Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:18 - 3:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:18. Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in Php_3:17.
περιπατοῦσιν ] is not to be defined by κακῶς (Oecumenius), or longe aliter (Grotius; comp. Syr.); nor is it to be taken as circulantur (comp. 1Pe_5:8) (Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), which is at variance with the context in Php_3:17. Calvin, unnaturally breaking up the plan of the discourse, makes the connection: “ambulant terrena cogitantes” (which is prohibited by the very article before ἐπίγ . φρον .), and puts in a parenthesis what intervenes (so also Erasmus, Schmid, and Wolf); whilst Estius quite arbitrarily overleaps the first relative clause, and takes περιπ . along with ὧν τὸ τέλος κ . τ . λ . Erasmus (see his Annot.) and others, including Rheinwald, van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, and Weiss, consider the discourse as broken off, the introduction of the relative clauses inducing the writer to leave out the modal definition of περιπ . Hofmann transforms the simple λέγειν (comp. Gal_1:9) into the idea of naming, and takes τοὺς ἐχθρούς as its object-predicate, in which case, however, the mode of the περιπατεῖν would not be stated. On the contrary, the construction is a genuine Greek mode of attraction (see Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. 15; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 771; Kühner, II. 2, p. 925; Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 68 [E. T. 77]), so framed, that instead of saying: many walk as the enemies of the cross, this predicative definition of mode is drawn into the relative clause οὓς πολλάκις κ . τ . λ .[171] and assimilated to the relative; comp. Plat. Rep. p. 402 c., and Stallbaum in loc. It is therefore to be interpreted: Many, of whom I have said that to you often, and now tell you even weeping, walk as the enemies, etc. The πολλάκις , emphatically corresponding with the πολλοί (2Co_8:22), refers to the apostle’s presence in Philippi; whether, at an earlier date in an epistle (see on Php_3:1), he had thus characterized these enemies of the cross (Flatt, Ewald), must be left undecided. But it is incorrect to make these words include a reference (Matthies) to Php_3:2, as in the two passages different persons (see below) must be described.
νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων ] διὰ τί ; ὅτι ἐπέτεινε τὸ κακὸν , ὅτι δακρύων ἄξιοι οἱ τοιοῦτοι … οὕτως ἐστὶ συμπαθητικὸς , οὕτω φροντίζει πάντων ἀνθρώπων , Chrysostom. The deterioration of these men, which had in the meanwhile increased, now extorts tears from the apostle on account of their own ruin and of their ruinous influence.
τοὺς ἐχθρ . τ . στ . τ . Χ .] The article denotes the class of men characteristically defined. We must explain the designation as referring, not to enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theodoret: ὡς διδάσκοντας ὅτι δίχα τῆς νομικῆς πολιτείας ἀδύνατον σωτηρίας τυχεῖν , so in substance Luther, Erasmus, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many others; also Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies), so that passages such as Gal_5:11; Gal_6:12, would have to be compared; but, as required by the context which follows, to Christians of Epicurean tendencies ( ἐν ἀνέσει ζῶντες κ . τρυφῇ , Chrysostom; comp. Theophylact and Oecumenius), who, as such, are hostile to the fellowship of the cross of Christ (comp. Php_3:10), whose maxims of life are opposed to the παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2Co_1:5), so that it is hateful to them to suffer with Christ (Rom_8:17). Comp. Php_3:10, also Gal_6:14. In opposition to the context, Rilliet and Weiss understand non-Christians, who reject Christianity with hostile disdain, because its founder was crucified (comp. 1Co_1:18; 1Co_1:23), or because the preaching of the cross required the crucifixion of their own lusts (Weiss); Calvin interpreted it generally of hypocritical enemies of the gospel. This misunderstanding ought to have been precluded by the very use of the tragic πολλοί , the melancholy force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but Christians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that which is required in Php_3:17. See, besides, in opposition to Weiss, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 630 ff.
We have still to notice that the persons here depicted are not the same as those who were described in Php_3:2 (contrary to the usual view, which is also followed by Schinz and Hilgenfeld); for those were teachers, while these πολλοί are Christians generally. The former might indeed be characterized as ἐχθροὶ τ . σταυροῦ τ . Χ ., according to Gal_6:12, but their Judaistic standpoint does not correspond to the Epicureanism which is affirmed of the latter in the words ὧν ὁ Θεὸς ἡ κοιλία , Php_3:19. Hoelemann, de Wette, Lünemann, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and Hofmann have justly pronounced against the identity of the two; Weiss, however, following out his wrong interpretation of κύνες in Php_3:2 (of the heathen), maintains the identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct of those κύνες is here described; while Baur makes use of the passage to deny freshness, naturalness, and objectivity to the polemic attack here made on the false teachers.
[171] Hence also the conjecture of Laurent (Neut. Stud. p. 21 f.), that οἳς πολλάκις … ἀπώλεια is a supplementary marginal note inserted by the apostle, is unwarranted.