Comentários bíblicos

CHAPTER 3

Php 3:3. Instead of Θεοῦ Elz. has Θεῷ, against decisive testimony, although again defended by Reiche. A clumsy emendation in order to complete the λατρ.

Php 3:6. ζῆλον] Lachm. and Tisch. read ζῆλος, following A B D* F G א*. A copyist’s error; comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Corinthians 9:2.

Php 3:8. Instead of μὲν οὖν Elz. and Tisch. 8 have μενοῦνγω, which, although supported by A P א, is opposed by very preponderating testimony.

The second εἶναι is wanting in B D* F G א*, 17, Arm. Vulg. It. Lucif., et al. Suspected by Griesb, omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have been left out before the similar ἵνα!

Php 3:10. The second τήν is wanting in A B א*; omitted by Lachm.; overlooked as unnecessary.

Instead of συμμορφιζόμενος (so Lachm. and Tisch.), which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scholz have συμμορφούμενος. But the former has in its favour A B D* P א*, min. Or. ms. Bas. Macar., as also συνφορτιζόμενος in F G It. Lucif. Ir. The Recepta substitutes an analogous form more familiar.

Php 3:11. τῶν νεκρ.] A B D E P א, min., and many vss. and Fathers, have τὴν ἐκ νεκρ., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses ἀνάστασις with merely the genitive τῶν νεκρῶν, or only νεκρ. The ἐκ was written on the margin here to explain the word ἐξαναστ., which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and subsequently the erroneous insertion of this ἐκ after τῶν (so still F G) produced the reading τὴν ἐκ νεκρ.

Php 3:12. The Χριστοῦ alone (Elz. gives τοῦ Χ. Ἰησοῦ) has preponderant evidence.

Php 3:14. ἐπί] Lachm. and Tisch. read εἰς, following A B א, min. Clem. Aeth. Rightly; ἐπί is explanatory.

Php 3:16. After στοιχεῖν, Elz., Scholz have κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, which is wanting in A B א*, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Hilar. Aug., et al. There are, besides, several variations, and differences in the arrangement of the words. The Recepta has arisen from glosses (following Galatians 6:16; Php 2:2), and has far too little homogeneousness in a critical point of view, to enable it to be defended on the ground of homoioteleuton (so Matth. and Rinck).

Php 3:21. After ἡμῶν, Elz. has εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό, which (although defended by Matth.) is omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient supplement.

ἑαυτῷ] Following A B D* F G K P א*, min. Eus. Theophyl., αὐτῷ is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read; ἑαυτῷ is a more precise definition.

In Php 3:1 Paul seems already preparing to close his epistle; but at this point his attention is directed, perhaps by some special momentary occasion, to the party of anti-Pauline teachers, against which he at once breaks forth with vehemence and irony in Php 3:2, warning his readers against them; and thereafter, from Php 3:4-14, he sets forth in detail his own bearing as contrasted with the character of those false teachers.

Php 3:1. Τὸ λοιπόν] introduces what is still to be done by the readers in addition to what has been hitherto communicated; see on Ephesians 6:10. Hence it is of frequent occurrence towards the close of the epistles, as bringing in a further request, exhortation, etc. Comp. Php 4:8; 2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:1. To the closing address thus introduced, but at once abandoned again in Php 3:2, Paul would have attached his giving of thanks for the aid sent to him (comp. Php 4:8; Php 4:10 ff.). This is contrary to the view of Schinz and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul has not yet expressed his thanks, conclude that he did not at this point desire to proceed to the closing of the letter. We need not search for a connection with what precedes (Chrysostom: ἔχετε Ἐπαφρόδιτον, διʼ ὃν ἠλγεῖτε, ἔχετε Τιμόθεον, ἔρχομαι κἀγώ, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐπιδίδωσι· τί ὑμῖν λείπει λοιπόν; comp. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, and others). The preceding topic is closed, and the exhortation beginning with τὸ λοιπ. which now follows stands by itself; so that we are not even justified in saying that Paul here passes from the particular to the general (Schinz, Matthies), but must simply assume that he is proceeding to the conclusion, which he desired to commence with this general encouragement.

χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ] is a summons to Christian joyfulness, which is not κατὰ κόσμον (see Chrysostom), but has its ground in Christ, and is thereby specifically defined, inasmuch as Christ—through the Holy Spirit—rules in the believing heart; hence the χαρὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου (1 Thessalonians 1:6) or ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Romans 14:17) are in substance not different from this (comp. Galatians 5:22). The subsequent double repetition of this encouragement (Php 4:4) is the result of the apostle’s special love for his readers, and of the whole tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in ἐν κυρίῳ we are not to seek for a new special element, preparing the way for the transition to the explanations which follow (Weiss, Hofmann); for Paul could not in what went before mean any other joy, either on his own part (Php 1:18) or on the part of his readers (Php 2:17 f., 28), and in other passages also he does not add to χαίρετε the self-evident definition ἐν κυρίῳ (2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:16). Another joy in the Christian life he knew not at all.

τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν] “Hic incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere,” Calvin. After χαίρ. χ ἐν κ. there is a pause; Paul breaks off. τὰ αὐτά has been erroneously referred to χαίρ. ἐν κ., and in that case the retrospective reference which Paul had in view is either not explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae), or is believed to be found in Php 2:18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in Php 1:27 f. (Matthies, Rilliet), or in Php 1:27 to Php 2:16 (Storr). This view is at variance, not indeed with the plural τὰ αὐτά (see, on the contrary, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 19 D; Mätzner, ad Antiph. p. 153; Kühner II. 1, p. 60), but with the facts, first, that there is no express summons whatever to Christian joyfulness generally, given in the previous portion of the epistle (not even in Php 2:18); secondly, that so simple and natural a summons—which, moreover, occurs again twice in Php 4:4—would certainly have least of all given rise to an apology for repetition; and lastly, that ἀσφαλές, in accordance with its idea (without danger), points not to the repetition of a summons of this kind, but to a warning, such as follows immediately in the context.[145] The accusation of poverty of thought (Baur) is therefore all the more groundless here. And as the altogether vague reference of Theodoret and Erasmus (Annotat.) to the numerous exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the fundamental tone of the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance with the literal import of the words, τὰ αὐτά cannot be interpreted as applicable to anything but the subsequent warning against the false teachers. This warning, however, has not occurred previously, either at Php 1:15 f., or indirectly in Php 1:27, as Lünemann thinks, or in Php 1:27 to Php 2:18, as Ewald assumes. Hence many have caught at the explanation: “eadem repetere, quae praesens dixeram” (Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, so also Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others; de Wette undecidedly). But this quae praesens dixeram is quite gratuitously imported; it must at least have been indicated by τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ γρ. ὑμ. or in some other way. The same objection applies against Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f.), who takes τὰ αὐτά as contrasted with the oral communications, which would be made to the readers by Epaphroditus and especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation, therefore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is expressly rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already written what follows in an earlier epistle to the Philippians [146] which is not preserved, and that he here repeats the same. So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt, Flatt, Köhler, in the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834, III. 1, p. 18 f.; Feilmoser, Bleek, Jatho, Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann; de Wette undecidedly. It must remain uncertain, however, whether this repetition covers Php 3:2 only, or Php 3:3 also, or a still larger portion of the sequel; as also, how far the repetition is a literal one, which seems to be the case with Php 3:2 from its peculiar character.

ὀκνηρόν] irksome, matter of scruple (Dem. 777. 5; Theocr. xxiv. 35; Pind. Nem. xi. 28; Herodian vi. 9, 7; Soph. O. R. 834), comp. οὐκ ὀκνητέον, Polyb. i. 14. 7, also Plat. Ep. II. 310 D: τἀληθῆ λέγειν οὔτε ὀκνήσω οὔτε σἰσχυνοῦμαι.

ἀσφαλές] safe, so that ye will the more firmly rely thereon for the determination of your conduct. Comp. Acts 25:26; Hebrews 6:19; Wis 7:23; Plat. Rep. 450 E; Phaed. p. 100 D E; Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15. Hofmann, without any precedent of usage, assigns to ὀκνηρόν the sense of indolent cowardice, and takes ἀσφαλές as prudent, which linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231 A), but would be unsuitable to the ὑμῖν. The apostle wishes to say, that the repetition is for himself not irksome (ὄκνος, haesitatio), and is for his readers an ἀσφαλὲς τεκμήριον (Eur. Rhes. 94.) to be attended to.

[145] The expedient to which Wiesinger has recourse is gratuitously introduced, when he connects the χαίρετε ἐν κ. more closely with the warning that follows by imagining that, in χαίρ. ἐν κ., he detects already the idea on which the sequel is based, namely the στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ, Php 4:1.

[146] Comp. also Credner, Einl. I. p. 333.

NOTE.

This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle, Paul had already written another to the Philippians,[147] is confirmed by Polycarp,[148] who, ad 3, says: τοῦ μακαρίου κ. ἐνδόξου Παύλου, ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἐδίδαξεν ἀκριβῶς κ. βεβαίως τὸν περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὰς, εἰς ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ. It is true that the plur. in this passage (ἐπιστολὰς, εἰς ἅς) is usually explained as referring to one epistle (see Cotelerius in loc.; and Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. II. p. 914 f.; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, p. 210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as it is well known that also in profane authors ἑπιστολαί (comp. literae) is used of one despatch (Thuc. i. 132. 6, viii. 39. 2), sometimes generally in a generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes specially of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446; Blomf. and Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3; Rettig, Quaest. Phil. II. p. 37 f. But there is the less ground for assuming this construction here, since doctrinal epistles, both in the N. T. and also in the apostolic Fathers, are always described by the singular when only one epistle is intended, and by the plural (as in 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 10:9-11; 2 Peter 3:16; comp. Acts 9:2; Acts 22:5) if more than one are meant,—a practice from which there is no exception (not even in 1 Corinthians 16:3), as, in fact, Polycarp, in regard to ἐπιστολή, elsewhere very definitely distinguishes between the singular and plural. See ch. 13: τὰς ἐπιστολὰς Ἰγνατίου τὰς πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν ὑπʼ αὑτοῦ καὶ ἄλλας ὅσας εἴχομεν παρʼ ἡμῖνʼ ἐπέμψαμεν ὑμῖν, καθὼς ἑνετείλασθε· αἵτινες ὑποτεταγμέναι εἰσὶ τῆ πιστολῇ ταύτῃ. In order to prove that Polycarp in ch. 3. did not mean more than one epistle to the Philippians, an appeal has been made to ch. 4., where, in the Latin version, which alone has been preserved, it is said: “Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui estis (non-genuine addition: laudati) in principio epistolae ejus; de vobis enim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quæ Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem nondum noveramus.” But epistolae ejus cannot here be the epistle to the Philippians, for the idea: “ye are in the beginning of his epistle,” would be simply absurd; epistolae is, on the contrary, the nominative plural, and the sense is: “Ye are originally his epistles,” that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase allusion is made to 2 Corinthians 3:1 ff.[149] The correctness of this explanation, which Wieseler has substantially adopted, is corroborated by the sequel: de vobis enim gloriatur, etc.

It is, moreover, à priori intelligible and likely enough that Paul should have corresponded with this church—which enjoyed his most intimate confidence, and the founding of which marked his entrance on his European labours—at an earlier period than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Polycarp was sufficiently close to the time of the apostle, not merely to have inferred such a correspondence from our passage, but to have had a historical knowledge of it (in opposition to Hofmann).

[147] Ewald also acknowledges the composition of more than one epistle to the Philippians, but finds traces of them not here, but at Php 2:12, Php 3:18.

[148] I cannot at once accept the view that the passages in question, ch. 3 and 11, are interpolated (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 588 ff.). The interpolations in the Ignatian epistles are at any rate of another kind. Besides, we have from Polycarp only the one epistle; and we have therefore no sufficient objective standard of comparison, in the absence of which a judgment founded on taste is very uncertain. But even assuming the interpolation, we should still have the result that the interpolator was acquainted with several epistles of Paul to the Philippians. Otherwise he would have had no reason for using the plural, especially as it was already distinction enough for the church to have had one epistle addressed to it by the apostle.

[149] Hofmann also explains the expression from 2 Corinthians 3:1 ff., but errs in taking epistolae as the genitive; he makes this epistle to be the whole of the Christians gathered by Paul, and thus represents Polyearp as declaring, in reference to the Philippian church, that it stands first in this epistle, because it is reckoned among his earliest acquisitions. According to this interpretation, a vast aggregate of churches would be depicted as one epistle, in which one church would stand written first, and others after it, each therefore being marked by name in the order of its date. What a different picture this would yield from that presented in 2 Corinthians 3, and one, too, delineated singularly enough! And how unsuitable would such a precedence, as to time, be for the church at Philippi! By how long a period had the establishment of all the churches of Asia preceded it! Hofmann’s objection to our view, viz. that the present estis would be unsuitable, does not apply, since Polycarp realizes the state of matters as it stood with the church in principio (ἐν ἀρχῇ, i.e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as present; hence also he subsequently says gloriatur (not gloriabatur). The conception is this: Paul in all the churches of that early Christian age boasts of the excellent Philippian church, and so this church serves him as so many letters of recommendation, which by his gloriari he communicates, and as it were reads before, those other churches.

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, Mark 8:15; Mark 12:38), but as a calling attention to: behold! (1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 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 (Isaiah 56:10 f.; Deuteronomy 23:18; Revelation 22:15, et al.), and, because dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane, impure, unholy (Matthew 7:6; Psalm 22:17; Revelation 22:15; Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 1145); hence the Gentiles were so designated (see on Matthew 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. 2 Corinthians 11:13. The opposite: 2 Timothy 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; Romans 2:28 f.; Colossians 2:11; Ephesians 2:11; Acts 7:51). Comp. Galatians 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, Romans 10:4),—a presupposition which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.[150] A description of idolatry, with allusion to Leviticus 21:5, 1 Kings 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.

Php 3:3. Justification of the preceding τ. κατατομήν; not, however, “an evident copy” of 2 Corinthians 11:18 f. (Baur), but very different from the latter passage amidst the corresponding resemblances which the similarity of subject suggested; in both cases there is Pauline originality.

ἡμεῖς] with emphasis: we, not they. The κατατομή being not the unconverted Jews, but Christian Judaizers, the contrasted ἡμεῖς cannot mean the Christians generally (Weiss), but only those who, in the apostle’s sense, were true and right Christians, whose more definite characterization-immediately follows. The ἡμεῖς are the Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ of Galatians 6:15 f., the members of the people of God in the sense of the Pauline gospel, and not merely Paul and the true teachers of the gospel (Hofmann),—a restriction which the exclusiveness of the predicate, especially furnished as it is with the article, does not befit; in Php 3:17 the context stands otherwise.

ἡ περιτομή] If this predicate belongs to us, not to those men, then, in regard to the point of circumcision, nothing remains for the latter but the predicate κατατομή! As the ἡμεῖς, among whom the readers also were included, were for the most part uncircumcised (Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:3; Ephesians 2:11), it is clear that Paul here takes περιτομή purely in the antitypical spiritual sense, according to which the circumcised are those who, since the reception of baptism, are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and therefore members of the true people of God; the investiture with their new moral condition is typically prefigured by the legal bodily περιτομή of the Jewish theocracy. Comp. Romans 2:29; Romans 4:10 f.; Ephesians 2:11; Colossians 2:11; Acts 7:51. Whether the bodily circumcision was present or not, and whether, therefore, the subjects were Jewish or Gentile Christians, was in that case matter of indifference, 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 3:28; Galatians 5:6. Comp. the further amplification of the thought in Barnab. Ep. 9.

οἱ πνεύματι Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.] We who serve through the Spirit of God, in contrast to the external, legal λατρεία, (Romans 9:4).[151] Comp. Hebrews 9:10; Hebrews 9:14; Romans 12:1 f. With this λατρεία, wrought by the Holy Spirit,[152] there takes place on the part of man (comp. Romans 1:9), but in virtue of that very working of the Holy Spirit, the worship which is required in John 4:24. The article οἱ extends also to the two participles which follow; and the arthrous participles (quippe qui colimus, etc.) contain the experimental proof that the ἡμεῖς are the ΠΕΡΙΤΟΜΉ. The dative ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ denotes neither the standard (van Hengel) nor the object (Hilgenfeld), which latter view would amount to the conception, foreign to the N. T., of a worship of the Holy Spirit—but is instrumental, expressing the inward agent (Romans 5:5; Romans 8:14 f., et al.). vi spiritus divini (Romans 8:13, et al.). On the absolute λατρεύειν, to render divine worship, comp. Luke 2:37; Acts 26:7; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:2; Romans 9:4; Romans 3 Esdr. 4:54.

καυχώμ. ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] and who glory in Christ Jesus (as Him through whom alone we have attained righteousness, etc., see Php 3:9; comp. Galatians 6:14), not in our own privileges and legal performances, as those false teachers do, who place their confidence in what is fleshly, i.e. in that which belongs to material human nature and has nothing in common with the divine blessings of the Christian (such as circumcision, descent, outward observance of the law, comp. Php 3:4-6). Hence the contrast: καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες, with which the disposition of mind contrary to the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν Χ. Ἰ. (from which disposition the ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ, opposed to that Christian ΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ, of itself results) is negatived; so that this contrast is pregnant, belonging, however, by way of antithesis, to the second statement, and not containing a separate third one (Hofmann). if κ. οὐκ ἐν σ. πεπ. were merely a more precise definition of purport added to καυχ. ἐν Χ. Ἰ. (Weiss), it must have been added without ΚΑΊ. As to ΟὐΚ in the passage, referring to concrete persons and a definite fact, and negativing not merely the ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ (Hofmann), but the actual position ἘΝ Σ. ΠΕΠΟΙΘ., see Winer, p. 451 f. [E. T. 609]; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 276 f.

[151] True Christianity is, according to Paul also, the true continuation of Judaism, and that not merely of the promise given in it, but also of the law; the latter, however, according to the idea of the πλήρωσις, Matthew 5:17, in which the letter has yielded to the spirit.

[152] If we adopt the reading πνεύματι Θεῷ, πνεύματι must be understood as in Romans 1:9. See Reiche, Comment, crit. p. 229 ff.

Php 3:4. By the οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθ., which he had just used, Paul finds himself led to his own personal position; for he was, in fact, the proper organ of the anti-Judaizing tendency expressed in Php 3:3, and the real object against which the whole conflict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by the words οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθ. he by no means intends to concede that he is destitute of that πεποίθησις which was founded on externals;[153] no, in this respect also he has more to show than others, down to Php 3:6. [154] So no one might say that he was despising what he himself did not possess.

The classical καίπερ with the participle (only used here by Paul; and elsewhere in the N.T. only in Hebrews 5:8, et al.; 2 Peter 1:12), adds to the adversative sentence a limiting concessive clause (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 201 f.), and that in such a way, that from the collective subject of the former the apostle now with emphasis singles out partitively his own person (ἐγώ).[155] If, following the Homeric usage, he had separated the two particles, he would have written: καὶ ἐγώ περ.; if he had expressed himself negatively, he would have said: οὐδέπερ ἑγώ οὐκ ἔχων.

The confidence also in flesh, i.e. in such circumstances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in ἔχων (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:4) conceived as a possession; he has this confidence, namely, from his personal position as an Israelite—a standpoint which, laying out of view for the moment his Christian transformation, he boldly adopts, in order to measure himself with his Judaistic opponents on their own ground of proud confidence, and thereupon in Php 3:7 ff. yet again to abandon this standpoint and to make those Israelitish advantages vanish into nothing before the light of his vital position as a Christian. Hence the πεποίθησις, his possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not fiduciae argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Flatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss); nor is the possession of it to be viewed as something which he might have (Storr, Rilliet, Matthies, Ewald); nor is it to be referred to the pre-Christian period of the apostle’s life (van Hengel). The latter is also the view of Hofmann, who holds ἔχων (and then ΔΙΏΚΩΝ also) as the imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the involved misinterpretation: that καίπερ introduces a protasis, the apodosis of which follows with ἀλλά in Php 3:7. In accordance with this view, Php 3:4 is supposed to mean: “Although I possessed a confidence, and that, indeed, based on such matters as are flesh, if any other ventures to trust in such things, I for my part possessed confidence in a higher degree”. This is erroneous; first, because the familiar ἀλλά of the apodosis is used indeed after ΚΑΊΤΟΙ (with finite tense; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 68 E; Parm. p. 128 C), but not after the common καίπερ with participle, attaching itself to a governing verb; secondly, because ΚΑΊ before ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚΊ means nothing else than also, which does not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to force upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed; thirdly, because the present δοκεῖ presupposes the present sense for ἔχων also; and lastly, because with ἘΓῺ ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ the present (in accordance with the preceding δοκεῖ), and not the imperfect, again suggests itself as to be supplied. And how awkward would be the whole form of expression for the, after all, very simple idea!

ΤΙς … ἌΛΛΟς] quite generally: any other person, but the intended application to the above-mentioned Judaizers was obvious to the reader. See the sequel. The separation by δοκεῖ lays all the stronger stress on the ΤΊς.

ΔΟΚΕῖ] not: “thinks to be able to confide” (de Wette and many others); nor yet: “si quis alius videtur” (Vulgate), since it is a matter depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his own fancy, according to the connection. Hence: if any one allows himself to think, if he presumes. Just in the same way, as in the passage parallel also in substance, Matthew 3:9. Comp. 1 Corinthians 11:16.

ἐγὼ μᾶλλον] sc. δοκῶ πεπ. ἐν σαρκί, I for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression implies a certain boldness, defiance; comp. 2 Corinthians 11:21.

[153] καὶ ἐν σαρκί, namely, in addition to the higher Christian relations, on which I place my confidence.

[154] Only a comma is to be placed after πεποιθότες in ver. 3; but after ἐν σαρκί in ver. 4 a full stop; and after ἄμεμπτος in ver. 6 another full stop. So also Lachmann and Tischendorf. In opposition to Hofmann’s confusing construction of the sentence, see below.

[155] Comp. Kühner, II. 1, p. 246. 8.

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 Ephesians 2:12. On what follows, comp. 2 Corinthians 11:22; Romans 11:1.

ΦΥΛῆς ΒΕΝΙΑΜ.] therefore not, possibly, an Ephraimite (Ezra 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. Acts 26:5; Acts 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; Acts 21:20; Galatians 1:14), a persecutor of the church. Comp. Galatians 1:13 f. The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Galatians 1:23. What Paul, to his deep grief, had been (1 Corinthians 15:8 f.; 1 Timothy 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 Galatians 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. Romans 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 (Galatians 3:11; Galatians 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. Romans 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 John 11:39; comp. generally Kühner, II. 1, p. 234 f.

Php 3:7. Now, with the antithetic ἀλλά, the apostle comes again to his real standpoint, far transcending any πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, and says: No! everything that was gain to me, etc.

ἅτινα] quaecunque, the category of the matters specified in Php 3:5-6. [157] The emphasis is to be placed on this word; comp. ταῦτα subsequently.

ἮΝ ΜΟΙ ΚΈΡΔΗ] is not the dative of opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Hofmann; comp. van Hengel, who takes κέρδη as lucra opinata); but such things were to the apostle in his pre-Christian state really gain (κατὰ σάρκα). By means of them he was within the old theocracy put upon a path which had already brought him repute and influence, and promised to him yet far greater honours, power, and wealth in the future; a career rich in gain was opened up to him. The plural κέρδη denotes the various advantages dependent on such things as have been mentioned. Frequently used also in the classical writers.

ΤΑῦΤΑ] emphatically: these very things.

διὰ τὸν Χ.] for the sake of Christ, who had become the highest interest of my life. Paul explains himself more particularly in Php 3:8-9, explanations which are not to be here anticipated.

ζημίαν] as harm, that is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to κέρδος; comp. Plat, de lucri cup. p. 226 E, Leg. viii. p. 835 B), because, namely, they had been impediments to the conversion to Christ, and that owing to the false moral judgment and confidence attaching to them. Comp. Form. Conc. p. 708; Calvin on Php 3:8. This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he is speaking; hence the plural is not again used here as previously in κέρδη. The ἭΓΗΜΑΙ (perfect), however, has occurred, and is an accomplished fact since his conversion, to which the apostle here glances back. On ἡγεῖσθαι ζημίαν, comp. Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 454; Lucian, Lexiph. 24; on the relation of the singular to the plural κέρδη, Eur. Cycl. 311: πολλοῖσι κέρδη πονηρὰ ζημίαν ἠμείψατο.

[157] The later heretical enemies of the law appealed to this passage, in which also, in their view, the law was meant to be included. On the other hand, Chrysostom and his successors asserted that the law was meant only in comparison with Christ. Estius, however, justly observes: “non de ipsa lege loquitur, sed de justitia, quae in lege est.”

Php 3:8. Ἀλλά is the climactic but, still, much more, giving a corrective reference of the sense, signifying that with the previous ἅτινα … ζημίαν there has not yet been enough said. Comp. on 2 Corinthians 7:11. In the μὲν οὖν it is implied, that “μὲν rem praesentem confirmet, οὖν autem conclusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficiat,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 663. Hence ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν: at quidem igitur. The καί before ἡγοῦμαι (after ἀλλὰ μ. οὖν) serves also to help the climactic sense, outbidding what has been said previously: etiam, i.e. adeo. It is consequently to be explained: but, accordingly, I am even of opinion that everything (not merely what was meant by ἅτινα in Php 3:7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the following διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον κ.τ.λ. that πάντα is meant indeed without restriction, of all things, goods, honours, etc. (comp. also Hofmann), but in so far as they are not made subordinate to the knowledge of Christ. The explanation of others, according to which ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν is intended to oppose the present ἡγοῦμαι by way of correction to the perfect ἥγημαι (Calvin and others, including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 552], and the explanation hitherto given by me), is incorrect, because ἥγημαι, and not the aorist ἡγησάμην, was employed previously, and the perfect already involves the continuance of the opinion in the present, so that no contrast of the tenses would logically be elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the second ἡγεῖσθαι ζημίαν is a much more comprehensive one than the first, in fact, one without exception (πάντα).

διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον κ.τ.λ.] on account of the surpassingness of the knowledge of Christ; that is, because this knowledge, to which I have attained, is a possession which excels in value everything else; the eminent quality of a possession attained is the ground (διά) for estimating other possessions according to their relation to that one, and consequently, if they stand to the latter in a relation hindersome to us, for looking upon them no longer as something advantageous, but as hurtful. As to the neuter adjective used as a substantive with the genitive, in order to the more prominent setting forth of the attribute, see Bernhardy, p. 155 f.; Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 294].

Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ κυριός μοῦ; this is the fundamental sum of the whole contents of Christian knowledge. This saving knowledge is the necessary intelligence of faith (comp. on John 8:32), and grows with the experience of faith (Php 3:10; Ephesians 3:16 ff.).

διʼ ὅν] for the sake of whom, i.e. for the sake of possessing Him; comp. afterwards ἵνα Χριστὸν … αὐτῷ.

τὰ πάντα] the whole, not general like πάντα previously (Hofmann), but: which I possessed, Php 3:5-7. This more precise definition by the article results from ἐζημιώθην, in connection with which the aorist is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical turning-point in his life, the event of his conversion; through that event he has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions,[158] and thenceforth he has them no more. Luther erroneously interprets: “considered as harm;” and the emotion and force of the expression are only weakened by the frequently given reflexive sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Flatt, Hoelemann, van Hengel, and many): I have made myself lose,—a meaning, besides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form of the aorist of this verb (not even in Luke 9:25). The future passive form ζημιωθήσομαι (see Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 12, Thuc. iii. 40. 2) is invariably damno afficiar.

καὶ ἡγοῦμαι κ.τ.λ.] not to be taken as independent (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss), but, in keeping with the climactic flow of the discourse, as still in continuous connection with ΔΙʼ ὋΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.; hence ΔΙʼ ὋΝ Τ. Π. ἘΖΗΜ. is not, with van Hengel, to be put in a parenthesis. Paul had become loser of all these things for Christ’s sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession, but as rubbish! σκύβαλον,[159] refuse (such as sweepings, dung, husks, and the like); Sir 27:4; Plut. Mor. p. 352 D; and see Wetstein ad loc.; frequently in the Anthol., see Jacobs, Ach. Tat. p. 522, ad Anthol. VII. p. 173, IX. p. 208. Comp. the similar figurative expressions περικάθαρμα and ΠΕΡΙΨΉΜΑ, 1 Corinthians 4:13.

ἽΝΑ Χ. ΚΕΡΔ.] The design in the ἩΓΟῦΜΑΙ ΣΚΎΒ. ΕἾΝΑΙ: in order to gain Christ, not the aim of τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην (Hofmann), there being no reason for such a retrospective reference. The gaining of Christ, i.e. the appropriation of Him by means of the fellowship brought about through faith, is that, which for him is to take the place of those former κέρδη which he has lost, and so he looked to this gain in his ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα εἶναι; it is present to his view as the one and highest gain at which he has to aim. It is true that Paul has Christ already long ago (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:17; 2 Corinthians 13:3); nevertheless, this κερδαίνειν is from its nature a development, the completion of which still lies before him. Comp. Php 3:12 ff.

[158] Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived correspondence of ζημίαν in ver. 7 f., and ἐζημιώθην in ver. 8, in which the former expresses the idea of damnum, detrimentum, and the latter: I have become loser of. It might be reproduced in Latin: “etiam censeo omnia detrimentum (i.e. detrimentosa) esse … propter quem omnium detrimentum (i.e. jacturam) passus sum censeoque ea esse quisquilias.”

[159] Not to be derived from τοῖς κυσὶ βάλλειν, quod canibus projicitur, but from σκῶρ (σκάς). See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 92.