But, in whatever way we take it, the first opovεiv is not the same in sense as the second; in the former case it is a care for the apostle which has realized itself in an actual contribution to his necessities, in the latter case it is a care without any actual manifestation, a care to which a want of opportunity stands opposed. Might the apostle not well enough say, viewing the first opovɛiv as the proof of their care for him: such an actually manifested care for me was the object of your care? And, if the relative refers to the Tò úñÈρ ¿μov alone, why should he not have written simply ő, which would correspond better with the kaipεto0ɛ than p'? Besides, this interpretation gives an undue emphasis to the rò vrèp ¿μov apart from the opovεiv. I regard, therefore, the common reference of the ' as the preferable. The words wherein ye were also careful, are designed to prevent the misunderstanding that the apostle intended to say, their care for him had not existed before. This care was previously felt (the emphasis lies on the imperfect, by which the opposition between the past and the present is expressed); but ye lacked opportunity. Those who understand the word dve0áλεтε to refer to the temporal circumstances or means of the Philippians, explain ȧkaipεiola as its antithesis, and as denoting an unfavourable state of their worldly means, a view which, grammatically considered, is certainly well founded. If, on the other hand, we have found this signification of dveláλere to be not suitable, then must Kaipeiσ0ε also be understood in its general signification as denoting the unfavourableness of circumstances generally. The further specification of whether it be the means themselves, or the opportunity of sending them that is meant, thus remains a matter of conjecture. The expression belongs to the later Greek, and occurs only here.

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

state of feeling. On palov comp. Heb. v. 8. The school in which the apostle had learned this contentment was, his life. He does not, however, in this praise his own strength, but the strength of Christ, comp. ver. 13. 'Ev oiç eiuí, not merely the circumstances in which he then was, but in which he might be at any other time. On the indic. of the pres. comp. Winer's Gr., § 42, 3, p. 274. Ver. 12. Oida xaí, etc., dé is not the true reading. The apostle now further describes the art of contentment. It consists in knowing how to accommodate one's-self to the most opposite circumstances, how to find a sufficiency in every situation, instead of regarding a certain state as the condition of this sufficiency. Oida as the consequence of having learned-"I know"-by which is meant a practical knowledge, as is plain from ver. 13. Καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι—καὶ περισσεύ Ev, the proper antithesis would be vyovola; the apostle, however, expresses the antithesis which he has more especially in view. He knows how to bear abasement as well as abundance, i. e., in rebus exiguis patienter me gerere rebus abundantibus cum modo uti (Grotius). From οίδα he proceeds by way of climax to μεμνημαι ; "I am initiated," "admitted to the mysteries," an expression which implies that the art of which the apostle speaks is not so easy or so directly accessible to all as might be supposed. As this verb is usually connected with the accusative or dative, many connect ¿v πavτÌ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν not with μεμνημαι, but take the phrase in the same sense as above, év oiç eipi in whatsoever state, and then join the followἐν εἰμί : ing infinitives closely with peuúnual. But as the following infinitives themselves only indicate the different states, they must be regarded as exegetical of the iv nãow. Besides, it could not, with logical strictness be said, in every state I am initiated both to be full and to suffer hunger, etc. I prefer, therefore, to abide by the connexion with pepunuar, and to view the infinitives as explanatory.

=

Ver. 13.-I can do all things, he continues. The Távra is to be understood in its widest sense, and is dependent on ioxów, as Gal. v. 6; James v. 16. 'Ioxów not oida again, from which we perceive that it is not a mere knowledge but an art that is meant, the necessary strength for which the apostle draws not from himself but from him who makes him strong. In and through fellowship with him the apostle is strong. 'Evdvvaμów, as here, Eph. vi. 10; Acts ix. 22; Rom. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17. Xploty is omitted in A.B.D. d. e., etc., and is doubtless a gloss from 1 Tim. i. 12.

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

10, namely, that they shew an active sympathy with him in his affliction, and share his burden along with him. By his affliction, however, is to be understood his entire state at that time. On συγκοινωνεῖν see Eph. v. 11. Καλῶς ποιεῖν with partic. as 2 Pet. i. 19, etc. Comp. Winer's Gr., § 45, 1. Anm., p. 398.

Vers. 15, 16.-The apostle now reminds his readers that such a relation of mutual communication had existed between them and him from the beginning, a relation in which he stood to no other church but that of the Philippians. There is in these words at once a complimentary acknowledgment of the love of the church to him, and an expression of grateful love on the part of the apostle. An emphasis of feeling therefore rests on ye Philippians, as at 2 Cor. vi. 11. Ye, too, as well as I, he says, know that in the beginning of the gospel (i. e., in the beginning of the gospel's being spread among you, i. 5-12), when I was gone from Macedonia no church entered into fellowship with me, as to giving and receiving but you only. The words, when I was gone, etc., fix more definitely the point of time indicated by in the beginning, etc. 'E520ov is to be taken as pluperfect, on which see Winer's Gr., § 40, 5, p. 246. The apostle alludes to the assistance mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 9. Others interpret thus, "when I departed," by which the time specified in Acts xvii. 14 would be denoted. But if the contributions mentioned in ver. 16 as having been sent to Thessalonica, are not themselves meant (a supposition inadmissible both on account of the Kai and also because the gifts repeatedly sent to Thessalonica cannot be alluded to in connexion with the words, when I departed, etc.), it is at the same time scarcely to be supposed that among the circumstances noted in the Acts as connected with the apostle's departure from Macedonia, there was still another contribution sent by the distant church in Philippi, which was not included in those sent to Thessalonica. It has appeared surprising that the apostle should notice, in ver. 15, the contribution in Corinth, which was later, and should afterwards, in ver. 16, notice that which was earlier in point of time. The same difficulty presents itself, only in another form, in connexion with the interpretation of ¿57200v as an ordinary aorist; for here also the question arises, wherefore does the apostle mention, in ver. 16, that which is the earlier in point of time? The answer which is wont to be given in the former case-that the apostle mentions first that which was most considerable-is not at all satisfactory, chiefly because ver. 16, with or (not "that," but "for"), is not simply an addition to, but serves to illustrate and confirm, ver. 15. And still more difficult must it be, in the other case, to assign the reason why the apostle did not adhere to the order of time, and mention first the contributions sent to Thessalonica, and then those sent on his departure from Macedonia.-If we bear in mind that ver. 16 stands

in a subordinate relation to ver. 15, it will then appear certain that the apostle intends only to adduce the first-mentioned contribution (when I departed) as the one specially bearing on the object he has in view in this passage. With this contribution which the church sent after him a great distance (when I departed from Macedonia), did the relation at present subsisting between the apostle and them first connect itself, as the fruit of which he also regards the present gift sent to him at Rome. And the following verse (ver. 16) then serves to illustrate the fact that they entered into such a connexion with the apostle for even before I had departed from Macedonia, even in Thessalonica, ye have repeatedly sent to my necessities. The words, even in Thessalonica, will thus be antithetical with, when I had departed from Macedonia. This explanation removes the difficulty started above.-Els λóyov. I think with De Wette and Meyer, the rendering "in regard to" inconsistent with the context; the words which follow, and eis λóyov iμv of ver. 17, require that óyos be taken in the sense of "account," in which it also occurs in Matth. xviii. 23 and elsewhere. So in Cic. Læl. 16: ratio datorum et acceptorum. Dóσiç kaì λñpıç, "giving and receiving" 1, Sir. xli. 19. If we suppose the figure to be taken from books of accounts in which are inserted the expenditure and receipts, it will not do to set the giving to the side of the Philippians, the receiving to the side of the apostle. For in an account book one does not insert what he himself gives and the other receives, but what he gives and receives. Besides, the expression, "giving and receiving," would then be without any object, in so far as it implies nothing more than is expressed at Rom. xii. 13, by the simple phrase, he communicated to my need. Rather, as Meyer well observes, must the expression-you have communicated with me in reference to the account of giving and receiving-be understood of a mutual account keeping; the apostle (as also the Philippians), takes account of giving and receiving. Ver. 17, "to your account," also leads to this interpretation. "In the account of the Philippians, remarks Meyer, the column for the receivings would be indeed empty, as, in Paul's account, would be that for the givings." But if this be true, does not the expression, giving and receiving, become meaningless, and could the apostle have said with any reason, they have entered with one another into the relation of reciprocal giving and receiving, if the Philippians could think of nothing which they might regard as received by them? And why should they not think of the spiritual gifts which they had received from the apostle? The apostle certainly does not characterize what they received from him as spiritual, in contradiction to that which they gave him as material; it was not his object to make any such distinction: all that he means to say

is, that a relation of mutual communication, of reciprocal giving and receiving has subsisted between him and the Philippians from the beginning. The idea contained in the 17th verse is also analogous to this view. That or is not "that," but "for," so that it is not merely a continuation of the őr of ver. 15, but ver. 16 is the confirmation of what goes before, De Wette and Meyer have acknowledged, because, as the latter observes-not merely a gratuitous reversal of the order of time would result from the other supposition, but also because the contents of ver. 16 would not logically correspond with the words, ye also know. "Or, according to Meyer, confirms the early period fixed in ver. 15 by one still earlier. But it is not evident, why, with his interpretation, the words, even in Thessalonica, serve only as a confirmation of ver. 15, and are not rather to be considered as co-ordinate with it, and placed before the ὅτε ἐξῆλθον.—The name of the place may be connected grammatically with πépare (comp. Meyer), but as it thus stands in antithesis with the ore 20ov, I prefer with De Wette to connect it with pot, without, however, supplying ovri. Once and again gives prominence to the repetition. Εἰς τὴν χρείαν (merely τὴν χρείαν is not the true reading, also not pov, but po), means, " to my necessity," to its supply. 'Eréupare, absolutely, as Acts xi. 29.

Ver. 17.-The apostle here again (as above, ver. 11), guards his readers against mistaking his meaning, by supposing that he is mainly concerned about the gift in itself. That which he seeks, is rather the fruit or profit which redounds from such a gift to the donors, in so far, namely, as any such gift draws after it a rich recompense. This future recompense is the fruit which, on every fresh proof of their love, abounds to their account (following out the figure in ver. 15). It is therefore not so much his own interest as that of his benefactors which he has in view. Comp. ver. 19. 'EmiSnr is not studiose quæro, but quæro, ¿ní denoting the direction, see on ¿о¤, i. 8. Iλεovášw, as at Rom. v. 20, vi. 1; 2 Cor. iv. 15; 2 Thess. i. 3, "to increase," is to be connected with eis, although this connexion occurs nowhere else. (2 Thess. i. 3?) Comp. Meyer. Others connect with ἐπιζητῶ.

Vers. 18-20.-The apostle, turning back to the circumstance that occasioned what he has just said, declares, that in consequence of their gift he has abundance, promises to them a rich recompense from God, and concludes with an ascription of praise to him from whom such recompense is to be looked for. Ver. 18. But I have all. 'ATÉXw, as at Philem. 15; Matth. vi. 2, etc. (comp. Winer's Gr., § 40, 4, b., 246) antithetical with inτet̃v, ver. 17 : so that nothing more remains for me to wish; therefore, not a certification of his having received what was sent. And abound, a stronger expression than the preceding, his abundance being the result of their assistance.