The Epistle To The Philippians

Chapter 1: 5 is more correctly translated “in furtherance of,” not “in” (εἰς), the gospel, as the same preposition should be “for” (Rev. Ver. “unto"), not “till” (Auth. Ver.) the day of Christ in verse 10. In verse 13, instead of “in all the palace, and in all other places,” the Revisers prefer “throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest.” The interference with the true order of verses 15-17, to give a more mechanical exactitude, is rectified, whereas as originally written it is more forcible. But verse 22 seems ill represented. Does not καρπὸς ἔργου = operae pretium, worth while? Thus the connection would run: If to live in the flesh (fall to me), this (is) to me worth the while; and what I shall choose I know not, whereas not only does the arrangement of the Revisers seem cumbrous but the result is unsatisfactory. “But if to live in the flesh—if this is the fruit of my work, then what I shall choose I wot not.” What does this mean, if the sentence would bear so awkward and violent a construction? Even the literal sense given in the margin appears far preferable, “this is the fruit of my work,” or this is to me fruit of my work. It gives me opportunity for longer labor and its yield in the Lord's harvest.-Nor are the Company happy in their rendering of the last words in verse 27, where they miss the apostle's animated identification of the saints with the faith of the gospel, personified as the agent engaged in conflict. Striving “with,” that is, in concert with, is much better than “for.”
In chapter 2: 1 “comfort” and “consolation” rightly change places:-In verse 6 “a prize to be on an equality” is mote correct than “robbery to be equal,” as also “emptied himself” in verse 7.—In verse 9 the right reading “the” (not a) name is adopted, and “in” (not at) the name in verse 10.—But why “things” instead of “beings” when we have the knee and tongue called to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? Is not this very distinct from the personification of universal nature in Psalm 148 or elsewhere? The groaning or deliverance of creation in Rom. 8 is quite another thing, and ὑποκὰτω τῆς γῆς in Revised Version is not at all the same as καταχθενίων here, being things which burrow, not the lost infernal beings.—In verse 30 it is surprising the Revisers did not see that the Rescript of Paris in giving simply “the work” preserves the true reading, to which others added XY or KY. But others must here have overborne the Bishop of Durham. The insertions are easily accounted for.
Chapter 3:3 “worship by the Spirit of God” is right; and “have I counted” in verse 7.-Of course in verse 11 it is the resurrection from (or from among) the dead, not “of” as in the Authorized Version, following the bad reading τῶν ν. instead of τὴν ἐκ ν., not to speak of the intensified form of the word (ἐξαωάστασις) here, only occurrent in the New Testament, as has been often noticed and is obvious.
[But let me here express my astonishment at a very learned Reviser's comment on verses 12-16, as if the Apostle Paul (!) held “the language of hope, not of assurance My brothers, let other men vaunt their security. Such is not my language,” &c. What surprising ignorance even of the gospel practically! How could men so short of ordinary Christian faith be expected to translate the New Testament adequately, no matter what their scholastic attainments? They may be pious, but do not see that the apostle treats of enjoying Christ experimentally, and then of being actually in glory with Christ, not in the least of assurance as to eternal life in Christ or the forgiveness of sins, which are matters of common Christian knowledge. (1 John 2:12, 18.) He could not rest in anything short of what characterized Christ—the out-resurrection and glory—to be with and as Himself on high. It was this prize he had not already obtained, in this respect he was not already perfected. There is no question of false security, but of eye and heart set on the goal above, instead of the profession of Christ combined with the minding of earthly things. Other scriptures denounce fleshly license; here judaizing or fleshly religion. The Right Rev. Reviser is quite mistaken (pp. 70, 151, 152) in the apostle's drift. It is unChristian nomianism, not corrupt antinomianism, of which he here writes such solemn and even stern words of warning.]
The version of verse 20 is an improvement on the Authorized Version, but is it not feeble? We await as Savior the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation in this epistle is regarded as incomplete till the body of our humiliation has its fashion changed into conformity with the body of His glory.
The Authorized Version is duly corrected in chapter 5:2, 8, in its misunderstanding of the female names, a false reading, and a false rendering.-There are also corrections of misreadings in verses 13 and 23, but nothing of special moment.—The rendering is improved especially in verses 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17.