Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:2 - 3:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:2. This is now the τὰ αὐτά which he had previously written, and probably in the very same words. At least this seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in themselves; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the relation of contrast, which this vehement “fervor pii zeli” (Calvin) presents to the tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That lost epistle had probably expressed the apostle’s mind at length, and with all the warmth of controversy, for the warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. How entirely different is the tone in which, in the present epistle, he speaks (Php_1:15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline type, and labouring, indeed, at that time in his immediate neighbourhood! Comp., moreover, the remark after Php_1:18. Those who refer τὰ αὐτά to the χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ , labour in very different ways to establish a connection of thought with βλέπετε κ . τ . λ .; as, for instance, Wiesinger: that Paul wished to suggest, as a ground for the reiterated summons to joy in the Lord, the danger which was threatening them from the men described; Weiss: that the readers were to learn e contrario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what it was not, based.
βλέπετε ] not: be on your guard against, etc. (which would be βλ . ἀπό , Mar_8:15; Mar_12:38), but as a calling attention to: behold! (1Co_1:26; 1Co_10:18), with a view, however, to warn the readers against these men as pernicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which they present themselves.
τοὺς κύνας ] a term of reproach among the Jews and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, also uses it without any dishonourable reference; see Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 674); used by the latter specially to denote impudence, furious boldness (Hom. Il. 8:289; Od. 17:248; Anth. Pal. 9:302), snappishness (Pollux, On. 5:65), low vulgarity (Lucian, Nigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein; used also among the Jews in similar special references (Isa_56:10 f.; Deu_23:18; Rev_22:15, et al.), and, because dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane, impure, unholy (Mat_7:6; Psa_22:17; Rev_22:15; Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 1145); hence the Gentiles were so designated (see on Mat_15:26). In this passage also the profane nature and demeanour of the false teachers, as contrasted with the holy character of true Christianity, is to be adhered to as the point of comparison (Chrysostom: οὐκέτι τέκνα Ἰουδαῖοι … ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀλλότριοι ἦσαν , οὕτω καὶ οὗτοι γεγόνασι νῦν ). Any more special reference of the term—as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and many others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), covetousness (both combined by Grotius), snappishness (Rilliet, and older expositors, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Pelagius), envy, and the like; or to the disorderly wandering about in selfishness and animosity towards those who were living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which Lange fancifully adds a loud howling against Paul,—is not furnished by the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up with yet another general designation, subjoining, namely, to that of the low, unholy character ( κύνας ) that of the evil working: τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτ . Comp. 2Co_11:13. The opposite: 2Ti_2:15; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 57. Ἐργάζονται μέν , φησιν , ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ κακῷ , καὶ ἀργίας πολλῷ χεῖρον ἔργον , ἀνασπῶντες τὰ καλᾶς κείμενα , Chrysostom; comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact. They, in fact, laboured in opposition to the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith.
τὴν κατατομήν ] the cutting in pieces (Theophr. H. pl. iv. 8. 12), a word formed after the analogy of περιτομή , and, like the latter in Php_3:3, used in a concrete sense: those who are cut in pieces! A bitter paronomasia, because these men were circumcised merely as regards the body, and placed their confidence in this fleshly circumcision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision, which that of the body typified (see Php_3:3; Rom_2:28 f.; Col_2:11; Eph_2:11; Act_7:51). Comp. Gal_5:11 f. In the absence of this, their characteristic consisted simply in the bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal point of view which Paul here occupies, was not circumcision, but concision; whilst, on the other hand, circumcision, as respected its moral idea, was entirely independent of the corporeal operation, Php_3:3. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction between περιτ . and κατατ . has been misunderstood by Baur, who takes the climax as quantitative, and hence sees in it a warped and unnatural antithesis, which is only concocted to give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his own person. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress on the abolition of the legal circumcision as such brought about through Christ (the end of the law, Rom_10:4),—a presupposition which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.[150] A description of idolatry, with allusion to Lev_21:5, 1Ki_18:28, et al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot; comp. Beza), is quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to discover here any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther’s gloss), or a cutting in pieces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others), against which the necessary (comp. Php_3:3) passive signification of the word (not cutters in pieces, but cut in pieces) is decisive.
The thrice repeated βλέπετε belongs simply to the ἘΠΙΜΟΝῊ of earnest emotion (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 315; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398]), so that it points to the same dangerous men, and does not, as van Hengel misconceives, denote three different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. the apostate, the heretical, and the directly inimical. The passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. Php_2:1, does not bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of ἔβλεψε are divided by ΜῈΝ … ΔΈ . Weiss also refers the three designations to three different categories, namely: (1) the unconverted heathen, with their immoral life; (2) the self-seeking Christian teachers, Php_1:15-17; and (3) the unbelieving Jews, with their carnal conceit. But the first and third categories introduce alien elements, and the third cannot be identified with those mentioned at Php_1:15-17, but must mean persons much more dangerous. In opposition to the whole misinterpretation, see Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. p. 626 ff. All the three terms must characterize one class of men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the Judaizing false teachers. As is evident from τ . κατατομήν and Php_3:3 ff., they belonged to the same fundamentally hostile party against which Paul contends in the Epistle to the Galatians. At the same time, since the threefold repetition of the article pointing them out may be founded upon the very notoriety of these men, and yet does not of necessity presuppose a personal acquaintance with them, it must be left an open question, whether they had already come to Philippi itself, or merely threatened danger from some place in its vicinity. It is certain, however, though Baur still regards it as doubtful, that Paul did not refer to his opponents in Rome mentioned in Php_1:15 ff. (Heinrichs), because in the passage before us a line of teaching must be thought of which was expressly and in principle anti-Pauline, leading back into Judaism and to legal righteousness; and also because the earnest, demonstrative βλέπετε , as well as ἈΣΦΑΛΈς (Php_3:2), can only indicate a danger which was visibly and closely threatening the readers. It is also certain that these opponents could not as yet have succeeded in finding adherents among the Philippians; for if this had been the case, Paul would not have omitted to censure the readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians and Second Corinthians), and he would have given a very different shape generally to his epistle, which betrays nothing but a church as yet undivided in doctrine. His language directed against the false teachers is therefore merely warning and precautionary, as is also shown in Php_3:3.
[150] Luther’s works abound in sarcastic paronomasiae. Thus, for instance, in the preface to his works, instead of De cret and De cretal, he has written “Drecket” and “Drecketal” [Germ. Dreck=dregs, filth]; the Legenden he calls Lügenden, the Jurisperitos he terms Jurisperditos; also in proper names, such as Schwenkfeld, whom he called “Stenkfeld.” In ancient authors, comp. what Diog. L. vi. 2, 4 relates of Diogenes: τὴν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε χολήν , τὴν δὲ Πλάτωνος διατριβήν κατατριβήν . Thuc. vi. 76. 4 : οὐκ ἀξυνετωτέρου , κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ . See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 276; Jacobs, Delect. epigr. p. 188. For the Latin, see Kühner, ad Cic. Tusc. p. 291, ed. 3.