does it express the peaceableness of their mutual intercourse. Both
of these interpretations must appear unconsonant with what pre -
cedes, if it is acknowledged, as it universally is, that the nai has a
consecutive force. The latter of the two, which is given by Meyer,
has this against it, that it makes the being careful to have been the
ground of the dissension among the Philippians, whilst from what
VOL. V. 29



450 PHILIPPIANS IV. 4-9.

we know with certainty, and what Meyer himself acknowledges, its
ground was a spiritual conceit springing from a false security. And
can the additional words, ivhich passeth all understanding, bo ex-
plained of the incomprehensible efficacy of a peaceable disposition ?
De Wette, and Winer in his latest edition, have given the true
meaning (Winer's Gr., 30, 1, p. 168). The elp^vrj -ov 6eov (geni-
tive of the subject, as at Col. iii. 15, comp. also John xiv. 27 ; Rom.
i. 7, etc.) is the peace of the soul wrought by God, and immediately
in contrast with the heart tormented with care, as at John xiv. 27 ;
it is opposed to the being troubled and being afraid. Reconcil-
iation with God is doubtless, as De Wette also observes, the en-
during foundation of all peace of mind. Rest of mind is a more
negative idea that corresponds but little to the expression peace of
God, which latter is rather to be considered as a power ruling in
the heart (Col. iii. 15). Meyer's assertion, however, that Ktpi)vrj
never occurs in this sense, but always denotes the relation to others,
to God or to men, is based on a too narrow interpretation of other
passages. Compare only the passages cited above from John, and
then xvi. 33, to say nothing of passages more questionable. And
the same remark seems to me to apply to the assertion which is here
also made, that 6 deb^ ~jjg dprjvri^ always designates God as the author
of concord. This peace which proceeds from God, and which fills
the heart, is further described as a blessing which passeth all knowl-
edge. Now? here denotes the capacity of knowledge. Comp. Har-
less on Eph. iv. 17, p. 400. This passage is similar to Eph. iii. 19.
Meyer has with reason referred to the all, in reply to De Wette,
who thinks that it is only the doubting perplexed understanding
that is meant. I cannot conceive, however, how the efficacy of this
peace only should be incomprehensible, and not the peace itself.
The apostle then promises to his readers a blessing, the magnitude
of which the understanding cannot grasp. The idea that the apos-
tle cannot himself give this blessing is not here expressed, but is
evident of itself. This superabundant blessing of peace from God
is further described as a power which keeps the heart and mind, find
retains it in fellowship with Jesus Christ. <bpovpijoei is to be con-
strued as a pure future. The following tV unites most suitably
with 0povp7/7et, comp. Gal. iii. 23, where it is connected with /TO
and 1 Pet. i. 5, with d$. So Chrysostom : wcrre psveiv nai urj tn-eaelv
avrov rift mVrewf. This is also confirmed by a comparison with
2 Cor. xi. 3. The ^povpjfOKL is to be understood in this general sense.
The peace spoken of guards the heart from everything that would
withdraw it from fellowship with Christ, let it come from within or
from without. Where its protecting power is experienced is set forth
in the words Kapdiat; and vo?/juara. The Kapdia needs this protection
above all, for as it is the centre of the natural, so it is also the centre



PHILIPPIANS IV. 8, 9. 451

of all spiritual life in man. Thence proceed evil thoughts, Matth.
xv. 19 ; there also, however, is the fountain of the new life, Rom. x.
10. Not only his feeling and will, but his thought has its centre
there. Further, as vovg denotes the whole spiritual habitus of the
man, the vo^ara refer as well to his thoughts as to his disposition
and his will. They are the issues of the icapdia } denoting his thoughts
and his volitions together. So 2 Cor. iii. 14, i-nupudr] rd vor/juara, and
ver. 15, Kakvuna &m rfjv rcapdiav Kt-lrai where the connexion of the
one with the other is evident. If itapdia denotes the personal centre
of all spiritual life, then vor\\iara refers to the expressions of this ;
in reference to both, the peace of God will be a protecting power.
There is just as little reason for restricting the vor/juara to the
thoughts as there is for applying the napdia exclusively to the feel-
ings and the will. Comp. Meyer.

Vers. 8, 9. The apostle brings these practical exhortations to a
close by summarily stating whatever else, besides the things spe-
cially mentioned, vers. 4-7, they were diligently to strive after.
Accordingly the TO Xonrov is to be understood only in relation to these
exhortations, not as a resumption of the TO konrov at iii. 1. The
words of this verse do not contain any express opposition of that
which God does (ver. 7), to that which still remains for man to do.
But they plainly involve the idea that the blessing specified in ver.
7 manifests its presence by the diligent striving after what is men-
tioned in ver. 8, and only thereby as it seems is the possession of it
to be secured. Comp. ver. 9. Whatsoever things are true, what-
soever things are honourable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever
things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are
of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, they
are to think on these things. Koyi&aQe is not merely equivalent to
(j)povdv } for Trpaaaere, ver. 9, shews plainly in ivhat manner they are-
to think of these things. Every one will feel the emphasis implied
in the repetition of the oaa before each predicate. The entire com-
pass of Christian morality is here designed to be presented before
them. It is not different objects, but one and the same moral na-
ture, which the apostle here denotes in its various relations. The
first four predicates denote this moral nature in itself, the two last,
according to the moral sentiments of approbation which it elicits.
'AA??07) signifies what is " morally true," as at 1 Cor. v. 8, where it
is joined with dhiKpiveta (sincerity), which stands in antithesis with
Kattia and novr]pia. So also Eph. iv. 21, where Harless observes,
" The good is always at the same time the true, the evil is always
at the same time the untrue." Zeuvd occurs besides here, only in
the pastoral epistles, and signifies " honourable, reputable." kiitaia
in its general signification, " honest, according to law," as at Eph.
iv. 24. In like manner is dyvd to be understood as generally char-



452 PHILIPPIANS IV. 10-20.

acteristic of the moral nature, not chaste in the special sense ; it is
equivalent to pure, as at 2 Cor. vi. 6, vii. 11 ; Jam. iii. 17 ; 1 Tim. v.
22, etc. npoafaMi is rightly rendered by Meyer, " lovely, that which
conciliates love. That which in its own nature is amiable, is moral
also in the Christian sense." Meyer also remarks in opposition to the
interpretation (grammatically true), that would explain this term of
" a kind manner and conduct towards others," that it does not suit
the context, in which we find no special virtues enumerated. The
word occurs only in this passage in the New Testament, elsewhere
in Sir. iv. 8, xx. 13 ; it is found often in profane writers. Lastly,
evfyrina, which Luther well renders, " that which sounds well, has a
good report," according to the original signification of the word. It
also occurs only here. The following ft rtf, etc., does not specify
other virtues, but sums up the foregoing, so that dperjj recapitulates
the first-mentioned, and TTCUVO$ the last-mentioned predicates. 'Ap er7 ?>
11 virtue," a word, as is well-known, of rare occurrence in the New
Testament. As a predicate, viewed in reference to man, it is found
again only at 2 Pet. i. 5. With reference to God, 1 Pet. ii. 9 ;
2 Pet. i. 3. The choice of the expression in this passage is ex-
plained by the object which the apostle had in view, namely to de-
note the moral nature in its objective aspect, after the most general
form in which it was possible to do so. Ver. 9 forms a parallel with
ver. 8. What the apostle has mentioned before as that which they
were to strive after, he here further characterizes as the very thing
which they had learned and received from him, and had seen and
heard in his example. This they are to do, and the God of peace shall
be with them. The first nai signifies " also," the others simply
" and." Learned and received refer to the instruction they had re-
ceived from him, the two other verbs refer to the example he had
set before them. On tv ipoi, comp. Winer's Gr., 48, a. 3, p. 345.
And the God, etc., these words shew that what was stated as im-
plied in ver. 8, was indeed present to the mind of the apostle. The
peace spoken of in ver. 7 can be guarded and secured only by the
conduct described in vers. 7 and 8. The peace here is the same as
at ver. 7. K<u has here, as at ver. 7, a consecutive sense. When the
apostle sets himself forth as an example, he does so in the conscious-
ness of what he has said at iii. 13, 14, 20, 21.

Vers. 10-20. In this passage, we have the apostle's expression
of thanks for the contribution he had received for the supply of his
necessities. With no less dignity than warmth of affection, does he
here express his joy on account of the token of love which had come
from the church. Not so much, however, as a relief to his necessi-
ties, was their gift welcome to him, 11-13, but rather as a fresh
token of that relation of mutual communication in which they had
been closely knit to each other from the first, and in consequence of



PHILIPPIANS IV. 10. 453

which he does not look at the gift as such, so much as at the benefit
which would accrue from such gifts to those who gave them, 14-17.
He has now abundance in consequence of their gift, which he repre-
sents as a sacrifice well-pleasing to God, and for which he promises
to them a rich return from his God, 18, 19 ; then follows an ascrip-
tion of praise to this God, ver. 20.

Ver., 10. But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, etc., the apostle
thus begins, <5e marking the transition to something new ; iv vpta>,
as at ii. 10, 29, etc. Every event of his experience stands, in his
view, in relation to Christ, and takes from Christ its character and
form. The words that follow denote the subject of his joy, on, etc.,
"that now" (not, now at last, comp. De Wette) ye have again
flourished in your care for me. The connexion of the infinitive here
is somewhat loose, comp. Winer's Gr., 44, 1, p. 284, who explains
" with reference to" " as concerning," and solves the construction by
supplying ware. It is a still simpler method to understand dveddkere
as transitive, which is justified by the usage of the LXX. (Ezek.
xvii. 24), and the Apocrypha (Sir. i. 18, xi. 22); " that you have let
your care for me flourish," so De Wette. I, however, prefer the
former mode, on account of what follows, in which the dvaOdhfaiv is
represented as not having been dependent on the will of the Philip-
pians. On the form dveddhere, comp. Winer's Gr., 15, p. 80. But
I do not agree with Meyer and others, in understanding dvaddXAetv
(a metaphorical expression derived from a tree growing green again)
of the worldly circumstances of the Philippians, not only because
Qpoveiv has no connexion with this, but also because then the follow-
ing Ifi u>, etc., as De Wette justly observes, would be mainly
without an object. Besides, the idea that the apostle rejoices in the
improvement of their temporal circumstances, is in itself improbable.
It were then not so much their disposition in which he rejoices, as
their ability to assist him. The apostle rather says, he rejoices
that their Christian life has gained a new ornament, by which he
understands this proof of their sympathetic care for him. I do not
see that there is any want of delicacy in this expression of joy.
Moreover, it were quite in accordance with the context, if the words
could be so understood as to imply a charge against the Philippians,
since, in order to prevent the misunderstanding that any imputation
against them is implied, the apostle immediately adds, wherein ye
were also careful, etc. 'E0' oi is elsewhere used by the apostle al-
ways as neuter ; we are therefore not at liberty to understand it
otherwise here, and to refer the pronoun to tyov, but must either
separate TO vrrep efiov from faoveiv, as Bengel and Meyer do, and
refer <(>' o> to the first, or refer it to the entire phrase TO vrrep K^OV
Qpoveiv. The latter certainly has the harshness of producing a 0po-
velv em TOJ 0poveZi>, which Meyer characterizes as a logical absurdity.



454 PHILIPPIANS IV. 11.

But, in whatever way we take it, the first Qpovelv is not the same in
sense as the second ; in the former case it is a care for the apostle
which has realized itself in an actual contribution to his necessities,
in the latter cast 1 it is a care without any actual manifestation, a
care to which a want of opportunity stands opposed. Might the
apostle not well enough say, viewing the first <f>povelv as the proof
of their care for him : such an actually manifested care for me was
the ohject of your care ? And, if the relative w refers to the TO vnep
ifiov alone, why should he not have written simply o, which would
correspond better with the fiKaipeiaOe than t'0* u> ? Besides, this in-
terpretation gives an undue emphasis to the TO twep Ipov apart from
the Qpoveiv. I regard, therefore, the common reference of the t-<p o>
as the preferable. The words wherein ye were also careful, are de-
signed to prevent the misunderstanding that the apostle intended
to say, their care for him had not existed before. This care was
previously felt (the emphasis lies on the imperfect, by which the
opposition between the past and the present is expressed); but ye
lacked opportvnity. Those who understand the word dveOdXere to
refer to the temporal circumstances or means of the Philippians,
explain duatpeladcu as its antithesis, and as denoting an unfavour-
able state of their worldly means, a view which, grammatically con-
sidered, is certainly well founded. If, on the other hand, \ve have
found this signification of dveddfo-E to be not suitable, then must
f)Kaipelo6e also be understood in its general signification as denoting
the unfavourableness of circumstances generally. The further spe-
cification of whether it be the means themselves, or the opportunity
of sending them that is meant, thus remains a matter of conjecture.
The expression belongs to the later Greek, and occurs only here.

Ver. 11. The apostle has just said that he greatly rejoiced be-
cause of the proof they had given of their care for him. He will
not, however, be understood as saying this from a feeling of pressing
want. Ov% OTI as at iii. 12. KaO' varKprjatv, " on account of want,
because I suffer want" (comp. Winer's Gr., 49, d. p. 358), in
which he does not deny the fact of his being in want, but merely
that his being in want was the cause of his expressing himself as
he had done. Such a motive finds no place in him, for he goes on
to say, I (with emphasis) have learned in whatever circumstances I
am, therein to find my satisfaction. In the same sense, dpunv^evoi,
rolg TTapovoiv ) Heb. xiii. 5. AvropK^g as avnipK^ia has a different
sense, according as it denotes the outward condition or the inward
feeling Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8 with 1 Tim. vi. 6. AvrdpKsia here de-
notes the "feeling," and it can have no other than the sense already
indicated ; it is not, as Meyer understands it, " to bo sufficient to
myself," in other words, " not to need the assistance of others," a
thing which never can be learned, and which does not depend on the



PHILIPPIANS IV. 13, 14. 455

state of feeling. On fyaOov comp. Heb. v. 8. The school in which
the apostle had learned this contentment was, his life. He does
not, however, in this praise his own strength, but the strength of
Christ, comp. ver. 13. 'Ev olg elai, not merely the circumstances in
which he then was, but in which he might be at any other time. On
the indie, of the pres. comp. Winer's Gr., 42, 3, p. 274. Ver. 12.
Olda KCU, etc., de is not the true reading. The apostle now further
describes the art of contentment. It consists in knowing how to
accommodate one's-self to the most opposite circumstances, how to
find a sufficiency in every situation, instead of regarding a certain
state as the condition of this sufficiency. Olda as the consequence
of having learned " I know" by which is meant a practical
knowledge, as is plain from ver. 13. Kal ra-rreivovaOat Kal Ttepiaaev-
eiv, the proper antithesis would be v-^ovadat ; the apostle, however,
expresses the antithesis which he has more especially in view. He
knows how to bear abasement as well as abundance, i. e., in rebus
exiguis patienter me gerere rebus abundantibus cum modo uti
(Grotius). From olda he proceeds by way of climax to jue/wT^at ;
" I am initiated," " admitted to the mysteries," an expression which
implies that the art of which the apostle speaks is not so easy or so
directly accessible to all as might be supposed. As this verb is usu-
ally connected with the accusative or dative, many connect iv iravrl
teal KV -naoiv not with f/tt%MW, but take the phrase in the same sense
as above, iv olg elfj,i= in whatsoever state, and then join the follow-
ing infinitives closely with fisfivjjfj-ai. But as the following infinitives
themselves only indicate the different states, they must, be regarded
as exegetical of the iv Trdoiv. Besides, it could not, with logical
strictness be said, in every state I am initiated both to be full and
to suffer hunger, etc. I prefer, therefore, to abide by the connexion
with (tqivifruu, and to view the infinitives as explanatory.

Ver. 13. / can do all things, he continues. The rcdvra is to be
understood in its widest sense, and is dependent on io%vu, as Gal. v.
6 ; James v. 16. 'Io%vw not olda again, from which we perceive
that it is not a mere knowledge but an art that is meant, the neces-
sary strength for which the apostle draws not from himself but
from him wfoo makes him strong. In and through fellowship with
him the apostle is strong. ''Evdwanou, as here, Eph. vi. 10 ; Acts
ix. 22 ; Rom. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17. Xpia is
omitted in A.B.D.*d. e., etc., and is doubtless a gloss from 1 Tim.
i. 12.

Ver. 14. Notwithstanding, ye have done well, in that ye have
taken part with me in my affliction. Calvin traces the connexion
well : cavet ne fortiter loquendo contemsisse ipsorum beneficium
videatur. This verse supplies the positive to the ov% un } verse 11,
and thus indicates the proper ground of the apostle's great joy, ver.



456 PHILIPPIANS IV. 15, 16.

10, namely, that they shew an active sympathy with him in his af-
fliction, and share his burden along with him. By his affliction,
however, is to be understood his entire state at that time. On
air/Koivdwelv see Eph. v. 11. Ka^wf noielv with partic. as 2 Pet. i.
19, etc. Comp. Winer's Gr., 45, 1. Anm., p. 398.

Vers. 15, 16. The apostle now reminds his readers that such a
relation of mutual communication had existed between them and
him from the beginning, a relation in which he stood to no other
church but that of the Philippians. There is in these words at once
a complimentary acknowledgment of the love of the church to him,
and an expression of grateful love on the part of the apostle. An
emphasis of feeling therefore rests on ye Philippians, as at 2 Cor.
vi. 11. Ye, too, as well as I, he says, know that in the beginning of
the gospel (i. e., in the beginning of the gospel's being spread among
yon, i. 5-12), when I was gone from Macedonia no church entered
into fellowship with me, as to giving and receiving but you only.
The words, when I was gone, etc., fix more definitely the point of
time indicated by in the beginning, etc. 'E^/.0ov is to be taken as
pluperfect, on which see Winer's Gr., 40, 5, p. 246. The apostle
alludes to the assistance mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 9. Others interpret
thus, " when I departed," by which the time specified in Acts xvii.
14 would be denoted. But if the contributions mentioned in ver.
16 as having been sent to Thessalonica, are not themselves meant
(a supposition inadmissible both on account of the /cat and also be-
cause the gifts repeatedly sent to Thessalonica cannot be alluded to
in connexion with the words, when I departed, etc.), it is at the
same time scarcely to be supposed that among the circumstances
noted in the Acts as connected with the apostle's departure from
Macedonia, there was still another contribution sent by the distant
church in Philippi, which was not included in those sent to Thessa-
lonica. It has appeared surprising that the apostle should notice, in
ver. 15, the contribution in Corinth, which was later, and should after-
wards, in ver. 16, notice that which was earlier in point of time. The
same difficulty presents itself, only in another form, in connexion with
the interpretation of tZfjWov as an ordinary aorist ; for here also the
question arises, wherefore does the apostle mention, in ver. 16, that
which is the earlier in point of time ? The answer which is wont to
be given in the former case that the apostle mentions first that
which was most considerable is not at all satisfactory, chiefly be-
cause ver. 16, with on (not " that," but " for"), is not simply an
addition to, but serves to illustrate and confirm, ver. 15. And still
more difficult must it be, in the other case, to assign the reason why
the apostle did not adhere to the order of time, and mention first
the contributions sent to Thessalonica, and then those sent on his
departure from Macedonia. If we bear in mind that ver. 16 stands



PHILIPPIANS IV. 15, 16. 457

in a subordinate relation to ver. 15, it will then appear certain that
the apostle intends only to adduce the first-mentioned contribution
(when I departed) as the one specially bearing on the object he has
in view in this passage. With this contribution which the church
sent after him a great distance (when I departed from Macedonia),
did the relation at present subsisting between the apostle and them
first connect itself, as the fruit of which he also regards the present
gift sent to him at Eome. And the following verse (ver. 16) then
serves to illustrate the fact that they entered into such a connexion
with the apostle : for even before I had departed from Macedonia,
even in Thessalonica, ye have repeatedly sent to my necessities.
The words, even in Thessalonica, will thus be antithetical with,
when I had departed from Macedonia. This explanation removes
the difficulty started above. Efc Aoyov. I think with De Wette
and Meyer, the rendering " in regard to" inconsistent with the
context ; the words which follow, and elg Adyov vp&v of ver. 17,
require that Adyo^ be taken in the sense of " account," in which it
also occurs in Matth. xviii. 23 and elsewhere. So in Cic. Lael. 16 :
ratio datorum et acceptorum. koaig nai krj^is, " giving and receiv-
ing" = iritti stotoj Sir. xli. 19. If we suppose the figure to be taken
from books of accounts in which are inserted the expenditure and
receipts, it will not do to set the giving to the side of the Philip-
pians, the receiving to the side of the apostle. For in an account
book one does not insert what he himself gives and the other re-
ceives, but what he gives and receives. Besides, the expression,
" giving and receiving," would then be without any object, in so far
as it implies nothing more than is expressed at Rom. xii. 13, by the
simple phrase, he communicated to my need. Kather, as Meyer
well observes, must the expression you have communicated with
me in reference to the account of giving and receiving be under-
stood of a mutual account keeping ; the apostle (as also the Philip-
pians), takes account of giving and receiving. Ver. 17, " to your
account," also leads to this interpretation. " In the account of the
Philippians, remarks Meyer, the column for the receivings would
be indeed empty, as, in Paul's account, would be that for the giv-
ings." But if this be true, does not the expression, giving and re-
ceiving, become meaningless, and could the apostle have said
with any reason, they have entered with one another into the rela-
tion of reciprocal giving and receiving, if the Philippians could
think of nothing which they might regard as received by them ?
And why should they not think of the spiritual gifts which they
had received from the apostle ? The apostle certainly does not