Php_1:21. Justification not of the joy, Php_1:18 (Weiss), which has already been justified in Php_1:19 f., but of the
εἴτε
διὰ
ζωῆς
εἴτε
διὰ
θανάτου
just expressed: For to me the living is Christ, that is, if I remain alive, my prolonged life will be nothing but a life of which the whole essential element and real tenor is Christ (“quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum vivo,” Bengel), as the One to whom the whole destination and activity of my life bear reference (comp. on Gal_2:20); and the dying[71]is gain, inasmuch as by death I attain to Christ; see Php_1:23. Whichever, therefore, of the two may come to pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ; the former, inasmuch as I continue to labour freely for Christ’s glory; the latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall suffer death with joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Müller, who, however, assumes that in the second clause Paul had the thought: “et si mihi moriendum est, moriar Christo, ita etiam morte mea Christus celebratur,” but that in the emotion of the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to be carried away by the conception of the gain involved in the matter. This assumption is altogether superfluous; for, to the consciousness of the Christian reader, the reference of the
κέρδος
to Christ must of itself have been clear and certain. But the idea of
ΚΈΡΔΟς
, which connects itself in the apostle’s mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming that he meant to say that it was a matter of no moment to him personally whether he lived or died (Wiesinger); for on account of the
κέρδος
in death, his own personal wish must have given the preference to the dying (see Php_1:23). Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatchbull, et al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in the second clause, been led to the still more erroneous assumption, in opposition both to the words and linguistic usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject and
κέρδος
the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to be explained by
ΠΡΌς
or
ΚΑΤΆ
, so that Christ “tam in vita quam in morte lucrum esse praedicatur.” Lastly, in opposition to the context, Rheinwald and Rilliet take
τὸ
ζῆν
as meaning life in the higher, spiritual sense, and
καί
as: and consequently, which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the preceding alternative
εἴτε
…
εἴτε
. This explanation is refuted by the very
ΤῸ
ΖῆΝ
ἘΝ
ΣΑΡΚΊ
which follows in Php_1:22, since
ἘΝ
ΣΑΡΚΊ
contains not an antithesis to the absolute
ΤῸ
ΖῆΝ
, but on the contrary a more precise definition of it. Although the
ΔΙᾺ
ΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ
and
ΤῸ
ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ
contrasted with the
ΖῆΝ
, as also Php_1:20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the view that takes
ΤῸ
ΖῆΝ
in the higher ethical sense, that view has still been adopted by Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the correlation and parallelism of
τὸ
ζῆν
and
ΤῸ
ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ
, oddly supposes that, while
ΤῸ
ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ
, is the subject in the second clause,
ΤῸ
ΖῆΝ
is yet predicate in the first. Like
τὸ
ἀποθανεῖν
τὸ
ζῆν
must be subject also.
ἐμοί
] is emphatically placed first: to me, as regards my own person, though it may be different with others. Comp. the emphatic
ἡμῶν
, Php_3:20.
For profane parallels to the idea, though of course not to the Christian import, of
ΤῸ
ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ
ΚΈΡΔΟς
,[72] see Wetstein. Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f.; Eur. Med. 145.
[71] Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On the combination of the Inf. pres. (continuing) and aor. (momentary), comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 4 :
προείλετο
μᾶλλον
τοῖς
νόμοις
ἐμμένων
ἀποθανεῖν
ἢ
παρανομῶν
ζῆν
, Eur. Or. 308:
σὺν
σοὶ
κατθανεῖν
αἱρήσομαι
καὶ
ζῆν
, Epictet. Enchir. 12; 2Co_7:3. See generally Mätzn. ad Antiph. p. 153 f.; Kühner, II. 1, p. 159. The being dead would have been expressed, as in Herod. 1:31, by
τεθνάναι
.
[72] Compare also Spiess, Logos Spermaticos, 1871, p. 330 f.