Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 2:12 - 2:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_2:12. [123] To this great example of Jesus Paul now annexes another general admonition, which essentially corresponds with that given in Php_1:27, with which he began all this hortatory portion of the epistle (Php_1:27 to Php_2:18).
ὥστε ] itaque, draws an inference from the example of Christ (Php_2:6-11), who by the path of self-renunciation attained to so glorious a recompense. Following this example, the readers are, just as they had always been obedient, etc., to work out their own salvation with the utmost solicitude. ὑπηκούσατε is not, indeed, correlative with γενόμ . ὑπήκοος in Php_2:8 (Theophylact, Calovius, Bengel, and others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory definition; but the σωτηρία is correlative with the exaltation of Christ described in Php_2:9, of which the future salvation of Christians is the analogue, and, in fact, the joint participation (Rom_8:17; Eph_2:6; Col_2:12 f., Php_3:3 f.). Since, therefore, ὥστε has its logical basis in what immediately precedes, it must not be looked upon as an inference from all the previous admonitions, Php_1:26 ff., from which it draws the general result (de Wette). It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhortation which follows, see on Php_2:14) as in Php_4:1; 1Th_4:18; Rom_7:12; 1Co_3:21; 1Co_4:5; 1Co_5:8; 1Co_11:33; 1Co_14:39; 1Co_15:58, but in such a way that it joins on to what was last discussed. It is least of all admissible to make, with Hofmann, ὥστε point backwards to πληρώσατέ μου τ . χαράν in Php_2:2, so that this prayer “is repeated in a definitive manner” by the exhortation introduced with ὥστε . In that case the apostle, in order to be understood, must at least have inserted a resumptive οὖν after ὥστε , and in the following exhortation must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element of the making joy.
καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε ] whom? is neither a question to be left unanswered (Matthies), nor one which does not require an answer (Hofmann). The context yields the supplement here, as well as in Rom_6:16, Phm_1:21, 1Pe_1:14; and the right supplement is the usual one, viz. mihi, or, more definitely, meo evangelio, as is plain, both from the words which follow μὴ ὡς … ἀπουσίᾳ μου , and also from the whole close personal relation, in which Paul brings home to the hearts of his readers his admonitions (from Php_1:27 down till Php_2:18) as their teacher and friend. On πάντοτε , comp. ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν (Php_1:5). We cannot infer from it a reference to earlier epistles which have been lost (Ewald).
μὴ ὡς … ἀπουσίᾳ μου ] belongs not to ὑπηκούσατε (Luther, Wolf, Heumann, Heinrichs, and others), as is evident from μὴ ὡς and νῦν , but to κατεργάζεσθε , so that the comma before μετὰ φόβου is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp. Grotius.
ὡς had to be inserted, because Paul would not and could not give an admonition for a time when he would be present. Not perceiving this, B, min., vss., and Fathers have omitted it. If ὡς were not inserted, Paul would say: that they should not merely in his presence work out their salvation. But with ὡς he says: that they are not to work out their own salvation in such a way as if they were doing it in His presence [124] merely (neglecting it, therefore, in His absence); nay, much more now, during His absence from them, they are to work it out with fear and trembling. There is nothing to be supplied along with ὡς , which is the simple modal as, since μὴ ὡς is connected with the governing verb that follows in the antithesis ( Τ . ἙΑΥΤ . ΣΩΤ . ΚΑΤΕΡΓΆΖΕΣΘΕ ) as its prefixed negative modal definition: not as in my presence only (not as limiting it to this only) work out your salvation. And the ἀλλά is the antithetic much more, on the contrary, nay. Erasmus, Estius, Hoelemann, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly join μόνον with ΜΉ , and take Ὡς in the sense of the degree: not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it, in my absence; comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two comparisons, as does also J. B. Lightfoot. It is arbitrary not to make μόνον belong to ἘΝ Τ . ΠΑΡ . ΜΟΥ , beside which it stands; comp. also Rom_4:16 (where Τῷ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΝΌΜΟΥ forms one idea), Php_4:23; 1Th_1:5. Still more arbitrary is it to hamper the flow of the whole, and to break it up in such a way as to insert the imperative ὑπακούετε after ὙΠΗΚΟΎΣΑΤΕ , and then to make ΜΕΤᾺ ΦΌΒΟΥ Κ . Τ . Λ . a sentence by itself (Hofmann). Moreover, in such a case the arrangement of the words in the alleged apodosis would be illogical; ΝῦΝ (or, more clearly, ΚΑῚ ΝῦΝ ) must have begun it, and ΜΌΝΟΝ must have stood immediately after ΜΉ .
ΠΟΛΛῷ ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ ] than if I were present; for now ( ΝῦΝ ), when they were deprived of the personal teaching, stimulus, guidance, and guardianship of the apostle, moral diligence and zealous solicitude were necessary for them in a far higher measure, in order to fulfil the great personal duty of working out their own salvation. That ἑαυτῶν , therefore, cannot be equivalent to ἉΛΛΉΛΩΝ (Flatt, Matthies, and older expositors), is self-evident.
ΜΕΤᾺ ΦΌΒΟΥ Κ . ΤΡΌΜΟΥ ] that is, with such earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing enough in the matter. Comp. on 1Co_2:3; 2Co_7:15; Eph_6:5. ΔΕῖ ΓᾺΡ ΦΟΒΕῖΣΘΑΙ Κ . ΤΡΈΜΕΙΝ ἘΝ Τῷ ἘΡΓΆΖΕΣΘΑΙ ΤῊΝ ἸΔΊΑΝ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑΝ ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ , ΜΉ ΠΟΤΕ ὙΠΟΣΚΕΛΙΣΘΕῚς ἘΚΠΈΣῌ ΤΑΎΤΗς , Oecumenius. Awe before the presence of God (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss), the feeling of dependence on God (de Wette), a reverential devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hengel), and similar ideas, must be implied in the case, but do not constitute the sense of the expression, in which also, according to the context, we are not to seek a contrast to spiritual pride (Schinz, Rilliet, Hoelemann, Wiesinger), as Augustine, Calvin, Bengel, and others have done.
κατεργάζεσθε ] bring about, peragite (Grotius), “usque ad metam” (Bengel), expressing, therefore, more than the simple verb (comp. Eph_6:13; Dem. 1121. 19; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 A; Eur. Heracl. 1046: πόλει σωτηρίαν κατεργάσασθαι ; and see on Rom_1:26). The summons itself is not at variance with the principle that salvation is God’s gift of grace, and is prepared for, predestined, and certain to believers; but it justly claims the exercise of the new moral power bestowed on the regenerate man, without the exertion of which he would fall away again from the state of grace to which he had attained in faith, and would not actually become partaker of the salvation appropriated to him by faith, so that the final reception of salvation is so far the result of his moral activity of faith in the καινότης ζωῆς . See especially Rom_6:8; Rom_6:12 ff., and 2Co_6:1. Our passage stands in contrast, not to the certitudo salutis, but to the moral securitas, into which the converted person might relapse, if he do not stand fast (Php_4:1; 1Co_10:12), and labour at his sanctification (1Th_4:3; 1Th_4:7; 2Co_7:1; 1Ti_2:15), etc. Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. II. § 266. The demand is expressed all the more earnestly, the more that the readers have conflict and suffering to endure (Php_1:27-30).
[123] Linden, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 750, attempted a new explanation of vv. 12–14. According to this, μὴ ὡς is to stand for ὡς μή , κατεργάζ . to be indicative, μὴ ὡς … κατεργ . to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated as a parenthesis, and, finally, the apodosis to follow in πάντα κ . τ . λ . Against this view may be simply urged the fact, that μὴ ὡς (2Th_3:15; Phm_1:14; 2Co_9:5) cannot be equivalent to ὡς μή , and that there must have been used not even ὡς μή , but, on account of the negation of a purely actual relation, ὡς οὐκ ; to say nothing of the involved construction, and of the so special tenor of the alleged apodosis after a preparation of so grand and general a nature by the alleged protasis.
[124] The word παρουσία does not contain, any more than in Php_1:26, a reference to the Parousia of Christ, which Kähler (“ye know what this word would properly tell us”) reads between the lines.