1. Finally (76 Aoumev). Lit., for the rest. Frequent in Paul’s writings in introducing the conclusions of his letters. See 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 11, note. Evidently Paul was about to close his letter, when his thought was directed into another channel—the Judaizing teachers, and their at- tempts to undermine his influence.
Rejoice (ya/pere). See on 2 Cor. xiii. 11.
The same things. Itis doubtful what is referred to. Pos- sibly previous letters, or the dissensions in the Church.
Grievous (oxvnpdv). Only here, Matt. xxv. 26; Rom. xii. 11, in both instances rendered slothful. From éxvéw to delay. Hence, in classical Greek, shrinking, backward, unready. The idea of delay underlies the secondary sense, burdensome, trouble- some. It is the vexation arising from weary waiting, and which appears in the middle English irken to tire or to become tired, cognate with the Latin urgere to press, and English irh, irk- some, work.
*See a lively description in Kingsley’s * Hypatia,” ch, v.
Cu. III.] THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 443
2. Beware (@ndezere). Lit., look to. Compare Mark iv. 24; viii. 15; Luke xxi. 8.
Dogs. Rev., correctly, the dogs, referring to a well-known party—the Judaizers. These were nominally Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but as the Saviour of Israel only. They insisted that Christ’s kingdom could be entered only through the gate of Judaism. Only circumcised converts were fully accepted by God. They appeared quite early in the his- tory of the Church, and are those referred to in Acts xv. 1. Paul was the object of their special hatred and abuse. They challenged his birth, his authority, and his motives. ‘“‘ ‘ Paul must be destroyed,’ was as truly their watchword as the ery for the destruction of Carthage had been of old to the Roman senator ” (Stanley, “Sermons and Lectures on the Apostolic Age”). These are referred to in ch. i. 16; and the whole pas- sage in the present chapter, from ver. 3 to ver. 11, is worthy of study, being full of incidental hints lurking in single words, and not always apparent in our versions; hints which, while they illustrate the main point of the discussion, are also aimed at the assertions of the Judaizers. Dogs was a term of reproach among both Greeks and Jews. Homer uses it of both women and men, implying shamelessness in the one, and recklessness in the other. Thus Helen: “ Brother-in-law of me, a mischief- devising dog ” (“Iliad,” vi., 344). Teucer of Hector: “T can- not hit this raging dog” (‘“lIliad,” viii., 298). Dr. Thomson says of the dogs in oriental towns: “They lie about the streets in such numbers as to render it difficult and often dangerous to pick one’s way over and amongst them—a lean, hungry, and sinister brood. They have no owners, but upon some principle known only to themselves, they combine into gangs, each of which assumes jurisdiction over a particular street ; and they attack with the utmost ferocity all canine intruders into their territory. In those contests, and especially during the night, they keep up an incessant barking and howling, such as is rarely heard in any European city. The imprecations of David upon his enemies derive their significance, therefore, from this refer- ence to one of the most odious of oriental annoyances” (“ Land
A444. WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. IIL
and Book,” Central Palestine and Phoenicia, 593). See Ps. lix. 6; xxii. 16. Being unclean animals, dogs were used to de- note what was unholy or profane. So Matt. vii. 6; Apoc. xxii. 15. The Israelites are forbidden in Deuteronomy to bring the price of a dog into the house of God for any vow: Deut. xxiii. 18. The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated “dogs” by the Jews, see Matt. xv. 26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet.