Preface: Lexham Bible Guide Philippians

Lexham Bible Guide
Philippians
Derek R. Brown
Author
Douglas Mangum
Series and Volume Editor
Jim LePage
Graphic Designer
Lexham Press, 2013
Preface
The variety of views in biblical studies presents a maze of complexity. There are often as
many interpretations as interpreters. With the Lexham Bible Guides, we start from the
premise that the best solution is to provide a map of the maze. The series is designed to be a
research tool. Each guide presents a wide range of interpretive issues raised by Bible scholars.
These resources meet the needs of those studying the Bible in academic settings, but the
broad scope of coverage also makes them useful for preaching preparation.
The research engages with critical biblical scholarship and explains scholarly
interpretations. Undoubtedly you will agree with some interpretations, disagree with others,
and encounter some for the first time. Whatever the case, these are issues you will run across.
We’re here to guide you through this rough terrain.
Each volume in the series links to standard scholarly works on the Bible. The authors of
the Lexham Bible Guides have made no attempt to identify where particular interpretations
fall along the theological or denominational spectrum. This is a mark of the diversity of
biblical interpretation, not a mark of implicit endorsement by the guides’ authors. Interpreters
from different theological perspectives often have conflicting views on the same texts. As
you encounter these views, we urge you to keep the biblical text itself central to your study.
The Lexham Bible Guides provide the information you need to reach your own
conclusions. Our summary will explain the issue and the main options. The annotated links
will point you to a variety of resources that engage the issue in more depth. If all you need is
an overview, the guide alone will give you easy access to the essential information. If you
need to research a passage in depth, we will point you to the most relevant discussions among
the thousands of available resources in the Logos library. Research takes time. The Lexham
Bible Guides save time.
Introduction to Philippians
Message
Paul’s letter to the church in Philippi touches on several theological issues that he deals with
elsewhere in his letters. In particular, Philippians is known for its famous christological
hymn, which narrates the incarnation of Christ (Phil 2:5–11). Paul’s message, however, does
not focus on Christology or even the Philippians’ financial support of his ministry—a subject
featured throughout the writing. Instead, his letter to the Philippians addresses the question
of how to live as a Christian in a non-believing world. Paul begins with what many
commentators regard as the thesis of the letter in Phil 1:27–30, urging the Philippians to live
within society in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. In Philippians 2:5–30, Paul
presents Christ, Timothy, and Epaphroditus as three examples for the Philippians to imitate
as they live out their faith. Finally, in Philippians 3:20–21, he reminds his readers that God
has called them to live as representatives of the “citizenship of heaven” to the Roman colony
of Philippi until the return of their Lord, Jesus Christ.
Themes
Although Philippians is not dominated by a single theological issue or theme, three motifs
stand out in the letter. First, the Christ hymn in Phil 2:5–11 unavoidably makes Christology—
and in particular, the doctrine of the incarnation—the most theological issue in the letter.
Scholarly interest in the hymn often isolates Phil 2:5–11 from its surrounding passages,
giving the impression that Paul simply dropped the poetic text into his letter. In reality, the
Christology The area of Christian theology concerned with the person and nature of Christ.
hymn connects both backward and forward to the remainder of the letter. The main appeal
of the letter in Phil 1:27–30, which Paul further elaborates in Phil 2:1–4, sets up the hymn by
calling the Philippian believers to share one mind and act in humility toward one another.
The great christological hymn then sings the praises of the ultimate example of this
behavior—the exalted Lord Jesus Christ. The idea of sharing the same mind of Christ then
resurfaces in Phil 4:2–3, where Paul urges Euodia and Syntyche to reconcile and be of one
mind in the Lord.
Second, Paul frequently discusses the Philippian church’s “partnership” (koinōnia) with
his ministry. In Philippians 1:5, he says the Philippians have been “partners” with him since
they first heard the gospel. Shortly thereafter, he speaks of them as fellow partakers in grace,
both in his imprisonment and the confirmation of the gospel (Phil 1:7). Paul twice uses the
term koinōnia in a theological sense in this letter. In Philippians 2:1, he speaks of
“fellowship” (koinōnia) of the Spirit; in Phil 3:10, he writes of his desire to experience the
“share” (koinōnia) of Christ’s sufferings by becoming like Him in His death. And in
Philippians 4:14–15, Paul uses two cognate verbs to describe the Philippians’ “sharing” in
his troubles through their financial gift to his ministry.
Third, the language of joy is woven throughout the text of the letter. As Martin (1987,
46–47) points out, some 16 “joy” words can be found in Philippians. This theme is
epitomized by the exhortation in Phil 4:4: “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say,
rejoice” (ESV).
Genre
As with Paul’s other writings, Philippians belongs to the letter genre. More specifically, many
scholars regard Philippians as an example of the subgenre of “friendship letter.” Fee (1995,
2–4) observes three features of friendship letters that seem to be present in Philippians: (1)
the letter is occasioned, in part, by the absence of “friends” (see Phil 1:27; 2:12); (2) the letter
addresses the affairs of both the sender and recipients (see Phil 1:12, 27; 2:19, 23); and (3)
the recipient is responsible for looking after the needs of the sender (see Phil 4:14). He argues
that Philippians is a letter of the friendship type, but with more serious content than examples
of friendship letters from the ancient world. More recently, Hansen (2009, 8–11) supported
this theory by identifying 10 parallels between friendship language in Philippians and
Hellenistic letters of and essays on friendship.
Many scholars, however, caution against treating Philippians simply as a friendship letter.
Witherington (2011, 17–18), for example, considers this approach to Philippians to be
seriously flawed. Most important, he suggests the language of “friendship” is absent from
Philippians. He points to the work of Loveday Alexander, who demonstrated that Philippians
shares more epistolary characteristics with “family letters.” Fowl (1995, 8–9) is probably
correct in recognizing that Philippians exhibits many of the characteristics of the broad genre
of friendship letters, while also warning against pressing this identification too far.
Hellenistic Relating to ancient Greek language and culture, especially relating to the spread of
Greek culture connected to the conquests of Alexander the Great. The label is also applied to the
Greek-styled kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided.
Composition
There is little serious doubt that Paul is the author of Philippians. The inclusion of Timothy’s
name in the letter’s opening salutation implies that he may have had some involvement in
the writing of the letter, though the note about Timothy in Phil 2:19–23 makes this less likely.
The only serious issue concerning the letter’s integrity is whether the repetition of the phrase
“finally” (to loipon) in Phil 3:1 and Phil 4:8 implies that the letter originally ended before
Phil 4:1. Fowl (1995, 8–9) draws attention to recent studies to affirm the literary integrity of
Philippians. There was no question of the letter’s inclusion among the early lists of
authoritative writings and, eventually, the NT canon. Writing in the fourth century, the early
church historian Eusebius lists Philippians as among the letters of the apostles (Hist. eccl.
III.iii).
The date of the letter is contingent on its provenance. There are four possible locations
for the origin of the letter and Paul’s imprisonment. Rome has traditionally been regarded as
the location for Paul’s imprisonment and the writing of the letter. Both the reference to the
“praetorian guard” in Phil 1:13 and the agreement with the story of Paul’s Roman house
arrest in Acts 28 support this view. If Paul wrote Philippians during this prison stay, the letter
should be dated to the early 60s. Another possibility is that Paul may have written the letter
while imprisoned in Caesarea. Those who advocate this view claim that a Caesarean
imprisonment is easiest to reconcile with Paul’s missionary journeys (see Acts 23:35). In this
case, the letter is dated to around AD 59–61. It has also been proposed that Paul wrote to the
Philippians during his imprisonment in Ephesus sometime during AD 54–57. The primary
argument for this view is the close proximity of Philippi to Ephesus. Finally, a less popular
view is that Paul wrote Philippians from Corinth in the early 50s.
Paul’s letter to the Philippians seems to have been prompted by a visit from Epaphroditus,
who risked his life to reach Paul (see Phil 2:30). Epaphroditus brought the Philippians’
financial “gift” to Paul along with an update from the church (see Phil 2:25; 4:18). The
content of Phil 1:12–26 suggests that the Philippians were concerned about Paul’s
imprisonment. Collectively, these circumstances served as the occasion for Paul to send
Epaphroditus back to them with a letter addressing their concerns and thanking them for their
support. Although debated by scholars, Paul’s purposes for writing Philippians are well
summarized in the list in Cousar (2001, 118): (1) to express gratitude for the Philippians’
financial gift (Phil 4:10–20); (2) to commend Epaphroditus for his work and urge the
Philippian church to receive him (Phil 2:25–30); (3) to warn the Philippians about a group
(or possibly multiple groups) that he labels “dogs, evil doers, mutilators (Phil 3:2) and
“enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:20); and (4) to urge the Philippians to “stand firm” in the face
of opposition and disunity (Phil 1:27–30; 4:2–3).
Historical Setting
The city of Philippi was founded by and named after Philip II of Macedon, the father of
Alexander the Great, in 358–57 BC. The city benefitted from its location in a fertile region
and proximity to rich gold and silver mines (see Koester 2005 for an overview of Philippi’s
archaeology and geography). In 168 BC, Rome incorporated Philippi into the Roman Empire.
In 42 BC, Philippi served as the location of Antony and Octavian’s victory over Brutus and
Cassius, who had assassinated Julius Caesar. After Octavian defeated Antony, he rebuilt the
city and granted it jus Italicum, a special status that made Philippi a Roman colony for former
military personnel. This means that citizens of Philippi were granted Roman citizenship and
exempted, at least in part, from taxes. Paul undoubtedly had this background in mind when
he referred to the Philippians as “citizens of heaven” (Phil 3:20–21).
Paul first arrived at Philippi during his second missionary journey, around AD 49–51
(Acts 16:12–40; compare 1 Thess 2:2; Phil 4:15). This means the Philippian community was
the first church Paul planted in Europe. The book of Acts tells us that Paul founded the church
among a group of “god-fearing” women who, because the city lacked a synagogue, met on
the Sabbath by a river. Paul seems to have maintained an especially cordial relationship with
the Philippian church; he speaks of them with affection and joy in the letter (see Phil 1:4–5,
8, 24–26; 4:1). They generously supported Paul in his ministry (see Phil 4:10–20; compare 2
Cor 8:1–4). And in Philippians 4:14–19, he writes about their mutual affection and
partnership in the gospel.
Structure
1. Introduction and Paul’s Report (Phil 1:1–26)
a. Salutation (Phil 1:1–2)
i. The Authors (Phil 1:1a)
ii. The Recipients (Phil 1:1b)
iii. The Greeting (Phil 1:2)
b. Thanksgiving and Prayer (Phil 1:3–11)
i. Thankful for Partnership (Phil 1:3–8)
ii. Prayer for Abounding Love (Phil 1:9–11)
c. Paul’s Joy in the Advancement of the Gospel (Phil 1:12–26)
i. Imprisonment and Reactions to It (Phil 1:12–18)
ii. To Live Is Christ (Phil 1:19–26)
2. Exhortations on Unity (Phil 1:27–2:30)
a. Stand Firm in One Spirit (Phil 1:27–30)
b. “Fulfill My Joy” (Phil 2:1–4)
c. Examples to Follow (Phil 2:5–30)
i. Example 1: The Mind of Christ (Phil 2:5–18)
1. Christ Hymn—Equal with God but Not Grasping (Phil 2:5–11)
2. The Philippians Called to Work Out Their Salvation (Phil 2:12–18)
ii. Example 2: Timothy (Phil 2:19–24)
1. Timothy’s Interest in the Philippians (Phil 2:19–22)
2. Paul’s Plan to Send Timothy (Phil 2:23–24)
iii. Example 3: Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25–30)
1. Paul’s Plan to Send Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25)
2. Epaphroditus Risked His Life (Phil 2:26–30)
3. Against the False Teachers (Phil 3:1–21)
a. A Warning Against “the Mutilators” (Phil 3:1–3)
i. Paul Safeguards the Philippians (Phil 3:1)
ii. The Mutilators (Phil 3:2–3)
b. Against Their Teaching (Phil 3:4–16)
i. Paul’s Testimony (Phil 3:4–6)
ii. Everything Is Christ (Phil 3:7–11)
iii. Warning Against Complacency (Phil 3:12–16)
c. Follow Paul, Not the False Teachers (Phil 3:17–21)
i. Call to Maturity (Phil 3:17–18)
ii. Citizens of Heaven (Phil 3:19–21)
4. Further Exhortations and Thanksgiving (Phil 4:1–23)
a. Final Exhortations (Phil 4:1–9)
i. Call to Unity (Phil 4:1)
ii. Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–3)
iii. Rejoice in the Lord (Phil 4:4–9)
b. Paul’s Thanks for the Philippians’ Gift (Phil 4:10–20)
i. Paul’s Attitude of Contentment (Phil 4:10–14)
ii. The Philippians’ Gift (Phil 4:15–20)
c. Final Greetings (Phil 4:21–23)
i. Greetings (Phil 4:21–22)
ii. Benediction (Phil 4:23)
Introduction, Prayer, and Paul’s Report

Philippians 1:1–26
Overview
Paul follows the standard conventions of ancient letters in the opening section of Philippians
by naming the authors (Paul and Timothy) and the addressees (the saints in Philippi and the
overseers and deacons). Paul probably mentions Timothy in the letter’s greeting not only
because of his possible involvement in writing the letter (see “Composition”), but also
because he was with Paul during his ministry in Macedonia (Acts 16–18; see Witherington
2011, 41–42). In Philippians 1:1b, Paul addresses the letter to the “saints” (hagiois) in
Philippi. The specific address to the “overseers and deacons”, however, stands out in
comparison to Paul’s other letters.
It was also common practice in ancient letter writing for the author to include a
thanksgiving (or prayer) on behalf of the recipients (see Comfort 2008, 156). According to
Bockmuehl (1997, 57), the thanksgiving was designed to set the tone and introduce the
essential themes of a letter. The thanksgiving (or prayer) section of Philippians has two main
sections. In the first part, Paul gives thanks to God for the Philippian believers, their
partnership with him in ministry, and for the good work God is doing among them (Phil 1:3–
8; see “He Who Began a Good Work”). In the second part, Paul discloses the content of his
prayers on behalf of the Philippians. He prays that their love and knowledge would grow,
and for them to produce “fruit of righteousness” so they can be pure and blameless in the day
of Christ (Phil 1:9–11; see “Fruit of Righteousness”).
The third section of the opening chapter of Philippians contains Paul’s update on his
present circumstances (Phil 1:12–26). Craddock (1985, 23) divides this passage into sections:
In Phil 1:12–18, Paul describes “the welfare of the gospel” and explains how the gospel is
spreading despite his imprisonment; in Phil 1:19–26, he reports on his personal welfare and
reiterates his commitment to serving the Philippian believers despite his desire to depart and
be with Christ.
Structure
1. Salutation (Phil 1:1–2)
a. The Authors (Phil 1:1a)
b. The Recipients (Phil 1:1b)
c. The Greeting (Phil 1:2)
2. Thanksgiving and Prayer (Phil 1:3–11)
a. Thankful for Partnership (Phil 1:3–8)
b. Prayer for Abounding Love (Phil 1:9–11)
3. Paul’s Joy in the Advancement of the Gospel (Phil 1:12–26)
a. Imprisonment and Reactions to It (Phil 1:12–18)
b. To Live Is Christ (Phil 1:19–26)
Place within the Book

According to Garland (2006, 191–92), the purpose of the introductory section is to win the
goodwill of the Philippians by praising them for God’s work in their midst and by introducing
topics that Paul will address later in the letter (see also Bockmuehl 1997, 57; Fee 1995, 72–
73). Hawthorne and Martin (2004, 17) follow the rhetorical categories of ancient Greek
letters and identify Phil 1:3–11 as the captatio benevolentiae (or exordium), the section of
the letter in which the author seeks the goodwill of the recipients. Witherington (2011, 52–
53) adds that the exordium section was also intended to introduce topics that would be
discussed at a later point and to establish or reaffirm the author’s relationship with the
recipients. Analyzing the letter apart from ancient rhetorical conventions, Cousar (2001, 135)
identifies several themes found in both the thanksgiving and prayer sections that reoccur
throughout the letter: joy (Phil 1:4, 18; 2:17–18; 3:1; 4:1), sharing or participation (Phil 1:5,
7; 3:10; 4:14), the gospel (Phil 1:5, 12; 2:22; 4:3, 15), thinking (Phil 1:7; 2:2; 3:19; 4:2),
imprisonment (Phil 1:7, 12–14, 16–17; 2:17; 4:14), and compassion or love (Phil 1:8, 9; 2:1–
2, 12; 4:1).
Cousar (2001, 137) further argues that Phil 1:12 marks the beginning of the letter’s body
(compare Witherington 2011, 51 on the applicability of the term “body” for describing
epistolary sections). He points to two pieces of evidence in the letter to support this view:
Paul’s use of a typical disclosure formula (“I want you to know, brothers and sisters …”) and
that the section of Phil 1:12–26 follows the general structure of friendship letters in the
ancient world.
exordium The introductory, or opening, section of a writing in terms of ancient rhetorical

categories.
exordium The introductory, or opening, section of a writing in terms of ancient rhetorical

categories.
Although some commentators include Phil 1:27–30 with the rest of Phil 1 (see Anders
1999, 209–10; Hendriksen 1962, 92), Reumann (2008, 186) represents a majority of scholars
who recognize Phil 1:12–26 as the first section of the major unit within the letter. Melick
(1991, 68–69) offers a hybrid interpretation: Phil 1:27–30 serves both as the conclusion of
the preceding material by applying Paul’s concerns regarding Rome to the Philippian church
and as the beginning of the exhortation section of the letter (through Phil 2:18).
Issues at a Glance
• Overseers and Deacons
• He Who Began a Good Work
• Fruit of Righteousness
• Depart and Be With Christ
• Key Word Study: Koinōnia, “Fellowship”
• Key Word Study: Synechō, “To Be Hard Pressed”
• Background Studies: Roman Imprisonment
Starting Point
Paul’s letter to the Philippians is one of four letters that are collectively known as the Prison
Letters. In each of these letters, Paul informs his readers of his present imprisonment (Eph
3:1; 4:1; Phil 1:7, 12–14; Col 4:3, 10; Phlm 1). The resources below discuss the implications
of Paul’s imprisonment for understanding Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.
“Prison Letters” The Lexham Bible Dictionary
“Prison Letters” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
Overseers and Deacons

In Philippians 1:1, Paul addresses his letter to “the saints in Christ Jesus” in Philippi as well
as “the overseers and deacons” (episkopois kai diakonois). This is the only place where Paul
uses the term episkopos, commonly translated as “overseer” or “bishop,” outside the Pastoral
Letters (compare Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 2:25). The question in Phil 1:1 is whether episkopos refers
to a church office (“bishop”) or is used in a more general sense (“overseer”). Paul uses the
word diakonos throughout his letters, but mostly in a straightforward sense to call a person a
servant (see Rom 15:8; 13:4; 1 Cor 3:5; 1 Thess 3:2). Fee (1995, 69) argues that Paul’s use
of episkopois and diakonois in Phil 1:1 is purely functional in that the terms simply designate
someone who serves. Hendriksen (1962, 47–49), however, argues that Paul is referring to the
same offices that are mentioned in Acts and that feature in the Pastoral Letters (e.g., Acts
11:27–30; 20:17–38; 1 Tim 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9). Whether Paul is using these terms in a
technical sense, he clearly recognizes the episkopois kai diakonois in Philippi as a distinct
group with specific responsibilities.
Several manuscript witnesses (e.g., revisions of B and D) join syn and episkopois into
one word—“fellow overseers”—implying that Paul and Timothy are also overseers (or
bishops). However, most scholars prefer to read the two words separately, given that Paul
never calls himself an episkopos and the likelihood that Paul addressed the letter to the entire
Philippian community (see Comfort 2008, 151; Silva 2005, 53).
• According to Barton (et al.), overseers (also called elders) were part of the church’s
leadership; their responsibilities included watching over, nourishing, and protecting the
spiritual life of believers. In his view, deacons were in charge of handling external
affairs, such as the distribution of food and other gifts.
“Philippians 1:1” Life Application Bible Commentary: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
• Bockmuehl argues that Phil 1:1 does not refer to bishops and deacons in the sense of
later, developed church offices. He presents three arguments in support of this position:
(1) It is difficult to differentiate between bishops and deacons in this verse; (2)
Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians mentions presbyters and deacons, but not bishops (or
overseers); and (3) the plural episkopois suggests a “monoespiscopate” is not in view.
He cautions against attempts to specify the duties of either position. He suggests that
Paul mentions “bishops and deacons” here to recognize a group of people who exercise
authority within the Philippian church—possibly several house churches (see Acts
16:15, 31–34)—in his absence.
“Philippians 1:1” BNTC: The Epistle to the Philippians
• Campbell argues that, since Paul likely wrote Philippians after 1 Thessalonians and 1
Corinthians, the reference to episkopois kai diakonois in Phil 1:1 represents a
“convenient progression towards greater institutionalization.”
“Local Leadership in Pauline Churches” The Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity
• In Cousar’s view, “bishops and deacons” likely refers to ministers within the Philippian
community who performed worship duties and acts of oversight and service, not to
well-defined offices.
“Philippians 1:1–11” Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological
Commentary
• Fee says that Paul singled out leaders in his letters for “honor” (see 1 Thess 5:12–13).
He suggests it is inconceivable that other churches during this period did not have their
own leaders. Fee adds that though there is little evidence for a hierarchy of leadership in
Paul’s letters, there is no reason to think that leaders such as overseers and deacons did
not exist from the beginning of the early Christian movement. He rules out viewing
either position as a single ruler over a specific church since, in his view, Paul occupied
this role.
“Philippians 1:1” NICNT: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians
• Fowl doubts that we can determine with any certainty both the nature of these “offices”
and why Paul mentions them in the opening of the letter. He also suggests the
juxtaposition of Paul’s self-designation “slave”—used here rather than the more
common “apostle”—with the reference to “overseers and deacons” may have served as
a subtle reminder of that “slave of Christ” served as the foundational “identity marker”
for believers.
“Philippians 1:1–2” The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary: Philippians
• Garland thinks the two titles in Phil 1:1 bring together a commonly used secular title
(“overseer”) and a reference to “servants” to stress the Christian leader’s responsibility
to serve. He also regards episkopois and diakonois as descriptions of individual’s
functions rather than “self-sufficient offices.”
“Philippians 1:1” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12: Ephesians—Philemon (Revised
Edition)
• According to Koenig, in the Graeco-Roman world, bishops supervised community
activities and finances and deacons were entrusted with responsibilities concerning
material goods and food. In his view, it is possible that Paul referred to bishops and
deacons in Phil 1:1 because he associated them with the Philippians’ financial support
of his ministry.
“Philippians 1:1–2” ACNT: Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, I Thessalonians
• Melick thinks there was “an emerging or developing structure” of church leadership at
the time of Philippians, but not a designation of a church office. He observes that Paul
(1) singles out the overseers as distinct from “saints” and “deacons”; (2) puts them
second in his remarks, perhaps revealing the apostle’s concern that they had a
secondary importance; and (3) uses a plural term and therefore does not refer to one
person over several churches. Melick adds that we would expect to find the “elders”
(“presbyters”) if Paul had in mind a formal church office.
“Philippians 1:1b” NAC: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
• O’Brien provides a detailed background study on both terms and their use in Graeco-
Roman and Jewish cultures. While many commentators suggest that “overseers” and
“deacons” have a functional rather than technical meaning in Phil 1:1 (compare Garland
2006, 190), O’Brien argues that the reference to two particular groups using specific
titles would be meaningless unless Paul had in mind particular offices with “special,
self-evident authority.” In his view, Paul mentions them in the letter’s prescript to
prepare for the difficult issues he will bring up later.
“Philippians 1:1” NIGTC: The Epistle to the Philippians
• In the notes section of his commentary, Reumann lists several points of relevant
background information for both episkopois and diakonois. In his commentary on the
verse, he suggests we can know little about either group except that Paul included them
among the “saints,” and they were in some way responsible for financial matters.
“Philippians 1:1 Notes” AYBC: Philippians
“Philippians 1:1 Commentary” AYBC: Philippians
• Thielman explains Paul’s exclusion of his typical title “apostle” (see Rom 1:2; Gal 1:1)
and use of episkopois and diakonois as an act of humility on the apostle’s part. He
suggests Paul carefully constructed the opening of the letter in a manner that recognized
the leaders’ dignity as part of his wider aim for the letter—the Philippians’ adoption of
an attitude of humility.
“Philippians 1:1–2” NIVAC: Philippians
• According to Witherington, Paul mentions “overseers and deacons” early in the letter to
prepare for the discussion in Phil 4 dealing with the discord between Euodia and
Syntyche. He suggests “overseer” refers to someone who has “oversight and
supervision” over a house church. In his view, the duties of a deacon are more difficult
to explain since the title is used in a variety of ways in the NT (see Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 3:5;
2 Cor 3:6; 1 Tim 3:8). Witherington also refuses to regard episkopois and diakonois as
either functional or technical titles; he argues that if a person in the early church
functioned in a manner distinct from the rest of their congregation, then de facto they
occupied a church office.
“Philippians 1:1” Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
He Who Began a Good Work

In Philippians 1:6, Paul refers to God as “He who began a good work in you.” As Runge
(2011, Phil 1:1–11) points out, Paul’s designation forces his readers to think about God in a
particular way; it specifies God as the one responsible for starting a “good work” in (or
among) the Philippian believers. Paul’s verbose description of God in Phil 1:6 offers the
reader added detail about God; however, Paul leaves the reference to God’s “good work”
(ergon agathon) unspecified. This raises the question, what “good work” did God begin?
Answers to this question generally fall into one of two categories. Some interpret “good
work” primarily in terms of its immediate context within the letter as a reference to the
Philippian believers’ partnership with Paul. Hawthorne (2004, 23–25), for example, thinks
“good work” refers to the Philippians’ contribution of their financial resources to Paul’s
ministry (see “sharing in the gospel,” Phil 1:5). Many scholars interpret the phrase more
broadly as a reference to the believer’s salvation. Martin (1987, 66–67) suggests that Paul
had in mind the “good work” God started at the time of the conversion of the Philippian
believers. Scholars who prefer the latter view differ on whether they interpret “good work”
as referring to the whole process of salvation or (primarily) to their initial conversion (see
Melick 1991, 57–60).
• Bockmuehl thinks Paul is referring to God’s “good work of redemption.” His
interpretation of the verse stresses Paul’s confidence in the “divine completion” of this
good work. He also notes that Paul expects this “good work” to be “carried on and
advanced” by the Philippian believers. Bockmuehl thus adds that God performs this
“good work” by making Christians “active participants in the gospel and its benefits.”
In his view, this includes their material contribution to Paul’s ministry.
• Calvin considers God’s “good work” of sanctification to have begun at the moment
believers are “admitted to fellowship with Christ, by the knowledge of the gospel, and
the illumination of the Holy Spirit.” He suggests that Christians carry out (or
“perform”) this good work when they, “in righteousness and holiness,” resemble their
heavenly Father.
“Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.18.1” Institutes of the Christian Religion
• Comfort contends that the phrase “good work” must refer to more than the Philippians’
partnership in the gospel (Phil 1:5). In his view, the phrase applies to the entirety of
God’s work of grace.
“Philippians 1:6” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Volume 16: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2
Thessalonians, Philemon
• Ellicott defends Paul’s words from being construed to mean “good works” carried out
by Christians for their salvation. Instead, he argues that “good work” refers objectively
to the “fellowship of the gospel” mentioned in the previous verse.
“Philippians 1:6” St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon: Commentary
• Fee claims that if Paul wanted to refer primarily to the Philippians’ financial gift, he
would have written “good work through you.” In his view, Paul’s language is more
focused on what God is doing in or among the Philippians, not through them. He
suggests “good work” here means “salvation in Christ” and includes the Philippian
believers’ participation in, and experience of, the gospel.
• Gaffin mentions Philippians 1:6 in his discussion of the relationship between
eschatology and sanctification in Paul’s theology. He defines “good work” as “a work
of resurrection” of the “inner man,” which will be completed on the day of Jesus Christ
by the bodily resurrection.
“Union with Christ and the Resurrection” By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation
• Hansen interprets Philippians 1:6 as referring to the Philippians’ partnership (koinōnia)
in the gospel (Phil 1:5). He suggests the verse does not apply to individual salvation in
the first instance, but rather to God’s forming of a corporate entity whose members
enjoy a friendship deeper than the blood relationship of siblings. Hansen’s
interpretation of Phil 1:6 is unique in that he downplays the individual aspect of
salvation.
“Philippians 1:6” PNTC: The Letter to the Philippians
• According to Hendriksen, God’s “good work” in Phil 1:6 is none other than His work
of grace and transformation of believers that resulted in their working for His good
pleasure. He suggests that God’s work of grace qualifies people for work (in the
gospel).
“Philippians 1:6” Baker New Testament Commentary: Philippians
• Martin argues that Paul, in referring to the “good work,” looked “beyond the generosity
of the Philippians” to God’s work of grace in their lives. He claims that this is
confirmed by other verses in Paul’s letters where he makes similar remarks about God’s
grace beginning to work in the lives of his readers (see 1 Cor 1:4; Gal 3:3; Col 1:5; 1
Thess 1:5–6).
“Philippians 1:6” TNTC: Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary
• Melick argues that Paul had in mind the entire (and “ongoing”) process of Christian
growth when he wrote Phil 1:6. That is, the verse does not refer only to the beginning or
end of the believer’s salvation. In Melick’s view, the point of emphasis is God’s role in
the Christian’s salvation—He is the one who began it, so the believer can trust that He
will complete it.
“Philippians 1:6” NAC: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
• O’Brien suggests Philippians 1:6 refers not to Paul’s ministry but to God’s “new
creation” in the Philippians. He draws attention to several OT passages that describe
God’s “good work” for His people (see Gen 2:2; Isa 41:4; 44:6). In his view, several
eschatology The theology of last things, the end of the age, or a period of time.
sanctification Literally refers to the process of setting something apart for a sacred purpose. In
Christian theology, it denotes a doctrine concerned with the gradual purification from sin in the
life of the believer and a progressive spiritual growth toward Christlikeness.
passages from Isaiah also depict God as one who can be relied upon to complete the
work He has begun.
• Silva suggests an allusion to Gen 1:2 LXX in Phil 1:6 is unlikely. Instead, he views
“good work” as a reference to the Philippians’ “Christian activity.” For Silva, the key is
Paul’s use of the verb epiteleō (“to complete”), which elsewhere Paul uses to describe
the completion of God’s work through the Spirit (see 2 Cor 7:2; Gal 3:3).
“Philippians 1:6–8” BECNT: Philippians
• Thielman thinks the only valid interpretation of “good work” is the Philippians’
salvation. He suggests that this work includes God’s gift to believers of the will and
ability to do good works. He points out that the ongoing nature of salvation is the
subject of several passages in the letter (see Phil 1:28; 2:12–13; 3:12).
• Vincent’s interpretation brings together the two most common views on the phrase
“good work.” He argues that “good work” refers to both the Philippians’ reception of
the gospel and their fellowship and participation in its “promotion.”
“Philippians 1:6” ICC: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to
Philemon
Fruit of Righteousness
Near the end of the prayer in Phil 1:3–11, Paul expresses his hope that the Philippian believers
will grow in love and knowledge that they “may be sincere and blameless in the day of Christ,
having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ to the
glory and praise of God.” Commentators debate the meaning of the phrase “fruit of
righteousness” (karpon dikaiosynēs), which Paul introduces in Phil 1:11 as the basis of the
believer’s hope of being “sincere and blameless” before Christ. There are three main
interpretations of the meaning of “fruit of righteousness.” First, taking dikaiosynēs as a
genitive of apposition, scholars such as Hawthorne and Martin (2004, 33–34) maintain that
the phrase describes good deeds or qualities in an ethical sense. Second, Hendriksen (1962,
62) contends that Paul uses dikaiosynē here in its most common sense—that is, as
“justification” or the right relation between God and believers enabled by Christ’s sacrifice.
Third, some commentators argue that dikaiosynēs is a genitive of origin and consequently
interpret “fruit of righteousness” as the moral fruit that results from righteousness (see
Bockmuehl 1997, 69–70). Furthermore, any interpretation of the phrase must factor in Paul’s
frequent use of the term dikaiosynē (“righteousness”) throughout his letters and the multiple
uses of karpos (“fruit”; see Phil 1:22; 4:17) in Philippians.
• Anders defines “fruit of righteousness” simply as “Christian character or moral qualities
that glorify God.” He further describes the phrase by appealing to the inner
characteristics listed in the “fruit of Spirit” passage in Gal 5:22–23.
“Philippians 1:11” Holman New Testament Commentary: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians & Colossians
• After surveying the major interpretive options for “fruit of righteousness,” Bockmuehl
concludes that it makes the best sense to understand the expression in a moral sense. He
also suggests that the source of this righteousness (here and in Romans) is God’s
character and that humans participate in it through Christ (see Rom 1:17; 3:22). He also
draws attention to the particular eschatological orientation of Paul’s use of dikaiosynē in
Philippians.
• Bruce views the “fruit of righteousness” in Phil 1:11 as an identical way of referring to
the “fruit of Spirit” (see Gal 5:22–23). Believers bear this “fruit” as a result of the new
life implanted in them. Their union with Christ through faith enables them to produce
the “fruit of righteousness,” which Christ Himself perfectly manifested.
“Philippians 1:11” UBCS: Philippians
• According to Fee, the presence of the Greek definite article ton—which functions here
as a relative pronoun and goes with karpon (“fruit”)—indicates that Paul’s stress lies on
fruit that consists of righteousness. He argues that Paul’s concern in Phil 1:10–11 is
Christian behavior, not their salvation per se. Fee also suggests that Paul uses
dikaiosynē in Phil 1:11 in anticipation of his later use of the term in the letter, where he
asserts that true righteousness does not come through keeping the law, but through
Christ (see Phil 3:6, 9).
• Fowl suggests that “righteousness,” both here and in Phil 3:6–9, is God’s righteousness
in contrast to righteousness that comes through the law. He also notes the occurrence of
the same Greek phrase in Jas 3:18 and Amos LXX 6:12; Prov LXX 3:9; 11:30.
• Hawthorne and Martin dismiss the interpretation of karpon dikaiosynēs as a reference to
God’s gift of divine righteousness. They support this claim with three observations: (1)
“Fruit of righteousness” is a familiar phrase in the Bible for conduct that is pleasing to
God (see LXX: Amos 6:12; Prov 3:9; 11:30; see also Jas 3:18); (2) the participle
peplērōmenoi is parallel to the adjectives eilikrineis (“pure”) and aproskopoi
(“harmless”) in Phil 1:10; and (3) these two earlier adjectives describe the Philippians’
behavior to others. He concludes that “fruit of righteousness” should be interpreted in
an ethical sense as a description of “truly good qualities” believers should carry out
among one another and their neighbors.
“Philippians 1:11” WBC: Philippians (Revised)
• Koenig describes “the fruits of righteousness” as evidence that Christians have
committed themselves to Christ, who enables their good works. Additionally, he thinks
the phrase “fruits of righteousness” is related to the Philippians’ support of Paul and
conceptually parallel to the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22–23).
“Philippians 1:9–11” ACNT: Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, I Thessalonians
• Martin attempts to hold two interpretations of “fruit of righteousness.” On the one hand,
he claims “fruit of righteousness” refers to the righteousness believers receive through
Christ (see Phil 3:9); on the other hand, it also refers to the evidence of having a right
relationship with God (i.e., fruit that consists of being right with God).
eschatological Pertaining to the theology of last things, the end of the age, or a period of time.
• Melick emphasizes the meaning of the word dikaiosynē in Phil 1:11, which he says
refers not to “imputed righteousness,” but to ethical righteousness. He finds support for
this understanding in OT passages such as Hos 10:12. He says Christ produces this
righteousness in believers as they live in an acceptable way to Him.
• O’Brien interprets dikaiosynēs as a genitive of origin. He therefore defines
“righteousness” in Phil 1:11 as “ethical characteristics” that are evidence of a right
relationship between a believer and God. He contends this interpretation squares with
the wider NT metaphorical use of karpos to refer to “the result, outcome, or profit of an
action” regarding the Christian life (see Matt 3:8; 7:16; Rom 1:13; 1 Cor 9:7; Eph 5:9; 2
Tim 2:6).
• Vincent regards Philippians 1:11 as a fuller definition of the adjectives eilikrineis
(“pure”) and aproskopoi (“harmless”) in Phil 1:10. Furthermore, he categorizes
dikaiosynēs as a genitive of origin (“the fruit which righteousness produces”). This
righteousness is therefore not the “righteousness by faith” which serves as the basis of
the believer’s salvation, but “moral rightness” like the fruit of the Spirit in Gal 5:22–23.
“Philippians 1:11” ICC: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to
Philemon
• For Witherington, “fruit” in Phil 1:11 refers to righteousness that comes through Christ
(genitive of apposition). He says Paul is concerned with imparted righteousness, not
imputed righteousness. In other words, Paul is referring to “inward and moral
righteousness” as the outworking of the believer’s upright life. The bearing of this fruit,
Witherington says, enables believers to be “blameless” and “pure” at the eschaton. In
his view, “righteousness” in Phil 1:11 also has a forensic sense and relates to God’s
decree since the verse appears in an eschatological and forensic context.
“Philippians 1:7–11” Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
Depart and Be With Christ

In Philippians 1:21–26, Paul discloses to the Philippians his near-death circumstances and
attitude toward death. He is “torn” between two possibilities: to continue living for the sake
of his churches, or to die, which would mean being with Christ. In Philippians 1:23, he says
that the far better option is to “depart and be with Christ.” Paul’s statement not only raises
questions concerning his attitude toward death (see Silva 2005, 73–74; Croy 2003, 517–31),
but also the issue of whether believers will be in Christ’s presence after they die.
Are Paul’s sentiments in Phil 1:23 tantamount to a “death wish” (see Cousar 2001, 140),
or can his desire “to depart”—a common Greek euphemism for death (Hansen 2009, 86)—
be explained in another way? Many argue that Paul believed death would mean that he would
immediately be in the presence of Christ. Kent (1981, 115–16), for example, argues that Phil
1:23 proves that Paul did not anticipate a period of “soul-sleep” or purgatory prior to the
resurrection. Hawthorne and Martin (2004, 58–62) go further in their explanation; they claim
that Paul not only envisions Christians entering into the presence of Christ upon dying but
also enjoying “conscious personal fellowship with him.” Cousar identifies two additional
interpretations of Paul’s comments in Phil 1:21, 23: first, that Paul presupposes an
intermediate state in which death enriches the believer’s relationship with Christ, rather than
interrupts it, and second, that Paul is speaking about the “gain” of his potential martyrdom,
not life after death.
• Barton (et al.) confidently rules out any interpretation of the passage that implies
purgatory or “soul-sleep.” In his view, it is clear that Paul expected that his death would
result in reaching his ultimate goal of being immediately present with the Lord.
“Philippians 1:23” Life Application Bible Commentary, Philippians, Colossians & Philemon
• Bruce stresses the continuity of the believer’s life in the present and life with Christ
after death. According to this view, “to die” and “to be with Christ” are virtually
synonymous ideas.
• Craddock offers two interpretive notes regarding this issue. First, interpreters should not
attempt to make Paul’s comments in Phil 1:21, 23 fit the other eschatological references
in his letters. Second, Paul’s comments in these verses concern his own spiritual
pilgrimage, and even though they function as Scripture for Christians, they are not
normative.
“Philippians 1:19–26” Interpretation: Philippians
• Croy describes Philippians 1:19–26 as “an instance of the rhetorical technique of
feigned perplexity.” His article explores the meaning of Paul’s remarks on death in
Philippians, and in particular, whether his words in Phil 1:19–26 indicate that he
contemplated suicide.
“To Die Is Gain: Does Paul Contemplate Suicide?” Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 122
• Fee suggests these verses make little sense unless Paul believed he would consciously
be in the presence of his Lord after death. He argues that any tension arising from this
view is explained by the “inherent tension” between the temporal and spatial aspects of
Paul’s eschatology. That is, because Paul already considered himself to be “in Christ,”
it was unthinkable that he would ever be apart from Christ.
“Philippians 1:22–23” The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Philippians
• Hendriksen explains the verse using more traditional terminology. He suggests that
when the believer dies, their “soul” departs the earth to be immediately with Christ. He
then marshals a litany of verses to support his assertion that the soul does not “go to
sleep” or “go out of existence” until the resurrection (see Pss 16:11; 17:15; Matt 8:11;
Luke 16:25; John 17:24; 1 Cor 13:12, 13; 2 Cor 5:8; Heb 12:23; Rev 6:10; 20:4).
• McRay dissents from the majority view, arguing that Phil 1:23 does not necessarily
imply that the believer will be in Christ’s presence immediately. In his view, the
passage could also be interpreted without reference to a particular time to mean that
Paul would be in Christ’s presence “in the appropriate sequence of time that God
appoints.”
“The Intermediate State” Paul: His Life and Teaching
• The logic of Melick’s interpretation of Phil 1:23 is similar to that of Fee; in his view,
Paul must have anticipated that his death would mean being with Christ immediately
since he anticipated his death bringing him comfort.
“Philippians 1:22–24” NAC: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
• In O’Brien’s view, the conjunction kai (“and”) joining the infinitives analysai (“to
depart”) and einai (“to be”) is explicative. That is, Philippians 1:23 states that to depart
from this life is to take up residence in the presence of the Lord. Paul did not simply
desire to escape his present sufferings; he longed for “even deeper fellowship with
Christ” (see Phil 3:10–11).
• According to Wright, Phil 1:23 does mean that Paul anticipates a “blissful life” with
Christ immediately after death. He adds, however, that this “life” is only a prelude to
the resurrection (compare Luke 23:43; John 14:2). This is essentially the central claim
of Wright’s book. He argues that “resurrection” is best understood as life after “life
after death,” not what happens to each individual when they die. In short, Wright
suggests that believers will be with Christ immediately after they die, but that the
resurrection of all believers will be a one-time occurrence at the end of all things (see 1
Cor 15:24–28).
“Reshaping the Church for Mission: Paul” Surprised by Hope
Key Word Studies

Koinōnia, “Fellowship.” The noun koinōnia means “fellowship” or “participation.”
According to Kent (1981, 105), it denotes a two-sided relationship or partnership. It is used
throughout the NT in two different but related ways. First and most commonly, koinōnia and
its cognate terms describe the unique fellowship or communion believers share in the gospel
and ministry.
For example, Acts 2:42 tells how the early Christians devoted themselves to the teaching
of the apostles and to “fellowship” (koinōnia). In Galatians 2:9, Paul speaks of receiving the
right hand of “fellowship” (koinōnia) from the Jerusalem leaders. First John 1:6 says that
Christian fellowship is made possible through walking in the light of Christ. Second, koinōnia
can be used to denote a financial partnership (see Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 9:13; Heb 13:16). Paul
uses koinōnia and its cognate terms in both senses in Philippians. For the former sense
(Christian fellowship), see Phil 1:7; for the latter sense, see Phil 1:5 and Phil 4:14–15. A third
possible sense of koinōnia may be present in Phil 2:1 and Phil 3:10; in these two verses, Paul
speaks of the believer’s “fellowship” (koinōnia) with Christ.
“Koinōnia” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Koinōnia” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Koinōnia” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Koinōnia” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Koinōnia” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Synechō, “To Be Hard Pressed.” The verb synechō has a number of meanings and uses. Its
basic sense is “to hold together,” though as O’Brien (1991, 128) points out, this meaning is
absent from the NT. The verb synechō appears 12 times in the NT, mostly in Luke’s writings
(Luke 4:38; 8:37, 45; 12:50; 19:43; 22:63; Acts 7:57; 18:5; 28:8; compare Matt 4:24).
In Luke 8:45, the verb is used to describe how the crowds “pressed” in on Jesus. Jesus
warns the Pharisees in Luke 19:43 that one day their enemies will “hem” (synexousin) them
in on every side. In Paul’s two uses of the word, synechō seems to have the sense of having
full control or domination over someone or something. In the first occurrence, Paul poetically
claims that the love of Christ “compels” (NIV) or “controls” (ESV, LEB) him and his fellow
workers (2 Cor 5:14). In the second occurrence, Phil 1:23, Paul is not controlled by Christ
but by two competing desires (see Phil 1:21–22). Paul is like a traveler at a juncture that
forces him to choose between two paths—living or dying (see O’Brien 1991, 128–29). What
makes Paul finally choose his way? His love and care for the Philippian believers (see Phil
1:24–26).
“Synechō” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Synechō” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Synechō” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Synechō” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Background Studies: Roman Imprisonment

Paul’s imprisonment plays a key role in his letter to the Philippians. It not only serves as the
location from which Paul dictated the letter—with the debate focusing on Rome, Caesarea,
and Ephesus—but also influences his thought throughout (see Phil 1:7, 12–14; 23–26; 4:12–
14). Specifically, Paul’s uncertain future as a prisoner caused him to contemplate his death
and weigh the value of his life in Phil 1:23–26. Further, Paul’s writing of the letter to the
Philippians was motivated by three events related to his imprisonment. First, Paul desired to
convince the Philippian believers that the gospel continued to spread despite his current
situation (Phil 1:12–25). Second, he wished to thank the Philippians for the financial gift they
sent through Epaphroditus to him while in prison (Phil 4:10–20). Epaphroditus’ near-death
delivery of this gift led to Paul’s third reason for writing: to allay the Philippians church’s
fears concerning Epaphroditus’ health (Phil 2:25–30).
Paul’s reference to “the whole imperial guard” (holō tō praitōriō) in Phil 1:13 gives us
insight to his imprisonment. The Greek word praitōrion can denote a governor’s residential
palace (see Mark 15:16; Acts 23:25), the Imperial (or Praetorian) Guard—the Roman
emperor’s elite soldiers who served as a special bodyguard for Caesar (see Hansen 2009, 67–
68)—or a group of Praetorian Guards without respect to a specific location (see Martin 1987,
75–76). According to Thielman (2002, 351), Paul probably used praitōrion with the former
meaning if he wrote from Ephesus, but in the latter sense if he wrote from Rome (compare
Phil 4:22).
Many dictionary articles provide an overview of Paul’s several imprisonments and their
implications for interpreting his letters. Various dictionary entries and sections of
commentaries discuss the nature of the Praetorian Guard.
• Jeffers explains imprisonment within the context of Roman law, especially as it relates
to Paul’s imprisonments. Specifically, he notes that in the Roman penal system, as in
many other ancient societies, imprisonment was used to incarcerate suspected criminals
until their trial rather than as a form of punishment.
“Roman Law and Local Law” The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the
Background of Early Christianity
• Hansen’s commentary represents one of the best discussions of the importance of Paul’s
imprisonment for determining the origin of the letter.
“Paul in Chains” PNTC: The Letter to the Philippians
• In the introduction to his commentary on Philippians, Lightfoot explores the nature of
Paul’s captivity (which he suggests was in Rome) and its implications for the writing of
the Prison Letters.
“The Nature of Paul’s Captivity” Philippians: Crossway Classic Commentaries
• Reid’s dictionary article provides an overview of Paul’s various imprisonments, Paul’s
description of himself as a prisoner (of Christ), and prisoners of war.
“Prison” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
• Thielman lists four basic types of Roman custody and provides a brief note on the
Praetorians.
“Roman Custody” ZIBBCNT: Romans to Philemon
• Vos’ article focuses on the customs behind Paul’s imprisonment and interaction with
the Praetorian Guard. It also includes an illustrated drawing of the Praetorian Guard in
their full regalia.
“The Praetorian Guard and Paul’s Imprisonment” Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Manners and
Customs
• Wild’s article gives a brief but helpful summary of types of imprisonment and prison
conditions.
“Prison” Harper’s Bible Dictionary
Application Overview
Philippians 1:23–26 records some of Paul’s most poignant remarks. Writing from prison and
presumably in a near-death situation, Paul candidly expresses his present dilemma. He knows
that if he dies, he will finally get to be with Christ, his savior and Lord, whom he preached
throughout the Graeco-Roman world. He clearly desires this. Yet he also knows that if he
remains on earth, he will be able to serve the Philippians, as well as his other churches, a
little longer. Paul concludes by stating that it would be better for the Philippians for him to
remain. What swayed the apostle’s mind? It was the Philippians themselves, whom Paul
regarded as his apostolic responsibility. They were Paul’s “joy and crown” (Phil 4:1) in the
Lord—that is, his eschatological reward from God (compare 1 Thess 2:19–20).
Paul’s decision to remain was ultimately made to honor God, who called Paul to serve as
an apostle to the Gentiles, and the Philippians, who were Paul’s “children” in the faith. In the
face of life-threatening imprisonment and a deep desire to be with Christ, Paul looked beyond
his own desires to obey the one who called him and serve the people whom he brought into
Christ. Paul’s model of humility anticipates the Christ hymn in Phil 2:5–11 and confronts us
as believers: We must, at times, relinquish our own desires and ambitions to help our fellow
believers in their progress and joy in the faith (Phil 1:25).
Exhortations on Unity
Philippians 1:27–2:30
Overview
After discussing his own situation in Phil 1:12–26, Paul addresses the Philippian community
in Phil 1:27–2:30. He begins by calling them to live in a manner worthy of the gospel by
living as “citizens of heaven,” a metaphor that appeals to their “civic pride” (see Fee 1995,
77). He insists that his absence from the Philippian believers should not prevent them from
striving for unity and living in the one Spirit (Phil 1:27). In Philippians 1:28, Paul
acknowledges the genuine opposition the Philippians faced. To address this issue, he presents
a Christ-based theology of suffering in Phil 1:29–30.
In Philippians 2:1–4, Paul returns to the issue of unity among the Christian community—
a topic he first mentioned in Phil 1:27. In this passage he lists attitudes that help create “a
harmonious, united community” that is able to resist opposition from outside (see Garland
2006, 212). Philippians 2:2 contains the central imperative; Paul urges his fellow believers
to make his joy complete by adopting these attitudes and putting the interests of others before
their own (Phil 2:3–4).
Paul follows his call to unity in Phil 2:1–4 by providing three worthy examples. First,
Paul appeals to Christ’s ultimate example of selflessness and humility in the letter’s most
famous passage—the Christ hymn of Phil 2:6–11 (see “The Origin of Philippians 2:5–11”).
The hymn, which narrates the story of the incarnation, has two basic parts. First, it tells of
Christ’s preexistence and His humiliation on the cross (Phil 2:6–8). Second, it declares that
God exalted Christ because of His obedience and gave Him “the name above every name”
(Phil 2:9–11). Building on the example of Christ’s selfless sacrifice, Paul exhorts the
Philippians to work out their salvation, which was effective by His obedient death (Phil 2:12–
18). Paul then provides two additional examples for the Philippians to emulate: Timothy (Phil
2:19–24) and Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25–30), both of whom they knew as Paul’s fellow
ministers in the gospel (see Phil 3:17).
Structure
1. Stand Firm in One Spirit (Phil 1:27–30)
2. “Fulfill My Joy” (Phil 2:1–4)
3. Examples to Follow (Phil 2:5–30)
a. Example 1: The Mind of Christ (Phil 2:5–18)
i. Christ Hymn—Equal with God but Not Grasping (Phil 2:5–11)
ii. The Philippians Called to Work Out Their Salvation (Phil 2:12–18)
b. Example 2: Timothy (Phil 2:19–24)
i. Timothy’s Interest in the Philippians (Phil 2:19–22)
ii. Paul’s Plan to Send Timothy (Phil 2:23–24)
c. Example 3: Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25–30)
i. Paul’s Plan to Send Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25)
ii. Epaphroditus Risked His Life (Phil 2:26–30)

As we noted in the previous chapter, a majority of scholars read Phil 1:27–30 with its
subsequent passage rather than with its preceding text (see Melick 1991, 68–69). Garland
(2006, 207) suggests that Phil 1:27–30 functions as more than a mere bridge to Paul’s
exhortations in Phil 2:1–4; he argues that the unit represents the thesis of Philippians—the
Philippians should resist their opponents by becoming “one concordant body.” Similarly,
Wright (2005b, 589) describes Phil 1:27–30 as the “main appeal” of the letter. The place of
the remaining three sections of Phil 1:27–2:30 are much more debated by scholars.
First, it is difficult to determine the function of Phil 2:1–4 in relation to the exhortation
in Phil 1:27–30 and the Christ hymn of Phil 2:5–11. Wright (2005b, 589), for example, argues
that Phil 2:1–4 spells out how to fulfill the demanding call to unity (Phil 1:27–30) in general
terms while also anticipating the specific example of Christ in Phil 2:5–11. Melick (1991,
92) regards Phil 2:1–4 as a continuation of the exhortations to unity in Phil 1:27–30 (see also
Craddock 1995, 35). According to Hendriksen (1962, 97), Phil 2:1–4 is linked with its
preceding passage but still represents a new section within the letter, which focuses on
achieving “oneness” within the community through lowliness and helpfulness (Phil 2:1–11).
Cousar (2001, 149) sees Phil 2:1–4 as a highly structured unit of four reasons for unity within
the Christian community. Fee points out linguistic and conceptual reasons why Phil 2:1–4
points forward to the “Christ narrative” in Phil 2:5–11.
Second, commentators are unable to agree on the place of the well-known Christ hymn
of Phil 2:5–11 within the argument of the letter. This issue is further complicated by the
question of the origin of Phil 2:5–11. According to Runge (2011, Phil 2:5–11), Phil 2:5–11
develops the “big idea”—being like-minded—from the previous section of the letter.
Bockmuehl (1997, 114) says that Phil 2:5–11 illustrates the Christian disposition described
in the preceding passage. Hansen (2009, 118–19) suggests Phil 2:5 functions as a bridge
between Paul’s exhortations in Phil 2:1–4 and the hymn of Christ in Phil 2:6–11. He lists
several ways in which the two passages are connected to one another. Melick (1991, 97–98)
claims that scholarly attempts to identify the function of Phil 2:5–11 within the letter are
typically focused on the theological, ecclesiological, or psychological aspects of the hymn.
Witherington (2011, 137) says the content of the hymn is “epideitic rhetoric,” the rhetoric of
effusive praise; however, he adds that Paul uses the hymn within a “deliberative argument.”
Silva (2005, 92–93) reads Phil 2:5–11 as the conclusion of a unit that began in Phil 1:27; he
regards the hymn as Paul’s attempt to remind the Philippians of Christ’s attitude and conduct
to spur them to unity. Garland (2006, 217) stresses the relationship of Phil 2:5–11 to the
exhortations in Phil 2:12–20; in his view, the logical progress of the hymn continues in Phil
2:12.
Third, there is the question of what role Paul’s commendations of Timothy and
Epaphroditus play within the letter. Many scholars, such as Martin (1987, 89), maintain that
the exhortation section ends at Phil 2:18; he treats the section on Timothy and Epaphroditus
as a self-contained unit within the letter. Scholars such as Thielman (1995, 150–51), however,
contend that Paul’s aim in this section is to provide his readers with examples of conduct
“worthy of the gospel” (Phil 1:27). In the previous verses, Paul provides himself and Christ
as examples to the Philippians (Phil 1:12–18; 2:5–11); he also provides Israel as a negative
example (Phil 2:14–15). Paul’s discussion of Timothy and Epaphroditus follows this pattern;
he plans to send them to the Philippians as living examples of gospel-worthy conduct.
Place within the Canon

As Melick (1991, 43–44) writes, most of the themes of Philippians occur throughout
Scripture; their presentation within the life of the Philippian community makes them stand
out. Although Philippians does not contain unique arguments regarding the law or the
resurrection, the hymn to Christ in Phil 2:5–11 represents one of the most poetic and profound
christological passages within the whole of Scripture. At least on the basis of a traditional
reading of Phil 2:6–11, the Christ hymn speaks of Christ’s preexistence, His equality with
God, His identity with humanity, His humiliation, His exaltation, and His eschatological
reign (see Thielman 1995, 109). Thus, it is not without reason that Fee speaks of Phil 2:5–11
as the “centerpiece” of the entire NT (see Fee 1995, 90).
Perhaps one of the most remarkable features about this passage is the application of OT
passages about Yahweh to Jesus (compare Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 15:24–28). As Dunn (2010,
105–6) points out, the hymn deliberately picks up the language of Isa 45:21–23 to describe
the reference given to the exalted Lord Jesus Christ in Phil 2:10–11. The application of this
text to Christ is striking given that this passage from Isaiah is one of the most emphatically
monotheistic passages in the Bible. Wright (2005a, 93) suggests that what Paul has done in
Phil 2:6–11 is write a poem deeply rooted in Jewish monotheism and place Jesus at its center.
Issues at a Glance
• The Origin of Philippians 2:5–11
• Form of God
• Emptied Himself
• The Name above Every Name
christological The area of Christian theology concerned with the person and nature of Christ.
• Work Out Your Salvation
• Key Word Study: Harpagmos, “Something to Be Grasped”
• Key Word Study: Isos, “Equal”
• Key Word Study: Kenoō, “To Empty”
• Key Word Study: Spendō, “To Pour Out”
• Background Studies: Emperor Worship
Starting Point
The early Christian church produced a number of hymns and poems devoted to Jesus. Some
of these hymns have been incorporated directly into the writings of the NT (see Col 1:15–20;
1 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:3–4), while others are merely mentioned as part of the early church’s
devotional practices (see Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). The Christ hymn in Phil 2:6–11 falls into the
former category, though many scholars note that early Christians, including the Philippian
believers themselves, may have used the hymn in their worship (see Koenig 1985, 148–49).
For a discussion of their composition, content, and use within early Christian worship, see
the following resources.
“Christology and Hymns” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
“Hymns: OT and NT” Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence
“Hymns and Spiritual Songs” Worship in the Early Church
“Hymns in the New Testament” The Lexham Bible Dictionary
“The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship” Studies in Early Christology
The Origin of Philippians 2:5–11

Hawthorne and Martin (2004, 99) describe Phil 2:5–11 as both the most important section in
the letter and the most difficult to interpret. It is not surprising, then, that most commentators
devote more attention to the nature and origin of Phil 2:5–11 than any other interpretive issue
in the letter. Indeed, Reumann (2008, 333) describes this passage as the “Mount Everest” of
issues in Philippians. Philippians 2:5–11 contains some of the most important statements
within the NT regarding the preexistence and incarnation of Christ. Moreover, scholars have
long debated whether the poetic language of this passage represents one of the earliest
Christian hymns about Christ. There are three main issues scholars address in analyzing Phil
2:5–11: the question of authorship, the origin of the verses, and the background to Phil 2:5–
11.
Since the foundational work of Weiss (1859) and Lohmeyer (1928), many scholars have
analyzed these verses on the assumption that they existed as a hymn or poem before Paul
incorporated them into Philippians (see O’Brien 1991, 186–93; Hengel 1995, 288). As
Bockmuehl (1997, 117–18) points out, Lohmeyer questioned the authenticity of Phil 2:5–11
on a number of fronts, including its “unusual” vocabulary, style, and theology as well as its
“apparent integrity and independence” from the logic of Paul’s argument in the letter.
Scholars such as Fee (1995, 45–46) and Silva (2005, 92–93), however, insist that the most
significant matter is not the question of whether Paul originally wrote these verses or used a
pre-existing poem, but that he chose to use them in the argument of his letter.
The second major issue scholars examine is the possibility that Paul took over—and
possibly modified—a preexisting hymn or poem in Phil 2:5–11. Melick (1991, 96–97), for
instance, considers it “reasonable” that Phil 2:5–11 constitutes a hymn in light of the
passage’s “rhythmical quality, rare words and phrases, and motifs.” Conversely, Fee (1995,
191–94) remains cautious against treating the passage as a “hymn” solely on the basis of its
poetic characteristics. Instead, he suggests the passage may have had a more creedal function
within early Christianity. Along these lines, Fowl (1995, 108–10) suggests that the lack of
imprecision regarding the definition of “hymn” by scholars demonstrates the inadequacy of
applying the term to Phil 2:5–11. MacLeod (2001, 308–30) offers an exegesis of the passage
as a hymn. Bockmuehl (1997, 120) notes that some scholars have suggested the possibility
that a previously existing source may have been composed in Aramaic rather than Greek.
Scholars also propose various possible backgrounds to the hymn in Phil 2:5–11. O’Brien
(1991, 193–98) lists six commonly suggested backgrounds: Hellenistic Judaism, Iranian
religion, Greek epic tradition, the political circumstances, pre-Christian Hellenistic or Jewish
Gnosticism, and different strands of OT theology (e.g., wisdom speculation). Additionally,
Hawthorne proposed that Jesus’ washing His disciples’ feet in John 13:3–17 functioned as
the background to the hymn in the first edition of his commentary (1982), but the revised
edition moves away from this interpretation (Hawthorne and Martin 2004, 103).
• Barton (et al.) regards Phil 2:6–11 as a hymn intended to depict Jesus as “a model of
servanthood.” In his view, it is unclear whether Paul wrote the hymn or quoted from an
earlier source. He draws attention to the close connection between Paul’s depiction of
Jesus as a servant in Phil 2:6–11 and Isaiah’s portrayal of the Suffering Servant in Isa
53.
• Bockmuehl objects to categorizing Phil 2:6–11 as a hymn since the term lacks a clear
definition. He proposes that a basic definition of “hymn” should factor liturgical use—
whether musical chant or public creedal recitation—for which, in his view, we have
insufficient evidence. Moreover, he argues that the lack of agreement among scholars
on how the passage should be divided into stanzas and lines indicates that the passage
should not be regarded as a hymn.
“Philippians 2:5–11” BNTC: The Epistle to the Philippians
• While noting the arguments in favor of viewing Phil 2:5–11 as a hymn, Comfort prefers
to regard the passage as a poem composed by Paul. He offers two arguments in support
of this interpretation. First, Philippians 2:6–11 and Phil 3:20–21 share several distinct
lexical ties. Second, other passages from Paul’s letters illustrate the apostle’s “poetic
ability” (e.g., Rom 8:38–39; Eph 3:14–21; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 6:15–16).
“Philippians 2:5–11” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Volume 16: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon
• Cherry views Philippians 2:5–11 as a Jewish-Christian psalm that was written before
Paul’s appropriation of it in Philippians. Cherry also suggests Palestinian origin for the
psalm.
“The Servant Song of Philippians” Review and Expositor Volume 59
• Cousar appears to be satisfied with interpreting Phil 2:6–11 as a hymn, despite the lack
of scholarly consensus on a definition for “hymn.” Indeed, he is confident enough with
this view that he devotes his discussion of the passage to analyzing the hymn’s literary
form. He identifies four strophes within the hymn that focus, respectively, on the story
of the incarnation, Christ’s life on earth (including His death), Christ’s exaltation and
receiving of the name above all names, and a final section further developing the theme
of Christ’s exaltation.
Commentary
• Fee is strongly suspicious of identifying Phil 2:5–11 as a hymn, both on literary

grounds and the assumption that it is unlikely that Paul wrote the passage himself.
Against the hymn view, he asserts that (1) the Greek word hymnos had a particular
meaning (including in the LXX) that does not apply here; (2) the “hymn” of Phil 2:5–11
lacks parallels in terms of its stylistic and linguistic structure; and (3) the final section
of the passage, Phil 2:9–11, lacks anything that suggests that it is a hymn. For these
reasons, Fee dismisses the suggestion that Paul adopted a hymn in Phil 2:5–11. He
argues instead that Paul dictated, not “wrote” or “inserted,” the poetic passage himself.
“Philippians 2:5–11” NICNT: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians
• Fowl is among the few scholars who attempt to define the word “hymn” with reference
to Phil 2:5–11. He observes that the Greek word for “hymn,” hymnos, had two basic
meanings in the NT period: it could refer to a type of praise offered to the ancient gods
within Hellenistic usage, or it could refer to a specific song of praise to God, as it often
does in the LXX. In his view, neither of these definitions aptly describes the form of Phil
2:5–11. However, he adds that the definition of “hymn” employed by form critics may
work here—a possibility that he considers at length. Fowl also raises several reasons to
doubt the scholarly tendency to treat the passage as a preexisting text.
• Garland’s commentary offers a balanced overview of the arguments in favor of, and
against, interpreting Phil 2:5–11 as a hymn. Without firmly supporting any particular
view, he draws attention to various “unintentional” assumptions scholars typically make
when dealing with this passage. He concludes by noting the place and function of Phil
2:5–11 within its epistolary context.
“Philippians 2:5–11” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12: Ephesians—Philemon (Revised
Edition)
• According to Hawthorne and Martin, there is almost “universal agreement” that Phil
2:6–11 constitutes an early Christian hymn. Thus, they devote little space in the
commentary to establishing a working definition of “hymn” or answering objections to
this view (though they do note them). Instead, they concentrate on the structure and the
setting of the hymn.
“Philippians 2:5–11” WBC: Philippians (Revised)
• MacLeod follows what he regards as the majority scholarly view in treating Phil 2:6–11
as a hymn. He notes that the remarkable statements of the hymn are made “openly” and
not “in a controversial way.” This indicates that the doctrines and theology of the hymn
were already “settled” by the time Paul used the hymn in his letter to the Philippians.
“Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians 2:5–8” Bibliotheca
Sacra Volume 158
• Martin’s commentary draws from and builds on his well-known monograph Carmen
Christi: Philippians 2:5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early
Christian Worship, which was originally published in 1967 but remains valuable for the
study of Phil 2:5–11. His overview of the history of interpretation is highly useful. His
conclusion is that Phil 2:6–11 probably represents “a preformed hymnic tribute” that
Paul took over and appropriated for his own purposes. His book on early Christian
worship also includes a discussion of the nature and structure of Phil 2:6–11.
“Philippians 2:5–11” TNTC: Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary
• O’Brien’s discussion of Phil 2:6–11 provides a comprehensive overview of the main
interpretive options of the literary form, background, and authorship of the passage. His
commentary also contains a thorough overview of the history of the passage’s
interpretation. In his view, Phil 2:6–11 is a hymn—though not in the modern or ancient
Greek sense—with two basic divisions: Phil 2:6–8 and Phil 2:9–11. He questions a
majority of the proposed interpretations of the background to the passage, though he
favorably notes Hurtado’s argument that the language of the hymn is rooted in the
terminology of early Christianity and possibly goes back to the earthly Jesus Himself
(see Hurtado 1984). In terms of authorship, O’Brien tentatively suggests the passage
may have been written by Paul or someone else prior to the writing of Philippians.
“Philippians 2:5–11” NIGTC: The Epistle to the Philippians
• Reumann’s commentary also contains a substantial survey of the interpretation of Phil
2:5–11. The view he adopts in his commentary is that Phil 2:6–11 represents “an
encomium the Philippians had worked out” for the evangelistic purposes within their
Graeco-Roman context.
“Philippians 2:5–11” AYBC: Philippians
• Silva moves quickly past the history of the interpretation of Phil 2:5–11 to the structure
of the passage. Somewhat surprisingly, he follows Lohmeyer’s (1928) division of the
passage into six three-line stanzas. He suggests that the first three stanzas deal with
Christ’s humiliation and the final three with His exaltation. His discussion of the
passage also stresses its function within the letter, which he argues is to present Christ’s
example of humility to help the Philippians achieve unity.
• Thielman provides a lengthy discussion of the scholarly interpretation of the
provenance of Phil 2:5–11. He follows Fee in drawing attention to other “careful,
rhetorically sophisticated prose” within Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Cor 1:22–25, 26–28; 9:9–
22) to illustrate the apostle’s ability to compose such language and, therefore, the
plausibility that Paul also wrote Phil 2:5–11. He also argues that Phil 2:5–11 has an
ethical, rather than kerygmatic, function within the letter. In other words, the passage is
meant to encourage believers to emulate Christ’s attitude of humility, not necessarily to
teach them about His incarnation, death, and resurrection.
• Witherington views Philippians 2:5–11 as a hymn containing two main stanzas. He
argues that the hymn is “an example of epideictic rhetoric” or “rhetoric of effusive
praise,” though Paul uses it for a deliberative purpose and in a deliberative argument.
“The Story (2:5–11)” Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
Form of God
Paul opens the hymn by asserting that Christ Jesus was “in the form of God” (en morphē
theou hyparchōn). As O’Brien (1991, 206) observes, the exegesis of this significant phrase
influences the interpretation of the entire hymn. The phrase “form of God” not only stands at
the beginning of the hymn, but it marks the first of several seemingly sequential statements
regarding Jesus’ status. The interpretation of the phrase involves addressing a number of
difficult exegetical questions, each of which has multiple possible answers. These questions
include: What is the meaning of the preposition en (“in”) in the phrase “in the form of God”
(see Hansen 2009, 134–35)? What is the conceptual background to the phrase? What is the
lexical range of the noun morphē? Related to this question, how should the meaning of “form
of God” be interpreted in relation to the parallel phrase “form of a slave” in Phil 2:7? How
does the phrase “form of God” relate to the expression “equal with God” in the latter part of
the verse?
O’Brien (1991, 205–11) suggests there are five main explanations of the phrase “form of
God.” First, scholars interpret the noun morphē in several ways. Many older commentaries,
such as Lightfoot (1994, 124), take morphē in a philosophical sense as a description of
Christ’s essential attributes (see Martin 1987, 105). Others, such as O’Brien (1991, 210–11),
interpret “form of God” in terms of the OT notion of God’s “glory” as a reference to the
visible “garment of divine majesty and splendour” adorned by the preexistent Christ. Third,
some commentators equate morphē (“form”) with eikōn (“image”) and interpret “form of
God” as part of a contrast between Christ and Adam (see Gen 1:26–27; 3:1–5). See O’Brien
(1991, 263–68) for a substantial discussion of this view. The final two views, neither of which
have substantial support, interpret “form of God” against ideas and parallels within the
Hellenistic and Gnostic religious traditions (see Bockmuehl 1997, 127).
• Barton (et al.) translates morphē using the term “nature” (see NIV). He claims that
morphē must refer to more than the appearance of an object to the human senses. Thus,
he interprets the phrase “form of God” to mean that Christ expresses the very nature
and character of God.
• Bockmuehl suggests that “form of God” is parallel to the notion of “equality with God.”
Defining morphē as “the visual characteristics of a person or object,” he interprets
“form of God” as a reference to Christ’s preexistence and visible divine characteristics.
• Comfort observes that “existing in God’s form” does not simply mean that Christ “was
God” or “was the form of God.” In his view, the phrase must be taken as a reference to
the essence of a form. In the case of Phil 2:6, “form of God” means that “Christ, as
God, lived as God in nature, form, and mode of being.”
“Philippians 2:5–11” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol. 16: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
• Craddock takes “form of God” as a reference to Christ’s preexistent state. He also

speaks of Christ giving up this state despite His equality with God. In his view, this
phrase describes the first of three movements in the hymn: preexistence, existence, and
post-existence.
“Philippians 2:1–11” Interpretation: Philippians
• Fee argues that “form of God” means that it is “the preexistent Christ” who emptied
Himself in Phil 2:7. He claims that Paul used the term morphē because it was the
perfect term to characterize the reality of Christ’s divinity (“his being God”) and the
metaphor of His humanity (taking on the role of a slave).
• Garland stresses the importance of interpreting “form of God” in relation to the idea
that Christ did not consider equality with God something to be “grasped.” He seems to
imply “equality with God” and “form of God” both refer to the divine and preexistent
status Christ possessed but refused to leverage or grasp for His own purposes or glory.
Edition)
• Writing in 2009, Hansen’s commentary offers a thorough and up-to-date overview of

scholarly interpretations of the phrase “form of God.” In his view, the phrase “in the
form of God” describes the “sphere or location” of Christ’s “preincarnate existence.”
• Hellerman’s article on this phrase proposes a unique thesis. He argues that Paul
employs the morphē theou, not to describe Christ’s ontological reality, but as a marker
of power and social status. Accordingly, he argues that Paul includes the hymn in
Philippians for ecclesiological, not Christological, purposes.
“Μορφη Θεου as a Signifier of Social Status in Philippians 2:6” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society Volume 52
• Hendriksen contrasts the meaning of morphē (“form”) in Phil 2:6, 7 with schēma
(“fashion”) in Phil 2:7. He suggests that morphē refers to the inner and essential nature
of Christ, whereas schēma describes His external and “accidental” bearing or
appearance.
• Horne argues that “form of God” points to Christ’s “absolute Deity and hence His
eternity.” He views morphē as the expression of divine essence.
“Let This Mind Be in You” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 3
• MacLeod follows Lightfoot by interpreting morphē as a reference to Christ’s nature or
essence. He suggests that Paul, as an educated person, would have been aware of this
meaning of morphē in Greek thought and philosophy.
“Imitating the Incarnation of Christ” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 158
• Martin interprets Philippians 2:6 as a reference to Christ’s “pre-temporal existence as
the second person of the Trinity.” His interpretation of the phrase “form of God” draws
on the OT concept of the glory of God (compare 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15) and the depiction
of Adam as the “image” of God (Gen 1:26–27).
• O’Brien concludes that “form of God” refers to the form Christ was in that “truly and
fully expresses the being which underlies it.” He interprets the phrase in light of the OT
and Second Temple Jewish notion of God’s glory. Like John 17:5 and Heb 1:3, he
suggests “form of God” depicts the preexistent Christ robed with “the garments of
divine majesty and splendour.”
• According to Runge, Phil 2:6 declares that Jesus is “fully God” and possesses “all the
rights and privileges” of divinity. He adds that Paul’s primary interest is to present
Christ as a model because He did not use His power or rights for His own advantage.
“Philippians 2:5–11” High Definition Commentary: Philippians
• Schreiner argues that “form of God” is another way of saying that Jesus was divine. He
also thinks Jesus’ divinity is confirmed by the phrase “equality with God.”
“Jesus as Lord” New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ
• Silva offers an overview of scholarly interpretations of morphē, at the end of which he
concludes that the precise meaning of the term is “elusive” since it covers a wide range
of meanings. He argues that the phrase “form of God” must be interpreted in relation to
closely located phrases in Philippians—“equal to God” in Phil 2:6b and “form of a
servant” in Phil 2:7a. He suggests that “form of God” probably refers to what is
distinctively divine as opposed to what is distinctively human.
“Christ’s Humiliation (Phil 2:6–8)” BECNT: Philippians
• Vincent suggests the English term “form” inadequately translates the idea behind
morphē. In his view, morphē refers to the essential nature of God, which is only
comprehensible to humans through “spiritual intelligences.”
“Philippians 2:6” ICC: Philippians and Philemon
Emptied Himself
Philippians 2:6 opens the hymn of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection by declaring that He
shared in the very nature or essence of God. Philippians 2:7 depicts the next stage in the
narrative: “But [He] emptied Himself by taking the form (morphē) of a slave, by becoming
in the likeness of men.” The contrast between these two verses is heightened by the
conjunctive alla—Christ was in the form of God, “but” He “emptied Himself” (kenoō) and
took the form of a slave. The main issue scholars address is what exactly Christ emptied
Himself of as part of the movement from being in the form of God to taking on the form of
a slave.
Hansen (2009, 146) notes three possible interpretations of what it meant for Christ to
“empty Himself.” First, there is the “kenotic theory” (taking its name from the verb in Phil
2:7, kenoō), which maintains that Christ emptied Himself by giving up His divine attributes
and power. Second, others interpret Phil 2:7 as a reference to the notion of incarnation; Christ
emptied Himself by becoming, or in order to become, human. Third, some scholars suggest
the hymn is picking up language from the servant passages in Isaiah that speak of the servant
of the Lord who “poured out” (paradidōmi) his life to death (Isa 53:12). Hawthorne and
Martin (2004, 116–17) list even more interpretive possibilities.
• Anders argues that Christ did not lay aside His “deity” by becoming a human. Rather,
he suggests that Christ’s act of “emptying Himself” refers to His choice to not use some
of His divine attributes. He suggests Christ’s relinquishing of His divine prerogative is
evident in Matt 24:36 and John 17:5.
• Bockmuehl argues that the Greek text does not imply that Christ gave up equality with
God to take on the form of a slave (the kenotic theory). He argues that Christ
“manifested the form of God in the form of a slave.” In other words, Christ appeared
both in the form of God and a slave at the same time. He maintains that Phil 2:7 is
connected to the servant passages of Isaiah in a general way, but without direct
dependence on the LXX of Isaiah. Thus, he argues that the passage should be interpreted
within the broader OT and Jewish notion of the suffering righteous servant of God.
• Bruce translates the phrase as “made himself nothing” to avoid the implication that
Christ “divested” Himself of His divine nature. He contends that Phil 2:7 says that
Christ gave up His divine prerogatives and glory.
• According to Fee, the notion of Christ emptying Himself stands in direct antithesis to
the phrase “empty glory” (kenodoxia) in Phil 2:3. He suggests the meaning of the
phrase overlaps with the metaphorical expression “he became poor” in 2 Cor 8:9.
According to Fee, this means that Christ did not empty Himself of something; rather,
He simply emptied Himself.
“Philippians 2:7” NIGTC: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians
• Fowl also dismisses the imagery of Christ emptying “something” out of Himself. He
argues that Paul uses the metaphor of “kenosis” in his letters with a sense of
nullification (see Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 2 Cor 9:3). He builds on this interpretation to
suggest that Phil 2:7 highlights the two natures of Christ within the context of the
incarnation.
• Hansen’s commentary provides an overview of the aforementioned interpretations of
the meaning of “emptied Himself.” He concludes that the phrase contains elements of
each of these interpretations—Christ surrendered His divine rights and “cloaked” His
glory by taking on the form of a slave; this act of “self-emptying” should be taken as a
description of the incarnation; and Phil 2:6–7 describes Christ’s emptying Himself by
drawing on the Servant Song in Isa 53.
• Hawthorne and Martin survey and dismiss scholarly discussions of what Jesus emptied
Himself of in Phil 2:7. They follow a growing number of recent commentators who
stress that the verb kenoō does not imply that Christ emptied Himself of something. He
argues instead that Phil 2:7 uses “hymnlike” language to say that Christ put Himself at
“the disposal of the people” and “became poor” to make many rich (1 John 3:16; 2 Cor
8:9). His commentary also includes an excursus on the doctrine of the incarnation and
kenosis.
“Excursus: On Kenosis” WBC: Philippians (Revised)
• Hendriksen offers a reading of Phil 2:7 based on the wider context of Scripture.
According to this reading, Christ gave up the following things when He “emptied
Himself”: His favorable relation to the divine law; His life and riches (2 Cor 8:9; Matt
20:28; Mark 10:45); His heavenly glory (John 12:41; compare Isa 53:3); and His
independent exercise of divine authority (John 5:30; Heb 5:8).
“Philippians 2:6–7” Baker New Testament Commentary: Philippians
• Like many commentators, Kent suggests the text of Phil 2:7 does not imply that Christ
emptied Himself “of something.” He nonetheless argues that the “natural
understanding” of this verb prepares the reader to anticipate that Christ divested
Himself of something. In Kent’s opinion, Christ emptied Himself of “the manner of
existence as equal to God” by becoming human and taking on the form of a slave.
“Philippians 2:7” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11: Ephesians through Philemon
• Martin’s commentary offers strong critiques of the so-called kenosis theory and the
interpretation of Phil 2:7 against the background of Isa 53, which he describes as “novel
exegesis.” He prefers to interpret Christ’s emptying of Himself as a “pre-incarnate” act
of renunciation and taking on the form of a slave.
• Melick argues that the notions of Christ “emptying Himself” and taking on the form of
a servant should be understood as simultaneous ideas that describe the same action. He
dismisses the view that the two ideas represent a progression. His commentary also
addresses the limitations of the passage to address theological questions regarding
Christology and the nature of the incarnation.
• Reumann provides a worthwhile discussion of two uncommon interpretive backgrounds
to Phil 2:6–7. First, he draws attention to the theory that the Philippian hymn contrasts
Christ, who did not grasp after equality though it belonged to Him, with Adam, who
grasped out at the fruit of the tree in Gen 3. Second, he notes the possibility that Phil
2:6–11 is set against the background of the imperial cult and Roman emperors. He is
dismissive of the former view but more approving of the latter.
• Silva argues that the wider context of the passage requires the interpreter to move
beyond the meaning of a single verb—namely, kenoō. He avoids discussion of what
Christ emptied Himself of, preferring instead to describe the act more broadly as
Christ’s self-renunciation. He also insists that Christ’s “self-emptying” involves not
only the incarnation (that is, Jesus becoming a human in the form of a slave) but also
His “humiliation unto death.”
“Christ’s Humiliation (Phil 2:6–8)” BECNT: Philippians
• In Thielman’s view, Paul’s other uses of the verb kenoō are of limited benefit for
interpreting Phil 2:7 since they represent a different use of the word. He argues that the
two participial constructions in the rest of the verse explain the actual meaning of
Christ’s emptying Himself. In other words, Christ “emptied Himself” by “taking the
very nature of a servant” and “being made in human likeness.”
• According to Vincent, this phrase stands as “a strong and graphic expression” of
Christ’s complete self-renunciation. It therefore includes Christ’s willing adoption of
the form of a slave and His humiliation through death. He suggests that any exegesis of
the verse that pushes beyond this definition is “speculative theology.”
The Name above Every Name

The second major unit of the Philippian hymn (Phil 2:9–11) focuses on the exaltation of
Christ following His humiliation (Phil 2:6–8). It opens by declaring that God rewarded
Christ’s obedient death on the cross by exalting Him and giving Him “the name above every
name” (to onoma to hyper pan onoma; Phil 2:9). Scholars debate the meaning of “the name
above every name.” Does it imply, as many older commentaries propose, that God gave a
specific name to Christ? If so, does the text of Philippians tell us what name God gave to
Him? Philippians 2:10 seems to identify the name as “Jesus,” whereas Phil 2:11 implies that
it is “Lord.” Interpreters have proposed several variations of these two main possible answers,
including “Lord” (i.e, Yahweh; see Bruce 2011, 72–73), “Jesus” (see Phil 2:10), “Jesus
Christ” (e.g., Comfort 2008, 178), and “Lord Jesus” (e.g., Ellicott 1876, 60). Alternatively,
scholars such as O’Brien (1991, 233–35) and Lightfoot (1994, 126–27) suggest that the
phrase “the name above all names” helps distinguish a person from another and reveals
something about them. According to this view, Phil 2:9 is not concerned with a personal
name or specific appellation given to Christ but with dignity given to Christ at His exaltation.
• Anders contends that God gave the name “Lord” to Jesus Christ. In his view, Christ
became the “Master” (or Lord) rather than the servant after humbling Himself as the
obedient Son.
• Bockmuehl argues that “Lord” (kyrios) is “the name above every name” since it
represents “God’s ineffable name” (YHWH) in the Greek OT. He claims that no higher
name could be given to Jesus than God’s own name (see Pss 8:1; 138:2)
• Comfort’s interpretation brings together what he lists as the two most commonly
proposed names—“Jesus” and “Lord.” In his view, Phil 2:9–11 says that God gave
“new significance” to the name “Jesus,” a name which He had since birth. The result of
God’s gift is that “Jesus” now equated with “the Lord.”
• Dunn includes Philippians 2:9, as well as the rest of the Philippian hymn, as part of his
discussion of “Yahweh texts” that are applied to Jesus in early Christianity. Among the
other passages Dunn discusses are Rom 10:9–13; 2 Cor 4:5; Col 2:6; compare Isa
45:23; Joel 2:32.
“The Yahweh Texts Referred to Jesus” Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New
Testament Evidence
• Fowl argues that God gave the name “Lord” to Jesus. He also claims that “Lord” was
used in the earliest confessions of faith by Gentile Christians (see Rom 10:9; Acts
2:36). He explains the significance of the name “Lord” in terms of Christ’s rule over the
entire universe.
• According to Fee, “the name above every name” is “Lord.” He points out that the early
Christians avoided applying “Yahweh” to Jesus by using the Greek name for God in the
LXX (kyrios) as their “primary designation” for Jesus.
• Garland argues that “Jesus” is “the name above every name.” He interprets the meaning
of the name in light of Yahweh’s declaration, “I am the LORD; that is my name” (Isa
42:8). The significance of Christ receiving the highest name is that Christ is “invested
the title, power, and authority of God” (see Matt 28:16; Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 8:6).
Edition)
• Hawthorne and Martin suggest that God “graciously bestowed” on Christ a designation
that distinguished Him from all other beings and a nature (or office) with authority to
exercise His rule. In their view, this title is “Lord”; the reign of Christ the Lord extends
over all creation (see 1 Cor 15:25–28).
• Hendriksen proposes that Philippians does not tell its readers what name God gave to
Christ. He claims that Paul shows reverence to Christ by not mentioning this name. In
Hendriksen’s view, the phrase “in the name of Jesus” in Phil 2:10 does not mean that
the name spoken of in Phil 2:9 is “Jesus.” Rather, Philippians 2:10 refers to an
unspecified name given to Christ by God at which every knee should bend.
• Martin includes a discussion of hymns and spiritual songs in his book on worship in the
early church. He focuses on four main passages: 1 Tim 3:16; Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20;
and Heb 1:3.
• O’Brien interprets “the name above every name” as “Lord” (kyrios) for the following
reason: (1) Jesus is identified with kyrios (Yahweh) in the hina clause of Phil 2:10–11;
(2) “the name above every name” and “the name of Jesus” should be read together; (3)
“Yahweh” would have been the superlative name for a faithful Jew like Paul; and (4)
the movement from “god” to “slave” to “Lord” brings symmetry to the hymn. Still,
O’Brien emphasizes that the point of the hymn is not simply to reveal the name God
gave to Jesus, but to emphasize Jesus’ unique role and relationship to Yahweh.
• Silva critiques the argument that the name is “Lord” for several reasons, though he does
not rule out the possibility altogether. Instead, he argues that “name” should be
understood as a title or office, not a personal name. He concludes that “Jesus” is the
name mentioned in Phil 2:9 and “the Man Jesus” is proclaimed as Lord.
• Witherington argues that “Jesus” is not the name referred to in Phil 2:9. He argues that
“the name above every name” can only be “the name of God.” In other words, he
interprets Phil 2:9 to mean that God gave to Jesus the name kyrios, the LXX equivalent
of Yahweh. He supports his view by pointing to the widespread use of “Lord” as a
Christological title by the early Christians.
Work Out Your Salvation

After the conclusion of the poetic hymn of Phil 2:6–11, Paul returns to giving instructions on
how to live within the Christian community (compare Phil 2:1–5). In Philippians 2:12, he
exhorts the Philippians to continue to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
Paul’s words are intended to encourage his readers; he hopes they will be encouraged by
Christ’s example of obedience in their lives. However, the stated goal of their labor in the
faith—their salvation—raises difficult questions for the modern interpreter concerning Paul’s
command in Phil 2:12. Hansen (2009, 172) suggests this verse comes as a “surprise” for any
reader of Paul’s letters.
Three key questions determine the interpretation of this issue. First, what is the meaning
of the verb katergazomai (“to work out”) in the present verse? According to TDNT (634–35),
katergazomai means “to work at” something until a task is accomplished. Other dictionaries
suggest that the imperative of katergazomai means “to cause a state or condition” or “to
produce” (see BDAG, 531 and EDNT 1990, 271). The meaning of the term is further
complicated by an unusual grammatical object; though Paul uses the verb 20 times in his
letters, the noun sōtēria (“salvation) appears as the object of katergazomai only in Phil 2:12
(see O’Brien 1991, 276–77).
Second, how does Phil 2:12 relate to its following verse? Should we read Paul’s
description of God’s work among believers in Phil 2:13 as an explanation of his command,
or do the two verses address separate ideas? Third, does the term “salvation” refer to an
individual believer’s salvation (see Kent 1981, 128), the welfare of the entire community of
faith (see Martin 1987, 118–20), or both (see O’Brien 1991, 276–80)?
• Barton (et al.) prefers to understand Phil 2:12 as directed to the entire church; Paul
called the church “to work to rid themselves of divisions and discord.” He supports this
view by pointing out that the word heautōn (“your own”) is plural, not single.
• Carson’s exposition of Philippians provides lay people with a practical discussion of
what it means for a believer “to work out” their salvation while God simultaneously
works within them. He argues that, for Paul, the believer’s “work” should be rooted in,
and motivated by, God’s work.
“Philippians 2:12” Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians
• Comfort reads the seemingly “oxymoronic” theology in Phil 2:12 as a balance of
Arminian (“work out your own salvation”) and Calvinist (“God works our salvation”)
perspectives on salvation. Thus, he believes the passage addresses the salvation of
individual believers.
“Philippians 2:12–13” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol. 16: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
• According to Fee, the debate over whether Phil 2:12 refers to an individual believer or
the Christian community is based on a false dichotomy. In his view, the meaning of the
text is ethical, not soteriological; Paul is concerned with “how people work out their
salvation,” not with “people getting saved.” The community of Philippi is to work out
their eschatological salvation in the present.
• Fowl explains Phil 2:12 as a call from Paul to the Philippian believers to obey him and
“his vision of the way God has worked and will continue to work in the world.”
Effectively, he sees obedience to Paul and obedience to God as virtually the same thing.
• According to Hendriksen, for a believer “to work out” their salvation means to carry it
to its conclusion and bear the fruit of the spirit (see Gal 5:22–23). In his view, salvation
does not come instantaneously; it is process that requires “continued, sustained,
strenuous effort” from believers. Thus, in his view, sanctification is the primary issue in
Phil 2:12.
• O’Brien provides the most in-depth discussion of whether Phil 2:12 refers to an
individual believer’s salvation or the health and fellowship of the entire community. He
offers seven arguments in favor of each point of view. He concludes by suggesting that
Paul urged the Philippians to “show forth the graces of Christ”—that is, their
salvation—in their lives, both within the community of faith and among non-believers.
• Melick dismisses the suggestion that “salvation” in Phil 2:12 signifies the “well being”
of the Philippian community. He maintains that individual salvation is in view here,
largely because, in his opinion, Paul typically speaks of salvation as an individual, not
communal, idea.
• Vincent believes Paul had in mind the salvation of the individual believer. God’s gift of
grace invites people to become God’s co-workers. He suggests the nature of this work
is spelled out in Phil 3:10, 4:1–7; Eph 4:13–16; Col 2:6–7.
soteriological The area of Christian theology focused on the saving work of Christ including the
issues of atonement, grace, human nature, sin, and resurrection. The term derives from the Greek
sōtēria meaning “salvation.”
sanctification Literally refers to the process of setting something apart for a sacred purpose. In
Christian theology, it denotes a doctrine concerned with the gradual purification from sin in the
life of the believer and a progressive spiritual growth toward Christlikeness.
Key Word Studies

Harpagmos, “Something to Be Grasped.” The Philippian hymn declares that Christ did not
regard His equality with God as “something to be grasped” (harpagmos). This word is a
hapax legomenon within the biblical Greek writings. Further, harpagmos is uncommon in
secular Greek writings (see Trilling 1990, 156). Essentially, harpagmos describes something
that has been seized or plundered. The meaning of the term within the hymn of Phil 2:6–11
is highly significant. Bruce (2011, 69), for example, views harpagmos as the crux of the
interpretation of the verse. A major question interpreters face is deciding whether harpagmos,
when applied to “equality with God” in Phil 2:6, describes something Christ inherently
possessed in His preexistence (res rapta) or something Christ could have potentially seized
or grasped (res rapienda).
O’Brien (1991, 212–16) surveys what he regards as the four major areas of contributions
to the study of the word harpagmos. First, scholars such as Lightfoot (1994, 124) interpret
harpagmos to mean “prize” or “treasure.” Christ already possessed equality with God, but
He did not consider its privileges as something to hold on to. Second, in his monograph on
the Philippian hymn, Martin proposed an interpretation of harpagmos that attempted to hold
together an active and passive interpretation of the word (see Martin 1987, 106–07). Third,
C. F. D. Moule argues that harpagmos should be taken in an active, abstract sense to signify
the “act of snatching.” This view suggests that Christ did not think of equality as something
to keep for Himself, but as something to give through emptying Himself. Fourth, several
scholars have conducted linguistic and philological examinations of harpagmos. Their
conclusions vary, but one major view is that the meaning of harpagmos should be determined
by its entire Greek phrase as an abstract, active word; it describes that which Jesus has but
refused to use for His own advantage (see O’Brien 1991, 215–16). All four views have
received serious criticism as well as scholarly support. Despite the number of scholarly
interpretations of harpagmos, Bockmuehl (1997, 130) rightly stresses that it is unlikely Paul
and his readers would have been caught up regarding the nuances of the term.
“Harpagmos” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Harpagmos” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Harpagmos” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Harpagmos” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Harpagmos” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Isos, “Equal.” The Greek adjective isos simply means “equal”—whether in quality,
appearance, quantity, or dignity. It occurs eight times in the NT, including its most famous
use in Phil 2:6 (see also Matt 20:12; Mark 14:56, 59; Luke 6:34; John 5:18; Acts 11:17; Rev
21:16). It is employed with nearly identical meaning in the Gospel of John, which claims that
hapax legomenon From a Greek phrase meaning “something said once”; refers to words that
occur only once in a given document or set of writings.
“the Jews” sought to kill Jesus because He made Himself “equal” with God (ison heauton
poiōn tō theō; John 5:18; compare John 8:58; 10:30, 33).
The word appears some 40 times in the Septuagint (e.g., Exod 26:24; Wisdom 14:9; Ezek
40:5–8). Reumann (2008, 344–45) lists the numerous uses of isos in Greek literature,
including papyri that indicate that Augustus was “honored as a god” (ton … isa kai theon
timōmenon). As O’Brien (1991, 215–16) points out, Christ’s “equality” (isos) with God is
probably the “something to be grasped” in Phil 2:6.
“Isos” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Isos” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Isos” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Isos” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Isos” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Kenoō, “To Empty.” This verb means “to empty” or “to destroy.” All five of its NT
occurrences are found in Paul’s letters (compare Jer 14:2; 15:9 LXX). In Romans 4:14, Paul
says that Christian faith would be “null” (kekenōtai) if righteousness comes through the law
rather than faith. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, he tells the Corinthians that he does not preach the
gospel with “words of eloquent wisdom,” lest “the cross of Christ be emptied” (kenōthē).
Paul uses the verb twice in his letters to the Corinthians to convey his fear of his grounds
for boasting becoming “empty” (see 1 Cor 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3). The most well-known use of the
verb is found in the Philippian hymn in Phil 2:5–11. There Paul writes that Christ, though
being in the form of God and “equal with God”, mysteriously “emptied Himself” and took
on the form of a slave. The meaning of the verb kenoō is so central to the main idea of the
hymn that later theologians and scholars often describe Christ’s incarnation as His “kenosis”
(see “Kenosis” in the Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary; Feinberg 1980, 21–42).
“Kenoō” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Kenoō” The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament
“Kenoō” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Kenoō” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Kenoō” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Spendō, “To Pour Out.” The verb spendō means “to pour out” or “to offer a libation/drink
offering” on the ground or a religious site of sacrifice as an offering to the gods (see BDAG).
The word occurs several times throughout the LXX, where it often describes the act of pouring
out a sacrificial drink offering to a deity. Genesis 35:14 LXX, for example, tells how Jacob
set up a pillar at Bethel and “poured out” a drink offering and “poured” upon it olive oil.
Septuagint The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (Genesis—Malachi) begun around
250 BC. Sometimes abbreviated with the Roman numeral for 70 (LXX) based on the tradition that
70 translators participated.
Here the verb spendō is used distinctly to describe the sacrificial pouring out of a libation,
whereas the verb epicheō (“to pour on”; compare LXX: Exod 29:7; Job 36:27) is used to
describe the pouring of olive oil. In the LXX of Hosea, Israel is accused of not “offering” (ouk
espeisan) wine to the Lord (Hos 9:4 LXX). The only other NT occurrence of spendō is in 2
Tim 4:6. There Paul uses the verb in the same way he employs it in Phil 2:17—to refer to
himself as a libation being “poured out.” In Philippians 2:17, however, Paul adds that he is
being “poured out” on the sacrifice of the Philippians’ faith (compare Phil 4:18). Bruce
(2011, 89) sums up the meaning of this imagery when he writes, “[Paul’s] death should make
their sacrifice complete.”
“Spendō” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Spendō” The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament
“Spendō” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Spendō” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Background Studies: Emperor Worship

The climax of the Christ hymn in Phil 2:6–11 envisions the eschatological scene in which
every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as “Lord” (kyrios). As several commentators, including
Reumann (2008, 358–59), point out, the early Christian use of kyrios (“Lord”) for Jesus posed
a threat—whether intentionally or unintentionally—to the Roman emperor’s claim to the
title. Witherington (2011, 101–2) argues that Paul’s critique of the emperor cult in Philippians
is implicit rather than explicit.
The practice of worshiping the Roman emperors is historically rooted in the cult of
Hellenistic kings. In the context of the Roman Empire, the imperial cult developed into a
political-religious deification of the Roman emperors. Julius Caesar, for example, was
conferred divine status (Divus Julius) upon his deathbed. Augustus, the first Roman emperor
and Julius Caesar’s adopted son, permitted cities in the Greek world to set up temples to him.
According to Jeffers (1999, 100–3), emperor worship served two main purposes in this
period. First, it allowed Roman emperors to establish and consolidate their power. Second, it
demanded loyalty to the emperor from provinces and colonies belonging to the Roman
Empire.
Bockmuehl (1997, 6–7) points out that the people of Philippi had a penchant for
traditional Roman religion. In particular, they participated in the emperor cult through temple
sacrifices, festal calendars, and various religious figures such as priestesses. According to
Hawthorne and Martin (2004, xxxvii), however, the religious character of Philippi in the first
century AD was “distinctively synchronistic” and exhibited a blend of the imperial cult,
indigenous deities, and Graeco-Roman gods. The reality is probably somewhere in
between—the Philippians participated in the emperor cult as a colony of the Roman Empire
but also maintained affinity for their indigenous religious traditions.
There is a vast amount of scholarly literature on the history and significance of the
imperial cult. The following links lead to resources covering the development of the imperial
cult, its place within the religious practices of the Roman Empire, and its importance for
interpreting Philippians (especially Phil 2:5–11).
• The article on Roman religion from the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters concentrates
on the political character of Roman religious practices, including emperor worship, and
Paul’s interaction with the Roman imperial cult.
“Roman Religion” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
• Jeffers devotes an entire chapter of his book to religion in the Graeco-Roman world.
Included in this chapter are discussions on Roman gods, mystery religions, the imperial
cult, and Roman attitudes toward other religions (such as Judaism and early
Christianity).
“Emperor Worship” The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of
Early Christianity
• Johnson’s book on the interface between early Christianity and Graeco-Roman religion
provides a succinct and helpful overview of the basics of Graeco-Roman religion,
including emperor worship.
“A Preliminary Profile of Graeco-Roman Religion” Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman
Religion and Christianity
• The entry in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is essentially a survey of the Roman
imperial cult during the times of various Roman leaders, from Tiberius (42 BC–AD 37)
to Constantine (ca. AD 272–37).
“Roman Imperial Cult” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
• Klauck’s reference work on Graeco-Roman religions in the time of the NT includes a
chapter on the divinization of rulers and emperors. The unique contribution from this
source is its focus on primary texts relevant to the imperial cult from ancient writers
such as Ovid and Cicero.
“Divinised Human Beings: The Cult of Rulers and Emperors” The Religious Context of
Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions
• The article in the Lexham Bible Dictionary provides a thorough overview of rise of the
imperial cult in the context of Graeco-Roman religions.
“Roman Religions and the Imperial Cult” The Lexham Bible Dictionary
The Christ hymn of Phil 2:5–11 is one of the most theologically weighty passages in the NT.
Yet Paul’s main purpose for including it as part of his letter to the church in Philippi is
practical. In particular, he presents Christ as an exemplary model of humility and self-
sacrifice. In this sense, the incarnation of Christ functions for all believers as a model of what
selfless love looks like. Christ possessed equality with God, but He willfully took the form
of a servant for the sake of others. Although we do not possess the riches of Christ, all of us
treasure certain rights and privileges that we dare not let go. The Christ hymn calls us to
imitate Christ by letting go of the things we treat as harpagmos—that is, the things on which
we have a death grip. This is the message Paul extends to Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–3),
and it is the message Scripture teaches believers today—following Christ means imitating
Him in giving up that which we could hold on to.
Against the False Teachers
Overview
Paul opens this section of the letter in a cordial manner, addressing the Philippians as
“brothers and sisters” (adelphoi) and disclosing his desire to protect them (Phil 3:1). Yet he
quickly changes his tone as he speaks of the influence of the false teachers at work among
the Philippian believers (Phil 3:2). Paul holds nothing back as he describes this group as
“dogs, evil doers, and mutilators”. His primary concern with their teaching seems to be their
insistence upon circumcision for Gentile believers. In Philippians 3:3–4, Paul asserts that he
and the Philippians are the true circumcision—not his opponents, who only “mutilate” the
flesh.
To illustrate to the Philippian believers—and, presumably, their opponents—the

sufficiency of Christ apart from circumcision (Torah), Paul provides an autobiographical
account of his days as a zealous, law-keeping Pharisee (Phil 3:4–6). His purpose in doing so
is to demonstrate that if anyone had reason to boast in their keeping of the law, it was him,
not the false teachers. Paul’s recitation of his credentials reaches its crescendo in Phil 3:6,
where he audaciously states that he was “blameless” (amemptos) when it came to
righteousness in the law (see Reumann 2008, 487). He then declares in Phil 3:7–11 that the
only way to have true righteousness from God is through Christ. Everything else is mere
“garbage” (skybalon). Paul therefore presses on “to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus
took hold of me”—the prize of the upward call of God (Phil 3:12–16).
In the final section of this passage, Paul once again presents himself as a positive example
to contrast the negative example of the false teachers (Phil 3:15–21; compare Phil 1:12–26).
He condemns the “mutilators” as “enemies of the cross of Christ” whose “god” is their belly.
Paul then calls the Philippian believers, as citizens of heaven, to await the Savior from
heaven—the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform believers into glory upon His return (Phil
3:20–21).
Structure
1. A Warning against “the Mutilators” (Phil 3:1–3)
a. Paul Safeguards the Philippians (Phil 3:1)
b. The Mutilators (Phil 3:2–3)
2. Against Their Teaching (Phil 3:4–16)
a. Paul’s Testimony (Phil 3:4–6)
b. Everything Is Christ (Phil 3:7–11)
c. Warning against Complacency (Phil 3:12–16)
3. Follow Paul, not the False Teachers (Phil 3:17–21)
a. Call to Maturity (Phil 3:17–18)
b. Citizens of Heaven (Phil 3:19–21)
Many scholars have suggested that Phil 3:1–21 seems out of place due to its abrupt change
in tone compared to the previous section. Some have even suggested that this passage is a
separate writing inserted sometime after Paul wrote his letter (see O’Brien 1991, 345).
Hansen (2009, 216) offers a persuasive explanation for the abrupt shift in tone beginning in
Phil 3:1. He suggests that Paul’s warnings in this chapter should be interpreted as part of a
wider (and familiar) pattern within the letter, in which he juxtaposes negative and positive
examples. Therefore, Bockmuehl (1997, 216) rightly states there is no reason to suppose that
the shift between Phil 2 and 3 is out of character for Paul.
Additionally, scholars debate the meaning of the phrase to loipon (“finally”) in Phil 3:1,
which seems to suggest that Paul is nearing the end of the letter (see Phil 4:8; compare 2 Cor
13:11; Eph 6:10; 1 Thess 4:1). Bruce (2011, 101) implies that Paul intended to conclude at
this point, but something must have “suddenly occurred to him which prompted the warning
of verse 2 with its sequel.” He therefore refers to Phil 3:1 and Phil 4:8–9 as the first and
second conclusions of the letter, respectively. But not all interpreters see a sharp break in the
letter between Phil 2:30 and Phil 3:2. Koenig (1985, 160–61), for example, notes that to
loipon (“finally”) can also be translated as “furthermore” or “as for the rest.” In this case,
Phil 3:1b (the first part of Phil 3:1 may refer either backward or forward) would mark the
beginning of a new section. Similarly, Vincent (1897, 90) reads to loipon as an introductory
device to the following material. He claims that Paul would have given thanks to the
Philippians for their support here if he intended to conclude the letter. Runge (2011, Phil 3:1–
4a) concisely sums up this view when he writes: “[to loipon] signals that he is moving on to
other matters. It does not mean this is the last thing he has to say” (see also Fee 1995, 290–
91; Kent 1981, 137–38).
Regarding the relationship of Phil 3:1–21 to the rest of the letter, O’Brien (1991, 345–
46) suggests that the passage further develops the letter’s main proposition in Phil 1:27–30;
Paul describes how their gospel-worthy living functions as a sign of their salvation and the
destruction of their opponents. Melick (1991, 123), however, thinks Paul changes subjects
starting in Phil 3:1 since he directly addresses the false teachers for the first time. Hawthorne
and Martin (2004, 171) view Phil 3:1–21 as a transitional pericope within the continued body
of the letter. Witherington (2011, 181) treats Phil 3:1–4:1 as the third of four positive appeals
within the probatio (the main body) of the letter. Paul presents himself as a positive example
to contrast the negative one of the “dogs.”
Place within the Canon

In Philippians 3:20–21, Paul refers to the Philippian believers as “citizens in heaven”
(compare Phil 1:27). Many interpreters explain this passage to mean that Christians live as
“foreigners” even in their own place of residence (compare Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 2:11; see Kent
1981, 147–48). Several other passages in the Bible also address the tension believers
pericope A short literary unit that can be isolated or “cut off” (from the Greek verb perikoptō)
from its wider context.
probatio One of the six parts of ancient rhetoric; the main body of an argument in which the
author attempts to prove his/her thesis.
experience as residents of two realms—heaven and earth. In his letter to Ezra, King
Artaxerxes demands obedience both to the Jewish law and the law of the king (Ezra 7:26;
compare Eccl 8:2). The general teaching of the NT seems to encourage obedience to human
rulers (with obvious limitations) as an expression of obedience to God. For example, in
Matthew 22:21, Jesus urges His listeners to pay homage to both their earthly “Lord” (Caesar)
and heavenly Lord (God). In Romans 13:1–7, Paul tells the Roman Christians to be subject
to governing authorities because God Himself placed them in authority. He underscores
God’s appointment of human rulers by warning of God’s judgment of those who resist His
instituted authorities (Rom 13:2–3). First Peter 2:13–17 also instructs Christians—“elect
exiles” (1 Pet 1:1)—to submit to human institutions, particularly the emperor, “as having
supreme authority.”
Paul’s words to the Philippian believers echo another group of NT passages that look
beyond earthly citizenship to a time when Christians will live only under the reign (or
“kingdom”) of God. In Hebrews 13:14, for example, the author says believers lack a “lasting
city” and seek a city that is yet to come. In Luke 22:29–30, Jesus tells His disciples that they
will dine and rule with Him in His future when the eschatological kingdom comes. First Peter
1:14 employs the metaphor of inheritance to speak of the believer’s reward in heaven. And
Revelation describes God’s long-promised return to His people by painting an image of the
holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God (Rev 21:2).
Issues at a Glance
• Dogs, Evil Doers, Mutilators
• Paul as Blameless
• The Prize of the Upward Call of God
• Their God Is Their Belly
• Citizenship in Heaven
• Key Word Study: Katatomē, “Mutilation”
• Key Word Study: Skybalon, “Garbage”
• Key Word Study: Katalambanō, “To Seize”
• Background Studies: Citizenship
Starting Point
Philippians 3:6 is a key verse for the New Perspective on Paul, a scholarly viewpoint that
insists the Judaism of Paul’s day believed salvation was based on God’s grace (in the Torah)
rather than legalistic observing of the law. In particular, scholars often debate whether Paul
implies in Phil 3:6 that righteousness comes through (the keeping of) the law, whereas
elsewhere in his letters, he argues against this idea (especially Rom 3; Gal 2–3). The
following resources address the role of the law in Paul’s thought and theology.
“Paul and the Introspective Conscience” On Paul: Essays on His Life, Work and Influence in the
Early Church
“Paul and Palestinian Judaism” Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion
“New Perspective on Paul” The Lexham Bible Dictionary
“Toward a New Perspective” Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship
“The Saving Righteousness of God” The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul,
1
Justification and the New Perspective
Dogs, Evil Doers, Mutilators

In Philippians 2:2, Paul abruptly introduces a new subject: believers’ opponents in Philippi.
Specifically, Paul asks the Philippians to “watch out” (blepō) or “pay careful attention to
them, to study them” (Hansen 2009, 217). Paul repeats this request three times, using a
different description of the opponents each time: dogs, evil doers, and mutilators (see
Bockmuehl 1997, 183–84). The identity of these opponents is one of the most contested
issues in the study of Philippians (see O’Brien 1991, 26–35), and scholars investigate two
related questions regarding these opponents. First, who are the opponents mentioned in Phil
2:2? That is, can we identify the actions and beliefs of this group? Are they the same group
Paul refers to in Phil 1:15–17? To answer this question, scholars address a second question:
What do the three phrases Paul uses tell us about the opponents and their beliefs?
Scholarly interpretations fall more or less into two groups. First, many interpreters argue
that the opponents are Judaizing Christians (compare Acts 15:1; Gal 1:6–9; 5:1–12)—that is,
Jewish Christians who insisted that circumcision was required in addition to faith in Christ
(see Hendriksen 1962, 150; Vincent 1897, 92–93). Martin (1987, 145), for example, thinks
the opponents are Judaizing Christians rather than non-Christian Jews because of Paul’s use
of katatomē (“mutilation”) as a pejorative term for circumcision. A second interpretation
claims that the opponents were non-Christian Jews who hoped to convert members of the
Philippian church to Judaism. Hawthorne and Martin (2004, l—lv) support this view; they
argue that the opponents in Phil 3 are Jewish missionaries who proclaimed that righteousness
and perfection were attainable in the present—not only in the eschatological future—through
circumcision and observance of parts of the law.
• Anders thinks the opponents are Jewish Christians who misunderstood the OT’s
teachings on circumcision and the true nature of the Christian gospel. He describes their
teaching as a “Christ plus circumcision salvation message.”
• Bockmuehl rightly points out that Paul’s readers would have known the identity of the
“dogs,” despite the uncertainty among modern scholars. He prefers to identify the
opponents broadly as Jewish Christians who traveled throughout the Diaspora to
persuade Gentile Christians to become “full Jewish proselytes.”
• Bruce also regards the opponents in Philippi as Jewish Christians who hoped to win
over Gentile believers. He suggests they may have been sent from Jerusalem as part of a
1
Brown, D. R. (2013). Lexham Bible Guide: Philippians. (D. Mangum, Ed.) (Flp 1.1–3.21).
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Diaspora Literally means “dispersion.” A term used to refer to Jewish communities outside the
land of Israel, especially in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, and Asia Minor (1 Pet 1:1).
“campaign” to bring more Gentile Christians under the control of the “mother church”
in Jerusalem.
• Fee agrees with the majority of scholars that the opponents of Phil 3 are Jewish
Christians who promoted circumcision. Additionally, he offers a critique of the position
that considers the opponents to be “Jews as such.” First, he claims that Paul’s
description of his opponents elsewhere in his letters casts doubts on their non-Christian
identification in Philippians. Second, he points out the difficulty of imagining any
circumstances under which Gentile Christians would have been enticed to become
Jewish proselytes.
• Hawthorne and Martin represent the most substantiated argument for identifying the
opponents of Phil 3 as non-Christian Jews. They point out that Paul faced opposition
from “the Jews” at several points during his missionary career in the region near
Philippi (see Acts 17:5, 13; 18:6; 19:9). They even suggest they may have come from
Thessalonica (see 1 Thess 2:13–16). Hawthorne and Martin see this identification of the
false teachers as especially important for Paul’s autobiographical discussion of how to
achieve true righteousness (“right standing before God”).
“Paul’s Opponents and the False Teachers at Philippi” WBC: Philippians (Revised)
• According to Kent, the epithets Paul uses in Phil 3:2 indicate that he has Judaizers in
mind. In his view, this group trailed Paul and his co-workers in order to pressure
Gentiles into circumcision as well as follow other parts of the law.
“Philippians 3:2” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11: Ephesians Through Philemon
• O’Brien points out that only the third term used by Paul—katatomē (“mutilation”)—
helps us determine the identity of the opponents. In addition to the two commonly
proposed views, he also suggests the possibility that the group consisted of Gentile
proselytes who were circumcised later in life. He thinks the opponents are Judaizers,
mostly because this interpretation makes sense of the Jewish references in the
immediate passage. The introduction to his commentary includes a lengthy discussion
of Paul’s opponents in Philippians, including a survey of the major interpretations by
scholars.
“Paul’s Opponents and the False Teachers at Philippi” NIGTC: The Epistle to the Philippians
• Schreiner claims that Phil 3, along with Acts 15:1–5; Rom 2:25–29; 4:1–12; and Gal
3:1–5, 10–14, refers to “Judaizers.” In his view, this group of Jewish Christians
confessed Jesus as Messiah but also maintained that the law, and circumcision in
particular, were obligatory for Gentiles coming into the faith.
“Paul’s Response to His Opponents” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
• In his lengthy work on NT theology, Schreiner suggests that Paul’s fundamental
objection to his opponents in Philippi was their insistence on circumcision.
“Paul, Circumcision, and the Law” New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ
Paul as Blameless
Paul concludes his autobiographical “boasting” in Phil 3:3–6 with a remarkable statement.
He claims that he was “blameless” (amemptos) when it came to righteousness in the law
(dikaiosynēn tēn en nomō). Like the rich young ruler of Luke’s gospel (Luke 18:21), Paul
observed the law’s requirements; he scrupulously adhered to the Pharisaic interpretation of
Torah so that he was “faultless” concerning the law (see Fee 1995, 309–10). Wright (2005,
115) describes this assertion as the “crown” of Paul’s boasting in his Jewish privileges and
pride. Reumann (2008, 487) captures the audacity of Paul’s statement when he writes, “Paul
dares to say of himself genomenos amemptos [became blameless]” regarding his observance
of the law.
While noting the boldness of Phil 3:6, scholars debate the meaning of Paul’s words. Does
this verse describe Paul’s assessment of his pre-Christian devotion to the Torah (see Bruce
2011, 110)? If not, in what sense did he consider himself “blameless” regarding the law?
What is the “righteousness in the law?” Although Protestant Reformers and earlier
commentators struggled to make sense of this verse in light of passages such as Rom 3 and
Gal 2—where Paul argues that righteousness does not come through the law—many scholars
now view Phil 3:6 as consistent with Paul’s overall attitude toward the law in his letters. Silva
(2005, 151–52), for example, argues that Paul does not use amemptos here to imply that he
was sinless, but rather that he conformed to the standard life prescribed by the law as
interpreted by the Pharisaic tradition. Similarly, O’Brien (1991, 378–81) contends that Phil
3:6 describes Paul’s zealous obedience to “specific moral and ritual regulations” of the law,
not how the apostle avoided transgressions. However, some interpreters still argue that Phil
3:6 recalls Paul’s attempts to win God’s merit through his Jewish heritage and good works
(see Anders 1999, 243).
• Bockmuehl draws on the work of E. P. Sanders to argue that, for Paul, to be
“blameless” meant being upright by the standards of the Torah’s way of life. He also
suggests that Paul, after his conversion, continued to think it was possible—and even
expected—that believers could remain blameless (see Phil 2:15; compare 1 Thess 2:10;
3:13).
• Comfort argues that Paul believed righteousness could not be obtained by doing “the
works of the law” (see Rom 3; Gal 2–3; compare Phil 3:9). He suggests Paul’s
statement regarding righteousness in the law in Phil 3:6 complements this view. In his
view, the issue in this verse is strict observance of the Pharisaic traditions regarding the
law. Paul was “blameless” insofar as he kept these laws, but not in terms of sins before
God.
• Fee suggests Paul’s language in Phil 3:6 has sacrificial overtones and refers to the
observance of the law’s regulations concerning Sabbath, dietary laws, and ritual
cleanliness. He argues that “righteousness” in Phil 3:6 refers to the observing of these
regulations of the law (“in the law”).
• Garland sees a sharper contrast between the righteousness described in Phil 3:6 and the
righteousness of God. He argues that righteousness achieved through obedience to the
code of conduct of the law is merely a substitute for God’s own righteousness; it does
not count before Him and leads to self-righteousness.
Edition)
• Hansen argues that Paul’s claim to be “faultless” according to the righteousness based
on the law is best explained as the result of the polemical purpose of Philippians. In his
view, the purpose of Paul’s argument is to disprove the notion that obedience to the law
gives reason to boast in the flesh. Paul had as much reason as anyone to boast since he
was “blameless” according to the law, but considered obedience and accomplishments
to be worthless for the sake of Christ.
“Philippians 3:5–6” PNTC: The Letter to the Philippians
• Hendriksen qualifies the meaning of “blameless” to refer only to human judgment. That
is, he does not think Phil 3:6 refers to righteousness before God. Paul was only thinking
of outward appearance when he spoke of the “righteousness in the law.”
“Philippians 3:5–6” Baker New Testament Commentary: Philippians
• According to O’Brien, Phil 3:6 goes beyond stating that Paul kept the requirements of
the law. He argues that Paul implies that he was utterly “blameless” in terms of
observing the OT law. He then lists four qualifications to the meaning of amemptos in
Phil 3:6. First, Paul was not being ironic in his use of amemptos; he regarded
circumcision and his Jewish privileges as genuine reasons to boast. Second, Philippians
3:6 should not be understood to mean that Paul formerly thought he was blameless but
later realized he was wrong. Third, “blameless” refers to living in conformity with the
OT law, not the absence of sin. Fourth, Paul considered his “blamelessness” to be
praiseworthy, but not the basis for his right standing before God or even for “staying
within the covenant.”
• In Schreiner’s opinion, Paul’s so-called “blamelessness in legal righteousness” should
not be understood as “true righteousness” before God since he was still guilty of
“profound sin.” His remarks concerning Phil 3:6 come as part of his broader discussion
of the issue of legalism in Paul’s letters.
“Paul and Legalism” New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ
• According to Wright, Paul’s point in Phil 3:6 is that he not only possessed Torah, he
was amemptos (“blameless”) in his keeping of it. He sees this claim as the “crown” of
Paul’s autobiographical list of privileges and price of status as a faithful Jew.
“Philippians 3 and Election” Paul: Fresh Perspectives
• In his discussion of the approach of “The Bultmann School” to interpreting Paul,
Zetterholm notes the role Paul’s statement in Phil 3:6 has played in the development of
research on Paul’s view of the law.
“The Bultmann School” Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship
The Prize of the Upward Call of God

In Philippians 3:12–16, Paul writes about his vigorous pursuit of his final prize. Having left
behind his “blameless” and zealous life as a law-keeping Pharisee, Paul says he now aims
“to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me” (Phil 3:12 NIV). Paul is
determined to press on toward “the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus” (to
brabeion tēs anō klēseōs tou theou en Christō Iēsou). In the NT, the term brabeion (“prize”)
occurs only here and in 1 Cor 9:24, where it denotes the award for an athletic competition.
As most commentators point out, Phil 3 also draws upon athletic imagery (see Fee 1995,
347–48). But what is this “prize” to which Paul refers in Phil 3:14? Some scholars, such
Hendriksen (1962, 174–75), define this prize in a general sense as the future blessings of the
afterlife. Hawthorne and Martin (2004, 210–11) think the prize Paul anticipated was Christ
Himself. According to Martin (1987, 161–62), Paul does not define the “prize” in the letter.
Scholars also debate the relationship between the “goal” (skopos; a hapax legomena
within the NT) and “prize” in Phil 3:14. Some suggest the goal and the prize refer to the same
thing (see Kent 1981, 143; Anders 1999, 245), whereas others differentiate between them
(see Martin 1987, 161–62).
• Barton (et al.) rightly stresses that Paul does not specify the nature of the prize.
However, he argues that other passages in Paul’s letters suggest the prize is gaining
“full knowledge of Jesus Christ” (see 1 Cor 9:24; 2 Tim 4:7–8). In his view, the
“heavenly call” is the “summons” to pursue and win the prize of salvation.
• Bockmuehl explains the terminology of Phil 3:14 within the context of athletic imagery.
In his view, the “goal” is the finish line the runner has in view, and the “prize” is the
award given to the athlete upon completion of the race. He notes three common
suggestions for the identity of the prize: (1) the heavenly call mentioned in the first part
of the verse; (2) the ceremonial “call” and public honoring of the victor of the race; and
(3) “the prize which pertains to the calling,” that is, the prize of God’s act of calling to
salvation. Bockmuehl concludes that the interpreter should not press Paul’s language at
the expense of ruling out multiple nuances of the prize.
• Craddock points out that Paul does not have in mind his call to apostleship since he
speaks of the prize awaiting all believers. He prefers to interpret the “prize” as the call
issued by God to all believers, which will culminate in the presence of God.
“Philippians 3:1b–16” Interpretation: Philippians
• Fowl falls into Bockmuehl’s third category of interpretation. He interprets “upward” as
a reference to the divine origin and nature of the call. His commentary also provides a
unique overview of the reception history of this issue during the patristic period.
hapax legomena From a Greek phrase meaning “something said once”; refers to words that occur
only once in a given document or set of writings.
• According to Hendriksen, “goal” and “prize” represent two different aspects of the
“same perfection.” He defines “prize” as the gift of God’s sovereign grace and
associates “goal” with bringing sinners to Christ.
• Melick defines the “prize” in a straightforward manner as “the heavenward call.” Thus,
in his view, the NIV correctly translates Phil 3:14: “for which God has called me
heavenward.…” He interprets the “call” not as the summons to salvation, but with the
call to heaven and the resurrection.
“Philippians 3:13b–14” NAC: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
• Reumann explains the verse in terms of three phases of an athletic competition. In the
first phase, the runner focuses on the finish line (“the goal”). In the second, the “prize”
is awarded. In the third phase, the believer is “called upward by God.” He suggests the
“call” is Paul’s call to his apostleship (the “race”), and the “prize” refers to the ultimate
reward for the believer: exaltation-resurrection. His commentary provides detailed notes
on the background and meaning of the terms skopos and brabeion.
“Notes on Philippians 3:14” AYBC: Philippians
• According to Vincent, Paul’s expected “prize” is his “heavenly reward” or “crown of
righteousness” (see 1 Cor 9:24–27; 2 Tim 4:8; Rev 2:10). It refers to the believer’s
share in the glory of the exalted Christ.
Their God Is Their Belly

In Philippians 3:18–19, Paul discusses a group to whom he refers as “enemies of the cross.”
His purpose is to set up a contrast between them and the positive example of true believers
in Phil 3:20–21 (see Runge 2011, Phil 3:15–21; Cousar 2001, 176). In Philippians 3:19, he
offers four further descriptions of the group to his readers: “Their end is destruction, their
god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things” (ESV). The
two descriptions in the middle of the verse—“their god is their belly” and “their glory is their
shame”—have been subject to a number of interpretations. As Bockmuehl (1997, 230–31)
mentions, part of the difficulty with these descriptions is the uncertainty of whether the group
Paul refers to in Phil 3:18–19 is the same as the “dogs” in Phil 3:2. For a discussion of this
issue, see Silva (2005, 179–82).
Scholars seem to interpret the phrase “their god is their belly” in two ways. Their
interpretation usually depends on how they understand the term koilia (“belly” or “stomach”).
Some commentators interpret koilia as a metonymy for the group’s sensuality (e.g.,
Hendriksen 1962, 181–81; Comfort 2008, 207; compare 1 Cor 6:13). Other scholars suggest
koilia refers to the gluttonous attitude of the group (see Bruce 2011, 130) or their observance
of food laws (see Witherington 2011, 216). Silva (2005, 180) suggests these two
interpretations are mutually compatible.
metonymy A figure of speech that uses the name of one thing to describe another with which it is
closely associated.
• Anders explains the phrase from both Greek and Jewish perspectives. He suggests the
Greeks would have considered their desires as merely physical and, as a result, allowed
their “physical desires” to become their god. The Jews, by contrast, would have thought
of the stomach in terms of ritual purity; they ran the risk of making their “self-
protection from ritual pollution” their god.
• Bockmuehl denies a link between the enemies mentioned in Phil 3:18–19 and the
Jewish opponents (“dogs”) in Phil 3:2. Instead, he thinks “the enemies of the cross” are
former believers who no longer place their trust in Christ but in their (licentious)
appetites and shameful practices.
• Fee observes that koilia can function as a metonymy for cravings for “sumptuous” food
or “surfeiting”—that is, gluttony. He also notes that Graeco-Roman writers often used
gastēr (“stomach”) as a metonymy for gluttony. In the end, he concludes that
interpreters cannot be sure of one view over the other.
• Fowl follows Bockmuehl in ruling out Phil 3:19 as a reference to Jewish dietary
observance. Instead, he interprets koilia as a reference to characteristic pagan vices—
idolatry, gluttony, and illicit sexual activity.
• Hansen interprets the meaning of koilia in Phil 3:19 along the same lines as Paul’s use
of the term in 1 Cor 6:13. He contends that in both verses, koilia denotes “unbridled
sensuality” or “sexual licentiousness.” These people allow their appetites to dictate their
lives, and they worship their appetites.
• Malina and Pilch offer a slightly different interpretation of koilia than most
commentators. They suggest that the term can be used in a metaphorical sense to
describe “the hidden, innermost recesses of the human body or of the human person.” In
other words, it refers to what we might call the “heart” today. Accordingly, they
interpret koilia in Phil 3:19 to mean “self-interest” or “self-centered ambition.”
“Philippians 3:19” Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul
• According to Moule, koilia clearly functions as a reference to “sensual appetites” in
Phil 3:19. However, he also points out that the term may, on a secondary level, refer to
gluttonous attitudes.
“Philippians 3:19” The Epistle to the Philippians
closely associated.
closely associated.
• According to Silva, the expression refers to gluttony, perhaps with an additional
allusion to the self-centeredness and sensuousness of the group. In his view, the
following phrase then focuses on their sexual immorality.
• Vincent seems to interpret koilia as a reference to gluttony. In his view, it is “fanciful”
to suggest that Jewish dietary laws are in view here. As a conceptual parallel to the
meaning of koilia in Phil 3:19, he also draws attention to the rare verb koiliodaimōn
(“one who makes a god of his belly”) found in the comic poet Eupolis (fifth century
BC).
Citizenship in Heaven
In Philippians 3:20, Paul provides the reason for his “derogatory judgment” of his opponents
in the preceding verses (see O’Brien 1991, 459). He opens by stating, “for our citizenship
(politeuma) is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus
Christ.” The meaning of the phrase “citizenship in heaven” is subject to a great deal of
scholarly discussion (see Witherington 2011, 216). In brief, scholars address two questions
regarding the phrase: What is the meaning and background of the word politeuma
(“citizenship”), and in what sense is the Christian’s citizenship “in heaven”?
The term politeuma (“citizenship” or “commonwealth”) occurs only here in the NT (see
2 Macc 12:7). However, Paul uses closely related terms throughout his letters (see Rom
16:23; 2 Cor 11:26, 32; Eph 2:12, 19; 3:20; Col 4:13; Titus 1:5), including in Phil 1:27, where
he uses the verb politeuomai (“to conduct one’s life” or “to be a citizen”) in his exhortation
to live in a manner worthy of the gospel. In his monograph Paradise Now and Not Yet:
Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to
His Eschatology, Andrew Lincoln (1981) argued that politeuma has dynamic nuance that
suggests that Paul’s use of the term in Phil 3:20 may be more focused on citizen-worthy
behavior than citizenship per se. Many scholars, including O’Brien (1991, 459–61), base
their interpretation of politeuma on Lincoln’s work. Hawthorne (2004, 231–32) suggests that
Paul’s word selection may be partially directed at Jews (or his Jewish-Christian opponents)
who regarded themselves as a “colony.” Paul’s word selection would have had special
significance in Philippi because of Phillipi’s status as a Roman colony and the special
dispensation given to the city by Emperor Octavian (42 BC) to be governed by Rome and
receive Roman rights and privileges (see O’Brien 1991, 461).
What then is the meaning of “citizenship in heaven”? According to Hendriksen (1962,
182), believers are members of the “homeland” in heaven by virtue of their “birth” from
heaven (or from above). Many interpreters, such as Kent (1981, 147–48), claim that the
prepositional phrase “in heaven” denotes the location of the believer’s citizenship; they are
therefore “foreigners” even in their own place of residence (compare Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 2:11).
Cousar (2001, 177) describes heaven as the “locus” of the believer’s citizenship since the
Lord Jesus Christ is there.
• Bockmuehl’s commentary offers a thorough discussion of the meaning of politeuma as
well as its religious and political implications for the earliest Christians. In his view,
Paul’s use of this terminology in only Phil 1:27 and Phil 3:20 indicates he was highly
selective with such language. He also observes that when Paul says the believer’s
citizenship is “in heaven,” it excludes the possibility of saying it is “in the church.” In
his view, Phil 3:20 thus rightly upholds the distinction between the Church and the
kingdom of God.
• According to Bruce, Paul uses politeuma in Phil 3:20 and politeuomai in Phil 1:27 in a
relational sense to describe the conduct expected of believers as citizens of heaven. In
his view, the possible allusion to the constitution of Philippi is secondary to the primary
notion of citizenship described above.
• Carson describes heaven as the “true home” and “true destiny” for believers. This
knowledge enables Christians to endure suffering in the present (Phil 1:29) since they
will one day witness the return of the Lord of their homeland and overcome their
suffering through the transformation of their bodies (Phil 3:21). He argues that
Christians should not think of themselves first as citizens of their respective country on
earth (e.g., United States or Spain), but as citizens of the only land with “enduring
significance”—heaven.
“Philippians 3:17” Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians
• Fee suggests that the notion of citizenship in heaven represents a classic expression of
the already/not yet tension within NT eschatology. Christians presently live in the
Roman colony of Philippi, but they live according to their true (and future) homeland—
heaven.
• Garland makes four points of comparison between the believers’ citizenship in heaven
and their present dwelling place: (1) Paul (implicitly) asserts that Caesar is not Lord
(the Roman emperor was often referred to as “lord and savior”) by claiming Christ’s
lordship; (2) the Philippian Christians enjoy the rights and privileges of the heavenly
commonwealth; (3) the homeland requires its citizens to put the needs of their city
ahead of their own; and (4) just as Roman colonies functioned as microcosms of Rome,
the Philippian community is called to “exemplify the values of the heavenly realm.”
Edition)
• Hendriksen translates the phrase as “homeland is in heaven.” In his view, Christians

belong foremost to the “commonwealth” of heaven because they were “born from
above”—that is, from heaven. He speaks of heaven as a “fixed location” and the final
destination for believers.
• Melick argues that Paul uses the term politeuma to refer primarily to people, not a
place. This not only includes the Philippians’ fellow citizens of heaven, but their
Lord—Jesus Christ. The introduction to Melick’s commentary includes a discussion of
the significance of Philippi’s status as a Roman colony.
eschatology The theology of last things, the end of the age, or a period of time.
“Philippians 3:20–21” NAC: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
“The History of Philippi” NAC: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
• Malina and Pilch stress the political implications of the expression “citizenship in
heaven.” In their view, the key issue is Jesus’ role as “savior,” a title typically reserved
for the emperor.
“Philippians 3:20–21” Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul
• Thielman argues that Paul deliberately yet carefully selected the term politeuma. He
points out that (some of) the Philippians likely took pride in living according to Roman
law rather than local custom (see Acts 16:21). Thus, Paul may have intended to change
this attitude by reminding the Philippian believers that their true citizenship is not
derived from Rome (and Caesar), but heaven and the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Philippians 3:17–4:1” NIVAC: Philippians
• According to Witherington, the Philippians’ citizenship in heaven means that (1) they
are foremost citizens of heaven, not Rome; (2) they represent a colony of citizens living
in a pagan city; and (3) their ruler is Christ.
• Wright’s interpretation of Phil 3:20–21 and the notion of heaven are somewhat
controversial among biblical scholars. In his view, interpreters misunderstand (and
misrepresent) Paul when they read Phil 3:20–21 to imply that believers will go and live
in heaven after this life. He instead proposes that Paul’s point in the present passage is
to describe how the Savior—the Lord Jesus Christ—will come from heaven to His
people so that He can transform them.
“Citizens of Heaven—Colonizing the Earth” Surprised by Hope
Key Word Studies

Katatomē, “Mutilation.” The Greek word katatomē means “mutilation” or “cutting into
pieces.” English translations of the term include “mutilation” (LEB, NKJV), “mutilators of the
flesh” (NIV), “false circumcision” (NASB), “the concision” (KJV), and “those who insist on
cutting the body” (GNT). Paul’s use of the word is its only occurrence in the Greek biblical
writings. As Garland (2006, 236) points out, Paul’s word selection seems to be based on
wordplay.
The Greek word for “circumcision” is peritomē (Phil 3:3, 5), which literally means “to
cut around.” Paul’s epithet in Phil 3:2 replaces the first part of peritomē with the preposition
kata, giving it the pejorative sense “cutting to pieces” (compare Gal 5:12). Fee (1995, 133)
points out that the cognate verb appears in Lev 21:5 LXX as part of the prohibition for Israelite
priests not to cut their flesh like pagan priests. In his view, this makes Paul’s use of katatomē
in Phil 3:2 “the ultimate derogation of circumcision” (see also Thielman 2002, 360). Silva
cognate Refers to words that are related through a common etymological origin or shared source.
(2005, 148) considers Paul’s use of katatomē to be even more drastic. He claims that in Phil
3:2–4, Paul interprets the practice of obligatory circumcision—once the badge of obedience
to the law and source of pride for the Judaizers—as “the surest sign that they have no share
among God’s people.”
“Katatomē” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Katatomē” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Katatomē” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Katatomē” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Katatomē” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Skybalon, “Garbage.” This term was used literally to refer to excrement or scraps of food
thrown to dogs. It was also used metaphorically to denote something worthless or detestable.
For a detailed survey of the possible etymology and other meanings of skybalon, see
Reumann (2008, 491–92). The term is a hapax legomena within the NT; it occurs just once in
the LXX (Sir 27:4; the cognate verb skybalizomai appears in Sir 26:28).
The variety of attempts to convey the original meaning of skybalon in English

demonstrate the difficulty of translating it. Consider the followings words used for skybalon:
“dung” (KJV, LEB), “rubbish” (ESV, NRSV), “garbage” (NIV), “refuse” (ASV, Vincent 1897,
101), “filth” (Fee 1995, 319), and “crap” (Reumann 2008, 491). In Philippians 3:8, Paul uses
skybalon as a secondary description of everything he considers “loss” for the sake of Christ.
As Comfort (2008, 201) points out, it may mean that Paul considers these things “garbage”
in themselves or merely in relation to knowing Christ. Fee thinks Paul selected this term as
a “parting shot” at the “dogs” mentioned in Phil 3:2; he now considered everything he gained
before Christ to be “foul-smelling street garbage” fit only for “dogs.”
“Skybalon” The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament
“Skybalon” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Skybalon” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Skybalon” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
“Skybalon” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Katalambanō, “To Seize.” The verb katalambanō can mean “to seize” or “to grasp.” The
Gospel of John declares that darkness has not “overcome” (katelaben; ESV) the light that was
in Christ. In 1 Corinthians 9:24, Paul speaks of running the race “to obtain” (katalabēte) the
prize awarded to the victor. The word occurs primarily in an epistemological sense in the
book of Acts (Acts 4:13; 10:34; 25:25; compare John 1:5 NIV; see Kittel et al. 1964, 9–10).
Paul uses the word katalambanō three times within three consecutive clauses in Phil 3:12–
13 to describe his pursuit of the prize.
hapax legomena From a Greek phrase meaning “something said once”; refers to words that occur
only once in a given document or set of writings.
According to Garland (2006, 245), Paul’s threefold use of katalambanō presents the
image of “being abducted by Christ”; the believer is able to capture the prize only because
Christ already captured it. Moule (1893, 98) thinks Paul refers to “grasping” the crown of
“everlasting glory.” Fee (1995, 345–46) notes that the combination of the verbs diōkō (“to
pursue”) and katalambanō is attested in the LXX and other Greek writings (see, e.g., Sir 11:10;
Lam 1:3; Herodotus 9.58).
“Katalambanō” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Katalambanō” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Katalambanō” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Katalambanō” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Katalambanō” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Background Studies: Citizenship

Paul’s description of the Philippian believers as “citizens of heaven” is made against the
background of citizenship in the ancient world. Possession of Roman citizenship brought
with it both privileges and obligations (see Jeffers 1999, 198–99). Roman citizens received
privileges such as protection from harsh punishment and accusations from non-citizens,
greater honor than non-citizens, access to games of entertainment, and exemption from
various forms of taxation. Conversely, Roman citizens were subject to military duties and
certain taxes.
One of the key aspects of Roman citizenship for the early Christians was the
establishment of Roman colonies by retired soldiers. Such colonies—which included
Corinth, Philippi, and Iconium—effectively turned certain cities into satellite locations of the
Roman Empire. The city of Philippi gained its status as a Roman colony from Octavian (the
first Roman emperor) and Mark Antony who, shortly after their defeat of Brutus and Cassius
in 42 BC, refounded the city and settled military veterans in its quarters (see Acts 16:12).
Perhaps the most salient aspect of Roman citizenship for studying Philippians is jus Italicum,
a special status that granted the Philippians Roman citizenship and tax exemption. Paul
probably had the Roman notion of citizenship in mind when he referred to the Philippian
believers as “citizens of heaven”. These believers would have already regarded themselves
as citizens of a place in which they did not reside (Rome) but from which came their
citizenship and rule (the emperor).
For more on the nature of citizenship in the Graeco-Roman world and its significance for
understanding Paul’s letters and missionary journeys, see the following resources.
• The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible entry on citizenship gives a concise but less
detailed overview of citizenship in the ancient world. It helpfully draws attention to the
places in the NT where citizenship features as a key aspect of a given narrative or letter.
“Citizenship” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible
• In the introduction to his commentary, Fee explains how Philippi gained its status as a
Roman colony before going into a broader discussion of the city’s history.
“The City of Philippi and Its People” NICNT: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians
• Jeffers’ book on the Graeco-Roman background to the NT devotes an entire chapter to
citizenship. In it he provides an in-depth overview of the nature and importance of
Roman citizenship.
“Citizenship in the Greco-Roman World” The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era:
Exploring the Background of Early Christianity
• This article from the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters discusses the conceptually
overlapping concepts of civic and heavenly citizenship in Paul’s letters.
“Roman and Heavenly Citizenship” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
• Silva’s overview of Phil 3:20–4:1 focuses on the idea of “heavenly citizenship.” He also
considers to what degree interpreters should import Graeco-Roman ideas of citizenship
into their interpretation of Phil 3:20–4:1.
“Heavenly Citizenship” BECNT: Philippians
• In his book on the nature of heaven and the afterlife, Wright discusses the importance of
the metaphor of Roman citizenship for interpreting Philippians as well as the idea of
heaven. In particular, he argues that heaven functions for Christians much like Rome
did for the Philippians—that is, as the place from which they derived their citizenship
and from where their Lord would come to visit them.
“Citizens of Heaven—Colonizing the Earth” Surprised by Hope
Paul’s catalog of reasons to boast as a faithful and Torah-abiding Jew is impressive. He could
check off every box when it came to Jewish duties; he could even claim that he was
“blameless” in terms of righteousness in the law (Phil 3:6). What is even more impressive is
Paul’s willingness to let it all go—to dismiss the importance of his accomplishments in light
of what Christ has accomplished for him. In fact, Paul goes so far as to describe the
achievements of his life as a Pharisee as mere “garbage” in comparison to knowing Christ
(Phil 3:8).
Paul’s reason for this remarkable statement is found in Phil 3:10: He desires to know
Christ and the power of His resurrection by becoming like Him in His death. What Paul is
saying is that if he boasts in his own successes, then he stands to gain nothing. But if he lets
go of these “trophies” (see Runge 2011, Phil 3:4b–11) and relies on God’s righteousness
through faith in Christ, then he “may attain resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3:11). Paul
understood that, as believers, we must let go of our own merits in order to boast in Christ.
The challenge comes when we are unwilling to let go of certain accomplishments or
possessions. Like the rich young ruler, we are tempted to walk away out of our desire to hold
onto one last thing. Paul’s example in Phil 3:4–11 reminds us that while it is painful to “throw
away” the things we use to construct our identity, there is nothing worth holding onto in
comparison to knowing Christ.
Final Exhortations
Overview
The majority of the final chapter of the letter consists of Paul’s final exhortations to his church
in Philippi. Paul opens the last section with a call to unity (Phil 4:1). Building on that notion,
he then addresses two women within the congregation, Euodia and Syntyche. He urges them
to overcome their dispute and be of the same mind in the Lord (Phil 4:2; compare Phil 2:2).
He also enlists the help of an unnamed member of the congregation to bring a resolution to
the disagreement between the two women. Paul concludes his brief pastoral message to
Euodia and Syntyche by reminding them that all believers are known by God and listed in
the Book of Life. He then addresses the entire congregation, urging them to lead lives
characterized by joy, gentleness, prayer, and trust in God (Phil 4:4–9).
Paul briefly mentioned the Philippians’ financial support of his ministry earlier in the
letter (Phil 1:5; 2:25). He now discusses the issue at length. He begins by declaring his joy at
their concern for him and their contributions (“gift”) to his work (Phil 4:10). He then offers
a parenthetical note regarding his own attitude toward living in extreme circumstances as an
itinerant missionary (see Bockmuehl 1997, 262). Paul insists that he does not need the gift
the Philippians sent him; he has received a greater gift—Christ working through him. As a
result, Paul declares that he has learned to endure all circumstances in life; he can do all
things through the strength of Christ (Phil 4:13). Nonetheless, Paul then thanks the Philippian
believers for their generous and ongoing support of his ministry, which he describes as “a
fragrant offering” and “an acceptable sacrifice” (Phil 4:14–20).
The final, brief section of the letter contains Paul’s greetings to the church in Philippi
(Phil 4:21–22). A characteristic benediction concludes the letter (Phil 4:23).
Structure
1. Final Exhortations (Phil 4:1–9)
a. Call to Unity (Phil 4:1)
b. Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–3)
c. Rejoice in the Lord (Phil 4:4–9)
2. Paul’s Thanks for the Philippians’ Gift (Phil 4:10–20)
a. Paul’s Attitude of Contentment (Phil 4:10–14)
b. The Philippians’ Gift (Phil 4:15–20)
3. Final Greetings (Phil 4:21–23)
a. Greetings (Phil 4:21–22)
b. Benediction (Phil 4:23)

The conclusion of the letter is in view by the time the reader arrives at the section on the
Philippians’ financial support of Paul (Phil 4:10–20). This raises the question—does Phil
4:1–9 belong with that passage or does it conclude the argument of the body of the letter?
Reed (1997, 265–66) thinks that Paul’s “conventional epistolary” language (e.g., parakaleō
and erōtaō) indicates that Phil 4:2–9 represents a new section in the letter. Bockmuehl (1997,
237) cautions against espousing any particular view too firmly; he nonetheless suggests that
Phil 4:1–3 functions as the application of the principles in Phil 3:2–21, and that Phil 4:4–23
contains the letter’s conclusion. Melick (1991, 144–45) views Phil 4:1–9 as related to the
preceding passages primarily in terms of content, not argument or literary structure. He
describes Philippians 4:1–9 as a series of exhortations—to steadfastness (Phil 4:1), to unity
(Phil 4:2–3), to joy and peace (Phil 4:4–7), and to the proper outlook (Phil 4:8–9)—all of
which offer a faint indication of the underlying problem within in the Philippian
congregation. According to Runge (2011), the section on Euodia and Syntyche is central to
Paul’s argument. He argues that much of the letter up to this point has prepared for Paul’s
advice to the women, and that Phil 4:2–3 sets up Paul’s discussion of Christian conduct in
the following verses.
O’Brien (1991, 413) points out that the apparent lack of connection between Phil 4:10–
20 and the rest of the book led to the hypothesis that the section represents a separate letter.
Rejecting this view, he sees Phil 4:10–20 as something of a thematic bookend to the letter
since it connects back to the themes of the letter’s prologue (Phil 1:3–11). Witherington
(2011, 264) describes Phil 4:10–20 as a postscript to the letter, in which Paul finally arrives
at a delicate issue (his financial support) that he has deliberately put off until this point. Reed
(1997, 473) views Phil 4:10–20 as a combination of two epistolary conventions—expression
of gratitude and thanksgiving for gifts. Fowl (1995, 189–92) contends that though it may
seem “puzzling” that Paul’s discussion of the Philippians’ financial gifts comes only at the
letter’s end, its place makes sense within the context of gift-giving conventions and standards
of friendship within the Graeco-Roman world.
Issues at a Glance
• Euodia and Syntyche
• Book of Life
• I Can Do All Things
• Key Word Study: Syzygos, “Yoke-Fellow”
• Key Word Study: Phroureō, “To Guard”
• Background Studies: Traveling Philosophers
Starting Point
The Apostle Paul depended on a network of co-workers and the financial support of his
churches to carry out his missionary journeys. The delicacy and frequency of Paul’s
discussion of money indicates the issue was important to the apostle. For an introduction to
the issue of Paul and money, see the following resources.
“Financial Support” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
“On Giving and Receiving” Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
Euodia and Syntyche

In Philippians 4:2, Paul counsels two individuals within the Philippian congregation to
reconcile. In the following verse he then addresses a single member of the community (se =
“you” singular), whom he calls a “yoke-fellow”, to request help in the matter. Not much is
known about Euodia and Syntyche beyond the fact that they were women and Paul’s co-
workers in Philippi (see Martin 1987, 172; Malina and Pilch 2006, 316). According to the
book of Acts, Gentile women who were known as “god-fearers” helped start the church in
Philippi (Acts 16:13–15); Euodia and Syntyche may have been part of this group (but see
Bockmuehl 1997, 238–39). Moreover, Fee (1995, 167–68) suggests that women in
Macedonia—the province where Philippi was located—tended to play a greater role in public
life than elsewhere in the Roman Empire.
Scholars debate the identity of these women as well as the nature of their dispute, despite
the lack of evidence to address the matter adequately. The most commonly proposed
explanation is to posit a dispute between two disgruntled members of the congregation or a
division within the church based on competing leadership (see Silva 2005, 192). Melick
(1991, 146–47) is probably correct to resist any particular identification of the background
to Phil 4:2–3.
• Anders does not subscribe to a particular interpretation of the underlying problem
between Euodia and Syntyche. However, he does propose the interesting idea that their
dispute may be the historical backdrop to Paul’s exhortations in Phil 2:1–4 (“same
mind”).
“Philippians 4:2–3” Holman New Testament Commentary: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians &
Colossians
• Carson observes three aspects of Paul’s pastoral advice to Euodia and Syntyche: (1) he
pleads with them directly; (2) he asks the person receiving the letter to mediate their
situation; and (3) he urges them to come to an agreement “in the Lord” by adopting the
same “mental attitude” and priorities.
“Philippians 4:2–3” Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians
• Cousar suggests the omission of details concerning the nature of the dispute may have
been deliberate on Paul’s part. Paul does not spell out their differences or take sides; he
only encourages them to be of the “same mind.” He also argues that Paul has spent
much of the letter paving the way to address this difficult issue within the Philippian
congregation.
Commentary
• Although the view is rarely proposed, Fowl rules out the possibility of including Euodia
and Syntyche among the “dogs” (Phil 3:2) or the “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18).
• These dictionary entries on Euodia and Syntyche offer a valuable overview of the
interpretation of Euodia and Syntyche in scholarship, including the suggestion that
Syntyche (or “Syntyches”) should be regarded as a male.
“Euodia” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
“Syntyche” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
• Hiebert does not offer a concrete explanation of the disagreement between Euodia and
Syntyche, though he suggests it may have involved a misunderstanding between the
two women. He also draws attention to Paul’s mostly cordial and considerate tone in
dealing with Euodia and Syntyche.
“Euodia and Syntyche” In Paul’s Shadow: Friends & Foes of the Great Apostle
• Malina and Pilch reject the notion that Phil 4:2–3 concerns the leadership of the
Philippian community. They claim it is more likely that Euodia and Syntyche were
patrons or prophetesses within the church.
“Philippians 4:2–3” Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul
• Thielman gives two reasons why the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche is probably
“at the bottom of the disunity” that Paul has addressed throughout Philippians: that Paul
individually names the women illustrates the significance of their disagreement, and the
phrase “agree with each other” (to auto phronein) in Phil 4:2 echoes the expression
“like-minded” (to hen phronountes) in Phil 2:2. According to Thielman, the repetition
of the verb phroneō within similar phrases suggests that though Paul does mention
Euodia and Syntyche by name until Phil 4, he already had them in mind in Phil 2.
Book of Life
In Philippians 4:3, Paul says that the names of Euodia and Syntyche are in the “book of life”
(biblō zōēs). Two key questions are worth asking regarding the phrase “book of life” in Phil
4:3. First, what is the background to the notion of a Book of Life? The idea of a Book of Life
is found throughout the Bible. Like the genealogies of the OT, the Book of Life recorded the
names of the living (Psa 69:28) who were part of God’s people (Psa 139:6). Those who sinned
could be blotted out or removed from the book (see Exod 32:32–33; Psa 87:6). The prophet
Isaiah envisioned the Book of Life as a future reality when he referred to those “who remain
in Jerusalem, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem” (Isa 4:3 NIV). Jewish
apocalyptic writings and references in the NT reflect Isaiah’s future-oriented understanding
of the Book of Life (see Dan 12:1; 1 Enoch 47:3; Luke 10:20; Heb 12:23; Rev 3:5; 13:8;
21:27). As many scholars point out, cities such as Philippi often kept civic registers that listed
the names of their citizens (see Hawthorne 2004, 243; Thielman 2002, 364). It is easy to
imagine that Paul had such records in mind when he dictated Phil 4:3.
Second, why does Paul mention the Book of Life in this passage? That is, what does the
Book of Life have to do with the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche? Even though the
antecedent of the pronoun hōn (“whose”) is synergōn (“co-workers”), Hawthorne and Martin
(2004, 243–44) suggest the Book of Life includes the names of all Christians, not just those
who served alongside Paul. Thus, the Book of Life contains a list of names of those who
belong to the “heavenly commonwealth”—those whom God knows. Bruce (2011, 139)
thinks the reference to “book of life” in Phil 4:3 includes the names of those who possess
eternal life as well as those who served Paul in his ministry. In this case, Paul’s reference to
the book commends those who have labored with him for the gospel. Fee (1995, 395–7) links
the reference to the Book of Life directly to the situation regarding Euodia and Syntyche.
apocalyptic A worldview that anticipates God’s intervention in human history to save His people
and destroy their enemies. It arose in oppressed Jewish and Christian groups and was often
accompanied by the expectation of the establishment of the kingdom of God—a just, utopian
society wherein peace, justice, and righteousness prevail.
• Comfort says the Book of Life functions as a symbol of the record of “true believers
who have received eternal life.” In his view, this includes not just Paul’s co-workers,
but also the names of everyone previously mentioned in the text as well as all believers.
“Philippians 4:3” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Volume 16: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2
Thessalonians, Philemon
• Fee regards Paul’s reference to the Book of Life as affirmation and eschatological
assurance. In his view Paul refers to the Book of Life in Phil 4:3 to remind Euodia and
Syntyche of the “ultimate reason” to reconcile—the presence of their names in the book
of life means that they have received “divine life” and are thus “destined for glory.”
• Garland points out that the concept of the Book of Life features throughout the biblical
narrative (see Exod 32:32–33; Psa 69:28; Isa 4:3; Rev 3:5). However, he suggests that
the interpretive background to Phil 4:3 is the practice of keeping civic registers in the
ancient world.
Edition)
• According to Hansen, Paul refers to the Book of Life in Phil 4:3 to remind the
Philippians of their citizenship in heaven (Phil 3:20). He argues that the citizens of the
Roman colony of Philippi, whose names would have been recorded in a civic register,
would have been expected to live in “harmony and peace” with one another. Likewise,
Paul expects the citizens of heaven, whose names are recorded in the (eschatological)
Book of Life, to live in peace with one another.
“Philippians 4:3” The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter to the Philippians
• Kent defines the Book of Life as “the register in heaven of those who have been saved.”
He implies that Paul mentions the heavenly register—which names every believer—
because he has not been able to mention all his co-workers in the letter.
“Philippians 4:3” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11: Ephesians through Philemon
• Lightfoot argues that the phrase “book of life” does not necessarily suggest the idea of
“absolute predestination.” Rather, he argues that the Book of Life functions as the
register of the covenant people that, at least within the NT, looks forward to the
believers sharing in “blessed immortality.”
“Philippians 4:3” Crossway Classic Commentaries: Philippians
• Witherington interprets the fact that Paul ends his discussion of the dispute between
Euodia and Syntyche by reminding them that their names are in the Book of Life as a
“telltale sign” that the issue between them was not “spiritually life-threatening.”
“Philippians 4:2–3” Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
I Can Do All Things

One of the most well-known phrases in Philippians, if not all of the NT, is found in Phil 4:13:
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (ESV). (This reading enjoys the best
textual support, though some manuscripts make the reference to Christ explicit. The context
of the letter certainly implies this connection, but the reading “Christ” is probably the result
of a scribal addition. On this issue, see Comfort 2008, 218.) Paul’s quotable words have been
applied by Christians of all backgrounds to various situations relating to the Christian life.
As Garland (2006, 258) aptly writes, this verse sounds like “a wild-eyed pipe dream and can
be easily misinterpreted” (compare the similar remarks in Bockmuehl 1997, 262). Yet Paul’s
confidence in Christ’s strength is related directly to the financial support of his ministry in
the context of the letter to the Philippians. Still, it is unclear why Paul mentions it to his
readers at this point. Does the phrase look backward to Paul’s ability to be content no matter
the circumstances in Phil 4:11–12? Or does Paul’s expressed confidence in Christ’s strength
contextualize his acknowledgment of the Philippians’ giving in Phil 4:14–19? Furthermore,
in terms of hermeneutical questions, was Paul referring only to his apostolic ministry or was
he speaking more broadly in terms of his entire experience as a Christian?
• Anders takes Philippians 4:13 as a description of Paul’s entire ministry. He suggests
Paul is describing how Christ, and not his “personal inner strength,” enabled him to
endure the “extreme” experiences throughout his missionary journeys. In short, he
views Phil 4:13 as a reference to spirituality; Paul’s Christian experience taught him the
secret of relying on Christ.
“Philippians 4:12–13” Holman New Testament Commentary: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians &
Colossians
• Bockmuehl describes Philippians 4:13 as the conclusion to Paul’s parenthetical remarks

in Phil 4:11–13 regarding his “need” for financial support. In his view, Paul’s everyday
circumstances are satisfied by a theological reality: his union with Christ (see Phil 3:10;
compare 2 Cor 12:9–12; Col 1:28; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 4:17).
• Carson insists the meaning of Phil 4:13 is constrained by its context. He suggests that
Paul could not, for instance, walk on water or raise the dead. In Carson’s view, to do all
things means to be content in all circumstances.
“Philippians 4:10–13” Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians
• Cousar notes the contrast between Paul’s attitude of contentment and that of ancient
philosophers. He suggests that for many of the ancient philosophers—in particular, the
Stoics—to be content meant to be self-sufficient. He suggests that Paul’s view of being
content stands in direct contrast to this view. For Paul, to be content involved being
content in Christ in his daily needs of ministry.
Commentary
• Fee begins his interpretation of Phil 4:13 by noting how the verse is often taken out of
context and abused. He thinks Paul is speaking specifically of living in want or plenty.
The verse is not, as Fee puts it, a “Christianized version of the Stoic ideal.” Instead, he
the Stoics A follower of the Stoic philosophy founded by Zeno around 300 BC. Stoicism promoted
freedom from passion, which was viewed as a lesser feeling than reason, through virtue.
argues that what Paul means is that he is willing to accept whatever Christ gives him,
and that deprivation is part and parcel to Christian discipleship.
• According to Hawthorne and Martin, some older commentaries and certain translations
(e.g., NASB, NIV) that imply Paul is speaking of doing anything are “false.” To avoid
this implication, they translate the verse as follows: “I have the power to face all such
situations in union with the One who continually infuses me with strength.” They argue
that one cannot apply Paul’s particular statement to general situations; Phil 4:13 refers
only to the situations described in Phil 4:11–12.
• Hendriksen interprets Paul’s words as a reference to the inner working of Christ—that
is, to the Spirit. He also implies that there is no limit to the application of Paul’s
proverbial words; they can be applied to “particular circumstances” as well as “all
circumstances generally.”
• Martin also limits “all things” to the circumstances outlined in Phil 4:11–12. He
suggests that Paul does not think of himself as a “spiritual ‘super-man’ ” different from
other believers. Instead, Paul believes Christ supplies for every need related to his
apostolic work and the progress of the gospel.
• Thielman sums up the sentiments of many interpreters when he writes, “Phil. 4:13,
then, does not mean that Christ enables Paul to do anything, but to endure any problem
he encounters as he seeks to be faithful to his apostolic calling.” He suggests that Col
1:18–19 reflects a similar outlook.
Key Word Studies

Syzygos, “Yoke-Fellow.” In Philippians 4:3, Paul enlists the help of an individual to assist him
in dealing with the conflict between Euodia and Syntyche; he calls this person a gnēsie syzyge
(“true yoke-fellow”). A number of English versions translate syzygos as “yoke-fellow” (NIV,
ASV, KJV, LEB), while other common translations include “companion” (TNIV, NASB) and
“partner” (NLT, GNT). A hapax legomenon within the Greek writings of the Bible, syzygos
literally refers to something joined or yoked together. Its cognate verb syzeugnymi is used to
describe how the wings of the living creatures are “joined together” in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek
1:11, 23 LXX).
hapax legomenon From a Greek phrase meaning “something said once”; refers to words that
occur only once in a given document or set of writings.
A number of theories have been proposed concerning the identity of the gnēsie syzyge in
Phil 4:3. Some have suggested that Paul is referring to a man named Syzygos (see O’Brien
1991, 480–81). Against this theory, Fee (1995, 393) claims there is scant evidence that
Syzygos functioned as a name in the Graeco-Roman world. His own opinion is that Luke is
the person referred to. Lightfoot (1994, 172) suggested that Epaphroditus is the gnēsie syzyge
in Phil 4:3. Clement of Alexandria interprets gnēsie syzyge as a reference to Paul’s wife
(Strom. 3.6.53). Silva (2005, 193) resists identifying the gnēsie syzyge as a single individual;
he suggests the phrase functions as an invitation to the Philippian believers to prove
themselves as Paul’s co-workers.
“Syzygos” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
“Syzygos” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Syzygos” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Syzygos” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
Phroureō, “To Guard.” One of Paul’s final exhortations to the Philippian church is to commit
themselves to prayer in every situation (Phil 4:6). When they do, Paul writes, the peace of
God will “guard” (phrourēsei) their hearts and minds in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:7). The verb
phroureō means “to guard” or “to watch.” Both the NT and LXX use the semantically related
verb phylassō (“to guard,” “to keep”) far more frequently (e.g., Mark 10:20; Luke 12:15; 2
Thess 3:3; 1 Tim 6:20; 1 John 5:21; Jude 1:24; Neh 1:5 LXX; Prov 28:7 LXX). Paul uses
phroureō in his description of King Aretas, who tried to capture Paul in Damascus, as the
governor who “was guarding” (ephrourei) the city (2 Cor 11:32).
In Galatians he speaks of the law holding humanity captive until faith came (Gal 3:23).
First Peter 1:5 says the power of God is able “to guard” (or “shield,” NIV) believers through
their faith. Similar uses of the verb are found in the Septuagint ( LXX: 1 Esdras 4:56; Judith
3:6; Wisdom 17:15). According to Hansen (2009, 292), phroureō refers to God’s
supernatural actions in Phil 4:7 since “peace”—the relationship of peace with God and fellow
believers—is something only God can achieve. Melick (1991, 149–50) notes that phroureō
could be used as a military term (see 2 Cor 11:32). In this sense, Phil 4:7 says God’s peace
“stands on duty” to protect the community of believers from anything that brings anxiety or
worry.
“Phroureō” The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
“Phroureō” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
“Phroureō” The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
“Phroureō” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Background Studies: Traveling Philosophers
Septuagint The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (Genesis—Malachi) begun around
250 BC. Sometimes abbreviated with the Roman numeral for 70 (LXX) based on the tradition that
70 translators participated.
Itinerant philosophers were well known in Graeco-Roman society. Some of the philosophers,
such as the Sophists and Cynics, commanded a fee for their services. Paul would have had
such “preachers” in his mind when he wrote about the Philippians’ financial gift to him (Phil
4:10–20). Although Paul’s financial support was often a complicated matter, Paul often
makes it clear that he desired to support himself as a leather tent maker (1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor
11:7–10; 12:14–15; compare Acts 18:3). This was probably because he desired to avoid
entering a patron-client relationship or giving the impression that he was preaching the gospel
in exchange for a monetary sum (see Malina and Pilch 2006, 318); he did not want to be
placed in the same category as itinerant ancient philosophers (see Thielman 2002, 365).
Also along these lines, Thielman (2002, 366) points out that Paul’s declaration of being
“content” in Phil 4:11 echoes the ancient Greek virtues of contentment and self-sufficiency.
Such virtues are often mentioned in the writings of Graeco-Roman authors such as Aristotle
and Marcus Aurelius. However, unlike the ancient Greek moral philosophers who believed
people should be content and sufficient by their own doing, Paul believed God’s provision
through Christ equipped him for enduring any situation (Phil 4:13).
Several dictionary entries or sections of NT reference works provide helpful overviews of
itinerant philosophers in the ancient world.
• The article in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters first provides an overview of the
various schools of philosophy of the Graeco-Roman world and then discusses the
relationship between ancient philosophy and Paul’s thought.
“Paul and Hellenistic Philosophy” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
• Thielman offers a succinct discussion of ancient traveling philosophers and financial
support as it relates to Paul’s remarks in Phil 4:10–20.
“Sophistry, Philosophy, and Chicanery in the Greco-Roman World” ZIBBCNT: Romans
to Philemon
• Malherbe (2006) seeks to explain Paul’s self-understanding and thought within the
context of Graeco-Roman philosophers. His book includes a chapter discussing whether
Paul should be interpreted as a Christian pastor or Hellenistic philosopher.
“Paul and the Popular Philosophers” Paul and the Popular Philosophers
• Bell’s book on the world of the NT includes a chapter on the several periods and schools
of Graeco-Roman philosophy. His discussion of the major schools of Hellenistic
philosophy—Epicureanism, Stoicism, the Cynics, and Neoplatonism—is particularly
Epicureanism A member of the philosophical school started by Epicurus in the late fourth century
BC in Athens. The philosophy emphasized physical and intellectual pleasure and emotional calm
(the most pleasure with the least pain).
Stoicism A popular philosophy within Graeco-Roman culture that valued virtue, indifference to
pleasure and pain, and material pantheism.
the Cynics A Graeco-Roman philosophical movement that believed a virtuous life should be free of
excessive material goods and social standards.
helpful for understanding how itinerant philosophers conducted themselves in the NT
period.
“Hellenistic Philosophy” Exploring the New Testament World
In Philippians 4:2–3, Paul addresses two women, Euodia and Syntyche, who either had a
disagreement or an ongoing dispute. Apparently Paul believed that their conflict warranted
his pastoral advice. Yet Paul does not only instruct Euodia and Syntyche; instead, he requests
the assistance of an unnamed individual to help reconcile these women and makes his desires
public by instructing them in a letter for the entire congregation. This is probably because
their conflict had begun to poison the entire congregation. What was at stake for Paul was
not only the relationship between two believers in Philippi, but unity of the community of
believers to which they belonged.
Paul’s response to the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche underscores the importance
of practicing reconciliation. Paul writes about this issue in Eph 4:1–6, where he urges the
Ephesians to make “every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”
Paul recognized it was hard work to maintain unity among a group of believers. It often
requires intervention by our fellow brothers and sisters (like Paul’s “true companion”) or
those in authority over us (like Paul himself). Ultimately, though, the solution to Christian
unity is the same for us as it was for the Philippians: to put on “the mind of the Lord” (Phil
4:2; compare Phil 2:2, 5), who gave up His rights and privileges for the sake of others, and
to dwell on edifying things rather than that which divides us (see Phil 4:8–9).
Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J., ed. 1985. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Anders, Max. 1999. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. Holman New Testament
Commentary 8. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Arnold, Clinton E., ed. 2002. Romans to Philemon. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds
Commentary 3. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. 1990. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Barrett, C. K. 2003. On Paul: Aspects of His Life, Work and Influence in the Early Church.
London: T&T Clark.
Barry, John D., and Lazarus Wentz, eds. 2012. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham,
Wash.: Logos Bible Software.
Barton, Bruce B., Mark Fackler, Linda K. Taylor, and Dave Veerman. 1995. Philippians,
Colossians, Philemon. Edited by Philip Wesley Comfort. Life Application Bible
Commentary. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Bell, Albert A. 1998. Exploring the New Testament World. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson,
Inc.
Bird, Michael F. 2007. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and
the New Perspective. Eugene, Or.: Wipf and Stock.
Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. 1997. The Epistle to the Philippians. Black’s New Testament
Commentary. London: Continuum.
Brown, Colin, ed. 1986. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Bruce, F. F. 2011. Philippians. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Books.
Calvin, John. 1997. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible
Software.
Campbell, R. Alastair. 2004. The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity. London:
T&T Clark International.
Carson, D. A. 1996. Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic.
Cherry, M. R. 1962. “The Servant Song of Philippians.” Review and Expositor 59 (1): 42–
56.
Comfort, Philip W. 2008. “Philippians.” In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol. 16:
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, edited by Philip W.
Comfort, 138–226. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Comfort, Philip W., Peter H. Davids, and Harold W. Hoehner. 2008. Cornerstone Biblical
Commentary, Vol. 16: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians,
Philemon. Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
Cousar, Charles B. 2001. Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians: A Literary
and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament. Macon, Ga.: Smyth &
Helwys Pub.
Craddock, Fred B. 1985. Philippians. Interpretation. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press.
Croy, N. Clayton. 2003. “ ‘To Die Is Gain’ (Philippians 1:19–26): Does Paul Contemplate
Suicide?” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (3): 517–531.
Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2000. A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dunn, James D. G. 2010. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament
Evidence. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press.
Ellicott, Charles J. 1876. A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to
the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon. Andober: Draper.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. 1988. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House.
Fee, Gordon D. 1995. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans.
———. 1999. Philippians. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Feinberg, Paul D. 1980. “The Kenosis And Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Analysis
Of Phil 2:6–11.” Trinity Journal 1 (1): 20–46.
Fowl, Stephen E. 2005. Philippians. The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Freedman, David Noel, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, ed. 2000. Eerdmans Dictionary
of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. 1981. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11: Ephesians
Through Philemon. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Gaffin, Richard B. 2006. By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation. Milton
Keynes, UK; Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster.
Garland, David E. 2006. “Philippians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12:
Ephesians—Philemon (Revised Edition), edited by Tremper Longman III and David E.
Garland, 175–261. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Hansen, G. Walter. 2009. The Letter to the Philippians. PNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.;
Nottingham, England: Eerdmans; APOLLOS.
Hawthorne, Gerald F., and Ralph P. Martin. 2004. Philippians. Revised edition. Word
Biblical Commentary 43. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.
Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. 1993. Dictionary of Paul
and His Letters. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Hellerman, Joseph H. 2009. “Μορφη Θεου As A Signifier Of Social Status In Philippians
2:6.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52 (4): 779–797.
Hendriksen, William. 1962. Exposition of Philippians. Baker New Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker.
Hengel, Martin. 2004. Studies in Early Christology. London; New York: T&T Clark.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. 1993. In Paul’s Shadow: Friends & Foes of the Great Apostle. Revised
edition. Greenville, S. C.: Bob Jones University Press.
Horne, Charles M. 1960. “Let This Mind Be In You.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 3 (2): 37–43.
Hurtado, L. W. 1984. “Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5–11.” In From Jesus to
Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare, edited by P. Richardson and J. C. Hurd,
113–26. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Jeffers, James S. 1999. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the
Background of Early Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. 2009. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kent, Homer A., Jr. 1981. “Philippians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11:
Ephesians Through Philemon, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 93–159. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan.
Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. 1964. Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament. electronic edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Klauck, Hans-Josef. 2003. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-
Roman Religions. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.
Koenig, John. 1985. “Philippians.” In Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 119–182. ACNT.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House.
Koester, Helmut, ed. 2005. Cities of Paul: Images and Interpretations from the Harvard New
Testament Project. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.
Krentz, Edgar, John Koenig, and Donald Juel. 1985. Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1
Thessalonians. ACNT. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House.
Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. 1994. Philippians. Crossway Classic Commentaries. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway Books.
Lincoln, Andrew T. 1981. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly
Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lohmeyer, Ernst. 1928. Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung Zu Phil. 2,5–11. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Longman, Tremper, III, and David E. Garland, eds. 2006. The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, Volume 12: Ephesians—Philemon (Revised Edition). Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan.
MacLeod, David J. 2001. “Imitating the Incarnation of Christ: An Exposition of Philippians
2:58.” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (631): 308–330.
Malherbe, Abraham J. 2006. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis, Minn.:
Fortress Press.
Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch. 2006. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.
Martin, Ralph P. 1974. Worship in the Early Church. Revised. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans.
———. 1987. Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 11. Nottingham, UK;
Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press.
———. 1993. “Hymns, Hymn Fragments, Songs, Spiritual Songs.” Dictionary of Paul and
His Letters. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
McRay, John. 2007. Paul: His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
Melick, Richard R. 1991. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.:
Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Moule, H. C. G. 1893. The Epistle to the Philippians. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Brien, Peter Thomas. 1991. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Reed, Jeffrey T. 1997. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the
Debate over Literary Integrity. JSNTSupp 136. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Reumann, John Henry Paul. 2008. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. AYBC 33B. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Runge, Steven E. 2011. High Definition Commentary: Philippians. Bellingham, Wash.:
Logos Bible Software.
Sanders, E. P. 1977. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Schreiner, Thomas R. 2008. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
Silva, Moisés. 2005. Philippians. Second edition. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker.
Thielman, Frank. 1995. Philippians. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
Thielman, Frank S. 2002. “Philippians.” In Romans to Philemon, edited by Clinton E.
Arnold. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary 3. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, eds. 2005.
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic.
Vincent, Marvin R. 1897. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the
Philippians and to Philemon. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Vine, W.E. 1981. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Edited by
F.F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Revell.
———. 1996. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.
Edited by Merrill F. Unger and William White Jr. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.
Vos, Howard F. 1999. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs. Nashville, Tenn.:
Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Weiss, Bernhard. 1859. Der Philipper-Brief Ausgelegt Und Die Geschichte Seiner Auslegung
Kritisch Dargestellt. Berlin: Hertz.
Witherington, Ben. 2011. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.
Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans.
Wright, N. T. 2005a. Paul: Fresh Perspectives. London: SPCK.
———. 2005b. “Philippians, Book Of.” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the
Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
———. 2007. Surprised by Hope. London: SPCK.
Zetterholm, Magnus. 2009. Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.
Zodhiates, Spiros. 2000. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. electronic
ed. Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers.
Abbreviations
ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
ACNT Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament
AEL Ancient Egyptian Literature. M. Lichtheim. 3 vols. 1971–1980.
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. J. B.
Pritchard. 1954.
AYBC Anchor Yale Bible Commentary (formerly Anchor Bible Commentary)
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BCBC Believers Church Bible Commentary
BDAG W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd ed. 1999.
BDB Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
BEB Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. W. A. Elwell. 2 vols. 1988.
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BHK Biblia Hebraica. R. Kittel. 1905–1973.
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. 1977–1997.
BKC Bible Knowledge Commentary
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentary
BSac Bibliotheca sacra
CC Continental Commentaries
COS The Context of Scripture. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger. 3 vols. 1997–
2003.
DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. K. van der Toorn, B.
Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 1995.
DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. J. B. Green and S. McKnight.
1992.
DLNT Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. R. P.
Martin and P. H. Davids. 1997.
DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin.
1993.
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. H. Balz and G. Schneider.
1990–1993.
FOTL Forms of Old Testament Literature
GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. E. Kautzsch (ed.) and A. E. Cowley
(trans.). 1910.
HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. L. Koehler, W.
Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. 1994–1999.
HolNT Holman New Testament Commentary
IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
IBHS An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M.
O’Connor. 1990.
ICC International Critical Commentary
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Revised ed. G. W.
Bromiley. 4 vols. 1979–1988.
ITC International Theological Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
LEH J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the
Septuagint. Revised ed. 2003.
L&N J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 1989.
K&D Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. 1857–
1878. Reprint 1996.
NAC New American Commentary
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. C. Brown. 4
vols. 1975–1985.
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.
W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. 1997.
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. 1983.
ODCC The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. F. L. Cross and E. A.
Livingstone. 2nd ed. 1983.
PNTC The Pillar New Testament Commentary
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. G. Kittel and G.
Friedrich. 10 vols. 1964–1976.
TLNT Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. C. Spicq. 3 vols. 1994.
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. E. Jenni and C. Westermann.
3 vols. 1997.
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. R. L. Harris and G. L.
Archer Jr. 2 vols. 1980.
UBCS Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (formerly the New
International Biblical Commentary)
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
ZIBBCNT Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (New Testament)
ZIBBCOT Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament)
Lexham Bible Guide: Philippians

Copyright 2012 Lexham Press
Lexham Press, 1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225
http://www.lexhampress.com
You may use brief quotations from this content in presentations, books, or articles. For all other uses,
e-mail us for permission: permissions@lexhampress.com.
All Scripture quotations are from the Lexham English Bible (LEB) or are the author’s own translation,
unless otherwise indicated. Copyright 2013 Lexham Press.
Acknowledgements
Publisher: John D. Barry
Associate Publisher: Justin Marr
Assistant Editors: Rebecca Brant, Elizabeth Vince
About the Cover

Cover design based on Philippians 1:21.2
2
Brown, D. R. (2013). Lexham Bible Guide: Philippians. (D. Mangum, Ed.) (Flp 3.1–4.23).
Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Preface: Lexham Bible Guide Philippians

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preface: Lexham Bible Guide Philippians

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lexham Bible Guide

Lexham Press, 2013

Introduction, Prayer, and Paul’s Report

Place within the Book

exordium The introductory, or opening, section of a writing in terms of ancient rhetorical

exordium The introductory, or opening, section of a writing in terms of ancient rhetorical

Overseers and Deacons

He Who Began a Good Work

Depart and Be With Christ

Key Word Studies

Background Studies: Roman Imprisonment

Place within the Book

Place within the Canon

The Origin of Philippians 2:5–11

• Fee is strongly suspicious of identifying Phil 2:5–11 as a hymn, both on literary

• Craddock takes “form of God” as a reference to Christ’s preexistent state. He also

• Writing in 2009, Hansen’s commentary offers a thorough and up-to-date overview of

The Name above Every Name

Work Out Your Salvation

Key Word Studies

Background Studies: Emperor Worship

To illustrate to the Philippian believers—and, presumably, their opponents—the

Place within the Canon

Dogs, Evil Doers, Mutilators

The Prize of the Upward Call of God

Their God Is Their Belly

• Hendriksen translates the phrase as “homeland is in heaven.” In his view, Christians

Key Word Studies

The variety of attempts to convey the original meaning of skybalon in English

Background Studies: Citizenship

Place within the Book

Euodia and Syntyche

I Can Do All Things

• Bockmuehl describes Philippians 4:13 as the conclusion to Paul’s parenthetical remarks

Key Word Studies

Background Studies: Traveling Philosophers

Lexham Bible Guide: Philippians

About the Cover

You might also like