Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 4

Php 4:3. Instead of ναί Elz. has καί, against decisive witnesses.

Instead of σύζυγε γνήσιε, γνήσιε σύζυγε should be written, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence.

On decisive testimony, in Php 4:12, instead of οἶδα δὲ ταπ. (Elz.), οἶδα καὶ ταπ. is to be received. The δέ has taken its rise from the last syllable of οἶδα; hence we also find the reading δὲ καί.

Php 4:13. After με Elz. has Χριστῷ, in opposition to A B D* א, vss. (also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended by Reiche, but it is an addition from 1 Timothy 1:12, from which passage also are found the amplifications in Or, Χ. Ἰησοῦ and Χ. Ἰ. τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν.

Ver 16. εἰς] wanting in A D* E**, min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But after δΙΣ, ἐΙΣ might the more readily be omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might, indeed, on account of the absence of an object for ἐπέμψ., appear offensive.

Php 4:19. With Lachm. and Tisch., the form τὸ πλοῦτος is to be adopted upon decisive testimony. See on 2 Corinthians 8:2.

Php 4:23. τάντων ὑμῶν] A B D E F G P א**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pel. have τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν. So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Galatians 6:18, whence also in Elz. ἡμῶν has likewise crept in after κυρίου.

Php 4:1. Conclusion drawn from what precedes, from Php 4:17 onwards. We are not justified in going further back (de Wette refers it to the whole exhortation, Php 3:2 ff., comp. also Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), because the direct address to the readers in the second person is only introduced at Php 4:17, and that with ἀδελφοί, as in the passage now before us; secondly, because the predicates ἀγαπητοὶ … στέφανός μου place the summons in that close personal relation to the apostle, which entirely corresponds with the words συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε in Php 4:17; thirdly, because ὥστε finds its logical reference in that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is connected with the exhortation συμμιμηταί κ.τ.λ. in Php 4:17; and lastly, because οὕτω in Php 4:1 is correlative to the οὕτω in Php 3:17.[175]

ὥστε] accordingly; the ethical actual result, which what has been said of the ἡμεῖς in. Php 3:20 f. ought to have with the readers. Comp. Php 2:12; 1 Corinthians 15:58.

ἀγαπητοί κ.τ.λ.] “blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat, quae tamen non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris,” Calvin.

How might they disappoint and grieve such love as this by non-compliance!

ἐπιπόθητοι] longed for, for whom I yearn (comp. Php 1:8); not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.; comp. App. Hisp. 43; Eust. Opusc, p. 357. 39; Aq. Ezekiel 23:11 (ἐπιπόθησις); Psalm 139:9 (ἐπιπόθημα); Ael. N. A. vii. 3 (ποθητός).

στέφανος] comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:19; Sir 1:9; Sir 6:31; Sir 15:6; Ezekiel 16:12; Ezekiel 23:42; Proverbs 16:31; Proverbs 17:6; Job 19:9. The honour, which accrued to the apostle from the excellent Christian condition of the church, is represented by him under the figure of a crown of victory. Comp. στέφανον εὐκλείας μέγαν, Soph. Aj. 465; Eur. Suppl. 313; Iph. A. 193, Herc. F. 1334; Thuc. ii. 46; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 30; Lobeck ad Aj. l.c.; also στεφανοῦν (Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. I. p. 684), στεφάνωμα, Pind. Pyth. i. 96, xii. 9, στεφανηφορεῖν, Wis 4:2, and Grimm in loc. The reference of χαρά to the present time, and of στέφ. to the future judgment (Calvin and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbitrarily a reflective distinction of ideas, which is not in keeping with the fervour of the emotion.

οὕτω] corresponding to the τύπος that has just been set forth and recommended to you (Php 3:17 ff.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret: so, as ye stand, so that Paul “praesentem statum laudando ad perseverantiam eos hortetur,” Calvin. This is at variance with the context, for he has just adduced others as a model for his readers; and the exhortation would not agree with συμμιμ. μ. γίνεσθε, Php 3:17, which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally advanced community, still does not presuppose the existence already of a normal Christian state.

ἐν κυρίῳ] Comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:8. Christ is to be the element in which the standing fast required of them is to have its specific character, so that in no case can the moral life ever act apart from the fellowship of Christ.

ἀγαπητοί] “περιπαθὴς haec vocis hujus ἀναφορά,” Grotius. In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied the expressions of love and praise of his readers; a strong testimony certainly as to the praiseworthy condition of the church, from which, however, Weiss infers too much. Here, as always (Romans 12:19; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 2 Corinthians 12:19; Php 2:12; 1 Corinthians 10:14; Hebrews 6:9, et al.), moreover, ἀγαπητοί stands as an address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is not to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with ἐν κυρίῳ.

[175] In opposition to which Hofmann quite groundlessly urges the objection, that Paul in that case would have written περιπατεῖτε instead of στήκετε. As if he must have thought and spoken thus mechanically! The στήκετε is in fact substantially just a περιπατεῖν which maintains its ground.

Php 4:2 f. After this general exhortation, Php 4:1, the apostle, still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to him, finds it requisite to give a special admonition to and for two meritorious women,[176] through whose disagreement, the details of which are unknown to us, but which probably turned on differences of their working in the church, a scandal had occurred, and the στήκειν ἐν κυρίῳ might more or less be imperilled. Whether they were deaconesses in Philippi (as many conjecture), must remain undecided. Grotius has erroneously considered both names, Hammond and Calmet only the second, to be masculine,[177] and in that case αὐταῖς in Php 4:3 is made to apply to others (viz. ΑἽΤΙΝΕς Κ.Τ.Λ.). For the two feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori. With Tischendorf and Lipsius (Gramm. Unters. p. 31), Συντυχή is to be treated as oxytone. Comp. generally Kühner, I. p. 256. The twice used παρακ.: “quasi coram adhortans seorsum utramvis, idque summa cum aequitate,” Bengel. An earnestly individualizing ἘΠΙΜΟΝΉ (Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 400).

τὸ αὐτὸ φρον.] see on Php 2:2.

ἘΝ ΚΥΡ.] characterizes the specifically Christian concord, the moral nature and effort of which are grounded on Christ as their determining vital principle. Paul does not desire a union of minds apart from Christ.

Whether the disunion, which must be assumed, had its deeper root in moral pride on account of services in the cause of the gospel (Schinz), is not clear.

[176] According to Baur, indeed, they are alleged to be two parties rather than two women; and Schwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 135) makes out that Euodia represents the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the Gentile-Christian party, and that γνήσιος σύζυγος applies to Peter! On the basis of Constitutt. ap. vii. 46. 1 (according to which Peter appointed an Euodius, and Paul Ignatius, as Bishop of Antioch), this discovery has been amplified with further caprice by Volkmar in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 147 ff. But exegetical fiction in connection with the two feminine names has been pushed to the utmost by Hitzig, z. Krit. Paulin. Br. p. 5 ff., according to whom they are supposed to have their origin in Genesis 30:9 ff.; he represents our author as having changed Asher and Gad into women in order to represent figuratively two parties, and both of them Gentile-Christian.

[177] Theodore of Mopsuestia quotes the opinion that the two were husband and wife.

Php 4:3. Indeed, I entreat thee also, etc. This bringing in of a third party is a confirmation of the previous admonition as regards its necessity and urgency; hence the ναί; comp. Philemon 1:20. See also on Matthew 15:27.

σύζυγε is erroneously understood by Clemens Alexandrinus, Isidorus, Erasmus, Musculus, Cajetanus, Flacius, and others, as referring to the wife of the apostle; an idea which, according to 1 Corinthians 7:8, compared with 1 Corinthians 9:5, is at variance with history (see, already, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact), and at the same time at variance with grammar, as the adjective must in that case have stood in the feminine (Test. XII. Patr. p. 526; Eur. Alc. 314, 342, 385). Others understand the husband of one of the two women (so, although with hesitation, Chrysostom, also Theophylact, according to whom, however, he might have been a brother, and Camerarius; not disapproved by Beza); but what a strangely artificial designation would “genuine conjux” be! Weiss prefers to leave undecided the nature of the bond which connected the individual in question with the two women. But if, in general, a relation to the women were intended, and that apart from the bond of matrimony, by the term σύζυγε Paul would have expressed himself very awkwardly; for the current use of the word σύζυγος, and also of συζυγής (3Ma 4:8) and σύζυξ (Eur. Alc. 924), in the sense of conjux (comp. συζευγνύναι, Xen. Oec. 7. 30; Herodian, iii. 10. 14), must have been well known to the reader. The usual mode of interpreting this passage (so Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, following Pelagius and Theodoret) has been to refer it to some distinguished fellow-labourer of the apostle, well known, as a matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his abode in Philippi and deserved well of the church there by special services. Some have arbitrarily fixed on Silas (Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on Timothy (Estius), and even on Epaphroditus (Vatablus, Grotius, Calovius, Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hofmann also would have us understand as referred to, inasmuch as he regards him as the amanuensis of the epistle, who had therefore heard it dictated by the apostle, and then heard it again when it came to be read in the church, so that he knew himself to be the person addressed. What accumulated invention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all, unsuitable confession before the church that he was himself the person thus distinguished by the apostle! According to Luther’s gloss, Paul means “the most distinguished bishop in Philippi.” Comp. also Ewald, who compares συμπρεσβύτερος, 1 Peter 5:1. But how strange would such a nameless designation be in itself! How easily might the preferential designation by γνήσιος have seemed even to slight other fellow-labourers in Philippi! Besides, Paul, in describing his official colleagues, never makes use of this term, σύζυγος, which does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., and which would involve the assumption that the unknown individual stood in quite a special relation to the apostle corresponding to this purposely-chosen predicate. Laying aside arbitrariness, and seeing that this address is surrounded by proper names (Php 4:2-3), we can only find in σύζυγε a proper name, in which case the attribute γνήσιε corresponds in a delicate and winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp. Philemon 1:11); genuine Syzygus, that is, thou who art in reality and substantially that which thy name expresses: “fellow-in-yoke,” i.e. yoke-fellow, fellow-labourer. We may assume that Syzygus had rendered considerable services to Christianity in Philippi in joint labour with the apostle, and that Paul, in his appellative interpretation of the name, followed the figurative conception of animals in the yoke ploughing or thrashing (1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18), a conception which was suggested to him by the very name itself. The opposite of γνήσιος would be: οὐκ ὄντως ὤν (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 E), so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be ἐπώνυμος (Eur. Phoen. 1500; Soph. Aj. 430), Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. p. 272 f. He bore this his name, however, as ὄνομα ἐτήτυμον (Del. Epigr. v. 42). This view of the word being a proper name—to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent decidedly defends[178] in his Neut. Stud. p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of in his Lexicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects [179] simply on account of the usus loquendi of γνήσιος not being proved—was already held by ΤΙΝΈς in Chrysostom; comp. Niceph. Call. ii. p. 212 D; Oecumenius permits a choice between it and the explanation in the sense of the husband of one of the two women. It is true that the name is not preserved elsewhere; but with how many names is that the case? Hence it was unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of the name Κολληγᾶς (Joseph. Bell. vii. 3. 4), in connection with which, moreover, it would be hard to see why Paul should have chosen the word σύζυγος elsewhere not used by him, and not ΣΥΝΕΡΓΌς, or the like.[180] To refer the word to Christ, who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a mistake.

συλλαμβ. αὐταῖς] lay hold along with them, that is, assist them (Luke 5:7; Herod, vi. 125; Xen. Ages. 2. 31; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 280; Lex. Plat. III. p. 294), namely, for their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious action.

αἵτινες] utpote quae, giving the motive, comp. Php 1:28; see on Romans 1:25; Romans 2:15; Romans 6:2, et al.

ἐν τῷ εὐαγγ.] the domain, in which they, etc. Comp. Romans 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 3:2. It was among women that the gospel had first struck root in Philippi (Acts 16:13), and it is to be assumed that the two women named had rendered special service in the spread and confirmation of Christianity among their sex, and therein had shared the conflict of affliction and persecution with Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:2). On συνήθλησαν, comp. Php 1:27.

ΜΕΤᾺ ΚΑῚ ΚΛΉΜΕΝΤΟς Κ.Τ.Λ.] and in what fellowship, so honourable to them, have they shared my conflict for Christ’s sake? in association also with Clement and, etc. The reference of the καί is to ΜΟΙ; their joint-striving with Paul had been a fellowship in striving also with Clement, etc.; they had therein stood side by side with these men also. On καὶ … καί, the first ΚΑῚ meaning also, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 891; on its rarer position, however, between preposition and noun, see Schaefer, Ind. ad Gregor. Cor. p. 1064; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 143; Kühner, II. 1, p. 480 f. The connection of μετὰ κ. Κλ. κ.τ.λ. with ΣΥΛΛΑΜΒ. ΑὐΤΑῖς (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann) is opposed by the facts, that Paul has committed the service of mediation to an individual, with which the general impress now given to this commission is not in keeping, and that the subsequent ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα κ.τ.λ., in the absence of any specification of the churches, would neither be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and would be strangest of all in the event of Paul’s having intended, as Hofmann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons mentioned in Php 1:1. The λοιποὶ συνεργοί, as well as generally the more special circumstances of which Paul here reminds his readers, were—if ΜΕΤᾺ ΚΑῚ Κ.Τ.Λ. be joined with ΣΥΝΉΘΛΗΣΆΝ ΜΟΙ, beside which it stands—historically known to these readers, although unknown to us.

That Clement was a teacher in Philippi (so most modern expositors; according to Grotius, a presbyter in Philippi, but “Romanus aliquis in Macedonia negotians”), must be maintained in accordance with the context, seeing that with him those two Philippian women laboured as sharing the conflict of the apostle; and of a travelling companion of this name, who had laboured with the apostle in Macedonia, there is no trace to be found; and seeing that the λοιποὶ συνεργοί also are to be regarded as Philippians, because thus only does the laudatory expression ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα κ.τ.λ. appear in its vivid and direct set purpose of bespeaking for the two women the esteem of the church. The more frequent, however, in general the name of Clement was, the more arbitrary is the old view, although not yet known to Irenaeus (3:3. 3), that Clement of Rome is the person meant.[181] So most Catholic expositors (not Döllinger), following Origen, ad Joh. i. 29; Eusebius, H. E. iii. 15; Epiphanius, Haer. xxvii. 6; Jerome, Pelagius, and others; so also Francke, in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengel, who conjectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman women who had assisted the apostle in Rome, and had travelled with Epaphroditus to Philippi. See generally, besides Lünemann and Brückner, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. p. 167 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff.; and Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, p. 92 ff.

ὧν τὰ ὀνόμ. κ.τ.λ.] refers merely to τῶν λοιπῶν κ.τ.λ., whom Paul does not adduce by name, but instead of this affirms of their names something so great and honourable. God has recorded their names in His book, in which are written down the future partakers of the everlasting Messianic life; so surely and irrevocably is this life assigned to them. What Paul thus expresses by this solemn figure, he knew from their whole Christian character and action, in which he recognised by experience “quasi electionis[182] absconditae sigilla” (Calvin). See, moreover, on Luke 10:20, and Wetstein on our passage; it is different in Hebrews 12:23 (see Lünemann in loc). ἐστί must be supplied, not the optative, as Bengel thinks; and it must remain an open question, whether the persons referred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be regarded as already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be inferred from ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα κ.τ.λ.; see Luke 10:20; Hermas, Pastor i. 1. 3. It is at all events certain that this predicate, which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially honourable one, and does not simply convey what holds true of all Christians (so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of μετὰ καὶ κ.τ.λ.). At Luke 10:20, and Revelation 13:8 also, it is a mark of distinction.

[178] In doing so, Laurent takes the reference of σύν contained in the name as general: “helper of all labour in the vineyard of the Lord.” More thoughtful, however, is the reference to the apostle himself, whose true yoke-fellow is to supply his place with his former female fellow-strivers (συνήθλ. μοι); comp. also subsequently συνεργῶν μου.

[179] According to our view, γνήσιος is, in fact, taken in no other sense than that which is current in all Greek authors, viz. ἀληθινός, verus, as Hofmann himself takes it. Whether we refer it thus to σίζυγε as an appellative word, or as the appellative contents of a name—is a matter which leaves the linguistic use of γνήσιος altogether untouched. As is well known, νόθος has the same general linguistic usage in the opposite sense (see e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 536 A; Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. i. 103. 3).

[180] This holds at the same time against the view of Pelagius: “Germanus dictus est nomine, qui erat compar officii.” He is followed by Lyra.

[181] Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur builds up a whole fabric of combinations, which are intended to transfer the date of our epistle to the post-apostolic age, when the Flavius Clemens known in Roman history, who was a patruelis of Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and a Christian (Lami, de erud. apost. p. 104; Baur, II. p. 68), had already become the well-known Clement of Roman tradition. Comp. Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1856, p. 309, according to whom the Roman Clement is to be here already assumed as a martyr. Indeed, according to Schwegler and Hitzig, z. Krit. paulin. Br. p. 13, a first attempt is made here to connect this Clement also with Peter (for no other in their view is the σύζυγος). Thus, no doubt, the way is readily prepared for bringing down our epistle to the days of Trajan. Round the welcome name of Clement all possible fictions crystallize.

[182] The detailed discussion of the question as to the ground of the divine electio here portrayed (the Reformed theologians, “the decretum absolutum;” the Lutherans, “the praevisa fides;” the Catholics, “the praevisa opera”) is out of place here. Flacius, Clav. s. v. “liber,” justly observes that it is not fatalis quaedam electio which is pointed to, but ob veram justitiam, qualis Christi est, credentes eo referri et inscribi.

Php 4:4 f. Without any particle of transition, we have once more general concluding admonitions, which begin by taking up again the encouraging address broken off in Php 3:1, and now strengthened by πάντοτε—the key-note of the epistle. They extend as far as Php 4:9; after which Paul again speaks of the assistance which he had received.

πάντοτε] not to be connected with πάλιν ἐρῶ (Hofmann), which would make the πάλιν very superfluous, is an essential element of the Christian χαίρειν; comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:16; 2 Corinthians 6:10. Just at the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in significantly. Paul desires joyfulness at all times on the part of the believer, to whom even tribulation is grace (Php 1:7; Php 1:29) and glory (Romans 5:3), and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by the certainty of atonement (Romans 8:1); to whom everything must serve for good (Romans 8:28; 1 Corinthians 3:21 f.), and nothing can separate him from the love of God (Romans 8:38 f.).

πάλιν ἐρῶ] once more I will say. Observe the future, which exhibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer; consequently not equivalent to πάλιν λέγω, 2 Corinthians 11:16; Galatians 1:9. Καλῶς ἐδιπλασίασεν, ἐπειδὴ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡ φύσις λύπην ἔτικτε, διὰ τοῦ διπλασιασμοῦ δείκνυσιν, ὅτι πάντως δεῖ χαίρειν, Chrysostom.

Τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν] your mildness [Lindigkeit, Luther], that is, your gentle character, as opposed to undue sternness (Polyb. v. 10. 1 : ἡ ἐπιείκεια καὶ φιλανθρωπία, Lucian, Phal. Proverbs 2 : ἐπιεικὴς κ. μέτριος, Herodian, ii. 14. 5, ix. 12; 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 3:2; Jam 3:17; 1 Peter 2:18; Psalm 85:5; Add. to Esther 6:8; 2Ma 9:27). Comp. on 2 Corinthians 10:1. The opposite: ἀκριβοδίκαιος, Arist. Eth. Nic. v. 10. 8, σκληρός. As to the neuter of the adjective taken as a substantive, see on Php 3:8; comp. Soph. O. C. 1127. It might also mean: your becoming behaviour; see e.g. the passages from Plato in Ast, Lex. I. p. 775. But how indefinite would be such a requirement as this! The general duty of the Christian walk (which Matthies finds in the words) is not set forth till Php 4:8. And in the N. T. ἐπιεικ. always occurs in the above-named special sense.

γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρ.] let it be known by all men, through the acquaintance of experience with your conduct. Comp. Matthew 5:16. The universality of the expression (which, moreover, is to be taken popularly: “let no man come to know you in a harsh, rigorous aspect”) prohibits our referring it to their relation to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others), or to the Judaists (Rheinwald), although none of these are excluded, and the motive for the exhortation is in part to be found in the outward circumstances full of tribulation, face to face with an inclination to moral pride.

The succession of exhortations without any outward link may be psychologically explained by the fact, that the disposition of Christian joyfulness must elevate men quite as much above strict insisting upon rights and claims as above solicitude (Php 4:6). Neither with the former nor with the latter could the Christian fundamental disposition of the χαίρειν ἐν κυρίῳ subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding love and casts all care upon God.

ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς] points to the nearness of Christ’s Parousia, 1 Corinthians 16:22. Comp. on ἐγγύς, Matthew 24:32 f.; Luke 21:31; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:10; Romans 13:11. The reference to God, by which Paul would bring home to their hearts, as Calvin expresses it, “divinae providentiae fiduciam” (comp. Psalm 34:18; Psalm 119:151; Psalm 145:18; so also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zanchius, Wolf, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, Cornelius Müller, and others), is not suggested in Php 4:1-2; Php 4:4 by the context, which, on the contrary, does not refer to God until Php 4:6. Usually and rightly, following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have been attached to what precedes.[183] If the Lord is at hand, who is coming as the Vindex of every injustice endured and as the σωτήρ of the faithful, how should they not, in this prospect of approaching victory and blessedness (Php 3:20), willingly and cheerfully renounce everything opposed to Christian ἐπιείκεια! The words therefore convey an encouragement to the latter. What follows has its complete reference, and that to God, pointed out by the antithesis ἀλλʼ ἐν παντὶ κ.τ.λ.

[183] They do not belong, by way of introduction, to what follows, as Hofmann thinks, who understands “the helpful nearness of the Lord” (Matthew 28:20; Jam 4:8) in the present, and consequently the assurance of being heard in the individual case. Comp., rather, on the ἐγγύς habitually used of the future final coming, in addition to the above passages, Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 21:8; Luke 21:28; Romans 13:12; Hebrews 10:25; Jam 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7; and the ἔρχομαι ταχύ of the Apocalypse. The simply correct rendering is given after Chrysostom by Erasmus (“instat enim adventus Christi”), Grotius, and others.

Php 4:6. The μεριμνᾶτε is not to be limited in an arbitrary way (as by Grotius, Flatt, Weiss, and others, to anxious care); about nothing (neither want, nor persecution, nor a threatening future, etc.) are they at all to give themselves concern, but on the contrary, etc.; μηδέν, which is emphatically prefixed, is the accusative of the object (1 Corinthians 7:32 ff; 1 Corinthians 12:25; Php 2:20). Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 12: τὸ πολλὰ μεριμνᾶν καὶ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν. Caring is here, as in Matthew 6, the contrast to full confidence in God. Comp. 1 Peter 5:7. “Curare et orare plus inter se pugnant quam aqua et ignis,” Bengel.

ἐν παντί] opposed to the μηδέν; hence: in every case or affair (comp. Ephesians 5:24; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:18; Plat. Euthyd. p. 301 A), not: at all times (Syriac, Grotius, Bos, Flatt, Rheinwald).

τῇ προσευχῇ κ. τῇ δεήσει] by prayer and supplication. On the distinction between the two (the former being general, the latter supplicating prayer), see on Ephesians 6:18. The article indicates the prayer, which ye make; and the repetition of the article, otherwise not required, puts forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kühner, II. 1, p. 529).

μετὰ εὐχαρ.] belongs to γνωριζ. κ.τ.λ., which, excluding all solicitude in the prayer, should never take place (comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:18; Colossians 3:17) without thanksgiving for the proofs of divine love already received and continually being experienced, of which the Christian is conscious under all circumstances (Romans 8:28). In the thanksgiving of the suppliant there is expressed entire surrender to God’s will, the very opposite of solicitude.

τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμ.] what ye desire (Plat. Rep. viii. p. 566 B; Dionys. Hal. Antt. vi. 74; Luke 23:24), that is, in accordance with the context: your petitions (1 John 5:15; Daniel 6:7; Daniel 6:13; Psalm 19:6; Psalm 36:4, et al.; Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 100).

γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τ. Θεόν] must be made known towards God; πρός, versus; it is the coram of the direction. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Is. iii. 25. The expression is more graphic than the mere dative would be; and the conception itself (γνωριζ.) is popularly anthropopathic; Matthew 6:8. Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks on the subject-matter: “qui desideria sua praepostero pudore ac diffidenti modestia … velant, suffocant ac retinent, curis anguntur; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expromunt, expediuntur. Confessionibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi.”

Php 4:7. The blessed result, which the compliance with Php 4:6 will have for the inner man. How independent is this blessing of the concrete granting or non-granting of what is prayed for!

ἡ εἰρήνη τ. Θεοῦ] the peace of soul produced by God (through the Holy Spirit; comp. χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, Romans 14:17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God’s counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and variance are excluded, such as it is expressed e.g. in Romans 8:18; Romans 8:28. So in substance most expositors, including Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer. This view—and not (in opposition to Theodoret and Pelagius) that explanation of peace in the sense of harmony with the brethren (Romans 15:33; Romans 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the correlative ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης in Php 4:9—is here required on the part of the context, both by the contrast of μεριμνᾶτε in Php 4:6, and by the predicate ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν. The latter, if applicable to the peace of harmony, would express too much and too general an idea; it is, on the other hand, admirably adapted to the holy peace of the soul which God produces, as contrasted with the μέριμνα, to which the feeble νοῦς by itself is liable; as, indeed, in the classical authors also (Plat. Rep. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere (Wis 3:3), εἰρήνη denotes the tranquillitas and securitas, the mental γαλήνη (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 A) and ἡσυχία—a rest, which here is invested by τοῦ Θεοῦ with the consecration of divine life. Comp. εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Colossians 3:15; John 14:27; and, on the other hand, the false εἰρήνη κ. ἀσφάλεια, 1 Thessalonians 5:3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Romans 5:1, as “pax, qua reconciliati estis Deo” (Erasmus, Paraphr.; so Chrysostom, ἡ καταλλαγὴ, ἡ ἀγάπη τ. Θεοῦ; and Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Estius, Wetstein, and others, including Storr, Matthies, and van Hengel), which would be too general and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is the presupposition of the divinely produced moral feeling which is here meant; the former is εἰρήνη πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, the latter εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν] which surpasses every reason, namely, in regard to its salutary power and efficacy; that is, which is able more than any reason to elevate above all solicitude, to comfort and to strengthen. Because the reason in its moral thinking, willing, and feeling is of itself too weak to confront the power of the σάρξ (Romans 7:23; Romans 7:25; Galatians 5:17), no reason is in a position to give this clear holy elevation and strength against the world and its afflictions. This can be effected by nothing but the agency of the divine peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing heart, when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving it has elevated itself to God and has confided to Him all its concerns, 1 Peter 5:7. Then, in virtue of this blessed peace, the heart experiences what it could not have experienced by means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. According to de Wette, the doubting and heart-disquieting νοῦς is meant, which is surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is based upon faith and feeling. In opposition to this, however, stands the πάντα, according to which not merely all doubting reason, but every reason is meant. No one, not even the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its action what he has through the peace of God. Others have explained it in the sense of the incomprehensibleness of the peace of God, “the greatness of which the understanding cannot even grasp” (Wiesinger). So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoelemann and Weiss. Comp. Ephesians 3:20. But the context, both in the foregoing μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε and in the φρουρήσει κ.τ.λ. which follows, points only to the blessed influence, in respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of reason whatever, and consequently is more efficacious than it. It is a ὑπερέχειν τῇ δυνάμει; Paul had no occasion to bring into prominence the incomprehensibleness of the εἰρήνη Θεοῦ.

On ὑπερέχειν with the accusative (usually with the genitive, Php 2:3), see Valckenaer, ad Eur. Hippol. 1365; Kühner, II. 1, p. 337.

φρουρήσει κ.τ.λ.] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact: ἀσφαλίσαιτο, Luther, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), but custodiet (Castalio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection against all injurious influences (comp. 1 Peter 1:5) is promised. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 560 B: οἱ … ἄριστοι φρουροί τε καὶ φύλακες ἐν ἀνδρῶν θεοφιλῶν εἰσὶ διανοίαις. Eur. Suppl. 902: ἐφρούρει (πολλοὺς) μηδὲν ἐξαμαρτάνειν. “Animat eos hac fiducia,” Erasmus, Annot. This protecting vigilance is more precisely defined by ἐν Χ. Ἰ., which expresses its specific character, so far as this peace of God is in Christ as the element of its nature and life, and therefore its influence, protecting and keeping men’s hearts, is not otherwise realized and carried out than in this its holy sphere of life, which is Christ. The φρουρά which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, as it were, the φρουραρχία (Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 17). Comp. Colossians 3:15, where the εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραβεύει in men’s hearts. Others consider ἐν Χ. Ἰ. as that which takes place on the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God would keep them, namely “in unity with Christ, in His divinely-blessed, holy life,” de Wette; or ὥστε μένειν καὶ μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτοῦ, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Matthies, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss. But the words do not affirm wherein watchful activity is to keep or preserve the readers (Paul does not write τηρήσει; comp. John 17:11), but wherein it will take place; therefore the inaccurate rendering per Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so far more correct. The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann (“Christo fere cinguli instar τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ. circumcludente,” etc.) is all the less warranted, the more familiar the idea ἐν Χριστῷ was to the apostle as representing the element in which the life and action, as Christian, move.

The pernicious influences themselves, the withholding and warding off of which are meant by φρουρήσει κ.τ.λ., are not to be arbitrarily limited, e.g. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to Satan (Beza, Grotius, and others), or sin (Theophylact), or pravas cogitationes (Calvin), or “omnes insultus et curas” (Bengel), and the like; but to be left quite general, comprehending all such special aspects. Erasmus well says (Paraphr.): “adversus omnia, quae hic possunt incidere formidanda.”

τὰς καρδ. ὑμ. κ. τὰ νοήμ. ὑμῶν] emphatically kept apart. It is enough to add Bengel’s note: “cor sedes cogitationum.” Comp. Roos, Fundam. psychol. ex sacr. script. III. § 6: “causa cogitationum interna eaque libera.” The heart is the organ of self-consciousness, and therefore the moral seat of the activity of thought and will. As to the νοήματα (2 Corinthians 3:14) as the internal products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore including purposes and plans (Plat. Polit. p. 260 D; 2 Corinthians 2:11), comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 59, and Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 179. The distinction is an arbitrary one, which applies τ. καρδ. to the emotions and will, and τ. νοήμ. to the intelligence (Beza, Calvin).

Php 4:8 f. A summary closing summons to a Christian mode of thought and (Php 4:9) action, compressing everything closely and succinctly into a few pregnant words, introduced by τὸ λοιπόν, with which Paul had already, at Php 3:1, wished to pass on to the conclusion. See on Php 3:1. This τὸ λοιπόν is not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the old expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in Php 3:1 (Hofmann), for in that passage it introduced quite a different summons; but, without any reference to Php 3:1, it conveys the transition of thought: “what over and above all the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is: everything that,” etc. According to de Wette, it is intended to bring out what remained for man to do, in addition to that which God does, Php 4:7. But in that case there must have been expressed, at least by ὑμεῖς before ἀδελφοί or in some other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be done on the part of man.

ὅσα] nothing being excepted, expressed asyndetically six times with the emphasis of an earnest ἐπιμονή. Comp. Php 2:1, Php 3:2; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398].

ἀληθῆ] The thoroughly ethical contents of the whole summons requires us to understand, not theoretical truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally true; that is, that which is in harmony with the objective standard of morality contained in the gospel. Chrysostom: ἡ ἀρετή· ψεῦδος δὲ ἡ κακία. Oecumenius: ἀληθὴ δέ φησι τὰ ἐνάρετα. Comp. also Theophylact. See 1 John 1:6; John 3:21; Ephesians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 5:8. To limit it to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself arbitrary, and not in keeping with the general character of the predicates which follow, in accordance with which we must not even understand specially unfeigned sincerity (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others; comp. Ephesians 4:21; Plat. Phil. p. 59 C: τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ὃ δὴ λέγομεν εἰλικρινές), though this essentially belongs to the morally true.

σεμνά] worthy of honour, for it is in accordance with God. Comp. 1 Timothy 2:2 : εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι. Plat. Soph. p. 249 A: σεμνὸν καὶ ἅγιον νοῦν. Xen. Oec. vi. 14: τὸ σεμνὸν ὄνομα τὸ καλόν τε κἀγαθόν. Dem. 385. 11; Herodian, i. 2. 6; Ael. V. H. ii. 13, viii. 36; Polyb. ix. 36. 6, xv. 22. 1, xxii. 6. 10.

δίκαια] upright, as it ought to be; not to be limited to the relations “erga alios” (Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the narrower sense would be meant (so Calvin: “ne quem laedamus, ne quem fraudemus;” Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others). Comp., on the contrary, Theogn. 147: ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ συλλήβδην πᾶσʼ ἀρετή ἐστι.

ἁγνά] pure, unstained, not: chaste in the narrower sense of the word (2 Corinthians 11:2; Dem. 1371. 22; Plut. Mor. p. 268 E, 438 C, et al.), as Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Heumann, and others would explain it. Calvin well says: “castimoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus.” Comp. 2 Corinthians 6:6; 2 Corinthians 7:11; 1 Timothy 5:22; Jam 3:17; 1 Peter 3:2; 1 John 3:3; often so used in Greek authors. Comp. Menand. in Clem. Strom, vii. p. 844: πᾶς ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ μηδὲν ἑαυτῷ κακὸν συνιδών.

προσφιλῆ] dear, that which is loved. This is just once more Christian morality, which, in its whole nature as the ethical καλόν, is worthy of love;[184] Plat. Rep. p. 444 E; Soph. El. 972: φιλεῖ γὰρ πρὸς τὰ χρηστὰ πᾶς ὁρᾶν. “Nihil est amabilius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligendum, Cic. Lael. 28. Comp. ad Famil. ix. 14; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 33. The opposite is the αἰσχρόν, which deserves hate (Romans 7:15). Chrysostom suggests the supplying τοῖς πιστοῖς κ. τῷ Θεῷ; Theodoret only τῷ Θεῷ. Others, as Calovius, Estius, Heinrichs, and many: “amabilia hominibus” But there is no necessity for any such supplement. The word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., although frequently in classical authors, and at Sir 4:8; Sir 20:13. Others understand kindliness, benevolence, friendliness, and the like. So Grotius; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “quaecumque ad alendam concordiam accommoda.” Linguistically faultless (Ecclus. l.c.; Herod, i. 125; Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x. 5. 6), but not in keeping with the context, which does not adduce any special virtues.

εὔφημα] not occurring elsewhere either in the N. T., or in the LXX., or Apocrypha; it does not mean: “quaecumque bonam famam conciliant” (Erasmus; comp. Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Heinrichs, and others, also Rheinwald); but: (Luther), which has an auspicious (faustum) sound, i.e. that which, when it is named, sounds significant of happiness, as, for instance, brave, honest, honourable, etc. The opposite would be: δύσφημα. Comp. Soph. Aj. 362; Eur. Iph. T. 687: εὔφημα φώνει. Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A: τὸ τῆς ᾠδῆς γένος εὔφημον ἡμῖν. Aesch. Suppl. 694, Agam. 1168; Polyb. xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, Prom. 3. Storr, who is followed by Flatt, renders it: “sermones, qui bene aliis precantur.” So used in later Greek authors (also Symmachus, Psalm 62:6); but this meaning is here too special.

εἴ τις κ.τ.λ.] comprehending all the points mentioned: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise; not if there be yet another, etc. (de Wette).

ἀρετή used by Paul here only, and in the rest of the N. T. only in 1 Peter 2:9, 2 Peter 1:3; 2 Peter 1:5,[185] in the ethical sense: moral aptitude in disposition and action (the opposite to it, κακία: Plat. Rep. 444 D, 445 C, 1, p. 348 C). Comp. from the Apocrypha, Wis 4:1; Wis 5:13, and frequent instances of its use in the books of Macc.

ἔπαινος] not: res laudabilis (Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, and many others; comp. Weiss), but praise (Erasmus: “laus virtutis comes”), which the reader could not understand in the apostle’s sense otherwise than of a laudatory judgment actually corresponding to the moral value of the object. Thus, for instance, Paul’s commendation of love in 1 Corinthians 13 is an ἔπαινος; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble, the peacemakers, the merciful, etc., or the like. “Vera laus uni virtuti debetur,” Cic. de orat. ii. 84. 342; virtue is καθʼ αὑτὴν ἐπαινετή, Plat. Def. p. 411 C. Mistaken, therefore, were such additions as ἐπιστήμης (D* E* F G) or disciplinae (Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius).

ταῦτα λογίζεσθε] consider these things, take them to heart, in order, (see Php 4:9) to determine your conduct accordingly. “Meditatio praecedit, deinde sequitur opus,” Calvin. On λογίζεσθαι, comp. Psalm 52:2; Jeremiah 26:3; Nahum 1:9; Psalm 35:4; Psalm 36:4; 3Ma 4:4; Soph. O. R. 461; Herod, viii. 53; Dem. 63, 12; Sturz, Lex. Xen. III. p. 42; the opposite: θνητὰ λογίζεσθαι, Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 3.

Php 4:9. The Christian morality, which Paul in Php 4:8 has commended to his readers by a series of predicates, he now again urges upon them in special reference to their relation to himself, their teacher and example, as that which they had also learned, etc. The first καί is therefore also, prefixing to the subsequent ταῦτα πράσσετε an element corresponding to this requirement, and imposing an obligation to its fulfilment. “Whatsoever also has been the object and purport of your instruction, etc., that do.” To take the four times repeated καί as a double as well … as also (Hofmann and others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of separation. Καί in the last three cases is the simple and, but so that the whole is to be looked upon as bipartite: “Duo priora verba ad doctrinam pertinent, reliqua duo ad exemplum” (Estius).

ἅ] not ὍΣΑ again; for no further categories of morality are to be given, but what they are bound to do generally is to be described under the point of view of what is known to the readers, as that which they also have learned, etc.

παρελάβετε] have accepted. Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:1; John 1:11; Polyb. xxxiii. 16. 9. The interpretation: “have received” (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most expositors, including Rheinwald, Rilliet, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Hofmann), which makes it denote the instruction communicated (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:9; Galatians 1:12; Colossians 2:6; comp. Plat. Theaet. p. 198 B: παραλαμβάνοντα δὲ μανθάνειν), would yield a twofold designation for the one element,[186] and on the other hand would omit the point of the assensus, which is so important as a motive; moreover, from a logical point of view, we should necessarily expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp. Galatians 1:12).

ἠκούσατε] does not refer to the proper preaching and teaching of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Elsner, Rheinwald, Matthies), which is already fully embraced in the two previous points; nor does it denote: “audistis de me absente” (Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Rilliet, Hofmann), for all the other points refer to the time of the apostle’s presence, and consequently not merely the “de me,” but also the “absente” would be purely imported. No, by the words ἠκούσατε and ΕἼΔΕΤΕ, to both of which ἐν ἐμοί belongs, he represents to his readers his own example of Christian morality, which he had given them when he was present, in its two portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him (ἐν ἑμοί, comp. Php 1:30) partly by hearing, in his whole oral behaviour and intercourse with them, partly by seeing, in his manner of action among them; or, in other words, his example both in word and deed.

ταῦτα πράσσετε] these things do, is not related to ταῦτα λογίζεσθε, Php 4:8, as excluding it, in such a way that for what is said in Php 4:8 the ΛΟΓΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ merely would be required, and for what is indicated in Php 4:9 the ΠΡΆΣΣΕΙΝ; on the contrary, the two operations, which in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses, are formally separated in accordance with the mode of expression of the parallelism. Comp. on Php 2:8 and Romans 10:10.

καὶ ὁ Θεός κ.τ.λ.] in substance the same promise as was given in Php 4:7. God, who works peace (that holy peace of soul, Php 4:7), will be with you, whereby is meant the help given through the Holy Spirit; and His special agency, which Paul here has in view, is unmistakeably indicated by the very predicate τῆς εἰρήνης.

[184] Luther well renders it: “lieblich,” and the Gothic: “liubaleik;” the Vulgate: “amabilia.”

[185] We are not entitled to assume (with Beza) as the reason why Paul does not use this word elsewhere, that it is “verbum nimium humile, si cum donis Spiritus Sancti comparetur.” The very passage before us shows the contrary, as it means no other than Christian morality. Certainly in Paul’s case, as with the N. T. authors generally and even Christ Himself, the specific designations of the idea of virtue, which correspond more closely to the sphere of theocratic O. T. ideas, such as δικαιοσύνη, ὑπακοή, ἁγιότης, ἁγιωσύνη, ὁσιότης, κ.τ.λ., too necessarily suggested themselves to his mind to allow him to use the general term for morality, ἀρετή, as familiar, however worthily and nobly the Platonic doctrine, in particular, had grasped the idea of it (εἰς ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ ὁμοιοῦσθαι Θεῷ, Plat. Rep. p. 613 A, 500 C, et al.).

[186] Real distinctions have, indeed, been made, hut how purely arbitrary they are! Thus Grotius (comp. Hammond) makes ἐμάθ. apply to the primam institutionem, and παρελάβ. to the exacliorcm doctrinam. Rilliet explains it differently, making the former denote: “son enseignement direct,” and the latter: “les instructions, qu’il leur a transmises sous une forme quelconque.”

REMARK.

It is to be noticed that the predicates in Php 4:8, ἀληθῆ … εὔφημα, do not denote different individual virtues, but that each represents the Christian moral character generally, so that in reality the same thing is described, but according to the various aspects which commended it. Comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 106: ἒν τὸ ἀγαθὸν πολλοῖς ὀνόμασι καλούμενον. Cic. de fin. iii. 4. 14: “una virtus unum, istud, quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, decorum.” That it is Christian morality which Paul has in view, is clearly evident from Php 4:9 and from the whole preceding context. Hence the passage cannot avail for placing the morality of the moral law of nature (Romans 2:14 f.) on an equality with the gospel field of duty, which has its specific definition and consecration—as also, for the reconciled whom it embraces, the assurance of the divine keeping (Php 4:7; Php 4:9)—in the revealed word (Php 4:9), and in the enlightening and ethically transforming power of the Spirit (comp. Romans 12:2).