In Hebrews 11:24 the apostle is actually quoting from the LXX of Exodus 2:11, where the Hebrew original uses

the same words that are found in Genesis 38:11. Moses' action is described as a `refusal' and a `choosing' because of

an `esteeming' and a `respecting'.

The refusal employs the word arneomai, generally translated `deny'. In Matthew 10:33 and in 2 Timothy 2:12,

the `refusing' or `denying' is the denying of the Lord by the believer with consequent loss of reward or crown. In

Acts 7:35 Stephen employs the self same word when he said that Israel `refused' Moses at the first time. It would

therefore appear by comparing the records of Acts 7, Exodus 2, and Hebrews 11, that the refusal or denial was

mutual. Moses was denied or refused by Israel. He would not deny nor refuse his Lord, but denied or refused the

offer of Egyptian greatness. Moses did not merely act negatively, he `chose'. It is very probable that the apostle

employs the figure known as paronomasia or rhyming words, arneomai being the Greek word translated `refuse'

and aireomai the Greek word translated `choose'.

Here, once again is a definite link with Philippians, the word being employed but once by the apostle elsewhere,

and that in Philippians 1:22, `what I shall choose I wot not', where the apostle's choice is most obviously parallel to

that made by Moses. We have already shown that the words `I more' of Philippians 3:4 translate the adverb mallon

`rather', and are not surprised to find the same word in Hebrews 11:25 `choosing rather'.

Moses `chose rather' to suffer affliction with the people of God, esteeming the reproach for Christ greater riches

than the treasures of Egypt. In this he acted as Paul did. In the sequel, we find the apostle placing over against all

the `gains' which he had as an Israelite and a Pharisee, the desire that he might know the fellowship of the sufferings

of Christ, and be made conformable unto His death. In both cases there is nothing morbid about such a choice, for

Hebrews 11 frankly tells us that Moses had respect unto the recompence of the reward, even though he chose to

suffer, and Philippians 3 tells us that Paul had the `out-resurrection' and `the prize' in view.

We return to the epistle to the Philippians with our understanding enlightened by this inspired commentary.

`Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for

Whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ' (Phil. 3:8).

In moments of ecstasy and excitement, high claims may be put forward which in calmer moments may call for

great modification. The apostle knew this, and in Galatians, after saying `But though we, or an angel from heaven,

preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed', repeated the

statement `as we said before, so say I now again' (Gal. 1:8,9).

So here in Philippians 3. What he had once said he now repeats. He changes the verb from the perfect to the

present, `I do count' and expands `what things ... those' into `all things'. The word `loss' zemia, occurs in but two

other passages in the New Testament namely, Acts 27:10 and 21, `damage', `loss', where the reference is to the

wreck of the ship by which Paul was brought on his journey to Rome. The experiences of that journey left a deep

impression upon the apostle's mind and provided him with imagery in preaching the truth which we are to discover

again when considering the eleventh verse. When he says `if by any means I might attain unto' (Phil. 3:11) he uses

the words with a true feeling of the hazard that must be run, for these very words occur in Acts 27 (verse 12), and

the consequent shipwreck was still vivid in the apostle's mind. The verb zemioo is found in a context parallel in

theme with that of Philippians, namely in Matthew 16:26 and in 1 Corinthians 3:15. Far better, said the apostle, to

suffer loss now, than to suffer loss when standing before the judgment seat of Christ. The word zemia is used by

Artaxerxes as recorded in the Septuagint, where we read :

`And whosoever shall not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon

him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment' (Ezra 7:26).

When writing to the Hebrews, the apostle included among the things which they had suffered for Christ's sake

`the spoiling' of their goods. This is but a variant of the `confiscation' of goods and provides yet one further link

with Philippians 2 and 3, for the verb `to spoil' used in Hebrews 10:34, harpage and the word `robbery' harpagmos

of Philippians 2:6, are both derived from the same word and establish another correspondence between the great

examples of Christ (Phil. 2) and that of the apostle (Phil. 3); the `robbery' of the first passage being intentionally

reflected in the `loss' of the second.