(2) It is to be observed that "to be equal with God" (a state), cannot properly be spoken of as a "robbery" (an act). (3) For the objection that the true force of åλλà (in v. 7) is reversed by A, see above. Waterland combats it (Sermons,' V.), by alleging sundry instances of ἀλλὰ for ἀλλ Ouws in N. T. But in all these the conjn. proves on examination to retain its proper adversative force. (B). Objection against B. 66 On the meaning given by this interpretation to ȧprayμós, a serious question arises. The analogy of like verbal nouns in -μós would impose on it an active meaning, an "act of seizing," a "robbery," as in A; not a thing seized," a "prize," as B requires. The latter would properly be apnaya. And the phrase äрmayμa nyeiodai (пotivat, and the like), ="to regard as a prize," " to hold or grasp eagerly," is not uncommon in Greek authors; -see the examples given by Bp. Lightfoot and other commentators, in loc.--The word άрmayμòs is rare;—once only in a profane writer, Plutarch, 'De Liberor. Educat.,' 15, where it has its proper active sense. It also occurs once in Eusebius, 'Comment. in Luc.,' VI.;—once in Cyril Alex., ' De Adorat.,' I. 25; and once in a passage in the ' 'Catena Possini,' on Mark x. 42; in all of which cases it is used as=ãрñаyμɑ, in the two former with Tоiobai (Bp. Lightfoot; cp. Meyer, who vainly attempts to give his quasiactive sense--below, III., (1)—to арñауμòs in these passages). These three, however, can hardly be relied on as independent instances, being from Christian writers who probably adopted this use of the word from the text in question, which is interpreted (as in B) with ápïayμòs in the concrete sense, by Euseb. (Ecl. Pr.,' III. 8; Eccl. Th.,' I. 13), and by Cyril A. (Contra Jul.,' VI.; 'In Esai.,' IV. 4). We have not therefore sufficient grounds of usage, on which to decide whether the word admits of this sense. But we have the analogy of many similar verbal nouns, which, though properly denoting an action, have come to mean the result of such action,-the abstract meaning readily passing into the concrete ;-e.g., θεσμός, χρησμός. Of this the N.T. affords a striking instance in Oepiouós, properly, the act of (or season for) reaping (so, e.g., Matt. xiii. 30); thence the corn to be reaped (Matt. ix. 38, ó μèv depiσμòs πολύς; Rev. xiv. 15, ἐξηράνθη ὁ θερισμός). Other languages shew a like tendency to a decline in precision as to the use of such words. So in English, a "capture," a “seizure,”—properly the act of taking, or seizing, are used for the thing taken or seized. So too the Latin “rapina,” below, IV. (i.). On the whole therefore we conclude that the difficulty as to the use of άprayuòs is not so grave as to hinder our deciding in favour of interpretation B. II. MISCONSTRUCTION OF В TO BE The phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἠγήσατο is howThe Apostle speaks not of the Lord forbearever by no means equivalent to οὐχ ἥρπασε. ing to do an act, but of the estimation in which He regarded a thing, as the preceding 3). It is not "He did not seize equality with vv. require (with hynσaro cp. youμevol, v. God,"-as Arius (ap. Chrys., Hom. VI., 2), He forbore to grasp what, as not being His and many moderns, misconstrue it; as though own, He had no right to. It has been already shewn that the context excludes such meaning (see above, Chrys.'s argument on this point). For a like reason the explanation of apnayμòs as "res rapienda" is hardly admissible, unless so modified as to mean,—not a "thing to be seized" (as if it were not The word is rather="res rapta,” a “prize”; already His), but--a "thing to be clung to." a thing either (as above) to be (1) tenaciously held (as plunder by a robber), or to be (2) The full significance of the context as deboastfully displayed (as spoils by a victor). veloped above, seems to require both shades of meaning. But of the two, the former (1) stands first, and is the more prominent. III. INTERMEDIATE INTERPRETATIONS. Between the rival interpretations A and B, though (as above shewn) not merely distinct but opposite, some have attempted to find a compromise which shall avoid the difficulties of both. (1) Of such attempts one only seems to give a truly intermediate result; that of Meyer, whom Alford follows. He regards the sentence oйx áρπауμòv nynσaro, as in B, as introductory to the narrative of Christ's Course, referring it to the point of time when He was about to come into the world; but retains an active meaning in áprауμòν, by rendering, “He did not consider it under the point of view of making booty,"—" regarded it not as self-enrichment (Alford),—and explains, "Had he then thought, When I. shall have come into the world I will seize to Myself, by means of My equality with God, power and dominion, &c., then He would have acted the part of ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι.” The meaning then is, that He did not think fit so to use that equality, but on the contrary chose the part of self-renunciation. This explanation certainly satisfies (as A fails to do) the requirements of the context, while it in some measure avoids the difficulty as to ȧрmaуpòs (which attaches to B). Yet the meaning assigned by Meyer to that word is at best but quasi-active, and differs considerably from its proper meaning-an" act of seizing." Nor does his rendering bring out the required contrast to the subsequent "emptied Himself," by any means so simply or forcibly as the more obvious" He counted it not a prize." Further, he takes no account of the probability that the sense of expression is the same as that of the closely similar ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι. (2) The interpretation of Chrys. (Hom. VII., 1; Contr. Anom.,' X.) followed by Theophyl. and Ecum., has been regarded as of an intermediate character. It is briefly thus:-What one has of right, one does not so greedily grasp, as what one has taken by usurpation. A slave elevated to dignity, a tyrant who has seized a kingdom,-is more tenacious of it than a son born to an inheritance, a king seated on an ancestral throne. The Son of God, accordingly, did not cling to His Prerogatives of Godhead as one would do who had wrongfully usurped them, but on the contrary stripped Himself of them all. But that Chrys. (as above) here takes ȧprayμòs in the concrete sense, appears from his words, "Hprаσé Tis TI, TOUTO KATEXEL διαπαντός,Ὁ ἁρπάσας τι, κατέχει τοῦτο διηνεκώς.—Isidor. Pelus., who gives ἐρμαῖον and ἅρπαγμα as equivalents for ἁρπαγμὸς here (Epist., IV., 22), explains exactly as Chrys. does, using his illustration of the slave raised to rank. Cp. also Theodt.'s similar comment. Thus the interpretation of Chrys., which would stand equally well if aprауuа were read in the text for apnayμóv, is not really intermediate, but merely a form of B; its peculiarity lying mainly in the explanation it suggests of the origin of the idiom åржауμòν [ἅρπαγμα] ἡγεῖσθαι. 66 and in both the above texts of Isai.). Moreover it appears that some Latin writers, e.g., Jerome (see below ii. (2)), with this rendering “rapinam" before their eyes, yet adopted B; and must therefore have understood rapina' as prada. Neither from the Latin nor from the Syriac Versions therefore can any sure inference be drawn.2 The remaining Verss. may perhaps be found to be similarly indecisive. Probably the translators, finding before them an idiom that was strange to them, were content to render it verbatim, and to leave the interpretation open.3 (ii.) The Fathers. Waterland, in the Sermon above cited, in defending rendering A, asserts that it has the countenance of "the Greek and Latin Fathers from the fourth century downwards,❞—or (he adds) "after the Nicene Council." Bp. Lightfoot, on the contrary, writes, "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." (1) As regards Greek authorities, the former of these statements is certainly erroneous; to the latter, there is at least one signal exception. Athanasius, 'Contr. Arian.,' Orat. III., 6, writes as follows: "Oλos eós ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἴσα Θεῷ ὢν οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, where the words are indubitably taken, as in A, as part of the statement of Christ's antecedent greatness. The words of Basil also, from which Bp. Lightfoot says (p. 133, note), "nothing can be inferred," seem to be unmistakably on the same side. Ὁ οὖν Υἱός, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγούμενος τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, πῶς ἀνόμοιος καὶ ἄνισος Θεῷ ; ( Adv. Eun., IV.) Even after these deductions, however, the mass of Greek authority against the rendering A is very great; and in a matter which turns on a question of Greek language, ought to outweigh a unanimous consent of Latin writers, were such forthcoming. First of Severus, rendered by Fabricius "non assumam rapinam." Against this, it is to be observed (1) that assumere rapinam is far from being equivalent to άprayudu nyeîoda (however interpreted); (2) that this rendering of IV. AUTHORITIES ON EITHER SIDE. (i.) The Versions. Stress has been laid on the alleged fact that all the Ancient Versions (except the Arabic) adopt A. But the evidence yielded by some of them proves when examined to be inconclusive. As to the VULG., the word "rapina" by which it (after Old Lat.) renders άprayuós, is ambiguous, -being in it frequently used as=" prada." [Similarly in Martial,-e.g., " mollem frangere robbery (as if = 11), is wrong-its proper mean. rapinam,”- Epigr.,' I., cv., 19.] So we find “rapina,” Isai. iii. 14 (LXX., áprаyn); the Ritual being correctly translated (Assemani, ing being flame; and the above words from ib. lxi. 8 (LXX., áрráуμата): where the II., corresponding Hebrew words 1, (3) that the Syriac Translators fail to recognize non apprehendam flammam;" any such idiom, but render ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, have likewise the double meaning of (1) the act, (2) the thing seized. The same is true of the SYRIAC rendering, (here,' 1 Grotius puts forward the singular idea that we have here a Syriac idiom, which he finds in the words in the Liturgy p. 270), 66 2 The like ambiguity appears to attach to the Coptic, we (Bp. Ellicott). 3 The modern Versions, with the signal ex. ception of Luther's ("hielt er es nicht für einen Raub") adopt A. as in order of time is the oft-cited passage (ap. Euseb., H. E., V. 2), in the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (A.D. 177), where the martyrs are said to be imitators of Him Who oux ȧрñаyμòv пyńσɑтo тò eivai toa Oe, these words being undoubtedly used in themselves expressing His self-surrender. We find the same interpretation in Origen (e.g., 'In Joh.,' VI., 37); and (as above shewn) in Euseb., Chrys., Theod. Mops., Theodt., Isidor. Pelus., and Cyril A.;-also (of later writers) in Ecumen. and Theophyl. (Other references will be found in Bp. Lightfoot, p. 132.) Thus the chain of authorities, contrary to Waterland's assertion, reaches from the second century to the eleventh; and is as strong after the Nicene Council as before it. (2) As regards Latin writers, Waterland's statement is substantially correct. After the date A.D. 400, there seems to be absolute unanimity in favour of the interpretation apparently required by the Vulg. rendering of the text, and previously adopted by Tertullian (see the citations in Waterland). Opposed to A, however, a few Latin authorities are to be found;—of the third century, Novatian; of the fourth, Hilary of Poitiers, and Jerome (see the passages cited by Waterland, and by Bp. Lightfoot, p. 134). (3) A survey of the names of Greek and Latin Fathers on both sides, as given above, may satisfy the theologian that, doctrinally, either interpretation (as Waterland says) "will suit very well with Catholic principles," though "the latter [B] only can be any way drawn to favour the Arians." Anglican authority is divided on the question. Against the name of Waterland on the side of A, may be set that of Bp. Bull, who, adopting B, affirms of this text, that it alone is sufficient to confute all heresies against the Person of our Lord (Def. Fid. Nic.,' II. c. 2, § 2). For confirmation of this assertion, read the masterly series of arguments, drawn from the text so interpreted, with which Chrys. overwhelms, one by one, the manifold forms of heresy by which the Truth of that Divinely Human Person had, up to his time, been assailed (Homm., VI.... VIII.); and cp. the brief summaries of the same, given by Theodt., Ecumen., and Theophyl. [For a very full and able monograph on this passage, see J. J. Gurney's Notes and Dissertt.,' No. 7.-J.] 30. not regarding his life] The Vulg. rendering, “tradens animam suam," is not very intelligible. That of the Latin translator of Theod. Mops. is better, "in incertum tradens,"-apparently representing Boλevoάuevos; as does the Old Lat., “parabolatus de anima" παρα CHAPTER III. 1 He warneth them to beware of the false teachers of the circumcision, 4 shewing that himself hath greater cause than they to trust in the righteousness of the law: 7 which notwithstanding he counteth as dung and loss, to gain Christ and his righteousness, 12 therein acknowledging his own imperfection. CHAP. III. 1-3. DIGRESSION: WARNING AGAINST JUDAIZERS. 1. Finally] Lit., "for the rest.” This phrase (as iv. 8) implies a summing-up of remaining topics, with a view to concluding. The Apostle is apparently about to close; but fresh matter arises to his thoughts, and causes the digression which occupies this chapter. rejoice in the Lord] He has spoken of their "joy" in himself, and in the promised return of Epaphroditus (i. 25; ii. 18; ib. 28, 29). Now once more he bids them "rejoice," adding "in the Lord",-cp. i. 26; li. 29. By such iteration (cp. iv. 4) he means to enforce this main lesson of "rejoicing," and "in the Lord," before he concludes. To write the same things...] "To repeat this exhortation, Rejoice in the Lord, to me is not tedious" (lit., "slothful," or causing weariness").—"For you it is safe," ie. This sense of the adj. (aopaλns), in which as imparting certainty, precluding mistake. it is used wherever found in Acts (xxi. 34; xxii. 30; xxv. 26), best suits the context here. Thus the connection is with the sentence just before-"the same things" being the reiterated calls to "rejoice." This explanation, (a) (Bengel, &c.), seems more natural than any of the others proposed: such as, (b) "to repeat the same [exhortations to unity]," referring to ii. 2 (Bp. Lightfoot); or, (c) "to write the same things [as I have written to others]" (Bp. Wordsworth); or, (d) "the same things [as I have spoken personally]" 2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. (Theod. Mops., &c); or, (e) "the same things [as I have written in former Epistles"-not extant] (Meyer). Of these the three last miss the plain meaning of "the same," as expressing the same things as I have written in this letter"; and (d) moreover forces the verb, "to write," into undue emphasis. Against (e) lies the special objection that, merely to explain this passage, it assumes the existence of letters of which there is no proof; for though Polycarp mentions" epistles of Paul to the Philippians, the word is shewn to be frequently used in the plur. of a single letter (Polyc., Ad Philipp.,' III., on which see Cotelier; see also Bp. Lightfoot, pp. 138-40, Lost Epistles). And the fact that the topic of unity does not reappear until we reach iv. 2, is hard to reconcile with (b). Bp. Lightfoot (Introd., IV.), after Ewald, explains that the Apostle, being about to introduce that topic here, is interrupted in writing; resumes (at v. 2) with a different topic; and only finds again at iv. 2 the thread he had here dropped. But this is surely an arbitrary, even violent, hypothesis. The interpretation (a) adopted above is simple and natural. The objection to it, that the precept "rejoice" has no bearing on safety, is avoided by explaining "safe" as above. 2. Beware of] Literally, "Look to," Vulg., "videte"--("Beware of" would be Bλénete dπó, with gen.), implying, "be on your guard against." It is a warning against probable, not actual, danger. (Rilliet.-J.) The warning comes in abruptly after v. 1 (however interpreted). The connection seems to be: "I have repeatedly invited you to glory, and to rejoice, and in the Lord. There are those who, not like me, would hinder this Christian joy, by substituting false ground of trust and of glorying-even the flesh (v. 3). Against such, be on your guard." Similarly, Gal. vi. 13, 14, he contrasts the Judaizers who would "glory in the flesh" of their disciples, with himself, who will not glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." And accordingly the warning here is-for the first time in this Ep.-against such Judaizing teachers. See above, 18, 28, and notes. 66 Why he should introduce the topic, and so strongly enforce it, does not plainly appear. In Philippi, where there were but few Jews (see note or Acts xvi. 13), the Judaizing element cannot have been considerable. The fact that Jews were numerous and hostile in the sister city of Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 1-7) hardly accounts for his vehemence here. Probably the topic was suggested, and the vehemence prompted, rather by his own 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, present experience of Judaizers at Rome, than by any special apprehension of danger to the Philippians from the influence of such. (See Introd., § III., B, iii.) the warning being definitely pointed against a Beware of dogs] Rather, "the dogs," class by the art. prefixed. The Jews called the Gentiles dogs, as Mohammedans call Christians to this day; but "this ignominious name, like a stone cast at the Heathen, fell upon their Hor. Hebr. et Talm.,' on Matt. xv. 26.-J.) heads." (Lightfoot, own See Note at end of ch. of evil workers] "The evil workers" (art. again); not "the workers of evil," but such as, though they do a work, and profess to do" the work" (ii. 30, note), do it in a wrong spirit, on false principles, with evil results; for they tear up the foundations that have thus "doing a work far worse than none; been well laid" (Chrys.)-and (we may add) 19 that which in they wrongly "build again Christ has been done away (Gal. ii. 18). Cp. "crafty workmen" (same noun), 2 Cor. xi. 13 66 of the concision] A contemptuous name for the circumcision (κατατομὴ for περιτομή, —ср. ȧπоKÓуovтaι, Gal. v. 12). This noun is latter its cognate verb expresses the act of not found in N.T., or LXX.; but in the inflicting on oneself wounds or cuttings," such as were practised in heathen worship (3 [1] Kings xviii. 28). Circumcision is now (he implies) but a cutting in the flesh" such as the Law forbids (évroμídas, Lev. xxi. 5; cp. xix. 28). See Note at end of ch. Paul. Bp. Lightfoot compares Rom. xii. 3, This play on words is characteristic of St. "to think highly, to think soberly" (vπeрpoveiv, owppoveiv). See Winer, III. § 68, 2. "The concision," "the circumcision," are used (abstract for concrete) for "the concised," "the circumcised." 3. For we are the circumcision] To St. Paul, though a circumcised Jew, his "circumcision is nothing "-even as he assures the Gentiles that their "uncircumcision is nothing,”--“ in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v. 6; vi. 15). Here he identifies himself with them ("we are "), as "the [true] circumcision," the marks of which he proceeds to state. As (v. 2) the opprobrious name of "dog" recoils on the Jew from the Gentile at whom he flung it; so here the boasted title of the "circumcision," forfeited by the Jew, lapses in Christ to the Gentile. which worship God in the spirit] Here and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: A. V. follows the usual reading (e@,-so Rec.). Translate (reading →eoû with best authorities), "who worship by the Spirit of God" (πvevμаTI, without art., being treated as a proper name)-i.e.," with worship inspired by His Spirit "-opposed to "confidence in the flesh," as described in what follows. Thus, to worship" (arpevew) is used absolutely; as of the Jewish worship, Luke ii. 37; Acts xxvi. 7. By here appropriating the verb, he claims for Christians that they have not only the true circumcision, but the true worship. 66 rejoice in Christ Jesus] "Glory in"; see i. 26, and cp. 1 Cor. i. 31; 2 Cor. x. 17; also Jer. ix. 23, 24. For connection, see on v. 1. have no confidence in the flesh] "As we repudiate trust in circumcision, so in all else that is outward." The negat. (où, not un) here used, shews that he is not merely defining the character of the true Christian, but is asserting that "we" are such. See Winer, III. § 55, 5. 4-6. HE CAN SURPASS THE JUDAIZERS ON THEIR OWN GROUNDS. 4. Though I might also have confidence...] Lit., "Although myself having confidence in the flesh also."—"I am content to class myself with you Gentiles, though I might boast my privileges as a Jew as well as my calling in Christ."-"I" (emphatic), "I can (though you cannot) claim more than they, if it comes to asserting fleshly claims." With this and the next vv. cp. 2 Cor. xi. 18, 21, 22. If any other man thinketh that he hath .] So A. V. rightly. Lit., seems to have." The verb is here used, as elsewhere (e.g., I Cor. vii. 40), in the sense of " seems to himself." He is going to state, not what he appears to others, but what he may justly "think" himself to be. For the moment he resumes his old Jewish standpoint, and asserts himself in such terms as, till he became a Christian, he might have used; as next v. 66 5. "Circumcised the eighth day" (therefore not an alien proselyte, who would be circumcised as an adult,-nor an Ishmaelite, at fourteen) ;—" of the stock of Israel" (there fore not a descendant of proselytes):-" of the tribe of Benjamin" (not of any of the Ten apostate Tribes); "an Hebrew of the Hebrews"-rather "of Hebrews" (born of and bred by parents who had not dropped 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the their ancestral speech and usages, — “ex Hebræis," Vulg.). Circumcised the eighth day] Lit., "in circumcision, an eighth-day-man" (read #epiroun, dat., instead of the hardly-translatable nom. of Rec.). the beloved Rachel; the only tribe besides Benjamin] One of the tribes sprung from Levi, that (notwithstanding its original closer between its royal house and that of Judah) consanguinity with Ephraim, and the rivalry remained faithful to the sceptre of Judah, the throne of David, and the Temple Worship, when the Ten Tribes forsook them; the tribe whose glory it was that on its soil stood the Holy and royal City. Hebrew] I.e., in language, and customs; not both, and were as many Jews of the dispersion who had lost "uninitiated in the tongue of Israel" (Chrys.). "Hebrew" is opposed to "Hellenist" (A. V., “Grecian," Acts vi. 1,— see note there), both words denoting Israelites, the one" Hebrew-speaking," the other "Greekspeaking." See Abp. Trench, 'Syn. N. T.,' s. v.; where the distinction between Hebrew, Jew, and Israelite, is thus briefly summed up: "In the first is noted language; in the second, nationality; in the third, religious privileges and vocation." Though born at Tarsus, St. Paul was, as he tells us (Acts xxii. 3), trained in Jerusalem in Hebrew learning. Accordingly, he usually cites the O. T., not as a "Hellenist" Jew would do, from LXX., but as translated by himself from the original. as touching the law, a Pharisee] Cp. Acts xxiii. 6; xxvi. 5. So far he has declared what, by right of birth, he is: this sentence and the two following tell what, of his own free-will, he became. By profession, of the "straitest sect" of the followers of the Law; in zeal, active in putting down opposition to it; in morals, irreproachably true to it. Such he was: and such (no doubt) he boasted himself to be, up to the moment when that journey to Damascus (Acts ix. 1–8) was arrested by the Light and the Voice that transformed him into what he is. 6. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church] With what feelings he looked back on his career as a persecutor, he tells us, 1 Tim. i. 13-16. Here, he speaks of it as it was regarded by his former self,-as a proof of |