Lent 2008: The Upper Room-Jesus Transparent

Upper Room: Jesus Transparent
24
Lenten Series-2008
February 23/24, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
24: Upper Room, Jesus Transparent
(Robert Ismon Brown)

Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: John 13:1-38
(NIV) John 13:1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. 2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?" 7 Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand." 8 "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." 9 "Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!" 10 Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13 "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. 18 "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.' 19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. 20 I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."

21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me." 22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means." 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" 26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

31 When he was gone, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once. 33 "My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come. 34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

36 Simon Peter asked him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus replied, "Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later." 37 Peter asked, "Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38 Then Jesus answered, "Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!
Outline of John 13:1-38
The Meal (13:1-30)
a. Circumstances and Certainties (13:1-3)
b. Foot-washing (13:4-17)
i. Preparation and Process (13:4-5)
ii. Peter: Questions and Answers (13:6-11)
iii. Jesus: Questions and Answers (13:12-17)
c. Betrayal (13:18-30)
i. Revealed by a troubled Jesus (13:18-21)
ii. Questioned by bewildered disciples (13:22-25)
iii. Judas and the Sign of Betrayal (13:26-30)
The New Commandment (13:31-35)
a. The "Glory" Saying (13:31-32)
b. Imminent departure (13:33)
c. The Commandment (13:34-35)
The Denial (13:36-38)
Peter: "Where?" (13:36a)
Jesus: "Not now! Later!" (13:36b)
Peter: "Now!" (13:37)
Jesus: "Deny!" (13:38)

Introduction
"The hour had come", John's Gospel announces in 13:1. Ancient writers described time in more than simply chronological ways. The Greeks distinguished between kairos, which pointed to a "season" or "opportune time", in distinction from chronos which had more to do with the elapse or passing of time. Then, when you wanted to speak of "urgency", the word was "hour" (hora). Throughout John's Gospel we encounter such references to time, as these few examples illustrate:
"Dear woman [speaking to his mother, Mary], why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time [lit. "hour"] has not yet come" (John 2:4).
Jesus declared, 21 "Believe me, woman [speaking to the Samaritan woman], a time [lit. "hour"] is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem…23 Yet a time ["lit. "hour"] is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. (John 4:21, 23).
25 I tell you the truth, a time [lit. "hour"] is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live… 28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time [lit. "hour"] is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice (John 5:25, 28).
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time [lit. "hour"] had not yet come (John 7:30).
He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time [lit. "hour"] had not yet come (John 8:20).
Jesus replied, "The hour [lit. "hour"] has come for the Son of Man to be glorified (John 12:23).
"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour (John 12:27).
[The passage for this study] It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time [lit. "hour"] had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love (John 13:1).
21 A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time [lit. "hour"] has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world… 32 "But a time [lit. "hour"] is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me (John 16:21, 32).
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you (John 17:1)

From the outset, John's Gospel is goal-directed toward the moment of final glory. As these passages suggest, Jesus saw the future and embraced its fulfillment, but, at the same time, he refused to be rushed and often held back the exact details of his calendar, even from the disciples. During a very revealing exchange between Jesus and his natural brothers, recorded in John 7:1-13, he hears them urging him, perhaps sarcastically, to hurry up and go the Feast of Tabernacles (sukkot) and take advantage of the PR such a visit would afford him, "a public figure" (7:1-5). In reply, Jesus says, "The right time (kairos) for me has not yet come; for you any time (kairos) is right…I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time (kairos) has not yet come…" (7:6-8). Notice how the NIV translators use the adjective "right" to modify the Greek word for "season" which means "opportune time". As this conversation shows, Jesus operated on a different timetable from other people. His life was advancing confidently to its climax, and he had no doubt about the timing. In no sense could we ever imagine Jesus "running out of time" or being "too late" or "too early". Nor does it make any sense to think about him dying "so young" before he really had time to accomplish something.

Our chosen text for this week's study, John 13:1-38, opens with the words of confidence: "Jesus knew that the time had come for him…" (13:1). His date with destiny had been written in the counsels of God long before "the Word became flesh" (1:14). The whole Gospel of John is painted against the landscape of "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1) where God and the Word lived in perfect harmony of purpose and fellowship. The earthly setting was the dramatic stage for enacting the divine intention to save the world. And Jesus had at last arrived at the "hour", the hora, for that to take place. What sort of "hour" was this, this moment of urgency?
It was the hour when God would glorify Jesus and, in turn, Jesus would display God's glory through the Cross and its salvation for the world (12:24-26).
It was the hour of judgment for the world and defeat for the Evil One when Jesus through the Cross would triumph over them (12:31-32).
It was the hour for Jesus to finally return to the Father's heavenly throne (17:5).

This week's study will examine one defining scene which was part of this "hour" of divine urgency. John's version of this story is unique in numerous ways, and some readers have difficulty reconciling it with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Still, enough similarity exists to confidently say that they refer to the same event, only seen through different eyes. After all, how could such an important "hour" in the life of Jesus be so radically altered by a writer who was, no doubt, an eyewitness to what happened there?

The Meal (13:1-30)

Circumstances and Certainties (13:1-3)
All the Gospel accounts connect the "meal" they describe with the Passover, that is with the Jewish celebration of Pesah. For John, Jesus was thinking about his coming date with destiny even before that last Passover took place, or, as he phrases it: "Before the Feast of Passover" (13:1). What do we know about the Passover's chronology? The technical details are included in Appendix A at the end of these notes. You are encouraged to read through it, noting the chart and the explanations. Much debate has raged about the consistency of John's chronology of the events of Jesus' last week when compared with the Synoptics. Rather than enter that discussion during this study, we are asking that you consider the background provided in the Appendix and then do your own reading in the passion narratives, drawing your own conclusions. For the purpose of this study, our emphasis will be on John's particular slant on the evening we have come to call "The Last Supper".

We are faced with a stark contrast at the outset: (1) Jesus' deep and abiding love for disciples "even to the end" (Greek: eis telos egapesen autous). Some want to translate this "to the limit" or "to the full", while others prefer "to the very end", that is, to the end of his life by dying on the cross; (2) Judas' willing response to the promptings of the diabolos, "the devil" to betray ("hand over", paradoi) Jesus. John says this happened in Judas' "heart", his kardia, the center of his thought, feelings and choice. What we witness is the alignment of two battling forces, one motivated by the supreme love of God, while the other driven from the darkest places of the universe.

How is it that Jesus reaches such love-inspired devotion to his own disciples? The text tells us that Jesus "knew" with supreme confidence that his "hour" had arrived. The Greek word eidos, which means "to be aware" or "to come to know", is a participle in the perfect tense, implying a settled form of action: "he had come to know". Clearly, in passages we cited above, Jesus had deferred this "hour" on more than one occasion, until the precise moment, when he was fully aware that it had arrived. Certainly his destination had something to do with this certainty: he was going out of the world (ek tou kosmou) and going to the Father (pros ton patera), the place from which he came (see John 1:1-2, where similar language appears, namely, that the Word was "with God", and John uses the preposition pros to communicate this idea in that connection).

Leaving and returning to God sounds a great deal like coming out of exile and going back home. This would be, of course, appropriate language for a Passover setting. Thousands of Jewish people on that occasion were remembering how their ancestors had left Egypt and made their way toward what would one day be their home. On this occasion, Jesus, who has voluntarily shared in the exile of human beings by becoming one of them, prepares to make his "exodus", not only from the world, but from death and into resurrection life--the very life of God Himself. The road back to God was not going to be an easy one; "the hour" was urgent, and the agony would be deep. Still, in spite of this, Jesus devotes himself to the well-being of his own, driven by agape-love "until the very end". And he is encouraged by His Father who has placed all things under his power (11:3).

We are accepting the conclusion (supported by the data in Appendix A) that John is reporting the "Passover" meal also attested by the Synoptic Gospels. He uses the words deipnou ginomenou, "dinner having taken place" to reference the meal itself. We need to comment that John does not make specific reference to any elements of the Lord's Supper we normally associate with that event: identifying bread and wine as his body and blood, offering a blessing over them, and distributing them to the disciples. That being said, we also need to note that John often weaves such events into different settings, knowing that the reader already has some knowledge of one or more of the other Gospels. In the case of "body and blood", we have the story found in John 6 in the aftermath of Jesus' feeding of the five thousand. Part of that teaching (6:25-59) has to do with Jesus as "The Bread of Life". Near the end of this instruction, suddenly Jesus changes his tone and declares that "This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world" (6:51). Startled by this claim, many who hear Jesus question what he means, only making him more assured in what he was claiming. His words which follow sound a great deal like something he might have said during the Last Supper, and are, by all accounts, John's way of giving us that information. Consider:
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever" (John 6:53-58).

Foot-washing (13:4-20)

Preparation and Process (13:4-5)
Having provided that instruction in John 6, John sees no reason to repeat it in the context of the Passover meal, but instead determines to share other actions and words of Jesus not specifically found in the Synoptic accounts. And so we have a Passover setting for John 13, referenced by the words "after the meal", without any of the usual details. In their place, John places a remarkable account: the footwashing by Jesus of his disciples. The Jewish rabbis placed footwashing among the menial tasks which Jewish slaves should not be expected to do, based on a special reading of Leviticus 25:39. Only Gentile slaves were permitted to do that, as were wives and children! What Jesus elected to do was paramount to being a Gentile slave. When Jesus removed his outer garment and tied the towel around himself, he was exhibiting an act of humiliation, and was assuming the form of a slave (recall Paul's own words in Philippians 2:5-11 about Christ taking on the "form of a servant"). The Synoptic Gospels bear witness to footwashing as appropriate for guests and travelers, whose feet were covered with dust from their journey (see Luke 7:44; Mark 1:7). Jesus taught that to be "master" one must be servant of all (see Mark 10:43-44). The Old Testament stressed footwashing as ordinary hospitality (see Genesis 18:4; 19:2; 24:32). Among the priests, the washing of feet was required before performing sacred service in the Temple (see Exodus 30:19-21; 40:31). Washing the "saints feet" is commended by Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:9-10, among the churches.

John goes to great pains to describe how Jesus actually performed the action: how he attired himself, that he poured out the water, washed the disciples' feet, dried them with the towel wrapped around him. No one could doubt the precise role Jesus intended to imitate by this conduct. There was also something strangely "holy" about his movements, as if he were in fact a priest, as well as a servant, performing with care and love a sacred task within the Temple. It was as if the very deed was priestly service, a water ritual, poured out in divine worship before God (see Exodus 30:20). Had he been a priest, he might well have washed his own feet, and certainly would have throughout his regular duties poured out water for ceremonial purifications. For this and other reasons, many scholars see the actions of Jesus as prefiguring in a larger sense, what he was about to do on the cross. In a way, the laying aside of his clothing paralleled his laying aside of the heavenly glory and the surrounding himself with human flesh instead. Throughout his earthly life, he had adopted the servant's role, sharing in human need and suffering, offering forgiveness of sins, healing for the body, and food for the soul. All of this he performed at great cost to himself.

Before we examine the response of his disciples to this provocative and wholly unexpected action, we might well refer back to another incident which John gives us in his Gospel. In chapter 12, while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Lazarus (whom he raised from the dead), Lazarus' sister, Mary, took a pint of expensive perfume and poured it on Jesus' feet, wiping it with her hair. On that occasion, Judas Iscariot, in a hypocritical fashion, charged the Mary with "waste", to which Jesus responded, "Leave her alone. It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial…" (12:7). What is important to notice is the connection Jesus draws between the anointing of his "feet" and his coming death and burial. Coming so soon afterwards, chapter 13's account of the footwashing strongly points in the same direction. What Jesus intended was to dramatize, in the first instance, his coming suffering and death, fulfilling what John told us in 13:1, "having loved his own, he loved them to the very end".

Peter: Questions and Answers (13:6-11)
How do the disciples respond? Peter, not known for his shyness, may well have spoken for the rest. In the Greek text, the words are strongly indicative of someone who is "spluttering" out his reaction: "Lord-you-my-wash-the-feet?" Astonished and puzzled, he blurts it out in a half-witted way. Of course, Peter had some practice with that sort of thing as witnessed in Mark 8:32-33 when he resisted the thought of Jesus going to the cross. Well-intentioned, and seemingly supportive of Jesus, he failed to grasp the larger picture. And so he similarly responds to the footwashing.

Jesus, catching the spirit of Peter's bafflement, virtually tells him: "Look, Peter, there's no way you could possibly understand what I am doing now, so don't try. Wait until later, when things start falling into place, and then you will 'get it'". The Greek may be saying that an intellectual grasp of Jesus' actions is simply out of the question (su ouk oidas arti), using oidas to imply a mental activity alone. However, meta tauta, "after these things", gvnose, "you will come to know", has the meaning of an "experiential understanding". Jesus will expand on this idea in the lengthy "discourses" he gives the disciples in chapters 14-16, especially as seen in the following passage:
"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you (John 16:12-14).
Once Jesus had actually gone through death, and then come out on the other side in resurrection, he would be in a position to send the Holy Spirit to "fill in the blanks", so to speak. Peter can only see the incongruence of having "his" Master washing "his" feet. Apparently Jesus' early teaching about servants and masters had been lost on Peter.

But trusting Jesus' words seemed farthest from Peter's thoughts. The "theology of the future" had little interest to a man who was fiercely proud and loyal all at the same time. Peter was simply unable to see anything beyond the absolute impropriety of a "master", a "rabbi", nonetheless, washing his feet. He simply can't "allow it", and he won't let Jesus demean himself in this fashion. His words are "priceless": "You shall never wash my feet!" (13:8a). How close to an oath can you come in New Testament Greek? Pretty close! Ou me vipses mou tous podas eis ton aiona. When you combine ou with me you are doubling up on the negative so as to make it as strong as possible, approaching an oath. This is the language of obstinacy laced with outrage. We can only imagine Peter's reddened face, his slanted eyes, his clenched hands, and his raging tone. He cannot imagine anything in the future altering his present frame of mind. "Masters do not wash servant's feet: not then, not now, not ever!" In fact, Peter used the phrase eis ton aiona which elsewhere applies to something that never ends, but is "eternal" or "everlasting". "Never, never, never!" is the implied meaning.

We can only imagine the different trains of thought Jesus might have brought to bear on Peter's outburst. Perhaps he could have said, "Are you finished now?" Or, "Don't say 'never' to me!" What Jesus ends up saying is surprising in itself. Far from rejecting Peter for his insolence, he makes plain that he wants to "include" Peter all the more in his kingdom. He does this by using the phrase "no part in me", taken from the Greek word meros and referring to the Jewish notion of inheritance. Peter's failure to allow the footwashing implies his refusal to accept the terms of Jesus' divine inheritance. Examples of this use can be seen in Luke 15:12; 22:29-30; Matthew 24:51; Revelation 20:6; 21:8; 22:19. Jesus will develop this idea further in two additional passages:
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am (John 14:3 ).
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world (John 17:24).
To have a "part", a meros with Jesus, means being in the place provided by Jesus, namely, with him in his glory, the place God the Father gave him. For the average Jew in Jesus' day, such a place meant either a richer stake in the holy land or future life in the kingdom of God (see Old Testament texts: Numbers 18:20; Deteronomy 12:12; 14:27).

Not to be outdone, Peter figures if washing his feet will garner him a place in the coming kingdom alongside Jesus, then washing his hands and head would have to count for even more. Still oblivious to the point Jesus wants to make, Peter looks for ways to reduce the humiliation of the "washing". He wants to include "head" and "hands", certainly more "honorable" parts of the human anatomy than the "feet". Was Peter attempting to elevate the form of cleansing so as to minimize the humiliation involved? If so, we have yet another parallel to the act of footwashing and the coming suffering and death of Jesus on the cross. For the cross was the ultimate instrument of "shame" and "humiliation", so much so, that in the New Testament the writers spoke of the "scandal" or "stumbling block" of the cross (see Galatians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Peter 2:7-8). The Jewish community was scandalized when one of its own was executed on a cross by the Romans. That is why, in all likelihood, the Jewish leadership resisted Pilate's placing of the placard ("Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews") over Jesus' cross. They could scarcely bear the humiliation of seeing one of their own in this sorry condition lifted up as if he were their "king". In a similar sense, Peter could not countenance having Jesus lower himself to the level of a Gentile slave. What the Jews wanted was someone to be their "leader", their "head and their hands", so to speak, not a convicted criminal.

Moreover, "head and hands" were more befitting the role of a proper priest, preparing himself and others for their sacred work. But Jesus has other ideas, and, in 13:10, changes the language of the conversation, introducing new vocabulary. Whereas the Greek word used thus far for foot "washing" has been nipto, Jesus becomes more precise by using the word louo "to bathe". Peter seemed to be saying that if footwashing means inheritance with Jesus, then the more washing, the bigger inheritance. Jesus now corrects this misunderstanding, as he did on other occasions when the disciples missed his point entirely. It is not the number of washings or their variety of mode that increases one's inheritance with Jesus. Only the washing of the feet is necessary since it represents Jesus' coming death. Judaism was rife with washing rituals, not all of them rooted in Torah. Jesus himself challenged the need to wash "the outside of the cup" when it was the inside which needed true cleansing (see Luke 11:38-41, among others). Repeated washing were part of Peter's surrounding religious culture, and it was easy for him to make this leap. However, Jesus makes clear, the one who has been completely bathed (Greek: leloumenos, the perfect participle of the verb, implying action completed in the past with continuing results) does not have a need except that the feet be washed. This is a simple analogy drawn from daily life. In the Middle East, a person might completely bathe periodically, but the dusty roads and the open sandals required more frequent footwashing. In our culture, the hands are most at risk of contamination, and we are encouraged to frequent hand washing to prevent sickness. We bathe once a day but wash out hands often. Similarly, Jesus and the disciples would practice footwashing.

What is Jesus' point? He is saying to Peter: "What makes you clean, Peter? Is it not because I have washed your feet? If I washed your feet is not that enough? It's just like when you bathe occasionally, but wash your feet often. Isn't washing your feet sufficient on those occasions? How much more so with my washing your feet! This footwashing (nipto) is as good as a bath (louo) because I have done it! Once I have washed you in this way, you don't need anything more. Like the man who at the moment he washes his feet, you are clean entirely (katharos holos, that is, "clean-in-the-whole")." Then notice how Jesus' affirms the positive results of his "washing": "And (even so) you are katharos." Why were they clean? They are clean simply because Jesus washed them in the way he chose and on the terms he chose. If Jesus washes them, they are clean, without qualification. However, like Peter, they make take exception to the way they are made clean. They want to dictate the terms of the cleansing, the how and the what. To all of this Jesus responds, No, dear ones, you are clean because I have made you so. Later Jesus would teach them: "Now you are clean through the word I have spoken to you" (15:3)

To illustrate this point, the Old Testament has a similar story told about the Syrian Captain, Naaman, who was once a leper (read 2 Kings 5 for the full account). He was counseled to seek out Elisha, the prophet, for a cure. In turn Elisha commanded him to dip seven times in the muddy Jordan River, something Naaman initially refuse to do. His excuse is relevant to our present study: "'Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than any of the waters of Israel? Couldn't I wash in them and be cleansed?' So he turned and went off in a rage." (2 Kings 5:12). Later he came to his senses and agreed to follow the prophet's instructions, with the result that he became clean from his leprosy. Was Peter any different from Naaman, resisting the word of the Lord? When the Christ follower obeys his Lord and accepts his word, he too can be clean. This is Jesus' point.

A few additional comments on the footwashing event. Some Christians have adopted this ritual as part of their celebration of the Lord's Supper, and they see it as equally important as an ordinance of the Church. Other communions only practice it during the Thursday of holy week. Moreover, it's hard not to see connections between the washing and the idea of baptism. Scholars have debated this correlation, but we do have some New Testament parallels to "washing" or "bath" in such texts as Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Hebrews 10:22, and you are encouraged to study these on your own. There are connections between the washing imagery and the cleansing by Jesus' blood in such places as Hebrews 9:22; 10:22; Titus 2:14 and 3:5. Whatever connection existed between the "washing" in John 13 and the rite of baptism must not blur the distinction between the "sign" and the "reality of the sign". Jesus made clear elsewhere that his coming death was a "baptism" to be shared by his disciples, and so it's easy to correlate baptism with the cross. Consider this important text from Mark's Gospel:
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." 38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" 39 "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." (Mark 10:35-40).

There is great irony in this Mark account, and it has parallels in John 13. "Do for us whatever we ask" is a strange request from someone who has just called Jesus "Teacher"! When Jesus responds, he combines both the image of baptism and the image of the cup together, and these symbols plainly point to his coming death--an event which one day they must also share. In our text in John 13, Peter is pretty much asking for Jesus to do for him something on his own terms, whereas Jesus makes plain to him that it doesn't work that way! And so for the Christ follower both the washing and the cup point to the cross and its powerful effect on human life.

Raymond Brown summarizes:
The simplest explanation of the footwashing, then, remains that Jesus performed this servile task to prophesy symbolically that he was about to be humiliated in death. Peter's questioning, provoked by the action, enabled Jesus to explain the salvific necessity of his death: it would bring men their heritage with and it would cleanse them of sin (p. 568).

Still, some are left unaffected, as we read on in the text. "…but not all." Those words round out the thought of 13:10, followed by John's own commentary in 13:11. Judas Iscariot was unchanged by the footwashing. Whereas Peter protested, but then accepted Jesus' action, Judas, on the other hand, was already intent on betraying him, and refused to accept salvation on Jesus' terms. Recall in the earlier passage at the home of Lazarus, how Judas resisted Mary's love for Jesus, and criticized her "waste" of the perfume. Here, he is unaffected by Jesus' washing, and the text makes that plain with the words ouchi pantes: "not all". While it is true that the cross provides for the salvation of everyone, not everyone experiences the benefit of that provision. Judas had opened his heart to the devil, and refused the agenda of Jesus. He outwardly accepted the washing, but did not accept it in his heart. Many still do the same. Wanting the outward approval, they inwardly resist, their hearts filled with the "cares of this life".

Jesus: Questions and Answers (13:12-20)
We are struck by the contrast of 13:12. "When, therefore, he washed their feet", the text begins. Using the aorist form of the Greek word nipto (wash), John's account stresses the completion of the action. Some translations pick up on this with the words "When he finished washing…", a perfectly acceptable handling of this verb form in the context. There comes a point, John seems to be saying, when the reality of this symbol "is finished", and when it is, Jesus puts on his outer garment once again and takes his place. This seems to continue the imagery of the footwashing action: Jesus, having completed the work of salvation, once more takes up the clothing of his pre-earthly glory, and sits down at the Father's side. These are themes he will develop more fully in chapters 14 and 17 to follow. Nor can we forget his words in John 10, spoken earlier:
The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-- only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father" (John 10:17-18).
Power to lay down his garments and wash the disciples' feet; power to lay down his life. Power to take up his garments when the washing is done; power to take up his life again in the resurrection. Could anything be more clear to the reader of John's Gospel?

What follows in 13:12-17 some scholars see as yet a second application of the footwashing event. We would suggest that Jesus is simply working out the important implications embedded in his teaching about the cross, dramatized in the footwashing. Jesus opens this part of the conversation with a question: "Do you understand what I have done for you? (13:12b)" The question alone is worth pondering in its own right! Might we not argue that the whole of one's life as a Christian is spent answering that question? Did not someone as committed to Jesus as Paul once write: "That I might know him…" (Philippians 3:10), and then go on to say that he had not yet completed this task, but made it his life's work to do so? (see the previous series on Philippians for a detailed analysis of this Philippians' passage). By posing the question, Jesus throws down the challenge of being a disciple, namely, discovering the truth contained in the cross of Jesus. What does Jesus have in mind for the disciples on this occasion?

It is not enough, Jesus declares (13:13), to simply use words to frame a relationship with him; words like "Teacher" (didaskolos) and "Lord" (kurios). Nor does Jesus deprecate the disciples' use of such language to speak about him, for he then adds, "…and rightly so, for that is what I am." The Greek is instructive: kalos legete, eimi gar, literally, "well, you speak, I am indeed!" "Fine words, and true! " Jesus is saying. But they are, after all, "words", something you "call" me (Greek: phoneite, "make the sounds"). Religious language is both enlightening and seductive. The disciples who follow Jesus might speak "well", and use all the correct vocabulary, but Jesus seems to be ill at ease with his disciples' present spiritual life. Jesus now drives to the point of his question ("Do you understand?"). When he uses the Greek word ginoskete, John stresses the "experiential" meaning of this common word for "know", using the present tense of the verb. "Are you, right now, continuously experiencing the meaning of what I have done (pepoika, perfect tense, completed action, continuing results) to you?"

"Let me show you how", Jesus tells them. What follows are a series of rhetorical arguments, each building on the previous one, and offering insight into what Jesus did for them in the footwashing.
1. (13:13-14). He argues from the greater to the lesser. "If it's true for me, 'The Lord and Teacher' (the Greek repeats the definite article before each noun) who washed your feet, how much more (implied by the sequence) you ought (opheilete, again in the present tense) to wash (present tense) each others' feet (allelon…podas)."
2. (13:15). He has given (dedoka, perfect tense, again, showing the completion of the action) them an example (Greek: hupodeigma). The Greek word is actually a bit stronger and has the force of "token" or "pattern". It comes from the verb form hupodeiknumi which means "to show by placing under or before the eyes; to show by words and arguments; to teach; to show by make known future things." Could these disciples soon forget the images, burned into their eyes, by Jesus' symbolic actions that night? Indeed, Jesus is telling them, let these actions become for you deeply etched patterns of conduct, shaping how you live.
3. (13:16). Jesus then uses one of his signature phrases: "Truly, Truly" (Greek: amen, amen, lego humin, "Amen, amen, I say to you…"). Here is the language of solemn oath, testifying to the truth. John's Gospel is full of such "oath" references on the lips of Jesus (see this long list: John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24f; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20f, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18). Repeating a word twice underscores the veracity of what follows, and makes the saying an authoritative teaching of Jesus in an exceptional way. Felix Just offers this helpful overview of this usage through the Bible:
In the Hebrew Bible, the word “Amen” connotes agreement, certainty, faithfulness. It was simply transliterated amen in Greek and thus also “amen” in most modern languages. It is used at the end of some psalms, curses, blessings, prayers, and prophecies to allow the hearers/readers to say, “So be it!” or “Yes, I agree!” (Deut 27:15-26; 1Kings 1:36; 1Chron 16:36; Neh 5:13; Ps 106:48; Jer 28:6). Sometimes it is repeated twice for emphasis (Num 5:22; Neh 8:6; Ps 41:13; 72:19; 89:52).
Similarly in the NT, “Amen” is used 28 times at the end of doxologies, blessings, and other prayers (Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33; 16:27; 1Cor 14:16; 2Cor 1:20; Gal 1:5; 6:18; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1Thess 3:13; 1Tim 1:17; 6:16; 2Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; 1Peter 4:11; 5:11; 2Peter 3:18; Jude 1:25; Rev 1:6, 7; 3:14; 5:14; 7:12 [twice]; 19:4; 22:20). It is also used 101 times in the four Gospels. The only person who says "Amen" in the Gospels is Jesus himself (with the exception of the "shorter ending" of Mark--usually added just after 16:8); in Matt 25:12, 40, 45, the characters in the parables who use this expression clearly represent Jesus. Jesus uses the phrase, "Amen, I say to you...," at the beginning of his own statements, rather than in response to what someone else said; thus, it is not an expression of agreement, but a literary device for emphasizing what he says subsequently. In the Synoptic Gospels, this expression is used a total of fifty times by Jesus and the parabolic characters (13 in Mk; 31 in Mt; only 6 in Lk); it is translated "Verily I say unto you... (KJV); "Truly, I say to you..." (RSV); "Truly, I tell you" (NRSV); etc. In the Fourth Gospel, the expression is used 25 times, again only by Jesus, but always with a doubled "Amen, Amen" for extra emphasis; this is like saying "Hear Ye, Hear Ye" - as used by royal messengers or town criers in medieval England. It is sometimes translated literally: "Verily, verily, I say unto you." (KJV); "Truly, truly, I say to you" (RSV); "Amen, Amen, I say to you..." (NAB); but other English Bibles render it more colloquially: "Very truly, I tell you" (NRSV); "I tell you the truth" (NIV), etc.

What follows Jesus' use of this authoritative formula? "A servant is not greater than his master (kurios, "lord"), neither an apostle (apostolos, that is, "one sent", "a messenger") greater than the one sending him." These words appear in Matthew 10:24-25 and Luke 6:40, in different contexts, but as part of Jesus' authoritative teaching. In the Matthew context, the words apply to the disciples who will be persecuted just as Jesus will be taken to the cross (Matthew 10:38 for the specific reference to the cross). Of course the disciples would have understand their role as talmidim ("students of a Rabbi") in relationship to Jesus in precisely this way. Though they were not greater than Jesus, they could become like Jesus, an accepted Rabbinic understanding of things. Indeed, the disciples are called to be "like Jesus", not "greater than Jesus". The messenger is not asked to "improve on the message", but to faithfully carry it to its destination. Don't we still say, "I'm just the messenger?" or "Don't kill the messenger"?!
4. (13:17). Jesus offers yet one more way to "understand" what he did to his disciples in the footwashing. He promises a blessing: "If you know (oidate, even in an "intuitive sense") these things, blessed you are (makarioi este, this is the same word used in the beatitudes to describe God's favor in the life of His obedient people; the verb "to be" is in the present tense) if (ean, the conditional form of "if", implying that a person might not) you do them." On the surface, assuming the role of a Gentile slave and serving fellow Christ followers might not strike the disciples as "blessed". Jesus acknowledges that the disciples might "know", in some intellectual way, that this instruction is, in fact, very, very true. They might even entertain fond thoughts about the future when, in the Messianic kingdom, such mutual service and humility might exist. Their prophets certainly taught them that the "lion would lie down with the lamb and a little child would lead them" (Isaiah 11:6). How much more for the followers of Jesus! But that's then, and this is now. To such thinking Jesus responds, "Dear disciples, there is a blessedness even now if you practice my words toward each other." Nor should we miss the connection with the Beatitude teaching: recall its insistence on being "poor in spirit", "meek", and "merciful" (Matthew 5). Laying aside the outer garment, wrapping with the servant's towel, and washing my brother's feet puts into practice all of those qualities. But more significantly, it comes with the moniker "blessed". The way of the cross is the way of the blessed. The life lived in the service to Jesus and his cross is a life lived for others in humble service for them.

We might pause here to get our bearings. These words are spoken in the context of the Last Supper, told in Johannine fashion without explicit reference to cup and bread, without words of consecration or direct Passover allusions. Yet, can we miss the spirit of the Eucharist in all that Jesus did, according to John? How do the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) characterize the Supper? Consider:
Matthew (26:29), Mark (14:25) and Luke (22:16, 18) record Jesus' assurance that he would drink the cup "anew with you in my Father's kingdom". He speaks of his blood being "poured out" (Matthew 26:28; Mark 6:24; Luke 22:20).
Luke, however, incorporates material in his account of the Last Supper, which has the "look and feel" of John's version, especially as it pertains to the footwashing and its application to Christian servant hood. Notice the connections:24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:24-30).
Luke draws attention to the themes of "greater", "serve", and the idea of being "with Jesus" "at my table", and "in my kingdom". Remember John's rendition of the footwashing sign: "unless I wash…you have no part in me." Luke makes plain what that means when he quotes Jesus, "I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me". Luke also makes extremely clear what it means to follow the "pattern" of Jesus, by standing "in my trials". "You are not to be like that", Jesus instructs his disciples, "by not following the ways of the 'Gentiles' in lording over others". John, of course, puts Jesus in the role of a Gentile "slave".

Betrayal (13:18-30)

Revealed by a troubled Jesus (13:18-20)
We arrive at a crux in our text, a turning point that consumes several verses. Jesus offers a disclaimer: "Not concerning all of you do I speak" (13:18), injecting an ominous tone into the scene. Having just called his followers "blessed" if they follow his pattern of servant hood, Jesus concedes not all will, in fact, be "blessed", but instead "cursed". In the words of John 13:18b: "I know the certain ones I chose", as Jesus reflects on events dating back to the very beginning of his ministry. Once again, John uses the word oida, to express an intuitive, logical understanding of things. "It is true," Jesus states, "that I chose certain men to be my disciples". But there is a shift in attitude in what follows, implying that he did not chose them all for the same reasons. He "knows" them in very different ways, though he chose them all. At this point, Jesus reaches for the Scriptures to place his "choice" in its proper context. His choice was not his alone, but resonated with the purposes of salvation history. The Old Testament text he cites is Psalm 41:9, translated by John this way: "The one sharing my bread lifted up against me his heel". Curiously, the word translated "sharing" is really the Greek word trogo which means to "to gnaw, nibble, munch" when applied to plant-eating animals. John's Greek does not follow the Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew word "to eat", but is the same word for "eat" he used in John 6:54, 56, 57,58. This is important, since in that setting it applied to "eating my flesh and drinking my blood", an early reference to the Lord's Supper as we have already noted above.

Let's examine this more closely. Jesus is quoting an Old Testament text which speaks of someone "eating my bread". Although, during Passover, John does not record the words of Jesus, "this is my body" in conjunction with "the taking of bread", still in this text he deliberately uses a word "to eat" which he used in John 6 to refer to the very same thing. In other words, when he refers to "my bread" he intends the Eucharistic bread. Yet its reference is made under tragic circumstances, namely, the sharing of bread takes place with one who "lifts up his heel" against Jesus. This Hebraic idiom actually means "he kicked me", metaphorically, "he was unkind to me". Mitchell Dahood, whose three volume commentary on the Psalms is rich with linguistic treasures, makes several key points about the Psalm 41:9 passage in Hebrew (pp. 251-252).
The one who "eats my bread" is called "my colleague", that is, he who was in compact with me (literally, "in my shalom", shared my "peace").
"Who ate my bread", refers to part of the covenant rite (Genesis 26:30; 31:54; Numbers 18:17-19; especially, Psalm 49:23 and Exodus 24:12).
"Lifted up his heel", means "spun slanderous tales", literally, "spun slander" from the Hebrew word for "weave" (see also Psalm 12:4). The Old Testament figure, Jacob, was named yaqb precisely because he tricked his twin brother during the birth process. The word 'qb means "to malign, traduce, slander" as seen in Jeremiah 9:3. The word deliberately comes from the word for "heel", as a sort of pun on the idea of "kicking up one's heels" in order to slander another.

Drawing on these insights we can see how Jesus, during the covenant meal (Passover, Pesah), consecrates "his bread" (and wine), and then proceeds to share it with all of his disciples. From all outward signs, there sits at the table twelve men in covenant with Jesus, and looking forward to the "kingdom" he is about establish. Knowing the text of Psalm 41:9, Jesus completely "saw" its fulfillment in what was about to happen. That is, the betrayal of Jesus was not some horrible mistake or accident of history. Jesus was not victimized by the presence of a traitor in the midst, whose actions derailed the purposes for Jesus' coming into the world. Jesus is clear: "This is to fulfill Scripture". Even as the footwashing was a "prophecy" of his coming death and resurrection, so the Psalm passage, cited by Jesus on this occasion, is a prophecy of what would happen. In 13:19, Jesus is unambiguous when he says, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."
Jesus makes a contrast between the "before" and the "when". It matters what the disciples know "before", just as it mattered that they saw Jesus wash the disciples' feet "before", even though they would not understand "now". Recall Jesus' exchange with Peter in 13:7 in which he used very similar words. The Old Testament was something written down "before" that would come to fulfillment in the events surrounding Jesus "afterwards". This is a strong Johannine theme which runs through his entire Gospel, starting with the important words of 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word…", the prior word and its later fulfillment: "the Word became flesh" (1:14).
13:19 ends with "that you may know 'I am'", from the Greek eimi in translation of the Hebrew expression found in Exodus 3:14 (Hebrew: 'eyeh), an alternate form of Yahweh, the covenant name for God. This is an enormous claim on the part of Jesus. In the fulfillment of the Psalm 41 prophecy about his betrayal by one of his covenant companions, having first been brought to the disciples' attention by Jesus, he is thereby seen as Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God of Israel. After all, Psalm 41 is God's Word, spoken centuries before, now quoted by Jesus, also God's Word, who speaks its fulfillment by his own life and death. In the first case, he is "word in the Scripture"; in the second case, he is "Word in the flesh". Dare we miss the power of this correlation?

Scholars have puzzled over the inclusion of 13:20 in its present location. It would appear, on the surface, as if John should have simply moved on to 13:21 where Jesus circles the wagons around Judas, in anticipation of the coming betrayal. What we do know about 13:20 is that it has parallels with Luke 10:16 and Matthew 10:40, both passages in contexts about either judgment or persecution. In Luke's case, judgment falls on rebellious and sinful cities like Capernaum who lift themselves up to the heavens, but are brought down by God. Perhaps, John, reflecting on Jesus' earlier sayings, places these words in this setting to show how the actions of the betrayer make it even more important for the Christ follower to "accept Christ" and not betray him. In other words, the question of covenant loyalty comes to the forefront, even as Jesus faces his betrayer. In any case, the saying begins with the solemn "Truly, Truly" (amen, amen), putting it into that class of "truthful sayings" taught by Jesus. It may also imply that Jesus, by citing the Psalm, is purposely "sending" the betrayer to his task, a fact to be established shortly by Jesus' own words to Judas. What we have in 13:20 is Jesus' full assurance that what is about to happen with Judas has its signature in the counsels of God, as old as Psalm 41:9.

But John does not miss the human struggle within Jesus. It's one thing to speak with confidence on the basis of sacred prophecy, it's quite another to grapple with the human emotion involved. Jesus was, after all, a human being, though uniquely the revelation of God Himself. That is why 13:21 has meaning. "After he said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, 'One of you is going to betray me.'" At last, the "cat is out of the bag"! No more cryptic prophecies or allusions to the betrayal. It's out in the open, and a full discussion of this saying ensues on the part of the disciples and Jesus. The Greek etarachthe to pneumati involves a verb well-known in Greek literature. This is no ordinary "troubling of the heart", but it runs deeply into Jesus' consciousness. Earlier in John's Gospel, this word appears in conjunction with the "troubling of the water" at the pool of Siloam (5:4, 7), where it seems to mean a "stirring" of the water through some divine activity. In 11:33, it describes Jesus as he weeps at the tomb of Lazarus, while witnessing the unbelief of those in mourning. And, in 12:27, John uses this word when Jesus faces his coming hour of death. Later, he will tell his disciples to "not be troubled" because they believe in him instead (14:1, 27).

What do we learn from this? Jesus did not see the betrayal of Judas in detached ways, but felt it deeply in his own soul. While it was true, that Judas was on a divinely appointed mission, this did not, in the least, minimize how Jesus felt about it. By becoming a human being, Jesus took on himself the paradoxical and often ambiguous perplexities of human existence. Not all things are clear; not all things "come together" seamlessly. When Jesus progresses through the painful stages of human redemption, he encounters all of the human contradictions present there. Did Jesus want to "save Judas"? One can only imagine, as we recall the opening verses of chapter 13 where Jesus loved his own "until the end". Jesus was not troubled on his own account, since he "knew he came from God was returning to God". We can only think he was troubled on Judas' account, for the mission his betrayer undertook was fraught with both divine and human tragedy. Yes, Jesus felt it deeply, he was "troubled in spirit".

Questioned by Bewildered Disciples (13:21-25)
When John describes the disciples' reaction to what Jesus said, he uses the Greek word aporoumenoi, a term that implies "perplexity rather than doubt" (Leon Morris, p.625). Peter figures once more in this scene, though separated from Jesus by the seating arrangements. Scholars have examined the common Passover table assignments, and tell us that the table was shaped like a horseshoe or "U", with Jesus sitting at the base with two people, one on either side of him. The other ten divided between the other "legs" of the arrangement. Who sat next to Jesus? According to John's account, at least one of them was someone John calls "the beloved disciple" (13:23), a man who appears in different settings toward the end of the Gospel.
A great deal has been written about who this was, including the traditional position that its was John himself who wrote "in the third person" when speaking about himself. Others think that it was a literary device referring to "any follower of Jesus who might have been present there, including you and me". Still others, examining texts like John 11:3 ("Lord, the one you love is sick"), 11:5 ("Jesus loved…Lazarus"), and 11:36 ("See how he loved him!"), think that the disciple might well be Lazarus. Of course, we have some challenges with each of these, and this is not the place to hash out the arguments.

For purposes of reading the present text, we will simple call him "the beloved disciple" who sat next to Jesus at the Last Supper. So who was the disciple "on his other hand"? We speculate that is was Judas who sat close enough to receive the bread handed by Jesus to him in 13:26-27. In any case, Peter wants to know "What does he mean?" and in that concern shares the thoughts of the rest. Peter's role has been well-established throughout the Gospel stories. Jesus affirms his future ministry and imagines him "feeding the sheep", that is, nurturing the Christ-followers some time in the future (see John 21:15-21). Here, he no doubt shows reticence about his future actions, taken back, perhaps, by Jesus' earlier correction during the footwashing. Remember, during that conversation, Jesus told Peter "You will not understand now, but later…" Did Peter apply that truth to the present saying of Jesus? Was he asking, "What does he mean?" because he knew how confused he really was about the meaning of many things Jesus was doing?

Intercepting this inquiry, "the beloved disciple (TBD, hereafter)" frames it more intelligently: "Lord, who is it?" This suggests a higher understanding on the part of TBD than we see in Peter. In some ways, he is the type of the "fulfilled disciple", that is, "fulfilled by the perfect love of Jesus". TBD is the disciple made whole by Jesus and able to gain insight into Jesus' words and actions. In this case TBD knows that Jesus is talking about a betrayer sitting at the table, and the only remaining question is "Who is it?"

Before we hear Jesus' answer, a few thoughts on what the disciples expected to hear? And what would they do with the answer?
1. If we read Matthew's account (26:22-25), first we have the disciples asking, each in turn, "Is it I?" Then we hear Jesus offering the "sign of the betrayer", and finally Judas asking the question "Lord, is it I?"
2. Mark follows Matthew in putting the question on the lips of the disciples, but does not focus on Judas' question (14:19-20)
3. Luke does not quote the disciples, but alludes to their wondering which of them it might be. However, this discussion leads to a major argument over who is the "greatest", presumably because the betrayer would be considered a real "loser" in the group (22:21-24).
These responses in the Synoptic Gospels express individual concern on the part of each disciple, and, in Luke's case, resulting in outright fighting over who is the "greatest". Perhaps the seating arrangements at the table disturbed them, since, normally, these would determined by the host, in this case, Jesus. Might we imagine it was not easy "sharing Jesus"? If John and Judas flanked him, it would appear that they held privileged positions, "one on the right hand and the other on the left". Did any of that register with the disciples in light of earlier debates about such matters? What action would the disciples take if they did discover the identity of the betrayer?

Judas and the Sign of Betrayal (13:26-30)
TBD "leans back" from his reclining position in order to engage Jesus in conversation, posing the more specific question, "Who is it?" Jesus, in response, promises to identify the betrayer through an action, a sign. Since the question was posed by TBD, we can only assume he was entrusted with the answer, and that no one else heard, according to the John narrative (see Morris, p.626). Even if all heard Jesus' response, it would not have conclusively given them the "clue", as if the whole scene were some sort of "murder mystery", and Jesus was handing out hints. What Jesus does is an action, a sign, not a clue.

Recall Jesus' citation of Psalm 41:9, and the "sharing of bread"? Jesus dovetails his sign with that passage: "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish" (13:26). Messianic scholar, David Stern, comments about the "bread" that it was a "piece of matzah, Greek psomion, "small bit of bread". We know from Matthew 26:17, 23; Mark 14:1, 12, 20; and Luke 22:1, 7 that the "bit of bread" was unleavened. The phrase "dip it in the dish": perhaps of charoset and/or maror (see Matthew 26:23). Maror refers to "bitter herbs" which in the Passover service recalls the bitterness of Israelite slavery in Egypt, and is appropriate here. Charoset is a sweet paste made of fruit, nuts, spices and wine. Its function in the Passover Seder is to recall by its appearance the mortar which the Israelite slaves made in Egypt. This act of dipping and handing to Judas would have had the appearance of normal friendship when, in fact, it betokened the fulfillment of the Psalm, in which a covenant-friend who had just taken the covenant sign, would betray Jesus.

If Judas sat next to Jesus, then the fulfillment was ready at hand, as Jesus passes the matzah to him. No one suspected, except perhaps TBD who was also at his side. Was not TBD entrusted with a deep secret? Would he tell? And to what purpose? Had he understood the unfolding plan better than the others, he no doubt kept it to himself, vouchsafe for a more opportune time when the plot was passed and the deed was done. Could a "beloved disciple" act in any other way?

John's text reveals (13:27) that no sooner had the sign been executed than "Satan entered into him". We must resist the temptation which has overtaken other scholars to suppose that the "morsel of bread" was some sort of "curse" on Judas, a "satanic sacrament" or "magical morsel". The way Jesus behaved toward Judas was done in good faith, and would have been seen that way by those sitting around. In Beasley-Murray's words:
Jesus gives Judas a sign of friendship, despite knowing the intention of his heart. His statement, "What you are about to do, do quickly," has the effect of setting Judas in the place of decision: he must make up his mind either to respond to Jesus' goodwill, and so repent of his plan to betray him, or to spurn it and carry out his intentions. If this be a correct reading of the situation, no man in all history was more truly "put on the spot" than Judas in that moment. But with the morsel "Satan entered…" Newbigin commented, "The final act of love becomes, with a terrible immediacy, the decisive moment of judgment, which has been the central theme in John's account of the public ministry of Jesus…So the final gesture of affection precipitates the final surrender of Judas to the power of darkness" (173) [238-239].
Not even TBD understood the meaning of Jesus' words to Judas: "What you are about to do, do quickly". The Greek has tachion, as if to urge an action sooner than Judas had intended. Do we not once more see Jesus in control of events, rather than they of him?

Again, the disciples are in no position to "understand" in real-life terms what Jesus meant by this saying, which all heard, in this case (13:28). Of course, this did not keep some from speculating. Perhaps Judas, the treasurer of the group (13:29), was being sent out to fulfill one of two possible post-Seder tasks, namely, to buy additional supplies for the rest of Passover week ("the Feast of Unleavened bread" which lasted for the balance of the week; see Appendix A). or to make a trip to the Temple where commonly the poor gathered for alms. Whatever they theorized, none of it mattered, since Judas "had taken the bread" and had gone out "immediately" (euthus). "And it was night" (Greek: en de nux). The setting is ominous and the villain walks into the night which both shrouds his deadly deeds and reveals his devilish intentions. Having handed himself over to Satan, he has entered the darkness of which John wrote in his first chapter: "the light shines in the darkness…" (1:5). The Gospel of John makes other references to darkness in its overall message:
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil (John 3:19).
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12)
Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going (John 12:35).
I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness (John 12:46).
Similarly, John writes about "night":
As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work (John 9:4).
It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light." (John 11:10).
And so Judas, while acting the part of Jesus' disciple, accepting the bread of fellowship during Passover, now goes into the night.

The New Commandment (13:31-35)
Students of John's Gospel normally refer to John 13-21 as the "Book of Glory", while they refer to John 1-12 as the "Book of Signs". Signs point beyond themselves to a greater reality, and so we come to see John 13-21 as that reality. Something of great importance will now come to light. What was once hidden will be revealed. Or, perhaps better stated, something about Jesus will be glorified.

The "Glory" Saying (13:31-32)
When the betrayer goes off into the night, having taken the outward bread of friendship, something new is about to be revealed to the disciples. It is no accident that Jesus holds back his teaching until Judas leaves. This was the great paradox for Jesus: he had chosen them all, and, for all, he had shown his love until the very end. But in the divine purpose lurked Psalm 41:9 and the moment of choice for Judas. Satan had his man, and, he supposed he had the upper hand. Yet, alone with the Eleven, Jesus utters his "Glory Saying": "Now (nun) is the Son of Man glorified (edoxasthe)". We are accustomed to "Son of God" language in John's Gospel, but surprisingly he is equally comfortable with "son of man" language. The following texts in John use it: John 1:51; 3:13f; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31 (here). No doubt John uses the phrase in ways familiar to a Jewish audience, and the popular understanding believed that Messiah was that person. Interpretations of Daniel 7:13 included the idea of a heavenly figure who came into the presence of God and represented the interests of God's earthly kingdom. The John passages reveal Messianic and Suffering Servant images for this phrase. Yes, God placed his seal of approval on the "son of man", but it was the son of man who would give his life, body and blood, for the world (see the John 6 texts for this).

What does it mean for the son of man to be "glorified"? Jesus will be clearer about that in John 17 where he prays to the Father for his future glorification. But in the present setting, Jesus is simply saying that the process has been set in motion (starting with Judas' mission) for the betrayal, arrest, trial, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is this whole process, not just part of it, which make up the act of "being glorified". "Glory" is a potent word in biblical usage. Referring to the brightness of the sun (Greek idea), it also has the idea of "dignity or weightiness" about it (Hebrew idea). When something is revealed in its true character, its glory is witnessed. By becoming a human being, the divine glory of Jesus was hidden in his humanity, and that was about to change once he passed through death and out the other side in resurrection. But Jesus sees more in this idea: "God is glorified in Jesus", as well as Jesus will be glorified by God. What happens to Jesus reveals something deeper in the character of God than had been seen before. Something of His mercy and grace, and something of His surprising love for sinful humanity. The idea that Jesus reveals the glory of God is found as early as John 1:18. There is something sudden about this glorification of Jesus, as John uses the word euthus, the same word used to describe the speed with which Judas left the table (13:30). Jesus does not imagine a long, protracted process, but something that will take place during a short time. After all, remember the use of the word "hour" (hora) (13:1) in reference to the moment of crisis, the moment of transformational eventuality.

Imminent departure (13:33)
How critical are these final hours? Adopting the stance of a Jewish patriarch, about to bless his children prior to his death, Jesus addresses the disciples as "little children" (teknia). Urgency falls across the scene, and Jesus seems intent on making the most of these last, precious moments. He makes several statements in this regard:
I will be with you only a little longer.
You will look for me.
Where I am going you cannot come.
These themes are merely suggested in this verse. Jesus makes no effort to unpack their meaning in this setting. However, they point forward, rhetorically, to what Jesus will teach his disciples during these fleeting, closing hours of his earthly life. That teaching takes shape in John 14-16 where those themes are developed. Similarly, we come to understand the strangeness of statement #3 in light of John 17, where Jesus prays to his Father, and there reveals the unique relationship Jesus has with Him. Still, the disciples are able to go somewhere in the future, and Jesus will address that concern as well. When he tells them he will no longer be with them, he explains that in chapters 14, 15, and 16 by reference to the Holy Spirit who is their "Jesus replacement" as companion and teacher. We ask the reader to carefully examine those subsequent chapters to understand what Jesus meant by these three, rather stark and puzzling statements. Think of them as "seeds" planted early in the disciples' minds, awaiting illumination during the so-called "upper room discourse" of chapter 14-16.

The Commandment (13:34-35)
What is "new" (kainos) about this commandment? This word occurs only twice in John, here and 19:14 -- "new" tomb. It can refer to something that didn't exist before -- but the command to love one another is not recent. It is found in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 6:4). It can refer to something that existed previously, but was not fully known or understood; e.g., a "new" understanding.

To understand what is new about this commandment, we first look at other uses of "commandment" (entole) and "to command" (entellomai) in John. Jesus lays down his life in obedience to the commandment from his Father (10:18). Jesus' obedience to God's commands is his witness to the world that he loves the Father (14:31). Jesus' words and actions are in response to the Father's commandments, which result in eternal life (12:49-50).

O'Day ("John", New Interpreters Bible) writes:

...what is new is that the commandment to love derives from the incarnation (see 3:16). The "new" turn in the commandment of 13:34 is that Jesus' "own" are asked to enter into the love that marks the relationship of God and Jesus. Their participation in this relationship will be evidenced the same way that Jesus' is: by acts of love that join the believer to God (cf. 14:15, 21, 23; 15:12). Keeping this commandment is the identifying mark of disciples (v. 35), because it is the tangible sign of the disciples' abiding in Jesus (15:10). [pp. 732-3]

In addition to O'Day's comments, the newness of this commandment is also found in its purpose as our witness to the world. For John, there is to be something unique about the Christian community that sets it apart from the world. One might bring in the picture of the early church from Acts -- the sharing of all resources so that no one would be in need (Acts 4:34-35), but recognize that such a practice was short-lived in the early church. From Galatians 3:28, we have a picture of a united community that transcends races, economic status, or genders.

As Christians, we are called to love all people -- even enemies -- in the name of Jesus Christ; yet there is a special love and relationship we have for spouses, children, and other family members. In a similar way, there is to be a special love we are to have towards our brothers and sisters in the faith. We are to be a family to one another. The words, agapao and agape first of all mean: "to have love for someone or something, based on sincere appreciation and high regard" and, secondly, "to demonstrate or show one's love." (Lowe & Nida). In neither definition is it primarily an emotional word -- that is, having warm, inner feelings.
The little Greek word hina occurs twice in v. 34. It can designate the content of the new commandment: "That you are loving one another." However, the primary meaning of hina is to designate a purpose or a result. So the verse might be understood: the purpose or result of Jesus giving the commandment is that we might (continue to) love one another. The purpose or result of Jesus having loved us is that we might (continue to) love one another. agapao is present tense which implies continuous or repeated actions. It is a command about a continuous way of life rather than occasional events.

The commandment is new because it is now coming from Jesus. We love because, or as a result of Jesus' commanding it, and as a result of being loved by Jesus through his redemptive work. O'Day ("John", New Interpreters Bible) offers these reflections on these verses:

To interpret Jesus' death as the ultimate act of love enables the believers to see that the love to which Jesus summons the community is not the giving up of one's life, but the giving away of one's life. The distinction between these prepositions is important, because the love that Jesus embodies is grace, not sacrifice. Jesus gave his life to his disciples as an expression of the fullness of his relationship with God and of God's love for the world. Jesus' death in love, therefore, was not an act of self-denial, but an act of fullness, of living out his life and identity fully, even when that living would ultimately lead to death.

To love one another as Jesus loves us does not automatically translate into one believer's death for another, nor does it mean to deny oneself for others. Jesus did not deny himself; he lived his identity and vocation fully. Rather, to love one another as Jesus loves us is to live a life thoroughly shaped by a love that knows no limits, by a love whose expression brings the believer closer into relationship with God, with Jesus, and with one another. It is to live a love that carries with it a whole new concept of the possibilities of community. [p. 734]

Ultimately the reason for the word "new" lies in the action of Jesus, already expressed in the footwashing. We are reading about a radical renewal of God's covenant with the remnant of Israel now gathered around Jesus. This is every bit as significant as Moses mediating the covenant renewal which makes up the greater part of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. Nor is this a mere "review of the details", but involves Jesus going to the cross and becoming the sacrifice which ratifies this covenant renewal. The commandment is "new" because it is "renewed" by Jesus through the full measure of his love, even to the end (13:1).

The Denial (13:36-38)
The closing verses of John 13 return us to a familiar theme, namely, Jesus' relationship with Peter. That thread will weave its way through the Gospel of John until it finally reaches chapter 21 when Jesus will once more renew his relationship with his estranged disciple. There is a marked difference between Peter and Judas, and we must not miss that contrast. Judas betrayed Jesus and allowed Satan to enter his heart to determine his agenda. While Jesus faithfully offered Judas the bread, Judas took it with respite and duplicity, spurning the love of Jesus in the process. Not so with Peter. Whatever resistance he had to Jesus during his public life was motivated by something more than personal gain. Peter wanted the best for Jesus, but his problem rested with what this "best" really was. Peter thought he knew what it was, and seemed to be "looking out for Jesus" when the "master" was about to make some foolish mistake, however well-intentioned. Even during the footwashing, Peter refuses to have Jesus humiliate himself at Peter's feet. And so when we come to this section, we see Peter in a struggle with Jesus, and Jesus' calm, but firm claim that he knew Peter better than Peter knew himself.

Before we consider the details of this section, examine the following chart to see the noticeable parallel between the earlier dialog between Jesus and Peter and the passage at hand in 13:36-38. The questions, answers, and rejoinders give evidence of a carefully crafted Johannine structure intended to emphasize the points of conflict and the manner of Jesus' handling of Peter.








Two Conversations with Peter (13:6-8, 36-38)
Question Type
13:6-8
13:36-38
Question by Peter
"Lord, do you wash my feet?" (13:6)
"Lord, where are you going?" (13:36)
Answer from Jesus
"What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand" (13:7)
"Where I am going you cannot follow now, but afterward you will follow" (13:36b)
Peter's Boast
"You shall never wash my feet" (13:8)
"Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you" (13:37)
Response from Jesus
"Unless I wash you, you have no part in me" (13:8)
"Will you lay down your life for me? Amen, amen I say to you, the cock will not crow, until you have denied me three times" (13:38)

The question of Jesus' "departure" consumes Peter in 13:36, along with his persistent objection to delaying his own accompaniment with Jesus. As we have so often witnessed, Peter will not take "no" for an answer. Still, more is intended by these exchanges. Two large themes wind themselves around both passages: "What are you doing?" and "Where are you going?" They are inextricably connected questions. What Jesus ultimately is doing is "going to his glory" by way of the cross and resurrection. Even the footwashing image underscored that truth. The "doing" is the "going". But, as would be true for any family about to lose its parent, what will happen to the rest of us is the all consuming question. No doubt it was on Peter's mind a man who would not be put off with words like "not now, but afterward". Somehow Peter saw his role as rescuing the imperiled Jesus, as he persistently steps forward to "lay down his life". He will have his chance to "prove his manly valor" in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he brandishes a sword to do mischief to the high priest's servant (18:10-11). Even there, Jesus must "teach" Peter with the words, "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

But for all his valor and courage, Peter hears painful words from Jesus, namely, his coming denial of Jesus "three times". If that were not bad enough, Jesus introduces his saying to Peter with the same solemn oath he used to offer his other important teachings: "Truly, Truly" (amen, amen). "Has it come to this," Peter must imagine, "that the Master sees my denial of him in the same way he makes authoritative statements governing our lives? Am I to become a byword and example of the quintessential coward?" Such a literary similarity is hard to miss when John so favors it elsewhere in his Gospel.

Had John ended his account of the "Upper Room" here, it might well have seemed depressing and hopeless. We would have had a difficult time making sense out of the "Glory Saying" in light of the betrayal and denial passages. Thankfully the composition of John's Gospel looks quite different than that. Many of the puzzling questions raised in these thirty-eight verses start to find answers in chapters 14-16, the "Upper Room Discourse", climaxed by Jesus' "High Priestly Prayer" of John 17, in which we glimpse the intimacy possible between Jesus and the Father. Once we start breathing the air of these chapters, we come to see what Jesus meant when he told his disciples they would not understand what he was doing now, but they would understanding later. That thought directly parallels Jesus words to Peter here.

And how appropriate that contrast is for the Passion narratives. The meaning of the cross ever remains the wonderfully mysterious center of the Christ-life. Shrouded in shame and scandal, the bare symbol of Roman power would seem to scarcely contain the mercy and grace of God's love for the world. Had we picked another instrument of salvation, it likely would not have been this one. Had Peter picked the means for washing away his sins, he would not have chosen footwashing as the symbol. Had Judas chosen the means for handing Jesus over… Where do we stop? Only where Jesus left off--with words of instruction: "Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them."

Glory to God! Amen.
Appendix A: Passover Calendar
The chart below attempts to bring together a number of "Passover" events through a visual presentation. A few basic facts about Jewish time-keeping are necessary. Days of the month begin at sunset (night) and end at evening (before sunset). In the chart below, N, M, and E refer to night, morning and evening respectively. However, it is also possible to refer to Jewish days in the way Genesis 1 does, namely, that they consist of an evening, followed by a morning.

Calendar of the Hebrew Passover "Week": Month of Abib (also called Nisan) during the Following Days
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
Prepare
For
Passover
Lamb
Slain
Seven Days of Unleavened Bread
"Even"
"Feast"
The Passover
Six Days of Unleavened Bread
Lamb
Eaten
Prepare for "High
Day"
Seven Days of Special Sacrifices
Firstborn
Slain
"High Day"
Sabbath
Wave Offering
Lev. 23:9-15

"High Day"
Sabbath
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The following passages provide information on the Hebrew Passover: Exodus 12:1-51, 13:3-10, 23:14-19, 24:18-26, Leviticus 23:4-14, Numbers 9:1-14, 28:16-25, Deuteronomy 16:1-6. In these passages the timing of some events is not precise. This has frustrated many Bible commentators. This appendix attempts to first ascertain what is definite and then interpret the obscure in the light of what is obvious. In the chart above events for which the timing is clearly given and for which the dates are clearly fixed are used to decide where the less obvious fit in.

Passover Certainties

1. As indicated above, for Hebrew days, evening precedes morning.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (Genesis 1:5; also 1: 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
2. Order of Passover events
The Passover was commemorated in the month Abib (also called Nisan)
Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover unto the LORD your God: for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night (Deuteronomy 16:1).
It was to be observed in Jerusalem
You shall therefore sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there (Deuteronomy 16:1).
There was a total of seven days of unleavened bread.
Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses (Exodus 12:19)
It started on the evening of the 14th Abib.
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even [lit., "between the evenings"], you shall eat unleavened bread (Exodus 12:18)
It ended at the onset of the 21st of Abib.
You shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at even [lit., "between the evenings"] (Exodus 12:18).
So the total of seven days of unleavened bread were complete by the end of the 20th day of Abib.
The 15th of Abib was a Sabbath "High Day"
In the fourteenth day of the first month at even [lit., "between the evenings"] is the LORD’S Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to the LORD (Leviticus 23:5).
Including the 15th there were six days of unleavened bread.
And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the LORD your God shall choose: and you shall return in the morning, and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD your God: you shall do no work therein (Deuteronomy 16:7).
This confirms that the total of seven days of unleavened bread terminated before the 21st.
Special sacrifices were made from the 15th Sabbath "High Day" to the 21st Sabbath "High Day".
In the first day you shall have an holy convocation: you shall do no servile work therein. 8 But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: you shall do no servile work therein (Leviticus 23:7).
These were followed by a Sabbath "High Day" on the seventh day.
And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the LORD your God shall choose: and you shalt return in the morning, and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD your God: you shall do no work therein (Deuteronomy 16:7).
So the 21st of Abib was also a Sabbath "High Day".

Additional Passover Insights
The Passover was to be eaten at night and before daybreak
And you shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it… 10 And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire (Exodus 12:6, 10).

The angel of death 'past over' on the 14th of Abib and the Egyptian firstborn were slain in the night of the 14th. of Abib.
And so shall you eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD’S Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt (Exodus 12:11).

The 14th of Abib was to be a feast day
And this day shall be for you for a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever (Exodus 12:14).

The words "evening" and "evenings" are imprecise in some translations
In certain passages noted above, the phrase in Hebrew is: beyn ha'aribiym. The Hebrew noun is plural. The Masoretic text has it marked as dual. So a literal translation should be "at the evenings". What were "the evenings"?

The setting of the sun at the end of the 13th of Abib would be the evening of the 14th. However, consider the logistics. Thousands of animals would be brought to the Priests for examination and dipping in the water tanks to be slain by the head of the household before the sun disappeared below the horizon. This could not be done in the short period from the sun beginning its dip below the horizon and total darkness. So this could not be what is meant by "within the evenings". The doors of the Temple faced east. Each day after 12 noon, when the sun passed its zenith, being deprived of direct sunlight, the inside of the temple would rapidly become dark. So the lamps were lit soon after midday, then the officiating priest prepared and offered the evening sacrifice. This was done "within the evenings". So from the lamps being lit to the setting of the sun was known as the evenings. So even though the lamb of the initial "Egyptian Passover" was most likely slain as twilight ushered in the 14th. of Abib, the commemorative Passover lamb was slain after mid-day of the 13th. of Abib as the declining sun progressed towards the night of the 14th. when the lamb was eaten being the commemoration of the night when the Egyptian firstborn were slain and the Hebrew firstborn were spared.

Digger Deeper: 24:The Upper Room, Jesus Transparent
(Bob Brown)

To gain a deeper understanding of 24: The Upper Room, Jesus Transparent, carefully read the selected passages below. To aid you in your study, we invite you to visit the website http://notes.chicagofirstnaz.org, or pick up a copy of the notes at the Connect desk, or from your ABF leader. Now consider the following questions, as you ask the Lord to teach you.

Special Note: The Background Notes are especially useful in working through some of these questions. You are encouraged to secure a copy as you begin.

1. Our primary focus for this study will be John 13:1-38. Take a few moments to read through the entire chapter, and look for section breaks, based on changes in topic.
2. Turn your findings in #1 into a simple outline, offering as much sub-point detail as you want.
3. According to 13:1-3 what is the primary basis for the things Jesus does during the "rest of his life" on earth? Note: there may be more than one.
4. Describe all the actions Jesus took when he washed the disciples' feet (13:4-12). In what ways are these actions symbolic of Jesus larger purpose for becoming a human being?
5. What is Peter's "beef" with Jesus in performing the footwashing? How does Jesus respond to Peter? What's the point of the "wash" versus "bath" discussion?
6. What question does Jesus ask his disciples in 13:12? In what ways does he try to answer it in 13:13-17?
7. What basis does Jesus give for the prediction of his "betrayer" (13:18-20)? Why does he recite this Old Testament passage (Psalm 41:9) to the disciples?
8. What emotion does Jesus reveal in 13:21 and why does he express it?
9. In what way does Peter ask his question differently in 13:24 than in his earlier conversation with Jesus? How does "the Beloved Disciple" pass along the question (13:25)?
10. Discuss the "sign" Jesus offers in 13:26. How do we know that this is a Passover Seder, even though John doesn't give us the "traditional account" found in Matthew, Mark and Luke?
11. What role does "bread" have in John's story, and how does it function differently in the other accounts of the Last Supper?
12. What does it mean for Jesus to be "glorified"? (13:31-32)
13. What major announcements does Jesus make to his disciples in 13:33? Skimming ahead in chapters 14-17, can you see any clarifications of those announcements?
14. What is the "new commandment" and why do you think Jesus calls it "new"?
15. What parallels do you detect between 13:6-8 and 13:36-28, two conversations between Jesus and Peter found in this chapter?

Cross-Training: Philippians 4, Just Live

Just Live It
Cross-Training
Studies in Paul's Letter to the Philippians
February 16/17, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
Cross-Training: Just Live It
(Robert Ismon Brown)

Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: Philippians 4:1-23
(NIV) 1 Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends! 2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-- think about such things. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me-- put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

10 I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do everything through him who gives me strength. 14 Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. 15 Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; 16 for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need. 17 Not that I am looking for a gift, but I am looking for what may be credited to your account. 18 I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. 19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

20 To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 21 Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings. 22 All the saints send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar's household. 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Introduction
One highlight and central idea in Paul's previous section (3:17-21) was calling the Christ-followers "citizens of heaven". You will remember that Paul borrows a powerful analogy from the Philippians' situation as a colony of Rome and applies it to his understanding of how Christians at Philippi live as a little "colony of heaven". Some Philippians had Roman citizenship and Philippi operated as if it were a "little Rome", even though Rome was some distance to the West, across the Adriatic Sea. Likewise, wrote Paul, the Philippian believers had privileges given by their Lord, Jesus Christ, and they even now awaited his arrival and the life-transforming benefits that would bring.

But being called "citizens of heaven", and living that way, are two different things! So Paul now moves the thrust of his Philippian letter to its conclusion by paying closer attention to the practical application of this idea. A brief outline of the remaining sections follows shortly. Paul has yet one more argument to present in his probatio section before he rounds out his rhetorical appeal with what is called the peroratio. Ordinarily, this part of a public speech pays attention to two things: 1) reprising the previous ideas of the presentation; 2) and to create deep feeling on the part of the audience. Paul does both--in his own fashion. First the outline:

Outline
Argument Four: Unity Applied, Probatio (III), 4:1-3
Make Peace!

The Peroratio (4:4-20)
Part One: Praying and Living (4:4-9)
Part Two: Generosity Praised (4:10-19)
Doxology (4:20)

Letter Closing and Subscription (4:21-23)
Greetings Exchanged
Special Greeting from Caesar's Household
Benediction
☼

Argument Four: Unity Applied, Probatio (III), (4:1-3)
The first verse of this section (4:1) is really a transitional passage and belongs to the probatio section as its fourth and final argument. Paul begins with the Greek word hoste, a conjunction connecting the affirmations of Paul's third probatio with this his final appeal before offering closing instructions in his peroratio. We might best translate it: "Well, then!" rather than the sometimes used "Finally", which seems too premature. The word looks backwards and calls for the Philippians to take action on what Paul has said about Christians being a "colony of heaven".

Warm feelings flow in this verse, where Paul calls his friends in Philippi, "my beloved brothers", "my longed-for ones" (compare 1:8), and "my joy and crown of rejoicing". Paul clearly misses the Philippians and once more his strong bond with them surfaces through the language he uses. The word "crown" is the Greek word stephanos which refers to a festive garland, a symbol of joy, or to the wreath given the winner of an event at the games (see 1 Corinthians 5:25 and 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20 for similar terminology). What does Paul mean by using this expression? The Philippian Christians are God's reward to Paul and the proof that he did not run his race in vain (see similar usage in 1 Corinthians 9:2; Philippians 2:16; Hebrews 13:17); Old Testament has related themes in Proverbs 12:4; 17:6). Hawthorne (p. 178) remarks: "The Philippians already are a cause of Paul's boasting, merriment and honor."

Wearing a crown of any kind is both a blessing and a burden. More is expected of winners! And so Paul adds his encouragement for the Philippians to "stand firm" (Greek: stekete). This is a military expression: stand at your post regardless of the temptation to abandon it (see 1:16). A runner might hear Paul saying, "Stay on track". Overall, they are being told: "Don't let me down; stay the course". Normally, such appeals go out to people who are risk. We have already seen the internal and external pressures on the Philippians, and Paul attempted to keep them on track with his own teaching in the previous chapters. But some new concerns rise in the following verses requiring Paul's attention.

The heart of Paul's fourth argument is found in 4:2-3. Paul begins with "I plead", from the Greek parakalo, Paul's common verb for "urging", "beseeching" and "encouraging". To whom is this directed? The text spells out two proper names: Euodia and Syntyche. Scholars have found numerous inscriptions from the period which contain these names, so we know they are common Greek first names. One important significance of "calling out their names" in this letter: it shows that Paul does not see them as enemies. We know this from normal cultural practice during Paul's time. The "name" was personal, and using the name in this way maintained the connection between the writer and the audience (see Fee, pp.389-90). Curiously, Paul's earliest contact with Philippi involved women, in particular, the woman Lydia whose name appears in Acts 16 as especially helpful in Paul's work there.

Women played a significant role in founding and leading the church at Philippi, and so this conflict between Euodia and Syntyche certainly concerned Paul, because it affected the unity of the church. Paul's appeal: "Think the same thing in the Lord" (to auto phronein en kurio). That is, come to terms with each other in adopting the attitude of the Lord Jesus, language similar to 2:5, "Let this attitude be among you as it was in Christ Jesus…" If these two women were influential leaders, then their public controversy, whatever it was, threatened to tear apart the church (see 1:7). Getty remarks: "A continuing antagonism can only weaken the church and scandalize those who look for role models among their leadership".

How will Paul "fix" the problem? In 4:3 Paul begins with the Greek particle nai, an affirmative word, like our "yes". It is followed by the Greek word for "and" (kai), and taken together these words have the force of "truly" or "verily". But Paul doesn't address the women directly, but requests assistance ("I ask", eroto) from a person he simply calls "true yoke-fellow" from the Greek suzge, along with the adjective for "loyal". Who is this? Some Bible students see a proper name here, that the fellow is actually called Syzgus, though his name has this obvious meaning. In any case, here is a man who lives up to his name: he is loyal, and he serves alongside Paul, even though he is at Philippi and Paul is in Rome. Perhaps Paul is using a wordplay here: Syzgus, "yoke-fellow", would you kindly help "yoke" these women back into unity once more! Nor does Paul consider the women to be unimportant, since he refers to them as "contending at my side in the cause of the Gospel". The Greek word used is sunathleo, meaning to "fight" or "strive", prefixed with Paul's favorite sun-: "together", "with". We can discern our English "athlete" inside this word, suggesting once more the sort of "game" metaphors Paul is fond of using in his letters. Then, Paul appeals to yet another brother to assist this reconciliation process, a man named "Clement" whom Paul calls his sunergos, that is, "co-worker", forming a team with "the rest of my fellow-workers".

It is interesting to see how Paul relies heavily on the believers at Philippi to join together in a group effort to help heal the rift between Euodia and Syntyche. This reminds us of Jesus' commitment to mending the breaks as they form between his followers. Please note his careful instructions in Matthew 18:15-20 and compare these with Paul's own efforts at Philippi.

Obviously something has driven a wedge between these two women, and Paul wants to ward off the damage from such a cleavage. What was the cause of this "great divide"? We do not know. But Paul affirms all parties involved, using these words: "whose names are in the book of life" (Greek: biblio zoes). Remember: the Philippian Christians are a little colony of heaven, and have citizenship in the kingdom of God. Throughout the ancient world, cities kept "books of life", essentially "lists of the living". If you asked the town clerk, "Who lives in this town?", he would point to the "book of life" and say, "their names are written there". If someone died, their name was crossed out of the book. If someone was born, their name was written at the end. In this passage, Paul is saying that Euodia and Syntyche's names, along with the other "fellow workers" at Philippi, are written in God's book of life. Even though they might be at odds with each other, they have not been kicked out of God's kingdom, but remain firmly a part of the heavenly colony in Philippi. It's possible that the two combatants in this rift might have treated each other as "outsiders" or "enemies", but Paul refused to accept such a designation. Perhaps we should recall what Paul wrote in 1:6, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion until the day of Christ". The apostle had high hopes for all the believers at Philippi, including these two estranged sisters! (For additional references on "book of life" terminology, see: Revelation 3:5, 20; 15:21, 27; Exodus 32:32; Psalms 69:28; 139:16; Daniel 12:1).

Additional Note on Women in the Colony of Philippi
The research of Tarn and Griffith reveals that women had prominence and influence during both the Greek and Roman periods at Philippi. Normally, Roman women were addressed by their family names, not their personal ones, yet Paul uses personal names in 4:2. This suggests they were Greek, and likely had some prominence in their society. Women owned estates, were well-off, and if wives of prominent officials, were often honored publicly. They could be freedmen with civic offices or might serve as priestesses in the imperial cult temples. Therefore, it is no surprise to find women of high status with prominent roles in the early Christian congregations. Of additional significance: Greek and Roman orators did not mention women's names in their speeches unless they held important roles and had status. Evidently Paul affirms these two women in their co-leadership roles and treats them respectfully, even when he appeals to them to have a "common mind in the Lord".

Peroratio: 4:4-20
We now move to the final main division of Paul's letter, following the rhetorical model. Called the peroratio, this division serves as a kind of summation for the whole letter (the repetitio), but also introduces strong feeling (pathos) into the writing (the adfectus). Remember, speeches were normally given in person, but when that was not possible, the letter could be a substitute. How do you communicate feeling through the written form, in the absence of voice inflections, facial expressions and warm gestures? Paul attempts it here, as we shall see shortly.

Part One: Praying and Living (4:4-9) (The Repetitio)
Familiar themes appear almost immediately in this section, including:
joy (4:4, compare 2:17-18)
gentleness (4:5a, compare 2:1-3)
the nearness of the Lord (4:5b-6, compare 1:3-11)
patient work as a witness (4:5-7, compare 1:27-28)
avoid anxiety (4:6, compare 2:12-13)
develop character (2:3, 14-15, compare 4:8-9)
What Paul now does with these ideas is to give them "feet". The time has come for some serious application of his material to the lives of the Philippians. That is why such passages as 4:4-20 are called "ethical" instructions or the more technical term: paranesis. Paul commonly ended his letters with such exhortations to holy living. In effect, Paul summarizes his previous teaching by applying it to the life-situation of his readers. They must "Live it!"

He begins in 4:4 with an exhortation to "rejoice in the Lord", followed by a repetition, "and again I say rejoice". Paul may be "marking the territory" of his letter by "repeating" this expression, as if to say, "I'm now starting my repetitio". We have already commented in our previous Philippian studies on the meaning of "joy" within the context of Scripture and Paul's letters. It is a festive word, and it marks the arrival of God's Messianic blessings and his Messianic banquet. The "Lord" Jesus Christ has taken his place in the heavenly kingdom, and even now rules the little colonies of heaven taking shape on earth, among them, the Christ followers at Philippi. Notice how joy is "in the Lord", that is, in the "rule of King Jesus". Recall that the Greek word for "Lord" is kurios, an expression used of the Roman Emperor, but now applied by Paul to Jesus' abiding role at the right-hand of God in heaven. Once more, we see the theme of citizenship reinforced.

What is expected of "citizens" in God's kingdom? Paul's ethical teaching which follows unpacks that question. Evidently it begins with a celebration of "joy": not once, but twice! It's a bit like the familiar, "hip-hip hooray", shouted several times, along the lines of "rejoice, rejoice, rejoice"! And why not? God's Son, our Lord, is in session in his heavenly court, and we are gathered before him as citizens of the heavenly realm. Citizenship begins with praising and worshipping the heavenly king. But it does not end there.

In 4:5, Paul reaches for a "grand Greek word", epieikes to describe the sort of citizen the Christ follower should be. This word is rich with meaning, though a bit difficult to translate. At root, it means "reasonableness", and can also have the connotations of: "compassionate, magnanimous, generous". Persons who practice this form of living give others "the benefit of the doubt". To summarize its meaning: "A generous treatment of others that does not insist on the letter of the Law; makes allowances for others; does not insist on full rights." We know that justice cannot always deliver the sort of satisfaction it promises. Fully aware of that, the citizen of God's kingdom must learn the gracious art of granting others "the benefit of the doubt". This is what Paul seems to mean by this expression. Coming, as he did, from a strict Jewish background, this was a huge concession by Paul, a man accustomed to exacting the "letter of the law", and demanding that others do the same. His zeal has already been documented in Philippians 3, along with his decision to "count it loss" that he might "win Christ". What we see in Philippians 4:4 is the adoption of a new kind of ethics. Such patterns for Christ-like living do not demand strict justice from others, but instead, offer magnanimity and compassion. When this word appears elsewhere in the New Testament, it is associated with these ideas:
peaceable (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 3:2)
good (1 Peter 2:18)
pure, peace-loving, open to reason, rich in mercy (James 3:17).
We can almost hear the echoes of Philippians 2:5-11, the "Christ-Hymn", in Paul's application of this word to the lives of the Philippians. Paul expects this quality of epiekes to be "evident to all", that is, when anyone comes into contact with the Philippian Christ-followers or sees their community in action, they will immediately be confronted by this mark of character. Caird, in his commentary on Philippians, writes of this term: "considerate courtesy and respect for the integrity of others which prompts a person not to be forever standing on his rights; and it is pre-eminently the character of Jesus (2 Corinthians 10:1)". In a society where the virtues of "courage, moderation, wisdom and justice" were primary, the introduction of epiekes offered a refreshing new kind of life-style to a culture accustomed to the orderly march of Roman justice. If an outsider asked "For what are Christians known?", Paul would point to this quality and respond: "That!"

A sudden affirmation appears at the end of 4:5, "The Lord is near" (kurios eggus). All appeals to ethical conduct must be made in light of the Lord Jesus Christ's presence among his people. At the least, this is what is meant by this exclamation. "We are in the presence of the Lord!" Paul reminds them. The expression "near" can have two possible meanings: 1) near in time; 2) near in space. We certainly have references to the "presence" of the Lord (Greek: parousia; Hebrew: panim="face") in the Old Testament (see Psalms 145:18-19; 34:17-18). Festival occasions celebrated the presence of Yahweh who lived among his people. The New Testament illustrates both uses:
1. Temporal: Jesus is “near” in his “coming again”: Matthew 24:32 (and parallels); John 2:13; 6:4; Romans 13:11; Revelation 1:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22.
2. Spatial: Jesus is present among his people now, although he is in heaven at the right hand of God: Luke 19:11; John 3:23; Acts 1:12; Ephesians 2:13; Matthew 28:20.
Once more Paul reminds his audience that the "Lord" Jesus, kurios, administers his earthly colony from heaven, is fully aware of what happens on earth, and takes an intense interest in the lives of his people. It matters to "King" Jesus how his people live, how they treat each other, and what sort of reputation they are creating for him (and themselves) throughout the world. Would not the Emperor want his subjects to honor him, and live in ways respectful of his rule? Would he not want them to live like "good Romans", administering Roman justice and building a orderly society? How much more the "Lord" Jesus, God's Messiah, who by his death and resurrection, has triumphed over all his enemies, and reigns from heaven over the new kingdom of God. Does not he want citizens worthy of his name? Don't forget, Paul reiterates, the "Lord is near".

We now consider 4:6-7 where Paul acknowledges that the citizens of Jesus' kingdom have needs. On more than one occasion, the Roman Empire suffered sporadic bouts of famine and plague. Nothing stresses a people more than widespread want, whether food, shelter or safety. Are Christians exempt? Clearly not, as Paul writes: "Do not be anxious about anything" (Greek: meden merimnate). This word for "anxious" is in its verb form, and this use appears in other New Testament passages (see Matthew 6:25; Luke 10:41), especially in Jesus' teaching which counsels against unnecessary "care" or "worry", ideas found in this expression. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, contrasts a person who has "care" for God's concerns with one who has "care" for his own affairs. In a colony like Philippi, one civic duty was the meeting of public needs. Christians should be heartened by the knowledge that "the Lord is near", and is fully aware of their needs. Therefore, "being anxious" reflects badly on the honor of this "Lord" who is faithful in taking care of his own. Will not the Lord Jesus look after his citizens? Those who worry, take the burden of the future on themselves. No doubt Paul's detention in Rome, coupled with the pressures facing the Philippian church (inside and outside), had put too much on people's minds. Their thoughts were cluttered with all that's gone wrong.

By contrast, Paul appeals to them: "in everything", that is, gather up the many things which bedevil your minds, the myriad details which fill your every waking moment and hand them over to the "Lord" Jesus. Notice the contrast between "anything" and "everything". The Lord is near and rules over all, so give all things to him. But how? What follows is Paul's eloquent counsel on the value of prayer, and he describes it with a variety of words drawn from the rich vocabulary of the Greek language. We consider these terms in order:
1. "prayer", proseuche, the most generic word for prayer, but which contains the idea of "wish" directed toward God. Sometimes this term can have the meaning of a "vow" or "oath" by which a person "binds himself" to God in handing over the "wish".
2. "petition", deesis, a word meaning "petition", admitting the existence of real "need", in the form of "indigence, want, privation. Through this term, a person seeks or entreats the "Lord" for particular benefits. It is the address of an inferior to a superior who is in a position to "redress the grievance". A good example of an earthly use of this word is Paul's appeal in Acts 21:39 and 26:3. The term has "legal" implications, commonly seen in the Old Testament Psalms, where the writer lays his "case" before the Lord and seeks remediation. These are often called Psalms of "complaint", and seek God's settling of disputes with enemies or circumstances (see Psalm 35).
3. "requests", aitemata, the common term for a simple request, the mere act of "asking" from another. Once more, the inferior asks from the superior. Compare 1 Timothy 2:1-4.
4. "thanksgiving", eucharistia, conveys an attitude of the heart, is the response of an inferior to a superior about something undeserved, and proceeding from pure grace. This was the common practice even between Roman officials. We have a good example of this in Acts 24:1-8 where the Jewish lawyer, Tertullus, appeals to the Roman governor, Felix, for assistance in handling the case of Paul. He addresses the governor using the words "with all thanksgiving", and then cites the ways "peace" has come to the Jewish land because of Roman rule. Ironically, Paul writes to the Philippians in Roman chains, telling them to approach God in prayer "with thanksgiving", whatever the nature of their wish, need, or request. Revelation 4:9 depicts the "saints" around the throne in heaven offering eucharistia to God and the Lamb.

This section began with "the Lord is near". Like the just ruler or judge, his royal court is in session. We are in his royal presence, we who are citizens of heaven whose colony of heaven we now inhabit on earth. Let us set aside our anxiety associated with our many needs which fill our minds. Instead, let us come with a thankful attitude to the "Lord who is near" to petition, request, ask, and bring our complaints, needs, and concerns. In so doing, we live like citizens of the kingdom above, where "the Lord is near".

What is the "Lord's" response? Using words drawn from the familiar language of the Roman Empire, Paul says that the "peace of God will guard our hearts and minds". Had this been spoken by a secular official in the Empire, it would have been stated this way: "the peace of Rome, that is, the peace of Augustus" protects the citizens of the Empire. The Philippians knew about pax Romana or pax Augustus since these ideas were ingrained in Roman society. Thanks to Augustus and his successors, the Roman Empire enjoyed ("rejoiced in") order and protection. Paul, taking his cue from such language, re-phrases this as "peace of God", that is, pax Dei. Roman justice and administration depended on such "peace". How much more so, the proper living of the Christian life should be free from anxiety because its citizens of heaven bring their concerns to the Lord Jesus Christ. As a Jew, Paul knew all about "peace" as shalom, the kind of wholeness, well-being, health and spiritual vitality Yahweh gave His people. Yahweh is shalom in Himself where there is no confusion or disorder. Those who are in fellowship, through prayer, with Yahweh experience His shalom, His "peace" in their lives. A powerful text from Isaiah illustrates this point:
14 The fortress will be abandoned, the noisy city deserted; citadel and watchtower will become a wasteland forever, the delight of donkeys, a pasture for flocks, 15 till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the desert becomes a fertile field, and the fertile field seems like a forest. 16 Justice will dwell in the desert and righteousness live in the fertile field. 17 The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever. 18 My people will live in peaceful dwelling places, in secure homes, in undisturbed places of rest. 19 Though hail flattens the forest and the city is leveled completely, 20 how blessed you will be, sowing your seed by every stream, and letting your cattle and donkeys range free (Isaiah 32:14-20).
Notice how this "peace" suffuses throughout the whole of Israel's national life. Even so, Paul sees the praying community discovering such "peace" in the midst of suffering, threats to unity, Paul's own detention, and the enemies of the cross threatening from outside. Bring these concerns to the Lord, he counsels them. But with what outcome?

This peace "surpasses understanding", Paul tells them. Here he uses an interesting Greek word, huperecho. It has several possible meanings:
To hold one thing over another
To be above, rise above the horizon, above the water, above the ground.
A military usage: to outflank
To be overtop, exceed, outdo
To be prominent
To be too powerful
Previously, the word was used in 2:3 when Paul asks that the Philippians consider others "above themselves". It was also used in 3:8 where "knowing Christ" was superior to anything Paul might have considered a "gain" in his own life. What is Paul telling us by using this term? By submitting our case to "the Lord who is near", we let go of our own control of the outcome or how it should be settled, and accept the overwhelmingly superior ruling of the "peace of God", the pax Dei.

What does this pax Dei actually accomplish for the Philippians? Once more Paul draws from the military vocabulary, using the word phrouresei which literally means "garrison or guard". Philippi knew about garrisons of soldiers, since such a garrison was housed in that city. God's peace stands guard like a garrison of soldiers, protecting hearts and minds under the rule of Christ Jesus. Several other texts use this expression: 2 Corinthians 11:32; Galatians 3:23; 1 Peter 1:5. Living as they do, a colony of heaven, the Philippian Christians are under the pax Dei, submitting to the Lord who is near, who in turn offers garrison protection for:
"hearts", from kardia, the center of their lives, especially their unsettled emotions which can flair up like so many enemies besieging them. See these other texts on the "heart": Romans 9:2; 10:1; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 6:11; Philippians 1:7; Romans 1:21; Ephesians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 7:37; 2 Corinthians 9:7.
"minds", from voema, where thoughts take shape and ideas invade, whether from excessive introspection about one's needs, or from false teaching introduced from without.
Paul uses the plural of these words so as to avoid an unhealthy privatization of these instructions. This is about "our hearts and minds", not just "my heart and mind". Within a community, the condition of hearts and minds has wide-ranging impact, either cementing unity and purpose or undermining it. Their community life, free from worry, depends on a united submission, in prayer, to the Lord who is near.

We now arrive at 4:8-9 where Paul will focus on the importance of Christian values. In the previous section, Paul told his audience that the peace of God would guard them through prayer. This new section will advance that theme through a slight twist in the phrase, as seen in 4:9 where Paul writes: "And the God of peace will be with you." That is, the God of peace would guide them through the values they adopt. The Philippians, with their dual Roman and Greek heritage, were no strangers to ethics. From the philosophers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, they had come to embrace certain ideals which guided the way they lived their lives. Paul knew that, and he did not try to undermine it. There was plenty to admire and imitate in the collective history of Greek and Roman thought. How people actually live their lives became more important with the rise of Empire. Popular philosophies of the day, like Stoicism and Epicureanism, tried to take the best from the ancient ethics and apply it to contemporary life. We see evidence of their presence in Athens where Paul once visited (Acts 17).

For Paul's part, he had lived within the hot-house of Second Temple Judaism, where the traditions of the Pharisees shaped his understanding of ethics, along the lines of the 613 commandments--an attempt to distill the monumental Torah into bite-size form. Unfortunately, Paul's Torah devotion degenerated into legalism, a kind of ethics which was always finding ways to allow for exceptions, since no single "law" could cover all the cases. We have already heard Paul cast aside "that approach" to Torah (see 3:5-8), and in its place adopt a Christ-relationship. By "knowing Christ", Paul gradually "discovers" a new life, filled with surprises and wonder. This new life he wants the Philippians to experience as well. Paul refuses to regress into his old ways of imposing a set of "rules" on them, but freely releases them to grow and thrive, guided by values which are well-known to Greek and Roman culture. Of course, Paul recognizes the limitations of classical Greek and Roman virtues, namely, those of courage, moderation, wisdom and justice. Yet, while he admires "the basic four virtues", he finds them limiting, and not at all a fulfillment of everything he keeps on "discovering" in Christ.

Therefore, in 4:8-9, Paul offers a "list" of virtues--we might call them "values"--which should "guide" the community life of the Philippian Christians. This is not Paul's only list of such values. Nor is it the only list found elsewhere in the New Testament. Time and space does not allow a comprehensive comparison of these various catalogs of "virtue", but the reader is encouraged to examine at least the following passages which illustrate the values early Christians cheerfully embraced:
Philippians 4:8-9: The passage we will examine.
1 Corinthians 13: The famous "love" (agape) text which describes what "love does"; the virtues are presented as verbs, not nouns, and love is seen as superior to faith and hope alone.
Galatians 5:22-23: The "fruit of the Spirit" text which explains how virtue is the result of the Holy Spirit's work in the Christian's life.
2 Corinthians 6:6-7: The values which anchored Paul while he faced hardship throughout his ministry.
Ephesians 6:14-17: The "armor of God", consisting of spiritual values protecting Christians from their common enemy.
Colossians 3:12: These values are compared to pieces of clothing that we wear so that others may see and benefit.
2 Peter 1:5-9: Peter's encouragement for continuing growth, and increased "knowledge" of "our Lord Jesus Christ".
There are also lists of virtues which persons in leadership should adopt, since their roles put them in public places where others are affected by what they see in them (see 1 Timothy and Titus as outstanding examples of these).
[Note: "New Testament Ethical Lists" by Burton Scott Easton, appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 51, No. 1 (1932), pp. 1-12. It offers a good overview.]
These Scriptures present and explain the "graces" which Christians have come to cherish.

Paul arranges 4:8-9 in such a way as to call attention to the values in themselves, in which case he uses a series of adjectives. But he also presents a series of verbs to show how those virtues are actually lived out in Paul's own life, and witnessed by the Philippians. This is an important distinction. Even Aristotle's ethics stressed the importance of the "good", that is, the virtuous, being "attainable". How do we know that something is attainable, except that someone can actually attain it! What good are lists of virtues unless they can be put into practice, unless they can be lived? Paul has previously asked the Philippians to model their lives on what they see in men like Timothy and Epaphroditus (2:19-30), as well as to follow Paul's own example (3:17). We can not escape the powerful claim by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1, "Follow my example as I follow Christ's". Embodied Christian virtue reproduces itself in the lives of others. There is no better teacher of virtue than the "example" of virtue. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a life of virtue is worth a thousand lists of virtues. Folks were enamored by Bill Bennett's Book of Virtues, but they were troubled by his gambling addiction. We must not judge persons, but the principle still holds. It is painfully wrong to accept the dictum: "do as I say, not as I do". It is also un-Christian. Paul counters such thinking in 4:8-9.

What we find is a series of words preceded by the formula "as many as are…" or perhaps, "as far as it is", or, "as long as it is". Paul invites his audience to look around for embodied examples of real virtues, of real values, of cherished "graces". The "list" in front of us consists of Greek words, many of them not found among the writings of antiquity, but nearly all of them in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint, or LXX). So while Paul invites his readers to find such virtues in the wider society of Philippi, with its rich history, he may well have known that only a few cases of such embodied virtues would be found. On the other hand, the Hebrew Bible is rich in those qualities God wants to find present and growing among His people. Even a cursory reading of a book like Proverbs, the true "book of virtues", will reveal a rich lode of golden values. In any case, these specific virtues are commended to the Philippians. We must be cautious in assuming such a list is exhaustive or that it should be used as a wooden "checklist" for vetting ourselves with God. Remember, Paul has rejected that sort of "living" in Philippians 3:
"true", alethe. Perhaps best translated "truthful".
"honest", semna (see also 1 Timothy 3:8-11; Titus 2:2). A rich word covering not only "honest", but also "honorable, noble, worthy, venerable, that which commands respect, reverent, esteemed". Ancient Greek literature associates this word with the gods, temples, holy things: focus is on majesty, dignity, awe, lofty things which lift the mind from the mundane and the ordinary.
"just", dikaia. A legal term, of course, but justice normally meant giving a person their "due", whether to God or other persons. Performing one's duty, discharging responsibility, satisfying obligations.
"pure", agna. Emphasis on "cleanness" of motives or actions.
"lovely", prosthile. Whatever calls forth love, and so "lovely, amiable, attractive, winsome". Elsewhere Paul wanted his readers to act in ways that "adorn the Gospel" (Titus 2:10).
"admirable", euphema. Literally, "well-spoken", having a good report, what is likely to win people and avoid evil offense. Avoid scandal.
Who could fault such qualities which were, no doubt, found in the wider culture, but needed a fresh expression in the Christ-community at Philippi? Since the Philippian Christians were "citizens of heaven", they stood to gain followers by their diligence in observing these values in their own lives. Here is "applied Christianity" in action! For Paul, it looked vastly different from the ethics of Second Temple Judaism, and, remarkably, had a ready hearing in Greek-Roman society as well.

Paul gathers all of these adjectives together and now places them under two nouns: "virtue" and "praise".
"virtue", arête. This is the classical Greek idea of ethical value, as we have already noted, expressed in these four: courage, moderation, wisdom and justice. The word is rare in the New Testament (see 1 Peter 2:9 and 2 Peter 1:3). In classical Greek usage, it describes "excellence" in something. Ethically, it pertained to that "end" (telos) for devoting oneself, that which identifies a thing's true reason (logos) for existing. If a person is a "master" in his field, he is an expert who has that "virtue", that achievement. Hebrew thought opted to teach "righteousness" instead, that "straight path", laid down by Yahweh for His people to "walk in His ways", to be like Him: "holy as He is holy". It included "faithfulness" and "trust" in Yahweh as expressed in righteous conduct. What does Yahweh require, asks Micah, who responds "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8)." Habakkuk adds, "The just shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4)". While the Greeks tended toward "self-reliance" for virtue, the Hebrews cast themselves on God's grace and mercy instead. "Be holy for I am holy" is a humbling text, since human holiness is always derivative from God (Leviticus 11:44, repeated in NT, 1 Peter 1:16).
"praise", epainos. Something worthy of praise. The New Testament, in agreement with the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), elevates the "praise of God" above the "praise of men" (see John 12:43 and Romans 2:29 as examples). Paul was conscious of how the outside world might see the Philippian church. As a colony of heaven, it might have had an "alien" reputation, a sort of strange people living on Roman soil. Indeed, the idea of being "alien" was consistent with Paul's imagery of the "colony" introduced back in chapter 3, and Peter's use in 1 Peter 2:11. Christ-followers and their communities had much to prove to the secular world, who would likely imagine the worst and foster suspicion toward them. Paul wants living examples of virtuous lives thriving in the city of Philippi so that the Christ-followers there might attract the attention of those who might otherwise censure them. Still, the praise of God was more important than the praise of men, and these values must have His favor more than that of the surrounding culture.

To this list of values, which Paul calls "virtues" and "praise-worthy", he directs the Philippians' attention with the word "think on these things", from the Greek tauta logizesthe. Paul used this same verb in 3:13 when he "counted not" himself as having attained the goal of Christ-perfection. It means to "calculate precisely", and has an accounting context. The Philippians should carefully take into account these listed values, and factor them prudently into their thinking, allowing such virtues to shape their attitudes and guide the formation of their community life.

But if this list seems too lofty or unattainable, Paul invites his audience to examine his own life for evidence that such things are present. He uses a series of four verbs to express this desire:
"learned", emathete. The result of carefully directed discipleship, "Cross-training" at its finest.
"received", parelabete. The same word appears in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 to describe the "traditions handed down by the apostles". The New Testament recognizes one form of sacred tradition found in Scripture and in the eye-witness testimony of those who heard and saw Jesus.
"heard", ekousate. The normal word to "hear", and seems to mean simply the day-to-day speech of Paul heard by the Philippians when he was with them.
"seen", eidete. Again, the expected word for what one sees, in this, in another person's daily life. Among Jewish students (talmidim) who learned from their Rabbi, watching him live his life was as important as the words he taught. Paul invokes the same model here, as he does elsewhere (1 Corinthians 11:1 and Philippians 3:17).
Even as Jesus Christ was the embodiment of God's character in human form, even so Christians should seek to embody the virtues and values of Jesus in their own lives. Remember, the word "Christian" derives from "Christ" with the diminutive ending which means, "little Christ".

As we indicated above, the phrase "God of Peace" (4:9) stands in parallel to "Peace of God" (4:7). To a Roman audience it also stands in contrast to the prevailing view that Caesar ensures peace for the Empire. While Philippi's surrounding culture, proud as it was of its Roman colonial status, might proclaim that Caesar is "Lord", Paul affirms the God through Jesus Christ is the true Lord who guides his people with the true "peace", the true pax. We find this idea throughout the New Testament, especially in these passages: Romans 15:33; 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Corinthians 14:33l 2 Thessalonians 3:16; Hebrews 13:20.

We summarize, then, Part One of Paul's peroratio by saying that the Philippian Christians are a colony of heaven. Their Lord is present, and he is developing nothing less than a Christian civilization on the soil of Philippi, encouraging its citizens to embody the virtues recognized by the wider culture to be sure, but also those lived out in the life of men like Paul. As 3:20 reminds us, "our citizenship is in heaven" but it appears in flesh and blood form through the lives of God's people.

Part Two: (4:10-20) (The Adfectus)

New Principles for Living: Poverty and Plenty

In Paul's second section of his peroratio, he once more begins with the persistent attitude of "joy", modified by the adverb "greatly". A number of key ideas emerge in this part of his letter, nearing its conclusion. What binds them together is the generosity of the Philippians toward Paul and, outwardly, toward the mission of Christ in the world. We begin to sense the rising pathos, "deep feeling", as the language of emotion and heart-felt gratitude suffuses through these verses. This is the genius of rhetorical speech: to reach its climax with a close bond between the speaker and the audience. Nothing moves people more than telling them how grateful you are for what they have done for you--that their concern has not gone unnoticed.
1. Paul expresses gratitude for the Philippians' concern for him, a man in chains. Though the Philippians have had limited opportunity, still Paul accepts their concern "as if it had been expressed". The Greek text uses words that come from agriculture: ede pote anethalete. This last word literally means "to bloom, to shoot up" and figuratively means "to revive, renew, flourish". This is true gratitude: to be able to accept the concern of others, even when they are unable to put that concern into material form; to accept the concern in place of the deed (4:10).
2. Nor does Paul wish to appear "anxious" for some material gift from the Philippians, a gift that has been delayed. Paul sees a teaching opportunity in this circumstance, namely, to show how his situations have helped him to grow in his faith. Using the Greek form emathon, he writes, "I have learned", which echoes back to 4:9 where he encourages the Philippians to imitate things "you have learned" from Paul's example. How encouraging to the Philippians, and how humble of Paul! Think of it, "Paul actually needs to learn! Hmm, perhaps we need to learn as well. Let's see how Paul does it, and maybe we can learn to do it, too!" Whatever circumstance comes my way, Paul says, I have learned the virtue of "sufficiency in myself", and he uses the Greek expression autarkes. This word connotes a degree of independence, and in ancient texts was used of countries which did not need imports. Of course, by saying this, Paul is not saying he does not need to depend on Christ, simply that he does not depend on circumstances: he is independent of them (see also 2 Corinthians 9:8; 1 Timothy 6:6), and his sufficiency is from God alone. He doesn't even depend on the Philippians, though he is grateful for their concern.He proceeds to expand this sense of "divine independence" by saying he knows how to live humbly (Greek: tapeinoo), and also how live abundantly (Greek: perisseuein). Both states of existence require wisdom. Poverty can reduce a person to despair; prosperity can raise him up to pride. It reminds us of the story of Joseph in Egypt during the years of plenty, followed by the years of famine. Living wisely during surplus helps us live contentedly through deficit. Paul tells his audience, I have learned how to do this. How did Paul come by this knowledge? Recall Paul's Christ-Hymn in 2:5-11, in which Christ Jesus "humbled himself" voluntarily, even to the point of death. The word for "humbled" in that context is the same word Paul uses here to describe his state of deep need. Jesus stooped down by letting go of his claim to the majesty of God, and in response God raised him up to His own right hand. In the same way, when Paul is humbled by his needs, he simply remembers Christ Jesus, and fastens his faith confidently on the same God who raised up Jesus, knowing He will also raise up Paul at the right time. Here is a classic instance of Paul "knowing Christ" in his everyday life, applying the truth of the Christ-event to the ordinary experience of human need and its supply. It's as if Paul is saying to the Philippians, "Did you see how I did that? Now you do the same. You go deeper in your Christian life and know Christ as I have come to know him".
3. Paul describes his new understanding with the words "I have learned the secret of being content". This word "secret" comes from memnemai, a specialized verb taken from the classical Greek mysteries. It means "to be initiated into the mysteries". Of course, Paul does not mean to imply that he has actually undergone some pagan mystical initiation rite, but rather that learning to live the life of Christ has introduced him to "Christ mysteries" which he now freely shares with the Philippians! A bit ironic of Paul to share what the pagan religions would have kept secret! But now he comes to his main principle: "I can do everything through him who gives me strength" (4:13): panta ischuo en to endunamounti me. A more literal reading might be: "All things I prevail over by the one enduing me with power." The word ischuo means to be "strong over", an ability Paul attributes to "the one empowering" him. The root of this word for "empowering" is dunamis, the same word appearing in Acts 1:8 where Jesus promises his disciples "power" from the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Paul has already told his audience in 3:10-11 that the power he wants "to know" comes from the "resurrection" of Christ Jesus.To summarize Paul's claim here: his state of need is like suffering and death; his prevailing over that need comes from the power of Jesus' resurrection. In his state of poverty, he experiences the sufferings of Christ, and dies to his own self-dependency. Then, wonderfully, he rises again by the power of Christ at work in his life.

The New Economy: Evidences at Philippi
Though most of what Paul has said in 4:10-13 has been autobiographical, he intentionally shares it with the Philippians because it gives them one more concrete example of how it is possible to live the Christ-life. Throughout this section of his peroratio Paul teaches "flesh and blood" Christianity, the kind that takes root in real human lives and can prevail under extreme circumstances. His audience needs to hear this message, and to witness how Paul lives the Christ-life in his own situation, "in chains". He hopes to sustain their faith and spur them on to imitate his example as they face the challenges of being a little colony of heaven in the privileged Roman colony of Philippi. But now we arrive, in 4:14-19, to a most interesting passage in which Paul widens his discussion of poverty and plenty to include not only his situation, but that of the wider Christian community. For lack of a better description, we are calling this "The New Economy".

You will remember in earlier studies, we commented on the social situation at Philippi, and how the social strata included a wide range of occupations and social classes. By and large, the Roman minority ruled the Greek majority in this imperial colony. Plenty of landowners and their retainers populated the region, along with trades people, tenant farmers, and slaves who rounded out the full economy. All of the economic tensions of such a society found their way into the Philippian church, no doubt. They certainly did elsewhere, as we witness in the New Testament (see Acts 6, and James 2; 5 for examples). Knowing this, Paul commends the generosity of the Philippians, especially their "sharing" with him "in my troubles", or as the Greek has it sugkoinonesantes in his thlipsis. "Fellowship-together-in-my-pressurized existence" might capture the essence of this phrase.

Then, as if these thoughts brought to mind larger issues, Paul uses the word de, "moreover", to further develop the idea of helping each other materially when in need. He moves the clock backwards to "the early days of the Gospel" (Greek: en arche tou euaggeliou)--that is to the very beginning of Paul's ministry in Philippi when he first brought the gospel to them. These are the "roots" for Philippian Christianity, the birthday of their new life in Christ as citizens of the colony of heaven. When we read the accounts of those "days" in Acts 16, we realize that Paul left Macedonia, the wider province where Philippi was located, to accomplish even more evangelism and church planting. When he left, it was the Philippians alone who entered into a formal arrangement with Paul to provide funds for his work. The language Paul uses, ekoinonesen eis logos doseos kai lempseos, translated, "fellowshipped in the matter of giving and receiving". Scholars, examining the wider context and Paul's special word usage here, have concluded that Paul describes a very formal, proper process whereby debits and credits were meticulously maintained by the Philippian community, as they supplied Paul's needs, and that of the Gospel, "again and again" (Greek: kai hapax kai dis, that is, not only once, but also again) (4:16).

As if to reinforce Paul's appreciation for their diligent accounting practices, he continues to use the same sort of terminology in 4:17 where he makes clear that he does not "seek a gift" (doma), but instead "fruit" which will multiply eis logon, that is, into your account. This use of logos to mean "account" or "ledger" is well attested in ancient accounting practice, and Paul exploits joyfully this kind of parlance in order to strengthen the idea that the Philippians had, in fact, set out to invent an economy able to support the work of the gospel under Paul's direction. By saying it's not just "a gift", he wants to underscore how much more it really was. Gifts are periodic and not always planned, but come in response to need, spontaneously. That's not what Paul describes in the case of the Philippians. They have shown real financial flair in being ready, not once, but again and again, in their meeting of the missionary need. That sort of efficiency requires planning and foresight. No doubt among the Philippian Christians were some who were quite gifted in such matters. Let us not forget the early convert, Lydia, who was a merchant of the rich purple dye so much in demand in the Empire (see Acts 16). No doubt her skills were needed and used mightily in the interests of God's kingdom.

Paul reports that the economy of the Philippian Christ-followers was working well, amply supplying his own needs, especially since Epaphroditus had brought their most recent "gift". Paul does not use the same word for "gift" he used in 4:17, but the more general ta which means "the things" without indicating they were "gifts" per se, but instead, most likely the scheduled support they fully intended to send to Paul, once they had opportunity to do so (look back to 4:10). Giving to the work of God had become for them part of their economic life! The only thing that hindered their prompt delivery to Paul in Rome was the postal service! And along came Epaphroditus with the payment, and joyfully, Paul prepares a "receipt" to send back to the Philippians so they can keep their accounts in good order. We want to stress that the language Paul uses is wholly consistent with the accounting terminology of the first century. [Note: The scholar Deismann, who studied hundreds of document fragments and pottery shards, has attested these various terms, down to an exact phrase Paul uses in this text].

But this "New Economy", amply illustrated by the Philippian Christians, is not all "business", as if it was simply some cold, calculated commercial transaction. Paul elevates it by drawing from the rich language of the Old Testament. He calls it a "fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God" (4:18): osmen euodias, thusian dekten, euapreston to theo. A careful reading of the Old Testament reveals instances of God taking pleasure in the "smell" of the sacrifices (see Genesis 8:21). The emphasis is on the quality of the thing offered, whether it is acceptable to God (see Exodus 29:18, 25, 41; Leviticus 1:9, 13; Ezekiel 20:41). Paul uses similar language in Ephesians 5:2. Metaphorically, Paul is saying, your contribution is an offering of the "highest quality" in the eyes of God.

Not only is it "pleasing" it is, in fact, a "sacrifice" (thusia). This Greek word translates the commonly used word in Hebrew for sacrifices offered to Yahweh, including animals, grain, and firstfruits of the crops. But the Old Testament also teaches a deeply personal form of sacrifice, namely, the "contrite spirit" (Psalms 50:18-19). The New Testament picks up this wider meaning and applies it to actions and giving (Hebrews 13:16). When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he referenced the Philippian Christians, and spoke of their gift as a real "sacrifice of themselves" (2 Corinthians 8:1-2). And to the Roman Christians, Paul urges the offering of their whole persons as "living sacrifices" (Romans 12:1-2). Therefore, the economy of Philippi and its worship are not two compartments of their community life, but are, in fact, mutual expressions of each. They worshipped through their economy, and they practiced their economy in their worship. Could Paul expect any less from this little colony of heaven, learning to live as citizens of God's new kingdom?

Then, so as to take the principle he had learned in 4:13 and apply it to the Philippians, Paul concludes his discussion of "giving and receiving" with yet another principle:
"And my God will meet all your needs, according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" (4:19).
Often quoted in support of Christian stewardship, Paul places this promise at the end of his letter to his dearly beloved Philippians. Knowing their faithful management of heaven-sent blessings, he blesses the Philippians with this promise. Why does he say "my God" (ho theos mou)? Surely not because he intends to "keep God to himself", as if Paul suddenly has some priority on God-ownership! He has already told us he has let go of all those old "gains" that marked his now-rejected way of life under Second Temple Judaism (chapter 3). In place of the old system of gains, Paul has placed his passionate desire to "know Christ", and to know him is to know God personally. This "my" is not the pronoun of possession but of personal relationship. Paul is saying, "I have come to know God so well, through my discovery of Christ Jesus, that I can confidently affirm, dear Philippians, that He will supply your needs, even as he has supplied mine. After all, the wealth of heaven is banked in Christ Jesus, and he is the Lord of your little colony, and so his accounts are richly open for you." In no wise, does Paul advocate some quid pro quo form of "wealth" Gospel, as if God is "bound" to "pay up" because the Philippians have been generous. Instead, Paul offers a promise, as ancient as Malachi's prophecy (Malachi 3:8-10). After all, what sort of "Lord" rules his realm completely oblivious of his subjects needs? Not ours! Not "my God", writes Paul!

A Doxology
It would appear there are two endings to this letter. The first seems to go along with the text of 4:4-19, and so we treat it here. The other one appears at 4:23 and appears at the very end of the letter. Notice how Paul, in 4:20, uses the plural pronoun "our": "To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen". Paul writes this "doxology" immediately after he calls God "my God". But to ensure that the Philippians are included in the wider Christ-community, offering worship to God, Paul uses the Greek hemon, the first person plural pronoun. The body of Christ is a world-wide worshipping community. The colony of heaven found at Philippi does not stand alone, but together with all those who "call on the name of the Lord", worships Him. The Greek word "glory" is doxa and means the "brightly shining majesty" of God. Whatever makes God more clearly "seen" is that which "glorifies" God. In the Old Testament, the Hebrews spoke of the divine presence as "pillar of cloud and fire", a brightly shining symbol of the inner character of God. Elsewhere God is called a "consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). How might this benediction appropriately express the life of the Philippian Christians? Perhaps Paul wants to honor their generous contribution, their sacrifice for the missionary work of God's kingdom, by suggesting that it brings "glory to God". Nor is Paul's benediction only about what happened among the Philippians. For he adds the expansive phrase: "for ever and ever", using the Greek eis tous aionas town aionon, literally, "into the ages of the ages", a powerfully figurative way of saying that something will never end. The praise of God must be an everlasting experience, something that never ceases, as marvelously seen in John's vision of heaven recorded in Revelation 4-5.

Letter Closing and Subscription (4:21-23)

Letters in antiquity typically had closings and subscriptions. Other clear examples are seen in Romans 15:33-16:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-26; 2 Thessalonians 3:16-17. Usually the letter form used this section for final greetings and remarks. Pagan writers abruptly used "good luck" or "farewell". Not Paul. He normally offers a benediction, and in this case, he has two!

In the case of Philippians, Paul mentions nobody's name. Of course, he has mentioned numerous people throughout his letter, and perhaps sees no need to repeat himself here. Paul was no mere imitator of the ancient form but felt free to adapt it as the Spirit led him.

However, the most notable phrase in this section is "those who belong to Caesar's household" send greetings. This phrase alone is sufficient for some scholars to place the letter's composition in Rome where that expression had the most meaning. Who were these people? Witherington, following P.C. Weaver's research, accepts the conclusion that they are "freedmen and slaves in the service of the emperor" (p.135). These served the Emperor directly, and commonly handled his administrative and financial affairs. Interestingly, during the rule of Claudius and Nero, contemporaneously with Paul's ministry, the "household of Caesar" had significant influence, but afterwards lost most of it. That places Paul in the charge of the most powerful group around the Emperor at the time, and, from his own remarks in Philippians 4:22, some of these imperial adjutants are joining with Paul in a greeting the Christians of Philippi, an imperial colony! Some communication may well have existed already between the imperial court and the imperial colony, such that couriers traveled between the two on occasion.

Lightfoot, in his remarks on this passage, directs the reader to Romans 16:3-16 (dated no later than 57 C.E.) where Paul mentions a long list of people in Rome with whom he had acquaintance before his arrival "in chains" (around 61 C.E.), suggesting some of them may well have belonged to this familia Caesaris. This cannot be proven, but no doubt Paul had access to the earlier converts when his Roman house-arrest took place.

Another point of contact with the "household of Caesar" is suggested by Professor Horsley. He notes that in Nero's reign there was an imperial monopoly on "purple dye", its commerce watched closely by the Emperor's officers who were part of the "household of Caesar". If Lydia is a dealer in "purple dye" (see Acts 16), at least as early at the reign of Claudius, this might well place her within the imperial circuit, and her greetings to Philippi would have been entirely expected since Paul originally met her there.

A Benediction
Whereas letters like Paul's would normally end with a simple "farewell", Paul, grounded in solid Hebrew tradition, offers a proper "benediction" which parallels his "doxology" in 4:20. Jesus is given his longer designation: "the Lord" Jesus Christ, which appropriately ends a letter in which Paul has announced the "new citizenship" of the Philippian Christians, and their status as "a colony of heaven". Their Lord is being asked by Paul to pour out his "grace" (charis) on the faith community at Philippi, but especially, that it might impact "their spirit" (meta tou pneumatos humon). In light of the burden Paul carried for the continuing unity and perseverance of the church at Philippi, he no doubt had in mind the many challenges to the "spirit", that is, "the life" of the community. Along with Paul's carefully worded instruction, encouraging the Philippians to live the life of Jesus, Paul now prays down on them the "limitless grace" of God, so that their "life as a community" might be enriched. Remember, "grace" is God's unmerited favor, but it is also His power and provision made available to His people. In his letter to the Ephesians (1:7; 2:7; 3:8) Paul links the grace of God with the "riches of Christ" released within the life of the church. Perhaps the clearest passage in this regard is this one:
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9).
When the grace of God enters the life of the community, it brings with it the riches made possible by the poverty of Christ in his coming to earth. This is, of course, a main theme of Philippians (chapter 2:5-11), and may well have been in Paul's mind when he offered this benediction over them. In any case, Paul's use of it here sweetens the letter still more, where his relationship to the Philippians was a model for others to imitate. Though in chains, nothing of his ardor was dulled when Paul set to the task of composing his letter, aided by those around him, Timothy and Epaphroditus, in its actual inscription. Perhaps, at the last, it was Paul who took up his pen and added this "gracious" benediction, relishing every word with each stroke of his pen, until the final "Amen" with which he wrote one final word: "Let it be so!".

Glory to God! Amen.
Digger Deeper: Cross-Training: Just Live It
(Bob Brown)

To gain a deeper understanding of Cross-Training: Just Live It, carefully read the selected passages below. To aid you in your study, we invite you to visit the website http://notes.chicagofirstnaz.org, or pick up a copy of the notes at the Connect desk, or from your ABF leader. Now consider the following questions, as you ask the Lord to teach you.

Special Note: The Background Notes are especially useful in working through some of these questions. You are encouraged to secure a copy as you begin.

1. Prayerfully read through Philippians 4:1-23. What is the tone and "feel" of this closing chapter? Does it have a different "texture" to it than the previous sections? If so, in what ways. How is it similar in subject matter? Look for words that appear here, but also in chapters 1-3.
2. Label each of the following smaller sections in the chapter: (1) 4:1-3; (2) 4:4-7; (3) 4:8-9; (4) 4:10-13; (5) 4:14-20; (6) 4:21-23.
3. There is a problem between Euodia and Syntyche. How does Paul approach resolving their conflict? How important are other people in this process of reconciliation?
4. What might have caused the Philippians "anxiety" as described in 4:6? What is Paul's counsel for relieving it? What "guards" their hearts? How important was "peace" in the Roman Empire? How does this peace differ?
5. If 4:8-9 was Paul's "Book of Virtues" for the Philippians, why do you suppose he chose these virtues? Refer to the Background Notes on this section, and read examples of other "lists" like this one? What do you discover by comparing them?
6. Try to offer a brief definition of each "virtue" in the list.
7. What promise does Paul give the Philippians if they apply these virtues to their lives? Does this sound similar to 4:7? Why does he offer himself as an example? How important are examples of "godly Christians"? Who has had an influence in your life?
8. Write a brief essay (or jot down some ideas) on the subject: "Paul and His Needs", based on 4:10-13. Do the same for "(Your Name) and My Needs". What guidance does Paul offer?
9. "Finances at Philippi" could be the title of 4:14-19. What does Paul think of the Philippians' accounting practices? In what ways does this help us think through "finances in the church"?
10. What do you call 4:20? Why does Paul say "my God"?
11. What group of people listed in Paul's greetings surprises you? Refer to the Background Notes on this section, and think about the opportunities Paul had, even though he was "in chains".
12. What do you call 4:23? Compare this with other similar passages in Romans 15:33-16:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-26; 2 Thessalonians 3:16-17. What purpose does this form of "closing" seem to have in Paul's letters? What special purpose does it serve in the book of Philippians?

Cross-Training: Philippians 3, Just Win

Just Win It
Cross-Training
Studies in Paul's Letter to the Philippians
February 9/10, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
Cross-Training: Just Win It
(Robert Ismon Brown)

Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: Philippians 3:1-21
(NIV) Philippians 3:1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh-- 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. 15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

17 Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 18 For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Introduction
As we have already seen in our previous studies, Paul's letter to the Philippians is written from Rome while he is under house arrest. Because of his close personal relationship with the Philippians, they have expressed deep concern over his situation and sent one of their own, Epaphroditus, to check up on Paul's condition. At enormous personal risk, their messenger served Paul's needs, nearly succumbing to a severe illness in the process. During his time in Rome, Paul has learned about stress fractures forming in the life of the otherwise wonderfully generous community at Philippi. Suffering and conflict, some of it due to the highly stratified nature of Philippian society, and some of it due to internal problems, prompt Paul to pen Philippians and send it back with Epaphroditus and Timothy, his protégé. Using the personal form of a letter, and also framing his arguments in the familiar style of a public speaker (rhetoric), Paul makes his arguments to the Philippians in an effort to preserve their unity and encourage them in the face of suffering. Our last study focused on 2:1-30 in which Paul began the probatio section of his rhetorical appeal, namely, the "arguments" phase.

We now see him continuing the probatio, adding yet one more argument to his appeal. In this case, he shifts away from what is happening inside the Philippian community and looks at the external factors. Among these are an unnamed group of false teachers who have already made inroads into Paul's churches in other cities, but apparently now threaten the spiritual stability of the Philippians. In order to counter their influence, Paul makes a series of statements in support of this argument against them. He calls upon the Philippians to consider his reasons, and then submits the whole matter to God's leading in their lives. One passage especially illustrates Paul's open-handed approach, and his willingness to let God persuade them:
All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you (Philippians 3:15)
As we explore this new section of Philippians, the following outline will help organize our thoughts.

General Outline of 3:1-21 Probatio (II)
Argument Three: Watch Out for the Dogs (3:1-21)
1. The Flesh is Not Reliable: Contra Judaism (3:1-6)
2. Christ the Supreme Value: Contra Tradition (3:7-11)
3. The Goal Still Lies Ahead: Contra Perfectionism (3:12-16)
4. The New Citizenship: Contra Enemies of the Cross (3:17-21)

Argument Three: Watch Out for The Dogs (3:1-21)

1. The Flesh is Not Reliable: Contra Judaism (3:1-6)
As Paul opens this, his third argument, he uses the Greek phrase to loipon. Many translations, including the NIV, handle this as "finally". The NLT says "whatever happens". Witherington's commentary uses "Well, then…" The older Tyndale version (1534) reads "moreover", and may well be closer to the meaning than "finally". Greek writers often used the phrase to simply introduce a new section, and Paul uses it this way in 1 Thessalonians 4:1 and 2 Thessalonians 3:1, as do New Testament writers elsewhere. We could easily translate it with "the remaining" or "here's what's left to say". The key idea is that Paul is not yet finished, and this marks a fresh point in the progression of his thought. Perhaps he's looking for their indulgence when he addresses them as "my brothers", and he will need their open receptivity when he starts writing about some very heavy subjects. He certainly wants them to maintain their overall attitude of "joy" when he writes this new material. And so he says chairete en kurio, "keep on rejoicing in the Lord".
Joy: a brief explanation. The Philippian letter is saturated with references to "joy". Consider its noun form (chara):
1:4
In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy
1:25
Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith…
1:26
…so that through my being with you again your joy in Christ Jesus will overflow on account of me.
2:2
…then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.
2:29
Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him…
4:1
Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends!

It's verb form (chairpo):
1:18
But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,
2:17
But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.
2:18
So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.
2:28
Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety.
3:1
Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.
4:4
Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!
4:10
I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it.

The idea of "joy" seems to have been new to the culture of Philippi, but was certainly not new to the Hebrew people. Two Hebrew words regularly express the idea: simchah=mirth, gladness and gil=rejoicing. These are vivid words communicating ideas of "to shine" or "to be bright", along with the notion of activity or motion. The Old Testament reveals a deep-seated heart-felt feeling which appears commonly in the Psalms. In those passages joy rises from a person's relationship with God (see Psalm 16:11; 51:12). Meditation on the person of God, that is, thinking about "who God is", leads to joy (Psalm 48:11 and Psalm 97). But this was not limited to just individuals. The whole nation was exuberant through shouting, singing, jumping and dancing. When the prophets wrote about salvation and deliverance, this was their word (Isaiah 49:13; 61:10f). God Himself experiences joy in what He does (Psalm 104:31) and in the success of His people (Deuteronomy 30:9). One prominent theme is found in Nehemiah 8:10 which affirms: "The joy of Yahweh is my strength". Another key passage promises: "For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may remain for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning" (Psalm 30:5).

Among Jewish thinkers prior to the New Testament period, joy belongs to a future time as well in conjunction with the arrival of Yahweh's Messiah. Thus we read about the joy of the Messianic Feast when Yahweh would fulfill his promises to the whole world through His people Israel. Passages like this one inspired such an expectation: "..then you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob." The mouth of the LORD has spoken.." (Isaiah 58:14). And later on, Jesus would give support to such a banquet with these words: "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 8:11). When Jesus provided wine for the wedding feast at Cana, he was confirming his role as the bringer of the Messianic feast, and with it, the joy of Yahweh.

The writer to the Hebrews uses the word "joy" in this way:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:1-2).
Joy, in this case, referred to the coming resurrection of Jesus which he would experience after his suffering and death on the cross. When Paul, in our Philippians' passage, says "Rejoice in the Lord", he asks his audience to fasten their eyes on Jesus who fully intends to bring their lives to completion, even as he, Jesus, was brought to completion in his resurrection.

Perhaps among the Old Testament texts, this one comes closest to Paul's usage:
3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. 4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart. 5 Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this: 6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun (Psalm 37:3-6)

With this material as background, Paul sees in Jesus the Messiah, or as he calls him, Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the coming joy. What Israel awaited at the "end of days", had now dawned in Paul's own time. As Paul traveled throughout the Roman Empire, proclaiming the message of Jesus the Messiah to the Gentiles, he was, in effect, issuing the invitation for all nations to come to the Messianic Feast. In do doing, Paul was filled with "joy" and this joy sustained him in his work. To the Philippians he writes the same encouragement: "rejoice in the Lord", using the Greek present imperative to emphasize the ongoing and consistent practice of being joyful. This joy is to be grounded en kurio, "in the Lord". Kurios is a powerful term in the Roman world, for it was the way people thought of their Emperor, Caesar. But Paul, who was a Roman citizen in his own right, only recognizes "one Lord", and that is Jesus Christ. It is only natural for him to ask the Philippians to anchor their joy in the Lord Jesus Christ, since he is supreme over all, master of everything, and the one before whom all will one day bow (recall Philippians 2:5-11).

Paul tells his readers that the "writing" of this letter, along with its carefully worded arguments, is not something he does reluctantly or with hesitation. The Greek word, okneo, literally means "shrink from doing, hesitate, hang back". None of these actions tempt Paul who is determined to reinforce his arguments, calling for unity and encouraging joy in suffering. Even if Paul must "repeat himself" ("write the same things"), he does so out of deep concern for the well-being of the Philippians. What's at stake for the Philippians? Paul makes clear it is their "safety" (Greek: asphales). This word has additional connotations of "not liable to fall, immoveable, steadfast, firm, unfaltering, assured from danger, secure, convinced". Perhaps this last meaning has the most relevance to Paul's approach: he is using the rhetorical form and spares no effort in making a convincing argument to the Philippians, one that they can embrace with confidence.

So far Paul has been directing his comments to the Philippians about Philippian matters: unity, suffering and joy. However, the focus now shifts to what could well be called "riskier matters", since Paul warns about dangers from outside the Philippian community. He will shortly identify these threats as false teachers whose own rhetoric threatens to undermine the Gospel and the spiritual well-being of his audience.

In 2:2, the tone of Paul's letter suddenly changes as he issues three distinct warnings, each beginning with the word blepete. This word for "watch" can mean simply "look or see", but when combined with an object that portends danger, it normally has this other meaning of "warn". The three instances of this warning climax with what amounts to clear identification of the imminent threat. He simply calls this outside group: "the down-cutters", an uncamouflaged reference to the Jewish circumcision teachers, presumably with Christian credentials, who threaten to sidetrack the Philippians from the pure teaching of the Gospel. Scholars sometimes use the word "Judaizers" to label them. Paul had, early on, encountered such teachers, and he wrote at length about their false ideas in his letter to the Galatians, but makes frequent allusions to their presence in such churches as Corinth and Rome as well. They were certainly active in Jerusalem.

Comments on the meaning of "Judaizers". From such texts as 2 Corinthians 11:13 we learn of certain "deceitful workmen" who oppose Paul's efforts. Itinerant missionaries (2 Corinthians 11:22), they challenge Paul's presentation of the Gospel, and insist that circumcision must be enforced on Gentile Christians to make them "complete Christians" (see Acts 15:1). Paul's strongest opposition is found in places like Galatians 5:2. Scholars debate whether they were Jewish or Jewish Christians. In either case, they required the external sign of circumcision to be performed on all Gentile converts, whether to Judaism or to Jesus. Along with this stipulation, they also maintained orthodox adherence to the food codes, Sabbath, and other matters deemed indicative of true covenant faith in Yahweh. In practice, they had a theology of Jesus plus a very specific interpretation of Torah which included these additional rituals. In Paul's eyes, this was a sell-out of the Jesus message, and he opposed it, as he does in the present Philippian passage.

1. tous kunas: "watch out for the dogs!" Ironically, strict, orthodox Jews called the Gentiles "dogs", and the Gentiles knew that Jews thought of them in this way. During his own ministry, Jesus encountered a Gentile woman, and they had the following exchange: "25 The woman came and knelt before him. Lord, help me!' she said. 26 He replied, 'It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.' 27 'Yes, Lord,' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' 28 Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith!'" (Matthew 15:25-28). This interplay on the word "dogs" occurred in a context where the word was commonly applied by the Jews to people like the woman. Jesus, intentionally sparred with her, no doubt for the benefit of those listening, and elicits from her a plain recognition that she, a Gentile, needs to be fed by Jesus just like the Jews. In her case, it meant the healing of her child.That being said, when Paul speaks of the false teachers as "dogs", he is purposefully turning the tables on normal usage and calls the Jewish teachers "dogs", a designation he will now need to explain. Dogs in the Graeco-Roman world, and within Judaism, were not particularly well thought of. Unlike domestic canines who make family pets today, dogs in Paul's day were essentially scavengers disposing of refuse, and were regarded as "unclean animals", carriers of disease. Even Revelation 22:15 speaks of the New City of God which appears as part of the New Creation as being devoid of dogs. Thus, the teachers Paul identifies are treated as religious scavengers, opportunists who follow Paul and other Christian missionaries around, trying to cash in on the progress of the Gospel made among the Gentiles.
2. tous kakousergatas: "watch out for the evil workers!" This further designation implies they are actually doing harm in Paul's churches. More than just a minor annoyance, like the individuals mentioned in Philippians 1 who simply want to make Paul feel bad, these teachers are damaging the unity and faith of the Christ-followers wherever they show up. Divisive, coercive, manipulative, opportunistic, they lead people astray, and Paul cannot allow their "work" to proceed unopposed.
3. tous katatomen: "watch out for the down-cutters!". Here, of course, Paul makes his identification of the false teachers, but he doesn't use the normal word for circumcision, peritome, but this other word instead. This is an intentional wordplay. The root word is tome, which means a "cutting". During the rite of Jewish circumcision, called a bris, the foreskin of the male is "cut around", thus removing it. The procedure requires skill, and is usually done by a "Mohel" who is experienced in the delicate procedure. Paul's objections are not to the rite of circumcision itself, but to the zealous demand made by these teachers that it must be done to Gentile converts. We might say, Paul saw their interest in circumcision as "obsessive", almost to the extreme. And so he co-opts a different word: katatome, same root, but with the pronoun meaning "down", a not-to-gentle expression which usually gets translated "mutilators of the flesh". We might even translate it as "the choppers" or "the butchers"! While Paul no doubt meant this in the graphic sense of the word, he clearly wanted his audience to see how the reckless and ruthless application of this rite was "mutilating" the unity and joy of the Christians at Philippi.

Intentionally setting the word katatome in contrast to what Paul advocated, Paul begins 3:3 with the conjunction "for" (gar) and then calls himself and his co-workers, he peritome, "the circumcision", that is, "we are Jewish, sons of the covenant", but with a remarkable difference. Not circumcision "in the flesh", but hoi pneumati theou, that is, "the [circumcision] ones in the Spirit of God". Though the Greek is a bit rough here, our English translation might simply be: "circumcision, in the Holy Spirit sense". Those who practice and insist on this ritual to complete Gentile conversion are the "choppers", but we practice spiritual circumcision instead. This, of course, might require some explanation, but Paul forges ahead with two present participial phrases:

"worshipping" (latreuontes)
"in Christ Jesus" (en Christo Iesou)
"and not placing confidence in the flesh"
(kai ouk en sarki pepoithotes)
"boasting" (kauxomenoi)

Our identity, writes Paul, lies not "in the flesh" (en sarki, from the root, sarx), but originates from being "in the Spirit" (en pneumat). Because we are in the "realm of the Spirit", that is, in "the kingdom of God", we do not rely on "the flesh" to accomplish God's work. People who insist on the outward, ritualized sign of circumcision, are plainly relying on the "flesh", and not on the "Spirit". Herein lies the real heart of Paul's argument which stretches from 3:1 through 3:21. It is why Paul calls these false teachers "dogs", because they have an obsession with "the flesh", scavengers of the flesh. A few words about the word "flesh" as it is used in the Bible:
Neither Hebrew nor Christian thought saw body and spirit as in direct conflict with each other. Greek culture tended to view the body as inferior to the spirit. Socrates and Plato called the body the "prison of the soul", and counseled that philosophy was the "study of death", that is, the getting rid of the body. Nothing like this appears in the Bible. The body is usually called soma in the Greek New Testament, a different word from the term sarx which appears in Paul's letters. When Paul uses soma, "body", he does not give it a negative meaning at all, but when he uses sarx he sees a very different idea. "Flesh" (sarx) is the human person in his entirety viewed as weak, frail, and damaged by sin. This is wholly consistent with the Old Testament understanding of human beings as fragile (see Isaiah 40:6, compared 1 Peter 1:24). Jesus affirmed that the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:41), while the spirit is willing. So Paul sees the flesh as weak (Romans 8:3), and if we choose to live by its power we will "die" (Romans 8:13). Through Romans 8, Paul consistently contrasts life in the flesh with life in the Spirit, and he does so observing the same distinctions we see in Philippians.

By using the word "worship (or, possibly, serve)" in Philippians 3:3, he is consciously borrowing language from the rituals of Judaism. Paul preached a new worship and a new service to God, one that was not dependent on the external rituals of Second Temple Judaism, with its insistence on the woodenly "literal" application of Torah to human life. Compare a passage like Romans 12:1-2 with the present one, and you will notice how Paul calls on Christians to offer their "whole bodies" as sacrifices to God, an act he calls "reasonable worship (or service)", using the same root word, latreia, to do so. This is very similar to Jesus' words to the Samaritan women in John 4, where he tells her that true worship is not about physical space, but about "Spirit and truth". One can only imagine how Paul's audience could have been affected by the Judaizers who want to replace "Spirit-led worship (and service)" with "flesh-led worship (and service)". "Dogs!", Paul says of this attempt to compromise sincere faith with external ritual. Nor did Paul invent this notion, since the Old Testament already looked forward to a day when external ritual would be replaced by inward, Spirit-based worship:
"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh-- 26 … the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart (Jeremiah 9:25-26).
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19).
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Paul seizes this deeper meaning of circumcision when he writes:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Romans 2:29).
Notice the contrast: inward, heart, spirit vs. "the letter", that is, "the woodenly literally meaning of". And further Paul affirms:
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the flesh, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ (Colossians 2:11).

When Paul speaks of circumcision in terms of "the flesh", he understands it as a thing done by a human being to another human being, a ritual which becomes a badge of honor for some human achievement. That is why in the Romans 2:29 passage above he refers to "praise" that "is not of men, but of God". And it is this that Paul means when he uses his second participial phrase in Philippians 3:3" "boasting". Once more, Paul identifies the threat posed by the false teachers: they encourage an empty "boast" in religious achievement, rather than a trusting confidence in God's gracious work of salvation. This is not a new idea for Paul who addresses the problem elsewhere in his letters (see 1 Corinthians 1:26-31; Romans 4:2; 3:27; Galatians 6:13-14; Ephesians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 3:21--this one is especially sharp: "no more boasting about men"!) Pride remained a constant temptation for the Christ followers. The Corinthian Christians suffered from a large dose of it, as the texts cited above indicate. Paul wants to spare his Philippian brothers and sisters from the incursion of such thinking, after all they were already grappling with issues of unity provoked by internal matters, they surely did not need threats from the outside compounding their difficulty!

When Paul writes about "boasting", he does so from personal experience. This train of thought is introduced in 3:4 with Paul's rhetorical "boast" that if anybody might have confidence "in the flesh", that is, in achievements based on self-reliance, he could make that claim. Following the natural word order, the text reads: "Even though I am having confidence also in the flesh, if any one seems to be another to have confidence in the flesh, I am more." What's Paul saying? As a Jew Paul knew that practicing his religion involved an implicit competition with other like-minded Jews. Paul's use of the word "other" is carefully orchestrated in this verse. The Greek has allos, "other of the same kind", not heteros, "other of a different kind". It's as if Paul is saying, I am confident that my evidence for being a good Jew can't be matched by any other Jew. This word "confidence" seems to assume the meaning "persuasion" when used in this context, a use consistent with the form of Paul's rhetorical argument found through the Philippian letter, as we have seen. "Want to go head-to-head as a Torah-observant Jew? Bring it on! I'll take you in one round!"

Paul’s Judaism was rooted in trying to prove something about himself. And his credentials were impressive (3:5-6):
1. “circumcised the eighth day”. Literally, “with respect to circumcision, an 8th day guy”, focusing on the original nature of his entrance into Judaism. He was no convert, that is, no proselyte)
2. “people of ‘Israel’”. His racial distinctiveness as an Israelite meant he was a genuine descendent of the covenant people, and as such, better than someone who became part of Israel in some other way. All the rights and privileges of Judaism were his. Recall that Yahweh changed Jacob’s name to “Israel” in conjunction with his “wrestling with the angel” as recorded in Genesis 32:22-32, a name which means “the one who prevails with God”. It is a “mighty name”. Paul saw himself belonging to a people with a “mighty name”.!
3. “tribe of Benjamin”. This tribe had prominence in Israel’s history, named after Joseph’s brother and only other son of Rachel, wife of Jacob (Israel). The first king, Saul (our writer’s namesake!), came from this tribe. Benjamin, as a tribe, was valiant in battle, loyal to the house of David, participated in the return from Babylonian Exile, and joined with Judah in forming the new kingdom of Israel. Technically, Jerusalem and the Temple lay within Benjamin’s boundaries (see Judges 1:21). Paul took great delight in his tribal membership, no doubt seeing himself as strong, courageous, pure and loyal, as were his ancestors.
4. “Hebrew of the Hebrews”. Although Paul was born in Tarsus, outside the borders of Israel, he claimed pure Hebrew ancestry, traceable to many previous generations,as this phrase implies. No Gentile blood in these veins, he seems to be saying! And while he spoke and wrote Greek, he did not adopt the Hellenistic culture of the Roman Empire, but was educated in Hebrew ways (see Acts 21:40, 22:2-3, 23:6, 26:4-5 for Paul’s thorough Hebrew orientation), and resisted the encroachment of pagans and paganism.
Items 1-4 above were obviously due to the providence of God, and not to Paul’s own choices. Still, Paul sees divine favor in each one. He might easily have said, “I was privileged…” But now Paul writes of his own accomplishments. "So what did I, a good Jew, with solid pedigree, do with my endowments?"
5. “a Pharisee in his interpretation of Torah”. Although Paul was educated by Gamaliel (see Acts 23:6, 5:34, 22:3, Galatians 1:14), the more liberal of the Pharisee rabbis, his inclination was clearly toward Shammai who meticulously interpreted Torah according to the strictest oral traditions. Such Pharisees were not leaders of the official thought police who simply wanted to control people’s lives for their own pleasure. Instead, they understood the reasons for Israel’s present bad condition as due to a failure to keep Torah perfectly. If Israel would turn in purity (that is, Torah-purity) back to Yahweh, forgiveness and deliverance would eventually come. But it depended on what they, Torah-aware Israel, could accomplish. Paul gladly put himself in this camp.
6. “zealous in persecuting the church”. And to be in this camp meant opposing any movement which might undermine it. The Jesus movement was perceived as such a threat. Paul, along with his peers, would have know what Jesus taught and did, and how tax collectors, harlots, and “other sinners” sat at his table. Good Pharisees in Paul’s tradition could not tolerate such contamination of “pure Judaism”. And when the deacon, Stephen, offered his sermon (recorded in Acts 7), Paul could not have missed the fact that Stephen was a proselyte to Judaism who had turned to the Jesus movement. “That’s what happens,” Paul no doubt thought, “when you make compromises with paganism. You end up with people like Stephen who go even farther in their hob-knobbing with these Nazarenes.” And so Paul swears himself to the rooting out of Jesus-followers (Acts 8:1), culminating in his visionary encounter with the risen Jesus, which changed the course of his life. “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,” the voice from heaven replies to Paul’s inquiry (Acts 9:5). “Zeal” is, by all accounts, a tricky business. Directed for the greater purposes of God, it is a mark of commitment. But inflamed by hatred and fueled by self-interest, zeal becomes a deadly weapon in the religious arsenal. Witness the movement which in later Judaism took up the name “Zealot”, and led Israel to its terrifying defeat in 70, 73, and 135 C.E. See Paul’s further remarks in 1 Corinthians 15:9, Acts 22:2-5, 26:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:13. Also, the Old Testament recognized a positive spin on “zeal”, as seen in Numbers 25:1-18, Psalm 106:30, 1 Kings 19:10-14, Psalm 69:9). Perhaps the most famous “men of zeal” were the Maccabees who defeated the Syrians and restored the Hasmonean Kingdom of Judah for nearly one hundred years before the Romans stepped in. The Pharisees saw these valiant “freedom fighters” as their true forebears.
7. “faultless in Torah-righteousness as interpreted by his tradition”. Pride and diligence led Paul to claim that he was “blameless” (Greek: amemptos) vis-à-vis Torah. Paul’s assertion finds parallels in the rich young ruler met by Jesus in Luke 18:21. He qualified as “righteousness achiever” insofar as his own tradition saw him. The “great rabbis” had distilled Torah instruction down to the 613 mitzvot (commandments). (The readers are encouraged to access the following link where one version of this list can be found: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm). To be “righteous” in relationship to such a list simply meant you can check off the items you have obeyed. Is Torah more than such a list? For Jesus, the answer was clearly, yes! For Paul, before he met Jesus, the list was a source of comfort that he had met the requirements for “righteousness” (Hebrew: tzedaqah, “righteousness”, “blameless behavior”, “justice”, “what is reliable”, “godliness”, “salvation”; Greek: dikaiosune). Righteousness, on these terms, was an “achievement” which, under the right circumstances, could bring the kingdom of God near to Israel. As a “righteousness achiever” Paul saw himself as contributing to that end.

2. Christ the Supreme Value: Contra Tradition (3:7-11)

Paul begins 3:7 with the words, "But whatever was to my profit", literally, "but whatever was to me a gain (Greek: kerde, "gain", "advantage", "a win"). All of the things that belonged to Paul's "confidence in the flesh", the things that gave him such certainty as a righteous Jew, are swept away. They became, not assets, but liabilities in the accounting book of the kingdom. What once made Paul proud and self-reliant, he takes as a catastrophic loss. The language of this passage is overwhelmingly from the world of accounting as Rabbis would have seen it. Even the word hegeisthai, translated "count" or "consider" is consistent with this meaning. Whatever Paul "accounted" as enhancing his own value to God and to the nation, he even now decisively regards as bringing no value whatever to either. Though the list Paul gave us had many items on it, Paul uses the singular form of the noun, zemia, to consign them to the trash bin. In fact, the noun used here comes from the verb, zemioo, meaning "to affect with damage, do damage to, suffer loss, sustain damage, receive injury". Had Paul used our vernacular, he might have written, "Whatever I thought enhanced my life took a real blow one day." No doubt, Paul had in mind his own encounter with the risen Jesus who "called him out" that day (Acts 9) as a persecutor, not merely of his followers, but of himself. None of what Paul thought he was accomplishing actually amounted to anything, he now recognizes.

But Paul can't be faulted for trying. His efforts were zealous and in accordance with the most devout tenants of Judaism. Yet, it was all he knew; he knew nothing more; he didn't know anything better. Until… Much like the first disciples who heard Jesus' words: "deny yourself", "take up your cross"--there's something so much better "to follow"! The "whole world" cannot enhance the soul, Jesus said. And Paul discovered as much when he writes here, "Whatever was to my profit…" Paul's rejection of his former way of life came at the insistence of the Lord Jesus Christ. As he writes in 3:8, by "comparing" the old "gains" with the new ones, namely with "knowing Christ", the decision to let go of the old is, to use our slang, "a no-brainer". The Greek words are powerful: huperechon tes gnoseos Christos Iesou tou kuriou mou, literally, "the superiority of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord…" While Paul "knew" Torah through the lens of rabbinic interpretation, and oral tradition, and while he "knew" a kind of righteousness which qualified itself in self-approving ways, all of that pales in the presence of the "superior knowledge" (Greek: gnosis) found in having the Messiah Jesus as his Lord. Given the choice, so keenly set out for him that day on the road to Damascus, Paul came to choose the knowledge of a person to the knowledge of a tradition. So much so, that Paul will call his previous "benefits" skubala, "manure, dung, excrement".

On the road to Damascus that day, Paul died to himself, though at first he knew little of what that actually meant. His eyes covered with blindness, and his mind disoriented, others had to lead him to shelter and provisions. For once, he would be dependent on others for the blessings of God--such as his sight! And in this Philippians passage, Paul reflects on the meaning of all that and then makes clear his newly embraced vocation: "that I may gain Christ" (3:8b). Did he lose his life that day? Absolutely, letting go of the only life he knew, the life in Judaism with all of its assured benefits and grand dreams. This was no small scuttling of baggage, but the accumulated achievement of a lifetime. The whole world looked different to Paul. Even the Scriptures looked different. They ceased to be proof-texts for his dearly-held doctrine and became living words pointing to God's Messiah who had finally arrived. Paul might well have accepted Luther's assessment, made centuries later, "The Old Testament is the manger where the Christ-child is laid". Manger indeed! The Pharisee who once found solace in his chosen-ness, now finds a new identity in the words "gain Christ", and "be found in him, not having my own righteousness, the one derived from law-in-itself, but the one derived from God, righteousness [standing] on faith" (3:9).

What does it mean to "be found in" Christ? The Greek word, heurisko, translated here as "found", has meanings which include: "to find, to find out, discover, devise, intent, make, get, gain, procure, bring, fetch". Paul uses the word in its passive sense, "to be found", along with the preposition en, "in". Whereas, Paul earlier wrote about letting go of everything "for the sake of Christ" (3:7), to "know Christ" (3:8a), to "gain Christ" (8b), in this instance, he wants to be "found in Christ" (3:9). New Testament scholar, Preisker, in his lexical entry on this word, comments:
…its reference is predominantly to the surprising discovery and mysterious understanding of human existence and historical occurrence in their hidden relationships as seen from the standpoint of and with an ultimate view to the kingdom of God [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, II, p.769]
In other words, Paul made a startling discovery that all attempts to save himself were doomed to fail, but without warning, God showed up one day and turned his world upside-down, and changed the way he thought about things, especially, about himself. In Jesus, God's Messiah, Lord of all things, the kingdom of God had arrived at last, and, wonder of wonders, Paul woke up one day living inside that kingdom! It was all so unexpected and unplanned from Paul's perspective. Everything he had attempted had to be thrown out. Christ was Paul's great and magnificent discovery! And having "found Christ", Paul at last had found himself. Not the old self, rooted as it was in religious piety, well-intentioned though it was, but in real righteousness. This, then, is the rich meaning of heurisko--the discovery of the unexpected: the discovery of Christ, not as Paul imagined him, but as God revealed him. Not arriving in power and majesty, but hanging on a cross.

But Paul is not yet finished telling his readers about his upside-down discovery, his holy heuriskon. Paul's self has changed residence. He is no longer living in his own neighborhood but in the kingdom of Christ instead. "Righteousness" is no longer something that he trots out to show off his achievements, but rather is God's declaration, in Christ, of his acceptance as one of God's people. Righteousness is not something "I possess", rather it is something with which I am blessed by God in Christ. Two kinds of righteousness are contrasted: "my own" as an achievement, attracting the favor of God; and "on faith" as the gift of the faithful God. When Paul speaks about "faith" (Greek: pistis), he is not so much naming yet one more thing that he does, but rather, what God is faithful in doing for him. This is a righteousness growing from the new-found relationship Paul has with Christ, a relationship described earlier, as the "knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord".

By all accounts Paul has died to his old way of being righteous, that is, of being accepted as one of the people of God. It's not about circumcision or birthright or separation from the pagan world or achievement under Torah. Quite the opposite (or, as we would put it, quite upside-down from all of that!), in place of this, Paul discovers a new kind of identity, the sort given to him by Christ himself. Recall his conversation with the risen, exalted Jesus on the road to Damascus [Note: There are four accounts of Paul’s conversion: Galatians 1:15-17 (from Paul himself); Acts 9:1-19 (Luke relating Paul's experience); Acts 22:2b-16 (Luke relating Paul's telling of his conversion to the crowd in Jerusalem); Acts 26:9-18 (Luke relating Paul's telling of his conversion to Agrippa). There are also allusions to Paul's conversion in Galatians 1:11-12; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8. You are encouraged to reader each of these and think about the implications for our study here]. During that exchange with Jesus, Paul gets a new commission: to bring the Gospel to the pagan world, that is, to Gentiles, the hated goyim. Nothing could have been more off the beaten path for this set-in-his-ways Pharisee, bent on purifying Judaism of its paganism. With his fresh vocation, Paul had to let go of all of that. "You are," Jesus was telling Paul, "my servant and witness to the Gentiles. Everything else amounts to nothing compared to this vocation." An undiscovered life lay before him, and the old life was laid in its grave at the cross of the risen Christ. Life would not be the same for Paul ever again.

But now we move to the finale of our present passage, 3:10-11. Paul ended 4:9 with the words, "the from-God-righteousness on the faith" (my literal rendering of the Greek). He has just contrasted "his own" version of this righteousness with the "from-God-on-the-faith" version. But the sentence does not end there, and, unfortunately, our translators give the impression that Paul picks up a new thought with 4:10. He does not, but, instead, continues this one. The Greek of 3:10 begins with the genitive form of the article "the", followed by the infinitive "to know". This roughly translates as "of (or for) the knowing of", implying purpose, a common grammatical form in the New Testament. In addition, the form of the verb "to know" is in the aorist tense, likely the variety of aorist which "sums up the action" at the point it begins, a sort of "crisis event". What is Paul trying to tell us by this maze of linguistic twists?

We have already heard Paul tell us that Christ has turned out to be the greatest discovery of his life. That in Christ, he has had a major shakeup of his personal values. Nothing looks the same anymore. Nothing matters that once mattered. Paul has reached a crisis of knowledge with the result that coming to know Christ matters more than anything else. It's as if Paul has walked through a hidden door (like the one in C.S. Lewis' wardrobe!), and a whole new world suddenly comes into view on the other side. This world is ruled by a different kind of righteousness, a different kind of "order", than the one he left behind. In this new world, Christ Jesus is Lord--he is God ruling over all things, and Paul has met him face-to-face. What follows in Philippians 3:10-11 is a further explanation of what it means for Paul to be "found in Christ".

Paul gathers up everything he says in 3:10-11 in the word for "to know" or, as we have suggested, "to come to know", a crisis of knowing. This "knowledge of Christ is personal and relational", Gerald Hawthorne writes in his commentary on Philippians (Word Biblical Commentary, 43, p.143). The focus is on "understanding", coupled with experience and even intimacy. This is not mere intellectual knowledge of the sort Paul would have known in his rabbinic training. Much of that has been left behind as useless to his pursuit of this new righteousness. The current adage that it's not "what you know" but "whom you know" might be re-baptized in this context to mean that knowledge is not impersonal and entirely objective, but verges on the subjective and highly inter-personal. Some readers might cringe at this, thinking that Paul is advocating some form of relativistic truth. If by "relativistic" we mean "without proper grounding or confirmation", Paul certainly is not intending that. But if we mean "relative" in the sense that it pertains to a "relationship" with God through Christ--most certainly that is Paul's "understanding". Again, Hawthorne: "…he is thinking about a personal encounter with Christ that inaugurates a special intimacy with Christ that is life-changing and on-going" (p.143). The reader is invited to study these texts which shed more light on that idea of "knowing God": John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 2:8, 1 John 2:3-4, 4:8, 5:20.

What is the content of this "knowing"? Paul identifies a few key components:
"the power (Greek: dunamis) of the resurrection of him"
"the fellowship of his sufferings"
"conformed to his death"
"attaining the resurrection out from the dead"

Notice that Paul wants to know Christ in precisely these ways. And, also, that in knowing him in these ways, Paul comes to know himself in a way he has not known before. This knowing causes something to happen to Paul. Once again, the sort of knowledge Paul seeks is not something that he acquires and can neatly catalogue into his lists of "gains", as part of his repertoire of achievements. While Paul certainly believed in the Jesus of history, it was not merely the facts about Jesus that Paul wanted to input into his information store. Nor does he claim such knowledge as an advantage he now holds over other people, giving him a head-start on some newly discovered righteousness that will move him to the head of the line in the kingdom of God. Not at all. Paul wants to know Christ as the living One who is even now delivering him from his self-centeredness, converting him from the old way to the new way of life, gifting him to serve others by the Holy Spirit, and resurrecting him from death to life.

But having put the best foot forward in seeking the "power of Christ's resurrection", Paul honestly admits that the road to resurrection lies by the way of the cross. So then he speaks of the "fellowship" (from the Greek: koinonia, "the shared-ness"; notice the word "coin" embedded in that term--a thing stamped from the same mold) of Christ's sufferings (Greek: pathematon, from which comes our English "pathos", entailing intense feelings, in this case, pain). Such koinonia implies "participation" in something. Paul does not seek his own sufferings here, but those of Christ. He wants the divinely appointed suffering of Christ himself to become his own, that is, Paul wants to "die with Christ", a theme he develops elsewhere in his letters (see Colossians 1:24, Romans 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 4:7-11, Romans 6:4-11; Galatians 2:19-20). This last passage warrants re-printing here:
19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:19-20)
For Paul, the sufferings of Christ are not something he must imitate, but rather are realities he wants to experience. That is, these are not Paul's sufferings, but instead are Christ's sufferings being made real in his own life. The suffering Christ wields power in his sufferings, since through them he defeats sin and conquers the selfishness in human life. Paul wants that experience in his own life. In fact in writes elsewhere that he "dies daily" (1 Corinthians 15:31).

And not just the sufferings, but their outcome as well--namely, in death. "becoming like him in his death", the NIV translates this last phrase in 3:10. The Greek reads, summorphizomenois to thanto autou. The first word is unique in the New Testament and simply means, "to conform oneself, to make oneself like". Paul favors words beginning with sum- because they emphasize the idea of "together-ness", "oneness with", a thought he has already given us in the word koinonia. Classical Greek used the stem of this word, morphizo, to express, in one of its meanings, the idea of "give shape to", or "form by means of". What Paul seems to be saying here is that he wants the sufferings and death of Christ to be something he shares so that they together might give shape to his life. Imagine that! Until he met Christ, the thought of further suffering brought chills to the spiritual spines of Jewish people. They rejected the thought of a suffering Messiah as an indignity against the whole nation, an insult to its national pride. Lord knows, they thought, we've had our share of failed Messiahs. There is no way we want this one, this "suffering one". Paul's view of that was turned upside-down, and now he sees the suffering and dying Jesus as something that ought to shape his own life. Each life experience he encounters should be shaped by the suffering, dying Jesus. Each decision he makes; each thought he has; each response to his fellow human beings--should be shaped by this knowledge of the Jesus who suffered and died.

However, Paul does not end there. He is not a Stoic who simply accepts his painful lot in life. Beyond the suffering and death, Paul reaches further, even as he began 3:10-11: "if, somehow, I might arrive (Greek: katantao, "to arrive, come to", perhaps of a place "opposite to" where one is now; forms of this exist in Classical Greek which mean "downhill", "right opposite") at the resurrection, "the one out of the dead". What is Paul saying? Simply, that prior to discovering Christ, he was in a certain place, but once Christ entered his life, he was in another place. This new place was pregnant with possibilities, namely, the promise of new life, the kind Jewish people only spoke about when they mentioned the resurrection at the end of days. But things have changed. This resurrection is even now a real possibility, but to arrive at it, we must pass through Christ's sufferings and death. In fact, allowing those to shape our lives is the only way we can "arrive" at an entirely different place. Hence, Paul makes the grand discovery of dying with Christ so that we might live with him also. Unless the dying Christ shapes our lives, the rising Christ cannot. This is the force of the "if" in 3:11, coupled with "somehow" (Greek: ei pos). Is there anyway for Paul to experience, to know Christ, the One who one day turned up in Paul's life? Surprisingly, yes, there is, Paul tells his readers, but it must be through allowing the sufferings and death of Christ to perform their work in our lives. Only then can the resurrection of Christ unleash its power for holy living, freedom from sin, and personal restoration.

3. The Goal Still Lies Ahead: Contra Perfectionism (3:12-16)
Paul's desire to "know Christ" may appear to his Philippian audience as a grandiose claim. Can anyone actually become "like Christ"? Recall how Paul appealed to the examples of Timothy and Epaphroditus in the previous chapter to convince the Philippians that ordinary human beings can live the life of self-less service which promotes unity? In the present case, Paul does something similar: he denies that he has yet "arrived" at the place where he completely mirrors the experience of Jesus. His Greek is instructive: ouch hoti ede elabon e ede teteleiomai: "not that already I have grasped or already have been made perfect" (2:12).

The word for "perfect" comes ultimately from the root telos which means "the goal, aim, end, completion, finish-line". By implication it can mean "perfect". A group of religious teachers, later known as the "Gnostics", may well have been in Paul's thoughts when he writes about perfection, since it was one of their "catch phrases" identifying their claim to have "become perfect" through a special "enlightenment" of knowledge which they called gnosis. Scholars are not agreed if full-flown Gnosticism actually flourished in the area of Paul's churches, but certainly the early stages of such a movement are referenced in Paul's letter to the Colossians. A false pride accompanied this teaching about "perfectionism", and that attitude would have been deadly in the Philippian church, especially in light of Paul's concern that the believers cultivate a humble and self-giving spirit. Then again, the Judaizers also had a similar outlook, when they encouraged the sort of spiritual life Paul once advocated, and documented in 3:5-6, a life he had now given up "for the sake of Christ".

Since telos implies "goal" or "aim", Paul works out its meaning by applying it to "the running of a race". He uses the word diokein, meaning "pursue, chase, hunt down". He reminds his readers that Christ had "laid hold of him" so that Paul might "lay hold of Christ". This word, "lay hold of", is katalambanein, another of Paul's favorite compound verbs, and having the same root as the word for "grasp", a word he has just used. No doubt Paul is thinking about his experience on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9 and parallels) when the risen Jesus spoke to him, commissioning him as his messenger to the Gentiles. On that day, Jesus laid out Paul's vocation, that to which he had been called: his telos, his goal or aim. But this calling was more than just a formal vocation: Paul was called to embody Jesus Christ for the Gentile world; Paul was appealing to the whole world "in Christ's place". Christ was making his appeal to the world through Paul's ministry. As Paul describes it succinctly in 2 Corinthians 5:20-21:
20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
When Christ called Paul, he placed before him this enormous goal, this telos, and Paul is making quite clear that he has not yet arrived at it.

Then, in 3:13, he once more affectionately addresses the Philippians as "brothers", and continues to argue that his own attitude does not involve the idea that he has arrived at God's goal for his life. Using the Greek clause, ego emauton ou logizomai kateilephenai, Paul underscores that "he himself" emphatically denies entertaining any thought that Christ's work through his life is completed, that is, perfected. This word logizomai, used in the present active form, implies "to calculate precisely". Unlike his former life (see 3:5-6 above), Paul no longer imagines that his relationship with God consists of a carefully crafted list of achievements which he simply checks off, and then finally declares: "Done!" Following Christ, "grasping Christ", "knowing Christ", doesn't look like that. Paul's old way of life had turned "knowing God" into a kind of religious litmus test, or a punch list for spirituality. Once a person met the requirements, like a person joining a guild, he was finally "in the club", and nothing more needed to be done. "Not so!" Paul declares, "with knowing Christ". Remember, when Paul wrote about his new-found connection to Christ, he described it as "being found in him", from the Greek word which implied "discovery", not "achievement". "Discovery" is full of nuances and surprises. The moment a Christ follower thinks he has figured it all out, suddenly, and without warning, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, God surprises us with His joy. When the process involves such unexpected discoveries, it's very hard to have a carefully worded checklist, and calculate precisely when the work is done.

Since Christ's purposes for Paul's life lie ahead of him, he reasonably concludes that his responsibility for the present is two-fold. His language comes from the Greek games, in particular, the arena runner whose whole being is directed toward "the goal", the telos:
1. On the one hand, letting go of the things “behind”. The Greek participle epilanthanomenos, means “forgeting”, and includes not only things achieved but also wrongs sustained.
2. On the other hand, stretching out for the things “in front”. This word epekteinomenos, yet another participle, clearly shows the race-runner metaphor. It describes the runner with his body bent over, his hand outstretched, his head fixed forward, without a backward glance. His is ceaseless exertion and intensity of desire for the goal. In Paul's case, that he might eventually know fully, completely, entirely, and, yes, perfectly what it means to be like Jesus the Christ. Paul is not simply registering his deep desire to win the race, but to "win Christ", that is, to arrive at the place where Christ already is (refer once more to Hebrews 12:1-2, cited above).

Perfection, then, is not something Paul has within his grasp, but it is something he has within his sites! The past is behind: he cannot change it. The future is ahead: he must exert everything to reach it. As if to climax the power of his runner's metaphor, Paul now, in 3:14, extracts further "race-track" images. He has skillfully made clear that his situation is incomplete. He is living between the "already" and the "not yet" phases of his Christian life. But his race is not aimless: it has a goal, he simply has not yet arrived at it. To communicate this Paul uses the Greek words kata skopon, "down-to-the-goal-marker". The term skopos is not the goal, the telos, itself, but rather the object which marks the goal. For the runner, it is the post at the end of the race. And the runner sets his eyes intently on that marker. In Paul's case, his eyes are ever fixed on the cross of Jesus Christ, the true goal-marker. Once he knows the Christ of redemptive suffering, once he allows the cross to become God's instrument for his own death to self, he knows the goal is at hand. The goal marker is the cross, but the goal is Christ risen from the dead; Christ entered into his glory; Christ seated at the right hand of God.

To speak of this, Paul again reaches for a metaphor from the Greek games. He writes of the "prize", and describes it this way: to brabeion tes ano kleseos tou theou en Christo Iesou, that is, "the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus". During the award ceremonies, highly respected officers of the Olympian games, the Hellenodikai (Greek judges), would preside. A herald would announce the victor's name, his father's name, and his country. Then the athlete would receive a palm branch. But there are two critical expressions used here which require some explanation.
1. The brabeion, translated “prize”, actually means “the prize of conflict” (Stauffer, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, I, pp.638-639), that is, a prize which comes after an athletic contest where competition and suffering are involved. Into such a contest, the athlete throws his whole life, but then, in the end, leaves his reward, his “prize” to another. In Paul’s case, he leaves the decision up to God:
"God is He who in vocation sets for man the goal which at once gives meaning to his work and direction to his life. By this divine act, however, man is summoned to supreme activity. He must break with all the things which are behind and bend all his thoughts and actions to the divinely appointed goal. He must keep in step with the march of divine revelation. He must resolutely integrate his own will into the divine will. The will of man is thus made free and strong, and God reaches His goal as man does. The brabeoin is the point in eternity in which the two parallel lines meet. It is the goal beyond this age and its possibilities. It is the meeting-lace of divine and human action" (Stauffer, p.639).
In one other eloquent passage, Paul explains his understanding of "the prize" as it pertains to the Christian life reaching its goal:
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
2. Then Paul invokes the image of the athlete making his way “upward” (Greek: ano) at the invitation of God who has already issued that invitation in Christ Jesus. The words used to describe this are: “the upward call”. What is this call? We need only refer back to Paul’s argument thus far to remember that what Paul truly desires is to attain “resurrection” (see 3:10-11). To be called “upward” is to be resurrected! In the Corinthian passage above, Paul contrasts the “crown” which does not last with the one which “lasts forever”. This is, of course, the imperishable body given us at the resurrection. “Onward and upward to resurrection!” is the goal of God’s people. As we have already indicated, the goal marker is the cross, but the goal is the resurrection. During the race, as we exert every fiber of our being, stretching toward the goal, we are drawn by the cross, empowered by the cross. But beyond the cross lies the upward call, the full and complete restoration of our whole persons.
"Keep your eyes on the prize!" This frequently used expression in our own time admirably applies to Paul's argument. The work of being the people of God is not finished. We have not yet arrived at the goal. But we are in the race. Much lies behind us: forget it. The finish line lies ahead: stretch forward toward it. Keep the goal-marker in sight: the cross. Don't forget what lies beyond it: the resurrection.

With these words, Paul hoped to correct the tendency toward perfectionism threatening the Philippian community. Having once been inside such a system, Paul knew its pitfalls and warns his brothers at Philippi to adopt his own model of the Christian life as their own. That being said, some would likely resist his appeal. Paul has a word for them in 3:15:
15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained (Philippians 3:15-16).
The word translated "mature" in the NIV is actually the Greek word for "perfect", teleioi, this time used in the plural form. In spite of Paul's carefully crafted appeal in 3:12-14, there were still some who wanted to be thought of as "perfect", that is, as those who had already reached the goal. Ironically, Paul addresses these as osoi oun teleioi: "as many [of us] then as [are] 'perfect'", placing the single quotes around the word. However, he challenges them to give up this claim and adopt the attitude he has described in the preceding verses: touto phronomen: "think this way". This Greek verb form is called a "hortatory subjunctive", the use of the subjunctive mood to encourage, exhort, or command oneself and others. Paul puts himself in the same group by using this particular expression. For clarification: the Greek language has several verb moods, the common ones being:
1. indicative: closest to being real
2. subjunctive: desire for something to become real ("if, would, might")
3. imperative: command for something to become real
Rather than use a straightforward imperative which might be seen as coercive by the dear brothers in Philippi, Paul choose the hortatory subjunctive instead, allowing for his own deep desire to be expressed, while still making clear what he wants to see happen in their lives.

Finally, in this section, Paul allows for the unpersuaded in his audience, and gently hands them over to God's leading. Remember, Paul has used the skillful art of rhetoric to convince his audience to adopt the perspective he teaches them. Yet, he knows full well that none of his clever rhetorical tools can ultimately change their hearts. For that, a direct revelation from God is required. And so Paul writes: kai touto o theos umin apokalupsei, that is, "even this God will reveal to you". The word for "reveal" is the familiar word apokalupsein, from which comes our English "apocalypse" and "apocalyptic". It literally means to "uncover the head", and has significance in the Bible through God's showing of Himself to human beings, both in deed and word. Jesus revealed God's character through is words and deeds (see John 2:11 where Jesus' first miracle "revealed his glory", that is, his true divine nature). Only the word of God is capable of producing the sort of change Paul desires in the lives of those who have adopted the course of "perfectionism", and so he now hands over his opponents to the gracious and firm dealings of God's revelation.

However, Paul reminds the Philippians that they have already been taught the word of God. He expresses this idea with the words: plen eis ho ephthasamen, that is, "except, with respect to what we have first attained". The Greek word phthano implies something which comes "first" or has already "arrived" or been "overtaken". While Paul is patient in his hope that God will help his perfectionist opponents see things more clearly, he in no way concedes that these folk should neglect the well-established truth already known to them. Disagreements about particular details of Christian teaching must never distract the Christ follower from working out the implications of those teachings which are not in dispute. Some things are rock-solid and beyond controversy. Of these, Paul goes on to write: to auto stoichein, literally, "draw up in a line to this sort of thing". The work stoichein means to "be in line with". There are plenty of things we agree on, Paul is saying, and we need to get in line with these: things like harmony, mutual understanding, unity--even when people have differing views on other things. Paul calls for the Philippians to walk along in line with him in following the things they have already come to know: the Gospel as it has already been revealed and understood. Hawthorne remarks:
There may be differences of opinion, levels of understanding, degrees of apprehension of truth; there will be further revelations…but the differences must not lead to dissensions and criticisms of each other.
We are all called to live at the level of truth we have received, while we patiently wait for God to reveal new truth as the need arises.

4. The New Citizenship: Contra Enemies of the Cross (3:17-4:1)
Much of the Christian life is lived by the sheer force of example. Parents know, for example, that their children acquire skills to act and speak by watching and listening. An old sage wisely claimed that some things are better "caught" than "taught'! Even in the animal kingdom, the young of a species "imprint" their behaviors from the adults. As Paul prepares to conclude his final point in this section about "the dogs", that is, the opponents of the Christian message who threaten Philippi, he writes: summimetai mou ginesthe, literally, "continue being co-imitators of me." Once more Paul shows his affinity to words compounded with the preposition meaning "together with" (sun).

The word for "imitate" has a root which appears in "mimic" and "mime". By using the compound preposition for "together", Paul stresses the "shared" nature of their imitation. It's not one person or another trying to imitate Paul, and even attempting to "outdo each other" in their imitations. Instead, Paul wants the whole community to engage in this "highest form of flattery". What Paul sought to "model" for the Philippians was how to live together in the Christ-community, setting aside one's own interests, and taking up the concerns of others. Living in unity, resolving conflict, resisting divisive false teaching--these are the qualities Paul wants expressed in their "shared life together". Of course Paul knows that he won't always be around to model this sort of life-style, and so he adds that like the runner in a race: "keep your eyes on those who live according to the pattern I give you." The Greek word for "pattern" is tupos from which we get our English word "type". "Pattern", tupos, implies a model or guide for doing something. In the printing trade, "type" refers to that which imprints itself on some medium, and does so with consistency. Paul has already cited Timothy and Epaphroditus as reliable "types" for the Philippians to model. "See how these brothers walk, and follow them", Paul is saying.

The word translated "live" in the NIV of 3:17 is actually a word which means to "walk": perpipatein. A participle used in the present tense, it has the force of a command. "Walk the talk", he seems to be saying, even as he earlier called upon his readers who disagreed with him to "follow the line".

Once more Paul calls attention to the threats faced by the Philippian community. He picks up the "walking" metaphor of 3:17 and brings it into his concerns of 3:18. Not everybody is walking a straight line. Paul is not saying these persons are actually inside the Philippian church, but, as this whole chapter has suggested, have become ever-present threats to the joy, unity and service of the Philippian community. Paul recalls his many previous warnings about such persons, even as this letter has contained a number of them. There are all kinds of "dogs" roaming the streets of the Roman Empire, and they are quickly becoming a menace to the Christ community. What is so vexing about them? Paul minces no words, but gets to his point immediately: They are enemies of the cross of Christ. The Greek says: tous echthrous tou staurou tou Christou. This word for "enemy" is among the strongest Paul has used throughout his letter. The Philippians knew about "enemies", since their colony was garrisoned within the Empire, and had retired Roman soldiers among its residents. Rome worked hard to maintain order, and sedition was punished by crucifixion. If you were an enemy of Rome, the cross was your judgment. In a strange turnabout of meaning, Paul speaks of the false teachers he has just discussed as "enemies of the cross". Ordinarily, enemies of the Roman cross were revolutionaries and brigands. But enemies of the cross of Christ bring tears to the eyes of Paul (klaion="weeping", a circumstantial participle of manner, showing in what way Paul spoke to them about this).

Nor is this the first time Paul wrote about the resistance people had to the cross. Consider his words in his other letters:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18)
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:23-24)
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14)
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2)
The cross was the central message of Paul's preaching, and embodied the way he lived. Yet, he recognized that the cross had many enemies, both among the Jews and the Gentiles. 1) For the Jews, the cross was a humiliating symbol of weakness in the face of Roman justice. To die on the cross meant you had failed as a resistance fighter against Rome, and had brought shame on your people. That is why the Jews resisted Pilate's attempt to place the placard, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews", above the cross, and wanted it prefixed with the words "He said that he was…" The bleeding, dying crucified man representing Israel's Messiah? No way! However, Paul everywhere affirmed that the weakness of the cross led to the resurrection power of God. Through the cross, the world's power over Paul was finally broken. Through the cross, we are saved.

2) The Romans would simply scoff at the idea that the cross meant anything else than the guilty verdict of Rome. Condemned and guilty men hang on crosses, men who failed to be justified in a Roman court of law. And the Romans prided themselves on their system of justice, justicia in Latin, or dikaiosune in Greek. They actually thought they had perfected this method of keeping order, keeping pax, "peace", in the Empire. Criminals who failed the test were dealt with swiftly and decisively. Those who opposed Rome were crucified. Now comes the Christian Gospel and its declaration that the cross of Christ had nothing to do with Rome at all, but was the public revelation of the mercy and love of God for sinners. Paul preached Christ crucified, dying for sins, defeating the powers of evil, and then rising from the dead, vindicated by God, not as a criminal but as Lord of all. Caesar could not accept this verdict. The cross of Christ was his enemy indeed!

When Paul describes these enemies in additional detail (3:19), he constructs a somewhat complicated sentence in Greek, requiring some explanation. Were we to translate its sense, it would read:
"Whose god is: the belly and the glory in their shame."
It's as if someone asked Paul, what god do these false teachers actually worship? To which he replies: "the belly" and "the glory in their shame". Matters of "food" and "sexual organs" preoccupy them and are their real worship. A little thought will yield this interpretation: Paul is referring to the Judaizers who make matters of religious diet and circumcision more important than anything else. Their obsession with these ritual concerns leads Paul to allege that they have become the true god of these false teachers. In effect, though they claim to be Messianic Jews, followers of Jesus the Messiah, they spend more time on a literalistic application of Jewish rituals to the Christ followers, than they do preaching the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen.

Where will it lead these false teachers? Paul leaves no doubt: "their end (telos) is destruction (Greek: apoleia)". Notice how Paul reintroduces the word telos into his remarks about the false teachers. Earlier, in the previous section (3:12-16), he spoke of the goal-marker and the ultimate goal of the Christ-runner, achieving resurrection, after risking suffering and death. What is the destination, though not intended, of the false teachers? It is a horrific end of life as expressed in the word apoleia which means "loss, waste, annihilation, ruin", and was used by Jesus to speak about the judgment of the wicked (see Matthew 7:13; also, Revelation 17:8, 11; 2 Peter 3:7).

Why is their telos so completely different from that of the Christ-follower? Once more Paul answers this implied question in his argument. "They think about earthly things" (Greek: hoi ta epigeia phronountes). The Greek word geia is compounded with the preposition epi in order to make the connection between the "thinking" of these false teachers and their fatal outcome. "Earth-thinkers": this is how Paul describes them. The whole universe starts and ends with the ground beneath their feet and the immediate world around them. In many ways, they are like the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes who kept saying that life is lived "under the sun". Ironically, though these false teachers claim to be religious leaders, bringing needed doctrine to their would-be students, their god and their frame of reference is earth-bound after all. They do not rise any higher than the physical rituals they demand of their followers, and, sadly, they will end their own lives in the same material way they tried to live it: in the dust.

But the cross of Christ which Paul preached is not earth-bound. And in 3:20-21 Paul draws up his final argument in one glorious expression of confidence in the coming kingdom of God. We reprint these verses in order to emphasize their key points:
20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body (Philippians 3:20-21).

In using the word "citizenship", from the Greek, politeuma, Paul tapped into the deepest loves and loyalties, suspicions and fears of the Philippian community. Five possible meanings could apply to this term:
1. colony
2. commonwealth
3. state
4. constitution
5. citizenship.
What is Paul's intention in using this word? He is saying that the ruler of the Christ-followers, namely Christ, rules them from heaven according to the principles of heaven. This stands in contrast, then, to those false teachers who advocate principles that are earth-bound. But it also throws down another challenge, this time, to the claim that Caesar and Rome are the true rulers of the human race. If you were a Philippian, you thought the politeuma was in Rome. But as a Philippian Christian, you now hear from Paul that you have another citizenship which belongs to another commonwealth already ruling from heaven. A curious historical fact illustrates Paul's claim. In 42 B.C.E. Octavian granted Philippi a Roman form of government. That meant it could be ruled as if it were a city in Italy (this status was known as the ius italicum, the highest legal privilege possible for a provincial city). Philippi's citizens were also citizens of Rome with all of the attendant legal privileges. How it ruled itself looked very much like Rome. And so when Paul speaks of a politeuma "in heaven", his readers would understand what it meant to be "ruled from afar" (Witherington, 99). Andrew Lincoln, a former professor of mine, defined the word politeuma as: "the state as a constitutive force regulating its citizens". Paul is telling the Philippian Christians that they belong to another state, and that this state has supreme political authority. Caird remarks in his commentary, Paul
…pictures the world as an empire over which Christ rules de jure, though not yet de facto. Each local church is a colony of heaven, its members enjoying full citizenship of the heavenly city (cf. Galatians 4:26; Ephesians 2:19), but charged with the responsibility of bringing the world to acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ. Neither the Roman colonist nor the Christian depended for the meaning, character and purpose of his life on the ethos of his alien environment, nor did he allow that environment to determine the quality of his behavior.

The Jewish opponents of Paul's work would also hear familiar themes in his reference to politeuma. In the Roman Empire, Jews were permitted to reside in semi-autonomous colonies among Gentile populations. As ethnically and religiously distinct, they formed their own politeuma wherever they lived, and Rome granted them freedom to exercise their faith. However, in Paul's mind, they are only colonies of earthly Israel, earth-bound, and focused on this world alone. Christ followers, are a colony of heaven, though residing in cities throughout the Empire. Their true privileges emanate from heaven where Christ rules as Lord as God's right hand, and grants eternal life to his earthly citizens.

What follows shows the degree to which Christ rules both heaven and earth. Paul piles up privileged names and applies them to Jesus. Though he rules from heaven, he await his arrival (Greek: apekdechometha). Paul uses this word for "wait" some six times, and it has endearing meaning to him. Through it he expresses the yearning, and joyful expectation for the coming (Greek: parousia, official "arrival" of the Emperor) of Jesus. Notice the words Paul uses to describe him:
1. Savior: From the Greek soter, this word had deep roots in the Old Testament, where God was the "deliverer" of his people from Egypt, and the One who brought them into their promised land. The name "Jesus", Yeshua, has embedded within it the word for "save", as does Hosea, and Joshua. But Paul's interest in using this Greek word derives from its meaning with Imperial Rome. In much Greek and Roman literature, we find references to the Emperor being called by this name. When the city of Philippi was liberated from its Thracian occupiers, it was Rome who did it and then earned its Emperor the title "Soter", that is, "Savior". The one who preserves the pax (peace) and defeats Rome's enemies on every side is the "Savior". And so when Paul intentionally applies this word to Jesus, he is saying, Jesus is the true Soter, the real Savior of the world. This Jesus is one day coming from heaven in his saving role, and all the Christian colonies throughout the world await is coming, as do the Philippians. Whatever else Philippi might have thought of its Roman citizenship, Paul engenders a more permanent one rooted in the heavenly rule of Jesus.
2. Lord: From the Greek kurios, like soter, this word was applied to the Emperor as supreme ruler, and mighty Lord. For Christ followers, familiar with their Old Testament, the Lord from heaven is Yahweh, Adonai of His people Israel, and now of the whole world. Paul has already affirmed in 2:11 that one day every tongue will confess that Jesus is kurios, Lord.
3. Christ: The roots for this word are Hebrew: hamashiach, the "Messiah", God's anointed and rightful ruler. With the coming of Jesus, this word has assumed larger proportions, for it stresses the arrival of God's kingdom, led by His king, Jesus. Of course, to the Romans, any claim of "another king" raised alarm, since Rome intended to control the right to use that title. Even the Herods, Rome's favorites, were stripped of this title "king", when misrule led to revolt within Israel. "We have no king but Caesar" was a more welcome declaration to the ears of the Empire. Unfortunately it was spoken by the Jewish leadership on the occasion of Jesus' trial before Pilate (see John 19:12-15).

The colony of Philippi, rich with its Roman privileges, certainly had its share of official visits from Rome. Pomp and circumstance surrounded such occasions, as the citizens went out to greet some dignitary. For Paul, a much more significant state visit will one day take place. It will be the arrival of the true Savior, the Lord, Jesus, the Messiah. But his coming will be more than ceremonial, for on that occasion, a major political transformation will take place. The colonies of heaven, now residing on earth, will experience a remarkable transformation. Paul describes it in 3:21 with the Greek word metaschematizo which means to "change, transform". Again this word is Paul's invention, compounding the idea of "change" (meta) with the idea of "form" (schema). What sort of change is this? Paul applies it to "our bodies" (soma), but then describes those bodies as "lowly" (Greek: tapeinoeos). This is the same word Paul used to describe Christ's humbling of himself in 2:5-11. Because of our lowly condition, Christ became lowly. But now with his royal arrival, at his coming again, he intends to put an end to the lowly condition of humanity, and transform it so that it "conforms" to his own "body of glory", that is, the body of his own resurrection.

This language of "humiliation" vs. "glory" is appropriate for Paul's Philippian audience. As we have noted in previous studies, the social stratification of Philippian society, placed the majority Greek population under the rule of the minority Roman population. Further, the holders of Roman citizenship per se were not the majority either. If the composition of the Philippian church reflected that of the outside society, one could expect a large number of persons who did not participate substantially in the benefits of Roman rule. Paul, of course, means more than just a social adjustment. He imagines Christ's arrival to his earthly colonies as bringing with it the resurrection of human life itself. What happened to Jesus three days after his crucifixion will also happen to the Christ followers. Was not this the very thing that Paul wished to attain? Was not this the "prize" which lay past the goal marker of the cross? Christians proclaim something more than just life after death, a soul at home in heaven, and the world be damned. Quite the contrary, the message of the Gospel is indeed "good news", offering the hope that the Lord of heaven will one day return to complete the work he began, and Paul wants the Philippians to catch the passion of his heart in making this wonderful announcement to them.

But this is more than the resurrection of individuals. Paul concludes 3:21 by referring to the "power" with which Christ performs his saving work in the world. Using the Greek word energeia, Paul stresses that Christ unleashes the power of God within the world. This word does mean "power", but not merely in the sense of something potential or imposing. Energeia is "power in action", power to accomplish, power in operation, power working, and power achieving a goal. When Jesus rose from the dead, he became a living, historical witness to what God's power can accomplish when it is unleashed in the world. If a dead man can rise from the dead, never to die again, then a precedent has been set for humanity that it too can rise again. The resurrection of Jesus, something Paul has consistently pursued in his letter to the Philippians, shows that Jesus is "able" (Greek: dunasthai) to do much more: hupotaxai auto ta panta, that is, "to arrange all things under himself". This word hupotasso implies a mastery over something. The Roman Emperor imagined he had so arranged the Roman world under himself and Roman law. Peace (pax) enforced by order was Rome's systematic way of arranging the world under itself. But now Paul proclaims the Lord Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, ruling his earthly colonies from heaven, and intending to return once more to bring all of his creation in conformity to his purpose and love.

Through the optimistic proclamation of this message, Paul hopes to bring unity to the Philippian Christ community as well. If Jesus, Lord of heaven, and intended ruler of earth, has as his goal the uniting of all things under himself, should not the Philippian community seek to resolve their differences and, at the same time, resist the efforts of false teachers to undermine that unity by proclaiming an earth-bound message? That, in a nutshell, is the force of Paul's argument as it reaches its conclusion in 3:21. For Paul, Christians eagerly look to the future, indwelt by a persistent desire, marked with joy, for the day when Jesus, crucified but risen, finally appears as Savior and Lord. Welcomed by his earth-colonies, this Jesus brings in his royal procession the end of suffering and death, and the beginning of resurrection life. Bodies of humiliation become bodies of glory, imperishable, immortal, and witnesses to his mighty power. But he comes, not only for his colonies, but also for the whole world. Caesar might have imagined an Empire, but Jesus will rule the cosmos. The instrument of his rule will not be the earthly scepter or the Roman fasces, but instead, the power to transform broken persons, broken families, broken societies, and a broken world by his all-embracing and reconciling love.

Glory to God! Amen.
Digger Deeper: Cross-Training: Just Win It
(Bob Brown)

To gain a deeper understanding of Cross-Training: Just Win It, carefully read the selected passages below. To aid you in your study, we invite you to visit the website http://notes.chicagofirstnaz.org, or pick up a copy of the notes at the Connect desk, or from your ABF leader. Now consider the following questions, as you ask the Lord to teach you.

Special Note: The Background Notes are especially useful in working through some of these questions. You are encouraged to secure a copy as you begin.

1. As you carefully read Philippians 3:1-21, see if you can create an outline of its main ideas. What seems to be the main theme running through the whole passage?
2. In what ways does Paul show his "caring side" in 3:1-2?
3. What threats to the Philippian Christ community does he see? Why does he refer to some of those threats as "dogs"?
4. Why does Paul offer his readers a detailed resume of his spiritual achievements in 3:4-6? Note each so-called "badge of honor" and suggest the reason Paul includes it in his list.
5. Based on studying 3:7-8, write a few sentences on the theme: "Paul, the Spiritual Accountant".
6. Paul obviously wants a growing relationship with Christ. Based on 3:7-11, carefully describe the ways Paul wants to "know Christ". In what sense does Paul use the word "know" in this section?
7. What is Paul's supreme goal as he summarizes his thoughts in 3:7-11?
8. Shifting focus to 3:12-16, what does Paul mean by "being made perfect"? What figure of speech does he use to develop the real meaning of Christian perfection? What do you think the word "perfect" means as it is used here?
9. When Paul senses he may have some resistance to his view of perfection, what attitude does he adopt in 3:15-16.
10. How does Paul describe the false teachers in 3:17-21? Why might people have problems with "the cross of Christ?" (For comparison, read 1 Corinthians 1:18-24; contrast this with Paul's own view in 1 Corinthians 2:2 and Galatians 6:14).
11. What special privilege is ours according to 3:20? What does Paul tell us about the role of Jesus in heaven? In the world?
12. How might Paul's remarks about Jesus "bringing all things under his control" affect the way the Philippians saw their own unity?

Cross-Training: Philippians 2, Just Focus

Just Focus
Cross-Training
Studies in Paul's Letter to the Philippians
February 2/3, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
Cross-Training: Just Focus
(Robert Ismon Brown)

Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: Philippians 2:1-30
(NIV) 1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed-- not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence-- continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. 14 Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16 as you hold out the word of life-- in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing. 17 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. 18 So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.

19 I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you. 20 I have no one else like him, who takes a genuine interest in your welfare. 21 For everyone looks out for his own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. 22 But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel. 23 I hope, therefore, to send him as soon as I see how things go with me. 24 And I am confident in the Lord that I myself will come soon. 25 But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. 26 For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. 27 Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. 28 Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. 29 Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him, 30 because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.

Introduction
With the opening verses of chapter 2, we have reached the heart of Paul's argument in Philippians, what the Greeks called the logos: the "reason", grounded in reasons able to persuade the audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Recall that Paul does two important things from a communications perspective: 1) he uses the well-known letter form, thus affirming his personal bond with the Philippian Christ community; 2) he embeds the rhetorical approach, once again, taken from the accepted practices of speech-making in the Graeco-Roman world. Thus far, Paul has given his reader a concise introduction or exordium (1:3-11), and then sought to establish common ground once more between himself and his dear friends at Philippi by using the narratio, telling about the circumstances of his Roman detention "in chains". From this latter narration, Paul draws out implications relevant to his overall purpose in writing the letter in the first place. He stresses the importance of courage, joy, unity, and persistence in suffering. By the time he reaches 1:29-30, the propositio, his "thesis statement", he makes very clear that the Philippians are suffering as well as himself, and in this common experience he hopes to articulate the important teaching which follows in 2:1-4:3. That thesis is summed up succinctly in this way:
29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have (Philippians 1:29-30)
The idea that "belief" requires authentication through "suffering" will weave through this letter like a fine fabric, colored with theological patterns. The Philippians, by Paul's own report, have been delightful ministry partners for him. He speaks highly of them in his introduction (1:3-11) and celebrates their "fellowship in the gospel" (1:5), expresses confidence that God will complete his work among them (1:6), exudes strong feeling about his affection for them (1:7-8), and looks forward to abounding growth in their fruitful lives (1:8-11).

We now arrive at a new section which is also an element in the rhetorical scheme, something called the probatio, a lengthy part of his letter which seeks "to make the argument", that is, is probative, or "proving", offering reasons for his main thesis expressed in the propositio. The following main sections of Paul's probatio are laid out in 2:1-4:3:
Argument One: Christ as the Example (2:1-18)
Argument Two: Christ-followers as Exemplars (2:19-30)
Argument Three: Counter-examples from the outside (3:1-4:1)
Argument Four: Counter-examples from inside (4:2-3)
As the reader may observe, Paul employs some parallelism of structure to this section, with the first two arguments focusing on Christ and his followers, while the last two paying attention to their opposites, namely, pressure groups on the outside which seek to undermine the faith, and squabbles on the inside which undermine the unity of the church. We will consider arguments #1 and #2 in this study, saving #3 and #4 for the subsequent ones.

To put it concisely, the center of Paul's argument in 2:1-30 is a focus on Christ, and so we take our present theme, "Just Focus", from this emphasis. Accompanying that concentration, is Paul's desire for the Philippians to look at how Christ has left his indelible mark on people such as Timothy and Epaphroditus who fill out the true meaning of the word "Christian", that is, "little Christ" or Christ imitator. And so Paul seems to be arguing, if Christ can so affect them, certainly he can impact the Philippians in their current situation. As we examine this section (2:1-30) we will once again see the main ideas already introduced in 1:3-30 receiving more comprehensive development, as Paul explains to the Philippians how one moves from "belief" to "belief-with-suffering" in the Christian experience.

General Outline of 2:1-30: Probatio (I)
1. Argument One: Christ as the Example (2:1-18)
a. Unity in Everything (2:1-4)
1) Four Grounds of Appeal (2:1)
(a) Encouragement
(b) Love
(c) Fellowship
(d) Tenderness-Compassion
2) Four Results by Responding to the Appeal (2:2)
(a) Like-minded
(b) Same love
(c) One in spirit
(d) One in purpose
3) Malady Requiring this Appeal (2:3a)
(a) Selfish ambition
(b) Vain Conceit
4) Treatment for the Malady (2:3b-4)
(a) Humility which considers others better than oneself
(b) Awareness which affirms the best in others
b. The Mind of Christ (2:5-11)
1) Intended for Christ's followers (2:5)
2) Embodied in Christ's humiliation (2:6-8)
3) Transcended in Christ's exaltation (2:9-11)
c. Salvation "worked out" with joy (2:12-18)
1) Workmen: Working out what God is working in (2:12-13)
2) Stars: Shining out as children of God (2:14-15)
3) Runners: Holding forth the word of life (2:16)
4) Sacrifices: Offering yourselves in the service of faith (2:17)
2. Argument Two: Christ-followers as Exemplars (2:19-30)
a. Timothy (2:19-24)
1) Messenger and bearer of good news (2:19)
2) Self-less worker and son in the faith (2:20-22)
3) Promise of Paul's release and hopeful visit (2:23-24)
b. Epaphroditus (2:25-30)
1) Value of his companionship: brother, fellow worker, fellow soldier, messenger, caregiver (2:25)
2) Valor of his commitment: passion, empathy, courage (2:26-30)

Argument One: Christ as the Example (2:1-18)

A Few Background Points
Why are the issues of unity and suffering so prominent for this Christian congregation? Peter Oakes, in his Philippians: From People to Letter, has contributed a great deal to our understanding of the social composition of the Philippian colony. Made up of landowners, farmers, service-providers, slaves and poor, Philippi was largely Greek, but ruled by a Roman elite. Power was in the hands of the Romans, and things like Roman citizenship and Roman institutions counted for much. Oakes identifies several factors governing life in Philippian society:
1. Centrality of agriculture
2. Relatively modest size of the city
3. Ethnic and social profile of the population
4. Emphatic Roman domination of the colony

The main ethnic peculiarity of Philippi was the proportion of Romans to Greeks in the population. The Roman contingent was divisible into subgroups:
1. Grandchildren and great-grandchildren of veteran or peasant colonists from Italy
2. Freed slaves of colonists
3. Roman citizens who had moved to the area after colonization, including traders and military veterans
4. Native or immigrant Greeks who attained citizenship at Philippi

The Greeks were similarly diverse, ranging from original inhabitants of Thrace, later colonists of Macedonia, migrant workers, and slaves.

The Romans owned most of the land and had political control in the city of Philippi. They monopolized the wealth and high status. And this is an especially important point in understanding the situation of the Christ followers in Philippi. Already, within the social strata of Philippian society, there was significant stratification along the lines of ethnicity, economics, and power. For non-Romans, like the Greeks, the experience of living in an imperial or senatorial colony, under Roman rule, was far more acute than elsewhere in the Empire. Consequentially, Oakes argues, in Philippi the issue of status would be perceived as closely tied to the Roman colonial system. When Rome showed up in the Greek East, status hierarchy became highly rigid. The maintenance of status and the proper observation of distinctions of status were imperatives of society.

Add to this that the Greeks were economically dependent on the Romans. Oakes offers some interesting examples. Quarrymen cut marble for the Romans, venatores hunted beasts in the arena at shows paid for by Romans, cashiers handled Roman money. Shopkeepers sold to Romans in the town and those who came in from the countryside. Greeks who worked on the land worked for Romans. Land-centered economy in the colony meant that almost everyone, down to the very poorest, was directly or indirectly dependent on Roman money. The social context for poor Greeks, or Greeks who subsisted but struggled, was not simply a context in which power went with wealth, but of power going with wealth which was held by Romans.

Therefore, when we begin to read of Paul's concerns about unity and suffering within the Philippian church, it is not hard to see how the social situation in Philippi found its way into the daily social life of the Christians there. Nothing tears people apart more than social disparity, and just because someone becomes a Christian does not mean they automatically shed their social and economic perceptions. Just consider the American experience with slavery, and how it divided people along racial and economic lines within the church. Moreover, as Oakes points out, one's perilous economic situation intensifies when old social relationships are broken because a person has chosen to follow Christ. Old trade guilds who once supported service-workers, might be unwilling to have Christians as members who refused to worship the patron gods or goddesses of the guild. And what about the slaves who became Christians? Would their masters willingly allow them to worship with freedmen? Or would masters and slaves comfortably unite in the fellowship of the Christian community?

Whatever Paul perceived as threats to unity, were not simply petty arguments or superficial disagreements. While it is true that Paul identifies by name two women who needed to heed his call to unity (4:3-4), we must not assume that their differences were about the color of the carpet in the sanctuary, or who gets to hostess the next church supper! These two ladies, whom we will look at in our next study, might well have been divided along lines not too different from the strata found in the Philippian colony. Regardless of the specific reasons, Paul takes the matter of Christian unity so seriously, particularly as it pertains to dynamics within the Philippian church, that he devotes this entire chapter, consisting of two main arguments, to the matter.

The structure of this section "wraps" a powerful Christ-hymn inside a literary envelope. This is an example of inclusio in the rhetorical form. Consider 2:5-11 as the "heart" of argument one, with an "appeal" section before it (2:1-4) and another appeal section after it (2:12-18). It is written like a sandwich with the "meat" on the inside, but carefully enclosed within two slices of instructional "bread". As we have already observed from our previous studies, Paul has concerns for the Philippians in the areas of "unity" and "suffering". His deeply personal connections to this Christ community, and his generally positive assessment of their Christian growth thus far, strengthens his concerns that nothing undo the wonderful progress the Philippians have already made. But Paul knew a great deal about Philippi, no doubt, especially the social pressures placed on the Christ-followers by a Roman colony built on values quite different from those Paul had taught the Philippian believers.

Unity in Everything (2:1-4)
We are met by the four-fold use of the word "if" (Greek: ei) in the first verse of this section. "If" can mean many things in our language, and Greek has many of the same nuances. Here we have what is sometimes called a "simple real conditional sentence", one in which it is assumed, at least for the sake of argument, that what is stated after the "if" (sometimes called the "protasis") is true. We might say to our spouse, "If you are going to the store, pick up some bread," when we fully expect that they are, in fact, going to the store. In the present case, "if" has the force of "since", and for greater effect is intensified by its four-fold use: "if any…". So what is it that Paul is so certain of that he can use it to introduced his first argument?

Four Grounds of Appeal (2:1)
Some scholars have noted that the first three "if" sentences actually form a Trinitarian appeal:
1. Encouragement: Christ (2:1a)
2. Love: God the Father (2:1b)
3. Fellowship: Holy Spirit (2:1c)
Nor is this an isolated case. Paul, in his famous "benediction" to 2 Corinthians, wrote:
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).
Notice the order of the three phrases and the content which parallels our present passage. What is Paul's focus? It is on the person of God in His entirety: Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is the ground and basis of our unity in the Christian community. And so as to cement this connection, Paul throws in the fourth "if" statement on the heels of this Trinitarian formula!
4. Tenderness and Compassion (2:1d), which plainly focuses on what Paul wants to see within the life of the Philippian church.
Paul is arguing in the strongest of terms that because of the nature of God, three-ness in unity, there should be unity among the people of God. Moreover, each member of the Godhead brings something to that unity:

Christ brings encouragement: From the Greek word paraklesis which means "a calling alongside of", without question, paralkesis is what Christ did when he became a human being and made his temporary residence among us (see John 1:14). At the heart of Christ's Messianic name, "Immanuel", is the idea, "God with us". It is the "with-ness" of God we discover in Jesus Christ, and it is this dynamic which he also brings into our Christian communities, namely, that we are to be "with" each other, alongside our brothers and sisters, in solidarity with them whatever their condition, status or social situation. Christ came alongside all kinds of people: tax-collectors, prostitutes, and "other sinners". And while he was criticized for it by those who had qualms about hanging around the "wrong kind of people", Jesus made it his business to do so--all the way to the cross where he hung between "two criminals"! Is their "alongside-ness" in Christ? Oh, indeed!

God the Father brings love: Of course the Father is the initiator of our unity by "loving us" before we "loved Him" (1 John 4:10). Paul uses two words here to describe this idea: paramuthion and the familiar word for "love", agape. Consistent with the love of the Father, are his words of "address, exhortation, assuagement, and abatement", all ideas found within the meaning of paramuthion. This is evidently a different kind of love than might be found between friends or family members. The New Testament writers, when they wanted to write about God's special love, chose a word commonly in use, agape, to communicate this idea. Some scholars refer to this as "love of the will" or "love of deliberate choice". At any rate, it is not tied to mere feeling or spontaneous emotion, but to the decision of God to be actively involved in the lives of His creation. This is expressed most vividly in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son…" It is the love of God which unites the Godhead, Father, Son, and Spirit, but also unites fellow Christians with each other (see John 17:20-21).

The Spirit brings fellowship: Here Paul uses the word koinonia to express the idea of "commonness, communion, partnership". He has a preference for this word in discussing his relationship with the Philippians (1:5 and 3:10) and throughout his letters (see also Romans 15:26, 1 Corinthians 1:9, and elsewhere). In the present context, Paul means "fellowship with the Spirit", that is, the Spirit fellowships with us, and we have a "common life in the Spirit". Paul is specific elsewhere in explaining what this means:
One Spirit places believers in one body (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4), and so making them "one".
One Spirit makes possible "access to the Father" (Ephesians 2:18).
One Spirit maintains and guards Christian unity (Ephesians 4:3).

Tenderness and compassion. Then, as if to bring all of these individual "if" statements into a grand unity, Paul adds yet one more which seems to involve the whole Godhead. The words Paul employs here communicate deep, inward feelings which get expressed through acts which are merciful and compassionate. The Greek words splagchna and oiktirmoi are in the singular and plural forms respectively. Though they refer back to the adjective "any" which is singular, Paul still keeps in tact the tidy parallelism of all four "if any" statements, even if it means breaking the rules of grammar! A few comments on these two words:
1. splagchna, used for "tenderness", is a visceral word, that is, it refers to something deep inside a person. It has a literal meaning, namely, "kidneys and liver", but, as was true with the ancients, such language pointed to deep feelings which they believed originated in these human organs. God is deeply moved by what happens to his creatures. Recall the story of Israel in Egypt, crying out to Yahweh for help, and how Yahweh responded (see Exodus 1). Or the story of Manasseh, king of Judah, whose sins sent him into exile, but whose repentant cries to God brought a deeply felt response. 2 Chronicles 33 tells us that Yahweh was "moved" by Manasseh's prayer. Theologians have sometimes claimed that God was "impassable", that is, unmoved by emotion. We beg to differ. Ours is an "open God" who responds in tenderness to human need, as a mother caring for her infant (see Isaiah 49:15; 66:13). Paul previously used this word to describe his own feelings toward the Philippians in 1:8, and now he shows his audience that such deep feeling originates in the very nature of God Himself.
2. oiktirmoi, used for "compassion", but actually comes closer to the idea of "mercies", those acts of compassion expressed by someone seeking to alleviate the suffering or meet the needs of others. Whereas "tenderness" implies feeling, this expression points to concrete action based on those feelings. Are we truly compassionate only if we feel compassion? Or does not mercy mean more than this? That is why Paul uses these two terms together: God both feels and acts from a heart of tenderness. And, by implication, Paul is telling the Philippians, that is how they should behave in relationship to each other if unity is to be manifest in their community.

The Old Testament contains powerful passages which teach the tenderness and compassion of Yahweh toward His people:
And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (Exodus 33:19).
None of those condemned things shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers (Deuteronomy 13:17).
Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions (Psalm 51:1).
And in the New Testament we hear:
As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy (James 5:11).
And Yahweh similarly expects his people to imitate these great attributes of His character in their dealings with each other. Consider:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other' (Zechariah 7:9-10).
Nor can we forget Paul's words in Romans 12:1, "I appeal to you on the basis of the mercies of God…", that is, I'm asking you to do something because of what God has already done. Paul is doing the same thing in Philippians 2:1, and it sets the tone for what follows.

Results Which Come From Responding To This Appeal (2:2)
Philippians 2:2 makes clear that Paul is joyful because of his previous relationship with the Philippians, but now he wants them to "make that joy complete" by following the example of God, as set forth in 2:1. For Paul that means "think the same" (Greek: hina to auto phronete). The Greek does not mean "agree on everything" or "always hold the same opinion". That would create a rather dull and monotonous sort of unity indeed! The verb phronein appears ten times in Philippians in one form or other, and some twenty-three times in all of Paul's letters. Considering that it appears twenty-six times in the whole New Testament, Paul's usage is remarkable. Phronein does not mean "to think" in merely an intellectual or mental sense. As Bertram notes, it involves one's emotions, attitudes and will. Not uniformity of thought or enforcement of a single opinion--something that would certainly provoke dissension and not unity--but instead a total orientation of will, mind, and heart which wants one thing: unity in spirit and feeling that is able to overcome the tensions created by such immense diversity as was found in the city of Philippi. Cranfield has written: "Such unity will only come when Christians are humble and bold enough to lay hold on the unity already given in Christ and to take it more seriously than their own self-importance…" Perhaps the best translation of phronein is simply "to have a common attitude".

But of what sort? Paul is clear: "having the same love", a Greek participial phrase explaining how one is to develop this common attitude. Our attitudes must be nurtured by the love of God. How does God love? That is how we should love! Further, Paul explains this attitude by its fruit: "harmonious" relationships, from the Greek sumpsuchoi, a compound adjective based on the word for "life or spirit" prefixed with the word of "together". Learning to "live together" harmoniously best expresses the thought of this word, and Paul sees it as the result of a deepening attitude which mirrors the love within God. Implied is the notion of togetherness, good will and equality. Finally, Paul binds together the thought of 2:2 with a reprise of the verb phronein, this time stressing common purpose. And so throughout 2:2, the apostle is revealing the results that flow from imitating God in His encouragement, love, fellowship, tenderness and compassion.

The Malady Requiring the Appeal to Unity (2:3a)
Having grounded unity in God, Paul now rejects a series of very pagan values, "power values", and in their place he installs Christ values.
selfish ambition: eritheian, that is, "one who electioneers for office, courting popular applause by trickery, courting distinction, desire to put oneself forward, partisan and factious spirit". A word which embodies the quintessential power broker, maneuvering himself into first place against a field of competitors.
vain conceit: kenodoxian, that is, "empty glory, vain self-estimation". The Greek term kenos means "empty". The person who proclaims his own glory, but the claim is empty and without merit. Paul strategically uses this word negatively in this section, so that later, he can juxtapose it to the attitude of Jesus in which he "emptied himself of the glory".
look to own interests: ta heauton ekastos skopountes, that is, "to observe, contemplate, look at, care for, have regard for" one's own private "things". The privacy of such a person's concerns isolates them from the collective concerns of the whole community.

Party-spirit, fueled by the wider Philippian culture, threatened the unity of the Philippian church. This is not a surprise, considering the stratification of Philippi's society. All the old animosities, suspicions, grievances, and hostilities followed the Philippians into the church where they would now need to be resolved. Paul is convinced the Christ-message and the presence of God in their lives would be sufficient to overcome these differences and restore unity to the community. But he wants to be clear about the ugliness of such pagan values.

The Remedy is Humility (2:3b-4)
"Humbly", Paul continues, "consider others better than yourselves". The idea of "humility" is the key element for unity at Philippi. The Greek noun, tapeinophrosune, is unique to the New Testament, but the adjectival form was found in ancient Greek texts, and it meant "the mentality of a slave" along with all sorts of very negative connotations: base, unfit, shabby, mean, of no account. Pagans would not have seen "humility" as a virtue, and so it remained only a negative adjective for them! A compound word, it's first part is tapein and simply refers to a state of lowliness, unimportance, being small, being humble. The Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, abbreviated as LXX) used this word to indicate how God's people should relate to God, and how God honored attitudes of being "humble" (see Isaiah 57:15). God gives grace to the humble (Isaiah 2:11; Ezekiel 17:24). The Bible, contrary to pagan culture, sees lowliness and humility as virtues.

Paul explains the meaning of this "invented noun", tapeinphronsune, with the words "considering each other better than yourselves". Ironically, in Philippian society, as we have already seen, people were assessed based on their status. There was no "considering" involved! You were a slave or poor or a non-citizen, regardless of how you considered yourself! And so, Paul is introducing a new way of "thinking" a new "attitude" about the all-important marker of "status" as it existed in the wider culture. He is saying to the Philippians, "Stop thinking about your position based on your own status (or as Paul puts it "interests"), but look outward to the people around you, and honor them with a status that is higher than your own." Pagans would do the opposite. They would want to see others as "lower" than themselves in order to maintain their own "status". But Christians, shaped by the God of encouragement, love, fellowship, tenderness and compassion, have a whole different "attitude". Voluntarily place yourself lower than others, Paul is saying. In Philippian culture that would have been seen as wholly counter-cultural, and contrary to the honor given to existing "status". It certainly flew in the face of all the norms surrounding "citizenship". Yet, in order for true unity to happen, such an attitude was absolutely necessary.

The Mind of Christ (2:5-11)
Whereas Paul previously appealed to a general understanding of "unity virtues" found in God (2:1), he now wants to bring those virtues into concrete form. He does this by devoting several verses to describing the "humiliation of Christ". To introduce this all-important section, he appeals to the Philippians to have the same "attitude" (once more he uses a form of phronein) among themselves, as that found in Christ. Some translations use the word "in" before "you" in 2:5. We believe "among" better fits the plural form of the pronoun (humin). Had it been singular, "in you" would make sense, but when there are many "you's", "among" more accurately captures the meaning. The Christ-attitude, sometimes called the "mind of Christ", is what really guarantees unity within the Philippian church. People must relate to each other with the same attitude as Christ related to the whole human race when he "came down" to save it. This is Paul's overall point in using the example of Christ in 2:5-11.

Paul proceeds to explain that attitude by incorporating what has come to be known as the "Christ Hymn", 2:6-11. In "stair-step" fashion, Paul shows how Christ Jesus descended from his exalted position in relation to God his Father, and, at last, died as a common criminal. The whole passage is written like a poem, and most good translations typeset it in that fashion. It appears to have three stanzas, the first two developing the theme of Christ's "humiliation", while the last one reaches a crescendo with his final exaltation. This hymn seems brims with beauty and overflows with majesty. It was no doubt sung in the early Christian communities, and this was likely the reason Paul gave it to the Philippian church. Perhaps Paul believed that what the believers required was not a lengthy dissertation, but a hymn which they would sing again and again. And each time they sang it, the implications of its message would sink in yet deeper. The music of the community often accomplishes what prosaic exposition cannot, namely, it saturates the heart and soul with the truth of its words through the grandeur of its melody and lyric.

Some simple observations rise from this part of the text:
1. Unmistakably, Christ was God in His essence, or, as Paul phrases it, he was God morphically (from the Greek: morphe). Lightfoot long maintained that this word expresses the essential and intrinsic nature of Christ--that he was truly God. And if Christ was truly God, he could not be anything greater than that! No need to strive or contest for a higher place. No need to seek a better role.
2. Confident of who he really is, Christ did not view "equality with God" something he had to "seize" or "rob" or "held fast" as if it would slip out of his hands. Why? Because Christ had the abiding confidence of his own divinity, grounded as it was, in the reality of his relationship to the Father. He knew he was God, and so there was no additional need to compete for that status.
3. "He emptied himself" (Greek: heauton ekenosen). Of course, he could not cease to be God, but he could choose to lay aside the prerogatives of God. That is, he chose to not avail himself of the privileges of Godhood, even though they were plainly his. Recall how Paul used the idea of "empty glory" when he was describing the pagan values his readers were to lay aside? In this passage, Christ empties himself of the glory.
4. "Form of a servant". Paul uses the same Greek word as he does when he speaks of "the form of God". Christ was just as truly a servant, as he was truly God. To be the one does not preclude the other. That is, of course, Paul's point. The assuming of the servant's role in no way compromises a Christian's identity, any more than Christ's taking the form of a servant meant that he ceased to be in essence, God.
5. Paul uses two different words to underscore Jesus' relationship to his humanity:
a. "in human likeness": Greek, homoiomati, meaning, "that which has been made after the likeness of something, a figure, image, likeness, representation, equality, identity". Anyone looking at him, interacting with him, and being around him would find a true human being in every respect. There was nothing "plastic" about Jesus becoming a human being. He was no demi-god or mythical half-god, half-man creature. As the creed expresses, "Fully God, and fully man".
b. "in human fashion": Greek, schemati, meaning, "habit, figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life". So as to reinforce the first term, Paul invokes yet another word that validates the true humanity of Jesus, and certifies that Jesus became a human being beyond dispute.
6. Why is so much emphasis placed on demonstrating the true humanity of Jesus? Much of Paul's argument that Christians should set aside prideful ambition rests with the truth that Jesus did much more than that. Ironically, there were some teachers who would claim that Jesus did not really "come in the flesh" (see 1 John 4:1-3), that the idea of God becoming human was preposterous, and even blasphemous. Among the Jewish community it sounded like idolatry. Among the Greeks it seemed outright ridiculous that gods would freely choose to become human beings except as actors. To counter this resistance to the incarnation, Paul makes himself quite clear through the language he uses.
7. But isn’t the incarnation enough? No, Paul goes on to affirm, he humbled himself even further by accepting the shameful death of the cross. The "humiliation" of Christ (Greek: etapeinosen, from tapeinoo, meaning "to make low, bring low, to bring to humble condition, reduce to meaner circumstances, assign a lower rank or place, ranked below those who are honored, to cause to blush") made him lower than even his common humanity required. If leaving behind the majesty and privilege of being God was not enough, Jesus voluntarily submitted to the basest form of death in the Roman Empire, namely, that of a criminal. To the Roman mind, he was a enemy of the state, and threat to the Empire. To the Jewish mind, he was a failed Messiah, and an embarrassment to the nation of Israel. Yet, in spite of this lowered reputation, Jesus accepted his situation freely. Of course, Paul's point is simple. If the heart of our gospel is the incarnation and humiliation of Christ, God's Son, how can we, the Christ-community, live any differently? Must not we lay aside our claim to "glory"? In the service of others and for their sake, should we not be willing to humiliate ourselves even further? And does not the knowledge that we are "God's children" serve as sufficient confidence for us, allowing us to let go of power when the needs of others demands it?
8. Finally, Jesus does not remain in his humiliation, though he chooses it without coercion. "God highly exalted him" (2:9), Paul writes, and invests him as King with the "name above every name" (Greek: to onoma to huper pan onoma). Paul has in mind both the resurrection of Jesus and his enthronement at God's right hand. The language used in this passage echoes Old Testament texts such as Isaiah 45:23 in which all of creation will bow before Yahweh. In Paul's argument, the final vindication of Jesus comes when all bow before him and confess that he alone if kurios, "Lord". And for whose glory does all this happen? Eis doxa theos patros, "unto God the Father's glory". While it might seem reasonable that the glory is given to Jesus in his exaltation, Paul wants the argument to place God the Father in the role of glory-getter. It was Jesus who laid aside everything to redeem lost humanity and thereby bring glory to his Father. Likewise, Paul wants his readers to absorb the same truth: they are to lay down their lives in service for each other, so that their community life may bring glory to God.

To the Philippian Christians, this Christ-hymn proclaims the basis of their salvation, namely, in Christ's coming down as a human being, having laid aside his legitimate claims to equality with God. As Paul's hymn makes clear, Christ's arrival in human form, "humiliation" and death, demonstrate his willingness to "consider others" ahead of himself and disregard claims to status and honor. Of course, it is just this "attitude" Paul wants to see exemplified in the lives of the Philippians. Christ has done all of this for their salvation, and, at the same time, left his own "exaltation" entirely in the hands of God. Even so, the Philippians must lay aside their natural claim to status or position, whether as land-owner, master, Roman citizen, or other privilege, so that those who do not have this status might also be accepted within the Christian community. All human standards of importance are entirely rejected, and the new way of acknowledging other people--one based on Christ's own humiliation--takes their place. I suppose Paul might just as easily said, "Are you better than Christ? Do you see yourselves as exempt from the self-effacing conduct of our Lord?" Or perhaps, "Are you fearful that if you do give up these places of prominence, somehow, it will not turn out well for you? Did it not turn out well for Christ when he 'made himself of no reputation'?" Barclay is helpful here:
Here then is the final appeal of Paul to the Philippians. If Jesus Christ was prepared to accept this amazing humiliation, how can His followers quarrel among themselves about matters of honor and of precedence? Surely all human thoughts of exaltation of self must shrivel up before the memory of the amazing sacrificial selflessness of Jesus Christ.

Salvation Worked Out (2:12-18)
Were we to apply the rhetoric model to 2:1-18, we might well see 2:1-5 as pathos, 2:6-11 as logos, and 2:12-18 as pathos again. Paul begins his next section with the Greek conjunction hoste, which we could translate as "therefore" or "well then!", connecting the Christ-hymn to Paul's further unity appeal. He addresses the Philippians as agapetoi, that is, "beloved" or "dearly loved ones", thus preserving the warm, personal tone of his letter in spite of the difficult admonitions he must give them. He makes clear in 2:12a that his own role in their lives is not as the proverbial dripping faucet (my metaphor!), always having to order them around or look over their shoulders to make sure they are living correctly. Nothing would have robbed Paul of his joy more than having to become for them what only Christ could be: their new conscience.

"Whether I am 'absent' or 'present', Paul says, "your lives should look the same, grounded as they must be, in the sort of belief I have just written about." He then explains his thinking: Since Christ was obedient (recall Paul's words in 2:8), the Philippians must be obedient. In fact, Paul intensifies his use of the Greek word hupekousate by modifying it with the adverb pantote, "always". Perhaps some of the Philippians were accustomed to "obeying" persons of higher rank within their society only when they were around to check up on them. Begrudgingly, they performed "on command", knowing the consequences would be dire. Once their "overseer" left, they opted out of their normal diligence, or as the old saying puts it: "The cat's away, the mice will play!" Paul does not want the Philippians to see him in that secular, cultural role as the "boss man" whose influence depends on threats of censure or disapproval. Life in the Christ community must be different, Paul says, with each person consistently "obeying" whether any other human being sees them or not.

"Your salvation", he writes, requires "working out". The word "your" is in the plural, suggesting that Paul is not talking about personal, private salvation, but instead that of the whole Christ community. To Western and American ears this seems odd. But to the ancient world, where communities were viewed as having a life of their own, it made perfect sense. Disunity was the enemy of the Philippian church, since so much of the colony's diversity could be found there. Christ not only came to save individuals, he came to deliver whole communities. Yahweh's dealings with his people in the Old Testament were not just a matter of individuals being plucked from fire, but of a whole nation delivered by the saving acts of God. Paul reminds his audience that "God is working out his will and good purpose among you" (2:13). Here is the first of four metaphors Paul uses to describe the Philippians.

1) They are workmen (2:12-13), God is their "boss" (not Paul!), and He is unfolding his "salvation project" in their lives, collectively. God is forming communities in the world--alternate communities, counter-communities--where he can implement His own purposes among human beings. Remember, Paul has just taught them through a powerful hymn that Jesus is Lord (Kurios): Lord of their work and His.

2) They are stars (2:14-15). If God is truly working out His purpose in their lives, then they are not without direction, nor is their work being performed simply at the whim of a ruthless taskmaster. How will Paul further develop this idea of "purpose"? He encourages them to stop their "grumbling and arguing", using the Greek words choris goggusmon kai dialogismon. The first of these words, goggusmos, is an example of onomatopoeia, that is, a word that sounds like what it means, at least to a Greek or Roman! In classical use, it means simply to "mutter", a kind of guttural, gurgling sound made deep in the throat. These are the mutters of a worker who hates doing what he's doing, and who hates the taskmaster who stands over him. We might pause to think in broader terms about the sorry state of management-labor relationship across the centuries. Workers exploited or employers cheated, and neither liking the other very much. Things were not significantly different in Paul's time. Much of the labor-management relationship involved slavery, where the master held all the power. It was not much different for peasants who were held captive to the land by their tenants, and who no doubt muttered often about the inequity of their situation. Paul sides with neither party, but calls on all of them to "shine like stars" in the dark world around them, a world crooked and twisted, and one in which, as stars, they could make a difference.

In describing the state of their society, Paul uses the Greek words skolia, meaning "twisted" and diastrammene, meaning "perverted". Both words reveal a society that has lost its way, and is "off course" heading nowhere. That is why the Philippians must live in unity with each other: they offer unparalleled examples of how communities can actually work, and as such, they are "stars" in the sky mapping fixed points of reference for the sailors of civilization to follow. Stars are not so much known for their brightness, as for their reference. If the Philippian live in unity among themselves, as God lives among them, they will offer to the human race "the last best hope" for finding its way back to God. Paul calls on the Philippians to be "children of God", that is, embodiments of God's character, something Paul has already described at some length in 2:1-11. Of all the virtues Paul emphasizes, these are most significant: akeraios (literally, "without mixture", "undiluted"), implying simplicity of character, purity, guiltlessness, or innocence. He couples this word with amemptos, meaning "without blame", "above reproach", "free from legitimate criticism". When the Philippians embody the truth of Jesus Christ in their lives, in their mercy, compassion, tenderness, self-less service, and love, they become reference points for a world blown off course, able to supply the necessary guidance, even within a colony where Romans dominate everyone else!

3) They are runners (2:16). Surprisingly, Paul invokes a metaphor taken from the Olympic games. Torch Relay races started in ancient Greece as religious rituals held at night. Soon they turned into a team athletic event, initially among adolescents, and further developed to become one of the most popular ancient sports. The enchanting power of fire was a source of inspiration. Sacred flames lit by the rays of the sun always burned in Olympia, in an altar dedicated to Hestia. Fire was ignited with the help of a concave mirror, which has the ability to concentrate the rays of the sun on a single spot. When the head priestess touched that point with the Torch, the Flame was lit. The Ancient Greeks held a lampadedromia (the Greek word for "Torch Relay"), where athletes competed by passing on the Flame in a relay race to the finish line. In ancient Athens the ritual was performed during the Panathenaia fest, held every four years in honor of the goddess Athena. The strength and purity of the sacred Flame was preserved through its transportation by the quickest means; in this case a relay of Torchbearers. The Torch Relay carried the Flame from the altar of Prometheus to the altar of goddess Athena on the Acropolis. Forty youths from the ten Athenian tribes had to run a distance of 2.5 kilometers in total. When Paul speaks of "holding forth the word of life", he also speaks of "running the race". Each Christian community is like one runner in this race, Paul himself a participant. His proclamation of the Gospel to the Philippians was the passing of the Torch, which they, in turn, must pass along to those around them. Paul risked much to pass the Torch to Philippi, and their continuing faithless to preserve the "unity of the faith" will either reward his efforts or cause him to "run in vain". That is why he uses the word epechontes to describe how the Philippians must tightly hang onto the "word of life", the real Torch in Paul's metaphor.

4) They are sacrifices (2:17-18). Paul compares his own life to a "libation", that is something "poured out" over the sacrificial altar. The Greek word here is spendomai, and we can almost see our English word "spend" contained within it. In the ancient world sacrifices, both pagan and Jewish, were usually accompanied and completed by a libation of wine poured out either on top of the sacrifice or at the foot of the altar to honor the god. But these were not libations of blood, suggesting somehow that Paul looks forward to his death. In fact, the tense of the verb is in the present, indicating that Paul is even now being poured out, and perhaps in a continuing way. By using this imagery, Paul is vividly referring to his sufferings for the sake of the Christ followers in general, and for the sake of the Philippians in particular. As such Paul's libation of himself places a "seal of approval" on whatever sacrificial service they Philippians may make, just as the libation completes any offering made to God. And that's what Paul wanted from the start: "to complete my joy" (2:2). Paul's sufferings, mingled with the Philippians, form a complete sacrifice to God, and here is real reason for joy, both for him and for them. This is precisely what he writes to conclude this fourth metaphor (2:17b-18).

Argument Two: Christ-Followers as Exemplars (2:19-30)
The second half of Philippians 2 is devoted to illustrating the sort of selfless and others-oriented lifestyle Paul want to take root in the Philippians' own community. Having appealed for unity based on the character of God, the humiliation of Christ, and the four-fold metaphors in 2:12-18, Paul now turns to some real flesh-and-blood exemplars. Part of Philippi's audience might have listened to the letter thus far, and then thrown their arms up in helpless despair: "Who can live like this, Paul? It's all well and good for you to tell us that God is a unity who expresses mercy and compassion, fellowship and love. And we certainly accept the Gospel story about Jesus coming down to earth, becoming a man, living, dying and rising again. Oh, and we surely respect you, Paul, for your sacrificial service for God's work and for us. But after all, you are an apostle, and that's what apostles do, isn't it? We, on the other hand, are just ordinary people living in a colony with its own problems, some of them deeply ingrained in the layers of our society. We just can't imagine regular people like us living this sort of life. It just isn't practical. It's just not possible."

How might Paul respond to our imaginary critic of his words? In true-to-life rhetorical form, as Ben Witherington, III points out, this material provides the audience with two examples of Christians who have followed Christ's example. Furthermore, both Timothy and Epaphroditus through their sacrificial acts and attitude provide the examples of behavior that produces unity and concord. Paul stresses how these leaders are his co-workers, fellow soldiers, owning shared goals and desires. Their relationship with Paul provides the social example of how things ought to be among and between the Philippians.

Timothy (2:19-24).
The opening verses of Philippians called Timothy a doulos, a slave for Christ, along with Paul himself (1:1). In turn, here, Paul refers to Timothy as his slave and "child" (Paul prefers the Greek teknon, "child" in lieu of huios, "son", underscoring the closeness of this relationship), who has served Paul "in the Gospel" (see Appendix One at the end of these notes for a full bio on Timothy). In describing him, Paul uses a rare Greek work, isopsuchos, prefixed by the word iso- which means "equality" or "like-ness", as in "isomorphic" ("same "form") or in "isosceles " ("same scale", like a triangle with two equal sides/angles). We might translate this word "like-soul-ed" or "like-minded", or, as Witherington does, "alike in the depths of his being". The Greek version of the Old Testament uses this word in Psalm 54:14 where it means "a man who is my equal", communicating the idea of close human friendship. R.P. Martin notes: "The sense of the passage seems to be that of all his [Paul's] Christian friends in the place of his confinement, i.e. the brethren who are with him (4:21) and the 'saints' and members of Caesar's household (4:22), there is no-one who shares so intimately Timothy's deep concern for the Philippians" (Martin, Philippians, p.128).

Why does he say this about Timothy? No doubt Paul and Timothy had a special relationship, akin to father and son, but "in the faith". Paul feels free to send Timothy to the Philippians because Timothy knows Paul's mind and heart so well, that he can act as Paul's "stand-in" (a kind of proxy) in ways that no one else could. And of course, that is not only valuable to Paul, who obviously wants his concerns accurately represented, but also for the Philippians, because they can see someone who has bonded so strongly with another. And that's exactly what Paul wants them to do with each other. "There should be," Paul is telling the Philippians through this example of Timothy, "the same sort of connections among yourselves, as exist between myself and Timothy, and he with me."

All of which might seem surprising, once we have the whole story on Timothy's natural temperament (see last part of Appendix One for the details). At a job interview, Timothy might well come "across as somewhat nervous and unsure of himself" (N.T. Wright, Everyman's Commentary, p.108). What Paul "brags about" in Timothy's life is not that he's a superstar preacher or erudite teacher, though he may well have been both. Instead, we hear Paul saying that Timothy will genuinely care about the Philippians (Greek: gnesios, "genuinely" + meriminesei, "to care for, be concerned about, be anxious"). The description of Timothy offered in this passage has to do with unselfish love, but also with undying allegiance to Jesus Christ. Nor did Timothy arrive at this approval casually. "You know his testing…", Paul writes in 2:22, and uses the Greek word dokime to express the idea of "proof, test, ordeal". This is another one of those "Pauline words", found only in his writings (see also Romans 5:4; 2 Corinthians 2:9; 8:2; 9:13; 13:3). It's also rare in non-biblical Greek. Its use in this context suggests that Timothy has "proven himself" through his consistent and faithful service with Paul. Traveling with Paul was no doubt a "trip" in the colloquial sense! And Timothy, through thick or thin, through timidity and shyness, held up all along. Of course, this is the kind of commitment Paul wants to see in the Philippians, and is one more reason he sends Timothy to them.

Timothy has all the marks of a selfless worker who cares deeply for others. Again, the Philippians need to see that someone other than God, Christ, or Paul can live this way! This is why Paul determines to send Timothy to the Philippians.

Epaphroditus (2:25-30).
If other New Testament texts warranted an appendix for Timothy, no warrant exists for Epaphroditus. What we read in this passage is the sum total of the data! Mentioned only in Phil 2:25; 4:18. The name corresponds to the Latin "Venustus" (= handsome), and was very common in the Roman period. "The name occurs very frequently in inscriptions both Greek and Latin, whether at full length Epaphroditus, or in its contracted form Epaphras" (Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 123). The implication of 2:25 is that this man was a Philippian, sent by the church to check on Paul's situation "in chains". This would suggest, once more, the close bond between the Philippians and Paul, and their concern for him warranted a trip by Epaphroditus to Rome. During his visit with Paul, or. perhaps on his journey to Rome, he became ill, something that the Philippians discovered, and which attenuated their concern. Paul makes a special point of describing his visitor through a number of key terms.
1. "[My]Brother" (2:25), adelphos, expressive of the "family of God' model Paul wants to maintain within the Philippian community. Though he comes from Philippi, yet in Christ he is Paul's brother.
2. "[my] Fellow-worker" (2:25), sunergos, "worker with__"
3. "[my] Fellow-soldier" (2:25), sustratiotes, "soldier with__".Notes on #1-#3: The implication of the Greek text for #1-#3 is that the word "my" applies to all three descriptions of Epaphroditus. When Paul uses the compound forms of "worker" and "soldier" along with sun-, "together, with", he intends to strengthen the idea of unity which he so very much wants to see evident in the Philippian community. In the case of Epaphroditus, Paul goes out of his way to emphasize how well this man works together with others, or, as we might say, "Plays well with others"! Though he is far from home, still he steps up to the difficult task of living, working, and soldiering with Paul, while Paul is "in chains". The impression we have is that Epaphroditus, for as long as he was with Paul, and his health permitted, was doing the things that Paul himself would have done, namely, being a brother, a worker and a solider in the cause of Christ. You may recall from our comments on 2:12-18, these are some of the very traits Paul desired to see embodied among the Philippians. Therefore, Paul effectively applies his rhetorical skills to his argument for unity by bringing Epaphroditus' faithful work to the attention of his fellow-countrymen in Philippi. In effect Paul is saying, "See? This man is one of yours, and he is more than capable of living out the Christian ideal of unity as brother, worker, and solider. Now I am sending him back to you. Learn from him. Imitate him. Let him mentor you."
4. "Your messenger" (2:25). Paul uses the common word for "apostle" (apostolos) in this passage, but with the pronoun "your" so as to distinguish him from an apostle of Jesus Christ in the more formal sense. We might better render this "envoy" as it applies to Epaphroditus. However, as Hawthorne insightfully points out, "Epaphroditus is equally an 'apostle' with Paul in that both were men commissioned and sent out with full authority to perform specific tasks of service" (Hawthorne, 117).
5. "[Your] minister to my needs" (2:25). Here we see the Greek word leitourgos, commonly applied to public servants, including office holders. Rooted in Hebrew ideas, the word was applied to the priests and the whole system of Jewish worship. This is a remarkable combination of ideas. In meeting Paul's needs, Epaphroditus is performing a deeply religious activity, as sacred as that of a priest, and as important as a public servant. Later, in 4:18, Paul will call the gift Epaphroditus him a "sacrifice" (Greek: thusia). When he wrote Romans, Paul called the offering of our whole persons to God a "sacrifice" (thusia) and an acceptable form of worship (leitourgos) (Romans 12:1-2).
6. One who "longs for" the Philippians (2:26). From the Greek epipothein, the word translated "longs" implies a "yearning" akin to what one feels when homesick, as Epaphroditus no doubt was. His Christian family was back in Philippi, and the deep bonds which united him to them evoked such strong, personal, and heart-felt feeling. Again, Paul is highlighting qualities which he wants to see developing in the Philippian believers.
7. One who is "anxious" for the Philippians (2:26). Using the word ademonon, meaning "anguish", Paul deepens the rhetoric to reveal the heart of Epaphroditus. Lightfoot unpacks its meaning when he writes: "the confused, restless, half-distracted state which is produced by physical derangement or mental distress" (Lightfoot, p.123). The same word appears in Mark 14:33 (and parallels) when describing Jesus' state of mind in Gethsemane. Notice the recursive nature of his distress: he is concerned over the Philippians because they are concerned about him! Both this word and the previous one are placed into a special Greek form (knows as a "periphrastic") which underscores the continuous and persistent state of an action.
8. Worthy of "honor" (2:29). In 2:27-28 Paul offers details about Epaphroditus' illness and his near-death condition. Without offering details of his recovery, Paul attributes his healing to God's "mercy". But Paul also remarks how the healing lifted the emotional burden from himself, sparing him "wave upon wave of sorrow". The Greek here is lively: lupen epi lupen. Thus the hastened return of Epaphroditus to the Philippians. Paul seems have sensed trouble by the sudden arrival of Philippi's emissary back home, and so he makes clear how the Philippians are to receive their old friend. How so? Since Epaphroditus had been sent to Paul to help him, bearing a gift in the process, this sudden u-turn might make the Philippians feel ashamed because their emissary had somehow let Paul down or been defective. The social networks of a society like Philippi saw "shame" as negative and to be avoided. Paul, by allaying their fears and affirming their messenger, sets aside the old ways of evaluating human beings, and shows what a wonderful thing it was for "their man" to minister to Paul.Of special interest is Paul's emphasis on holding Epaphroditus "in high honor" (Greek: entimous). Classical Greek applied this term to persons of "rank", of "high office". Considering the social strata we have observed at Philippi, ordinarily based on things like social and economic status, this expression introduces Paul's understanding of what accords a person true value. Persons who serve others, as Epaphroditus served Paul, and who risk their lives to carry out the work they are sent to do for the cause of Christ--these are the people of real rank, of real status. We don't know what Epaphroditus' social rank was back in Philippi, and Paul doesn't bother saying, and for good reason. None of the old orderings of society count for much in the kingdom of God, nor should they matter in the community of Christ. Honor is Christ's reward for faithful service within the community. "Honor people like him", Paul explicitly commands. Epaphroditus beautifully exemplified such service, and that is why Paul commends him back to the Philippians.
9. Courageous "risk-taker" for the work of Christ (2:30). "He risked his life", Paul exclaims in this closing passage. Paul's Greek uses a participial form of the word paraballesthai which has a wonderful set of possible meanings: "to throw beside, to expose to danger, to set what one values upon a chance, to hazard it as at play, to stake one's life, to risk". Several commentators remark that Paul may well have coined this form of the verb as a word-play on the name of "Epaphroditus", since his name actually means "favorite of Aphrodite", who was, among other things, the goddess of gambling. When a gambler threw the dice, he would shout "epaphroditos!", thus invoking the same of the goddess. With a twinkle in his eye, Paul spins the name of his Philippian companion, as if to say, "Here's a fellow who lives up to his name!"

Some Final Thoughts on Philippians 2
What a marvelous journey this chapter has been! Unity was Paul's burden for the Philippians. All kinds of factors conspired to destroy the "like-mindedness" of the Philippian Christ-followers. Perhaps even Paul's "chains" were an embarrassment to them, and they may have been chooseing sides over what that implied about his usefulness to God and the Gospel. No doubt Paul also sensed the stresses created by living in highly stratified Philippi, and how some of those fractures were beginning to form inside the church. Soldiers, citizens, slaves, farmers, service-workers, Greeks, Romans, men, women, rich and poor streamed into the Christ-community in response to Paul's preaching. Now he is absent, held in detention under Roman guard, some distance from them. Unable to personally address the enemies to their unity, Paul crafts his letter instead. Grounding Christian unity in the person of God (2:1-4), he joyously composed the Christ-hymn to show how Christ himself had stooped very low in accomplishing salvation. Ultimately, shame did not have the last word for Jesus, whom God raised to the highest heavens, giving him status above all things (2:5-11). To the Philippians he gives the challenge to joyfully "work out this salvation" in their community life, and implement the example of Christ among themselves. In so doing they must become workmen, stars, runners, and sacrifices (2:12-18). Then, in a sweeping stroke of rhetorical genius, Paul invites two powerful exemplars of his appeal to unity in the persons of Timothy and Epaphroditus, calling on the Philippians to adjust their value systems so as to honor "men like this". He asks the Philippians to abandon the old standards so prevalent in Philippian society, and adopt the model of "unity", paying attention to how men like Timothy and Epaphroditus accomplish this (2:19-30).

The message of Philippians 2 is not lost in the first century. It is not confined to a heart-felt exchange between Paul and the Roman colony of Philippi. Western society groans beneath its own social strata, and persons of every rank find their way into the Christ-community. Not everyone arrives for the same reason. Some, hearing the winsome words of the Gospel, discover in the church a new kind of society where persons of every rank are welcomed, nurtured and held in high esteem. Yet, the maladies of Philippi still afflict contemporary Christ-communities. Money, power, position, talent, manners--these continue to compete for the affections of Christ's followers. The rich are courted because of "what they can do for our church". The powerful are flattered so their influence can "make things happen". The cult of youth can shove aside the wisdom of a lifetime. The result? A painful disunity where persons of all rank cease to respect each other, and the model for relationships is not mutual love, but reluctant co-existence. We tolerate each other, but we do not honor each other. It does not matter if these attitudes reign among the leadership or the person in the pew. Wherever they thrive they bring in their train, selfishness, distrust, deceit, jealousy, pandering, and the whole parade of vices rip the fabric of the Christ-community. To us, as well as to the Philippians, Paul makes his appeal. Focus on Christ and: "Make my joy complete, by being like-minded, having the same love, being in spirit and purpose" (2:2).

Glory to God! Amen.
Appendix One: Timothy Background Brief

Timothy's hometown was Lystra, where Paul and Barnabas visited on their First Missionary Journey (41-47 C.E.) (Acts 14:6-21). "They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples" (Acts 14:8). Among them, quite likely, was young Timothy. Paul adopted Timothy as his spiritual father, calling him "my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 4:17) and "my true son in the faith" (1 Timothy 1:2). When Paul and Silas returned for the Second Missionary Journey (47-51 C.E.), "the brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of" Timothy (Acts 16:2). Timothy accompanied Paul and his companions on the missionary journey (Acts 16:3).

One small problem intervened. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother, but had a Greek father who had not circumcised him. But his mother taught him the Hebrew Bible "from infancy" (2 Timothy 3:15), and Timothy had good examples in both his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (2 Timothy 1:5). Paul opposed forcing people to be circumcised as a prerequisite for salvation. He defended the right of another co-worker, Titus, to remain uncircumcised, since he had no Jewish parentage (Galatians 2:1-5). To Paul circumcision or uncircumcision wasn't important to salvation (Galatians 5:6; 6:15). But Paul's mission was being all things to all men in order to save some (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). His missionary strategy was to go first to the synagogue in a city and preach Christ there. When he was eventually expelled from the synagogue for preaching Jesus as the Messiah, he would organize a church, made up of converted Jews as well as converted "God-fearers," Gentiles who came to synagogue because they were attracted by Judaism.

But if Paul went to a synagogue with an uncircumcised Jewish young man as his associate, he would have been immediately ejected over the issue of circumcision, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ wouldn't get a hearing. If Timothy were to travel with Paul, he must be circumcised, not for salvation, but so he wouldn't be an impediment to Jews hearing the Gospel. So Timothy was circumcised in Lystra, received the laying on of hands by the elders at Lystra (1 Timothy 4:14), and Timothy joined the Apostolic mission.

From this time on, Timothy is a close, trusted associate of Paul's. They have a kind of mentor-protégé, father-son relationship. As he grows in the faith, Paul entrusts him with the most delicate of missions. Hawthorne observes, "Timothy was a young man with exceptional potential for missionary statesmanship and church leadership." Some historical facts about Timothy's life experience help us better grasp his importance to Paul as expressed in Philippians 2:19-24.

1. He is left behind in Berea to continue the work after Paul is forced to leave because of threats against his life (Acts 17:14).
2. During a time of persecution he is sent to Thessalonica to strengthen the believers in their faith (1 Thessalonians 3:1-3).
3. He is sent to Macedonia from Ephesus with a similar mission (Acts 19:22).
4. He is sent as Paul's emissary to bring teaching and healing to the troubled church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 4:17-21).
5. He is apparently sent to Philippi and perhaps returns with a monetary gift from that church for Paul (Philippians 2:19; 4:15-16; Acts 18:5).
6. He is instructed how to appoint elders and deacons in the churches (1 Timothy 3).
7. He accompanies Paul on his last trip to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4).
8. He is at his side during his imprisonment.
9. Paul seemed to gain special comfort, encouragement, and strength from Timothy's presence (Philippians 2:20-22). He is mentioned in the salutation of the letters to Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica, and the second Corinthian letter -- probably because he was well-known to those churches.

Like all of us, however, Timothy was a person under construction by God. Paul has to encourage him against timidity (2 Timothy 1:7) and people despising his authority because of his youth (1 Timothy 4:12; 1 Corinthians 16:10). Sometimes Paul has to urge him to be diligent in spiritual matters and to persevere in the Christian ministry (1 Timothy 4:12-16; 2 Timothy 1:6; 3:14-15). Paul also instructs him how to behave towards various kinds of people (1 Timothy 5), controlling his passions (2 Timothy 2:22-23), dealing with error (2 Timothy 3:1-18), and keep himself from godless myths and speculations (1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7). Paul encourages by his own example to love, faith, and purity (1 Timothy 4:12), to fight the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 1:18), and to keep the faith and a good conscience (1 Timothy 1:19).

Paul longs for Timothy at the closing days of his life (2 Timothy 4:9). Later, apparently Timothy himself is imprisoned and then released (Hebrews 13:23). Of his later life we know little, but that tradition says that he succeeded the Apostle John as Bishop of Ephesus and was beaten to death at age of eighty. Timothy made a remarkable contribution to the ministry of Paul and to the First Century Church.

Digger Deeper: Cross-Training: Just Focus
(Bob Brown)

To gain a deeper understanding of Cross-Training: Just Focus, carefully read the selected passages below. To aid you in your study, we invite you to visit the website http://notes.chicagofirstnaz.org, or pick up a copy of the notes at the Connect desk, or from your ABF leader. Now consider the following questions, as you ask the Lord to teach you.

Special Note: The Background Notes are especially useful in working through some of these questions. You are encouraged to secure a copy as you begin.

1. Using the following Scripture references as divisions for Philippians 2:1-30, label the main sections of the passage: (1) 2:1-18; (2) 2:19-30. Now briefly summarize the key points made by Paul in each section.
2. In 2:1, there are four "if" statements. What do each of them tell us about how unity is possible in the Christian community?
3. Similarly, 2:2 offers some results when this unity exists. What are those results?
4. What are the enemies of unity according to 2:3a? Using 2:3b-4 as the basis for your answer, what can be done to overcome these enemies?
5. Sometimes 2:5-11 is called a Christ-hymn. What are the two main parts and how would you describe each one?
6. How does Christ show his "humility" according to this hymn? In what way did God honor his obedience?
7. According to 2:5 what are we suppose to do because of Christ's example in this hymn? How did you think we are to put this into practice?
8. Paul uses four images to describe the Philippians in 2:12-18. Can you identify them? Why are they an important part of Paul's teaching on the subject of unity in the church? Consult the Background Notes for additional insight into these images.
9. What two important people are mentioned in 2:19-30. Why do you think Paul brings them into the letter at this point?
10. Create two columns and title them with the names of these people. Now fill in these columns with the following:
a. Words used to describe each.
b. Reasons why Paul uses them as exemplars.
c. Ways Paul "connected" with each of them.
d. The relationship Paul had with them which he wanted the Philippians to imitate?
11. In what ways does Philippians 2:1-30 give us solid reasons to seek unity in our church?
12. What guidance does it provide to strengthen or create that unity?

Cross-Training: Philippians 1, Just Overcome

Just Overcome
Cross-Training
Studies in Paul's Letter to the Philippians
January 26/27, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
Cross-Training: Just Overcome
(Robert Ismon Brown)

Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: Philippians 1:1-26
(NIV) 1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: 2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me. 8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ-- to the glory and praise of God.

12 Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly. 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, 19 for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance. 20 I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, 26 so that through my being with you again your joy in Christ Jesus will overflow on account of me.

27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves [literally, "conduct yourselves as citizens", from the Greek politeuesthe] in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel 28 without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved-- and that by God. 29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

Introduction
Thirteen books of our New Testament are attributed to Paul, and among them is the book we are about to study: Philippians. Each of them assumes the form of a "letter", a common form of communication in antiquity. In an age when travel was more difficult, this served as a welcome substitute for a face-to-face conversation. Letters were highly personal, addressed either to whole communities of Christ followers located in various cities of the Roman Empire, or to individuals known to Paul. Many of these communities owed their existence to the personal work of Paul during one of three missionary journeys. Paul's intent for these letters was that they be read to everyone in these communities, and as such are group communications. Evidently, Paul would have preferred a direct visit (as indicated in Romans 15:14-33, 1 Corinthians 4:14-21, 1 Thessalonians 2:17-3:13, and Galatians 4:12-20), but found the letter an acceptable replacement.

Letters and Rhetoric
Unlike other letters of his time, Paul's were longer. Yet, they followed a familiar format including the following elements:
Writer's name
Addressee
Greeting
Body: included thanksgivings, prayers, itinerary
Advice
Conclusion: included greetings, benediction

Paul used these normal components and expanded on them in ways reflective of his vocation as a Christian apostle and pastor-at-large. Throughout each of his letters we observe a strong connection between Paul and his churches, with some letters wrapped in warm, personal comments, as well as passionate statements of reproof and correction. He often employed a secretary, called an amanuensis, who would write down what Paul composed orally, thus capturing more of the oral, face-to-face flavor of his communication style. Along with the writing of the letter was the matter of delivering it its intended audience, a task Paul did not leave to chance, but seemingly picked his couriers based on their ability to not only deliver the letter but also offer explanations of it to his readers. Timothy and Titus, as examples, would have filled that role ably.

Adding to the personal texture of his letters was Paul's tendency to engage in a written conversation with his readers, placing his own words in context with his reader's issues and concerns. On occasion Paul would even surmise what his audience might be asking, responding or saying about some topic in dispute. Through his letter-writing, he always remained the "pastor", sensitive to needs, problems, and circumstances found in his congregations.

We call these documents "letters" because of their overall form and outline. But within them Paul also incorporates a method of arguing and speaking known to the ancients as rhetoric. While it is true that Paul's education was Jewish, yet, as was true with well-trained rabbis during Paul's time, Jewish scholars could be well-versed in the styles of argumentation and speech-making found in Hellenistic culture. This was, after all, a method of transmitting ideas across cultures, and Paul was called to minister to the Gentile world, and not only to his Jewish countrymen. Using rhetoric meant not only speaking according to some set form, but also explaining facts, making proofs, and seeking to disprove the claims of others. The goal was to persuade, and Paul fully intended to get his message heard and to lead his audience to accept what he had to say. He fully meant to change people's minds and lead to them the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and rhetoric offered a means to do that. Paul was not just in the business of commanding his churches to do things, but, like a good rhetorician, he desired them to actually believe and accept what he was teaching them.

Ancient rhetoric tried to move people's hearts as well as get their assent to ideas. Scholars call these aspects pathos, logos and ethos, based on Greek words which refer to deep feeling, right thinking, and proper acting, respectively. Paul does a bit of each in his letters. Furthermore, rhetoric comes in different flavors:
forensic: accusation and defense, usually about what has already happened.
deliberative: persuasion, usually what the speaker wanted to accomplish in the minds of his audience.
epideictic: praise, blame with a view to changing attitudes about what matters most, namely, values.
In his letter to the Philippians, Paul relies heavily on deliberation to persuade the Christians there to live in unity and harmony, as well as to overcome in the face of suffering.

Another important feature of rhetoric is its arrangement into several parts:
Exordium: appears at the beginning and seeks to make the listeners favorable to the message.
Narratio: an explanation of what the speaker intends to communicate.
Propositio: lays out the main points and "proposes" the thesis.
Probatio: contains the actual arguments in favor of what the speaker is contending.
Refutatio: arguments against the speaker's critics or against some viewpoint the speaker rejects.
Peroratio: a summation, often laced with feeling in an effort to strengthen acceptance by the audience of the speaker's words.
The speaker tries to carefully "bracket" these parts with a start and finish called the inclusio. Furthermore, we must not fail to mention that each "speech" (or letter, in this case) has in mind the circumstances of its audience, such as a problem or peril they face, something called the exigence.

Keeping these elements of rhetoric in mind, Paul had a ready-at-hand instrument for extending his own preaching through the medium of the letter, giving this written form an "oral feel". The Roman Empire, where his churches were located, was quite familiar with this style of speaking (or writing), and Paul put it to the service of the Gospel and his own pastoral care of the churches. The very fact that Paul chose the word ekklesia to describe these "churches" reveals that he saw them as "assemblies" where such deliberation could take place, and a fair debate could occur. Actually, this Greek term (ekklesia) doesn't really imply a religious gathering as such, though there are Hebrew shades of meaning (such as the qahal) possible behind the word. Had Paul been able, he would have chosen to be present and have this conversation in person. Since this was not always possible, he relied on the time-tested rhetorical style, embodied in the letter form.

Applying the rhetorical model to Paul's Philippian letter yields the following tentative outline:
Letter salutation (1:1-2)
Letter thanksgiving, merging into the exordium (1:3-11)
The rhetorical narratio (1:12-26)
The rhetorical propositio: the main point Paul is trying to make (1:27-30)
The rhetorical probatio: but also incorporating a refutatio (2:1-4:3)
The rhetorical peroratio: summarizing his various assertion (4:4-20)
Letter closing (4:21-23)

What do we learn from this brief tutorial on letter writing and rhetoric? At the very least, we come to admire Paul's skill and care in crafting his letters, following the accepted canons of argument and communication familiar to his audience, in this case, to the Philippians. His choice of words, his arrangement of the arguments, his concern for the situation of his audience, and his sensitivity to their needs--these combined within the letters Paul wrote. And as we shall see in the case of Philippians, Paul was an effective communicator for the Gospel message to an audience he wished to convince.

Philippi and Philippians
It was the father of Alexander the Great, Philip of Macedon, who, in 358 B.C.E., founded the city of Philippi. But it was left to the Romans to establish it under Roman law, shaped by Roman ideals. When the Romans beat the Persians in 168 B.C.E., they made the city of some importance, connecting Rome with the East along the Via Egnatia. Only eight miles from the Mediterranean, the land was fertile and the gold mines rich. This city was the site of the battle which eventually set Octavian on the road to becoming Emperor Augustus, a fact assured by his defeat of Marc Antony in 31 B.C.E. at Actium. Augustus made Philippi a military outpost and a colony with the status of a Roman territory, a unique honor for a provincial city. Residents paid no poll or land taxes, and they could engage in real estate transactions, and have rights at court. In addition Augustus promoted the city to the status of a senatorial province in 27 B.C.E., and later, Tiberius made it into an imperial province (15 C.E.), though the senate reversed that in 44 C.E. The idea of Roman citizenship was prominent in Philippi and a source of special pride to its residents.

The procurator governed from Thessalonica, not from the city itself, allowing for strong ties directly with Rome. Philippi was, by all intents, a little Rome, filled with Romans, some Greeks, and not many Jews. From Acts 16 we learn by implication that Paul found no synagogue in Philippi when he arrived there. On the other hand, women seemed to be prominent, as the Acts 16 passage reveals in the case of Lydia a seller of purple, no small occupation. This was a Gentile city populated with Greeks and Romans, with the power resting in the hands of the Romans. The various names appearing in the letter of Philippians suggest Greek backgrounds.

Social Structure
What sorts of relationships would we discover in the city of Philippi? For Paul, we would no doubt consider his co-workers and the members of the church he helped to found. But in addition we also need to factor in the impact of the Roman power structure which grew out of the special status this city held as either a senatorial or imperial province. In the letter, Paul makes reference to "Caesar's household" sending greetings to the Philippians.

Paul had a clear economic connection to this community since they were generous in their support of his work, and, as we learn from 2 Corinthians, in the assistance given to the poorer members of the community world-wide. Were the Philippians patrons of Paul in the formal sense, or were they simply good stewards of their finances?

Since Philippi placed a high honor on Roman citizenship, how would this affect Paul's own assertion in Philippians that the true citizenship is "in heaven" and not on earth under Caesar or the senate's rule?

We also discover the early stages of church government appearing through Paul's use of words like episkopoi and diakonoi. Who were these people and did they constitute "offices" in the church or simply functions?

On a personal note, Paul writes about two specific individuals, Euodia and Syntyche, who apparently had difficulty mending fences. So significant was their discord, that Paul elevates their strife by explicitly mentioning their names in his letter! Then there is Epaphroditus whose role at Philippi was of some importance to Paul. What was that role?

The Philippian letter reveals Paul's detention in Roman chains. How would that legal status play with his Philippian audience who lived in a city surrounded by Roman law?

These sets of questions should remain on the table of our thoughts as we discuss the contents of Paul's letter to this city.

Who, When, Why and Other Interrogatives
Hardly anybody questions that Paul wrote this letter. So only a few words about the man himself. Acts 7 and 9 introduce us to him, initially as an outspoken critic and persecutor of Christians. Grounded in his Judaism, taught by Rabbi Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus was by all accounts a man of letters within the Jewish community. His youthful zeal led him to embrace the opposite view from his Rabbi, as he fell in with the Shammai school of the Pharisees. In this school he learned the importance of purifying Judaism from its pagan influences, opposing the Romans when they insulted Jewish faith and practice, and rooting out any movements which might water down the kind of zeal needed to accomplish all of this. Saul of Tarsus was a man of influence and ruthlessness. But then all of that changed. Acts 9 records (one of several such accounts in Acts) how Saul was struck with blindness, addressed by the risen Jesus, and led to Damascus where Christians ministered to his needs. His sight restored, he embarked on an extended desert stay in Arabia, only to return in the power of the Spirit as God's appointed messenger to the Gentiles of the Roman Empire, a mission he embraced with joy.

As Saul began his first outward thrust into Asia Minor, he began to consistently use his Roman name, Paul, having benefited from Roman citizenship, thanks to his father's lineage. The cities he visited were usually made up of both Jews and Gentiles, and his common practice was to meet with the synagogues of the Jews first, in an effort to shore-up support for the Jesus message and enlist helpers in the mission of bringing the word to the Gentiles on behalf of Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, now revealed in Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, God's Son, Lord and Savior.

It was on his second missionary journey that Paul, in company with Silas, left the borders of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and crossed over into Greece, led by the vision of the so-called "man from Macedonia", the province where Philippi was located (Acts 16:6-10) within the boundaries of Europe. Acts 15:39-18:22 records Paul's arrival in Philippi, an event that happened close to 50 C.E. A brief summary of his visit is in order:
He meets a group of women, including Lydia, a seller of purple dye from Thyatira in Asia.
A slave girl possessed by an evil spirit encounters him, and Paul exorcises the spirit, stirring up the anger of her owners who profited from her condition.
Consequently the owners bring Paul and Silas before the magistrate, have them flogged and imprisoned.
During their imprisonment an earthquake rocks the jail, leading the jailer to fear that prisoners had escaped. Paul and Silas assure him, and he utters the famous words "What must I do to be saved?", followed by the famous reply "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).
At a hearing the next day, it is discovered that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens, held without proper processing, and they are subsequently released, departing for new regions.

Paul would return to Philippi as Acts 20:1-6, 2 Corinthians 2:13 and 7:5 indicate. Then, sometime after his initial visit to Philippi, Paul was placed in chains, and it was during this detainment that he wrote the Philippian letter. Philippians 4:10-20 seems to support a considerable period of time. But where was he detained? And was this detainment actual imprisonment? Scholars differ in their conclusions, with options ranging from Ephesus, to Caesarea, to Rome. Nothing in Philippians 1 states that Paul was in prison, only that he was in "chains", something expected in the case of "house arrest", his actual condition in Rome, according to Acts 28. From Philippians 4:21-22 we gather that other Christians are "with" him, and certainly the reference to "Caesar's household" points to the sort of imperial slaves who might have been associated with Paul in Rome. Such references would have gotten the attention of the Philippians who held their Roman status in great honor, and would certainly been familiar with the kind of language Paul used to describe his "legal surroundings". If Rome is the place of writing, then that likely puts the date at 62 C.E., following the general chronology of Acts. Following his release from his Roman detention, he again visited the city of Philippi as attested by 1 Timothy 1:3.

Throughout his letter, Paul communicates his love and thankfulness for the Christ community at Philippi. At the same time, he urges them to embrace the virtues of unity, holiness and joy. His warmth is felt in each of the several sections, leading some scholars to theorize that Philippi was his favorite congregation (if apostles are allowed to play favorites!). In the Philippians he found a deep sensitivity to material needs (4:15-18, compare with 2 Corinthians 8:11). Unlike his letters to Galatia or Corinth, Paul's letter to the Philippians contains no deep-seated theological or practical crisis. And while the two "church ladies" seemed to undermine the unity of the church, none of that muted Paul's affection, his gratitude for their gifts, his instruction for their continuing growth, his warnings about outside false teachers, and his transparency about his own circumstances of being "in chains". Honestly, he discloses news of his imprisonment and the progress of the gospel under his leadership. He wants them to receive Timothy as his personal emissary, and to also receive back their emissary to him, the man Epaphroditus.

Central to Paul's message in Philippians is the person of Christ, as contained in what is likely the key passage within the letter: "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (1:21). Coupled with it is the way the person of Christ became embodied in Paul's own life when he writes: "I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need" (4:12). And having made these points quite clear, Paul supports has arguments with the supreme example of Jesus as expressed in the famous "Christ-hymn" found in Philippians 2:5-11, presenting that example for the Philippians to follow for themselves. Paul operates, not from the circumference of the Christ-event, but from its very center when he pens these words: "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming like him in his death" (3:10). Refusing to become complacent about his own "training in Christ", he assures his audience, "Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on…" (3:12). And it is this "pressing on" which gives shape to this four-part series from Philippians which commences in the present study.

This is about "Cross-Training", that is, the training found in the Cross of Jesus Christ as expressed in various ways by Paul to his Philippian audience. In the Gospels, this experience is simply called "being a disciple" of Jesus Christ, even as he called his first disciples to "follow me". Learning to follow Christ all the way to the cross, and then living our lives in light of the cross--these are the prime objectives of our study. And Philippians becomes our resource for discovering the meaning of "Cross-Training" understood in this way.

Reason for the Philippian letter
One of Philippi's own, a man named Epaphroditus, had come to visit Paul during his detention, presumably in Rome, while under house arrest. That visit occasioned an illness from which Epaphroditus had recently recovered, and he was now returning to Philippi, along with Timothy, bearing Paul's letter. In part, Paul wants the Philippians to know how much he appreciated Epaphroditus' companionship (see 2:25-30). He also seeks to allay fears about his situation and actually offers a fine example to the Philippians of handling adversity. He makes a number of points:
His imprisonment actually helped the Gospel cause (1:12-20).
As soon as his case was decided, he would send Timothy to inform them (2:23).
He expected a full release (1:25, 2:23-24).
Yet he was prepared for the worst, and knew whatever the verdict it would be final (1:21-26).
Ever the "pastor", Paul seeks unity (1:27-29) and humility (2:1-11) from the Philippians.
Above all else, he cultivates a spirit of "joy" (Greek: chara) (3:1; 4:1, 4-7).
He also warns two sisters in the faith to mend their differences (4:2-3).
Certain threats from the Jewish community and from others are discussed (3:18-21).

Here is a letter cementing a strong friendship between Paul and the Philippians. It is marked with spontaneity, warmth, and supreme joy. Paul notes the continuing "fellowship" (Greek: koinonia) in the Gospel they shared with him. Notable is Paul's famous Christ-hymn (2:5-11) used to encourage a spirit of humility and sacrifice by appealing to the example of Christ himself.

Outline (with special thanks to Ben Witherington, III, for his excellent rhetorical analysis)

I. Introduction (1:1-11)
A. Salutation: The Prescript (1:1-2)
B. Prayer: The Exordium (1:3-11)
1. Thanksgiving (1:3-8)
2. Intercession (1:9-11)
II. Paul's Circumstances: The Narratio (1:12-26)
A. His Present Imprisonment (1:12-18a)
B. His Possible Future (1:18b-26)
III. Be Firm: The Propositio (1:27-30)
IV. Paul's Argument: The Probatio (2:1-43)
A. Example for the Church (2:1-18)
1. Be United (2:1-4)
2. Be Humble (2:5-11)
3. Be Visible (2:12-18)
B. Models for the Church (2:19-30)
1. Timothy (2:19-24)
2. Epaphroditus (2:25-30)
C. Warnings to the Church (3:1-4:1)
1. Warning about Legalism (3:1-11)
2. Warning against Perfectionism (3:12-4:1)
D. Conflict in the Church (4:2-3)
V. Admonitions: The Peroratio (4:4-20)
A. Be Virtuous: (4:4-9)
B. Be Generous (4:10-20)
VI. Closing: Subscription (4:21-23)

The Prescript
Letter writing in Paul's day normally began with the sender identifying himself at the beginning. In this case, Paul and Timothy appear together as they do in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Still, Paul actually wrote the letter but intends to send it with Timothy (2:19). What is more significant is the co-designation "slaves", translating the Greek word doulos, and binding both men to "Christ Jesus" as their true Lord and Master.

Now Paul identifies his recipients as "saints" (Greek: hagioi), a common designation of Paul's for people called by God and given status under the new covenant. The root meaning is "holy ones", but not because of canonization after death. Instead, these are persons set apart by God and dedicated to His purposes (see Exodus 19:5-6, Leviticus 11:45 and Ephesians 4:1; 5:3). Paul locates them "in Christ Jesus" and "in Philippi", showing their dual citizenship. Answering the question "where are you?" required two equally valid forms of residency!

By the time Paul wrote this letter, some ten years since his first visit to Philippi, the structure of church life had taken form, and Paul here identifies two kinds of leaders: episkopoi and diakonoi, both words in the plural form. We can't be sure how formalized church structures had become at this early date, but Paul would elsewhere make reference to leadership structures in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, along with the qualifications of these positions. "Elder" and "Deacon" would appear in his letters, and he would offer advice on what sorts of people they should be. High on the list of qualifications was "teaching" (1 Timothy 3:2, 5:17, and Titus 1:9), something also confirmed in Acts 20:28-31. But we also know that non-teaching leadership existed in the Pauline churches, charged with general oversight and care for the needs of the congregations. "Deacons" are, by all accounts, "servants" who perform "service" for the needs of the community where they live. What we learn from Paul's use of these terms is his view that all leadership should be "servant-like", even when charged with the oversight of the churches. In his opening greeting, Paul goes to great pains to unite these different persons together, using words to that effect. Leadership was, in the Pauline communities, based on the model of the "servant", as Paul himself illustrates in this passage.

Ordinarily, letters would begin with words indicating "hello". But Paul modifies the traditional form to accommodate his Christian beliefs. He modifies the normal word chairein (=greetings) and uses charis (=grace) instead, reflecting his deep belief in the embracing "grace of God" recently visited on the world in the person of Jesus Christ. He also honors the Jewish greeting, part of his own heritage, shalom (Hebrew=peace). Much is made of "grace and peace" in Paul's letters, and they form a sort of "blessing" over the communities receiving his letters (see Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:2, Galatians 1:3, Colossians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:2, Philemon 3).

Exordium and Thanksgiving Prayer (1:3-11)
Ordinary rhetorical form used this section to introduce the material found in the letter. If the subject matter was sensitive or controversial, the writer would "insinuate" the issues in this part of the letter. But in the case of Philippi, Paul's warm relationship allows him to directly approach his topics based on the goodwill of the community. The exordium was a place to lay out the groundwork for the whole letter, planting the ideas he would later develop in throughout the letter. Scholars point out that the purpose of this part of the letter is to gain the attention, reception, and goodwill of the audience. That is aptly done by Paul who plants the seeds he eventually cultivates in the letter. Consider a few cases of this:
1. "joy" (1:4)
2. "fellowship" (from the Greek koinonia) (1:5, 7)
3. "the gospel" (1:5, 7)
4. "conviction" (1:6)
5. "think intently" (1:7)
6. "affection and love" (1:8-9)
7. "being in Christ" (1:1, 13)
8. "day of Christ" (1:6, 10)
9. "the gift from Philippi" (1:3, 5)
10. Frequent use of "all" and "any" (1:2,4,7-8)

Paul treated opening prayers in his letters as tone-setters, and ways to introduce his heart-felt concerns for the recipients. Philippians is no exception. Thanksgiving ranks high in Paul's consideration of the Philippians, and included within it are such experiences as "joy" (Greek: chara) and "fellowship" (koinonina). This last term literally means "to share something in common with another" and is connected with the word for "gospel" (euaggelion). Paul extends this fellowship beyond any single event to include his whole relationship with the Philippians: "from the first day until now". No doubt Paul has in mind the generosity expressed by this Christian community throughout his relationship with them. That is why koinonia is an appropriate word because it best expresses the financial sharing and generosity of the Philippians (see 2 Corinthians 9:13, Romans 15:26, 2 Corinthians 8:3-4; Philemon 6, and Hebrews 13:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 2 Corinthians 11:9).

The idea of koinonia ("fellowship, partnership"), so notable in the life of the Philippian community, strengthens Paul's confidence that what has happened among the Philippians is the genuine article, the "real deal". When Paul includes the phrase "until now" (1:5), he stresses the consistency of the Philippians' partnership with him. All of that becomes evidence for Paul's "confidence" (Greek phrase: pepoithos auto touto, a settled certainty in Paul's mind arrived at through repeated confirmations) that the good work begun in the Philippians' lives is destined to reach completion at the coming of Christ. The intervening process is commonly called "sanctification", punctuated with the "beginning of a good work" (1:6). For Paul, the Christian life is a process punctuated by critical moments. In his experience with the Philippians, Paul has a deep "confidence", expressed in the perfect tense, that what God begins, he completes. And the lives of the Philippian believers give every evidence that this is true for them. What God begins, he finishes, grounded in the willing acceptance of his work in our lives.

What sort of connection with the Philippians does Paul describe in 1:7-8? Plainly it is "heart-felt" and affectionate. Nothing interferes with it, not even Paul's "chains", the ever-present reminder of his Roman detention awaiting trial. Court language appears in this passage; words like "defending" and "confirming" derived from apologia, something occurring before a judge and Paul's accusers prior to his trial. This phase of the trial, known as the cognitio, a kind of discovery process where facts were agreed on and the terms of judgment were decided. In spite of his life-altering involvement with the Roman judicial system in Rome, Paul has room in his heart for the Philippians. And he tells us why: "all of you share in God's grace with me". It is at this point that Paul uses the strongest language, approaching an oath, to explain the depth of his feeling: "God can testify" (compare, "by God, I say"). Paul uses the Greek word splancha to describe the depth of his feeling. This term refers to heart, liver, and lungs, "noble organs", in Paul's time, symbolizing such emotion.

Turning from his act of thanksgiving, Paul introduces his next section with the words "And this is my prayer…" Several parallels exist between 1:9 and Colossians 1:9-11, including the act of prayer, growth in knowledge, spiritual insight, fruitfulness, and the doxa, "glory", of God. When Paul petitions God for growth in the Philippians' "love" (Greek: agape), he stresses the ideas of "knowledge" (epignosis) and "insight" (aisthesis). He wants them to have discernment in the way they express their love, and perhaps reveals a tendency on their part to be naïve in their relationships with others. Love with discernment, Paul reminds them, is the better way. He uses the word dokimazo in 1:10 to express this discernment. Its connotation is "to test with scrutiny". Perhaps the Philippians had a "soft spot" in their hearts, but lacked the ability to apply it in practical ways, leaving themselves open to being duped or taken in by people who were simply "on the take". We know the Philippians were generous, but Paul may be asking them to develop wisdom in the application of their generosity. As Paul will later reveal, enemies lurked in the shadows of the Philippians' world, and he did not want them to be injured by them. Is this an early case of "tough love"?

Two words describe character traits Paul seeks in the Philippians' lives: "pure and blameless" (Greek: eilikrineis kai aposkopoi). The first of these terms derives from "sunlight" along with "to judge", yielding the meaning "to examine in the light of the sun". Such an evaluation leads to a life that is "pure, unsullied, sincere", the common meanings of this word. By mentioning "the day of Christ", Paul reminds his audience that the final examination takes place when Christ returns, and so they ought to live their lives "in light of" that coming event. Elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 5:10, the apostle tells of the "judgment seat of Christ", from the Greek bema. To the Graeco-Roman world this meant the place where rewards were given the competitors in the Olympic games. In much the same way, the Philippians will one day give account for their lives which Paul hopes will be "pure and blameless".

However, before the final day of judgment, there are other evidences of God's approval in the lives of the Philippians, namely, that they are "filled with the fruit of righteousness" (Greek: pepleromenoi karpon dikaiosunes ton dia Iesou Christou). An "orchard" metaphor, this expression imagines trees loaded with fruit and ready for harvest. Paul often uses the word "righteousness" to describe the Christian's standing in God's courtroom: forgiven and counted among the people of God, a use sometimes called its "forensic (or legal)" meaning. In the present passage, the emphasis shifts to actual deeds of goodness which are the "fruit" of having a relationship with Jesus Christ. Paul makes clear that these deeds do not come from the Philippians' self-effort, since they are not capable, on their own, of producing such righteousness. Instead, such works are a "harvest" of a divinely appointed process for spiritual growth, and, as such, the work of God. That is why in Galatians Paul calls them "fruit of the Spirit" (Galatians 5:22). In the larger Hebrew context, Paul would have had in mind such texts as Proverbs 11:30 and Amos 6:12 which use the same expression, stressing that human beings are incapable of producing such fruit on their own.

So as not to glorify the Philippians rather than Jesus Christ, Paul adds that this fruit-bearing process brings "glory and praise" to God. His use of the preposition eis before these two words (doxan kai epainon) shows that the "goal" or "purpose" for this fruitfulness is to magnify and throw attention on the person of God, and not on either Paul's own efforts or those of the Philippians. One of the disciplines of the Christian life is the glorifying of God and not ourselves, an essential part of our "Cross-Training".

To summarize Paul's use of the exordium, the rhetorical beginning of his letter, we note the main ideas he includes:
The Philippians are generous and have enhanced Paul's ministry.
God is evidently at work in the Philippians' lives, preparing them for Christ's return.
A discerning heart aimed at pleasing God and uniting the community guides the Philippians.
Sincere love binds Paul to the Philippians and they to him, even when they are suffering.
Though he is "in chains", Paul remains committed to defend the Gospel.
True to the rhetorical form, these introductory points case long shadows throughout the rest of the letter, setting the tone and the themes for what Paul will continue to write. To illustrate this "network" of ideas, we note the following:
The matter of the "monetary gift" is developed in 4:10-20.
Paul's apologia, "defense" of the Gospel receives treatment in 1:12-26.
The witness of the Philippians' own life gets attention in 1:27-30 (and also: 2:1-5, 12-18, 3:1, 15-16, 4:1-3, 4:4-9).
The activity of God in the Philippians' lives: 2:6-11, 3:10-14, 20-21.
Celebration of Paul's close relationship with the Philippians: 4:10-20, 2:19-30

Some scholars have noted that Paul favors the word proneo ("to think") when describing the mental attitude of the Philippians, using it some ten times throughout the letter. Their "general frame of mind" and "overall attitude" matter to Paul, and he consistently reminds them to "have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (2:5), words written just prior to the famous "Christ-hymn" of 2:6-11. Might we connect this notion to our current study by saying that the "correct attitude" is the "Cross-attitude", and a great deal of what we need is that Christ's attitude be active in us, an "overcoming attitude".

Narratio: Paul's Account of His Imprisonment (1:12-26)
We would consider this next section to be autobiographical. In Paul's day, the use of narratio as part of a discourse removed any obstacles between the speaker and his audience. No doubt, word of Paul's detention in Rome had reached the Philippian community and raised deep concern for their beloved apostle and friend. One goal of the narratio was to alleviate such fears and put the recipients' hearts to rest. Such rhetorical sections often began with the words, "I want you to know…", as illustrated by a letter from a young solider to his mother, taken from the same period:
Theonas to his mother and lady, Tetheus, very many greetings. I want to you know that the reason I have not sent you a letter for such a long time is because I am in camp and not on account of illness; so do not worry yourself about me. I was very grieved when I learned that you had heard about me, for I did not fall seriously ill. And I blame the one who told you. Do not trouble yourself to send me anything. I received the presents from Herakleides. My brother, Dionytas, brought the present to me and I received your letter. [White, Light from Ancient Letters, 1986, p.158]
Paul was also concerned to correct misinformation that his house arrest had in any way terminated his preaching of the Gospel. Also, as was often the case with the narratio, he wanted to exhibit proper behavior in the face of adversity so that the Philippians might imitate it. By "holding up" under his constraints, Paul sent a powerful message to his audience about his own character, its strength and wisdom. He was not easily derailed from his calling, nor should they be.

Several observations about 1:12-26 follow.
1. As we have indicated, "I want you to know" clearly marks the beginning of a new section, the narratio, and gives Paul opportunity to use his own situation as a powerful teaching opportunity for the Philippians. He holds himself up as an example. Far from deterring him, his chains have led to new opportunities to proclaim the Gospel, reaching people otherwise out of his orbit.
2. One of those "new groups" is the Praetorian guard (praetorium), the camp or quarters of the praetorian cohorts (Acts 28:16), the imperial guards in immediate attendance on the emperor, who was "praetor" or commander-in-chief. What does this official Roman body discover from Paul? Simply, that his detention by them, is "for Christ". The Greek has en Christo, "in Christ". The cause of Paul's circumstances is his identity as a person who is "in Christ", that is, "in the sphere of Christ". He may be "in chains" from the praetorian's point of view, but the manner in which he conducts himself reveals more clearly that he is actually "in Christ". We can only imagine how Paul's life became a positive example to his captors. The Philippians might have recalled Paul's experience when he was originally in their city, and placed in jail. Acts 16 tells how Paul and Silas sang hymns, and then, after the earthquake, calmed the guard who thought everyone had escaped.
3. Whereas the praetorium would have constituted the "pagan witnesses" to Paul's imprisonment, another group is now mentioned, tous pleionas ton adelphon, "most of the brothers", indicating a "majority". Paul's chains, far from frightening the other Christians, became a clarion call to arms, much like a fallen comrade in battle who inspires his fellow soldiers to take up the flag and march forward. Paul describes them as "being made confident" (pepoithotas), the same root used in 1:6 to describe Paul's own confidence in the spiritual progress of his audience, a confidence grounded not in themselves or in Paul, but "in the Lord" (en kurio). The form of this verb is in the perfect tense, indicating a settled resolve. What evidence does Paul offer of this new found confidence? He uses the following words to reinforce his claim:
a. "ever more so" (perissoteros). This word has connotations of "extraordinarily" and "remarkably", as describing events that are unexpected or unusual, as in "you would not have expected this to happen".
b. "to dare, be bold" (tolman). Courage appears where one would not expect it. In defiance of Paul's crippled situation, the majority of Christians become even more committed to the spread of the gospel.
c. "fearlessly" (aphobos). An adverb modifying the following word "to speak" (lalein). What they "speak" is ton logon, that is, "the Word". Scholars suggest this may well be one of the earliest written uses of "logos" to refer to the Gospel message.
d. To summarize 1:14, we see how Paul writes about the "confidence" of other believers, using the perfect tense, but then proceeds to show how that confidence takes shape in a renewed set of actions which unexpectedly spring up in fearless, bold proclamation of the Gospel.
4. Not all is light and sweetness, however, since oddly the discord does not come from Caesar's palace, but from other Christians who seem to "compete" with Paul, now that he is "down for the count". Paul devotes 1:15-20 of his narratio to examining the responses to his detention in Rome.
a. Antagonists and colleagues (1:15-17). Paul tosses around words of contrast, or, as they are called in Greek, "adversative particles" of the form, "on the one hand", "on the other hand" (men and de). A minority, by Paul's count, proclaim the gospel for self-seeking reasons and impure motives. He otherwise does not call them names or treat them as non-believers. He doesn't call them false teachers or treat them as rivals in any way. Their motives are their own, and Paul is rejoicing that Christ is being proclaimed by them, even if it is at his expense. Ben Witherington notes: "God can write straight with crooked lines" [Friendship and Finances at Philippi, p.46]. What matters is the "word of God", not the messenger. God is fully able to get the job done with or without us, though he chooses to do it through it. Even so, Paul affirms, even a flawed vessel can carry the gospel, cracked though it is with envy, rivalry, pretext or impure motives.
b. Paul's reaction (1:18-20). Paul responds with two Greek words: ti gar? That is, "so what?" or "what does it matter?" "Makes no difference to me!" he seems to be saying. The bottom line for Paul is simple: Christ is preached: Christos kataggelletai. Placing this word in the present passive form, Paul throws the emphasis away from the preachers and onto the subject matter: Christ. And, as the present tense implies, it is an ongoing, uninterrupted event, not something easily derailed by the bad intentions of the minority. The apostle is especially encouraged that this is happening panti tropo, "in every place", and somehow that overshadows the mixed motives of some. For Paul, this is a matter of "joy" (chara), an emerging and unifying theme within the book of Philippians. He places two different tenses of chairo before his audience: "I am rejoicing" (chairo), followed by "I shall rejoice" (charesomai).This reaction would not be easily understood by an audience worried over Paul's Roman detention, and so he offers additional support for his positive attitude. In the most confident way, he writes, "For I know" (gar oida), followed by a substantive clause detailing the content of his "knowing". What he now affirms goes beyond simply "rejoicing in trouble", or in Paul's case, "in chains". He looks to the future (remember his words "I will rejoice"?). Using the word apobaino, meaning to "turn out, go away", in the future tense, and then identifies what he hopes for: "salvation", from the Greek, soteria, a word with a number of connotations. Jewish people would have immediately thought about the Exodus, the "deliverance" from slavery. Persons in prison would have naturally thought about "release" from chains and the consequential liberty. In other words, Paul envisions a favorable outcome, while at the same time, reminding the Philippians that they have a part to play in that: "through your prayers" (Greek: dia tes humon deeseos; the word deesis literally means an "entreaty" made by an inferior to a superior). Such petitions to God obtain their power, however, through the epichoregias tou pneumatos, that is, "the assistance (or support, or supply) of the Spirit" of Jesus Christ. Prayer, it seems, invites a special measure of the Spirit to Paul cooperatively.The reference to prayer underscores Paul's deep belief that circumstances are not fatal nor are they fatalistic, as some philosophies of his time would have supposed. God's presence in the Spirit of Jesus Christ is very much a part of Paul's worldview, and, in a mysterious way, unites with the prayers of God's people to change the course of events. Nothing is inevitable, not even Paul's chains. Paul speaks in terms reminiscent of the Hebrew exodus, as he anticipates release from his imprisonment. He describes his state of mind and heart in two ways: 1) "eager expectation" (apokaradokia), a rare word in the New Testament (only found elsewhere in Romans 8:19), and likely invented by Paul, made up of other words meaning "an outstretched head and averting of the eyes". One scholar suggests: "the concentrated hope which ignores other interests and strains forward as with outstretched head" [Kennedy, "The Epistle to the Ephesians", Expositor's Greek Testament]. Coupled with "hope" (elpis), this word shows elevated expectation about the future, as in "my hope-filled eager expectation". What Paul expects, in using these words, is a final vindication of his case, both by God, if not by Caesar's judicial system. What was truly at stake was the vindication of the Gospel, not just Paul's own situation.When Paul uses the word "shame" in this context, it has judicial, and not only psychological, significance (Greek: aischunthesomai, "to be ashamed" used in the future passive indicative). We must not miss the force of the verb tense: looking at the future, yet with the confidence that something has already taken place in that future. Extra force is given to this verb by its modifier: "in no way" (en oudeni). Had Paul spoken in our generation, he might well have said it like this: "Ashamed? No way!" Yet, though his own shame might well have been in view, he cares little about what others think of him, but instead, what they think of Christ. In an age where shame because of imprisonment was a huge injury to one's reputation, Paul envisions the impact on the cause of Christ, more so, than on his own viability. He lives with the assurance that whether he lives or dies, "Christ will be exalted in his body". This word "exalted" is megalunthesetai. The English reader can see the word "mega" prefixing this verb, and at once hears "megaphone" or "megaton" or "megaplex" and host of other words in our language that reference something "great" or "enormous". Paul wants his life or death to be the "megaphone" of Christ. The Old Testament is full of references to exalting the name of Yahweh (see Psalm 34:3, 35:27, 39:16, 57:11, 69:30, 70:4, 92:5, 104:1 and 24, 126:2-3).In this great affirmation Paul is saying that he will ultimately triumph or overcome evil because his hope is overwhelmingly in the Lord. But this victory does not depend on how the trial turns out in Rome, which of course is an unexpected outcome for the Philippian audience. Should the Roman tribunal condemn him to death, this will not ultimately shame him (compare Psalm 25:2 where David prays that his enemies not put him to shame), but instead, Christ will be exalted. What happens to him is out of his hands, Paul is saying, and perhaps the Philippians might presume that not even God can help him now. Not so, says Paul, no matter how it looks, God will bring him safely through to ultimate, eternal, and final vindication.
5. Though he accepts any outcome, Paul is not shy about his personal preference, as 2:21-26 now reveals. The Philippians' own future matters to him as well, and therefore, Paul wishes to continue his life and his mission.
a. Paul acknowledges the reality of the human condition, that it is frail and vulnerable. Still, Christ is able to "get the glory" either way. Paul's life is, by all accounts, hanging in the balance, in human terms. Yet, God may well have other plans, delivering Paul from his captors, and that would seem to have positive benefits for the Philippians, since Paul could continue his discipleship, his "Cross-training", of them.
b. In no sense, does Paul see himself as the victim, but, under the oversight of God, the overcomer in every circumstance. This famous text expresses his confidence: "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Greek: emoi gar to zen Christos kai to apothanein kerdos). The Greek keeps "Christ" the subject of this sentence, and Paul the indirect object. Later, Paul will reinforce this teaching in 3:8, by reminding his audience that everything else is "rubbish" by comparison to Christ. And in his other letters he stresses how he, Paul, as well as all Christians, have died with Christ, and risen with Christ (Romans 6:4; 6:8, 11; 14:7-9, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Galatians 2:20; Colossians 3:4). In other words, the only meaning Paul's life had was found in Christ. Christ defined Paul, and, in the hour of trial, what happens to Christ's reputation is far more critical than what happens to Paul. Yet, Paul has so connected his life with that of Christ, that whatever does happen to Christ will ensure a happy future for Paul, no matter what the outcome of the present legal case might me.
c. "I am torn between two" (1:23) (Greek: sunechomai de ek ton duo, literally, "I am held together by two"). A dilemma presses hard against Paul, squeezing him between attractive alternatives. Here is dramatic irony! In one sense, Paul has turned his apparent moment of crisis into a "win-win" situation. What looked like sharply opposite outcomes, one good and one bad, has become, "in Christ", a different kind of contest: between "best" and "best"! As he explained in 1:22: 1) If I remain alive in the body, that's good news for you, Philippians, since my work can continue to bear fruit in your lives; 2) If I "depart", I will arrive "with Christ", something I can only describe as pollo mallon kreisson, "so much the better" for me. It looks like I can't lose, given those options!
d. But this is not about me, it's about you, dear Philippians. "But it is more necessary for you that I will continue with all of your…" (1:24). The word "necessary" translates the Greek expression anagkaioteropn, the comparative form of the word, showing that the balance of power shifts to the Philippians' needs and away from Paul's. Caught in a life or death decision ("what shall I choose? I do not know!", 1:22), Paul takes himself and his interests out of the equation. His real choice, as he now reveals, is not living or dying, but "I or you". The matter of life or death has already been settled by Christ for Paul: he lives or dies with Christ, and there can be no better way to live or die! That question is no longer "on the table". What remains ever before Paul is his mission, and the Philippians are very much a part of the mission. "Necessary for you…", Paul writes. Whereas he might once have been "caught in the middle", trapped in some Hamlet-like vacillation ("To be or not to be, that is the question", apologies to Shakespeare!), in Christ all of that is in the past. The only thing which matters now is what is "necessary for you", and Paul can only imagine himself "back in the picture" alongside the Philippians in the not too distant future. 1:25 makes it clear that Paul is "convinced" of this outcome, using once more his favorite word of confidence, pepoithos, which began this letter in 1:6, and underscored his belief that God was going to finish His work in the Philippians' lives until the day of Christ.
e. But what does Paul think his ongoing role with them will be? "For your progress and joy in the faith" (1:25), that by Paul's being "with you again, your joy in Christ Jesus will overflow on account of me" (1:26). The Greek word for "progress" in the NIV translation is actually kauchema, meaning to "boast, speak loudly". The Philippians are a source of "pride" for Paul, certainly as the fruit of his own labor and continued attention while he was yet free from Roman chains. From this we learn that there is a proper place for "spiritual boasting", not because we can take any credit for what happens in other people's lives, but rather that other people's "progress" can be a source of boasting about what God has done through the Gospel.
f. The themes of "shame" and "pride" run through this narratio section of Paul's letter. According to Graeco-Roman values, indeed, even by Jewish values, Paul's situation was scandalous: he was in jail, although it was only house arrest, still in Roman chains. Do we really want our "apostle Paul" to be a jailbird? By contrast, boasting and honor in this section reminds us that the Roman world had values that looked quite different from those of the Christ community led by Paul. At Philippi, honor belonged to citizenship, and good citizens stayed out of prison! Paul's detention under house arrest in Rome threw all that to the winds. Christians belonged to a different kingdom, governed by different values when it came to honor or shame. Where do they look for their affirmation? Not to Caesar who loves the pomp of cohorts and the games, but to Jesus Christ who by all Roman accounts was a Jewish slave, condemned on a Roman cross. As Paul will explain in chapter 2, this Jesus rises by first dying; he mounts to glory by the road called "humiliation".
g. In Christ, values get remapped, and Paul by his own example shows how that is done. What others consider shameful (Paul's chains), Christ sees as honorable. And Paul wants the Philippians to make this connection as well. Paul's Cross-Training of the Philippians gains greater force because he is "in chains", and perhaps the lessons learned by this Christ community are more valuable because Paul is in this shameful situation by Roman standards. This is "Cross-Training" in the superlative! To be "in chains" is to be one with Christ in his cross, and that is not a shameful place to be by Christian standards, though Romans and Jews might consider it so.
h. Ben Witherington adds some helpful comments to this discussion when he writes:Paul is not in the business of simply baptizing the values of the larger culture of Roman society. To the contrary, he undermines many of their most cherished values and redefines what real status amounts to, namely, being in Christ and being sons and daughters of God. In Paul's book it is God, not society, who can bestow real honor and dispense lasting shame. It is God, not society, including God in Christ, that is at the apex of Paul's pyramid of values, and as such only God is immune to Paul's telling criticisms of his world. Paul was attempting to setup a counter-culture with a set of values often at odds with the larger society [Witherington, op. cit., p.49].
i. Not everything in Roman society was jettisoned thereby. Loyalty and faithfulness to one's friends (like the Philippians) or concern for fairness and justice in human dealings--these all figure significantly in Paul's letter to the Philippians, to be sure.
j. Paul had discovered, and in these passages explained, that in whatever state in found himself, he could be content (see 4:11-12, a later passage expressing this idea). Or, as he wrote to the Corinthians, this new value system of "boasting" works both ways: "13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus" (2 Corinthians 1:13-14).
6. And so Paul, following the accepted practice of letter-writing, using the narratio form of argumentation, files this optimistic missionary report with his dear friends in the Philippian Christ community. His generous supporters need to hear how things are going with him, their fears allayed, their hopes kindled. True, Paul wrote from a circumstance of adversity, but in classic Christ-style, all of that gets overcome by the unexpected benefits of Paul's own imprisonment. The Gospel is preached more and more, and Paul has the golden opportunity to train the Philippians in how to overcome in the midst of trial. Cleverly woven into the well-recognized narratio of a rhetorical discourse, and transmitted through the letter form, these messages no doubt reverberated in the hearts and lives of Paul's supporters back in Philippi.

Some writers might well have ended their letters here, but since Paul is hip-deep in a true rhetorical discourse, he has many miles to go before he sleeps! And before we draw the curtain on this study, we would be well served to let Paul present his thesis statement, the so-called propositio, of his letter.

Propositio: Paul's Thesis Statement (1:27-30)
If Paul's letter-readers have not yet gotten the drift of Paul's purpose for sending his letter to them, he will leave them in no further doubt. The purpose of this form of writing is to persuade the readers to pursue a new course of action or change their conduct in the future. So what does Paul really want to change about the Philippians? Put concisely, Paul states this in 1:27: "Live as citizens worthy of the Good News about Christ". Once more, Paul's clever use of the rhetorical form shines through, for he utilizes what rhetoricians recognized as a powerful form of argument: he compares their life in Christ to something they know only too well, Roman citizenship. We have no real proof that large numbers of Philippian Christians held this honored position in the Roman colony of Philippi. Peter Oakes, in his scholarly research of the social strata of Philippi, argues convincingly that the proportion of Roman citizens in the church was about 36 per cent. Economically, he estimates, 57 per cent are service groups, 31 per cent poor, 12 per cent slaves. Further, 27 per cent are ethnically Romans, while 73 per cent are Greeks [Oakes, Philippians: From People to Letter].

Oakes points out that, in Philippi, the "main axis of social power as being that of wealth and status rather than that of ethnicity". This had to do with the larger percentage of Romans who held power in this senatorial or imperial colony. Roman citizenship in Philippi mattered a great deal, as did Roman institutions. No other city in which Paul founded a church is likely to have had this many Romans. In none of the other cities was the experience of everyday life so firmly under the control of local, visible Romans. Still, the Philippians were also divided by economic diversity: landowners, farmers, service-providers, slaves and poor. Much divided this important colony, and we have reason to believe that the makeup of the Christ community reflected this diversity, and in the same proportions.

And so when Paul opens his propositio with the words "Only live as citizens" (Greek: monon…politeuesthe, notice the root "polit-" in this word, like our "politics"), he would certainly have gotten the attention of his audience, since some of them place special importance on being "citizens". Nor is this an accidental reference for Paul. We know from reading Acts, chapters 21-28, how it was that Paul came to be a prisoner of Rome, and ultimately was brought to the Praetorian. In order to clarify Paul's interest in citizenship and also understand his journey "in chains" to Rome, a few key events require listing.
1. Paul had just completed his third missionary journey and had arrived in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-26) where he met with leaders of the Christ community.
2. These leaders informed Paul that right-wing agitators among the Jews questioned his observance of Torah, but these same leaders offered their counsel and support to Paul while he was in Jerusalem.
3. While in the Temple, observing the rituals of purification, rabble rousers attack him and threatened his life. At the same time, Roman centurions arrived, presumably to "keep the peace", and arrested him (21:27-36).
4. Paul engaged the Roman chiliarchon ("commander of a thousand", otherwise called a "military tribune"), in charge of his arrest, and spoke in Greek. Surprised, the official asked if Paul was one of the Assassins, an Egyptian who led a revolt against Rome.
5. In response Paul said, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen (Greek: polites) of no obscure city…" (21:39), and then requests a chance to address the crowd gathered on the Temple steps, this time, in Hebrew (21:37-40).
6. His speech describes his way of life before he met Jesus Christ, and how he persecuted the Christ followers. It continues with an account of his conversion and eventual reception by the Jesus community. He concludes with the account of his commissioning to preach to the Gentiles (22:1-21).
7. The Jewish mob turned on Paul at this point, requiring the tribune to intervene, taking Paul into the barracks where he was about to exact a confession by beating (the Roman form of "water-boarding", only worse!) (22:22-24).
8. Before the lash struck Paul's back, he speaks to the attending centurion: "Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen (literally, "a Roman") and uncondemned?" (22:25). The balance of the dialog follows:26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked. "This man is a Roman citizen." 27 The commander went to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?" "Yes, I am," he answered. 28 Then the commander said, "I had to pay a big price for my citizenship." "But I was born a citizen," Paul replied. 29 Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. 30 The next day, since the commander wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and had him stand before them (Acts 22:26-30).
9. What follows reads like a spy novel, albeit a true one in this case! During an appearance before the Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin, things turn ugly, and the council becomes divided along party lines. Fearing for Paul's safety, the Romans place him in protective custody (23:1-10). During the night, God appears to him and prophesies: "…you must testify also in Rome" (23:11).
10. Then a plot against Paul's life is uncovered by Paul's nephew who alerts the Roman tribune (23:12-22).
11. Under cover of darkness, Paul is spirited away to Caesarea, to the north, guarded by four hundred Roman soldiers, where he has an appointment with the governor, Felix. Of such grave consequence is Paul's legal situation, being a Roman citizen, that the tribune, Claudius Lysias, sends an official document to Felix informing him of Paul's case and that he is a Roman citizen (22:23-30).
12. Once in Caesarea, Felix orders him held until the Jewish accusers arrived for a preliminary hearing (23:31-35). When a delegation from the High Priest appears, led by one Tertullus, they charge him with stirring up a riot, something the Romans would pay attention to in light of the Pax Romana. After some additional cherry-picking by other Judeans, Paul offers his apologia, that is, his defense, climaxing with his claim that the real dispute is not political, but theological (24:1-21).
13. Felix defers judgment, and convenes the hearing once more with his Jewish wife, Drusilla, in attendance. At this meeting, Paul offers more detailed instruction about his faith in Jesus Christ, causing Felix to become afraid. The outcome: Paul is kept in detention for two years, but had numerous occasions to speak with Felix, while remaining in prison (24:24-27).
14. Festus succeeds Felix as governor, and this prompts the Jerusalem leadership to once more request a hearing about Paul, this time in Jerusalem, while all along planning on ambushing him. Festus refuses, and offers to meet with them shortly in Caesarea (25:1-5).
15. As before, the Jewish contingent brought their charges against Paul, this time, in front of the new governor, Festus (25:6-7).
16. Paul denies any crime either against the Jews or against Caesar. In response, Festus, "sucking up" to the Jews, offered a conveyance back to Jerusalem for a religious trial (25:9). It is at this point, Paul makes his all-important decision, expressed in a fashion that would turn the head of any good Roman:10 Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. 11 If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" 12 After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared: "You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go! (Acts 25:10-12).
17. Coincidentally, King Agrippa and his wife Bernice happened to be in Caesarea welcoming the new governor. Still troubled by Paul's case, Festus discusses it with Agrippa and seeks his advice, apparently so Festus can write a reasonable document to send along with Paul as he travels to Rome (25:13-27).
18. Since Agrippa II was technically "king of the Jews", at least in a very narrow sense of that phrase, being the great-grandson of Herod the Great, and since he had strong connections to Rome, he accepts the offer and entertains an audience with Paul who once more tells his own story, complete with his conversion (26:1-23).
19. Somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of detail Paul provides to Agrippa, Festus blurts out: "Paul, you are out of you mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind" (26:24).
20. Having failed to convince Festus about the Gospel, he turns in earnest to Agrippa who deflects him with the famous words, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?" (26:28).
21. Festus and Agrippa remark that Paul had done nothing worthy of capital execution. Agrippa gets the last word: "This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar" (26:32).

We have included this lengthy account to underscore the circumstances that brought Paul to Rome, under house arrest, awaiting trail under Caesar. We have also included it to show how heavily Paul appealed to his Roman citizenship in seeking proper justice under Roman Law, and how he refused trial under the Jewish system currently in use. Of course, his primary allegiance was not neither, but instead to the Gospel and to his true Lord, Jesus Christ. For Paul, the genuine citizenship was higher than either Roman or Jewish, and it is about this that Paul writes in Philippians 1:27-30.

Nor is this the only occasion in Philippians where he does so. In 3:20, which we will discuss more fully in a later study, Paul speak collectively about "our citizenship in heaven". As we have noted, this is of special importance in Philippi, a Roman colony, inhabited by many Roman citizens, something they would have had in common with Paul. Remember that in rhetorical arguments, the speaker wants to find many ways of connecting himself to his audience, and this is a good example of Paul doing that, though for a much higher purpose than giving a mere civics lesson! When Paul describes the Philippians as citizens, he connects their conduct to the "Gospel of Christ" which proclaims not only the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, but also his coming again (parousia) as Lord of all things. Even as some Philippians (and also Paul) took pride in their Roman citizenship, Paul urges them to given even greater honor to their role as citizens of God's coming kingdom. They must live the life of a citizen whether Paul is with them or not (1:27), and the way they can best do this is standing firm with a unified front for the "faith of the gospel". Unity, then, in spirit and conduct, becomes the greatest offensive for God's kingdom in the Philippian community. When opponents witness the unity of the community and the consistency of their Christian citizenship, it will "shame them".

The Philippians' unity and willingness to stand firm, as expressed in their following Christ's example, becomes evidence ("a sign", endeixis, a word meaning "convincing proof") of their coming salvation. Whereas, to the opponents of the Philippians, the same devotion is perceived as a fool-hearty and reckless sign pointing to their destruction. In other words, Paul casts two different visions, two contrasting perceptions seen in the steadfast actions of the Philippian Christians. He wants them to embrace the first one: to interpret their own courage and resolve as evidence of their ultimate destiny, their salvation. However, Paul wants to make it quite clear, that while the actions are a sign of salvation, they are not its cause. For he adds: "…and that by God" (1:28).

As Paul completes his propositio section, he pulls back the curtain on yet one more important fact, one he has been leading up to. Not only is Paul suffering for the faith of Jesus Christ, so are the Philippians. Once more Paul finds additional common ground with his audience. He is suffering; they are suffering. Just as he stands firm, contending for the faith, they should stand firm as well. And, says Paul, we can both stand back, confidently and courageously and watch God transform our apparent loss into an eternal gain. Thus, in his closing remarks of this thesis section, Paul writes eloquently and passionately to his fellow-sufferers in Philippi:
29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have (Philippians 1:29-30).
We come to observe, then, the deeper issue connecting Paul to his Philippian brothers and sisters: "a struggle" (Greek: agona, root idea for our word "agony") in the form of "suffering" (Greek: paschein, "to suffer", as in the "paschal" lamb being offered). Paul calls it "the same (Greek: ton auton) suffering", calling attention to what he shares with them. If "unity" is emerging from Paul's letter as a main theme, it has a least these two implications: "unity of spirit" and "unity of suffering". For Paul, both forms of unity come together and are difficult to separate. Unless Christian believers are willing to live together in unity, ministering for the Gospel, they will find it difficult to "suffer together" when the opposition comes their way, as was the case with the Philippians.

What we have discovered in Paul's propositio is his primary thesis that the gospel is, indeed, the charter of the Christian commonwealth, making the Christ followers citizens of the kingdom. Now that the enemy stands at the door, as evidenced by Paul's chains and the Philippians' suffering, the burden on the Christ followers is even greater. They must stand firm, stand together, and be willing to suffer on behalf of their Lord, Jesus Christ. What is happening to Paul in Rome, and what is happening to the Philippians, underscores the responsibilities of Christian citizenship. The struggle of one is the struggle of all. And this struggle, faithfully endured and joyfully overcome, becomes the powerful sign of their coming salvation. As it was with the Paul and the Philippians, so it is with us.

Glory to God! Amen.
Digger Deeper: Cross-Training: Just Overcome
(Bob Brown)

To gain a deeper understanding of Cross-Training: Just Overcome, carefully read the selected passages below. To aid you in your study, we invite you to visit the website http://notes.chicagofirstnaz.org, or pick up a copy of the notes at the Connect desk, or from your ABF leader. Now consider the following questions, as you ask the Lord to teach you.

Special Note: The Background Notes are especially useful in working through some of these questions. You are encouraged to secure a copy as you begin.

1. Prayerfully read through the book of Philippians at one sitting, absorbing Paul's overall message, while taking note of verses that catch your attention. Make a list of frequently used words or phrases as you read.
2. Focusing on 1:1-30, develop a simple outline that helps you see Paul's organization of his material.
3. What type of literature is Philippians? What parts of the Graeco-Roman letter structure do you find in this first chapter? Use the notes to help you with your answer.
4. Look for sentences or clauses that begin "I", such as 1:3, "I thank my God". Jot these down, along with the references. What do you learn about Paul's "frame of mind" from these kinds of sentences?
5. Read 1:1-2. What is the purpose of this section?
6. Read 1:3-11. What is the purpose of this section?
a. How does Paul get "connected" with his audience by writing this section?
b. What is Paul situation or circumstance?
c. In his prayer for the Philippians, what are his deepest concerns?
d. What makes Paul confident?
7. Read 1:12-26. What is the purpose of this section?
a. What is Paul's present difficulty, and how does he view it?
b. Who is watching Paul's situation, and how do they react to it?
c. Above all else, what matters most to Paul?
d. In what sense does Paul see himself in a "win-win" situation, in spite of his "chains"? What impact would this attitude have on the Philippians who hear his words?
e. If you were to pick the "key verse" in this section (1:12-26), what would it be? Why did you choose it?
8. Read 1:27-30. What is the purpose of this section?
a. Read 1:27, if possible, in the New Living Translation. According to Paul how are the Philippians to live their lives?
b. According to 1:28, what obstacles stand in the way of living that way?
c. What do Paul and the Philippians share in common according to 1:29-30?
d. In what sense does "believing in Christ" differ from "suffering for Christ" (1:29).
9. How does 1:1-30 prepare the way for themes Paul develops later in his letter to the Philippians, based on the reading you did in #1 and answering questions #2-8?
10. What specific help did you receive from reading and studying the first chapter of Philippians?
11. In what ways did Paul "overcome" his situation, and how did writing this letter to the Philippians help them to do the same?

Upside-Down: Living Through Dying

Living Through Dying
Upside-Down
January 19/20, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
Upside-Down: Living Through Dying
(Robert Ismon Brown)

Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: Matthew 16:21-27 and Philippians 3:3-11.
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done (Matthew 16:21-27).

3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh-- 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:3-11).

Introduction
Perhaps the most profound of the upside-down ideas announced by Jesus' kingdom message is that "we live through dying". In a sense, this is the touchstone for the whole series. We are asked to embrace the very personal affirmation that our own "dying" leads to "living" at the highest level. Nothing is more personal than reminding us about death. And the connection of death and life is a paradox indeed. The Christian faith is rife with paradoxes, those statements which at first blush defy harmonization. When we are dealing with the things of God, much is mysterious, and if it weren't, we ought to be surprised. After all, it is not possible to reduce the ways of God to some purely logical and transparently explicable set of expressions. If we could do that, we would understand God, and, thereby, explain Him out of existence. No, God remains inscrutable, though wonderfully so. The kingdom of God, as Jesus preached it, invades the world so as to challenge our ordinary ways of thinking about it. None of the old categories work anymore, as Jesus calls on his follower to "Deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me" (Matthew 16:24). Augustine, the great 4th century C.E. philosopher, reminded his readers that paradoxes do two things: 1) cause wonder, and 2) seem to go against accepted opinion. Jesus' call to die, in order that we might live, certainly does both. Is this a call to instant martyrdom? Are we suppose to drink the cool-aide? Or does Jesus expect a deeper understanding of his words?

We can't deny the literal sense of Jesus' words, even if they have a paradoxical quality. Speakers in the ancient world often used "rhetorical paradox" (following Aristotle) to get the attention of their audience by saying something apparently contradictory or against plain sense to provoke thought or evoke strong emotion. For Jesus, dying meant living in the most concrete sense. After all, he set his face toward the cross, and then he proceeded to accept this brutal form of capital execution. Three days later, he rose from the dead and gave new meaning to the Greek word anastasis, "to rise again". He expected no less commitment from his followers. But critiques of the Christian faith often question how much value we place on human life if we invite people to give it up. For example, the school of ethics known as "ethical egoism" (popularized in the 20th century by Ayn Rand) accuses Christianity of emptying human life of importance by calling for its followers to become martyrs, and then elevating the martyr to sainthood. Have we turned human life into so much running water merely flowing downstream?

Jesus was never casual about his calls to "deny self" and "lose life". The German martyr of the 20th century, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die". Not everyone in Bonhoeffer's time hung from the Nazi gallows for their faith. Many hung for other reasons. Many didn't hang at all. It turned out that Bonhoeffer paid the ultimate price, just days before the Allies liberated his prison camp. Nor did men like Bonhoeffer adopt the ideology of the Stoics that accepted life's outcomes, including death, as part of some grand scheme in which we must, invariably, play a bit part. It's not as if one life can be easily interchanged with another. Each life remains valuable to God, made as it is in His image. To give up my life is an enormously important act, and as such, is not the whole story. Jesus equally affirmed "if you give up…you will save…" (Matthew 16:25). We must admit, nothing in nature guarantees that statement. It's just as possible that we might give up, and that's the end of it. The demand Jesus makes on his followers remains coupled with his promise of salvation. And that is the only way to make sense out of the wondrous paradox he puts in front of us.

Some people decide to give up their life by taking it--in suicide. Such persons are not giving up something they value, in hope that the promise of life will finally arrive. More than likely they imagine nothing to live for, and see themselves in worthless ways, despairing of life, value and hope. That's quite a different scenario than the one Jesus requires. We "give up" that which we prize and value, our true essence, precious and holy. The Christ-follower dies in this way, not because life is unbearable, but because it belongs to God, a thing prized above all else. Our lives acquire their value through both creation and redemption. We are created in the image of God, and are thereby precious in His sight. We are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, and our lives are thereby invested with enormous importance. There can be nothing "cheap" about a life given in the service of Christ. Bonhoeffer wrote in his Cost of Discipleship:
Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace.
Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' ware… Costly grace…is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life… Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son…, and what cost God much cannot be cheap for us… (pp. 43-45).

We give up our lives, not because we they are not valuable, but because they are, purchased as they have been by the blood of Christ:
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect (1 Peter 1:18-19).
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men (1 Corinthians 7:23).
Dying as a Christian does not mean giving up something that belongs to us, but rather giving to God what belongs to Him by redemption. We are already His. Through Christ's death, He has acquired us, having set us free from sin and death--of the worst kind.

This means that in one significant way we have already died to the self-ownership of our lives.

The Teaching of Jesus: Lose Your Life (Matthew 16:21-27)
The command to "lose your life" originates with Jesus himself. It is spoken in the context of his announcement to the disciples that he is going to the cross. "He must go to Jerusalem", Matthew's account records, implying that Jesus has accepted the will of God, and that his decision is by no means coerced by his circumstances. Human beings will conspire together, Jesus tells his followers, causing him to suffer. But in the end, "he must be killed," Jesus confirms. The language of 16:21 is strong: Matthew uses the Greek word dei to communicate the idea "it is necessary". The infinitives, "to go", "to suffer", "to be killed", and "to be raised" all trace their force back to this one word. God's kingdom program requires the road to Calvary and death. But, Jesus concludes, it requires the resurrection as well. What Jesus forecasts is not his martyrdom but his victory in and through death. The first three infinitives acquire special importance only through the fourth, namely, "to be raised on the third day". Jesus does not die for death's sake; he does not endure suffering because suffering has intrinsic value, but because victory and vindication lie at the end of this painful journey.

Therefore, Jesus does not announce his martyrdom. However, Peter misses Jesus' point completely, and is unsettled by the decision to "go to Jerusalem" in the first place. He knows that there is choice in this scenario, and he knows that Jesus could hold back from his proposed visit to that dangerous city. Matthew's words capture Peter's passion: hileos soi, kurie. This word, normally translated as a negative in English, is actually from a classical root, meaning "propitious" or "merciful". From that it becomes an idiom, along with "to you", meaning "be it far from you", or perhaps, "be merciful to yourself". The Greek translation of the Old Testament uses this same word to translate halilah, "to be far from". Peter borders on a strong oath here. This tells us a great deal about his own view of Jesus' death. No doubt Peter and the other disciples rejected "living through dying" as an upside-down kingdom principle. He further declares: ou me estai soi touto, "this shall by no means be to you", using the double negative for extreme emphasis. Matthew classifies Peter's words as a "rebuke" (Greek: epitiman, "to fault, chide, rebuke, reprove, censure severely, charge with a wrong, sharply admonish"). Much is at stake for Jesus and for Peter, and this disciple whom Jesus had earlier commended for his faith, now rises in opposition to Jesus' intentions.

Hearing this, Jesus perceives the presence of the Tempter in and behind Peter's words, and he calls him out. "Get behind me, Satan (or Adversary, from the Greek Satana, "the opposing one"). You are a skandalon ("stumbling block") against me (the genitive case used in the Greek has the "adversative sense" in this context)." While Peter might be standing before Jesus, it is the personality of Satan who energizes his words and motivates his actions. The kingdom idea that we "live through dying" is upside-down by comparison to Satan's notion that "good guys finish last". When Matthew uses the word "stumbling block", skandalon, he adopts a familiar term from the Messianic prophecies. "The stumbling block will become the capstone" (see Isaiah 8:14, 28:16; Psalm 118:22, and 1 Peter 2:6-8). But in this case, Jesus turns the statement around and accuses Peter of being the stumbling block which, in his words, does not "have in mind the things of God, but the things of men". That is, Peter is not using kingdom thinking when he mounts his resistance to Jesus' intentions. It is Peter who "rejects" the mission of Jesus, and himself becomes the obstructionist.

Notice the contrast Jesus makes: 1) Things of God, 2) things of men. No clearer statement of the upside-down principle could be found than this. God's values stand in stark contrast to human values, tainted as they are by Satan's own purposes. "What God proposes, Satan opposes." "What man opposes God disposes." Those statement, taken from well-worn sermon rhetoric, correctly express the stark contrast between the ways of God and the ways of the adversary, whether human or demonic. For Peter to oppose the unambiguous intentions of Jesus to confront death, and to come out the other side victorious, was for Peter to stand in the place of God's ancient adversary and attempt to overturn the laws which govern the kingdom of God. Jesus' command, "Get behind me" (Greek: upage opiso mou) has a certain military ring to it, as if Jesus were commanding a deserter or even an opponent on the battle field to rejoin the ranks.

"If you are going to come after me, you must get behind me," Jesus now tells his disciples. But to do that, means two crucial things:
1. "deny himself" (Greek: aparneomai, "to deny", "to affirm that one has no acquaintance or connection with"). Ironically, this same word will be used later to describe Peter's three-fold denial of Christ! Peter will discover through this coming period of denial what "deny himself" truly means. Having denied any acquaintance or connection with Jesus, Peter will learn what must be true if he is to deny himself in the same way (see Matthew 26:31-35 and compare with Matthew 26:69-75).
2. "take up his cross" (Greek: stauros, "cross"). The mere mention of this word chilled the hearts of the Jewish people. Rome asserted its authority through this instrument of capital execution. The hillsides around Jerusalem exhibited crosses, Rome's reminder to its subject people, "We are in charge here". Today we look at the cross as an emotional symbol of Christian faith, often studded with jewels or gold-gilded and worn around our necks. But then, when Rome ruled the world, it represented torture, punishment and a sense of twisted justice. During the process of crucifixion, the convicted criminal was first made to carry the cross-beam (not the whole structure). For the journey to the place of execution, this cross-beam was his companion, the reminder of his coming death. Carried, dragged, sometimes with the assistance of a sympathetic friend or by the command of the Roman solider an unwilling bystander, the cross was hauled up to an upright post already fixed in the ground. This cross-beam was his cross.

Jesus and the disciples had no doubt witnessed many such crucifixions. But now Jesus applies the tortuous meaning of that horrific symbol to the Christian discipleship. Here is a deliberate decision to say about myself, "I don't know you, I don't obey you, I owe no loyalty to you". Here is my conscious choice to become the solider who places the cross-beam on my own shoulders, and make this instrument of death my own. Taking up the cross is not enduring some suffering that happens to come my way. Instead it is the intentional dying to myself, self-chosen, self-pursued. And it is done for a specific purpose:
3. "follow me". The Greek of our passage uses the aorist tense for "deny" and "take up", but in this case Matthew uses the present tense. Following Jesus is a continuing journey which must begin with a singular choice and a deliberate purpose. This is one of the several implications of the aorist in Greek: singular, decisive action, especially when used in the imperative ("a command") mood as it is here. Nigel Turner, Greek scholar, calls this a "once for all" action. Once for all we decide to deny self and take up our cross. But that is done so that we might continuously follow Jesus wherever he might lead us. Peter had not yet made his choice. He would deny Jesus before he came to the point where he would deny himself. But once he decided, his decision would lead him to places he otherwise would not have gone. Consider the way Jesus describes Peter's future:18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!" (John 21:18-19).

In the next three verses (16:25-27), Jesus offers three reasons why his followers must "die to self". Matthew's language introduces each of these with the Greek conjunction gar, commonly translated "for" and presenting the explanation in what follows it.

1. Attempts to Save Life Doomed to Fail (16:25)l
All of this has enormous significance as Jesus now reveals. The disciples, as exemplified by Peter's resistance to Jesus, already have shown a willingness to "save life", specifically the life of Jesus, and also presumably their own thereby. Jesus accepts this determination on their part, but turns it upside-down. "I know you want to save your life," Jesus tells them, "but not in the way you propose." Any attempt to "save" one's own life will result in losing it (Greek: apolesei, "to destroy, perish, incur a loss"). Matthew's choice of words is startling. This is no ordinary loss, but the kind one would expect on the day of judgment. It is a perilous and eternal loss Jesus describes. "You cannot save yourselves", Jesus is explaining to them. "You must let go of this determination to engineer your own deliverance, or the consequence will be disastrous." Of course, the deliberate and decisive actions "to deny oneself" and "to take up one's cross" are the complete opposite of the idea "to save oneself".
Unable to save oneself, the Christ-followers are called upon to let themselves fall under God's judgment--that is, "to lose oneself" in His courtroom, accepting His verdict. The word "to lose" carries forward Jesus' argument with the same overtones, but this time, as the free choice of the disciple. I must place myself under the judgment of God in order that I might also experience the favorable verdict of God. The cross I take up is not the Roman cross, tarnished by the abuses of power, but rather the cross given me by Jesus, my Lord. This cross takes me into the courtroom of God where He may pass a righteous sentence on my life, and where I may, at the invitation of Jesus, also cast myself on His mercy. Only in this way can I be saved.

We must, Jesus urges, allow God to pass judgment on our life, and we must relinquish our own prerogative to do so. And we do not "lose our life" on our own or for ourselves. Jesus clarifies his instruction with the caveat "for my sake" (Greek: heneken mou, "on account of me" or "for me" or "for the sake of me"). What Jesus tells his disciples is that, in the act of "denying self", "taking up one's cross", and "losing one's life", they are not acting alone. The power to save life by losing it does not reside in the act of losing it, but in the act of losing it heneken mou, "on account of me". This could mean a couple of things. Does Jesus suggest that 1) if we lose our lives in Jesus' cause, standing by him, supporting him, and fighting beside him we are assured of this salvation? Or rather does Jesus mean that 2) we have this assurance because we trust in Jesus, and how it will turn out for him when he goes to Jerusalem, suffers, dies and rises again? At first glance, it would seem that #1 has problems, especially for the first disciples? When Jesus went to the cross, they were nowhere to be found, having forsaken him. That leaves #2 for our consideration.

The principle, "we live through dying", derives its power, not from some innate principle of nature or from some heroic courage we show, but from the unique and solitary action of Jesus who chooses the cross for our sake, dying in our place, and then proving himself victorious by rising from the dead. Any hope we have to "live through dying" rests with our connection to Jesus in his dying and living again. The upside-down kingdom rises when Jesus rises. And our salvation comes from losing only when our life is united with Jesus in his death and resurrection. Something profound must happen to Jesus in order for something profound to happen for us.

2. No Comparison between the "Soul" with the "Whole World" (16:26)
Whereupon, Jesus develops a further reason for obeying his original instruction. The decision to "die" as a Christ-follower requires that we place greater importance on our "soul" than on gaining the whole world. Matthew uses the Greek word psuche, often translated as "soul", throughout this passage to refer to human life. We are most familiar with the term when it appears in words like psychology and psychic. However, in those cases, the meaning is limited to only mental functions or to the mind. The word can take on the theological sense of "soul", that part of us which survives death, although that is not a uniquely Christian idea at all, since the ancient Greeks held to some form of life after death. Socrates and Plato elevated psuche above the body, the physical aspect of humanity, and taught that the body was the prison of the soul. This dualism, unfortunately, afflicted Christian thought at some point after the first century. More accurately, Jesus taught resurrection of the whole person, as did Paul and the apostles. Offering life for the soul after death would not have been a particularly advantageous selling point for early Christian preachers, since the pagans could offer the same thing. But to offer the restoration of the whole person, body and soul, would have been a remarkable philosophical development (see N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God for a comprehensive treatment of this topic). Of course Jesus is working from a Jewish framework, and would have had no difficulty uniting the whole person under the single idea of psuche, better translated "life", as in, "whole life". A few other linguistic notes might be helpful here:
Psuche originally came from "to breath, to blow" (psucho), and so literally meant "breath" like the Latin anima, or "the breath of life", that vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing. In this sense, also applies to animals. From this notion it becomes "life" in the biological sense. The New Testament focuses the meaning on life lived on earth versus life lived eternally. Persons born into God's kingdom are living beings in a new sense. We also see the use of the word for "person" where the whole individual is in view. There still remains shades of meaning with "psychological" overtones, such as, the seat of feelings, desires, affections, aversions, much like the Greek word for "heart", kardia. From this idea we also arrive at seat of moral choice, the will. Additional meanings include, looking at the true essence of human beings as psuche, along with the permanence of life that is not limited to physical existence.
Ultimately, we are driven back to Hebrew meanings which flow from nephesh, the usual Hebrew word for human life. The best example of this appears in Genesis 2:7 where human creation is described in this way: "Yahweh God formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Hebrew: chayah), and Adam became a living nephesh (usually translated as "soul"). Notice, Adam did not have a soul, but rather, he became a living soul, that is he acquired the principle of animation from God's act of forming him. Although the word "soul" often appears in our English translations of nephesh, it is best to see this idea as different from the Greek one which places the whole emphasis on a distinct part of human nature called the "soul". We don't so much "have a soul" as "we are our soul".

When Jesus asks, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world (kosmos) but loses his soul (psuche)? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul (psuche)?", he is affirming the supreme importance of human life looked at in ways other than "material" ones, that is, earth-bound ones. Jesus is not driving a sharp wedge between a spiritual soul and a material body when he speaks this way. Instead, he makes clear that human beings are, in their essence, more than what they "gain" by acquiring things from the world around them. Perhaps we see this expressed most clearly in Luke's account (12:15) where Jesus declares, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions". We are especially interested in the word "consist" which is really the verb "to be". That is, life is not equivalent to what that life acquires. We are not defined in terms of what we attract to ourselves. We are something before we acquire anything! However, if we fail to accept that idea, Jesus' words rub abrasively against our material storehouse. It is because we confuse the true self with what the self acquires that we balk at letting the true self go.

What the true self represents is worth much more than what the true self "gains". House, clothing, wealth, fame, power are all things belonging to the kosmos which may, from time to time, get added to our inventory. But they do not really become part of our true self. There is an enormous different between "myself" and "my stuff". Failing to make that distinction, we may very well hold back and refuse to "deny self", "take up the cross", and "follow" Jesus. But once we see our true self as psuche, we at once realize that we are a living unity, a person with intentions, purposes, goals, and pointed toward the future. Our true worth is endowed on us by God, His image, His likeness, thrust into the world to direct and shape it for His purposes. The world does not define us, but we are certainly called upon by God to give meaning to the world. And when we do, we let go of our self as something that we can save, or that we must save, and allow Jesus to lead us to the cross where our true worth becomes clear in light of his supreme sacrifice. As Bonhoeffer so eloquently put it, "that which cost God the life of His Son, cannot be cheap for us".

3. Life's True Value Only Made Clear on Judgment Day
Finally, Jesus throws the spotlight on his own vocation. But whereas he introduced this section with predictions about his coming death, in the present verse he throws the emphasis on his coming "in his Father's glory" (Greek: doxa), surrounded with angels. Jewish readers instantly recognize such language as referring to the day of Yahweh, and the coming judgment of the world. However, Jesus has one particular purpose for his coming in mind: "he will reward each person according to what he has done". This is similar to passages such as 2 Corinthians 11:15, 2 Timothy 4:14, 1 Peter 1:17, and numerous references in the book of Revelation (2:23, 18:6, 20:12-13, 22:12). All of these echo the Old Testament in texts like Proverbs 24:12, Jeremiah 17:10, and Psalm 62:12. These passages frequently mention God's role as the One who "weighs" the hearts of His people in order that He might justly reward them. Why does Jesus draw on this concept in Matthew 16:27? He is making a rather simple statement: Human beings are unable to properly access the value of their own lives, as witnessed by the temptation to gain the whole world and lose one's soul in the bargain. They suppose that the world, the kosmos, is able to add additional value to who they are. But in that assessment, human beings are wrong. Instead, Jesus counters, human beings must let go of the valuation of their own lives and give it to God when He will pass fair judgment by the merciful hand of the Son of Man. "Then" (Greek: tote), not "now", he will "give" to each "according to what he has done".

We must pass through death before we can face the coming judgment, Jesus tells his followers. We must let go of self, and of the attempts to confer value on ourselves, and allow God at last, in His coming glory, to bring to light our true worth, our true value as seen in the eyes of the dying and rising Son of Man. Jesus seems to be intentionally contrasting the word "gains", in 16:26, with the word "reward" in 16:27. The value of our life lies not in what it "gains", but how it will one day be rewarded by God. And so, in the interim, Christ's followers are called upon to "deny self", "take up the cross", and "follow" him. Only on the day of judgment will the truth of the paradox be clear at last, that through dying, we live (see 2 Corinthians 5:10, Acts 10:42, Romans 2:16, 14:10, Ephesians 6:8, and Colossians 3:24 for further teaching on this topic).

Jesus now tantalizers his followers with a puzzling promise. As he often did when introducing a statement of profound importance and authority, Jesus begins "amen" in 16:28. What momentous hope does he offer his disciples? It is the expectation that "some" who stand before him will not die until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Much speculation surrounds this prediction. Did Jesus intend to say that his "second coming" would happen in their lifetime? Or was he referring to chapter 17 where he appears in "transfiguration" glory? Or did he foresee the coming fall of Jerusalem some forty years hence? Scholars are not agreed on a single interpretation of the what. However, we should not miss Jesus' purpose for speaking these words after exhorting them to "self-denial" and "cross-bearing". Having promised "reward" for laying down one's life, Jesus clearly now offers encouragement that his followers will not wait forever, but will, even during their own lifetimes, experience something of the kingdom blessings that will one day arrive when "the Son of Man comes in his kingdom". That is, Jesus offers future blessings to his disciples before they die. The reader of the New Testament would need to be blind not to see how those blessings came: resurrection of Jesus, coming of the Holy Spirit, and an empowered Church. As one prime example, consider Stephen, the first martyr:
55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56).

Jim Elliot, missionary to Ecuador, and martyr for the cause of Christ, knew a great deal about "giving up" his life in order to save it. His story has recently been retold in the film, The End of the Spear, based on the book of the same title. Years ago, many of us read Through Gates of Splendor, and recall the same account in which Elliot and others encountered hostility from the Auca nationals and died as a result. Among the many things he left behind, was his concise and utterly wise statement which summarizes the text of Matthew 16 better than the meager commentary offered above. We closed this section with Elliot's words:
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

The Teaching of Paul: Put No Confidence in Yourself (Philippians 3:3-11)
Had the earthly Jesus encountered Saul of Tarsus, he no doubt would have sparred with him over many things. Some scholars have raised the possibility that Saul actually did meet Jesus as one of the unnamed critics during Jesus' ministry. Nothing in Scripture confirms that, and it is idle speculation at best. Yet, in spirit, Saul was, at one time, hostile to the Jesus message as witnessed by his persecution of the early Christians, including Stephen. Occasionally in his letters, Paul (his Roman name) would wax biographical, and disclose bits and pieces of his pre-Christian past. One such text is the one we will now examine, and its theme parallels the teaching of Jesus about dying to self. And Paul had a great deal of "self" requiring such death! A few preliminary phrases from this passage reveal Paul's previous frame of mind:
"confidence in the flesh" (3 times) (3:3-5)
"to my profit" (3:7)
"all things", "everything" (3:7-8)
"my own righteousness by law-keeping" (3:9)

The sort of theology Paul advocated before he met Jesus on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9 for the details) was grounded in impressing God and other people. Like so many in Second Temple Judaism, Paul knew that something was terribly wrong with the people of God. And, as a right-wing adherent to the Shammai Pharisees, his remedy was demanding and severe. He applied this remedy to his own life, piling up the accomplishments and, for a time, leading the movement to stomp out what he considered to be the Jesus heresy. His presence at the stoning of Stephen, consenting to his death, is ample proof that Paul would spare no effort for this cause (see Acts 8:1). [Historian Jack Finegan places the conversion of Paul somewhere around 36 C.E.] So what does the list above indicate about Paul's perspective as a Jew? Perhaps a few simple questions summarize it: What can I do? What can I gain? What can I prove?--the emphasis falling on the "I".

By contrast, once Paul "found Christ" (or better, once Christ found Paul) the outcome was dramatic. As Paul phrases it in this passage, "What was to my profit, I now consider loss for the sake of Christ" (3:7). Those words remarkably parallel what we have heard from Jesus in Matthew 16. It is as if we are hearing from a disciple (and we are!), fresh from the feet of Jesus who has just spoken the words, "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul?" "Yes," Paul, tells us in Philippians 3:7, "all of this was once considered by me as 'profit'. But no longer." That is why, earlier in this text, Paul writes about himself as a "genuine Jew" ("we who are the circumcision") who has discovered his greatest worship is "by the Spirit of God", and his greatest glory is "in Christ Jesus" A person who makes such wonderful discoveries no longer has room for "confidence in the flesh", that is, the self-dependent life.

This is a great concession of Paul's part. He is admitting that at one time his worship and his glory rested not with God, but with himself. His religion was rooted in trying to prove something about himself. And his credentials were impressive (3:5-6):
"circumcised the eighth day". Literally, "with respect to circumcision, an 8th day guy", focusing on the original nature of his entrance into Judaism. He was no convert, that is, no proselyte)
"people of 'Israel'". His racial distinctiveness as an Israelite meant he was a genuine descendent of the covenant people, and as such, better than someone who became part of Israel in some other way. All the rights and privileges of Judaism were his. Recall that Yahweh changed Jacob's name to "Israel" in conjunction with his "wrestling with the angel" as recorded in Genesis 32:22-32, a name which means "the one who prevails with God". It is a "mighty name". Paul saw himself belonging to a people with a "mighty name".!
"tribe of Benjamin". This tribe had prominence in Israel's history, named after Joseph's brother and only other son of Rachel, wife of Jacob (Israel). The first king, Saul (our writer's namesake!), came from this tribe. Benjamin, as a tribe, was valiant in battle, loyal to the house of David, participated in the return from Babylonian Exile, and joined with Judah in forming the new kingdom of Israel. Technically, Jerusalem and the Temple lay within Benjamin's boundaries (see Judges 1:21). Paul took great delight in his tribal membership, no doubt seeing himself as strong, courageous, pure and loyal, as were his ancestors.
"Hebrew of the Hebrews". Although Paul was born in Tarsus, outside the borders of Israel, he claimed pure Hebrew ancestry, traceable to many previous generations,as this phrase implies. No Gentile blood in these veins, he seems to be saying! And while he spoke and wrote Greek, he did not adopt the Hellenistic culture of the Roman Empire, but was educated in Hebrew ways (see Acts 21:40, 22:2-3, 23:6, 26:4-5 for Paul's thorough Hebrew orientation), and resisted the encroachment of pagans and paganism.Items 1-4 above were obviously due to the providence of God, and not to Paul's own choices. Still, Paul sees divine favor in each one. He might easily have said, "I was privileged…" But now Paul writes of his own accomplishments. So what did I, a good Jew, with solid pedigree, do with my endowments?
"a Pharisee in his interpretation of Torah". Although Paul was educated by Gamaliel (see Acts 23:6, 5:34, 22:3, Galatians 1:14), the more liberal of the Pharisee rabbis, his inclination was clearly toward Shammai who meticulously interpreted Torah according to the strictest oral traditions. Such Pharisees were not leaders of the official thought police who simply wanted to control people's lives for their own pleasure. Instead, they understood the reasons for Israel's present bad condition as due to a failure to keep Torah perfectly. If Israel would turn in purity (that is, Torah-purity) back to Yahweh, forgiveness and deliverance would eventually come. But it depended on what they, Torah-aware Israel, could accomplish. Paul gladly put himself in this camp.
"zealous in persecuting the church". And to be in this camp meant opposing any movement which might undermine it. The Jesus movement was perceived as such a threat. Paul, along with his peers, would have know what Jesus taught and did, and how tax collectors, harlots, and "other sinners" sat at his table. Good Pharisees in Paul's tradition could not tolerate such contamination of "pure Judaism". And when the deacon, Stephen, offered his sermon (recorded in Acts 7), Paul could not have missed the fact that Stephen was a proselyte to Judaism who had turned to the Jesus movement. "That's what happens," Paul no doubt thought, "when you make compromises with paganism. You end up with people like Stephen who go even farther in their hob-knobbing with these Nazarenes." And so Paul swears himself to the rooting out of Jesus-followers (Acts 8:1), culminating in his visionary encounter with the risen Jesus, which changed the course of his life. "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting," the voice from heaven replies to Paul's inquiry (Acts 9:5). "Zeal" is, by all accounts, a tricky business. Directed for the greater purposes of God, it is a mark of commitment. But inflamed by hatred and fueled by self-interest, zeal becomes a deadly weapon in the religious arsenal. Witness the movement which in later Judaism took up the name "Zealot", and led Israel to its terrifying defeat in 70, 73, and 135 C.E. See Paul's further remarks in 1 Corinthians 15:9, Acts 22:2-5, 26:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:13. Also, the Old Testament recognized a positive spin on "zeal", as seen in Numbers 25:1-18, Psalm 106:30, 1 Kings 19:10-14, Psalm 69:9). Perhaps the most famous "men of zeal" were the Maccabees who defeated the Syrians and restored the Hasmonean Kingdom of Judah for nearly one hundred years before the Romans stepped in. The Pharisees saw these valiant "freedom fighters" as their true forebears.
"faultless in Torah-righteousness as interpreted by his tradition". Pride and diligence led Paul to claim that he was "blameless" (Greek: amemptos) vis-à-vis Torah. Paul's assertion finds parallels in the rich young ruler met by Jesus in Luke 18:21. He qualified as "righteousness achiever" insofar as his own tradition saw him. The "great rabbis" had distilled Torah instruction down to the 613 mitzvot (commandments). (The readers are encouraged to access the following link where one version of this list can be found: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm). To be "righteous" in relationship to such a list simply meant you can check off the items you have obeyed. Is Torah more than such a list? For Jesus, the answer was clearly, yes! For Paul, before he met Jesus, the list was a source of comfort that he had met the requirements for "righteousness" (Hebrew: tzedaqah, "righteousness", "blameless behavior", "justice", "what is reliable", "godliness", "salvation"; Greek: dikaiosune). Righteousness, on these terms, was an "achievement" which, under the right circumstances, could bring the kingdom of God near to Israel. As a "righteousness achiever" Paul saw himself as contributing to that end.

But now comes Paul's great reversal, the moment when his world was turned upside-down. Paul begins 3:7 with the words, "But whatever was to my profit", literally, "but whatever was to me a gain (Greek: kerde, "gain", "advantage", "a win"). All of the things that belonged to Paul's "confidence in the flesh", the things that gave him such certainty as a righteous Jew, are swept away. They became, not assets, but liabilities in the accounting book of the kingdom. What once made Paul proud and self-reliant, he takes as a catastrophic loss. The language of this passage is overwhelmingly from the world of accounting as Rabbis would have seen it. Even the word hegeisthai, translated "count" or "consider" is consistent with this meaning. Whatever Paul "accounted" as enhancing his own value to God and to the nation, he even now decisively regards as bringing no value whatever to either. Though the list Paul gave us had many items on it, Paul uses the singular form of the noun, zemia, to consign them to the trash bin. In fact, the noun used here comes from the verb, zemioo, meaning "to affect with damage, do damage to, suffer loss, sustain damage, receive injury". Had Paul used our vernacular, he might have written, "Whatever I thought enhanced my life took a real blow one day." No doubt, Paul had in mind his own encounter with the risen Jesus who "called him out" that day (Acts 9) as a persecutor, not merely of his followers, but of himself. None of what Paul thought he was accomplishing actually amounted to anything, he now recognizes.

But Paul can't be faulted for trying. His efforts were zealous and in accordance with the most devout tenants of Judaism. Yet, it was all he knew; he knew nothing more; he didn't know anything better. Until… Much like the first disciples who heard Jesus' words: "deny yourself", "take up your cross"--there's something so much better "to follow"! The "whole world" cannot enhance the soul, Jesus said. And Paul discovered as much when he writes here, "Whatever was to my profit…" Paul's rejection of his former way of life came at the insistence of the Lord Jesus Christ. As he writes in 3:8, by "comparing" the old "gains" with the new ones, namely with "knowing Christ", the decision to let go of the old is, to use our slang, "a no-brainer". The Greek words are powerful: huperechon tes gnoseos Christos Iesou tou kuriou mou, literally, "the superiority of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord…" While Paul "knew" Torah through the lens of rabbinic interpretation, and oral tradition, and while he "knew" a kind of righteousness which qualified itself in self-approving ways, all of that pales in the presence of the "superior knowledge" (Greek: gnosis) found in having the Messiah Jesus as his Lord. Given the choice, so keenly set out for him that day on the road to Damascus, Paul came to choose the knowledge of a person to the knowledge of a tradition. So much so, that Paul will call his previous "benefits" skubala, "manure, dung, excrement".

On the road to Damascus that day, Paul died to himself, though at first he knew little of what that actually meant. His eyes covered with blindness, and his mind disoriented, others had to lead him to shelter and provisions. For once, he would be dependent on others for the blessings of God--such as his sight! And in this Philippians passage, Paul reflects on the meaning of all that and then makes clear his newly embraced vocation: "that I may gain Christ" (3:8b). Did he lose his life that day? Absolutely, letting go of the only life he knew, the life in Judaism with all of its assured benefits and grand dreams. This was no small scuttling of baggage, but the accumulated achievement of a lifetime. The whole world looked different to Paul. Even the Scriptures looked different. They ceased to be proof-texts for his dearly-held doctrine and became living words pointing to God's Messiah who had finally arrived. Paul might well have accepted Luther's assessment, made centuries later, "The Old Testament is the manger where the Christ-child is laid". Manger indeed! The Pharisee who once found solace in his chosen-ness, now finds a new identity in the words "gain Christ", and "be found in him, not having my own righteousness, the one derived from law-in-itself, but the one derived from God, righteousness [standing] on faith" (3:9).

What does it mean to "be found in" Christ? The Greek word, heurisko, translated here as "found", has meanings which include: "to find, to find out, discover, devise, intent, make, get, gain, procure, bring, fetch". Paul uses the word in its passive sense, "to be found", along with the preposition en, "in". Whereas, Paul earlier wrote about letting go of everything "for the sake of Christ" (3:7), to "know Christ" (3:8a), to "gain Christ" (8b), in this instance, he wants to be "found in Christ" (3:9). New Testament scholar, Preisker, in his lexical entry on this word, comments:
…its reference is predominantly to the surprising discovery and mysterious understanding of human existence and historical occurrence in their hidden relationships as seen from the standpoint of and with an ultimate view to the kingdom of God [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, II, p.769]
In other words, Paul made a startling discovery that all attempts to save himself were doomed to fail, but without warning, God showed up one day and turned his world upside-down, and changed the way he thought about things, especially, about himself. In Jesus, God's Messiah, Lord of all things, the kingdom of God had arrived at last, and, wonder of wonders, Paul woke up one day living inside that kingdom! It was all so unexpected and unplanned from Paul's perspective. Everything he had attempted had to be thrown out. Christ was Paul's great and magnificent discovery! And having "found Christ", Paul at last had found himself. Not the old self, rooted as it was in religious piety, well-intentioned though it was, but in real righteousness. This, then, is the rich meaning of heurisko--the discovery of the unexpected: the discovery of Christ, not as Paul imagined him, but as God revealed him. Not arriving in power and majesty, but hanging on a cross.

But Paul is not yet finished telling his readers about his upside-down discovery, his holy heuriskon. Paul's self has changed residence. He is no longer living in his own neighborhood but in the kingdom of Christ instead. "Righteousness" is no longer something that he trots out to show off his achievements, but rather is God's declaration, in Christ, of his acceptance as one of God's people. Righteousness is not something "I possess", rather it is something with which I am blessed by God in Christ. Two kinds of righteousness are contrasted: "my own" as an achievement, attracting the favor of God; and "on faith" as the gift of the faithful God. When Paul speaks about "faith" (Greek: pistis), he is not so much naming yet one more thing that he does, but rather, what God is faithful in doing for him. This is a righteousness growing from the new-found relationship Paul has with Christ, a relationship described earlier, as the "knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord".

By all accounts Paul has died to his old way of being righteous, that is, of being accepted as one of the people of God. It's not about circumcision or birthright or separation from the pagan world or achievement under Torah. Quite the opposite (or, as we would put it, quite upside-down from all of that!), in place of this, Paul discovers a new kind of identity, the sort given to him by Christ himself. Recall his conversation with the risen, exalted Jesus on the road to Damascus [Note: There are four accounts of Paul’s conversion: Galatians 1:15-17 (from Paul himself); Acts 9:1-19 (Luke relating Paul's experience); Acts 22:2b-16 (Luke relating Paul's telling of his conversion to the crowd in Jerusalem); Acts 26:9-18 (Luke relating Paul's telling of his conversion to Agrippa). There are also allusions to Paul's conversion in Galatians 1:11-12; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8. You are encouraged to reader each of these and think about the implications for our study here]. During that exchange with Jesus, Paul gets a new commission: to bring the Gospel to the pagan world, that is, to Gentiles, the hated goyim. Nothing could have been more off the beaten path for this set-in-his-ways Pharisee, bent on purifying Judaism of its paganism. With his fresh vocation, Paul had to let go of all of that. "You are," Jesus was telling Paul, "my servant and witness to the Gentiles. Everything else amounts to nothing compared to this vocation." An undiscovered life lay before him, and the old life was laid in its grave at the cross of the risen Christ. Life would not be the same for Paul ever again.

But now we move to the finale of our present passage, 4:10-11. Paul ended 4:9 with the words, "the from-God-righteousness on the faith" (my literal rendering of the Greek). He has just contrasted "his own" version of this righteousness with the "from-God-on-the-faith" version. But the sentence does not end there, and, unfortunately, our translators give the impression that Paul picks up a new thought with 4:10. He does not, but, instead, continues this one. The Greek of 4:10 begins with the genitive form of the article "the", followed by the infinitive "to know". This roughly translates as "of (or for) the knowing of", implying purpose, a common grammatical form in the New Testament. In addition, the form of the verb "to know" is in the aorist tense, likely the variety of aorist which "sums up the action" at the point it begins, a sort of "crisis event". What is Paul trying to tell us by this maze of linguistic twists?

We have already heard Paul tell us that Christ has turned out to be the greatest discovery of his life. That in Christ, he has had a major shakeup of his personal values. Nothing looks the same anymore. Nothing matters that once mattered. Paul has reached a crisis of knowledge with the result that coming to know Christ matters more than anything else. It's as if Paul has walked through a hidden door (like the one in C.S. Lewis' wardrobe!), and a whole new world suddenly comes into view on the other side. This world is ruled by a different kind of righteousness, a different kind of "order", than the one he left behind. In this new world, Christ Jesus is Lord--he is God ruling over all things, and Paul has met him face-to-face. What follows in Philippians 3:10-11 is a further explanation of what it means for Paul to be "found in Christ".

Paul gathers up everything he says in 3:10-11 in the word for "to know" or, as we have suggested, "to come to know", a crisis of knowing. This "knowledge of Christ is personal and relational", Gerald Hawthorne writes in his commentary on Philippians (Word Biblical Commentary, 43, p.143). The focus is on "understanding", coupled with experience and even intimacy. This is not mere intellectual knowledge of the sort Paul would have known in his rabbinic training. Much of that has been left behind as useless to his pursuit of this new righteousness. The current adage that it's not "what you know" but "whom you know" might be re-baptized in this context to mean that knowledge is not impersonal and entirely objective, but verges on the subjective and highly inter-personal. Some readers might cringe at this, thinking that Paul is advocating some form of relativistic truth. If by "relativistic" we mean "without proper grounding or confirmation", Paul certainly is not intending that. But if we mean "relative" in the sense that it pertains to a "relationship" with God through Christ--most certainly that is Paul's "understanding". Again, Hawthorne: "…he is thinking about a personal encounter with Christ that inaugurates a special intimacy with Christ that is life-changing and on-going" (p.143). The reader is invited to study these texts which shed more light on that idea of "knowing God": John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 2:8, 1 John 2:3-4, 4:8, 5:20.

What is the content of this "knowing"? Paul identifies a few key components:
"the power (Greek: dunamis) of the resurrection of him"
"the fellowship of his sufferings"
"conformed to his death"
"attaining the resurrection out from the dead"

Notice that Paul wants to know Christ in precisely these ways. And, also, that in knowing him in these ways, Paul comes to know himself in a way he has not known before. This knowing causes something to happen to Paul. Once again, the sort of knowledge Paul seeks is not something that he acquires and can neatly catalogue into his lists of "gains", as part of his repertoire of achievements. While Paul certainly believed in the Jesus of history, it was not merely the facts about Jesus that Paul wanted to input into his information store. Nor does he claim such knowledge as an advantage he now holds over other people, giving him a head-start on some newly discovered righteousness that will move him to the head of the line in the kingdom of God. Not at all. Paul wants to know Christ as the living One who is even now delivering him from his self-centeredness, converting him from the old way to the new way of life, gifting him to serve others by the Holy Spirit, and resurrecting him from death to life.

But having put the best foot forward in seeking the "power of Christ's resurrection", Paul honestly admits that the road to resurrection lies by the way of the cross. So then he speaks of the "fellowship" (from the Greek: koinonia, "the shared-ness"; notice the word "coin" embedded in that term--a thing stamped from the same mold) of Christ's sufferings (Greek: pathematon, from which comes our English "pathos", entailing intense feelings, in this case, pain). Such koinonia implies participation in something. Paul does not seek his own sufferings here, but those of Christ. He wants the divinely appointed suffering of Christ himself to become his own, that is, Paul wants to "die with Christ", a theme he develops elsewhere in his letters (see Colossians 1:24, Romans 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 4:7-11, Romans 6:4-11; Galatians 2:19-20). This last passage warrants re-printing here:
19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:19-20)
For Paul, the sufferings of Christ are not something he must imitate, but rather are realities he wants to experience. That is, these are not Paul's sufferings, but instead are Christ's sufferings being made real in his own life. The suffering Christ wields power in his sufferings, since through them he defeats sin and conquers the selfishness in human life. Paul wants that experience in his own life. In fact in writes elsewhere that he "dies daily" (1 Corinthians 15:31).

And not just the sufferings, but their outcome as well--namely, in death. "becoming like him in his death", the NIV translates this last phrase in 3:10. The Greek reads, summorphizomenois to thanto autou. The first word is unique in the New Testament and simply means, "to conform oneself, to make oneself like". Paul likes words beginning with sum- because they emphasize the idea of "together-ness", "oneness with", a thought he has already given us in the word koinonia. Classical Greek used the stem of this word, morphizo, to express, in one of its meanings, the idea of "give shape to", or "form by means of". What Paul seems to be saying here is that he wants the sufferings and death of Christ to be something he shares so that they together might give shape to his life. Imagine that! Until he met Christ, the thought of further suffering brought chills to the spiritual spines of Jewish people. They rejected the thought of a suffering Messiah as an indignity against the whole nation, an insult to its national pride. Lord knows, they thought, we've had our share of failed Messiahs. There is no way we want this one, this "suffering one". Paul's view of that was turned upside-down, and now he sees the suffering and dying Jesus as something that ought to shape his own life. Each life experience he encounters should be shaped by the suffering, dying Jesus. Each decision he makes; each thought he has; each response to his fellow human beings--should be shaped by this knowledge of the Jesus who suffered and died.

That being said, Paul does not end there, like a Stoic who simply accepts his painful lot in life. Beyond the suffering and death, Paul reaches, even as he began 3:10-11: "if, somehow, I might arrive (Greek: katantao, "to arrive, come to", perhaps of a place "opposite to" where one is now; forms of this exist in Classical Greek which mean "downhill", "right opposite") at the resurrection, the one out of the dead". What is Paul saying? Simply, that prior to discovering Christ, he was in a certain place, but once Christ entered his life, he was in another place. This new place was pregnant with possibilities, namely, the promise of new life, the kind Jewish people only spoke about when they mentioned the resurrection at the end of days. But things have changed. This resurrection is even now a real possibility, but to arrive at it, we must pass through Christ's sufferings and death. In fact, allowing those to shape our lives is the only way we can "arrive" at an entirely different place. Hence, the grand discovery of dying with Christ so that we might live with him also. Unless the dying Christ shapes our lives, the rising Christ cannot. This is the force of the "if" in 3:11, coupled with "somehow" (Greek: ei pos). Is there anyway for Paul to experience, to know Christ, the One who one day turned up in Paul's life? Surprisingly, yes, there is, Paul tells his readers, but it must be through allowing the sufferings and death of Christ to perform their work in our lives. Only then can the resurrection of Christ unleash its power for holy living, freedom from sin, and personal restoration.

All of this is quite exhilarating and mind-boggling. Scholars often write about Paul's "Christ mysticism", by which they mean Paul's belief that the Christ-follower can actually be joined with Christ in the whole sweep of his redemptive story, that we can participate with Christ in the very Gospel we proclaim. Did Paul ever "arrive" at this experience he longed for so much? The sequel to our text is Philippians 3:12-14 where Paul makes clear that he has not yet "obtained all this" (3:12), that he is "pressing on" and "reaching out" for the hand of Christ to take hold of him all through the process. "Not yet", Paul concedes (3:13), but, with single-heartedness he makes a solid commitment:
"This one thing I do"
"Forgetting what is behind"
"Straining toward what is ahead"
"I press on toward the goal, the prize, the calling of God, heavenward, in Christ Jesus".

When he "forgets what is behind", he clearly has in view the old way of looking at things, the one that he counted "loss" and treated as "rubbish". What we witness in this sequel to our main text is Paul's life shaped by the life of Christ. Whenever he uses the word "I", post-Christ, it acquires new meaning. Who is this "I" who "does but one thing", after having spent his whole life piling up many things? Who is this "I" who forgets what is behind, after having boasted about his "faultless righteousness"? Who is this "I" who looks forward with hope and expectancy for something more, after having convinced himself that he had achieved all that could be achieved? Why, this is the Paul who suffers with Christ, dies with Christ, and daily rises with Christ. And it is the same "I" whom Christ asked to "deny himself", "take up his cross", and "follow me". The message of Jesus and that of Paul are the same message. One spoken by the Master, the other by his servant-follower.

But this is also our message. For we are called by Jesus to value ourselves in entirely different ways, and to start by discovering ourselves "in Christ", and knowing him through his suffering and death. Whatever else we might think about ourselves, that thought must be taken to the cross where Christ Jesus our Lord must accomplish his serious work of crucifying our selfish selves and bringing every thought and ambition captive to his own (see 2 Corinthians 10:5). It is not we who crucify ourselves, mind you, but Christ who does this deep and difficult work. We cannot save ourselves, nor can we arrest our selfish egos. The whole world has convinced us that it can make us complete if we but gain it. But Jesus calls us to follow a New Way and surrender the center our lives to him instead. Nor is this work the task of a single day or month or year, but, as Paul assures us, the race of a whole lifetime in which we press on, take hold, and strain toward God's goal.

Are we willing to give up everything we hold dear to discover Christ in this way? That was Paul's burden and Jesus' imperative. J.H. Jowett, in his work The High Calling, summarizes Paul's attitude in this way:
Paul is abundantly willing to lose the thin and fading robe of reputation if only he can gain the splendid and incorruptible garment of a sanctified character. And that splendid garment is not the product of works, the fashion of human hands; it is the workmanship of God, the finished creation of His abounding grace" (p.131).
But perhaps the "heart of the matter" is best grasped from the words of Whigginton's hymn, written in the 19th century:

1 Not I, but Christ, be honored, loved, exalted;
Not I, but Christ, be seen, be known, be heard;
Not I, but Christ, in every look and action;
Not I, but Christ, in every thought and word.

2 Not I, but Christ, to gently soothe in sorrow;
Not I, but Christ, to wipe the falling tear;
Not I, but Christ, to lift the weary burden;
Not I, but Christ, to hush away all fear.

3 Not I, but Christ, in lowly, silent labor;
Not I, but Christ, in humble, earnest toil;
Christ, only Christ! no show, no ostentation;
Christ, none but Christ, the gatherer of the spoil.

4 Christ, only Christ, ere long will fill my vision;
Glory excelling, soon, full soon, I'll see ---
Christ, only Christ, my every wish fulfilling ---
Christ, only Christ, my All in all to be.

Finally, in Paul's dramatic fashion, he paints a portrait of this upside-down existence, putting in perspective the losses and the gain, the living and the dying, and why in the process me must not, after all, "lose heart":
7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you. 13 It is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken." With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, 14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence. 15 All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:7-18).

Glory to God! Amen.
Digger Deeper: Upside-Down: Living Through Dying
(Bob Brown)

To gain a deeper understanding of Upside-Down: Living Through Dying, carefully read the selected passages below. To aid you in your study, we invite you to visit the website http://notes.chicagofirstnaz.org, or pick up a copy of the notes at the Connect desk, or from your ABF leader. Now consider the following questions, as you ask the Lord to teach you.

Special Note: The Background Notes are especially useful in working through some of these questions. You are encouraged to secure a copy as you begin.

1. What announcement does Jesus make in Matthew 16:21 which prompts Peter's response and Jesus' teaching on living and dying?
2. Why did Peter object to Jesus' proposed journey to Jerusalem? How did Jesus respond to Peter's resistance, and how do you account for his harshness in addressing Peter? (16:22-23)
3. What principal command does Jesus give his disciples in 16:24?
4. Carefully read 16:25-27. List three reasons Jesus gives in support of his command in 16:24.
5. Define the different ways Jesus uses the words "save" and "lose" in this passage.
6. What promise does Jesus offer his followers in 16:27 and why is this appropriate in light of his teaching in this passage?
7. Carefully read Philippians 3:3-11. Construct a simple outline (main points only) of this passage.
8. Make two columns and label them: "life before Christ"; "life with Christ". Using the Philippians' passage, identify Paul's view of things in each case.
9. What is the biggest change in Paul's life because of Christ?
10. How does Paul look at his past? What main idea expresses his view of the "old life"?
11. List each reference to "Christ" in this passage. How does he describe Christ in each case?
12. What does Paul means when he writes that he wants to be "found in him", referring to Christ? "Found" in what sense (see the Background Notes for ideas)?
13. What do you think Paul means by the word "know" as he uses it here?
14. What does Paul want to "know" in his relationship to Christ?
15. Compare the teaching of Paul with that of Jesus. How are they the same? Different?

Upside-Down: Power and Position

Winning in Last Place: Power and Position
Upside-Down
January 12/13, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
Upside-Down: Winning in Last Place
(Robert Ismon Brown)

Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: Matthew 5:11-12, Matthew 5:38-48, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 6:1-8, Matthew 20:25-28, Philippians 2:1-11.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy (Matthew 5:7).

11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Matthew 5:11-12).

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:38-48).

Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. … For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you (Matthew 6:12, 14).

1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him (Matthew 6:1-8).

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:25-28).

1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:1-11).

Introduction
When is power important to you? Had we put that question to the audience who heard Jesus' words in the texts cited above, we would have no doubt gotten the simple response: "When you don't have it." That's a frequent answer from people who live under Roman occupation. The Jewish community in Israel, particularly those in Galilee and Judea, knew little of self-determination. Their Roman overlords made sure of that. It was true that Herod the Great had found ways to accommodate the Jewish state to the Roman authority, but in the eyes of observant followers of Torah, too much had been surrendered in allowing for this uneasy peace with the pagans. Herod's efforts to refurbish the Temple put Israel on the map for architectural beauty, but it did little to lessen the humiliation of living under someone else's king. As we noted in our previous study, most of the population in Israel were peasant farmers, and the rest served at the pleasure of the rich elite. It was also troubling for those responsible for the worship of the Temple that the High Priest could not wear his sacred vestments except with the leave of Rome's governor.

Examining Power in the World of Jesus
For all of his unorthodoxy, Herod still laid claim to a title of honor: "King of the Jews". That may have been some solace to Jewish people longing for their former glory days, when real kings sat on the throne. Yet, everybody knew that this king did not descend from David, and, at the end of the day, many still yearned for the promised Messiah whose kingdom would be better than Herod's. He was, after all, ambitious and ruthless, refusing competitors any ground, and occasionally spread the wealth around, such as giving free corn during famines, and even cutting the tax burden during difficult economic times. But he could not hide his propensity to sidle up to the Romans, subsidizing pagan temples right along with the one in Jerusalem. Nor did he particularly embrace Jewish worship and ritual, though he put up with it. On one occasion he fastened a golden Roman eagle above the eastern gate of Jerusalem, inciting retaliation from the faithful who tore it down. In return Herod, wielding his power with Rome's nod, burned the offenders alive. Yes, Herod understood the pagan use of power, and maintained his kingdom from 37 to 4 B.C.E.

But that would abruptly end in 4 B.C.E. with his death. Power was distributed to his three sons:
Herod Antipas ruled Galilee, and would use his power to one day execute John the Baptizer, while later giving approval to the death of Jesus.
Philip assumed authority over Israelite lands northeast of Galilee, and was an unremarkable ruler.
Archelaus ruled Judea, including Jerusalem.
Nothing was automatic about their appointments to these positions. The Roman emperor (Augustus) would need to ratify Herod's will. Yet, even before the official sanction could take place, Archelaus was already flexing political muscle, defrocking the high priest and putting his own man in power. The populace did not take this sitting down. Raising a mob they demanded lower taxes, the release of prisoners, and the return of the high priest. Soldiers seeking to enforce Archelaus' rule were killed by the riots. The offenders were promptly captured by Archelaus and three thousand were put to death He then sailed for Rome and, for what he hoped would be, his confirmation.

While he was gone, more outbursts erupted in Israel, requiring the Roman Syrian general to completely put down the uprisings which had plundered the town of Sepphoris in Galilee, seizing weapons from the armory. From these varied attacks rose "kings" who claimed to rule various parts of Israel. Rome could not allow this and crushed their efforts, killing thousands and burning Sepphoris to the ground. The scene of Jerusalem was also grim, with rebels attacking Roman soldiers from the walls of the Temple and seeking to destroy the Roman fortress. In retaliation, the Romans fired the Temple and stole from the treasury. When Rome rules, no one's treasure is secure.

Upon his return, Archelaus inherits a powder keg of revolutionary activity. During these early years of Archelaus' reign, Jesus grew up in Nazareth, not far from Sepphoris, the site of so much violence and bloodshed. Archelaus was not loved. Most people wanted him removed. Oddly, Augustus gave in to these demands, and, in 6 C.E. he was exiled. For a moment, the people rejoiced. But their jubilance was short-lived. In place of a client-ruler with nominal Jewish connections, the Emperor placed a procurator instead, often called a "governor". Rome had upped the power ante. The procurator ruled directly, responsible to the Emperor. No more political games with Herod's family in Judea: governor Pilate would see to that!

So what did the power of Rome look like in Judea? Pilate reported directly to Caesar and could discharged the army, the courts, and the finances at his own command. He oversaw five cohorts of 600 soldiers each, and placed them in garrisons around his province. In Fort Antonia, in Jerusalem, Pilate placed some 500 troops as permanent guardians of the Temple area. For himself, Pilate made his home in Caesarea, a comfortable distance from Jerusalem on the Mediterranean Sea. During high holy days, the troop levels in Jerusalem were boosted, as thousands of pilgrims thronged the city.

Roman power also meant Roman taxes. The same year Pilate took charge, the Syrian procurator Quirinius executed a census for taxation, immediately triggering more riots. Loyal Jews challenged Rome's land-grab, arguing that Yahweh's land belonged to Him alone, and that the Emperor did not deserve his revered titles of soter and kurios (Savior and Lord). Roman money was defiled by the images it bore, and the rebels refused to trade in it. During some fifty years, including the time of Jesus' ministry, some thirty different resistance groups appeared, encompassing public protests, would-be prophets, would-be messiahs, and miscellaneous bandit groups. Politics, poverty and religious power struggles prompted these movements. And the war cry was the same: "No Lord but God". Power was met with power, blood was shed, professing Messiahs were seized and crucified, and those who took up the sword perished by the sword. If this was the kingdom of God come to earth, it didn't look anything like what the prophets foretold. Eleven bandit groups emerged before the fatal war of 66-70 C.E. Freedom fighters, terrorists, social bandits, local peasants--these became uncomfortable allies in the call for independence from Rome and from its Jewish lackeys like the Herods. Even at the time of Jesus' own trial, the lestes ("brigand"), Barabbas, had been arrested and was only released because the Temple authorities had infiltrated the mob calling for Jesus' crucifixion.

By the time Jesus inaugurated his public ministry in the late 20's C.E., Israel seethed with revolution, with each of several groups advocating for this or that means of bringing justice back to God's chosen people. In each instance, the effective use of power played a key role. Those were times of the power brokers. Each had an agenda to advance, and each sought the means of power to accomplish it. Unfortunately, those who should have wielded legitimate power, the high priests, were under the thumb of Pilate. They could not wear their vestments unless he said so, and that was only on high holy days. To add insult to injury, Rome required a daily sacrifice in the Temple on behalf of the Emperor--this in lieu of having to worship the Emperor in some other unacceptable fashion, which would have been idolatry!

Jesus knew about power and its pitfalls. During his childhood, he had lived in the shadow of revolutionary activity not far from Nazareth. Roman soldiers frequented his hometown when they were on leave. Rome was all around him. He also witnessed the various efforts to defeat Rome using the weapons of war to do so. He knew that violence begets violence. His life was not peaceful. And so when cousin John was immersing would-be citizens of a new kingdom in the Jordan River, Jesus shows up to be baptized himself, fulfilling, in his own words, "all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). From that moment, the Jesus movement was born--a movement destined to first of all renew Israel under a new definition of "power", and then to spread this message, this "good news" to the ends of the earth. No sooner did the Jordan water drip from his body than Jesus made his way into the wilderness to encounter power in its darkest and most insidious forms. He went to meet the Devil himself. While the tempter offered him things like bread and glory, he at last took Jesus up to a high mountain and, in Matthew's words, "…showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 'All this I will give you,' he said, 'if you will bow down and worship me.' 10 Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."' 11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him" (Matthew 4:8-11).

The Devil sought to dazzle Jesus with visions of power and glory, the kind found in "the world", the kosmos, the political state organized by human beings and which obeyed the laws of power. But Jesus said "No", rejecting raw power as the true instrument for governance. Jesus knew the creed of political power and its approval of force, violence, and murder. From that moment on, Jesus' mission would involve the revelation of a new power, a new way of ruling. Rejecting the old power plays, he chose to be king in such a radically different way, so that at his crucifixion, Pilate, in an upside-down gesture, places this title over his cross: "King of the Jews".

And so, when Jesus ascends the Mount and proclaims his "Sermon" (Matthew 5-7), he goes somewhere that symbolizes God's power, not man's. Harkening back to Exodus 20-24, when Moses met Yahweh on Sinai, Jesus announces the arrival of a kingdom that has none of the trappings of pagan power at all. In place of it, he teaches mercy, meekness, purity of heart, and peacemaking. By climbing the Mount, Jesus illustrates the power of God and His presence. His words reject violent force. One thing became clear: the leaders in his kingdom must become as little children and ministering servants. He would become a revolutionary without using the customary means of power to accomplish his purposes. Speaking in ways entirely upside-down, he rejected all forms of coercion, and in its place, urged forgiveness and love of enemies, even to Roman soldiers! Yet he was no weak-kneed, cowardly king. Faced with the misguided interpretations of Torah by the ruling elite, Jesus rejected their Sabbath laws, greed, ostracism of "sinners", and their false understanding of ritual purity. He equally rejected the accommodations made by the left-wing Pharisees and the Sadducees, along with the hirelings of Herod's family. He once called Herod Antipas, "that old fox" (Luke 13:32). In so doing he rattled the status quo for traditionalists and revolutionaries alike. So, yes, one might mistake him for a revolutionary, but his uprising was upside-down. Compassion replaced weapons. And in the hands of Jesus, Torah took one a whole new meaning, becoming the true creed for his upside-down kingdom.

However, on the day of Jesus' temptation by the Devil, he also found himself on the pinnacle of the Temple. Next to Roman power, this building held significant power of its own. Mystery surrounded it and filled it. If Israel sought forgiveness, it was here. The Devil wanted Jesus to make a scene in the Temple and thus preempt the power it represented for Israel. The Temple was a huge structure, after all, 100 feet by 35 feet, rising 60 feet into the air. Thirty-five acres were filled by its various structures. Built of marble and in places overlaid with gold, it shown brill