Philippians 2

CHAPTER II

Paul’s Second Admonition: With a Mind like Christ’s Humbly to Relinquish What is Ours by Right In the Interest of the Brethren

Philippians 2:1

1 First, how the Philippians are to stand firm against their opponents; next, how “accordingly” (οὖν) they are to be minded toward their brethren.

Two considerations make the translation of our versions unacceptable: first the reading, secondly the thought. The reading is τὶςσπλάγχνα and not τινά, which underlies the translation of our versions. To assume that we have a solecism, a masculine singular construed with a neuter plural, is untenable. That τίς should be indeclinable (R. 744) is equally untenable, for Paul declines τίς and τί in the preceding clauses. To assume that this reading is due to an early error in copying is equally untenable, for the error would produce the solecism. The very few copyists who altered the text evidently sought to correct what they thought was a mistake.

The many Greek texts that have τίς are proof positive that this correct reading was correctly understood by those who allowed it to stand. So much for the text.

The thought is disjointed when the correct reading is changed and when we translate as do our versions by making the εἰ clauses protases to v. 2: “If—if, then fulfill my joy that you be of the same mind,” etc. The protases do not match the apodosis. Some regard the protases as adjurations and think that Paul adjures the Philippians by the admonition, solace, fellowship, tender mercies and compassions they have toward each other, but how can the same mind rest on adjurations of this kind? Others make them conditional affirmations that the Philippians do have admonition, etc.; the apodosis is still incongruous, its thought is not a conclusion but an addition to the thoughts contained in the “if” clauses.

Von Hofmann has taken the right view, which Ewald sought to improve. Verses 1 and 2 are separate sentences, v. 2 is not the apodosis. Each “if” clause has its own apodosis in v. 1, which may be either declarative or imperative, preferably the latter, because v. 2 is imperative.

If, accordingly, (there is) any admonition, (let it be) in connection with Christ; if any solace, (let it be) of love; if any fellowship, (let it be) of spirit; if any (such fellowship), (let it be) tender mercies and compassions!

All the conditions assume a reality, otherwise they would have to be of a different Greek form. Paul takes it for granted that there is such admonition, etc. The fact that the apodoses are so terse makes them the more striking and effective. Here we have one of the many instances where one should note that Greek is not English. The Greek does not need to have everything written out in full as the English does. The Greek mind catches the thought at once without having the copula written out. People who are accustomed to think in other languages are thus often left behind, the Greek is too nimble for them. We shall have to learn this nimbleness and think in Greek.

This “admonition,” etc., as also the following shows (v. 2–4), is not directed from the Philippians to Paul but from them to themselves. Παράκλησις, “calling one to one’s side,” is always modified by the context so that the word may mean having someone come to our side with admonition or with exhortation (R. V., American Committee) or with urging or with encouragement or with comfort (our versions) or even with request. Here “comfort” would trench on the next term, “solace.” Since οὖν connects with what is said about standing firm against adversaries (1:28), all the terms used in v. 1 get their coloring from that connection. The Philippians who have to suffer from such adversaries will need from their brethren: admonition or encouragement—solace or comfort—true spiritual fellowship—and all that tender mercies and compassions can bestow. That is why all of these are mentioned. They are, of course, needed also at other times but especially at times such as the previous context suggests.

All such admonition, let it be “in connection with Christ.” So Paul offered all his admonitions; take Eph. 4:1 as a sample. “In Christ” is not mystical; it means “in connection with Christ.” The admonition will remind them that Christ suffered and died for us, that we are his, under his love, protection, etc. That kind of admonition goes home to the Christian who receives it and cheers, strengthens, helps him. Any other would fall flat.

So with “any solace,” let it be “of love,” let its source be Christian love that is intelligent and purposeful (see 1:9). Sentimentality, mere humanitarian feeling will not do, and officious intrusion would be the worst of all. Παραμύθιον (Παρά, beside, μῦθος, speech) is used “much in the sense of our ‘solace’” (M.-M. 488), Erleichterung (B.-P.), making things easier by speaking to one in trouble Regarding these first two compare 1 Thess. 2:11: “You know how we dealt with each one of you as a father with his own children, exhorting you (παρακαλοῦντες) and encouraging you (παραμυθούμενοι).”

“If any fellowship, (let it be that) of spirit.” This expression, like “of love,” points to source. The majority of interpreters translates “of Spirit”; but this cannot be the sense because this thought is mentioned third, “of love” intervening between “in Christ” and “of the Spirit” (if this means Spirit). Paul says that outward fellowship is not enough, spirit must fellowship spirit. Note, too, that because it is third, “of spirit” is already linked with “in Christ” and with “of love.” These four exhortations belong together, one links into the other, the four form a whole. To offer admonition in connection with Christ means also to offer solace from love to a brother, and both mean true spiritual fellowship. Experience has taught the writer the full force of what Paul here writes. When I was in deep distress, the visit of brethren with whom I felt that I was in true, full spiritual fellowship meant everything to me; but my soul turned from those who tried to act as if theirs, too, was such inner fellowship when I was convinced that it was not.

“If any” (elliptical) means “any such fellowship of spirit.” In this further reference to what any fellowship must be the subject includes what has just been said of it, that it must be “of spirit” and thus now states that it should consist of “tender mercies and compassions.” On the former see 1:8; the latter = pities, manifestations of pity. “Of spirit” characterizes this fellowship according to its source, the nominatives characterize it in its manifestation as coming from that source. This final predication is double, consisting of two closely synonymous terms. That is rhetorically good for the last of a series of statements even as it is good to say two things of the “fellowship” after having said one of each of the preceding terms.

But note the progress from “admonition” to “solace” and then to “fellowship,” each predication matches. There are thus seven terms in all, and each is in its proper place, and the seven form a whole. One predicate is a phrase, and this is comprehensive, weighty: “in Christ”; then come two genitives of source which are included in this phrase; then a double nominative to indicate the outflow of feelings. In the face of so many opponents Christians need all manner of admonition from each other so as to remain firm, and this must always be connected with Christ. They will often suffer hurt and need consolation from each other, and this must come from intelligent and purposeful love, the love which Christ produces in the true believers. Thus the fellowship of clinging close together in the face of the hatred of opponents is necessary, but this must have its source in spirit and be truly spiritual fellowship; and as such it will itself consist of tender mercies and pities to bind up every wound. The picture is thus complete.

Philippians 2:2

2 What Paul now asks, not only as giving him joy, but as filling the cup of it completely, is something additional to v. 1, we may say the highest (or deepest) part of the fellowship. It is expressed in a separate, long sentence as the main part of his admonition in this paragraph; hence the asyndeton; v. 5 is also introduced without a connective. It is the humility which regards others so highly as to serve their interests as fully as one’s own. The admonition crowns those stated in v. 1.

Fulfill my joy (aorist: make it completely full) that (apposition to “joy”) you keep minding the same thing as having the same love, joined in soul minding this one thing, not one in accord with self-seeking or with vainglory but with the lowly-mindedness considering one another as being above themselves, these each one watching out not for their own things (alone) but also for the things of others, these each one.

It should be noted that minding “the same thing” is an incomplete idea, this would have to be the right thing. It should be noted, too, that minding τὸἕν (some texts again have “the same thing”), “this one thing,” still leaves unsaid what it is. What it is v. 3, 4 state, first negatively: “not one in accord with self-seeking,” etc., but the very contrary: “with lowly mind,” etc.

The idea expressed is not only “thinking” the same thing, having the same thoughts or feelings and thoughts, but “minding” the same thing, attending to the same thing with the same feelings and thoughts. We see this when we note that the following belongs together and forms one idea: “minding the same thing as having the same love.” Some think that the participle presents an advanced idea, but it forms an integral part of the one idea. That is why “same—same” is used. This is active minding, the minding of love, ἀγάπη, which is always bent on an intelligent purpose (see 1:9, and on the verb Matt. 6:44).

Again, “joined in soul (cf., 1:27: with one soul) minding this one thing,” belongs together and should not be divided as it is in our versions. This is simply a restatement of the minding that is due to the same love. It thus emphasizes the matter yet also amplifies as Paul regularly does in his restatements, for “joint in soul” (σύμψυχοι, “joint-souled”) is placed forward and carries the impact. It adds to “love” in this minding the same thing the fellowship of soul that binds together. “This one thing,” however, still holds us in suspense, we wonder what it really is.

Philippians 2:3

3 Now we are told what Paul means by the same, one, and identical thing which we are all to keep minding as having the same love, minding as “joint in soul.” First, negatively: “not one (or: none) in accord with self-seeking (see 1:17) or in accord with vainglory.” Paul does not want the Philippians to act like the self-seekers did who preached Christ in Rome as he has described. Paul uses the preposition (κατά) twice, for “self-seeking” refers to what the selfish are after and “vainglory” to what they get when they succeed, a lot of glory that is entirely κενός, “empty,” hollow. Yes, this “self-seeking” is minding a certain thing, and the thing is “empty glory” when it is achieved. Thus to unmask it for Christians is to make them turn from it; μηδέν, “nothing” of that for them, nothing that accords with it (κατά), shall we say that smells of it?

“On the contrary (ἀλλά), with the lowly-mindedness considering one another as being above themselves, these each one (ἕκαστοι) watching out not for their own things (alone) but also for the things of others—these each one” (ἕκαστοι, emphatically repeated). The thing to be noted is that by means of the use of the two ἕκαστοι Paul states everything in the third person and thus finely gives it an objective turn; but he still uses participles as if he were continuing the participles of v. 2 which refer to the second person in φρονῆτε. This is another fine turn. The force and the skillfulness of this twofold procedure have not been generally noted, hence we find the emendation of the text, now by one scribe, now by another, which we need not consider. Ἕκαστοι was changed into the singular since we here have the only two instances in the New Testament where the plural of this word is used.

The article with ταπεινοφροσύνη = “with due lowly-mindedness,” it is the dative of means. Note that it continues the idea of φρονεῖν and is placed in the emphatic position. This lowly-mindedness is active (like “minding” in v. 2): first, it considers the other as being superior; secondly, it thus looks out for his interests as much as it does for its own. When the Philippians keep to “this thing,” all of them to “this same thing,” Paul’s cup of joy will certainly be full to the brim.

M.-M. do not list this noun because it does not appear even in the Old Testament nor in secular Greek, and in Josephus and in Epictetus is used only in the old base sense of the adjective ταπεινός: “pussilanimity,” which is a fault and not a virtue. The pagan and the secular idea of manhood is self-assertiveness, imposing one’s will on others; when anyone stooped to others he did so only under compulsion, hence his action was ignominious. The Christian ethical idea of humility could not be reached by the secular mind; it lacked the spiritual soil. But the New Testament has this noble word, and especially Paul states what humility or “lowly-mindedness” achieves. Read Trench, Synonyms, who also deals with πραότης, “meekness” (the two are combined in Eph. 4:2). Where the conviction of sin is absent, which bows us into the dust before God, spiritual lowly-mindedness in our attitude toward the brethren is impossible; but where this conviction exists the humility naturally becomes the result.

It is active, the means (here dative) for making us consider others above ourselves, ὑπερέχοντες, and thus the means for making us look out for the things of others as we look out for our own (σκοπεῖντάτινος = to secure someone’s advantage). Note the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλους: “one another.” Each one is to consider each other one ὑπέρ, deserving first consideration. Note how astonishingly that works: as I consider you above, you likewise consider me above, and so all around. A marvelous community in which no one is looked down upon but everyone looked up to! The very need of the needy lifts them up to receive the greater consideration.

Paul is not asking the impossible or the untrue, namely that I am to think that every other Christian, just because he is a Christian, has more brains, more ability, more everything than I have. Nor does Paul ask that we merely “consider” one another above although we know that the facts are quite to the contrary, that a large number are far beneath us. “As being above themselves” (genitive after the comparative, R. calls it ablative) means as deserving first attention from us. Rom. 12:10 “In honor preferring one another.” Each is to put every other brother first on the list to be considered, himself at the bottom of the list; each one is to have the list arranged in this order. The worldling reverses this: he comes first, everyone else comes last, perhaps does not come at all.

Philippians 2:4

4 It is not necessary to punctuate with a semicolon or to supply a finite verb (untenable reading), a comma is sufficient, for this participle expounds the preceding by telling how we are to consider one another above our own selves, namely “by not looking out for the things of our own alone but also for the things of these others,” the two ἕκαστοι emphasize that each one of us is to do this. In the world each one looks out for the things that are his, the things of others do not concern him. If he does look out for them, it is only because, if he does not, he himself will also lose. His motive is not above ἐριθεία (v. 3), “self-seeking” or selfishness. The Christian reverses this: he looks out for the things of others (Paul puts that first and thus justifies his ὑπέρ used in v. 3) and then looks out “also” for his own things (Paul puts this “also” second). Only “lowly-mindedness” can do such a thing, do it truly and sincerely.

Yet the thought is not that the Christian is after all to look out for himself alone, that if all his fellow Christians look out for his things, he will fare better than if he alone looked out for his own things. To be sure, everyone will fare better when, instead of disregarding each other’s interests, all mutually help each other. But this result cannot possibly be attained if the motive that prompts those concerned is after all secretly insincere, selfishness that is only deeply hidden. That would blight the prosperity down to the very roots, it would simply not result.

Nothing is achieved in the kingdom except by genuine sincerity and unselfishness. That stands once for all. This whole matter is only the old principle of Jesus over again: he who loses his life shall gain it, and he who is out only to gain it, thereby has already lost it. So paradoxical, to the world so incredible, it is nonetheless the fact. Moreover, from v. 1 onward Paul is speaking of spiritual interests; “the things of our own” and “the things of others” are spiritual things, note v. 1. Paul means: “Look to the spiritual interests of others, then also to your own.

Do this, all of you, each one.” Now, if 1, 000 thus look out for me, it will be easy for me also to look out for myself. This will also be true in the case of every other one. No secret, insincere selfishness can possibly play into this spiritual reciprocity. But look at Matt. 6:33 and see that when Paul is speaking of the spiritual interests, the material are by no means disregarded or left out. Paul does not dream of saying, “In material things let each one look out for himself first!” The Christian’s “own things” cannot be thus divided into two. Spiritual interests reach into the way in which we deal with the material as Jesus shows in Matt. 6:24–34.

The material are cared for by truly caring for the spiritual through the mutuality Paul describes. The moment we see the spiritual interests and how they control, the impossibility of even the least lurking selfishness appears.

All this is essential for understanding what follows, namely the model Christ in his self-humiliation. An inadequacy in understanding v. 1–4 is liable to react on the understanding of v. 5–11.

The Example of Christ: his Self-humiliation Followed by his Exaltation

Philippians 2:5

5 This paragraph is a classic, a great sedes doctrinae. Meyer says that from v. 6 onward it is like an epic in its calmly exalted objectivity, even the epic circumstantiality not being omitted. The dignity and the rhythm in the parallel clauses are impressive. The style matches the grandness of the matter. This is doctrine. Although it is used in support of hortation (v. 5), Paul presents pure doctrine, which means a statement of the facts, the realities, which the hearts of his readers are to receive. The exegete’s supreme task is to note all that Paul thus states. If he is called dogmatical when he does so, this is praise, not blame. All that Paul says of Christ is true as it stands apart from Paul’s hortatory interest. Note it well!

This keep minding in your case, (the thing) which (appears) also in Christ Jesus’ case—he who, existing in God’s form, did not consider his being equal with God a thing of snatching but emptied himself in that he took slave’s form when he got to be in men’s likeness and, in fashion found as man, lowered himself in that he got to be obedient as far as death, yea, death of a cross.

The reading “keep minding” (plural active) is overwhelmingly attested over against the passive singular: “Let this be minded among you,” which then makes it necessary that another passive be supplied in the relative clause: “which (was minded, aorist or imperfect passive) in Christ.” Textually so inferior, this reading is unacceptable also as far as its thought is concerned; for no one has ever been able to answer who minded this thing in Christ if not he himself. The idea is incongruous. This reading also compels us to make the two ἐν phrases diverse when they are alike. Yet some prefer this inferior text although they do not solve the difficulties created by this reading. The plea is that, unless this is the original reading, it cannot be explained how it came into existence. Yet many variants are summarily rejected without our being able to guess as to how they came to be inserted into the text.

“This thing be minding” means “the one thing” Paul tells us to mind in v. 2 and then describes in v. 3, 4, the key word of which is “lowly-mindedness.” Paul now shows us this thing “also in Christ Jesus” and thus presents it as it was in Christ who is our model or example. Many find it difficult to render the two ἐν phrases in the same way although they perceive that they are intended to be rendered in the same way. Apply R. 587, ἐν in the sense of “in the person of” or “in the case of”: “be minding in your case” the thing which appears also “in Christ Jesus’ case.” Note that the balance and the emphasis are not on the verb, for then Paul would at least have a verb in the relative clause. The emphasis is on “this thing—which” and on “in your case—in Christ Jesus’ case.” What we supply in the relative clause in order to obtain a smooth English translation, whether “is,” “was,” “appears,” makes little difference, for we can in no way stress what is absent in the Greek.

Philippians 2:6

6 Instead of continuing with the neuter: “This thing … which … (namely) that,” etc., with an appositional ὅτι clause that states what this thing in Christ Jesus was, Paul continues with a personal relative pronoun: ὅς, “who,” etc. We should catch the dramatic, demonstrative effect, for this is not a mere common relative “who,” it is like the relatives found in Rom. 2:29b; 3:8, 30, and others that Paul has used: “He, he the One who,” something great and weighty then following about this person “who.” Here it is Christ Jesus, he is the One who is supreme in the thing Paul is urging upon his readers. Paul fixes our eyes upon this person as a person.

Who is this person to whom Paul refers: is it the Logos ἔνσαρικος or the Logos ἔσαρκος? That question sounds strange, for Paul does not write “logos” but the regular name “Christ Jesus, he who.” This is like so many names we use when indicating the office by the first term: King David—General Washington—Doctor Luther, etc. The question raised seems innocent until we see at what it aims. This ὅς is the subject of the three verbs following: “he who did not consider but did empty himself and did lower himself.” Some predicate these acts of the logos before his incarnation and state that he emptied his deity of some or of all of his attributes of deity or even of his deity ego itself. The aim is to get a Jesus whose incarnation or whose humiliation consists in this that he gave up some of his attributes of deity or all of them or even his deity ego itself. The aim is to get a Jesus who is only partly divine or only merely human, i. e., who has only one nature (Einnaturenlehre, the one nature doctrine of the Germans). Those who thus drop some of the attributes of deity are the semi-Kenoticists; those who drop all or who drop the deity ego itself are the pan-Kenoticists.

The question regarding ὅς, as to whether this is the logos ensarkos or the logos asarkos, is by no means innocent. The issue it raises is really the old Arian one in a new form: What think ye of Christ? Is he really God’s Son or only partly God’s Son or only a man and not even partly God’s Son? Against these Kenoticists stand the entire Scripture and the true church of all ages. This is not a squabble among theologians, this is an issue involving the life or the death of every Christian’s faith in his Savior. Centered on the humiliation of Christ, it automatically involves the whole saving work of Jesus wrought out here on earth and equally his exaltation. To state it in brief, the whole Christian faith is the real issue.

All grades of Kenoticism are answered by the fact of the immutability of God, of the one essence which is identical in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. All Kenoticism which subtracts attributes from God reduces deity to the nature of creatures. From a creature an attribute may be withdrawn and still leave the creature. To withdraw even one attribute from God is to destroy God. The God who, for instance, is no longer omnipotent, is no longer God. The revelation of Scripture regarding God is the truth that his every attribute is his essence or being itself which reveals one side of that being.

All that we call attributes of God is not a plurality, is not divisible in its reality, but is the one unity—God. But since our minds are finite and cannot possibly grasp this infinity, our thinking is divided, looks at God now from one side, then from another, and again from still another and so adds all sides together but does not really have all of them at that. So we list God’s “attributes,” and in their revelation of God the Scriptures condescend to this poor, finite inability of ours and at one time reveal his omnipotence, at another his omniscience, again his righteousness, then his grace, etc., but never so that a single one of these could even in thought be lacking in God. Moreover, what we thus in our helplessness term an “attribute of God” is in every case again incomprehensible to our finite minds. No human mind has ever adequately visualized say God’s omnipotence or his omniscience. We see only darkly as in a mirror, glimpse only a little of the infinite reality in God.

This is not a dogmatical excursus as some may think. For to think with the mildest Kenoticist that the logos, whether before, in, or after his incarnation, emptied himself of even one of his attributes of deity, means that by his own act the immutable logos ceased to be. The difference between the various types of Kenoticists is in reality unimportant. To empty out one attribute destroys the logos as completely as to empty out all his attributes, destroys him as completely as to empty out the logos ego himself. A Jesus who is devoid of one attribute of deity is no more the Son of God than a Jesus who had only one nature while he lived on earth, was not at all the logos, was only Joseph’s natural son.

Yet, although so much is involved, the fact remains that the Scriptures freely name the person, at one time only as a person, at another according to his office, at another according to one, again according to the other and even according to both natures and, no matter how it is named, predicate of this person something that is native to the one or to the other or also to both of his natures. Knowing this, we might pass on without further concern when Paul writes “Christ Jesus” (office, person), for this name certainly befits all that is predicated of him. The issue is raised by the Kenoticists and by those related to them. They empty out more or less of the logos, of his divine nature, plus also every divine gift bestowed on Christ’s human nature. Their first statement is that here “Christ Jesus” = the logos before he became flesh. The confessional church emphatically rejects this demand because this demand would contradict all that Paul here says of “Jesus Christ.”

The subject of all that follows in v. 6–11 is “Jesus Christ.” This whole section is one connected sentence. This is Paul’s great passage on the humiliation and the exaltation of Christ, on these two states. Both deal with Christ’s human nature, here and everywhere in Scripture where either the humiliation or the exaltation or both are mentioned. The divine nature can undergo neither humiliation nor exaltation, it is immutable.

The participial phrase is to be construed with the relative: “he who existing in God’s form.” It simply describes “Jesus Christ.” Luther made the phrase concessive: obwohl, “although” existing in God’s form; but this relation is not indicated. The temporal idea: “while existing,” etc., is untenable because Jesus Christ never existed in any other form even as God cannot exist in any other.

It is often said that ὑπάρχειν, “to exist,” and εἶναι, “to be,” are quite the same; they are, compare Luke 16:23 with the former and 2 Cor. 8:9 (a parallel to our passage) with the latter. Yet here, where Paul uses the two side by side, a distinction is implied, the one indicated by the predicative term: existing “in God’s form”—to be “equal to God.” In the one instance we have existence as such, in the other we have being in a condition which comports with that existence. Even in the English where “to be” and “to exist” are as much alike as they are in the Greek we should here use them distinctively quite as Paul does.

The matter not to be overlooked is the fact that Paul makes a double predication: “form” is as much a predication of “God” as the whole phrase is a predication of “Christ Jesus.” “God” has a form, and “Jesus Christ” exists in this form of God. The word “form” thus cannot mean anything visible (Lichtleib), for God is a spirit. Μορφή = the form native to the essence (compare Trench). In Mark 16:12 the idea of visibility is suggested only by the verb ἐφανερώθη. Luther’s Gestalt comes no closer than our “form.” It is misleading to say that Paul chooses μορφὴΘεοῦ because of the following μορφὴδοῦλον, misleading because it would have us define the former according to the latter, the “form” predicated of the Creator according to that predicated of the creature. “Form” applies to both, but to each according to what each is, the one is “God,” the other is “a slave.”

The German Art comes closest to rendering the idea. Luther uses this in his Christmas hymn: Der Sohn des Vaters, Gott von Art. The point is the quality and thus the type of existence, one being predicated of God, the other of a slave: die spezifische Eigenart of God—of a slave. However, since God is immutable, his specific form of existing, his Art or Eigenart of existence, is equally immutable whereas a slave may lose his quality or form of slave-being and exchange it for another form, and this other may also be exchanged for a third.

The idea of Zahn and of C.-K. 737 that Jesus Christ “exchanged” the form of God for the form of a slave is thus untenable. Paul does not suggest an exchange. As God cannot lose or alter the form of his existence, so Christ Jesus cannot. More than this. When Paul says “Christ Jesus” he refers to both natures of Christ; “existing in God’s form” includes both. For to say that only the logos exists in God’s form is saying no more than that God exists in the form that is essential to his essence or being.

This would be pointless here, where there is no discussion about a possible difference between the logos, the Son of God, and God, either God as such or God the Father. But the fact that the God-man Christ Jesus exists in God’s form, as “Jesus” born of the Virgin, as “Christ” anointed to be our Redeemer, that is, indeed, the basis of all that follows, without which all the rest becomes unintelligible.

The matter is perfectly plain: in the incarnation the human nature which Christ Jesus assumed was made partaker of all that belonged to the divine nature of Christ. The dogmaticians term this the genus majestaticum of the communicatio idiomatum as taught throughout Scripture. By this communication and by a participation in virtue of the unio personalis of the two natures the human nature existed and exists “in God’s form.” Only those who cancel this personal union of Christ’s natures can say that only the logos in Christ has existence “in God’s form” and not the human nature he assumed. The logos has this existence “in God’s form” as God, and because he is very God was this from all eternity; his human nature has it by gift and communication since its assumption. Thus Paul writes of “Christ Jesus”: “existing in God’s form.”

Existing in God’s form as indicated, Christ Jesus “did not consider his being equal with God a thing of snatching” as he might have done if he had considered only himself. The predicate accusative is placed forward for the sake of emphasis: “a thing of snatching”; thus also, by being placed last, the direct object receives an emphasis: this thing “to be equal with God,” ἴσα the neuter plural in the adverbial sense (R. 407). How Christ considered it his great act of emptying and lowering himself shows. “To be equal with God” adds the thought of condition to that of existence; for, he who exists in God’s form exists and thus is (εἶναι) in equality with God, i.e., equal in power, authority, majesty, etc.

Paul’s expression is terse when he says that Christ Jesus did not consider being in equality with God a ἀρπαγμός. The few examples of the earlier use of this word show that it has the active sense as also the suffix -μος seems to require. So some state that Paul here uses it in the active sense: “did not consider it a robbing (A. V.: robbery) this thing of being equal with God.” But one cannot consider a condition an action, and those who do so substitute the result of the action when they offer their explanations: “did not consider it something robbed.” The fact also is that quite a few nouns in -μος are used to denote a result just like the nouns in -μα.

The passive-result idea is generally accepted but with a difference, some preferring res rapienda, “a thing to be robbed” (R. V. margin: “a thing to be grasped”), others res rapta, “a thing robbed,” “a prize” (R. V.). The former meaning is questionable even linguistically. If Paul meant that equality with God was not considered as a thing to be robbed or snatched at, then we expect him to say that Christ wanted to get this equality in some other way, something Paul does not say. Then, too, if the meaning is res rapienda, equality with God is conceived as something that Christ had yet to attain, the idea being that he won it by his humble obedience to God and obtained it in his final exaltation, which is about the opposite of what Paul says and all Scripture attests.

We prefer res rapta, Gegenstand des Paubens, viewed concretely: something involving an ἁρπάζειν, something that is characterized thereby (C.-K. 170). But in what way did Christ Jesus refuse to consider his being equal with God “a thing of snatching or robbing”? The view that his being equal to God was ein Fremdes, something foreign, something that really did not belong to him, that he had to snatch at, is excluded by the fact of his existing in the form of God. One who exists in this form or Eigenart is eo ipso equal with God, already has the condition involved in this form of existence. Here again we should stress the fact that this condition of equality with God, like the existence in the form of God, belonged to both natures of Christ Jesus, both the existence and the condition being communicated to the human nature by the divine which had them from eternity.

Now it becomes plain what ἁρπαγμός means: a thing for self-glorification. Christ did not consider that the condition resulting from his form of existence which involved also his human nature allowed to him only an ἁρπάζειν, ein Ausbeuteverfahren, i.e., ein Prunken, a dazzling display of his equality with God in both of his natures, regarding this equality as “a prize” (R. V.), a booty ever to be exhibited. If such had been the consideration on which Christ Jesus acted when he assumed his human nature, it would have been useless for him to assume it, he could never have carried out the work of redemption for which he assumed his human nature. His great mission and office and the consideration of his equality with God as a prize for display could not be combined. The consideration on which Christ did act his further acts themselves show most clearly.

Philippians 2:7

7 “He did not consider, etc., on the contrary (ἀλλά), himself he emptied in that he took slave’s form when he got to be in men’s likeness.” This should be read together as a unit thought. It is typically Pauline not to follow “he did not consider” with “but he did consider” but rather at once to state the great acts which reveal best of all what Christ did actually consider. He considered the mission and the work for which he assumed human nature, he considered not “himself” but us: “himself he emptied” in order to fill us that we might be rich (2 Cor. 8:9), that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:21). This explains the emphasis (the forward position) and thus the implied contrast in ἑαυτόν (the reflexive not being thus placed forward in v. 8).

Κενός = empty, devoid of contents; the verb, “to empty” so that the contents are gone. The self was not, of course, emptied out of the self so that no self was left. “He emptied himself” is an incomplete thought which leaves us with a question. Paul completes the thought, yet not by a statement regarding anything that Christ emptied out of himself but by a participle that defines the act of emptying himself: “in that he took slave’s form,” and at once adds when all these acts took place: “when he got to be in men’s likeness,” when he became incarnate. All the aorists in v. 6, 7 are punctiliar, historical, expressing simultaneous action; all are predicated of the God-man “Christ Jesus.”

Paul does not say that Christ emptied himself of “the form of God,” either as to his divine nature or as to his human nature which at the time of his incarnation was made partaker of this form. He does not say that Christ “exchanged” the form of God for the form of a slave as Zahn and C.-K. 737 state. Because “God’s form” and “slave’s form” are such vast opposites the statement is so tremendous that one who exists in the former “took” the latter, Paul simply states the fact; he does not philosophize about its possibility. Facts are facts whether Paul or we are able to understand their possibility or not.

Again, Paul does not say that Christ emptied himself of his equality with God, either as to his divine nature or as to his human nature, which at the time of his incarnation was made partaker of this equality. He does not say that Christ “exchanged” his equality with God for equality with a slave. Here again no exchange is predicated. “God’s form” and existence in God’s form and the consequent condition of equality with God are immutable also regarding Christ’s human nature when they are communicated and bestowed upon this nature. No mutable slave’s form, existence, or condition could take their place.

“When he got to be in men’s likeness” = when he became incarnate, became man. This recalls the ὁμοίωμα used in Rom. 8:3: “in likeness of sinful flesh” (cf., Rom. 1:23; James 3:9, “according to God’s likeness”). “Likeness” is added because, when the incarnation took place, Christ did not cease to be God. Docetism stresses the meaning of the word so that only a sham human nature is left to Christ. So the Kenoticists stress the sense of ἐκένωσε until little or nothing of deity is left. Their very name is derived from this word. F. Pieper, Dogmatik II, 321, somehow thinks that Paul says nothing at all about the incarnation, which is surely an oversight.

The clause is temporal. Paul clearly distinguishes “got to be in men’s likeness” (the incarnation) from “took slave’s form” (the humiliation). Both are simultaneous, but the two are not identical. Christ is still incarnate but no longer in the form of a slave which he took for his redemptive work. The slave’s form he dropped but not his human nature to which God gave a glorified form. “He got to be in men’s likeness” does not define “he took slave’s form,” nor does the former state purpose: “he took slave’s form in order to appear in human likeness.” These ideas of Ewald are reversed. “Slave” does not define “men,” nor must a man become a “slave” to prove himself a “man.”

When Christ Jesus became man he took slave’s form. The exinanition or humiliation pertained to his human nature alone and not to the divine. As man and not as God Christ humbled himself. He took slave’s form in order to fulfill his office on earth. His full deity remained (existence, form, condition of equality with God); all that his deity bestowed upon his human nature likewise remained a possession of this nature (κτῆσις, as it has been called).

What, then, is this “slave’s form,” and why is it called a “slave’s”? We have already received the answer in ἁρπαγμός in v. 6. Christ laid aside, emptied himself of the constant and plenary use (χρῆσις) of all that had been bestowed upon his human nature. If he had not done this he could not have wrought out our salvation. If he had come to earth only as his three disciples saw him on the Mount of Transfiguration, his redemptive obedience in his life, suffering, death, and resurrection, as the Gospels record it, would have been impossible.

Luther aptly calls this “slave’s form” die dienstliche Gestalt Christi. Pieper (II, 324) writes well: “To be sure, this is a remarkable outfitting and form. The earthly warrior, who determines to gain the victory, girds his sword to his side and strives to be high. Christ’s equipment for the victory to be gained develops in the opposite direction. Christ ἑαυτὸνἐκένωσεν, divested, emptied himself to naught, became lowly, altogether lowly. But this strange equipment accords with the nature of the work to be done.

It was not to conquer cities. It was also not by a divine word of power to hurl him into hell who by God’s permission (Verhaengnis) held men captive. It was, in the execution of the divine redemption method, by substitution, through being obedient, suffering, and dying, to pay the sin guilt of men. That, to be sure, could not be effected by laying aside his deity partly or completely. He could not do without his deity in his state of humiliation. He had to attach the full weight of his deity to his being obedient and to his suffering and dying.

Even in the midst of his death he had to be the mighty God in order by his death to conquer death, to raise up again the temple of his body (John 2:19, 21), to take up his life again (John 10:18).” Again (325): “This conquering ‘second Adam’ is not only man but the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). He is God and therefore also according to his human nature in God’s form.”

Philippians 2:8

8 “And, in fashion found as man, lowered himself,” etc., continues the construction after the relative: ὃς … ἐκένωσε … καὶἐταπείνωσεν. We would not disturb the rhythm and the balance of the clauses as well as the smooth progress of the thought by placing a period after λαβών in v. 7 or after ἄνθρωπος. After saying that Christ Jesus took slave’s form when he got to be in men’s likeness, explicative καί sets forth what this means. For the statement about taking slave’s form at the time of the incarnation is general, we need the particulars about this slave’s form. Paul states them, not abstractly, but in the clearest, most concrete way; he states the facts. First, the subsidiary fact which is marked as subordinate by the participle: “in fashion found as man,” as real, true man, “found” so by all other men who came into contact with him.

This advances the idea of the “likeness of men” by means of the dative of relation which is placed emphatically forward: “as regards fashion (σχῆμα, habitus)” Christ Jesus, who was truly man, was so found by men. We have the full record of this in the Gospels. Born of a human mother, he developed from a babe to manhood, ate, drank, slept, labored, etc., was a true human being. Christ even assumed the weaknesses of man although only those that were serviceable for his office (not disease, deformity, mental deficiency, etc.), yet he remained without sin (John 8:46; Heb. 7:26; 4:15).

All this is only preliminary to the “slave’s form,” is not yet itself completely this form. The astounding thing, however, is already the fact that he who exists in God’s form and thus in the condition of equality with God also as to his human nature to which these are communicated, that he should take this form, this likeness, this fashion. Human reason would declare it impossible, in fact, has done so; but the fact remains.

Men have attempted to make this fact at least somewhat reasonable, but all their attempts leave them with the same seeming impossibility. Kenoticism cannot reconcile itself to the idea of the development of the child Jesus. How could he develop bodily, mentally, with normal human consciousness if his person was the logos? Therefore the Kenoticists cancel the logos in Christ, or cancel some of the divine attributes, and Calvinism, like Nestorianism, cancels any communication of such attributes to the human nature of Christ. Only the outright denial of the incarnation (Modernism) makes Jesus reasonable: it leaves him a mere man. All who do not reason away as much as this are still left with the insoluble mystery that God became man; their reasoning tries the impossible, namely to empty (κενόω) something out of God (the logos). Paul sees and presents the fact as it is; and we—we want and accept no less.

He who was found as man “lowered (humbled, humiliated) himself in that he got to be obedient up to death, yea, death of a cross.” Again read this together as a unit thought. Here we have the full explication of “himself he emptied in that he took slave’s form.” This is the picture of Christ, the slave, drawn completely in a few strokes. The old secular idea of ταπεινόω, “to abase,” is still present: Christ “abased himself.” The New Testament ennobling of the word lies entirely in the moral use to which this word is put: the God-man’s self-abasement for our salvation.

Paul does not use the reflexive middle but the active with the reflexive pronoun, which is stronger. But now, by placing the pronoun ἑαυτόν after the verb, it thus being without special emphasis, no contrast attaches to “himself,” only this is said that Christ lowered his own person. He did this himself to himself. Thus all was voluntary, prompted by his own infinite love.

This lowering was “in that he got to be obedient” down to a point so extreme that it goes even far beyond the miracle of his assuming our human nature. Here we see the connotation of the word δοῦλος, “slave”; it is in the adjective “obedient.” Yet the idea of a forced obedience is removed already by “he lowered himself,” this is voluntary obedience. Isaiah pictures the Messiah as the great ’Ebed Yahweh, pictures also his death as that of a slaughtered sheep; but the LXX carefully rendered this Hebrew word, not with doulos, but with πᾶις, “servant,” which the apostles retain when quoting the prophet. May we say that God did not make Christ a slave but that Christ himself did that? A slave’s mark is obedience to the extent of not following his own will. This strong word is here used in paradoxical fashion: by his own will Christ gave up his will by the acme of voluntariness in descending to the cross.

“Slave” matches “cross,” for when slaves were executed they were crucified. For this reason “slave” is here used and not “servant.” Dramatically Paul introduces the cross. He does not write simply “as far as the cross” but “as far as death, yea, death of a cross,” δέ emphasizing the latter. Paul makes us linger at this death, and with the characterizing genitive “of a cross” this one final word flashes upon us the full significance of this death. Yes, it was “death—death,” no less than that: the God-man died. Incomprehensible that he who was God died! Yet not incomprehensible that he who possessed also human nature and all the fashion of it should use it for dying. It is his being the God-man that, nevertheless, leaves us astounded because of his dying.

But this is only the least of it. The climax is in the word “cross,” Kreuzestod, death of one accursed of God (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13; also 2 Cor. 5:21). To speak only of the lowest point of the humiliation, to speak only of the shame of the cross, which is entirely true, is to remain on the surface. This is “the offense” of the cross, its skandalon (deathtrap), Gal. 5:11, especially to the Jews, 1 Cor. 1:23. It is not the suffering and dying Messiah that made him a deathtrap to unbelief but his dying as one accursed of God. How can one who ended as one accursed be the Savior of the sinners who are accursed?

How can he be God’s Son? The Scriptural answer to this apparently extreme impossibility is equally tremendous, absolutely complete: Christ was our substitute, he bore our curse and its penalty (Isa. 53:4, etc.).

Here we have the climax of it all which leaves unsanctified reasoning behind. He who was the Son of God, equal with God, he who communicated his divine attributes to his human nature so that all the Godhead dwelt in him bodily (Col. 2:9), he died, died hanging on a post of wood (σταυρός), died as one accursed, hanging on wood, ξύλον, the mark of being accursed. Of his own volition. Hence this is the most noble act the world has ever seen; hence it is full of infinite merit, all this is to be bestowed upon us. This is the mystery of the gospel, into which even the angels of God delight to look. This is the historic gospel fact which the gospel attests and publishes in all the world. This is the fact that saves to the uttermost all those who embrace it in confidence and rest their very soul upon it.

Those who have only the human Christ on the cross destroy the efficacy of the cross. To say that this is more “thinkable” is erroneous; to divide the person in this or in any other way is unthinkable; to leave the person undivided is the only thing that is thinkable because it is the only thing possible and the one thing the Scriptures testify to as being the fact. Luther has well said: “If I permit myself to be persuaded that only the human nature has suffered for me, then Christ is to me a poor Savior, then he himself, indeed, needs a Savior.” C. Tr. 1029, 40.

Throughout his life Christ revealed that his human nature was in possession of the divine attributes communicated to it. John (1:14) testifies about him who became flesh and dwelt among his apostles: “We beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten, (as) from the Father.” Although all this glory dwelt in his human nature, he used it only to the degree that was needed for his office. It was covered (κρυπτός), yet at Cana “he manifested forth his glory,” and his disciples believed on him. This was also true at the time of the Transfiguration, yet he commanded the three witnesses to remain silent regarding the glory they had seen. It was finally also manifested in the passio magna when at the garden gate he delivered himself into the death of the curse, when one word strikes down the more than 200 captors, and twelve legions of angels are at his command. The efficacy of his vicarious death in becoming a curse to remove our curse lies in his Godhead, not as constituting the logos, but as dwelling in his human nature bodily (Col. 2:9).

In further exposition study C. Tr. 1015, etc., and the excellent presentation by F. Pieper, Dogmatik II, 311, etc, with its masterly refutation of all forms of deviation from Scripture.

Philippians 2:9

9 The mighty basis on which Paul’s admonition (v. 1–5) rests includes both Christ’s humiliation and his exaltation even as these two naturally go together. The Greek continues the sentence no matter how we may print the English: wherefore also God highly exalted him and granted to him the Name above every name, that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow of (such as are) in heaven and (such as are) on earth and (such as are) under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Lord (is) Jesus Christ for glory to God Father.

Only the human nature could experience the exaltation as it alone could undergo the humiliation. The logos was not withdrawn and then restored. No attributes were emptied out from either the divine or the human nature and were then replaced. The plenary use of the divine attributes communicated to the human nature at the time of the incarnation constituted the exaltation. The “slave’s form,” in which the human nature employed the divine attributes only for a restricted and mostly a veiled use, ceased when this restriction was lifted. The exaltation thus corresponds to the humiliation. Because it deals with the human nature, we now read that, whereas Christ lowered himself, not he but God exalted him.

Διό, “wherefore,” introduces the consequence. Christ’s own word spoken in Matt. 23:12 was gloriously fulfilled in himself. The idea in ὑπερύψωσε is not comparative but superlative: “God supremely exalted him.” How this was done is at once explained by the addition: “and granted to him the Name, the one above every name.” The two actions “supremely exalted him—granted to him” constitute one act, the two sides of which are given equal importance by the two finite verbs. In v. 7 the second is a participle: “in that he took”; in v. 8 likewise: “in that he got to be obedient,” hence it is subordinate. Observe the difference. Paul used two finite verbs to designate Christ’s action: “he emptied himself—he lowered himself”; so he now also uses two of the same importance to describe what God did in consequence.

Augustine and others find merit indicated in the connective: Christ’s self-humiliation merited his exaltation. Some find the merit especially in the voluntariness of the humiliation and the obedience. We do speak of Christ’s “merits” and that he bestows them on us although the word itself is not found in the Scriptures. Here Paul moves on a higher plane than that of acknowledged merit. Even on a higher plane than that indicated in John 17:5 where Jesus prays to be glorified in his human nature with the glory he had in his divine nature before the world was. To be sure, he received this glory in his human nature in the resurrection, the ascension, and the sessio at God’s right hand.

The “slave’s form” fell from him, the purpose for which he had assumed it having been accomplished. But the thought is not that now his human nature received “God’s form” and the condition of equality with God as some think. We have seen that Christ’s human nature, by virtue of the unio personalis, partook of these already in the incarnation when the unitio of his two natures occurred. The only change the exaltation made on this score was the fact that now, after the slave’s form had been dropped, the human nature ceased the limited use of its communicated divine attributes which was required for the work of redeeming us and entered upon the plenary, unlimited use of these attributes consequent upon redemption in the full royal work of Jesus. It is of this that John 17:5 speaks, see the author’s exposition which treats the errors of Kenoticism regarding Christ’s exaltation.

Paul goes farther than merit and plenary use of the communicated attributes when he says, “Granted to him the Name, the one above every name.” We have Paul’s own exposition in Eph. 1:9, 10 and especially 1:20–24, see the author’s interpretation. This humiliation and this exaltation were entirely God’s own plan. God sent Christ on his redemptive mission even as in John’s Gospel Christ keeps calling him “my Sender,” ὁπέμψαςμε. Thus, when this mission of redemption was completed down to the curse of the cross, God crowned it by exalting Christ for the fullest fruition of his redemptive mission. Emptying and lowering himself as man, in his human nature, were not something “granted” to him but something voluntarily done by Christ himself; but crowning all this for its full fruition according to the eternal plan of God was something God could and did do: he granted to Christ the Name, etc. The second article by which the phrase is added: “the one above every name,” makes this an appositional climax (R. 776).

There is considerable confusion regarding this “Name,” especially since the phrase “in the Name of Jesus” follows. Some think of this Name as being higher than “God’s form” and equality with God as though God could grant something that is above himself. This ὌΝΟΜΑ is soteriological. As such it transcends every name “named in this eon or in the one to come” (Eph. 1:21).

We repeat what we have said in so many other places: “name” = revelation, that by which God and Christ alone can be known, make themselves known, that by which we apprehend them, enter into communion with them.

The very idea of “Name” is soteriological. One may think of “title” but only in the sense thus indicated. In Eph. 1:21 and here the multitude of other names is placed beneath this Name. In Eph. 1:21 the exaltation at God’s right hand lifts him far above every name no matter in which eon it occurs. All these titles reveal their bearers as what they are, each is a revelation as we have said. Christ’s is supreme because he is supreme.

Those are not wrong who say that this Name above every name = “Jesus” or “Lord” (v. 11) or “Jesus Christ as Lord.” The statement that “Jesus” was the name given to him in infancy, and that “Lord” was accorded to him by his disciples on earth gives evidence that “the Name” is not adequately understood. Those who define it as “Jesus,” etc., generally fail to make their definition include enough, especially the main point. These individual terms “Jesus,” etc., are only the peaks of the revelation which shines forth. When the sun falls on a mountain peak that towers to heaven, we know that the whole mountain carries that peak even as the sun presently illumines it all. So by his granting God let the glorious light reveal him who once lowered himself to the cross and its accursedness. The term “Jesus” is here no longer a name like Peter, Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate; it now embodies the whole blessed, glorious revelation of the Savior. The name “Lord”—and any other individual designation—does identically the same thing.

We said this Name is soteriological. But not in the narrow sense but in the completest possible sense as stated in Eph. 1:10; 1:22. This Name and revelation saves sinners for the glory of God, saves them through the redemption accomplished by the Bearer by means of his human nature and its humiliation; but it does this saving because it forever crushes all opposing, hostile forces. see Mark 16:16 as far as men are concerned and Col. 2:15 as far as the devils are concerned. These two activities involve each other, the saving could not be accomplished without this crushing. Both shine forth in the Name, in it as the one Name above every other. All other names reveal that their owners either look up with adoration to the Bearer of this Name with its revelation of who and what he is or that they are compelled to look up to his revealing Name in consternation, having fought this revelation and him whom it reveals.

Philippians 2:10

10 This is the purpose for which God gave this Name to Christ when he crowned his redemptive work: “in order that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow of (such as are) in heaven and (such as are) on earth,” etc. Both the bowing of the knee and the confessing of the tongue are concrete expressions. It is pointless to argue that only beings that have bodily knees and tongues can be referred to. The anarthrous genitives are qualitative: “heavenly ones, earthly ones, subterranean ones,” not neuters: “things” (our versions), but masculines: persons. The first are all the blessed angels and the saints in heaven; the second are all the men on earth; the third are all the demons and the damned in hell. The three groups include all created personal beings. All shall bow in submission and make this acknowledgment or confession with either joy and bliss or dismay.

This interpretation is challenged. Angels and demons are excluded. Who cares about the demons? The trouble is that the “heavenly ones” cannot be restricted to the saints in glory. The angels who minister to those who are heirs of salvation (Heb. 1:14), who have been associated in this ministry with the Redeemer (in connection with the annunciation to Mary, at the time of Christ’s birth, in Gethsemane, in the tomb, to mention only this much), surely glory in the Name and revelation of its Bearer. We think that Paul includes them. Then the third term includes the demons.

It is argued that wicked men and thus still more demons cannot be referred to because to bend the knee and to confess with the tongue are actions which beings like this refuse to perform. On this supposition “earthly ones” are thought to be believers who are still on earth, and “underearthly ones” those who are in Purgatory in the process of being purged for entrance into heaven, or souls in the Totenreich, namely in its upper compartment.

Purgatory and this Totenreich (“realm of the dead”) are fictions. While the Catholics place many souls into their Purgatory, they at least leave many others in heaven. But what about this modern Protestant imitation of Purgatory, this intermediate place which is neither heaven nor hell, which is referred to by sheol in the Old Testament and by “hades” in the New? If all souls go there at death, the wicked, like Dives, into the lower part amid flames, the godly, like Abraham and Lazarus, into the upper part, we still have godly and wicked in this curious place just as we have the two classes of the “earthly ones.” About the only ones that would be left for heaven would be Elijah and Enoch. When we are told that at the time of his resurrection Christ took the godly from this Totenreich to heaven, that, indeed, fills heaven with the Old Testament saints. But does this imply that, after releasing these Old Testament saintly souls from the Totenreich, he again filled it with New Testament souls of believers?

If all godly souls are still in the Totenreich, heaven is empty of souls; if only some godly souls are in the Totenreich and the rest in heaven, why this difference? See further Luke 16:22, 23.

Philippians 2:11

11 “Every knee and “every tongue” plainly refer to all created persons. The two verbs apply to all of them and are chosen to fit all of them. The thought is not that the good shall voluntarily bend the knee and confess, and that the bad shall do so against their will. The latter will act voluntarily enough. Remember that “the Name” means the revelation. When that name and revelation shines forth in all its infinite glory, not even a demon in hell will be able to deny the Lordship of the God-man Jesus Christ.

It is unwarranted to say that in Eph. 6:12 Paul does not place the demons in hell among the “underearthly ones” but in a supermundane sphere. See the exposition of this passage. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). Is hell ever empty of all demons? Even if one should venture to say “yes,” all of them will be there soon enough; it is hard to separate the hellish ones from hell.

The aorist subjunctive “should bow” has a future sense as all subjunctives have. The texts vary between the aorist subjunctive “should confess” or acknowledge and the future indicative “shall confess.” This variation in the second verb after ἵνα is frequently found, even the future indicative occurs. It makes no difference which reading we adopt, both verbs have the same construction, the second does not begin a new sentence.

The question is asked as to when every knee shall bow, every tongue confess. At the Parousia, at the final Judgment. Heaven now rings with the Name, Ps. 24:7–10; Heb. 1:6; 1 Pet. 3:22. Earth does so faintly in the confession of the saints. On that day the universe of angelic beings and men shall stand before the throne of Christ. All his majesty and his power, all his grace, his righteousness, and his justice (“the Name”) will be revealed with absolute finality. Then no knee will remain unbowed, no tongue without acknowledgment.

While we think especially of the Parousia we do not exclude other effects of the Name. Among these we may include that of Christ’s descent into hell, namely its effect on the demons and on the damned, Col. 2:15, the former; 1 Pet. 3:18–20, the latter. With great exactness Paul writes “in the Name of Jesus” and again that the confession will be that “Jesus Christ” is Lord. This is he who hung on the cross as one accursed, he whom they mocked and spit upon, in a word, he who in his human nature had slave’s form and in that nature descended to this depth. In that nature, by God’s own grant, this “Jesus” now has this Name, this “Jesus Christ” is Lord; all the universe will not only see it but see it so that the confession and the acknowledgment of it cannot, will not be withheld.

Κύριος is the predicate and is thus unarticulated. The Hebrew Yahweh is translated Κύριος, but here this latter term does not refer to Yahweh. Some think that “the Name” is the Hebrew Hasēm, a substitute for Yahweh, which the Jews considered too sacred to pronounce. So God now changed the ineffable tetragrammaton which was too sacred to pass human lips into a name that it was possible for men to utter, “desirable by all the world,” the name Κύριος.

Others find either touches of Gnosticism or a refutation of Docetic Gnostic beginnings in some of the terms used in v. 6–11. But even if all the Philippians had been Jewish, this play on “Name,” etc., would have been lost on them. The Jews had their substitute for Yahweh, needed no Greek term, had had the Greek translation Κύριος for over two centuries in their LXX. On the whole subject and also on this phase of it see C.-K. 644, etc., and note 651, etc.

The confession of the universe that Jesus Christ is “Lord” means divine Lord, all that we have said regarding “God’s form” and “to be equal with God” in v. 6, not only as being inherent in Jesus’ divine nature, but also as being shared by the human nature through the communicatio idiomatum, “Lord,” however, as now evidenced by what the God-man did in his humiliation and by what God did in his exaltation, thus the Messiah-Lord, the Savior-Lord, the blessed reliance of all his saints (so many of whom are still on earth), the joy of all the heavenly angels, the Judge of the demons and the damned, in the whole universe “for glory to God as Father” (objective genitive), Eph. 1:6, 12, 14. Father is added to mark the first person in relation to Jesus Christ as “Lord.” Since v. 6–11 contain no reference to the readers, “Father,” which is added to “God,” has only the objective reference to them which lies in the Name of him whom we glorify. Because he is confused regarding the part which the human nature has in the humiliation and the exaltation, Kennedy (Expositor’s Greek New Testament) remain a subordinationist: “undoubtedly the New Testament teaches a certain subordination of the Son,” like others ruining the heart of his exegesis.

After all this that is so effective when it is properly seen “in the case of Christ Jesus” (v. 5) has been placed before them by Paul, the Philippians will be moved ever to mind “this one thing” which he asks them to mind (v. 2), namely to cultivate in heart and in life “lowly-mindedness” (v. 3).

Paul’s Third Admonition: That the Philippians May Be and May Act as Light Bearers

Philippians 2:12

12 Both the address “my beloved” and ὥστε, which means simply “and so” (ὡς plus τε, R. 999), indicate the beginning of a new paragraph even as “for the glory of God Father” closes the one preceding. It is unrewarding effort to search for an immediate connection to justify ὥστε; this connective does not call for such a connection. It marks this paragraph as being the last in this admonitory group (1:27–2:18). It thus harks back to 1:27 with its reference to Paul’s presence and his absence. It advances the appeal to stand firm as one body by a conduct worthy of the gospel, unafraid of any opponents, to the appeal to stand as luminaries in a perverse world. This “and so” is the connective for the whole paragraph and not just for the first sentence, and τε in the connective indicates something that is closely allied.

And so, my beloved, even as you always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling keep on working out the salvation of yourselves; for God is the One working in you both the willing and the working in behalf of his good pleasure.

“My beloved” = you whom I love dearly with the ἀγάπη of intelligence and corresponding purpose. Paul puts the appeal of his personal love into his admonition. It is great praise for Paul to be able to say that the Philippians have always obeyed, not as in his presence only, but now much more in his absence. Paul loves to praise where there is reason for praise, yet he never flatters. Some think that he means: “you obeyed me,” my apostolic authority; but “me” is absent, nor is it suggested by the reference to his former presence and his present absence. Paul refers to their obedience to the gospel, which is mentioned at the beginning of this admonitory section (1:27), and the context following indicates that the obedience of faith as well as of life is meant, the aorist stating the summary fact.

The view that “as” (ὡς) is faulty is untenable. Rhythm and sense demand: “even as you always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence,” “always” being defined by “in my presence—in my absence.” It would be unsatisfactory to combine: “not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence with fear and trembling keep on working out the salvation of yourselves.” If Paul intended to load the imperative with such a mass of adverbial modifiers that are placed in front of it, “as” would require a following “so,” and μή would have to be deleted. Paul writes clearly and correctly. “As” modifies both phrases: the Philippians have always obeyed, “not as” in Paul’s presence only, “but as now” (not merely “also,” nay even) “much more” in his absence. There is always a tendency to relax obedience when the spiritual leader is absent. How great praise was it when the Philippians increased theirs when Paul was gone! And he was gone not only for a short time. Paul had been absent from them for a long while: “now,” at this very moment, after so long an absence, they still obeyed “much more” than when Paul was present in their midst.

Verb and object are reversed so that both are emphatic. “With fear and trembling” is placed at the beginning and thus has the primary emphasis: “with no less than with fear and trembling and no less than the salvation of yourselves keep on working out, never relaxing or doing less.” This is the same fear and trembling as that mentioned in Eph. 6:5. Joseph exhibited it when Potiphar’s wife tempted him and he exclaimed: “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” This holy fear trembles at the thought of doing or omitting anything that will offend God, compel him to turn away, and thus endanger our salvation. It is not a dread that we may after all be damned; it is shrinking from all carelessness in faith and in life. The Christian does not dread God who gives him the life-giving gospel (v. 16, “life’s Word”), but he does dread the poison of sin that robs him of strength to work out the salvation of himself. So far from killing the Christian’s joy in the Lord, this fear increases this joy by increasing his assurance that the Lord is with him for his salvation.

“The salvation of yourselves” has the objective genitive and not the possessive. “Salvation” includes the act of saving and rescuing and the resultant state of safety. Here the activity is referred to, which matches the durative verb, hence also we have the objective genitive “of yourselves”; yet the activity is never without its product. We understand Paul’s idea when we note that Christians are called οἱσωζόμενοι, “those in process of being saved” (Luke 13:23; Acts 2:47; 2 Cor. 2:15), in contrast with “those in process of perishing” (1 Cor. 1:18). The saving effected by God at the time of our conversion does not place us into the salvation of heaven at one stroke; it makes us σεσωμένοι, “those who have been saved” (Eph. 2:5). But until we attain the safety of heaven we must be kept safe in this dangerous world; the great salvation that is now ours must be kept ours, our heart’s hold upon it must be made ever stronger. Paul speaks of that here.

Saved by grace alone by baptism and conversion, the new life is born in us and is nourished by God to develop ever greater spiritual strength, and this divinely imparted strength is to exercise itself constantly in “working out the salvation of ourselves.” Theologians call this the synergism of the new man. Here there is, indeed, a synergism. Saved by the monergism of God’s grace, the danger for the saved is ever that they grow otiose, secure, and thus through their own fault lose the salvation bestowed on them by God. Hence all these admonitions in Scripture to stir up the new man. κατά in the verb lends it a perfective sense, and the tense is durative: “keep on working thoroughly” so as actually to get the results.

The position of the reflexive does not make it emphatic as some state; that would require the reading τὴνσωτηρίαντὴνἑαυτῶν and would then be incorrect. We are certainly not to work only for our own salvation. Verse 4 settles that, to mention only this passage. The more we work for ourselves, the more will we aid also others by our example and by the concern for them that naturally goes with the concern for ourselves.

We do not work out the salvation of ourselves by any kind of work-righteousness. Paul refers to the constant, faithful use of Word and Sacrament (“life’s Word,” v. 16). These means of grace renew and increase our hold on salvation, for the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). This use of the means is the vital part of the working. A live man must eat to remain alive and strong; Word and Sacrament are our spiritual food and strength. Only as the effect of this use we have what are called “good works,” the fight against sin, temptation, error, the efforts to do all that we do, even down to our eating and drinking to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), shrinking only from remissness in using and in obeying the Word.

Philippians 2:13

13 It sounds paradoxical when Paul substantiates this admonition by the fact that “God is the One working in you both the willing and the working in behalf of his good pleasure.” A superficial person may conclude: “If God does it, why do we need to exert ourselves?” R., W. P., expresses such a view when he says that Paul exhorts “as if he were an Arminian” (one who adds his part to God’s) but prays “as if he were a Calvinist” (one who leaves everything to God’s sovereign will), and that Paul “feels no inconsistency in the two attitudes.” Thank God, Paul is neither an Arminian Calvinist nor a Calvinistic Arminian. The Arminians and the Calvinists do better than that; each holds only one error instead of combining two. Paul held neither error. His exhortations and his prayers have the identical contents.

The apparent paradox is non-existent. If God is the One who works in us both the willing and the working, then we Christians must ever go to God whose continuous grace will move us to will and also to translate the willing into deeds, i. e., into work. How else shall we be able to heed Paul’s admonition that we ever keep on working out the salvation of ourselves? Paul’s word is an assurance, the one assurance we Christians need for retaining the salvation we have obtained by a gift of God (Eph. 2:8).

Paul does not imply: “You Philippians are responsible, not to me, the apostle, but to no less a one than God.” He is not frightening the Philippians with the gravity of their responsibility as an Arminian might do and as Calvinism often at least tries to do. Paul is not using law but gospel. He is assuring his Christian readers that, in their complete dependence on God for their salvation, this God will never, never disappoint them but by working in them by means of Word and Sacrament will ever bring them to keep on in their willing and to keep on in their working, both object infinitives being present and durative. There is no uncertainty, no fear and trembling before God but only gospel assurance that he is the very One to supply all that we need to keep willing as well as working. This is not to present God as the Judge who holds us to our accountability, but this invites us to God as the unfailing source of all the power and the supply we need.

Paul wisely writes “both to will and to work.” We often start to will, even to will strongly, the flower opens beautifully but it blasts and fails to set fruit. In Rom. 7:19 Paul mourns because he still finds this in himself to a degree. Here he assures us that such a thing will not blast his readers altogether, by God’s grace and help there will also be the fruition of working.

The last phrase introduced with ὑπέρ is not “of his good pleasure” (A. V.; Luther nach, “in accord with”) but: to be willing and working “in behalf of or for his good pleasure” (R. V.). The discussion about the article and about the absence of αὐτοῦ and thus about whether this is God’s good pleasure or that of the will of Paul’s readers, then also whether “good will”—or “good pleasure”—or “free determination” is meant, wearies one. In hundreds of instances the article has the force of “his” (the translation of our versions are correct). This is the same eudokia as that mentioned in Eph. 1:5, 9 (see these passages): “God’s free good will, the contents of which is something good” (C.-K. 354), namely grace and salvation.

How do we keep willing and working in behalf of God’s good pleasure? By seeking it in Word and Sacrament, yielding will and effort to its blessed contents and purpose.

When it is applied to conversion, this passage is a dictum probans for the utter inability of man’s will to contribute the least toward saving himself (C. Tr. 884, 890, 894). If God must still work in the converted both to will and to work, how much more must he work to turn that will in the first place, not indeed mechanically as a log is turned over, but as our will is always moved and altered: by inner conviction. There is no need of fine-spun philosophical discussion regarding the primary cause and the secondary cause, between necessity and contingency. Where is the Christian who will not testify with joy, as Paul does, to the blessed fact that God works in him both to will and to work in behalf of his good pleasure, and that this willing and this working work out the salvation of himself?

Philippians 2:14

14 So Paul continues: Everything keep on doing without grumblings and reasonings in order that you may get to be blameless and unmixed, children of God unblemished amid a generation crooked and distorted, among whom you shine as luminaries in the world, as holding life’s Word,—for a cause of boasting for me for Christ’s day that not for something empty did I run, nor for something empty did labor. Paul refers to “everything” that is required for working out the salvation of ourselves.

Those misunderstand the thought who think that “grumblings and reasonings” (our versions have “disputings”) refer to complaints against each other, lack of harmony among the members, and then cite 4:2. No; in this crooked and twisted generation Paul’s readers have much to endure. They are to go on doing everything that is required for their salvation without murmuring and complaint about what such faithful doing nets them from the world and without wrong reasonings about why this ill from the world comes upon them and how, by doing less, they might possibly escape this ill. One preposition combines “grumblings and reasonings.” The nouns are in their proper order, for one at first grumbles at the disagreeable and then starts figuring out its cause and its possible cure. Διαλογισμοί are always to be understood in the evil sense, rationalizing thoughts and calculations (cf., Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 1:20).

Philippians 2:15

15 The purpose is that the Philippians “may get to be” or “may definitely and permanently be (aorist) blameless and unmixed” when God, they themselves, and others examine them. The two adjectives go together: nothing for which to blame them in their conduct—nothing in their hearts and their motives that ought not to be there. On the latter see Trench and our note on Rom. 16:19 (Matt. 10:16). It is not “harmless” (our versions); nor “sincere” (A. V. margin) but “sound,” without even a wrong thought, desire, or motive mixed in, immune to anything of this kind.

The appositional predicate continues: “children of God (genuine ones) unblemished amid a generation crooked and distorted.” “Unblemished” includes “blameless and unmixed” by stating these in a new way (Eph. 5:27: “not having spot or wrinkle—holy and unblemished”), namely “undamaged” by the generation, contact with which you cannot avoid. If they become blameworthy, if they do not keep their thoughts and their motives free of admixture, this means that the worldly generation has blemished them who by their very birth are spiritually “children of God” and should resemble their Father in all things.

It makes no difference whether we call μέσον a preposition (R. 775) or an adverb (R. 644; C.-K. 215, 3). “Amid a generation crooked and distorted” has two significant qualifiers in plain allusion to Deut. 32:5: “a perverse (distorted) and crooked generation—not his children.” Crooked is the generation that has left the straight paths of the Lord. Crooked in mind and in heart and thus in acts means lying thought. Truth alone is straight, lies are crooked and bend in all directions but the straight one. The perfect passive participle means “distorted, twisted,” being in this condition now, and emphasizes and intensifies “crooked.” What a drastic picture of the religious and the moral condition of that generation! “Generation” does not, however, mean those of a single physical succession from father to son but the continuous wicked moral succession as seen in Acts 7:52: “as your fathers, so ye.”

“Among whom,” plural, is in order because “generation” is a collective. We regard the verb as the middle indicative: “among whom you are shining as regards yourselves (A. V. simply: shine) as luminaries in the world” and not as the passive: “are seen” and not as the imperative: “shine!” Φωστῆρες is used regarding stars, hence it means “luminaries,” “lights” (our versions), which should not be changed into “light-bringers” in order to get a missionary thought which is not in the context. The context is that of contrast to the dark world, dark in its moral crookedness and perversity. We do not expect an admonition to do shining in a relative clause. Even imperfect Christians shine; when Jesus spoke to his then very imperfect disciples he did not use the future tense: “You shall be the light of the world,” but the present: “you are” (Matt. 5:14). This very fact is to move Paul’s readers to be true luminaries, to achieve the purpose stated by ἵνα. “In the world” needs no article in the Greek, the less since the qualitative sense is thus felt the more: “as luminaries in what is world.”

Philippians 2:16

16 We should not let our imagination carry us too far, as those do who speak of the Philippians as being sun, moon, and stars for the world. This is said because our versions have the next clause read: “holding forth” life’s Word, i. e., offering it to the world in a missionary way. Commentators support this as being the old meaning of ἐπέχω, but it was only one of rather numerous turns of meaning (Liddell and Scott); it would be the only instance of this meaning in the New Testament; B.-P. 443 and C.-K. 1166 do not list it at all, the latter has it in the sense of festhalten; others, like Thayer, advance the meaning “hold forth” only in support of our versions and of a few commentators. The fact is that in later times the compound was used in the sense of the simplex as was the case with other verbs because a preference for compounds had developed.

Paul does not insert the simple assertion that the Philippians are luminaries in the world; he at once explains how he is able to say this when he has just admonished the Philippians to get to be blameless, unmixed, unblemished. It is not so much the conduct of the Philippians that justifies the assertion that they shine as luminaries, it is their “having life’s Word.” This Word makes them luminaries irrespective of what the world judges about it and about those who have it. The world does not have this Word; this is the very reason that it is “a generation crooked and twisted,” the Philippians are a different generation.

Ever and ever we must have it impressed upon us that we are different from the world, must be told what is the matter with the world, and what we have that makes us so different. Then we shall not grumble because of ill-treatment, nor reason about escaping mistreatment by accommodating ourselves to the world. We have and hold “life’s Word.” This designation is found only here and certainly is a striking one, being a practical compound: Lebenswort, the genitive being either appositional: “Word that is life,” or qualitative: “Word with the quality of life”; but not objective: “Word about life.” First John 1:1 has “the Word of life”; 1 Pet. 1:23: “the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” Jesus: “The words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life,” John 6:63. The soul and center of this Word is Christ, “the life” (John 14:6). This Word quickens, i. e., makes alive; it keeps alive, increases the spiritual life. Apart from this Word all is spiritually dead.

“Word” (λόγος) is not to be taken in the sense of “preaching” as those understand it who give it the meaning: “you hold forth (offer) to the world the preaching of life.” “Word” is the divine medium by which we have life eternal. The spoken Word (ῥῆμα) makes the water of baptism (Eph. 5:26) a washing of rebirth (Tit. 3:5) by the Holy Spirit. We have this “Word of life” by faith. Wrought by this Word, faith holds this imperishable life (the very life principle itself: ζωή the life by which we live). The word opens up all the Scriptural vistas of the spiritual life; follow them in detail. And do not overlook τέκναΘεοῦ in v. 15, “children born” of life’s Word and thus “children of God.”

As Paul began with “my beloved” (v. 12), so he now gives all that he says the strongest personal turn. Is this, perhaps, a predicative εἰς (R. 481), all this being “a cause of boasting for me (or: for a cause of boasting) for Christ’s day,” all that the Philippians are and that Paul is trying to make them be and do? The Philippians were a congregation that was not only founded by Paul but that was also watched over by him as his present letter shows. see 1 Thess. 2:19, 20: “the crown of boasting” for us (Paul and his helpers), “you our glory and our joy.” Paul thinks of the sheaves he will bring with rejoicing as the fruit of his apostolic labors (Ps. 126:6). “For Christ’s day” = 1:10. Paul is not speaking of already boasting but of the cause of boasting he hopes to have on the final day. This is again taken to mean that the missionary activity of the Philippians is to constitute Paul’s cause of boasting. Then Paul should say, “A cause of boasting for you,” for you as missionaries as I am one. He certainly would not credit the missionary labors of others to himself.

Paul does not leave undefined what he means by this καύχημα for Christ’s day just as he does not leave undefined what he means by shining as luminaries in the world. The ὅτι clause is epexegetical: “that I did run not for an empty thing nor did labor for an empty thing,” the phrases being placed forward in the Greek. The aorists are dated from the viewpoint of Christ’s day. When Paul then stands before Christ he wants the Philippians as the evidence that he, as an apostle, did not run and labor for nothing.

“Did run” is the figure of a race, “did labor” is the literal interpretation, both imply strenuous exertion. “In vain” has the Greek word κενόν, “empty,” and not ματαιον, “useless” as not leading to the goal. To run and to labor εἰςκενόν means at the end to find only something entirely empty, with nothing in it, to run, etc., “for nothing.” The great thing for which Paul wants to have run and labored when Christ’s day comes is the shining faith and faithfulness of the Philippians as having ever held life’s Word that was brought to them by Paul, brought to them even now in this epistle. As to the date of that “day” Paul attempts to say nothing.

Philippians 2:17

17 This personal reference to himself—certainly a stimulus to the love of the Philippians for Paul—he now carries to a climax in the reference to his possible martyrdom. But this would not be Paul if he ended with himself; he has to end by joining the Philippians with himself, not in sorrow, but in the highest joy, if, indeed, all his labors are to be crowned with martyrdom. Yea, if also I pour myself out as a libation along with the sacrifice and public service for your faith, I rejoice and rejoice jointly with you all; moreover, in the same way do you, too, rejoice and rejoice jointly with me.

Ἀλλά is not adversative to the previous negatives, not even in the sense of sondern; it adds another thing; it is not contradictory but climacteric (R. 1185, etc., clears up this use). Our versions are correct: “Yea,” etc. Εἰκαί = “if also,” as is likely; while καὶεἰ = “even if,” as seems quite unlikely (R. 1026). Σπένδω = to make a drink offering; the middle to make oneself such an offering. The Jews poured out this wine offering beside the altar, pagans poured it upon the sacrifice on the altar; either usage fits here.

The present tense naturally refers to the future; if I pour out myself at any time, the indicative considering the fact. It should be noted that this verb fits the martyr’s death which, as a Roman citizen, Paul would likely suffer, namely decapitation, the sudden gushing out of his blood, not the slow trickling of crucifixion. Again, the noble nature of the action deserves full appreciation: the act is sacred in the highest degree, a drink offering poured out to God or Christ. The tense does not imply a contradiction with Paul’s expectation of release from his present imprisonment (1:25). He is thinking of the future; his words are almost prophetic, for he was beheaded a few years later. He feels already at this time that this would be his end.

The voice of σπένδομαι should be noted. Our versions and many others regard the verb as a passive: “if also I am poured out as a libation,” but we then ask who the implied agent could be in this passive, the priest performing this priestly function. It cannot be God, for the libation is poured out for him and not by him. It cannot be the pagan executioner or the pagan judge or court, for how can a pagan function as a priest in a libation to the true God? The pagans would execute Paul in the interest of their idols, in bloody hostility to God. Can we say that the agent is left unnamed because he is immaterial in this passive?

This is a middle and not a passive. We have the example of Jesus himself although “libation” is not used regarding the shedding of his blood. He is the Priest, the High Priest, the Lamb, who shed his own blood. Pagans and Jews executed him, but they were not the priests functioning in his holy sacrifice; nor was God the priest as we need not prove.

Next, equally decisive: whose is the libation? His whose is the sacrifice which accompanies the libation. Does one person come to the priest with only the sacrifice, and a second person with only the wine for the libation? To ask is to answer. The three words σπένδομαι—θυσία—λειτουργία refer to acts of Paul, and not the first to an act of Paul, and the other two to an act or to acts of the Philippians. That is so self-evident that Paul did no need to add a pronoun: “my sacrifice and public service.”

Yet von Hofmann offers the view that Paul brings the libation, and the Philippians the sacrifice proper, and some agree with him. On what plea? The claim that the genitive τῆςπίστεωςὑμῶν cannot be objective, that λειτουργεῖν never governs the accusative rei, that the noun also cannot have the objective genitive in place of such an accusative (C.-K. 667, etc.). The conclusion is then drawn that this is a subjective genitive: the faith of the Philippians brings the sacrifice and renders the public service. The sentence is divided: “But if also I am poured out as a libation,” (then an ellipsis: all right, I am poured out!). Next, a new sentence: “At the sacrifice, etc., of your faith (subjective: which your faith brings) I rejoice,” etc. But ἐπί does not state the cause of Paul’s rejoicing, what really produces the joy is left in the air.

We break off, there is no need to state the further details. Any grammar (take two: B.-D. 163; R. 499, etc.) shows the wide range of the objective genitive. It is not compelled to name only the corresponding accusative rei or direct accusative object which the active verb would have. “Of your faith” is an objective genitive. To object on the score of θυσία is equally untenable. But even when the Philippians are not made the priests, when Paul is the priest, “your faith” is not the genitive which names the direct object (as some assert): “at the sacrifice and priest’s service of your faith,” i. e., “while I bring your faith as the sacrifice and (thus) treat it with priest’s service.” How can I bring another person’s faith as a sacrifice to God, to say nothing of the word indicating action, λειτουργία, “public service”? The use of these two nouns: “sacrifice” (a thing), “public service” (an action), both after one article, is plain evidence that “your faith” is not a direct object, that the attributive genitive is objective in a different sense, in one that fits both nouns.

Some sacrifices needed no libation. Paul considers that his may be intended to have one. That thought rejoices him. To be sure, his would thus be a richer sacrifice. He who rejoices in bringing the sacrifice cannot but rejoice in making it richer by adding a libation. Ἐπί = “upon,” “in addition to,” “along with.” The addition would be a grant of God, compare 1:29, 30 where we see that Paul wants the Philippians to consider any suffering of theirs as an additional grant of God to them.

“Along with my sacrifice” would be an incomplete thought even if “and my public service” were added, both with “my”; hence the complete thought with the article in the sense of “my”; “along with the (my) sacrifice and public service for your faith,” all this is a unit. Paul’s whole apostleship he views as a sacrifice. Yet that thought is incomplete; the second noun helps to define it as a public service. “For your faith” rounds out both nouns. This is a use of the objective genitive that is so common as to need no reference to grammar.

It may well be possible that Paul does not use θυσία (θύω, “to slaughter”) in the general sense of προσφορά, “offering” (we often make no distinction between “sacrifice” and “offering”), but in the sense of slain blood. Be that as it may, λειτουργία = official public service. Paul is an apostle and acts in that public office. Since priests function thus, some think that this word always has the priestly meaning. We have discussed this in 2 Cor. 9:12. Here the context might lend the priestly color.

But the explanatory force is only that of public official service; the priestliness is already expressed by more than this noun could add. All three are Paul’s: libation—sacrifice—official service. In all three he offers and offers his very own. That is his joy, his joint joy “with all you” Philippians.

They are of Paul’s mind. They see the glory of it all as Paul sees it; σύν is associative. But we are told that the Philippians would be plunged into grief if Paul were executed, that the opposite is incredible. Why, of course, all these Philippians would shed tears to hear that Paul was condemned to the sword. They did that when he finally did go to the block. But his glorious martyrdom, his public apostolic service and sacrifice for their faith as for the faith of so many others, filled them with the most sacred and blessed joy. Paul writes to Christians who have caught the vision he has of his work, office, life, and death, who are sharers of his own joy in all of it, ready in their lesser stations with joy to have granted to them whatever of the same kind God allots to them.

Philippians 2:18

18 Δέ adds the other side. Τὸαὐτό is undoubtedly adverbial: “as to (this) very thing” of which I am speaking, i. e., in the very same way; and not the object of the verbs. But is this not tautology, telling the Philippians to rejoice and to rejoice with Paul when he has already said that he rejoices with all of them? The matter is not improved by letting the second verb mean “and congratulate me” (Lightfoot, so also in v. 17, “and I congratulate you all”). For in both verses the first and also the second verb would still be alike, tautological.

The question in Paul’s mind is: “Do the Philippians rejoice as he rejoices and wants to rejoice with them? Do they rise to the proper level?” These imperatives intend to raise them to a higher level as the emphasis on “you, too,” shows. There is no need to divide the cause of this joy as though it is not to include the prospect of the libation of Paul’s martyrdom but only Paul’s labor for them. Such a separation is meaningless. There is no tautology. We can say: “I am already rejoicing with all of you; do you, too, now rejoice in the same way with me!”

Paul Tells the Philippians about Timothy’s Coming

Philippians 2:19

19 With the common transitional δέ Paul sends a further piece of information. The first piece was given in 1:12, etc., which is amplified by the three admonitions and extends to 2:18. Now comes the rest of the information, to convey which the letter is written, namely Timothy’s mission and the experience of Epaphroditus.

Now I hope in the Lord Jesus soon to send Timothy for you in order that I myself also may be of good cheer when I get to know the things concerning you.

The emphasis is on “Timothy,” which name is for this reason placed before the infinitive; secondly, on “soon,” which is also placed forward. Hence in the following Paul explains why he sends Timothy and how soon he hopes to do this. He “hopes in the Lord Jesus” to send him “soon.” This is said in view of 1:25, 26, namely Paul’s confidence that he will be acquitted and released at his trial. This is stated also in 2:24, where Paul again expresses this confidence and advances it to the assurance that also he himself will soon come to the Philippians. So Paul “hopes” and connects this hope with “the Lord Jesus” who is guiding everything about this trial before the imperial court. The phrase is here not general but specifically important.

Here Paul writes the simple dative ὑμῖν after “to send,” but in v. 25, after the same infinitive, when he is speaking about Epaphroditus, he writes πρὸςὑμᾶς. This difference means that Epaphroditus is being sent home “to you” whereas Timothy will soon be sent for a purpose “for you,” a dative of advantage. Verse 23 states what this purpose is, namely at once to report to the Philippians the acquittal and the release of Paul, which he is confident will ensue. All this is quite clear. Also, as we have shown in the introduction, that Paul’s letter intends to inform the Philippians without delay how well matters have gone in Paul’s case at the start of his trial, and how well matters stand with regard to the gospel in Rome in consequence (1:12, etc.).

All this is presented in the epistle itself. It is so adequate to account for Paul’s writing that we see no need for advancing the hypothesis that the Philippians had just sent a letter to Paul, to which he is now writing a reply. How can Paul write that he will send Timothy when he gets to know the outcome of his trial, which will be soon, “in order that I myself also may be of good cheer when I get to know the things concerning you,” if a letter had just arrived from Philippi? Not only such a letter but also its bearers would give Paul full information on “the things concerning you” (on “your state,” our versions, your affairs). As Paul writes he has only his memory of the Philippians on which to draw (1:3), which includes what Epaphroditus had told him some time ago.

Paul has a double purpose in sending Timothy, which is quite like Paul. His thoughts are ever of a mutual nature. He hopes to send great news by Timothy (v. 23), and the Philippians are to send back refreshing news to him. Are they not “my beloved” (v. 12)? It is even like Paul to place the latter ahead of the former.

Εὐψυχέω is found often on the ancient epitaphs as εἰφύχει, the Latin have = ave, like: Have pia anima! “Farewell” (Liddell and Scott). “That I may be refreshed” and thus of good cheer (present tense, durative) “on getting to know your affairs” (aorist, the verb γινώσκω to designate knowing with personal interest). Timothy is, then, not to remain in Philippi but is to return to Paul with a report about the Philippians.

Philippians 2:20

20 For I have no one (at my disposal at present) equal in soul (to him), such as will genuinely care for the things concerning you, for they all are seeking their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ.

Compounds with ἰσο do not mean “like” but “equal to,” as good as, here von gleichen Trieben beseelt (C.-K.), equally animated as is Timothy (not as is Paul himself). If Paul had Timothy’s equal he would plan to send that one and would plan to keep Timothy with himself. The qualitative relative (B.-D. 379 “qualitative—consecutive”: derart dass) specifies what equality is meant: “such as will genuinely care for the things concerning you” when Paul hopes to do the sending. It is rather fanciful to have γνησίως = “by an instinct derived from his spiritual parentage.”

Philippians 2:21

21 “For” explains what is wrong with all the rest: “they all seek their own personal interests, not those of Jesus Christ.” This sounds worse in the English than in the Greek, for the latter does not mean: only their own interest, not at all those of Christ, for then they would not be Christians at all. “They all” (definite) still let their own interests interfere with Christ’s, do not pursue Christ’s interests exclusively. They are somewhat of the type of those of whom Paul complains in 1:15, 16, but less so, for those wanted to grieve Paul, these do not respond wholeheartedly.

Just who these were we have no way of knowing although every interpreter is certain that Luke is not among them. The view that Paul writes as he does because he is out of sorts contradicts all the joy that is found in this epistle. This joy rises above 1:15, 16 and more easily above 2:20, 21. Paul, however, hides nothing, he is not that kind of man. Moreover, when the Philippians read about these others they will appreciate Timothy the more.

But we must heed the Eighth Commandment and put the best and not the worst construction on everything (Luther’s explanation). The fault of these men seems to have been that, when Paul broached the matter of sending news to Philippi as soon as his trial should end, he met no ready response. To each of these men the hard, long journey to Philippi did not seem to be greatly in the interest of Jesus Christ or greatly in the interest of the Philippians. Paul saw that very little would be gained by sending any of these men and thus gives up Timothy for the journey to Philippi. As regards Luke and other loyal assistants of Paul, one of whom Paul might have sent instead of Timothy, we are compelled to conclude that they were absent from Rome, away on other missions, for at the end of this epistle Paul is not able to send salutations to the Philippians from them. This is the situation.

We may say a little more. Paul is thinking of what he will do when before so very long his trial will be concluded, when he is set free and is able to leave Rome. We know what he did do then, what he was already very likely planning. He went from Rome to Ephesus and to Colosse to visit Philemon. He would like to take Timothy along as his companion instead of dispatching him from Rome to Philippi. He intended to place Timothy in charge of the entire work in the province of Asia while he himself would then go on from Ephesus to Philippi and elsewhere.

He plans to give up Timothy, to send him to Philippi, then to have him come from Philippi to Ephesus to meet him there and to leave him in the great Asian field as his apostolic representative. This Paul did eventually. It is safe to conclude that he is making this plan now. It certainly accords with the later facts. Timothy’s former intimate connection with Philippi makes him especially eligible for this mission, for which reason Paul also has him join in the writing of the present letter.

Philippians 2:22

22 Moreover, the testing out of him you know, that as a child for his father he slaved with me in regard to the gospel.

Δέ adds this as another point for characterizing the ψυχή of Timothy. He has been tested out, αὐτοῦ is the objective genitive, ὅτι is epexegetical. This is the word that is used to designate the testing of metals and of coins, it is like the verb that is so often found in Paul’s writings. The Philippians not only know about it, they know it in a personal way (γινώσκω); three times Timothy had been with them (Acts 16:13; 19:22; 20:3, etc.). Some think that Paul changed his thought in the middle of the sentence, at least marred the parallel by first writing the dative πατρί and then the prepositional phrase σὺνἐμοί (R. 441, 1199), the R. V. smoothes out this break by repeating the verb.

There is neither break nor parallel (see A. V.). A child may slave with his father when he is doing this for him. Why does that thought require two parallel sentences? Timothy was Paul’s regular associate, which thought σύν expresses. The thought is not that he never left Paul’s side; that idea would require μετά, “in company with.”

The main point is that Timothy showed himself to be a child who closely resembles his father; those mentioned in v. 21 were not showing themselves in such a way. Paul slaved in regard to the gospel (εἰς as in 1:5); Timothy slaved with Paul, for Paul as a true child does for its father; those others could not go to this length of slaving for Paul as regards the gospel. Slaving means not having one’s own will but doing only the will of one’s superior. Those others had not learned this “lowly-mindedness” (v. 3) which also looks out so completely for the things of others (v. 5); had not yet come to mind this thing that was so plain in Christ’s case when he took “slave’s form” (v. 6, 7). Paul had indeed learned completely to be “Jesus Christ’s slave” (Rom. 1:1). Note how τὰἑαυτῶν is repeated from v. 5, and how the wording recalls the admonition that was based on Christ’s “slave’s form.”

Philippians 2:23

23 This one, therefore, I hope to send forthwith, whenever I get to see in due course the things concerning me; and I am confident in the Lord that also I myself shall come soon.

Τοῦτον, our emphatic “him,” summarizes everything said about Timothy, and οὖν resumes Paul’s hoping to send Timothy mentioned in v. 19 and now adds the statement that he will send him “forthwith” (placed emphatically at the end) and specifies the time: “whenever (ὡςἄν) I get to see,” etc. The aorist subjunctive is punctiliar: “get to see.” Both ἀπίδω and ἀφίδω are used, the latter probably because the disused ἀφοράω had the rough consonant φ. But we should not render the ἀπό in this verb: “to turn the eyes away from and fix them on something,” and thus make it analogous to ἀποβλέπω. We beg to submit that there is an analogy with ἀποδίδωμι, “duly to give or pay,” ἀπέχω, “to have in full what is due,” to be paid off in full (Matt. 6:2 and often), and other verbs compounded with ἀπό. Paul’s trial would run its due course, he would thus “duly, or in due course, get to see” the eventual state of his affairs. Paul could not hurry this, the Philippians had to wait until Paul was due to see the outcome of his trial.

When B.-P. 200 renders: sobald ich meine Lage ueberblicke, we note his uncertainty regarding the force of the preposition. Paul was now doing that (1:12, etc.), could do it at any time. Here he speaks of in due course getting to see the final outcome of his trial. Note that Paul here construes περί with the accusative (R. 620) instead of with the genitive (v. 19, 20).

The mission of Timothy was to carry this final news and, of course, also to bring back news to Paul (v. 19). Timothy did bring such news when he again joined Paul in Ephesus. Paul probably used some means to get the great news as promptly as possible also to other places.

Philippians 2:24

24 We cannot reproduce the neat balance in μέν and δέ, the hope, on the one hand, to send Timothy, the confidence, on the other hand, that Paul himself will come to Philippi. He has already promised the latter in 1:25. Here he adds that his confidence is connected with the Lord and states in so many words that he expects to go to Philippi and that “soon.” The decision of his trial is not far off.

Paul Reports to the Philippians about the Return of Epaphroditus

Philippians 2:25

25 Δέ is used as it was in v. 19. Now I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier and your commissioner and public servant for my need, since he kept longing for you all and kept being distressed because you heard that he had gotten sick. And, indeed, he got sick very near to death. But God showed him mercy, and not him only but also me in order that I might not get to have grief upon grief.

What is the picture here drawn of Epaphroditus? This aorist and the one used in v. 28 (“I sent”) are plainly epistolary aorists, written from the standpoint of the readers when they hear this letter read, when Paul’s considering and sending will lie in the past. They are a common Greek idiom in letters; the English would use “I consider—I send,” which are written from the standpoint of the writer at the moment of writing. Those who regard these as aorists that indicate recent acts assume that Paul had sent Epaphroditus back some time before. They thus create the difficulty that he most probably arrived in Philippi before Paul’s present letter, and that v. 29 does not agree with its request: “receive him,” etc. So the hypothesis is advanced that Epaphroditus traveled rather slowly since he was a convalescent, and that Paul’s letter traveled faster and was delivered before the latter’s arrival.

Yet Paul could get no one to go to Philippi to carry the expected news of his release in the near future. How did Paul then send his present letter? by some stranger? Epaphroditus is to be the bearer. Whether he is also Paul’s scribe as the ancient note at the end asserts (see A. V.) we cannot say; v. 19–23 show that Paul has no other man to take his present letter to Philippi.

The five appositions: “my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier and your messenger and public servant for my need,” plus the adverb in v. 28: “I sent him the more speedily,” justify the conclusion that Epaphroditus not only brought the gift of the Philippians to Paul but intended to stay with Paul for some time in order to aid the apostle by whatever work he was able to do in Rome. The impression we get is that, when the Philippians sent Epaphroditus, they did not know that Paul’s case had already been taken up by the court or was on the verge of being taken up. Paul had been waiting for two years, might still have to wait a long time. The Philippians knew that he needed helpers and sent Epaphroditus to be one of them. Then the latter fell sick, almost died, but recovered. Paul’s case was actually in court, would soon be settled by the court.

At the moment Paul had far less need of helpers. So Paul now sends Epaphroditus back “more speedily” than he would otherwise have done. He makes the whole situation plain to the Philippians.

We see, then, the reason for all these appositions. Epaphroditus was sent to Paul so that he might have another “brother” at his side, another “fellow worker” and “fellow soldier,” the terms are arranged in an ascending scale. Although his serious sickness incapacitated him, and although, upon recovering, he was able to do but little, Paul regards him as more than a brother, as being also a fellow worker and soldier, for Epaphroditus came to enlist as such. The supposition that all these epithets refer to the past, to a time years ago when Epaphroditus helped in the work, is untenable, for neither “my brother,” the very first designation, nor “your commissioner and official servant,” the last two epithets, can be referred to the past.

Thus, too, we understand “your commissioner and official servant for my need” (objective genitive). This “need” is not Paul’s poverty as is assumed. The δέ does not separate, is not adversative (“but,” A. V.). Paul purposely abuts μου and ὑμῶνδέ, a construction that it is hard to imitate in English. Paul’s “need” was men, not money.

Paul is not referring to the money the Philippians sent him. This designation of Epaphroditus would be extravagant, unlikely even in the case of a man that was less balanced than Paul, if Epaphroditus had done no more than to bring the Philippians’ gift to Paul. “Your (emphatic) commissioner (representative) and official public servant for my need” means: for my need of a brother, fellow worker, and a fellow soldier. The Philippians had sent Epaphroditus as their gift to Paul.

The word used is not ἄγγελος, “messenger” who brings news or a gift, but ἀπόστολος, “one sent on a commission,” to carry out a commission. In order to leave no doubt about it Paul adds λειτουργός, “one who acts as an official, public servant” for others, see the remarks on λειτουργία in v. 17 where Paul calls his apostolic work “an official public service for your faith” (with the same objective genitive). Where is a man bringing a gift from others called a leitourgos? But a man commissioned by a whole church to assist Christ’s apostolic commissioner is, indeed, both a “commissioner” and “an official public servant.” So we have the force of the abutted genitives: a brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier of mine, (as such, moreover,) your “commissioner,” etc., i. e., not an assistant of Paul only of his own accord but duly commissioned and officially appointed by the Philippian church.

As such Paul acknowledges Epaphroditus. When he arrived in this capacity and then fell sick, this naturally makes no difference as to the capacity itself. Those who think that the titles refer to the bringing of the gift of money even assume that leitourgos refers to a priestly function. The word itself means “a public official,” for instance, of the state. Since also priests act as public officials they are at times called leitourgoi. But countless public officials were not priests in any sense. Who would call that person who, on behalf of a congregation, brings and presents a gift to a pastor or religious leader a priest?

Philippians 2:26

26 Paul states why he considers it necessary to send Epaphroditus back to Philippi: “since he kept longing for you all and kept being distressed because you heard that he had gotten sick.” Instead of being able to carry out this commission and to act as the official representative of the Philippians by assisting Paul in the gospel work and warfare poor Epaphroditus fell sick and became a burden on Paul’s hands although Paul does not state the latter. Whether he arrived as a sick man or became sick a short time after his arrival, who can say? It also makes no diffence in order to understand what Paul writes. Epaphroditus, who, on behalf of the Philippians, was to do so much for Paul, almost died on Paul’s hands. No wonder he “kept longing for you all,” wishing he were back with you who could easily care for him instead of being in Rome where he felt himself a terrible burden to Paul and to the brethren who had to take care of him, all save Timothy being strangers to him. The imperfect (perhaps the periphrastic, R. 888, 1120) describes the state in its continuance.

The supposition that Epaphroditus had a bad case of homesickness merits little consideration. He longed the more to be back home because Paul would not at all need him when his trial was over, had only slight need of him now while the trial was in progress.

Καί adds the other point, the distress of Epaphroditus “because you heard that he got sick.” How did the Philippians hear of it, and how did Epaphroditus and Paul know that they had heard about it? The simple answer is that Epaphroditus had not been sent alone but had been accompanied by a few companions. These companions returned after a rest in Rome. Epaphroditus took sick before they left. So the Philippians “heard,” and Epaphroditus and Paul knew that they had heard.

Ἀδημονεῖν (derivation in dispute) is used in Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:13 with reference to Jesus: “to be distressed.” What worried the sick man was the fact that the people who had sent him, probably at considerable expense to themselves, to do so much for Paul, heard that all their good plans and intentions had failed, had only put a further burden on Paul instead of relieving his other burdens. All this seems rather obvious. Yet some think that news got to Philippi in other ways and then back to Rome, say by a letter to Paul from the Philippians, all of which, together with the unmanly homesickness, we regard as improbable.

Philippians 2:27

27 “And indeed (or: indeed yes) he got sick near to death,” which explains why Epaphroditus longed so to be with the Philippians and worried so because they heard of his illness and would themselves worry about its outcome. Yet, the way in which Paul adds this sounds as though the full gravity of the sickness had not appeared when the companions left Rome, but that these feared that the sickness might turn out to be very grave. Paul reports that it actually almost had fatal results: for a time Epaphroditus hung between life and death. On καὶγάρ see B.-D. 452, 3.

Paul is sending him back, the Philippians will see him, so he says only: “But God mercied him” (literal, the verb with a direct object in the Greek). Epaphroditus had recovered. Paul at once adds: “and not him only but also me in order that I might not get to have grief upon grief,” grief over the illness of the brother who, in the intention of the Philippians, was to be his assistant, and still more grief over his death. The aorist σχῶ, like those occurring in v. 26, is ingressive: “get to have.” How this reference to “grief,” as some think, conflicts with the joy with which the epistle abounds is hard to see. Had Epaphroditus not recovered by God’s mercy? That, surely, caused great joy. Besides, the true Christian freely sheds tears at the death of one that is dear to him without these tears darkening his joy in the Lord.

Philippians 2:28

28 More quickly, accordingly, I sent (epistolary aorist: am sending, see v. 25) him in order that, on getting to see him back, you may get to rejoice, and I on my part may be more relieved.

Not “more carefully” (A. V.) or “more diligently” (R. V.) but “more hastily,” i. e., sooner than might otherwise have been the case. If Epaphroditus had remained hale and hearty, there would have been no reason to send him back as yet, he could have remained until Paul’s court trial ended. But as things were, since Epaphroditus had almost died, since the Philippians knew that he had fallen ill and that he had not been able to function as they desired, and since Paul’s own release was pending, Paul felt that the thing to do was to send Epaphroditus back without further delay (v. 25). Οὖν is resumptive, goes back to v. 25 and even takes in v. 24 together with the explanations that follow; it is unnecessary to seek only a single point in v. 26, 27 to which to refer “accordingly.”

For one thing, the Philippians will “get to rejoice” (ingressive, second aorist passive) on getting to see Epaphroditus back (πάλιν in its first meaning), now knowing the whole situation and also the nearness of Paul’s release. For another thing, Paul himself will be “the more relieved” (B.-P. 63: sorgenfreier = ganz sorgenfrei), elative comparative: quite relieved or very much relieved; yet with comparative force: more than he would otherwise be (R. 665).

There is no need to stress “more griefless” and to say that this still leaves some grief to Paul. This sounds literal but does not adequately understand Paul’s thought. Paul is still a bit sorry for the Philippians who know only that their representative got sick on Paul’s hands. This will entirely disappear when Paul knows the joy which the actual return of Epaphroditus will create. Paul could have written that Epaphroditus is well again, but to send him back is better, especially since Paul expects release so that he, too, (Paul) can get back to Philippi.

Philippians 2:29

29 Accordingly, receive him in the Lord with all joy and hold such in honor because on account of Christ’s work he came near to death, having ventured his life in order to fill your absence in the public service toward me.

The Philippians are to receive Epaphroditus in the manner in which Paul is sending him. He wants this to be done with unalloyed joy. In fact, they ought to hold all who are of this kind in honor. Paul generalizes when he writes τοὺςτοιούτους, but when he describes this kind of men he returns to the singular and states the thing that Epaphroditus, one of this deserving class, has done.

Philippians 2:30

30 First, that because of Christ’s work (διά, for the sake of it) he came near to death, in this case death by sickness, but death nevertheless. Then, in the participial and the purpose clause he connects the Philippians in the closest way with this act of Epaphroditus’: he risked his life as their representative in the public service to which they had commissioned him to help Paul. This very participle παραβολευσάμενος (the variant is only an attempted correction of this very rare word) has recently been found in a second-century inscription: “having risked his life” (M.-M. 480).

Τὸὑστέρημα, “that in which one comes behind” or falls short, denotes the absence of the Philippians. Epaphroditus “filled this up,” i. e., he consented to step in, to act as their ἀπόστολος and λειτουργός (see v. 25), as their representative and official servant in this work of Christ. Since they were absent and far from Rome, the Philippians could assist Paul in his work only by a volunteer who would go in their place and thus “fill their absence.” We may regard ὑμῶν as a possessive or as an objective genitive: the ὑστέρημα was theirs, it left them out. “Of the official (public) service toward me” is the genitive after a term of want, lacking, or coming short. Paul has already (v. 25) called Epaphroditus: “your commissioner and public officer”; and now he says that he filled “your absence in this public office toward me.” When he came he was Paul’s public official assistant, not one selected by Paul but a representative of the Philippians, selected by them.

Every term is delicate, and the combination is exquisite. They were only unavoidably absent, that was the only coming behind. It pertained only to them (objective genitive is probably best). Epaphroditus filled it up completely (aorist). It pertained to the great official public service, to nothing less. The Philippians had it at heart as a congregation, had sent this their own representative. This service was, of course, for others, but Paul puts in “toward me,” Epaphroditus was to be his assistant. Just as μου and ὑμῶν in v. 25 bind Paul and the Philippians together, so again, in reverse order, ὑμῶν and πρὸςἑμέ bind them and him together.

But note that, while Paul is so close to the end of his trial that he scarcely needs Epaphroditus, and when the latter fell sick had little service from him and considerable anxiety instead, he, nevertheless, honors Epaphroditus as fully being his official assistant and asks the same honor for him from the Philippians. Not so much the amount done but the will counts. This brother had ventured his life. That it was by way of sickness and not by way of persecution, did not change the fact. Paul, one nobleman, recognizes and honors another.

R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.