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?