Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:21 - 3:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:21. As a special feature of the Lord’s saving activity at His Parousia, Paul mentions the bodily transfiguration of the ἡμεῖς , in significant relation to what was said in Php_3:19 of the enemies of the cross. The latter now lead an Epicurean life, whilst the ἡμεῖς are in a condition of bodily humiliation through affliction and persecution. But at the Parousia—what a change in the state of things! what a glorification of these bodies now so borne down!
μετασχηματ .] shall transform.[173] What is meant is the ἀλλάσσειν of the body (1Co_15:51 f.) at the Parousia, which in this passage, just as in 1Co_15:52, Paul assumes that the ἩΜΕῖς will live to see. To understand it at the same time of the resurrection of the dead (so most expositors, including de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss), is inappropriate both to ἀπεκδεχόμεθα and to the definition of the quality of the body to be remodelled: Τῆς ΤΑΠΕΙΝ . ἩΜῶΝ , both these expressions being used under the conviction of being still alive in the present state when the change occurs. Moreover, the resurrection is something more than a ΜΕΤΑΣΧΗΜΆΤΙΣΙς ; it is also an investiture with a new body out of the germ of the old (1Co_15:36-38; 1Co_15:42-44.
Τῆς ΤΑΠΕΙΝΏΣ . ἩΜῶΝ ] Genitive of the subject. Instead of saying ἡμῶν merely (our body), he expresses it with more specific definition: the body of our humiliation, that is, the body which is the vehicle of the state of our humiliation, namely, through the privations, persecutions, and afflictions which affect the body and are exhibited in it, thereby reducing us into our present oppressed and lowly position; πολλὰ πάσχει νῦν τὸ σῶμα , δεσμεῖται , μαστίζεται , μυρία πάσχει δεινά , Chrysostom. This definite reference of Τ . ΤΑΠ . ἩΜ . is required by the context through the contrast of the ἩΜΕῖς to the ἘΧΘΡΟῪς ΤΟῦ ΣΤΑΥΡΟῦ Τ . Χ ., so that the sufferings which are meant by the cross of Christ constitute the ταπείνωσις of the ἩΜΕῖς (comp. Act_8:33); in which case there is no ground for our taking ΤΑΠΕΊΝΩΣΙς , contrary to Greek usage (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 815 A; Polyb. ix. 33. 10; Jam_1:10), as equivalent to ταπεινότης , lowliness, as in Luk_1:48 (Hofmann). On this account, and also because ἡμῶν applies to subjects distinctly defined in conformity with the context, it was incorrect to explain ταπειν . generally of the constitution of our life (Hofmann), of weakness and frailty (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others; including Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, Schrader, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss); comparison being made with such passages as Col_1:22; Rom_7:24; 1Co_15:44. The contrast lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the one hand and of δόξα on the other; hence ἩΜῶΝ and ΑὐΤΟῦ are neither to be joined with ΣῶΜΑ (in opposition to Hoelemann), nor with Τ . ΣῶΜΑ Τ . ΤΑΠ . and Τ . Σ . Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς as ideas forming an unity (Hofmann), which Paul would necessarily have marked by separating the genitives in position (Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]).
ΣΎΜΜΟΡΦΟΝ ] Result of the ΜΕΤΑΣΧΗΜ ., so that the reading ΕἸς ΤῸ ΓΕΝΈΣΘΑΙ ΑὐΤΌ is a correct gloss. See on Mat_12:13 and 1Co_1:8; Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 159; Lübcker, grammat. Stud. p. 33 f. The thing itself forms a part of the συνδοξάζεσθαι , Rom_8:17. Comp. also 1Co_15:48 f.; Rom_8:29. We may add Theodoret’s appropriate remark: Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΟΣΌΤΗΤΑ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς , ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ΠΟΙΌΤΗΤΑ .
Τῆς ΔΌΞ . ΑὐΤΟῦ ] to be explained like Τῆς ΤΑΠ . ἩΜ .: in which His heavenly glory is shown forth. Comp. ἘΓΕΊΡΕΤΑΙ ἘΝ ΔΌΞῌ , 1Co_15:44.
ΚΑΤᾺ Τ . ἘΝΈΡΓ . Κ . Τ . Λ .] removes every doubt as to the possibility; according to the working of His being able (comp. Eph_1:19) also to subdue all things unto Himself; that is, in consequence of the energetic efficacy which belongs to His power of also subduing all things to Himself. Comp. κατὰ τ . ἐνέργ . τῆς δυνάμ . αὐτοῦ , Eph_3:7, also Eph_1:19; as to the subject-matter, comp. 1Co_15:25 f.; as to the expression with the genitive of the infinitive, Onosand. I. p. 12: ἡ τοῦ δύνασθαι ποιεῖν ἐξουσία .
καί ] adds the general element ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ π . to the ΜΕΤΑΣΧΗΜΑΤ . Κ . Τ . Λ .[174] Bengel aptly says: “non modo conforme facere corpus nostrum suo.”
τὰ πάντα ] all things collectively, is not to be limited; nothing can withstand His power; a statement which to the Christian consciousness refers, as a matter of course, to created things and powers, not to God also, from whom Christ has received that power (Mat_28:18; 1Co_15:27), and to whom He will ultimately deliver up again the dominion (1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:28). Chrysostom and Theophylact have already with reason noticed the argumentum a majori ad minus.
[173] As to the nature of this transformation, see 1Co_15:53. The older dogmatic exegetes maintained in it the identity of substance. Calovius: “Ille μετασχηματισμός non substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, non ratione quidditatis corporis nostri, sed ratione qualitatum salva quidditate importat.” This is correct only so far as the future body, although an organism without σάρξ and αἷμα , 1Co_15:50, will not only be again specifically human, but will also belong to the identity of the persons. See 1Co_15:35 ff. Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 127 f. More precise definitions, such as those in Delitzsch’s Psychol. p. 459 ff., lose themselves in the misty region of hypothesis. The inappropriateness of the expression employed in the Confession: Resurrection of the flesh, has been rightly pointed out by Luther in the Larger Catechism, p. 501.
[174] Hoelemann takes καί as and, so that the sense would be, “that Christ can do all things, and subdues all things to Himself.” The very aorist ὑποτάξαι should have withheld him from making this heterogeneous combination, as it betrays itself to be dependent on δύνασθαι .