2. The Desired Outcome — to be with Christ (1:21-24)
2. The Desired Outcome — to be with Christ (1:21-24)
21 For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22//'/ am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23/ am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which1 is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in2 the body.
With the well-known words of v. 21 Paul's "reflection on imprisonment" takes a considerable turn. Up to this point, his primary concern has been with the "advance of the gospel" (through his detention) and "Christ's being glorified" (through his trial). Now he turns to purely personal reflection,3 but reflection of a different kind from what one might have expected following vv. 19-20.4 Although the apostle assumes he will go free, the final words of v. 20 raised the possibility of execution. What he sets out to explain,5 therefore, is his desire for Christ to be glorified even if the verdict were to go against him.6 Picking up on the final words of v. 20 ("whether through life or through death"), he avows that since Christ is the singular passion of his life, he wins in either case, whether released or executed!7
He then begins a personal reflection on these two alternatives, whose point seems easy enough. If he had a real choice between the two, he would choose execution, for clear christological and eschatological reasons. But the way this is said — both form (a very complex set of clauses with particularly strong language) and content (especially his longing to "depart and be with Christ") — have resulted in some considerably different understandings of the whole, especially as to (a) how one reconciles the language of choice and desire for death in vv. 22-23 with the plainly expressed expectation of release in vv. 24b-26, and (b) how we are to understand what it means to "be with Christ" at death.
21 This sentence, striking for its laconic style and focused content, would have been even more striking to its original hearers, because of its alliteration and assonance8 which are impossible to put into English. In transliteration, the two lines go:
to zên Christos _ to live Christ
to apothanein9 kerdos to die gain
This is rhetoric at its best; its potency, however, lies not in form alone, but in its singularly focused affirmations. If Paul is released, as he expects (vv. 24-26; 2:24), that means he will continue ("now as always") to be a man "in Christ,"10 participating in Christ's sufferings (3:10) and serving him in the gospel. Indeed, here is a kind of maxim that, had Paul not done so, we could easily have penned for him, to epitomize his entire life since Damascus. Such singular focus does not make him otherworldly; rather, it gives heart and meaning to everything he is and does as a citizen of two worlds, his heavenly citizenship determining his earthly.11 As he puts it in 3:12-14, having been "apprehended by Christ Jesus," Christ thus became the singular pursuit of his life. "Christ" — crucified, exalted Lord, present by the Spirit, coming king; "Christ," the one who as God "emptied himself" and as man "humbled himself" — to death on the cross — whom God has now given the name above all names (2:6-11); "Christ," the one for whom Paul has gladly "suffered the loss of all things" in order to "gain" him and "know" him, both his resurrection power and participation in his sufferings (3:7-11); "Christ," the name that sums up for Paul the whole range of his new relationship to God: personal devotion, commitment, service, the gospel, ministry, communion, inspiration, everything.
Likewise, if Paul is executed, that means the goal of "living" has thus been reached: he will finally have "gained" Christ (as v. 23 verifies).12 The reason for this unusual way of putting it — the word kerdos ordinarily denotes "profit" — lies in the assonance;13 the sense lies in Paul's understanding death to be the ultimate "gaining" of his lifelong passion. This expresses neither a death wish nor dissatisfaction with life nor desire to be "done with troubles and trials";14 it is the forthright assessment of one whose future in terms of "life in the flesh" is somewhat uncertain, but whose ultimate future is both certain and to be desired. Death, after all, because it is "ours" in Christ Jesus has thereby lost its sting.15 It should go without saying that such a statement has meaning only for one to whom the first clause is a vibrant, living reality. Otherwise death is loss, or "gain" only in the sense of escape.
Paul picks up this language again in 3:8, referring to his already having "gained" Christ, which he immediately qualifies with the passive, "that is, and be found in him." Such unusual terminology can scarcely be accidental. Since that whole passage (vv. 4-14) is intended to be paradigmatic for the Philippians — that even though he has "gained" Christ, he still presses on to gain "the prize," and the "mature" in Christ must "imitate" him on this matter — it is very likely that that exhortation is anticipated here, especially since this whole passage (from v. 12) is overlaid with paradigmatic implications (see on vv. 15-18 above).
22 This sentence is a clear follow-up to v. 21. Picking up on the first clause, Paul assesses what its outcome will mean for him "in the flesh,"16 namely, "fruitful labor."17 If he did have a choice in the matter, he goes on, his initial response is ambivalence: between "fruitful labor," on the one hand, and what is far better, "being with Christ," on the other. This, at least, is the perspective of the NIV, which most likely has it right; but behind this translation is another complex set of clauses. To see the difficulty, here is Paul's sentence in "literal" English:
but (de)
if "to live"18 in the flesh,
this for me fruit of labor,
and what I might choose,
I do not know/reveal.19
Besides the fact that the first two clauses are verbless (continuing the style from v. 21), at issue are: (1) the nuance of the de (untranslated in the NIV) in relationship to v. 21; and (2) which clause functions as the "then" clause (apodosis) to the "if" clause (protasis) with which it begins. Does he mean (a):
If [it is] "to live" in the flesh,
then this for me [means] fruitful labor;
and what I shall choose, I cannot tell20
or (b):
If "to live" in the flesh this [means] fruitful labor for me,
then what I shall choose, I cannot tell21
The first of these issues is more easily handled. Despite some translations and commentaries to the contrary,22 the de most likely signals a progression of thought, not a contrast to the final clause of v. 21.23 Thus: "now if 'to live' in the flesh is what transpires. . . ."
The second matter is more complex.24 Option (b), which offers a reasonably good sense of the whole, also eliminates the need to supply two verbs in the first set of clauses. Even so, the NIV more likely moves in the right direction.25 One may easily surmise as to what happened. A follow-up to v. 21 could have gone in one of two directions: either Paul could contemplate what the two alternatives would mean for him; or he could contemplate the two alternatives themselves, as to which he might prefer. What he seems to have done is both. That is, he begins with the first, what the alternatives would mean to him personally.26 But he gets only as far as the first, "If [it is] 'to live' in the flesh, this for me [means] fruitful labor." At which point he shifts gears. Both v. 21b ("to die is gain") and the reflection in v. 23 (that death is preferable) indicate that what is in tension is not a choice between "life" and "death" per se — as if he really had such a choice — but between the ultimate "gaining" of Christ and present "fruitful labor" for Christ. Thus, the mention of "fruitful labor" as the outcome of "living in the flesh" triggers a shift in reflection, namely, to the two alternatives themselves.
This view also makes sense of the "I do not know" by which Paul responds (honestly) to his hypothetical question,27 and of vv. 23-24, which in turn, but in reverse order, take up these two alternatives. The verb translated "I do not know"28 is one of Paul's regular verbs for "disclosure." Given Pauline usage elsewhere, the English idiom "I can't tell"29 (meaning, "in light of the alternatives, I don't know what to say") is probably closer to Paul's intent. His point, of course, is that if he really had a choice, the alternatives would put him into a genuine quandary, since from a given perspective either is to be preferred.30
23-24 Nevertheless, if choice were to be had, Paul now goes on, he would certainly opt for execution, since that would mean the realization of his lifelong passion; but, he returns in v. 24, since choice cannot be had, remaining "in the flesh" for their sakes is more likely the divine choice.31
For anyone who knows Paul well, this follow-on to the ambivalence expressed in v. 22 should come as no surprise. Whatever else, Paul was both a Christocentric and a thoroughly eschatological man, whose life and theology were altogether framed by his "already but not yet" understanding of what God had done through Christ and the Spirit. Thus, even though he throws himself with abandon into life in the present, the entire orientation of his life is toward the (absolutely certain) future. Indeed, it is this orientation that explains his singularly focused life in the present ("for me to live is Christ").32 What we learn in this sentence is what we could have easily guessed: Had he a real choice, that would be hands down in favor of death, precisely because execution would mean "to depart and be with33 Christ." From his eschatological vantage point (of "already/not yet") this would be "better by far."34 In light of 3:12-21 this is clearly the vantage point he desires for the Philippians as well — not death, of course, but the happy prospect of "being with Christ."
At the same time, however, also with the Philippians in view, he acknowledges that to "remain in the flesh" is the more necessary for their sakes. Thus the final clause (23b-24) is set forth in nearly perfectly balanced constructions, representing his (theoretical) dilemma:35
Paul thus does two things, as far as this "reflection" is concerned: first, with yearning he points the Philippians toward his (and therefore their) triumphant certainty — being with Christ finally and forever; second, he begins the transition from "my affairs" to "your affairs" (v. 27), with his expected return to Philippi (vv. 25-26) serving as the hinge.
He begins by responding directly to the ambivalence expressed in v. 22.
"I am torn36 between the two," he tells them. Despite the strong verb, this is purely hypothetical37 — and theological and paradigmatic.38 After all, he is not talking about life or death in the abstract, but about being set free ("life") or executed ("death"),39 and he has no choice whatever in this matter. His "choice," therefore, is a matter of yearning, pure and simple; and here is where he is "hard pressed" —between finally "obtaining the prize" (3:14) and continuing on in "fruitful labor" for Christ and his kingdom.40
His preference is clear: "having the desire41 to depart and be with Christ." But what Paul understands by this is not so clear, and is therefore a clause around which considerable, but ultimately unresolvable, theological ferment has boiled.42 What Paul says is plain enough: Death means to "depart"43 and "be with Christ."44 At issue is the question of consciousness,45 for which in Paul we have no direct evidence one way or the other. On the one hand, he uses the metaphor "sleep" for Christians who have died;46 on the other hand, the implication of a passage like this is that he expects to be consciously "with Christ" — since both the language "depart" (= leave the body) and "remain in the body" and the strong feelings expressed in these sentences make very little sense otherwise 47 Not only so, but he belonged to a theological-spiritual milieu wherein his Lord could speak of God as "the God of the living, not of the dead," referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mark 12:18-27 and //'s), and wherein Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus at the Transfiguration. It seems most likely, therefore, that Paul expected to be "with the Lord" in full consciousness.
That such a view exists in some tension with belief in a future bodily resurrection48 is probably to be resolved in terms of the inherent tension between the "spatial and temporal elements"49 in Paul's eschatology. His present existence "in Christ" makes it unthinkable that he would ever — even at death — be in a "place" where he was not "with Christ." Hence death means "heaven now." At the same time, a person's death did not usher him or her into "timeless" existence. Hence the bodily resurrection still awaits one "at the end." Ultimately this matter lies in the area of mystery. At issue is the interplay between "time" and "eternity" involved in the implied period of "time" between death and resurrection. From our human perspective, earthbound and therefore time bound as it is, we cannot imagine "timeless" existence; whereas from the perspective of eternity/infinity these may very well be collapsed into a single "moment," as it were.
In any case, Paul understood death as a means into the Lord's immediate presence, which for him and countless thousands after him has been a comforting and encouraging prospect. Very likely he also expected such "gain" to include consciousness, and for most believers, that too has been a matter of encouragement — although in this case such a conclusion goes beyond the certain evidence we possess from Paul himself.
Paul expected all of this, of course, at the time of his death, which in this hypothetical sentence he could wish were sooner than later. But in fact he expects the opposite, "to remain50 in the flesh," precisely because that is "more necessary"51 for "your sakes." With these words we meet for the first time what he actually anticipates regarding these matters. He would prefer "death," since that would be to his advantage ("better by far"); ht fully expects "life," since that would be to their advantage. How so, is what he takes up in the concluding sentence (vv. 25-26).
Although the larger section in which this passage lies (vv. 18b-26) begins and ends on the note of "joy" and of "Christ's being glorified," the key to everything, both to this letter and to Paul's life as a whole, is to be found in this paragraph, even though it is a bit of an "aside." Paul's saying "for me to live is Christ and to die is gain" puts everything into focus for us, as far as our understanding the apostle is concerned. First, he is a man of one passion: Christ and him alone. As noted above, this title, which has become Paul's favorite appellation of his Lord, covers the whole waterfront as far as his new relationship with and understanding of God is concerned. It seems clear that this is what he also desires for the Philippians — and for us as well. Both our "progress" and that of the gospel is contingent upon such a maxim (to live is Christ; to die is gain) characterizing our individual and corporate lives.
Their problem — and ours — is the strong tendency to speak thus, but in effect to live otherwise. One wonders what the people of God might truly be like in our "post-modern" world if we were once again people of this singular passion. Too often for us it is, "for me to live is Christ — plus work, leisure, accumulating wealth, relationships," etc. And if the truth were known, all too often the "plus factor" has become our primary passion: "For me to live is my work," etc. Both our "progress" and "joy" regarding the gospel are altogether contingent on whether or not Christ is our primary, singular passion. This is surely an infinitely greater option than the self-gratification which dominates the culture within which this commentary has been written.
Second, "to die is gain" expresses, in relationship to Christ, the thoroughgoing eschatological orientation of Paul's existence. Here, too, the contemporary church has tended to lose too much.52 In a world that has lost its way, believers in Christ Jesus have the singular word of hope. We expect eventually "to depart and be with Christ." For Paul this was a yearning, for us it is too often an addendum. The point to make, of course, is that such an orientation gives us both focus and perspective in a world gone mad.
1. Besides some minor variants in this verse (P46 et al. omit μάλλον), the evidence is divided as to the presence or absence of γαρ ("for"), which is found in an impressive array of early and significant witnesses (Ρ46 Χ1 A Β C 6 33 81 104 326 365 1175 1241s 1739 1881 pc vgmss Augustine; NA2 6 with brackets). Despite the brackets in NA26, the external evidence for its inclusion is especially good; and here is a place where one can well understand its omission by scribes, since it thereby offers a text in keeping with the translation in the NIV. Most likely with this phrase Paul is explaining his preference for death: "for this is better by far. " But see Lightfoot, 93-94, who observes, "a reading which comes to the relief of a disjointed syntax must be regarded with suspicion."
2. This reflects the έν found in Ρ4 6 B D F G Maj (in brackets in NA26); it is lacking in Κ A C Ρ Ψ 6 33 81 1739 2495 al Clement. Although something of a toss-up in terms of supporting witnesses, one can make a stronger case for a secondary "addition" on the basis of the έν σαρκί in v. 22 than for an "omission" (on the basis of the article?). However, some interpreters who adopt the reading without έν make too much of the difference between this usage and that in v. 22, which in this case is probably a matter of usage pure and simple (the verb έπιμενεΐν regularly takes the dative, thus not calling for an έν).
3. Note the emphatic έμοί with which the sentence begins (= "as far as I personally am concerned").
4. That is, following the unmistakable ring of confident expectation about Christ's being glorified, one might have expected this particular theme to be elaborated in some way. According to Meyer (47) Weiss interpreted v. 21 this way, as justifying his joy (v. 18), a view that Jones (20) also allows.
5. Note the explanatory γάρ with which v. 21 begins, which is all too easily overlooked in our gnomic citation of this sentence. Michael (53) finds the "for" unclear and thus tries to justify Moffatt's translating it out.
6. Thus Kennedy (428) rightly points out that this verse is the direct result of Paul's having said, "or through death"; cf. Lohmeyer, Barth, Silva.
7. This is surely Paul's point, not some lesser concern about his deep emotion or about his desire to be released from present suffering (as, e.g., Palmer, " 'To Die'," followed by Garland, "Defense," 334, and Hawthorne, 45-46). A longing for release from hardship is a note that cannot be found elsewhere in Paul's letters, nor in this one; indeed, it is altogether foreign to the context and to the theme of joy that pervades the whole. Palmer's case is based on an impressive array of texts from hellenistic writers who talk of death as "gain," because present life is "full of toil" and wearisome, and they want release from it. But there is no hint of "human toil" in this passage, nor in all of Philippians, in which Paul's eschatological framework and future orientation determine everything. See the Introduction, pp. 50-52. This is not to remove the "human factor" from Paul, but it is to argue that evidence from "parallels," when there is no internal evidence for Paul's use of such, must not dictate over the clear evidence from both the immediate context and the letter as a whole. Such a view hardly squares with Paul's "glorying in suffering" (Rom 5:3), or with his desire to "know Christ" by participation in his sufferings (Phil 3:10), or with the totally christological focus of this passage. So also Beare, 62; O'Brien, 123.
8. Those of us in a predominantly reading culture sometimes forget that for most early believers these words were primarily experienced by hearing them read, not by reading (see the Introduction, p. 16). The assonance between κέρδος and Χριστός could hardly have been missed. Four consonants correspond (ch/k, r. t/d, s), with only one vowel/consonant transposition (ri/er) and an additional sigma in the first syllable.
9. On the folly of making too much of this aorist (vis-à-vis the present ζην), as some do (e.g., Lightfoot, Martin, Hawthorne), see Silva, 82-83. Here is a clear example of "much ado about nothing," since these are the natural "tenses" with these two verbs in Greek. Living has continuity; death happens at a point in time. There is simply no further "meaning" to this ordinary usage.
10. Cf. Gal 2:20, "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me; and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God." But Barth, 37 (cf. Haupt; Schmitz, "Verständnis"; Dibelius; Hanhart, Intermediate State; Hoffmann, Toten), goes too far in making Gal 2:20 the primary commentary on the present passage, and thus to see the infinitive "to live" to denote "life" in its more comprehensive sense as "(spiritual) life in Christ." Despite its theological attractiveness, this view has very little to commend it contextually. See the larger discussion and refutation in O'Brien, 119-22. The place to find "definition" for this first line is not in Galatians, but in Philippians itself (as Hendriksen, 76, also notes). A. J. Droge (η. 37), on the other hand, in order to make his interpretation of vv. 22-23 work (that Paul is contemplating suicide), suggests that the meaning of this clause ("for me to live is Christ") is problematic, "while there is no doubt about the interpretation of its counterpart [to die is gain]" (280), an interpretation which in itself seems especially problematic.
11. I put it this way because this is the metaphor he will use with the Philippians (1:27; 3:20); both he and they are citizens of the empire, but both are now in a bit of trouble because they acclaim a higher citizenship.
12. But see Barth, who because of his view of the first line (see n. 10 above) contests that v. 23 serves as "commentary" for this line. Others (e.g., Lohmeyer, Collange, Martin, Loh-Nida; O'Brien is open to it) suggest on the basis of vv. 19-20 and the use of καρπός in v. 22, plus the use of this word for evangelism in 1 Cor 9:19-22, that Paul here sees his death as "gain" for the gospel. But that seems too obscure to have merit. How would the Philippians have known this usage from 1 Corinthians, one wonders; and this sentence begins with an emphatic "for me," meaning "for me personally," not "for the sake of the gospel."
13. This is contested by Palmer ( " 'To Die' ") and those who follow him (see n. 7), who sees it as borrowed language, indicating death as a welcome relief from human drudgery. One need not doubt that Paul knew of this kind of language in the world around him; but both the assonance and the usage in 3:8, where he returns to this language to speak of "gaining Christ" in the "already" (cf. Motyer, 87), not to mention the radically different sense Paul gives it, are reasons enough to doubt that these parallels have any significance for understanding Paul. Even less viable is the suggestion made by earlier interpreters that Paul is here reflecting a position over against the foolish in Wis 3:1-3, since there are no linguistic parallels of any kind, and in any case there is considerable doubt whether Paul knew or used the Wisdom of Solomon. On this question see further, Fee, Presence, 911-13.
14. And certainly not with a view toward martyrdom, as Lohmeyer suggests.
15. See Fee, First Corinthians, on 3:21-23 and 15:55, for this perspective in Paul.
16. Gk. έν σαρκί, a very flexible Pauline word whose meaning here falls somewhere on a spectrum between "body" and "humanity in its creatureliness," both meanings going back to the OT. Some have suggested that Paul adds the phrase following v. 21 to indicate that "life" in v. 21 is not limited to life in the physical body and that death therefore does not bring "life" to an end. Perhaps, but in any case, it refers here to "bodily, physical" existence with no pejorative overtones.
17. Gk. καρπός έργου; the NIV has properly captured the sense of the genitive, which Beekman-Callow (Translating, 264) describe in terms of "result-reason," where the one event (fruit) is the result of the other (labor). For a similar use of the metaphor "fruit," see 1 Cor 3:6-8; Rom 1:13. Some have suggested that the phrase means to "reap the fruit of past labor"; but everything in the context, and esp. vv. 24-25, speaks against it.
18. Gk. το ζην, which is clearly anaphoric, i.e., picking up the exact phrasing of the previous sentence and elaborating on it.
19. See n. 28 below for the meaning of this verb.
20. Cf. NIV, NRSV, REB (contra NEB), NAB, Moffatt; cf. Kennedy, Michael, Hendriksen, O'Brien.
21. Cf. GNB, NJB; this view was held by most early interpreters (e.g., Chrysostom, Calvin); it is also held by Lightfoot (hesitantly), Meyer (vigorously), Vincent, Jones, Bonnard, Gnilka, Collange, Loh-Nida, Bruce, Silva, Melick.
22. E.g., NEB, NASB, NJB; cf. most interpreters, who opt for the second position.
23. That is, in contrast to the second line of v. 21. Thus the NJB: "but then death would be a positive gain. On the other hand again, if to be alive in the body gives me an opportunity for fruitful work. . . ." Against this is the striking repetition of the infinitive τό ζην, which certainly looks as though Paul were about to pick up on both ends of v. 21.
24. Other options have been suggested: Lightfoot, 92-93, makes it more interrogative, "But what if my living in the flesh will bear fruit, then. . . . " Vincent and Hawthorne offer a slight moderation of option (b): "If 'to live' in the flesh, if this means fruitful labor." Michael, 56, elides the offending lines; but that is a counsel of despair.
25. For two reasons: (1) the τοũτο in the second clause is emphatic, and thus seems more likely to point to the option itself (= to live in the flesh, this . . .), while at the same time serving as a form of "then"; in the other option the pronoun is not only unnecessary, but cumbersome in the highest degree (Meyer's and Vincent's appeal that it is emphatic regarding "to live in the flesh" is hardly helpful, since there is no analogy for such a thing in Paul); (2) the xαί that begins the next clause does not function well as a "then," and has no analogies in the Pauline corpus (some have suggested 2 Cor 2:2, but as Lightfoot points out, the analogy does not hold). Melick, 85 n. 97, recognizes these difficulties but still opts for it as having "fewer difficulties." This seems strange, since the only difficulty with the first option is discomfort over two elliptical sentences, whereas in any case everyone must assume one.
26. Hence the "for me" in the second clause.
27. On this matter see n. 38 below.
28. Gk. γνωρίζω, which he regularly uses in the formula, "I make known to you" (1 Cor 12:3; 15:1; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1:11; cf. Col 4:7, 9; Eph 6:21 [of Tychicus]). Elsewhere he uses it of divine disclosure (Rom 9:22, 23; 16:26; Col 1:27; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 5, 10). This is the only place where it borders on the sense of "I do not know," preferred by Lightfoot. Most interpreters opt for its regular meaning here ("I do not make known [to you]"; so Kennedy, Vincent, Jones, Hendriksen; cf. REB; M-M; Z-G, 594); but the difficulty with this view is its contradictory nature, since in vv. 23-24 he does make it known to them. Some of these suggest "I cannot tell" in a less colloquial sense, of his not being able to reveal it (esp. Lohmeyer, O'Brien). But that presses language too much, not to mention misses the context. As v. 23 makes clear, Paul has nothing to hide as far as his own preference is concerned.
29. Suggested, inter alia, by Kennedy, Z-G (594; cf. REB).
30. Cf. Τ. Ε. Dailey, "To Live," 19: "Each of these very real possibilities has a value of its own."
31. The net result is a piece of (not pure) chiasmus: A If "life" in the flesh it is to be, then that means "fruitful labor," Β which would put me in a real quandary, if I had to choose between the two. B' If I could choose, it would be "death," hands down, A' but since there is no choice (but God's), it means "fruitful labor" among you. This is not true chiasm, since line Β does not actually mention "death." But if our analysis is correct, then Paul's preference for "death" vis-à-vis the obvious advantages of "life" is what creates the quandary. Hence item Β picks up "death" in this extended sense.
32. Cf. Dailey, "To Live or Die," who likewise recognizes the combination of these realities as the key to our understanding Paul's "dilemma."
33. A considerable literature has sprung up on Paul's use of συν with "Christ," stemming in part from J. Dupont's "ΣΥΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ," and in part from W. Grundmann, TDNT, 7.766-97. It is thus suggested by many that this is a "unique phrase, coined by Paul," which, although it has some flexibility in usage, here means "in fellowship with Christ" as over against merely being "together with" Christ (see the discussions in Collange, 66-67; Hawthorne, 49-50; O'Brien, 133-37). But one wonders, even if Paul intended this subtlety, how the Philippians could have so understood it. Why should they think that σύν with Χριστώ has a more profound sense than with έμοί in 2:22 or 4:21, or with έπισκόποις in 1:1? This is surely to find a "theology of prepositions" where none exists. For a similar usage in Paul, see 1 Thess 4:17 and 5:11. These all mean "in association with," not "in fellowship with," as in Rom 6:1-11, where a considerably different concern is being expressed, and where this latter nuance of σύν is not subtle but is inherent to the argument.
34. Gk. πολλώ μάλλον κρεισσον, a remarkable compounding of superlatives. There can be little question where Paul's sympathies lie.
35. Hawthorne (48) argues for the two infinitives (άναλϋσαι/έπιμένειν) both to be objects of Paul's desire, by way of one είς. But that puts too much pressure on the clearly contrastive δε of v. 24, which in this view must function as a xαί.
36. Gk. συνέχομαι, which in the active originally meant "held together, sustained," but moved toward a variety of cognate meanings ("press hard, crowd, hold in custody") and in unfavorable circumstances toward "attack, distress, torment." For this verse BAGD offer "I am hard pressed (to choose) between the two. " The NIV has given it a nice idiomatic flavor.
37. Cf. Lightfoot, 92, "if I consulted my own longings." Contra A. J. Droge. "Mori Lucrum, " who argues that to take v. 22 seriously we must allow that Paul was contemplating suicide. But that seems methodologically in reverse, since the rest of the passage, and the letter as a whole, hardly allow such a view. This fails to take seriously Paul's understanding of apostleship — and of discipleship in general — in which one's longing to know Christ includes "participation in his sufferings," because of one's equal certainty of the resurrection. Paul has spent his whole Christian life living in happy tension between the "already" and "not yet." Nothing in this letter suggests that he is now ready to bail out of the "already" so as to hasten the "not yet."
38. Not all see it this way, of course. Besides idiosyncratic views put forward by, inter alia, Collange (n. 17 on v. 12), Palmer (n. 7), Droge (η. 37), Reeves (η. 39), the predominant view, based on Paul's language suggesting difficulty in "choosing" between life and death, plus this especially strong verb, is that Paul is here expressing "a genuine dilemma" (the language is Martin's [77], but the sentiment occurs throughout the literature; cf. Dailey ["To Live," 19], "personal turmoil and emotion"), as though Paul were faced with a real choice and that in this dilemma he prefers death but yields instead to the divine necessity of obligation. This interpretation, however, becomes especially problematic when one comes to vv. 24-26, where Paul expresses unquestioned confidence that he will be released — which is expressed even more forthrightly in 2:24 ("I am confident in the Lord that I will come soon").
Various ploys have been entertained to get around what is now our dilemma over this kind of alleged contradiction. See esp. in this regard O'Brien, 138-39, who suggests that Paul's "confidence" in vv. 25-26 has not to do with his release as such, but "that his presence will be a blessing to the Philippians in the future if he is to be released." That seems far less confident than Paul himself is. (It is of some interest that 2:24 is not mentioned in O'Brien's entire discussion of this passage.) To read this as a Pauline dilemma misses both the immediate context and that of the letter as a whole. Methodologically, one should begin with what is unmistakable, that Paul clearly expects to be released (as in 2:24, which makes no allowance for " i f " ). That means that we need to take the present "reflection," including its very strong language, as the "soliloquy" that it really is, which arose not because Paul has such strong emotions over whether or not to live or die, but because in v. 20 he had opened the possibility that he could in fact be executed. In light of that possibility, he reflects on his own future in terms of "whether through life or through death." Although apparently reflecting on "life" or "death" in the abstract, in reality he is pondering what it would mean for him to be either released or executed.
The only real question, then, is why this emotion, when in fact he faces no real dilemma at all? The answer to which, I suggest, lies with the Christocentric focus and eschatological framework that governs all of Paul's life and thinking — and with the paradigmatic value of this perspective for the situation in which the Philippians find themselves. That is, since Christ is everything for him (his Christocentric focus), the possibility of his soongaining the eschatological prize of "knowing Christ" fully and finally (see on 3:12-14) — by means of Roman execution — causes him to "yearn" for the realization of the prize. But eschatological yearning should not be interpreted as an "existential dilemma," since he has none. What gives the language its force is his desire to rekindle eschatological longings in his Philippian brothers and sisters (as 3:15-21 makes clear).
39. A matter that is correctly seen by R. R. Reeves, "To Be," but who still insists on a genuine choice as confronting Paul, which he resolves in terms of Paul's refusing to use the Philippian gift as a means of buying his way out of prison — to their chagrin, which is what he is trying now to explain to them. As intriguing as this option is, in order to make it work Reeves must offer up too many moments of questionable exegesis (e.g., "to be with Christ" = to be with him in Philippi on his release).
40. Cf. Lincoln (Paradise. 103-6) for a helpful discussion of this passage, who correctly sees the resolution to lie in the tension that exists inherently in Paul's "already but not yet" eschatological framework.
41. Gk. τήν έπιθυμίαν, a word that in Paul is primarily pejorative, having to do with "desiring something forbidden" (BAGD). The usage here is similar to that in 1 Thess 2:17; cf. Gal 5:17, where the Spirit has "desires" that stand in utter opposition to those (evil desires) of the "flesh." To make it pejorative here (as Bonnard and Collange do) is to allow predominant usage (exceptions belie Collange's "always") dictate over context, which is methodologically suspect (so Bruce, 54).
42. The bibliography here is large. For an earlier, and very useful, discussion, see G. Vos, Eschatology, 136-50; see also L. S. Thornton, Christ and the Church, 137-40; O. Cullmann, Immortality, 48-57; C. F. D. Moule, "Influence"; idem, "St Paul and Dualism"; K. Hanhart, Intermediate State; R. H. Gundry, SOMA, 147-56; C. J. De Vogel, "Reflexions"; Lincoln, Paradise, 103-6.
43. Gk. άναλΰσαι, used literally for "breaking camp" or of a ship's "loosing from its moorings"; but found in several Greek authors as a metaphor for death (cf. 2 Tim 4:8, where the cognate noun occurs). De Vogel ("Reflexions," 264) rightly points out that both the metaphor in itself and Paul's language in 2 Cor 5:1 demonstrate that what Paul desires is "to leave the body and be with Christ."
44. This is said equally clearly in 2 Cor 5:8: "to be 'absent from the body' is to be 'present with the Lord,' " a passage which also implies a period in which one is with the Lord in "body-less" existence.
45. Most would say the issue is over "the intermediate state," but this very language assumes a perspective "from below" that is determined by our inability to think of existence apart from the category of "time." See the ensuing discussion. For a helpful overview of the issues involved in this discussion (intermediate state), including the question not addressed here at all, as to whether Paul's thinking on these matters went through stages of development, see L. J. Kreitzer, "Intermediate State," DPL, 438-41.
46. Cf. 1 Thess 4:14, 16; 1 Cor 15:51, 52.
47. Cf. De Vogel, "Reflexions."
48. But this is a tension of our making, not of Paul's, as 3:20-21 in this letter verifies. These two ideas rest easily side by side in Paul because "being with Christ" at death is not the final goal; resurrection is. But the former is nonetheless "gain" to Paul, precisely because Christ is the beginning and end of all for Paul.
49. The language is that of Lincoln (Paradise, 106).
50. Gk. έπιμενεΐν; cf. μενώ and παραμένω in v. 25. This verb conveys the sense of "staying on."
51. Gk. άναγκαιότερον. As suggested above (v. 22) this is neither Paul's "choice" nor "necessity" laid on him by his being set free; rather, it reflects the similar usage in 1 Cor 9:16, where his ministry is not by "free choice" under any circumstances, but has been laid on him by "divine necessity." Thus he is not yielding up his "dilemma" to God's choice, as it were, but indicating that God's choice means his "dilemma" was purely hypothetical after all, no matter how much he may have wished it be real.
52. On this matter, see Fee, Presence, 803-6, 896-903.