CHAPTER IV. ‘
Ver. 2. The first name in this verse, looking simply at the form, might designate a man, as has been supposed by our translators. The name Euodianus occurs occasionally,—of which Euodias might be a shortening. Tyndale took the other also to be a man’s name, giving it as ‘Sintiches,—a form for which there seems to be no authority. But when we look at the verse in its connection with the next, it becomes clear that both names designate women; because for αὐταῖς of the 3rd verse there is no possible reference except the two persons here named. The true forms, then, are ‘ Euodia’ and ‘ Syntyche,’— both of which occur in inscriptions.
3. Failing, as has been observed in the previous note, to see the reference of αὐταῖς to the women mentioned in the 2nd verse, our translators have given the pronoun the force of a demonstrative, and thus made the apostle speak generally of the women who had been helpful to him in his Christian work at Philippi; whilst the real meaning is, ‘Help them (Euodia and Syntyche), seeing that they laboured.’ With regard to this force of the compound relative ὅστις, as equivalent to the Latin guippe gui, or utpote gui, compare chap. i. 28, with note.
Lightfoot would join pera καὶ Κλήμεντος, κιτιλ., with συλ- AapBavov, rather than with ovv7bAncav,— supposing that the apostle’s object is ‘to engage a// in the work of conciliation.’ But this does not appear natural. In particular, the clause ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς would lack relevancy and point with this connection. .
4. ’Ep@ (from a present εἴρω, used by Homer) is always a future in the New Testament, as in classical writers: ‘z7d/ say,’
therefore,—not ‘say,’ as in the Authorized Version.
5. As to the exact meaning of ἐπιείκεια, Or TO ἐπιεικὲς, See Trench’s Synonyms, 1st series, § 43.
6. As to the distinction of meaning between προσευχὴ and δέησις, see Trench’s Synonyms, 2nd series, ὃ 1.
7. Meyer and Lightfoot take ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν to mean ‘ which surpasseth every counsel, or device’ (of man), as a defence for the soul. This thought is in itself true and pertinent ; but a comparison of Eph. iii. 20 naturally leads one to think it more probable that the ordinary view of the meaning was that intended by the apostle.
The feelings having, with regard to all subjects of thought, and especially in the sphere of morals, very great influence on the judgment, Scripture language does not draw the sharp line which we often do between the action of ‘head’ and ‘heart.’ The καρδία, therefore, may be looked on as the fountain of νοήματα ; compare 2 Cor. 11]. 14, 15. But in the vast majority of instances where καρδία occurs, the prominent thought intended is evidently ‘the seat of feeling ;’ whilst etymologically, and in ordinary use, νόημα is ‘an act of the reason,’ In the place before us, as it seems to me, one naturally attaches these meanings to the words, because the use of ὑμῶν with each separately appears to require a wider distinction in the sense than is brought out by ‘ the καρδία and its issues.’ Our version therefore seems to give the apostle’s meaning with substantial accuracy by ‘hearts and minds,’ — though, for the latter, ‘thoughts’ would be more exact. Meyer says that ‘the reference distinctively of καρδία to feelings and will, and of νοήματα to intellectual action, is arbitrary.’ But in truth, while permitted by the usage of the words, it appears to be naturally suggested by the connection and way in which they are here employed.
8. For the use of εἴ τις as practically equivalent to ‘ whatever,’ compare Rom. xiii. 9 and Eph. iv. 29. Λογίζεσθαι
means ‘to think about’ (in a serious way) ; and thus when, as here, moral duties are the subject, a definite aim
to bring results of thought into practice is naturally implied ; compare 1 Cor. xiii. 5. Πράσσετε of ver. 9, therefore, simply takes up what λογίζεσθε has already suggested, and sends it home with energy.
9. The relative clause ἃ καὶ ἐμάθετε, κιτ.λ., may be construed, as by our translators, with the ταῦτα which stands before πράσσετε. Thus the whole verse is a separate sentence, co-ordinate with the 8th. But, according to the flow of the language, & seems to connect itself more naturally with the ταῦτα preceding,—that before λογίζεσθες In this case the sentence of the 8th verse is continued to ἐν ἐμοὶ, where a colon or a full stop is put. This is the connection adopted by the earlier English versions. With this construction, the first καὶ of the 9th verse appears to mean ‘also,’ rather than ‘ both,’ Ellicott translates ἃ καὶ by ‘which also ;’ and yet puts a colon before the &, and a comma after éuoi,—evidently making the ταῦτα of the 9th verse the antecedent to d. To me this appears confused and unsatisfactory. Παραλαμβάνειν
is sometimes used as almost an exact synonym for μανθάνειν ; see Gal. i. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 13. But here it evidently means ‘ to-accept,’ as in John i. 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1. Ἠκούσατε
is by Ellicott, Lightfoot, Alford, and others, taken to mean ‘heard of.’ It séems to me more natural to regard the apostle as referring in ἠκούσατε and εἴδετε respectively to the exemplification which had been given to them of Christian character in his speech and conduct, when he was among them: ‘which things—ye heard and saw in me.’ So Meyer. Out of ἐν ἐμοὶ, which belong immediately to the last two verbs (and with regard to this use of which compare chap. i. 30), the mind readily supplies zap’ ἐμοῦ for ἐμάθετε and παρελάβετε.
10. ᾿Αναθάλλειν is used both intransitively, ‘to bloom again,’ and transitively, ‘to cause to bloom again.’ De Wette, Lightfoot, and others, regard it as used here transitively,—‘ ye revived your interest in me.’ A serious objection to this construction is, that it seems to make the blooming of kind attention to the
apostle dependent on the τοῦ of the Philippians ; whereas the whole passage shows that circumstances alone had prevented the practical expression of what had all along been in their hearts. Supposing the verb to be intransitive, two modes of construing the following words are possible. Td ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν may be taken together as an accusative of reference, ‘as to your care for me ;’ or φρονεῖν may be joined immediately to ἀνεθάλετε, as governed by it in a somewhat loose way, and τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ be taken as the object of φρονεῖν, —- ye bloomed again to care for my interest.’ The latter of these constructions, adopted by Bengel, Meyer, Alford, and Eadie, seems ‘
artificial, and contrary to the current and sequence of the Greek’ (Ellicott). The only argument in its favour is that, according to it, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ of the following clause refers with logical propriety to τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ; whereas, according to the other construction, it refers formally to the whole, τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν, and thus we have in the relative clause this statement, ἐπὶ τῷ φρονεῖν ἐφρονεῖτε. Yet, in truth, the mind instinctively takes out of the whole clause ‘my interest’ as the antecedent to
‘which ;’—and a slight irregularity of construction appears very much more accordant with Paul’s style than the somewhat stiff construction proposed.
| With regard to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, ‘ for which,’ compare note on chap. iii. 12. Had the connection been with ἐφρονεῖτε alone, a simple accusative of the object, ὃ, might have been expected ; but ἐφ᾽ ᾧ suits also ἠκαιρεῖσθεΞ. Some commentators, as Calvin and Rilliet, to avoid the awkwardness of construction discussed in the previous note, make ᾧ masculine, referring to ἐμοῦ. But, as Meyer points out, ᾧ, in this phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, is elsewhere used by Paul only as neuter; and, besides, it is difficult to see why the apostle, had ἐμοῦ been the antecedent in his mind, should have used ἐπὶ instead of simply repeating the ὑπὲρ of the former clause. | Καὶ |
, ‘also,’ before ἐφρονεῖτε, has relation to the fenmse of the verb. The apostle had expressed his joy that their care of
him had ‘ xow at /ast flourished again.’ No sooner has he written or dictated the words, than it occurs to him that his statement might easily be misconstrued into one of reproach for their conduct in the past; and accordingly he adds,—‘a matter for which ye were careful also’ before this, ‘ but lacked opportunity’ of practically showing your affection.
11. Καθ᾿ ὑστέρησιν means ‘in consequence of want.’ For this force of κατὰ, compare Matt. xix. 3; Acts iii. 17; and see Winer, ὃ 49. ἡ, b. ὁ.
For an admirable statement of the meaning of αὐτάρκης, see Barrow, Sermon xxxvil., near the beginning.
12. The second word of this verse is, according to the true reading, καὶ, instead of δὲ of the common text. This καὶ is by Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie, and others, taken to mean ‘also,’—as serving ‘to annex the special instance to the more general statement’ (Ellicott). But passages such as Eph. v. 18, to which Ellicott refers, where καὶ is used in the sense of ‘ and (in particular),’ do not supply a real analogy to its use here. I cannot think that ‘also’ could ever be employed to annex a particular case to the mention of a general principle. Lightfoot’s opinion appears very much more probable,—that the apostle originally intended to write simply καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι καὶ περισσεύειν, ‘both to be abased and to abound,’ but, after having shaped the first part suitably to this, then interrupted the connection by the repetition of οἶδα for the sake of emphasis. In the revised version of the Epistle given in this volume, the irregularity is imitated.
Ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι seems to be a colloquial mode of expression, setting forth universality with liveliness, like our English ‘in each and all things,’ or, ‘in all and everything.’ To suppose, with our translators, Beza, and others, an ellipsis after παντὶ of τόπῳ, or, with Chrysostom and Grotius, of χρόνῳ ; or, with Luther and Bengel, to take ἐν πᾶσι as meaning ‘among all men,’—is altogether arbitrary. Most of the commentators who take ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι to mean ‘in all and everything,’
construe these words with peutnuo,—regarding the infinitives which follow as a statement in detail of what is meant by ‘all and everything :’ ‘in all and everything I have been initiated, namely,’ etc. Meyer, followed by Alford, objects to this connection, on the ground that the verb pvety is nowhere found construed with ἐν. He therefore, putting no comma after μεμύημαι, joins ἐν παντὶ, κιτιλ., with the infinitives, giving the words the sense of ‘in all circumstances.’ The objection to the ordinary connection appears ‘ somewhat hypercritical’ (Ellicott),—the construction of μεμύημαι with ἐν, though not actually found elsewhere, being in itself simple and natural enough.
13. Πάντα is an accusative of reference,—‘I have availing power with regard to all things.’ Probably, however, the more accurate explanation of the construction of such a verb as ἰσχύειν with an accusative, is that from its meaning it very easily receives a distinct transitive notion ; thus here, ‘I can (do) all things.’ Comp. Gal. v. 6; James v. 16.
15. Eis λόγον is occasionally used in the sense of ‘ with regard to.’ Some interpreters take this to be its meaning here. The use of Adyos in ver. 17, however, for ‘an account, reckoning,’ seems to make it probable that here also, connected as it is with δόσεως καὶ λήψεως, we should give it this sense,—the εἰς, by itself, meaning, as often, ‘with regard to.’ The reference of δόσεως καὶ λήψεως has been variously explained. The most natural and satisfactory view seems to me to be, that the same thought was in the apostle’s mind which he expresses in 1 Cor. ix. 11 (comp. also Rom. xv. 27),—the thought, namely, that having received of him ‘spiritual things,’ the Philippians acted reasonably and honourably in giving to him in return of their‘ carnal things.’ So Chrysostom, followed by many other expositors, including, of the more recent, Wiesinger, Schenkel, Braune, and Ellicott. There is nothing ‘arbitrary’ in this explanation, as Meyer alleges; for in connection with any gift to the apostle from the members of a
church which he had founded, their indebtedness to him could not but be prominently before their minds, and to some extent also before his. Neither can I agree with Lightfoot, that the reference to Paul’s having given the Philippians ‘ spiritual things’ is ‘ plainly inappropriate.’ On the contrary, it seems to me to accord admirably with the apostle’s dignity of spirit, which shows itself conspicuously throughout the whole of this paragraph.
16. The force of καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis is ‘not once only, but twice.’ Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18.
17. Τὸ δόμα seems to mean, according to the connection, ‘the gift (in any case of this kind),’ rather than, ‘the gift (in this particular case).’
The repetition of ἐπιζητῶ, in a passage like this, where its use only once would have been sufficient for clearness, gives it on its second occurrence considerable emphasis,—well brought out by our English present with ‘do;’ ‘but I do seek the fruit.’
19. By many commentators, ἐν δόξῃ is connected with πληpwoe,—the meaning being variously conceived, Meyer and Alford take the sense to be—according to the use of ἐν with the same verb in Eph. v. 18—‘shall supply your every need with (by means of) glory.’ To this the objection presents itself, that we naturally expect here a promise relating—to a certain extent, at least—to the present life. Alford feels this, but does not succeed in showing clearly that the sense he gives to the words accords with this expectation. Calvin, Rilliet, De Wette, Schenkel, Eadie, and others, suppose the meaning to be ‘in a glorious way.’ But this use of the expression has hardly any parallel elsewhere ; and the statement, so understood, does not seem altogether so full or so forcible as Paul’s style leads one to expect. Lightfoot’s view, approved by Hackett, that ἐν is to be taken in its ordinary local sense, and that the whole expression πληρώσει ἐν δόξῃ is ‘a pregnant phrase, signifying “shall supply by placing you in glory,”’
is perhaps the best, if these words are to be taken together. But the sense thus obtained lies under the same objection as the view of Meyer. On the whole, it seems to me that the construction adopted by our translators, with Grotius, Storr, and others, is the most satisfactory. The. non-repetition of the article before ἐν δόξῃ presents no difficulty ; because, as the verb πλουτεῖν is construed with ἐν (see 1 Tim. vi. 18, and comp. 1 Cor. i. 5 ; 2 Cor. ix. 11), the cognate substantive also may be connected immediately with éy,—according to the principle illustrated in the note on κοινωνίᾳ ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας, in chap. i. 5. To our supposing this the construction here, however, it is objected that, as a matter of fact, the apostle has several times elsewhere πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης, and never πλοῦτος ἐν δόξῃ ; see Rom. ix. 23 ; Eph. i. 18, in. 16; Col. 1. 27. But to this it may be replied, that there is in the present passage, through the antithesis to χρείαν, a special emphasis on πλοῦτος, such as is not found in the other places: ‘ My God shall fully supply your need according to His wealth.” Now the construction with the genitive would not have exhibited this emphasis ; whilst that with év obviously does.
APPENDIX.
