1. Application—Having a “Mature” Mindset (3:15–16)

15All of us who are mature should5 take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16Only let us live up to what6 we7 have already attained.

Paul just concluded his personal story with a passionate declaration of his pursuit of the prize, knowing Christ fully and completely. He now turns to apply his story to the situation in Philippi. Exactly how—and how much—he expects them to apply it is not at all certain;8 nonetheless, some items seem obvious and are therefore worth noting.

First, in contrast to v. 17, Paul makes this first application in the first person plural.9 Whatever else, this is not the language or mode of polemics.10 In clearly polemical contexts, Paul explicitly indicates the presence of outsiders and dissociates himself from his readers by addressing them with second plural imperatives. But here he does not say, “All of you who are mature, have this mindset.” On the contrary, this is application and appeal, pure and simple; the first plural is Paul’s way of including himself with his readers when the exhortation applies equally to him as to them,11 and it is his story, after all, that he is urging them to join with him in following. That not all of them would necessarily see things his way is implied, but that much has been implied throughout the letter.

Second, the most striking thing about this application is that it concludes his narrative on the same note with which he begins the Christ narrative in 2:5, thus returning to the crucial verb which dominated the appeal in 2:1–5 (and will occur again in v. 19 and 4:2). Just as he told the Christ story so that they would have a “mindset” (phroneite) in keeping with Christ’s, so now he has told his story so that they will “take a view” (phronōmen) of things in keeping with his own. Given that he specifically applies both stories by means of this verb, it seems hardly coincidental that Paul’s story corresponds at several crucial points with Christ’s. But as always for Paul, correct “thinking” leads to right living, so he concludes this application (v. 16) by urging them to conform their lives to their knowledge of Christ, as it has now been put on display through his own story.

That, at least, is the how of things; our difficulties lie with the what and why. Although very compressed and some of its grammar ambiguous,12 what Paul says is in three parts:13

(1) A direct application: Therefore,

as many of us as are teleioi, this let us “think” (phronōmen).

(2) A qualification: And if you “think” (phroneite) anything differently,

this also God will reveal to you.

(3) A rejoinder (to the qualification):

In any case, unto whatever we have attained [already, is implied],

[let us] conform to the same.

He thus begins by urging that they have this mindset, the one revealed in his story; then, as a kind of aside, he indicates that God will reveal to them where their “mindset” might need further help on unnamed matters; but he concludes by returning to the application, now in terms of behavior—of their living up to what God has already revealed, which they know well (rejoicing in the Lord even in present suffering, which conforms them to Christ’s death, and to live in the present as those in eager pursuit of the eschatological prize). The basic assumption of the application, in any case, is mutuality between him and them, not fundamental differences of opinion on things that really matter. The passage overall is much too placid regarding central issues of Paul’s understanding of the gospel to be construed as polemical.

15 The inferential “therefore” with which this sentence begins14 tells the story as to Paul’s intent in rehearsing his pilgrimage: “In consequence of what I have been narrating,” he says, “let us now hear the application.” Which begins: “As many of us as are teleioi.”15 This is a clear play on “I have not yet been brought to completion” in v. 12, and appears to be a bit tongue in cheek. After all, he includes himself in the present designation. So he who is “not yet” teleios (“completed”) in the sense of eschatological hope, is “already” teleios (“mature”), along with them, in terms of how they live in the present as they await the final glory.16 Thus teleioi probably means “mature” in the sense outlined in v. 16; those who live in keeping with what they have already attained are thus “complete” to that degree, even though the final completion, when all are fully conformed into the likeness of the Christ whom they desire to know above all else, still remains.

But who are intended by “as many as”? At the least he intends to include himself,17 and apparently all others who share his point of view. Very often, therefore, this is understood to be partitive (= some do, and some don’t).18 But that would be a highly unusual use of this pronoun19 for Paul. Technically, it is a correlative (= as many as … these), which seldom intends to say anything about those who do/are not, but only about those who do/are. Thus Rom 8:14, “as many as (= all who) are led by the Spirit, these are the children of God.” This does not mean that God has some other children who are not led by the Spirit, but that being led of the Spirit characterizes all who are truly God’s children.

Likewise here, in expanded form Paul probably intends, “As many as (= all who) are ‘mature,’ let us be those who have set our minds in keeping with mine described above.” The awkwardness of the sentence comes from Paul’s condensing the second clause into an imperative, and by including himself. Most likely, then, Paul intends to include all of them with himself in this imperative.20 His concern lies in both parts of the sentence: that they “set their minds” in the same way as his own just described; and that this is precisely the frame of mind that characterizes “the mature” in Christ. On the verb itself see the discussion on 2:2. That he should use this verb here indicates that what is at stake for Paul is first of all a basic frame of mind, a way of looking at everything, which in turn leads to a way of behaving.

By “this”21 (NIV, “such a view of things”) Paul probably intends the whole narrative, including the rejection of his Jewish past. But it especially includes his “participation in Christ’s sufferings, by being conformed to his death” and his “eager pursuit of the eschatological prize,” since that is the focus of vv. 18–19 and 20–21: those who are “enemies of the cross” and who have “set their minds on present earthly things” are set in sharp contrast to us, whose “citizenship is in heaven, from whence we eagerly await the Savior.”22

But then Paul makes a surprising qualification:23 “and if24 you think (phroneite) anything differently,25 this also God will reveal26 to you.” Our difficulties are several, some of them related to what is said: (a) what Paul intends by “anything differently” (NIV, “on some point”) in the first clause, which is picked up by the “this” in the second clause; (b) the force of the “also” in the second clause; (c) and the nature of God’s revealing “this” to them. These in turn impact the larger, and in some ways more difficult, contextual questions: how this sentence relates to what immediately precedes (v. 15a) and follows (v. 16) and how—or whether—it relates to the narrative of vv. 4–14. All of which is complicated for us by the tenor of the sentence, which does not carry even a whiff of the odor of controversy; indeed, it is almost nonchalant—a kind of “throw away” sentence—which makes one think that no great issue can be in view.27

It is common to read this as though there were some in the community in opposition to Paul. But this view has nearly insuperable difficulties. First, there is no hint elsewhere in the letter—nor in this sentence for that matter—that there is friction between him and them on some matter(s). Moreover, if this had been written in response to opposition, one would have expected something much more specific, like: “if any [tines] of you think differently on these matters.”28 Instead he addresses the whole community,29 and does so by repeating the verb phroneite from the first clause (phronōmen). Finally, the sentence that follows, which serves as a rejoinder to this momentary qualification, shows signs neither of anxiety on Paul’s part nor of disagreeableness on theirs.

But if not addressing opposition, what then? Most likely, in light of the present context as well as the whole letter, it is best understood within the setting of friendship. In context Paul is especially concerned that they follow his example, which happens also to be part and parcel of a “patron/client” friendship. But throughout the letter he studiously avoids any hint of this kind of “superior to inferior” expression of friendship between him and them; in fact he goes out of his way to make sure that their friendship is understood in terms of mutuality.30 That seems to be what is also going on here. On the one hand, he really is exhorting them to follow his example (as v. 17 will make even more clear); on the other hand, “exhortation” in this case is not “command,” nor does it assume that all will see eye to eye with him on all matters. The emphasis in this sentence, after all, is not on any anticipated “disagreement” they might have with him, but on God’s continuing to work among them through divine revelation. The sentence is thus predicated on their mutual friendship and mutual trust, which is so secure that Paul can simply leave it in God’s hands to “reveal” to them what further understanding they may need on matters wherein they might not be ready fully to agree with him.

That would suggest, finally, in terms of the details, that the “something differently” and “this also” of his sentence do not so much reflect specifics that Paul has in mind, but generalities. Here is the offer of friendship; they may freely disagree with him at points—on many matters—and if any matter counts for something, Paul trusts God to bring them up to speed here as well. What both the immediate and larger contexts of this letter—not to mention what we know of Paul elsewhere—disallows is that “something differently” can refer either to their living a cruciform lifestyle or to the vigorous pursuit of the heavenly prize.31 Paul goes on in vv. 18–19 to describe people who have abandoned these; and there the vigor and pathos return in such a way that forecloses on such eternally significant matters as belonging to this more “optional” approach to “thinking anything differently.”

16 Having allowed that they might see something differently from himself, but stipulating that God will redirect their collective “frame of mind” in any case, he returns to his first point, expressed now in terms of behavior. “In any case,” he rejoins, “on the matter at hand you need not wait for divine revelation.” At the same time he returns also to the first plural, “unto that which we have attained, to behave in conformity to ‘the same.’ ” Some matters in this sentence are easier than others. First, the conjunctive adverb32 is used in this case to bring closure to the two preceding clauses. It therefore means, “under any circumstances,” whether you see all things fully my way or not, “all of us, you and me together, must behave in conformity to the same standard.” Second, the verb “behave in conformity to,”33 which originally meant “to be drawn up in a line” (esp. as a military term), is used by Paul only figuratively, meaning to “bring one’s life or behavior into conformity to” something (the Spirit; the “rule” that neither circumcision or uncircumcision counts for a thing, but only the new creation).

The difficulties have to do with (a) what Paul is referring to in saying “unto that which we have attained,”34 (b) what “the same” refers to, to which he is urging35 conformity, and (c) how these two relate to one another. Most likely:

(a) With the clause “unto that which we have attained,” which can only mean “already,” Paul seems to be calling them to live in keeping with how they have already followed Christ,36 before they have received this letter.37 Given Paul’s longtime—and loving—relationship with this church, and his frequent stops there, it is hard to imagine that he is telling them anything new in this letter. Indeed, in v. 1 he has said quite the opposite, that it is not burdensome for him to write the same things again as a safeguard. Thus, both the Christ narrative, which is foundational for his, and his own story do not present something new; rather they tell the “old, old story” all over again. This is that to which he and they have already attained, even if some are now slackening off in some way and for some reason.

(b) It is possible that “the same” means something like “to the same as mine as outlined in my story above,” or “to one and the same ‘rule’ that we have always lived by.”38 More likely, however, it does not here refer to some external “rule” that he and they have in common,39 but refers specifically to “that which we have already attained” in the preceding clause,40 exemplified in the gospel.

(c) If so, then the clause functions as we have suggested, as a rejoinder following his momentary qualification in v. 15b. What he is therefore calling them to is to live in conformity to the gospel as that has been spelled out repeatedly in their hearing, and as it has now been repeated in the Christ narrative in 2:6–11 and in his own that has just preceded (vv. 4–14). What he and they have already “attained” is an understanding of the gospel in which the life of the Crucified One is the paradigm for those who would be his followers; and they may do so with joy because they are “already but not yet”; the power of the resurrection by which they now participate in his sufferings, thus being conformed to his death, is also the guarantee of their own sure future, toward which he has just urged them to follow him in eager pursuit.

The best explanation of the “why” of all this, therefore, is the one we have suggested right along, that in the face of opposition and some internal dissension, some of them have lost their vision for and focus on their crucified and risen Lord, including his coming again. Even in a Roman prison Paul has not lost his vision; here he urges them to follow his example and to see their participation in Christ’s sufferings as Christ’s way of “conforming them to his death,” so that they, with Paul, may joyously gain the prize of his eternal presence.

2. Appeal and Indictment (3:17–19)

17Join with others in following my example, brothers and sisters, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 18For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many1 live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.

In the preceding sub-paragraph (vv. 15–16) Paul approached the concept of imitatio, as he specifically applied the “mindset” illustrated in his personal story to the Philippian situation, concluding with the exhortation that they conform their behavior to the pattern of Christ thus far attained. Paul now repeats his concern, this time in the express language of imitatio. At the same time he (apparently) amplifies so as to include not only the immediate concerns expressed in his personal history, but also some more general concerns that cover a larger scope of behavior.

He begins this sub-paragraph2 with the basic imperative, that they “imitate” him in their behavior, and that they have a discerning eye for all who also walk according to his pattern (v. 17).3 This is followed by an explanatory sentence (vv. 18–19), which gives the reasons for their “taking [careful] note of [others]” in this way—because there are many whose “walk” does not conform to the pattern. Although this last sentence is full of difficulties for the interpreter in terms of identifying both the persons alluded to and the nature of their “walk,” their function in Paul’s appeal seems clear. They not only stand in stark contrast to his example, as to the kind of behavior he is urging on the Philippians, but the final word about them (“their minds are set on earthly things”) also serves as the foil for the final word about “us whose citizenship is in heaven” (vv. 20–21) and whose minds are thus set on winning the eschatological prize.

We will reserve our best guess as to who these people are—or represent—until we have looked at the sentence in detail. Here we simply note that in many ways this passage helps to tie together several items in the letter, especially the theme of joy in suffering and Paul’s reasons for the narratives about Christ (2:6–11) and himself (3:4–14). At issue throughout is living a cruciform existence, discipleship marked by the cross and evidenced by suffering on behalf of Christ. This clearly lies behind the first hint of the imitatio motif (1:30; they are experiencing in Christ’s behalf the same struggle they have known and seen in Paul); this is the central focus in both paradigmatic narratives (Christ as God humbled himself in becoming human, being obedient to death on a cross; Paul suffered the loss of all former things because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ his Lord, so as finally to be conformed to his death). But in both cases there is “eschatological” glory—Christ’s now and Paul’s (and theirs) to come.4 Hence, whatever we make of the two more difficult items that describe these “many” over whom Paul weeps (their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame), the first and final items stand in stark contrast to both Christ and Paul at these crucial points: they are enemies of the cross and their minds are set on present, earthly things; that is, they have abandoned a lifestyle marked by the cross and have given up altogether on the sure future that belongs to those who are thus marked.

17 With the second vocative in this passage5 Paul appeals to his Philippian “brothers and sisters” to “become imitators of me.”6 The idea of “imitating” a teacher had precedent in Paul’s Jewish heritage,7 where a pupil learned not simply by receiving instruction but by “putting into practice” the example of the teacher; the one who “imitates” thus internalizes and lives out the model presented by the teacher. This language occurs in two kinds of contexts in Paul: suffering for the sake of Christ and the gospel, and behavior that conforms to the gospel.8 In every case “imitation” of Paul means “as I imitate Christ” (expressly so in 1 Cor 11:1; cf. 1 Thess 1:6).

The key to our passage lies in its first occurrence in Paul (1 Thess 1:6), where the Thessalonians (fellow Macedonians, one should note) are reminded that in becoming believers they became followers of both Paul and Christ at the crucial point of having received the message in the context “of great affliction accompanied by the joy of the Holy Spirit.”9 That is very much like the present context. The two earlier hints of imitatio (of Paul) in Philippians (1:30; 2:18) occur in a context of suffering for Christ; the second concludes on the note of Paul’s rejoicing—his own and together with them—and urges them to do “the same.” This present section begins and ends with the imperative “rejoice in the Lord”; that they should do so in the context of suffering is the main point of his personal narrative (v. 10: “participation in Christ’s sufferings” as his way of being “conformed to Christ’s death”).

Only here does Paul use the compound “fellow-imitators.” Although this could go in one of three directions,10 most likely Paul is calling on them to join together in imitating him.11 If so, Paul is once again picking up the theme of their being united on this matter, a theme that began as early as the repeated “all of you” in the salutation and thanksgiving (1:1–11),12 and is brought to its concluding moment just a few sentences later (4:2–3).

Thus, they are urged to join together in following Paul’s example (as he follows Christ is always implied), while at the same time they also “take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you.” For the sake of comment we need to put that more “literally”: “and take note of those who walk13 thus, just as you have us14 as an example.”15 To “walk” has to do with behavior, living uprightly in all that one does. Although this may well include some among the Philippians “who walk thus” (Epaphroditus, for example), the grammar and language of this clause imply a more comprehensive group of people, reaching beyond the Philippians themselves.16 They are either to “take note of” or “be on the lookout for”17 such people, who also walk in keeping with the example they find in Paul—especially as that has been expressed in the preceding narrative.18 The final clause, “just as you have us as an example,” then brings the two preceding clauses together. They are to walk, and to watch for others who so walk, in keeping with the example of Paul just given in vv. 4–14.

Who these people might be is more speculative; but in light of those who are singled out by way of contrast in vv. 18–19, very likely Paul is referring to various itinerants. Since Philippi was a small city on the main highway East and West, and a full day’s walk from Neapolis on the coast, the Christian community in Philippi was undoubtedly frequented by all sorts of itinerants, who would be given the normal Christian hospitality. Paul himself was one of these, as both his letters and Acts bear witness.19 Fully aware that not all who would come through were of the same mind as Paul regarding walking in the ways of Christ, he has frequently warned them of such itinerants (as vv. 1 and 18 indicate). This imperative, therefore, besides specifying the reason for vv. 4–14, moves toward warning, that when others come among them, they mark well those who “walk” in the way of the cross and who are living in eager anticipation of the future. For, he will now go on to explain, there are many who do not so “walk.” The significance of such warning lies internal to Philippi; it could well be that this is where the friction between Euodia and Syntyche fits in—over the way one lives and “does” the gospel, especially in the face of current opposition and suffering.

18 In a surprising turn of argument, Paul now goes on to give the reason, by way of contrast, for the second clause in v. 17. They must “take note of” those who walk in keeping with Paul’s own imitation of Christ precisely because there are many whose “walk” is the exact opposite. The surprise comes not in the contrast as such, but in the way he describes these people, which has been the source of much difficulty—and speculation. The difficulty is with identification (who are they?), which is related to the fivefold description found here (vv. 18–19), two or three of which create problems for every proposed identification.

The difficulties of identification have to do with context, both the immediate and larger context of the letter, since nothing to this point in the letter has quite prepared us for some of this. Several matters are at issue: (1) how, or whether, they are related to those described as “dogs” in v. 2; (2) how, or whether, they are related to Paul’s disclaimers in vv. 12–13; (3) how, or whether, they are related to any of the previous mention of alleged “opponents” in the letter (1:15–16, 28; 2:21); (4) whether they are internal or external to the Philippian community; and (5) whether Paul considers them to be believers at all, or former “believers” who are now headed for perdition. We will say a few further words about “identification” at the end; first, a look at the description itself.

First, Paul says that “many walk,” a combination that suggests people associated with the Christian community but outside of Philippi.20 On the one hand, the verb “walk,” repeated from v. 17, is used primarily by Paul in this figurative way—to describe both positively and negatively how believers are to live as Christians.21 Although it is common to regard these “many” as “false teachers,”22 Paul does not in fact refer to their teaching as such,23 but to their “walk,” to the way they live—although a poor understanding of the gospel for Paul obviously lies behind such behavior. On the other hand, it is unlikely that Paul would have spoken in the third person and used “many,”24 if he had some of their own in mind. His way of referring to those within a given community who are out of step with the rest is with the (usually plural) indefinite pronoun, “some [of you].”25

But before describing them, he interrupts himself with an especially poignant word about his own feelings toward them.26 Two things are said: (a) Paul has told them about such people on frequent occasions.27 This is both the language of warning and further indication that they are not members of the community in Philippi. The normal sense of “whom I told you about” is a reference to people other than those being addressed.

(b) But “outside” (the believing community) in what sense, is made difficult by the “now” side of this clause: “and indeed I now tell you with weeping.” Although there is no reason to believe Paul would not “weep” over those who have never known Christ,28 he otherwise reserves “weeping”29 and tears for those within the Christian community. Thus, he now weeps over them not because they are pagans living like pagans who have never known Christ30—why make such a point at all, one wonders—but because as professed believers in Christ they should know better. Indeed, it is very much like the apostle to “weep o’er the erring one,” even as he warns fellow believers not to walk in their ways (cf. Acts 20:31).

Thus the opening clauses seem to point to some outside the Philippian community who are not (or no longer) walking in the ways of the Lord—or who think of themselves as doing so despite the way they live. Although Paul undoubtedly has some specific people in mind, the language is ultimately generic and would include any and all who are like this.31 The difficulties lie in squaring this with the fivefold description that follows:

(1) “The enemies of the cross of Christ.” This first clause puts the whole in perspective, and ties the present concern directly to the narrative about Christ in 2:6–11 and to his own that has just preceded (especially vv. 8, 10–11). For Paul the cross is simultaneously God’s means of redemption (the “foolishness” by which God is “pleased to save those who believe,” 1 Cor 1:21) and his way of “turning the tables” on all merely human schemes (1 Cor 1:17–25). Thus the cross stands as God’s utter contradiction to human wisdom and power. Therefore, it inevitably creates enemies of those who refuse to go that route. Paul’s concern is for the Philippians to “walk” in a way that conforms to the death of Christ, even death on the cross. Those who are to be “marked” as walking contrary to the pattern Paul set for them are first of all described as “enemies of the cross of Christ.”32

But in what way? since this could be a fitting description of at least three kinds of people: (a) pagan compatriots in Philippi who “stand in opposition” to them and are the probable cause of their present suffering (1:28); (b) the Judaizers in v. 2, who would try to come among them and urge circumcision, since Paul describes such “Judaizers” in precisely this way in Galatians (6:11–14; cf. 3:1; 5:11); or (c) the kind of triumphalist antinomians Paul speaks against throughout 1 Corinthians, especially chapters 1–4, whose “spirituality” has put them beyond present suffering as they glory only in the Spirit and the present power of the resurrection.33 It is not surprising, therefore, that each of these has had its advocates. But the very diversity of options demonstrates that this clause helps little toward their identification, except that it could fit in a variety of scenarios. My own attempt to put a face on these people appears at the end of v. 19 (p. 375).

19 (2) “Their destiny is destruction.” With something of a play on “completed” (v. 12) and “mature” (v. 15), Paul speaks about the eschatological outcome34 of such “enemies of the cross”; it is “destruction.”35 This stands in the starkest contrast, both by its wordplay and by its content (“utter loss”), to Paul’s “goal” described in v. 14 (“the heavenward call of God in Christ”), which he reiterates in the final contrast in vv. 20–21. Our present bodies may exist in “humiliation”; but they are destined for a “glorious” transformation. But those who have abandoned the cross, both for themselves and as the paradigm for Christian life, are destined for “destruction.” The contextual reason for its appearing second in this listing, as over against its logical place at the end, is probably for rhetorical effect. Since the way of the cross is central to Paul’s concern, the “end” for those who are enemies of the cross is brought forward to a place immediately following, while the final position, though still climactic, expresses their present “mindset” that differs altogether from his which focuses on the glorious future; and thus it launches the final contrast.

But this phrase also creates difficulty for identification. This language ordinarily refers to those outside Christ altogether—and very well may do so here, even though that seems to stand in conflict with much else that is said. More likely, Paul is referring to some who have appeared as believers, but whose “end” demonstrates that something was wrong with their “faith.” They probably consider themselves to be within the household of faith, and most likely are, or were, but whom Paul now assigns to a place outside Christ, precisely because they have abandoned Christ by adopting a lifestyle that is totally opposed to the redemptive work of the cross.

(3) “Whose god is their stomach.”36 Here is the clause, along with its companion, “and their glory is in their shame,” that presents most of our difficulties.37 Only one thing seems certain: that these two phrases belong with the final one, giving concrete expression to what that one generalizes, namely that they live only for the present; they have set their minds on earthly, not on heavenly, things. The present phrase, which from our distance is especially cryptic, is very close to what Paul says of some “divisive people” in Rom 16:17–18 (“they do not serve Christ but their own stomachs”); in both instances the imagery probably refers to some specific behavior. But to what? “Stomach” may be a metonymy for the craving after sumptuous fare, or perhaps for surfeiting.38 One cannot be sure. Perhaps it is intended to be more representative—of those who are so given over to present bodily desires of all kinds, represented by the “appetites,” that such has become a “god” to them.

In any case, this phrase is the basis for some to find “libertines” here. Which may well be the case for this phrase and the next one; but the phrases are otherwise so completely on their own in this letter that one can hardly argue on this basis for a libertine “threat” in Philippi. A greater difficulty rests with those who think Paul is here further describing the “dogs” of v. 2, as sarcasm for their being into “food laws” as well.39 But that seems much too circuitous; and Paul is forthright about this issue elsewhere. All in all, we must again beg a degree of ignorance on this matter, except to repeat that it is almost certainly a specific illustration of the way in which these people have set their minds on earthly things.40

(4) “Whose glory is in their shame.” From our distance this clause is even more cryptic than its predecessor.41 It is connected to “their god is their belly” by a single relative pronoun, suggesting that this is the flip side of whatever that one means.42 “Glory” is what they delight in; “shame” is how they should perceive their behavior.43 The word “glory” is undoubtedly another word play, setting up the contrast to our being transformed into the likeness of Christ’s present body “of glory” in v. 21. Hence it is an especially striking bit of irony, where not only are they not destined for “glory” at all, because of their present enmity to the cross, but what “glory” they have in the present lies precisely in what should be for them a matter of shame.44 But beyond that, in terms of specifics, we are largely in the dark.45

Again this clause creates all kinds of difficulties for some and opportunities for others in terms of speculations about identity. As with its predecessor, difficulties with this language are greatest for those who identify these people with the “dogs” of v. 2,46 or with some form of enthusiasm. But such readings of the text cause the presuppositions to put more weight on the language than it seems able to bear, since there is nothing elsewhere in Paul or in other sources that hint of such things.

(5) “Their mind is on earthly things.” Here is where the whole has been heading right along. Two things are significant for understanding. First, Paul once more uses the crucial verb from 2:2–5 and 3:15. They do not simply “think about” earthly things; their “minds are set on” such things, which stands in pointed antithesis to Paul’s own mindset as portrayed in his personal story. His mind is set altogether on Christ, who for Paul is life and for whom to die is gain. Second, what their minds are set on is “earthly things,”47 which not only sums up the preceding two clauses but at the same time sets up the contrast that follows. Here is the second crucial matter. These people over whom Paul weeps are first of all “enemies of the cross”; they are now characterized as those who have abandoned the pursuit of the heavenly prize, in favor of what belongs only to the present scheme of things.48 Their focus is altogether earthward, even if we cannot be sure of how that specifically works out in their case.

Thus this final clause sums up the former two; this is what it means finally to be given over to the “stomach” as one’s deity and to “glory” in what should be shameful. By their fruit, Paul says, you will know them; by their focus you will also recognize that they are not walking according to the pattern of Christ and his apostle.

Who, then, are these people? Some things seem more certain than others: first, they are almost certainly to be understood as “insiders” in the sense defined above (as professing Christians from their own point of view, despite how Paul views them); second, they are unlikely to be the same as those mentioned in v. 2; third, they also seem unrelated to anything Paul says about “not having arrived” in vv. 12 and 15;49 fourth, since they are “believers” after a fashion, they can scarcely be the same as those mentioned in 1:28; fifth, it is highly unlikely that they are members of the Philippian community. Moreover, the language “opponents” seems ill-suited to describe them. They are enemies of the cross, to be sure, but that is because of the way they live, rejecting a cruciform existence and a sure future for present self-indulgence. Paul weeps over them, and warns the Philippians against them; but he does not set them up as personal “opponents.”

Most likely, therefore, Paul is here picking up on the major concerns of his personal narrative in vv. 4–14, by reminding the Philippians again of some about whom he has often warned them in the past, who have left the way of the cross and have “set their minds” on present, earthly concerns. He is probably describing some itinerants, whose view of the faith is such that it allows them a great deal of undisciplined self-indulgence. Whether they have taken Paul’s view of “justification by faith” to a libertine conclusion,50 as many think, is plausible, but probably too specific in terms of what Paul actually says in the text. In any case, they have not appeared heretofore in the letter, and do not appear again. They have served their immediate purpose of standing in sharp relief to Paul’s own “walk” and to his heavenly pursuit, so crucial to this letter, and toward which Paul now turns once more as he begins to draw this appeal to an end.

3. Basis of the Appeal—Heaven, Now and to Come (3:20–21)

20But1 our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his2 control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be3 like his glorious body.

This sentence serves as Paul’s immediate response to those “many” who “walk” contrary to the Pauline pattern, who are ultimately judged because “their minds are set on earthly things.”4 It also concludes the long exhortation that began in 3:1,5 returning to the theme of the eschatological prize (vv. 11–14) by underscoring its certainty.6 Whatever the current threat was, and whatever its source, Paul has apparently sensed an ebb in their eschatological anticipation, a matter he has spoken to throughout the letter.7 At the same time, by picking up the play on their “dual” citizenship (cf. 1:27), plus the final affirmation that “our Savior” (a common title for the emperor) is the one who will also bring “all things under his control,” Paul puts their present situation—opposition in Philippi resulting in suffering—into divine perspective. All of this is said in a sentence that rises to extraordinary christological heights; not only is Christ the focus and center of everything, but his activities here are those ordinarily attributed to God the Father in Pauline soteriological texts.8

Here is a classic expression of the eschatological framework of Pauline theology, that present life is “already/not yet,” predicated on Christ and his coming(s). Although the passage begins with the “already,” the accent falls on the “not yet,” thus giving perspective to the Philippians’ present situation—and to much else in the letter. Christ has gained his present glory through humiliation (2:7–11); he is now “in heaven” where we “eagerly await” his coming as “Savior”; when he comes he will “transform” us into his “likeness,” so that our present bodies that know weakness and “humiliation” are conformed into the likeness of his present “glory”; and he will accomplish that in keeping with the same divine “energy” (cf. 2:13) whereby he will also subject “all things” to himself (= “every knee shall bow”).

Because of the exalted nature of this passage and its linguistic connections to 2:6–11, some see here another possible piece of pre-Pauline material (n. 8);9 but as with the former passage, and even more so in this case, here is vintage Paul, whose thoroughly eschatological outlook and christological focus repeatedly merge in climactic moments like this.10 For him to live is Christ; to die is to gain Christ; better yet is to be among those who participate in the Parousia of Christ.11 If this were an Apocalypse, here would be the place to say, “even so, come Lord Jesus,” and close the book. But this is a “hortatory letter of friendship,”12 so Paul concludes as we should well expect, by drawing out the twofold consequences of this concluding word to their situation: first, that in light of such “glory,” the Philippians (his “eschatological joy and crown”) remain “steadfast in the Lord” (4:1); and second, that those who are primarily responsible for friction in the community “have the same mindset in the Lord” (4:2).

20 The relationship of this sentence to what has preceded is brought out by the second explanatory “for” in as many sentences.13 The emphasis is twofold; first, over against those who walk contrary to Paul and whose “minds are set on earthly things,” Paul says, “our14 citizenship is in heaven.” He says “for” rather than “but,” because, secondly, he is offering the ultimate reason for their following his example and for looking out for others who do so as well (v. 17). “For,” he now explains, “our citizenship (hence our focus) is in heaven”15 and our future is “glory”—in contrast to those whose “end” is destruction since they live only for the present.16

The linkage between this concluding word and v. 17 is also brought out by his returning to the inclusive “we” (see vv. 3 and 15–16), common to Pauline soteriological moments where the truth of the gospel embraces him as well. Perhaps we should say, in light of vv. 12–14, that Paul is now making sure that the Philippians recognize themselves as included with him as participants in the eschatological prize.

This is the second play on their Roman citizenship17 in this letter; and here it is a bold stroke indeed. Paul is not herewith renouncing their common citizenship in the earthly “commonwealth” of Rome; on the contrary, that citizenship is what will make the present sentence ring the changes for the Philippians. Citizens of the Roman “commonwealth” they may well be, and proudly so; but the greater reality is that they are subjects of the heavenly “Lord” and “Savior,” Jesus Christ, and therefore their true “commonwealth” exists18 in heaven.19

And they are citizens of the heavenly commonwealth “already,” even as they await the consummation that is “not yet.”20 Although Paul’s language will not quite allow the translation, “we are a colony of heaven” (Moffatt), the point of the imagery comes very close to that. Just as Philippi was a colony of Rome, whose citizens thereby exemplified the life of Rome in the province of Macedonia, so the citizens of the “heavenly commonwealth” were to function as a colony of heaven in that outpost of Rome. That this is Paul’s concern lies in the context. They are to imitate Paul in their “walk,” because (“for”) their true “commonwealth” is in heaven; as such they live God’s righteousness as an outpost of heaven in Philippi. And that life is cruciform in expression, which knows Christ in the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, by being “conformed” to his death on the cross. Thus this passage serves as the basis for the preceding appeals, as well as for those that follow (calling for “steadfastness” and “unity”).

This is the “already,” and the emphasis in the preceding appeals rests here. But the ultimate concern is with the “not yet,” with their living in the present as those in pursuit of the heavenly prize. Thus the rest of the sentence focuses on his and their sure future, which focuses altogether on their heavenly “Lord and Savior.” The fact that their “commonwealth” already exists in heaven, and that they await their Savior from there, points to their divine vindication, to the full realization of what is “not yet,” even though living out their heavenly citizenship “already” has led to persecution. Three points are made: (1) Our present citizenship is already “in heaven” from whence we “eagerly await [the coming of] our Savior,” who is none other than “the Lord, Jesus Christ,” the one who had the name “Lord” bestowed on him at his exaltation (2:9); thus Paul focuses first of all on the coming of Christ as the eschatological Lord and Savior. (2) At his coming Christ will “transform” the bodies of our present “humiliation,” by “conforming” them into the likeness of his present “body of glory”; thus Paul also emphasizes the great “eschatological reversal” that they (and we) shall experience at his coming, that Christ himself experienced at his resurrection and exaltation. (3) He will do this “in keeping with the power” by which he is able to (and will) also subject all things to himself, thus emphasizing his absolute sovereignty over all things, including those in Philippi—and their “lord and savior,” the emperor.

(1) While the language of this clause does not specify Christ’s Parousia (coming), what Paul says does in fact presuppose it. First, we eagerly await him “from heaven,”21 which can only mean, his Parousia from heaven; and second, we “eagerly await” him, a verb used exclusively by Paul in connection with the coming of Christ at the eschatological “wrap up.”22 By this verb Paul harks back to his own “eager pursuit” of the heavenly prize (vv. 12–14), likewise emphasizing how he lives in the present with his focus constantly on the goal.

Significantly, both for his readers’ context and for our understanding of Paul’s christology, the one whom we “eagerly await” is called “Savior.”23 The significance is highlighted by its rarity in Paul; only once heretofore (Eph 5:23) has he used this title to describe Christ.24 That he does so here is almost certainly for the Philippians’ sakes, since this is a common title for Caesar.25 That he does so at all is especially significant christologically, since the title occurs frequently in the OT to refer to God our (my) Savior. As with the title “Lord,” therefore (cf. 2:9–10), Paul has co-opted yet another OT term for God and unflinchingly attributed it to Christ. None of this would be missed by the Philippians, who know the term well in both of its contexts.

The clincher to all of this—as far as Paul’s word of reassurance to the Philippians is concerned—is the final, otherwise unnecessary, appositive, “the Lord Jesus Christ,” in which he picks up the precise language (including word order) from 2:11, the only two absolute uses of this combination in the letter. The Savior, they are thus reminded, is none other than “the Lord, Jesus Christ” himself, whose lordship every tongue will confess at the eschatological denouement. Here is the ultimate reason for their rejoicing in the Lord. The Lord is the Savior, by whose grace they have been redeemed and whose coming they eagerly anticipate, even as in their present suffering they are being “conformed into his likeness.”

21 (2) This second clause, “who will transform our lowly bodies so that they shall be like his glorious body,” focuses on the way in which Christ will function as eschatological Savior. Although Paul’s language is quite different here, the concept itself is to be understood in light of what Paul had written earlier to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15:42–57), in a context where some were denying a future, bodily resurrection of believers. The contrasts there were between our present bodies as perishable and “natural” (and when dead “sown in dishonor and weakness”) and the transformed heavenly body as imperishable and “supernatural”26 (and raised in “glory” and “power”); the present bodies are thus to be transformed into the “likeness” of the “man of heaven,” who already bears such a body through his resurrection. And although the emphasis in that passage is on the resurrection per se, Paul concludes by emphasizing that the same transformation will occur for those living until the Parousia.

Apart from the words “body” and “glory,” however, none of that language carries over into the present passage, which is here adapted to reflect the present emphases. The verb for “transformation” (meta-schēma-tizō)27 and the adjective “conformed” (sum-morphon) pick up the language of 2:6–8, where Christ, who was in the “form” (morphē) of God, assumed the “form” of a slave in coming in the “likeness” (schēma) of human beings. Not only so, but the adjective “conformed” is the cognate of the verb that appeared in 3:10; those who are currently being “conformed” to Christ’s death are someday to be “conformed” to his present glory. Moreover, the genitive describing our present bodies (“of humiliation”) further echoes the “humiliation” of Christ in 2:8,28 which expressed itself through “death on a cross.” Finally, the body of the future is described as “the body of Christ’s glory,” the word which concludes the Christ narrative in 2:11, that Christ’s present exaltation as Lord of all will all redound to God’s “glory,” which is the word that also reminds the reader of the immediate context (of the “shameful glory” of those who are destined for destruction).29 If those who have made a god of their bellies thus “glory” in their shame, we too have glory, but it is a coming glory, in which our present earthly existence is transformed into the likeness of Christ’s own glory.

As to the future itself, two points are made: First, Christ’s present existence is “bodily” in the sense of 1 Corinthians 15, that the “body” is the point of continuity between the present and the future; but the “form” that body has taken is the point of discontinuity—a “mystery” for Paul, but adapted to the final life of the Spirit, hence a “supernatural body,” or as here, “the body of his [present] glory.”30 Second, the same future awaits those who are his, which is Paul’s present concern. Our present lot, he has argued in 1:29–30, and alluded to in 2:17, is to “suffer for Christ’s sake.” But we can “rejoice in the Lord” in the midst of such suffering (2:18; 3:1; 4:4) because that suffering itself is enabled by “the power of his resurrection” (3:10), which resurrection at the same time guarantees our certain future. Hence in our present “humiliation” we await the coming of the Savior, and with that coming the transformation of our humiliation into the likeness of his glory. That is worth the eager pursuit of vv. 12–14.

(3) Finally, the power by which Christ will bring about this transformation is “in keeping with31 the working that enables him also to bring everything under his control.” In some ways this is the most remarkable “transformation” of all, in that Paul here uses language about Christ that he elsewhere uses only of God the Father. First, it is “in keeping with the working,”32 which is then defined, “that enables him also to subject all things to himself.” Second, the phrase “able to subject all things to himself” is Paul’s eschatological interpretation of Ps 8:7, where God will “subject all things” to his Messiah, who in turn, according to 1 Cor 15:28, will turn over all things to God the Father so that “God might be all and in all.” Remarkably, in the present passage the “subjecting” of all things to himself is said to be by Christ’s own power.

The little word “also” is much too important to be omitted, as in many English translations.33 Here is the final word of assurance to the Philippians. In keeping with the same power by which he will transform their present bodies that are suffering at the hand of opposition in Philippi, Christ will likewise subject “all things”34 to himself, including the emperor himself and all those who in his name are causing the Philippians to suffer. As Paul has already said in 1:28 and implied in 3:19, their own salvation “from God” will at the same time result in the “destruction” of the opposition.

It simply cannot be said any better than that—for them or for us. This passage reminds us that, despite appearances often to the contrary, God is in control, that our salvation is not just for today but forever, that Christ is coming again, and that at his coming we inherit the final glory that belongs to Christ alone—and to those who are his. It means the final subjugation of all the “powers” to him as well, especially those responsible for the present affliction of God’s people.35 With Paul we would do well not merely to “await” the end, but eagerly to press on toward the goal, since the final prize is but the consummation of what God has already accomplished through the death and resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ the Lord.

4. Final Appeals—To Steadfastness and Unity (4:1–3)

1Therefore, my brothers [and sisters,]1 you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends2!

2I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. 3Yes, and I ask you, [true companion3],a help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers,4 whose names are in the book of life.

With these two appeals Paul brings 3:1–21 to its proper conclusion. At the same time he reaches further back into the letter to bring closure to the twin issues raised in 1:27–2:18—that they “remain steadfast” in the gospel and do so “as one person in the one Spirit.” The appeals belong together;5 they are expressed with great skill, full of indicators that Philippians is a “hortatory letter of friendship.”6

The first appeal (v. 1)7 is directed toward the whole community; simultaneously it (a) applies the immediately preceding word of eschatological hope8 to the Philippian situation,9 (b) recalls the primary exhortation of 1:27 with which the hortatory sections of the letter began,10 and (c) leads into the specific appeal of vv. 2–3.11 The second appeal (vv. 2–3) is directed specifically toward two named women; closely linked to the first by its grammar, word order, and repetition of “in the Lord,”12 the sentence recalls the exhortation to unity in 2:2, while it also echoes “contending alongside [me, in this case] in the cause of the gospel” (1:27).

Here, then, is the case-specific wrapup both of the earlier exhortation in 1:27 and of both hortatory sections of the letter (1:27–2:18; 3:1–21). The concerns have been threefold, “steadfastness” and “unity,” as they contend for the gospel in Philippi in the face of opposition. All three of these found expression in the initial exhortation in 1:27:

(1) that you stand firm

(2) in the one Spirit, as one person

(3) contending for the faith of the gospel

The third item is the backdrop—indeed, the urgency—of the whole, while the two hortatory sections of the letter take up items (1) and (2), but in reverse order (2:1–16 is primarily concerned with their unity, 3:1–21 with their standing firm). The present appeals bring closure to all of this by repeating the primary verbs from the former exhortations (“stand firm” [1:27] and “have the same mindset” [2:2, 5; 3:15, 19]), concluding finally with a very case-specific application, toward which everything has apparently been heading from the beginning.13

The most striking features of the two appeals are related directly to matters of friendship. In v. 1 this takes the form of the remarkable elaboration of the vocative, where the ordinary “brothers and sisters” becomes “my brothers and sisters, beloved and longed for, my joy and crown,” the appeal itself being followed by the repetition of “beloved.” This profusion of modifiers reminds them once again of his deep feelings for them, as well as of his deep concern for their present and future. In v. 2 friendship takes the form of Paul’s actually naming two women and appealing to another member of the community to come to their aid, while repeating the appeal “to have the same mindset.”

1 For the “so then”14 with which this appeal begins, see on 2:12 above. As there and elsewhere in his letters, Paul uses this conjunction specifically to apply the preceding “argument” to the local situation. But in this case the application nearly gets lost in the profusion of vocatives, which are emphatic and move in two directions. First, Paul modifies the standard “brothers and sisters”15 with terms of friendship from earlier in the letter. They are his “beloved16 and longed for17 brothers and sisters.” If the preceding exhortation has at times sounded strong, here he assuages any of that by reminding them of their first relationship, of his love for them that carries with it a deep longing for them, both to be with them and to know that even in his absence they are remaining steadfast in the Lord. So much does this relational concern matter to him that he repeats—awkwardly from the perspective of grammar, but effectively from the perspective of relationship—the vocative “beloved” at the end of the imperative. In any other letter, one might think he was trying too hard; but here, in returning to think about them more specifically, he simply cannot stop the flood of affectionate terms that characterizes his feelings toward them.18

The second set of vocatives is eschatological, which are as prospective as the former are retrospective.19 As in a similar context in 1 Thess 2:19, where these same appellations occur, the Philippians are also “my [eschatological] joy and crown [of boasting].” Although the bracketed words do not appear in the text, on the basis of what Paul has said in the other passages this is certainly his intent.20 Of course they are his present “joy” as well; but in this context he is pointing to the time when, along with the Thessalonians and others of his converts and friends, they will stand together with him in the presence of Christ. The joy is first of all over their being there at all; but they are also “my joy” in the sense of deep personal fulfillment at their being there with him. And therefore they will serve as his victor’s “crown.”21 With this second set of modifiers, therefore, Paul adds a further reason for their standing fast (in the present) so as to achieve the eschatological prize (3:12–21); as his own converts and dear friends, they will function as his eschatological crown, and thus his joy at Christ’s appearing (cf. 2:16).

Following this piling up of endearing vocatives, the application itself takes the form of appeal, repeating the imperative from 1:27, but with the modifiers “thus” and “in the Lord.”22 During their present distress they are to “stand fast in the Lord,” firmly planted in relationship with the same Lord whose coming they eagerly await and who will then subject all things to himself (3:20–21). And they are to “thus stand firm” (NIV, “that is how”), referring probably to the whole of 3:1–21, but especially to their “imitation” of Paul by their upright “walk” even as they bend every effort to attain the eschatological prize.23 With these words, then, Paul renews the appeal to steadfastness with which the exhortations in this letter began (1:27), but does so by way of the more recent exhortation (3:15–21).

2 Having addressed the congregation with words of endearment and eschatological hope in v. 1, Paul now proceeds (in vv. 2–3) to make his final appeal, which is where much of the letter has been heading right along. But because the situation here addressed is so case-specific, we are left in the dark about much: who Euodia and Syntyche are, the nature of their disagreement, and who the “true companion” is. Nonetheless, the reason for this final appeal and its function in the letter are reasonably clear; and some good guesses can be made about the specifics.

For the Pauline letters, this is a remarkable moment indeed, since Paul does here what he seldom does elsewhere in “conflict” settings—he names names. In a media-saturated culture like ours, where naming the guilty or the grand is a way of life, it is hard for us to sense how extraordinary this moment is. Apart from greetings and the occasional mention of his co-workers or envoys, Paul rarely ever mentions anyone by name.24 But here he does, and not because Euodia and Syntyche are the “bad ones” who need to be singled out; precisely the opposite, here are long-time friends and co-workers, leaders in the believing community in Philippi,25 who have fallen on some bad times in terms of their “doing the gospel.”26 That he names them at all is evidence of friendship, since one of the marks of “enmity” in polemical letters is that the enemies are left unnamed, thus denigrated by anonymity.27

We do not know who Euodia and Syntyche were.28 Their names, which (roughly) mean “Success”29 and “Lucky,” tell us very little except that the latter, named after the goddess of fortune,30 indicates pagan origins, and that both were given names indicative of parental desire for their making good in the world. What we do know is that in v. 3 Paul refers to them as his co-workers, having “contended at his side in the gospel.” That he had women as co-workers in Philippi should surprise us none, since the church there had its origins among some Gentile women who, as “God-fearers,” met by the river on the Jewish Sabbath for prayer (Acts 16:13–15). The evidence from Acts indicates that at her conversion, Lydia became patron both of the small apostolic band and of the nascent Christian community. By the very nature of things, that meant she was also a leader in the church, since heads of households automatically assumed the same role in the church that was centered in that household. Moreover, Macedonian women in general had a much larger role in public life than one finds elsewhere in the empire;31 in Philippi in particular they were also well known for their religious devotion.32

Paul now entreats33 these two leaders “to have the same mindset in the Lord.” The first part of this appeal, “to have the same mindset,” is precisely the language of 2:2, where he had already urged the community on the basis of his and their common relationship in Christ and the Spirit, to “ ‘complete’ my joy” by “setting your minds on the same thing.” Moreover, this is also the verb he uses to urge their collective following of his example in 3:15, in contrast to others whose “minds are set” on earthly things (v. 19). Given (a) the brevity of this letter, (b) that the letter would have been read aloud in the gathered community in a single sitting, and (c) that appeals to “have the same mindset” are part of the “stuff” of letters of friendship, one can be sure that the present appeal is to be understood as the specific application of the earlier ones.34 How much this might also be related to the foregoing warning and appeal (3:1–21) is moot, but it seems probable.

Paul refuses to take sides, thus maintaining friendship with all. He appeals to both women—indeed the identical repetition of their names followed by the verb has rhetorical effect—to bury their differences by adopting the “same mindset,” which in this case, as in the immediately preceding imperative, is qualified “in the Lord.” Here is the evidence that we are not dealing with a personal matter, but with “doing the gospel” in Philippi.35 Having “the same mindset in the Lord” has been specifically spelled out in the preceding paradigmatic narratives, where Christ (2:6–11) has humbled himself by taking the “form of a slave” and thus becoming obedient unto death on a cross, and Paul (3:4–14) has expressed his longing to know Christ, especially through participation in his sufferings so as to be conformed into the same cruciform lifestyle. The way such a “mindset” takes feet36 is by humbly “looking out for the interests of others” within the believing community (2:3–4).

3 In one of the more intriguing moments in his letters, Paul turns momentarily from Euodia and Syntyche to address another co-worker, asking him to help them respond to the appeal in v. 2: “Yes,37 I ask38 you (sing.) also,39 true companion,40 to assist41 them.” In so doing he further describes Euodia and Syntyche, noting their relationship to Paul as co-workers from a long time back (along with Clement and some others), and concluding on yet another eschatological note42—that their names are recorded “in the book of life.”

What intrigues is twofold: that in a letter addressed to the whole church he should single out one person in this way, which is unique to this moment in all his community-directed letters; and that Paul does not address him by name, leaving us to try to identify him on the basis of the appellation “true companion.” These two matters are inter-related; we begin with the former.

Both its uniqueness and the nature of this address imply that Paul’s “true companion,” although well known in Philippi, is probably not a native Philippian, but one of Paul’s itinerant co-workers who is presently on the scene there. This cannot be proven, of course, but it seems to make the best sense of the data.43 It is altogether unlikely that Paul is speaking to a person named Syzygus,44 since (a) there is no such name known in the Greco-Roman world and (b) the use of syn-compounds is an especially Pauline feature (there are no less than four in this immediate sentence; see n. 40). The appellation itself, therefore, indicates the closest kind of relationship—indeed partnership—between him and Paul; and the qualifier “genuine” is used elsewhere in the Pauline corpus to refer to his intimate co-workers.45 It surely cannot refer to Epaphroditus,46 who is present at the dictation of the letter. It is unlikely that Paul would otherwise single out one person among equals to offer this help,47 since he concludes the sentence by noting still other long-time co-workers who also “contended at his side” in Philippi.

If we are correct in identifying “true yokefellow” as one of Paul’s intimate companions in itinerant ministry, then it cannot refer to Timothy,48 who is coming at a time later than this letter. Of the others who are available, the most likely candidate is Luke.49 Two things make this plausible, if one also considers Luke as the most likely person to be identified with the “we-passages” in Acts.50 First, the “we” narrative takes Luke to Philippi in Acts 16, where it leaves off until Paul’s return to Philippi some four to six years later in 20:1–5. The author of Acts, whether Luke or not, surely intends his readers to infer that he had spent these intervening years in Philippi. If so, then as one of Paul’s most trusted companions, he had given oversight to that work for some years in the past.51

Second, if our view of the date and place of this letter is correct,52 then Luke had recently been with Paul during the earlier period of this same imprisonment when Paul wrote the letters to Colossae and Philemon (Col 4:14; Phlm 23). The letter to Philippi, however, which appears to have been written toward the end of that imprisonment (see on 2:24 above), is especially noticeable for its lack of mention of the names of any of Paul’s companions. All of this makes perfectly good sense if Luke had at some earlier point left for Philippi—and was perhaps the catalyst of their recent revival of material support (4:10). None of this can be proved, of course. Nonetheless, it fits all the available historical data, and the epithet “true yokefellow” would be especially fitting of Luke, especially in light of the affectionate language in Col 4:14. At the same time the reason for addressing one person among them in the second singular is also resolved.

Paul’s erstwhile companion is thus asked “to assist” Euodia and Syntyche, obviously to “have the same mindset in the Lord.” But Paul’s focus is still on them, not on his “yokefellow.” Hence, having mentioned them again (as the object of his assistance) he goes on, surely now for their own sakes, further to describe them (literally), “inasmuch as53 in the gospel they have contended at my side.” Paul’s word order tells the story. His concern throughout is with the gospel in Philippi. Thus in this indirect way he reminds them that they were in partnership with him “in the gospel” from the very beginning, which is reason enough for them to get on with it still. On the athletic metaphor “contended at my side” see on 1:27 (cf. 2:13–14). Although it does not on its own necessarily imply leadership of some kind, it does so when used in this way in conjunction with Paul’s own ministry, followed by a further notation about “the rest of my co-workers.”

About “Clement and the rest of my co-workers” we know nothing. The context demands that they are fellow-Philippians. But why he should single out Clement is a singular mystery,54 made all the more so by the unusual way it is attached to the former clause, “along with Clement and the rest.” What this means seems clear enough, that “Clement and the rest of my co-workers”55 also “contended at my side along with Euodia and Syntyche” in the cause of the gospel in Philippi.56 But why they should be attached to that clause in this way can only be conjectured. Most likely it is as close to an “aside” as one gets in Paul’s letters; having just mentioned two in particular who “have contended at his side” for the sake of the gospel in Philippi, he includes the others who were with him in that ministry from the beginning, for some good reason mentioning Clement in particular, perhaps not wanting to mention the rest by name lest he exclude any. In its own way, therefore, the clause probably functions as a gentle reminder to all who lead the believing community in Philippi to “have the same mindset in the Lord,” even though that is not specifically said of or to them.

The eschatological note on which this concludes is equally unique to the Pauline corpus. Elsewhere when he offers a moment of eschatological assurance to those to whom he writes, it takes a variety of forms, and usually, as in 2:16 and 4:1, includes some note of his being there with them. But here the focus is altogether on Euodia and Syntyche, and now by elaboration includes Clement and the rest as well. The ultimate reason for their getting it together in Philippi as they await from heaven the coming of their Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (3:20), is that their “names [all of their names57] are in the book58 of life.” This unusual (for Paul) language is common stock from his Jewish heritage,59 where the faithful were understood to have their names recorded in the heavenly “book of the living,” meaning “the book that has recorded in it those who have received divine life [thus ‘the book of the living,’ Ps 68:29] and are thus destined for glory.”

Hence with these words Paul brings the specific hortatory sections of the letter to conclusion. In both cases (vv. 1 and 2–3) he has picked up the eschatological note from 3:20–21 that has immediately preceded; and in both cases the note is affirmation and reassurance. If his concern in these exhortations is with the present—their “steadfastness” and “unity” for the sake of the gospel in Philippi—his focus has regularly been on their certain future. He and they together have their names recorded “in the book of life,” and for that reason, as a colony of heaven in the Roman colony of Philippi, they need to live the life of the future now as they await its consummation.

It is not possible from this distance for us to know the specific nature of Euodia’s and Syntyche’s lack of agreement. We have speculated at various points along the way60 that they may have been involved in whatever may have lain behind the exhortation in 3:1–21; but we admit to the speculative nature of such suggestions. In light of the total letter, however, and the nature of Paul’s exhortations, it seems most likely that their disagreements were not substantial, and had more to do with “how to do the gospel” in Philippi in the context of their present suffering, rather than over substantive matters as such. One of them may have found the “Jewish” option attractive, as a way of getting the opposition to ease off. But we simply cannot know. It is male chauvinism pure and simple that thinks the issue is more purely personal, and related to their being women. At issue in this letter is not some petty quarrel between two people, but the gospel in Philippi. Everything in the letter points in that direction; there is no reason at this point to think otherwise. And almost certainly the significance of singling these two out in this way is related to the significance of their roles in leadership. But details elude us, precisely because they knew exactly what the issue was, which is why we do not; Paul did not have to reiterate in their hearing what they already knew in this regard.

When the dust clears, and one gets beyond the specifics about names and “women in leadership,” it is hard to imagine NT exhortations that are more contemporary—for every age and clime—than these. To “stand firm in the Lord” is not just a word for the individual believer, as such words are so often taken, but for any local body of believers. The gospel is ever and always at stake in our world, and the call to God’s people, whose “names are written in the book of life,” is to live that life now in whatever “Philippi” and in the face of whatever opposition it is found. But to do so effectively, its people, especially those in leadership, must learn to subordinate personal agendas to the larger agenda of the gospel, “to have the same mindset in the Lord.” This means humbling, sacrificial giving of oneself for the sake of others; but then that is what the gospel is all about in any case. So in effect these exhortations merely call us to genuine Christian life in the face of every form of pagan and religious opposition.

At the same time, here is one of those pieces of “mute” evidence for women in leadership in the NT, significant in this case for its off-handed, presuppositional way of speaking about them. To deny their role in the church in Philippi is to fly full in the face of the text. Here is the evidence that the Holy Spirit is “gender-blind,” that he gifts as he wills; our task is to recognize his gifting and to “assist” all such people, male and female, to “have the same mindset in the Lord,” so that together they will be effective in doing the gospel.

VI. CONCLUDING MATTERS (4:4–23)

The “concluding matters” of Philippians have long puzzled scholars, mostly because of the presence of 4:10–20, where Paul acknowledges their gift. The problem is twofold. Some scholars are particularly disturbed by the presence of this acknowledgment at the end of the letter; they cannot believe that Paul would have waited so long before he thanks them for their gift (although in fact he has already done so in an oblique way in 1:5 and 2:25 and 30). Their solution is to dismember the letter into three letters, viewing vv. 10–20 as one of these letters, inserted at this point by a rather “unthinking” collator. Others, equally disturbed by the presence of vv. 10–20, find themselves at something of a loss to know how to handle vv. 4–9, since these verses include the very items—and only such items—that belong to the “conclusions” of Paul’s letters.1

The resolution of these matters is to be found at three points, which together suggest that all of 4:4–23 function in this letter as “concluding matters,” and that only the length of vv. 10–20 has kept us from seeing it this way right along. First, we need to take seriously the nature of the Pauline “conclusions,” which not only lack “form” but are a study in variety. Nonetheless, when all of them are put side by side certain elements emerge in common—although not all of them in each letter—and these elements tend also to follow a common pattern, but again not consistently in each case. The elements that are common to five or more of the letters occur in the “purest” form in 2 Cor 13:11–13 (14); they include:2

1. A series of (usually “staccato”) imperatives

2. The wish of peace

3. The holy kiss

4. Greetings from Paul and others

5. A grace-benediction

The only one of these missing in this letter is the holy kiss. Indeed, if one were to remove vv. 10–20 for the moment, what is left (vv. 4–9 and 21–23) also constitutes a relatively “pure” form of these “concluding matters.” The resolution to the present “form” of Philippians, however, does not lie in excising vv. 10–20, as some suggest, but with the next two observations.

Second, in 1 Corinthians Paul also has these same elements (minus the wish of peace), plus a couple of items unique to that letter. They begin with the “staccato” imperatives at 16:13–14. But just as in Philippians, the next “common” elements (the holy kiss and greetings) do not appear until v. 19, having been “interrupted” by a “letter of commendation” for the bearers of the letter (Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus), of whom Paul says, “I am rejoicing over their coming.” At the very same point in our letter, Paul also “interrupts” the “concluding matters” with his acknowledgment of their gift. Only we should now change our language, for vv. 10–20 are not an “interruption” of a “form,” since the “form” exists only as our discovery and for our convenience in figuring out what Paul is doing. Rather than a so-called interruption, in this case what is presented lies at the heart of these “concluding matters.”

Third, the key to all of this lies with Paul’s reasons for leaving the acknowledgment of their gift until the very end, which, as we will note below (at vv. 10–20), have to do with friendship and rhetorical emphasis. For now I simply point out that one can make a great deal of sense of these various final parts to the letter, including the “finally” in v. 8, when looked at in this way.

A. CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS (4:4–9)

It was suggested above that the appeals to “steadfastness” and “unity” in 4:1–3 function to bring closure to the main body of the letter (from 1:27). That a break occurs at the end of 4:3 is further demonstrated by the present series of exhortations. Paraenesis3 of this kind occurs regularly in the Pauline letters, in a couple of different ways. On the one hand, there is the kind found in Gal 6:1–10;4 Rom 12:1–13:14; Col 3:5–4:6, and Eph 4:1–6:9, which by and large spell out the ethical implications of the arguments of those letters. On the other hand, there are those found in 1 Thess 5:12–22, and much more briefly in 1 Cor 16:13 and 2 Cor 13:11, which function as part of the formal conclusions to these letters.5 In the latter cases, the imperatives are often “staccato” and have some similarities from letter to letter.

The present passage belongs to this latter “genre.” In form (and somewhat in content) these imperatives are similar to those of 1 Thess 5:12–22, which were apparently adapted to the urgencies of 1 Thessalonians,6 while in content (esp. vv. 4–7) they also correspond to 2 Cor 13:11.7 In this sense, then, they belong to the more “formal” matters that conclude the Pauline letters. But they also have some unusual features that mark them off from the others, and which also have given interpreters some difficulty in terms of their “placement” in this letter. A word about each of these.

As to the content, four matters are noteworthy. (1) These imperatives are in two sets (vv. 4–7 and 8–9), formally marked by the “finally” that begins the second set. The first set deals primarily with Christian piety (corporate and individual devotion), the second primarily with ethics (how Christians “think” and “behave”). Each concludes with a variant form of the “wish of peace” (“the peace of God will keep you”/“the God of peace will be with you”). (2) The actual number of “staccato” imperatives (vv. 4–7) is small, just three in fact, although one takes the form of a “not/but” contrast, which is considerably elaborated. (3) Not everything is imperative. Besides the affirmations of “peace” which conclude each set, the first set is “interrupted” by the striking indicative, “the Lord is near.” (4) The final set is unique to this letter in the Pauline corpus, being full of “friendship” motifs and striking correspondences to the moral world of Hellenism.8 At the same time it picks up the twin concerns of “thinking” and “doing” that run throughout the letter, concluding on the note of “imitating” Paul. The whole may be set out thus:

SET ONE (vv. 4–7):
	(1)	Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say it, rejoice.
	(2)	Let your gentleness be evident to all.
		(a) The Lord is near.
	(3a)	About nothing		be anxious;
	(3b)	but in every situation		make your requests known to God
					by prayer and petition
					with thanksgiving
		(b1) And the peace of God				will guard your hearts and minds
			which transcends all understanding
SET TWO (vv. 8–9) [introduced by, “finally, brothers and sisters”]:
	(1)	Whatever things are … virtuous and praiseworthy,
			these things consider.
	(2)	What you have learned, received, heard, seen in me,
			these things practice.
		(b2) And the God of peace will be with you

and their adaptations to the Philippian context, what are they doing at this point in the letter? And why another “finally” (v. 8) which does not seem to be “finally” in terms of the letter as a whole (cf. 3:1)? The answers lie both with the purpose of the present paraenesis and the (apparently deliberate) placement of vv. 10–20 at the end of the letter. First, these exhortations really do function as the “concluding paraenesis” of the letter; hence, the “finally” in this case means just that, “finally, with regard to the matters of the letter that have to do with my concerns over you.” But they also appear to be transitional, from the letter body and its concerns to the final (in some ways, first) concern of the letter, to express his profound gratitude for their gift. On the other hand, the placement of vv. 10–20, which seems deliberate and carefully crafted to be the “last word” of the letter, appears at the end, even after the “concluding exhortations,” for reasons of friendship. Occurring in the emphatic final position, these will be the final words left ringing in their ears as the letter is concluded, words that have had to do with “their concerns for the apostle.”9

1. A Call to Christian Piety—and Peace (4:4–7)

4Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7And the peace of God,10 which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds11 in Christ12 Jesus.

In contrast to the second set of imperatives (vv. 8–9), which reflect the language of Greco-Roman moralism, this set is distinctively Christian—and Pauline. Indeed, it is so well known that one hesitates to comment on it. But a few observations are in order.

First, these initial imperatives have to do basically with piety. Piety is expressed in this imperatival way because, in keeping with his OT roots, devotion and ethics for Paul are inseparable responses to grace. The truly godly person both longs for God’s presence, where one pours out his or her heart to God in joy, prayer, and thanksgiving, and lives in God’s presence by “doing” the righteousness of God. Otherwise piety is merely religion, not devotion.13

Second, the heart of these exhortations reflects the threefold expression of Jewish piety—rejoicing in the Lord, prayer, and thanksgiving—which are basic to the Psalter: “the righteous rejoice in the Lord” (Ps 64:10; 97:12) as they “come before him with thanksgiving” (Ps 95:2; 100:4) to “pray” in his “sanctuary” (Ps 61:1–4; 84:1–8). Paul already expressed them in this way, and in this order, in his earliest extant letter as God’s will for his people in Christ Jesus;14 they found expression together in the present letter in the formal thanksgiving (1:3–4). For him they are the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and especially of the believing congregation.

Third, in Paul’s understanding of the life of the Spirit, “joy” and “peace” also go together. “The Kingdom of God” has nothing to do with Torah observance (“food and drink”) but everything to do with “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17; cf. 15:13; Gal 5:22). In 1 Thess 5:13, 16 and 2 Cor 13:11, both joy and peace are commanded; in this case, “joy” is commanded, while “peace” is promised.

Fourth, also in keeping with the Psalter, these imperatives, all expressed in the second person plural, exemplify the conjunction between individual and corporate piety. As always in Paul, “joy, prayer, and thanksgiving,” evidenced outwardly by their “gentleness” and inwardly by God’s “peace” in their midst, first of all have to do with the (gathered) people of God; but the fact that “the peace of God shall guard your hearts and minds” reminds us that what is to be reflected in the gathered community must first of all be the experience of each believer.15

The series has its own brand of “logic.”16 It begins on the note of joy (v. 4), which not only marks this letter as a whole, but also, with 3:1, frames the final hortatory section (3:1–4:3) in particular. But in contrast to 3:1, which was followed by an inward focus (warning and appeal), this one is followed by an outward focus (5a, that their “gentle forbearance be known by all people”), which in turn is followed by an (apparently) eschatological affirmation regarding the Lord’s “nearness” (5b). The reality of that “nearness” also calls for “no anxiety,” but rather for prayer and thanksgiving (v. 6), concluding with the promise of God’s “peace” to “guard their hearts and minds” (v. 7).17

Thus, even though only the first imperative (“rejoice”) is distinctively “Philippian,” and many of these items are common to other letters, beneath the surface lie hints of adaptation to the Philippian situation: (a) The earlier appeal to steadfastness in the face of opposition (1:27–30) is undergirded here by the repeated call to rejoice, the concern that their gentleness be evident to all, and the word against anxiety with its inverse call to prayer and thanksgiving;18 (b) the concern for “unity” is reflected both in the exhortation to “gentleness” and the affirmation of “God’s peace” guarding their hearts and minds; and (c) all of this is punctuated with “the Lord is near,” the final reference to the eschatological theme found throughout the letter.

4 In the final set of imperatives in v. 8 Paul will sanctify as equally Christian the best of Greco-Roman virtues. He begins, however, with what is distinctively Christian. Combining the “framing” exhortation of 3:1 (“rejoice in the Lord”) with the “staccato” imperative that began the Thessalonian triad (“rejoice always”), he says it one more time, this time with verve:19 “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say it, Rejoice!”20

“Joy,” unmitigated, untrammeled joy, is—or at least should be—the distinctive mark of the believer in Christ Jesus.21 The wearing of black and the long face, which so often came to typify some later expressions of Christian piety, are totally foreign to the Pauline version; Paul the theologian of grace is equally the theologian of joy. Christian joy is not the temporal kind, which comes and goes with one’s circumstances; rather, it is predicated altogether on one’s relationship with the Lord, and is thus an abiding, deeply spiritual quality of life.22 It finds expression in “rejoicing,” which is not a Christian option, but an imperative. With its concentration “in the Lord,” rejoicing is “always” to mark their individual and corporate life in Philippi. The presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives and in their midst meant the experience of joy, whatever else may be their lot. In this letter the “whatever else” includes opposition and suffering at the hands of the local citizens of the empire, where Caesar was honored as “lord.” In the face of such, they are to “rejoice in the Lord always.”

Although a recurring motif in this letter, joy is not a random motif. The word group appears 16 times, equally divided between Paul’s joy and theirs. He begins by reminding them of his own joy as he prays for them (1:4), which he also experienced over their recent gift to him (4:10). Indeed, they will be his “joy” and “crown” when Christ comes (4:1). Meanwhile, his own “rejoicing in the Lord always” in his imprisonment (1:18 [2x]) serves as paradigm for their rejoicing in suffering (2:17–18),23 a joy which he longs for them to bring to full measure by having one mindset (2:2).

Likewise, references to their joy are integral to the concerns of the letter. Two occurrences are case-specific (2:28, 29, renewed joy over the return of Epaphroditus). The others frame the two main hortatory sections that make up the heart of the letter (1:27–2:18; 3:1–4:3). The motif begins in 1:25, where Paul expects to be with them again “for their progress and joy” in the gospel. This is followed immediately, given his current absence, by the exhortation to steadfastness and unity, which concludes (2:18) with the double imperative, (a) to “rejoice” since their own suffering is a “sacrificial offering” to God, and (b) to “rejoice with me” inasmuch as his suffering is the accompanying drink offering. Thus joy in suffering is part of the friendship motif, of their mutuality in Christ. Likewise the second exhortation (3:1–4:3), which began with warning and appeal and concluded with the twin appeals to steadfastness and unity, is framed by the exhortation to “rejoice in the Lord,” and now to do so “always,” even in the midst of their presently untoward circumstances.24

5a This second imperative, “let your gentleness be evident to all,” follows from the first. As they continually rejoice in the Lord even in the face of opposition and suffering, what others are to see is “gentleness.” In what may be something of a word play with “let your requests be made known to God” that follows,25 Paul here urges (literally) “let your ‘gentleness’ be known26 to all people,” that is, to those on the outside,27 including those who oppose them. “Gentleness,”28 however, is one of those terms that is difficult to pin down with precision. It is used by hellenistic writers and in the LXX primarily to refer to God (or the gods) or to the “noble,” who are characterized by their “gentle forbearance” with others.29 That is most likely its sense here, only now as the disposition of all of God’s people.30

In the midst of their present adversity, the Lord, to whom they belong, has graciously set them free for joy—always. At the same time others should know them for their “gentle forbearance” toward one another and toward all, including those who are currently making life miserable. This is the Pauline version of 1 Pet 2:23, spoken of Christ but urged of Christian slaves, “when they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” It is this “gentle forbearance” and “meekness” of Christ, to which Paul appealed in 2 Cor 10:1, which he here calls the believers to exhibit in Philippi.

5b The sudden appearance of an indicative (“the Lord is near”) is as surprising as its intent is obscure. The asyndeton typical of this kind of paraenesis31 also holds true for this indicative, so that one cannot tell whether Paul intends it to conclude what precedes or introduce what follows, and therefore whether it expresses future or realized eschatology.32 Does he intend, “Rejoice in the Lord always; and let your gentle forbearance be known by all, for the [coming of] the Lord is near”?33 or “Because the Lord is [always] near, do not be anxious about anything, but let your requests be made known to God”?34 Or does he intend a bit of both,35 perhaps something as close to intentional double entendre as one finds in the apostle?36

On the one hand, this looks very much like another instance of intertextuality,37 purposely echoing Ps 145:18, “the Lord is near all who call upon him.”38 In which case it introduces vv. 6–7 as an expression of “realized” eschatology: “Because the Lord is ever present, do not be anxious but pray.” On the other hand (or perhaps at the same time), it also echoes the apocalyptic language of Zeph 1:7 and 14 (“the Day of the Lord is near”), picked up by Paul in Rom 13:12, and found in Jas 5:8 regarding the coming of the Lord.

On the whole it seems likely that this is primarily intended as the last in the series of eschatological words to this suffering congregation, again reminding them of their sure future, despite present difficulties. Thus, it is a word of encouragement and affirmation.39 Since their present suffering is at the hands of those who proclaim Caesar as Lord, they are reminded that the true “Lord” is “near.” Their eschatological vindication is close at hand. At the same time, by using the language of the Psalter, Paul is encouraging them to prayer in the midst of their present distress, because the “Lord is near” in a very real way to those who call on him now.

6 Paul now turns to the second consequence of the Lord’s being “near.” They are to live without anxiety, instead entrusting their lives to God with prayer and thanksgiving. In so doing, he borrows from the Jesus tradition,40 that the children of the Kingdom are to live without care—but not “uncaring” or “careless.” Jesus invites his followers to live “without anxiety” because their heavenly Father knows and cares for them; in Paul’s case it is because their “Lord is near.” Apprehension and fear mark the life of the unbelieving, the untrusting, for whom the present is all there is, and for whom the present is so uncertain—or for many so filled with distress and suffering, as in the case of the Philippians.

On the contrary, Paul urges, “in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God.” “In everything”41 stands in contrast to “not about anything,” and means “in all the details and circumstances of life.”42 In situations where others fret and worry, believers in “the Lord” submit their case to God in prayer, accompanied by thanksgiving. For this combination see on 1:4. The three words for prayer are not significantly distinguishable; “requests”43 are “made known”44 before45 God “by prayer46 and petition.”47 In so doing one acknowledges utter dependence on God, while at the same time expressing complete trust in him.

Especially striking in the context of petition is the addition, “with thanksgiving”—although it is scarcely surprising of Paul. His own life was accentuated by thanksgiving; and he could not imagine Christian life that was not a constant outpouring of gratitude to God.48 Lack of gratitude is the first step to idolatry (Rom 1:21). Thanksgiving is an explicit acknowledgment of creatureliness and dependence, a recognition that everything comes as gift, the verbalization before God of his goodness and generosity. If prayer as petition indicates their utter dependence on and trust in God, petition “accompanied by thanksgiving” puts both their prayer and their lives into proper theological perspective. Thanksgiving does not mean to say “thank you” in advance for gifts to be received; rather, it is the absolutely basic posture of the believer, and the proper context for “petitioning” God.49 Gratitude acknowledges—and begets—generosity. It is also the key to the final affirmation that follows.

7 With a rare expression of parataxis50 Paul deliberately conjoins the “peace of God” with the exhortation to pray in trusting submission with thanksgiving, and thus offers God’s alternative to anxiety. This is a slight variation on what he had written not long before to the Colossians, that they should let “the peace of Christ serve as the arbiter in their hearts (individually),” since “they were called into one body.”51 But here it is affirmation and promise. As they submit their situation to God in prayer, with thanksgiving, what they may expect from God is that his “peace” will “guard” their hearts and minds as they remain “in Christ Jesus.”

That Paul expresses “peace” in such terms is probably an indication that one can make too much of the differences within the community, implied in 2:1–4 and made explicit in 4:2. He is indeed concerned about all of them “having the same mindset” as they “do” the gospel in Philippi; but in this letter “friendship” prevails, and their need for encouragement in the midst of difficulty exceeds the need to be admonished.52 Thus in contrast to other letters, he does not express “peace” as an imperative but as an indicative, closely related to their trusting God in prayer.

As with joy, peace for Paul is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). It is especially associated with God and his relationship to his people. Here it is called “the peace of God”53 because God is “the God of peace” (v. 9), the God who dwells in total shalom (wholeness, well-being) and who gives such shalom to his people. And it is the “peace of God” that “transcends54 all understanding.”55 This could mean “beyond all human comprehension,” which in one sense is certainly true. More likely Paul intends that God’s peace “totally transcends the merely human, unbelieving mind,” which is full of anxiety because it cannot think higher than itself.56 Because the God to whom we pray and offer thanksgiving, whose ways are higher than ours, is also totally trustworthy, our prayer is accompanied by his peace. And that, not because he answers according to our wishes,57 but because his peace totally transcends our merely human way of perceiving the world. Peace comes because prayer is an expression of trust, and God’s people do not need to have it all figured out in order to trust him!

Such peace will therefore “guard”58 their “hearts and thoughts.” In the Hebrew view the heart is the center of one’s being, out of which flows all of life (e.g., Mark 7:21). God’s peace will do what instruction in “wisdom” urged the young to do: “above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Prov 4:23). In the present context “God’s peace” will be his “garrison” around their “hearts” so that they do not fall into “anxiety.” It will also guard their “thoughts.”59 Since God’s peace surpasses merely human understanding in any case, it will protect the mind from those very thoughts that lead to fear and distress and that keep one from trusting prayer.

As with so much else in this letter, the location of such “protection” is “in Christ Jesus.” It is their relationship to God through Christ, in whom they trust and in whom they rejoice, that is the key to all of these imperatives and this affirming indicative. And this is what distinguishes Pauline paraenesis from that of both hellenistic moralists and Jewish wisdom.60 Thus this is (literally and theologically) the final word in this series of exhortations. Everything that makes for life in the present and the future has to do with their being “in Christ Jesus.”

Even though the experience of God’s “peace” happens first of all at the individual level, it is doubtful that “peace” in this context refers only to “the well-arranged heart.”61 For Paul peace is primarily a community matter. As noted below (v. 9), the ascription “God of peace” occurs in Paul in contexts where community unrest is lurking nearby. Not only so, but the mention of peace in his letters (apart from the standard salutation) occurs most often in community or relational settings.62 Thus Christ is “our peace” who has made Jew and Gentile one people, one body (Eph 2:14–17), who are thus urged to “keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (4:3); similarly in the argument of Rom 14:1–15:13, Jew and Gentile together are urged to “make every effort to do what leads to peace” (14:19); or in the community paraenesis of Col 3:12–4:6, they are urged to “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace” (v. 15).

Given the context of this letter, in particular the simultaneous appeals to “steadfastness” and “unity” in the face of opposition, this is a most appropriate penultimate affirmation. They need not have anxiety in the face of opposition, because they together will experience the “protection” of God’s “peace” in the midst of that conflict; and they who have been urged over and again to “have the same mindset” are here assured that the peace of God which surpasses merely human understanding will also protect their thoughts as they live out the gospel together in Philippi. Nor is it surprising, therefore, that the final, immediately following imperative (v. 8) is for them “give their minds only to higher and better things.”

Joy, prayer, thanksgiving, peace—these identify Pauline spirituality. Such lives are further marked by gentle forbearance and no anxiety. The key lies with the indicative, “the Lord is near”—now and to come. The Lord is now present by his Spirit, who prompts prayer and thanksgiving, among whose “fruit” in the life of the believer and the believing community are joy and peace. Here is God’s ultimate gift to those who trust in Christ, shalom and joy.

In a post-Christian, post-modern world, which has generally lost its bearings because it has generally abandoned its God, such spirituality is very often the key to effective evangelism. In a world where fear is a much greater reality than joy, our privilege is to live out the gospel of true shalom, wholeness in every sense of that word, and to point others to its source. We can do that because “the Lord is near” in this first sense, by the Spirit who turns our present circumstances into joy and peace, and who prompts our prayer and thanksgiving. And we should be at that task with greater concern than many of us are, because “the Lord is near” in the eschatological sense as well.

2. A Call to “Wisdom”—and the Imitation of Paul (4:8–9)

8Finally, [brothers and sisters],1 whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy2—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

In most of Paul’s letters the preceding set of imperatives would have functioned as the “concluding exhortations,” to be followed only by the wish of peace and the closing greetings. But this is a letter of friendship, so Paul adds a final set of exhortations, both sides of which are the “stuff” of friendship.3 Here is material with which the Philippians would have felt very much at home before they had ever become followers of Christ and friends of Paul.4

The imperatives are twofold, expressed with striking rhetoric.5 The first seems designed to place them back into their own world, even as they remain “over against” that world in so many ways. Expressed in the language of hellenistic moralism,6 in effect it tells them to take into account the best of their Greco-Roman heritage, as long as it has moral excellence and is praiseworthy. The second puts that into perspective, by repeating the motif of “imitation.”7 They obey the first set of exhortations by putting into practice what they have learned from him as teacher and have seen modeled in his life. The whole concludes with the promise of God’s abiding presence, as none other than “the God of peace.”

Paul was a man of two worlds, which had become uniquely blended through his encounter with the Risen Christ. Christ’s death and resurrection, marking the end of the old era and the beginning of the new, radically transformed Paul’s (Jewish) theology, which he in turn radically applied to the Greco-Roman world with which as a Diaspora Jew he was so familiar. Thus people whom Christ had rescued from being without God and hope in the world are now encouraged in the language of that world to consider what is noble and praiseworthy, as long as it conforms to what they have learned and seen in Paul about Christ.

That Paul is not embracing Stoicism or pagan moralism as such8 is made clear not only by his own theology everywhere but in particular by what he does with the Stoic concept of “contentment” in vv. 11–13 that follow. There he uses their language and intends the same general perspective toward circumstances as the Stoics. But he breaks the back of the Stoic concept by transforming their “self-sufficiency” into “Christ-sufficiency.” So here, using language the Philippians would have known from their youth, he singles out values held in common with the best of Hellenism. But as v. 9 implies, these must now be understood in light of the cruciform existence that Paul has urged throughout the letter.

8 With this “finally,” and its accompanying (final) vocative,9 “brothers and sisters,” Paul concludes the “hortatory” dimension of this “hortatory letter of friendship.” There is one further item to add, his grateful recognition of their renewed material support (vv. 10–20); but that belongs to the dimension of friendship altogether (without being “hortatory”), and has basically to do with their relationship with him. This “finally” concludes his concerns about them (and is thus also “hortatory”).

What is striking about this sentence is its uniqueness in the Pauline corpus. Take away the “finally, brothers and sisters,” and this sentence would fit more readily in Epictetus’s Discourses or Seneca’s Moral Essays than it would into any of the Pauline letters—except this one. The six adjectives and two nouns that make up the sentence are as uncommon in Paul as most of them are common stock to the world of Greco-Roman moralism. However, they are also the language of Jewish wisdom;10 indeed, the closest parallel to this sentence in the NT is not in the Pauline letters but in Jas 3:13–18,11 where some of this same language (as well as that of vv. 4–7) occurs in speaking of “the wisdom that is from above.”

But what Paul says here is much less clear than the English translations would lead one to believe. The impression given is that he is calling on them one final time to “give their minds” to nobler things. That may be true in one sense, but the language and grammar suggest something slightly different. The verb12 ordinarily means to “reckon” in the sense of “take into account,” rather than simply to “think about.” This suggests that Paul is telling them not so much to “think high thoughts” as to “take into account” the good they have long known from their own past, as long as it is conformable to Christ. This seems confirmed by the double proviso, “if anything,” that interrupts the sentence.13 The six words themselves, at least the first four, already point to what is virtuous and praiseworthy; so why add the proviso unless he intends them to select out what is morally excellent and praiseworthy from these “whatever things” that belong to the world around them, and to do so on the basis of Christ himself? Thus, he appears to be dipping into the language of hellenistic moralism, in his case tempered by Jewish wisdom, to encourage the Philippians that even though they are presently “citizens of heaven,” living out the life of the future as they await its consummation, they do not altogether abandon the world in which they used to, and still do, live. As believers in Christ they will embrace the best of that world as well, as long as it is understood in light of the cross.

Despite its several correspondences to hellenistic moralism and Jewish wisdom, however, this is Paul’s own enumeration.14 It neither reflects the four cardinal virtues of Hellenism,15 nor is there anything else quite like it as a list in the ancient world, either in form or content. As with all such “virtue” lists in Paul, it is intended to be representative, not definitive. The six adjectives cover a broad range—truth, honor, uprightness, purity, what is pleasing or admirable.16 Since they also reflect what the teachers of Wisdom considered to be the best path for the young to adopt, very likely this language in part came to Paul by way of this tradition. In any case, in Paul they must be understood in light of the cross, since that is surely the point of the final proviso in v. 9 that whatever else they do, they are to follow Paul’s teaching and thus imitate his cruciform lifestyle.17 Thus:

(1) Whatever is true.18 For Paul truth is narrowly circumscribed, finding its measure in God (Rom 1:18, 25) and the gospel (Gal 2:5; 5:7). As a virtue, especially in Jewish wisdom, it has to do with true speech (Prov 22:21) over against the lie and deceit (cf. 1:18 above) or is associated with righteousness and equity.19 Just as suppression of the truth about God, which leads to believing the lie about him, is the first mark of idolatry (the worship of false deities), so the first word in this virtue list calls them to give consideration to whatever conforms to the gospel.

(2) Whatever is noble.20 Although this word most often has a “sacred” sense (“revered” or “majestic”), here it probably denotes “honorable,” “noble,” or “worthy of respect.” It occurs in Prov 8:6 also in conjunction with “truth” and “righteousness,” as characteristic of what Wisdom has to say. Thus, whatever is “worthy of respect,” wherever it may come from, is also worth giving consideration to.

(3) Whatever is right.21 As with “truth,” what is “right” is always defined by God and his character. Thus, even though this is one of the cardinal virtues of Greek antiquity, in Paul it carries the further sense of “righteousness,” so that it is not defined by merely human understanding of what is “right” or “just,” but by God and his relationship with his people.22

(4) Whatever is pure.23 This word originated in the cultus, where what had been sanctified for the temple was considered “pure”; along with the related word “holy,” it soon took on moral implications. In Proverbs it stands over against “the thoughts of the wicked” (15:26) or “the way of the guilty” (21:8, in conjunction with being “upright”). Thus, “whatever things are pure” has to do with whatever is not “besmirched” or “tainted” in some way by evil. As with “truth” it occurs earlier in this letter (1:17) to contrast those whose motives are “impure” in preaching the gospel so as to “afflict” Paul.

(5) Whatever is lovely.24 With this word and the next we step off NT turf altogether onto the more unfamiliar ground of Hellenism—but not hellenistic moralism (see n. 15). This word has to do primarily with what people consider “lovable,” in the sense of having a friendly disposition toward. The NJB catches the sense well by translating, “everything that we love.” Here is the word that throws the net broadly, so as to include conduct that has little to do with morality in itself, but is recognized as admirable by the world at large. In common parlance, this word could refer to a Beethoven symphony, as well as to the work of Mother Teresa among the poor of Calcutta; the former is lovely and enjoyable, the latter is admirable as well as moral.

(6) Whatever is admirable.25 Although not quite a synonym of the preceding word, it belongs to the same general category of “virtues.” Not a virtue in the moral sense, it represents the kind of conduct that is worth considering because it is well spoken of by people in general.

It is probably the lack of inherent morality in the last two words that called forth the interrupting double proviso26 that follows, “if anything is excellent, if anything is praiseworthy.” The word “excellent”27 is the primary Greek word for “virtue” or “moral excellence.” It is generally avoided, at least in this sense, by the LXX translators.28 Although not found elsewhere in Paul, the present usage, along with “contentment” in v. 11, is clear evidence that he felt no need to shy away from the language of the Greek moralists. What he intends, of course, is that “virtue” be filled with Christian content, exemplified by his own life and teaching (v. 9). Likewise with “praiseworthy.”29 Although this word probably refers to the approval of others, the basis has been changed from “general ethical judgment”30 to conduct that is in keeping with God’s own righteousness. While not inherent in v. 8 itself, such an understanding of these words comes from the immediately following exhortation to “imitate” Paul, which in turn must be understood in light of what has been said to this point.

9 With this sentence Paul brings the exhortations to conclusion.31 It is not surprising that they end on the note of “imitation.” Not only is such imitation urged on them explicitly in 3:17, but this motif belongs to “friendship” and is probably in view from the beginning of the letter (1:12).32 In effect this sentence summarizes, as well as concludes, the letter. Paul’s concern throughout has been the gospel, not its content (“doctrinal error” is not at issue), but its lived out expression in the world. To get there he has informed them of his response to his own present suffering (1:12–26), reminded them of the “way of Christ” (2:6–11), and told his own story (3:4–14), all of which were intended to appeal, warn, and encourage them to steadfastness and unity in the face of opposition. Now he puts it to them plainly, as the final proviso to the preceding list of “virtues” that they should take into account. Read that list, he now tells them,33 in light of what “you have learned and received and heard and seen in me,” and above all else “put these things (you have learned, etc.) into practice.”34

What he calls them to “practice” is “what things”35 they have “learned” and “received” from him by way of instruction and what they have heard about him (from this letter? Epaphroditus? Timothy?) and seen in him by way of example. The first two verbs reflect his Jewish tradition, where what is “learned” is thus “received” by students.36 For the combination “heard and seen in me” see on 1:30. In that context in particular it had to do with their common struggle of suffering for Christ’s sake. Given the overall context of this letter, one may rightly assume that, whatever the specifics, Paul is once again calling them to the kind of cruciform existence he has been commending and urging on them throughout. Only as they are “conformed to Christ’s death,” as Paul himself seeks continually to be, even as they eagerly await the final consummation at his coming, will they truly live what is “virtuous” and “praiseworthy” from Paul’s distinctively “in Christ” perspective.

The exhortations are thus finished; so Paul rightly concludes with a “wish of peace,” which here takes the form of ultimate benediction, that “the God of peace will be with you.” They will get “peace” because the God of peace, by his Spirit, is in their midst. The ascription “God of peace,” derived from the OT, is frequent in Paul.37 What is striking is that in every instance it occurs in contexts where there is strife or unrest close at hand. Thus the antidote to unruly charismata in the community is the theological note that God himself is a “God of peace” (1 Cor 14:33); or in a community where the unruly/idle live off the largess of others, Paul prays that the God of peace will give them peace at all times (2 Thes 3:16); or in a context where believers are warned against those who “cause divisions and put obstacles in your way,” he assures them that the God of peace will bruise Satan under their feet shortly (Rom 16:20). Although “strife” is hardly the word to describe the Philippian scene, he nonetheless signs off with this affirmation, perhaps significantly so in light of the repeated exhortation to “have the same mindset.”

The desire for “God’s presence” determines much in Jewish piety and theology, both in the OT and in the intertestamental period. For Paul, and the rest of the NT, the way God is now present is by his Spirit, who is the fulfillment of the eschatological promises that God will put his Spirit into his people’s hearts, so that “they will obey me.” Thus, even though the Spirit is not mentioned, in Paul’s understanding this is how the “God of peace will be—and already is—with you.”38 After all, the fruit of the Spirit is … peace.

If our interpretation is correct, three things happen simultaneously in these concluding and summarizing exhortations: (a) that they embrace what is good wherever they find it, including the culture with which they are most intimately familiar; (b) but that they do so in a discriminating way, (c) the key to which is the gospel Paul had long ago shared with them and lived before them—about a crucified Messiah, whose death on a cross served both to redeem them and to reveal the character of God into which they are continually being transformed. It is hard to imagine a more relevant word in our post-modern, media-saturated world, where “truth” is relative and morality is up for grabs.

The most common response to such a culture is not discrimination, but rejection. This text suggests a better way, that one approach the marketplace, the arts, the media, the university, looking for what is “true” and “uplifting” and “admirable”; but that one do so with a discriminating eye and heart, for which the Crucified One serves as the template. Indeed, if one does not “consider carefully,” and then discriminate on the basis of the gospel, what is rejected very often are the mere trappings, the more visible expressions, of the “world,” while its anti-gospel values (relativism, materialism, hedonism, nationalism, individualism, to name but a few) are absorbed into the believer through cultural osmosis. This text reminds us that the head counts for something, after all; but it must be a sanctified head, ready to “practice” the gospel it knows through what has “been learned and received.”

B. ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR GIFT: FRIENDSHIP AND THE GOSPEL (4:10–20)

With his major concerns about “their circumstances” now addressed, and the “concluding exhortations” given, Paul turns at last to the first reason for the letter—to acknowledge their recent gift and thus to rejoice over this evidence of friendship. To this point he has not thanked them directly, although his gratitude is clearly implied in 1:3–7 and 2:25, 30 (perhaps 2:17). Some, to be sure, see this delay in saying “thank you” as evidence that Paul could not have written our Philippians in its present form: How could he wait to the very end, it is argued, before finally offering thanks for the gift?1 And others look on its content as evidence of a strained relationship between him and (some of) them: How could a genuine “thank you” be expressed so reluctantly, and why does he twice tell them he really did not need their help (vv. 11–13, 17) before he actually thanks them for it (v. 18)?2 These objections, however, overlook the primarily oral (and thus aural) culture within which this letter would be read and ignore the sociological framework of “friendship” in which it was written.3

As to the matter of placement: The first reason for the letter (acknowledgment of their gift), it turns out, is almost certainly not its primary reason for having been written, which is to speak directly into their present circumstances before either Timothy or he comes on the scene (2:19–24). The latter, at least, is what gets the major attention; so much so, that even Paul’s first report about “his affairs” (1:12–26) already has their situation in view. But having now dealt with his and their circumstances, and knowing full well what he was about, he concludes the letter on the same note with which it began (1:3–7)—their mutual partnership/participation in the gospel4—thus placing this matter in the emphatic, climactic position at the end. When read aloud in the gathered community, these will be the final words that are left ringing in their ears: that their gift to him has been a sweet-smelling sacrifice, pleasing to God; that God in turn, in keeping with his rich supply in Christ Jesus, will “fill them to the full” regarding all their needs; and that all of this redounds to God’s eternal glory. At the same time, they will scarcely be able to overlook the exhortations and appeals that have preceded, given the predominance of these concerns in the large middle section of the letter. This is rhetoric at its best;5 and the theory (predicated on our own sociology) that sees a later, rather mindless redactor “pasting” things together in this way turns out in the end to make him more clever than Paul.

As to the matter of “friendship”: Although dealing primarily with “his affairs,” in reality this section links his and their affairs together at the most significant point of “friendship,” that of mutual giving and receiving (v. 15).6 Indeed, much that puzzles us in this section is related to this phenomenon. Three matters intertwine: First is his genuine gratitude for their recent gift, expressed three times in three variations (vv. 10a, 14, 18). This is set, secondly, within the framework of Greco-Roman “friendship,” based on mutuality and reciprocity, evidenced by “giving and receiving”—a theme that gets “strained” in this case because of (a) his being on the receiving end of that for which he has nothing to give in return and (b) their “mutuality” also carries some of the baggage of a “patron/ client” relationship,7 due to his role as apostle of Jesus Christ.8 Third, and most significantly (and typically!), this sociological reality is rather totally subsumed under the greater reality of the gospel; thus the whole climaxes in doxology.9

All of this is fashioned with consummate artistry, some might say “tactful diplomacy,” so that their “giving,” his “receiving,” and their long-term friendship (“partnership” in the gospel), which their gift reaffirms, climax in vv. 18–20 with gratitude (from Paul), accolade and promise (from God to them), and doxology (from both to God). To get there Paul repeats a pattern in vv. 10–13 and 14–17, in which: (a) he begins by acknowledging their recent gift (vv. 10a, 14); (b) he then qualifies what he says about them (10b, 15–16); and (c), with two clauses that begin “not that,” he (more sharply) qualifies his “receiving” in relationship to his “need” (vv. 11–13, 17). The climax in vv. 18–20, it should be noted, begins with this same pattern (acknowledgment of their gift [v. 18] and the “qualifier” that God will thus meet their needs [v. 19]), but in place of the third element (Paul’s “not that”) he bursts into praise (v. 20). At the same time there is an interweaving of words and ideas, by repetition and wordplays, plus the “christianizing” of matters that are common stock in the culture, which makes the whole a marvelous tapestry.10 All of which says “thank you”—to them for their long-term friendship and to God to whom all glory is due. Thus:

(a) 10a			Acknowledgment of their “renewed concern” for Paul in his need;
	(b) 10b			The qualifier: the intermediate hiatus in their “giving” was due
						to lack of opportunity, not lack of concern
		(c) 11–13			Pauline qualifier: “Not that” he speaks according to “need”;
						thus he “christianizes” the Stoic doctrine of “content-
							ment”: Neither want nor weal determined his life;
								in Christ he can handle either.
(a)14			Second acknowledgement, now as “partnership in his affliction”;
	(b) 15–16			The qualifier: reminder of their laudable history in this matter
		(c) 17			Pauline qualifier: “Not that” he desires the gift per se, but
						what the gift represents (an “ever-increasing balance in
							your account”)
(a) 18			Third acknowledgment: Paul “abounds”; he has been “filled up”;
						at the same time, their “fragrant, sacrificial offering”
							pleases God
	(b) 19			The qualifier: Paul’s reciprocity will come from God, who will
						“fill them up,” supplying their “needs” in keeping with
							his own rich supply in Christ
		(c) 20			Doxology: To our God and Father be glory through endless
						ages.

The disturbing element for many are the two “not that” qualifiers, which in contemporary sociology would effect the opposite of what Paul intends. We instinctively have questions about one who begins an expression of gratitude as though the Philippians had finally gotten around to “showing concern for him again,” then in effect tells them that he really did not need their gift in any case, and finally expresses his personal gratitude in terms of their making a sacrificial offering to God. What gives with such a fellow? But the key to the passage lies with these very elements that disturb us, which in fact make this a Christian expression of a first-century convention. Besides denying that their friendship is based on “usefulness” (the lowest form of “friendship”), Paul’s point is that his joy lies not in the gifts per se—these he really could do with or without—but in the greater reality that the gifts represent:11 the tangible evidence, now renewed, of his and their long-term friendship, which for Paul has the still greater significance of renewing their long-term “partnership/participation” with him in the gospel. This is why the climax is expressed in terms of their gift being a “fragrant and pleasing offering to God,” who in turn promises to pick up Paul’s end of the reciprocity, all of which outbursts in praise of God’s glory, the very glory that God has already abundantly lavished upon them both in Christ Jesus.12

A passage like this, one needs finally to note, should be read in light of Paul’s unsolicited, lavish praise of this church in 2 Cor 8:1–5, with its thoroughly Christian equation of “affliction + poverty = abounding in generosity.” It is unlikely that the Philippians have changed radically in the intervening few years. To the contrary, it is precisely this quality of their Christian life, expressed in his case within the cultural context of friendship, that causes Paul to give thanks in this way—as “rejoicing in the Lord” and as an outburst of praise to God’s glory. Here is a community where the gospel had done its certain work.

1. Their Gift and Paul’s “Need” (4:10–13)

10I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do everything through him13 who gives me strength.

Despite the long history of the English translations’ making this a separate paragraph, in reality it is simply the first step in acknowledging their gift. As noted, Paul’s greater joy is in what the gift represents—tangible evidence of the rejuvenation of “friendship,” and that as a demonstration of their “partnership” with him in the gospel. Thus two matters are taken up in these opening sentences. First (v. 10a), Paul rejoices over their renewing the first feature of friendship, “giving and receiving.” But having expressed that in terms of “now at last,” he is quick to demur that they must not hear him wrongly (v. 10b). He knows, as they do, that the long hiatus in this tangible evidence of friendship (= partnership in the gospel) was due to their lack of opportunity.

Second (vv. 11–13), because his first concern is to express joy over friendship renewed, Paul feels compelled also to make sure that they do not understand what he has just said in terms of “need.” This demurrer probably arises out of “friendship” as well. Very likely this is his way of reminding the Philippians that theirs is not based on “usefulness,” but belonged to the highest level of friendship.14 Thus Paul digresses momentarily to reject any notion that their friendship is based on “need,” and thus has utilitarian origins. But in so doing, he has left us with one of his more remarkable moments, in which he uses the language—and outwardly assumes the stance—of Stoic “self-sufficiency,” but radically transforms it into Christ-sufficiency. The net result is that Paul and Seneca, while appearing to be close, are a thousand leagues apart. The Stoic’s (and Cynic’s) “sufficiency/contentment” comes from within oneself; Paul’s comes from without, from his being “a man in Christ,” on whom he is totally “dependent” and thus not “independent” at all in the Stoic sense. Because Paul and the Philippians are both “in Christ,” neither is dependent on the other for life in the world; but also because they are both “in Christ,” Paul received their gift with joy, because this is how Christ helped him to “abound” in this case.

Finally, coming directly after v. 9 as it does, the language and the length of the passage suggest that it also serves as a final moment of imitatio in this letter. He has just urged them not to be anxious about anything, but to leave their situation in God’s care, who as “the God of peace” will keep their hearts and minds in Christ. Paul now models what that means, that in Christ one can truly know “contentment” in any and all circumstances.15

10 The (correctly) untranslated de with which this sentence begins marks the transition to something new, but hardly an afterthought.16 Paul is as good as his word, in this case his word of exhortation. Using the precise language of v. 4, but now in the past tense,17 and with the addition of the adverb “greatly,”18 he tells them that he burst into joy19 at the arrival of Epaphroditus. They, his eschatological “joy” and “crown” (v. 1), are also cause for much past and present joy. Whatever else, they are his friends—his partners—in Christ.

His imprisonment had already resulted in rejoicing, since it became a catalyst for the advance of the gospel in Rome (1:18); now he tells them that their tangible reviving of friendship has likewise caused him to rejoice yet again while in detainment. As he twice exhorted them (3:1; 4:4), his rejoicing was “in the Lord,” another subtle indication of the three-way bond (between him, them, and Christ) that holds the letter together. Paul rejoiced “in the Lord,” the author of their common salvation, over the tangible evidence that they together belong to the Lord and thus to one another.20

But his stated reason for joy catches us by surprise: “that21 at last you have renewed your concern for me.” Paul’s own qualifier that follows makes it clear that even though not intending these words pejoratively, he recognized that they could be taken so.22 Three things lie behind the sentence: that “giving and receiving” is the first mark of friendship in the Greco-Roman world; that they had had a long history of “giving” to him (as vv. 15–16 make clear); that, as the various elements of this sentence indicate, some (probably considerable) time has elapsed since they had last ministered to his needs in this way.23 How much time is impossible to say, but very likely several years. It is this lapse of time that accounts for how the sentence is expressed.

The verb “you have renewed” is a botanical metaphor, meaning to “blossom again”24—like perennials or the Spring shoots of deciduous trees and bushes. After a period of some dormancy in the matter of “giving and receiving,” they have thus “revived” this dimension of their friendship with Paul. The adverb “at last”25 likewise implies a hiatus in their giving. However, it probably does not mean “finally, at last,” as though he had been expecting something in the meantime—which the qualifier that follows denies—but points rather to the conclusion of the hiatus. Thus, “now, finally, you were able to do what for a long time you could not.”

What they were finally able to do again is expressed in language special to this letter: “to ‘think’ about me.” Here begins the first in a series of word repetitions and word plays that dominate this final section of the letter. The verb “to think”26 appeared first in the thanksgiving (1:7) to refer to Paul’s “feeling this way” about them. Elsewhere in the letter it means “have a (certain) mindset.” Some of the earlier uses occur in relational contexts, and therefore may lean toward “have the same mindset toward one another” (2:2; 4:2), in the sense of “show mutual care for each other.”27 That is certainly the sense here; hence the English translations have either “care for” or “be concerned about.” In any case, this usage is hardly accidental. What has brought him joy is the renewal of their “thinking about/caring for” him in this way.

That this is Paul’s intent is made certain by the qualifier, “indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it.” Two points of grammar in this clause indicate he is trying to deflect possible misunderstanding of the first clause. He begins, first, “with reference to which28 indeed,” a combination that picks up the infinitive “to be concerned” and intensifies it (= “with reference to which you were indeed29 continually concerned”). Second, both verbs in this clause are imperfects, implying a continual concern for Paul with a likewise ongoing lack of opportunity30 to do anything about it. Thus he is quick to acknowledge that he well understands the hiatus had nothing to do with their lack of concern but of opportunity.

11 Having qualified his opening expression of joy against possible misunderstanding, Paul proceeds to qualify the event itself still further. But this time he is not so much qualifying something specifically said as he is putting the whole matter into perspective. His “not that”31 is thus intended to guard against anyone’s drawing wrong inferences from what he has just said. The wrong inference would be that his joy is over their gift as such, as though joy had to do with finally being able to eat again.32 On the contrary, he says, I have not said any of this because “I speak according to need.”33 His joy is over their friendship; and their friendship, he is quick to point out, is not utilitarian, related to what he can secure from it.34

Here is also the second in the series of word repetitions and wordplays in this passage. He had told them in 2:30 that he did have “lack”—of their presence!—which was made up in part by Epaphroditus’s coming. Now he says that his joy is not over their filling his “lack” in the material sense (although he gladly acknowledges in v. 18 that he was “filled to the full” by their gift). But that also calls for further explanation; so rather than take up the matter of what his joy is all about (which comes next in vv. 14–17), he instead goes on to elaborate why their ministering to his “need” was not the reason for his joy.

On the surface, his explanation35 looks like a meteor fallen from the Stoic sky into his epistle: “For I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.”36 The word translated “content”37 expresses the ultimate goal of Stoicism: to live above need and abundance in such a way as to be “self-sufficient,” not meaning that one is oblivious to circumstances, but that the truly autarkēs person is not determined by such. One is “independent” of others and of circumstances in the sense of being free from their either causing distress or effecting serenity. Serenity comes from being sufficient unto oneself. Although one cannot be sure that Paul is deliberately echoing Stoic language, it is difficult to imagine the Philippians’ not having recognized it as such. The potency of what Paul does—which they undoubtedly would have picked up on—is to use language similar to that of Stoicism to describe an attitude toward life that outwardly looks like theirs, but whose source, and therefore significance, is radically different. But before that (v. 13), Paul elaborates in terms of material needs (v. 12) what he has here avowed.

12 The explanatory sentences in this verse are typically balanced, and somewhat rhythmical.38 He begins with the broader vocabulary of want and plenty, “I know both how to be humbled;39 I know also how to abound.”40 Although these will lead to the more specific matters of material needs, there is every good reason to think that by starting with these verbs, he intended, “to be humbled and to abound in every which way,” including in the specific ways he will pick up next, but not limited to these.41 After all, to be “humbled” is not the ordinary verb for “being in want”; moreover, it is a thoroughly non-Stoic word. Some Stoics may have reveled in “want”; none of them could tolerate “humiliation,” which often headed their lists of attitudes to be avoided. Whether deliberately chosen over against them or not, and that is moot, for Paul this verb not only indicates “poverty,” but embraces a way of life similar to that of his Lord (2:8; cf. Matt 11:28), a way of life that finds expression elsewhere in his various “hardship lists.”42

Thus, “in every and in all circumstances,”43 and now in reverse order, Paul specifies: “I have learned the secret”44 of what it means “both to be well fed or go hungry,45 both to abound and to be in need.” Although the verb “learn the secret” is primarily a technical term for initiation into the mysteries, Paul is obviously using it metaphorically. While others have been “initiated into the mysteries,” he says, “I have been initiated into both having a full stomach and going hungry.” This passage joins others to make clear that, although Paul often ate well, he also knew very little of the cultural equivalent of our “three square meals a day.” But the addition “to abound and to suffer need” probably point—on the “down” side, as do his hardship lists—to other material deprivations or supply, such as clothing (being in “rags”), shelter (homelessness), and less material ones such as toil and lack of rest.46

What is striking, of course, is his insistence that he knows the secret of both plenty and want.47 His various “hardship lists” make it clear that he has experienced “plenty” of “want.” But in contrast to some of the Cynics, he did not choose “want” as a way of life, so as to demonstrate himself autarkēs; rather he had learned to accept whatever came his way, knowing that his life was not conditioned by either, and that his relationship to Christ made one or the other essentially irrelevant in any case. Where we otherwise lack direct evidence from him are situations in which he “abounded” in “plenty”—at least on the material side of things, although in this letter he may very well be alluding to the generous patronage of the Philippians, both when he and his co-workers lived in Lydia’s household and when they repeatedly supplied his material needs in Thessalonica and Corinth, and perhaps elsewhere.

13 With the well-known words of this verse, Paul brings closure to this brief digression (vv. 11–13), in which he explains that his joy in receiving their gift was not predicated on their meeting his need. How has he learned to live in either want or plenty? His response: “I can do everything through48 him who gives me strength.” With that he transforms the very Stoic-sounding sentences that have preceded from appearing to promote any sense of sufficiency within himself to a sufficiency quite beyond himself, to Christ,49 the basis and source of everything for Paul. Thus he turns “self-sufficiency” into “contentment” because of his “Christ-sufficiency.” In effect this sentence spells out at the practical level the slogan of his life, expressed in 1:21: “for me to live is Christ.”

“Everything” in this case, of course, refers first of all to his living in “want or plenty.”50 Paul finds Christ sufficient in times of bounty as well as in times of need. Although he appears to have had less of the former than the latter, here is his way of handling the warning to Israel given in Deuteronomy 8 that they not forget the Lord once they have experienced plenty. Thus, this passage is not an expression of Stoicism, not even a christianized version of the Stoic ideal; rather, it is but another of scores of such passages that indicate the absolute Christ-centeredness of Paul’s whole life. He is a “man in Christ.” As such he takes what Christ brings. If it means “plenty,” he is a man in Christ, and that alone; if it means “want,” he is still a man in Christ, and he accepts deprivation as part of his understanding of discipleship.

Therefore, although this passage belongs in part to the conventions of “friendship,” as with all such cultural conventions, in Paul’s hand they are transformed into gospel. Moreover, given the context, one should recognize this brief autobiographical moment also to serve in a paradigmatic way. He has just urged them to “practice” what he both taught and modeled (v. 9). In the midst of their own present difficulties, here is what they too should learn of life in Christ, that being “in him who enables” means to be “content” whatever their circumstances.

And all of this (vv. 11–13), one must remember, has been said in order to inform the Philippians that his joy is not simply over their gift—although he will finally express his deep gratitude for that as well. Thus, with the issue of “need” spoken to, he returns in v. 14 to the acknowledgment of their gift and their friendship.

This marvelous passage has also had its own unfortunate history of interpretation, in the hands both of its friends and of Paul’s detractors. His detractors look on the text as unbearable ingratitude, that he should begin the thanksgiving for their gift by brushing it aside in an apparently peremptory fashion. Better not to give such people gifts who treat the gift so unfeelingly, so “stoically” as it were! But such detractors understand neither the nature of first-century friendship nor the apostle’s own aim, which is to focus on their friendship and partnership in the gospel, which their gift represents and which is greater by far than the “mere gift” itself. Only in a culture like ours, where “things” tend to be more significant than people, would one remonstrate at what the apostle has done here.

On the other hand, Paul’s friends have sometimes mangled the text by quoting it apart from its present context. The worst expression of this abuse occurs with v. 13, which is sometimes made to say that “I can do all things (especially extraordinary things) through Christ who strengthens me.” Very often the application takes a form exactly the opposite of Paul’s—with a bit of v. 19 thrown into the mix, “when in want I shall receive plenty” because of my relationship with Christ. Paul’s point is that he has learned to live in either want or plenty through the enabling of Christ. Being in Christ, not being self-sufficient, has rendered both want and weal of little or no significance. Experience in the church should teach one what the Stoics themselves recognized, that either “want” or “wealth” can have deleterious affect on one’s life, those in “want” because their “want” consumes them, those in “wealth” because their “wealth” does the same. The net result is a tragically small person. On the other hand, the Pauline perspective—life as cruciform, being “conformed to his death so as to attain the resurrection”—raises God’s people above the dictates of either. Those in “want” learn patience and trust in suffering; those in “wealth” learn humility and dependence in prospering, not to mention the joy of giving without strings attached!

2. Their Gift as Partnership in the Gospel (4:14–17)1

14Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. 15Moreover,2 as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; 16for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid3 again and again when I was in need. 17Not that I am looking for a gift, but I am looking for what may be credited to your account.

Returning to the language of the thanksgiving in 1:3–8, Paul resumes what he began in v. 10, moving it a step forward. In v. 10 he joyfully received their gift as tangible evidence that their care for him had “blossomed afresh.” Since their gift met his material needs while imprisoned, it is also evidence of their being partners with him in his affliction (v. 14), and thus of their partnership with him in the work of the gospel (v. 15). As in 1:5–7, their love for Paul and serving the cause of the gospel blend. After all, to love Paul is to love the gospel.

In vv. 15–16 this “partnership” is expressed in the language of Greco-Roman friendship, language that untangles much in this letter.4 He recounts their history of material support in terms of their having entered into a “giving and receiving” relationship with him, which is the first mark of friendship. “Giving” is what has been renewed. But friendship also presupposes reciprocation. In terms of the principle established in 1 Cor 9:11,5 their gift is already to be understood as reciprocation; but having now “received” their gift, it is Paul’s turn to reciprocate, which he does beginning in v. 17. The gift itself, he reminds them (cf. v. 11), is incidental; what he desires is for them to experience “an ever-increasing balance in their [divine] account” (= divine reciprocation), which in this first instance has to do with eschatological reward. Present “reciprocation” is promised in v. 19, now in terms of God supplying their various needs (including material ones).

As with the preceding sub-paragraph, where Paul transformed the language, and thus the significance, of the Stoic idea of “contentment” into something radically Christian, so here. The language is that of Greco-Roman friendship, which in this case is not so much “transformed” as it is totally subsumed under the greater reality of the gospel, thus giving friendship new meaning.

14 The “yet” with which this sentence begins is the certain evidence that vv. 10–13 do not constitute a paragraph on their own. This particular adversative is Paul’s way of “breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important” (BAGD).6 Thus, even though Paul’s life is not determined by “need”—he has learned “contentment” whether full or hungry—“nonetheless,” he now comes back, picking up the thread of v. 10, “what you did in my behalf was a good thing.”7

Paul’s emphasis lies on the “good” they did. But not yet is the “good” the gift itself; that is reserved for the end (v. 18). This sentence resumes the acknowledgment begun in v. 10, where Paul referred to the gift as “a renaissance of your caring for me.” Here that is elaborated in terms of their “partnership/participation with him8 in his affliction.” This returns to the language of 1:7, where Paul gives reason for his thanksgiving in terms of their being “partners/participants” together with him in his chains and in the defense of the gospel. In the present instance he refers to his imprisonment with the broader word “affliction,”9 used most often to refer to afflictions suffered by believers because of their relationship to Christ. It is an especially appropriate word in this case because not only did they “participate” with him in his affliction by sending their gift, but they did so in the context of their own affliction, noted in 1:29–30 and 2:17 and hinted at elsewhere.

15–16 Reintroduction of the language “participation” launches Paul into a brief rehearsal of the Philippians’ considerable—and exemplary—history in this regard. He begins with an emphatic reminder, “now you know, even you Philippians yourselves.”10 The content, which elaborates the theme of their “participation/partnership” with him, is in some ways quite remarkable, since it tells their story, and is thus well known to them.11 Our interest in the passage is with both the what and how and the why. The why we will note briefly at the end; first a look at what Paul says, including how he says it, which is of interest in two ways.

First, he reminds them of their past “partnership with him in the gospel”; but, second, that reminder is couched in the language of friendship, indeed of the primary expression of friendship in Greco-Roman antiquity, “partnership in the matter of giving and receiving.” The narrative itself forms an “inclusio” around the theme of friendship:

A		15At the beginning of the gospel,
			when I set out from Macedonia,
	B			not one church shared with me
						in the matter of giving and receiving,
				except you only;
A′		16for even in Thessalonica,
					once and again,
			you sent (aid) for my need.

Part A takes them back to the beginning of their association with Paul, from the time he first departed from Philippi, carrying through beyond his departure from Philippi to his departure from the province (Macedonia). Part B takes up the theme of friendship, their “partnership with him in the matter of giving and receiving,” emphasizing in particular their singular history in this matter. Part A′ reemphasizes both of these realities by reminding them that “even in Thessalonica,” at his first stopover after leaving Philippi and even before leaving Macedonia, they had already ministered to his physical needs on several occasions. The result is a threefold emphasis: (a) on their friendship (= “partnership in giving and receiving”); (b) that it goes back to the beginning of his association with them; and (c) that they were the only church with whom he had entered into this kind of “contractual friendship.”

(A) What Paul reminds them of first is that their “partnership” with him in “giving and receiving” has to do with the gospel, that it goes back to “the beginning of the gospel,” which, given that the narrative is for their benefit and thus from their point of view, refers back to the time of their origins as believers in Christ.12 His emphasis in this initial phrase is twofold: (1) that the “friendship” into which he and they had entered, of which he will speak next, has its focus not just on his and their own personal relationship, but is a three-way bond that includes Christ and the gospel—the “glue” that has cemented their relationship and that gives it significance (see on 1:5); and (2) that this partnership goes back to their beginnings as Christians.

Second, he reminds them that the outworking of this “partnership in the gospel” stems from the time13 he “set out from Macedonia.” This phrase is somewhat ambiguous, since on the one hand Paul frequently uses the provincial name when referring to Philippi in particular,14 while on the other hand it technically refers to the province and should refer to the time when (or after) he left Berea (Acts 17:10–15). Given the preceding vocative, “you Philippians,” which particularizes them within Macedonia, and the way he further qualifies their role even in Thessalonica, a Macedonian city, he almost certainly intended them to hear this clause in the sense of his departing the province.15 Why he should mention this aspect first, before that of Thessalonica (v. 16) which chronologically came first, is something of a puzzle.16 Most likely the “narrative” is typically imprecise, as such personal recountings of “history” often are. He begins, as the emphasis in the context dictates, by focusing on their long-term relationship, hence “after he left Macedonia”; but since Thessalonica is also in Macedonia and the Philippians had already been serving him in this way even while he was in Macedonia, he (apparently) adds the qualifier in v. 16.

The concrete evidence for such “partnership” beyond Macedonia is to be found in 2 Cor 11:8–9, where in defense of his not having entered into such a contractual friendship with the Corinthians Paul argues: “I ‘robbed’ other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, … the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed.”17 Whether, and if so how extensive, this ministry carried on beyond the time in Corinth cannot be known. Lacking other such fortuitous moments of verification like the one in 2 Corinthians, we can only guess that it extended beyond Corinth, but we cannot be certain.

(B) This material functions as the main clause in Paul’s sentence. Its primary concern is to point out that they are the only church with whom Paul had entered into “contractual friendship.” That is expressed twice, at the beginning and end of the clause: “no other church … except you only.” It is further emphasized by the addition of the final clause (v. 16) which not only points to their repeated expression of this dimension of friendship, but also joins v. 15 to exclude Thessalonica from such an arrangement with Paul.

The nature of this “arrangement” is to be found in the language “in the matter of giving and receiving,” which is the key to much, not only in the present passage but also to the letter as a whole. This has long been recognized as a metaphorical use of “commercial” language, traditionally interpreted as indicating Paul’s stance toward their gift(s).18 Thus the phrase “in the matter”19 means that they have “opened an account” with Paul (Goodspeed), in which there is mutual “credit” (giving) and “debit” (receiving).20 This understanding is corroborated by the extension of the metaphor in v. 17, where their giving is understood by Paul in terms of “interest that accumulates in this way to your divine credit” (Moffatt), and further in v. 18 with the expression, “you have paid me in full” (Goodspeed). This usage is so well established both in the papyri and in literary works that it is quite impossible for the Philippians to have understood it differently.

What was not recognized traditionally is that this commercial metaphor had already been co-opted within the context of Greco-Roman “friendship,” especially to refer to “consensual” friendship, which would be evidenced by a mutual “debt and credit” (giving and receiving), that is, gifts and services understood as “benefits” mutually given and received.21 This is almost certainly how we should understand Paul’s usage. The combination “shared with me in”22 also reflects the metaphorical use of this technical language, thus meaning something like, “you alone entered into partnership with me in this matter.” The language is intended to express both the mutuality and the reciprocity of such “giving and receiving.” What is unique to Paul’s relationship with the Philippians is that their “partnership” with him was not so much “one on one,” as it were, but a three-way bond—between him, them, and Christ (and the gospel).23

This third factor results in a considerable “skewing” of the convention. Left intact is reciprocity and mutuality; “skewed” is the form these take in Paul. The discussions in Greco-Roman literature of “giving and receiving” in relation to friendship indicate that they often ended up in (sometimes destructive) one-up-manship. If reciprocity did not exceed the former gift, the original recipient came under long-term “obligation”; thus mutuality degenerated into a kind of “patron-client” relationship where one party “held the upper hand.” But in Christ, Paul’s relationship with the Philippians has been “leveled out” in its own divine way. On the one hand, a “patron-client” relationship already existed between him and his churches, in his role as apostle. This is why even in a letter of friendship like this one Paul can take such a strong hortatory stance. What is remarkable is how little he plays that note in this letter at all; rather, he and Timothy are “slaves of Christ Jesus” in their behalf, and rather than simply exhort by way of imperative, he appeals to his own example as the model for them to follow. Whatever else, they are in this (that is, in Christ) together.

On the other hand, another form of “patron-client” relationship had also long ago been established between him and them with regard to his personal, material needs. As far as we have records to guide us, in Philippi alone among his churches did he accept patronage while present with them, in this case in the household of Lydia. When he went on to Thessalonica, he chose a different course, deliberately “working with his own hands” so as to set such a model before the Thessalonians (2 Thess 3:7–10), a practice he continued when he went to Corinth (1 Cor 4:12).24 As a result, the Philippians also alone among his churches had entered into “partnership with him” regarding his material needs, apparently assisting him as they were able and had opportunity. Thus, he became “client” to their “patronage,” in this sense.

But precisely because their “friendship” was predicated on their mutual belonging to Christ, these two expressions of “patron-client” relationship were leveled by total mutuality and reciprocity. How he deals with his end of the “reciprocity” is what vv. 17 and 19 are all about. In any case, this is the relationship to which Paul is here calling their attention by way of reminder; his concern is to remind them that he has this unique relationship with them alone among all “his” churches.

(A′) As a further reminder of the uniqueness of their “friendship,” Paul adds a final explanatory clause, “for25 even26 (when I was) in Thessalonica, once and again, you sent unto my need.” This clause does three things. First, it joins v. 15 to exclude Thessalonica from the same kind of contractual friendship that he has with them; “Macedonia” means the province, and when he set out from the province, Thessalonica did not join with them in sending him aid,27 even though it was the much larger and more influential city in Macedonia. Second, it reminds them of how they had repeatedly upheld their end of the “giving and receiving” from the time he first left Philippi. “Once and again”28 believers from Philippi traveled the 145 kilometers (95 miles) down the Egnatian Way to Thessalonica to assist with Paul’s material needs. In comparison with getting to Corinth or Rome (and especially to Caesarea),29 this was “a piece of cake.” Third, as in 2:25, he now mentions their gift to him as “for the sake of supplying my need.”30 If he felt compelled to establish in vv. 11–13 that his joy over their gift was not grounded at this level, which could be viewed as utilitarian, neither did he intend to deny that they had in fact ministered to his “need.” At the same time, he sets up the reciprocal language of v. 19, where God picks up Paul’s end of the mutuality by supplying “all their needs” in Christ Jesus.

Finally, the question of “why this sentence at all” needs to be addressed, even if our answer is more speculative. That is, why this reminder of what, by his own admission, they well know? And why this emphasis on their being the only church to have entered into this kind of “partnership” with him? A couple of reasons may be suggested. First, such a reminder is itself an indication of the happy relationship he has with this church. The mention of “being paid in full” in v. 18 makes clear that no hidden motive, such as “putting them under obligation,” lies behind it. Rather, as often happens in an interchange between friends, one partner in the friendship takes delight in reminding the other how that one has expressed friendship in the past. Paul’s point, then, is that their present gift, even though after a hiatus of some years, represents yet another in their long and laudatory history in this regard. Second, in ways far more profound than the use of the verb “to thank,” this is Paul’s way of saying thank you for this long history of their “giving” and his “receiving.” There is good evidence from the Greco-Roman world that the actual expression of “thank you” was not a part of friendship as such. As strange as it may seem to us, true friends did not need to express thanksgiving directly in order for it to be received.31 What Paul is most likely doing here in keeping with social convention is thus expressing his “thank you” indirectly, but even more tellingly, by rehearsing their history in this way.32

The final “why” question, why he should have entered such a relationship with only one church, lies in the area of pure speculation and will not detain us. That he did so, is what we learn from this passage, and nothing more.

17 With another “not that” (cf. v. 11), Paul interrupts his expression of gratitude with yet another qualifier against possible misunderstanding.33 His short recital of their exemplary history of friendship with him in the matter of “giving and receiving” is not to be taken as an indirect request for more help.34 Exactly the opposite, and now picking up on the commercial metaphor itself, what he “seeks,”35 he tells them, is “the fruit that increases into your account,” by which he means metaphorically, “an accrual of ‘interest’ against your divine ‘account’.” When unpacked, the metaphor expresses Paul’s real concern for them, found as early as 1:25 in terms of “your progress in the faith.” Their giving to him is an expression of love, of the gospel at work in their midst. For Paul every time they do so, it is also evidence of “fruitfulness,” of the kind for which he prayed in 1:11. Such “fruitfulness” has the effect of being entered on the divine ledger as “interest,” as the certain indication of the increase of their “fruitfulness,” which will find its full expression at the coming of Christ. They themselves will be Paul’s eschatological “reward” (2:16; 4:1); their gift to him has the effect of accumulating “interest” toward their eschatological “reward.”

The metaphor, however, does not need to “walk on all fours” to be understood, or even to carry punch. Paul’s interest is not in their “reward” as such, but in their gift as evidence that their relationship with Christ is in good order and is continuing to grow. He does not thereby negate the gift; indeed, he finally speaks directly to that in the next sentence. But here is the certain evidence that his ultimate concern is for them—far more than for his own material needs. Their gift, which serves his “physical health,” serves more significantly as evidence of their “spiritual health.” What else would one “seek,” one wonders, in a relationship such as theirs, which is predicated altogether on their mutual belonging to Christ?

Many years ago a wise preacher counseled some younger ministers that Satan has three hounds with which he pursues those in ministry: pride, money, and sex. Money is surely not the least of these. It is therefore of some interest for us to note how sensitive Paul is on this matter. He can scarcely speak about it, and especially his relationship to receiving it, without offering a demurrer such as one finds in v. 17. This may well account for his (apparent) change of policy when he got to Thessalonica. There were enough itinerant religious and philosophical hucksters about, who, according to Dio Chrysostom, “used flattery as a cloak for greed” (cf. 1 Thess 2:4), for Paul to set out on a different course of maintenance upon leaving Philippi. Thus he can appeal to both Thessalonica and Corinth that his motives were totally free of pecuniary interests (1 Thess 2:1–10; 2 Cor 12:14–15). Paul did not “seek what is yours, but you” (2 Cor 12:14). A lesson in paradigm for all who are in Christian ministry of any kind.

The uniqueness of this passage in the corpus comes into focus here. For in Philippi he did accept their material support once and again. This says something significant about his relationship with this church, and here it is hard not to see the hand of Luke (and Lydia?) at work. Thus he gladly acknowledges their gift, but even here one finds the demurrer. These verses put much into perspective. They know him well; they also know that from them alone among his churches has he accepted gifts on an ongoing basis. The key to all of this is v. 14, read in light of 1:29–30; 2:6–8; and 3:8–10. Their relationship is not a kind of business transaction, despite the use of commercial metaphors throughout; rather, their gift is evidence of their being in partnership with him “in affliction” and for the sake of the gospel.

Thus he concludes that money—material support of his own needs—is ultimately irrelevant; what counts is what God is doing in their lives. Their gift serves as evidence of “fruitfulness” that will only gain interest toward their eschatological “reward.” In an oppressively materialistic culture, these words are written off as saccharine spirituality—or “sour grapes”—so as to justify ongoing greed. My sense is that Paul has the better of it, and that truly Christian life lies closer to where he and they were than where many of us are.

3. Their Gift as a Fragrant Offering to God (4:18–20)

18I have received full payment and even more; I1 am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. 19And my God will meet2 all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

20To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

These sentences belong intimately with vv. 14–17,3 continuing the commercial metaphor while offering reciprocity to their meeting his “need” in v. 16, thus concluding the narrative begun in v. 10. The reason for isolating them is to highlight their relationship with what has preceded and to demonstrate that the passage as a whole is anything but reticent thanks. With a considerable change of metaphors, Paul suggests that the ultimate recipient of their service to Paul is none other than the living God. Their material gift to Paul functioned as a sacrificial offering to God.

Although still using metaphors, this is about as straightforward as one gets in Paul. In v. 18, keeping to the commercial/friendship metaphors from vv. 15 and 17, he specifically acknowledges their gift, sent by way of Epaphroditus (cf. 2:25–30), which he further describes with a sacrificial metaphor. In v. 19, referring back to their meeting his “need” from v. 16, he indicates that God himself will pick up Paul’s end of the reciprocity by meeting all their needs. All of which, especially v. 19, leads to a final outburst of praise in the form of a typical Pauline doxology (v. 20).

At the same time, word plays and repetitions abound, some of which are difficult to express in translation, but all of which tie these final sentences to what has immediately preceded (vv. 10–17) as well as to the earlier mention of their gift to him in 2:25–30.4 He begins in v. 18 by capping off the commercial metaphor from vv. 15 and 17 (= “you have paid me in full,” Goodspeed), to which he immediately appends the twice repeated verb from vv. 11–12, “I am in plenty”! He starts the next sentence with the verb “I have been filled to the full,” which he repeats in v. 19 of God’s reciprocation, “God will fill you to the full.” His description of their gift as an “acceptable sacrifice” echoes the same metaphor used to refer to their suffering in 2:17 while the metaphor as a whole echoes the language of Epaphroditus’s “priestly ministry” on their behalf in 2:25 and 30. That God will “fill to the full” their “need,” picks up their ministering to his “need” in v. 16 (and 2:25); while the mention of God in the first position in v. 19, designated as “my God,” is picked up again, also in the first position but as “our God and Father,” in the doxology in v. 20. And God’s supplying their needs in keeping with his riches “in glory” leads to the doxology, where Paul ascribes “glory” to God through eternal ages. All together it is an altogether exquisite passage.

18 With a slightly contrastive “but”5 Paul finally (“at long last” for Western tastes) mentions their gift directly. And he says it expansively, piling up verbs at the beginning6 by which he indicates how richly his own needs have been met by their lavish generosity, and concluding with a change of metaphors expressing God’s pleasure over their gift. Apparently concluding the commercial/friendship metaphor, he thus begins, “I have received (payment) in full.”7 In this context that probably refers first of all to the matter of their “giving” and his “receiving,” hence “full payment.” If so, the language is metaphorical, pure and simple, indicating that his “receipt” of what they have “given” puts the “obligation” of friendship back on his side.

But his use of “all things” as the object of the verb, plus his immediately adding “and I abound,” seems equally intended to recall vv. 11–13. Paul, who knows both how to be “abased” and how to “abound,” has experienced both in his present imprisonment—“humiliation” from the imprisonment itself, the “abounding” at least in part from their gift, as he now acknowledges. Thus, he who has learned to be “content” in all situations “in Christ who empowers him,” can say, in acknowledgment of their generosity, “I have all things; indeed, I have more than enough.”

As clear indication that this passage is not “thankless,” Paul starts all over again, this time with the verb for “being filled to the full.”8 As the NIV puts it, and in keeping with the context, “I am amply supplied.” The rest of the verse modifies this verb, in two ways: first, by directly mentioning their gift(s) (lit., “the things from you”) and their agency (“having received [them] from Epaphroditus”); second, by describing the gift(s) with a metaphor from the OT sacrifices (“a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice”9), so as also to indicate divine approval with what they have done (“pleasing to God”10).

On Epaphroditus and his role in bringing their gift to Paul, see on 2:25–30. Paul has already referred to Epaphroditus’s “ministry” as a “priestly service” to Paul on their behalf. Here he spells out what that means with language borrowed directly from the LXX, used to indicate the interplay between the human and the divine in the sacrifices. The imagery is that of the burnt offering, which was understood as a “fragrant offering” to God. The picture is that of the “aroma” of the sacrificial fire wafting heavenward—into God’s “nostrils,” as it were. Properly offered, it becomes “an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to him.” This, Paul says, is what their gift has amounted to from the divine perspective.

In its own way this sentence thus responds directly to v. 17. Although he does not “seek the gift” as such, in fact he has received their gift and it has resulted in his now “having plenty.” What he does seek, he told them, is “an accrual of interest against your divine account.” That, he now tells them with this splendid shift of metaphors, is exactly what has happened. Their gift, which has met Paul’s material needs, has by that very fact pleased God, who from this point on becomes the focus of the rest of the passage.

19 The mention of God at the end of the preceding sentence leads directly to this final wrapup of his “rejoicing in the Lord” over their gift, which serves as evidence both of their care for him (v. 10) and their long-standing friendship with him (vv. 15–16). Friendship presupposes reciprocity, mutual giving and receiving. This sentence is a master stroke.11 Although he cannot reciprocate in kind, since their gift had the effect of being a sweet-smelling sacrifice, pleasing to God, Paul assures them that God, whom he deliberately designates as “my God,” will assume responsibility for reciprocity. Thus, picking up the language “my need” from v. 16 and “fill to the full” from v. 18, he promises them that “my God will fill up every need of yours.”

They obviously have the better of it! First, he promises that God’s reciprocation will cover “every need of yours,” especially their material needs, as the context demands—but also every other kind of need, as the language demands.12 One cannot imagine a more fitting way for this letter to conclude, in terms of Paul’s final word to them personally. In the midst of their “poverty” (2 Cor 8:2), God will richly supply their material needs. In their present suffering in the face of opposition (1:27–30), God will richly supply what is needed (steadfastness, joy, encouragement). In their “need” to advance in the faith with one mindset (1:25; 2:1–4; 4:2–3), God will richly supply the grace and humility necessary for it. In the place of both “grumbling” (2:14) and “anxiety” (4:6), God will be present with them as the “God of peace” (4:7, 9). “My God,” Paul says, will act for me in your behalf by “filling to the full all your needs.”13

And God will do so, Paul says, “in keeping with his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” The Philippians’ generosity toward Paul, expressed lavishly at the beginning of v. 18, is exceeded beyond all imagination by the lavish “wealth” of the eternal God, who dwells “in glory” full of “riches”14 made available to his own “in Christ Jesus.”15 God’s “riches” are those inherent to his being God, Creator and Lord of all; nothing lies outside his rightful ownership and domain. They are his “in glory” in the sense that his “riches” exist in the sphere of God’s glory, where God “dwells” in infinite splendor and majesty, the “glory” that is his as God alone.16 It is “in keeping with” all of this—not “out of” his riches, but in accordance with this norm,17 the infinite “riches” of grace that belong to God’s own glory—that God’s full supply will come their way to meet their every need. The language is deliberately expansive; after all, Paul is trying to say something concrete about the eternal God and God’s relationship to his people. That is why the final word is not the heavenly one, “in glory,” but the combined earthly and heavenly one, “in Christ Jesus.” Because Paul has beheld the “glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus” (2 Cor 4:6), expressed in this letter in the majestic Christ narrative in 2:6–11, Paul sees clearly that Christ Jesus is the way God has made his love known and available to his human creatures. This is what the letter has ultimately been all about. It began “in Christ Jesus”; it now concludes “in Christ Jesus.” Indeed, even the customary closing greetings focus on Christ Jesus. For Paul, “to live is Christ, to die is gain.” Thus the final word in the body of the letter proper is this one, “every need of yours in keeping with the wealth that is his in glory made available to you in Christ Jesus.”

This says it all; nothing more can be added.18 So Paul simply bursts into doxology before concluding with his customary greetings.

20 It is no wonder that Paul now concludes the preceding sentence with doxology. The indicative yields to the imperative of worship. When one thinks on the “riches of God” lavished on us in Christ Jesus, what else is there to do but to praise and worship? Christ is indeed the focus of everything that God has and is doing in this world and the next, but God the Father is always the first and last word in Paul’s theology. “My God” is now “our God and Father”; and the living God, the everlasting one, who belongs to the “ages of ages,”19 and who dwells “in glory,” is now ascribed the “glory” that is due his name.20 All of this, because the Philippians have sent him material assistance to help him through his imprisonment! True theology is doxology, and doxology is always the proper response to God, even—especially?—in response to God’s prompting friends to minister to friends.

This passage thus belongs to several such doxologies in the Pauline corpus, which come at varied moments and reflect Paul’s true theological orientation. The “amen” with which they conclude, taken over by Christians from the Jewish synagogue, is the last word, our “so be it,” not only to the doxology itself but especially to the ultimate eschatological words, “forever and ever.” This is our way of acknowledging that “glory to God forever and ever” is the way it is and will be, no matter what we do. So let us, God’s people in all times and climes, join the chorus.

C. CLOSING GREETINGS (4:21–23)

21Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings. 22All the saints send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar’s household.

23The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.1

As with most of his letters, and in keeping with the conventions of letter-writing in the Greco-Roman world, Paul concludes with the standard greetings (vv. 21–22) and a grace-benediction (v. 23).2 In this letter these are notably brief, most likely because of the nature of the preceding promise (v. 19) and doxology (v. 20)—after which anything longer would be intrusive.

Although the closing greetings take a variety of forms in Paul’s letters, frequently including the mention of people by name, cumulatively there are three basic components, all three of which occur here in their tersest expression:

1. The imperative to greet “all the saints” (which is his greeting to each of them).3

2. Greetings from his immediate companions.4

3. Where appropriate, greetings from other “saints” in his present location.5

The only elaboration, and only surprise, is the inclusion of “those who belong to Caesar’s household” in the final greeting. These kinds of greetings are one of the ways (the collection for the poor in Jerusalem was another) that Paul used to keep the various churches aware of and in touch with one another. In its own small way, therefore, it functions as a part of his concern for the “unity of the body of Christ.”

21a The imperative to “greet6 all the saints in Christ Jesus” is notable both for its uniqueness and brevity. For a community with whom he is on such friendly terms, one might have expected more. But the brevity is explicable both in terms of friendship—such letters in the Greco-Roman world are notable for their laconic closing greetings—and the preceding theological-doxological conclusion. Just as friends do not need to express thanks, neither do friends need elaborate greetings. And further greetings would detract from the words he most wants to leave with them—God’s glory out of which he lavishes riches on them in Christ Jesus, to whom all glory is now due.

On the meaning of “saint(s)” see on 1:1. Although it is arguable that at the end they come out at the same place, Paul does not in fact say, as the NIV has it, “greet all the saints”; rather, he has, “greet every saint.”7 Since he regularly uses the plural when he intends to refer to a congregation or group as a whole, his use of the singular here is deliberate, functioning in a kind of “distributive” way. The greeting is not to the community lumped together as a whole, but to each member of the community individually. He does not single anyone out, but he does greet each of them in this fashion. Thus, “greetings to each one of God’s people” (GNB).

What is less clear is the meaning of “in Christ Jesus,” which is similar to the ambiguous “in the Lord” in 1:14. Does Paul intend, “greet each of God’s people who belong to Christ Jesus” (GNB), or “give my greetings in Christ Jesus to every member” (NAB, cf. REB)? As in 1:14 the word order would seem to favor the former; but as there, that also creates an unusual—and unnecessary—redundancy. To be a “saint” is to be “in fellowship with Christ Jesus.” On the other hand, this phrase, which is especially frequent in this letter, usually modifies the verb in its sentence (although 4:19 is a notable exception). Most likely, therefore, Paul intends the greeting to find its locus “in Christ Jesus,”8 just as he has twice urged them to “rejoice in the Lord” (3:1; 4:4). In sum: Paul is sending his own greetings to each member of the believing community; they are to pass it on to one another for him, and the greeting is to be “in Christ Jesus,” who is both the source and focus of their common life together.

21b The next greeting comes from his immediate circle of associates, “the brothers who are with me.” His failure to mention names in this case has led to considerable speculation, especially since he mentions several by name in two other letters (presumably) from this captivity.9 We have already suggested on 2:20–21 and 4:3 that Luke had probably returned to Philippi. As to the others, we know nothing; indeed, we cannot be sure even about Luke. And speculation is not terribly helpful here, since we cannot be sure why he mentions names in other instances. In some cases it is almost certainly because they were known to the recipients; but that is not likely in every case.10 All we know is that just as he does not mention anyone in Philippi by name, neither does he mention any of his companions, even though this greeting makes it clear that some of them are still with him.11 In any case, it is in keeping with the terseness of these greetings.

22 The third in the series of greetings reaches out to the broader circle of believers in Rome. Here he does indeed say, “all the saints,” and he surely intends that, even if many of them would not so much as know they were being included—and in light of 1:15 and 17 some of those might not wish to be included! But they are all included simply because they all belong to one another, those in Rome to each other and those in Rome to those in Philippi as well.

But in this case Paul adds the intriguing, “especially12 those who belong to Caesar’s household.” Two matters are noteworthy. First, despite objections from those who hold a different view, this little phrase joins with the mention of “Praetorian Guard” in 1:13 as the strongest kind of evidence for the Roman origins of this letter. All objections to this must take the form of trying to gainsay a simple historical reality, namely, that both of these groups are especially “at home” in Rome; whereas one must look under all kinds of “stones” to turn up evidence for their existence in Ephesus or Caesarea.13 And to argue, as some do, that this does not necessarily mean the presence of Caesar’s household as such, but of people who were at one time members of that household, is both an unnatural reading of the text and fails to grasp the significance of this notation, which is the next point.

Second, and related to the first, the significance of this greeting could hardly be lost on the Philippian believers, opposition to whom in part at least stems from the fact that Philippi is a Roman colony, where devotion to Caesar had a long history.14 Besides having the gospel in common, and now suffering for Christ in common, Paul and the Philippians also have a common source of opposition. While the Philippians suffer at the hands of Roman citizens loyal to Caesar, Paul is an actual prisoner of Caesar. But in making him a prisoner at the heart of the empire, Rome has brought in a member of the “opposition” who is in the process of creating a “fifth column” within the very walls of the emperor’s domicile. Paul either has found15 or has made disciples of the “Lord” Jesus among members of the imperial household,16 who are thus on the Philippians’ side in the struggle against those who proclaim Caesar as Lord!

Paul is an indomitable apostle of Christ Jesus. Let him loose and he will be among those “who turn the world upside down” (Acts 17:6; a charge of sedition!) for his Christ; incarcerate him too close to home and he will “turn Caesar’s household upside down” as well. Thus, here is a word of encouragement to the Philippians in the midst of their present struggle. The “word of life” to which they hold firm in the midst of their “crooked and perverse generation” (2:15–16) has already penetrated the heart of the empire. They have brothers and sisters in Caesar’s own household, who are on their side and now send them greetings; and therefore the Savior whom they await (3:20) in the midst of their present struggle will gather some from Caesar’s household as well as from Caesar’s Philippi when he comes.

23 In all of the extant letters that bear Paul’s name, he signs off with this, or a similar, grace-benediction. The standard “good-bye” in Greek letters was errōso (lit., “be strong”), found in the NT in the letter of James (Acts 15:29). As with his salutations, Paul’s closing greetings are thus “christianized.” It is “grace,” the favor of God that is theirs through “the Lord Jesus,” that he wishes for them.17 What is common to all his letters is that the “grace,” when qualified,18 is from “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although “grace” is primarily from God in Paul’s letters,19 on a few occasions he attributes grace directly as from Christ.20 But in the grace-benedictions, it is invariably “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” that he “prays” will be with them. Thus the final grace serves to “book end” his letters, which begin with “grace (and peace)” as part of the greeting (see on 1:2). It is of some interest that where he also includes the wish of “peace” at the end, Paul always connects that with God the Father, as in 4:7 and 9.21 In effect, therefore, the “grace and peace” that appear as the opening greeting as “from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” are distinguished at the end as “the peace of God” and the “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This is one of four letters22 in which the ordinary “be with you” appears in the form “be with your spirits.”23 Reasons for this substitution are difficult to find. Three of the letters (Philemon, 2 Timothy, and this one) have in common that they are the most overtly affectionate of his letters. But that hardly accounts for its usage in Galatians (!), unless it is there as a kind of final offer of affection in a letter that otherwise bristles with distress. In the final analysis we must admit to not knowing why. What we do know is that the distributive singular, “with your (pl.) spirit (sing.),” in effect, as with the first of the greetings in v. 21, individualizes the grace-benediction, so that each of them (in the “spirit” of each) will experience the desired grace that is here prayed for.

On this note the letter comes to an end. One would hesitate to draw out too much theology from these more conventional closing formulas. But as noted at the beginning and elsewhere (e.g., 4:8, 11–13, 15–16) in Paul’s hand conventions are never merely conventional. Eventually everything, including these conventions, is brought under the influence of Christ and the gospel. Thus the final greetings, which by their threefold elaboration presuppose the church as the body of Christ, are to be given and received as “in Christ Jesus.” And the final grace is also “from the Lord Jesus Christ,” so that everything in this letter, from beginning to end and everywhere in between, focuses on Christ, who as Paul’s life (1:21) is magnified both in his language and in the two narratives that point specifically to him (Christ’s in 2:6–11 and Paul’s in 3:4–14). To miss this central focus on Christ is to miss the letter altogether, and to miss the heart of Pauline theology in particular.

To live is Christ; to die is to gain Christ; and for the sake of such “gain,” namely the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus as one’s own Lord, all else is merely refuse. Thus, may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all the readers of this letter, and with those who use this commentary to help better understand it as the Word of Christ.