Philippians 3

Philippians 3:1

διὰ τὸ ἔργον μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν παραβολευσάμενος τῇ ψυχῇ, ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρὸς με λειτουργίας.

III. ‘Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ’ Βολευσάμενος and παραβουλευσάμενος. The latter, which would mean ‘having consulted amiss,’ stands in the received text: but the evidence is strongly in favour of the former. Both words alike are very rare.

ἀναπληρώσῃ κ.τ.λ.] as in 1 Cor. xvi. 17 χαίρω ἐπὶ τῇ παρουσίᾳ Στεφινᾶ κ.τ.λ. ὅτι τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ ἀνεπλήρωσαν: comp. Clem. Rom. § 38 δι’ οὗ ἀναπληρωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὑστέρημα. So also ἀνταναπληροῦν in Col. i. 24 and προσαναπληροῦν in 2 Cor. xi. 9. τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘what your services towards me lacked to be complete,’ in other words ‘your personal ministrations,’ as in 1 Cor. xvi. 17 just quoted. It seems plain from this expression that Epaphroditus illness was the consequence not of persecution but of over-exertion.

III. 1. ‘And now, my brethren,

I must wish you farewell. Rejoice in the Lord. Forgive me, if I speak once more on an old topic. It is not irksome to me to speak, and it is safe for you to hear.’ τὸ λοιπόν] ‘for the rest,’ i.e. ‘finally, in conclusion.’ With λοιπόν or τὸ λοιπόν St Paul frequently ushers in the concluding portion of his letters containing the practical exhortations; 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Ephes. vi. 10 (where however τοῦ λοιποῦ should probably be read). Sometimes this concluding portion is prolonged, as in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, where it extends over two chapters. In the present instance the letter is interrupted, a fresh subject is introduced, the conclusion is for a time forgotten, and St Paul resumes his farewell injunctions later at iv. 8 τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί κ.τ.λ. See the introduction, p. 69 sq. In other passages λοιπόν and τὸ λοιπόν occur in reference to the approaching end of all things; as 1 Cor. vii. 29 ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν, τὸ λοιπόν ἵνα κ.τ.λ., Ign. Ephes. 11, Smyrn. 9. χαιρετε] ‘farewell.’ At the same time the word conveys an injunction to rejoice; see ii. 18, iv. 4, and the note on the latter passage.

τὰ αὐτά] ’the same things.’ But to what does St Paul refer? To his own personal intercourse with the

Philippians? To messages delivered by his delegates? To previous letters not now extant? To some topic contained in this present epistle? The expression itself τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν seems to limit the range of choice to written communications. The theory of an earlier letter or letter s, which seems to be supported by an expression of Polycarp (§ 3 ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολᾶς), will be considered in the detached note. At present it is sufficient to say that if the epistle itself supplies the requisite allusion, it is much more naturally sought here than elsewhere. On what subject then does this epistle dwell repeatedly?

Two answers will suggest themselves. (1) The duty of rejoicing. This topic is very prominent in the epistle: see the note on i. 4. It has occurred more than once already. It has the advantage also of appearing in the immediate context, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ. Nevertheless it seems inadequate to explain St Paul’s language here. Such an injunction has no very direct bearing on the safety of the Philippians; its repetition could hardly be suspected of being irksome to the Apostle. The words seem obviously to refer to some actual or threatened evil, against which a reiterated warn-

τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλές.

ing was necessary. (2) Such an evil existed in the dissensions among the Philippians. This topic either directly or indirectly has occupied a very considerable portion of the letter hitherto; and it appears again more than once before the close: see the introduction p. 67 sq. It is the Apostle’s practice to conclude with a warning against the prevailing danger of his correspondents. The Corinthians are again reminded that ’the Lord cometh’ (1 Cor. xvi. 22); the Galatians are told once more that ‘circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing’ (Gal. vi. 15); the Thessalonians receive a parting injunction against the spirit of restlessness and disorder spreading among them (1 Thess. v. 14, 2 Thess. iii. 14). The Apostle therefore would naturally lay stress on this point here, intending, as he appears to have done, to bring his letter to a speedy close. See the note on iii. 2. ὀκνηρόν, ‘irksome, tedious.’ The word generally signifies ‘dilatory, sluggish,’ as in the LXX frequently; but here it is active, ‘causing ὄκτος,’ as in Soph. Œd. T. 834 ἡμῖν μέν, ἄναξ, ταῦτ’ ὀκνηρά.

The synonymes μορφή and σχῆμα¹.

The word σχῆμα corresponds exactly in derivation, though but partially in meaning, to the old English ‘haviour.’ In its first sense it denotes the figure, shape, fashion, of a thing. Thence it gathers several derived meanings. It gets to signify, like the corresponding Latin ‘habitus,’ sometimes the dress or costume (as Aristoph. Eq. 1331 τεττιγοφόρας ἀρχαίῳ σχήματι λαμπρός), sometimes the attitude or demeanour (as Eur. Ion 238 τρόπων τεκμήριον τὸ σχῆμ’ ἔχεις τόδε). It is used also for a ‘figure of speech,’ as the dress in which the sense clothes itself or the posture which the language assumes. It signifies moreover pomp, display, outward circumstance (as Soph. Ant. 1169 τύραννον σχῆμ’ ἔχων), and frequently semblance, pretence, as opposed to reality, truth (as Plat. Epin. p. 989 σοῦ σχήμασι τεχνάζοντας ἀλλὰ δληθεία τιμῶντας ἀρετήν, Plut. Vit. Galb. 15 ἀρνήσεως σχῆμα τὴν ἀναβολὴν εἶναι φάσκοντες, Eur. Fragm. Æol. 18 οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ὄχλος καὶ σχῆμα). Altogether it suggests the idea of something changeable, fleeting, unsubstantial.

Μορφή, like σχῆμα, originally refers to the organs of sense². If σχῆμα may be rendered by ‘figure,’ ‘fashion,’ μορφή corresponds to ‘form.’ It comprises all those sensible qualities, which striking the eye lead to the conviction that we see such and such a thing. The conviction indeed may be false, for the form may be a phantom; but to the senses at all events the representation of the object conceived is complete. The word has not and cannot have any of those secondary senses which attach to σχῆμα, as gesture or dress or parade or pretext. In many cases indeed the words are used convertibly, because the sense is sufficiently lax to include either. But the difference between the two is tested by the fact that the μορφή of a definite thing as such, for instance of a lion or a tree, is one only, while its σχῆμα may change every minute. Thus we often find μορφῆς σχῆμα, as in Latin ‘figura formae’³, but rarely, if ever, σχήματος μορφή (Eur. Iph. Taur. 292 οὐ ταῦτά μορφῆς σχήματα, Ion 992 ποῖόν τι μορφῆς σχῆμα;). The σχῆμα is often an accident of the μορφή.

¹ The following note is founded on some remarks which appeared several years ago (in the Journal of Class. and Sacr. Philol. no. VII. p. 113 sq., 121), enlarged and modified. The distinction of μορφή and σχῆμα has since been drawn out by Archbishop Trench (N. T. Syn. § lxx) in his pointed and instructive manner.

² I have purposely avoided the question of its derivation, feeling that I have no right to an opinion on the subject. Benfey, Wurzel-lez. II. p. 309, connects it with the Sanscrit ‘varpas,’ ‘form.’

³ As e. g. Lucr. iv. 69 ‘formai servare figuram.’ Compare the account of ‘forma’ and ‘figura’ given by Döderlein, Lat. Syn. III. p. 25 sq. (referred to by Trench, l. c. p. 93). His distinction corresponds to that which is here given of μορφή and σχῆμα. ‘The form (Gestalt),’ he says, ‘so far as it has definite outlines is figura; so far as it is the visible impression and the stamp of the inner being and corresponds thereto, it is forma.’

Its philosophical meaning.

Plato.

Aristotle.

From the primary popular sense of μορφή we pass to its secondary philosophical meaning. And here the older philosophers do not render much assistance. In Parmenides indeed (μορφὰς γὰρ κατίθεντο δύο, ver. 112 Karsten) the word signifies ’natures,’ ’essences,’ for he is speaking of two elemental principles of the universe. But without the light thrown upon its use here by the phraseology of later thinkers, no inference could safely be drawn from this solitary instance. In Plato we first meet with a clear example of its philosophical sense. In the Phædo (p. 103 E, 104 A) Socrates, eliciting the doctrine of ideas by question and answer after his wont, concludes that ’not only is the same name always claimed for the eἶδος¹ itself, but also for something else which is not the εἶδος and yet has its μορφή always whenever it exists.’ And in illustration of his meaning he adduces the example of the odd and the number three, the latter being always called odd and being inseparable from oddness, though not the odd itself. Thus in Plato’s language the μορφή is the impress of the idea on the individual, or in other words the specific character. It need not therefore denote any material sensible quality, as in the instance quoted it does not. In Plato however the philosophical sense of μορφή is very rare. On the other hand Aristotle uses it commonly. But its relation to εἶδος has undergone a change, corresponding to the difference in his metaphysical views. As he discards Plato’s doctrine of ideas wholly, as he recognises no eternal selfexistent archetype distinct from the specific character exhibited in the individuals, it follows as a matter of course that with him εἶδος and μορφή are identical. There are, according to his teaching, two elements or principles or causes of things; the matter, the substratum supporting the qualities, and the form, the aggregate of the qualities². The form he calls indifferently εἶδος or μορφή³. He moreover designates it by various synonyms. It is sometimes ’the abstract conception realised’ (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι⁴), sometimes ’the essence corresponding to the definition’ (ἡ οὐσία ἢ κατὰ τὸν λόγον), ¹ Here the εἶδος is plainly the ἰδέα.

Plato seems to have used both words alike to denote the eternal archetype, as for instance in the passages in Trendelenburg, Platon. de ideis doctr. p. 33 sqq. Where however especial accuracy was aimed at, ἰδέα would naturally be preferred to εἶδος: see Thompson’s note on Archer Butler’s Lectures II. p.

² A large number of passages is collected by Waitz, Organon II. p. 401 sq. See also Heyder Aristot. u. Hegel. Dialektik p. 182 sq., and especially

Ritter and Preller Hist. Phil. p. 324 sq. (ed. 2). In other places Aristotle speaks of four causes, the efficient, the material, the formal, and the final. The final and the efficient causes however may be conceived as involved in the formal: see esp. G. Schneider, De Causa

Finali Aristotelea (Berol. 1865), p. 15 sq.

³ See Waitz Organon II. p. 405.

There are exceptional cases where either word is used in its popular rather than its philosophical sense, referring directly to the organs of vision: but Biese, die

Philosophie des Aristoteles I. p. 439, is not justified in his general distinction that μορφή is ‘die äusserliche sichtbare

Form der Dinge,’ and εἶδος ‘das die

Dinge von innen heraus Gestaltende.’

This distinction may suit one passage, but it is contradicted by twenty others.

The same remark applies to the attempts made by the old commentators on Aristotle to distinguish μορφή and εἶδος.

⁴ On this term see Trendelenburg,

Rhein. Mus. II. p. 457 sq., esp. pp.

469, 481 (1828); comp. his note on de

Anima I. 1, 2, p. 192 sq.

sometimes ’the definition of the essence’ (ὁ λόγος τῆς οὐσίας), sometimes ’the definition alone, sometimes ’the essence’ alone. He calls it also ’the actuality’ (ἐνέργεια) or ’the perfection’ (ἐντελέχεια)¹, matter being designated ’the potentiality’ (δύναμις). ‘So rich in wealth and titles,’ said a later writer of a rival school half in irony, ‘is the εἶδος with Aristotle².’ The significance of his μορφή or εἶδος will appear also from the fact that he elsewhere identifies it with the final cause (τέλος or οὗ ἕνεκα)³, because the end or purpose is implicitly contained in the qualities. It is still more evident from the intimate connexion which he conceives to exist between the form and the nature. ‘The term nature,’ he says, ‘is used to signify three things; sometimes it is equivalent to the matter, sometimes to the form, sometimes to both combined. Of the nature according to matter and the nature according to form, the latter is the more influential (κυριωτέρα)⁴,’ i.e. it has a more important function in making the thing what it is.

It will appear moreover from this account, that the term μορφή, though originally derived from the organs of sense like εἶδος, and referring to external conformation, has in the language of Aristotle a much wider application, being not only applied to physical qualities generally, but also extended to immaterial objects. Thus he says in one passage that skin, vein, membrane, and all such things, belong to the same μορφή⁵; in another, that courage and justice and prudence have the same μορφή in a state as in an individual⁶; in a third, that science and health may be called the μορφή and εἶδος of the scientific and the healthy respectively⁷; while in a fourth, criticising the saying of Democritus that ‘anybody could see what was the form (μορφή) of a man,’ meaning that he might be known by his shape and colour, he replies that ‘a corpse has the form (μορφή) of the human shape (σχήματος) and yet nevertheless is not a man⁸.’ The form of a man therefore in Aristotle’s conception was something more than his sensible appearance.

This sense of μορφή, as the specific character, was naturally transmitted from these great original thinkers to the philosophers of later ages. It is philosophers found for instance in Plutarch⁹. It appears very definitely in the Neopla-

¹ On the form regarded as the ἐνέργεια and the ἐντελέχεια see Trendelenburg de Anima ii. 1, p. 295 sq.

² A Platonist in Stobæus Ecl. i. c. 13 οὕτως αὐτῷ πλούσιόν τε καὶ πολυώνυμόν ἐστι τὸ εἶδος.

³ See Schneider de Caus. Fin. Aristot. p. 10 sq. and the passages quoted p. 12.

⁴ Phys. Ausc. ii. 1, p. 192 A (Bekker), de Part. An. i. 1, p. 640 B. See below, note 8.

⁵ de Anim. Gen. ii. 3, p. 737 B.

⁶ Polit. vii. 1, p. 1323 B.

⁷ de Anima ii. 2, p. 414 A.

⁸ de Part. An. i. 1, p. 640 B, ἡ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν μορφὴν φύσις κυριωτέρα τῆς ὑλικῆς φύσεως. εἰ μὲν οὖν τῷ σχήματι καὶ τῷ χρώματι ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῶν τε ῥῷων καὶ τῶν μορίων, ὀρθῶς ἂν Δημόκριτος λέγοι· φαίνεται γὰρ οὕτως ὑπολαβεῖν. φησὶ γοῦν παντὶ δῆλον εἶναι οἷόν τι τὴν μορφὴν ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς ὄντος αὐτοῦ τῷ τε σχήματι καὶ τῷ χρώματι γνωρίμου. καίτοι καὶ ὁ τεθνεὼς ἔχει τὴν αὐτὴν τοῦ σχήματος μορφήν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος (i. c. the corpse has the μορφή of the human σχήμα, but it has not the μορφή of a man).

⁹ Mor. p. 1013 O αὐτὸς τε γὰρ ὁ κόσμος οὗτος καὶ τῶν μερῶν ἕκαστον αὐτοῦ συνέστηκεν ἐκ τε σωματικῆς οὐσίας καὶ νοητῆς, ὡν ἡ μὲν ὕλην καὶ ὑποκείμενον, ἡ δὲ μορφὴν καὶ εἶδος τῷ γενομένῳ παρέσχε κ.τ.λ. Comp. p. 1022 z. For these references and the passage in the

PHIL.

tonists¹. And what is more to our purpose, it is recognised by Philo, the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism².

Popular language.

Nor can it have been wholly without influence on the language of every-day life. Terms, like ideas, gradually permeate society till they reach its lower strata. Words stamped in the mint of the philosopher pass into general currency, losing their sharpness of outline meanwhile, but in the main retaining their impress and value. The exclusive technicalities of the scholastic logic are the common property of shopmen and artisans in our own day.

New

Testament usage

Do we then find in the New Testament any distinction between μορφή and σχῆμα, corresponding to that which appears to have held roughly in the common language of the Greeks and to have been still further developed in the technical systems of philosophers?

of σχῆμα

A review of the passages where σχῆμα and its derivatives are used will not, I think, leave any doubt on the mind that this word retains the notion of ‘instability, changeableness,’ quite as strongly as in classical Greek. Thus ’the fashion of this world,’ which ‘passeth away,’ is τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (1 Cor. vii. 31). ‘To fall in with the fashion of this world’ is συναχηματίζεσθαι τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ (Rom. xii. 2). ‘To follow the capricious guidance of the passions’ is συναχηματίζεσθαι ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις (1 Pet. i. 14). The fictitious illusory transformation whereby evil assumes the mask of good—the false apostles appearing as the true, the prince of darkness as an angel of light, the ministers of Satan as ministers of righteousness—is described by the thrice repeated word μετασχηματίζεσθαι (2 Cor. xi. 13, 14, 15). The significance of σχῆμα will be felt at once, if in any of these passages we attempt to substitute μορφή in its stead³.

and μορφή.

On the other hand the great and entire change of the inner life, otherwise described as being born again, being created anew, is spoken of as a conversion of μορφή always, of σχῆμα never. Thus ‘He fore-ordained them conformable (συμμόρφους) to the image of His Son’ (Rom. viii. 29); ‘Being made conformable (συμμορφιζόμενος) to His death’ (Phil. iii. 10); ‘We are transformed (μεταμορφούμεθα) into the same image’ (2 Cor. iii. 18); ‘To be transformed by the renewal of the mind’ (Rom. xii. 2); ‘Until Christ be formed (μορφωθῇ) in you’ (Gal. iv. 19). In these passages again, if any one doubts whether μορφή has any special force, let him substitute σχῆμα and try the effect. In some cases indeed, where the organs of sense are concerned and where the appeal lies to popular usage, either word might be used. Yet I think it will be felt at once that in the account of the transfiguration μεταnext note I am indebted to Wyttenbach’s note on Plato, Phæd. p. 103 E.

¹ See e.g. Plotin. Ennead. i. 6, p. 52 A, especially the expression οὐκ ἀνασχομένης τῆς ὕλης τὸ πάντη κατὰ τὸ εἶδος μορφοῦσθαι.

² de Vict. Off. § 13, p. 261 M, τὸ τεθλασμένον ἀφήρηται τὴν ποιότητα καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ οὐδὲν ἑτερὸν ἐστιν ἢ κυρίως εἰπεῖν ἄμορφος ὕλη, and lower down, ταῖς ἀσωμάτοις δυνάμεσιν, ὧν ἔτυμον ὄνομα αἱ ἰδέαι, κατεχρήσατο πρὸς τὸ γένος ἕκαστον τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν λαβεῖν μορφήν. For other references see Dähne Jüdisch-Alex. Religionsphilosophie 1. p. 185.

³ In 1 Cor. iv. 6 ταῦτα μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἑμαυτὸν κ.τ.λ. the word refers to a rhetorical σχῆμα, and here μετεμόρφωσα would of course be out of place.

σχηματίζεσθαι would have been out of place and that μεταμορφοῦσθαι alone is adequate to express the completeness and significance of the change (Matt. xvii. 2, Mark ix. 2). Even in the later addition to St Mark’s Gospel where our Lord is described as appearing to the two disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, though μορφὴ here has no peculiar force, yet σχῆμα would perhaps be avoided instinctively, as it might imply an illusion or an imposture. It will be observed also that in two passages where St Paul speaks of an appearance which is superficial and unreal, though not using σχῆμα, he still avoids μορφὴ as inappropriate and adopts μόρφωσις instead (Rom. ii. 20 τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, 2 Tim. iii. 5 μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας). Here the termination denotes the aiming after or affecting the μορφή.

And the distinction, which has thus appeared from the review of each Concur- word separately, will be seen still more clearly from those passages where they rence of occur together. In Rom. xii. 2 μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθαι τῷ αἰὼν τούτῳ the two ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθαι τῇ ἀνακοινώσει τοῦ νοῦς. the form of the sentence calls attention to the contrast, and the appropriateness of each word in its own connexion is obvious: ‘Not to follow the fleeting fashion of this world, but to undergo a complete change, assume a new form, in the renewal of the mind.’ On the other hand in Phil. iii. 21 μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς τα- πεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, the difference is not obvious at first sight. The meaning however seems to be, ‘will change the fashion of the body of our humiliation and fix it in the form of the body of His glory.’ Here I think it will be clear that a compound of σχῆμα could not be substituted for σύμμορφον without serious detriment to the sense: while on the other hand μεταμορφώσει might possibly have stood for μετασχηματίσει¹.

I now come to the passage in the Epistle to the Philippians out of Phil. ii. 6, which this investigation has arisen. But before attempting to discover 7- what is implied by μορφὴ Θεοῦ, it will be necessary to clear the way by dis- posing of a preliminary question. Does the expression ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων refer to the pre-incarnate or the incarnate Christ? Those who The pre- adopt the latter view for the most part explain the words of the super- incarnate natural or divine power and grace manifested by our Lord during His Christ is earthly ministry. Thus in ancient times the Ambrosian Hilary, ‘Deus meant, apparet, dum mortuos excitat, surdis reddit auditum, leprosos mundat, et alia’: thus in a later age Erasmus, ‘Ipsis factis se Deum esse declara- ret etc.’; and Luther, ‘Dass göttliche Gestalt nichts anderes sei denn sich erzeigen mit Worten und Werken gegen andere als ein Herr und Gott².’ Against this view De Wette, though himself referring the ex- pression to Christ incarnate, urges with justice that the point of time marked by ὑπάρχων is evidently prior to our Lord’s actual ministry,

¹ Of the two words μετασχηματίζειν would refer to the transient condition from which, μεταμορφοῦν to the perma- nent state to which, the change takes place. Archbishop Trench however sup- poses that μετασχηματίζειν is here pre- ferred to μεταμορφοῦν as expressing

’transition but no absolute solution of continuity,’ the spiritual body being developed from the natural, as the butterfly from the caterpillar; N. T. Syn. 2nd ser. p. 91.

² Postill. ad. Epist. Domin. Palm. (xii. p. 630 ed. Hall.), quoted by De Wette.

9-2 the period of this ministry itself being a period of humiliation. He therefore explains it as describing the glory dwelling potentially in Christ, at the moment when He commenced His ministry. The meaning of St Paul, he thinks, is best illustrated by the account of the temptation (Matt. iv. 8), where our Lord rejects Satan’s offer of ‘all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.’ At that moment and in that act of renunciation it might be said of Him that ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσιν. But this is quite as unsatisfactory as the explanation which he rejects. The point of time is clearly prior not only to our Lord’s open ministry, but also to His becoming man. Even if the words μορφὴν δούλου λαβών did not directly refer to the incarnation, as they appear to do, nothing else can be understood by ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος. We cannot suppose St Paul to have meant, that our Lord was not in the likeness of men before His baptism and ministry, and became so then for the first time. On the contrary all accounts alike agree in representing this (so far as regards His earthly life) as the turning-point when He began to ‘manifest forth His glory’ (John ii. 11).’ It was an exaggeration indeed when certain early heretics represented His baptism as the moment of His first assumption of Deity: but only by a direct reversal of the accounts in the Gospel could it be regarded in any sense as the commencement of His humanity. The whole context in St Paul clearly implies that the being born as man was the first step in His humiliation, as the death on the Cross was the last. In other words, it requires that ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων be referred to a point of time prior to the incarnation.

Thus

μορφή

refers to the divine attributes.

This being so, what meaning must we attach to ’the form of God’ in which our Lord pre-existed? In the Clementine Homilies St Peter is represented as insisting upon the anthropomorphic passages in the Scriptures and maintaining therefrom that God has a sensible form (μορφή). To the objection of his opponent that if God has a form (μορφή), He must have a figure, a shape (σχῆμα) also, the Apostle is made to reply by accepting the inference: ‘God has a σχῆμα; He has eyes and hands and feet like a man; nevertheless He has no need to use them’. Not such was St Paul’s conception of God. Not in this sense could he speak of the μορφή, not in any sense could he speak of the σχῆμα, of Him who is ‘King of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, who dwelleth in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen or can see’ (1 Tim. vi. 15, 16).’ It remains then that μορφή must apply to the attributes of the Godhead. In other words, it is used in a sense substantially the same which it bears in Greek philosophy². It suggests the same idea which is otherwise expressed in

¹ Clem. Hom. xvii. 3, 7, 8.

² A passage in Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 9) fairly illustrates the distinction of μορφή and σχῆμα in St Paul. He says that Christians do not believe the idols formed by men’s hands to have the form (μορφήν) of God; they have only the names and the shapes (σχήματα) of demons; the form of God is not of this kind (οὐ τοιαύτην ἔχειν τὴν μορφήν); His glory and form are ineffable (ἀρρητον δόξαν καὶ μορφὴν ἔχων). He thus appears to contrast the visible σχήματα of demons with the insensible immaterial μορφή of God. A corresponding distinction also seems to hold in the Pistis

St John by ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, in Christian writers of succeeding ages by

νίος Θεοῦ ὦν Θεός, and in the Nicene Creed by Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ.

In accepting this conclusion we need not assume that St Paul consciously derived his use of the term from any philosophical nomenclature. There was sufficient definiteness even in its popular usage to suggest this meaning when it was transferred from the objects of sense to the conceptions of the mind. Yet if St John adopted λόγος, if St Paul himself adopted εἰκών, πρωτοτοκος, and the like, from the language of existing theological schools, it seems very far from improbable that the closely analogous expression μορφὴ Θεοῦ should have been derived from a similar source. The speculations of Alexandrian and Gnostic Judaism formed a ready channel, by which the philosophical terms of ancient Greece were brought within reach of the Apostles of Christ.

Thus in the passage under consideration the μορφὴ is contrasted with the σχήμα, as that which is intrinsic and essential with that which is accidental and outward. And the three clauses imply respectively the true divine nature of our Lord (μορφὴ Θεοῦ), the true human nature (μορφὴ δοῦλου), and the externals of the human nature (σχήματι ὡς ἄνθρωπος)¹.

Different interpretations of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο.

It will appear from the notes, that two principal interpretations of οὐχ ἀρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο have been proposed, depending on the different senses assigned to ἁρπαγμός. In the one the prominent idea is the assertion, in the other the surrender, of privileges. The one lays stress on the majesty, the other on the humility, of our Lord. These two interpretations may conveniently be considered side by side and discussed at greater length.

1. If ἁρπαγμός ‘plundering’ is taken to mean ‘robbery,’ ‘usurpation,’ then the expression asserts that the equality with God was the natural possession, the inherent right, of our Lord. This interpretation suits the

Sophia, where both words occur several times, pp. 38, 184, 226, 246, 253, 272, 273, 274, 277; the former especially in the phrase ἀλήθεια μορφῆς opposed to similitude or copy (παράδειγμα, see p. 253), the latter in connexion with τύποι and παραδείγματα (see esp. 272 sq.).

¹ In the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries great stress was laid by Catholic writers on the force of μορφή here. See for instance Hilary of Poitiers de Trin. viii. 45 (II. p. 245), Psalm cxxxviii. (I. p. 569), Ambrose Epist. 46 (II. p. 986), Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. iv. p. 566 (ἡ δὲ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταὐτὸν τῇ οὐσίᾳ πάντων ἐστιν), and the commentators Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, on this passage. St Chrysostom especially discusses the matter at some length. It is not surprising that they should have taken this view, but they could hardly have insisted with such confidence on the identity of μορφή and οὐσία, unless they had at least a reasonable case on their side. I trust the investigation in the text will show that their view was not groundless, though their language might be at times overstrained.

The context lost sight of.

words themselves well enough, when isolated from their context, and so far is free from objection. But it takes no account of the clauses which immediately precede and follow. (1) It neglects the foregoing words. For the Apostle is there enforcing the duty of humility, and when he adds ‘Have the mind which was in Jesus Christ,’ we expect this appeal to our great Example to be followed immediately by a reference, not to the right which He claimed, but to the dignity which He renounced. The dislocation of thought caused by this interpretation is apparent; ‘Be ye humble and like-minded with Christ, who partaking of the divine nature claimed equality with God.’ The mention of our Lord’s condescension is thus postponed too late in the sentence. (2) And again this interpretation wholly disregards the connexion with the words following. For in the expression οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο κ.τ.λ. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκίνωσεν, the particles οὐχ and ἀλλὰ obviously correspond, ’not the one but the other’; so that ἐκίνωσεν ἑαυτὸν must contain the idea which directly contrasts with ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο. On the other hand the interpretation in question renders ἀλλὰ as equivalent to ἀλλ’ ὅμως. Besides being unnatural in itself after οὐχ, this rendering fails entirely to explain the emphatic position of ἁρπαγμόν.

Influence of the

Latin fathers.

This sense, which is adopted in our own English Version and has been extensively received in modern times, may probably be traced to the influence of the Latin fathers, who interpreted the rendering of the Latin Version without reference to the original. The Latin phrase ‘rapinam arbitrari’ did not convey the secondary meaning which was at once suggested by ἁρπαγμὸν (ἁρπαγμα) ἡγείσθαι; nor perhaps would the Latin particles ’non…sed’ bring out the idea of contrast so strongly as οὐχ…ἀλλὰ. At all events it should be noticed, that while this interpretation is most common (though not universal) among Latin writers, it is unsupported by a single Greek father, unless possibly at a very late date.

Such is the interpretation of TERTULLIAN de Resurr. Carn. 6, adv. Prax. 7, adv. Marc. v. 20; of the AMBROSIAN HILARY here; of ST AMBROSE de Fid. ii. 8 (IL p. 483 ed. Bened.) ‘Quod enim quis non habet, rapere conatur; ergo non quasi rapinam habebat æqualitatem cum Patre etc.’; of PRIMASIUS here; and above all of ST AUGUSTINE who again and again quotes and explains the passage in his Sermons, 92 (v. p. 500 ed. Bened.), 118 (p. 587), 183 (p. 875), 186 (p. 885), 213 (p. 937), 244 (p. 1019), 264 (p. 1075), 292 (p. 1170), 304 (p. 1235); comp. in Psalm. xc (IV. p. 972). The distinctness with which this interpretation was enunciated by the greatest teacher of the Western Church would necessarily secure for it a wide reception.

(2) ἁρπαγμός

‘a prize.’

2. If on the other hand ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγείσθαι is considered equivalent to the common phrase ἁρπαγμα ἡγείσθαι, so that ἁρπαγμός will signify ‘a prize,’ ‘a treasure,’ then the logical connexion with the context before and after is strictly preserved: ‘Be humble as Christ was humble: He, though existing before the worlds in the form of God, did not treat His equality with God as a prize, a treasure to be greedily clutched and ostentatiously displayed: on the contrary He resigned the glories of heaven.’ The only objection to this rendering, the form ἁρπαγμός in place of ἁρπαγμα, has been considered in the notes.

This is the common and indeed almost universal interpretation of the Greek fathers, who would have the most lively sense of the requirements of the language. So it is evidently taken in the earliest passage where it is quoted, in the Epistle of the CHURCHES OF GAUL (Euseb. II. E. v. 2), where praising the humility of the martyrs they say ἐπὶ τοσεύτου ζηλωταὶ καὶ μιμηταὶ Χριστοῦ ἐγένοντο, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, evidently thinking this clause to contain in itself a statement of His condescension. So ORIGEN clearly takes it; in Joann. VI. § 37 (IV. p. 156 D) μέχρι θανάτου καταβαίνειν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγούμενον τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, καὶ κενοῦν ἑαυτὸν κ.τ.λ.; in Matth. Comm. Ser. (III. p. 916 C) ‘Vere Jesus non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo, et non semel sed frequenter pro omnibus seipsum humiliavit’; in Rom. v. § 2 (IV. p. 553 A) ‘Nec rapinam ducit esse se æqualem Deo, hoc est, non sibi magni aliquid deputat quod ipse quidem æqualis Deo et unum cum patre sit’; ib. x. § 7 (IV. p. 672 C) ‘Christus non sibi placens nec rapinam arbitrans esse se æqualem Deo semetipsum exinanivit.’ So too METHODIUS; Methodius. Fragm. p. 105 (Jahn) αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τιμῶν αὐτὸ [τὸ μαρτύριον] ἐμαρτύρησεν, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγησάμενος τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ τούτῳ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ χαρίσματι εἰς ὃν κατέβη στέψῃ. So again EUSEDIUS Eusebius. unmistakeably; Eccl. Proph. iii. 4 ἐγενήθη πένης, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγούμενος τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ταπεινῶν κ.τ.λ.; Eccles. Theol. i. 13 (p. 57) προϋπάρχων, θεότητι πωρικῆς δόξης τετιμημένος· οὐ μὴν ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγούμενος τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ ἑαυτὸν δ’ οὖν κενώσας κ.τ.λ.; comp. ib. i. 20 (p. 94). So also THEODORE OF MOFSUESTIA (Raban. Maur. Op. VI. p. 488 B ed. Migne) Theodore. ‘Non magnam reputavit illam quæ ad Deum est æqualitatem et elatus in sua permansit dignitate, sed magis pro aliorum utilitate præelegit humiliora etc.’; and after him THEODORET, interpreting the passage, τὴν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἰσότητα ἔχων οὐ μίγα τοῦτο ὑπέλαβε. So moreover the PSEUDO-ATHANASIUS Hom. de Sem. (Athan. Op. II. p. 49 ed. Bened.) χρισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Δαυειδ εἰς βασιλεία οὐχ ἅμα ἥρπασε τὴν βασιλείαν ἀλλ’ ἠνείχετο πολλοῖς χρόνοις δουλεύων τῷ Σαούλ’ καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν γεννηθεὶς βασιλεὺς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων…ἠνείχετο, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ κ.τ.λ. So in like manner ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM Epist. iv. 22 εἰ ἔρμαιον ἠγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσον οὐκ ἂν ἑαυτὸν ἐταπείνωσεν…δοῦλος μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐλευθερωθεὶς καὶ υἱοθεσίᾳ τιμηθεὶς ἄτε ἁρπαγμα ἢ εὕρημα τὴν ἀξίαν ἠγησάμενος οὐδ’ ἂν ὑποσταίῃ οἰκενικὸν ἔργον ἀνύσαι’ ὁ δὲ γνήσιος υἱὸς κ.τ.λ.; and CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA c. Jul. vi (VI. p. 195 ed. Aubert.) ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ὅλων σωτὴρ καὶ Κύριος, καίτοι μετὸν αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν μορφῇ καὶ ἰσότητι τῇ κατὰ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ὁρᾶσθαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ τοῖς τῆς θεότητος ἐναβρύνεσθαι θάκοις, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγήσατο κ.τ.λ. (where the καίτοι is decisive). In addition to this positive testimony it should be noticed, that throughout the important controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries it does not seem once to have occurred to any Greek father to put forward the other explanation of the passage, though so eminently favourable to the orthodox belief¹.

¹ It is not clear what interpretation was adopted by Didymus of Alexandria de Trin. i. 26 (p. 73). Τί τῆς ἰσότητος ταύτης εὑρίσκεται ἄνισον; οὐχ

ἥρπασε γάρ, φησίν, οὐκ ἔλαβε τὸ ἴσον εἶναι τῇ φύσει τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ· καὶ δὴ ὁ μὴ ὑπ’ ἄλλου κενωθεὶς ἑαυτὸν δὲ κενώσας αὐθέντην δεσπότην ὁμοῦ καὶ

Also by Hilary and Jerome.

The two senses compared.

A middle course taken by Chrysostom.

Objection to his explanation.

Nor is the interpretation thus generally adopted by Greek writers confined to them alone. Some of the most acute and learned of the Latin fathers explain it in the same way.

Thus perhaps HILARY OF POITIERS de Trin. viii. 45 (II. p. 246 ed. Bened.) ‘Non sibi rapiens esse se æqualem Deo, ad susceptionem se formas servilis per obedientiam exinanivit…non tamen æqualem se Deo per rapinam existimans quamvis in forma Dei et æqualis Deo per Deum Deus signatus exstaret¹’; and more clearly JEROME ad Hedib. Q. 9 (Epist. 120, I. p. 837) ‘Pro quibus non rapinam arbitratus est se esse æqualem Deo sed semetipsum exinanivit’; see also his notes on Gal. iv. 12, v. 14³.

In comparing these two interpretations, it will be seen that while the former makes οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο a continuation and expansion of the idea already contained in ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, ‘He existed in the form of God and so did not think it usurpation to be equal with God’; the latter treats the words as involving a contrast to this idea, ‘He existed in the form of God but nevertheless did not eagerly assert His equality with God.’ In short the two interpretations of the clause, as I have said before, are directly opposed, inasmuch as the one expresses our Lord’s assertion, the other His cession, of the rights pertaining to His divine majesty.

And between these two explanations—the one which interprets ἁρπαγμὸν by ἀδικίαν, and the other which interprets it by ἔρμαιον—our choice must be made. A middle interpretation however was maintained by St Chrysostom, and has been adopted with more or less distinctness by others, especially in recent times. It agrees very nearly with the first in the sense assigned to ἁρπαγμός, and yet approaches to the second in the general drift of the clause. ‘Being in the form of God, He did not consider that He was plundering, when He claimed equality with God. He did not therefore look upon His divine prerogatives as a booty of which He feared to be deprived and which therefore it was necessary to guard jealously. He reigned not as a tyrant but as a lawful sovereign. He could therefore divest himself of the outward splendours of His rank without fear².’

As an indirect doctrinal inference from the passage, this account is admissible; but as a direct explanation of its bearing, it is faulty because it understands too much, requiring links to be supplied which the connexion does not suggest and which interrupt the sequence of thought.

ἀξίων ἑαυτὸν ἀπέδειξεν: comp. ib. iii. 17 (p. 377). The expression οὐχ ἥρπασε however seems to point to an intermediate interpretation like the one adopted by Chrysostom, as given in the text. Nothing can be inferred from the language of St Basil adv. Eunom. iv. (I. p. 294 F. 295 A), or from Liturg. S. Bas. p. 158 (Neale).

¹ Yet in another passage c. Const. Imper. § 19 (II. p. 577) he says, ‘Non rapit quod erat Christus,’ which points to the other sense of ἁρπαγμός. Perhaps he, like Chrysostom, adopted a middle interpretation combining features of both.

² This is probably the view also of Victorinus in his commentary on the passage, ‘Ergo nunc Paulus, Non, inquit, Christus rapinam credidit, id est, hoc sibi vindicavit, tantum habere voluit ut forma Dei esset, sed etiam se ipsum exinanivit etc.’; but his language is not distinct. See again his treatise c. Aríum i. 9, Galland Bibl. Vet. Patr. VIII. p. 155.

³ Op. XI. p. 245. I have abridged his explanation.

All similar attempts to mediate between the two opposing explanations fail in the same way and tend only to confuse the interpretation of the passage.

Of the two explanations then, between which our choice lies, the context, as I have shown, seems imperatively to require the second; and if authority count for anything, the list of names, by which it is maintained, sufficiently refutes the charge of being ’liable to grave suspicion on theological grounds.’ We should do wisely however to consider its doctrinal bearing, without reference to authority.

Now while the other explanation directly asserts our Lord’s divinity, this confessedly does not. Yet on the other hand the theological difference is only apparent. For, though we miss the direct assertion in this particular clause, the doctrine still remains. It is involved in the preceding words, for the ‘pre-existence in the form of God,’ as will appear I think from the last note, means substantially this. It is indirectly implied moreover in this very clause taken in connexion with the context. For how could it be a sign of humility in our Lord not to assert His equality with God, if He were not divine? How could such a claim be considered otherwise than arrogant and blasphemous, if He were only a man? If St Chrysostom’s interpretation must be rejected as faulty and confused, his argument at least is valid; ‘No one wishing to exhort to humility says, Be humble and think less of yourself than of your compeers (Ἕλαττον φρόνει τῶν ὁμοτίμων), for such and such a person being a slave did not set himself up against his master; therefore imitate him. Nay, one might reply, here is a question not of humility, but of infatuation (ἀπονοίας)’; ‘It is no humility for the inferior not to set himself up against his superior’; ‘If being a man, He washed the feet of men, He did not empty, did not humble Himself; if being a man, He did not grasp at equality with God, He deserves no praise¹.’

One who refuses to claim some enviable privilege may be influenced by either of two motives, by a feeling of humility or by a sense of justice, according as he has or has not a right to this privilege. Those who hold humanitarian views of the Person of Christ necessarily take the latter view of the motive in this instance. The equality with God, they argue, was not asserted, because it would have been an act of usurpation to do so. To this view it may fairly be objected, that it overlooks the true significance of ἁρπαγμὸν (ἁρπαγμα) ἡγεῖσθαι, which as a recognised phrase is equivalent to ἔρμαιον ἡγεῖσθαι and therefore refers to the desirableness of the possession or acquisition. But its fatal condemnation is this, that it treats the clause as isolated and takes no account of the context. The act expressed by οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο is brought forward as an example of humility, and can only be regarded as such, if the expression τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ refers to rights which it was an act of condescension to waive².

Theological bearing of the interpretation adopted.

It does not favour humanitarian views.

¹ Op. xi. pp. 136, 237, 247.

² One other interpretation put forward by recent commentators deserves attention. Meyer (followed by Dean Alford), desirous of giving ἁρπαγμὸν the active sense which its termination suggests, translates the words, ‘Did not look upon His being on an equality with God, as a means of self-enrichment.’ In answer to the mechanical objection urged against this sense, that a state (τὸ εἶναι) cannot be regarded as an action (ἁρπαγμὸν), he justly appeals to 1 Tim. vi. 5 νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι

Lost Epistles to the Philippians?

Supposed reference to such in the Epistle itself and in

Polycarp.

Probabilities considered.

It has been maintained by some, that a passage in the Epistle to the Philippians implies a more or less sustained correspondence between St Paul and his converts, so that the extant letter is only a single link in a long chain. ‘To write the same things,’ says St Paul, ’to me is not irksome, while for you it is safe.’ The reference, it is urged, cannot be explained from the epistle itself, since it does not supply any topic which satisfies the two conditions, of occurring in the immediate context, and of being repeated elsewhere in the course of the letter.

Moreover the inference thus suggested is thought to be confirmed by an allusion in the Epistle of Polycarp. Writing to these same Philippians, he says (§ 3); ‘Neither I nor another like me can attain to the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul; who coming among you taught the word of truth accurately and surely before the men of that day; who also when absent wrote letters (ἐπιστολάς) to you, into which if ye search ye can be builded up unto the faith given to you.’

Against this view no objection can be taken from the probabilities of the case. On the contrary it is only reasonable to suppose, that during the ten or eleven years which elapsed between the epoch of their conversion and the date of this epistle, the Apostle, ever overflowing with love and ever prompt to seize the passing opportunity, would have written not once or twice only to converts with whom his relations were so close and affectionate. And—to consider the broader question—if we extend our range of view beyond the Philippians to the many churches of his founding, if we take into account not these ten years only but the whole period of his missionary life, we can hardly resist the conclusion that in the epistles of our Canon we have only a part—perhaps not a very large part—of the whole correspondence of the Apostle either with churches or with individuals.

But, if there be any reluctance to allow that the letter of an inspired Apostle could have been permitted to perish, a moment’s thought will dissipate the scruple. Any theory of inspiration, which would be consistent with historical fact, must find a place for this supposition. It is true of Him who ‘spake as never man spake,’ that if all His words had been preserved, ’the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.’ Yet His recorded sayings may be read through in a very few hours. And τὴν εὐσέβειαν, which presents an exact parallel in this respect. This interpretation suits the context very fairly, but it seems to me to be somewhat strained; and the fact that ἄρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι (ποιεῖσθαι) is a common phrase meaning ’to prize highly, to welcome eagerly,’ and that ἄρπαγμόν ἡγεῖσθαι (ποιεῖσθαι), wherever else it occurs, has also this sense, would appear to be decisive. Meyer indeed attempts to force his own meaning on ἄρπαγμόν in the passage of Cyril, de Ador. i. p. 25, quoted above (in the notes, p. 111); but when this writer, speaking of Lot’s renewal of the offer of hospitality when declined by the angels, describes this importunity by οὐχ ἄρπαγμόν τὴν παραίτησιν ἐποιεῖτο, it is difficult to conceive that the phrase can mean anything else but ‘did not eagerly close with, did not gladly welcome their refusal.’ on the ground of inspiration we cannot assuredly claim for the letters of the Apostle an immunity from the ravages of time, which was denied to the words of the Saviour Himself. The ’litera scripta’ indeed has a firmer hold on life. But the difficulty of multiplying copies, the strife of parties within the Church, and the perils assailing the brotherhood from without, are sufficient to explain the loss of any documents in the earlier ages. And from the nature of the case the letters of the Apostles could not have been so highly prized by their contemporaries, as by later generations. History confirms the suggestion which reason makes, that the writings of the first teachers of the Gospel grew in importance, as the echo of their voice died away. A letter from a dear friend is a poor substitute for the free interchange of conversation. But when he is taken from us, we know not how to value his correspondence highly enough¹.

At all events indications are not wanting of other letters besides those which have been preserved for the instruction of the Church. The two short Epistles to the Thessalonians stand alone in a period which extends over at least twenty years before and after². Yet in one of these the Apostle calls attention to his mode of signature, as a guarantee of genuineness, which occurred ‘in every epistle’ written by him³. Such an expression would be conclusive, even if unsupported by other allusions, which suggest at least the suspicion that several letters may have passed between St Paul and his Thessalonian converts⁴. Again, his written communications with the Corinthians seem to have extended beyond the two extant epistles. In a passage in the First Epistle, according to the most probable interpretation, he directly alludes to a previous letter addressed to them⁵: and the acknowledgment of the Corinthians, which he elsewhere mentions, that his ’letters are weighty and powerful,’ together with his own reply ‘Such as we are by letters when absent etc.‘⁶ cannot be ex-

¹ Prof. Jowett, Epistles of St Paul 1. p. 195 (2nd ed.), has an instructive essay on the probability of many epistles having been lost. With some of his special criticisms however I venture to disagree. He supposes for instance that 1 Cor. v. 9 refers to the First Epistle to the Corinthians itself, and that Col. iv. 16 does not refer to the Epistle to the Ephesians.

² Fourteen years at least, probably seventeen (see notes Gal. ii. 1), elapsed between St Paul’s conversion and the third visit to Jerusalem (A.D. 51). The Epistles to the Corinthians, which probably follow next in order after the Epistles to the Thessalonians, were not written till A.D. 57, 58. Thus the whole period will be 20 or 23 years, according to the reckoning adopted.

³ 1 Thess. iii. 17.

⁴ 1 Thess. ii. 2, 15.

⁵ 1 Cor. v. 9 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναυγνῶσαι πόρνοι. The real difficulty in referring this allusion to the First Epistle itself lies not in ἔγραψα, which might be explained as an epistolary acriot, but in ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ‘in my letter,’ which is thus rendered meaningless: see Journal of Class. and Sacr. Phil. ii. p. 196 (note). Two independent reasons have probably conspired to promote the unnatural explanation by which it is referred to the First Epistle. (1) On theological grounds commentators have been unwilling to admit that an epistle of St Paul could have perished: while (2) they have been misled critically by the context, ver. 11 νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα κ.τ.λ., taking νῦν in its primary temporal sense, whereas it appears to mean, ‘under these circumstances,’ ’the world being what it is.’

⁶ 2 Cor. A. 10, 11.

[Laodicea.]

plained quite satisfactorily (though the explanation might pass) by the single extant epistle written before this date. On the other hand the ’letter from Laodicea,’ which the Apostle directs the Colossians to procure and read¹, must not be classed among these lost letters, as there is very good reason for supposing that he there refers to the circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, sent to Laodicea as one of the great centres and thence communicated to the neighbouring town of Colossæ, but circulated in the Church at large through the metropolis of Asia and therefore generally known as the Epistle to the Ephesians. Whether to these lost letters to Thessalonica and to Corinth we are required to add one or more addressed to the Philippians, I propose now to consider. The general question has only been introduced to prepare the way for this investigation.

Explanations of

Phil. iii. 1 examined.

1. The passage in the Epistle to the Philippians itself has been variously explained. Some have interpreted it ’to repeat in writing the same injunctions which I gave you myself by word of mouth,’ or ‘which I charged you by my messengers.’ But such amplifications receive no encouragement from the words themselves, which mean simply ’to write the same things again and again.’ To written communications therefore our attention must be confined.

Even with this limitation, three solutions are offered. Either (1) The extant epistle itself consists of two separate letters welded together; or (2) A lost letter must be assumed in which the same subject was introduced; or (3) The often repeated topic must be discovered in the extant letter. The first of these solutions has been already considered and set aside²; nor indeed does it contribute anything towards the interpretation of this passage (though it would explain the plural in Polycarp), for no new topic is introduced by the disintegration of the existing letter. The second might very fairly be accepted in default of a better: but there is nothing in the words which suggests a reference to any incident external to the letter itself, and it is therefore simpler not to look elsewhere for the allusion. The third view then seems preferable, if any topic can be found which satisfies the conditions. And in the notes on the passage I have attempted to show that such a topic is not wanting.

Allusion in

Polycarp considered.

2. But the reference in the Epistle of Polycarp still remains to be explained. What account must be given of the ’letters,’ which St Paul wrote to the Philippians? Does Polycarp, as some have thought, include the Thessalonian Epistles, which as being addressed to a neighbouring Church would be known and read at Philippi also? This is possible; but a simpler solution offers itself. Notwithstanding the plural ἐπιστολαί, the reference may be satisfied by the one extant Epistle to the Philippians. Of this usage of the plural ἐπιστολαί, applying to a single letter³, there can be no doubt. This will appear plainly from Thucyd. viii. 51 ὄσον οὐ παρούσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀλκιβιάδου περὶ τούτων ἐπιστολήν, compared with αἱ δὲ παρὰ τοῦ Ἀλκιβιάδου ἐπιστολαὶ οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον ἦκον; from Joseph. Ant. xii. 4. 10 ἐπιστολαί

used of a single letter.

¹ Col. iv. 16. I hope to consider the question of the ’epistle from Laodicea’ in the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians: see also Colossians p. 274 sq.

² See the introduction, page 69 note.

³ Thom. Mag. p. 354 καὶ ἐπιστολὴ καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ πληθυντικῶς· ῥητορικόν.

ὁ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεὺς Ἄρειος πρεσβείων τε ἔπεμπε καὶ ἐπιστολάς ὡν τὸ ἀντίγραφόν ἐστι τοιοῦτον, compared with ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιστολὴ ἡ πεμφθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλέως τοῦτον περιείχε τὸν τρόπον¹: and from Alciphron Epist. ii. 4 ὡς διεπέμψω μου τοῦ βασιλέως τὰς ἐπιστολάς, εὐθὺς ἀνέγνων, compared with σοβοῦσα ταῖς χερσὶν ἑμαντῆς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν σὺν αὐτῇ τῇ βασιλικῇ σφραγίδι; the singular in each case standing in the immediate neighbourhood of the plural and referring to the same writing. I have placed these instances side by side, because the context in all three cases determines the sense, and because being taken from writers of different epochs they show that the usage was not confined to any one period. The following references also, which might be multiplied many times, serve to illustrate its occurrence in classical writers at different stages of the language: Eur. Iph. Taur. 589, 767, Iph. Aul. 111, 314, Thucyd. i. 132, iv. 50, Polyb. v. 43. 5, Lucian. Avar. 47 (II. p. 450), Julian. Epist. 73 (comp. Epist. 44)². Nor is this usage confined to classical Greek. In Esth. iii. 14 ἐπιστολαί is a translation of a singular substantive (כֹּהֵב); while in 1 Macc. v. 14, x. 3, 7, xi. 29, xii. 5 etc., it plainly refers to a single document. And in ecclesiastical writers of a later date examples are found. Eusebius (H. E. vi. 1) for instance, like the authors first quoted, uses ἐπιστολὴ and ἐπιστολαὶ in the same context when speaking of one and the same letter³.

If therefore we find that in another place Polycarp, referring again to the Epistle to the Philippians, uses the singular (ἐπιστολή)⁴, this circumstance will present no difficulty; for we have seen similar variations of usage in the passages of Thucydides and Alciphron, of Josephus and Eusebius, where the anomaly is rendered more striking by the fact that in these authors the singular and plural occur in close proximity.

But a later passage of this same father has been quoted to show that he carefully distinguishes between the singular and the plural of this word. ‘The letters (ἐπιστολάς) of Ignatius,’ he writes, ‘which were sent to us by him, and such others as we had by us, we have sent to you, as ye commanded; all which (αἴτινες) are appended to this letter (ἐπιστολή); from which ye may derive great advantage’ (§ 13). The plural here has been explained as referring to the two letters, the one to the Smyrnæans, the other to Polycarp, contained in the short Greek recension. This explanation, it will be seen, supposes either the genuineness of the short Greek recension of the Ignatian letters or the spuriousness of this portion of Polycarp’s epistle. Into these questions it would be beside the purpose to enter here. I would only say that here again the ἐπιστολαὶ may very well be used of a single letter, and that on this supposition there is a certain propriety in the

¹ Comp. also Antiq. xiii. 4. 8.

² I owe a few of these references to Rettig Quæst. Phil. p. 38.

³ Comp. also H. E. vi. 43, quoted by Cotelier on Polyo. Phil. 3. The plural ’epistolæ’ in Latin is used in the same way; Justin xi. 8, 12, Plin. N. II. xxxiii. 12, quoted by Fabric. Bibl. Græc. iv. p. 804 (ed. Harles).

⁴ Polyo. Phil. 11 ‘qui estis in principio epistolæ ejus,’ where some word like ’laudati’ should perhaps be supplied. Others however suppose the original Greek to have been οἱ ὄντες ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐπιστολαὶ αὐτοῦ, comparing for ἐν ἀρχῇ. Phil. iv. 15, and for ἐπιστολαὶ αὐτοῦ 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3.

He does not refer to a lost letter.

change from the plural to the singular, when the writer has occasion to speak of himself. For the plural ἐπιστολαί, which signifies properly ‘directions, injunctions,’ whenever it occurs in prose of a single epistle, seems to denote a missive of importance, such as a king’s mandate or a bishop’s pastoral; and its employment by Polycarp to designate his own letter would have jarred strangely with his pervading tone of humility, though it would fitly describe the communications of the blessed Apostle Paul (§ 3) or the holy martyr Ignatius (§ 13)¹.

On the whole then it would appear probable that Polycarp refers solely to the extant Epistle to the Philippians; for though the existence of other letters was seen to be in itself antecedently probable, yet it seems very unlikely that an epistle of St Paul, which had survived the opening of the second century and was then known to the Churches of Smyrna and Philippi, should so soon afterwards have passed wholly out of memory. Irenæus, the pupil of Polycarp, is evidently acquainted with only one Epistle of St Paul to the Philippians².

¹ By a curious coincidence Maximus uses the plural of Polycarp’s own epistle: Dion. Areop. Op. 11. p. 93 (ed. Corder.), ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς ὁ αὐτὸς θεῖος Πολύκαρπος πρὸς Φιλιππησίους.

² Georgius Syncellus indeed (Chron. 1. p. 651 ed. Dind., a passage which I owe to Rettig Quest. Phil. p. 39) speaking of St Clement of Rome writes, τοίτου καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους μέμνηται πρώτη ἐπιστολῇ εἰπών,

Μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος κ.τ.λ.: but it seems wholly incredible that Syncellus himself, and very unlikely that any authority quoted by him, should have been acquainted with more than one Epistle to the Philippians: and I can only account for the reading by supposing that a superfluous a crept into the text and was afterwards written out in full πρώτη.

Philippians 3:2

²Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐρ-

III. 2—6. ‘Be on your guard. Shun these shameless dogs, these workers of mischief, these mutilators of the flesh. I call it mutilation, for we are the true circumcision, we offer the genuine service; we—you and I—Gentile and Jew alike—who serve by the Spirit of God, who place our boast in Christ Jesus and put no trust in the flesh. And yet, whatever be the value of this confidence in the flesh, I assert it as well. If any other man claims to put trust in the flesh, my claim is greater. I was circumcised on the eighth day, a child of believing parents. I am descended of an old Israelite stock. I belong to the loyal and renowned tribe of Benjamin. I am of a lineage which has never conformed to foreign usages, but has preserved throughout the language and the customs of the fathers. Thus much for my inherited privileges; and now for my personal career. Do they speak of law? I belong to the Pharisees, the strictest of all sects. Of zeal? I persecuted the Church. This surely is enough! Of righteousness? In such righteousness as consists in obedience to law, I have never been found a defaulter.’

2. A probable account of the abrupt introduction of this new topic is given in the introduction p. 69. As the Apostle is on the point of referring once more to the divisions in the Philippian Church before concluding, he is interrupted. Whether the interruption was momentary, or whether some hours or even days elapsed before the letter was resumed, it is vain to conjecture. But it has diverted, or at least modified, the current of his thoughts. He speaks no longer of the social dissensions actually prevalent among the Philippians; but he warns them against a much more serious though hitherto distant peril—the infection of Judaism. It seems probable therefore that he had meanwhile been apprised of some fresh outbreak or reminded of some old antagonism on the part of his Judaizing opponents in Rome; see p. 17.

The thrice repeated ‘mark ye,’ together with the recurrence of the definite article in the three clauses—the dogs, the evil workers, the concision—shows that St Paul is alluding to a well known and well-marked party in or out of the Church.

Βλέπετε] ’look to, be on your guard against, mark and watch.’ Comp. Mark iv. 24 βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε, 2 Joh. 8 βλέπετε ἑαυτούς: so frequently βλέπετε ἀπό (e.g. Mark viii. 15) and βλέπετε μή (e.g. Luke xxi. 8).

τοὺς κύνας] St Paul retorts upon the Judaizers the term of reproach, by which they stigmatized the Gentiles as impure. In the Mosaic law the word is used to denounce the foul moral profligacies of heathen worship (Deut. xxiii. 19 οὐ προσοίσεις μίσθωμα πόρνης οὐδὲ ἄλλαγμα κυνός). Among the Jews of the Christian era it was a common designation of the Gentiles, involving chiefly the idea of ceremonial impurity; see esp. Clem. Hom. ii. 19 εἶπεν Οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἰάσθαι τὰ ἔθνη ἑακότα κυσὶν διὰ τὸ διαφόροις χρῆσθαι τροφαῖς καὶ πράξεσιν, ἀποδεδομένης τῆς κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τραπέζης τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ’ ἡ δὲ τοῦτο ἀκούσασα, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς τραπέζης ὡς κύων ψιχίων ἀποπιπτόντων συμμεταλαμβάνειν [δεομένη], μεταθεμένη ὅπερ ἦν, τῷ ὁμοίως διατάσθαι τοῖς τῆς βασιλείας υἱοῖς τῆς εἰς τὴν θυγατέρα, ὡς ἠξίωσεν, ἔτυχεν ἰάσεως. The writer thus interprets from a Judaizing point of view the incident in Matt. xv. 22 sq., where our Lord uses the Jewish phraseology of the day to test the faith of the Canaanite woman. See the rabbinical quotations in Schöttgen I. p. 1145. St John applies the term to those whose moral impurity excludes them from the new Jerusalem, the spiritual Israel, Apoc. xxii. 15. As a term of reproach the

Philippians 3:3

γάτας, βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν. ἡμεῖς γὰρ ἔσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι Θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι

word on the lips of a Jew signified chiefly ‘impurity’; of a Greek, ‘impudence.’ The herds of dogs which prowl about eastern cities, without a home and without an owner, feeding on the refuse and filth of the streets, quarrelling among themselves, and attacking the passer-by, explain both applications of the image. To the Jew more especially the comparison of the heathen to a dog would commend itself, as describing his indiscriminate use of meats whether clean or not. Thus St Paul’s language here is strikingly significant: ‘They speak of themselves as God’s children; they boast of eating at God’s table; they reproach us as dogs, as foul and unclean, as outcasts from the covenant, because forsooth we eat meat bought at the shambles, because we do not observe the washing of cups and platters. I reverse the image. We are the children, for we banquet on the spiritual feast which God has spread before us: they are the dogs, for they greedily devour the garbage of carnal ordinances, the very refuse of God’s table.’ See the note on σκύβαλα ver. 8.

κακούς ἐργάτας] So again he says of the Judaizing teachers 2 Cor. xi. 13 οἱ τοιοῦτοι ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι. The proselytizing zeal of the party has been already noticed by St Paul, i. 15, 16. There he contemplates it as exerted upon heathendom, and with very mixed feelings he constrains himself to rejoice: here on the other hand he apprehends its assaults on a more liberal Christianity, and an unqualified condemnation is pronounced upon it. The Pharisaic party (Acts xv. 5) which ‘compassed sea and land to make one proselyte’ (Matt. xxiii. 15) had carried its old leaven into the Christian Church. There was the same zealous activity in the pursuit of its aims (ἐργάτας), and there were the same pernicious consequences in the attainment (κακούς).

τὴν κατατομήν] ’the concision, the mutilation.’ The corresponding verb κατατέμνειν is used in the LXX only of mutilations and incisions forbidden by the Mosaic law; Levit. xxi. 5 ἐπὶ τὰς σάρκας αὐτῶν οὐ κατατεμοῦσιν ἐντομίδας, 1 Kings xviii. 28 κατατέμνοντο κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν, Is. xv. 2, Hos. xvii. 14. Hence the appropriateness here: ‘This circumcision, which they vaunt, is in Christ only as the gashings and mutilations of the idolatrous heathen’: comp. Gal. v. 12 ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται, with the note. Thus it carries out the idea of κύνας. For the paronomasia of κατατομή, περιτομή, compare 2 Thess. iii. 11 μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους, Rom. xii. 3 μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ’ ὁ δεῖ φρονεῖν ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν: see Winer § lxviii. p. 793 sq. See the monograph by J. F. Böttcher de Paron. etc. Paulo freq. (Lips. 1823); and for instances in the Old Testament Glass. Phil. Sacr. v. ii. 2, p. 926. But, though especially frequent in the Bible, they are naturally common everywhere. The saying of Diogenes, that the school of Euclides was not σχολή but χολή and the discourse of Plato not διατριβή but κατατριβή (Diog. Laert. vi. 24), may be matched in English by the ambassador’s complaint that he had been sent not to Spain but to Pain, or Leicester’s report of the English troops in the Netherlands that the Queen’s ‘poor subjects were no better than abjects,’ or Coleridge’s description of French philosophy as ‘psilosophy,’ or again in Latin by the taunt of pope against antipopo that he was not ‘consecratus’ but ’execratus,’ or the common proverb ‘compendia dispendia.’ See also Farrar’s Chapters on Language p. 265 sq.

3. ἡμεῖς κ.τ.λ.] ‘We are the true

Philippians 3:4

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες. Ἀκάπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί· εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος circumcision; we, who have put off the impurity of the heart and have put on Christ, whether belonging to the outward circumcision, as I, or to the outward uncircumcision, as you.’ ἡ περιτομή] The contrast of the material and the spiritual circumcision occurs more than once elsewhere in St Paul: Rom. ii. 25 29,

Col. ii. 11, comp. Ephes. ii. 11 οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου. In this respect, as in so many others, St Stephen’s speech contains an anticipation of St Paul: Acts vii. 51 ἀπερίτμητοι καρδίοις καὶ τοῖς ὠσίν. The use made of the image of circumcision, as a metaphor for purity, in the Old Testament had prepared the way for the Apostle’s application: e.g. the circumcision of the heart, Levit. xxvi. 41, Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, Ezek. xliv. 7; of the ear, Jer. vi. 10; of the lips, Exod. vi. 12, 30; comp. Jer. ix. 25, 26. Thus too Philo discusses at some length the significance of this rite, as a symbol of moral purgation, de Circum. II. p. 211 M, comp. de Vict. Off. II. p. 258 N. So too Justin. Dial. 12, p. 229 ο δευτέρας ἤδη χρεία περιτομῆς, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ τῇ σαρκὶ μέγα φρονεῖτε (comp. § 19, p. 236 o), § 43, p. 26: ο οὐ ταύτην τὴν κατὰ σάρκα περιλάβομεν περιτομὴν ἀλλὰ πνευματικήν, Barnab. § 9.

πνεύματι Θεοῦ] ‘by the Spirit of

God,’ and not with the ordinances and traditions of men. Thus Θεοῦ, besides being the better supported reading, is also more emphatic than Θεῷ. The latter however presents a closer parallel to Rom. i. 9 ὁ Θεὸς ᾧ λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου. See the next note.

λατρεύοντες] The terms λατρεία,

λατρεύειν, had got to be used in a very special sense to denote the service rendered to Jehovah by the Israelite race, as His peculiar people: see especially Rom. ix. 4 ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία κ.τ.λ. PHIL.

καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι,

Acts xxvi. 7 εἰς ἣν τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν λατρεύων κ.τ.λ.; comp. Heb. ix. 1, 6. Hence the significance of St Paul’s words here; ‘We possess the true περιτομή, the circumcision not of the flesh but of the heart, and we also offer the true λατρεία, the service not of external rites but of a spiritual worship’: comp. Joh. iv. 23, 24. The same opposition between the external and the spiritual λατρεία is implied again in Rom. xii. 1 παραστήσαι τὰ σώματα

ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν,

besides Rom. i. 9 quoted in the previous note. Compare Athenag. Leg.

13 προσφέρειν δίον ἀπέμακτον θυσίαν καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν, and see the note on iv. 18. This definite sense of λατρεύειν explains how it is used absolutely without any case of the object following, as in Luke ii. 37, Acts xxvi, 7. The substitution of

Θεῷ for Θεοῦ here was probably an attempt to relieve the apparent awkwardness of this absolute use.

κουχώμενοι κ.τ.λ.] in accordance

with the precept in Jer. ix. 23, 24, twice quoted in a condensed form by St Paul, 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17, ὁ κουχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ κουχάσθω.

οὐκ ἐν σαρκί] Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18, Gal. vi. 13, 14. The expression ἐν σαρκὶ extends beyond περιτομή to all external privileges.

4. καίπερ ἐγὼ κ.τ.λ.] ’though having myself confidence.’ The Apostle for the moment places himself on the same standing ground with the Judalzers and, adopting their language, speaks of himself as having that which in fact he had renounced: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18 ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ κουχῶνται κατὰ [τὴν] σάρκα, κἀγὼ κουχῆσου. The proper force of ἔχων πεποίθησιν must not be explained away. The καίπερ ἐγὼ singles out the Apostle (comp. 1 Thess.

Philippians 3:5

πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μᾶλλον· ⁵περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος, ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμείν, Ἑβραῖος ἐξ ii. 18), for the Philippians did not likewise possess these claims.

καὶ ἐν σαρκί] ‘in the flesh as well as in Christ; as if forsooth this one topic did not cover the whole field of boasting.’ δοκεῖ πεποιθέναι] ’thinks to have confidence’; ‘seems to himself’ rather than ‘seems to others’; for the former, besides being the more common meaning in St Paul (1 Cor. iii. 18, vii. 40, x. 12, xi. 16 etc.), is also more forcible. With ἐγὼ μᾶλλον we must understand δοκῶ πεποιθέναι in the same sense; ‘If they arrogate to themselves these carnal privileges, I also arrogate them to myself.’ St Paul is using an argumentum ad hominem; in his own language, he is for the moment ‘speaking foolishly,’ is ‘speaking not after the Lord,’ 2 Cor. xi. 17. See the preceding note.

5. This passage has a close parallel in 2 Cor. xi. 21; and the comparison is instructive. With the same depth of feeling and the same general purport, the form of expression in the two passages differs widely. The tumultuous eagerness of the Apostle’s earlier style, which appears in the letter to the Corinthians, is replaced here by a more subdued, though not less earnest, tone of remonstrance. Compare also Rom. ix. 3-5, xi. 1. The four clauses at the beginning of the fifth verse, which describe the privileges inherited by the Apostle apart from his own act or will, are arranged in an ascending scale. (1) The due performance of the rite of circumcision shows that his parents were neither heathens nor sons of Ishmael. (2) But as this is consistent with their being proselytes, he specifies his direct Israelite descent. (3) Again, his ancestors might have been descendants of Israel and yet have belonged to a renegade tribe. Against this possibility he guards by naming the faithful tribe of Benjamin. (4) Lastly, many of those, whose descent was unimpeachable and who inherited the faith of the Mosaic law, yet as living among heathens adopted the language and conformed to the customs of the people around them. Not such were the forefathers of Saul of Tarsus. There had been no Hellenist among them; they were all strict Hebrews from first to last.

περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος] Converts to

Judaism would be circumcised in mature ago; Ishmaelites in their thirteenth year. Concerning the latter see Joseph. Ant. i. 12. 2. For the dative περιτομῇ ‘in respect of circumcision’ comp. ii. 7 σχήματι εὑρεθείς, and see Winer § xxxi. p. 270. The nominative περιτομή, read in some texts, is hardly translatable. For ὀκταήμερος ’eight days old’ compare τριήμερος (M. Anton. iv. 50), τετραήμερος (Arist. Pol. iii. 15), πενθήμερος (Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 14), δεχήμερος (Thucyd. v. 26, 32), etc. The passages quoted show that the words denote properly not interval but duration, so that ‘on the eighth day’ is not a very accurate translation. The broken days at the beginning and end are of course counted in to make up the eight. ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ] i. e. his parents were not grafted into the covenant people, but descended from the original stock. On the significance of ‘Israel, Israelite,’ as implying the privileges of the theocratic covenant, see the note on Gal. vi. 16.

φυλῆς Βενιαμείν] As Benjamin gave to the Israelites their first king, as Benjamin alone was faithful to Judah at the disruption, so also this tribe had from the earliest times held the post of honour in the armies of the nation. ‘After thee, O Benjamin’ was a battle-cry of Israel; Judges v. 14, Hos. v. 3. The glory of the Benjamite however did not end here. He re-

Philippians 3:6

Ἑβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος

membered with pride that his forefather alone of the twelve patriarchs was born in the land of promise (see the words put into the mouth of Mordecai in Megill. Esth. iii. 4, quoted by Wetstein). He would also recall the great national deliverance wrought by means of a Benjamite, which was commemorated in the yearly festival of Purim. St Paul mentions his descent from Benjamin again Rom. xi. 1. He doubtless derived his name ‘Saul’ directly or indirectly from the Benjamite king, to whom he himself refers with marked emphasis (Acts xiii. 21). At a very early date the prediction in Jacob’s blessing of Benjamin (Gen. xlix. 27). ‘In the morning he shall devour the prey and at night he shall divide the spoil,’ was applied to the persecuting zeal and later conversion of St Paul; Test. xii Patr. Benj. 11, Tortull. adv. Marc. v. 1, Hippol. Fragm. 50 (p. 140 Lagarde), Ephr. Syr. IV. pp. 114, 193, (comp. p. 288); see Galatians p. 321. On the character of Saul of Tarsus in connexion with the character of the tribe see Stanley Jewish Church II. p. 40.

‘Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων] As Ἰουδαῖος is opposed to Ἑλλην in the New Testament (e.g. Rom. i. 16), so is Ἑβραῖος to Ἑλληνιστής (Acts vi. 1). In other words, while the former pair of terms expresses a contrast of race and religion, the latter implies difference of language and manners. Within the pale of the Jewish Church a man was Ἰουδαῖος, who traced his descent from Jacob and conformed to the religion of his fathers, but he was not Ἑβραῖος also, unless he spoke the Hebrew tongue and retained Hebrew customs: see Trench N. T. Syn. § xxxix. p. 129. Hence here, as in 2 Cor. xi. 22, ‘Hebrew’ implies something which is not expressed in ‘Israelite.’ Though St Paul was born in Tarsus, he was yet brought up under a great Hebrew teacher in the Hebrew metropolis (Acts xxii. 3); he spoke the ‘Hebrew’ language fluently (xxi. 40, xxii. 2); he quotes frequently from the Hebrew Scriptures which he translates for himself, thus contrasting with his contemporaries the Jewish Philo and the Christian writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who commonly use the Hellenistic version of the Seventy. The tradition mentioned by Jerome on Philem. 23 (vii. p. 762, ed. Vallarsil), that St Paul’s parents lived in the Galilean town of Gischals and were driven thence by the Roman invasion, contains its own refutation in a manifest anachronism; but it seems to illustrate St Paul’s statement here, for it may rest on a reminiscence of the long residence of his family in those parts. For the form of expression ‘Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων, ‘a Hebrew and of Hebrew ancestry’, comp. Herod. ii. 143 πίρωμιν ἐκ πιρώμιος, Demosth. Andr. p. 614 δούλους ἐκ δούλων καλῶν ἑαυτοῦ βελτίους καὶ ἐκ βελτιόνων, Polyb. ii. 59. 1 οὐ μόνον γεγονέσαι τύραννον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τυράννων πεφυκέναι, with other passages collected in Wetstein and Kypke.

Having thus enumerated his inherited privileges, the Apostle goes on to speak of matters which depended on his own personal choice. Here are three topics of boasting. (1) As regards law, he attached himself to the sect which was strictest in its ritual observance. (2) As regards zeal, he had been as energetic as any of his countrymen in persecuting the Church. (3) As regards righteousness, he had left nothing undone which the law required.

‘Ἰων,’ not ’the law’; for though the Mosaic law is meant, yet it is here regarded in the abstract, as a principle of action, being coordinated with ζῆλος and δικαιοσύνην. For the

10—2

Philippians 3:7-8

ἄμεμπτος. $^(7)$[ἀλλὰ] ἄτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἠγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν. $^(8)$ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἠγούμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χρισ-

7. ἄτινα μοι ἦν κέρδη.

8. ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε [καὶ] ἠγούμαι.

distinction of νόμος and ὁ νόμος see the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 4, 5 21, v. 18, vi. 13.

Φαρισαῖος] Acts xxiii. 6 ἐγὼ Φαρισαῖος εἰμι υἱὸς Φαρισαίων (where υἱὸς Φαρισαίων perhaps refers rather to his teachers than to his ancestors, being a Hebraism like ’the sons of the prophets’; comp. Amos vii. 14), xxvi. 5 κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἴρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος, xxii. 3 πεπαιδευμένος κατὰ ἀκριβείαν τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου. Similarly St Paul calls himself ζηλωτὴς τῶν ποτρικῶν παραδόσεων in Gal. i. 14: see the note there.

6. κατὰ ζῆλος κ.τ.λ.] An expression of intense irony, condemning while he seems to exalt his former self: ‘I was zealous above them all; I asserted my principles with fire and sword; I persecuted, imprisoned, slew these infatuated Christians; this was my great claim to God’s favour.’ This condensed irony is more common in the earlier epistles: e.g. 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1, 7, 19. The correct reading is ζῆλος (not ζῆλον), for which form see Winer § ix. p. 76, A. Buttmann p. 20. In Clem. Rom. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, where the word occurs frequently, the masculine and neuter seem to be interchanged without any law.

διώκων] The references to his persecution of the Church are frequent in St Paul: see the note on Gal. i. 13 καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

τὴν ἐν νόμῳ] added to qualify and explain δικαιοσύνην; ‘Such righteousness as consists in law, in obedience to formal precepts’, but not the true righteousness: see ver. 9. Here ἐν νόμῳ is used without the article for the same reason as in ver. 5.

γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος] ‘showing my-

self blameless’, i.e. ‘I omitted no observance however trivial’, for μέμφεσθαι applies to sins of omission.

ἄτινα κ.τ.λ.] ‘All such things which I used to count up as distinct items with a miserly greed and reckon to my credit—these I have massed together under one general head as loss’. This paraphrase is intended to bring out, though with a necessary exaggeration, the idea faintly expressed by the change from the plural (κέρδη) to the singular (ζημίαν). Otherwise there would be a natural tendency to make both plural or both singular: comp. Menand. Mon. 301 (Meineke iv. p. 348) κέρδος πονηρὸν ζημίαν ἀεὶ φέρει with ib. 496 (p. 354) τὰ μικρὰ κέρδη ζημίας μεγάλας φέρει. For ἄτινα, denoting ’the class of things’, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19.

διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν] ‘for Christ’, i.e. as it is explained below (ver. 8), ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω. To this end it was necessary first to renounce all other claims to righteousness: see especially Gal. v. 4.

8. ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν κ.τ.λ.] ‘may moreover I do count all things etc.’; see Winer § liii. p. 552. This combination of particles introduces the present statement as an amendment and extension of the former. The advance consists in two points; (1) The substitution of the present for the perfect (ἠγούμαι for ἠγημαι); (2) The expansion of ταῦτα into πάντα.

διὰ τὰ ὑπερέχον κ.τ.λ.] The preposition may mean either ‘for the sake of’ (as in διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν above and δι’ ὃν below); or, as the sense of ὑπερέχον suggests, ‘by reason of’, signifying that the surpassing worth of this knowledge eclipses and annihilates all other gains in comparison;

Philippians 3:9

τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου μου, δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην καὶ ἠγούμαι σκύβαλα, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω ⁹ καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου, ἀλλὰ as 2 Cor. iii. 10 οὐ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδο- ξασμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει εἵνεκεν τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης.

τοῦ Κυρίου μου] See the note on i. 3.

τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην] ‘I suffered the confiscation, was mulcted, of all things together.’ For τὰ πάντα, which is somewhat stronger than πάντα, comp. Rom. viii. 32, xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, etc.

σκύβαλα] The word seems to signify generally ‘refuse’, being applied most frequently in one sense or other to food, as in Plut. Mor. p. 352 ὑπερίττωμα δὲ τροφῆς καὶ σκύβαλον οὐδὲν ἁγνὸν οὐδὲ καθαρὸν ἐστι’ ἐκ δὲ τῶν περιττωμάτων ἔρια καὶ λάχναι καὶ τρίχες καὶ ὄνυχες ἀναφύονται. The two significations most common are: (1) ‘Excrement,’ the portion of food rejected by the body, as not possessing nutritive qualities: e.g. Joseph. B. J. v. 13. 7. This sense is frequent in medical writers. (2) ‘The refuse or leavings of a feast,’ the food thrown away from the table: e.g. Leon. Alex. 30 (Anthol. II. p. 196) ὡς ἀποδεικνυδίου γευσόμενος σκυβάλου, Aristo 2 (ib. II. p. 258) δεῖπνον συχνὸν ἀπὸ σκυβάλων, Adesp. 13 (ib. iii. p. 253) ἐρρίφθω ξηροῖς φυρόμενον σκυβάλοις, Q. Mæc. 8 (ib. II. p. 238), Adesp. 386 (ib. III. p. 233); and metaphorically Heges. 4 (ib. I. p. 254) ἐξ ἀλὸς ἡμίβρωτον ἀνηνέγκαντο σαγηνεῖς ἄνδρα πολύκλαντον ναυτιλῆς σκύβαλον. So again σκυβάλισμα, Pseudo-Phocyl. 144 μηδ’ ἄλλου παρὰ δατὸς ἰδῆς σκυβάλισμα τραπέζης.

As regards derivation, it is now generally connected with σκώρ, σκατός (Benfey Wurzel. I. p. 628, II. p. 172, Lobeck Pathol. p. 92). This derivation countenances the former of the two senses given above; but Suidas explains the word, τὸ τοῖς κυσὶ βαλλόμενον κυσίβαλόν τι ὃν (comp. Etym.

Mag. p. 719, 53); and so Pott, Etym. Forsch. II. p. 295, taking σκυ- to represent ἐκ κύνας and comparing σκορακίζειν. This account of the word seems at least as probable as the other; but whether correct or not, it would appear to have been the popular derivation, and from this circumstance the second of the two meanings would become more prominent than the first.

At all events this meaning, which is well supported by the passages quoted, is especially appropriate here. The Judaizers spoke of themselves as banqueters seated at the Father’s table, of Gentile Christians as dogs greedily snatching up the refuse meat which fell therefrom. St Paul has reversed the image. The Judaizers are themselves the dogs (ver. 2); the meats served to the sons of God are spiritual meats; the ordinances, which the formalists value so highly, are the mere refuse of the feast.

The earnest reiteration of St Paul’s language here expresses the intensity of his desire to produce conviction: κέρδη, κερδήσω—ἤγημαι, ἠγούμαι, ἠγούμαι· ζημίαν, ζημίαν, ἐζημιώθην—διὰ, διὰ, διὰ—πάντα, τὰ πάντα—Χριστόν, Χριστοῦ, Χριστόν; see aboro i. 9, 14, 27, ii. 2.

9. εὑρεθῶ] ‘may be found’; perhaps at the great day of revelation (2 Cor. v. 3), perhaps more generally (1 Cor. iv. 2). For the frequent use of this word in Aramaised Greek see the note on Gal. ii. 17.

ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Christ’, as part of Christ, as a member of His body. It is only by becoming one with Christ, that Christ’s righteousness can become our righteousness.

ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην] ‘Any righteousness that I may have or not have.’

Philippians 3:10

τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, ¹⁰τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ κοινωνίαν [τῶν] παθημάτων αὐτοῦ,

It is ἐμήν, not τὴν ἐμήν; for the latter would seem to assume the existence of such personal righteousness. Comp. Rom. x. 3 ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην] ζητοῦντες στήσαι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν. St Paul is applying and extending the language of the Old Testament: comp. Ps. lxxi. 16, Is. lxiv. 6.

τὴν ἐκ νόμου] See above ver. 6; comp. Gal. ii. 16—21, iii. 10—12, 21, Rom. iii. 21—31, iv. 13, 14, ix. 30—32, x. 4, 5.

ἀλλὰ κ.τ.λ.] Here διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ is opposed to ἐκ νόμου, and ἐκ Θεοῦ to ἐμήν, of the preceding clause.

διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ] ’through faith in Christ.’ The ἐκ of the former clause is changed into διὰ here, because faith is only the means, not the source, of justification: see the note on Gal. ii. 16.

ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει] ‘on the condition of faith’; as Acts iii. 16. The article (τῇ πίστει) is used here, because πίστεως has gone before; ’the faith thus supposed’.

10. ‘That I may know Him. And when I speak of knowing Him, I mean, that I may feel the power of His resurrection; but to feel this, it is first necessary that I should share His sufferings.’ The essence of knowing Christ consists in knowing the power of His resurrection; hence the words καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ are added by way of explanation. But these words again suggest another thought; no one can participate in His resurrection, who has not first participated in His death. Hence a further addition καὶ κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, which logically precedes τὴν δύναμιν κ.τ.λ., as appears from the explanation following, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, εἴ πως κ.τ.λ.

τοῦ γνῶναι] not simply ‘know’, but ‘recognise, feel, appropriate’. On γινώσκειν see the notes to Gal. iii. 7, iv. 9. This intense sense of γινώσκειν, and even of εἰδέναι (e.g. 1 Thess. v. 12), is the more common in Biblical Greek, because both words are used in the lxx as renderings of γν which frequently has this sense.

τὴν δύναμιν κ.τ.λ.] ’the power of His resurrection’; as the assurance of immortality (Rom. viii. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 14 sq.), as the triumph over sin and the pledge of justification (Rom. iv. 24, 25), as asserting the dignity and enforcing the claims of the human body (1 Cor. vi. 13—15, Phil. iii. 21); thus quickening and stimulating the whole moral and spiritual being (Rom. vi. 4 sq., Gal. ii. 20, Ephes. ii. 5, Col. ii. 12). On this see Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection ii. § 31 sq.

καὶ κοινωνίαν κ.τ.λ.] The participation in Christ’s sufferings partly follows upon and partly precedes the power of His resurrection. It follows, as the practical result on our life; it precedes, as leading up to the full and final appreciation of this power. In this latter aspect it is taken up in the explanatory clause which comes immediately after, συμμορφιζόμενος κ.τ.λ. For the expression τὴν κοινωνίαν κ.τ.λ. comp. 2 Cor. i. 5 περρισεύει τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ., 1 Pet. iv. 13 κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν, Col. i. 24, Polyc. Phil. 9 πορὰ τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾧ καὶ συνέπαθον. See also for the idea the passages quoted in the next note. The τὴν before κοινωνίαν in the received text, besides being deficient in authority, severs the close connexion between ’the power of His resurrection’ and ’the participation in His sufferings.’

συμμορφιζόμενος κ.τ.λ.] See Rom. vi. 5 εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ

Philippians 3:11-12

συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, “εἶ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν. ¹²οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἀμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἰσόμεθα, 2 Cor. iv. 10 πάντοτε τὴν νίκρως τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι περιφέροντες, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ φανερωθῇ ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ.; comp. Rom. viii. 17, 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. The conformity with the sufferings of Christ implies not only the endurance of persecution for His name, but all pangs and all afflictions undergone in the struggle against sin either within or without. The agony of Gethsemane, not less than the agony of Calvary, will be reproduced however faintly in the faithful servant of Christ. For συμμορφιζόμενος see the detached note on μορφὴ and σχῆμα above p. 130.

εἶ πως καταντήσω] ‘if so be I may attain.’ The Apostle states not a positive assurance but a modest hope. For εἶ πως see Acts xxvii. 12 (optat.), Rom. i. 10 (fut.), xi. 14 (fut. or conj.). Here καταντήσω is probably the conjunctive, as εἰ καὶ καταλάβω follows immediately. The conjunctive with εἰ, barely tolerated in Attic prose (though less rare in poetry), is hardly more common in the Greek Testament. The only decisive instance seems to be εἰ καὶ καταλάβω below, ver. 12. In other passages (as Luke ix. 13, 1 Cor. ix. 11, xiv. 5, 1 Thess. v. 10, Rev. xi. 5) the possibility of error or the existence of various readings renders it more or less doubtful.

τὴν ἐξανάστασιν κ.τ.λ.] The ‘resurrection from the dead’ is the final resurrection of the righteous to a new and glorified life. This meaning, which the context requires, is implied by the form of expression. The general resurrection of the dead, whether good or bad, is ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν (e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 42); on the other hand the resurrection of Christ and of those who rise with Christ is generally [ἡ] ἀνάστασις [ἡ] ἐκ νεκρῶν (Luke xx. 35, Acts iv. 2, 1 Pet. i. 3). The former includes both the ἀνάστασις ζωῆς and the ἀνάστασις κρίσεως (Joh. v. 29); the latter is confined to the ἀνάστασις ζωῆς. The received reading τῶν νεκρῶν for τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν, besides being feebly supported, disregards this distinction. Here the expression is further intensified by the substitution of ἐξανάστασις for ἀνάστασις, the word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament.

12. In the following verses, though St Paul speaks of himself, his language seems really to be directed against the antinomian spirit, which in its rebound from Jewish formalism perverted liberty into license. It is necessary to supply a corrective to such false inferences drawn from the doctrine of grace broadly stated. This he does by pointing to his own spiritual insecurity, his own earnest strivings, his own onward progress. ‘To continue in sin that grace may abound’ gains no countenance either from his doctrine or from his example. Having thus prepared the way, he in the 18th verse directly condemns those professed followers who thus dragged his teaching in the dust. See the introduction p. 70.

12—16. ‘Do not mistake me, I hold the language of hope, not of assurance. I have not yet reached the goal; I am not yet made perfect. But I press forward in the race, eager to grasp the prize, forasmuch as Christ also has grasped me. My brothers, let other men vaunt their security. Such is not my language. I do not consider that I have the prize already in my grasp. This, and this only, is my rule. Forgetting the landmarks already passed and straining every nerve and muscle in the onward race, I press forward over towards the goal, that I may win the prize of my heavenly rest whereunto God has called me in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore,

Philippians 3:13-14

ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ. ¹³ ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτόν οὐ λογίζομαι κατεληφέναι· ¹⁴ ἐν δέ, τὰ μὲν ὅπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος who have put away childish things, who boast that we are men in Christ, so resolve. Then, if in any matter we lose our way, God will at length reveal this also to us. Only let us remember one thing. Our footsteps must not swerve from the line in which we have hitherto trodden.’

12. οὐχ ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] The change of tense is not accidental. The aorist ἔλαβον points to a past epoch, to which ἐζημιώθην, κατελήμφθην, also refer; ’not as though by my conversion I did at once attain’. The perfect τετελείωμαι describes his present state; ’not as though I were now already perfected.’ For οὐχ ὅτι compare 2

Cor. iii. 5, vii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 9, and below iv. 11, 17.

διώκω κ.τ.λ.] For the connexion of διώκειν and καταλαμβάνειν see Herod. ix. 58 διωκτέοι εἰσὶ εἰς ὁ καταλαμφθέντες κ.τ.λ., Lucian Hermoi. 77 ὠκύτεροι παραπολὺ διώκοντες οὐ κατέλαβον: compare LXX Exod. xv. 9,

Eccles. xi. 10. For the meaning of these two words see the note on ἐπεκτεινόμενος ver. 14; for the conjunctive καταλάβω, the note on καταστήσω ver. 10. ἐφ’ ᾧ; may mean either (1) ‘Wherefore, whereunto,’ thus fulfilling God’s purpose; or (2) ‘Because,’ thus fulfilling his own duty. In this second sense ἐφ’ ᾧ is apparently used Rom. v. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4. The former meaning seems more appropriate here, though the latter is better supported by St Paul’s usage elsewhere. On the different senses of ἐφ’ ᾧ see Fritzsche on Rom. I. p. 299. Others, as the English Version, understand an antecedent, καταλάβω ἐκεῖνο ἐφ’ ᾧ (comp. Luke v. 25); but καταλάβω, like κατεληφέναι below, seems to be used absolutely, as ἔλαβον and διώκω also are used.

13. ἀδελφοί] ‘my brothers,’ with a view of arresting attention; see the notes on Gal. iii. 15, vi. 1, 18.

ἐγὼ ἐμαυτόν] ‘Facile hoc alii de

Paulo existimare possent,’ says Bengel. This however seems hardly to be the point of the expression. St Paul is not contrasting his own estimate of himself with other people’s estimate of him, but his estimate of himself with others’ estimate of themselves. He is in fact protesting against the false security, the antinomian recklessness, which others deduced from the doctrine of faith: see the notes on τέλειαι ver. 15, and on vv. 12, 19, and the introduction p. 70.

14. ἐν δέ] This usage may be illustrated by the classical expression δοοῖν θάτερον. It is difficult to say whether ἐν is a nominative or an accusative. If (with Winer § lxvi. p. 774) we may compare 2 Cor. vi. 13, it is the latter.

τὰ ὅπίσω] i.e. the portion of the course already traversed. Compare

Lucian Calumn. 12 οἷον τι καὶ ἐπὶ

τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν δρομέων γίγνεται· κἀκεῖ γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἀγαθὸς δρομεὺς τῆς ὕσπληγος εὐθὺς καταπεσούσης, μόνον τοῦ πρὸς ἐφίμενος καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀποτεῖνας πρὸς τὸ τέρμα κ.τ.λ.

ἐπεκτεινόμενος] ‘superextensus: ocnlus manum, manus pedem prævertit et trahit,’ is Bengel’s paraphrase. The metaphor may possibly be derived from the chariot races in the Circus, as the epistle was written from Romo. On this supposition the meaning of ἐπεκτεινόμενος has been aptly illustrated by Virgil’s ‘Instant verbore torto Et proni dant lora’ (Georg. iii. 106). To this view διώκω lends some support, for it is frequently said of charioteers (e.g. Soph. El. 738); but all the terms

Philippians 3:15

κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Ἰόσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν· καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε, καὶ τοῦτο ὁ Θεὸς

15. τοῦτο φρονῶμεν.

used are equally appropriate to the foot-race, and there seems no reason for departing from St Paul’s usual metaphor. Moreover the not looking back, which showed a right temper in a runner (Lucian l. c.), would be fatal to the charioteer; see Themist. Orat. xv. p. 196 B ἀνδρὶ δὲ ἠνυχοῦντι… ἀνάγκη… τὰ μὲν πρὸς μὴ πᾶν ὑρῶν ὑπίσω δὲ ἀεὶ τετράφθαι τῇ γνώμῃ πρὸς τοὺς διώκοντας κ.τ.λ. The word occurs Iren. i. 11. 3 (comp. i. 2. 2).

εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον] ‘unto the prize’; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24. This preposition is used, because the prize marks the position of the goal. The ἐπὶ of the common text is an obvious substitution for a more difficult reading.

τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως] ‘our heavenward calling’; so Philo Plant. § 6 p. 333 M πρὸς γὰρ τὸ θεῖον ἄνω καλεῖσθαι θέμις τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καταπνευσθέντας, comp. Heb. iii. 1. The words ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ must be taken with κλήσεως; see 1 Cor. vii. 22, 1 Pet. v. 10.

15. ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι] The τέλειοι are ‘grown men’ as opposed to children; e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 20, Ephes. iv. 13, Heb. v. 14. They are therefore those who have passed out of the rudimentary discipline of ordinances (Gal. iv. 3, 4), who have put away childish things (1 Cor. xiii. 10—12), who have assumed the Apostle’s ground respecting the law. The τέλειοι in fact are the same with the πνευματικοί: comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6 with iii. 1. But these men, who were proud of their manhood, who boasted their spiritual discernment, were often regardless of the scruples of others and even lax in their own lives. Hence the stress which St Paul here lays on the duty of moral and spiritual progress, as enforced by his own example. Thus in ὅσοι τέλειοι, ‘all we who attained our manhood, our independence, in Christ’, there is the same reproachful irony as in 1 Cor. viii. 1 οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν, in Rom. xv. 1 ἡμεῖς οἱ δυνατοί, and possibly also in Gal. vi. 1 ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοί. The epithet τέλειοι seems to have been especially affected by the party both at this time and later; comp. Barnab. 4 γενώμεθα πνευματικοί, γενώμεθα ναὸς τέλειος τῷ Θεῷ, Iren. i. 6. 4 ἑαυτοὺς δὲ ὑπερυψοῦσι, τελείους ἀποκαλοῦντες καὶ σπέρματα ἐκλογῆς (comp. § 3, where οἱ τελειότατοι is said in irony, and see also i. 13. 5, i. 18. 1, iii. 13. 5), Clem. Alex. Pard. i. 6 (p. 128 Potter) ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ θαυμάζειν ἔπεισιν ὅπως σφᾶς τελείους τινὲς τολμῶσι καλεῖν καὶ γνωστικοὺς, ὑπὲρ τὸν ἀπόστολον φρονοῦντες, φυσιοῦμενοί τε καὶ φρυατόμενοι κ.τ.λ., Hippol. Hær. v. 8 οὐδεὶς τούτων τῶν μυστηρίων ἀκροατῆς γέγονεν εἰ μὴ μόνοι οἱ γνωστικοὶ τέλειοι, not without a reference to the secondary sense of the word, ‘instructed in the mysteries.’ See Clem. Hum. iii. 29 τελείως ἐκφαίνειν τὸν μυστικὸν λόγον… τοῖς ἤδη τελείοις ἔφη.

τοῦτο φρονῶμεν] ’let us have this mind’, i.e. let us make it our rule to forget the past and press ever forward.

καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως κ.τ.λ.] ‘Then, if only you hold this fundamental principle, if progress is indeed your rule; though you are at fault on any subject, God will reveal this also to you’; comp. Joh. vii. 17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὰ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς πότερον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστὶν κ.τ.λ. Here ἑτέρως seems to have the meaning ‘amiss’: see the note on Gal. i. 6. It may however be ‘otherwise,’ in reference to τοῦτο φρονῶμεν; in which case εἴτι will mean ‘in any minor point’: ‘If you are sound at the core, God will remove the superficial blemishes.’

Philippians 3:16-17

ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει· ¹⁶πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν.

¹⁷Συνμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε

Comp. Herm. Vis. iii. 13 ἰὰν τι δὲ δέη, ἀποκαλυφθήσεταί σοι.

16. πλὴν εἰς ὃ κ.τ.λ.] ‘only we must walk by the same rule whereunto we attained.’ What is meant by this same rule? Is it (1) The rule of moral progress? or (2) The rule of faith as opposed to works? In the former case, the words would simply enforce the preceding τοῦτο φρονέμεν; in the latter, they are added as a parting caution against ’the dogs, the base workers, the concision.’ The latter seems preferable, as on the whole the reference to the Judaizers is the more probable, both because St Paul’s earnestness would naturally prompt him to recur to this subject, and because the phrase is elsewhere used in the same connexion; Gal. vi. 16 ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, comp. v. 25. The words after στοιχεῖν in the received text (κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν) are interpolated from Gal. vi. 16, Phil. ii. 2. Of these κανόνι is a correct gloss, while τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν expresses an idea alien to the context. Though πλὴν is now generally connected with πλέον, πλεῖν, as if it signified ‘more than, beyond’ (e. g. Klotz Devar. ii. p. 724, Curtius Griech. Etym. p. 253), the etymology which connects it with πέλας seems to offer a better explanation of its usage. It will then signify ‘besides,’ and hence, in passages like the present, ‘apart from this,’ ‘setting this aside’; so that it is conveniently translated ‘only’: comp. i. 18, iv. 14. In this case it has an accusative form, like δίκην, ἐπίκλην, or the Latin ‘clam,’ ‘palam,’ etc. For the dative of the rule or direction (τῷ αὐτῷ) see the notes on Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16. The infinitive στοιχεῖν is equivalent to an emphatic imperative; see Fritzsche Rom. III. p. 85, and Winer § xliii. p. 398. For φθάνειν εἰς, ’to reach to’ see Dan. iv. 19, Rom. ix. 31.

17—21. ‘My brethren, vie with each other in imitating me, and observe those whose walk of life is fashioned after our example. This is the only safe test. For there are many, of whom I told you often and now tell you again even in tears, who professing our doctrine walk not in our footsteps. They are foes to the cross of Christ; they are doomed to perdition; they make their appetites their god; they glory in their shame; they are absorbed in earthly things. Not such is our life. In heaven we have even now our country, our home; and from heaven hereafter we look in patient hope for a deliverer, even the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change the fleeting fashion of these bodies—the bodies of our earthly humiliation—so that they shall take the abiding form of His own body—the body of His risen glory: for such is the working of the mighty power whereby He is able to subdue all things alike unto Himself.’

17. Συνμιμηταί μου] i.e. ‘Vie with each other in imitating me,’ ‘one and all of you imitate me’: so συμμιμείσθαι Plat. Polit. p. 274 D. Compare 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1, 1 Thess. i. 6, 2 Thess. iii. 7, 9, ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δῶμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ μιμείσθαι ἡμᾶς. In 1 Cor. xi. 1 the injunction μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε is addressed, as here, to the party of reaction against Judaism.

σκοπεῖτε] ‘mark and follow,’ not as generally ‘mark and avoid’, e.g. Rom. xvi. 17. Under ἡμᾶς are included Timotheus, Epaphroditus, and other faithful companions known to the Philippians. Shrinking from the egotism of dwelling on his own personal example, St Paul passes at once from the singular (μου) to the plural (ἡμᾶς).

18. πολλοὶ γάρ] If the view which

Philippians 3:18

τοὺς οὕτω περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς. 18 πολλοὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦσιν, οὓς πολλάκις ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ I have taken be correct, the persons here denounced are not the Judaizing teachers, but the antinomian reactionists. This view is borne out by the parallel expression, Rom. xvi. 18 τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ δουλεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ, where the same persons seem to be intended; for they are described as creating divisions and offences (ver. 17), as holding plausible language (ver. 18), as professing to be wise beyond others (ver. 19) and yet not innocent in their wisdom; this last reproach being implied in the words θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς σοφοὺς εἶναι εἰς τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀκεραίους δὲ εἰς τὸ κακόν. They appear therefore to belong to the same party to which the passages vi. 1—23, xiv. 1—xv. 6, of that epistle are chiefly addressed. For the profession of

‘wisdom’ in these faithless disciples of St Paul see 1 Cor. i. 17 sq., iv. 18 sq., viii. 1 sq., x. 15. Compare the note on τέλειοι above.

περιπατοῦσιν] An adverbial clause, such as οὐκ ὀρθῶς, might have been expected: but in the earnestness of expression the sentence is uninterrupted, the qualifying idea being for the moment dropped. It reappears in a different form in the words τοὺς ἐχθροὺς κ.τ.λ. attached to the dependent sentence οὐς πολλάκις ἔλεγον κ.τ.λ. νῦν δέ] ‘but now’, for the evil has grown meanwhile.

καὶ κλαίων] The stress of St Paul’s grief would lie in the fact, that they degraded the true doctrine of liberty, so as to minister to their profligate and worldly living. They made use of his name, but did not follow his example.

τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ] See Polyc. Phil. § 12. These words do not in themselves decide what persons are here denounced; for the enemies of the cross may be twofold; (1) Doctrinal. The Judaizers, who deny the efficacy of the cross and substitute obedience to a formal code in its place; comp. Gal. v. 11, vi. 12, 14. (2) Practical. The Antinomians, who refuse to conform to the cross (iii. 10, 2 Cor. i. 5, 6) and live a life of selfindulgence; comp. 1 Cor. i. 17. If the view, which I have adopted and which the context seems to require, is correct, the latter are here meant; see the last note. In the passages, Polyc. Phil. 7 ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, Ignat. Trall. 11 ἐφαίνοντο ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ, the reference is apparently to docetism, as denying the reality of the passion. But belonging to a later generation, these passages throw no light on St Paul’s meaning here.

19. τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια] Comp. Rom.

vi. 21 τὸ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος: see also 2 Cor. xi. 15, Hebr. vi. 8.

ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία] See Rom. xvi. 18

already quoted: comp. Seneca de

Benef. vii. 26 ‘Alius abdomini servit’, Eur. Cycl. 335 θύω…τῇ μεγίστη γαστρὶ τῇδε δαιμόνων’ ὡς τούμπειν γε καὶ

φαγεῖν τούφ’ ἡμέραν Ζεὺς οὗτος ἀνθρώποισι τοῖσι σώφρυσιν. So in attacks on Epicurean ethics ‘venter’ commonly appears as the type of sensual appetites generally, e. g. Cic. Nat. Deor. i. 40, Senec. Vit. Beat. ix. 4, xiv. 3. The Apostle elsewhere reminds these lax brethren, that ’the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking,’ Rom. xiv. 17; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8. The selfindulgence, which wounds the tender conscience of others and turns liberty into license, is here condemned.

ἡ δόξα κ.τ.λ.] The unfettered liberty, of which they boast, thus perverted becomes their deepest degradation.

Philippians 3:19-20

Χριστοῦ, ¹⁹ ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία, καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. ²⁰ ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χρισ-

20. ἡμῶν δὲ τὸ πολίτευμα.

Comp. Hosea vii. 8 τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀτιμίαν θήσω.

οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια κ.τ.λ.] ‘Men whose minds are set on earthly things’! For the abrupt nominative occurring without any grammatical connexion and expressing amazement, comp. Mark xii. 38-40; see Winer § xxix. p. 228.

20. ἡμῶν γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] ‘Their souls are mundane and grovelling. They have no fellowship with us; for we are citizens of a heavenly commonwealth’. The emphatic position of ἡμῶν contrasts the false adherents of St Paul with the true. About the connecting particle there is some difficulty. While the earliest was all read γάρ, the earliest citations (with several versions) have persistently δέ. I have therefore given δέ as a possible alternative; although it is probably a substitution for γάρ, of which the connexion was not very obvious.

τὰ πολίτευμα] This may mean either (1) ‘The state, the constitution, to which as citizens we belong’, e.g. Philo de Jos. ii. p. 51 μ ἐγγραφῆς τῆς ἐν τῷ μεγίστῳ καὶ ἀρίστῳ πολιτεύματι τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου, de Confus. i. p. 421 μ ἐγγράφονται τῷ τῆς προτέρας πολιτεύματι, 2 Macc. xii. 7 τὸ σύμπαν τῶν Ἰοππιτῶν πολίτευμα; or (2) ‘The functions which as citizens we perform’, e.g. Demosth. de Cor. p. 262 πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα προηρούμην πολιτεύματα κ.τ.λ., Lucian Prom. 15 ἐπὶ τῷ πολιτεύματι τούτῳ, Tatian ad Græc. 19. The singular points to the former meaning, which is also more frequent. In either case ἐξ οὗ ‘whence’ will refer not to πολίτευμα, but to οὐρανοῖς. On the metaphor see above i. 27. Compare also Philo de Confus. i. p. 416 μ πατρίδα μὲν τὸν οὐράνιον χώρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύ-

ονται ξένον δὲ τὸν περίγειον ἐν ᾧ παρῴκησαν νομίζουσαι, Epist. ad Diogn. § 5 ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ’ ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται, Clem. Hom. i. 16 αὐτῇ σε ἡ ἀλήθεια ξένον ὄντα τῆς ἰδίας πόλεως καταστήσει πολίτην. See also M. Anton. iii. 11 πολίτην ὄντα πόλεως τῆς ἀνωτάτης ἧς αἱ λοιποὶ πόλεις ὥσπερ οἰκίαι εἰσίν. It was a favourite metaphor with the Stoics, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 26 (p. 642 Potter) λέγουσι γὰρ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν κυρίως πόλιν τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ γῆς ἐνταῦθα οὐκ ἔτι πόλεις, λέγεσθαι μὲν γάρ, οὐκ εἶναι δὲ κ.τ.λ.; see below, p. 303 sq. Somewhat similarly Plato says of his ideal state (Resp. ix. p. 592 μ) ἐν οὐρανῷ ἴσως παράδειγμα [τῆς πόλεως] ἀνάκειται τῷ βουλομένῳ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὁρῶντι ἑαυτὸν κατοικίζειν. But the reply of Anaxagoras (Diog. Laert. ii. 7) to one who reproached him with indifference to his countrymen, εὔφημαι, ἐμοὶ γὰρ καὶ σφόδρα μέλει τῆς πατρίδος (δεῖξας τὸν οὐρανόν), ought not to be quoted in illustration, as it refers to his astronomical studies.

ὑπάρχει] ‘is even now’, for the kingdom of heaven is a present kingdom; so Ephes. ii. 19 οὐκέτι ἐστὶ ξέναι καὶ πάροικοι ἀλλὰ ἐστὶ συνπολίται τῶν ἁγίων κ.τ.λ. (comp. ver. 6).

σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα] ‘we eagerly await as a saviour’ On ἀπεκδέχεσθαι see Gal. v. 5, together with the note on ἀποκαραδοκία above, i. 20.

21. μετασχηματίσει] ‘will change the fashion’. For μετασχηματίσει and σύμμορφον see the detached note on μορφή and σχήμα, p. 130.

τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν] ‘of our humiliation’, i.e. the body which we bear in our present low estate, which is exposed to all the passions, sufferings, and indignities of this life. The