CHAPTER III.
Ver. 1. We naturally refer ra αὐτὰ to the precept just given, χαίρετε ἐν Kupiw. It is true that this precept has not occurred — in the Epistle before in the same words, or in as general a form ; but, besides the injunction of chap. ii. 18, there have been several references to spiritual joy, of a kind to impress every thoughtful reader with the conviction that to the apostle the cultivation of such a spirit seemed of the very highest moment,—references, therefore, equivalent to precepts. See chap. i. 4, 18, 25, 26; ii. 2, 17, 28. Some commentators have imagined that there is an allusion to a repeated occurrence of this precept (or of that of the second verse, with which, though not so naturally, the clause may be connected) in some previous and now lost letter from the apostle to the Philippians,’ or in his oral teaching when with them. But there seems to be no reason whatever for our going out of the Epistle itself to find a sufficient explanation of the reference. Lightfoot objects to making τὰ αὐτὰ point back to χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ, on the grounds that ‘such an injunction has no very direct bearing on the safety of the Philippians,’ and that ‘its repetition could hardly be suspected of being zrésome’ (grievous) ‘ to the apostle.’ To the former of these objections the apostle himself seems to furnish a sufficient reply in chap. iv. 7, where he says, ‘The peace of God’—an expression which is very nearly equivalent to ‘joy in the Lord’—‘shall eep (φρουρήσει, “ garrison”) your hearts and minds.’ Neither does the second objection appear valid, because the apostle’s word ὀκνηρὸν does not 1
The idea that the apostle wrote more than one letter to this church is supposed to find support in the Epistle of Polycarp, § 3; but see note on the passage.
necessarily imply that the subject in his mind was in itself a disagreeable one. Looking merely at his originative power and at his impetuosity of spirit, and not at his tender fatherly care for the training of his spiritual children, one might naturally think that the iteration and reiteration of amy principle or precept would be ‘irksome’ to him. Lightfoot supposes that τὰ αὐτὰ points forward to something which the apostle was about to say, but has not said,—his thoughts, when he had “ Teached this point in the letter, being through some circumstance diverted into a new channel. He thinks the subject on which Paul intended to speak was probably the dissension among certain members of the Philippian church, already alluded to in chap. ii 1-4. That there was at the close of the 1st verse of the 3rd chapter a sudden diversion of thought, I think highly probable (see the lecture on the passage) ; but the ordinary view of the reference of τὰ αὐτὰ seems to me decidedly more likely than this.
2. The sense of ‘ Beware’ is given here to βλέπειν with the accusative, by the context merely. Compare, for example, Col. iv. 17. Βλέπειν ἀπὸ means ‘to beware of,’ ‘to give heed to, in such a way as to separate ourselves from ;’ see Mark Vill. 15, xii. 38.
4. The construction is easily explained. Καέπερ is regularly construed with a participle. Had the reference of the statement in the first clause of this verse been as wide as that of the 3rd verse—namely to all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles,—the apostle would have written καίπερ ἔχοντες ; but seeing that the statement made here was true of himself, but ‘ not of the Philippian Christians, he takes Aimsel/f out of the whole subject ἡμεῖς, retaining the participial construction, xairep > & δ ἐγὼ ἔχων.
The primary sense of the words ἔ ἔχων πεποίθησιν ἐν σαρκὶ, ‘having confidence in the flesh, —is clearly not the here ; because such a statement would be directly contradictory of that made in the immediately preceding clause. We
with Van Hengel, take the time of the participle to be past,— or, more exactly, hold the participle to be used almost as a substantive or an adjective, the time being given by the context —‘though I (was once) a truster in the flesh.’ Compare διώκων in ver. 6, which apparently must be explained somewhat in this way ; see also the use of ὧν in John ix. 25. Or, with Beza and others, we may regard πεποίθησιν as denoting ‘a ground of confidence, a right to trust,’—the apostle in this case, as often, placing himself on the ground occupied by his adversaries: ‘Supposing—what is not true—that, under any circumstances, a man might place confidence in the flesh, then I have ground for doing so.’ In Ps. lxx. 7, Symmachus has πεποίθησις in this sense, representing the Hebrew ΠΌΤ, Compare the use of ἐλπὶς and χαρὰ in 1 Thess. ii. 19. Indeed, the use of such nouns as ‘trust,’ ‘hope,’ ‘joy,’ for the ground of the feeling, is so natural, that probably in all languages it is found to some extent. This, I apprehend, is the true explanation. Most recent commentators put it aside, and content themselves with saying that in ἔχων the apostle is to be regarded as declaring that he ‘has,’ ‘ possesses,’ but does not ‘use’ the confidence. But I think Beza’s sense of πεποίθησιν is here really assumed ; for, whilst ‘to have, but not use, a ground of confidence’ has a distinct meaning, I cannot see that ‘to have, but not use, a fee/ing of confidence,’ has any.
Having used ἔχων πεποίθησιν in this sense, the apostle not unnaturally, in the 2nd clause of the verse, gives πεποιθέναι the same or a similar sense, ‘to trust (with good ground).’ Even apart from the evidence afforded by the general line of argument, the use of δοκεῖ shows that some such meaning must be given to πεποιθέναι. ‘If any other man regards himself as having the feeding of confidence,’ would not be a natural mode of expression; while ‘if any other man regards himself as having a ground of confidence,’ or, ‘as trusting with good ground, is a clear and natural thought. Ellicott renders, ‘if any other man deemeth that he can put confidence in the
flesh ; Conybeare, ‘if any other man thinks that he has ground of confidence in the flesh; Alford (in his Authorized Version Revised), ‘if any other man thinketh to trust in the flesh.’
6. On the use of the present participle διώκων, see in notes on ver. 4.
7. We may take μοι in the sense which first presents itself, —namely as a dative of advantage; for the facts which the apostle has enumerated were really, in his early days, great advantages to him, as regards his prospects of worldly advancement among his countrymen. Or, if we take ‘gains’ as meaning ‘ advantages with respect to standing before God,’ then μοι will mean ‘in my judgment.’ According to the train of thought, the latter appears the more probable sense.
8. It is evident from the emphatic position of ἡγοῦμαι, and the unemphatic position of πάντα, that the antithesis set forth by the adversative and strengthening combination ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν is not between ταῦτα and πάντα, but between ἤγημαι and ἡγοῦμαι. Ἥνγημαι has its full force as a perfect,—describing a past fact having some direct relation to the present time. ‘ But think not that the present feeling exhibited in this ἥγημαι is, as it were, a mere dull impression resulting from the judgment formed on the subject long ago. Nay, but (ἀλλὰ), in truth (μὲν), looking over the whole case (οὖν), I also now deliberately reckon them all to be loss.’
1o. For the use of the infinitive with the genitive of the article before it, to express design, see Winer, ὃ 44. 4, 0; Green, p. 178; Jelf, ὃ 492. 2, and ὃ 678. 3, 4. This genitive, explained by the older scholars as governed by ἕνεκα or χάριν understood, is in truth a simple genitive of cause,—a use according perfectly with the force of this case. By some commentators τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν is regarded as co-ordinate with ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω, and therefore in immediate dependence on τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα εἶναι ; but this view of the construction does not accord with the inartificial character of the apostle’s style. It is much more natural to take the roth
verse as subordinate to the clause with iva, exhibiting a further object. Though Χριστὸν κερδήσω points to all the blessings enjoyed in Christ by the believer, yet the expansion of the thought given in the goth verse shows that justification was mainly in the apostle’s mind at this point. Now every Christian—to some extent from the moment of conversion, and ever the more as he ripens in spiritual wisdom—while rejoicing with profoundest thankfulness in pardon and acceptance, as in themselves unspeakably precious, longs to have, through the state of acceptance and the divine guidance thus granted to him, more abundant experimental knowledge of Christ.
The participle συμμορφιζόμενος stands in connection with the unexpressed subject of γνῶναι ; and its being in the nominative accords with the usual tendency of the Greek language in cases where the (unexpressed) subject of an infinitive is the same as the subject of the governing verb. For another construction in a clause with rod and the infinitive, see Rom. vii. 3. From the course of thought, it is evident that the participial clause stands in special connection with what immediately precedes it, τοῦ γνῶναι τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ ; and that συμμορφιζόμενος is very nearly equivalent to διὰ τοῦ συμ- _popdhiler Oar. 11
. For the force of εἴ πως here, see the lecture on the passage. Καταντήσω may be either the future indicative,— with which εἴ πως is construed in Rom. i. 10,—or the first aorist subjunctive. Though the subjunctive with εἰ is rare in prose (see Jelf, § 854. 1, obs. 1; and Winer, ὃ 41. 4, 2, c); yet the fact that an indisputable case occurs in the very next verse, εἰ καταλάβω, makes it likely that we should regard the form here also as subjunctive. Of sentences with εἰ employed as it is in these verses, the ultimate explanation probably is, that the apodosis (some consequence, happy, useful, injurious, etc., as the case may be) is suggested and loosely represented by the verb of the main clause, as here by γνῶναι and διώκω respectively.
But, practically, hypothesis has passed entirely into the background in such cases, the subjunctive being employed ‘as an expression of design, to which a tone of diffidence is imparted by its being cast in a hypothetical form’ (Green).
The compound ἐξανάστασις, which occurs here only in the New Testament, is by some regarded as having a special force, —denoting distinctively a resurrection of the righteous prior to that of the wicked. Thus Mr. Birks, in his Outlines of Unfulfilled Prophecy, says that it ‘might be rendered “the peculiar resurrection.”’ ‘This seems to strain the word. Ellicott observes that this double compound ‘ does not appear to have any special force, but seems only an instance of the tendency of later Greek to adopt such forms without any increase of meaning.’
Somewhat similarly, ἀνάστασις (or here, ἐξανάστασις) ἐκ νεκρῶν, as distinguished from ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν, 15 supposed to refer specifically to the resurrection of Christ or of His people. Such certainly is the reference of the form of expression with ἐκ, wherever it occurs in the New Testament. The other form also, however, which is considerably more frequent, has the same reference in a large proportion of instances. An interesting discussion on these points is to be found in Dr. David Brown’s work on Christ’s Second Coming, sixth edition, pp- 182-187.
12. The aorist and perfect have their full distinctive force, —ἔλαβον pointing back to the time of conversion, τετελείωμαι referring to the apostle’s subsequent life up to the time of writing. As object to ἔλαβον we may either, from what precedes, supply ‘ the full experimental knowledge of Christ,’ or, from what follows, ‘the prize’ or ‘the goal.’ The latter seems to me the more probable. In the translation, I have used for ἔλαβον and καταλάβω expressions kindred to each other, to suggest the connection. Whether this be judged necessary or not, however, it seems clear that ‘ attained,’ of the Authorized Version, is an unhappy rendering, as suggesting
a connection with ‘attain’ of the previous verse, where xaravτήσω is the Greek word, ‘
Ed’ ᾧ may be explained in two ways. It may mean ‘because,’ the construction of the relative being one of attraction for ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, ‘on the ground of this, that,’ propterea quod ; see Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 4. Or, as our translators have taken it, it may mean ‘for which,’ referring to an omitted τοῦτο, the object of καταλάβω : with regard to the omission, comp. Luke v. 25 ; and with regard to this force of ἐπὶ, Eph. ii. 10; Gal. ν. 13 ; and, in this very phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, Phil. iv. 10. The latter seems the probable sense here, the argument as brought out by it appearing somewhat more compact and forcibly expressed than on the other view of the meaning.
The καὶ before καταλάβω is taken by Meyer to contrast that verb with the preceding ἔλαβον, ‘if that not λάβω merely, but also (or even) καταλάβω ;’ by Alford and Ellicott, to contrast it with διώκω. I am inclined to think that the view indicated by De Wette is perhaps more probable than either,—that the apostle, having already the great thought, κατελήφθην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ, vividly before his mind, instinctively attached the καὶ to καταλάβω, in contrast with that as yet unexpressed thought.
Kara in καταλαμβάνειν seems to have, as often in composition, a strengthening power, giving the idea of strenuousness, suddenness, or the like. This is prominent in a considerable number of the instances in which the verb occurs in the New Testament. Paul’s general use of it is, as here, with reference to such exertion as was shown by the racers in the great games ; comp. Rom. ix. 30; 1 Cor. ix. 24.
13. Regarding é δὲ, and the image in ἐπεκτεινόμενος, see the lecture on the passage.
14. Ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ may be joined either with διώκω or with κλήσεως. No difficulty in the way of this latter construction arises from the absence of a connecting τῆς; because to substantives like κλῆσις, in which the notion of the verb they are derived from presents itself very prominently, adverbial combinations of words are often attached immediately, just as to the verb itself. Compare the connection of ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας With κοινωνίᾳ, in chap. 1. 5, and the note.
16. The fact that the most ancient Mss., A B &, omit κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, and that in the others there are variations in words or order, renders it in the highest degree probable that these words do not belong to the true text, but are a copyist’s gloss, derived from chap. ii. 2 and Gal. vi. 16. The meaning of the words which remain is, ‘ Nevertheless’ (or better perhaps, ‘Only’), ‘whereto we have (now, and at any time) attained, by the same let us walk.’ With knowledge of duty, practice is always to correspond.
On φθάνειν, Ellicott remarks,—‘ The primary and classical meaning of this verb (frvevenire) appears to have been almost entirely lost sight of in Alexandrian Greek, and to have merged in the general meaning “ venire,” and, with εἰς, “‘ pervenire.”’ Στοιχεῖν
has the force of στοιχῶμεν, ‘let us walk.’ This use of the infinitive with a hortatory or imperative force is not very uncommon in classical writers, but is somewhat rare in the New Testament. Compare Rom. xii. 15. It ‘can be used of all three persons, as a general expression of necessity or of something to be done’ (Jelf, ὃ 671. ὃ. For the exhibition of general principles of duty, the absence of a distinct exhibition of the idea of person renders the infinitive specially suitable ; and in the present passage ‘it points out with peculiar effect the unchanging rule for directing the Christian life’ (Winer, § 43. 5, 4). To govern such an infinitive, the mind instinctively supplies χρὴ or dec. Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, and others, translate στοιχεῖν here, ‘walk ye,’ but, with the first person ἐφθάσαμεν in the relative clause, this seems exceedingly unnatural, —and the instances of the use of the infinitive for the frst person, cited by Jelf, in the paragraph above referred to, from Herodotus and Sophocles, quite justify our taking it with the same force here. So De Wette and Lightfoot.
17. To the verb σκοπεῖν, ‘to look at, mark,’ the idea, ‘ for
imitation,’ is given here simply by the connection. In Rom. xvi. 17, the apostle, using this same verb, says, ‘Mark, and avoid. Compare note on the use of βλέπειν in the 2nd verse of this chapter.
18. With περιπατοῦσι we expect an adverb or adverbial clause,—‘ wickedly,’ ‘in a way to prove themselves enemies of the cross of Christ,’ or the like. In his earnestness, however, the apostle hastens on into the relative clause, and takes into it the thought which, according to exactness of composition, would have been expressed in immediate connection with περιπατοῦσι. Storr and others give περιπατοῦσι the sense of ‘go about, itinerate,’—as in 1 Pet. v. 8; but this is altogether unnatural. The word must unquestionably have the same meaning here as in the previous verse.
19. The last clause receives a peculiar prominence through its isolation in construction. With regard to the significance of this, see the lecture on the passage. As to the frequent occurrence of the nominative in participial clauses, where properly one of the oblique cases would be required, compare note on chap. i. 30. Strictly speaking, however, as Ellicott observes, the use of the nominative in the present passage can hardly be called an anacoluth, but is rather ‘an emphatic return to the primary construction :’ ‘many walk—the minders of earthly things.’
20. The precise meaning of πολίτευμα here is not altogether clear. In the sense given by our translators, ‘conversation,’ or ‘mode of conduct,’ the noun does not seem to occur, though the verb πολιτεύεσθαι is used in the sense of ‘to conduct one’s self ;’ see chap. i. 22. The thought, moreover, according to this rendering, ‘Our conversation is in heaven,’ is peculiar, and difficult to grasp with definiteness ; for this is a considerably different statement from that in Col. iii. 3, ‘Your life (ζωὴ) is hid with Christ in God,’—the reference there being to the spring or principle of the believer’s life, while ‘ conversation’ denotes daily conduct in its details, The statement
that this, the Christian’s daily life,—not, ‘is regulated, according to the measure of his faith, by principles taught him from heaven,’ or ‘ by the spirit becoming one who hopes for heaven,’ but—‘ is in heaven’ (and this with the strong word ὑπάρχει), is certainly remarkable, and does not seem to have anything very closely resembling it elsewhere in Scripture. Πολέτευμα is found not unfrequently in the sense of ‘state, commonwealth, country,’ to which men belong as πολῖται ; and this is the meaning attached to it here by Meyer, Ellicott, and others. The sense of ‘citizenship,’ adopted by Wiesinger, Braune, and others, appears to me preferable,—the express exhibition of the relation of believers to the heavenly Jerusalem seeming to accord more perfectly with the natural course of thought than the simple objective exhibition of the city or country itself. It is true that no instance has been adduced of the use of the word in this sense,—but it is certainly a sense most naturally suggested by the form; and the use, in Latin, of civifas for ‘a state,’ or for ‘citizenship in a state,’ and, in Greek, similarly, of πολιτεία, shows how easily one word could represent both ideas. Πολιτεία occurs only twice in the New Testament,—in Eph. ii. 12, and in Acts xxii. 28 ; and in the one place it bears the one meaning, ‘commonwealth,’ in the other, the other, ‘citizenship.’ Then the idea of ‘citizenship in heayen’ was one familiar to religious thinkers of various schools ; and both Philo and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus use the verb πολιτεύεσθαι in this connection. It seems to me, therefore, to be the sense which attaches itself most readily and naturally to the substantive here.
On ὑπάρχειν, see note on chap. 11. 6. No one who has at all looked into the use of this verb will entertain any doubt that it was always intended to bear some shade of meaning additional to that of the simple substantive verb εἶναι, though it is difficult occasionally to determine with precision what that shade is. In this verse the thought may be, ‘is even now, is already,’ or ‘is, let me remind you.’ On this latter use of to exhibit something as new, or, at least, as probably not obvious to readers at the moment, or not recognised by them in its full significance, see Alford’s note on Acts xvi. 20.
If πολίτευμα be taken to mean ‘state, country,’ then the relative οὗ may agree with it as its antecedent. But, on the other hand, whatever be the sense of πολίτευμα, ἐξ οὗ may be looked on as simply an adverbial phrase, meaning ‘ whence,’— with the relative not in strict construction at all. See Winer, § 21. 3.
The position of σωτῆρα shows that the emphasis is on it, the contrast being very vivid in the writer’s mind between the position of those who cherish such an expectation and that of those previously mentioned, ὧν τὸ τέλος amwdaa, Tyndale brings out the meaning well by his ‘from whence we look for a Saviour, even the Lord Jesus Christ.’
21. Σχῆμα and μορφὴ are, respectively, ‘ fashion’ and ‘form,’ —the one comparatively transient, depending on casual circumstances ; the other, the expression or manifestation of the real nature, and thus, it may be, enduring. ‘The distinction is found also in the compounds. In Rom. xii. 2,—where our Authorized Version, by using in both clauses a compound of ‘form,’ ‘conformed,’ and ‘transformed,’ hides the distinction entirely,—‘ being in agreement with the fleeting fashion of this world’ (συσχηματίζεσθαι) is contrasted with ‘ exhibiting @ change of life adequately representing a change in the depths of the nature’ (μεταμορφοῦσθαι). In the verse before us the distinction is not so obvious. The meaning, however, seems to be, as Dr Lightfoot gives it, ‘will change the fashion (μετασχηματίσει) of the body of our humiliation, and fix ἐξ in the form (σύμμορφον) of the body of His glory.’ Lightfoot, in a long detached note, discusses this distinction with characteristic thoroughness. Trench’s remarks also in his Synonyms, 2nd series, § 20, well repay perusal. Μετασχηματίσει
—σύμμορφον means ‘will change, so that it shall be conformed,’ the connection being accurately given by
| the words εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸ, which are found in the Textus Receptus before σύμμορφον, but are unquestionably a gloss. For similar constructions, see Rom. vill. 29; Jas. li. 5 ; and compare Winer, § 66. 3. |
Kara τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν is, ‘according to the exercise of His power.’ On the force given by the introduction of ἐνέργειαν, see the last paragraph of the lecture on the passage. The form of expression with the infinitive does not differ in meaning from δύναμις otherwise than as setting forth, ‘perhaps a little more forcibly, the enduring nature and latitude of that power’ (Ellicott).
For ἑαντῷ, of the Received Text, the recent critical editions, following the most ancient ss., read airé,—as in many similar cases in the New Testament, where the reference is to the subject of the mainverb. In classical Greek ἑαυτῷ would have been necessary, just as ‘ Himse/f’ is in English ; but in the later Greek the forms of the simple αὐτὸς were very commonly employed instead of those strictly reflective.
