NOTES ON THE GREEK TEAT. —
CHAPTER 1.
Ver. 1. The designation δοῦλοι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is, in itself, general—applicable to all Christians: compare Rev. ii. 20, vii. 3. Official position in the church is suggested by the connection merely. This expression has no altogether adequate representative in our language. As distinguished from ὑπηρέτης and διάκονος, it implies absoluteness and permanence of subjection. ‘Bondsman,’ ‘bond-servant,’ and the like, express these ideas ; but bring in also the degrading associations of slavery.
The omission of the article before ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις accords with a frequent usage in cases where two or more nouns, obviously definite, are joined by conjunctions. This usage is sufficiently accounted for by ‘the tendency of colloquial language to unburden itself of particles which may, without serious ambiguity, be dispensed with’ (Green’s Grammar of the New Testament, p. 46); and the naturalness of the omission of the article in this particular class of cases is illustrated by the fact that our English idiom also, under the same circumstances, often allows the omission. Compare, for example, Matt. x. 28, καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι, ‘to destroy both soul and body;’ Matt. x. 37, 6 φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα, ‘he that loveth father or mother ;’ also with plurals (as in the place before us) ; Acts xxi. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 22.
3. The presence of the article in πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν makes
it necessary to translate, not, as in our version, ‘every remembrance of you,’ but ‘all my remembrance of you.’ ‘Emi, in the connection, means, therefore, not ‘on the occasion of,’ but ‘on the ground of.’
4. We may construe ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν either with the preceding or the following words,—thus, either ‘always, in every prayer of mine for you all, presenting the prayer with joy,’ according to the connection adopted by our translators ; or ‘always, in every prayer of mine, presenting the prayer for you all with joy.’ The former seems to me preferable. The article with δέησιν might, no doubt, mean ‘the prayer which you know well I do offer for you all ;’ but appears to refer more naturally to the previous δεήσει, as already limited by ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν. Again, the course of thought requires us, apparently, to give μετὰ χαρᾶς considerable emphasis,—and this, according to the construction followed in our version, these words have, standing at the beginning of the second half οἵ. the clause; while the other connection gives them a position altogether unemphatic.
5. Ἐπὶ here may be taken as parallel to ἐπὶ of the 3rd verse, introducing a statement of the subject of the μνεία there mentioned. ‘This connection, however, is too remote and artificial for the style of Paul. The view, obviously entertained — by our translators, that this verse is in immediate dependence on μετὰ χαρᾶς of the 4th,—with, of course, a dependence also, but more remote, on εὐχαριστῶ of the 3rd,—is more natural and satisfactory.
Kowwvia εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον means ‘ fellowship unto—towards — —for the furtherance of—the gospel.’ The expression is, in itself, quite general; and there is nothing in the context to suggest a limited reference,—rather the contrary, particularly — in the 7th verse, which seems to be in a measure parallel to this. Paul’s thought, therefore, as it appears to me, when fully exhibited, is this,—‘ your fellowship of feeling and effort with each other, with me, with all believers, for the advancement of
the Saviour’s cause,—all springing from fellowship with Him.’ Sometimes in the New Testament, as, for example, in Rom. xv. 26, and Heb. xiii. 16, κοινωνία denotes specifically one very beautiful form in which the spirit of Christian fellowship may display itself, namely almsgiving, ‘communicating’ with the need of poor brethren. Considering that the apostle had recently received from the Philippians a pecuniary contribution, and, as his warm acknowledgments in the last chapter show, had been much gratified by their thoughtful kindness, it is natural to think that this use of the word was in his mind when he wrote it here. But the whole context appears to show that, if intended at all, this reference lies in the background only.
The non-repetition of the article τῇ before εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is to be explained by the writer’s having before his mind κοινωνίᾳ εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον as one thought, so that the one article covers the whole, like the co-efficient of bracketed quantities in algebra: Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, 6. Then the specification of time, ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, is attached to κοινωνίᾳ εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον without an article, because the mind very naturally construes such a noun as κοινωνία in the same way as the verb κοινωνεῖν, to which the adverbial expression joins itself on directly. As Ellicott observes, too, ‘the insertion of the article would give the duration of the κοινωνία a far greater prominence than the apostle seems to have intended.’ The omission of the article before πρώτης is in accordance with a pretty frequent usage in the case of ordinal numerals, in which obviously, as a rule, no ambiguity is caused by its absence: Winer, ὃ 19. 2, ὁ.
3-5. Dr. Lightfoot takes a peculiar view of the construction of this passage. Regarding pera χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος as a parenthesis, he connects the rest of the 4th verse, and the whole of the 5th, immediately with etxapicré,—translating thus, ‘I thank my God for you all at all times, as I think of you, whensoever I pray for you (and these prayers I
offer with joy), for that you have co-operated with me,’ etc. His reasons are, that ‘ the structure of the passage is dislocated, and its force weakened, by disconnecting clauses pointed out so obviously as correlative by the repetition of the same word, πάσῃ, πάντοτε, πάσῃ, πάντων ;’ and that there is ‘great awkwardness’ in having ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει and τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος in one clause. The question seems, therefore, to be almost wholly one of the balance and force of the sentence, read according to the one or the other construction ; and I cannot persuade myself that Dr. Lightfoot’s is in any way preferable to that followed in our version. The ordinary construction seems to me very much the more simple and natural, and to give more elegance and lightness of movement to the sentence, with quite as much force.
6. Αὐτὸ τοῦτο is an accusative of reference, — ‘with regard to this very thing.’ Often in the New Testament, in the writings of Paul and John particularly, we find a demonstrative pronoun placed, as here, before a clause with ὅτι, iva, or the like, to give it special prominence: Winer, § 23. 5. The αὐτὸ added to τοῦτο suggests a reference to something expressed or implied in what has preceded ; compare Col. iv. 8; Gal. ii. 10; 2 Pet. i. 5. Here, I apprehend, the reference is to the subject of the prayer spoken of in the 4th verse. The apostle is continuing his statement of the ground of his ‘ joy’ in praying for them, and of his gratitude to God for them ; and the course of © thought is this,—‘ With joy, I say, I present my prayer for you, being confident with regard to this very thing for which chiefly, as you well know, I ask God on your behalf, namely that,’ etc.
In ἔργον ἀγαθὸν there is obviously a reference to ‘ the fellowship for the furtherance of the gospel,’ spoken of in the 5th verse. The omission of the article shows distinctly enough, however, as it appears to me, that the reference is not meant — to be definite and exclusive. Rather, by the general expression, ‘a good work,’ the apostle designates that of which the ‘fellowship’ is one very beautiful fruit,—vital godliness. 4 (
7. The subject of ἔχειν may be either pe or ὑμᾶς. The latter view is supported by Rosenmiiller, Storr, Conybeare, Alford, in one of his books,! and others; and is certainly tenable, in so far as the language merely is concerned. But the former construction is the more natural according to the arrangement of the words, and seems to accord better with the line of thought,—as to which, see the lecture on the passage.
The words from ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς to εὐαγγελίου may be joined with ἔχειν pe or with ὑμᾶς ὄντας. Chrysostom, Neander, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, and others, approve of the former connection, regarding the words as intended to bring out still more clearly the depth of Paul’s affection for the Philippians, seeing that even ‘this condition of suffering, and the great duty which he had to discharge in it, could not dislodge them from his heart’ (Meyer). But the clause seems to have more relevancy and force, when connected, as in our version, with ὑμᾶς ὄντας We may regard the pov between συγκοινωνοὺς and τῆς χάριτος as governed by χάριτος, or take συγκοινωνοὺς Ἃ5 governing both genitives,—the one of the person, the other of the thing. This latter construction is perhaps slightly preferable. The meaning then is, ‘ partakers with me of the grace’ which God gives me for suffering, and for the defence and confirmation of the gospel.
8. ‘The σπλάγχνα are properly the nobler viscera, the heart, lungs, liver, etc., as distinguished from the ἔντερα, the lower viscera, the intestines’ (Lightfoot). As here employed, the expression ἐν σπλάγχνοις is equivalent to ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ of the preceding verse,—only that, according to New Testament use, 1
In his Commentary, Alford says that ‘the context clearly shows’ Rosenmiiller’s construction to be wrong. But in his Authorized Version Revised (published in 1870), he renders the clause, ‘because you have me in your heart.’ This may be supposed to exhibit his final judgment on the question.
the idea of tenderness is in this even more prominent than in the other.
9. The clause with ἵνα obviously explains the τοῦτο, stating the substance of the apostle’s prayer. It gives us the purpose and the purport of the prayer conjoined. There is thus a manifest, but a most natural, departure from the pure telic force of ἵνα ; and there are numerous cases in the New Testament in which the divergence from this original use is much greater. See, for example, John xv. 8; Gal. v. 17. Meyer, Alford, and others, who maintain the telic force of the particle everywhere, are driven often to most artificial explanations. Thus on the present passage Alford observes: ‘ There is an ellipsis in the sense between τοῦτο and iva,—rodro introducing the substance of the prayer, ἵνα its aim.’ This appears to me wholly unnatural. Beyond doubt aim is set forth, but involved inseparably with substance. See Winer, § 44. 8; Green, p. 170, foll.
Examining the sentence contained in vers. 9-11, we find that it exhibits a series of aims, each beyond the preceding, and well marked off, through their being introduced alternately by ἵνα and εἰς. The apostle’s prayer is, in purpose and purport, iva ἣ ἀγάπη περισσεύῃ, κιτιλ. The end he has in view, in asking this, is εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς, x.7.A. Of τὸ δοκιμάζειν the intent is ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς, x.7.4. And the grand ultimate aim is εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον Θεοῦ.
In the connection in which ἡ ἀγάπη occurs here, it is naturally taken in the widest sense,—as love to God, to each other, to the apostle, to fellow-Christians generally, to the world, The apostle’s prayer is, that in his dear Philippians this beautiful grace ‘may abound in’—possess abundantly— knowledge ) and all judgment,’ as her handmaids, helpers, instruments. © “Exiyvwors is ‘full knowledge.’ Lightfoot well illustrates its force by a reference to 1 Cor. xiii. 12,—‘ Now I know (γινώσκω), in part, but then shall I know (ἐπιγνώσομαι) even as also am known (ἐπεγνώσθην) ;’ and says, ‘The intensive pre
tion before γνώσει answers to the adjective before αἰσθήσει.᾽ Αἴσθησις is ‘discernment’ or ‘perception’ as to the practical application of the principles with which ἐπίγνωσις deals, De Wette excellently calls it ‘moral tact.’ dey, pointing to the innumerable occasions in life for the exercise of such a faculty, describes a delicacy of spiritual judgment ready to meet them all, το
. According to New Testament usage, δοκιμάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα may mean either ‘to try the things which differ,’ or ‘to approve the things which are excellent.’ Practically, in the connection in which the words occur here, the force is the same, the one being simply a stage leading to the other. The former rendering, in which we have the primitive, or at least an earlier, meaning of both words, is perhaps the more natural and forcible. ᾿Απρόσκοπος
occurs in the New Testament in only two places besides the present,—in Acts xxiv. 16, with the sense of ‘ without stumbling’ (equivalent to ἄπταιστος, ‘ free from falling,’ in Jude 24), and in 1 Cor. x. 32, where it means ‘not causing stumbling’ to others. In the present passage the former sense is more accordant with the context than the latter,—influence on others not being spoken of.
Eis ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ does not seem to mean ‘ #i// the day of Christ,’ but ‘against,’ ‘ with a view to,’ ‘looking towards’ it,— that is to say, practically, as Chrysostom puts it, ‘ that ye may be found faultless in that day.’ This force of eis—which is obviously closely connected with the frequent use of the preposition to express purpose, or is indeed but a case of that use—is very common in the New Testament ; whilst a careful examination will show that its use in the sense of ‘till’ simply, as in John xiii. 1, is rare.
11. Kapwov — which is unquestionably the true reading, καρπῶν, of the Received Text, having no uncial authority— is an accusative of reference,—the exact meaning, therefore, being, ‘filled, or ‘fully stored,’ ‘as to fruit of righteousness.’ Col. i. 9 contains a similar construction.
may be taken as a genitive either of apposition or of origin. The former is, perhaps, the more natural ; but the sense is substantially the same either way,—the image, however, being differently conceived. See the lecture on the passage.
When, as here, δόξα and ἔπαινος are distinguished, the former must be regarded as designating ‘the manifestation of the divine majesty and excellence,’ the latter ‘its recognition and acknowledgment’ by God’s moral creatures.
13. It seems to me that ὥστε here shows us, incidentally, the pure spiritual atmosphere by which all the apostle’s thinking was surrounded. Looking merely to the form of what he has said in the 12th verse, the 13th and 14th rather contain an explanation than exhibit a result. But really uppermost in Paul’s mind, I apprehend, was the thought,—‘ Through what seemed likely to obstruct the progress of the gospel in Rome God has graciously wrought for its furtherance, so that,’ etc.
| The position of φανεροὺς shows clearly that ἐν Χριστῷ is to be joined with z4,—not with δεσμοὺς, as has been done by our translators and others ; the meaning being ‘ manifest as— or, to be—in Christ,’ that is, ‘as borne in fellowship with Him.’ To all who knew of the apostle’s imprisonment, it was clear that he was in bonds, not for crime in any ordinary sense, but simply for his love to Christ and devotion to His service. By many, doubtless, this was apprehended only in a very vague way ; but the apostle expresses the idea in the formula, dear and familiar to him, which states the case as it really stood, and this with the utmost intensity and sublimity. |
The precise meaning of πραιτώριον here is uncertain. Originally ‘the tent of a general,’ Areforium came naturally enough to be applied to the official residence of a provincial governor, or the palace of a king. These secondary applications are found in the New Testament; see, for example John xviii. 28; Acts xxiii. 35. Our translators, with others, have supposed the reference in the passage before us
be to the palace of Nero. We know from the 22nd verse of the last chapter, that some of ‘ Cæsar’s household’ knew Paul ; and it is reasonable to suppose, considering the apostle’s position as a prisoner who had ‘appealed unto Cæsar,’ that, in whatever part of Rome he lived, the servants of the palace had specially free intercourse with him. But no certain instance has been adduced from any writer, of the application of the name prætorium to the emperor’s palace at Rome ; which, considering how frequent are the occasions of reference to it, seems to make it probable that that particular palace never was so called. Most modern commentators have been of opinion that the reference here is to the camp of the Prætorian Cohorts, —a camp constructed for them in the immediate neighbourhood of the city by Tiberius. But a similar objection lies against this view ; for there is no evidence that the camp was ever known as the prætorium. But the brigade of guards itself was unquestionably called by this name, being spoken of as freely under the appellation of the sretorium as under that of pretoriani. It seems to me therefore, on the whole, that the word has a personal rather than a local meaning here,—‘ in the Prætorian guard, or brigade.’ To this view, which is Dr. Lightfoot’s, Hackett objects that, in this case, we might have expected the dative without ἐν, as in the other clause. But a literal English translation affords an exact analogy,—‘ my bonds have become manifest (or well known) as in Christ, —in all the regiment, and to all the rest.’ The variation of expression, with ‘in’ and ‘to,’ is perfectly natural in our language. Equally natural is the variation in the apostle’s mode of expression, because mé/itare (or merere) in pretorio was the phrase he heard around him every day, for ‘to serve in the guard.’ Lightfoot’s admirable detached note exhausts the subject. In a case like this, of some uncertainty as to the exact meaning, it seems best in translation to retain the original word ‘ prætorium.’
Our translators have regarded rots λοιποῖς πᾶσιν as governed
by ἐν. This is possible, but hardly natural. It is rather, as they have taken it in their margin, to be put in direct connection with φανεροὺς, — to all the rest ;’ compare 2 Cor. xiii. 2.
— ‘To all the rest’? in Rome who knew of Paul’s imprisonment,
‘his bonds were manifest to be in Christ.’ Bengel—referring to 1 Thess. iv. 13, to which Van Hengel, who adopts his view, adds Eph. 11. 3—explains rots λοιποῖς as indicating unbelievers. But this in the connection appears very far from natural.
| 14. Ἔν Κυρίῳ may be joined either with τῶν ἀδελφῶν or with πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς pov. To the former construction the non-repetition of τῶν constitutes no objection ; see note on κοινωνίᾳ εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ver. 5. But this combination does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament; whilst ἐν Κυρίῳ is several times found with forms of πέποιθα ; see, for example, chap. ii. 24. Then the paradox πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς calls for explanation, which is fully given by ἐν Κυρίῳ, —naturally placed, therefore, in the position of emphasis, at the head of the combination. As usual, ‘in the Lord’ exhibits the sphere or element. It was ‘in Him,’ ‘in union with Him,’ that ‘confidence in Paul’s bonds’ was felt. ‘ Bonds’ here is, obviously enough, a terse and pointed expression for all the apostle’s experience in connection with his imprisonment. The brethren had confidence grounded on the sustaining grace which had been granted to him abundantly in his affliction. Πέποιθα with a simple dative, instead of ἐπὶ or ἐν, is found also in Philemon 21, and (of the person) in 2 Cor. x. 7. |
15. Meyer takes καὶ in both clauses to mean ‘also; but it appears more natural to regard it in the first as meaning ‘ even,’—that is, ‘ strange as it may seem.’
16,17. According to the authority of mss., the order in which these verses stand in the Received Text must be reversed. Transposition by copyists was most natural here, to suit the order in which the two classes of preachers are mentioned in verse 15.
We may construe ἐξ ἀγάπης immediately with οἱ μὲν, and ἐξ ἐριθείας immediately with οἱ δὲ, with the sense of ‘ they that
are of love,’ and ‘they that are of factiousness,’—that is, practically, ‘the loving,’ ‘ the factious ; compare Rom. ii. 8; Gal. iii. 7 ; John xviii. 37. The exact meaning of such expressions is, ‘they whose starting-point, as regards effort, is love, factiousness,’ or the like. Meyer, De Wette, Ellicott, and others, adopt this construction. That followed by our translators, however, with Lightfoot, Alford, Eadie, and others, seems preferable, because on the former view the arrangement of the words in the second clause is hardly natural, τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν having the place of emphasis. Κεῖμαι
is regarded by Van Hengel and others as here meaning ‘lie in a state of suffering.’ This is a classical use of the verb ; but the sense given by our translators, ‘am set,’ or ‘appointed,’ accords better with New Testament usage and with the context. See Luke ii. 34, 1 Thess. i. 3. In this use “κεῖμαι is equivalent to the perfect passive of τίθημι. Ἐριθεία
is not to be confounded with ἔρις, as has been done by our translators and many other interpreters. The words are expressly distinguished in 2 Cor. xii. 20, Gal. v. 20; and if they are etymologically connected with each other at all, the connection is only remote. Ἐριθεία is from ἔριθος, ‘a hired servant,’ and therefore means originally ‘labouring for wages,’ and hence ‘self-seeking, factiousness, caballing.’ ‘
Tov Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν is not necessary to the construction, seeing that oi μὲν and οἱ δὲ might be in apposition to ‘rwes μὲν and τινὲς δὲ (taken inversely). The apostle, as Dr. ‘Lightfoot acutely suggests, may have repeated the ‘ preach Christ,’ ‘to bring out the contrast between the character of the motives of the second class of preachers and the subject of their preaching, for there is a moral contradiction between ἐἐριθεία and Χριστός. No special significance seems to lie in the substitution of καταγγέλλουσι for the almost exactly synonymous κηρύσσουσιν. ‘
Lightfoot thinks that in θλίψιν ἐγείρειν, standing in connection with δεσμοῖς, we are to recognise an intended reference to
the original meaning of θλίψις, ‘ pressure, galling.’ This seems in every way probable, and adds point to the clause.
19. The reference of τοῦτο has been variously conceived. It does not seem satisfactory to regard it, with Alford and others, as pointing to the preaching of the gospel, thus taking up again the immediately preceding ἐν τούτῳ. The repetition of the demonstrative with the same reference is not altogether natural, and the course of thought somewhat obscure. Neither does the sense go smoothly, if we accept Dr. Eadie’s view that the apostle’s ‘joy in the preaching of Christ, from whatever motive,’ is meant. It seems to me that τοῦτο refers to what is actually the nearest antecedent thought, namely that, unexpressed but obvious and prominent, at the close of the previous verse,—‘ Yea, and will rejoice, though hatred to me is the moving spring with so many. By τοῦτο, I apprehend, is meant the hatred, and—the thought widening out at once before the apostle’s mind—the condition of trouble generally in which he is placed. This, in substance, is the view of Lightfoot, Hackett, and Conybeare.
The words used by the apostle here, τοῦτο—-σωτηρίαν, are the Septuagint rendering of the first clause of Job xiii. 16. The context there makes it not unlikely that Paul had the passage before his mind.
Tov Πνεύματος may be either a subjective or an objective genitive,—the meaning of the whole expression being, in the former case, ‘the supply which the Spirit of Jesus Christ gives ;’ in the latter, ‘the supply which is the Spirit of Jesus Christ.’ The former seems preferable, because, as Ellicott observes, ‘the parallelism, “the prayers you offer—the aid the Spirit supplies,” is thus more exactly retained.’
| The non-repetition of διὰ τῆς before ἐπιχορηγίας shows a close by Alford, that we should translate thus, ‘ through your prayer and your supply’—by that prayer—‘of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,’ | q connection in the apostle’s mind between the gifts of the Spirit — and the prayers of his friends. But the view of Meyer, followed — |
is, as Ellicott clearly shows, though consistent with the construction, not necessarily required by it ; and seems far from natural,
20. With regard to the force of κατὰ, ἀποκαραδοκίαν, ἐλπίδα, and αἰσχυνθήσομαι, see the lecture on the passage.
As ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ μεγαλυνθήσεται Χριστὸς, ‘Christ shall be magnified in’ (that is, practically, ‘through the manifestation of’) ‘all boldness,’—full boldness under all circumstances, —is connected with διὰ θανάτου, as well as with διὰ ζωῆς, it appears that the apostle’s thought, in reference to death, is, primarily, of sustaining grace during his last sufferings. The explanation of this part of the statement, in the next verse, ‘To me to die is gain,’ exhibits the hope, through the influence of which, in the hour of death, as he felt well assured, Christ would magnify Himself in him. In the expression, however, the hope passes out of view, the sublime fact itself standing forth in prominence, ‘To die is gain.” Thus the absolute security of the Christian’s hope is suggested,—and the magnifying of Christ through His gloriously faithful fulfilment of His promise to His people of heavenly blessedness.
21. Schenkel, Vaughan, Lightfoot, and others, observe that by passing from the present, ζῆν, to the aorist, ἀποθανεῖν, the apostle intimates that it is not dying, but the resudt of death, which is ‘gain.’ However true this is in itself, and however certainly it would have been implied in the perfect tense, it may be doubted whether it can be said strictly to be set forth by the use of the aorist. The change of tense corresponds naturally to the difference between the s¢a¢e of living and the act of dying. Compare 2 Cor. vii. 3, εἰς τὸ συναποθανεῖν καὶ συνζῆν. This passage Dr. Lightfoot quotes as favouring his view of the meaning, rendering it by ‘to be with you in death and in life.’ But this ‘to be with you in death’ is ambiguous. Does not the apostle mean simply, ‘to die with you,’ ‘to be with you when dying,’ rather than ‘ to be with you when dad,’ —which latter sense would be required by Dr. Lightfoot’s argument? Compare Mark xiv. 31, and Acts xxv. 11.
22. Various constructions of this verse have been proposed. Of these, two only seem worthy of serious examination. We may regard the protasis as running on to ἔργου, τοῦτο simply summing up what precedes it, and καὶ, with the force of the logical ‘then,’ introducing the apodosis: thus,—‘ But if I live in the flesh, (if) this is fruit of labour to me,—then what I shall choose I wot not.’ This, with some variations of detail, has commended itself to very many commentators. The other construction is that of our translators, and of Bengel, Peirce, Vaughan, and others,—according to which τοῦτο begins the apodosis. To me the latter seems decidedly the preferable. The only difficulty in it lies in our having to supply, in the protasis, some such words as ἐστί μοι, ‘be my lot.’ Now, though this ellipsis would be harsh in ordinary writing, its occurrence in a passage like the present, which is, most obviously, one very much of musing aloud, appears not unnatural. Granting this supplement,—all the rest of the sentence goes smoothly enough. To the other construction the somewhat formal use of τοῦτο which it supposes, presents an objection, as hardly natural in a ‘musing.’ The chief ground of doubt with regard to this construction, however, lies in the sense given to καὶ No example of a precisely similar use of this particle has been adduced from the New Testament; and in classical writers it seems to be poetical. Ty
vwpifew means ‘to discern,—or ‘to make known.’ In classical writers the former sense appears to be the more common ; but in the New Testament, in every place where the word occurs except the present, it has the second meaning. In its connection here, however, it cannot naturally bear any — sense but ‘discern,’ ‘ see clearly.’
23. Ἔκ τῶν δύο means ‘ in consequence of the two.’ Double comparatives, like μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον, occur in Mark
vii. 36; 2 Cor. vii. 13. See Winer, § 35.
25. For the construction τοῦτο πεποιθὼς, compare note on ver. 6 above. Some commentators, joining πεποιθὼς closely to , make τοῦτο the object of o%a,—thus, ‘of this I am confidently persuaded, that,’ etc. The construction adopted by our translators appears by far the more natural.
Mévev is ‘to stay ;’ παραμένειν, ‘ to stay with,’ or ‘at.’ Having no similar compound in English, we cannot adequately exhibit the beauty of the transition, prompted by the apostle’s loving heart, from the absolute ‘stay,’ to the relative ‘stay with you.’ In 1 Cor. xvi. 6, παραμένειν is construed with πρὸς ; but in Gen. xliv. 33, the LXX. has it with the dative, as here.
ἸΠροκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν both govern τῆς πίστεως and ὑμῶν, – for your furtherance and joy in your faith. The force of the genitive πίστεως is not altogether the same, when looked at in its relations to the one governing substantive and to the other ; but the construction is quite simple and natural.
26. Our translators regarded καύχημα in many places as equivalent to καύχησις. <A careful examination of the passages in the New Testament in which it occurs, however, shows clearly that, probably in all, certainly in almost all, it has the sense properly belonging to a noun in -ya,—not ‘glorying,’ but ‘matter, or ground, of glorying.’ So here. The reference is fully explained in the lecture on the passage.
The position of the words indicates that neither ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ nor ἐν ἐμοὶ is in immediate dependence on καύχημα, but that both stand connected with the verb περισσεύῃ. Ἔν ἐμοὶ, in whatever way the figure involved in the preposition be conceived, seems to mean practically ‘through me.’ Compare Matt. ix. 34; Acts iv. 9, xvii. 31; Eph. iv. 30. See Winer, ὃ 48. a, d. Into this use of ἐν here the apostle might naturally be led by ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ immediately preceding. Here, as often, thatexpression has obviously very much the force of ‘¢hrough your being in Christ.’ Now, though this sense lies in the connection rather than in the phrase itself, yet, as it seems to me, it might to some extent lead the way into the use of ἐν ἐμοὶ with very nearly the force of δι᾿ ἐμοῦ.
27. Πολιτεύεσθε means, in a general way, ‘conduct your-
selves,—but strictly, ‘exercise your (Christian) citizenship.’ The peculiar impressiveness of this word, as addressed to the Philippians, is illustrated in the lecture on the passage. Compare Polycarp’s Epistle, § 5.
In the second clause there are slight irregularities of construction. Carried on according to its beginning, it would have run thus: iva, εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς, εἴτε ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούων, μάθω, x.r.., or the like. Again, for ‘that I may hear — of your affairs, that ye stand fast,’ we expect rather something like, ‘that, as regards your affairs, I may hear this, that,’ etc. Some commentators accordingly explain τὰ as equivalent to ταῦτα ; others, as an accusative of reference, ‘as regards your affairs.’ But neither is natural; and the true explanation seems to be, that the apostle’s love takes it as certain that their spiritual state will be such as he is about to describe,— so that to ‘your affairs’ the ‘ that,’ or ‘namely that, attaches itself directly. Στήκω
, as used by Paul, has the idea of firmness very prominent ; see 1 Cor. xvi. 13; Gal. v. 1; 1 Thess. iii. 8.
Lightfoot, following Erasmus, regards πίστει as personified, and as governed by the σὺν of cvvafAodvres,—translating thus, ‘ striving in concert with the faith. The construction adopted by our translators, according to which πίστει is a dative of advantage, appears to me very much more simple and natural. The general Pauline usage suggests that ‘ faith’ is probably to be taken here as subjective, not objective.
28. The antecedent of ἥτις is the previous clause, μὴ πτυρόμενοι; x.7.A., the gender being through attraction to the predicate ἔνδειξις : compare Mark xv. 16; 1 Tim. ii. 15. The compound relative has here, as occasionally, something of the force of ‘since, seeing that ;’ compare Eph. iii. 13. On Gal. iv. 24, Ellicott has a long and very excellent note on the uses of 29. In the aorist ἐχαρίσθη the apostle looks back to the first bestowment of the boon, and refers to it simply as an historical ‘ 1 { .
fact. According to our idiom, however, in a case like this, the natural translation is by the perfect, ‘has been given.’ Compare i. 6, 13; iv. 10.
Ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ belongs to πάσχειν ; but, a clause being interjected, in a way very characteristic of the apostle’s style, to bring out with force the specialty of the grace given to the Philippians, ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ is afterwards inserted for clearness.
30. Supposing this verse to be in close connection with the 29th, strict grammar requires the participle to be in the dative, in agreement with ὑμῖν. Some commentators clear the construction by regarding from ἥτις, of the 28th verse, to the end of the 29th, as a parenthesis. In this case éxovres,’like συναθλοῦντες and. πτυρόμενοι, would agree with the subject of στήκετε in ver. 27. On this view, however, the sentence is stiff and artificial, and thus unlike the style of the apostle. It is better to suppose an irregularity.’ Illustrations of this particular kind of irregularity—that of using a participle in the nominative, where strict construction would require an oblique case—are not uncommon in Paul’s writings ; compare, for example, Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 16 ; and see Winer, § 63. I. 2. 1
Through a curious oversight, Alford (in his second edition at least), whilst in his note on the passage arguing strongly against the parenthetical construction, has the parenthesis marked in his text.
