Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:11 - 3:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:11. Εἴ πως ] if possibly, designating the aim, the attainment of which is before the apostle’s mind in the συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θαν . αὐτοῦ . In this case, however, the deliberative form of expression (comp. Rom_1:10; Rom_11:14; Kühner, II. 2, p. 1034) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will attain to the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live to see the Parousia), but of humility under the conception of the greatness of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on man’s part, it is subject; οὐ θαῤῥῶ γάρ , φησιν , οὔπω · οὕτως ἐταπεινοφρόνει , ὅπερ ἀλλαχοῦ λέγει · ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι , βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ , Theophylact: comp. Chrysostom. This suffices also in opposition to Baur’s doubt (Paulus, II. p. 79 f.) whether Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all. The expression excludes moral security, but not the certitudo salutis in itself, as, following Estius and other Catholic expositors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty of salvation is founded on God’s decree, calling (Rom_8:29 f.), promise, and attestation by the Spirit (Rom_8:10), in faith on the saving facts of redemption (Rom_8:32 ff.). Comp. Calovius.
The reader could not feel any doubt as to what ἐξανάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν Paul means, namely, the first, in which οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ (1Co_15:23) shall arise.[162] Comp. 1Th_4:16. It is the resurrection of the dead κατʼ ἐξοχήν , not different from the ἈΝΆΣΤΑΣΙς ΤῶΝ ΔΙΚΑΊΩΝ . See on Luk_14:14. Nevertheless, we must not find this resurrection denoted by the double compound ἐξανάστ ., the ἘΞ in it conveying the idea ἘΚ Τῆς Γῆς ΕἸς ΤῸΝ ἈΈΡΑ (Theophylact). This ΕΞ is simply to be explained by the conception ἘΚ Τῆς Γῆς , so that neither in the substantial meaning nor even in style (Bengel: “Paulinus enim stylus Christo adscribit ἀνάστασιν , ἐξανάστασιν Christianis”) is ἘΞΑΝΆΣΤ . to be distinguished from ἈΝΆΣΤ .; but the former is to be explained solely from the more vividly imaginative view of the event which the apostle has before him. Comp. on 1Co_6:14. The double compound substantive does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (the verb, Mar_12:19; Luk_20:28; Act_15:5); but see Polyb. iii. 55. 4, ii. 21. 9, ii. 35. 4; Gen_7:4. Compl. We may add, that while it has been explained, at variance with the context, as referring to the ethical resurrection, Rom_6:4 f. (Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others; comp. Schrader), it is also erroneous to find in it the sense: “if perchance I should remain alive until the resurrection of the dead” (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld); since, on the contrary, essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luk_20:34 by οἱ καταξιωθέντες … τῆς ἀναστάσεως , and it is conceived as a possible case (comp. Php_1:20 ff., Php_2:17) that Paul will not remain alive until the Parousia.[163] καταντ . εἰς (comp. Eph_4:13) denotes the attaining to a goal (frequently in Polybius, see Schweighäuser, Lex. p. 332; see also the passages from the LXX. and Apocr. in Schleusner, III. p. 234 f.), which, however, is here not a point of time, but a bliss which is to be attained. Comp. Act_26:7.
[162] It is incorrect to ascribe to the apostle the idea that none but believers will rise at the resurrection, and that unbelievers will remain in Hades (Weiss). The resurrection of all, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught it (see on Joh_5:28 f.; Luk_14:14), is also in Paul’s view the necessary premiss of the judgment of all, of believers and also of unbelievers (of the κίσμος , Rom_3:6; 1Co_6:2; 1Co_11:32). That view, moreover, is at variance with the apostle’s distinct declaration in Act_24:15, comp. Act_17:31. Gerlach properly declares himself (Letzte Dinge, p. 147 ff.) opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final judgment, at p. 101 ff., as regards the persons subjected to it, in a way that is exegetically altogether unjustifiable.
[163] This also applies against the view of Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 233, who has altogether misunderstood vv. 11 and 12.