those who attain unto the out -resurrection.  While it is true that ano is an

adverb, it is not true that in Greek adverbs qualify verbs only, as can be

demonstrated by the use of this very word in Paul's writings.  `Jerusalem

which is above' (Gal. 4:26), uses ano to qualify the noun Jerusalem; `seek

those things which are above' uses the phrase ta -ano `the above things', so

Philippians 3:14 employs ano to qualify the noun `calling'.  Klesis is not a

verb and cannot be translated other than `a calling or vocation'.  It is used

eleven times in the New Testament  and ten of the occurrences are found in

Paul's epistles.  Ephesians 1:18; 4:1,4 and 2 Timothy 1:9 will indicate the

way the word is used by the apostle.

It was Sir Robert Anderson who said, that those who translated

Philippians 3:14 `the upward call', meaning a future `summons on high',

rarely complete the quotation.  Paul does not say `the prize of the high

calling of God', what he says is `the prize of the high calling of God which

is In Christ Jesus'.  The out -resurrection segregates the believer who has

obtained the prize, but is not itself the prize for which the apostle was

running.  When at the last he could say `finished', he then speaks not in

generic terms of a `prize' but in specific terms `a crown', which he also

associates with `reigning together' in the second chapter of the same epistle

(2 Tim. 2:12 and 4:8).

The majority of commentators see no difficulty in the accepted

translation of Philippians 3:15, `let us therefore, as many as be perfect',

or if they had any problem, the difficulty is left unexpressed.  Most take

the word `perfect' here to mean `mature' as contrasted with `babes' and

immature, and in other contexts this is quite true (Heb. 5:14).  If, however,

we look back to Philippians 3:12, where the apostle says of himself that he

was not already `perfect' or `mature', we shall have a difficulty in

accepting the usual rendering of verse 15.  If Paul was not then `perfect'

who among the Philippians or his readers down the ages could hope to be?

Further, it reflects upon the intelligence of the apostle to make him say in

verse 12 that he was not `mature' yet at verse 15 to continue his argument

with the word `therefore' and assume that nevertheless both he and others

were at the same time `mature' or `perfect'.

It is an axiom that requires no demonstration to prove that a thing

cannot both be, and not be, at one and the same time.  Conybeare and Howson

sense the difficulty saying `the translation in the A.V. of teteleiomai

(verse 12) and teleioi by the same word, makes Paul seem to contradict

himself' and their way out of the difficulty is to translate verse 15 by

`ripe in understanding'.  This, however, only conceals the difficulty from

the English reader.  Macknight is the only Commentator we have consulted who

senses the difficulty.  He translates Philippians 3:15, `As many, therefore,

as wish to be perfect'.  Hosoi oun teleioi contains no verb.  The `be' is

supplied in the A.V. to make sense.  If we must supply a verb, why not keep

the unity of the apostle's argument?  Why make him contradict himself within

the space of three verses?  Why accuse him of using a term in two different

meanings without the slightest warning to the reader?  `As many as would be',

or who `wish to be perfect', makes all clear and straightforward.  All who

would emulate the apostle's desire and eagerness, must emulate his `mind';

they must be `thus minded' and we have only to go back to the opening of the