3. The Future Is Also Future — Attaining Resurrection (3:12-14)
3. The Future Lies with the Future — Attaining Christ (3:12-14)
12Not that I have already obtained all this, or1 have already been made perfect, but I press on to2 take hold of that for which Christ Jesus3 took hold of me. 13Brothers [and sisters],4 I do not consider myself yet5 to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God6 has called me heavenward7 in Christ Jesus.8
With a considerable change of metaphors Paul's story takes a final turn, which simultaneously looks back to vv. 4-8 (forgetting the past), embraces the present (he is neither fully conformed to Christ's death nor has he arrived at the goal; vv. 10-11), and emphasizes his present pursuit of the final goal. But in light of how the story began (vv. 4-6) and where it got to in vv. 10-11, this turn in the argument is so unexpected (by us) that it is hard to hold it in context. Indeed, at the popular level, the contextual question is scarcely raised; thus these sentences, like their predecessor, are read in a very personal way and understood to mean pretty much whatever the reader intends. Unfortunately, this kind of reading has been abetted by scholarship — which tends to view this passage as beginning something altogether new, as though Paul were intending to use his story to fight on two fronts — and by translations like the NIV and GNB, which not only make a major paragraph break here, but (in the case of the GNB) offer a new title as well.9
But such a reading of the text is unwarranted, especially since the "not that" with which Paul's new sentence begins requires one to read what follows as standing in some form of contrast to what has just been said.10 To be sure, in contrast with what may not be immediately apparent, since two of the key verbs in v. 12 (obtained, take hold of) have no object(s). And even if we could be sure of the "what," there still remains the question of "why."
As usual in such moments, the way forward lies first with a careful look at the structure of the whole and at how the narrative proceeds. First, the structure (in this case in a "literal" presentation of the Greek text that tries to capture the various linguistic connections):
Some observations:
(1) The passage comes in two similar, fairly balanced sentences (vv. 12 and 13-14). In both cases (a) the main verb is "I press on," which is (b) preceded by a disclaimer about "not having arrived" and (c) followed by a word about what he is pressing toward, which in each case (d) is qualified by a "divine passive" (he presses toward something Christ has already "taken hold" of him for). The only additional point made in the second sentence not found in the first is the notation about "disregarding what lies behind."
(2) Our difficulties with interpretation lie for the most part with the first sentence, resulting from two factors: (a) some unusual language, which stems from two word plays (on the verb lambanō and its compound katalambanō; and on the verb teleiō and its cognate adjective teleioi in v. 15 and noun telos in v. 19);11 and (b) the fact that the lambanō verbs have no expressed object.
(3) Under the ordinary "rules" of rhetoric, such repetition leads one to expect the second sentence to reinforce the first, often by clarification as well — which seems to be exactly what has happened in this case. Fortunately for us, the second sentence is much easier to grasp, because by taking up the main verb from the first sentence, Paul transforms the whole into a metaphor from the races at the games.12 At each point, therefore, we can first of all isolate what is pictured about the "runner" and then find the analogy in Paul's life in terms of his reasons for this rehearsal of his personal story; and it is precisely at this point (vv. 13-14) that the present paragraph wraps up the narrative that has preceded.
(4) Finally, in both sentences there is nearly as strong an emphasis on the disclaimer not to have "arrived already" as there is on his present eager pursuit of the goal. We should thus take seriously that, even though pursuit of the goal is his primary — and last — word in each case,13 he intends them to hear the disclaimers with equal stress.14
But what, then, is the goal, and why this conclusion to his story, and this emphatic way of putting it? On the first matter we can be fairly certain: in light of what has just been said in vv. 10-11, the "goal" is not "perfection" but the eschatological conclusion of present life, while the "prize" is none other than the final realization of his lifelong passion — the full "knowing" of Christ. To this end all else is not only "loss" and "street garbage" (v. 8) but is to be "forgotten" altogether.
The why remains speculative, especially in light of the double emphasis on his "not being there yet" and on his straining every nerve "to get there." Many see the primary emphasis to lie on the disclaimers and are prepared to see that emphasis in light of alleged "opponents." The difficulty with doing so, however, is that it requires one to "mirror read" the text with remarkable clairvoyance, since nothing else explicit in the letter comes forward to offer help; the nature of the "opposition," therefore, lies strictly in the eyes of the beholder, not in the text of Paul.15 What we can point to from the letter, as we have noted throughout, are the twin emphases on (a) their "rejoicing in the Lord even in the midst of suffering" as (b) they "stand firm in the Lord" in the face of opposition with a keen eye toward future realities. That much at least belongs to the letter as a whole, and it is precisely the double note on which the present passage concludes (3:20-21 and 4:1). A careful look at the parts seems likewise to point in this direction.
The reason for the disclaimers is more difficult to assess. Perhaps a temptation toward the Judaizers also carried with it the idea that Torah observance makes one "more complete" in Christ,16 not in the sense of "moral perfection" but of having achieved ultimate status in the people of God. One simply cannot know Paul's mind here, although historically it can be noted that the tendency to settle into a religious mode, especially by becoming "observant," is often accompanied by a dulling of one's eagerness for Christ himself, either conformity to his death or keen anticipation for his coming.
12 The "not that"17 which begins this sentence is a Greek idiom that qualifies something previously said, so that the readers will not draw the wrong inference from it.18 Along with the repeated adverb "[not] already" Paul thus offers a twofold disclaimer — what not to infer about the already present future — plus a contrast presenting the "not yet" dimension of that same future. The elaboration in vv. 13-14 indicates that the disclaimer has to do with realities that will be realized only at the eschatological consummation. The context, therefore, suggests that what is being disclaimed as "already brought to full completion" is the knowing of Christ which can only be Paul's when the eschatological goal,19 referred to in terms of the resurrection from the dead in v. 11, is realized at the coming of Christ (cf. vv. 20-21).
To this point Paul has asserted that he has left his religious past behind him so that he might "gain Christ and be found in him" — already but not yet — having now the new righteousness effected by Christ. The goal of everything is to know Christ, which in the present means to experience the power of Christ's resurrection as Paul participates in Christ's sufferings, thereby being conformed to Christ's death — marked by the cross — so that he might also thereby attain the resurrection from the dead. Now he qualifies, "not that I already obtained."20 Since this verb seems to cry out for an object, the question is, "obtained what?" The NIV suggests "all this," but that probably reaches too far back into the preceding sentence. Despite an early scribe who thought otherwise and added, "or am already fully justified,"21 it is unlikely that Paul considers his present "righteousness" as something yet to be realized 22 Righteousness is the given, which has made possible his "knowing Christ" in the present at all. What he has not yet "obtained," therefore, is the eschatological realization of the goal expressed in vv. 10-11, the kind of knowing of Christ that will be his only when he has "attained unto the resurrection from the dead" — or its equivalent, as vv. 20-21 clarify.
In that case, and both the preceding and ensuing contexts clamor for such a meaning, then the next verb probably carries a nuance other than "have already been made perfect,"23 as though it dealt with "righteousness" or some form of "perfectionism."24 Although this verb and its cognates can sometimes mean "perfect," its origins lie with the noun telos, whose primary sense has to do with the "goal" or "aim" toward which something is pointing, often in the sense of "completing" or "fulfilling" it. Since there is nothing elsewhere in this letter, nor anywhere else in the Pauline churches for that matter, that smacks of "perfectionism,"25 it is doubtful whether Paul is here intentionally countering such a point of view. More likely, since this verb seems intended to further clarify the first one,26 it carries the sense of having "been brought to completion," by having arrived at the final goal with regard to his knowing Christ.27 Together, therefore, these two disclaimers emphasize that the future, even though Paul considers it certain, has not yet been fully realized. But what future, and how are the two clauses related? Most likely Paul is affirming two things: that he has not yet come to know Christ in the way that only the eschaton will bring, and therefore that even though he knows Christ now, including the power of his resurrection, such knowledge does not mean either that his is now "completed" or that he has arrived at the final goal.
The future, however, belongs only to those who persevere (to use the language of theology). Paul thus immediately sets them right regarding the future that is "not yet": "but I press on,"28 he says. In this first case the object of his present "pursuit" is expressed with a set of clauses that play on a compound of the verb "take" in the first disclaimer: "whether I also may take hold of29 that for which I was also taken hold of by Christ Jesus." If that comes out a bit awkwardly, both in Greek and English,30 it is because Paul is simultaneously playing on the word "take hold of" while "putting it straight" theologically. His meaning is plain enough, since it is clarified by the elaboration in vv. 13-14. Precisely because he has not yet arrived at the goal specified in vv. 10-11, he is "pursuing" it with all his might, which in this first instance is expressed in terms of "taking hold of" the very thing31 for which Christ first "took hold of" him. While Paul is indeed pursuing the eschatological goal with all his might, that is only because Christ was there first, pursuing him as it were, and "apprehending" him so as to make Paul one of his own.32 Paul's point, as always, is that Christ's work is the prior one, and that all his own effort is simply in response to, and for the sake of, that prior "apprehension" of him by "Christ Jesus my Lord."
It is hard to imagine that this could refer to anything other than his final apprehension of Christ. Granted the mention of the resurrection in v. 11 ; but vv. 20-21 indicate that for Paul it is not resurrection per se that interests him but the final glory. The one whose motto is "to live is Christ, to die is [to] gain [Christ]" is not focusing now on the means to that end, but on the eschatological culmination itself — the ultimate apprehension of Christ.
13-14 With an introductory vocative, "brothers and sisters," Paul elaborates the point of v. 12 with an athletic metaphor,33 picturing himself as a runner whose every muscle and nerve is singularly focused on the goal, in hopes of winning the prize. Although he begins by emphatically repeating the disclaimer,34 that is now secondary to the emphasis on the pursuit of the prize itself — Paul's primary concern regarding the Philippians, and his reason for concluding his story in this way.35 That all of this is being narrated for their sakes is equally evidenced by the sudden — and surprising — appearance of the vocative (the first explicit reference to the Philippians since vv. 2-3) in the middle of his own personal story.36
The disclaimer in this case repeats the verb from the immediately preceding clauses: "I do not consider myself to have taken hold." The reference seems to be so clearly to the eschatological wrapup, with the final gaining of Christ as its focus,37 that to add an object (even the "it" of the NIV) seems pedestrian. This is what he longs for with regard to his Philippian brothers and sisters as well, that they not lose their "eager expectation" of Christ's coming (v. 20) in the midst of present difficulty and opposition. Perfectionism is hardly an issue; but perseverance with regard to Christ and the gospel is.
Thus he presents himself to them as a runner, whose reason for running is "one thing"38 — winning the prize. As most analogies do, this one breaks down at one crucial point; in this case, all who run to the finish receive the prize. But Paul's point is not winning as such; rather his focus is on the runner, who runs so as to win.39 The analogy is in three parts.
First, he pictures the runner as one who is not distracted by other things, presumably by others in the race. The imagery is probably that of the runner who is in the lead and does not look back to see where the competitors are; rather he focuses all his energy on the goal. Thus: "paying no attention to40 what is behind and straining toward what is ahead."41 Paul's interest in this part of the imagery is not with others in the race. Indeed, it is quite possible that this is simply part of the imagery to emphasize his eager pursuit of the goal and therefore that he does not "mean" anything by it at all, in the sense that the analogy has a real life counterpart of some kind. If he does "mean" something, which seems likely, it is probably to be understood in light of vv. 4-8: Paul as a runner who "pays no attention to the things that are behind" is probably a parting shot at what some of the Philippians might now be finding attractive. By "pursuing" Torah observance as "advancement," they would in fact be after the very things Paul has gladly put behind him as refuse.42 In any case, as the rest of the analogy makes clear, the present accent is on "straining toward what is ahead."
The second point in the analogy is contained in the clause, "straining toward those things that lie before, I press on toward the goal."43 The "goal" in the imagery, of course, is the finish line. For Paul the "goal" is the eschatological consummation of what is "already" his in Christ. Thus, it is not the resurrection as such, but the conclusion itself that is the goal; and despite what the imagery on its own might yield in terms of meaning, Paul is concerned only that the Philippians follow him in keeping a firm grip on their certain future, that they not be distracted along the way with lesser things (either Torah observance or opposition). Hence the concern expressed in 1:25, that he has "their progress and joy in the faith" uppermost in his concern for them. Progress in the faith means to hold steady to their future orientation, that they are a people headed for final glory with Christ himself.
Third, Paul images himself as a runner whose pursuit of the goal has "the prize"44 as his — and by implication their — ultimate reason for running.45 No mere celery wreath for Paul;46 his prize is of "surpassing worth by far" — to gain Christ fully and completely. Not one to leave such imagery alone without mentioning the God whose love for him has made it possible, Paul adds a series of (mostly genitive) qualifiers — "of the upward (= heavenward) calling of God in Christ Jesus"—whose sense is easier to sort out than its grammar.47 Whatever names we may give to his genitives, Paul intends the following relationships: First, God has "called" Paul to himself, which will culminate in glory; second, that call, which began at his conversion, is "heavenward" in terms of its final goal; third, God's call found its historical and experiential locus "in Christ Jesus"; and fourth, at the end of the race Paul will gain the prize, the tangible evidence that the goal of God's call has been reached.48
Paul tends to see all of Christian life in terms of "God's calling."49 It begins as a call, call into fellowship with his Son (1 Cor 1:9), thus a call to "be saints," and thereby joined to his people who are destined for glory. The present usage is unusual in that it looks at the believer's calling from the perspective of its completion rather than its beginnings, as in most instances. This has been the aim of God's call right along, to lift them "heavenward"50 to share in his eternal Presence. Here, then, is the first note of what will be emphasized at the end of the appeal in vv. 19-21 : some, who are no longer "walking" in the way set forth by Paul, have their "minds set on earthly things"; whereas Paul and the Philippians are among those whose "citizenship is [already] in heaven," from whence they await the coming of the Savior.
But as in the preceding sentence (v. 12), the final word is "Christ Jesus" ; in this case God's call has been effected for him and them "in Christ Jesus." As throughout the letter, this preposition is probably locative, not instrumental,51 pointing to the sphere in which God's calling took place; it happened "in Christ Jesus," meaning in his death and resurrection, and it has been effected for Paul as one who trusts in and therefore lives "in Christ Jesus." Thus Christ is both the means and the end of God's call; and "knowing him" finally and fully is the "prize" toward which Paul stretches every nerve. As he will now go on to urge (vv. 15-16), by way of application, they should do the same.
This singular and passionate focus on the future consummation, which Paul clearly intends as paradigmatic, often gets lost in the church — for a whole variety of reasons: in a scientific age, it is something of an embarrassment to many; in a world "come of age," only the oppressed think eschatologically, for reasons of weakness we are told; in an affluent age, who needs it? But Paul's voice should not be muffled so quickly and easily. For a race who by their very nature are oriented to the future but who have no real future to look forward to, here is a strikingly and powerfully Christian moment. The tragedy that attends the rather thoroughgoing loss of hope in contemporary Western culture is that we are now trying to make the present eternal. Hence North Americans in particular are the most death-denying culture in the history of the race. How else, pray tell, can one explain cosmetic surgery having become a multi-million dollar industry?
In the midst of such banal hopelessness the believer in Christ, who recognizes Christ as the beginning and end of all things meaningful, needs to be reminded again — and to think in terms of sharing it with the world — that God's purposes for his creation are not finished until he has brought our salvation to its consummation. Indeed, to deny the consummation is to deny what is essential to any meaningful Christian faith. Paul finds life meaningful precisely because he sees the future with great clarity, and the future has to do with beginnings — the (now redeemed) realization of God's creative purposes through Christ the Lord. There is no other prize; hence nothing else counts for much except "knowing Christ," both now and with clear and certain hope for the future.
————————————
1. P46 and several Western witnesses (D* [F G] a [b] Irenaeuslat Ambrosiaster) read a text with ή ήδη δεδικαίωμαι ("or am already completely justified") added between"have already obtained" and "have already been made perfect." Although a case can be made for the others to have omitted this clause on the grounds that it seems so contradictory to Pauline theology or because of homoeoteleuton (so E. Lopez, "En torno"; J. D. Price,"Textual Commentary," 281 ; Silva, 203-4; Hawthorne is open), such a view has enormous difficulties to overcome in terms of finding any scribal analogies (especially so early) for such "theologically astute" omissions, especially when it fits so nicely with vv. 8-11. On the other hand, such additions are the well-known proclivities of the Western text, who by adding such a clause quite missed the fact that they give a meaning to this verb not otherwise known to Paul. See further, Metzger, Textual Commentary, 614-15.
2. The Gk. behind the NIV reads: διώκω δέ εί xαί καταλάβω (lit., "but I press on if also I might take hold of"). The xαί has been omitted in several witnesses (PI6vid N * D * F G 326 2495 pc lat syP) either because of homoeoteleuton or under the influence of the versions, which have great difficulty turning this combination into a receptor language (as the English translations bear witness).
3. As often with the Lord's name in Paul's letters, variation occurs between "Christ Jesus" (Ρ46 Ρ61 N Α Ψ Maj vg sy) and "Christ" (B D2 F G 33 pc b Tertullian Clement Ambrosiaster). This is nearly impossible to call. On the one hand, omission could easily have occurred by homoeoteleuton (esp. since by the time of our earliest MSS, the divine names are abbreviated XY IY); on the other hand, an "addition" like this does not require intentionality on the part of scribes, since they would often write the name in full without even thinking about it. Very likely the shorter reading is original, but one has no guarantee here.
4. See n. 9 on 1:12.
5. Several significant witnesses ( p I6vid p6Ivid N A D* Ρ 33 81 104 365 614 1175 1241s al a syh** bo Tertullian) read ούπώ ("not yet") for οù ("not," Ρ46 B D2 F G Ψ Maj lat syP sa), apparently followed by the NIV. But this is a clearly secondary reading, which in light of the context is easy to account for. We may want Paul to have said "not yet" because of our understanding of how this sentence relates to νv. 9-11, but had Paul originally written οùπώ, there is no conceivable reason for the "yet" to have been omitted (so often and so early); Midler's argument (123 n. 6) that it better fits the context is precisely why the variant occurred at all. Paul said "not" because he is speaking eschatologically, not theologically or ethically — which should also be noted by those who think either reading makes basically the same point (e.g., Hawthorne, Silva, O'Brien). Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 615.
6. Paul's sentence concludes τοũ θεοũ έν Χριστώ 'Ιησοũ ("of God in Christ Jesus"). This is altered in a variety of ways by several early witnesses: P4 6 omits the final phrase (almost certainly due to homoeoteleuton); F G omit "of God" for the same reasons; while D* F G add "Lord" to the final phrase. None of these commends itself as original.
7. Instead of άνω κλήσεως ("upward calling") Tertullian and a marginal gloss in 1739 read άνεγκλησίας ("blamelessness"). This has purely historical interest: Tertullian is keen on "blamelessness"; that this reading is known — or conjectured — by the scribe of 1739 says something about the complex history of the early transmission of the NT text (even though 1739 is a tenth c. MS, its exemplar for the Pauline Epistles dated from the third or fourth century and contained a text very close to that of B).
8. See n. 6.
9. This is a nearly universal point of view, most scholars denoting the new"paragraph" as vv. 12-16, a view that has caused no end of grief in terms of understanding the point of vv. 15-16. But what they never speak to is how either the ούχ δτι that begins v. 12 or the inferential οΰν in v. 15 supports this paragraphing.
10. Indeed, the idea that Paul is addressing new subject matter is read into the text primarily on the basis of the verb τετελείωμαι, usually translated as the NIV, "been made perfect," although probably incorrectly so in this case; see the discussion below.
11. The root word is the noun τελός (v. 19), which appears as the verb τετελείωμαι in v. 12 and the adjective τέλειοι in v. 15. Paul has not been "completed" yet, by which he now means "reached the 'goal' "; and those who have achieved "maturity" should have the same mindset, while the "destiny" of others, who resist a cruciform existence, is not glory but destruction.
12. Cf. Pfitzner (Agon, 139-41), O'Brien, et al., contra Meyer, Collange, Caird, Loh-Nida (cf. GNB), who see the metaphor as already beginning in v. 12.
13. Except for the final qualifier about Christ's prior activity — of "having apprehended" him (v. 12), and as the sphere of God's upward calling (v. 14).
14. But to read the disclaimers as indicating "a decidedly polemical tone" (Pfitzner, Agon, 139) moves considerably beyond what Paul actually says. This appears to assume that Paul's "not/but" contrasts are always a polemical mode of argumentation, which is simply not the case. As the interpretation of vv. 15-16 below demonstrates, one can make good sense of the whole passage if one assumes only what is necessary in context, that Paul is concerned for the Philippians themselves, and that exhortation does not equal opposition, but warning and encouragement.
15. The suggestions are as varied as one should expect when explicit statements are lacking to guide reconstructions: some see "perfectionism" within the Philippian congregation ("obvious," Michael; Beare [129] is certain that this "is their language; [Paul] takes it over from them" [emphasis his]); others see "perfectionism" from outside "opponents," often seen as "enthusiasts" with an "over-spiritualized eschatology" (Koester,"Purpose"; Gunther, Opponents, 76, 84; Pfitzner, Agon, 152; Lincoln, Paradise, 93-95; O'Brien); while Plummer sees exactly the opposite, a "clear" attack on antinomianism (= "freedom from Judaism, which relies so much on external conformity to law, implies no encouragement to laxity of life"). The fundamental premise of all such views is that this material is polemical, which then must be "mirror read" to determine the view of the"opposition." See the Introduction, pp. 7-10.
16. This is my way of stating what Koester ("Purpose"; followed by O'Brien) argues to be the position of the "opponents," that they preach "a doctrine of obtainable perfection based on Judaizing practices." The view of Forestell ("Perfection") that Paul is basically teaching about "Christian perfection" seems to read the passage apart from its full literary context.
17. Gk. ούχ ότι; cf. 4:11 and 17; 2 Thess 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24; 3:5; John 6:46; 7:22. The combination is an ellipse (BAGD suggest ού λέγω οτι) which in idiomatic English means something like, "this is not to say t h a t . . . ." It should also be noted that in no other instance in the NT does this combination mark a paragraph break; it is especially doubtful that it does so here. See n. 9 above.
18. In Romans Paul employs the idiom τί ούν έροũμεν for this identical purpose. The difference between what Paul says here and what he does in Romans is that between"argumentation," which Romans is but Philippians is not, and personal narrative, which this passage is.
19. Cf. Kent, Bruce, O'Brien; others come close to putting it this way by simply referring to the object as "Christ" (so Pfitzner, Agon, 144-45; Hawthorne). There have been many other suggestions: the "prize" itself (Meyer, Bonnard, Beare, Collange; A. Ringwald, NIDNTT, 1.648-49), Meyer interpreting that to mean "the bliss of the Messiah's kingdom";"the purified life in heaven" (Kennedy, 458); "life eternal" (Beare); "righteousness" (Barth; A. F. J. Klijn, "Opponents," 281-82). What is surprising in the literature is the lack of references to Paul's eschatology, which seems to dominate this passage, and without which one would seem to be able to make very little sense of it at all. This is the "not yet," set up by v. 11, which corresponds to the "already" of vv. 8-10. Pfitzner (Agon, 141-42) notes the eschatological "tension" but dismisses it much too casually.
20. Gk. ελαβον, the common verb for "take" or "receive," which BAGD understand here to mean "make one's own." Hawthorne argues for "mental comprehension"; but that seems to miss the eschatological thrust of the passage by too much. Lightfoot argued that we should take seriously the change in tenses between this aorist and the perfect the follows, the aorist referring to his not having "obtained" at some point in the past (perhaps at his conversion), the perfect referring to something begun in the past that holds good in the present. But as O'Brien points out, the "already" seems to rule that out. More likely this is an example of the "constative aorist," which, in the words of J. H. Moulton,is "a line reduced to a point by perspective" (MHT, 1.109).
21. See η. 1 above for those who think this is the original reading.
22. Pace Barth, 106-7, whose reading of the text at this point is characteristically theological.
23. Gk. τετελείωμαι, only here in the Pauline corpus, although it appears as a textual variant for τελείται in 2 Cor 12:10. The adjective τέλειος ("complete, perfect, mature"), which occurs in v. 15, appears 8 times in all (1 Cor 2:6; 13:10; 14:20; Rom 12:2; Col 1:28; 4:12; Eph 4:13); and the noun τελειότης once (Col 3:14). Cf. the discussion by G. Delling in TDNT, 8.79-84; and H. Hübner, EDNT, 3.344-45. Most earlier commentators considered it to refer to "moral and spiritual perfection" (e.g., Vincent, 107). More recently this has been nuanced to denote "spiritual," eschatological perfection, with less emphasis on the moral-ethical side, and has been "mirror read" to be the language of his"opponents" (e.g., Jones, Koester, Jewett, Polhill, Lincoln, O'Brien; see following nn.). Some (e.g., Beare, Houlden) see Paul as using the language of the Mystery cults here, but that seems especially far-fetched in this context, since nothing in the surrounding matter would seem to give him reason to do so. For a rejection of "mirror reading" this word as reflecting the opposition in Philippi, see Lüdemann, Opposition, 106-7.
24. It has been common to read this double disclaimer ("not already obtained, not already made perfect") as parallel, so that the "object" of the first is supplied by the concept "perfect" in the second verb (e.g., Schmithals; Jewett, "Conflicting Movements," 373; Polhill, "Twin Obstacles," 167). Such an understanding is the direct result of seeing v. 12 (despite the ούχ οτι) as starting a new paragraph, basically unrelated to what has preceded (see n. 9 above). Neither the grammar (there are no analogies in Paul where the"verb" of a second clause supplies the "object" of a former one) nor the context supports such a view.
That this verb reflects Paul's opposition to some form of perfectionism is asserted with a great deal more confidence in the literature than the full context of this personal history and its application would seem to allow. Thus O'Brien (423): "Most commentators agree that by using [this verb] here (note also τέλειος at v. 15) the apostle is taking over the terminology of his opponents for the purpose of correcting their false views" (cf. Jones, 56. "The Apostle at this point. . . fixes his attention upon a section of the Philippian Church which was in its tendencies identical with the party in the Church of Corinth which arrogated to itself the title of 'spiritual,' was filled with overweening pride, and claimed spiritual perfection"). While possible, that seems to place an enormous amount of weight on a verb which is capable of a different sense altogether. And it goes quite beyond the evidence to assert that Paul, vis-à-vis alleged opponents, "asserts or claims his imperfection" (Pfitzner, Agon, 142). Indeed, it seems impossible to verify this view on the basis of what is written in this letter alone; and since one can make perfectly good sense of Paul's usage without resorting to "opponents," this seems to be the better approach. On the problems with this kind of"mirror reading" of texts, which make too much of the use of certain vocabulary when there are not accompanying explicit statements, see J. Barclay, "Mirror Reading," 81-84; cf. the Introduction, pp. 7-8.
25. Some would argue that 1 Cor 4:8 suggests that Paul had a similar problem in Corinth (see n. 60 on v. 3). But there is nothing in 1 Corinthians to suggest "perfectionism" as the issue; rather, the point of conflict between him and the Corinthians had to do with what it meant to be "spiritual," in the sense of "people of the Spirit." They apparently took the presence of the Spirit as evidence that they had already arrived at the ultimate state of spiritual existence; but moral perfection does not seem to be part of their claim. It was certainly not a part of their reality! See Fee, First Corinthians, 4-15.
26. So also O'Brien (correctly), 423: "The expression is parallel with the preceding ήδη ελαβον and is a further explanation in more literal terms of what was described figuratively of obtaining the goal. The ή ('or') connects two similar processes, not distinct or alternative ones."
27. Cf. Kennedy, 457, "It means literally 'to bring to an end' determined by God"; and Hübner (EDNT, 3.344): "not as if I already had reached my goal." Pfitzner (Agon, 139) seems to turn all of this on its head when he speaks of "the τελειότης which is the goal of the Apostle's striving." To turn the verb into a noun and make it the goal mentioned in v. 14 is methodologically suspect at best; at worst it represents a distortion of what Paul actually said.
28. Gk. διώκω, whose primary sense was "push, drive, set in motion," which then came to be the most common verb for "persecute" (pursue with a malevolent aim), but which is also used figuratively for "striving hard after" a good aim (as in 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Cor 14:1; Rom 9:30, 31; 12:13; 14:19; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; cf. Heb 12:14; 1 Pet 3:11); cf. Ο. Knoch, EDNT, 1.338-39.
29. Gk. καταλάβω, a compound which means "to take aggressively," hence"grasp" or "seize," occurring three times in these three consecutive clauses. The combination διώκω . . . καταλαμβάνειν is common (see, e.g.. Sir 11:10; Lam 1:3; Herodotus 9.58).
30. The clause reads:
The εί followed by a subjunctive introduces an indirect question (= [to see] whether I might take hold of). The double xαί is best understood as going with the verb in each case (= "both/and" or "also/also"); hence in the first clause it is not an example of εί xαί ("if indeed"; contra Collange [= concession, hence doubt] and O'Brien; cf. nn. 58 and 59 on 2:17). J. Gundry Volf (Perseverance, 255-56), although basically skipping the xαί, nonetheless correctly recognizes that Paul's point is not to express doubt but precisely the opposite, to communicate "expectancy."
31. This is to read the έφ' φ which introduces the second clause as the object of the verb (= τοϋτο έφ' ω, "that with a view to which"); most regard it as causal (= έπί τούτω ότι, "for the reason that"), on the basis of its usage in Rom 5:12 and 2 Cor 5:4, and because the earlier verb does not have an object (as though that were significant here). But it is not at all certain that Paul intends "cause" in the sense of "cause and effect" in the Romans and 2 Corinthians passages. He certainly does not in Phil 4:10 below. Cf. the thorough discussion of this idiom by J. Fitzmyer ("Consecutive Meaning," 330), who likewise questions the causal sense here.
32. This surely points to his conversion (so most interpreters), thus indirectly verifying the basic accuracy of the narrative in Acts 9. See Barth (108) for a typically energetic exposition of the theological dimension of this text.
33. Cf. 1 Cor 9:24-27, where Paul uses similar imagery for a quite different point, namely that "receiving the prize" requires self-discipline.
34. Gk. έγώ έμαυτόν ού λογίζομαι xατειληφέναι; the έμαυτόν ("myself") is best understood as the subject of the infinitive. Bringing it forward in the sentence is what creates the emphasis. Some see the emphasis as over against the Philippians; but it is equally possible (more probable, in terms of context) that the emphasis is his own, setting up what follows in the strongest possible way.
35. Thus it does not seem to be quite precise to suggest (as Pfitzner, Agon, 141) that Paul's stress is on the disclaimer "that he has not yet reached the goal of his endeavour" (emphasis his). Granted the emphasis in this disclaimer, but it goes beyond Pauline analogy to argue that the main stress in a "not/but" contrast lies on the "not" side of the contrast.
36 . Lightfoot (152) sees it as "arresting attention"; Michael (160) thinks rather that it attempts to "mitigate any seeming severity in his words." But what is "severe" about this imagery, one wonders.
37 .Cf. Martin, who, however, would see this double focus as "either/or" rather than "both/and."
38 .Gk. εν δε, an ellipse to which most would append an "I do," while some (e.g., Meyer) would argue for "I think." But the strength of Paul's rhetoric lies in the ellipse itself; the rest of the sentence indicates what "the one thing" is. Cf. his appeal to them to"think one thing" (2:2), that is, to be toward one another the way Christ himself exhibited"God likeness" (2:5-11).
39 .On the danger, and exegetical perversity, of making Paul's analogies "walk on all fours" so as to miss Paul's own point, see Fee, First Corinthians, 434 n. 5, 608-9; and Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 260-62; cf. Kennedy (458), "but pressing metaphors is always hazardous."
40. Gk. έπιλανθανόμενος, only here in Paul (although it occurs 7 times elsewhere in the NT). Although the word can sometimes mean "forget" in the sense of "not remembering," in figurative usage such as this one it more likely means "to pay no attention to, be unconcerned about" (cf. Heb 13:2).
41 . These participles are especially poetic:
which probably accounts for both the choice of the first verb and the fact that "what lies before" is plural. The two participles express "manner." The second brings special vividness to the imagery, picturing the runner who is extending himself or herself by leaning toward the goal (Vincent notes that our idiom "home-stretch" picks up this same imagery).
42 In light of v. 16. and the appeal for them to live up to where they currently are in Christ, it seems altogether unlikely that "the things behind him" denotes the measure of"knowing Christ" that he has already attained (as, e.g., Meyer, Vincent, Jones, Michael, Beare, Caird). This is a clear case of letting the imagery rather than the context dictate meaning (Michael, blatantly so), which is always a hazardous procedure. Such a view not only focuses on the wrong things in Paul's story, but it fails to take seriously enough the basic "already/not yet" framework of Paul's thinking that dominates this passage. What is "already" is not what is to be "disregarded," but rather what does not count for a thing at all in light of Christ — even though at one time in Paul's life he thought of it in terms of "gain."
43. Gk. κατά σκοπόν; only here in the NT. The word occurs in the sense of"target" in Job 16:12; Lam 3:12. On this use of κατά (= "in the direction of"), see Acts 8:26.
44 . Gk. τό βραβεϊον; used of the "prize" in a contest. For an identical use of the noun see 1 Cor 9:24.
45 . The είς is best understood as telic, indicating the purpose or goal of his"pursuit" (cf. GNB, NIV, O'Brien), rather than simply directional (as Lightfoot, Kennedy). Having missed this point, and thus seeing it as directional, later scribes changed it to the more proper έπί ( D F G Maj).
46 . On the withered celery wreath as the "crown" for the victor in a race, see Broneer, "Crown"; cf. the discussion in Fee, First Corinthians, 436-37.
47 . In this case, "of God" is clearly "subjective" (= God called me/us); Silva and O'Brien would make "calling" subjective as well, which sees the direction of relationship correctly but presses that nomenclature by too much (the calling does not offer the prize). This is probably an example of what Beekman-Callow (Translating, 265), call "resultmeans" (the call is the means that has brought about the promised result, the prize). In any case, it can scarcely be "appositional," as many suggest (e.g., Lohmeyer, Dibelius, Barth, Gnilka, Collange, Caird, Loh-Nida [GNB]), since that not only presents the singular difficulty of introducing a new idea altogether into the metaphor as to the meaning of the prize, but makes "calling" and "prize" mean the same thing, which seems scarcely possible, in that the calling has happened previously, while the prize is totally eschatological.
48 . Gunther (Opponents, 182) sees this language as reflecting the alleged "opponents'" point of view, and, read in conjunction with vv. 19-21, he suggests that they consider themselves thus to be in "contact with angels." This seems to be an expression of "mirror reading" without controls.
49 . Gk. xλήσις; cf. 2 Thess 1:11; 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20; Rom 11:29; Eph 1:18; 4:1, 4; 2 Tim 1:9. Although the verb occurs far more frequently, and moves in several directions (e.g., Paul's calling to apostleship). this noun, which accents the event of calling rather than status or condition, is a nearly technical term for God's call of the believer to himself. Cf. the discussions in EDNT, 2.242-43 (J. Eckert); NIDNTT, 1.275-76 (L. Coenen); TDNT, 3.487-536; cf. the useful outline in DPL, 84-85 (C. G. Kruse). In an attempt to keep the metaphor alive, many interpreters see here an allusion to the announcement of the victor, his father's name, and his country, at the Olympic games (so Collange, followed inter alia by Bruce, Martin, Hawthorne). But that seems more fanciful than real, since there is no evidence that such an announcement was ever termed a xλήσις, and this word is an especially Pauline one, full of theological grist that this suggestion would neutralize (cf. O'Brien).
50 . Gk. άνω, the adverb for "above, upward"; cf. Col 3:1, 2; Gal 4:26. See esp. Acts 2:19 for the combination, "the heaven (= sky) above." Paul's usage here reflects the common cosmology, still used in popular parlance, which pictures heaven as "above" the earth; cf. GNB "to the life above." Given the context, "heaven" is the direction toward which Paul is heading, not the source of God's call; nor should one understand it by the totally bland "high vocation" suggested by Beare.
51 . As GNB has it (cf. Loh-Nida).