1. E.g., in comparison with the preceding paragraph, there are considerably more first person verbs (9 to 3) and personal pronouns (8 to 4).
2. See the discussion of vv. 6 and 10 above, pp. 87–88, 102.
3. Especially so in light of 3:15–17, where exhortation to “imitation” immediately follows vv. 12–14, which emphasizes completing the race so as to obtain the prize. See also on v. 17 above, pp. 123–24, where a similar suggestion was made regarding the place of 1:15–17 in the letter.
4. See the Introduction, pp. 13–14; cf. on 1:3–8 above (p. 73).
5. P46 B 1175 1739 1881 Ambrosiaster read δέ. Although one is reluctant to go against this combination of witnesses, most likely the δέ is secondary here. If it were original, the preceding ἀλλά would seem to lose its genuinely contrastive force, and the clause ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι would then belong to v. 18 (as many hold [see n. 6 below]): “Christ is preached and in this I rejoice, indeed I shall rejoice. But I know …” The γάρ, which is by all counts the more difficult (otherwise, Kennedy, 426), and therefore original, reading, means that Paul has begun a new clause, giving reasons for his avowal of future joy: “… and in this I rejoice. And not only so, but I shall also rejoice, for I know that …” (cf. Hawthorne, 39; O’Brien, 107).
6. Otherwise, KJV, ASV, NASB, Meyer, Kennedy, Michael, Kent. A few (e.g., Vincent, 21–22; Jones, 16; Lohmeyer, 49; Beare, 60; Silva, 75) begin the new paragraph with v. 18. On this matter see n. 3 on 1:12–26.
7. Gk. σωτηρία, which in Paul always refers, directly or indirectly, to “eschatological salvation,” never “deliverance” (see on 1:28 and 2:12 below). For this latter idea Paul uses the verb ρύομαι, as in 2 Thess 3:2; 2 Cor 1:10 (3x); Rom 15:31; 2 Tim 4:17–18.
8. As in the NIV; cf. RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, GNB. See Hawthorne, 39–44, for the most recent advocacy of this view, which, despite the translations, is a decidedly minority view among commentaries.
9. It will be noted that this display, and the interpretation that follows, differs from that given in the NIV, which has taken considerable liberties with the text in this instance. Since the sentence is so dense, and its flow of thought not easy to follow under the best of circumstances, one may wish to return to this overview after working through the more detailed discussion that follows.
10. Otherwise Hawthorne, 39–43 (and Hofmann, according to Meyer), who understands this ὅτι as a second object clause with the verb “I know” (“I know that … , that …”). Besides putting considerable strain on this second ὅτι-clause (the absence of a preceding καί is esp. difficult), this seems to miss the point of the sentence as a whole.
11. This is especially so if the suggestion made below is correct, that the Philippians’ “salvation” in v. 28 is to be understood as in parallel to Paul’s in this sentence. Theirs is explicitly stated to be “from God.” The present sentence, therefore, is best understood as expressed in the divine passive, in which the passives (“will turn out,” “I will not be brought to shame,” “Christ will be magnified”) can be reformulated in the active with “God” as the subject.
12. Both the structure of the whole and the typical “not/but” clause by which it concludes indicate that the final “but” clause expresses the concern of the sentence.
13. This “tension” exists between what in v. 19 appears to be a positive expectation about the future, which at the end of v. 20 seems to be expressed with a measure of doubt (or at least of open-endedness). This tension exists especially for those who take the point of view about the main clause found in the NIV, which “resolves” the tension by a disjuncture between vv. 19 and 20 that is grammatically unjustifiable (by divorcing the prepositional phrase from the clause it modifies and thus starting a new sentence with the preposition!) and conceptually misleading (as though Paul expected “deliverance,” v. 19, but hoped in any case that Christ might be magnified, v. 20). Hawthorne’s resolution fares little better (see n. 10). While it is true that almost everyone would read v. 19 as referring to deliverance were it not for the ὅτι-clause, it is that clause which in fact tells us not to read v. 19 in this way.
14. For this translation of the ἀλλά, see M. Thrall, Greek Particles, 14; cf. BAGD, who note this usage as “ascensive,” to be explained elliptically (= and not only this [v. 18a] but also …).
15. On this question see esp. R. B. Hays, Echoes, who uses this text in his first chapter (pp. 21–24) as an illustration of such intertextuality, where Paul “echoes” the earlier text with its literary milieu, and thus seems to have transferred some of that setting to his own situation, but does so with some obvious contrasts between himself and—in this case—Job. This view, without the refinement of a later time, was first proposed by Michael, 46–48; cf. Gnilka, 65–66; Collange, 59; O’Brien, 108–9.
16. As in most cases, usually to support an argument.
17. For further illustrations in Paul, see Fee, Presence, 489–93 (on Rom 2:29) and 712–17 (on Eph 4:30).
18. This was often overlooked by earlier interpreters, because in this case we have no introductory formula (e.g., “Scripture says”). But the language is so precise, and the “settings” so similar, it is nearly impossible for Paul’s language to be mere coincidence.
19. Noted also by Gnilka, 67–68, and O’Brien, 114. This second instance, of course, is an “echo” of a slightly different kind, where in a less case-specific way than with the Job “citation” Paul echoes a repeated OT motif. See on v. 20.
20. In Paul’s sentence, therefore, the word σωτηρία carries in part its ordinary sense of “salvation before God,” but in this case, as in the LXX, in the special sense of the final vindication of the passion of Paul’s life, the gospel of Christ and therefore of Christ himself. See the discussion.
21. But the circumstances are surely analogous. Job’s cry for vindication/salvation stems from his suffering, which is made the more so by his “comforters”; his only recourse is to cry to God for vindication. Similarly, some would intensify Paul’s present suffering by their preaching Christ out of envy. That they fail in their effort to distress Paul does not make his appeal to God’s vindication/salvation any less a reflection of Job. Cf. Garland, “Defense,” 333.
22. Cf. Kennedy, 426. Many (Lightfoot, Vincent, Plummer, Jones, Hawthorne, O’Brien, Melick) see it as pointing backward (to all of vv. 12–18b), but this would seem to require the plural ταῦτα (which Meyer, 42, skirts by making it refer to the ἐν τούτῳ of v. 18 [= Christ’s being proclaimed in every way], which makes little sense of the present sentence). The NIV takes considerable liberty in translating τοῦτο “what has happened to me,” which not only seems to require ταῦτα, but also adds a “to me” that is not justifiable under any circumstances.
23. So Gnilka, Collange, Bruce, Silva, O’Brien, Melick.
24. So also Hendriksen.
25. It should be further noted that the reflective soliloquy that follows offers further evidence that Paul’s concern is not with “getting out of prison,” but exactly as in vv. 12–18: that whether released or not, Christ will be glorified, and for Paul that could happen through his death as well as by his life. Besides, he will go on, “as for myself personally, if I could choose, death would be preferable because that would mean finally to have ‘gained Christ,’ but in reality I have no choice, and life will be better for you, because that will mean growth and joy for you.” That is hardly the reflection of one whose “ardent hope” is to be delivered from prison.
26. Even though δεήσεως is singular, this is the proper understanding of what is almost certainly a “distributive singular.” See the discussion, inter alia, on Gal 6:18 in Fee, Presence, 469. The word order τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως is striking. The ὑμῶν has probably been brought forward for clarity and emphasis (on their role in his experiencing a fresh supply of the Spirit); cf. Meyer, 43; O’Brien, 111 (see also the discussion of the “vernacular possessive” [“my joy”] on 2:2).
27. The two nouns (“prayers” and “supply”) serve as compound objects of one preposition with one definite article. Cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 59: “The use of but one article before a number of nouns indicates that they are conceived as forming a certain unity … In Php 1:19 … the use of … one article shows that in the writer’s mind the prayers of the faithful and the ἐπιχορηγία τοῦ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ were intimately connected.” Otherwise Meyer, 43, and Vincent, 24; but Paul’s way of distinguishing between the two is by bringing the ὑμῶν forward (see preceding n.).
28. Gk. ἐπιχορηγία, whose cognate verb appears in Eph 4:16 (“with which it is supplied,” RSV), where M. Barth, Ephesians, 448, has convincingly shown that the normal meaning (“supply”) is both lexically and contextually to be preferred (cf. Col 2:19; 2 Cor 9:10). There is some debate in the literature as to whether the compound form (ἐπιχορηγία) implies generous supply. Lightfoot, Michael, Beare, and Motyer are so inclined; Vincent thinks not. Most do not mention the possibility. This is more difficult to determine, since both the noun and its cognate verb appear infrequently in the extant literature. In any case, if it does not imply “generous,” all known uses do suggest “full” or “adequate” supply.
29. See e.g. NIV, RSV, GNB, JB, NAB, Phillips, Hawthorne.
30. One can trace the evolution of this meaning through Bauer and the commentators (see esp. Müller, 58 n. 2, and Hendriksen, 74 n. 50; both of whom move from “supply” to “help” without offering lexical evidence). Convinced that the Spirit is the subject of the verbal idea in this noun, and having difficulty offering an object to the translation, “through the Spirit’s supply,” the evolution was an easy one. Since the verb is used in the papyri in marriage contracts, where husbands promise to “provide for” their wives, the English word “support” in this financial sense came to be used (indeed, this is the only meaning offered in BAGD). The next step, from “support” to “help” or “aid,” seemed only natural—but in English (and German [Bauer]), one might add! There is simply no evidence for such a meaning in the Greek materials.
31. It needs to be pointed out that the English word “help,” which almost never carries such a nuance, has to do with coming to someone’s aid. One would not deny that when the rich provide for the poor, or a husband contracts to provide for his wife (two of the specific uses in the literature; see 1 Clem 38:2 and the papyri cited by M-M, 251), in that sense the recipients are being helped. But the nuance of this word is not with the idea of helping, but with the “provision” or “supply” itself.
32. Moffatt’s translation has thus captured the sense: “and as I am provided with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”
33. One needs to emphasize this point, over against the decided majority of commentators who argue for a subjective genitive. The evidence in this case seems overwhelming, especially since the word is such a rare one, yet Paul himself uses it in precisely this way in the only other instance where “supply” and “Spirit” stand in juxtaposition. Those who argue for a subjective genitive tend to dismiss this one piece of solid Pauline evidence much too casually (e.g., Eadie). An objective (or, similarly but less likely, appositional) genitive is also adopted (or allowed as probable), inter alia, by Moule, 23; Michael, 49; Lohmeyer, 52; Bruce, 53; Motyer, 85; Silva, 79 (cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 59; Wiles, Prayers, 280). Lightfoot, followed by Michael, argued for both meanings (gift and giver).
34. Although in the final analysis that idea cannot be lingering very far behind. What we must not do, however, is to let our own theological proclivities invent meanings for Paul that would have been foreign to him. Paul had none of our hang-ups over whether a Spirit person can “receive the Spirit.” Cf. the objection voiced by Meyer, 43, which seems to lie unexpressed behind that of others: “as genitive of object … the expression would be inappropriate, since Paul already has the Spirit” (emphasis his). Some have also argued for an analogy with the Johannine Paraclete, as the one who comes alongside to aid the believer. But here is a clear case where John can be of very little help in understanding Paul. If Paul’s language does not work well for us, it did for Paul. He could not imagine the Spirit in static terms. Hence he can refer to believers’ being “given” the Spirit (1 Thess 4:8), or being “supplied” with the Spirit (Gal 3:5; here), or of fanning the Spirit into flame (2 Tim 3:6). For Paul the resident Spirit is ever being given or “supplied” anew in the believer’s or community’s life. So here. Paul knows his own need of the Spirit in a fresh way if Christ is to be magnified in him personally in the soon-to-be-unfolding events of his present imprisonment. Cf. the discussion in Fee, Presence, 52–53, 864.
35. In fact, this exact phrase is found only here in Paul. On two other occasions he refers to the Spirit as “of Christ” (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:9), but in neither instance with the full name.
36. So Eadie, 45; Michael, 49; Kent, 117; Collange, 60; O’Brien, 111.
37. Very much as in Gal 4:6, where God is said to have sent forth “the Spirit of his Son.”
38. It needs further to be pointed out that when Paul reflects on the Spirit as helper he invariably speaks in terms of the Spirit of God.
39. Cf. Meyer 43. This seems much more likely than the more theological explanation offered, e.g., by Eadie, that the genitive is of origin or source; thus the Spirit is bestowed by the exalted Lord; cf. Michael 49.
40. Cf. Barth, 34, “the Spirit … is the Lord in Person.”
41. Hamilton (Holy Spirit, 12, 35) offers the improbable suggestion, without argument or lexical support, that Paul sees the Spirit as God’s “equipment … against losing his relationship with Christ in the face of death” (12).
42. Gk. ἀποκαραδοκίαν; cf. Rom 8:19 (“the eagerly awaiting creation”), its only other use in the NT. A great deal more ink has been spilt over this word than seems warranted by the context. Both the Romans passage and the present context rule out the nuance of “anxiety” suggested as possible by G. Bertram, “Ἀποκαραδοκία,” and followed by Gnilka, 67, and Collange, 60. See the refutation by D. R. Denton, “Ἀποκαραδοκία”; cf. H. Balz, EDNT, 1.132–33. On this matter Bloomquist (Function, 153–54), despite the general failure of his rhetorical analysis, is quite right that the whole passage breathes confidence, not anxiety.
43. So Hawthorne, 41; cf. O’Brien, 113.
44. Which functions grammatically as the object of the verbal idea in the noun “hope.” Cf. the similar usage in 2 Cor 10:15, where the infinitive μεγαλυνθῆναι (the same verb that appears figuratively in our clause, “may be magnified [= glorified]”) functions as the object of the noun “hope” (“we have hope … that our sphere of activity among you will be magnified [= enlarged]”).
45. Not as some have it (e.g., Vincent, Plummer, Craddock), between “shame” and “boldness,” on the basis of 1 Jn 2:28. This misses Pauline usage by too much, as if the contrast had to do with “fear” and “courage.”
46. Gk. ἐν οὐδενί, which in this clause means something close to “in no respect, in no possible way.”
47. So Moffatt: “that I may never feel ashamed”; cf. Beare, 62. This sounds altogether too Western. It is also unlikely that the GNB’s “I shall never fail in my duty,” defended by Loh-Nida (30) as a “dynamic equivalent,” is even remotely possible.
48. Cf. the entry by J. Oswalt in TWOT, 1.97–98.
49. Esp. so in light of Paul’s use of the unusual verb μεγαλύνω (ordinarily = “make large,” thus “magnify”), which is used throughout the Psalter with the nuance it carries here of “exalt, glorify, praise, extol.” In its only other appearance in Paul (2 Cor 10:15; see n. 44), it carries its ordinary sense.
50. Note esp. Ps 34:3–5, which begins, “O magnify (μεγαλύνατε) the Lord with me,” which after speaking of seeking the Lord and being delivered (ἐρρύσατο in this case, see n. 7), he continues, “Look to him and be radiant, so your faces shall never by ashamed (καταισχυνθῇ)” (NRSV). In Psalm 35 those who “magnify” themselves will be brought to “shame”; whereas those who seek the Psalmist’s “vindication” will say, “Let the Lord be ‘magnified.’ ” Cf. Gnilka, 67; O’Brien, 114.
51. For the meaning of this verb see nn. 44, 49, 50.
52. Gk. ἐν; see Wedderburn, “Observations,” 85, who classifies the preposition as “modal” in this case, i.e., reflecting accompanying circumstance or manner.
53. Gk. πάσῃ (= in every kind of), standing in stark contrast to ἐν οὐδενί (n. 46); cf. Vincent, 26 (“every way in which boldness can manifest itself”). This contrast also rules out the alleged contrast between “shame” and “boldness” noted above (n. 45).
54. Gk. παρρησία; see the discussions in NIDNTT, 2.724–37 (H.-C. Hahn) and EDNT, 3.45–47 (H. Balz).
55. It is doubtful that this phrase can properly bear the sense of the NIV (“sufficient courage”; cf. GNB, “full of courage”). The nuance has to do with “forthrightness; frankness of speech,” not with courage, as that word is traditionally understood (= over against cringing or fear).
56. See, e.g., 1 Cor 4:4–5; 2 Cor 4:10; Rom 8:28–30.
57. Cf., e.g., GNB, “with my whole being.” Despite O’Brien (115) to the contrary, there is no known linguistic justification for this translation. The idea that “body” in Paul functions as an anthropological term, very much like ψυχή (“soul”), was propounded especially by R. Bultmann (NT Theology, 1.194–95); J. A. T. Robinson (Body); and E. Schweizer, TDNT, 7.1065–66. Even though this became a byword in NT studies, it does not hold up well under close exegetical scrutiny. See esp. the refutation in R. H. Gundry, SŌMA; cf. the exegesis of key texts, such as 1 Cor 6:13–14 (Fee, First Corinthians, 254–56) and Rom 12:1 (Fee, Presence, 589 n. 372).
58. See v. 26 below; cf. Gal 1:16, 24; 1 Tim 1:16.
59. So inter alia, Vincent, 25; Silva, 80.
60. Gk. διά, normally, as here, indicating secondary agency. The Spirit is to be understood as the primary agent; but it will happen “through” Paul, whether he is released or condemned.
61. All the available evidence indicates that he expects to be released. In this letter, 1:24–26; 2:24; cf. Phlm 22.
62. As suggested by Bertram and others (cf. Houlden, 61); see n. 42 above.
1. Besides some minor variants in this verse (P46 et al. omit μᾶλλον), the evidence is divided as to the presence or absence of γὰρ (“for”), which is found in an impressive array of early and significant witnesses (P46 
1 A B C 6 33 81 104 326 365 1175 1241s 1739 1881 pc vgmss Augustine; NA26 with brackets). Despite the brackets in NA26, the external evidence for its inclusion is especially good; and here is a place where one can well understand its omission by scribes, since it thereby offers a text in keeping with the translation in the NIV. Most likely with this phrase Paul is explaining his preference for death: “for this is better by far.” But see Lightfoot, 93–94, who observes, “a reading which comes to the relief of a disjointed syntax must be regarded with suspicion.”
2. This reflects the ἐν found in P46 B D F G Maj (in brackets in NA26); it is lacking in A C P Ψ 6 33 81 1739 2495 al Clement. Although something of a toss-up in terms of supporting witnesses, one can make a stronger case for a secondary “addition” on the basis of the ἐν σαρκί in v. 22 than for an “omission” (on the basis of the article?). However, some interpreters who adopt the reading without ἐν make too much of the difference between this usage and that in v. 22, which in this case is probably a matter of usage pure and simple (the verb ἐπιμενεῖν regularly takes the dative, thus not calling for an ἐν).
3. Note the emphatic ἐμοί with which the sentence begins (= “as far as I personally am concerned”).
4. That is, following the unmistakable ring of confident expectation about Christ’s being glorified, one might have expected this particular theme to be elaborated in some way. According to Meyer (47) Weiss interpreted v. 21 this way, as justifying his joy (v. 18), a view that Jones (20) also allows.
5. Note the explanatory γάρ with which v. 21 begins, which is all too easily overlooked in our gnomic citation of this sentence. Michael (53) finds the “for” unclear and thus tries to justify Moffatt’s translating it out.
6. Thus Kennedy (428) rightly points out that this verse is the direct result of Paul’s having said, “or through death”; cf. Lohmeyer, Barth, Silva.
7. This is surely Paul’s point, not some lesser concern about his deep emotion or about his desire to be released from present suffering (as, e.g., Palmer, “ ‘To Die’,” followed by Garland, “Defense,” 334, and Hawthorne, 45–46). A longing for release from hardship is a note that cannot be found elsewhere in Paul’s letters, nor in this one; indeed, it is altogether foreign to the context and to the theme of joy that pervades the whole. Palmer’s case is based on an impressive array of texts from hellenistic writers who talk of death as “gain,” because present life is “full of toil” and wearisome, and they want release from it. But there is no hint of “human toil” in this passage, nor in all of Philippians, in which Paul’s eschatological framework and future orientation determine everything. See the Introduction, pp. 50–52. This is not to remove the “human factor” from Paul, but it is to argue that evidence from “parallels,” when there is no internal evidence for Paul’s use of such, must not dictate over the clear evidence from both the immediate context and the letter as a whole. Such a view hardly squares with Paul’s “glorying in suffering” (Rom 5:3), or with his desire to “know Christ” by participation in his sufferings (Phil 3:10), or with the totally christological focus of this passage. So also Beare, 62; O’Brien, 123.
8. Those of us in a predominantly reading culture sometimes forget that for most early believers these words were primarily experienced by hearing them read, not by reading (see the Introduction, p. 16). The assonance between κέρδος and Χριστός could hardly have been missed. Four consonants correspond (ch/k, r, t/d, s), with only one vowel/consonant transposition (ri/er) and an additional sigma in the first syllable.
9. On the folly of making too much of this aorist (vis-ō-vis the present ζῆν), as some do (e.g., Lightfoot, Martin, Hawthorne), see Silva, 82–83. Here is a clear example of “much ado about nothing,” since these are the natural “tenses” with these two verbs in Greek. Living has continuity; death happens at a point in time. There is simply no further “meaning” to this ordinary usage.
10. Cf. Gal 2:20, “I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me; and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.” But Barth, 37 (cf. Haupt; Schmitz, “Verständnis”; Dibelius; Hanhart, Intermediate State; Hoffmann, Toten), goes too far in making Gal 2:20 the primary commentary on the present passage, and thus to see the infinitive “to live” to denote “life” in its more comprehensive sense as “(spiritual) life in Christ.” Despite its theological attractiveness, this view has very little to commend it contextually. See the larger discussion and refutation in O’Brien, 119–22. The place to find “definition” for this first line is not in Galatians, but in Philippians itself (as Hendriksen, 76, also notes). A. J. Droge (n. 37), on the other hand, in order to make his interpretation of vv. 22–23 work (that Paul is contemplating suicide), suggests that the meaning of this clause (“for me to live is Christ”) is problematic, “while there is no doubt about the interpretation of its counterpart [to die is gain]” (280), an interpretation which in itself seems especially problematic.
11. I put it this way because this is the metaphor he will use with the Philippians (1:27; 3:20); both he and they are citizens of the empire, but both are now in a bit of trouble because they acclaim a higher citizenship.
12. But see Barth, who because of his view of the first line (see n. 10 above) contests that v. 23 serves as “commentary” for this line. Others (e.g., Lohmeyer, Collange, Martin, Loh-Nida; O’Brien is open to it) suggest on the basis of vv. 19–20 and the use of καρπός in v. 22, plus the use of this word for evangelism in 1 Cor 9:19–22, that Paul here sees his death as “gain” for the gospel. But that seems too obscure to have merit. How would the Philippians have known this usage from 1 Corinthians, one wonders; and this sentence begins with an emphatic “for me,” meaning “for me personally,” not “for the sake of the gospel.”
13. This is contested by Palmer (“ ‘To Die’ ”) and those who follow him (see n. 7), who sees it as borrowed language, indicating death as a welcome relief from human drudgery. One need not doubt that Paul knew of this kind of language in the world around him; but both the assonance and the usage in 3:8, where he returns to this language to speak of “gaining Christ” in the “already” (cf. Motyer, 87), not to mention the radically different sense Paul gives it, are reasons enough to doubt that these parallels have any significance for understanding Paul. Even less viable is the suggestion made by earlier interpreters that Paul is here reflecting a position over against the foolish in Wis 3:1–3, since there are no linguistic parallels of any kind, and in any case there is considerable doubt whether Paul knew or used the Wisdom of Solomon. On this question see further, Fee, Presence, 911–13.
14. And certainly not with a view toward martyrdom, as Lohmeyer suggests.
15. See Fee, First Corinthians, on 3:21–23 and 15:55, for this perspective in Paul.
16. Gk. ἐν σαρκί, a very flexible Pauline word whose meaning here falls somewhere on a spectrum between “body” and “humanity in its creatureliness,” both meanings going back to the OT. Some have suggested that Paul adds the phrase following v. 21 to indicate that “life” in v. 21 is not limited to life in the physical body and that death therefore does not bring “life” to an end. Perhaps, but in any case, it refers here to “bodily, physical” existence with no pejorative overtones.
17. Gk. καρπὸς ἔργου; the NIV has properly captured the sense of the genitive, which Beekman-Callow (Translating, 264) describe in terms of “result-reason,” where the one event (fruit) is the result of the other (labor). For a similar use of the metaphor “fruit,” see 1 Cor 3:6–8; Rom 1:13. Some have suggested that the phrase means to “reap the fruit of past labor”; but everything in the context, and esp. vv. 24–25, speaks against it.
18. Gk. τὸ ζῆν, which is clearly anaphoric, i.e., picking up the exact phrasing of the previous sentence and elaborating on it.
19. See n. 28 below for the meaning of this verb.
20. Cf. NIV, NRSV, REB (contra NEB), NAB, Moffatt; cf. Kennedy, Michael, Hendriksen, O’Brien.
21. Cf. GNB, NJB; this view was held by most early interpreters (e.g., Chrysostom, Calvin); it is also held by Lightfoot (hesitantly), Meyer (vigorously), Vincent, Jones, Bonnard, Gnilka, Collange, Loh-Nida, Bruce, Silva, Melick.
22. E.g., NEB, NASB, NJB; cf. most interpreters, who opt for the second position.
23. That is, in contrast to the second line of v. 21. Thus the NJB: “but then death would be a positive gain. On the other hand again, if to be alive in the body gives me an opportunity for fruitful work …” Against this is the striking repetition of the infinitive τὸ ζῆν, which certainly looks as though Paul were about to pick up on both ends of v. 21.
24. Other options have been suggested: Lightfoot, 92–93, makes it more interrogative, “But what if my living in the flesh will bear fruit, then …” Vincent and Hawthorne offer a slight moderation of option (b): “If ‘to live’ in the flesh, if this means fruitful labor.” Michael, 56, elides the offending lines; but that is a counsel of despair.
25. For two reasons: (1) the τοῦτο in the second clause is emphatic, and thus seems more likely to point to the option itself (= to live in the flesh, this …), while at the same time serving as a form of “then”; in the other option the pronoun is not only unnecessary, but cumbersome in the highest degree (Meyer’s and Vincent’s appeal that it is emphatic regarding “to live in the flesh” is hardly helpful, since there is no analogy for such a thing in Paul); (2) the καί that begins the next clause does not function well as a “then,” and has no analogies in the Pauline corpus (some have suggested 2 Cor 2:2, but as Lightfoot points out, the analogy does not hold). Melick, 85 n. 97, recognizes these difficulties but still opts for it as having “fewer difficulties.” This seems strange, since the only difficulty with the first option is discomfort over two elliptical sentences, whereas in any case everyone must assume one.
26. Hence the “for me” in the second clause.
27. On this matter see n. 38 below.
28. Gk. γνωρίζω, which he regularly uses in the formula, “I make known to you” (1 Cor 12:3; 15:1; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1:11; cf. Col 4:7, 9; Eph 6:21 [of Tychicus]). Elsewhere he uses it of divine disclosure (Rom 9:22, 23; 16:26; Col 1:27; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 5, 10). This is the only place where it borders on the sense of “I do not know,” preferred by Lightfoot. Most interpreters opt for its regular meaning here (“I do not make known [to you]”; so Kennedy, Vincent, Jones, Hendriksen; cf. REB; M-M; Z-G, 594); but the difficulty with this view is its contradictory nature, since in vv. 23–24 he does make it known to them. Some of these suggest “I cannot tell” in a less colloquial sense, of his not being able to reveal it (esp. Lohmeyer, O’Brien). But that presses language too much, not to mention misses the context. As v. 23 makes clear, Paul has nothing to hide as far as his own preference is concerned.
29. Suggested, inter alia, by Kennedy, Z-G (594; cf. REB).
30. Cf. T. E. Dailey, “To Live,” 19: “Each of these very real possibilities has a value of its own.”
31. The net result is a piece of (not pure) chiasmus:
A If “life” in the flesh it is to be, then that means “fruitful labor,”
B which would put me in a real quandary, if I had to choose between the two.
B′ If I could choose, it would be “death,” hands down,
A′ but since there is no choice (but God’s), it means “fruitful labor” among you.
This is not true chiasm, since line B does not actually mention “death.” But if our analysis is correct, then Paul’s preference for “death” vis-ō-vis the obvious advantages of “life” is what creates the quandary. Hence item B picks up “death” in this extended sense.
32. Cf. Dailey, “To Live or Die,” who likewise recognizes the combination of these realities as the key to our understanding Paul’s “dilemma.”
33. A considerable literature has sprung up on Paul’s use of σύν with “Christ,” stemming in part from J. Dupont’s “ΣΨΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ,” and in part from W. Grundmann, TDNT, 7.766–97. It is thus suggested by many that this is a “unique phrase, coined by Paul,” which, although it has some flexibility in usage, here means “in fellowship with Christ” as over against merely being “together with” Christ (see the discussions in Collange, 66–67; Hawthorne, 49–50; O’Brien, 133–37). But one wonders, even if Paul intended this subtlety, how the Philippians could have so understood it. Why should they think that σύν with Χριστῷ has a more profound sense than with ἐμοί in 2:22 or 4:21, or with ἐπισκόποις in 1:1? This is surely to find a “theology of prepositions” where none exists. For a similar usage in Paul, see 1 Thess 4:17 and 5:11. These all mean “in association with,” not “in fellowship with,” as in Rom 6:1–11, where a considerably different concern is being expressed, and where this latter nuance of σύν is not subtle but is inherent to the argument.
34. Gk. πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον, a remarkable compounding of superlatives. There can be little question where Paul’s sympathies lie.
35. Hawthorne (48) argues for the two infinitives (ἀναλῦσαι/ἐπιμένειν) both to be objects of Paul’s desire, by way of one εἰς. But that puts too much pressure on the clearly contrastive δέ of v. 24, which in this view must function as a καί.
36. Gk. συνέχομαι, which in the active originally meant “held together, sustained,” but moved toward a variety of cognate meanings (“press hard, crowd, hold in custody”) and in unfavorable circumstances toward “attack, distress, torment.” For this verse BAGD offer “I am hard pressed (to choose) between the two.” The NIV has given it a nice idiomatic flavor.
37. Cf. Lightfoot, 92, “if I consulted my own longings.” Contra A. J. Droge, “Mori Lucrum,” who argues that to take v. 22 seriously we must allow that Paul was contemplating suicide. But that seems methodologically in reverse, since the rest of the passage, and the letter as a whole, hardly allow such a view. This fails to take seriously Paul’s understanding of apostleship—and of discipleship in general—in which one’s longing to know Christ includes “participation in his sufferings,” because of one’s equal certainty of the resurrection. Paul has spent his whole Christian life living in happy tension between the “already” and “not yet.” Nothing in this letter suggests that he is now ready to bail out of the “already” so as to hasten the “not yet.”
38. Not all see it this way, of course. Besides idiosyncratic views put forward by, inter alia, Collange (n. 17 on v. 12), Palmer (n. 7), Droge (n. 37), Reeves (n. 39), the predominant view, based on Paul’s language suggesting difficulty in “choosing” between life and death, plus this especially strong verb, is that Paul is here expressing “a genuine dilemma” (the language is Martin’s [77], but the sentiment occurs throughout the literature; cf. Dailey [“To Live,” 19], “personal turmoil and emotion”), as though Paul were faced with a real choice and that in this dilemma he prefers death but yields instead to the divine necessity of obligation. This interpretation, however, becomes especially problematic when one comes to vv. 24–26, where Paul expresses unquestioned confidence that he will be released—which is expressed even more forthrightly in 2:24 (“I am confident in the Lord that I will come soon”).
Various ploys have been entertained to get around what is now our dilemma over this kind of alleged contradiction. See esp. in this regard O’Brien, 138–39, who suggests that Paul’s “confidence” in vv. 25–26 has not to do with his release as such, but “that his presence will be a blessing to the Philippians in the future if he is to be released.” That seems far less confident than Paul himself is. (It is of some interest that 2:24 is not mentioned in O’Brien’s entire discussion of this passage.) To read this as a Pauline dilemma misses both the immediate context and that of the letter as a whole. Methodologically, one should begin with what is unmistakable, that Paul clearly expects to be released (as in 2:24, which makes no allowance for “if”). That means that we need to take the present “reflection,” including its very strong language, as the “soliloquy” that it really is, which arose not because Paul has such strong emotions over whether or not to live or die, but because in v. 20 he had opened the possibility that he could in fact be executed. In light of that possibility, he reflects on his own future in terms of “whether through life or through death.” Although apparently reflecting on “life” or “death” in the abstract, in reality he is pondering what it would mean for him to be either released or executed.
The only real question, then, is why this emotion, when in fact he faces no real dilemma at all? The answer to which, I suggest, lies with the Christocentric focus and eschatological framework that governs all of Paul’s life and thinking—and with the paradigmatic value of this perspective for the situation in which the Philippians find themselves. That is, since Christ is everything for him (his Christocentric focus), the possibility of his soon gaining the eschatological prize of “knowing Christ” fully and finally (see on 3:12–14)—by means of Roman execution—causes him to “yearn” for the realization of the prize. But eschatological yearning should not be interpreted as an “existential dilemma,” since he has none. What gives the language its force is his desire to rekindle eschatological longings in his Philippian brothers and sisters (as 3:15–21 makes clear).
39. A matter that is correctly seen by R. R. Reeves, “To Be,” but who still insists on a genuine choice as confronting Paul, which he resolves in terms of Paul’s refusing to use the Philippian gift as a means of buying his way out of prison—to their chagrin, which is what he is trying now to explain to them. As intriguing as this option is, in order to make it work Reeves must offer up too many moments of questionable exegesis (e.g., “to be with Christ” = to be with him in Philippi on his release).
40. Cf. Lincoln (Paradise, 103–6) for a helpful discussion of this passage, who correctly sees the resolution to lie in the tension that exists inherently in Paul’s “already but not yet” eschatological framework.
41. Gk. τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν, a word that in Paul is primarily pejorative, having to do with “desiring something forbidden” (BAGD). The usage here is similar to that in 1 Thess 2:17; cf. Gal 5:17, where the Spirit has “desires” that stand in utter opposition to those (evil desires) of the “flesh.” To make it pejorative here (as Bonnard and Collange do) is to allow predominant usage (exceptions belie Collange’s “always”) dictate over context, which is methodologically suspect (so Bruce, 54).
42. The bibliography here is large. For an earlier, and very useful, discussion, see G. Vos, Eschatology, 136–50; see also L. S. Thornton, Christ and the Church, 137–40; O. Cullmann, Immortality, 48–57; C. F. D. Moule, “Influence”; idem, “St Paul and Dualism”; K. Hanhart, Intermediate State; R. H. Gundry, SŌMA, 147–56; C. J. De Vogel, “Reflexions”; Lincoln, Paradise, 103–6.
43. Gk. ἀναλῦσαι, used literally for “breaking camp” or of a ship’s “loosing from its moorings”; but found in several Greek authors as a metaphor for death (cf. 2 Tim 4:8, where the cognate noun occurs). De Vogel (“Reflexions,” 264) rightly points out that both the metaphor in itself and Paul’s language in 2 Cor 5:1 demonstrate that what Paul desires is “to leave the body and be with Christ.”
44. This is said equally clearly in 2 Cor 5:8: “to be ‘absent from the body’ is to be ‘present with the Lord,’ ” a passage which also implies a period in which one is with the Lord in “body-less” existence.
45. Most would say the issue is over “the intermediate state,” but this very language assumes a perspective “from below” that is determined by our inability to think of existence apart from the category of “time.” See the ensuing discussion. For a helpful overview of the issues involved in this discussion (intermediate state), including the question not addressed here at all, as to whether Paul’s thinking on these matters went through stages of development, see L. J. Kreitzer, “Intermediate State,” DPL, 438–41.
46. Cf. 1 Thess 4:14, 16; 1 Cor 15:51, 52.
47. Cf. De Vogel, “Reflexions.”
48. But this is a tension of our making, not of Paul’s, as 3:20–21 in this letter verifies. These two ideas rest easily side by side in Paul because “being with Christ” at death is not the final goal; resurrection is. But the former is nonetheless “gain” to Paul, precisely because Christ is the beginning and end of all for Paul.
49. The language is that of Lincoln (Paradise, 106).
50. Gk. ἐπιμενεῖν; cf. μενῶ and παραμενῶ in v. 25. This verb conveys the sense of “staying on.”
51. Gk. ἀναγκαιότερον. As suggested above (v. 22) this is neither Paul’s “choice” nor “necessity” laid on him by his being set free; rather, it reflects the similar usage in 1 Cor 9:16, where his ministry is not by “free choice” under any circumstances, but has been laid on him by “divine necessity.” Thus he is not yielding up his “dilemma” to God’s choice, as it were, but indicating that God’s choice means his “dilemma” was purely hypothetical after all, no matter how much he may have wished it be real.
52. On this matter, see Fee, Presence, 803–6, 896–903.
1. The MajT, with no early support, reads συμπαραμενῶ, which puts the emphasis on remaining with the Philippians. Meyer, 10, adopts the reading for the sake of an idiosyncratic understanding of the clause (see n. 11 below).
2. Indeed, although probably not intentional and lacking the complexity, this sentence has several formal similarities to the sentence with which the section began (vv. 18b-20). Besides the fact that the larger part of both sentences is the object of οἶδα, the content of what Paul “knows” in both cases is in two clauses, the first modified by (only one in this instance) a compound prepositional phrase, and the latter modified by three phrases.
3. This is a clear telic use of εἰς. For this combination of εἰς followed by a ἵνα clause, see 1 Cor 5:5 (and the discussion in Fee, First Corinthians). In this construction the only true purpose clause is the final one (the ἵνα clause); the prepositional phrase with εἰς expresses prior purpose or result, hence in this case the penultimate reason, which gives way to the ultimate reason of “boasting in Christ Jesus.”
4. The section thus ends similarly to how it began (in v. 12) and how the prayer-report concluded (in v. 11): on the note of “progress”—theirs in this case—and of “glorying”—in “Christ Jesus” in this case (rather than “God”).
5. I do not now know to whom I am indebted for this expressive phrase.
6. E.g., 1:27–2:18 is concerned especially with their “progress” regarding the gospel in the face of opposition in Philippi and in light of some internal unrest; it concludes by noting that even though their “faith” is currently undergoing stress because of suffering (2:17), they should nonetheless rejoice (v. 18). The next major section (3:1–4:3) is then framed by the imperative to “rejoice in the Lord,” as it takes up the issue of their remaining steadfast in their faith in Christ, by maintaining their focus on the future (hence their “progress” in the faith).
7. Gk. καὶ τοῦτο πεποιθώς. The NIV typically translates out the “and,” which is fine for reading, but misses the close connection to vv. 23–24. On the verb see on v. 14 (cf. v. 6) above (n. 41).
8. Which is exactly how he expresses it again in 2:24 (πέποιθα ἐν κυρίῳ).
9. As to whether it happened or not depends in part on how one interprets the Pastoral Epistles. In any case, it is probably too skeptical to argue from our hindsight that we know better than Paul would have and thus to deny that he was in fact released, when 2:24 implies that he has every good reason to believe that he will—and there is no evidence that he was not!
10. Gk. μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ (cf. ἐπιμένω, v. 24), which could otherwise be synonyms (the second expressing a slight intensification), but here must be nuanced toward “remaining alive” and “abiding with you,” especially because of the way the second is qualified. Lightfoot suggests “bide and abide,” but that is now too archaic to be helpful. Some (Lohmeyer, Bonnard, Martin) take the (altogether unlikely) view that the second verb emphasizes that Paul expects to remain until the Parousia.
11. Meyer, 54, who is not often given to such idiosyncrasies, adopts the reading συμπαραμενῶ (see n. 1) and understands Paul to be saying, “I shall with you be preserved in temporal life.”
12. See on vv. 1, 4, and 7 above, esp. the comments on “all the saints” in v. 1.
13. So also Lohmeyer, 67; Hendriksen, 79, suggests the improbable view that Paul intends more than the church in Philippi.
14. Gk. εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως. For this very compressed phrase Pauline usage is decisive: the single preposition and article control both nouns and hold them together as a single thought unit, while the “your” that precedes and the genitive “of the faith” that follows are to be understood as qualifying both nouns. On this usage, see v. 19 above (although the ὑμῶν functions differently there; see nn. 26 and 27); cf. 2 Thess 2:17 (“every good work and word”). So most interpreters; otherwise Kennedy, 429.
15. The nuance of the genitive τῆς πίστεως is more difficult to assess. Since it almost certainly refers to both nouns (see preceding n.), most likely it is a “genitive of reference” (Dana-Mantey, Manual Grammar, 78; cf. Beekman-Callow, Translating, 259, “A is done with regard to B”); thus, “progress and joy, both with regard to the faith, that is, the gospel.” On the other hand, if it refers to their faith, as it well might, then it is a more pure genitive (= “your faith’s progress and joy”).
16. This is also a difficult call. In light of 2:17 and 3:9, one is tempted here to see a reference to “their faith = trust in Christ” (as, e.g., Vincent, Moffatt, Michael, Müller), which in any case may not lurk very far behind if the primary reference is to the gospel. What primarily favors “faith = the gospel” (cf. Hawthorne, O’Brien) is v. 27, where Paul picks up this phrase and specifies it as “the faith of the gospel.” Some argue that the definite article (vis-ō-vis the personal pronoun, as in 2:17, where he does refer to their faith) also favors this view. But that seems not totally relevant in this case. Since Paul has already used the personal pronoun with “progress” and “joy,” it is unlikely that he would repeat it with “faith,” since the definite article would serve that purpose.
17. For the significance of this theme regarding the Philippians themselves, see the discussion on 2:18, 28; 3:1; and 4:4.
18. This is now the sixteenth occurrence of the word “Christ” in the letter to this point, not including “in the Lord” in v. 14. If for Paul, “to live is Christ,” so, too, for his beloved friends in Philippi—or he will consider himself to have “run and labored in vain” (2:16).
19. Gk. τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν; cf. 2:16 (εἰς καύχημα ἐμοί) and 3:3 (καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). This is a Pauline word in the NT (55 of 59 occurrences). See the entry in EDNT, 2.276–79 (J. Zmijewski) and NIDNTT, 1.227–29 (H. C. Hahn); cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT, 3.645–54. In contrast to καύχησις, which denotes the act of glorying, καύχημα denotes the “grounds” for such. Most interpreters have rightly rejected the possibility that the “our” is objective, thus referring to Paul’s grounds for boasting in them. Everything in the grammar and context of this sentence is against this view.
20. Gk. περισσεύῃ. For this word see on 1:9; cf. 4:12, 18 and the adverb in 1:14.
21. The fine distinction between Christ as the “object” or “sphere” of their boasting in this case is brought about by the awkwardness of the syntax, where “in Christ” immediately follows “overflow.” No doubt that it “overflows in Christ”; but that makes sense precisely because he is first of all the grounds for any and all such boasting.
1. There has been some debate as to which of these two (unity or suffering) is the main concern of the sentence/paragraph. Unfortunately, such debate tends to divide what Paul clearly holds together. In terms of primary focus, both the structure of the sentence and the ensuing appeal verify that it has do with “unity.” Cf. Martin, 80–81. But that is thoroughly bound up with his concern for the gospel in Philippi, and therefore with their standing firm in the face of opposition, even if it means further suffering. To entitle the whole, “Die Gemeinde im Martyrium” (Lohmeyer), is surely a mistaken emphasis.
2. Thus the lack of a section break here in the NIV with a major break at 2:1—signaled by the new section title—is especially unfortunate (cf. GNB, Phillips). There is nothing in favor of a major break at 2:1, and everything in favor of one here, including not only the shift from talking about himself to exhorting them noted here, but also such clues as his “being absent/present” with which it begins (v. 27) that is picked up again in 2:12, plus the chiastic structure noted below. The REB has nicely captured the sense by its title, “Unity and witness,” which it (correctly) puts here.
4. See n. 4 on 1:12–26 and n. 1 on 1:18b-26.
5. There are 9 second person plural pronouns (plus 2 reflexives), 1 vocative (“my beloved ones,” 2:12), 14 second plural verbs (plus 8 participles modifying these verbs).
6. Of the 14 verbs, 10 are imperatives, while 4 others are implied imperatives (στήκετε, 1:27; φρονῆτε, 2:2; γενήσθε, φαίνεσθε, 2:15), as are 5 of the participles.
7. On these matters, see the Introduction, pp. 2–7, 10–14.
8. I put it this way, because I am less certain than others that this kind of “chiasm” is a part of Paul’s upfront consciousness. Rather, I think this is simply the way his mind works, as an argument unfolds. The key matter in pointing it out is to show that the whole argument is unmistakably a single piece.
9. For example, Paul’s joy-filled response to his detainment, since it has served to “advance the gospel,” even though some fellow believers—out of “selfish ambition” and “envy”—are doing so hoping to stir up θλῖψις (“tribulation, suffering”) for him; so also with the joy-filled anticipation of his forthcoming trial, where he expects Christ to be magnified whether through his release or execution; so too with his explanation that “death is gain,” since it means the fulfillment of his yearning to depart and be with Christ; not to mention that the source of their “same struggle” (v. 30) is probably the same, perceived disloyalty to the empire.
10. Especially his readiness to rejoice even when fellow believers through their own selfish ambition try (unsuccessfully) to make his life miserable while in prison; see above on vv. 15–17.
11. See esp. the diagrammatic presentation of these matters in the Introduction, p. 13.
12. The manuscript tradition varies between the present (ἀκούω) and aorist (ἀκούσω) subjunctive. The present (read by P46 * B D* P 629 1241s 2464 pc) is to be preferred on all counts: the aorist is the “normal” tense and would be the one toward which scribes would normally change, whereas it is nearly impossible to account, even by sheer accident, for a change in the other direction. It is doubtful whether the present is “meaningful,” unless it reflects the possibility of Paul’s hearing more than once.
13. Gk. τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν; while one may perhaps leave out the τά for the sake of dynamic equivalence, to render this “about you” is neither “dynamic” nor “equivalent.” On the use of this kind of phrase in letters of friendship (in his case, τὰ πρός σε), see the “example letter” of Pseudo-Demetrius in the Introduction, p. 3. See further n. 17 on 1:12.
14. NIV, “man”; Gk. μιᾷ ψυχῇ, lit. “as one soul.” Under no circumstances does the idiom mean “man.” See the discussion below.
15. The later manuscript tradition conforms Paul’s Greek to a more classical idiom by (1) inserting a μέν, while (2) the majority of these also shift the word order (from ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς to αὐτοῖς ἐστίν—correctly so, in light of the addition), and (3) by changing Paul’s ὑμῶν to ὑμῖν, so that the whole is now nicely balanced: “which to them, on the one hand,” “to you, on the other hand”). This helps to make sense of a difficult clause, but it is scarcely original.
16. For the textual variation ὑμῶν/ὑμῖν, see the preceding n.
17. Typically—and understandably—a few MSS (A 1241s) replace this “you” (ὑμῖν) with an “us” (ἡμῖν). Although this is a logical place for such an interchange, the focus of the argument to here is on the Philippians, not on the Philippians and Paul. That will come in the next clause (v. 30), where Paul appeals to his example of suffering as being the “same” as theirs.
18. Paul’s sentence reads (literally): “what you saw in me, and even now hear in me.” The awkwardness (apparently) of this final ἐν ἐμοί caused it to be omitted in P46 and 81.
19. Lying behind this overview are a number of exegetical decisions on some difficult questions that receive further explanation in the exposition that follows. Lohmeyer’s attempt (72–73; cf. Michaelis) to find strophic patterns to all this must be judged a failure.
20. Gk. μόνον, the neuter accusative of μόνος used as an adverb; cf. Gal 5:13, the other comparable use in Paul. “Lifted like a warning finger” (Barth, 45).
21. Gk. πολιτεύεσθε, a common verb in Greco-Roman authors, which in the active denotes to “live in the polis [city state] as a free citizen,” but which in the middle (as here) meant “to take an active part in the affairs of the polis,” hence to “be a citizen” (almost always literally, either of the Greek city state or of the empire). The metaphorical use is rare, since there would be little place for it in the Greco-Roman world.
22. But cf. NASB, RSV, NRSV, GNB, NEB, JB, NAB (cf. Bruce); the metaphor is kept intact by Berkeley, Rotherham, and Goodspeed (cf. O’Brien). Despite Lenski, et al., R. Roberts (“Philippians i.27,” 325) had it right: “It is inconceivable that the idea of citizenship should be absent from his mind as he dictated the word πολιτεύεσθε.”
23. That is, one can capture the sense of the metaphor in English without such bland language as “conduct yourselves.” Cf. O’Brien (144): “as citizens of heaven live … worthy of the gospel.”
24. As in Phil 3:17, 18, and in 15 other instances in the corpus (see on Gal 5:16 in Fee, Presence, 429–30). Indeed, on three occasions Paul uses the present combination with περιπατεῖτε (“walk worthy of”; 1 Thess 2:12; Col 1:10; Eph 4:1).
25. See further the Introduction, pp. 25–26.
26. This is the view put forward by Brewer (“Meaning”; cf. Scott), but most interpreters take it the way that is suggested here, and for good reason in light of 3:20. Some (Hendriksen, Hawthorne, Silva) would have both, but that is unlikely, since 3:20 certifies that we are involved in a word play and such plays seldom incorporate the literal reality of the meaning being played on. E. C. Miller (“πολιτεύεσθε”) wants to find the background in hellenistic Judaism, thus urging the Philippians to live as “the true Israel.” But there is nothing in the immediate context nor in the historical context of Philippi that favors this view.
27. The language is from Moffatt’s translation of 3:20, which may not be precise in that instance, but nicely captures the sense of Paul’s concern here.
28. So also R. Roberts, “Philippians i.27,” 327–28; cf. Martin, 82.
29. As in all other instances, the qualifier “of Christ” refers to the content of the gospel, not its source.
30. Cf. J. Schütz (Paul, 50): “The gospel establishes the norm of the Philippians’ conduct.”
31. On this question, see n. 26 on 2:19.
32. This so easily accounts for the grammar of this sentence and is so clearly in keeping with vv. 24–25 and 2:24 that one wonders about Michael’s comment (64), “To say the least, the words make it clear that he was far from being certain that acquittal would be his lot.” They do no such thing. Nor are the various emendations noted by Loh-Nida (38) necessary or helpful.
33. To which he will then append two explanatory words: (1) that when they do as he urges, it will serve as an omen against their opponents, while it evidences God’s salvation of them; (2) that in any case their present suffering is part and parcel of discipleship, as they have already seen and now hear in the case of Paul.
34. Put baldly by Melick (89): “It naturally cannot refer to the Holy Spirit”! If “natural” has anything to do with ordinary Pauline usage, then this is a remarkable overstatement indeed. Several have taken the view argued for here (Erasmus, Weiss, Ewald, Moule, Jones, Dibelius, Bonnard, Collange, Gnilka, Martin; C. Brown, NIDNTT, 3.702; L. T. Johnson, Writings, 342). Attempts to make it refer to the human spirit or community spirit as that is influenced by the Holy Spirit (as, e.g., by Michael, Barth) will not work, since it does not take the Pauline data seriously enough. On this whole question, see Fee, Presence, 743–46.
35. The only other reason offered is that the modifier “one” seems to put the emphasis on the Philippians’ own unity, which it does indeed, but in terms of its source, not its expression, which is the point of the second clause.
36. Gk. στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες, which is also chiastic (A B B′ A′).
37. So, e.g., Eadie, 72; Meyer, 61; Kent, 118; Bruce, 57; and esp. Hawthorne, 56–57; followed by Silva, 94; and O’Brien, 150. This is a perfectly valid observation, of course; but it is purely gratuitous to assume that the “parallel” is synonymous in the sense of the second repeating or explaining the first. Some older commentators (e.g., Lightfoot) not only saw the two terms as anthropological, but also were willing to distinguish the two, with “spirit” designating “the principle of the higher life,” vis-ō-vis the “soul, the seat of the affections, passions, etc.” (106). The juxtaposition is undoubtedly for rhetorical effect, but there is no compelling reason why the meaning of the first of these phrases should be dictated by the second, while there are several good reasons why it should not. Moreover, in contemporary understanding of Hebrew poetry, the second line is understood, as happens here, to be advancing the idea of the first in some way. Thus Paul urges them to “stand firm in the one Spirit of God,” and in so doing to contend together as one people of God. This both keeps the parallel and fits known usage.
It is often argued that the juxtaposition of these two terms makes a synonymous understanding “more natural.” But “natural” is in the eye of the (very Western) reader, since such an understanding of πνεῦμα would have been totally unnatural both to Paul and to the Greco-Roman hearer, as the linguistic evidence makes clear.
38. See esp. Acts 4:32, where the unity of the believers is described in terms of their being ψυχὴ μία. Aristotle explicitly calls μιὰ ψυχή a common “proverbial” expression about friendship (Eth. Nic. 1163b6–7; cf. Euripides, Orest. 1046).
39. Thus Eadie (72), “pervaded with one genuine spiritual emotion”; Meyer (61), “the perfect accord of their minds in conviction, volition, and feeling”; Michael (65), “the disposition of the community”; Lohmeyer (75) “die innere Geschlossenheit” (= “the inner resolution of purpose”; cf. O’Brien [150], “with one common purpose”).
40. Cf. Vincent, 33, who suggests “disposition” as the proper sense of πνεύματι here.
41. This is the language of Hawthorne, 56.
42. Cf. Kent, 118.
43. That is, he never uses πνεῦμα as an anthropological term for the human mind. Indeed, in this letter he uses the verb φρονεῖν when he wants to make this point (2:2; 4:2); in 1 Cor 1:10 he uses the actual words for “mind” and “opinion” in a context of schism; and in 1 Cor 2:10–16 the πνεῦμα is said to know the mind of God or people. Furthermore, when Paul does use πνεῦμα in the sense of an “attitude,” he is dependent on the LXX and thus always qualifies it with a genitive modifier, specifying the kind of “spirit” he intends (e.g. “gentleness”; 1 Cor 4:21).
44. Thus in 4:1, when he renews this charge, he urges them to “stand firm in the Lord.” So also in 1 Thess 3:8; while in 1 Cor 16:13 it is “stand firm in the faith.” This point is recognized by Meyer, who says correctly (61, emphasis his), “it is the common element, in which they are to stand”; but he then proceeds to explain it as though it were a dative of manner.
45. This is such a thoroughly Pauline point of view that one wonders why it should even be imagined that the phrase might mean something like esprit de corps.
46. Gk. συναθλοῦντες. My translation “together” is an attempt to reflect the compound σύν, which in this case, given the metaphor, may mean something like “side by side” (so EDNT, 3.296, who also take the metaphor to have moved over into the arena of “battle,” which very well may have been the case, since for ancients the “struggle” of the athletic contest was very much like that of “battle”). See further on v. 30, where the more common athletic metaphor, ἀγών, appears.
47. A dative of interest; Lightfoot (106; cf. Plummer, 34) understands this dative to go with the σύν in the participle, hence “striving in concert with the faith” (whatever that might mean). He says of the more common understanding that it seems “harsh and improbable.” But his view fails to take seriously the emphasis on unity being stressed here.
48. Barth (47), as one might well expect, takes “of the gospel” to be subjective: “Faith is not mine but God’s.” Fair enough; but that simply is not Paul’s point here. But cf. Hawthorne (57), who also sees it as subjective, but for less theological reasons.
49. See the Introduction, pp. 29–34.
50. On the question of their “identity,” see the Introduction, pp. 7–9. That these are the same people warned against in 3:2 (as Hendriksen, Collange, Hawthorne, Silva) has nothing in its favor (except that both passages occur in the same letter) and everything against it: the adversaries here are a present reality, those in 3:2 are warned against as a “safety” measure (3:1); this situation reflects the “same struggle” as Paul is now experiencing, which can be laid at the feet of the Jewish community only in a very circuitous manner; the present struggle is “the same” as the one they saw with their own eyes, and at no known point when Paul was in Macedonia was a Jewish or Jewish Christian struggle in evidence, whereas conflict with the state was present from the beginning. Cf. O’Brien (153) for a similar assessment.
51. Gk. πτυρόμενοι; the verb occurs most often in the passive, bearing the sense of “being frightened,” or “let oneself be intimidated”; or, since it sometimes appears with regard to “spooking” horses, it may mean something like, “not be thrown into consternation” (Meyer).
52. Which is also very close to the “dynamic equivalent” offered in the NIV.
53. The justification for this is to be found in Pauline usage. Two observations: (1) As in most koine Greek, the indefinite relative pronoun (ἥτις in this case) usually occurs in the nominative case. (2) The reason for the feminine singular is a simple matter of attraction—in this case, as elsewhere in Paul when using this idiom, to the number and gender of the predicate noun that follows. Thus the indefinite is used because it refers not to any specific word or idea that precedes (contra Hawthorne, who sees τῇ πίστει as its antecedent), but to the whole of the preceding clause; and the feminine singular is used because the predicate noun ἔνδειξις is feminine singular. This is precisely the same phenomenon as in the apparently “ungrammatical” οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς in 1 Cor 3:17, where the plural οἵτινες in this case refers to the (masculine singular) “temple” that has just preceded; but it is masculine plural because it has been attracted to its predicate noun “you.”
Hawthorne constructs an elaborate case for reading the text as though it referred to the opponents’ attitude toward the Philippian believers (they see your loyalty to the faith as senselessly leading to your destruction, while you see it as leading to salvation). While this may be remotely possible, it is highly improbable, since it is dependent on several contingent—and necessary—improbabilities for it to work (that the distant τῇ πίστει is in fact intended to be a specific antecedent to the indefinite relative; that Paul’s ordinary usage noted above is not at work here; that the contrast between ἀπωλείας and σωτηρίας is not Paul’s ordinary one [see n. 56 below]; and [most improbably of all] that in an elliptical second line one may assume words from that line to be read back into the first line). The same must be said of Collange’s less carefully worked out, but similar, attempt to read it this way.
54. O’Brien (155), probably correctly, sees this as a dative of reference, thus stressing that it will be a reality for them whether they recognize it or not.
55. Gk. ἔνδειξις; in its three other NT occurrences (2 Cor 8:24; Rom 3:25, 26) it clearly means “proof” or “evidence.” It means that here as well, of course, but in light of the context, and since an “omen” constituted “proof” for most ancients, this meaning suggested by BAGD probably captures Paul’s nuance. In any case, he did not use the ordinary word for “sign” (σημεῖον), which fact is obscured by rendering ἔνδειξις as “sign.” The word ἔνδειγμα functions in a similar way in 2 Thess 1:5, although nouns with the -μα suffix tend to refer to a “concrete expression” of the verbal idea in the noun, hence in that case, a “clear indication.”
56. Gk. ἀπωλείας, which in Paul carries the theological sense of utter ruin on the part of those who do not believe. Cf. 1 Cor 1:18, where the cognate verbs of these two nouns are likewise set in contrast to one another. This clear, and very Pauline, contrast tends to undercut the view of Hawthorne and Collange (see n. 53), who apply ἀπωλείας to the Philippians.
57. The resolution of the problem of the change of case from the dative (αὐτοῖς) to the genitive (ἡμῶν) is most likely that offered by Kennedy (432): “The emphasis in Paul’s mind changes from the persons to their destinies”; cf. Beare, 67. The result is that the genitive is a “vernacular possessive” (see on 2:2), with probable emphasis on “your.”
58. Not all agree that τοῦτο should be construed with “salvation.” Lightfoot (106; cf. Michael, 71; Bruce, 60) considers the τοῦτο to refer to ἔνδειξις; Plummer (35; cf. Jones, 25; Houlden, 67) to “the fearlessness with its meaning”; Vincent (35; cf. Silva, 93; O’Brien, 157) to both parts of the clause, which it very well may, but surely with the emphasis on the latter.
59. Similar to the kind of thing Paul has done elsewhere; cf., e.g., 1 Thess 3:2–3; 2 Cor 4:17–18; Rom 5:3–4; 8:17–18.
60. That is, at first blush the “because” does not seem to go easily with anything that precedes. Here is a case where Paul’s understanding of their present context probably has as much bearing on what he says as the actual grammar of his sentence. Although most interpreters are happy to accept the ὅτι clause in this kind of “free floating” way, some (e.g., Kennedy) see it as going back to the mention of opposition at the beginning of the verse.
61. Gk. ἐχαρίσθη; the cognate of the noun χάρις (“grace”). In Paul’s letters the verb means “to give graciously” (1 Cor 2:12; Gal 3:18; Rom 8:32[!]; Phlm 22), or by extension, “to forgive” (e.g., Col 2:13; Eph 4:32).
62. Lightfoot, 106.
63. The interruption, and therefore the emphasis, is even more startling in Greek. Ordinarily in Paul when an infinitive serves as the grammatical subject of the sentence, it is also accompanied by the Greek definite article (e.g., τὸ ζῆν and τὸ ἀποθανεῖν in v. 21 above), as well as in the two infinitive phrases as the end of this verse. It is also typical of Paul, when such occurs, to “enclose” a prepositional modifier between the article and the infinitive. Thus the two contrasting infinitive phrases at the end of this clause read τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν and τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν (lit., “the in him to believe” and “the in Christ’s behalf to suffer”). This is where Paul was heading when he began to dictate the sentence; but in getting as far as τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, the mention of “Christ” triggers a momentary interruption in the form of a “not only/but also” contrast, thus leaving the original (and now ungrammatical) subject to dangle, but in an especially striking manner.
64. Hawthorne’s suggestion (61) that ὑπέρ here means “in Christ’s stead” is an unnatural reading in this case and is based on an understanding of Col 1:24 that is not at all firm.
65. A point sometimes overlooked in the literature; but see Michael, Fitzmyer. Silva (97–98), while admitting no direct evidence for it, enters a theological plea for an extension in this direction. While sympathetic with his concern, I am not persuaded.
66. Although the nominative (ἔχοντες) could conceivably go back to the participle in v. 28 (so Kent, 120), more likely it is an “irregular nominative”; cf. Col 3:16; Eph 3:18; 4:2.
67. Gk. ἀγῶνα, an athletic metaphor already so used by the philosophers to refer to “the heroic struggle which the pious has to go through in this world” (E. Stauffer, TDNT, 1.135; cf. G. Dautzenberg, EDNT, 1.25–27; and esp. V. C. Pfitzner, Agon, 114–29). For Paul, of course, it refers not to the “heroic struggle of the Christian life,” an idea altogether foreign to him, but to the “noble contest” (1 Tim 6:12) of the gospel itself as one “contends” for it in a world altogether hostile to it (cf. 1 Thess 2:2; 1 Cor 9:25; Col 1:29; 4:12; 1 Tim 4:10; 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7).
68. Paul’s Greek is a bit more emphatic: οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί = “of a kind that you saw in me” (cf. the emphatic “in me” in v. 26). This does not mean simply “which you saw I experienced,” but “which you saw taking place in my life and experience among you.” Does this emphasis on “of a kind” mean that some of them had now been imprisoned?
1. MSS variously try to alleviate Paul’s ungrammatical τις by changing it into a neuter (singular or plural). Various explanations have been forthcoming as to the grammatical breakdown, usually in terms of an early error by a copyist (Lightfoot; Kennedy). Very likely the “error” is Paul’s own, related to the nature of his rhetoric.
2. For the sake of better English, the NIV has chosen here to obscure some of Paul’s repetitiveness in this set of appeals. Lying behind “and purpose” is yet another participial construction, τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες (“thinking the one thing”), which nearly repeats the purpose/result clause, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε (“that you think the same thing”), which all of the following participles and words modify. Understandably, several MSS (* A C I Ψ 33 81 1241s 2464 pc f vg) conform this final phrase to the main clause by substituting αὐτό for ἕν. The latter, which is surely original, is in keeping with Paul’s habits elsewhere, where in a series such as this he interchanges “same” and “one” (see esp. 1 Cor 12:8–10).
3. Paul’s Greek (as reflected in NA26), though clear, is awkwardly expressed (lit. “nothing according to selfish ambition, nor according to vain glory”). This engendered a considerable amount of tinkering in the transmissional process, so that the MajT ended up substituting an ἤ (“or”) for Paul’s μηδὲ κατά (“nor according to”), which is the same route taken by the NIV, even though translated from the NA26 text.
4. For Paul’s simple participle ἡγούμενοι, a few scribes (P46 D* I K 1175 pc) preferred the compound προηγούμενοι, most likely under the influence of the similar exhortation in Rom 12:10, τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι (“with honor preferring/more highly esteeming one another”).
5. In a rare moment of singular agreement on a patently secondary reading, P46 and B insert a τούς before the participle ὑπερέχοντας, thus particularizing (“others who are better”) what Paul leaves open-ended so as to include all others.
6. Because of his proclivities toward the distributive, or collective, singular, Paul’s Greek at times creates some uncertainties for scribes. The editors of NA26 (and UBS4) have opted for the singular ἕκαστος here (with P46 C D Maj pc; against A B F G Ψ 33 81 104 1175 pc lat), but for the plural at the end (with P46 A B D P Ψ 33 81 104 365 1175 1739 1881 2464 pc; against the MajT). This is an especially difficult textual choice, the second instance also involving punctuation, whether the (apparently original) ἕκαστοι belongs with the imperative that follows (thus, ἕκαστοι τοῦτο φρονεῖτε, “each of you has this mindset”) or with the present participial construction (almost certainly the latter, since it so nicely balances the two halves of v. 4). The more difficult plural should probably prevail as original in both cases, with scribes changing them to the singular in keeping with ordinary style, and with Paul’s own usage elsewhere.
7. Whether intentional or not, but surely in the interest of rescuing Paul’s impossibly cumbersome sentence and awkward Greek (see the structural display below), scribes variously changed Paul’s participle, σκοποῦντες, into a form of imperative (either third singular or second plural). The meaning is not affected, as is evidenced by the imperative in the NIV, where the (clearly original) participle was so translated.
8. The Western tradition (D* F G it Tert), joined by K pc, omits this καί, probably for the very reason that the NIV translators have added an “only” to the preceding clause, namely, to make the two clauses more balanced. The καί is put in brackets in NA26; but omission is surely the secondary process here, since the addition of a καί would create the very difficulty that (in Paul’s original) the NIV translators have tried to get around.
9. Thus the theme of suffering, as with its counterpoint “joy,” serves as a kind of “leitmotif” in the letter, not as its primary theme.
10. Some see Paul as here “turning from the menace of a hostile world to deal with the equally threatening problem of a divided community” (Martin, 85–86; cf. Bonnard, Gnilka, O’Brien). But that seems to miss by too much the overall connections of the argument, and especially the connection of this paragraph with the preceding. Granted the present paragraph focuses altogether on the issue of their unity; but that is already the point in 1:27, where the issue was deliberately placed within its real life setting in Philippi.
11. Thus, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε (v. 2, “have the same mindset”); τοῦτο φρονεῖτε (v. 5, “have this mindset”).
12. But rather than, as Collange (77), this paragraph is not the “overture” to the “Christ hymn”; the narrative about Christ exists, on the contrary, to reinforce by ultimate example what is urged here (and in 1:27); cf. Black, “Formal Analysis,” 305–6.
13. So most interpreters, although Lightfoot (108) et al. take vv. 3–4 to be a separate sentence, offering that an imperative is to be supposed. But the passages Lightfoot cites in support are suspect; there is no sure evidence for a presupposed imperative.
14. Cf. in this regard, J. L. Boyer, “First Class Conditions,” 106; and BDF §371 (and most commentators), contra W. Barclay, “Great Themes,” 40, who considers the clause to be suppositional.
15. Contra those who have set out more literary schemes, beginning with Lohmeyer, whose effort in this case was no more successful than in the preceding sentence (n. 19 on 1:27–30). But Gnilka modified Lohmeyer’s attempt, and in this he has been followed by others (Black, “Formal Analysis”; Silva, O’Brien). Black says of this threefold strophic scheme, “there is much to commend [it] … and little for which to criticize it” (300); to the contrary, such a reconstruction implies a kind of conscious literary production that fails to take seriously either the oral nature of the text (see n. 22 below) or the actual syntax of the sentence. Black carries this still further, suggesting that it may also have had prior existence. But this is an exercise in scholarship that has very little bearing on the meaning of the text, except as Paul’s own sentence and emphases are realigned to fit a particular scheme that would undoubtedly surprise him. Cf. Hawthorne (64): “Whether this strophic pattern can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of everyone is doubtful, but unimportant.”
16. Gk. οὖν; the NIV in this case renders the reader no service in omitting this connective.
17. So also Meyer, 69; otherwise Kennedy, Vincent (cf. Motyer), who would take it only with v. 27. The number of commentators who do not so much as notice the conjunction says much about their predisposition toward an interpretation that finds the οὖν an unfriendly intrusion.
18. Cf. Vincent, 53; Hawthorne, 64.
19. So e.g., Vincent, Jones, Beare, Hendriksen, O’Brien. See esp. O’Brien, 167–76, for a thorough and helpful discussion of the options and their ramifications for understanding—although I differ some with his conclusion and his reason for it.
20. So Lightfoot, Meyer, Moule, Silva.
21. So the Greek Fathers, Eadie, Michael, Barth, Hawthorne; cf. NEB, JB.
22. It is easy to forget that even though sent as written documents, Paul’s letters began with orality (Paul dictated their contents to an amanuensis) and were received in the same way (read aloud in the community at worship); on this matter see the Introduction, 16–17. Cf. Lightfoot (108), on the τις/τινα interchange in the fourth clause (see n. 1): “τις … can only be explained by the eager impetuosity with which the Apostle dictated the letter.” This makes as much sense of the form of this sentence as does the strophic arrangement argued for by Gnilka, Black, et al. (see n. 15).
23. Cf. Silva (102): “The clauses are deliberately compressed and vague, since the appeal is primarily emotional … and impassioned pleading.”
24. On this whole question, see the admonition by Barth (51): “Must everything be clear to us here, unless we prefer to confess that everything here is obscure to us? At all events, one would almost like to say: why tear it all to pieces in explanation?”
25. For a generally similar analysis as to how the clauses unfold in process, see Beare, 71–72.
26. Especially so, since in Paul’s view love flows from God [the Father] through Christ; cf. Rom 5:5–8. On this matter I have changed my mind from the more hesitant noting of this in Presence, 750 n. 68. My hesitation as to whether the Philippians would have caught the Trinitarian nuance still holds; but there is no reason for them not to have caught the specific nuances in each phrase as are suggested here. Thus it comes out Trinitarian, in terms of Pauline presuppositions, whether or not they caught the nuance. So also Lohmeyer, Motyer (and some earlier interpreters noted by Meyer, 70, who himself rejects it).
27. But see Meyer, 69 (cf. Vincent, 53; Plummer, 37; Martin, 87), who sees them in balanced pairs, lines 1 and 3 “referring to the objective principle of the Christian life,” and lines 2 and 4 “the subjective principle,” or in Plummer’s words, “the one [pair] relating to union with Christ and its benefit, and the other to communion with the Spirit and its benefit.” Hawthorne (67) sees the first pair as “focusing on the human side of things” (Paul toward them), the “second on the divine” (God toward them). None of these is compelling and in each case depends on one’s interpretation of the parts.
28. Gk. παράκλησις, one of the more difficult NT words to pin down with precision, since its semantic field ranges from “exhortation/appeal” to “encouragement” to “comfort/consolation.” In Paul the difficulty is heightened by the fact that its cognate verb παρακαλέω is one of the primary verbs used by Paul in his paraenesis (cf. Phil 4:2). For some that usage determines everything (see n. 30); but here the context seems to rule in a different direction. For the view taken here, see also Barclay, “Great Themes,” 40; Collange, 77 (cf. the Vulgate, consolatia). O’Brien (169–71) favors “comfort” but in the sense of “encouragement” noted below.
29. This, at least, would seem to be the reason for the choice of this word in connection with Christ.
30. E.g., BAGD (as their first choice), “Christian exhortation”; cf. Lightfoot, Meyer, Kennedy, Vincent, Plummer, Jones, Hawthorne, Silva. But as Collange rightly points out, this paragraph is noteworthy “as a kind of ‘non-exhortation,’ … ; Paul is taking every precaution to avoid the appearance of giving orders” (77).
31. So Beare, Hendriksen, Gnilka, Hawthorne, Martin, O’Brien, Melick; this is sometimes based on the combination of παράκλησις with παραμυθία in 1 Cor 14:4, where it seems to carry this nuance; cf. the cognate verbs in 1 Thess 2:12.
32. Gk. τὰ παθήματα; cf. πάσχειν in the present argument (1:29).
33. This seems all the more likely in light of the appellation of God in that passage (2 Cor 1:3) as “the Father of all mercies (οἰκτιρμῶν),” the word that appears in the fourth line of the present appeal.
34. Gk. παραμύθιον; the feminine form occurs in 1 Cor 14:4, also in conjunction with παράκλησις; the verb occurs with the cognate verb for παράκλησις in 1 Thess 2:12. Thus of the four occurrences of this word group in the NT (all in Paul) it is used in conjunction with παράκλησις in three. Some (Lightfoot, Kennedy, Müller, Hendriksen; cf. Moffatt, Confraternity) argue on the basis of classical usage for the meaning “incentive, persuasion” here; but that goes against normal koine (see M-M, 488, and esp. NewDocs, 3.79; 4.14 and 166) and Pauline usage, as documented above.
35. E.g., Meyer (70), “the brotherly love of Christians”; Kennedy (432; cf. Michael, 76), “[Paul’s] love toward them”; Beare (71; Martin, 86; Loh-Nida, 49; cf. NIV), “Christ’s love for them.”
36. Thus in 2 Cor 13:13, Paul has the order, Christ-God-Spirit; of God he says ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, of the Spirit ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. In our passage it is παραμύθιον ἀγάπης and κοινωνία πνεύματος.
37. Gk. κοινωνία; on the meaning of this word see above on 1:5.
38. In light of the common interpretation of 1:27, and absence of the article, some earlier interpreters took πνεύματος here to refer to the human spirit (noted by Meyer, 70; cf. NAB). But Paul’s use of language and the present context disallow such a view altogether. On the irrelevance of the article as signifying the Holy Spirit in Paul, see Fee, Presence, 15–24.
39. On this question, see Fee, Presence, 362–65.
40. There has been some debate as to whether “of the Spirit” is an objective or subjective genitive. That is, are we in fellowship with the Spirit, or does he create the fellowship of the saints (as Barclay, “Great Themes,” 40; Collange, Hawthorne, Silva)? Since the phrase appears first in 2 Cor 13:13, where the two prior clauses reflect something both of God’s character and of his activity on behalf of his people in light of that character, it would seem most likely that something similar is in view with this phrase. Since the word primarily means “participation in,” the view presented here (first, “sharing in the Spirit” himself; second, by that fact “sharing in the same Spirit” with one another) seems to capture the essence both of the “direction” of the Spirit’s activity and of the meaning of the word itself. This view goes back at least as far as Meyer (2 Corinthians, 514). It received its recent impetus from H. Seesemann, Begriff; cf. the commentaries on the 2 Corinthians passage by Windisch, 428; Lietzmann, 162; Bultmann, 251; Barrett, 344; Furnish, 584; Martin, 505; so also Dunn, Jesus, 261.
41. Gk. σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί; about which Lightfoot notes (108): “by σπλάγχνα is signified the abode of tender feelings, by οἰκτιρμοὶ the manifestation of these in compassionate yearnings and actions.” Thus the two words together express “root and fruit” (Motyer, 104). It is unlikely to be a hendiadys (= “compassions, namely, mercies,” thus “affectionate tenderness,” Moffatt).
42. So Hawthorne, 66.
43. Gk. οἰκτιρμοί; found elsewhere in Paul in 2 Cor 1:2; Rom 12:1; Col 3:12. The plural in both cases (“compassions” and “mercies”) is a direct reflection of the LXX, which used both of these words to translate the Hebrew 
.
44. Gk. σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, which means something like “heart of pity.”
45. As, e.g., Loh-Nida, 49–50; Hawthorne, 66; Motyer, 104 (cf. GNB).
46. Kennedy, 433, citing Vaughan, calls it “the tautology of earnestness.”
47. Many interpreters (e.g., Vincent, Müller, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien; Black, “Formal Analysis”; Fee, Presence; cf. the punctuation of NA26) take the adj. σύμψυχοι to be a separate “line.” On this matter I have changed my mind, since to read it separately one must supply a further participle (“being”), which Paul himself does not do. The (much-to-be-preferred) alternative is to take the adj. as modifying the final participle (φρονοῦντες). Within the ἵνα clause this results in a primary clause (“that you set your minds of the same thing”), modified by two participial phrases (so Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, B. Weiss, Vincent, Beare, Hendriksen, Collange, Kent, Loh-Nida; Silva is open to it). The use τό with ἔν in the last phrase supports this view, since it then becomes anaphoric, meaning “the one thing already mentioned above [i.e., the same thing].” Thus the adj. σύμψυχοι begins the phrase by describing how (“together in soul”) they are to “set their minds on the one thing” mentioned in the primary clause. This works out much more smoothly in Greek, it should be noted, than in my cumbersome English translation:
ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε,
τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες,
σύμψυχοι τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες.
48. Gk. πληρώσατε, which variously means “to fulfill, to fill full, to complete, to bring something to its goal.” Here it probably means to “fill to the full,” and thus to “complete” what is already at work.
49. Cf. Meyer, 72.
50. Indeed, it is taken so by Fortna, “Philippians,” who by failing to recognize Philippians as a letter of friendship is quite insensitive both to the formal aspects of the letter and to its character. The result is a caricature of Paul that is based more on Western psychologizing than on the text itself.
51. Cf. Motyer, 102; this clause is therefore too easily brushed aside by Hawthorne, who correctly sees that it expresses the secondary concern of the sentence, but then treats it as nearly irrelevant.
52. Gk. μου τὴν χαράν, a rare example of the “vernacular possessive” (language from Abbott’s Johannine Grammar) in Paul. In this letter see on 1:28 (possibly); 3:20 (“our citizenship”); 4:14 (“my affliction”); cf. also the enclosed genitives in 1:19 and 2:25. Its very rarity indicates that Paul intends the possessive to be emphasized when it occurs. That is surely so here.
53. On this matter see n. 3 on 1:12–26; the language comes from Martin.
54. Gk. ἵνα, probably introducing a result clause here; so also Lightfoot, 108. But perhaps it is an epexegetical noun clause, giving the content of his “fulfilled joy.” Either way it comes out at the same place.
55. Gk. φρονῆτε; see on 1:7 above.
56. Occurring twice here, again in v. 5, twice in 3:15, once in 3:19 (of those who are otherwise-minded) and in the final appeal of 4:2; cf. Rom 12:3 and 16 and 15:5.
57. Cf. the same use of φρονεῖν in Rom 8:5 and thrice-repeated use of the cognate noun φρόνημα in Rom 8:6–7, where “the mind of the flesh or Spirit” is “fixed on” like concerns.
58. So also O’Brien, 179: “the need … to be ‘gospel-oriented.’ ”
59. On this language—and its accumulation in this passage—as that of “ideal friendship” in the Greco-Roman world, see Stowers, “Friends,” 112; cf. L. T. Johnson, Writings, 342. Sampley (Partnership, 62–63) sees this language as supporting his view that Paul and the Philippians have entered into a form of “consensual societas” (see n. 4 on 4:14), but this has been critiqued and found wanting by Peterman, “Giving,” 144–47, 231.
60. Gk. σύμψυχοι, formed from σύν (together with) and ψυχή (soul), picking up and by means of the compound reinforcing the μιᾷ ψυχῇ of v. 27. The word here means something close to “harmonious” or “together as one person,” putting emphasis on “unity … in feeling as well as in thought and action” (EDNT, 3.291, contra A. Fridrichsen, Philologische Wochenschrift 58 [1938] 910–12, who proffered “wholeheartedly”).
62. Cf. Collange, 79 (“obviously”), although this is a point often overlooked in the commentaries.
63. So also Barth, 51, 54.
64. Some think not; see n. 12. But Meyer (74) is surely correct here in seeing the modifiers of this verse to go with the preceding participle (φρονοῦντες) and thus to describe what is excluded when they all “set their minds on the one thing.”
65. Gk. κατά, which the NIV obscures here, treating it as though it were identical to the ἐξ ἐριθείας of 1:17; but κατά indicates the “standard” to which one conforms one’s behavior, not its source. Thus, “do nothing in keeping with (= that conforms to) selfish ambition/rivalry.”
66. Gk. ἐριθεία; on this word see the discussion on 1:17 above; while “selfish ambition” is probably to be preferred, the use of “ambition” in this translation needs to be understood as implying “over against others.”
67. The repetition of these words here in particular supports the suggestion that a part of the reason for the narrative in 1:15–17 was paradigmatic.
68. Gk. κενοδοξία; cf. κενόδοξος in Gal 5:26. The word is a compound of κενός (“empty, vain”) and δόξα (“glory, honor”); the compound thus denotes “vanity, conceit, excessive ambition” (BAGD), and is most often used to describe those who without cause think too highly of themselves. Although one would not make more of it than the apostle himself intended, it is of some interest that these two words (“empty” and “glory”) appear at the beginning and conclusion of the so-called Christ-hymn (2:6–11): the first (ἐκένωσεν, v. 6) to describe the kind of self-emptying that is the precise opposite of κενοδοξία; and the second (δόξα, v. 11) to express the “glory” that accrues to God as the self-emptying One receives his divine vindication and the worship of all creation.
69. It is worth noting that 8 of the 15 “works of the flesh” in that passage (Gal 5:19–21) are sins of discord, one of which is ἐριθεία. On this passage see Fee, Presence, 440–43.
70. So Kennedy, 434; both Kennedy and Michael (74) rightly caution about creating a situation in Philippi that looks more like Corinth or Galatia. In Michael’s words: “The utter absence of severity of censure in this exhortation shows that the dissensions and disputes at Philippi had not yet reached an acute stage.” See the Introduction, 32–33.
71. Barth (50) observes that this passage reflects “the heart of the Pauline ethic, … where seemingly so little, but in fact everything, is demanded by saying that each is to climb down from the throne on which he sits, and to mind and to seek after the one end, which is then also that of the others.”
72. The Greek text has the article, without the preposition (τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ). The article points to “the [well-known quality] of humility” (Meyer, O’Brien, et al.) or functions as a possessive “in your humility” (Lightfoot). The dative is most likely “manner,” not “means” (as Meyer), although BAGD suggest, “motivating cause.”
73. Gk. ταπεινοφροσύνη, a compound word from “lowly” and “mind” (from the verb φρονεῖν in v. 2), hence the KJV “lowliness of mind.” Collange (79) points out the probable assonance with φρονεῖν (φρονεῖν/ταπεινοφροσύνη). This compound is not well-attested outside the NT and early Christian writers; it is found elsewhere in Paul as a Christian virtue in Col 2:23; 3:12; Eph 4:2 (the latter also in the context of promoting unity within the community). The usage in Col 3:12 is telling, where it occurs as one of five virtues (including “bowels of mercy”; cf. 2:1) with which God’s beloved are to clothe themselves. It occurs in a negative way in Col 2:18 (of false humility).
74. Among other discussions, see Jones, 28; TDNT, 9.1–26 (W. Grundmann); NIDNTT, 2.259–64 (H.-H. Esser).
75. As Esser (NIDNTT, 2.260) points out, “the fundamental difference between the Gk. and biblical use of these words [is that] in the Gk. world, with its anthropocentric view of [humankind], lowliness is looked on as shameful, to be avoided and overcome by act and thought. In the NT, with its theocentric view of [humankind], the words are used to describe those events that bring a [person] into a right relationship with God and [one’s fellow-humans].” In fairness to many of the Greek authors, however, it should be pointed out that they use the word very often to describe that kind of servility which we note in the next paragraph is not a part of the NT understanding.
76. Gk. ἡγούμενοι, a verb that means consciously to focus on something or someone, to give it due consideration. The verb recurs in v. 6, regarding Christ, who did not “consider” equality with God a matter of personal advantage; in 2:25, where Paul “determined” to send Epaphroditus back home; and in 3:7–8 [3x], referring to how Paul “considers” his former advantages now that he has come to know Christ.
77. Gk. ἀλλήλους, its only occurrence in Philippians, but one of Paul’s more significant words in his paraenesis (exhortations), esp. when relationships among believers are in purview. Everything is done ἀλλήλων. Believers are members of one another (Rom 12:5; Eph 4:25), who are to build up one another (1 Thess 5:11; Rom 14:19), to care for one another (1 Cor 12:25), to love one another (1 Thess 3:12; 4:9; 2 Thess 1:3; Rom 13:8), to pursue one another’s good (1 Thess 5:15), to bear with one another in love (Eph 4:2); to bear one another’s burdens (Gal 6:2); to be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another (Eph 4:32; cf. Col 3:13), to submit to one another (Eph 5:21), to be devoted to one another in love (Rom 12:10), to live in harmony with one another (Rom 12:16), and (here) to consider one another more important than themselves (Phil 2:3; cf. Rom 12:10). To translate this “others” as in the NIV is to make it too general and thus to tone down the community significance of this exhortation.
78. Gk. ὑπερέχοντας; cf. 3:8 and 4:7. The word can mean “better,” but in its two further occurrences in this letter, both adjectival, it has to do with “surpassing,” going far beyond anything else. In light of v. 4, this seems to be the sense here as well. Cf. NASB (“regard one another as more important than [one]self”) and NJB (“everyone should give preference to others”).
79. This is a common interpretation (e.g., Jones, 28–29, “a high appreciation of all that is good and estimable in others”; cf. Martin, 90; Hawthorne, 69); a view rightly rejected by Barth (56–57). After all, ours is not to “find the good qualities” in others, but to see them from the common perspective of grace, as those like ourselves who above all need “looking after” by those who are gracious toward us, who “care for” us not on the basis of worthiness, but of need.
80. At least this is the most natural way to understand the grammar. Otherwise Lightfoot (see n. 13), but his divorce of vv. 3–4 grammatically also makes this too paraenetic on its own right and misses the fact that v. 5 is the next sentence after vv. 1–4, a sentence which takes the content of this one a step farther by locating its basis in Christ himself.
81. This assumes that such is the case with Euodia and Syntyche; see on 4:2–3 below.
82. For a similar perspective as to how v. 4 functions in this sentence, see Grundmann, TDNT, 9.21–22.
83. Gk. σκοποῦντες; cf. 3:17. In Paul the verb ordinarily means to “look to” in the sense of “keeping one’s eyes on” someone or something (BAGD); but here is a case where it almost certainly means “to look out for” in the sense of watching out for the needs of others. It is this sense that is picked up and emphasized in the compound ἐπισκοπέω (to care for, oversee), which in its noun form becomes ἐπίσκοπος (“overseer”).
84. 1 Cor 10:24; cf. 10:33; 13:5; Rom 15:2. In our letter see esp. on 2:20–21, where this character trait is illustrated positively by Timothy over against some others, who fail at this very point.
85. On “the law of Christ” as denoting living as Christ himself, who “loved me and gave himself for me,” see Fee, Presence, 463–64.
86. One would not ordinarily make much of this word at all, since it occurs regularly in Pauline paraenesis (e.g., 1 Thess 4:4; 1 Cor 7:17, 20, 24; Rom 15:2 et passim). The emphasis in this case rests on the plural (“all of you each one”) and the repetition (it occurs near the beginning and in the emphatic final position).
1. Unfortunately, the latter item—the profusion of discussion and debate—has sometimes tended to obscure rather than to enlighten, and, even worse, to bog down in debate a passage that should cause the reader to soar. It seems tragic that such a marvelous moment should get inundated by so much talk (and I am among the guilty [see “Philippians 2:5–11”], although part of that article, it should be pointed out, was in protest against the proliferation of literature resulting from its alleged hymnic character). Nonetheless, that talk does exist (the bibliography constitutes well over half of the special literature devoted to Philippians, so that nearly 100 pages [of 555] of O’Brien’s commentary, for example, are devoted to this passage alone); and a great deal of it, it must be admitted, is extremely helpful. Much of the literature deals with critical issues, esp. form, authorship, and background. I have dealt with some of this in the Introduction, pp. 39–46, although a few of these questions are also taken up in footnotes (for form see nn. 2, 4, 5; for authorship, nn. 3, 6 [cf. n. 12 on v. 8; n. 9 on vv. 9–11]; for background, nn. 45, 86 [cf. n. 11 on v. 8; n. 35 on v. 10]). For a helpful discussion of the relevant questions, see O’Brien, 186–203, 253–71; also 186–88 for bibliography up to 1990.
2. Reflected in the poetic format of the NIV and NA26 (the REB is noteworthy among recent translations for not having done so; cf. also UBS4). Lohmeyer’s dissertation (Kyrios Jesus) appeared in 1928, the first edition of his commentary the year following. Adumbrations of this view can be found as early as J. Weiss (1897), and begin to be noted in passing (in English) as early as Moffatt (Introduction, 1917) and Plummer (1919), so that Michael (1928), on the basis of Moffatt, can say, “It is not impossible that Paul is making use of the words of some early poem or hymn.” The first commentaries in English after World War II (Synge [1951]; Scott [1955]; Müller [1955]) are mixed; Scott discusses the possibility, but rejects it; Müller uses the language of “hymn,” but in quotation marks. Soon thereafter the quotation marks disappear and “Christ-hymn” is the coinage of the realm (Caird is a lonely exception). The next major commentary in English (Beare, 1959, now influenced by Käsemann [1950]) adopts Lohmeyer in such a thoroughgoing way that he speaks of Pauline authorship as “impossible,” and in his ten pages of commentary on the passage (78–88), Paul’s name is mentioned but once, only to deny that he could have authored what he wrote. The upshot is that for these ten pages Beare offers no commentary on Philippians at all, but on an unknown author’s “hymn” (cf. Collange, who repeatedly refers to “our hymn,” and mentions Paul but once; the same tendency is also at work in Martin); on the matter of authorship see next note. This point of view has only occasionally been called into question; see Hooker, “Philippians 2:6–11”; G. Wagner, “Le Scandale”; Fee, “Philippians 2:5–11”; and especially Fowl, Story, 31–45.
3. On the matter of authorship, see the Introduction, pp. 45–46. There is a discernible—but nothing approaching a groundswell!—swing back to Pauline authorship on the part of some (see, e.g., Furness, “Authorship”; Hooker, “Philippians 2:6–11”; Strimple, “Recent Studies”; Feinberg, “Kenosis”; Wright, “ἁρπαγμός”; Black, “Authorship”; Fowl, Story; and the commentaries by Silva and O’Brien). The steps toward the denial of authenticity are easy to discern: first, the passage is understood to be a hymn (preceding n.); if so, then it is probably pre-Pauline; and if so, given some unique words and phrasing, it must also be non-Pauline. All of this is certainly possible, though unprovable; it becomes pernicious when one also argues that the words in their present context must be understood on the basis of their reconstructed “original form,” so that Kreitzer (Jesus, 115), inter alia, can say, “We should not necessarily presuppose that the christology of the hymn is identical to that of Paul.” In fact, methodologically we should do precisely that, since this passage is not available to us except in its present Pauline expression.
Throughout the exposition that follows I will assume what one may rightly assume about any piece of writing such as this, that the words used are the “choice” of the author of the text we now have. Since Paul dictated these words, and did so in the form of prose sentences (see next n.), we may assume that he chose to use these very words, even if they had existed in prior form. After all, we have all kinds of evidence that Paul “cites” texts (the LXX in particular) in such a way as to make them his own! Cf. Hooker (“Philippians 2:6–11,” 152): “For even if the material is non-Pauline, we may expect Paul himself to have interpreted it and used it in a Pauline manner”; and D. J. Moo (Romans, 49 [on the same issue about Rom 1:3–4]): “Methodologically it is necessary at least to maintain that whatever Paul quotes, he himself affirms.” That is so eminently reasonable one wonders how so many can comment on the passage as though not written by Paul (even if not originally “authored” by him). See also n. 6 below.
4. What seems to favor this view are (1) the obvious poetic nature of vv. 6–8, (2) that it begins with ὅς, which is how two other apparent hymns begin (Col 1:15; 1 Tim 3:16); (3) that it seems to be a self-contained piece, not all of which, some have argued, seems to fit the context (esp. vv. 9–11); and (4) some unusual wording, especially for Paul. Against it are: (1) the word ὑμνός in Greek, including the LXX, is used exclusively to describe songs or poems written in praise of a deity (or honored person), which include an ascription of praise and the reasons for it (see esp. Fowl [Story, 31–45], whose evidence seems irrefutable on this matter); (2) that no one has yet produced an analogy (either stylistically or linguistically) that even remotely resembles the structures of our passage; and (3) that vv. 9–11 have almost nothing hymnic about them; the combination of διό (“therefore”), followed by a ἵνα clause (“so that”), concluding with a ὅτι clause (serving as the object of “confess”), is not the stuff of hymns but of argumentation. To say, as Collange (95), that vv. 6–8 and 9–11 are “identical in structure” is to stretch the words “identical” and “structure” beyond recognition. Indeed, if this sentence (vv. 9–11) had appeared elsewhere in the corpus, not following the poetry of vv. 6–8, no one would ever have guessed that it was originally part of a hymn!
This is not to deny the poetic nature of much of this; but poetry does not = hymn, which is poetry intended to be sung or read in praise of God, and giving the reason for it. More likely the passage reflects something more creedal, as elsewhere in Paul. Cf. Hooker (“Philippians 2:6–11,” 157): “It is of course undeniable that there is something poetic about these lines. Whether this makes them a poem—or whether they would be better described as a piece of rhythmic prose—is a different matter. In many ways the latter seems more likely”; but in the end she leans slightly toward the former. This whole matter seems to be a case of cross-pollination, whereby the exalted nature of this passage, plus its obvious poetry, is merged with a more contemporary use of the word “hymn” and then read back into the first century. That Paul is capable of something hymnic is attested by Rom 11:33–36, which, like those in Luke 1 and 2, is a fine mixture of OT words and motifs with his own concerns, and which stands in contrast to this passage, precisely because both its poetry and form are those of a hymn in the first-century use of that word.
5. For a critique of much of this, see Fee, “Philippians 2:5–11,” 30–34. That scholars have come up with five basic arrangements, with countless variations within each, does not offer great confidence that we can ever discover the “original” form of the hymn—especially since it is only recoverable from Paul’s prose, and the reconstruction is thus subject to the whims of subjectivity (e.g., one scholar’s “inclusio” [“taking the form of a slave,” with the opening participle] is another scholar’s “parallelism” [with the next participle]; both of which are correct, because they have nothing to do with “strophes”).
6. I emphasize these words, because this passage was dictated, just as was the rest of the letter—not “inserted” or “interpolated” (the reigning language of scholarship), as though by some kind of editorial process. Although taken down word by word or phrase by phrase (usually), what Paul dictated were sentences, not strophes or lines of a hymn. The evidence for this lies in the structural display, all of which makes perfectly good sense as Pauline sentences, but parts of which do not fit well in the various strophic arrangements, where many “lines” lack a verb and some are nothing more than prepositional phrases (cf. Fee, “Philippians 2:5–11,” 32–33). See the Introduction, pp. 40–43.
7. Except for the participles in vv. 7–8, which I have translated in keeping with the exegesis that follows, since to do otherwise creates nearly impossible English.
8. Gk. ἁρπαγμόν, one of the extremely difficult words in the passage; for its probable meaning see the discussion below.
9. Cf. C. J. Robbins, “Rhetorical Structure,” who presents a similar, basically two-part, analysis based on the principles of classical rhetoric.
10. Some think otherwise; see n. 3 on v. 8.
11. On the issue of translating this word, see n. 1 on v. 8.
12. Finding proper language to express divine realities is difficult at times. By “mode” I do not intend to suggest “modalism”; this is simply an attempt to find a word that will work on both sides of Paul’s compound sentence, just as Paul himself did with his choice of μορφή.
13. This very important feature in Paul’s sentence is generally overlooked in the literature; but see M. Thekkekara (“Neglected Idiom”), who correctly notes that the contrast deliberately highlights the lengths to which Christ went in his self-abasement.
14. So the vast majority of interpreters, although it is vigorously denied by E. Käsemann (“Analysis”), followed by Martin (Carmen, 84–88); cf. Losie (“Note”). Käsemann’s denial is in strong opposition to Lohmeyer and is thus predicated primarily on his theological aversion to anything that smacks of “imitating Christ,” as though ethics were based finally on self-effort rather than on grace; for Martin it also includes the “impossibility” of emulating Christ in vv. 9–11. But these objections are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of “imitatio” in Paul, which does not mean “repeat after me,” but (in the present context) “have a frame of mind which lives on behalf of others the way Christ did in his becoming incarnate and dying by crucifixion.” The point of vv. 9–11, after all, is not “imitatio” in the “follow me” sense, but in the sense of God’s vindication of such a life. Hurtado, whose refutation (“Lordly Example”) of the Käsemann/Martin view is especially noteworthy, points out (125) that they object to a view that is overly simplistic (dubbed by Martin “naïve ethical idealism”), their caricature of which, one might add, is not the perspective of most who have written on the subject. See the discussion at the end of vv. 9–11; cf. O’Brien, 253–62, and Fowl, Story, 77–101.
15. Those who deny that Paul’s concern is pardigmatic (see preceding n.) also argue that the point of the “hymn” is soteriology, a position that seems especially difficult to sustain, in comparison with the profusion of semi-creedal soteriological texts in Paul which use actual soteriological language. True, Christ’s death on the cross is ultimately soteriological for Paul—and even indirectly so here (i.e., the one whose “mindset” carried him to the cross is also the one whose death effected their salvation)—but when the cross is mentioned in soteriological contexts there is always a “saving verb” and usually some form of the preposition “for us”—both of which are missing here.
16. Cf. esp. 1 Cor 1:17–31.
17. The relationship between this verse and what precedes has been made the clearer in the manuscript tradition by the insertion of either γάρ (“for,” P46 2 D F G Maj lat syh) or οὖν (2492 pc). This is a clearly secondary process: (1) the asyndetic text has by far the best support (* A B C Ψ 33 81 1241 2464 2495 pc); (2) the variations reflect two separate attempts to remove the asyndeton; and (3) one cannot imagine the reasons for omitting the conjunction, if either were original.
18. As another reflection of the difficulty with Paul’s Greek in v. 4, the later MajT, which there changed the plural ἕκαστοι to ἕκαστος, likewise changed Paul’s second plural imperative (φρονεῖτε) to a third singular (φρονεῖσθω). This is reflected in the well-known rendering of the KJV: “let this mind be in you.” Hawthorne argues for this as the original text, but does so for the very reason that the later scribal tradition corrupted the text—to make Paul a tidier writer than he demonstrates himself to be at this point.
19. Paul’s Greek reads (literally), “in the likeness of ‘men’ having become” (Gk. ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος). P46 and some Latin witnesses, probably quite independently, changed the plural “men” to “a man,” most likely in assimilation to the next clause. But Paul is precise; see n. 94 below.
20. Some have thought otherwise, esp. those who consider the passage to be based on an Adam-Christ analogy, in which Christ is being portrayed as the second Adam in his humanity. See the discussion below on v. 6 (and nn. 41 and 73).
21. A point that is too often missed in the discussions; on this matter cf. Kennedy, 435.
22. On the matter of “Paul’s choice of language,” see n. 3 above.
23. Cf. Kennedy (435, written in an earlier day but still apropos): “Much trouble would have been saved if interpreters instead of minutely investigating the refinements of Greek metaphysics, on the assumption that they are present here, were to ask themselves, ‘What other terms could the Apostle have used to express his conceptions?’ ” See further n. 47 below.
24. That is, the second clause is without a verb, which must be supplied either from the first clause or from the sense of the context.
25. As is most often the case in Paul; and so most interpreters. In this letter see the usage in 1:7 (τοῦτο φρονεῖν; clearly pointing backward); 1:22 (this one is debated); 1:25 (τοῦτο πεποιθώς); 3:7 (ταῦτα ἥγημαι), 15 (τοῦτο φρονῶμεν), 15 (τοῦτο ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει); 4:8 (ταῦτα λογίζεσθε); 4:9 (ταῦτα πράσσετε). Only in 1:19 (q.v.) does this not seem to be the pattern, and there it is at least in part the result of his citing Job. Whenever τοῦτο clearly points forward, it is followed by a noun clause which explains the content of the “this.” One could argue for that pattern here, except that in context the τοῦτο does not pick up a new train of thought, but continues one already in process. Contra Käsemann, Martin, Loh-Nida, Losie (“Note,” 53), et al., who see τοῦτο as pointing forward, especially to the hymn (although Losie argues this case on the basis of the backward pointing examples of this letter). It is of some interest that those who see “in Christ Jesus” as referring not to Christ’s own mindset, but to that of the community as they are “in Christ,” almost to a person fail to come to terms with this pronoun. Losie is an exception, but the forced nature of his view highlights the difficulty with it.
26. Here is the place where the translation “have this mindset” (“frame of mind,” Z-G) breaks down, since it puts the emphasis on the noun implied in the verb, rather than on the action itself. Which has led to no end of trouble in this case, since it has caused generations of readers (and scholars) to assume the relative pronoun that follows has this non-existent noun as its antecedent, whereas the grammar of Paul’s sentence is clear—that the antecedent of ὅ (“which”) is τοῦτο (“this”). Cf. Losie (“Note”), who correctly notes that τοῦτο is the object of φρονεῖτε (although he otherwise quite misses Paul’s syntax).
27. Gk. ἐν ὑμῖν; in this letter see on 1:6 and 2:13.
28. But see, inter alia, Lightfoot, Meyer, Vincent, Müller, Hendriksen, who see it as referring strictly to the “hearts” (Lightfoot) of individual believers. Meyer and Vincent suggest that if it refers to the community, the parallel with Christ breaks down; but that is to take the concept of “parallel” much too rigidly, as do those who also use the same argument to insist that ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ must also be corporate (e.g., Silva).
29. As in 1:21 and 22, this clause is without a verb. Ordinarily in such a sentence one supplies the verb from the first clause. But that makes very little sense here (pace Hawthorne, who can make this work only by adopting a patently secondary textual corruption; see n. 18 above). Most likely (as Z-G), in light of the narrative that follows, the verb should be past tense. But a present tense (“is”) would also work, as would a verb that keeps the second plural of the first clause (e.g., “you find”). Kennedy (434) objects that to supply ἦν is “harsh, for it would presuppose τοῦτο φρονεῖν (not τοῦτο alone) as the antecedent of ὅ.” But that, of course, is not true if one takes τοῦτο, as one should grammatically, as the object of the verb and as pointing back to vv. 2–4 (see n. 25).
30. Gk. ὃ καί; “which also” is the ordinary sense of this idiom. For some who think otherwise, see n. 33 below.
31. That is, rather than viewing ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ as a “technical” term (see next n.), which in this case is especially questionable, one should see the ἐν as functioning precisely as in 1:30 (“which you saw ἐν ἐμοί and hear ἐν ἐμοί”).
32. Much is made of the “technical” (= formulaic) use of this phrase in Paul, as though it meant to be incorporated into “Christ’s mystical body.” Besides the particularly questionable assumption that there is such a “mystical body” in Paul (see esp. the critique by Yorke, Body), to assume that it would have carried such a “technical” sense in most of its appearances is quite unwarranted; that the Philippians would have known such a usage could not be demonstrated under any circumstances. See the discussion by Seifrid in DPL, 433–36, whose overview of the data should help to put this idea into perspective. Cf. the discussion on 1:13 and the similar judgment on the phrase “with Christ” on 2:23. See also the next note.
33. See Zerwick (Biblical Greek, 156), who recognizes the traditional meaning, but suggests that ὃ καὶ might be more stereotypical here, and therefore “otiose” in this clause. This view can be traced back to Deissmann (In Christus); it has been adopted, inter alia, by Kennedy, Moffatt, Jones, Michael, Dibelius, Beare, Gnilka, Collange, Silva, Käsemann (“Critical Analysis”); Martin (Carmen); Losie (“Note”). But this is an unmanageable, noncontextual tautology (= “think what you think in Christ”; cf. Lohmeyer, Hendriksen, Caird, Marshall, Moule, Strimple) and a most unnatural reading of the text, if word order and “hearing” count for anything. For the majority in Philippi the letter was a matter of hearing, not reading; it seems nearly impossible that they could have “heard” the subtleties demanded by this alternative. Paul’s text reads τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (lit., “this think in you which also in Christ Jesus”), which calls either for an “is” (or “was”) before or after “in Christ Jesus” or for another form of second plural verb (“you see or find”), either of which would be readily supplied by the mind of the hearer (because they would automatically hear the ὃ as picking up the τοῦτο and the καί as picking up the prepositional phrase). Surely this is what Paul intended his audience to do. On the other hand, it would require considerable pauses and re-reading for one to hear, first, that “in Christ Jesus” should be understood in a “formulaic” way and thus refer to “us”; which would require, second, that one reread and drop the καί (Losie’s ploy [“Note”] to get around this is especially forced) and then, third, supply something like “is proper” (or in the case of Käsemann and Martin, some form of φρονεῖτε) to complete the sentence. This seems much too subtle for a basically oral culture. It is noteworthy in this regard that the REB (“what you find in Christ Jesus”) has thus changed the NEB (“arise out of your life in Christ Jesus”). One wonders how anyone but a scholar could have come by the latter. Caird (118–19) tries to dodge the tautology by offering the wholly unsupportable suggestion that we treat ὃ καί as the equivalent of the Latin id est; but καί does not = est under any circumstances. Silva resorts to an intensive (“which indeed”), but that seems to intensify the tautology instead.
34. For the reasons for “just barely,” see nn. 25, 26, and 33. To make the τοῦτο point forward to the ὅ, it should be pointed out, makes the latter the real antecedent of the former rather than the other way about, which is how Paul’s sentence reads.
35. As Käsemann et al. would have it.
36. This is precisely in keeping with Rom 15:5–8. In a context of Jews and Gentiles “living in harmony with one another” so that “with one voice they might glorify God,” and in nearly identical language (τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν ἀλλήλοις κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν), Paul prays that “God would grant you to have the same mindset among one another according to Christ Jesus.” What that means is spelled out in vv. 7–8, where he appeals to Christ’s assuming the role of a servant on behalf of them both. Now, a few years later and from Rome, he makes a similar appeal, which is like the former in all of its particulars: the appeal itself, the setting, Christ as paradigm, and the servant nature of the paradigm. Silva (109) sees this text as supporting the alternative position, but to do so he must make Paul’s κατά become “a general expression that calls attention to our relationship with Christ.” But that seems to stretch the preposition beyond recognition. The Romans are to have this mind among themselves, precisely because it is “in keeping with” what they know about Christ as that is spelled out in vv. 7–8.
37. Gk. ὅς. For the suggestion that this relative signals the beginning of a hymn, see the discussion in Fee, “Philippians 2:5–11,” 31 (cf. the Introduction, pp. 41–42).
38. Cf. the similar appeal to Christ’s incarnation in 2 Cor 8:9 (“being rich, for your sakes he became poor”), which functions like this one: an imperative (to give generously), followed by an appeal to Christ’s self-giving in his incarnation.
39. Paul’s point, of course, could have been made without the contrast, but it would not have been as effective. That is, as always in these Pauline contrasts, one can read the sentence strictly in terms of the “but” clause. Thus, “who, being in the form of God, … emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave.” But the power of the rhetoric lies in the contrast of Christ’s emptying himself vis-ō-vis “grasping,” or “using to one’s own advantage” (for this meaning of harpagmon see the discussion).
40. Gk. ὑπάρχων; although at times interchangeable with εἶναι, in this case (pace BAGD) it very likely carries its primary sense of “to exist (really).” Earlier interpreters (e.g., Lightfoot, Plummer) argued that the word itself implies prior existence; but in the koine period the word on its own will hardly bear that weight. See M-M, 650–51.
The relationship of the participle “being” to the verb “did not consider” is debated. Most consider it concessive (so NRSV [“though he was in the form of God”]; cf. NASB, NAB, Lightfoot, Vincent, Michael, Hendriksen, Silva). Hawthorne (85) and Wright (“ἁρπαγμός,” 345 n. 87) follow Moule (“Manhood,” 97, in Wright’s case from personal conversation) in considering it causal (= “precisely because he was in the form of God … he recognized what it meant, etc.”). More likely Paul’s intent is circumstantial, meaning, “who, in the circumstance of being in the μορφή of God, as he always was” did not act selfishly (cf. GNB, “he always had the nature of God”; so also Meyer, 79).
41. The denial that this clause refers to pre-existence has taken two forms. (1) Many earlier interpreters (including Calvin) understood the whole passage, including v. 6, to deal with the divine Christ in his Incarnation. He who was “in the form of God” even in his earthly life did not consider his equality with God something to be seized upon (see the discussion and refutation in Meyer, 77–79). (2) More recently many have argued, either on the basis of a certain structural arrangement (Howard, “Phil 2:6–11”) or of “Wisdom christology” (Murphy-O’Connor, “Anthropology”) or of an Adam-Christ analogy (Harvey, “New Look”; Bakken, “New Humanity”; Talbert, “Problem”; Dunn, Christology, 114–21), that Paul sees Christ here merely in his humanity, who, e.g., as Adam, was in God’s “image” (cf. n. 73 below), but vis-ō-vis Adam did not try to seize God-likeness. But against these views are: (1) the grammar and language that do exist must be stretched nearly beyond recognition in order to work; (2) the metaphor inherent in ἐκένωσεν (“he emptied himself”) seems strikingly inappropriate to refer to one who is already human; (3) that the one described in v. 6 as “being in the form of God,” which means further that he was “equal with God,” is later said to “be made/born in human likeness” and is then “found in human appearance”; and (4) the structure itself, in which Part I2 (“and being found in appearance as a human being”) stands in such clear contrast to I1 (“who being in the ‘form’ of God”). (On the unlikelihood that one should begin Part I2 with the redundancy of making both participles that refer to his humanity begin the final sentence [“coming to be in the likeness of human beings and being found in appearance as a human being”] see n. 43 and n. 3 on v. 8). Dunn’s exegesis is suspect methodologically, in that it requires a considerable accumulation of merely possible, but highly improbable, meanings, all of which are necessary to make it work. Conclusions based on such a procedure are always suspect. Finally, this view divests the narrative of its essential power, which rests in the pointed contrast between the opening participle (“being in the form of God”) and the final coda (“death of the cross”). For refutations see Feinberg, “Kenosis”; Hurst, “Re-enter”; Wong, “Problem”; Wanamaker, “Philippians 2.6–11”; and O’Brien, 263–68. For a helpful overview and sane conclusions on this matter, see Hurtado, DPL, 743–46.
42. On this usage of the participle in a very similar context, cf. 2 Cor 8:9.
43. Those who deny this (see n. 41 above) by suggesting that the second sentence begins with the participle γενόμενος (“coming to be in the likeness of human beings”), not only create a nearly intolerable redundancy (see n. 3 on v. 8), but also never quite come to terms with the oddity of this second “strophe” in comparison with the first: In the so-called first strophe the human Jesus is already on the scene, whereas the second picks up with his “coming to be” as a human. Moreover, why the “hymn” should emphasize his humanity with a further twofold assertion of it, if the first “strophe” already assumes it, is never spoken to.
44. The word occurs in only these two instances in the NT. The literature here is immense. The best of the dictionary articles are those in TDNT (4.759–62; J. Behm) and EDNT (2.442–43; W. Pohlmann), with a useful bibliography in the latter. The best of the earlier discussions in English (before the influence of the papyri) is by Kennedy (435–36; cited by M-M, 417), which supersedes that of Lightfoot (127–33), which is limited to classical usage (and, in spite of its usefulness in that regard, takes up issues probably not Pauline). See also the discussion by Martin (Carmen, 99–133; although he accepts its improbable identity with εἰκών and δόξα), and the more recent commentaries (Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien).
45. Others see another issue here as well, namely the cultural-historical “background” to this word (and to many other of the ideas found throughout the “hymn”). On this issue, see the discussion in O’Brien, 193–98—except to point out that the view of Käsemann, who influenced many, that it reflects a pre-Christian Gnostic Redeemer myth is itself a piece of scholarly mythology, since there are no hard (or soft, for that matter) data for such a view in the first Christian century.
46. Cf. Vincent (57): “ ‘Form’ is an inadequate rendering of μορφὴ, but our language affords no better word.” In the absence of a better alternative, I will stay with “form,” but put it in quotes.
47. Had it not been for the second phrase, therefore, Paul most likely would have written something like φύσει θεός (“being God in nature”), or perhaps ἐν φύσει θεοῦ (“in God’s nature”). But φύσις would not work in the second instance, where “slave” is metaphorical and needs the second participle to spell out what is intended. Nor would the σχῆμα of the final participial phrase in v. 7 work, since that word emphasizes external features rather than substance or reality. As Meyer (80) notes: “The μορφὴ θεοῦ presupposes the divine φύσις.”
48. See preceding n. on the use of σχῆμα in v. 7.
49. So M-M, 417 (citing Kennedy): “a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (cf. Martin; O’Brien). The second occurrence, it should be pointed out, which in part determines the meaning in this first instance, makes it extremely unlikely that μορφή serves as a synonym for εἰκών (“image”), which is used in 2 Cor 4:4 and Col 1:15 to refer to Christ’s revelatory and mediatorial functions respectively; and thus it is equally unlikely that this sentence was shaped with an Adam-Christ contrast in view (see n. 73 below). That μορφή is the equivalent of εἰκών is another piece of scholarly opinion that has gained increasing momentum, being repeated over and again as though the linguistic data actually supported it—which it does not. The second occurrence of μορφή (v. 7) also plays havoc with the view, adopted in various forms (by, inter alia, Meyer, Jones, Martin, Strimple, Fowl) that μορφή = δόξα (“glory”), a view that would have much going for it had we only the first instance (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ); but to apply “glory” to the role of the slave is to press words beyond their ordinary sense (cf. Collange, Hawthorne).
50. Cf. GNB (“he always had the nature of God”); NEB (“the divine nature was his from the first”; but changed back to the ambiguous “form” in the REB); cf. TCNT, Montgomery, Phillips.
51. Because of the significance and difficulty of this word, I have chosen in this case to set it off as a mini word study, which will need to be read in order to understand the whole, but hopefully by doing it this way will also help to make better sense of the overall passage.
52. Again, as with μορφή, the literature is immense. The best of the recent literature is that by N. T. Wright, “ἁρπαγμός,” who both summarizes the preceding debate and offers a solution that is especially satisfactory in light of all the issues, and to which I gladly acknowledge indebtedness. Wright basically adopts the view of Hoover (“Harpagmos,” see n. 56).
53. The noun is formed from the Greek verb ἁρπάζω, which means to “snatch” or “seize,” usually with the connotation of violence or suddenness.
54. Since it makes very little sense at all (despite the KJV, and those who have tried to comment on the basis of this translation). J. C. O’Neill (“Hoover”) argues against Hoover (see n. 56) that “robbery,” which is “near nonsense,” seems “to be the only choice left” (448), whose counsel of despair is then to emend the text. But in so doing O’Neill has called into question only some of Hoover’s data (the evidence from Heliodorus [Hoover, 102–6] is especially noteworthy); by turning Hoover’s findings into a “rule,” O’Neill eliminates the “rule” by noting the exceptions. But that is not the same thing as eliminating Hoover’s understanding of the idiom.
55. The technical language for these distinctions is res rapta (“something grasped” = “robbery”) or res rapienda (“something to be grasped”), both referring to what was not previously possessed, and res retinenda (“something to be clung onto”), referring to something already possessed.
56. See Moule (“Reflexions”) and Hoover (“Harpagmos”); these two pieces appeared nearly simultaneously (1971 and 1970 respectively). Hoover built especially on the work of W. W. Jaeger (“Studie”), although its line goes back to Lightfoot. Moule gave a more solid philological base to the previous work of J. Ross (“ΑΡΠΑΓΜΟΣ”), F. E. Vokes (“ἁρπαγμός”), and S. H. Hooke (Alpha); cf. also J. M. Furness, “ἁρπαγμός”; H. Dean, “Glory.” Although some have followed Moule (e.g., Hawthorne), the general swing (adopted also in this commentary) is toward Hoover, while keeping Moule in view (so Martin, Strimple, Feinberg, Wright, Silva, Fowl, O’Brien, Melick); it was taken earlier by Käsemann, “Analysis,” 63 (“to use something for one’s own benefit”).
57. Cf. the discussion in M-M, 78.
58. The common objection that it still requires an object, i.e., “what is not being seized or given away?” has been already answered by Moule, that such an “active” view of the noun does not require an object as such.
59. As Wright (“ἁρπαγμός,” 345) also points out.
60. That is, when it occurs as part of a double accusative with a verb like “think” (as here) or “do.”
61. Cf. the (much overstated) critique by O’Neill, “Hoover.” The first objection to both suggestions (Moule’s and Hoover’s), of course, is the lack of linguistic evidence as such for this word.
62. First, by the structure of the clause. In Greek ἁρπαγμὸν … τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ is a double accusative which functions as the object of the verb ἡγήσατο (“consider”). Thus it is a form of indirect discourse; in direct discourse “to be equal with God” would the subject and ἁρπαγμόν the predicate noun of a sentence that would read: “to be equal with God is harpagmon,” which is not Christ’s mindset (cf. Käsemann [“Analysis,” 62]). But by putting “not harpagmon” in the emphatic first position, Paul indicates that the infinitive that follows refers back to the initial participial phrase, in a kind of A-B-A structure. Thus, “in his being in the form of God (A), not harpagmon did Christ consider (B) his being be equal with God (A′).”
Second, by using the definite article with the infinitive, which, as in 1:21–22—and ordinarily so in any case—is probably anaphoric, pointing to “something previously mentioned or otherwise well known” (this is the language of BDF, §205); cf. Meyer (88), Hawthorne (84), and Wright (“ἁρπαγμός,” 344), who also see the article as anaphoric.
63. Gk. ἴσα θεῷ; for this use of ἴσα as a predicate, Lightfoot notes Job 11:12 LXX. Cf. John 5:18, where Jesus is accused, on the basis of his “working on the Sabbath,” of making himself ἴσος τῷ θεῷ.
64. So most interpreters (e.g., Meyer, Müller, Beare, Hendriksen, Collange, Loh-Nida, Bruce, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien, Melick; Käsemann [“Analysis,” 62–63]; Wright [“ἁρπαγμος,” 344]). Those who reject what the grammar seems to require do so either because they take a different view of ἁρπαγμός (e.g., Kennedy, Jones, Michael) or because of prior commitments to an Adam-Christ analogy in which Christ is seen as only human (see nn. 41 and 73).
65. Indeed, the fact that “equality with God” was something he always had is what makes the contrast between the opening participle and the main verb (our next point) work at all.
66. Strimple (“Recent Studies,” 263) notes (correctly) that the res rapienda view of ἁρπαγμόν (see n. 55) creates a disjunction between being in the form of God and being equal with God “contrary to the natural force of the grammatical construction which so closely binds together these two clauses which precede the real disjunction, which comes with the ἀλλά at the beginning of verse 7.”
67. Cf. Wright, “ἁρπαγμός,” 344–46.
68. As a Pauline church, what is presented here is the one they would already have known well.
69. Which is why the “coda” to the final participle in v. 8, “even death on a cross,” is expressed in such a way—so as to carry ultimate rhetorical effect. Here is the apogee of true “God-likeness,” where the divine Christ gives himself away in the utterly execrable “weakness” (humiliation) of crucifixion. For this understanding of the cross, see esp. 1 Cor 1:18–25 in Fee, First Corinthians, 67–78.
70. For this verb (ἡγέομαι) see n. 76 on v. 3.
71. This possible association with Gen 2–3 goes back at least as far as Ernesti (noted, but rejected, by Meyer); it was also noted, and again rejected, by Vincent and Plummer. It has been much more widely accepted in recent years (inter alia, by Caird, Houlden, Kent, Silva; Cullmann, Christology; Ridderbos, Paul; Bandstra, “ ‘Adam’ ”; Hooker, “Philippians 2:6–11”; Dunn, Christology; Wright, “ἁρπαγμός”)—with varying degrees of conviction as to how much the language has been purposely designed to represent this analogy, from Caird’s “the context requires it,” to Wright’s more cautious “typically cryptic reference to Adam” (“ἁρπαγμός,” 348; cf. Silva, “network of associations”). It is rejected by Collange, Glasson (“Two Notes”), Strimple (“Recent Studies”), and Feinberg (“Kenosis”). The most useful current overview of this matter is O’Brien, 263–68.
72. In conjunction with the resurrection (1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49) and with the universality of human sin (Adam) and God’s redemption (Christ; Rom 5:12–21).
73. Those who see the analogy as intentional on the part of the “author” of the “hymn” argue (1) that μορφή and εἰκών are interchangeable terms, and (2) therefore that the “author” is deliberately “citing” Gen 1:26–27 with this substitution. They see this as further confirmed by the language τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (“to be equal with God”), which is understood to pick up Gen 3:5 and 22 (“be like one of us,” although there is not a single linguistic link between these passages and Phil 2:6–7). That the two words are fully interchangeable in this sense is scholarly mythology based on untenable semantics (cf. esp. the refutations by Wallace, “Note,” and Steenburg, “Case Against”), as though, because in certain instances they have a semantic overlap, therefore an author could—or would—use either one or the other at will. For example, there is a semantic overlap with the words “right” and “just” in English, and they might be fully interchangeable in a sentence that says, “What she did was right/just.” But one is in grave danger who thinks they are thereby fully interchangeable, even in comparable sentences (as, e.g., “she is just; she is right”). Since Paul is quite ready to speak of Christ as “in the image (εἰκών) of God,” and since that is the word used in Genesis, how could it be possible, one wonders, that Paul was intending this analogy and have written μορφή? And it will do no good in this case to say that he was “citing” a pre-formed hymn, because as anyone knows who has watched Paul use the OT, he seldom lets the words in an original text dictate how those words will appear in his own sentence.
74. This seems to me to negate this view as intentional on Paul’s part; cf. Käsemann (“Analysis,” 64): “The text lends no support to it … ; and such support must certainly be expected in the case of such a concrete reference” (emphasis mine). Vincent, followed by Glasson (“Two Notes”), also points out that nothing in the Genesis account that suggests seeking “equality with God” to be the nature of the Fall; rather, it was the quest for absolute knowledge.
75. Many of those who hold this position, it should be noted further, likewise deny that the passage speaks of pre-existence (see n. 41 above).
76. The literature here covers a broad range (commentaries, theologies, articles), which makes it impossible to offer an adequate bibliography. For the earlier (mostly theological, and mostly Reformed) debate, see Müller, 83–85. For more recent treatments, see E. R. Fairweather, “ ‘Kenotic’ Christology”; T. A. Thomas, “Kenosis”; and C. Patitsas, “Kenosis” (for a Greek Orthodox view). At issue in this debate for the most part has been whether Paul considers Christ to have emptied himself of divinity itself in some way or of “the glories, the prerogatives of Deity” (Lightfoot, 112), which in more recent times has had to do with his “glory” (as a way of understanding μορφή; see n. 49 above) or of his power (Müller, Hendriksen, Collange).
77. Pace Plummer (44), who argues that “a secondary object must be understood” (cf. Hendriksen, Kent). One wonders why so, since this is not true in Paul’s other uses of this word. When metaphors start being pressed like this, one may as well ask other irrelevant questions (e.g., into what was he emptied?). The view argued for here (“poured himself out”) was first presented (apparently) by W. Warren, “ἐκήνωσεν”; it has been adopted, inter alia, by Jones, Michael, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien, Melick, Dean (“Glory”); it was anticipated by Vincent, 59.
78. Cf. Martin, Carmen, 195; Müller, 80; Silva, 125; O’Brien, 217. But it is a metaphor, one should note, that demands pre-existence (see n. 41); otherwise why use it, when other more appropriate verbs were at hand (“denied himself,” “rejected,” etc.)? Indeed, if it does not presuppose pre-existence the metaphor itself has been “emptied.”
79. See 1 Cor 1:17 (“lest the cross of Christ κενωθῇ [be made ineffectual]”), and Rom 4:14 (“faith κεκένωται [has been emptied]”). Why not ask, e.g., of what has faith been emptied? (cf. Silva). The two other passages (1 Cor 9:15 and 2 Cor 9:3) refer to one’s “boast” being “emptied,” which is precisely the meaning the cognate noun regularly has in Paul (e.g., Phil 2:16 [2x]; cf. Gal 2:2). On this point see esp. Hooker (“Philippians 2:6–11,” 152), followed by Wright (“ἁρπαγμός,” 345–46).
80. Contra Michel, 89.
81. “ἁρπαγμός,” 346. The further point to make, of course, is that the text does not imply that he exchanged one form of existence for another (pace Thomas, “Kenosis,” 151; et al.); rather, it is precisely he who is in the form of God (always) who “beggared himself” (Beare) by “taking on” the form of a slave; cf. Bruce (70): “He displayed the nature (or form) of God in the nature (or form) of a servant.”
82. Which are best understood as modal; i.e., they describe the manner, or circumstances, in which he “emptied himself” (so most interpreters).
83. Gk. λαβών; ordinarily the aorist participle indicates antecedent time. But despite Moule (Idiom Book, 100), who recognizes only two such uses in the NT (both in Acts), the majority of scholars understand this participle to express coincident time. Cf. Gal 4:6; Eph 1:9.
84. On this meaning of the verb, see Fee, Presence, 425. To argue that he must be enslaved to someone (“God” [so Meyer, Plummer], or “the powers” [see n. 86]) is to press the metaphor and therefore to miss it.
85. Actually three. E. Schweizer (Erniedrigung, 21–33, 93–102) suggests the righteous sufferer such as one finds in intertestamental Jewish martyrologies, although apart from Martin, he seems not to have persuaded many.
86. See Käsemann (“Analysis,” 67–68), followed by Beare, 82; Gnilka, 120; Caird, 121–22; Bornkamm (“Verständnis,” 181).
87. Esp. the repeated εἰς θάνατον (53:8, 12) in the context of his being ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσι (v. 8). Note also the conceptual ties of “he emptied himself” and “he poured out his soul unto death” (53:12); and 52:13 (“my servant καὶ ὑψωθήσεται καὶ δοξασθήσεται σφόδρα [shall be exalted and glorified greatly]”). This was first argued for at some length (apparently) by H. W. Robinson (Cross, 104, 105 [first appearing in 1926]) and carried forward by L. Cerfaux (Le Christ, 288–98) and J. Jeremias (“Zu Phil ii 7”); it has been adopted, inter alia, by Jones, Michael (tentatively), Hendriksen; Martin (Carmen, 169–96); Gibbs (“Creation,” 275–81); Strimple (“Recent Studies,” 260–61); Feinberg (“Kenosis,” 36–40). See the helpful discussion in O’Brien, 268–71, although he finally rejects it.
88. He is the παῖς θεοῦ; Paul’s word is δοῦλος, and he is not called “the slave of the Lord.” This linguistic difference is the most frequently given reason for rejecting the idea altogether (e.g., Plummer).
89. Similarly Silva, who also cites Heriban (Retto, 160–62) and Wagner (“Le scandale”) in support.
90. Moule (“Reflexions,” 268–69) suggests this as the only motif; cf. Houlden, Hawthorne, Bruce.
91. So also Hurtado (“Lordly Example”); cf. O’Brien, 223–24.
92. Cf. Meyer (90, “specifies”); Kennedy (437, “defines”); Vincent (59, “explains”). Those who deny pre-existence (see n. 41) recognize the difficulties this phrase poses for their point of view and adopt the tautological “strophic” arrangement which sees this and the next participle as introducing the next clause (on this matter see n. 3 on v. 8).
93. Gk. γενόμενος; cf. v. 8 where the same participle appears in a similar qualifying phrase. Cf. further the double use of this participle in the semi-creedal Gal 4:4–5, which in that case = “was born.” It is so translated here by Moffatt; cf. NRSV, NAB. The NIV and NASB translate “being made,” while GNB suggests “appearing.”
94. Gk. ἀνθρώπων; the plural is purposeful, implying his identity with the whole human race, which is then particularized in the next phrase (“as a human being [himself]”).
95. Gk. ἐν ὁμοιώματι; cf. esp. Rom 8:3 (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, “in the likeness of sinful flesh”); on this latter usage BAGD comment (“it is safe to assert that [Paul’s] use of our word is to bring out both that Jesus in his earthly career was similar to sinful [people] yet not absolutely like them”).
1. Gk. ἄνθρωπος; while it is true that Jesus was in fact male, thus a man, this word does not point to his being male, but to his being human. On the other hand, against all the rules of inclusive language I have mantained “man” in the title of the section for the sake of poetry. Hence the two clauses in Part I: “As God he emptied himself; as Man he humbled himself.” Although the use of “man” is generic here, and therefore against the “rules,” let the reader understand it to mean “a man.”
2. In some ways, therefore, one can scarcely justify commenting on this verse as a distinct entity. I have chosen to do so in order to highlight the three parts of the narrative and their significance for the argument. This is also a place (cf. 2 Cor 13:14[13]) where the versification of the English Bible (which has it correctly!) does not match the Greek (which has v. 8 begin with the main clause, “he humbled himself”).
3. Gk. καί. Parataxis has to do with joining sentences with an “and” as over against various forms of subordination. It is a regular feature of Hebrew narrative, picked up most noticeably in the NT in the Gospel of Mark. Parataxis is rare in Paul; where it does occur it is usually in narrative of some kind (e.g., 1 Thess 1:6, 9; Gal 1:14, 24; 2:2; Eph 2:1). It should be pointed out that it is also a feature of Hebrew poetry, although occurring with less frequency than in narrative.
Some see the καί as joining the two participial phrases, rather than the two clauses, either as concluding the preceding sentence (Meyer, Loh-Nida, Hawthorne), or beginning the next (Jeremias, J. A. Sanders, Collange, and all who deny pre-existence [see n. 41 on v. 6]), or as an independent strophe (Martin, GNB). For the most part (Meyer excepted) this is the result of forcing strophic arrangements on the text rather than recognizing Paul’s sentences. Apart from these prior commitments to strophic patterns, this has nothing in its favor: (a) it destroys the formal similarities of the two sentences; (b) it creates a nearly intolerable redundancy, whose purpose is difficult to fathom; indeed, viewed this way, the phrase interrupts the otherwise smooth flow of the narrative; (c) this kind of identical parallelism (where two synonymous lines say exactly the same thing) would not only be unique for this passage, but cannot in fact be found elsewhere in Paul; (d) it causes the καί to create a strange relationship between these two phrases (“having become in the likeness of human beings and being found in appearance as a human being” as either the conclusion of the prior sentence or beginning of the next makes very little sense); and (e) it creates unnecessary asyndeton for the middle sentence (v. 8), over against vv. 9–11. Finally, it should be noted that either of these creates an unnatural reading (and thus hearing) of the text for those who do not have the strophes before them (cf. Silva, 121). It is therefore understandable that the majority of interpreters (and translations) view the καί as beginning the second sentence.
4. Gk. εὑρεθείς (aorist passive), which ordinarily refers to an event antecedent to the main verb (= having been found); in this case the English present passive participle offers the same sense. On a spectrum εὑρίσκω goes from “finding” by purposeful search, to “finding” in the sense of surprise or discovery, to its least purposeful sense, used here, where it means something close to “he was seen to be.” Cf. 3:9 (which is probably more in the middle); 2 Cor 5:3; Gal 2:17.
5. Gk. σχήματι; cf. 1 Cor 7:31, the only other occurrence of this word in Paul, where it seems to mean, “this age in its present expression.”
6. That is, his “being in the form of God” which means that he “was equal with God.”
7. Thus in vv. 12–13 he applies this narrative to their situation, by reminding them that they have “always obeyed”—not Paul, of course, but God himself, just as Christ did by his having died for them.
8. Esp. the Gospel of John and Hebrews (see Jn 4:34; 5:30; 6:38–40; 7:17; 10:15, 17; Heb 5:7–10; 10:5–9).
9. Gk. μεχρί; the preposition for “until,” which can denote “space,” “time,” or “degree.” Here it clearly denotes “degree.” Jesus’ obedience took him to the nth degree, to death itself. The use of this preposition is what in part gives one pause as to whether this passage was written with Isaiah 53 consciously in the background, where the LXX twice reads εἰς θάνατον.
10. Contra those who suggest that it points to a life of obedience, which maintained obedience to the very end (as, e.g., Plummer [47]: “He became so by a life of absolutely perfect obedience in all things”).
11. See 1 Cor 2:7 (NRSV); for this perspective elsewhere in Paul see also Gal 1:4 (“who gave himself for our sins … according to the will of our God and Father”); cf. Rom 1:2–4; 16:25–26; Eph 1:3–7, 11. Some have seen “obedience” otherwise: to the “powers” (Käsemann, et al. [see n. 86 on v. 7]; a view, one should note, that could only have arisen among those who comment on the “hymn” as though Paul had nothing to do with it); or to other human beings as well (Hawthorne); or simply to the fact that he obeyed (Barth, O’Brien). But the subject of the next clause, “Therefore God highly exalted him,” seems to point to the view taken here, that his death is in obedience to the divine will.
12. One of the unfortunate by-products of seeing the alleged hymn as pre-Pauline, and then commenting on it as though Paul had nothing to do with it (e.g., Beare), is to view this final, climactic word as a Pauline addition to the “hymn,” which breaks up its original strophic arrangement. On this matter Caird has rightly noted (122): “Lohmeyer’s attempt to bracket the words even death on a cross as an intrusive gloss, is the reductio ad absurdum of his theory, since the words in fact constitute the climax to which the last three verses have been pointing.” Similarly, Hengel, Crucifixion, 62–63, with regard to these words as providing the climax of vv. 6–8; in his view they are to be understood precisely in connection with his taking the “form” of a slave, since crucifixion was a slave’s penalty, as everyone reading the letter well knew.
13. Cf. Cicero (Verr. 5.66; LCL 655–57): “To bind a Roman citizen is a crime; to flog him is an abomination; to slay him is almost an act of murder; to crucify him is—what? There is no fitting word that can possibly describe so horrible a deed.” Cf. Heb 12:2: “Who endured the cross, scorning its shame.”
14. Nor anywhere else in the early church!
15. See esp. the accusation of the religious in Luke 23:2, where they knew that the only way they could get the state to do their dirty work for them was to trump up a political charge—sedition: “We found this man … forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (NRSV). On the whole question of Jesus’ death by crucifixion, its Roman background and its theological significance, see M. Hengel, Crucifixion; for a brief, but helpful overview see J. B. Green, DPL, 197–99.
16. A form of execution, it should be further pointed out, reserved for non-citizens of the Empire. Cf. n. 13 above, to which one might add Cicero’s further remark (Rab. Post. 5.16; LCL 467): “The very word ‘cross’ should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen, but from his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears.”
17. From the hymn by Graham Kendrick, The Servant King (1983).
1. The Western and later Byzantine traditions (D F G Ψ Maj; Clement Origen) omit τό, thus reading as the KJV (“a name above all names”). Although one could argue for an addition on the grounds of grammar (ΟΕνομα τό, without a τό preceding ΟΕνομα is awkward), both the external evidence and Pauline grammar argue for the article as original. The omission resulted either from an error of hearing (the τό immediately follows αὐτῷ) or (more likely) from a lack of understanding of Paul, so that his definite “the name” (= the Lord) came to mean something closer to name = reputation.
2. The large number of MSS have changed Paul’s original subjunctive (ἐξομολογήσηται) to a future indicative (-γήσεται). This is an understandable change, which makes v. 11 a final sentence on its own. But the second subjunctive (preserved in P46 B Ψ 104 323 2495 pm) is to be preferred; it keeps the sentence with its chiastic structure intact (see n. 6) and represents Paul’s ordinary style.
3. That is, the Philippians are to pursue the mindset of the one who as God emptied himself and as man humbled himself, even to death on the cross. On this whole question, see n. 14 on 2:5–11; cf. the discussion in O’Brien, 253–62, and the theological observations at the end of the paragraph (pp. 226–29 below).
4. The first to note this view of vv. 9–11 among English commentaries was Michael; most neglect it altogether, usually because by the time they come to this verse the context is forgotten in the interest of what Paul says about Christ himself. On the basis of his view of v. 5, Barth sees the vindication to come to the Philippians as a result of their being “in Christ.” But such a view arose only for theological reasons—to be done with a kind of “imitatio Christi” that seems to imply personal effort and therefore to circumvent grace.
5. Cf. Silva (127) and O’Brien (232), who both recognize that this is a Pauline prose sentence and begin by describing its obvious parts, but who then continue to use the language of hymnody.
6. The whole, therefore, falls out into a kind of chiastic structure:
A God has exalted him to the highest place
B by bestowing on him “the name” above other names
C at which name every knee shall bow
C′ and every tongue confess (the name)
B′ namely that the Lord is Jesus Christ
A′ all to the glory of God the Father
7. The lack of a Pauline parallel is highlighted when contrasted with Rom 11:33–36, a doxologic passage, which appears in nicely balanced semitic parallelism. Cf. the “addition” to the prescript in Galatians, where in v. 4 he says of Christ: who gave himself for our sins, in order that he might deliver us … , in keeping with the will of God, to whom (God) be glory forever.” As with the present passage, this is the stuff of creed, not hymn, which is expressed in the exalted language of praise but whose “poetry” is incidental, not hymnic.
8. See above on 1:20 and on 2:14–16 below.
9. It is a cause for some wonder that this sentence could be considered by some to be pre-Pauline and thus not by Paul (e.g., Käsemann, Beare, Martin), in light of (a) the Pauline form that it takes, (b) the typically Pauline intertextuality which forms the heart of it (and the use of Isa 45:23 in particular; cf. Rom 14:11), (c) the Pauline language that abounds (the two main verbs; the confession of Jesus as Lord), and (d) the thoroughly Pauline outlook theologically. And all of this is an undisputed Pauline letter!
10. Gk. διὸ καί; the conjunction itself (διό) is always inferential and never slips into modified expressions, such as resumption, which is so characteristic of οὖν. Although it is possible that the καί is correlative, functioning with the καί at the beginning of the next clause to emphasize “both … and” with regard to God’s activity of exalting and name bestowing, much more likely it is to be understood as intensifying the conjunction, which BAGD suggest “denot[es] that the inference is self-evident.” For this usage in Paul, see 2 Cor 1:20; 4:13 (2x); 5:9; Rom 4:22; 15:22.
11. The absence of which some, therefore, consider to reflect non-Pauline authorship. But in fact many of these kinds of creedal statements, most of which in Paul are soteriological, do not mention the Resurrection.
12. G. Howard, “Phil 2:6–11,” has taken the human Jesus view, which denies pre-existence in vv. 6–7 (see n. 41 on v. 6), to its logical conclusion, by arguing that this passage also speaks only of the human (albeit risen) Jesus. But this is to pile still further exegetical improbabilities onto a view that is already loaded with them. It is not surprising that he has found no followers.
13. E.g., Meyer, 99; Martin, 100; Houlden, 77; Silva, 127–28.
14. E.g., Lohmeyer, Käsemann, Beare, Caird, Martin.
15. Thus reading the καί as epexegetic and the sentence as a hendiadys, where the second verb elaborates or fills out the meaning of the first. On this usage in Paul, see esp. 1 Cor 11:22 (“or do you despise the church of God by humiliating the have-nots”). So also Silva, 128–29.
16. Gk. ἐχαρίσατο, the verb formed from the noun χάρις (“grace”) and a Pauline favorite; see the discussion on 1:29 above.
17. Gk. ὑπερύψωσεν, found only here in the NT.
18. It might be in a sense that in the chronology of heaven as it intersects with earth Christ has assumed a “new role” as it were (as sympathetic high priest, for example, who knows our suffering from the inside). But it is doubtful that one can mine “positional” significance out of that kind of understanding.
19. See MHT, 2.326; as they point out, the English equivalent is our “over” compounds (e.g., overjoyed, overburden, overdevelop), or as many have put it, the emphasis is on the superlative, not comparative.
20. “Name” sometimes refers to one’s character, or reputation, as in the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer; but in light of the definite article with “name” that seems untenable here. So also with Lightfoot’s “the title of dignity” (cf. Beare). Both of these miss the role of the Isaiah oracle in the passage as a whole. In this case the name, meaning “the well-known” name, probably reflects an OT phenomenon where “the name” was a periphrasis for Yahweh.
21. For this view, see Meyer, Alford, Eadie, Vincent, and more recently, Moule (“Reflexions,” 270) and Silva.
22. So Meyer, 100.
23. So, inter alia, Kennedy, Plummer, Michael, Lohmeyer, Barth, Müller, Beare, Hendriksen, Collange, Bruce, Hawthorne, and most specialized studies on the passage.
24. That the intertextuality is certain is verified by Paul’s citation of this same passage from the LXX in Rom 14:11, where it appears to reinforce that all people, including believers, will appear before God’s “judgment seat.” This citation is especially noteworthy as demonstrating intertextuality in the present passage, for two reasons: first, Paul begins the Romans citation with words from Isa 49:18 (“I live, says the Lord”), which indicates that Paul has the larger context of these Isaianic oracles in view; and second, because in both instances he cites a form of the text with ἐξομολογήσεται rather than ὀμεῖται (see n. 28 below), indicating that in the present instance he is not “loosely reworking” or “alluding” to this passage, as Kreitzer (Jesus, 115–16), e.g., suggests. This is a primary example of intertextuality, in which Paul purposely picks up the language of an earlier text (in this case, Isa 45:23), bringing with it the basic contextual concerns of that text, and now reapplies it to his own situation. See the discussion on 1:20.
25. An emphasis, it should be pointed out, that runs through the whole of Isa 41–55 (see esp. 42:8, “I am Yahweh God [ἐγώ κύριος ὁ θεός], that is my name”!; cf. 41:17, 21; 42:5, 6, 13, 21; 43:3, 10, 12, et passim).
26. We might note further (1) that this interpretation removes the awkwardness of Christ’s being “granted” a name he had already borne during the time of his incarnation; and (2) that it fits the Pauline view of things, in that the basic confession of believers is that Jesus is Lord (v. 11).
27. Gk. ἵνα, which in classical Greek expresses purpose, and still does for the most part in the NT, including Paul. But there are several instances in Paul where the purpose seems to embrace result more than aim (cf. v. 2 above; see Fee, Presence, 434–37, on Gal 5:17); cf. O’Brien, 239. Most interpreters see it strictly as purpose.
Thus Paul: | πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ [ ] | καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται |
Isa 45:23: | κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ | καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα. |
There is a considerable textual variant in the LXX manuscript tradition, between ἐξομολογήσεται (A Q c) and ομεῖται (B Lucian Catenae). The latter reading was almost certainly created by Origen in his Hexapla as a “correction” toward the Masoretic text. In any case, Paul is the certain evidence that this reading existed (in Tarsus?) in the first Christian century. That Paul cites it this way in two instances, once (Rom 14:11) precisely (verbally) as in Codex Alexandrinus (but with the transposition πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται), verifies that this is the reading he knows, not one that he created. Furthermore, the transposition, slight as it is textually, indicates that Paul was probably citing from memory, while at the same time it verifies that Alexandrinus is not an adaptation to Paul.
29. This seems so clearly the perspective of the whole, that one is caught by surprise that there has been debate as to the “time” of this event (see Martin, Carmen, 266–70). On this matter, Lohmeyer (97) surely had it right, that it speaks of the eschatological future from the perspective of “a present in God.” This is nothing other than the “already/not yet” eschatological framework that informs the whole of Pauline theology. See the Introduction, pp. 50–52.
30. Gk. ἐν; some debate exists as to whether this is the object (so most interpreters) or medium (so Kennedy, Plummer) of worship (the language is Michael’s, 96). Ordinarily one would think the latter; the context and structure of the sentence indicate the former, in the sense of “in honor of his name,” is in view (as GNB, Loh-Nida, O’Brien). However, to use this preposition as a way of suggesting that the worship is not directed to Jesus, but through him to the Father (as e.g., Collange), seems to press for a fixed sense to a flexible preposition, while missing the point of the whole passage.
31. Most likely this genitive means “the name (= Lord) which has been bestowed on Jesus,” not “the name Jesus itself.”
32. See, e.g., Ps 95:6; Mark 15:19; Luke 5:8; 22:41; Acts 7:60; 9:40; Eph 3:14; cf. the discussions in NIDNTT, 2.859–60 (Schönweiss), and EDNT, 1.257–58 (Nützel).
33. Some have argued for universalism on the basis of statements like this; but that flies full in the face of 1:28 (cf. 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 4:3; etc.).
34. But it seems unlikely that the three words are neuter and intend to imply “the whole range of creation,” including inanimate creation, as Lightfoot (115) argues, followed by Plummer, 49; Carr, Angels, 86–89; Silva, 133.
35. So most interpreters. Although this language will surely include “the powers,” there seems to be no particular emphasis on them, nor is there any reason to suppose that all three designations refer to “spirit powers” (as, e.g., Dibelius, Käsemann, Beare, Cullmann, Martin [Carmen, 257–65], Gnilka, Traub [TDNT, 5.541–42], Nützel [EDNT, 1.258]). This view, which has been thoroughly refuted by Hofius (Christushymnus, 20–40; cf. Carr, Angels, 86–89), is the direct result of faulty methodology, which (1) presupposes that the “hymn” is pre-Pauline (and therefore non-Pauline), (2) seeks to root its “background” in Gnostic or hellenistic cosmology, and (3) then reads that alleged “background” into its present Pauline usage. Against it, besides this metholodological weakness, are: (1) that although Paul understands the powers to inhabit the “heavenlies” (Eph 1:20–21; 2:2; 3:10; 6:12), there is no evidence that he understood them also to inhabit earth and Sheol (on the misreading of 1 Cor 2:6–8 in this way, see Fee, First Corinthians, 103–4); (2) that Paul’s primary background is the OT, and the present language, though not found in the OT, thoroughly represents the cosmology of the OT (see, e.g., J. Guhrt, NIDNTT, 1.522–23); and (3) most importantly, there is not a hint in the present letter that the Philippians were distressed by the “powers”; their problem is with people, whose opposition is bringing them considerable suffering. Thus, if there is emphasis at all in such a broad throwing of the net (and there probably is), it would seem to be—for the sake of the Philippians—that it includes those who are currently responsible for their suffering.
36. Gk. γλῶσσα. Although this word sometimes refers to languages, and BAGD think so here (“every language = every person, regardless of the language he [or she] speaks”), Paul is more likely picking up the sense of the LXX of Isa 45:23, that the “tongue of every person” shall confess—which is also in keeping with the parallel, “knee.”
37. The ὅτι is a ὅτι-recitativum (used to introduce a quote), thus indicating, as elsewhere in Paul, that these are the actual words of the confession.
38. On this question see esp. the article on “Lord” in DPL, 560–69, by Hurtado; see also his One God.
39. Cf. Kreitzer (Jesus, 116), whose language I have here borrowed.
40. Cf. Kreitzer (Jesus, 161), cited also by Hurtado, DPL, 565. Cf. 1:11, where the fruit of righteousness comes “through Christ Jesus unto the glory and praise of God.”
41. That is, this phrase goes with the whole narrative (from v. 6), not just the final clause (so Meyer).
42. Cf. Francis Bland Tucker’s hymn, based on this passage (set to Ralph Vaughan Williams’s Sine Nomine):
1All praise to thee, for thou, O King divine, didst yield the glory that of right was thine, that in our darkened hearts thy grace might shine: allelujah! | 3Let this mind be in us which was in thee who was a servant that we might be free, humbling thyself to death on Calvary: allelujah! |
2Thou cam’st to us in lowliness of thought; by thee the outcast and the poor were sought, and by thy death was God’s salvation wrought: allelujah! | 4Wherefore, by God’s eternal purpose, thou art high exalted o’er all creatures now, and given the name to which all knees shall bow: allelujah! |
5Let every tongue confess with one accord in heaven and earth that Jesus Christ is Lord; and God the Father be by all adored: allelujah! | |
As a wonderful experience of divine appointment (and perhaps humor, given my view that the passage is not a hymn), this was one of three hymns and contemporary choruses (including Graham Kendrick’s “Servant King” [see n. 17 on v. 8]) sung in worship on the Sunday after I had finished this section of the commentary. The passage obviously sings, even if it was not originally a hymn!
43. See n. 14 on 2:5–11 above. As noted there, the tendency on the part of some is to rail against something of a “straw man,” as though to see Christ as paradigm is to think that “all that a Christian has to do is to follow in the Master’s footsteps” (Martin, Carmen, 289). That is hardly Paul’s point, nor that of those who take the passage as Paul intends—as a paradigm to reinforce unity within the community.
44. Gk. συμμορφιζόμενος, where Paul is surely intending them to hear the echo of Christ’s μορφή from this passage.
1. On the basis of the echoes of Deut 32:5 in v. 15, Michael (followed by Beare and Loh-Nida) proposed that Paul in this section is making a “farewell” speech, consciously adapting Moses’ farewell speech to Israel. While there can be little question of the intertextuality in vv. 14–16, it is doubtful whether one can read such a “farewell” speech back into vv. 12–13 as Michael does. See n. 16 below, and the discussion on vv. 14–18.
2. In some ways it helps to put 1:12–26 into perspective as well. Paul began the narrative about “his affairs” by noting his imprisonment to be for the “advance” and the “defense” of the gospel (1:12, 16; cf. 1:7); 2:15–16 indicate that this twofold concern regarding the gospel is likewise the point of his appeal in 1:27–30, namely that they “stand firm” and “contend together” for the gospel. But “complaining and arguing” deflect their calling to “brighten the corner where they are,” as God’s “blameless” children. The appeal of vv. 15–16, we should note further, also supports what was noted on 2:1–4, that their being of “one mind” does not lean in the direction of their all thinking alike, but of their being committed to the common cause of the gospel.
3. Although Paul’s sentence comes out nearly at this point, his Greek actually reads “not as in my presence only.” The ὡς (“as”) has been omitted by a few MSS (B 33 1241s pc). The omission is easy to account for, since the conjunction implies that they might be obedient only when he was present, but not when absent.
4. Although it makes no significant difference in meaning, Paul’s Greek is a good example of an idiom that gives the lie to the Jehovah’s Witnesses treatment of John 1:1. Θεὸς is without the article here just as there, and for the same reason: “Colwell’s rule,” that a definite predicate noun which precedes the copulative lacks the definite article with the noun. D and the later MajT add the article, recognizing that Paul is referring to God, not “a god,” but in so doing quash a NT idiom.
5. Cf. Calvin, Meyer, Silva, O’Brien, who also use the language “general admonition/exhortation” for these two verses. But “general” should not then give rise to a noncontextual interpretation, as so often happens, as though Paul were now turning to address the matter of their individual salvation (as, e.g., in Meyer, Vincent, Hendriksen, et al., whose comments on this passage are altogether soteriological, in terms of the believer’s individual salvation).
6. Evidence for this is the fact that this passage has been included in two recent books on “hard sayings” in Paul, published by evangelical publishers; see R. Stein (Difficult Passages in the Epistles) and M. Brauch (Hard Sayings of Paul). In earlier years this passage served as the fountain for a good bit of vitriol between Protestants and Roman Catholics over “grace” and “works,” the result of coming to a passage with a theological agenda in hand, rather than the primary exegetical concern of hearing the passage within its own historical and literary context.
7. Gk. ὥστε, which usually indicates that an inference is to be made from what has just been said. While there is nothing wrong with the NIV’s “therefore” as a translation of this word, it misses some of the flavor of Paul’s Greek. This conjunction is used by Paul especially in contexts where he is applying an argument to the local situation (another reason to believe that the issue here is case-specific, not simply general paraenesis). Cf. 1 Thess 4:18; 1 Cor 3:21; 4:5; 10:12; 11:33; 14:39; 15:58; Phil 4:18, all of which are followed by imperatives as here (cf. 1 Cor 3:7; 7:38; 11:27; 14:22; 2 Cor 4:12; 5:16, 17; Gal 4:3; Rom 7:4, 12, where it is followed by an indicative, but still functions to introduce an inferred conclusion of an argument).
8. Indeed, this is a very Germanic sentence, with the verb in last position preceded by a long clause before one gets to it (in Paul’s order, “just as always you have obeyed, not as in my presence only but now all the more in my absence, with fear and trembling your own salvation work out”). Because of the distance between the μή and the verb, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that grammatically it goes with the imperative at the end, and not with “obedience.” But some have made far too much of this. If Paul’s sentence is not tidy, it works in terms of intent. At issue is “obedience” to the gospel, as that is spelled out in their life together (i.e., as their common salvation is worked out in their midst). That concern is interrupted by the reminder that this is how they “obeyed” when he was present and by “how much more” he wants them to obey in his absence. Thus the μή negates the imperative only indirectly: In working out their salvation they are not to do so as though such obedience were only forthcoming when he was among them.
9. Gk. ἀγαπητοί μου (lit., “my beloved”); in Paul see 1 Cor 10:14 (cf. 1 Thess 2:8; 2 Cor 7:1; 12:19; Rom 12:19, where it occurs without μου, and 1 Cor 15:58 and Phlm 16, where, as in Phil 4:1, it is also joined to “brothers and sisters”).
10. See on 1:8 and esp. 4:1, where it occurs twice, framing that appeal in a most striking way (“My dearly loved brothers and sisters … beloved friends”).
11. All of this, it should be noted, is the “stuff” of friendship. See the Introduction, pp. 2–7.
12. Gk. καθώς, introducing a comparative clause; see on 1:7 above. But in contrast to that sentence, and others like it, the point of comparison will follow in this case. Thus the basic elements of his sentence read: “Just as you have always obeyed … so now work out your own salvation.” Contra Hawthorne (see n. 24 below).
13. Gk. ὑπακούσατε; for Pauline usage, of churches with regard to obedience to Christ and the gospel, see 2 Cor 2:9; 7:15; 10:5, 6; cf. 2 Thess 3:14 and Phlm 21.
14. See esp. his language “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; cf. 15:18), which in that letter means something like “obedience that characterizes true faith.” This is made certain by the interchange of “faith” and “obedience” in 1:8 (“your faith is proclaimed all over the world”) and 16:19, which becomes “your obedience is known by all.” Thus obedience means to respond to God (Rom 15:18) by receiving the gospel (10:16); whereas those who reject God do so by “not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8).
15. Thus those who stress obedience only to Paul (e.g., Barth, Dibelius, Gnilka, Martin, Loh-Nida) or to God (e.g., Lightfoot, Melick) do not seem to have it quite right. In light of the following qualifier, about their “obedience” (whether Paul is present or absent), it is hard to escape an emphasis on “obedience” with regard to Paul’s admonitions; but in light of the larger context (Christ’s obedience [v. 8]; his lordship [vv. 9–11]) it is equally hard to escape that “obedience” to Christ and the gospel is the only obedience to his words that Paul could imagine. So most interpreters.
16. See esp. 1:27 above; but cf. 1:8, 24–26; 2:19–24; 4:10. Michael (99, followed by Beare and Houlden), as part of his overall view of this passage as a “farewell speech,” sees this language as referring to “life” and “death,” i.e., that Paul is here preparing them to carry on after his death (= they now have to work out their own salvation because the apostle will not be around much longer to help them; so also Hendriksen, Collange, Caird, but without Michael’s scenario). But there is nothing in favor of such a view (even the use of the Deuteronomy echo in v. 15 is misguided) and everything against it: (1) these words are a deliberate recall of the similar language in 1:27, where there is not hint of “death”; (2) this language belongs especially to matters of friendship (see n. 11), which culturally has nothing to do with “death”; (3) Paul clearly expects to be released from this imprisonment (1:24–26; 2:24); and (4) he immediately follows this passage not with directions about how to carry on after he is gone, but how to carry on now, because he is about to send Timothy and he himself will be coming soon—or so he firmly believes (2:19–24).
17. Gk. ὡς, which (contra Collange, Hawthorne, O’Brien) functions here as a comparative particle; it could thus mean “just as you do in my presence” (so Meyer). But the combination μὴ ὡς … μόνον suggests a degree of doubt on the part of Paul. Collange’s view (argued for in more detail by Hawthorne and followed by O’Brien) is that ὡς = “when” in the sense of “in view of” (although how one can make that leap escapes me) and thus speaks to his anticipated παρουσία. But besides a nearly impossible meaning for ὡς, this view founders on the position of μόνον (“only”), which seems to demand that the obedience spoken of had to do with their obedience only when he was present, not “in view only of my coming.”
18. Gk. ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον (= but now by how much more); cf. 1:23. Its force is brought out esp. in 2 Cor 3:9 and 11 (if the older covenant had glory, and it did, how much more the new covenant that is accompanied by the life-giving Spirit).
19. Gk. ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ μου, the cognate noun for the participle that occurs in 1:27; a NT hapax legomenon. Here, of course, it parallels ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ μου (“in my presence”).
20. Gk. κατεργάζεσθε, a verb with a degree of flexibility. Its basic sense is to “accomplish” something, not in the sense of “fulfillment,” but of “carrying out” a matter (cf. Rom 7:18: “to will is present”; but to “carry out” [κατεργάζεσθαι] what is willed is another matter). Under no circumstances can it be stretched to mean “work at,” as though salvation were something that needed our work (as in good works) in order for it to be accomplished. On this see esp. Stein (Difficult Passages, 42–45).
21. Gk. (τὴν) ἑαυτῶν (σωτηρίαν). Some see Paul here as emphasizing the reflexive, suggesting either that it puts stress on each believer’s salvation, or on their own salvation, now that Paul does not expect to be around much longer (see nn. 1 and 16 above—although some who hold this view are thinking only of Paul’s present absence, not his anticipated death). But these views make too much of very little. While the reflexive at times does stress what belongs especially to the subject of a sentence (cf., e.g., vv. 3–4 above), that is usually made clear by some inherent contrast in the sentence. In other cases it functions very close to a normal possessive, except that by use of the reflexive it slightly intensifies the possessive as being one’s own. This latter seems to be what is going on here. For his purposes Paul could easily have said ὑμῶν σωτηρίαν; he chose rather to use the reflexive, which strengthens the idea of its being their “possession.” It must be noted (pace Kennedy, Müller, Hendriksen, et al.) that Paul has ways of individualizing plural commands, and the use of this reflexive is not one of them.
22. As, e.g., in Kennedy, Müller, Hendriksen, Silva, O’Brien.
23. On the other hand, Silva and O’Brien rightly oppose what they call a purely “sociological” understanding of this imperative, so that “salvation” is watered down to mean something like “wholeness” within the community (as Michael, Beare, Martin, Loh-Nida, Hawthorne; Swift, “Theme,” 245). One will have a hard time defending that understanding of this word on the basis of Pauline usage (as Hawthorne’s resorting to some papyrus uses indicates). In a (correct, but unfortunate in terms of results) reaction to this view, Silva and O’Brien, despite an occasional demurrer, swing the pendulum to the other side, so that it becomes a case of “either/or” (i.e., either individual or community); whereas in Paul “salvation” is always “both/and.” As Caird (125) put it, “Salvation in the New Testament is always an intensely personal, but never an individual, matter.” On this question see further, Fee, Presence, 846–47, 876, where for the sake of stressing the corporate nature of the Pauline imperative I chose finally to discuss his ethics in the chapter on salvation and the people of God, rather than in the chapter on salvation and the individual. Martin’s view, it should be noted, seems strikingly contradictory. On the one hand, he follows Käsemann in vigorously contending for a soteriological view of vv. 6–11 (= the “way of salvation” that serves as the basis for the paraenesis, vis-ō-vis the passage serving as a paradigm); yet he then turns about and defines “salvation” in this passage as “wholeness.”
24. So Silva (135, noted favorably by O’Brien), although not expressed grammatically. Contra Hawthorne, 98, who thinks the clause elliptical, requiring an assumed “so continue to obey” as an apodosis. But that is unnecessary, since the present imperative functions precisely in this way. For this usage in Paul cf. 1 Thess 2:4; 3:4; 5:11; 2 Cor 8:6.
25. Gk. μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου; cf. 1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 7:15; Eph 6:5. In the LXX it is used primarily of the dread that pagans experience at the presence of the living God (e.g., Exod 15:16; Isa 19:16), which then is transferred to their dread of his people because of the wonders God performs for them (Deut 2:25; 11:25); finally it is also used of the sheer terror of circumstances that bode death (Ps 54:6 [English, 55:5]).
26. See esp. Barth, 71–72, who suggests that the phrase is nearly synonymous with “lowliness of mind” in v. 3, and thus sees it as the theological key to the whole imperative; cf. Collange, Martin, Loh-Nida, Gombitza (“Mit Furcht”), who also see it basically as concerned with relations between people. So also Giesen (“Furcht”), although he more correctly emphasizes the believers’ attitude in the midst of their hostile environment. Hawthorne, to a degree following Pedersen (“Mit Furcht”), suggests a meaning here akin to “obedience.” Given its OT background, however, and Paul’s usage elsewhere, the phrase probably has to do with one’s proper awe of God.
27. For the unlikelihood of Jewett’s view that this phrase refers to their “fear and trembling” before the final judgment of God, see n. 75 on 1:6.
28. As Vincent (65) suggests.
29. In this regard see esp. 1 Cor 5:7, where Paul uses the imperative in such a way that, if left unguarded, it could undermine his theology. So they must indeed “cleanse out the old leaven so as to become a fresh lump of dough,” but of course that is what they already are by grace. Cf. Gal 4:9, where he does the same thing with what appears to be an innocent statement of reality, that the Galatians now “know God,” meaning, of course, he immediately qualifies, that they are in fact “known by God.”
30. That is, the γάρ in this case indicates that he will now explain how they are going to be able to carry out the imperative of v. 12. Collange (110) makes the intriguing, but unlikely, suggestion that it emphasizes his absence; thus, “you do not need to wait for my arrival, for it is God in any case who does the work.”
31. The verb ἐνεργεῖν appears in Paul’s letters 17 of its 20 NT occurrences. That it means something close to “effective empowering” is supported by the interchange in 1 Cor 12:6 and 11 between God the Father and God the Spirit, both of whom are said to “energize all [these] things” among God’s people.
33. Contra Meyer. On this matter see n. 4 above.
34. In keeping with their view of v. 12, many would limit it to “in the souls of believers” (so Meyer, Vincent, Kennedy, Hendriksen, Silva, O’Brien); but the context seems to rule that out.
35. Gk. ἐν ὑμῖν; cf. n. 72 on 1:6 and the discussion on v. 5 above.
36. Cf. Bruce (82): “This is Paul’s teaching about the Holy Spirit, even if the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned here.” Cf. Fee, Presence, 598–603, for the Spirit as key to Rom 12:1–2 in the same way.
37. See esp. 7:5–6; “When we were controlled by the flesh … ; but now we have been set free to serve in the new way of the Spirit.” See the NICNT commentary by D. Moo, for this perspective.
38. For this understanding of Rom 7:7–25, see Fee, Presence, 508–15; the repetition here of these very verbs as something quite within the grasp of God’s Spirit-filled people plays the lie to the interpretation that Paul was there describing some kind of (non-existent) tension between the Spirit within him and the flesh, in which the flesh obviously still had the upper hand.
39. Gk. ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας. The ambiguity lies with the article τῆς, which can refer either to “the well-known” goodwill that believers ought to have toward one another (in keeping with v. 4), or “his” good will, reflecting the Greek article as referring back to the subject of the sentence (“God”), and thus functioning as a possessive pronoun.
40. As inter alia Michael, 104; Collange, 111; Hawthorne, 101.
41. So most interpreters; Lightfoot has “benevolent purpose.”
42. For reasons not at all clear, many find this usage difficult, as though God’s effecting something “for the sake of his own good pleasure” were awkward or theologically offensive. The result has been a number of unlikely ploys to get around the ordinary sense of the preposition. BAGD suggest the sense of “above and beyond” for this passage. That would work fine for the accusative, but Paul uses the genitive here, and almost certainly means that God acts “on behalf of” someone’s “good pleasure,” most likely his own. The NIV implies that it equals κατά here, as though God’s empowering their willing and doing were “in keeping with” the standard set by “his good purposes.” But grammatically that has no analogies. Collange argues that “in behalf of” carries this nuance in any case; but that is especially difficult to see. Finally, BDF §231.2 offer the extremely unlikely expedient that it goes with the next imperative (v. 14). In light of biblical theology in general and Pauline theology in particular, the view presented here fits perfectly well into the argument.