CHAPTER II.
VER. 1. Παράκλησις and παραμύθιον are, as nearly as possible, synonymous,—both meaning sometimes ‘ exhortation,’ sometimes ‘consolation.’ By some interpreters παράκλησις is regarded as used in the present passage in the former sense, and — παραμύθιον in the latter. But the climax of the appeal, ‘if any bowels and mercies,’ and the form of the entreaty, ‘ fulfil ye my joy,’ suggest, as it appears to me, that the thought of the whole verse is this,—‘ If your own experience of spiritual comfort has, through your fellowship with the Spirit, produced in you a desire to give comfort.’ ‘Consolation’ and ‘comfort,’ therefore, I think, excellently represent the two words ; and there is no tautology, for ‘in Christ’ and ‘ of love’ give sufficiently distinct thoughts.
There is no need to limit the breadth of reference naturally found in ἀγάπης. To say, with some commentators, that it refers specially to the love of God the Father, so that in the first three clauses we have an allusion to each of the Persons of the Trinity, is far-fetched. To restrict the sense, with others, to ‘ brotherly-kindness,’ appears, looking at the first and third clauses, to be equally unjustified.
In the last clause, all the uncial Mss. read tis instead of τινα. Green (Gram. p. 109), admitting also the form τις for te before παραμύθιον, where it has but little Ms. support, says that these readings ‘seem to point to a colloquial licence, according to which the combination εἴ τις was used as an indeclinable © particle.’ A larger number of cases, it seems to me, would be — needed to justify such a view. If τις be really the apostle’s word, it can hardly be otherwise accounted for than on the supposition that he meant to use some singular masculine or feminine substantive, but under some sudden impulse sub- S tituted σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί The anomaly, however, is probably due to a blunder of some very early copyist.
2. The clause introduced by ἵνα may be regarded as in apposition to xyapay,—the connection of thought being as if the apostle had said, ‘ Fulfil ye my joy, and this is my joy, that ye,’ etc.; comp. John xvii. 3. The construction is the more natural, too, because in the writer’s mind the idea of θέλω or παρακαλῶ was so vividly present, both of which, according to New Testament usage, may be construed with ἵνα. The attempts of Meyer and Alford to make out that ἵνα has here its telic meaning, are singularly forced. See note on chap. 1. 9. Σύμψυχοι
may stand by itself, as in our version, or may be joined to the following words. The latter construction seems to give more compactness and force to the sentence. By most commentators τὸ ἕν is regarded as not differing in meaning from τὸ αὐτὸ preceding, except that the expression is ‘ stronger’ (Lightfoot and Eadie), or ‘ affords a more rigid notion’ (Green). If this be so, then σύμψυχοι alone—which in this case, as it appears to me, must be taken as an integral part of the clause —gives a clearly distinctive thought, preventing tautology. If τὸ & be nearly equivalent to τὸ αὐτὸ, then the best explanation of the article before ἕν appears to be that of Green (Gram. p. 63), that it is employed, according to a familiar use, to bring out the aéstract idea—the sense of τὸ ἐν φρονοῦντες, therefore, being ‘minding unity.’ Still it may be questioned whether this is altogether natural. The article certainly in the first instance suggests that some particular ‘one thing,’ some definite Teference, is in the apostle’s mind. Grotius, followed by Bishop Middleton (in an interesting note on the passage, in the second part of his Doctrine of the Greek Article), joins the clause with what follows, — thus, ‘minding the one thing, namely doing nothing according to factiousness,’ etc. But is there any straining in taking the reference to be to ‘the advancement of Christ’s cause in themselves and others’? Would not any Christian congregation, hearing, in such a connection as the
words have in the passage before us, the exhortation ‘ Mind the one thing,’ immediately and most naturally give it such a meaning ?
3. To govern μηδὲν, φρονοῦντες is easily supplied from the words of the previous clause, or, if we prefer it, ποιοῦντες from the sentiment.
The article in τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ may perhaps mean ‘that which beseems you,’ or ‘ which I know you possess,’ and may thus be rendered by ‘ due,’ or by ‘ your ;’ but it may be simply the mark of the abstract.
4. The καὶ after ἀλλὰ assumes that, though the prohibition in the previous clause of ‘looking upon our own things’ is, in form, absolute, yet, from the nature of the case, the reader has taken the ‘ not’ with the force of ‘not only.’ As often in the New Testament, particularly with rules of conduct which are opposed to the strongest of the evil tendencies of depraved nature, the main precept is expressed in a very pointed and startling form, peculiarly fitted to secure its being remembered and thought over.
5. If yap belongs, as seems probable, to the true text, we must suppose that the form in which the thought first presented itself to the apostle’s mind was, ‘ Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others, for it becomes us, as Christians, to have in us the same mind—the same spirit of self-sacrifice—as our Lord.’ This latter clause, however, is thrown into an imperative form,—with the introductory particle retained, although, strictly speaking, not suited to the imperative. Φρονείσθω
, the reading of the Received Text, has some uncial authority ; but there is great preponderance in favour of φρονεῖτε. If we accept the latter, then there are two slight irregularities of construction in what follows. For ἐν ὑμῖν, connected with — a verb in the second person, strict grammar would require ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, or, according to New Testament usage, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. Again, the regular form of the relative clause after φρονεῖτε
would obviously be ὃ καὶ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς (éppdve),—whereas with ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ we must supply ἐφρονεῖτο. It was probably to obviate these irregularities that some early copyist substituted φρονείσθω for φρονεῖτε.
6. The verb ὑπάρχειν—-ἰη the participle at least, which is the form mainly used by Paul—appears to differ from εἶναι chiefly in that it calls particular attention to its predicate, as being specially important in itself, or in the argument; compare 1 Cor. xi. 7 ; Gal. i. 14, ii. 14.
Mop¢7 is certainly not, as was maintained by the Fathers, equivalent to οὐσία or φύσις ; ‘ yet the possession of the μορφὴ involves participation in the οὐσία also, for μορφὴ implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes’ (Lightfoot). The proof of this is given in detail by Lightfoot in a long, admirable, conclusive detached note. See also Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 2d series, § 20. In ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, therefore, we have the Lord’s true divinity implied, and, in the next verse, in μορφὴν δούλου λαβὼν, His true humanity.
If ἁρπαγμὸς here be taken, according to the ordinary sense
of nouns in -μος, to mean ‘an act of plundering,’ then the
meaning of the clause is exactly as in our version, and we have
in it a continuation of the statement of our Lord’s pre-incarnate
glory, to intensify the effect of the subsequent mention of His
condescension. In this case, the sense of the participle ὑπάρχων
, when fully exhibited, is ‘ because He was.’ If we take ἁρπαγμὸς
as equivalent to ἅρπαγμα, ‘something carried off,
booty, then—the phrase ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι, ποιεῖσθαι, or the
like, occurring not unfrequently in the secondary sense of ‘ to
reckon something as a prize,’ ‘to set great store by ’—the force
of the clause is, ‘did not regard it as a prize to be on equality
with God.’ In this case the clause begins the statement of the
Saviour’s condescension; and ὑπάρχων means ‘ though He was.’
The form ἁρπαγμὸς occurs very rarely. Only one instance has
| been observed in a classical writer (Plutarch), and there it denotes the act; but ecclesiastical writers have it more than once, and their use of it is as equivalent to ἅρπαγμα. It would seem, therefore, that the context alone must decide what is the meaning borne by the word here; and, looking both at what precedes and what follows, the second view of the meaning seems the preferable. This passage is obviously introduced to illustrate self-sacrificing love. We naturally therefore expect the relative clause to have as its main statement mention of the great act of condescending grace ; so that, had the apostle intended to express the thought given in our version, it would probably have been thrown into the form of a clause subordtnate to the relative clause,—thus, ‘who,—although being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, —yet emptied Himself,’ etc. Again,—oix before ἁρπαγμὸν, and ἀλλὰ at the beginning of the 7th verse, certainly seem to correspond, as ‘ zor the one, ὄμέ the other.’ Now this is the connection brought out by the second view of the meaning, whilst the first view disregards it entirely, giving ἀλλὰ the force of ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως. Still further,—the emphatic position of ἁρπαγμὸν seems more natural on the second than on the first view. Finally,—the use of the adverbial construction τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ‘to be on equality with God,’ instead of τὸ εἶναι ἴσον Θεῷ, ‘to be equal with God,’ seems to accord less with ‘thought it not robbery,’ than with ‘thought it not a prize ;’ for the adverb points naturally to equality in glory of manifestation, thus being substantially equivalent to ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, —-ἃ thought which suits the second view perfectly, whilst on the other we expect something of an advance from ‘ form’ to ‘nature,’ such as the adjective ἴσον would exhibit. On the interpretation of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, Lightfoot has a long and excellent detached note. On the meaning of the whole passage, nothing probably — can be found anywhere more satisfactory, for learning, exegetical acumen, and candour, than the discussion in Dr. Pye Smith’ Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, fifth edition, vol. ii, pp. 122-149. = = | = |
7. Aorist participles connected with a main verb in the aorist are frequently coincident in time with the main verb. So in this verse and the next,—Aafov meaning, not ‘having taken,’ but ‘ taking ;’ and similarly with the others.
8. To the use of δὲ, as in θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ, with a repeated word to which something strengthening is added, there is a parallel in Rom. iii. 22. Its exact force is ‘but further.’ ‘Even,’ of the Authorized Version, represents it well.
9, 10. It is doubtful whether after ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ the reading should be ὄνομα alone, or τὸ ὄνομαν There is weighty Ms. authority both for the insertion and for the omission of the article. Lachmann, Meyer, Lightfoot, insert; Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott, omit. If the article be read, the meaning may be, ‘the name, or dignity, which you all know so well.’ If this dignity must be thought of as expressed by some particular designation, probably the name of ‘ Lord’ is intended,—judging from the manner in which that name is spoken of in the 4th verse. Lightfoot thinks that ‘the divine name’ is meant, according to the frequent use in the Old Testament of such expressions as ‘to praise, bless, fear, the name of God.’ It seems clear at least that the personal name ‘ Jesus,’ borne by the Lord during His humiliation, is not meant,—for the ὄνομα here spoken of was ‘given’ Him by God in His exaltation. Had the name ‘ Jesus’ been meant, the words would have run, ’ God granted to Him that His name should be above every name,’ or the like. As it stands, the language will not bear this sense. Accordingly the words ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ, in which, obviously, from the connection, the same ὄνομα is thought of as in the preceding clause, must mean, not ‘in the name Jesus,’ but ‘in the name ’—that is, in recognition of the dignity and glory—‘ of Jesus.’ The use by the apostle here of the name by which the Lord had been known in His lowliness has a rich significance, which is adverted to in the lecture on the passage. It is obvious from all this that the practice followed by some sections of the church, and founded, no
doubt, on the present passage, of bowing whenever the name ‘ Jesus’ occurs in the public prayers, is not merely a superstitious deference to the letter of Scripture, but to a misunderstanding of the letter.
10. It may be doubted (see the lecture on the passage) whether ἐπουρανίων, ἐπιγείων, and καταχθονίων are masculine. Even admitting them to be masculine, it may be doubted whether, in what is so evidently simply a rhetorical expansion of the conception, ‘God’s moral creatures everywhere,’ it is necessary to define particularly the various classes. If we regard such definition as needful,—then, as it appears to me, the apostle’s reference is most naturally taken to be to angels and ‘the spirits of just men made perfect,—to men living on the earth,—and to the devils, and the spirits of lost men. Meyer, Ellicott, and others, make the classes to be, respectively, angels,—living men,—and dead men. But that the apostle, a very few verses after he has told us of his full conviction that for him ‘ to depart’ would be ‘to be with Christ, which is far better,’ should include departed sazm¢s in a class distinct from the érovpaycor,—and this, too, in a passage where we instinctively think, not of the body, but of the spirit,—seems to me in the very highest degree improbable. Meyer’s objection to the other view, that elsewhere in Paul’s writings (as in Eph. li. 2, vi. 12) he speaks of the evil spirits being situated otherwise than as καταχθόνιοι, has little weight. In a passage of this kind they are naturally spoken of in connection with their true home,—the abyss (Luke vill. 31).
12. By some interpreters ὑπηκούσατε is thought to involve a reference to ὑπήκοος of ver. 8, and therefore to mean ‘obeyed God. The distance, however, makes the reference scarcely natural; and, looking at the clause which follows, ‘obeyed me’ seems rather to be the sense. But, of course, — this means ‘ me, as God’s ambassador.’ Compare 2 Cor. ii. 9.
The use of the subjective particle of negation, μὴ, seems to — show clearly that the combination of words introduced by it
belongs to the imperative κατεργάζεσθε, not, as our translators have thought, to the indicative ὑπηκούσατε. Compare Winer, § 55. 1, a, remark on Eph. v. 15. The whole sentence gains much in point, too, by adopting this connection.
‘Qs means obviously, ‘as if you thought it right to obey in my presence only.’
For Paul’s use of φόβος καὶ τρόμος with some such force as
‘self-distrust and strong solicitude,’ compare 2 Cor. vii. 15 ; Eph. vi. 5. In the Septuagint use of the combination we find generally the full, strong, original sense of the words retained. See, for example, Gen. ix. 2; Ex. xv. 16; Deut. ii. 25.
15. As a rule, the active form φαίνειν is used in the sense of
‘to shine,’ whilst φαίνεσθαι means ‘to appear.’ Occasionally, however, φαίνεσθαι seems hardly to differ in meaning from φαίνειν ; see, in the Septuagint, Isa. lx. 2, 2 Macc. xii. 9 ; and in the New Testament, Matt. xxiv. 27. The present appears to be another case of the kind. Though the image in φωστῆρες is probably that of the heavenly bodies, yet φαίνεσθαι can scarcely have here, as suggested by Meyer and Ellicott, its special use, to indicate their appearance or rising; because, whilst this would suit the Jeginning of a Christian life, it does not seem to accord with that continued exhibition of a holy example, of which the apostle is speaking. -Applying the exact force of the middle voice, the meaning of the clause is, ‘Ye show yourselves as light-givers.’ This thought is adequately exhibited by ‘shine ;’ and therefore, with Alford, I am disposed to adhere to the rendering of the Authorized Version.
17. ᾿Αλλὰ appears to refer to an unexpressed thought arising most naturally out of ἔδραμον and ἐκοπίασα, with which the preceding sentence closed : ‘A running and a labouring I have called my ministerial work,—yet think not that I have any regret at having encountered the toil. Nay,—but if I be even offered as a libation, I rejoice.’ Thus the ἀλλὰ, while retaining fully its adversative force, introduces a stronger statement than
the preceding ; compare James li. 18. The ‘yea, and’ of our version renders it well.
Alford translates εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι, ‘if I am even being poured out,’—‘ because the danger was besetting him wow, and waxing onward to its accomplishment.’ The present with εἰ may have this force ; but it may simply exhibit a vivid realization of the supposition before the mind; compare Mark xi. 26; 1 Cor. vii. 9. Πίστεως
is governed by both θυσίᾳ and λειτουργίᾳ, standing related to the two, however, in somewhat different ways. With the former the genitive is one of apposition,—‘ the sacrifice which consists in your faith ;’ with the latter, one of somewhat loose connection,—‘ the priestly service relating to, or connected with, your faith.’ By some interpreters θυσία is taken here for the act of sacrificing ; but New Testament usage is in favour of giving it the sense of the victim. “Emi seems to mean ‘in addition to.’ The statement of Josephus (Avfig. ill. 9. 4), that in drink-offerings the wine was poured around the altar, does not present any difficulty in the way of our translating it ‘upon,’ because, as Dr. Lightfoot notices, the Septuagint certainly uses ἐπὶ to describe these libations; which would be ample authority for thus picturing the scene in a figurative reference like the present. But it does not seem possible to give any distinct idea to ‘upon’ in connection with the second governed substantive, ‘ service.’ S
vyxaipw sometimes means ‘congratulate,’ and such seems to be its sense here; for after the statement ‘I rejoice with you all,’—that is, ‘ You and I rejoice together,’—the counsel or injunction of the 18th verse would be superfluous. Now in ‘congratulation’ ‘reciprocation on the part of the person appealed to is not so much presupposed as invited’ (Lightfoot). In Luke i. 58 also the word may very well have this meaning.
18. Τὸ αὐτὸ is an accusative of reference,—‘ with regard to the same thing,’—that is here, practically, as our version
has it, ‘for the same cause.’ The phrase occurs also in Matt. xxvii. 44; where its force seems to be rather, ‘in the same way.’
19. Δὲ appears to connect ἐλπίζω with εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι,–the course of thought being of this kind, ‘ But, whilst I have spoken of speedy removal by a bloody death, as a possibility which I must fully take into my calculations, still I hope to have intercourse with you yet a while,—through Timothy in the first instance, and afterwards (ver. 24) personally.’ To this connection Lightfoot objects that ‘the possibility of his own death, and the intention of sending Timotheus, do not stand in any sort of opposition.’ But the possibility of his death, speedily at least, and his ‘knowing their state’ through Timothy, so as to ‘be of good comfort,’—stand in a certain opposition. And the thought of the 24th verse may naturally be supposed to be already fully before the apostle’s mind. Lightfoot himself connects ver. 19 with ver. 12: ‘I urged the duty of self-reliance during my absence,— yet I do not intend to leave you without guidance.’ To my mind, the distance is much too great to admit of this.
20. Ἰσόψυχον is by many commentators—as Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie—taken to mean ‘like-minded with me’ (the apostle). The opinion of Beza, Rilliet, Lightfoot, Hackett, and others, that the sense is ‘like-minded with 42m’ (Timothy), seems to me very much more probable. Seeing that the apostle undoubtedly regarded Timothy as like-minded with himself, he would certainly, I think, had he intended the former meaning, have said, not οὐδένα alone, but οὐδένα ἄλλον ; just as Alford finds it needful to give in his note the rendering ‘none ese, and De Wette, ‘keinen andern.’ Meyer says that, as nO αὐτῷ is expressed, the ‘like-mindedness’ must be in relation to the subject of the governing verb ἔχω. But in the connection, I apprehend, the mind much more naturally supplies αὐτῷ than ἄλλον.
The compound relative ὅστις here represents its antecedent as
belonging to a c/ass marked by certain qualities,—‘ of that kind who,’ ‘such a one as.’ See Jelf’s Greek Grammar, § 816. 5.
In the revised translation of the Epistle given in this volume, γνησίως has been rendered by ‘truly.’ This is inadequate ; but the word in this connection is difficult to translate. Tyndale has ‘with so pure affection.’ Our translators, in their ‘naturally,’ seem to have intended to bring out the idea of yev-, the root of γνησίως, —- with the love of one who is 47z# in Christ.’ ‘Genuinely,’ which, etymologically and otherwise, is the most exact English equivalent, they shunned,—probably © as being in their day used only in poetry. Now also, though sufficiently common in prose, it might sound oddly in the connection. Conybeare gives ‘in earnest.’ Ellicott renders verb and adverb together, ‘will have a true care.’
22. In δοκιμὴ, as in the other words from the same root, the primary sense, ‘ proof,’ leads easily into a secondary, ‘ afproval.’ Compare, in English, ‘a proved friend,’ ‘a vied friend.’ Here, therefore, the meaning may be, as in the Authorized Version, ‘the proof of him, that,’-—that is, ‘the proof of what kind of man he is, afforded by the fact that ;’ or ‘his proved character, his approved excellence, namely, that.’ Of this latter sense of δοκιμὴ there are, perhaps, instances in Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. li. 9, ix. 13.
Our translators have taken πατρὶ as governed by σὺν understood, the σὺν being expressed in the second member of the comparison, σὺν ἐμοί. But such a construction is found in poetry only ; see Jelf, ὃ 650. 2. It is probable, therefore, that there is a variation of construction in the two members, πατρὶ being governed by δουλεύει understood ; see Winer, ὃ 50. 7. As to the significance of this variation, see the lecture on the passage.
23. Ἐξαυτῆς belongs closely to ὡς ἂν, x.7.4., ‘immediately on my seeing.’ The form ἀφίδω, for ἀπίδω of the ordinary text, is supported by the most ancient mss., and has been received — by the chief recent editors. Lightfoot has a list of a number
of cases in which, in this and other compounds of εἶδον, the aspirate is found in the oldest authorities. There is here, no ‘doubt, a relic of the digamma which the word had, and which has its representatives in the form the root takes in other languages,—in the w of the Latin widere, and the w of the German wissen and English wit.
25. As Epaphroditus was evidently the bearer of the letter, it is plain that in ἡγησάμην, and in ἔπεμψα (ver. 28), we have cases of what is known as the ¢féstolary aorist,—the writer placing himself in imagination at the point of time when his letter was read, and when consequently the thoughts and feelings of the time of writing would be past ; Winer, § 40. 5, 4, 2. The imperfect ἦν, in the subordinate clause (ver. 26), is, of course, to be explained on the same principle. In Latin, the imperfect and perfect are similarly used in letters, the purely formal nature of the preterite being shown by the fact that the adverb unc may be joined with the verb, whilst a real preterite would require /unc; for example, novi nihil nunc erat apud nos, —literally, ‘there was at present no news with us ; see Zumpt, ὃ 503. Our idiom, in such cases, uses either the present or the perfect. For the ‘supposed’ and ‘ sent’ of the Authorized Version, therefore, we must substitute either ‘suppose’ and ‘send,’ or ‘have supposed’ and ‘ have sent.’
27. Καὶ yap adds something strengthening, the καὶ having a force akin to its usual ‘even,—‘for indeed, or really, he was sick.’ See Jelf, § 786, obs. 8.
For the reading of the Received Text, and the more usual construction, ἐπὶ λύπῃ, the great majority of the uncial Mss. have ἐπὶ λύπην. With the accusative the idea of sof¢ion enters, the difference of meaning between the constructions being merely such as may be represented by ‘sorrow wfon sorrow,’ and ‘ sorrow /aid upon sorrow.’
28. Πάλιν may be connected either with ἰδόντες or with χαρῆτε. The latter is probably that intended by the apostle, for he usually puts πάλιν Jdefore the verb it belongs to. With
this connection, moreover, the thought seems, perhaps, richer and more forcible.
30. It is doubtful whether rod Χριστοῦ belongs to the true text. The mss. have a considerable variety of readings,— Χριστοῦ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and Κυρίου ; and one uncial, C, has no genitive at all. It is not improbable that this last manuscript exhibits the real state of the case, the various genitives being glosses by copyists to fill up what seemed to them the somewhat bald διὰ τὸ ἔργον. But a similar use of τὸ ἔργον alone, for ‘the work of Christ,’ occurs in Acts xv. 38. Compare also τὸ ἐν in ver. 2 above, with the note.
The mss. are divided also between παραβουλευσάμενος and παραβολευσάμενος, but with a great preponderance of authority in favour of the latter. The verb παραβουλεύεσθαι has the sense of the Latin male consulere, ‘to make poor provision for,’ ‘have little regard for,—rapa here, as in many compounds, having the force of ‘amiss’—strictly, ‘going aside or beyond,’ missing the mark. The other verb παραβολεύεσθαι does not occur elsewhere, but is a form which—in the same way as περπερεύεσθαι (1 Cor. xiii. 4), from πέρπερος, and others—may be derived from the adjective παράβολος, ‘gambling, reckless.’ Παραβολεύεσθαι, then, will mean ‘to play the gambler,—7r7 ψυχῇ, ‘with his life. ‘Hazard’ excellently represents the thought, the original meaning of this word (which is probably derived from the Latin /essera, ‘a die,’ through the Italian azzardo, a corruption of a-tsar, for tessar,-do) being ‘a game of chance.’ Obviously, as used by the apostle, παραβολεύεσθαι has nothing of blame in it, but simply sets forth, with much liveliness, the utter lack of care for himself which Epaphroditus had shown in his zeal to serve Christ by ministering to His servant.
