Php_4:12. Paul now specifies this his
αὐτάρκεια
(in Plat. Def. p. 412 B, termed
τελειότης
κτήσεως
ἀγαθῶν
).
οἶδα
] I understand how (1Th_4:4; Col_4:6; 1Ti_3:5; Mat_7:11; Soph. Aj. 666 f.; Anth. Pal. vii. 440. 5 ff.);[190] result of the
ἔμαθον
.
καὶ
ταπειν
]. also to be abased, namely, by want, distress, and other allotted circumstances which place the person affected by them in the condition of abasement. Paul understands this, inasmuch as he knows how to bear himself in the right attitude to such allotted circumstances, namely, in such a way that, independently thereof, he finds his sufficiency in himself, and does not seek it in that which he lacks. We find a commentary on this in 2Co_4:8; 2Co_6:9-10.
οἶδα
καὶ
περισσεύειν
is to be understood analogously, of the right attitude to the matter, so that one is not led away by abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter instead of in himself. Pelagius well says: “ut nec abundantia extollar, nec frangar inopia.”
The first
καί
adds to the general
ἘΝ
ΟἿς
ΕἸΜΙ
the special statement on the one side, to which thereupon the second “also” adds the counterpart. The contrast, however, is less adequate here than subsequently in
περισσεύειν
καὶ
ὑστερεῖσθαι
, for
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟῦΣΘΑΙ
is a more comprehensive idea than the counterpart of
περισσεύειν
, and also contains a figurative conception. Some such expression as
ὑψοῦσθαι
would have been adequate as the contrast of
ΤΑΠΕΙΝ
. (Mat_23:12; 2Co_11:7; Php_2:8-9; Polyb. v. 26. 12). There is a lively versatility of conception, from not perceiving which some have given to this
ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ
(to have a superfluity) the explanation excellere (Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to
ταπειν
. the meaning to be poor, to be in pitiful plight,
ὀλίγοις
κεχρῆσθαι
, Theophylact (Estius and others; comp. also Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Rheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hofmann), which even the LXX., Lev_25:39, does not justify.
In what follows,
ἘΝ
ΠΑΝΤῚ
Κ
.
ἘΝ
ΠᾶΣΙ
is not to be regarded as belonging to
ΤΑΠΕΙΝΟῦΣΘΑΙ
and
ΠΕΡΙΣΣΕΎΕΙΝ
(Hofmann), but is to be joined with
ΜΕΜΎΗΜΑΙ
. We are dissuaded from the former connection by the very repetition of the
ΟἾΔΑ
; and the latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which rests upon
ἘΝ
ΠΑΝΤῚ
Κ
.
ἘΝ
ΠᾶΣΙ
heading the last clause, as also by the correlative
ΠΆΝΤΑ
at the head of Php_4:13. Further, no comma is to be placed after
μεμυήμαι
, nor is
ἘΝ
ΠΑΝΤῚ
…
ΜΕΜΥΉΜΑΙ
to be explained as meaning: “into everything I am initiated,” and then
καὶ
χορτάζεσθαι
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. as elucidating the notion of “everything”: “cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate et fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiaritatem, ut rationem teneam iis bene utendi,” van Hengel; comp. de Wette, Rilliet, Wiesinger; so also, on the whole, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many others, but with different interpretations of
παντί
and
ΠᾶΣΙΝ
. This view is at variance with the fact, that
ΜΥΕῖΣΘΑΙ
has that into which one is initiated expressed not by means of
ἐν
, but—and that most usually—in the accusative (Herod, ii. 51; Plat. Gorg. p. 497 C, Symp. p. 209 E; Aristoph. Plut. 845 (
ἐμμυεῖσθαι
); Lucian, Philop. 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11), or genitive (Heliod. i. 17; Herodian, i. 13. 16); hence
πᾶν
κ
.
πάντα
, or
ΠΑΝΤῚ
Κ
.
ΠᾶΣΙΝ
, or
ΠΑΝΤῸς
Κ
.
ΠΆΝΤΩΝ
must have been written (in 3Ma_2:30 it has
ΚΑΤΆ
with the accusative). No; Paul says that in everything and in all, that is, under every relation that may occur and in all circumstances, he is initiated into, that is, made completely familiar with, as well the being satisfied as the being hungry, as well the having superfluity as want; in all situations, without exception, he quite understands how to assume and maintain the right attitude to these different experiences, which in Php_4:11 he characterizes by the words
αὐτάρκης
εἶναι
.
Ἐν
παντὶ
κ
.
ἐν
πᾶσι
is accordingly to be taken after the analogy of
ἘΝ
ΟἿς
ΕἸΜΙ
, Php_4:11, and therefore as neuter. It was purely arbitrary to render
ἐν
παντί
: ubique (Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others), or to refer it to time (Chrysostom, Grotius), or to time and place (Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, also Matthies). Luther and Bengel explain
παντί
correctly as neuter, but make
ΠᾶΣΙΝ
(as in 2Co_11:6) masculine (Bengel: “respectu omnium hominum”). It is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words; and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which only indicates the total absence of any exception (comp. analogous expressions in Lobeck, Paral, p. 56 ff.), there is no occasion for artificial explanation.
In German we say: in Allem und Jedem [in all and each], Comp. on
ἐν
πᾶσι
on Col_1:18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes
ἘΝ
ΠΑΝΤῚ
Κ
.
ἘΝ
ΠᾶΣΙ
denote everything that is a necessary of life (in detail and in whole). In that case certainly the contrast of
χορτάζ
. and
ΠΕΙΝᾶΝ
is unsuitable!
ΜΕΜΎΗΜΑΙ
] the proper word for the various grades of initiation into the mysteries (Casaubon, Exerc. Baron, p. 390 ff.; Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 38 ff.) is here used in a figurative sense, like initiatum esse, of a special, unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar acquaintance with something. See Munthe, Obss. p. 383; Jacobs, ad Anthol. III. p. 488. The opposite is
ἀμύητος
.
The climax should here be noticed,
ἜΜΑΘΟΝ
…
ΟἾΔΑ
…
ΜΕΜΎΗΜΑΙ
. Php_4:13 places beyond doubt to whom the apostle owes this lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circumstances. As to the later form
ΠΕΙΝᾶΝ
instead of
ΠΕΙΝῆΝ
, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 61; Jacobs, ad Ael. II. p. 261.
[190] It is the moral understanding, having its seat in the character. Comp. Ameis, Anh. z. Hom.Od. ix. 189.