Philippians 2:30

Php 2:30. Μέχρι θανάτου, even unto death) This appertains to the comparison of duties [to the question of the prior claim among comparative duties]. To minister to Paul, seems in itself to be a matter of somewhat less importance than the danger to the life of Epaphroditus, who however most rightly purchased by this disadvantage [the danger to his life] that important benefit [the glad reception at Philippi, Php 2:29, and the love and prayers of Paul, Php 2:27-28]: 2Ti 1:16-17.—ἤγγισε, drew nigh) Epaphroditus, when setting out from Philippi, does not seem to have been aware that he would become sick; but yet, inasmuch as he undertook the arduous journey, not shrinking back through fear of whatever might happen to him either from the enemies of Paul or from any other cause, the sickness, although unforeseen, is attributed to him as if it were undergone out of kindness to Paul.—παραβουλευσάμενος τῇ ψυχῇ) τῇ ψυχῇ, the dative. Hesychius: παραβουλευσάμενος, εἰς θάνατον ἑαυτὸν ἐκδούς, exposing one’s self to death. παραβουλεύομαι properly signifies, I take counsel, or rather, I form a design contrary to my interests. It is a Paronomasia [the signification of a word changed by a slight alteration of letters] on the word παραβάλλομαι, I rashly dare, I cast myself recklessly into danger, which the apostle seems to have skilfully avoided, comp. Php 3:2, at the end, note.—τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα, your deficiency [Engl. V. lack of service]) This deficiency existed not so much in the estimate of Paul, as in the feeling of the Philippians themselves, on account of the love which they bore to him, ch. Php 4:10-11.

—————

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Php_2:30. διὰ τὸ ἔργ.] emphatically prefixed: on account of nothing else than for this great sacred aim. The work (see the critical remarks) is, according to the context (comp. Act_15:38), obvious, namely, that of labour for the gospel; the addition in the Rec. τοῦ Χριστοῦ is a correct gloss, and it is this ἔργον κατʼ ἐξοχήν (comp. ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος, Act_5:41) in the service of which Epaphroditus incurred so dangerous an illness, namely, when he, according to the testimony of the predicates in Php_2:25, as the συνεργός and συστρατιώτης of the apostle, with devotedness and self-sacrifice, united his exertions for the gospel and his striving against the movements of its adversaries (Php_1:15; Php_1:17; Php_1:30, Php_2:20) with a similar activity on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which refers ἔργον to the business of conveying the bounty (de Wette, following older expositors, comp. Weiss), does not suffice for the more special characteristic description; and the reference to the enmity of Nero against Paul, the dangers of which Epaphroditus had shared, in order to reach the apostle and to serve him, finds no warrant either in the context or in Acts 28 (in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, comp. Theodoret).

μέχρι θαν. ἤγγ.] as in Psa_107:18 : ἤγγισαν ἕως τῶν πυλῶν τοῦ θανάτου, Sir_51:6 : ἕως θανάτου, Rev_12:11. The expression with μέχρι is more definite than the dative would be (as in Psa_88:3 : ἡ ζωή μου τῷ ᾅδη ἤγγισε), or εἰς θάνατ. (Job_33:22); he came near even unto death.

παραβουλ. τῇ ψυχ.] Such is the Text. Rec., which Bengel, Matthaei (vehement in opposition to Wetstein and Griesbach), Rinck, van Hengel, Reiche, and others defend, and Tischendorf still follows in the 7th ed. Justly, however, Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and others, including Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, ed. 8, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, Winer, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, have preferred παραβολ. τ. ψ. The latter has the authority of A B D E F G א, 177, 178, 179 in its favour, as well as the support of the Itala by parabolatus est de anima sua, and of Vulgate, Aeth., Pelagius, by tradens (Ambrosiaster: in interitum tradens)animam suam. Since βολεύεσθαι was unknown to the copyists, whilst βουλεύεσθαι was very current, instead of the one ἅπαξ λεγόμ. another crept in, the form of which, on account of the prevalence of the simple word, had nothing offensive. παραβολεύεσθαι, which is nowhere certainly preserved (in opposition to Wetsteins quotations from the Fathers, see Matthiae, ed. min. p. 341 f., and Reiche, Comment, crit. p. 220 f.), is formed from the very current classical word παράβολος, putting at stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to παράβολον εἶναι, to be venturous, to be an adventurer, as περπερεύεσθαι equivalent to πέρπερον εἶναι (1Co_13:4), ἀλογεύεσθαι equivalent to ἄλογον εἶναι (Cic. Att. vi. 4), ἀποσκοπεύειν and ἐπισκοπεύειν (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), κωμικεύεσθαι (Luc. Philop. 22). See more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 67, and comp. generally Kühner, I. p. 695, II. 1, p. 98. Hence the παραβολευσάμενος κ.τ.λ., which is to be regarded as a modal definition to μ. θαν. ἤγγισε, means: so that he was venturesome with his soul (dative of the more definite reference), i.e. he hazarded his life,[143] in order to supply, etc. In this sense παραβάλλεσθαι is current among Greek authors, and that not merely with accusative of the object (Hom. Il. ix. 322; so usually, as in 2Ma_14:38), but also with dative of reference (Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii. 94. 4; Diod. Sic. iii. 35: ἔκριναν παραβαλλέσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς), in the sense of ῬΙΨΟΚΙΝΔΥΝΕῖΝ (Schol. Thuc. iv. 57) and ΠΑΡΑῤῬΊΠΤΕΙΝ (Soph. fr. 499. Diud.). Comp. παραβάλλομαι τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ κεφαλῇ in Phryn. ed. Lob. p. 238. Hence, also, the name parabolani for those who waited on the sick (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 2, p. 173, ed. 4). Taking the reading of the Text. Rec., παραβουλεύεσθαι would have to be explained: male consulere vitae (Luther aptly renders: since he thought light of his life). See especially Reiche. This verb, also, does not occur in profane Greek authors; but for instances from the Fathers, especially Chrysostom, and that in the sense specified, see Matthiae, l.c.; Hase in Steph. Thes. VI. p. 220.

ἵνα ἀναπλ. κ.τ.λ.] The object, to attain which he hazarded his life. We have to notice (1) that ὑμῶν belongs to ὙΣΤΈΡΗΜΑ; and (2) that Τῆς ΠΡΌς ΜΕ ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓ. can denote nothing else but the function,well known and defined by the context (Php_2:25), and conceived of as a sacrificial service,with which Epaphroditus had been commissioned by the Philippians in respect to Paul (ΠΡΌς ΜΕ). All explanations are therefore to be rejected, which either expressly or insensibly connect ὙΜῶΝ with ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓ., and take the latter in the general sense of rendering service (ΔΙΑΚΟΝΕῖΝ). We must reject, consequently, Chrysostoms explanation (comp. Theophylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castalio, Vatablus, and others): ΤῸ ΟὖΝ ὙΣΤΈΡΗΜΑ Τῆς ὙΜΕΤΈΡΑς ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΊΑς ἈΝΕΠΛΉΡΩΣΕΝ· … ὍΠΕΡ ἘΧΡῆΝ ΠΆΝΤΑς ΠΟΙῆΣΑΙ, ΤΟῦΤΟ ἜΠΡΑΞΕΝ ΑὐΤΌς;[144] also the similar view taken by Erasmus and many others (comp. Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Rilliet): quo videlicet pensaret id, quod ob absentiam vestro erga me officio videbatur deesse; the arbitrary explanation of Matthies: in order that he might perfect the readiness of service which you have shown on various occasions; and several other interpretations. Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the simple literal sense, takes τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρ. as defectus cui subvenistis, and τῆς πρός με λειτουργ. as: rerum necessariarum ad me subministrando deferendarum. No; of the two genitives, referring to different things (comp. Php_2:25, and see Winer, p. 180 [E. T. p. 239]), by which τὸ ὑστέρημα is accompanied, the first conveys who were wanting (ὑμῶν, ye were wanting, ye yourselves were not there, comp. 1Co_16:17), and the second to what this want applied. Consequently the passage is to be explained: in order to compensate for the circumstance, that ye have been wanting at the sacrificial service touching me; that is, for the circumstance, that this sacrificial service, which has been made through your love-gifts in my support, was completed, not jointly by you, but without you, so that only your messenger Epaphroditus was here, and not ye yourselves in person. How delicate and winning, and at the same time how enlisting their grateful sympathy in the fate of Epaphroditus, was it to represent the absence of the Philippians as something that had been lacking in that λειτουργία, and therefore, as something which Paul had missed, to supply which, as representative of the church, the man had (as his deadly sickness had actually shown) hazarded his life! He did not therefore contract the illness on his journey to Rome (de Wette, Weiss, and older expositors), as Hofmann thinks, who represents him as arriving there in the hot season of the year; but through his exertions διὰ τὸ ἔργον in Rome itself during his sojourn there, when his sickness showed that he had risked his life in order to bring the offering of the Philippians, and thus compensate the apostle for the absence of the church. On ἀναπλ. τὸ ὑμ. ὑστέρ., comp. 1Co_16:17. The compound verb is appropriately explained by Erasmus: accessione implere, quod plenitudini perfectae deerat. See on Gal_6:2.

It was a foolish blunder of Baur to hold the entire passage respecting Timothy and Epaphroditus as merely an imitation of 2Co_8:23 f. Hinsch very erroneously, because misconceiving the delicate courtesy of the grateful expression, thinks that in Php_2:30 the aid is described as a duty incumbent on the readers,which would be un-Pauline; Php_4:10 is far from favouring this idea.

[143] The matter is conceived as staking a price or forfeit. Comp. παραβόλιον in Poll. viii. 63, Phrynich. p. 238. On the subject-matter comp. also προΐεσθαι τὰς ψυχάς (Pausanias, iv. 10. 3); the animae magnae prodigus of Horace (Od. i. 12. 37); and the vitam profundere pro patria of Cicero (de Off. i. 24).

[144] Hofmann substantially reverts to this. He takes ὑμῶν as the subject, which had allowed something to remain lacking in the service, namely, in so far as the church had only collected the aid, but not conveyed it. How indelicate would such a thought have been! Besides, it was, in fact, an impossibility for the church to have come personally. Hence the church was wanting, indeed, at the transmission of the bounty, but it did not thereby allow anything to be wanting in the latter.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Phi 2:30 . τὸ ἔργον κ . τ . λ . The true reading is very difficult to determine with such a conflict of authorities. We are inclined to believe that τὸ ἔργ . stood alone as in C. This is certainly the hardest reading of all to account for. At a very early date additions like Χριστοῦ , Κυρίου , etc., would be sure to be made. μέχρι . A somewhat rare use of μ . Cf. Rev 12:11 , οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι θανάτου , and chap. Phi 2:8 . παραβολευσ . Here, with the great majority of the best authorities, we must read παραβολευσάμενος . It is a ἁπ . λεγ ., probably formed from παράβολος , rash, reckless. Cf. the legal term παράβολον (later, παραβόλιον ), the stake which has to be deposited by an appellant, and is forfeited if the action be lost. “Having hazarded his life.” Cf. the exact parallel in Diod., 3, 36, 4, παραβαλέσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς . What risk did he run? Hfm [14] . suggests that his illness was produced by his arrival in Rome during the hot season of the year. Chr [15] . thinks of danger at the hands of Nero. Wohl [16] . supposes that his illness was the result of his severe missionary labours in Rome. May it be that the Apostle was now confined in a far more unwholesome bondage than before (one of the noisome State-prisons? See Introduction ), and that the assiduous services of Epaphrod. to him there, brought on this severe illness? We believe that this interpretation is justified by the next words τὸ ὑμ . ὑστέρ .… λειτ . In what was their service towards the Apostle lacking? Evidently in nothing save their own personal presence and personal care of him. This would be the more urgently needed if Paul’s outward surroundings had become less favourable. For the phrase ἀναπλ . τὸ ὑστ ., Cf. 1Co 16:17 , τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα οὗτοι ἀνεπλήρωσαν ; 2Co 11:9 .

[14] Hofmann.

[15] Chrysostom.

[16] Wohlenberg.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He calleth it here the work of Christ, to visit Christ, being poor and in bands in the person of Paul.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

for the work of Christ--namely, the bringing of a supply to me, the minister of Christ. He was probably in a delicate state of health in setting out from Philippi; but at all hazards he undertook this service of Christian love, which cost him a serious sickness.

not regarding his life--Most of the oldest manuscripts read, "hazarding," &c.

to supply your lack of service--Not that Paul would imply, they lacked the will: what they "lacked" was the "opportunity" by which to send their accustomed bounty (Phi 4:10). "That which ye would have done if you could (but which you could not through absence), he did for you; therefore receive him with all joy" [ALFORD].

Next: Philippians Chapter 3

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 30. For the work of Christ] Preaching the Gospel, and ministering to the distressed.

He was nigh unto death] Having laboured far beyond his strength.

Not regarding his life] Instead of παραβουλευσαμενος τη ψυχη, not regarding his life, παραβολευσαμενος, risking his life, is the reading of ABDEFG, and is received by Griesbach into the text. His frequent and intense preaching, and labouring to supply the apostle's wants, appear to have brought him nigh to the gates of death.

THE humiliation and exaltation of Christ are subjects which we cannot contemplate too frequently, and in which we cannot be too deeply instructed.

1. God destroys opposites by opposites: through pride and self-confidence man fell, and it required the humiliation of Christ to destroy that pride and self-confidence, and to raise him from his fall. There must be an indescribable malignity in sin, when it required the deepest abasement of the highest Being to remove and destroy it. The humiliation and passion of Christ were not accidental, they were absolutely necessary; and had they not been necessary, they had not taken place. Sinner, behold what it cost the Son of God to save thee! And wilt thou, after considering this, imagine that sin is a small thing? Without the humiliation and sacrifice of Christ, even thy soul could not be saved. Slight not, therefore, the mercies of thy God, by underrating the guilt of thy transgressions and the malignity of thy sin!

2. As we cannot contemplate the humiliation and death of Christ without considering it a sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and atonement for sin, and for the sin of the whole world; so we cannot contemplate his unlimited power and glory, in his state of exaltation, without being convinced that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God through him. What can withstand the merit of his blood? What can resist the energy of his omnipotence? Can the power of sin?-its infection? -its malignity? No! He can as easily say to an impure heart, Be thou clean, and it shall be clean; as he could to the leper, Be thou clean, and immediately his leprosy was cleansed. Reader, have faith in Him; for all things are possible to him that believeth.

3. There are many ungodly men in the world who deny the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, and affect to ridicule those who profess to have received what they know Christ has purchased and God has promised, and which, in virtue of this, they have claimed by faith; because, say these mockers, "If you had the Spirit of God, you could work miracles: show us a miracle, and we will believe you to be inspired." Will these persons assert that St. Paul had not God's Spirit when he could neither heal himself, nor restore his friends and fellow helpers from apparent death? What then doth their arguing prove? Silly men, of shallow minds!

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30 Because for the work of Christ. I consider this as referring to that infirmity, which he had drawn down upon himself by incessant assiduity. Hence he reckons the distemper of Epaphroditus among his excellences, as it certainly was a signal token of his ardent zeal. Sickness, indeed, is not an excellence, but it is an excellence not to spare yourself that you may serve Christ. Epaphroditus felt that his health would be in danger if he applied himself beyond measure; yet he would rather be negligent as to health than be deficient in duty; and that he may commend this conduct the more to the Philippians, he says that it was a filling up of their deficiency, because, being situated at a distance, they could not furnish aid to Paul at Rome. Hence Epaphroditus, having been sent for this purpose, acted in their stead. He speaks of the services rendered to him as the work of the Lord, as assuredly there is nothing in which we can better serve God, than when we help his servants who labor for the truth of the gospel.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(30) Not regarding his life.—According to the true reading, the sense is “having hazarded his life; literally, having gambled with his life, not merely having staked it, but staked it recklessly. It is possible that (as Bishop Wordsworth suggests) there may be allusion to the caution money, staked in a cause to show that it was not frivolous and vexatious, and forfeited in case of loss; and that Epaphroditus, risking his life through over-exertion in the cause of St. Paul, as a prisoner awaiting trial, is therefore said to have gambled with his life. This would give a special appropriateness to the allusion. But it is, perhaps, too artificial, and the figure is in itself intelligible and striking.

To supply your lack of service.—There is not in the original the touch of reproach which our version may seem to imply. Epaphroditus’ presence and activity are said to have “filled up the one thing wanting” to make the service of the Philippians effective for its purpose.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. the work of Christ] One most ancient MS. (C) omits “of Christ”; and some other evidence is for “of the Lord” instead. R.V. retains the reading of A.V., mentioning in the margin the reading “of the Lord.” Alford and Lightfoot advocate the omission.—For the phrase “the work,” used without further definition, cp. Act_15:38.

he was nigh unto death] Lit., “he drew near, up to death,” a peculiar but unmistakable expression.

not regarding his life] R.V., hazarding his life. The two renderings represent each a different reading, the difference lying in the presence or absence of a single letter in the Greek (parabo(u)leusamenos). On the whole that represented by R.V. has the better support. In the more ancient Latin Version this Greek word is almost transliterated:—parabolatus de animâ suâ; words which might almost be rendered, “having played the desperado with his life.” The verb (found here only) is formed on a common Greek verb of which one meaning is “to wager in a game of chance,” and so to run a risk. Bp Light-foot renders here, “having gambled with his life.”—From the same root comes the ecclesiastical word (Greek and Latin) parabolanus, a member of a “minor order” devoted to nursing the infected, and similar hazardous duties. The order originated in Constantine’s time. Unhappily it soon degenerated into a notoriously turbulent sort of club.

“His life”:—lit., “his soul.” For the very frequent use of the Greek word psychê in the sense of bodily life cp. e.g. Mat_2:20.

to supply your lack &c.] More lit., “that he might fill up your deficiency in the ministration designed for me.” “Your” is slightly emphatic. Obviously, the Apostle means no reproof to the Philippians, whose “ministration” of supplies he so warmly appreciates below (Php_4:10-19). He means that they, as a community, were of course unable to aid him by a personal visit, without which however their “ministration” would have “lacked” a necessary condition of success. That condition Epaphroditus had supplied; he had undertaken the journey, and doubtless had thrown himself at Rome into the Apostle’s interests and efforts. And somehow, whether by accidents on the journey, or by risks run at Rome, or by both, he had incurred dangerous illness.—See for a close parallel to the language here 1Co_16:17; and cp. the important phraseology of Col_1:24, and notes there.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30 Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me.

Ver. 30. Not regarding his life] Gr. Ill providing for his life, casting away all inordinate care of it, as if he had put on that Roman resolution, Necesse est ut eam, non ut vivam, Needsly I must go, not needsly live.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Because for the work of Christ - That is, either by exposing himself in his journey to see the apostle in Rome, or by his labors there.

Not regarding his life - There is a difference in the mss. here, so great that it is impossible now to determine which is the true reading, though the sense is not materially affected. The common reading of the Greek text is, παραβολευσάμενος paraboleusamenos; literally “misconsulting, not consulting carefully, not taking pains.” The other reading is, παραζολευσάμενος parazoleusamenos; “exposing oneself to danger,” regardless of life; see the authorities for this reading in Wetstein; compare Bloomfield, in loc. This reading suits the connection, and is generally regarded as the correct one.

To supply your lack of service toward me - Not that they had been indifferent to him, or inattentive to his wants, for he does not mean to blame them; but they had not had an opportunity to send to his relief (see Phi 4:10), and Epaphroditus therefore made a special journey to Rome on his account. He came and rendered to him the service which they could not do in person; and what the church would have done, if Paul had been among them, he performed in their name and on their behalf.

Remarks On Philippians 2

1. Let us learn to esteem others as they ought to be; Phi 2:3. Every person who is virtuous and pious has some claim to esteem. He has a reputation which is valuable to him and to the church, and we should not withhold respect from him. It is one evidence, also, of true humility and of right feeling, when we esteem them as better than ourselves, and when we are willing to see them honored, and are willing to sacrifice our own ease to promote their welfare. It is one of the instinctive promptings of true humility to feel that other persons are better than we are.

2. We should not he disappointed or mortified if others think little of us - if we are not brought into prominent notice among people; Phi 2:3. We profess to have a low opinion of ourselves, if we are Christians, and we ought to have; and why should we be chagrined and mortified if others have the same opinion of us? Why should we not be willing that they should accord in judgment with us in regard to ourselves?

3. We should be willing to occupy our appropriate place in the church; Phi 2:3. That is true humility; and why should anyone be unwilling to be esteemed just as he ought to be? Pride makes us miserable, and is the grand thing that stands in the way of the influence of the gospel on our hearts. No one can become a Christian who is not willing to occupy just the place which he ought to occupy; to take the lowly position as a penitent which he ought to take; and to have God regard and treat him just as he ought to be treated. The first, second, and third thing in religion is humility; and no one ever becomes a Christian who is not willing to take the lowly condition of a child.

4. We should feel a deep interest in the welfare of others; Phi 2:4. People are by nature selfish, and it is the design of religion to make them benevolent. They seek their own interests by nature, and the gospel would teach them to regard the welfare of others. If we are truly under the influence of religion, there is not a member of the church in whom we should not feel an interest, and whose welfare we should not strive to promote as far as we have opportunity. And we may have opportunity every day. It is an easy matter to do good to others. A kind word, or even a kind look, does good; and who so poor that he cannot render this? Every day that we live, we come in contact with some who may be benefited by our example, our advice, or our alms; and every day, therefore, may be closed with the feeling that we have not lived in vain.

5. Let us in all things look to the example of Christ; Phi 2:5. He came that he might be an example; and he was exactly such an example as we need. We may be always sure that we are right when we follow his example and possess his spirit. We cannot be so sure that we are right in any other way. He came to be our model in all things, and in all the relations of life:

He showed us what the law of God requires of us.

(b)Lie showed us what we should aim to be, and what human nature would be if it were wholly under the influence of religion.

(c)Lie showed us what true religion is, for it is just such as was seen in his life.

(d)He showed us how to act in our treatment of mankind.

(e)He showed us how to bear the ills of poverty, and want, and pain, and temptation, and reproach, from the world. We should learn to manifest the same spirit in suffering which he did, for then we are sure we are right.

(f)And he has showed us how to die. He has exhibited in death just the spirit which we should when we die; for it is not less desirable to die well than to live well.

6. It is right and proper to worship Christ; Phi 2:6. He was in the form of God, and equal with God; and, being such, we should adore him. No one need be afraid to render too high honor to the Saviour; and all piety may he measured by the respect which is shown to him. Religion advances in the world just in proportion as people are disposed to render honor to the Redeemer; it becomes dim and dies away just in proportion as that honor is withheld.

7. Like the Redeemer, we should he willing to deny ourselves in order that we may promote the welfare of others; Phi 2:6-8. We can never, indeed, equal his condescension. We can never stoop from such a state of dignity and honor as he did; but, in our measure, we should aim to imitate him. If we have comforts, we should be willing to deny ourselves of them to promote the happiness of others. If we occupy an elevated rank in life, we should be willing to stoop to one more humble. If we live in a palace, we should be willing to enter the most lowly cottage, if we can render its inmates happy.

8. Christ was obedient unto death; Phi 2:8. Let us be obedient also, doing the will of God in all things. If in his service we are called to pass through trials, even those which will terminate in death, let us obey. He has a right to command us, and we have the example of the Saviour to sustain us. if he requires us, by his providence, and by the leadings of his Spirit, to forsake our country and home; to visit climes of pestilential air, or to traverse wastes of burning sand, to make his name known; if he demands that, in that service, we shall die far away from kindred and home, and that our bones shall be laid on the banks of the Senegal or the Ganges - still, let us remember that these sufferings are not equal to those of the Master. He was an exile from heaven, in a world of suffering. Our exile from our own land is not like that from heaven; nor will our sufferings, though in regions of pestilence and death, be like his sufferings in the garden and on the cross.

9. Let us rejoice that we have a Saviour who has ascended to heaven, and who is to be forever honored there; Phi 2:9-11. He is to suffer no more. He has endured the last pang; has passed through a state of humiliation and woe which he will never repeat; and has submitted to insults and mockeries to which it will not be necessary for him to submit again. When we now think of the Redeemer, we can think of him as always happy and honored. There is no moment, by day or by night, in which he is not the object of adoration, love, and praise - nor will there ever be such a moment to all eternity. Our best friend is thus to be eternally reverenced, and in heaven he will receive a full reward for all his unparalleled woes.

10. Let us diligently endeavor to work out our salvation; Phi 2:12-13. Nothing else so much demands our unceasing solicitude as this, and in nothing else have we so much encouragement. We are assured that God aids us in this work. He throws no obstructions in our path, but all that God does in the matter of salvation is in the way of help. He does not work in us evil passions, or impure desires, or unbelief; his agency is to enable us to perform “his good pleasure,” or that which will please him - that is, that which is holy. The farmer is encouraged to plow and plant his fields when God works around him by sending the warm breezes of the spring, and by refreshing the earth with gentle dews and rains. And so we may be encouraged to seek our salvation when God works in our hearts, producing serious thoughts, and a feeling that we need the blessings of salvation.

11. Christians should let their light shine; Phi 2:14-16. God has called them into his kingdom that they may show what is the nature and power of true religion. They are to illustrate in their lives the nature of that gospel which he has revealed, and to show its value in purifying the soul, and in sustaining it in the time of trial. The world is dependent on Christians for just views of religion, and every day that a Christian lives he is doing something to honor or dishonor the gospel. Every word that he speaks, every expression of the eye, every cloud or beam of sunshine on his brow, will have some effect in doing this. He cannot live without making some impression upon the world around him, either favorable or unfavorable to the cause of his Redeemer.

12. We should be ready to die, if called to such a sacrifice in behalf of the church of Christ; Phi 2:17. We should rejoice in being permitted to suffer, that we may promote the welfare of others, and be the means of saving those for whom Christ died. It has been an honor to be a martyr in the cause of religion, and so it ever will be when God calls to such a sacrifice of life. If he calls us to it, therefore, we should not shrink from it, nor should we shrink from any sufferings by which we may honor the Saviour, and rescue souls from death.

13. Let us learn, from the interesting narrative respecting Epaphroditus at the close of this chapter, to live and act as becomes Christians in every situation in life; Phi 2:25-30. It was much to have the praise of an apostle and to be commended for his Christian conduct, as this stranger in Rome was. He went there, not to view the wonders of the imperial city, and not to run the rounds of giddy pleasure there, but to perform an important duty of religion. While there he became sick - not by indulgence in pleasures; not as the result of feasting and revelry, but in the work of Christ. In a strange city, far from home, amidst the rich, the great, the frivolous; in a place where theaters opened their doors, and where places of amusement abounded, he led a life which an apostle could commend as pure. There is nothing more difficult for a Christian than to maintain an irreproachable walk when away from the usual restraints and influences that serve to keep him in the paths of piety, and when surrounded with the fascinations and allurements of a great and wicked city.

There strangers, extending the rites of hospitality, often invite the guest to places of amusement which the Christian would not visit were he at home. There the desire to see all that is to be seen, and to hear all that is to be heard, attracts him to the theater, the opera, and the gallery of obscene and licentious statuary and painting. There the plea readily presents itself that an opportunity of witnessing these things may never occur again; that he is unknown, and that his example, therefore, can do no harm; that it is desirable, from personal observation, to know what is the condition of the world; or that perhaps his former views in these matters may have been precise and puritanical. To such considerations he yields; but yields only to regret it in future life. Rarely is such a thing done without its being in some way soon known; and rarely, very rarely does a Christian minister or other member of the church travel much without injury to his piety, and to the cause of religion. A Christian man who is under a necessity of visiting Europe from this country, should feel that he has special need of the prayers of his friends, that he may not dishonor his religion abroad; he who is permitted to remain at home, and to cultivate the graces of piety in his own family, and in the quiet scenes where he has been accustomed to move, should regard it as a cause of special thankfulness to God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Delivering up his life to persecutions, and to this danger that he was in by a sickness which was mortal, had not God restored him his health. He came with your charities, to supply that which was wanting on your part, or which I stood in need of; and I am persuaded you desired to do it sooner, if you had met with an opportunity. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death; by reason he was so zealous about the work of the ministry in the general, or in special to carry on that service, as the church’s messenger, he was intrusted with, Phi 4:18, not only in conveying their benevolence on so long and hazardous a journey, for the relief of the Lord’s prisoner, which Christ would own and reward as his work, Mat 25:39,40, but in attending him (whom he was sent to visit) in his confinement, both within doors and abroad, as occasion required, (for it seems the Romans were so generous as to give free egress and regress to his visitants, Act 28:30), whereby he contracted that forementioned disease that hazarded his life.

Not regarding his life; the preservation of which with respect to the work he was about, he did not consult, {Joh 12:25,26} but made little account of it, {as Est 4:16} yea, did even despise it in the service of Christ, as the original word doth import, being borrowed from those whose lives are hazarded in being cast to be devoured by beasts in the theatre, which he himself, by sad experience, sometime knew the meaning of, 1Co 15:32.

To supply your lack of service toward me; so faithful was he to his trust for the honour of his Lord, that to the very utmost of his strength, yea, and beyond it, that which he reckoned those who sent would have done themselves had they been present, (considering what the gospel requires, Gal 6:2; Heb 13:3), that he, Onisephorus-like, 2Ti 1:16, according to his measure made supply of in their absence.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

30. For the work of Christ—Such it was, for, done to his apostle, it was done to Christ. The money-gift which he had brought is spoken of as their service, but it had the lack of their personally presenting it. This personal service Epaphroditus rendered in fulfilment of their commission, and in so doing he in some way so exposed his life that it resulted in bringing him to death’s door. Such a reason, by all their love for Paul, entitled him to a hearty welcome on his return.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death. The readings vary between "Christ" and "the Lord." One ancient manuscript reads simply, "for the work"s sake." The work in this case consisted in ministering to the wants of St. Paul. Translate the following words, with R.V., he came nigh unto death. Not regarding his life; rather, as R.V., hazarding his life, which translation represents the best-supported reading, paraboleusamenov : the verb literally means "to lay down a stake, to gamble." Hence the word Parabolani, the name given to certain brotherhoods in the ancient Church who undertook the hazardous work of tending the sick and burying the dead in times of pestilence. The A.V. represents the reading parabouleusamenov consulting amiss. To supply your lack of service toward me; rather, as R.V., that which was lacking in your service. The Philippians are not blamed. Epaphroditus did that which their absence prevented them from doing. His illness was caused by over-exertion in attending to the apostle"s wants, or, it may be, by the hardships of the journey. Umwn must be taken closely with usterhma , the lack of your presence. St. Paul, with exquisite delicacy, represents the absence of the Philippians as something lacking to his complete satisfaction, something which he missed, and which Epaphroditus supplied.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To supply your deficiency of service - To do what you could not do in person.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

30. Because. Because it was his work for Christ, his refusal to spare himself, his supreme anxiety to supply by his own service the absence of the church, which brought on his sickness.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

30. τὸ ἔργον Χριστοῦ. So BG2, 73 80. D2K2L, most cursives, some Greek fathers τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Vulg Christi. אAP, 17 31 47, copt syr (pesh) arm æth κυρίου. C simply τὸ ἔργον. LTTr Χριστοῦ. WH Κυρίου (marg Χριστοῦ). Ell Wordsw τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Alf Ltft simply τὸ ἔργον. Ltft says, “the authorities, being very evenly divided, neutralize each other. All alike are insertions to explain τὸ ἔργον.” But the evidence for τοῦ Χριστοῦ is surely preponderant. Tisch remarks that ΧΥ, ΚΥ, the familiar MS. abbreviations, would easily drop from the text.

παραβολευσάμενος. So אOba 1:2 G2, some cursives. CK2LP, most cursives, Greek fathers παραβουλευσάμενος. The versions are not decisive. In this case the rule of durior lectio fairly supports the evidence of the chief uncials. And Ltft says, “no one who has felt the nervous vigour of St Paul’s style will hesitate between παραβουλευσάμενος and παραβουλεύσαμενος.… Both words alike are very rare.” All recent editors παραβολευσάμενος.

30. διὰ τὸ ἔργον Χριστοῦ. On the reading, see critical notes.

μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν. Θανάτῳ or εἰς θάνατον, would be the usual construction. It is as if he were about to write μέχρι θ. ἠσθένησεν, and then varied the expression.

παραβολευσάμενος τῇ ψυχῇ. For the reading, see critical notes. If we read παραβουλευσάμενος, we must render, “taking bad counsel for his life,” i.e. acting with no regard for it. The text may be rendered “playing the gambler with his life” (as Lightfoot), or “hazarding his life” (R.V.). Παραβολεύεσθαι is a verb known only through this passage. Παραβάλλεσθαι is to cast a die, to venture; hence the adjective παράβολος, reckless; on which apparently this verb is formed. Lightfoot compares ἀσωτεύεσθαι, to play the spendthrift.—Connected with παράβολος is the ecclesiastical term παραβολάνος, parabolanus, a member of a “minor order” devoted to nursing the infected, and other hazardous duties. The order probably originated in Constantine’s time. It acquired later a bad reputation as a turbulent body, troublesome to magistrates for riotous interruption of public business. At the council called the Latrocinium, at Ephesus, A.D. 449, “six hundred of them appeared as the tools of the brutal Barsumas, to coerce malcontents to support his measures” (Dict. Chr. Ant., s.v.).

ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ κτλ. Cp. 1Co 16:17: τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ ἀναπλήρωσαν, and Col 1:24: ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, that is, the “tribulations” involved in evangelization, which the Lord had as it were left unfinished, to be completed by his followers.

St Paul here means no blame to the Philippians. Epaphroditus had come forward to do what they, as a community, could not do—travel to Rome to help St Paul in his needs, carrying with him the collection they had so lovingly made.

τῆς πρός με λειτουργίας. “Of the ministration designed for me.”

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30.] διὰ τὸ ἔργον, viz. of the Gospel, or of Christ (see the glosses in var. readd.);—part of which it was to sustain the minister of the Gospel.

μέχρι θ. ἤγγ.] he incurred so serious and nearly fatal a sickness:—not to be understood of danger incurred by the hostility of the authorities, as Chrys., al., also Thdrt.: καθειργόμενον γὰρ πάντως μαθών, καὶ ὑπὸ πλείστων φυλαττόμενον, εἰσελθὼν ἐθεάσατο, τοῦ κινδύνου καταφρονήσας.

παραβολευσάμενος] There is, and must ever remain, some doubt whether to read παραβουλ- or παραβολευσάμενος. Both words are unknown to Greek writers. The first verb would signify ‘male consulere vitæ,’ and is found not unfrequently in the fathers, especially Chrys., which makes it all the more likely to have been introduced here for the other. This latter would be formed from παράβολος, ‘venturesome,’ as περπερεύομαι from πέρπερος (1Co 13:4), ἀλογεύομαι from ἄλογος (Cic. ad Att. vi. 4): similarly ἀσωτεύομαι, φιλανθρωπεύομαι, πονηρεύομαι, &c. See Lobeck on Phryn. pp. 67, 591. Thus παραβολεύεσθαι would be used exactly as παραβάλλεσθαι in Polyb. ii. 26. 6, ἔφη δεῖν μὴ κινδυνεύειν ἔτι, μηδὲ παραβάλλεσθαι τοῖς ὅλοις, and iii. 94. 4, and παραβάλλεσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς in Diod. Sic. iii. 16. Phryn. (p. 238, ed. Lob.) says, παραβόλιον· ἀδόκιμον τοῦτο. τῷ μὲν οὖν ὀνόματι οὐ χρῶνται οἱ παλαιοί, τῷ δὲ ῥήματι. φασὶ γὰρ οὕτω, παραβάλλομαι τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ κεφαλῇἐχρῆν οὖν κἀπὶ τούτων λέγειν, παραβάλλομαι ἀργυρίῳ. Hence also nurses of the sick were called parabolani. See various patristic interpretations, and illustrations, in Tischendorf and Wetstein.

ἵνα κ.τ.λ.] that he might fill up (1Co 16:17) your deficiency (viz. on account of your absence) in the ministration to me (the λειτουργία was the contribution of money, which had been sent by Epaphroditus. The only ὑστέρημα in this kind service was, their inability through absence, to minister it to the Apostle themselves: and this Epaphroditus filled up, and in so doing risked his life in the way above hinted at, i.e. probably by too constant and watchful attendance on the Apostle. So that there is no blame conveyed by τὸ ὑμ. ὑστέρημα, as Chr., ὅπερ ἐχρῆν πάντας ποιῆσαι, τοῦτο ἔπραξεν αὐτός,—but the whole is a delicate way of enhancing Epaphroditus’s services—‘that which you would have done if you could, he did for you—therefore receive him with all joy’).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

30. ἔργον Χριστοῦ: All his exertions in forwarding Paul’s work in Rome, and the risk and hardship of the journey thither.

Χριστου, BFG, 80, Tisch., Weiss.

του Χριστου, DEKL, Vulg., Goth., Syr.sch, four Lat. verss. (d, e, f, g).

For Χριστου, א AP, 17, 31, 47, Cop., Syr.P, Arm., Æth., WH., read κυριου. το εργον without addn. C.

Lightf. reads διὰ τὸ ἔργον on the sole authority of C, and says it must be the correct reading. He cites Act 15:38; Ign. Eph. xiv., Rom. iii., and the analogy of ἡ ὁδός, τὸ θέλημα, and τὸ ὄνομα for the absolute use of τὸ ἔργον. But while τὸ ἔργον is used absolutely in these cases, it is too much to assert, in the face of such strong MS. authority, that Χτοῦ, τοῦ Χτοῦ, or κυρίου are mere “insertions to explain τὸ ἔργον.” Κυρίου might be substituted for Χτοῦ in order to assimilate to 1Co 15:58, 1Co 15:16:10; and ΧΥ or ΚΥ might easily be overlooked and omitted in transcription, as by C.

μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν: ‘he came nigh unto death.’ (Comp. LXX; Psa 107[106]:18], 88:3 [87:4]; Job 33:22.)

παραβολευσάμενος: Only here. A gambler’s word, from παράβολος, ‘venturesome,’ ‘reckless.’ He gambled with his life; recklessly hazarded it. (Comp. Rom 16:4.) A most generous and appreciative recognition of Epaphroditus’ services. The voluntary visitors of the sick, who, in the ancient church, formed a kind of brotherhood under the supervision of the bishop, were styled ‘Parabolani.’ The graphic description of these in Kingsley’s Hypatia is familiar. The word might have been suggested to Paul by seeing the soldiers throwing dice. Comp. κυβία, ‘dicing’ (Eph 4:14).

TR with CKLP and several Fath. reads παραβουλευσαμενος, ‘having consulted amiss.’

ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρὸς με λειτουργίας: ‘that he might supply that which was lacking in your service toward me.’ (Comp. 1Co 16:17; 2Co 9:12.)

ἀναπληρώσῃ: Not synonymous with the simple verb πληροῦν, ‘to fill up a total vacancy,’ but denoting the making up of what is lacking to perfect fulness; the filling up of a partial void. So Erasm.: “Accessione implere quod plenitudini perfectae deerat.” For double compounds of the verb, see 2Co 9:12, 2Co 9:11:9; Col 1:24.

ὑμῶν: Genitive of the subject, with ὑστέρημα, not with λειτουργίας: ‘the lack which was yours.’

λειτουργίας: See on vs. 17. It describes the service as the act of the Philippian community, and as a sacrificial act. So far from implying a censure in τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα, that clause is a most delicate, courteous, and sympathetic tribute to both Epaphroditus and the Philippians. The gift to Paul was the gift of the church as a body. It was a sacrificial offering of love. What was lacking, and what would have been grateful to Paul and to the church alike, was the church’s presentation of this offering in person. This was impossible, and Paul represents Epaphroditus as supplying this lack by his affectionate and zealous ministry. He thus, in this single sentence, recognises the devotion of Epaphroditus and the good-will of the Philippians, and expresses the pleasure which he himself would have had in their personal presence and ministry. Withal there is a touch of tender sympathy for Epaphroditus. It would have been a great thing if you could, as a body, have offered this sacrifice of love here in my prison; and poor Epaphroditus made himself sick unto death in his efforts to supply this want.

πρός με: Πρός combines with the sense of direction that of relation with, intercourse. (Comp. Mat 13:56; Mar 9:16; Joh 1:1; Act 3:25, 28:25; 1Th 4:12; Col 4:5; Heb 9:20.) Their gift to Paul was a sacrificial offering to God, in which the spirits of Paul and of the Philippians communed.

EXCURSUS ON VS. 6-11

Much of the difficulty which appears to attach to this passage arises from the assumption that in it Paul is aiming to formulate a statement of the character of Christ’s mode of existence before and during his incarnation. This is inconsistent with the informal and familiar tone of the letter, and with the obviously practical character of this passage, the principal object of which is to enforce the duty of humility. As the supreme illustration of this virtue, the apostle adduces the example of Jesus Christ in his voluntary renunciation of his preincarnate majesty, and his identification with the conditions of humanity. The points of the illustration are thrown out in rapid succession, merely stated and not elaborated, and are all brought to bear upon the exhortation, “Look not every one at his own things, but every one also on the things of others.” Paul does, indeed, rise here above the level of epistolary colloquialism; but the impulse to the higher flight is emotional rather than philosophical.

I think that Lightfoot has fallen into the error just mentioned in his excursus on the synonyms σχῆμα and μορφὴ (Commentary, p. 127 ff.). Prior to the philosophical period of Greek literature, the predominant sense of μορφὴ was “shape” or “figure.” Schmidt (Synon. 182, 4) says it is distinguished from εἶδος and ἰδέα as the outward appearance of a thing considered in and for itself, and partially contrasted with the inner and spiritual being. It includes the coloring and the whole outward appearance—the body itself with no reference to other than outward peculiarities. This sense is retained to some extent in philosophical usage. Both Plato and Aristotle employ μορφὴ with this meaning (Plat. Repub. ii. 381 C; Phaedr. 271 A; Arist. Hist. An. i. 1, 7, ii. 10, 1, 2).

But the word has also a far wider meaning in Plato and Aristotle. Both apply it to immaterial things, and it is especially from Aristotle’s usage that Lightfoot draws the meaning specific character for μορφὴ. That Aristotle uses it in this sense may be granted, though there are three things to be said on that point without entering into discussion: (1) That Aristotle, as has been said already, uses the word in the external and earlier sense also. (2) That his more abstract conception of μορφὴ is not uniform throughout, being more purely intellectual in his logic than in his physics. And (3) that even in his most abstract and immaterial conception of “form” the abstract is brought into concrete realisation. His doctrine is familiar that sensible objects consist of matter and form; matter being simply the potentiality of becoming, while form makes this potentiality actual, so that matter is not intelligible without form, though the form is not necessarily external or material.

I do not, however, believe that Paul’s use of the term was derived from this source, or applied in the sense of “specific character.” The starting-point of his conception lay nearer to the anthropomorphic than to the philosophic: not necessarily that he definitely conceived God as invested with a human form, but that he conceived of the essential personality of God as externalising itself and expressing itself in some mode apprehensible by pure spiritual intelligences if not apprehensible by the human mind. But it seems probable that Paul’s mind touched the conception of “the form of God” very slightly and incidentally, and only on its outskirts, and that the application of the term μορφὴ to God was principally a reflection of its application to a bondservant. Christ’s humiliation was the dominant thought in Paul’s mind, and the μορφὴ of a bondservant therefore came first in the order of thought. The idea of some embodiment of the divine personality was not altogether absent from his mind, but μορφὴ θεοῦ was chiefly a rhetorical antithesis to μορφὴ δούλου.

Still, there is evidence that Paul uses μορφὴ with a recognition of a peculiar relation of the word to the essential and permanent nature of that which is expressed or embodied, so that μορφὴ is purposely selected instead of σχῆμα, which signifies merely the outward and transient configuration without regard to that which is behind it. This has been clearly shown by Lightfoot in his examination of the compounds into which the two words severally enter. (See Rom 12:2; 2Co 3:18, 11:2Co 3:13-15; Php 3:21.) It is possible that in illustrating this legitimate distinction, Lightfoot, in one or two instances, may have refined too much. His remarks on μεταμορφοῦσθαι in Mat 17:2; Mar 9:2, are just, since a compound of σχῆμα, denoting merely a change in the outward aspect of Christ’s person and garments, would not have expressed the fact that this change acquired its real character and meaning from the divineness which was essential in Christ’s personality. A foreshadowing or prophecy of his real “form”—the proper expression of his essential being—comes out in the transfiguration. He passes for the moment into the form prophetic of his revelation in the glory which he had with the Father before the world was.

The case is more doubtful in Mar 16:12, where it is said that Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ. It is possible that μορφὴ may have been selected with conscious recognition of the fact that, though the accidents of figure, face, and pierced hands and feet were the same as before, yet the indefinable change which had passed upon Jesus prefigured his transition to the conditions of his heavenly life; but it is quite as probable that the writer used μορφὴ in its earlier sense of “shape.”

However that may be, I cannot accept Lightfoot’s explanation of μόρφωσις in Rom 2:20 as signifying an aiming after or affecting the true μορφὴ of knowledge and truth. There was actually a truthful embodiment of knowledge and truth in the law. The law was “holy and just and good,” and Paul habitually recognised in it the impress of the divine character and will. It was this fact which aggravated the culpability of the Jew, to whom had been committed the oracles of God (Rom 3:2).

Thus it is quite legitimate to define μορφὴ in this passage as that “form,” whatever it be, which carries in itself and expresses or embodies the essential nature of the being to whom it belongs. (See note on vs. 6.)

Μορφὴ, however, applied to God, is not to be identified with δόξα, as by Weiss (Bib. Theol. § 103 c, d, Clarks’ Trans.). Weiss reaches this conclusion by a very circuitous and inconclusive process. He says: “The identification of the μορφὴ θεοῦ with the δόξα depends on this; that here also the δόξα, which the perfected attain to and which belongs to the glorified body of Christ (Php 3:21), belongs originally to God, who is called (Eph 1:17) the πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, and therefore, on that account, it belongs to the Son of his love in his original heavenly existence.” Δόξα is the manifestation, the “unfolded fulness,” of the divine attributes and perfections, while μορφὴ θεοῦ is the immediate, proper, and personal investiture of the divine essence. Δόξα attaches to Deity; μορφὴ is identified with the inmost being of Deity. Δόξα is and must be included in μορφὴ θεοῦ, but δόξα is not μορφὴ. Indeed, the difference may be roughly represented by the English words “glory” and “form.” Glory may belong to one in virtue of birth, natural endowment, achievement, and the possession of great qualities; but it does not belong to him in the immediate and intimate sense that his form does.

A study of the usage, both in the Old and in the New Testament, will confirm this distinction. In the Old Testament בָּבוֹד applied to God occurs often in connection with theophanies, where, if anywhere, we might expect the peculiar sense of μορφὴ to appear.1 The passage which seems most to favor this view is Exo 33:18-23, Exo 34:5-7. But it will be observed that in answer to Moses’ prayer that God will show him his glory, God promises to reveal his goodness, and to proclaim his name, with the reservation, however, which is put anthropomorphically, that Moses cannot bear that revelation in its fulness, and that therefore it will be tempered for him. In the sequel the Lord descends and proclaims “the Lord God, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.” This was what Moses desired, not, like Semele, to behold Deity clothed in outward splendor, but to behold the true glory of God as revealed in his moral attributes.

The phrase “glory of the Lord” (כְּבוֹד יהוה) is used of the voice and fire on Sinai (Exo 24:17; Deu 5:24); of the splendor which, on different occasions, filled the tabernacle and the temple (Exo 40:34; Num 14:10, Num 14:15:19, Num 14:42, Num 14:20:6; 2Ch 5:14, 2Ch 5:7:1, 2Ch 5:2, 2Ch 5:3; Eze 10:4, 43:4, Eze 10:5, 44:4). It appears as a bow in the cloud (Eze 1:28); as the glory which the prophet saw by Chebar (Eze 3:23; comp. 1:4-28); in the fire which consumes the sacrifice on the altar (Lev 9:23). In the last three instances the mode or form of the revelation of divine glory is distinctly specified. It appears over the cherubim (Eze 10:19, Eze 11:22); on the threshold of the house and on the mountain (Eze 10:4, Eze 11:23). The earth shined with it (Eze 43:2). None of these exhibitions answer to the definition of μορφὴ θεοῦ. They are mostly symbolical. Again, the glory of the Lord will be revealed in a march through the wilderness to the Holy Land (Isa 40:5); it will be the “rearward” of Israel (Isa 58:8); the resting-place of the Messiah will be glory (Isa 11:10). The impossibility of identifying such expressions with μορφὴ θεοῦ will be seen if we attempt to substitute this for δόξα. Shall we say “the heavens declare the form of God” (Psa 19:1); “the form of God shall dwell in the land” (Psa 85:9); “the rest of the Messiah shall be the form of God” (Isa 11:10)? These instances are fairly representative; and the Old Testament furnishes no others which, any more than these, warrant the identification of μορφὴ θεοῦ with δόξα.

In the New Testament the following may be specially noted: Joh 17:5, Joh 17:22, Joh 17:24. In vs. 5, 24, Jesus speaks of his preincarnate glory which he laid aside in his incarnation. In vs. 22 he speaks of a glory which he had not relinquished, but had retained in his incarnation, and had imparted to his disciples. The two conceptions cannot be identical. The μορφὴ θεοῦ was laid aside, and could not be imparted (Joh 1:14). Δόξα was something which Jesus possessed in the flesh, and which the disciples beheld. It could not be identical with μορφὴ θεοῦ (2Co 3:18). Εἰκὼν approximates more closely to μορφὴ θεοῦ than perhaps any other word in the New Testament. But δόξα here is not the same as εἰκὼν. The image of the Lord is attained by a process, through successive stages or grades of glory. (See Heinrici, Comm. ad loc.; 1Co 11:7.) Man is the image (εἰκὼν) and glory of God. The preincarnate Son of God was the effulgence of God’s glory, and the very impress (χαρακτὴρ) of his substance (Heb 1:3).

In short, it is apparent that δόξα is used with too large a range and variety of meaning to warrant its identification with an expression which is unique in the New Testament, and entirely wanting in the Old Testament, and which, if the definition given be correct, is strictly limited in its meaning.

A common error of the Greek Fathers, adopted by Calvin, Beza, and others, was the identification of μορφὴ with οὐσία, ‘essence,’ and φύσις, ‘nature.’ Μορφὴ is identified with οὐσία, not identical with it. It is the perfect expression of the essence, proceeding from the inmost depths of the perfect being, and into which that being spontaneously and perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. If the two were identical, the parting with the μορφὴ in the incarnation would have involved parting with the οὐσία. But Jesus did not surrender the divine essence in his incarnation, nor did he surrender the divine nature, which is the οὐσία clothed with its appropriate attributes. Μορφὴ expresses both οὐσία and φυσις, but neither is surrendered in the surrender of the μορφὴ.

The Greek Fathers and Augustine, followed by the Catholic and most of the Reformed expositors, held that vs. 6 referred to Jesus in his preincarnate state; while vs. 7 and 8 referred to the incarnate Saviour. According to this view, Christ exchanged the divine mode of existence for the human, not insisting for the time on holding fast to his divine majesty. The form of God was voluntarily exchanged for the form of a bondservant.

The majority of the Lutheran and rationalistic expositors, on the other hand, explained vs. 6 of the incarnate Son. According to this view, the form of God was retained by him in his incarnate state, and was displayed in his miracles and words of power. He retained the μορφὴ θεοῦ as his right, not regarding it an act of robbery when he claimed equality with God. Thus the statement was used to vindicate the divinity of our Lord in the flesh. This view shaped the rendering of King James’ Bible.

But this is contrary to the entire structure and drift of the passage, the main point of which is Christ’s example of humility in renouncing his divine dignity and becoming man. The emphasis is upon the humanity, not upon the deity, of our Lord. The prominent thought is “thought it not a thing to be grasped.” Moreover, this interpretation utterly destroys the manifest antithesis of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, etc., and ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, which is indicated by ἀλλὰ. It makes the writer say, he maintained the form of God, but emptied himself. It also weakens the sharp contrast between μορφὴ θεοῦ and μορφὴ δούλου. It would imply the contemporaneous existence of the same subject in two opposite forms, both having reference to the outward condition. (See Klöpper, Comm. ad loc.)

The doctrine of the preincarnate existence of Christ I assume. Statements like those of 1Co 1:24, 1Co 1:8:6, 1Co 1:11:3, 1Co 1:10:3, 1Co 1:4; 2Co 8:9, show that Paul held a real and not a merely ideal preëxistence of the Son of God,—a unique position of the preincarnate Christ with God. The truth is well stated by Professor Bruce (St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 330): “To make the conception of Christ’s earthly experience as a humiliation complete, is it not necessary to view it as a whole, and regard it as resulting from a foregoing resolve on the part of Christ to enter into such a state? If so, then the necessary presupposition of the Pauline doctrine of redemption is the preëxistence of Christ, not merely in the foreknowledge of God, as the Jews conceived all important persons and things to preëxist, or in the form of an ideal in heaven answering to an imperfect earthly reality, in accordance with the Greek way of thinking, but as a moral personality capable of forming a conscious purpose.” Similarly Weizsäcker (Ap. Zeit. p. 122), to whom Professor Bruce refers: “He had a personal existence before his human birth, and his earlier life was divine, and absolutely opposed to the dependent life of man upon earth … Christ becomes man by a personal act … Precisely because of this the conception is perfectly consistent with the notion of ‘the second man’ who comes from heaven. For the heavenly descent is equivalent to the thought that he was in the form of God, and Paul can therefore say without hesitation, that it was Jesus, the Christ, who first existed in the divine form and then humbled himself, just as he says of him that he was rich and voluntarily submitted to poverty. Had he not given his doctrine of Christ this backward extension, the human life of Christ would have become for him a sort of impersonal event, and Jesus a mere instrument. His doctrine of the preëxistence accordingly enables him to look upon Christ’s work as a personal act, and to preserve the bond between him and humanity.”

The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is then to be understood of Christ’s preincarnate state. To say that he was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ is to say that he existed before his incarnation as essentially one with God, and that objectively, and not merely in God’s self-consciousness as the not yet incarnate Son—the ideal man. (See Beyschlag, Die Christologie des neuen Testaments, and Neutestamentliche Theologie, 2 Aufl. vol. ii. p. 77 ff.; Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 2 Aufl. p. 126; Bruce’s discussion of Beyschlag’s view, Humiliation of Christ, p. 431.)

Do ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων and τὸ εἶναι ἴσα signify the same thing?—“No,” it is said. Equality with God did not inhere in Christ’s preincarnate being. He received it first at his exaltation and as a reward for his perfect obedience. Thus Dorner (Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 286 f.) says: “His manhood is raised to a full share in the divine majesty as a reward of its maintaining true obedience. He could not have been exalted if he had not exhibited a faultless development in a true human existence and obedience.”

Along with this view goes an assumed antithesis between Christ and Adam. Dorner says: “While the first Adam grasped at equality with God, the second obtained exaltation to the divine majesty, since not only would he not assume the divine dignity, but, though himself elevated in dignity, humbled himself and became obedient even unto death.” The parallel is developed by Ernesti (Stud. u. Krit. Hft. 4, p. 858, 1848). Adam would be God; Christ renounces his godlikeness. Adam suffered death as a doom; Christ voluntarily. Adam incurred the divine curse; Christ won the approval of God, and the reward of exaltation to equality with God.

The same view is held by my friend and colleague Dr. Briggs (Messiah of the Apostles, p. 180). He says: “It was indeed involved in his existing in the form of God that he should be equal in rank with God. From that point of view it might be said that he would not grasp after his own rank to which he was entitled as the Son of God; but it is probable that the apostle had in mind the antithesis between the first and the second Adam which is so characteristic of his theology. He is thinking of the sinful grasping of the first Adam after equality with God under the instigation of the serpent. As the second Adam, he will not grasp after equality with God, even though it is his birthright. He will receive it from the hands of God as a gift of love, after he has earned it by obedience, just as the first Adam ought to have done.” Similarly Beyschlag, N. T. Theol. 2 Aufl. Bd. ii. p. 88.

Setting aside for the moment the question of the two Adams, I do not quite see the consistency of Dr. Briggs’ first statement—that equality in rank with God was involved in Christ’s existence in the form of God, and his last statement, that equality with God was something which Christ earned, and received as a recompense for his obedience. The inconsistency is not reconciled by the antithesis between the two Adams. But passing this, these statements can mean only that the status of the preincarnate Christ was inferior to that in which he was after his incarnation; that the being whom Paul describes as existing in the form of God was something less than the being whom God highly exalted. This is clearly stated by Beyschlag (N. T. Theol. ii. p. 86): “The subject of this passage is not Son of God as in the so-called Athanasian symbol, but one sharply distinguished from God. The μορφὴ θεοῦ in which he preëxisted is not a μορφὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, and the ἴσα θεῷ εἶναι is not an ἴσα τῷ θεῷ εἶναι. There remains between him and the one God who is the Father (vs. 11) so decided a difference that the incomparable glory which Christ won through his self-emptying and obedience unto death does not belong to him as his eternal, natural possession, but is given to him by God’s free grace, and must redound only to the honor of the Father. Hence ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν cannot signify a laying aside of his divine being, but only the laying aside of his mode of manifestation.”

Such statements cannot be reconciled with passages like Col 1:15-17. Speaking of the Epistle to the Colossians, Dr. Briggs justly says: “It unfolds the doctrine of the preëxistent Messiah beyond anything that we could be prepared to expect from our study of the other epistles. To the doctrine of the form of God in the Epistle to the Philippians, we have added the doctrine that the preëxistent Son of God was the mediator between God and the creature, in creation, in providence, and in redemption” (Messiah of the Apostles, p. 215). Add to this Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2, Joh 1:5:21, Joh 1:6., Joh 1:10:18, and especially Heb 1:2, Heb 1:3. In this last passage we have a more technical and formal statement, after the manner of the Alexandrian school, and according to this statement the preëxistent Christ was the very impress of God’s substance.

Beyschlag, as Philo (De Somn. i. 39, 41), insists on the distinction between ὁ θεός and θεός, claiming that this distinction is observed in Joh 1:1. But in that passage, θεός, predicated of the λόγος, is used attributively, with a notion of kind, and is thus necessarily anarthrous. It excludes identity of person, but emphasises unity of essence and nature. Accordingly, what John says is, that the λόγος was with God, and that with no lower nature than God himself. Philo, on the contrary, claims that the anarthrous θεός describes the λόγος as of subordinate nature—“ δεύτερος θεός.”

Dorner cites Rom 1:4 to show that Christ was constituted the Son of God with power, only after his resurrection. “Therefore, before this, he was not ‘the Son of God with power,’ though he was already the Son (Chr. Glaubensl. ii. p. 284). But this inference rests on a misinterpretation. Ἐν δυνάμει does not belong with υἱοῦ θεοῦ, but is adverbial and qualifies ὁρισθέντος. Paul’s statement is that Christ was designated as Son of God in a powerful, impressive, efficient manner, by his resurrection from the dead as a work of divine power. So Sanday, Mey., Godet, Alf., Moule, Gifford. (Comp. 2Co 13:4 and Eph 1:19.)

Besides all this, how can equality with God be conferred or superinduced? The words are τὸ εἶναι ἴσα. It is a matter of essential being. Equality with God can belong only to essence. Equality of power or of rank can be conferred, but not equality of being.

As to the antithesis of the two Adams. It seems forced at the best, but is there any real antithesis? According to the narrative in Gen. 3., Satan declared that the eating of the fruit would confer a knowledge which would make the eaters as gods, knowing good and evil; and the woman saw that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. Nothing is said of a desire to be equal with God in the absolute and general sense. The temptation and the desire turned on forbidden knowledge. The words “as gods” are defined and limited by the words “knowing good and evil”; and it is nowhere asserted or hinted in Scripture that Adam desired equality with God in the comprehensive sense of that expression. Moreover, if Adam had proved obedient, his reward would not have been equality with God.

Yet something was obtained by Christ as the result of his incarnation and of his perfect obedience therein, which he did not possess before his incarnation, and which he could not have possessed without it. Equality with God he had as his birthright, but his Messianic lordship was something which could come only through his incarnation and its attendant humiliation; and it was this, and not equality with God, that he received in his exaltation. The διὸ of vs. 9 is not to be taken as if God bestowed exaltation as a reward for perfect obedience, but rather, as Meyer correctly says, as “the accession of the corresponding consequence.” The sequence is logical rather than ethical. Out of the human life, death, and resurrection of Christ comes a type of sovereignty which could pertain to him only through his triumph over human sin (Heb 1:3), through his identification with men as their brother. Messianic lordship could not pertain to his preincarnate state. As Messianic lord he could be inaugurated only after his human experience (Act 2:36). Messianic lordship is a matter of function, not of inherent power and majesty. The phrase “seated at the right hand of God” is Messianic, and expresses Christ’s Messianic triumph, but not to the detriment of any essential dignity possessed before his incarnation. But the incarnation places him, in a new sense, in actual, kingly relation to the collective life of the universe. There cannot be the bowing of every knee and the confession of every tongue so long as Christ merely remains being in the form of God,—until he has made purification of sins, redeemed creation, and been manifested to earth, heaven, and hades as the Saviour of men.

Thus new elements enter into the life and sovereignty of the exalted Christ. He exists no less as Son of God, but now also as Son of Man, which he could be only through being born of woman and made in the likeness of men. The glory of God shines through the bodily form which he carried into heaven with him (Col 2:9), yet in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead. He is what he was not before his incarnation, the Great High Priest. Having begun the high-priestly work in his death and sacrifice, he now carries it on in the heavenly places by his work of intervention (ἐντυγχάνειν, Heb 7:25) in the lives of those who believe in him. He is the minister of the resurrection-life to his redeemed, ever bringing to bear on them through the Spirit the divine forces which cause them to “walk in newness of life.” Thus lordship won by conquest in incarnation is distinguished from inherent lordship. This is the lordship which Jesus preferred to that which was merely inherent in him as the equal of God,—lordship through self-renunciation, mastery through service.

And in this fact lies the answer to the much-discussed question, What is the name which God gave him at his exaltation? As the lordship is Messianic, as the Messianic lordship comes only through the human experience and victory, the name will unite the human experience and the Messianic dominion,—‘Jesus’ the human name, ‘Christ’ the Messianic name. Not ‘Lord,’ for lordship was his inherent right and his prerogative before incarnation. Not Jesus alone, for that represents only the human experience of humiliation; but JESUS CHRIST—Christ the Messiah only as he was Jesus. Accordingly “Lord” in vs. 11 is defined by “Jesus Christ.”

This whole statement in Phil. is, in a broad sense, parallel with the words in Heb 1:3, and the two passages should be studied together. In both the preincarnate Son’s conditions of being are set forth. To these Heb. adds a statement of the preincarnate activity of the Son. Φέρων is “bearing onward,” not simply “upholding” or “sustaining”; for, as Westcott remarks, “the Son is not an Atlas sustaining the dead weight of the world.” (See Comm. on Heb. ad loc. and the striking parallels cited.) The Son was persistently carrying on from eternal ages the universe of God towards its consummation. Incarnation and atonement were not a break in the history of humanity, nor in the eternal activity of God in Christ. They were in the line of the eternal purpose of God. The Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world.” In pursuance of this purpose the Divine Son assumed our humanity, purged our sins, and then “sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.”

In Phil. the parallel to this is found in the statement and detail of Christ’s humiliation. In his human nature, in the form of a servant, in the likeness of men, in humbling himself and enduring the death of the cross, he is still bearing on all things, restoring humanity to the divine archetype by making purification of sins and inaugurating the High-Priestly function developed in Heb. In Phil. the mediatorial aspect is not treated, but both passages depict the exaltation which followed the humiliation.

Whether ἁρπαγμὸν is active or passive is treated in the note. If taken actively,—“an act of robbery,” “a seizing,”—it expresses Christ’s assertion of equality with God; that is to say, he did not think being equal with God an act of robbery, but claimed it as his right in his incarnate state. The awkwardness of regarding a state of being as an act of robbery needs no comment. If taken passively,—“a prize, a thing to be snatched or clutched,” — it expresses the surrender of the preincarnate state of majesty. He did not think equality with God a prize to be eagerly grasped (and held fast), but surrendered it, though it was his right.

Lightfoot’s citations from the Greek Fathers show that they conceived the passage as carrying the idea of a surrender of preincarnate glory, and a condescension from a higher estate. (Note on “Different Interpretations of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο,” Comm. p. 133.)

I am not convinced that Lightfoot’s interpretation is wrong by the strictures of Mr. Beet in his Commentary, ad loc., and in the Expositor, 3d ser. vol. 5, p. 115, especially when I find him adopting Meyer’s explanation. See below.

It may be observed that Lightfoot does not bring out the full force of his first quotation, from the Letter of the Gallican church (Euseb. H. E. v. 2), which lies in the exhibition of the martyrs’ humility as shown in their refusal to accept the title of “witnesses,” which they had earned by their sufferings. Thus, in refusing to insist upon their rightful claim, they imitated Christ, who refused to grasp at the majesty which was rightfully his. Also it should be observed that in Origen on Romans (Lat. v. § 2), rapinam, which is given for ἁρπαγμὸν, occurs in both the active and the passive sense, the latter in late Latin.

Meyer’s explanation should be noticed. He paraphrases: “Jesus Christ, when he found himself in the heavenly mode of existence of divine glory, did not permit himself the thought of using his equality with God for the purpose of seizing possessions and honor for himself on earth.”

He translates “Nicht als ein Rauben betrachtete er das gottgleiche Sein” (Not as a robbing did he regard the being equal with God), and then explains that he did not put being equal with God under the point of view of gaining booty, as if it (being equal with God) was, with respect to its expression in action, to consist in seizing what did not belong to him.

According to this, τὸ εἶναι ἴσα is not the object but the subject of the seizing. Christ did not regard equality with God as a means of grasping. This interpretation is adopted by Beet. It is an illustration of the excessive literalism which sometimes mars Meyer’s splendid exegetical qualities. The interpretation turns on the endeavor to preserve the active force of ἁρπαγμὸς, which, in the very ragged condition of the evidence concerning that word, seems desperate. If this had been Paul’s meaning, I can conceive of no mode of expression which he would have been less likely to choose. Moreover, the explanation misses Paul’s point, which is to show the magnitude of the renunciation from the preincarnate and heavenly point of view, and not from the earthly and incarnate side. According to Meyer, Christ’s self-renunciation consisted in his refusal to grasp at earthly possessions and honors by means of his equality with God. According to Paul, it consisted in his relinquishment of heavenly glory and majesty.

As regards ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, any attempt to commit Paul to a precise theological statement of the limitations of Christ’s humanity involves the reader in a hopeless maze. The word ἐκένωσεν was evidently selected as a peculiarly strong expression of the entireness of Jesus’ self-renunciation, and in order to throw the preincarnate glory and the incarnate humiliation into sharp contrast: to show that Christ utterly renounced and laid aside the majesty which he possessed in his original state. Its most satisfactory definition is found in the succeeding details which describe the incidents of Christ’s humanity, and with these exegesis is compelled to stop. The word does not indicate a surrender of deity, nor a paralysis of deity, nor a change of personality, nor a break in the continuity of self-consciousness. Christ’s consciousness of deity was not suspended during his earthly life. He knew that he came from God and went to God; that he had glory with the Father before the world was, and would receive it back. But he was made in all things like unto his brethren. “He took to himself all that belongs to the perfection of man’s being. He lived according to the conditions of man’s life, and died under the circumstances of man’s mortality” (Westcott).

Comp. Compare.

Class. Classics or Classical.

A Cod. Alexandrinus: 5th century. British Museum. Contains both epistles entire.

Soph. Sophocles.

B Cod. Vaticanus: 4th century. Vatican Library. Contains both epistles entire. Correctors: B2, nearly the same date; B3, 10th or 11th century.

Kl. Klöpper.

אԠCod. Sinaiticus: 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in the convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, in 1859. Now at St. Petersburg. Contains both epistles complete. Correctors: אa, nearly contemporary; אb, 6th century; אc, beginning of 7th century, treated by two correctors,—אca אcb.

C Cod. Ephraem: 5th century. Palimpsest. National Library, Paris. Very defective. Wanting from τοῦτο οὖν (Eph 4:17) to καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι (Php 1:22), and from μειν (Βενιαμειν) (Php 3:5) to the end. Correctors: C2, 6th century; C3, 9th century.

D Cod. Claromontanus: 6th century. Græco-Latin. National Library, Paris. Contains both epistles entire. Corrector: Db, close of 6th century.

F Cod. Augiensis: 9th century. Græco-Latin. Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. Philippians entire; Philemon wanting in the Greek from πεποιθὼς (vs. 21) to the end.

G

Cod. Boernerianus: 9th century. Græco-Latin. Dresden. Wanting Greek and Latin, Phm 1:21-25.

An asterisk added to the title of a MS., as D*, signifies a correction made by the original scribe.

K Cod. Mosquensis: 9th century. Moscow. Contains both epistles entire.

L Cod. Angelicus: 9th century. Angelican Library of Augustinian monks at Rome. Wanting from ἐξουσίαν (Heb 13:10) to the end of Philemon.

P Cod. Porphyrianus: beginning of 9th century. Palimpsest. St. Petersburg. Both epistles entire, but many words illegible.

Thdrt. Theodoret.

Theoph. Theophylact.

Win. Winer: Grammar of N. T. Greek. 8th ed. of Eng. Transl. by Moulton. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 8 Aufl., von P. W. Schmiedel. 1 Theil, 1894.

Mey. Meyer.

Lightf. Lightfoot.

Alf. Alford.

Ellic. Ellicott.

Weiss Der Philipperbrief ausgesetzt und die Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt. 1859. A most thorough piece of work. It leaves no point untouched, and treats every point with ample learning, conscientious pains taking, independence, and positiveness. It is valuable in studying the history of the exegesis.

WH. Westcott and Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek.

De W. De Wette.

Lips. Lipsius.

Weizs. Weizsäcker.

Calov. Calovius.

Rosenm. Rosenmüller.

Polyb. Polybius.

Aristid. Aristides.

Bib. Gk. Biblical Greek.

17 National Library, Paris: 9th or 10th century. Both epistles entire.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Goth. Gothic.

Ign. Ignatius.

A.V. Authorized Version.

R.V. Revised Version of 1881.

LXX Septuagint Version.

Sap. Wisdom of Solomon.

Cop. Coptic, Memphitic, or Bohairic.

Arm. Armenian.

Syr. Peshitto and Harclean versions.

31 British Museum: 11th century. Both epistles entire.

47 Bodleian Library: 11th century. Both epistles entire.

Syr. Harclean.

37 Library of Town Council of Leicester: 15th century. Both epistles entire. See Miller’s Scrivener, vol. i. 202.

Æth. Ethiopic.

67 Vienna: 11th century. Both epistles entire.

Aug. Augustine.

Ans. Anselm.

Beng. Bengel.

= Equivalent to.

Thuc. Thucydides.

Hdt. Herodotus.

Dem. Demosthenes.

Plut. Plutarch.

Cyr. Alex. Cyril of Alexandria.

Euseb. Eusebius.

Burt. Burton: N. T. Moods and Tenses.

Art. Article.

Herz. Herzog: Real-Encyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche.

Ead. Eadie.

Œc. Œcumenius.

Polyc. Polycarp.

Bib. Bible.

Apocr. Apocrypha.

Chr. Chrysostom.

Tisch. Tischendorf: Novum Testamentum Graece. Editio Octava Critica Major.

Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.

Grot. Grotius.

W. St. Vincent: Word Studies in the N. T.

Thay. Thayer: Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T.

TR Textus Receptus.

Luth. Luther.

Calv. Calvin.

Wies. Wiesinger.

Wetst. Wetstein.

Symm. Symmachus.

Aq. Aquila.

80 Vatican: 11th century. Philippians entire; Philemon mutilated.

Hack. Hackett.

v. Sod. von Soden.

Syr. Schaaf’s ed. of Peshitto.

Erasm. Erasmus.

1 I am under obligation to my colleague, Dr. Briggs, for kindly furnishing me with a proof of the article יָּבוֹר from the new Hebrew Lexicon.

Stud. u. Krit. Studien und Kritiken.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The work of Christ. The text varies : some reading work of the Lord, and others the work absolutely. If the latter, the meaning is labor for the Gospel; compare Act 14:38. If the Lord or Christ, the reference may be to the special service of Epaphroditus in bringing the contribution of the Philippians.

Not regarding his life [παραβουλευσαμενος τη ψυχη] . The correct reading is paraboleusamenov, meaning to venture, to expose one's self. It was also a gambler's word, to throw down a stake. Hence Paul says that Epaphroditus recklessly exposed his life. Rev., hazarding. The brotherhoods of the ancient Church, who cared for the sick at the risk of their lives, were called parabolani, 181 or reckless persons.

Your lack of service [το υμων υστερημα λειτουργιας] . An unfortunate rendering, since it might be taken to imply some neglect on the Philippians' part. Rev., that which was lacking in your service. The expression is complimentary and affectionate, to the effect that all that was wanting in the matter of their service was their ministration in person, which was supplied by Epaphroditus.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.