the sphere in which divine pro- 
 tection will be exercised. ‘This‘divine peace is assigned as guardian 
 only to those who are in Christ (iii. 9). 
 
 Some, as De W., Ril., K1., Weiss, explain : ‘Shall keep your hearts zz 
 union with Christ. So Theoph., core μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον 
 μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ. 
 
 8. τὸ λοιπόν : ‘finally.’ (See on 11]. 1.) Introducing the con- 
 clusion of the letter. No reference to iii. 1, by way of resuming 
 after a long digression; nor does it introduce what remains for 
 them to do in addition to God’s protecting care (De W.), since 
 there is no indication of an antithesis. It prefaces an exhortation 
 parallel with vs. 4-6, containing a summary of duties, to which is 
 added a promise of the presence of the God of peace. The 
 exhortation is not to the cultivation of distinct virtues as such 
 (so Luth., Calv., Beza, Beng.), but each virtue represents general 
 σεδίρϑυθηθες of life viewed on a particular side, the different sides 
 
138 PHILIPPIANS [Iv.8 
 
 being successively introduced by the repeated ὅσα, and summed 
 up by the twofold εἴ τις. 
 ἀληθῆ: ‘true.’ God is the norm of truth. That is true in 
 thought, word, or deed, which answers to the nature of God as 
 revealed in the moral ideals of the gospel of his Son, who mani- 
 fests him, and who can therefore say, ‘I am the truth’ (Jn. xiv. 6). 
 Not to be limited to truth in speaking, as Thdrt., Beng. 
 σεμνά : ‘reverend’ or ‘venerable.’ Exhibiting a dignity which 
 grows out of moral elevation, and which thus invites reverence. 
 In class. an epithet of the gods. ‘Venerable’ is the best render- 
 ing, if divested of its conventional implication of age. Matthew 
 Arnold (God and the Bible, Pref. xxii.) renders ‘nobly serious,’ 
 as opposed to κοῦφος, ‘ lacking intellectual seriousness.’ 
 With the exception of this passage, σεμνὸς occurs only in the Pastorals, 
 and the kindred σεμνότης only there. (See 1 Tim. ii. 2, iii, 4, 8, 11; 
 Tit. ii. 2, 7.) In LXX, of the name of God (2 Macc. viii. 15); of divine 
 
 laws (2 Macc. vi. 28); of the Sabbath (2 Mace. vi. 11); of the words of 
 wisdom (Prov. viii. 6); of the words of the pure (Prov. xv. 26). 
 
 δίκαια : ‘just.’ In the broadest sense, not merely in relation to 
 men, but according to the divine standard, satisfying all obliga- 
 tions to God, to their neighbor, and to themselves. (Comp. 
 Rom. ii. 13.) 
 ayva: ‘pure.’ Always with a moral sense. So ἁγνότης (2 Cor. 
 vi. 6). Not to be limited here to freedom from sins of the flesh: 
 it covers purity in all departments of the life, motives as well as 
 acts. In class. dyvds is ‘ pure,’ ‘chaste,’ in relation to life (as of 
 female purity, purity from blood-guilt), or to religious observances, 
 as of sacrifices. (See Schmidt, Syzon. 181, 11.) Both ἁγνός and 
 ἅγιος mean pure in the sense of ‘sinless.’ The radical difference 
 between them is, that ἅγιος is ‘holy,’ as being set apart and 
 devoted ; ἁγνός, as absolutely undefiled. Christ is both ἅγιος and 
 dyvos. See on ἁγίοις, i. τ. In 1 Jn. ili. 3, dyvds is applied to 
 Christ, and ἁγνίζειν to the imitation of his purity. In 2 Cor. xi. 2, 
 of virgin purity. (Comp. Clem. ad Cor. xxi.) In 1 Tim. v. 22, 
 of moral spotlessness. In Jas. iii. 17, as characterising heavenly 
 wisdom. ᾿Αγνῶς (Phil. i. 17), of preaching the gospel with un- 
 -mixed motives. ᾿Αγνίζειν, which in LXX is used only of ceremon- 
 ial purification, has that meaning in four of the seven instances 
 in N.T. (Jn. xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24, 26, xxiv. 18). In the others 
 (Jas. iv. 8; 1 Pet. i. 22; 1 Jn. iii. 3), of purifying the heart and 
 soul. Neither ἁγνός, ἁγνότης, nor ἁγνῶς occur in the Gospels. 
 
 “‘Ayvés and all the kindred words which appear in N.T. are found in 
 LXX. Αγνισμα (Num. χίχ. 9), not in N.T. For ἀγνιασμός (Num. viii. 7), 
 the correct reading is ἁ γνισμός. In LXX dyvés is used of the oracles of 
 God, of the fear of God, of prayers, of the heart, of works, of fire, of a virgin, 
 of a man free from cowardice, and of the soul. (See Ps. xii. [xi.] 6, xix. 
 [xviii.] 10; Prov. xix. 13, xx. 9, xi. 8; 2 Macc. xiii. 8; 4 Macc. v. 37, xviii. 
 
 7, 8, 23.) 
 
Iv. 8] TAKE ACCOUNT OF ALL GOOD THINGS 139 
 
 The two following qualities appeal to the affectionate or admir- 
 ing recognition of others. 
 
 προσφιλῆ ; ‘lovely,’ ‘amiable.’ Whatever calls forth love. Only 
 here in N.T. In LXX in a passive sense (Sir. iv. 7, xx. 13). 
 
 εὔφημα : ‘fair-sounding.” A.V. and R.V. ‘of good report.’ 
 ‘Gracious,’ R.V. marg. is vague. Not merely having a fair sound 
 to the popular ear, “ vox et praeterea nihil,” but fair-sounding, as 
 implying essential worthiness. 
 
 In class. of words or sounds of good omen. Hence εὔφημος, ‘ abstaining 
 from inauspicious words’; ‘keeping a holy silence.’ (See Aisch. Ag. 1247; 
 Soph. O. C. 132.) 
 
 A comprehensive exhortation follows, covering all possible 
 virtues. 
 
 εἴ τις : ‘if there be any’: whatever there is. For the form of 
 expression, comp. ii. 1; Rom. xiii. 9; Eph. iv. 29. Not ‘ what- 
 ever other.’ 
 
 ἀρετὴ : ‘virtue’; moral excellence. In class. it has no special 
 moral significance, but denotes excellence of any kind — bravery, 
 rank, excellence of land or of animals. It is possibly for this rea- 
 son that Paul has no fondness for the word, and uses it only here. 
 Elsewhere in N.T. only by Peter, who uses it of God (1 Pet. ii. g ; 
 2 Pet. i. 3), and enjoins it as a Christian quality (2 Pet.i.5). It 
 is found in LXX; of God, Hab. ili. 3 = δόξα ; Is. xlii. 8, 12, plu., 
 in connection with δόξα, and ΧΙ]. 21, signifying God’s attributes 
 of power, wisdom, etc. ; Zech. vi. 13, of him whose name is ‘ the 
 Branch,’ and who shall receive ἀρετὴν, 2.6. the attributes of sover- 
 eignty ; Esth. (interpol.) xiv. 10, of the pretended attributes of 
 the vain ; Sap. iv. 1, of moral excellence in men. 
 
 Lightf.’s explanation is ingenious and suggestive. ‘ Whatever value may 
 reside in your old heathen conception of virtue’; as if he were anxious to 
 omit no possible ground of appeal. 
 
 ἔπαινος : ‘praise.’ If there is any praise that follows the prac- 
 tice of virtue, as the praise of love (1 Cor. xiii.). Not ‘that which 
 is praiseworthy’ (Weiss). 
 
 ταῦτα λογίζεσθε: ‘these things take into account.’ ‘Reckon’ 
 with them. ‘ Horum rationem habete” (Beng.). It is an appeal 
 to an independent moral judgment, to thoughtfully estimate the 
 value of these things. Not = φρονεῖν, ἃ5 De W. ‘Think on these 
 things’ (A.V., R.V.) is a feeble and partial rendering. 
 
 ‘He now brings the scheme of duties more clearly before them, 
 and at the same time reminds them, by appealing to his own 
 previous instructions and example, that he is making no new 
 
140 PHILIPPIANS [IV. 8, 9 
 
 demands upon them. “ Facit transitionem a generalibus ad 
 Paulina” (Beng.). 
 
 9. a καὶ : ‘those things which also.’ Those things which are 
 true, venerable, etc., which a@/so ye learned of me. 
 
 Others codrdinate the four cals: ‘those things which ye have as well 
 learned as received; as well heard as seen’ (Vulg., Calv., Beza, Lightf.). 
 
 The four verbs form two pairs: ἐμάθετε and παρελάβετε referring 
 to what they had learned by teaching; ἠκούσατε and εἴδετε, by 
 example. 
 
 euabere .. . παρελάβετε : ‘learned’... ‘received.’ The mean- 
 ings do not differ greatly, except that παρελ. adds, to the simple 
 notion of learning, that of what was communicated or transmitted. 
 
 ΚΙ. ἐμάθ. by personal instruction; παρελ. as oral or epistolary traditions 
 obtained from him or transmitted by his delegates. Mey. renders παρελ. 
 ‘accepted’; but that sense is rare in Paul. 1 Cor. xv. 1 is doubtful. 
 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 3; Gal. 1. 12; 2 Thess. iii. 6, signify simple reception. 
 (See Lightf. on Gal. i. 12; Col. ii. 6; 1 Thess. ii. 13.) 
 
 ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε : ‘heard and saw.’ In their personal inter- 
 course with him. Not through preaching (Calv.), which has 
 already been expressed. Lightf. and others explain 7x. of what 
 they heard when he was absent. But all the other verbs refer to 
 the time of his presence at Philippi. 
 
 Ἔν ἐμοι properly belongs to 7x. and εἴδ., but is loosely taken 
 with all four verbs. ἜἘμάθ. and zapeX., strictly, would require 
 παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ. 
 
 πράσσετε: ‘do,’ or ‘practise.’ A distinction between πράσσειν 
 and ποιεῖν is recognisable in some cases; πράσσειν, ‘ practise,’ 
 marking activity in its progress, and ποιεῖν in its accomplishment 
 or product. The distinction, however, is not uniformly main- 
 tained, and must not be pressed. (See Schmidt, Sywon. 23, and 
 Trench, Syn. xcvi.) 
 
 καὶ : Consecutive, as vs. 7; ‘and so.’ 
 
 ὃ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης : ‘the God of peace.’ Who is the source and 
 giver of peace. ‘The phrase only in Paul and Heb. (See Rom. 
 KV. 33, xvi..20; 1 Thess. v..23.; Heb. xii. 20.) , Peace ΤΠ 105 
 N.T. sense, is not mere calm or tranquillity. All true calm and 
 restfulness are conceived as based upon reconciliation with God. 
 Christian peace implies the cessation of enmity between God and 
 man (Rom. viii. 7) ; the complete harmony of the divine and the | 
 human wills; the rest of faith in divine love and wisdom (Is. 
 xxvi. 3). God is ‘the God of peace’ only to those who are at — 
 one with him. God’s peace is not sentimental, but moral. Hence 
 the God of peace is the sanciifier of the entire personality (1 Thess. 
 v.23). Accordingly ‘ peace’ is habitually used in connection with 
 
IV. 9, 10] YOUR GIFT MADE ME GLAD 141 
 
 the Messianic salvation, both in the Old and the New Testaments. 
 The Messiah himself will be ‘peace’ (Mic. ν. 5). Peace is associ- 
 ated with righteousness as a Messianic blessing (Ps. ]xxii. 7, Ixxxv. 
 10). Peace, founded in reconciliation with God, is the theme of 
 the gospel (Acts x. 36); the gospel is ‘the gospel of peace’ 
 (Eph. ii. 17, vi. 15 ; Rom. x. 15) ; Christ is ‘the Lord of peace’ 
 (2 Thess. iii. 16), and bestows peace (Jn. xiv. 27, xvi. 33). “It 
 is through God, as the author and giver of peace, that man is able 
 to find the harmony which he seeks in the conflicting elements of 
 his own nature, in his relations with the world, and in his relations 
 to God himself’’ (Westcott, on Heb. xiii. 20). 
 
 He now returns thanks for the gift which the Philippian church 
 has sent him by Epaphroditus, and praises their past and present 
 generosity. 
 
 10-20. J greatly rejoice in the Lord because of your kind thought 
 Jor me as shown in your gift; a thought which you have indeed 
 entertained all along, but have had no opportunity to carry out. 
 7 do not speak as though I had been in want; for I have learned 
 the secret of being self-sufficient in my condition; not that I am 
 sufficient of myself, but I can do all things in Him that strength- 
 eneth me. It was a beautiful thing for you thus to put yourselves in 
 Sellowship with my affliction; but this is not the first time; for in 
 the very beginning, as I was leaving Macedonia, you were the only 
 church that contributed to my necessities, sending supplies to me 
 more than once in Thessalonica. But my chief interest is not in 
 the gift itself, but in the spiritual blessing which your acts of min- 
 istry will bring to you. Nevertheless my need is fully met by this 
 gift which Epaphroditus brought from you — this sacrifice of sweet 
 odor, acceptable to God. And as you have ministered to my need, 
 so God will supply every need of yours, with such bounteousness 
 as befits his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. To him, our God 
 and Father, be glory forever. My salutations to all the members 
 of your church. The brethren who are with me send you greeting, 
 and ali the members of the Roman church, especially those of 
 Cesar’s household. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with 
 your spirit. 
 
 10. ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘but I rejoice in the Lord.’ Again the 
 keynote of the epistle is struck. (See i. 18, ii. 17, 18, 28, iii. 1, 
 iv. 4; comp. Polyc. ad Phil, i.) "Exdp.: epistolary aorist. . 
 
142 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 10 
 
 ἐν κυρίῳ : The gift, its motive, and the apostle’s joy in it, were 
 all within the sphere of life in Christ. The gift has its distinctive 
 and choicest character for him as proceeding from their mutual 
 fellowship in Christ. Thus Chr., οὐ κοσμικῶς ἐχάρην, φησὶν, οὐδὲ 
 βιωτικῶς : “1 rejoice, he says, not in a worldly fashion, nor as 
 over a matter of common life.” 
 
 μέγαλως : ‘greatly.’ Only herein N.T. (See LXX; 1 Chron. 
 xxix. 9; Neh. xii. 43.) Notice the emphatic position. 
 
 ἤδη ποτὲ : ‘now at length.’ Only here and Rom. i. 10. Ἤδη 
 marks a present as related to a past during which something has 
 been in process of completion which is now completed, or some- 
 thing has been expected which is now realised. Ποτὲ indicates 
 indefinitely the interval of delay. With ἤδη the writer puts him- 
 self at the point where the interval indicated by ποτὲ terminates. 
 
 Others, as Weiss, render ‘already once’; which would be a mere refer- 
 ence to something past and now repeated. ‘This is precluded by the con- 
 nection, and especially by the latter part of vs. Io. 
 
 ἀνεθάλετε TO ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν : ‘ye have revived your thought 
 for me.’ ᾿᾽Ἄνεθ. is transitive, and τὸ im. ἐμ. dp. is accusative of 
 the object. You caused your thought for me to sprout and bloom 
 afresh, like a tree putting out fresh shoots after the winter. So 
 Weiss, Lips., Lightf., De W. 
 
 Others, as Mey., KI., Ellic., Alf., Beet, regard the verb as intransitive. 
 In that case either τὸ ὑπ. ἐμ. must be taken as accus. of the obj. after gpor., 
 ‘ye revived to think of that which concerned me,’ which is awkward and 
 improbable; or τὸ @p. ὑπ. ἐμ. must be taken as the accus. of reference, 
 ‘ye revived as regarded the thinking concerning me.’ According to this 
 the following clause would mean, ‘ye took thought concerning the taking 
 thought for me.’ The only serious objection urged against the transitive 
 sense of ἀνεθ. is that it seems to make the revival of interest dependent on 
 the will of the Philippians, and thus implies a reproach. But this is strain- 
 ing a point. Paul simply says: ‘I rejoice that, when the opportunity per- 
 mitted, you directed your thought towards me and sent me a gift which 
 circumstances had prevented your doing before.’ That no reproach is 
 implied is evident from the following words. ᾿Αναθάλλειν only here in N.T. 
 In LXX, transitively, Ezek. xvii. 24; Sir. i. 18, xi. 22, ]. 10. 
 
 ἐφ ᾧ: ‘wherein,’ or ‘with reference to which’; namely, the © 
 matter of my welfare. Ὑπὲρ (ἐμοῦ) emphasises the personal inter- 
 he, ἐπὶ merely marks a reference to the matter in question. 
 
 : Besides your ἀναθάλλειν at the favorable opportunity, you 
 
 wane ‘also’ concerned all the time until the opportunity occurred. 
 
 ἐφρονεῖτε : imperfect tense : ‘ye were all along taking thought.’ 
 Every possible suggestion of reproach is removed by this. 
 
 ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ : ‘ but ye were lacking (all the while you were thus 
 taking thought) opportunity.’ The verb (only here in Bib.) refers 
 to the circumstances which had prevented them from sooner 
 sending their gift; either lack of means, or want of facilities for 
 transmitting the contribution, etc. 
 
IV. 11, 12] SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN CHRIST 143 
 
 There is a possibility of their misunderstanding his expression 
 of joy to mean merely satisfaction at the relief of his personal 
 needs. He will guard this. 
 
 11. οὐχ ὅτι : ‘not to say that,’ or ‘I do not say that.’ A dis- 
 tinctively N.T. formula. (See Jn. vi. 46, vii. 22; 2 Cor. i. 24, 
 ili. 5.) In class. ‘not only’; or, when not followed by a second 
 clause, ‘ although.’ 
 
 καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω : “1 speak according to want’; 2.6. ‘as if I 
 were in a state of want.’ Lightf. aptly, ‘in language dictated by 
 want.’ Comp. κατ᾽ ἐριθίαν, κατὰ κενοδοξίαν, ii. 3. Ὑστέρησις, only 
 here and Mk. xii. 44. He does not deny the want itself, but the 
 want as the motive and measure of his joy. 
 
 ἐγὼ yap ἔμαθον : ‘for I have learned.’ The aorist for the per- 
 fect. See on ἔλαβον, 111. 12 (Burt. 46, 55). The tuition has 
 extended over his whole experience up to the present. Ἐγὼ 
 emphasises his personal relation to the matter of want. ‘JZ, so far 
 as my being affected by want.’ 
 
 ἐν ois εἰμὶ : ‘in the state inwhich I am.’ Notas A.V.and R.V., 
 ‘in whatever state I am,’ but in all the circumstances of the pres- 
 ent. For εἶναι or γίνεσθαι ἐν, see Mk. v. 25 ; Lk. xxii. 42; 1 Cor. 
 BVT 1 1 1685. 11: δ. vs 4. 
 
 αὐτάρκης : ‘self-sufficing.” Only here in N.T.; LXX; Sir. xl. 
 18 ; αὐτάρκεια, 2 Cor. ix. 8; τ Tim. vi. 6. Avrdpxe is an inward 
 self-sufficing, as opposed to the lack or the desire of outward 
 things. Comp. Plat. Zim. 33 D, ἡγήσατο yap αὐτὸ ὃ ξυνθεὶς 
 αὕταρκες Ov ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων: “For the 
 Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be 
 far more excellent than one which lacked anything.” It was a 
 favorite Stoic word. See on πολιτεύεσθε, i. 27. It expressed the 
 doctrine of that sect that man should be sufficient unto himself 
 for all things, and able, by the power of his own will, to resist’ 
 the force of circumstances. Comp. Seneca, De Vita Beata, 6, 
 addressed to Gallio: ‘‘ Beatus est praesentibus, qualiacunque sunt, 
 contentus.” A list of interesting paralls. in Wetst. Paul is not 
 self-sufficient in the Stoic sense, but through the power of a new 
 self — the power of Christ in him. (Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 5.) 
 
 He proceeds to explain ἐν οἷς... αὐτάρκης in detail. The 
 ἔμαθον is developed by οἶδα and μεμύημαι. 
 
 12. οἶδα: ‘I know,’ as the result of having learned. (See on 
 1. 19, 25.) 
 
 καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι: ‘also how to be abased.’ Kai connects raz. 
 with the preceding more general statement, eu. . . . αὐτάρ. εἶν. 
 Ταπεινοῦσθαι : ‘to be brought low,’ with special reference to the 
 abasement caused by want. Not in the spiritual sense, which is 
 
 Ὶ . 
 
144 PHILIPPIANS ' [Iv. 12 
 
 all but universal in N.T. The usual antithesis of ταπεινοῦν is ὑψοῦν. 
 (See 2 Cor. xi. 7; Phil. ii. 8, 9; τ Pet.v. 6.) Here the antithesis 
 is περισσεύειν, contrasting abundance with the want implied in raz. 
 
 οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν: ‘and I know how to abound.’ Οἶδα is 
 repeated for emphasis. Περισ., ‘to be abundantly furnished.’ 
 Not ‘to have superfluity,’ as Calv. Paul says, ‘1 know how to 
 be abased and not crushed ; to be in abundance and not exalted.’ 
 (Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9.) 
 
 ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν : ‘in everything and in all things.’ In all 
 relations and circumstances. In every particular circumstance, 
 and in all circumstances generally. ‘In Allem und Jedem.” 
 (Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6.) For ἐν πᾶσιν, comp. Col. 1. 18, ili, 11 ; 
 1 Tim. iii. 11 ; Heb. xiii. 18. Paul more commonly uses ἐν παντὶ. 
 Both adjectives are neuter, after the analogy of ots (vs. 11). 
 
 Such interpretations of ἐν παντὶ as ‘ubique’ (Vulg., Calv., Beza); or 
 reference to time (Chr.); or, taking παντὶ as neuter, and πᾶσιν as mascu- 
 line (Luth., Beng.), are fanciful. 
 
 μεμύημαι : ‘I have been initiated.’ R.V., ‘I have learned the 
 secret.’ In class., mostly in the passive, of initiation into the 
 Greek mysteries, as the Eleusinian. (See Hdt. ii. 51; Plat. Govg. 
 497C; Aristoph. Plat. 846; Ran. 158.) In a similar sense, 
 LXX; 3 Macc. ii. 30. The kindred word μυστήριον is common in 
 Paul of the great truths hidden from eternity in the divine coun- 
 sels, and revealed to believers (Eph. iii. 3, 4, 9; Col. i. 26, ii. 2, 
 etc.). Comp. Ign. Zph. xii., Παύλου συμμύσται τοῦ ἡγιασμένου : 
 “associates in the mysteries with Paul who has been sanctified.” 
 Connect ἐν παν. x. ἐν πᾶσ. adverbially with μεμύ., while the infini- 
 tives depend on μεμύ. Thus: ‘In everything and in all things I 
 have been instructed to be full,’ etc. 
 
 Others, as De W., Lips., Ellic., while connecting ἐν παν. x. ἐν πᾶσ. with 
 μεμύ. as above, make the following infinitives simply explicative; while that 
 in which Paul has been instructed is represented by ἐν παντὶ, etc. The 
 objection urged against this is that μυεῖσθαι appears to be habitually con- 
 strued, either with the accusative of the thing, the dative, or, rarely, with 
 the infinitive; though there is one instance of its construction with a 
 preposition, κατὰ (3 Macc. ii. 30). This objection is not formidable, and 
 is relieved by our rendering. 
 
 χορτάζεσθαι : ‘to be full.’ The verb, primarily, of the feeding 
 and fattening of animals in a stall. Comp. Apoc. xix. 21, of 
 feeding birds of prey with the flesh of God’s enemies. In Synop., 
 of satisfying the hunger οὔ με multitude (Mt. xiv. 20 and paralls. ). 
 In Mt. v. 6; Lk. vi. 21, of satisfying spiritual hunger. 
 
 ὑστερεῖσθαι : ‘to suffer need.’ From ὕστερος, ‘behind.’ The 
 phrase ‘to fall behind’ is popularly used of one in straitened 
 circumstances, or in debt. It is applied in N.T. to material defi- 
 ciency (Lk. xv. 14; Jn. ii. 3) ; and to moral and spiritual short- 
 
IV. 12, 13] I CAN DO ALL THINGS 145 
 
 coming (Rom. iii. 23; 1 Cor. viii. 8; Heb. xii. 15). The middle 
 voice (not pass. as Thay.) indicates the feeding of the pressure of 
 want,as Lk. xv. τὰ; Rom. 11. 22; 2 Cor. xi. 8. The mere fact 
 of want is expressed by the active voice, as Mt. xix. 20; Jn. il. 3. 
 In 2 Cor. xii. 11, Paul says that he was in no respect dehind the 
 ‘extra super’ apostles ; οὐδὲν ὑστέρησα, expressing the fact of his 
 equality, not his sevse of it. 
 
 See some good remarks of Canon T. 5. Evans on 1 Cor. i. 7 (Zxfosztor, 
 2d Ser. iii. p. 6); also Gifford, in Speaker’s Comm., on Rom, iii. 23. 
 
 13. πάντα ἰσχύω : ‘I can do all things.’ Not only all the things 
 just mentioned, but everything. 
 
 *Ioxvev and the kindred words ἰσχὺς, ἰσχυρὸς, are not of frequent 
 occurrence in Paul. The meanings of ἐσχὺς and δύναμις (see ἐνδυναμοῦντι) 
 often run together, as do those of δύναμις and ἐνέργεια. (See on iii, 21.) 
 The general distinction, however, is that ἰσχὺς is indwelling power put 
 forth or embodied, either aggressively, or as an obstacle to resistance; 
 physical power organised, or working under individual direction. An army 
 and a fortress are both ἰσχυρὸς. The power inhering in the magistrate, 
 which is put forth in laws or judicial decisions, is ἰσχὺς, and makes the 
 edicts ἰσχυρὰ, ‘valid,’ and hard to resist. Δύναμις is rather the indwelling 
 power or virtue which comes to manifestation in ἰσχὺς. (See Schmidt, 
 Synon. 148, 3, 4, 5.) For the accus. with ἰσχύειν, comp. Gal. v. 6. 
 
 ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί we: ‘in him that strengtheneth me,’ or, more 
 literally, ‘infuses strength into me.’ The ἐνδυν. appears in the 
 ἰσχύω. 
 Χριστω is added by κὸ DFGKLP. 
 
 ἐν: Not ‘through,’ but ‘in’; for he is zz Christ (ili. 9). 
 *Evdvvayoiv, mostly in Paul. (See Rom. iv. 20; Eph. vi. 10; 
 1 Tim. i. 12.) With the thought here, comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9; 
 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17; and Ign. Smyr. iv., πάντα ὕπο- 
 μένω, αὐτοῦ με ἐνδυναμοῦντος τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρώπου : “I endure all 
 things, seeing that he himself enableth me who is perfect man.” 
 Any possible misunderstanding of αὐτάρκης (vs. 11) is corrected 
 by these words. 
 
 He guards against a possible inference from his words that he 
 lightly esteems their gift, or thinks it superfluous. Not, as Chr., 
 (Ec., and Theoph., very strangely, that he feared lest his apparent 
 contempt for the gift might dissuade them from similar acts in the 
 future. It is characteristic that there is no formal expression of 
 thanks beyond his recognition and commendation of the moral 
 and spiritual significance of the act, in which he virtually acknow- 
 ledges the benefit to himself. The best thanks he can give them 
 
 δ : 
 
146 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 13, 14 
 
 is to recognise their fidelity to the principle of Christian love, and 
 to see in their gift an expression of that principle. On the other 
 hand, there is no attempt to conceal the fact that he was in real 
 affliction (θλίψει), and that their act relieved it; and only the 
 most perverted and shallow exegesis, such as Holsten’s, can read 
 into his words an expression of indifference to the love displayed 
 by the church, and describe them as “ thankless thanks,” or see 
 in them a contradiction of 1 Thess. ii. 9. 
 
 14. πλὴν : ‘nevertheless.’ (See on i. 18, ili. 16.) “ Neverthe- 
 less, do not think that, because I am thus independent of earthly 
 contingencies, I lightly prize your gift.’ 
 
 καλῶς ἐποιήσατε : ‘ye did nobly.’ Positive and generous praise : 
 not a mere acknowledgment that they had simply done their duty. 
 It was a beautiful deed, true to the gospel ideal of καλὸς. For 
 the phrase καλῶς ποιεῖν, see Mk. vii. 37; Lk. vi. 27; 1 Cor. vii. 37. 
 
 συνκοινωνήσαντές μου TH θλίψει : ‘that ye made common cause 
 with my affliction’; ‘went shares with’ (Lightf. on Gal. vi. 6). 
 The A.V. ‘communicate’ is correct, if ‘communicate’ is under- 
 stood in its older sense of ‘share,’ as Ben Jonson, “ thousands that 
 communicate our loss.” (Comp. Rom. xii. 13.) The verb occurs 
 only in Eph. v. 11 ; Apoc. xviii. 4. The participle, as the comple- 
 ment of ἐποι., specifies the act in which the καλ. ἐποι. was exhibited. 
 For the construction, comp. Acts v. 42; 2 Thess. iii. 13 ; Win. 
 xlv. 4. The dative θλίψει expresses that with which common 
 cause was made. 
 
 Their gift is not the first and only one which he has received. 
 It is a repetition of former acts of the same kind, a new outgrowth 
 from his long and affectionate relations with them. He might 
 justly expect and could honorably accept help from those who 
 had been the first to minister to his necessities, and who had so 
 often repeated their ministry. The idea of a guasi-apology for 
 his reproach of the Philippians, because his former relations with 
 them had justified his disappointment in not receiving earlier sup- 
 plies (Chr., Gic., Theoph.), is utterly without foundation, since 
 no reproach had been uttered or implied. ‘There is no specific 
 praise of their earlier gifts, but the καλ. ἐποι. is confirmed by the 
 fact that the last gift was a continued manifestation of the same 
 spirit that had marked them from the beginning. 
 
 Baur’s inference from 2 Cor. xi. 9, that the Philippians had been accus- 
 
 tomed to send him a regular annual contribution which had now for some 
 time been intermitted, requires no notice. 
 
Iv. 15] THE FIRST TO HELP 147 
 
 15. οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς Φιλιππήσιοι : ‘and ye also, Philippians, 
 know.’ Aé passes on to the mention of former acts of liberality, 
 or perhaps marks the contrast between the expression of his own 
 judgment (vs. 14) and the appeal to their knowledge. Kai 
 marks the comparison of the Philippians with the apostle himself. 
 ‘Ye as well as I.’ Not, as Calv., ‘ye as well as other witnesses 
 whom I might cite.’ It is quite unnecessary to assume, as Hofn. 
 and Weiss, any special sensitiveness of Paul in alluding to his rela- 
 tions with other churches, which causes him to appeal to the 
 knowledge of the Philippians. 
 
 Φιλιππήσιοι : Paul is not accustomed thus to address his readers 
 by name. (See 2 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. iii. 1.) The address is not 
 intended to point a contrast with other churches, but expresses 
 earnestness and affectionate remembrance. 
 
 ore: ‘that.’ Habitual construction with οἶδα. (See i. 19, 25; 
 1 Cor. ili. 16; Gal. iv. 13, etc.) Not ‘ because,’ as Hofn., whose 
 explanation, ‘ye know that ye have done well because this is not 
 the first time that you have sent me similar gifts,’ needs no com- 
 ment. (See Mey. ad loc.) 
 
 ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : ‘in the beginning of the gospel.’ The 
 reference is clearly shown by the succeeding words to be to the 
 first preaching of the gospel in Macedonia, about ten years before 
 the composition of this letter. It is equivalent to ‘ when the gospel 
 was first proclaimed among you.’ He alludes, no doubt, to money 
 supplied before or at his departure from Macedonia (Acts xvii. 14). 
 
 Some, as Lightf., De W., Weiss, refer to the contribution given at 
 Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 9), in which case ἐξῆλθον must be rendered as pluperf. 
 This, of course, is grammatically defensible. Lightf. says that as the 
 entrance into Macedonia was one of the two most important stages in 
 Paul’s missionary life, he speaks of his labors in Macedonia as the degin- 
 ning of the gospel, though his missionary career was now half run. “The 
 faith of Christ had, as it were, made a fresh start” (Bzd/ical Essays: “The 
 Churches of Macedonia”). This is fanciful. (See Ramsay, S¢. Paz, 
 the Traveller, etc. p. 199.) 
 
 Explanations which assume to fix the exact points of corre- 
 spondence between Paul’s statements here and the narrative in 
 Acts must needs be tentative and indecisive. No doubt the 
 different parts of the N.T., in some cases, exhibit “ undesigned 
 coincidences” ; but in many other cases the coincidences are 
 imperfect, or are altogether wanting. It is most unlikely that all 
 the contributions of the Philippians to Paul were accurately chroni- 
 cled by Luke. That Paul in vs. 16 mentions a contribution earlier 
 than that noted in vs. 15 presents no difficulty. Having said that 
 the Philippians were the very first to assist him on his departure 
 from Macedonia, he emphasises that readiness by going back to a 
 still earlier instance. ‘Not only on my departure, but even before 
 I departed you were mindful of my necessities.’ 
 
 a 
 
148 PHILIPPIANS [IVv. 15, 16 
 
 Μακεδονίας : In Paul’s later letters he always prefers to mention 
 provinces rather than cities in connection with his own travels, 
 and does so in cases where a definite city might have been as 
 properly referred to. (See Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; 2 Cor. 
 li. 13, Vil. 5, Vill. 1, ix. 2, and Weizs. Apost. Zeit. p. 195.) 
 
 pot... ἐκοινώνησεν : ‘became partner with me,’ or ‘ entered 
 into partnership with me.’ See on συνκοιν., vs. 14. Comp. Ril., 
 “‘ne se mit en rapport avec moi.” For the construction with dat. 
 of the person, see Gal. vi. 6, and Ellic.’s note there. 
 
 εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως : ‘as to an account of giving and 
 receiving.’ ‘The matter is expressed in a mercantile metaphor. 
 He means that the question of money given and received did not 
 enter into his relations with any other church. The Philippians, 
 by their contributions, had ‘opened an account’ with him. 
 
 Others, as Ril. and Lightf., dismiss the metaphor and render εἰς λόγον 
 
 ‘as regards,’ or ‘ with reference to.’ This has classical but not N.T. prece- 
 
 dent. (See Thuc. iii. 46; Dem. De alsa Leg. 385; Hat. iii. 99, vii. 9.) 
 
 But the recurrence of λόγον in vs. 17, where the metaphor is unmistakable, 
 
 seems to point to the other explanation. 
 
 For ἐκοιν. εἰς comp. κοιν. εἰς (i. 5), and see Win. xxx. 8 a. ᾿κοιν. εἰς λόγ. 
 forms one idea. For λόγος, in the sense of ‘account’ or ‘ reckoning,’ see 
 
 Mt. xii. 36; Lk. xvi. 2; Rom. xiv. 12; and comp. Ign. Phz/ad. xi., εἰς λόγον 
 
 τιμῆς, “as a mark of honor”; Smyr.x., ot ἐπηκολούθησάν μοι els λόγον θεοῦ; 
 ‘‘who followed me in the cause of God.” 
 
 Aco. καὶ λήμψ., in the sense of credit and debt, occurs in LXX, 
 Sir. xli. 19, xlii. 7. (Comp. Arist. £7. Με. ii. 7,4; Plat. Repub. 
 332A.) Adovs in N.T. only here and Jas. 1. 170. The giving by 
 the Philippians and the receiving by Paul form the two sides of 
 the account. Chr., Theoph., Céc., Aug., followed by Calv., Weiss, 
 Lips., and others, explain of an exchange: Paul giving spiritual 
 gifts to the Philippians, and receiving their material gifts. This is 
 possible, but seems far-fetched. 
 
 εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι: ‘but ye only.’ (Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 6-18; 
 2 Cor. xi. 7-10; 1 Thess. ii.g.) In all those cases he is speaking 
 of rightful remuneration for apostolic service, and not, as here, of 
 free offerings. 
 
 16. orc: ‘ for,’ or ‘since,’ justifying the statement of vs.15. Not 
 ‘that,’ as Ril., Weiss, connecting with οἴδατε. 
 
 καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ : ‘even in Thessalonica.” A Macedonian 
 city, near Philippi, where a church was founded by Paul before 
 his departure into Achaia (Acts xvii. 1-9) ; yet the contribution 
 came from Philippi, and not from Thessalonica, and that while he 
 was actually 7z Thessalonica. *Ev cannot be explained as ‘to.’ 
 
 καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis: ‘not merely once, but twice.’ (Comp. 1 Thess. 
 ii. 18.) 
 
 εἰς τὴν χρείαν : ‘with reference to the (then) present need.’ 
 Eis, as in i. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12. Τὴν with a possessive sense, ‘ my,’ 
 or ¢he particular need of the time. For χρείαν, comp. ii. 25. 
 
IV. 16, 17] THE GIFT WILL ENRICH THE GIVERS 149 
 
 They are not, however, to understand him as implying that he 
 desired their gifs principally for his own relief or enrichment. 
 He prizes their gi‘t chiefly because their sending it will be fruitful 
 in blessing to them. In vs. 11 he disclaimed the sense of want. 
 Here he disclaims the desire for the gift in itself considered. 
 
 17. οὐχ ore: See on vs. 11. 
 
 ἐπιζητῶ : Used by Paul only here and Rom. xi. 7. The con- 
 tinuous present, ‘I am seeking,’ characterising his habitual attitude. 
 
 *Emi marks the direction, not the intensity of the action. See 
 on ἐπιποθῶ, i. 8. 
 
 τὸ δόμα: ‘the gift.’ In Paul only here and Eph. iv. 8. Not 
 the particular gift which they had sent, but the gift as related to 
 his characteristic attitude, and which might be in question in any 
 similar case. 
 
 ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ : The verb is repeated in order to emphasise the 
 contrary statement. (Comp. the repetitions in vs. 2, 12.) 
 
 τὸν καρπὸν : ‘the fruit.’ (See on i. 11.) The recompense 
 which the gift will bring to the givers. (Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 6.) 
 
 τὸν πλεονάζοντα : ‘that increaseth’ or ‘aboundeth.’ The verb, 
 which is often used by Paul, signifies large abundance. Paul does 
 not use it transitively, exc. 1 Thess. iii. 12, though it is so found 
 τος as. Num. παν! 54; \Ps. 1..(xlix:) 19; Ixxi.\(Ixx.) 235 1 
 Macc. iv. 35. In class. mostly, ‘to superabound.’ It is associated 
 with ὑπεραυξάνειν in 2 Thess. i. 3 (see Lightf. ad loc.), and with 
 περισσεύειν in τ Thess. iii. 12. The phrase πλεον. εἰς is unique, 
 since πλεον. habitually stands alone. In 2 Thess. i. 3, εἰς goes 
 with ἀγάπη. For this reason, some, as De W., connect with 
 ἐπιζητῶ: ‘I seek, with a view to your advantage, fruit which 
 aboundeth,’ etc. But this is against the natural order of the 
 sentence, since τὸν πλεον. εἰς Ady. tu. forms one idea in contrast 
 with ἐπιζ. τ. δόμ. ; and, as Mey. justly remarks, the preposition is 
 not determined by the word in itself, but by its logical reference. 
 
 λόγον : ‘account’ or ‘reckoning,’ as vs. 15. The idea of ‘ inter- 
 est’ (τόκος), as ΚΙ., is, perhaps, not exactly legitimate, though it 
 suits the metaphor in πλεον. εἰς Ady., and καρπὸς is used in class. 
 of profit from material things, as flocks, honey, wool, etc. Mey.’s 
 objection that this sense is unsuited to δόμα is of little weight, 
 since the δόμα might be figuratively regarded as an investment. 
 It is arbitrary to limit the meaning to the future reward (Mey., 
 Alf., Ellic.). The present participle may, indeed, signify, ‘which 
 is rolling up a recompense to be awarded in the day of Christ’ ; 
 but it may equally point to the blessing which is continually 
 accruing to faithful ministry in the richer development of Christ- 
 ian character. (Comp. Rom. vi. 21, 22.) Every act of Christian 
 ministry develops and enriches him who performs it. (Comp. 
 
 ae 
 
150 PHILIPPIANS [IVv. 17, 18 
 
 Acts xx. 35.) Aug., distinguishing between the gift as such and 
 the gift as the offering of a Christian spirit, sa 5 that a mere gift 
 might be brought by a raven, as to Elijah. 
 
 18. ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα : ‘and I have all things.’ Δὲ is not advers- 
 ative, but connective, introducing an additional reason for οὐχ 
 ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα, ‘I do not seek the gift but the fruit; and as to 
 my need, I have all that I could need.’ 
 
 Otherwise Ellic., De W., Ead., Weiss, Alf., Vulg., who take δὲ as advers- 
 ative. So Alf. “Azz, notwithstanding that the gift is not that which I 
 desire, I have received it, and am sufficiently supplied by it.” This seems 
 feeble and superfluous after the strong adversative ἀλλὰ. 
 
 ἀπέχω : ‘I have to the full.’ Nothing remains for me to desire. 
 ᾿Απὸ marks correspondence ; 2.6. “ of the contents to the capacity ; 
 of the possession to the desire” (Lightf.). (See Win. xl. 46.) So 
 Mt. vi. 2. ‘They have their reward in full.” There is nothing 
 more for them to receive. (Comp. Lk. vi. 24.) Not a formal 
 acknowledgment of the gift, omitted in vs. 17 (Chr., Ciéc., 
 Theoph.). 
 
 καὶ περισσεύω : ‘and abound.’ Not only is my need met, but I 
 have more than I could desire. On περισσεύειν see Lightf. on 
 E TPhess/ aii. 12. 
 
 πεπλήρωμαι: “1 am filled.’ Hardly the completion of a climax 
 (Ellic.), since fulness is not an advance on περισσ. It rather 
 introduces the following clause, which is an explanatory comment 
 upon what precedes. 
 
 δεξάμενος : Explanatory of πεπλ. “1 am filled, now that I have 
 received.’ 
 
 mapa ᾿Επαφροδίτου : See on ii. 25. 
 
 τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν : ‘the things sent from you’ (through him). Παρὰ 
 emphasises. the idea of transmission, and marks the connection 
 between the giver and the receiver, more than ἀπὸ, which merely 
 points to the source. (See Win. xlvii.; Lightf. on Gal. i. 12; 
 Schmidt, Syzon. 107, 18.) 
 
 ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας : ‘an odor of a sweet smell.’ Their offering of 
 love is described as a sweet-smelling sacrifice. ‘The expression is 
 common in O.T. to describe a sacrifice acceptable to God. (See 
 Gen. viii. 21; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16; Eph. 
 v. 2.) ᾿Οσμὴν is in apposition with τὰ rap’ ὑμῶν ; εὐωδίας is genit. 
 of quality. ᾿Οσμὴ is more general than εὐωδία, denoting an odor of 
 any kind, pleasing or otherwise. 
 
 θυσίαν : ‘a sacrifice.’ Not the act of sacrifice, but the thing 
 sacrificed. (See onii.17.) Here in the same sense as Rom. xii. 1. 
 
 δεκτήν : ‘acceptable.’ Rare in N.T., and only here by Paul, 
 2 Cor. vi. 2 being a quotation. (See LXX; Lev. i. 3, 4, xix. 5, 
 Xxil. 19.) 
 
 εὐάρεστον : ‘well-pleasing,’ as Rom. xii. 1. In N.T. only in 
 
IV. 18, 19] GOD’S GLORIOUS SUPPLY 151 
 
 Paul and Heb. (See Rom. xiv. 18; 2 Cor. v. 9; Eph. v. 10; 
 ἘΠΕ xiii, 21 ; LXX; Sap. iv. τὸ; ix, 10.) 
 
 τῷ θεῷ : Connect with both ὀσμ. edwd. and θυσ. 
 
 19. 6 δὲ θεὸς μου πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν : ‘and my God 
 shall fulfil every need of yours.’ Jy God who has made you his 
 instruments in fulfilling my need (πεπλήρωμαι, vs. 18) will fulfil 
 every need of yours. The δὲ is not adversative, ‘but’ (Beng., 
 De W., A.V.), which would seem to emphasise the loss incurred 
 in sacrifice by setting over against it the promise of the divine 
 supply. It rather adds this statement to the preceding; and 
 this statement expresses God’s practical approval of the Philip- 
 pians’ offering, and not their compensation by him. (Comp. 
 2 Cor. ix. 8-11.) 
 
 κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ : ‘according to his riches.’ The measure 
 or standard of the supply; the infinite possibility, according to 
 which the πληρώσει will be dispensed. 
 
 ἐν δόξῃ : ‘in glory.’ The mode or manner of the fulfilment, 
 ‘gloriously’; in such wise that his glory will be manifested. 
 Construe with πληρώσει, not with πλοῦτος (as Grot., Rhw., Heinr., 
 A.V., R.V.), ‘riches in glory,’ which is contrary to N.T. usage, 
 since δόξα with πλοῦτος is invariably in the genitive. See, e.g., τὸν 
 πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (Rom. ix. 23); and comp. Eph. i. 18, 
 iil. 16; Col.i. 27. Ἔν δόξῃ is always used in connection with a 
 verb (see 2 Cor. iii. 8, 11; Col. iii. 4), and so are all similar 
 phrases, as ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν δυνάμει, ἐν δόλῳ, ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ, ἐν ἀδικίᾳ, ἐν 
 ἀγάπῃ, etc. There is not in the N.T. a phrase like πλοῦτος ἐν 
 δόξῃ. Comp. πληρώσῃ ἐν δυνάμει (2 Thess. i. 11). 
 
 Mey. makes ἐν instrumental, though dependent on πληρώσει, ‘with 
 glory,’ or ‘in that he gives them glory,’ and characterises the explanation 
 given above as “indefinite and peculiarly affected,” in which he is followed 
 by Alf., who calis it “weak and flat in the extreme.’’ Nevertheless it is 
 adopted by Thay., Lips., De W., Calv., Ead., Weiss, ΚΙ. Comp. Rom. i. 4, 
 where ἐν δυνάμει is adverbial with ὁρισθέντος, and 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8, 11. Mey.’s 
 explanation is shaped by his persistent reference to the parousia, which 
 narrows his interpretation of πλεονάζοντα in vs. 17. He cannot conceive 
 how Paul, with his view of the farousia as imminent, could promise, oz 
 this side of it,a glorious recompense. So Lightf. ‘ by placing you in glory.’ 
 But πληρώσει is not to be limited to the future reward. It includes, with 
 that, all that supply which God so richly imparts in this life to those who 
 are in Christ. (See Jn. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 5; Eph. iii. 16-20; Col. ii. 10.) 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: Not to be connected with δόξῃ, but with 
 πληρώσει, as the domain in which alone the πληρώσει can take 
 place. 
 
 The dignity and tact with which Paul treats this delicate subject 
 have been remarked by all expositors from the Fathers down. 
 Lightf. has justly observed that Paul had given to the Philippians 
 “the surest pledge of confidence which could be given by a high- 
 minded and sensitive man, to whom it was of the highest import- 
 
152 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 19, 20 
 
 ance, for the sake of the great cause which he had advocated, to 
 avoid the slightest breath of suspicion, and whose motives never- 
 theless were narrowly scanned and unscrupulously misrepresented. 
 He had placed himself under pecuniary obligations to them.” 
 With his tone of manly independence and self-respect, mingles 
 his grateful recognition of their care for him and a delicate con- 
 sideration for their feelings. He will not doubt that they have 
 never ceased to remember him, and have never relaxed their 
 eagerness to minister to him, although circumstances have pre- 
 vented their ministry. Yet he values their gift principally as an 
 expression of the spirit of Christ in them, and as an evidence 
 of their Christian proficiency. He can give their generosity no 
 higher praise, no higher mark of appreciation and gratitude, than 
 to say that it was a sacrifice of sweet odor to God. He is not 
 raised above human suffering. Their gift was timely and wel- 
 come ; yet if it had not come, he was independent of human con- 
 tingencies. They have not only given him money, but they have 
 given him Christian love and sympathy and ministry — fruit of his 
 apostolic work. 
 
 The promise just uttered, by its wonderful range and richness, 
 calls forth an ascription of praise. 
 
 20. ro δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν : ‘to our God and Father’; the 
 God who will supply every need out of his fatherly bounty. FF or 
 the formula, see Gal. i. 4; 1 Thess... 3, iii. 11,13. Ἡμῶν proba- 
 bly belongs to both nouns, since the article is unnecessary with 
 θεῷ, and is apparently prefixed i in order to bind both nouns with 
 the pronoun. On the other hand, Ellic. suggests that, as πατρὶ 
 expresses a relative idea and θεὸς an absolute one, the defining 
 genitive may be intended for πατρὶ only. (See Ellic. and Lightf. 
 on Gal. i. 4.) 
 
 cis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων : ‘to the ages of the ages.’ Forever. 
 For the formula, see Gal. 1. 5; 1 Tim. 4: 1; 2° ΤΊ ὑτ Το Σ 
 τ Ῥεῖ. iv. τι, and often in Hee LXX habitually in the singular ; 
 εἰς TOV αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος (Ps. Ἰχχχίχ. 29 [Ixxxvili. 30], οχὶ. {Gears 
 10); εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, omitting τῶν αἰώνων (Ps. Ixi. 4 [ 1x. 5], Ixxvii. 
 [Ixxvi.] 8; 2 Chron. vi. 2). For similar doxologies in Paul’s 
 letters, see Rom. xi. 36; Gal. 1.5; Eph, iu. 2: 301 ὙΠΠῚῚ Ἐν 
 Paul has εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (Rom. i. 25, ΙΧ. 5, xi. 36) ; εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 
 (1 Cor. viii. 13 ; 2 Cor. ix. 9) ; εἰς πάσας τὰς yevedsyz00 αἰῶνος τῶν 
 αἰώνων (Eph. iii. 21). Αἰὼν is a long space of time; an age; a 
 cycle. In the doxology the whole period of duration is conceived 
 as a succession of cycles, 
 
IV. 21, 22] CLOSING SALUTATIONS 153 
 
 CLOSING SALUTATIONS 
 
 21. πάντα ἅγιον : ‘every saint’; individually. Comp. πᾶσιν τοῖς 
 ἁγίοις (i. 1) ; πάντας ἀδελφούς (1 Thess. v. 26) ; ἀλλήλους (Rom. 
 avi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiti. 12). The salutation: is 
 probably addressed through the superintendents of the church 
 (i. 1), into whose hands the letter would be delivered, and who 
 would read it publicly. For ἅγιον, see on i. 1. 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: May be construed either with ἀσπάσασθε or 
 with ἅγιον. The matter is unimportant. ᾿Ασπάζεσθαι with ἐν Xro 
 does not occur in N.T.; with ἐν Κυρίῳ, τ Cor. xvi. 19. Ἅγιος 
 with ἐν Xro 'I.,i.1. The passages commonly cited from the clos- 
 ing salutations of Rom. are not decisive. The evidence is rather 
 in favor of ἅγιον. It is true that ay. implies ἐν X.’I.; but the 
 same reason may possibly apply here which is given by Chr. for 
 the phrase in i. 1; namely, that he speaks of them as ‘saints,’ in 
 the Christian as distinguished from the O.T. sense. 
 
 οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί: ‘the brethren who are with me.’ The 
 circle of Paul’s immediate colleagues or more intimate friends. 
 The apparent disagreement of these words with ii. 20 cannot be 
 considered until we can explain the latter passage, which, with 
 our present knowledge, seems hopeless. In any case, Paul would 
 not withhold the name ‘brethren’ even from such as are described 
 there. Probably there were equally unworthy members of the 
 Philippian church, yet he addresses the whole body by that title 
 (i. 12, iii. 1, iv. 1, 8). See, for a different view, Weiss in Amer. 
 Jour. Theol, April, 1897, p. 391. 
 
 22. πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι: The church-members in Rome generally, 
 as distinguished from the smaller circle just named. 
 
 μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας : ‘ especially they that are of 
 Czesar’s household.’ Οἰκία does not signify members of the im- 
 perial family, but the whole ménxage of the imperial residence — 
 slaves, freedmen, household servants, and other dependants, pos- 
 sibly some of high rank. Freedmen, and even slaves, were often 
 entrusted with high and confidential positions in the palace. The 
 imperial establishment was enormous, and the offices and duties 
 were minutely divided and subdivided. (See R. Lanciani’s 
 Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Excavations, p. 128 ff.) 
 Many Christians were doubtless numbered among these retainers. 
 Some have thought that οἰκία included the preetorian guard, mem- 
 bers of which might have come from Macedonia; for though the 
 preetorians were originally of Italian birth, they were drawn, later, 
 from Macedonia, Noricum, and Spain, as well as from Italy. But 
 this is improbable. I cannot do better than to refer the reader 
 to Lightf.’s dissertation on “ Czsar’s Household,” Comm. p. 171, 
 to which may be added Professor Sanday on Rom. Introd. p. xciv., 
 
154 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 22, 23 
 
 and notes on Ch. xvi., p. 422 ff. Lightf. argues, fairly I think, 
 that, assuming the earlier date of the Philippian letter (see 
 Introd. v.), the members of Czesar’s household who sent their 
 salutations to Philippi were earlier converts who did not owe their 
 knowledge of the gospel to Paul’s preaching at Rome; that Paul 
 assumes the acquaintance of the Philippians with these, and that 
 therefore we must look for them among the names in the closing 
 salutations of the Roman Epistle, composed some three years 
 before this letter. 
 
 Why μάλιστα, cannot be explained. It may imply some pre- 
 vious acquaintance of these persons with the Philippians. 
 
 23. ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν: 
 ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.’ So 
 Philem. 25 ; Gal. vi. 18. 
 
 For μετα Tov πνευματος, TR reads μετα παντων with x° KL, Syr.4tr, 
 x ADKLP, Vulg., Cop., Syr.¥**, Arm., Aéth., add αμην, which is omitted 
 by WH., Tisch., Weiss, with BFG, 47, Sah. 
 
"δὶ ἐξ. 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO 
 | - PHILEMON ae?) 
 
ἘΠΕ EPISTLE OF Sty PAUL TO 
 PHILEMON 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 PHILEMON was a citizen of Colosse. Onesimus, his slave, is 
 described in the Epistle to the Colossians as “ one of you” (iv. 9) ; 
 while in the letter to Philemon, written and sent at the same time, 
 the return of Onesimus to his master is announced (10, 12, 17). 
 
 The opinion of Wieseler (Chron. des Apost. Zettal.), that both Philemon 
 and Archippus belonged to Laodiczea, and that the epistle was therefore 
 sent to that place, is entitled to no weight. He assumes that the Epistle 
 to Philemon was identical with the Epistle to Laodiczea (Col. iv. 16. See 
 note on vs. 2). Equally unimportant is the view of Holtzn. (Zz/. 246), 
 which places Philemon and his household at Ephesus. 
 
 That Philemon had been converted to Christianity through 
 Paul’s ministry, appears from vs. 19. The conversion of the 
 Colossians is probably to be connected with the apostle’s long 
 residence at Ephesus, from which city his influence seems to have 
 extended very widely. (See Acts xix. 26, and comp. the saluta- 
 tion to the Corinthian church from “ the churches in Asia,’’ 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 19.) We do not hear of his visiting the neighboring cities, 
 but people from these came to Ephesus to listen to his teach- 
 ings (Acts xix. 9, 10), since the relations were very close between 
 that city and the cities of the Lycus. (See Lightf. Zutrod. 0 
 Colossians, Ὁ. 31.) 
 
 From this epistle it appears that Philemon was active and 
 prominent in Christian work at Colossz, and very helpful in his 
 ministries to his fellow-Christians (vs. 5, 7). His house was a 
 meeting-place for a Christian congregation, and the apostle’s rela- 
 tions with him were intimate and affectionate (vs. 2, 13, 17, 22).. 
 
 157 
 
158 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The traditions which represent him as a presbyter, bishop, or 
 deacon, are valueless. In the Menaea' of Nov. 22, he is com- 
 memorated as a “holy apostle.” (See Lightf. Zgz. 11. p. 535.) 
 
 Onesimus, Philemon’s slave, had run away from him, and had 
 possibly robbed him. (See on vs. 18.) He had found his way to 
 Rome, and had there met Paul. Perhaps, in former days, he had 
 accompanied his master in his visits to Ephesus, and had seen the 
 apostle there. Through Paul’s influence he became a Christian 
 (vs. 10), and devoted himself to the service of the Lord’s pris- 
 oner. Paul had conceived a strong personal affection for him 
 (vs. 10-13, 16, 17, comp. Col. iv. 9), and would gladly have kept 
 him with himself; but was unwilling to do so without Philemon’s 
 consent (vs. 14). Moreover, Onesimus, by his flight, had deprived 
 his master of his services, if he had not also robbed him of prop- 
 erty ; and therefore, as a Christian, was bound to make restitu- 
 tion. Accordingly, as Tychicus was about to go to Colossze and 
 Laodiczea bearing letters from Paul, the apostle placed Onesimus 
 in his charge, and sent by him this letter to Philemon, in which he 
 related the slave’s faithful ministries to himself, commended his 
 Christian fidelity and zeal, entreated his master to receive him 
 kindly, and offered himself as surety for whatever loss Philemon 
 had suffered by him. 
 
 All that is known of Onesimus is that he was a slave, and a 
 Phrygian slave, which latter fact would mark him in common 
 estimation as of poor quality. 
 
 Suidas gives the proverb: Φρὺξ ἀνὴρ πληγεὶς ἄμεινον καὶ διακονέστερος, 
 ‘a Phrygian is the better and the more serviceable for a beating.’ It is 
 quoted by Cicero (Pro Flacco, 27. See Wallon, Histoire de l’Esclavage 
 dans l’Antiquité, ii. p. 61, 62). 
 
 The martyrologies make him bishop of Ephesus (see Ign. 
 Eph. i.) and of Beroea in Macedonia, and represent him as 
 laboring for the gospel in Spain, and suffering martyrdom at 
 Rome. 
 
 His name appears in the AZenaea of Feb. 15, where he is called a slave 
 
 of Philemon, a Roman man, to whom the holy Apostle Paul writes. It is 
 further said that he was arraigned before Tertullus, the prefect of the 
 
 1 Menaea, from μήν, "ἃ month’: corresponding, in the Greek Church, to the 
 Roman Breviary, and containing for each holiday and feast of the year the ap- 
 pointed prayers and hymns, together with short lives of the saints and martyrs. 
 
INTRODUCTION 159 
 
 country, sent to Puteoli, and put to death by having his legs broken. The 
 Roman Acts, 10, speak of him as perfected by martyrdom in the great city 
 of the Romans. 
 
 The letter was included in the collection of Marcion, and is 
 named in the Muratorian Canon in connection with the Past- 
 oral Epistles. The supposed references in Ignatius (ZA. ii.; 
 Mag. xii.; Polyc. vi.) are vague. In ZA. ii. the name Onesimus 
 occurs in connection with the verb ὀναίμην, and the reference 
 is inferred from a similar play on the name, Philem. 20. (See 
 Westcott, Canon of the N.T., p. 48.) It is found in the Syriac 
 and Old Latin versions, and is ascribed to Paul by Origen (Hom. 
 in Jer. 19; Comm. in Mz. tract. 33, 34.) Tertullian is the first 
 who distinctly notices it. He says: “ This epistle alone has had 
 an advantage from its brevity ; for by that it has escaped the falsi- 
 fying touch of Marcion. Nevertheless, I wonder that when he 
 receives one epistle to one man, he should reject two to Timothy, 
 and one to Titus which treat of the government of the church” 
 (Adv. Mare. ν. 42). Eusebius (77. £. ili. 25) puts it among the 
 ὁμολογούμενα. Jerome, in his preface to his commentary on the 
 epistle, refers to those who hold that it was not written by Paul, or 
 
 if by him, not under inspiration, because it contained nothing to | 
 
 edify. These also alleged that it was rejected by most of the 
 ancients because it was a letter of commendation and not of 
 instruction, containing allusions to everyday matters. Jerome 
 replies that all St. Paul’s letters contain allusions to such matters, 
 and that this letter would never have been received by all the 
 churches of the world if it had not been Paul’s. Similar testi- 
 mony is given by Chrysostom, who, like Jerome, had to defend 
 the letter against the charge of being on a subject beneath the 
 apostle’s notice. 
 
 The only serious attack upon the epistle in modern times is 
 that of Baur, who intimates that he rejects it with reluctance, and 
 exposes himself by so doing to the charge of hypercriticism. 
 “This letter,” he says, ‘is distinguished by the private nature of 
 its contents ; it has nothing of those commonplaces, those general 
 doctrines void of originality, those repetitions of familiar things 
 which are so frequent in the supposed writings of the apostle. It 
 deals with a concrete fact, a practical detail of ordinary life... . 
 What objection can criticism make to these pleasant and charming 
 
160 INTRODUCTION 
 
 lines, inspired by the purest Christian feeling, and against which 
 suspicion has never been breathed?” (Paulus). Rejecting 
 Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, he is compelled to reject 
 Philemon along with them. The diction is unpauline. Words 
 and expressions occur which are either not found at all in Paul’s 
 epistles, or only in those which Baur rejects. The epistle exhibits 
 a peculiar conjunction of circumstances in the flight of Onesimus 
 and his meeting St. Paul at Rome, which savors of romance. The 
 letter is the embryo of a Christian romance like the Clementine 
 Recognitions, intended to illustrate the idea that what man loses 
 in time in this world he regains forever in Christianity; or that 
 every believer finds himself again in each of his brethren. 
 
 Holtzmann is inclined to receive the epistle, but thinks that 
 the passage 4-6 shows the hand of the author of the Ephesian 
 letter. 
 
 Weizsacker (Afost. Zeital. p.545) and Pfleiderer (Paulinismus, 
 p. 44) hold that the play on the name Onesimus proves the letter 
 to be allegorical (see note on vs. 11). 
 
 Steck thinks that he has discovered the germ of the letter in 
 two epistles of the younger Pliny. 
 
 It is needless to waste time over these. They are mostly 
 fancies. The external testimony and the general consensus of 
 critics of nearly all schools are corroborated by the thoroughly 
 Pauline style and diction, and by the exhibition of those personal 
 traits with which the greater epistles have made us familiar. The 
 letter, as already remarked, was written and sent at the same time 
 with that to the Colossians. Its authenticity goes to establish that 
 of the longer epistle. ‘ In fact,” remarks Sabatier, “ this short 
 letter to Philemon is so intensely original, so entirely innocent of 
 dogmatic preoccupation, and Paul’s mind has left its impress so 
 clearly and indelibly upon it, that it can only be set aside by an 
 act of sheer violence. Linked from the first with the Colossian 
 and Ephesian Epistles, it is virtually Paul’s own signature appended 
 as their guarantee to accompany them through the centuries” 
 (The Apostle Paul, Hellier’s trans.). 
 
 The general belief from ancient times has been that this, with 
 the Colossian and Ephesian letters, was composed at Rome ; but 
 the opinion which assigns their composition to Czsarea has hac! 
 ‘some strong advocates, among whom may be named Reuss, 
 
INTRODUCTION 161 
 
 Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, and Meyer. 
 The principal arguments are the following : 
 
 1. It is more natural and probable that the slave should have 
 fled from Colosse to Czesarea, than that he should have under- 
 taken a long sea voyage to Rome. 
 
 On the contrary, it is more natural and probable that Onesimus 
 should have gone to Rome as quickly as possible, both because it 
 was farther away from Colossze, and because there would be much 
 less chance of detection in the vast city and population of the 
 metropolis. 
 
 2. According to Phil. ii. 24, Paul intended, if liberated, to go 
 directly to Macedonia; whereas, according to Philem. 22, he pro- 
 posed to go to Colossze. On this, see note on Philem. 22. 
 
 3. The absence from the Colossian Epistle of any mention of 
 the earthquake by which the cities of the Lycus had been visited. 
 According to Tacitus, an earthquake overthrew Laodiczea in the 
 year 60 4.D., the last year of Paul’s imprisonment at Czsarea. 
 According to Eusebius (Chron, Ol. 210), the date is four years 
 later, and Laodicza, Hierapolis, and Colosse are named as hay- 
 ing suffered. Assuming that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to the 
 same event, and that Tacitus’ date is correct, the omission of 
 reference in the letter written at Caesarea is explained by the fact 
 that the letter preceded the event. But if the letter was written 
 during the latter part of the Roman imprisonment, the omission 
 of all reference to such an event is incredible. (See Weiss, Zzn/. 
 § 24; Lightf. Colosscans, Introd. p. 37 ; Hort, Romans and Ephe- 
 SIQNS, P. 105.) 
 
 It is possible to found a valid argument upon an earthquake ; 
 but in this case the tremors of the earthquake pervade the 
 argument. Nothing more indecisive can be imagined than this 
 process of reasoning. The argument e sz/entio is always suspicious, 
 and, in this instance, proves absolutely nothing. Assuming all 
 the premises to be definitely settled, it does not follow that the 
 apostle must have referred to the earthquake. But the premises 
 are not settled. Which is right, Tacitus or Eusebius? Sup- 
 posing Eusebius to be right, the Roman, as well as the Cesarean 
 captivity, might have preceded the earthquake. If St. Paul 
 arrived in Rome in 56 (see Introd. to Philippians, iv.), his im- 
 prisonment was over before the dates assigned by both Tacitus 
 
 M 
 
162 INTRODUCTION 
 
 and Eusebius. What is the date of Paul’s departure from Czesarea? 
 What are the exact dates of the Epistles of the Captivity? Do 
 Tacitus and Eusebius refer to the same event? Both Lightf. and 
 Hort quote Herzberg’s supposition that the two notices refer to 
 two different earthquakes, and that, since Tacitus mentions Laodi- 
 cea only, the first one did not extend to Colossz. 
 
 It may be added that the plans of the apostle, as indicated in both 
 Philippians and Philemon, agree better with the hypothesis of the 
 Roman captivity. In Cesarea all his plans would have pointed to 
 Rome. Moreover, his situation in Rome, if we may judge from 
 the account in Acts, afforded the slave much greater facilities for 
 intercourse with him than he could have had in Cesarea. 
 
 This letter cannot be appreciated without some knowledge of 
 the institution of slavery among the Romans, and its effect upon 
 both the slave and the master. Abundant information on this 
 subject is furnished by the elaborate work of Wallon (Aiistotre de 
 2? Esclavage dans 1 Antiquité, 2d ed. 1879), by the Roman jurists 
 and the Roman codes, and by the comedians and satirists. The 
 excursus on the slaves, in Becker’s Gadus, trans. by Metcalfe, will 
 also be found very useful, and ch. ii. and iv. of Lecky’s Hs/ory 
 of European Morals will repay reading. 
 
 Slavery grew with the growth of the Roman state until it 
 changed the economic basis of society, doing away with free 
 labor, and transferring nearly all industries to the hands of slaves. 
 The exact numbers of the slave population of the Empire cannot 
 be determined ; but they were enormous. ‘Tacitus speaks of the 
 city of Rome being frightened at their increase (Amn. xiv. 45) ; 
 and Petronius (37) declared his belief that not a tenth part of 
 the slaves knew their own masters. (See Wallon, Liv. ii. ch. iii.) 
 Most of them were employed on the country estates, but hundreds 
 were kept in the family residences in the cities, where every kind 
 of work was deputed to them. In the imperial household, and in 
 the houses of nobles and of wealthy citizens, the minute subdi- 
 visions of labor, and the number of particular functions to each of 
 which a slave or a corps of slaves was assigned, excite our laughter. 
 (See note on Phil. iv. 22.) Some of these functions required 
 intelligence and culture. The /amz/ia or slave-household included 
 not only field-laborers and household. drudges, but architects, 
 sculptors, painters, poets, musicians, librarians, physicians, readers 
 
INTRODUCTION 163 
 
 who beguiled the hours at the bath or at the table, — ministers, 
 in short, to all forms of cultivated taste, no less than to common 
 necessities. 
 
 On slaves as physicians, see Lanciani, Ancient Rome, etc. p. 71 ff. 
 
 But, no matter what his particular function, the slave, in the 
 eye of the law, was a chattel, a thing, inventoried with oxen and 
 wagons (Varro, De Re Rust. i. 17,1). He could be given, let, 
 sold, exchanged, or seized for debt. His person and his life 
 were absolutely in the power of his master. Every one will recall 
 the familiar passage of Juvenal (vi. 28), in which a dissolute 
 woman of fashion orders the crucifixion of a slave, and refuses to 
 give any reason save her own pleasure. ‘Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit 
 pro ratione voluntas.” The slave had no right of marriage. He 
 was allowed concubinage (contubernium), and such alliances were 
 regulated by the master. The master’s caprice in the matter of 
 punishment was unlimited. Sometimes the culprit was degraded 
 from the house to the field or the workshop, and was often com- 
 pelled to work in chains (Ter. Phorm. ii. 1,17; Juv. viii. 180). 
 Sometimes he was scourged, sometimes branded on the forehead, 
 or forced to carry the furca, a frame shaped like a V, and placed 
 over the back of the neck on the shoulders, the hands being 
 bound to the thighs. He might be crucified or thrown to wild 
 beasts, or to voracious fish. 
 
 The moral effects of such an institution upon both slave and 
 master it would not be difficult to predict, and they meet the 
 student in every phase of Roman life, — domestic, social, and 
 political. There was, first, the fearfully significant fact that a 
 whole vast section of the population was legally deprived of the 
 first element of manhood, — self-respect. No moral consideration 
 could be expected to appeal to a chattel to prevent his seeking 
 his own interest or pleasure by any means, however bad. He 
 gave himself up to his own worst passions, and ministered, for his 
 own gain, to the worst passions of his master, all the more as he 
 stood higher in the scale of intelligence, and acquired thereby a 
 certain influence and power. Knowledge and culture furnished 
 him for subtler and deeper villainy. His sense of power and his 
 love of intrigue were gratified when he came, as he often did, 
 between members of the same family, making of one a dupe, 
 
164 INTRODUCTION 
 
 and of the other an accomplice, an ally, and sometimes a slave. 
 Every circumstance of his life was adapted to foster in him 
 viciousness, low cunning, falsehood, and treachery. 
 
 On the master the effect was that which always follows the pos- 
 session of absolute authority without legal or moral restraint. It 
 encouraged a tyrannical and ferocious spirit. It was demoralising 
 even to the best and the most kindly disposed. It made beasts of 
 the naturally licentious and cruel. It corrupted the family life. 
 The inevitable and familiar contact of childhood and youth with 
 the swarm of household slaves could have but one result, fatal 
 alike to personal virtue and to domestic union. 
 
 It is true there was another side. Affectionate relations be- 
 tween master and slave were not uncommon. The younger Pliny 
 expressed his deep sorrow for the death of some of his slaves 
 (2. viii. 16). Instances of heroic devotion on the part of slaves 
 are on record. The slave had a right to whatever he might save 
 out of his allowance of food and clothing, and with it he some- 
 times purchased his freedom (Ter. Phorm. i. 1,9). There were 
 frequent cases of manumission. Although the slave’s marriage 
 was not recognised, it was not customary forcibly to separate him 
 from his companion. Yet, after the best has been said, these 
 were exceptions which proved the rule. Confronting them are 
 the pictures of Terence, Plautus, Petronius, Tacitus, Juvenal, and 
 Persius. It was the institution that was demoralising. Its evil 
 possibilities were inherent, and any one of a hundred causes 
 might bring them into full play. Wallon remarks that “ for public 
 depravity to reach its utmost depths of licentiousness, there 
 needed to be a being with the passions and attractions of a man, 
 yet stripped by public opinion of all the moral obligations of a 
 human being, all whose wildest excesses were lawful provided they 
 were commanded by a master.” 
 
 The evil created and carried in itself its own retribution. 
 Every wrong is expensive ; and it is the unvarying testimony of 
 history that the price of slavery is paid, both materially and mor- 
 ally, to the last penny, and with compound interest, by the masters. 
 The price was not discounted by emancipation. Emancipation 
 might change the political standing of the slave, but it did not 
 change the slave. Rome had trained her later generation of free- 
 men as slaves, and she reaped what she had sown. The emanci- 
 
INTRODUCTION 165 
 
 pated slave carried into his free condition the antecedents, the 
 habits, the spirit, the moral quality of a slave. The time came 
 when the majority of the free population were either freedmen or 
 descended from slaves. ‘Tacitus tells of their insolence and in- 
 subordination (Azz. ΧΙ]. 26, 27). The slave-taint crept into the 
 offices of state. Labor was stigmatised and its avenues were 
 barred to the free poor. Almost every sphere of industry was 
 occupied by slaves, and the free poor became literally paupers, 
 dependent upon the imperial doles of bread. 
 
 The attitude of the great Christian apostle towards this institu- 
 tion is, naturally, a subject of much interest; and this epistle, 
 which represents that attitude in a practical issue, has therefore 
 figured in most discussions on the moral aspect of slavery. These 
 discussions have developed two errors, against which it is import- 
 ant to guard. On the one hand, the epistle has been regarded as 
 committing St. Paul to the concession of the abstract rightfulness 
 and of the divine sanction of slavery. On the other hand, it has 
 been claimed that the epistle represents him as the enemy and 
 the condemner of slavery, and as working with a conscious intent 
 for its abolition by the deep and slow process of fostering Christian 
 sentiment. Neither of these views expresses the whole truth of 
 the case. 
 
 It is more than questionable whether St. Paul had grasped the 
 postulate of the modern Christian consciousness that no man has 
 the right to own another. He had been familiar with slavery 
 all his life, both in his Hebrew and in his Gentile associations. 
 Hebrew law, it is true, afforded the slave more protection than 
 Greek or Roman law, and insured his ultimate manumission ; 
 none the less, the Hebrew law assumed the right to own human 
 beings. The tendency is much too common to estimate the 
 leaders of the primitive church in the light of nineteenth-century 
 ideas, and to attribute to a sentiment which was only beginning 
 to take shape, the maturity and definiteness which are behind its 
 appeal to us, and which are the growth of centuries. It is safe to 
 say that St. Paul was a good way removed from the point of view 
 of the modern abolitionist. If he had distinctly regarded the 
 institution of slavery as wrong, fer se, there is every reason for 
 believing that he would have spoken out as plainly as he did con- 
 cerning fornication; whereas there is not a word to that effect 
 
166 INTRODUCTION 
 
 nor a hint of such an opinion in his epistles. In this epistle, 
 and wherever he alludes to the subject, the institution of slavery 
 is recognised and accepted as an established fact with which he 
 does not quarrel, as a condition which has its own opportunities 
 for Christian service and its own obligations which the Christian 
 profession enforces. In 1 Cor. vii. 21 ff. he advises the bonds- 
 man to use and improve his condition for the service of God, 
 and to abide in it, even though he may have the opportunity of 
 becoming free." 
 
 In Eph. vi. 5-8 and Col. iii. 22, 23 he enjoins the obedience of 
 slaves to their masters as a Christian duty. They are to serve 
 their masters as servants of God. 
 
 Hence it is, I think, a mistake to regard Paul’s silence concern- 
 ing the iniquity of the institution as caused by the obvious hope- 
 lessness of eradicating a long-established, deeply rooted, social 
 factor. 1 cannot agree with the view so graphically presented 
 by Dr. Matheson (Spiritual Development of St. Paul, ch. xiii.), 
 that Paul recognised Onesimus’ right to freedom, but refrained 
 from exhorting him to claim his right, because his connivance at 
 Onesimus’ flight would have been the signal for a servile insurrec- 
 tion and consequent anarchy. It is equally a mistake to say that 
 he consciously addressed himself to the task of abolishing slavery 
 by urging those aspects of the gospel which, in their practical 
 application, he knew would eventually undermine it. It is not 
 likely that he saw the way to its destruction at all. 
 
 On the other hand, this by no means commits the apostle 
 to the indorsement of the abstract rightfulness of slavery. It 
 is only to say that if that question presented itself to his own 
 mind, he did not raise it. The same thing, for that matter, may 
 be said of Christ, and of God in the administration of the Old- 
 Testament economy. The fact is familiar that God temporarily 
 recognised, tolerated, and even legalised certain institutions and 
 practices, as polygamy, for instance, which New-Testament moral- 
 ity condemns, which he purposed ultimately to abolish, and which 
 Christ does abolish. 
 
 Paul knew and appreciated the actual abuses and the evil possi- 
 
 1 My view of this disputed passage differs from that of Bishop Lightfoot and 
 Canon Evans. (See Lightf. Jtvod. to Philemon, p. 390, and Evans, Speaker's 
 Comm. ad loc.) 
 
INTRODUCTION 167 
 
 bilities of slavery: yet it is quite possible that he may not have 
 looked beyond such an operation of gospel principles as might rid 
 the institution of its abuses without destroying it. What we see 
 is, that he addressed himself to the regulation, and not to the de- 
 struction, of existing relations. He does see that the slave is more 
 than a chattel (Philem. 10-12, 16). The Christian bondservant 
 is the Lord’s freedman (1 Cor. vii. 22). The difference between 
 bond and free lapses in Christ with the difference between uncir- 
 cumcision and circumcision, between Greek and Jew, between 
 male and female (1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. ili. 28). He does see that 
 the Christian master has a duty to the slave no less than a right 
 over him, and on this duty he insists (Eph. vi. 9; Col. iv. 1; 
 Philem. 8-12, 15, 17). 
 
 The slave, too, was quick to perceive this, and discerned in 
 Christianity his only prospect of betterment. It is true that Plato 
 and Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus, and Seneca had insisted on the 
 duty of humanity to slaves. Seneca urged that the accident of 
 position does not affect the real dignity of man; that freedom 
 and slavery reside in virtue and vice rather than in outward con- 
 dition, and that a good man should abstain from even the feeling 
 of contempt for his slaves (De Benef. 111. 18-28 ; De Vita Beata, 
 xxiv. ; . xlvii.). Truthful and noble sentiments these, but they 
 did not reach far beyond the cultivated classes ; they did little or’ 
 nothing to engender moral aspiration in the slave, and their com- 
 paratively superficial and limited influence is shown by the condi- 
 tion of the slave during the prevalence of Stoicism. The slave 
 sought his refuge where such sentiments were enforced by love 
 rather than by philosophy; where they healingly touched those 
 “accidents of position’? and those “outward conditions,” of 
 which philosophy declared him independent, but from which, 
 with their accompanying wrongs and cruelties and degradations, 
 he could not extricate himself; and hence the fact that the early 
 church was so largely recruited from the ranks of slaves. 
 
 Whatever may have been the range of Paul’s outlook, the policy 
 which he pursued vindicated itself in the subsequent history of 
 slavery. The principles of the gospel not only curtailed its abuses, 
 but destroyed the thing itself; for it could not exist without its 
 abuses. ΤῸ destroy its abuses was to destroy it. It survived for 
 centuries, but the Roman codes showed more and more the 
 
168 INTRODUCTION 
 
 impress of Christian sentiment. The official manumission of 
 slaves became common as an act of piety or of gratitude to God ; 
 and sepulchral paintings often represent the master standing 
 before the Good Shepherd with a band of slaves liberated at his 
 death, pleading for him at the last judgment. Each new ruler 
 enacted some measure which facilitated emancipation. “No one 
 can carefully study the long series of laws, from Constantine to 
 the tenth century, in regard to slavery, without clearly seeing the 
 effect of Christianity. It is true that the unjust institution still 
 survived, and some of its cruel features remained ; but all through 
 this period the new spirit of humanity is seen struggling against 
 it, even in legislation, which is always the last to feel a new moral 
 power in society. The very language of the acts speaks of the 
 inspiration of the Christian faith ; and the idea which lay at the 
 bottom of the reforms, the value of each individual, and his 
 equality to all others in the sight of God, was essentially Christian. 
 But laws are often far behind the practices of a community. The 
 foundation-idea of Christ’s principles compelled his followers to 
 recognise the slave as equal with the master. They sat side by 
 side in church, and partook of the communion together. By the 
 civil law, a master killing his slave accidentally by excessive pun- 
 ishment was not punished, but in the church he was excluded 
 from communion. The chastity of the slave was strictly guarded 
 by the church. Slave priests were free. The festivals of religion 
 —the Sundays, fast-days, and days of joy — were early connected 
 in the church with the emancipation of those in servitude. The 
 consoling words of Christ, repeated from mouth to mouth, and 
 the hope which now dawned on the world through him, became 
 the especial comfort of that great multitude of unhappy persons, 
 —the Roman bondsmen. The Christian teachers and clergymen 
 became known as ‘the brothers of the slave,’ and the slaves them- 
 selves were called ‘the freedmen of Christ’” (Charles L. Brace, 
 Gesta Christi). 
 
 Tributes to the beauty, delicacy, and tact of the Epistle to 
 Philemon come from representatives of all schools, from Luther 
 and Calvin to Renan, Baur, and von Soden. A number of these 
 have been collected by Lightfoot (Introd. p. 383 ff.). The letter 
 has been compared with one addressed by the younger Pliny to a 
 friend on a somewhat similar occasion. “ Yet,” to quote Bishop 
 
INTRODUCTION 169 
 
 Lightfoot, ‘‘if purity of diction be excepted, there will hardly be 
 any difference of opinion in awarding the palm to the Christian 
 apostle. As an expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, 
 of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection, the Epistle to 
 Philemon stands unrivalled. And its preéminence is the more 
 remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It owes 
 nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely to the 
 spirit of the writer.” ‘We delight to meet with it,” says Sabatier, 
 “on our toilsome road, and to rest awhile with Paul from his great 
 controversies and fatiguing labors in this refreshing oasis which 
 Christian friendship offered to him. We are accustomed to con- 
 ceive of the apostle as always armed for warfare, sheathed in 
 logic, and bristling with arguments. It is delightful to find him 
 at his ease, and for a moment able to unbend, engaged in this 
 friendly intercourse, so full of freedom and even playfulness.” 
 
~~ 
 
 ’ 
 
 Pat : 
 
 ᾿ »γ: Ἧ + 
 +4 
 
 i Li's ae #8 
 ἢ δ δ. 
 
ὦ 
 
 Νὴ) 
 ! ΄ 
 ' 
 hee ene 
 : 
 Ἀ 
 
 : : TEXT ᾿ 
 ; ἴς ΘῈΕ INTRODUCTION TO PHILIPPIANS. _ | Bi ue 
 
 4 ῷ, 
 
i 4 
 0 y ! 
 
 ΓΝ. 
 
 γ ey es ᾿ 
 Ran ane: 
 
 ὦ 
 
COMMENTARIES 
 
 PATRISTIC 
 
 Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Gicumenius, 
 Theophylact. (See under Commentaries on Philippians.) 
 
 SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES 
 
 L. Danus or DANZU: 1579 Sc. GENTILIS: 1618 
 R. ROLLOCK: 1598 T. TAYLOR: 1659 
 D. DYKE: 1618 J. H. HUMMEL: 1670 
 MODERN 
 AucG. KocH: 1846. 
 
 J. Ὁ. WIESINGER: 1850. Trans. by Fulton: 1851. Rev. and notes, A.C. 
 Kendrick, 1858. 
 
 H. EwWALp: 1857. 
 J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE: Lange’s Bibelwerk. Schaff’s ed. Notes by Hackett, 
 1869. 
 
 Lp. ΒΡ. oF DERRY: Speaker's Comm. 
 
 HuGurs OLTRAMARE: Commentaire sur les Epitres de S. Paul aux Colossiens 
 aux Ephésiens et ἃ Philémon. 1891. Good and 
 scholarly, but adds nothing of special value to for- 
 mer commentaries. 
 
 H. von SODEN: Hand-Commentar. Bd. iii. Valuable. See Comms. 
 on Philippians, Lipsius. 
 
 For Bengel, Calvin, Alford, Meyer, Lightfoot, Beet, De Wette, 
 Ellicott, Lumby, Dwight, Hackett, see under Commentaries on 
 Philippians. 
 
 173 
 
TO PHILEMON 
 
 THE SALUTATION 
 
 1-3. Paul a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy the brother, 
 to Philemon our beloved and fellow-laborer, and to Apphia our 
 sister, and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the church which 
 assembles in thy house: Grace be unto you, and peace from God 
 our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 1. δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : ‘a prisoner of Christ Jesus.’ (Comp. 
 Eph. iii. 1.) In fetters because of his labors as an apostle of 
 Christ. These words, at once awakening special interest and 
 compassion, prepare the way for the apostle’s request. ‘The title 
 ‘apostle ’ is laid aside as not befitting a private and friendly letter. 
 
 Τιμόθεος : The name of Timothy is associated with that of Paul 
 in 2 Cor., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess. Here each has a separate 
 designation. Comp. Phil.i. 1, where they are joined under the com- 
 mon title δοῦλοι Χτοῦ Ἰησοῦ. When Paul names others with him- 
 self in the address, it is usually because of the relations of those 
 named to the church addressed. The mention of Timothy here 
 may be owing to personal relations between him and Philemon; 
 so that the appeal would be the stronger by the addition of Timo- 
 thy’s name. Timothy appears to have been with Paul during a 
 -great part of his three years’ residence in Ephesus. He may have 
 become acquainted with Philemon there. 
 
 6 ἀδελφὸς : Thus also are designated Quartus, Rom. xvi. 23; 
 Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; Apollos, 1 Cor. xvi. 12. Timothy is not 
 called an apostle. (See 2 Cor.i. 1; Col.i. 1.) Although Paul 
 does not confine the name of apostle to the twelve (see Rom. 
 xvi. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6), the having been an eyewitness of the 
 risen Christ was an indispensable condition of the apostolate ; 
 and Timothy was a late convert, residing at Lystra, far distant 
 from the scene of Christ’s personal ministry. (See Lightf. on 
 “The Name and Office of an Apostle,” Comm. on Galatians, 
 Ρ- 92.) 
 
 Φιλήμονι : See Introduction. 
 
 175 
 
176 PHILEMON [1,2 
 
 τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν : ‘our beloved and fellow-laborer.’ 
 (Comp. Acts xv. 25.) Theoph. says: εἰ ἀγαπητός, δώσει τὴν χάριν, 
 εἰ συνεργός, οὐ καθέξει τὸν δοῦλον ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀποστελεῖ πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν 
 τοῦ κηρύγματος. “If beloved, he will grant the favor ; if a fellow- 
 worker, he will not retain the slave, but will send him forth again 
 for the service of preaching.” 
 
 Weizsacker’s statement (Afost. Zeit. p. 333) that ἀγαπητός applied by 
 Paul to individuals indicates that they were his own converts, needs more 
 evidence than 1s furnished by Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 12. 
 
 συνεργὸς : Only in Paul and 3 Jn. 8. (See Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21; 
 Phil, ii. 26; Col, iy. 1z;,ete.) 
 
 ἡμῶν : Of myself and Timothy. 
 
 2. καὶ ᾿Απφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ : ‘and to Apphia our sister.’ 
 
 DKL, Syr.*h, Syr.?, add αγαπητῃ. 
 
 ᾿Απφία is a Phrygian name. Not the same as ᾿Αππίου (Acts 
 xxviii, 15). She is commonly supposed to have been Philemon’s 
 wife, which is the more probable because the case of the slave was 
 a household matter. ‘ Uxori ad quam nonnihil pertinebat nego- 
 tium Onesimi” (Beng.). Unless especially related to Philemon, 
 her name would naturally have stood after the one which follows. 
 
 ἀδελφῇ : In the Christian sense. 
 
 ᾿Αρχίππῳ : Possibly a son of Philemon. He is mentioned Col. 
 iv. 17 with a special admonition to fulfil the ministry (διακονίαν) 
 which he received in the Lord; from which it may be inferred 
 that he was an office-bearer in the church. A reason for address- 
 ing him in this letter, even if he was not a member of Philemon’s 
 household, might lie in the fact that Onesimus was to be received 
 into the church in which Archippus exercised his ministry. 
 
 Different speculations have made him a bishop, a deacon, a presbyter, 
 and an evangelist. Opinions differ as to whether his ministry was at 
 Colossz or at the neighboring city of Laodicza, since his name occurs in 
 the epistle to Colossz, immediately, it is said, after the salutations to the 
 Laodiceans. On the other hand, Wieseler (Chronol. des Apost. Zeital.) 
 argues that if Archippus had been a Colossian it is not easy to see why Paul 
 in vs. 17 makes him to be admonished by others. We do not know the 
 motive of the exhortation. It does not immediately follow the salutations 
 to the Laodiceans. If Archippus had not resided at Colossz, Paul would 
 probably have caused a salutation to be sent to him as well as to Nymphas. 
 It is very strange that Paul should have conveyed this admonition to Ar- 
 chippus through a strange church, more especially when he had written at 
 the same time to Archippus in this letter, addressing him jointly with 
 Philemon. That the admonition to Archippus in Col. implies a rebuke 
 (Lightf.) is not certain. (Comp. Acts xii. 25.) 
 
 συστρατιώτῃ: ‘ fellow-soldier.’ Only here and Phil. ii. 25 ; but 
 comp. 2 Tim. ii. 3. The veteran apostle salutes his younger 
 friend as a fellow-campaigner in the gospel warfare. It is unneces- 
 
2-4] THE CHURCH IN THE HOUSE 177 
 
 sary to search for any particular crisis or contest in church affairs 
 in which they were associated. The figure may have been sug- 
 gested by Paul's military associations in Rome. 
 τῇ Kat’ οἶκον σου ἐκκλησίᾳ: ‘to the church in thy house.’ 
 The assembly of believers which met at Philemon’s house. In 
 large cities there would be several such assemblies, since no one 
 house could accommodate the whole body, and besides, a large 
 assembly of the whole church would have awakened the suspicion 
 of the Roman authorities. (Comp. Acts xii. 12; Rom. xvi. 5; 
 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15, and see note at the end of the chap- 
 ter.) ’ExxAnoia was originally a secular word: ‘ an assembly of 
 citizens called out.’ So Acts xix. 39; LXX; 1 Kings viii. 65. Used 
 of the congregation of Israel (Acts vii. 38). The Jewish assembly 
 is more commonly styled συναγωγή, as Acts ΧΙ]. 43. ᾿Εκκλησία 
 denotes the Christian community in the midst of Israel (Acts v. 
 Il, Vill. 1, ΧΙ]. I, Xiv. 23, 27). vvaywyy, however, is used of a 
 Christian assembly (Jas. ii. 2). Both in the Old and New Testa- 
 ment ἐκκλησία implies a community based upon a special religious 
 idea, and established in a special way. ‘The word is also used in 
 N.T. of a single church or assembly, or of a church confined to a 
 particular place, as the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila 
 (Rom. xvi. 5), or of Philemon as here; the church at Corinth, 
 Jerusalem, etc. In these assemblies in private houses messages 
 and letters from the apostles were announced or read. It is per- 
 haps to the address of this letter to a congregational circle, as well 
 as to an individual correspondent, that we are indebted for its 
 preservation. Paul must have written many such private letters. 
 The character of the address emphasises the importance of the 
 subject of the letter as one affecting both the household circle and 
 the church. 
 3. χάρις ὑμῖν, etc.: See on Phil. i. 2. 
 
 4-7. Because I hear of the love and faith which you have 
 towards the Lord Jesus and to all the saints, 7 thank God when- 
 ever I make mention of you in my prayers; praying that in your 
 full knowledge of every spiritual blessing which we as Christians 
 possess, your faith may prove itself for the glory of Christ in the 
 communication of its fruits to others. For on hearing from you, I 
 had much joy and comfort on accoynt of your love, because of the 
 refreshment which the heurts of the saints have received from you, 
 my brother. 
 
 4. εὐχαριστῶ, etc. : ‘I thank my God always when 1 make men- 
 tion of you in my prayers.’ (See on Phil. i. 3.) Thus πάντοτε is 
 connected with evyap. (Comp. Rom. i. 8-10; 1 Cor.i.4; Col. i. 
 
 N 
 
178 PHILEMON [4, 5 
 
 3, 4.) The construction probably accords with Col. i. 3, 4, since 
 there is a close correspondence of the phraseology, and the two 
 letters were written at the same time. Ποιούμενος defines πάντοτε. 
 (See on Phil. i. 4.) 
 
 Ellic. differs from most of the modern commentators by connecting 
 πάντοτε with ποιούμενος. 
 
 All that the apostle had heard of Philemon caused him to add 
 thanksgiving to his prayers. “‘ Notandum quod pro quo gratias 
 agit, pro eodem simul precatur. Nunquam enim tanta est vel per- 
 fectissimis gratulandi materia, quamdiu in hoc mundo vivunt, 
 quin precibus indigeant, ut det illis Deus non tantum perseverare 
 usque ad finem, sed in dies proficere. Haec enim laus quam 
 mox Philemoni tribuit, breviter complectitur totam Christiani 
 hominis perfectionem ” (Calv.). 
 
 ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου : ‘when engaged in offering my prayers.’ 
 "Evi blends the temporal with the local force. For προσευχὴ, 
 prayer in general, see on Phil. iv. 6. Any special petition would 
 be δέησις, which is implied in μνείαν. 
 
 5. ἀκούων : ‘because 1 hear,’ through Epaphras (Col. i. 7, 8, 
 iv. 12), or possibly from Onesimus himself. 
 
 ᾿Ακούων indicates the cause of εὐχαριστῶ; not the motive of the inter- 
 cession, as De W., which would leave evy. without a cause assigned for it; 
 while the ‘mention’ of Philemon did not require that a motive should be 
 assigned. 
 
 σου τὴν ἀγάπην Kal THY πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Kat 
 εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους : ‘thy love and faith which thou hast towards 
 the Lord Jesus and to all the saints.’ 
 
 εἰς τ. κυρ. εἰς παντ. ACD*, 17, 137, WH. 
 προς τ. κυρ. αὶ DFGKLP, Syr.?, Tisch., R.T., Weiss. 
 
 Love and faith are both exercised towards the Lord Jesus, and 
 by a hasty and compressed construction, due to the momentum 
 of the previous part of the clause, the saints also are made the 
 objects of both love and faith, instead of his writing, ‘the love 
 and the faith which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus, and the 
 love which thou hast to all the saints.’ (Comp. Col. i. 4.) Faith 
 works by love, and love exercised towards the saints is a work of 
 faith. In the next clause he speaks of a‘ communication’ of faith 
 to others. Lumby very aptly says: ‘“‘The love was displayed 
 towards the Christian congregation, the faith towards the Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; but they are so knit together where they truly exist 
 that St. Paul speaks of them both as exhibited alike towards Christ 
 and towards his people.” 
 
 A parallel is furnished by Eph. i. 15, if ἀγάπην is omitted from the text 
 with AB, WH., R.T. Tisch. retains. See WH.,ad loc., G&. Test., “ Notes 
 
5,6] LOVE AND FAITH TO CHRIST AND THE SAINTS 179 
 
 on Select Readings.” (Comp. Tit. iii. 15.) Mey., Win. (1. 2), Beet, render 
 πίστιν ‘fidelity’ or ‘ faithfulness,’ a sense which is found in N.T. though 
 rarely (see Rom. iii. 3; 1 Tim. v. 12; Tit. ii. 10), and which is habitual in 
 LXX. (See Lightf. Comm. on Gal. p. 152, and Hatch, Zssays in Bib. G&. 
 p- 83 ff.). But (1) πίστις with ἀγάπη never occurs in this sense in N.T. 
 (See 1 Cor. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 6; 1 Thess. 1. 3, ν. ὃ; 1 Tim. 1. 14, vi. 11; 
 2 Tim. ii. 22.) This is not affected by the fact that ἀγάπην here precedes 
 πίστιν. (See Eph. vi. 23.) Gal. v. 22 and 1 Tim. iv. 12 are not in point. 
 In those passages the words occur in enumerations; and in Gal. y. 22 
 ἀγάπη is entirely detached from πίστις. (2) "ἔχειν πίστιν in N.T. never 
 means ‘to have fidelity.’ The phrase occurs eleven times, and always 
 means ‘to have faith.” A very common explanation is by the rhetorical 
 chiasmus or cross-reference, by which ἀγάπην is referred to τοὺς αἰ γίους, 
 and πίστιν to Kup.’Inc. But the examples of chtasmus commonly cited, 
 even from the class., illustrate mainly the mere arrangement of the words, 
 as where the adjective and the noun are in inverse order in two successive 
 clauses. (See Jelf, Gram. 904, 3; Farrar, on the rhetoric of St. Paul, Zi/e 
 and Work, i. 626.) Besides, the ἣν ἔχεις connects πίστιν with the entire 
 clause τρὸς τ. kup....aylous. The position of cov indicates that it belongs 
 to both ἀγάπ. and ric. Comp. the different arrangement in Col. i. 4. 
 
 πρὸς Tov κύριον : Πρὸς nowhere else with πίστις as directed at 
 Christ. Of faith ‘towards’ God, 1 Thess. i. 8. Comp. πεποίθη- 
 σιν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (2 Cor. iii. 4). ᾿Αγάπη commonly with εἰς in 
 Paul.» (See Rom, v.82 Cor. 11. 83, Col. i.'4 5 Thess. ii. 12; 
 2 Thess. i. 3; but comp. 2.Cor. viii..7; 1 Cor. xvi. 24.) The 
 use of different prepositions is not to be accounted for on the 
 ground of Paul’s fondness for varying the prepositions without 
 designing to express a different relation (Mey.). Paul does, 
 indeed, often use different prepositions in one clause and with 
 reference to one subject in order to define the conception more 
 accurately (Rom. iii. 30, xi. 36; Gal. i. 1, ii. 16; Col. 1. 14) ; but 
 it is too much to say that no different relation is intended. 
 
 See Holtzn. Pastoralbr. p. 101; Winer, xlvii.; Deissmann, Die neutest. 
 Formel ‘in Christo Jesu, pp. 5, 6. 
 
 Bearing in mind that τὴν ἀγάπ. and τὴν πίστ. are so closely 
 related in this passage (see above, and Oltr. ad loc.), πρὸς may be 
 taken in the sense indicated in the notes on Phil. ii. 30, iv. 6, as 
 expressing, not the mere direction of faith and love towards Christ 
 (Lightf., Ellic., Alf.), but the relation of loving and believing 
 intercourse with him; while εἰς indicates the direct practical 
 bearing of faith and love on the Christian brethren. 
 
 πρὸς in class, occurs frequently of all sorts of personal intercourse. (See 
 Hom. Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288; Thucyd. ii. 59, iv. 15, vii. 82; Hdt. i. 61.) It 
 occurs with φιλία, εὔνοια, ἀπιστία, and with πίστις in the sense of ‘a pledge’ 
 (Thucyd. iv. 51; Xen. Cyr. iii. 1, 39). 
 
 6. ὅπως ἡ. κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται : ‘that the 
 communication of thy faith may become (or prove itself) effect- 
 ual.’ The thought grows directly out of εἰς πάντ. τ. ἅγ., and ὅπως 
 
180 PHILEMON [6 
 
 expresses the purpose of the intercession, μνεί. ποιούμ. etc., in vs. 4. 
 (Comp. Mt. ii. 23, vi. 2, 16; Acts ix. 17; 1 Cor. i. 29; 2 Thess. 
 i. 12.) He prays that the love and faith which so greatly aid and 
 comfort all the saints may likewise communicate their blessing to 
 Onesimus, though he does not mention his name. Notice the 
 general similarity of structure between this passage and Eph. 
 i. 16,173; Phil. i. 3 ff.; Col. i. 3 ff._—a prayer after the thanks- 
 giving, followed by a final particle introducing a clause. Alf. and 
 Oltr. take ὅπως with εὐχαριστῶ. Κοιν. τ. rior. signifies ‘the com- 
 munication of thy faith’ to others, Onesimus among them: your 
 faith imparting its virtue through your deeds of love. Κοινωνία is 
 used as in Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16. 
 
 Mey. connects ὅπως with ἣν ἔχεις, and explains κοινωνία as the fellowship 
 entered into by the saints with Philemon’s Christian fidelity. Thus, ‘the 
 faith which thou hast in order that the fellowship of the saints with it may 
 not be a mere idle sympathy, but may express itself in action.’ Oltr., the 
 communion established by faith between Paul and Philemon. Beng., ‘the 
 faith which thou hast and exercisest in common with us,’ Lightf., appar- 
 ently taking πίστεως as genit. of possession or source, ‘your charitable 
 deeds which spring from your faith.’ 
 
 "Evepyys : ‘effectual,’ only twice by Paul. (See 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 
 and comp. Heb. iv. 12.) Effectual by reason of the fruit which 
 follows. ‘The Vulg. ‘evidens’ is probably from a reading ἐναργής. 
 
 ἐν ἐπιγνώσει : ‘in the full knowledge.’ For ἐπιγ., see on Phil. i. 
 9. The subject of the ἐπιγ. is Philemon. ‘The apostle prays that, 
 working in the sphere of full knowledge, the communication of 
 Philemon’s faith may prove itself effective. In other words, the 
 knowledge of every good thing — gospel truth, the principles of 
 Christian fraternity and ministry, the ends of Christian striving, 
 the supplies furnished by the divine Spirit—is the element in 
 which Philemon’s faith will develop to the greatest advantage of 
 others, including Onesimus. The larger his knowledge of such 
 good things, the more will he be moved to deal kindly and Christ- 
 ianly. He will recognise through this knowledge the rightness of 
 Paul’s request, and will not allow his resentment towards Onesi- 
 mus to prevent his recognising the good which the knowledge of 
 Christ has developed in him. 
 
 Mey,., Ellic., Beet, Calv., refer ἐπίγνωσις to the knowledge possessed by 
 others. Thus, Mey., “That whoever enters into participation of the same 
 (fellowship) may make this partaking, through knowledge of every Christ- 
 ian blessing, effective for Christ.’ This is determined by his explanation of 
 κοιν. πίστ. See above. 
 
 The prayer for ἐπίγνωσις is characteristic of this group of epistles. 
 (See Eph. i. 17; Phil. i. 9; Col. i. 9, 10, ii. 2, and comp. Rom. 
 xli. 2; Eph. iv. 13; Tit. i.1.) For this use of ἐν, marking the 
 sphere or element in which something takes place, see 2 Cor. i. 
 6; Col. 1. 29. 
 
6, 7] THE BRETHREN’S HEART REFRESHED 181 
 
 παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘of every good thing that is in you,’ 
 as Christians. Every spiritual gift which you possess. (Comp. 
 Eph.i:.3, 17.) 
 
 του after αγαθου, αὶ DF8* GKLP; Tisch., WH.[], Weiss, R.T.; AC, 17, 
 om. του. 
 
 υμιν, καὶ FGP, 17, 31, 37, 47, 80, 137, Vulg., Cop., Syr.sch et P, Tisch., Weiss, 
 RYE, 
 
 For υμιν ACDKL, WH., read ημιν. 
 
 εἰς Χριστόν : ‘unto Christ.’ Connect with évepy. yév. Unto 
 Christ’s glory —the advancement of his cause. Compare εἰς τὸ 
 εὐαγγέλιον (Phil. i. 5). “That ultimate reference to Christ which 
 is the life of all true Christian work, and alone renders communi- 
 cation energetic” (Bp. of Derry). ‘ Bonum nobis exhibitum 
 redundare debet in Christum” (Beng.). Not = ἐν Χριστῴ. 
 
 Ιησουν added by s* DFGKLP, Vulg., Syr.P, Arm. 
 Text, WH., Tisch., R.T., Weiss. 
 
 7. χαρὰν yap πολλὴν ἔσχον : ‘for I had much joy.’ 
 
 A few secondary uncials and some Fath. read χαριν. 
 DCKL, Syr.**, exouev for exxov. 
 
 Tap gives the reason for the thanksgiving in vs. 4, 5, and this 
 verse takes up the two points of the thanksgiving, — the love and 
 the ministry to the brethren. 
 
 Ellic., De W., v. Sod., Alf., connect with the prayer just preceding. Beet 
 with both the thanksgiving and the prayer. 
 
 *Eoyxov: ‘I had,’ when I received the report. Comp. ἀκούων 
 vs. 5). 
 ὅτι : ‘because.’ Explaining more particularly the ἐπὶ τ. ay. σου. 
 τὰ σπλάγχνα : ‘the hearts.’ (See on Phil. i. 8.) 
 τῶν ἁγίων : See on Phil. i. 1. 
 ἀναπέπαυται : ‘have been refreshed.’ ᾿Αναπαύειν, originally ‘to 
 cause to cease’ as painor sorrow. Hence ‘to relieve’ or ‘ refresh.’ 
 (See Mt. xi. 28, xxvi. 45 ; Mk. vi. 31; 1 Cor. xvi. 18; 2 Cor. vil. 
 13.) In Attic prose it is almost a technical expression for the 
 resting of soldiers. Its dominant idea is refreshment in contrast 
 with weariness from toil. (See Schmidt, Synon. 25, 2.) Lightf. 
 says it expresses a ¢emforary relief, as the simple παυέσθαι expresses 
 a final cessation. This needs qualifying. The compound does 
 express a temporary relief. ᾿Ανάπαυσις frequently in LXX of the 
 rest of the Sabbath. So Mk. vi. 31, of the temporary retirement 
 of the disciples. But, on the other hand, the refreshment prom- 
 ised by Christ to the weary (Mt. xi. 28, 29) is not a mere tem- 
 porary relief, and the word is used of the rest of the blessed dead, 
 Apoc. xiv. 13. 
 
182 -  PHILEMON [7,8 
 
 Often in Ign. in the phrase ἀναπαύειν με (αὐτοὺς) κατὰ πάντα (EPA. ii.; 
 Smyr. ix. X., Xi; Zrall. xii.; Mag. xv.; Rom. x.). 
 
 ἀδελφέ: Not ‘brother indeed,’ but a simple expression of affec- 
 tion. (Comp. Gal. vi. 18.) 
 
 8-20. Wherefore, although my relations to you would warrant 
 me in enjoining on you that which is fitting, yet, for love's sake, I 
 prefer to ask it of you as a favor; being such as I am, Paul, an 
 old man, and a prisoner for the gospel’s sake. I entreat you, 
 therefore, on behalf of my son Onesimus, who has been converted 
 through my instrumentality during my imprisonment. Once indeed 
 he was not what his name implies, but was useless to you. Now, 
 however, he is profitable both to you and to myself. I send him back 
 to you, dear though he is to me. I had indeed a mind to keep him 
 with me in order that he might minister to me in my imprisonment 
 as you yourself would gladly have done; but I was unwilling to do 
 anything without your concurrence, for I desired that your service 
 to me should be voluntary and not of necessity. And then it occurred 
 to me that God had allowed him to be thus separated from you for 
 @ time, in order that he might come back to you a better servant 
 and a Christian brother besides. Such a brother he is tome; how 
 much more to you his rightful master. 7], ask you then, in view of 
 our mutual fellowship, to receive him as you would me; and tf he 
 has wronged you in any way, or is in your debi, put that to my 
 account. This is my promise to repay tt, signed with my own hand ; 
 though I might intimate that itis you who are my debtor for your 
 very self; since it was through me that you became a Christian. 
 Receive Onesimus then, and thus render me a personal favor, 
 affording me joy and refreshment in Christ. 
 
 8. διό: ‘wherefore’: because I am thus comforted by you. 
 Connect with παρακαλῶ, vs. 9, and not with the participial clause. 
 
 πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων : ‘though I have much bold- 
 ness in Christ.’ Boldness growing out of their Christian relations. 
 Their personal intimacy, St. Paul’s apostolic office, and Philemon’s 
 obligation to him for his conversion (vs. 19), would warrant the 
 apostle, if so disposed, in laying his commands upon Philemon in 
 the matter of receiving Onesimus. 
 
 v. Soden thinks that no allusion to apostolic authority is intended, 
 because the apostolic title is omitted in the introduction. But this does 
 not necessarily follow. Even though the title is omitted, there is no reason 
 why Paul should not allude to his apostolic authority. 
 
8, 9] ENTREATY FOR LOVE’S SAKE 183 
 
 For παρρησίαν, see on Phil. i. 20. Ἔπιτάσσειν, ‘to enjoin’ or 
 ‘command,’ is used rather of commanding which attaches to a 
 definite office and relates to permanent obligations under the 
 office, than of special injunctions for particular occasions (ém- 
 τέλλειν. See Schmidt, Syvon. 8, 10). 
 
 τὸ ἀνῆκον : ‘that which is fitting.’ (See Eph. v. 4; Col. iii. 18; 
 LXX ; 1 Macc. x. 40, xi. 35 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 8.) The primary mean- 
 ing of the verb is ‘ to have come up to’ or ‘arrived at,’ as to have 
 attained a standard of measurement or weight, or to have reached 
 a height. Hence, to have come to one so as to have become his ; 
 to pertain to or belong to him. Comp. Hdt. vi. 109: καὶ κῶς és 
 σέ TL τούτων ἀνήκει τῶν πραγμάτων TO κῦρος ἔχειν : ‘and how it 
 comes to thee to have, in some sort, authority over these things.’ 
 
 9. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην : ‘for love’s sake.’ Love in its widest sense, 
 as the characteristic virtue of all Christians. Not to be limited to 
 the affection between Paul and Philemon. 
 
 μᾶλλον : ‘rather’ than command thee. The object of compari- 
 son is omitted. (See on Phil. i. 12.) Paul desires to obtain for 
 love’s sake and by asking, what he might have obtained by author- 
 ity. Comp. the opening and close of Pliny’s letter to a friend on 
 a similar occasion: “ Vereor ne videar non rogare sed cogere”’ 
 (22. ix.). 
 
 τοιοῦτος ὦν, ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος Χριστοῦ 
 Ἰησοῦ παρακαλῶ : ‘being such (as I am), as Paul the aged and 
 now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ, I beseech thee.’ Paul would 
 say: I might justly enjoin thee, but, for love’s sake, I rather be- 
 seech thee. This general statement of his attitude stands by 
 itself, and forms a complete sentence. He then goes on to 
 define. I do not speak as an apostle, but simply in my personal 
 capacity. Being such as I am,— Paul, an old man, a prisoner 
 of Christ, —I beseech thee, etc. Thus a period is placed after 
 παρακαλῶ, VS. 9. Totodros is Paul’s general description of himself, 
 which is farther defined with the three particulars, — Paul, aged, 
 a prisoner. Accordingly τοιοῦτος points forward to these details. 
 
 There is much difference among interpreters as to the connection. The 
 points in question are: 
 
 (1) Whether τοιοῦτος ὧν is to be connected with ὡς Παῦλος or separated 
 from it. 
 
 (2) Whether τοιοῦτος ὧν begins a new sentence or is connected with 
 the preceding παρακαλῶ, z.e. whether a period or a comma shall be placed 
 after παρακ. (vs. 9). : 
 
 (3) Whether the thought in τοι. ὧν refers back to Paul’s attitude as a 
 suppliant (διὰ τ. dy. wad. wapax.), or to his claim as an apostle (παρρησ. 
 ἔχ. ércr.), or points forward to his attitudé as merely Paul, an old man and 
 8. prisoner. 
 
 As to (1), Lightf., Dw., Beet, R.V., make τοιοῦ. and ὡς correlative: 
 ‘such an one as Paul.’ But τοιοῦτος can be defined only by a following 
 adjective, or by οἷος, ὃς, ὅσος, or ware with the infin. Never by ὡς. Τοιοῦ- 
 τος followed by ὡς occurs nowhere in N.T., and Lightf. has not established 
 
184 PHILEMON [9, 10 
 
 the correlation by the single citation from Plat. (Symp. 181 E) and another 
 from Alexis. Besides it is doubtful whether the reference to Sym. is in 
 point; for τὸ τοιοῦτον may be taken absolutely there, and need not be cor- 
 related with ὥσπερ. (See Jelf, 655.) This absolute use of τοιοῦτος is well 
 established. (See Hom. 7... vii. 42; Soph. 47. 1298; Philoct. 1049; Plat. 
 Repub. 429 B.) Moreover, the rule which makes τοιοῦτος refer to what 
 precedes, while τοιόςδε refers to what follows, is often reversed (Jelf, 655). 
 Professor Sophocles says: ‘ Unless the Greek be irregular, τοιοῦτος and ὡς 
 cannot be reciprocal terms.” 
 
 (2) Period after παρακαλῶ (vs. 9), by Ellic., Mey., Alf., De W., v. Sod., 
 Oltr. Comma after παρακαλῶ, and τοι. ὧν the continuation of the preced- 
 ing clause (Lightf., Dw.). ‘I beseech thee, being such an one as Paul,’ 
 etc. In that case the παρακ. of vs. 10 is resumptive. 
 
 (3) τοιοῦτος ὧν is referred to Paul’s attitude as a suppliant by Mey.,. 
 v. Sod., Ellic., Alf. 
 
 Παῦλος, πρεσβύτης, δέσμιος : Apparently three details of τοιοῦ. 
 are intended. Some, however, take Παῦλ. and πρεσβ. as one con- 
 ception (Luth., Calv., De W., Ellic., Oltr.). 
 
 πρεσβύτης : ‘an aged man.’ His precise age cannot be de- 
 termined. He is called veavias at the time of the martyrdom of 
 Stephen (Acts vii. 58) ; and if, at the time of writing this letter 
 he were sixty or even fifty years old, there would be no impro- 
 priety in his calling himself πρεσβύτης. The term is wholly rela- 
 tive. He might have aged prematurely under his numerous 
 hardships. According to Hippocrates, a man was called πρεσβύ- 
 τῆς from forty-nine to fifty-six ; after that, γέρων. 
 
 Lightf. conjectures that the reading is πρεσβευτής, ‘an ambassador,’ in 
 accordance with Eph. vi. 20; and that that should be the meaning even if 
 πρεσβύτης is retained. So WH. The two forms are certainly interchanged 
 in LXX. (See 2 Chron. xxxil. 31; 1 Macc. xiii. 21, xiv. 21, 22; 2 Macc. 
 xi. 34.) Both in Eph. vi. 20, and 2 Cor. v. 20, πρεσβεύειν is used in con- 
 nection with public relations. ‘ Ambassador” does not seem quite appro- 
 priate to a private letter, and does not suit Paul’s attitude of entreaty. 
 The suggestion of public relations is rather in δέσμιος ’I. X. 
 
 νυνὶ δὲ καὶ : ‘now,’ at the time of my writing this ; καὶ : ‘ besides,’ 
 in addition to my age. 
 
 δέσμιος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : Comp. vs. 1; Eph. iii. 1; iv. 1; 2 Tim. 
 1, 8. Not ‘a prisoner belonging to Christ,’ nor ‘for Christ’s 
 sake,’ διὰ Χριστὸν δεδεμένος (Chr.), but one whom Christ has 
 brought into captivity. (See Win. xxx. 2.) 
 
 Lightf., in accordance with his explanation of πρεσβύτης, thinks that the 
 genit. "I. X. belongs to both πρεσβ. and δέσμ. 
 
 10. τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου : An affectionate designation of Onesimus. 
 The slight hesitation in mentioning the name of the slave, and the 
 delay in coming to the point of the letter, are noticeable. Τέκνον 
 in a similar sense, a spiritual child, 1 Cor. iv. 14, 17; Gal. iv. 19 
 (rexvia) ; « Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. ii. 1. 
 
10, 11] THE PROFITABLE SLAVE 185 
 
 ov ἐγέννησα : Of whose conversion I was the instrument. The 
 appeal in the thought of his won child is heightened by ἐμοῦ, and 
 by the fact that he is the spiritual child of his captivity. For this 
 figurative use of γεννᾷν, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 15. Thayer, Zex., cites 
 Sanhedr. fol. 19, 2, of one who brings others to his own way of 
 life. “If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Script- 
 ure reckons this the same as though he had begotten him.” 
 
 ἐν Tots δεσμοῖς : ‘in my bonds.’ 
 
 pou added by x® CDKLP, Syr.¥, Cop., Arm., Atth. 
 
 ᾿Ονήσιμον : ‘profitable’ (ὀνίνημι). A common name among 
 slaves, like many others expressing utility, as Chresimus, Chrestus, 
 Onesiphorus, Symphorus, Carpus. (See Lightf.’s Jntrod. to Philem. 
 sec. 4.) Accordingly, Weizsacker’s statement that the allegorical 
 character of the epistle is apparent from this name has no rele- 
 vancy whatever (Afost. Zeital. p. 545). ὈὈνήσιμον is accus. by 
 attraction after ἐγένν. 
 
 11. ἄχρηστον : ‘useless,’ ‘unserviceable.’ Titmann (Syz.) says 
 that to the idea of uselessness it adds that of harmfulness, while 
 ἀχρεῖος Means simply that of which there is no need. (See 
 Schmidt, Syzon. 166, 6.) It is not, however, probable that the 
 idea of harmfulness is implied in connection with a possible 
 robbery of his master by Onesimus. (See on vs. 18.) 
 
 “Axpnoros only here in N.T., LXX, Hos. viii. 8; Sap. ii. 11, iii. 11; 
 Sir. xvi. I, xxvil. 19; 2 Macc. vii. 5. 
 
 νυνὶ de: ‘but now,’ that he has become a Christian disciple. 
 Νυνὶ δε, mostly and very often in Paul. (See Rom. vi. 22, vii. 6, 
 Bye Av. 95,25 5.1 Gor: ν, τὰν etc.) 
 
 σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον : ‘profitable to thee and to me.’ For- 
 merly useless to hee, when he was thy worthless, runaway slave, 
 and before 7 had known him. Now profitable to us both. The 
 nice use of the personal pronouns and the assumption of a joint 
 interest in Onesimus are very charming. (Comp. Rom. xvi. 13; 
 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Phil. ii. 27.) 
 
 n* FerG, 17, 31, 47, 67, Syr.8h, Aith., add καὶ before σοι. So Tisch., 
 Weiss. 
 kat om. by ACDKLP, Syr.P, Arm., WH., R.T. 
 
 εὔχρηστον occurs only here, 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11. Profitable to 
 Philemon in the new and higher character of his service as a 
 Christian, as described (Eph. vi. 5 ff.; Col. iii. 22 ff.). Profitable 
 to Paul as an evidence of his successful apostolic labor (καρπὸς 
 ἔργου, Phil. i. 22), and therefore a cause of joy and encourage- 
 ment. There may also be a reference to Onesimus’ kindly minis- 
 tries to himself in his imprisonment (vs. 13). 
 
186 Ἢ PHILEMON [12, 13 
 
 12. ov ἀνέπεμψα σοι αὐτόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα : ‘whom 
 I send back to thee in his own person, that is my very heart.’ 
 Αὐτόν thus emphasises ov, and prepares the way for ra ἐμὰ om. 
 
 Lightf. punctuates ἀνέπ. σοι. Αὐτόν, τουτέστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλ., ὃν ἐγὼ, 
 etc., thus beginning a new sentence with αὐτόν as depending on the idea of 
 προσλαβοῦ (vs. 17). Such a “dislocation” is hardly conceivable, even in 
 Paul’s writing. 
 
 ᾿Ανέπεμψα is the epistolary aorist, by which the writer puts him- 
 self at the point of time when the correspondent is reading his 
 letter. (See Acts xxiii. 30; Phil. ii. 28; Win. xl. 2; and note on 
 ἔγραψα, VS. 19.) For τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, see on Phil. i. 8, ii. i. 
 Pesh. renders ‘my son.’ Wetst. cites Artemidorus, ᾿Ονειροκριτικά 
 (i. 46) οἱ παίδες σπλάγχνα λέγονται ; also Jd. 35, v. 57, and Philo, 
 De Joseph. 5 (ii. 45). In Latin poetry and post-Augustine prose 
 viscera is used in the same sense. (See Ov. Mez. vi. 651, viii. 
 478, x. 465 ; Q. Curt. iv. 14, 22.) So Chr. and Thdrt. But this 
 does not agree with Paul’s usage elsewhere. (See 2 Cor. vi. 12, 
 vii. 15 ; Phil. i. 8, 11. 1; Col. iii. 12.) Besides, it would be tauto- 
 logical after ov ἐγέννησα. 
 
 13. ov ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν κατέχειν: ‘whom I was 
 minded to keep with myself.’ The expression of an actual 
 thought and desire entertained by Paul; ἐβουλόμην indicating 
 deliberation with an accompanying inclination. I was inclined to 
 keep him, and was turning over the matter in my mind. See on 
 τὸ θέλειν, Phil. ii. 13. 
 
 Lightf. prefers the conditional sense of the imperfect, ‘I could have 
 wished,’ referring it to a suppressed conditional clause, ‘if circumstances 
 had favored.’ This is a well-known use of the imperf. (See Acts xxv. 22; 
 Rom. ix. 3; Gal. iv. 20; and Lightf. On Revis. of N.7., under “ Faults of 
 Grammar.”) But no such conditional clause is implied; for Paul does not 
 intimate that the fulfilment of his wish was impossible, and that therefore 
 he did not cherish it, but only that, though he entertained the wish, he 
 
 refrained from acting upon it until he should have learned Philemon’s 
 pleasure in the matter (vs. 14). 
 
 πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν : ‘with myself.’ See on zpos, vs. 5 ; and Phil. iv. 6. 
 
 κατέχειν : For the verb, see Lk. iv. 42, viii. 15 ; Rom. i. 18; 
 1 Thess. v. 21. 
 
 iva ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ : ‘that he might serve me on thy behalf.’ 
 A delicate justification of ἐβουλόμην, and full of tact. The ὑπὲρ 
 gov is exquisite, assuming that his friend would delight in render- 
 ing him, through the slave, the service which he could not per- 
 sonally perform. Ὑπὲρ is not for ἀντὶ, ‘instead of,’ or ‘in thy 
 place’ (Thdrt., Gic., Calv., De W., Bleek, van Oos.), but has its 
 usual N.T. sense, ‘ on behalf of,’ or ‘ for thy sake.’ The expression 
 thus gains in delicacy. Onesimus is more than a mere substitute 
 for Philemon. In these words the relation of master and slave 
 disappears for the moment. Both are servants for Christ’s sake 
 
 eet 
 
13, 14] A FAVOR FREELY GRANTED 187 
 
 in the discharge of a ministry congenial to both. The suggestion 
 is already conveyed by εὔχρηστον that Onesimus, in becoming a 
 Christian disciple, has passed into a new and higher sphere of 
 service, in which he and his master are on common ground. At 
 the same time, there is a hint that Onesimus, even as a slave, is 
 rendering better service to the master whom he has wronged, in 
 thus serving Philemon’s friend and teacher ; serving no longer as 
 a menial, but in hearty sympathy with his master. 
 
 ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς Tov εὐαγγελίου : ‘in the bonds of the gospel’ ; 
 of which the gospel is the cause ; in my imprisonment which has 
 resulted from the preaching of the gospel. Thus a hint is added 
 of his need of such service as that of Onesimus, which has the 
 force of an appeal, as in vs. 9, 10. (Comp. Eph. iv. 1, vi. 20, 
 and Ign. Zrad/. xii.: παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς τὰ δεσμά pov, ἃ ἕνεκεν ᾿ἸΙησοῦ 
 Χριστοῦ περιφέρω: “my bonds exhort you which I wear for the 
 sake of Jesus Christ.” See also Eph. xi: Magn. i.). 
 
 14. χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης : ‘ but without thy judgment.’ ‘But,’ 
 though I had the inclination. Χωρὶς, ‘ apart from,’ in N.T. almost 
 entirely supplements ἄνευ, ‘ without,’ which occurs only three times, 
 and not in Paul. (See Ellic. on Eph. ii. 12.) Τνώμης, not fre- 
 quent in N.T. Primarily ‘a means of knowing’ (γινώσκειν): the 
 organ by which one knows. Hence mind and its operations, 
 thought, judgment, opinion. (See Acts xx. 3; 1 Cor. i. ro, 
 vii. 25 ; 2 Cor. viii. 10; Apoc. xvii. 13, 17.) ‘Mind’ or ‘judg- 
 ment’ is the meaning throughout the N.T. Paul was unwilling 
 to take any steps without having Philemon’s judgment as to what 
 was right in the case. 
 
 ἠθέλησα : “1 determined.’ Comp. the aor. with the imperf: 
 ἐβουλόμην. I was deliberating and came to the decision. 
 
 iva μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ἢ : ‘in order that thy benefit 
 might not be as of necessity’; the benefit, namely, which Phile- 
 mon would confer by allowing Onesimus to remain with Paul. 
 ᾿Αγαθόν not in the sense of ‘ morally good,’ but ‘ kindly,’ ‘ benefi- 
 cent.’ (Comp. Rom. v.°7, vii. 12; 1 Thess. iii. 6; Tit. ii. 5; 
 1 Pet. ii. 18, and see Lightf. Votes on Eps. of St. P. from 
 Unpublished Commentaries, pp. 45, 286, 303.) 
 
 The point made by Mey,., Ellic., Beet, Alf., that τὸ ἀγαθόν is general — 
 the category under which falls the special ἀγαθόν of Onesimus’ remaining 
 —seems to be an over-refinement. The special reference to πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν 
 κατέχειν (vs. 13) is not affected by the fact that Paul did not intend to keep 
 Onesimus (Mey.). His intention was in abeyance for atime. He actually 
 wished to keep him, and debated with himself whether he should not keep 
 him, but he did not resolve to keep him. In that case Philemon would 
 have served Paul, and Paul would have received a benefit from him without 
 consulting him, which was what he did not wish. " 
 
 ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην : ‘as of necessity’; ‘compulsion-wise’ (Ellic.). 
 Ὥς, seeming as, wearing the appearance of. Introduced because 
 
 + 
 
 ΟΝ 
 
188 PHILEMON [14-16 
 
 Paul is satisfied that his retaining Onesimus would have been agree- 
 able to Philemon ; but he would not have it appear as if Philemon’s 
 permission was constrained. Kar. ἀνάγ., not = ἐξ ἀνάγκης (as Oltr.), 
 which marks the origin of the action, but indicating that the action 
 is performed according to a certain rule or model. (See Ellic. on 
 Tit. iii. 5.) This particular phrase only here in N.T., but see 
 κατὰ νόμον, φύσιν, ἀλήθειαν, σάρκα, πνεῦμα, ἐρίθειαν. LXX, only 2 
 Mace. xv. 2. 
 
 κατὰ ἑκούσιον : ‘of free will’; ‘according to what is voluntary.’ 
 ‘Exovowos only here in N.T. (See LXX, Num. xv. 3.) For the 
 same antithesis see 1 Pet. v. 2. 
 
 15. Another reason for not detaining Onesimus. Paul might 
 thus have crossed the purpose of divine Providence. ‘The con- 
 sideration is modestly introduced with τάχα as the suggestion of a 
 possibility, and not as assuming acquaintance with God’s designs. 
 It might be that God allowed the slave to leave you in order that 
 he might become a Christian disciple ; and if I should retain him, 
 you would not have him back in your household as a Christian 
 brother. Philemon’s attention is thus turned from his individual 
 wrongs to the providential economy which has made these wrongs 
 work for good. 
 
 Tap explains the additional motive of ἠθέλησα. Τάχα is found 
 only here and Rom. v. 7. 
 
 ἐχωρίσθη : ‘he was parted (from thee).’ The word is chosen 
 with rare tact. He does not say ‘he ran away,’ which might 
 excite Philemon’s anger ; but ‘he was separated,’ and, by the use 
 of the passive, he puts Onesimus’ flight into relation with the 
 ordering of Providence. See Chrysostom’s comparison with the 
 case of Joseph, who says, “God did send me before you”’ 
 (Gen. xlv. 5). 
 
 πρὸς wpav: ‘for a season.’ Indefinite. (Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; 
 Gal. ii. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 17.) Whatever the period of separation, it 
 was but ‘an hour’ as compared with its lasting consequences. 
 
 iva... ἀπέχῃς : ‘that thou mightest have him.’ The com- 
 pound verb denotes the completeness of the possession. (See 
 on Phil. iv. 18.) The bond between the master and the slave 
 would no longer be that of ownership by purchase which death 
 would dissolve, but their common relation to Christ which made 
 them brethren, now and evermore. 
 
 Lightf. explains ἀπέχῃς ‘receive back.” If this is correct, it is the only 
 instance in N.T., though ἀπὸ has this meaning in composition with διδόναι, 
 καθιστάναι, καταλλάσσειν, and λαμβάνειν. (See Mt. xii. 13; Mk. iii. 5; 
 Lk. iv. 20, ix. 42, xix. 8.) 
 
 16. οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον : ‘no longer as a slave.’ ‘Qs denotes the 
 subjective conception of Onesimus’ relation to his master, without 
 reference to the external relation; 2.46. Paul does not say that 
 
16, 17] MORE THAN A SLAVE 189 
 
 Philemon is to receive Onesimus freed, and no longer a slave, 
 which would be δοῦλον simply, but that, whether he shall remain 
 a slave or not, he will no longer be regarded as a slave, but as a 
 brother beloved. ‘The relation between the master and the slave 
 is transformed. The slave, even without ceasing to be a slave, is 
 on a different and higher footing with his master. Both are in 
 Christ. (See 1 Cor. vii. 20-24; Col. iii. 11.) The relation is 
 conceived absolutely, without special reference to Philemon’s view 
 of it. 
 
 ὑπὲρ δοῦλον : ‘above a slave’; ‘more than a slave.’ For this 
 sense of ὑπὲρ, see Mt. x. 24, 37; Acts xxvi. 13 ; Win. xlix. 
 
 ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητὸν : Explaining ὑπὲρ δοῦλον. 
 
 μαλίστα ἐμοί : ‘especially to me’ whose spiritual child he is. 
 
 πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ : ‘but how much more to thee.’ Because 
 he is your property. ‘There is a hint that the property relation 
 involves more than mere ownership and receiving of service. 
 Ownership should be a basis for Christian fraternity and its 
 mutual ministries. 
 
 καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord.’ 
 Explaining πόσῳ μᾶλλον. In the mere external relation (ἐν σαρκὶ) 
 Onesimus will be a better servant; in the spiritual relation (ἐν 
 κυρίῳ) he will be on a higher footing, and will have acquired a 
 new value as a Christian brother. 
 
 The main point of the letter is at last reached, backed by an 
 appeal to Philemon’s fellowship with Paul. Paul has sent Onesi- 
 mus back (vs. 11). He prays Philemon to give him a kindly 
 reception. 
 
 17. εἰ οὖν pe ἔχεις κοινωνόν : ‘if therefore thou regardest me as a 
 partner.’ Οὖν sums up the considerations just urged, and resumes 
 the request foreshadowed in vs.11,12. For ἔχεις comp. Luke xiv. 
 18; Phil. ii. 29. Κοινωνόν : The noun and its kindred verbs are 
 used in N.T. almost exclusively of ethical and spiritual relations. 
 Even when applied to pecuniary contributions, they imply Christ- 
 ian fellowship as the basis of the liberality. Comp., however, 
 Lk. v. 10; Heb. ii. 14. Here a partner in Christian faith, so that 
 the refusal of Paul’s request would be inconsistent with such a 
 relation. Surely not as Beng. “that what is thine may be mine, 
 and mine thine.” 
 
 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ: ‘receive him as myself.’ Take him 
 unto thee. Admit him to Christian fellowship. ‘Qs ἐμέ. Comp. 
 τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα (VS. 12). 
 
 He guards against certain possible hindrances to Onesimus’: 
 favorable reception. 
 
190 PHILEMON [18, 19 
 
 18. εἰ δέ τι ἠδίκησεν σε ἢ ὀφείλει : ‘if ne hath in aught wronged 
 thee or is in thy debt.’ Another exhibition of the apostle’s tact 
 in dealing with a delicate subject. Besides running away, Onesi- 
 mus had possibly robbed his master. He had at least deprived 
 him of his services by his flight. Paul states the case hypo- 
 thetically, and puts the offence as a debt. 
 
 τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα : ‘place this to my account.’ He will be 
 responsible for the amount. . 
 
 "EAAdya, only here and Rom. v. 13. Not in class., though 
 occurring in one or two inscriptions. It does not occur in LXX. 
 
 The reading ελλογει has very scanty support. 
 
 19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί: “1, Paul, write it with my 
 own hand.’ Paul’s promissory note. Ἔγραψα is the epistolary 
 aorist. (Comp. 1 Pet. v.12; 1 Jn. il. 14, 21,26.) Tijweula 
 appear that Paul wrote these and at least the two following words 
 with his own hand. How much more he may have written, 
 whether the entire letter, or all the verses from 19 to the end, is 
 purely a matter of speculation. 
 
 Lightf. says that this incidental mention of his autograph, occurring 
 where it does, shows that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand 
 instead of employing an amanuensis as usual. So De W. and Alf., and 
 Ellic. and Oltr. think it not improbable. (See Lightf. and Ellic. on Gal. 
 vi. II.) 
 
 ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω: “1 will repay it.’ Probably without eny serious 
 expectation that Philemon would demand payment; but yet not 
 as a mere graceful pleasantry (as v. Sod., Mey., Oltr.).  Olltr. 
 imagines how Philemon must have laughed at such a promise 
 from a man who had not a penny in the world. But why? Paul 
 on his anticipated release from prison might have found means to 
 pay if payment should be demanded, just as he found means to live 
 in prison or to earn the money by his own labor as he had done 
 more than once. 
 
 iva μὴ λέγω σοι: ‘not to say to thee.’ (Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4.) 
 A sort of elliptical construction in which the writer delicately 
 protests against saying something which he nevertheless does say. 
 Similar phrases are οὐχ dre (Phil. iv. 11) ; οὐχ οἷον ὅτι (Rom. 
 ix. 6). In many such cases the phrase becomes stereotyped, 
 and the connection with a suppressed thought is not consciously 
 present to the writer. The thought completely expressed would 
 be: ‘I agree to assume the obligation 271: order fo avoid mention- 
 ing your great personal debt to me.’ 
 
 ὅτι καὶ σεαυτόν μοι προσοφείλεις : ‘that thou owest me also thine 
 own self besides.’ You owe to me your conversion. The καὶ 
 ‘also,’ and zpos (προσοφ.) ‘in addition to’ are correlated. You 
 are my debtor not only to the amount for which I here become 
 
19-22] + REFRESH MY HEART IQI 
 
 responsible, but a/so for your own self 7m addition to that. Even 
 if you remit the debt, you will still owe me yourself. Προσοφείλειν 
 only here in N.T. 
 
 20. ναὶ, ἀδελφέ: ‘yea, brother.’ Nai is a particle of confirma- 
 tion. See on Phil. iv. 3, and comp. Matt. xv. 27; Rom. iii. 29 ; 
 Apoc. xiv. 13. It confirms the request in vs. 17. 
 
 ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘let me have profit from thee in the 
 Lord.’ The ἐγώ is emphatic. Receive Aim, and so may J be 
 profited. I ask for him as a favor to-myself. This emphasis 
 delicately points to Onesimus, and the allusion is strengthened by 
 the play on his name in ὀναίμην. ᾿Ονίνασθαι ‘to have profit or 
 advantage.’ Only here in N.T. It is common in class. with the 
 genitive of that from which profit accrues. See Hom. //. xvi. 31; 
 Od. xix. 68; Eurip. Med. 1025, 1348: Aristoph. Zhesm. 469. 
 Also Ign. Polyc. i. vi; Mag. ii. xii; Eph. ii. 
 
 ἐν κυρίῳ : Not material advantage, but advantage accruing from 
 their both being in Christ, and from the act as a Christian act. 
 
 ἀναπαυσόν : 566 ON VS. 7. 
 
 μου τὰ σπλάγχνα : ‘my heart.’ Not a designation of Onesimus. 
 (Comp. vs. 12.) 
 
 21, 22. Being assured of your obedient spirit, I write to you, 
 knowing that you will do even more than Lask. While you thus 
 receive Onesimus, be ready to receive me also, and prepare a lodg- 
 ing for me, since I hope that,in answer to your prayers, I may 
 soon be permitted to visit you. 
 
 21. πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου : ‘having confidence in thine obedi- 
 ence.’ Not recurring to the note of authority in vs. 8, but mean- 
 ing his obedience to the claims of Christian duty as they shall 
 appeal to his conscience. 
 
 ἔγραψά σοι: “1 write to thee.’ See on vs. 19. 
 
 ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω : ‘above what I say.’ For ὑπὲρ, see on vs. 16. It 
 is not certain that he alludes to the manumission of Onesimus 
 (De W., Oltr., Reuss, Godet), though this may possibly be im- 
 plied. ‘The expression is general. My confidence in your love 
 and obedience assures me that you will more than fulfil my 
 request. 
 
 22. ἅμα de: ‘but withal.’ At the same time with your kindly 
 reception of Onesimus. For ἅμα see Acts xxiv. 26, xxvii. 40; 
 Cal, 19.533. t Tim: 2: 
 
 ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν : ‘prepare me a lodging,’ or ‘ entertainment.’ 
 Indicating his hope of speedy liberation as expressed in Phil. ii. 
 24. According to Phil. ii. 24, Paul proposed to go to Macedonia 
 in the event of his liberation; whereas here he expresses a wish 
 ’ to go immediately to Colosse. (See Weiss, ind. § 24.) But 
 
192 PHILEMON [22, 23 
 
 between writing the two letters, he might have found reason to 
 change his mind; or he might take Philippi on his way from 
 Rome to Colossz, since Philippi was on the great high-road 
 between Europe and Asia. (See Hort, Zhe Romans and the 
 Ephesians, pp. 103, 104.) 
 
 ξενίαν: Only here and Acts xxviii. 23. Suid. and Hesych. 
 define ‘an inn, καταγώγιον, katdAvpa.’ Ἐξνισθῶμεν, however, Acts 
 xxi. 16, is used of entertainment in a private house. The primary 
 meaning of gevéa is ‘ hospitality,’ ‘ friendly entertainment or recep- 
 tion.’ ᾿Ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίαν is ‘to come seeking entertainment’ (Pind. 
 NV. 49); ἐπὶ ξενίαν καλεῖν is ‘to invite as a guest’ (Dem. 81, 20). 
 Comp. Clem. Hom. xii. 2, προάξωσιν τὰς ξενίας ἑτοιμάζοντες. The 
 phrase here may therefore mean, ‘ prepare to entertain me.’ 
 
 διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν : Comp. Phil. i. 19. 
 
 χαρίσθησομαι : ‘I shall be granted’ or ‘given.’ As a favor by 
 God, and perhaps with a friendly assumption that his coming will 
 be regarded by them as a favor. I shall be graciously restored to 
 you who desire my safety, and who will welcome my restoration. 
 (See Acts iii. 14, xxvii. 24.) 
 
 SALUTATIONS 
 
 23. All the persons saluted are named in the salutations of 
 Col. except Jesus Justus. 
 
 *"Exadpas: Paul’s delegate to the Colossians (Col, i. 7). A 
 Colossian, and not to be identified with Epaphroditus of Phil. ii. 
 25, on which see note. 
 
 Μάρκος : Probably John Mark, the son of Mary (Acts xii. 12, 25, 
 xv. 37). Called 6 ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα (Col. iv. 10). The first 
 mention of him since the separation twelve years before (Acts xv. 
 39) occurs in Col. and Philem. (Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 11 with the 
 account of the separation.) He is commended to the church at 
 Colosse (Col. iv. 10). In 1 Pet. v. 13 he sends salutation to 
 Asia, and appears to be there some years after the date of Col. 
 and Philem. (2 Tim. iv. 11). 
 
 ’Apicrapxos: A Thessalonian who started with Paul on his 
 voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2). On his leaving Paul at Myra, 
 see Introd. V. In Col. iv. 10, 11, he is mentioned with Mark and 
 Jesus Justus as being of the circumcision. He appears at Ephesus 
 as Paul’s companion (Acts xix. 29), and as accompanying the 
 apostle on his return from Greece through Macedonia to Troas 
 (Acts xx. 4). 
 
 Anpas: Contraction of Δημήτριος. Probably a Thessalonian 
 (Col. iv. 14, comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10.) 
 
 Λουκᾶς : The evangelist. His connection with Paul first appears 
 Acts xvi. 10, where he accompanies the apostle to Macedonia. 
 
2] THE CHURCH IN THY HOUSE 193 
 
 He remained at Philippi after Paul’s departure, and was there 
 seven years later, when Paul visited the city (Acts xx. 5,6). He 
 accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 15), after which 
 we lose sight of him until he appears at Cesarea (Acts xxvii. 2), 
 whence he accompanies Paul to Rome. 
 
 NoTE ON “THE CHURCH THAT Is IN THY HOUSE” (vs, 2) 
 
 The basilica did not appear until the third-century. The oldest witnesses 
 for special church buildings are Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. c. 5, and Hippol. 
 Fragm. ed. Lagarde, p. 149. Both witnesses represent the beginning of the 
 third century, about 202 A.D., and are older than the commonly cited passages 
 in Tert. Adv. Valent. c. 3 (205-8 A.D.). 
 
 The liberty of assembling was due to the fact that in the Roman Empire 
 Christians at this time passed as a Jewish sect. The Jews were allowed to 
 assemble under the special exemptions granted by Julius Czesar and Augustus, 
 which declared their communities legally authorised, and gave them the right 
 to establish societies in all places (Joseph. “μέ. xiv. 10, 8). They thus 
 availed themselves of the widely spread institution of collegta or sodalitates 
 which had prevailed in the empire from a very early period. Numerous clubs 
 or confraternities existed, composed either of the members of different trades, 
 of the servants of a particular household, or of the worshippers of a particular 
 deity. A special object of these clubs was to provide decent burial for their 
 members. A fund was raised by contribution, from which burial expenses 
 were defrayed, and also the expenses of the annual feasts held on the birthdays 
 of the deceased. (See Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius, vii.; Pliny’s 
 Letter to Trajan; Tert. Afol. 39.) For the celebration of these feasts special 
 buildings were erected called scho/ae. Sometimes a columbarium was pur- 
 chased by a club for its own use. 
 
 This right of forming co//egia was at first freely granted to all parties under 
 the republic, but began to be restricted before the close of the republican 
 period. (See Cicero, Orat. in L. Calp. Pison. c. 4; and Livy’s account of the 
 extirpation of the Bacchanalian rites, xxxix. 8.) 
 
 Julius Cesar suppressed all but the most ancient col/egia (Suet. Julius, 42), 
 and his decrees were confirmed by Augustus (Suet. Augustus, 32). From the 
 operation of these edicts, however, the Jews were exempted. They had only to 
 refrain from meeting in a single general association. They were allowed the 
 free exercise of their worship, and government by the chiefs of their synagogues. 
 It was easy for the Christians to take advantage of the general misconception 
 which confounded them with the Jews, and to hold their assemblies. Ata 
 later period, when they became more distinct, and their ordinary assemblies 
 were forbidden, they availed themselves of those exceptions to the Julian and 
 Augustan edicts which allowed the existence of benefit-clubs among the poor 
 for funeral purposes, and permitted them to meet once a week. This excep- 
 tion became important under Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). 
 
 ο 
 
194 PHILEMON [2 
 
 See Edwin Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches; E. 
 Loening, Gemeindeverfassung; W.M. Ramsay, 7he Church in the Roman 
 Empire, etc.; J. S. Northcote and W. R. Brownlow, Roma Sotteranea, 2d 
 ed.; R. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Excavations, p. 128; 
 and Pagan and Christian Rome, p. 117; De Rossi, Roma Sotteranea, i. 
 
 Ρ- 209. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 Achaia, xi. 
 
 Acts, date of, 41. 
 
 ᾿Αγιασμός, a state and a process, 123. 
 
 Alexander the Great, x. 
 
 Alford, on date of the Philippian let- 
 ter, xxii. 
 
 Antithesis of Adam and Christ, 84-86. 
 
 Apphia, 176. 
 
 Arbela, battle of, x. 
 
 Archippus, speculations concerning, 
 177. 
 
 Aristarchus, xxiii. 
 
 Aristotle, on μορφὴ, 79. 
 
 Baur, attack on the Philippian letter, 
 xxvif. Oni. 7, xxvii. Rejects Epis- 
 tle to Philemon, 159. 
 
 Becker, on the Roman slaves, 162. 
 
 Beyschlag, on the antithesis of Adam 
 and Christ, 85. Status of the pre- 
 incarnate Christ, 85. Distinction 
 between θεὸς and ὁ θεὸς, 86. 
 
 Bishops, 4. In the Pauline epistles, 
 38, 40. In the Ignatian letters, 40. 
 In the Pastoral Epistles, 47. 
 
 Brace, C. L., on mitigations of slavery, 
 168. 
 
 Briggs, C. A., on the antithesis of 
 Adam and Christ, 84. Doctrine of 
 the preincarnate Christ in the Epis- 
 tle to the Colossians, 85. 
 
 Bruce, A. B., on the preincarnate 
 Christ, 83. Treatment of justifica- 
 tion in Epistle to the Romans, 124. 
 
 Burrhus, the pretorian prefect, xxi, 
 
 Cesarea, composition of the Asiatic 
 epistles at, 160 f. 
 
 Czesar’s household, 153. 
 
 Callistratus, xiv. 
 
 Calvin, on imputation, 127. 
 
 Cheronea, battle of, x. 
 
 Christians, confounded with Jews, 
 193. 
 
 Church in the house, 177, 193. 
 
 Clementine Homilies, xxvi. 
 
 Clement of Rome, reminiscences of the 
 Philippian letter, xxvi. Fictitiously 
 represented as St. Paul’s fellow-la- 
 borer, xxvi. Spiritual obligations 
 illustrated by civic duties, 32. Names 
 of church officers, 40. On the epis- 
 copal office, 44. On bishops aad 
 deacons, 47. On qualifications of 
 presbyters, 48. 
 
 Collegia, 193. 
 
 Colonies, Roman, xvi f. 
 
 Colossians, Epistle to, composition at 
 Czesarea, xxil. 
 
 Comparatives, St. Paul’s use of, 29. 
 
 Corinth, destroyed by Mummius, xi. 
 
 Cynocephalz, battle of, xi. 
 
 Datos, xiv. 
 
 Deacons, in the Pauline epistles, 38, 
 40. In the Pastoral Epistles, 49. 
 In Clement of Rome and the Di- 
 dache, 49. Older view of their ori- 
 gin not sustained, 49. 
 
 Deissmann, G, A., on ἐν Χριστῷ "Inco, 
 4. On use of prepositions by Paul, 
 
 179. 
 
 195 
 
196 INDEX OF 
 
 Designations of Christ in the Epistles 
 of the Imprisonment, 100. 
 
 Didache, bearing on primitive church 
 organisation, 42 f., 44. 
 
 Diognetus, letter to, reminiscence of 
 Philippian letter, xxvi, 119. 
 
 Dorner, on Christ’s equality with God, 
 84. On antithesis of Adam and 
 Christ, 84. On Rom. i. 4, 86. 
 
 Dyrrhachium, treaty of, xi. 
 
 Earthquakes in the Lycus valley, 161. 
 
 Egnatia, Via, xviii. 
 
 Epaphroditus, xxiii, 75. 
 
 Ephesus, relations with cities of the 
 Lycus, 157. 
 
 *Emloxoros, in LXX, 45. 
 
 *Erovpamos, application to the prein- 
 carnate Christ, xxvii. 
 
 Eusebius, recognition of the Philippian 
 letter, xxvi. Of the Epistle to Phi- 
 lemon, 159. On the date of the 
 earthquake at Laodiczea, 161. 
 
 Expositor, essays on primitive church 
 
 polity, 37. 
 
 Faith, ethical quality in, 127. 
 Farrar, F. W., on the date of the Phil- 
 ippian letter, xxiv. 
 
 Godet, F., on the date of the Philippian 
 letter, xxii. 
 
 Gold mines in Macedonia, xv. 
 
 Granicus, battle at the, x. 
 
 Guilds in the Roman Empire and their 
 relation to ecclesiastical nomencla- 
 
 ture, 44, 45. 
 
 Harnack, A., on the date of St. Paul’s 
 arrival at Rome, xxi. On Phil. i. 3, 
 6. On primitive church polity, 37, 
 39. On date of Acts and Pastoral 
 Epistles, 41, 42. On development 
 of church polity in the Philippian 
 letter, 42. On the Afostolical Ordi- 
 nances, 43. 
 
 Hatch, E., on primitive church polity, 
 
 SUBJECTS 
 
 37. On the origin of ecclesiastical 
 titles, 44. On the relation of the 
 synagogue to the original Christian 
 polity, 46. 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to, 87. 
 
 Heuzey and Daumet, A/ission Archéo- 
 logique de Macédoine, xiv, xv, xviii. 
 
 Hitzig, F., on Euodia and Syntyche, 
 130. 
 
 Hodge, C., on imputation, 125. 
 
 Holland, H. S., on faith, 128. 
 
 Holtzmann, H. J., on the date of the 
 Philippian letter, xxii. Recognises 
 the authenticity of, xxx. On a 
 primitive collective Christendom, 
 38. Date of the Pastoral Epistles, 
 41. Relations of the primitive 
 church to the synagogue, 46. Ac- 
 cepts the Epistle to Philemon as 
 authentic, 160. On use of preposi- 
 tions by Paul, 179. 
 
 Holtzmann, O., on Acts xvi. 12, xx. 
 On date of Paul’s arrival at Rome, 
 xxi. 
 
 Hort, F. J. A., on the date of the 
 Philippian letter, xxiv. On earth- 
 quakes at Laodicza, 162. 
 
 Ignatius, reminiscences of the Philip- 
 pian letter in the epistles of, xxvi. 
 On the episcopate, 40. 
 
 Irenzeus, use of πρεσβύτερος, 48. 
 
 Jerome, on the Epistle to Philemon, 
 159. 
 
 Josephus, on the detention of prison- 
 ers, Xxi. 
 
 Jowett, B., on the character of the 
 Philippian letter, xxxiv. On the 
 Parousia, 8. On lost Pauline epis- 
 tles, 91. 
 
 Judaisers, in Rome, 18. In Philippi, 
 92, 93- 
 
 Jiilicher, A., on the date of the Philip- 
 pian letter, xxii. 
 
 Jus Italicum, xvi, xx. 
 
INDEX OF 
 
 Kl6pper, A., on the date of the Philip- 
 pian letter, xxii. On Phil. i. 23, 29. 
 Krenides, x. 
 
 Lanciani, R., on the imperial house- 
 hold, 153. 
 
 Lecky, W. E. H., on slavery, 162. 
 
 Liddon, H. P., on δικαιοσύνη, 123. 
 
 Lightfoot, J. B., on the date of the 
 Philippian letter, xxiii. Essay on 
 “The Christian Ministry,” 37. Orig- 
 inal Christian polity an imitation of 
 the synagogue, 46. On πραιτώριον, 
 51. On Phil. ii. 17, 71. On σχῆμα 
 and μορφὴ, 79. On μόρφωσις, 80. 
 On ἁρπαγμός, 88. On lost epistles 
 to the Philippians, 91. On the posi- 
 tion of woman in Macedonia, 130. 
 On Cesar’s household, 154. 
 
 Lipsius, R. A., on the date of the 
 Philippian letter, xxii. 
 
 Loening, E., on primitive church pol- 
 ity, 37, 43. On ecclesiastical no- 
 menclature as derived from the 
 Roman guilds, 44. 
 
 Luke, a Macedonian, xviii, xix. 
 by Paul at Philippi, xx. 
 Philemon, 192. 
 
 Luther, on imputation, 127. 
 
 Lyons and Vienne, Epistle to the 
 Philippians cited in the letter to 
 Asia, xxvi. 
 
 Left 
 
 Macedonia, geography of, ix. Litera- 
 ture on, xii. Division by the Ro- 
 mans, xi. 
 
 Marquardt, on πραιτώριον, 51. 
 
 Matheson, G., on Onesimus, 166. 
 
 McGiffert, A., on date of Paul’s arrival 
 at Rome, xxi. 
 
 Menaea, 158. 
 
 Ménégoz, on justification, 123. 
 
 Messianic lordship of Christ, 86, 87. 
 
 Meyer, H. A. W., on the date of the 
 Philippian letter, xxii. On Judaisers 
 in Rome, 19. On ἁρπαγμός, 58, 89. 
 
 Salutes | 
 
 SUBJECTS 197 
 
 Mommsen, Th., on πραιτώριον, 52. 
 
 Mummius, L., xi. 
 
 Municipia, Roman, xvi. 
 
 Muratorian Canon, includes Philip- 
 pians and Philemon, xxvi, 159. 
 
 Neapolis, xviii. 
 
 Onesimus, in the martyrologies, 158. 
 
 Origen, recognition of the Pauline 
 authorship of the letters to the 
 Philippians and Philemon, xxvi, 159. 
 
 Parabolani, 77. 
 
 Pastoral Epistles, date of, 41. 
 
 Paul, arrives at Philippi, xix. In Ma- 
 cedonia, xviii. Arrival at Rome, 
 xxi, Delay of trial, xxi. 
 
 Paullus, L. A‘milius, xi. 
 
 Perdiccas, x. 
 
 Perseus, xi. 
 
 Peshitto, epistles to the Philippians 
 and Philemon included in, xxvi, 159. 
 
 Pfleiderer, O., on Judaisers in Rome, 
 19. On Phil. i. 21, 27. On officers 
 in the primitive church, 39. On 
 Phil. ii. 12, 65. On moral resurrec- 
 tion, 104. On the Epistle to Phile- 
 mon, 160. 
 
 Philemon, Epistle to, occasion of, 158. 
 References in Ignatius, 159. Exter- 
 nal evidence for, 159. Composed 
 at Rome, 160. 
 
 Philemon, a Colossian, 157. 
 
 Philip of Macedon, x. Names Phil- 
 ippi, xv. 
 
 Philip, son of Demetrius, xi. 
 
 Philippi, x, xiii, xiv. Defeat of Brutus 
 and Cassius at, xvi. Description in 
 Acts xvi. 12, xix f. Modern appear- 
 ance of, xvii. 
 
 Philippians, Epistle to, written at 
 Rome, xxii. Occasion of, xxv. Crit- 
 ical questions on, xxv f. Pauline 
 diction of, xxx. Defenders of au- 
 thenticity of, xxx. History of con- 
 troversy on, xxx. Integrity of, xxxi ἕν 
 
198 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 Contents and character of, xxxii f. | Schiirer, E., on imitation of the syna- 
 
 Text, xxxvii f. Commentaries on, 
 xxxix f. 
 
 Philo, on anarthrous θεὸς, 86. 
 
 Polycarp, to the Philippians, xxv. On 
 obligations to the spiritual polity, 
 32. On former epistles to the Phil- 
 ippians, 91. 
 
 Przetorian guard, 16, 51. 
 
 Preetors, xvii. 
 
 Preincarnate existence of Christ, 83. 
 
 Presbyters, 36. Identity with bishops, 
 37. In the Pauline epistles, 40. In 
 the Acts and Pastoral Epistles, 46, 
 48. Πρεσβύτεροι καθεσταμένοι, 48, 
 49. Ol καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύ- 
 TEpol, 49. 
 
 Provinces, senatorial and imperial, xi. 
 
 Pydna, Macedonian defeat at, xi. 
 
 Ramsay, W. M., xviii, xix. On mpac- 
 τώριον, 52. On date of Paul’s arri- 
 val at Rome, xxi. 
 
 Renan, E., xviii. On origin of eccle- 
 siastical titles, 44. 
 
 Réville, J., on the origin of the 
 episcopate, 38, 39, 41, 45, 50. 
 
 Righteousness of faith, imparted, not 
 imputed, 125 f. 
 
 Rothe, R., original Christian polity an 
 imitation of the synagogue, 46. 
 
 ’ 
 
 Sabatier, A., on righteousness of faith, 
 126. On authenticity of Epistle to 
 Philemon, 160. 
 
 Salvation, Pauline doctrine of in Phil. 
 lii, 19-21, 121 f. 
 
 Sanday, W., on ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός and 
 Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, 3. On πίστις, 34. 
 Review of Harnack, 37. On Czsar’s 
 household, 153. 
 
 gogue by the primitive church, 46. 
 On Pauline chronology, xxi. 
 Seneca, on slavery, 167. 
 Slavery, Roman, 162 ff. 
 attitude towards, 165 ff. 
 Smyth, N., on the body of Christ’s 
 glory, 121. 
 Sohm, R., Kirchenrecht, 44. 
 Stoicism, 32. 
 
 St. Paul’s 
 
 Tacitus, on date of earthquake at 
 Laodicza, 161. On the increase 
 of slaves, 162. 
 
 Tertullian, allusion to the Epistle to 
 Philemon, 159. 
 
 Thasos, xiv, xv. 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, reminiscence 
 of the Philippian letter in, xxvi. 
 
 Tigellinus, succeeds Burrhus as preeto- 
 rian prefect, xxiii. 
 
 Timothy, 2, 74, 175. 
 
 Tychicus, 158. 
 
 Volkmar, G., on Euodia and Syntyche, 
 XXVil. 
 
 Wallon, H., on ancient slavery, 162. 
 
 Weiss, B., on the date of the Philippian 
 letter, xxii. On Judaisers in Rome, 
 19. On Phil. i. 23, 29. On μορφὴ 
 and δόξα, 81. 
 
 Weizsicker, C., on primitive Christian 
 polity, 37. On the date of Acts, 
 41. On the preincarnate Christ, 83. 
 On the Epistle to Philemon, 160, 
 185. 
 
 Westcott, B. F., on the glorified body | 
 of believers, 121. 
 
 Wieseler, K., on Philemon and Ar- 
 
 chippus, 157. 
 
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 
 
 REFERENCES TO PHILEMON ARE DENOTED BY P. 
 
 ἀγαθός, P. 14. 
 ἀγάπη, P. 5, 9. 
 ἅγιος, i. 1, iv. 21. 
 αἰ γνός, iv. 8. 
 ἀγών, i, 30. 
 
 ἀδελφὸς, ii. 25; P. 1, 7. 
 
 ἀδημονεῖν, ii. 26. 
 αἴσθησις, i. 9. 
 αἰσχύνεσθαι, i. 20. 
 αἴτημα, iv. 6. 
 αἰὼν, iv. 20. 
 ἀκειρεῖσθαι, iv. 10. 
 ἀκέραιος, ii. 15. 
 ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ, ii. 17. 
 ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε, iii. 8. 
 ἄμωμος, li. 15. 
 ἀναθάλλειν, iv. 10. 
 ἀναλύειν, i. 23. 
 ἀναπαύειν, Ῥ. 7. 
 ἀναπληροῦν, ii. 30. 
 
 ἀνάστασις, iii. 10, 11. 
 
 ἀνῆκον, P. 8. 
 ἄνω, iii. 14. 
 amexdéxeo Oat, iii. 20. 
 
 ἀπέχειν, iv. 18; P. 15. 
 
 ἀπιδεῖν, ii. 23. 
 ἀποβαίνειν eis, i. 19. 
 ἀποκαλύπτειν, iii. 15. 
 ἀποκαραδοκία, i, 20. 
 ἀπολογία, i. 7. 
 ἀπόστολος, li. 25. 
 ἀπουσία, ii. 12. 
 ἀπρόσκοπος, i. 10. 
 
 ἀρετὴ, iv. 8. δοκεῖν, iii. 4. 
 dprayyds, ii. 6; p. 88. | δοκιμάζειν, i. 10, 
 ἀσφαλής, iii. 1. δοκιμή, ii, 22. 
 ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, i. 5. δόμα, iv. 17. 
 αὐτάρκης, ἵν. 11. δόξα, i. 11; p. 81. 
 ἄχρηστος, P. 11. ἐν δόξῃ, iv. 19. 
 δόσις καὶ λῆμψις, iv. 15. 
 βεβαίωσις, i. 7. δοῦλος, i. I. 
 βίβλος ζωῆς, iv. 3. δύναμις, iii, 10, 21. 
 βούλεσθαι, ii. 13; P. 13. 
 βραβεῖον, ili. 14. ἑαυτῶν, ii, 12. 
 ‘Efpaios, iii. 5. 
 γένος, iii. 5. ἐγγύς, iv. 5. 
 γίνεσθαι, ii. 8, ili. 6. ἐγείρειν, i. 17. 
 γίνεσθαι ἐν, ii. 7. ἔδραμον, ii. 16. 
 
 γινώσκειν, i. 19, iii. 10. εἰλικρινὴς, 1. 10. 
 γινώσκειν ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, | εἶναι, 11. 6. 
 
 γνήσιος, iv. 3. [i. 12, εἴ πως, iii, 11. 
 γνησίως, il. 20. εἰρήνη, i. 2, iv. 7, 9. 
 γνώμη, P. 14. εἰς, i. 10, 12; P. 5. 
 γνωρίζειν, i. 22, iv. 6. els κενὸν, il. 16. 
 Ὑογγυσμός, li. 14. εἴ τις, iv. 8. 
 ἐκκλησία, P. 2. 
 δέησις, i. 4, iv. 6. ἐλλογᾷν, P. 18. 
 δεκτός, iv. 18. ἐλπὶς, i. 20. 
 διάκονος, i. 1. “ἐνάρχεσθαι, i. 6. 
 διαλογισμός, ii. 14. ἔνδειξις, i. 28. 
 διαστρέφειν, ii. 15. ἐνδυναμοῦν, iv. 13. 
 διαφέρειν, i. 10. ἐνέργεια, iil. 21. 
 δίκαιος, i. 7. ἐνεργεῖν, ii. 13. 
 
 δικαιοσύνη, i. 11, iii. 6, 9.] ἐνεργὴς, P. 6. 
 δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, iii. 9. ἐν Κυρίῳ (Ἰησοῦν), i. 14, 
 διὸ, 11, 9. ii. 19, 24, iv. I, 2, 10; 
 
 ἀπώλεια, i. 28, iii. 19, 20. ! διώκειν, iii. 6, 12, 14. P. 16, 20. 
 
 199 
 
200 
 
 ἐντίμους ἔχειν, li. 29. 
 ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ἰησοῦ, i. 1, 
 iii. 9. 
 ἐξανάστασις, ili. 11. 
 ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, ii. 11. 
 ἔπαινος, i. 11, iv. 8. 
 ᾿Ἐπαφρόδιτος, ii. 25, iv. 
 18. 
 ἐπεκτείνεσθαι, ili. 13. 
 ἐπέχειν, 11. 16. 
 ἐπὶ, i. 3, 5, li. 17, 27, 111. 9, 
 iv. 17. 
 ἐπίγειος, 11. 10. 
 ἐπίγνωσις, i.9; Ῥ, 6. 
 ἐπιεικής, ἵν. 5. 
 ἐπιζητεῖν, iv. 17. 
 ἐπιθυμία, i. 23. 
 ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι, iii. 13. 
 ἐπιποθεῖν, i. 8, 11. 26, iv. I. 
 ἐπιπόθητοι, iv. 1. 
 ἐπίσκοπος, 1.1. 
 ἐπιτάσσειν, P. 8. 
 ἐπιτελεῖν, i. 6. 
 ἐπιχορηγία, 1. 19. 
 ἐπουράνιος, li. 10; p. XXxVii. 
 ἔργον Χριστοῦ, ii. 30. 
 ἐριθία, i. 17. 
 ἐρωτᾷν, iv. 3. 
 ἑτέρως, iii. 15. 
 εὐαγγέλιον, i. 12. 
 εὐάρεστος, iv. 18. 
 εὐδοκία, i. 15, ll. 13. 
 Evodla, iv. 2. 
 εὑρίσκειν, li. 7, ili. 9. 
 εὔφημος, iv. 8. 
 εὐχαριστία, iv. 6. 
 εὔχρηστος, P. 11. 
 εὐψυχεῖν, ii. 19. 
 
 ζημιοῦσθαι, iii. 8. 
 
 ἡγεῖσθαι, ii. 3, 6, 25, iii. 8. 
 ἤδη wore, iv. 10. 
 
 ἡμεῖς, iii. 17. 
 
 nuépa’ Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ, i. 6. 
 ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ, ii. 16. 
 
 θέλειν, ii. 13; P. 14. 
 θλίψιν ἐγείρειν, 1. 17. 
 θυσία, ii. 17, iv. 18. 
 
 ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, i. 1. 
 iva, i. Q, ii. 2. 
 
 ἵνα μὴ λέγω, P. 19. 
 ἰσόψυχος, ii. 20. 
 ἰσχύειν, iv. 13. 
 
 καθώς, i. ἡ. 
 
 καίπερ, iii. 4. 
 
 καλῶς ποιεῖν, iv. 14. 
 
 καρδία, iv. 7. 
 
 καρπὸς, 1. II, iv. 17. 
 
 κατά, 1.02; ii. 3, ἢ] 25, 
 ἵν; ἘΣ 14. 
 
 καταγγέλλειν, 1. 17. 
 
 καταλαμβάνειν, iii, 12. 
 
 καταντᾷν, iii. 11. 
 
 κατατομή, iii, 2. 
 
 καταχθόνιος, ii. 10. 
 
 κατεργάζεσθαι, ii. 12. 
 
 καύχημα, i. 26, ii. 16. 
 
 κεῖμαι, i. 16. 
 
 κενοδοξία, ii. 3. 
 
 κενοῦν, 11. 7. 
 
 κηρύσσειν, 1. 15. 
 
 Κλήμης, iv. 3. 
 
 κλῆσις, 111. 14. 
 
 κοιλία, iii. 19. 
 
 κοινωνεῖν, ἵν. 15. 
 
 κοινωνία, i. 5, il. I, 11,10; 
 P. 6. 
 
 κοινωνός, P. 17. 
 
 κόπος, κοπιᾷν, ii. 16. 
 
 κόσμος, il. 15. 
 
 κύνες, iii, 2. 
 
 κύριος, ii. 11, 111, 20, iv. 5. 
 
 λατρεύειν, 111. 3. 
 λειτουργία, ii. 17, 30. 
 λειτουργός, ii. 25. 
 λογίζεσθαι, iii. 13, iv. 8. 
 λόγος, iv. 15, 17. 
 
 λόγος ζωῆς, ii. 16. 
 
 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 
 
 μᾶλλον, i. 9. 
 μεγαλύνειν, 1. 20. 
 μέγαλως, iv. 10, 
 μεριμνᾷν, iv. 6. 
 
 μέσον, il. 15. 
 μετασχηματίζειν, ili, 21. 
 μέχρι, ii. 8, 30. 
 
 μνεία, i. 3. 
 
 μορφὴ, ii. 6, 7; p. 79. 
 μόρφωσις, p. 80. 
 μυεῖσθαι, iv. 12. 
 
 νόημα, iv. 7. 
 νόμος, iil. 5. 
 vous, iv. 7. 
 νυνὶ de, P. ΤΙ. 
 
 ξενία, Ῥ, 22. 
 
 οἶδα, i. 19, iv. 12. 
 οἴεσθαι, i. 17. 
 οἰκία, iv. 22. 
 ὀκνηρός, iii. 1. 
 ὀκταήμερος, ili. 5. 
 ὁμοίωμα, ii. 7. 
 ὀνίνασθαι, P. 20. 
 ὄνομα, ii. 9, 10. 
 ὀπίσω, iii. 13. 
 ὀσμὴ, iv. 18. 
 ὅστις, 111. 7, ἵν. 3. 
 οὐχ ὅτι, 111. 12, iv. 11. 
 
 πάλιν, ii. 28. 
 παραβολεύεσθαι, ii. 30. 
 παράκλησις, ii. 1. 
 παραλαμβάνειν, iv. 9. 
 παραμύθιον, ii. I. 
 παραπλήσιον, ii. 27. 
 παρουσία, i. 26. 
 παρρησία, i. 20. 
 πᾶς, i. 3, 9, 20, li. 21, 29, 
 iii, 8, 21, iv. 5, 12, 21. 
 πεποίθησις, lil. 4. 
 περιπατεῖν, iii. 17, 18. 
 περισσεύειν, iv. 12, 17, 18. 
 περιτομὴ, iii. 3. 
 
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 
 
 πίστις, 1. 27, il. 17, ill. 9; 
 ΤΕ: 
 
 πλεονάζειν, ἵν. 17. 
 
 πλὴν ὅτι, i. 18. 
 
 πληροῦν, 1.11. 
 
 πνεῦμα, i, 27, li. I, ill. 3. 
 
 πνεῦμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
 τ 10; 
 
 πολιτεύεσθαι, 1. 27. 
 
 πολίτευμα, 111. 20. 
 
 πραιτώριον, i. 12; p. 51. 
 
 πράσσειν, iv. 9. 
 
 προκοπὴ; i. 12. 
 
 pos, li. 30, iv.6; P. 5.123. 
 
 προσευχὴ,]. 4, iv. 6; P. 4. 
 
 προσοφείλειν, P. 19. 
 
 προσφιλής, iv. 8. 
 
 πρεσβύτης, P. 9. 
 
 πτύρεσθαι, i. 28. 
 
 σάρξ, ili. 3; P. 16. 
 σεμνός, iv. 8. 
 σκολιός, ii. 15. 
 σκοπεῖν, il. 4, iil. 17. 
 σκοπός, ili. 14. 
 σκύβαλα, iii. 8. 
 σπλάγχνα, i. 8, ii. 1; P. 
 12. 
 σπουδαιοτέρως, ii. 28. 
 σταυρὸς, ii. 8, iii. 18. 
 στεφανός, iv. 1. 
 στήκειν, i, 27, iv. I. 
 
 στοιχεῖν, 111. 16. 
 συλλαμβάνειν, iv. 3. 
 συμμορφίζεσθαι, iii. 10. 
 σύμμορφος, ili. 21. 
 συναθλεῖν, i. 27, iv. 3. 
 
 συνεργός, ii. 25, iv. 3; P. 1. 
 
 συνέχειν, i. 23. 
 Σύνζυγος, iv. 3. 
 συνκοινωνεῖν, iv. 14. 
 συνκοινωνός, 1. 7. 
 συνμιμητής, lil. 17. 
 
 συστρατιώτης, Ἰϊ. 25; P.2. 
 
 Συντύχη, iv. 2. 
 συνχαίρειν, il. 17, 18. 
 σχῆμα, li. 7; p- 80. 
 σῶμα τῆς δόξης, 111. 21. 
 σωτήρ, iii. 20. 
 σωτηρία, i. 19. 
 
 ταπεινοῦν, ii. 8, iv. 12. 
 
 ταπεινοφροσύνη, il. 3. 
 
 ταπείνωσις, ili. 21. 
 
 τέκνον, li. 15; P. 10. 
 
 τέλειος, iil. 15. 
 
 τέλος, lil. 19. 
 
 Ti yap, i. 18. 
 
 τὸ αὐτὸ, ii. 18. 
 
 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα, ii. 6; p. 84. 
 
 τὸ λοιπόν, 111. 1, iv. 8; 
 Ῥ. xxxii. 
 
 τοιοῦτος, P. 9. 
 
 τύπος, ili. 17. 
 
 201 
 
 υἱός, ii. 15. 
 
 ὑπακούειν, ii. 12. 
 ὑπάρχειν, ii. 6, iii. 20. 
 ὑπέρ, 1.7, 1119s bs τὸν 21; 
 ὑπερέχειν, ii. 3, ili. 8, iv. 7. 
 ὑπερυψοῦν, ii. 9. 
 ὑποτάσσειν, ili. 21. 
 ὑστερεῖσθαι, iv. 12. 
 ὑστέρησις, ἵν. 11. 
 
 φαίνεσθαι, ii. 15. 
 
 Φαρισαῖος, iii. 5. 
 
 φθάνειν, iii. 16. 
 
 φόβος καὶ τρόμος, ii. 12. 
 
 φρονεῖν, i. 7, il. 2, 3, 55 
 111. 15, 19, iv. 2, 10. 
 
 φρουρεῖν, iv. 7. 
 
 φωστήρ, ll. 15. 
 
 χαίρειν, ili. I, iv. 4, 10. 
 
 χαρίζεσθαι, i. 29, ii. 9; 
 ἘΦ ΟΖ, 
 
 χάρις, i. 2, 7. 
 
 χορτάζεσθαι, iv. 12. 
 
 Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, i. 1. 
 
 χωρίζειν, P. 15. 
 
 χωρὶς, P. 14. 
 
 ψυχὴ, i. 27. 
 
 ὡς, 1. 8,11. 7,12; P. 14, 16. 
 wore, i. 13, ii. 12, iv. I. 
 
UATE 
 ty fl ἣ } 
 
 Π 
 
et li ee - - ΡΥ - 
 A a a να 
 
ahs . Υ ἃ. oa Be 5 ren 
 -, 2 ec > Mb eet aa +s Φτυδο Υ 
 haere δ τος Ὅν. ν- νι eee ons τοι ρον - 
 ΣΝ hin ΣΟ ae ee alah Net ea Gee nate ws . 
 3 ᾿ 4 ΒΥ 
 eal é A Ἵ 
 a. ν ν 
 y δ : 
 - 
 = * 4 , ΄ 
 ~= ~ , 
 4 μα“ τῷ A “» - - 
 Ss 
 " 
 ah 
 4 
 ~ 
 « 
 . 
 ᾿ 
 δ. 
 “4 
 Ε 3 
 « 
 ¥ 
 δ. 
 « 
 ‘4 
 ’ 
 ’ ~ 
 ~ "- 
 
 ΤῊ