Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 3:5 - 3:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_3:5-6. Predicates of the ἐγώ , by which that ἐγὼ μᾶλλον is justified.
If those Judaizers were, as may be inferred from our passage, partly proselytes (to these the περιτ . ὀκταήμ . stands in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish descent was not so noble and pure as that implied in ἐκ γένους .… Ἑβραίων , and if they could not boast of any such law-strictness, zealous activity, and righteousness, as is described in κατὰ νόμον … ἄμεμπτος ; and if, on the other hand, there were found conjoined in the case of Paul the elements here adduced of ancient theocratic legitimacy and perfection; the ἐγὼ μᾶλλον in Php_3:4 was completely made good.
περιτομῇ ὀκταήμ .] in respect to circumcision an eighth-day-one, not older, as were the proselytes who were only circumcised at a later period of life. The eighth-day character in the’ relation specified by περιτομῇ is conceived as a quality of the persons concerned, which distinguishes them from those circumcised later.[156] The reading περιτομή as nominative (some min. and Fathers, Erasmus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Mill, Bengel, Matthies, Heinrichs, and others, also Elz. 1624, 1633, not 1641), so that it would stand in the concrete sense (circumcisus), is erroneous, because this usage occurs only collectively.
ἐκ γένους Ἰσρ .] that is, a descendant of Jacob, not, therefore, possibly of Idumaean blood. The theocratic name Ἰσρ . corresponds entirely with the design of the passage. Comp. on Eph_2:12. On what follows, comp. 2Co_11:22; Rom_11:1.
ΦΥΛῆς ΒΕΝΙΑΜ .] therefore not, possibly, an Ephraimite (Ezr_4:1); a climactic more precise definition of the εὐγένεια ; εὐγενὴς γὰρ ἡ φύσις κἀξ εὐγενῶν Soph. Phil. 862 (874). For its fuller exhibition Paul finally specifies the last feature of his lineage: Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβρ ., that is, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents, so that his mother also was a Hebrew woman. His lineage is not carried further back in respect to both parents, because it was not the custom to trace back the genealogy of the wives. Inappropriate to the context is the rendering of Michaelis, following Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact: “one speaking Hebrew, born of Hebrew-speaking parents.” It is also erroneous, following the Greek Fathers, to take ἐξ Ἑβρ . of the tota majorum series (Beza, Grotius, Storr, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), because this was after the two previously specified points self-evident. If, among his ancestors, Paul had had one who was a non-Hebrew, he would not have been descended from Jacob and Benjamin, but from the non-Hebrew and his forefathers. For instances of expressions quite similar to Ἑβρ . ἐξ Ἑβρ ., used to denote the identity, as conditioned by birth, of a man’s position with that of his parents, see Wetstein and Kypke; they occur very frequently in classic authors.
ΚΑΤᾺ ΝΌΜΟΝ Κ . Τ . Λ .] After his Jewish ΕὐΓΈΝΕΙΑ there now follows his distinguished personal position in Judaism, set forth in a threefold climactic gradation: (1) In respect of the law (of Moses) a Pharisee. Comp. Act_26:5; Act_22:6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and strictest relation to the law, as they with their traditions were regarded as the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and observers of it. The interpretation of νόμον , not in its habitual historic sense, but generally as regular rule (Beza) or disciplina ( αἵρεσις ) (Castalio, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others), is all the more erroneous, since the validity of the Mosaic law in Christianity was the very principle upheld by those Judaizers; see also below, δικαιοσ . τ . ἐν νόμῳ . (2) In respect of zeal (zealous maintenance and championship of the law-religion, 1Ma_2:58; Act_21:20; Gal_1:14), a persecutor of the church. Comp. Gal_1:13 f. The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gal_1:23. What Paul, to his deep grief, had been (1Co_15:8 f.; 1Ti_1:13), he, with a bitter recalling of his former distinction in Judaism, throws, by way of confronting the Jewish zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic predicate not yet extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any ποτέ as in Gal_1:23, it carries from the standpoint to which he has now attained very strong weight (in opposition to Hofmann, who holds the present sense to be impossible here). (3) In respect to righteousness, which is grounded on the law, having become blameless (Php_2:15), having carried it so far (not: having borne myself so, as Hofmann renders it; comp. on Php_2:15), that human judgment finds nothing in me to blame in this respect! That which is here denoted by δικ . ἡ ἐν νόμῳ is not substantially different from ΔΙΚ . Ἡ ἘΚ ΝΌΜΟΥ in Php_3:9; comp. Rom_10:5. It has its basis in the law, so far as it consists in the accordance of its nature with the character and the rules of that institute (Gal_3:11; Gal_5:4), and proceeds from the law, so far as it is produced by the precepts of the latter which man follows. In opposition to the correlation with Php_3:9 de Wette interprets: “the righteousness valid in the state of law (comp. Rom_2:12).” Calvin appropriately observes that Paul means “totam justitiam legis,” but “communi hominum existimatione;” that it is not, therefore, the real moral fulfilment of the law, but its justitia externa literalis. Comp. J. Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 59, ed. 5.
[156] For instances of the personal use of such nomina dialia, see especially Wetstein on Joh_11:39; comp. generally Kühner, II. 1, p. 234 f.