Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Philippians 3:1 - 4:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Warning against Judaistic teachers and wicked deceivers
Php_3:1 to Php_4:1
1. The disposition of these teachers in contrast with that of the Apostle
(Php_3:1-16)
(1) The Apostle warns his readers against the disposition of these false teachers, especially their pride (Php_3:2-7); points out plainly the opposition between righteousness which is of the law and that which is of faith (Php_3:8-11); declares with humility that he is yet striving after perfection (Php_3:12-14), and concludes by exhorting them to unity (Php_3:15-16).
Php_3:2. Beware of [the] dogs, beware of [the] evil-workers, beware of [the] concision. ÂëÝðåôå , followed as here by a direct accusative, strictly means ‘behold,’ ‘fix your eye upon;’ and so in 1Co_10:18; 1Co_1:26. See Winer’s Gram., p. 223. The proper Greek for ‘beware of, would require ἀðü With the genit. after âëÝðåôå (Mar_8:15; Mar_12:38). The one sense here involves the other; videte et cavebitis (Bengel). The threefold repetition marks the Apostle’s earnestness and the importance of the warning (Winer’s Gram., p. 609), while it corresponds gradatione retrograda (Bengel) to the three clauses (Php_3:3) which describe only a single class of teachers, and hence not three different kinds of false teachers (Van Hengel). The first substantive ( ôïὺò êýíáò ) was a term of reproach with heathen and Jews, and implies ‘impudence, shamelessness’ (in Mat_15:26, ôïῖò êõíáñßïéò , less severe); among the Jews it ( êýíáò ) implied also uncleanness (Mat_7:6; Rev_22:15), and among the heathen that of ferocity and malevolence. It is most natural to retain here the biblical idea, viz., profane, impure, shameless, thereby indicating the moral character of the teachers in question. Hence it is not to be understood of mere shamelessness (Chrysostom), or this together with covetousness (Grotius), or ferocity or violence (Rilliet), and least of all a special class: homines a Christi professione ad Judæorum superstitionem reversi, imitatores canum ad vomitum suum redeuntium (Van Hengel). Ôïὺò êáêïὺò ἐñãÜôáò designates their activity, not as ðïíçñüí , evil to others, but as evil in itself, unprofitable, injurious (comp. äüëéïé ἐñãÜôáé , 2Co_11:13). See the contrast in 2Ti_2:15. Van Hengel is incorrect: qui se a Christo quidem non avertunt, sed superstitione illa divinam corrumpunt doctrinam. Ôὴí êáôáôïìÞí , paranomasia nam gloriosam appellationem ðåñéôïìῆò vindicat Christianis Php_3:3, êáôáôὲìíá de concisione vetita, Lev_21:5; Leviticus 1 Reg. Lev_18:28; non sine indignatione loquitur (Bengel). See Winer’s Gram., p. 638. The language here states the result of their activity; with their circumcision they effect only an outward mutilation. This ironical and sarcastic paranomasia (found often in Paul as well as in Luther) marks only the quality, not the quantity (Baur), of the circumcision, and is to be taken passively in its concrete sense, i.e., the mutilated, not the mutilators. The reference is not to idolatry (Beza, et al.), or to a separation of faith from the heart (Luther), a sundering of the church (Calvin, et al.), and still less to a class of teachers: Judæi, fiduciam suam in carnis circumcisione potentes atque ita ad Christum venire nolentes, sed illum contemnentes et spernentes (Van Hengel). It is certain that they were Judaists, as in Galatia, and were active at Philippi, and though they had no success and no adherents at Philippi, yet were dangerous opponents of Paul’s view of Christianity. The severity of the Apostle’s language contrasts strongly with his joy and friendliness with reference to the Philippians, but was justified by the fact that a spiritual field so fair and hopeful was threatened and endangered by such disturbers. The condition itself of the church furnished a reason for his sharpness against them. The contrast in Php_3:3 sheds further light on this point.
Php_3:3. For we are the circumcision ( ἡìåῖò ãÜñ ἐóìåí ἡ ðåñéôïìÞ ). Causa, cur, Php_3:2, alios tam longe secludat (Bengel). [Paul justifies here ( ãÜñ ) his refusing to recognize the Judaists as the advocates of true circumcision. They are destitute of the marks of those who answer to that character. They substitute an outward form for the spirit of true worship, and rely upon their own works for acceptance, instead of the righteousness offered to them in the gospel; whereas the circumcision that God accepts is that of the heart and not of the letter (Rom_2:29), and is the seal or evidence of the justification which man obtains by faith and not by deeds of the law (Rom_4:11 sq.). Christians fulfilled both of these requisitions for obtaining the favor of God, and hence they also were entitled to be called the circumcision.—H.] Ἡìåῖò precedes with emphasis. The Apostle means himself and his beloved church, which was composed for the most part of Gentiles. Hence ἡ ðåñéôïìÞ is to be understood in the purely spiritual sense, that is, Christians who have received circumcision of the heart (Col_2:11; Rom_2:25-29). Comp. 1Co_7:19; Gal_3:28; Gal_5:6; Gal_6:15.—These are further characterized: who worship in the Spirit of God ( ïἱ ðíåýìáôé èåïῦ ëáôñåýïíôåò ). The verb is used absolutely, as Heb_9:9; Heb_10:2; Act_26:1; Luk_2:31, of the worship of God which the instrumental dative defines more fully as spiritual, and the genit. èåïῦ refers to the Holy Spirit in opposition to the human spirit. It is contrasted with the óÜñî in its moral sense. Comp. Joh_4:23-24; Heb_9:14; Gal_3:3; Rom_12:1 ( ôὴí ëïãéêὴí ëáôñåßáí ). Hence the dative does not designate the rule (Van Hengel). Winer’s Gram., p. 216. Comp. 1Co_9:7.—And rejoice [glory] in Christ Jesus ( êáὶ êáõ÷þìåíïé ἐí ×ñéóôῷ Ἰçóïῦ ). For the form of expression see Rom_2:17; Rom_5:11; 1Co_1:31; 1Co_3:21; 2Co_10:17. They are here contrasted with the êáêïὶ ἐñãÜôáé .—And have no confidence in the flesh ( êáὶ ïὐê ἐí óáñêὶ ðåðïéèüôåò ) denotes their moral position as ï pposed to the êýíáò , the impure, insolent, while that which precedes marks their religious sphere. Ïὐê implies a direct negative: qui non confisi sunt, whereas ìÞ would have made it hypothetical (si non confisi sunt). See Winer’s Gram., p. 485.
Php_3:4. Although I might have (more strictly am having = have) confidence also in the flesh. Êáßðåñ is restrictive here only in Paul, more frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb_5:8; Heb_7:8; Heb_12:17). Ἐãþ singled out from ἡìåῖò , Php_3:3 (the truly circumcised whether outwardly or not), places the Apostle, who is a Jew as the false teachers were (Php_3:2), not one of the heathen as was the greater part of the Philippian Church, in contrast with these teachers, as having confidence in the flesh ( ἔ÷ùí ðåðïßèçóéí ἐí óáñêß ) de jure, not de facto. His actual confidence is based not upon the flesh, upon outward advantages, but upon Christ (hence êáß before ἐí óáñêß i.e., also in it as well as Him), though not without his reasons for that other confidence and a right to it. Hence the participle does not denote the past (Van Hengel), nor is it to be resolved into ‘could have’ (Schenkel), nor is ðåðïßèçóéò merely argumentum fiduciæ (Beza, Calvin, et al.). In óáñêß special reference is made to circumcision. [This rite is named because it was the watchword, as it were, of those who, in their system of salvation, exalted good works above the merits of Christ (see Gal.) —H.]—If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more, introduces a comparison between Paul’s condition and that of the others. Ἐé ôéò ἄëëïò is entirely general, leaving his readers to apply it to the Judaists. Äïêåῖ denotes the subjective, arbitrary judgment, as in Gal_6:3; 1Co_3:18; 1Co_8:2. No appeal can be made to Gal_2:6; Gal_2:9 (Schenkel), for there the meaning is ‘to be found such by others, to have that repute.’ ÐåðïéèÝíáé ἐí óáñêß denotes the actual ðåðïéèçóéí ἔ÷åéí , contained in the perf. With ἐãὼ ìᾶëëïí we are to supply äùêῶ ðåðïéèÝíáé ἐí óáñêß ; comp. 2Co_11:23.
Php_3:5. Now follow the specifications which justify this claim. His first advantage is: Circumcised the eighth day ( ðåñéôïìῇ ὀêôáÞìåñïò ). The dative (not nominative, as if the abstract were used for circumcisus (Bengel), which is true only in the collective sense) denotes the respect in which (Eph_2:3 : ôÝêíá öýóåé ὀñãῆò ). Winer’s Gram., p. 215. The adjective designates Paul in contrast with proselytes, as a Jew by birth, who had been circumcised on the eighth day, according to the law (Gen_17:12; Lev_12:3).—In censum nunc venit splendor natalium (Van Hengel), the second advantage: Of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews ( ἐê ãÝíïõò ἸóñáÞë , öõëῆò Âåíéáìßí , Ἑâñáῖïò ἐê Ἑâñáßùí ). These all belong together according to the sense and the construction, for the preposition is not repeated before öõëῆò . As Schenkel well remarks: The theocratic full-blood (Rom_11:1; 2Co_11:22) is contrasted with the Idumean half-blood. Comp. Eph_2:12. The tribe of Benjamin enjoyed and conferred a distinction, because unlike the Ephraimites it had remained faithful to the theocracy. Besides this his Jewish extraction ( åὐãÝíåéá ) was also perfect: his mother also was a Jew, and not a foreigner. It is incorrect to understand this of Hebrew-speaking parents (the Greek interpreters), which the context does not support, or of a tota majorum series ex Ebræis (Grotius), which would be unnecessary if he sprung from the people of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin.—The third advantage: As touching the law a Pharisee. ÊáôÜ denotes the reference, as ôὰ êáô ’ ἐìÝ (Eph_6:21). Winer’s Gram., p. 401. Comp. Act_22:3; Act_26:5. His religious position, his relation to the law, is marked as strict, rigorous; for the Pharisees observed it conscientiously and scrupulously. Íüìïò is not = áἴñåóéò , disciplina, èåóìïß (Grotius and others).
Php_3:6. The fourth advantage: Concerning zeal, persecuting the Church ( êáôὰ æÞëïò äéþêùí ôὴí ἐêêëçóßáí ) describes his moral conduct in the relations above mentioned. The participle is to be taken substantively as ïἱ æçôïῦíôåò in Mat_2:20. It is not equivalent to äéþîáò (Grotius). That which is the greatest sin of the Apostle’s life, in his own estimation (1Co_15:8-9; 1Ti_1:13-16), he reckons by a sort of irony in this controversy with the Judaizers, as a glory to himself.—The fifth advantage: Touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless ( êáôὰ äéêáéïóýíçí ôὴí ἐí íüìῳ ãåíüìåíïò ἄìåìðôïò ) presents the moral result. The righteousness referred to here (as the result of his conduct) is that which rests in the law, is based upon and determined by it; hence essentially that which is ἐê íüìïõ (Php_3:9), and not ‘righteousness under or in the condition of law’ (De Wette). In this respect he is ‘blameless’ ( ἄìåìðôïò ) according to men’s judgment (communi hominum existimatione, Calvin). It does not fully embrace Paul’s meaning to say: se nihil fecisse, quod morte aut verberibus castigandum esset (Grotius). Ãåíüìåíïò , put for emphasis before the adjective, signifies ‘becoming, striving himself to be,’ upon which, as the context teaches, he places value in the presence of God, but only when he opposes the carnal pride of these false teachers. To find here an obvious, though weak and lifeless imitation of 2Co_11:18-27, and to call this passage tame and without interest (Baur), indicates a perverted taste (Meyer).
Php_3:7. But what things were gain to me, presents forcibly Paul’s own position in contrast with ( ἀëëÜ ) that of these teachers. In ἅôéíá , quæcunque, which is emphatic as the following ôáῦôá shows, are included the preceding privileges and others of the same class.—These formerly ἦí ìïé êÝñäç , were actually gains, as the verb, emphatic by position, indicates. By ìïß Paul means himself, as when he was Saul of Tarsus, and there is no need of weakening the sense by taking the pronoun ( ìïß ) as the dative of judgment (Erasmus, et al.) The plural êåñäÞ is used ob rerum varietatem, but there is no reason for supplying non vera lucra, sed opinata (Van Hengel) which is no more implied in the plural than in ìïß , since ἧí precedes.—These [have] I counted loss for Christ ( ôáῦôá ἥãçìáé äéὰ ôὸí ×ñéóôὸí æçìßáí ). The perfect, after the emphatic ôáῦôá , denotes an actio præterita, quæ per effectus suos durat, and implies the inward decision which has resulted in action. It does not refer to the act in itself, but to the act as a result of conscious freedom. Hence it is not abjeci, repudiari (Van Hengel), which Php_2:3 does not confirm. Both the collocation and the signification of the words are to be observed. As to the order, we notice that äéὰ ôὸí ×ñéóôüí stands between ἥãçìáé and æçìßáí : Christ must first be known, then the ôáῦôá are esteemed æçìßá . With respect to the words we remark the following: (1) that with the accusative äéÜ marks the reason (Winer’s. Gram., p. 398); (2) that ôὸí ×ñéóôüí denotes the well known, historical Christ, and (3) that æçìßáí calls to mind Act_27:10 ( ðïëëῆò æçìßáò ïὐ ìüíïí ôïῦ öïñôßïõ êáὶ ôïῦ ðëïßïõ , ἀëëὰ êáὶ ôῶí øõ÷ῶí ἡìῶí ), and Php_3:21, where reference is made to what had been thrown into the sea. Hence it is jactura, after the figure of a merchant who throws his êÝñäç overboard, as æçìßáí , in order to save his life. The various kinds of gain ( êÝñäç ) are esteemed as one loss of life, so far as these ( ôáῦôá ) separate and keep one away from Christ.
Php_3:8. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things loss. ἈëëÜ contrasts the present ( ἡãïῦìáé ) with the perfect ( ἥãçìáé ). Mev rem præesentem confirmat, ïὐ ̄ í conclusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficit, (so also Meyer) and êáß connects the present with the preceding perfect. Winer’s Gram., p. 442. [The stricter translation according to this view, is: ‘But therefore also I count,’ etc. The present ( ἡãïῦìáé ) reaffirms his former judgment: He has still the same view of the worthlessness of all reliance on outward forms and privileges.—H]. The contrast does not lie in ðÜíôá (Rilliet), for this only embraces the ἅôéíá in its widest scope.—The reason why he thus holds all things to be ‘loss’ ( æçìßáí åἶíáé ) the subsequent clause unfolds: For the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ( äéὰ ôὸ ὑðåñÝ÷ïí ôῆò ãíþóåùò ×ñéóôïῦ Ἰçóïῦ ôïῦ êõñßïõ ìïõ ). The explanation which belongs to äéὰ ôὸí ×ñéóôὸí does not lie in the relation defined by the preposition (that being simply repeated), but in that with whom it effects the relation. The substantive participle ( ôὸ ὑðåñÝ÷ïí ) designates in comparison with those gains ( êÝñäç ) one of far surpassing value, which results from a knowledge ( ôῆò ãíþóåùò ) of the Redeemer both in His Person ( ×ñéóôïῦ Ἰçóïῦ ) and in His relation to each individual ( ôïῦ êõñßïõ ìïῦ ). Calvin wrongly takes it ad exprimendam affectus vehementiam.—For whom I have suffered the loss of all things. [It is the aorist in Greek, ‘suffered,’ which refers to the definite epoch in Paul’s life when he experienced the change in his views and relations which he here describes.—H]. In äé ʼ ὅí he returns again to the person of Christ, on which, after all, everything depends, not on the subjective knowledge. Ôὰ ðÜíôá , where the article recalls ðÜíôá just mentioned, is the limiting accusative after the passive ἐæçìéþèçí , which states a result consequent on this altered view of his character and wants. Luther incorrectly renders it: ‘I have counted loss;’ and Van Hengel: cujus causa factum est, ut me illis privarem omnibus.—But the Apostle has not merely endured this passively, for he adds: And do count them refuse that I may win Christ. Êáὶ ἡãïῦìáé indicates his activity, conviction, knowledge, the ground of which is still for whom ( äé ʼ ὅí ). Óêýâáëá (from êõóὶ âáëåῖí ) åἶíáé marks the absolute worthlessness more strongly than æçìßáí åἶíáé which concedes a relative value: æçìßá , jactura fit æquo animo, óêýâáëá properi abjiciuntur, posthac neque tactu, neque adspectu dignanda. (Bengel). [Another derivation is that from óêῶñ , óêáôüò , ‘dung,’ ‘filth,’ which some good etymologists adopt, though the other is generally preferred.—H]. The aim and purpose of such a judgment is ἵíá ×ñéóôὸí êåñäÞóù , that I may gain Christ, who replaces all losses.—The future does not exclude present possession, but yet implies a fuller appropriation, which the present does not satisfy. ×ñéóôüí is stronger than simply Christi favorem (Grotius).
Php_3:9 attaches itself closely to that which precedes.—And may be found in him, êáὶ åὑñåèῶ ἐí áὐôῷ . Bengel well observes: qui omnia, ne se ipso quidem excepto, amittit, Christum lucrifacit et in Christo lucrifit; Christus est illius et ille est Christi. Plus ultra loquitur, Paulus quasi adhuc non lucrifecerit. It is incorrect to take the objective gaining of Christ. ( ἰíá êåñäÞóù ) placed emphatically after the subjective, i.e., the being found ( åὑñçèῶ ) opposed to ἡãïῦìáé , as equivalent to sim, (Grotius) or to restrict it to judicum dei (Beza). How he will be found is stated in what follows.—Not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law. ÌÞ is used with ἔ÷ùí in the first place, because it belongs to a final clause, but also because it expresses a judgment concerning Paul: ‘as one who does not have.’ See Winer’s Gram., p. 482 sq. Van Hengel incorrectly joins it closely with åὑñÝèù : ut deprehendar in ejus communione non meam qualemcunque habere probitatem, while Rheinwald and others explain it as ‘holding fast.’ It is habens as a specific modal-limitation of åὑñÝèù ἐí áὐôῶ .— Ἐìὴí äéêáéïóýíçí ôὴí ἐê íüìïõ describes the righteousness ( äéêáéïóýíçí ) under two aspects: first, ἐìÞí , emphatic by position, corresponding to ôὴí ἱäßáí äéêáéïóýíçí (Rom_10:3) ‘his own,’ ‘self-acquired,’ to which is opposed ἡ ἐê èåïῦ or ἡ ôïῦ èåïῦ (Rom_10:3); secondly, ôὴí ἐê íüìïõ with reference to the medium, as in like manner äßêáéïò ἐê ðßóôåùò (Rom_3:26) and answering to ôὴí äéὰ ðßóôåùò (comp. Rom_3:21-22; Rom_3:26; Rom_4:5; Rom_9:32; Rom_10:3; Rom_10:5-6).—Hence he at once adds to the latter the opposite characteristic. But that which is through the faith of Christ, ἀëëὰ ôὴí äéὰ ðßóôåùò ×ñéóôïῦ . Here righteousness (i.e., of faith) is described as the causa apprehendens or means of securing the benefits of Christ’s work.—But for the sake of completeness he now adds still under the antithetic ἀëëÜ : The righteousness which is of God upon faith ( ôὴí ἐê èåïῦ äéêáéïóüíçí ἐðὶ ôῆ ðßóôåé ). It is not a righteousness proceeding from the subject, but from God (causa efficiens), which rests on faith as its basis. The article ôῇ renders the gen. objecti ( ×ñéóôïῦ or åἰò ×ñéóôüí ), and the article ôÞí before ἐðὶ ôῇ ðßóôåé unnecessary, because this limitation is immanent in the conception as the faith-righteousness. Winer’s Gram. p. 135. Meyer incorrectly connects this clause ( ôὴí ἐê èåïῦ , etc.) with ἔ÷ùí , and Schenkel, with åὐñÝèù ἐí áὐôῷ . So remote a connection is itself against both views. We reject also the following: In fide (Vulg.), per fidem(Grotius), propter fidem (De Wette), conditione hujus ipsius fidei posita (Van Hengel).
Php_3:10. That I may know him ( ôïῦ ãíῶíáé áὐôüí ). This knowing of Christ is what the righteousness of faith proposes, without which such knowing is impossible, in the possession of which therefore he would be found, that he may be able to know Christ. In like manner in Rom_6:6, one clause with ἵíá is joined to another with ôïῦ and the infinitive. Thus the process of the knowledge of Christ (Php_3:8) is given. Calvin, Bengel, and others, join this clause incorrectly with ἐðὶ ôῇ ðßóôåé . The excellence of this knowledge lies first of all in its object, the person of the Lord, a practical, experimental acquaintance with Him. What follows áὐôüí is epexegetical.—And the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings ( êáὶ ôὴí äýíáìéí ôῆò ἀíáóôÜóåùò áὐôïῦ êáὶ ôὴí êïéíùíßáí ôῶí ðáèçìÜôùí áὐôïῦ ). The first denotes the vis et efficacia which the resurrection of Christ has upon those who know Him, which they experience when they embrace by faith the resurrection of the Lord; whereby God declared Him to be the author of justification and righteousness to all and every one who believes, (Rom_4:25; Rom_8:11; 1Co_15:17; 2Co_2:14; 2Co_4:10-11; Col_3:1-2). Hence the new life, the striving for that which is above, the conversation in heaven (Php_3:20), spring up in and with the righteousness of faith. Hence ἀíÜóôáóéò is not to be regarded as exortus (Bengel); or äýíáìéò to be understood as the power which effects the resurrection (Grotius); nor is reference had to the certainty of our resurrection and exaltation (Hölemann, et al.) The other expression, ôὴí êïéíùíßáí ôῶí ðáèçìÜôùí áὐôïῦ , indicates a participation in the sufferings of Christ, a óõìðÜó ̣ ÷åéí (Rom_7:17. See Gal_2:20 : ×ñéóôῷ óõíåóôáýñùìáé ; 2Ti_2:11) a suffering for Christ’s sake and in fellowship with Him. Thus suffering alone does not lead to glory as dying does not save or make us blessed. With Him! But as there is no resurrection without death, so also is there none without suffering (Wiesinger). Hence this thought, which logically should come first, takes the second place, emphatically intimating that the second is something not to be overlooked if one desires the first. The reference is not merely to a similar disposition in suffering (Van Hengel), or to an appropriation by faith of the merit of Christ, (Calov), nor is it to be explained as if it were written ôὴí äýíáìéí ôῆò êïéíùíßáò (Hölemann), These two things, the power of the resurrection of Christ and the fellowship of His sufferings, are objects of the knowledge which only the righteous by faith possess. Hence such knowledge transcends all other advantages (Php_3:8).—Being conformed unto his death, óõììïñöéæüìåíïò ôῷ èáíÜ ôῳ áὐôïῦ . The nominative with ôïῦ ãíῶíáé , without its relation to the subject being more closely defined is unusual. It would properly be the accusative of the subject, but is a constructio ad sensum, as if it had been ἵíá ãíῶ . Comp. Joh_8:54; and for the opposite construction Act_27:10. Winer’s Gram., p. 572; see on Eph_4:2. The present participle points to an incipient present accomplishment, which the verb shows to be outwardly similar to the death of Christ. Paul had been exposed in the cause of the gospel more immediately to a violent death, at the hands of the heathen in league with the Jews; he might at length die a martyr’s death. It is not therefore to be carried forward beyond the nearer clause, to which it actually belongs, to one more remote, which has its own limitations; nor does it denote a condition yet to be attained, or an inward ethical relation of likeness to the death of the sinless Redeemer (Schenkel).
Php_3:11. If by any means or perchance, åἴ ðùò , si forte, denotes a hope which naturally connects itself with what has been said of the power of the resurrection of Christ, of fellowship with His sufferings, and of the Apostle’s, own impending death by martyrdom. The problematical form of the expression shows his humility in view of the glory which is the object of this hope. We are not to suppose any hesitation, or doubt, but only the exclusion of moral certainty.—I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. ÊáôáíôÞóù as in Act_26:7. Åἰò ôὴí ἐîáíÜóôáóéí ôὴí ἐê íåêñῶí is simply the resurrection of the righteous to blessedness. The first preposition in the substantive ἐîáíÜóôáóéò , found only here, (the verb ἐîáíáóôῆóáí in Mar_12:19; Luk_20:28; Act_15:5), points to the place whence the dead come forth ( ἐê ôῆò ãῆò ). Bengel hypercritically refers ἐîáíÜóôáóéò to the resurrection of Christians, and ἀíÜóôáóéò to Christ’s resurrection. Our passage gives no support to the distinction between a first and second resurrection. Comp. 1Co_15:23; 1Th_4:16. [“The general resurrection of the dead,” says Prof. Lightfoot, “whether good or bad, is ἡ ἀíÜóôáóéò ôῶí íåêñῶí (e.g, 1Co_15:42); on the other hand, the resurrection of Christ and of those who rise with Christ, is generally [ ἡ ] ἀíÜóôáóéò [ ἡ ] ἐê íåêñῶí (Luk_20:35; Act_4:2; 1Pe_1:3); the former includes both the ἀíÜóôáóéò æùῆò and the ἀíÜóôáóéò êñßóåùò (Joh_5:29); the latter is confined to the ἀíÜóôáóéò æùῆò .” To infer that the righteous only are to be raised at the last day would contradict the express declaration of Christ in Joh_5:26-29; and of Paul in Act_24:14; Act_24:16.—H]. Van Hengel’s view is singular: si forte perveniam ad tempus hujus eventi, hence: live to the time when the dead shall rise.
Php_3:12. Not that I have already attained [laid hold of] or am already [or have become] perfect. Ïὐ÷ ὅôé guards against the error of supposing that Paul would say of himself ἥäç ἔëáâïí ἤäç ôåôåëåßùìáé . The object of ἔëÜâïí is not named, hence is to be drawn from the context: ôὸ ãíῶíáé áὐôὸí (Php_3:10), ôὸ ὑðåñÝ÷ïí ôῆò ãíῶóåùò ×ñéóôïῦ Éçóïῦ (Php_3:8). Ἔëáâïí naturally denotes complete, secure possession; as if he were entirely penetrated by such knowledge, and it had entirely penetrated him, as if it had accomplished in him its perfect moral effect. The explanatory ôåôåëåßùìáé defines the meaning. With this modest literal account of his experience we are not to connect the figurative âñáâåῖïí in Php_3:14, which does not come forward till after the intervention of several other clauses (the Greek interpreters, Bengel, Meter, and others); and also not ôὴí ἀíÜóôáóéí (Rheinwald), jus ad resurrectionem beatam (Grotius), êáôáíôᾶ ̣ í (Matthies), all of which belong to the future, or ×ñéóôüõ (Theodoret), moral perfection (Hölemann). Bengel well remarks: in summo fervore sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus.—But I follow after if I may also apprehend [lay hold of] that ( äéþêù äὲ , åἰ êáὶ êáôáëÜâù ). Äéþêù means (as in Rom_9:30; 1Co_14:1; 1Ti_6:21; 2Ti_2:22) studiosi appeto, in contrast with ( äÝ ) ἕëáâïí , and having the same object. The åἰ shows the striving to be with humility. Êáß points back to ἕëáâïí ; êáôáëÜâù is stronger: cum quis plene potitur (Bengel); laying hold firmly (Meyer), Comp. Rom_9:30; 1Co_9:27.—Because also I was apprehended [laid hold of]. The ground on which he hopes to lay hold of ( ἐö ᾦ ), as in Rom_5:12; 2Co_5:4 (Winer’s Gram., p. 394), hence equivalent to äéüôé . It is inappropriate to supply ôïῦôï as the object of êáôáëÜâù ,