Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:10 - 3:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by μὴ ἔχων κ . τ . λ . in Php_3:9. Paul has not the righteousness of the law, but the righteousness of faith, in order to know, etc. This knowledge would fail him if, on the contrary, instead of the righteousness of faith, he had that of the law. So he reverts to a more detailed illustration of τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χ ., Php_3:8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great personal contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteousness of faith ( τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν ), and next, more particularly, the most important—especially to the apostle in his position infinitely important—matters which were its objects ( τὴν δύναμιν κ . τ . λ .), developing them from his own richest experience, which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χ . The τοῦ γνῶναι might also be conceived as dependent on εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ (Wiesinger, Schneckenburger, Schenkel); but the more precise definition of this εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ by μὴ ἔχων κ . τ . λ . is so important, earnest, and solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the statement of aim which follows. Chrysostom joins ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει to Php_3:10 : τί δέ ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν ; ἄρα διὰ πίστεως ἡ γνῶσις , καὶ πίστεως ἄνευ γνῶναι αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔστι . So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. I. p. 618), who, in doing so, takes ἐπί in and by itself correctly as on the ground of faith. But such cases of emphatic prefixing, while they are certainly found with ἵνα (see on Gal_2:10; Eph_3:18), are not found before the genitive of the infinitive with the article, which represents the expression with ἵνα , but in such infinitive clauses only between article and infinitive; hence Paul would have written τοῦ ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει γνῶναι . Comp. Rom_8:12; 1Co_16:4. Hofmann improperly appeals, not any longer indeed to Rev_12:7, but, doing violence to the position of the words in the LXX., to 2Sa_6:2; Isa_10:32. According to Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, the genitive τοῦ γν . is meant to depend on τῇ πίστει ; “describit vim et naturam fidei, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio” (Calvin). But πίστις is never joined with the genitive of the infinitive with the article; and, besides, not the nature, but the object of the faith (Php_3:9) would be denoted by the genitive (Col_2:12; 2Th_2:13, et al.). Nor is τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν to be regarded as parallel with ἵνα Χ . κερδήσω κ . εὑρ . ἐν αὐτῷ (Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, including Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Winer), since it is in itself arbitrary to despise the appropriate dependence on what immediately precedes, and to go back instead to ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα εἶναι ; and since in ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδ . κ . εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ two elements are given, a subjective and an objective one, so that thus there would be presented no parallel corresponding with the subjective τοῦ γνῶναι κ . τ . λ . Moreover, Paul is in the habit of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a double ἵνα (Rom_7:13; Gal_3:14; 2Co_9:3).
The γνῶναι , which both conditions the faith and also in fuller development follows it (see on Php_3:8), is not the discursive, or generally theoretical and speculative knowing, but the inwardly salutary, experimental becoming-acquainted-with (“qui expertus non fuerit, non intelliget,” Anselm), as is plain from τὴν δύναμιν κ . τ . λ . Comp. 1Co_2:8; 1Co_8:2; Gal_4:9, et al.; frequently so used in John. See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 421, ed. 2.
καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστ . αὐτοῦ καὶ τ . κοινων . τ . παθ . αὐτ .] and (that is, and especially) the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings. The δύναμ . τ . ἀναστ . αὐτ . is not the power by which He has been raised (Vatablus, Grotius; comp. Matthies), which would be quite unsuitable to the context, but the power which the resurrection of Christ has, its vis el efficacia in respect to believers. The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the context through what is said immediately before of the righteousness of faith, to which τοῦ γνῶναι κ . τ . λ . refers. He means the powerful guarantee of justification and salvation which the resurrection of Christ affords to believers; see Rom_4:25; Rom_5:10; 1Co_15:17; Act_13:37-38. This power of the resurrection is experienced, not by him that is righteous through the law, but by him that is righteous through faith, to whom the resurrection of the Lord brings the constant energetic certainty of his reconciliation procured by Jesus’ death and the completion of eternal life (Rom_8:11; 1Co_6:14; Col_3:1 ff.; Php_3:21). Comp. also Rom_8:34, where this δύναμις τῆς ἀναστ . is triumphant in the apostle. As a matter of course, this power, in virtue of which the resurrection of Christ, according to 1Co_15:17, Rom_4:25, might be described as “complementum redemtionis” (Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally known, as is Christ generally ( αὐτόν ); but Paul speaks from the consciousness that every element of the regenerate life, which has τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει , is an ever new perception of this power. The view which understands it of the moral power of awakening (Beza and others, also van Hengel; comp. Rilliet), according to Rom_6:4, Col_2:12, or the living power of victory, which lies for the believer in the resurrection of Christ, according to 2Co_4:10, Gal_2:20, Php_4:13,—by means of which the Christian, “through his glorified Lord, himself also possesses an infinite new power of acquiring victory over the world and death” (Ewald, comp. de Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Schenkel; substantially also Hofmann),—does not accord either with the words themselves (for so understood it would be the power of the risen Christ, not the power of His resurrection), or with the following κ . τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημ . αὐτοῦ , which, in a logical point of view (comp. 2Co_4:10-12), must either have gone before, or have been expressed by ἐν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κ . τ . λ . The certainty of our own resurrection and glory (Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Heinrichs, Hoelemann, and others; comp. Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Theophylact) is necessarily included also in the δύναμις , without, however, being exclusively meant. By the series sermonis Bengel (comp. Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be misled into explaining ἀνάστασις , not of the resurrection at all, but of the exortus or adventus of the Messiah. References of various kinds are mixed up by Rheinwald, Flatt, Schinz, Usteri, and others.
καὶ τὴν κοινων . τῶν παθημ . αὐτοῦ ] In these words Paul intends to express—and he does so by the repetition of the article with a certain solemnity—a second, highly valuable relation, conditioned by the first, to the experimental knowledge of which the possession of the righteousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the fellowship of the sufferings of Christ, in which he sees a high proof of divine grace and distinction (Php_1:29, Php_2:17 f.). Comp. Col_1:24. Suffering for the sake of Christ’s cause is a participation in Christ’s sufferings (a συμπάσχειν , Rom_8:17), because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of suffering, one suffers the same that Christ suffered (according to the ethical category, drinks of the same cup which Christ drank, Mat_20:22). Comp. 1Pe_4:13, and see on 2Co_1:5, Col_1:24; also on τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ , 2Co_4:10. The explanation which makes it: suffering with such a disposition of mind as He suffered (as stedfastly, etc.), given by Flatt and others, is imported from a rationalistic point of view; and the view which takes it in the sense of: the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ (Calovius, Rheinwald, and others), is opposed to the words, and at variance with the habitual conception of a real συμπάσχειν with Christ, under which the sufferings of Christian martyrs were regarded. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, have already in substance the correct view. Observe, moreover, that Paul has not written τὴν δύναμιν τῆς κοινωνίας κ . τ . λ . (Hoelemann: “vim ac pondus;” de Wette: “all that this fellowship involves;” comp. Corn, a Lapide: “dulcedinem ac sanctitatem”); the γνῶναι , on the contrary, relates to the matter itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith can attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an unknown element; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the latter, though the objective suffering is present. It was otherwise with the previous element; for the resurrection of Christ in itself—the fact as such—is known also by him who is righteous through the law, but not so its δύναμις , of which only the righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of this δύναμις , in virtue of which he experiences in the resurrection of Christ the abiding divinely effectual guarantee of his justification and eternal life, makes him capable also of recognising in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ; the latter knowledge is conditioned by the former; he would not have it without the former, because he would be driven to look upon his faith as vain and idle, and upon himself, so far as he suffers, as ἐλεεινότερον πάντων ἀνθρώπων (1Co_15:14; 1Co_15:17; 1Co_15:19). The enthusiastic feeling of drinking the cup of Christ is not possible, unless a man bears in his heart the mighty assurance of salvation through the resurrection of the Lord.
συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ ] denotes the corresponding situation (comp. 2Co_4:10), in which Paul was conscious that he should know, as one righteous by faith, the κοινωνίαν τῶν παθ . Χριστοῦ : inasmuch as I am made like to His death; for his position then was such that he saw himself threatened with martyrdom, consequently (comp. Php_2:17) his state of suffering developed itself into similarity to the death of Christ. This present state of development of the being made like to Christ is indicated by the present participle. The interpretation, which takes it of the fellowship in suffering generally, which is here more precisely described (Calvin, Estius, and others; also Wiesinger and Weiss), does not satisfy the progression from the general παθημάτων to the definite θανάτῳ . And the sense: “non detrectando mortem ejus morti similem” (Vatablus; comp. Matthies and de Wette) is imported into the words, which by Grotius, van Hengel, Rilliet, Schneckenburger, and others, are interpreted quite in opposition to the context, as referring to the ethical dying to the world, its lusts, etc. (Romans 6; Gal_2:19). The nominative συμμορφ ., which is to be explained as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on εὑρεθῶ (Grotius, Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on τοῦ γνῶναι κ . τ . λ ., refers to its logical subject. See Eph_4:2.