of English, `I wot' connected with `to wit', `wist', as in Exodus 2:4, `to wit what would be done', and Mark 9:6, `he

wist not what to say'. So we find `to wot' translating the Hebrew yada `to know' six times, and the Greek oida three

times. In these instances the meaning is clear, it simply means `to know' or `to know not'. The word translated `I

wot' however in Philippians 1:22 is, as we have said, the Greek word gnorizo and is employed by Paul eleven times

in the three great Prison Epistles. It should therefore be comparatively easy to arrive at the meaning of the word.

Here are the occurrences :

`Having made known unto us the mystery of His will' (Eph. 1:9).

`By revelation He made known unto me the mystery' (Eph. 3:3).

`Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men' (Eph. 3:5).

`Unto the principalities ... might be known by the church' (Eph. 3:10).

`That I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery' (Eph. 6:19).

`Tychicus ... shall make known to you all things' (Eph. 6:21).

`Let your requests be made known unto God' (Phil. 4:6).

`To whom God would make known what is the riches' (Col. 1:27).

`All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you' (Col. 4:7).

`They shall make known unto you all things' (Col. 4:9).

Any ambiguity in Ephesians 3:10 is removed by the Revised Version, which reads `might be made known'.

The one other use of the word in Philippians itself shows that it means to make known. Elsewhere in the

Authorized Version this word is rendered `certify' once, `declare' four times, `do to wit' once, `give to understand'

once and `wot' once.

It is evident therefore that Paul said in Philippians 1:22 `What I shall choose, I DO NOT MAKE KNOWN'.

These words in the mouth of any honest speaker mean that he did know himself but for certain reasons, stated or

implied, he did not `tell'. This rendering is the one found in Dr. Bullinger's Critical Lexicon, `Wot ... gnorizo, to

make known, declare, reveal'.

We have disposed of the fallacy of reasoning, and the false interpretations that have obscured the meaning of the

passage, but we have more awaiting us. We have to examine the meaning of the words `strait', `betwixt' and

`depart', for each of these words has had meanings attached to them which they will not bear.

Following on the assumption that Paul did not know what to choose is the suggestion that `he was pressed out of

the two, by reason of a third', and this `third thing' was nothing less than the return of the Lord, which naturally

would have been `far better' than either living or dying.

Let us look at this word which some would translate `I am pressed OUT'. We notice that Wordsworth in his

commentary says `yea, I am held together by the two - as in his body he was held at this time a prisoner between

two soldiers, to whom he was bound by two chains'. Here, then, is an interpretation that is diametrically opposite to

the preceding one. One authority says `pressed out' the other says `held together by'. It is evident that something

has been misunderstood somewhere.

Alford suggests in his commentary that Paul's meaning can be expressed in the words, `but I am perplexed by the

two'. By `the two' Alford means `which have been mentioned, viz., to zen and to apothanein (to live and to die), not

which follow'.

Here we find different authorities holding opposite opinions. One says the words sunecho ek means that Paul

was `pressed out', another says that he was `held together'. One says Paul referred back to living or dying, another

says he looked forward `to the return of the Lord'. We must therefore either despair of arriving at the apostle's

meaning, or make yet a further attempt by personal investigation to arrive at a just conclusion.