YS Of SED AAP ERAS Beene, , ES NE > Se ee ange ey ee ee

: 2 Dae Bi nane ls rae go PEE ay emi ae | y A, se a 4a “

ae

ae

Ve te

TA re a ma

5 OOS 5 ene ne Pear rer ETT er Tw tide de eee ee . mes a ee ee rn rans S.M., ed am a . aE —- ee ee eT 4 Dg gg NP ef Pag gk - ae ee eee eee SS se fe ne ED a me ee ee be : PO tb. Ph, bd ede ahs

“s SO a ee hm ~~ =. —-- yy 3 oak ak pan cnepte se ee terug A - ween le S| * rs nae Mi Paka 7 4 ir m Si eth, 1-32) ET Se. oie dn a ae ee ee oe ee tet gee TS ete a ge lee tt ee - Oe ae em i ie n ? 7 2. = iy Ae ee ee

Fae ee ose

te” 2p

. ie. We Te

A

CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL

COMMENTARY om ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES 7-7

PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS,

AND TO

PHILEMON,

WITH A REVISED TRANSLATION.

BY

RT. REV. CHAS. J. ELLICOTT, D.D.,

LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.

Andover: WARREN F. DRAPER.

BOSTON: W. H. HALLIDAY AND COMPANY, NOS. & AND 6) CORNHILL. PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH, AND CO.

1872.

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/criticalgrammatiOOelliuoftt

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

Tue present volume forms the fourth portion of my Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, and contains an exposition of the important Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and of the graceful and touching Epistle to Phi- lemon.

The notes will be found to reflect the same critical and grammatical char- acteristics, and to recognize the same principles of interpretation as those which I endeavored to follow in the earlier portions of this work, and on which the experiences slowly and laboriously acquired during this under- taking have taught me year by year more confidently to rely. There is, however, a slight amount of additional matter which it is perhaps desirable briefly to specify.

In the first place, I have been enabled to carry out more fully and com- pletely a system of reference to the great versions of antiquity, and have spared no pains to approach a little more nearly to those fresh and clear, yet somewhat remote, well-heads of Christian interpretation. In the notes on the Pastoral Episties it was my endeavor to place before the reader, in all more important passages, the interpretations adopted by the Syriac, Old Latin,’ and Gothic Versions. To these in the present volume I have added refer- ences to the Coptic (Memphitic) and Ethiopic Versions; to the former as found in the convenient and accessible edition of Bétticher, to the latter as found in Walton’s Polyglott, but more especially and exclusively to the ex- cellent edition of the Ethiopic New Testament by the late Mr. Pell Platt (1830), published by the Bible Society. These have been honestly and laboriously compared with the original; but, as in the preface to the Pastoral Epistles, so here again would I earnestly remind the reader that though I

1T have now adopted this term, feeling convinced that the term ‘ Italic’ is likely to mislead. The latter I retained in the previous Epistles, as sanctioned by common usage ; I was, however, fully aware that the term ‘ vetus Itala’ really belonged to a recension, and not to an independent version. In the present Epistles I have derived the Old Latin from the translation in that language as found in the Codex Claromontanus.

IV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

have labored unflinchingly, and have spared no pains faithfully to elicit the exact opinion of these ancient translators, I still am painfully conscious how very limited is my present knowledge, and many must needs be my errors and misconceptions in languages where literary help is scanty, and in applications of them where I find myself at present unaided and alone. Poor, however, and insuflicient as my contributions are, I still deem it necessary to offer them; for I have been not a little startled to find that even critical editors of the stamp of Tischendorf,' have apparently not acquired even a rudimentary knowl- edge of several of the leading versions which they conspicuously quote: nay more, that in many instances they have positively misrepresented the very readings which have been followed, and have allowed themselves to be misled by Latin translations, which, as my notes will passingly testify, are often sadly and even perversely incorrect. I fear, indeed, that Iam bound to say that on the Latin translations attached to the now antiquated edition of the Cop- . tic New Testament by Wilkins, from which Tischendorf appears to have derived his readings, little reliance can be placed; and on that attached to the Ethiopic Version in Walton’s Polyglott even less, because not only as a trans- lation is it inexact, but as a representative of the Ethiopic Version, worse than useless, as the text was derived from the valueless edition of 1548 (Rome), which in its transfer to the Polyglott was recruited with a fresh stock of inac- curacies.

It is fair to say that in this latter version Tischendorf appears to have also used the amended translation of Bode, but even thus he is only able to place before the reader results derived from an approximately accurate trans- lation of a careless reprint of a poor original; and thus to give only inade- quately and inaccurately the testimony of the ancient Ethiopic Church The really good and valuable edition of Pell Platt has lain unnoticed and un- used, because it has not the convenient appendage of a Latin translation. The same remark applies to the edition of the Coptic Version by Schwartze and Botticher, which, though differing considerably less from that of Wilkins than the Ethiopic of Platt from the Ethiopic of the Polyglott, is similarly devoid of a Latin translation, and has, in consequence, I fear, received pro- portionately little attention.

Under these circumstances, when our knowledge even of the true readings of these two versions is still so very limited, I do not shrink from offering my scanty contributions, which, though intentionally exegetical in character, may be found to some extent useful even to a critical editor. Gladly, most gladly,

1The fourth volume of the new edition of Horne’s Introduction will show how con- scientiously our countryman Dr. Tregelles has acted in this respect, and what pains he has taken to secure an accurate knowledge of versions in languages with which he himself did not happen to be acquainted.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. v

should I welcome other laborers into the same field, nor can I point out to students in these somewhat intractable languages a more really useful under- taking than a correct Latin translation of Platt’s Ethiopic Version, and a similar translation of the portions of the Coptic New Testament published by Schwartze and his less competent successor.

I will here add, for the sake of those who may feel attracted towards these fields of labor, a few bibliographical notices, and a few records of my own limited experiences, as these may be of some passing aid to novices, and may serve as temporary finger-posts over tracks where the paths are not well-troi- den, and the travellers but few.

In Coptic, I have used with great advantage the grammar of Archdeacon Tattam, and the lexicon of the same learned editor. The more recent lexi- con of Peyron bas, I believe, secured a greater reputation, and as a philo- logical work seeus deservedly to rank higher, but after using both, I have found that of Tattam more generally useful, and more practically available for elementary reading, and for arriving at the current meaning of words. The very valuable Coptic grammar of Schwartze cannot be dispensed with by any student who desires to penetrate into the philological recesses of that singular language, but as a grammar to be put into the hands of a beginner, it is of more than doubtful value.

In Ethiopic, the old grammar of Ludolph still maintains its ground. The author was a perfect Ethiopic enthusiast, and has zealously striven, by the most minute grammatical subdivisions, to leave no peculiarities in the Ethi- opic language unnoticed and unexplained ; the student, however, must not fail to exercise his judgment in a first reading, and be careful to confine him- self to the general principles of the language, without embarrassing himself too much with the many exceptional characteristics which this difficult? lan- guage presents. These leading principles, especially in the second edition, are sufficiently well-defined, and will easily be extracted by any reader of moderate sagacity and grammatical experience. The recent Ethiopic gram- mar of Dillmann has passed through my hands, but my acquaintance with it is far too limited to pronounce on it any opinion. As far as I could julge, it seems to be very similar to that of Schwartze in Coptic, and only caleu- lated for the more mature and scientific student. With regard to lexicons,

there is, I believe, no better one than that of Ludolph (2d ed.). That of Castell, alluded to in the preface to the Pastoral Epistles, | have since found to be decidedly inferior. :

I do venture then to express a humble hope, that even with no better

1 This epithet must be considered as used subjectively. To me, who am unfortunately unacquainted with Arabic, this language has presented many difficulties. The Arabic kcholar would very likely entirely reverse my judgment.

VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

literary appliances than these, earnest men and thoughtful scholars may be induced to investigate patiently and carefully the interpretations of these ancient witnesses of the truth. Surely the opinion of men, who lived in such early ages of the Church as those to which the chief ancient versions may all be referred, cannot be deemed unworthy of attention. Surely a version like the old Syriac, parts of which might almost have been in the hands of the last of the apostles, a venerable monument of almost equal antiquity like the Old Latin, a version so generally accurate as that of Ulfilas,’ a version so distinctive as that of the Coptic, and so laborious as Platt’s Ethiopic,’ can- not safely be disregarded in the exposition of a Divine Revelation, where — antiquity has a just and reasonable claim on our attention, and where novelty and private interpretation can never be indulged in without some degree of uncertainty and peril.

With these three earthly aids, first, an accurate knowledge of Hellenic Greek ; secondly, the Greek commentators, and thirdly, the five or six prin- cipal ancient versions, we may (with humble prayer for the illuminating grace of the Eternal Spirit) address ourselves to the task of a critical exposition of the Covenant of Mercy; we may trust that, though often with clouded and holden eyes, we may yet be permitted to see and to recognize some sure and certain outlines of Divine Truth: but without any of these, or with one, or even two, to the exclusion of what remain, dare we hope that our inter- pretations will always be found free from uncertainties and inconsistencies, and will never exhibit the tinges of individual opinion, and the often estima- ble, but ever precarious, subjectivity of religious predilections ?

I fear indeed that these remarks are but little in unison with popular views and popular aspirations ; I fear that the patient labor necessary to per- form faithfully the duty of an interpreter is unwelcome to many of the for- ward spirits of our own times. To be referred to Greek Fathers when sua- sive annotations of a supposed freer spirit, and a more flexible theology claim from us a hearing; to be bidden to toil on amid ancient versions, when a rough and ready scholarship is vaunting its own independence and sufficiency ; to weigh in the balance, to mark and to record the verging scale while relig- ious prejudice is ever struggling to kick the beam, —all seems savorless, unnecessary, and impracticable. I fear such is the prevailing spirit of our own times; yet, amid all, I seem to myself to descry a spirit of graver

1 Some tinges of Arianism have been detected in this Version, e. g. Phil. ii. 8, ‘nivulva rahnida visan sik galeiko [surely not a correct translation of toa] guPa,’ but are not sufli- ciently strong to detract seriously from the general faithfulness of the Version.

2 T regret that I cannot in any way agree with my valued acquaintance Dr. Tregelles, in his judgment on the Ethiopic Version : in St. Paul's Epistles I have found it anything but ‘the dreary paraphrase’ which he terms it in his remarks in Horne, Jntroduction, Vol. Iv. p. 819.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. VII

search winning its way among us, a more determined allegiance to the truth, a greater tendency to snap the chains of sectarian bondage, and it is to those who feel themselves animated by this spirit, who are quickened by the desire at every cost to search out and to proclaim the truth, who think that there is no sacrifice too great, no labor too relentless, in the exposition of the word of God, — to them, and to such as them, I would fain, with all humility, commend the imperfect and initial efforts to elicit the testimony of the ancient ver- sions which these pages contain, and it is from them that I hopefully look for corrections of the errors and inaccuracies into which my inexperience will, I fear, be often found to have betrayed me.

Another addition which I have striven to make, and which the profound importance of the subject has seemed to require, consists in the introduction of a few doctrinal comments upon the passages in these Epistles which relate to our Saviour’s divinity; and this I trust no one will deem supererogatory. The strongly developed tendencies of our own times towards humanitarian conceptions ofthe nature and work of our divine Master, — tendencies often associated with great depth of feeling and tenderness of sympathy, — seem now to demand the serious attention of every thoughtful man. The signs of the times are very noticeable. The divinity of the Eternal Son is not now so much assailed by avowed heretical teaching, as diluted by more plausible, perhaps even more excusable, but certainly no less destructive and perni- cious, developments of human error. The turmoil of Arian and semi-Arian strife has comparatively ceased, to be succeeded, however, by a more delu- sive calm, and a more dangerous and enervating repose. In the popular theology of the present day, the Eternal Son is presented to us under aspects by no means calculated to rouse any active hostility or provoke any earnest antagonism. All is suasive and seductive: our Lord is claimed as united to us by human affinities of touching yet precarious application; He is the prince of sufferers, the champion of dependence and depression, the repre- sentative of contested principles of social union; His crucifixion becomes the apotheosis of self-denial, the atonement the master work of a pure and subli- mated sympathy, — all principles and aspects the more dangerous from in- volving admixtures of partial truth, the more harmful from their seeming harmlessness. It is against this more specious and subtle form of error that we have now to contend; it is this plausible and versatile theosophy that seeks to ensnare us by its appeal to our better feelings and warmer sympa- thies, that seems to edify while it perverts, that attracts while it ruins, that it is now the duty of every true servant of Jesus Christ to seek to expose and to countervail. And this can be done in no way more charitably, yet more effectually, than by simply setting forth with all sincerity, faithfulness, and truth, those portions of the word of life which declare the true nature of

Vill PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

the Eternal Son in language that no exegetical artifice can successfully ex plain away, and against which Arian, semi-Arian, Deist, and Pantheist, have beaten out their strength in vain.

Under these feelings, then, in the important doctrinal passages in these Epistles which relate to our Lord’s divinity, Ihave spared no pains in the endeavor candidly and truthfully to state the meaning of every word, and to put before the younger reader, in the form of synopsis or quotation, the great dogmatical principles and deductions which the early Greek and Latin Fa- thers, and more especially our own Divines of the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth century have unfolded with such meek learning, such per- spicuity, and such truth. I need scarcely remark that here I have had to rely solely on my own reading; for in the works of the best German com- mentators sound dogmatical theology will I fear too often be sought for in vain, and even in the more recent productions of our own country, subjective explanation and an inexact and somewhat diffluent theology have been allowed to displace the more accurate and profound deductions of an earlier day. On this portion of my labors more than on any other may the Father of Lights be pleased to vouchsafe His blessing, and to overrule these efforts to issues beyond their own proper efficacy, and to uses which my earnest aspirations, but not my sense of their realization, have presumed to contem- plate.

A few additions will be found in what may be termed the philological portion of this Commentary. Wherever the derivation of a word has seemed obscure, and an exact knowledge of its fundamental meaning has seemed of importance to the passage, I have noted in brackets its probable philo- logical affinities, and stated, with all possible brevity, the opinions of modern investigators in this recently explored domain of literature. Gladly would I have found this done to my hand in the current lexicons of England or Ger- many, as it would have saved me not only much labor, but many unwelcome interruptions; but upon the philology of modern lexicons I regret to say very little reliance can be placed. Even in the otherwise admirable lexicon of Rost and Palm, which, I may here remark, is now brought to a completion, it is vexatious to observe how much philology has been neglected by its com- pilers, and how uncertain and precarious are the derivations of all the more difficult words.

With regard to references to former notes, which, now that my work has extended to eight Epistles, have necessarily become somewhat numerous, I have endeavored to observe the following rule. Where the reference has appeared of less moment, I have contented myself with a simple allusion to the former note. Where the reference has seemed of greater moment, and the note referred to contains any critical or grammatical investigations, I

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ix

have generally endeavored to embody briefly in the note before the reader the principles previously discussed, leaving the fuller detail to be sought for in the note referred to. My desire is thus to make each portion of this work as much as possible an independent whole, and while avoiding repetition still to obviate, as far as is compatible with the nature of a continuous work, the necessity of the purchase or perusal of foregoing portions.

A few concluding words on the Translation. I have more than once had my attention called to passages in former commentaries, where the translation in the notes has not appeared in perfect unison with that in the Revised Ver- sion. In a few cases I fear this may have arisen from an omission to correct the copy of the Authorized Version which lay beside me, but I believe in most instances these seeming discrepancies have arisen from the fact that the fixed principles on which I venture to revise the Authorized Version do not always admit of an exact identity of language in the version and in the note. In a word, the translation in the note presents what has been considered the most exact rendering of the words taken per se; the Revised Version pre- serves that rendering as far as is compatible with the lex operis, the context, the idioms of our language, or lastly, that grave and archaic tone of our ad- mirable version which, even in a revised form of it designed only for the closet, it seemed a kind of sacrilege to displace for the possibly more precise, yet often really less expressive, phraseology of modern diction. Needlessly to divorce the original and that version with which our ears are so familiar, and often our highest associations and purest sympathies so intimately bound, is an ill-considered course, which more than anything else may tend to foster an unyoked spirit of scriptural study and translation, alike unfilial and pre- sumptuous, and to which a modern reviser may hereafter bitterly repent to have lent his example or his contributions.

I desire in the last place to record a few of my many obligations. These, however, are somewhat less than in earlier portions of this work, as the great and unintermitting labor expended in the examination of the ancient ver- sions, especially the Coptic and Ethiopic, has left me little time, and, perhaps I might say little need, for consulting commentaries of a secondary character. These it is not necessary to specify, but the student who may miss their names on my present pages will, I truly believe, have gained far more from the an- cient versions that have been adduced, than lost by the writers that have been left unnoticed.

Of the larger commentaries, I have carefully and thoughtfully perased the excellent commentary of my friend, Dean Alford. From it I have not derived much directly, as I deemed it best for the cause of that truth which we both humbly strive to advance, to consult for myself the original aué thorities and various exegetical subsidies that were alike accessible to us

x PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

both, that so my adhesion to the opinions of my able predecessor, or my de- parture from them, might be the result of my own deliberate investigations. At the same time I have been particularly benefited by the admirable per- spicuity of his notes, and have felt rejoiced when our opinions coincide, and unfeignedly sorry when I have deemed myself compelled to take a contrary or antagonistic side.

To the commentaries of De Wette and Meyer, but especially to those of the latter, I am, as heretofore, greatly indebted for grammatical and exe- getical details, bnt in the dogmatical portions I have neither sought for nor (derived any assistance whatever. To German commentaries the faithful and candid expositor of Scripture is under great obligations, but for theology, he must turn to the great doctrinal treatises of the Divines of our own country,

Of separate commentaries on the Philippians, the learned and laborious production of Van Hengel has been on many occasions extremely useful from its affluence of grammatical examples; but it is rather deficient in that brev- ity and perspicuity of critical discussion which is nowhere more indispensable than in the aggregation of parallel passages, and the comparison of supposed, but perhaps illusory, similarities of structure.

The commentary of Wiesinger is thoughtful and sensible, and not unfre- quently distinguished by a sound and persuasive exegesis. Those of Rilliet and Holemann, but especially the former, deserve consideration, but have been still so far superseded by more modern expositions, that it will in all cases be advisable for the student to read them with some degree of caution and suspended judgment.

Of commentaries on the Colossians, I must first specify the learned and exhaustive work of Bishop Davenant, which has certainly not received that attention from modern expositors which it so fully deserves. Its usefulness is somewhat interfered with by the scholastic form in which the notes are drawn up, nor is it free from the tinge of theological prejudice; but there is a thoroughness and completeness of exegetical investigation, which render it an exposition which no student of this profound Epistle will be wise to overlook.

Of modern commentaries, that of Huther will well repay the trouble of perusal, but both this work and that of Bahr have been so thoroughly exam- ined by De Wette and Meyer, and in many passages so assimilated and in- eorporated, that a separate study of them is rendered somewhat less neces- sary. They will, however, always be referred to with advantage, but this should not be apart from a consideration of the opinions of their successors, and of the various rectifications which a more accurate scholarship has occa- sionally been found to suggest.

The commentary of Professor Eadie has been of occasional service to me ; but, as in the commentary on the Ephesians, so here also I fear I am com-

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XI

pelled in candor to say, that the grammatical comments do not always appear quite exact, nor are the doctrinal passages always discussed with that calm precision and dignified simplicity of language which these subjects seem to require and suggest; still most of the exegetical portion is extremely good, nor will any reader rise from the study of this learned, earnest, and not un- frequently eloquent volume, unimproved either in head or in heart.

Notices of the other and larger commentaries on the New Testament, or on St. Paul’s Epistles, to which I have been in the habit of referring, will be found in the prefaces to the preceding portions of this work.

It now only remains for me to commit this volume to the reader, with the earnest prayer to Almighty God that he, who has so mercifully sustained me with health and strength during the anxieties of continued research and the pressure of protracted labor, may be pleased to grant that this research may not prove wholly fruitless, this labor not utterly in vain.

TPIAS, MONA, *EAEHZON.

CAMBRIDGE, OCTOBER 20, 1857.

Pro = Sn ‘ b ‘ Ms ed Ws . nl M fr Ae af : ’ n't . - Pets. ‘s a x \ 2 aes. ‘ ¥ a i y ‘ x F be . ) | ae « ¢: i v ' | inf “7 r i . . ‘ v x Pe aad - hey 72 f ° » - ‘ ” “ y J ’ .

A 4 / ~ " ae , ad i elie it | We ! aire § IM PS ORR, ¢ oS Gq 7 : yet ¥ { ey) ie os 4 ; . i - Te eV LAY o . 4 . = is. . s , 5 7: ~ ‘as y p. eae F yas ‘ : ‘, Mt ss ee mt = tall 3 ‘ p * #2 a ey " *- WEES Se at ei Ws . 5 ' - . t 3 a e i 2 5 { + j s f i i ¢ . x ; Sune gal " pares , 5 wo , J q - one < M ee 7! rs a vie Oe + . we A a hag? 7 oa Tf eat ~ s Pane it - aan © " ABE ~~ »? ¢ 7 ” ad ¥ ; ; ‘ 4 é i » » ' ad . a” . 1 1 _.™ ’ » an fi By ‘ ry 4 € ‘ . Oe) ie oe > wey 1, 1 Lost i ‘

AO a Ge 2 ee ee i Teer te A “a . i wa ‘s . ~ oe ‘ of ds Sad Sgt ie J eae aS , ont *- ie “ae ? GLARE ROHS rae

Tig

ae

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Tue second edition of this portion of my labors is now at length presented to the reader. Like the second edition of the portion which preceded, the Pastoral Epistles, it has been delayed till time could be found for calmly and deliberately reviewing and reconsidering the whole work.

This duty has now been performed. Every portion of the commentary has been read over; every interpretation has been tested; and, I might almost add, every citation of Scripture has been examined and verified anew. For this labor, which has occupied a considerable portion of the past summer, there is but little to show. The book femains nearly in all its details as well as in its larger features exactly what it was. A very few readings, and those unimportant, have been changed; a certain number of alterations have been introduced in the Revised Translation; a small number of references to standard sermons, which had been either overlooked or not known when the commentary was written, are now added; and lastly, a short introduction has been prefixed to each one of the three Epistles that are included in this volume.

This I fear is all that I have to show for the time spent in preparing this edition. Yet perhaps that time has not been spent wholly in vain. It now enables me, with all humility, and with a thorough consciousness of my own imperfections and shortcomings, yet with some measures of chastened confi- dence, to commend to the reader the interpretations of the many great doc- trinal passages, — especially those bearing on the Majesty and Divinity of our adorable Lord, — which he will find in the first two of the portions of Holy Scripture contained in this volume. Those interpretations (which, let it be observed, are nearly in every case those of the early versions or Greek commentators, stated only in a little more precise and technical language) have been again carefully tested. The accuracies of modern scholarship have been anew brought to bear upon them, the finesse and ingenuity of modern exegesis have been freely applied to the passages which they ex- pound to us; and the result is that these ancient interpretations appear to have as strong claim upon our attention as ever, and, in an age of unlicensed

XIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

criticism and sadly deceitful dealings with the word of God, to stand forth as examples of what the meek wisdom of earlier days regarded as the true and accurate method of expounding the message of salvation.

If such be the result of these present labors, —if the renewed testimony of one humble witness may be permitted in any degree effectually to warn the young and the earnest from rash and unblest modes of Scriptural inter- pretation; if these pages may be thought in some measure to show that the deductions of rigorous scholarship and of catholic truth stand ever in the truest union, — then I shall humbly and devoutly rejoice, and bless God that amid many recent hinderances and distractions I have been thus enabled carefully to revise and calmly to reconsider a very important portion of my labors, and thus to commend it with renewed confidence to the Christian student.

May the blessing of the Father of Lights rest on all readers and expound- ers of his inspired Word, and move us all, in these proud and dangerous days, to yield up our high thoughts unto him who ‘of God is made unto us wisdom,’ and to determine, even as an inspired apostle determined amid the sceptical disputants of his own times, ‘ not to know anything save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ :

C. J. ELLICOTT.

EXETER, SEPTEMBER, 1861.

INTRODUCTION.

Tuis fervent, affectionate, and, in parts, pathetic Epistle was written by the apostle to his liberal and warmhearted converts in the Roman colony of Philippi, towards the close of his first captivity at Rome (see Introd. to 1 Tim.), and at a time when, it would seem, his imprisonment was of a closer and harsher character, and his earthly prospects, though not by any means without hope (ch. i. 25, 26; ii. 24), yet, in many respects, cheerless and depressing (ch. i. 20 sq., ii. 17, 28). It has thus been supposed, with some probability, to have been written after the death of the Praetorian Prefect (Burrus) to whom the apostle had been at first entrusted (Acts xxviii. 16), and by whom, as we may infer from Acts l.c., he had been treated with leniency and con- sideration.

As the death of Burrus took place in a. p. 62 (Clinton, Fasti Rom. Vol. 1. p- 44), and as there are some expressions in the Epistle that seem distinctly to imply that the captivity had been of some duration (ch. i. 13 sq., comp. ii. 26), we may fix the date of the Epistle towards the close of, or more prob- ably about the middle of, a. p. 63, and may thus place it as the last in order of the four Epistles written during the first captivity at Rome: see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 1. p. 373.

_ The circumstances that gave rise to the Epistle appear to have been simply the fact of Epaphroditus having come from the Church of Philippi with contributions to alleviate the necessities of the captive apostle, —con- tributions which, as we learn from the Epistle itself (ch. iv. 15, 16 ; compare 2 Cor. xi. 9), this liberal Church had promptly sent on other and earlier occasions. Moved by this fresh proof of love evinced by his dearly-beloved

Philippians, — his ‘ joy and crown’ as he affectionately terms them (ch. iv. 1),

xvI INTRODUCTION.

the apostle avails himself of the return of Epaphroditus, who now, after a dangerous illness (ch. ii. 27), was on his way back to Philippi, to send to that Church and its chief officers (ch. i. 1; see notes in loc.) by the hand of their own messenger, his warm and affectionate thanks, mingled with personal notices relative to his own state, earnest commendations, pointed but kindly warnings, and varied expressions of consolation and encouragement. No Epistle written by the inspired apostle is pervaded with a loftier tone of cheering exhortation (see notes on ch. iii. 1) ; none in which the pressing forward for ‘the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus’ is set forth in language of greater animation; none in which imitation of his own love of his Master is urged upon his converts in strains of holier incen- tive (compare ch. iil. 17-21). The supposition that there were definite parties and factions in the Church of Philippi, and that the Epistle was designed to expose their errors, and especially those of the Judaists, does not seem tenable. It is clear that Judaizing teachers had intruded into the Church of Philippi (ch. iii. 2), but it seems also clear that their teaching had at present met with but little reception.

The genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle are very convincingly demonstrated by external testimony (Polycarp, ad Philipp. cap. 3, Irenzeus, Her. tv. 34, ed. Grabe, Clem.-Alex. Padag. 1. p. 129, ed. Pott., Tertull. de Resurr. Carn. cap. 23), and even more so by the individuality of tone and language. Doubts have been urged by a few modern writers, but they have been justly pronounced by all competent critics as wholly unworthy of atten- tion. The same may be said of the doubts as to the unity of the Epist!4: see

Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 387 sq.

_

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

CHAPTER I.

Apostolic address and salu-

AYAOZ kai Tiyodeos Soidkor Xpuctod

tation. *Inood, wacw Tots aylow &v Xpiwto

1. kal TipdSeos] Timothy is here associated with the apostle (as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, 1 and 2 Thess. i. 1), being known to, and probably esteemed by, the Philippians (Grot.), whom he had al- ready twice visited; once in company with St. Paul (Acts xvi. 1, 12), and once alone (Acts xix. 22). The association seems similar to that with Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; Timothy being neither the joint author of the Epistle (Menoch.), nor the ‘comprobator’ of its contents (Zanch.; comp. notes on Gal. i. 2), nor again the mere transcriber of it (comp. Rom. xvi. 22), but simply the ‘socius s dutationis,’ Est. Two verses lower the apostle proceeds in his own person, and in ch. ii. 19, when Timothy reappears, it is simply in the third person. It may be remarked that it is only in this Ep., 1 and 2 Thess., and, as we might expect, Philem., that St. Paul omits his vomicial desienation, ardéocroAos xk. T. A. (Gal. i. 1), or amdor. "Inc. Xp. (remain- ing Epp.). This seems due, not to‘ mo- destia’ in the choice of a title common to himself and Tim. (Grot.), for see 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, but simply to the terms of affection and familiarity on which he stood with the churches both

10) and Philippi: he was their apostle, and he knew from their acts (Phil. iv. 14 sq.) and their wishes (1 Thess. iii. 6) that they regarded himas such. On the modes of salutation adopted by St. Paul, see Riickert on Gal. i. 1, and compare notes on Eph. i. 1, and on Col. i. 1.

SobAo0t X. °1.] ‘ bond-servants of Jesus Christ ;’ ‘servi proprie erant qui toti ob- stricti erant Domino in perpetuum,’ Zanch. ap. Pol. Syn.; so Rom. i. 1; compare Gal. i. 10, and also James i. 1, 2 Pet. i. 1, Jude 1. The interpretation of Fritzsche (Rom. i. 1), ‘Jesu Christi cultor,’ scil. ‘homo Christianus,’ is tena- ble (compare Dan. iii. 26), but like so many of that commentator’s interpreta- tions, hopelessly frigid; comp. Gal. i. 10, where to translate Xp. 5o0A0s ob« hy #unv, ‘non essem homo Christianus,’ is to impair all the vigor of the passage. The term is used in its ethical, rather than mere historical sense, ‘an apostle,’ etc. (see Meyer on Gal. /. c ), and the genitive is strongly possessive: they be- longed to Christ as to a master, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 22: His they were; yea, His very marks they bore on their bodies ; compare Gal. vi. 17, and see notes fn /or. The formula SovA0s Gov (comp. “Tad

of Thessalonica (ch. ii. 19, 20, iii. 6- rim Ps. exiii. 1, al.) is naturally more

3

18

PHILIBFRPIANS.

Cars Et,

> rf tal i b] / \ 2. iA \ , Incod tots otaow év Pirlo cov émicKdtros Kal StaKxovots.

general ; So0A0s Xpiorov, somewhat more personal and special: compare notes on Pet 1.1. &ytous «.7.A.] ‘to all the saints,’ etc., ‘to all that form part of the visible and spiritual community at Philippi;’ @y.o being used in these salutations in its most inclusive sense: see notes on Eph. i. 1. ‘Though &yos in these sorts of ad- dresses does not necessarily imply any special degree of moral perfection, being applied by the apostle to all his converts, except the Gal. (and apparently Thess., @ylos in ch. v. 27 being very doubtful), yet still the remark of Olsh. (on Rom. i. 7) is probably true, that it always hints at the idea of a higher moral life impart- ed by Christ. This in the present case is made still more apparent by the addi- tion éy XpictS : it was ‘in Him’ (not for did, Est, Rheinw.), in union with Him, and Him alone, that the ayidrns was

Tat TOLS

true and real; of yap év Xp. Ino. ayo ivtws eioty, Theophyl.: compare Koch on Thessalon. i. 1, p. 59. The inclusive mao, repeated several times in this Ep., ch. i. 4, 7, 8, 25, ii. 17, 26, iv. 23 (Rec.), well expresses the warmth and expan- siveness of the apostle’s love.

tAimmots| Philippi, now Filibah or Filibejih, and anciently Kpfvides (not Adros, Van Heng. after Appian, Bell. Civ. tv 106, which was the ancient name of the port, Neapolis), was raised to a position of importance by Philip of Ma- cedon about B.c. 358, and called after hisname. In later times it was memo- rible-as overlooking the scene of the bat- tle between Antony and Octavius against ‘Brutus and Cassius, when the cause of ‘the republic was finally lost (Merivale, TTist. Vol. 111. p. 208): soon afterwards it’ became a Roman colony (Colon. Au- gust. Julia Philippensis) and received -the: ‘Jus Italicum.’ It was, however, -stiil more memorable as being the first

city in our continent of Europe in which the gospel was preached, Acts xvi. 9. A few ruins are said still to remain; see Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. Vol. 111. p. 1070, and the article by the same author in Pauly, Encyl. Vol. v. p. 1477 ; compare also Leake, N. Greece, Vol. 111. p. 216. ody émton. kat Siak.] ‘ together with the bishops and deacons ;’ not merely ‘ in company with’ (era), but ‘ together with’ (‘una cum,’ Beza), — specially in- cluded in the same friendly greeting; compare notes on Eph. vi. 23. Various reasons have been assigned why special mention is made of these church-officers. The two most plausible seem, (a) be- cause there were tendencies to division and disunion even among the Philippi- ans, which rendered a notice of formally constituted church-officers not unsuitable (Wiesinger, al.) ; (b) because the émicn. and d:d«. had naturally been the princi- pal instruments in collecting the alms (Chrys., Theoph., and recently Meyer, Bisping). The latter seems most prob- able; at any rate the date of the Epistle is not enough to account for the addition (Alf.), nor does the position of the clause warrant any contrast with ‘ the hierarchi- cal views’ (ib.) of the Apost. Ff. (now by no means critically certain); for com- pare Ignatius (%) Philad. 1 :—the shep- herds naturally follow the sheep. On the meaning of the title of office, étexo- mos, here appy. perfectly interchangeable with the title of age and dignity, pec 6u- tepos (Acts xx. 17, 28, 1 Pet. v. 1), see especially notes on 1 Tim. iii. 1; and on did. see notes on ib. iii. 8. The reading of B°D*; 39, 67, cvvemioxdrots, retained and noticed by Chrys., seems meaning- less and indefensible, and arose probably from the epistolary style of later times ; comp. Chrys. in loc.

2. xdpes duty x.7.A.] On the spr- itual significance of this blended form of

Crap. I. 2-3.

PHILIPPIANS.

19

2 ‘ ea 7 > ld > ‘ fo) A Ld - ‘ ‘ ’ ca Naps piv Kai eipyvn aro Ocod Tatpos jyav Kai Kupiov 'Incoi

, - Xpicroo. 1 thank my Ged with con- stant prayers for your pres-

3 Evyapict@ TH Oca fork wad i ¢ vyap ( @ pov emi rdon 7H pvela

ent {cUowship in the gospel, and my love makes me confident for the future. Msy ye abound yet more and

more.

Occidental and Oriental salutation, see notes on Gal, i. 2, and on Ephes. i. 2 ; comp. also Koch on 1 Thess. p.60. The formula is substantially the same in all St. Paul’s Epistles, except in Col. i. 2, and 1 Thess. i. 1, where the reading is doubtful. In the former, kal Kup. "Ine Xp. seems certainly an insertion, and in the latter (the apostle’s earliest Epistle) it may be doubted whether the simple xdpis xa) eiphyn, without any farther ad- dition, may not be the more probable reading ; see, however, Tisch. in loc. kal Kuplov| Scil. «al aed Kuplovu x.7.A. The Socinian interpr. xa) (zarpds) Kv- piov, found also in Erasm. on Rom. i. 7, is rendered highly improbable by the use of the same formula without judy, 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4, most probably 1 Tim. i. 2, and perhaps 2 Thess. i. 2: compare 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess. ii. 16.

3. ehxapiore® x. 7.A.] A closely similar form of commencement occurs in Rom. i. 9, 1 Cor. i. 4, Philem. 4; com- pare also Eph. i. 16, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2. Indeed inall his Epp. to churches, with the single and sad exception of that to the Galat., the apostle either returns thanks to God, or blesses Him, for the spiritual state of his converts ; rodro 5& moet ex TOU WOAAG aTois cuverdévat ay- add, Chrys. The present use of edyapic- tev (‘quod pro gratias agere ante Poly- bium usurpavit nemo,’ Lobeck) is con- demned by the Atticists; see Lobeck, Phryn p. 18, Thom. M. p. 913 (ed Bern.) Herodian, p. 400 (ed. Koch), but consider Demosth. de Cor. p. 257. Pollux (Onom. v. 141) admits it for 5:3¢- vas xdpw, but condemns it for eiSéva: yd- px; see, however, Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Vol. 1. p. 52, and notes on Col. i. 12.

T@ Oe pwov] So Rom.i.8; compare Acts xxvii. 23, ov eiul @ wal Aarpedw. ‘ Significat Paulus quantd fiducid vero Deo adhereat. Sunt enim qui sentiunt Deum misericordem quidem esse per Christum Sanctis hominibus nescio qui- bus, non autem sentiunt Deum ipsis esse misericordem,’ Caly.

éxl wdon 7H wvelal ‘onthe whole of my remembrance of you,’ not ‘every re- membrance,’ Auth. (but not the older English Vv.), Bloomf., Conyb., and oth- ers, — a translation incompatible with the use of the art. ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. 101. The prep. éxi with the dative (which we can hardly say ‘answers to the same prep. with a gen ; Rom. i. 10, Eph. i. 16,’ Alf.) is not here temporal (Heb. ix. 26), édcdxis duay avaurncda, Chrys., Winer, Gr. p. 350, —a meaning favored by the incorrect interpr. of xdey 77 wyv., but semilocal, and correctly ex- presses the idea of close and complete con- nection, ‘ my giving thanks is based upon my remembrance of you,” ‘ remembrance and gratitude are bound up together’ (comp. Isaiah xxvi. 8), the primary idea being, not addition (Alf.), but superposi- tion, Donalds. Cratyl. § 172, Gram. 6 483 : see notes on ch. iii. 9, and on Eph. ii. 20, where (ed. 1) interchange the ac- cidentally transposed ‘ former’ and ‘ lat- ter.’ In Rom. i. 10, and Eph. i. 16 (see notes), where éx} is used with the gen. in a very similar sentence, a certain amount of temporal force seems fairly recognizable. The causal meaning, ‘ de eo quod vos mei recordamini,’ Homberg, Michael., al. (comp. 1 Cor. i. 4), accord- ing to which Suey is a gen. subjecti, is exegetically untenable, as ver. 5 gives the reason for the edxap., and specifies

20

ULOD, Xapas Thy Senow mTroLovpeEvos,

something which far more naturally elic- ited it. wvela buar| ‘re- membrane of you,’ 1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i. 3; not ‘commemorationem vestri ’ (Van Hengel),—a meaning which, as Meyer rightly observes, it only receives when associated with moetoSar; compare Rom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1 Thess. i. 2, Phi- lem. 4.

4. rdvtotTe—motovmervos| Parti- cipial sentence defining and explaining more fully when the evxapioT@ k. T. A. takes place, viz., on every occasion that he prayed for them: the evxapiotia was based on, and inseparable from the uvela, and this thankful remembrance ever found an utterance in every prayer. Tidyrote is clearly not to be joined with evxapioT® ( Wiesing.),—a construction which interferes with the studied and affectionate cumulation mdytote, mdon, mdavtwy (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8) in the parti- cipial clause ; compare Col. i. 3, where it also seems best (contr. Meyer, De W. ; see notes) to join the adverb with the participle. It may be remarked that no inference can be drawn from the position of mdyrore (x favorite word with the apostle), it being as often used by him after as before the verb with which it is connected: in the other writers of the N. T. (except John vili. 29, where it is emphatic) it precedes the verb. On the emphatic repetition, mdévtote, maon, mav- twv, see the copious list of examples in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 51 sq. bmtp mavtwv bu@v| These words may be connected either (a) with rip dénow morovueros, Calv., De Wette, Alf., al., or (b) with deqoe: wov, Auth. and all Engl. Vv., Meyer, al. Both are gram- matically tenable; the omission of the article before imép mdvrwy being perfectly justifiable in the first case (see notes on Eph. i. 15), and according to rule in the

PHILLIP PIANS.

CHap. I.'4; 5,

4 cravtote ev Tdaon Senoer pou vTép TdvTaV bwov peta

(fie a n ’ etn > \ e7l TH KOLWOVLE ULWY ELS TO

second ; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126. The latter, however, seems much more simple and natural; the mdyrore is de- fined by mdop Sehoe, and mdon 8. again is limited by brép buay, while the article attached to déyaw (AIf. seems here to argue against himself; compare with Meyer) refers it back to the Sénois thus previously limited: so most of the an- cient Vv., Syr., Clarom., Vulg., Coptic. The construction adopted by Est., al., evxap.— btép awdvt. du., though else where adopted by St. Paul (Eph.,i. 16, comp. Rom. i. 8, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. i. 3), seems here very unsatisfactory. On the meaning of 6énois (a special form of mpocevx7), see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1. seta xapas| These words serve to depict the feelings he bore to his children in the faith at Philippi; he prays for them alway, yea, and he prays with joy ; Sinven@s tuav weuvnuévos Suundias amd- ons eutiumAapa, Theodoret.

5. €ml rH Kotvwviag| ‘for your fel- lowship ;’ ém correctly marking the cause for which the apostle returned thanks, 1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 15; see Winer, Gr. § 48. c, p. 351. This clause is most naturally connected with edxep. (Beng., al., and apparently Greek commentt.), not with riv Séno. rootu. (Van Heng., De W.; compare Green, Gr. p. 292), as there would otherwise be no specific statement of what was the subject of the De Wette urges as an objection the use of edxap. ém) in two different senses, in ver. 3 and 5, but this may be diluted by observing that the first ém is not (as with De W.) temporal, but semilocal (ethico-local), defining the subject on which the thanks rest, and with which they are closely united, the difference between which and the present simply ethical use is but slight. Thus then ver. 3 marks the object on which the

apostle’s edxapioria.

Cnap. I. 5, 6.

PHILIPPIANS. °1

> Ls > 4 , e , Ld lol lal 6 ‘ i evuyyeALov aro TpwTNS Huépas ayp TOD viv, © TweTOISws auTA

edxap. rests, ver. 4 defines when it takes place, ver. 5 why it takes place. Such slightly varied and delicate uses of prep- ositions are certainly not strange to the style of St. Paul.

Kkoww@ria els To evaryy.| ‘fellowship toward the gospel;’ not ‘in the gospel,’ Syr., Vulg. (but not Clarom.), but ‘ in reference to,’ or perhaps more strictly ‘toward’ (Hamm.), the eis marking the object toward which the xowevla was directed (Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353), — the fellowship of faith and love which they evinced toward the gospel primarily and generally in their concordant action in the furtherance of it, and secondurily and specially in their contribution and assistance to St. Paul. So in effect Chrysostom, &pa 7d cuvayTiAauBdverdat kowwvia éor) eis Td evayyeAwy, except that he too much limits the cuvayTiAauB. to the particular assistance rendered to the apostle (so Theophyl., Bisping.), which rather appears involved in, than directly conveyed by, the expression. On the other hand, the absence of the article before eis 1d edayy., which con- fessedly involves the close connection of wow. at] els 7d evayy. (Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p- 123, comp. ch. iv. 15), coupled with the exevetical consideration, that in an epistle which elsewhere so especially commemorates the liberality of the Phi- lippians (ch. iv. 10, 15, 16), such an al- lusion at the outset would be both natu- ral and probable (comp De W.), renders it difficult with Mey. and AIf. to restrict kowwvla merely to ‘unanimous action’ (Alf.), ‘bon accord’ (Rilliet), and not to include that particular manifestation of it which so especially marked the lib- eral and warm-hearted Christians of Phi- lippi; compare Wiesing. in doc., and Ne- ander, Phil. p. 25. Kowwvia is thus ab- éolute (Acts ii.42, Gal. ii. 9) and ab- stract, — ‘fellowship,’ not ‘ contribution’

(Bisp.), a translation which is defensible (see Fritz. on Rom. xv. 26, Vol. 111. p. 287), but which would mar the stadiedly general character of the expression. The interpretation of Theod. (not Chrysost.), al., according to which eis 7d evayy. is a periphrasis for a gen. (xowwvlay 5& 70d ebayy. Thy miotw éxdAcce), iS grammat- ically untenable ; compare Winer, Ur. § 30. 5, p. 174. and tpaétys juépas| ‘from the first day,’ in which it was preached among them (a@’ od émotetoate, Theophyl.), Acts xvi. 13 sq., comp. Col.i. 6. This clause, which seems so obviously in close union with the preceding words, is connected by Lach. (ed. stereot., but altered in larger ed.) and Meyer with werods x. 7. A., on account of the absence of the article. This is hypercriticism, if not error; axd mpaTns K.7.A. is a subordinate temporal definition so closely juined with the xo- vevia, as both naturally and logically to dispense with the article. The insertion of the article would give the fact of the duration of the xowwria a far greater prominence than the apostle seems to have intended, and would in fact suggest two moments of thought, — ‘ communio- nem eamque a prima die,’ ete. ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, and notes on 1 Tim. i. 13. Even independently of these grammatical objections, the use of é- moda, Which De Wette and Van Heng. remark is usually placed by St. Paul first in the sentence (ch. ii, 24, Rom. ii. 19, 2 Cor. ii. 3, Gal. v. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 4), would certainly seem to suggest for the participle a more prominent position in the sentence. The connection with «- xdp. (CEcum., Beza, Beng.) seems equal- ly untenable and unsatisfactory ; such a temporal limitation could not suitably be so distant from its finite verb, nor would amb mperns x.7.A. be in harmony with the pres. edxap., or the prior temporal

22

PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap. I 6.

la} [sg eet) Le > (de ala) yy ? \ > , ” TOUTO, OTL O evapEdmevos ev Luly Epyov ayaSov émitedéce axpls

clause mdytote k.T.A.; compare De Wette.

6. Temotdas advtTd TodTo| ‘being confident of this very thing, viz., that He who,’ etc., comp. Col. iv. 8; not ‘ confi- dent as lam,’ Alford (comp. Peile), but with the faint causal force so often couch- ed in the participle, ‘seeing I am, ete. ;’ ‘hae fiducia nervus est gratiarum actio nis, Beng. This clause is thus, gram- matically considered, the causal member of the sentence (Donalds. Gir. § 615) ap- pended to evxapior@ xk. 7. A., standing in parallelism to the temporal member, mayToTe — To.ovmevos K.T.A., and cer- tainly requires no supplementary «al (Tynd., Flatt, al.), nor any assumption of an asyndeton {Van Heng.). The accus. avrd TovTo is not governed by we- moses (Raphel, Wolf), but is appended to it as specially marking the ‘content and compass of the action’ (Madvig, Synt. § 27. a), or, more exactly, ‘the object in reference to which the action extends’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4. 1 sq.), Which again is more fully defined by the following ét: «.7. A. ; comp. Wi- ner, Gr. § 23. 5, p. 145, where several examples of this construction are cited. It is mainly confined to St. John and St. Paul, and serves to direct the attention somewhat specially to what follows; compare Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 461. 6 évapiduevos] ‘He who hath begun;’ obviously God: see ch. ii. 13, and comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12, &ptouat kal -emireAcow ; not ‘each better one of the Philippians’ (Wakef. Sy/v. Crit. Vol. 11. p. 98), — an interpretation to which the following épyov ayasby (see below) need in no way compel us. The rerb éevdpx. occurs again in connection with émreA. in Gal. iii. 3, and 2 Cor. viii. 6 (Lachm., but only with B). The com- pound verb does not appear to mark the ‘vim divinam hominum in animis agen-

tem,’ Van Heng. (for see Gal. /.c¢., and comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 1. 3,5), but per- haps only differs from &pxeoSa in this, that it represents the action of the verb as more directly concentrated on the ob- ject, whether (as here) expressed, or un- derstood ; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. ev, E, Vol. 1. p. 912. év buitv| ‘in you,’ sc. ‘in animis ves- tris,’ compare 1 Cor. xii. 6; not ‘ among you,’ Hamm., which would scarcely be in harmony with éwép wavrwy iuor, ver. 7. The commencement of the good work was not limited to instances among tlie Philippian Christians, but was spoken generally in reference to all. épyov ayasov] ‘a good work,’—not ‘the good work,’ Luth.: not elsewhere used in ref. to God (yet comp. John x. 32), but only in ref. to man; compare Acts. ix. 36, Rom. ii. 7, 2 Corsix. 8; Eph. ii. i0, Col. i. 10, Heb xiii. 21, al. Still there is no impropriety in the pres- ent use ; the &pyov ayaSdév, though here stated indefinitely, does not appear to re- fer subjectively to the good works (Svr. ; 7% Katopséuata, Chrys.), the &pyov tis miorews (1 Thess. i.3) of the Philippians generally (Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p- 172), but rather objectively to the par- ticular koiwvwvia eis evaryy. previously spe- cified : God had vouchsafed unto them, among other blessings, that of an open hand and heart (tabrny suiv dwpnodpe- vos Thy mpoduuiay, Theod.) ; this blessing He will continue. This declaration, however, is expressed in a general form ; comp. Rom. ii. 7. émitedéoes] ‘ will accomplish, ‘will perfect,’ not merely ‘will perform it,’ Au- thor., but ‘will bring it to a complete v and perfect end,’ Syr. pw [exple- bit] ; see notes on Gal. iii. 83. With re-

gard to the dogmatical application of the words, which, owing to their probable

Cuap. I. 7.

PHILIPPIANS. 92

hucpas Xpioctod "Incod 7 xaSws eotw Sixacov euoi Todto ppoveiv

specific reference cannot safely be pressed, it seems enough to say with Theoph., amd ray wapedSévtwy Kal wepl ray wevdy- tev atoxa(era:: the inference is justly drawn, that God who has thus far blessed them with His grace will also bless them with the gift of perseverance ; compare 1 Cor. i. 8: ‘Gottes Art ist es ja nicht, etwas halb zu thun,’ Neander. The charge of semi-Pelagianism brought against Chrysostom in loc, has been sat- isfactorily disproved by Justiniani, who thus perspicuously sams up that great commentator’s doctrinal statements ; ‘valt Chrysostomus Deum et incipere et perficere : illud excitantis, hoc adjuvan- tis est gratia ; illa liberi arbitrii conatum preevertit, hc comitatur.’ On the doc- trine of Perseverance generally, see the clear statements of Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, § 513, 514, Vol. 11. p. 534- 549. The conclusions arrived at are thus stated: ‘Perseverantia est effectus sanctificationis. Sanctificatio est condi- tio perseverantiw. Datur apostasia re- genitorum, nempe si in sanctificatione inertes sunt,’ p. 548 ; compare also some admirable comments of Jackson, Creed, xX. 37. 4 sq. &xpis Huépas Xp. ‘Inc.] ‘unto, or up to the day of Christ Jesus, i.e. &xpi tis wapovolas Tod Kuplov, Theoph. That St. Paul in these words assumes the nearness of the com- ing of the Lord (Alf) cannot be posi- tively asserted. It is certainly evasive to refer this to future generations (ros €f juay, Theophyl.), but it may be fairly said that St. Paul is here using language which has not so much a mere historical, as a general and practical reference : the day of Christ, whether far off or near, is the decisive day to each individual ; it is practically coincident with the day of his death, and becomes, when addressed to the individual, an exaltation and am- plification of that term. Death, indeed,

as has been well remarked by Bishop Reynolds, is dwelt upon but little in the N.'T.; it is to the resurrection and to the day of Christ that the eyes of the believer are directed ; ‘ semper ad beatam resur- rectionem, tanquam ad scopum, referen- di‘sunt oculi,’ Calvy. To maintain, then, that this is not the sense in which the apostle wrote the words (Alf.) seems bere unduly and indemonstrably exclu- sive. See notes on 1 Jim. vi. 14, and compare (with caution) Usteri, LeArb. 11. 2. 4. B, p. 326 sq. On &xp: and péxpi, see notes on 2 Tim. ii 9.

7. kadés x.7.A.] ‘evenas:’ explan- atory statement of the reason why such a confidence is justly felt; compare 1 Cor. i. 6, Eph. i.6. On the nature of this particle, see notes on Gal. iii. 16, and on Eph. l. c. Bixacov] ‘right,’ ‘meet,’ scil. ‘ secandum legem caritatis,’ Van Hengel ; it is in accord- ance with the genuine nature of my love (1 Cor. xiii. 7) to entertain such a confi- dent hope : compare Acts iv. 19, Eph. vi. 1, 2 Pet. i.18. Alford (with Meyer and De W.) remarks that the two classical constructions are S{xaiov éué todto op. (Herod. 1. 39), and Sixads efuc roto op. (Plato, Zegy. x. 897). The last construc- tion is the most idiomatic (comp. Kri- ger, Sprachl. § 55. 3.10), and perhaps the most usual in the best Greek, but there is nothing unclassical in the pres- ent usage; comp. Plato, Repul/. 1. p. 334, Slxav tére robrois tols xovnpods @perciv. TOUTO Ppovery] ‘to think this,’ Auth., Syr.; ‘hoe sen- tire,’ Vulg.; ¢. e. to entertain this confi- dence: ‘ dpovety hic non dicitur de animi affectu sed de mentis judicio,’ Beza; compare 1 Cor. iv. 6 (Rec.), Gal. v. 10. To refer todro to the prayer in verse 4, ‘hoe curare pro vobis,’ Wolf (compare Conyb.). or to the expectation in ver. 6, “hoc omnibus vobis appetere, scil. omni

24

PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap I.°7.

€ \ /, ¢€ lal \ Lae 4 > A / e€ Lal y aA UTEp TavTwV tov, Sia TO Exew pe EV TH Kapdla bpdis, év TE Tois A

cura et precibus’ (Van Heng.), is unsat- isfactory, and is certainly not required by érép, which occurs several times in the N. T. (2 Cor. i. 6,8; 2 Thess. ii. 1, al.), in a sense but little different from mept; see Winer, Gram. § 47.1, p. 343. The probable distinction, — ‘ep! solam mentis circumspectionem, brép simul an- imi propensionem significat’’ (Weber, Demosth. p. 130), is perfectly recogniza- ble in the present case, but cannot be ex- pressed without a periphrasis, e. g. ‘ to entertain this favorable opinion about you,’ ‘ut ita de vobis sentiam et confi- dam,’ Est. On the uses of imp and mepl, see notes on Gal. i. 4, und on ¢po- veiv, see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 19, p. 61 sq. b1a& 7d Exery «.7.A.] ‘because I have

‘ou in my heart,’ mt205 ¥ y = = w

[in corde meo positi] Syr. ; not ‘ because you have me,’ Rosenm., Conyb.: the apostle is throughout clearly the subject and agent (comp. ver. 8); the depth of his love warrants the fulness of his confi- dence. In all cases the context, not.the mere position of the accusatives, will be the surest guide ; compare Jolin i. 49: see also Winer, Gir. § 44.6, p. 294. The translation of Beza, ‘in animo tenere ’= ‘quasi insculptum habere memorize’ (toBeotov repipéepw thy pvhjunv, Theod. ; see especially Justin. in loc.), is opposed both to the similar affectionate expres- sions, 2 Cor. iii. 2, vii. 3, and to the pre- vailing use of kapdia (comp. Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 89 sq., notes on ch. iv. 7, and on 1 Tim.i.5)in the N. T. It is the fervent love of the apostle that is ex- pressed ; and in this remembrance is ne- cessarily involved; compare Chrysost. in loc. év Te Tots Seo- pots x.7.A.] It is doubtful whether these words are to be connected with the preceding 8:4 7d xew «. 7. A. (Chrys., Theoph.), or with the succeeding cvyko-

“i

vwvovs pov kK. T.A. (Calvin, Lachmann, Tisch.). Neander and the majority of modern commentators adopt the former ; the latter, however, seems more simple and natural. The apostle had his confi- dence because he cherishes them in his heart; and he cherishes them because their liberality showed that whether in his sufferings (Secuots), which they alle- viated, or in his exertions for the gospel (7H Gon. kat BeB.), with which they sym- pathized, they all were bound up with him in the strictest spiritual fellowship. On te—kal, which here serves to unite two otherwise separate and distinct notions, slightly enhancing the latter, see Har- tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 98, and comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10.

évy Th &moroyia k.T.A.] ‘in my de- fence (of) and confirmation of the gospel.’ These words have been somewhat per- versely interpreted. *AmoAoyia and fe- Balwors are certainly not synonymous (Rheinw ),—nor do they form an hen- diadys, sc. aod. eis BeB. (Heinr.; com- pare Syr. ‘defensione que est pro veri- tate [confirmatione] evangelii’),— nor can TH aod. be dissociated from tod evayy. (Chrys.), both being under the vinculum of a common article (Green, Gr, p. 211), —nor, finally, does it seem necessary to restrict the clause to the ju- dicial process which resulted in the apos- tle’s imprisonment (Van Heng.). It seems more natural to give both words their widest reference; to understand by amodoyia St. Paul’s defence of the gos- pel, whether before his heathen judges (compare 2 Tim. iv. 16) or his Jewish opponents (comp. Phil. i. 16, 17), and by BeBaiwoer his confirmation and estab- lishment of its truth (Heb. vi. 16), —not by his sufferings (Chrys., Theod.), but by his teaching and preaching among his own followers and those who resorted to him (compare Acts xxviii. 23, 30): see

Cap. J. 7,8. PHILIPPIANS. 95 a weet. ma hy / ‘ , Ae ' Bespois pou Kat €v TH arodoyia Kal BeBawoe tod evayyeriov

ovyKoWwwvors pou Tis KupliTos TavTas Uuas ovTas. * waptus yap

8. pou éoriv] So Rec. with ADEKL; great majority of mss.; very many Vv. (but Vv. in such cases can scarcely be depeuded on for either side) and many Ff. (Griesb. [but om.], Scholz.). The éorly is omitted by Tischend. and bracketed by Lachm. with BFG ; 17. 67**; Vulg., Claroman. ; Chrysost. (ms.), Theod.-Mops. (Meyer, Alf.). The external evidence seems too decidedly in favor of the insertion to be overbalanced by the somewhat doubtful internal argument that éorlv is a rem- iniscence of Rom. i. 9 (Mey., Alf.). It does not seem much more probable that the transcriber should have borne in mind a remote reference, than that the apostle should have twice used the same formula.

the good note of Wieseler, Chronol. p. 429, 430 guykotvwvovs x. 7. A.J] ‘seeing that both in my defence of and, etc., ye are all partakers with me of my grace ;’ ‘ut qui omnes mecum consortes estis gratiz,’ Schmid ; compare Hamm., and Scholef. Hints, p. 104. The preceding Suas, fur- ther characterized as é te — cuykow., is rhetorically repeated (see Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 4, p. 275 sq.) to support mdv- vas; the whole clause serving to explain the reason for the €xew év rp Kapila. It is doubtful whether ou is to be connect- ed (a) with ovyxowwvods as a second gen- itive (Syr., Copt.), or (b) with ris xdpi- ros (compare Clarom., Vulg.), the pro- noun being placed out of its order ( Wi- ner, Gr. § 22.7.1) to mark the reference of the prep. in cuykow. As ovykow. is found in the N. T. both with persons (1 Cer. ix. 23) and things (Rom. xi. 17), the context alone must decide; this, in consequence of the meaning assigned be- low to xdpis, seems in favor of (a) ; com- pare ch. ii. 30: so Hammond, De Wette. Tis xdptros| The reference of this subst. has been differently explained : the Greek. commentators refer it more specifically ‘to the grace of suffering,’ comp. ver. 29; Rosenm., al. to the ‘ mu- nus apostolicum,’ scil. ‘ ye are all assist- ants to me in my duty,’ Storr, Peile ; others again to the ‘evangelii donatio,’ 4

compare Van Heng. ; others to grace in its widest acceptation, Eph. ii. 8, Col. i. 6 (De W. Alf.). Of these the first is too restrictive, the others, especially the last, too vague The article seems to mark the xdpis as that vouchsafed in both the cases previously contemplated, suf- ferings for (ver. 29), and exertions in behalf of the gospel. The translation ‘gaudii,’ Clarom., Vulg., Ambrst., al., is apparently due to the reading yxapas, though no mss. have been adduced in which that variation is found.

8. udptus ydp x.7.A.] ‘For God is my witness ;’ earnest confirmation of the foregoing verse, more especially of did 7d Exew we ev TH Kapdia duds. Chrys. well says, obx ds amorovuevos udprupa Karel Thy Oedy, GAN’ ex TOAATS SiaSécews. The reading wor [DEFG; al.; Chrys. ; Lat Ff.] would scarcely involve any change of sense ; it would perhaps only a little more enhance the personal rela-

tion. &s érimroda] ‘how I long after you ;? comp. ch. ii. 26, Rom.

i. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i.4. The force of éxi in this compound does not mark intension (‘ vehementer desidero,’ Van Heng. ; ‘expetam,’ Beza), but, as in ériSuueiy and similar words, the direc- tion of the ré3os ; see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 4, and Fritz. Rom. i. 9, Vol. 1. p. 31. Again, it seems quite unnecessary with Van Heng. to restrict the +é30s to ‘ ves-

26

PIPL TEE PANS:

CHAP TAgng:

v) \ e Ld ce ie} a PA ig lal > / Hou éaTiv 6 Océs, ws eruToS@ Tavtas buds ev oTrayXVvoIs Xpic- tod “Incod. ° Kai todto mpocevyoua, Wa 1) ayarn byway ert

tree consuetudinis desiderium ;’ the long- ing and yearning of the apostle was for something more than mere earthly reun- ion; it was for their eternal welfare and blessedness, and the realization, in its highest form, of the xdpts of which they The context seems clearly to decide that @s here, and probably also Rom. i. 9, is not ‘quod’ (Rosenmuller, De Wette) but ‘ quo- modo’ (Syr., Copt.), scil. ‘quantopere,’ ‘quam propense,’ Corn. a Lap.; com- pare Chrysostom, ov duvarby eiweiy TGs éxm0da.

év omAdyxvots X..’1.] This forcible expression must not be understood mere- ly as qualitative, — ‘ opponit Christi vis- cera carnali affectui,’ Calv., but as semi- local, ‘in the bowels of Christ,’ in the bowels of Him with whom the apostle’s very being was so united (Gal. ii. 20), that Christ’s heart had, as it were, be- come his, and beat in his bosom: comp. Meyer in loc., who has well maintained this more deep and spiritual interpreta- tion Ey thus retains its natural and usual force (contr. Rilliet), and the gen. is not the gen. auctoris or uriginis (Har- tung, Casus, p. 17), as apparently Chrys. omAdyxva yap altn |) ovyyéeveta 7 Kare Xp.] july xapiCera:, but simply possessive. We can hardly term this use of omAdy- xva (pam) completely Hebraistic, as a similar use is sufficiently common in classical Greek (see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v., Vol. 11. p. 1504); the verb omAayxvi¢oua, however, and the adjectives moAvomAayxvos and etamAay- xvos (when not in its medical sense, Hip- pocr. p. 89) seem purely so, while, on the contrary, the substantive evorAayx- vla occurs in Eurip. Rhes.192. For a list of Hebraisms of the New Test. judi- ciously classified, see Winer, Gram. § 3,

p- 27 sq.

were now gcuyKowwvol.

9.xal rotro mpoa.] ‘ Et hoc precer,’ but not ‘ propterea precor,’ as Wolf, 2: the kal with its simple copulative force introduces the apostle’s prayer (ver. 9 — 11) alluded to in ver. 4, while the rodro prepares the reader for the statement of its contents, ‘and this which follows is what I pray.’ The «al (as Meyer ob- serves) thus coalesces more with todto than mpocetxouat; not Kal mpoo. todTe, but «al rodto mpoo. To connect the clause closely with what precedes (Ril liet) destroys all the force of ver. 8 ¢va] The particle has here what has been called its secondary telic force (sce notes on Eph. i. 17); te. it does not directly indicate the purpese of the prayer, but blends with it also its subject and purport : Theodorus iz loc. paraphrases it by a simple infin. It may be again remarked that this secondary and blended use (esp. after verbs of prayer), though not recog- nized by Meyer and Fritzsche, cannot be safely denied in the N. T.: there are numerous passages (setting aside the dis- puted use after a prophecy) in which the full telie force (‘in order that’) cannot be sustained in translation without arti- fice or cireumlocution ; e. g. comp. Meyer on John xv 8. We may observe further, that this use of iva is not confined to the N. T.: it wes certainly common in Hel- lenic Greek (see examples in Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 30), and in modern Greek, under the form v@ with the suj., it lapses (after a large clause of verbs) into a mere periphrasis of the infinitive ; see Corpe, Gramm. pp. 129, 139. 4 ayamwn bue@y] ‘ your love,’ not, to- wards the apostle (Chrys.), — which had been so abundantly shown as to leave a prayer for its increase almost unnecessa- ry; nor again, ‘toward God’ (Just.), nor even, ‘ towards one another,’ Meyer, Alf. (Theodorus unites the two: comp.

Cuap. I. 9.

PHILIPPIANS. Oy

474 “7

paddov Kal padXrov Trepiccedy ev ervypwce Kal Tday aid'Si/cel,

Wiesing.), both of which seem unneces- sarily restrictive. It seems rather ‘ to- wards all’ (comp. De Wette), —a love which, already shown in, and forming an element of, their cowwvla, ver. 4 (not identical with it, Alf.), the apostle prays may still more and more increase, not so much per se, as in the special elements of knowledge and moral perception. Ex- amples of the very intelligible wa@AAov Kat uadAov will be found in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 307. év «.t.A.] ‘may abound in knowledye and all (every form of) perception,’ not ‘in all knowledge and perception,’ Lu- ther, —an attraction for which there seems no authority. The exact force of év is somewhat doubtful ; it can scureely (a) approximate in meaning to yerd, Chrys. (who, however, fluctuates between this preposition and é&), Corn. a Lap., al.; for this use, thoush grammatically defensible (comp. examples in Green, Gr. p. 289), is not exegctically satisfac- tory, as ver. 10 shows that it is not to aydarn together with éxvyv. and aicd., but to émyv. and aio. more especially, as insphering and defining that love, that attention is directed ; nor (/) does it ex- actly denote the manner of the increase (De W.), as this again seems to give too little prominence to érryy. and aid. ; nor, lastly, is év here instrumental, Flatt, Heinr., —as love could hardly be said to increase by the agency of knowledge. The prep. is thus not simply equivalent to petd, kard, or did (much less to els, comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 5, p. 370), but with its usual force marks the sphere, ele- ments, or particulars, in which the in- crease was to take place ; compare Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. It was not for an increase of their love absolutely that the apostle prayed, for love might become the sport of every impulse (comp. Wie- sing.), but it was for its increase in the

Teptagevn

important particulars, a sound knowl- edge of the truth and a right spiritual perception, and of both of which it was to have still more and more. ev is thus not absolute, but closely in union with év and its dative, and may be considered generally and practically as identical with abundare and an ablative, the substantives defining the elements and items in which the increase is real- ized ; compare 2 Cor. viii. 7, Col. ii. 7, al, Lachmann, Tischendorf read repw- gevon With BOE; al., but as two of these mss., DE, adopt the aor. in ver. 26 with- out critical support, their reading is here

Nepiocet-

suspicious. émiyy. kal rdon aigd.].These two substantives niay be thus distinguished ; éxiyrwors ‘aecurata cognitio’ (see notes on Eph. i. 17), denotes a sound knowledge of theo- retical and praetical truth (Mey.), thy mpoaijkoveay yy@ow Tay els apérny cuv- tewdytTwy, Theodorus. Alvodnois, * sen- sus’ (Vulg., Clarom.) is more generic, but here, as the context implies, must be limited to right spiritual discerament > o}

( _anO99 woe {intelligentia spiri- tus] Syr.), a sensitively correct moral perception (vénots, Hesych.) of the true nature, good or bad, of each circum- stance, case, or object which experience may present; compare Prov. i. 4, where it is in connection with &voa, and Exod. xxviii. 3, where it-is joined with codla. It only occurs here in the N. T.; the in- strumental derivative aiodnrhpioy (‘organ of feeling,’ ete.) is found Heb, v. 14; compare Jer. iv. 19. The adjective xdop is not intensive (‘ plena et solida,’ Calv.), but, as apparently always in St. Paul’s Epp., extensive, ‘every form of ;’ comp. notes on Eph. i. 8.

10. els Td Soniud ery x«.zA.] ‘for you to proce things thatare excellent ;’ pur- pose of the mepioo. ev éxcyv. xal aid

28

PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap. I. 10.

cis 7d Soxydfew buds ta Siapépovta, iva are eiduxpwels Kai

(not result, —a meaning grammatically admissible, but here inapplicable; com- pare Winer, Gr. 44. 5, p. 294, note), to which the further and final purpose iva iite K.7.A.is appended in the next clause The words 5ox. 74 Siad., both here and Rom. ii. 18, may correctly receive two, if not three, different interpretations, vary- ing with the meanings given to diape- povra, and the shade of meaning assigned to doxmate. Thus they may imply either (a) ‘to prove (distinguish between) things that are different, i. e. to discrimi- nate (Soxiuacew Kat Siaxpivew, <Arrian, Epict. 1. 20),— whether simply between what is right and wrong (Theoph. on Rom. ii. 18, De W.), or between differ- ent degrees of good and their contraries (eidévar tiva wey Kadd, Tiva Se KpelrTova, ziva 5€ mavtTdmact TH Stapopay mpos GA- Anda zxovta, ‘Theod.); so Beza, Van Heng., Alf.,al.; (b) ‘to approve of things that ave excellent,’ ‘ut probetis potiora,’ Vulg., 7a Siapépovta being used in the same sense as in Matth. x. 31, xii. 12, Luke xii. 7, 24 (Meyer adds Xen. Hier. 1.3, 7a diap., Dio Cass xxiv. 25), and doxiudCew in its derivative sense, comp. Rom. xiv. 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, and exam- ples in Rost u. Palm, Zev. s. v.; so Au- thor., Mey., al ; or lastly (ti) ‘to prove, bring to the test, things that are excellent,’ Syr. [ut discernatis convenientia], /£th. [ut perpendatis que prestat], the pri- mary meaning of Sox. being a little more exactly preserved ; see Rom. xii 2, Eph. v. 10. Exegetical considerations must alone decide ; these seem slightly in fa- vor of the meaning of S:apépovra (‘ prav- stabilia, sc. in bonis optima,’ Beng.) adopted in (b) and (b;),— the prayer for the increase of love being more naturally realized in proving or approving what is excellent, what is really worthy of love, than in merely discriminating between what is different. Between (b) and ()))

the preceding aicSjoe and the prevailing lexical meaning of dox. decides us in fa- vor of the latter ; so Theophyl. (7d ovp- gepoy Soxtudoau nal éemiyv@var Tivas mev XPT pirciv kal Tivas wi), and apparently Chrysostom, Beng. (‘ explorare et am- plecti’), al., who appear correctly to hold to the more exact meaning of dox:udCeuw : comp. notes on Eph. y. 10.

eiAtkpivets] ‘pure, 2 Pet. iii. 1; compare 1 Cor. v. &, 2 Cor. i. 12, ii. 17. The derivation of this adjective, though a word not uncomion cither in earlier or later Greek, is somewhat doubtful. The most probable is that adopted by Stallbaum (Plato, Phud 77 a), who de- rives it from efAos [he must mean efAy] and xplvw, with reference to a root efAeiy. As, however, the primary meaning of this root is not quite certain, efAup. May be either § what is parccl'cd off by itself? (gregatim), with reference to ein (see especially Buttmann, /rxil. § 44, and compare Rost u. Valm, Ler. s. v.), or more probably, ‘ votubiii agitatione se- cretum,’ with reference to the meaning volvere, which has recently been indicated as the primary meaning of cidely ; see esp. Phiiol. Museum, Vol. 1. p. 405 sq. So appy. Hesych. etAikpwés: 7d KaSapby Kal dpryes Erepov; see Plutarch, Quest. Rom. § 26, eiAikpwes Kad Quryes; ib. Is. et Osir. § 54; xaSapds od ciArcpivys, and csp. § G1, where 7a eiAucpy> and 7& piKTe are opposed to each other; compare also Max. Tyr. Diss. 31.

‘splendor’ [‘EA-, cognate with EA,’ Benfey, Waurzellexr. Vol. 1. p. 460], in which case the rough breathing would be more suitable; compare Schneider on Plato, Rep. 11. p. 123. Several exam- ples of the use of eiAucp. will be found in Loesner, Obs. p. 850, Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 398, and Elsner, Ols. Vol. 11. p. 10, of which the most pertinent are

The more usual, / - e . € but less prob., derivation is from eZAq, ,

ie sade me

Caar. I. 11.

PHILIPPIANS. 29

dmpockotrot els tcpav Xprotod, © wemynpwpévor Kaptrov OiKato- A ‘ ie aA ial > Py it of \ ww - avvns Tov dia Incod Xpiotod, els d0fav Kai Erawov Ocod.

those above. ampéaxomos| ‘without offence, stumbling ;’ ‘ inoffenso cursu,’ Beza; intransitively as in Acts xxiv. 16, Hesych. aoxavddAioroy ; com- pare Suicer, Tiesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 495. Chrys. and others give an active mean- ing, as in | Cor. x. 32, ‘ giving no of- fence,’ eiAicp. marking their relation to God, axpécr. their relation to men. This hardly accords with the context, in which their inward state and relations to God form the sole subject of the prayer. It will be best, then, in spite of 1 Cor. l. c., to maintain theintransitive meaning ; s0 apparently Vulg., Syriac, Coptic; but these are cases in which the Vv. scarcely give a definite opinion.

els uépav Xp.] ‘against the day of Christ ;’ ‘in diem,’ Vulg., scil. va tére edpedijte kadapol, Chrys. ;—not ‘till the day,’ cte., Auth. Ver. (compare Beza), which would rather have been expressed by &xpis juepas, as in ver 6. The prep- osition has here not its temporal, but its ethical force; compare ch. ii. 16, Ephes. iv. 30, and notes on 2 Tim. i. 12, On the expressi.n jjépa Xp. see the notes on ver. 6.

ll. wewAnpmpmeévot K.7.A.] ‘being filled with the fruit of righteousness ;” mo- dal clause defining more fully efAcxp. «ad ampécx., and specifying not only on the negative, but also on the positive side the fullest and comeletest Christian de- velopment. The accus. capmdy [Kapray, Rec., is unsupported by uncial authority] is that of ‘the remoter object,’ marking that in which the action of the verb has its realization ; so Col. i. 9, wAnpwSire Thy eniyvwow Tod SeAquaTos ; compare Hartung, Cusus, p. 62 sq. and notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, where this construction is discussed. If we compare Rom. xy. 14, TerAnpwnevor Tagns yveoews, We may recognize the primary distinction be-

tween the cases: the gen., the ‘ whence- case,’ marks the absolute material out of which the fulness was realized (compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 16); the accus., the ‘whither-case,’ the object towards which and ulong which the action tended, and, as it were, in the domain of which the fulness was evinced ; see Scheuerl., Synt. § 9.1, p.63. The gen. diaacortyns is the gen. originis, that from which the kaprds emanates (Hartung, Casus, p. 63}, or perhaps more strictly, that of the orig- inating cause (Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 125),—a xapmds that is the production of dixaiogdvy ; compare Gal. vy. 22, Eph. v. 9, James iii. 18, and on the meaning of kaprés, notes on Gal. l. c.

With regard to the strict meaning of &- katoctvn it may be briefly remarked that we must in all cases be guided by the context : here ver. 10 and the app. empha- sis on kaprbv point to dix. as & moral habitus (comp. Chrys.), as in Rom. vi. 13, Eph. vy. 9, al.,—not ‘justification ’ proper (Rilliet), but the righteousness which results from it and is evinced in good works; so Calv, Mever, De W. On the distinction between the ‘righteous- ness of sanctification ’ and the ‘ righteous- ness of justification,’ see especially the admirable sermon of Hooker, § 6, Vol. 111. p. 611 (ed. Keble), and on the doc- trine of justification generally, the short but comprehensive treatise of Waterland, Works, Vol. v1. pp. 1-38.

tov d:a “I. X. serves to specify the xapréy, as being only and solely through Christ; compare notes on 2 Tim. i. 13. This fruit is a communication of the life of Christ to His own ( Wiesing.) ; it re- sults from ‘the pure grace of Christ our Lord whereby we were in Him [hy the working of the Spirit He sent, Gal. ii. 20, iii. 22, Mey.] made to do those good works that God had appointed for us to

30

Know that my sufferings have furthered, the gospel, for Christ is preached by all. I indeed would fain depart to Christ, but for your sake I shall remain,

walk in,’ King Edw. VI. Catech., cited by Waterland, Justif: Vol. v1. p. 31. eis Sdkav nal @r. Geod| ‘to the praise and glory of God:’ the praise and clory of God is the ‘ finis primarius’ of the wewAnp@osa. Hence ‘ad gloriam,’ Beza, is more exact than ‘in gloriam,’ Vulg., Clarom.; see notes on Eph. i. 6. Adéa is here, as Meyer pertinently re- marks, the ‘ majesty’ of God per se, émavos, the ‘praise and glorification’ of the same ; compare Eph. i. 6, 12, 14, 1 Pet. 1.7.

12. yevdokery Sé x. 7.A.] ‘Now I would have you know ;’ the transitional dé (Hartung, Paritk. dé, 2, 3, Vol. 1. p. 165) introduc¢s the fresh subject of the apostle’s present condition at Rome, his hopes and fears ; compare Rom. i. 13, 1 Cor. xii. 1, 1 Thess.iv. 13; al. Itseems rather far-fetched in Meyer, followed by Alf., to refer yiwdéon. to év émvyv. above, ‘and as a part of this knowledge I would have you know,’ etc. There certainly seems no peculiar emphasis in yivécrew ; the order is the natural one (comp. Jude 4) when BovaAouce is unemphatic ; con- trast 1 Tim. ii. 8, v. 14, al. Though few minor points deserve more attention in the study of the N. T. than the collo- cation of words, we must still be careful not to overpress collocations which arise not so much from design as from a natu- ral and instinctive rhythm; compare 2 Cor. i. 8. ‘my circumstances,’ ‘ rerum inearum con- ditio,’ Wolf; comp. Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, Tobit x. 8, and see illustrations in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234, Wetst. in Eph.l.c. In such eases «ard is local, and marks, as it were, an extension along an object; compare Acts xxvi. 3, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 356. In

TH Kat épmel

PUPP AON Ss).

Cnapr. f. 12533;

9 , r , + 2 Twookew dé twas Rovropar, ddehgol, are \\ ’ lal 4 TA KAT €wé MAAXOV Els TPOKOTY TOD Evaryyediou ef ehyrvsev, date Tors Secpovs pou havepods

late writers, «ata with a personal pro- noun becomes almost equivalent to a possessive pronoun, and with a substan- tive almost equivalent to a simple gen. ; comp. 2 Mace. xv. 37. > not ‘maxime’ or “excellenter’ (compare Beza), but ‘ po- tius,’ rather than what might have been expected, — viz. hinderance: see Winer, Gr. § 35. 4, p. 217, by whom this use of the comparative is well illustrated. mpokomny| ‘advance,’ ‘ furtherance ;’ a substantive of later Greek condemned by the Atticists, see notes on 1 Zim, iv. 15, and confpare Triller on Thom. M. s. v. p. 741 (ed. Bernh.), who, though perhaps justly pleading for the word as an intelligible and even elegant form, is unable to cite any instance of its use in any early writer, Attic or otherwise. Nu- merous examples, especially out of Plu- tarch, are cited by Wetst. zn loc. eAhAvdev] ‘have fallen out,’ Author. Ver. ; compare Wisdom xv. 5, eis dvei5os Zpxetat. Further but doubtful exam- ples are cited by Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p- 499; at any rate, from them take out Mark vy. 26, Acts xix. 27 (cited even by Meyer), in which éAdety certainly implies nothine more than simple (ethical) mo- tion. Alford adduces Herodot. 1. 120, és daveves “PXET Gy which seems fully in point.

13. bore rods deou. x. T.A.| ‘so that my bonds have become manifest in Christ ;’ illustrations of the above mpo- xowh ; first beneficial result of his im- prisonment: ‘duos nune sigillatim apos- tolus fortune sus adverse memorat ef- fectus,’? Van Heng. The order of the words scems clearly to imply that év Xp. must be joined, — not with Seouot's, Au- thor. Ver., al., scil. ‘ad provehendum

MGAAOY| ‘rather ;

Cuar. I. 13.

‘PHILIPPIANS. 3

v

év Xpiot@ yevéoat év Op TH Tpattwplw Kai Tots NovTo’s Tacw,

Christi honorem,’ Calv., but with dave- pots , on which, perhaps, there is a slight emphasis ; the Seuol were not xpuwrol, but @avepul ; nor davepol, only, but pave- pol ev Xp.) manifesta in Christo,’ Cla-

“rom., manifest—not ‘through Christ,’

Theoph., Scum., but ‘in Christ,’ mani- fest as horne in fellowship with Him, and

in His service. On this important qual-

itative formula, which must never be vaguely explained away, see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and for a brief explanation of its general foree, compare Hooker, Serm, 11. Vol. 111, p. 763 (ed. Keble). The variation dav. yeveos. (Chrys. adds rods) év Xp. with DEFG; Boern., Vulg., al., shows perhaps that some difficulty has been felt in the connection.

év 6A@ 76 wpaiT.] ‘inthe whole preto- rium.’ The meaning of mpaitépioy in this passage has been abundantly dis- cussed. ‘Taken per se, the adjectival sub- stantive ‘ pretorium ’” has apparently the following meanings: (a) ‘the gencral’s tent,’ sc. ‘tentorium or tabernaculum ’ (Livy, vir. 12), and derivatively ‘the council of war’ held there (Livy xxv1. 15); (6) the ‘ palace of a provincial gov- ernor’ (Ciccro, Verr. 111. 28; compare Matth. xxvii. 27, Mark xv. 16, al.), sc. ‘domicilium,’ and thence derivatively, (a) ‘the palace of aking’ (Juv. x. 161; compare Acts xxiii. 35), and even (8) ‘the mansion of a private individual’ (compare Suet. Octav. 72) ; lastly, (c) ‘the body-guard of the emperor ’ (Tacit. Hist. tv. 46) ; and thence not improba- bly, (d) ‘the guard-house or barracks where they were stationed ;’ compare Scheller, Ler. s.v., from which this ab- stract has been compiled. In the pres- ent passage Chrys. and the patristic ex- positors all adopt (4, a) and refer the term to ‘the emperor's palace’ (ra Bacl- Aeia), but since the time of Perizonius (de Pret, et Pretorio, Franeq. 1687)

nearly all modern commentators adopt (d), and refer xpair. to the ‘ castrum Prae- torianorum’ built and fortified by Seja- nas, not far from the ‘ Porta Viminalis ;’ compare Suet. Tiber. 37, Tacit. Ann. rv. 2, Dio Cass. Lv11. 19. The patristic in- terpretation, on account of the lax use of ‘pretorium,’ seems fairly defensible: as, however there is no proof that the imperial palace at Rome was ever so called, and as it is expressly said, Acts XXviil. 16, that St. Paul was delivered T@ otpatomedapx (one of the two Pre- fecti Preetorio, perhaps Burrus), and by him assigned to the custody of a (Pra- torian) soldier, it seems more probable that the apostle is here referring to the ‘castrum Pretorianorum,’—not merely to the smaller portion of it attached to the palace of Nero (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 403, followed by Hows. [Vol. 11. p. 510, ed. 2], and Alf. in /oo.), but as 5A@ and the subsequent generic tots Aowrois waow seem to imply,—to the whole camp of the Pretorians, whether inside or outside the city, —in which general designation it is not improbable that the olxla Kalea- pos (chap. iv. 22) may be ineiuded: see notes in /oc. The interpr. ‘ hall of judi- cature,’ Hamm., al. (see Wolf in loc.), does not appear either satisfactory or tenable. The arguments based on this passage by Baur (der Apost. Paul. p. 469 sq.) against the genuinc- ness of this Ep. must be pronounced very hopeless and unconvincing.

kal tots Aowwots] ‘and to all the rest,’ beside the Praetorian camp, ‘reli- quis omnibus Rome versantibus,’ comp. Neander. Planting, Vol. 1. p.317 (Bohn) : not ‘the rest of the Pretorians’ (Wiese- ler, Chronol. p. 457), a meaning too lim- ited ; nor, ‘ hominibus erteris (gentilibus) quibuscunque,’ Van Heng., a meaning which of Aorrol certainly does not neces- sarily bear. Valg., 2th, and Author.

32

PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap. J. 14, 15.

14 kal tods TAElovas TOV adepav év Kupio memoiSoras Tots Seo:

pots pov Trepiccotepws ToAyav apoBws Tov Adyov Aareiv. © Twes

refer tots Ao:rots to locality, ‘in other places’ (év 77} méAet waon, Chrys.), the dative being under the vinculum of év: this is grammatically pessible, but, as Aoirds is not elsewhere applied to places in the N. T., not very probable; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2.

14. kal robs tAelovas] ‘and that the greater part of the brethren:’ second beneficial effect of the apostle’s imprison- ment. The presence of the article obvi- ously shows that mAefovas must here re- tain its proper comparative force, — not

o> ‘many,’ Auth. Ver. Tyan [multitu- do] Syr., but ‘ the greater portion,’ ‘ the more part,’ as Author. in Acts xix. 32, Xxvii. 12, 1 Cor. ix. 19, xv. 6. So also 2 Cor. ii. 6, iv. 15, ix. 2, where both Lu- ther and Auth. incorrectly retain the positive. ‘having in the Lord confidence _in my bonds ;’? not ‘in regard of my bonds’ (Flatt, Rill.), which vitiates the construc- tion; the dative not being a dative ‘of reference to’ (comp. Gal. i. 22), but the usual transmissive dative. At first sight it might seem more simple and natural with Syr. to connect évy Kuplw with &dea- gay, ‘ brethren united with, in fellowship with the Lord,’ —a construction admis- sible in point of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123), but open to the serious objection that though the important mo- dal adjunct, ev Kupiw, occurs several times in St. Paul’s Epistles with sub- stantives or quasi-substantives, e.g. Rom. xvi. 8,13, Eph. iv. 1, vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, it is never found with adeApés: Eph. vi. 21, cited in opp. by Van Heng., is not in point; see Meyer zn loc. On the con- trary, tero.. is found similarly joined with éy Kup. chap. ii. 24, Galat. v. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 4, comp. Rom. xiv. 4. The objection that in these and similar cases

évy Kup. meto.d.|

memos. stands first in the sentence (Alf.), is not here of any moment ; the empha- sis rests on év Kupiw, and properly causes its precedence: surely it must have been ‘in the Lord,’ and in Him only, that con- fidence could have been felt— when in bonds: so rightly Meyer, and very de- cidedly Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 124. Teptogotépws ToAmaY| ‘are more abundantly bold,’ scil. than when I was not in bonds; not ‘ are very much em- boldened,’ Conyb., a needless dilution of the comparative ; ‘hic freti plus solito audere debemus, jam in persona fratrum pignus victoriz nostrz habentes,’ Calv. The construction adopted by Grotius, Baumg., Crus., al., wepioo. a&pdBws, 7. e. apoBwrépws, is eminently unsaisfactory ; each verb naturally takes its own adverb. With apdBws Aadciv, comp. Acts iv. 31, €AdAouy Tov Adyov Tot Ocod meta wappn- alas, a passage which may have sugg:st- ed here the insertion of the nearly certain gloss Tod @cod, asin AB; about 20 mss. ; majority of Vv. (Zachm.). The varia- tions (see Tisch.) serve to confirm the shorter reading.

15. reves wev x. 7.A.] ‘Some in- deed even from envy and strife:’ excep- tions to the foregoing; ‘this is the case with all; some preach from bad motives.’ The previous definition, év Kup. merais., seems to render it impossible that the twes pev should be comprised in the adeAgol, ver.14. The mention of ‘speak- ing the word’ brings to the apostle’s mind all who were doing so; he pauses then to allude to all, specifying under the tivés wév (obs. not of wey as in ver. 16) his Judaizing — not his unbelieving (Chrys.) — opponents, while in tives dé he reverts to the sounder majority men- tioned in ver. 14. Kal, with its common contrasting force in such collocations (see notes on chap. iv. 12; comp. Klotz,

Crap. I. 15, 16.

PHILIPPIANS. 838

pev Kal dia PSovov cal pw, wes b€ Kai bv evdoxiay tov Xpiorov

Knpvacovalw"

Devar, Vol. 11. p. 636, and examples in Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. pp. 136, 137) marks that there were, alas! other mo- tives beside the good ones that might be inferred from the preceding words. Al- ford refers al to twes, ‘ besides those mentioned yer. 14.’ ‘This, however, does notscem tenable. bia gardvov} ‘on account of envy,’ or more iliomatically, ‘from envy,’ “for envy,’ —to gratify that evil feeling ; so Matth. xxvii. 18, Mark xy. 10, comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. c, p. 855, and notes on Gal. iv, 13. Alberti adduces somewhat perti- nently Philemon |{Major, a comic poet, B.C. 330] mwodAAd pe didacKers addovws did PIdvov; sce Meineke, Com. ragm. Vol. 1v. p. 55. It is scarcely necessary to add that the translation {amid envy” (Jowett on Gal. iv. 10), is quite untena- ble: 8& with an accus. in local or quasi- local references is purely poetical; com-

“pare Bernhardy, Synt. v. 18, p. 236.

Be ebSonlav] ‘onaccount of, from, good will,’ amd mpoduulas amdons, Chrys.,— towards the apostle; not towards others in respect of their salvation (Est.). De W. objects to this meaning of edSoxia as not suflicient!y confirmed, and adopts the transl. ‘good pleasure,’ sc of me and my affairs. This seems somewhat hypereriti- cal; surely the opposition && 3évov coupled with é aydrns, ver. 16, seems sufficient to warrant the current transla- tion; see Fritz. Mom. Vol. 11. p. 372, whose note, however, is not in all points perfectly exact; comp. notes on Eph. i. 5, and the quaint but suggestive com- ments of Andrewes, Serm. x11. Vol. 1. p- 230 (Angl.-Cath. Libr.). The kat refers to contrary motives just enunciat- ed; and the party specified under ties dé, though practically coincident with the mAcloves, are yet, as De Wette rightly

_ observes, put slightly under a different

ath e \ , BJ , (50 ed ’ > / ” ol pev €& wyaTrns, elooTES OTL Els aTTOAOYiaV TOU

point of view, and as forming the oppo- site party to those last mentioned, Thus of those who spake the word, rwés pev were factious and envious, twés Sé full of good will and kindly feeling, and these latter were they who constitute the wAe- ovas Tay GdeApay, ver. 14.

16. of wey €& dydans] ‘those in- deed (that are) of love (do so) ;’ sc. cytes, comp. Rom. ii. 8, Gal. iii, 7. The two classes mentioned in the last verse are now by of wey and of 3é a little more ex- actly specified, the order being inverted. In Rec. the more natural order is pre- served, but is very insufliciently sup- ported, viz., only by one of the second correctors of D, KX (L omits of wey ef épiy. (0 gov), other mss.; Syr.-Philox. and other Vv., and several Greek Ff. The Auth. Ver. and apparently nearly all the older expositors make oi uéy the subject, and refer é ayarns to the sup- plied clause, ray Xp. «np.: so also Matth., Alf., and other modern commentators. This is plausible at first sight, but on a nearer examination can hardly be main- tained. For jirst, e& aydrns would thus be only a kind of repetition of 8: eddoxiay, as also e& épid. of 5a PIdvov; and ser- ondly, the force of the causal participial clause would be much impaired, for the object of the apostle is rather to specify the motives which caused this difference of behavior in the two classes than merely to reiterate the nature of it. See esp. De Wette in /oc. by whom the present interpretation is ably maintained; so Mever, Wies., and (in language perhaps too confident), Van Heng. : where appy. all the ancient versions are on the other side, it is not wise to be too positive. On the expression, of e& adydrns, ‘qui ab amore originem ducunt,’ see notes on Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. on Rom, ii. 8, Vol. I. p. 105. elddres Sti x. 7A.)

34

PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap. I. 17.

evayyeriov ketpat, ™ of 8& €& épiSelas Tov Xpiotov Katayyér- Aovsw ody ayvas, olopevo. Sri éyelpew tots Seopots pov. drre ? Deyren

Jt j

“as they Inow that I am appointed for the defence of thegospel,’ i.e. ‘set to defend the gospel,’ Tynd., Cran.; participial clause explaining the motives of the be- havior, compare Rom. v. 3, Gal. ii. 6, Eph. vi. 8, al. They recognize in me the appointed defender of the gospel, — not the incapacitated preacher, whose position claims their help (Est., Fell 2), but the energetic apostle whose example quickens and evokes their co-operation. Ketuor has thus a purely passive refer- ence, not ‘jiceo in conditione miserd,’ Van Heng. (a meaning lexically defensi- ble, sce examples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), but ‘constitutus sum,’ /&th., ‘I am sect,’ Auth., Oeds we KexetpoTrévnke, Theodorct: so Luke ii. 54, 1 Thess. iii. 3. The apostle was in confinement, but not, as far as we can gather, either in misery or in suffering; compare Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 515 sq. amoAoyiav Tod evayy. is referred by Chrys., Theoph., and Gicum. to the account (tas evstvas) of his ministry, which the apostle would have to render up to God, and which the co-operation of others might render less heavy. This seems artificial: dmoAoyia is nowhere used in the N. T. in reference to God, and can hardly have a different meaning to that which it bears in v. 7; sec Wic- seler, Chronol. ». 430 note.

17. of BE 2E eprdetas] ‘but they (that are) of party-feeling or dissension ;’ opposite class to of e &ydmns, ver. 16. On the derivation and true meaning of épisela, —not exactly ‘contention,’ Au- thor. (comp. Vule., Syr., Copt.), follow- ell by many modern commentators, but ‘intrigue,’ ‘party-spirit’ (a@vadés kara why ayopay mepitéyres, Theod.), as appar- ently felt by Clarom. ‘dissensio,’ and “perhaps Aith., — see notes on Gal. v. 20. On ithe most suitable translation, comp.

notes on Tvansl. katayyéAAougiv] ‘declare,’ ‘ pro-

’ in effect not different from Kepia-

claim; ceiv, ver. 16 (KatayyeAAeTat’ Knptooerat, Hesych.), but perhaps presenting a little more distinctly the idea of ‘ promulga- tion,’ ‘making fully known’ (Xenoph. Anab. 11. 5. 11, til thy émBovanhy) ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 14, Coloss. i. 28, and Acts xvii. 8, 23, in which latter book the word occurs about ten times. It is pe- culiar to St. Paul and St. Luke. In this compound the preposition appears to have an intensive force, as in kata- Aéyew, Katapayeiy k.T.A.; See Rost u. Palm, Ler.s.v.1v.4. Ox wyvés ‘insin- cerely,’ ‘with no pure intention,’ (ov« eiAikpiwa@s ovde OF avTo To mpayya, Chrys- ost.), belongs closely to katayy., and marks the spirit in which they performed the katwyyeAla. On the meaning of ay- vés (‘in quo nihil est impuri’) see notes on 1 Tim. y. 22, and Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 22, oidmevot Kk. T. A] ‘thinking (thus) to raise up, ete.;’ not exactly parallel to iSéres, ver. 16, but explanatory of 02x ayvés. The verb oteodat seems here to convey a faint idea of intention, though of an intention which was not realized; e.g. Plato, Apol. 41 p, oiduevor BAarrew (cited by De W.); Kat KaA@s ele 7d oidmevot ov yap oUTws eté- Bavev, Chrysost. The reading éeyelpew (Rec. émipéepev) is supported not only by the critical principle, ‘ proclivi lectioni prastat ardua,’ but also by the weight of uncial authority, ABD! FG ; so too, three mss., Vulg , Clarom., Goth., al., and the best modern editors.

tots Seapuots pov] ‘unto my bonds,’ dat. incommodi, Jelf, Gr. § 602. 3; en- deavoring to make a state already suffi- ciently full of trouble yet more painful and afflicting. There is some little doubt as to the exact nature of this SAfjis. Is

Cuar. I. 18.

PHILIPPIANS.

36

8 rf yip; my ravtl tpor@, elite mpopdce cite adn ela,

it outward, i.e. dangers from the inflamed hatred of /eathen enemies (Chrysost.), or inward, i.e. ‘trouble of spirit’ (Alford) # sot the latter, which is not in harmony with the studiedly objective Seapets, or with the prevailing use of SAfjus in the N. T.;—nor yet exactly as Chrys., al., which seems too restricted, if not artifi- cial, but, more probably, ill-treatment at the hands of Jews and Judaizing Chris- tians, which the false teaching of the oi €& epwelas would be sure to call forth. Calvin yery prudently observes, ‘erant plurime occasiones [Aposto!o nocendi| qu sunt nobis incognite qui temporum circumstantias non tenemus.’

18. rf ydp] * What then;’ ‘quid enim,’ Vulg., or perhaps more exactly, ‘quid ergo;’ not ‘quid igitar,’ Beza, which is not commonly thus used in in- dependent questions. The uses of ri yap may be approximately stated as three. (a) argumentative, answering very nearly to the Lat. ‘quid enim,’ and while confirming or explaining the preceding sentence, ofien serving to imply tacitly that an opponent has no answer to make ; see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 386. It is thus often followed by another in- terrogation; compare Rom. iii. 3, Job xxi. 4; (1) affirmative; answering very nearly to ‘profecto’ or the occasional ‘quid ni’ of the Latins (Hand, Tursell. Vol. rv. p. 186); compare Eurip. Oresf. 481, Soph. Gd. Col. 547, and see Herm. Viger, No. 108, and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 1. p. 537, who however has not suf- ficiently discriminated between the ex- amples adduced; (c) rhetorica/, as ap- parently here, answering more nearly to ‘quid erzo’ or ‘quid ergo est’ (Iland, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 456), and marking common'y either a startled question (com- pare God Col. 544, 552), or, as here, and apparently Job xviii. 4, a brisk transition {‘ubi quis cum alacritate quadam ad

novam sententiam transgreditar,’ Kih- ner on Xenoph. Afemor. 11. 6. 2), and thus perhaps differing from the calmer ai ody. In every one of these cases, how- ever, the proper force of ydp (‘sane pro rebus compuaratis’) though successively becoming more obscure, may still be ree- ognized; here, for example, the ques- tion amounts to, ‘ things being then as I have described them, what is my state of feeling 7’ See Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 247 sq. All supplements, diapepes (Chrys.), wor weAce (Theopli.), pnooper (Van H.), ete., are perfectly unnecessa- ry, if not uncritical.

mA] ‘ notwithstanding,’ ‘nevertheless ;’ this particle, probably connected with mAéov (Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. pp. 39, 323), not with wéAas (Hartung, Par- tik. Vol. 11. p. 30), has properly a com- parative force, especially recognizable in the disjunctive comparison wA}y % (see Donalds. Cratyl. § 100), and its use with the gen. e. g. Mark xii. 32, John viii. 10. This might be termed its prepositional use. It however soon passed by an in- telligible gradation into an adverbial use, and came to imply little more than aAAq, ‘nevertheless,’ ‘abyesehen davon’ (ch. iii. 16. iv. 14, 1 Cor. xi. 11, Eph. v. 33), with which particle it is not unfrequently joined ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 725. mavTl tpdme] ‘in every way,’ scil. of preaching the gospel, more exactly de- fined by efre—efre. At first sight there might scem some difficulty in this lenity of St Paul towards false, and perhaps heterodox teachers, — men against whom he warns his converts with such empha sis in ch. iii, 2. The answer seems rea sonable, that St. Paul is here contem plating the personal motives rather than alluding to the doctrines of the preach ers ; Nay, more, that perverted in many respects as this preaching might be. Curist is still its subject, and to the

36

PEP TANS).

Cuap. I. 18

\ }- > eiges D 4 U . \ ‘ Xpwo7ros KatayyedreTat, Kal €v TOVTM Yaipw ara Kal yapnoopat

large heart of the apostle this is enough ; this swallows up every doubt and fear: ‘let then the word be preached, and let it be heard ; be ii sincerely, or be it pre- tensedly, so it be done, it is to him [St. Paul] and should be to us, matter (not only of contentment, but also) of rejoice ing, Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. v. p. 191 (A.-C. Libr.) ; see especially Nean- der, Plunting, Vol. 1. p. 318 (Bohn), and compare Stier, Peden Jesu, Vol. 111. p. 29. efte Tpopacet k.T.A.] ‘whether in pretence or in truth ;? datives expressive of the manner, technically termed, modal datt.; sce Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, and especially Jelf, Gr. § 603, by whom this use of the dative is well illustrated ; compare also Hartung, Casus, p. 69: The phraseological anno- tators, especially Wetstein and Raphel (Vol. 11. p. 500), adduce numerous in- stances of a similar opposition between mpopacts and adjsera or TAANSEs ; these are quite enough, independently of the context, to induce us to reject the trans- lation of mpopdee:, adopted by Grot., al., ‘oceasione,’ 7. e., ‘be the good not in- tended but only occasioned by them,’ Hammond. On the more general mean- ing of the here more limited aAnSea, compare Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. 11.p 169. ‘therein,’ ‘in this state of things,’ scil. that Christ is preached, though from dif- ferent reasons ; comp. Luke x. 20. This use of év Tovrw, nearly = Germ. ‘ darii- ber,’ though apparently not very com- mon in the best prose, is certainly no Hebraism (Rillict); see Winer, Gram. § 48. a, p. 346. Meyer compares Plato, Republ. x. p. 603 c, ev robros macw }

> , év ToUTe|

AvToupevous 7) Xalpovrus.

&AAA Kal xap} ‘yea, and I shail re- joice :’ not exactly, aet itp TOUTwY X2- phooua, Chrys., Calv., but, in more strict connection with the following fut., when

the aroB. eis owr.is being realized. The punctaation is here not quite certain. Lachm., followed by Tisch. and Meyer, places a full stop before adAd, and a co- lon after xap., thus connecting oida yap

more immediately with the present clause. This scems right in principle

both on grammatical, as well as exeget- ical, considerations : a colon, however, as in text, seems preferable to a full stop, for there is a kind of sequence in the xalpw and xaphooua which can hardly be completely interrupted. De W., Van Heng., and others who retain the com- ma (Alford has a comma in text but a colon in translation) suppose an ellip- sis of od pdvoy before xaipw. ‘This is very unsatisfactory. °AAAd kal has here its idiomatic meaning ‘at etiam,’ the faintly seclusive force of @AAa& serving specially to confine attention to the new assertion which the ca annexes and en- hances ; see Fritz Rom. vi. 5, Vol. 1. p. 374. It may be observed that in these words, and also in some uses of the idi- omatic @AAd yap, BAAG pev, the primary force of adda (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) is so far obscured that it does practi- cally little more than impart a briskness and emphasis to the declaration; see Klotz, /. c., p. 8, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 35. Lastly, we should be careful to distinguish between the present use of G@AA& kal and (a) where a hypothetical clause precedes. evoking a more distinct opposition, e. g. 1 Cor. iv. 15, 2 Cor. iv. 16; (>) where an opposition is involved in the terms themselves, e. g. Diod. Sic. vy. &4 (Fritz.), ev rats vioois GAAG Kal Kata thy ’Actay; or (c) where aAA& occurs in brisk exhortation, e. g. Soph. Philoct. 796, GAN’ ® Texvoy Kat Sdoc0s Yoxe; in which passage Hermann’s _ proposed emendation tz Sdpoos does not seem either plausible or necessary.

Caap. I. 19. | “A , : vf

PHILIPPIANS.

+ ~ és

37

j

19 > \ ced d a f > ‘ > , 6 4 - ‘ = oda Yap OTL TOVTO pot amroPijgeTar €ls TaTHplay Ola TI}S UpLODV

19. of3a ydp| Confirmation of the Words immediately preceding, the ydp having its simple argumentative force. If with Calv., Bisp., al. this clause be referred to ver. 17, yap must have more of an explanatory force (comp. notes on Gal. ii. 6): such a ref., however, is an- duly regressive; todro here can only mean the same as *rovre ver. 19, — the more extended preaching of the gospel of Christ. occur in Job xiii. 16, and may have been a reminiscence. eis cwtnplav] ‘losalvation.” The exact meaning of o@rnpia has been very differ- ently explained. It has been referred to (a) ‘salus corporea,’ scil. ‘escape from present danger,’ amaAAayhv, Chrys., who however fluctuates; ‘preservation in life” 72 écov ovdé mw uaprvpioy, Cocum., and apparently Syr.; (4) ‘salus spiritu- alis,’ ‘ Seelenheil,’ De Wette, ‘his own fraitfulness to Christ,’ Alford; (c) both united, ‘ for good, whether of soul (Rom. viii. 28) or of body’ (Acts xxvii. 34), Peile, Bloomf.; (d) ‘salus sempiterna,’ whether (a) in referen¢e to others (Grot., Hamn:.), or (8) in ref. to himself, ‘ suam salutem veram ct perennem,’ Van Heng. The last of these meanings ulone seems to satisfy the future reference (a7of.), and is most in accordance with the pre- vailing meaning of owrnpla in St Paul's Bpistles ; compare ver. 28, ch. ii. 12, and els cwr. Rom. i. 16, 2 Thess. ii. 13.

Bid Tis Ke. 7. A] ‘through your suppli- -eation and the supply of the spirit ofl. C.; the two means by which the owrnpla is to be realized, intercessory supplication on the part of man, and supply of the Spirit on the part of God. Meyer and Alford regard the gen. émixopnyias as dependent on Suey, ‘ your supply to me (by that prayer) of, etc.,’ on the ground that 5a rijs, or at least rs would have been inserted. Independently of the very

The words rotto — owrnplav

unsatisfactory meaning in a dogmatical point of view, this is not grammatically No article is required. Each substantive has its own defining genitive,

exact.

and on this account the second may dis- pense with its article; so Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 118 (ed.6). Meyer is unfort- unate in referring to Winer in support of his interpretation, as that prammarian expressly adopts the more natural con- struction. éemixopnyias row My.] ‘supply of the Spirit.’ These words admit of two interpretations ac- cording as tov Tv. is considered a gen. objecti or subjecti ; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 168. If the former, the mean- ing will be, ‘the supply which is the Spirit,’ the genitive being that of identity or apposition (Scheuerl. Synt. § 12.1, p. 82, 83) ; so Chrysost., Theoph.. Gicum. If the latter, the meaning will be the ‘supply which the Spirit gives,’ the gen. being that of the origin or agent (Har- tung, Casus, p. 17); so Theodoret, De W., Mey. This latter interpretation is on the whole to be preferred, as the par- allelism, ‘the prayers you offer —the aid the Spirit supplies,’ is thus more ex- actly retained. Wiesing. and Alf. urge Gal. iii. 5, but this can hardly be consid- ered sufficiently in point to fix the inter- pretation. Still less tenable is the asser- tion that the gen. suljecti would have re- quired the order tod Ty. “I. X. éryop. as in Eph. iv. 16 (Alford) ; for in the first place examples of the contrary (and in- deed, usual) order are most abundant, see Scheuerl. Synt. p. 126, Winer, Gr. p. 167; and in the next place the gen. in Eph. /. ¢. is confessedly of a different grammatical class ; see notes in foc. The Spirit is here termed 7d My. "Inc. Xp., not merely because Christ gives Himself spiritually in and with the Holy Ghost (Meyer on Rom, viii. 9), but because that eternal Spirit proceeds from the Son; so

38

PHIETAPPIANS.

Cuap. I. 20.

ry / Nie SD / a TB; uA wi fal n 2%) \ ENTEMS KAL ETTLYOPHYLAS TOV LivevpaTos Lnaov X piston, KaTa

Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 383: ina word the genitive is not so much a defin- itive or quasi-possess. gen., as a simple genitive originis, Hartung, Casus, p. 23. Lastly, on émxopnyia, which perhaps re- tains a slight shade of the primary mean- ing of xopny. in the ampleness and liber- ality which it seems to hint at on the part of the gift and giver, see notes on Coloss. ii. 19, and Harless on Ephes. iv. 16. The emt is directive, not intensive; see notes on Eph. 1. c.

20. kata THY amoKap.| ‘accord- ing to my expectation,’ sc. ‘even as I am hoping and expecting,’ Syr., ‘sicut spe- ravi et confisus sum,’ Ath. The curi- ous word a@roxapadoria (Hesych. mgoado- kla, émexdox7) only here and Rom. viii. 19 in the N. T., is derived from kdpa, and dSoxéw [possibly allied to a root dic, ‘monstrare,’ Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p- 185, 267] and properly denotes ‘ cap- itis, scil. oculorum animique ad rem ab aliquo loco expectandam attenta conver- sio,’ and thence derivatively ‘ patient, persistent, looking for’ (Rom. viii. 19), and, with a further weakened force, ‘calm expectation,’ as in this place; the meaning necessarily varying with that of the simple kapadoxetv, which, from the ideas of ‘attention’ (Eur. Troad. 93) and ‘observation’ (Polyb. Hist. x. 42. 6), passes to those of ‘suspense’ (Eur. Med. 1117) and simple ‘ expectation’ (Eur. Zph. Aul. 1433). The prep. amd is not properly intensive, as in d&mroste_pidw, GroWevdoua, «. 7. A. (Tittm. Synon. p. 106 sq., and even Meyer on Lom. viii. 19), but local: it primarily (so to say) localizes the kapadoxeiv, by marking ei- ther (a) the place from which the obser- vation is maintained, e.g. Joseph. Bell. Jud. 111.7. 26, comp. Polyb. Hist. xviit. 81. 4, or (b) the quarter whence the thing or issue is looked for, e. g. Polyb. Hist. XVI. 2. 8,—and comes thence, as in

>

amexdéxouat (Germ. ‘ abwarten,’ see notes on Gal. y. 5), with a gradual, but intel- ligible, evanescence of the local idea (‘ quidquid enim expectes alicuide te id expectare oportet,’ Fritz.), to imply little more than the fixedness, permanenca, and patience {not ‘solicitude,’ Tittin ) with which the observation is continued, or the expectation ent@rtained ; see Winer, de Verb. Compos. 1v. p. 14, and especially the excellent discussion of Fritz. Fritzsch. Opuse. pp. 150-157.

ort €v ovdev) aiax.] ‘that in nothing I shall be put to shame.’ These words admit of various possible interpretations ; for example (a) 671 may be either relati- val, ‘that,’ 7d éAmiCew Sr, Chrys., or argumentative, ‘ because.’ ‘ quia,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; (b) oddev) may be either neuter (Syr., Auth., al.), or masculine in refer- ence to the preachers of the gospel (Ho- elem.) ; again (c) aisxuvS. may be either passive, ‘confundar,’ Vulg., or with a middle force, ‘pudore confusus, ab offi- cio deflectam,’ Van Hengel. In this variety of interpretation we must be guided solely by¢the context: and this seems certainly in favor of the above translation; for (a) 6r: far more natu- rally follows éAms as defining the subject to which it refers (comp. Rom. viii. 21) than as supplying the reason why it is entertained ; the latter interrupts the se- quence, vitiates the logic, and leaves the object of hope undefined. Again, ()) ovdevi cannot be masculine ; for if so, it would have to be arbitrarily referred only to the better class of those mentioned above, whereas if neuter it remains per- fectly general and inclusive, not merely odre ev TH Civ otre ev Javeiv, Theoph., — but, ‘in no respect, in no particular’ (comp. ver. 28), thus forming an antith esis to ev mdon mapp. Lastly, (c) aiox cannot logically be taken with any mid dle force; St. Paul can scarcely know

bal

Cuap. I. 20.

PHILIPPIANS. 39

Tv aToKapacokiay Kat édA7riba jou, OTL ev ovdeVL aiayuYs7,copaL, , ’ , ‘ 9¢ e ‘ ‘ o cd GX’ €v Tagn Tappycia ws Tavtote Kai viv peyaruySnceTat

Xpuctus ev TO owpati pov, cite Sia Cwis eite dia Savatov.

that the preaching will turn out to his salvation, and yet only hope and expect that he shall not fall from his duty. What the apostle does hope and expect is, not merely ote ob wepi€vovra ovTo, Chrys., é71 xpeloowy fooua tay Bvoxe- pov, Theod., but more generally, that he shall not be brought to a state of shame (2 Cor. x. 8, 1 John ii. 28), that he shall not fail in the highest duties and aims of his life; see De Wette in loc., who aptly compares the Hebrew 45 Psalm xxxiv. 5 (LXX. xaraioxuvay), Ixix. 2 (LXX.

aioxuvselnoav), and contrasts St. Paul’s

favorite term cavyaosa.

GAN ev wdon wapp.] ‘but (on the contrary) in all boldness ;’ antithesis to the foregoing clause introduced with the full force of the adversative a@AAd. don, as has often been remarked (see ver. 9), is not qualitative, ‘une pleine liberté,’ Rill., but, as usual, quantitative, ‘ every form and manifestation of boldness,’ forming an exact opposition to év od3er) above. *Ey wafSnoia is thus not merely ‘in joyfulness’ (Wiesing., comp. Eph. iii. 12), and certainly not capas pavepas,

C.um., comp. Syr. be} 2os5

{revelata facie], but, as the contrast and context both imply, ‘in fiducia,’ Vulg., ‘in boldness of speech and action ;’ comp, Eph. vi. at ee. 3 Fi yi] "Temporal a following close on the foregoing modal predication (comp. Donalds. Gr. § 444). The addition xa viv gives a dignifying and consoling aspect to the apostie’s p sent condition, cheerless as it might seem, and supplies a retrospec- tive corroboration of ver. 12. Meyaduvdatocetrarevte op [sha ‘shall

he he magnified in my body ;’ not ev “euol,

but, in accordance with the studiedly passive aspect given to the whole decla- ration (obscured by JEth.), — év re odp., ‘in my body ;’ were, the theatre on which Christ's glory shall be displayed,’ comp. John xxi. 19; and in illustration of this use of év (‘ sub- stratum of action’) see notes on Gal, i. 24, Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, Meyaa. is thus not ‘shall be salad? ‘angebi- tur,’ Copt. (comp. Luke i. 58, 2 Cor. x. 15), with reference to the development and growth of Christ within (Rill. ; com- pare Gal. ii. 20, Rom. viii. 10), which here would not harmonize with the mo- dal éy wagf., and still less with the focal év odu., — but, as in Acts xix. 17, ‘shall be glorified,’ dex3hoerai bs ears, Theod., ‘ gloriosior apparebit,’ Just., the meaning being here appy. a little more forcible than ‘ be praised ’ ( Alf. ; comp. Lk. i. 46, Acts v. 13) and pointing more to the gen- eral, than to the merely oral spread of the Lord’s glory and kingdom among men. e{re 81a x. 7 A.) death ;’ two alternatives, suggested by and in explanation of the preceding év oduats; ‘in my body,’—whether that body be preserved alive as an earthly in- strument of my Master's glory, or be given up to martyrdom for His name’s sake: dia wey (wis, bt: eFelAeto" Bid Sa- vdrou d€, Sti ov5E Sdvatos Frese we aprfj- gacda aitéy, Chrys. Well then might the apostle say olda éri...els cwrnplar when he could entertain a hope and an expectation so unspeakably blessed. The whole verse, and especially this clause, is strongly confirmatory of the fuller meaning of cwrnpia.

21. éuol ydp] Confirmation and elu- cidation of the last clause of v.20. The ap has no ref. to any omitted clause (BL),

‘my body shall be, as it

* whether by life or by

40 21 "Epo yap To Shv Xprotos Kab

—ever a doubtful and precarious mode of explaining this particle, — but simply confirms the preceding assertion by show- ing the real nature of (w) and Sdvaros, according to the apostle’s present mode of regarding them ; ‘in my view and def- inition of the term, L/fe is but another name for Christ,’ Peile. The emphatic éuol (‘to me, in my merely personal ca- pacity,’ see Wiesinger) is thus the pro- nominal dative judici (De W.), er per- haps more correctly and more inclusively, the dative of ethical relation (comp. Gal. vi. 14); not merely ‘in my estimation,’ but ‘in my case,” ‘life in my realization of it,’ — a dative which is allied to, and more fully developed in, the dative com- modi or tncommod ; sce Bernhardy, Synt. 11. 9, p. 85, and especially Kriiver, Sprachl. § 48. 6. 1 sq., by whom this use of the dative is well illustrated.

rd Civ Xptaortds| ‘to live is Christ,’ t. e. living consists only in union with, and devotion to, Christ ; my whole being and activities.are His; ‘quicquid vivo Christum vivo,’ Beng.: see Gal. ii. 20, but observe the difference of the applica- tion; there the reference is to faith, here rather to works (De W.), the context showing that Xprords, beside the idea of union with Him, must also involve that of devotion to His service. So, perhaps too distinctly, Auth. (compare Caly.) ‘si vixero, Christo.” Td (jv is clearly the subject (‘vita mea,’ Syriac, Copt.), the natural life alluded to in the preceding, and more specifically in the following verse. It cannot refer to spiritual life (Rill., comp- Chrys., Theoph.) as the antithesis, (jv — amod., is thus obscured, and the argument impaired: what (wh is in ver. 20, that must 7d (jv be here. tat 7d aros. képdos| ‘and [simple eopulative] to die is gain ;’ death is gain, as I shall thus enjoy a still nearer and more blessed union with my Lord; aa-

PHILIPPUIANS.

Cuap. I. 21, 22. TO aTroyavely Képoos. ™ ei dé TO a

gpérrepoy avtg ovvécoua, Chrys., The- oph. Képdos belongs only to this latter clause, the full meaning of which is very easily collected from the context ; com- pare verse 23. ‘To make Xp. the subject to both members of the sentence and 7d (jv and 7d aod. accusatives of ‘refer- ence to’ (IKriiger, Sprach/. § 46. 4), se. ‘ut tam in vita quam in morte lucruimn esse preedicetur’ (Caly. ; compare Beza), is to mar the perspicuity, and to intro- duce a difficulty in point of grammar, as 7d arog. could scarcely be ‘in morien- do:’ such accusatives commonly point to things or actions which may, so to say, be conceived as extensible, and over the whole of which the predication can range; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 9. 3, p. 68, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4.1. Numerous examples of similar expressions are cited by Wetstein zn loc., the most pertinent of which is Joseph. Gell. vit. 8, 6, oup- popa Td Civ eoTw avdpérois ovxt Sdvaros, as it hints at the purely substantival char- acter of 7d (jv (opp. to Alf.) and 7d The practical aspects of the subject will be found in Heber, Serm. XVI. XVII.

22. «i Be Tb Civ w.7.A.] ‘but if my living in the flesh,—if this is to me the ‘(the medium of ) fruit from my labor ;’ so Vulg., Claroman., Goth., and (with ob- scured tovtv) Syr., Copt.: antithetical sentence suggested by the remembrance of his calling as an apostle. ‘There are difficulties in this verse in the individual expressions, as well as in tiie connection and sequence of thought. We will (1) briefly notice the former: (a) «i is not problematical, ‘if it chance,’ Tyndale, Cranm., but as Meyer correctly observes, syllogistic, — and virtually assertory. (8) The addition év capi does not imply any qualitative difference between 7b Civ here and rd (jv in ver. 21 (Rill.), but guards against it being understood in the

amodaveiv.

Chap. I. 22.

PHILIPPIANS. 41

Civ €v capki, TodTd pot KapTros Epyou' Kai TL aipycopat, ov yve-

higher sense, which the preceding 7d aod. xépdos (‘to dic, it. e. to live out of the flesh with Christ, is gain’) might other- wise seem naturally to suggest. (y) Tovro is not a redundancy ‘ per Hebrais- mum’ (see Glasse, PAil. Saer. p. 738 [219]), but is designed to give special prominence and emphasis to the idea contained in the preceding words ; com- pare Winet, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 144. (3) In kapmds tpyou the genitive is not a gen. of apposition, * oyus pro fructa habet,’ Ben- gel, nor a gen. objecti, ‘ profit for the work’ (Rill.), but a simple gen. subjecti [originis], ‘ proventas operis,’ De Wette, y «V eee meis] Syr., 7. e. ‘conveys with it, is the condition of fruit from apostolical labor,’ the &pyov referring to the daborious nature of the apostolic work (Acts xiii. 2, 1 Thess. v. 15, 2 Tim. iv. 5); xapropopa, Biddonwv Kal pwri(wy mavras, Theoph. :

comp. Raphel, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 622. (2) The connection then seems to be as follows: in verse 21 the apostle had spoken of life and death from a strictly personal point of view (éuoi) ; in this as- pect death was gain. The thought, how- ever, of his officiul labors reminds him that his life bears blessings and fruitful- ness to others; so he pauses; ‘ ojecta spe conversionis multorum, hret atque heesitat,’ Just.: so, in substance, The- ophyl. (who has explained this clause briefly and perspicuously), Chrys., ‘The- _odoret, CEcumen., and after them, with some variations in detail, De W., Meyer, and the best modern editors. Of the other interpretations the most plausible is (a) that of Auth., Beng., al., accord- ing to which rodro x. tT. A. forms the ap- ollosis, géorf zor being supplied after ev capxi, ‘ but if I live in the flesh, this is,’ etc. ; the /east so (4) that of Beza, Genev. (amended by Conyb., but satisfactorily 6

1 Ls [fructus in operibus

answered by Alf.), according to which is ‘ whether,’ and xcaprbs Epyou = ‘ operas pretium’ (comp. Grot., Hamm., Schole- field, Hints, p. 105,— a more than doabt- ful translation), scil. ‘and whether to live in the flesh were profitable to me, and what,’ etc. The objection to (a) is the very harsh and unusual nature of the ellipsis; to (4), independently of gram- matical objections, the halting and incon- sequent nature of the argument; see Alf. in loc. cal tl aipjaopas k. 7. A.] ‘then, or why, what I am to choose [observe the middle] J know not ;’ apo- dosis to the foregoing. The principal difficulty lies in the use of «af. Though no certain example of an ezact/y similar use of ei—xal has been adduced from the N. T. (2 Vor. ii. 2 [De Wette] is not in point, being there the «al of rapid inter- rogation, Hartung, Partick. Vol. 1. p. 147), yet the use of «al at the beginning of the apodosis is so common (see Bru- der, Conc. s. ¥. kai, D, p. 455) as to ren- der such a use after? by no means im- probable; see examples in Hartung, Partik. s. v. xal, 2. 6, Vol. 1. p. 130, and compare the somewhat similar use of ‘atque,’ Hand, Jursell. Vol. 1. p. 481 sq. In such cases the proper force of «al is not wholly lost. Just as, in brief logical sentences, it constantly implics that if one thing be true, then another will be true also, e.g. «i pice: xweira: Kay Bia Kkundeln, kay ef Biz xal pioe:, Arist. de Anim. ch. 3, p. 9 (ed. Bekk.), —so here, if life certainly subserve to apostolic use- fulness, there will also be a difficulty as to choice. It is thus unnecessary to as- sume any aposiopesis after the first mem- ber, scil. ‘non repugno,’ ‘ non wgre fero,’ Miiller, Rill. There is only a slight pause, and slight change from tle ex- pected, to a more emphatic sequence, which this semi-ratiocinative «al very ap propriately introduces. On

42

PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap. I. 23.

t 93 / A: 3 an 8 / \ ’ / y > \ > pitw * cuvéxopuar O€ €x THY Ovo, THY ETUSUpiaY EXwDV Eis TO ava-

the use of the less exact ri for wérepor, see Winer, Gr. § 25.1, p. 153 (ed. 6); and on that of the future in a delibera- tive clause, Winer, ib. § 41. 4. b. p. 267. The strict alliance between the future and the subjunctive renders such an in- terchange very intelligible.

ov yvwpi¢w| ‘ [donot recognize,’ ‘Ido not clearly perceive, — a somewhat excep- tional use in the N. T. of yvwp., which is nearly always ‘notum facio.’ For examples of the present use, see Ast, Lex. Plat. s. v.; comp. Job xxxiv. 25 (Lxx), iv. 16 (Symm.).

23. cvvéxomat BE x. 7. A.] ‘yea, T am held in a strait by the two ;’ antitheti- ‘cal explanation of the last member of verse 22; the fuintly oppositive d& (not “metabatic’ [Meyer] on the one hand, nor equivalent to @AA& on the other) placing the emphatic ovvéyoua in gentle contrast with the preceding od yvapi¢w. The reading yap (Zec.) has scarcely any critical support, and is only a correction of the less understoed dé. On the real difference between these two particles in sentences like the present, see especially Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 363. The prep. éx is here not used for amé (Bloomf.), nor yet for dd (Meinr.,— instrumentality would have been expressed by a simple dative, e. g. Matth. iv. 24, Luke viii. 37, Acts xviii. 5, xxviii. 8), but with its proper force points to the origin of the ovvoxn, the sources out of which it arises ; see notes on Gal. ii. 16, where the uses of this preposition in N. T. are briefly noticed. Lastly, the article is not pros- pective (compare Syr.) but retrospective (Mey., al.). referring to the two alterna- tives previously mentioned. This is confirmed by the apparent emphasis on ovvex., and the illustrative connection with it of the two classes which follow. thy émisuulav Exwv] ‘having my desire ;’ not merely ‘a desire,” Author.,

a

nor ‘the desire previously alluded to,’ Hoel.,— as no émduyla, strictly speaking, has been alluded to,—but ‘the desire which I now feel,’ ‘ my desire.” The émiduuta thus stands absolutely. its diree- tion being defined in the words which follow. A very eloquent and feeling application of this text will be found in Manning, Serm. xx. Vol. 111 p. 870 sq. eis Td dvadrtoat| ‘towards depart-_ ing,’ ‘turned to departure ;’ not ‘ desid- erium solvendi’ (rod dvaa., Origen, ina free citation), nor even quite, ‘ the desire to depart,’ Conyb. (comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p. 294), —both of which would seem to imply the not unusual definitive genitive after ém3. (comp. Thucyd. vit. 84, rod meiy em ), but with the proper force of the preposition eis, ‘ desiderio tendens ad dimissionem ;” compare Wi- ner, Gr. § 49. a, p. 854. The preposi- tion is omitted in DEFG; Chrysostom (comm.), apparently by accident, as the construction would not thus be made more easy. “Avadtoa is not ‘ dissolvi,’

‘ll 2 s Ss Vulg , nor even ‘liberari,’ Syr. peskos

(comp. Schoettg. in loc.), but, perhaps with primary reference to breaking up a camp or loosing an anchor, ‘ migrare,’ ZEth. (comp. Judith xiii. 1, Alian, Var. Hist. 1v. 23), and thence with a shade of meaning imparted by the context, ‘ discedere a vita,’ 7 évTedDSev amadAaynh, Theod.; compare notes on 2 Tim. iv. 6, and see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. p. 286 sq., by whom this word is copiously il- lustrated ; add too Perizonius, on /@lian, Var. Hist. /.c. The translation adopted by Tertull. ‘recipi’ has perhaps refer- ence to the ‘receptui canere,’ and is thus virtually the same ; comp. Mill., Prole- gom. p. LXVII. kaloupy Xp. efva:] From the immediate con. - nection of this clause with avaAtoa dog- matical deductions have been made in

Cuarp, I. 24.

doar kai aly Xpior@ elvat, 2 ‘ \ > , > fol ‘ To O€ emysevery ev TH capKi

reference to the intermediate state ; ‘ clare ostenditur animas sanctorum ex hae vita sine peccato migrantium statim post mortem esse cum Christo,’ Est.; comp. Cyrill.-Alex. cited by Forbes, Jnstruct. xu. 8. 33, Bull, Hngl Works, p. 42 (Oxf., 1844), Reuss, Theol. Chrét. iv. 21, Vol. 11. p. 240. Without presuming to make hasty deductions from isolated pas- sages, we may safely rest on the broad and sound opinion of Bishop Pearson, that life eternal may be regarded as in- itial, partial, and perfectional, and that the blessed apostle is now in the fruition of that second state, and ‘is with Christ who sitteth atthe right hand of God,’ Creed, Art. x11. Vol. 1. p. 467, and com- pare Polvye. ad Pliyl. § 9, eis tov apedd- pevoy avtois témoy eit mapa Kupin, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. § 5, éwope'dn [Teérpos] eis Toy dpetA. témov Tis SdEns. For a con- trary view, see Burnet, State of Departed, ch, 111. p. 58; and lastly, for a practical application of the verse, Farindon, Serm. xxxvi. Vol. 11. p. 1006 (edit. 1672). The meaning involved in the words ody Xp. efvai, in reference to the soul’s incor- poreal state, is explained profoundly, though perhaps somewhat singulary, by Hofmann, Schrifib. 11. 2, Vol. 11. p. 449, ‘selbst kOrperlos, wird er den Leib, in welchem die Fiille der Gottheit wohnt, zuseiner Wohnung haben ;’ comp. De- litasch, Bibl. Psychol. v1. 6, p. 383 sq.

woAA@ yap x. 7. A.] ‘for it is very far better,’ scil. being with Christ is so (for me); explanation of the foregoing de- sire. The comparative strengthened by BaAAov gives a force and energy to the assertion that is here very noticeable and appropriate ; compare Mark vii. 36, 2 Cor. vii. 13, and Winer, Gr. § 35. 1, p. 214. The reading is somewhat doubt- ful : yap is omitted by DEFGKL; great majority of mss., several Vy. and some Ff.

PHILIPPIANS.

43

TOAXD yap paddov Kpeiocor avayKaotepov Ov vpas.

(Ree., Griesh, butom. om.) ; as, however, itis found in ABC; 31. 67**; Copt ; Or. (1), Bas., Aug. (often and explic, — as )!FG show in this passage marks of incertitude in reading wéo@ for odAAg, and lastly, as yap might have been thoughtto interrupt the sequence, we may perhaps safely acquiesce in the in- sertion with Lachm., Tisch., and even Elz and Scholz.

24. 7d SE Cwipevery wn. 7.A.] ‘yet to tarry in my flesh.’ In the former verse “the apostle stated what is xpeiaooy, for himself, now he turns to what is avay- ae is thus simply ‘but,’ ‘ vet,’—scarcely ‘nevertheless,’ Auth., which is commonly a more suitable translation of @AAd: on the difference between these particles (‘ verum —sed ’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. pp. 33, 361. The ém in émmu. im- plies rest in a place (comp. notes un Gal. i. 18), and hints at a more protracted stay ; compare Rom. vi. 1. The next words év 77) oapx) are, as Meyer correctly observes, scarcely quite the same as év capri in ver. 22; there the expression was gencral, here more specific and in- dividualizing ; see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 50. 2. 3. 50? buaGs] ‘more needful on your account ;’ not an inexact comparative (De W.), nor to be diluted into a positive (Clarom., compare Syr.), nor with reference to the apostle’s own feclings, scil. ‘quam ut meo desiderio satisfiat,’ Van Heng., Ben- gel,— but simply ‘more needful,’ scil. than the contrary course, than dvaA\doa «x. 7. A. This latter course St. Paul might have thought dvayxaioy on his own account, a thing to be prayed for and hastened; continuance, however, Was dvayxadrepoy on account of his con- verts. The meanigg proposed by Loesn., ‘ preestat, ‘melius est’ (comp, /Eth.), has

ckatdrepoy in regard of his converts.

dvaynaidtepoyv

44

PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap. I. 25.

95 ‘A fal aN i) A fal \ a fal e Cal > Kat TOVTO TETTOLIOS OLOG OTL MEV@ KAL TAPALEVO TTACW UMW ELS

25. mapauev@}] So Lachm. with ABCD'!FG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Clarom.; Lat. Ff.

(approved by Griesb., Alf).

Tisch. reads ovprapapeva, appy. only with D?EKL;

majority of mss.; Chrys. (expressly), Theod., Dam., Theophyl., al. (Rec., Scholz,

Mcy.).

While on the one hand, ic is possible that the unusual compound might

have been changed into the more simple form, still, on the other hand, the dative

nao might have suggested the insertion.

too preponderant to be safely reversed.

no lexical authority, and is not supported by the examples adduced Obs. p. 353. 25. kal rodtT0 memoidas| ‘And being persuaded, being sure, of this ;” scil., that my émmuéve ev 7H oapkl is more necessary on your account. has thus its natural foree and regimen (ver. 6), and is not to be explained away adverbially, memowdtws kal adiordetws

oi5a ,Theoph., Ds thar [confidenter]

Syr., Goth., Copt., or blended with ot5a (7Eth.), but is to be closely connected with todro0, while oi8a is joined only with ét1; ‘persuadens mihi vitam meam vobis esse [magis] necessariam, scio quod Deus me vobis adhuc concedet,’ Corn. a Lap. ofda| ‘J know;’ not with any undue ~ emphasis, ‘ prevideo,’ Van Heng., for see ch. ii. 17, but simply ‘I know.’ se. it is my present feeling and conviction ; compare Acts xx. 25. For somewhat analogous uses of ofa, see the examples adduced by Van Heng., but observe that even in the strongest (Hom. Z/. v1. 447) oida still refers more to the persuasions of the speaker than to any absolutely prophetic certitude.

mapameva| ‘continue here (on earth),’ ‘bleiben und dubleiben,’ Meyer, who aptly cites Herod. 1. 30, rékva éxyevd-

Tlemoisas

peva kal mavra Tmapapelvayta ; add Plato, Pheedo, p. 115 D, ereidav iw rd pdpua- kov, ovkert Suiy mopauevd, ib. Crito, p. 51,

mapapelyy, Opp. to meTorety &AAOTE. On the reading see critical note. The dative

racw vuiv maybe the dative of interest, ‘to support and comfort you’ (Kriiger,

The uncial authority is moreover far

Sprachl. § 48. 4), but is here far more naturally governed by the zap& in the compound ; see Plato, Phied. l. c , Apol. p- 39 £, apparently Protaq. p. 335 D, and contrast 1 Cor. xvi. 6, mpbs tuas mapa- jer@, where the mpds gains its force from the intended journey to them just before mentioned ; here the apostle is mentally with those he is addressing. This is a somewhat more common regimen than Kriiger (Sprachl. § 48. 11.9) seems in- clined to admit.

eis Thy budy Kk. 7. A.] ‘for your fur- therance in, and joy of the fuith ;? not‘ for your furth., and for your joy,’ ete., Wan Heng.,—there being here no reason whatever to depart from the ordinary rule; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 4. d, p. 116, and comp. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 868. It is scarcely necessary to say that there is not here any kind of znvers/on (‘ for your joy and for the increase of your faith’) as Syriac, nor any disjunction (‘for your furth., and for your faith, and for your joy’), as in &th., nor any conjunction (‘for the advancement of the joy of you faith’), as Macknight: still the rela- tion of the genitive to the two substan- tives seems slightly different ; in the first case it is a gen. subjecti, referrible per- haps to the class of the possess. gen ; in the latter it is a gen. originis, ‘quod ex fide promanat,’ Zanch., and beiongs to the general division of the gen. of abla- tion ; compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 11. 1, p. 79, Donalds. Gr. § 448 sq. On xapd, compare Reuss, Thél. Chrét. rv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 202, whose definition how-

Cuap. I. 26, 27.

PHILIPPIANS. 45

Tiv ipwav TpoKoTiy Kal yapav tis Tistews, ™ iva TO Kavynpa Upov Tepiacevyn ev Xpiat@ ‘Incod ev éuoi bia Tis €pijs Tapovetas

‘’ ‘ ia - TaXtv Tpos Umas. Live as becometh the gos- pel, that whether absent or

27 Movov a*lws tov ebayyedlou tod Xpicroo

tad , 4 ’ - ve present Lay hear well of 7TOMLTEVEGYE, iva eite EASwV Kal iOwy Uyas eizE

you. Be not dismayed, ye are sufferers for Christ.

ever, ‘ cette sérénité de l’ame qui la pré- serve de tout découragement dans |’ad- versité,’ imparts to yapa too passive a character. Xapa is rather that active and operative emanation of love and thank- fulness that forms the sort of spiritual equipoise to eiphyy and brouorh.

26. fva 7d watxnua K.T.A.] Sin order that your matter of boasting may abound in Jesus Christ in me ;’ more spe- cifie statement of the purpose of the apostle’s continuance with his converts ; the previous abstract eis thy dud mpox. x. T. A. being expanded into the more definite and concrete fva x. r. A. These words, simple as they seem, have not been always clearly understood. _In the first place kat xa is not the same as xal- xnos; not ‘gloriatio qua gloriamini,’ Corn. a Lap., but ‘ gloriandi muteries’ (Mbiin, Jere. xvii. 14), as in Rom. iv. 2, 1 Cox. ix. 15, and appy. everywhere in the N. T. (see notes on Gul. vi. 4), this ‘ ma- teries’ being 7d éornpixdat ev 17} riote:, Chrys., or generally, their possession of the gospel (Meyer), their condition as Christians Again, 2v Xpiore is not to be connected, directly or indirectly, with xatxnua (‘l'occasion de vous glori- fier @ Gire unis A Christ,’ Rill.) but with wepiooein, the qualitative éy Xp. defining, as it were, the blessed sphere fx which the increase takes place, and out of which, Christianly speaking, it has no existence. Lastly év é ol is neither=8)' exo’, Hein., nor ‘propter me,’ Grot., nor even ‘de me,’ Beza, but ‘in me,’ Vulg.,—the preposition here marking the substratum of the action, the mirror, as it were (Zanch.), in which the whole gracious

co , ‘ ata axovcw Ta Trepi Uuav, OTL oTHKETE EV EVE

procedure was displayed; see notes on Gal. i. 24. It is thas not to be connect- ed with catynua directly, oras in Chrys., by inversion, fva txw kavyaodas év duly pe(évws, nor even with wepioc. alone but with the complete idea 7d caty. re pico. év Xp- Thus the whole seems clear : the kavynua is their condition as Chris- tians; év Xp. defines the holiness and purity of its increase; év €uol, the seat and substratum of the so defecated ac- tion. Sia THs x. T.A. is to be closely connected with ¢yoi as de- fining the exact means by which the in- crease of matter of boasting, thus specifi- cally Christian, is to take place éy éuof. Passages like the present, in which dif- ferent predications are grouped closely together, will repay careful analysis. Here it wi'l be seen év Xp. is the mysti- cal and generic predication of manner, ev of place, 8:4 tijs wap. of special instru- mentality, involving also in its substan- tive the predication of time; compare notes on EZphes. i. 3, and Donalds. Gr. § 444.

27. wédvov] ‘ Only;’ my persuasion then being as I have told vou, this is the sole thing that I specially press upon you, and exact from you as indispensa- ble; rotro éor: +d Gyrovmevory udvoy cal ob3ty BAA, Chrys. ; compare Gal. ii. 10, vy. 13, in which latter passage, as here, ‘verborum tanquam agmen ab illo daci- tur,’ Van Heng. In this one requisition many weighty duties are involved.

Tod ebvayy. Tod Xp] ‘the gospel of Christ,’ i.e. which relates to, which tells of, Christ ; rod Xp. being the gen. ol) ects, not, as 2th. would seem to imply, sub

46

PHILIPP.LANS:

Cuap. I. 27,

TvevpaTl, pad wpuyn cuvaSrodyTes TH Wintel TOD evayryediou,

jecti, ‘the gospel taught by Him.’ In such cases the nature of the gen. is not perfectly certain, but, from the analogy supplied by partially similar use of evayy., is more probably that objecti ; see Winer, Gr. § 30.1, p. 168, but ob- serve that the ref. to Rom. i. 3 is of doubtful pertinence.

moAttevecdse| ‘have your conversa- tion,’ ‘behave yourselves,’ or more exactly, ‘lead your life of (Christian) citizen- ship;’ compare Acts xxill. 1. It can scarcely be doubted that this word, oc- curring once only in St. Paul’s Epis- tles, though examples of very similar exhortations are not wanting (Eph. iv. 1, Col. i. 10, 1 Thess. ii. 12) has been studiedly used instead of the more com- mon wepimarety, to give force to the idea of fellow-citizenship,— not specially and peculiarly with Christ (Heinr.), but with one another in Him, — joint membership in a heavenly woAitevwa, comp. ch. iii. 20. Numerous examples of a similar metaphorical use of the word (‘ vivere, non quoad spiritum et animam, sed quoad mores,’ Loesn., ‘ad normam insti- tutorum in Republica mores vitaeque ra- tionem componere,’ Krebs.) will be found in Wetstcin in loc., Krebs, Obs. p. 245, Loesn. Obs. p. 226, and especially in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 799 sq.

iva etre €AXOv KT-A.] ‘in order that, whether having come and seen you or else remaining absent, I may hear the things concerning you.’ This clause, though perfectly intelligible, is apparently some- what inexact in structure. It. would seem that akotow (for which Lachmann, with BD!; 10 mss. ; Basm., reads &kotw) veally performs a kind of double office ; in the one case it stands in antithesis to iddv (per orat. variat.); in the second place it repeats itself (Van Heng.), or suggests some appropriate verb (edppav- 3w, Chrys., yvé, De Wette) immediately

before 871: in a word, guoad sensum it seems to belong to amdy, quoad structuram to iva. Attempts have been made to de- fend the construction as it stands, either (a) by referring &kotow zeugmatically to both clauses, ‘j’apprenne a votre sujet que,’ Rill. ; or (8) by understanding it to imply ‘ hearing from themselves,’ in refer- ence to the first clause, ‘hearivg from others,’ in the second, Meyer. This last explanation is ingeuious, but is appar- ently precluded by the opposition be- tween iddy tuas and axovow 7% Tept Budy, which seems too distinct to have been otherwise than specially intended. There must be few, however, who do not pre- fer the warmhearted incuria of such a brevity of expression to restorations like cite CAS Kal iddv, el7e amav akoiow Ta mep) tuav, akovw Ott xk. 7. A., or still worse, aay Kal akovcas TH T. bu. yO drt x. T. A., as Suggested by modern com- mentators. éTti oTHKeTel ‘that ye are standing ;’ fuller expansion and definition of 7a wep) Sudy; the ex- planatory clause being in structural de- pendence upon the principal member, according to the ordinary and simplest form of attraction; see especially Winer, Gr. § 66. 5, p. 551, where this and other forms of attraction and assimilation are perspicuously discussed. The present form of attraction is especially common after verbs of knowledge, perception, etc.,e.g. Mark xii. 34, Acts iii. 10, 1 Cor. xvi. 13, 1 Thess. ii. 1, al. it may be observed, is not per se, ‘to stand fast,’ Author. Ver., ‘ perstare,’ Beza, but simply ‘stare,’ Vulg., Syriac, Goth., the ideas of readiness (compare Chrys.), persistence, etc., being imparted by the context ; compare ch. iv. 1, 1 Cor. xvi. 18, Gal. v..1, 1 Thess. iii. 8, 2 Thess.

év év) mvetuarti| in one common higher The addition

Srhrew,

ii, 15. “in one spirit ; principle of our nature.

,’

Cuap. I. 28.

PHILIPPIANS.

47

B ‘ , > s id A lal > , La Kal pr) TWTupoucvor ev pmdevi UTO TOV avTiKEpEvor, TTLS

wiz YuxA seems certainly to show that rvevua is here the human spirit, the higher part of our immaterial nature (see Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, § 48, Vol 11. p. 498), that in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is especially seen and felt. This common unity of the spirit is, however, so obviously the effect of the inworking of the Holy Spirit, that an indirect reference to 7d Mvedua (compare Ephes. iv. 4) becomes necessarily in- volved. Inudecd in most cases in the N. T. it may be said that in every men- tion of the human tvedua some reference to the eternal Spirit may always be rec- ognized ; see notes on 2 Tim. i. 7, and compare Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 1v. 5, p- 144 sq. Mtg Wuxi] ‘with one soul striving together for the faith of the gospel;’ making your united ef- forts from the common faith from one common centre and seat of interests, af- fections, and energies. As the higher mvetua Which gave direction was to he one and common to them all, so was the lower Wux}) which obeyed those behests to be one, — one common seat of con- cordant affections and energies. The remark of Bengel is true and deep; ‘ est interdum inter sanctos naturalis aliqua entipathia : hee vincitur ubi unitas est non solum spiritus, sed etiam anime.’ On the difference between the mvedua (‘ vis superior, agens, imperans in hom- ine’) and the Wx, the sphere of the will and affections, the centre of the per- sonality, see Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. vi. p. 145 sq., Beck, Bibl. Seelenlehre, 11. 12, 13, p. 30 sq.

ovvasAovvres must be united with a3 Wx, thus forming a participial, and indeed psychological, parallel to orjxew év. Ty. It is somewhat singular that the best ancient Vy. (Syr., Vulg., Clar., 2£th., Copt.), with Chrys., al., agree in referring mid Yuxy to orixere. Such a

construction, however, has but little to recommend it in point of grammar, and still less in point of psychology: jug Yux7 stands correctly in prominence after the semi-emphatic éy él mv. (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 902), and forms a modal ad- junct to the undefined cuvaddAotvtes es- pecially significant and appropriate ; or7- xew év mvevuati, cuvaddAciv 7H Yuxy. The force of the preposition ody has been dif- ferently estimated ; it is referred by the Greek expositors to the fellowship of the Philipp. (cupraparauBdvere GAAtAous, Chrys.) ; by Meyer and others to fellow- ship with St. Paul; the former seems more suitable to the context.

tH wlotes) ‘for the faxh;’ dat. com- modi: not under the regimen of ovy, ‘adjuvantes fidem,’ Erasm.,—an un- exampled prosopopeeia; nor a dat. in- strum. (more precisely termed by Kri- ger, a ‘dynamic’ dative, Sprachi. § 48. 15), ‘fide Ev.,’ Calv., ‘per fidem Ev.,’ Beza, — this construction having previ- ously occurred in the case of wig Yux7- Moris, here, as nearly always in the N. T., has a subjective reference; see aotes on Gal. i. 23.

28. rrupduevoil ‘being terrified :’ Gr. Aeydu. in N. T.; properly used in reference to scdred horses {Diodor. Sic. XVII. 34, wrupduevoc TA yaAwa Sieocloy- vo), thence generally, though often with some tinge of its more special meaning, as in Plut. Mor. p. 800 c, wire TWei uhhre wry mrupduevoy, and lastly, as here, in a purely general sense, e.g. [Plato], Ar- ioch. § 16, ob« &y wore wrupe(ns Toy Sdva tov; comp. Hesych. wripetar* celerat, poBeirat, dp'rre:, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 312. Itis notimprob. derived from a root MTY-,—and allied with rrodw ; see Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 100. Tav avtrixetuévwy] ‘ the opposers,’ ‘ your adversaries ;’ compare 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 4, Luke xiii. 17, xxi. 15.

48

PHRROPE PrANS

Cnap. I. 28, 29

> \ > a ” > U erry x / \ r €OTLY GAUTOLS évoevEts aTwrelas, vpiv oé OWTNPIAS, KAL TOUTO

A r ¢ ato Ocov ~O6

Who these were is not perfectly certain. The context and general use of the word seem both to point to open and avowed enemies of Christianity; not Judaists, but unbelieving Jews (Usteri, Lehrb. p. 332, comp. Acts xvii. 5), or, perhaps even more probably, Gentiles ; compare Acts xvi. 19 sq. égtiv «.7.Aa.| ‘the which is to them,’ ‘seeiny it 7s,’ etc.; viz, when they see, as they cannot fail to do, if they will pause to consider, that they cannot in

eo TLS

timidate you ; Stay yap of OidKovTes TAY Siwkouevey jul) Tepryévwvtat, oi emBourev- ovTes Twy emiBovAcvOMEeVMY, OL KpaToUYTES TOV KpaTovuevwy, ove avToSev ~atat S7jAov avtots, Ott aroAdvyTaL, OTL OdEY iaxtcou- ow; Chrys. The éo7ts,as in Eph. iii. 13 al., has here a faint explanatory force (see especially notes on Gal. iv. 23), and is the logical relative to wh mrupdsu. «. 7. A., though grammatically connected (by at- traction) with the predicate 2éderéis ; see examples of this species of attraction in Winer, Gram. § 24. 3, p. 150; compare also § 66.5. 2, p. 552, and Madvig, Synt. § 98. The dative avrots is the dative incomm. or, of ‘interest’ (Kriig., Sprachl.

Sal hee

§ 48. 4), and is dependent on évderéts, not on amwActas (Hdlem.),—a needlessly involved construction. The reading of Rec. adtots wev ory has but little criti- eal support [IXKL; Theodoret, al.], and is properly rejected by all the best edi- tors. ‘hut to you (an evidence) of salvation ;’ scil. of final salvation, as opposed to the preceding améAea; ‘ipsos perdet et du- eet in gehennam, vos autem ducet ad salutem et gloriam,’ Corn. a Lap. ; com- pare similar antitheses, Rom. ix. 22 sq., 1 Cor. i. 18, al., and on the force of ard- Aea, notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9. The present reading is somewhat doubtful: juay is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.

duty S& cGTzpilas|

e a“ ? f \ € \ lal > , OTL Upiv Exapiosn TO UTEp Xpiotod, ov povoy

(so Meyer, Alf.) with ABC?; 4 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm. ; Chrys. (ms.), Aug., al., and is plausible on account of the possible conformation cf buty to aitois. The text is, however, strongly supported (D9EFKL [ix C'DIG; 73]; Vulg., Goth., Copt., Basm., th. (Platt, Pol.), Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theod ), and has apparently the diplomatic preponderancs plainly in its favor.

kal TovTO K.7.A] God,’ comp. Eph. ii. 8; 2. e. un mere}v

wed this Jrom

“vos salutem consecuturos esse,’ Calvin,

which would arbitrarily limit todro to the latter member ; nor even ‘ iilud, ad- versarios quidem perituros, vos vero sa- lutem,’ ete., Grot., but, as the consola- tory nature of the context seems to re- quire, with reference to the whole preced- ing (certainly not svececding, Syr. Zth., Clem.-Alexan. Strom. rv. p. 604, Pott.) declaration, in fact to émefis (Peile, De W., Alf.) ; ‘et hoe sane non augu- rium humanum est, sed divinum,’ Van Heng., and sim., Michaelis Whether it be recognized or not as such, there still is this token of the issue for either side, and it is from God; compare Wie- sing. in loc.

29. Ott Sutv x.7.A.] Reason for the declaration immediately preceding, by an appeal to their own cases: not ¢x- actly, motives to steadfastness (De W.) ; as, in the first place, the exhortation to be steadfast is implicit rather than ex- plicit ; and, secondly, such motives would have been more naturally introduced by ydp. The apostle says, the évdezs k. 7. A. is verily not an ‘humanum’” but a ‘divinum angurium,’ because the grace given to you (observe the slizhtly em- phatie position, — whatever it may be to others) is such that you are thereby ena bled not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him: the double favor

—_—-

Cnap. f£. 30.—IT. 1.

PHILIPPIANS.

49

To els avTov TiaTEve GANA Kal TO UTEP adToD Tacyew, * ToL

avtov wyava éxovTes olov eldere év Euor Kal VV akoUETE EV Ep0l.

Be united in spirit; be lowly in heart as was Christ.

Il. Ei tus obv wapdxAnots €v Xpicr@, ei Tt

who humbled Himself unto death, and was exalted with every m)asure of exaltation.

\ 4 "

you have received affords the surest proof of the essentially divine nature of the token ; see Meyer tn /oc. éxaviadsn) ‘wus freely given;’ 1d wav dvaridels TH Ocp, kal xdpw elvar A€ywr Kal xdpitua Kal Swpedy 7d waoxew trip Xpiorod, Chrys. The aorist is used as referring to the period when the initial grace which has since wrought in the hearts of the Philippians was first given: xapiCerar would be too present, and in- deed prospective (comp. Kriiger, Sprachi. § 53. 1), to suit the actual circumstances ; kexdpora would express that the effects of the xdpigua are remaining, which, though probably really the case, less per- feetly harmonizes with the language of implied exhortation than the simple ref- erence to what they once received, and must show that they now possess. The essential character of the tense (‘ quod preeteriit, sed ita ut non definiatur quam late pateat id quod actum est,’ Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17 sq.) may here be easily traced. is not ‘in Christi negotio,’ Beza (comp. Auth.), but is logically dependent on the following mdoxew, and would have been structurally associated with it if the apos- tle had not paused to interpolate a clause (0) udvoy — brép adrov) that serves ma- terialiy to heighten the assertion and add to its signilicance: éke? pty dpererns ell, evraida dé dmeirerny Exw Toy Xpic- rov, Chrys. So expressly Syr., Z£th., both of which suppress in translation the prefixed 7d brép Xp. ___ 80. Exovres] ‘as youhave:’ further

Td imwép Xpiatrod

bes P ¢ Specification of the preceding wdoxew,

an

-

ve - associated example; cal 7d mapdderyua

with a consolatory tarn suggested by the

txere. wddw adrovs éxalpe:, Chrysost. The structure is ‘ad sensum’ rather

than ‘ad verbum ;

the participle being constructed with the duets which is prac- tically involved in the preceding verse, rather than with the dui which immedi- ately precedes : see especially Eph. iv. 2, and notes in loc. Such relapses of the participle into the nominative are far too common to render it necessary with Ben- gel, Bloomf., and what is more singular, Lachm., to enclose fjris —abtrot wdoxew in a parenthesis: see examples in Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505, Jelf, Gr. § 707. The frequent, and almost idiomatic, occur- rence of such anacolutha seems to be re- ferrible to the practically weaker force of the oblique cases of participles.

ofov etdere] ‘such as gou saw in me,’ sc. when I was with you at Philippi: compare Acts xvi. 16 sq.: od« elev, aknxoate, GAA’, eXSeTe’ Kal yap exe HS- Angey év bidtrmois, Clirys. In the ex- pression év éuol the prep. marks as it were the substratum of the action; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, and compare notes on Gal. i. 24. There is thus no need, with Syr., 22th., to translate the second év éuol ‘de me’: as the Philip- pians saw the ayav whien he was present with them, so now they hear of it in his Epistle, in which he as it were person- ally speaks to them; compare Meyer. The reading Were ( Ztec., Griesb.), though fairly sapported [B*D°E*FGKL; very many mss.; Theoph., Gicum.] is appar- ently only due to the interchange of e and ? (itacism) ; sce Scrivener, Collation, etc, 111. 3, p. LXIX.

Cuapter IL.—1. ef ris ody] ‘Uf then, etc.’ The ody, which has here its reflexive rather than collective force, re- calls the readers to the consideration of . what their duty ought to be under exist-

50 PHILIFPPIANS.

Cuap. II. 1.

/ , / y” / 4 wv , Tapapvstov ayamrns, et Tus Kowwvtla IIvevparos, et twa oThayxva

ing circumstances, with aretrospective ref. to the exhortation in ch. i. 27; ‘revocat ovv lectorem ad rem presentem, id est, quz nunc cum maxime agitur, eodem prorsus modo, quo Latina particula zgi- tur, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717. Be- za’s correction of the Vulg., ‘igitur’ for ‘ergo,’ is thus judicious. On the exact difference between these particles, see Hand. Turse/l. Vol. 111. p. 187.

mwapakr. év Xp.| ‘exhortation in Christ,’ 7. e. exhortation specified and character- ized by being in Him as its sphere and element. This important modal adjunct defines the mapaAnots as being essen- tially Christian, ‘quam [qualem] dat conjunctio cum Christo,’ Wahl; it was only ‘in Him’ that its highest nature was realizable; compare notes on Eph. iv. 1. TlapdkAnois is apparently here ‘exhortation’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 10, Rom. xii. 8, and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 82),

o> not ‘consolatio,’ Vulg. eS Syriac (compare Goth., Copt.), which, though lexically tenable (sce Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. Vol. 1. p. 132 sq., and comp. notes on 1 Thess. v. 11), seems here somewhat tautologous when mapandaiov so immediately follows. The exact distinction between the clauses is worthy of notice: the first (ev Xp.) and third (Tlvevu.), as Meyer observes, cer- tainly point to the objective principles of Christian life, while the second (dydmns) and fourth (omAdyxv. Kk. vikr.) point to the subjective elements: soalso Wiesing., who, however, somewhat unsatisfacto- rily refers the first two members to St. Paul, the last two to the Philippians. Surely the very terms of the exhortation seem to imply that all must be referred to the Philippians. It is the hoped- for, and indirectly assumed, existence of these four elements among his con- verts ‘that leads the apostle so pressingly

. to beseech them to fulfil his joy: comp. Chrys., who very well illustrates the force and meaning of the appeal. Tapauvudsiov &y.| ‘comfort or consola- tion of love ;’ ‘ solatium caritatis,’ Vulg.,

o compare Syr. 235 [sats [loqu-

utio in cor], AXth. and apparently Copt. ; not ‘ winning persuasion,’ Wiesing., —a meaning which is defensible (compare Plato, Legg. x. p. 880 A, mapapuSiors €b- meians ylyynta), but here apparently precluded by the parallelism omAdyxve kal oixr. in the fourth clause. The gen. aydans is the gen. of the source or agent, ‘comfort such as love supplies ;’ see Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126.

kotvwvia yv.] ‘ fellowship of the Spirit ;’ gen. objectt, communion with, participation in the gifts and influence of the Holy Spirit; thy petoxhy abtod kal Thy perddnyw kad’ hy ayaCdueda, Theoph. on 2 Cor. xiii. 14: so expressly Z8th., ‘ particeps fuit zn Spiritu ;” comp. Chrys. The gen. at first sight might seem a gen. subjecti as above, —a con- struction both lexically and grammati- cally defensible (compare Fritz. Rom.

Vol. 111. p. 81, 287), but here somewhat -

at variance with the prevailing use and reference of kowwvia and xowwrds (comp. 1 Corin. i. 9, 2 Pet. i. 4) in passages of this doctrinal aspect; see Meyer on 2 Cor. xiii. 14, compare Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 419 (edit. Burton), and the good sermon of Waterland, Works, Vol. v. p. 351. The Spirit here is not the human spirit, ‘ animorum conjunctio,’ Tirin. (Pol. Syn.), De W., al., but the personal Holy Spirit, as the parallelism to the first clause, and the recurrence of the expression in 2 Cor. xiii. 14, seem very distinctly to suggest. So Athiop.

(Polygl., but not Platt), which expressly *

inserts &y:os* elf Tiva oTX.

x. T.A.] ‘if any bowels (heartfelt love) and

vt

a

Cap. IT. 2.

PHILIPPIANS. 51

\ a / 2 ‘ , 4 tA ica s > 4 - Kal viktippol, * mAnpwoaré you TIv yapay, iva Td alto hpoviyre, Ti avtiy wyarny Exovtes, aviyuyou TO ev ppovodvTes, © undev

compassions,’ By comparing James y. 11, and especially Col. iii. 12, orAdyxva oikTipuov, it would seem that there is some distinction between the two words, and that the latter is not a mere expla- tation of the former (Zanch.). That ad- vanced by Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 69) seems satisfactory, ‘oA. amorem velie- mentiorem quemcunque denotat (o7op- yhv, compare Philem. 12); ol«r. miseri- cordiam proprie denotat, seu sensum do- loris ex malis seu incommodis aliorum ;’ compare Grot. in loc. It is somewhat singular that all the uncial MSS. includ- ing x, at least 50 mss., and several Ff. read ef tis omA. Though adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7) and Lachm., and defended by Green, Gram. p. 284, it seems really to have arisen from an erroneous (para- diplomatic) repetition of the preceding mis. The prevalence of such an appar- ent error need not shake our faith in mere MSS. testimony (AIf.) ; it rather seems to hint at the general fidelity of the tran- scribers. They could scarcely have all made the same error; but may very probably have studiously perpetuated it on the authority of two or three more an- cient documents. Tw4 is found in Clem. Alex. Strom. 1v. p. 604 (cd. Pott.).

2. rAnpdocarte| ‘fulfil,’ * make com- plete ;’ of elwe movhoaté wor, GAAd, TAD- péoare’ tovteoti tptaode purevew ev enol’ dn wor pereddnare 7d elpnvevery, GAN’ els TéAOS emiSuu@ eASeiv, Clirys. The position of wou before yapay does not seem intended to convey any empha- sis; see the long list of similar examples in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. 1, p. 140 (ed. 6). tva td abrd x. 7.A.] ‘that so ye be likeminded.’ The particle iva does not

here denote simple pupose (Meyer), —a

forced and unsatisfactory interpretation which ignores the usage of later Greek

and the analogy of the modern vd (see

Corpe, Gr. p. 129 8q.),—but, with a weakened force, blends the subject of the entreaty, ete., with the purpose of mak- ing it: so rightly Chrys., 7i BolAa ; tva oe kwStvev &raddAdkwuer, iva aol Ti xopn- yhowpey; Obbeyv TrovTwy pnaiv, add’, va jucis Td abtd ppovijte. See notes on Lph i. 17, where this and other uses of fva arc briefly investigated. Van Heng. refers iva to an omitted tavTny, sc. xapay Tab- thy va kK. T. A.: this seems very unsatis- factory. Td abtd pov. is rightly explained by Tittmann (Synon. p- 67) as, ‘eandem sententiam habere, idem sentire, velle et quierere,’ while the following participial clauses, 7)y adrhy ay. x. and otvy. 7d Ev pp., more nearly define its essence and characteristics. See Fritz. Rom. xii. 16, Vol. 111. p. 87, who however does not appear quite ex- act in separating ov). from 7d Ey dpoy. ; see below. éx.] ‘having the same love ;’ closer defi-

> . > Thy albTiny ay.

nition of rd adrd ppovety : earl yap Kal 7d altd ppoveiy Kal ui) aydwny Exew, Chrys. The true nature of ‘such love is well de- fined by the same able commentator as duolws kal gidrciy Kal dircioSa:r. On thie nature of Christian love as delineated in St. Paul’s Epistles, the most summary and comprehensive definition of which is in ver. 4, see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 242 sq., Reuss, Tiel. Chrét.1v.19, Vol. 11. p. 203 sq. ovvyuxa: k.T.A.] ‘with accordant souls minding

(the) one thing ;’ second declining clause, and parallel to thy abr. ay. ty. Most of the ancient Vv (Syr., Copt., £th., al.), apparently the Greek expositors, and several modern commentators regard ovvuxo: and 1d &y dp. as separate predi- cations; it seems however best, with Meyer, to regard them as united, the slightly emphatic ot. forming a quasi- adverbial or secondary predication to 7d

52

PEEP P PANS).

Cuap. II. 3, 4.

kata épiSeiay pndé kata Kevodofiav, adda 7H TaTewoppoctyy

> / ¢ 7 e / e Le) 4 \ An ae Ly) ed AAIOUS NYOUMEVOL UTTEPEXOVTAS EAUTWV, * 1) TA EAUTWY EKATTOE

év gp. There is thus no necessity for any artificial distinctions between 7d aib7d gp. and 7d éy gp. (Tittmann Synonym. I. p. 69), nor for the assamption of a studied tautology (comp. Chrys.) : Wuxor serves to illustrate the participial clause with which it is associated, while 7% & mp. remands the reader to the 7d ato pp. above, with which it is practi- cally synonymous, and of which it is possibly a more abstract expression; compare Green, Gram. p. 201. Middle- ton (Gr. Art. p. 368) following Grotius refers this latter clause to what follows : this is not satisfactory, and mars the symmetry of the sentence. On the dis- tinction between civpuxos and icdpuxos, see notes on ver. 20.

3. undév cata épiad.| ‘ meditating nothing in the way of dissension, or conten- trousness ;’ not mootvtes, V. Heng., Scho- lef. (ints, p. 105), or still worse mocetre, Luth., but simply ¢povoiyres, continued from the preceding verse; see Winer, Gr. § 64. 2, p. 618. marily denotes the model or rule, and thence, as here, by a very intelligible gradation, the occusion or circumstances in accordance with it; see notes on Tit. iii. 5, and Winer, Gram. § 49. d, p. 358. On ép:Sefa see notes on ch. i. 17, and on Gal. vy. 17; compare too Theophyl. in loc., who appears to have caught the true force and meaning of the word ; orovdd-

, Ovv-

The prep. kara pri-

cat @xw, va wh me vikhon 6 Seiya’ TovTO tor h épideia. unde kata kevodokiav] ‘nor tn the way of vain- glory.’ Kevod. an dm. Aeydu. in the N. T. (adj. Gal. vy. 26) is sufficiently defined by Suidas as, wataia tis wep) éavTod ot- nots; compare Polyb, Hist. 111. 81.9, x. 83.6. The reading is here very doubt- ful, that adopted in the text [ABC; Vulg., Clarom., Sang., Syr. (¢) Copt., th. (4); Lachm., Tisch.], though not

free from suspicion, has the greatest amount of external evidence, and seems on the whole the most probable and sat- isfactory. TH TamTervod- pogvyn| ‘with, under the influence of (due) lowliness ;’ modal dative (comp. notes on ch. i. 18), or perhaps more pre- cisely dat. of the subjective cause, thus falling under the general head of the ‘dynamic’ dative, see Kriiger, Spracil. § 48.15.5. On this causal dative, which though allied to, must not be confounded with, the instrumental dat. (as appar- ently Mey., Alf.), sce Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 14, p. 101, sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. c, p. 181, and Kriiger, /.c. The article here prefixed to the abstract tame:vogp. may have its collective force (Jef, Gr. § 448) and mark ‘lowliness’ in its most abstract forma, ‘the virtue of lowliuess’ (Mey., comp. Middl. Gram. Art. p. 90), but more probably only characterizes the Tamew. as that due and befitting lowliness by which each ought to be influenced : comp. Rom. xii. 10 sq., and Fritz. in loc, On tarewvoppootvn, ‘the thinking lowly of ourselves because we are so,’ and its distinction from mpavrns, see notes on Eph. iv. 2. Trench, Synon. § 42, and the more spiritually profound discussion of Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 483 sq. (Bohn). bmepexovTas €aut@y| ‘superior to themselves ;’ com- pare Rom. xii. 10, Ephes. v. 21, 1 Pet. The query of Calvin, how those who really and obviously excel others in certain points can conform to this pre- cept, is satisfactorily answered by con- sidering the true nature of tarewwodp. The tarewdéppwy is one so conscious of his dependence on God, and of his own imperfections and nothingness, that his own gifts only remind him that others must have gifts also, while his sense of his own utter nothingness suggests to

‘

Vie

PHILIPPIANS.

Cnap. II. 5. 53

oxorrobyTes, GAA Kal Ta étépwv Exacta. *° Todto yap dpoveire

5. ydp] So Mec. and now Tisch. (ed. 7) with DEFGJK; very many Vvy.; Gr. and Lat. Ff. (Griesb., but om. om.; Van Heng., Mey., Alf.). The particle is omit- ted by Lachm. with ABCN; 17.37; Coptic, Arm., /Eth.; Origen, Ath., al. As verse 5 begins an ecclesiastical lection, and as the explicative force of the yap might not have been fully understood, and have led to the omission of the particle, the reading of the text scems slightly more probable.

gpoverre] So ABCIDEFGRS; 3 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Syriac, A&th. (Pol. and Platt); Cyr. ; Lat. Ff. (Lachm., Mey.). The reading of Tisch. (ed. 2,7), dpoveiadw, with C?KL; nearly all mss.; Copt., Goth., al.; Orig., Ath. ([ec., Als), is insufli- ciently attested by uncial authorities, and, on internal grounds, quite as likely to have been a correction of gpove?re (to harmonize with 6 «al év Xp. Ina.) as vice yersi : compare contra, Fritz. /ritzsch. Opusc. p. 49 note, whose judgment, however,

seems here hasty and ill-supported. Tisch. (ed. 1).

him that these gifts may well be supe- rior to his own, and higher in nature and degree; see especially Neander, Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 485 (Bohn).

4. 7a éavra@v oKxom.]| ‘regarding, looking to their own interests:’ warning against a selfish regard for themselves, following suitably on the exhortation to tamewoppogivn. Pride, as Miiller well observes, isthe most naked form of self- ishness: see the excellent remarks on selfishness us the essence of sin, and as specially developing itself in pride and hatred, ib. Doctr. of Sin. 1.3. 1 and 2, especially Vol. 1. p. 175 sq. (Clark). Sxo7eiy is here scarcely different in sense from (yreiv, ch. ii 21, | Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5; compare 2 Mace. iv. 5, 7d ovu- gepovy ckomav. Numerous examples of similar forms of expression will be found in Wetstein én /oc., the most pertinent of which is from a writer whose diction is said often to reflect that of St. Paul, Plotin. Ban. 1.4.8, ob td enelvwy Eri oKo- movpévwv, GAAG 7) éavtav. The reading of Rec., Exaoros (with CDEKLN; al.)— oxomeire (with L; al.) is rightly rejected by Lachmann, Tisch., and most modern commentators : it may, however, be re- marked that in all other cases in the N. T. (Rev. vi. 11 [Rec.], is more than

We return, then, to the reading of Lachm. and

doubtful) €xagros is only found in the singular. GAAQG Kal] ‘but also:’ a somewhat weakened form of the adversative clause, the ca: perhaps point- ing to the thought that it was natural that a man should look after his own in- terests ; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, p. 441 sq., Fritz. Marc. exc. 11. p. 788. On the difference between ob«—a@Add, ob udvoyv —adAd, and od udvov — GAAa kal, see the acute remarks of Klotz, Devrar. Vol. 11. p. 9. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessury to controvert the position of Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 503), that 7a éavra@y are ‘sua dona ;’ pretation is less in harmony with the context, and would tend to make «ai ap- pear redundant. demns is not so much a reasonable re- gard for their own interests as the se/sish exhibition of it; comp. Waterl. Serm. vy. Vol. 11, p. 503.

5. yap has here its explanatory force, ‘verily,’ ‘as the case stands,’ and serves both to illustrate and confirm the preced- ing exhortation ; see especially notes on Gal. ii. 6, where this use of yap is briefly illustrated. dpoveire ey b uty) ‘entertain this mind in yourselves,’ sc. ‘in animis vestris,’ Van H., not ‘intra vestrum ceetum,’ a construction which

such an inter-

What the apostle con-

54 PHILLIP PLANS

Cuap. II. 6

év tyiv 6 Kal ev Xpiat@ “Inaod, © ds ev poppy Oeovd irdpywv ovx

seems distinctly precluded by the follow- ing ¢v Xp. Meyer compares the Homeric év) ppeci, ev’ Guus, thus similarly com- bined with @poveiv, il. xx1v.173, Odys. XIv. 82, al. d nal év X.71.] ‘which was also in Christ Jesus, sc. ép- poveito or éedpovyisn. The kad is not ‘cum maxime,’ Van. Heng., but simply correlative, indicating the identity of the disposition that is to be between the Phi- lippians and Christ (Wies.) : on the in- sertion of «ai after relative particles, and the form of comparison it indicates, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. The in- terpretation of Hofmann (Schrifib. Vol. I. p. 130), according to which 6 is to be referred to gpovety, not edpovndn, scil. “welches ein poveiy in ilnen selbst nicht ist, ohne auch in Christo Jesu’ (compare Gal. ii. 20), seems artificial and unsatis- factory.

6. 6s] In this important, and it is to be feared much perverted passage, nearly every word has formed the subject of controversy. In no portion of Scripture is it more necessary to follow the simple and plain grammatical meaning of the words. The first question is, to what does os refer? To Christ as (a) the Adyos &oapkos, Christ in his pre-incarnate state (Chrys. and majority of Ff.), or, as (b) the Adyos évoapkos, — what is now usually, but not very reverently, termed the ‘historical Christ’ (Novation, De W., al)? The true answer seems, — to neither exclusively, but, as the appro- priately chosen antecedent (Xp. “Inc.) suggests, and the profound nature of the subject requires, to (a) AND ((), to the Tédewos Tids (Hyppolyt. ap. Routh, Opuse. Vol. 1. p. 73) in either form of His cter- nal existence ; it being left to the imme- diate context to define the more imme- diate reference ; compare Col. i. 13, 15, and see Thomasius, Christi Person, Vol. 11. p- 136. In the present verse the ref-

erence seems plainly to (a); for as the tertium comparationis is manifestly tamet- voppootvn, so this cannot be completely evinced in the case of Christ, unless His prior state be put in clear contrast with that to which He was pleased to conde- scend ; compare 2 Cor. viii. 9, where, while "Inc. Xp. is similarly the subject, mAovaws Sy can scarcely admit any other reference than to Christ’s pre-incarnate state; so even Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2 4, p. 295. In verses 8-12 the reference is as obviously to (b): the Adyos acapxos, which is the more immediate subject of verse 6, passes into the Adyos éveapxos in ver. 7, and as the slight break in the con- tinuity of the sentence, cal wx fmatt K.T.A., fittingly and significantly indicates, re- mains so to the end of the clause. Other opinions, especially that of Origen, will be found in the admirable sermon of Wa- terl. ( Works, Vol. 11. p. 109), in which the whole passage is very clearly dis- cussed. See also Pearson, Creed, Art. 11. Vol. 1. p. 155, Bull, Prim. Trad. vt. 21, Jackson, Creed, Book viir. 1, Tho- masius, Chr. Pers. Vol. 11. p. 136 sq. Reference to the older monographs on this subject will be found in Wolf in loc., and to the more recent in Meyer in doc.

évy wopon Oeod bmdp.| ‘subsisting in the form of God,’ ‘ iirstandend u. s. w.,’ Thomasius, /.c., scil. from all eternity, in reference to His pre-incarnate exist- ence, the participle not having so much a causal (‘ inasmuch as he was’) as a con- cessive reference, ‘although he was,’ a sufficiently common so‘ution of the par- ticiple ; see Donalds. Gr. § 621. The use of imapxwy, not dv, is especially no- ticeable. In the following words, popo) @cod, there is but little difficulty, if we adhere simply and honestly to the true lexical meaning of wep}, and properly at tend to the subsequent antithesis. With respect to nop}? [probably derived from

eI

Cuap. IL. 6.

PHILIPPIANS. 55

a , 4 ¢ 4 >. , apmaypov wyyjcato 7o evar ica Oc@, 7 adda EayToV cCKcvwrer

the Sanscr. Varpas, ‘form,’ comp, Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol, 11. p. 309], we may first observe, that it is not perfectly ilen- tical with @vous or odala (Chrysost., al., Jackson, / ¢.), being in fact one of its two essential elements (see especially Avistot. de Animd, 11. 1), but designates ‘form,’ ‘appearance’ (JEth.), ‘likeness’ (Syr.), and may be compared with eixav, Col. i. 15, and xapaxrhp tijs brocrdoews, Ueb. i. 3; compare Thomasius, /. ¢., p. 137. As, however, both these allied ex- pressions stand in connection with a ref- erence to the eternal Sonship (Waterl. l.c.), a8 popdh Ocod stands in distinct and undeniable antithesis to hopphy Sov- Aov (Bull, /. c.), and as this latter expres- sion is referred by the apostle himself to the assumption of human nature, so no candid man can doubt that both ante- Nicene and post-Nicene writers were right in their deduction that popph Ocod has reference to the divine nature, and does express as much as @eds é« Ocod (Hippol. Vo). 11. p. 29, ed. Fabr.) and vids Qeov (Dionys.-Alexan. apud. Labb. Vol. 1. p. 853), and hence, what is truly and essentially divine; see esp. Waterl. Serm. v. Vol, 11. p. 103 sq.

obx apmayudy x.7.A.| ‘ He did not deem His being on an equality with God a thing to be seized on, or to grasp at.’ On this imporiant clause we must premise the following remarks: (1) the slightly emphatic aprayudy is the predicate, and 7d elvat x. T A., the immediate object to hyhearo, see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p- 289; (2) the word apz., if considered apart Jrom the context, does not seem merely = Gprayua or aprdywov (Callim. //ymn. Cer.9), but, with the usual force of its termination (Dona‘dson, Craty/. § 253), would seem to denote ‘the act of seiz- ing ;’ compare Plut. (?) de Educ. p. 120 a, Toy ex Kpiitns Kadovuevoy aprayudy ; (3) toa is used adverbially (Winer, Gr.

§ 27. 3, p. 160), Eyew tows Oeg, ‘ equal iter Deo esse,’ Thomas., |. c, p, 140, and that no stress can be laid on such an use (‘spectari tanquam Deum,’ Grot.), as the whole force of the assertion of equal- ity lies in the use of the verb, subst., 7d elvac; sec Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p 88, ed. Burton; (4) év soppy Ocot badpx. and 7d elva: toa Oe@ are virtually, though not precisely, identical. Both refer to the Divine Natureg the former, however (perhaps with a momentary glance of thought to its avAfa), points to it in re- spect of its form and pre-existence ; the latter, with exquisite distinction, to its state and present continuance, referring the reader, as it were, to the very moment of the 7yhaaro. On these prem- ises the translation would be,—(a) He thought the being equal to God no act of robbery, —no usurpation of any dignity which was not His own by right of na- ture (Jackson, Creed, viii. 1); ‘non rapinam existimavit pariari Deo,’ Ter- tullian, see Waterl., /. c., p. 107 sq.: so

° > appy- Syr. Lecce [direptio], Vulg ‘rapinam,’ Goth. ‘ vulva,’ and perhaps Copt. ‘Adlem’ (but appy.—&pzay aa Lev. vi. 4), Authoriz., and many of the older commentators. To this, however, the logical consideration that a condition cannot properly be regarded an act (com- pare Hofmann, Schrift). Vol. 1. p 131), and the still graver contextual considera- tions, — (a) that the above rendering of apr. iyyhe. not only affords no exempli- fication of uw) Ta éavtayv oxor. (ver. 4) but really implies the very reverse; (8) that the antithesis oby jjyho.— Gada exév. is thus wholly destroyed (see below), — present objections so serious, and appar- ently insurmountable, that we seem jus- tified in reconsidering (2), and in assign ing to the rare word aprayuds a meaning approaching that of the verbal in -ror

56 PHILIPPIANS.

Caap ies.

Hopdipy SovAov AaBav, ev cpowdpat. avSpeTav yevopevos,

(Hesiod, Op. 320) or the sabstant. in -ya [consider Secuds, xpnouds, and permuta- tions of -ua and -uwos, such as Siwyya, d- wy0s|, so that the phrase may be consid- ered closely allied to Gpmrayua jyctosau (Heliod. Avth. vir. 20) and the similar expressions dpm. moretodat, Euseb. Const. I. 31, Gora Séodai, Euseb. fist. virt. 12; compare apradéa BSdars, Pind. Pyth. Vill. 65, and sce especially Donalds. in loc. The meaning then will be (b) He did not deem the being on an equality with God a thing to be seized on, a state to be exclusively (so to speak) clutched at, and retained as a prize; the expression ovx apm. iy. being perhaps studiedly used rather than ovx jjprace, 7Eth., ‘ ut sententiam etiam graviorem redderet, et Christum de illo ne cogitasse quidem sig- nificaret,’ Rabiger, in Thomas. Christ. Pers. Vol. 11. p. 139: so in effect Theod- oret (ov pwéya TotTo bméAaBe), and, with some variations in detail, Van Heng., De W., Wiesing., and the majority of modern commentators, except Meyer and Alford), who adopt a quasi-active meaning (‘cin Verhaltniss des Beutema- chens,’ ‘ self-enrichment’) but somewhat confuse the exegesis. The fuller justifi- cation of (U) will appear in the following note.

7. GAAG Eautdy éxéyv.| ‘but emp- tied Himself ;’ ‘He retained not his equal- ity with God, but on the contrary emp- tied Himself, — Himself, with slight em- phasis, divine as He was in nature and .prerogatives.’ The real difficulties of this passage are brought into clear prom- inence by this adversative clause We have here two lines of interpretation, perfectly and plainly distinct. (1) If, on the one hand, we adopt (a), the first in- terpre(ation mentioned ver, 6, then dmdp- xy will be causal, obx apm. Fy. will re- fer to the preceding account of Christ’s greatness (Waterland, /. ¢., p. 110), and

apm. will more nearly preserve its appar: ent lexical meaning, but adda will have to be regarded as equivalent to GAA’ duws (Waterl., p. 108), and the antithesis as one between whole members, not, as the context seems imperatively to demand, between conterminous clauses; ‘ Le thought the being equal to God no usurpa tion; yet He emptied Himself ;’ so ex- pressly Waterland, and, as far as we can infer from renderings almost perplex- ingly literal, Auth., and the principal ancient Vv., except Ath. (2) If, on the other hand, we adopt ()) as above, then — brapx. will be concessive, ovx apm. jy. will refer to the consequent ac- count of Christ’s humiliation, preserving an exact parallelism to uw} Ta éavTay okor., apm. will recede further from its lexical meaning, but &AAa@ will retain its usual, proper, and logical force after the negative clause (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 2), and the sentence will be even, con- tinuous, and in fullest contextual har- mony: ‘ He did not deem His equality to God a prize to be seized, but, etc.;’ in other words,—‘ He did not insist on His own eternal prerogatives, but, on the contrary, humbled Himself to the condi- tion and sufferings of mortal man.’ Of these two interpretations while (1) pre- serves more nearly the primary lexical meaning of apmayuds, it so unduly ex- pands that of @AAd, and so completely mars the regular antithesis (od« — adda), that we scem bound to adopt confidently and unhesitatingly the latter interpreta- tion: see especially Waterland (/.¢., p. 110), who while adopting (1) shows clearly that (2) is a sound and catholic interpretation : compare Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 370, Browne, Articles, 1. 2, p. 41, neither of whom, however, seems to have felt sufficiently the lexical difficulty con- nected with aprayuds. All

Cuap. IT. 8.

PHILIPPIANS. 57

Vv

° ‘ 4 e ‘ e ” , , ' e ‘ , Kab TXNHAaATL eupeyels @S av pw7ros ETATELYUMOEV EAUTOV, "YEVOLLEVOS

arrempts to preserve both the exact mean- mg of apr. and the regular grammatical quence (Meyer, and apparently Alf.), in fact to combine (1) and (2), seem hopeless: the two translations are fun- damentally distinct, and most of the con- fused interpretations of this passage are owing to this distinction and this incom- patibility not having been seen and rec- ognized. It is fair to add that of these attempts, the most plausible is the as- sumed coherence of the negative with aprayudv (=*non-rapinam ’), but to this the form and balance of the sentence, — the appearance .of of with an aorist in the first member, followed by aAada& with a responsive aor. in the second member, —seems, as before, to present a gram- matical objection that remains in all its fullest validity. Lastly, it is not -orrect to say (De Wette) that rd elvas ¢.7.A. must refer to something Christ did not possess : surely it is logically ac- curate to say, that Christ did not seize for Himself, and covet to retain a state that was then his own. Even though such phrases as toy Sdvatoy &prayua Je- pevor (Euseb, Hist. vu. 12) may be found, would it be necessarily incorrect to say of a patriot, obx pr. (or apr.), hynoaro tov Blov GA’ ciAeTO Thy Sdva- tov? éauToy éxévwoer] ‘emptied Himself,’ not metaphorically, ‘humiliavit,’ 22th., but according to the simple and lexical meaning of the word (compare Xenoph. Q2con. vit. 7, al.),

“exinanivit,’ Vulg., Claroman. ; Fa) wd

[inane reddidit] Syriac, ‘ effluere fecit,’ Copt. ; compare ‘ us-lausida,’ Goth. Of what did He empty Himself? Not ex- actly of the uopp} Ocod (Mey., Alf.) un- Jess understood in a sense different to that which it inferentially has in the pre- ceding clause, for, as Waterl. truly says, “He had the same essential glory, the 8

_by taking, the form of a servant ;

same real dignity He ever had’ (uévey 6 qv, FAaBey 6 odx Fw (Chrys.), but, as the following clause more expressly shows, of that which he had én that form (comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 158), that Godlike majesty and visible glories (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 34) which He had from all eternity: thy affay xa- Taxpivas thy &kpay tarewoppooivny ef- Aero, Theodoret. ‘The military meta- phor which Krebs (Obs. p. 329) finds in kevouy and even in apx. i7yie., seems doubtful in the highest deeree.

hoponv SovAov AaBeéy| ‘taking, or ” the ac- tion of the aor. part. being synchronous with that of the finite verb (see Bernhard., Synt. x. 9, p- 383, notes on Eph. i. 9), and serving more fully to explain it: ‘si queris quomodo Christus scipsum exi- nanivit? Respondet apostolus, servi_for- mam accipiens,’ Bull, Prim. Trad. vt. 20. The choice of the term SovAou, as the same great writer ably observes, has no reference to any servi/is conditio (* mi- seram sortem,’ Heinr.), but is suggested only by the preceding antithesis poppy @eov, and marks the relation which our Lord assumed towards Gol; ‘ad Deum autem comparata creatura omnis servi formam habet, Deique ad obedientiam obstricta tenetur,’ 7b. § 20.

évy duotdpartet x. 7.A.] ‘being made in the likeness of men ;’ modal clause su!

“ordinated to the preceding:—‘if any

man doubt how Christ emptied Himself, the text will satisfy him, by taking the

Jorm of a servant ; if any still question

how he took the form of a servant, he hath the apostle’s resolution by being made in the likeness of men,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 157 (ed. Burton). The expression éy duoidu. is very noticeable ; Christ though perfect man was still not a mere man, a WAds &eSpwros, but was 5 Adyos capt yevduevos; compare The

58 PHILIPPIANS.

Cuap. II. 8, 9.

U7m1)KO0S expt YavdTov, Savatov dé ctavpod. ° 610 Kai 6 Oeos adtov

ophylact in loc., and Fritz. Rom. viii. 3, Vol. 11. p.97. Lastly, yiveoSa: does not here imply merely ‘to be born,’ but, as the context requires, with a greater lati- tude of meaning, ‘apparere,’ ‘in con- spectum venire,’ Kiihner on Xenophon Mem. 111. 3. 6 (Meyer), while év is used with a quasi-local force to mark the en- velope or environment; see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 7, p 209.

8. kal oxhwate K.T.A.] ‘and be- ing found in fashion as a man, ete.; da- tive of reference, Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, and notes on Gal. i. 22; ob TovTo Aéywv, St 7 Mvots weTEemETEY OVdE GUYXU- cis Tis eyeveTo, GAAG oxhmaTe eyeveTo, Chrys. This clause is connected by De Wette, Meyer, Zisch. (ed. 2, 7), and others closely with what precedes, a stop being placed after aSpwros, and éramei- vecev being left, without any connecting particle, to commence the next clause: so also Copt., and probably Syr. and /Eth. To such a punctuation there are two grave objections. Ontheone hand, such an abrupt separation in a group of clauses which have a close logical and historical coherence is improbable, and apparently unprecedented (the examples cited by De Wette, Gal. iii. 13, v. 25, 2 Cor. v. 21, are not in point): on the other, as was hinted above on ver. 6, the slight break, combined with the some- what peculiar efpedels harmonize admi- rably with the change of subject, and indi- cate the transition from the pre-incarnate glory to the incarnate humiliation and post-incarnate exaltation of the Eternal Son : so it would seem, expressly, Chrys. Hom. vit. 4, init. EipeSels is thus not for év, but, as always, implies that He was found, manifested, acknowledged, to be; see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and Winer, Gram. § 64.8, p. 542 sq. On oxijua, which, as its derivation [@xw] clearly hints, is not = duofwua, Heinr., but de-

notes the habitus, ‘outward guise, de- meanor, and manner of life’ (oixérov oXipa mepednke, Lucian, Necyom. § 16, oXijpa ppuyaviotipos AaBasy, VPolyen. Strategem. 1. p. 37 |Wetst.]), and its dis- tinction from the more ‘intrinsic’ and ‘essential poppy,’ see Journ. Class. Phil. No. vit. p. 115 sq.; compare notes on 2 Tim. iii. 5. @s &vSpwros] ‘asa man ;’ though a perfect man, yet not a mere man; jets yap Wuxh Kab oaua’ éketvos Ocds, kal ux, Kal capa, Chrys., who, however, would have ex- pressed himself with more psychological exactness if, in both clauses for Yuxf, he had written mvetua Kat yux7; comp. Luke xxiii. 26. and Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy- chol. v.1, p. 283 sq.

érameivwaoev| ‘humbled Himself:’ not éavtby éram., the emphasis resting rather on the act, than, as before (éaur. exév.) on the subject. “Erazeiv. is clearly not synonymous with éxev. (Rheinw.), but refers to the acts of condescension and humiliation in that human nature which He emptied Himself to assume: ‘non solum, cum Deus esset, naturam assumpsit humanam, verum in ea se ve- hementer humiliavit et dejecit,’ Bull, Prim. Trad. yt. 21. On the meaning of tamewds [allied with tdrns, and not im probably derived from a root STAII— ‘press,’ ‘tread,’ compare Benfey, Wur zeller. Vol. 1. p. 656] in Christian writers in contradistinction to heathen (by whom it is commonly used in a bad sense, e, g. Tameww) Kal avedcvsepos, Plato, Legg. 1v. p- 774 c.), see Trench, Synon. § 42. yevomevos k.T.A.] ‘by becoming obedi ent even to death;’ modal clause ap pended to and explaining érameivwoer , the supplementary words péxp: kK. 7. A. not belonging to the finite verb (Beng., Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 80), but, as the explanatory nature of the parti- cipial clause and the even flow of the

—s -—~

“ae

Cuap. II, 9.

PHILIPPIANS. 59

e 4 \ > Ul > a“ bd \ id ‘ - wv UTepuywoev Kal E€xapicaTo avuT@ ovoa TO UTEp TaY OvopLa,

sentence clearly require, —to -yevduevos trix. The iraxo) here mentioned was not that shown to His earthly parents (Zanch.), or to Jews and Romans (Gro- tins), but, as the following verse seems distinctly to indicate, to God; compare Matth. xxvi. 39, Rom. v. 19, Heb. v. 8. The meaning of the term cannot fairly be pressed, ¢. y. dxfxovcer &s vids, obx Gs do0A0s, Theod., for see Rom. vi. 16, Col. iii. 22. As the derivation suggests, trfxoos and draxovew involve the idea of ‘dicto obtemperare ;’ weiSeaSac is rather ‘ monitasequi,’ recdapxety ‘coactus obse- qui;’ see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 193, and notes on Tit. iii. 1. On the apparent futility of distinctions between péxpt (here not of time but degree) and apr, see on 2 Tim. ii. 9.

Savdrov 3é ao.] ‘yea deuth on the cross ;’ not only death, but a death of suffering, sRameful and accursed : oLros yap [4 Sdvaros| mdvtwv emoverdiotixdre- pos elvat eSdxet, otros 6 aicxivns yéuwr, obros 6 éwdparos, Chrys. On the use of dé in repetition, in which however the original oppositive force may just faintly be traced (‘similis notio quodam modo opponitur’), sce Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 361, Hartung, Partik. 3€, 2. 7, Vol. 1. p- 168; and on the genitive (of ‘ more remote relation’), see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 168.

9. 54d Kal] * On which account also ;’ ‘in consequence of this condescension and humiliation on the part of Christ God also, ete. ;’ the xa) not being merely consecutive (De W., Mey.), but stand-

‘ing in connection with dwepty., and serv-

ing to place in gentle contrast the conse- quent exaltation with the previous ramel- vwois; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, and notes on ch. iv. 12. The meaning of 3:6. ‘quo facto’ (comp. Wolf, al.), adopted only, it is to be feared, from dogmatical reasons, is distinctly untena-

ble in grammar, and by no means neves- sary in point of theology ; ‘God,’ as Bp. Andrewes says, ‘not only raised Him, but, propter hoc, even “ for that cause”’ exalted Him also to live with Him in glory for ever, Serm. 1. Vol. u. p. 197, ib., p. 325: bray vis capxds emtAdBnras 6 paxdpios TlatAos mdyta Aoiwby Ta Ta- mwewae weTa Gdelas PIéyyerat, Clirvsost. in loc. On the humitiation of the Eternal Son see especia'ly Jackson, Creed, v111. 1. 2, and on the nature and degree of His exaltation, Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. 1. p 322 sq. (A.-C. Libr ).

avrdy dbweptvacer| ‘highly exalted

= Tim ;? mi} ol, [multum exaltavit cum] Syr.; compare Psalm xevi. 9, opd3pa brepupdans imtp wdyras tos Qeovs, Dan. iv. 24. The dwrép is not here temporal, nor even local, though the reference is obviously to the Ascension (Eph. iv. 10) and elevation at the right hand of God, but ethical, —‘ dignitate atque imperio supra omnes,’ Zanch., ‘insigniter extulit,’ Just. : so /Ethiopic, Copt. On St. Paul’s favorite use of érép and its compounds, see notes on Eph. iii. 20. The exact nature of this exaltation is well discussed in Waterl. Serm. 11. Vol. 1. p. 112; it is to be doubted, however, whether, as Waterl. maintains, the reference is specially to Christ as Son of God, and to ‘ an exalta- tion relutive to us, by a new aud real title, viz., that of redemption and salvation ;’ so also Jackson, Creed, x1. 3. 4, Bull, Primit. Tradit. v1. 23. The accordant opinion of these great writers claims our most serious consideration ; still as the aor. seems to point to a definite histori- cal fact, —as in ver. 8 there is appy. al- most a marked transition from the pre- incarnate to the incarnate Son, —as in ver. 10 this allusion seems still contin- ued in the name “Ingod,—so here the

60 PHILIPPIANS.

CHaz If 10

le %, 5) Agia. i7 mf a a r , 2 ' \ wa Ev To OVOLaTL GOV TAY YOVU Kapalrn ETTOUPAVLM@V Kak

reference is the same ; drepuotada Aé- yeTat, Kal &s ovK Exwy, Sia TO avdpwmvey povovovxt, Ilippolyt. Fragm. Vol. 11. p. 29 (ed. Fabr.). The exaltation is thus not merely relative but proper ; an inves- titure as the Son of Man, with all that full power, glory, and dominion, which as God He never wanted; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 190 (ed. Burt.). So, distinctly, Chrysost., Theodoret, Cvyr.- Alex., some of the ante-Nicene and ap- ’ parently the bulk of the post-Nicene writers. For the psychological consid- erations dependent on this exaltation of the God-man, see Delitzsch. Bibl. Psych. Vous 286 exaploaro] ‘freely gave ;’ chap. i. 29. There is no reason whatever to depart from the sim- ple and proper lexical meaning of the word ; ei 5 Aéyeta ey tater xaplouaros 7 bmep may bvoua Séxecat, eis exeivo Sy- AoveTt weTa oapkds emavdryeTal, cis Omep jv Kat dixa oapkds, Cyr.-Alex. Thesaur. p- 130. dvoywa k.T.A.| “a name the which is above every name ;’ a name, which, as the.context shows, is not to be understood generically (comp. Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4), as Kipios (Mich.), or vids @cod, but specifically and ex- pressly as "Ingots, the name of His hu- miliation, and henceforth that of His ex- altation and glory; a name with which now every highest attribute, grace, power, dominion, and kupidtys (ver. 11) is eternally conjoined. There is thus no yeason whatever for modifying the sim- ple meaning of dvoua: both here and elsewhere (Mark vi. 14, John xii. 28, Acts iii. 16, Rom. i. 5, al.) the idea of ‘dignity’ (Bloomf., Heinr.), is derived solely from the context ; see Van Heng. in loc. The reading is somewhat doubt- ful. ZLachm. and Mey. read 7d évoua 7d k. 7. A., with ABC; 17; Copt. [a lan- guage which has a definite and indefi- nite article], Dionisius-Alex., Euseb.,

Cyr. (2), al.; but, as the insertion can more plausibly be referred to grammati- cal correction than the omission to erro- neous transcription, —scil. the prece- dence of 7é, we retain with DEFGKL: nearly all mss.; Orig., Ath., Chrys., al., the reading of Tischendorf On the use of the article with the defining clause to characterize more expressly the preced- ing anarthrous noun, see Winer, § 21. 4, p- 126, who, however, appears to lean to the other reading.

10. fva x. 7. A.] ‘that in the name of Jesus ;? purpose and intent of the exal- tation. “Ev 7 éydu. is not equivalent to eis 7) Gvoua (Heinr.) as directly specify- ing that to which (2th.) the adoration is to be paid, nor yet, ‘ad nomen,’ Beza (compare Auth.), ‘ nuncupato nomine,’ Grot., —a meaning of év éyéu. wholly without example in the N. T., but, with the full force of the prep.,“denotes the spiritual sphere, the holy element as it were, in which every prayer is to be of- fered and every knee to bow; see Eph. y. 20, and Harless zn doc., who well re- marks that 7d dvoua x. 7. A. does not imply simply and per se the personality (‘pro person’ positum,’ Ust.), but that personality as revealed to and acknowl- edged by man: compare also Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. k.7.A.] ‘every knee should bow;’ eis mposxuvynow Syrovdtt, Cacumen. ; genu- flection being the external representation of worship and adoration ; see Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11, Eph. iii. 14 and notes 7n loc., Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. p. 777. The subject to whom the adoration is di- rected, can only be, as Meyer rightly ob- serves, the principal subject of the con- text, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. Such an adoration is not, however, as Meyer goes on to say, merely relative (comp. ver. 11, eis 5dgav Oeod), but, as the whole aspects of the passage, its

Tav yovu

.

‘the

Caap. II. 11.

PHILIPPIANS. 61

émruyeiwy Kal Kataxoviwv, | Kai waca yAdooa eLopodoyjceras dt Kipwos “Inaods Xproros eis dofav Ocod ratpos.

clear contrasts, and its concluding theme, —the exaltation of the Son, —scem all plainly to indicate, positive and absolute, By no one has the distinction between the relstive and absolute worship of the Son been more clearly enunciated than by Bishop Bull; ‘si absolute ut Deus spectatur.......idem plane divinus cultus quem Patri exhibemus omnino debetar. Sin Filiam intuearur relate qua Filius est, et ex Deo Patre trahit originem ; tum rursus certum est cultum et yenera- tionem omnem quem ipsi deferimus, ad Patrem redundare,’ /id. Nic. 1x. 15, — a section that for soundness of divinity and clearness of detinition deserves atten- tive perusal; see also Waterl. Def. of Quer. xvu. xviul. Vol. 11. p. 421 sq.

émovpaviwy «.7.A.] ‘of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things un- der the earth ;’ ‘qui in ceelis, et in terra, et in abyssis,’ Eth. (Platt) ; comp. Rev. y. 13, and for examples of a similar sep- aration of the nom, from its dependent genitives, Winer, Gram. § 30. 2, p. 172. The three classes here mentioned are to be understood not with any ethical refer- ence (al of Bixacor [not nal of (avres, as cited by Mey. and Alf.] «al of auaprwaol, Chrys. 2), but simply and plainly, angels and archangels in heaven (comp. Eph. i, 20, Heb. i. 4, 6), men upon earth (com- pare Plato, Republ. vii1. p. 548 a, [ib.) Axioch 3688), and the departed under the earth ; ewoupavious Kade? Tas dopdrous duvduers, emvyelous 5t rods Eri Cavras dy-

| Bparrovs Kal KaraxSovious Tods TeIvewTas ;

¢ mpare Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. vt. 3, p. 354. The