Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Philippians 4:7 - 4:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Php_4:7. The blessed result, which the compliance with Php_4:6 will have for the inner man. How independent is this blessing of the concrete granting or non-granting of what is prayed for!
ἡ εἰρήνη τ . Θεοῦ ] the peace of soul produced by God (through the Holy Spirit; comp. χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ , Rom_14:17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God’s counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and variance are excluded, such as it is expressed e.g. in Rom_8:18; Rom_8:28. So in substance most expositors, including Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer. This view—and not (in opposition to Theodoret and Pelagius) that explanation of peace in the sense of harmony with the brethren (Rom_15:33; Rom_16:20; 2Co_13:11; 1Th_5:23; 2Th_3:16), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the correlative ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης in Php_4:9—is here required on the part of the context, both by the contrast of μεριμνᾶτε in Php_4:6, and by the predicate ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν . The latter, if applicable to the peace of harmony, would express too much and too general an idea; it is, on the other hand, admirably adapted to the holy peace of the soul which God produces, as contrasted with the μέριμνα , to which the feeble νοῦς by itself is liable; as, indeed, in the classical authors also (Plat. Rep. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere (Wis_3:3), εἰρήνη denotes the tranquillitas and securitas, the mental γαλήνη (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 A) and ἡσυχία —a rest, which here is invested by τοῦ Θεοῦ with the consecration of divine life. Comp. εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ , Col_3:15; Joh_14:27; and, on the other hand, the false εἰρήνη κ . ἀσφάλεια , 1Th_5:3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Rom_5:1, as “pax, qua reconciliati estis Deo” (Erasmus, Paraphr.; so Chrysostom, ἡ καταλλαγὴ , ἡ ἀγάπη τ . Θεοῦ ; and Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Estius, Wetstein, and others, including Storr, Matthies, and van Hengel), which would be too general and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is the presupposition of the divinely produced moral feeling which is here meant; the former is εἰρήνη πρὸς τὸν Θεόν , the latter εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ .
ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν ] which surpasses every reason, namely, in regard to its salutary power and efficacy; that is, which is able more than any reason to elevate above all solicitude, to comfort and to strengthen. Because the reason in its moral thinking, willing, and feeling is of itself too weak to confront the power of the σάρξ (Rom_7:23; Rom_7:25; Gal_5:17), no reason is in a position to give this clear holy elevation and strength against the world and its afflictions. This can be effected by nothing but the agency of the divine peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing heart, when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving it has elevated itself to God and has confided to Him all its concerns, 1Pe_5:7. Then, in virtue of this blessed peace, the heart experiences what it could not have experienced by means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. According to de Wette, the doubting and heart-disquieting νοῦς is meant, which is surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is based upon faith and feeling. In opposition to this, however, stands the πάντα , according to which not merely all doubting reason, but every reason is meant. No one, not even the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its action what he has through the peace of God. Others have explained it in the sense of the incomprehensibleness of the peace of God, “the greatness of which the understanding cannot even grasp” (Wiesinger). So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoelemann and Weiss. Comp. Eph_3:20. But the context, both in the foregoing μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε and in the φρουρήσει κ . τ . λ . which follows, points only to the blessed influence, in respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of reason whatever, and consequently is more efficacious than it. It is a ὑπερέχειν τῇ δυνάμει ; Paul had no occasion to bring into prominence the incomprehensibleness of the εἰρήνη Θεοῦ .
On ὑπερέχειν with the accusative (usually with the genitive, Php_2:3), see Valckenaer, ad Eur. Hippol. 1365; Kühner, II. 1, p. 337.
φρουρήσει κ . τ . λ .] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact: ἀσφαλίσαιτο , Luther, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), but custodiet (Castalio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection against all injurious influences (comp. 1Pe_1:5) is promised. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 560 B: οἱ … ἄριστοι φρουροί τε καὶ φύλακες ἐν ἀνδρῶν θεοφιλῶν εἰσὶ διανοίαις . Eur. Suppl. 902: ἐφρούρει ( πολλοὺς ) μηδὲν ἐξαμαρτάνειν . “Animat eos hac fiducia,” Erasmus, Annot. This protecting vigilance is more precisely defined by ἐν Χ . Ἰ ., which expresses its specific character, so far as this peace of God is in Christ as the element of its nature and life, and therefore its influence, protecting and keeping men’s hearts, is not otherwise realized and carried out than in this its holy sphere of life, which is Christ. The φρουρά which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, as it were, the φρουραρχία (Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 17). Comp. Col_3:15, where the εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραβεύει in men’s hearts. Others consider ἐν Χ . Ἰ . as that which takes place on the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God would keep them, namely “in unity with Christ, in His divinely-blessed, holy life,” de Wette; or ὥστε μένειν καὶ μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτοῦ , Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Matthies, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss. But the words do not affirm wherein watchful activity is to keep or preserve the readers (Paul does not write τηρήσει ; comp. Joh_17:11), but wherein it will take place; therefore the inaccurate rendering per Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so far more correct. The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann (“Christo fere cinguli instar τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν κ . τ . λ . circumcludente,” etc.) is all the less warranted, the more familiar the idea ἐν Χριστῷ was to the apostle as representing the element in which the life and action, as Christian, move.
The pernicious influences themselves, the withholding and warding off of which are meant by φρουρήσει κ . τ . λ ., are not to be arbitrarily limited, e.g. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to Satan (Beza, Grotius, and others), or sin (Theophylact), or pravas cogitationes (Calvin), or “omnes insultus et curas” (Bengel), and the like; but to be left quite general, comprehending all such special aspects. Erasmus well says (Paraphr.): “adversus omnia, quae hic possunt incidere formidanda.”
τὰς καρδ . ὑμ . κ . τὰ νοήμ . ὑμῶν ] emphatically kept apart. It is enough to add Bengel’s note: “cor sedes cogitationum.” Comp. Roos, Fundam. psychol. ex sacr. script. III. § 6: “causa cogitationum interna eaque libera.” The heart is the organ of self-consciousness, and therefore the moral seat of the activity of thought and will. As to the νοήματα (2Co_3:14) as the internal products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore including purposes and plans (Plat. Polit. p. 260 D; 2Co_2:11), comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 59, and Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 179. The distinction is an arbitrary one, which applies τ . καρδ . to the emotions and will, and τ . νοήμ . to the intelligence (Beza, Calvin).