Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 1:22 - 1:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_1:22. Δέ ] carrying onward the discourse to the comparison between the two cases as regards their desirability. Weiss understands δέ as antithetic, namely to τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος , and Hofmann as in contrast also to the ἐμοὶ τὸ ζῆν Χριστός , but both proceed on an erroneous view of what follows; as does also Huther.
According to the τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος just expressed, the ἀποθανεῖν was put as the case more desirable for Paul personally; but because the ζῆν , in which indeed Christ is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official labours, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, as consequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in doubt respecting a choice between the two.
The structure of the sentence is accordingly this, that the apodosis sets in with καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι , and nothing is to be supplied: “But if the remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work, I refrain from a making known what I should choose.” We have to remark in detail: (1) that εἰ does not render problematical that which was said of the ζῆν ἐν σαρκί , but in accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul’s writings, frequent (Rom_5:17; Rom_6:15, and often) syllogistic usage (Herbst and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the undoubted certainty (Wilke, Rhetor. p. 258), which would take place in the event of a continuance of life; (2) that Paul was the more naturally led to add here the specially defining ἐν σαρκί to τὸ ζῆν (comp. Gal_2:20; 2Co_10:3), because, in the previously mentioned κέρδος , the idea of life apart from the body (comp. 2Co_5:8) must have been floating in his mind; (3) that τοῦτο again sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. Rom_7:10) the τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί which had just been said, and calls attention to it (Bernhardy, p. 283; Kühner, II. 1, p. 568 f.; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219), for it was the remaining in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the ἀποθανεῖν ), which was necessarily to the apostle καρπὸς ἔργου ; (4) that καρπός is correlative to the preceding κέρδος , and embodies the idea emolumentum (Rom_1:13; Rom_6:21, et al.; Wis_3:13), which is more precisely defined by ἔργου : work-fruit, gain of work, i.e. advantage which accrues to my apostolical work; comp. on the idea, Rom_1:13; (5) that καί , at the commencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, showing that if the one thing takes place, the other also sets in; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146; Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 164, ed. 3; comp. on 2Co_2:2; (6) that τί stands in the place of the more accurate πότερον (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 17; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 168; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 219; Winer, p. 159 [E. T. 211]), and that the future αἱρήσομαι (what I should prefer) is quite in order (see Eur. Hel. 631, and Pflugk in loc.; and Winer, p. 280 [E. T. 374]), while also the sense of the middle, to choose for himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked; comp. 2Th_2:13; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29: οἱ δὲ μὴ εἰδότες ὅ τι ποιοῦσι , κακῶς δὲ αἱρούμενοι , Soph. Ant. 551: σὺ μὲν γὰρ εἵλου ζῆν ; (7) that οὐ γνωρίζω is not to be taken, as it usually has been, according to the common Greek usage with the Vulgate, in the cense of ignoro, but, following the invariable usage of the N. T. (comp. also 3Ma_2:6; 3 Maccabees 3 Esr. 6:12; Aesch. Prom. 487; Athen. xii. p. 539 B; Diod. Sic. i. 6), as: I do not make it known, I do not explain myself on the point, give no information upon it.[73] Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schenkel, also Bengel, who, however, without any ground, adds mihi. Paul refrains from making and declaring such a choice, because (see Php_1:23 f.) his desire is so situated between the two alternatives, that it clashes with that which he is compelled to regard as the better.
The conformity to words and context, and the simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation (so, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld),—in which, however, καρπ . ἔργου is not to be taken as operae pretium (Calvin, Grotius, and others), nor καί as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and others), nor Οὐ ΓΝΩΡΊΖΩ as equivalent to ΟὐΚ ΟἾΔΑ (see above),—exclude decisively all other interpretations, in which ΤΟῦΤΟ and the ΚΑΊ of the apodosis have been the special stumbling blocks. Among these other explanations are (a) that of Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lachmann, who places a stop after ἔργου ), that ἘΣΤΊ is to be understood with ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ , that the apodosis begins with ΤΟῦΤΟ , and that ΚΑῚ ΤΊ ΑἹΡ . Κ . Τ . Λ . is a proposition by itself: “if the living in the flesh is appointed to me, then this has no other aim for me than by continuous labour to bring forth fruit,” etc. (Huther, l.c. p. 581 f.). But how arbitrarily is the simple ἐστί , thus supplied, interpreted (mihi constitutum est)! The words τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου , taken as an apodosis, are—immediately after the statement ἘΜΟῚ ΓᾺΡ ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς , in which the idea of ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ is substantially conveyed already—adapted less for a new emphatic inference than for a supposition that has been established; and the discourse loses both in flow and force. Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explanation.[74] (b) Beza’s view, that εἰ is to be taken as whether: “an vero vivere in carne mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro.” This is linguistically incorrect ( καρπὸς ἔργου ), awkward ( ΕἸ … ΚΑῚ ΤΊ ), and in the first member of the sentence un-Pauline (Php_1:24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis after ἔργου : if life, etc., is to me ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ , “non repugno, non aegre fero” (so Corn. Müller), or, “je ne dois pas désirer la mort” (Rilliet). See Winer, p. 557 f. [E. T. 751]; Meineke, Menand. p. 238. This is quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional character of the passage, which is in fact very calm. (d) Hoelemann’s explanation—which supplies καρπός from the sequel after ΖῆΝ , takes ΤΟῦΤΟ , which applies to the ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ , as the beginning of the apodosis, and understands ΚΑΡΠῸς ἜΡΓΟΥ as an actual fruit: “but if life is a fruit in the flesh (an earthly fruit), this (death) is also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantial, real fruit)”—is involved, artificial, and contrary to the genius of the language ( καρπ . ἔργου !). (e) The explanation of Weiss is that, after ἐν σαρκί , κέρδος is to be again supplied as a predicate, so that ΤΟῦΤΟ , which is made to apply to the entire protasis, begins the apodosis: “but if life is a gain, that is a fruit of his labour, because the successes of his apostolic ministry can alone make his life worth having to him” (Php_1:24). This supplying of ΚΈΡΔΟς , which was predicated of the antithesis of the ΖῆΝ , is as arbitrary as it is intolerably forced; and, indeed, according to Php_1:21, not ΚΈΡΔΟς merely would have to be supplied, but ἘΜΟῚ ΚΈΡΔΟς ; and, since ΚΈΡΔΟς is not to be taken from ἈΠΟΘΑΝΕῖΝ , of which it is predicate, we should have to expect an also before τὸ ζῆν , so that Paul would have written: ΕἸ ΔῈ (or ἈΛΛʼ ΕἸ ) ΚΑῚ ΤῸ ΖῆΝ ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚῚ ἘΜΟῚ ΚΈΡΔΟς Κ . Τ . Λ .
[73] Not as if Paul intended to say that “he kept it to himself,” a sense which Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this declaration. He intends to say rather that he refrains from a decision regarding what he should choose. The dilemma in which he found himself (comp. ver. 23) caused him to waive the giving of such a decision, in order not to anticipate in any way the divine purpose by his own choice.
[74] If it be life in the flesh, namely, which I have to expect instead of dying (?), then this, namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce of labour, in so far as by living I produce fruit, and thus then ( καί ) it is to me unknown, etc. This interpretation of Hofmann’s also is liable to the objection that, if Paul intended to say that he produced fruit by his life, logically he must have predicated of his ζῆν ἐν σαρκί , not that it was to him καρπὸς ἔργου , but rather that it was ἔργον καρποῦ , a work (a working) which produces fruit.