Philippians 3:13

Textus Receptus:
αδελφοι εγω εμαυτον ου λογιζομαι κατειληφεναι εν δε τα μεν οπισω επιλανθανομενος τοις δε εμπροσθεν επεκτεινομενος

King James:
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

Comments:
count not myself to have apprehended: As Paul reckons ("count" here is the word "reckon" in Romans 8:18) he has not yet "laid hold on eternal life" (to borrow the wording of 1 Timothy 6:12.) As in that passage, his honest reckoning reveals both that he securely belongs to Christ (with the future implied by that belonging) and that his current state in this world (both in terms of persecution and personal failure) does not fully reveal that belonging.

this one thing I do: The one thing he does is in the next verse. The two participles ("forgetting" and "reaching forth") only modify the one thing he does--press toward the mark.

forgetting: Paul cannot mean by forgetting that he is unable to recollect his past. He recalls that very past in the opening verses of this chapter (verses 4-7, where he names the thing he has now disregarded.) Instead, he means that he has chosen not to hold those things important any more--just as God can speak of "forgetting" Judah in passages like Jeremiah 23:39.

reaching forth: Before Paul names the one thing he does, he puts it in a temporal context using the analogy of a race. He disregards the past and ardently anticipates the future. But the activity that marks his Christianity in this world is in the next verse.

Expanded Paraphrase:
You share my condition as my brothers in Christ. I do not reason through and conclude that I have already achieved my perfection. But I do relegate to insignificance what used to be most important to me. And I do diligently look forward to my future fulfillment. No, more. While I do the one thing that makes a difference here and now I refuse to look back (as if it would help to return to the starting line) and I stretch out desperately toward the finish line (as if getting there is my only goal.)

Philippians 3:12

Textus Receptus:
ουχ οτι ηδη ελαβον η ηδη τετελειωμαι διωκω δε ει και καταλαβω εφ ω και κατεληφθην υπο του χριστου ιησου

King James:
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Comments:
attained: Paul uses the same word to describe his future receiving of the resurrection that he uses to describe Christ's relinquishment of heaven to take the form of a servant in chapter 2:7. Christ released heaven to receive death on Paul's behalf. Paul releases this life to receive heaven through Christ's provision.

perfect: Paul acknowledges here that he is not perfect, while in verse 15 that he is. The only conclusion to be drawn is that he is incomplete (imperfect) in not having obtained the resurrection but secure (perfect) in having been assured his future in the resurrection.

follow after: He will use the same word to describe pressing toward the mark in verse 14. There is more commitment and energy in this word than simply "following." "Pursuing" might be a good way to get the point across.

I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended: Christ fully has Paul, explaining the perfection of verse 15. But Paul has a ways to go before he fully realizes Christ's work in him, explaining the imperfection of this verse.

Expanded Paraphrase:
I long for the full realization of perfection which will come with the resurrection, but know that I have not grasped it yet--I have not been completed yet. But I am pursuing that perfection because my highest goal in life now is to realize fully that for which Christ saved me. I am yet completely but not complete in Him.

Philippians 3:11

Textus Receptus:
ει πως καταντησω εις την εξαναστασιν των νεκρων

King James:
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Comments:
If by any means: The conditionality is not about Paul doubting whether he will ever be resurrected. Rather, he is making emphatic that there is only one route to the resurrection: through Christ's death and suffering. So, as the previous verse makes clear, to choose the resurrection is a vapid choice unless the subject also chooses Christ's death and sufferings.

Expanded Paraphrase:
I choose Christ's death and sufferings because there is no other "how" by which to arrive at the resurrection-no one else who ever conquered death.

Philippians 3:10

Textus Receptus:
του γνωναι αυτον και την δυναμιν της αναστασεως αυτου και την κοινωνιαν των παθηματων αυτου συμμορφουμενος τω θανατω αυτου

King James:
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Comments:
know him...power...resurrection...fellowship...sufferings...death: Paul works backwards here from the ultimate result through the purposive means finally to the cause of it all. That is, Paul will attain his ultimate goal in everything (to know Christ perfectly) after (even inasmuch as) he holds suffering in common with Christ, which will result from his being conformed to the death of Christ. The "conformity" of which Paul speaks is clearly an appeal to Christ's transformation in chapter 2:6-7 from the "form" of God to the "form" of a servant. It is significant that Paul's identification with Christ (knowing Him) begins with the decision to be conformed to His death, which will mean both suffering in this life and in the words of 2 Corinthians 1:5-7 comfort later.

Expanded Paraphrase:
As I said, knowing Christ is always what everything has been about. So I anticipate finally the unique power of His resurrection as my consolation. But I only hope for that resurrection because I have chosen to die as Christ gave His life, and to serve and suffer as He did.

Philippians 3:9

Textus Receptus:
και ευρεθω εν αυτω μη εχων εμην δικαιοσυνην την εκ νομου αλλα την δια πιστεως χριστου την εκ θεου δικαιοσυνην επι τη πιστει

King James:
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Comments:
being found: The last time Paul used this word in Philippians was in chapter 2:8, describing Christ being found in fashion as a man. Now he describes himself being found having righteousness through faith in Christ.

mine own righteousness which is of the law: The righteousness Paul identifies as inadequate is that which would be associated with his own effort to obey the law. It is unlikely that it is inadequate because of the law, which is itself fine. Rather, it (his righteousness) is inadequate because he does not satisfactorily live up to it (the law,) a lesson he teaches in some detail in Romans 8:3.

Expanded Paraphrase:
My only hope for gain now is to have Christ and to be found ultimately to be in Him. There no one will even notice the feeble effort I made to keep the law. All that will matter is being in Him, having faith in Him, and having the righteousness that comes from God because of that faith.

Philippians 3:8

Textus Receptus:
αλλα μενουνγε και ηγουμαι παντα ζημιαν ειναι δια το υπερεχον της γνωσεως χριστου ιησου του κυριου μου δι ον τα παντα εζημιωθην και ηγουμαι σκυβαλα ειναι ινα χριστον κερδησω

King James:
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Comments:
count...loss...excellency...suffered the loss...count...win: The most obviously remarkable thing about this verse is how many words in it are reprisals of the same vocabulary, particularly throughout chapters 2 and 3. "Count" is the word for "esteem" in 2:3, "supposed" in 2:25, and "counted" in 3:7. "Loss" is a repetition from the previous verse, 3:7, and is repeated again as a verb for "suffered the loss" in this verse. "Excellency" is "better" in 2:3 and "passeth" in 4:7. "Win" is the verbal form of "gain" from 3:7 and 1:21. This verse takes the disciple (through Paul's autobiography) from choosing Christ over self, through the imitation of Christ in relation to others, all the way to receiving the reward associated with Christ. It is at least a, if not the, pivotal point of the book.

Expanded Paraphrase:
But now I can say without any doubt whatsoever that I esteem everything only detrimental to me on account of the far surpassing knowledge of my Lord Jesus Christ. It is for Him that I have suffered the loss of all things--but without regret. In fact, all of that loss--all the things I used to pursue so ardently, I think of now as worth nothing more than being thrown out.

Fideism in 1 Corinthians 15

No chapter argues more significantly or more voluminously for the truth of the resurrection than 1 Corinthians 15. Interestingly, however, Paul is neither asserting nor proving that truth to unbelievers. Rather, he speaks to Christians (albeit weak and even carnal ones) who are part of the church at Corinth. So his argument actually works through a different means and in a different direction than how it is usually preached. Normally the passage is used apologetically--that is, it is given as if to say the historical veracity of the resurrection is empirically undeniable, having been witnessed by those identified in verses 5-9. But that direction is not where Paul takes the argument at all.
The heart of his argument for the resurrection is in the syllogism he presents in verses 13-19, to which he then adds verses 20ff to make obvious the impact of the syllogism and to clarify that the relationship between the resurrection of Christ and everyone else's resurrection is efficient rather than simply implicit. To save space, take DR to represent the proposition "that there is a resurrection of the dead," CR to be "that Christ has risen from the dead," PV to be "that the apostle's preaching is vain," FV to be "that the Corinthians' (believers') faith is vain," SS to be "that the believers are still in their sins," SP to be "that those who sleep (have physically died) in Christ are destroyed," and MM to be "that believers are the most miserable (pitiable) of people." Also, take "that we have hope in Christ in this life only" as equivalent to the denial of DR ("that there is a resurrection of the dead." Paul's syllogism then should be fairly obvious, beginning in verse 13 and ending in verse 19. (For those not familiar with the symbols, "~" means "not," "-->" means "implies," "^" means "and," and ". :" means "therefore.")
Verse 13 provides the first premise (in this case the minor premise) and is supported by (or simply restated in) verse 16. Verse 14 provides the beginning of the second premise (in this case the major premise) completed and supported in verses 15, 17, and 18. Finally, verse 19 provides the conclusion, which is, as it turns out, a reduction to absurdity (a reductio ad absurdum argument.) So the syllogism starts out looking like this:
~DR --> ~CR
~CR --> PV ^ FV ^ SP ^ SS
. : ~DR --> MM
The lack of syllogistic structure above is resolved with the simple observation that Paul refers to believers as the most miserable (pitiable) of people in verse 19 in order to abbreviate his (hypothetical) claim that the apostle's preaching is vain (in verse 15), that the believers' faith is vain (in verse 17), that the dead in Christ are simply rotting in the grave (in verse 18) and that the Corinthians are still in their sins (in verse 17.) (To be a bit more precise, SS is actually an implication of FV in Paul's argument, but that fact does not change the value of this structure.) With that equivalence, the structure is straight up.
~DR --> ~CR
~CR --> MM
. : ~DR --> MM
Here's the point, especially clarifying verse 19: Paul is not saying that if there is no resurrection, Christian life is an abysmal disappointment. Rather, Paul expects his readers to see MM as an absurdity. Since the structure of his argument is undeniable and he has emphasized (if not proven) the truth of the implicit relationship between each subject and predicate in the premises, then the absurdity of the predicate of the conclusion can lead to only one conclusion, the denial of the subject of the first (minor) premise, that the dead rise not. Like this:
~DR --> MM
~MM
. : DR
In other words, Paul assumes (for good reason) the Corinthians will respond to verse 19 by asserting that they certainly are not the most pitiable of all people. That is, he believes they will assert that the preaching they have heard is not vain, that their faith is not vain, that they have been delivered from their sins, and that their dead loved ones are not just decaying in the grave. And he has argued such that if they make that assertion, they will have to acknowledge that the dead do indeed rise. That acknowledgment then at least allows for the possibility that Christ also rose. Of course, the possibility of Christ rising is not at all the final disposition of the argument for Paul, which is why he asserts in the next verse (20) not only that Christ has risen from the dead, but that Christ's resurrection not only makes the resurrection of the dead necessarily possible (the contrapositive of the original first premise in verse 13,) but more importantly that Christ's resurrection of the dead paves the way for the resurrection of the dead more generally.
Now back to the weight of the reductio ad absurdum argument in verses 13-19: Paul does not begin with the fact of the resurrection then argue that the Corinthians ought to be more holy as a result of the fact for which he has provided evidence. Rather, he argues that their commitment to the faith is already real (although poorly lived, as the rest of the epistle attests) and that therefore the resurrection is undeniable. It is a more fideist than evidentialist argument. Of course, it could hardly be otherwise, written not as an apology to unbelievers but an appeal to believers.
The point here is simply that if believers' lives have been changed by the gospel then the objective content of the gospel message, including the literal nature of the resurrection, is thereby validated. As always, miracles (even the greatest miracle: the resurrection) do not produce faith; rather, in this case epistemologically, faith (and its subsequent transforming power in the lives of the Corinthians) justifies the miracle--a fideist position indeed!

An explanatory note and a followup question:
An explanatory note: Fideism here is not just that salvation is by faith alone, nor does it include the idea that faith is purely subjective, without regard to objective content. It is simply the advocation of initial, volitional faith as the foundation within which Christianity is preached both to the lost and saved. That commitment of faith is independent of sufficient evidence or any other prior cause and therefore an expression of the free will (a gracious gift from God to humans.) The lost ought to make that commitment-choice. The saved have made that commitment-choice.
A followup question: But is it not possible that Paul made his evidential apologetic (based on the witnesses) first, then argues from that fact to the conclusion that without the resurrection they would be the most pitiable of men? The answer is no, because he already introduced the belief they have in reality in verse 2. In fact, he premises all his claims with the necessary relationship between their faith (unless you believed in vain,) their salvation, and their standing in what he preached to them. First they believe in the content of his message, which includes the objective truth of the resurrection. Everything else follows.