1. For Paul’s γένησθε some early MSS (P46 A D* F G latt) substituted ἤτε; this has all the earmarks of a “sense” variation (i.e., they understood γένησθε to = “to be,” and thus substituted the latter), especially since much of the evidence is related to the OL Version. But in so doing they mess with Paul’s use of the language of the LXX, which dominates the sentence.
2. For the εἰ καί of the majority, which is clearly the Pauline original, F G vg have καὶ εἰ, a variant that very likely arose through the OL Version. Despite the grammarians to the contrary, this variant is probably an indication that εἰ καί is not concessive, but intensive, and that the order of F G is concessive. See n. 59 below.
3. Indeed, apart from a specific focus on Christ himself (and that is very close at hand in vv. 6–11), every major motif of the letter is touched on in some way in these two sentences: their need for unity; the gospel (here, “the word of life”); evangelism; the opposition in Philippi (“crooked and depraved generation”); his and their relationship; suffering; and joy.
4. The preceding sentences concluded: εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός (“for the glory of God”) and ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐυδοκίας (“for his good pleasure”); this one concludes: εἰς καύχημα ἐμοί (“for my boast”). The prepositions in each case are basically telic, expressing goal or aim.
5. See above on 1:11.
6. On this matter see on 1:19 and 2:10–11 above.
7. The following terms are found only here in Paul, and some only here in the NT: “God’s blameless children”; “crooked and perverse generation”; “shine as stars”; “the word of life.”
8. Cf. Michael, 104; O’Brien, 289.
9. Gk. χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν; found only here in Paul, but see the cognate verb in 1 Cor 10:10; elsewhere in the NT in John 7:12; Acts 6:1; 1 Pet 4:9. This is the noun and verb used regularly in the LXX to render telunnah and lun of the Pentateuch, referring to the “murmuring” of the Israelites against God (and Moses).
10. So most interpreters (Lightfoot, Meyer, Beare, Gnilka, Houlden, Caird, Martin, Kent, Loh-Nida, Bruce, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien, Melick).
11. See Exod 16:7–12 (6x); 17:3; Num 14:27–29 (3x); 16:41; 17:5 (2x), 10. Some (Gnilka, Caird, Martin) suggest the imagery of the church as a pilgrim people. Perhaps so, given the various echoes of the Philippians’ replacing Israel as God’s people in the story.
12. It is possible (as, e.g., Meyer, Vincent, Müller, Hendriksen) to read this imperative to mean, “Carry out these imperatives without grumbling about it,” which would then direct it toward God. But the context, and especially the purpose clause that follows, supports the interpretation offered here (so Kennedy, Jones, Michael, Barth, Bruce, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien, Melick).
13. Gk. διαλογισμῶν; elsewhere in Paul in 1 Cor 3:20; Rom 1:21; 14:1; 1 Tim 2:8.
14. So Kennedy, Jones, Plummer, Michael, Barth, Martin, Loh-Nida, Bruce, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien. Earlier interpreters, without the benefit of the papyrus finds, and reading it in light of other NT passages, understood it in terms of inner doubts or malicious reasonings against God (e.g., Lightfoot [“intellectual rebellion against God”]; Meyer [“without hesitation”!], in keeping with his view of the whole sentence [see n. 12]).
15. Although this final eschatological note is no surprise in this letter, the way it is expressed, as the conclusion to this sentence, is a surprise, so we will note it separately under v. 16b.
16. Except, of course, that it is now plural. The LXX reads: εὐαρέστει ἐναντίον ἐμοῦ καὶ γίνου ἄμεμπτος (Gen 17:1); Paul says: ἵνα γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι. Had this occurred in another context it would most likely be considered coincidental. What makes one think otherwise here is (1) the use of ἄμεμπτος, which is somewhat rare in Pauline paraenesis (only in 1 Thess 3:13, plus the adverb in 1 Thess 2:10; 5:23; he tends to use other words for this idea); (2) the appearance of this unique combination in this context; and (3) the otherwise apparent repetition of this idea in the next phrase.
17. Gk. ἀκέραιοι; elsewhere in Paul only in Rom 16:19 (“be innocent with regard to evil”; cf. Matt 10:16, “innocent as doves”).
18. Gk. τέκνα θεοῦ. Although the idea of believers being God’s children occurs throughout the Pauline corpus and in a variety of contexts, this precise term occurs elsewhere only in Romans (8:16, 21; 9:8). The latter instance (Rom 9:8) is especially instructive, since there too Paul deliberately transfers this Abrahamic terminology to believers.
19. Gk. μέσον; the neuter singular of this adjective, used as an “improper” preposition, a form that occurs nowhere else in Paul, and was changed to the grammatically more acceptable ἐν μέσῳ by the later MajT.
20. Meyer (115) seems to miss too much in suggesting that Paul first wrote “children of God without fault,” which caused him then to recall the Deuteronomy passage, which in turn prompted him to add the next words from Deuteronomy as well. The “reversal of fortunes” that Paul effects with this material is much too intentional for that.
21. Barth (76): “a triumphant parody of that passage.”
22. See, e.g., 1 Cor 6:9–10; Rom 1:28–30; Tit 3:3.
23. Cf., e.g., 1 Pet 4:3–5; Rev 22:15.
24. See the introduction to 1:27–2:18 on p. 167.
25. It is less likely that it refers to the “mutilators of the flesh” in 3:2, as Collange and Silva suggest: first, because those people are not described anywhere as “opponents”; but second, and more importantly, such people as those described in 3:2 can only be itinerants, while Paul’s concern is with ongoing life in Philippi.
26. Given the uniqueness of this language in Paul and that it is precisely that of Dan 12:3 (Daniel: καὶ οἱ συνιέντες φανοῦσιν ὡς φωστῆρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; Paul: ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ), it was for me a cause of some wonder how so many interpreters (e.g., Meyer, Vincent, Kennedy, Jones, Barth, Müller, Collange, Caird, Kent, Martin, Hawthorne, Silva) have missed this expression of intertextuality—all the more so when the next phrase in Paul seems to be a modification of the second line in Daniel as well, not to mention its context in Hebrew of “bringing many to righteousness.” That I have always “heard” Daniel here, even as a boy, says something about my own ecclesiastical background, since the Daniel passage was cited so often as an incentive to evangelism. That experience makes me think the same would have been even more true of the Philippians, who lived in a basically oral culture and would have heard Scripture read over and again, and whose minds would not have been constantly bombarded by thousands of other media and literary sources.
27. Gk. φαίνεσθε. Since in its other two Pauline occurrences (2 Cor 13:7; Rom 7:13), this word means “to appear,” some (esp. those who have missed the echo of Dan 12:3; e.g., Lightfoot, Meyer, Vincent, Plummer, Martin) have argued for that sense here. Some (Calvin, Beare, Hawthorne) take this to be an imperative, which in context is altogether unlikely (the verb occurs in a relative clause, and there seems to be no analogy for an imperative in such a clause); as O’Brien points out, everything in this ἵνα clause is already dependent on the single imperative, “Do all things.”
28. Gk. φωστῆρες, which technically does not mean “star,” but any heavenly light-giving body. Given that its stands in synonymous parallel in Dan 12:3 with “the stars (ἄστρα) of heaven,” most likely in that context it is the more all-embracing word that includes the sun and moon as well (as in Gen 1:14–19). Without noting its Danielic origins, and in view of buildings erected as navigational “beacons” (an early expression of the lighthouse), S. K. Finlayson (“Lights”) offers this as a (dubious) alternative here, while Martin follows Conzelmann (TDNT, 9.324) in the equally dubious suggestion that it might mean “light-bearers.”
29. Gk. ἐν κόσμῳ; while this word can easily be all-embracing, and thus mean “the universe,” it is difficult to know why the NIV translators thought so here. By deliberately altering “of heaven” to “in the world,” Paul seems to be indicating the present sphere of their shining.
30. So most interpreters; O’Brien (297) follows Gnilka (153) in linking the participle with the main clause, ἵνα γενήσθε, but that seems strained, given the intervening clause with a verb in the second plural. Under any circumstances it is an unnatural reading, and one wonders how the hearers could have caught on.
31. Gk. ἐπέχοντες, which occurs only here and in 1 Tim 3:15 in Paul (cf. Luke 14:7; Acts 3:5; 19:22). The word means to “hold firm” or “stay put” (Acts 19:22), but in 1 Tim 3:15 means “to give one’s full attention to.”
32. “Influence as well as contrast” (Michael).
33. Gk. καὶ οἱ κατισχύοντες τοὺς λόγους μου. The Hebrew has, “and those who lead many to righteousness.” It is hard to know where the LXX version came from. The verb κατισχύω means “to prevail” (which takes the genitive) or “be strong, powerful.” Thus this line of the LXX probably means, “those who hold strong my words.” Since that would be a rare sense for this verb, Paul simply substituted ἐπέχοντες. This seems to make the best sense of the unusual features of this phrase, both the choice of this verb and the unique reference to the gospel as “the word of life.” This is the new way that “my words” have made their way into the world.
34. Which is almost certainly what the genitive λόγον ζωῆς means. As always in Paul, the use of λόγος for the gospel denotes its message (see on 1:14 above).
35. See the discussion of 1:6; cf. on 1:21–23; 2:9–11 above, and 3:9–16, 18–21 below.
36. Hence the reason the NIV has broken it off with a dash. They also (correctly) turn the phrase into a clause, but in so doing abandon Paul’s nuance regarding the “day of Christ.” See the discussion.
37. Part of the difficulty with this clause has to do with the sense of these two occurrences of εἰς. See the discussion.
38. Loh-Nida suggest “conditional,” but there seems to be no lexical or grammatical warrant for such.
39. Gk. εἰς καύχημα ἐμοί; cf. the discussion on 1:26 above. This noun (καύχημα), vis-ō-vis καύχησις, refers not to the actual act of boasting but to the grounds for such.
40. Gk. εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, precisely as in 1:10 (q.v., esp. n. 23; cf. n. 64 on 1:6), the only two occurrences of this expression of the phrase in the corpus. As noted, it does not (cannot, pace O’Brien) mean “on the day of” nor does it = “until”; it means, “with the day of Christ in view.”
41. That is, he does not here say “lest I have run in vain,” as in Gal 2:2; 1 Thess 3:5. The ὅτι most likely introduces an object clause, although it could be causal (as Kennedy et al. would have it). In either case it is here affirmation, not doubt. Cf. the REB: “proof that I did not run my race in vain or labour in vain.”
42. Just as was promised in Isa 65:23 to those who dwell in the New Jerusalem: “they will not labor in vain.”
43. For reciprocal “boasting” at the Parousia, see 2 Cor 1:14.
44. For the imagery of ministry and Christian life as “running a race” see 3:13–14; cf. 1 Cor 9:24–25; Gal 2:2; 5:7). Since the imagery is drawn from the games, the ἀγων word group applies here as well, although one cannot be sure “racing” itself is intended (see, e.g., Col 1:29; 4:12; 1 Tim 4:10; 6:12). The imagery of “labor” is far more common, serving as one of his primary verbs for ministry (e.g., 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Cor 15:10; 16:16; Gal 4:11 et passim), but also for every kind of “work” that is associated with living in and for Christ (e.g., 1 Thess 1:3; 1 Cor 15:58, etc.). For the two images in the same letter see Gal 2:2 (“run”) and 4:11 (“labor”). Cf. Pfitzner, Agon, 103–4.
45. Lightfoot (118) considers “labor” in this instance to be an extension of the athletic metaphor, indicating the well-known “labor intensive” training that the games required. But Paul’s frequent use of this imagery for ministry, with no connection to the games, seems to suggest otherwise.
46. See the frequency of this expression in the closing personal greetings in Romans 16.
47. Note that Paul uses this same verb to describe his “working hard with his own hands,” as one of his apostolic hardships (1 Cor 4:12).
48. Contra J. Gundry Volf (Perseverance, 262–64), who argues that “loss” would refer to lack of “divine commendation for service at the last day.”
49. The sentence begins with ἀλλά (“but”), which in this case is probably to be understood as introducing an “independent clause, to indicate that the preceding is to be regarded as a settled matter, thus forming a transition to someth[ing] new” (BAGD). “Independent” is taken to an extreme by Lohmeyer and Barth, who, because the appeal itself ends with v. 16, consider vv. 17–18 to introduce vv. 19–30; but that is difficult to see (as Barth’s own use of dashes is a clear indication), especially since inherent in such a strong adversative is some kind of contrast to what has preceded. O’Brien (303) argues for an “ascensive force” here (= “not only labours, but even death”; cf. 1:18), citing BDF §448 (and others) as in support of such a possibility (and unfortunately, he makes this meaning a part of his case for his understanding of the metaphor, p. 305). While this is attractive, it is questionable whether it can work, since this usage is restricted to ἀλλά with καί or γε καί (see the thorough disc. in Thrall, Greek Particles, 11–16). At least, I am not aware of any known analogy for this usage of ἀλλά by itself.
50. The certain evidence for this, pity the poor reader, is the contradictory nature of so much that is found on the passage in the commentaries, while using many of the same data and grammars. Perhaps we should confess that we are fishing for answers to a very difficult metaphor, on which certainty will be hard to come by.
51. Instead of the OT, it is common for scholars to assume the primary background for these words is pagan religion—as though the Philippians might not be well acquainted with the biblical data. But two matters speak against this view: (1) Although Paul does not use cultic terminology often, whenever he does, his OT heritage is primarily in view (see, e.g., ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτήν in 4:18, a combination which can only come from such passages as Num 15:3–4 [where the first three words occur in the same sentence] and Lev 19:5 [where the latter two appear]; cf. also 1 Cor 9:13 in light of 10:18, and Rom 15:16, where the mention of the Gentiles demands the OT sacrificial system as background to the metaphor). Such sacrifices, after all, are offered to God (Rom 12:1; Eph 5:2). (2) In light of the preceding accumulation of echoes from the OT, it is hard to imagine that he has now abandoned the OT for something pagan. However, as former pagans—for the most part at least—it need not be denied that the Philippians would also know this language well on the basis of pagan religion. But that hardly accounts for Pauline usage.
52. Gk. λειτουργία (from which “liturgy” derives), used primarily in the LXX to refer to the various duties of the Levites, including the actual “service” at the altar. The word group appears rarely in Paul (3 of 5 times in this letter; see below on 2:25 and 30; otherwise only in 2 Cor 9:12 and Rom 15:29, of the offering for the poor in Jerusalem), always metaphorically of Christian “service” of some kind, and not restricted to “ministers.” In this sentence it applies in some way to the Philippians.
53. Gk. θυσίᾳ, used for sacrifice in general, but in the Pentateuch (LXX) very often for the cereal offering that accompanied the burnt offering and drink offering. That would give good reason to think such imagery is in view here, except that in Eph 5:2 and Rom 12:1 the imagery clearly refers to the sacrificed animal (see next n.).
54. E.g., he uses θυσία metaphorically three other times: in Eph 5:2 to refer to Christ’s offering himself to God; in Rom 12:1 of believers, who are to be “living sacrifices” as over against the “dead animals” sacrificed on ritual altars; and in Phil 4:18 of their gift to him. He uses ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας (“sweet smelling [sacrifice])” to accompany the “sacrifice” in Eph 5:2 and Phil 4:18; but of his own ministry in 2 Cor 2:14–15 (where because of the imagery of the Roman triumph, it may well pick up that imagery). And the use of “cultic service” language (λατρεία [see on 3:3] and λειτουργία [see on 2:30]) is of even broader range, including Rom 15:16, where he sees his ministry (λειτουργός) of bringing the Gentiles to Christ as “performing the duties of a priest,” so that the Gentiles, “sanctified by the Holy Spirit,” are a “pleasing offering” to God.
55. As though, as some suggest, by his affirming that “death is gain,” he is herewith suggesting that he really expects to be martyred.
56. See, e.g., Meyer, Plummer, Michael, Beare, Loh-Nida. This view has been challenged on lexical grounds by A. Denis (followed by Collange and Hawthorne). It ought also to be challenged on theological ones, since in Paul’s Jewish heritage libations of blood were considered idolatrous, as Ps 16:4 makes clear.
57. Classical literature offers only a couple of analogous uses of the metaphor. Lightfoot notes that Seneca uses the metaphor of “drink offering” to refer to his impending death, and Meyer offers an undated source from the Greek side. The other known use of the metaphor is later (Ignatius [Rom 2.2]) and is probably based on 2 Tim 4:6 (or this passage interpreted through 2 Tim 4:6). A second c. papyrus noted in BAGD has been shown to be in error (Denis, “Versé”).
58. Which are expressed in Class 3 and 4 conditions (to use Burton’s classifications [Moods, 100–112]); class 3 (more probable) is expressed with a future in the protasis; class 4 (less probable, and rare in the NT) with the optative. But cf. the translations which assume the metaphor to refer to his (near future) death: “am to be poured out” (RSV [corrected in the NRSV], NAB, REB [NEB has, “if my life blood is to crown that sacrifice”], Goodspeed, Z-G); “perhaps my life blood is to be poured out” (GNB, supported by Loh-Nida); “has to be poured out” (NJB, Moffatt); cf. Meyer, “if I even should be poured out”; Kennedy, “Nay, even though I should even be offered.” This has been variously justified on grammatical grounds that appear to be questionable. Silva (152), e.g., has argued on the basis of BDF §372.4 that εἰ can be used for ἐάν, citing Matt 5:29 as an example, so that “the clue lies in the extremity of the condition” (apparently followed by O’Brien [305], “the present tense after εἰ simply states the supposition graphically,” but without grammatical support or analogy). But this seems to be a case of confusion, since the examples in BDF all refer to present general conditions (Burton’s Class 5, which ordinarily take ἐάν with the subjunctive, but in such cases as that cited may take εἰ with the indicative). But none of these examples has anything to do with suppositions, something that may or may not happen in the future. While it is true that “rules” do not always hold, and that in some cases these classes of clauses may become slightly “mixed,” I know of no analogy for a conditional sentence like this one to refer to a future supposition. Silva has rightly rejected the suggestion by some that this is a case of a present tense verb functioning like a future, since that happens primarily in eschatological contexts, and is very often accompanied by a temporal adverb (such as in 2 Tim 4:6, to which O’Brien appeals to make his case here, but which seems in fact to work the other way—the adverb in that case is precisely what is missing here). Thus the emphatic denial by Plummer (54), echoed by many others, that “the present tense does not mean that the sacrifice has begun,” is pure assertion, for which he and others offer no analogies. It must be noted, finally, that these various grammatical assertions seem to be the product of determining first what the imagery is going to mean, and then trying to find a way around the plain sense of Paul’s grammar afterward (see next n. as well).
59. Gk. εἰ καί. Although this idiom (including ἐὰν καί) is regularly understood to be concessive, there are some cases in Paul where concession is clearly impossible (as nonsensical), and where the καί must therefore be understood as intensive (“if indeed”). This is especially true in its first occurrence in the corpus (1 Cor 4:7), where Paul cannot possibly mean, “even if you have received it,” but “if indeed you have received it [and you have, is the clear implication], why then do you act as though it were not a gift?”; cf. 1 Cor 7:11, 28; 2 Cor 11:15; 2 Tim 2:5. While in most other cases, a concessive idea works well, there is still no reason to discard the intensive, which not only works as well as concession, but in many cases seems to be better (as, e.g., 2 Cor 4:3, where “if indeed our gospel is hidden, as it is in fact” makes better sense than the more traditional “even if this were the case,” especially since it is in fact the case; for the intensive as making the best sense in context of 1 Cor 7:21, see Fee, First Corinthians, 317).
60. It is of interest that Michael, one of the strongest advocates of “impending death” for this metaphor, also argues vigorously that the next part of the imagery refers to the Philippians, and therefore that Paul is urging that “there is correspondence in sacrifice” (he refers to 1:30 as well). His second point is properly taken, which is what makes the reciprocal rejoicing not tautologous; but it is more difficult to see how their mere “struggle” corresponds to Paul’s martyrdom. Under no circumstances does 1:30 refer to Paul’s “martyrdom.”
61. Cf. Hawthorne and Kee (CASB, 187–88), who have also made the connection with present suffering. Earlier suggestions (by Manson, Denis, and Collange) propose apostolic ministry in general (rather than imprisonment) as the “drink offering,” but that does not seem to fit the sacrificial image as well.
62. Gk. ἐπί, which is sometimes brought forward as evidence for a pagan background, since with the dative it often means “upon.” But the LXX sometimes uses this preposition with the drink offering in connection with the sacrifice (Num 15:5; cf. Gen 35:14; Exod 15:29); and since it was not poured out on the sacrifice itself, the preposition probably means “at,” in the sense of “at the time of” (cf. BAGD, ἐπί II.2). O’Brien (307) objects to this meaning on the grounds that “it requires θυσία to be understood as ‘the act of sacrificing’ ” (which he rightly points out it almost certainly does not mean). But the use in Num 15:5 overrules the objection.
63. It should be pointed out that the two words have the article in common, thus indicating that they belong together “as forming one event” (Loh-Nida, 74).
64. Most earlier interpreters (see, e.g., Calvin, Meyer, Jones) think that Paul is still the subject of these activities (“whilst I present your faith as a sacrifice and perform priestly service in respect to it,” Meyer), a view allegedly supported by Rom 15:16–17. But Paul makes a quite different point there (see Fee, Presence, 626–27). The grammar and sense of the present passage suggest otherwise, as does the mutual joy encouraged in the apodosis and follow-up sentence. Indeed, it is difficult to make much sense of this option at all. How is their faith something Paul sacrifices to God?
65. This is to take the genitive as “source or origin” (= your faith is what prompts your present sacrificial “ministry”; cf. Michael, Beare, Hendriksen, Caird, Kent, Hawthorne, Silva). Many (e.g., Vincent, Kennedy, Jones, O’Brien) take it as “objective,” or “appositional,” suggesting that their faith is what is offered up as sacrifice, although it is not easy to see what exactly that means.
66. As many think (e.g., Martin, Hawthorne).
67. There is good evidence that συγχαίρω can mean “I congratulate you.” If so, this would remove the apparent redundancy of “I rejoice, and I rejoice along with you,” only to have him turn about in the following sentence and urge them to do what seems already implied in this first clause. So Lightfoot, Meyer, Plummer. But Paul uses this verb elsewhere in the sense given here (1 Cor 12:26; 13:6); and the emphasis in the double repetition makes sense as suggested.
68. See 1:4, 18 [2x], 2:4, 17 [2x].
69. Paul’s own “rejoicing” occurs only once more in the letter—at 4:10, where he tells them that “I rejoiced greatly” at their renewed practical concern for him, which rounds off this motif the way it began in 1:4.
70. See 3:1 and especially 4:4; cf. the purpose clause in 2:28 (also 29).
1. R. W. Funk, Language, 264–74 (cf. “Apostolic Parousia”; White, Body), uses the language “travelogue” and “apostolic parousia” for the various passages in Paul’s letters similar to this one, suggesting that they have a common “form” and “normally” occur at the end of the “letter body.” But as T. Y. Mullins has correctly pointed out (“Visit Talk”), the “formal” aspects do not hold together at all, in that only one feature isolated by Funk occurs in all the passages he analyzes; and “normal” is in the eye of the beholder, since such “visit talk” occurs in a variety of other places in Paul’s letters as well (in Philippians at 1:25–26; cf. 1 Thess 2:17–3:6; 1 Cor 4:16–20; 2 Cor 8:16–24; 1 Tim 3:14–15). As White himself points out (Body, 144) regarding 1 Thessalonians, the placement is “due to the peculiar nature of the epistolary situation.” In fact, this can be said in every case, including those that are deemed to be “formally” and therefore “normally” at the end of the letter body.
2. While it is true that Paul does not explicitly say this, such an understanding of v. 23 is quite in keeping with what he has said to this point (in 1:19–20, 24–26, 27; 1:12) and especially with the catch phrase τὰ περὶ ἐμέ (contra Hawthorne; see on v. 23).
3. It is remarkable that in the various “formal” analyses of the letter (see n. 1 above) scholars have discussed at some length the so-called travelogue or apostolic parousia “form,” which is “formal” only in a loose sense, while the much greater ties of these paragraphs to the “letter of commendation,” included in various letters to identify and commend the carrier of the letter, have been generally neglected. On this matter see C.-H. Kim, Form, 119–43. In Paul see esp. 1 Thess 3:2–3 (“commendation” for Timothy after the fact!); 1 Cor 16:15–18; 2 Cor 8:16–24 (which is the true “form” of this material, not “travelogue”; contra Funk); Rom 16:1–2; Col 4:7–9. As with the “visit talk” (see n. 1), these various passages have some elements in common, but lack “form” in any meaningful sense of that term. The common features that these two paragraphs have with various of these “commendations” will be pointed out along the way.
4. Or so one would think; but a survey of the literature indicates how easily assumptions and assertions intermingle without the slightest hesitation. These move in a variety of directions, and are often contradictory, based either on prior commitments to a point of view (e.g., Michael, who is so sure that Paul is staring death in the face—despite what is clearly said to the contrary in this letter—that he would excise the paragraph on Timothy altogether) or on the difficulties noted in the discussion as to the order and content of these paragraphs which commend to the Philippians two brothers whom they know well. See further nn. 7, 13, 14, 42, 45 on this paragraph and nn. 7, 8, 12, 19, 21, 28, 29, 38, 50 on vv. 25–30.
5. On this matter, see the Introduction, pp. 37–39.
6. Since this seems to be so clearly what is at work (see n. 17 on 1:12; n. 13 on 1:27; and the discussion on 1:27), one is surprised at how seldom these connections are noted in the literature (as far as I can determine, the clear linkage between 1:27 and 2:19 and 23–24 is not mentioned at all).
7. This, at least, seems to make eminently good sense both of the place and purpose of these paragraphs in the letter, contra a variety of other reconstructions: (a) that our Philippians is a collage of three letters to Philippi, one of which was concluded by these paragraphs (e.g., Beare, Collange; see the Introduction, pp. 21–23); (b) that they function as a digressio in a piece of deliberative rhetoric (Watson; see Introduction, pp. 14–16); (c) that they are “apologetic” in some form or another: for Epaphroditus’s “hasty” return (e.g., Michael, Hawthorne; cf. White, Body, 145 n. 96: “Homesickness is no excuse for leaving his post”!); for Ephaphroditus’s coming when they were expecting Timothy (Silva); for Epaphroditus, who belongs to one of the dissenting factions back home (Mayer). Some of these belong to the mixture of assumption and assertion noted above in n. 4.
8. Several recent interpreters (e.g., Culpepper, “Co-Workers”; Hawthorne; Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 71–72; Bloomquist, Function, 128–29) see this as a more dominant motif in these paragraphs than the data seem to allow.
9. The “Lord Jesus” is the reading of the majority of MSS, both early and late. Some witnesses (C D* F G 630 1739 1881 pc), quite missing the echo of vv. 9–11, substitute the more common “Christ Jesus.”
10. NIV, “everyone looks … his”; Gk. οἱ πάντες … τὰ ἑαυτῶν. Retaining Paul’s plurals eliminates the need for the gender specific “his.”
11. In keeping with their more usual order in this letter, the majority of MSS (B MajT pc) have transposed Paul’s “Jesus Christ” (found in P46 
A C D F G P Ψ 33 81 326 1739 1881 it pc; K and Cyprian omit “Jesus”) to “Christ Jesus.” The “more difficult reading” should prevail as original, since scribes will have conformed to the more usual, and therefore more expected, order than vice versa.
12. Typically, a number of MSS (* A C P 326 629 1241s 2464 a f vg syp samss bo), some apparently independently of the others, added πρὸς ὑμᾶς (“to you”) to the ἐλεύσομαι at the end of Paul’s sentence. Such an addition is easily explicable, since Paul’s sentence has the feel of having been left hanging.
13. On the other hand, he has done the same thing for Timothy in 1 Thess 3:2–3, after Timothy had been to Thessalonica and had returned. Collange’s assumption (116), therefore, that this commendation is evidence of Timothy’s “weakness” (“somewhat spineless character”) is altogether unwarranted.
14. Some recent interpreters have suggested that Paul instead is offering reasons “why it was necessary … for [Timothy] to stay with the apostle” (Silva, 156; cf. O’Brien, 320, “factors … that necessitated Timothy’s presence with the apostle”). This takes up a suggestion by Michael (117), followed by Hendriksen (134–35), that the apostle will send him only reluctantly because he can “ill afford to part with [him].” But nothing in the text either explicitly or implicitly suggests that lying behind this paragraph is a justification for Paul’s not sending Timothy now, nor does this suggestion capture Paul’s explicit concerns.
15. The sentence is joined to what has preceded with a δέ, which many of the older commentators (Meyer, Vincent) considered to be contrastive to vv. 17–18 (so also O’Brien, among recent commentators). More likely it is a “transitional particle pure and simple” (BAGD), hence (correctly) left untranslated by the NIV. If translated, it means something like, “now,” in the sense of moving the letter along to the next item.
16. Gk. τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, again in v. 20; cf. 1:27. As in 1:27 (n. 13), the NIV has chosen to bypass the significant τά that precedes περὶ ὑμῶν. Although it is arguably legitimate to translate this phrase in v. 20 as “your welfare,” the result is that the reader misses altogether the relationship of these two sentences; and in the case of v. 20 it puts the emphasis more on Timothy’s being there for their encouragement, than for the sake of the gospel—which seems to underline Paul’s concern. “Your affairs” works fine in both sentences, and allows for the broader view that both their suffering and lack of harmony are in purview.
17. For this use of ἐλπίζω regarding expected travel plans, see 1 Cor 16:7; Rom 15:24; Phlm 22; 1 Tim 3:14.
18. On the textual question see n. 9 above. The expression “in the Lord Jesus” is just unusual enough to suggest that Paul is deliberately recalling vv. 9–11, where Jesus has been given the name above every name, the name of the Lord God himself.
19. See 1:13, 14, 26; 2:1, 24, 29; 3:1, 3, 14; 4:1, 4, 7, 10, 19, 21.
20. O’Brien (317) translates “if the Lord Jesus wills”; but since Paul says that clearly when he so intends (1 Cor 4:19; 16:7; cf. 16:12), and since this prepositional phrase occurs with such regularity in this letter (see preceding n.), it seems difficult to justify that sense here.
21. Of the kind usually expressed with the noun (ἐλπίς), and referring to our certain eschatological future, as in 1:20 (q.v.); cf. 1 Thess 1:3; 4:13; 5:8; 2 Thess 2:16; 2 Cor 3:12; Gal 5:5; Rom 8:24; etc.
22. Gk. ταχέως, the adverb of ταχύς (“quick, swift, speedy”); for this use of the adverb in Paul see 1 Cor 4:19 and 2 Tim 4:9, where in each case it means “as quickly as possible,” but does not suggest that it will happen immediately.
23. Cf. the sending of Timothy in 1 Thess 3:2–3 (“to establish and encourage you regarding your faith”) and 1 Cor 4:17 (“to remind you of my ways in the Lord”), and of Titus in 2 Cor 8:16–24—although it is clear that in the case of his sending Timothy to Thessalonica it was also to relieve his own anxiety about their welfare in Christ (as 3:5–8 make clear). On the basis of Col 4:8//Eph 6:22, Silva (155–56) suggests that “the purpose normally was that the church in question may be informed with regard to Paul’s affairs and thus receive encouragement.” As with the formal considerations noted above (n. 1), “normal” is in the eye of the beholder! Many earlier interpreters, despite what is actually said, assume that the primary reason for Timothy’s going is to “hearten” the Philippians in their time of need (e.g., Calvin, Lightfoot, Meyer); but see next note.
24. Gk. κἀγώ, which in a sentence like this means “I also,” or as suggested, “I for my part.” As noted in the discussion, this word indicates that he fully expects them to be cheered about news from him; but to elevate that to an equal reason alongside what Paul explicitly says (as so many do) quite misses Paul’s point. As Michael (113) pointed out, “the enheartening of his readers is so obviously a purpose of the mission that the Apostle is content to allude to it in this way.” But his primary reason for sending Timothy—at least in terms of what he wanted the Philippians to hear—is the one stated here: ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ (presuming that Timothy’s report to Paul will indeed “cheer” the apostle, because the present letter will have accomplished its purposes).
25. Gk. εὐψυχῶ, only here in the NT; cf. the usage in Josephus (Ant. 11.241): “he cheered Esther and encouraged her to hope for the best.”
26. What cannot be determined, of course, is where or how he expected to hear back from Timothy. Most assume that Timothy will “come back to him with news from there” (Bruce, 91); on the basis of his reconstruction of the events in the Pastoral Epistles, Hendriksen (134, followed by Kent) suggests a pre-arranged rendezvous in Ephesus. In any case, here is a place where we have to take the language at face value and not read into it more than we can ever know.
27. Gk. ἰσόψυχον, a NT hapax legomenon, as with εὐψυχῶ just above; cf. the similar hapax σύμψυχος in 2:2. It occurs in the LXX once (Ps 54:14[55:13]), where the NIV renders, “one like myself.” Various attempts have been made to give it a more precise nuance (e.g., Christou, “ἸΣΟΨΨΧΟΝ” [= confidant]; Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 349–50, following Fridrichsen, “Ισόψυχος” [= equal status in life, hence sharing equal existence with the Philippians in the new aeon]), but these have not met with much success.
28. Although many take the latter stance (e.g., Calvin, Lightfoot, Jones, Michael, Dibelius, Lohmeyer, Müller, Hendriksen, Gnilka, Martin, Kent), both the context and the lack of an expressed object indicates that the implied object is the subject of the sentence (cf. Meyer, Vincent, Bonnard, Houlden, Christou, Collange, Loh-Nida [cf. GNB], Bruce, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien, Melick). Cf. the similar discussion on 1:3 (n. 37). As Meyer (126) correctly notes, even though the language differs, in content this echoes the similar passage in 1 Cor 16:10.
29. Gk. γνησίως, yet another NT hapax legomenon; however, it is the adverb of γνήσιος which describes the “yokefellow” whom Paul addresses in 4:3 (cf. 2 Cor 8:8; 1 Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4). The word originally referred to a “legitimate” child, and thus in time came to mean “genuine.” Collange (followed by Bruce, Hawthorne), on the basis of the father-son imagery in v. 22, argues for its original sense here. He “is a legitimate son, the sole authorised representative of the apostle” (117). While that works well for the adjective in 1 Tim 1:2 and Tit 1:4, one is especially hard pressed to show that the adverb ever carried that sense.
30. Gk. μεριμνήσει; cf. 1 Cor 12:25, where his concern for the “visible” parts to take note of the (essential but) less visible, is that “the parts might show concern for one another.” The future in the present passage indicates that it is not “concern about their welfare in general,” as the present tense in the NIV implies, but that when he gets there he can be expected to show this concern (cf. Meyer). Several recent commentators recognize that this is what Paul intends, but then assert that the present tense is justified so as not to mislead the modern reader (Silva, O’Brien). How so, one wonders? Paul’s concern is to speak specifically to the situation in Philippi, which the future tense makes clear but the present does not.
31. Gk. οἱ πάντες, a combination which ordinarily would mean “all of them in contrast to a part” (cf. 1 Cor 9:22, “to all of them I became all things”).
32. Contra Barth and Collange.
33. The position adopted by the vast majority of interpreters. But the difficulty with this view can be seen in the way they try to exonerate some of Paul’s co-workers (arguing, e.g., as well may be the case, that Luke and Aristarchus are not currently with Paul).
34. Primarily on the basis of the verb “I have” and the object “no one.” But this observation cuts both ways. Had Paul intended “no one else” in v. 20, he could easily have added an ἄλλον; to say “I have” does not imply “in my company,” but “of all my companions I have no one like-minded in the same way he is”—an understanding that fits Holmberg’s observation: “Timothy was undoubtedly the co-worker closest to Paul’s heart” (Paul, 59).
35. Cf. Jewett (“Conflicting Movements,” 365), “Paul severely indicts precisely the same persons.”
36. Elsewhere Paul uses this identical language to describe those who are truly Christian (“love [meaning, the one who loves] does not seek its own interests” [1 Cor 13:5; cf. above on v. 4]; 1 Cor 10:24; 13:5), and in particular his own ministry as being “genuine” (1 Cor 10:33; 2 Cor 12:14).
37. The sentence begins with a δέ, probably in this case intending a contrast between Timothy’s proven worth, which the Philippians know, and those in v. 21 who seek their own interests.
38. Gk. δοκιμήν, a strictly Pauline word in the NT (2 Cor 2:9; 8:2; 9:13; 13:3; Rom 5:4 [2x]); indeed, as M-M point out, the occurrence in 2 Cor 2:9 is the earliest known use of this word in the Greek world—although Paul probably did not coin it.
39. Gk. τέκνον, which emphasizes the relationship involved, as over against υἱός, where the emphasis is more on the status of “sonship” itself. For this usage applied to the Philippians, see v. 15 above; for Paul’s describing Timothy in this term of endearment, see 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tim 1:2 (cf. Phlm 10 of Onesimus, and Tit 1:4 of Titus). As Caird (129) points out, the imagery assumes family life in the Greco-Roman world, where the son learns the family trade from his father by working alongside him.
40. Gk. ἐδούλευσεν (lit., “performed the duties of a slave”), which in this case almost certainly intentionally echoes the noun in 1:1 (referring to himself and Timothy) and 2:7 (Christ).
41. Gk. μέν οὖν, a combination which expresses continuation or resumption, rather than inference.
42. It begins, ὡς ἂν, which in a context like this means “whenever.” Thus he says, “whenever I find out about my affairs.” To which he adds ἐξαυτῆς as the final word, which is a shortened form of ἐξ αὑτῆς τῆς ὥρας (= from which time), thus “at once” or “soon thereafter.” The whole, therefore, means what the NIV renders, “as soon as I see how things go with me.” Hawthorne (followed by Silva) objects to this understanding, and prefers “as soon as I see about my own affairs,” meaning “that Timothy is presently indispensable to him” and that “his stay with him for the moment is much more important than his anticipated mission to Philippi.” Paul is thus alleged to want Timothy to take care of some personal matters for him before he makes the trip. But to arrive at this meaning, Hawthorne must “divide and conquer,” by trying to show that, rather than their ordinary meaning, words and phrases can mean something else—and therefore do. But the immediate context, the larger context of the letter, the meaning of ἀφίδω (next n.), and esp. the meaning of τὰ περὶ ἐμέ (Hawthorne tries to make this mean something quite different from the τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ of 1:12; but the interchangeability of these two expressions in Col 4:7–8 plays the lie to this) combine to indicate that the traditional understanding is the correct one. In any case, Hawthorne’s view requires that this is a bit ironic, that there is a proper concern for one’s own affairs after all. But that seems highly unlikely.
43. Gk. ἀφίδω, a compound which literally means “look away from toward”; hence in Heb 12:2 it means exactly that, “to look away from their present struggles to Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of their faith.” But it is used by the LXX translator in Jon 4:5 to describe how Jonah sat in his shelter, to “wait and see” what would happen to the city. This seems to be the sense here, that Paul can send Timothy only after a “wait and see” period, which he obviously does not expect to be long.
44. Yet one more time in this long narrative—from 1:12—he uses this terminology (τὰ περὶ ἐμέ), which now, in contrast to 1:12 (where he has τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ), is expressed exactly as the phrase occurs regarding “their affairs” in vv. 19 and 20 (τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν; on the basic interchangeability of these expressions see n. 42).
45. Contra Michael and Caird, both of whom are so convinced (esp. on the basis of the metaphor in 2:17) that Paul is “staring death in the face,” that they have considerable difficulty with this sentence (Michael would use it to argue that the paragraph does not belong to the original letter; and despite what Paul says, Caird suggests, “but he cannot have much confidence in his release, or he would not have needed to send Timothy”)—further examples of prior assumptions causing one to read between the lines (see n. 4). Cf. Beare (97), who sees Paul’s attitude toward death and liberty as changing “almost from moment to moment.”
1. A number of MSS add the infinitive “to see” (* A C D Ivid 33 81 104 326 365 1175 2464 2495 pc sy bo). This is a secondary addition on all counts: (a) its omission would be nearly impossible to explain, whereas the addition can be accounted for on the analogy of 1 Thess 3:6; Rom 1:11; 2 Tim 1:4; (b) the text without ἰδεῖν fits the mood of this letter; as with Paul in 1:8, Epaphroditus longs for them, which included “to see” them, but is not limited to such. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 613–14.
2. NIV, “men”; Gk. τοὺς τοιούτους (= “such people”).
3. As often happens with Paul’s mention of Christ, especially in genitives like this, the name here has a tortured textual history. The alternatives are “Christ” (P46 B D F G 6 1175 1739 1881 2464 Maj latt sa) and “Lord” ( A P Ψ 33 81 104 365 1241s pc syh bo); C omits it altogether (favored by Lightfoot, Kennedy, Plummer); 1985 and Chrysostom have “God.” Not only is “Christ” better attested, but the phrase “work of the Lord” occurs elsewhere in Paul (1 Cor 15:58; 16:10), whereas “the work of Christ” is unique to this passage, hence the “more difficult”—and in this case surely the original—reading. The MajT (and D) add the article before “Christ,” but that is not to designate him as “the Christ,” but to conform to standard usage, since the article occurs with “work” (in genitive phrases, standard usage is for both or neither word to have the article). Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 614.
4. In place of Paul’s uncommon παραβολευσάμενος, the later MajT substituted παραβουλουσάμενος, reflected in the KJV’s “not regarding his life.”
5. In Paul’s case see 1 Cor 16:15–18; 2 Cor 8:16–24; Rom 16:1–2; Col 4:7–9; Eph 6:21–22.
6. See, e.g., Mayer (“Paulus”), noted favorably by Silva (160 n. 98) and O’Brien (341).
7. This view can be traced to Michael, 118–19, who asserts (without evidence) that “it was the intention of the Philippians … that Epaphroditus should remain with the Apostle so long as he had need of him.” This “twofold mission” view has gained popularity in recent years, allegedly supported by such language as ἀναγκαῖον (v. 26, “necessary”), σπουδαιοτέρως (v. 28, suggested to mean “hastily”), and the lack of a qualifier like “again” with “send” (see n. 12). The frequent flip side of this argument is that Epaphroditus himself had failed in his duty (due to “homesickness”). See, inter alia, Bonnard, Beare, Gnilka, Kent, Hawthorne, Silva, White (Body, 145), who use such language as “malingerer” (Kent), “he apparently failed in his mission” (Hawthorne), or “leaving his post” (White). But despite its many advocates, this view (of a “twofold mission”) remains conjecture only, and an unlikely one at that, since it hangs on such thin threads (see esp. on the meaning of σπουδαιοτέρως below). What Paul does say, both here and in 4:14–19, implies otherwise (see nn. 12, 13, and 19). And in any case v. 29 (that they should hold in honor people like Epaphroditus) speaks strongly against the suggestion that he was derelict in his duty to Paul (cf. Gnilka, 163). On the impossibility of Rahtjen’s view (“Three Letters,” 169) that “Epaphroditus had already returned home and had been received with coolness if not with hostility,” see n. 9 below.
8. Which among recent interpreters is an almost novel idea (see preceding n.). So intent are some on finding ulterior motives that they are quite ready to overthrow what Paul does say in favor of reading between the lines—or else make Epaphroditus out to be emotionally unstable (see esp. Martin, “nervous disorder”; Hawthorne, “emotional instability”). All of this fails to take the letter genre (“friendship”) seriously. It is as though because so much in Paul’s letters is polemical, one must read even friendship through polemical bifocals.
9. Gk. ἡγησάμην; see on 2:3 and 6 (cf. 3:7–8). Along with ἔπεμψα in v. 28, this is an epistolary aorist (present tense at the time of writing, but past from the perspective of the recipients), as the NIV has it. But it seems unnecessary in this case to translate it with the present tense, as though Paul’s perspective were more significant than that of the Philippians. Rahtjen’s view (n. 7) that Epaphroditus had already returned home, so that these are genuine aorists, is defeated altogether on the formal grounds that Paul’s appeal in v. 29 to “welcome him with joy” belongs to a letter of commendation that accompanies its carrier (see Rom 16:2).
10. Gk. ἀναγκαῖον, which stands in the emphatic first position in Paul’s sentence: ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην. Some read this word as evidence for an apologetic stance to this paragraph; but that is to read far too much into a single word. It stands clearly in contrast to what he has just said about Timothy; what Paul is about to explain is why Epaphroditus has returned before the outcome of Paul’s trial is known. He has just told them how they will learn of that; now he sets out to explain why he has determined (ἡγησάμην) that Epaphroditus should not wait.
11. Gk. Ἐπαφρόδιτος, only here and in 4:18 in the NT. The name means “honored by Aphrodite,” thus “comely,” and was common among both Greeks and Romans (as “Venustus”). It is clear from the following description that a (potential) devotee of Aphrodite (assuming he was so named by his parents) has learned of real love through Christ. On the name itself, see J. R. Harris (“Epaphroditus”). Whether or not the name Epaphras was a shortened form of this name, there is no likelihood of any kind that this Epaphroditus and the Colossian Epaphras were the same person.
12. Gk. πέμψαι, which in this case is especially far removed from its verb. Michael (following Bengel, and followed by Martin and Hawthorne) makes the strange suggestion that this verb without a qualifier like “again” (or the compound ἀναπέμπω; cf. Phlm 12) implies that he “had not been sent on a brief and hurried mission, but rather with the intention that he should remain with the Apostle.” But how so, one wonders, since he is going back under any view (cf. Buchanan, “Ephaphroditus’ Sickness,” 159; O’Brien, 333 n. 26). Besides, this kind of argument cuts both ways, since it is just as plausible that Paul uses ἀναπέμπω in Phlm 12 precisely because he was sending Onesimus back after “failure,” and thus he should have used that verb here if the “double mission” view were to prevail. That the church had sent Epaphroditus on a “double mission” (see n. 7 above) is pure conjecture; what Paul actually says here and in 4:18 implies a single mission. In any case that is all that Paul explicitly refers to.
13. Some are enamored by what they see as an ascending order to the threefold, “brother, co-worker, fellow-soldier” (e.g., Lightfoot, Plummer, Hendriksen). While that may hold for the first item in contrast to the next two, it is more difficult to see such intent in the final two items. What is of greater significance is that Paul variously designates those whom he is sending with such epithets, usually two, but sometimes three: 1 Thess 3:2 (“brother and co-worker,” of Timothy); 1 Cor 4:17 (“beloved child and faithful in the Lord,” of Timothy); Rom 16:1 (“sister and servant,” of Phoebe); Col 4:7 (“beloved brother, faithful servant, and fellow slave,” of Tychicus); the latter is shortened in Eph 6:21 to “beloved brother and faithful servant.” This phenomenon (esp. the after-the-fact usage in 1 Thess 3:2) should cause those who read ulterior motives into this passage (that Paul multiplies epithets for apologetic purposes) to have a moment’s pause.
14. But cf. E. E. Ellis (Prophecy, 13–18), who argues that the usage in contexts like this one (cf. 4:21) implies a semi-technical usage that is yet another term for “co-worker.” One need not doubt that it sometimes borders on such; but one loses too much of significance if the “semantic range” of the word is narrowed (as Ellis tends to) to become the equivalent of “co-worker.” The very fact that Paul compounds these designations so often (see preceding n.) argues for the opposite, namely that their semantic range does not sufficiently overlap for only one of them to be used.
15. Gk. συνεργόν; it is used variously of Timothy (1 Thess 3:2 [τὸν ἀδελφὸν καὶ συνεργόν, as here]; Rom 16:21); Apollos (1 Cor 3:9); Timothy, Silas, and the whole Corinthian church (2 Cor 1:24); Titus (2 Cor 8:23); Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:3); Urban (Rom 16:9); Philemon (Phlm 1); Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Phlm 24); Mark, Aristarchus, and Justus (Col 3:10–11).
16. Gk. συστρατιώτης; used elsewhere of Archippus of Colossae (Phlm 2). The military metaphor is used also of Timothy in 2 Tim 2:3 (cf. 1 Tim 1:18).
17. See the Introduction, pp. 25–26.
18. Gk. ἀπόστολος (“apostle”), the clear indication that this is first of all a functional term for Paul (cf. 2 Cor 8:23), before it is titular.
19. Gk. λειτουργός; on this word see on 2:17; cf. the noun λειτουργία in v. 30. In light of 2:17, 4:18, and Rom 15:16 one wonders how Collange could have persuaded himself of a pagan background to the usage here. The “double mission” view also seizes on this word as implying not just bringing the gift but “attendance” on the apostle as well. But the usage in v. 30 and the language of 4:18 imply quite the opposite, that it refers specifically to the “priestly service” of bringing the gift to Paul. Cf. Buchanan (“Epaphroditus’ Sickness,” 158–59).
20. For this usage see esp. J.-A. Bühner, EDNT, 1.145 (section 5).
21. Gk. τῆς χρείας μου, a word frequently used for “the necessities of life.” In this letter see 4:16 and 19 (cf. the discussion on 4:11–12). Again, this language scarcely favors the “double mission” view (see nn. 7 and 19); to the contrary the usage in 4:16 suggests the opposite, and when Paul wants to enlarge its semantic range he does so in 4:19 by adding πᾶσαν (“every”).
22. Gk. ἐπιποθῶν ἦν; on the use of the verb see on 1:8. This is a periphrastic imperfect; whether it can also function as an “epistolary aorist” (as the NIV, “he longs for you”) is highly doubtful (see n. 9 above); and in any case, the imperfect implies, not surprisingly, that this has been going on for the past while. The suggestions that this word implies “homesickness” (as Plummer, Martin, Loh-Nida, Hawthorne, White) is psychologizing pure and simple; and in light of 1:8, it is bad psychologizing as well, since Paul’s “affection” for the Philippians scarcely implied “homesickness.”
23. On this emphasis in the letter see n. 41 on 1:1.
24. Gk. ἀδημονῶν, used of Jesus in the garden in Mark 14:33 and Matt 26:37. As with “longing” (n. 22), it is pure psychologizing to read “spiritual anguish” and “nervous disorder” (as, e.g., Martin, Hawthorne) into this word. Barth (88) also falls prey here: “what a very strange motive for the behaviour of a grown man!”
25. Gk. ἠσθένησεν, which more often than its cognate noun ἀσθενεία is used to mean “be sick,” or in the aorist “took sick,” although the aorist may refer to the whole experience (= “was sick”; on this usage see Burton, Moods, 20).
26. On the textual variation that adds “to see,” see n. 1, an addition that seems to miss Paul’s point (contra Michael, who suggests that either way makes very little difference). Epaphroditus longs for them, out of affection and concern for them, precisely because they knew he was ill and did not know of its happy outcome—although a desire to see them as well does not lag very far behind.
27. Kennedy, 446, offers the doubtful suggestion that upon hearing of Epaphroditus’ illness, the Philippians had written to Paul, to which our letter is now in response.
28. This is frequently asserted to be five; e.g., Collange (119 n. 2): “[1] the Philippians learn of Paul’s imprisonment; [2] Epaphroditus is sent; [3] the Philippians hear of their envoy’s illness; [4] he hears that his friends are worrying about him; [5] Epaphroditus is sent back.” This is so full of conjecture that it is hard to believe it is taken as seriously as it is (see, e.g., Martin, 120–21, who in arguing that an alternative view cannot be proved, implies that this view is thereby proven). Under any view, nos. 3 and 4 should be combined; why, one wonders, would there be need of a full journey back to Paul and Epaphroditus for him to know that they were concerned about him? The implication of the text is clear; Epaphroditus knows they are aware of his illness but not its resolution. He would not need someone to tell him that that would cause anxiety at home! Nor would no. 1 require Paul’s arrival in Rome before the Philippians could have known about it (although in this case nothing can be demonstrated one way or the other); the point is that five trips to and fro rests on conjecture pure and simple, not on anything that is explicitly said (or implied by what is said). So also Reicke (“Caesarea,” 284), who notes that only nos. 2 and 3 are presupposed by what Paul actually says in the letter.
29. Collange is bold: “This paragraph takes for granted a considerable number of communications to-and-fro between Paul and Philippi which points rather to an Ephesian origin of the letter.” In fact this paragraph is nearly irrelevant to that matter, since all questions about distance and the number of trips under any view is based on conjecture, not on what is actually said. If I find my reconstruction more plausible than that of Collange, it is because I think the grammar of v. 30 (see p. 283 and n. 50) moves in this direction, and in any case it seems to fit real life much better than his; but neither view can be proved. See the Introduction, pp. 36–37.
30. In this regard see 1 Cor 16:13 (“the men you approve to accompany your gift to Jerusalem”); 2 Cor 8:16–24, where three brothers are responsible for assisting with the Corinthians gift; 2 Cor 11:9 (“the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed”); and Acts 20:4, where Luke names the entourage finally responsible for carrying the gift from the Gentile churches to the poor in Jerusalem (cf. 24:17 for Luke’s knowledge of the reason for the trip to Jerusalem). That neither Paul nor Luke regularly mentions those who accompany the leader of such a group is evidenced everywhere (e.g., in 2 Cor 8:16–24 the two who accompany Titus are not named, while the second one is not mentioned at all in the further reference in 12:18; cf. Acts 21–26, where in 21:29 Luke mentions only “Trophimus the Ephesian” from among those enumerated in 20:4, because he is the catalyst of the uproar). To mention other than the leader(s) of such a group lies beyond the interests of the narrator.
31. This view was suggested as early as Conybeare and Howson (Life, 722); it has more recently been advocated by Mackay (“Further Thoughts,” 169); Buchanan (“Epaphroditus’ Sickness”); Caird, 129; Bruce, 96; Silva, 161. That Paul does not mention further companions is not a serious problem for this view (see preceding n.), esp. in light of Paul’s calling Epaphroditus the church’s “apostle.” He was their official representative and carrier of the gift. That he should not mention others in this case means only that Epaphroditus’s return is not an “official mission” from Paul, and that it was he who had taken ill.
32. Gk. καὶ γάρ, only here in Philippians, but a combination that occurs frequently in Paul’s letters where he is trying to persuade (e.g., 1 Thess 3:4; 4:10; 1 Cor 11:9; 12:13, 14; 14:8; etc.). The combination, as here, is usually both explanatory (γάρ) and intensive (καί), thus offering further, emphatic explanation of something that has preceded. “The καί implies that the previous ἠσθένησεν understates the case” (Lightfoot, 123).
33. Gk. παραπλήσιον θανάτῳ (= “coming near to death”). The adjective (used adverbially here), which can also mean “near” in the sense of “similar to,” occurs only here in the NT, where the original meaning (by derivation = coming alongside) obtains.
34. This, of course, cannot be demonstrated; but neither can it denied as some do (e.g., Plummer, Hendriksen). Nothing is at stake here, but in view of Paul’s understanding of life in Christ as altogether predicated on life in the Spirit (see Fee, Presence), this seems to be a very natural way of understanding what lies behind this theological account of Epaphroditus’s recovery.
35. A verb that in Paul occurs elsewhere (apart from Romans 9–11) chiefly in connection with his call to apostleship (see 1 Cor 7:26; 2 Cor 4:1; 1 Tim 1:13, 16); see Rom 12:8 for its singular usage at the horizontal level (people showing mercy to others).
36. Gk. λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην; cf. Isa 28:10 (θλῖψιν ἐπὶ θλῖψιν).
37. This is the most common view; Beare (98) suggests “sorrow at his critical illness,” but he then has difficulty with the ἀλυπότερος in v. 28, a difficulty that is purely of his own making.
38. Gk. σπουδαιοτέρως, the comparative of σπουδαίως, which is found elsewhere in Paul only in 2 Tim 1:17. In keeping with the “apologetic” view of this paragraph (see n. 6), it is common to suggest (in some cases assert) that this probably means “the more hastily” (Beare adds, “somewhat prematurely”; cf. inter alia Michael, Collange, Kent, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien); but that is a suggestion predicated altogether on a prior view of the paragraph, not on Pauline usage. Nowhere else in Paul does this word group imply “haste” as over against “eagerness, earnestness, diligence.” And in 2 Cor 8:17 he uses the comparative adjective precisely as he does the adverb here, in a sending context indicating the high degree of eagerness involved in getting Titus and the two brothers to Corinth.
39. Paul’s Greek can easily be put into English: “in order that in seeing him again you may rejoice,” which could be punctuated, “in seeing him again, you may rejoice” or “in seeing him, again you may rejoice.” Interpreters are generally divided: the former is favored by, inter alia, Hendriksen, Collange, Hawthorne, Silva, and the KJV, NIV, NASB, REB, NRSV, NJB; the latter by Lightfoot, Meyer, Vincent, Plummer, Michael, Müller, Beare, Gnilka, Rienecker-Rogers, Loh-Nida, O’Brien, and the GNB and NAB.
40. Gk. ἀλυπότερος, comparative of ἄλυπος, occurring only here in the NT. The meaning advocated by BAGD (“free from anxiety”) and followed by the NIV, NRSV, and NAB seems to be an invented meaning with no lexical basis whatever (the “be less concerned about you” of the NASB is impossible). The adjective is formed from λυπή (“sorrow, grief”) and with the alpha-privative means simply to be without sorrow (or perhaps, trouble). But “anxiety” is not even in the purview of this word, at least not according to LSJ.
41. Cf. esp. Rom 16:1–2, “in order that you may welcome (προσδέξησθε, as here) her and assist her as she has need.” What is missing in this case is the language of “commendation” itself, but that is because Epaphroditus is one of their own, in contrast to Phoebe’s coming to Rome where she is not formerly known (except, probably, by Aquila and Priscilla).
42. Gk. μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς, which does not imply “every kind of,” as Plummer would have it, but “with fullness of joy.”
43. So, e.g., Kennedy (447), followed by others (see n. 6): “The πάσης χαρᾶς and ἐντίμους surely point to some alienation on which we have no light.” They do no such thing, of course, although it is a possibility.
44. See, e.g., 1 Cor 16:15 (of Stephanas), that the church should “submit” to such and “recognize” (= honor) such; cf. 2 Cor 8:24 (of Titus and his two companions). Cf. the imperative in 1 Thess 5:12–13, which some would read as implying tensions; but again that is to make much too case specific what are more likely general admonitions.
45. Gk. ἔντιμος, found only here in Paul; elsewhere in the NT with this same general sense only in Luke 14:8, where it has to do with rank, however, not personal qualities that elicit such honor. The use in 1 Pet 2:4, 6 is more purely adjectival (= “precious, valuable”).
46. It is possible, of course, that this clause modifies both imperatives in v. 29; but in either case it most immediately qualifies the second one—and makes more sense doing so. The present sentence reiterates the reasons not for their joy (v. 29a), but for their holding him in honor (29b).
47. Gk. μέχρι θανάτου; cf. 2:8 (only in these two instances in Paul’s letters). Although the nuance here is slightly different from that in 2:8, it is hard to imagine that in a basically aural culture they would not have heard the echo.
48. Gk. παραβολευσάμενος τῇ ψυχῇ, a word that occurs here for the first time in known literature. An inscription noted by Deissmann (Light, 88), which uses the participle in precisely this same way, indicates that Paul did not invent the word. It is most likely a term associated with gambling, which is now used metaphorically. Cf. Acts 13:26 (in James’ letter), where it is said of Paul and Barnabas, ἀνθρώποις παραδεδωκόσι τὰς ψυχάς, for which BAGD suggest, “men who risked their lives.” Note also that when referring to one’s “life” in this way, Paul (typically in Greek) uses ψυχή to reflect this sense. It was not Epaphroditus’s “soul” that was at risk, but his present life on earth.
49. Gk. ἀναπληρώσῃ; although this verb can mean “fulfill” or “complete,” with the noun ὑστέρημα it means to “fill up, fill a gap, replace.” For this usage in Paul, see esp. 1 Cor 16:17; cf. Gal 6:2.
50. Mackay, “Further Thoughts,” 169. Cf. Caird (129), “The obvious interpretation of v. 30 is that he fell ill on the road and nearly killed himself by completing his journey while he was unfit to travel.” Although this, too, is a slender thread on which to hang a hypothesis, at least it is the one linguistic-grammatical moment in the paragraph that actually favors one view over against another. The common assumption, and frequently emphatic assertion, that he fell ill while in Rome, is assumption only, without a shred of evidence from the text itself.
51. Gk. ὑστέρημα, which ordinarily means “deficiency” or “lack” of something. But in the present idiom the “lack” Paul experiences is that of his friends. On this usage see the discussion in Fee, First Corinthians, 832. For the more common usage see on 4:11 below.
1. On this question, see the Introduction, pp. 21–23. The present discussion proceeds on the basis that one must make sense of the text as it now stands, as in keeping with a “hortatory letter of friendship”—all the more so since there are so many words and themes that presuppose what has preceded.
2. On the larger question of “opponents” in Philippi, generated in part by these two passages, see the Introduction, pp. 7–10; see also the introduction to vv. 1–4a below and the discussion of vv. 2 and 17–19. Note especially the matter of “mirror reading” (p. 7, esp. n. 24), since how one reads this material is determined in large measure by one’s presuppositions—whether it is basically polemical and apologetic (thus assuming a “three-way conversation” between Paul, the Philippians, and some alleged opponents) or a hortatory letter of friendship (thus a two-way conversation between Paul and the Philippians in a context that also, typically, includes the recognition of “enemies”).
3. On this matter, see the Introduction, pp. 2–14; cf. Stowers, “Friends,” 113–17.
4. Cf. Furnish (“Place,” 88): “Here he deals with certain matters he knows Epaphroditus … will discuss with the Philippians in person when [he comes].”
5. See on 1:25; 2:18, 28, 29.
6. Cf. Garland (“Composition,” 165): “In chap. 3 Paul is not giving the readers new information nor trying to convince them of something about which they disagreed. He writes of things they already know and with which they concur.”
7. Martin (123) and Pfitzner (Agon, 139–53) consider this to be “self-defence”; on the unlikelihood of such, see the discussion in n. 1 on 3:4b-6.
10. The original text reads either οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες (“who serve by the Spirit of God”; * A B C D2 F G 1739 Byz pler) or οἱ πνεύματι θεῷ λατρεύοντες (“who serve God in spirit” [Moffatt]; 2 D* P J 365 1175 pc lat sy) or οἱ πνεύματι λατρεύοντες (“who serve by the Spirit”; P46). Both the supporting witnesses and transcriptional probability favor the first option (the phrase seems so unnatural and the concept of “serving God” so normal [cf. Rom 1:9], it is difficult to imagine scribes deliberately changing from either of the latter to the former). Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 614. Otherwise Kennedy (449; cf. Moffatt; Michael is open to it), who prefers the dative on the mistaken notion that it provides a better parallel with σαρκί (“flesh”) at the end of the sentence. See the discussion.
11. The NIV (cf. NAB, RSV, Phillips) apparently understands 1b to refer to the repeated imperative to “rejoice” (Phillips is explicit; not only does he make a major break after v. 1, but he translates 1b, “it doesn’t bore me to repeat a piece of advice like this”). But since that view is so unlikely (see discussion on v. 1), others (NRSV, REB, NJB) correctly recognize that 1b introduces what follows, but cannot believe it follows “finally, rejoice in the Lord,” so they offer a major break at 1b, including a section title, so as radically to dismember Paul’s argument.
12. Kee (CASB, 188) is typical: “In the middle of this verse there is an abrupt change in tone.” Cf. inter alia, Lightfoot, Meyer, Jones, Barth, Bruce, Hawthorne.
13. A stylistic feature rarely noted in the literature on this passage, O’Brien (147) being a notable exception. For this stylistic feature in Paul, see N. Turner, MHT, 4.85; cf. vv. 4b-6 that follow.
14. So also Meyer, Vincent, Kennedy, Caird, Silva, O’Brien—although not all in the same way.
15. This is the traditional understanding; more recently many have suggested the (much less likely) hypothetical stitching together of two or more independent letters by someone at a later time in Philippi. On this matter, see the Introduction, pp. 21–23.
16. See Galatians, which is given wholly to this issue, where the “agitators” (Paul’s language for those commonly called “Judaizers”) are present and totally disruptive, and Romans, where the tension apparently exists within the various house churches in Rome; see also 1 Cor 7:18–19; 2 Cor 2:17–4:6 (which argument makes most sense if again the “peddlers” are pressing Gentiles to accept Jewish identity symbols, especially circumcision; cf. 11:4–22); Col 2:11, 16–23; Tit 1:14–16.
17. See in this regard, M. Tellbe, “Sociological Factors.” It should be noted here that the question of “why” is seldom raised, as though it would be a very natural thing for Gentile Christians to be so attracted. For a quite different answer, based on several moments of dubious mirror reading, see Jewett, “Conflicting Movements,” 386–87.
18. Recognized as early as Calvin (267): “For as they had merely made an attempt on the Philippians and had not overcome them, it was not so necessary to enter into a full-scale disputation and refute errors to which they had never lent an ear. Hence he simply warns them to be diligent and attentive in detecting and guarding against imposters” (cf. Meyer, 147; Bruce, 107; Furnish, “Place,” 81; Jewett, “Conflicting Movements,” 373, 382–83; W. D. Thomas, “Place,” 117 n. 1; Perkins, “Philippians,” 90–91; de Silva, “No Confidence,” 29–33). This question is often not spoken to at all, in most cases because their presence in Philippi is simply assumed, as, e.g., Pfitzner (Agon, 142): “his opponents who … in Philippi threaten to destroy his work.” That Paul has repeatedly warned them about such itinerants assumes not their presence in Philippi, but Paul’s expectation that sooner or later they would make their way to Philippi as they have to other Pauline centers.
19. As noted in the Introduction, pp. 6–7, 11–14, the considerably different way that people read texts based on their presuppositions about genre is especially evident here. The difficulty with reading this section as polemical is that apart from v. 2 nothing else takes a polemical mode. That Paul offers his own testimony in response and that he concludes by urging them to follow his example is not the stuff of polemics or self-defense. In fact apart from the invective of v. 2 and the pathos of vv. 18–19 over some enemies of the cross, there is nothing else in the text that signals “opposition” or polemics.
20. Some “mirror read” this testimony as presupposing “an attack on Paul’s apostleship” (Pfitzner, Agon, 142); but apostleship is not so much as hinted at in this passage, nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the letter—even in the salutation (1:1, q.v.). This is to read into the text what is simply not there.
21. Koester (“Purpose,” 320) rightly observes that Paul’s intent here is “not to describe the opponents, but to insult them.”
22. Gk. τὸ λοιπόν (lit. = “the rest”; the neuter acc. sing. used adverbially), which occurs in 2 Cor 13:11 without the article and in that context clearly means “finally,” as it probably does in 4:8 below (but to conclude the series of exhortations, not the letter). Elsewhere in Paul it either = “henceforth, in the future” (1 Cor 7:19; 2 Tim 4:8) or, as in 1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:1, and here, marks a transition to the final matters to be taken up in the letter; cf. Meyer (139), “it introduces what is still to be done by the readers in addition to what has been hitherto communicated” (cf. Vincent, Hendriksen, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien; Swift, “Theme,” 247; Garland, “Composition,” 149). All three uses are illustrated in the papyri (for the present usage, see M-M, 380). See the discussion in Thrall, Greek Particles, 25–30.
23. See n. 12 on 1:12. It should be noted that the vocative occurs in every instance of (τὸ) λοιπόν used as a transitional (or concluding) adverb; cf. 4:8 below and 2 Cor 13:11.
24. Cf. Caird, 130–32, who argues that the whole passage offers “theological justification for rejoicing in the Lord” (132).
25. It needs also to be noted that Goodspeed’s translation of this imperative (“goodbye”; cf. NEB, “farewell,” corrected by REB) is in fact impossible (pace Lightfoot, Beare; Bruce is sympathetic). Nothing is in its favor, and everything against it: (1) it is predicated on the faulty assumption that this imperative concludes 1:1–2:30; (2) the (alleged) resumptive use in 4:4 makes such a view nonsense (how could one imagine Paul to say something as strange as “farewell in the Lord always, again I say, farewell”?); even Goodspeed tries, without lexical warrant, to get around this one (Problems, 174–75); (3) it makes the imperative χαίρετε mean something radically different from what it means elsewhere in the letter; and (4), conclusively, there is no lexical justification for it; when this verb does appear in the papyri, it never occurs as an imperative at the end of a letter (see the numerous examples in Exler, Form, 35–36, 69–77; cf. the critique by L. Alexander, “Structure,” 97).
26. O’Brien (349) observes with insight that in most cases in this letter the theme of joy occurs in the context of “adverse circumstances.”
27. See Ps 32:11[31:11]; 33:21[32:21]; 35:9[34:9]; 40:16[39:17]; and many others. The LXX translators consistently avoided χαίρω for this idiom (but see Zech 10:7), using either ἀγαλλιάω or εὐφραίνω. Paul, on the other hand, uses the latter words only once (2 Cor 2:2), not counting LXX citations, preferring χαίρω and its cognates. Given the flexible way this idiom is handled in the LXX and given Paul’s linguistic preferences, χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ is best understood as Paul’s own rendering of this OT idiom.
28. In Paul, of course, the resource for such joy is the Holy Spirit, as in 1 Thess 1:6; Gal 5:22; Rom 14:17 (on these texts, see Fee, Presence).
29. The first being his concern that they stand fast as one person for the sake of the gospel in the face of opposition in Philippi (1:27–2:18).
30. Gk. τὰ αὐτὰ, followed by γράφειν; the accent clearly falls on “the same things,” not on “to write,” thus making the debate as to whether Paul had written these things before somewhat irrelevant (pace Lightfoot, Meyer, Vincent, Collange). As Calvin (268; cf. Gnilka, Silva; Garland, “Composition,” 164) recognized early on, and as v. 18 confirms, Paul is referring to the many times he had previously told them about such things—although it is possible that he is also referring to what Epaphroditus will have communicated (as suggested by Furnish, “Place,” 86; followed by Jewett, “Conflicting Movements,” 383 n. 1; and Martin, 124). It is pedantic to think this emphasis must include former communications by letter, and to translate it accordingly has little warrant (e.g., GNB, “I don’t mind repeating what I’ve written before”; one would expect a πάλιν if this were the case)—although neither can one rule out that Paul had written before; it is simply that this phrase offers nothing by way of support. See further on n. 34 below.
31. Gk. ἀσφαλές, the only occurrence of this word group in Paul, having to do with “security” rather than “salvation” as such; cf. Heb 6:19 (“a sure and steadfast anchor”); Acts 21:34; 22:30; 25:26. Furnish (“Place,” 83–86) has argued at some length for the meaning “certain, dependable knowledge,” but that seems unlikely; to my knowledge, he has found no supporters.
32. Gk. ὀκνηρόν, the adjective of ΟΕκνος (“hesitation, shrinking”), which is used in that way in Rom 12:11; but here it refers to something “arousing dislike or displeasure” (Hauck, TDNT 5.167), hence “onerous” or “troublesome.”
33. See n. 11 above; cf. Alford, Weiss, Dibelius, Lohmeyer, Caird, Bruce, Hawthorne. Lightfoot (126) clearly recognizes the unlikelihood of this view, but in keeping with his radical disjunction between vv. 1 and 2, neither can it point forward; hence he suggests it refers to the “dissensions” in 1:27–2:18 (cf. Hendriksen).
34. Cf. Mackay (“Further Thoughts,” 164): “It is altogether reasonable to suppose that he had repeatedly warned the Philippians against the ‘Judaizers’, and that he is apologizing in iii.1 for giving this warning again.” So most interpreters (e.g., Meyer, Vincent, Kennedy, Jones, Bonnard, Müller, Kent, Loh-Nida, Silva, O’Brien).
35. Rahtjen (“Three Letters,” 172) claims that those who hold to the integrity of Philippians have as much difficulty with this sentence as do those who hold to partition theories. But that seems to be an overstatement, since he admittedly cannot make sense of it at all, whereas the proposed interpretation seems to make perfectly good sense as setting up the warning that follows.
36. Gk. βλέπετε; part of the rhetoric lies in the repetition of this warning imperative with its asyndeton: “look out for the dogs; look out for the evil workers; look out for the mutilation.” G. D. Kilpatrick (“ΒΛΕΠΕΤΕ,” followed by Caird, Hawthorne; Garland, “Composition,” 166; Stowers, “Friends,” 116) argued for a weakened sense here (“regard, look at, consider”) on the grounds that when it serves as a warning it is followed either by a μή πως or an ἀπό; thus it is not admonitory but setting forth the Judaizers (Jews, in the case of Caird and Hawthorne) as “a cautionary example” (Caird). But this makes very little sense of the rhetoric (why the threefold repetition of an indicative, one wonders) or the context (esp. vv. 3–4, which follow very strangely if this is not warning); nor is it an altogether accurate syntactical observation about usage. When followed by a μή πως, the warning still lies in the verb, not in what follows; and, as Silva and O’Brien correctly point out, in this case the μή πως seems clearly implied by the context; furthermore, as evidenced by Caird’s discussion, this view has considerable difficulty with the γάρ in v. 3.
37. The rhetoric is threefold: the repetition itself; the use of epithets that “turn the tables” on his opponents; and the assonance with which it is expressed:
βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας,
βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας,
βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν.
To see three different groups here (as some earlier interpreters noted by Meyer, 146) displays insensitivity both to the context and the rhetoric.
38. Some have argued for Jews as such (so Lohmeyer, Rahtjen, Klijn, Pollard, Caird, Hawthorne, et al.), but that view carries little persuasion in light of Pauline usage elsewhere, esp. 2 Cor 11:1–23, where Paul’s language can only refer to people who are Christians (they preach “another gospel,” to be sure, but it is a “gospel” that speaks of Christ). It is hard to imagine the circumstances whereby Gentiles who had come to follow Christ could possibly be attracted to becoming Jewish proselytes, since that is what most of them avoided as God-fearers. Even less likely are suggestions that the “missionaries” are Jewish “gnostics” (Schmithals) or “gnostics” who “claim special Spirit endowment” (Koester, Martin, Loh-Nida, Polhill, Lincoln); on the latter see n. 60 below.
39. At least not in vv. 3–9; it is moot whether he is referring specifically to them in the generalizing word in vv. 18–19, where he speaks of “many” who “walk” differently from himself. “Judaizers” could easily be included in the phrase “enemies of the cross of Christ,” but the verb “walk” in Paul always has to do with how one lives, not with theological aberration, and the context indicates that Paul is there referring to people who are no longer “pressing on toward the prize,” who have set their minds on “earthly things” vis-á-vis “us whose citizenship is in heaven.” On the improbability that they were currently present in Philippi, see n. 18 above.
40. Cf. Mackay (163): “the change in tone … must not be exaggerated” (so also O’Brien, 347). All the more so if one takes seriously the role of “enmity” in letters of friendship (see Introduction, pp. 6–7).
41. This is my own play on words; it is altogether doubtful that the epithet in the Greek carried this word play.
42. In one of the most biting bits of sarcasm to be found in his letters, Paul urges in Gal 5:12 that if they must use the knife, they do so by castrating themselves rather than circumcising his Gentile converts; in 2 Cor 11:13–14, he calls them Satan’s dupes, masquerading as apostles of Christ. Rahtjen’s assertion (“Three Letters,” 170) that “the bitterness of the tone of the first two verses is even greater than the anger shown in Galatians,” makes one wonder by what criteria we should measure degrees of emotion. In any case, “bitterness” and “anger” would not be the first words to come to my mind when reading the present text, which has no comparable follow-up in the rest of the letter and nothing comparable to the ringing “anathema” of Gal 1:6 and accusation of being “false apostles” who are servants of Satan “masquerading as servants of righteousness” in 2 Cor 11:15. The latter are categorically stronger denunciations than the present passage, which takes the form of insult but not pronouncements of eternal judgment or of calling their character into question.
43. As always with such striking metaphors, one can find numerous suggestions in the literature as to what it points to. Some suggest “those who ‘dog’ his footsteps” (although there is no known use of such a metaphor in Greek literature); others that he regarded these people as “scavengers” on his congregations, a suggestion that seems to have possibilities. More fancifully, some have pointed to 2 Kgs 9:36, where the “dogs” eat the flesh of Jezebel, thus pointing toward the final epithet, “the mutilation.” For still more fanciful suggestions see Meyer (145), who notes “shamelessness,” “snappishness,” “envy,” “disorderly wandering about,” and “a loud howling against Paul”!
44. A culture that spends millions of dollars on dogs as pets can scarcely appreciate the basic contempt that ancient society had for dogs, who were both scavengers (eating whatever street garbage they could find) and vicious (attacking the weak and helpless). They get nearly universally bad press in the Bible and thus are metaphorically applied to humans only pejoratively (see, e.g., 1 Sam 17:43; 24:14; 2 Sam 9:8; 16:9; 2 Kgs 8:13; Matt 7:6; 2 Pet 2:22). For Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles, see R. Aqiba, who named his two dogs Rufus and Rufina, because the Gentiles are like dogs in their manner of life (Tanch 107b; cited in Str-B 1.725).
45. Grayston (“Opponents”) thinks otherwise, that the “dogs” are Gentiles, who are “promoting circumcision as an initiatory rite … out of semi-magical belief in ritual blood-shedding” (171). But this fails altogether in light of vv. 3–6.
46. Gk. τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας; cf. 2 Cor 11:13, ἐργάτοι δόλιοι (“deceitful workers”). ἐργάτης occurs in Paul elsewhere only in 1 Tim 5:18 (where he is citing a piece of Jesus tradition) and 2 Tim 2:15 (metaphorically of Timothy). Some understand the present usage as “ironic” over against their alleged “harping on the necessity of ‘works’ to secure salvation” (Martin [1959], 137; cf. Barth, Caird, Hawthorne, Silva). But that seems altogether unlikely, since it is doubtful that the Judaizers ever saw themselves as promoting “works.” H. Koester (“Purpose”), on the basis of usage in Matt 9:37–38; 10:10; Did 13:2, sees the epithet as a self-designation denoting missionary activity (cf. Georgi, Opponents, 40; Lincoln, Paradise, 90; O’Brien), which cannot be proven one way or the other. Paul himself never so uses it at any rate.
47. Gk. οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν; see Ps 5:5; 6:8; 13:4; 35:12; 52:4; 58:2, 5; 91:7, 9; 93:4, 16; 118:3; 124:5; 144:4, 9. The noun ἐργάται occurs with this idiom in 1 Macc 3:6 (so also in Symmachus’s translation of Ps 93:16). So also Bruce, 104.
48. Rahtjen (“Three Letters,” 170) considers this to refer to their own (“the dogs’ ”) circumcision; but that would be against all analogy in Paul, who never derogates circumcision as such, and especially not that of Jews.
49. The technical term for which is paronomasia, a deliberate use of words with similar sounds for rhetorical effect, another form of which is the assonance of the three clauses (see n. 37 above).
50. Except for an occasional demurrer, this view has held almost total sway until it was challenged by E. P. Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), who coined the term “covenantal nomism” to describe a view of the Law that thought of law-keeping as an expression of covenantal relationship vis-ō-vis obeying the law to gain God’s favor. This point of view, which might be called “religious-sociological” (over against the traditional “theological-religious” perspective), has been advanced by many others, esp. Dunn (see essays collected in Jesus, Paul and the Law). See the discussion in Fee, Presence, 813–16, for the perspective suggested here, which would embrace both the religious-sociological and theological dimensions of this issue. On the one hand, Dunn is quite right in pointing out that the language “works of the Law” in Paul does not include ethics, but invariably denotes the three “identity markers” (circumcision, Sabbath observance, food laws) which distinguished the people of the covenant from the Gentiles among whom they lived. This is undoubtedly the driving concern of the Judaizers themselves, to bring Gentiles within the “blessings” of the Abrahamic covenant, which was predicated on their becoming circumcised. On the other hand, Paul ultimately argues on a more theological plane, moving the issue to the “means to righteousness” itself, i.e., how one is rightly related to God. At stake for him is whether one’s identity with God and his people is predicated on “faith” in God’s grace as expressed in Christ’s death and resurrection, or on the “doing” of “Torah observance.” Cf. D. Hagner, “Jewish Matrix.”
51. Paul’s own position on circumcision is found in the thrice repeated “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for a thing” (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15), precisely because it has no significance with God whatsoever. This further suggests, in keeping with his dictum in 1 Cor 9:20, that he has no difficulty if Jewish parents continue to circumcise their boys. Where he comes out fighting is when Torah observance is given significance, so that Gentiles must conform in order to belong fully to the people of God. At that point, Torah observance takes on theological significance, implying that one’s relationship with God in itself is predicated on “works of law.”
52. Gk. γάρ, in this case offering the “cause, or reason” why they should heed the admonition of v. 2. On the difficulties this raises for the softened view of βλέπετε see n. 36
53. That this sentence represents some kind of prior catechetical teaching (so Collange, Martin) is pure speculation; the context is so precise and the content so Pauline that such speculation is as unnecessary as it is unprovable.
55. See, among many examples, 1 Thess 1:9–10 (“you turned from idols to the living God … and await his Son from heaven, Jesus who delivers us from the coming wrath”); Gal 4:5 (“in order that he might redeem those under Law, in order that we might receive adoption”); Rom 8:15 (“you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry ‘Abba, Father’ ”); cf. 1 Thess 5:9; 1 Cor 1:18, 30; 5:7; 15:3; Rom 5:1–5; 8:3; et passim. Some think otherwise regarding the present passage: e.g., H. Koester, “Purpose,” who thinks that the emphatic “we” refers to Paul’s Spirit-endowed apostleship as over against that of his opponents, but this is related to his unique view of the passage as a whole; D. W. B. Robinson, “Circumcision,” who takes the unlikely view (given vv. 15–16 and 20–21) that it refers to himself and other Jews-turned-Christians; others think it refers to Paul and Timothy. See the discussion in O’Brien, 358–59.
56. For the covenantal emphasis of this language, see Motyer, 148.
57. For a full discussion of this text, see Fee, Presence, 489–93; cf. on 2 Cor 3:6 and Rom 7:5–6 as well (pp. 304–7, 503–8).
58. Cf. also Jer 9:23–25, from which Paul derives his understanding of “boasting in the Lord,” which in v. 25 of that passage also reflects on merely outward circumcision.
59. Gk. λατρεύοντες (NIV, “worship”), which is very difficult to render into English (see the discussion; cf. H. Balz, EDNT, 2.344–45); cf. Rom 1:9 and 2 Tim 1:3 (of Paul’s “service” to God) and Rom 1:25 (of idolatrous “service”). Pauline usage is determined by the LXX; the use of the cognate noun in Rom 9:4 and 12:1 tells the story. To Israel belongs, among other things, the λατρεία (= the temple cultus); now believers, in contrast to idolaters (Rom 1:25, those of “senseless minds,” v. 20), offer “service” to God that “makes sense” of their present existence in Christ (for this understanding of λογίκην see Fee, Presence, 599–602). In order to support his mirror reading of this text as polemical against “Spirit enthusiasts” (next n.), Koester (“Purpose,” 320–21) argues against a cultic background here—despite the context—and offers the unlikely translation, “[we are those] who work as missionaries in the Spirit of God.”
60. Many (e.g., Koester, Gnilka, Martin, Polhill, Lincoln, O’Brien), picking up on some “parallels” in 2 Cor 11–12, see this phrase as reflecting the position of “the propagandists,” who “claim … special possession of the Spirit in their activities” (Lincoln, Paradise, 90–91). This is then read into a variety of further moments in the passage (the emphasis on suffering, the mention of the resurrection, the alleged “perfectionism,” those who have made a “god of their bellies”). This kind of “mirror reading” (see the Introduction, p. 7 n. 24) represents a clear case of falling into “pitfalls” 2 and 4 of Barclay’s guidelines (“over-interpretation” and “latching onto particular words and phrases as direct echoes of the opponents’ vocabulary and then hanging a whole thesis on those flimsy pegs”). Besides the plain fact that the Spirit is neither mentioned nor alluded to throughout the rest of this passage, this view does not take Paul’s own theology seriously enough, especially his presupposition, expressed throughout his letters in a variety of forms, that Christian life is predicated on the saving work of Christ (hence, “boasting in Christ Jesus”) and the appropriating work of the Spirit (hence, “who ‘serve’ by the Spirit of God”). See further, Fee, Presence (13, 78, et passim). When Paul speaks in a very Pauline way, as he does here, one is especially hard pressed to discover the “theology” of alleged “opponents” in what he says, all the more so when we also lack the kind of direct evidence provided by explicit statements about their point of view.
61. As, e.g., the NEB (corrected in the REB), “we whose worship is spiritual”; cf. Calvin, 269; Lightfoot, 145; Beare, 105; Hawthorne 126–27, a view often tied to John 4:24. But Pauline usage and theology stand totally against it; indeed, such a view misses the genuinely radical nature of life in the Spirit as Paul elsewhere articulates it (see Fee, Presence, passim).
62. This suggests further that this dative, as usual in Paul, is probably not locative, as the NRSV makes it (“who worship in the Spirit of God”; cf. NASB, NAB), as though we render proper service to God as we live in the Spirit. While one could scarcely argue against that theologically, Pauline usage seems determinative here. In most instances, arguably in all, this dative (πνεύματι; ἐν πνεύματι) is instrumental (see the full discussion in Fee, Presence, 21–24). We offer such service by means of the Spirit, which in this case probably has little to do with “doing” anything, but rather with simply living and walking by the Spirit as over against putting confidence “in the flesh.”
63. On the textual question see n. 10.
64. That is, with the dative πνεύματι; Rom 8:9 is the one exception.
65. For the crucial nature of this text in Paul see 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17. As noted above on 1:26, Paul’s use of this word (καυχάομαι) has been largely determined by the Jeremiah passage, which already uses the preposition ἐν with this verb and means to “put one’s confidence in and thus to glory in [the Lord].” This OT usage calls into serious question all other suggestions as to the meaning of “in Christ Jesus” in the present passage (e.g., GNB [Loh-Nida], “rejoice in our life in union with Christ Jesus,” which sounds far more like Deissmann and Bousset than it does like Paul).
66. W. D. Davies (“Flesh and Spirit”; cf. GNB, Loh-Nida) would limit it to this usage; but that seems altogether unlikely (cf. Moehring, “Some Remarks”).
67. For this emphasis on “flesh” and “Spirit” as primarily eschatological realities, see Fee, Presence, 816–22; cf. Silva 170–71.
68. Gk. καίπερ, used with the participle to express concession; found only here in Paul. There seems neither need nor warrant for Hawthorne’s taking the clause as the protasis of an elliptical sentence.
69. The Western witnesses (D* E* F G it pc) omit this καί, but in so doing they deflect Paul’s emphasis.
70. Lightfoot (145) correctly argues that “the proper force of ἔχων πεποίθησιν may not be explained away.” After all, Paul speaks here of having indeed that which he will renounce in vv. 7–9. Contra such translations as GNB: (“I could, of course, put my trust in such things”).
1. Cf. Collange (129): “So the interest of the apostle does not lie primarily in autobiography but in parenesis; … he is simply striving to instruct.” Martin (123) suggests otherwise, that this is “self-defence,” in which Paul “goes to [great] length to defend himself from the implied criticism of his opponents”; cf. Pfitzner (Agon, 142). But (a) that takes the concept of “opponents” to lengths not found in the passage itself (cf. nn. 19, 38, and 60 on the preceding paragraph); (b) there is nothing in the language itself that implies “defense” (the ἐγὼ μᾶλλον simply sets Paul in contrast to the Judaizers in v. 2, but not in terms of “self-defense”); and (c) Paul himself urges that what he says here is to serve as a paradigm for the Philippians (vv. 15–17), which does not fit well the theme of “apology.” It is the paradigmatic nature of the present narrative that marks it off from all previous autobiographical moments in his letters (e.g., 1 Thess 2:1–12; Gal 1:13–2:14; 2 Cor 11:23–12:12), which are decidedly “apologetic” in function and tone (contra G. Lyon, Pauline Autobiography)—although even there Paul reminds converts of his example when among them, so as to reinforce some point of paraenesis (as in 2 Thess 3:7–10).
2. Yet another indication of friendship (see the Introduction, pp. 2–7). Indeed, the present appeal functions similarly to that in 2:1–2, where he urges on the basis of their long-time relationship in Christ and the Spirit that they “complete his joy” by being of one mind regarding the gospel.
3. Some would also see a correspondence with the narrative about Christ in 2:6–11 (e.g., Moule, Wright); but Paul himself makes no point of it, and the parallels are inexact, especially since the paradigmatic point of the present narrative seems to differ considerably from the former one, although the linguistic echoes suggest that Christ’s story serves as the premise for this one.
4. The first item is everywhere presupposed. His belonging to “Israel’s race” is specifically mentioned in 2 Cor 11:22; Rom 9:3; 11:1. He mentions his tribe in Rom 11:1, his being a “Hebrew” in 2 Cor 11:22. His pharisaism is implied in Gal 1:13–14; he mentions his “persecuting the church” in Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9, and 1 Tim 1:13. Only his “faultlessness” in observing Torah is not mentioned elsewhere in his letters, although it is no surprise in light of Gal 1:14.
5. For this emphasis on his “superiority” in Judaism see Gal 1:13–14 and 2 Cor 11:21–23.
6. Gk. ἐγὼ μᾶλλον; for this usage of μᾶλλον, see S. R. Llewelyn, New Docs 6.69–70, who notes that in an elliptical apodosis like this, it is not merely contrastive (“rather”), but intensive (= “all the more”).
7. Cf. Gnilka (189), followed by Martin, who emphasizes the anonymity of a supposed “debater.” This same formula, however, occurs at key points in 1 Corinthians (3:18; 8:2; 14:37), where it points not to outsiders but to people within the Corinthian congregation who have taken the stance proposed in the protasis. In light of the rest of Philippians, it is extremely doubtful that outsiders are being addressed here. On the larger question of Judaizers present in Philippi, see the discussion on v. 2 (esp. nn. 18 and 39).
8. Gk. περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος. The dative is “reference” (= with reference to circumcision).
9. Meyer (151) suggests that the mention of “the eighth day” implies that some of the Judaizers were themselves proselytes, hence Paul’s superiority. Although possible, this seems doubtful. Paul is aiming at “the righteousness contained in the law.” His “I more”—and what he counts as “filthy street garbage”—has to do with his “achievements,” not his status as such. After all, in Rom 11:1–2, he argues that his own “status” (an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin) is the clear evidence that God has not in fact cast off his ancient people.
10. Gk. γένους, here meaning “race.”
11. Georgi (Opponents, 46–49) has demonstrated that this term featured prominently in the propaganda of hellenistic Judaism to emphasize their special religious heritage. He has been followed by many (Martin, Bruce, Hawthorne, O’Brien).
12. Hendriksen (156–58) rightly calls into question some of the lavish praise of the tribe of Benjamin that is found in many of the commentaries.
13. Evidenced also by the way it is recalled in a more off-handed way in Rom 11:1.
14. As is evidenced by the inscription from the synagogue in Corinth, “Synagogue of the Hebrews.” In recent years it has become common to emphasize the linguistic features of this term (see, e.g., C. F. D. Moule, “Once More”; cf. Martin, Bruce, Hawthorne, O’Brien; Gutbrod, TDNT, 3.390; Gunther, Opponents, 75), thus to suggest that he intended “Hebrew Palestinian parentage”; but this looks like strapping Paul into a Lukan straitjacket. This usage can be found throughout Jewish literature to distinguish themselves from Gentiles, almost certainly in contrast to the more pejorative term “Jew” which the Gentiles used. Besides, Paul’s Greek is such that even if he had learned Aramaic in his home (which he very likely did), Greek is his first language. See further J. Wanke, EDNT, 1.369–70.
15. Contra O’Brien (376–78), this usage indicates that “church,” which primarily referred to the gathered assembly in any given community, could also carry the more universalizing connotation of the people of God in general. Had Paul intended the former, he most likely would have said “churches,” as he does elsewhere.
16. In this regard see Gal 1:13–14 (where his zeal in persecuting the church and his zeal for the Law are the only two items mentioned; cf. 1:23, where it is mentioned again) and 1 Tim 1:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:9. Acts faithfully represents this dimension of his zeal for God (9:1–2; 22:4–5; 26:9–11).
17. That “zeal for the Law” is in view is made clear not only from the parallel in Gal 1:14, but from its place in this context between “as to the Law, a Pharisee” and “as to the righteousness found in the Law, faultless.” See further the discussion in O’Brien, 375–76.
18. Some (e.g., Gunther, Opponents, 130) read into this phrase presumed “opponents” who “were eager to be blameless (v. 6),” viewing vv. 12–15 as reflecting their alleged emphasis on perfectionism. Martin and Pfitzner (cf. Schmithals, Paul, 73), on the other hand, mirror read the same evidence as “presuppos[ing] an attack of Paul’s claims to apostolicity” (see n. 1). The implausibility of these reconstructions, besides being methodologically questionable mirror reading (see Introduction, p. 7 n. 24), is found in the preceding phrase, “as to zeal [for the law], persecuting the church,” which all such reconstructions conveniently ignore. Pfitzner, e.g., lists all the other items in this list, and then says that “all these claims, on which they seek to base their authority, Paul for his part now considers loss” (emphasis mine). One wonders how “all these claims” can so easily circumvent “persecuting the church”; and if the latter is not part of their “claims” to “authority” (which is understandably not argued for since it borders on nonsense), then how can one be so sure that the surrounding items reflect the “claims” of “opponents”? The point to note, of course, is that Paul himself elsewhere refers to this matter in his past without hint of “opponents.”
19. Gk. ἄμεμπτος; see above on 2:15 (and n. 16).
20. Some see Paul’s word here as in conflict with the testimony in 1 Tim 1:13–16; but as with Rom 7:7–25, that testimony is expressed in terms of his now Christian backward look at his life before Christ. Here the perspective is within the framework of Judaism. Cf. the witness of the rich young man in the Gospel records, who claims regarding Torah observance that he had “kept these from my youth.”
21. It is clear that Paul lacks a “convert’s mentality” on these matters, since he never argues that Jewish believers in Christ should abandon such identity markers. He comes out fighting only when they are given theological significance, as they invariably are when imposed on Gentiles. In this regard, see esp. the argument in Rom 14:1–15:13, where all three of these past “achievements” are argued for as acceptable for Jewish believers, but as totally outside the purview of the Kingdom of God.
22. Otherwise Kennedy, who thinks it includes “the ordinary moral precepts of the law as well.” But that seems to run counter to Rom 7:7–12.
1. This ἀλλά is missing in much of the better early evidence (P46 P61vid * A [F] G 33 81 1241s 1739* pc b d Lucifer Ambrosiaster); it is found in B D Ψ Maj a f vg sy co. This is a tough call, evidenced by the brackets in NA26. Either addition or omission could be accounted for because of homoeoteleuton (both ἀλλά and the ἅτινα that follows begin and end with alpha). On the whole, the text without ἀλλά is more likely original (so Michaelis, Hawthorne; O’Brien is open): (a) the external evidence strongly favors this reading (B has here abandoned its Egyptian companions); (b) it is easily the more difficult reading, since the context cries out for such a contrastive particle, which was frequently supplied in the transmissional process; (c) the combination of ἀλλά and ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καί in successive sentences does not occur elsewhere in Paul, which, although an awkwardness that could have led to its omission, more likely was created by scribes who sensed the need of what Barth (96) calls “the great ‘But’!” Even so, the scribes have correctly read the context, which implies such a contrast.
2. The τήν found in the majority of witnesses is missing in P46 * A B 1241s 2464 pc (as is the τῶν that precedes “sufferings” in P46 * B). The text without the article is almost certainly original, since it is difficult to conceive of the circumstances in which a scribe would have omitted it (them). This suggests that Paul understands the closest kind of relationship to exist between “the power of his resurrection” and “participation in his sufferings,” since both are controlled by a single definite article.
3. Found in this case in a variety of literary devices, which are striking in effect, especially for a document written to be heard. It includes the asyndeton with which it begins; the studied parallelism of v. 7; chiasm (vv. 10–11); and repetitions of various kinds (ἅτινα-ταῦτα-πάντα-τὰ πάντα; κέρδη-κερδήσω; ζημίαν-ζημίαν-ἐζημιώθην; ἥγημαι-ἡγοῦμαι-ἡγοῦμαι; διά-διά-διʼ ὅν; γνώσεως-γνῶναι; δικαιοσύνην-δικαιοσύνην; πίστεως-πίστει; as well as the clauses in v. 9). Typically, Lohmeyer sees the passage as poetic, dividing it into six strophes; but he has found no followers.
4. The words κέρδη (“gain”), ἡγοῦμαι (“consider”), and “Christ Jesus my Lord” echo earlier moments in the letter. For “gain” see on 1:21; for “consider” see n. 76 on 2:3.
5. The letters (a), (b), (c), and (d) isolate the several interwoven motifs, which have also been highlighted by capitalization, bold, italics, and capitalized italics. The (e) item (“being conformed”) recurs in v. 21. The A B B′ A′ highlights the chiasm in vv. 10–11.
6. This has been frequently noted (e.g., Jones, Bonnard, Silva; Käsemann, “Analysis,” 64; Pollard, “Integrity,” 62–64; Hooker, “Interchange,” 356; Wright, “ἁρπαγμός,” 347), with varying degrees of emphasis as to its purposefulness in the letter.
7. On the textual question see n. 1. The effective nature of the asyndeton in this case lies in the expectation of a contrastive particle (supplied by the later scribes). Instead Paul gathers up all the preceding advantages in the relative ἅτινα (= “whatever things”) and expresses the contrast with the commercial metaphor of (former) “gains” = (present) “loss.”
8. Gk. διά, the first of three consecutive uses of this preposition, which with the accusative basically “indicates the reason why some[thing] happens, results, exists” (BAGD). Whereas in some cases a more prospective (final) sense seems probable (see Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 36; M. J. Harris, NIDNTT, 3.1183–84), there seems to be no compelling reason to think so here (= “for the sake of,” NIV, GNB, NASB, RSV, Silva, O’Brien; “because of,” NRSV, REB, JB, Hawthorne). Granted the purpose clause in v. 8c (“that [ἵνα] I might gain Christ”), but that comes later in the sentence and does not seem to be Paul’s point here. It is not “for the sake of gaining Christ” that he has “revised the balance sheet,” but precisely because of Christ, who he is and what he has done, that such radical reorientation has taken place. See also nn. 18 and 22 below.
9. Gk. ἄτινα, the indefinite relative pronoun, which here minimally refers specifically to the catalogue in vv. 5–6; the indefinite is used, however, probably to enlarge the purview. Thus, it includes the “what things” of vv. 5–6, but it also includes “whatever [other] things” may be of the same kind.
10. Gk. κέρδη. The plural is probably intentional, suggesting that each of the items just enumerated belonged on the “credit” side of the ledger. The verb, which in 1 Cor 9:22 is a “missionary term” (= to “gain” converts; Schlier, TDNT, 3.673), occurs in v. 8c as a further expression of the commercial metaphor, which in turn attests that the phrase “to die is gain” in 1:21 almost certainly means “to gain Christ” through death, just as “to live means Christ” in every possible way.
11. It seems also to echo the saying of Jesus recorded in Matt 16:24–26 (// Mark 8:34–36; Luke 9:23–25; so inter alia, Kennedy, Michael, Hendriksen, Collange, Silva), where “following Christ” means to “take up one’s cross,” and thus to “lose” one’s life in order to “find” (εὑρέσει) it; for what do people profit who “gain” (κερδήσῃ) the whole world but “lose” (ζημιωθῇ) their souls.
12. Gk. ζημίαν, only here in Paul; but the verb, which occurs in v. 8, and still carries on the commercial metaphor, appears with the more general sense of “utter loss” in 1 Cor 3:15. For a more thorough discussion see Stumpff, TDNT, 2.888–92; for illustrations of the commercial use of these two words, see M-M, 273.
13. As Rom 9:1–5 and 11:1–2 make clear.
14. Gk. ἥγημαι (see above on 2:3, 6, 25), here purposefully expressed in the perfect tense (what he came to consider loss when he met Christ still holds true); see also n. 16.
15. Gk. ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καί; a combination that occurs nowhere else in Greek literature. Cf. 1:18, where the ascensive ἀλλὰ καί occurs. Thrall (Greek Particles, 11–16) argues that the present combination is an ἀλλὰ καί, made more emphatic by the addition of μενοῦνγε. Hence, “not only so, but all the more I consider all things as loss.” The καί, which is omitted by P46vid * 6 33 1739 1881 pc lat, is undoubtedly original; it was omitted precisely because of the strangeness of the combination.
16. Gk. ἡγοῦμαι (see n. 14), now in the present tense, expressing that what happened for him at conversion is how he still views things.
17. This listing is based on Paul’s own words, both here and in passages like 1 Cor 4:8–13.
18. This is the second διά (see n. 8), for which Lightfoot (148) suggests, “by reason of,” which Plummer takes to be equivalent to “in comparison with.” But that meaning, adopted as early as Moffatt (cf. Goodspeed, NIV; affirmed as “undoubtedly right” by Michael, 145; cf. Caird), seems to be an invention, pure and simple, since examples are never forthcoming and the grammars and lexicons know nothing of it whatever. But whether, as in v. 7, it is prospective (“for the sake of”) or retrospective (“because of”) cannot be determined. I think the latter, since the passage seems to be retrospective up to the purpose clause (coming to know Christ serves as the basis, the reason, for his glad loss of all things), which he finally puts into a telic mode (indicating the purpose for which he has done so).
19. Gk. τὸ ὑπερέχον; cf. 4:9 below (also 2:3, in the slightly different sense “to be better”). The verb means “to surpass, excel”; for this substantival use of the neuter participle the NIV follows the suggestion of BAGD (“the surpassing greatness”); but in context it is probably to be understood in light of the prevailing commercial metaphor, hence “surpassing worth” (RSV), “surpassing value” (NRSV; NASB); “overwhelming gain” (Phillips); contra “surpassing knowledge” EDNT, 3.398 (cf. NAB), on which see the next note.
20. Gk. τῆς γνώσεως, lit., “of the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.” “Knowledge” here does not denote a quantifiable body of data about someone or something, but the act of “knowing” itself, as v. 10 makes clear. The genitive, therefore, is not appositional (as NAB, Beare, Loh-Nida, Hawthorne, O’Brien) but “objective,” or in the language of Beekman and Callow (Translating, 257, 260) expressing the “content” of “surpassing worth.” Thus, what has “value exceeding all other values by far” finds expression in “knowing” Christ.
21. Where “knowing God” has first of all to do with revelation; one knows God by observing the “ways of God” and thus his character that lies behind all his ways. God’s concern for Israel over and again is that “you may know that I am YHWH” (Exod 10:2 et passim). But inherent in such “knowledge of God” was obedience, i.e., loyalty to him through behavior that conformed to his covenant love and faithfulness (righteousness). Hence the promise of the new covenant (Jer 31:34) was that with the law written on their hearts God’s people would “know the Lord,” since this is what he required more than sacrifices (Hos 6:6) and the failure of which led to judgment (Hos 4:1; where “knowledge of God” is in parallel with “faithfulness and love”). See the helpful overview by E. D. Schmitz, NIDNTT, 2.395–96, 399–401.
Since the OT so clearly influences Paul at every turn, and especially since this phrase occurs in the context of “righteousness” based on Torah observance, which he has gladly given up for the surpassing worth of “knowing Christ Jesus my Lord,” it is remarkable that some scholars have looked to hellenistic (esp. “Gnostic”) sources for the “background” to Paul’s usage here (as, e.g., Beare, Bultmann, Schmithals, Koester). Even more tenuous is to mirror read this language as reflecting the position of “opponents” (Schmithals, Koester, Martin, Lincoln; see nn. 38 and 60 on vv. 2–3). Besides being a considerable anachronism in the use of this language, the protest must be registered once again (cf. Fee, First Corinthians, 11) that even in Corinth—and especially in this letter, where such terminology is misleading at best—what is essential to Gnosticism (their cosmological mythology; salvation by gnosis) is altogether missing. The apparent dualism in the various forms of “opposition” to Paul (in 1 and 2 Corinthians; Colossians; 1 Timothy) can be explained on other grounds.
22. This is the third διά (see nn. 8 and 18), and the one that could most easily yield the telic sense of the NIV, “for whose sake” (as most interpreters). The difficulty with that translation in this case is that it is seldom understood as prospective (i.e., “for the purpose of gaining Christ”), but in the sense of doing it with Christ’s benefit in view—which meaning the preposition cannot sustain.
23. Gk. σκύβαλα, only here in the NT; in the LXX only in Sir 27:4. Although Lang (TDNT, 7.445) dismisses it as popular etymology, its origins are very likely from a combination of “dogs” (κύσι = to dogs) and “cast” (βαλεῖν); cf. M-M, 579. Anyone who has seen—and smelled—this phenomenon in places lacking modern sanitation facilities can well understand the likelihood of such etymology. The alternative etymology is σκώρ, σκάτος (“dung, excrement”; so Lightfoot, et al.), but it is very difficult to account for the -βαλ in this view.
24. Cf. Syb. Or. 7.58, where the combination occurs in an “oracle” against Thessaly (“you will be the mournful refuse of war, O one who falls to dogs,” OTP)
25. As M-M (579–80) would have it; cf. Kennedy, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien; Lang, TDNT, 7.445–47; Hays, Echoes, 122 (“crap”). For this usage see Jos. BJ 5.571 (lit. of cow dung) and the examples from the papyri in M-M.
26. Cf. Michael, 147; Polhill, “Twin Obstacles,” 364.
27. On the meaning of these words, see Fee, First Corinthians, 180.
28. Gk. καί, which is most likely a form of hendiadys, where the second member spells out in greater detail what is meant by the first; cf. on 2:9 (n. 15) and on v. 10 below. So also Hawthorne; cf. Silva, O’Brien.
29. Cf. Houlden (99): “It is not as if consideration of the defects of the Law has prompted Paul to cast about for alternatives.” The analogy is with our oldest son the day (when he was six) a neighbor let him ride his bicycle; from that day on the toy trucks were “considered loss” for the “surpassing worth” of knowing how to ride a bicycle. Nothing was calculated; the greater simply replaced the lesser by the sheer force of its “greatness.”
30. For this perspective see above on 1:6 and 10–11; cf. Fee, Presence, 803–8; cf. Lightfoot, Martin, Bruce, Hawthorne, O’Brien. Others see it as referring to either one or the other: the present only (Vincent, Beare); the future only (Plummer, Michael, Collange, Gnilka, Gundry Volf [Perseverance, 258]; cf. Moffatt’s “translation”: “and be found at death in him” [!], defended by Michael).
31. Not to mention (a) that the ordinary sense of a purpose clause is prospective (i.e., one does one thing “in order that” a second thing might result), and (b) that the metaphor “gain” in 1:21, which this clause echoes, clearly points to the future. Indeed, detached from their qualifiers and v. 10 that follows, both of which are very “present” sounding, these two verbs would automatically be understood as eschatological in their orientation.
32. Gk. εὑρεθῶ (aorist passive subjunctive, which for some inexplicable reason Collange calls “the future tense of the verb”). On this verb see n. 4 on 2:8. In characteristic fashion Paul with this passive shifts the emphasis from himself to God; i.e., “gaining Christ” is not something Paul hopes to “achieve” by losing everything else; rather, the metaphor of loss and gain, referring to his “before and after” in Judaism and now in Christ, is about to be explained as “from God,” the gift of God’s gracious love extended to him through Christ. Calvin (274) tries to make the verb active in sense, thus implying that in Christ Paul has “found all things.” But the verb simply will not sustain that meaning.
33. On the diverse use of this phrase in Philippians, see above on 1:13, 14; 2:1, 19, 24; 3:1, 3; cf. 3:14; 4:1, 7, 19, and 21 below
34. Schenk (250–51), followed by Silva (185) and O’Brien (394), sets this out as a piece of chiasm, which it obviously is not (although as Plummer, followed by Loh-Nida, pointed out, there is a kind of internal chiasm between the two mentions of “righteousness”; but what value that observation has, which destroys Paul’s clause in this way by eliminating the last, ringing, “on the basis of faith,” one can only wonder). The rhetoric in this case lies in the repetition (see n. 3 above), not in chiasm. It is of some interest that Silva and O’Brien would approve Schenk’s non-existent “chiasm” here, but for theological reasons reject the obvious chiasm of vv. 10–11.
35. Over the past four decades the literature on this term has grown to monumental proportions. The issues, which cannot be resolved here, are several, some interrelated: (a) the relationship of the noun (δικαιοσύνη) to its corresponding adjective (δίκαιος) and verb (δικαιόω), and therefore (b) whether it ever means “justification”; (c) how it is related to the term “righteousness of God,” the main theme of Romans, which occurs elsewhere in Paul only in 2 Cor 5:21; and (d) whether it is therefore primarily “relational” or “ethical” (i.e., referring to one’s relationship with God or to one’s ethical life as a result of that relationship). My own view in sum (and without argumentation): The background of the term lies in the OT, where it has primarily to do with God and his people in their relationship to one another in terms of the covenant; thus “the righteousness of God” refers to his loving faithfulness to his people in terms of the covenant, and their righteousness refers to their reciprocation by keeping the stipulations of the covenant (the law). When Paul uses the noun, therefore, he has in mind God’s covenant loyalty to his people, and thus his and their relationship based on the new covenant. Thus it is primarily a term having to do with our relationship with God; but the noun itself does not mean “justification,” as though it were primarily a forensic term. It simply refers to our new right relationship with God predicated on the saving work of Christ. Furthermore, in Paul it is unthinkable that that relationship does not also involve right living. Hence the flexibility—and difficulty—in deciding on its precise nuance at several points in Paul’s letters. For a discussion of this term in Paul see K. Kertelge, EDNT, 1.325–30; cf. Ziesler, Meaning (for the Jewish background and its use in the NT), and S. K. Williams, “Righteousness,” for a discussion of the debate on “the righteousness of God” in Romans.
36. The earliest commentary in English that seems to recognize this difficulty is Bruce, 120.
37. Contra Ziesler, Meaning, 148–51, who, on the basis of the connection with v. 6, understands “ethical righteousness” to be its only meaning here.
38. Although not put in quite these terms, cf. R. H. Gundry, “Grace”; contra E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, 43–45, 137–41, whose exegesis of this passage is especially forced in order to make it fit his prior assumption, that Paul never thought of “law-keeping” as a means to grace. That may well have been true of Paul before meeting Christ, but the strong language of vv. 2–8 in this passage indicates that as one who had been “apprehended by Christ” (v. 12) he looked back on his former life in Judaism from a radically different theological perspective. After all, there is no escaping the grammar that puts “blameless Torah righteousness” in v. 6 among the ἅτινα of v. 7, which in turn becomes part of the σκύβαλα in v. 8.
39. Cf. Rom 10:3: ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ζητοῦντες στῆσαι, τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν (“since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness”); these emphases can be seen already in the OT (Ps 71:16, emphasizing God’s righteousness alone; Isa 64:6 [LXX 64:5], indicating human “righteousness” as “filthy rags”).
40. Gk. ἐμήν, not τὴν ἐμήν, which as Lightfoot rightly pointed out would imply that such a righteousness actually existed.
41. So also Müller; cf. RSV and REB (“based on the law”; but changed in the NRSV to “that comes from the law”); GNB (“gained by obeying the law”). For this kind of twofold sense to the same preposition in a single sentence, see M. J. Harris, NIDNTT, 3.1177–78. Most scholars are more impressed with the repetition of ἐκ and thus argue for “source” in both cases.
42. Gk. διά, which carries the nuance of secondary agency. Thus, the “source” (ἐκ) of new covenant righteousness is God; it has been mediated through (διά) Christ (cf. 1 Cor 8:6 for the same use of these prepositions). In the present case, of course, it is not mediated through Paul’s faith, but through Christ in whom Paul has put his trust.
43. See, e.g., Eph 2:8–10 (“for by grace you have been saved through faith”); cf. Rom 4:16 (“the promise comes by faith, so that it might be by grace”). This is always what “through faith” means in Paul; it is never something believers do in exchange for God’s acceptance; rather it reflects their utter trust in God’s gracious love and acceptance.
44. The phrase διὰ (or ἐκ) πίστεως Χριστοῦ occurs first in the Pauline corpus in Gal 2:16 (2x, cf. 2:20) and again in 3:22 and Rom 3:22, 26. At issue is whether the genitive is “objective” (Christ as the object of faith) or “subjective” (Christ as the one who lives “faithfully”). For a bibliography to 1980 of those who take it as subjective, see Longenecker, Galatians, 87; for a more recent—and influential—advocacy, see R. B. Hays, Faith; cf. M. D. Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΨ,” and esp. the debate between Hays and Dunn in SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, 714–44 (see Hultgren, “Pistis Christou,” and Koperski, “Meaning,” for advocacy of an objective genitive); for commentaries that take it as subjective see Martin and O’Brien. Although there are places where it could well refer to “the faithfulness of Christ” (e.g., Rom 3:22, on the pattern of “God’s faithfulness” in 3:3, and Abraham’s in 4:12, 16—although it is clear that πίστις carries a considerably different nuance in these two passages, pace Hays and O’Brien), it is unlikely to do so here. Most damaging to the subjective genitive view is its first occurrence (Gal 2:16), where it is immediately explained in terms of “even we believed in Christ Jesus” (the common appeal to tautology does not wash here, since the power of Paul’s rhetoric lies in the threefold repetition of “works of law” and “belief in Christ”). Not only so, but the analogies of Rom 3:3 and 4:16 are not precise; in all six instances of πίστεως Χριστοῦ both words occur without the definite article, thus implying “through faith in Christ” (as in 2 Thess 2:13 [the real analogy in Paul to Phil 3:9, overlooked by O’Brien]; cf. Mark 11:22; the usage in Rom 4:16 may seem to be “an exact parallel” [O’Brien], but in fact it is dependent on 4:12, where the article makes Paul’s sense clear, which is then picked up in v. 16), whereas in Rom 3:3 the definite article points to “the faithfulness of the [one and only] God.” Most likely the phrase was coined in its first instance (Gal 2:16) in antithesis to ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, where “works” can only refer to what we do. By analogy, and in total antithesis, ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ is also what we “do”; we put our trust in Christ. Although Silva’s objection needs some modification, it is noteworthy that Paul regularly refers to believers as putting their trust in Christ, both with the verb “to believe” and with this noun where its usage is unambiguous; whereas Christ is never the subject of a verb that carries the connotation of “faithfulness” found in this noun when so interpreted. What needs to be emphasized is that nowhere does Paul unambiguously refer to our salvation as “through Christ’s faithfulness,” whereas he repeatedly and unambiguously so speaks of our faith. To make this genitive subjective, therefore, would seem to require stronger evidence than has been thus far presented.
45. Gk. ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει; the article is anaphoric, referring back to Paul’s faith in the preceding clause, contra Martin and O’Brien, who would have it refer now to our human response to Christ’s faith[fulness] in the preceding phrase. One wonders how the Philippians could possibly have caught on to such a radical shift of subject and object in a clause that seems so clearly designed to repeat the first for emphasis.
46. That is, Paul can speak of “faith” without a qualifier when he prefers (cf. Rom 3:30–31); but it seems highly unlikely that he would use this word to speak of Christ’s activity without the genitive qualifier.
47. Contra most interpreters; but it is doubtful in the extreme whether this noun can ever be extended to mean “justification.” Paul uses δικαίωσις for this idea; it would require solid proof to demonstrate that δικαιοσύνη and δικαίωσις are indiscriminate synonyms in Paul.
48. Contra Beare, who on the basis of the aorist γνῶναι suggests that this also points to Paul’s future resurrection. The context, including v. 11, speaks strongly against such a view. Indeed, this suggestion serves as an excellent (negative) illustration of the wrong use of the “punctiliar” view of the aorist.
49. So Barth, Gnilka, Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien; but Pauline usage does not seem favorable (see next n.). Some (e.g., Calvin, Bengel, Hendriksen, Collange, Martin) take it to qualify “faith,” but that puts the emphasis in a different place from Paul’s, who is now picking up the motif of “knowing Christ” from earlier in the sentence.
50. So Meyer, Vincent, Loh-Nida. Two things make one think so: (1) Elsewhere where Paul intends coordinate purpose clauses (e.g., 1 Cor 7:5; Gal 3:14; 4:5) both clauses are introduced by ἵνα; whereas he alters the conjunctions when the second clause is dependent on, or elaborates, the first (e.g., ἵνα … ὅπως, 2 Thess 1:11–12; 1 Cor 1:28–29; 2 Cor 8:14; εἰς τὸ … ἵνα, Rom 7:4; 15:16); this seems clearly to be the pattern here; (2) there is no analogy to this use of an articular infinitive of purpose (τοῦ γνῶναι), which rarely (if ever) functions as a purpose clause, rather than as a simple complementary infinitive of purpose modifying what has immediately preceded (e.g., 1 Cor 10:13; 16:4). Contra Hawthorne, whose analysis of these clauses is suspect.
51. So KJV, NRSV, REB; Hendriksen, Caird; Forestell, “Perfection,” 124.
52. So most interpreters; cf. the translations by Williams (“that is, the power of His resurrection”) and Moffatt (“I would know him in the power of his resurrection”).
53. On the basis of the absence of the article with κοινωνία (see n. 2 above), this is the more likely of the two options. Paul intends the closest kind of link between the two phrases; thus “the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings” form a single, two-sided reality in his thinking.
54. Missing this point has caused many interpreters to “spiritualize” this passage, so that “the power of his resurrection” has to do with living “above sin,” etc., and “participation in his sufferings” is understood in light of Rom 6:1–6 and thus refers to “sanctification.” So, inter alia and in a variety of forms, Calvin, Meyer, Kennedy, Jones, Müller, Hendriksen, Caird, Loh-Nida, Hawthorne, Silva. But only by the most strained interpretation can “participation in his sufferings” yield something like “our spiritual transformation into the image of Christ” (Silva). That might work for the next clause (“being conformed to his death”), but not very well for this one. Paul’s language is nearly a repeat of 2 Cor 1:7, where “being participants in the sufferings” cannot possibly refer to something “spiritual.” One would seem to need the strongest kind of linguistic and contextual evidence to overthrow the clear context of this letter, which has his and their sufferings regularly in view.
Even more difficult to find here is the emphasis on Paul’s apostolic authority, as Pfitzner maintains (his being conformed to Christ’s death is “the enactment of his apostolic commission,” Agon, 145; cf. nn. 1 and 18 on vv. 4–6).
55. This, of course, assumes the correctness to the view that the καί is epexegetic, i.e., that these clauses give “concreteness” to “knowing Christ”; cf. Forestell (“Perfection,” 124): “the [participation in his sufferings] is necessarily the object of some experience, as is made clear from what follows: Symmorphizomenos tō thanatō autou.”
56. On the apparent hesitation Paul expresses in the final clause (“if somehow”), see the discussion of line A′.
57. Cf. Barth (103): “To know Easter means, for the person knowing it, as stringently as may be: to be implicated in the events of Good Friday”; see esp. the discussion in O’Brien, 405–6. Martin, based on his view of the “polemical” nature of this passage, has all of this in reverse by suggesting, “that intimacy of union with the living Lord in the power of his resurrection is only possible as the apostle first comes to share his sufferings.”
58. The closest analogies are 1 Cor 6:14 (God raised Christ and will raise us by his power) and Eph 1:19–20 (God’s present power toward us is that by which he raised Christ); cf. Rom 8:10–11, which speaks of the “body” as presently “dead” because of sin but alive to God by the Spirit, whose presence in our lives guarantees that the God who raised Christ from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies as well (see Fee, Presence, 542–54).
59. But see v. 21 below, where a similar transfer occurs in terms of Christ as the one who transforms our present bodies into the likeness of his present glory “in keeping with the power that enables him to bring everything into subjection to himself.”
60. Gk. κοινωνία παθημάτων; cf. κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων in 2 Cor 1:7 (“you are participants in the sufferings”). This latter usage seems to render impossible the suggestion by Lohmeyer that “sufferings” is a subjective genitive here. For the meaning of κοινωνία in Paul see on 1:5. For the absence of the article with both κοινωνία and παθημάτων, see nn. 2 and 53 above. Both the usage in 2 Cor 1:7 and Paul’s use of παθήματα would seem to render nearly impossible the “spiritualized” view of this line noted in n. 54 above. Despite the appeals to Rom 6:1–11 on the part of many, there is scarcely a linguistic tie to that passage, while there are both linguistic and conceptual ties with several passages in Paul where “present suffering” preceding final glory are juxtaposed (including Rom 8:17–30).
61. Martin, following P. Siber (Mit Christus) and Collange, sees the context as polemical, against a kind of “over-realized eschatology” (on the basis of “perfect” in v. 12); but this founders on the way Martin treats the two phrases, as though the second were the condition of the first (see n. 57).
62. See, e.g., 1 Thess 1:6; 3:2–3; 2 Cor 1:5; 4:7–18; Rom 8:17; Col 1:24; and Phil 1:29 (!).
63. Cf. 1:13 above, where Paul’s imprisonment is “manifested to be ‘in Christ’.” Both the language (κοινωνία = participation in) and the context render nearly impossible the “spiritualized” understanding of this line noted above (nn. 54 and 60), as though “participation in” = “a mystical sharing in all Christ’s experiences” (Jones, 54) or the “spiritual process which is carried on in him who is united to Christ,” which through baptism marks their “definitive breach with sin” (Silva, 191).
64. It is doubtful, therefore, whether Paul has any kind of “mystical union” with Christ in view (as, e.g., Vincent, Kennedy, Jones, Michael, Silva), including the kind of “Christ-mysticism” advocated by Deissmann and Schweitzer, or that which is read into this passage from Rom 6:1–6 (as Michael, Silva, et al.) or from the concept of the “body of Christ” (Proudfoot, “Imitation”). The “participation” inherent in κοινωνία, as in 1:5 above, means that Paul participates in the same reality as exemplified in Christ’s sufferings; the “connection” between the two is that Paul’s sufferings reflect Christ’s inasmuch as they have the same goal. Christ’s sufferings, which culminated in his death, were “for our sakes”; Paul’s—and by implication the Philippians’ as well—are for “the sake of the gospel,” both in the sense of “because of” and “in behalf of.”
65. Very likely, therefore, the participle is “modal,” modifying the verb by way of the preceding clause. Thus: “that I may know him, including participation in his sufferings, by being conformed to his death.” O’Brien, who argues against the “spiritualizing” of the preceding line, also argues against chiasm here, so that he can “spiritualize” this participle, thus making it refer to both “the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings,” so as to be “incorporated into Christ” on the basis of his death. This view seems to have been taken against those who see “being conformed to his death” as referring to martyrdom (Meyer, Lohmeyer). But martyrdom is not a necessary inference—indeed, it is altogether unlikely. Being “conformed to his death” means the same as in 2 Cor 4:10–12, where Paul views present suffering as “carrying about in his body the death of Christ,” not meaning that he will suffer martyrdom, but that his sufferings are to be understood in light of Christ’s death.
66. The idea that Paul is referring to his actual anticipated death is to read into this phrase what is simply not there (as, e.g., Meyer, Lohmeyer; G. Braumann, NIDNTT, 1.707). Paul is not talking about dying, but about suffering—of a kind that is in keeping with Christ’s death.
67. It is common to see in this language an allusion to baptism, which is found in the text through the circuitous route of reading v. 10 in light of Rom 6:1–11. But that is to find what one is looking for, not what Paul himself hints at. The present tense of the participle seems to spell death to such an idea. One’s death with Christ may well have been enacted at baptism, but “being continually conformed to that death,” as this text has it, is far removed from the imagery of baptism. Paul’s concern is first of all with his and the Philippians’ ongoing sufferings as God’s way of bringing them into conformity to Christ in his death, and thus with the whole of life as reflecting a cruciform existence. Baptism lay at the beginning of that process; the ongoing “conformation” in Paul’s understanding is the work of the Spirit (cf. Rom 12:1–2).
68. Gk. τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν. This unusual expression (ἐξανάστασιν is a NT hapax legomenon; the doubling of the article, thus intensifying “from among the dead”; the repeated ἐκ) is probably best explained as putting emphasis in two directions at once: first, it is a way of making clear that in contrast to the preceding mention of Christ’s resurrection, whose power is now available to believers, this clause unmistakably refers to the future resurrection of believers; second, in its own way it emphasizes that resurrection follows “death”—in this case for those whose lives in the present are marked by “conformation to his death.” This language, while it does not deny a general resurrection, emphasizes singularly the resurrection of believers from among the dead.
69. Gk. εἴ πως; cf. Rom 1:10; 11:14. But see esp. J. Gundry Volf (Perseverance, 257–58), who argues on the basis of the uses in Romans that “doubt” is not implied at all.
70. Gk. καταντήσω εἰς; the combination literally means “to arrive” at a given place, hence the NAB (“I hope that I may arrive at resurrection from the dead”). The GNB has probably captured Paul’s sense: “in the hope that I myself will be raised from death to life.”
71. Cf. Barth, 105; Collange, 132. All kinds of other suggestions have been made: an expression of humility (Meyer, Vincent, Hendriksen, Hawthorne); distrust in himself (Kennedy); as referring to the manner rather than the whether (Lenski, Martin, Motyer, O’Brien).
72. In light of his reconstruction (see n. 60 on v. 3) Koester argues that it emphasizes death as a presupposition to resurrection vis-ō-vis the “over-spiritualized eschatology” of the alleged “opponents,” who consider “resurrection as already achieved” (“Purpose,” 323; cf. Schmithals). But that assumes the presence of “opponents,” who in fact are not mentioned throughout this narrative.
1. P46 and several Western witnesses (D* [F G] a [b] Irenaeuslat Ambrosiaster) read a text with ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι (“or am already completely justified”) added between “have already obtained” and “have already been made perfect.” Although a case can be made for the others to have omitted this clause on the grounds that it seems so contradictory to Pauline theology or because of homoeoteleuton (so E. López, “En torno”; J. D. Price, “Textual Commentary,” 281; Silva, 203–4; Hawthorne is open), such a view has enormous difficulties to overcome in terms of finding any scribal analogies (especially so early) for such “theologically astute” omissions, especially when it fits so nicely with vv. 8–11. On the other hand, such additions are the well-known proclivities of the Western text, who by adding such a clause quite missed the fact that they give a meaning to this verb not otherwise known to Paul. See further, Metzger, Textual Commentary, 614–15.
2. The Gk. behind the NIV reads: διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω (lit., “but I press on if also I might take hold of”). The καί has been omitted in several witnesses (P16vid * D* F G 326 2495 pc lat syp) either because of homoeoteleuton or under the influence of the versions, which have great difficulty turning this combination into a receptor language (as the English translations bear witness).
3. As often with the Lord’s name in Paul’s letters, variation occurs between “Christ Jesus” (P46 P61 A Ψ Maj vg sy) and “Christ” (B D2 F G 33 pc b Tertullian Clement Ambrosiaster). This is nearly impossible to call. On the one hand, omission could easily have occurred by homoeoteleuton (esp. since by the time of our earliest MSS, the divine names are abbreviated XY IY); on the other hand, an “addition” like this does not require intentionality on the part of scribes, since they would often write the name in full without even thinking about it. Very likely the shorter reading is original, but one has no guarantee here.
5. Several significant witnesses (P16vid P61vid A D* P 33 81 104 365 614 1175 1241s al a syh** bo Tertullian) read οὐπώ (“not yet”) for οὐ (“not,” P46 B D2 F G Ψ Maj lat syp sa), apparently followed by the NIV. But this is a clearly secondary reading, which in light of the context is easy to account for. We may want Paul to have said “not yet” because of our understanding of how this sentence relates to vv. 9–11, but had Paul originally written οὐπώ, there is no conceivable reason for the “yet” to have been omitted (so often and so early); Müller’s argument (123 n. 6) that it better fits the context is precisely why the variant occurred at all. Paul said “not” because he is speaking eschatologically, not theologically or ethically—which should also be noted by those who think either reading makes basically the same point (e.g., Hawthorne, Silva, O’Brien). Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 615.
6. Paul’s sentence concludes τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (“of God in Christ Jesus”). This is altered in a variety of ways by several early witnesses: P46 omits the final phrase (almost certainly due to homoeoteleuton); F G omit “of God” for the same reasons; while D* F G add “Lord” to the final phrase. None of these commends itself as original.
7. Instead of ἄνω κλήσεως (“upward calling”) Tertullian and a marginal gloss in 1739 read ἀνεγκλησίας (“blamelessness”). This has purely historical interest: Tertullian is keen on “blamelessness”; that this reading is known—or conjectured—by the scribe of 1739 says something about the complex history of the early transmission of the NT text (even though 1739 is a tenth c. MS, its exemplar for the Pauline Epistles dated from the third or fourth century and contained a text very close to that of B).
9. This is a nearly universal point of view, most scholars denoting the new “paragraph” as vv. 12–16, a view that has caused no end of grief in terms of understanding the point of vv. 15–16. But what they never speak to is how either the οὐχ ὅτι that begins v. 12 or the inferential οὖν in v. 15 supports this paragraphing.
10. Indeed, the idea that Paul is addressing new subject matter is read into the text primarily on the basis of the verb τετελείωμαι, usually translated as the NIV, “been made perfect,” although probably incorrectly so in this case; see the discussion below.
11. The root word is the noun τελός (v. 19), which appears as the verb τετελείωμαι in v. 12 and the adjective τέλειοι in v. 15. Paul has not been “completed” yet, by which he now means “reached the ‘goal’ ”; and those who have achieved “maturity” should have the same mindset, while the “destiny” of others, who resist a cruciform existence, is not glory but destruction.
12. Cf. Pfitzner (Agon, 139–41), O’Brien, et al., contra Meyer, Collange, Caird, Loh-Nida (cf. GNB), who see the metaphor as already beginning in v. 12.
13. Except for the final qualifier about Christ’s prior activity—of “having apprehended” him (v. 12), and as the sphere of God’s upward calling (v. 14).
14. But to read the disclaimers as indicating “a decidedly polemical tone” (Pfitzner, Agon, 139) moves considerably beyond what Paul actually says. This appears to assume that Paul’s “not/but” contrasts are always a polemical mode of argumentation, which is simply not the case. As the interpretation of vv. 15–16 below demonstrates, one can make good sense of the whole passage if one assumes only what is necessary in context, that Paul is concerned for the Philippians themselves, and that exhortation does not equal opposition, but warning and encouragement.
15. The suggestions are as varied as one should expect when explicit statements are lacking to guide reconstructions: some see “perfectionism” within the Philippian congregation (“obvious,” Michael; Beare [129] is certain that this “is their language; [Paul] takes it over from them” [emphasis his]); others see “perfectionism” from outside “opponents,” often seen as “enthusiasts” with an “over-spiritualized eschatology” (Koester, “Purpose”; Gunther, Opponents, 76, 84; Pfitzner, Agon, 152; Lincoln, Paradise, 93–95; O’Brien); while Plummer sees exactly the opposite, a “clear” attack on antinomianism (= “freedom from Judaism, which relies so much on external conformity to law, implies no encouragement to laxity of life”). The fundamental premise of all such views is that this material is polemical, which then must be “mirror read” to determine the view of the “opposition.” See the Introduction, pp. 7–10.
16. This is my way of stating what Koester (“Purpose”; followed by O’Brien) argues to be the position of the “opponents,” that they preach “a doctrine of obtainable perfection based on Judaizing practices.” The view of Forestell (“Perfection”) that Paul is basically teaching about “Christian perfection” seems to read the passage apart from its full literary context.
17. Gk. οὐχ ὅτι; cf. 4:11 and 17; 2 Thess 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24; 3:5; John 6:46; 7:22. The combination is an ellipse (BAGD suggest οὐ λέγω ὅτι) which in idiomatic English means something like, “this is not to say that …” It should also be noted that in no other instance in the NT does this combination mark a paragraph break; it is especially doubtful that it does so here. See n. 9 above.
18. In Romans Paul employs the idiom τί οὗν ἐροῦμεν for this identical purpose. The difference between what Paul says here and what he does in Romans is that between “argumentation,” which Romans is but Philippians is not, and personal narrative, which this passage is.
19. Cf. Kent, Bruce, O’Brien; others come close to putting it this way by simply referring to the object as “Christ” (so Pfitzner, Agon, 144–45; Hawthorne). There have been many other suggestions: the “prize” itself (Meyer, Bonnard, Beare, Collange; A. Ringwald, NIDNTT, 1.648–49), Meyer interpreting that to mean “the bliss of the Messiah’s kingdom”; “the purified life in heaven” (Kennedy, 458); “life eternal” (Beare); “righteousness” (Barth; A. F. J. Klijn, “Opponents,” 281–82). What is surprising in the literature is the lack of references to Paul’s eschatology, which seems to dominate this passage, and without which one would seem to be able to make very little sense of it at all. This is the “not yet,” set up by v. 11, which corresponds to the “already” of vv. 8–10. Pfitzner (Agon, 141–42) notes the eschatological “tension” but dismisses it much too casually.
20. Gk. ἔλαβον, the common verb for “take” or “receive,” which BAGD understand here to mean “make one’s own.” Hawthorne argues for “mental comprehension”; but that seems to miss the eschatological thrust of the passage by too much. Lightfoot argued that we should take seriously the change in tenses between this aorist and the perfect the follows, the aorist referring to his not having “obtained” at some point in the past (perhaps at his conversion), the perfect referring to something begun in the past that holds good in the present. But as O’Brien points out, the “already” seems to rule that out. More likely this is an example of the “constative aorist,” which, in the words of J. H. Moulton, is “a line reduced to a point by perspective” (MHT, 1.109).
21. See n. 1 above for those who think this is the original reading.
22. Pace Barth, 106–7, whose reading of the text at this point is characteristically theological.
23. Gk. τετελείωμαι, only here in the Pauline corpus, although it appears as a textual variant for τελεῖται in 2 Cor 12:10. The adjective τέλειος (“complete, perfect, mature”), which occurs in v. 15, appears 8 times in all (1 Cor 2:6; 13:10; 14:20; Rom 12:2; Col 1:28; 4:12; Eph 4:13); and the noun τελειότης once (Col 3:14). Cf. the discussion by G. Delling in TDNT, 8.79–84; and H. Hübner, EDNT, 3.344–45. Most earlier commentators considered it to refer to “moral and spiritual perfection” (e.g., Vincent, 107). More recently this has been nuanced to denote “spiritual,” eschatological perfection, with less emphasis on the moral-ethical side, and has been “mirror read” to be the language of his “opponents” (e.g., Jones, Koester, Jewett, Polhill, Lincoln, O’Brien; see following nn.). Some (e.g., Beare, Houlden) see Paul as using the language of the Mystery cults here, but that seems especially far-fetched in this context, since nothing in the surrounding matter would seem to give him reason to do so. For a rejection of “mirror reading” this word as reflecting the opposition in Philippi, see Lüdemann, Opposition, 106–7.
24. It has been common to read this double disclaimer (“not already obtained, not already made perfect”) as parallel, so that the “object” of the first is supplied by the concept “perfect” in the second verb (e.g., Schmithals; Jewett, “Conflicting Movements,” 373; Polhill, “Twin Obstacles,” 167). Such an understanding is the direct result of seeing v. 12 (despite the οὐχ ὅτι) as starting a new paragraph, basically unrelated to what has preceded (see n. 9 above). Neither the grammar (there are no analogies in Paul where the “verb” of a second clause supplies the “object” of a former one) nor the context supports such a view.
That this verb reflects Paul’s opposition to some form of perfectionism is asserted with a great deal more confidence in the literature than the full context of this personal history and its application would seem to allow. Thus O’Brien (423): “Most commentators agree that by using [this verb] here (note also τέλειος at v. 15) the apostle is taking over the terminology of his opponents for the purpose of correcting their false views” (cf. Jones, 56, “The Apostle at this point … fixes his attention upon a section of the Philippian Church which was in its tendencies identical with the party in the Church of Corinth which arrogated to itself the title of ‘spiritual,’ was filled with overweening pride, and claimed spiritual perfection”). While possible, that seems to place an enormous amount of weight on a verb which is capable of a different sense altogether. And it goes quite beyond the evidence to assert that Paul, vis-ō-vis alleged opponents, “asserts or claims his imperfection” (Pfitzner, Agon, 142). Indeed, it seems impossible to verify this view on the basis of what is written in this letter alone; and since one can make perfectly good sense of Paul’s usage without resorting to “opponents,” this seems to be the better approach. On the problems with this kind of “mirror reading” of texts, which make too much of the use of certain vocabulary when there are not accompanying explicit statements, see J. Barclay, “Mirror Reading,” 81–84; cf. the Introduction, pp. 7–8.
25. Some would argue that 1 Cor 4:8 suggests that Paul had a similar problem in Corinth (see n. 60 on v. 3). But there is nothing in 1 Corinthians to suggest “perfectionism” as the issue; rather, the point of conflict between him and the Corinthians had to do with what it meant to be “spiritual,” in the sense of “people of the Spirit.” They apparently took the presence of the Spirit as evidence that they had already arrived at the ultimate state of spiritual existence; but moral perfection does not seem to be part of their claim. It was certainly not a part of their reality! See Fee, First Corinthians, 4–15.
26. So also O’Brien (correctly), 423: “The expression is parallel with the preceding ἤδη ἔλαβον and is a further explanation in more literal terms of what was described figuratively of obtaining the goal. The ἤ (‘or’) connects two similar processes, not distinct or alternative ones.”
27. Cf. Kennedy, 457, “It means literally ‘to bring to an end’ determined by God”; and Hübner (EDNT, 3.344): “not as if I already had reached my goal.” Pfitzner (Agon, 139) seems to turn all of this on its head when he speaks of “the τελειότης which is the goal of the Apostle’s striving.” To turn the verb into a noun and make it the goal mentioned in v. 14 is methodologically suspect at best; at worst it represents a distortion of what Paul actually said.
28. Gk. διώκω, whose primary sense was “push, drive, set in motion,” which then came to be the most common verb for “persecute” (pursue with a malevolent aim), but which is also used figuratively for “striving hard after” a good aim (as in 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Cor 14:1; Rom 9:30, 31; 12:13; 14:19; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; cf. Heb 12:14; 1 Pet 3:11); cf. O. Knoch, EDNT, 1.338–39.
29. Gk. καταλάβω, a compound which means “to take aggressively,” hence “grasp” or “seize,” occurring three times in these three consecutive clauses. The combination διώκω … καταλαμβάνειν is common (see, e.g., Sir 11:10; Lam 1:3; Herodotus 9.58).
30. The clause reads:
εἰ | καὶ καταλάβω, | |
ἐφʼ ᾧ | καὶ κατελήμφθην | |
|
| ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. |
The εἰ followed by a subjunctive introduces an indirect question (= [to see] whether I might take hold of). The double καί is best understood as going with the verb in each case (= “both/and” or “also/also”); hence in the first clause it is not an example of εἰ καί (“if indeed”; contra Collange [= concession, hence doubt] and O’Brien; cf. nn. 58 and 59 on 2:17). J. Gundry Volf (Perseverance, 255–56), although basically skipping the καί, nonetheless correctly recognizes that Paul’s point is not to express doubt but precisely the opposite, to communicate “expectancy.”
31. This is to read the ἐφʼ ᾧ which introduces the second clause as the object of the verb (= τοῦτο ἐφʼ ᾧ, “that with a view to which”); most regard it as causal (= ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, “for the reason that”), on the basis of its usage in Rom 5:12 and 2 Cor 5:4, and because the earlier verb does not have an object (as though that were significant here). But it is not at all certain that Paul intends “cause” in the sense of “cause and effect” in the Romans and 2 Corinthians passages. He certainly does not in Phil 4:10 below. Cf. the thorough discussion of this idiom by J. Fitzmyer (“Consecutive Meaning,” 330), who likewise questions the causal sense here.
32. This surely points to his conversion (so most interpreters), thus indirectly verifying the basic accuracy of the narrative in Acts 9. See Barth (108) for a typically energetic exposition of the theological dimension of this text.
33. Cf. 1 Cor 9:24–27, where Paul uses similar imagery for a quite different point, namely that “receiving the prize” requires self-discipline.
34. Gk. ἐγὼ ἐμαυτόν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι; the ἐμαυτόν (“myself”) is best understood as the subject of the infinitive. Bringing it forward in the sentence is what creates the emphasis. Some see the emphasis as over against the Philippians; but it is equally possible (more probable, in terms of context) that the emphasis is his own, setting up what follows in the strongest possible way.
35. Thus it does not seem to be quite precise to suggest (as Pfitzner, Agon, 141) that Paul’s stress is on the disclaimer “that he has not yet reached the goal of his endeavour” (emphasis his). Granted the emphasis in this disclaimer, but it goes beyond Pauline analogy to argue that the main stress in a “not/but” contrast lies on the “not” side of the contrast.
36. Lightfoot (152) sees it as “arresting attention”; Michael (160) thinks rather that it attempts to “mitigate any seeming severity in his words.” But what is “severe” about this imagery, one wonders.
37. Cf. Martin, who, however, would see this double focus as “either/or” rather than “both/and.”
38. Gk. ἓν δέ, an ellipse to which most would append an “I do,” while some (e.g., Meyer) would argue for “I think.” But the strength of Paul’s rhetoric lies in the ellipse itself; the rest of the sentence indicates what “the one thing” is. Cf. his appeal to them to “think one thing” (2:2), that is, to be toward one another the way Christ himself exhibited “God likeness” (2:5–11).
39. On the danger, and exegetical perversity, of making Paul’s analogies “walk on all fours” so as to miss Paul’s own point, see Fee, First Corinthians, 434 n. 5, 608–9; and Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 260–62; cf. Kennedy (458), “but pressing metaphors is always hazardous.”
40. Gk. ἐπιλανθανόμενος, only here in Paul (although it occurs 7 times elsewhere in the NT). Although the word can sometimes mean “forget” in the sense of “not remembering,” in figurative usage such as this one it more likely means “to pay no attention to, be unconcerned about” (cf. Heb 13:2).
41. These participles are especially poetic:
τὰ | μὲν | ὀπίσω | ἐπιλανθανόμενος, |
τοῖς | δὲ | ἔμπροσθεν | ἐπεκτεινόμενος, |
which probably accounts for both the choice of the first verb and the fact that “what lies before” is plural. The two participles express “manner.” The second brings special vividness to the imagery, picturing the runner who is extending himself or herself by leaning toward the goal (Vincent notes that our idiom “home-stretch” picks up this same imagery).
42. In light of v. 16, and the appeal for them to live up to where they currently are in Christ, it seems altogether unlikely that “the things behind him” denotes the measure of “knowing Christ” that he has already attained (as, e.g., Meyer, Vincent, Jones, Michael, Beare, Caird). This is a clear case of letting the imagery rather than the context dictate meaning (Michael, blatantly so), which is always a hazardous procedure. Such a view not only focuses on the wrong things in Paul’s story, but it fails to take seriously enough the basic “already/not yet” framework of Paul’s thinking that dominates this passage. What is “already” is not what is to be “disregarded,” but rather what does not count for a thing at all in light of Christ—even though at one time in Paul’s life he thought of it in terms of “gain.”
43. Gk. κατὰ σκοπόν; only here in the NT. The word occurs in the sense of “target” in Job 16:12; Lam 3:12. On this use of κατά (= “in the direction of”), see Acts 8:26.
44. Gk. τὸ βραβεῖον; used of the “prize” in a contest. For an identical use of the noun see 1 Cor 9:24.
45. The εἰς is best understood as telic, indicating the purpose or goal of his “pursuit” (cf. GNB, NIV, O’Brien), rather than simply directional (as Lightfoot, Kennedy). Having missed this point, and thus seeing it as directional, later scribes changed it to the more proper ἐπί (D F G Maj).
46. On the withered celery wreath as the “crown” for the victor in a race, see Broneer, “Crown”; cf. the discussion in Fee, First Corinthians, 436–37.
47. In this case, “of God” is clearly “subjective” (= God called me/us); Silva and O’Brien would make “calling” subjective as well, which sees the direction of relationship correctly but presses that nomenclature by too much (the calling does not offer the prize). This is probably an example of what Beekman-Callow (Translating, 265), call “result-means” (the call is the means that has brought about the promised result, the prize). In any case, it can scarcely be “appositional,” as many suggest (e.g., Lohmeyer, Dibelius, Barth, Gnilka, Collange, Caird, Loh-Nida [GNB]), since that not only presents the singular difficulty of introducing a new idea altogether into the metaphor as to the meaning of the prize, but makes “calling” and “prize” mean the same thing, which seems scarcely possible, in that the calling has happened previously, while the prize is totally eschatological.
48. Gunther (Opponents, 182) sees this language as reflecting the alleged “opponents’ ” point of view, and, read in conjunction with vv. 19–21, he suggests that they consider themselves thus to be in “contact with angels.” This seems to be an expression of “mirror reading” without controls.
49. Gk. κλῆσις; cf. 2 Thess 1:11; 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20; Rom 11:29; Eph 1:18; 4:1, 4; 2 Tim 1:9. Although the verb occurs far more frequently, and moves in several directions (e.g., Paul’s calling to apostleship), this noun, which accents the event of calling rather than status or condition, is a nearly technical term for God’s call of the believer to himself. Cf. the discussions in EDNT, 2.242–43 (J. Eckert); NIDNTT, 1.275–76 (L. Coenen); TDNT, 3.487–536; cf. the useful outline in DPL, 84–85 (C. G. Kruse). In an attempt to keep the metaphor alive, many interpreters see here an allusion to the announcement of the victor, his father’s name, and his country, at the Olympic games (so Collange, followed inter alia by Bruce, Martin, Hawthorne). But that seems more fanciful than real, since there is no evidence that such an announcement was ever termed a κλῆσις, and this word is an especially Pauline one, full of theological grist that this suggestion would neutralize (cf. O’Brien).
50. Gk. ἄνω, the adverb for “above, upward”; cf. Col 3:1, 2; Gal 4:26. See esp. Acts 2:19 for the combination, “the heaven (= sky) above.” Paul’s usage here reflects the common cosmology, still used in popular parlance, which pictures heaven as “above” the earth; cf. GNB “to the life above.” Given the context, “heaven” is the direction toward which Paul is heading, not the source of God’s call; nor should one understand it by the totally bland “high vocation” suggested by Beare.