Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:15 - 3:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:15. Application of the passage Php_3:12-14 for the benefit of the Philippians, down to Php_3:17.
τέλειοι ] denotes not perfection, like τετελείωμαι in Php_3:12, but the moral ripeness which, with differences of degree in the case of individuals, belongs to the true Christian state that has advanced beyond the novitiate—that Christian maturity in which one is no longer νήπιος ἐν Χριστῷ ; comp. on 1Co_2:6; 1Co_3:1; Eph_4:13. The τετελείωμαι is the ideal goal of the development of this τέλειον εἶναι , contradistinguished from the νηπιότης . The special aspect of this maturity, which Paul had in view in using τέλειοι , is to be regarded, not as theoretical knowledge,—the doctrine of righteousness by faith being conceived to be specially referred to (Erasmus, Wolf, Rheinwald, and others),—but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears from Php_3:13 f., along with which the corresponding relation of practical insight is self-evident as a necessary presupposition (comp. Col_4:12; Col_1:28); although there is no reason to suppose that particular questions in this domain (such as those relating to sacrificial flesh, fasts, feasts, and the like) had arisen in Philippi and occasioned division, of which no trace exists. The jealousy and partial disunion in the church arose from a moral conceit, which was prejudicial to mutual humility (Php_2:3 ff.) and to personal genuine striving after holiness (Php_2:12 ff.). In using ὅσοι —with which we are to supply sumus simply, and not volumus esse
Paul leaves it to the conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his part, belongs to the number of the τέλειοι ; but by including himself in this predicate, and yet having previously negatived the ἤδη τετελείωμαι in his own case (Php_3:12), the apostle removes all idle misunderstanding and abuse of his words which might tend to moral pride, and then by τοῦτο φρονώμεν leaves room only for the consciousness: ὡς τελείου τὸ μὴ νομίζειν ἑαυτὸν τέλειον εἶναι , Chrysostom. A tone of irony (Schenkel) is utterly alien to the heartfelt character of the whole discourse, which is, moreover, in this application, Php_3:15, so expressed as to include the apostle in common with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfection the passage is in direct opposition.
τοῦτο φρονῶμεν ] let us have this frame of mind, namely, which I, in Php_3:13 f., have just expressed as mine; the frame of humble self-estimation, and at the same time incessant pressing forward. Grotius holds quite arbitrarily that Paul reverts to what he had said in Php_3:3. But it is also wrong to seek the reference of τοῦτο φρον . in the passage from Php_3:4 onwards: “renunciandum esse splendidis virtutibus Judd. (Php_3:4-7), contra in solo Christo acquiescendum (Php_3:8-10) et ad victricem palmam studio indefesso annitendum (Php_3:12-14),” Hoelemann; comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Rilliet, and Reiche; similarly Hofmann, who makes it refer to the entire presentation—joining on to Php_3:3—of a frame of mind which is opposed to the disposition of those against whom they are to be on their guard. Php_3:4-11 are certainly said by way of warning against the false teachers, and are opposed to these; but this opposition is of a dogmatic nature, for the upholding of the Pauline fundamental doctrine against Judaism, and it is only Php_3:12 that begins what has regard to the moral progress of the Church in the right way pressing onward to the goal, in which respect Paul desires to serve for their model (Php_3:17),—as which he has sketched himself in Php_3:13 f, when he begins with ἀδελφοί and introduces his ἐγώ . Besides, the φρονῶμεν , which is correlative with the λογίζομαι , does not point back beyond Php_3:13 f. Therefore, not even the appropriation of Christ, Php_3:8-11, is to be included in the reference of the τοῦτο (in opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger). Van Hengel is inclined to refer τοῦτο to τὸ βραβεῖον ; but the readers needed the exhortation to the right mode of striving after the βραβεῖον , and not the summons generally, that they should have the βραβ . in view. This applies also against the similar, although more exact, interpretation of Fritzsche (Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 92): “hac mente simus sc. ut τὸ βραβ . τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως consectemur.”
καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρον .] and if as to any point ( τὶ , accusative of the object) ye be otherwise minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely, from that specified in τοῦτο φρονῶμεν . A man may, forsooth, have in general the same frame of mind which Paul has represented in himself, and to which he has summoned his readers; but at the same time an isolated concrete case ( τὶ ) may occur, which a man cannot fit into the φρονεῖν in question, and regarding which he is of opinion that he ought to be differently minded, so that in such a state of things he becomes morally inconsistent in his frame of mind, inasmuch as he lacks the befitting ἐπίγνωσις and αἴσθησις εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν κ . τ . λ ., Php_1:9, in the moral judgment which determines the φρονεῖν . Hofmann arbitrarily limits the τὶ to some matter independent of the essential disposition of the Christian life. This sense would have required a more precise definition, in order to be found. And the hope which is uttered in the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the prayer in Php_1:9 f.; hence Hofmann’s objection, that the readers must have themselves corrected the fault which according to our view here emerges, is quite groundless. The subject addressed is the readers generally (see Php_3:17), not the νήπιοι (Hunnius, Wolf, Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Reiche), whom several expositors have regarded as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure righteousness of faith excluding the law (see Rheinwald and Reiche), or who had allowed themselves to be led away by false teachers (see Hunnius, Grotius, Storr). But setting aside the arbitrariness generally with which this contrast is introduced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not assume any thorough and essential diversity in the φρονεῖν , but only such a variation as might affect some one or other isolated point ( τὶ ), and that not in the doctrinal, but in the moral province of Christian conduct. Moreover, if persons led astray were here in question, nothing would be less in harmony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful tolerance which is expressed in the words καὶ τοῦτο … ἀποκαλύψει . Lastly, the change of person (in opposition to Bengel) was necessary, because Paul, speaking of a partial ἑτέρως φρονεῖν , could not include himself.
In ἑτέρως , otherwise (not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.), there is implied, according to the context, an unfavourable sense, the notion of incorrectness, secius quam oportet. Comp. Hom. Od. i. 234; Dem. 298. 22, 597. 3; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448. 2; Soph. Phil. 503; Valckenaer, Diatr. p. 112; just as ἕτερος (comp. on ἄλλο , Gal_5:10) may denote even that which is bad or hostile (Wis_19:3; Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. viii. 3, Pyth. iii. 54; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 321). It is here the ἑτεροδοξεῖν (Plat. Theaet. pp. 190 E, 193 D), as frame of mind. This has not been attended to by van Hengel, when he takes with equal unsuitableness τὶ in an emphatic sense, and φρονεῖν as to strive for: “si quid boni per aliam viam expetitis, quam ego persequor.”
καὶ τοῦτο ὁ Θεὸς ὑμ . ἀποκ .] Expression of the hope that such variations will not fail to be rectified, on the part of God, by His revealing operation. Certainly, therefore, the variations, which Paul so forbearingly and confidently and without polemical handling commits to revealing correction on the part of God, were not on matters of principle or of an anti-Pauline character.
καὶ τοῦτο ] this also, like other things which He has already revealed unto you; so that in καὶ is contained the idea also still (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 135). Hofmann erroneously says that καὶ implies: there, where the disposition is present, which I require. It in fact belongs to τοῦτο . This τοῦτο , however, is not: that ye (Oecumenius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fritzsche, l.c. p. 93), but what ye wrongly think; the frame of mind in question, as it ought to be instead of the ἑτέρως φρονεῖν , not: “whether you are right or I” (Ewald). Calvin aptly says: “Nemo ita loqui jure posset, nisi cui certa constat suae doctrinae ratio et veritas.” The passage is very far from betraying uncertainty or want of firmness (Baur).
The ἀποκαλύψει , which is to be taken as purely future, is conceived by Paul as taking place through the Holy Spirit (see Eph_1:17; Col_1:10), not by human instruction (Beza). He might also have written διδάξει (comp. θεοδίδακτοι , 1Th_4:9; also Joh_6:45), by which, however, the special kind of instruction which he means would not have been indicated. This is the inward divine unveiling of ethical truth, which is needed for the practical reason of him who in any respect otherwise φρονεῖ than Paul has shown in his own example; for οὐ περὶ δογμάτων ταῦτα εἴρηται , ἀλλὰ περὶ βίον τελειότητος καὶ τοῦ μὴ νομίζειν ἑαυτοὺς τελείους εἶναι , Chrysostom. Wherever in this moral respect the right frame of mind is not yet completely present in one or the other, Paul trusts to the disclosing operation of God Himself, whose Spirit rules and works in the Church and its individual members (1Co_2:14; 1Co_3:16; Eph_1:17; Eph_2:21 f.; Rom_8:9; Rom_8:15; Rom_8:26; Gal_5:22; Gal_5:25, et al.).