THE
OUT-RESURRECTION
As we come to verse 11, we must
point out that this is a verse of much confusion and controversy. It is one of
the most problematic verses in all Scripture. There are two things that
confront us right away: It is conclusion to a long sentence that began in verse
8. Therefore our understanding must be consistent with the tone and subject of
the sentence. Second, are the unique terms and language of the last phrase—“in order that I may attain to the resurrection
from the death” (Phil 3:11). Or as the Greek text literally reads: “if in some way I may attain to the
out-resurrection from the dead” (my translation). Therefore, let us start
with the grammar of the text. One needs to observe:
- “In order that.” That this is one place I believe the NASB translators got it wrong. The Majority Greek text (as does the Nestle text) reads: “ei pos” meaning if someway or if by any means. This is not a purpose clause as suggested by the NASB. It is a conditional or contingency clause. In each use of the phrase (cf. Acts 27:12; Romans 1:10; 11:14) some doubt is expressed.[1] It expresses the possibility of failure. Some seem to downplay the idea of doubt and overplay the element of humility.[2] However, taking the doubt out of the idea does not seem to fit the context or the other uses of the phrase in the New Testament.
- “Attain” is
the Greek word, katanteso,
meaning to come to, arrive at, to reach something. It is used in the hope
of reaching or in fact reaching a goal. It is often used in Acts for
reaching a destination (cf. Acts 18:19, 24). Here in Philippians 3 it is
in the subjunctive mood indicating probability, but not certainty. It is
used in the same way and phrasing in Acts 27:12, “if somehow they could reach [attain, KJV]
- “Resurrection” is the Greek word, exanastasis, meaning out-resurrection. This word is unique to this passage; however it is not reflected in the English translations. It differs from the normal word for resurrection by the addition of ex, a preposition meaning out of or out from.[3] It is clear by using the term Paul does not mean a general resurrection of all the dead. Likewise, it clearly suggests it is for believers. Why does Paul use a different term from the preceding verse (3:10)? Is the term different from the general term of resurrection? If so, how? If Paul had meant the ordinary meaning of resurrection, why does he not simply use it? That is exactly the interpretive problem. The answer is not an easy one.
Bible scholars have given us a
wide verity of answers to these questions. It seems to me any correct
interpretation here involves:
·
Some uncertainty is involved, as slight as it
may be.
·
The element of attainability is indicated.
·
It must not throw any doubt on the reality of
the resurrection in the end times. The truth of the resurrection is a certainty
(cf. 1 Corinthians 15).
·
It must fit within the context of the passage.
Now there are a number of views
as to the meaning of this passage. I classify them into two categories that
these views fall in: (1) Spiritual or Sanctification view and (2)
Eschatological views.
The Spiritual/Sanctification view
holds that it is a participation in the believer’s spiritual resurrection of
which one can participate now.[4]
Vine says it is “not the physical
resurrection, which is assured to all believers hereafter, but to the present
life of identification with Christ in His resurrection.”[5]
Gomacki points out the corresponding phrase in Eph. 5:14: “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall
give thee light.” He points out that since Philippians and Ephesians were
written “at the same time, these two
verses could easily be a commentary upon each other.”[6]
This view may have some merit. However, I see some problems which make this
view unlikely. They are:
- While both are given in the context of sanctification, the tones of the two passages are somewhat different. In Philippians Paul is making an effort to know and conform to the death of Christ and the power of His resurrection. In Ephesians the verse is written to those who are not making this effort. In Ephesians the issue is their walk and it is a call to walk as wise, not unwise men. Since Paul is already walking as wise, it is hard to understand how the call to walk as wise is connected to the Philippian context.
- In the Ephesians passage the normal word for resurrection is used. If the two verses are connected, why do we not find the same term (out-resurrection) in both verses? Paul must have had a purpose when he used this unique word.
- There is ample evidence in Paul’s writing that the believer does participate in the resurrected life of Christ (cf. Romans 6:3-11; Ephesians 2:5-6; Colossians 3:1).
The main eschatological views
are:
The First Resurrection View. This
view holds that the passage refers to the resurrection of believers, either in
the general resurrection or the first resurrection (dependent of their view of
resurrection). Support for this view is found in two things:
- The English translation does not distinguish between the two Greek words and translates them both as resurrection. No major translation of the Bible makes the distinction, although the word in Greek is distinguishable. Loh and Nida expresses the majority’s view when they tell translators: “There is no indication, however, that one should attach special meaning to the rare word.”[7]
- They hold that the particles ei pos (if by any means) does not express or suggest doubt. Loh and Nida says that while it “appears to suggest doubt or uncertainty in the apostle’s mind, but in reality what is expresses here is his sense of expectation and hope.”[8]
Two things in response: First,
just because the translators do not make a distinction does not mean it doesn’t
exist. The Greek text clearly makes the distinction. What the student has to
decide is if the distinction matters. It is our position that it does. “But as the two forms [exanastasis / anastasis] occur in such close propinquity it is probable that there is
some significance in the change of the word.”[9]
Second, to remove doubt from the meaning of the phrase ei pos, goes against the other uses of the phrase in
the New Testament.
The Rapture View. This view holds
that the out-resurrection is the rapture of the church, which affects the
living believers, not just the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians
15:51-53).[10] Johnson
gives four main arguments for it being the rapture:[11]
- That Paul is speaking of something to attain, which he would do if the Rapture came during this lifetime. The rapture concerns the ones who are alive at His coming and underscores Paul’s element of expectation, while at the same time it may not happen. To this view the element of doubt is about living until the rapture.
- This is supported by the particles ei pos. “While one cannot be in doubt about participation in the first resurrection [rapture], yet one can be in doubt about whether he will be alive at the time of the first resurrection [rapture].”[12]
- The rare word exanastasis. He looks to the papyri and sees the indication of the word meaning “rising up,” supporting the view of the rapture. He goes on to say:
“But even if one did not press the meaning of
the word, still a reason must be given for its use. It evidently is singled out
for special significance in view of the use of anastasis in
verse ten. If greater vividness is gained by the use of the word exanastasis, it would be fitting that it refer to the rapture of the
church, for the most vivid feature of the resurrection to the believer during
life on earth is certainly the catching up which will take place when the Lord
returns.”[13]
- He holds that the context upholds for this interpretation. He points out that the natural outcome of sanctification is glorification or full conformation to Christ. For support he points to the last two verses of the chapter (Phil. 3:20-21 which is consistent and must be considered in the interpretation of verse 11.
A Special
Aspect of Resurrection View. This is subdivision of some who hold the rapture
view. C.F. Baker says some view Paul as expressing “the ambition of pressing on toward the goal for the prize,
think that he is speaking of ‘the Exanastasis’ as a group singled out from
those who are resurrected, having attained a special place of honor or reward.”[14]
Wilkin seems to have this view. Writing on Philippians 3:11 he makes the
following points:[15]
- Paul hoped for a greater gain than just a normal resurrection.
- The condition of attaining it is conditional. He writes: “Faithfulness is required to attain it. To gain it one must live Christ's resurrection life experientially (3:10), must willingly share in His sufferings by accepting persecution and pain for his sake (3:10), and must conform himself to Jesus' death by laying down his life for others (3:10; cf. 1 John 3:16-18). Clearly more than faith in Christ is involved. We must ‘press on’ daily in our Christian experience if we hope to attain this prize (3:14).”[16]
- This out-resurrection is a prize, not of a gift of grace.
- “The out-resurrection is a special reward which only faithful believers will receive.”[17] He goes on to point Hebrews 11:35 which refer to a better resurrection saying, “All believers will be resurrected, but there is a better one for those who endure.”[18]
My response to
this is that I think that the rapture view is correct. I question the idea of a
special or better resurrection of all those in the Rapture. Hebrews 11:35
refers not to an eternal resurrection, but temporary resurrection, such as that
of 2 Kings 4. It was a resurrection that simply restored one to physical life.
Vine is correct in saying: “The “better
resurrection” primarily means better than the resurrection of those who have
just been mentioned, who were raised from the dead to die again.”[19]
It seems to be that the out-resurrection is not the prize in and of itself.
Rather, the prize is gained at the judgment seat of Christ and speaks of
rewards not from the out-resurrection. However, Baker’s observation is correct:
“Sometimes it is easier to say what a
statement does not mean than to declare what it does mean.”[20]
[1] S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Out-Resurrection
from the Dead,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA, April 1963, 141.
[2] Wuest, PHILIPPIANS, 94. Hawthorne, WBC:
PHILIPPIANS, 146.
[3] Johnson, “The Out-Resurrection,” 139.
[4] This view is held by Gormacki, Wiersbe, and
Vine.
[5] Vine, EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY, 1:86.
[6] Gormacki, STAND UNITED, 152.
[7] Loh and Nida, TRANSLATORS HANDBOOK ON
PHILIPPIANS, 106.
[8] Ibid, 106.
[9] J. Hugh Michael quoted by Johnson, “The
Out-Resurrection,” 142.
[10] Held by S. Lewis Johnson Jr. and John
Walvoord.
[11] Johnson, “The Out-Resurrection,” 144-145.
[12] Ibid, 144.
[13] Ibid, 145.
[14] Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 98.
[15] Wilkin, Bob, “Has this Passage Ever Brothered
You? Philippians 3:11; Is Our Resurrection Certain?” GRACE IN FOCUS NEWSLETTER,
1987.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] W.E. Vine, THE EPISTLE TO HEBREWS, Oliphants,
London , 1965,
141.
[20] Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 98,
No comments:
Post a Comment