|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologetics Ministries | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Final Draft: 12/8/04 Philippians has been one of the least controversial of Paul's letters in terms of ascription and unity. I have found no serious disputes of Pauline authorship. In the past there have been some suggestions that the letter is a composite of two letters (divided at 3:2), but this idea is no longer taken seriously by the consensus of scholars. Read [Rea.DA, 140ff] offers a substantial list of lexical parallels indicating the unity of the letter. Sometimes cited as evidence is Polycarp's awareness of more than one letter to the Philippians; however, this would not prove that our Philippians is made up of more than one letter, and the term used by Polycarp may mean a collective set of injunctions found in a single letter, or may refer to a collection of letters circulated of which Philippians was one. It is also notable that Marcion apparently knew of only one Philippian letter. Finally, critics have yet to produce a viable reason why any scribe should have interpolated these materials, as opposed to keeping them separate. A secondary issue is from where Paul wrote this letter. Rome is taken as the usual locale; some have suggested Ephesus, but there are telling factors against this, in particular that Paul writes as though he expects he could be executed (1:19-20) -- which would not make sense for Paul, a Roman citizen who obviously would and could appeal to Caesar and thus be tried in Rome before being executed -- and that Paul's description of his own priviliges fits that of his Roman imprisonment (2:25-30, 4:10-20; cf. Acts 24:23). [Hawt.P, xl-xli] There is no record of Paul being imprisoned in Ephesus, either. [With.FP, 24] Some have also suggested Caesarea, noting that a Praetorium existed there, but as small as it was, this would make Phil. 1:13 not worth much as a comment [26]. Phil 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: In the Pastorals, the mention of bishops and deacons is sometimes given as a reason to date those letters late. The mention of them here is taken as good evidence that these are not late concepts. Of course as with the Pastorals, one cannot assume that the words meant exactly what they did in the second century, or that the duties were the same. The words themselves tell us little and reflect functions, not necessarily titles; though it would make sense that later titles were created based on functions. "Bishops" was used in Paul's world to refer to persons with all manner of "overseeing" duties, ranging from tutors to temple officials, and the work parllalels a function in the Essene community. "Deacons" was also a common word among the Greeks, used for servants responsible for duties within a city, or messengers or attendants [Hawt.P, 8-9]. It is used in the LXX of a kingly adviser (Esth. 1:10). Paul's reference to himself and Timothy as servants (essentially, slaves) of Jesus Christ points to the essential client-patron relationship between the Father and believers, with Jesus as the broker. As Dale Martin notes in Slavery as Salvation, in identifying themselves this way, Paul and Timothy are actually asserting their identity as authorized agents of Christ. Thus those who suppose that Paul calls himself an "apostle" in other letters where his apostolic authority is questioned in the community written to, and deduce from this that he did not use "apostle" here because the Philippians respected his apostolic authority, may be reading too much into the verbiage. In calling himself a servant/slave of Christ, Paul exerts as much authority as he would in calling himself an apostle; as Martin [Mart.P, 60] puts it: "This title denotes their God-given authority to speak and act in [God's] name, as his accredited representative" -- just as OT prophets called themselves "servants" of God. The use of "saints" bespeaks an awareness that the church has in some sense become the set-apart people of God that was Israel in the OT, though it does not support any specific view (such as replacement theology, which we do not agree with). It is just as well compatible with the idea that the church has been grafted in to the Israeli identity (per Romans). 2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. In Greco-Roman letters it was sometimes the case that the writer would add in some sort of thanks to the gods "for the addressess' health or well-being" [Bloom.FS, 75]. Thus even this seemingly innocuous comment is an indication of belief in the divinity of Jesus. 3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, 5 For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now; 6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: On the "day of Christ" see comments on v. 10 below. Certain Calvinist advocates see 1:6 as an argument against the idea that apostasy could cause forfeit of salvation? This commits the common exegetical fallacy of universalizing a particular to the whole of the church. Paul here is addressing the Philippians only. The "you" in verse 6 is the same "you" that Paul thanks God for upon remembrance (v. 3), prays for (v. 4), thinks of (v. 7), etc...obviously not the church throughout history in mind here! Unless Paul thought or knew that there were apostates in the Philippian church -- and from the letter, it seems likely that there were not -- then this verse cannot be used to argue for eternal security. This does not require a special revelation of future faithfulness on Paul's part; it is enough that he has no reason, in a high-context setting, to divert from the main point and delineate possible failure in the future. We make many statements that, if we wish to be precise, ought to have innumerable qualifiers; but it is never normal to actually talk that way. 7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. Here we see an expression of the collective sentiments of the body of Christ -- in words our individualist society cannot truly grasp. Paul could write of such unity among Christians as an ingroup that his own readers were "in [his] heart" and partook in his grace. This is not merely a platitude as it would be today. In all likelihood, the Philippians did what they could to make Paul's imprisonment more comfortable. Ancient prisons did not provide food or other necessities -- if you ate at all, it was because someone on the outside gave you a hand and supported you. Since this lot often fell to a person's family, the Philippians' support would be a demonstration of the strong and unusual familial bond that was established in Christ. Since Philippi was a relatively well-off city, the Philippians also likely had sufficient resources to sustain Paul for an extended period. They would have considered it an honorable act of patronage to support Paul -- but only indeed if they were convinced of the rightness of his message and mission. To be imprisoned was highly dishonorable to the prisoner, and to support a prisoner like this -- especially if he was not a blood relative -- would have been an unusual step. Thus Philippian support for Paul would be yet another hint at Christianity as a faith that survived because it had strong evidence behind it. (See http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html) "Defence" is apologia, the keyword for apologetics [Mart.P, 67] With the word "confirmation" (bebaiosis) these are legal terms, and a technical sense is likely here. Part of Paul's defense would undoubtedly be an apologetic for the resurrection and identity of Jesus, which would have begun with the procedure called the cognito [With.FP, 38]. 8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ. 9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; 10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ... Critics ask if Paul incorrectly predicted that that "day of Christ" would come soon. As an orthodox preterist (see http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html) I do not in fact think Paul was wrong to say that the "day of Christ" would come soon -- at which time, the "work" in the lives of the Philippians would be completed (v. 6 above) in the sense that Christ would assume the judgment throne, and be able to execute final judgments upon all persons, even atemporally. But for those who adhere to a dispensational view, there is another answer. As Ben Witherington says in Jesus, Paul and the End of the World [JPEW], it would not be proper to say that Paul thought Jesus would return soon. Rather, it is better to say that Paul thought Jesus could return soon -- and so adopted what Witherington called the "language of imminence" [19] to express his belief that Jesus could return in his own lifetime, or anytime at all thereafter. As Witheringon further states [24]: Suppose Paul did not know and did not pretend to know the timing of the Second Coming, but thought it possible that it could be soon. Suppose also that he did not die before the parousia. Now if he did not know the timing of the parousia or of his own death, he could not assume that he would die prior to the parousia. This means that the only category into which he could possibly put himself when commenting on the parousia is the living...Paul could not have said, "We who will die prior to the parousia," because that would presuppose that he knew that the parousia was some distance off. The point is, Witherington says, Paul simply did not know the timing of these events, and thus he had to prepare and warn his converts because the parousia might be soon. Current events provide something of a parallel here. Our government warns of imminent terrorist attacks, based on general knowledge that terrorists want to strike, and might; but they address the public in terms of saying, "Be on the lookout for an attack." They do not know when this attack will take place, and they could hardly tell everyone to look out, except those who will die in the next day or two! Paul knew that the day of the Lord would come as a thief in the night (1 Thess. 5:2). In Jesus' own words, "And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not." (Luke 12:39-40) This very simple consideration defuses a great many skeptical "complaints" about Paul (and other NT writers) expecting Jesus to return in their lifetime. The "language of imminence" used by Paul and others was a constraint of their own ignorance, of not knowing when Jesus would return, rather than reflecting a "knowing" as the critics suppose (and this could also be said under my preterist view, though within more narrow confines). From the preterist perspective, a word is in order about Paul's wish that the Philippians be "sincere and without offence till the day of Christ." Why is this so important, and what about after that day (if they lived that long)? Preterists could understand this from the point of view that something about the day of Christ c. 70 AD changed things so that it would be somehow easier for Christians to avoid insincerity and offense -- we might propose that the binding of Satan at this time accomplished that, reducing the ease of temptation. On the other hand, the words used have certain meanings which suggest characteristics that Christians would need to be stellar and effective witnesses for Christ [Hawt.P, 27-8], prior to Jesus' vindication by the fulfillments of his prophecies in 70. "Sincere" means to live lives that are transparent and pure. One might say that this sort of life would work well as a "guarantee" of the coming vindication, as if to set the example for the collective of the church and say, "See, we have nothing to hide. You can be sure that Jesus will be vindicated." Meanwhile "without offence" means to not put stumbling blocks in the way of others -- which could mean, do nothing which causes people to doubt the truth of the Gospel, which would be especially important prior to the vindication events of 70, when every bit of verification would be treasured, and to use every means to avoid stumbling, essential. 11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. 12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; 13 So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; 14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Paul's imprisonment "has become a matter of notoriety as being for Christ. His confinment as a Christian would excite attention and inquiry." [Vin.PP, 16] The radical Christian message would have been a hot topic for the gossip networks. The scandalous message of unity among diverse groups (class, nationality), which got Paul in trouble in the first place, would have wasted no time being spread among his captors, even without Paul and other missionaries giving it a hand. The praetorian guard would have been a particularly useful vehicle for the message, and perhaps a good source for persons with the means and the motive to check out the Christian message. The guard consisted of picked men; by Paul's time there may have been as many as 16,000. "On retiring, each soldier received a bounty amounting to nearly nine hundred dollars." [Vin.PP, 17] A retired soldier with plenty of money, loyal to Rome and concerned to protect it from seditious groups, would be a perfect candidate to check out the validity of the Christian message. Paul's message would spread among the guard within their gossip network, and as they were rotated in and out of duty guarding him at the residence indicated in Acts. Other brethren would have been inspired -- which is to say, shamed -- by Paul's imprisonment; his own boldness in bonds would have shamed those still free who were reluctant to share the Gospel message, and motivated even those who were not lax to work even harder, lest they be ashamed themselves. Or it could be as Martin suggests [74] that the envy and animosity (v. 15) is a matter of method; Paul's opponents perhaps have a "rival missionary strategy" involving pneumatic displays (as happened in Corinth) and look down upon Paul as one whose methods of evangelism are a failure (since he is in prison!). A final idea is that missionaries were perhaps emboldened as Paul's imprisonment continued, and it became clear that his opponents were not going to be able to press their case, thus making it less likely that they would suffer the same fate from their own preaching. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. Who are those who "preach Christ even of envy and strife"? Vincent's [19] suggestion that these were Christians jealous of the honor being accorded Paul fits well within the social context; perhaps these were even men of honor whose honor was lessened by Paul's presence. Since honor would have been perceived as a limited good, Paul's absoption of honor from the limited pool would have been seen as taking away from the honor of others. Thus, somewhat perversely, others may have chosen to increase their honor rating within the community by becoming bolder witnesses. In this way as well they "add affliction" to Paul by taking the honor from him. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. A Jewish anti-missionary site saw some alleged significance here thinking that they could prove Paul a liar, but the word "pretence" here is prophasis, which means an outward showing. It does not reflect lies in content, but lies in motive, and that is what Paul accuses opponents of his of doing, not himself -- just as you may get a true Gospel message unwitingly from a charlatan. Is eternal life not more of a concern than the bad habits of the preacher? 19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, By "salvation" Paul does not mean eternal salvation. The word "salvation" can mean rescue from any difficult situation; here it is thought Paul means "the whole saving and sanctifying work of Christ" [Vin.PP, 23] or more likely means merely Paul's situation in prison; the word's primary meaning is "deliverance from impending death" [Hawt.P, 40]. 20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. 21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: It may be asked what this passage tells us of the afterlife; the answer is, not much. Elsewhere Paul "treats death as a sleep from which believers will awake" at the resurrection. Yet one might also to some extent enjoy the company of Christ. How so? The Jewish idea of man as a unity (Semitic Totality) means that to make a whole man, the elements "belong" together -- body and spirit. This would suggest that the spirit without the body would not perform optimally, and this is reflected in OT descriptions of the aftrlife. As reported in Philip Johnston's Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament, persons in Sheol are inactive and weak, yet still can be conscious. They also are cut off from Yahweh. Obviously the latter condition would not apply for Paul, who would go to "be with" Christ. Yet we see no indication that the former condition is in any sense changed while the psychosomatic unity remain dissolved. Paul thus can still speak of the afterlife of the believer in terms of a "sleep" (1 Th. 4:14) from which resurrection will awaken them (1 Cor. 15:54-5). The result is that believers will be in a state where their mind wanders and focus is extremely difficult (which may make sense if your brain is missing!). For more on the nature of the afterlife see http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.html Note that "be with Christ" parallels OT expressions, "be with God" which "express the hope that (cultic) fellowship with Yahweh will continue beyond death." [Mart.P, 78] This is an implicit indication of belief in Christ's divinity (an identification with Yahweh!) and is also a better explanation that that Paul was copying Hellenistic mystery cults with their ideas of fellowship with the divine. The phrase "to live is Christ" is summed up as meaning, "life means Christ" -- Paul's life is occupied and filled with Christ, so that all he does is inspired by and for the cause of Christ [Hawt.P, 45]. "To die is gain" is a "very human" sentiment of one weighed down with nearly unbearable burdens and is parlalled in Greek literature of the period by words such as Antigone's: "Whoever lives in as many ills as I -- how does this one not get gain by dying?" [Hawt.P, 46] 24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. 25 And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; 26 That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again. 27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; The literal meaning here is "be citizens" [Vin.PP, 32]. Once again a vital illustration of the church as an established ingroup, one that would be in ideological competition with the "citizenship" of other ingroups (such as Rome, an especially poignant comment in this context, given Philippi's special status as a place filled with Roman citizens!). The Philippians like all Christians would certainly have all the more reason to rejoice in seeing Paul again, as his vindication (see above) meant as well a vindication of Christian truth claims. 28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. 29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; 30 Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me. 1:29 is sometimes used in a Calvinist context to support the idea that God gives us our "faith" [Whi.PF, 296, 319]. But in the client-patron context, what would be granted to us is faith and loyalty in the sense of depending on God, our patron, and Christ, his broker. In other words, we are given permission to enter His gracious patronage; no one becomes a client of a patron unless the patron agrees to sign them on, no matter how much they want it. This fits in precisely with the contextual admonitions telling us not to be afraid of adversaries (1:28) because God is our patron who saves us. It also fits with the point that "given" is the same word that means "grace" or "favor," which referred to the willingness of a patron to grant some benefit to another person or group. The passage thus means: "Unto you is granted the offer to become Christ's loyal servant and yes, even suffer for his sake." The word "terrified" [Bea.EP, 67] is used elsewhere of the shying of a startled horse. Beare sees this as opponents trying to panic Christians -- we might suggest, with rumors that Jesus' body had been found, or some other counter-factual claim about the Christian faith. There is some discussion [Hawt.P, 59-60] over exactly whose "perdition" is in view -- that of Christians, or that of opponents. If the former, then Hawthorne's explanation that this is a case of Paul saying, though they see your loyalty to the truth as inevitably leading to your persecution and death, while you see it as steps on the path to salvation," makes good sense. On the other hand, if it means the destruction of the opponents, it could mean that the spreading of such groundless falsehoods would be evidence of the eventual fate of these opponents, destruction, and to Christians, a verification of their salvation (and the truth of the Gospel) inasmuch as it would reflect how desperate the opponents are in having to contrive matters and not being able to refute the real truth. The suffering in v. 29 under the first view would mean possible suffering unto death; yet given that Christianity was still not proven a normally executable offense, especially for the Philippians, this may be too pre-emptive an understanding. If the latter understanding is true, then the "suffering" and "conflict" means general interaction with the world around them, leading to results which are reflected (at worst) in Paul's current status. I find this likely given that the comparison to suffering in the stead of Christ would properly reflect not just Christ dying, but also his social marginalization. 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, 2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Adjusting to a new ingroup would hardly have been easy for the Philippians. Raised to believe in class distinctions (to a much greater extent than we would ever be), being in one accord -- a rich man with a slave, for example -- would have been contrary to everything the Philippians believed and were taught. Paul's admonition -- indeed, the admonition of Christianity -- is an astonishing one in context. The construction of the phrases are such that the "ifs" of v.1 mean essentially "since there is..." [Hawt.P, 64] 3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. In the same light, this is also a radical message: It is especially hard to imagine a typical Philippian -- a Roman colonist, well off as they would be -- esteeming a fellow Christian who was a slave, not just as an equal, but "better" than himself! Indeed the word used is that of the proper attitude of a slave towards his master, or of a man born with low status [Mart.P, 89]. Note that in this social world, humility was not considered a virtue [With.FP, 63], though it was a virtue in Judaism, but this makes it even more unlikely that a Gentile would convert to this religion -- even a slave, who was already ashamed of being "put down" and didn't need a message asking that he do it more! 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Textual issues in v. 4 make it unclear whether the message is, "do not look after your own interests, but others' " or "do not look only after..." Either way this is hardly a commendation to ignore one's own interests completely; the model rather is agape love within which all is done in the best interests of the most people. Jesus is the model used (v. 5). Paul's use of the creed that follows is intended, in context, to set Christ as the model for humility. Hawthorne [78] notes a parallel progression of ideas between 2:6-11 and John 13:3-17, and suggests that the latter of events like it may have inspired the formulation of the creed: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The richness of this Christological passage is hard to underemphasize. Here are some key points. Bloomquist [Bloom.FS, 166] points out that Paul uses some of the same language from 2:6-11 to describe himself and Timothy (and to some extent, Epaphroditus) later in the letter. This is an example of a prosopopoeia, an "impersonation or taking on a role in deliberative rhetoric." It is a way of Paul stressing he and Timothy as fulfillments of a type of Christ -- in a way that shows them to be fitting disciples; but also in a way acceptable to their collectivist world (e.g., not saying outright, "I'm just like Christ!"). 12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. There are two readings of this passage, one of which raises an apologetics issue, the other of which makes it moot. Reading 1: Work out our salvation? Yet is not salvation by faith, not by works? If this is how we are to read the passage, understanding Paul's comment here and reconciling it with the dichotomy between faith and works requires us to have a deeper look at the way the people of the NT world thought. Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a "peculiarly Semitic" idea of a "unitive notion of human personality." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59] This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8). This line of thinking can be traced through the Old Testament and into the New Testament (in particular, the concept of the "body of Christ") and rabbinic literature. Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, "by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being." Thus Paul regards being an unbodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces "all that a man is and ever shall be." Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]: The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects. Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111] Under the Semitic Totality paradigm, thoughts that result in no action are vain. When Paul encourages believers to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Phil. 2:12) he is not telling us that we must do our part to be saved. We already possess that righteousness; what is needed is for us to come to terms with this and live consistently with it. "Working it out" means essentially, live the life of the one who believes, living in that constant balance of thought-inspired action. Alternative reading: Martin [103] believes that "salvation" here is used in the sense of spiritual wholeness (Beare [90] suggests eschatological fulfillment, which makes little sense in context). This is quite possible (since "salvation" meant rescue from any difficult problem) and would resolve the issue just as well. In favor of this point, Martin believes that an emphasis on personal salvation is out of place; rather, the "salvation" is needed from the Philippians' difficult situation maintaining good relationships among themselves, per the prior adominitions. Martin also thinks an admonition to work out salvation "on your own" would be contrary to 2:4. In this I agree and believe that Martin may have a better understanding of this verse. Hawthorne [98] shares this view, though Witherington [71] prefers the first. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. 14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings: 15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Paul's words here, a clear allusion to Jesus' own command to be light, bespeaks a form of behavior that, while passive (for lights do not go seeking out darkness!) nevertheless indicates a way that challenges and destroys the darkness around it. 16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. 17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all. The word used for "sacrifice" means a libation, and thus should not be read as inferring a martyrdom but as a reference to Paul's general suffering as an apostle. The word is never used to refer to a cultic killing of animals [Hawt.P, 106]. 18 For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me. 19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. 20 For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. 21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. 22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. 23 Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. 24 But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly. 25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants. 26 For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick. 27 For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 I sent him therefore the more carefully, that, when ye see him again, ye may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful. 29 Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness; and hold such in reputation: 30 Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me. The argument that this was the end of a Pauline letter, because Paul usually leaves personal data like this until a letter's end, fails on the grounds that 1) in other letters, Paul puts personal details in the middle (1 Cor. 4:17-19, 2 Cor. 8:16-19); 2) the examples of the people given reinforce Paul's lesson about being a servant of Christ. [108] Here as well is found some argument for Philippians as composed at Ephesus, for it is said to be unlikely that the church could learn so quickly of Epaphroditus' sickness if the letter were from Rome, and Paul would not send such a sick man on such a long journey from Rome. Hawthorne [115] replies that this is not sufficient reasoning: We do not know how long it was between Epaphroditus' illness and recovery; travel in the Empire was often much faster than supposed; and we should not judge ancient people by modern standards of comfort. Those who wonder why Paul doesn't go into more detail about how Epaphroditus got sick, and well again, should recall that 1) such desire for niggling detail is a modern phenomenon of low-context persons; 2) leaving out details was the best way for Paul to avoid any misunderstandings about what happened, so that only Epaphroditus himself could answer questions the Philippians had [121] -- an honorable way for Paul to write about the matter. The word used in v. 25 is the same used in Rom. 15:27 to describe the person who brought Paul a monetary gift. [With.FP, 79f] Thus it is possible that Epaphroditus was specifically commissioned by the Philippians to bring a gift to Paul from Philippi. The indication here is that he got sick on the way to Paul, which tells against an Ephesian imprisonment, since Ephesus is so close to Philippi that Epaphroditus could have either gone home easily, and the Philippians also would not need Paul to inform them of his illness. It is likely that the Philippians got this news from another Christian travellibg in the opposite direction. 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. The "finally" in this verse is one part of what gave older critics suspicion that Philippians was a composite of two letters. The word here though can also mean "for the rest" or "as to what remains" and is used by Paul "where he loosely attaches, even in the middle of an epistle, a new subject to that which he has been discussing". [Vin.PP, xxxii] A second part is the word "rejoice" which some, like Beare [Bea.EP] say means "farewell" but this is rejected by Hawthorne as "wrongly translated" by Beare's source, Goodspeed, and by Read [Rea.DA, 134] who notes that the combination of Greek words used allows only the meaning "rejoice". He further identifies 3:1b as a "hesitation formula" with parallels in rhetorical forms of the day [Rea.DA, 229ff]. Hawthorne [124] also notes that while the word is sometimes used to end a letter, it is also used to introduce new subject matter as Paul does here. 2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. Jewish anti-missionary Gerald Sigal objects that Jesus could not be a perfect sacrifice because he was circumcised, and Paul calls circumcision a "mutilation" [Phil. 3:2] and compares it to castration [Gal. 5:12]. Sigal ignores the fact that Paul refers to it as such polemically, and in the context of one who is circumcised after accepting Christ, for whom circumcision is superfluous. The Galatian controversy was about people who were told that they, living on this side of the new covenant (as if Sigal expected the baby Jesus to reach up and stop the operation!), needed to be circumcised; now that the need for the old covenant sign is passed (and out of social necessity, never mind not being able to stop it, Jesus would have had to be circumcised to be accepted in his social setting, just as Paul had to circumcise Timothy to make Timothy's presence acceptable among Jews), circumcision is indeed nothing but mutilation for the Galatians -- it would not even serve so much as a social purpose, as it would for Timothy. In addition, it has been thought that Paul's change in tone here was proof that this and what follows was a fragment from a different letter interpolated into Philippians. Bloomquist's [178] rhetorical study shows this to be false. 3:1-16 is a reprehensio, an attempt to "defuse objections that could be raised by real opponents..." Since Paul has been pointing to himself and the others as examples of Christ, against certain opponents who have been badmouthing him, it is now appropriate that he anticipate their own responses, which would include pointing to themselves and their credentials. Read [Rea.DA, 135] also points out that shifts in tone in other Pauline letters (Rom. 16:17-20, 1 Cor. 15:58, Gal. 3:1, 4:21) are not used as evidence of partitioning, and that given the number of places where it is argued the partition begins (3:1, 3:1b, 3:2) there are legitimate questions to raise about the credibility of partition theories [136]. The strength of Paul's use of "dogs" should not be underestimated. This is as much as calling his opponents ritually impure, and non-followers of God. The identity of these opponents is likely Judaizing Christians of the sort Paul combatted in Galatians and Acts; some have hypothesized that these are simply ordinary Jews, but the lack of a significant Jewish presence in Philippi speaks against that identification. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Critics Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy write in their book The Jesus Mysteries: "Like the Gnostics, Paul is extremely disparaging of the externals of religion -- ceremonies, holy days, rules, and regulations." [FG, 164] By this they wish to hint that Paul was a Gnostic. But "flesh" is a metaphor for human weakness in rabbinic Judaism, and here, is followed upon by Paul's recounting of his human achievements. By this accounting, any expression of humility is a sign of Gnosticism! But in reality, Paul's statement is for the purpose of contrast as above. 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Those who grumble about Paul's "bragging" here are reading too much of modern Western values into the text. In Paul's day it would have been right and necessary for him to draw a contrast between himself and opponents. Honor exchanges demanded that to keep his credibility, Paul make comparisons like these which diminished the status of his opponents. What follows also has the purpose of answering the likely charge that Paul was merely some sort of frsutrated "have not" who lashes out in envy [Hawt.P, 130]. Those who beg the question by claiming that Paul's account of all of this as "dung" is some sort of "mock humility" are merely trying to preserve their view of Paul as arrogant. This passage is like 2 Cor. 11-13 a case of deliberative irony, meant to shame Paul's opponents. 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; In the ancient world terms like these were "buzzwords" intended to establish immediately certain associations about the person they were applied to (as we would say, stereotypes). All of these had the purpose of saying to the Philippians, "here is who I am". The recitation is not bragging, but in essence, Paul showing the Philippians his drivers' license. 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. The word "zeal" is the same word used to describe the Maccabbean rebels who killed people, thereby affirming in Paul's own letters (as per Acts) that he persecuted the church even unto the deaths of members. This statement also destroys any contention that Paul had some sort of "conscience issue" (especially since conscience as such had yet to exist) prior to becoming a Christian, in which he felt some sort of hidden guilt about persecuting the church, or was somehow dissatisfied with Judaism. 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 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, 9 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: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; The use of the word knowledge (v. 8) harks back not to a Gnostic influence, but to the idea of "knowledge of God" as expressed in Hosea. The grammar indicates [Hawt.P, 144] that when Paul says he wants to know "the fellowship of his sufferings" he does not mean he wants to be martyred too (though being persecuted would be part of the Christian life), but rather wishes to know of them through personal interaction with Christ, and "being made conformable" means that Paul wishes to adopt the same attitude and practice as Christ did in his death (an allusion then to his prior teaching about imitating Christ in humility). The "faith of Christ" here likely refers to Christ's own loyalty and faithfulness in proceeding to the cross. [With.FP, 93] It is by this act that Paul has achieved imputed righteousness. 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Vincent [Vin.PP, 106] says that "much unnecessary difficulty has been made over the apparent uncertainty expressed in these words," as though Paul had some doubts about resurrection (contrary to the hope and surety of it he expresses elsewhere). Paul issues cautions elsewhere about lapses in faith; so likewise here, with these words of "humility and self-distrust," not doubt over the reality of resurrection. Of course, this offers some difficulty for those who accept the P in TULIP; for more on that, see http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/pers.html 12 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. 13 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, If as is indeed likely, Paul's opponents were into pneumatic displays, and (more likely) believed that it was possible to reach self-perfection, these comments would be an ironic rebuttal and reply within which Paul compares himself to his opponents -- as he does in prior verses. There is no object stating what Paul would have attained; it has been hypothesized to be the resurrection, or righteousness, or full understanding of Christ, which makes the most sense of the context. 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Here again Paul is sometimes accused of self-promotion; it is not however "intolerable conceit" but a matter of Paul serving within his collective as a role model, and being aware of his responsibility to set an example. Boldness and frankness of speech like this was a value to the ancients, as opposed to our modern perception that to talk about one's self this way is conceited and arrogant. See for more http://www.tektonics.org/af/assert.html Witherington [96] adds that such calls to imitation were a "common one for teachers" like Paul, for "modeling was believed to be one of the most effective ways to be educated." (Jesus is used as a model also, in prior passages.) 18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) 20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. I have recently seen a prominent atheist claim that Paul taught a form of resurrection in which a person received a new body while the old one stayed in the ground. Phil. 4:21 by itself destroys this view; the verse literally refers to "the body of our humiliation" which is transformed -- and for this transformation, Paul uses Jesus as the model. In addition, it makes much more sense to see a transformation in light of the point that Christ will "subdue" all things (which makes better sense if the body is transformed, not just left where it is in favor of a new body). 4:1 Therefore, my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved. 2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. 4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Here's a wacky blast from the past sure to be resurrected someday by some wacky Skeptic. The Tubingen school of the 18th century hypothesized that "Euodias" and "Syntyche" were respectively symbols for Jewish and Gentile Christians, and the yokefellow was Peter, charged with mediating between the factions. [Hawt.P, 179] Just a reminder that this kind of nonsensical theorizing isn't new...the "yokefellow" however is likely to be either the entire Philippian church, addressed as a collective unit, or Epaphroditus, the bearer of the letter. It is only a guess [181] to suppose that this "Clement" is the same as Clement of Rome; it was a common name. That these women laboured with Paul [With.FP, 108ff] indicates that they were women of high status, as does the fact that they are named at all, for it was unusual otherwise for women to be named in correspondence. The passage comports with an idea that the women, as well-to-do persons, were of the sort we suppose initially investigated the Christian movement and came away convinced it was true. 5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. This verse, too, is taken at times as a false indication of Jesus' soon return. Aside from the issues covered above in 1:10, note that this says, it is "the Lord" that is "at hand," not "the day of the Lord." The word for "at hand" could mean either close in time or in space. (John 3:23 "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim...") That Paul has the "space" idea in mind is shown first by the lack of a chronological marker ("the day of..." -- the word used here "when it is used in the sense of temporal nearness, refers to a thing or an event, not a person, being near.") and second by the similarity of this passage to Psalms 145:18-19 ("The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth."; note Phil. 4:6, "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.") and other Psalmist passages that refer to the "nearness" of the Lord to others (34:17-18, 119:151). [With.FP, 112-13] 6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. 7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. This is one of many verses claimed in a cluster alleging contradiction: Is God a god of war, or a god of peace? Why not both? Let's ask a simple question -- is it not reasonable to say that God can be both a "warrior" and a God of peace, as the circumstances require? Can a person not be a soldier at some time in their life, during a time of war, and say, a tuba inspector during times of peace? The Exodus was a time when God advanced on behalf of Israel for conquest -- it is certainly appropriate that hymns of praise to Him extolled that virtue and practice. Romans 15:33, on the other hand, used as a "peace" verse, is the salutation of a letter, when blessings are offered; so likewise this passage in Philippians. The "genre gap" here is vast, to say nothing of the historical contexts! A contradiction would only exist if God were described as being of war and peace at the same time and performing the same action. That simply isn't the case here. Being warlike and peaceful are not permanently, mutually contradictory states, for they each involve complexes of interaction with persons and actions that are encountered over time. Furthermore, let us recall that in the ancient world, the Pax Romana (Roman peace) was enforced via military might, so that the concepts were not considered mutually exclusive, less so by the ancients! 10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. 12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. 14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction. Previously Paul has seemed to empahsize his suffering (1:12-18, 26-28); here he de-emphaisizes it. Rhetorically this section is a conquestio [Bloom.FS, 188], an affirmation. A few partition theorists used to make this out as yet another interpolation from another letter, based on change of tone (see above) as well as alleged difficulty in the amount of time needed to allow for Epaphroditus' illness and Paul receiving news of it, but because it is uncertain when and how long Epaphroditus was sick, and how often Paul could communicate with the Philippians or they could receive news, this theory is merely creativity in action. [Rea.DA, 137-8] A more practical and contextually-grounded solution, if there is indeed any indication of partition, is that Paul, consistent with scribal methods of the day, dictated most of this letter and then wrote these last few verses himself; or that it was a touchy subject for him which he purposely reserved for the end of his letter [Hawt.P, xxxii, 194]. 15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. 16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. 17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. 18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God. 19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. 20 Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you. V. 19 would hardly be a carte blanche of full satisfaction of all "need" (however it is defined -- a new stereo???) but would reflect needs similar to those Paul has in v. 16 [Hawt.P, 207-8], and the grammar indicates that Paul's words are a desire, as in, "I pray that God will meet your needs." The point of this section as well is for Paul to (very carefully) make it clear that he does not view the gift of the Philippians as a payment for their patronage. Rather, he sees it as a gift of reciprocity where he is concerned, and points to God as the true debtor. Critics should note that for Paul to have refused or returned any such gift -- even if he did not need it -- would have been extremely insulting. There can be no understanding of Paul as some sort of modern televangelist greedily demanding and hoarding funds. 22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household. The persons included in "Caesar's household" would be not just members of the imperial family, but also slaves, servants, and other dependants. Some of these may have been of high rank, and would indicate once again that Christianity must have had powerful evidence behind it, for members of this household (with their high honor rating) to have joined it. 23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Works Used: Commentaries on Philippians: Other Works: Go Home! |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
