454
ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ Il. |
a Luke i. 73; ἐπὶ 1 τῇ πίστει" Το. "τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτόν, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς
Rom. vi. 6, vii. 3. See Blass, Gramm.,
p.231. b2Cor.i.5; τ Pet. iv. 13
ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ thy? κοινωνίαν τῶν ὃ "ἢ παθημάτων αὐτοῦ,
1 D*E*, O.L. vg. ἐν mora. LP, syrp, Baseth., Chr., connect this clause with
the words following.
2So DEFGKLP, Bas., Chr., Euth.cod, Thdrt. Edd. om. την with S*AB. Meyer keeps τὴν, which he supposes to have been ‘overlooked as unnecessary”.
8 80 Lach., Alf. with QcADEFGKLP.
added to define, and then the definition is elaborated by the clause with the article. An instructive parallel is Gal. ii. 20, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ (see an important note in Green, Gram. of N.T., pp. 34-35). δικαιοσύνη, as usually in Paul's writings, means a right relation between him and God. The retention of the word by Paul to denote the position of the Christian before God is, as Holst. (Paulin. Theol., p. 64) points out, a proof of his close connexion with the Jewish consciousness. We may call it a “forensic ” word, for certainly there always lies behind it the idea of a stan- dard appointed by God, a law, the ex- pression of the Divine will. The qualify- ing words here show what Paul has in view.—rhy ἐκ νόμον. Cf. the lament for the destruction of Jerusalem in Afoc. of Bar., \xvii. 6, “τῆς vapour of the smoke of the incense of righteousness which is by the law is extinguished in Zion” (and see Charles’ note on xv. 5). This hypo- thetical δικ., which he calls his own, could only spring from complete conformity to the will of God as revealed in precepts and commands. That is the kind of relation to God which Paul has found to be impossible. On νόμος without the article see on νετ. 5 supr.
δικαιοσύνη which Paul prizes must be carefully noted. The presupposition of possessing it is ‘‘to be found in Christ”. It is not a righteousness which he can win by legal observances. It springs from God. What does this new relation to God precisely mean? The one con- dition of understanding the Apostle’s language is to remember that he com- bines in his thinking two conceptions of δικαιοσύνη, or perhaps we should rather say that his own experience has made vivid for him a two-sided conception of this relation. On the one hand, he thinks of δικ. as connected with God, the Judge of men. God, strictly marking sin, might
Ti., Trg., Ws., W.H. om. των with
condemn men absolutely, because all have sinned. Instead of that, because of His grace manifested in Jesus Christ the crucified and working through Christ's death, He deals mercifully with sinners,
treats them as righteous on account of
the propitiation made by the Righteous One, treats them as standing in a right relation to Himself, ἐ.ε., pardons them. δικαιοσύνη thus comes to be God's gracious way of dealing with us, “ for- giveness with the Forgiver in it’’ (Rainy, op. cit., p. 231), the relation with God into which we are brought by His grace for Jesus’ sake, regarded more or less as an activity of His, practically = salvation (which, already in O.T., rested upon the rectitude of God's character, see, ¢.g., Isa. li. 5-8, Ps. xeviii. 2). God's justifying οἱ us makes us δίκαιοι in His sight: we
sess δικαιοσύνη. That, however, might appear arbitrary. But the Apostle gives no ground for such a suspicion, ri δικ. ἐκ Θεοῦ is only reached “through the faith of Christ,” é.¢., the faith which Christ kindles, of which He is the author, which, also, He nourishes and main- tains (see esp. Hausslciter, Greifswald. Studien, pp. 177-178). This δικ, is securely founded on faith ‘in Christ (ἐπὶ τῇ π᾿). But what does such faith effect? It is that which makes the believer one with Christ. He shares in all that his Lord possesses. Christ imparts life to him. Christ's relation to the Father becomes his. But this is no longer a being regarded or dealt with oe God a if he were δίκαιος. Union wii Christ makes it possible for the Christian to be δίκαιος, to show himself such in actual behaviour. Thus δικ may express something more than the relation to God into which believers are brought by God’s justifying judgment (which for their experience means the sense of for- giveness with the Forgiver init), It em- braces the conduct which is the r