> ‎Chapter 3‎ > ‎Chapter 4‎ > ‎ 

 

 

Summary of Philippians 2:1-11

Paul urges them in Christ to make his joy complete by being harmonious among themselves, by avoiding self-seeking and vain glory. In humility consider each as better than self. Let each look to the interests of others, not their own. To sum up, he wants them to imitate the attitude of Christ. Even though He was in "the form of God" He emptied Himself, that is, in becoming man He did not cling to equality with God. Rather, He made it a policy not to demand exemption from any human suffering. He took on the "form of a slave." He would not use His divine power for His own comfort, but only for others. He obeyed to such an extent as to die on the cross. But as a result of this, the Father exalted Him, giving Him the name that is above every name. Now at the mention of the name of Jesus, everyone in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth should bow to Him, and every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord.

Comments on 2:1-11

The opening exhortation is simple: imitate the humble selflessness of Jesus.

He even tells them to consider others better than themselves. This can raise a problem. If I am in a room with nine others, should I say to each of the nine: "You are better than I?" And then should each of the nine say the same to the others, and to me? Of course this would not work out.

Paul is depending on a psychological point. If I come to know myself very well -- quite a long-range task for anyone -- I will know not only what things I may have done that are objectively, in themselves, sinful or wrong, I will also know my own interior (probably not perfectly even then), so as to have a gauge on my responsibility resulting from the combination of the objective rating of my acts plus my interior dispositions. But when I look at another, all I can really know is the objective, outward rating of an action. For example, if I see someone kill another, I can say: That was objectively murder, gravely wrong in itself. But can I know the person's interior dispositions -- how much he may have been affected by various things, for instance, was he really out of his head at the time? (We are not thinking of the often false claims of temporary insanity made in courts).

A very holy person, coming to know his own weakness and many falls, may get the impression: "I wonder if others are as bad as I am? I have received such graces!" (Any sin is worse after receiving many graces than in a person who has received less). This is psychological, but the experience of the Saints shows it is realistic. This is all that Paul means here.

Paul describes the attitude of Jesus a in poetic set of lines, 6-11. These may be an old liturgical hymn, or something Paul himself composed. If they are an older hymn, did Paul modify it? Some scholars are confident they can tell what modifications Paul made, even though we do not have the older hymn. They try to do this by noting characteristic and uncharacteristic kinds of wording in the hymn, and by claiming to see differences in theological presentation. They think the soteriology (doctrine about redemption) fits with a more primitive preaching in Jerusalem than with Paul's -- all of this is very subjective, and not very convincing. (If we were sure the original hymn was in Aramaic, then we admit such a line as verse 10: "Those in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth" would hardly fit Aramaic, and so would be a modification, probably by Paul).

More important questions are raised about (1) the meaning of the expressions "form of God" and "form of a slave" in this hymn, and (2) the meaning of the words, "He did not cling to or grasp at equality with God."

There are different opinions about the phrases "form of God" and "form of a slave." There are four chief opinions: (a) The phrases refer to the external glory of God, and to the external appearance and resultant treatment given a slave. (b) They refer to divine nature and to human nature. (c) These phrases reflect the ideas of the Rabbis about Adam -- God created first (as mentioned in Genesis 1:26) a perfect man, then (as in Genesis 2-3) a sinful man. Jesus existed at the beginning as the heavenly man. He humbled self in obedience, and now gets equality with God, which He did not grasp at as "robbery." (d) These lines do not speak of a preexistence of Jesus. They say Jesus, unlike Adam, did not grasp for equality with God, but surrendered His life to God.

The third and fourth views are rather fanciful, lack solid support. But either of the first two views would be acceptable -- that the form of God means divine nature, or that it means the glory that belonged to the divine nature. This latter view would imply possession of divine nature. Even if we take the word to mean divine nature, Jesus of course could not give up the divine nature, but He could only give up the exemptions from suffering He could have claimed as a result of that divine nature. A striking instance: Jesus comes to John to be baptized along with sinners. John protests; Jesus says it is proper to fulfill everything that is right.

The second question is closely intertwined, the meaning of equality with God as something to be clung to or grasped at. The Greek phrase here is ambiguous, for two reasons. First, the word harpagmos is very rare in Greek, and so the sense is less clear; second the Greek to einai isa theo is an ambiguous structure, not reproducible literally in English. The result of both things is this: It could mean (1) He did not grasp at equality with God (as if He did not already have it); (2) He did not think equality with God was something to be held onto. Rather, He gave up claims to exemption from suffering on the basis of divinity (as said above). The second, of course fits the true thought. Those who want to say Paul did not clearly speak of Christ as God would prefer the first rendering. Please recall what was said in the first paragraph of the comments on chapter 1 of First Thessalonians.

The general sense is clear: Paul urges them to imitate the humility of Christ, Who did not cling to what He had a right to, but humbled Himself so far as the death of the cross, and so was exalted by God because of this.

Some, especially charismatics, become exultant over the idea that Jesus became Lord. Of course He always was Lord in His divinity. But since He chose in emptying Himself to give up the use of divine power for His own comfort, He seemed to lack things until after His resurrection, when He said (Mt 28:19): "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth." He always had that power, but as human He would not use it until then, except to heal the sick.¹¹

Text of Philippians 2:12-13

Because of the critical nature of these lines, we give the actual text instead of a summary. Verse l2: "And so, my beloved ones, just as you have always obeyed, not only as when I am present, but much more now in my absence -- with fear and trembling work out your salvation." Verse 13: "For it is God who works in you both the will and the doing, according to [His] good will."

Comments on 2:12-13

To work out salvation with fear and trembling does not mean to be greatly frightened, "I might be eternally lost!" No the phrase, with fear and trembling, had been overworked. Such things happen in any language, and then they lose their force. We gather this about our phrase from 2 Corinthians 7:15, where Paul says of Titus: "You received him with fear and trembling." Really, relations with Corinth had been bad -- so no fear and trembling. It means merely "respectfully." Again Psalm 2:11 says: "Serve the Lord with fear,and rejoice before Him; with trembling pay honor to Him." We note the combination of fear, trembling, and rejoicing. Also, later in Philippians, (3:1 and 4:4) Paul says "rejoice in the Lord," even with the "fear and trembling."

As we shall see, when we act, doing either good or evil, we use the power of God, the First Cause. This calls for great respect of course. He is not responsible for the evil; we might consider an electric outlet. The power company provides power, but the customer decides which way it is to be used.

We note too in passing that to speak of working out salvation hardly fits well with the Protestant notion that one can be infallibly saved by just one act, "taking Christ as your personal Savior," after which no matter how much one sins, salvation is still infallibly assured.

Most versions seem to be reluctant to bring out the full force of the Greek here -- as we did in our version. For it seems to say that God causes the free decision of our will -- leaving us with a great problem, of course. Thus one version says: "It is God who begets in you any measure of desire or achievement." We notice that between desire and achievement there is a decision of the will -- the version we cited simply omits it. That could imply that we alone cause the decision, God does not. So we could do good without grace, which is Pelagianism. So we need to study the matter carefully.

We translated the Greek energein as works, that is, produces. That Greek verb commonly in Paul means a supernatural force at work.

We translated the Greek thelein as will, rather than desire.

In 5th century B.C. Athens, the word could not mean will, in the sense of a decision of the will. It meant desire. But Paul is centuries later, and the words have changed sense. It still could mean desire, but also in Paul's day it could mean a decision of the will.

How can we know which it means? The Second Council of Orange was a local council, but because of special approbation of Pope Boniface II, it has the force of a general council in its decrees. That Council helps us greatly in its Canon 4 (DS 374): "If anyone contends that God waits for our will to be cleansed from sin, and does not confess that the fact that we will to be cleansed happens in us through the infusion and operation of the Holy Spirit in us, he resists the Holy Spirit Himself who said through Solomon, 'The will is prepared by the Lord' [Proverbs 8:35], and the Apostle [St. Paul] who preaches in a salutary way: 'It is God who works in you both the will and the doing, in accord with good will." The Council was writing against the heresy of Pelagius, who said we do not need grace for salvation. Now if St. Paul meant that God causes only the desire, and not also the act of will, then we would not need grace for the act of will -- and we would have Pelagianism, which denied the need for grace.

So, difficult as it is to see, we must admit that God causes in us even the good act of will.

The Fathers of the Church knew a good philosophy can help much in studying Scripture. They, not knowing Aristotle, used Plato and found much help. St. Thomas Aquinas steered us to use Aristotle. Now Aristotle would reason thus: Suppose I am at one point on the earth, and want to travel to another. First I must have the capacity for the travel. If the trip is made, then that capacity is filled or fulfilled. He liked the words potency and act instead of capacity and fulfillment -- the labels are not important. The idea is evident, even if one does not accept Aristotle's system in general. But then we notice that this rise from potency to act is found whenever there is any change at all. We call it a rise because at the start there is some emptiness on hand, which would like to be filled or fulfilled. So there is added being at the top of the rise. Question: Where does the added being come from? No one lifts himself off the ground by his shoelaces -- he cannot give himself what he does not have. So if I am causing the change, where did I get the added being? Perhaps I had some of it in stock, as it were, within me. But where did that part of me get the added being? I must look to an outside source. But where did it get it? -- and I might picture a long or short chain of sources. But until I find a source that does not labor under the problem of getting up to act, I have not solved the problem -- rather, a larger load to pull is being accumulated. That being that finally explains, provides the power, is what Aristotle calls the First Cause, or God. He does not have to get up from potency to act, He simply is up. He simply is actuality.

But now, we add to what Aristotle gave us: When I make a decision of my will -- there is a rise from potency to act. Clearly, at the start of the power chain must be God. So it is He who works in me both the will and the doing. (The doing also involves such a rise). He does this, says Paul, "according to [His] good will." That is, as He pleases. As the Council of Orange said, He does not have to wait for me. Rather, He causes my desire to be cleansed of sin!

Now we can see: we need the power of the First Cause, God, when we make a decision, good or evil. So we surely must "work with fear and trembling" that is, with great respect.

But, how do we reconcile this with free will? Sometimes in theology we meet two statements that seem to clash. We must then recheck our work. But if we do not find any error, then we must avoid forcing either statement. We must say that there can be mysteries in divine things. So we will hold onto both, hoping someone sometime will find how to put the two together.

The first truth was that God causes the good decision. The second truth is this: Even though God causes the good decision of my will, yet Scripture constantly urges us to return to God. 2 Corinthians 6:1 says, "We exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain." So I must be able -- somehow -- to determine whether or not His grace comes in vain.

How put the two things together? Theologians have labored -- and wrangled -- for centuries over this. Has the Church given the answer? No, only a fragment of it (DS 1554). However, it does seem an answer can be found. For a new proposal, please see this author's Our Father's Plan, chapter 18. Here is a sketch: God sends an actual grace to me, and with no help from me it does two things: it causes me to see something as good, and then, almost automatically, it makes me favorably disposed to it. When these two things are in place, I could not make a decision to accept the grace -- Philippians 2:13 stops that -- but I could reject. If I do not reject, that is, if I make no decision at all (not even a decision not to reject) then grace continues in its course, and works in me both the will and the doing, in such a way that at the same time I am cooperating with grace, by power being received at the same moment from grace.

Now we can see the basis for humility. In view of what we have just said of our total dependence on God, we see that if one accepts the explanation proposed using Aristotle's framework, we would have to say that if I have a ledger for myself, and on the credit page I want to write what I have contributed in the rock bottom sense (that is, what I have not received from God, but have made up entirely by myself) to doing good -- it is a zero, the lack of a decision against grace. How much self-esteem does that justify? But there is also a debit page, the number for my sins. Those are my own, not received from God. So my self-esteem goes below zero.

Humility leads me to accept this at every level of my being -- for there is a danger that like the Pharisee in the temple, I might use words like his, "O God I give you thanks . . .," while really, at least subconsciously, be grabbing credit for myself.

This text is most helpful to dwell on, for spiritual growth. It helps one to see that every bit of good I am and have and do is God's gift to me (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7). So St. Augustine is terribly right when he says (Epistle 194.5.29): "When God crowns your merits, He crowns nothing other than His own gifts."

Could we weaken the force of these verses by noting that there is a Hebrew pattern that attributes to direct action of God that which He really just permits? There is such a pattern. For example, in 1 Samuel 4:3 (literal version of the Hebrew) after a defeat, the Hebrews said: "Why did God strike us today before the face of the Philistines?" -- even though they knew it was the Philistines who had hit them.

But we cannot say verses 12-13 are such a pattern -- for the text of the Council of Orange, and the philosophical reasoning, both demand the stronger understanding. To weaken it that way would be, again, Pelagianism.

Summary of Philippians 2:14-29

Paul urges them to act in a blameless way, without grumbling, in the middle of a twisted and perverse generation. They, in contrast, seem like stars in the world. He wants them to hold to the word of life so when Christ returns, Paul can be proud of them, and can say he did not work in vain.

Paul returns to the thought: perhaps the Romans will execute him. Then he will be a sacrifice for their faith. He would be glad of that. But yet, he hopes to send Timothy to them soon, for he wants to hear a good report about them. Timothy is selfless, concerned about them, unlike so many who seek their own things, not the things of Christ. But they have experienced Timothy. He has been like a son to Paul. So he will send him as soon as he sees how things will come out for himself. But Paul has confidence in the Lord that he will soon come to see them. Meanwhile, he sends Epaphroditus, his fellow worker to them. He had been dangerously sick, almost died. But God spared him, so Paul would not have grief on top of grief. He urges them to receive him with joy in the Lord and appreciate a man who would risk death for the work of Christ, to help Paul.

Comments on 2:14-29

The brotherly love of Christians would stand out in the midst of the selfishness of many -- not all -- pagans. Paganism ran on principles so different from those of Christ. In this sense Paul can speak of a twisted and perverse generation. In Ephesians 5:15-16 a similar thought: "See that you walk carefully, not as though unwise, but as wise persons, redeeming the time, for the days are evil." In Romans chapter 1 Paul will give a dreadful litany of the vices of the gentiles, and in the first few lines of chapter 2 he will imply -- as we will see later -- that every one of the pagans does all these things. Yet Paul knows that they do not all do all these things. For in 1 Corinthians 6:11, after a smaller, less dreadful list of mortal sins, he said: "Certain ones of you were such." In other words, not all the Corinthians -- even in a city famed for its licentiousness -- were that wicked. How can we reconcile the seeming clash? We need to recall our comments on Galatians 2:15-21 on focusing. The view Paul uses in Romans is a focused one. In it the law makes heavy demands, in fact, individual items in the law make a heavy demand -- but that gives no strength -- so all must fall, fall into each individual sin. But in the de facto view, though it remains true that the law gives no strength, yet help is available, from another source, from the grace merited by Christ (offered in anticipation of His death even before He came). With it, not all are so wicked. Hence the view of 1 Corinthians 6:11. Here and in Ephesians 5 in the most factual way possible we have to say that the principles of the world are opposite to those of Christ, and hence can be called perverse.

We notice again that Paul shifts back and forth -- on the one hand he knows the Romans may kill him; on the other hand, he shows a kind of confidence that it will not happen.

The Epaphroditus Paul speaks highly of here should not be confused with Epaphras mentioned in Colossians 1:7 and 4:2, the one who first brought the faith to Colossae.