Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Philippians 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3:1-3. A WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS
As for the rest, my brethren, whatever your trials, past, present, or future, continue to rejoice in the Lord. I am not backward about writing to you concerning a matter of which I have spoken in former letters, but I am moved by my anxiety for your safety to refer to it again. Beware of those dogs; those evil workers; those whose boasted circumcision is no better than a physical mutilation without any spiritual significance. It is we Christians who are the true ‘circumcision’; whose service is prompted by the Spirit of God; whose rejoicing is in Christ Jesus as the only source of true righteousness, and who do not trust the flesh.
It is claimed by many that Paul is here about to close the epistle, but that his attention is suddenly diverted, perhaps by some new reports of the doings of his Judaistic adversaries; and that he is thus drawn on to add to his letter what he had not originally intended. Nothing in the text warrants this conclusion. It is, of course, possible that fresh thoughts may have come to the apostle in the course of his writing; but, on the other hand, we are not forced to conclude that the main topics were not in his mind from the first. (See Introd. VII.)
1. τ λιό: ‘as to what remains.’ It may mean ‘finally,’ as 2Co_13:11; or ‘henceforth,’ as Mar_14:41; 1Co_7:29; Heb_10:13; 2Ti_4:8; or ‘for the rest,’ ‘besides,’ ‘as to what remains,’ as 1Th_4:1; 2Th_3:1. The formula is common with Paul in cases where he attaches, in a somewhat loose way, even in the midst of an epistle, a new subject to that which he has been discussing. In 1Th_4:1 two entire chapters follow the phrase, and here the special subject introduced by it is followed by several others. If Paul had been intending to close his letter, it is likely that he would have added his thanks for the Philippians’ remittance before he reached τ λιό. The formula therefore merely introduces what follows. The preceding topic is closed, and he passes to another.
Ellic., Ead., Lightf., render ‘finally,’ but as an introduction to what remains. ‘For the rest,’ Kl., De W., Lips., Weizs., Beet.
χίεεἐ κρῳ ‘rejoice in the Lord.’ (Comp. 1:18, 2:18, 4:4, 10.)
Not as Lightf., ‘farewell,’ for which there is no sufficient ground. In class. the word is used as a salutation both at meeting and parting; but it does not occur in N.T. in the sense of ‘farewell.’ 2Co_13:11 is more than doubtful.
The exhortation need not be specifically referred either to what precedes or to what follows. There has been a reason for encouraging them to rejoice in the face of their former trials, as there is a like reason in the prospect of coming trials of which he is about to speak. The summons to rejoice is general, in view of all trials, past, present, and future, as well as of the eternal consolations of the gospel.
ἐ κρῳ Comp. 1:14, 2:19, 24. The sphere or element of rejoicing.
Several of the older expositors found in ἐ κ a contrast of the joy in God with the bitterness of the cross (Calv.); or with all worldly things (Theo., Mop., 5. Lyra); or with works of the flesh and fleshly renown (Ans.); or with the Jewish errors treated in the following verses (Calov., Croc., Pisc.).
τ ατ γάεν The reference is probably to a former letter, or to former letters to the Philippians, which are lost. (See Lightf.’s excursus on “Lost Epistles to the Philippians,” Comm. p. 138.) This has been inferred from Polyc. ad Phil. iii. (Comp. 13., and see Lightf.’s Ignatius, iii. pp. 327, 348.) The question turns on Polyc.’s use of ἐιτλὶ whether it means one letter or several.
Lightf. decides for the single letter, and collects in his excursus a large number of passages to show the use of the plu. for ‘a letter.’ Mey. thinks that the plu. in Polyc. indicates several letters, and affirms that doctrinal epistles, both in N.T. and the Apost. Fath., are always described in the sing. where only one letter is intended, and in the plu. where several are meant. There can be no doubt that the plu. is used of a single letter in individual cases; but the question of usage is not definitely enough settled to warrant a decision.
Our conclusion rests rather on the antecedent probability of lost letters. Considering Paul’s connection with so many churches during at least twenty-five years, it is highly probable that he wrote more than thirteen letters, and some of them important. Intimations of such are found in 1Co_5:9; 2Co_10:10, 2Co_10:11; 2Th_2:15, 2Th_3:17. If what have come down to us are his only epistles, we must suppose that he wrote several letters within a short time, while at long intervals he wrote nothing. (See Jowett, Eps. of St. Paul, 3d ed. i. p. 107.) Lightf. refers τ ατ to matter in this epistle concerning divisions or dissensions in the Philippian church; but intimations to that effect in 1:27, 2:2, 3, 4, are too slight to warrant this inference. The reference is probably to the character and work of the Judaising Christians. To refer τ ατ to χίεε(Alf., Weiss) would be to make Paul say: ‘It is not irksome for me to write to you to rejoice, but it is safe for you.’
ὀνρν ‘irksome’; orig. ‘sluggish,’ ‘slothful.’ (See Mat_25:26; Rom_12:11.) Frequent in LXX, in Prov.
ὑῖ δ ἀφλς ‘and for you it is safe.’ Ἀφ primarily ‘steadfast,’ ‘stable’; thence ‘trustworthy’; a thing to be relied on as profitable. Not as Luth., Erasm., with an active meaning, ‘that which makes safe or confirms,’ which is contrary to usage.
2. βέεετὺ κνς ‘behold the dogs.’ Βέεε not ‘beware of,’ which would be βέ. ἀὸ but as 1Co_10:18. A caution, however, is implied, ‘look to’; ‘look out for.’ The article with κν indicates a well-known class. ‘Dog’ was a term of contempt and loathing with both Jews and Gentiles. The dog was an unclean animal according to the Levitical law. The price of a dog and the hire of a courtesan were placed in the same category, and an Israelite was forbidden to bring either into the house of God in fulfilment of a vow (Deu_23:18). Gentiles were termed ‘dogs’ by Jews (Mat_15:27). Comp. Rev_22:15, of those whose impurity excludes them from the heavenly city. In Hom. often of the audacious or shameless, especially women. The emphasis here is upon the impurity, the profane character of the false teachers contrasted with true Christians. There is no subordinate reference to shamelessness, greediness, snappishness, disorderly wandering or howling. So some earlier expositors, as Chr., Aug., Calov., Calv., Croc., etc.
τὺ κκὺ ἐγτς ‘the evil workers.’ The same persons regarded on the side of their activity and its moral quality; as proselytisers; as ‘huckstering’ (κπλύνε) the word of God (2Co_2:17); as opposing the doctrine of justification by faith. (Comp. Mat_23:15; 2Co_11:3, 2Co_11:13.)
τνκττμν ‘the concision.’ Not elsewhere in Bib. The word directs attention to the fact that these persons had no right to claim circumcision in the true sense. Unaccompanied by faith, love, and obedience, it was nothing more than physical mutilation. Thus they belonged in the category of those against whom the legal prohibition of mutilation was directed (Lev_21:5). Comp. Paul’s bitter sarcasm in Gal_5:12.
Reasons have been given for not identifying the persons characterised here with those referred to in 1:15-17. (See note on 1:15.) The reference here is to Judaising Christians. In view of their habit of keeping an eye on the Pauline churches and of introducing their emissaries into them, it is not likely that they had overlooked Philippi; and it is quite probable that Paul had previously found it necessary to warn the church against their designs. Some fresh intelligence of their operations may have prompted him to repeat those cautions.
Against the reference to Jews it may be said that Paul’s dealing with the Jews in 1Th_2:14-16 would lead us to expect something similar here if the parties had been Jews, since their proceedings against the Christians would probably have been marked by the open violence which they practised against the other Macedonian churches. Here Paul’s warning is directed at the misleading of his converts by false teaching, which was quite according to the Judaising method. Moreover his expressions here are similar to those in 2 Cor. and Gal. as respects the motive, object, and methods of these agitators, and the way in which he meets them. That the Judaisers were referred to in those epistles is not questioned. Their object was the overthrow of Paul’s form of Christian doctrine and the establishment of a Christianity in which the Mosaic law should continue in full force, especially in the matter of circumcision. The Messiah was regarded by them solely in his relation to the Jewish law. The attempt of Croc. to show that Paul here designates three classes,—κνς Libertine Christians or backsliders to Judaism; κκ ἐγ those who would combine Christianity with Gentile wisdom or Jewish superstition; κττ unbelieving Jews,—is one of the curiosities of exegesis. Weiss also thinks that three classes are intended: κν heathen; κκ ἐγ those mentioned in 1:15; κττ Jews.
3. ἡεςγρἐμνἡπρτμ: ‘for we are the circumcision.’ I call them κττμ, and not πρτμ, for it is we who are the πρτμ. The contemptuous κττμ suggests the first point of contrast between the Judaisers and the true Israel of God. The abstract πρτμ, ‘circumcision,’ stands for the concrete, ‘the circumcised.’ (See Rom_4:9; Gal_2:9; Eph_2:11, and the phrase ο ἐ πρτμς Act_10:45, Act_11:2.) We are the true circumcision as compared with them, for their circumcision is only outward, in the flesh, while the true circumcision is that of the heart. (See Rom_2:25-29; Eph_2:11; Col_2:11; comp. Lev_26:41; Deu_10:16, 30:6; Jer_6:10, Jer_6:9:25, Jer_6:26; Eze_44:7. See also Just. M. Dial. Tr. xii., xix., xliii.)
For this claim three reasons are given:
(1) ο πεμτ θο λτεοτς ‘who serve by the spirit of God.’ A.V. ‘who worship God in the Spirit’ follows TR, which reads θῷfor θο.
πεμτ: Instrumental dat. (See Rom_8:14; Gal_5:5, Gal_5:18.) Who serve under the impulse and direction of the divine Spirit. (Comp. Rom_2:29.)
λτεοτς The verb originally means ‘to serve for hire,’ then simply ‘to serve.’ In N.T. both of ritual service, as Heb_8:5, Heb_9:9, Heb_10:2, Heb_13:10, and of worship or service generally, as Luk_1:74; Rom_1:9. Especially of the service rendered to God by Israelites as his peculiar people, as Act_26:7; λτεα Rom_9:4; Heb_9:1, Heb_9:6. In LXX always of the service of God or of heathen divinities. A Jew would be scandalised by the application of this term to Christian service. It is purposely chosen with reference to ἡπρτμ.
(2) κὶκυώεο ἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦ ‘and boast in Christ Jesus.’ κυώεο: See Rom_2:17; 1Co_1:31; 2Co_10:17; Gal_6:14.
ἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦ As the only source of true righteousness compared with the legal observance of the Jew.
(3) κὶοκἐ σρὶππιόε: ‘and do not trust in the flesh.’ Not the same conception as the preceding (so Chr., Theoph., Calv., De W.), nor is it a more precise definition, to express the purport of κυ. (Weiss). It indicates and repudiates the disposition out of which the false boasting of the Judaiser proceeds. For ππι., see 1:14.
ἐ σρὶ Comp. 2Co_11:18; Gal_6:13, Gal_6:14. Σρ is the human nature without the divine Spirit; the state of man before or in contrast with his reception of the divine element whereby he becomes a new creature; the whole being of man as it exists and acts apart from the influence of the Spirit. It properly characterises, therefore, not merely the lower forms of sensual gratification, but all,—the highest developments of the life estranged from God, whether physical, intellectual, or æ So here it covers legal observances, circumcision, descent, ritual strictness, as they exist without the spirit of loyalty to God. (See W. St. on Rom_7:5.)
In illustration of the statement that Christians have no confidence in the flesh, he adduces his own case, showing what exceptional ancestral and ecclesiastical advantages as a Jew he renounced for Christ’s sake.
4-7. If any man may think himself warranted in trusting in the flesh, it is myself. For I was circumcised when eight days old, as a genuine Israelite. I was not a proselyte, but of direct Israelitish descent. I belonged to the honored tribe of Benjamin. I was a child of Hebrew ancestors who spoke the Hebrew tongue. As a member of the sect of the Pharisees, I was a strict legalist. I was zealous for my religion, even to the extent of persecuting Christians, and I was blameless in my legal righteousness. But all these advantages I counted as a loss, and renounced them for Christ’s sake.
4. κίε ἐὼἔω ππίηι κὶἐ σρί ‘although having myself confidence in the flesh also.’ It might be urged that Paul, in his conversion from Judaism, had renounced and contemned that which he did not himself possess, and of which he did not know the value. He anticipates this by saying that he has renounced advantages which he possessed in an eminent degree, and the value of which no one knew better than himself. This is not urged as an attack upon the Judaisers, but only to show that he had already possessed all that upon which the Jews especially prided themselves. He puts himself for the moment at the Jewish point of view. If the true ground of confidence is the flesh, he has stronger ground than even his Judaising adversaries. (Comp. 2Co_11:21 ff.) The apparent awkwardness of construction is owing to the quick transition from the plu. ππιόε to a similar participial construction in the singular (ἔω). The ἐὼof vs. 4 really lies in the ἐμνof vs. 3, since Paul reckons himself among the ἡες He is separated by ἐὼ The sentence proceeds from κίε ἐὼ as if the previous clause had been, ‘I have no confidence in the flesh.’
κίε: Only here in Paul, and, as usual, with the participle. (Comp. Heb_5:8, Heb_7:5, Heb_12:17.) It may be correctly rendered ‘although’ if it is remembered that that sense lies in the participle and not in κίε, which literally means ‘even very much.’
ἔω: Not to be rendered ‘I might have,’ as A.V. and R.V., a translation which grew out of the fear of the older interpreters of seeming to commit Paul to a declaration of his confidence in the flesh. Paul actually possessed these advantages, and, from the Jewish point of view, declares that he had confidence in them.
ππίηι: ‘confidence’ or ‘ground of confidence.’ The noun only in Paul. For the phrase ππί. ἔ., comp. 2Co_3:4.
κὶ In the flesh ‘also.’ As well as in Christ.
Not only have I ground of confidence, but I have more than they.
ε τςδκῖἄλςππιέα ἐ σρί ‘If any one is disposed to think that he has ground of confidence in the flesh.’ The indefinite ε τςis not introduced for the sake of policy, or in a conciliatory way, as if Paul were avoiding reference to any particular case, since this assumes a polemic bearing of the words. Nor does δκῖimply that the advantage was only apparent (Chrys., Theoph.), or that they had only arrogated it to themselves (Thdrt.); for Paul uses δκῖ of himself. He merely says that he possessed advantages on which any Jew might have congratulated himself.
Δκῖmay be rendered ‘seems’; so Vulg. videtur; comp. 1Co_12:22; 2Co_10:9; Gal_2:9; or ‘thinks,’ as 1Co_3:18, 1Co_8:2, 1Co_10:12. The latter is Paul’s more common usage. So here, ‘if any one is disposed to think.’ (Comp. Mat_3:9; 1Co_11:16.)
ἐὼμλο: Supply δκ ππιέα ἐ σρί ‘I think that I have reason for confidence in the flesh in a higher degree than they.’
The grounds of this last, general statement are now given in the enumeration of Paul’s advantages as a Jew, beginning with his inherited privileges. First is circumcision, the main point in a Jew’s eyes, and that by which the whole nation was named.
5. πρτμ ὀτήεο: ‘eight days old in circumcision.’ Ὀτήεο not elsewhere in Bib. It denotes here not interval, but duration. ‘I was eight days old when circumcised.’ For the idiom, ‘an eight-day one,’ comp. ττραο, Joh_11:39; δυεαο, Act_28:13; and see Wetst. on Joh_11:39 for a long list of class. parallels. The dative is the dat. of reference. (See 2:7; 1Co_14:20, etc.; Win. xxxi. 6.) Paul was circumcised on the eighth day as a genuine Israelite (Gen_17:12; Lev_12:3). An Ishmaelite was circumcised in his thirteenth year (Gen_17:25).
He was not a proselyte, but of direct Israelitish descent: ἐ γνυ Ἰρή, ‘of the race of Israel.’ (Comp. Rom_11:1.) He was descended from the patriarch Jacob, whose name of honor, bestowed by God himself (Gen_32:28), was the sacred name of the Jews as God’s covenant people (Rom_9:4; 2Co_11:22; Eph_2:12), and was therefore the Jews’ especial badge and title of honor. Their descent from Abraham they shared with the Ishmaelites; their descent from Abraham and Isaac, with the Edomites. The Israelite claimed descent from the patriarch, not as Jacob ‘the supplanter,’ but as Israel, ‘wrestler with God.’ (See Hos_12:3, Hos_12:4.) Ἰρή is the appositive genit., and is the name of the race (γνς as Gal_1:14; 2Co_11:26.
φλςΒναεν Comp. Rom_11:1. Benjamin was the son of the beloved wife of Jacob (Gen_35:17, Gen_35:18). The tribe of Benjamin gave Israel its first king (1Sa_9:1, 1Sa_9:2). The tribe was alone faithful to Judah at the separation under Rehoboam (1 K. 12:21). After the return from exile, it formed with Judah the kernel of the new colony in Palestine (Ezr_4:1). The tribe always held the post of honor in the army. Hence the battle-cry, ‘After thee Benjamin!’ (Jud_1:5:14; Hos_5:8). Of the twelve patriarchs, Benjamin only was born in the Land of Promise. The great national deliverance commemorated in the feast of Purim was due to Mordecai, a Benjamite. Paul’s own name, Saul, was probably from the son of Kish, the Benjamite king.
But Paul’s descent was not only from the choice race and tribe, but from parents of the pure Hebrew stock. There is a climax.
Ἑρῖςἐ Ἑρίν ‘a Hebrew sprung from Hebrews.’ (Comp. 2Co_11:22.) The Greek Ἑρῖς(Lat. Hebraeus) comes through the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine (Hebrāā Greek and Roman writers, however, rarely used it instead of Ἰυαο (Judaeus) which prevailed after the exile. In the O.T. ‘Hebrew’ was used habitually and consistently to denote the descendants of Abraham as designated by foreigners, or as applied by the Hebrews themselves when addressing foreigners, or when speaking of themselves in contrast with other nations. The name by which the Hebrew nation habitually called itself was ‘Israel’ or ‘the Children of Israel.’ In the N.T. Ἐρῖςappears in Act_6:1, where the native Palestinian Jewish-Christians are distinguished from the Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews. This distinction marks a difference of language. The O.T. does not know the word ‘Hebrew’ with reference to language. The old Hebrew is called ‘the language of Canaan’ (Isa_19:18), indicating the close relationship of this Semitic tongue with that of the Canaanites, especially the Phœ In the Apocr. and N.T. the term ‘Hebrew’ is used almost exclusively of the Aramaic vernacular. (See Joh_5:2, Joh_5:19:13, Joh_5:17, Joh_5:20; Act_21:40, Act_22:2, Act_26:14.) Here the term expresses the difference of language. Though a Hellenist, Paul was trained in the use of the Hebrew tongue by Hebrew-speaking parents. Though born outside of the Holy Land, yet as a child of Hebrew ancestors, and ‘the son of Pharisees’ (Act_23:6), in speech and habits of life he remained allied to the people of Palestine. He might have been an Israelite and not a Hebrew speaker; but he emphasises the fact that he was both a true Israelite and one who used the language of his forefathers. He was trained under a Hebrew teacher at Jerusalem (Act_22:3); he spoke Hebrew, i.e. Aramaic (Act_21:40, Act_22:2); and he quotes often from the Hebrew Scriptures. (See Riehm. Handw. des bibl. Alterthums, sub “Eber” and “Hebrä”; Trench, Syn. xxxix.)
Similar expressions, denoting position or character as resting upon birth from parents of like position and character, are common in class. (See Aristoph. Ran. 730; Soph. Elect. 589; Philoc. 384; Eur. Alc. 677; Hdt. ii. 143, etc.)
These four specifications of inherited privilege are summed up by Paul in Gal_2:15. Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, remarks that a man trained under such influences must, on every side, have been repelled by the spectacle of the cross of Jesus. He was required to accept him precisely at the point where his national characteristics were assailed (pp. 36, 37).
He now passes to advantages of a distinctly personal character, relating to his theological and ecclesiastical position.
κτ νμνΦρσῖς ‘as touching the law a Pharisee.’ (Comp. Act_22:3, Act_23:6, Act_26:5.)
νμν The Mosaic law, the standing authority of which was the principle on which the Judaisers insisted. This is confirmed by θηκα, Act_26:5; by the allusions here to concision and circumcision, and also by the fact that in all the words connected with νμνin vs. 5, there is an immediate reference to the Jewish race and ideas. Moreover, δκις τ ἐ νμ corresponds with similar phrases in Rom. and Gal. where the Mosaic law is contemplated, as Gal_3:11, Gal_3:12. It was the righteousness of the Mosaic system which Paul had abandoned for Christ.
These considerations do not seem to favor Lightf.’s explanation, “the Mosaic law regarded in the abstract as a principle of action, being coö with ζλςand δκισνν”
No sharp distinction can be fixed between νμ and ὁνμ It is unquestionable that νμ is used of the Mosaic law as well as ὁνμ If Paul sometimes uses νμ in a wider sense,—of law considered as a principle, with the stress upon the conception of law itself, rather than upon its historical and outward form,—the Mosaic law is habitually in the background of his thought as the great embodiment and representative of the conception.
Φρσῖς Belonging to the party of the most orthodox defenders, observers, and expounders of the law. There may be a subtle irony in these words. Paul never ceased to reverence the law itself as the expression of God’s holiness (Rom_2:13, Rom_2:20, Rom_2:3:31, Rom_2:7:7, Rom_2:12, Rom_2:14, etc.); but the Pharisees’ treatment of the law struck at its original dignity, since they made it void by the oral tradition with which they overlaid it. (See Mat_15:2, Mat_15:3, Mat_15:6; Mar_7:3, Mar_7:5, Mar_7:8, Mar_7:9, Mar_7:13; and comp. Jos. Antiq. xiii. 10, 6.) Paul then may mean, ‘I kept the law with Pharisaic strictness, practically dishonoring it; observing the traditions rather than the law itself.’ From this point of view comp. Gal_1:14.
6. κτ ζλςδώω τνἐκηίν Ironical. ‘I was so very zealous that I became a persecutor of the church of Christ.’ Zeal for God, for his house, and for his law, was the highest praise of an O.T. saint. (See Num_25:11, Num_25:13; Num_1 K. 19:10, 14; Psa_69 [68]:9. Comp. Act_21:20, Act_21:22:3; Rom_10:2.) Thdrt. comments: ο γρδὰτνφλτμα, οδ δὰδξνκνν οδ φόῳβλόεο, ὡ Ἰυαω ἄχνε, ἀλ τ ὑὲ τῦνμυφεόεο ζλ, τνἐκηίνἐοθῦ.—“Not because of ambition nor for empty renown, neither being smitten with envy like the rulers of the Jews, but being inflamed with zeal for the law, I persecuted the church.”
δώω: Used adjectively, parallel with ἄεπο. Not as a substantive, as Mey., Weiss, Lips., which occurs with the article (Win. xlv. 7).
δκισνντνἐ νμ: ‘righteousness which is in the law.’ Δκ is used abstractly, and then concretely defined by τ ἐ νμ ‘As regards righteousness—I mean that which is in the law’: which resides in the righteous law and consists in its strict observance. Δκισν is used here in its objective sense of conformity to an external rule of righteousness. The righteousness is in (ἐ) the law, not in the man: in the man only as he conforms to the law. It is not regarded as an inward righteousness like the righteousness of faith. Comp. ἐ νμυ(vs. 9), where the righteousness is treated as proceeding from the law. The reference need not be confined to the ceremonial law, for the law is a whole (Gal_3:10).
γνμνς ‘having become’: in the course of my pursuit of legal righteousness.
ἄεπο: See on 2:15. Not absolutely blameless, according to God’s standard, but in human judgment. (Comp. Gal_1:14.)
On Holsten’s attempt to impugn the authenticity of the epistle by endeavoring to show in this statement a contradiction of Paul’s teaching elsewhere that man is unable perfectly to keep the law, see Introd. 6. The blamelessness here asserted is according to human, Pharisaic standards.
7. ἀλ ἅιαἦ μικρη ‘but such things as were gains to me.’
ἅια instead of the simple ἃ because of κρη ‘things which were of such a kind that they could be called κρη’ It presents a category of the things specified in vs. 5, 6. See for this usage Gal_4:24, Gal_4:5:19; Php_2:20; Col_2:23.
μι dative of advantage; not of judgment, ‘in my estimation.’
κρη ‘gains,’ taken separately; the profits of descent, of legal strictness, of zeal, etc., each attended with its own particular gain.
τῦα defining and emphasising κρη
ἥηα: ‘I have counted’: with deliberate judgment. (See on 2:6.)
ζμα: ‘a loss.’ The several gains are massed in one loss. The word only in this epistle and Act_27:10, Act_27:21. See farther on ἐηιθν(vs. 8).
From his former experience he now turns to his present Christian ideal and his efforts to attain it.
8-14. Since the hour of my conversion my estimate of the worthlessness of my legal righteousness and its profits has not changed. I continue to count them all but loss as compared with the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. To me they are mere refuse, if I can but make Christ my own and may be found living in him, not having a righteousness of my own, which is of the law, but rather a righteousness which proceeds from God, which is based upon faith, and which becomes mine through faith in Christ: a righteousness which means such intimate and practical knowledge of Christ as that his risen life shall be a power in my life, and his sufferings shall be mine, even unto death; and that so, at last, if this may be, I may be raised from the dead as he was. I speak of my desire, not of my attainment, for I have not yet realised my ideal; but I am pressing on toward the attainment and fulfilment of that which Christ contemplated in my conversion. No, I have not yet attained; but one thing I do. Not encouraged to self-satisfaction or relaxation of effort by what is past, I stretch forward, like a racer to the goal, toward that high destiny to which God in Christ is ever summoning me from heaven.
8. ἀλ μνῦγ κὶἡομι ‘nay then I am indeed also counting.’
BDFGKL read μνον μνυγ אAP, 17, 37.
Μνconfirms ἡομι and ον strengthened by γ, recurs to ἥηα and carries it forward, thus guarding against a possible misunderstanding of the last statement. ‘Nay then, if my ἥηα be thought to have been a mere impulsive act of breaking with the past,—I am, in truth, also counting all things as loss for Christ’s sake.’ His break with legal righteousness perpetuates itself. For μνῦγ see Rom_9:20, Rom_10:18.
Πναcorresponds with ἅια(vs. 7): all things which formed the ground of my false confidence.
δὰτ ὑεέο τςγώεςΧιτῦἸσῦτῦκρο μυ ‘for the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.’ This expands δὰτνΧιτν thus defining more clearly the motive of ἥηα ζμα. The ἥηα was caused by an overpowering impression of Christ; the ἡομιby the knowledge of Christ. The ὃ in the next clause gathers additional force from γώες Τ ὑ. τ γώ. is not a hendiadys, ‘the excellent knowledge,’ as Vulg. ‘eminentem scientiam.’ The neuter participle with the article is more graphic than the noun ὑεοή (See Blass, p. 151.) On substantivised neuters see Win. xxxiv. 2, and comp. Rom_2:4, Rom_2:8:3, Rom_2:9:22; 1Co_1:25; Heb_6:17. Γῶι is used in its original, simple sense, as Rom_2:20; 1Co_1:5, 1Co_8:1. Not in the later, philosophic sense.
τῦκρο μυ κρο adds emphasis to τνΧιτν(vs. 7). For μυ with its sense of personal appropriation, comp. 1:3. The knowledge is surpassing because its subject is Lord, to be confessed and worshipped by the created universe (2:11). Christ, as the subject of this knowledge, is regarded with reference to all that he is or becomes to a believer. So Croc.: “Complectitur personam, officium et beneficium, quae separari non possunt.”
The designations of Christ in the Epistles of the Captivity resemble those in the earlier letters. Ἰσῦ alone occurs only in Eph_4:21; Php_2:10. Χιτςand ὁΧ. are very frequent. The title κρο added to the personal name occurs chiefly in the beginnings of the epistles, as Eph_1:2; Phm_1:3; Php_1:2; but Christ is commonly styled κρο or ὁκρο simply, especially in the formula ἐ κρῳ In Phil. ὁκρ ἡ. Ἰ is not found. In Philem., which contains nearly all the formulas, the simple Χό occurs only in vs. 6.
τ πνα collectively. (Comp. Rom_8:32, Rom_8:11:36; 1Co_8:6.) Accusative of reference. ‘I became loser in respect of all things.’
ἐηιθν ‘I became loser.’ The verb means ‘to fine,’ ‘to amerce,’ ‘to mulct,’ and is to be taken in its passive sense; not as middle or reflexive, ‘I have made myself lose,’ which is contrary to N.T. usage. (See Mat_16:26; Luk_9:25; 1Co_3:15; 2Co_7:9; LXX Exo_21:22; Exo_19:19, Pro_22:3.) The middle sense would ascribe ἐη. as an act to Paul himself, whereas the thought is that, having been grasped and possessed by Christ, his former possessions fell away. The aorist points to the definite period of his conversion. In that great crisis all his legal possessions were lost.
κὶἡομι continuous present. (See above.) It may be regarded as dependent on δʼὃ (Mey., Ellic., Lightf.), or as a new point, and parallel with ἡομ πν ζμ (Weiss). The latter seems a little simpler, ἐη. having its motive in δʼὃ, and ἵακρ. being the motive of ἡομ σύ., thus contrasting the gain with what he threw away as worthless. On the other explanation, ἵακρ. adds a motive to δʼὃ.
σύαα ‘refuse.’ Only here in N.T. (Comp. LXX; Sir. 27:4.) Belonging wholly to later Gk., as Plut., Jos. The derivation cannot be certainly shown. Suidas says κσβλν i.e. τ τῖ κσ βλόεο, ‘that which is thrown to the dogs.’ More probably connected with σώ, ‘stercus.’ (See Curtius, Gk. Etym. i. 167 [Eng.].) It signifies either ‘excrement’ or ‘the leavings of the table.’ A strong expression from the man who could write Gal_1:14. Some of the patristic interpreters were embarrassed by this passage because the apparent disparagement of the law was seized upon by Antinomians, and used in their own interest. Hence they tried to modify Paul’s meaning by referring it to the comparative value of the law. The law was a light, but unnecessary after the sun had arisen. It was a ladder, useful to mount by, but useless after one had mounted. On the same line σύααwas explained by the chaff, which is part of the ripening corn, but is thrown away in the threshing. (See Chr.)
Χιτνκρήω Appropriate Christ and make him his own, with all of grace and glory that attaches to him. Paul’s earnestness is shown in his reiteration: κρη ζμα, ἐηιθν πνα Χιτν etc.
He proceeds to show what is involved in winning Christ.
9. κὶερθ ἐ ατ: For ερθ, see on 2:7. Often in the passive in the sense of ‘to be seen, discovered, or proved to be.’ (See Act_5:39; Rom_7:10; 1Co_4:2; 2Co_11:12; Gal_2:17.) Here pointing to the recognition by others of Paul’s union with Christ. (Comp. Ign. Eph. xi.; Trall. xiii.) By some commentators it is referred to the last day, either wholly or in part (see Lightf.:); but the entire line of thought refers to union with Christ in this life. The final result appears in vs. 11. Calv. wrongly makes ερθ active, and explains that Paul had renounced all that he had in order that he might find it in Christ.
ἐ ατ: See on ἐ Χιτ Ἰσῦ(1:1). The same idea appears in 1:21; Gal_2:20: the state of identification with Christ’s life as the principle of salvation; the immanence of that principle in the human life. Comp. also Joh_14:20, Joh_14:15:2, Joh_14:4, Joh_14:5, Joh_14:7, Joh_14:17:21, Joh_14:23. “The Christian,” says Weiss, “exercises all the functions of his life in Christ. In him, or in fellowship with him, are rooted trust (Php_2:19, Php_2:24), joy (Php_3:1, Php_3:4:4, Php_3:10), boldness (Phm_1:8), Christian refreshment (Phm_1:20). In him one speaks (Eph_4:17); executes his ministry (